Folks,
Below is a comment I left on Stuart Fililingham's recent video about being shadow banned for questioning the climate change narrative. That video can be found here. A Ross Jones left a typical, arrogant ad hominem comment about climate change. His comment is pinned at the top of the video's comments, so it'll be easy to find. Below is Mr. Jones' comment, along with my rebuttal. Mr. Jones' comment is in colored text, while mine is in the regular color.
------------------
Science has only recently confirmed that human activity is the main cause of global warming. It’s not about “activists” any longer but a joined up confirmation and acceptance of science. Us general citizens have to make our decisions based upon prevailing scientific thinking and as I said scientists took a long time to prove unarguably that “we” are the cause of global warming. Sadly this will have a negative impact on motorcycling as we know it. I too am affected but I choose to accept good science. Personally I think you should avoid topics you know very little about. I’d rather enjoy the last days of the internal combustion engine used by motorcycles while we can. The next generation will be riding electric machines or something similar. Get back to the core topic of your channel for the sake of us viewers, and for you too. Start another channel if you need a platform for your political views…or many like me will be unsubscribing.Mr. Jones, many of us are suspicious of the climate change narrative and its proponents for good reason. One is the Univ. of East Anglia emails. Two, scientists won't share their data or how they got them, even those their findings are used to craft public policy. Three, natural phenomena affecting climate are never, ever discussed. Why is that? If we want to understand a problem; if we want to define it (the necessary step of the scientific method); then how can we apply the right solutions to said problem? Finally, why use such a nebulous, imprecise, and unclear term such as climate change?
Mr. Jones, many of us are suspicious of the climate change narrative and its proponents for good reason. One is the Univ. of East Anglia emails. Two, scientists won't share their data or how they got them, even though their findings are used to craft public policy. Three, natural phenomena affecting climate are never, ever discussed. Why is that? If we want to understand a problem; if we want to define it (the necessary step of the scientific method); then how can we apply the right solutions to said problem? Finally, why use such a nebulous, imprecise, and unclear term such as climate change?
FIrst of all, there was the climate change email scandal at the University of East Anglia back in November of 2009. Hackers got a hold of emails from the university's Climate Research Unit, and posted them to the Internet. The crux of these emails was that research data had been fudged, because the real data showed that the climate wasn't changing; if anything, they showed that Earth is cooling! Those who are proponents of the climate change narrative said that the emails were taken out of context; they said that they were misinterpreted. Even if this were true, WHY didn't the university share its data? Why weren't they transparent? Do you see how even the APPEARANCE of impropriety would make one question the university's findings?
Second of all, climatologists are reluctant to share their data and their findings with the world at large. Why is that? Why not be transparent with their findings? For example, the noted American professor and climatologist, Michael Mann, when he was at the University of Virginia, put out some findings saying that climate change was real. A group skeptical of his findings requested his data. He refused. They had to SUE him in court, and even then, the data weren't shared! Shouldn't we, as taxpayers, i.e. people who pay Mann's salary and fund his university, be allowed to see these data? Since public policy is being crafted as a result of these findings supporting climate change; since these policies will impact our lives in unforeseen and profound ways; shouldn't we see them? Why are they being hidden if they're legitimate, hmmm? Care to answer THAT, Mr. Jones?
Thirdly, am I the only one who's noticed that, within the climate change debate, that natural phenomena impacting climate are NEVER discussed? You know that, when volcanoes erupt, that they spew MILLIONS of tons of debris in the atmosphere, right? Do you know that this debris can impact weather and climate? For example, the Mount Tambora eruption of 1815 was so severe that it resulted in the year with no summer; there was no summer in 1816, which was responsible for the Irish potato famine back in the 19th Century. But wait, there's MORE!
Did you know that sunspots impact our climate? Sunspots affect the radiation and energy that reaches the Earth. This energy is an important driver of weather and climate. Solar cycles last 11 years. Shouldn't we be researching the sun's impact on our weather and climate, so as to understand its role in climate change? Here, NASA acknowledges and admits that we don't really understand the sun's impact on Earth and its climate: https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/sunearth/solar-events-news/Does-the-Solar-Cycle-Affect-Earths-Climate.html. Ah, but wait, there's STILL MORE!
Do you know that undersea volcanoes exist? Why wouldn't they, when we have volcanoes on land? Do you know that many of these undersea volcanoes erupt continuously? Do you know that they stream lava, or hot, liquified rock? You know that this heats up the ocean right? This, in turn, affects La Nina and El Nino. You know that both La Nina and El Nino impact both weather and climate right? Why aren't undersea volcanoes ever discussed when talking about climate change?
Mr. Jones, have you ever heard of the scientific method? It's the process used for understanding natural laws, crafting hypotheses, creating theories, conducting research, etc. IIRC, there are seven steps, but I want to focus on the first one, as it's the most critical step; get the first step wrong, the rest of your work will be wrong. The first step of the scientific method is to define the problem. What is it? What is it not? How does it manifest itself? When does it manifest itself? Under what circumstances does the problem occur? And so on. If this step isn't performed correctly, then everything else done afterward is faulty; blow it here, and all subsequent research is useless! The first step of the scientific method is analogous to a building's foundation; it is essential to get both right.
With that in mind, why AREN'T natural phenomena being discussed WRT climate change? Don't these phenomena affect the climate? Since they affect the climate, shouldn't we understand them? Shouldn't they be part of defining the problem of climate change? If we, as a people, are to craft good solutions to climate change, shouldn't we understand all the variables first? By ignoring them, aren't we negatively impacting and distorting all subsequent research that follows the essential step of defining the problem? What do all these natural phenomena have in common, Mr. Jones? Man cannot control them! There's nothing humanity can do about sunspots, volcanoes, or undersea volcanoes.
Finally, why is such a nebulous, imprecise, and unclear term like "climate change" even used? I'm old enough to remember when this was first called global cooling back in the 1970s. Then, during the 1980s, it was called global warming. When that warming didn't happen, it was then called climate change. The climate is ALWAYS changing-DUH! It's called the four seasons: winter, spring, summer, and fall. Again, if we're to really understand and define any problems with Earth's climate, shouldn't we use precise terms as part of that understanding?
Mr. Jones, you said that you believe and follow "good science", right? In light of what I've pointed out, does climate change science look like good science to you? Does good science hide their data and findings? Does good science ignore ALL variables affecting a process, such as the Earth's weather and climate? Does good science refuse to acknowledge, let along understand, all variables, such as natural phenomena impacting Earth's climate?
To recap, many of us are suspicious of the climate change narrative and its proponents for good reason. One is the Univ. of East Anglia email scandal. Two, scientists won't share their data or how they got them, even those their findings are used to craft public policy. Three, natural phenomena affecting climate are never, ever discussed. Why is that? If we want to understand a problem; if we want to define it (the necessary step of the scientific method); then how can we apply the right solutions to said problem? Finally, why use such a nebulous, imprecise, and unclear term such as climate change?
No comments:
Post a Comment