How Many Bad Guesses Does a Prophet Get?

Just 34 years go..in the June 24, 1974 edition, Time magazine warned,

"Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age". The article included data and quotations from some very notable scientists.

Its April 8th, 2008 edition led with 'How to Win the War on Global Warming'. Of course, that double edition included data and quotations from some very notable scientists.

Ironic.
Sad.
What should you believe?

Interestingly, amid the furor over global warming it is noteworthy that the planet has been on a temperature downturn for the last 14 months or so. It's not getting hotter... it's getting colder. In fact, the average temperature between 2007 and 2008 has declined almost a full degree C. The short term trend is now decidedly downward. (oops!)

As a result (I assume) I have noticed, lately, how the phrase 'Global Warming' has been replaced, subtly, with the term 'Global Climate Change'. Get the subtle shift?

Of course it's changing! Sometimes it's warming, sometimes getting colder - and sometimes it just stays about the same. So - this is a phrase that means almost nothing.

Except, it does mean something. You see, if you're for 'Global Warming' you'll only be right 1/3rd of the time (when temperatures rise). However, if you're for 'Global Climate Change' you'll be right 2/3rds of the time (when temperatures rise or fall). In fact, you'll be right if there are fewer or more tornadoes, more or less rainfall, stronger or milder hurricanes, fewer or increasing cloudy days, .. whatever.

So - folks are climbing off the global warming bus and boarding the climate change bandwagon. And, everyone knows that change is bad. Let's legislate!!

My point isn't to deride anyone that believes that global temperatures are trending up. They are. In fact, they have been for well over 180 years (far before you could blame the burning of fossil fuels for the problem). And over time they have trended down. Up. Down. Up. Down.

It's not even to deride anyone that believes that humans are demonstrably contributing to the warming of the globe. For the record, my personal belief is that CO2 emissions are not a meaningful contributor to global warming. And I'll tell you why I say that in just a second.

However, as a Christian - I am compelled to be a good steward of all that I am entrusted. So, I have a good reason to be wise in utilizing the resources of this planet without any arm twisting regarding global climate change. I do not need to be motivated by fear. I am motivated by love and respect.

So - what was the question? Oh yeah, I was wondering 'how many guesses does a prophet get before you should stop listening to the prophet?'. Generally speaking, I think the answer is pretty obvious. One.

You might think that is pretty harsh.. but in human terms that's all you should really get. If you say, authoritatively, that XYZ is going to happen and it does not - you are not a good predictor of future events. Period. You lose your rights to claim that you are. If you wear your lucky shirt... because your team always wins when you wear it.. and then they lose. Well, apparently your shirt isn't quite the predictor of things you thought it was - no matter how much you believe it is.

In a scientific sense.. the answer is also one. You see, when you are testing a hypothesis in science you can have all sorts of data that agree with your hypothesis. However, when you properly measure something that is not in agreement with your hypothesis you are done. Finished. Kaput. It only takes one contrary observation to debunk a hypothesis.

Unfortunately, marketing doesn't work the same as science. In marketing you might be able to overcome shortcomings of fact using advertising and presentation skills. Peace. I just don't like marketing near as much as I like truth. That's all I'm saying.

Okay -enough editorializing.. back to the point about science. It's not always possible to know with absolute certainly if two sets of facts are closely related to each other (example: wearing my shirt is related to my team winning). So, there is a mathematical thing called 'correlation' that is measured. When independent observations (shirt wearing vs. team winning) are aligned you have high correlation. When observations don't align you have low correlation. Low correlation means.. this thing didn't cause the other thing.

Which leads to the main point you should know: observations that are highly correlated don't necessarily prove a hypothesis - but observations that have low correlation absolutely disprove a hypothesis. You only get one wrong answer.

So, here's a cool thing (pun intended) about science. You can test all kinds of data. New data, old data, whatever. With something like global warming we can look backwards using all the data we've collected and make some general conclusions. We don't know that we will 'always' be right.. that lucky shirt may fail one day.. but we can at least figure out if we are right so far!

In that vein.. if you do some digging up of past observed data you will find that global temperatures highly correlate to solar activity. When solar activity increases.. temperatures rise.. and vice-versa (i believe God is in charge of that department). This has held true for hundreds of years; which is a lot of time in which to find contrary data to disprove the theory.

At the same time - you will find that global temperatures do not correlate to increases in fossil fuel use over long periods of time (decades).

This is just one example.


My point is simply this: if a prophet only gets one wrong guess.. why are we still listening to these people? And allowing them to keep driving the bus (legislate, tax, etc.)?

What's wrong with us?