National Geographic just released a clip from an episode of Cosmos airing this Sunday. In it, host Neil deGrasse Tyson takes climate change head on. Sadly, he fails miserably from start to finish. Even from the short snippet that NatGeo released, it's clear that Tyson has thrown out the scientific method and continues pushing the radical left-wing Hollywood-esque agenda.
In what can only be described as the most inexplicable explanation of weather versus climate, Cosmos' host Neil deGrasse Tyson explains that weather is like a dog on a leash. And Tyson, who is walking in a straight line with the aforementioned dog on leash, is climate. This is known as similes on steroids.
Tyson says, “Weather is hard to predict, like my friend [dog] here."
Here are the problems with this example: weather is not something that's on a leash that can be controlled by man or anything else. It's unpredictable, always will be, and if Tyson had actually let the dog off the leash, Fido would likely go running off into the dunes.
But, Tyson says, "Climate is predictable. Climate has changed many times over the long history of the Earth — but always in response to a global force.”
Climate, he explains, is "the average weather over the course of years." This weather is what "reveals a pattern. I represent that long-term trend, which is climate."
What Tyson fails to tell his audience is that temperatures have not gone up in nearly 18 years or risen concomitantly with the minuscule increase in CO2. By cherry-picking start- and end-points on a timeline, anyone can say that global warming is occurring.
Except it isn't.
“The strongest force driving climate change right now is the increase in CO2 and the burning of fossil fuels, which is trapping more heat from the sun," Tyson states. "All that additional energy has to go somewhere. Some of it warms the air. Most of it ends up in the oceans. All over the world, the oceans are getting warmer.”
Again, simply not true. Ocean temperatures have neither gone up in any statistical fashion. Contrary to Tyson's comment that most of the heat is being absorbed by the oceans, that is a computer model theory and not based on observed data. Any increase is far less than the margin of error for the measuring instruments.
As reported by science journalist JoAnne Nova, "So the measurement uncertainty is closer to the instrument error of 0.1C than the 0.004C as claimed by fans of man-made global crisis, and since the oceans have only warmed by about 0.02C (if that) since we’ve been measuring it with ARGO, that tiny amount of warming might just be noise. Going back further, the pre-ARGO data is so bad that longer datasets have much larger uncertainties."
It's ironic that Tyson, who likes to champion the skeptics of yore, is adamant in his belief that man-made global warming has been unleashed on the world. Even in the face of exacting satellite and ocean measuring instruments that clearly show it's simply not happening in any statistically significant manner.
If you can't predict the weather accurately, as Tyson states, how in the world can you say that predicting the climate is easy, even though it's just weather over a longer period of time? The only thing that was tethered in reality was the dog.
You can watch the first clip here and leave a comment at YouTube.