Peter Foster writes in the Financial Post:
The kerfuffle over the obvious flaws in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s computer models ahead of its Fifth Assessment Report has led to a cranking up of strategies that might be collectively described as “anything but the science.”
Clarke certainly did more fact checking.
When the human-production-of-CO2-could-be-dangerous concept first came up, it bore examination. Human activity does affect environments, especially the dirty industries of socialist workers’ paradises that didn’t even get the goods to the workers, not that I am bitter… It was conceivable that human production of CO2 was a significant temperature forcing and that warming might alter weather patterns.
Okay, fair enough. We’ve examined the concept. Everything we’ve observed negates the idea that human production of CO2 or other atmospheric components is affecting temperatures or weather patterns. Given the chaotic nature of weather and climate, and given our limited instrument records, that was one foreseeable outcome.
The science not only fails to suppor the CAGW concept, it actually tends to disprove it. That being the case, philosophy says to discard the concept. Humanity says to employ and feed the poor so they can be better off. Good stewardship says to use resources wisely, at lowest cost for greatest benefit, and history says that liberty will produce the best result that direction.
How in heck do “progressives” get any credibility or traction? Rhetorical question, of course…
It’s all about the science, doncha know? Political science, social science. I’d say science fiction, but I have more respect for the writers.