What if the world faced a calamity that scientists predicted and that science might help prevent…but the general public just didn’t understand it? And at the same time, what if powerful political and business interests found it profitable to convince the public that all the scientists were lying?
That, according to climatologist Richard Somerville, summarizes what’s happening regarding the subject of climate change. And he believes it’s crucial that scientists start doubling their efforts to educate the public and policymakers before it’s too late to preserve the ecosystems we rely on.
Once we get educated properly, we will all know that it really is hot outside and our favourite beaches are gone. Including my favourite snorkeling beach which is right outside Somerville’s office.
I have to laugh at Somerville’s statement. Scientists don’t even fully understand climate; their research and conclusions are chock full of contradictions, poor models and consequently failed predictions, so it is no wonder they have trouble educating the general public.
Once we get educated properly
Re-educated.
before it’s too late to preserve the ecosystems we rely on.
yawn
The majority of businesses are supporting ACC as a means or collecting more money for doing nothing extra. I think it is the Climatologists that need to be educated.
Dave N,
Where is your evidence supporting your claims?
Clearscience,
you obviously have not spent much time going through the posts on this blog.
here is a quick synopsis (somebody correct me if I mis-state anything).
Scientists are busy readjusting temperature data all over the place in order to make it look like the planet is getting warmer. they are adjusting sea level data to make it look like the sea levels are rising faster than they really are.
Scientists have no evidence whatsoever that CO2 is causing any sort of noticeable global temperature increase, and the indications of warming are contradicted by the current frigid temps in North America Europe, South America, and Antarctica,.
Almost all the real science clearly shows that the earth is not going to warm much more even if it does a little, and that doubling of CO2 will have no major negative consequences.
Natural cycles of the earths movements around the sun, changes in solar activity, and various global wind and ocean currents determine and explain all the temperature changes in the past, present, and no reason not to believe the future.
Arctic sea ice is back to normal levels now, Antartic sea ice is much higher than normal and historical warmings since the last ice age were higher than what we are going through now, so there is no reason to believe life will be much different, since polar bears, coral reefs, rainforests and other life forms (including humans) survived those times quite fine.
Freeman Dyson believes climate models are worthless for predicting future climate and CO2 is not a major factor in warming. In any case there is no reason to think increasing temps will be a problem.
There is actually much more, but if you read through all the past posts you will see how corrupt the entire scientific community has been with regard to this issue. Scientists are receiving trillions of dollars to parrot the fantasy that ACC is happening and so will only do research that supports the continuation of that lie.
You have nothing but straw man arguments left, Tony. Pretty lame.
Hi Clear
As you like to explain the science, perhaps you can explain why sea temps underwent a step change upwards of 0.12C in 1998.
(I’ll give you a clue – it had nothing to do with global warming)
If you need any help, I am sure Bob Tisdale will oblige.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/11/26/does-hadley-centre-sea-surface-temperature-data-hadsst2-underestimate-recent-warming/
Steve,
Why do you so often make comments with absolutely no substance?
I thought in the above post I was succinctly presenting something close to your position.
Please tell me what I wrote that is inaccurate.
In case you don’t know a straw man argument is one where you present a contrary argument that is not the argument being presented against you.
I just presented something that I think is close to what you and others on this site profess to believe. I am happy to have you correct me. Now I am not saying that this is IDENTICAL to what you believe, cause you know how I feel about using the word identical.
Of course it is others that have used the figure trillions of dollars, but you have never corrected those statements. I actually I don’t think I have ever seen anything you have written that questions any assertion by anyone on this site as long as it opposes ACC.
Just goes to show how little you understand of what goes on around here.
Steve,
you are amazing. Another comment that contains no information.
Of course I wrote that explanation off the top of my head. I did not go through all your seemingly hundreds of posts.
But what am I misrepresenting in my comment?
Come on. Here is a chance to explain what I am misunderstanding. After all Clearscience says he is someone that is just starting to seriously study climate change, so he is a prime candidate for the truth, since he should be able to understand the technical parts that I don’t.
I have no intention of repeating my posts in the comment section.
Steve,
Who asked you to repeat your posts?
I just offered you the opportunity to correct any of my mischaracterizations, since you commented that I didn’t understand “what goes on around here.”
If you don’t want to bother, then don’t respond, or delete my comments if the irritate you.
“What if the world faced a calamity that scientists predicted and that science might help prevent…but the general public” fed up with failed predictions ignored a real problem?
The Boy Who Cried Wolf comes to mind!
Chicken Little fits the current group better!
“We Don’t Understand Because We Are Stupid”
That is of course a possibility.
Oh Laz,
I am sure you are quite intelligent really.
That’s one.