The UK Guardian, long a bastion of belief in anthropogenic climate change, is a bit vexed over the election of skeptic Malcolm Roberts in Australia, and very much exposes why I call them the Cult of Climastrology
Why Malcolm Roberts’ demand for ’empirical evidence’ on climate change is misleading
…..
So how did Roberts respond to his newfound fame? Well, he didn’t disappoint, telling every mainstream audience there was “no empirical evidence to show that carbon dioxide affects the climate in any wayâ€.
Personally, I wouldn’t say there is no evidence, but that scientific evidence shows that it is not as strong as Warmists say, the doubling effect is minimal, natural processes release more than Mankind, and CO2 increases tend to follow temperature increases, not precede them.
Here’s where it gets really fun
So what does Roberts mean by “empirical evidence� According to him, decisions should be based on “observations in the real world … it’s measured, real world data†and nothing else counts.
There are two very obvious problems with Roberts’ argument.
The “real world data†is sending a clear message that the Earth is gaining heat at a rapid rate and that this is a long-term trend. Whether you look at global air temperatures measured in the real world by thermometers or derived from satellites, or the temperature of the oceans at multiple depths, or the increasing frequency of extreme temperatures, or the rising sea levels, the melting ice sheets, the disappearing Arctic sea ice, the increasing risk of bushfires … we could go on and on with a parade of “empirical evidenceâ€.
At the same time, humans are adding CO2 to the atmosphere and oceans at a rate that groups like the Geological Society say are unprecedented “even in comparison with the massive injections of carbon to the atmosphere at the Palaeocene-Eocene boundary, which led to a major thermal event 55m years agoâ€.
Yes, Earth has gotten hotter. That’s not the argument Roberts, nor Skeptics, are disagreeing with. It’s that CO2, or, as the Cult likes to say unscientifically, “carbon pollution”, is mostly/solely the cause. The Guardian goes on to give us their usual, the assumption that CO2 from Mankind is the cause. This is where they would need that pesky “empirical evidence.” Since that’s rather difficult for them to provide, we get
Roberts’ argument that science is only about “empirical evidence†might sound all sciencey to his interviewees and the lay audience. But it’s bunk.
If all you rely on is “empirical evidenceâ€, and reject modelling and analysis that uses that data, then you basically throw out large swathes of modern scientific endeavours.
See? That data from real world observations is meaningless. We need to listen to the (failed and/or massaged) computer models and hysterics! That’s science, you know!
From the article:
Might want to add that a flawed model based on manipulated ‘data’ can make flawed predictions of anything that has not happened yet.
Ex falso quodlibet.
Good catch dp.
— Professor Chris Folland,
Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research
Ex false quodlibet
That wasn’t the claim at all. All the “real world” evidence says the same thing, and overwhelmingly. The Earth is warming rapidly from the CO2 we’ve added and continue to add.
I’ve asked this august forum on several occasions to just describe what further emperical evidence they require to discuss global warming intelligently and the answer is always the same, always crickets.
You are not “skeptics”, you are “deniers” in that you deny the very evidence you demand!!
You all once denied that the Earth was even morning. Teach just denied that the steady increase in CO2 is from human activities.
Scientific theories are rarely “proven”, but as robust evidence accumulates and no evidence falsifies or invalidates the theory it becomes accepted, eventually as a scientific fact.
The scientific questions now are not whether the Earth is warming, or whether CO2 is the primary cause; the question is how warm will the planet get and how will humankind adapt?
My reply to Jeffery……..
WAH WAH WAH WAH WAH WAH
you know like adults speaking in Charlie brown episodes. This is all he hears when we speak.
Bull. Complete, total unadulterated bull.
You have gotten answers but have chosen to ignore them.
You have also taken the position that the answer you put out is the only answer and therefore any other answers – even ones that aren’t known – must be wrong.
We know this…..the Warmists are putting out a theory that is not provable, not matched by science, and not matched by the data. Yet those in the cult continue to cling to it because of a sense of hubris that they can contradict science and the data and still be right.
A train went by the plant a few minutes ago, just belching diesel engine exhaust into the atmosphere, and providing jobs for Americans.
Jeffrey wrote:
I did? Really? P’raps you have documentation as to when I did that.
And why should I take seriously any claims from someone who can’t even tell the difference between males and females?
“And why should I take seriously any claims from someone who can’t even tell the difference between males and females?”
ROTFLMAO!!!
Scientific theories are not provable. “Not matched by science” displays your ignorance, “not matched by data” is false.
0 for 3.
The small change in average temperature since 1850, based on very rough estimates, is perfectly normal for our planet,
So can Hoagie or Dana or David please tell us WHAT is causing the warming ??
Actually, you are wrong which is why the idea of “proven to a scientific certainty” is allowed in courts.
As more and more scientists leave the cult of Warmists, we are seeing that people like you are more desperate in your misrepresentations and seeking to shut any opposing views off.
As for the data, no one can make you pay attention, so there is no need to argue the facts with you.
The true believers claim 4.5 billion years of natural climate change suddenly ended in 1975, and then man made CO2 took over as the climate controller.
Since there is no scientific proof this is true, and not even an explanation of what could cause that to happen — there are only assumptions, feelings, and unproven beliefs.
My mistake. You’re 0 for 4. And counting.
John,
Let me give you a parallel. For 50 years you have been told that cholesterol causes CV disease. People have gone bankrupt as the government and other groups have hounded them about meat, beacon and other fat products. Laws and regulations have been passed, the government has spent untold billions on cholesterol. Now, tell me what causes CV disease, hint, go to the Jupiter trial. So much for the type of science that you espouse.
J’s latest post, translated: I can’t refute what he just said. I’m shocked.
J, seeing as you’re asking for “empirical evidence”, what’s your empirical evidence that the warming is “rapid”? Which you’ve been asked in this august forum many times.
Deniers are the ones asking for “empirical evidence” and “proof”. I find the empirical evidence to be convincing.
My question to the covian Deniers is what additional evidence would you find convincing?
You will agree that the current warming period is about 10 times more rapid than when the Earth warmed from the last glacial period. Would you prefer to just have the current period described as “10 times more rapid than the last glacial to interglacial transition”?
and j,
You still Deny that the Earth is warming, right? You don’t believe in thermometer technology? Or is it all faked?
The minor warming in the past 150 years is not part of a major problem — it is good news — the warming followed six centuries (1250 to 1850) of an unusually cool climate.
Keep lying. little guy.