The Scientific Method--Revisited

During the Vice Presidential debate, the subject of "climate change" came up once again. I had to hear Senator Biden tell me the polar ice caps are melting, and Governor Palin balance reasons of why this "climate change" exists. To both of them I ask, "How do you know 'climate change' is significant?"

Supposedly, we have ample research, studies, and analyses addressing this issue that concerns the "health of our planet". Let me assure you that this data is inconclusive, because of a thorough failure to apply the scientific method. You remember that from school days, right? Well, let's recount it, in my own words anyway ...

The scientific method takes a situation and comes up with a theory--a hypothesis--to explain it. Then, the hypothesis is tested to see if it is true, using a "control" and an "experiment". Crafting a hypothesis can be a complex exercise, if you take the time to consider all the variables involved. I have to apply the scientific method all the time in my daily job--I'm an analyst. Granted, I am analyzing Defense issues, but the same principles apply.

My "formula", which applies the principles of the scientific method for the work I do, is: 1) Define the critical issues to address, 2) Develop a process/plan to address the issues, 3) Determine the metrics that will provide insight to the critical issues, 4) Establish expected standards for the metrics, 5) Collect data to use in determining the results of the metrics (through means to include experimentation), and 6) Present the results in a format the decision maker will understand.

For Climate Change, here's a question to address: "What is the temperature of the Earth supposed to be?" We all know the Earth's history has seen rises and falls in temperature, so what is "ideal?" (This relates to Step 4). Another question: "If changes in temperature are resulting from some outside factors, what are they? And to what extent do they impact the climate?" (Consider Step 3). Many say man's actions are at fault, but certainly in Earth's history significant climate changes occurred without man and his "emissions". So what else is there? Let me offer up a big one that is a variable left out of kids' science experiments: the SUN. The star of our solar system does not burn with a constant heat output; it fluctuates. The sun's impact has been underestimated and should be reconsidered when climate change is addressed.

Laying out all the variables to be considered is incredibly important to the process--even if you can do nothing with some of them. Better to be up front and state assumptions than try to adjust results to meet the needs of the hypothesis. The United Nations did this with the data they had. After a review of all the data and the "conclusion" global warming was a "fact", two major points were omitted (here paraphrased): 1) None of the studies cited showed clear evidence that observed climate changes are attributed to increases in greenhouse gases, and 2) No study to date has positively attributed all or part of the climate change to man-made causes. So, given this, what am I supposed think? That's easy: garbage in, garbage out.

Presentation of results with flawed data supporting it can be overcome with strong passion and enthusiasm of the presenter. We will simply be less inclined to double check the data/results if the person comes across as confident and sure. And if enough presenters do this, people will be lulled into believing it. As was said by a Supreme Court Justice in the 1960s, "If we keep saying 'Separation of Church and State' is in the Constitution, people will start to believe it." (Go check--it's not there). From what I have seen with the evidence provided, this is going on with "climate change" as well. And if changes are found, what constitutes a significant difference? And can future trends be accurately projected based on that significance?

I simply have too many questions. This blog should be obvious in showing I am a skeptic when it comes to "climate change". And so what if there is? The Earth has had temperature ups and downs before man was around, which leads me to think the Earth may be a system constantly adjusting to find an equilibrium. Let's be intellectually honest and seek scientific truth in the best data we can collect, and not be beholden to a foregone conclusion many seek to justfiy--for whatever reason.