If you just look at the thing they are trying to measure and the tools they are using to measure it (including the accuracy of thermometers 100 years ago), you can reasonably presume that this particular science is not very scientific. On my kitchen wall are three thermometers. Two use technology vastly superior to what was available 100 years ago. The third one uses fairly old technology. They are 17 inches apart. The room temperature is maintained by a state-of-the-art home heating system. As I write this, they read 68.0, 70.2, and 73. (Feel free to try this experiment at home.)
With the disclaimer that I’m just a layman who resides in “flyover country”, who are these “11,000 Scientists,” and do they even have credibility to weigh in on this matter? Scientists, with few exceptions, are subject matter experts in specific fields — their expertise isn’t inherently relevant and extensible across varying fields of science. For example, a physicist won’t teach a graduate-level course in Biology; a podiatrist won’t perform open heart surgery and a botanist has minimal insight on quantum computing. How many of these 11,000 scientists possess germane degrees in meteorology, climatology or atmospheric science? Lo and behold, BioScience actually published a list of these scientific signatories in the attached link — so I looked.
In keyword searches across 324 pages of signing signatories, spanning 11,224 scientists, I found 240 (2%) individuals with professions that can be construed as bona fide meteorologists, climatologists, or atmospheric scientists. As a frame of reference, the Department of Labor reports there are 10,000 atmospheric scientists in the U.S. Conversely, this list contains plenty of “experts” who have zero credibility on the topic of climate change, coming from fields such as: infectious diseases, paleontology, ecology, zoology, epidemiology and nutrition, insect ecology, anthropology, computer science, OB-GYN and linguistics. Bluntly, and no offense intended, I could care less what a French professor or a zookeeper thinks about climate change — let alone allow them to tell me how to live my life.
Roughly a thousand years before the Sahara became incompatible with humans, an area the size of England sank beneath the waves. Humans lived there. We have evidence of that (as we do of pre-desert Sahara). Another big chunk of fertile human habitat that was there in the past and gone in the present. It sure as hell ‘aint a sunk just few millimeters in depth.
…I think of this sometime when people are publicly emoting over changes in a glacier…
How much CO2 was humanity responsible for then?
Just think about this: The same people who harangued us for decades about the sin of reinforcing “gender norms” by giving girls Barbie dolls and boys toy guns are now insisting that it’s imperative that we give Barbie dolls to a three-year-old boy who wants to dress up like his older sister (as my emphatically masculine son did) or that we give toy guns to a little girl who chases after her girl brother and his friends when they play “war.” If we treat children as individuals, rather than stereotypes, they’ll almost invariably revert to their biological norms once they hit puberty. They may end up gay or lesbian, but they’ll know what’s in their underpants.
“Not all irreproducible research is progressive advocacy; not all progressive advocacy is irreproducible; but the intersection between the two is very large. The intersection between the two is a map of much that is wrong with modern science,” the report states.
More crap from the ‘educated’ amongst us.
You may have noticed that nearly all of the doomsday theories seem to begin with the phrase, “if current trends continue.” But, as I have just reviewed, current trends don’t continue. Global temperatures go down, then up, then stay flat. Population growth tapers off, new oil reserves are discovered, agricultural yields increase at even higher rates. Doomsday forecasters always overestimate gloomy trends and underestimate human ingenuity in problem solving.
The belief in human-caused warming exceeding a level that what would be relatively benign, and maybe even beneficial, is just that — a belief. It is not based upon known, established, and quantified scientific principles. It is based upon the assumption that natural climate change does not exist.
Got that. Let’s repeat:
It is based upon the assumption that natural climate change does not exist.
Do you see what happens when we permit the rhetoric of “civil rights” to be hijacked by lunatics and perverts? Graham Linehan never sought to interfere with Halliday’s fetish of wearing women’s clothing and pretending to be a woman named “Stephanie.” Rather, it is the bullying behavior of “transgender activism” which brought Halliday/“Hayden” to public attention and prompted Linehan’s criticism.
If your state or local authorities attempt to impose transgender “equality” by law, your free-speech rights could soon be similarly infringed.
The IPCC is a political organization, not a scientific body. It was formed by the United Nations in 1988 for the purpose of establishing the need for a global solution to the alleged problem of anthropogenic climate change. Note that the mission of the IPCC was never to study the causes of climate change; were that the case, it might have devoted some of its billions of dollars in revenues over the years to examining solar cycles, changes in ocean currents, the sensitivity of climate to greenhouse gases, or the planet’s carbon cycle. The IPCC has spent trivial sums on these issues, and the authors of and contributors to its voluminous reports have few or no credentials in these fields.
“Money and thus mathematics is the tool for the distribution of wealth,” he writes. “It can therefore be argued that as the key underpinning conceptual tool mathematics is implicated in the global disparities in wealth.”
This is what’s wrong with our educational system, K-12 on up: idiot SJW (but I repeat myself) injecting their personal ideologies and beliefs into what were perfectly fine, useful, and rational subjects. This professor should be removed from his position and banned from teaching ever again. He is a menace.
Mooney relies on a staple of alarmists, what Andrew Revkin calls the “single study syndrome” (e.g., see his NYT articles here and here). The mainstream media broadcast scary papers but never mention those that contradict the doomster climate story. For example, a new paper by Nicholas Lewis and Judith Curry in the Journal of Climate: “The impact of recent forcing and ocean heat uptake data on estimates of climate sensitivity.” This is one of several paper suggesting that the climate is much less sensitive to CO2 than the major climate models assume. Letting people learn about this science would ruin the science is science is settled narrative.
A partial listing of the damage done.
The Left has ruined most of the arts. The following three examples are chosen because they are scatological, a favorite form of left-wing artistic expression. Before the Left poisoned the arts, art was intended to elevate the viewer (or listener). But to the Left, “elevate” is a meaningless term; it is far more at home depicting urine, fecal matter, and menstrual blood.
The biggest newsmakers in the crisis have involved psychology. Consider three findings: Striking a “power pose” can improve a person’s hormone balance and increase tolerance for risk. Invoking a negative stereotype, such as by telling black test-takers that an exam measures intelligence, can measurably degrade performance. Playing a sorting game that involves quickly pairing faces (black or white) with bad and good words (“happy” or “death”) can reveal “implicit bias” and predict discrimination.
All three of these results received massive media attention, but independent researchers haven’t been able to reproduce any of them properly. It seems as if there’s no end of “scientific truths” that just aren’t so. For a 2015 article in Science, independent researchers tried to replicate 100 prominent psychology studies and succeeded with only 39% of them.
This is easily seen in the ‘global warming’ or ‘climate change’ hoax where actual results are replaced with easily manipulated computer games (or ‘models’ as they are called). The results of these computer games, which can’t even accurately reproduce yesterday’s known weather, purport to predict the climate 30, 50, 100 years out. These results are then said to show catastrophe in the making unless we raise taxes to prevent it.
And if you don’t ‘believe’ that a) man is causing climate change and/or b) that raising taxes will miraculously reverse the trend, you are a ‘climate-denier’ and don’t ‘believe’ in science, as if science were a religion instead of a method of understanding the physical world.
I blame leftists who’ve dumbed down the education system so badly that people can’t think critically anymore. If a ‘scientist’ says so, it must be true. Disregard the fact that all of predictions made by these ‘scientists’ have failed to come to pass. The ice caps are still there, the glaciers haven’t melted, and the seas haven’t risen.
City officials, led by Mayor Eric Garcetti, are hoping that the whiter roadways will reduce the urban heat island (UHI) effect, which can make urban areas much warmer than rural areas.
What this really means is that so-called ‘global warming’ is nothing more than the well-known heat island effect skewing temperature data that is collected in urban areas. Global warming is a scam to collect more taxes and limit our freedoms.
This is an insult, and insults lead to resentment. Does anyone suppose that “white people,” as a collective group, will forever be content to shrug off this kind of insulting racial guilt-trip? Any sober student of history must conclude that “Fierce Fat Feminist” is a fool to imagine she can haphazardly hurl such provocative anti-white insults onto the Internet without consequence. Even if you know nothing of history, however, why do you think Donald Trump beat Hillary Clinton? And why do you think liberals were so surprised by Hillary’s defeat?
Source: History, Race and ‘Science’