Settled Science

From an actual ecologist who used to work for the terrorists:

A co-founder of Greenpeace told lawmakers there is no evidence man is contributing to climate change, and said he left the group when it became more interested in politics than the environment.

Patrick Moore, a Canadian ecologist and business consultant who was a member of Greenpeace from 1971-86, told members of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee environmental groups like the one he helped establish use faulty computer models and scare tactics in promoting claims man-made gases are heating up the planet.

“There is no scientific proof that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are the dominant cause of the minor warming of the Earth’s atmosphere over the past 100 years,” he said.

Even if the planet is warming up, Moore claimed it would not be calamitous for men, which he described as a “subtropical species.”

Man that’s pretty damning given the extreme nature of Greenpeace. This guy had to have been a true believer in his time with the group.

“Climate Change” has become a religion of the “Progressives”. Even now with the “Climate Change” alteration to what was once “Global Warming”, the acolytes are still noting that carbon dioxide are causing the change, which recently has been colder. Except Carbon Dioxide is a Greenhouse Gas which should be working to make things warmer and ONLY warmer.

Also Climate always changes, always has, always will, and has long before there was man. The idea that somehow this natural change is abnormally large in recent years seems to only come from a group of discredited scientists who cooked numbers so they could get more lucrative grant money.

BLNN Logo

This entry was posted in Biology, Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

1 Response to Settled Science

  1. The Jack says:

    The big tell is a lack of falsifiable hypothesizes.

    See, science’s whole deal is being able to predict empirical phenomena, and to do so repeatedly and to make predictions in a way that you can be *wrong*.

    There’s a reason it’s not scientific to go “My theory says a bar of metal when heated will expand… or contract… or stay the same.”

    It’s also not scientific to say “There’s a consensus on my theory therefore it’s right.” Nor is it scientific to say “Well, the computer model says…”

    See, a computer model only says what the model has been constructed to say, that’s why empirical validation is so critical.

    And this is where, politics aside, climate science is in a sore spot. You cannot call up McMaster and order a crate of earths. So experimentation is right out. That’s a HUGE hurdle. Science gets a lot easier when you can run lots of nice experiments. There’s a reason repeatability of data and being able to control for given variables is so useful.

    Not you don’t need experimentation to be science. It just gets harder. Astronomers do pretty okay, and that’s without the ability to order a box of stars to play with. Though they do have the advantage of having many, many, many starts to look at.

    Where climate scientists are faced with one set of global data. And they have the unenviable task of measuring very small bulk variations and attributing those changes to one of many, many factors.

    That is… challenging.

    And their claims of “the science is settled! Don’t question us!” would be far less galling if… well if they could predict global temperatures.

Leave a Reply

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