No, more like he's saying the current state of climate science is not to welcome rigorous intellectual debate fueled by testable hypotheses but is rather a broad-blanket consensus assumption that global warming is real, humans are causing it, it will have dramatic effects, and we must act NOW.
Nooo.... it's a history of politicians and has nothing to do with any hard physics.
Instead it says "don't trust technicians" and "a ph.d without the ph." ... in other words: let's ignore all the observations and all the models that've been made, just throw them out of the window out of some silly belief that science is crooked.
And then the conclusion (out of nowhere) to just let things solve themselves... as if that "crooked" science can ever clean up a world that is completely polluted and as if that won't cost us anything.
You never ever got the impression that sometimes, just sometimes, it's better to prevent than to cure?
If you compare the earth to someone who's smoking too many sigarettes a day, wouldn't you tell the earth to stop smoking before you get cancer? Because if you get cancer, you may get a lung transplant and you can be saved, but you'll never be the same again and you'll have to go though hell before you get better?
I think leftists have gravitated towards it because it appeals to their intellectual biases on socializing the global economy.
Btw I'm not a leftist, not at all. I'm more center-right.
I think there are plenty leftists that don't care about the environment. They just want to reserve lots of money to fight poverty and help people in need, that's true leftism imho. This has little to do with the environment.
On the other hand there's the green movement. They're mainly interested in animals and plants and they want to save the world, one animal at a time. They are not necessarily interested in fighting poverty, they're not truly leftist... but they share some traits in that they want to channel money away from the economy into their numerous pet projects.
I'm neither of those, I'm only interested in the bigger picture and I would very much like to preserve our way of life. But I'm seeing the world going to shit and I don't like that. And even if I won't live to see much of that shit happening, I still don't like it. You don't have to be a leftist for that.
But to be honest a few days ago I ordered some stuff from China and it's going by plane all the way to Europe... I feel evil
I think it's a bit strange that people are still talking about a cooling of the earth... This article shows how even at this very moment, the total heat content of the oceans is increasing.
This is significant, because the atmosphere and oceanic systems exchange their heat back and forth. Therefore it makes sense to look at the oceans and see what happens to them, and we should not just look at the atmosphere.
A sudden ocean current that takes a lot of heat deeper into the ocean and colder water up, will cool the surface of the ocean and in turn the cooler ocean surface will cool the atmosphere. When people notice that temperatures in the air don't rise anymore (globally), does that mean that the heating of the earth stops?
No... it just means that the process is still valid and is still going on like always, except that the atmosphere will experience a small delay because of the interaction with the ocean. And the next time that cold water will well up? It won't be as cold anymore as it used to be, so every next "plateau" in temperature will be higher than the previous one.
This is also a nice commentary on the subject of oceanic warming:
And recently I've read something disturbing about the ozone hole:
Earlier I've read articles claiming that the ozone hole was closing and that climate agreements had some effect. And now this article shows that this was just a temporary fluctuation and that it'll take half a century before it'll really "close".
Patience is a virtue...
And there's sometimes also some misconception about the influence of CO2 in the atmosphere. The argument is, that there's only a fraction of 0.0004 CO2 in the atmosphere, how can such a low content have any influence on the heat? I've tried to write down the mechanism, based on this nice article and some other stuff I've read in the last few months:
As far as I can understand all of this, the basic mechanism if there is just a single molecule of CO2 around, consists of this:
1. A CO2 molecule captures a photon in infrared.
2. Its energy increases.
3. After a few microseconds it relaxes and releases a photon in infrared.
4. Its energy decreases.
A CO2 molecule can capture multiple photons: if it does, its energy will increase more and more. When the molecule captures a photon and reaches a higher energy state, the molecule will require a shorter-wavelength photon to jump to the next higher state, and it will ignore photons of longer wavelength. It will also add a lesser amount of energy with each transition.
This means that CO2 alone has a very finite capacity to absorb heat that is radiated out from the surface: when the CO2 molecule gets too hot, it will become transparent to the radiation from the surface.
A planet like Mars has a thin atmosphere that consists mainly of CO2. The heat capture of such an atmosphere is very low, because there are not enough molecules to store a significant amount of the heat that was emitted by the surface. So it feels cold, like high on top of a mountain: there are not enough molecules to keep you warm.
The Earth is different. In Earth's atmosphere, a CO2 molecule is surrounded by thousands of nitrogen and oxygen molecules. As soon as the CO2 molecule absorbs radiation, very shortly after the absorption it will hit another molecule and it will transmit its energy to the surrounding molecules: there are so many molecules around, that the CO2 molecule will experience many collisions before it can relax and emit radiation.
In the process, the CO2 molecules stay "cool" in a low excited state and can absorb heat again and again. The other way around, oxygen and nitrogen molecules hit the CO2 molecule repeatedly, and occasionaly such a collision will give a CO2 molecule the energy necessary to radiate heat. Therefore the atmosphere as a whole heats up, and since our atmosphere is pretty dense, it can hold a lot of energy.
Also note that the nitrogen and oxygen molecules are practically unable to radiate their energy out at earth-like temperatures (the chance that they are hit hard enough to reach the required energy is very small): they need water molecules, CO2 or water droplets for that.
What happens higher up in the atmosphere. It is less dense and the atmosphere there has little capacity to store energy. It's also cold, therefore the molecules move slower and it's less likely that a CO2 molecule gets hit hard enough to emit radiation. There are also fewer CO2 molecules around, meaning that not much heat is captured to warm the high atmosphere up (compared to ground level).
For completeness sake I'll also repeat something I've written earlier about so-called "over-saturation". There's no such thing as saturation, and the reason is the presence of "time" also called the "flux".
Imagine a certain volume of the atmosphere. If there are more CO2 molecules in that volume, more photons will be intercepted before they can leave the volume and therefore the number of photons leaving the volume per second will decrease (flux out).
In the meantime, the earth's surface provides a steady amount of energy into the volume (flux in).
The energy content in the volume is a balance between the in/out flux. If the outgoing flux decreases while the ingoing flux remains the same, the energy in the volume will increase and the temperature will rise.
A higher temperature in turn will lead to more CO2 molecules emitting radiation, thus increasing the flux out again and thus creating a new balance between in/outgoing photons, at a higher temperature.