- JoNova - https://joannenova.com.au -

Stephan is back: climate, cancer, what’s the difference?

Stephan Lewandowsky is back, reminding us why argument-by-distant-unrelated-topic is a quick way to get confused.

Should we spend money trying to change the weather? Spin the wheel: Did smoking cause cancer? “Yes!” Was that money well spent? “Yes!” Is climate sensitivity 3.3C! “Yes” . The heck, it must be, because some different scientists were right about a different topic, in a different subject, in a another era. Look at how similar the problems are?  No one was sure if any particular lung cancer was due to smoking, just “like” no one will ever know if Sandy was caused by your SUV. Climate starts with “C” and so does Cancer. Spooky eh?

The answer to planetary dynamics comes from tactical analysis of PR strategies by people who oppose The Consensus. Why do we even bother with satellite measurements, cloud microphysics or ARGO buoys?

No atmospheric evidence will convince Lewandowsky, he’s  looking for code words in the commentariat.

The tobacco industry claims that smoking does not cause cancer, preferring instead to think of medical science as an “oligopolistic cartel” that “manufactures alleged evidence” linking smoking to cancer.

Climate deniers likewise accuse climate science of being “riddled with corruption” and of manipulating or misrepresenting “real-world scientific observations.”

Both claims smell of desperation and appear laughable to anyone who has only the slightest acquaintance with how scientific research is conducted.

“Slightest acquaintance” with research? Stephen, research starts with numbers, and the only numbers you have are polls. We have real numbers.

Can someone pop over to the ABC and ask for our money back? An editor somewhere thought this was worth publishing?




8.7 out of 10 based on 58 ratings