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 don’t like being called a denier because deniers don’t 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 1980’s 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 IPCC’s 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 world’s 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 Gore’s 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 Research’s 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, “Don’t be scared
be prepared”.
