Emission controls not warranted by facts

  • In response to an alarm that is not ring­ing: Tem­per­a­ture trends over the past cen­tu­ry or more (not to men­tion high-qual­i­ty satel­lite data from the past thir­ty years) are almost indis­tin­guish­able from flat, (0.6°C over the whole of the 20th cen­tu­ry) except when por­trayed as dra­mat­i­cal­ly scaled anom­alies based on arbi­trary base­lines—that, even so, show no warm­ing trend in the past sev­en years
  • With­out any regard to the rel­e­vant con­text: The paleo-cli­mate record is undis­put­ed. Our cli­mate con­tin­ues to warm (slight­ly) as the plan­et recov­ers from the last ice-age; anoth­er ice-age cycle seems high­ly like­ly (soon in a geo­log­i­cal time-scale); direct evi­dence of cli­mate his­to­ry shows at least 8 warm­ing (up to +6°C from today’s lev­els) and cool­ing (up to -12°C from today’s lev­els) cycles over the past 800-thou­sand years that very like­ly have solar or galac­tic ori­gin, and cer­tain­ly have noth­ing to do with human influ­ence
  • Adopt­ing pre­scrip­tions dreamed up by the adher­ents of a the­o­ry that is dis-con­firmed by its own pre­dic­tions and has no sup­port oth­er than some mod­eled ‘sce­nar­ios’ that pre­dict warm­ing that has not tak­en place, in fact: click the thumb­nail above.

This mad pol­i­cy has demo­c­ra­t­ic cre­den­tials, but not much intel­lec­tu­al cre­dence because its strongest sup­port (in Aus­tralia, Ross Garnaut’s inves­ti­ga­tion) depends on an argu­ment from author­i­ty to jus­ti­fy a refusal care­ful­ly to (re)evaluate the evi­dence.

A sort of mil­lenar­i­an mad­ness has gripped gov­ern­ments that should be seek­ing ways to pro­mote knowl­edge and growth, not to sti­fle both with a fog of so-called ‘set­tled sci­ence’ (a sil­ly claim that bor­ders on being a lie) and pub­lic dread.

No Comments

Leave a Reply

Your email is never shared.Required fields are marked *