The evolution of western science thought? … If so, for the better? …Or worse? ...About the same?

As a school boy, I learned about Copernicus, Tycho, Kepler, and Galileo. Mostly I learned about their individual contributions to advancing scientific understanding. Also I learned about their persecutions for rocking the boats of others. The others tended to be religious leaders who disagreed, were threatened by change, or just sponsors who just did not want to get involved.

Being right or wrong was not important. It was what you thought and how you said it.

As a school boy in the 1960s, I confidently told myself that we humans were beyond this. Persecution for scientific ideas was a thing of the past. Thought control was an ancient problem based on ignorance.

Later in adulthood, I gained hobbies, one being prehistory. This hobby exposed me to persecution for other ideas. Human history is replete with histories of inquisition, murder, burning, and destruction by groups suppressing ideas and customs foreign to them. The Roman Catholics’ burning of the Cathars in France during 1244, and the Taliban’s destruction of the Bamiyan Buddhas in 2001, are two other examples of such behavior over a long period of time.

My report card is: you decide. Here’s some evidence compiled by myself.

First my subject matter expertise or lack thereof. I aced thermodynamics at GaTech (albeit the second time) and later graduated from there with an engineering degree. I read a lot, mostly engineering and scientific articles for laymen. And I read a lot about prehistory, my hobby today. I am pretty good in GIS (geographical information systems), astronomy, survey, orienteering, and use of the internet for research. My 20 years in the Marines exposed me to much and taught me much. One thing at the local level was the importance of politics in selling ideas, since all were generally correct and the main friction was how to proceed.

Now we have the discussion about global warming. Just so you know, I am cynical because of all the aforementioned.

For those old enough, there was the years of 1970’s reporting of the earth’s cooling and the coming ice age. I think even Time Magazine had a cover story on this. (Maybe this is part of why it is failing today?)

Now the fad seems to be global warming. I define a fad as the local flame restaurant or meat market bar for those who care about such things.

Here’s my little bit of science before I go onto my main point, the human aspect.

The greenhouse effect is how the world works. At the end of the last ice age New York City was ½ mile or more under the ice. The earth’s cycles of warming and freezing have cyclical historical precedents that are known. There are many other greenhouse gases with much more power than CO2, but seldom mentioned to the public by subject matter ignorant reporters and Al Gore. Methane is the main culprit, and cows and third world rice fields are main sources of methane. Add in the chaos theory of “sensitive dependence on initial conditions” and ocean salinity’s influence on ocean flows such as the Gulf Stream, and it is a bleak future. And don’t forget methane hydrates.

But is it man’s fault? No. Will man’s contribution advance the problem? Yes, probably by a week or two. That’s my guess.

More on science. Evolution is both gradual, and sometimes cataclysmic. The comet or whatever cataclysmic event ended the dinosaurs about 65 million years ago , or such a similar event, can happen anytime. Perhaps we could have a combo, that is mother nature and humans. Imagine a big lake induced earthquake that breaches the upcoming Three Gorges Dam, floods the ocean, changes the local salinity and temperatures, and changes the ocean flow patterns that changes the weather. Maybe I should write such a novel. Except it has already happened when a great ice dam gave way and the Laurentian ice lake flushed down the St. Lawrence River.

By the way, some changes can be for the better. Change is not always bad.

More on the science side. Those who use or report computer models are well intentioned people at best. We have all heard of garbage in, garbage out. We all know the weather forecast three days out is not something we would plant on. And the global warming computer models tend to be either discreet, or dynamic. The discreet approach needs a super computer to process programmed interactions at the level that tries to approach the real world, but never the less, reduces the world to cubes of maybe 1KM, which is not how God runs the world. And the Heisenberg (uncertainty) principle comes into play. The dynamic approach is thriftier, and uses the programmer's assumptions about interactions. I like this approach because I can play God on the cheap. Last, in all models, there are assumptions that are seldom reported. Assuming the sun remains constant is a common one. Assumptions about how things interact is the norm.

More on the science side; seldom do I read about the influence of releasing the earth’s internal energy into the world. In simple terms, I mean heat. Heat can be from electric generating plants (only 2/3 becomes electricity…the rest is wasted), fires, cars driving, planes flying (90,000 plus flights daily), etc. A good and simple graphic says much when you look at a night satellite photo of the world: http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap001127.html A lot of those bright lights in the middle of no-where are gas field burn-offs. My time in Saudi Arabia showed me H2S fields that were hot 1KM away.

Last on the science side, seldom do I read about the impacts of the vastly expanding world population of humans.

Until we find a person or God who can predict correctly, I suggest reverting to doing what we think is best.

Back to humans, and any common citizen doing homework.

Sadly, I have come to think that most global warming articles are reported by subject matter ignorant reporters who listen to fad or politically influenced scientists, or others like Al Gore. Even his movie reviewers have published opinions.

There are wonderful articles about global warming. Most report more senior scientists whose careers are assured, as if they are not intimidated. Here are two links I like: http://www.ncpa.org/pub/st/st285/ and
http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pdupont/?id=110008416

And last to the human element and the homework assignment about the evolution of human scientific thought.

It appears to me little has changed since the times of Copernicus, Tycho, Kepler, and Galileo.

My evidence is the long standing paucity of scientific information and articles about all the other factors that contribute to the possibility of man induced global warming. Until then, I remain cynical.

Persecutions and intimidations still go on for the same reasons as existed for Galileo and the others. The only change is we no longer burn people or excommunicate them from a religion. Instead we assassinate people’s characters and play hardball with distribution of the vast public monies available today.

The evolution of western science thought? … If so, for the better? …Or worse? ...About the same?