Being Galileo
In 1633, Galileo Galilei, the Italian mathematician and astronomer, had to stand trial at the hands of the notorious Inquisitor Vincenzo Maculani. His crime was “vehement heresy”. Galileo had earlier announced that his own astronomical observations confirmed earth was not the centre of the universe and it indeed circled around the sun. The notion had been around for many years. But it was considered a taboo because it conflicted with the views of the powerful forces of the church and other long-established and influential groups. The Inquisitor asked Galileo to rescind such nonsense and accept the consensus that earth was the centre of the universe and the sun and stars revolved around it. Galileo refused. No one could persuade him to just go along to save himself. So Maculani found him guilty of Vehement Heresy and sentenced him to life imprisonment. Subsequently, Pope Urban the 8th, who was among those who tried to get Galileo to change his mind, commuted the sentence to house arrest for life. And so it was, Galileo did indeed spend the rest of his life under house arrest until his death. His “crime” was the assertion of a fact of physics that contradicted the public opinion at the time. Galileo’s fate was sealed by a population split into two groups. Those who suspected he was right but had too much to lose if he was. And those who would not believe him because the “Consensus” of all his contemporary experts was that earth was the center of the universe.
The story of Galileo is compelling and resonates eerily with the current disagreements regarding the accuracy of man-made global warming theories. I must confess I did not know about the use of Galileo’s history in the man-made global warming debate in Australia when I wrote this series. I have no interest in entering any of those debates. I am only interested in facts.
Virtue of Science
I decided to write this series of articles with a single purpose in mind: to throw fundamental scientific facts into the field of man-made climate change hypothesis. Regardless of your political or ideological inclinations, please set aside those inclinations as you read on. Some of the science we will encounter together may be dry; and I sincerely hope you don’t get bored or impatient with it. You will notice that when the discussion becomes heavy on physics or math, it is enclosed inside a shaded box in Italic font. We call it a Physics Box. You may choose to skip those boxes entirely, or refer to them as needed. I believe it is important to include the physics and math within the same article so that the reader can see the scientific rationale first hand.
The laws of physics are not reconcilable with the world of ideology and politics, nor should they be. On the one hand, the world of politics and ideology is inhabited exclusively by intangibles, such as opinions, beliefs, myths and faith, to name a few. This world thrives on difference of opinions and is a fertile ground for what can be endless discussions about right and wrong, which makes life interesting. The nature of this world makes it incompatible with the binary nature of the scientific world where things can only be true or false. In science, there is only one correct answer to a question. This divide makes for a troubling polarization in society. Those who are more comfortable with philosophical debates and matters of opinions and beliefs tend to struggle with the binary nature of science, where things can only be true or false. Interestingly, individuals who belong to the world where ideology and debate rule tend to believe they can agree or disagree with anything including scientific facts; as if their not agreeing with a scientific fact makes the fact untrue. Similarly, those who are happy with the simple and swift conclusiveness of science tend to struggle with matters of conjecture because they lack the objective truthfulness and finality of science.
To illustrate this point, let us take for example a basic rule of geometry. Please stay with me here! A philosophically driven person, whom we shall name P, asks a straight-science person whom we shall name S: how much you think is the sum of the 3 angles in a triangle? S replies: 180 degrees. P asks: are you sure? S says: what do you mean am I sure?! This is not a matter of opinion. P says: but what if you are wrong? S says: I can’t be wrong. To which P responds: isn’t that arrogant of you? At this time, more P-type persons get involved and some say: one would think as the triangle gets bigger, the angles add up to more than 180 degrees. Others add: How about the different shapes of triangles? A bystander hears the commotion and says: I can see there is consensus that the sum of the angles in a triangle can be more or less than 180 degrees. Scientific person S responds: they are all wrong. The bystander says: Come on!! How can they all be wrong?! Slowly, the voice of the scientific person becomes drowned by the many voices of the P persons and the bystanders. Everyone now believes he can’t be right. S gives up and remains silent.
The fact remains: the angles always add up to 180 degrees regardless of the shape or size of the triangle. Person S is absolutely correct when he says they are all wrong. Why are we discussing this? The point is, when there is apparent consensus on an issue, it does not necessarily mean it is scientifically true. In science, things are not decided by debate or consensus, only by facts. Please keep that in mind as you encounter the scientific facts presented in our articles.
The Climate Crisis
Many statements are made nowadays about the overheating of our atmosphere because of human activities. For instance, global warming, severe weather, collapse of agriculture, species extinctions and many other consequences are being predicted and linked to production of greenhouse gases by human activities. This series of articles examines the hypothesis behind man-made Global Warming and Climate Crisis. While we do need to address the fundamental laws of physics, the reader is not expected or required to have a background in science or physics. To the contrary, the contents are written in simple and plain language so that anyone who is keen on finding the truth about the subject can easily find the answer. Each scientific analysis I am offering is neither an opinion nor an argument driven by political or ideological motives. It is just science, in simple form, brought forward to shed light on many of the statements we hear these days. I highly recommend you read all parts of the series and encourage you to make your own judgement.
In Part 2 we discuss greenhouse effect, global warming and the transformation from global warming concerns to climate change crisis.
In Part 3 we discuss the rise in sea level that may occur if the ice in the arctic melts.
In Part 4 we discuss Carbon, the ubiquitous element and what carbon emissions entail.
In Part 5 we discuss earth’s climate, its history and the natural forces behind it.
I hope you encounter something in this series that will pique your interest. Rest assured, the laws of physics and values I am using are rigorous. I have simplified and linearized frequently but not at the expense of reasonable accuracy.
