Good News: The Jury Is Like Totally In On Hotcoldwetdry

A few days ago I put a post on the public distrusting scientists which included this quote from a “climate scientist”

Lecturing people isn’t the answer. Alan Leshner, the outgoing CEO of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, made that clear Wednesday when he met with this newspaper’s Editorial Board. Scientists instead need to engage the public in a forthright conversation about the importance of science to society, he said.

So, obviously, it’s lecture time, featuring “climate scientist” Brian Schmidt!

Jury in on climate change, so stop using arguments of convenience and listen to experts

No single person knows everything about climate change. And for the average punter, it’s hard to keep up with all the latest research and what it means.

Nice. Schmidt uses a British slang term which can refer to “one who visits brothels”, watches lots of porn, visits strip clubs, and gets drunk in bars. Also “Someone who is ill-informed and liable to be taken advantage of. A sucker who lacks inside knowlege or savvy.” There’s no better way to get someone to buy what you’re selling than insulting them, eh?

I am a full-time scientist whose area of expertise intersects with certain aspects of climate science. I, too, am not an expert on climate science.

But I do understand how science works. I understand that the current consensus has been reached by thousands of scientists working for decades. And I understand that the vast majority of scientists and scientific bodies, including the Australian Academy of Science, have reached broadly the same conclusions.

If he understood science, he wouldn’t be yammering about “consensus” and “conclusions”. Instead, he would provide hard facts and figures.

These are the real experts on climate change and this is what they’re saying:

  • Earth’s climate has changed over the past century. The atmosphere and oceans have warmed, sea levels have risen, and glaciers and ice sheets have decreased in size.
  • The best available evidence indicates that greenhouse gas emissions from human activities are the main cause.
  • Continuing increases in greenhouse gases will produce further warming and other changes in Earth’s physical environment and ecosystems.

Interesting. “The best available evidence”.  How often has science provided evidence and said “you must (X) or doom!!!!!!”? How many studies, say, about foods, engaged in the “because x, y happens”, then we find out that that was wrong, but, hey, do Z, because, like, totally trust us? Fat bad, fat not bad. Salt bad, salt not bad. Alcohol yes, alcohol no. So much science is based on correlation and inference, rather than actual causation. What happens when the “best available evidence” turns into “whoops, sorry, our bad!”?

Astrophysicist Ethan Siegal writes, in terms of astrophysics,

But I bring this up so that the next time you hear about some theory, it’s totally reasonable to ask, “What overwhelming evidence do we have that this is correct?” But rather than simply dismiss it, if it sets off your internal BS-detector, I want to assure you of a number of things:

  • Your BS-detector is probably right (and honestly, it’s probably not sensitive enough), and this isn’t likely to be the next great revolution in our understanding of the Universe,
  • This research is still important, as it’s exploring a hitherto unexplored possibility, which could teach us something about the Universe,
  • and if there’s even a germ of a good idea in there, scientific inquiry is what will grow that into a full-fledged theory that means something.

It’s not the notion of the climate changing that sets off Skeptics BS detectors, it’s the notion from Warmists that it is mostly/solely caused by Mankind. If a continued rise in GHGs from Mankind is the main/sole cause of the Modern Warm Period, then why do real world observations contradict 95% of their computer models? Oh, and of course, why do Warmists refuse to make their own lives “carbon neutral”?

The evidence is clear: human activities are changing the Earth’s climate, and what we do now and into the future will strongly influence the world’s weather in the decades and centuries to come.

For the future health of our world and our country, Australians, let’s quit self-diagnosing on climate change, and act on the expert opinion.

When someone starts yammering in this manner, my BS detector goes crazy

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

6 Responses to “Good News: The Jury Is Like Totally In On Hotcoldwetdry”

  1. Jeffery says:

    If a continued rise in GHGs from Mankind is the main/sole cause of the Modern Warm Period, then why do real world observations contradict 95% of their computer models?

    Oh, and of course, the above statement is blatantly false. You know it’s false, yet you keep repeating it.

    Oh, and of course, why do Warmists refuse to make their own lives “carbon neutral”?

    Many do. Of course, it has absolutely no relevance to the theory of AGW. You use it as an ad hominem attack on those with whom you disagree.

    Dr. Leshner is a physiological psychologist and has been the head of the AAAS for about 15 years. He is worth listening to on science matters.

    Dr. Schmidt is an astrophysicist and a Nobel laureate. He is worth listening to on science matters.

    What evidence would it take to convince a Denier that CO2 is causing the Earth to warm?

  2. drowningpuppies says:

    Uh, evidence?

  3. Jeffery says:

    Comment by drowningpuppies

    2015-02-17 19:34:58

    Uh, evidence?

    Sorry. Didn’t mean to use such a big word.

    According to the dictionary:

    Evidence: (noun) – the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid

  4. drowningpuppies says:

    True or valid. EXACTLY.

  5. Jeffery says:


    I’ll rephrase. What body of facts or information would persuade you that AGW is true?

    If there are none, than you are a Denier, and why should we discuss data or evidence?

  6. david7134 says:

    I will take that question, the body of evidence that I would like to see would be a summation of the scientific method as it applies to AGW. To date, you have not provided that. In fact, all you do is try to destroy the integrity of anyone who actually gives you information. In this case, you say that someone is a denier. Is that a bad thing? You act as if the person is stupid, whereas you are the one who is ignorant and believes more in a religion than an actual scientific process. It might help to grow up some.

Pirate's Cove