Dogmas are not good for the advancement of science.

For some time, and as an impartial observer of some of the main scientific paradigms of the last decades, I tried to analyze these ideas in light of my experiences and knowledge.

As we all know, scientific knowledge is relative. What is accepted today as a great truth, tomorrow will be disproved by other "truths", and what is more forceful, by the actual data of reality.

A paradigm that prevailed in the last 25 years is that climate warming is occurring, and that the cause of it is human action through the combustion of hydrocarbons, which has been called (with an appellation at less doubtful) "fossil fuels".

It has logic. The need or greed, has led to use the available hydrocarbons in the crust (oil, coal, natural gas, etc.) to provide energy to industries, homes, cars, railways, ships and other technological means typical of globalized industrial societies .

Due to uncontrolled consumption enormous amounts of carbon dioxide are generated, that gradually accumulate in the atmosphere producing a greenhouse effect, which in turn increases the temperature,`producing a climate change, which, according to this "very logical" approach, is the fault of human beings ( or "man" if we use the dominant patriarchal terminology).

It is all very logical. However, reality is stubborn. The concrete data (raw, NOT modified) show that this reasoning fails in several aspects.

In the first place, as all geologists know, talking about climate change is equivalent to saying nothing. On Earth, climates have changed throughout their history. In different times and places there have been, hot, humid, arid, cold climates, glacial ages, etc. In successive geological periods there are numerous rock formations that bear witness to them. Therefore, talking about "climate change" is like saying nothing new.

Regarding the terminology also used, although to a lesser degree, there is talk of global warming, of melting of the Antarctic, of a rise in the level of the oceans, of tropicalization of temperate climates, of increase in the number of hurricanes and other analogous phenomena which would be (is stated) the result of this “warming” that is predicted.

On each of these phenomena there are contradictory data. To begin with, it is very difficult to demonstrate warming with traditional methods of measuring temperature (meteorological stations of heterogeneous distribution that tend to measure predominantly the influence of urban islands). The temperature of the oceans, has shown to have periodic variations, and in the last years NO generalized warming has been appreciated. Neither measurements of the satellites have been conclusive. The temperature of the lower atmosphere has not increased significantly.

As for CO2, it is noteworthy that the content of the atmosphere of this gas is very small, just 0.04%. Since plants (the sustenance of all life on the planet) require CO2 to carry out their metabolism, their increase, which currently is of the order of 0.0001% per year, has the main effect of helping the growth of plant ecosystems (such as jungles, meadows or algae formations).

Regarding C02 as a "greenhouse" gas, it does not seem to have any influence when compared to the greenhouse effect of water vapor (much more abundant and with more intense effect) and above all with the influence of variations in solar radiation (which is, absolutely, and almost entirely, the main source of atmospheric energy).

For these reasons, it is unlikely that the tiny increases in CO2 in the atmosphere can have an effect on the global temperature, and, on the contrary its main effects ARE POSITIVE, that is, the increase in the productivity of plant ecosystems.

Of course, this is not important for the global powers, who are not interested in scientific truth (of course, beyond their speeches). For them the data of reality are irrelevant.

This includes, of course, the academic authorities (who can not deviate from the paradigm under penalty of losing their grants or tenures), political leaders (who do not know much about the issue and try to accommodate their claims to what is expected of them from the point of view of convenience) and business leaders (who in general manage to extract profits from any prevailing paradigm, whatever it may be).

And on the other side there are the heretics. Those who analyze the facts of reality without prejudices or preconceptions. Fortunately,  in this globalized world there are many heretical scientists and individuals.

Of course, those who disagree with the absurd idea of ​​climate change do not have good press. They are criticized as unscientific, and of course, always criticizing them without taking the discussion to the grounds of the arguments.

In fact, what happens is that the heretics have (myself included) many doubts.

There is no certainty that global warming is taking place in the atmosphere (data are not conclusive), there is no certainty that the inlandsis of Antarctica and Greenland are melting. Rise of ocean levels are very slow (a couple of millimeters per year) and may be the result of geological inertia after recent geological deglaciation.

Things are NOT clear.

When there is uncertainty about the processes, hasty political (and economic) decisions can be double-edged swords.

It is not reasonable to dogmatize the arguments. Do not forget that to a large extent the scientific advances of humanity were the result of the ideas and discoveries of the great heretics. Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, Lamark, Darwin and many others have allowed us to reach new milestones in human knowledge that can serve as illustrative examples.

Dogmas are not good for the advancement of science.
Danilo Anton

Scientific dogmatism in the contemporary globalized society

D,A.

In contemporary societies there are some issues that although they generate uncertainty they were defined as absolutely proven. Disagreeing with these absolute assumptions is forbidden. To be politically correct you have to agree with what the popes of "science" and politics decide.

One example es observed in the discussions on climate change, allegedly caused by the consumption of "fossil fuels".
Whoever does not agree with this view is at risk of being declared "unfaithful".
The "climate change" dogma reads as follows: "climate change exists and (of course), the consumption of "fossil fuels" is to blame".
There is a lot of "original sin" in this view of the role humans play in the dynamics of the earth's atmosphere
It is claimed that 98% of scientists agree for climate change, and that "only ignorant people" can deny it. 
That is an easy way to demonstrate something you do not want to demonstrate. 
Supposedly there is a majority of scientists on one side of the question (not shown in any independent survey) and therefore they are right. Obviously science does not work like that.

In reality, no one disagrees with the notion that climate changes. 
It could not be otherwise.
 Climate had changed. Geology shows that climate change has been the rule in the Earth history.
What is not certain what type of climate change there is. 
We do not know if there is global warming or global cooling or none of them.
There are many scientists, hundreds of sites on the internet and dozens of videos on YouTube where many scientists express theirdoubts about these dogmatic statements.
The reaction of the bigots of the dogmatism of climate change facing global warming skepticism is of intolerance. 
Perhaps they don't want to lose their academic protagonism or their juicy artificial projects.

Academic dogmatism and the needs for heresies

Danilo Anton

The paradigm of normal science defined by Thomas S. Kuhn is the set of theories, rules, procedures and knowledge that permeate a particular society at a particular time in its history. Today it regards to the scientific “model” widely adopted in contemporary global society.

The theme of hydrocarbons, as well as the geophysical and geological framework that would lead to their formation and evolution, is an estalbished paradigm that resists being changed despite the numerous data which should induce a radical and thorough review.
In this “globalized” society it is assumed that the official scientific model developed through the accumulation of scientific data would allow “progress” in knowledge, in particular achieving greater detail in the specific application of accepted scientific models.
Unfortunately, there is no official method in this paradigm (or any other dominant paradigm) that would accept other theories and apply other rules or procedures that may end modifying it radically.
For that reason, in the field of petroleum geology, it is so difficult to put into question the validity of many concepts whose accuracy are being contradicted every day by reality.
The difficulty of changing the official paradigm is that this modification, nor only modifying concepts, but mainly because it also alters power relations.
Politically, those who hold “the paradigmatic power”, are the same mechanisms that control decision-making.
From the economic point of view they are the ones who benefit from the decisions made based on the officially accepted postulates
In the academic sphere there are those who defend their prestige and economic security that give professional or academic positions they occupy and eventually would be threatened by a possible change of paradigm (Lovelock, 1988).
When we analyze the accepted theory about the origin of oil and natural gas, and its main defenders in the academic and industrial world, we find a similar a similar situation as was generally defined by Kuhn and Lovelock.
The biotic theory of petroleum formation involves the inevitability of future shortages, which produces price increases.
Companies and oil states are particularly interested in defending this point of view to sustain their huge income.
The interest of researchers and academics to maintain the paradigm of fossil fuels minerals is based on the privileges granted by the institutional structures and the economic and organizational power of the establishment.
In short, the struggle for the preservation of the paradigm of fossil fuels, is not just a theoretical discussion. Like so many other issues, it also arises in terms of economic, political and social power.
The ideas of Thomas Gold and other astronomers, astrophysicists and geologists who proposed the theory of planetary degassing have been ignored, and even desauthorized, but not disproved with relevant scientific information.
We have no doubt that sooner or later the paradigm shift will occur. When the critical mass of researchers and scientists and support of the public is sufficient, when the decades passed and new data become available confirming the new vision of the history and dynamics of our planet, power structures will be disarticulated and a new paradigm based on the actual data will be officially accepted.

The false paradigm of fossil fuels resists in spite of repeated contradictory evidences

D.Anton

The fossil fuel theory is difficult to debunk. Everyday there are new data showing that in the Earth and in the planetary bodies of the Solar System methane IS NOT biological. In the Earth there are some biological sources of methane related, for instance, to swamps, but they are, compared with astronomical and planetary sources, very tiny.
This is obvious, but the paradigm survives. The following article from The Economist shows that even with constantly appearing new information the author does not dare to say it, 

Most, practically ALL methane contribution to the Earth atmosphere comes from deep crust and mantle geological levels.  

Fuel, loose and fossil-free

An unexpected source of methane just keeps popping up

EARLY two millennia ago, Pliny the Elder, a Roman chronicler of natural history, spotted flames seeping from bare rock at a site that is probably Yanartas, in modern Turkey. It was an extraordinary find, though not for reasons that Pliny could have guessed. The gas that fuelled the flames, and fuels them still today, comes from a source that geologists would once have decried as implausible, if not altogether impossible. But that source is turning out to be a significant one. The overwhelming majority of the methane extracted commercially and 90% of what is in the air is biotic—that is to say, it comes from the decomposition of the stuff of life. However, natural gas can also form abiotically, as a result of chemical reactions in a kind of volcanic rock called peridotite. 

Add to such rock the heat and pressures of depth, throw in a splash of water, and eventually out comes methane. But it is not just explaining away fires on Earth that is of interest; serpentinization, as this process is called, was invoked to account for plumes of methane spotted by orbiters around Mars that might otherwise have been indicative of life (such methane plumes are now in doubt). Well-understood as the phenomenon is, however, such "seeps" of abiotic methane were until recently believed to be an exceptionally rare thing: between Pliny's observations in 77AD and 2012, only three more were discovered. That view is now changing. In 2013 and so far in 2014, a further five abiotic gas seeps have been reported—in Portugal, Greece, Italy, Japan and another in Turkey. The man behind many of these finds is Giuseppe Etiope of the Italian National Institute of Geophysics and Volcanology, in Rome. Together with colleagues in Canada and Spain, Dr Etiope has discovered two more abiotic seeps that the team will report in December, at the annual meeting of the American Geophysical Union. With the addition of these two sites, in Spain and the UAE, the number of known abiotic seeps has more than doubled since the beginning of 2013. Six more, from Europe to North and Central America to the South Pacific, are currently being analysed for suspected abiotic origins. It is not that the world is springing an abiotic methane leak, however. The recent spate of discoveries can be ascribed in part to advances in technology—a new generation of sensors in wide use can measure the flow of methane on diverse sites—and to growing scientific interest in the details of serpentinization.

What started as geochemistry curiosity could yet have economic implications as the number of abiotic seeps—which have never been commercially exploited—rises further. Based on geological similarities with existing sites, Dr Etiope strongly suspects that there may be more in Cyprus and Bosnia. A similar hunch prompted the search for the seeps that were discovered in Spain and the UAE. Dr Etiope has received research funding from Petrobras, Brazil's state-owned oil giant, to formulate an estimate for the worldwide abiotic methane reserve. He reckons that it will take at least a year to arrive at even a rough guess. But Pliny may finally be of some help here. Given the well-dated observation of the fires at Yanartas and a good estimate of how much methane is required to keep them going, Dr Etiope believes the seep has expelled some 400m cubic metres since then—comparable to the output of some conventional gas fields.

That is likely to be an underestimate; presumably, it had been going for a while before Pliny showed up. As a newly appreciated potential source of gas, it will take some time to understand just hny abiotic seeps there are, and how much methane each might produce. The general view of hydrocarbons such as oil and gas is one of dwindling reserves. But there is still some exploring to be done.

Oct 22nd 2014 |  The Economist, Science and Technology

Contemporary scientific dogmas and the "excommunication" of heretics
Danilo Anton
In every historical moment there are conceptual and / or scientific models which are largely ideological support systems of the prevailing power. Governments and their political, academic and religious structures are based largely on those models.

However, models change as time passes. new data are obtained, other conceptual approaches are developed, and finally, the model change occurs. It is what Kuhn called the "paradigm shift". Generally, political, religious and academic authorities resist this change, but in the end, the accumulation of information and the dissemination of new ideas impose the replacement of old visions with new ones better adapted to the state of the society knowledge and feelings at that moment.
Although this process took place systematically throughout history, the elites of each period act as if their views were immutable, true dogmas.
This also happens in contemporary societies.
Human societies organize their knowledge through the symbolic systems of their cultures.
In every age there are dominant models that relate to social power structures and policies.
These models, which during long time had been religious and dogmatic, allowed social and economic control by the dominant political groups.
When the elites imposed a system of knowledge, they ensured political control and enjoyment of the economic and social privileges that ensued.
Modern history of dogmatism
The process of replacing European dogmatic religious systems began early in the "Middle Ages". Revolutionary minds were sheltered in the medieval "Universities" and urban centers ("boroughs" or "burgos") that developed through the demographic and commercial expansion of the ecumenical regions.
Discrepant with dogmas were declared "heretics.".  Some, like Giordano Bruno and Thomas More were executed for their beliefs that went against the principles and standards set by the political and religious castes. Others, like Nicolaus Copernicus or Galileo Galilei, were criticized bitterly, forced to recant, dismissed or persecuted for their ideas.
The new ideological systems put aside philosophical structures which were based on biblical, canonical and Greco-Roman influences.

With the triumph of the European industrialist revolution, new knowledge systems developed, leaving aside religious and dogmatic geocentric approaches.
The new economic and political structures engendered a system of knowledge based on a network of academic, corporate and government institutions.
Whatever is accepted by this "network" is defined as "official" knowledge and determine the projects that will be supported and articles or books that will be published.
According to the work of Thomas S. Kuhn, "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" (expanded edition, 1970), the (official) "normal" scientific research cares little about search news of importance, both in the field of concepts in such phenomena. From what point it is to develop more precisely the accepted conceptual frames as well as obtain data "confirm" what is already known.
James Lovelock points out in his paper "The Ages of Gaia" (1988) that "...academic scientists may think they are free but in reality most of them "freedom of thought have changed for good working conditions, a regular income, a fee and A Hostel. They are also limited by an army of bureaucratic forces from funding agencies to health and safety organizations. Scientists are also limited by tribal rules of discipline they belong A physicist would have difficulties in chemistry and a biologist would find it almost impossible to do physically. To complete the above, in recent years the "purity" of science is more closely guarded by a self imposed inquisition called peers review"
Thomas S. Kuhn calls normal science or "paradigm"  the current scientific model or system.
The paradigm of normal science in Kuhn's vision is the set of theories, rules, procedures and knowledge that permeate a particular society at a particular time in its history. Today it applies to the scientific "model" widely adopted in the modern globalized society.

In this "globalized" official intellectual system, scientific construction works through the accumulation of scientific data that allows (supposedly) to develop more and better knowledge. However, what it does, is to achieve greater detail in the practical application of already accepted scientific models, but not to change it.
There is no method in this official paradigm (or in any other dominant paradigm) that would establish a new "whole model"  accepting other theories or applying other rules or procedures that may end up radically changing the recognized model.
The main difficulty of changing the official paradigm lies in the fact that a radical paradigm shift involves altering power relations.
Politically, the holders of paradigmatic power are those in decision-making positions. Economically, they are benefiting from its privileged position in the structure of knowledge. Academically, they defend the prestige and economic security that give academic and professional positions they occupy.
In short, the struggle for the preservation of the paradigm by its leading proponent is mainly and sosmetimes exclusively posed in terms of power.
Danilo Anton

Heretical thoughts about science and society

An essay by Freeman Dyson [8.7.07]

My first heresy says that all the fuss about global warming is grossly exaggerated. Here I am opposing the holy brotherhood of climate model experts and the crowd of deluded citizens who believe the numbers predicted by the computer models. Of course, they say, I have no degree in meteorology and I am therefore not qualified to speak. But I have studied the climate models and I know what they can do. The models solve the equations of fluid dynamics, and they do a very good job of describing the fluid motions of the atmosphere and the oceans. They do a very poor job of describing the clouds, the dust, the chemistry and the biology of fields and farms and forests. They do not begin to describe the real world that we live in. The real world is muddy and messy and full of things that we do not yet understand. It is much easier for a scientist to sit in an air-conditioned building and run computer models, than to put on winter clothes and measure what is really happening outside in the swamps and the clouds. That is why the climate model experts end up believing their own models.

FEERMAN DYSON is professor of physics at the Institute for Ad

vanced Study, in Princeton. His professional interests are in mathematics and astronomy. Among his many books areDisturbing the Universe, Infinite in All Directions Origins of Life, From Eros to Gaia, Imagined Worlds, and The Sun, the Genome, and the Internet. His most recent book, Many Colored Glass: Reflections on the Place of Life in the Universe (Page Barbour Lectures), is being published this month by University of Virgina Press.
http://edge.org/conversation/heretical-thoughts-about-science-and-society