That’s what Warmist Vicky Pope, who is a senior scientist at the (discredited) Met Office Hadley Centre at the UK Guardian wants to know
Do you believe in climate change?
That’s not a question you should be asking – it’s a matter of empirical evidence, not belief
So you climate realists just need to STFU and GTFO. Even though “climate change” is an absurd and unscientific phrase used to blame everything that happens on mankinds release of greenhouse gases, such as from the energy used to publish the Guardian on the Internet.
This may seem like an odd question for a climate scientist to ask, but it is one I am constantly asked now. The typical discussion starts: “I know that the climate is changing, but hasn’t it always changed through natural cycles?” Then they will often give an example, such as the medieval warm period to prove their point.
And then Vicky forgets to actually address the climate changes, such as the MWP, Little Ice Age, Roman Warm Period, etc. That would be an inconvenient truth.
Which brings me on to the question, should you believe in climate change? The first point to make is that it’s not something you should believe or not believe in – this is a matter of science and therefore of evidence – and there’s lots of it out there. On an issue this important, I think people should look at that evidence and make their own mind up. We are often very influenced by our own personal experience. After a couple of cold winters in the UK, the common question was “has climate change stopped?” despite that fact that many other regions of the world were experiencing record warm temperatures. And 2010 was one of the warmest years on record. For real evidence of climate change, we have to look at the bigger picture.
Yeah, there is lots of evidence that the climate changes. Most of it points towards natural variation. Why did we get a cooling trend from the 1940’s through 1970’s, despite CO2 rising? Why has the climate, from a temperature standpoint, been stagnant for the last 15 years, despite rising CO2 levels? Why do the Warmists models fail so spectacularly?
You can see research by the Met Office that shows the evidence of man-made warming is even stronger than it was when the last IPCC report was published. A whole range of different datasets and independent analyses show the world is warming. There is a broad consensus that over the last half century warming has been rapid, and man-made greenhouse gas emissions are very likely to be the cause.
Check that Met Office link: nothing within shows anthropogenic causation, simply that the world has warmed. Yes, the world has warmed. That happens. And, do we even need to discuss that consensus is not science? And, if you are saying anthropogenic causes is the cause as “very likely”, that’s not science. Put a percentage to that. Is it or is it not? That’s science. BTW, that link for “fail so spectacularly” is about Vicky’s Met Office retroactively altering historical data to match their beliefs. Is that “sceince,” Vicky? Or advocacy?
