How about “do the science”, instead?
(Stuff) “Do the math!” says American climate activist and campaigner Bill McKibben who has just visited New Zealand to spread the global warming gospel. Doing the ‘math’ on global warming will supposedly prove we are on the brink of climate catastrophe, about to encounter the much-touted “tipping point”.
Wait, McKibben took a long unnecessary fossil fueled flight to tell us that CO2 from fossil fuels is bad?
It would make more sense to “do the science” because then at least we would be able to account for the now obvious divergence between computer-based climate models (supporting the IPCC and McKibben’s ‘math’) and the actual satellite-measured temperatures. Global temperatures have gone in one direction while CO2 and the IPCC’s computer models have gone in the other for nearly twenty years, with no sign of anything changing in the foreseeable future as the divergence becomes more and more pronounced. Obviously then, something is seriously wrong with the science despite the ‘math’ used to prove it.
It is well known that CO2 and temperature do not change in direct lockstep, with temperature obediently following, as activists would have us believe. The relationship is much like painting a window-the first coat blocks out most of the light. Successive coats take out less and less light until adding more does next to nothing. CO2 in the atmosphere works the same way.
It would make more sense to do the science, which is what Climate Realists are engaged in. For Warmists, though, as I’ve pointed out time and time again, it’s not about science but about politics. “Climate change” is simply an extension of far left progressive doctrine designed to increase government power over people and the private sector, as well as putting more money in the hands of progressive politicians. When discussing this issue that’s where you start: politics.
Make sure to read the whole article
