I’ve been arguing with my husband. Not about anything important. Just about science, and in particular theories of climate change. He agrees with Dennis Armstrong who wrote me, “We are not aware that there is a current theory of human induced climate change. There are assertions that the burning fossil fuels by humans generates CO2 emissions, which is causing climate warming/change. … it can’t explain climate change past, present and future.”
In my next Zoom, Number 3, following on from interviews with Bill Kininmonth and Ivan Kennedy, I will explain why I disagree. I will make the case as follows and with examples:
- The current theory has a focus on radiative balance that is perceived to be perturbed by increasing levels of carbon dioxide.
- The current theory dominates thinking including by scientists who are darlings of conservative politics who often tangle themselves within its strictures.
- The current theory has been disproven over and over, but it doesn’t go away because rebuttals never win.
- The history of science shows that failed scientific theories are only ever replaced (never disproven), which is why there is such a pressing need for a new theory of climate change.
I am allowing 2 hours, with perhaps 30 minutes for my opening remarks and the rest of the time for questions and discussion.
I am planning this as three sessions to variously fit in with friends across different time zones.
SESSION NO. 2. CALLING LONDON
When: Mar 29, 2025 11:00 AM LONDON
Register in advance for this meeting:
https://us02web.zoom.us/meeting/register/AEic7FtGR0-1pprt-EDz8w
SESSION NO. 3. CALLING HOUSTON
When: Mar 29, 2025 03:00 PM Central Time (US and Canada)
Register in advance for this meeting:
https://us02web.zoom.us/meeting/register/tHsbs5CmRYuR4pnrAXiKOg
SESSION NO. 1. CALLING HOME
When: Mar 29, 2025 12:00 PM Brisbane
Register in advance for this meeting:
https://us02web.zoom.us/meeting/register/8G7Ze9hSRmG4x1MNbVCvvg
After registering, you will receive a confirmation email containing information about joining the meeting.
I have received requests for the audio/video of my interviews with Ivan Kennedy and Bill Kininmonth. I am learning how to edit audio and how to develop this and other interviews, including one I did with Alex Pope, into a podcast series. So, for everyone who did not attend previous webinars and meetings with Ivan Kennedy and Bill Kininmonth respectively, the information is not lost to you forever, but just until I launch my new podcast series that will perhaps be in July.
Thanks for your patience.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
“failed scientific theories are only ever replaced (never disproven)”.
There are many scientific theories that have been disproven. Lamarck, Haeckel and countless others.
I see two parts/questions to this conundrum:
1. How do you define a theory of climate change?
2. How do you actually prove the theory?
It is certainly possible to identify, within a range of uncertainty some of the more important/dominant drivers of climate and weather and just as important the less influential, minor contributors.
In these two categories I would place:
Main drivers of climate/weather: Sun, clouds, oceans, winds, water vapour (evaporation and cloud formation). Milankovitch cycles and continental drift are also important as longer term factors but no less critical and there are many other potential contributors such as cosmic rays, lunar cycles etc.
Minor factors: CO2 (except at low concentrations to help keep the Earth from freezing), CH4
How these all link together throughout the continuous cycle of change is the question and although one can identify many interactions putting them all together in one continuum is a very different matter. I would think that is well beyond our ability at present. That does not mean one should not try because that is what science is about.
So it will be interesting to hear other views, not least as a starting point to see if anyone has any serious answers to the questions 1 and 2.
Thanks Peter, for taking the time to comment, and I hope you can be part of at least one of the discussions. So far, I have about 10 registered for each session which is a good number.
Thanks Karen, for taking the time to comment. The many comments that you make over various thread suggesting that I am motivated by payments from the fossil fuel industry show extraordinary ignorance. Your comment here, and some of your other comments, are spot on. What I should have written is that failed theories/paradigms are only disproven after they have been replaced, by which I mean in the zeitgeist and this is a thesis of Thomas Kuhn. I am big fan of the work of Kuhn, in particular his book published in about 1964 on the nature of scientific revolutions.
I have been impressed by the work of Javier Vinos.
He attributes the sun’s role, in particular its 11 year solar cycle to to climate change, as well as many other factors. In contrast the IPCC consider only the increase in CO2 as being responsible for the earths warming . .