My stance on climate change is clear: the scientific evidence that we’re getting warmer is overwhelming, and the most likely cause is that it’s human-produced. The first is fact, the second is a conclusion based on a lot of evidence.
Climategate showed us that the noise machine is in full swing; nothing in those emails takes away from the fact that there are multiple and independent lines of evidence that we’re warming up. And the talking heads on Fox and other right-wing media saying that the harsh winter is evidence against global warming shows how dumb of an argument they’re willing to make.
I love it when legislators get all sciency with their legislation. It really demonstrates the shallowness of their thinking.
So I’m reading this while having some coffee. Pretty normal legislative lunacy. Seen the same sorts of things when evolution and natural selection get slammed by state attempts to redefine what scientists know and have proven. But I did a spit-take with this bit from the South Dakota act:
However, my absolute favorite part of the South Dakota resolution is this next bit. Are you sitting down? Good:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED […]
(2) That there are a variety of climatological, meteorological, astrological, thermological, cosmological, and ecological dynamics that can affect world weather phenomena and that the significance and interrelativity of these factors is largely speculative; and
Wait, what? Did those guys in the South Dakota legislature actually say astrological?
I’ve written before about their inability to read. Now we know another aspect of the problem. They are either totally unable to proofread or unable to tell science from charlatanry.
And is thermological even a word? Google takes me to a definition of thermology indicating it is “the medical science that derives diagnostic indications from highly detailed and sensitive infrared images of the human body.”
What the heck does this have to do with climate change? None of the links from Google I saw indicate anything about the matter under consideration. I’d really like to know how breast scans affect world weather phenomena?
They were just making up works and adding ‘ological’ to them. Thus they reveal their buffoonery.