It’s no longer enough to believe that the climate is changing, and that man’s activities may have a role in it. In order to avoid an Amish-caliber shunning by the AGW cabal, you must set your hair on fire.
This comes from that great slayer of trees, the New York Times, which profiles Prof. John Christy of the University of Alabama, a pariah in his profession because he thinks many of his colleagues have overstated the case, and the potential consequences, of anthropogenic global warming (AGW).
Dr. Christy was pointing to a chart comparing seven computer projections of atmospheric temperatures above the United States with measurements taken by satellites and weather balloons. The projections traced a sharp upward slope; the actual measurements, however, ticked up only slightly.
Of course, the test of any theory is its utility in making predictions. But pointing out the discrepancies between theoretical predictions and actual data is just the kind of thing that gets Prof. Christy in hot water with those who think we’ll all be under water someday soon (or at least that Atlantic City may be renamed Atlantis City).
Christy, a heavily credentialed veteran climate scientist, actually edited a section of the famous 2001 UN report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Now fellow academics rebuff his handshake offer.
“I walked over and held out my hand to greet him,” Dr. Christy recalled. “He looked me in the eye and he said, ‘No.’ I said, ‘Come on, shake hands with me.’ And he said, ‘No.’ ”
As leaked emails revealed, academics in the AGW cabal also gossip behind his back like adolescents. If this doesn’t hurt his feelings, it hurts his chances of getting grants to advance his research.
“I’m a data-driven climate scientist. Every time I hear that phrase, ‘The science is settled,’ I say I can easily demonstrate that that is false, because this is the climate — right here. The science is not settled.”
— John Christy, professor of atmospheric science, University of Alabama
Some of his adversaries acknowledge their conclusions may be off a bit, but it’s better to panic anyway, just in case they’re right.
Verily, verily, one of them spake unto the NYT reporter in parables…
“It’s kind of like telling a little girl who’s trying to run across a busy street to catch a school bus to go for it, knowing there’s a substantial chance that she’ll be killed,” said Kerry Emmanuel, a professor of atmospheric science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. “She might make it. But it’s a big gamble to take.”
Now, that might sound a bit alarmist to you, but if you think it is…well, to what shall I liken you?
You’re kind of a like a little fuzzy puppy who plays with a slipper and doesn’t notice the hand-grenade inside of it. Sure, you may just wear yourself out and fall asleep, but there’s a substantial chance that you’ll pull the pin and detonate the grenade, killing yourself, an entire litter of other puppies, and all of the Girl Scouts in the room along with their grandmothers.
There now, I think I’ve restored science to its proper place.