Climate Change and Gravity Are Kind of Different
Scientifically speaking
In the wake of the recent floods in Vermont, it is no surprise that the climate change activists have gone into “See! See! See!” mode and are labeling anyone who disagrees with their conclusions as a “denier.” In two separate op-eds, two state senators, Dick McCormack (D-Windsor) and Tanya Vyhovsky (D/P-Chittenden Central) tried to equate the scientific absoluteness of their climate positions with the scientific certainties about gravity. (It’s probably been distributed as a talking point, so expect more echoes in that chamber.) But this is dangerously absurd.
The scientific method is a process which involves creating a hypothesis and then testing that hypothesis through repeated observation, measurement, and experiment to see if it’s accurate. If you can repeat the results of experiments, you’re onto something.
With gravity, there have been countless experiments testing the hypothesis “what goes up must come down” from Newton’s apple to every time I throw a stick for my dogs, to every time I slip on the ice. They all show the same result, some amusing and some painful (some might argue both), so it makes sense to base personal decisions as well as public policy on the hypothesis “what goes up must come down.” We can also test and verify aspects of gravity, such as the rate at which objects fall, etc.
Climate, however, is somewhat more complicated. There is so much we don’t know about how ecosystems work, how the atmosphere works, how the planet interacts with the solar system to affect climate, how the universe interacts with the solar system, and how we, as humans going about our business impact climate. There are no experiments to test all of these things to see what’s what, let alone multiple experiments showing the same results to verify any hypothesis.
The climate alarmists hypothesis is that for 150 years or so, since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution when humans started combusting fossil fuels to create energy we have been adding unnatural amounts of CO2 and other greenhouse gasses to the atmosphere, and (A) this is causing changes in temperature and weather patterns, (B) those changes are imminently catastrophic, and (C) we can stop the coming planetary collapse by adopting wind and solar energy, installing things like heat pumps, getting rid of our gas stoves and electrifying our heating and transportation sectors. None of these things is anywhere close to being “settled” science in the true sense of either word.
First, A. We can measure the amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere, and it is increasing. There is a correlation with this and generally rising temperatures, at least in recent decades, and in some cases changing weather patterns. However, as any good scientist worth his or her salt will tell you, correlation does not necessarily mean causation. Throughout our planetary history there have been many naturally occurring changes in climate that happened without the benefit of SUVs ruling the highways. 12,000 years ago, our state was covered in a 2.5-mile-thick blanket of ice. The earth warmed considerably, and it melted. Happily for us!
Some of these temperature increases were extremely rapid. As a 2017 study of Ice Age temperatures by Cardiff University scientists summarizes, “Scientists believe they have discovered the reason behind mysterious changes to the climate that saw temperatures fluctuate by up to 15°C [that’s 59 degrees Fahrenheit] within just a few decades during the ice age periods.” This, of course, happened naturally. The study doesn’t mention if mammoth farts had anything to do with it, but it does show that rapid, extreme temperature and climate changes are not unique to modern times and do happen without human influence.
To say that what we’re witnessing today is unprecedented is just not true. To say that what is happening today is not a natural phenomenon and caused entirely by human activity is hardly proven, and the evidence of this happening frequently without human influence suggests otherwise. That doesn’t mean change is not occurring or that we’re not playing some part. We just don’t really understand the intricacies of what’s behind it all.
B - These changes are imminently catastrophic. In his article, Senator McCormack claims about himself and his colleagues, “We legislate on all manner of issues in which we are not experts. But we are experts at listening to experts, at asking questions, and at making reasonable policy based on other people’s expertise.” As one who has witnessed hundreds of committee hearings in the Vermont State House, all I can say is BAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Don’t criticize! “Help us pass the bill!”
Our legislators rig the witness lists to confirm their own biases and support the policies they want to see passed. For example, the Speaker of the House has left the fuel dealers’ seat on the Climate Council unfilled for going on a year. She doesn’t want to hear it – or anyone else to hear it. If someone opposed to their predetermined outcome slips in for window dressing, watch the cell phones to come out, or worse, prepare for the attack. For another great example of how contrarian witnesses are treated, watch this video of Senator MacDonald (D-Orange) ripping into Steve Crowley of the Sierra Club for criticizing S.5. To summarize, we don’t want your constructive criticism, we want you to help us pass the bill!
McCormack and his colleagues have no interest in listening to highly respected scientists – experts -- who disagree with catastrophic climate change theories. People like Steve Koonin, formerly the Under Secretary for Science in the Obama Administration’s Department of Energy, and author of “Unsettled: What Climate Science Tells Us, What It Doesn’t, and Why It Matters.” Bjorn Lomborg, former director of the Danish government's Environmental Assessment Institute, now president of the Copenhagen Consensus Center, and author of False Alarm: How Climate Change Panic Costs Us Trillions, Hurts the Poor, and Fails to Fix the Planet. Or John Clauser, the 2022 Nobel Prize winner in Physics.
Clauser caused a stir when in a recent speech he said, "I don't believe there's a climate crisis…. Key processes are exaggerated and misunderstood by approximately 200 times," and accused the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) of spreading misinformation about a warming globe.
I know none of these guys has the scientific pedigree of Gretta Thunberg, but hey, maybe listen to what they have to say.
And (C): We have the solution! While I have been I think unjustly called a “climate denier” (I do believe the climate is, always has, and always will be in a constant state of change, and am not in a position to say if human activity does or doesn’t have ANY impact on this, so I don’t deny that), I do deny in the most strenuous terms that what the McCormacks, Vyhovskys, et al are pushing as “solutions” bear any resemblance to that term.
They love to say, “look at the science.” But what does the science say about the impact their policy proposals will have on future climate trends? Spoiler alert: None. At all. Even under their own calculations to have any impact on global temperatures their policies would have to be wholly adopted by every major nation on earth, especially China, India, and Russia, none of which have shown any indication they’re going to join in on this farce. So, maybe we need a different, more realistic plan for adapting to changing weather patterns that doesn’t require the participation of those more interested in annexing Ukraine and bombing into oblivion a big chunk of the world’s grain supply. Common sense, no?
As mentioned at the beginning of this article, the scientific method is one of coming up with a hypothesis, testing it multiple times through experimentation, and seeing if you get the same results. So, here’s an experiment: Let’s test how often these so-called experts have made predictions about catastrophic climate change and how often they have come true.
Ice age by 1990. Nope. Entire nations wiped off the earth by rising sea levels by 2000. Nope. New York’s West Side Highway under water by 2019. Nope. No more snow in Great Britain by 2006. Nope. Polar Ice Cap melted by 2013. Nope…. I could go on but this is already a long article.
So, my hypothesis that these people have no idea what their talking about has more objective scientific validity than anything they’re putting out. Yes, that was tongue-in-cheek, but at what point do people stop listening to “experts” who have never been right about anything, but are costing us trillions of dollars implementing policies based on their long history of incorrect conclusions? I wish I could make an accurate prediction.
Rob Roper is a freelance writer with 20 years of experience in Vermont politics including three years service as chair of the Vermont Republican Party and nine years as President of the Ethan Allen Institute, Vermont’s free market think tank.