While I am all in on cleaning up the Bay, I wish that our education system actually taught climate science instead of acting as though there is only one legitimate way to think about the climate. This article’s noting of Grant’s T-Shirt is typical of how teachers think after getting their education in Universities that almost all teach the dogma of global warming.
My T-Shirt says:
“Teach Climate SCIENCE…
Not Climate Dogma!”
Not Climate Dogma!”
I for one would love to see a panel discussion on national TV with experts on both sides of the Anthropogenic Global Warming issue. That would at least acknowledge that there are serious scientists who don’t believe that man is making much, if any difference in Earth’s climate. Let’s make it an all-day affair with several 2-hour panels to discuss different theories, models, methods, etc. Let’s look at the SCIENCE.
Unfortunately, the legacy media would never do that…give a voice to tenured professors who disagree with the “Narrative”. Instead these previously lauded experts in climate science are demeaned, demonized, and deplatformed.
It is now 1984…
Kent Robertson, MD (Retired)
Royal Oak
Jim Moses CDR, USN (Ret.) says
I guess it might come as a surprise to some that the effects of global warming (as reflected in deep ocean temperature change) were under investigation as far back as the Reagan adminstration’s DoD. A primary objective was to determine the effects on acoustic surveillance systems. As far as the anthropogenic aspect, I believe we need look no further than the knee of the curve for confirmation.
Wilson Dean says
Anyone who questions the accuracy of climate change science needs to recognize that ship sailed long ago. As an adviser working with the coal industry for five decades, I transitioned from skeptic to one who became thoroughly convinced of the concept’s validity. The oil companies of course knew climate change was real as early as the 1970s, but suppressed that information in order to preserve their high profit margins. It’s beyond time to move beyond debating proven science and continue the transition to a clean economy that is already well underway as well as better for our ergonomic future.
Rod Coleman says
Not that I think Dr Robertson actually desires to stimulate a fact-based discussion, but just in case he does here is the consensus viewpoint of the presidents of the National Academies of Science, Engineering and Medicine:
https://www.nationalacademies.org/news/2019/06/national-academies-presidents-affirm-the-scientific-evidence-of-climate-change
Note that the date is from 2019, so this is *not* news. And while I am sure there are folks out there on the internet who have some “science” in their background still trying to disavow anthropogenic climate change, it should be clear that the serious scientific community is well past disagreement on this subject.
Kent Robertson, MD (Retired) says
This is exactly why we need to have a National debate. There are legitimate scientists on both sides of this issue. All on either side don’t agree on everything. The legacy media only prints one side and disses anyone who disagrees. That’s not how science works. Someone proposes a theory and does testing to see if their theory works in the real world. Other scientists evaluate the theory and testing done, then either try to duplicate the original test, or look at the issue from another perspective and design their own study. This goes back and forth, often for years in open discussion until consensus is reached. Then as new technology is developed others may challenge that consensus with new theories and testing.
This all must be done in an open forum with the theories and testing being challenged, NOT the scientists who disagree. If funding and publication are withheld because the powers that make those decisions don’t like a particular theory or “consensus” to be challenged, the process of finding the truth falls apart. Then only one theory is deemed correct and promoted…hence my use of the word “dogma”.
I saw real science in action for 20 years of my 4+ decades in medicine. Later in my career, it became obvious that the pharmaceutical companies funding much of the research were pulling too many strings, and it became much more difficult to find opposing views on new medications. That persists today, to the detriment of patients.
If you aren’t aware of other legitimate scientists who disagree, read this article and its bibliography. 1600 scientists world wide recently said they don’t agree, including two Nobel Laureates..
We truly need to be informed of all sides of this debate. Blindly following the Narrative may take us down a much worse path than a degree or two of warming…
especially if it is pushed before workable alternative energy sources are found.
https://www.theepochtimes.com/opinion/heres-the-climate-dissent-youre-not-hearing-about-because-its-muffled-by-societys-top-institutions-5498845?utm_source=Morningbrief&src_src=Morningbrief&utm_campaign=mb-2023-09-29&src_cmp=mb-2023-09-29&utm_medium=email&est=jRczPCF6ddck8m97tj7v2H46TG2mypaHObbaW1Q6szkkvWAdlFKJFeTAmkv%2B3A%3D%3D