I haven’t even started writing this and I’m already bored to tears. This is going to cause me physical pain. It is so incredibly stupid. But…here goes.
For my real life job I work for a company that manufactures high quality accessories for cars and trucks. I’ve worked there for 23 years. Several years ago we were introducing a new widget at the big yearly trade show. Someone came up with the idea of making a big sign to go over the item that simply proclaimed “Product of the Year.” I witnessed a lot of traffic come into our booth to ask about the highlighted item. We were three days into a four day show before the first person asked, “Product of the year. According to who?” (He didn’t say “whom”.) I told him we took a poll in the office and we all agreed.
Back in February Secretary of State John Kerry said that climate change was the “world’s most fearsome” weapon of mass destruction, he went on to say, “the science of climate change is leaping out at us like a scene from a 3D movie. It’s warning us; it’s compelling us to act.”
Wow. “Leaping science” sounds kind of scary.
I don’t recommend it, but if you want to slip into a self induced coma you can read the speech here.
Then, more recently 30 Democratic senators spent the entire night having a “’talkathon‘” about climate change. Can you imagine anything more boring?
In John Kerry’s speech he said, “When 97 percent of scientists agree on anything, we need to listen, and we need to respond. Well, 97 percent of climate scientists have confirmed that climate change is happening and that human activity is responsible.” And then Democrat Senator, after Democrat Senator, after Democrat Senator repeated the same thing. “97%! 97%! 97%!” Some even upped it to 98% – which is even more.
First of all. Who cares what 97% of scientists think? I’m willing to bet 100% of the greatest thinkers at the time agreed the world was flat. Doesn’t make it so. And when, exactly, did science become “settled” through consensus? “We all agree so it must be true.” Really? Is that how it works now? In the olden days science was settled by a consistent series of observed results. If I drop this ball gravity is going to pull it down. My son once told me that “for fun” he figured out exactly how long it would take for a quarter to hit the ground from his desk. He calculated the trajectory and a few other fancy words and was able to predict with a high degree of accuracy how long it would take.
Cool, huh?
The reason there are no “gravity deniers” is because the science is settled. There is such a thing as gravity.
Now, because I remembered the “Product of the Year” experience and I know that anybody and do almost anything with numbers, I decided to do a little digging to find the source of the 97% mantra.
That 97% figure comes from a website, where a guy ran an analysis of 12,000 peer-reviewed papers, 97% of which claimed that humanity is having an impact on the climate.
Well. There you go. There’s your consensus. The science is settled. Humans are the dominant factor in climate change. Oh wait. Not true. The website acknowledges that 97% of the papers attribute some human impact; in truth less than 50% of those papers maintain that humans are the primary contributor of global warming.
Well okay, that’s not really a consensus, but it’s still damning.
Oh…but wait.
If asked, most people would say that a phrase like, “Less than 50%” would imply something in the 41-49% range. But no. It’s less than that.
How much less? I’ll give you a hint. If you guessed 65 papers out of the 12,000 reviewed, you would be right.
Now, I’m no mathematician, but I can tell you with certainty that that is indeed less than fifty percent. Going out on a limb, I would say it is less than one percent. But still, every Al Gore tirade, every screaming news story, and every global warming alarmist demands that if you dare question the “settled science” you are to be boiled in oil – or disposed of in a more environmentally friendly way. Just as long as you lessen your carbon footprint.
While I’m on the subject, since when are there science “deniers?” I would have thought only religion has deniers, disbelievers, or heretics. The truth is this really doesn’t have anything to with science. Science is about evidence, plain and simple. It has nothing to do with belief or disbelief. In the olden days science was dependent upon skepticism. Without skepticism, you do not have science. Or am I wrong?
Unless you are completely ignorant of the facts (which is exactly how most liberals stay liberal) than I would say a consensus doesn’t exist. In fact I would say any time a politician says “the science is settled” the science is indeed not settled.
TO BE CONTINUED…? (If I can wake up after that)
LIFEZILLA: Me so ornery. Me loathe you long time.
Well, I, for one, was not bored, because this is the stuff I teach. There is so much misinformation out there that my college students come in confused, either denying global warming exists, or that it does and it is all our fault. All theories I’ve studied conclude that neither of those is accurate. The earth IS warming, but one thing we learn in our class is that there are sooooo many things that contribute to warming and cooling, most of them involving natural cycles, that it is very difficult to pinpoint the cause. The consensus among many of my colleagues is that we are still in an interglacial period (a warming period between ice advances), and that humans are probably contributing to the warming so that it has been exacerbated. However, to what extent, nobody agrees on that.
My department head even told me that most of HIS colleagues believe another ice advance is inevitable. I had one climate professor tell me that perhaps human impact was staving off another ice advance. (???)
The truth is, nobody really knows to what extent humans have any impact on it, and you are absolutely right in saying that there is no such thing as scientific fact here. There are theories and hypotheses, but they vary so widely that there is little consensus on anything when it comes to climate change.
It’s sad that it has been so heavily politicized so that you have blind believers on one side and blind deniers on the other. The ignorance perpetuated by both parties is maddening. Any half-hazard study that supports dooms-day theories and the human-caused notion is quickly picked up and widely reported by the media and used by liberals for their agenda, while any evidence, no matter how small, that supports the opposite is pounced on by conservatives. Do you know that the majority of my Mormon acquaintances don’t believe warming is even happening? Why would the fact that they are Mormons have anything to do with their knowledge or opinions on this scientific issue? Because of their conservatism. It frustrates me to no end when my fellow church members act like I’m a heretic because I “believe” in climate change.
The bottom line is that this SHOULD NOT BE A POLITICAL ISSUE. Period.
Absolutely false!
Your articles are never boring. I will give that to you. You are someone who can take the most dull subject and at least keep me awake, and usually I even laugh. That in itself is noteworthy. I give you props for that.
Oh, but I guess it probably doesn’t mean as much coming from such a Simpleton like myself. It is hard work staying Liberal ya know? I can barely breathe with all the sand I swallow keeping my head buried.
You can’t seriously arguing that global warming isn’t happening, and that we shouldn’t be looking at what we can do? Regardless who or what is at fault, is it of absolutely no concern to you? As in zero? That idea is laughable, not to mention maddening. Science shows otherwise. Period.
We can do better. We can live better. That our children may live better. What do we have to lose in trying to better the planet?
But, what do I know…this sand is my teeth is insufferable.
I was a little board. I’ve heard the phrase lately “herding cats” and it seems to fit more and more current events, and latest issues than I think it should. Trying to get everyone to have a meaningful conversation about anything concrete, within defined parameters, I think, is like herding cats. Also, in the end, the outcome is about the same. So I guess my point is that scientists are like cats. One fish, two fish, potato.
Ozone schmo-zone!!As long as we are continuing to make a global profit,let us continue to emit the garbage from factories & vehicles into the air, The ocean & the water supply (what the frac?) with reckless abandon. The free market is the meter by which we shall monitor mother earth’s health. Who ever decided that for every action there’s a reaction was a total boring idiot with a crappie portfolio.Faux Snooze rules!!
Pingback: Global Boooooooring (Part 2) | Lifezilla