Assignment Writing Service http://HelpWriting.net/A-Brief-Perspective-On-Climate-Change-S 👈

1. A Brief Perspective on Climate Change Skepticism
Michael Sidiropoulos, MEng
Scientific skepticism is nothing more than the normal attitude in the natural sciences to inquire
about the validity of a scientific proposition. It is not possible to present a historical or
philosophical analysis of climate change skepticism in this brief essay. I will therefore opt for a
few suggestions:
• John Tyndall, a prominent 19th-century Irish physicist, performed an experiment in 1861
and observed new chemical reactions produced by high frequency light waves acting on
certain gases. Tyndall’s scientific interest was to determine the mechanism by which
molecules absorb radiant energy. His experiment had been preceded by a similar
experiment by Eunice Newton Foote who demonstrated in 1856 that water vapour and
carbon dioxide absorb heat from solar radiation. The work of Foote and Tyndall
constitute the genesis of the Greenhouse Effect theory (GHE). Foote’s and Tyndall’s
conclusions were contested by other scientists who claimed that the experiments proved
nothing more than the mere fact that heat moves from warm to cold bodies. This was the
first significant instance of skepticism in the science of climate change.
• Svante Arrhenius, a Swedish scientist regarded as one of the founders of physical
chemistry, developed a theory in 1896, intended to determine whether greenhouse gases
could explain the temperature variation between glacial and inter-glacial periods.
Arrhenius’ conclusion was that if the quantity of CO2 increases in geometric progression,
the temperature will increase in arithmetic progression. This result was met with
skepticism and criticism by other scientists such as Knut Ångström, who claimed that
absorption of infrared radiation by gases in the atmosphere was already saturated so that
adding more could make no difference. Arrhenius later acknowledged that he
overestimated the impact of CO2 by as much as 300% and his work was largely rejected
by the scientific community.
• In 1995 the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued a report with
evidence showing that there is a clear human influence on global climate. Critics accused
the IPCC of inadequate analysis and selectivity of evidence which failed to mention 18
years of weather satellite data that showed a global cooling trend, contradicting all
theoretical models of climate warming. Selectivity and bias were attributed to the IPCC
by some scientific circles, leading to the emergence of greater skepticism.
• In 2009 it was reported that scientists at the University of East Anglia’s Climatic
Research Unit in the United Kingdom confessed to throwing out raw temperature data
that did not support the theory of global warming. Investigations revealed a major
scientific scandal, probably the worst in world history. The scandal caused a great deal of

2. skepticism and did much to damage the credibility of global warming, a crucial and
legitimate scientific and social issue.
• Another source of skepticism is the failure of climate models to make correct predictions.
Parameterizations are performed to bring the hindcasts in line with the empirical
observations. This leads to renewed divergences between forecasts and hindcasts,
requiring new parameterizations for compatibility with new data. The system eventually
degrades to a mere duplication of empirical observations.
• The transition from “global cooling” in the 1970’s to “global warming” in the 1990’s and
to “climate change” more recently, fueled more skepticism. The phenomenon “climate
change” is constantly occurring through the history of the planet, it cannot be refuted, and
it is therefore not a scientific proposition.
• The idea that the science had been “settled” with a 97% consensus of anthropogenic
global warming was propagated to the scientific community and the public by a paper
published in 2013 by John Cook, a researcher at Monash University in Australia. The
97% consensus was derived from studies, including those stating that human activities
contribute to warming, an idea which is shared by almost every scientist. The misleading
conclusion led to the emergence of greater skepticism.
• Current worldwide research is vigorous and focuses primarily on the exploration of
natural variabilities, such as solar variabilities combined with ocean multidecadal thermal
oscillations. A solution to the problem of climate change will ultimately require a
quantification and comparison of natural and anthropogenic impacts. This research on
alternative theories is a direct benefit of genuine scientific skepticism.
We have seen numerous statistical correlations between CO2 and global temperatures in the
climate change literature, implying a causal relationship between the two phenomena. We have
not seen a reference to Reichenbach’s Common Cause Principle, which would explain the
correlations via a common cause. I would suggest that this is fertile ground for new research.
From a philosophy of science perspective, the main driver of climate change skepticism is the
underdetermination of climate models. There are more unknown variables, interactions, and
feedbacks than known constraints (equations). An underdetermined system has many solutions,
i.e., many theories that satisfy the empirical observations.
Climate science skepticism is a natural reaction to a widespread acceptance of an unproven
theory. Skepticism is not just a legitimate scientific attitude; it is an inherent attitude in science,
and it is the energy that drives the process of scientific discovery.
Credit: All participants in the discussion at Researchgate.net and especially Brendan Godwin and Janusz
Pudykiewicz for their valuable suggestions.
© 2021 Michael Sidiropoulos