No construction equipment required. Every time you breathe, you help make a new lake in Canada. How cool is that?
As a professional speaker, I’ve spent much of the past four years performing at colleges across the country. While the subject of my show is rare and interesting wildlife on all seven continents, I also address the effects of global warming.
I do this by showing a photo of a Canadian glacier with a large lake at its foot. “That lake wasn’t there 50 years ago,” I tell my audience. “That lake is there because of human-caused global warming. Despite the overwhelming scientific evidence that global warming is real and caused by humans, it amazes me that it’s still a controversy here in the United States. But it’s not a scientific controversy; it’s a political controversy. In fact, 97% of climate scientists—those who do the actual peer-reviewed research—are in agreement that global warming is human-induced.”
Peer review is a total farce with everyone groveling for government funding.
Lakes are bad?
Like all climate “scientists” this one you quote doesn’t know the difference between natural and man made. Which is as good as saying they haven’t the first clue about science.
Science isn’t brand name, nor to you become a scientist simply by joining the “firm”. Science is a methodology, it’s a standard of proof: proof beyond doubt derived from experimentation. The problem with climate “science” is that they have this weird notion, that if you can’t experiment, if you can’t get hard physical evidence and subject your predictions to test, then it’s still OK to call themselves scientists so long as they back up their arguments with maths and use long sounding scientific names.
Take e.g. the simple assertion: “mankind is warming the globe”. In science you have what is called a “null hypothesis”, and that is “natural variation caused all the changes we see”. Unless you can disprove the null hypothesis, then you are not allowed to assert “mankind warmed the globe” and call it science. Obviously,real scientists do make suggestions like: “the evidence seems to suggest … ” or “the evidence is consistent with”. But no real scientists says: “it is” unless or until they can disprove the null hypothesis.
So, you really have to ask how they can get away with it. And the answer is simple: global warming has been a cash cow for “science”. I was surprised that something like 50% of the research on a none climate subject (tree growth in bogs) had some connection with global warming in the title.Which meant that general science could never afford to question climate “science”. It had the chance after climategate to come down like a tonne of bricks on the rogue “scientists” who had brought so much discredit to science by singularly ignoring basic principle like impartiality. But no! Climate “science” was so important, that the general standards of “science” had to be dropped to the gutter level to match the appalling standards of climate “science” to avoid climate “science” getting any serious rebuke.
I knew that hockey sticks were made from trees, but I didn’t know you could make ’em from tree rings as well.
Grantologists are like magicians. They can make your dreams virtually disappear.