A scientist describes the skeptics view of global warming.


Please consider donating to Behind the Black, by giving either a one-time contribution or a regular subscription, as outlined in the tip jar to the right. Your support will allow me to continue covering science and culture as I have for the past twenty years, independent and free from any outside influence.

A scientist describes the skeptic’s view of global warming.

And since good science should be founded of skepticism, he ends up describing the actual state of climate research, outlining all the uncertainties with great clarity and intelligence.

Share

3 comments

  • Cotour

    The term now is “climate change” not global warming. This article should nail the whole thing down.

    http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2014/03/09/senate-democrats-talkathon-climate-change/6172647/

    Who could argue with a term like climate change, the damn climate changes all the time, the term is self defining! You see they have made it simpler so the people can properly understand.

    Because the science can not demonstrate conclusively that the atmosphere is warming or not warming due to human activity the warmists have the flexibility in saying since you can not demonstrate concretely that it is not happening we must assume that it is happening based on our intuitive interpretation of cause and effect as a default. It can actually become a strong logical argument if it does happen to warm in the short term.

    I have a feeling the more that the Democrats insist on how hot it is going to get the colder North America will become based on the, Want to make God laugh? Make a plan, theory of the universe. I do not believe that God has a dog in this fight other than his interest in his own entertainment based on how cold it has been this winter. So based on this theory we should expect glaciers to commence forming in Canada and begin to descend on the rest of the continent at the conclusion of the Democrats climate talkathon.

  • ted

    The new version of COSMOS was on last night and Neil DeGrasse Tyson opened with a straight forward concept of how science is supposed to work: “Test ideas by experiment and observation; build on those ideas that pass the test, reject the ones that fail; follow the evidence wherever it leads and question everything. Accept these terms and the cosmos is yours.”

    When it comes to climate change the chicken-littles ignore observation, refuse to accept evidence that contradicts their ideas and condemn those that question their conclusions.

  • Cotour

    And here is Richard Branson demanding What?

    http://www.salon.com/2014/03/10/virgins_richard_branson_climate_deniers_should_get_out_of_our_way/

    That business do what they do more efficiently and cleanly through technology? Who would disagree with that? IMO pollution is the actual conversation to be having.

    Who is denying the climate? The climate exists and it changes, what the hell are these people now saying? Is this now just a kind of a perverted capitalist / OWO propaganda? (just to throw some paranoia in the mix) The sillier and more general / less specific the terminology gets the stupider it sounds. Is it just me?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *