Tsonis thinks this latest leveling or even cooling of Earth temps may last another couple of decades. Does he know what causes the shifts — are the causes natural or man-made?
Well, Tsonis believes that if first scientists don’t understand what is naturally happening in climate, then, “I don't think we can say much about what the humans are doing. So our interest is to understand -- first the natural variability of climate -- and then take it from there. So we were very excited when we realized a lot of changes in the past century from warmer to cooler and then back to warmer were all natural," he said.
This is in direct conflict with the Discovery Channel’s attempt to influence what Americans believe about climate trends, global warming — they simply must back off on using this terminology as it’s become a laughing stock particularly in the northern latitudes — and human-induced climate changes.
Using such fear-inducing phrases, always prefaced with “may,” “might,” and “could” such as “tipping point,” “massive changes,” “catastrophic sea level rises,” “melting ice caps,” “runaway greenhouse effect,” etc, they seek to swing the debate in their favor. Empirical historic data is missing from their arguments, however.
Examining just one bit on the Discovery Channel’s website entitled “Climate ‘Tipping Points’ Weighed for Likelihood,” we are told that 52 climate experts believe there are five scenarios that hold potentially devastating consequences for human civilization. Over 60 percent of these scientists think Greenland will be ice free by 2200, based on an increase of a seven to 14 degree temperature rise! Real scientists usually won’t be cornered into making such wildly speculative predictions, and the article admits that “estimates varied widely,” and the scenario is “inherently uncertain,” but still not in the “low-probability” category.
How can this be taken seriously?
Another one jams the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) supposed consensus down our throats. A grinning John J. Clague, Director of the Centre for Natural Hazards Research says apathy about climate change is dangerous. He dislikes that what he terms “social inertia” for addressing climate change that is “reinforced by contrarians and by powerful self-interest groups and governments.” Although usually a “normal and essential part of science,” he now sees debate by the public and other scientists on the IPCC’s supposed consensus as being irrational. He would have common folks excluded from debate of this kind, being better off accepting the scientists’ recommendations.
And all you people in North Dakota, Minnesota, or Wisconsin who have suffered through two brutal winters and verbally encourage global warming by saying “bring it on?” Well, you had just better sacrifice yourselves for the greater good — the agenda of reducing carbon emissions — and change your warmth-seeking oil-addicted furnace-burning gluttonous attitudes. If you don’t watch out, you’re going to destroy your own species. Or so the sciense technocrats would have the sheeple believe.
The Channel Discovery website also sends us to Treehugger.com where the headlines read like an out-of-control nightmare to the ridiculous:
“Both Scientists and Media to Blame for Climate Change Miscommunication”
“Worst-Case IPCC Climate change Trajectories are Being Realized: Copenhagen Climate Congress Concludes”
“Vegetarian Diet Could Cut Climate Change Mitigation Costs by 70% If Enough of Us Make the Switch”
The warming enthusiasts continually lament the fact that apparently their message isn’t getting through to the general public. Elizabeth Kolbert, “an astute observer and commentator,” and journalist on environmentalism, says scientists can’t just leave climate change policy to politicians and economists. In an interview with e360.yale.edu she blames super science legend Freeman Dyson for some of the damage. Dyson doesn’t believe that predicting climate trends via modeling is accurate or good science. “I don’t believe models. We can’t model this,” he says.
Kolbert has the audacity to contradict him saying weather modeling is “very fundamental science,” and not complicated. She also sees the current climate trends a result of man’s influence, and ethically these changes must be reversed:
What we’ve done to the oceans, for example, in terms of adding CO2 or, really, carbonic acid to the oceans, changing the chemistry of the oceans. That is irreversible for, on the order of, 10,000 years, okay? so we’re talking about, basically, for all intents and purposes, forever....
What is our ethical obligation is not to hand off a planet that’s habitable? I can’t really see a higher ethical obligation.
I don’t know if that second last sentence is a faux pas or a Freudian slip or a simple typo.
Any way, the climate changers are losing this war.