THIS PAGE HAS BEEN ACTIVATED AS THE NEW STATESMAN BLOG IS NOW CLOSED FOR COMMENTS
At 10am this morning, the New Statesman finally closed the Mark Lynas thread on their website after 1715 comments had been added over a period of five months. I don’t know whether this constitutes any kind of a record, but gratitude is certainly due to the editor of of the New Statesman for hosting the discussion so patiently and also for publishing articles from Dr David Whitehouse and Mark Lynas that have created so much interest.
This page is now live, and anyone who would like to continue the discussion here is welcome to do so. I have copied the most recent contributions at the New Statesman as the first comment for the sake of convenience. If you want to refer back to either of the original threads, then you can find them here:
Dr David Whitehouse’s article can be found here with all 1289 comments.
Mark Lynas’ attempted refutation can be found here with 1715 comments.
Welcome to Harmless Sky, and happy blogging.
(Click the ‘comments’ link below if the input box does not appear)
10,000 Responses to “Continuation of the New Statesman Whitehouse/Lynas blogs.”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Hi Peter,
You ask (5995)
The global increase in GDP would not mean an equivalent increase in the consumption of fossil fuels (as it has not in the past, either). So your doubling of CO2 generation after 23.3 years is a false assumption, to start with.
Even if all the optimistically estimated oil and gas reserves are exploited, there will be a finite limit of both. Is this 100 years at present consumption rates or 150 years? I, personally believe that it is no more than around 150 years. What do you think?
I believe that, as they become scarcer, oil and natural gas will become premium fossil fuels, which, besides more and more limited use as motor fuels, would be primarily used for producing petrochemicals, fertilizers and plastics. What are your thoughts on this?
I am also convinced that the R+D work that is going on today by many companies will bear fruit and that significantly more efficient batteries will be developed, so that electrical or hybrid cars can become truly competitive, thereby significantly reducing the amount of petroleum or natural gas used as motor fuels over the long term. Do you have any opinion on this?
I do not believe that hydrogen fueled automobiles will ever make sense on a large scale for several reasons (economics, safety aspects, etc.). What do you think about this?
Coal (an abundant and relatively inexpensive source of energy) will continue to be a primary source of electrical power generation, as will nuclear power (as soon as countries wake up and lift the ban on new nuclear construction). Do you agree, or do you have another opinion?
Coal liquefaction processes will also produce more hydrocarbon feedstocks in the future as petroleum reserves become scarcer. Do you have any thoughts on this?
Nuclear power generation will benefit from new thorium/fast breeder technology. In the long term, nuclear fusion technology will become technically and economically feasible. Any thoughts from you?
The many (in my opinion) hare-brained, costly and environmentally untested and potentially harmful ideas of CO2 sequestration in geological formations, injection of aerosol pollutants into the upper atmosphere to reflect incoming solar radiation, putting iron into the ocean to increase phytoplankton photosynthesis to remove CO2, installing millions of square meters of mirrors to reflect incoming sunlight, etc. will all die a natural death as the late 20th century global warming does not restart and everyone wakes up to the fact that human CO2 is not the overriding driver of our climate. What are your thoughts on this point?
So you see, Peter, there are many things to consider in answering your question, “Is a long-term 3% per year average growth rate sustainable?”
Most of these things are unknown today, as are many of the causes for our planet’s climate to vary, despite the myopic and arrogant assumptions of IPCC.
The final question might be, “is it desirable?” (Or should we be content to let our economy and standard of living stagnate?).
I, personally believe that it is everyone’s wish to leave his/her children and grandchildren a slightly better standard of living in the future than that, which one has today. Certainly this is the case for the billions of people who are still at the low end of the economic spectrum today. Do you feel that we should now freeze all economic growth for the entire world where it is today? Or do you feel that the “industrially developed” world should reduce its own standard of living in order to allow the undeveloped world to grow its own economies and elevate its populations out of abject poverty?
Sorry for being a bit repetitive, but it is much like the “futurists” of the time in the mid 19th century predicting that Manchester would be covered by two meters of horse manure by the mid 1920s, due to the rapid increase in the number of horse and buggies. This is analogous to your estimation of a doubling of CO2 generation after 23.3 years.
These guys had no earthly idea what the future would bring.
We don’t either.
Appreciate your comments on all this, Peter.
Regards,
Max
Re the Met Office announcement, I’ve just watched the BBC’s News at 10 with Roger Harrabin sounding positively chirpy at the prospect of a “barbecue summer” this year. What the – ? Strangely, only a very fleeting mention of climate change in the report, but they were at pains to blame the rather underwhelming summers of 2007 and 2008 on the jet stream getting stuck over the British Isles (obviously nothing at all to do with global temps heading south). But… Harrabin also mentioned a 35% chance the Met Office would be wrong! (Someone over on WUWT also appears to have noticed this.) Not the most wonderful odds, really.
the “consensus” at the time was that he possessed and was in the process of further acquiring weapons of mass destruction.
You could also argue that the consensus in Germany in 1939/1940 was that German minorities in adjacent countries were being persecuted. Or, the consensus in the USA in the 1960’s was that the Vietnam war was all about defending democracy in the South. But that would be to mistake government propaganda for a genuine consensus.
Unity of religions? Come off it. Maybe you too could hedge you bets and be a Moslem one year, a Hindu the next, etc etc. You know what its like to disbelieve in 99% of them. We aren’t that different. I’m just that extra 1% more consistent.
I’m almost afreaid to ask, but would you please explain this comment? Honestly, I really don’t understand what you are getting at here…..
I see, so because you agree with this hare brained theory its legitimate……the word “conceit” comes to mind regarding your statement. Hindsight is 20/20 Pete……
You’ve truly closed your mind. To be so certain of a theory that is so ambiguous and contains so many variables, loopholes and exceptions, (after the fact)……are you simply arguing this standpoint out of pride and egotism? Debating back and forth with you for all this time I would’ve thought that your intellectual integrity/objectiveness would somehow peek through.
Your arguing now based on pure ideology.
Excuse me…….You’re arguing now based on pure ideology.
Peter,
Re: #5983
You dismissed the assertions outright because you don’t like the author? Argue the statements one at a time…….forget the author, refute his premise.
No aspect of the global warming theory is consistent. The Alarmists make claims of what the future holds and when the opposite occurs they say “It would have happened but for this” or “that” or some other bizarre excuse.
CO2 rises and temperatures fall.
CO2 rises and hurricane activity decreases.
CO2 rises and sea levels are stable.
CO2 rises and Arctic ice is increasing over the last two years and Southern Hemisphere ice is above the 30 year average.
Record snowfalls, normal rainfall (whatever that is) and where are the mass extinctions that we were promised? Seriously, what species of plant or animal has become extinct due to global warming?
I have trouble believing in something that is consistently proven false from direct physical observations. I’m sorry, I can’t buy it or the “remedies” to resolve this non-existent problem.
Brute,
If your government at some time in the future cooks up some sort of argument of justification to invade Country X are you going to believe them just like you did with Iraq and Vietnam? Or are you going to learn from past experience?
I’ve always argued for the scientific consensus. Now, if the track record of science wasn’t as good as it is I’d be sceptical of the scientific consensus too. I’m not saying it is always 100% correct. You can point to one or two examples where it has taken longer to get right than it perhaps should, stomach ulcer causes, tectonic plate theory, but if you look back at the history of science from the period of the Enlightenment onwards the record has been as good as it could possibly be.
That’s because it is subject to the process of rational thought at all stages. Did you read the link that I posted on on Prof Sherwood Rowland?
There are many more like him. Most people would have never heard of him, whereas they would have perhaps heard of Prof Lindzen. That’s because there are powerful commercial forces behind the denialist lobby. In many ways the same powerful forces that have fed you all that guff over the years to justify foreign wars and all the unnecessary deaths that go with them.
Look at the lessons of history and learn from them.
Brute,
You said that you didn’t understand this:
“Unity of religions? Come off it. Maybe you too could hedge you bets and be a Muslim one year, a Hindu the next, etc etc. You know what its like to disbelieve in 99% of them. We aren’t that different. I’m just that extra 1% more consistent.”
What I’m saying is that if you made a list of 100 religions, including your own, and had to put a tick in ‘believe in’ / ‘don’t believe in’ boxes next to them we would be in perfect agreement in 99 cases. Like me you know exactly what it means to not believe in something.
In one case however we would be in disagreement. I just made the point that my position has slightly more consistency.
Study Shows over 68% of Science Stories Have Scientific Errors
Evanston, IL – A recent joint study by the Columbia School of Journalism and the Department of Physics showed that 68% of science stories had scientific mistakes.
Frank Albertson, a journalism professor at Columbia who ran the study, said, “It can run from simple math errors to complete fabrication of facts. Many of the journalists who cover science stories don’t have the scientific background to make sure that their stories are accurate. And whether from the pressure of deadlines or laziness, they don’t do the extra work needed to make sure the stories are factual.”
Albertson cited several examples of scientific errors from the study. In one New York Times story about the asteroid that could possibly hit Mars the reporter said, “The impact could split Mars in two causing it to fall into the Sun.”
“I think the reporter has seen too many Michael Bay films,” said Albertson. “It’s no laughin matter though. Many people trust the New York Times, so that story becomes fact for a lot of people, and the body of science knowledge is harmed.”
Even worse was a story in the Chicago Tribune about global climate change. One passage describing the melting of the polar ice caps said, “Whales support the rising oceans, because it gives them deeper water to swim in. Sharks on the other hand would be confused by the increased volume of water.”
Albertson just shook his head sadly at that one.
Melanie Hogbarth, a science columnist for the Des Moines Register, defended scientific journalism. She said, “You can’t expect us to know everything. Especially math, math is hard.”
The effect is widespread from local papers to glossy science magazines. “It’s no wonder that American students are falling behind the rest of the world. When they read things like, ‘Snowflakes Can Cure Cancer’ in the Discover. How can you blame them?” said Albertson.
Albertson said that education of reporters was the key. “If they were willing to learn how to use a calculator, and learn a few basic scientific principles, then it would eliminate almost half of the mistakes. Also, it’d be nice if they didn’t rely on Wikipedia for their ‘fact-checking.’”
The good news for reporters was that over 42% of the stories were completely accurate.
Albert Einstein once said: “Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity, and I’m not sure about the universe.” Never a truer word was said.
The revelation that scientists have been erroneously using cow, not sheep, brains in a government-funded BSE research project is just the latest in a long tradition of blunders that have existed since scientific investigation began.
As any researcher will tell you, science progresses through trial and error, and mainly error. “One step forward, two steps back” might be the researcher’s motto. They are, after all, much more human than we ever give them credit for.
Here we list the 10 biggest cock-ups of all time. It is a highly subjective hall of shame. But it covers the full range of academic disciplines – showing that all academics are capable of making big mistakes. Sometimes they are unintentional, sometimes not.
The famous biologist, Stephen Jay Gould, has argued that scientists can delude themselves – so keen are they to uncover a new discovery. Sometimes blunders can be highly fortuitous – showed most dramatically by the discovery of penicillin from an exposed petri dish.
But they all show that even our brightest brains – even Einstein – can get it horribly wrong. “There is not the slightest indication that energy will ever be obtainable from the atom,” the great scientist said just before the atomic age was born.
• Brain power: Scientists at the Institute for Animal Health in Edinburgh secured a £200,000 government grant to find out whether BSE has jumped the “species barrier” from cows into sheep. An inquiry is now under way after it was found that scientists had been mistakenly testing cattle brains instead of sheep brains for five years.
• Scientific Watergate: The US National Institutes of Health investigatory panel found the immunologist Thereza Imanishi-Kari had fabricated data in a 1986 research paper authored with the Nobel prize winner David Baltimore. The findings claimed in the paper promised a breakthrough for genetic modification of the immune system.
• Mein bumph: Oxbridge historian Hugh Trevor-Roper authenticated the Hitler Diaries, unveiled as an exclusive by the German-based Stern magazine. The diaries were later exposed as a hoax.
• Cold Fusion: In 1989 chemists Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischman, of the University of Utah, claimed to have solved the world’s energy problems by discovering cold fusion. However, no-one has since been able to replicate their findings of nuclear fusion in heavy water.
• Hubble Space Telescope: Nasa scientists launched the Hubble telescope to create a lens 10 to 20 times more powerful than those based on earth. A gross design error in the main mirror was discovered immediately after launch in April 1990. Hundreds of millions of pounds were needed for the astronaut repair of the mirror.
• N-rays: A French physicist, René Blondlot, claimed to have discovered a new type of radiation, shortly after Roentgen had discovered X-rays. American physicist Robert Wood, however, revealed that N-rays were little more than a delusion. Wood removed the prism from the N-ray detection device, without which the machine couldn’t work. Yet, Blondlot’s assistant still claimed he found N-rays.
• Academic standards: Cyril Burt, the 1960s guru of British psychology, produced research into the intelligence of identical twins which, among other findings, led to the assertions that academic standards were falling. Years later the statistics were found to be “too perfect” and it was discovered the twins – and even the researcher alleged to have carried out the work – never existed.
• Piltdown man: In 1913 an ape’s jaw with a canine tooth worn down like a human’s was uncovered at a site near Piltdown. British paleoanthropologists came to accept the idea that the fossil remains belonged to a single creature who had a human cranium and an ape’s jaw – offering the missing link between apes and humans in the evolutionary chain. In 1953, Piltdown ‘man’ was exposed as a forgery. The skull was modern and the teeth on the ape’s jaw had been filed down.
• Alchemy: – Sir Isaac Newton – the scientist who single-handedly created the foundations of modern day physics had a little known obsession with alchemy, and was convinced for much of his life that he would be able to change base metals into gold. Such a discovery would have helped with his later job as master of the mint, but never materialised.
Gore’s climate film has scientific errors
• The film claimed that low-lying inhabited Pacific atolls “are being inundated because of anthropogenic global warming” – but there was no evidence of any evacuation occurring
• It spoke of global warming “shutting down the ocean conveyor” – the process by which the gulf stream is carried over the north Atlantic to western Europe. The judge said that, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, it was “very unlikely” that the conveyor would shut down in the future, though it might slow down
• Mr Gore had also claimed – by ridiculing the opposite view – that two graphs, one plotting a rise in C02 and the other the rise in temperature over a period of 650,000 years, showed “an exact fit”. The judge said although scientists agreed there was a connection, “the two graphs do not establish what Mr Gore asserts”
• Mr Gore said the disappearance of snow on Mt Kilimanjaro was expressly attributable to human-induced climate change. The judge said the consensus was that that could not be established
• The drying up of Lake Chad was used as an example of global warming. The judge said: “It is apparently considered to be more likely to result from … population increase, over-grazing and regional climate variability”
• Mr Gore ascribed Hurricane Katrina to global warming, but there was “insufficient evidence to show that”
• Mr Gore also referred to a study showing that polar bears were being found that had drowned “swimming long distances to find the ice”. The judge said: “The only scientific study that either side before me can find is one which indicates that four polar bears have recently been found drowned because of a storm”
• The film said that coral reefs all over the world were bleaching because of global warming and other factors. The judge said separating the impacts of stresses due to climate change from other stresses, such as over-fishing, and pollution, was difficult
• The film said a sea-level rise of up to 20ft would be caused by melting of either west Antarctica or Greenland in the near future; the judge ruled that this was “distinctly alarmist”
Well Pete, the scientists don’t seem to be “right most of the time” in these cases…..
Thalidomide
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thalidomide
Miles or Kilometers?
NASA’s $125m mission to study the climate on Mars was destroyed in 1999 when a navigation error caused the Mars Climate Orbiter to undershoot its target altitude by 90km (54 miles). Rather than entering Mars’ atmosphere at its target altitude, it came instead to within 60km of the planet’s surface. The spacecraft, traveling at speeds of around 16,000kmh, was consequently torn apart in the atmosphere. The minimum survivable altitude was 85km – Dang! Missed by that much! A review board found the navigation error was caused when some of the spacecraft’s commands were sent in imperial units rather than metric.
Another great “theory” cast into the dustbin of scientific historical errors.
Steady State theory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steady_State_theory
Brute,
You’re struggling to find the example you need. Thalidomide was released on to the market with insufficient scientific testing. That sort of thing still happens. Drugs are recalled all the time if significant side effects are discovered.
Miles to kilometers? Well if you guys went fully metric like us Aussies you wouldn’t have that problem.
Steady State/ Big Bang Theories Sure both theories were supported and debated in the fifties and sixties. The Big Bang is generally the one that was accepted. Even now there is still a lot of debate on the uniformity of the Cosmic Microwave Background. Scientists are always looking for the explanation that gives the best fit to observed data. Its all done by discussion and the application of rational thought.
Brute,
I’ve just noticed your previous ‘examples’. Yes, there are frauds. Yes there are cock-ups. Yes, researchers report results which can’t be reproduced. Yes, Newton lived before the development of the theory of chemical elements. Yes, scientific journalism often is way off the mark. Especially in the popular press. Even the Guardian made a hash of one story recently by using kW instead of kWhr.
But none of this stuff makes its way into the accepted scientific consensus. If you think it does then show me. OH yes you think AGW has don’t you! So not that!
Alex Cull, Reur 6002:
I wish you would come here more often!
Re: Alex, #6002
I don’t know what accuracy the Met Office claim for their seasonal forecasts, but they have claimed 60% for their annual forecasts. Needless to say they have not revealed how this calculation is made, but it sounds really impressive in a press release and it’s unlikely that journalists will point out to their reader’s that anything under 50% would indicate that the forecasts are wrong more often than they are right.
Hi Peter,
Your argument (a) that there is a scientific “consensus” on the premise that AGW is a serious threat and (b) that this consensus validates the premise has several basic problems.
First of all, there is absolutely no evidence that there really is a “consensus”.
Naomi Oreskes’ survey has been thoroughly debunked and discredited.
Hundreds of scientists have openly expressed their skepticism of the premise.
You have been unable to provide a list of “many, many more” scientists who have openly supported the premise.
That many politicians see an opportunity to gain tax revenues and power through the AGW craze and give the premise “lip service” means nothing.
That the political leadership of many scientific organizations has endorsed the concept of AGW itself does not mean much, either; billions of dollars of research grants speak fairly loudly and no one wants to bite the hand that feeds them.
That IPCC (a political organization specifically set up to investigate human impact on climate) endorses the premise is fully logical; it is its whole reason for existence.
But, even more important than the fact that there is no real “consensus”, is the fact that a consensus would be meaningless even if it existed.
The “science” (primarily model studies) supporting the premise that AGW is a serious threat is so sloppy and skewed, that it can be discarded.
While the greenhouse hypothesis itself is plausible, the importance of human activity and specifically of human CO2 has not been validated by physical observations.
The climate model assumptions on positive feedbacks have been shown by actual physical observations to exaggerate the anthropogenic impact on climate by a factor of three to four; yet the entire premise that AGW represents a serious threat relies on these exaggerated and since disproven assumptions.
There are many other natural climate forcing factors, a good number of which are still poorly understood by science today; to place all the emphasis on anthropogenic factors while essentially ignoring all the others is bad science, at best, and “agenda driven” science, at worst.
The entire premise that AGW is serious threat is built upon data taken from a brief 25-year period from around 1976 to 2000.
Data from several other periods, including the current period of cooling despite all-time record CO2 emissions, do not support the premise; in fact, they show no apparent correlation between global temperature and atmospheric CO2 whatsoever.
The long-term sea level record shows no acceleration of sea level rise over the late 20th century as claimed by IPCC.
The IPCC claims of mass loss of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets resulting from AGW are questionable.
The IPCC statements that severe weather events (droughts, floods, storms) have increased as a result of AGW are unfounded.
The IPCC claims that the late 20th century was the warmest in 1,300 years is based on since discredited hockey stick reconstructions (and “spaghetti copies”) and ignores a plethora of historic, scientific and physical data that confirm a MWP which was warmer than today.
Face it, Peter. The whole AGW craze is like a house of cards.
And its days are numbered, as more and more people come to realize that warming has stopped for now, tropical islands are not being inundated, sea ice extent is not receding globally, there are no more tropical storms (or droughts, floods, etc.) than before, and that the whole craze has been yet another politically inspired “bubble”.
But enjoy it while you can, Peter.
Regards,
Max
Hi Peter,
I’m sure you were joking when you wrote Brute (regarding “junk science”):
Please refer to my earlier post.
IPCC AR4 = “accepted scientific consensus” on AGW
IPCC AR4 = >50% junk science
“accepted scientific consensus” on AGW = >50% junk science
Regards,
Max
The Met Office forecast for 2009 is interesting, not so much in what it says, but more in what it attempts to cover up with double-talk.
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2008/pr20081230.html
Two quotes:
Let us assume (against all odds based on the previous record) that the Met Office forecast is correct and that 2009 “globally and annually averaged land and sea surface temperature anomaly” (after all its manipulations, variance adjustments and corrections by the Met Office) will indeed be 0.4C (above the long-term baseline).
This would mean that the linear cooling trend from 2001 through 2009 will be 0.09C per decade, i.e. a slightly lower cooling trend that the actually recorded 0.11C per decade cooling seen from 2001 through 2008.
So it does, indeed, “mean that global warming has gone away” (or actually stayed away for yet another year), contrary to the pronouncement by Phil Jones. Possibly it has only gone away temporarily (anyone’s guess here is as good as that of Phil Jones), but it HAS gone away for now. To deny this is truly sticking the head in the sand.
Curiously, Jones tells us “what matters is the underlying rate of warming”.
But since 2001 there has been no “underlying rate of warming”, but an underlying rate of cooling instead.
Then the Met Office comes with the blatantly silly argument that 2009 will be “one of the top-five warmest years on record” (if it truly ends up being 0.4C above the baseline).
The absolute value is meaningless; as Jones himself states, it is the “rate of warming” (or cooling, in this case) that is important.
But let’s do a quick reality check on the Met Office assertion.
The Hadley record since 1998 showed:
1998 0.515
1999 0.262
2000 0.238
2001 0.400
2002 0.455
2003 0.457
2004 0.432
2005 0.479
2006 0.422
2007 0.403
2008 0.312
So at 0.4C, 2009 would be tied for third coldest year out of the most recent twelve years.
And the claim that it would be “one of the top-five warmest years on record” is totally false.
Why the Met Office has to resort to out-and-out false double-talk is fairly plain.
Our planet is cooling (despite all Met Office forecasts) and this fact has to be “covered up” in some fashion.
Max
Hi Brute,
Here is a description of 35 errors in Al Gore’s “AIT” sci-fi film, which is being used by some confused school teachers and administrators to frighten impressionable school children.
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/press_releases/monckton-response-to-gore-errors.pdf
It contains your list plus a few more.
Regards,
Max
TonyN
Reur 6018 Met Office forecast accuracy
Well, let’s do a quick reality check on this 60% number.
For 2008 the Met Office warned that the year would be among the “top 10 warmest” at 0.37C above the 1961-1990 baseline.
http://uk.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUKL0314515220080103
It turned out to be 0.06C colder than predicted and the 3rd coldest of the past 12 years (and not in the “top 10”).
Hmm…
For 2007 the Met Office predicted it “ is likely to be the warmest year on record globally, beating the current record set in 1998”.
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2007/pr20070104.html
It turned out to be cooler than the five preceding years and 0.11C cooler than the “warmest year”.
Oops!
For 2006 the story was the same. The year was to be a record “scorcher”.
It also turned out to be 0.09C colder than the record year and cooler than the previous four years.
Ouch!
So over the past three years (where the Met Office predictions are still available on line) they have had a “hit rate” of 0% in their annual global forecasts.
The 60% figure must have nothing to do with annual global predictions, but possibly includes short-term or seasonal forecasts.
Regards,
Max
Hey Max,
Re:6022
Given, Gore is a buffoon (although he is making tons of money pushing this fraud, so he may have the last laugh in the end).
Just thinking this through………I really can’t find any predictions that Hansen, Gore, Lynas or any other eco-chondriac has made that has proven to be correct as it pertains to global warming. You?
Everything that they said would happen with absolute certainty hasn’t or isn’t. When confronted with these inconvenient facts they sidestep and dance around with idiotic comments such as “the science is settled” or “you must be paid off by an oil company”.
The other tactic is that they claim that catastrophe “A” would be happening if not for “X”, which usually is attributed to some natural occurrence (lack of sunspots/solar irradiance, PDO, ADO or possibly the Central Intelligence Agency manipulating the weather with their space weapon/weather steering satellites.
Really, have any of the prophecies that the church of global warming promoted actually occurred? Massive sea level rise, global famine, mass extinctions, cataclysmic hurricanes……..none of their assertions are bearing fruit, yet they keep hawking this scare to the general public.
Why? I think that everyone following this topic understands the motives behind politicians/scientists perpetuating this hoax.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Brute
Al Gore wrote a very good book in 1992 ‘Earth in the balance’ in which he ackowledged the existence of warmer times in mans past.
DR Iain Stewart also agreed these warmer times happened in his BBC series Earth in the Balance.
The National Geographic Magazine also agree that we have had warmer times in the past.
From the Akkads, Egyptians, Arctic civilisations of the Ipiatuk, Romans, Mayans, Vikings, Byzantine empire, all have risen and fallen as the climate has changed naturally.
What Al Gore initially set out to do was warn against us doing the same inadvertently through our changing the climate.
Consequently the only argument we need to be having here is why is it different this time, to previous warming periods.
Peter needs to prove how our activities will cause a catatstrophic unnatural climate change with temperature increases of up to 6 Degrees C.
He has refused to point us to peer reviewed material that provides the A to Z as to how doubling CO2 causes such a temperature rise.
Come on Peter. Provide the information. Don’t forget there is a 500,000 Dollar prize for proving the hypotheses so this is easy money.
TonyB