Transcript Climate change - Science Leads to God

Climate change?
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Is the climate changing?
Is it getting worse?
Are Humans causing it?
Is Time running out?
Is there anything that should be done?
Is the “standard model” the only option?
Climate change?
“Whatever Nature has in store for
mankind, unpleasant as it may be,
men must accept, for ignorance is
never better than knowledge.” Enrico
Fermi 1938.
The texts for this course are:
1. N. Oreskes & E. Conway, Merchants of Doubt:
How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth
on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global
Warming, 2010.
2. R. Spencer CLIMATE CONFUSION: HOW GLOBAL
WARMING HYSTERIA LEADS TO BAD SCIENCE,
PANDERING POLITICIANS AND MISGUIDED
POLICIES THAT HURT THE POOR, 2009.
3. The Logic Book errata, MIT open courseware.
3
•
•
•
•
Opening remarks: Welcome
Introductory class business:
Dr. BILL MILLS IS
The husband of one.
The father of 16 (including in-laws).
The grandfather of 8 so far.
A Christian Priest, Ecumenist, Theologian &
Apologist. A Physicist, and an International
Attorney.
• Committed to responsible epistemology.
• A positivist*
4
IN OPPOSITION OR
IN HARMONY?
“Religion and science are
opposed…but only in the same sense
as that in which my thumb and
forefinger are opposed- and between
the two, one can grasp everything.”
Sir William Bragg
5
I am not
• An official representative of the LDS
church.
• Inerrant, infallible, nor immune
from mere Scribner error.
6
Religion and Science:
Two Sides Of One Coin
Warm summer evenings in Greece in the 4th century B.C.
Democritus¹: 460-370 B.C. “Atomic system” wandering
lights in the night sky, (GK. “planetes”, “wanderers”).
Stationary grains of sand on the sea shore, (“atomos”,
“atoms” meaning “indivisible” or “unbreakable).
Aristotle: 384-322 B.C. The father of science. Knowing
the physical world inexorable leads to knowing the
existence of God & His qualities. (“physika”, “physics”, Gk.
“of nature”, “to bring forth”). Four elements, each with
their unique place & duty in the universe² Everything held
in it’s place, whether fixed or in motion, by eternal
natural laws, ordained by God.
7
•
Religion and Science:
Two Sides Of One Coin
A warm summer evening in Greece c. 400 B.C.
(“physika” Gk. “of nature”)
• Plato: 428-347 “Ideal Forms” In contrast to
particular examples; Later called “Essentialism”
it is the belief that every “Token” on earth has a
perfect “type” that can be imagined. All
Monotheists agree with Plato that “Ideal
Forms” exist, at least in the mind of God.
• What is the “Ideal Form” for the climate &
ecology of the earth?
8
TOLSTOY & BACON
“I know that most men, including those at ease with
problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept
even the simplest and most obvious truth, if it be such
as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions
which they have delighted in explaining to colleagues,
which they have proudly taught to others, and which
have been woven, thread by thread into the fabric of
our lives.” Tolstoy
“The human understanding when it has once adopted
an opinion…draws all things else to support and agree
with it. And though there be a greater number and
weight of instances to be found on the other side, yet
these it either neglects or despises.” Bacon
9
Epistemology
What is Knowable?
• Webster: “A branch of philosophy that
investigates the origin, nature, methods, and
limits of human knowledge.”
• O.E.D.: “The branch of philosophy that deals
with the varieties, grounds, and validity of
knowledge.”
• Britannica: “The study of the nature and
validity of knowledge….examine the degrees
of certainty and probability and the
differences between knowing with certainty
10
Epistemology
What is Knowable?
• There are eternal, universal, unchanging,
objective Truths, (Facts)! Everywhere! Always!
• Three very different types of Truth (Facts):
1. Definitional: Bachelors are single because that is
how we define the word. Everywhere! Always!
2. Logical/Mathematical: 2 + 2 = 4! Everywhere!
Always!
3. Empirical/Existential: Water is H² O¹ & it’s triple
point is 0° C at one atmosphere of pressure!
Everywhere! Always!
11
Things aren't always
what they seem:
1. What goes up must come down?
2. The Bigger they are, the harder & faster they
fall?
3. Does the sun rise in the East & set in the
West?
4. Is the chair you are sitting on solid & still?
5. Are you sitting on it at all?
6. Are your feet on the floor?
7. Is grass green?
But there are eternal, universal, unchanging,
objective Truths, (Facts)! Everywhere! Always!
12
Epistemology
How can I know Truth?
“Some ideas are so bad, they are not even wrong.”
Enrico Fermi. “It is better to be wrong, than to be
vague.” Freeman Dyson.
1. Sense & Non Sense: “Canoes, pancake covered dog
houses, and ice cream that doesn’t have legs.”
2. Dogmatism & sorcery: Repeating things
authoritatively doesn’t make them true.
3. Magical/wishful thinking: Much of atheism and
materialism is magical and\or wishful thinking.
4. If you call a dog’s tail his leg*… your thoughts and
your words are muddled and wrong.
• Falsifiability: The truth claims of Christianity are
completely factual, testable, provable (Falsifiable).
13
Objective vs.
subjective truth
Objective vs. subjective truth: Thinking, speaking
& writing on this subject is often muddled and/or
unreasonable. Truth is not subjective if it meets the
criteria of slide # 11. Subjective truth arguments are
often the victim of circular reasoning¹. What I know
in my mind & how sure I am that I know it is the
object of epistemology. It is silly nonsense to dismiss
as “subjective truth,” truth claims that one has not
yet subjected to rigorous tests of epistemological
responsibility: “Your belief that a man walked on
the moon is only your subjective truth because I
don’t know that it’s true? The Nazi holocaust was
immoral is only your subjective truth because not
everyone agrees?”
14
Objective vs.
subjective truth
The whole purpose of epistemology is to
rigorously test and determine if one can know things
and how certain one can be. To dismiss something
as “subjective truth” is to beg the question and to
deprive oneself of both the process & the product of
knowing! This is surely one of the defining qualities
and one of the noblest attributes of humanity!
15
Epistemology
How can I know Truth?
1. Can I appeal to authority? Relying on a source
that we trust is the oldest and still by far the
most common way of knowing or making sure.
2. Can I reason through it? Does 2+2=4?
3. Can I observe it?
4. Can I experiment and test it? (Can I make
certain it is true?)
5. Can I “feel it” or “know it in my heart”?
6. Can God tell me it is true? (Can He make me
certain It is true?)
16
Epistemology
How can I know Truth?
Can God tell me it is true?
Can I “feel it” or “know it in my
heart”?
Can I experiment and test it?
(Can I make certain it is true?)
Can I observe it?
Can I reason through it?
Does 2+2=4?
Can I appeal to authority?
17
Epistemology
How certain can I be?
Degrees of Certainty: Faith, Emotion, & Evidence.
1. Probable cause*:
2. Preponderance of the evidence**:
3. Clear & Convincing:
4. Beyond a Reasonable doubt:
5. Beyond any doubt:
6. No genuine question of fact exists (Judicial notice):
Faith is not believing something or trusting some
authority without evidence or some degree of certainty.
Faith is sticking to your evidence based convictions, even
when you are emotionally tempted to abandon them, or
18
Epistemology
How certain can I be?
No genuine question
of fact exists
Beyond any doubt
Beyond a Reasonable doubt
Clear & Convincing
Preponderance of the evidence
Probable cause
19
SET THEORY
• Probabilities limited by the size of the set:
• Is the denominator of the probability of x >
N?
• How long does each sample take?
• Replacement vs. Non-replacement in
probability theory: Are the odds changing
with each sample, (drawing from a hat) or
are the odds staying the same, (flipping a
coin)?
20
EPISTEMOLOGICAL
SET THEORY
WHAT IS
KNOWABLE
WHAT
HUMANITY
KNOWS
WHAT I
KNOW
21
EPISTEMOLOGICAL
SET THEORY
WHAT IS
KNOWABLE
WHAT I
KNOW
WHAT
HUMANITY
KNOWS
22
EPISTEMOLOGICAL
SET THEORY
WHAT I
DON’T
KNOW
WHAT
HUMANITY
DOES NOT
NOW
KNOW
WHAT IS
UNKOWABLE
(TERMINAL
COUNSELS)
23
EPISTEMOLOGICAL
SET THEORY
WHAT IS
WHAT IS TRUE
MOSTLY OR
NEARLY TRUE
WHAT I
THINK IS
TRUE
WHAT IS
MOSTLY OF
NEARLY FALSE
WHAT IS
FALSE
24
THE EPISTEMOLOGICAL
PYRAMID
AUTHORITY
EXTERNAL
CONSISTENCY
INTERNAL
CONSISTENCY
REASONABLENESS
SENSE VS. NON-SENSE
25
Climate change?
Is the
climate
changing?
Is it getting
worse?
Are
Humans
causing it?
AUTHORITY
AUTHORITY
AUTHORITY
EXTERNAL
CONSISTENCY
INTERNAL
CONSISTENCY
EXTERNAL
CONSISTENCY
INTERNAL
CONSISTENCY
EXTERNAL
CONSISTENCY
INTERNAL
CONSISTENCY
REASONABLENESS
REASONABLENESS
REASONABLENESS
SENSE VS.
NON-SENSE
SENSE VS.
NON-SENSE
SENSE VS.
NON-SENSE
26
EPISTEMOLOGICAL SETS AS A PARLOR
GAME: Why does the climate change?
The life
cycle of
the sun
AUTHORITY
EXTERNAL
CONSISTENCY
INTERNAL
CONSISTENCY
REASONABLENESS
SENSE VS.
NON-SENSE
The
natural
cycles of
the sun
The
natural
cycles of
the earth
The life
cycle of
the earth
EXTERNAL
CONSISTENCY
EXTERNAL
CONSISTENCY
INTERNAL
CONSISTENCY
INTERNAL
CONSISTENCY
REASONABLENESS
REASONABLENESS
REASONABLENESS
SENSE VS.
NON-SENSE
SENSE VS. NONSENSE
SENSE VS.
NON-SENSE
27
AUTHORITY
EXTERNAL
CONSISTENCY
INTERNAL
CONSISTENCY
EPISTEMOLOGICAL SETS AS A PARLOR
GAME: Why does the climate change?
The natural
cycles of the
precession
of the earth
Sun spots
Human
activity
AUTHORITY
AUTHORITY
AUTHORITY
EXTERNAL
CONSISTENCY
EXTERNAL CONSISTENCY
EXTERNAL CONSISTENCY
INTERNAL CONSISTENCY
INTERNAL CONSISTENCY
REASONABLENESS
REASONABLENESS
SENSE VS. NON-SENSE
SENSE VS. NON-SENSE
28
INTERNAL CONSISTENCY
REASONABLENESS
SENSE VS. NON-SENSE
EPISTEMOLOGICAL SETS AS A PARLOR
GAME: Why does the climate change?
CO²?
AUTHORITY
Human
caused
CO²?
AUTHORITY
EXTERNAL
CONSISTENCY
EXTERNAL
CONSISTENCY
INTERNAL
CONSISTENCY
INTERNAL
CONSISTENCY
REASONABLENESS
REASONABLENESS
SENSE VS.
NON-SENSE
SENSE VS.
NON-SENSE
Sea
level
rising?
Human
caused sea
level
rising?
AUTHORITY
AUTHORITY
EXTERNAL
CONSISTENCY
INTERNAL
CONSISTENCY
REASONABLENESS
SENSE VS.
NON-SENSE
EXTERNAL
CONSISTENCY
INTERNAL
CONSISTENCY
REASONABLENESS
SENSE VS.
29
NON-SENSE
Climate change?
Is Time
running out?
Is there
anything that
should be
done?
Is the “standard
model” the only
option?
AUTHORITY
AUTHORITY
AUTHORITY
EXTERNAL
CONSISTENCY
EXTERNAL
CONSISTENCY
EXTERNAL
CONSISTENCY
INTERNAL
CONSISTENCY
INTERNAL
CONSISTENCY
INTERNAL
CONSISTENCY
REASONABLENESS
REASONABLENESS
REASONABLENESS
SENSE VS.
NON-SENSE
SENSE VS.
NON-SENSE
SENSE VS.
NON-SENSE
30
ANOTHER EPISTEMOLOGICAL
PYRAMID
WHAT I KNOW IS TRUE
WHAT I KNOW IS FALSE
WHAT I THINK IS TRUE
WHAT I THINK IS FALSE
WHAT I THINK IS
KNOWABLE
WHAT I THINK IS
UNKNOWABLE
31
Can I reason through it?
TRUTH
ERROR
• Deductive Reasoning: Large to small: • Example: Many men are
selfish. Bill is a man,
• Example: All Mammals are warm
therefore Bill is selfish.
blooded. Humans are warm blooded,
• Example: I knew a kind
therefore humans are mammals.
Christian. Bill is a
• Inductive Reasoning: Small to large:
Christian, therefore Bill is
• Example: . Humans are warm blooded. kind.
All Mammals are warm blooded,
• Post Hoc Reasoning:
Example: I saw a black cat.
therefore humans are mammals.
Something bad happened,
• Sequential Reasoning:
therefore seeing a black
• Example: Smoke is seen after fire. I see cat is bad luck. I went
smoke, therefore there has been fire.
outside when it was cold. I
• If the premise is false, the conclusion is got sick, therefore being
non-sense, even if it happens to be true*. outside in the cold causes
32
sickness.
STATISTICAL SIGNIFICENCE
• Small sample error: “Crockidial Dundee” TV
scene in NY motel: “Yep, that’s what I saw.”
• Galileo's experiments:
• The speed of light: How closely are we
looking?
• The spontaneous generation of flies: How
closely controlled is our experiment?
• Climate Change: How long will it take to
know?
33
Relying on authority
Almost everything we believe to be true, we
learned from some “Authority”. Generally we believe
because of authority. Most personal experience,
(observation, reasoning & experimentation) confirms
or disputes what we previously believed or doubted
because of authority. The Real question isn’t “Have we
faith in authority?” It is What or Which authority have
we faith in, how much faith do we have in it, and how
much additional research, reasoning and/or
experimentation will we do to test or verify what
“Authority” has said?
34
Epistemological honesty
• It is always good to be
epistemologically responsible. It is
always epistemologically responsible
to say: “I don’t know.”
35
ASSOCIATION VS CAUSATION
“a researcher might find that, out of a study of
10,000 adult alcoholics, 97% of them drank milk as a
child. The researcher might then hypothesize that
the drinking of milk as a child leads to alcoholism
later in life. But as you might suspect, there are
alternative explanations as well. It could have been
the cookies that were eaten with the milk.
36
“This Generation has altered the
composition of the atmosphere on a
global scale through…a steady increase
in carbon dioxide from the burning of
fossil fuels.”
U.S. President Lyndon B. Johnson
Special Message to Congress, 1965.
37
Confessions of skeptics
“You just know in your heart that you can’t throw 25
million tons a year of sulfates into the North-east and
not expect some… consequences.” Bill Nierenberganthropogenic climate change skeptic.
“A demand for scientific proof is always a formula for
inaction and delay, and usually the first reaction of
the guilty. The proper basis for such decisions is, of
course, quite simply that which is reasonable in the
circumstances.” S.J. Green, director of research for
British American Tobacco.
38
IMAGINE…
“SOMEWHERE IN AFRICA THERE IS A SIX-YEAR-OLD GIRL
PLAYING WITH HER BEST FRIEND IN A SMALL, REMOTE
VILLAGE. TRAGICALLY, SHE WILL NOT LIVE TO SEE HER
SEVENTH BIRTHDAY. IN THREE MONTHS, MALARIA WILL
SNUFF OUT HER SHORT LIFE. HER COUNTRY HAS BEEN
PREVENTED, THROUGH ECONOMIC THREATS MADE BY
ENVIRONMENTALLY CONSCIOUS FOREIGN COUNTRIES,
FROM USING A SMALL AMOUNT OF PESTICIDE ON THE
DOORPOST OF HER FAMILY’S HUT. AS A RESULT, DURING
THE NIGHT WHILE SHE SLEEPS, A MOSQUITO WILL INJECT
HER WITH DEADLY MALARIA. ..
39
IMAGINE…
“ THE REST OF THE WORLD WILL NEVER BENEFIT FROM
WHAT THIS LITTLE GIRL HAD TO OFFER HUMANITY. THIRTY
YEARS HENCE, AS A PROFESSIONAL CHEMIST WORKING FOR
A MAJOR PETROLEUM COMPANY, SHE WOULD HAVE
SPEARHEADED THE DEVELOPMENT OF A REVOLUTIONARY
NEW ENERGY TECHNOLOGY THAT HUMANITY DESPERATELY
NEEDED. BUT INSTEAD, ONLY DEATH AWAITS HER.
YOUR VOICE, EMPOWERED BY KNOWLEDGE, IS WHAT
HUMANITY NOW NEEDS TO KEEP US FROM CONTINUING TO
SACRIFICE INNOCENT LIVES AT THE ALTER OF RADICAL
ENVIRONMENTALISM.
40
QUESTIONS?
1. Are peer review processes inclusive or exclusive?
2. What role if any does “Group think” and/or peer
pressure play in modern science?
3. What role if any does political correctness play?
4. What is “Bad science” & Who decides¹”?
5. Does the “Fairness Doctrine” apply equally to
science & public policy?²
41
QUESTIONS?
6. Are specialists the only ones who can confirm or criticize
scientific theories¹?
7. What role should democracy have in the pursuit of truth²?
8. What role/weight should be given to dissenting minority
opinion?
9. What is the significance of political/philosophical bias in
science?
10. Should political/philosophical biases always be
acknowledged?
42
6 BLIND MEN & AN ELPHANT
¹There were six blind men who lived in a small remote village
in India. One day the village wise man visited each of the blind
men & gave them each the same opportunity. “An elephant
will soon pass through our village. Find the elephant.
Discover what an elephant is. Return to me and tell me what
you have found.
The 1st blind man returned to report that an elephant is a
cleansing refreshing shower. He testified: “I stood on dry land
on the river bank on a hot sunny day. Cool waters sprayed
down upon me from the ‘Elephant’. Elephants are wonderful!
Every village should have one for cleansing refreshment.”
The 2nd blind man returned to report that an elephant is a
spear wielded by a Giant. He testified: “An elephant is a long
curved sharp spear. The Giant who carries it is very strong &
tall. I grabbed the spear near the end when it was high above
my head. I lifted myself off the ground and the giant did not
seem to even notice all of my weight & effort! Elephants are
wonderful! Every village should have one for a weapon!” 43
There Are Universal
Forces!
The True meaning of Omnipotence: Beyond passive
Laws that cannot be broken¹, there are powerful Laws,
Forces, that literally, physically force their influence upon
us! This is A fundamental misunderstanding of
disobedience! We do not ever break God’s laws, we
sometimes break ourselves against them! “Obedience” is
from a Greek word, ”hpakono”² through Latin, (ob oedire
“toward + hearing”) meaning “to listen”.
1. Gravitational: Newton: G.F. = G x M₁ X M₂ \d².
2. Electromagnetic ³: Faraday/Maxwell: EM= Δ x E = ∂B/∂T.
44
CLIMATE IS BROUGHT TO US BY THE
GRAVITATIONAL &
ELECTRO-MAGNETIC FORCES¹!
IT ALWAYS OBEYS ALL OF
THE LAWS OF PHYISICS!
45
There Are Universal
Forces!
3. WEAK: Einstein, Curies, et. al. : Δm = (mp + mn) –
md. X C².
4. STRONG: Einstein, Oppenheimer, et. al. : ¹₁H + ¹₁H →
²₁H + °₁e + v. ¹₁H + ²₁H → ³₂He + ϒ. (followed by either)
¹₁H + ³₂He → ⁴₂He + °₁e + v x C², or ³₂He + ³₂He → ⁴₂He
+ ¹₁H + ¹₁H x C².
5. LAMBDA: Λ = @ 0.7: The expansion energy of the
universe. This results in a slow steady expansion of
70.4 +/- 1.4 kilometers per second per megaparsec.
6. FEIGENBAUM’s Constant of Chaos: (Fc = Equation).
7. AGAPE (LOVE OF GOD-LIGHT OF CHRIST): (Equation).
46
Electromagnetic Force
EM= Δ x E = - ∂B/∂T.¹
• God uses the EM force to hold molecules together
and to animate all life. It is the basis of all chemistry!
• Man uses the EM force for virtually all of his
technology!
In one short elegant concept, Michael Faraday, a
humble Christian bookbinder, with no formal
education, “discovers” the one law that describes both
the generator and the motor in a single line! Where
did he get this knowledge? According to his testimony,
the Christian God revealed this to him! And a great
deal more!
47
Electromagnetic Force
EM= Δ x E = - ∂B/∂T.
Michael Faraday & James Maxwell were two of
the greatest scientists of their generation, two of
the greatest scientists of the 19th Century! Their
discoveries in physics changed the world! (lights,
TV, radio, phones, Computers, Electricity!)
Faraday & Maxwell were very devout Christians.
They were the pioneering giants of
electromagnetism. Christians both, they credit
Him, God, with revealing the nature of
electromagnetism to them. Shall we ignore both
from whom they learned it and how?
48
ENERGY TRANSFORMATIONS:
THE LAWS OF THERMODYNAMICS
1. THE CONSERVATION OF ENERGY: THE TOTAL
ENERGY OF A CLOSED SYSTEM REMAINS CONSTANT
ALTHOUGH IT MAY BE TRANSFORMED FROM ONE
FORM TO ANOTHER.
The quantity Q-W = the change in the internal energy
of the system. Δ𝑼 = 𝑼ƭ − 𝑼𝒊 = 𝑸 − 𝑾.
Where all the quantities must have the same units of
energy.
On the atomic level this includes the kinetic &
potential energies of the molecules in the system.
49
ENERGY TRANSFORMATIONS:
THE LAWS OF THERMODYNAMICS
2. HEAT CAN NEVER PASS SONTAINEOUSLY FROM A
BODY AT A LOWERE TEMPRATURE TO ONE AT
HIGHER TEMPRATURE. (CLAUSIUS), OR LOSS OF
ENERGY & WORK IS NEVER EQUAL (KELVIN-PLANK.)
ΔS ˃ 0. Clausius or ΔS = ΔQ/t. Or
𝑾 = 𝑸𝒉 − 𝑸𝒄.
THE ENTROPY OF A SUBSTANCE APPROACHES ZERO AS
ITS TEMPRATURE APPROACHES ABSOLUTE ZERO.
50
ENERGY TRANSFORMATIONS:
THE 2ND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS
“Even most weather and climate people don’t really
think about the ultimate purpose of what we call
weather: To move heat from where there is more, to
where there is less. Every gust of wind that blows,
every cloud that forms, every drop of rain that falls, all
happen as part of processes which continuously move
excess heat from either the surface to higher in the
atmosphere, or from low latitudes (tropical regions) to
high latitudes (polar regions). These flows of heat are
a demonstration of one of the most basic Laws in
science- the Second Law of Thermodynamics- which in
simple terms just states that energy tends to flow from
where there is more to whew there is less.¹
51
A TIME LINE
1. Mid 1800’s: John Tyndall discovers that CO₂ is a
greenhouse gas¹.
2. early 1900’s: Svante Arrhenius: Swedish geochemist
made the fossil fuel Co₂ connection.
3. 1950’s: Chemist Charles Keeling of the Scripps Institute
of Oceanography begins systematic measurement of Co₂
over time.
4. 1965: Roger Revelle’s report to the President on
anthropogenic climate change generally & rising seal
level specifically² & President Johnson’s Special Message
to Congress.
52
A TIME LINE
5. 1977: Robert White the head of N.O.A.A. warns of
anthropogenic climate change¹.
6. 1979: The National Academy of Sciences (N.A.S.)appoints
a committee to report on anthropogenic climate change²,
establishes the Climate Board: Review Panel on Carbon
Dioxide & Climate & The Charney Group reports @ 3⁰C per
doubling of atmospheric Co₂.
7. 1983: The NAS reports (Con) is published.
8. 1988: THE INTERGOVERNMENTAL PALEL ON CLIMATE
CHANGE (IPCC) (Pro) is established by the World Meteorological Organization & the United Nations Environment
Program to respond to anthropogenic climate change.53
A TIME LINE
9. 1988: James Hansen: Director of the Goddard Institute for
Space Studies announces that anthropogenic climate
change had begun¹ (Pro).
10. 1989: The Marshall Institute, (MI) issues 1st report on
anthropogenic climate change² (Con).
11. 1990 IPCC 1ST Assessment of anthropogenic climate change
(Pro). Explicitly addressed & rejected MI report.
12. 1995: IPCC declares human impact on climate
“discernible.” in Chapter 8 of THE SCIENCE OF CLIMATE
CHANGE.
54
A TIME LINE
13. 1997: Arthur & Zachary Robinson publish: Science has
Spoken: Global Warming is a myth.¹
14. 1998: Robinson et. Al. publish: Environmental Effects of
Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide.²
15. 2004: Discover magazine & National Geographic announce
scientific Consensus on anthropogenic climate change .
16. 2007: IPCC’s 4th Assessment calls anthropogenic climate
change “unequivocal”.
17. 2007: IPCC shares the Nobel Peace Prize for it’s work on
anthropogenic climate change.
55
A VERY PARTIAL CAST
OF CHARACTERS-PRO
1. John Tyndall: Discovers that Co₂ is a greenhouse gas
1800’s.
2. Svante Arrhenius: Swedish geochemist made the fossil
fuel Co₂ connection in early 1900’s.
3. Chemist Charles Keeling: Of the Scripps Institute of
Oceanography begins systematic measurement of Co₂
over time.
4. Roger Revelle: Geologist of the Scripps Institute of
Oceanography reports to the President on
anthropogenic climate change generally & rising seal
level specifically & President Johnson’s Special
Message to Congress. He is the Climate change mentor
56
A VERY PARTIAL CAST
OF CHARACTERS-PRO
5. Jule Charney: A founder of numerical
atmospheric modeling & MIT meteorologist.
6. Klaus Hasselmann: Physicist & mathematician
who introduced a detection & attribution
technique called “optical fingerprinting” based on
signal processing theory and adopted by Santer.¹
7. Ben Santer: An atmospheric scientist at the
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, he “has
done more than just about anyone to prove the
human causes of global warming.” & etc.
8. Bill McKibben: Early & leading journalist & author.
57
A VERY PARTIAL CAST
OF CHARACTERS-PRO
9. Rachel Carson: Author of Silent Spring Publicized
hazards of D.D.T.
10.Bert Bolin: Swedish meteorologist.
11.Gene Likens “Acid Rain” Scientist.
12. James Hansen: Director of the Goddard Institute
for Space Studies.
13. & etc. nearly ad infinitum.
58
A VERY PARTIAL CAST
OF CHARACTERS-CON
1. Frederick Seitz: One of Americas most distinguished
scientists. Physicist, Textbook author, Former
president: Of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences,
of the nations leading biomedical research institute &
etc.
2. S. Frederick Singer: Physicist, Rocket scientist, The
leading figure in the development of satellites. The
1st director of the National Weather Satellite Service,
& etc.
3. William Nierenberg: Physicist, director of the Scripps
Institute of Oceanography & etc.
4. Robert Jastrow: Physicist, & etc.
59
A VERY PARTIAL CAST
OF CHARACTERS-CON
5. Edward Teller: One of Americas most
distinguished scientists. Physicist, & etc.
6. Arthur Robinson: Molecular biologist. Discovered
theory & experimentally confirmed major
achievements in Oncology, Neoplastic disease &
aging.
7. Chauncey Starr: Physicist, & etc.
8. Dixy Ray: Zoologist, Former Chair of the Atomic
Energy commission & Governor of Washington.
60
A VERY PARTIAL CAST
OF CHARACTERS-CON
9. Dr. Thomas Schelling: Economist: Who would
later win the Nobel prize in economics for his
work in game theory.
10. Patrick Michaels: Climatologist¹.
11. Roy Spencer: Climatologist & Meteorologist.
12. Richard Lindzen: Climatologist.
61
A VERY PARTIAL CAST
OF CHARACTERS-CON
13. William Gray: Climatologist.
14. Walter Williams: Economist:
15. Neil L. Frank: Climatologist.
16. Judith Curry: Chair of School of Earth &
atmospheric sciences at Georgia Institute of
Technology.
17. & etc. nearly ad infinitum.
62
A LACK OF CONSENSES
ON CONSENSES.
The Pro side speaks a great deal about consensus
& the significance of their side having it. But when
the Con side seeks protection due to their minority
status, speaks of minority rights & equal time for
dissenting opinions the Pro side are quick to point out
that science is not a democracy. That scientific truth is
objective & based upon rules of epistemology, not
democracy. The Pro side cannot have it both ways.
They are right in the 2nd place. Consensus makes no
difference in science or morality.
63
A LACK OF CONSENSES
ON CONSENSES.
Gandhi said: “When a minority of only one, the
truth is still the truth.” When Einstein 1st presented
his 1st three great theories, anti-Semitism played a
role in Germany. A large newspaper add announced
that a thousand German Scientists said Einstein was
wrong. Einstein famously replied: “Why 1,000? Only
one is needed, with only one good reason to show
why I am wrong.” The significance of anthropogenic
climate change & what should be done about it must
be established epistemologically, scientifically, not on
the basis of consensus.
64
A LACK OF CONSENSES
ON CONSENSES.
Having said that, one should be very humble &
cautious about dissenting minority opinions, but
these are very complicated, finely nuanced points of
interdisciplinary sciences and sincere people do
sometimes disagree. The more time I spend reading
and pondering this controversy the more persuaded I
am that it is their underlying paradigms, world views,
fundamental philosophies that are guiding this
disagreement about what is & what should be done,
not disagreement about either the facts nor how to
interpret them.
65
HOW WIDE THE DIVIDE?
Which side of any specific issue you
sit on is largely determined by where
you stand generally.
66
HOW WIDE THE DIVIDE?
It is impossible to overstate how deeply & completely the
two opposing side had become entrenched before this
disagreement had even begun. The leaders of each side
were already disagreed on previous issues & these
disagreements went to the very core or their respective
values & was deeply personal¹. This is a fundamental
paradigm divide. Two opposing & mutually exclusive world
views which transcend both particular subjects & appealing
to objective facts. I am stunned by how consistently both
sides pair off on such a wide variety of issues of such
divergent natures.
67
HOW WIDE THE DIVIDE?
Before disagreeing on anthropogenic climate change they
had already drawn battle lines on Military strategy, National
Defense policy, U.S.-Soviet relations, The Viet-Nam Conflict,
Atomic power, Nuclear weapons, Human population,
Tobacco, The proper role of the Federal government
generally & in health & safety specifically, Faith, Evolution,
Acid rain, the Ozone & practically everything else one could
think of. While the science varies, the parties remain the
same or extremely similar. It is roughly a “Left” “Right”,
“Conservative” “Liberal” divide. There also seems a
disproportionate number of Life scientists on the “Left” &
Physicists on the “Right”.
68
HOW WIDE THE DIVIDE?
“Seitz believed passionately in science and technology, both as
the cause of modern health and wealth and the only means for
future improvements…(One discovery alone-how to synthesize
nitrogen from the atmosphere continues to feed billions of
people each year. What can be compared to the discoveries of
synthetic nitrogen & the germ theory of medicine?) ‘Technology
is continuously devising procedures to protect our health and
safety and the natural beauty and resources of your world.’
…Environmentalists, he felt, wee Luddites who wanted to reverse
progress. His colleagues were ingrates who failed to appreciate
what science and technology had done for them…Popular culture
was a morass. He feared the triumph of the ordinary. He did not
participate sacrificially in the greatest generation, saving the
world from fascism to make the world safe for action-adventure
69
films.”
HOW WIDE THE DIVIDE?
“ I am part of the relatively small, infamous minority
of climate researchers known as global warming
“skeptics”…It is not true that we do not believe in
global warming…What we are skeptical of is the
theory that all (or even most) of global warming is
caused by mankind, or that we understand the
climate system and our future technological state
well enough to make predictions of global warming
in the next fifty to one hundred years, or that we
need to reduce fossil fuel use now.¹
70
HOW WIDE THE DIVIDE?
“There is very little scientific disagreement over the
fact that the extra carbon dioxide mankind is
emitting is causing a slight enhancement of the
Earth’s natural greenhouse effect. What is disputed
is how the atmosphere will respond in terms of
feedbacks.”¹
In other words, will the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics
save us from ourselves as weather does what it
naturally does, or will artificial emissions in the air &
excessive Co₂ act as an inorganic poison (like eating
mercury) & kill the organism that is the Earth’s
ecosystem? THAT IS THE QUESTION!
71
HOW WIDE THE DIVIDE?
“There are two themes in environmental rhetoric
that seek to discredit us so-called skeptics on global
warming issues. The first is that corporations with
lots of wealth buy influence from skeptics, and
therefore, we can’t be trusted. The second is that
skeptics use scientific disinformation in their
attempts to undermine the scientific consensus that
global warming is real.”¹
Spencer completely denies both of these allegations
& then makes the same allegations against the other
side mentioning Al Gore & James Hanson by name!²
72
ENVIRONMENTALISM & CAPITALISM
AS RELIGION: Socrates: “The
unexamined life is not worth living.” Pritchard:
“The unexamined faith is not worth believing.”
“In contentious issues, one finds that people generally
believe what they want to believe, rather than what the
evidence leads them to believe…Holding certain beliefs
about the natural world and the climate system is fine.
The trouble I have is with those who try to pass such
beliefs off as being “science”. Global warming being
“bad” might be a philosophical or religious belief, but it
is not scientific. As I mentioned before, science doesn’t
care whether the Earth is warming, cooling, or staying
the same. Only people care,”
73
ENVIRONMENTALISM & CAPITALISM
AS RELIGION: Socrates: “The
unexamined life is not worth living.” Pritchard:
“The unexamined faith is not worth believing.”
“The religious reverence some have for the
environment is probably best categorized as
Paganism. While there are many variations in Pagan
beliefs, they typically involve the Earth, life, and all
the cosmos being part or one spiritual being. For
instance, Al Gore’s 1st book, Earth in the balance:
Ecology and the Human Spirit, addressed the
spiritual connection that Mr. Gore has with the
environment.”¹
74
“THE EARTH’S HEALTH IS OUR HEALTH
“Whether it’s good soil, pure water, or clean air-our
health is deeply connected to the health of our planet.
Yet the very health care industry that’s meant to heal us
is a major contributor to environmental harm. And
humankindness is the answer. By shinning the light of
humankindness on our own hospitals and care centers,
we’re helping to crate a healthier future for our
environment and the people living in it. Today, we can
say we’ve transitioned to products free of PVC and
DEHP, eliminated the use of mercury, and now power or
Marian Medical Center with methane from a nearby
landfill. These actions may win us recognition, but they
also crate clout to take on bigger challenges…
75
“THE EARTH’S HEALTH IS OUR HEALTH
We’re now championing the modernization of the Toxic
Substances Control Act in Congress to help ensure the
chemicals and products we use are safe for humans,
animals, and the ecosystem on which we all depend. I
am a woman of faith, and I believed we are called to
respond when the earthly home we have been blessed
with is threatened. Let’s join together to protect the
world around us. In doing so, we tap into a greater
power to heal, to inspire, and to love. And that’s
something we can all believe in.
Sister Mary Ellen Leciejewski O.P.
Director of Ecology, Dignity Health”¹
76
HOW WIDE THE DIVIDE?
“I will explain why the theory of manmade global
warming will always remain just a theory, despite
increasing numbers of people who are trying very
hard to convince you it is fact.¹ The emotional
attachment that these people have to catastrophic
global warming can be traced to a variety of selfinterests-careers, political and social policies,
philosophies and religious beliefs-all masquerading as
science…not only the science issues, but also the
philosophical, economic, political, and even religious
elements that cannot be separated from how we
view the global warming problem.”²
77
HOW WIDE THE DIVIDE?
“Critics of this book will say that my treatment of
global warming is obviously biased. And they are
right. I have studied the issues enough to have
developed some very strong biases on the subject.
But it is not a question of whether bias exists-for we
are all biased. It is a question of which bias is the
best bias to be biased with.”¹
78
CAN’T ANYONE
BUILD A BRIDGE?
In 1979 The National Academy of Sciences appoints a
committee to report on anthropogenic climate change.
Dr. Thomas Schelling, who would later win the Nobel
prize in economics for his work in game theory chaired
the committee which included (Pro) Roger Revelle,
(Con) Bill Nierenberg & McGeorge Bundy, The National
Security Advisor for Presidents Kennedy & Johnson.
Their letter report was submitted in 1980. Schelling saw
“enormous uncertainties about both climate change
and its potential costs…Moreover, Schelling wasn’t
certain that all the effects of warming would be bad.”
79
CAN’T ANYONE
BUILD A BRIDGE?
In 1979 The National Academy of Sciences
establishes the Climate Board: Review Panel on
Carbon Dioxide & Climate Chaired by (Con) Bill
Nierenberg. “The result, Changing Climate: Report
of the Carbon Dioxide Assessment Committee, was
really two reports-five chapters detailing the
likelihood of anthropogenic climate change written
by natural scientists, and two chapters on emissions
and climate impacts by economists-which presented
very different impression of the problem. The
synthesis sided with the economists.”¹
80
CAN’T ANYONE
BUILD A BRIDGE?
But this would occur gradually & not be complete
for perhaps 200-500 years, or one could have 2-3
metes or seal level rise by 2050! “None of the
physical scientists suggested that accumulating Co₂
was not a problem, or that we should simply wait
and see. But that’s precisely what the economists’
chapters, as well as the synthesis, argued.” Ibid. pg.
178.
81
HOW WIDE THE DIVIDE?
“A significant reduction in the concentration of Co₂,
will require very stringent polices, such as a hefty tax
of fossil fuels…climate modification or simply
adaptation to a high Co₂ and high temperature worldare likely to be more economical ways of
adjusting…Whether the imponderable side effects on
society-on coastlines and agriculture, on life in high
latitudes, on human health, and simply the
unforeseen-will in the end prove more costly than a
stringent abatement of greenhouse gases, we do not
now know.” It might be best just to treat the
symptoms through deliberate weather modification
or to adapt¹.
82
HOW WIDE THE DIVIDE?
Dr. Nierenberg’s (Con) “committee had produced a
report with two quite different views: The physical
scientists viewed accumulating Co₂ as a serious
problem; the economists argued that it wasn’t. “ The
synthesis did not disagree with the scientific facts, but
it rejected the interpretation of those facts as a
problem! “Viewed in terms of energy, global
pollution, and worldwide environmental damage, the
‘Co₂ problem’ appears intractable, viewed as a
problem of changes in local environmental factorsrainfall, river flow, sea level-the myriad of individual
incremental problems take their place among the
other stresses to which nations and individuals
adapt.” ² (Emphasis added)
83
CAN’T ANYONE
BUILD A BRIDGE?
In 1990 Dr. Ray was the lead author of
the book: TRASHING THE PLANET: How
Science Can Help Us Deal With Acid Rain,
Depletion of the Ozone, and Nuclear
Waist (among Other Things).
It was intended to re-establish a sense of
reason & balance with respect to the
environment & modern technology. It
was not well received by the Pro side.
84
CAN’T ANYONE
BUILD A BRIDGE?
In 1990 Revelle (Pro) Presented a paper¹ in which
Singer (Con) found a great deal with which to agree,
(Finally!) Singer suggested collaborating with Revelle
on an article for the Washington Post. It did present
some moderated nuanced compromises. The article²
pleased the “Cons” but not the “Pros”. The Pros felt
Singer had misrepresented Revelle who had fallen
into ill health & ultimately passed away. Rather than
building bridges the incident introduced new guile,
venom & personal animosity between the two sides.
The Pro’s believed it was a calculated sinister ploy to
portray Revelle as having changed his mind and
embarrass Al Gore during the 1992 Presidential
campaign.
85
ONCE UPON
A TIME:
Paleoclimate data reveals that the lowest possible
climate sensitivity to doubled Co₂ is 1.5⁰C.¹
86
RESPECTFULLY DISSENTING:
• In the 1st year that climate records are kept, every
temperature is the record high & low for that time
of day for that day of the year.
• In the 2nd year every temperature is either the
record high or low for the time & date. So far
record events occur 100% of the time.
• Only in the third year is it even possible in theory
for every temperature not to set a record.
• Given many readings at many locations the absence
of any record setting data is statistically unlikely.
87
Just three Numbers that threaten our world!
“Our precarious-our almost-but-not-quitefinally hopeless-position” (Dr. BILL McKIBBEN)
1. 2° Celsius increased mean temperature on our planet
would bring catastrophic irreversible harm to our climate:
A 1° increase has already caused: June 2012 to break or
tie 3,215 high-temperature records across the U.S. May
2012 was the warmest May in North America- the 327th
consecutive month in which the entire globe exceeded the
20th Century average. Spring was the warmest ever for the
U.S. and represented the greatest departure from the
average of any season on record. ¹ In the summer of 2012 it
rained in Mecca Saudi Arabia despite a temperature of 109°
degrees Fahrenheit, the hottest downpour in the planet’s
88
history.² 2011 was the warmest year in the planet’s history.²
RESPECTFULLY DISSENTING:
• “The fact that Global average temperatures have
not risen since at least 2001 has probably been the
largest single reason for dwindling public concern,
after all, if anthropogenic global warming is such
an immediate threat, why are global temperatures
not following what the computerized climate
models say they should be doing?...
• Everyone wants to save the earth-as long as it
doesn’t cost them anything. Unfortunately there
are still no economical, practical, large-scale
replacements for fossil fuels…”
89
Just three Numbers that
threaten our world!
(BILL McKIBBEN)
2. 565 Gigatons of Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere:
Is the additional amount that can be added by 2050 to
give an 80% chance of staying below the 2% goal, (July
2012).
But by August that opportunity seems to have
vanished. Was 565 gigatons of Carbon dioxide released in
two months? Or was it just discovered, they have been
watching for 22 years!
There is a real “Boy who cried ‘wolf’” & “Chicken littlethe sky is falling” credibility problem here.
90
RESPECTFULLY DISSENTING:
• “But haven’t scientists ruled out nature as a source of
the warming? No. The possibility that nature is mostly
responsible for warming in the last 50 years cannot be
directly investigated simply because we do not have
sufficiently accurate, long term observations of such
things as global cloud cover to determine whether this
is the case.
• As a result the…(IPCC) gets to claim that their
computerized climate models can explain recent
warming only when the effects of more anthropogenic
carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are included. But
that claim comes from their ignorance regarding
natural climate cycles, not from their knowledge of
them.”
91
Just three Numbers that
threaten our world!
(BILL McKIBBEN)
3. 2,795 Gigatons of Carbon dioxide in the
proven reserves of fossil-fuel companies:
Dr. Jim Hansen, NASA Climatologist said that “if
we start burning these unconventional fuel
sources in a big way, (natural gas from Fracking,
oil from oil sands etc.) then it’s essentially game
over for the climate, Game over.” My
parentheticals.
92
RESPECTFULLY DISSENTING:
“My own research on natural climate variability
has only strengthened my belief that Mother Naturenot your SUV- is largely responsible for any climate
change we happen to experience. How long will it
take for the scientific consensus to swing in that
direction? I don’t know, but I’m sure it will not be
anytime soon. The global warming alarmists simply
have too much invested in the issue. Not just careers,
but economic policies, world-views, religious beliefs¹,
and the desire for government to take a much larger
role in our lives.”
93
CAPTIAN GEORGE
VANCOUVER 1757-1798
Between 1791-1794 he explored the Pacific coast of
North America. One harbor looked promising until
he noticed smoke from natives camp fires hanging in
the atmosphere. Mountains created an “inversion”.
The San Fernando valley of Los Angeles was
completely unsuitable for European habitation.
Many environmentalists today would agree. Tens of
millions who live there, disagree. Billions of others
who would like to live there, disagree. In truth,
economics, not air pollution, determines who & how
many people live there.
94
CAPTIAN GEORGE
VANCOUVER 1757-1798
Environmental concerns, and those who do not
share them have always been with us, and
always will be. Some people have been
concerned about what humans put into the
atmosphere for centuries. They will continue to
do so no matter what. Most people simply
don’t care enough make different decisions.
They will continue not to care enough, no
matter what.
95
…SURELY I COME QUICKLY…
REV. 22:20
Christians have been expecting Jesus to return
TOMORROW since the summer of 33 C.E. The science of
anticipating His return is called Eschatology. As one of
the world’s leading Eschatologists I can assure you, He
should be here tomorrow. All of the science agrees with
me. Eschatology has a very prestigious history.
Columbus, Kepler, Galileo, Newton, almost everyone
respected in history was an eschatologist. What matters
more than informing & preparing the world for Christ’s
immanent return? Most eschatologists & most Christians
have thought, at least at one time in their lives, that Jesus
was returning in their life time – tomorrow, for almost
96
…SURELY I COME QUICKLY…
REV. 22:20
Recognizing that Peter & Paul were also very bright &
highly educated, & wrong about that, I struggle to reconcile
the overwhelming scientific evidence with the recognition
that somehow, for reasons no one understands, He may not
be back tomorrow, or the day after.
Do not misunderstand, I am not abandoning all reason, nor
the wealth of overwhelming evidence from a plethora of
diverse disciplines. The evidence grows stronger every
single day! Yet I must recognize that getting louder & more
desperate does nothing to prepare those who simply don’t
care enough to change their actions in the face of
overwhelming scientific evidence. It isn’t about evidence,
97
it’s about priorities.
“Our precarious-our almostbut-not-quite-finally hopelessposition”
So I really do empathize & understand how
“Climate Change” advocates feel. I really do. But
they have been saying that this is the very last
day that we can save the world, every day for the
last 22 years! Even Jon Stewart & Stephen Cobert
have mocked them! Their predecessors said the
same thing before that. In 1973-74 my High
School Biology Student Teacher was zealous for
the preaching of a environmental scientist named
Paul Ehrlich¹.
98
“Our precarious-our almostbut-not-quite-finally hopelessposition”
When I observed that he had made dire 10 year
prophesies 10 years ago, my teacher assured me that
all of his predictions were based on sound science.
I am certain they were, the current climate change
ones are, as are, and have been, the Eschatological
prophecies of at least the last two centuries.
People should repent and change their hearts, minds,
& actions now, but no one can say in an
epistemologically responsible way, just how long
anyone may yet have to do so.
99
ICE CORE SAMPLES
Climate change advocates cite 12,000 years of data.
Why so short? We have ice core samples going back
800,000 years. Why not use Coral Reefs and the ancient
fossilized animals used to date the age of the earth and
confirm the changes in the lengths of days & years over
millions & billions of years?
Me thinks the statistical significance of their data
disappears beyond our current ice age. I would love to
know more of what humanity knows on this subject, &
humanity needs to know more about the big picture of the
earth’s climate over time. But, apparently, our planet is
historically subject to “abrupt catastrophic climate
changes.” As we emerge from an ice age the climate is
100
changing & warming-What a shock!
TREE RINGS
Climate change advocates cite 12,000 years
of data. Why so short? ? We have ice core
samples going back 800,000 years. Why not
use Coral Reefs and the ancient fossilized
animals used to date the age of the earth and
confirm the changes in the lengths of days &
years over millions & billions of years?
Me thinks the statistical significance of their
data disappears beyond our current ice age.
Our planet is historically subject to “abrupt
catastrophic climate changes.” As we emerge
from an ice age the climate is changing &
warming-What a shock!
101
• AVERAGE GLOBAL TEMPRATURES ARE RISING:
• They have been since the peak of the last Ice Age.
• GLACIERS ARE MELTING: They have been since the
peak of the last Ice Age.
• SEA LEVEL IS RISING: It has been since the peak of
the last Ice Age.
• THE OVERWHELMING CONSESUS OF EXPERTS:
Humans are contributing to Co₂ emissions that are
warming the surface of the earth. Does that matter?
• THE VERDICT OF THE MAJORITY: Someone should do
something that doesn’t cost me money.
102
Climate data through
out the earths age
1
2
3
4
Climate data through
out the earths age X 10
1
2
3
4
Climate data through
out the earths age X 100
1
2
3
4
Climate data through
out the earths age X 1,000
1
2
3
4
Climate data through
out the earths age X 10,000
1
2
3
4
Climate Change: Friend,
Foe, Constant companion.
One thing that we know for sure is that the climate
on our planet is constantly gradually changing:
1. Oceans become deserts & vice versa.
2. Valleys become mountains & vice versa.
3. Jungles & forests become deserts & vice versa.
4. Ice ages come & go.
5. Floods destroy & replenish nutrient rich soil.
6. Plants, animals & humans migrate & adapt.
7. Sometimes they don’t & most or all die.
A HAWAIIAN PARABLE
Those familiar with the big island of Hawaii remember the
sharp distinctive ridges and valleys which include the
Waipahu bay where the ancestors of the current Hawaiians
first settled. Geologist know these were formed by glaciers.
As the last ice age was ending, perhaps 50,000 years ago,
the inhabitants of the Hawaiian Islands faced a catastrophic
environmental crises. The middle-latitude ice sheets were
melting! Their own Glacier now less than a mile thick was
receding at an alarming pace all around them! Every year
their hunting grounds were smaller! The Seals, Walrus,
Caribou, Penguins, Artic Char, Polar Bears, Moose, Churn,
Wooly Mammoth, all of the animals they depended on for
A HAWAIIAN PARABLE
Fortunately wise elders knew the cause of the problem. Pele,
The volcano God was displeased. Her anger overflowed with fire &
melting rock! Everyone knows lava melts ice. They also knew that
people had grown selfish. Fewer virgins were being sacrificed & less
frequently.
Was there any doubt that the climate was changing? No!
Was there any doubt human activity was the cause? No!
Was there any doubt that human life could not be sustained in
the Hawaiian Islands without the Artic animals & the climate they
require to survive? No!
Although they increased human sacrifice at ever increasing
numbers & frequencies, it was too late. The ice melted, the glaciers
retreated thousands of miles & as we all know the Hawaiian islands
today are completely unfit for human habitation!
A HAWAIIAN PARABLE
Are you the kind of socially responsible person who will
sacrifice your children to Pele to reverse climate change or are
you a selfish climate change denier?
IT’S AN ILL WIND THAT BLOWS NO GOOD.
HAS ANYONE LOOKED AT A GLOBE LATELY?
IT’S AN ILL WIND THAT BLOWS
NO GOOD. HAS ANYONE
LOOKED AT A GLOBE LATELY?
Currently our best climate is mostly over the
oceans. Huge swaths of land lie under or near
the permafrost. An entire continent is
permafrost! Agriculturally speaking we could
benefit from some climate change!
Globally we could benefit from some climate
change!
IT’S AN ILL WIND THAT BLOWS NO GOOD.
HAS ANYONE LOOKED AT A GLOBE LATELY?
DID THE CHINESES FIND THE
NORTH POLAR ICE CAP MISSING?
“Beginning in 1405, the Yongle emperor of China
ordered a massive navel armada, the largest the world had
ever seen, to explore the world. (The three puny naval
ships of Columbus would have fit nicely on the deck of just
one of these colossal vessels.) Seven massive expeditions
were launched, each larger than the previous one.” They
sailed north from the Pacific ocean to the Atlantic and
reported no Polar ice cap!
“Who can learn anything new and not find it a shock?”
John Wheeler
It is helpful to regularly review even our most fundamental
understandings in light of our most recent discoveries. 115
WHAT CAUSED THE
MINI- ICE AGE IN EUROPE?
WE HAVE NO IDEA!
Climate change?
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Is the climate changing? YES!
Is it getting worse? NO!
Are Humans causing it? YES & NO!
Is Time running out? NO!
Is there anything that should be done? YES!
Is the “standard model” the only option? NO!
Is there anything that:
Should be done?
1. Technological
advancement.
2. Nuclear Power.
3. Clean Coal.
4. Hydrogen Power.
5. Solar energy.
6. Wind energy.
7. Biofuels.
8. Education & Ethics.
Should NOT be done?
Anything the U.N. Does!¹
1. The Kyoto Protocol.
2. Anything the U.S.
Congress does.
3. Anything California
does.
4. Anything promoted as
“Sustainability.”
5. Anything promoted as
“Conservation.”
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
WHAT IS CAUSING
CLIMATE CHANGE?
SUN SPOTS?
THE NATURAL CYCLES OF THE EARTH?
HUMAN ACTIVITY GENERALLY?
HUMAN CAUSED CO²?
THE LIFE CYCLE OF THE SUN?
THE NATURAL CYCLES OF THE SUN?
THE LIFE CYCLE OF THE EARTH?
THE NATURAL CYCLES OF THE PRECESSION OF THE
EARTH?
9. SEA LEVEL RISING GENERALLY?
10.HUMAN CAUSED SEA LEVEL RISING?
ALL OF THE ABOVE!
119
STANDING OF THE
SHOULDERS OF GIANTS
“If I see afar, it is only because I stand on the
shoulders of giants. Sir Isaac Newton Jr.¹
Near his 72nd Birthday Einstein was asked in an
interview if he, Einstein was the smartest person he
knew. He laughed and said: “No, not even in the
top five. The top five included Edward Teller.
STANDING OF THE
SHOULDERS OF GIANTS
“If I see afar, it is only because I stand on the
shoulders of giants. Sir Isaac Newton Jr.¹
In saving the world from communism & preventing
WW III one could put Teller on one balance scale &
everyone else on the other. Teller would win! He is
truly one of the great spiritual & intellectual giants
in the history of science!
STANDING OF THE
SHOULDERS OF GIANTS
“If I see afar, it is only because I stand on the
shoulders of giants. Sir Isaac Newton Jr.¹
In my lifetime I have been privileged to meet
several of the people on Einstein’s top five list.
Some of our lives did not overlap. One of the five
smartest people alive today is Arthur Robinson. He
is truly one of the great spiritual & intellectual giants
in the history of science!
QUANTITY VS. QUALITY:
“DEEP IMPACT & ARMEGEDON”
If some catastrophic calamity faced humanity, as is
portrayed in some Sci-Fi movies, & humanity was
forced to place their trust in the theories &
applications of some scientist or community of
scientists, there would have been no better choice
than Ed. Teller. (There was, humanity did, and he
saved us.) There is no better choice today than Art
Robinson. (Humanity will continue to benefit as we
apply what he is teaching us.) They are quintessentially
epistemologically responsible. If they have nothing to
contribute to a particular problem they will say so.
QUANTITY VS. QUALITY:
“DEEP IMPACT & ARMEGEDON”
When they have something to contribute, it is the
best humanity will find. If anthropogenic climate
change is now or later becomes a catastrophic
calamity facing humanity we will need to be lead by a
tiny band of superstars, not by the consensus of the
mediocre. Superstars changed the course of history
& transformed humanity for the better in the 1st half
of the 20th Century. Superstars won WW II & the cold
war. It was not organizations like the UN or the IPCC.
They are what made disasters of Korea, Viet Nam,
HIV, Kosovo, Rwanda, etc. ad infinitum. Catastrophic
calamity or ongoing challenge, we need to be
listening to the Superstars.*
QUANTITY VS. QUALITY:
“DEEP IMPACT & ARMEGEDON”
We need to be listening to the giants; the Dirac,
Einstein, Fermi, Seitz, Singer, Szilard, Oppenheimer,
Nierenberg, Jastrow, Teller, & Robinson’s of the
world, & pray that God continues to send enough of
them to us to continue to deliver us, through them,
from evil & catastrophe.
Epistemology:
What can I know and how can I know that I know it?
“What can one say in an epistemologically responsible
way today, about Economics” Hoyle.
•
•
•
•
There is no such thing as a free lunch!
The total amount of wealth is not constant!
People generate wealth, not governments!
Free markets provide the most prosperity for a
society.
• Wealthier is healthier, safer & cleaner!
Epistemology: What can I know and how can I know
that I know it? “What can one say in an epistemologically responsible way today, about…” Hoyle.
• “Mankind is producing (Co₂) as a result of our use of
…coal…petroleum to natural gas and wood….
• The (Co₂) content of the global atmosphere has
been slowly increasing. We are now about (40%) of
the way to a doubling” (near the end of this century)
“of the pre-industrial concentrations … today’s (Co₂)
…is still very tiny, amounting to only 38 molecules
(Co₂) for each 100,000 molecules of air.”
Epistemology: What can I know and how can I know
that I know it? “What can one say in an epistemologically responsible way today, about…” Hoyle.
• To those 38 (molecules of Co₂), mankind is adding
about 1 molecule every five years or so.
• The (Co₂) increase is probably human caused.
• Only about 50% of what we put there stays there.
The rest is presumable absorbed by the plants on
land & in the oceans. This fertilization increases
vegetation growth benefiting the entire biosphereall life on the planet.
Epistemology: What can I know and
how can I know that I know it? “What
can one say in an epistem-ologically
responsible way today, about…” Hoyle.
• (Co₂) is a greenhouse gas that warms the lower
troposphere. Weather redistributes heat cooling it
again.
• The average global surface temperature has risen @
1° F. in the last century. @ 40% before 1940 & mostly
not caused by mankind, the rest since 1970.
• We do not know if (Co₂) caused the global warming.
• It is certainly not known if this warming has been bad.
Coincidences happen. Association is not causation
WHAT WOULD G.K. CHESTERTON SAY?
Common sense & Biblical
Christianity suggest a 3rd alternative:
Chesterton rejected the political-philosophical
paradigm dichotomies of “Left” & “Right”. He
denounced the terms as propaganda intended to
remind one of ones hands and to dismiss the notion
of a third hand. He absolutely loathed intrusive
governmental controls & condemned in the strongest
possible terms big government & everything even
suggestive of Socialism or Communism. He believed
fines & taxes were indistinguishable, the latter often
being the larger & more oppressive.
130
WHAT WOULD G.K. CHESTERTON SAY?
Common sense & Biblical
Christianity suggest a 3rd alternative:
He believed that individuals & families should make
all of their decisions & government should make
none respecting education, health care, parenting,
child care, religion, association, guilds & trades,
professions, housing, & employment, specifically, &
individual & family life and economy generally. But
he also has persuaded me that local
distributionalism, (having absolutely nothing to do
with government controls, socialism or communism)
is often preferable to pure capitalism.
131
WHAT WOULD G.K. CHESTERTON SAY?
Common sense & Biblical
Christianity suggest a 3rd alternative:
Both big government & big business/industry often
work together to destroy families & human freedom
& dignity. Both seek to take everyone out of the
home & then to destroy the home; To enslave
humanity to dependence on & control by either big
government, big business or preferably both. They
are both the champions of debt & misguided overconsumption. Christian Libertarianism is the best
form of government & economy.
132
WHAT WOULD G.K. CHESTERTON SAY?
Common sense & Biblical
Christianity suggest a 3rd alternative:
We would all be better off if more people: Lived &
worked in or near their own land & homes, which
they themselves owned. Worked for themselves or
within a self-governing guild or association. Served
their own families & communities. Produced &
consumed what they & their neighbors produced
locally!
133
THE MOST RESPECTED
MINDS OF ALL HUMANITY¹!
Abbas, Abelard, Abraham, Aquinas, Anselm, Brahms,
Barclays, Benedict, Boniface, Bonaventura, Bunyan,
Boethius, Buddha, Bede, Calvin, Columba, Constantine,
Cyprian, Cyril, Catherines, Cajetan, Clements, Davids,
Drake, Erasmus, Erigena, Euler, Fechner, Flew¹, Galen,
Gray, Gödel, Guttenberg, Herschel, Hus, Hippocrates,
Ignatius, Irenaeus, Jesus² John², Jung, Justin, Jerome, Kay,
Kepler, Loyola, Lavoisier, Luther, Maury, Madison, Moses,
Mendel, Methodius, Nanak, Orosius, Polycarp, Paul³
Patrick, Pelagius, Plato, Pythagoras, Peter, Quesnay,
Rheticus, Rayleigh, Rousseau, Socrates, Solomon, Sholes,
Stokes, Thales, Tyndale, Uthman, von Braun, Wycliffe,
Xenocrates, Youngs, Zoroaster, …
134
THE MOST RESPECTED
MINDS OF ALL HUMANITY!
(All of the Bishops, Buddhist Dali Lamas, Caliphs,
Hindu Sages & Popes) Anaximander, Archimedes,
Amphos, Augustine, Anaximenes, Aristotle, Arminius,
Bohr, Clausius, Dante, Eudoxos, Franklins, Galvani,
Humboldt, Iqbal, Jaspers, Kelvin, Lewis, Milton,
Nierenberg , Orm, Paganini, Quincy, Robinson, Seitz,
Singer, Simon, Smyth, Simons, Teller, Thomsons,
Udine, Vancouver, Vanderbilts, Vladimir, Watts,
Wigner, Williams, Websters, Waldo, Xerxes,
Xenophanes, Xavier, Xenophon, Yersin, Yongle, Yadin,
Yales, Zazerski, Zacharias, Zeiss, Zemlinsky, Zworykin…
135
THE MOST RESPECTED
MINDS OF ALL HUMANITY!
Abel, Adams*, Ampe`re, Am tem, Athanasius, Avogadro,
Bacon, Berkeley, Bragg, Bernoulli, Blackstone, Brewster,
Boyle, Chiefs Joseph & Seattle, Coulomb, Copernicus,
Cicero, Cooke, Cuvier, Descartes, da Vinci, Dukes de
Broglie, Euclid, Fahrenheit, Flemings, Fabriano, Faberge,
Fry, Fulton, Fox, Ford, Gama, Gandhi, Gauss, Koch, Hobbs,
Hooke, Harvard, Hudson Heisenberg, Huygens, Innocents,
Jastrow, Joule, Kant, Kierkegaard, Leibniz, Linnaeus, Locke
Mandela, Maimondes, Michelangelo, Mill, Marcel, Mores,
Newman, Nostradamus, Newton, Osmund, Priestley,
Pasteur, Pascal, Paley¹, Rubens, Qianlong, Stanfords,
Simpson, Sydenham, Shakespeare…
THE MOST RESPECTED
MINDS OF ALL HUMANITY!
Alcmaeon, Ambrose, Agassiz, Bells, Bruno, Budaeus, Buffon,
Cecil, Carnegie, Chesterton, Churchill, Cousteau, Columbus,
Celsius, Carver, Clovis, Dostoyevsky, Dickens, Dakin, Dirac,
Douglas, Dysons, Dostoyevsky, Edwards Faraday, Gist, Gosse,
Higgs, Hamilton, Handel, Hutton, Helmholtz, Hoyle, Ictinos,
Johannsen, Kagawa, King, Knox, Lincoln, Lin, Lister,
Leeuwenhoek, Laplace, Lyell, McDonnell, Mendelssohn,
Maxwell, Mozart, Nobel, Owen, Parry, Peacocke, Plantinga,
Pratt, Qin, Polkinghorne, Parsons, Ramanujan, Rembrandt,
Rockefeller, Ray, Rutherford, Smoot, Solzhenitsyn, Scotus,
Stannard, Spenser, Swift, Spener, Swinburne, Tolstoy, Tesla,
Tertullian, Ussher, Van Dykes, Volta, York, Washingtons,*
137
Ximenes, Xuanzang, Xuanzong, Zwingli…
THE MOST RESPECTED
MINDS OF ALL HUMANITY!
Abdullah, Albertus, Alexanders, Antiochus, Armstrong, Bach,
Aelfric, Babbage, Brown, Barth, Booth, Becquerel, Collins,
Chaucer, Chadwick, Dalton, Davy, Diesel, Dovorak, Einthoven,
Eliot, Ellis, Fleming, Florey, Galileo, Geiger, Graham,
Guillaume, Henrys, Hertz, Hills, Ibns, Hume, Irvings,
Johnsons, Jacobi, Kusch, Kapila, Kolbes, Kipling, Lawrence,
Livingstone, Legendre, Lemaitre, Mohammeds, Moody,
Medina, Mueller, Morse, Nernst, Nibley, Niebuhrs,
Oppenheimers, Onions, Origen, Proust Pachelbel, Paschal,
Penn, Pregl, Purcell, Quesnel, Ramseys, Seuss, Raphael,
Riemann, Sabatier, Spurgeon, Stephens, Smiths, Steno,
Soddy, Townsends, Tabari, Thielicke, Tolkein, Ulugh, Ulfilas,
Van Gogh, Virchow, Vivaldi, Wallace, Woolley, Wien, Walkers,
138
Wesleys, Nearly ad infinitum!
WINNERS OF THE NOBEL
PRIZE IN PHYSICS
1. 1901. Wilhelm Konrad Rontgen: Discovery of x-rays.
2. 1902. Lorentz & Zeeman: The influence of
magnetism upon radiation.
3. 1903. Becquerel & Curies: radiation phenomenon.
4. 1904. Rayleigh: Argon & the densities of many gases.
5. 1905. Anton Von Lenard: Cathode Rays.
6. 1906. Thomson*: Conduction of electricity by gases.
7. 1907. Michelson*: Optical precision instruments &
meteorological investigations.
8. 1908.Lippmann: photographing interference
phenomenon.
9. 1909. Marconi & Braun: wireless telegraphy, (Radio).
10. 1910. Van der Waals: Equations for gasses & liquids.
139
WINNERS OF THE NOBEL
PRIZE IN PHYSICS
11. 1911. Wien: Laws governing heat radiation.
12. 1912. Dalen: Automatic regulators for gas
accumulators for illuminating lighthouses & buoys.
13. 1913. Onnes: Low temperature → liquid helium.
14. 1914. Von Laue: Crystal diffraction.
15. 1915. Braggs: x-ray analysis of crystal structure.
16. 1916. Not awarded.
17. 1917. Barkla: x-rays of the elements.
18. 1918. Plank: Energy quanta.
19. 1919. Stark: Doppler effect in canal rays & the
splitting of spectral lines in electric fields.
20. 1920. Guillaume: precision measurements in
anomalies of nickel steel alloys.
140
WINNERS OF THE NOBEL
PRIZE IN PHYSICS
21. 1921. Einstein*: Photoelectric effect.
22. 1922. Bohr: Structure of the atom & radiation.
23. 1923. Millakan: Elementary charge of electricity & the
photoelectric effect.
24. 1924. Siegbahn: X-ray spectroscopy.
25. 1925. Franck & Hertz: Laws governing the impact of the
electron on the atom.
26. 1926. Perrin: The discontinuous structure of matter.
27. 1927. Compton & Wilson: The Compton effect &
visualizing the paths of electrically charged particles.
28. 1928. Richardson: His Law.
29. 1929. de Broglie: The wave nature of electrons.
30. 1930. Chandrasekhara: Scattering of light & his effect.141
WINNERS OF THE NOBEL
PRIZE IN PHYSICS
31. 1931. Not awarded.
32. 1932. Heisenberg: Quantum mechanics.
33. 1933. Schrödinger & Dirac: New productive forms of
atomic theory.
34. 1934. Not awarded.
35. 1935. Chadwick: The neutron.
36. 1936. Hess & Anderson: Cosmic radiation & the positron.
37. 1937. Davisson & Thomson: Crystal diffraction of electrons.
38. 1938. Fermi: New radioactive elements & nuclear reactions.
39. 1939. Lawrence: The cyclotron & artificial radioactive
elements.
40. 1940. Not awarded.
142
WINNERS OF THE NOBEL
PRIZE IN PHYSICS
41. 1941. Not awarded.
42. 1942. Not awarded.
43. 1943. Stern: molecular ray method & magnetic
moment of the proton.
44. 1944. Rabi: Recording the magnetic properties of
atomic nuclei.
45. 1945. Pauli: His Exclusionary principle.
46. 1946. Bridgman: High pressure physics.
47. 1947. Appleton: Investigations of the upper
atmosphere.
48. 1948. Blackett: Wilson cloud chamber method.
49. 1949. Yukawa: Mesons & nuclear forces.
50. 1950 Powell: Photographing mesons.
143
WINNERS OF THE NOBEL
PRIZE IN PHYSICS
51. 1951. Cockcroft & Walton: Transmutation of atomic
nuclei.
52. 1952. Block & Purcell: Nuclear magnetics.
53. 1953. Zernike: Phase contrast microscope.
54. 1954. Born: Quantum Mechanics, wave function.
55. 1955. Lamb & Kusch: The Hydrogen spectrum & the
magnetic moment of the electron.
56. 1956. Shockley, Bardeen & Brattain: The semiconductor
& transistors.
57. 1957. Yang & Lee: Parity laws of elementary particles.
58. 1958. Čerenkov, Frank & Tamm: The Čerenkov effect.
59. 1959. Segrē & Chamberlain: The antiproton.
144
60. 1960. Glaser: The Bubble chamber.
WINNERS OF THE NOBEL
PRIZE IN PHYSICS
61.1961. Hofstadter & Mössbauer: Electron scattering &
nucleons; γ-rays & his effect.
62.1962. Landau: Liquid helium & condensed matter.
63.1963. Wigner, Mayer, & Jensen: Symmetry principles
of atomic nuclei & Nuclear shell structure.
64.1964. Townes, Basov, & Prochorov: Quantum
electronics → maser-laser principle oscillators &
amplifiers.
65.1965. Feynman, Schwinger, & Tomonaga (Dyson):
Quantum electrodynamics, q.e.d.
145
WINNERS OF THE NOBEL
PRIZE IN PHYSICS
66. 1966. Kastler: Optical methodologies for
Hertzian resonance in atoms.
67. 1967. Bethe: Nuclear reactions → Energy
production in stars (Fusion).
68. 1968. Alvarez: Elementary particle resonance
states with hydrogen bubble chamber.
69. 1969. Gell-Mann: The particle zoo, (The Quark &
the jaguar).
70. 1970. Alvén & Néel: Magneto-hydrodynamics,
antiferromagnetism & ferrimagnetism →
applications in solid state physics.
146
WINNERS OF THE NOBEL
PRIZE IN PHYSICS
71. 1971. Gabor: Holography.
72. 1972. Bardeen, Cooper & Schrieffer:
Superconductivity.
73. 1973. Esaki, Giaever, & Josephson: Tunneling in
super-current superconductors.
74. 1974. Hewish & Ryle Pulsars & radioastronomy.
75. 1975. Bohr, Mottelson & Rainwater: The
structure & motion or the atomic nucleus.
147
WINNERS OF THE NOBEL
PRIZE IN PHYSICS
76. 1976. Richter & Ting: Particle discovery.
77. 1977. Anderson, Mott & Van Vleck: Electronic
structure of magnetic & disordered systems.
78. 1978. Kapitza, Penzias & Wilson: Low
temperature physics & Cosmic microwave
background radiation (Smoot).
79. 1979. Glashow, Salam & Weinberg: Electro-Weak
Unification.
80. 1980. Cronin & Fitch: Violation of fundamental
symmetry principles in the decay of neutral K
mesons.
148
WINNERS OF THE NOBEL
PRIZE IN PHYSICS
81. 1981. Bloembergen, Schawlow & Siegbahn:
Laser & electron spectroscopy.
82. 1982. Wilson: How temperature & pressure
changes matter.
83. 1983. Chandrasekhar & Fowler: The evolution of
stars (his limit), Formation of chemical elements
in the universe.
84. 1984. Rubbia & der Meer: Particles W & Z; the
Weak interaction.
85. 1985. Klitzing: Quantized Hall resistance.
149
WINNERS OF THE NOBEL
PRIZE IN PHYSICS
86. 1986. Binnig, Rohrer & Ruska: Electron
microscope & scanning-tunneling.
87. 1987. Bednorz & Müller: New class of
superconductors.
88. 1988. Lederman, Schwartz & Steinberg: Neutrino
beam & muon neutrino.
89. 1989. Dehmelt, Paul & Ramsey:
90. 1990. Friedman, Kendall & Taylor:
150
WINNERS OF THE NOBEL
PRIZE IN PHYSICS
91. 1991. Pierre-Gilles de Gennes:
92. 1992. Charpak:
93. 1993. Hulse & Taylor:
94. 1994. Brockhouse & Shull:
95. 1995. Perl & Reines
96. 1996. Douglas, Osheroff & Richardson:
97. 1997. Chu, Cohen-Tannoudji & Phelps:
98. 1998. Laughin, Störmer & Tsul:
99. 1999. Hooft & Veltman:
100. 2000. Alferov, Kilby & Kroemer:
151
WINNERS OF THE NOBEL
PRIZE IN PHYSICS
101. 2001. Cornell, Ketterie & Wieman:
102. 2002. Davis, Giacconi & Koshiba:
103. 2003. Abriksov, Ginzberg & Leggett:
104. 2004. Gross, Politzer & Wilczek:
105. 2005. Giauber, Hall & Hänsch:
106. 2006. Mather & Smoot: ( Mapping CMB).
107. 2007. Fert & Grünberg:
108. 2008. Kobayashi, Maskawa & Nambu:
109. 2009. Boyle, Kao & Smith: Fiber-optic cables & CCD
sensors, an imaging semiconductor circuit.
110. 2010.
152
WINNERS OF THE NOBEL
PRIZE IN PHYSICS
111. 2011.
112. 2012.
113. 2013. (Predictive)
114. 2014. (Predictive)
115. 2015. (Predictive)
116. 2016. (Predictive)
117. 2017. (Predictive)
118. 2018. (Predictive)
119. 2019. (Predictive)
120. 2020. (Predictive)
153