Planet Gore

Defining X

The mail on Jim Manzi’s “The Right Formula” is piling up, but before letting it fly, it would probably be helpful to define our terms. In the piece, Manzi writes:

Scientific finding X implies liberal political or moral conclusion Y. Important contemporary examples include the assertions that evolution implies atheism, and the fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas implies that we must reduce carbon emissions rapidly and aggressively.

The “scientific finding” is that “CO2 is a greenhouse gas.” Since some correspondents are interpreting this as a broad acceptance of the AGW agenda, I have asked Jim to define X, and I expect his answer will be something like “Increased atmospheric CO2 will lead to higher temperatures (all things being equal).”

A reader offers four related facts instead:

An important question is: when are we arguing the science?

There are established scientific facts, there are hypotheses developed to be the basis of experiments based on those facts, and finally there are conclusions based on the results of repeated and repeatable experiments.
When Al Gore says that “science has shown” that Florida will be underwater if we do not radically restrict CO2 emissions, he confuses settled science with a hypothesis.
Science may show:

1. Global average temperatures are rising.

2. CO2 is accumulating in the atmosphere.

3. Human activities are contributing to that accumulation.

4. CO2 is a greenhouse gas which retains heat.
Once you get beyond these basic facts, you are entering the realm of hypothesis. The science has not shown that Florida will be underwater. The hypothesis is that increased concentrations of CO2 may cause a corresponding increase in global average temperatures – which, left unchecked, will cause a catastrophic change in the Earth’s climate leading to rising sea levels.
The purpose of developing a hypothesis is to clarify the design of the experiments that will be used to test the hypothesis. Where Al Gore goes off the tracks is that he mistakes the hypothesis for the conclusion of an experiment that has established the validity of a hypothesis.

Most Popular

The Pollster Who Thinks Trump Is Ahead

The polling aggregator on the website RealClearPolitics shows the margin in polls led by Joe Biden in a blue font and the ones led by Donald Trump in red. For a while, the battleground states have tended to be uniformly blue, except for polls conducted by the Trafalgar Group. If you are a firm believer only in ... Read More

The Pollster Who Thinks Trump Is Ahead

The polling aggregator on the website RealClearPolitics shows the margin in polls led by Joe Biden in a blue font and the ones led by Donald Trump in red. For a while, the battleground states have tended to be uniformly blue, except for polls conducted by the Trafalgar Group. If you are a firm believer only in ... Read More
Law & the Courts

Some Counterfactual Thinking

Election Day is one week away. Can you believe it? On the menu today: contemplating what would be different, and what would be the same, if Ruth Bader Ginsburg had retired in 2013 instead of staying on the Court until her death earlier this year; a couple of flubbed words on the campaign trail; yes, people really ... Read More
Law & the Courts

Some Counterfactual Thinking

Election Day is one week away. Can you believe it? On the menu today: contemplating what would be different, and what would be the same, if Ruth Bader Ginsburg had retired in 2013 instead of staying on the Court until her death earlier this year; a couple of flubbed words on the campaign trail; yes, people really ... Read More
Law & the Courts

Whose Seat?

Amy Coney Barrett is confirmed. And I think there are two little things to say about it. The first is that we very likely have in Barrett the true successor to Antonin Scalia on the Court. Barrett clerked for Scalia and her articulation of his philosophy is probably the most faithful on the court. Justices ... Read More
Law & the Courts

Whose Seat?

Amy Coney Barrett is confirmed. And I think there are two little things to say about it. The first is that we very likely have in Barrett the true successor to Antonin Scalia on the Court. Barrett clerked for Scalia and her articulation of his philosophy is probably the most faithful on the court. Justices ... Read More