Meh, I can’t get too worked up about this quote. Assuming he’s a true believer (which I confess may be a stretch), he thinks that the scientific community is engaged in a conspiracy with liberals to get their ideological beliefs passed into law. He thinks 98% of climate scientists can and will lie to the world (remember, he’s a politician; of course he’d believe this), so of course he’s offended.
I think the past few posts are all pretty much saying the same thing.
Sen. Boxer claimed that he was disagreeing with 98% of scientists, which is apparently based on the premise that he completely denies global warming. He was offended by this, because he was only making a much more limited claim, and one which does not contradict 98% of scientists.
Senator Barbara Boxer actually, not House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi.
Wonderful. But that says nothing about the predictive accuracy of climate scientists, since various factors push in both directions.
As it happens, Hansen et al’s 1981 Science article underestimated the rise in temperature, though it actually tracks rather well. Extraordinarily well. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/04/evaluating-a-1981-temperature-projection/#bib_1 To conclude, a projection from 1981 for rising temperatures in a major science journal, at a time that the temperature rise was not yet obvious in the observations, has been found to agree well with the observations since then, underestimating the observed trend by about 30%, and easily beating naive predictions of no-change or a linear continuation of trends. It is also a nice example of a statement based on theory that could be falsified and up to now has withstood the test. The “global warming hypothesis” has been developed according to the principles of sound science. It is indeed unfortunate that the Republican Party is temperamentally unable to man up to the hard facts of climate science.
In essence, there is a myth going on pressed by deniers and accepted by many Republicans: that it is not warming as predicted, so we should not do much of anything. Only that the actual projections based on the current emissions do match the most probable outcomes mentioned by the IPCC. AKA the current consensus of virtually all climate scientists in the world.
As for the report mentioned by **Drdeth **: Mother Nature News is not linking to the actual study. (first red flag) The cite is not mentioning that other research points that human total emissions worldwide are more than double to take away the advantage (maybe one could talk of giving us more time, but only to avoid even worse outcomes) that one could expect from that study, incidentally the same study (that is not linked) is reporting that :“At the same time, fossil-fuel CO2 emissions rose almost fourfold.”
(Second red flag, cherry picking)
And that gets me to (Third flag) citing Mother Nature News is like citing “Answers in Genesis” in an evolution debate, in this case, the more I look around, the more it seems that the study that is referred to is not saying anything close to what Sessions is pulling out of the denier’s asses. This is very typical, cherry picking even good research to get the opposite of what they claim, in this case the title of the report leads one to conclude that we should not worry, and this is typical way for woo woo sources to deal with inconvenient information.
In other early reports I have seen that the calculations of how much the earth and plant sinks are absorbing the human CO2 is close to 40%, this study (as it is quoted so far and more likely misreported) reports that is going to 50%, not enough IMHO to then dismiss all the different ways scientists are calculating that humans are driving the current warming that is observed, and even the researches quoted do report it will get worse if nothing, or very little as Sessions and their ilk propose, is done.
Change “The cite” for “the quote”. The problem is that the quote, just like the title of the article quoted, is just cherry picking and giving us a conclusion that is actually not supported by the current increases of warming observed. The reality is that Sessions was still wrong if he was using that example to say that Global warming doesn’t seem to be increasing as fast as predicted.