See Comments down arrow

But if it's a science...

21 Oct 2020 | OP ED Watch

Last month Geoffrey Sherrington put forward a challenge worth noting. He says all kinds of claims have been made about the extent and impact of warming in the last century. Suppose for purposes of argument the extent has been 1°C. Then consider 12 key supposed impacts, from sea level to atmospheric CO2 to greening to ocean pH to ice mass, large bush fires and so on. Well, says Sherrington, can anyone quantify these things? Well? Can they? Because “This is really a test of bluster versus hard scientific advancement”.

Sherrington cites a website that attempts to compile all the things blamed on global warming, including some of our favourites like itchier poison ivy and swarms of jellyfish, to ones we’d missed like “rabid bats” and women cheating on vacation. (No really, and the site links to the stories.) But of course, as we’ve often noted, this spray of rhetorical rubbish is just the result of blaming everything bad on climate change, the flip side of saying climate change only causes bad things, neither of which is science at all. The hard-science approach would be to develop testable hypotheses, a major part of which would be quantifying the connections between more atmospheric CO2, higher temperatures, rising oceans and so on.

As Sherrington also points out, NASA is all in on man-made climate change. If it’s not a major phenomenon, the credibility of this major American government agency is going to be in serious trouble. But while its page on the effects shows the usual trio of fire, drought and hurricane, the actual caption even on the images says “potential future effects of global climate change include” these things without numbers, while the text claiming they’re potential future effects happening now, is surprisingly vague about specifics.

The upside from their point of view is that they can point to anything that does happen and say “Told you so”. The downside from ours is that they cannot be held accountable for any actual predictions because they don’t make any.

Come on, people. You say the science is settled and you say you know what it is. So take Sherrington’s test because, as he says, “Fail this test and you should bid “climate change alarmism” goodbye” before concluding with “Should I take a bet that NOT ONE of these dozen equations has been quantified mathematically?”

Well? Should he?

2 comments on “But if it's a science...”

  1. I know a young smart lawyer who told me he is not trained in science so he relies on NASA conclusions about Climate Change and CO2. To me, NASA seems entirely biased and left wing. When did NASA become the ‘authority’ on climate? Who are their unnamed writers? They should stick to Space and Weather. Weather is not Climate.

  2. Smart young lawyer doesn't sound that smart. Relying on one source for anything is not wise, no matter how authoritative it seems. I thought a smart lawyer would know this.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *