Doctor Nurse

“Global warming denialists, those who oppose genetically modified crops and vaccinations, or the teaching of evolution: their trick is treat scientific argument as if it’s a political argument, and cherry-pick data.”

Sir Paul Nurse is the current head of the Royal Society in Britain and is the author of the above comments. Funny, skeptics of human induced CO2 climate change see the alarmists as the ones who “treat scientific argument as if it’s a political argument, and cherry-pick data.”

This writer takes no issue with genetically modified crops, vaccinations (I’m up to date) or the teaching of evolution. All are firmly rooted in the scientific tradition.

Climate science is another matter. What is a layperson to think when climate scientists make predictions about how the climate is to behave under the influence of increased CO2 in the atmosphere and those predictions are falsified by reality. In my science education reality was treated as the final arbiter in any dispute. Reality trumps theory no matter who or how many ascribe to it. Climate science says that increased CO2 in the atmosphere will generate more severe weather in the world. And yet the US has not been hit by a major (cat3-5) hurricane in 5 years, the longest period of absence in the historical record. Florida has not been hit by any hurricane for the same length of time. This is to be cheered not lamented and is in contradiction to the theory of CO2 induced severe weather. The trend in severe weather for tornadoes, wildfires, floods and droughts follows a similar pattern.

What is a layperson to conclude when the theory predicts increasing temperatures in a CO2 infested atmosphere are not observed? My science education would lead me to conclude that the theory must be modified or abandoned because it is not capturing what the climate is doing.

What is a layperson to conclude when predictions of accelerating sea level rise in a world whose atmosphere is accumulating CO2 are not met.

It is facts like these that generate legitimate doubt in the mind of a layperson as they should generate in the more educated cortices of the Phds among us.

Sir Paul, what is the mechanism by which CO2 caused the drought in the US this summer or the warm winter in the eastern US in Jan-Mar 2012 while other areas of the planet were experiencing record cold? Did the CO2 molecules all move to the US to trap the heat there thus leaving none elsewhere to keep people warm? Do we have measurements to back up the movement of CO2? And how did that actually take place? What moved the molecules? Or is a better explanation provided by the movement of jet streams and sea surface temperatures expressed in the PDO, ENSO and the AMO? Perhaps the AO and NAO had a role to play this year?

How would a meteorologist explain the weather patterns of the year?

It makes one wonder who has their head buried in the sand on this issue. The facts speak volumes and yet it is the alarmists who ignore them or deny them and seek to influence people by repetition and cherry picking data while leaving out contrary information.

Skeptics seek to put all relevant information on the table for all to see so that the truth can be distilled and go where the data lead.

Dr Nurse speaks for a prestigious and venerable organization whose policy is  “never to give their opinion as a Body upon any subject either of Nature or Art that comes before them”.

Since Dr Nurse has chosen to ignore the policy of his own organization can we assume that he has sought leave to do so? Was the membership polled by an independent pollster on the topic of CAGW? Was the membership given the opportunity to respond to the idea that human induced CO2 accumulation in the atmosphere is the cause of the late 20th century warming? Were they also polled about the lack of warming for the last 15 years? Does Dr Nurse speak on behalf of the Royal Society or only for a himself and a select few? What is the truth?

What is a layperson to think when it is possible to find peer reviewed studies that dispute man’s role in global warming and climate change paid for with taxpayer dollars? My conclusion would be to recognize that there is no consensus despite statements to the contrary and to conclude that someone has an agenda they wny pushed.

What is a layperson to think when political statements from organizations with a political agenda that champion a disputed viewpoint.

"In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill....All these dangers are caused by human intervention....and thus the “real enemy, then, is humanity itself....believe humanity requires a common motivation, namely a common adversary in order to realize world government. It does not matter if this common enemy is “a real one or….one invented for the purpose." ~Club of Rome

One invented for the purpose. That is not science; that is advocacy and the truth be damned.

A layperson can be excused his cynicism in the face of such unabashed political intent.

Doctor Nurse continues: “We can’t sit by without exposing bunkum.”

Amen, Doctor Nurse. And that is what the skeptic has proceeded to do. You are backing the wrong horse ,sir.

While Doctor Nurse attempts the guilt by association tactic to try and discredit skeptical distrust of the CAGW meme his ruse misses the mark.

He wonders how it is that a nation that produces the wonders of Silicon Valley and great research centers in New York, Boston, Baltimore and Rochester, Minn., to name just a few, has large stretches where the theory of evolution is not taught.

People can accept evolution and doubt CAGW. I do. Let us not introduce red herrings. Because one theory has oodles of support does not mean that the other one does. Both require independent means of support.

That support is missing in the case of CAGW.

The stakes are too high to play political games, he says. Indeed. The survival of our way of life is at stake. Refer to the above quote from the Club of Rome.

Mencken nails it:

"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed — and hence clamorous to be led to safety — by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary."

CAGW is a myth and Bertrand Russell's observation is vindicated again.

"The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever that it is not utterly absurd; indeed in view of the silliness of the majority of mankind, a widespread belief is more likely to be foolish than sensible.”

Plant food will destroy us. Yeah, right!