Strawman argument
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
In her response to my letter regarding extreme weather events, Jody Warren resorts to the tired strawman argument that “the debate over whether climate change is real or not is over”.
She’ll get no argument from me, or most “climate sceptics”.
What we do question is the extent to which human CO2 emissions will cause catastrophic global warming.
Since the climate science community has been unable to quantify the value of climate sensitivity, beyond the range of 1.5C to 4.5C, in over 30 years of research, nor explain the fact that there has been no warming for 18 years, contrary to what was predicted by their models, there is clearly still a debate.
It’s just one Dr Warren doesn’t want to engage in.
Regrettably, she couldn’t have chosen a weaker example to cite as evidence for ‘climate action’ than the recent announcement by the presidents of the USA and China.
The US has agreed to cut emissions by 28 per cent, but this will be achieved by a business-as-usual approach based on the expanded use of shale gas (which the US has in abundance), not by the application of renewables or carbon pricing.
And China has agreed to continue increasing CO2 emissions, at whatever rate it chooses, until 2030.
But, perhaps Jody is aware of the weakness of her argument since she chooses to buttress it by a rather transparent appeal to authority in signing herself as ‘Dr Jody Warren’.
If I were writing on military matters I might choose to sign myself Lt Col (Rtd).
If I were writing on science as a general topic, I might add my post-nominals of ‘BSc Grad Dip DP’, but since my qualifications are not in climate science they are irrelevant to this topic and my use of them or my previous military rank would be mere pretension.
Is Dr Warren a doctor of climatology, I wonder?
Peter O’Brien, Catalina