A new study of how “climate change” – or “weather,” as normal people call it – has contributed to extreme weather patterns and weather-related events around the world is, as usual, somewhat vague and inconclusive.
When discussing the possibility that human activity is causing abnormal climate change, it is always necessary to point out that the credibility of the believers is tarnished by two indisputable facts: Firstly, that almost all of them – certainly 95 percent or more – would describe themselves as Liberals, and, when any agenda or philosophy is promoted by any group so dominated by one particular political world-view, the reasonable, open-minded person has no choice but to be cynical. The second fact is that the battle-cry of the believers is always “the science is settled” or “you can’t argue with the facts.” Yet, present these same people with any scientific study that throws doubt upon their claims and they will dismiss it, out of hand.
Their argument, therefore, is that you cannot argue with the facts, unless those facts don’t support our claims – in which case, we will completely ignore them or assume that they are false. That is a very scientific approach, then; absolutely no room for doubt. The science that we like is settled; the science that we don’t like is baloney.
To demonstrate this point, here are some facts that the believers will simply dismiss out of hand, even as they preach that if a scientist tells you something, it must be true and beyond dispute:
As always, one must begin with Al Gore, the man who has amassed a personal fortune totaling well over one hundred million dollars on the back of his climate change – or global warming – crusade. For good measure, it is worth pointing out that Gore flies around in private jets and shows up in large SUVs to events where he then lectures the rest of us on the dangers of polluting the environment.
The man who thinks that the earth’s interior temperature is “several million degrees” – whilst it is a scientific fact that even the surface of the sun is not nearly so hot – predicted, in 2009, that the polar ice-cap would likely be gone by the summer of this year. In 2008, he actually made the same prediction, but did so even more certainly; stating that the “entire” ice-cap “will disappear in five years.” For the record, there is currently more ice at both the South Pole and the North Pole than there has been for a great many years. Perhaps, however, this is a scientific fact that Gore’s faithful disciples will simply ignore.
To move away from ultra-wealthy Al Gore and his, not only unscientific but downright comical predictions, perhaps it is wiser to focus on those who have actually gained some scientific qualifications. In a 2012 survey published by Organizational Studies – a peer-reviewed publication, it should be noted – the vast majority of the 1,077 engineers and geoscientists who responded were, essentially, divided into four categories, based upon their knowledge and observations of the causes and effects of climate change.
According to an article in Forbes, the basic result of the survey was that 36 percent of the respondents believe that “climate change is happening” and that “humans are the main or central cause.”
Of the four categories mentioned, the first included those who assert that “changes to the climate are natural, normal cycles of the Earth.” and “strongly disagree that climate change poses any significant public risk.” 24 percent of those surveyed came within this group.
The second group was those participants who consider climate change to be “both human- and naturally caused.” and disputed the global warming alarmists’ claims that the science is “settled.” This group comprised 17 percent of respondents.
Ten percent of those surveyed made up a third group; those who say that climate change is “natural or human caused,” but contend that the real cause cannot be known, due to the various and uncontrollable nature of…well…nature.
The final category included the five percent of respondents who believed climate change to be “both human- and naturally caused, posing a moderate public risk.” It is worth noting that only this five percent were willing to class the risk to the public as being even “moderate.” Additionally, those included in this final group were “skeptical with regard to the scientific debate being settled.”
So, a peer-reviewed survey of scientists; yet none who considered the science “settled” and none who consider climate change – whatever the cause – to be any significant risk to the public.
Whilst those who believe in anthropogenic – or “human-caused” – climate change will, of course, dismiss this survey as being insignificant, biased or just flat-out fiction, the question, then, must be posed: “Why is at acceptable to question or dismiss the views of these scientists and, in the same breath, claim that the conclusions of other scientists are beyond dispute because, well, because they are scientists?”
The only thing clearly beyond dispute, here, is that the followers of the cult of climate change are missing at least one link in their chain of logic.
The survey cited above is, by no means, an isolated incident or one small group of scientists questioning the causes and potential threat of climate change; one merely has to conduct some basic research to find many more studies that question the so-called “settled” science of climate change. It is a matter of absolutism; whilst one school of thought wishes to continue the research and consider all possibilities – studying them, in an attempt to determine the truth, the other side shrieks that there is no more room – or time – for further discussion or exploration and that drastic measures must be immediately enacted, in order to avert the catastrophic consequences which they have wrongly predicted, time and time again.
The latest study, peddled in the highly biased mainstream media, is as vague and inconclusive as those before. The lengthy document, published this month as a special supplement to the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, is, basically, a collection of data which ultimately suggests that there is a possibility that human activity has contributed to certain extreme climate or weather events, whilst – in the case of other events – it is highly unlikely that mankind played any role, and, in the case of still more events; human activity, as a cause, cannot be determined.
Throughout the newly published climate change study, the common theme is uncertainty, which is not a definite scientific conclusion. The exact wording changes but, again and again, the report makes the vague assumption that human activity probably, or may have, contributed to certain temperature trends or extreme weather events. Examples of these statements include:
“Anthropogenic climate change has caused a very large increase in the likelihood of…”
“models suggests that the meteorological drivers were more favorable for drought as a result of anthropogenic climate change.”
“model simulations indicates that extreme hot summer temperatures in Korea have become 10 times more likely due to human influence.”
“Anthropogenic climate change reduced the odds of an extremely cold UK spring in 2013…”
If one parses the language, it becomes obvious that the thread running through this entire report is based on little more than supposition; what the authors of this study are saying, basically, is: We’ve decided to create models which assume that humans have an impact on climate change and, using those models, we have produced some charts which suggest that human activity probably contributed to certain events and probably makes it more likely that certain climate trends have a pretty good chance of occurring.
Highly scientific. No room for any doubt, whatsoever, right?
Once again, a study that was specifically designed to convince everyone that climate change is due to human activity has failed to actually prove it, but merely suggests that there is a strong chance – in some cases – that man was the cause. In order to say “the science is settled,” one must have absolute scientific evidence that one thing has been caused by the other. Instead, the entire theory that climate change or global warming (and the two are not the same thing) has occurred as a direct result of human activity is nothing more than that; a theory. In truth; a large percentage of scientists and engineers with knowledge in the field – but, by no means, an overwhelming majority – do accept the possibility that man has likely had some impact upon climate change; the majority of them, however, see this impact as negligible, almost to the point of barely having an impact at all. Yet, still, the alarmists and their blind followers tell us that we must, collectively, spend hundreds of billions of dollars and change our entire way of life – essentially, bringing a complete halt to human progress – in order to “save the planet.”
The ultimate joke of it all is that the Al Gores and Michael Moores of the world continue to grow richer and fatter; their own carbon footprints putting Sasquatch to shame; private jets, SUVs, mansions, 2,500 dollar speaking engagements and so on. Leonardo DiCaprio – a talented actor, without question – is the latest celebrity to assume he has the right to lecture the unwashed masses on how their lifestyles are destroying the planet. Like all the others, however, he lives a life of luxury and privilege, about which most people could only dream. How much coal-fired electricity and what quantity of carbon emissions, one wonders, does it take to keep him in the lifestyle to which he has become accustomed?
Another vague and inconclusive climate change study comes and goes. In the meantime, life goes on. Those calling for drastic action to reduce carbon emissions continue to live like Roman Emperors, whilst scolding the rest of us. Meanwhile, the planet lives on, as it will long after the human race is gone. And the weather? Well, the weather just keeps on changing.
Opinion by Graham J Noble