A group of 500-some scientists and professionals signed on to the “European Climate Declaration” that was released last week. This simple, short, and understandable statement proposed how analysis of any public policy issue involving complex science should be approached from a reasoned, fact-based perspective.
Statements such as “97 percent of climatologists agree that anthropogenic climate change is occurring” isn’t a statement of fact, it’s an opinion twice removed. It’s an opinion that involves evaluation of the legitimacy of how the results of the poll in question were sorted to dismiss some answers and allow others, and it’s an opinion in terms of how representative the sample size is with respect to all climate professionals.
Statements such as “modeling shows that catastrophic climate change will occur in the next [pick a number] years unless drastic changes are made” is also an opinion. It’s an opinion because the results of any model, and in particular any model that purports to predict the future of anything as complex as the entire planet’s climate system, necessarily relies on a multitude of choices made by the model’s designer. The relative importance of the many, many factors that go into the model’s complex calculations are based on the judgments of the model designer, and those judgments are matters of opinion, not statements of fact.
One: “The world has warmed at less than half the originally predicted rate, and at less than half the rate to be expected on the basis of net anthropogenic forcing and radiative imbalance. It tells us that we are far from understanding climate change.”
Two: “Climate models have many shortcomings and are not remotely plausible as policy tools. Moreover, they most likely exaggerate the effect of greenhouse gases such as CO2. In addition, they ignore the fact that enriching the atmosphere with CO2 is beneficial.”
Three: “There is no climate emergency. Therefore, there is no cause for panic and alarm. We strongly oppose the harmful and unrealistic net-zero CO2 policy proposed for 2050. If better approaches emerge, we will have ample time to reflect and adapt. The aim of international policy should be to provide reliable and affordable energy at all times, and throughout the world.”
Hear, hear!
Well, it won't go away because there's too much sweet government money in it for academics, there's too much sweet power to steal away from the people to stop the politicians from their thievery, and too much sweet emotion and hysteria for those poor folk who are mildly emotionally ill and thus who enjoy such things.
Here is a terrific short video from Tony Heller (climate emergency de-bunker)on this subject:
ReplyDeletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=771&v=8455KEDitpU
Heller does a great job by showing, with facts and data, the dishonesty of this humbug scam.
And if the Democrats win in 2020, the authors and signers of this work face Nuremberg style trials as "World Criminals".
ReplyDeleteThis isn't a scholarly debate or an opinion poll; this is war for the control and power that comes with having their foot on Civilizations throat. Forever.
Scientists call for "reasoned debate"? Ever try to debate with a large gathering of certified delusional psychotics?
ReplyDeleteas a educated person retired from years of practical engineering, I can whole hearted agree with the bunnies assessment of the character the global warming elites.
DeleteIt has become really clear that atmospheric science is insufficient to describe climate. But almost all climate scientists, or at least those that are scientists, are atmospheric scientists. To describe climate we must include helioseismology, cosmic motion, astrophysics, plate tectonics and oceanography at a minimum. Not only do none of our current models include that, we don't know how to include that.
ReplyDeleteWe are just starting to understand at a prior ice age might have been caused in part by exploding asteroids. We still don't know the reason for our current ice age. The earth was mostly ice free for 250 million years before that.