Phil Plait didn’t like the Billboard offering from the man made climate skeptic group ‘Friends of Science’ that read:
Phil thinks this is Bad Science.
Apparently, Phil does not study the Sun. Maybe he really is The Bad Astronomer.
He quotes the Skeptical Science alarmist site for his scientific refutation of the Sun as the main driver of climate change during the recent past.
Perhaps he should broaden his reading on solar influences on our climate.
Solar Influences
http:// hockeyschtick.blogspot.co.uk/2014/04/new-pa per-finds-solar-uv-is-correlated.html?spref=tw …
The last three alone are enough to refute the lack of influence of the Sun on contemporary climate. Solar scientists seem to be in conflict with alarmist climate scientists. This does not appear like settled science to the observing public.
Phil laments that Friends of Science deny that the globe is warming with temperatures spiking upwards. Perhaps that is because Mother Nature stopped raising the Global Mean Temperature (GMT) over 15+ years ago. Surely Phil is aware of this.
Next Phil can’t believe that Friends of Science deny that CO2 is the main driver of climate change. It is difficult to believe that Phil believes a colorless, trace gas essential to life on Earth can pose a problem for humans. It is difficult to demonize a gas that fertilises the flora and in increasing quantities is greening the planet.
CO2, a trace gas essential to life on Earth, is plant food. We exhale CO2 and help to feed the flora. In return they slip us oxygen of which we are rather fond in a mutually beneficial and amicable symbiotic relationship. From this evil comes?
Bonus: plants grow better, stronger, faster because of the increasing concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere.
In concluding, the U.S. research team declares that "from this remarkable 30-year archive of satellite imagery, we thus see evidence of a greening trend," which clearly indicates that the net result of the climatic and physiological effects of atmospheric CO2 enrichment on Earth's terrestrial plant life has in the mean been decidedly beneficial.
CO2 is green. We need more of it not less. CO2 has been exhaled during the creation of this post. No living thing was harmed. Some even liked it. Let the plants dance.
Phil has fallen prey to the misinformation about the danger of the life giving gas CO2.
Next Phil expresses his fear of sea level rise(SLR) and ridicules Friends of Science for their lack of concern about SLR. It is the same lack of concern expressed by those who continue to pay the increasing prices of seaside property and those who continue to invest in hotels, resorts and airports in low lying islands. Are these people nuts? I got an idea. Let’s invest millions in properties that are going to be submerged by an oceanic uprising. Shouldn’t prices of coastal property be going down as people wake-up to the dangers of climate change? Maybe SLR isn’t that big a concern. Recently, the seas have been forgetting to rise alarmingly. Sea levels have been higher in the past long before humans started to burn fossil fuels for energy.
Phil then chides Friends of Science for promoting Christopher Monckton as if truth is determined by who speaks it rather than by an appeal to Mother Nature. If temps are not rising does it matter who points it out?
Next, Phil refers to a Sourcewatch entry for Friends of Science which explores the origin of funding for the non-profit organization. Does Mother Nature care who funds a video or study? Either the study uncovers something about how she operates or it doesn’t. Either the video reflects reality or it doesn’t. We must compare the content with what Mother Nature is doing in order to render a proper verdict.
Similarly, Phil tries to question the integrity and reputation of the organization by mentioning the corporate owner of the billboard on which the message was displayed. Does Mother Nature care about such things? Either the sun is the primary driver of climate change or it is not.
The studies above support the contention of the message promoted by Friends of Science. Scientists believed it in 1998.
The data appears to support it.
Perhaps Phil would like to educate us as to why the current set of Global Climate Models (GCMs) do not track what Mother Nature has been doing for the last 17+ years. Theory says: CO2 up, temps up. Mother Nature didn’t get the memo. CO2 up; temps in stasis for 17+ years.
We hate it when that happens but when it does science says: modify or abandon the theory because as it stands it is wrong.
A friend of science would recognize that. Is Phil a scientist or a delusional activist?
Wow! Thanks so much! Friends of Science greatly appreciate your thoughtful support and exceptional compilation supporting the sun as main driver of climate change. Can we send you a complementary CD of jazz by Bob Erlendson in thanks? Michelle Stirling, Communications Manager, Friends of Science
ReplyDelete