I still have a great deal of difficulty with the catch-all phrase that proclaims that “the science is settled on global warming.”
This will automatically get me categorized as a denier in today’s world because I have dared to question the science behind global warming. “Denier” is a good buzz word to use against people who question the science behind global warming as it has been presented by such luminaries as Al Gore, a man who has parlayed his zero-science political career into an incredibly lucrative global warming alarmist career.
Denier is a label that intentionally vilifies people and purposely categorizes them with people who question the Holocaust.
These are now the days where global warming has become a religion for many of its practitioners.
We are no longer allowed to question the scientific theory behind global warming because the debate is now closed and any critics are now simply ignorant “flat-earthers.”
Social activists love to label their opponents even though they purport to be more open-minded and less judgmental about others, a laughable fallacy that has always puzzled me about these “high-minded” people.
I should state that I believe in the theory of evolution and put absolutely no stock in the creationist theory of intelligent design.
There is no science behind the intelligent design theory because it was developed to advance the literal Biblical interpretation of how humans appeared on Earth.
The logical sequence of events behind the Darwin-based model just makes sense from a scientific point of view.
The idea that I accept the scientific theory behind the dawn of humanity is my point in this column: evolutionary theory is an ongoing concept that relies upon scientific methodology to connect the dots on the theory. There have been twists and turns during the process as researchers unearth examples of species adaptation and evolution because the theory of evolution is complicated by countless variables.
The scientific theory behind global warming is also incredibly complicated and also contains countless variables in the equation.
My preamble in this column brings me to my question about global warming theory: where is the open scientific debate in this matter?
Data indicates that Earth temperatures have risen .7C degrees over the past 100 years, a time frame that coincides with dramatic industrial growth. This temperature rise is the canary in the coal mine for greenhouse gas theorists.
There is little doubt that CO2 levels will indeed provide a catalyst for global temperature changes, but the crucial question is how much?
The global warming theorists use a feedback model that shows that a one degree Celsius increase caused by higher CO2 levels will return a three-to-five-degree increase in temperatures after the feedback variables are fed into the equation. Feedback variables include increased absorption of heat from exposed land masses and the insular effect of increased water vapour via evaporation from higher temperatures. The problem for their theory is that the data from the past 100 years does not support their feedback increase models because the actual temperature increase is not even close to three (let alone five) times their feedback return theories.
So they have added another theory that suggests that manmade pollutants from dirty fuels have held back the increases because they act as a sunscreen from the solar rays.
They further suggest that cleaner air will allow more solar heat and eventually prove their numbers to be correct.
What they have asked us to accept as “settled science” now requires that we add another theory into the mix. Where is the open-minded scientific approach to this process?
The crusaders for this cause want us to blindly accept predictive data from computer models and lab experiments even though they cannot even hope to include all of the variables within an incredibly complex system like our planet’s weather patterns.
It is ironic that they expect us to accept scientific theories as scientific fact and suspend any in-depth debate on the subject of global warming under the guise of science.
Are we now supposed to close our minds to the notion that global warming may actually have more than one variable in the mix and now close the door on further debate?
This is the new world of scientific debate put forth by “settled science” proponents.
Ours is no longer to question why on this topic, we are simply deniers in their new scientific world where theory has become the gospel for a quasi religion.
Jim Sutherland is a local freelance writer. He can be reached at email@example.com.