The climate change disputants, left versus right, have chosen their figureheads, two lovely teenage girls. At stake is nothing less than the survival of humanity! Greta thinks it might be too late if we do not act within the next two weeks. The Heartland Institute’s choosing Naomi as their spokesperson was brilliant! (e.g., Naomi, "climate realist" to counter Greta, "climate alarmist" is driving the left crazy.)
At first, TR397 was going to point out on how ridiculous this debate has become, but it does add some needed humor. Those of us who are serious about science can chuckle at the foolishness of both the left and right.
The livelihood of many is dependent on the general population being scared. It is not entirely the fault of the media. We, the public, are draw to catastrophes. When the Weather Channel sends a reporter into a hurricane, we love it. Yes, the media is looking for clicks so they can sell advertising, but it is the public that does the clicking.
Unfortunately, we have an enormous number of people whose jobs, government grants, graduate programs, scientific status, and income depend upon supporting the questionable climate change consensus.
Weather events are not random. Our atmosphere is chaotic and obeys the laws of physics. Computer models are very useful but cannot forecast far into the future because the smallest change in input can lead to vastly different outcomes.
Science is the quest for truth and not a contest to be won or lost. Skepticism is fundamental to the scientific method, but now “climate change skeptic” has become “climate change denier” to cast the “Holocaust Denier” personality onto those who question the consensus. No one, however confident in his or her own views, should attach so odious a label to their opponent over a serious scientific disagreement. Evolutionary biologists do not site consensus as a reason one should accept the theory of evolution. They do not have to because the evidence speaks for itself.
What is being denied? There is a growing list of well qualified climate scientists who question the severity of human caused climate change. Neither the IPCC nor the skeptics think it will lead to the extinction of humans or even a catastrophe. We have endured extreme weather events long before industrialization.
Flip the denial charge to the consensus supporters. They deny there is any significant disagreement with the consensus. That works for them because they dismiss anyone who even questions the consensus thus keeping the bogus 97% claim intact. Consensus must follow the evidence and by itself is no proof of anything. As so much is unknown, a consensus is a necessary interim choice. Experts have been slow in the past to accept new, valid evidence. (e.g., Stomach ulcers, Georg Ohm).
In the 1940’s every kid who got a sore throat got their tonsils removed. (Not so bad because they would give us a lot of ice cream.) Consensus must follow the evidence or else it is propaganda!
CLIMATE CHANGE