Professor Harold Kroto won the Nobel prize in chemistry in 1996 for his part in the discovery of fullerenes. He’s now in Melbourne to clear up misunderstandings about science, mainly that it is an evidence-based discipline, where belief is irrelevant. All stuff we can agree on, but then, he’s asked about the global warming debate.
”NOT all scientists are good scientists,” Nobel laureate Harold Kroto says when asked what he thinks about the debate around global warming.
Unfortunately, he does not elaborate on who he thinks are bad scientists in this particular field. Is he knocking Richard Lindzen, Fred Singer or Roy Spencer? Or, could he be having a go at Phil Jones or Michael Mann?
Professor Kroto ticks off the warning signs on his fingers, listing rising sea levels and temperatures, the shrinking Arctic and melting glaciers.
”I look at the evidence [and] the evidence is not good,” he said. ”That’s the situation. We’re in a 100-year experiment and it will take another 100 years to decide and then it will be too late.”
Evidence is fine if it can support one part of a theory, but if there are parts of the theory that aren’t supported by the evidence, then something is wrong. If the theory was that the earth has warmed over the last century, then that is definitely supported by the evidence. But the theory in question is CATASTROPHIC, ANTHROPOGENIC global warming. Sea levels, temperatures and glaciers certainly help establish the “global” and the “warming” aspects of the theory, but the other two terms are kind of important too.
Climate Nonconformist 