More About Alternative Theories

One of the authors of the new book coming out discussing the effect that solar activity has on global warming has an article posted over at the Times Online. Since I have been added to a target list by one of the true believers, I thought I'd post this as well.

When politicians and journalists declare that the science of global warming is settled, they show a regrettable ignorance about how science works. We were treated to another dose of it recently when the experts of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change issued the Summary for Policymakers that puts the political spin on an unfinished scientific dossier on climate change due for publication in a few months’ time. They declared that most of the rise in temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to man-made greenhouse gases.

The small print explains “very likely” as meaning that the experts who made the judgment felt 90% sure about it. Older readers may recall a press conference at Harwell in 1958 when Sir John Cockcroft, Britain’s top nuclear physicist, said he was 90% certain that his lads had achieved controlled nuclear fusion. It turned out that he was wrong. More positively, a 10% uncertainty in any theory is a wide open breach for any latterday Galileo or Einstein to storm through with a better idea. That is how science really works.

Twenty years ago, climate research became politicised in favour of one particular hypothesis, which redefined the subject as the study of the effect of greenhouse gases. As a result, the rebellious spirits essential for innovative and trustworthy science are greeted with impediments to their research careers. And while the media usually find mavericks at least entertaining, in this case they often imagine that anyone who doubts the hypothesis of man-made global warming must be in the pay of the oil companies. As a result, some key discoveries in climate research go almost unreported.

What I have never seen documented anywhere is experimental evidence of how great a change a few hundred parts per billion in CO2 makes in the greenhouse effect. I have seen theoretical models, I have seen experiments using pure CO2 and plain air, but never the more "nuanced", for want of a better term, experiment. If someone has and wants to politely point to it, I'll be happy to take a look. (There is a comment policy here, it is enforced and blacklists are forever.)

Other Links to this Post

1. JammieWearingFool — February 11, 2007 @ 4:17 pm

2. Flopping Aces — February 11, 2007 @ 9:24 pm