PowerSwitch

kenneal - lagger wrote:Five climate change science misconceptions – debunked

Gotta love the way that the advertising and claims just don't work out for anyone with a functioning brain, right KL?

Take #1 for example. Climate change is most damn certainly part of a completely natural cycle. It is anthropocentric climate change that is not natural, but I would argue that humans, choosing to do this, is of COURSE natural. We aren't doing it by accident. We aren't blind or struck stupid. People have known about the CO2 effect for what, more than a century now?

#2, of course the Earth's changing climate has been due to solar activity, again, someone not being too specific about what "change" they are referring to.

I've heard #3 claimed, and as we all know CO2 isn't anywhere near the most powerful greenhouse gas, but anyone who can read a basic physical chemistry text understands this, maybe just stupid folks fall for it? But at least it isn't inherently fighting someone else's strawman.

#4 is all about what any one of us means when we "manipulate" data. If the climate scientists find it necessary to interpolate, extrapolate, correlate, adjust, exclude data beyond a certain number of standard deviations, and in general regularly blend together datasets from unrelated temperature proxies, it isn't the average citizens job to try and unravel all of it. But it isn't a surprise if those who don't speak the language are a wee bit leery of what some fast talking folks are trying to sell them? Isn't this part of the Brexit problem, it is hardly restricted to scientists.

#5 misses the fact that all models are wrong, but some are useful. I believe that some climate models are useful, but have no desire to spend another half career in figuring out which ones.