Of course you can never attribute a weather event solely to climate change – it would be just silly to try to say otherwise. Not unlike creationists to a fragmented fossil record, AGW deniers are quick to jump on this situation as a weakness of the theory, when it is anything but. It is wonderful however, that some within the scientific community are now game enough to apply the evidence and openly suggest that the intensity of severe weather events could be increased due to the warming atmosphere and oceans.
This lead to discussions I happened to listen to on this evening’s Triple J episode of Hack Listen to it here.
Firstly, I couldn’t help but find myself annoyed at Matt De Groot – 2UE Sports Reporter and overly opinionated bozo on climate change. I know that there are a few readers already itching to comment and bitch how I have no right to make such a statement – everyone is entitled about to their opinion.
Of course they are!
But as I make clear in my header above – without reason, opinion is nothing but hot air and Matt was a shining example of such. Does he think climate change is real and the result of human activity – sometimes is seems no, but then sometimes yes; it’s just the discussed mitigation options that he disagrees with. At one point he concedes that the other, Sean Kelly, knows more than he about AGW, yet this doesn’t stop him for telling Sean and the audience that his conclusion is correct.
He applies one of the more trivial denial claims; the science isn’t settled. Of course it isn’t – we’ve not put down the books, packed up the monitoring equipment and moved onto something else. Science is never settled – which makes it ever fascinating and a very rewarding career path. Prof. Scott Mandia’s post reminded me a post I’d otherwise forgotten about; Gavin Schmidt’s Unsettled Science (which I insist must be read by anyone wanting to criticise me before they bother commenting).
Just as the fragmented fossil records only strengthen our understanding of evolution and demonstrate the wonderful change over time, the work done since the 19th century in all sciences climate related have only strengthen our certainty of AGW, which is far from fragile by the uncertainty that remains. Some uncertain is unlikely to ever be improved, just as it will probably remain forever impossible to use the DNA like a blueprint for the life form it will create – but we are under very little uncertainty that DNA constructs life forms and increasing atmospheric concentrations of CO2 will warm the Earth.
I commend presenter, Tom Tilley for attempting to keep it from getting silly (even from a caller under no illusions about the reality of AGW, but overly passionate), but I can’t help but wonder why he gave Matt so much room to say, well, nothing really.