Scientists and environmentalists might be a bit alarmed by a bill introduced in the House that references a scientific theory that they were entirely (and perhaps blissfully) ignorant of before last week: the “Stockman Effect.” The Stockman Effect Act mandates that the director of the National Science Foundation must commission a study on the extent to which changes in the weather can be attributed to natural shifts in the Earth’s magnetic fields. That may have led many scrambling for their textbooks and scientific journals. They would have been better off looking up the names of the sponsors. Rep. Steve Stockman (R-TX) clearly is looking for a legacy as he completes his final term in office after losing his seat in the last election. He wants a federal law that orders that a federal study of his own theory. Stockman, as you might imagine, is a sceptic of man-made climate change theories but he is an advocate of . . . well . . . Stockman science.
Stockman’s bill is based on the notion that “[t]here is a possibility that the reason Mars lost its atmosphere was because of the loss of its magnetic field.”
Of course, some could wonder if the Stockman Effect could also be a political theory positing the connection between a loss of power and the subsequent elevation of ego.
Stockman grilled White House science adviser John Holdren recently on why “global wobbling” is not factored into models of global warming. Holden explained that wobbling effects are measures over tens of thousands of years and that, in fact, would be contributing to cooling at this stage. Moreover, the theory is based on indications that the Earth’s magnetic poles are getting ready to shift, which has occurred throughout history (including 786,000 years ago, though this is when people who believe that the Earth is only a few thousand years old should probably stop reading). Despite such past shifts, fossils from the last reversal 780,000 years ago showed no change to plant or animal life or glacial activity.
Putting aside the theory, there is always unease when members of Congress demand such specific scientific studies. In fairness to Stockman, there are some legitimate instances where Congress wants scientific theories or solutions explored in the public interest. This bill is not unprecedented in that regard. Indeed, I know little about the impact of such wobbling on climate. However, there is already a great interest and motivation of scientists to study viable theories without politicians dictating such specific inquiries. More importantly, it is the title of the legislation — and the theory — that are so notable.
Stockman holds a bachelor’s degree in accounting from the University of Houston–Clear Lake and worked as a computer salesman in Friendswood, Texas before being elected to the House (He also has an impressive story of someone who turned his life around after dropping out of school and difficulties as a younger man).
Stockman has been a firebrand with tweets and quips. (My favorite is his “If babies had guns they wouldn’t be aborted” bumper sticker).
The rise of Stockman to the level of a scientific theorem is quite a turn around for a man who dropped out of San Jacinto College because of what he described as the “partying syndrome”. This however is not to be called the “Stockman Syndrome” not avoid confusion with the “Stockman Effect.”
Source: National Journal
Carlyle makes a good point: Is Stockman proposing a theory or an hypothesis. In science an hypothesis is a specific question to be observed, experimented upon, and repeated to see if the results of the experiments and observations are valid and reliable. But a theory represents a model/principle, or is a general explanation which covers a substantial number of occurrences in Nature. Furthermore, these occurrences have to have been confirmed by a large number of experiments and observations over time. Too often the terms are used as synonyms which they are not in science. Definition-wise, that difference explains why evolution is a theory and creationism is an hypothesis.
The name Stockman was adapted by his family when they got off the boat in New Orleans from Stockholm and decided to sell cows in Texas. So they changed the name to protect the innocent.
Let’s give Stockman immortality. Let’s name the national debt after him, The Stockman Debt (sounds like the title of an Eric Ambler thriller). The national debt will never go away, thus Stockman will be immortalized.
There is evidence that a magnetic field shields a planet from certain solar radiation and thus protects the planet’s atmosphere. There is a scientific theory that the loss of a magnetic field on Mars led to the evaporation of its atmosphere. So in one respect some of the information he suggests is not entirely baseless.
However, it is the time, and magnitude scales that he is likely erring in his conclusion. The geomagnetic field has weakened over recent history but this is not outside the bounds of what has been shown to be historical deviations as displayed in geological studies. Moreover, the variances are not in alignment with the same effect of climate change that has occurred over time. The climate change shown in the past one hundred years is vastly different than the change in geomagnetism.
zedalis:
Were you aware of the long line of Democrats who supported the war in Iraq, including Hillary? In fact, Bill Clinton was warning about a need to combat Iraq during his own presidency.
Paul – Mendel and his peas! I love Mendelian genetics.
I want to commission a scientific study that Obama can literally do anything and his supporters will excuse it. We will release a guest blog post that Obama burned the WH down in protest for Ferguson, and then count how many people support his decision. Then we’ll write another post criticizing false news stories.
Olly >>”Spend millions of the people’s money and you have to name it yourself; spend trillions and the people will name it for you.”
Hence the moniker: The War in Bush
Paul C. Schulte:
Einstein did not believe in a personal God like any in any organized religion. A few quotes:
“It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I feel also not able to imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere. My views are near those of Spinoza: admiration for the beauty of and belief in the logical simplicity of the order which we can grasp humbly and only imperfectly. I believe that we have to content ourselves with our imperfect knowledge and understanding and treat values and moral obligations as a purely human problem—the most important of all human problems.”
“The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this. These subtilised interpretations are highly manifold according to their nature and have almost nothing to do with the original text.”
In response to a news report that painted him as religious: “It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.”
His idea of God can be boiled down to “nature”, not a being.
Jason – Einstein did not view God as nature, but probably the entire universe. I would consider him agnostic, who believes in God, but not a God who is going to move and shake in his personal world.
“I cannot conceive of a personal God who would directly influence the actions of individuals, or would directly sit in judgment on creatures of his own creation. I cannot do this in spite of the fact that mechanistic causality has, to a certain extent, been placed in doubt by modern science. [He was speaking of Quantum Mechanics and the breaking down of determinism.] My religiosity consists in a humble admiration of the infinitely superior spirit that reveals itself in the little that we, with our weak and transitory understanding, can comprehend of reality. Morality is of the highest importance — but for us, not for God.” Albert Einstein.
“He wants a federal law that orders that a federal study of his own theory.”
“This however is not to be called the “Stockman Syndrome” not avoid confusion with the “Stockman Effect.” ”
Grammar so why hard to does seem be? 🙂
Barkin Dog
If you have ever had anything to do with the scientific community and if you studied history you would understand that scientists are and have always been at odds with conventional beliefs, i.e. god, etc. Also, scientists are driven by two forces, one is and inherent curiosity and the other is not unique to them, ego. So, if the changing of the earth’s axis, which has been proven to take place many times in many ways, did indeed affect climate, then there would have been and there would still be a race to Stockholm for the prize, not Texas.
Metal filings in pottery have been found to be oriented several degrees off from the magnetic pole in clay pots thousands of years old. (before they were moved) There are more examples one can google.
issac – the first doctorates were given in theology regardless of your specialty. And while there are some scientists who veer away from a belief in God, there are many, like Einstein, who found that it affirmed his belief in God. It is the monk Mendel who worked out how evolution works, Darwin never did. The scientific discoveries by religious people are too numerous to mention, but you are aware of them, if you just think about it.
BTW, the poles have change a few times, not many times. And we also know that magnetic North is not stable.
Everytime there is an earthquake the humans shudder for a while and then go back to normal duty and put the quake out of mind. Quakes change the magnetic field. This is no field of dreams. When the magnets change then other things change. Climate is one of them. Here is an example. Get in the ocean in your favorite cruise line and ask the Capt to sail due north according to his compass. You might end up in Greenland where there is no ice rather than the north pole. And that is the heart of the matter. We must study Greenland. There is indeed a Stockman Effect and a Greenland Effect.
If one puts the two together you will see the bi polar disorder of great magnitude. You can go long on this theory and the longitudinal basis will thence come home to roost. When the latitudinal aspect clicks in the geese go south to Texas. There you have Stockman. Things come full circle. Soon he will back home selling computers. The compass will remain off the poles. Bi polar will no longer be attributed to Grizzily and Polar bears. We will then embrace the gay polar bears for what they are and the Stockman guy will live in infamy. I thought he looked bi in that photo but it took a while to figure it all out.
We all know that Republicans are the party of science and progress…um…well…oh never mind.
Inga – we know that the Democrats are the party of climate change where the science is settled.
Is this the same elected ‘expert’ that explained to a scientist being interviewed that global warming doesn’t affect the oceans’ rise because, “Well, it’s just like ice cubes in a glass of water, see. See, they’re ice and ice is water and they’re already in the water and being water when they melt they don’t change the level of the water. Get it.” The scientist was sort of numbed and didn’t respond. Something about ‘pearls before swine’.
karen – I was thinking that a major study could be done on the effect of Botox on female politicians. Pelosi would be subject #1. We would wean her off Botox and make her go cold-turkey for 6 months to flush her system, then slowly start injecting her again. Small amounts at first and then ramping it up to the mega-doses she is on now. Each week we would test her IQ, although we would have to change tests so she didn’t memorize them.
Cool! Can I do that? I’ll come up with my own theory and then demand a grant . . . to myself . . . so I can study it!
I do agree that we should study the phenomenon in political office where power has a negative correlation with abuses. As power and importance wane, abuses and desperate grabs for attention soar, such as Obama ignoring the law altogether now that he’s a Lame Duck. And Pelosi could be the topic of several interesting thesis.
Spend millions of the people’s money and you have to name it yourself; spend trillions and the people will name it for you.
“Indeed, I know little about the impact of such wobbling on climate. ”
It’s been extensively studied:
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles
LMAO – bet he spent his time in office railing against government spending
I think I can get behind this. Money goes to study all sorts of science stuff, why not this? And if he wants to name it, why not? Why should scientists get all the fun?
BTW, the wobblying at the poles is a problem as is the fact that the poles have moved drastically a couple of times. Hopefully that will not happen while I am alive. Although, my big hope is that Yellowstone Park does not decide to become a super volcano again during my lifetime. I don’t have enough ammo packed away yet.
Just when my tank of cynacism was beginning to run low…
“Of course, some could wonder if the Stockman Effect could also be a political theory positing the connection between a loss of power and the subsequent elevation of ego.”
Outstanding post–you would think I’d be appalled, but it’s so damned funny, and so true to type. Thanks for the great post.
Hypothesis not theory.