About a year ago I watched a DVD (available in most video stores) called The Great Global Warming Swindle. It is a documentary featuring a number of notable climatologists who believe that CO2 is a *trailing* indicator of global warming and that solar flare activity is a *leading* indicator.
I think it depends on who you want to believe. Both CO2 and solar activity, appear to correlate with global temperatures when taken at face value.
In my humble opinion, the CO2 global warming theory is not a scientific consensus (put the pitchforks down).
There appear to be notable scientists, whose names appear on the global warming document often used as ‘evidence’ that 99% of climate scientists agree. However, some scientists are unable to retrospectively remove their names from this document even when they begin to question the CO2 premise.
But, what I am most fascinated by is that this might be a case of Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds. Taking this a step further, this could end up as the most costly fallacies of all time (just behind the idea that governments can solve their debt issues by printing money).
If we implement CO2 trading, and our premise is wrong, it will cost trillions – money down the drain for the sake of an otherwise harmless gas. If CO2 is the cause of the problem, then the laws of dynamical systems would seem to suggest that that we have very little ability to control the quantum and direction of potential side-effects. Basically, the system is *very* complex, and it’s best to admit, that at this point, we really don’t know what is going on. Also, we should continue to find all possible causes.
Remember the hole in the ozone layer?
I distinctly remember, when studying a course in environmental science as part of a Chemical Engineering degree, our lecturer displayed an utter contempt for the ‘hole in the ozone layer’ theory. This struck me as a very contrarian view, since, at the time, this idea was reaching fever pitch. This ozone layer hole was going to grow into the size of the earth and we were all going to be toast.
My lecturer argued that popular science only focused on a small number of chemical processes, but ignored many other potentially counter balancing processes. His main disagreement was that the full picture of scientific facts wasn’t being interpreted objectively by the media and the general public. Having said that, the reduction of CFCs was very likely an important solution to the ozone issue.
Again, it was an idea that the world believed and became fixated on as a collective. Kind of like a reinforcing mechanism based on the tendency for most people to believe the consensus. As the consensus view becomes more of a consensus, a kind of viral effect is spawned.
Equally, I find it interesting that there’s also always a small contrarian contingent. This group is, ironically, like the ignored atmospheric chemical reactions, and possibly the solar flares of today. Within the social dynamical system, contrarians tend to keep us honest, always being prepared to look at the other side of the coin. Admittedly, they also stick to their views religiously. This seems to create a kind of natural balance. Most of the time we have an evolution of ideas as the masses adopt the consensus idea, but often the contrarian after a long wait sees his or her vision realised – revolution in thinking occurs. I might call this a public revelation. In the case of the GFC, Peter Schiff was ridiculed on public television and YouTube for years before his grim predictions became a reality for America.
Regarding, CO2 and global warming, maybe this time it is different. Maybe us masses are right. I hope not.
I think we should hold off on implementing a CO2 trading scheme until we are more certain. We can spend a tiny fraction of the cost of a CO2 trading scheme to make sure we are right. The problem is, that – as a crowd – we may not come to our senses soon enough to support a collaborative and rigorously scientific effort to objectively search for the real cause(s).
Most people reading this, will think “what are you talking about Andrew, we have found the cause, there’s no doubt!”. I simply challenge you to think about where you are getting your facts from, and to what extent your belief is an instinctive reaction to the overwhelming consensus view, along with a dash of cursory confirmation bias. Be contrarian!!
If you really disagree, I would love to hear your thoughts. There is nothing more agreeable to me than a two sided, logical discussion.
Advertisement
