jump to navigation

Common Sense Comment from WUWT January 23, 2009

Posted by honestclimate in Discussions.
Tags: ,

Common Sense Comment from WUWT

From the comments section of Watts Up With That on Correlation demonstrated between cosmic rays and temperature of the stratosphere

Comment by EricR (08:38:12) :

I find it interesting that whenever someone – such as Svensmark, Grey, or Wilde (in his blogs) presents an alternate theory of climate change, people who support the AGW consensus immediately swarm to strike it down. This is interesting to me for several reasons.

It used to be, back in Einstein’s day, that when someone proposed a theory, every scientist out there who had specialty in that theory tried to disprove it. It wasn’t mean-spirited, it was science. Any theories that survived 30 or so reviews and verifications were found to be “valid”. So, when a “new” theory of climate change occurs (such as those mentioned above), yes, I would expect the scientific community to try and disprove it. That’s science.

However, when it comes to the theory of CO2-induced climate change, no such attempts to disprove the theory are made. Where are the high numbers of government grants being distributed to scientists who have alternate theories that would contradict the CO2 theory, or those that would try to disprove it directly? As far as I can seen, few, if any exist. And if someone tries to challenge this theory in any way, they are a “denier”. I would think that someone who is so sure of their theory would welcome challenges to it, because surviving those challenges makes the theory stronger. I would also think, that following the “old” style of science, proponents of C02 would state categorically what evidence would disprove their theory, because this again is sound science. Instead, we seem to have a science orthodoxy that circles the wagons any time a new theory is suggested, and one that changes the rules whenever a part of their theory is disproven. See the climate models and their constant “tweaking” for evidence of how the theory is constantly changed, especially whenever observable data seem to contradict it.

We have so little understanding of the oceans, the sun, cosmic rays, magma beneath the earth’s crust, even atmospheric climate science, yet we are supposed to believe the science is “in” and the issue is “decided”? How could anyone with such an incomplete understanding of the most chaotic, complex, system man has tried to study, claim, after less than 30 or so years, to have a firm enough understanding that they would recommend public policy?

And before someone pulls that “if there’s 1% chance they are right, we need to act” argument, remember that could be used to justify going into Iran, putting missiles in space to stop meteors, moving all of the cities away from the coast out of mega-tsunami fears, etc. In order to make any objective judgment about public policy, an unbiased risk assessment needs to be done. Any complete risk assessment would need to include the benefits of a warming world (again, where are the studies on this), the economic costs to a dramatic energy paradigm shift to the West and the 3rd World, as well as the risks to us and the likelihood of those risks taking place.

Instead, I seem to see fear-mongering, with no real determination to have a real discussion about the science, its certainty, or the public policy that should result. The more people wish to say “hold it, let’s talk”, the more “scientific” studies seem to come out that predict doom if we do not act yesterday. Aren’t you pro-AGW folk in the least bit concerned about the rush to action and the relative level of distrustful / fraudulent activity (e.g. Mann’s “hockey stick”) on the part of those who are pushing so forcefully in one direction? Aren’t you at all concerned that when someone brings up legitimate issues they are labeled a “quack” or “denialist” or “industry puppet”? When people are so arrogant, so full of themselves, so concerned with being right and not with being correct, doesn’t your skepticism get tweaked at all? Didn’t many use this same logic with regards to Bush going into Iraq, that intelligence was “biased”, that criticism was squashed, that there was hysteria to move quickly? Why does the same logic not apply to climate change?


1. C3H Editor - January 24, 2009

I find it appalling that anyone would state “the science is settled” or there is a “consensus” in relationship to a very major policy issue, when in fact the certainty of the science is close to zero. Put aside for the moment that CO2-centric supporters will not even consider other temperature influence factors, there is still massive scientific dispute about the accuracy of land-based temperatures for gods sake.

Combine the above with the scare tactics and fear-mongering approach to presenting the science, does anyone really wonder why the latest surveys of the public have global warming concerns being low?

The credibility and reputation of the scientific method is being severely trashed, and eventually, most people will come to distrust scientists. The real scientists have brought this eventual outcome on themselves by not demanding that “climate science” focus on strict scientific methods, and forgo the Hollywood/D.C. influence and power trip.

We the people will make the right decisions if presented with the facts instead of obvious hyperbole and excessive coercion.

(Tip to scientists: Distance yourselves from Al Gore; start being critical of his “scientific” evidence and you might gain the support of the public, as well as their respect.)

C3H Editor

2. 33noa333 - November 5, 2010

World is warming up.
By nature for about 18000 years.
Because of humans who knows ?
What we can do about it.

BETTER CLIMATE more energy, food, land and water.
Use mighty power of nature. In the northwestern Australia, we have huge tides,
huge evaporation and huge dry rivers and lakes.
Tides are up to 12m. Evaporation is up to 4m per year and can be increased.
Huge 12m tidal erosion can revive old dry paleo dormant once mighty rivers, creeks and lakes,
desalinate the country and change deserts to rain forests to provide more rain across Australia.
World population is growing rapidly and we need more energy, food, land and water.

this will change deserts and whole continent for better climate
environment, provide hydro energy, permanently.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: