This is how science works in Warmist World: they don’t have to prove their insane ramblings
Climate change: time for the sceptics to put up or shut up
Say I were to ask you to prove that the dinosaurs were wiped out when an asteroid collided with the Earth 66m years ago, in what is now snappily called the Cretaceous-Paleogene extinction event.
If you were as weirdly obsessed by these catastrophes as I am, you would maybe start by citing the worldwide layer of sediment known as K-Pg boundary, which was first discovered near Gubbio, in Italy, and is thought to be the fallout from a massive explosion. You would mention the soot that is associated with this layer, the site of a huge impact in the Yucatán region of Mexico 66m years ago and, finally, you’d ask what else could have caused the dinosaurs to die out more or less overnight. A sceptic might respond that this is all supposition, evidence tenuously linked to fit a very recent theory: none of it constitutes proof and no one can ever know why the dinosaurs vanished to allow the rise of mammals and the eventual evolution of man.
So you would quote more evidence, such as the presence in the K-Pg layer of iridium, an element rare on Earth but not in asteroids, as well as the altered state of quartz, which can only be made under extremely high pressure, such as is caused by a huge impact of a 10km asteroid. You would mention the long darkness when only ferns grew and the fact that the seas were emptied of all but the most tenacious species.
Ah, but this is still all very hypothetical, the sceptic would say, at which point you might give up and tell him, yes, a spacecraft might have visited Earth and exterminated 75% of the world’s species, but you’re going with the best available evidence. The sceptic would walk away, satisfied that he had achieved a draw, not from the merit of his argument, but simply because he had not let you convince him.
How cute. Personally, I subscribe to the K-Pg theory (previously known as the K-T Boundary Event). You have the crater. You have the layer which has Iridium. And so much more. However, can you prove it 100%? Did I just hear you say “no”? The science is not, in fact, settled. Otherwise, why would scientists still be investigating it? In fact, there actually multiple theories as to what was the initial cause to the end of the dinosaur period. One theory is that volcanoes had already been wiping them out, and the asteroid was the cherry on top. Some think it was strictly earthly forces, and may claim that the asteroid had minimal to no impact. Maybe disease, stress, a supernova, and even caterpillars. How about 101 crazy theories? Some have even mention galactic bow shock. So, this isn’t quite “settled”, eh? (but most likely from an asteroid)
This is where we are with the climate change deniers. The absolute proof of manmade global warming is unlikely to arrive until it is too late and so the deniers are scrupulously indulged with equal time in the argument, where, taking the part of Little Britain’s wheelchair user Andy to our Lou, nothing is ever good enough for them.
Did Henry Porter just admit that they really do not have the proof? Are we supposed to spend trillions of dollars, institute Big Government control of people, private entities, and economies, and push our modern lifestyles back thousands of years without proof? According to Warmists, yes. Just not their own money, freedom, or lifestyles.
Anyhow, proof is rather necessary, and the actions and models from the Warmists show that they really do not have it. 95% of their models have failed post-1997. They are continuously making things up when out of the blue where their models fail. They yammer on about 50-100 years from now, while retroactively stating that every weather even is proof of “climate change”. They change the name of their cult, er, science. They change the data to fit their prognostications, which is the complete opposite of science. They Blame Mankind yet won’t change their own behaviors.
And they really do not like anyone to be allowed to speak against their pet cult. Rather fascistic.
They are always the sniping antagonists, rarely, if ever, standing up to say: we believe in the following facts and here is our research. It is a risk-free strategy – at least for the moment – that comes almost exclusively from the political right and is, as often as not, incentivised by simple capitalist gain. Hearing Lord Lawson argue with the impeccably reasonable climate scientist Sir Brian Hoskins on the BBC Today programme last week, I finally boiled over. It is surely now time for the deniers to make their case and hold an international conference, where they set out their scientific stall, which, while stating that the climate is fundamentally chaotic, provides positive, underlying evidence that man’s activity has had no impact on sea and atmosphere temperatures, diminishing icecaps and glaciers, rising sea levels and so on.
And there is the gist: Warmists do not have to prove anything. Those who do not subscribe to “climate change” must prove other causation. Well, we’ve done it time and time and time again (I could provide lots more links, those are just three I quickly grabbed). This is more of the “the science is settled, so just shut up” from these Warmists anti-science fascists. Whose own actions, data, and models prove their hypotheses are wrong.
To suspend hostilities for a moment, it seems to me that both sides should start by considering the undeniable waste of energy in British cities, where office lights shine through the night and supermarkets pump out hot air at open entrances and cold air in their freezer sections. Energy saving and a huge insulation programme might prevent the construction of more wasteful wind turbines, some of which, in the extreme weather of last week, burst into flames or had to be shut down.
Actually, not a bad idea.
We have to come to some agreement soon or the deniers won’t be the only dinosaurs.
Sigh. These people are unhinged.
