No scientist I have ever met has ever—and I mean never—denied the earth’s climate has changed. So obvious are observations of change, that I have never even heard of a civilian denying change, either.
No scientist I have ever met has ever—and again I mean never—denied the earth’s climate has changed in part because of human activities. But then, these same scientists also know that every creature, from aardvarks to zebras, has an influence on the climate. (Didn’t we read recently that spiders both weigh and eat more than men? Think about the climatic havoc these eerie arachnids wreak!)
Because nobody, save the odd lunatic, denies the earth’s climate has changed, and all scientists agree that mankind affects the climate, the term climate chance denier has to be one of the dumbest, inapt, and foolish slogans of our times.
Anybody who uses it proves that she is ignorant with the science of climatology. Or that she has something other than the practice of science of her mind. Like, say, politics.
Take the comments of Ann Reid and her two co-authors writing for the Union of Nervous—oops, make that Concerned—Scientists. Motto: Science for the healthy planet and safer world. Incidentally, before we get to Reid, it is worth emphasizing that planets cannot be healthy or ill. Only things that are live can be healthy or ill. Planets are not alive—though pantheists believe they can be.
Anyway, Reid (and her pals) writes “Is No Place Safe? Climate Change Denialists Seek to Sway Science Teachers.”
There’s the telling phrase: climate change denialists. This is a sure signal we’re about to be treated a political and not scientific discourse.
Seems Reid isn’t happy that Heartland Institute had a conference to which they invited scientists to opine on how likely global warming will destroy us all (I have spoke before). Their answer? Not likely.
Heartland also sent the booklet “Why Scientists Disagree About Global Warming” to science teachers across the country. When Reid angrily referenced this book, she twice appended the notation “sic“, which is a signal to readers that the obvious error present in quoted material was not put there by the quoter.
Well, there is nothing grammatically wrong with the booklet title, and nothing is misspelled. And, indeed, the booklet is about why scientists disagree about global warming.
So what was the mistake Reid wanted to signal?
Global warming used to be what they called “climate change”—before the science of global warming went sour. Reid doesn’t like to be reminded that the science of global warming is a failed science.
How do we know it’s failed? Easy.
The primary purpose of any scientific theory is to make skillful predictions of reality. Any scientific theory that cannot do so, is a false or flawed theory. And false or flawed theories should not be relied upon to make decisions about the world, particularly decisions that greatly influence all people.
The theory of dangerous man-made global warming has not made skillful predictions of reality. Congress was reminded of this recently by…[click over to read the rest].
Theory says you can click this link and read the rest. My bet is that this theory makes better predictions than global warming.
Update Mistaking accuracy in simulations and accuracy in predictions of future temperatures is a common error. A sloppy error, and really unexplainable because you’d think scientific training explains the difference. Climate models do a lousy job predicting future temperatures, and this is all that counts if we are to ask questions and make decisions about those predictions. That the models can more-or-less accurately simulate some other measure or derived parameter is of only marginal interest, and beside the point.
Mistaking simulations with predictive accuracy is like a civil engineer saying, “Yes, the bridge fell and many died. But you’ll notice the predictions of the rust factor in the steel in the third arch were almost perfect. Therefore you have to believe the next bridge we build won’t fail like the previous thirty did.”