The Cult of Certainty - Global Warming and Intelligent Design.

Americans don't do well with problems that are difficult to solve. They especially suffer frustration when a problem can be demonstrated as insoluble.

Physicists and mathematicians live quite comfortably in the world where questions are proven to be unanswerable. Most other people do not.

For those who are intrigued by the concept, and wish to learn more about it, it falls under the description of epistemology, the knowability of things, an element of metaphysics. One approach to things which are unknowable is to simply shrug them off as being thus trivial or not worthy of further study. This is referred to as Logical Positivism. It is a respectable branch of philosophy.

There is an interesting paradox in human nature. When a problem cannot be solved by rational means, people often wander into the irrational and superstitious to concoct an answer.

There is an interesting interface between Theology and Science called Intelligent Design. It is posited in two ways. The weaker basis states that if there is clear and convincing evidence, which can be methodically assembled, that a process can be best described by means of sapient planning, then this is a priori evidence that it was planned by a sapient being. Since humans cannot perform this sort of planning and operation, it is taken as evidence of a higher being. The stronger basis states that if there is NO means by which a process can be described using materialistic explanation, that means that there is Intelligent Design. Obviously, the weaker basis will produce more examples than the stronger.

The squabble over intelligent design may originate in the same mistake that got the Catholic Church in trouble with Galileo. Sit ergo ita Deus esse factus est, is the assumption. If it is, therefore God made it to be. The error comes when people elide off the beginning, wear it down by time and tradition, and come up with the stub, GOD MADE IT TO BE THUS. If indeed the planets orbit the Earth, God made it to be so - and Galileo would be unbothered. But when by usage the assumption was worn down to fact, and the error, THE PLANETS ORBIT THE EARTH, was made, and wrongly so.

Paradoxically, one aspect of atheism borrows freely from the assumption of the Intelligent Design folks in their insistence upon the absence of God. Atheism can be divided into two classes regarding the history of religion. One holds the assumption that religion arose sua sponte from the thoughts of people on their world. Another holds that religion itself is a form of INTELLIGENT DESIGN, by those who wished to attain and exploit a position of power. Atheists often unwittingly (I assume that it is unwitting) cleave to the concept of the weaker basis of Intelligent Design - if it can be demonstrated that Religion can and/or has been used as a method of exploitation of people (and that's not a tough one to prove) THEREFORE it is proven that Religion is only a certain type of political manipulation. Ayn Rand was most certainly an advocate of this form of aggressive atheism.

This exhaustive prequel brings me around to the central interest, that of global warming. Some people are willing to take a strict "atheistic" view on Global Warming, and insist that it is a hoax. Gary North, a fine columnist, offers an essay entitled "It's Not Just That Global Warming Is Fake. What Matters Is Why This Fakery Is Being Promoted" You may read it here.

Mr. North cleanly advocates the above argument of atheism, here applied to Global Warming. It is untrue because of fraudulent advocacy. My beef with Mr. North is not about the sincerity or legitimacy of the advocacy, but from the inference that Anthropogenic Global Warming is thus and therefore false.

The problem is worse than that, Gary - so much so, that hardly anyone with an opinion, pro or con, on Global Warming, wants to address the most worrisome reality of the situation.

Here are some solid postulates, which are easily demonstrated:

1. Global weather systems are strictly and formally chaotic, by means of mathematical proof.
2. Chaotic systems can demonstrate regions of great order and predictability; and also regions of absolute unpredictability.
3. The current stage of the Earth is in an interglaciation period of a cycle of ice ages. Examination of recent temperatures shows that we are in a region of unpredictability.
4. There is no quantity of data which can be assembled today, to predict anything about global temperatures in the future.
5. The ability to estimate a difference in effect - or the lack thereof - caused by Anthropogenic Global Warming, is DOUBLY unachievable, and will remain so, no matter how much data we can assemble.

Here are further ugly premises about Global Warming:

1. We cannot affirm nor deny that Anthropogenic Global Warming is occurring.
2. Assuming the truth of AGW - we cannot reasonably estimate the amount by which we must reduce carbon emissions to make a significant effect. (That would be three orders of randomness!)
3. We do not therefore have a means by which to calculate the negative effect upon civilization produced by diminishing carbon emission, against the positive effect desired, that of "preventing AGW."

Here are a few more nasty issues:

1. Life on earth is hardly at risk if global warming occurs. A vast majority of all species have survived a period of global warmth during interglacials, equivalent to the dire period of warming predicted by AGW.
2. Almost all species have survived a period of ice-free Arctic Ocean already.
3. The species most at risk for AGW is Homo sapiens.
4. The risk to Homo sapiens is not to his existence, but to his cultural structures. Right now, Scandinavia is too cold for a long growing season, as is Siberia and Canada. Global warming will enhance the agriculture of the northern regions, at the expense of the southern regions. During periods of hunter-gatherer existence, geographic boundaries were the only elements of note for migration, not political ones. Nowadays, global warming threatens only political structures.
5. Fears of Global Warming come from an illogically conservative mindset. Anthropogenic Global Warming threatens political change, which ought to be comfortable and intriguing to progressives, and distressing to those who wish no disruption in the order of things. If Canada becomes more prosperous, and the US less so, what will happen if we become their "Mexico" especially regarding emigrants? Those things terrify the conservative soul, which wishes no change.

Clearly, we are not discussing the very hard issues, which center on irresolveable uncertainty. We intend instead to bash each other over the heads with metaphorical clubs.

AGW is a test of human civilization. So far, we're not doing very good on the test.