Banner
    1799: Thomas Jefferson, Noah Webster And The First Global Warming Debate
    By Hank Campbell | July 22nd 2011 01:31 PM | 21 comments | Print | E-mail | Track Comments
    About Hank

    I'm the founder of Science 2.0® and co-author of "Science Left Behind".

    A wise man once said Darwin had the greatest idea anyone...

    View Hank's Profile
    As I wrote in Like Freedom? Thank A Scientist - How Science Made America Possible, during the meetings of the the Continental Congress during independence discussions, Thomas Jefferson noted the temperature on four separate occasions.  Jefferson like many others present, was a citizen scientist long before there was government funding for it.   The same climate of liberalism (liberals, not busybody progressives, as I have stated too many times to count) that makes science flourish made democracy possible.

    Jefferson was not only the first Republican, he was the first to raise concern about global warming - another anomaly.  As you can tell by noting the weather four times even when they were debating the most important decision of their lives, Jefferson was obsessed with weather.
     
    In 1787 Jefferson wrote "Notes on the State of Virginia", which is a wonderful book outlining his belief in no government-sponsored religion(1), the way the government in Britain affirms the appointment of Bishops or (in his time) a Holy Roman Emperor was a governmental monarch and head of an official religion, but also his thoughts on public works, the scope of government and an exhaustive accounting of the state of the state.

    It had 5 chapters devoted to science-related matters; geology, geography, etc.  As Joshua Kendall at Smithsonian magazine notes, Jefferson also addressed a concern;  in QUERY VII.  A notice of all that can increase the progress of Human Knowledge?  he wrote
    A change in our climate, however, is taking place very sensibly. Both heats and
    colds are become much more moderate within the memory even of the middle-age d.
    Snows are less frequent and less deep. They do not often lie, below the
    mountains, more than one, two, or three days, and very rarely a week. They are
    remembered to have been formerly frequent, deep, and of long continuance. The
    elderly inform me, the earth used to be covered with snow about three months in
    every year. The rivers, which then seldom failed to freeze over in the course
     of the winter, scarcely ever do so now. This change has produced an unfortunate fluctuation between heat and cold, in the spring of the year, which is very
     fatal to fruits. From the year 1741 to 1769, an interval of twenty-eight
    years, there was no instance of fruit killed by the frost in the neighborhood
    of Monticello. An intense cold, produced by constant snows, kept the buds
    locked up till the sun could obtain, in the spring of the year, so fixed an
     ascendency as to dissolve those snows, and protect the buds, during their development, from every danger of returning cold.
    This was not new, of course.   Society has long had what we called, growing up in Florida,  "Florida conservationists" - in that instance people who wanted Florida to stay exactly the same as it was the week before they arrived.   No new people after that.

    Basically, the weather, like baseball, sucked a lot less than when we were kids and something is to blame.   So people lay blame, usually on a neighbor who built a house or a corporation.

    Enter Noah Webster, later to be he of the famous American Dictionary of the English Language, the world's first global warming skeptic and a science journalist before the field became cheerleaders for science - a guy not afraid to ask the awkward questions, even of brilliant men and accepted wisdom.    Webster took no prisoners; in his 1799 speech he went after those who used the Bible and anecdotes (18th century "gray literature") as evidence and stated (rightly) that thermometers were not all that accurate - a fight that still occurs today, since they really only got accurate around 1980.   And he went after Thomas Jefferson.

    Defying Jefferson's data, Webster instead contended that obvious micro-climate changes were not really changing the weather.  “We have, in the cultivated districts, deep snow today, and none tomorrow; but the same quantity of snow falling in the woods, lies there till spring….This will explain all the appearances of the seasons without resorting to the unphilosophical hypothesis of a general increase in heat.”

    He was convincing enough that the science consensus for the next 190 years became just what he said.   Now the data and circumstances tide has finally turned in a way that Thomas Jefferson anticipated and the weight of evidence is with him, but Webster is to be applauded warmly for debunking anecdotal evidence and shoddy data, thus raising the bar for science overall, even if the science data showed results environmental activists of the day didn't like.

    Joshua Kendall is the author of The Forgotten Founding Father: Noah Webster’s Obsession and the Creation of an American Culture (Putnam, 2011).

    NOTE:

    (1) Militant atheists and some bad court decisions have interpreted him to mean some inability by government to fund any sort of religious program, which is bad reading comprehension and bad law.  He said nothing of the kind.  A letter to the Danbury Baptists in 1802 is the first to use separation of church and state so obviously he was not against religion, since his letter was to religious people, he was for freedom of religion and protecting them from the religious persecution they escaped in Europe.

    Comments

    logicman
    Webster is to be applauded warmly for debunking anecdotal evidence and shoddy data, thus raising the bar for science overall.

    Indeed!  But that doesn't mean that I forgive him for subverting the wonderful English language through an entirely unnecessary emendation of Dr. Johnson's most excellent magnum opus.  ;-)


    Incidentally, you may wish to check out the history of Maryland and the evolution of its constitution for some historical insights into the need for a separation of church and state.  As Jefferson was no doubt aware, Charles the 1st was a Protestant king with a Catholic wife who precipitated England and Scotland into a civil war in which the Puritans were involved, or so I am informed, to a non-trivial extent.  Cromwell, who generously perfected a system of state religion for the good people of England, was rewarded for his efforts after his death by having his head displayed above the door of Westminster Abbey.  People power - hoo-rah!
    Hank
    I'm aware, but I am also aware of the patience and limits of my audience so my overviews are not going to delve into the motivations of Jefferson regarding religious freedom in an article about his atmospheric science.    I touched on it to provide the scope of his 1787 book where he brings up the subject of warming - and because Jefferson is so often misconstrued by cultural militants - but the article isn't about the Bill of Rights.
    Want more no-nonsense, independent science? Buy Science Left Behind
    So, was it the massive forestry industry causing the warming and did they pay off Webster?

    Hank
    You know, that was the belief.   I referenced it quickly when I mentioned a neighbor building a house but deforestation and landscaping/construction have been complained about for 2000 years.  Pliny the Elder was always bitching about urbanization.
    Want more no-nonsense, independent science? Buy Science Left Behind
    logicman
    Pliny the Elder ?   I see we share a taste in light reading.  ;-)

    As for complaints about construction - I think it all went pear-shaped when the common lands of millennia past were taken over by the druids to build Stonehenge - at great expense to the tribute-payers I might add.
    I think you are making quite a leap here, because warming temperatures Jefferson was referencing could not possibly had anything to do with the modern global warming debate. Any carbon dioxide emissions at the time were downright trivial. Human caused emissions in the late 1700s probably could not have even been measured. The warming that was going on was a result of the end of the little ice age.

    Hank
    I never said Jefferson blamed CO2, he blamed urbanization.   And he was clearly wrong and science of the day was correct - you seem to be contending that physics does not apply in 2011, which I do not accept.
    Want more no-nonsense, independent science? Buy Science Left Behind
    re: "Now the data and circumstances tide has finally turned in a way that Thomas Jefferson anticipated and the weight of evidence is with him,...." Hank Campbell

    You jest, no?

    Dan Kurt

    Hank
    No, his evidence was a diary and temperature readings, while noble and interesting, were inaccurate then.   You seem to be contending the laws of physics have been suspended and thermometers have not gotten more accurate in the last 200 years.   Neither is correct.
    Want more no-nonsense, independent science? Buy Science Left Behind
    Hank, neither the Bible nor anecdotes are grey literature document types. According to Miriam-Webster, the definition of GRAY LITERATURE is "written material (as a report) that is not published commercially or is not generally accessible" http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gray%20literature.
    The discussion over grey literature, which derived from the IPCC affaire was equally inaccurate as to what grey literature is and is not.

    Hank
    So is an interview with someone in a media article gray literature?  If not, the IPCC is even more ridiculous for including it as supporting data in their report, right?   Diaries by Thomas Jefferson have more validity than an offhand comment in an article so, yes, that was gray literature in its day.
    Want more no-nonsense, independent science? Buy Science Left Behind