Welcome to HickoryRecord.com. Skip directly to: our Keyword Search, Section Navigation, Content.

HickoryRecord.com - Hickory Daily Record

HomeNewsEntertainmentSportsLifestylesOpinionCommunityWeather Online Tools Jobs | Real Estate | Shopping | Classified

Just science: Opposing views on climate change

GUEST COMMENTARY

By JOHN BRZORAD

Lenoir-Rhyne University

Published: February 5, 2009

The presidential inauguration is over, and the new administration is committed to transparent science and attacking the causes of global warming.

Even presidential candidate John McCain's policy statement on global warming read: "We know that greenhouse gas emissions, by retaining heat within the atmosphere, threaten disastrous changes in the climate. To dramatically reduce carbon emissions, I will institute a new cap-and-trade system that over time will change the dynamic of our energy economy."

So with both parties on board, it is a done deal: The atmosphere is warming, we are causing it and we have to take steps to reverse the process. Well, not so fast.

We still hear lone voices in the wilderness like John Coleman, founder of the Weather Channel who wrote, "Global Warming. It is the hoax. It is bad science. It is a hijacking of public policy. It is no joke.

It is the greatest scam in history." Or Hendrik Tennekes, deposed research director of the Royal Dutch Meteorological Institute, who claims that climate models are unreliable.

In fact, Richard Lindzen, MIT professor of atmospheric science, claims that climate skeptics are losing funding because they raise questions about climate science. This is not new to the history of science, but it does undermine the most important tenant of science: The ability to question research findings of one's peers and to propose and carry out new experiments.

In 1912, a German scientist named Alfred Wegener proposed the outlandish idea that the continents were in motion. The currently held "truth" of the day, held by the so called "permanentists," was that the location and form of continents we see today is pretty much the same as when they were formed.

Wegener was severely criticized by his peers, but today we accept his hypothesis and call it plate tectonics.

Wegener's criticism of the accepted view was critical for the advancement of our understanding of planet Earth. Have modern day climate scientists become the permanentists of today?

Not all scientific theories fall prey to reversals in scientific opinion (paradigm shifts), as was the case with plate tectonics. Smoking is unhealthy for most people, the earth does revolve around the sun and cells are the basis of living organisms. But it took time before these truths were accepted by the scientific community and used as a basis for informing policy.

It is essential to have an open exchange of ideas and not denigrate people because of their viewpoints.

Some argue that global warming is a ruse for establishing world government through the United Nations. Others state that the environmental platform, spearheaded by Al Gore, was used by the Democratic Party to cement disparate interest groups and gain power in Washington.

Most scientists just want to do their science and put aside notions of political power and world domination. Yet, if we take a scientific hypothesis, inject political interests, sprinkle with lots of money, mix it up with a threat to American industry and use it to sell advertising and hybrid cars, you've got the global warming stew we have today.

Is the industrialized lifestyle, desired by so much of the earth's population, the smoking gun of global warming?

If you have ever felt that you'd just like to hear about the science, then an event at the Hickory Metro Convention Center is just what the doctor ordered. On Feb. 11, two renowned scientists, Dr. John Christy (University of Alabama) and Dr. William Schlesinger (Cary Institute of Ecosystem Studies), will state their cases.

One speaker will probably claim that the issue is settled, and the other will probably argue that the Earth is far more mysterious than we know and that vigorous research is necessary to learn the truth.

Learn more about the forum at www.lr.edu.

John Brzorad is director of the Reese Institute for Conservation of Natural Resources at Lenoir-Rhyne University.