Written by Geraldo Luís Lino, special to Climate Change Dispatch – cross posted at WUWT
The second keyword for the long overdue reassessment of the climatic issues is knowledge, meaning a more comprehensive and better understanding of the climate dynamics.
However, as a prerequisite it is necessary to clear up a concept commonly misused and abused by the Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) defenders: the idea that “science is settled” and that the so-called “scientific consensus” on the subject would be objected to only by some handfuls of diehard “skeptics.”
For starters, there is no such a thing like “settled science,” neither in Climatology nor in any other branch of science. The body of scientific knowledge is an open-ended and permanently ongoing construction that is always open to new evidences, new hypotheses, debate, questioning and revision – that’s how real science advances.
Also, “consensus” is a concept alien to science, which is not a “democratic” activity whose advance is driven by the weight of the number of followers of a certain line of thinking or theory – but by a permanent process of convergence between new hypotheses and evidences collected in the physical world.
Perhaps the best symbol of the meaninglessness of such numbers in science was Albert Einstein’s anthological response to the 1931 pamphlet “100 authors against Einstein,” which was commissioned by the German Nazi Party as a clumsy contradiction to the Relativity Theory, that did not fit the canons of the “Arian science.” He said then: “If I were wrong, then one would have been enough.” [1]
The same distortion has affected the concept of skepticism, which was granted a pejorative connotation in order to label the critics of the AGW – as if a permanent and healthy skepticism were not an indispensable requisite for any scientist worth of his or her salt. As the US National Academy of Sciences felt compelled to remind in a 1995 booklet:
“The fallibility of methods is a valuable reminder of the importance of skepticism in science. Scientific knowledge and scientific methods, whether old or new, must be continually scrutinized for possible errors… Organized and searching skepticism as well as an openness to new ideas are essential to guard against the intrusion of dogma or collective bias into scientific results.” [2]
It is indeed regrettable that this sober advice has been deliberately overlooked by a good deal of the scientific community involved in the climate research and related themes (beginning with the Academy itself). Perhaps, in many cases this attitude has been motivated by the lure of the incentives offered by the AGW machine – plentiful research grants, mediatic exposition, prestige, the professional pride of making part of a branch of science elevated to stardom, business consulting opportunities and many others.
On the other hand, besides the hundreds of billion dollars that have been wasted with the attempt of imposing a theory that is not supported by the physical world evidences, the “warmist” thrust is harming science in quite dangerous ways. First, it is pushing science aside from the perspective of providing a reasoned and relatively well informed assessment of the climate dynamics that may provide an useful guidance for long-term strategies and public policies – absolutely necessary due to the climate’s enormous importance in the human affairs. Second, it is distorting the public perception of science in such a way that the non-partisan climate scientists will likely have a hard time trying to regain the public trust after the seemingly unavoidable wear and tear of the alarmist outlook.
History offers a gloomy precedent of such poisoning of science by ideology and special interests: the infamous Lysenko affair in the former Soviet Union, the ruthless opposition to genetics headed by Trofim D. Lysenko and his cohorts between the 1930s and 1960s. In addition to the physical elimination of stubborn scientists who resisted the “consensual official line” (the “skeptics” of the time), the price of such an irrationality pandemics was enormous, costing the Soviet biological and agricultural sciences a half a century hold-up whose consequences are felt still today.
The AGW scare and its political agenda of restricting the use of fossil fuels are serious candidates to the condition of post-modern equivalents of “Lysenkoism.” [3]
As for the IPCC, it has been a political contrivance from the beginning, dedicated to the task of proving “the risk of human-induced climate change.” [4] So, its methodological procedures are suited to its political agenda of “justifying the greenhouse gases emission control, specially carbon dioxide,” as it was aptly described by S. Fred Singer, one of the deans of the atmospheric sciences still on duty. [5]
In fact, they are limited to a compilation and review of scientific (and others not so much) climate-related works published in between the issuing of its assessment reports (four so far). While this method may be useful to provide some overview of the state of the art of the climatic research, it cannot be relied upon for providing a more realistic and functional understanding of the climate dynamics.
With the obsessive fixation on carbon dioxide, the AGW thrust inoculated the climate science with the “reductionism virus,” the epistemological concept according to which complex phenomena can be understood by means of the sum of the understanding of their constituent parts, as with the solving of a puzzle game or the assemblage of a complex machine. However, if such an approach is useful for technological and engineering uses or even for some more simple phenomena, it is completely unsuitable in the case of complex, non-linear and chaotic systems like climate.
For this reason, the Apollo Program, the greatest technological accomplishment of the 20th century, could be achieved by NASA with a total computing capacity inferior to a modern cell phone’s – simply because all the scientific and technological requisites for that great enterprise were based on known physical and chemical laws and properties. In contrast, all the world’s computers now existing linked together could not provide a precise simulation of the climate dynamics – because the programmers would lack the proper knowledge of its functioning as a system and of all the interacting factors that influence it.
The present supercomputer-run Global Climate Models (GCMs) so dear to the AGW defenders are quintessential reductionist instruments. In a simplified way, a typical GCM divides the atmosphere in grid “boxes” of hundreds or thousands of square kilometers and some kilometers high, and tries to ascertain and quantify the energy flows and their influences on the climatic parameters in and between the “boxes.” As every “box” comprises several degrees of latitude and longitude and a multiplicity of physical and biological environments (kind of surface, relief, vegetation etc.), one can imagine the complexity of the process – that cannot provide but a very crude approximation of the physical world. Besides, as many factors that influence such flows are poorly known or even unknown, they are usually “adjusted,” “fixed,” (“parametrized” in the jargon) or simply ignored by the modelers. So, no wonder the discrepancies between the models and the real world observations are generally considerable. [6]
For this reason, it is hard to see how a comprehensive understanding of the climate dynamics could be obtained by putting “atmospheric boxes” together like the pieces of a global scale puzzle – a practice whose uses should be restricted to academic drills.
For that task an “holistic” approach is needed, one that regards the climate as an integral system in itself and study its evolution along the Earth’s geological history thoroughly, taking into account all the astrophysical, atmospheric, oceanic, geological, geomorphologic and biological factors that influence it and their multiple and complex interactions, many of them – it’s worth repeating – are still poorly known.
The model of epistemological approach and international scientific cooperation needed for a serious advancement of the climate science is not the IPCC, but the 1957-58 International Geophysical Year (IGY), the remarkable effort that united tens of thousands of scientists from 66 countries at the height of the Cold War in order to advance the systemic and comprehensive knowledge of the Earth dynamics and its interactions with the Sun and the Cosmos. The motivation and the mood of that great enterprise, as well as the “holistic” kind of approach chosen for its research programs, can be seen in the following passage of one of the many contemporary popular books written to present the IGY to the general public:
“(…) The whole Earth and the ‘laboratory’ of the Solar System are necessary for a comprehensive study of the weather, the air, the oceans and the ice of the Earth; the upper atmosphere or ionosphere; the solid earth; the energy that comes at the Earth from space, and the Sun, the main source of energy. These phenomena are too closely interrelated to be studied separately… All of the great phenomena of the dynamic Earth are being studied at one time, ‘synoptically,’ and the millions of facts being gathered will be compared. The IGY is the largest fact-finding enterprise ever undertaken. It is seeking answers to some of the most important questions that man has ever asked.” [7]
The IGY still stands as Mankind’s greatest collective scientific enterprise ever. The spirit of global cooperation, the epistemological approach, the methodologies, standards and procedures developed for its coordinated and joint researches, the huge mass of gathered data, the quality of the obtained results and the optimistic visions of science and its role for the progress it helped to instill among the general public were enormous contributions for the advancement of science and brought forth a great deal of benefits for all Mankind – a feat diametrically opposed to the disservice done by the IPCC.
One can only regret that the 50th anniversary of that great endeavor has gone almost unnoticed by the global media and academia.
Perhaps if the development of the “holistic” approach to the geophysical phenomena that inspired the IGY had not been interrupted by the “warmist” tsunami, climate science could be now much more advanced towards the epistemological “quantum leap” needed for the systemic understanding of the Earth’s climate.
In any case, the revival of that pioneering and gripping spirit (and the corresponding dumping of the “warmism”) is a necessity if we really intend to be serious about the climate.
Sources:
1. Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time: from the Big Bang to Black Holes. Toronto: Bantam Books, 1988.
2. National Academy of Sciences, On Being a Scientist: Responsible Conduct in Research. Washington: National Academy Press, 1995.
3. See the Wikipedia entries for “Trofim Lysenko” and “Lysenkoism.”
4. IPCC, “Principles governing IPCC work”, http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/ipcc-principles/ipcc-principles.pdf.
5. S. Fred Singer (Ed.), Nature, Not Human Activity Rules the Climate. Chicago: The Heartland Institute, 2008, http://www.heartland.org/custom/semod_policybot/pdf/22835.pdf.
6. For a general overview of the climate models see the Wikipedia entry for “Global climate model.”
7. Alexander Marshack, The World in Space: The Story of the International Geophysical Year. New York: Dell Publishing Co., 1958.
Geraldo Luís Lino is a Brazilian geologist and author of the book “The Global Warming Fraud: How a Natural Phenomenon was Converted into a False World Emergency” (published in 2009 in Portuguese and just published in Spanish in Mexico).
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
There’s a nice corollary in this, something like….
I disagree that there is no such thing as “settled science”. My objection has not particular impact on the overall argument here, but I must object on principle as a mathematician. Mathematics is a branch of science, and within this discipline we have a name for “settled science”: Theorems.
Theorems are not obtained purely in terms of external evidence; they are derived from first principles, and (assuming the methodology at which a theorem is arrived is valid) unassailable. There are some deep philosophical caveats one may apply, but these are not of any interest to those not working in esoteric fields of philosophy.
In point of fact, mathematics (that is, THEOREMS in mathematics) is established deductively, whereas physical science is established inductively. Knowledge of mathematical truth flows purely from logic, whereas physical scientific “truth” flows from evidence, and hence is implicitly tentative.
This is an important distinction. We do not “believe” the Fundamental Theorem of Arithmetic ( — that every positive integer is uniquely expressible as a product of primes — ) we “know” it. It is not arrived at by performing experiments over and over until we are convinced; it is established by an argument that demonstrates that things cannot be otherwise.
This is an important distinction when discussing climate science, for two reasons. First, mathematics is the language of science. If something is not expressible in mathematical terms, in a certain sense it is not science. Math is fundamental in a way other sciences are not. It is math that enables us to objectively say such-and-such a datum is trending upward or downward, or what its rate of change is, or whether its graph is clustering around a certain curve, etc. It is also the language that enables us to say in precise terms what level of confidence one has in this or that quantitative assertion based on data. It is the language that enables us to express the relationships supposedly embodied by “models” of climate, and it is mathematical terms that we can discuss the adequacies and inadequacies of such models.
The other way mathematics is relevant is that it provides not only a language but also a deductive framework for obtaining conclusions beyond the evidence. We can use Henry’s Law (from physics), for example, to predict, with near certainty, exactly what amount of atmospheric CO2 will be absorbed in (or released from) the ocean under such-and-such conditions and assumptions. Etc.
Simply looking at the public discourse on climate science (not at scientific papers) I must say that those who write about the subject from the so-called “skeptical” position are much more conversant with mathematics. A sort of “mathematics” appears in the discourse of the AGW crowd, but I would characterize it as “scary big numbers”, which probably says all you need to know about my opinion of it: it is designed not to appeal to any mathematical understanding, but counts on mathematical ignorance, indeed math phobia, in the intended audience. Without considering anything else, it is the AGW crowd’s aversion to the settled science of mathematics that leaves me the most skeptical of their position.
johanna writes “Christopher, mathematics in the sense you describe it is a closed system, with its own internal logic. It cannot be compared with external, multidisciplinary studies such as climate science, ecology or even history.”
This is a common sentiment, usually intended to dismiss mathematics as irrelevant. Objectively yes, math cannot be compared if you mean by that that it is fundamentally different in nature from other sciences. But as I argue above it is not at all irrelevant, for without mathematics other sciences retain neither a working language in which to express results nor the basic tools to perform the inferential function of science. The main way in which math differs from other sciences is that it is prior to these sciences. It is prerequisite. It is the opposite of “irrelevant” — it is the MOST relevant science.
“”””” R. Craigen says:
November 16, 2010 at 3:52 pm
johanna writes “Christopher, mathematics in the sense you describe it is a closed system, with its own internal logic. It cannot be compared with external, multidisciplinary studies such as climate science, ecology or even history.”
This is a common sentiment, usually intended to dismiss mathematics as irrelevant. Objectively yes, math cannot be compared if you mean by that that it is fundamentally different in nature from other sciences. But as I argue above it is not at all irrelevant, for without mathematics other sciences retain neither a working language in which to express results nor the basic tools to perform the inferential function of science. The main way in which math differs from other sciences is that it is prior to these sciences. It is prerequisite. It is the opposite of “irrelevant” — it is the MOST relevant science. “””””
Well I wouldn’t call “mathematics” a science; there’s nothing scientific about it. It is ALL pure fiction; and there is absolutely nothing in any branch of mathematics, that actually exists anywhere in the physical universe. We made it all up in our heads.
But it is true, that mathematics IS a wonderful and powerful discipline; and it certainly is a pre-requisite for doing any real science. But mathematics is just a tool box full of anthropogenic tools, that we created to use to describe the behavior of our models of various phenomena of the real universe.
And we keep on making up new mathematics as becomes necessary to describe ever more esoteric models.
Any branch of mathematics is defined by a set of axioms; whose truth is assumed to be self evident; but that isn’t even necessary; they don’t even have to be universally true. But the class of mathematics is restricted only to those things which conforms to the starting axioms. Then the study of mathematics essentially consists of exploring the space of manipulations that remain within the realm defined by the axioms.
Thus the Geometrical Theorems of Euclid are in no way defining of geometry; they are simply discoveries that are consistent with the axioms of Euclidean Geometry.
One can easily define other geometries; that are non-Euclidean where other rules apply. They may not have any practical use at all.
An example would be what is known as “Projective Geometry.” It’s basic axioms are quite simple.
1/ Two points define a line. (the line joining the two points)
2/ Two lines define a point. (the point where the two lines intersect; PG is a plane geometry)
3/ There are at least 4 points. (draw the 4-points of a Charlie Brown Kite; or the Southern Cross).
That’s all there is to it. The first theorem of PG proves that there are at least 7 points. The centre point of the kite is where the two diagonal lines intersect; and the opposite side pairs of lines locate two more points.
Axiom #2 would seem to eliminate parallel lines; which in Euclidean Geometry never meet. They do in PG, and they meet at a point on “the line at infinity”. Don’t railroad rails meet on the line at infinity ? Of course you alway draw that line somewhere near the edge of the page.
Within the set of rules; you can’t prove that there exist any more than seven points. They might exist; you just can’t prove it.
You can actually describe the conic sections in projective geometry; even though a cone can’t exist, since it is a plane geometry; well the sections are plane figures. Ellipses do no intersect the line at infinity. Hyperbolas do intersect the line at infinity at two points. Parabolas touch the line at infinity at two co-incident points.
Circles are weird. A circle cuts the line at infinity at the two “circular points at infinity”. Ergo, circles are a special case of the hyperbola; whereas in Euclidean Geometry, a circle is a special case of an ellipse. So all circles intersect each other at the circular points at infinity.
I believe all the classical theorems of Euclidean Plane geometry can be proved in the confines of projective geometry; including the nine point circle theorem. Professor Henry Forder, who taught this at UofA stated that PG has no known useful application; it exists for its own curiosity.
But most of our mathematics is made up to allow formal descriptions of the exact behavior of our models of the real universe. It remains for the modellers to construct their equally fictitious models, to mimic the observed behavior of the real universe; and it is in the real universe that the real Science resides; not in the mathematics. Our models are good, only to the extent that they accurately mimic the apparent (observed) behavior of the real universe.
A 3:1 fudge factor (+/- 50% error spread); mandatory in climatism; is not a feature of real science.
Geraldo
Thank you! I await #3! You need to go on the road with Lord Mockton!
Comment Contributors: I have thoroughly enjoyed your on topic discourse.
Anthony: THANK your for providing the forum. I spend hours here for the aware presentations and comments. The Comment/feedback mechanism of this website leaves a LOT to be desired! So much more could be accomplished with a Tree like discussion area! Wading through the linear comments with responses to requotes, past post times and names really sucks! This technology can do better!