The further to the left or the right you move, the more your lens on life distorts.

Sunday, September 25, 2011

Speed of Light

This week the world famous CERN labs in Switzerland reported on a meticulously conducted experiment on the Neutrino, a sub-atomic particle. The experiment seems to indicate that it may be possible to exceed the speed of light! For well over half a century, science has stated that the speed of light, c, is a constant (186,000 miles per second) and that it is physically impossible to move any faster. Yet, the CERN experiment indicates that c may not be a constant and speeds faster than c may, in fact, be possible.

Many physicists are skeptical about the result and the experiment will be repeated again and again. Theoretical investigation will ensue and a healthy debate will be on-going. Science encourages skepticism, but is open to new, even radical, ideas if they can be proven.

The interesting thing is that no one is calling those physicists who are questioning the value of c—“speed of light deniers.” Even though there has been consensus that c = 186,000 mps for decades, not a single scientist has suggested that the value of c is “incontrovertible” or that the science on the matter is “settled.” Not one. And that’s as it should be.

And yet, climate alarmists suggest that evidence of a significant anthropogenic impact on climate is “incontrovertible” and that the science on the matter is “settled.” If you don’t believe me ask Al Gore, or more recently, Barack Obama or Bill Clinton—eminent scientists all.

Jeff Jacoby discusses this when he writes:
You don’t have to look far to see that impeccable scientific standards can go hand-in-hand with skepticism about global warming. Ivar Giaever, a 1973 Nobel laureate in physics, resigned this month as a fellow of the American Physical Society (APS) to protest the organization’s official position that evidence of manmade climate change is “incontrovertible’’ and cause for alarm. In an e-mail explaining his resignation , Giaever challenged the view that any scientific assertion is so sacred that it cannot be contested.

“In the APS it is OK to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves,’’ Giaever wrote, incredulous, “but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible?’’

And yet, climate alarmists treat a weak and largely unsubstantiated theory that man-made CO2 is a dominant driver of climate change as the gospel. In fact, “gospel” is an appropriate simile because climate change true believers treat all of this like a religion. If you question their largely unsubstantiated positions, you’re a denier, a heretic, and worse, you’re a really bad person. No matter that there are compelling reasons to be skeptical; no matter that the models they’ve created are cannot reproduce past history, no matter that the data that has been used to support anthropogenic climate change is highly questionable—skepticism is not allowed—ever.

Gosh, you’d think that those of us who are skeptical about anthropogenic climate change were, well, questioning the speed of light.