The Global Warming sceptic-o-sphere is alight with loud complaining again, from one calling herself Joanne Nova.
When I first encountered this name, I was convinced this wasn’t a real person. I now know that there is a real person behind the name, but I still think it’s a made-up one. A stage name. After all, this person was an employee in a travelling theatrical show, ostensibly about science, run by the Shell corporation.
Shell, eh ? An oil and gas company, whose self-interest comes first for its shareholders. A company that has an interest in the status quo on global Fossil Fuel subsidies and maintaining a dominant position for Fossil Fuels regarding Energy supply. Does this explain why the “self-employed” JoNova is so anti- the United Nations, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and several scientific organisations ? Possibly.
Anyway, onto the moaning.
In this remarkable piece of writing, Joanne Nova exposes her lack of knowledge :-
With these words she shows she really knows very little at all : “The incidents […] are a call for scientists everywhere to write to our associations for the sake of our profession. We need to ask them to provide empirical evidence for their positions [on Climate Change]. If the IPCC can’t do it with all its resources, how will The Australian Coral Reef Association, or the Polar Bear Specialists Group? What is left of science if there is no debate about the evidence?”
Let us refer Jo Nova to the IPCC Synthesis Report on the Fourth Assessment Report of 2007 :-
“Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice and rising global average sea level…”
In other words, there’s no debate to be had.
If that is not clear enough, I don’t know what else the IPCC can do to impress on us that the data validates the predictions of Climate Change theory.
If somehow Ms Nova has evidence, empirical evidence, that replaces the conclusions of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, she should cite it, instead of taking an everyday story of academic difference between polar bear scientists and blowing it out of all proportion.
Her writing is aggrieved, whingeing. She feels she has the right to whip up negative sentiment amongst her readers in place of a rational, reasoned scientific argument.
As such, she fulfils her own description : “…behaving like a teenage school-girl: repeating baseless assumptions, and spurning colleagues who disagree.”
You can win round some of the people all of the time with attempts to stir up their righteous anger. But you can’t win round the majority of reasonable people, much of the time, anyway.
The core of die-hard Climate Change deniers is getting smaller and weaker all the time – probably explaining why Joanne Nova resorts to emotional arguments.
Come on, Jo. What was your science degree ? Do you know about black body radiation ? Do you know how heat differs from electromagnetic radiation ? Do you know about radiation budget balance ? Do you understand about heat convection in the atmosphere ? Can you explain overturn in the oceans ? Can you explain why the Earth heats up ? Do you know about the heat capacity of the oceans ? Do you understand the Greenhouse Effect in any way at all ? Have you read any of the data, the charts, the graphs and reports at all ?
You can’t really argue against Climate Change science if you don’t understand it.
Joanne Nova writes : “Science will surely lose its hard-won credibility with the public as many “Scientific Associations” get caught with their pants down: supporting an international unelected, unaudited committee, without any evidence.”
The reason why all democratic bodies appoint experts to the United Nations IPCC on such matters as Climate Change is because it is science. Doing Climate Change science is not like choosing the colour of the flag, or the words of a design award. It’s not entirely open-access because of the nature of its concerns. If the ordinary people elected the members of the IPCC it wouldn’t produce science but garbage.