What If There is a New Theory of Climate Change?

Albert Einstein’s Theory of Relativity, first published in 1911, did not gain him world fame and acceptance until Professor Arthur Staney Eddington confirmed it with astronomical observations on May 29, 1919.  So far, the anthropogenic climate change theory has not had the benefit of an Eddington type. Critics point out that the 1) correlations between temperature and CO2 emissions and 2) climate computer models do not provide the same level of evidence. They are in the minority, however, more will be said about “evidence” later.

Controversy is not a new issue in the history of science. Arthur Koestler in The Act of Creation (1964) had this to say:

“…the history of science is to a large part a history of controversies, because the interpretation of facts to ‘confirm’ or ‘refute’ a theory always contains a subjective factor, dependent on the scientific fashions and prejudices of the period.”

With regards to our current acceptance of the theory of Anthropogenic Climate Change consider Koesler’s comment:

The development of science cannot be isolated from its historic context, from the climate of a given age or civilization; it influences and is influenced by philosophy, religion, art, social organization, economic needs.

Koestler earlier remarks that “…the history of science; its erratic course and recurrent crisis are caused by internal factors.”

These internal factors are then described.

“One of the conspicuous handicaps is the conservatism of the scientific mind in its corporate aspect. The collective matrix of a science at a given time is determined by a kind of establishment, which includes universities, learned societies, and more recently the editorial offices of technical journals. Like other establishments, they are consciously or unconsciously preserving the status quo- partly because unorthodox innovations are a threat to their authority, but also because of a deeper fear that their laboriously erected intellectual edifice might collapse under the impact.”

How readily would the scientific community accept a new theory of climate change?

My guess is the scientific community would very readily accept a new theory with the right “evidence.” Understanding it in Koestler’s terms that “…what we call ‘scientific evidence’ can never confirm that a theory is ‘true’, it can only confirm that it is ‘more true’ than another.”

A more serious concern would be whether institutions and individuals with financial, political and social reliance on the previous climate change theory would accept what the scientists would be saying about the new theory.

This short essay is in no way a prognostication of a future development in climate change science. It’s merely to speculate on the “what if…” and to introduce a new audience to the writings of the late Arthur Koestler.

 

---