Ice and Falsifiability
Some people say there is a scientific consensus that Global Warming is real and man-caused and the evidence is incontrovertible and an absolute fact. Other people say climate changes all the time, that correlation is not causation, and new evidence has the ability to alter predictive theories. Global Warming absolutists claim that predictive science is fatally accurate and will not tolerate skepticism. There is enough evidence for mad-caused Global Warming such that it constitutes unquestionable proof.
We’re all familiar with the basic outline of the scientific method. To prove a causal hypothesis, it takes a few steps. Generally:
1) observe a correlation between two phenomena.
2) Designate one of these “cause” the other “effect,” surmising that change in “cause” produces change in “effect.”
3) Control all other factors and show that manipulating one phenomena affects the other one is a consistently measurable and predictable way.
In Global Warming, man-caused CO2 emissions are the “cause” and warmer temperatures somewhere on earth are the “effect.”
And CO2 emissions provably increased over the course of the 20th century. The effects are variably melting polar ice caps, rising oceans, and diminished Himalayan snow.
Except when Global Warming scientists are forced to acknowledge that The Himalayas and nearby peaks have lost no ice in the past 10 years. This seems like it would call into question whether more CO2 from humans, a fact, is causing warmer temperatures that melt natural ice formations the world over. Global Warming beliebers talk about ice melting on tops of mountains all the time, citing it as clear incontrovertible evidence.
Confronted with this inconvenient observation, scientists like Professor John Wahr accept that no ice has been lost, but refuse to acknowledge such evidence changing Global Warming predictions:
“Our results and those of everyone else show we are losing a huge amount of water into the oceans every year,” said Prof John Wahr of the University of Colorado. “People should be just as worried about the melting of the world’s ice as they were before.”
And that makes sense. Wahr and his team explain that even if ice isn’t being lost in this region, satellite images show that it’s being lost at lower elevations, one small region maintaining its ice isn’t going to account for a significant slowing of the rise of the oceans, and really what’s happening is that the Himalayas ARE losing tons of ice, but it’s being replaced somehow before the loss can be measured. These explanations show that the Himalayas not showing any net melt is not proof that scientific predictions of Global Warming are wrong or exaggerated. Absolutely true.
And at the same time, scientific evidence is usually supposed to be falsifiable. If the smartest and most noble scientists we have predict a loss of ice in the Himalayas and it doesn’t happen — it’s supposed to have consequences. But it doesn’t. If ice was lost as predicted, it would further prove that Global Warming is real and scientifically sound and factual. But if ice isn’t lost, there’s a bundle of other explanations that show why this is insignificant to the integrity of to the Global Warming theory. But there is not a bundle of other explanations other than CO2 to explain warm weather.
Figuring that the reason scientists were studying Himalayan ice over the course of a decade was to test a Global Warming hypothesis, what happens when a confirming observation only has one explanation, but a disconfirming observation has several? Either the Himalaya study was not falsifiable — and therefore not legitimate science — or the disconfirmation of the hypothesis should raise serious questions in the confidence we have in Global Warming predictions. Yet neither is true, according to Global Warming scientists.
Imagine the headlines if the Himalayas lost as much ice as predicted. Now imagine if ice loss exceeded scientists’ predictions. But the result of no ice loss is no threat to Global Warming doctrine. This may very well be because the Himalaya region really can’t explain Global Warming at all. But remember what those headlines looked like when the predictions were correct?
If the Himalayas are not relevant to Global Warming research, which their inability to falsify anything seems to suggest, why are they being studied by Global Warming scientists? Just for fun? On whose dime? It’s a low-risk, high-reward venture to be able to further prove your already-proved hypothesis if your predictions are correct, but have your colleagues easily accept your explanation if those predictions turn out not to come true.
There is nothing wrong with making a wrong scientific prediction. That’s how science gets better, that’s how scientists eventually get it right. We learn more that way. But it seems sneaky to let the media continue to talk about defrosted mountaintops in the Himalayas. It’s a striking mental image to see those bare brown peaks where snow was once abundant. But it’s apparently irrelevant to Global Warming theory. So it should not be a part of the discussion. Reasoning goes something like this:
1) The Himalayas losing snow as predicted would further confirm Global Warming theory.
2) The Himalayas suffered no snow loss in the past decade.
3) This doesn’t disconfirm Global Warming — other factors explain this failed prediction.
4) Ice loss in the Himalayas is not an essential or scientifically credible measure of Global Warming.
Therefore:
5) In the interest of honesty, curiosity, and pursuing further knowledge, we should tell everyone who has cited ice loss in these mountaintops as evidence of Global Warming that they are not so related, and correct anyone to continues to cite the Himalayas so as proof.
This will prevent further misinformation and unclarities, while orienting us further toward sound science.
Let’s see it happen.
