Out goes "global warming" - too often it's cold - and in comes 'global climate disruption'.
The climate has ALWAYS changed. So how do we tell natural change from anthropogenic disruption? What evidence could falsify this "theory"? - if it's any more than a slogan.
Is it only disruptive change that is anthropogenic? I seem to recall there were some quite sudden changes a few centuries back. I bet they felt disruptive at the time, when temperatures plunged in short order. Economies were not advanced, there was no global trade in food, crop yields could not be boosted, so people starved to death.
Anthropogenic change might even act in the opposite direction to natural change - if you had any way at all of telling them apart - so might that even be good?!
And how could you design mitigation policies when 'disruption' could apply in any direction? Is 'disruption' by its nature even predictable?
The world should laugh at these charlatans' last throw of the dice, and then ignore them.
Cameron, Huhne and Milibands, please note.
P.S. A commenter at watts up with that notes that CO2 was only supposed to produce long term warming. So what does the "theory" claim has been responsible for these (inherently unpredictable?) "disruptions"? Indeed, what were they?
0 comments:
Post a Comment