Murphy's Law and Global Warming

There are several Murphy's Laws besides the famous "If anything can go wrong, it will." One such law is Murphy's "Law of Research" which states: "Enough research will tend to support whatever theory."

I have always felt that Murphy's "Law of Research" has been "at play" in support of "Global Warming". Where Murphy gets it right is that, all too often, parts of the scientific community will establish a thesis and, in doing so, focus all their work in proving it; to the exclusion of any contradictory data. That's why, sometimes, you get numerous opposing results. Often, this is because a broad spectrum of data is being excluded or ignored so that the desired (or preferred) conclusion is reached. A typical example has to do with the research on coffee. How many times have you heard that coffee is bad for you? How often have you heard that coffee isn't harmful or that it might actually have benefits? Many times you have to look at who's doing the study and, more importantly, who's paying them to do it!

I have worked with many scientists in my business career. I worked for a major, Fortune 100, health care company. Often, scientists are highly idealistic and very impractical. (And, I could go on!) That's why it sometime takes the non-scientist to oversee their work and to make sure that they stay on track.

In this blog, I have often been highly critical of the hysteria over Global Warming; at least when it come to being man made. In a March 2008 entry to this blog, "The Cooling Realities of Global Warming" (click to link to it), I listed a number of recent studies which have contradicted the core belief that humans are causing global warming.

Well, the data to support my belief just keeps rolling in. The latest is the fact that the ice sheets in Greenland: (1) may not be melting as fast as once thought and/or (2) might actually have stopped or reversed in its melting (See Full Story).

The above story didn't even make the headlines. That's because the "liberal press" won't hear of it. The media has bought into the liberal-line that mankind is destroying everything on earth. In the 1960's and 70's, the culprit in the destruction of this world was sulfur dioxide, lead, PCB's, and all the other toxins that industry was spewing into the atmosphere and dumping into our waterways. Once industry was able to substantially overcome and suppress those contaminants, the "greens" of the world decided to focus on one of the most common of elements in our atmosphere, CO2 (carbon dioxide) as something we should worry about. Forget about the fact that every time we take a breath, oxygen is taken in and CO2 is expelled. Also, forget about the fact that plants on this earth will survive (better) in a CO2-rich environment because carbon dioxide is essential to photosynthesis which, in turn, returns oxygen to the earth so that we can survive. And, for this reason, I firmly believe that the "Gaia Hypothesis" (See Full Story) may be at play in our environment. The earth "might" actually be healing itself by offsetting the increased CO2 levels with a more robust plant environment. The result could be a natural reduction in CO2 and the increased production of oxygen in our atmosphere.

Idealism plays a big part in the scientific community's work on Global Warming. To say that most scientists are liberals and environmentalist would be an understatement. For this reason, finding conclusions against the use of "fossil fuels" can be quite the incentive; often, to the exclusion of less supportive or contradictory data. And, don't get me wrong. I don't think it is intentionally done. I just think that, like being in love, the scientific community "can be" blind to all the facts.

Lastly, my guess is that almost all of the scientists in the world are "not" independently wealthy. (Just a guess!) I suspect that almost all of them are able to do their work based on grants and salaries received from some (liberal?) university or some other organization like a government or an organization like the United Nations. I also know, having worked with them, that "their" actual research is focused in a single direction and that direction is often based on the constraints placed on them by those who have funded their work. To some extent, this taints their results because, in order to continue their studies (and their pay), they almost always "have to" provide study results that are "favorable" in the minds of their benefactors. That's why Al Gore's claim that scientists who "don't" believe in Global Warming do so because of their are being paid by polluting companies is just another liberal red herring. All scientists, for and against Global Warming, are, in some degree, beholding to someone; both idealistically and financially. That's why, I think, Murphy's "Law of Research" aptly applies to Global Warming; both pro and con.

As usual.. This is just my opinion.. Just my thoughts!

As an aside... There over 1,000 wildfires burning in California. How much CO2 do you think is being pumped into our atmosphere as a result? I don't actually know, but my guess is that it will take a substantial reduction in "automobile exhaust" to offset the "smoke" that is so widespread that it can be easily seen from satellite images. Images that show that smoke blanketing several States in the Western United States. Some of those fires could have been minimized or even avoided if the environmentalists hadn't blocked clear cutting, removal of old and undergrowth, and allowed permanent firebreaks to be set in fire prone areas. Somebody ought to tell the environmentalists that dead "trees" and plants are God's original fossil fuel!