A few years ago, there was a book that appeared on shelves called the “Poltically Incorrect Guide to Evolution”, which used the very typical tactics of pseudoscience to make it look like the theory of evolution and the untested idea of intelligent design were competing scientific principals in how we understand nature. Chris Horner, a recurring author in this series, has recently released “The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming.” What I want to know is, when did “politically incorrect” start to be appropriated to mean “rubbish”?
Flipping to the chapter entitled, “Global Warming 101”, you can pick up on the style quickly. Accusations are delivered rapid fire. References amount to articles in newspapers or magazines, but never a scientific paper. Even Congressional Rep. Inhofe cites actual scientists and their work, but Horner decides that this is too good for his writing. When there is a charge that data refutes the idea that global climate change is man-made, or connected to greenhouse gases, it’s cursory and without reference. I was curious about one of these charges.
The charge was simple: solar activity correlates better with climate change than greenhouse gas levels. The sun’s irradiance appears to be what journal articles cite as a key factor in climate (for instance, search for “solar activity climate change” on Google Scholar). An article by Lean et al. (“Reconstruction of solar irradiance since 1610: Implications for climate change”, GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 22, NO. 23, PAGES 3195–3198, 1995) concludes that given the correlation between solar irradiance and temperature in the northern hemisphere (86%) between 1610 and 1800, the pre-industrial period, the sun is a strong influence on climate. They extend this correlation to the present (1995), and suggest that 1/2 the warming since 1860 may be due to the sun, and 1/3 since 1970. Even admitting that the sun might be a strong influence, it’s only responsible for about 1/2 (or less) of the warming since the beginning of the industrial age. Wow.
A review paper in Science by Crowley (“Causes of climate change over the past 1000 years”,Science 14 July 2000:
Vol. 289. no. 5477, pp. 270 – 277) references the above and notes that even if you correct for solar effects, there is a large “residual” temperature increase in the late 20th century which agrees very well with changes forced by greenhouse gases. Solar induced climate change has a long, slow variability which can be tracked through the historical record and modeled to predict (and verify) its effect in other periods. Once accounted for, you’re still left with a growing temperature change that the sun doesn’t explain. Where Horner gets his statement from – that climate change correlates better with solar activity than greenhouse gases – is a mystery. It didn’t come from legitimate scientific work. Even all the papers that cite the above two seem to explore other ways to see the effect, rather than refute it. This is why references are so important. It’s hard to find the dissenting work(s) he cites in a sea of detailed experimental explorations of the original solar/greenhouse observations. If Horner can’t get this important scientific issue correct, how can you believe anything else he says (even if he might have a few points scattered in this chaff)?
Seems like an honest title for this work would have been “The Completely Factless Guide to Global Warming”. “Politically incorrect” approaches to this issue are more reserved for people who continue to expose those who use their elected power to spread FUD about global climate change, and its man-made component. Let’s call it like it is, rather than hiding bad science behind political incorrectness.
Powered by ScribeFire.
