Registered On: September 7, 2015
Because ‘climate change’ is all about reducing CO2, NI, which actually helps the environment.
You’re also getting climate change confused with global warming.
Hardly surprising, given that he’s confused weather with climate before, made comments on southward drifts of polar vortices giving bouts of snow in America and talked about CO2 lagging temperature rise in past climate change. All of which shows a demonstrative lack of understanding of the science, but he will still pontificate and wonder why people don’t accept his self-proclaimed expertise.
He’s not been right on the natural side either. We have empirical evidence for the greenhouse effect caused by CO2, we know such greenhouse effects are occurring now and we know that the imbalance has been triggered by CO2. We have good knowledge of natural climate forcing variables and we know such isn’t happening now, so anyone trying to claim that CO2 isn’t driving climate change will need to explain various things. These are things like why is a pronounced greenhouse effect not causing warming? CO2 causes positive feedback loops, like an atmosphere which can hold more water vapour and methane, which adds to the warming. What is causing that if not CO2 rise? And, most simply, what is the natural variable which is causing observed temperature rise today> Which Bucks cannot dispute since he’s not a denier, apparently.
Until the Goddidit/magicdidit mystical explanation with zero evidence is explained Bucks’s ideas will never be accepted by the scientific community, and with very good reason. There is no evidence for it. Bucks will talk about how manmade climate change needs to be demonstrated with statistical certainty to reject the null hypothesis that it’s natural. This is flawed, however, because Bucks won’t accept CO2 can cause climate change because other variables make direct correlation from the rise in CO2 and temperature impossible. Temperature isn’t going to make a 100% correlation with CO2, because feedback mechanisms exist and volcanic eruptions will create aerosols which will affect climate for a few years. What’s more is that CO2 has caused climate change in the past, by natural means (volcanism). So saying we need to propose that manmade climate change needs to reject the null hypothesis that it’s natural makes no sense, when the climate change induced by human activity follows the same principles of one known natural climate variant. CO2 doesn’t magically change properties because it was emitted by a factory or car rather than a volcano. It’s true that isotopic ratios vary between manmade and natural emissions, but the established greenhouse effects induced are not known to be different because of their source.
If Bucks denies this he’s going against established physics, geology and chemistry, but of course it’s easier for him to think that he knows best and the vast majority of scientists in these fields are engaged in a conspiracy to bring in money. Getting a career in research science is hard; wages are poor, conditions unstable, you may move around for work and not be able to settle, if you want to be established as a lecturer you will be competing against many others for it. For every one job as an academic in science there are something like 200 postdoctoral researchers competing for it. If someone wanted to just rake in money there would be easier and more stable solutions.
However, global temperatures have risen in the past 150 years, the only known climate forcing variable to have seen an increase in activity is CO2. Of course other things will occur to obscurethe trend, but models from the past have shown that temperature rise has risen with accordance with their models (which do bear in mind that feedback loops and other things will divert the trend of a perfect correlation between temperature and CO2 increase). Given such, there is no rational reason to doubt. However, those who do not understand or don’t want to understand will say things like CO2 rise doesn’t give a great correlation with temperature in the past 150 years. Of course it doesn’t, it’s not the only climate forcing variable out there. Solar activity has been stable for the past 150 years, but it comes in short term cycles which distract. Methane emissions will distract too from CO2 specifically. The oceans will absorb CO2 and reduce the temperature increase, so that ‘sceptics’ would say that there isn’t a correlation between CO2 released and temperature from this (while denying the negative effects of more acidic oceans from the absorbed CO2 and subsequent chemical reactions, because unrelated statistical knowledge can refute established science all the time, including the observed and empirical evidence).
Like I say, empirical evidence fits the theory. For instance, the warming mesosphere where greenhouse gases are concentrated and cool stratosphere, showing the sun is unlikely to be the source of recent warming. However, this will be ignored because of misapplied use of statistical knowledge. Bucks can talk about confidence values forever, but he neglects to consider that his favoured natural explanation needs to explain the empirical evidence. If the known natural variables can’t, and they do not, he needs to explain the evidence which shows energy imbalance as it stands today. If there is no evidence for an imbalance in energy it won’t be accepted. We know what can cause an imbalance, we know the drivers of temperature change. Greenhouse gases, the Sun and fluctuations in the Earth’s orbital patterns (e.g. orbital eccentricity, axial tilt etc) can change energy balance. If there is an unknown driver of imbalance it has to be explained, because energy cannot come from nowhere and if all known climate forcers, besides CO2, are not associated with climate change today, then it must mean that it is either caused by CO2 or an unknown variable. So evidence for that explanation must be sought, otherwise it’s akin to saying God did it, which isn’t science. As such evidence for an unknown driver of climate is not present, it will be rejected by the scientific community, just as the existence of fairies is.
Until deniers can address these flaws inherent to them they will continue to be ignored. Not because scientists are on a gravy train, but because their suggestions are flawed. It is telling they jump to explanations that their opponents have to be corrupt though. God forbid their hurt egos if they are wrong about something or have to back up their position and not be seen as the fonts of wisdom because they see themselves as such.