How does one respond to the litany of climate change catastrophic prediction/warning articles published by guest correspondents? The endless parade of doom parroted by the parties who author these opinion pieces has me both laughing out loud on one hand and shaking my head in disbelief on the other.
Let’s recognize that the proposed solutions to these calamities are always the same: increase government regulation, increase taxation, limit choice and limit standard of living in the U.S.A. because the earth needs it. Baloney!
Tim Rechmeyer’s March 9, 2019, article entitled, “Merchants of doubt stoke climate debate" challenges anyone who disagrees as “merchants of doubt." “Changers," my term, attempt to claim the moral high ground, providing only the loosest of data to support the doom they peddle. Where are the rising tides? Why is the Antarctic ice cap growing? A NASA study in October 2015 proves this claim with hard data.
Neither Tim nor Rick Olson are scientists, yet both pontificate about the claimed root cause for the nebulous climate change alarmism. Man. Both appear to adopt the “we must do SOMETHING!” mantra, except their claims are not supported by the scientific method. Sorry guys, facts matter.
Scientific method defined: a systematic observation, measurement, and experiment and the formulation, testing and modification of hypotheses. Simply stated, if one does X, then Y will happen. One then tests the hypothesis by doing an experiment to determine if the prediction is accurate and thus supported by hypothesis.
I refer any of you to this analysis posted in Powerlineblog.com: https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2018/09/climate-alarmism-fails-the-test-of-observation.php
Richard Feynman, one of the greatest 20th century scientists, said: “It doesn’t make a difference how beautiful your guess is, it doesn’t make a difference how smart you are.... If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong.”
John Hinderaker wrote in that Power Line post: “In most industries, if you produced calculations that were off by a factor of 2.7, you would quickly be out of a job. But government, and pro-government research, are different. Here the purpose is not to be right, but to produce alarmist reports that, amplified by uncritical news stories written by ideologically aligned journalists, justify ever-greater government control over the economy and many billions of dollars in “green” cronyism.”
Feynman’s adage remains indisputable: a theory that is disproved by observation is worthless.
Why don’t Tim and Rick volunteer to limit their lifestyles/pay more and we’ll measure the effects on climate over time?
Kurt von Schmidt-Pauli