By Bill Schweber

I'm not discussing here whether man-made global warming is real, or is part of other, larger forces, or not happening at all. What I am saying is that the discpline called climate science does not meet my standards for what can be legitimately be considered science.

Here's why: I'm a strict constructionist when it comes to using the "s" word. Scientific theories are established by developing a hypothesis and a model, then verifying them by repeated experiments and control groups. In the case of climate science, researchers don't have that opportunity, for obvious reasons.

It is possible to formulate a model which explains what had been observed, but that's not the same as proving it to be scientifically valid. Just because you can explain something doesn't mean your explanation is correct. After all, astronomers were able to use the Earth-centric Ptolemaic model of the Universe to accurately predict the position and motion of Earth, moon and stars. But that theory was superseded by the better Sun-centric Copernican model on which we now rely.

Einstein provides many excellent examples. In 1905, he developed a unified explanation for the contradictory data of the photoelectric effect, but it was also verified by further tests. In the same year, he published a paper which provided an explanation for the observed data on the Brownian motion of particles using an energy-partitioning thermal perspective.

For verification, Einstein used well-known oil-drop data and came up with a value for Avogadro's number that agreed closely with its long established value. Since Einstein used a radically different approach to determine that fundamental number, his method represented fairly good verification, but it was still not 100-percent proof that he was correct.

The real proof was when Einstein's Theory of General Relativity predicted an occurrence that others hadn't anticipated or observed. In this case, one consequence of general relativity was that the mass of an object would bend passing light. Years later, astronomers were able to confirm this and the amount Einstein's theory predicted. They used data from a total eclipse where the sun deflected light from stars with apparent positions located close to the Sun's edge.

The real test of a theory is not only its ability to credibly explain what we see, and to resolve inconsistencies, but to predict things that no one has yet seen. Due to the constraints of having only one Earth and our inability to run controlled experiments on it, climate researchers can't do that. Yes, they can predict the localized weather for the next few days, and with increasing accuracy. This implies that such small-scale models and their cause-and-effect links are probably correct.

This capability is not available for long-term climate research. Therefore, it isn't science.

You may ask: What about astrophysics? Since we can't set up tests or control the actions of the universe and its bodies, is it really science?

I'd say yes. The astrophysics community proposes theories and then tests them by observing many different stars, which provides some level of confidence. More significantly, astrophysicists also make predictions such as, "If we see 'A' coming from that neutron star, then by our theory we should also see this quantity of 'B'." If they don't see "B" as predicted, something is wrong. I don't see such correlation possibilities in climate research.

So, is man-made climate change happening or not? I don't know, nor do I think anyone really knows. But I am skeptical when proponents of a theory look at the data and rationalize what they see to fit their hypothesis.

Climate researchers point to "up" data as confirming their theory, while dismissing "down" data as mere noise or localized fluctuations within the bigger picture. In other words, all data—whether up or down--maps to the desired conclusion.

By Allan Yogasingam

As some of you may or may not know, EE Times annually awards those in the engineering industry whose ideas, products and designs have revolutionized the field in an innovative way. Through this recognition, we hope to bring to attention the great work done by the many of you who serve this noble profession.

By Allan Yogasingam

And so it begins, not just a new year but a new decade, another ten year window for us to evaluate the progress of the human race and determine if we're on the right track or not. That is, unless of course, the movie 2012 was right and we're all doomed anyways. I don't put much stock into what Roland Emmerich thinks so I'm going to stand by my belief that we'll have the full decade to work with.

Looking back at 2009, the engineering world sat up and took notice of the concept of clean technology " technology that could be used to improve power use, reduce costs, reduce our carbon footprint and overall make the world a better place. The momentum picked up with the introduction of stimulus plans in the U.S. and many nations that provided increased funding to any projects that fit the clean technology criteria.

Will 2010 be the beginning of the golden age of clean technology? Where the smart grid goes from concept to reality? Where homes equipped with smart meters become increasingly energy efficient? Where electric cars finally reduce humanity's dependence on fuel?

It's going to be an interesting new decade

What do you think?