Here is Hansen's 1988 chart updated with the actual temps...
Posted on 02/21/2007 7:12:25 AM PST by GMMAC
David Suzuki vs. Michael Crichton
Barbara Kay, National Post
Published: Wednesday, February 21, 2007
Last Thursday, environmentalist guru David Suzuki stormed out of a Toronto AM640 radio interview with host John Oakley because Oakley dared to suggest that global warming might not be the "totally settled issue" Suzuki insisted it was.
Oakley only reported a fact: Many accredited scientists -- some full professors from top universities, including Nobel prize winners and a former president of the National Academy of Sciences -- would argue that "global warning is at best unproven and at worst pure fantasy," according to novelist and independent scientific researcher Michael Crichton, author of the best-selling 2004 environmental techno-thriller, State of Fear.
Crichton, one of the first to expand on the theme of environmentalism-as-religion, would doubtless see Suzuki's gesture as a result of confusion of his role as environmental advocate with that of chief of Morals Police. Suzuki's very public censure of Oakley for his perceived blasphemy is disquieting because it smacks of the totalitarian impulse to silence and humiliate the dissenter --or even, as in this case, the dissenter's messenger.
Suzuki keeps high-profile company in his tendency to suppress environmental infidels. Al Gore called skeptics "global warming deniers," evoking (if only unintentionally) invidious and fallacious comparison with Holocaust denial. Rejecting the historical record of what has actually happened in the past is one thing ; expressing skepticism about events that are predicted to happen in the future on the basis of computer simulations is quite another. But once you get into the realm of reigning ideologies, such rational distinctions fall by the wayside. The object is to shame the one who questions the received wisdom.
Suzuki would have better served his cause if he had addressed skeptics' actual concerns. Such as:
- Why was climatologist James Hansen -- the father of global warming--off by 200% in his prediction that temperatures would increase by 0.35 degrees Celsius by 2008 (the actual increase has been .11 degrees); and why did he (and colleagues) say in 2001 that "the longterm prediction of future climate states is not possible"?
- Of the world's 160,000 glaciers, some are shrinking. But many --in Iceland, for example --have "surged" in the last few years, while most of Antarctica is getting colder; if warming is "global," why?
- Why haven't sea levels risen to the extent predicted? Why have the waters off the Maldive Islands in the Indian Ocean not only experienced no rise over several centuries, but an actual fall in the last 20 years?
- Where is the predicted "extreme weather?" There has been no global increase, and in many cases a decrease, of extreme weather patterns.
- From 1940-70, carbon dioxide levels went way up, but temperatures went down so abruptly that a new Ice Age was the prevailing fear; wherefore this disparity?
- The Sahara Desert is shrinking--purportedly due to the greening effects caused by man-made global warming; but isn't the greening of the desert a good thing? I know to ask these questions only because I've read State of Fear. And as the environmental hysteria burgeons, I continue to press the book on everyone I know. Forget the silly (but riveting) plot, which is to the embedded environmental science in the novel as blini to caviar. You cannot read State of Fear with an open mind and continue to believe global warming is a "totally settled issue."
Nor should readers be put off by Crichton's status as a "mere" novelist. Crichton's scientific research on environmental issues is so impressive he was invited to address the U.S. Senate's Committee on Environment and Public Works. Even Crichton's most frenzied critics (the Los Angeles Times called State of Fear "the first neocon novel") did not repudiate his peer reviewed, impeccably sourced data.
Amongst the hundreds of books, journal articles and scientific reports in his bibliography, (no mention of Suzuki, strangely), Crichton lists every publication of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change since its formation. He has read them all, and in the end humbly "guesses" -- the most one can do -- that we are experiencing mild warming, possibly more beneficial than harmful.
The remorseless pressure on Canadians to sign up for environmental orthodoxies that they are not cognitively equipped to judge is demoralizing and divisive. Tantrums by self anointed prophets do not help the situation. Whatever the eventual outcome on the global warming front, we could all use a little non-partisanship, maturity and attitudinal cooling on the behavioural front.
Bkay@videotron.ca
© National Post 2007
That's wonderful! St. algore
bookmarked
There are thousands of washed up leftists making a grand living off the government of canada: they are call the CBC. They can be avoided, but you always know they are there syphoning off tax dollars.
Great article. Thanks for posting!
Here's my take: When a biased, wealthy, publicitiy-seeking author/activist can successfully call into question the opinions of "climate experts", then said "scientific opinions" have serious shortcomings.
Besides, could we not also say:
"Al Gore: climate expert or biased, very wealthy, publicity-seeking, book-selling activist? You make the call."
Nicely penned, Barbara Kay!
One of the biggest side effects of "global warming" is a Stalinist repression of non-believers in the scientific community.
He wasn't successful, because he was inaccurate and misleading. He got publicity, that's all (mainly from climate change skeptics). Maybe he wants publicity for being wrong (and to sell books about his fiction where he demonstrates that he's wrong) -- that's his prerogative.
PING! You're going to love this thread.
Bookmarked
Mr. Miyagi? Wax on, wax off.
I'd like to hear what happened. Is there a link for the audio?
Most confusing statement of the entire thread,
Unless of course, you are attempting to agree with both sides of the issue.
The article states that he "stormed out of the interview." Well, not exactly. He finished the interview but he was extremely angry for having been questioned. It really was like someone had questioned his religious beliefs. One could imagine him yelling "Heresey!!" He also said some truly chilling things during the interview like "Canadians will cough up the money (for Kyoto) if someone will show some leadership..." I really encourage people to listen to this interview.
A bit of personal analysis. Having lived in Germany for 14 years....there is a vast number of Germans who are absolutely uneducated beyond their high school "dump" of information. They rely heavily upon news organizations to inform them and to "know" the facts. Of course...the state-run media has taken a global warming position...so over 90 percent of the German population take that position. So when they want to engage in a "debate"...and I bring the top ten myths of global warming...they stand there and try to repeat what the TV host said...and I start tearing the argument apart for them. They usually come to a point of asking how I am so informed...and I simply respond that like most Americans...I refuse to accept information at face value. I read through alot of different publications and web sites. They don't.
As you look across the American population...the same situation exists there. People are picking up the publications and asking stupid questions. The global warming hawks now face a crowd who ask questions that can't be answered.
Adding to this entire episode is the necessity to tax people on invisible "weapons"...my favorite topic with Germans. For gamers out there...who must have a certain weapon...they are willing to spend cash on things which do not exist. When you examine the entire Kyoto treaty...its based totally on invisible "weapons" and giving money to someone to have their "weapons". In economics 101...you are taught a simple concept...a fool and his money are soon parted. This concept works well in today's environment. If you accept the idea of paying people for invisible "weapons"...then you might as well give up on your pension, your dreams, and settle back for the US being a third-world banana republic. I can't see myself or most of the American population taking that stand....
Real Climate -- Climate Science from Climate Scientists, links notable for two glaring ommisions...
The first, the disclaimer that,
" The contributors to this site do so in a personal capacity during their spare time and their posts do not represent the views of the organizations for which they work, nor the agencies which fund them. The contributors are solely responsible for the content of the site and receive no remuneration for their contributions."
In other words, anonymous individual opinions.
More importantly, there is a breathtaking lapse in that the Climate Scientists contributing to that blog are not identified. Al Gore calls himself a "climate scientist". How seriously are we to take their anonymous contributions if they won't (or can't) even identify themselves?
A site like that should have the confidence to identify all the contributors by name.
Absent that, their jabber has no more authority for me than pro and con civilians here on FR discussing climate change.
Finally, linking to isolated remarks by anonymous authors without providing the complete context of the remarks is dissimulation in the extreme, and simply more background noise in the discussion.
Pearls before swine, bump.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.