Dakota Beacon

Forty-two years ago Charles Fair (1917-2014), at that time a resident scientist with MIT’s Neuroscience Research Program, published a book titled “The New Nonsense: The End of Rational Consensus.” in his premise, Fair maintained that over the past 200 years America had digressed from an age of reason to an age of sensation. He further contended that our founders embraced reason as a fundamental element of civilized society.

When he wrote “The New Nonsense” in 1974 Fair asserted that the element of reason as a cultural prerequisite was viewed at that time with suspicion and even contempt. The high standard of reason had already given way to the intuitive, the emotional, and the gut feeling. He maintained that reason had atrophied and continues to do so.

Even in the presence of scientific and technical knowledge rational thinking does not necessarily manifest itself. For example, the US Air Force spent millions of dollars studying UFOs. Other federal agencies conducted research projects or awarded huge grants to study extra sensory perception, ghosts, psi phenomena, witchcraft and telepathy.

This was the perspective forty-two years ago. An update or sequel to Fair’s book would be appropriate. Such a book is long overdue in view of the fiction of manmade climate change.

Here’s what we know, or think we know, about climate change. First, human activity produces carbon dioxide (CO2) as a result of using different fuels including coal, oil, natural gas and wood. But, so do forest fires and volcanoes.

Second, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has very slowly increased over the last few hundred years. For every 100,000 molecules of air, 38 are CO2. Mankind is adding less than 1% CO2 every 5 years. That rate is neither constant nor consistent.

Third, CO2 is indeed a greenhouse gas. CO2 traps infrared radiation in the atmosphere. But, we also know that weather patterns have a direct and emphatic cooling effect overshadowing the effect of CO2. This is part of the natural atmospheric cycle.

We know to some imprecise extent the quantity of CO2 humans generate. What we don’t know is the generation of CO2 through climate variability. Without knowing this piece of the puzzle it is impossible to determine the fractional impact humans contribute to climate change as a whole.

One astute observation maintains that nonlinear complex systems like the dynamics of atmosphere and oceans and their effect on climate have stymied attempts to accurately model those systems.

Although there is some evidence of worldwide warming by one degree over the last century, that number is spurious at best. The data, in fact, shows the reverse -- a slight cooling over the past two decades. Factors such as the so-called “urban heat islands” comprised of metropolitan areas and mal-placed thermometers cast a shadow of uncertainty.

Drawing conclusions based on models and measurements of dubious reliability must not be the basis of public policy. Evidence of manmade climate change is not as compelling in the scientific community as media talking heads and political pundits lead us to believe. Such biased assertions serve only to open wide the door for subjective political agendas.

The premise that man can change the worldwide climate for the worse is a significant departure from rationality. Belief that manmade climate change is caused by man is more a statement of faith than scientific fact. Climate change deniers are correct when they challenge President Obama’s climate change assertions as just plain false. Besides, the first and only theory derived from any recent observation seldom survives the scientific process. This is particularly true of the uncertainty of climate change theory.

This begs the question: Why the pell-mell stampede to pass state and federal legislation to restrict or shut down industries when the hypothesis hasn’t been tested or a rational premise firmly established?

Patience is very much a virtue in the search to replace fossil fuels with artificial energy. Nuclear power and clean coal hold much promise. Wind energy and biofuels are not the panacea once thought and solar energy is still far too inefficient.

If establishment politicians don’t exercise care in writing energy policy, at best we’ll have measures that make us feel good and glorify certain politicians while doing irreparable damage to our economic environment.

Beyond the science and policy, confusion is compounded in a more sinister way. Many researchers have come to understand that they have been used in a political power play in which mankind is the presumed enemy of the environment.

P.T. Barnum was right when he observed, “A sucker is born every minute.”

Did Charles Fair ever meet P.T. Barnum?

Dennis M. Patrick can be contacted at P. O. Box 337, Stanley, ND 58784 or (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address).