Junk Science

Junk Science

I once heard a creationist elaborate on his reasons why the theory of evolution was hokum. His incredulous interrogator asked how he could deny all the fossil discoveries that supported Darwin’s theory. He replied with the assertion: “Almost every scientific theory I’ve ever heard has later been proven incorrect.” This, unfortunately, is not that far from the truth. Certainly Freud’s theories have been largely debunked and Darwin’s teachings on evolution are coming under increased scrutiny … particularly those concerning the randomness of genetic change being evolution’s driving force. And even Einstein has had some of his postulates enfeebled by more recent experimental discoveries (as of yet however, remarkably few). This assertion about flawed scientific theories is a disturbing fact (even though it does not support the derived assertion of the loopy creationists who voiced it.)

Most of these “failings” of science occur on the theoretical side. Applied science seems to be much more reliable. Certainly, our ability to send a space probe to Mars and run a rover around the Martian landscape for over a year is a remarkable applied scientific achievement. But when theoretical “scientists” take a small number of observations and then extrapolate consequences to a much larger universe (e.g.s, cholesterol-reduced diets, global warming, magnetic cures, damaging silicone implants, etc.) things become problematic. The problem seems to be either these scientists don’t sufficiently emphasize their caveats … or our ratings-hungry media ignore them. So we, the public, are jerked around. First we must eschew butter in favor of margarine. Then we discover that the hydrogenised unsaturated fats in oleo are very, very unhealthy. We are even becoming more subjected to “scientific” papers that use phoneyed-up data to justify their conclusions.

This is all very dangerous. Imagine if the scientists on the Manhattan Project, used today’s standards for scientific proof when building the atomic bomb. We might well have easily annulated ourselves. Even this author, while exposing my ideas under the title “Junk Science,” probably needs to include more warnings in my feeble fantasizing.

Global Dimming

PBS is at it again. The other night they ran another breathless science documentary called “Global Dimming.” The premise of this program was that particulates migrating to our upper atmosphere were reflecting more and more sunlight back out into space (global dimming) … therefore causing global cooling. These particulates, of course, are mostly man-made … from car and plane combustion emissions, power plant exhausts, and other hydrocarbon burnings. (They conveniently ignore massive dust storms, volcanic eruptions, forest fires, intrusions of space dust, and other natural causes.)

The drama of this premise was that this global cooling is partially canceling out the global warming caused by mankind’s creation of greenhouse gasses (mostly carbon dioxide). Therefore, it was stated (gasp) that our attempts to remove particulate pollution from our environment would, in effect, speed up the process of global warming! The estimate was that global dimming has more than halved what would have been the effect of greenhouse gases on our global temperature rise (about one degree Fahrenheit over the last 40 years.) It was also estimated (by a starry-eyed scientist) that, by the end of this century, global warming would increase by as much as twenty degrees and that this would melt the Greenland ice cap and that this, in turn, would flood out all of Florida (talk about dramatic graphics!) Oh, yes … and polar bears would have disappeared. They would swim and swim looking for sea ice … and eventually drown.

It was then stated that the last time global temperatures rose dramatically was about three million years ago when a “natural” increase in carbon dioxide caused an episode of global warming of this magnitude. My question is “Why is an increase in carbon dioxide of this magnitude in prehistory 'natural' whereas what is happening now 'unnatural'”? Have all the justifications for this prehistoric episode disappeared?

Global Warming

I have not read Michael Creighton’s new book, “State of Fear” (nor do I intend to), but I hear it debunks some of the myths surrounding global warming. There is little doubt that some atmospheric warming is taking place currently … but it is unclear to me that this is primarily due to man’s carbon dioxide creating activities.

If developed nations are responsible for global warming, then we are in for an interesting future … since the developing world (with its multi-billions of people) will all too soon also be in the “developed” world category. However, we do know from the history captured in geological formations that the world has gone through many natural warming and cooling cycles. These cycles have apparently been caused by one or more of the following events (roughly in order of potential effect):

1) Changes (wiggles) in the amount of the orthogonal offset in the Earth’s rotational axis relative to the plane of its orbit around the sun. (This offset is what causes our world’s seasons.)

2) The periodic cycle of sunspot activity (and other solar dynamics) causing a change in the amount of solar radiation reaching the Earth.

3) Enormous emissions of Earth’s gasses and particulates naturally and during cataclysmic geological events like earthquakes or volcanic eruptions.

4) The Earth’s on-going global chemistry which creates and destroys massive amounts of inorganic compounds.

5) The periodic small perturbations of the Earth in its orbit … closer to and further from the sun

6) The evolving structure of the Earth’s upper atmosphere (magnetic, chemical, and electrical) which filter out or permit in the ethers of space.

7) Shifts in the Earth’s ocean currents caused by intercontinental plate tectonic movements and other poorly-understood factors.

8) The effect of the Earth’s biomass and mankind on the composition and proportions of our atmospheric gasses (carbon dioxide, methane, ozone, etc. -- e.g., early plants converted enormous amount of naturally occurring carbon dioxide into oxygen … which then enabled the evolution of animals … who then reciprocated by converting oxygen back into carbon dioxide). By the by, methane has 20 times the atmospheric warming effect as carbon dioxide … and is mainly produced by nature, not by man.


The notion of a change (caused by the burning of fossil fuels) in the relatively small proportion of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere (from 310 to 370 parts per million during the last 40 years) is responsible for our current warming cycle seems to me to be the essence of human species egocentricity. If one truly comprehends the scope of the above-outlined possible reasons for global warming, then one has to conclude that politics must the driving force behind our current environmental hysteria. I think that any “scientist’ who lays global warming totally at the feet of the increase in carbon dioxide must first quantify the effects (positive and/or negative) of all the above possible causes.

Besides, global warming might not be all that bad. Imagine the huge wheat fields that could be planted in Siberia and Canada’s Northwest Territories. Imagine the opening of a passage through the sea ice north of Canada and Russia. Imagine the home heating fuel cost savings throughout the world. If, in fact, we are in a long-term warming cycle then, instead of moving to Florida for my retirement, I can just wait for Florida to move to me.