Bravo Lawrence Solomon! Read the whole thing.You are hearing at this conference that there is little doubt that human activity is causing profound and negative changes to our climate. Distinguished speakers are warning ... that Canada will need to be prepared for the chaos to follow, chaos that could include mass migrations of refugees, social unrest, pandemics, war and terrorism and riots born of social injustice.
I’m here to tell you that there are no such likelihoods. That there is no consensus on climate change. That the science that the doomsayers describe cannot credibly be seen as having the weight of scientific opinion behind it. ...
... All scenarios of catastrophe are based on nothing more than output from computer models that have been fed what-if scenarios. These models can’t even model the past, let alone the future. The climate is simply too complex, with too many variables, to project into the future with any degree of confidence.
... we need to be prepared for emergencies in the future. But we should base our preparations on real-world conditions, not the fantasies of climate modelers at computer keyboards.... the greatest threats to public safety and national security come not from man-made climate change but from man-made climate models. ...
... To date, attempts to mitigate global warming have caused enormous human suffering and ecological harm. With the globe not having warmed in the last 11 years — once again, to the surprise of the computer modelers — the safest thing we can do on global warming until we know more may be to do nothing; the most dangerous thing would be to continue to act boldly and in ignorance.
The man has real guts. I suspect his was a very lonely voice at that meeting. It would be interesting to hear how his message was received.
Scientists are - for the most part - cautious and publicity-shy people. When the first hypothesies regarding the human caused CO2 changes to the environment came out, most scientists (myself included) took the 'sounds internally self-consistent (and thus somewhat plausible) - let's see what the actual data shows.
ReplyDeleteExtending professional courtesy of not criticizing the hypothesis and waiting for some real, hard data before engaging in a meaningful discussion is the norm in the scientific field. It does not, however, signify assent or endorsement.
And, because scientists have an expectation of integrity in other scientists, we do not tend to doubt each other's word on results. We do not suspect fraud. Or, at least, that used to be the norm.
What scientists cannot really deal with effectively are spin doctors and political hacks. They talk in language most scientists don't understand and therefore tend to tune out.
Instead of trying to understand the truth, these hacks and spinmeisters prefer to play word games, often interpreting words in ways which are not valid in the sense in which they were used by the scientists.
We don't know how to respond to these people and get tied up in knots and just prefer to hide away....
So, when the IPCC process of review by 'the world's leading scientists' had a roughly 3 political hacks/spin doctors to each 2 scientists - and when many of the scientists were scientists in name but political hacks who never really studied the science - and when the scientists themselves were told to only make conclusions based on the very limited data they were given - and were refused the right to dissent and make independent comments (the norm in science), scientists became alarmed.
And scared - anyone who spoke up saw their name sullied, grants taken away, articles refused for even consideration - as, in, refused unread by peers - career ruined. Scientists are good at science, not PR or politics (well, the majority). And, we are not good at 'banding together' into protest groups. Most of us are Aspies, anyway - we cound not stand that type of intesity.
So, when the world's scientists were run over by the steamroller of the UN-backed hacks, we did not know what hit us!
Now, that the data is actually in, we can - and are: see Lubos Motl's 'The Reference Frame', for one, Anthony Watt's for another. Now that we have the data, we can present it in a scientific manner - something we know how to do. And, it is disproving everything the eco-statists have claimed.
But, by now, the politicians have invested too much in the ACC rhetoric to be able to back away from it without loosing face, great wads of personal cash, or both. So, they no longer listen to scientists - just the hacks.
No honest scientist today - one who has actually looked at the data and understand the scientific analysis and what it means - can support the eco-statists' claims that Anthropogenic Climate Change is what they say it is, does what they say it does, or that it'll be actually bad for people.
Don't get me wrong: humans DO affect the environment and change the climate! The climate within built-up areas, de-forested areas and so on is definitely altered. But atmospheric CO2 has nothing to do with it!!!