Bad Science Makes Bad Policy: Why Christian Educators Should Care about Climate Policy

Four-part Series: Part 1; Part 2; Part 3; Part 4

Burke, VA, July 15, 2015

“Bad science makes bad policy.”

That’s what Robert Stewart, Ph.D., Professor and Chair, Department of Science, Technology, and Mathematics, Regent University, said when asked why he had endorsed “An Open Letter on Climate Change to the People, their Local Representatives, the State Legislatures and Governors, the Congress, and the President of the United States of America.”

That Open Letter is reprinted below, and you are invited to join Dr. Stewart and over 150 other scholars in endorsing it.

“Bad science makes bad policy.”

Why did Dr. Stewart offer that as his reason for signing?

Because bad science is the foundation of fears of dangerous, manmade global warming and therefore of any policy recommended to reduce it.

Last week I sent you an initial email inviting you to endorse this Open Letter. If you’re like many Americans, you found the Open Letter’s position surprising, because you’ve heard that many national academies of science, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and an alleged overwhelming consensus of the world’s scientists say the opposite.

So why should you judge that Dr. Stewart is right and all those others are wrong?

Because the key to science is not counting to see how many people agree with you but testing hypotheses and theories against real-world observation.

By that criterion, the hypothesis of dangerous, manmade global warming fails. Miserably.

In a nutshell, from 1990 onward the IPCC and those who agree with it have said that human emissions of carbon dioxide should be warming the atmosphere at a rate of about 3˚ C per century, or 0.3˚ per decade. Until 2013, they said the rate could be as low as 2.0˚ per century (0.15˚ per decade) or as high as 4.5˚ per century (0.45˚ per decade), and in 2013 they adjusted the low-end estimate to 1.5˚, but 3˚ remains their best estimate.

They also claim that warming of more than 2˚ compared with pre-industrial times—and so far there’s been about 0.8˚ of warming since then—would be dangerous to human and other life. (That claim lacks persuasive empirical evidence, but we can accept it provisionally for the moment.)

How do their predictions compare with real-world observations?

Over the 36.5 years covered by our most reliable global temperature measurements—obtained by satellites—global average temperature (GAT) has risen, as illustrated in this graph, only 0.407˚. Continued for a century, that would be 1.115˚, or a decadal rate of 0.11˚, which is 27% lower than the lower-bound rate the IPCC claims.
To achieve the 3˚ “best estimate” for a century, GAT would have to rise another 2.593˚ in the remaining 63.5 years, a rate of 0.41˚ per decade, which is 3.7 times as fast as the observed rate so far. To achieve the 2˚ lower bound claimed for over 20 years, GAT would have to rise two-and-a-quarter times as fast as the observed rate. Even to reach the 1.5˚ the IPCC now claims is the lower bound, GAT would have to rise one-and-a-half times as fast as the observed rate.

And there is no empirically driven reason to think warming will accelerate in coming decades. On the contrary, because the warming effect of rising carbon dioxide concentration is logarithmic, warming attributable to it should slow, not accelerate, as CO₂ continues its steady rise.

Look at it another way:

On average the computer models on which the IPCC relies simulate twice as much warming as observed over the relevant period.
Over 95% simulate more warming than observed, meaning their errors are not random but driven by bias built into the models (probably incorrectly assuming that many climate feedbacks, such as clouds, are strongly positive that are instead either only weakly positive or actually negative).
None simulated the complete absence of statistically significant warming for the last 17 to 27 years, depending on the database—18 years and 8 months according to the satellite data.

For it to make sense to try to slow anthropogenic (human-induced) global warming (AGW), particularly when the only way to do so is to slow or stop economic development in the world’s poorer countries and reverse it in the richer ones, AGW must pose grave danger. It does so only if we have good reason to believe it will be rapid and sustained, that is, if “climate sensitivity” (warming in response to added CO₂) is high. These facts are extremely difficult to reconcile with that idea.

You might have seen news recently that a study from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) proved that, contrary to that last point, global warming has continued throughout the time that many call “the pause.” I happen to think, along with many climate scientists, that that study was fatally flawed. But even assuming that the dataset NOAA constructed in that study is right and all the others, which do show “the pause,” are wrong, the implication for the rapidity of AGW is incompatible with the alarmist case.

As Dr. Roy W. Spencer, a NASA award-winning scientist and now Principal Research Scientist in Climatology at the University of Alabama in Huntsville and U.S. Science Team Leader on NASA’s Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer (AMSR) on the Aqua Satellite—the source of the satellite data—points out:

Even if it has warmed in the last 15 years, the rate of surface warming (and deep-ocean warming) we have seen in the last 50 years still implies low climate sensitivity.

If you read Spencer’s complete article you’ll see why he concludes that even if NOAA is right about “the pause,” climate sensitivity is low—only about 1.5˚ for every doubling of atmospheric CO₂ concentration.

In fact, among climate scientists specializing in climate sensitivity there is a clear trend toward lower and lower estimates of it, as the chart below shows. Why? Because the empirical measurements of GAT have fallen so much lower than model-generated predictions.

In the chart, the dates are dates of publication (bottom axis) of peer-reviewed studies making estimates of climate sensitivity measured in degrees Celsius (left axis). ECS denotes “equilibrium climate sensitivity,” warming predicted in response to doubled atmospheric CO₂ concentration after all climate-system feedbacks are accounted for, a process that could take more than a century after CO₂ concentration has doubled. TCR denotes “transient climate response,” the temperature change at the time of CO₂ doubling but before all climate feedbacks have run their course. Generally the IPCC anticipates CO₂ will have doubled from pre-industrial times by late in this century (though this is not certain), so TCR would occur by then as well, and ECS a century or two later.

Those who charge people skeptical of claims of dangerous manmade warming (like us at the Cornwall Alliance) with being anti-science need to consider carefully: Who’s been trending right about how much warming comes from adding CO2 to the atmosphere—the alarmists, or the skeptics? (For in-depth discussion, see Nicholas Lewis, “Pitfalls in climate sensitivity estimation,” Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3.)

Dr. Spencer is among the over 150 scholars (two-thirds with Ph.D.’s) who have endorsed the Open Letter so far. He is joined by 87 other scientists and mathematicians (including 15 climate scientists, 23 engineers, 9 physicists, and 5 environmental scientists), 44 theologians, philosophers, and ethicists, and 23 social scientists (including 6 economists and 4 legal scholars).

Among the scientists are two of the world’s most eminent physicists, William Happer and Freeman Dyson, both of Princeton; four of the world’s most eminent climate scientists (Spencer, former National Hurricane Center Director Neil Frank, legendary hurricane expert William Gray, and University of Delaware Climatology Professor David Legates); and several members of “The Right Climate Stuff Research Team,” a team of former NASA space program engineers who have applied their expertise in radiative heat transfer (essential for designing spacecraft to maintain proper temperature—which requires understanding and applying the same physics that determines earth’s temperature) to estimating climate sensitivity and have concluded that it is very low and hence not dangerous.

You might wonder why the non-scientists’ opinions should count. It’s because climate change and climate policies are among the most interdisciplinary problems we face, and scholars from a wide variety of fields have valuable insights to contribute to assessing and solving them.

I list these people not to say, “See, they think this, so it must be right,” but to say instead, “See, they think this, so it’s not likely to be crazy. It’s at least worth your careful consideration.”

And why should you take the time to give it that careful consideration?

Because policies recommended to reduce AGW would require rapid replacement of coal and natural gas as sources of electricity (because using them emits CO₂) with wind and solar, which run two to eight times more expensive.

That means raising the cost of energy for everyone and delaying for decades or generations the time when developing countries in which over 2 billion people have no access to electricity live and burn wood and dung as primary cooking and heating fuels, killing about 4 million a year.

But that is what the current Administration and the United Nations are intent on doing.

Preventing that is our purpose in the Open Letter.

So I invite you again to thoughtfully and prayerfully consider adding your endorsement. (Endorsements are no longer open). Along with items linked above, the following studies by Cornwall Alliance scholars could be helpful as you consider whether you might endorse:

Whether you decide to endorse this Open Letter or not, I hope you will have found the information offered here and in last week’s email helpful as you consider the complex and challenging issues surrounding climate change and climate policy.

In Christ,

E. Calvin Beisner, Ph.D.,
Founder & National Spokesman, Calvin@CornwallAlliance.org
The Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation
Business office: 3712 Ringgold Rd., Chattanooga, TN 37412
www.CornwallAlliance.org

An Open Letter on Climate Change
to the People, their Local Representatives,
the State Legislatures and Governors,
the Congress, and the President
of the United States of America

Human-induced climate change, also known as anthropogenic global warming (AGW), is real. Crucial questions facing the public and policymakers are its magnitude, its benefits and harms relative to the benefits and harms of the activities that drive it, and the benefits and harms of proposed responses to it.

As the American people and their political representatives formulate policy regarding AGW, they should consider the following:

Human Exceptionalism and Humanity’s Role in the Earth

Severe poverty, widespread hunger, rampant disease, and short life spans were the ordinary condition of humankind until the last two-and-a-half centuries. These tragedies are normal when human beings act and are treated as if they were mere animals, which need to submit to nature. The Judeo-Christian heritage (Genesis 1:28; 2:15), in agreement with common sense, teaches instead that human beings are exceptional, able to rule over nature, freeing ourselves from poverty and hunger to live long and healthy lives. Our rule over nature should express not the abusive rule of a tyrant but the loving and generous rule of God the Creator (Genesis 2:15). It should thus express itself by enhancing the fruitfulness, beauty, and safety of the earth (Genesis 1:1–31; 2:4–14), to the glory of God and the benefit of our neighbors (Matthew 22:36–38).

How Societies Overcome Poverty

Our Judeo-Christian moral tradition puts a high priority on protecting and helping the poor (Psalm 41:1; Galatians 2:10). It also teaches, along with economic history, that what delivers people from absolute material poverty is a combination of moral, social, political, scientific, and technological institutions. These include science and technology grounded on a view of the physical world as an ordered cosmos that rational creatures can understand and harness for human betterment; private property rights, entrepreneurship, and widespread trade, protected by the rule of law enforced by limited and responsive governments; and abundant, affordable, reliable energy generated from high-density, portable, constantly accessible sources. By replacing animal and human muscle and low-density energy sources like wood, dung, and other biofuels, and low-density, intermittent wind and solar, fossil and nuclear fuels have freed people from the basic tasks of survival to devote time and bodily energy to other occupations.

Empirical Evidence Suggests that Fossil Fuel Use Will Not Cause Catastrophic Warming

Many fear that carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel use endanger humanity and the environment because they lead to historically unprecedented, dangerous global warming. This has led many well-meaning people to call for reduced carbon dioxide emissions and hence reduced use of fossil fuels.

Computer climate models of the warming effect of enhanced atmospheric carbon dioxide are the basis for that fear. However, to validly inform policymaking, computer climate models must be validated by real-world observation, and they have not been. Over time, observed global average temperature (GAT) diverges increasingly from modeled GAT.

On average, models simulate more than twice the warming observed over the period during which anthropogenic warming is supposed to have been the greatest (about the last 35 years). None simulate the complete absence of observed warming over approximately the last 20 years at Earth’s surface and 17 to 27 years in the lower troposphere (where we live).¹ Over 95 percent simulate more warming than observed. These data confirm the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) observation that we are currently experiencing an absence of global warming long enough to be nearly impossible to reconcile with the models.

All of this makes it increasingly clear that the models greatly exaggerate the warming effect of carbon dioxide. The models’ errors are not random—as often above as below observed temperatures, and by similar magnitudes—but consistently above observed temperatures, making it apparent that the models are biased. The large and growing divergence between model simulations and observed GAT severely reduces the models’ credibility both for predicting future GAT and for informing policy.

The Judeo-Christian worldview provided the basis for scientific method by teaching that a rational God designed an ordered universe to be understood and controlled by rational persons made in His image (Genesis 1:26), which is why science as a systematic activity arose in medieval Europe. One of Christ’s apostles, Paul, even asserted the essence of science when he wrote, “Test all things, hold fast what is good” (1 Thessalonians 5:21). In that spirit, Nobel Prize-winning physicist Richard Feynman explained “the key to science” this way:

In general we look for a new law by the following process. First we guess it. Then we compute the consequences of the guess to see what would be implied if this law that we guessed is right. Then we compare the result of the computation to nature, with experiment or experience, compare it directly with observation, to see if it works. If it disagrees with experiment it is wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It does not make any difference how beautiful your guess is. It does not make any difference how smart you are, who made the guess, or what his name is—if it disagrees with experiment it is wrong. That is all there is to it.²

We would add to Feynman’s statement that it also makes no difference how many people agree with your guess. The scientific method never appeals to consensus. It demands that theories be tested by empirical observation. By that test, the models are wrong. They therefore provide no rational basis to forecast dangerous human-induced global warming and no rational basis for efforts to reduce warming, whether by restricting the use of fossil fuels or by any other means.

For the Foreseeable Future, Wind and Solar Energy Cannot Effectively Replace Fossil Fuel and Nuclear Energy

Fossil fuels, because of their lower costs and higher efficiency, account for over 85 percent of total global energy use, and nuclear energy for about 6 percent. Wind and solar energy, because of their higher costs and lower efficiency, account for only a few percent. Mandated substitution of low-density, intermittent energy sources like wind and solar for high-density, constant sources like fossil fuels, before the former technologies become economically competitive, would be catastrophic to the world’s poor. It would simultaneously raise the cost and reduce the reliability and availability of energy, especially electricity. This, in turn, would raise the cost of all other goods and services—especially food—since all require energy to produce and transport. It would destroy scores to hundreds of thousands of jobs in America and, by slowing economic growth, prevent the creation of millions more here and abroad, especially in the developing world. It would slow the rise of the poor out of poverty and threaten to return millions to it. And it would make electricity grids unstable, leading to more frequent and widespread, costly and often fatal, brownouts and blackouts—events mercifully rare in wealthy countries but all too familiar to billions of people living in countries without comprehensive, stable electric grids supplied by stable fossil or nuclear fuels.

The Poor Would Suffer Most from Attempts to Restrict Affordable Energy Use

The poor, whether in America or elsewhere, will suffer most from such policies. The world’s poorest—the 1.3 billion in developing countries who depend on wood and dried dung as primary cooking and heating fuels, smoke from which kills 4 million and temporarily debilitates hundreds of millions every year—will be condemned to more generations of poverty and its deadly consequences. Instead, they desperately need to replace such primitive and dirty fuels with electricity, the most affordable sources of which are fossil fuels.

The poor in the developed world, too, need more, and cheaper, electricity and other energy from fossil fuels. On average, they spend two or more times as much of their incomes on energy as the middle class. When governments mandate substitution of wind and solar for fossil fuels, the affected poor lose access to decent food, housing, education, health care, and more as their energy costs rise. Some freeze to death, as tens of thousands did in the United Kingdom in several recent winters due to that nation’s rush to substitute wind and solar for coal to generate electricity, because they are unable to pay their electricity bills and still buy enough food.

Affordable Energy Can Help Millions of the World’s Poor Emerge from Poverty

The same computer climate models that exaggerate the warming effect of atmospheric carbon dioxide nonetheless rightly simulate that greater economic development driven by growing use of fossil fuels will add more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. Consequently, the IPCC finds that the warmest scenarios for the future are also the richest, especially for those societies that are now the poorest.

The risks of poverty and misguided energy policies that would prolong it far outweigh the risks of climate change. Adequate wealth enables people to thrive in a wide array of climates, hot or cold, wet or dry. Poverty undermines human health and life even in the best of climates. It follows that because reducing fossil fuel use means reducing economic development, it also means condemning poor societies to remain poor, and requiring poor people of today to sacrifice for richer people of the future—a clear injustice.

Rising Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Enhances Plant Growth

While adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere causes far less warming than previously feared, it has a positive effect on plant life. Scientifically understood, carbon dioxide is not a pollutant but a gas harmless at twenty times its current atmospheric concentration and vital to all life on the earth.

With more carbon dioxide in the air, plants grow better in warmer and cooler temperatures and wetter and drier soils, make better use of soil nutrients, and resist diseases and pests better, increasing their fruit production, expanding their range, and greening the earth. This makes more food available to all other creatures, especially—as agricultural yields rise, making food more affordable—the world’s poor. Substituting wind, solar, and other low-density energy sources for coal, oil, and natural gas therefore hurts the poor not only by raising energy (and all other) prices but also by reducing food production. It also hurts the rest of life on earth by depriving it of the fertilizing effect of heightened carbon dioxide.

By using fossil fuels to generate energy to lift billions of God’s precious children out of poverty, we liberate from the tomb of the earth the carbon dioxide on which plants and therefore all the rest of life depend. This beautifully reveals the Creator’s wisdom and care for all of His creation—people, animals, plants, and the earth itself.

Summary and Call to Action

Climate change is overwhelmingly natural and cyclical; human contribution to it is slight and not dangerous; attempts to reduce human contribution by reducing CO2 emissions would cause more harm than good; and expanded use of fossil fuels is necessary to provide the abundant, affordable, reliable energy indispensable to lifting and keeping societies out of poverty. Although CO2 emissions warm the earth slightly, they do not warm it dangerously, and the benefits of fossil fuel use, especially in enabling whole societies to rise, and remain, out of poverty, far outweigh whatever risks might accompany their small contribution to global warming.

In light of these considerations,

We call on the American people to speak out against policies aimed at curbing global warming and make their views known to opinion leaders at local, state, and national levels.
We call on local, state, and federal policymakers to speak out against and refuse to endorse any global agreements that require such policies.
We call on the news media both to resist demands by climate alarmists to conform their coverage of climate science and policy to any consensus that human activity is causing dangerous climate change and to refuse to characterize those who challenge any such consensus on scientific grounds as “deniers,” a pejorative term incompatible with rational, open, respectful discussion of scientific issues.

It is both unwise and unjust to adopt policies, whether at local, state, or federal levels, let alone a global agreement, requiring reduced use of fossil fuels for energy. Such policies would condemn hundreds of millions of our fellow human beings to ongoing poverty, and put hundreds of millions more at risk of returning to the poverty from which they rose, while achieving no significant climate benefit. We respectfully appeal to you to reject them.

¹McKitrick, R.R., 2014, “HAC-Robust Measurement of the Duration of a Trendless Subsample in a Global Climate Time Series,” Open Journal of Statistics (4):527–535, online at http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/ojs.2014.47050.

²Feynman, R., 1965, The Character of Physical Law (London: British Broadcasting Corporation), 4, emphasis added.

Bad Science Makes Bad Policy: Why Christian Educators Should Care about Climate Policy

About E. Calvin Beisner

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Search

Listen to Our Podcast