Maggie's Farm

to "Increased Science Literacy Correlated To Less Worry About Climate Change" add the somewhat older article "Were Republicans Smart All Along? They Accept Climate Change But Not Global Warming" By Hank Campbell, March 4th 2011

Well. I am not a scientist on the level of the meteorology professor who came up with the "butterfly effect," or the "climate scientists." And I accept Climate Change - but I also accept Global Warming. But not at the level of or for the reasons given by the "IPCC for [Politicians and Other] Dummies" political output from that organisation. Yeah, it has been warming - since about 1800, not starting about 1920... Our CO2 output has increased in total - and probably even enough to have an effect on climate local and global - it certainly was a large factor in the famous "London Pea Soup Fogs" though not totally responsible.

So my problem is that these articles both eventually conclude that "climate science" and its promulgator's insistence on humans as the "only" cause of change is the way to go, because "climate scientists" say so, though the wierdo extremists may be dismissed. So we should congratulate ourselves for not blindly joining Al Gore - yet we must accept James Hansen. Oh, and dismiss "meteorological scientists" along with Gore - they know nothing about "climate science."

Nope, not gonna do that, sorry. As far as I am concerned, Hansen is even worse than Gore. Just one minor example, he was willing to destroy an enlarged "fossil fuel" energy plant being built by E.On - which was necessary to support the wind farm E.On was putting up at the same site and of which he approved.

Or Professor Jones of EMail fame, who admits the Hockey Stick ("climate science" first major "proof" and "victory") deletion of the Medieval Warm (and Little Ice Age) was bunkum from the get-go - but only for the Northern Hemisphere, he clings to it as "true" since there is not (yet) enough data to "deny" that the Southern Hemisphere always had an equal-but-opposite variation of temperature until the Twentieth Century.

There are people in "climate science" doing good work. I do not throw out evolution because "Piltdown Man" was supported by some scientists, nor do I want this new field destroyed by some who seem to hide/destroy/cherrypick/ignore data.

Heck, Einstein is famous for disliking - vehemently - Quantum Mechanics implications in the 1920s and later. This, though his Nobel was for his 1905 theoretical and experimental work in proving one of its foundations, that light could knock electrons about (no, not for his Theory of Relativity). But he never stooped to denying the newer work was of any value, or should be ignored solely because he did not like what his colleagues were coming up with.