Ep. 613 Climate Change: What Does Science Really Say?
9th March 2016
To call any aspect of the climate change orthodoxy into question is to risk being condemned as “anti-science.” But are the arguments and computer models of the so-called mainstream really so rock solid?
About the GuestChip Knappenberger is assistant director of the Center for the Study of Science at the Cato Institute. He has over 20 years of experience in climate research and public outreach, and has published numerous papers in the major atmospheric science journals on global warming, hurricanes, precipitation changes, weather and mortality, and Greenland ice melt, among many other areas.
“The Case against a Carbon Tax,” by Chip Knappenberger, Robert Murphy, and Patrick J. Michaels
“Climate Models and Climate Reality: A Closer Look at a Lukewarming World,” by Patrick J. Michaels and Chip Knappenberger
Center for the Study of Science, Cato Institute
Chip’s Cato page (with his writings)
# – # – # – # – #
What I found interesting was the following points:
- Politicians and bureaucrats want a crisis; even if it’s not understood.
- Media hypes the outrageous “solutions” aka “it bleeds, it leads”.
- It’s a good possibility that the activities of man influences local weather. Maybe even global climate.
- Warming maybe a good thing for humanity (i.e., wine grapes in England; farms in Greenland; a thriving Roman Empire).
- It may be a 100 years before the sea level rises 18 inches. Humanity adapts to all sorts of “stuff”.
- Can’t do much to deprive poor people of electricity which is carbon based.
- Maybe radical “solutions” aren’t needed.
- Climate Scientists don’t really understand the mechanics of what happens.
What I found inspirational was the quiet reasoned discourse about a controversial subject without rancor. I found that I could accept this. Probably because it was reasonable and reasoned.
# – # – # – # – #