Sunday, April 30, 2006

Global Hysteria, Part Two

There IS a problem with global warming... it stopped in 1998

by Bob Carter writing for the Telegraph:
For many years now, human-caused climate change has been viewed as a large and urgent problem. In truth, however, the biggest part of the problem is neither environmental nor scientific, but a self-created political fiasco. Consider the simple fact, drawn from the official temperature records of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, that for the years 1998-2005 global average temperature did not increase (there was actually a slight decrease, though not at a rate that differs significantly from zero).

[..] Since the early 1990s, the columns of many leading newspapers and magazines, worldwide, have carried an increasing stream of alarmist letters and articles on hypothetical, human-caused climate change. Each such alarmist article is larded with words such as "if", "might", "could", "probably", "perhaps", "expected", "projected" or "modelled" - and many involve such deep dreaming, or ignorance of scientific facts and principles, that they are akin to nonsense.

The problem here is not that of climate change per se, but rather that of the sophisticated scientific brainwashing that has been inflicted on the public, bureaucrats and politicians alike. Governments generally choose not to receive policy advice on climate from independent scientists. Rather, they seek guidance from their own self-interested science bureaucracies and senior advisers, or from the IPCC [UN Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change] itself.

[..] There are other reasons, too, why the public hears so little in detail from those scientists who approach climate change issues rationally, the so-called climate sceptics. Most are to do with intimidation against speaking out, which operates intensely on several parallel fronts.

First, most government scientists are gagged from making public comment on contentious issues, their employing organisations instead making use of public relations experts to craft carefully tailored, frisbee-science press releases. Second, scientists are under intense pressure to conform with the prevailing paradigm of climate alarmism if they wish to receive funding for their research. Third, members of the Establishment have spoken declamatory words on the issue, and the kingdom's subjects are expected to listen.
HT: Liberty is Good


Pietr said...

People who 'win' arguments by screaming loudest and foulest naturally support and promote causes which have no rational basis.

And they never stop since this is their defining essential.

Phronk said...

I'm not convinced. There is hardly any science to this's just, as the dude above says, trying to shout louder.

If the only thing this is based on is a lack of increase in temperature for a few years, that is not good evidence against a general trend toward a higher temperature.

I don't know much about this either way, but vague blabbing like this won't do much good to educate anyone.

Pietr said...

I believe there is a need for proper science to obtain a definitive answer, not today's smorgasbord of titbits to fit any view.
It is telling that the proponents of the 'human cause,human solution' argument are prepared to settle for token action which hurts the economies of the West, especially the USA, while actually doing nothing practical(ie Kyoto).

What should be remembered is that 'global warming' will cause a reduction in CO2 emissions in any case, especially since the Earth is a self-correcting system(that's why we are here today).
For example, if the temperature rises, energy spent on heating will disappear.
That will reduce the aount of extra CO2 immensely.
Less habitable area means less people, but long before that happens there will be an expiry of hydro-carbon based technology.After all, the reason Earth's vegetation is CO2 breathing is because the planet used to have high levels of CO2; the by-product was O2, which is why we breath Oxygen.
If CO2 rose again, and it did cause warming,plant life would flourish, and operate well into the night(no temperature-dictated closing)
rather like it noticably does on any warm Spring dawn.
Losing the Amazon?Gaining the ex-temperate zones!

MapMaster said...

Who's trying to do the convincing? Given that it is the climate change catastrophists that are pushing for massive legislative property restrictions, tax-funded subsidies and onerous regulations, the burden of proof rests on them. And that is evidently something they have failed to do. If you want a more scientifically-detailed paper, check here.

Lisa said...

Also from the article published in the Telegraph:

In response to these facts, a global warming devotee will chuckle and say "how silly to judge climate change over such a short period". Yet in the next breath, the same person will assure you that the 28-year-long period of warming which occurred between 1970 and 1998 constitutes a dangerous (and man-made) warming. Tosh. Our devotee will also pass by the curious additional facts that a period of similar warming occurred between 1918 and 1940, well prior to the greatest phase of world industrialisation, and that cooling occurred between 1940 and 1965, at precisely the time that human emissions were increasing at their greatest rate.

Pietr said...

Oh, and by the way, I'm quite aware that 'Phronk' was trying to be cute when referring to my first comment.
Obviously I was referring to the pro-Kyoto lobby.