In the anthropogenic climate change debate, there are scientific proponents and scientific opponents of the man-made global warming theory. If you believe the ABC however, and other such propaganda experts, there is science versus the irrational and extremist deniers.
A recent edition of the ABC’s Catalyst declared that science was under siege, that anyone who opposed the carbon dioxide tax was a part of this attack on science. Four Corners underscores the appearance of skeptics on their program with scary music, like something out of a Hitchcock film. The implication being that we’re looking at some clichéd, evil movie villains. These are the ones who oppose science, we are being told.
Ian Chubb plays this card, painting skeptics as antiscience.
Professor Chubb described media coverage of climate science as “ordinary” and said he was disappointed by the weight given to non-credible views.
“It’s raised doubts where doubts should not exist,” Professor Chubb said.
“There are people being attacked for saying something people don’t want to hear.”
The prime minister calls on people to “respect the science“, as though skeptics don’t have a scientific argument. Anne-Maria Arabia makes the same call, in her respect the science campaign. The implication again being that skeptics show disdain for science.
There are two reasons that a warmist would go with this argument. The first is that there is a deliberate and sinister attempt to delegitimise those they disagree with. The other is ignorance, that these crusaders for science are unaware of the serious doubt hanging over man-made global warming theory. I’m inclined to think Chubb falls into the second category, given his recent remarks that it has been the warmest decade ever.
If folks like Chubb would actually do a bit of reading, they might find the following examples of unsettled science.
- the role of clouds in the climate system: are they a forcing factor in their own right or merely feedbacks? What direction is the feedback even in?
- how cosmic rays influence clouds. Recent experiments have indicated this plays a major role in the working of the climate.
- the lack of warming as climate models have predicted. This is something prominent warmists have as good as admitted to in their attempts to explain it away. Kevin “Travesty” Trenberth suggests the heat is hiding in the oceans while Kaufmann thinks aerosols have countered the influence of carbon dioxide. Even the warmists can’t agree on where the heat has gone.
- the models also fail to predict other notable observations; the lack of ocean warming, the lack of a hotspot and the increase in infrared radiation escaping to space.
- not to mention there is no empirical evidence to substantiate the large and counterintuitive positive feedback the IPCC factors into their climate models.
Considering then, these little inconvenient facts, one could argue that to respect the science would entail perhaps investigating them, and potentially re-evaluating the AGW hypothesis. Perhaps science is done no favours when people like Chubb delude themselves into thinking there is only one side of the story, and ignore these issues. Perhaps those that suggest skeptics are antiscience are themselves attacking science, by smearing eminent and respected scientists who do not agree with the hysteria over carbon dioxide.