Climate warmistas mouth off at us for the global warming we cause but universally, staunchly and ignorantly refuse to say how we cause it. It’s time this was stopped, and the only way to stop it is for us to keep asking for the evidence and complain fairly loudly each time we are ignored.
The warming experts paint endless scenarios of different amounts of warming in different decades up to a century from today, describing multifarious ills and tragedies that might befall various kinds of living things.
Scientists, generally cautious, usually fill their papers with words like could, might or may happen, in order to avoid any suggestion of making a prediction. But their sycophants are not so restrained, and thunder at us that these hellish scenarios are definitive forecasts produced by “scientists” and which therefore cannot be denied. The warmist scientists endlessly research details of future disastrous warming, but let anyone ask for details of the causes of the warming and they quickly name the questioner a “denier”.
This is the one area where accuracy somehow escapes them and they fudge the details: whenever they talk about how we cause dangerous warming or when it will happen, or how much warming there will be or even how much warming there would be from a given level of atmospheric carbon dioxide, they embrace ambiguity and evasion and reject honest debate.
In other words, they use simulated science to produce counterfeit concepts of the future.
The warmistas are everywhere in society, deeply embedded. Their belief in man-made warming is expressed alike by the illiterate and the highly educated from top to bottom of society. They are all alike infected with the desire to atone for what they view as our climate sins, which spring not so much from earning a living in a harsh environment as from violently wresting a “profit” from a gentle “Mother”. Thus is the emotional blackmail constructed.
It’s impossible to keep up with them, especially with the Paris December conference being widely talked up. This one was mentioned on Google News.
A chap called Greg Fishel (meteorologist, 34 years at WRAL-TV, North Carolina, USA) writes on the WRAL weather blog. He points out he’s qualified in science and rather sensibly adds “I can’t be bothered by what Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and others say about the science” [my emphasis].
He refers to his Christian faith, which I put to one side, for he declares an intention I share:
I can take the high road and simply pursue the truth as best [I can].
Certainly admirable on the surface, but when he describes sceptics he betrays his actual thinking.
I have stated for months now that one of my goals was to help promote a civil discussion between those who accept man-made global warming based on the evidence and those who do not.
Thus contemptuously does he clearly paint his opponents as denying the evidence.
Please understand, Greg Fishel, that sceptics do not deny the evidence, they simply challenge it and what it means. In addition, we challenge the very theory of man-made climate warming. There are several lines of reasoning for this.
Therefore, to win us over, you will first listen to us and then, and more importantly, present evidence for your case.
Views: 86
I don’t accept man-made global warming because the effect is too weak to be much of a problem without positive feedback from water vapour. I think it is Greg Fishel that is ignoring the evidence, as the empirical data from all datasets in the IPCC’s AR5 report shows clear as day that this feedback is non existent.
Good solid point, Magoo.
Greg Fishell’s pronouncements betray his actual views on ‘evidence’ – he is perfectly happy to announce that his acceptance of faith is OK, but anyone who thinks rationally (and doesn’t require imaginary friends (as children frequently do) is suspect if they don’t agree with him. I am very familiar with his rationale and find it quite funny, in a sad sort of way.
The IPCC was set up to execute a giant con and they have been wonderfully successful with those who are willing to suspend disbelief such as Mr Fishell.
The IPCC state that “at least 50% of the warming since 1950 is very likely caused by anthropogenic forcing” (or similar)
This would leave room for some of the warming since 1950 and most of the warming pre 1950 not caused by humans, according to the IPCC
However, I have found that taking the IPCC scriptures literally can get you banned from blogs and the target of much verbal abuse.
>”those who accept man-made global warming based on the evidence”
Fishel, by ignorance or whatever, is confusing a hypothetical theory with “evidence” – not one-and-the same. Probably typical of warmers too I suspect.
I doubt whether he could actually compose a falsifiable man-made climate change hypothesis from the IPCC’s criteria. He certainly can’t quote one from that source (although it can be inferred), or from any other “mainsteam” source either.