E-Mail/Letters
And the heat goes on...
Problems should be expected now that these models have become tools, not so much for
understanding, but for making predictions. Trying to explain away why the models say we
should have experienced much more warming than has actually materialized, Wallace C. Broecker (Winter
1996) and other scientists contend that man-made warming has been offset by a natural
cooling or by a cooling effect of aerosol pollution.
The validity of this explanation is difficult to assess because the theories of global cooling are
as untestable as the theories of global warming. The antennae of healthy skeptics should shoot
up when hearing untestable excuses, which tend to sound like new bogus theories invented to
explain why the old bogus theory doesn't seem to work. Nature remains unmoved by the
popular theories of the day. Allan Mazur (Winter 1996)
misunderstands science when he suggests that science should be done by consensus, for
scientific truth, to the extent that we can find it, ought not be determined by vote. The
findings of one scientist backed by sound experimental results are more reliable than the
contrary opinions of 999 others who lack such results. Neither should scientific truth be
sought by appeal to authority. In a scientific debate, whenever you hear statements like,
"Broecker says so and so," or "Michaels says such and such," this should be a signal to discount
them.
Scientific understanding, to be sound, must instead be advanced by appeal to experimental
and observational evidence. This, and not intelligent scientists or logical thought, is the
unique characteristic that distinguishes science from other ways of knowing. Sound scientific
argument should be advanced by statements that begin, "Smith's experiment with controls
showed...." With so little solid experimental evidence behind global warming and the political
and economic stakes so high, major deceptions are occurring (see Frederick Seitz, "A Major
Deception on 'Global Warming,'" Wall Street Journal, June 12, 1996, p.
A16).
Asimov's
popular guides to science recount dozens of instances where the vast majority of scientists and
the leading authority figures have been wrong. With the global warming debate sustained
largely by science done by vote and appeal to authority, future Asimovs could have a lot to
write about.
The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the
Department of Energy.
Professor Mazur replies:
One of the great difficulties in testing theories of global warming is doing conclusive
experiments. For example, having but one world, it is not possible to manipulate greenhouse
gases in the atmosphere while also observing the climate of an unmanipulated experimental
control. Thus, there are inherent limitations on knowledge obtainable by experimentation,
and computer models have been developed to help us understand the interactions of the
various phenomena that determine global climate.Walter L. Warnick, Ph.D.
U.S. Department of Energy
Walter Warnick misunderstands science when he suggests that scientific truth is based
exclusively on "sound experimental results." In the first place, major fields of
science--astronomy, geology, evolutionary biology--make little use of experiments. In the
second place, when two "sound experiment results" contradict each other, as they often do,
how does the scientific community decide which one is "really sound" except through
consensus formation? In the third place, every "sound observation" permits multiple
theoretical interpretations, so how is the "One True Interpretation" reached if not by debate
among scientists until they reach consensus?Allan Mazur
Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public
Affairs
Syracuse University
