CNN Meteorologist: Global Warming Theory is ‘Arrogant’
This one is too easy. Even though no one at ForceChange is a professional scientist, we apparently know more about science than CNN Meteorologist Chad Myers (yes, this Chad Myers). Appearing on Lou Dobbs Tonight (who took time off from advocating protectionism and xenophobia to question climate change), Myers states:
“You know, to think that we could affect weather all that much is pretty arrogant. Mother Nature is so big, the world is so big, the oceans are so big– I think we’re going to die from a lack of fresh water or we’re going to die from ocean acidification before we die from global warming, for sure.”
Of course, Myers is not the first skeptic to make this bizarre the “world is so big we are arrogant to think we can change it” argument. We’re not sure who first articulated it, but the logic behind it is pretty weak. Arrogance is a social behavior exhibited by humans, not a scientific observation of the natural world. To make an assertion that “we are not changing the climate because it would be arrogant to think we are changing the climate” is an inapposite argument that is just silly. Of course, what is needed to properly analyze climate change is scientific observation of facts regarding the natural world. Unfortunately for Myers, this too is missing from his argument.
In the video above, he makes the point that we do not have enough data to understand the climate because he says we’ve only been keeping track for about “100 years.” Again, unfortunately for Myers, he disregards, or is unaware of the fact that scientists are able to analyze the climate for thousands of years into the past through techniques ranging from looking at ice core samples to tree rings.
Yet despite this misinformed understanding of the evidence, Myers still claims to have enough data to know that we are not changing the climate. George Orwell had a name for that type of statement.
Of course, the shortcomings in the arguments made by climate change skeptics and deniers are extensive. However, the scientific evidence behind climate change is similarly overwhelming… And for us to think that in spite of all this evidence that it is alright for humans to continue along this destructive path is– hmmm, what’s the word for it?… Oh yeah–
Arrogant.
- Similar Posts:
- Current CO2 levels not far from past scenario of green Arctic and 80ft higher sea levels
- Vast Majority of Earth Scientists Attribute Climate Change to Human Activities
- A look at a vocal climate change skeptic Roy Spencer
Comments
12 Comments on CNN Meteorologist: Global Warming Theory is ‘Arrogant’
-
Joel Corcoran on
Sat, 20th Dec 2008 7:23 am
-
Paul on
Sat, 20th Dec 2008 7:43 am
-
Climate change ignorance caused by humans! « Greenfyre’s on
Mon, 22nd Dec 2008 7:51 am
-
Robert Grumbine on
Sat, 27th Dec 2008 5:33 pm
-
Tom Manconi on
Mon, 5th Oct 2009 3:43 pm
Apparently the writer of this article, who is admittantly “not a scientist”, also over looks the fact that a) all the global warming alarmists use to determine in press releases is phrases such as “warmest year on record”, and “most ice lost on record”, etc. These phrases indicated “recorded history”, i.e. the last 100 years that Chad is speaking of. Scientifically speaking if you only use 100 years of information you have litteraly nothing. When you speak of the thousands of years of evidence “real scientists” have, these DO show that there is no “man-made” global warming. These studies show lots of things ranging from, solar based climate change(which is wayyyy more drastic than anything man can or will ever cause), it shows there were grasslands and plains in antartica, there was trillions of tons less ice in the higher elevations of scandinavia, finland, etc. (ancient human bodies found miles deep in the ice), greenland was actually green, etc. All this evidence has shown there have been 10’s of climate swings from the extreme cold to extreme heat in the past 10,000 years (humans have only held influence for about 100). So tell me.. did wolly mammoth kill itself with coal plants?
Mike Kaulbars Reply:
December 26th, 2008 at 5:53 pm
1) If people who are not climate scientists are not able to speak about climate science then you have discredited your own comment;
2) “Scientifically speaking … you have litteraly nothing” Scientifically speaking that is nonsense http://moregrumbinescience.blogspot.com/2008/12/how-to-decide-climate-trends.html
3) “DO show that there is no “man-made” global warming. ” and that is even more ridiculous:
Blame for global warming placed firmly on humankind
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11088-blame-for-global-warming-placed-firmly-on-humankind.html
Humans causing it:
http://www.realclimate.org/wiki/index.php?title=Warming_doesn%27t_coincide_with_anthropogenic_impacts
http://debunking.pbwiki.com/Humans+Causing+Climate+Change
Solar Myth debunked:
http://www.realclimate.org/wiki/index.php?title=It%27s_all_just_the_sun
http://debunking.pbwiki.com/Sunspots-and-Solar-Myth
But perhaps most ridiculous is your implied suggestion that climate scientists are not aware of historic climate and have not accounted for it in the science … that is just delusional http://www.ace.mmu.ac.uk/Resources/gcc/contents.html
“Arrogant”
Too bad that you people at ForceChange aren’t intellectually broad minded enough to refrain from name calling, fear mongering and arrogance.
You do realize that the flat earthers also were the consensus of its day?
Climate change has/is/will always exist no matter how hard you try to “reinvent” it.
Your website, however, is typical of all those of extreme self-interest groups …….of both side of this issue.
We are right ………because you are wrong …….are here are all the fabricated, distorted and politically motivated facts to support it!
No wonder important environmental problems such as pollution and resource abuse are ignored in favor of one of its thousands of byproducts ……CO2 (which in itself is not even a pollutant!)
Jenifer Reply:
December 20th, 2008 at 10:27 am
I don’t think your analogy to flat earthers is applicable. The post isn’t saying that climate change theory is accurate because there is a consensus, in and of itself, but because there is a consensus among scientists. Flat earthers held their beliefs based upon tradition and conservative thinking (not in the political sense). Consensus among scientists re climate change is based upon the scientific method and empirical evidence. It is not the consensus itself that creates that belief, unlike flat earthers. The consensus is the result of scientific analysis.
Joel Corcoran Reply:
December 20th, 2008 at 10:55 am
“Man Made” Climate Change is not a concensus. Several hundred scientests working for the UN came to a consensus. Serval THOUSAND of the WORLD’s scientests came to a consensus that “Man Made” Climate Change is such a minute impact on the Earth that changing our habits, for better or worse, (or us even existing) wouldn’t add up to a drop in the proverbial bucket.
Paul Reply:
December 20th, 2008 at 12:31 pm
“The consensus is the result of scientific analysis”
Analysis by consensus ……..amazing!
I guess results are but a side note …….after all, we have consensus!
Pollution is fact! Can be naturally proven as well replicated in laboratory conditions. It affects the land, water and air we breath every single day!
Remove or destroy only one of these elements and we won’t be around to worry about a few degrees in 500 or 1,000 years. Yet we continue to parade climate change as THE cause celebre …..and so goes the money!
Smells like a political agenda to me ……..
[...] bag to talk about the Appeal to Authority fallacy and the scientific consensus on climate. Now ForceChange has had a bit of fun with him as well: “This one is too easy. Even though no one at [...]
The ‘arrogant’ descriptor is one taken from religion, not science. I first encountered it about 15 years ago in Rush Limbaugh’s book of that time. His argument was that since God had created the earth, it was arrogant of us to think we could do anything to the planet. As science, that’s a lousy argument. Science would say to go look at the quantities involved and see how big they are. In truth, the rise of 100 ppm CO2 over the past century or so is indeed due to human activity. You can see much more of the detail on how we know that in Jan Schloerer’s FAQ on CO2 that I host at http://www.radix.net/~bobg/
Volcanoes (see the same FAQ) are vastly smaller CO2 contributors than human activity. Humans now out-do volcanoes by about 100x. (70x when Jan wrote his note over a decade ago.)
Talk of the ‘thousands’ of ’scientists’ is probably a reference to the OISM Petition. The petition is mostly not scientists (engineers are the majority), doesn’t represent many of those eligible to sign (anyone with a bachelor’s degree or more in … pretty much anything), and doesn’t limit itself to living people or their current opinions.
I also discussed the significance of ‘consensus’ in science in my blog at http://moregrumbinescience.blogspot.com/2008/2008/12/science-and-consensus.html
Comments are welcome, as are questions (I periodically put up ‘question place’ notes, those are the best locales for either). But note that you have to support your claims. The bare assertion that ‘thousands’ of ’scientists’ say X won’t fly. You’ll have to provide a link to where we can see who those people are, and what exactly they said.
precession of equinoxes…….Look it up
Please contribute to the discussion by leaving a comment below. No need to agree with the post or other commenters, but please be constructive and respectful.
Albert Reply:
December 20th, 2008 at 9:49 am
I’m not sure anyone is arguing that the climate can’t change by itself. The relevance of the historic climate fluctuations is that they correlate with natural CO2 levels in the atmosphere. If CO2 levels from natural events like volcanoes, etc., can change the climate, why not man made CO2 levels from industry?
Reply
Joel Corcoran Reply:
December 20th, 2008 at 11:10 am
A volcano explodes and off-gases as much CO2 as the entire industial “man” does in a year. One of the observing stations featured in “An Inconvenient Truth” which everyone is basing most of their “fossil fuel” led global warming trends is on top of Hawaii’s Mauna Loa volcano. Hmmm… do you see anything wrong with this? Since 1832, Mauna Loa has erupted 39 times; its last eruption was in 1984. The summit of Mauna Loa has been inflating slowly since April/May 2002, following nearly 10 years of slight deflation. The inflation hasn’t been constant, with slowdowns in winter 2002-2003, Spring 2003, and since sept 2005. But, inflation had been fairly steady in 2004 and the first half of 2005, which suggests that the magma reservoir within the volcano is swelling.
While volcano’s themselves dont cause a very large CO2 increase world wide, They do emit hundreds of thousands of tonnes of CO2 locally which makes this data at this observatory fatally flawed.
Conclusion, if Al Gore can present flawed evidence in this (and proven 90% of everything else he said) question we must question everything the greenies try to play.
Reply
Mike Kaulbars Reply:
December 26th, 2008 at 5:59 pm
1) Volcano fable debunked http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/12/17/223957/72
2) Mauna Loa fable debunked
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/10/26/214525/92
3) Fable that Gore’s movie was error ridden debunked (by climate scientists) http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/10/convenient-untruths/