posted on Nov, 25 2008 @ 03:42 PM
Although it is true that there were studies on both sides of the issue of Global Change, during the seventies, the "balance" wasn't upset until the
GW advocates of late, went back and "performed studies" that said that all the noise regarding the "Coming Ice Age" came from media, and not
scientists. This is nothing more than proponents of GW being very selective in what they considered SERIOUS studies.
Regardless, science is not a democratic process. In fact, very little knowledge is gained when everyone publishes papers confirming what is already
known. True advances in science frequently come from those that publish works that challenge the current thinking. That, of course, should be
Even "peer reviewed" papers are subject to extreme partiality. Peer reviews work fairly well, when the subject is fairly narrow, the variables are
all known, AND ACCURATELY AND CONSISTENTLY MEASURABLE, and multiple disciplines are not involved. On the other hand, when those conditions are not
met, then the peer review process frequently fails in its attempt to verify or refute the reviewed thesis.
Global Change falls into the latter category, unfortunately. With Global Climate Change, there are so many variables, in so many different
disciplines, and many of those variables are estimated or inferred from other variables, where correlations may be apparent, but cause and effect have
not been determined.
Of course, the theses of Global Warming and Global Cooling, naturally rely on temperature data. Over the last century, although temperature data may
have been directly measured, but changes in instrumentation and methodology have been common.That is the GOOD news.
The BAD news is that as we go back in time, temperature data has to be inferred from other indicators, such as CO2 levels, plant and fossil evidence,
sea levels, solar activity, etc. Many of the GW advocates point to CO2 levels of the past and claim that those levels correlate with temperature
directly. Unfortunately, it is not clear which variable is the leader and which is the follower. In addition, there are so many other variables, as
many have pointed out, that to point to one variable as the cause of GW or GC would be foolhardy.
In addition, when an issue, such as Global Change is politically charged, it is hard to get an impartial group of referees. The only thing a referee
can do, in such cases, is either verify or dispute facts, as they know them or BELIEVE them to be. Since "PROVING" that Global Warming or Global
Cooling is occurring is virtually impossible, given changes that normally take place over millennia, the peer review catches nothing but obvious
I won't even get into the selection of the referees by the editor, and all that entails. That is the subject of another thread.
I'm afraid that as long as we look at one variable as the causal agent, any attempt to get closer to the truth of Global Change is doomed to
I believe that IF this issue is resolved, it will be resolved as a DISPROOF BY EXAMPLE. Again, though, that may take a few hundred years, and I don't
think many of us will be around to see that.
One thing that seems fairly certain is that global change has been occurring for over 4 billion years, from a boiling planet to a frozen one. Since
man's footprint has only been present for about 1/20th of one percent of that time, and since measured temperatures, solar observations, ice packs,
etc. have only been conducted directly for about 200 years, which is 1/40000000 of the earth's lifetime, any theory as to Global Climate Change would
be, as we say, in science, a pure SWAG.