Don’t we all accept less critically those observations and inferences that support our world view than those that don’t?
CO2 is more plentiful in the atmosphere now than in the recent past. Apparently, Bette does not know that over the last 600 million years CO2 has been at concentrations 10 to 20 times our current levels. No tipping point, no runaway global warming. And that bit of science ought to be the end of the ‘CO2 drives warming’ assault on fossil fuels.
People not trained in critical thinking will see what they want to see and take it as confirmation of their beliefs. No questions asked. No further investigation needed. This trait explains why Bette is a performer and not a scientist.
Bette makes this mistake constantly. She sees a single instance(many of them) which supports her view that the world has a fever but forgets to ask if the world had a similar fever in the past which would be more difficult to blame on a lower CO2 concentration.
Hence, Bette does not think to look back in weather history to see if there were instances of as high or higher temperatures on the December 22nds of the past. There were. Thus this year’s instance is but another example of weather completely within the bounds of natural variability.
Bette is not interested in the truth. She is interested in putting her ignorance on display in the twitterverse. Will she learn? Seeing is believing.
Apparently not as she has done this before.
Yup, last time it was the presence of too much snow which convinced her of climate change. She forgot that CO2 is supposed to be a heat trapping gas thus making the climate WARMER which should result in more rain and less snow. Thus Bette believes in a theory that cannot be falsified because every extreme event can now be blamed on CO2. Hot or cold CO2 did it!
The focus must be kept on the alleged catastrophic heat trapping superpowers of CO2. This is the crux of the whole issue. It is NOT about any climate change but about a WARMING climate. A WARMING climate portends expected consequences. If those consequences refuse to show up or show up in metrics lower than those predicted as CO2 rises then the theory has a problem.
The data coming from the Mother Nature Climate Network do NOT support the predictions made by the CO2 centric climate models.
But those pursuing an agenda will ignore, belittle or hide behind the ‘ mythical consensus’ when data exposing the error in their beliefs bubble to the surface of public discourse. Isolation and insulation from alternative views makes an island of groupthink.
If you don’t seek out those with different views you will continue to repeat the same mistakes.
"The growth of knowledge depends entirely on disagreement" -- Karl Popper.
Ignoring contrasting views blocks the path to knowledge on both sides.
In the case of unusual weather conditions the first question that should be asked is: has it happened before? If it has then it is within the bounds of natural variability and should not be regarded as unprecedented. Another question that could be asked is: is there a trend toward these unusual conditions? Are they happening more frequently?
We must go where the data leads and according to the links above increasing CO2 is not proceeding to a dangerously warmer world. Seeing is believing. But Bette, there are those who will remain wilfully blind.
No comments:
Post a Comment