In the late 1600s Sir Isaac Newton proposed his famous conclusions that resulted in what we know as the Law of Universal Gravitation. He explained gravity as likened to a magnet at the Earth’s center that pulls objects of mass towards it. And, while this and its related Universal Laws of Motion enabled many advances of the Industrial Revolution, 200 years later, science marched onward and proved Newtonian Physics to be centrally false. In 1916 Albert Einstein first published his theories of General Relativity which turned Newtonian Physics literally upside down. And, this correction was necessary for us to better understand our universal reality. However, such a discovery would have eluded us without continuing to apply the Scientific Method. What would have happened if we just considered Newtonian Physics to be “settled science?”
Fast forward to 2014. In Barrack Obama’s recent State of the Union address he repeated what climatologists have been preaching for many years now. He said, “The debate is settled” and “climate change is fact.” Last month he even followed that speech up with a visit to drought-stricken California and blamed the drought on climate change and proposed a $1 billion climate resilience fund to combat it. Is climate change settled science? Is global warming fact? Is mankind’s CO2 emissions to blame for droughts in California? Is there any such thing as settled science?
The notion of “settled science” is commonly used in primarily two fields, climatology and evolution. However, “settled science” is an oxymoron. An oxymoron is a figure of speech that contradicts itself, like “living dead.” Science by its very nature can never be settled. Science itself demands that accepted science must always be challenged. Charles Krauthammer, a Pulitzer Prize winning columnist and physician said, “There is nothing more anti-scientific than the very idea that science is settled...Climate-change proponents have made their cause a matter of fealty and faith…Except that today there’s a new god, the Earth Mother. And a new set of sins — burning coal and driving a fully equipped F-150. But whoring is whoring, and the gods must be appeased. So if California burns, you send your high priest (in a carbon-belching Air Force One, but never mind) to the bone-dry land to offer up, on behalf of the repentant congregation, a $1 billion burnt offering called a ‘climate resilience fund.’” Even the liberal New York Times pointed out that “the most recent computer projections suggest that as the world warms, California should get wetter, not drier, in the winter.”
If climate science is settled, why do its predictions keep changing? For example, take the recent admission of experts from the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California (and the U.K. National Weather Service, etc.). They have now admitted that there has been “no change” or a “pause” (as they delicately call it) in global warming since 1998. That is a 16 year pause. But, why have they preached the exact opposite for the past 16 years? And, that is not where the irony ends. They pitifully claim that the reason for the pause is recent increased volcanic eruptions. This is ironic on many levels. Volcanic eruptions are the single biggest contributor of CO2 in our atmosphere. And, now we are to believe that such CO2 emitting eruptions are pausing global warming?
They further admitted, “According to a study in the US, models for predicting the rate at which temperatures around the world would rise from 1998 onwards did not take into consideration the measurable impact volcanoes can have.” So, instead of backing off of their conclusions derived from such faulty models, they doubled down. However, if volcanic activity reduces warming effect, isn’t that another example of the earth amazingly designed to adapt? Isn’t that precisely what global warming opponents have been claiming these 16 years resulting in attacks, insults and derision hurled in their direction as a result? Even this last month, Secretary of State, John Kerry, referred to global warming opponents as “The Flat Earth Society.” But, isn’t ignoring volcanic impact for 16 years more like “Flat Earth” narrow-mindedness than those who have been objecting, “You are not including the impact of volcanoes in your models!”?
Further on the subject of recent admissions about volcanoes, the global warming prophets now claim volcanoes “release particles into the air that reflect sunlight – causing temperatures to drop.” Maybe, but they also spew CO2 into the atmosphere probably more than all other factors combined. You can’t have it both ways. And, having it both ways is precisely why they changed the name from “global warming” to “climate change.” This way, they can cleverly own every answer. If it is warmer that is because of climate change. If it is colder, that is because of climate change. This is not science, but desperate and cultic faith.
Speaking of cults, recently, Patrick Moore (Ph.D. in Ecology), one of the former founders of Greenpeace, made a stunning admission. “It is a kind of nasty combination of extreme political ideology and a religious cult all rolled into one, and it's taken over way too much of our thought process and way too much of our priorities. There are millions of children dying every day from preventable vitamin deficiencies and diseases, and we are spending hundreds of billions of dollars on a problem that may not exist. Nobody's saying that the Earth hasn't warmed a little bit. What we're saying is there's no proof that it is human activity that has caused this little bit of warming. What we're also saying is this little bit of warming is actually good for most species on planet. Ice and frost are actually the enemies of life … they're all saying that the CO2 is going to result in a very large increase in temperature. And the way they do that is by assuming that the increase in water vapor, which will come in a warmer world, is going to magnify the effect of the carbon dioxide by two or three times, when, in fact, increased water vapor may dampen the effect of CO2, and no computer models know the answer to that.”
There is no field of science that is beyond reproach. For example, in 2007, the book “The Black Swan – The Impact of the Highly Improbable” was written by statistician, Nassim Taleb. “Black swan” is a metaphor for the unknown or the unexpected. Before discovering Australia, we believed all swans were white. Therefore, when we saw a white swan, we thought that confirmed our belief. However, in Australia we discovered black swans, proving our belief all along was false. The scientific method is supposed to set out to disprove our theories. We design experiments to get “no” answers much more often than “yes” answers because “no” answers are much more informative while “yes” answers can be false positives. It is only when we can’t disprove a theory that we are really approaching something that is true about our reality. If you think something is true, you should try as hard as you can to disprove it. Only then can you really get at the truth and not fool yourself. And, declaring an aspect of science to be settled dooms us to avoid truth.
1 John 4:1 says, “Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world.” And, there is no better literal example of a false prophet than global warming prophets. Their grand predictions have failed. In truth, nothing is settled science in order for science to be science. Anyone who invokes the word “settled” with “science” is a charlatan that should be denounced. And, their prophecies should certainly be tested, found false, and thereby ignored.