People who sound the alarm on dangerous man made climate change(DMMCC) like to talk in terms of certainty, risk and inaction.
They tout the mythical ‘97% of scientists’ meme to establish certainty complemented by an allusion to doctors’ advice on a disease and conclude with a call to action.
Referencing faulty studies (Legates,2014) claiming 97% agreement among scientists that climate change is real and caused by us is both disingenuous and irrelevant. Was it Aquinas who advised: ask not who made the claim but whether the claim is true? Perhaps a corollary should be added to that epithet: ask not how many make the claim ask if the claim is true. If Mother Nature doesn’t agree then the 97% are wrong because Mother Nature has the only opinion that counts and she is never errs.
The level of certainty in the medical profession for known diseases is much higher than the level of certainty in the fields of meteorology or climate science for weather patterns. You would take the advice of a doctor about a disease because of that knowledge. But would you have the same confidence in the advice of a meteorologist or a climate scientist just because they have a Phd beside their name? Would you bet your life on it? Scientists are less likely to be correct in a field that studies a complex, dynamic, chaotic non-linear system are they not?
” … In climate research and modelling, we should recognise that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.” From the 3rd IPCC report, Section 14.2 “The Climate System”, page 774.
Back in 2001 the IPCC had a firm grasp of their subject matter. What happened? Groupthink?
A glance at the history of ice free Arctic forecasts ought to give anyone pause that climate scientists are able to tell us anything useful about the future. And if they cannot give us correct information about an ice free Arctic how much confidence should we have in their ability to predict what the climate is going to be like in 2100?
Shouldn’t we at least be certain there is a problem that we can do something about?
Why would you dig a hole only to fill it in again?
If what you want to do can’t/won’t solve the problem is it rational to do it anyway just so you can say you did something? What about the waste of resources?
Building wind turbines or solar farms to reduce CO2 caused GW when there is no sign of CO2 caused GW is stupid unless you are an investor in wind turbines or solar panels.
If we don’t have confidence in the ability of climate scientists to foretell the future why should we follow their advice about mitigation of the problem? Perhaps there is no problem?
A careful review of the data does not lead one to believe that we live on a planet in peril. If geoscientists are to be believed then CO2 has been at higher levels than we currently experience for most of the last 600 million years. We are here. Therefore there was no tipping point, no runaway global warming that made the planet inhospitable for life.
The scare is unjustified. Shall we look for motive?
No comments:
Post a Comment