The self admittedly politically biased BBC is pushing the anthropocentric global warming theory again, with the built in assumption that it is a done deal. Even cold weather in the summer seems to be “evidence”.
Louise Batchelor of BBC Scotland said:
“only a handful of scientists now doubt that we're seeing a long-term trend and that humans are responsible for Earth's increased atmospheric temperatures.”
It is questionable if a string of cold years could shake the faith of this new religion's adherents now.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I'd like to see more balance in the debate about climate change - and for sure I agree, it doesn't seem to matter what the weather is, it is 'evidence'.
However, is she really wrong to say that only a 'handful' of scientist disagree with the prevailing consensus? The naysayers are certainly out-numbered aren't they - and I speak as someone who is myself unconvinced.
Martin - Well ‘a handful’ suggests a very low number, 10? 20? I doubt very much that there are so few scientists unconvinced by the theory of anthropocentric global warming.
What got me suspicious about the ‘evidence’ for global warming is the all the flim-flam that surrounds it. Plus the quasi religious ferocity with which the so-called ‘deniers’ are denigrated. It struck me as very similar to the way ‘creationists’ attack ‘evolutionists’ and made me uncomfortable - Then I looked to see what the evidence was.
I am aware that the temperature graphs were fiddled to remove the little climatic optimum and the little ice age, as the graph fitted the theory better without them.
Also that the UN report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, published in February this year was promoted as being backed by more than 2,000 of the world's leading scientists.
So if the list were true that would suggest they could only scrape up only around 2,000 scientists willing to nail their colours to the mast on the anthropocentric side.
But the list was accused of being a "sham" because it included the names of scientists who actually disagreed with its findings.
One, Professor Paul Reiter, of the Pasteur Institute in Paris, an expert in malaria, had to threaten legal action against the panel to get his name removed. He is quoted as saying:
"That is how they make it seem that all the top scientists are agreed. It's not true."
Gary Calder, a former editor of New Scientist, believes cloud cover and solar activity are the main drivers behind long-term temperature variations.
This is supported by evidence of simultaneous comparable warming on Mars and Earth, that suggests recent climate change has a perfectly natural, non human-induced—cause.
The head of space research at Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in St. Petersburg, Russia, says the Mars data is evidence that the current global warming on Earth is being caused by changes in the sun.
Scott, Firstly - Thanks for your comments. I am replying in what may be a more appropriate post than the one our conversation began in as the subject has drifted a little.
I have always kept, shall we say, a weather eye ;-) out on pre historic climate variation and took an interest when they were predicting a (relatively) imminent return to full glaciation some decades ago.
I am in the position of a well read (and I like to imagine ;-) intelligent) layman, with an interest in the ‘sciences’.
Re “We appear to be on opposite sides regarding the climate change issue” Not sure I would categorise it that way.
I think my true position on the subject might be regarded as still ‘Agnostic’, but starting to lean away from the theory anthropocentric Global warming. I have got to this point from a position of, initially, taking it a face value. Of that more later.
I certainly agree that there can be no reasonable doubt that there is such a thing as climate variation and that the earth has been subject to it, probably since it first had a climate to vary. It is almost certainly going on today and has been through pre history and history. I have been convinced of this for decades.
I am not sure exactly where you mean I referred to a cold spell. It may have been a reference to the ’ little ice age’ (particularly 1150 - 1460 & 1560 – 1850) and the ‘little climatic optimum’ (900-1300)’that certainly gripped at least northern Europe, parts of North America and the Pacific Islands that some theorise may have been a result of ‘misbehaviour’ of the ‘Atlantic conveyor’ ocean current system.
Re: ”Even if one were to concede that warming is primarily natural, the question then becomes---does it make sense for humans to add to the problem?”
My position on this is that pollution in general should be kept to a minimum; even if it has zero impact on the climate I would still hold that view. I can’t imagine large amounts of carbon monoxide, sulphur dioxide and organophosphates, etc. do us, or the ecosystem and good at all. I am in favour of maintaining as much biodiversity as possible. I am not a ‘tree hugger’ and do not advocate ‘going back’ to living a short life in a mud hut.
Re: “…even if the problem has natural causes, it makes no sense (to me) for humans to add to the problem just because they want to cling to a dying energy industry---the fossil-fuel industry.”
Absolutely! No argument there. Also dependence on oil and gas, especially Middle Eastern oil or Russian gas is not strategically a good place to be. I would like to see us have and develop efficient technology that has a minimal detrimental impact. To this end I do support nuclear power stations and research into fusion.
I also agree that particularly the fossil fuel industries have an interest in arguing against the theory of anthropocentric climate change. I also note that many ‘climate’ scientists have an equal and opposite interest in keeping the theory gravy train on the rails with it’s boiler stoked, as do the UN and many politicians, notable amongst them (a veritable Casey Jones) being Al Gore.
Now why am I leaning away from the theory? By training and inclination I look at facts and what people say, how they say it and what they don’t say.
Frankly it disturbs me the way proponents of the theory behave. Coining the phrase deniers is dubious practice to begin with. I have come across some vitriolic and unsound attacks on the so-called deniers. As a result I wondered why they could not just use logic and evidence to refute the deniers.
To me, many of the proponents of the theory, began to look more like fanatics who have had their religion called into question than anything else. I started to wonder “if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck…”
On digging I have also come on evidence to suggest Supporters of the theory are actually ‘cooking’ the evidence.
Take the Previously mentioned warm and cold periods. These were actually edited out of the figures produced by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), as far as I can see to make the graph look more convincing and to avoid ‘confusing’ the public.
Then the is the case of the Swedish paleogeophysicist Prof. Nils Axel Mörner, of Stockholm University, who has studied sea levels for four decades, has pointed out that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are effectively fiddling their figures on sea level rise too.
Basically he is pointing out that they have been cherry picking their tide gauge data and using it to falsify results in order to exaggerate sea level rise.
He says: “Tide gauging is very complicated, because it gives different answers for wherever you are in the world. But we have to rely on geology when we interpret it. So, for example, those people in the IPCC, choose Hong Kong, which has six tide gauges, and they choose the record of one, which gives 2.3 mm per year rise of sea level. Every geologist knows that that is a subsiding area. It’s the compaction of sediment; it is the only record which you shouldn’t use. And if that figure is correct, then Holland would not be subsiding, it would be uplifting. And that is just ridiculous. Not even ignorance could be responsible for a thing like that.”
He also highlights the IPCC’s introduction of arbitrary ‘adjustments’ to the data recording satellite measurements of sea level. Pointing out that figures from 1992 to 2002 had previously shown no trend but in 2003 were retroactively ‘adjusted’ by the IPCC, to show an upward trend:
”in 2003, the same data set, which in their publications, in their website, was a straight line - suddenly it changed, and showed a very strong line of uplift, 2.3 mm per year, the same as from the tide gauge”. The one in Hong Kong referred to earlier. ”And that didn't look so nice. It looked as though they had recorded something; but they hadn't recorded anything. It was the original one which they had suddenly twisted up, because they entered a “correction factor,” which they took from the tide gauge.
In other words they tweaked the satellite data to match that taken from a tidal gauge situated on a sinking section of coastline. Crooked or what?
Also see my reply to Martin Belam. Sorry this has gone on a bit.
For me, the jury is just about still out, but they are suspicious about the character of many of the witnesses and are worrying the evidence has been tampered with…
Phil---
Thanks for your detailed response and clarification of your position. I would say that you are being very scientific in your approach.
Notwithstanding popular opinion to the contrary, there are no absolutes in Science...something that even some scientists sometimes forget. Everything depends upon one's frame of reference. Theoretical physicists often say that we humans have barely scratched the surface of "Reality".
:)
http://individualsovereignty.blogspot.com/
Post a Comment