Response to “The Science is Settled”

Warren Meyer (a.k.a. The Climate Skeptic) summarizes his standard response to the alarmists’ boast that “the science is settled,” thereby silencing the opposition. He acknowledges that skeptics sometimes make some untenable arguments. But the alarmists make their own share of unsubstantiated scientific claims, particularly with regard to the feedback mechanisms that supposedly multiply the effect of CO2.

Catastrophists posit enormous temperature increases, deflecting criticism by saying that CO2 as a greenhouse gas is settled. Though half right, they gloss over the fact that 2/3 or more of their projected temperature increase is based on a theory of Earth’s climate being dominated by strong positive feedbacks, a theory that is most certainly not settled, and in fact is probably wrong. Temperature increases over the last 100 years are consistent with neutral to negative, not positive feedback, and the long-term history of temperatures and CO2 are utterly inconsistent with the proposition there is positive feedback or a tipping point hidden around 350ppm CO2.

Of course, this is just another lonely voice crying in the wilderness, since climate alarmists like Al Gore absolutely refuse to debate the science with qualified critics in a public forum. It’s much easier to just push the PC agenda through a willing and gullible media, and let fickle public opinion do the rest.


One response to “Response to “The Science is Settled”

  1. Science doesn’t “settle”. People who claim “the science is settled” on something are not scientists nor being scientific, but something else.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s