It seems that the defence of the AGW scientists and supporters, against criticisms of AGW boils down (there must be a better term), to their belief in “science'”. They keep repeating ad nauseum “we believe in the science”, the “CSIRO cannot be wrong”, the “IPCC cannot be wrong”, “2,500 scientists cannot be wrong”, “there is a consensus”, “the icecaps are melting” and so on.
So the question must be asked, “is the science of the IPCC-based conclusions reliable, unbiassed, exact, beyond question, falsifiable (whatever that means), irrefutable and dependable”?
Then the next question would be, “who is capable and qualified to judge these matters”?
The answer must be, “not the people who are involved with the IPCC and the related organizations depending on the conclusions being acted upon”! For obvious reasons! Well then, who?
Not the people who have something to gain from proving the AGW scenario and proposed actions incorrect or inappropriate. People such as those involved somehow with the fossil fuel industry, they need to support their livelihoods. On the other hand, Julia is assuring the coal industry that they have a future. There seems to be no lack of interest in new coal/gas industry investments. So why are they suspected of supporting “unscientific” opposition to AGW ?
Mind you, it is not necessary for a scientist or supporter to be necessarily right or wrong because of his/her involvement. It is really a matter of concept that a bias is present, even when it is not.
As I see the situation there are numerous scientists, engineers, physicists who are not associated with any vested interests and who are capable of assessing the planetary climate factors. The majority of the blogging contributors are such people.
The supporters, not so scientifically qualified, but still capable of assessing the commonsense of a scientific argument, are rarely biassed technically. Some may be biassed from the point of view of paying unnecessary taxes, or from the fear of the planet self-destructing or whatever. However, there are obviously a huge number of discerning bloggers and commenters who have the capability to assess the two sides of the debate and can argue very sensibly and logically about the validity of the associated actions.
My point is, there is almost unlimited evidence in existence, presented and supported by qualified, independent and intelligent people, to support the argument that the IPCC “science” is not sufficiently sound to be acceptable as a basis for turning our world into a new version of chaos.
Now, down to the science itself:
The future of our civilization is currently being pinned on the need for CO2 controls. The reason being that the atmospheric level of CO2 is claimed to have a direct influence on the current and future global climate. This is what the situation comes down to.
Either CO2 level influences our average temperature in a meaningful way or it doesn’t. If it does, is it a long term positive effect or the reverse? Before we make earth-shattering decisions and actions, these questions must be resolved. And THEY HAVE NOT BEEN RESOLVED! No sensible person can refute that there are genuine questions.
Evidence offered that CO2 has a direct and significant effect on “greenhouse” warming of the planet is being rightly and strongly questioned. CO2 effects can only be indirect because of its minor proportion (0.04%), its minor absorption factor of IR energy, (maybe 5%), and its dependence on H2O as a companion GHG to have any noticeable effect whatever. H2O generation becomes an extremely difficult-to-assess parameter because in the upper atmosphere it acts as a “green house gas” but at lower levels forms clouds which have the opposite effect.
I have yet to be convinced that any scientist can unequivocably model these parameters confidently. There are too many variables, dependent and independent. Nature is far too complex even for high-powered computations to mimic, and then could only do so if humans were capable of programming all the parameters, parameters that cannot be quantified accurately. Furthermore, there already is some fairly good evidence that the existing models are not viable.
On the basis of these factors, I cannot understand how anyone can be firmly convinced that CO2 levels need to be controlled. To claim belief in “the science” is, in reality, only to have faith in “the science”, that is not the same thing. There is no certainty, no reason for confidence. NO scientific basis for drastic action.
- Global Warming Credibility Problem (themoderatevoice.com)
- AGW movement is Fraudulent and Politically Driven. (tipggita32.wordpress.com)
- Carbon Tax – “Sorry Julia, Bob and Greg, you are wrong” (tgrule.wordpress.com)
- A Citizen’s Guide to Global Warming Evidence (wmbriggs.com)
- A Tale of Two Doomsayers (chariotofreaction.blogspot.com)
- CO2 science. A version including H2O effects. (tgrule.wordpress.com)
- Sky-high hole blown in AGW theory? (hotair.com)
- Debate vs. Denniss, Part 2. By Dana (newanthropocene.wordpress.com)