Presidential hopeful Jeb Bush railed against those who say there is a consensus on the human causes of climate change Wednesday night, calling that idea “intellectual arrogance.”
“I don’t think the science is clear of what percentage is manmade and what percentage is natural. It’s convoluted,” he said at a New Hampshire campaign event. “For the people to say the science is decided on this is really arrogant, to be honest with you.”
The Democratic National Committee swiftly issued a statement saying that 97 percent of scientists agree that human activity affects climate change. Read more at NBC News.
{CB Frommer-Matzav.com Newscenter}
Funny how the DNC statement completely misses Bush’s point. He did not address whether ” human activity affects climate change” He said it’s not clear “what PERCENTAGE is manmade and what PERCENTAGE is natural”. So the DNC response is a red herring. The fact that they would respond with such disingenuousness speaks volumes.
Also even of the percentage that is manmade, the effectiveness of the economy-killing policies that are proposed by environmentalists is also a matter of debate. If the third world/China, India etc. wont adopt them, then will hamstringing our economy make any difference?
The DNC is so full of it. 97% of agree that human activity affects climate change??? Are you kidding? 97% of scientists couldn’t even agree that the earth is a sphere!! I make that declaration as an Orthodox Jewish scientist.The DNC bases its statement on the report of the Pew Research Center that 97% of CLIMATOLOGISTS who contributed articles to peer reviewed journals devoted to climatology and were surveyed by Pew agreed that human activity causes climate change. There is a major difference between what Pew reported and what the DNC stated. Here’s why:
What exactly is a climatology? It is NOT as people might think, the study of climate and all its aspects. No, climatology is the study of the belief that climate changes are caused by human activity. That is the precise definition of climatology. A journal devoted to climatology is a journal that promotes this belief. Peer reviewed articles that appear in these journals are those articles that meet the approval of climatology peers, that is, those that believe in climatology. It should come as no surprise than 97% of those who believe that human activity causes climate change agree that human activity causes climate change. If we define Christians as those who believe in Christianity, than certainly 97% of those that meet that criterion of being Christian will believe in Christianity. That is not the same as saying 97% of ALL people believe in Christianity.
The only thing that needs clarification is the 3% of climatologists that did NOT agree with the premise that human activity causes climate change. How anyone disagree with a statement they profess to believe in. I guess that climatology is such a weird science that 3% of those who believe in it refuse to agree that they believe in it.
This far from subtle distinction is completely lost on a member of the Democratic National Committee. To them, climatologists, scientists, what’s the difference.?
Why am I not surprised?
“97% of scientists couldn’t even agree that the earth is a sphere!! ”
Wrong. 100% of scientists agree that the earth is a sphere to a very small level of inaccuracy.
“No, climatology is the study of the belief that climate changes are caused by human activity.”
Wrong again. The Merriam-Webster online dictionary defines climatology as “the science that deals with climates and their phenomena “.
” I make that declaration as an Orthodox Jewish scientist.”
I am also an Orthodox Jewish scientist, with 119 peer-reviewed publications. I am not a climatologist, though, and I don’t insult those who have spent far more time — many years — studying a topic and all the data available for inferences regarding that topic. And before I write something I make sure that I know what I am talking about. I also comment in forums like this under my real name.
Climatologists ruled in on this issue global warming is real. Would you go to a doctor who trained in a different specialty? Durp! Another example would be like seeing a nutritionist instead of a surgeon. Now the question is do we risk our semistable unstable recovering economy if nobody else will play by future possible rules to reduce emissions? Why should we if all the asian developing countries won’t. I think that’s the lynchpin.
Makk