One wonders if he’d ask a similar question to, say, Hank Johnson who thinks Guam might capsize. Probably not, because Hank will blindly vote they way he’s told to on climate issues.
It’s pretty hilarious how the party of Science! insists on ignorantly conflating the notion that the climate changes with the assertion that the climate changes because of human beings. The climate has always been changing and you would be hard pressed to find someone who would say otherwise.
That certainly doesn’t stop the left from just making it up though.
We’re pretty sure the “hoax” that Inhofe writes about in his book is the one that says that
global cooling global warming climate change is a human caused phenomenon. While many take it on faith, it has not been scientifically proven that human beings are catastrophically changing the climate.
The Democrats provide no evidence that Inhofe’s tweet is inconsistent with what he argued in his book. There is likely no conflict at all. A cursory examination indicates that Inhofe only refers specifically to man-caused climate change as a “hoax.” Nevertheless the tweet earned Inhofe a ration of hate from non-scientists deriding Inhofe for also not being a scientist.
That there are 10,000 climate “experts” in agreement about anyhting is itself a dubious notion. The numbers of scientist believers usually includes people from all branches of science, many of which have no more expertise on climate matters than a layman.
Difficult to argue with that sort of climate “expertise.”
Those can be experimentally demonstrated. That true believers in man-caused global warming don’t know the difference between those examples and how climate change is “measured” sheds a lot of light on the real value of their opinions.
Science is infallible, how dare you think critically about it?
Recently Twitchy reported on how some are trying to redefine science to include the rather unscientific way in which climate alarmists arrive at their predictions.
The Slate author argues that the scientific method doesn’t really apply to climate change research because there are no real experiments, only computational models. In short the subject exceeds the grasp of real science. That’s really convenient for those using man caused climate change to justify destructive public policy.
The complexity of the Anthropocene—in which, for example, climate change is an emergent phenomenon of 300 years of industrialism—is not subject to the sort of verifiable and predictive understanding that characterized science of the sort that Copernicus, Newton, or even Einstein practiced.
The problem with computational models for climate change is that they are likely created by true believers using subjectively chosen data. Climategate, anyone? Real science is skeptical and attempts to disprove hypotheses. The climate alarmists do the opposite.
Questioning what we really know about climate change is not the same as questioning experimentally supported hypotheses. That’s yet another area where the left wing climate alarmist fails to demonstrate a real respect for science.
Watch what the left does to the language. Conflating “climate change” with “man caused climate change” is the epitome of unscientific thinking—see also “stem cell research” vs “embryonic stem cell research” or “anti-immigration” vs anti-illegal immigration.” They treat objectively different concepts as if they were interchangeable. Scientifically speaking, there are only two possible reasons for this. They are either ignorant about the topics, or they are being intentionally deceptive.
Either way, their credibility is lacking.