More Defectors Now See the Calm after the Storm
The shrill diatribe coming from the eco-whako establishment is beginning to lose its steam. Condescending talking-points from the Left’s sycophant stable of global warming delusionists have become less effective at marginalizing the voices of reason from their own side of the political divide. The real truth about climate change is finally beginning to emerge from the climate horsehit that academia has been piling on since Kyoto.
“Despite the statements of numerous scientific societies, the scientific community cannot claim any special expertise in addressing issues related to humanity’s deepest goals and values… Any serious discussion of the changing climate must begin by acknowledging not only the scientific certainties but also the uncertainties, especially in projecting the future. ~Dr. Steven Koonin
Listening to the latest wave of the Leftist climate change defectors, all of the alarm about global warming is now gone. Gone is the message of impending doom whether we act or not (especially appealing to those whose yearnings for damnation demand a lot of company). Gone too is the certainty that human CO2 will ever have a disastrous influence over Earth’s future climate.
“The idea that Climate science is settled,” says Steven Koonin, “runs through today’s popular and policy discussions. Unfortunately, that claim is misguided.” The Left’s problem with Koonin is not the message but the messenger who must now be branded, “denier.” The computational physicist credentials of Koonin who served as a professor and provost at Caltech, nor being green and a fan of renewables, are in question. Rather, his DOE job as undersecretary of science in the Obama administration lands Koonin squarely in the camp of Leftist global warming defectors −e.g., a voice of reason that’s not easily silenced and will be reckoned with by all but Democrat partisan extremists who will do whatever they can to suppress skepticism and legitimate climate science.
What the Left is forced to recon with in responding to scientists like Koonin is not what he suggests we do given what we know. The danger to the Left is that Koonin’s understanding of reality is credible, comprehensible and sensible albeit totally out of step with the air of certainty and urgency that all on the Left have tried for years to cultivate by knowingly providing false, incomplete, misleading and sometimes simply made-up facts and information to create public alarm.
In a nutshell, Koonin shares beliefs most all of us already have. “The crucial scientific question for policy isn’t whether the climate is changing,” says Koonin. “That is a settled matter: The climate has always changed and always will. Geological and historical records show the occurrence of major climate shifts, sometimes over only a few decades.” The IPCC’s adoption of Michael Mann’s hockey stick science was an unscientific denial of this most basic fact.
The defining element of the global warming hoax has always been the pretense that enlightened governments acting through the auspices of the UN under moral authority of Western science, can and should throttle-back modernity to prevent future climate change. Who shall decide our individual fate – government scientists on cell phones in ivory towers, sporting laptops and clouds full of phony data and pushing an evergreen buttload of public-funded research proposals about saving the Earth from human depredation?
“Computer modeling of complex systems is as much an art as a science… global climate models describe the Earth on a grid that is currently limited by computer capabilities to a resolution of no finer than 60 miles… But processes such as cloud formation, turbulence and rain all happen on much smaller scales. These critical processes then appear in the model only through adjustable assumptions that specify, for example, how the average cloud cover depends on a grid box’s average temperature and humidity. In a given model, dozens of such assumptions must be adjusted (“tuned,” in the jargon of modelers)… For the latest IPCC report (September 2013), its Working Group I, which focuses on physical science, uses an ensemble of some 55 different models. Although most of these models are tuned to reproduce the gross features of the Earth’s climate, the marked differences in their details and projections reflect all of the limitations that I have described… The models differ in their descriptions of the past century’s global average surface temperature by more than three times the entire warming recorded during that time. Such mismatches are also present in many other basic climate factors, including rainfall, which is fundamental to the atmosphere’s energy balance. As a result, the models give widely varying descriptions of the climate’s inner workings. Since they disagree so markedly, no more than one of them can be right. ~Steven Koonin, WSJ, Climate Science Is Not Settled
The clinker is, we’re just not that big a deal. The left refers to CO2 as a poison or a climate pollutant to make humanity’s contribution to the ecosphere nothing more than a big and dirty activity that nature is powerless to deal with. The Left demands that we must assume that, human influences could have serious consequences for the climate, whereas Koonin says, “they are physically small in relation to the climate system as a whole,” even when looking down the road 100 years.
“For example, human additions to carbon dioxide in the atmosphere by the middle of the 21st century are expected to directly shift the atmosphere’s natural greenhouse effect by only 1% to 2%. Since the climate system is highly variable on its own, that smallness sets a very high bar for confidently projecting the consequences of human influences. (Koonin, Ibid.)
Not through all of human history has anything changed for humanity. The American experiment of recognizing that individual liberty is a human right granted by God not government is a philosophical outlier of political science. It all comes back to us as it always has in the form of one simple question: “Who decides our individual fates? How much of our future is influenced by our exercise of free will? Humanity’s destiny has been the subject of controversy since the beginning of history.” ~Frank Furedi, The Australian, (Fear is key to irresponsibility)