Bait and Switch in the Climate Debate
14th December 2012
… climate alarmists have been remarkably adept at defining fringe views as the mainstream skeptic position, a sort of bait and switch that allows them to avoid debating the more difficult topics (for example, the proposition that the Earth’s climate system is dominated by strong positive feedbacks is far from settled and a literature review of that critical topic would show an incredibly broad range of results). In the climate debate, the supposed “Defenders of Science” much prefer painting skeptics as beyond the bounds of polite society and therefore unworthy of response to actually debating the difficult points.
‘Climate-changers’ lie. Who knew?
I’m still waiting for someone to demonstrate how they can accurately measure the temperature of the entire planet to an accuracy of one tenth of a degree centigrade. Then we can discuss how exactly that allows them to predict what will happen in the future. Then we can discuss how exactly that justifies them blaming it on human activity. Then we can discuss the extent to which this aggregate overall warming is a Bad Thing. Then we can discuss what, if anything, can be done about it. Then we can discuss whether or not the proposed cure is worse than the situation it purports to cure.
So far they haven’t even reached first base, much less brought in the winning run. All of these fanciful ‘peer-reviewed climate articles’ are based on estimates, approximations, models, and highly questionable assumptions, and are science in the same way that astrology might be called science — yeah, there are some correlations here, but no demonstrated causal links, and that’s the key part.