Warmist PhD: ‘ That means that most likely more than 100% of the warming is due to human activity’ — Then insults skeptics!

‘Nuf said.

from Planet 3.0 editor Mike Tobis, PhD:

Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski, a Republican, gave an energy talk at a conference in New York City.

Fortune headlines the talk “A Republican senator on climate change: It’s real, we need to fight it“, but that may not capture the position she was taking all that well. “As I argue in my Energy 20/20, report, that oil scarcity is a myth and that the U.S. can become energy independent if we pursue all forms of energy. We still have billions of barrels in Alaska that sit untapped. There are abundant reserves offshore in the lower 48.” she said, and went on to suggest that subsidies for renewables out to be phased out.

How is this climate realism? Well, here’s the headline comment:

“It doesn’t make sense to argue about how much global warming is caused by man — whether it’s 5% or 50%. The best approach is to have a no-regrets policy.”

Talk about moving the bar.

Look, folks, the background trend has been a gradual cooling for 6000 years. And there’s no sign of big changes in natural forcing. That means that most likely more than 100% of the warming is due to human activity. Conceding 5% to 50% is pretty clueless.

Read more at Planet 3.0.

9 thoughts on “Warmist PhD: ‘ That means that most likely more than 100% of the warming is due to human activity’ — Then insults skeptics!”

  1. Ahem.
    If normal climate forcings and changes would have made our temperatures a couple of degrees cooler than they actually are, and if human activity has not only made the climate warmer but above a cooling trend, then yes, you get “more than 100%”; i.e. if the temp in 1930 was 14.5 (I don’t have the number handy) and normal climate operations would have it at 14.25 now, then a current 15 would be “more than 100% of the warming”. (I pulled the numbers out of thin air, for illustration of concept only.)
    The problem starts with the “6,000 years of cooling.” I have long understood that we are in a warm interglacial and in fact things have been warming gradually for 6,000 years.
    The next part of the problem is figuring out what the temp would be without human activity. Good luck with that.
    Finally, we don’t know to this day what the earth’s “optimum” temperature is, how to define it, or how to measure it.
    The “more than 100%” is in the service of more malarkey but the concept could be valid.

  2. The analysis of the IPCC which leads to the conclusion that humans are heating the planet is simple, straight-forward, and classic: the argument from ignorance. It states, essentially: ‘we can’t find a natural cause for the warming, therefore humans are causing it.’

    The level of ignorance relied upon in that ‘analysis’ is astounding: it relies on the proof of a negative, an utter impossibility. There is no way the IPCC can be sure that there is *no* ‘natural’ cause for the warming, or, conversely, that it can guarantee it has identified all possible causes.

    It takes only a slight extension of the ‘analysis’ to conclude that humans cause 100% of all climate events we don’t understand. Well, duh. As a matter of formal logic, that is of course valid. So in a way, you have to concede Murkowski has a point with the bald ‘100%’ claim.

    There’s just one problem. A conclusion is only as robust as the evidence it relies upon. It is undeniably true that there are things about climate we do not understand. The only robust conclusion we can reach from that evidence is, *we do not understand*. In fact, the best claim that can be made is, ‘We do not understand 100% of what we do not understand’.

    So there you have it: ‘100%’ on *both* sides of the argument. Only one can be right. It’s easy to choose which one is right. The only thing you can prove from a lack of evidence is a lack of evidence.

  3. ‘We do not understand 100% of what we do not understand’.

    I think in this case, we do not understand 150% of what we do not understand.

  4. From his Wiki entry we learn that “Tobias received his Ph.D. from the University of California, Santa Cruz in 1977 in the History of Consciousness.”
    This qualifies him as an empirical scientist — HOW?

  5. “History of Consciousness” — No, that basket weaving course would have been too tough for this guy. Is this a Doctorate in Waking Up?

  6. “i.e. if the temp in 1930 was 14.5 (I don’t have the number handy) and normal climate operations would have it at 14.25 now, then a current 15 would be “more than 100% of the warming”. ”

    What have you been smoking?

Comments are closed.