Public policy decisions can take us in the wrong directions when the research of scientists from different disciplines isn't correctly understood by legislators. This article addresses the argument for reducing carbon dioxide emissions based on computer models and argues that carbon dioxide cannot be an important cause of global warming when examined from the perspective of the physical sciences.

Add to the Body of Knowledge by Challenging Junk Science

Donald W. Mitchell is a professor at Rushmore University where he often assists students who do original research on important public policy issues. For more information about ways to engage in fruitful lifelong learning at Rushmore to increase your effectiveness, visit

http://www.rushmore.edu .

The history of science often makes for even more fascinating reading than do the latest scientific theories. In the past you’ll find some of the most amazingly incorrect theories that once influenced important decisions made by civilized nations. At the time the wrong theories were accepted, few challenged them.

Here’s an example: Combustion was once explained by a theory that all materials that burned were filled with phlogiston, a substance without color, odor, taste, or mass, which was released by burning. In those days, solving an energy shortage might have led to a search for more phlogiston.

Here’s another example: Not that many years ago, people thought that atoms were the smallest bits of matter. Now, it seems like we find new exotic bits and pieces of matter every time we investigate the particles that make up the atom. The whole electronic age wouldn’t exist if we didn’t understand electrons (tiny bits of atoms that circle the nuclei) and their behavior.

Consider, too, that just a couple of centuries ago, plants were thought to exhibit traits that solely emerged from a single generation’s exposure to the environment. Now, by contrast, we can manipulate the very genes that determine heritability to create plants that were never grown before. Without learning the truth, we might be trying instead to improve plants by adjusting the scenery near them.

Those experiences would be merely amusing if we could assume that such ridiculous, incorrect views were far behind us. Well, of course they are. Aren’t they?

Some would argue that incorrect theories are impossible because science has never been more effective than it is today. The number of scientists has grown dramatically in recent decades. The ability to measure and study phenomena has never been better.

There’s a problem with some of this progress: Some parts of science are harder to understand than ever before. As a result, people who don’t understand science can be more confused when there are public debates among scientists who advocate opposing positions because they draw on different areas of science.

If we look back at the history of science, we can see that knowledgeable people were often far ahead of the crowd that employed the wrong ideas, but the knowledgeable people weren’t always listened to. For instance, Gregor Mendel’s discovery of the rules for heredity was ignored for over thirty years, stalling progress in improving agriculture and livestock.

Let’s examine a case study from today’s headlines to see the challenges that science faces in progressing to become a more helpful influence, the concern over the build-up of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

Governments around the world are taking stronger and stronger steps to reverse this atmospheric trend, such as by mandating more emission controls, advocating high taxes on carbon dioxide production, and subsidizing higher cost, alternative methods of producing and consuming some goods and services.

Why is the amount of atmospheric carbon dioxide such a concern to the governments? Some scientists report that average temperatures near the surface of the Earth have been rising a little around the globe over the last century. If that pattern continues, ice and snow might melt enough so that sea levels would be higher . . . potentially flooding many low-lying lands. Some also fear that higher temperatures could cause more and more violent storms.

Some scientists and public figures have linked a carbon dioxide build-up in the atmosphere to rising temperatures. Carbon dioxide is described by those people as a so-called greenhouse gas that permanently warms the atmosphere. Add more carbon dioxide, so the argument goes, and you get higher temperatures.

If you look at estimated temperature patterns and carbon dioxide levels over the past many thousands of years, you soon see that temperature and carbon dioxide levels change in parallel to one another. It’s obvious to many: Let’s stop carbon dioxide!

Let’s not be hasty. Sometimes “facts” can be seen differently from another perspective. During his Ph.D. studies at Rushmore University, physicist Dr. Richard F. Yanda, investigated the evidence for carbon dioxide being a major cause of the most recent global warming.

Here are some of his findings:

1. Carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere over the last half a million years have increased long after global temperatures rose. The likely cause of more atmospheric carbon dioxide is that the huge amounts of carbon dioxide dissolved (around 50 times the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere) in the oceans are released as the water temperature rises in response to the higher atmospheric temperature.

A close look at the best estimates of long-term temperatures and carbon dioxide levels shows that air temperatures have usually risen for 500 to 800 years before carbon dioxide levels began to increase.

2. Carbon dioxide is an extremely small part of the atmosphere, accounting for only 0.04 percent by volume. Even if carbon dioxide had a huge impact on atmospheric warmth near the surface, the effect of the change would be a rounding error in surface temperatures because there is so little carbon dioxide.

3. Carbon dioxide does not act like glass does in a greenhouse, trapping the heat inside it. Calling carbon dioxide a greenhouse gas is a flawed metaphor which confuses reflection with absorption.

Unlike solids that reflect all of the incident heat, gases by comparison only absorb a tiny amount of heat. Then the gases will re-emit that energy and most will escape into space. If carbon dioxide acted like the glass in a greenhouse, temperatures during past periods of global warming would have reached much higher levels.

4. A far bigger source of gaseous stored heat in the atmosphere is water vapor. Why don’t you hear more about that issue? Those who create computer models to simulate global warming don’t know how to estimate the effects of water vapor in their forecasts of how the composition of the atmosphere affects global temperatures.

5. If we look back at the record of earlier ages, it’s clear that much higher levels of carbon dioxide aren’t a disaster for life. Some scientists estimate that past carbon dioxide levels have, on different occasions, been several hundred percent higher than currently.

We will run out of most fossil fuels long before those carbon dioxide levels could be reached again through large-scale man-made emissions. There is no chance of carbon dioxide levels getting so high as to be toxic to life.

6. There’s a counterbalance to any build-up of carbon dioxide. Plants use carbon dioxide for photosynthesis.

7. The evidence that carbon dioxide is a problem doesn’t come from physicists, those who study the properties of energy and matter, but from computer scientists who put together models to try to forecast the effects of certain variables on global temperatures.

As the old computer warning goes, “Garbage In-Garbage Out.” These model builders (the sources of the concern about carbon dioxide in the atmosphere) are merely calculating an assumption about the effects of carbon dioxide on temperatures, rather than stating an established fact.

Dr. Yanda raises these questions and encourages scientists and non-scientists alike who are interested to become better informed before any major policy decisions are made by non-scientists who may be misinterpreting what the model builders are telling them. Global warming could well turn out to be an important problem, but if we concentrate on dealing with it by limiting carbon dioxide emissions we may well neglect to work on more important issues.

He also notes that it is probably a good policy to stretch our fossil fuels to last as long as possible in the future, to allow more time for scientists to develop substitute energy sources. If so, our focus should be on conservation of fossil fuels rather than on reducing carbon dioxide emissions. The two objectives lead to different actions.

More importantly, most basic science is paid for by the largest governments. If there is a lot of misplaced focus on reducing carbon dioxide emissions, a lot more money will be spent on inaccurate computer models of the atmosphere that could be more profitably directed at important problems that do affect our lives.

From Dr. Yanda’s work, I came away thinking that perhaps our current age and its obsession with man-made emissions of carbon dioxide may someday look as silly as earlier-day mistaken beliefs are to us.

What’s the answer? It isn’t that we don’t have good scientists: It’s that our way of using scientific information is flawed. Theories are advanced without rigorous testing by other kinds of scientists and prematurely turned into governmental policies that are well-intentioned . . . but seriously flawed.

Ordinary citizens, legislators, and government leaders should focus their attention on increasing the general level of scientific knowledge and asking scientists to make their knowledge more accessible. They should also set up processes that will keep those who have an agenda to advance (those who sell equipment to limit carbon dioxide emissions) to desist from using junk science arguments to get their way. We cannot afford to do any less.

Universities should encourage their faculty and students to address public issues such as this one to shed light on aspects of the scientific questions that are being ignored by policy makers. Those same universities should do everything possible to publish results that will improve understanding of what is known and its probable implications before many resources are wasted.

Looking For More Information?

Make sure to explore other articles in the Science category or contact us to suggest a website or a service to review.

Need to FIND something QUICK? SEARCH!