I approach the subject with a bit of fear and trepidation

Settled Science and Global Warming

C. Michael Cowan Ph.D.

One of my children has called me a denier, as has former vice President Al Gore. Ellen Goodman’s Column in the Boston Globe (February 9, 2007) stated that anyone denying global warming is equivalent to those that deny the Holocaust and legend has it that only a tiny minority of scientists disagree with the theory of anthropogenic global warming (AGW). I am part of that “tiny minority”.

There have been many articles written in the scientific and popular press over the years concerning global warming and its relationship to greenhouse gases most notably carbon dioxide. The relationship is now referred to as "settled science" and has culminated in calls by many in the Government and in non-government organizations (NGO’s) for restrictive measures that may (or may not) reduce atmospheric carbon dioxide. This column addresses the issue of "settled science" and its relationship to carbon dioxide and global warming.

If a non-scientist says, “the science is settled” then that statement is usually made in ignorance. If a scientist says, “the science is settled” then the scientist is not being truthful or is attempting to protect a favored theory. There are few things in science that are ever settled and those that are, are mostly based on mathematical principles. For example, we know with certainty that pi expresses the ratio of the circumference to the diameter of a circle.

In my 40 plus years as a scientist I can't count how many times “settled science” has been wrong. In the past “settled science” has described aluminum as a lightweight metal of little use except for “jewelry and toys” and carnotite (uranium ore) as “a radioactive substance of little appreciable value”. Not too many years ago the coelacanth was considered by “settled science” to be extinct. But in the 1930's one was caught off the coast of South Africa. In the 1970’s scientists were warning us that we were entering the beginning stages of a new ice age -- I know, I taught it.

As a scientist I have observed “settled science” in all its permutations and combinations and have been personally involved in two "settled science" controversies. One of these involved the freshwater shark of Lake Nicaragua. When I started my graduate studies in zoology every textbook in vertebrate zoology described the sharks that lived in Lake Nicaragua as the only freshwater shark in the world. It was not. Dr. Thomas B. Thorson, my advisor and mentor at the University of Nebraska, proved that the “settled science” was wrong and that the sharks were actually swimming up a river and into the lake from the Caribbean Sea. The Lake Nicaragua shark was actually just the common and ubiquitous bull shark that had a history of invading fresh water. Other researchers, many of them from so-called “prestigious” universities, did not accept our observations and conclusions because the science was, in their view, “settled”. In many published papers Thorson’s work was described as somewhat offbeat and controversial. In today's terminology Dr. Thorson and his students were deniers.

A few years later, and as an outgrowth of the shark study, Dr. Thorson embarked on an expedition to the upper reaches of the Amazon River to collect the stingrays that were known to live in freshwater. As it turned out, this study overturned another bedrock principle of “settled science” having to do with the physiology of sharks and rays and their adaptations to living in a marine environment. The details of this discovery are physiological and biochemical in nature and are therefore beyond the scope of this column. However, the discovery was so important that Dr. Thorson immediately returned to Nebraska from the Amazon River in order to publish the findings of the research.

So in the short span of about five years two pillars of bedrock “settled science” in the field of zoology had to be rewritten. It should be noted that many influential scientists continued, for some time resisting the research, wishing instead to cling to “settled science”. Dr. Thorson's work is now considered “settled science” -- until the day it too may be challenged.

One of the first things I learned after earning my Ph.D. was that researchers at the highly regarded universities often determined the “settled science” of the day. In fact, on my way to a national meeting shortly after I graduated I was told, in no uncertain terms, that if I wanted to get anywhere in the field of ichthyology (the study of fishes) I would have to have the blessing of a noted ichthyologist (name withheld for obvious reasons) at one of the “Ivy League” schools since he controlled most of what was published in the field. (In other words, he controlled the “settled science” in the field of ichthyology.) Since I had encountered this phenomenon before while pursuing a career in oceanography it came as no surprise.

The science of global warming is not immutable and is far from settled. How do I know? The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) admitted that it is not settled. In a quote taken directly from their website:

"Water Vapor is the most abundant greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, which is why it is addressed here first. However, changes in its concentration is also considered to be a result of climate feedbacks related to the warming of the atmosphere rather than a direct result of industrialization. The feedback loop in which water is involved is critically important to projecting future climate change, but as yet is still fairly poorly measured and understood."

(Note: This is a “cut and paste” quote. I did not correct any misspellings, grammatical errors, or clumsy syntax contained in the quote.)

So if water vapor, the most abundant greenhouse gas, is poorly measured and understood and is still used in climate models, then the models are faulty because of corrupt data. If water vapor is not used in the models then the models are faulty because of incomplete data. How can we possibly determine climate change 100 years in the future using computer models that are being fed the equivalent of incomplete information or supposition? But it is not just water vapor that is problematic. There is also considerable debate about the impact of sun spot cycles and cosmic rays on climate. In addition, the Earth's magnetic field is weakening and there are cyclic changes in gravitational fields that may also play a role in climate change physics. The truth of the matter is there are just too many unknowns and gaps in our understanding to confidently write software for computer models that can predict the climate 100 years in the future. The American author and humorist Mark Twain said it best, “There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact”

I have observed the environmental movement from its conception in the 1960’s to the present. It began as a benign desire to save some iconic species from extinction and to clean up some of the obvious messes that humanity had made. It evolved into a quasi-political movement with definite religious overtones interested in replacing our present standard of living with a “sustainable” utopian socialism of some sort.

Over the years, one crisis after another has been presented to the public wrapped in a doomsday package in order to achieve the desired political/social transformations but none of them took hold until the latest version of global warming (now referred to as climate change) was introduced in 1988. (Actually, the groundwork was laid at a meeting in 1975 but it took 13 years before it had an impact on the public.) Global warming became the perfect apocalyptic vehicle for the extreme environmental left since it could not be disproved on the short term. And just recently, the theory was made completely impregnable when it was declared that global warming might cause a new ice age. In a capsule, warming or cooling are the result, carbon dioxide the culprit and environmental socialism the answer.

Personally, I do not believe in an environmental Armageddon caused by humans. Rather, I agree with H. L. Mencken who said:

“The urge to save humanity is almost always only a false-face for the urge to rule it.”