BPSDBThe Business and Media Institute reports that “CNN Meteorologist: Manmade Global Warming Theory ‘Arrogant’, and of course the freepers and other Denier wingnuts are off!
As one would expect Chad Myers’s statements are devoid of any factual basis, consisting of the usual moronic “aw shucks” barroom tales spiced with a few irrelevant factoids. This nonsense is then “substantiated” by Jay Lehr from the much discredited Heartland Institute who tries to push the global cooling fable.
Several problems here.
It is very true that meteorologists enjoy a particular advantage in being able to understand climate science as a result of their training, but they do not necessarily understand it simply by virtue of being meteorologists.
As noted, Meyers offers no facts or evidence to substantiate his claim, Lehr’s statements are nonsense, as are the alleged “facts” that Coleman consistently embarrasses himself with.
The “appeal to authority” is a logical fallacy. If someone speaks rationally, intelligently and accurately about the facts then they are authoritative regardless of their possession of, or lack of credential.
If they spout gibberish as Meyers, Lehr, and Coleman do, then it is irrelevant whether they are meteorologists, climatologists or Rosicrucians.
As mentioned, meteorologists are better positioned to understand climate science than most, so what do they have to say about anthropogenic climate change?
“Global climate change and global warming are real and observable…It is highly likely that those human activities that have increased the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere have been largely responsible for the observed warming since 1950″
“…supports the conclusion, in its Third Assessment Report, which states that the balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate.”
See also: “An Open Letter on Climate Change Science to all Canadian Elected Government Leaders “
and on and on. Anyone wishing to track down every meteorological society and their statements are most welcome to do so, but it’s just more of the same as part of the consensus.
In the eyes of the Deniers two or three meteorologists who cannot seem to make a coherent statement that accurately presents the facts are eminently qualified to speak authoritatively on climate, but tens of thousands of meteorologists who make and endorse rational, fact based statements are not.
How impressed are Deniers by meteorologists? not at all. As ever for them the only acceptable credential is the a priori rejection of climate science.
And of course there is no paradox about meteorologists. The overwhelming majority are competent and professional. Those who have critically examined climate science have made their conclusions abundantly clear through their professional associations and the scientific literature.
Like any profession they have their wingnuts and nutcases, but the entire profession can not be held responsible for them any more than any profession can be.
The relevant fallacy committed by the Deniers is Unappealing Authority and applies any time the Deniers trot out yet another talking head and attempt to mask the lack of facts or relevant science by proclaiming “s/he is a meteorologist/physicist/climatologist/other.”
The correct answer is:
i) who cares? where’s the evidence? and
ii) let’s see what other _______s say if the profession is really such an unquestionable authority; and then consult the relevant professional associations listed with the consensus.
Unless the Denier has cited an esthetician or pipe fitter you will find that the relevant professional association has in fact endorsed the science of anthropocentric climate change.
Actually, for all I know the professional associations of both estheticians and pipe fitters may have as well. The ones I have met seemed sensible, rational people and I am sure that if they critically examine the science they will come to the same conclusion that any thinking person does.
Meanwhile over at “The Way Things Break” there is a summary of the refutation of cosmic rays as significant factors in climate change which takes some obvious delight that in Inhofe’s Folly reference to cosmic rays as causation “appears at least 25 times.” [It's wicked to mock the afflicted! :-) ]
And Rabbet recently informs us that while greedy climate scientists revel in ill gotten grants the selfless Fred Singer of Climatology Incoherence Award fame may have to sell the Rolls. Apparently climate Denialism is no longer as lucrative as it was under the Bush Regime.
Climate Matters informs us that:
I haven’t done more than glance at the highlights so I’ll just keep my feet out my mouth for now.
We give our consent every moment that we do not resist.
Denier “Challenge” aka Deathwatch Update: Day 68 … still no evidence.