Beam me to Planet Gore !
Posted on 10/02/2010 12:18:23 PM PDT by neverdem
BRITAIN'S science academy, the Royal Society, has acknowledged the limits of current scientific understanding of climate change, revising its outlook.
A 19-page guide prepared by leading international scientists, including society fellows, is an honest account of where climate change science is clear and where it is less certain, such as the impact of energy emitted by the sun.
The ragged intersection between science and politics is the point at which much of the climate debate has been derailed. Politics demands certainty to make a convincing case for co-ordinated action. Science, on the other hand, is driven by scepticism. Each hypothesis formulated from empirical evidence needs to be challenged and tested to within an inch of its life before its veracity can be assumed. The 43 society members now believe the society's previous position was too strident and implied a greater degree of certainty than was justified.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's reports should have been seen for what they were, political documents. They were designed, quite reasonably, as a basis on which to build a political solution. The mistake was to elevate them to the status of divine prophecy. When the IPCC recommended in 2007 that nations reduce global emissions by 50 to 85 per cent by 2050 to have a reasonable chance of averting warming beyond 2C and "catastrophic" consequences, it was clear to those with a sophisticated view of science that the targets were based on assumptions fed into computer models. As the debate unfolded, those who exaggerated the evidence or presented only worst-case projections did much more to set back the cause of carbon restraint than the commentators they derided as deniers. Scare tactics have not worked, and will not work.
The Royal Society sets out a strong case for pursuing the cautionary, responsible approach long advocated by The Weekend Australian. The society cites strong evidence that increases in greenhouse gases due to human activity are the dominant cause of global warming. It is all the more convincing for its honesty and avoidance of doomsday scenarios pedalled by alarmists, whose proposals would wreak economic devastation. After a long, needlessly polarised debate, the guide is a welcome new start to help restore the credibility of climate science and civility to the discussion.
All a person needs to know about “climate change” is that it’s the same thing we used to call “the weather” back during the time when the majority of the people living on the planet were sane and there weren’t so many greedy con men out there running scams to steal other people’s money.
Oh, and stop ripping down hydro plants and devising schemes to further snarl traffic by tolling roads.
Oh, and end all legal and tax-based obstacles to telecommuting.
But you really aren't going to do those things now, are you?
What would the temperature of earth be without the sun?
Simple question. Inconvenient answer.
Exactly.
This is so depressing:
“...pursuing the cautionary, responsible approach long advocated by The Weekend Australian. The society cites strong evidence that increases in greenhouse gases due to human activity are the dominant cause of global warming.”
HE’S DEAD, JIM!
LOL - "honest account." Not counting value weighting, of course - just listing everything as equal, including the sun's impact on climate.
A similiar "honesty" would be like saying: "We are extremely clear about the exact color of the paint on this nuclear warhead. We are not so clear about the power of the warhead itself, however, which continues to be debated by experts contending everything from a firecracker all the way up to the hundred-kiloton range. But let us be clear - we are making an honest account here of both the paint color and the fact that we fully admit that the nuclear bomb does, indeed, have some level of danger to it."
Beware any (ANY) document that starts out with "this is an honest account".
Very true. I am still waiting for the Delaware temperatures to exceed the summer of 1930, almost half the days had temperatures of over 90 degrees F, and the highest recorded temperature was set during that year as well. After more than 80 years, that record still hasn’t been beat, both for the summer as well as for the single-day temperature. Never mind the fact that people didn’t have A/C during that time. The start of the 20th century was hotter than it is now. Believe it.
Excellent post.
No matter what the “crisis” is, the solution proposed by the left is always totalitarianism.
Yup. And I like the quote marks around "crisis".
If one doesn't exist a good Little Stalin can always make one up.
Translation: All our old stuff was lies and we have been caught and now we won't be able to milk this and live the high life. Don't really want to stock shelves at WalMart , so lets put out a PR memo to try to keep our jobs
More nonsense from the left trying to rescue their pet theory.
Implied? Try CLAIMED! This is a whitewash.
Seems like the same old stuff repackaged with a new label.
Top meteorologist exposes carbon fraud
EPA Rule Could Kill Nearly 800,000 Manufacturing Jobs
Global Warming on Free Republic
“I am not strong enough to dig, and I am ashamed to beg.”
I was born in 1966. The world should have ended half a dozen times already, if you listen to people getting paid to say it, plus we’ve all died of cancer, food additives, and electricity. And alcohol.
Maybe that explains all the zombies in the news ...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.