Uncategorized

We have benefited enormously from scientific advance and its practical applications. Humans are the ultimate generalists and highly adaptable because they observe and learn. The scientific method takes this one stage further: we put forward hypotheses and do experiments to validate them. If the hypothesis doesn’t fit the observations, we reject it. But if it does fit the facts, that doesn’t prove it’s right. Science should continually test theories so that we become more certain of their correctness, but we can never be absolutely sure.

Post-modern thinking teaches that there are no hard truths, that scientific ‘facts’ are social constructs. In one sense, that’s true, since we can never provide absolute proof of any theory. But, taken to the extreme, this school of thought is essentially anti-science and leads to the dangerous tendency we see today of decisions being made on the basis of people’s feelings rather than any objective basis. That leads to belief- rather than evidence-based policy. It also leads us away from the Enlightenment.

But science also is not a perfect, foolproof system; neither is it perfectible. The scientific method, for all its advantages as a basis for decision-making, and for all the benefits it has undoubtedly brought us, is only an overlay on human nature.

The pronouncements of post-modern philosophers may be anathema to scientists, but scientists are also human, with the same nature and tendency to judge. After all, scientific investigation only provides evidence based on the question asked and the experiment carried out. Asking the question in a different way may give a subtly (or not so subtly) different set of data. The data itself is subject to analysis by human intellect, and individuals may place different weights on particular facts. So, from seemingly the same question or data, different people may draw different conclusions. And, although a scientific approach requires us to try to disprove a theory, in practice human nature leads us to ask the sort of questions, and collect the sort of data, which supports the views we already hold. Research then becomes a game of amassing evidence to support a dearly-held view while finding ways to explain away conflicting results.

This tendency to establish ‘proven’ theories which ‘everyone’ believes means that important scientific advances are often made only in the teeth of opposition. Most people behave more according to their human nature than their scientific discipline. There are numerous examples of theories now considered effectively to be established fact which were initially scorned by the scientific establishment: the circulation of blood, plate tectonics, atomic structure, to name but three. In most cases, this is just the result of intellectual inertia and scepticism, but there is also an element of belief. The current debate about the drivers of climate change is a modern case in point.

The terms global warming or climate change have a very specific connotation in today’s society. They are shorthand for anthropogenic climate change, the root cause of which is the increased level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, caused primarily by the industrial use of fossil fuels – coal, oil and gas.

The great majority of the scientific establishment adheres firmly to this hypothesis, on the basis of which highly prescriptive and centralised policy changes are proposed to fundamentally reduce the carbon-intensity of modern society. Thus, this is not just a bitter scientific controversy: it’s a debate which has the potential to shape the future direction of society. What is more, it’s a debate where apparently the majority of scientists are aligned with environmentalists.

The received wisdom is that the warming trend over the past century bears the unmistakable imprint of Mankind’s activities, is unprecedented and could have catastrophic consequences if allowed to continue. The basis for this is a belief that the effects of all natural climate drivers are understood and that changes which cannot be explained by them must be due to human influence. This is a plausible hypothesis, and one which should be tested, but there remain large gaps in our knowledge and a number of pieces of seemingly contradictory evidence.

The point is that an apparent majority of scientists have seen enough to convince themselves that humans are the primary driver of current climate change, and that something must be done about it. Having reached this conclusion, they rightly continue to amass evidence, but there is an inbuilt bias both in the questions asked and the way that data is viewed. There will equally be some critics of this view who will focus only on the evidence which supports their view, rather than trying to be objective.

This is normal human behaviour in both cases. If you think that someone is wrong, the natural tendency is to bring forward your own arguments rather than look at areas of agreement. The debate gets more polarised and more subjective. Science takes second place.

Since there remain large areas of uncertainly the scientific method should mean that we continue to make observations until the evidence becomes compelling. But the majority of people now believe global warming – human induced global warming – to be an established truth. And the reason for this is typical crowd behaviour: when enough establishment scientists make their views known, have them amplified by the media and supported by the environmental movement, the majority of people take this as the truth. It’s the Emperor’s new clothes once again. Those who play the role of the little boy pointing out that the Emperor is in fact naked are derided and attacked, often in very personal ways. The establishment does not tolerate dissent well.

So, what will happen? Ultimately, the whole debate will be settled on the basis of real evidence. Whatever policy is implemented in the meantime is likely to be immaterial in terms of influencing the climate, although it will consume resources, slow growth and actually have a real negative impact on those at the bottom of the pile. But at some stage – perhaps by 2010, perhaps later – we could reach a tipping point where it becomes clear to the majority of scientists, commentators and the public that, whatever is happening to the climate, Mankind is not the major contributor, and cannot reset the thermostat by reducing carbon dioxide emissions. Alternatively, real confirmatory evidence that carbon dioxide is the main driver may be found, and those critics with open minds will change their views.

If a tipping point is reached where the current received wisdom is overturned, it’s trust in the scientific establishment which will be the loser, and that could lead to further erosion in the general public’s regard for the scientific method. Human nature would have trumped science, and science would suffer.

Newsletter 31st August 2007
The Scientific Alliance
St John’s Innovation Centre, Cowley Road, Cambridge CB4 0WS
Tel: +44 1223 421242

A news release from the University of Southampton, UK:

Next Ice Age delayed by rising CO2 levels

Future ice ages may be delayed by up to half a million years by our burning of fossil fuels. That is the implication of recent work by Dr Toby Tyrrell of the University of Southampton’s School of Ocean and Earth Science at the National Oceanography Centre, Southampton.

According to New Scientist magazine, which features Dr Tyrrell’s research this week, this work demonstrates the most far-reaching disruption of long-term planetary processes yet suggested for human activity.

Dr Tyrrell’s team used a mathematical model to study what would happen to marine chemistry in a world with ever-increasing supplies of the greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide.

The world’s oceans are absorbing CO2 from the atmosphere but in doing so they are becoming more acidic. This in turn is dissolving the calcium carbonate in the shells produced by surface-dwelling marine organisms, adding even more carbon to the oceans. The outcome is elevated carbon dioxide for far longer than previously assumed.

Computer modelling in 2004 by a then oceanography undergraduate student at the University, Stephanie Castle, first interested Dr Tyrrell and colleague Professor John Shepherd in the problem. They subsequently developed a theoretical analysis to validate the plausibility of the phenomenon.

The work, which is part-funded by the Natural Environment Research Council, confirms earlier ideas of David Archer of the University of Chicago, who first estimated the impact rising CO2 levels would have on the timing of the next ice age.

Dr Tyrrell said: ‘Our research shows why atmospheric CO2 will not return to pre-industrial levels after we stop burning fossil fuels. It shows that it if we use up all known fossil fuels it doesn’t matter at what rate we burn them. The result would be the same if we burned them at present rates or at more moderate rates; we would still get the same eventual ice-age-prevention result.’

Ice ages occur around every 100,000 years as the pattern of Earth’s orbit alters over time. Changes in the way the sun strikes the Earth allows for the growth of ice caps, plunging the Earth into an ice age. But it is not only variations in received sunlight that determine the descent into an ice age; levels of atmospheric CO2 are also important.

Humanity has to date burnt about 300 Gt C of fossil fuels. This work suggests that even if only 1000 Gt C (gigatonnes of carbon) are eventually burnt (out of total reserves of about 4000 Gt C) then it is likely that the next ice age will be skipped. Burning all recoverable fossil fuels could lead to avoidance of the next five ice ages.

Dr Tyrrell is a Reader in the University of Southampton’s School of Ocean and Earth Science. This research was first published in Tellus B, vol 59 p664.