Skip to comments.The Myth of ‘Settled Science’
Posted on 02/21/2014 2:41:35 PM PST by SoFloFreeper
I repeat: Im not a global-warming believer. Im not a global-warming denier. Ive long believed that it cannot be good for humanity to be spewing tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. I also believe that those scientists who pretend to know exactly what this will cause in 20, 30, or 50 years are white-coated propagandists.
The debate is settled, asserted propagandist-in-chief Barack Obama in his latest State of the Union address. Climate change is a fact. Really? There is nothing more anti-scientific than the very idea that science is settled, static, impervious to challenge. Take a non-climate example. It was long assumed that mammograms help reduce breast cancer deaths. This fact was so settled that Obamacare requires every insurance plan to offer mammograms (for free, no less).
Now we learn from a massive randomized study 90,000 women followed for 25 years that mammograms may have no effect on breast-cancer deaths. Indeed, one out of five of those diagnosed by mammogram receives unnecessary radiation, chemo, or surgery.
So much for settledness. And climate is less well understood than breast cancer. If climate science is settled, why do its predictions keep changing? And how is it that the great physicist Freeman Dyson, who did some climate research in the late 1970s, thinks todays climate-change Cassandras are hopelessly mistaken?
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalreview.com ...
Kraut speaks like a former Mondale Staffer.
The last rule of the scientific method is to go back and recheck/reevaluate everything, it is never finished. Science is not consensus of some people.
Some would prefer another ice age.
He is right except for his concession that something must be wrong with CO2. It’s plant food. The tons mankind releases into the atmosphere is still miniscule compared to naturally released sources and the total amount in the atmosphere. CO2 has been far higher in the past and had no adverse effect on plants, animals or the climate. It is ignorance of a high order to consider it a pollutant.
From UCSB ScienceLine:
During their lifetimes, plants generally give off about half of the carbon dioxide (CO2), that they absorb, although this varies a great deal between different kinds of plants. Once they die, almost all of the carbon that they stored up in their bodies is released again into the atmosphere.
>> He is right except for his concession that something must be wrong with CO2.
Yeah, dead on.
If he’d have said he long believed there was something wrong with spewing more and more soot (particulate) without doing anything about it, I’d agree. But the relatively small amount of extra CO2 is at worst benign, and maybe even beneficial.
The only way to change the weather is to redistribute wealth.
If fact were to be established by the consensus of the persons responding to a poll, the moon would very likely probably still be assumed to be composed of newly-made cheese. However, a little reality intruded, and the moon is, in fact, made up of various kinds of mostly silicate rocks, not a speck of cheese to be found on the entire satellite.
“Settled science” is an oxymoron, because, by its very nature, the answer is never final, but always subject to the discovery of new fact. This discovery, which may fundamentally alter the original hypothesis, requires the definition of a new hypothesis, and subsequent testing of that hypothesis.
“Ive long believed that it cannot be good for humanity to be spewing tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.”
The atmosphere has a mass of about 6,000,000,000,000,000 tons (6 million gigatons (GT)). Of this, 0.039% is carbon dioxide from all sources.
The atmosphere contains 720 GT of CO2. The oceans contain 37,400 GT of suspended carbon, land biomass has 2000-3000 GT.
And humans contribute only 6 GT. The oceans, land and atmosphere exchange CO2 continuously so the additional load by humans is incredibly small.
This becomes very obvious when you look at the land-ocean-atmospheric carbon cycle.
To even suggest that mankind is influencing this is like saying that a bacteria is forcing a flea to force an elephant to go in a particular direction.
Settled Science is a term used by the lazy the uninformed science challenged or functional idiots..
It is a political designation for propaganda purposes.. or a fund raising gambit..
Except for EXXXXXXXX- not going there today :)
As carbon-based life forms it’s a little self-hating to wage a jihad on carbon isn’t it? lol
No, but the plants love it.
And they reward us by spewing tons of oxygen into the atmosphere.
So, are you saying, "once a lib, always a lib?"
Ha ha ha ha .... Whoops where’s my wallet?