If the major institutional scientists were people who respected other points of view and responded to them, rather than simply use institutional power to shut them out, we would have a real conversation about climate change in the public view. We don’t because that is not how they operate.
Yet, even in the close-minded, fenced-in area of institutional science, the evidence that doesn’t fit into global warming is breaking down the rush to judgment.
The Australian, relying on mainstream publications like The Economist, has published a story under the headline, “Twenty-year hiatus in rising temperatures has climate scientists puzzled.”
While all sorts of explanations are being offered for the “pause” in expected global warming, no one seems to be able to deny it.
“‘The global temperature standstill shows that climate models are diverging from observations,’ says David Whitehouse of the Global Warming Policy Foundation. ‘If we have not passed it already, we are on the threshold of global observations becoming incompatible with the consensus theory of climate change,’ he says. Whitehouse argues that whatever has happened to make temperatures remain constant requires an explanation because the pause in temperature rise has occurred despite a sharp increase in global carbon emissions. The Economist says the world has added roughly 100 billion tonnes of carbon to the atmosphere between 2000 and 2010, about one-quarter of all the carbon dioxide put there by humans since 1750. This mismatch between rising greenhouse gas emissions and not-rising temperatures is among the biggest puzzles in climate science just now, The Economist article says. ‘But it does not mean global warming is a delusion.’ The fact is temperatures between 2000 and 2010 are still almost 1C above their level in the first decade of the 20th century.”
But who’s to say, assuming the measurements are accurate, that a less-than-one-degree difference in one century represents a trend or a man-made crisis. Obviously, we are smudging the possibility that the globe has warmed with the allegations that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is causing global warming. Climate scientists would have to , at least, come up with a new model that adjusts the amount of warming cause by the increased carbon dioxide to this slight variant in temperature.
One reads the story in vain for anyone who will admit that Global Warming might not be man-made. Some do, however, admit that trying to reduce or halt releases of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere might not be worth it. But they can’t seem to want to give up such policies entirely: “Perhaps the world should seek to adjust to (rather than stop) the greenhouse-gas splurge” suggests the Economist. “There is no point buying earthquake insurance if you don’t live in an earthquake zone.”
So the good news is that, if we hold off draconian and costly laws, the defective science being used to justify such laws might get debunked in the near future.