Why is there so much preoccupation with atmospheric CO2 concentrations and reducing anthropogenic CO2 emissions when it is well documented in the peer-reviewed scientific literature that the CO2 contribution to the overall greenhouse effect is so weak that it can be easily supplanted by small changes in clouds and water vapor, or natural climate-changing constituents?


Wednesday, 2 March 2011

Lessons in Intolerance: a wry look at contempt for CAGW sceptics

The Sun, 26th February, 2011.

Hat-tip: http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=7301  

A more considered, but equally heartfelt piece on this topic is to be found in The Spectator magazine:

'It’s another powerful, and depressing tale of the woeful state of climate science. Real science welcomes refutation: with global warming, it is treated as a religion. As they say in their cover story:

“Nature’s original peer-review process had let through an obviously flawed paper, and no professional climate scientist then disputed  it - perhaps because of fear that doing so might harm their careers. As the title of Richard Bean’s new play - The Heretic - at the Royal Court hints, young scientists going into climate studies these days are a bit like young theologians in Elizabethan England. They quickly learn that funding and promotion dries up if you express heterodox views, or doubt the scripture. The scripture, in this case, being the assembled reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.” '

and this classic of understated but penetrating insight:

'Science as a philosophy is a powerful, but fragile thing. In the case of climate, it is now in conflict with science as an institution.'

Link: http://www.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/6706648/debunking-the-antarctica-myths.thtml

1 comment: