Geoscience Reference
In-Depth Information
the power plants that burn the coal, in the emissions from the power plants, and
in the ash left over. Coal produces a lot more CO 2 per unit energy produced than
petroleum or natural gas. In the process of cleaning up coal for combustion, a
considerable amount of CO 2 is emitted. The economic impact of such policies
will be measured in many trillions of dollars, and the technical and economic
challenges in implementing such policies have generally been underestimated
(Pielke et al., 2008). Thus, if one accepts the alarmist view that continued use of
fossil fuels will produce unacceptable global warming, humanity is caught between
the proverbial rock and a hard place. According to this belief, we cannot accept
the consequences of continuing business as usual; however, we have neither the
technical nor economic capability to do otherwise without creating great financial
and operational dislocations. But how solid is the alarmist view? As we have
shown, the alarmist view rests on shaky foundations. As Lindzen (2008) has so
eloquently pointed out, the science of climatology has been thoroughly politicized,
and scientific skepticism has taken a backseat to adherence to belief systems.
Alarmists have so infiltrated funding agencies that expressing contrary views is not
conducive to career progress in climatology. There are some published papers in
journals that found results not necessarily supportive of orthodoxy; nevertheless,
the authors usually cannot resist a gratuitous remark to the effect that ''this result
does not mean we shouldn't be concerned about CO 2 -induced global warming.''
The paleoclimatic cabal has managed to prevent contrary views from being
published and they have perpetrated erroneous scientific conclusions (e.g., the
hockey stick) as facts.
There is also a widespread belief system regarding the cause of ice ages which,
though not necessarily political, nevertheless represents adherence to orthodoxy.
It is widely believed that the astronomical theory explains the occurrence of ice
ages and, indeed, one can find literally hundreds (maybe thousands) of topics,
websites, and other references that express this view as if it were proven fact. As
we have shown in this topic, there are aspects of the astronomical theory that are
suggestive of
ice age cycles but
the astronomical
theory falls short
in some
respects.
As discussed in Chapter 10, the world of science seems to have lost its
foundation of skepticism and very few of the recent crop of climatologists appear
to come from Missouri. 23 Instead of doubt and dialectic opposition, science has
adopted orthodoxy and consensus. Three examples where this is particularly
widespread are: (1) the belief that global warming over the past 100 years was
primarily due to increased CO 2 , (2) the belief that the astronomical theory
explains the occurrence of ice ages, and (3) the belief that life evolves easily and
repeatedly on planetary bodies with liquid water. There are undoubtedly others.
Scientists, like the public at large, seem unable to shrug their shoulders and
simply admit that we just don't know the answers. The fierce competition for
funding in an environment dominated by orthodoxy pressures scientists to bias
23 For example, http://www.trivia-library.com/b/origins-of-sayings-im-from-missouri-youve-got-
to-show-me.htm
Search WWH ::




Custom Search