What if global warming alarmists stuck to science?

It is really hard for me to become alarmed about global warming when the promoters of global warming alarms do not make scientific claims and instead instead spout untruths and faith-based claims. Peter Gleick is a good example. He writes

Violent tornadoes throughout the southeastern U.S. must be a front-page reminder that no matter how successful climate deniers are in confusing the public or delaying action on climate change in Congress or globally, the science is clear: Our climate is worsening.

Note that the conclusion is not a scientific claim, was a normative claim. In a scientific sense, climate does not become “worse,” instead of might become warmer or cooler, but there’s not scientific justification for using a normative description like “worsening.” 

But that’s not all, Gleick wants it both ways. He claims this paragraph doesn’t actually attribute the tornadoes to rising CO2 levels, which is silly since how else can you read the paragraph?

Gleick is a classic fear monger. He’s even written that “fear is an effective tool.”

I can’t take people like Gleick seriously. He is not constrained by truth or science.

Roger Pielke Jr. and Steve McIntyre dismantle Gleick here and here.

5 thoughts on “What if global warming alarmists stuck to science?

  1. klem

    AGW or ACC is faith based. The science is not relevent. No matter what happens, the god of climate change is responsible. If the world warms, it is ACC. If the world cools it is ACC. If it gets stormy it is ACC. If the world calms it is ACC. Anthropogenic climate change is not a theory anymore, it is a faith.

  2. John

    You said above that “the promoters of global warming alarms do not make scientific claims and instead instead spout untruths and faith-based claims” and therefore it is hard for you to be concerned about global warming. By attacking these “promoters” who spout “faith-based claims” rather than the science itself, you are committing a straw man fallacy. You might claim that this post pertained only very specifically to Peter Gleick but of course, as is obvious from this post and others, you are solidly in the denialist camp and your posts are meant to cast doubt on the more general theory of anthropogenic climate change. For an update on anthrogenic global climate change see this from the most recent issue of the economist: http://www.economist.com/node/18741749

  3. Daniel

    John,
    Calling me names, like “denialist” isn’t an argument, especially when you are wrong that I’m a “denialist.” My posts don’t cast doubt on anthropogenic global warming, but on unscientific fear mongers like Peter Gleick.

Comments are closed.