See other Science/Tech Articles
Title: The Global Warming Myth
Source:
The New Zealand Climate Science Coalition
URL Source: http://nzclimatescience.net/index.p ... ntent&task=view&id=58&Itemid=1
Published: Jul 1, 2007
Author: Prof David Bellamy
Post Date: 2007-07-03 13:22:43 by sourcery
Ping List: *Agriculture-Environment* Subscribe to *Agriculture-Environment*
Keywords: None
Views: 123
Comments: 4
Am I worried about carbon induced global warming? The answer is no and yes. No because there has been no sign of global warming in New Zealand since 1955, this year snow has fallen in Portugal for the first time in 52 years and 3 US states are united by the fact that they have recorded their lowest temperatures ever. Yes because it has become a political football that has lost its foundations in real science. What especially worries me is that if anyone dares to question the dogma of the global warming doomsters who repeatedly tell us that C not only stands for carbon but for climate catastrophe, we are immediately vilified as heretics or worse as deniers. I am quite happy to be branded a heretic because throughout history heretics have stood up against dogma based on bigotry. I don57;t like being called a denier because deniers don57;t believe in facts. There are no facts linking the concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide with imminent catastrophic global warming there are only predictions based on complex computer models. Name calling may be acceptable in political circles but it has no place in the language of science, indeed what is happening in the annals of global warming smacks of Macarthyism complete with witch hunts. Robust science is carried out in a robust way through reasoned argument based on well researched data and although it may dent the ego of the loser it does not smear the name of science. I offer two simple data sets that are already in the public domain. The most reliable global, regional and local temperature records from around the world display no distinguishable trend up or down over the past century. The last peak temperatures were around 1940 and 1998, with troughs of low temperature around 1910 and 1970. The second dip caused pop science and the media to cry wolf about a catastrophic ice age just around the corner. Our end was nigh! As soon as the temperatures took an upward turn in the 198057;s the scaremongers changed their tune switching their dogma to imminent catastrophic scenarios of global warming all based on computer models some that were proved to be as bent as the hockey stick which no longer features in IPCC57;s armoury. I used to discuss climate change with my undergraduates and point out that there was much good scientific evidence that the latest of a string of ice ages had affected the climate and sea levels around the world. Thank goodness it began to come to an end a mere 18,000 to 20,000 years ago The Romans grew grapes in York and during the world wide medieval warm period when civilization blossomed across the world, Nordic settlers farmed lowland Greenland (hence its name) and then got wiped out by the Little Ice Age that only started to wane around 1850). Back to the data, how can a sixty-year cycle of changing temperature give any credibility to claims that carbon dioxide is causing an inexorable march towards a climate Armageddon. The concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has risen throughout this time frame, yet the temperature has gone up and down in a cyclical manner. How can this be explained unless there are other factors in control overriding the effect of this greenhouse gas? There are of course many to be found in peer reviewed literature, solar cycles, cosmic ray cloud control and those little rascals El Ninos and La Ninas all of which are played down or even ignored by the global warming brigade. As are the positive aspects of carbon dioxide in the growth of plants. Add to that the fact that since 1998 the world57;s average temperature has shown a tendency to fall not rise. This fact the warmers play down by arguing that you need a 10 year period, or better still a 30 year period to register a convincing change. Well 2008 is just around the corner and sadly another 20 years on the next natural cycle will have done its best or worse vindicating carbon dioxide as the villain of the piece. Turning to Al Gore57;s doom and gloom laden Oscar, I will pose but two questions. Why scare the families of the world with tales that polar bears are heading for extinction when there is good evidence that there are now twice as many of these iconic animals, most doing well in the Arctic than there were 20 years ago? Why cry wolf on a rise in the spread of malaria thanks to rising temperatures when this mosquito borne disease was a main killer of people throughout the Little Ice Age in Britain and northern Russia? To date it has cost the world around $ US 50 billion to spread global warming doom and gloom. However now thanks to questions asked by we the sceptics The New Zealand National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research57;s Dr Jim Renwick has spilt the beans that "Climate prediction is hard, half of the variability in the climate system is not predictable, so we don't expect to do terrifically well." Later on New Zealand radio, Dr Renwick said: " The weather is not predictable beyond a week or two." The spin of a coin starts a rugby match the spin on 50 million greenbacks surely deserves an unbiased referee. New Zealand leads the world in the eradication of feral plants and animals making restoration of the natural ecosystems that kept the biosphere in balance long before the IPCC was invented. Habitat destruction and the loss of biodiversity is one of the greatest threats to climate and landscape stability. I beg your government to continue to lead the world in this sustainable endeavour. In the words of a great mathematician and satirist Tom Lehrer, 60;Don57;t be scared be prepared61;. David Bellamy June 2007
Poster Comment: Lawrence Solomon's "The Deniers" (a series of articles on the view of scientists who have been labelled "Global Warming Deniers"): Other References:
Subscribe to *Agriculture-Environment*
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: sourcery (#0)
Look at the thread right below this one. Apparently, he have a new hokey-stick that indicates global freezing, beginning tonight. I'm planning to bring plenty of blankets to the drive-in movie tonight.
Antiparty - find out why, think about 'how'
pinging the other list. Great post.
Perhaps we have a clue here as to what is going on.... PROABLY! Great post, and thank you. Oh, Mekons, pingie time!!
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.
Seriously, dude, you gotta get off this. It's not credible. Remember when the tobacco merchants found well-respected scientists to deny the link between smoking and lung cancer? Even your guys have quit that, now they just deny the link between passive smoking and lung cancer. And in this, they're probably right, and they are in the majority or the large minority. When 98or 99 percent of scientists support a view, I'll take their word until I see compelling evidence to the contrary, not nitpicking. You don't have a scientific foot to stand on, just some weird bug up your butt. Krakatoa, which you thought proved your point, proved mine. You never responded to that, as far as I know. Sure, natural events can screw up the environment. There are many cases of that through ancient history (and well before 6,000 years ago for you fundies). Name the massive natural event in the past 30 years that accounts for the change in our environment. You can't. It is clearly the vast increase in CO2 contribution of the entire world, along with the clear-cutting of the lungs of the world, the rain forests, that is doing this. Have you ever been in LA during a thermal inversion? You can EAT the air. This smells of holocaust-denying logic. If you can't account for every single variation in a theory, the theory is nonsense. Holocaust deniers use specious logic like, well, we DID find millions of bodies, but the pipes on top of the gas chambers were too small for capsules of poison gas. Of course, they were large enough for a PIPE CARRYING POISON gas, but don't look at that. I think you're a good guy, from your other posts, but this is kinda nonsense. It's the Ann Coulter algore type of attack. If you seriously think that the vast majority of scientists are wrong about this, that the icecaps are not melting, that the earth is not warming, that the rain forests are not important, that the increase in the number of internal combustion engines to quadruple the number from 30 years ago, the coincident shift from nuclear to coal and oil fired power plants, ad infinitum, have had no effect on our climate...wow.
#2. To: sourcery, *Global Climate Change* (#0)
#3. To: sourcery, Mekons4, all (#0)
To date it has cost the world around $ US 50 billion to spread global warming doom and gloom.
#4. To: richard9151 (#3)
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest