The recent report from NASA regarding increasing levels of ice in Antarctica shows beyond any reasonable doubt that climate science is not “settled.” Any scientist who says so is playing politics, lying, or both; any politician who says so is not very bright or lying. If the science were settled, NASA, whose leadership has crossed many lines of honesty and objectivity by over-hyping climate change research, would not publish studies whose authors have explain them by saying things like this, from Jay Zwally, NASA glaciologist and lead author of the study:
…”The good news is that Antarctica is not currently contributing to sea level rise, but is taking 0.23 millimeters per year away But this is also bad news. If the 0.27 millimeters per year of sea level rise attributed to Antarctica in the IPCC report is not really coming from Antarctica, there must be some other contribution to sea level rise that is not accounted for.”
…In noting that it could take only a few decades for the ice melt in Antarctica to outweigh the ice gains: “I don’t think there will be enough snowfall increase to offset these losses.”
…“We’re essentially in agreement with other studies that show an increase in ice discharge. Our main disagreement is for East Antarctica and the interior of West Antarctica; there, we see an ice gain that exceeds the losses in the other areas.”
Does that sound “settled” to you?
If it does, then you have simply made your mind up in the presence of selected opinions, misrepresentations and guesses, and have ceased to think. If the models and theories of those claiming catastrophic results if the industrial world doesn’t cripple itself withing years if not month with draconian laws and regulations don’t predict current climate change-related conditions any better than this, why should anyone who got a C in Logic 101 believe that those same models will be more accurate predicting conditions a century from now?
Some progressives and Democrats, like Robert F. Kennedy Jr., have suggested that denying climate change should be a crime. Al Gore, who has shown that his understanding of science in general would get him a D in middle school Earth Science (not to be confused with Middle Earth school science), opined this year that climate change skeptics should be forced to pay—heh heh heh!— “a price.” All of this is designed to stifle dissent and to ram far-reaching legislation through Congress without adequate facts to justify it. It is not and has never been a scientific debate. It is a political debate driven by bias, dishonesty and ignorance by its primary proponents, like that Nobel Prize-winning researcher, the Pope.
This is one of two reasons why you will never hear that question—“You and President Obama claim that climate change is settled science to the extent that the United States should burden industry with expensive and job threatening mandates to curb it. Explain your certitude on this despite NASA’s discovery that Antarctica is actually gaining ice?” —put to a Democratic candidate for President. An honest answer would be Ralph Cramden’s ( “The Honeymooners,” for God’s sake—know your cultural history!) famous “Huminahuminahumina..” or, in the alternative, “I don’t understand this stuff at all; if I was that talented in science I wouldn’t be here. I’m just saying what the environment fanatics on our party’s base want us to say. I don’t really understand what’s the matter with the Keystone XL pipeline, either.”
Democratic climate change cheerleaders should be asked that question, just as any Republican candidate who questions the accuracy of climate change projections and who gets a snide, “How stupid are you that you can deny settled science and dispute the need to drastically reduce carbon emissions immediately lest Cincinnati end up under water?” from CNBC’s John Harwood should reply, “First tell me how you explain NASA’s discovery that Antarctica is actually gaining ice, since they can’t?”
The fact that Antarctica is gaining ice now and climatologists are trying to explain how their models didn’t predict it means that the science isn’t advanced or trustworthy enough to settle very much…certainly not enough to mandate passing speculative legislation. Definitely not enough for the President or Bernie Sanders to to denigrate those of us who are a little more demanding, and who want to see understandable and provable data, as well as models that show some reliability, instead of guesses before we start killing industries and putting people out of work. The truth is that there is no reason to trust the current conclusions because they aren’t conclusions, no reason to trust the scientists who hype what they are capable of determining now regarding future climate conditions, and absolutely no reason to trust science-challenged journalists, pundits, politicians and popes who are just mouthing what is to them as much “fact” as Obama’s statement that his own health care law wouldn’t require anyone to change insurance plans or doctors.
Seriously, how dare any of these people compare Americans who are just applying basic, responsible critical thinking skills in the face of deceitful environmentalist propaganda to Holocaust deniers? That accusation alone removes the accuser forever from the ranks of the trustworthy: denying what has happened is the same as questioning a projection of what will happen? Such an accusation is proof of stupidity or malice.
My verdict: in most cases it is stupidity, or some combination of ignorance and bias. I first read about the NASA study on the Christian Science Monitor site. There, linked to the story, was a quiz titled “Climate change: Is your opinion informed by science? Take our quiz!” What it meant was, “Are you a denier? Here’s proof that you don’t know what the hell you’re talking about!” The quiz is all about gases, which have nothing at all to do with my opinion on climate change hype. My opinion is based on the fact that I don’t trust those who lie and hype, that even the most radical proponents of climate change protections can’t say for certain how great it is, how long it will be in duration, when the results will be critical, whether intervening factors will compensate for it and whether there are any realistic and affordable measures the U.S. can take to stop it with any certainty. I don’t care whether the cause is carbon or peanut butter. The issue isn’t gas, it is logic, technology and common sense.
The quiz, predictably, is illogical and misleading itself, probably due to a pro-climate change bias. For example, Question 7 asks, “From 1800 to 2012, the amount of atmospheric CO2 has increased by how much?” Does this mean that the technology and methodology was as accurate in 1800 for measuring global CO2 as it is today? Who believes that? Who believes that scientists today have accurate enough data to measure conditions in 1800…that’s 215 years ago…as precisely as they can measure today’s levels? Do you? I don’t. That’s a junk science question, and before I’m going to accept the quiz’s assumptions, I need a clear explanation of why the “answer” isn’t based on rough estimates. The same objection follows for 8, “How much has the average global surface temperature increased since 1900?” There are other questions based on supposedly accurate comparisons of conditions when scientific methods of measurement were primitive and unreliable, and today’s data. None of the questions justify presuming that projections are accurate to the extent justifying massive economic disruption, and that, not temperature, gases, or any of the topics examined in the quiz explain my skepticism. The quiz itself justifies skepticism. The fact that journalists think it’s relevant to the real issue justifies skepticism.
By all means, however, give the Pope and Hillary the quiz.