The UK Guardian, long a bastion of belief in anthropogenic climate change, is a bit vexed over the election of skeptic Malcolm Roberts in Australia, and very much exposes why I call them the Cult of Climastrology
Why Malcolm Roberts’ demand for ’empirical evidence’ on climate change is misleading
…..
So how did Roberts respond to his newfound fame? Well, he didn’t disappoint, telling every mainstream audience there was “no empirical evidence to show that carbon dioxide affects the climate in any wayâ€.
Personally, I wouldn’t say there is no evidence, but that scientific evidence shows that it is not as strong as Warmists say, the doubling effect is minimal, natural processes release more than Mankind, and CO2 increases tend to follow temperature increases, not precede them.
Here’s where it gets really fun
So what does Roberts mean by “empirical evidence� According to him, decisions should be based on “observations in the real world … it’s measured, real world data†and nothing else counts.
There are two very obvious problems with Roberts’ argument.
The “real world data†is sending a clear message that the Earth is gaining heat at a rapid rate and that this is a long-term trend. Whether you look at global air temperatures measured in the real world by thermometers or derived from satellites, or the temperature of the oceans at multiple depths, or the increasing frequency of extreme temperatures, or the rising sea levels, the melting ice sheets, the disappearing Arctic sea ice, the increasing risk of bushfires … we could go on and on with a parade of “empirical evidenceâ€.
At the same time, humans are adding CO2 to the atmosphere and oceans at a rate that groups like the Geological Society say are unprecedented “even in comparison with the massive injections of carbon to the atmosphere at the Palaeocene-Eocene boundary, which led to a major thermal event 55m years agoâ€.
Yes, Earth has gotten hotter. That’s not the argument Roberts, nor Skeptics, are disagreeing with. It’s that CO2, or, as the Cult likes to say unscientifically, “carbon pollution”, is mostly/solely the cause. The Guardian goes on to give us their usual, the assumption that CO2 from Mankind is the cause. This is where they would need that pesky “empirical evidence.” Since that’s rather difficult for them to provide, we get
Roberts’ argument that science is only about “empirical evidence†might sound all sciencey to his interviewees and the lay audience. But it’s bunk.
If all you rely on is “empirical evidenceâ€, and reject modelling and analysis that uses that data, then you basically throw out large swathes of modern scientific endeavours.
See? That data from real world observations is meaningless. We need to listen to the (failed and/or massaged) computer models and hysterics! That’s science, you know!
