Posted on 07/03/2007 10:16:47 AM PDT by EPW Comm Team
THE GLOBAL WARMING MYTH- Prof David Bellamy Sunday, 01 July 2007 The Global Warming Myth
By Prof David Bellamy
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 dont like being called a denier because deniers dont 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 1980s 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 IPCCs 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 worlds 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 Gores 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 Researchs 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, Dont be scared be prepared.
David Bellamy June 2007
Other References:
Bump.
It ranks with STALINISM or NIFONGISM.
McCarthy was right about Communists infiltrating our government/learning centers/media (and he was not the first to make the charge).
1. World Socialized Government
2. Hating the US and capitalism.
Not one of them really gives a rats ass about saving the planet. Out of the millions screaming that global warming is the biggest threat to our planet, only one or two suggest moving to nuclear power which is the single most logical answer to the problem. Their answer is world treaties creating binding contracts and world bureaucracies and global taxes.
I wonder if you should add to your list Bjorn Lomborg, author of The Skeptical Environmentalist. (http://www.lomborg.com/) I saw him testify before the House Panel on Climate Change; no Democrats stayed for his talk.
See my forthcoming study, “We didn’t invite the village wise woman to our christening, the horrible and far reaching consequences.”
(Its inexcapable conclusion; ducking stools should be revived and used frequently on Hillary, Janet, Cyndi, etc.)
It ranks with STALINISM or NIFONGISM.
McCarthy was right about Communists infiltrating our government/learning centers/media (and he was not the first to make the charge).
good questions bump
BUMP!
Response to a search on *cogitator*:
“The requested document no longer exists on this server”
Global Warming on FreeRepublic
Latest from Global Warming News Site
It is FReeper custom to ping a FReeper when you are ragging on him.
ping
Click on POGW graphic for full GW rundown
New!!: Dr. John Ray's
GREENIE WATCH
Ping me if you find one I've missed.
bump!
bttt
· join · view topics · view or post blog · bookmark · post new topic · | ||
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.