Mar 172008

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.”

  1. The language in the BBC’s “Cooler 2008” article seems more than usually cautious; Richard Black has picked his words with care. That last bit about the Northwest Passage appears to be correct, according to the University of Colorado’s NSIDC web page, which mentions it in a news item dated 11th August. The southern route (followed by Amundsen) is said to be clear; however, the northern route via Parry Channel is still blocked (or it was, 10 days ago.)

  2. Hi TonyN,

    The Hadley / BBC blurb (1249) may have been cautiously written, but was still misleading, not in what was written, but in what was NOT written. By inserting the middle paragraph below, BBC could have brought a more informative (and less skewed) report.

    ‘”The big thing that’s been happening this year is La Nina, which has lowered global temperatures somewhat,” said John Kennedy, climate monitoring and research scientist at the Met Office’s Hadley Centre.

    This is in stark contrast to the 30+ year period starting in 1973, when there were six major El Nino events, most notably two major events in 1982-83 and 1997-98 (the all-time record warmest year). This compares with a total of five major El Nino events over the entire preceding 70-year period 1901-1970.

    “La Nina has faded in the last couple of months and now we have neutral conditions in the Pacific,” he told BBC News.’

    Regards,

    Max

  3. Hi Peter,

    When IPCC Chairman, Dr.Pachauri, recently said he would look into what is causing the current temperature plateau, adding “are natural factors compensating?”, he said a big mouthful.

    Let’s analyze this train of thought more deeply.

    We have been told by IPCC that anthropogenic GHGs (primarily CO2) are a major factor in the global warming our planet has experienced since 1976.

    This is being presented as “it must be AGW because our models cannot explain it any other way”.

    Not much mention is made of previous periods of warming except the rather short sentence in AR4 WG1 Chapter 3 (p.240): “The picture prior to 1976 has essentially not changed and is therefore not repeated in detail here.”

    Pachauri now wonders if “natural factors” may now be causing temperature to cool.

    Two “natural factors” that were significantly different in the late 20th century as compared to the most recent years are:
    · Solar activity. This reached a 10,000-year high level of activity in the latter 20th century. This has now come to an end and solar cycle 24 has started off with an extremely inactive sun.
    · ENSO cycles. These were very strong in the past 30 years, with six major El Nino events since 1973, as compared to only five in the preceding 70 years. This appears to have come to an end, as well, with La Nina events becoming more prevalent.

    Now, Pachauri’s dilemma is this.

    If he concedes that these natural reversals are causing temperatures to cool today, then he has to concede that they might have had more to do with late-20th century warming than previously assumed.

    It is already acknowledged today that the all-time record warm year, 1998, was so warm because of a major El Nino event.

    The impact of solar activity is even more tricky for Pachauri. IPCC has limited the 2005 radiative forcing estimate for solar variability to a mere 0.12 W/m^2 (compared to anthropogenic CO2 at 1.66 W/m^2). It has done this by limiting the solar impact to that from direct solar irradiance alone, ignoring any indirect effects.

    If we now conclude that an inactive sun is causing cooling today (as we know was the case during the Little Ice Age), we must concede that an active sun may have caused a larger part of the warming experienced in the late 20th century and that, therefore, our estimate of solar radiative forcing is much too low (and that of AGW too high).

    A real dilemma.

    This may explain why Pachauri has been silent.

    He has stated that he hoped the current temperature plateau would not make people think that AGW is “hogwash”.

    But he’d better pray for some warming up pretty soon, or people will start believing exactly that and he can fold up his IPCC.

    What do you make of all this, Peter?

    Regards,

    Max

  4. Max,

    Yes of course there are always natural factors at work. Ice ages occur every 100,000 years or so. But on a shorter timescale: The 11 year solar cycle has a small effect. Ocean systems, such as ENSO, have a bigger effect. Then there is the effect of particulates emitted from volcanoes. AGW is superimposed over all natural factors. That is why arguments such as ‘it’s cold here in Washington’ today are quite meaningless.

    There has been no measured change in solar activity since the 1960’s. Solar cycle 24 may or may not turn out to be bigger than average. The solar cycle is at its minimum at the moment so we’ll just have to wait and see what happens, just like we’ll have to wait, but for a shorter time, to see if the sun rises in the morning.

    Ocean oscillations are the biggest cause of climate variability on a time scale of 50 years or so. You criticised James Hansen for his ‘warming in the pipeline’ theory but it isn’t difficult to see how it works.

    Consider an enclosed swimming pool where the temperature is set to, say, 20degC by means of a thermostat which controls the air-conditioning/heating system. Its been that way for a long time so everything is in equilibrium. Suppose that this is increased to 21deg C. The extra heat mainly disappears into the swimming pool, maybe 99% of it. The next day the temperature is measured at 20.01 deg C. It takes 100 days for the temperature to rise to 21 deg C. Even after 50 days the system is still not in equilibrium and there is a 50% heating ‘in the pipeline’.

    Just to complicate matters slightly, suppose that the swimming pool consists of a cooler under-layer which is at say 19.5deg C and a warmer upper-layer which is at 20.5 deg C. For whatever reason that you might like to imagine, the two layers occasionally change places. If the cooler layer comes to the surface when the thermostat is being reset to a higher temperature, the measured air temperature in the building starts to fall.

    A heating engineer and the guy who looks after the diesel generators in the pool are called in to investigate. They decide that there is something wrong somewhere and the thermostat must be faulty. It isn’t controlling the temperature properly at all.

  5. Hi Peter,

    You wrote (1254): “Yes of course there are always natural factors at work.” This is exactly what Dr. Pachauri is going to investigate related to the current temperature plateau. Based on the latest temperature trends, these “natural factors” seem to be significantly stronger than the AGW factors.

    “The 11 year solar cycle has a small effect.” The 11,000-year high in solar activity, as experienced in the second half of the 20th century, may well have a higher effect on global climate than AGW, according to many scientists, accounting for a major portion of the 20th-century temperature increase.

    “Ocean systems, such as ENSO, have a bigger effect.” This is very true, Peter. The fact that the 30-year period following 1973 had six of these major events (including the 1997-98 event that resulted in the all-time record warmest year), as compared to the preceding 70-year period with only five such events tells me a very clear story. ENSO has been a significant factor in the observed late 20th century warming.

    “The solar cycle is at its minimum at the moment so we’ll just have to wait and see what happens, just like we’ll have to wait, but for a shorter time, to see if the sun rises in the morning.” Peter, this is a very silly statement. I hardly doubt that you are unaware why “the sun rises in the morning”. (Galileo figured that one out a long time ago, much to the dismay of the “consensus” opinion of the time).

    What happens to solar activity is a bit more complicated. IPCC ignores everything except direct solar irradiance, thereby grossly understating the influence of solar activity on global climate.

    Your “enclosed swimming pool” analogy is flawed. The warming is not coming from the sky in a swimming pool, Peter, as it supposedly is from AGW. This is the basic flaw in Hansen’s “pipeline” hypothesis. He postulates that the ocean is warming faster than the atmosphere, which is supposedly causing the ocean to warm. It is an unsubstantiated supposition that defies the laws of physics.

    Peter, wake up to the fact that AGW as the principal driver of global climate (as espoused by IPCC) is a dicey supposition, which is not being borne out by the recent temperature trend.

    Regards,

    Max

  6. Your “enclosed swimming pool” analogy is flawed. The warming is not coming from the sky in a swimming pool, Peter, as it supposedly is from AGW.

    It is in my swimming pool. The thermostats control the solar heaters! But of course for the purposes of the analogy it makes no difference at all.

    Incidentally, in AGW theory, the warming comes from the ground. Not the sky. The longer wave radiation from the ground is reflected back more with a higher concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere.

    I’m surprised at you, Max. Sometimes I think you give the scientific arguments just a little more thought than the others. You don’t come up with arguments such as ‘I had to switch on my electric blanket last night therefore James Hansen is fraud’. So, I’d encourage you to have another try at understanding what the analogy is trying to illustrate, even if it is just to come up with a more sensible objection. You do have to understand your opponents arguments before you can find the flaws in them, if there are any.

    I’m pretty sure that the only flaw is one of over simplification, but that’s true of all analogies. They don’t give numerical results but they show and explain the principles involved.

    I have heard that the Parry Channel, the only route that can be commercially used on the NW passage, is now just about open for the second year running. I’m just waiting for the NSIDC to update their website and which should confirm this. So, its good news for the shipping companies but someone should tell Anthony Watts that minimum ice in the Arctic occurs in early September and he shouldn’t start crowing that the Arctic has recovered in early July.

  7. Hi Peter,

    Sorry, but you’ve got it wrong again with your flawed “swimming pool” oversimplification.

    Greenhouse theory relies on absorption and re-radiation of energy by atmospheric CO2.

    Swimming pool heaters don’t work that way, even those that rely on solar heaters.

    Don’t try to oversimplify things to make a point (these analogies are flawed just like the “greenhouse” analogy, itself).

    Such oversimplifications always backfire upon closer scrutiny.

    Regards,

    Max

  8. Max,

    You don’t like the analogy because of any oversimplification, you don’t like it because it explains quite clearly how temperatures can fall when the thermostat is turned up.

    You like to present the argument that AGW is all too complicated for human comprehension, that although we can use computers to correctly model everything from the behaviour of F1 cars, to the weather, to the behaviour of diesel and petrol engines, to the behaviour of complex electrical circuits and antenna arrays, that somehow we always manage to get the wrong answer when it comes to modelling the earth’s climate.

    Face the facts , Max. Human comprehension and intelligence is more than capable of arriving at a correct understanding of the problem.

  9. Hi Peter,

    Again you are oversimplifying the situation (1258).

    I do not doubt that models can do a fair job of forecasting next week’s weather. I also do not doubt that they can be used to correctly model (as you say) “everything from the behaviour of F1 cars, to the behaviour of diesel and petrol engines, to the behaviour of complex electrical circuits”, etc. I have used them in the past to predict the behavior of complex chemical reactions.

    Where they are poor, however, is in long range forecasting of our planet’s climate, as has been demonstrated by past failures.

    Our knowledge of the various factors affecting climate is just too limited today. There are too many unforeseen and unknown variables. The longer the forecast period, the more inaccurate and meaningless the forecast. IPCC (AR4 WG1 Chapter 10) goes so far to make global surface warming forecasts to the year 2300, based on various emission scenarios! How totally absurd.

    The oversimplistic claim is often made that “long range climate forecasts” are more meaningful than “short range weather forecasts” because the “noise” is taken out.

    Unfortunately, Peter, the ”noise” is what it’s all about. To “crank in” an assumed impact of increased CO2 levels, based on greenhouse theory, add in assumed multipliers for feedbacks from clouds, water vapor, lapse rate and surface albedo, while at the same time ignoring indirect solar forcing (which we do not yet understand) or the impact of ENSO, PDO, etc. (which we also do not understand) plus any other of a myriad of unforeseen or unknown factors is silly.

    We see today that IPCC “projected” a global temperature increase of +0.2°C per decade for the first two decades of the 21st century, based on these flawed and incomplete assumptions. In actual fact, however, we are seeing a cooling of -0.08°C per decade (average of all records) and –0.13°C if we only consider the two satellite (troposphere) records (which have no UHI distortion).

    Why is this?

    The argument that this is just due to short-term “noise”, which is temporarily masking the underlying long-term “trend”, is contrived and absurd.

    I asked you (1180) to choose one or more of the standard “knee-jerk” AGW-believers’ answers to the question, “Why has it stopped warming since 2001 despite record CO2 emissions?” (or to come up with an answer of your own), but you have evaded this issue so far.

    Regards,

    Max

  10. Max,

    As regards an answer to your question: “Why has it stopped warming since 2001 despite record CO2 emissions?” and your claim that I haven’t come up with an answer of my own, I do have to say, again, that you disappoint me.

    I did expect you to at least understand that the ‘swimming pool’ analogy was my own explanation of why the temperatures have fallen in recent years, even though the thermostat has been turned up. Even though I didn’t expect you to agree, I thought you might have come up with a better objection than one of ‘over-simplification’, which is the sort of thing that you might say when you can’t think of anything else.

    Maybe, I should look for a higher standard of debate on one of the other threads.

  11. Peter Martin, 1260, you wrote in part:

    Maybe, I should look for a higher standard of debate on one of the other threads.

    How utterly profound!
    You mean find a site where you are not expected to answer any questions that cut across your dogma, but which allows you to simply change the subject or obfuscate by any concievable means?

    Go for it Pete; PLEASE find another site; I don’t know how Max has the patience to put-up with all your hot air. You are a waste of page-space on this site in about 99.9% of everything you have said so far. (To the point of boredom for me)
    As I have asked before, don’t you ever feel embarrassed by some of your vacuous gobbledegook?

  12. Peter,

    Your swimming pool analogy is a misappropriate scenario and shows your lack of knowledge regarding the principles of thermodynamics and enthalpy.

    Try again.

  13. Hi Peter,

    You “answer” a question concerning the complexity of Earth’s climate system and the many unknowns that still exist today with a simple analogy about your swimming pool.

    Then you state: “I did expect you to at least understand that the ’swimming pool’ analogy was my own explanation of why the temperatures have fallen in recent years, even though the thermostat has been turned up. Even though I didn’t expect you to agree, I thought you might have come up with a better objection than one of ‘over-simplification’.

    If that is not an “over-simplification”, Peter, then I don’t know the meaning of the word.

    Temperatures have fallen while the “thermostat” has been “turned up”?

    Which “thermostat”? (The solar “thermostat”?)

    How “turned up”? (Higher level of solar activity? Less cosmic rays?)

    Or are you coming back to the myth that human CO2 is the principal “driver” of our planet’s climate and everything else (including the sun) is “noise”?

    If that is your position, then I can only say that the “noise” has always been more important as a driver of climate than human CO2. This has been demonstrated by the lack of correlation between CO2 and temperature over most of the surface temperature record, with the notable “IPCC poster period” exception of 1976-2000 (or 1998).

    As pointed out earlier we had:
    1858-1879: Rapid warming. Essentially no change in CO2
    1879-1910: Cooling. Very slight increase in CO2
    1910-1944: Rapid warming. Very little increase in CO2
    1944-1976: Slight cooling. Accelerated increase in CO2
    1976-1998: Rapid warming. Rapid increase in CO2. (The IPCC “poster period”)
    1998-2008: Slight cooling. All-time record rate of CO2 increase

    Not very convincing, Peter.

    Looks like it is not CO2, but the “noise”, which is the principal driver of warming.

    Regards,

    Max

  14. Brute,

    “shows your lack of knowledge regarding the principles of thermodynamics and enthalpy” I think you might mean entropy, which always increases according to the second law as systems tend naturally to a state of disorder.

    And of course in a real swimming pool, you could argue, the two layer of different temperatures would quickly merge into one due to increase in entropy. You could, of course, equally argue that the same thing should happen in the ocean but it doesn’t. There are layers of different temperature and the interchange of the layers is what is meant by the ENSO cycle.

    Its a common tactic, requiring very little knowledge, to claim that this or that theory cannot be true because it violates one of the laws of thermodynamics. Usually, it is a bit harder to explain why. And if there is no explanation of why, it can only be assumed that the writer is bull****ing!

    Max,

    Oh dear! I didn’t think I had to spell everything out. You asked why earth temperatures have fallen at the same time as CO2 has risen since 2001. The analogy isn’t meant to explain why ice ages have occurred in the past! So lets stick to your date of 2001.

    And yes, the level of CO2 in the earth’s atmosphere is represented by the thermostat. The swimming pool, the water itself, represents the oceans. The two temperature layers in the pool represent the state of ocean oscillations. ENSO etc. The measured air temperature at the pool corresponds to the actual earth air temperatures that form the basis of GISS and the HADCRUT data series.

  15. Nice try Pete……. Next we can talk about Psychrometrics inside of your pool-house if you’d like.

    Enthalpy

    Four quantities called “thermodynamic potentials” are useful in the chemical thermodynamics of reactions and non-cyclic processes. They are internal energy, the enthalpy, the Helmholtz free energy and the Gibbs free energy. Enthalpy is defined by

    H = U + PV

    where P and V are the pressure and volume, and U is internal energy. Enthalpy is then a precisely measurable state variable, since it is defined in terms of three other precisely definable state variables. It is somewhat parallel to the first law of thermodynamics for a constant pressure system

    Q = ?U + P?V since in this case Q=?H

    It is a useful quantity for tracking chemical reactions. If as a result of an exothermic reaction some energy is released to a system, it has to show up in some measurable form in terms of the state variables. An increase in the enthalpy H = U + PV might be associated with an increase in internal energy which could be measured by calorimetry, or with work done by the system, or a combination of the two.
    The internal energy U might be thought of as the energy required to create a system in the absence of changes in temperature or volume. But if the process changes the volume, as in a chemical reaction which produces a gaseous product, then work must be done to produce the change in volume. For a constant pressure process the work you must do to produce a volume change ?V is P?V. Then the term PV can be interpreted as the work you must do to “create room” for the system if you presume it started at zero volume.

    Thermodynamic Properties of Selected Substances

    http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/tables/therprop.html#c1

  16. Brute,
    Ok so in your own words maybe you’d like to explain why the text which you’ve copied and pasted from the link above invalidates the swimming pool analogy?

    I’d suggest that when you find yourself trapped in a deep hole that you might want to stop digging!

  17. Hi Peter,

    You’re waffling (as usual).

    Bury your sily “swimming pool” analogy and get back on topic.

    “Why do changes in atmospheric CO2 concentractions and changes in global average surface temperatures only show a correlation for a relatively short 20+ year segment of the 158-year temperature record, but no apparent correlation for the remaining years?”

    A related question would be, “Why does IPCC spend essentially all of it’s 1,000 pages talking about this small segment of the record plus making forecasts for the future based on this segment, rather than discuss the entire record in detail?”

    Answer these two questions directly (if you can), because this is the “fatal flaw” in the AGW theory, Peter.

    Regards,

    Max

  18. Max / Peter: Max’s post 1263 (raising again the issue of GHG emissions v. natural changes as the main driver of climate change) reminds me of this paperIs the Earth Still Recovering from the ‘Little Ice Age’? by Dr Syun-Ichi Akasofu, founding director of the International Arctic Research Center (Alaska) and a leading authority on Arctic temperatures. (I understand that the paper is well known – but, if you haven’t read it, I urge you to do so.) Look especially at Figure 2 on page 3. It shows temperature changes in the Arctic from 1880 to 2000 compared with global changes over the same period (as set out in Max’s post). You’ll see that the Arctic experienced an “amplified” version of the global record. (Note, incidentally, that the recent warming, causing the melt we keep hearing so much about, is rather less dramatic that that experienced between 1920 and 1940.) But note in particular (top diagram, Figure 1 on page 2) that atmospheric CO2 concentrations started their modern acceleration just as Arctic temperatures began their dramatic fall in 1940. Dr Akasofu comments,

    As the top diagram in Figure 1 shows, CO2 in the atmosphere began to increase rapidly after 1940, when the temperature decreased from 1940 to 1975. Thus, the large fluctuation between 1910 and 1975 can be considered to be a natural change. Therefore, unless the difference between the two changes can be understood, it is not possible to say tacitly that the rise after 1975 is mostly caused by the greenhouse effect

    Amen to that – and see my posts 329 and 369.

  19. Robin 1268,
    Nice try Robin!
    You don’t seriously think that Pete will read your link sensibly though do you?
    He will see rapidly that it cuts across his church dogma, and a neuronal off-switch will be automatically triggered in his semblance of a brain.

  20. Max & Brute,
    Swimming Pools?
    have you not twigged yet that Pete avoids responding to various issues that query his dogma by various obfuscations and topical distractions such as silly swimming pools?

    Has he ever answered a simple direct “contrary” (rational) question?

  21. Bob: I see little point in being gratuitously insulting to Peter. I keep hoping that, on day, he will take account of a reasoned position that differs from his – and engage with it sensibly. Perhaps a forlorn hope; we’ll see.

    As I’ve said before, Peter has done me a service by forcing me to sharpen up my understanding of this complex subject.

  22. Hi Robin,

    Your 1268 (plus earlier 329/369) identify very clearly the “fatal flaw” in the AGW hypothesis, as documented in the Akasofu study.

    I can well understand that it could be painful for Peter to admit that a strongly held “belief” is based on false premises, and that, therefore, the easiest response to evidence that this is so is to ignore it, attempt to obfuscate it or simply deny its existence.

    But, unlike many true AGW “believers”, Peter at least has the courage to discuss his beliefs rationally with non-believers, only very rarely resorting to “ad hom” attacks, snarly putdowns, moralistic posturing or unneccessary hyperbole, as so many “believers” are prone to do.

    But Bob_FJ is right when he asks, “Has he ever answered a simple direct “contrary” (rational) question?”

    I would say, maybe, but if so, very rarely, for the reasons stated above.

    Regards,

    Max

  23. Pete,

    RE: Swimming Pool

    By adding heat to the system you’ve managed to raise the enthalpy in the pool-house without raising the level of sensible heat. What you have to do is dehumidify and reheat the space simultaneously. Your comparison is inaccurate because you are attempting to compare “closed” and “open” systems.

    Here’s a good chart for you to use when attempting to adjust the indoor air quality of your pool-house. You’ll also need a Psychrometer to measure wet and dry bulb temperatures. Good luck, a pool-house is a bitch to control.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:PsychrometricChart-SeaLevel-SI.jpg

    Bob/Max/Robin,

    Very good article regarding the religion of environmentalism…………This is pretty much what I have been trying to get across all along.

    Aug 24, 2008

    Environmentalism Can’t Replace Religion:
    A Note from Ian Plimer

    By Ian Plimer on Jennifer Marohasy’s The Politics and Environment Blog

    Despite our comfortable materialistic lives, there are many who ask: Is that all? They want a meaning for life and yearn for a spiritual life. Some follow the traditional religions, others embrace paranormal beliefs and many follow a variety of spiritual paths. A new religion has been invented: Environmentalism. The rise of environmentalism parallels in time and place the decline of Christianity and socialism. This environmental religion is terrified of doubt, scepticism and uncertainty yet claims to be underpinned by science. It is a fundamentalist religion with a fear of nature. It has its own high priests such as Al Gore and a holy writ, such as the IPCC reports. Like many religious followers, few have ever read and understood the holy books from cover to cover.

    Like many fundamentalist religions, it attracts believers by announcing apocalyptic calamities unless we change our ways. Its credo is repeated endlessly and a new language has been invented. Logic, contrary data or questioning are not permitted. Heretics are inquisitorially destroyed. It states that now is the most important time in history and people are told that humanity is facing the greatest crisis in the history of time. We must make great sacrifices. Now. This religion uses thinking out of the Judeo-Christian tradition: If the world has been destroyed, then we humans are to blame.

    This new age religion tries to re-mystify the world, a world that its adherents neither experience nor try to understand. The apocalyptic doomsayers promote their new religion with seven second television grabs. A disunity between religion and science is created. The science that derived from the Enlightenment and which bathes in doubt, scepticism and uncertainty is willingly thrown overboard. Contrary facts are just ignored. Enthusiastic reporting by non-scientists is undertaken. They report new science with alarmist implications yet there is no reporting of contrary information. Non-scientific journalists and public celebrities write polemics that encourage public alarm. The environmental religion produces widespread fear and a longing for simple all encompassing narratives. It offers an alternative account of a natural world with which adherents have little contact.

    Environmentalism embraces a myth of the Fall: the loss of harmony between man and nature caused by our materialistic society. It searches for the lost Eden, which probably never existed. In the ‘good old days’ there was only struggle, starvation and unemployment, not harmony with nature. Environmental evangelism has ritual and language that have substituted substance.
    Over historical, archaeological and geological time, there have been thousands of global coolings and global warmings. Global coolings have always depopulated the Earth. We are the first humans ever to fear a warm climate. Environmentalism exacerbates disease and food shortages and destroys economies. It is a highly flawed religion. Its morality and ethics are questionable. When the environmentalists recognise the religious aspects of their stance, then real discussion with other scientists becomes possible. Until then, they are just like the creationists who claim that their stance is scientific when their very foundations are religious and dogmatic.

    The contradictory religion of environmentalism has given people a purpose in life and, despite ignoring all the contrary science, this religion provides some of the stitches that hold the fabric of society together. Traditional religious life and practice is experience. Traditional religion tries to make sense of what?s happening to us now and gives us the mechanisms whereby we can have hope for a meaningful life, in spite of its disappointments. Religion gives us the mechanism to cope with failure. Environmentalism cannot provide for these needs. Jennifer’s blog is here.
    Ian Plimer is Emeritus Professor of Earth Sciences at The University of Melbourne and Professor of Mining Geology at The University of Adelaide.

  24. The newest target of the dopey environmentalists.

    Now that global warming has been proven a hoax they want to ban this compound.

    Quick Pete, go grab your peace sign and protest placards and picket against this compound! Somebody call Al Gore and tell him this must be done away with immediately! They are seriously discussing cap and trade and regulating this claiming that its “harmful”. I’m outraged! The US Congress and Australian Members of Parliment have actually signed petitions to have this banned. Shameful……..

    Ban Dihydrogen Monoxide
    http://www.dhmo.org/facts.html

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

© 2011 Harmless Sky Suffusion theme by Sayontan Sinha