by Anthony Cox
Great scientists like Richard Feynman and Einstein both agreed that it didn’t matter how many people believed in a theory all it took to disprove a theory was one fact.
The supporters of man-made climate change or AGW rely very heavily on the idea that a majority or consensus of scientists support AGW and therefore it must be right.
Even US President Barack Obama has accepted the idea of a consensus and that it proves AGW.
President Obama tweeted that:
Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: #climate change is real, man-made and dangerous.
Obama based his tweet on the latest evidence for a consensus about AGW from a recent paper by a team which includes Australian academic John Cook who runs the pro-AGW blog site Skeptical Science.
In their paper Cook and his team categorised the authors of scientific papers into 7 groups with the first category:
Explicitly (stating) that humans are the primary cause of recent global warming
That is fairly unambiguous and represents the accepted definition of AGW: that humans are the main cause of climate change.
However when a number of other scientists checked Cook’s results they found that not 97% of the sample of approximately 12000 scientists were in category 1 but less than 1% and in fact more scientists believed category 6 which said:
Explicitly minimizes or rejects that humans are causing global warming
In addition none of Cook’s categories described AGW as dangerous as President Obama tweeted but that in itself shows how much the issue has been politicised.
The politicisation of AGW was further shown by the comments made by certain politicians about the recent bushfires in Australia and the dreadful Typhoon in the Philippines.
Despite the Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change [IPCC] in its latest report, AR5, explicitly stating that there is no conclusive evidence to support a connection between AGW and extreme weather events like the bushfires or the Typhoon that has not stopped politicians like Adam Bandt and Christine Milne claiming such events as proof of AGW.
In fact according to a leading pro-AGW scientist, Professor Richard Muller from Berkeley a lack of extreme weather events may be a proof of AGW.
According to Muller in a warming world the poles warm up relative to other parts of the world and that decreases the temperature differences between parts of the Earth. Extreme weather depends on a strong temperature gradient and the energy that provides. If those energy gradients are decreasing then logically there should be less extreme events.
This is the problem now with AGW; it has become politicised and even ideologically driven. Not to mention driving a vast investment and expenditure by governments and corporations.
Whenever politics and money become involved scientific independence takes a back seat. I don’t think either Feynman or Einstein would approve of the consensus or politicisation of extreme weather disasters.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -