It’s really amazing when you think about it. For years, scientists (and others) told us that our planet was warming. They told us that if we didn’t severely limit production of “greenhouse gases”, the Earth would begin an irrevocable path to destruction. We started driving different cars. We were forced by law to use different light bulbs. We spent millions of dollars to build thousands of windmills across the country to harness renewable energy. We even instituted burdensome regulations on private industry all in an attempt to somehow skirt the inevitable global disaster. All this for what? In spite of our efforts, so-called “greenhouse gases” have risen to unprecedented levels while global temperatures have remained relatively stagnant. And still, when people who observe this so much as question the narrative, they are called “flat-earthers" by those claiming to represent them.
From two scientists writing in the WSJ:
In a Feb. 16 speech in Indonesia, Secretary of State John Kerry assailed climate-change skeptics as members of the “Flat Earth Society” for doubting the reality of catastrophic climate change. He said, “We should not allow a tiny minority of shoddy scientists” and “extreme ideologues to compete with scientific facts.”
But who are the Flat Earthers, and who is ignoring the scientific facts? In ancient times, the notion of a flat Earth was the scientific consensus, and it was only a minority who dared question this belief. We are among today’s scientists who are skeptical about the so-called consensus on climate change. Does that make us modern-day Flat Earthers, as Mr. Kerry suggests, or are we among those who defy the prevailing wisdom to declare that the world is round?
What is not a known fact is by how much the Earth’s atmosphere will warm in response to this added carbon dioxide. The warming numbers most commonly advanced are created by climate computer models built almost entirely by scientists who believe in catastrophic global warming. The rate of warming forecast by these models depends on many assumptions and engineering to replicate a complex world in tractable terms, such as how water vapor and clouds will react to the direct heat added by carbon dioxide or the rate of heat uptake, or absorption, by the oceans.
We might forgive these modelers if their forecasts had not been so consistently and spectacularly wrong.
Read the Rest (Read it. It’s good.)
As I’ve stated so many times (and will continue to state), while I love science, I’m not a scientist. There’s no way for me (or anyone else for that matter) to know, for certain, without a doubt, that human activity isn’t somehow contributing to some long-term change in climate. But as the article so eloquently puts it, science “consensuses” can be dangerous, especially when government coercion is involved. Why don’t we start panicking when the climate models start lining up with reality?