The Calgary Herald’s Barry Cooper thinks that having a conversation would be a great thing
According to President Barack Obama, climate change is an American security problem.
As a follow-on to the 2012 Rio climate summit, which featured the iconic statue of Christ the Redeemer bathed in green light, the Pope is preparing an encyclical on climate change. Prior to the December climate summit in Paris, we can anticipate extravagant exhortations to save the planet. Such is the context for Premier Rachel Notley’s call for change in response to “the worldwide conversations around climate change.â€
A conversation would indeed provide a contrast with the usual exchanges of vitriol. For the following reasons, it seems highly unlikely to occur.
First, there is the problem of the natural causes of climate change. So far as I can tell from contemporary studies, natural causes include solar and gravitational changes, volcanic and magnetic changes linked to plate tectonics, and cosmic radiation. There are cycles in ocean currents, including Dansgaard/Oeschger cycles in sea-ice cover, and Milankovitch cycles in the Earth’s tilt, motion around the sun, and so on. The periodicity of these cycles ranges from decades to millenniums.
In contrast, we have about two centuries of thermometer readings and 35 years of microwave sounding units to estimate global average temperatures. In terms of climate cycles, that’s worth about one data point.
The big problem, of course, is that Warmists, mostly part of the far left Progressive movement, do not want a conversation. Like with most issues, they want a soliloquy. You are either part of their beliefs set or you need to shut up. Even by “force”. Hence the reason for sayings like “the science is settled”. Hence the reason websites, including news organizations, shutting down all comments from those opposed to the Cult Of Climastrology. Nor allowing articles that have a skeptical viewpoint. Warmists want nothing to do with debating Skeptics, and rarely do. They will often bow out or leave a news set when confronted.
Patrick Moore, co-founder of Greenpeace, noted that, if there were proof that CO2 was a significant factor in global worming, it would be written down. It isn’t. The effects of CO2 are described as “likely†or “probable,†which reflect a judgment, not a proof. More precisely, they are statistical estimates that flow from models that in turn reflect assumptions governing their operations.
I’ve mentioned that same thing about using those words many, many times. As far as the models go, they have not only failed in prediction, they fail when applied to the past. Hence the need to constantly “adjust” the data.
Again, Warmists do not want a conversation, because actually having a conversation exposes the true agenda, which is not science, but politics, as I’ve written time and time again.
