In 2016 67% of meteorologists said that humans have caused most or all climate change and The Guardian headlined that there was a Growing Consensus among Meteorologists. In 2017 that fell to only 49%. The Guardian said nothing.
In 2016 29% of meteorologists thought climate change was largely or entirely man-made, but that fell to only 15% this year.
Figure how this result fits with the idea of the overwhelming evidence and 97% consensus. Which group on the planet after climate scientists should be the second profession to “get it” — how about meteorologists?
1. meteorologists are really stupid, or
2. meteorologists know how hard it is to predict the climate.
I wonder how
many people including meteorologists would consider Global Warming, now
Climate change was man made if it was known that the 50% CO2 increase in
the last 120 years is natural?
It is amazing that this is not something anyone debates. Even people
who dispute man made Global Warming always start by stating explicitly
or implicitly that mankind has increased CO2 and CO2 is a greenhouse
gas. They also implicitly accept that CO2 emitted stays in the
atmosphere for a very long time. This is despite the fact that it is
not true. The lifespan of CO2 was thought to be a few years in the
1950s. We now know that it is 14 years but still the IPCC declares the
half life to be 80 years.
So I wonder how many people would accept man is changing the
atmosphere if this was better known. Without the premise of man made
CO2 rise, there is no argument. Whether CO2 is a significant Greenhouse
gas becomes a moot point.
It was also
amazing that not one of Australia’s Climate Commissioners was a
meteorologist. Chief Climate Commissioner Tim Flannery’s undergraduate
degree was in English and his PhD in dead kangaroos. Some engineers,
administrators. Only Will Steffen was a scientist, an industrial
chemist who clearly did not want to work on cheese, wine, rubber, paint
Then 350 full time scientists from the CSIRO, ‘the problem solvers’
working full time on proving Climate Change, when we already paid for a
Bureau of Meteorology? Obvious Climate is not about the weather. Of
course they failed to find Climate Change and went on to researching how
Australians could cope with what they could not find. Hundreds of
millions of dollars and hundreds of lives to prove nothing, achieve
nothing, all at our expense?
Certainly none of the famous promoters of Climate Change are
meteorologists and many have no science at all, most notably Al Gore.
Michael Mann could not get a PhD in physics but finally managed a highly
contentious one studying tree rings? These are not the best and
Even the concept of a scientist has been so diluted over the last
fifty years that questions the very idea of Rational science. Science
by rote when a real scientist is a sceptic who wants everything proven
beyond doubt by facts and experiment. Not the new scientist. They
simply agree with each other and claim consensus is truth and facts are
irrelevant. Even the 97% number is unscientific nonsense fabricated
from an emasculated survey where deniers were omitted by claiming they
were not ‘climate scientists’, a very exclusive bunch.
The proliferation of science free environmental studies since the
1980s has created a whole new class of people who call themselves
climate scientists but have little or no knowledge of basic science.
The most egregious are the various psychologists who use surveys and
statistics to prove anything they want. If enough people believe
something is true, it must be true.
So what happened to Rational science and the Enlightenment, when
people were freed from having to conform to Church dictates? We now
have the Church of Climate Change. Anyone who dares disagree is a
Denier of the faith and meteorologists are not even to be consulted on
the climate. Only the high priests know the truth about the climate and
now 75% of meteorologists are deniers?