View Full Version : The Climate Change Climate Change
06-26-2009, 06:19 AM
The number of skeptics is swelling everywhere.
By KIMBERLEY A. STRASSEL
Steve Fielding recently asked the Obama administration to reassure him on the science of man-made global warming. When the administration proved unhelpful, Mr. Fielding decided to vote against climate-change legislation.
If you haven't heard of this politician, it's because he's a member of the Australian Senate. As the U.S. House of Representatives prepares to pass a climate-change bill, the Australian Parliament is preparing to kill its own country's carbon-emissions scheme. Why? A growing number of Australian politicians, scientists and citizens once again doubt the science of human-caused global warming.
Among the many reasons President Barack Obama and the Democratic majority are so intent on quickly jamming a cap-and-trade system through Congress is because the global warming tide is again shifting. It turns out Al Gore and the United Nations (with an assist from the media), did a little too vociferous a job smearing anyone who disagreed with them as "deniers." The backlash has brought the scientific debate roaring back to life in Australia, Europe, Japan and even, if less reported, the U.S.
In April, the Polish Academy of Sciences published a document challenging man-made global warming. In the Czech Republic, where President Vaclav Klaus remains a leading skeptic, today only 11% of the population believes humans play a role. In France, President Nicolas Sarkozy wants to tap Claude Allegre to lead the country's new ministry of industry and innovation. Twenty years ago Mr. Allegre was among the first to trill about man-made global warming, but the geochemist has since recanted. New Zealand last year elected a new government, which immediately suspended the country's weeks-old cap-and-trade program.
The number of skeptics, far from shrinking, is swelling. Oklahoma Sen. Jim Inhofe now counts more than 700 scientists who disagree with the U.N. -- 13 times the number who authored the U.N.'s 2007 climate summary for policymakers. Joanne Simpson, the world's first woman to receive a Ph.D. in meteorology, expressed relief upon her retirement last year that she was finally free to speak "frankly" of her nonbelief. Dr. Kiminori Itoh, a Japanese environmental physical chemist who contributed to a U.N. climate report, dubs man-made warming "the worst scientific scandal in history." Norway's Ivar Giaever, Nobel Prize winner for physics, decries it as the "new religion." A group of 54 noted physicists, led by Princeton's Will Happer, is demanding the American Physical Society revise its position that the science is settled. (Both Nature and Science magazines have refused to run the physicists' open letter.)
The collapse of the "consensus" has been driven by reality. The inconvenient truth is that the earth's temperatures have flat-lined since 2001, despite growing concentrations of C02. Peer-reviewed research has debunked doomsday scenarios about the polar ice caps, hurricanes, malaria, extinctions, rising oceans. A global financial crisis has politicians taking a harder look at the science that would require them to hamstring their economies to rein in carbon.
Credit for Australia's own era of renewed enlightenment goes to Dr. Ian Plimer, a well-known Australian geologist. Earlier this year he published "Heaven and Earth," a damning critique of the "evidence" underpinning man-made global warming. The book is already in its fifth printing. So compelling is it that Paul Sheehan, a noted Australian columnist -- and ardent global warming believer -- in April humbly pronounced it "an evidence-based attack on conformity and orthodoxy, including my own, and a reminder to respect informed dissent and beware of ideology subverting evidence." Australian polls have shown a sharp uptick in public skepticism; the press is back to questioning scientific dogma; blogs are having a field day.
The rise in skepticism also came as Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, elected like Mr. Obama on promises to combat global warming, was attempting his own emissions-reduction scheme. His administration was forced to delay the implementation of the program until at least 2011, just to get the legislation through Australia's House. The Senate was not so easily swayed.
Mr. Fielding, a crucial vote on the bill, was so alarmed by the renewed science debate that he made a fact-finding trip to the U.S., attending the Heartland Institute's annual conference for climate skeptics. He also visited with Joseph Aldy, Mr. Obama's special assistant on energy and the environment, where he challenged the Obama team to address his doubts. They apparently didn't.
This week Mr. Fielding issued a statement: He would not be voting for the bill. He would not risk job losses on "unconvincing green science." The bill is set to founder as the Australian parliament breaks for the winter.
Republicans in the U.S. have, in recent years, turned ever more to the cost arguments against climate legislation. That's made sense in light of the economic crisis. If Speaker Nancy Pelosi fails to push through her bill, it will be because rural and Blue Dog Democrats fret about the economic ramifications. Yet if the rest of the world is any indication, now might be the time for U.S. politicians to re-engage on the science. One thing for sure: They won't be alone.
06-28-2009, 12:02 AM
Interesting. So if Australia politicians and public is going to be our guide in climate change science, shouldn't they also be our guide in national health care?
06-28-2009, 05:10 PM
Interesting. So if Australia politicians and public is going to be our guide in climate change science, shouldn't they also be our guide in national health care?
Good ideas, good research, and fact-based analysis are worth paying attention to regardless of their source; the reverse goes for bad ones.
Way to not even try, Dave. But I understand; it's must be tough working against a swelling tide. Which doesn't stop guys like Hansen from trying, and resorting to increasingly arcane secrecy to cover their effort, of course. As "amstocks82" notes, for one example:
Looking into what could be behind this latest IPCC article, it is interesting that there are no unusual ocean temperature increase from satellite data and weather balloon data. Only NCDC data shows this large ocean anomaly - and it is a large one. Since there are several different data sources and groups that analyze Satellite data, I consider the others as a group to certainly be more trustworthy than NCDC data which is controlled by a small group of people at NASA under Dr. Hansen. Taking a look at a couple of websites to see if anyone else noticed this and I find that everyone who follows this topic already noted the discrepancy. Dr. Watts is the best source.
As noted by Dr. Watts on his website, Hansen's NCDC temperatures have recently increased and diverged from every other data set such as Satellite observations. Why is NCDC's temperature diverging showing that the world is warming faster than expected? The actual problem is unknown because of the secrecy with which the data and algorithms to "massage" the temperature data are kept. But one possible problem could be a conversion error. NCDC temperature data is notorious for such problems. If they had another mistake in converting from Celsius to Fahrenheit, that would explain why NCDC data is much different from everyone else's.
06-29-2009, 05:41 PM
June 29, 2009
Inhofe alleges EPA buried evidence, calls for criminal investigation (http://briefingroom.thehill.com/2009/06/29/inhofe-alleges-epa-buried-evidence-calls-for-criminal-investigation/)
@ 12:54 pm by Michael O'Brien
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) deliberately withheld facts from a report on global warming in order to bolster the Obama administration's climate change initiatives, Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) alleged Monday.
Inhofe said the EPA "absolutely" buried evidence undermining policy on global warming after a researcher's report claimed that carbon dioxide has had little effect on the environment.
"They've been cooking that science since 1998," Inhofe said during an interview on Fox News.
Inhofe argued that there should be a criminal investigation into the EPA report, as well.
"I don't know whether there would be or not," he said. "There could be, and there probably should be."
Inhofe is a longtime critic of the science on global warming; he called it "probably the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people" during the interview Monday.
The Oklahoma Republican also said that the climate change legislation passed by a narrow vote in the House on Friday would be "dead on arrival" in the Senate.
Watch a video of the interview below:
07-01-2009, 02:06 AM
Another brainless spin by Sen. Inofe of an economist and the Competitive Enterprise Institute's attempts to inject whacko and utterly factually-unbased theories into real science.
Nothing was "buried", just the equivalent of children's crayon drawings were refused publication in real publications.
And you gotta wonder how long the entirely discredited and inflated figure of $3000/per person is going to make the rounds with these guys - $100-200 per year is a credible figure.
07-01-2009, 02:45 AM
Fd:"And you gotta wonder how long the entirely discredited and inflated figure of $3000/per person is going to make the rounds with these guys - $100-200 per year is a credible figure."That is BS, Dave. I already debunked that, and the $3000 figure is perfectly accurate. The professor who manufactured the 'credible' figure you mention has admitted it is BS. So we have to wonder how long the entirely discredited and deflated figure of $100-200 is going to make the rounds with you? Nevermind; we know the answer. :re:
07-02-2009, 01:05 AM
Fd:That is BS, Dave. I already debunked that, and the $3000 figure is perfectly accurate. The professor who manufactured the 'credible' figure you mention has admitted it is BS. So we have to wonder how long the entirely discredited and deflated figure of $100-200 is going to make the rounds with you? Nevermind; we know the answer. :re:You are plainly lying. The "professor who made it up"? Let's see a link referencing that "source". These numbers are from the CBO calculations, as widely reported by places such as Reuters:
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Climate change legislation pending in Congress would cost U.S. households only about $175 annually in higher energy and consumer prices, far less than the $3,100 “burden” opponents have claimed would result, according to a Congressional Budget Office estimate.
“The net annual economywide cost of the cap and trade program in 2020 would be $22 billion, or about $175 per household,” the CBO, which gives Congress nonpartisan advice about the impact of legislation under consideration, said in an analysis delivered to Congress late on Friday
But the Republicans know all about it, and none of you care, just spewing your lies and PR and BS, presuming and hoping none of your audience ever goes to look something up, and most don't.
The $3100 dollar estimate came from this study which estimates the cost of cap and trade at $366 billion. In March, House Republicans get ahold of this paper, divided $366 billion by the number of households in America, and concluded erroneously that $3,128 will be the average cost per home. In fact, if they read the study they would see the actual costs to consumers would begin at $31 a year in 2015 (cf. Table 8) or $79 per family. But the Republicans knew that. Why? Because the author of the paper wrote a letter to Minority Leader Boehner telling him the NPV cost of cap and trade to a household was about $75/year. At which point the Republicans stood by their dumb math. Now we have a tie-breaker from the CBO where the Republicans are off by a mere factor of 20 rather than 40. But, hey, why let facts get in the way?
07-02-2009, 01:46 AM
Fd:"You are plainly lying."You are plainly projecting. You talk about "lies, lies, lies". Here is a repost of my response to you on this thread (http://thisbluemarble.com/showthread.php?t=15819). Your claim has already been totally debunked, yet here you are, still making that same false claim, and screaming "LIAR!" at those telling the truth about it. So who is the liar here, Dave? :liar:
What Will Cap-n-Trade Cost You? (http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=Y2FlMzQ5NTBmOTNjZTE5YjY1MDYxNzQ2MjRiYTVkNzg=)
National Review -- The Corner blog
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
Republicans have been arguing for some months that it will cost an average of $3,128 per household, based on an MIT study. The professor who did the study later disagreed, however, offering a much smaller figure of $215 (which he now says should really be $800). Republicans have subsequently been called "liars" and "pants on fire" by people with very loud voices for using the $3,128 figure.
But now, John McCormack writes, the MIT profesor admits that he wasn't counting as a "cost" the higher energy taxes that Obama's cap-n-trade will make consumers pay. On average, those higher taxes, based on the MIT study, will come to . . . $3,128 per American household. Whatever the federal government decides to do with the money after that (it could be redistributed or it could be used for more "green energy" projects), it is still taking that amount from the consumer up front.
If you live in the real world, your tax bill is an expense, not an asset as the professor has been reckoning it. So yes, cap-n-trade costs at least $3,128 to the average household.
What Obama's Cap-And-Trade Plan Will Cost You (http://www.usnews.com/blogs/capital-commerce/2009/03/03/what-obamas-cap-and-trade-plan-will-cost-you.html)
U.S. News and World Report -- Capital Commerce blog
March 03, 2009
A study from the George C. Marshall Institute tries to quantify the costs of a cap-and-trade plan to reduce carbon emissions. They're not small, to say the least: And although this study uses 2008 as a baseline, the Obama plan would hit in 2012 and could come in combo with a hike in investment and incomes taxes for wealthier Americans and the creation of a special healthcare tax:The authors find that the constraints posed by the Lieberman-Warner cap-and-trade approach is equivalent to a constant (in percentage terms) consumption decrease of about 1% each year, continuing to 2050. Put another way, the cap-and-trade approach is the equivalent of a permanent tax increase for the average American household, which was estimated to be $1,100 in 2008, would rise to $1,437 by 2015, to $1,979 in 2030, and $2,979 in 2050.
Reviewing a host of recent studies, Buckley and Mityakov show that estimates of job losses attributable to cap-and-trade range in the hundreds of thousands. The price for energy paid by the American consumer also will rise. The studies reviewed showed electricity prices jumping 5-15% by 2015, natural gas prices up 12-50% by 2015, and gasoline prices up 9-145% by 2015. As an illustration, gasoline would suffer a 16 cent price increase per gallon at the low end of the estimates to a $2.58 penalty at the high end (using the January 2009 reported retail price of $1.78 per gallon).========================================== =====================
The Cap and Tax Fiction (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124588837560750781.html)
Democrats off-loading economics to pass climate change bill.
The Wall Street Journal -- Opinion
JUNE 26, 2009
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has put cap-and-trade legislation on a forced march through the House, and the bill may get a full vote as early as Friday. It looks as if the Democrats will have to destroy the discipline of economics to get it done.
Despite House Energy and Commerce Chairman Henry Waxman's many payoffs to Members, rural and Blue Dog Democrats remain wary of voting for a bill that will impose crushing costs on their home-district businesses and consumers. The leadership's solution to this problem is to simply claim the bill defies the laws of economics.
Their gambit got a boost this week, when the Congressional Budget Office did an analysis of what has come to be known as the Waxman-Markey bill. According to the CBO, the climate legislation would cost the average household only $175 a year by 2020. Edward Markey, Mr. Waxman's co-author, instantly set to crowing that the cost of upending the entire energy economy would be no more than a postage stamp a day for the average household. Amazing. A closer look at the CBO analysis finds that it contains so many caveats as to render it useless.
For starters, the CBO estimate is a one-year snapshot of taxes that will extend to infinity. Under a cap-and-trade system, government sets a cap on the total amount of carbon that can be emitted nationally; companies then buy or sell permits to emit CO2. The cap gets cranked down over time to reduce total carbon emissions.
To get support for his bill, Mr. Waxman was forced to water down the cap in early years to please rural Democrats, and then severely ratchet it up in later years to please liberal Democrats. The CBO's analysis looks solely at the year 2020, before most of the tough restrictions kick in. As the cap is tightened and companies are stripped of initial opportunities to "offset" their emissions, the price of permits will skyrocket beyond the CBO estimate of $28 per ton of carbon. The corporate costs of buying these expensive permits will be passed to consumers.
The biggest doozy in the CBO analysis was its extraordinary decision to look only at the day-to-day costs of operating a trading program, rather than the wider consequences energy restriction would have on the economy. The CBO acknowledges this in a footnote: "The resource cost does not indicate the potential decrease in gross domestic product (GDP) that could result from the cap."
The hit to GDP is the real threat in this bill. The whole point of cap and trade is to hike the price of electricity and gas so that Americans will use less. These higher prices will show up not just in electricity bills or at the gas station but in every manufactured good, from food to cars. Consumers will cut back on spending, which in turn will cut back on production, which results in fewer jobs created or higher unemployment. Some companies will instead move their operations overseas, with the same result.
When the Heritage Foundation did its analysis of Waxman-Markey, it broadly compared the economy with and without the carbon tax. Under this more comprehensive scenario, it found Waxman-Markey would cost the economy $161 billion in 2020, which is $1,870 for a family of four. As the bill's restrictions kick in, that number rises to $6,800 for a family of four by 2035.
Note also that the CBO analysis is an average for the country as a whole. It doesn't take into account the fact that certain regions and populations will be more severely hit than others -- manufacturing states more than service states; coal producing states more than states that rely on hydro or natural gas. Low-income Americans, who devote more of their disposable income to energy, have more to lose than high-income families.
Even as Democrats have promised that this cap-and-trade legislation won't pinch wallets, behind the scenes they've acknowledged the energy price tsunami that is coming. During the brief few days in which the bill was debated in the House Energy Committee, Republicans offered three amendments: one to suspend the program if gas hit $5 a gallon; one to suspend the program if electricity prices rose 10% over 2009; and one to suspend the program if unemployment rates hit 15%. Democrats defeated all of them.
The reality is that cost estimates for climate legislation are as unreliable as the models predicting climate change. What comes out of the computer is a function of what politicians type in. A better indicator might be what other countries are already experiencing. Britain's Taxpayer Alliance estimates the average family there is paying nearly $1,300 a year in green taxes for carbon-cutting programs in effect only a few years.
Americans should know that those Members who vote for this climate bill are voting for what is likely to be the biggest tax in American history. Even Democrats can't repeal that reality.
Printed in The Wall Street Journal, page A12
I thought it was a carbon tax.
I know taxes have to go up somehow.
Does it really matter what they call it?
07-12-2009, 01:10 PM
I thought it was a carbon tax.
I know taxes have to go up somehow.
Does it really matter what they call it?
You want your taxes to raise money while doing minimal damage.
07-12-2009, 01:14 PM
Solar Physicist Predicts Ice Age. What happened to global warming?
July 6, 10:19 PM
Timo Niroma, a physicist from Finland, publishes a Solar Report each month. He has given his permission to use it and distribute it to all so here it is. It will be a regular feature here and I hope you look forward to it as much as I do. The report is not written in the usual user-friendly way, but is rather intended for scientists that are familiar with the information contained in it. I will attempt to simplify and explain the details of the report and how it could impact you and, of course, Al Gore and company. As the predictions come true, as I assume they will, the green lobby will go on unemployment compensation. Let's start at the beginning and take it piece by piece.
"JUNE BREAKING NEWS: THE CYCLE GOES AT THE MOMENT BELOW DALTON LEVEL" gives away the punch line but let's see how he gets there.
In the following Timo discusses the sunspot activity of the new, as yet not begun, cycle #24:
"So the activity of the cycle 24 has still been greatest in October-November 2008
by length (2 times 8 days). Also by size of the together 4 of size 80, 3
appeared in November 2008, and now one in June 2009.
Altogether there were six sunspot groups in June, but the five after the decent
spot in the beginning of June lasted from 1 to 3 days. The sunspot number of May
From July 2008 to June 2009 the sunspot number has varied from 0.5 (July and
August 2008) to 4.1 (November 2008). December 2008 and March 2009 were also very
quiet (0.8 and 0.7). Besides in November the sunspot number was higher than in
June 2009 in October 2008 (2.9) and in May 2009 (2.9). So the 12 month activity
can be described as: ---++-----+. No trend so far."
The upshot of this is that there has no indication that the new cycle is about to start. One needs to know that as solar cycles drag on, the likelyhood becomes greater that the next cycle will be weaker. That translates to a cooler climate.
The following is interesting, as Timo says, because the previous cycle although not extraordinary had a much stronger build up than the new cycle #24. Here he describes the differences.
"It is interesting to note that during the previous cycle change 22/23 in 1996
there were only two months with SSN below 3 (September and October 1996). During
the on-going minimum there has been already 17 months below 3, 3 in 2007, 8 in
2008 and all 6 thus far in 2009 (i.e. all 2009 numbers up (until) today)."
What is being discussed next is the magnetic flux or intensity which is a strong indicator of climate. The 11 years is significant in that it is the mean of the solar cycle length. A curious point here is that few cycles are ever 11 years long but are either longer or shorter. Not sure why that is but it is curious. What he is saying is that during the previous cycle's minimum in 1995 and 1996, the magnetic flux was the same as the value 11 years later , at a time when the new cycle should be thinking of getting underway. However, at that point the divergence between the two cycles became evident. Cycle #24 is coming in like a lamb.
"The 10.7 cm fluxes of the sunspots were nearly equal at a distance of 11 years
in 1995-1996 versus 2006-2007:
1995 77 / 2006 80
1996 72 / 2007 73 (1996 was minimum between cycles 22/23)
And so began a dramatic separation in the solar magnetic flux. The cycle 23
began with vengeance in 1997, but the cycle 24 did not in 2008. In fact the
first and almost only decent spots in October-November 2008 did not affect the
flux, which in fact made its all-time (since late 1940's when first measured)
low in November-December 2008".
The number list that follows shows that 1997 and 2008 show a significantly lower intensity for the current minimum. Around 30% lower.
Here we find that we have to go back to some pretty cold times to find a similar solar pattern. The calculation of length of the current cycle #23 comes from the fact that you can only tell when a cycle is over, when the spots associated with the new cycle overpower the spots with the old cycle. Old cycle sunspots are observed near the solar equator whereas the new cycle sunspots are in the mid to high latitude areas (like Montreal on Earth) and are of opposite polarity magnetically.
"The yearly spot value of 2007 was already only 7.6 which is below the previous
minimum in 1996 (with 8.6). The value dropped to 2.6 in 2008 and the smoothed
value at the moment is 1.7 (December 2008). (In December 2007 it was 5.0 .) We
must go to the year 1913 to find a lower smoothed value (1.5). The November 2008
value means that the cycle 23 has at least a length of 12.6 years.
There has been only 2 cycles since 1749 longer than the cycle 23, the cycle 4
(1784-1798) just before the Dalton minimum and the cycle 6 (1810-1823 or the
second of the Dalton cycles). The cycle 9 (1843-1856) had about the same length
as we have now achieved (12.5 years). It began the series of 5 Jovian (Jupiter) cycles and
a cool climate in 1856-1913 (the Damon minimum)".
I won't go into all the details here, but the IPCC looks at solar irradiance as the only factor that determines the Sun's ability to warm the Earth's climate. If you count them up here, there are many other factors to be considered and they are all at an extreme low compared to our recent past. "Recent" is a relative term not indicating the past 10 or 20 years.
"Now what do we have: 1. Livingston-Penn observations that the magnetic strength
of the sunspots irrespective of their amount has linearly declined since at
least 1990 leading the spots vanishing in 2014 or 2015 if the trend continues.
2. A 50-year low in solar wind pressure: Measurements by the Ulysses spacecraft
reveal a 20% drop in solar wind pressure since the mid-1990's. 3. A 12 year low
in solar irradiance: the sun's brightness has dropped a whopping 6% at extreme
UV wavelengths since the solar minimum of 1996. 4. A 55-year low in solar radio
wavelengths. The lessening of radio emissions seems to be an indication of
weakness in the sun's global magnetic field. 5. The all-time low (since Maunder
minimum) of Gleissberg cycle in 2005 (72 years). 6. Ap Index very low. 7. TSI
(Total Solar Irradiance) at its lowest since satellite observations began in
1979 (1365 Watts)".
So here we start to get to the meat of the report. If you look at the data, there appears to be a cycle of 210 years at work here. This, by the way, is an often repeated cycle length for the Sun which has many cycles of various lengths.
"Autocorrelation of the sunspots since 1760 gives the highest correlation as 210
years. The Dalton minimum began in 1798".
Remember Dalton means, "Coooooold, Brrrr! Then we have this:
"The yearly sunspot numbers of 1795-1798 were 21, 16, 6.4 and 4.1, the
corresponding values for 2005-2008 were 30, 15, 7.6 and 2.8. The first full
Dalton year or 1799, had a SSN value of 6.8. The SSN of the first 6 months of
2009 is 1.7".
The progressions illustrate that there is a similarity between the years prior to the Dalton, and the minimum leading up to the cycle #24 but lower than those leading up to the Dalton.
Next is an interesting list of Climatic periods in our past on Earth, all of which correlate with solar parameters at the time. Folks back then recorded a tremendous amount of information about the Sun and there were also proxy measurements available.
"Well, there was the 300-year Roman Optimum in 100 BC to AD 200, the 200-year
oscillation 200-900 (200 cold, 300 warm, 400 cold, 600-900 cold), the 300-year
Medieval Optimum 900-1200 (with some colder spells plus warm aftermaths), the
300-year Little Ice Age 1400-1700, the 300-year "Global Warming" 1700-2005 (with
some drawbacks especially in the 1800's). A NEW LIA WITH SPÖRER AND MAUNDER IN
That's 300 years of cold, in case you missed it! The Maunder minimum was the bottom of the Little Ice Age from which all IPCC temperature charts begin. That is because it was coldest then and makes the warming look worse. Had they started their charts during the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) we would be wondering why it is still so cool. Like when are we going to get to the good stuff.
And then we get the punch line:
"THE CYCLE 24 HAS NOW GONE CLEARLY BELOW DALTON LEVEL."
This is pretty strong evidence. Had you been reading these reports for a few years you would have seen that Timo has been very conservative in his predictions. His earlier predictions were much less severe but trust me, you would be a lot happier with global warming than you will be with a Maunder type solar event. You can take that to the bank. The only thing that makes me grin about this is that it will end the man made global warming scam once and for all. Unless they can convince politicians that we did that too.
Author: Kirtland Griffin
07-12-2009, 01:17 PM
So go on then, Prof. What makes you sure that you’re right and all those scientists out there saying the opposite are wrong? ‘I’m a geologist. We geologists have always recognised that climate changes over time. Where we differ from a lot of people pushing AGW is in our understanding of scale. They’re only interested in the last 150 years. Our time frame is 4,567 million years. So what they’re doing is the equivalent of trying to extrapolate the plot of Casablanca from one tiny bit of the love scene. And you can’t. It doesn’t work.’
What Heaven And Earth sets out to do is restore a sense of scientific perspective to a debate which has been hijacked by ‘politicians, environmental activists and opportunists’. It points out, for example, that polar ice has been present on earth for less than 20 per cent of geological time; that extinctions of life are normal; that climate changes are cyclical and random; that the CO2 in the atmosphere — to which human activity contributes the tiniest fraction — is only 0.001 per cent of the total CO2 held in the oceans, surface rocks, air, soils and life; that CO2 is not a pollutant but a plant food; that the earth’s warmer periods — such as when the Romans grew grapes and citrus trees as far north as Hadrian’s Wall — were times of wealth and plenty.
All this is scientific fact — which is more than you can say for any of the computer models turning out doomsday scenarios about inexorably rising temperatures, sinking islands and collapsing ice shelves. Plimer doesn’t trust them because they seem to have little if any basis in observed reality.
vBulletin® v3.8.4, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.