Why the fuss over a theory?

Why the fuss over a theory? 

Why the fuss over a theory?

By Rick Wagner

Thursday, February 26, 2015

Earlier this week as I was sweeping off the last bit of global climate disruption from my driveway, I began to think about what a tremendous scientific achievement the work on climate change has been over the last few years. I would go so far to say that it is on par with Fred MacMurray’s discovery of Flubber in 1961 or the fascinating discoveries made by James Mason, during his Journey to the Center of the Earth in 1959.
Discussing the theory of global warming in any skeptical fashion is pretty much the low-hanging fruit for opinion writers. Any assertion that the scientific hypothesis —  used to attempt to regulate the industrial output of better than half the world — might be flawed generates a satisfying amount of ad hominem attacks and stuffy pronouncements about the author not understanding science.
Fortunately, for skeptics, the modeling used to predict long-term changes in temperature or even certain weather patterns, generally has had the reliability and reproducibility of Mr. MacMurray’s discovery or Mr. Mason’s journey.
In fact, a 2013 study in the journal Nature Climate Change, found that of 117 predictions made since the 1990s concerning climate, only three were found to be somewhat accurate while 114 were not. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change stated in 2001, “… we should recognize that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.”
It’s hard to imagine a scientific topic that has had more scandalous revelations concerning its data gathering that continues to have so many followers. In 2009 over 1,000 emails were discovered appearing to show an attempt to cover up data that was damaging to the theory of a man-made warming and manipulate other data to accelerate the perceived risk. The sweat on the keyboards of those trying to explain this away was hardly dry before in 2011 more evidence was discovered of data manipulation and just this month, The Daily Telegraph in London had a fascinating article called “Massive Tampering with Temperatures in South America” which had to do with “adjustments” made to temperature readings in South America to support the assertion that 2014 was the hottest year on record.
We revisit this, not only because it is important but it gives us an opportunity for studying a maxim of human behavior. The more one has to lose, the less they want to hear from anyone else.
The reason this comes up again here in River City is because of an apparently “controversial” appearance by a speaker at Friday’s Energy Forum. This is a person named John L Casey, who purportedly is going to be speaking on “Earth – It’s Present and Future Climate” — a pretty big topic .
I gather from some comments here in our daily broadsheet opinion page that he is skeptical about the mainstream theory of global warming. This seems to lead some to imply that perhaps he shouldn’t have been invited to speak in an enlightened community.
I’m not familiar with his particular theories or if what he professes is correct, but he certainly doesn’t have far to go to be just as accurate as the modeling associated with global climate disruption.
Why do some work so hard to suppress other theories? The answer is pretty plain. There’s not much money in things staying the same. The specter of a climate catastrophe gives government plenty of leverage to control all sorts of behaviors and research that supports the theory receives tremendous funding.
The Science and Environmental Policy Project found that between 1993 and 2013 the United States spent more than $165 billion on climate change with $22 billion spent in 2013 alone. And it’s not just control that is sought. Climate change generates dollars for otherwise unrealistic ventures such as biofuels, solar farms and other ideas not ready for prime time.
Billions of dollars.
So let’s have Mr. Casey speak liberally. His ideas may not be as exciting as Flubber, but it won’t hurt us to hear them.
Most of us anyway.
Rick Wagner is a Grand Junction attorney who maintains a political blog, TheWar on Wrong. He can be reached at rickwagner@columnist.com.