What baffles me is why people who use the internet, drive cars, have electricity at home, fly in airplanes, watch TV, obtain modern medicine (all of which required science to make possible) chose to decide that science related to climate change is somehow different and wrong.
I'll try to explain it again so that newcomers don't have to wade through 53 pages.
The fundamental processes of science that have produced amazing results over the past few centuries, rely upon situations where hypotheses and theories can be tested repeatedly under controlled conditions during relatively short periods of time, so that after the results have been examined, further experiments can be conducted under different conditions in order to verify or falsify a particular theory or prediction.
A classic example that features in high schools, is the ancient Aristotelian theory that heavy objects (of the same material) fall at a faster rate than lighter objects. People accepted that theory as true for many centuries, partly because Aristotle had a great reputation for being a brilliant and knowledgeable person (how could he be wrong!), and partly because the scientific methodology of 'verification and falsification through controlled experiments' had not been firmly established in ancient Greece.
The story of Galileo dropping at the same precise moment, two different sized metal balls from the leaning Tower of Pisa, and observing that they both hit the ground at the same time, illustrates this fundamental principle of the scientific methodology.
When modern drugs are deigned to cure specific illnesses, there's a long and expensive process of repeated experimentation that is required before the drug is considered to be effective and safe. Even then, as we should all know, it is sometimes later discovered that certain drugs that were initially thought to be safe, have long-term side effects that are sometimes very serious.
The problems and complexities relating to the health of the human body is a good analogy which puts into perspective the even greater problems and complexity of climate change and the health of our planet.
CO2 is a natural and essential substance, just as certain minerals, vitamins and complex compounds from herbs and various foods, are essential for human health.
However, those who are interested in their own health will no doubt be aware of the tremendous uncertainty about the benefits of precise dosages of certain vitamins and/or natural compounds in certain foods which are claimed to have certain 'long-term' health benefits.
Why is this? Why the uncertainty? Why do so many supplements and 'health-food' products state on the packaging, '
May help in the prevention or cure of.....whatever?
The answer is, because the situation does not lend itself to the rigorous application of the scientific methodology of controlled experimentation, as a result of the complexity and multitude of the various factors that can influence the results.
Let's consider the example of a very common supplement such as Vitamin C. There's a recommended minimum dosage which is known with certainty to be essential for human health, to prevent illnesses such as scurvy, and so on. Such dosages are very small, such as 35 to 75mg per day which can easily be obtained from a moderate amount of fruit and vegetables
However, the average Vitamin C supplementary tablet in Australia is 500 mg. Some are 1,000 mg (1 gram). There are claims by certain, qualified, health specialists, that increased dosages of Vitamin C have an antioxidant effect in removing 'free radicals' and protecting the body from various ailments such as cardiovascular disease and cancer.
This is not claimed to be a sudden fix, like injecting someone with an antibiotic to get rid of a bacterial infection, but is a long-term protection over many years.
Considering all the numerous factors which influence human health, such as the complexity of different diets, exercise, environmental conditions, activities in general, mental stress, genetic variability among individuals, and different belief systems, how could any group of scientists determine with certainty the long-term benefits of taking a regular dosage of, say, 500mg of Vitamin C or more, per day?
Let me give you a hint, for the benefit of the scientifically illiterate.
The scientists would have to organize at least two groups of experimental subjects who were all identical twins. Both groups would have to be on the same diet, engage in the same exercise and activities, and live in the same environment, because all these factors can influence health. The only difference in diet between the two groups would be that one of the groups would be taking a 'real' Vitamin C supplement, and the other group would be given a
placebo Vitamin C supplement, to ensure that belief systems did not influence the results.
Since conditions such as heart disease, or cancer, or high blood pressure, and so on, take many years to develop, this controlled experiment with twins would have to continue for many decades, say 40 years, under controlled conditions that were closely monitored to ensure that no cheating took place.
Now obviously it's not practical, or even ethical, to devise such experiments. However, the most rigorous demands of the scientific methodology not only require that such experiments be conducted before certainty can be claimed, but also be repeated in different circumstances. That is, changing one of the variables, such as the amount and/or type of exercise requirements imposed on the groups, or a shift from a mainly vegetarian diet to a more meat-based diet, or a shift from a clean environment in the countryside to a more polluted environment in the city, and so on.
Now, using a bit of imagination, if you can, try relating the effects of Vitamin C on human health, to the effects of CO2 on the health of the planet, bearing in mind that we don't have various twin planets to experiment with.
Can you see the problem, or do I need to go on.. and on.... and on.
