Bryce: If relativity is now debatable, why not climate change?

“Last month, scientists at CERN, the prestigious high-energy physics lab in Switzerland, reported that neutrinos might—repeat, might—travel faster than the speed of light. If serious scientists can question Einstein’s theory of relativity, then there must be room for debate about the workings and complexities of the Earth’s atmosphere,” writes the Manhattan Institute’s Robert Bryce in today’s Wall Street Journal.

11 thoughts on “Bryce: If relativity is now debatable, why not climate change?”

  1. There is room for debate about climate change, but the overwhelming majority of climate scientists think that it’s real, at least partly anthropogenic, and something that we need to take action on.

  2. How many trillions of dollars would you like to spend to “take” action? Number 1 greenhouse gas world wide is water vapor. How do you propose to control this pollutant? Last, but, not least, please explain the difference between weather satellite data and your computer model forecast of the past 10 years? Thank you.

  3. What you just said is completely meaningless.
    While I agree we should “take action”. This can mean
    A: Keep an eye on the weather and climate
    B: Prepare for extreme weather events
    C: Cut our carbon dioxide by extreme measures
    Two of these I will agree to, the third, not

    What is up for debate is the extent of CO2-caused warming, its effects on the Earth, and the actions taken to correct for it. There is bountiful evidence that the warming capabilities of CO2 have been overstated, that the negatives have been exagerrated, and the positives ignored. One WHO report stated that climate change would put 600 million people at increased risk of drought. This was jumped on by the media and Al Gore despite the next line item on the report, that 1.3 BILLION people would be at decreased risk of drought (please do not quote, working from memory here).

    This means that efforts to reduce CO2 have very low benefit for the environment. CO2 reductions often have crippling costs and massive environmental drawbacks, especially wind power and biofuels. The trade mechanisms used to reduce these costs are magnets for corruption, so much of the ludicrously large investment has been wasted.

    You can’t use Captain Planet style “Do Something” logic here because your “something” is quite likely more expensive and will cause more death than doing nothing.

  4. True scientist know there will always be debate on theories and look forward to the excitement. The climate alarmists like Mann, Hansen, and Schmidt are not true scientists because they have sold their souls to advocacy.

    James Rust

  5. An overwhelming majority of climate scientists do NOT think AGW is real! Have a look at the Oregon petition project (close to 40,000 scientists), the roughly 60% of Canadian climate scientists who disagree, and the 8000 scientists affiliated with CERN who just put out a major paper debunking AGW.
    No scientist worth their keep believes that computer scenarios are “evidence”. In fact, real world measurements of the atmospheric temps, Antarctic ice growth, and sea level change all show AGW to be a scam. Anyone remember the global cooling scare of the 1970’s?

  6. Well that’s simple: Relativity is a subject of physics, which is a science, whereas climate change is a subject of environmentalism, which is a religion. You can debate science, but you cannot debate religion.

  7. I think it is simplistic to believe that a human can go through the process of university, become something we call a scientist and then believe that what this newly anointed person says, is truth, or simply their opinion, fueled by all manner of dogma, from financial gain to a grasp on the ropes of power. I would have thought that in a country as great as America truly is, that enough of you would have got together to not only honour the memory of Steve Jobs but also applaud this man who never ever considered himself a scientist however changed the face of the world as we know it – why do you waste your time listening to so much opinion from obvious crooks such as Al Gore who’s bank account alone must tell you that he has more than one goal in life and, it’s not hard to question what agenda’s bureaucrats at G8 may also have when we see the absolute mess the so called ‘well informed’ have made of the world economic situation, when for the most part ‘common sense’ tells us that they are mostly talking garbage – In NZ the weather forecasters cannot even tell you accurately what the weather has been let alone tell you whats going to happen in the next week!
    Steve Jobs was a truly inspirational human being who’s legacy will live on long after all these so called AGW scientists have been laughed at and quickly forgotten

  8. “I’ve never quite understood why everyone is so keen to dismiss these joint statements and the IPCC reports.”

    That statement indicates that you’ve not read the actual science on both sides of the issue, or are even aware that there are serious scientists who have written papers refuting the AGW thesis. Further, it demonstrates a severe misunderstanding of the political nature of both the IPCC and it’s working group assessments. Try actually reading the commentaries of reviewers, many of whom have dissenting remarks disregarded. Try also actually reading who writes the working group assessments. It is, by IPCC mandate, governmental bureaucrats who do so in order to “insure consistency of policy.” The pronouncements of the various academies are likewise political and not scientific. Those who care about the science disregard take issue with the pronouncements of the IPCC and the long list of “academies” because those organizations value politics and dogma over science.

  9. Because there are numerous top-level scientists that have quite these academies in protest. Most of the skeptical camp was at one point in the In-crowd. Most prominently, Pielke Sr was a member of the first IPCC report, and Judith Curry was a member until after the 4th report was issued. They BOTH resigned due to the corruption of the science involved.

    At one point, Junk Science was actually focused on general bad science in the media. It’s just that this feature became prominent due to basing multi-trillion dollar political decisions on unverifiable computer models of complex systems.

Comments are closed.