I can’t let slip by without comment a (relatively) recent editorial from Mr. Noonan, the editor of this newspaper, that blasted global warming as “junk science.” A few choice quotes:
“By hysterically mixing sober environmental sensitivity with global warming junk science, is it any wonder that only liberals believe Mr. Gore’s global warming gobbledy gook?”
“There probably is a spot of evidence to support some global warming claims. But liberals are like old prostitutes. Having no faith in their audience’s ability to think, liberals believe they must exaggerate in order to convince.”
“Here is the key to Mr. Gore’s overwhelming marketing success: When he presents global warming as a phony crisis, it is just blurry enough, sufficiently strategically imprecise, to appeal to the emotions-first crowd.”
“Like a medicine man, he [Gore] selectively uses facts as emotional fig leaves rather than to intellectually fortify his case.”
So here we have, in a nutshell, the view of many global warming skeptics: Global warming is a phony crisis based on junk science. Even vacuous pseudo-candidate Fred Thompson offers a sneer http://article.nationalreview.com on the topic. Senator Imhofe would be so proud.
The problem is that these “skeptics” never seem to explain WHY they view global warming as based on junk science. I have to wonder if they even know what junk science really is and how it differs from real science. Let’s look, very briefly, at some of the science of global warming:
• Ice Core Samples: As layers of ice form in the arctic and Antarctic, bubbles of atmosphere become trapped. New layers form over old layers, thus creating a time machine of sorts. Ice core samples thus provide a snapshot of atmospheric conditions from the past through to today, including an increase in CO2 and CH4 by 31 percent and 149 percent since 1750. This increase puts these greenhouse gases at levels higher than anything in the past 650,000 years. Other techniques include examining tree rings and coral skeletons for yearly temperature changes and boreholes drilled deep into the Earth for longer-term temperature changes. For more information, including about the famous “hockey stick” graph, visit the Union of Concerned Scientists here.
• Global temperatures: Using satellites, climate scientists can obtain measurements of temperatures around the globe. To ensure the accuracy of their measurements, they compare satellite data to readings taken on the ground. What the data reveals is an increase in the average global temperature.
• Environmental changes: Arctic Sea ice is shrinking. Spring snow cover is decreasing in regions around the world. Sea levels are increasing. Eleven of the past 12 years have been the warmest since records began around 1850. There are a variety of environmental changes considered as consistent with the observed warming of the planet.
• Atmospheric Composition: To quote from a “Scientific American” article written by climate scientists who participated in Working Group 1 of the 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: “Some greenhouse gases (most of the halocarbons, for example) have no natural sources. For other gases, two important observations demonstrate human influence. First, the geographic differences in concentrations reveal that sources occur predominantly over land in the more heavily populated Northern Hemisphere. Second, analysis of isotopes, which can distinguish among sources of emissions, demonstrates that the majority of the increase in carbon dioxide comes from combustion of fossil fuels… Methane and nitrous oxide increases derives from agricultural practices and the burning of fossil fuels.” www.sciam.com
There’s a lot more. For more detailed scientific explanations, it’s well worth reading that “Scientific American” article as well as looking of the report by the IPCC at www.ipcc.ch
Clearly, there’s nothing vague or fuzzy about the science, despite what Mr. Noonan and like-minded individuals will tell you.
Attacking Scientists
But the charge that global warming is junk science goes beyond the facts of global warming to the scientists themselves. If global warming is junk science, does that mean that climate scientists are little more than astrologers? If you visit UCLA’s Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences (http://www.atmos.ucla.edu/web/), you’ll see the kind of classes climate scientists have to take, such as Fundamentals of Atmospheric Dynamics and Thermodynamics, Climate Change and Climate Modeling, Physical Oceanography, Geophysical Fluid Dynamics, and a whole lot more. Essentially, climate scientists are trained in mathematics and the hard sciences of physics and chemistry. Junk science? I think not. In any case, just as we put a reasonable amount of trust in doctors in regards to our health, whom we expect to go through extensive training in medical school, we have to put some trust in climate scientists who go through extensive training in climate science. After all, we cannot, individually, know everything there is to know about everything.
Just as important is how science in general and the IPCC in particular work: the application of the scientific method, which includes the all-important peer-review process. Just as individual scientific papers are peer-reviewed for methodological accuracy, the IPCC process involves creating three separate working groups whose lead authors are expert scientists nominated by governments. The results from these groups are tested in a review process against the scientific views of over 600 international experts.
The moral of the story: The science of global warming isn’t a marketing ploy emanating from Al Gore’s backyard, but the result of enormous efforts by trained scientists from around the world – scientists whose work have survived the rigors of the scientific process.
Hate the Messenger, Hate the Message
Personally, I wonder if isn’t a pathological hatred of the messenger that generates such hostility to the message. With a reflexive hatred of liberals, when someone gets branded “liberal,” he is automatically dismissed regardless of what he says. I suspect Al Gore could say the Earth is round, and he’d still be accused of peddling junk science.
The issue isn’t so much that there are people who are skeptical of global warming, but that they are unreasonably skeptical. It’s shocking, frankly, to see the kind of scientific illiteracy being paraded by politicians and their like-minded counterparts in the media. Shocking – and detrimental to properly discussing what we’re going to do to make our beautiful planet a better place for ourselves and future generations.