Teaching Truth. That’s the problem when we discuss and debate the scientific topic of global warming. As Tim Flannery points out, science is about hypotheses (and I would add theories), not truth. One of the long term problems in science teaching is helping students understand the nature of scientific research, and how science develops theories to explain natural phenomena. Much of science teaching is didactic—even today, after more than 50 years of improved science education research and curriculum development.

For example, when students learn about a theory in science, such as plate tectonics theory, it is often done didactically by reading the textbook, and identifying the observations and data that scientists used to develop the theory. Although there are well developed pedagogically sound activities that would encourage students to develop hypotheses and theories to explain data, this is often not done. As a result, students do not learn to appreciate the nature of scientific ideas, and how they come about. They learn little about certainty (or uncertainty), truth, or falsifiability.

Now, back to the issue of global warming. As of this date there are only a few countries that have not signed the Kyoto Protocol limiting CO2 emissions: the United States and Australia are two of them. Politicians in these two countries claim they want to wait to sign until there is “more certainty” about the direction of the supposed climate change—-the warming of the Earth. But as Flannery points out, science is about hypotheses and theories, and there is always some uncertainty in scientific ideas—there always will be. But, that doesn’t prevent us from making predictions, and taking precautions. The obvious one is weather forecasting—done well, weather forecasts and severe storm warnings can save lives and property. We don’t say, oh, let’s wait until we have more certainty. Of course not. Of course we make forecasts, with the knowledge that we can’t be perfectly certain.

Take the case of earthquakes. We can not predict when an earthquake is going to happen, nor the exact position. However, we have years of data accumulated that has informed us of the high probability earthquake areas. And of course, we know that many of these areas that are earthquake prone are related to plate tectonics theory. Most of the earthquakes that we hear about and that seismologists observe occur along the boundaries between crustal plates, e.g. in California, along the San Andrea Fault. As result of our knowledge of earthquakes, governments have insisted on making use of this scientific data and theory, and passing laws that insist on improved building conditions. In California there are laws that regulate buildings based on fault zones identified by the California Geological Survey, and citizens can obtain maps that show where these are and take the necessary precautions.

And we do this knowing that there is still uncertainty about earthquakes, when they will occur, and how intense. But we act on the scientific data and theories.

It should be no different with global warming. We have the data that supports the premise that the surface temperature of the Earth is increasing. And this increase has taken place over the past 150 years. For the past 10,000 years, the earth’s temperature has been about 57 degrees. Tim Flannery, in his book, The Weather Makers, points out that the Earth’s thermostat is a delicate and complex phenomenon, and that carbon dioxide gas plays a crucial role in balancing the Earth’s temperature. About 150 years ago, there were about 270 parts/million of CO2 in the atmosphere. It is now 350 ppm, and at this rate would be about 500 ppm in another 100 – 150 years. If you compare satellite images of the polar and Greenland ice, you can observe enormous shrinkage in just 40 years. We also observe that sea level is rising, and we find that plant and animal cycles have changed. For example, the migration of some butterfly species in England (where butterflies have been observed for a longer period of time than anywhere on Earth) have extended their migration further north because of warmer temperatures. And what is the certainty on all of this. It’s not 100% certain. What about 95% certainty? Well that is what the leading scientists say is the certainty that global warming is real, and that the warming is caused by emissions of greenhouse gases produced by humans.

Over the past 50 years we have extended our ability to use computer modeling to predict various scenarios of the future. For instance, some models show that if the CO2 levels were to double, that 57 degree average Earth temperature would jump to 62 degrees. Now that is only 5 degrees. But consider you own body thermostat. A rise of 3 – 4 degrees can be catastrophic to us. Whether the Earth’s temperature will rise 5 degrees is not the issue. The issue is that the Earth’s temperature is rising and the effects could be catastrophic. And it is time to take the lead of those nations or states (like California) that have enacted “green” laws to limit CO2 emissions.

But we haven’t as a nation. Why not? Well, it goes back to a statement that President Bush made saying that he wants “more certainty” about the effects of global warming before he will act.

We did the same thing with tobacco. Remember. Tobacco companies hired scientists who portrayed their research as credible, and then the tobacco lobby used that “data” to support their political and economic point of view that smoking had not been proven to cause diseases such as lung or throat cancer. And this went on for years. People were told by the tobacco lobby that smoking was okay, when scientific and medical evidence was conclusive that smoking did cause many diseases. Then, Dr. Jeffrey Wigand, a research scientist and VP for a large tobacco company decided that the tobacco industry was defrauding the American public. He met secretly with the FDA and showd how the industry altered nicotine to make it stronger, and therefore more addictive. Wigand was fired, and sued, but an agreement was reached between him and tobacco. He later became an award winning high school science teacher. His story was told in the movie, The Insider.

The evidence supporting global warming is conclusive. If the temperature of the earth continues to rise in the near future (and 150 years is nothing in geologic time), then the health of the Earth, and its inhabitants is at risk. It is very easy for those who do not like the idea of the US government embracing the science of global warming to find a few scientists here or there (as the tobacco companies did), and put them up as a poster child for claiming that global warming is an “environmental wacko” idea. A few scientists here, a few radio talk show pundits there, and bingo, the huge body of scientific evidence showing the earth is heating up by CO2 emissions is questioned, and decisions that should be made about limiting greenhouse gases to put on hold. And of course, I haven’t mentioned the politicians that fear financial support from companies who claim that limiting CO2 emissions will be bad for the economy.

Tomorrow I’ll talk about the predictions that have been made about the effects of global warming, and some of the limitations in making such predictions.

In the meantime, what are you thoughts on this issue?