Conspiracy of Science

MSN.com posted an article by Stephanie Pappas called Those with conspiracy beliefs apt to deny global warming, too. The article talks about a recent research study, done by survey, that reveals that people "who tend to believe in a wide array of conspiracy theories are more likely to reject the scientific consensus that the Earth is heating up." What's funny is that, despite offering the survey on various skeptical blogs (they turned it down), those same skeptical blogs are now crying fowl--the skeptics are claiming it's a conspiracy! Just another instance of truth being stranger (or funnier) than fiction.

What's interesting in Pappas' article is, despite the fact that 97% of working scientists agree that evidence supports a warming trend, the public is split, usually along political lines. Democrats agree with the scientific community while Republicans disagree. The question then is, why do they disagree, given the overwhelming scientific evidence? Some thoughts:

1. They have never taken a science class or have forgotten all they learned about the scientific process & peer review.
2. They only listen to certain tv entertainers or radio hosts who also missed #1.
3. They are conspiracy theorists!

At the risk of oversimplification and irritating scientists, I define the scientific process (or method) as making observations and doing experiments. Once this is done, the results fall under peer review. That means other scientists have to reproduce your results. The point is that, if 10,000 scientists run the same observation and reach the same conclusion, do we believe the science or do we cry conspiracy? And if we do the latter, why? What are we afraid of?

What do these scientists look at to determine the warming trend of the planet?
1. Tree rings
2. Coral reefs
3. Ice cores
4. Temperature records

Three sources that scientists look at as responsible for global warming are the sun, the earth's reflectivity, and greenhouse gases. Of the three, which have been studied extensively, greenhouse gases have risen sharply as we burn more fossil fuels. Scientists looked at temperature records since 1850 (when they started to be reliably recorded), satellite measurements since 1979, sea-level rise, ice cores (the deeper you drill, the further back in centuries you go), tree ring width & density, & calcium carbonate in coral. A clear and more detailed look at each of these is at edf.org.

A Nobel-Prize-winning chemist, Svante Arrhenius, first proposed the idea of global warming in 1896--so we've had over 100 years to get used to the idea and doing something about it. If you took math, remember a + b= c. So, if carbon dioxide (a) traps heat in the Earth's atmosphere and burning coal and oil releases carbon dioxide (b), then c= higher levels of CO2 and thus higher temperatures. This is the greenhouse effect.

So, do we assume poor Svante, in 1896 colluded with scientists to arrive at his analysis? Do we in turn expect that, over the next 116 years, all future scientists met together in a mass conspiracy to deceive the public? Really? If all of them ran the same experiments and reached the same result, who are the naysayers? What scientist ran the same experiment but achieved diffferent results?

I explored Google and found the following folks who expressed differing opinions: Edward Townes, a libertarian (that's as much as I could reliably find) who is often quoted in various blogs but without any info on his research background or speciality; ICECAP (International Climate & Environmental Change Assessment Project, which claims a sudden climate shift is actually more likely than using imperfect climate models) and blogs that are generally unreliable (failing to provide links to real data or offer information on the columnists who write or are referred to in their posts. If I quote the American Thinker (a tea party site), the bias is astounding--they promote "drill, baby, drill", the "costs to the economy" (vs the costs to those of us who must live in it) and little or no scientific data to support their comments. In fact, not one of their staff has any biological or environmental background. Matt Ridley, at the WSJ, tweaks scientists & their theories, but appears to be a writer & historian with some sort of scientific background (not spelled out on his site); you must also note that he gets paid to write (articles & books).

Wouldn't it make sense that, if you want to build a house, you get help from an architect and/or someone in the construction industry? If you have an illness, you ask a doctor or medical professional? If you want to find out about climate change, ask a scientist. Or, better yet, ask several. 

But I forget, every single scientist is in a conspiracy to delude the public because they have something to gain...hmm. I wonder what?