Plus, they are often very hard to pin down - we pick up some story (or rumour) about a new danger, and try as reporters to get their take on it, but as often as not, they can't even give a simple yes or no answer. It's all "likely" this and "probable" that, and "statistically significant" or "balance of the evidence" or whatever. Lots of "on the other hand" until you just don't have enough hands, or even fingers, to count the different angles they want to look at.
Now and then I think we'd almost rather not have those black and white answers that scientists hate to give. Take global warming, for example: if this is real, it's going to be quite a nuisance -- 'inconvenient,' so to speak. I mean, think about our lifestyle! It could cramp our ability to drive vehicles as big as some people's houses for personal security and -- let's face it -- ego gratification. I think a lot of us would just rather not know.
So now, we have to deal with scientists who keep coming out and saying 'yes, this is a real problem' - over and over again. They keep putting out declarations and open letters telling the world that our greenhouse gas emissions are already changing the climate, and forecasting that the problem has to get a lot worse if we keep on at the current rate. This is the problem with the IPCC - behind all the "very likelys" and "probables," they basically say the same thing: this is a real problem. This same theme keeps coming up in declarations signed by thousands of scientists - over 5000 of them, on eight statements issued since December 2009.
Okay, scientists, now you're just starting to scare us. You're also sounding uncharacteristically decisive. Those of us who aren't comfortable with your message may have to do something about this. Here are some of our options:
- call your views "alarmist"
- claim you are now too unified, so this must be 'group-think' and you're just bullying the numerous dissenters that we can't seem to find
- find the handful of you who don't see the problem, and get them on TV a lot - a whole lot
- take out full-page ads in the NYT saying you are wrong, signed by over 100 non-experts
- get Rush Limbaugh to call you "socialists" and imply you want the UN to run everything
- host a string of anti-conferences with lots of non-experts, to make you look less convincing
- if all else fails, we can turn to Fox News!
10 comments:
Show us the evidence that carbon dioxide is the undisputed driver of climate, and no, computer models by a Michael Mann type graph do not count. Already found to be doctored with.
Of course that`s not available, so why you waste so much time on all this is a mystery. You`ve got to be unbelievably bored.
It`s frickin cold here in BC, we have the heater on tonight.
Send some Global Warming this way, will you please
Clearly, you don't want to be confused by facts— so I won't bother.
Dear Anonymous, ever religion have its detractors and its fiercest, acritic, and almost acefalic, followers. Jim Prall belongs to this 2nd group...
Dear Anonymous, ever religion have its detractors and its fiercest, acritic, and almost acefalic, followers. Jim Prall belongs to this 2nd group...
There are many worthwhile skeptical points about how natural cooling might be offsetting manmade warming now (while natural warming probably enhanced manmade warming in the 80's and 90's). The sea levels were 1/2 meter higher in the MWP. Lots of things like that but can't be printed in "respectable" climate science circles because they don't support the bottom line: current warming is extraordinary and almost all manmade. Once climate science is locked into that bottom line, it is hard to get out.
Mocking those you disagree with is pretty unconvincing. Just sayin'.
Just when I think intentional ignorance can't get any deeper, articles like this one appear.
take out an ad in the new york times by 100 non experts.
Hmm the alarmist side seems to forget about the 31,480 scientists who are valid scientists who either study climate, weather, geology, oceanography or teach any number of sciences who have signed a petition stating they disbelieve in Anthropogenic Catastrophic Global Warming.
These scientists don't scare me. What scares me is that there are more than half of the US Congress and Senate that are stupid enough to believe in ACGW enough to want to put forth CAP and TRADE at my expense and want to destroy my beloved nation of America.
If you think that what Al Gore and Obama and Pachauri are trying to shove down our throats is so peachy keen. why don't you try moving to Spain or Greece for a while.
But people like you and the rest of the leftist progressives that promote the lies of ACGW don't ever want to look at the truth behind your smoke and mirrors do you.
"Scientists can be a real nuisance. They use big words, and act all smart and everything. Then they come around and tell us scary stuff like dangers we never even knew were there: radioactivity and cancer-causing chemicals and UV rays and nicotine. What a bunch of spoil-sports."
You're going to get a lot of support with that attitude. Tell me Mr. Prall, what have you done in your life that entitles you to talk to your audience as if they are small children? If you were half as smart as you think you are, you'd be twice as smart as you actually are. A common phenomenon in your profession.
WRT Mann: http://climatesight.org/2010/07/11/so-what-happened-with-climategate/
CO2 was identified as a climate forcing factor 110 years ago by Svante Arrhenius: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrhenius#Greenhouse_effect
Dear Birdbrainscan,
Thanks for your excellent articles and for putting up with the cranks who will continue to call black - white & hang on to unjust accusations such as the ones against Michael Mann as if they were true!
Thank you!
Post a Comment