In case anyone is interested, in 1970, there were some claims made similar to this one I saw here:
4. If human CO2 emissions stopped abruptly, it will still take thousands of years for CO2 to return to Base CO2.
1970. . . It was the run up to the Clean Air & Water Act. I lived in the Cleveland, OH area. The claim then was this, and it was trumpeted over and over in the local press and news media:
If we didn’t put one drop more of pollution into Lake Erie, it will still take ten thousand years for the lake to clean itself up.
Ten years later it was reported that Lake Erie was 90% more pure than in 1970. The report mentioned that since 1970 the amount of pollution going into the lake had dropped by 75%.
- Where I come from that means that 25% as much pollution was still going to Lake Erie as ten years earlier.
- Where I come from 25% is greater than one drop.
- Where I come from 90% is pretty close to 100%.
- Where I come from 10 years is somewhat shorter than 10,000 years.
While I am happy we have cleaner air and water – which is true – I do NOT appreciate that the environmentalists lied or were that far wrong. (Don’t even ASK for my story about acid rain…)
If they are lying now about AGW, I will be unhappy with them again.
If they are wrong now about AGW I will be unhappy with them again.
Of course, they don’t care about the state of my individual happiness. But they should certainly care that Climategate has shown they were manipulating policy makers with skewed evidence (“hide the decline” and leaving out evidence that would inconveniently water down their message), and due to that, a lot of people like me think they are not being truthful now.
In a court of law, in a trial, when someone is shown to have told a lie, it is the norm that that person’s testimony is considered pretty much trash.
There are good intentions on the part of the pro-AGW scientists and reporters, as well as the millions of people who at the least think the precautionary principle is a good guide to follow. (I can’t tell you how many people I’ve debated this with who, when all else fails, use as their final argument, “But what if they are right?”) Good intentions is not science, though. And bad (wrong) science is not science, either. Untrue claims that they know cannot be falsified for many decades won’t hurt the scientists who make such claims. But since it will take that long to falsify their hypotheses, we need to do everything we can to make them put up or shut up.
When they say, “Trust us,” well, I for one can’t do that.
Not after 1970. I need to see their science.
Lying about your claims can come back to haunt you.
And being wrong about them can, too.
My impression? I think there is a lot of both. Lies and being wrong.
I am sorry. I just don’t trust them. Fool me once. . .