Others before and after Einstein were data-centric researchers trying to make data answer questions. They thought mathematically while he thought physically. We can all learn from Einstein’s approach.
For the last forty years we have been pummeled by doomsayers about man’s role in the climate of our planet. First, in the 1970s it was man-made global cooling that was set to kill us all. Then in the 1980s it suddenly shifted to man-made global-warming. Now we are menaced by man-made global climate change.
Throughout 45 years the data has remained stable while the arguments have been all over the place. We Americans were all supposed to be dead by the year 1980; then 1990; then 2000; then 2010. Now we are told we have just ten years and then worldwide catastrophe.
In the debate about man-affecting global climate the sides are not flexible. So I usually ask, “Is there anything I can say or show you that will either confirm or exclude human’s role in the change of climate?”
On both sides of the argument most people reply, “No, there is nothing that you can say or show me that will change my mind.”
This causes me to ask: then why talk at all about it since nothing can come of the conversation? Ultimately I have come to understand, on both sides of the arguments that I am dealing with just a belief system. You cannot use reason or data to change firmly held beliefs.
Now if the answer is affirmative that they are open to think about the questions, then we can move on to my next thought questions. Again, these questions are designed to look at policy rather than at data.
When it was man-made global cooling in the 1970s I asked: would global cooling help some places in the world? Yes, I knew that it would preclude wheat farming in North Dakota, but with the cooling temperatures farmers could raise wheat in Death Valley. More so, what we are really asking is: what is the correct temperature for our world? If we are intervening based on temperature it must be wrong, but what is right?
If slabs of ice descend over North America it will cancel the running of the Indianapolis 500. Still, if the new danger is global-warming, Canada becomes the garden spot of North America instead of the icebox.
In the 1980s when man-made global warming was going to kill everyone on the planet by the year 2000, my question about attempting to reverse it was: how will you know when you have gone too far reversing the ravages of man-made global-warming? There was never an answer to that question.
This leads to the question: what is the best overall temperature for Earth? Would the seven billion people be better off if the temperature was a smidge hotter or colder? How could we make that determination? If the temperature of the Earth goes up or down, which regions of Earth win or lose. If the Earth cools, the Russians and Northern Europeans are in the frozen hurt locker. If it goes up, they will dance in the streets.
Only after those questions can we think about interventions. The most popular lever is to change the input of CO2 into our atmosphere. I would like to see a correlation: temperature to CO2 level. Then does that ratio show in the past and predict future? If not, then do not attempt to change CO2 levels by government decree.
It does not seem anyone has really thought about this. Our government and people all over the planet are trying to intervene without setting the parameters of the intervention.
With a perspective of four decades man-made global change seems a political belief system providing financial and political advantage to the proponents. I do not need data to know that the essential questions of an intervention were and are never addressed.
Dr. Michael Swickard hosts the syndicated radio talk show News New Mexico on six to nine a.m. Monday - Friday on a number of New Mexico radio stations and through streaming. Email: michael@swickard.com
