04 September 20XX
“Eppur si muove,” (“and yet it moves”) Galileo has been said to say after he withdrew his contention that the earth revolved around the sun. Whether Galileo said it or whether, as Hayton suspects it was an interesting fiction developed for a piece of art in the middle 1600s is ultimately irrelevant. It captures the essence of science. Indeed, it captures the absurdity of the phrase “settled science.” The “settled science” to which Gallileo ultimately capitulated was utterly wrong. And yet, indeed, it was the Earth that moved.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is the United Nations’ group that focuses on climate change. The IPCC lines up clearly on the climate-change-is-happening side of the argument (Field et. al.). The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) stands clearly on the same side of the discussion (Climate Change Science). This is particularly important since EPA imposes regulations with price tags in the billions of dollars based on their understanding of the science.
On the other side is an array of skeptics. The Heartland Institute, for example, is a conservative/libertarian “think tank” and publishes a weekly web publication Climate Change. They also sponsor the more formal Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change. Reputable scientists are also skeptics. Pre-eminent among them is Dr. Roy W. Spencer whose web site Global Warming features a variety of peer reviewed scientific articles on the subject.
Unfortunately, in 2016 is has become impossible to separate the scientific from the political as climate change “science” (quotation marks used advisedly) becomes embedded into policy making. The EPA introduces the Clean Power Plan, for example, with “On August 3, 2015, President Obama and EPA announced the Clean Power Plan – a historic and important step in reducing carbon pollution from power plants that takes real action on climate change” (emphasis added) (Clean Power Plan for Existing U.S. Plants). On the basis of climate change, then, regulations that will, according to the Institute for Energy Research, cost $214 billion by 2030 and result in double digit rate increases for most states and fully 25% increases in electric rates in 16 states, have been promulgated.
Beyond the questions of whether or not the science is “settled” (it is not) is the recent return to attempts at stifling the very discussion. The Attorneys General for the State of New York and the U.S. Virgin Islands have issued subpoenas for Exxon and the Competitive Enterprise Institute, among others, for their records and communications on the subject of global warming as part of a Racketeering Influence and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) action (Prosecuting Climate Dissent). To these officials, questioning the “settled” science is equivalent to being part of organized crime. Clearlythey think the science is so completely settled that no further discussion can be allowed.
Who is to be believed then? Will it be Michael Mann and his hockey stick? Appell seems to accept that. Or should we look to Roy Spencer and his Spaghetti graph (95% of Climate Models Agree: The Observations Must Be Wrong)? Both have PhDs. Both document their work. Both have extensive credentials and people who believe that they are right. One is a college professor, one a NASA scientist.
The point, of course, is that the science is clearly not “settled.” Nor can science ever be “settled.” Sir Isaac Newton produced three laws of motion which were considered “settled science” for two centuries. They sufficed to explain the ballistics of cannon fire, for example. But it required Albert Einstein to demonstrate that the science was not so settled after all. Einstein’s “science” was accurate and predictive enough to end a war. And now the CERN supercollider is putting question Einstein (The Large Hadron Collider).
Science is never settled. It is a process. Old laws fall and new theories replace them. It really is just that simple.
Works Cited
Appel, D. “Behind the Hockey Stick.” Scientific American. 2005, Mar. 1. Web. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/behind-the-hockey-stick/ Accessed 2016, Aug. 25.
Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2016, Feb. 11. Web. https://www.epa.gov/cleanpowerplan/clean-power-plan-existing-power-plants Accessed 2016, Aug. 25.
Climate Change Science. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2016, Aug. 9. Web. https://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/science/ 2016, Aug. 25.
Climate Change Weekly. The Heartland Institute. Web. https://www.heartland.org/topics/climate-change/index.html 2016, Aug. 26.
Field, C. et. al. Summary for Policy Makers. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2014. Web. http://ipcc-wg2.gov/AR5/images/uploads/WG2AR5_SPM_FINAL.pdf Accesed 2016, Aug. 25.
Hayton, D. Toward A History of “eppur si muove.” Historian of Science. 2012, June 3. Web. http://dhayton.haverford.edu/blog/2012/06/03/toward-a-history-of-eppur-si-muove/ Accessed 2016, Aug. 25.
Louvier, G. Newton’s Laws of Motion. 2006, Oct. 6. Web. http://teachertech.rice.edu/Participants/louviere/Newton/ Accessed 2016, Aug. 25.
Milloy, S. JunkScience.com. Web. http://junkscience.com/2016/04/our-friends-at-cei-face-a-subpoena-over-climate-dissent/ Accessed 2016, Aug. 25.
Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change. The Heartland Institute. Web. http://climatechangereconsidered.org/ Accessed 2016, Aug. 26.
Obama’s “Clean Power Plan” Should Be Called the “Costly Power Plan.” Institute for Energy Research. 2015, Nov. 19. Web. http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/analysis/obamas-clean-power-plan-should-be-called-the-costly-power-plan/ Accessed 2016, Aug. 25.
Prosecuting Climate Dissent. Wall Street Journal Editorial Staff. 2015, Nov. 8. Web. http://www.wsj.com/articles/prosecuting-climate-dissent-1447020219 Accessed 2016, Aug. 25.
Spencer, R. Global Warming. 2016. Web. http://www.drroyspencer.com/ Accessed 2016, Aug. 25.
Spencer, R. 95% of Climate Models Agree: The Observations must be wrong. 2014, Feb. 7. Web. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/behind-the-hockey-stick/ Accessed 2016, Aug. 25.
The Large Hadron Collider. Web. https://home.cern/topics/large-hadron-collider Acessed 2016, Aug. 26.
