Peer-Reviewed Papers support climate sceptics

Over and over again, in the great Climate Debate, we read that “not a single peer-reviewed scientific paper supports the sceptics”.  This claim came up recently in a comment from Julian Lees, which appeared on my earlier blog item “Driving to a greener future”.  I think the claim originated with Al Gore, and like so much that Al Gore says, it’s transparent nonsense.  On the contrary, we have recently seen a steady increase in the number of peer-reviewed sceptical papers.
2007 alone has provided an abundance of peer-reviewed papers debunking the man-made CO2 “consensus”.   A recent survey of peer-reviewed papers from 2004-2007 reveals that less than half of published papers endorse man-made global warming theory.  In the past 4 months, there has been a rush of sceptical peer-reviewed papers.  A good reference is the US Senate report: <>
Even the impeccably correct New York Times admits that the earth is well within natural climate variability.  All the promoters of climate alarmism have to go on are unproven computer model predictions of doom. But two top UN scientists admit models are not predictions and are not reliable. (Renwick and Trebwernth)
Antarctic Sea ice is at an historic maximum, and Antarctica is not following predicted global warming models.   Greenland has COOLED since the ’30 and ‘40s.  (Follow the Greenland link in report above — peer-reviewed studies literally make a mockery of Greenland melt fears).   Even the UK Met Office concedes that global warming has stopped in past few years.  The southern hemisphere is cooling.  Alarmists should really go and check the literature before insisting that “all serious scientists endorse man-made global warming”.

This entry was posted in Climate Change and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

33 Responses to Peer-Reviewed Papers support climate sceptics

  1. Bob Paul says:

    Even the oil companies are accepting global warming:

    The following article explains why some people claim, incorrectly, that global warming has stopped in past few years:

    “Antarctic Sea ice is at an historic maximum” – “is completely in line with model expectations that CO2-dominated forcing will have a disproportionately large effect in the north.” – for full explanation see:

    and the reasons that Climate skeptics come up with to ‘disprove’ global warming:

  2. Bob Paul says:

    Scientists see dramatic drop in Arctic sea ice

  3. And last winter, most exceptionally, the citizens of Iceland were threatened by (the increasing numbers of) polar bears because of the unusual extent of sea ice. And Newfoundland fishing ports were closed by ice much longer than usual. You don’t prove trends by anecdotes. You prove them by evidence.

  4. Bob Paul says:

    Exactly – I provided some evidence and you provided some anecdotes. Which by the way were answered by my previous link which I draw your attention to again:

    “Antarctic Sea ice is at an historic maximum” – “is completely in line with model expectations that CO2-dominated forcing will have a disproportionately large effect in the north.” – for full explanation see:

  5. Julie Hurst says:

    Accepting global warming (when you suggest that oil companies accept it) is not the same as agreeing on the causes is it.

  6. Bob — I have provided links to peer-reviewed papers. I have quoted UN climate scientists giving evidence in the European parliament. I agree that the earth has warmed slightly in the last thirty years. I have studied the case on both sides, and I conclude that climate hysteria is driven by media/social pressures and increasingly by vested interests, and that the sceptics are right. Of course I can’t force you to agree. But in twenty years time, climate hysteria will be history alongside the Millennium Bug.

  7. Tom says:


    Maybe you would like to pop over to the MET office, The University of East Anglia, Reading University, Leeds University, or Edinburgh University to speak with atmospheric scientists who are the people who really understand this issue, you clearly don’t. As a politician you should do, maybe you can actually get out and speak to the experts, they can clear a few things up for you rather than your chums who appear to be giving you the wrong advice.

  8. Environmental Realist says:

    Tom – so what you have highlighted then is that there isn’t actually a consensus as to the CAUSE of climate change if different scientists are saying different things. Doesn’t this prove the point then? Yes global warming is happening – but when people say there is consensus as to the cause I’m afraid there is no truth in that.

  9. Roger Helmer says:

    Tom, You say that I “clearly don’t understand climate science”, and I admit I am not an expert, merely an informed amateur. And you list scientists supporting your view as though that proved your case. But I can list scientists who support my point of view. As “Environmental Realist” rightly says, there is no consensus, because eminent scientists take different sides.

  10. Bob Paul says:


    By your logic nothing can ever be proven. By your logic we cannot say that the earth is not the centre of the universe, or that it is round or that smoking is bad for your health – as it will always be possible to find a scientist to agree with your view – whatever that view may be.

    I think it is likely that you will agree with any scientist who will tell you that there is no harm in you continuing to drive your jaguar.

    I suspect that you are the type of person who if they didn’t like the idea of a windfarm spoiling their view would argue that renewable energy is a waste of time.

    I suspect that you will be happy to believe in anyone who will tell you that there is no need to change the status quo which you are clearly very happy with.

    What is clear is that youu are against the overwhelmingly accepted scientific views viz a viz climate change.

    As such your position is similar to a non-scientist arguing that scientists that claim tobacco is bad for your health are wrong.

  11. Environmental Realist says:

    Do you know how much C02 you are you family produce Mr Paul? Is every bulb in your house energy saving? Are you carbon neutral? I suspect not.

    From reading what Roger has had to say he has not denied climate change – he is challenging what the actual cause is!

  12. Bob Paul says:

    Dear “as much of a realist as a pink fairy” – since you understand Roger, then please tell us what he says is the cause of climate change?

    I certainly have not seen him explain that. I certainly get the impression that he thinks climate change does not exist or is nothing to worry about. “the earth is well within natural climate variability” seems to be his view though he takes pains not to make what he believes clear (Is he afraid of the party whip?). What he does make clea is that he thinks there is no need for alarm. If he blieved in climate change then I think he would believe that there was need for action rather than the inaction that he promotes.

    And as a matter of fact every single bulb (apart from 2 that I cannot find energy saving equivalents for) – and that includes spot lights – ARE energy saving. But what I am interested in here is not tit for tat but that a reprentative of out country in the europan parliament should be acting in out nation’s interests not against our nations interests. I have children that I would like to have a future (at the expense of his decadent lifedtyle)

  13. Environmental Realist says:

    I can’t speak for Roger Helmer – but as a representative of this country I am glad he hasn’t advocated banning cars with single people in them, or apparently wanting to get rid of houses of single occupation and so on which I note from your comments you would like to do.

    You will probably be aware that the report from the Quality of Life group had policies such as halting road building – yet the competitiveness one advocating road widening in places – as moving cars emit less CO2 than ones in traffic jams.

    Sorry – you cant go back to the middle ages and the horse and cart no matter how much you like, and yes we can show China and India the way – but not by damaging the economy here – which wouldnt be that good for your children!

  14. Bob Paul says:

    Nope I never said I would like to do either of those things. I don’t want to go back to the middle ages – I want to move forward – unlike you and Roger – to a better future where we lead the way in efficiency rahter than rguing for reasons to continue to be backward

  15. Environmental Realist says:

    To cut CO2 you have to consider nuclear. The Green movement hate that. Are they therefore backward in despising this fact?

  16. Bob Paul says:

    Yes we have to consider nuclear BECAUSE people like Roger are not helping by putting their weight behind measures to stop pollution and CO2 produced by cars, planes etc – BECAUSE they do not believe in climate change.

    It certainly looks like all Roger’s (and your?) policies involve living a dirty and energy inefficient lifestyle today at the cost of storing up major problems for future generations. Yes – lets produce as much (unnecessary) radiation and pollution as we can now and leave somebody else to clear it up / suffer the consequences. Everybody should have the right to burn up the earth’s natural resources on cheap flights to Ibiza and driving inefficient gas guzzling cars! I would hazard a guess that Roger (and you?) doesn’t have any children.

  17. Environmental Realist says:

    I dont – but then again – having a child is probably the mose environmentally unfriendly thing one can do in the Western World – So if you have 2 or more you really are damaging the world and using up its resources. I suspect you have used a disposable nappy in your time – how very ungreen of you!

    Point 1 – Your electric will undoubtedly come from a gas or coal fired power dtation – and if you have a large family you really can’t try to win your argument by criticising those who dont have children as you are using the earths resources far more than I am!

    2) Can you understand that you can believe in climate change but not agree on its causes. They are not the same thing. You keep suggesting that Roger or indeed myself do not agree with climate change!

    3) What is your solution with regards energy? Renewables can in no way provide the country or any country with enough energy – so how would you cut CO2 if not nuclear? You could take all the cars in the UK off the road today and China would make up for the cut in CO2 in a matter of weeks!

    So you say you have enervy saving lighbulbs. I say big deal. You are not carbon neutral so really should not come across holier than thou in this important debate.

  18. Bob Paul says:

    I’m not trying to argue who is better than who – this debate is much more important. I want Roger to support propsed european legislation to cut emissions from cars and and plane transport. If they want to also put in legislation to keep families small that so be it.

    in answer
    1) I have nothing against anyone who doesn’t have chldren – in fact I applaud them (though am a little sorry for those thay want them but cannot). Yes I probrably get electricity from those sources – what are you getting at? I would certainly like to see a larger proprtion come from renewables. And if we cut down on the huge wastage we would need to produce less and that would cut down emissions.

    2)Roger has made it abundantly clear he does not believe in climate changes. If he does then I challnge him to say so clearly here.

    3)By your logic whatever we do will make no diffence. My god you guys will argue till kingdom comes for inaction and continuation of the status quo. I think we need to curb energy usage where possible (and this would also recuce C02 emission which come from energy usuage – mostly unneccesary and wasteful – which Roger is keen for people to continue) – by legislation because people are slow and selfish and need to be pushed to behave well. Especailly since Thatcher, Britain has tuned into a selfish nation wher people only care about themselves.

    My intenetion is not to be holier than thou – just to try and get you to stop atrguing for doing nohing all the time. Why don’t you use energy saving light bulbs – have you got so much money you don’t know what t do with it. And I only divulged that information in response to your question – “Is every bulb in your house energy saving?”

    I get bored with this “carbon neutral” stuff – we all need to make an effort and be positive and some can achieve more than others. You could make a bit more effort yourself methinks rather than trying to find points to score against other people.

  19. Environmental Realist says:

    You are the one scoring points questioning whether I have children or not.

    I question where you get your electricity from – as if it is not wholly from re-newables you can hardly be in a position to criticise people for driving any sort of car inefficent or not – as you carbon footprint is actully probably larger than most.

    I actually do use energy saving lightbulbs – but that is not the point. I also drive a car that has lower emissions than the astra you drive and have low flush toilets. I have plugs that can also be remotely switched off so that all appliances in them are cut off at the mains. But that is through choice.

    I however differ from you who adopts a totalitarian attitude to what you think people “should” and should not do.

    Sorry the answer is not to stop people going to Ibizia on flights – it is to make them more environmentally friendly through technology. Longer runways make engines far more efficient and newer engines do also.

    I do not advocate taking no action – but I also do not advocate damaging our whole economy which would be a wholly pointless exercise.

    Your comments about Thatther perhpas highlight your socialist tendencies. Tax people as much as possible and when you can tax them no more tell them what to do with their money.

    Climate change happens every day – it is cold today it was warm yesterday. And yes the world may be warming. The debate is about the CAUSE of that.

  20. Bob — You are lacking logic. You accuse me of arguing that nothing can ever be proved, merely because I interpret the data differently from you. I tell you that global ice mass is constant or increasing, and you say “That is exactly in line with climate models”. No doubt if it got cooler you’d say that that was in line with models too.

    By the way, the same models predict maximum warming in the upper atmosphere. But both satellite observations and weather ballons show that any warming there is, is most marked at the surface.

  21. Bob Paul says:

    Roger – more anecdotes? Please can you tell us if you believe in global warming?

  22. Roger Helmer says:

    Bob — How many times do I have to repeat myself? Yes, the world has got slightly warmer in the last thirty years (though not in the last ten). In the previous thirty years it got slightly cooler (leading to alarmist warnings of an Ice Age). But I believe climate is primarily driven by solar and astronomical cycles. I doubt that CO2 is a significant factor.

  23. Bob Paul says:

    Yes it is always possible to quote one small piec of the picture which makes it look as if global warming is not happening. The climate is a very complex system. It is best to leave science to the scientists (not the politicians). Again this is in line with accepted projections in global warming. But no doubt Roger will continue to find little excerpts that atempt to make a mockery of accepted science.

    If you want to look at why his statement is misleading try:

    The ozone layer traps heat, so if it gets destroyed, the upper atmosphere actually cools, thereby offsetting part of the warming effect of other heat-trapping gases. But that’s no reason to rejoice: the cooling of the upper layers of the atmosphere can produce changes in the climate that affect weather patterns in the higher latitudes.

    Trapping heat in the lower part of the atmosphere allows less heat to escape into space and leads to cooling of the upper part of the atmosphere. The colder it gets, the greater the destruction of the protective ozone layer.

    Reducing ozone-depleting gases is crucial to preventing further destruction of the ozone layer, but eliminating these gases alone will not solve the global warming problem. On the other hand, efforts to reduce all types of emissions to limit global warming will also be good for the recovery of the ozone layer.

  24. Bob Paul says:


    An enhanced greenhouse effect is expected to cause cooling in higher parts of the atmosphere because the increased “blanketing” effect in the lower atmosphere holds in more heat, allowing less to reach the upper atmosphere. Cooling of the lower stratosphere (about 49,000-79,500ft.) since 1979 is shown by both satellite Microwave Sounding Unit and radiosonde data, but is larger in the radiosonde data.

  25. Bob, I love the way you change your position as soon as the data contradict you. All reputable climate models predict most warming in the upper atmosphere. But now that the evidence shows the opposite, suddenly “we always thought that global warming would lead to cooling in the high atmosphere”.

    You say trust scientists not politicians. But of course it is politicians, civil servants and propagandists who drive the IPCC process. The doubts of scientists are dismissed out of hand.

  26. Bob Paul says:

    “All reputable climate models predict most warming in the upper atmosphere.” – please provide your evidence.

  27. “A recent survey of peer-reviewed papers from 2004-2007 reveals that less than half of published papers endorse man-made global warming theory.”

    That survey wasn’t good enough even for Energy & Environment, which usually publishes every sceptical article rejected by every other journal.

    That survey also said that only 6 % of articles refused the theory of man-maid global warming.

  28. Truth says:

    Br-r-r! Where did global warming go?
    By Jeff Jacoby, Globe Columnist | January 6, 2008

    THE STARK headline appeared just over a year ago. “2007 to be ‘warmest on record,’ ” BBC News reported on Jan. 4, 2007. Citing experts in the British government’s Meteorological Office, the story announced that “the world is likely to experience the warmest year on record in 2007,” surpassing the all-time high reached in 1998.

    But a funny thing happened on the way to the planetary hot flash: Much of the planet grew bitterly cold.

    In South America, for example, the start of winter last year was one of the coldest ever observed. According to Eugenio Hackbart, chief meteorologist of the MetSul Weather Center in Brazil, “a brutal cold wave brought record low temperatures, widespread frost, snow, and major energy disruption.” In Buenos Aires, it snowed for the first time in 89 years, while in Peru the cold was so intense that hundreds of people died and the government declared a state of emergency in 14 of the country’s 24 provinces. In August, Chile’s agriculture minister lamented “the toughest winter we have seen in the past 50 years,” which caused losses of at least $200 million in destroyed crops and livestock.

    Latin Americans weren’t the only ones shivering.

    University of Oklahoma geophysicist David Deming, a specialist in temperature and heat flow, notes in the Washington Times that “unexpected bitter cold swept the entire Southern Hemisphere in 2007.” Johannesburg experienced its first significant snowfall in a quarter-century. Australia had its coldest ever June. New Zealand’s vineyards lost much of their 2007 harvest when spring temperatures dropped to record lows.

    Closer to home, 44.5 inches of snow fell in New Hampshire last month, breaking the previous record of 43 inches, set in 1876. And the Canadian government is forecasting the coldest winter in 15 years.

    Now all of these may be short-lived weather anomalies, mere blips in the path of the global climatic warming that Al Gore and a host of alarmists proclaim the deadliest threat we face. But what if the frigid conditions that have caused so much distress in recent months signal an impending era of global cooling?

    “Stock up on fur coats and felt boots!” advises Oleg Sorokhtin, a fellow of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences and senior scientist at Moscow’s Shirshov Institute of Oceanography. “The latest data . . . say that earth has passed the peak of its warmer period, and a fairly cold spell will set in quite soon, by 2012.”

    Sorokhtin dismisses the conventional global warming theory that greenhouse gases, especially human-emitted carbon dioxide, is causing the earth to grow hotter. Like a number of other scientists, he points to solar activity – sunspots and solar flares, which wax and wane over time – as having the greatest effect on climate.

    “Carbon dioxide is not to blame for global climate change,” Sorokhtin writes in an essay for Novosti. “Solar activity is many times more powerful than the energy produced by the whole of humankind.” In a recent paper for the Danish National Space Center, physicists Henrik Svensmark and Eigil Friis-Christensen concur: “The sun . . . appears to be the main forcing agent in global climate change,” they write.

    Given the number of worldwide cold events, it is no surprise that 2007 didn’t turn out to be the warmest ever. In fact, 2007’s global temperature was essentially the same as that in 2006 – and 2005, and 2004, and every year back to 2001. The record set in 1998 has not been surpassed. For nearly a decade now, there has been no global warming. Even though atmospheric carbon dioxide continues to accumulate – it’s up about 4 percent since 1998 – the global mean temperature has remained flat. That raises some obvious questions about the theory that CO2 is the cause of climate change.

    Yet so relentlessly has the alarmist scenario been hyped, and so disdainfully have dissenting views been dismissed, that millions of people assume Gore must be right when he insists: “The debate in the scientific community is over.”

    But it isn’t. Just last month, more than 100 scientists signed a strongly worded open letter pointing out that climate change is a well-known natural phenomenon, and that adapting to it is far more sensible than attempting to prevent it. Because slashing carbon dioxide emissions means retarding economic development, they warned, “the current UN approach of CO2 reduction is likely to increase human suffering from future climate change rather than to decrease it.”

    Climate science isn’t a religion, and those who dispute its leading theory are not heretics. Much remains to be learned about how and why climate changes, and there is neither virtue nor wisdom in an emotional rush to counter global warming – especially if what’s coming is a global Big Chill.

    Jeff Jacoby’s e-mail address is

    Man-Made Global Warming: 10 Questions
    by Pat Sajak (more by this author)
    Posted 12/20/2007 ET
    Updated 12/21/2007 ET

    The subject of man-made global warming is almost impossible to discuss without a descent into virulent name-calling (especially on the Internet, where anonymity breeds a special kind of vicious reaction to almost any social or political question), but I’ll try anyway. I consider myself to be relatively well-read on the matter, and I’ve still come down on the skeptical side, because there are aspects of the issue that don’t make a lot of sense to me. Though I confess to have written none-too-reverentially on the subject, I want to try to put all that aside and ask ten serious questions to which I have been unable to find definitive answers:

    1. What is the perfect temperature?

    If we are to embark on a lifestyle-altering quest to lower the temperature (or at least minimize its rise), what is our goal? I don’t ask this flippantly. Can we demonstrate that one setting on the global thermostat is preferable over another? If so, what is it, and how do we get there? And, once there, how do we maintain it? Will we ever have to “heat things up” again if it drops below that point?

    2. Just what is the average temperature of the earth?

    At any one time there are temperature extremes all over the planet. How do we come up with an average, and how do those variations fit in with our desire to slow global warming?

    3. What factors have led to global warming in the past, and how do we know they aren’t the causes of the current warming trend?

    Again, I don’t ask this in a judgmental way. There is no argument that warming cycles (or cooling, for that matter) have been a part of earth’s history. Why are we so sure this one is different?

    4. Why is there such a strong effort to stifle discussion and dissent?

    I’m always troubled by arguments that begin, “Everybody agrees…” or “Everyone knows…” In fact, there is a good deal of dissent in the scientific world about the theory of man-made global warming. A large (and growing) segment of those who study such things are questioning some of the basic premises of the theory. Why should there be anything wrong with that? Again, this is a big deal, and we should have the best information and opinion from the best minds.

    5. Why are there such dramatically different warnings about the effects of man-made global warming?

    Predictions of 20-foot rises in ocean levels have given way to talk of a few inches over time. In many cases, those predictions are less than the rises of the past few centuries. Whatever the case, why the scare tactics?

    6. Are there potential benefits to global warming?

    Again, I don’t ask this mockingly. Would a warmer climate in some areas actually improve living conditions? Would such improvement (health, crop production, lifestyle) balance any negative impact from the phenomenon?

    7. Should such drastic changes in public policy be based on a “what if?” proposition?

    There are some who say we can’t afford to wait, and, even if there’s some doubt, we should move ahead with altering the way we live. While there are good arguments for changing some of our environmental policies, should they be based on “what it?”

    8. What will be the impact on the people of the world if we change the way we live based on man-made global warming concerns?

    Nothing happens in a vacuum; there are always unintended consequences to our actions. For example, if we were to dramatically reduce our need for international oil, what happens to the economies of the Middle East and the populations that rely on oil income? There are thousands of other implications, some good and some bad. What are they? Shouldn’t we be thinking about them and talking about them?

    9. How will we measure our successes?

    Is the measuring stick going to be temperature, sea level, number of annual hurricanes, rainfall, or a combination of all those things? Again, do we have a goal in mind? What happens when we get there?

    10. How has this movement gained such momentum?

    We’ve faced environmental issues throughout our history, but it’s difficult to remember one which has gained such “status” in such a short time. To a skeptic, there seems to be a religious fervor that makes one wary. A gradual “ramping down” of the dire predictions has not led to a diminution of the doomsday rhetoric. Are these warning signs that the movement has become more of an activist cause than a scientific reality?

    Just asking.

    Mr. Sajak is the host of “Wheel of Fortune” and

  29. Truth says:

    What if everyone believes in global warmism only because everyone believes in global warmism?

    Wednesday, December 5, 2007 12:01 a.m. EST
    The Nobel Committee might as well have called it Al Gore’s Inner Peace Prize, given the way it seems designed to help him disown his lifelong ambition to become president in favor of a higher calling, as savior of a planet.

    The media will be tempted to blur the fact that his medal, which Mr. Gore will collect on Monday in Oslo, isn’t for “science.” In fact, a Nobel has never been awarded for the science of global warming. Even Svante Arrhenius, who first described the “greenhouse” effect, won his for something else in 1903. Yet now one has been awarded for promoting belief in manmade global warming as a crisis.

    How this honor has befallen the former Veep could perhaps be explained by another Nobel, awarded in 2002 to Daniel Kahneman for work he and the late Amos Tversky did on “availability bias,” roughly the human propensity to judge the validity of a proposition by how easily it comes to mind.

    Their insight has been fruitful and multiplied: “Availability cascade” has been coined for the way a proposition can become irresistible simply by the media repeating it; “informational cascade” for the tendency to replace our beliefs with the crowd’s beliefs; and “reputational cascade” for the rational incentive to do so.

    Mr. Gore clearly understands the game he’s playing, judging by his resort to such nondispositive arguments as: “The people who dispute the international consensus on global warming are in the same category now with the people who think the moon landing was staged in a movie lot in Arizona.”

    Here’s exactly the problem that availability cascades pose: What if the heads being counted to certify an alleged “consensus” arrived at their positions by counting heads?

    It may seem strange that scientists would participate in such a phenomenon. It shouldn’t. Scientists are human; they do not wait for proof; many devote their professional lives to seeking evidence for hypotheses (especially well-funded hypotheses) they’ve chosen to believe.
    Less surprising is the readiness of many prominent journalists to embrace the role of enforcer of an orthodoxy simply because it is the orthodoxy. For them, a consensus apparently suffices as proof of itself.

    With politicians and lobbyists, of course, you are dealing with sophisticated people versed in the ways of public opinion whose very prosperity depends on positioning themselves via such cascades. Their reactions tend to be, for that reason, on a higher intellectual level.

    Take John Dingell. He told an environmental publication last year that the “world . . . is great at having consensuses that are in great error.” Yet he turned around a few months later and introduced a sweeping carbon tax bill, which would confront Congress more frontally than Congress cares to be confronted with a rational approach to climate change if Congress really believes human activity is responsible.

    Mr. Dingell is no fool. Is he merely trying to embarrass those who offer fake cures for climate change at the expense of out-of-favor industries such as Mr. Dingell’s beloved Detroit?

    Take Vinod Khosla, a venture capitalist working with Kleiner Perkins, a firm Mr. Gore joined last month to promote alternative energy investments. Mr. Khosla told a recent Senate hearing: “One does not need to believe in climate change to support climate change legislation. . . . Many executives would prefer to deal with known legislation even if unwarranted.”

    Mr. Khosla is no fool either. His argument is that the cascade itself is a reason that politicians can gain comfort by getting aboard his agenda.

    Now let’s suppose a most improbable, rhapsodic lobbying success for Mr. Gore, Mr. Khosla and folks on their side of the table–say, a government mandate to replace half the gasoline consumed in the U.S. with a carbon-neutral alternative. This would represent a monumental, $400 billion-a-year business opportunity for the green energy lobby. The impact on global carbon emissions? Four percent–less than China’s predicted emissions growth over the next three or four years.
    Don’t doubt that this is precisely the chasm that keeps Mr. Gore from running for president. He could neither win the office nor govern on the basis of imposing the kinds of costs supposedly necessary to deal with an impending “climate crisis.” Yet his credibility would become laughable if he failed to insist on such costs. How much more practical, then, to cash in on the crowd-pleasing role of angry prophet, without having to take responsibility for policies that the public will eventually discover to be fraudulent.

    Public opinion cascades are powerful but also fragile–liable to be overturned in an instant when new information comes along. The current age of global warming politics will certainly end with a whimper once a few consecutive years of cooling are recorded. Why should we expect such cooling? Because the forces that caused warming and cooling in the past, before the advent of industrial civilization, are still at work.

    No, this wouldn’t prove or disprove a human role in warming, only that climate is variable and subject to complicated influences. But it would also eliminate the large incentive for politicians to traffic in doom-laden predictions–because such predictions would no longer command media assent and would cease to function as levers to redistribute resources.

    Mr. Gore would have to find a new job.

    Mr. Jenkins is a member of The Wall Street Journal’s editorial board. His column appears in the Journal on Wednesdays.

    Environmental extremism must be put in its place

    United Nations and crusading celebrities are simply wrong
    Environmental extremism must be put in its place in the climate debate
    By Dr. Tim Ball & Tom Harris Wednesday, January 9, 2008

    All responsible citizens are ‘environmentalists’, but that is no reason to yield to mass delusions.

    Many people are starting to realize that much of what they’ve been told about climate change by governments, the United Nations and crusading celebrities is simply wrong. Not surprisingly, the assertion that “the science is settled” in a field the public is coming to understand is both immature and quickly evolving, is triggering growing public skepticism. Alarmists respond by upping the anti, making even more extreme and nonsensical forecasts, which in turn further fuels healthy public disbelief.

    This pattern of exaggerated, and finally ludicrous assertions influencing debate in society is an old story. Extremists and extremism have always defined the limits for the majority. Climate extremism will increase in the near future as purveyors of politically correct but flawed views of climate change attempt to defend the indefensible.

    Realization of this misdirection, and in many cases, deception, leads to the next stage in the life cycle of such mass delusions. People begin to ask, “What is the motivation for the scare? How was society so easily misled? Why did so many otherwise intelligent people accept or even promote the scare?

    In this and subsequent articles I (Dr. Ball) will suggest answers to these crucially important questions.

    Like all philosophies that come to dominate society, climate hysteria is part of an evolution of ideas and needs an historical context. The current western view of the World essentially evolved from the Darwinian view. Even though it is still just a theory and not a law 148 years after it was first proposed, Darwinian evolution is the only view allowed in schools. Why? Such censorship suggests fear of other ideas, a measure of indefensibility.

    A proper appreciation of time is essential to this discussion and the larger theme of climate change. Before Darwin, the English church accepted Bishop Ussher’s biblically-based calculation that the world was formed on October 23, 4004 BC. But Darwin needed a much older world to allow the sort of evolution he envisioned as driving natural change to occur. Religion said God created the world in 7 days; Darwin needed millions.

    Sir Charles Lyell provided the answer in a book titled Principles of Geology, which Darwin took on his famous voyage to the Galapagos Islands. The combination of long time frames and slow development resulted in a philosophical view known as uniformitarianism.

    If such a term sounds more appropriate to religion than science, that is because it is, in essence, another form of belief system. Uniformitarianism is the idea now underpinning western society’s view of the World. A basic tenet assumes change is gradual over long periods of time and any sudden or dramatic change is not natural. Employing a version of uniformitarianism adapted to their needs, environmental extremists can point to practically any change and say it is unnatural, which implies it is man-made. But we know from modern science that natural changes can indeed be quite sudden and extreme – Professor Tim Patterson of Carleton University, in Ottawa pointed out last year in the Financial Post that “Ten thousand years ago, while the world was coming out of the thousand-year-long “Younger Dryas” cold episode, temperatures rose as much as 6 degrees C in a decade—100 times faster than the past century’s 0.6 degrees C warming that has so upset environmentalists.” Happening as it did before the dawn of civilization, it was, of course, entirely natural.

    Notice also another illogic inherent in the stance of the extremists. If humanity is not ‘natural’ then who are we and why are here? One obvious answer is we were put here by a greater being, a God. But the entire essence of Darwin’s theory is that there is no God as Darwin was a professed atheist. This debate is actually part of the entire question of environmentalism and the misdirection discussed here. It is also part of today’s debate manifest in best selling books such as Richard Dawkins’, “The God Delusion”, or Christopher Hitchens’ “God is not Great.” Dawkins talks almost as if he views Darwin as a God.

    Historically, new views of the world take time to filter down and become part of the general fabric of society. Even then, some people never buy in. Over 400 years ago, Copernicus proposed that the Earth revolves around the Sun, yet even today polls in Europe showed a significant percentage of people still believe the Sun goes around the Earth as this seems to match the visual evidence. But for most people it really doesn’t matter – as long as the Sun rises and sets they couldn’t care less. But Darwin’s theory had much greater implication for the average person. To put it in a silly way reflective of the fashion in which he was attacked at the time, Darwin effectively said there is no God and your great grandmother was a gorilla. Now he was talking to, and about, everybody in a personal way.

    Science became more personal still with the advent of environmentalism, which began with a symbolic event, the usual agent of change. The famous Whole Earth photograph taken by U.S. Apollo 17 astronaut Ronald Evans part way to the Moon became symbolic and changed how we viewed our planet and our relation to it. This image quickly became what anthropologists refer to as a catalytic symbol and was a major trigger that ushered in today’s environmental movement.

    “In 1948, the British astronomer, Sir Fred Hoyle said, “Once a photograph of the Earth, taken from the outside is available…a new idea as powerful as any in history will be let loose.” U.S astronaut Ronald Evans’ well known Whole Earth photo is now considered by many to be the most important image of the twentieth century. It has acted as a catalytic symbol helping change the way we think about our world.”

    While previously the idea that the Earth was small and finite and we could run out of resources was a philosophical concept appreciated only by a few, now everyone could see the image of our planet floating in a vast and hostile universe. Ronald Evans’ photo showed up in classrooms, school texts and at environmental conferences everywhere and had massive impact on the average citizen’s perspective of humanity’s place in nature.

    An entirely new worldview (at least for the bulk of society) developed, called environmentalism. But, as with all new views, people wondered how far it would, or should, change society, how fast we should implement such changes and what we should preserve from the ‘old ways’. As usual, extremists are defining the limits. They inevitably take the ideas too far or too fast. Extremists also alienate people by assuming they’re the only ones who understand, often complaining that society is now losing more than we are gaining.

    At the same time, extremists took on the title of environmentalists as if they were somehow special and the rest of us were not also concerned about, and involved in, environmental protection. How dare they – we are all environmentalists. Yet extremists continue to imply that they care and we don’t and that we must do things their way or ‘else’.

    For example, PR Newswire Association LLC (UK) cites the Washington DC based Center for Science and Public Policy (see link on Breitbart news page), “Some voices on the political left have called for the arrest and prosecution of skeptical scientists [i.e. those who question whether human-produced carbon dioxide is causing a climate crisis]. The British Foreign Secretary has said skeptics should be treated like advocates of Islamic terror and must be denied access to the media.”

    Environmental extremists have successfully applied intense emotional pressure – both moral and political – ‘you don’t care about the planet, the children, or the future if you question us’, let alone disagree, they assert. .

    Many politicians are caught in an awkward position because, while they understand how environmental extremism poses a very serious threat to our economies, including the ways that have brought us peace and prosperity, they also don’t want to be accused of not caring about the environment. So, most politicians put on the ‘Cloak of Green’, using much of the rhetoric of extremism which trying to avoid implementing the solutions of the extremists. This logical inconsistency is starting to haunt our leaders as truly dangerous legislation is being passed by misinformed and opportunistic politicians based on the sort of empty climate change rhetoric that nearly all of them now use. In Canada, an example is Bill C-288, The Kyoto Implementation Bill. In the U.S., America’s Climate Security Act so strongly promoted by Senator Barbara Boxer, Chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, is a very serious threat to the American way of life.

    Most of our leaders know very well the World is in little danger from climate change, at least not any caused by human activity. But they also realize, as does any thinking person, that there are indeed serious pollution problems that we must continue to address. In an effort to appear ‘green’, politicians are then pushed by party strategists to intentionally confuse the issue by referring to the benign gas carbon dioxide as “global warming pollution” (a favourite trick of Al Gore and Boxer) and speaking of ‘clean air’ and ‘climate control’ as if they were interchangeable. This is amplified by many in the media who, out of ignorance, laziness or opportunism simply repeat the mistake until it becomes part of the landscape. As a result, the emotional pressure to ‘do something about global warming’ mounts and billions of dollars are wasted trying to ‘stop climate change’ – a wholly impossible objective – while real issues are neglected.

    In 2008, it is crucially important that the public stay alert for environmental extremists presenting, and media and politicians blindly repeating, natural events as unnatural. Temperature is always rising and falling, glaciers advance and retreat, drought and floods occur over and over – climate is changing all the time and much more quickly than Darwinian-driven western science allows.

    There is no question that we have a great deal to learn about the drivers of global climate change. But this is not the primary problem right now. As Mark Twain said, “It ain’t what you don’t know that gets you into trouble. It’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so.” And, in today’s media and politics there is far too much being asserted about climate change that has little, if any, foundation in reality. However, based on what we do know, there is little to suggest that current conditions are anything but natural and well within any previous patterns of climate change. It is time for the general public and mass media to join the ‘skeptics’ and demand more real data and less blind faith in the climate debate.

  30. Truth says:

    ‘Polars bears on the brink? Don’t you believe it’
    By DAVID JONES – More by this author » Last updated at 20:55pm on 7th December 2007

    When you’re up above the Arctic Circle, on the trail of polar bears who haven’t eaten a square meal in months, it’s advisable to follow a few basic rules.

    Number one, as perishing cold as you may be, is don’t drink too much coffee.

    Unfortunately, as an incurable caffeine addict, wildlife documentary maker Nigel Marven can’t adhere to this great unwritten imperative while filming his latest series out on the frozen North Canadian tundra.

    As a result, I find myself peering anxiously from the safety of a frosten-crusted Jeep, wondering whether I am about to witness the moment that Nigel becomes his star performer’s lunch.

    Polar bears, you see, have an acute sense of smell which helps them to track down prey up to 60 miles away.

    Scroll down for more…

    Doomed? The polar bear population today is around 25,000

    Normally, they use it to sniff out seal pups or Arctic foxes, but when the call of nature forces Nigel to venture out on to the ice (coffee being a diuretic), one keen-nosed 1,200-pounder scents the unusual smells of coffee.

    Unseasonably warm weather has left the huge male bear stranded for almost four months, far from his winter hunting ground on the edge of the sheet-ice – so a meaty, 6ft human looks too appetising to resist.

    Nigel is just emerging from behind a snow-dusted willow bush when the great white bear comes loping towards him. His instinct is to turn and run for it back to the Jeep.

    But the 46-year-old, famed for his daringly close encounters with dangerous animals, quickly remembers the rest of the bear-stalker’s survival code.

    On the trail of polar bears: Nigel Marven
    Realising he will never outpace a creature capable of springing across the slithery surface at 25mph by using his huge paws like snow-shoes, Nigel stands stock still.
    Then, showing the bear that he isn’t afraid, Nigel raises himself to his full height.

    At the same time, he avoids eye contact to let it know he isn’t a threat (a fact that seems rather obvious, given that the approaching beast is 3ft taller and seven times heavier).

    Alarmingly, however, the bear just keeps on coming.

    He is within eight or nine yards of Nigel – close enough for even a man who has swum with Great White sharks to feel concerned – when he is stopped in his tracks by two loud cracks from a pump-action rifle.

    The warning shots have been fired by Dennis Compayre, a grizzled old polar bear hand hired to act as Nigel’s “eyes and ears” as he films Polar Bear Week, a captivating five-part series which begins on Channel 5 next week.

    Since the cameras have stopped rolling, and we are making our way back to base in the gathering gloom, viewers will not see this relatively narrow escape.

    Later, however, Nigel is quick to praise his minder.

    “This man is my best friend!” he grins, giving Dennis a hearty slap on the back.

    Dennis, whose white-flecked woolly beard and thick grey hair make him look remarkably like the creatures he has been observing at close quarters for almost 30 years, accepts the gratitude with a “seen-it-all-before” nod.

    To explain what might have happened, he recounts the chilling story of a female researcher in her 20s who was savaged near here.

    The only predator that will actively stalk a human, the polar bear had hidden in wait behind the huge tyres of a tundra buggy and pounced as the woman disembarked from a helicopter and dashed to the vehicle.

    “She had four huge puncture wounds in her back, and would have died if a guy hadn’t jumped out of the buggy and hit the bear with a long pole,” Dennis says.

    “Those bears seem to love the scent after people drink coffee, and I’d hate to have to shoot one.”

    We are filming in Churchill, Manitoba, the so-called Polar Bear Capital of the world, where these creatures seem to have more rights than the humans – for good reason.

    Not long ago, this isolated outpost on Hudson Bay was in financial trouble.

    Scroll down for more…

    ‘It’s the photo that became a symbol of global warming: polar bears stranded on a melting ice-floe in mid-winter. The truth? It was taken in summer’

    Then, wealthy tourists discovered the thrill of nature-watching breaks and Churchill, home to the most easily accessible polar bear population, became a fashionable – and newly prosperous – adventure holiday destination.

    Although the town is still accessible only by train or light aircraft, its guesthouses are packed during late summer and autumn, when the vast ice-sheet over the bay melts, forcing around 1,000 bears to lollop around for months on the shore.

    Lately, however, it is not only polar bear watchers who come flocking.

    With the clamour over global warming, it has become a magnet for an army of environmentalists and climatologists who have given Churchill an air of impending doom.

    The Arctic ice-cap is shrinking fast, is their message, and as it disappears, so too will the polar bears.

    Today, the polar bear population may hover healthily around 25,000 (they live in Russia, Alaska, Greenland, Norway and Canada).

    Yet, we are repeatedly warned, if the planet continues to overheat at the present rate, within four decades our biggest carnivore will be extinct, starved to death as its natural hunting grounds disappear.

    “Come up and see them while you still can,” is the gist of their depressing refrain.

    To some Churchill residents, who base their opinions on personal experience rather than fancy charts and computer models, this is so much nonsense put about by scaremongers for their own dubious ends.

    When outsiders question whether anyone would be so cynical, they are reminded of that now-famous photograph of a polar bear which appears to be teetering precariously on an Arctic ice-floe, melting faster than ice-cream, in the depths of winter.

    For a while, it became a powerful symbol of the perils of global warming – until it was revealed to have been taken three years ago and during the height of summer.

    And so the battle lines between Churchill’s optimists and pessimists have been drawn.

    Nigel Marven’s new series does not pretend to answer the complexities of this increasingly heated debate.

    True to his easy-going style, he prefers to glory in the natural wonders of the Arctic.

    In addition to countless polar bears, he came eye-to-eye with musk ox and moose, blubbery great walruses and curious little lemmings which, we discover, aren’t really suicidal after all.

    He also met fluffy white seal cubs, giant owls and snow buntings, and foxes whose coats change colour from cinnamon to silver with the passing seasons.

    He took an icy dip with mystical white beluga whales and marvelled at the most breathtaking light show on Earth: the Aurora Borealis.

    Inevitably, after studying the bears for 80 days and speaking to the people who live among them, he formed his own view about “the disappearing polar bear” controversy.

    Flying into Churchill, the weather seems cold enough.

    If minus 5C means the greenhouse effect is upon us, heaven knows what it was like before.

    According to my taxi driver, however, the seasons have changed, and by rights it should be a whole lot colder.

    “Last week, it was minus 20C, but now it’s suddenly warmed up again, and not long ago that never happened,” he informs me.

    In Churchill, the effects of this odd upsurge in temperature are clear.

    By this time of year, Hudson Bay has usually refrozen and the bears are beginning to slide off to hunt seals on the fringe of the ice-sheet.

    After freezing briefly, however, it has now melted again, and so the bears are still very much among us.

    One morning, disconcertingly, I awake to learn that a family of five has been wandering around outside my hotel.

    Meanwhile, at the so-called “polar bear jail” – where bears who persistently loiter around town are held after being tranquillised, pending their re-release into the wild – all the concrete cells are full.

    This presents the local wildlife authorities with a major headache.

    Most of these errant bears are adolescents who haven’t yet learned to behave.

    But you can hardly give a loutish bear an ASBO. Venturing out of town, we also find bears in abundance.

    Researchers have found that their weight has dropped by up to 20 per cent because the melting ice has reduced their feeding time and forced them to swim longer distances hunting for prey. But the ones we see look healthy enough.

    Filming these deceptively cuddly-looking creatures is a precarious business, but our cameraman, Peter Thorn, captures some amazing footage.

    One afternoon, we watch from a few yards as two fully grown adults stand on their hind legs and box one another, in a sparring context that seems specially staged for us.

    “This behaviour is unique to the Churchill bears,” whispers Nigel.

    “We think they do it because this is the only place they congregate.

    “They’re testing their mettle because, next spring, they will be fighting for real, over females.”

    Later, out on the tundra, we encounter a big, ten-year-old old male with distinctive scars on his nose.

    “Old battle wounds,” remarks Dennis Compayre knowingly.

    He calls to the animal which he knows well and has nicknamed Dancer – and the bear immediately pads over to us and rises up to the viewing platform on his hind-legs, coming so close that our minder can pat him on the head.

    The bond between bear and man looks uncanny until, with a wry grin, our minder explains that he used to share his breakfast with the bear – violating strictly enforced laws that forbid feeding them, for fear they may become sensitised to humans, and therefore more dangerous.

    “Well, why shouldn’t we feed them, if they’re really so hungry?” he says, hankering for the days when he was allowed to take to the ice with a bottle of Scotch (for himself) and a tub of lard (for the bears).

    “What do these do-gooders think we should do? Just let them starve?”

    Born and raised in Churchill, Dennis is among those who eye the new “experts” in town with deep suspicion.

    According to Polar Bears International, the most prominent and widely respected campaign organisation, the West Hudson Bay bear population has fallen by 22 pc since 1987 and its prospects are bleak.

    “If we lose the sea ice, we’re going to lose the bears,” says Dr Andrew, who serves on the group’s scientific advisory council, arguing that they will not be able to adapt quickly enough to become vegetarians if and when the ice melts, leaving them with no hunting grounds.

    His world-renowned colleague, Dr Ian Sterling, who has studied the bears since the mid-1970s, says that the ice now breaks up about three weeks earlier and so the bears have a shorter time in which to store up fat.

    “There’s a direct relationship between the date of the ice breakup and survival.

    “The health, or condition, of the bears has declined over the past 30 years.”

    Dr Sterling says this is the reason why more “problem bears” are appearing in Churchill – and perhaps even why one came sniffing after Nigel Marven drank all that coffee.

    “A starving bear isn’t going to lie down and die. It’s going to look for an alternative food source.

    “In West Hudson Bay, that means either garbage dumps, hunting camps or, occasionally, people.”

    Dennis Compayre raises bushy grey eyebrows as he listens to the environmentalists predict the polar bear’s demise.

    “They say the numbers are down from 1,200 to around 900, but I think I know as much about polar bears as anyone, and I tell you there are as many bears here now as there were when I was a kid,” he says as the tundra buggy rattles back to town across the rutted snowscape.

    “Churchill is full of these scientists going on about vanishing bears and thinner bears.

    “They come here preaching doom, but I question whether some of them really have the bears’ best interests at heart.

    “The bear industry in Churchill is big bucks, and what better way to keep people coming than to tell them they’d better hurry to see the disappearing bears.”

    After almost three months of working with those who know the Arctic best – among them Inuit Indians, who are appalled at the way an animal they have lived beside for centuries has become a poster species for “misinformed” Greens – Nigel Marven finds himself in broad agreement.

    “I think climate change is happening, but as far as the polar bear disappearing is concerned, I have never been more convinced that this is just scaremongering.

    “People are deliberately seeking out skinny bears and filming them to show they are dying out. That’s not right.

    “Of course, in 30 years, if there’s no ice over the North Pole, then the bear will be in trouble.

    “But I’ve seen enough to know that polar bears are not yet on the brink of extinction.”

    Just then, spotting a red fox close to the ice track, Nigel calls for the driver to stop.

    The timid creature makes off across the snow-blanketed scrubland as Nigel, reaching for his binoculars, dashes off in pursuit.

    Within a few seconds, he has almost disappeared from view. Out in prime polar bear territory as darkness descends.

    “That Nigel’s a hell of a nice guy, but he gets my old blood pressure up,” sighs Dennis, reaching for his rifle.

    Polar Bear Week With Nigel Marven begins on Channel 5 on Monday, December 17 at 7.15pm.

  31. Truth says:

    Hatred of other people has been a Greenie motive from way back. In a report titled “The First Global Revolution” (1991, p. 104) published by the “Club of Rome”, a Greenie panic outfit, we find the following statement: “In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill…. All these dangers are caused by human intervention… The real enemy, then, is humanity itself.”

    Against the long history of huge temperature variation in the earth’s climate (ice ages etc.), the .6 of one degree average rise reported by the U.N. “experts” for the entire 20th century (a rise so small that you would not be able to detect such a difference personally without instruments) shows, if anything, that the 20th century was a time of exceptional temperature stability.

    The latest NASA figures tell us that there was NO warming trend in the USA during the 20th century. If global warming is occurring, how come it forgot the USA?

    Warmists say that the revised NASA figures do not matter because they cover only the USA — and the rest of the world is warming nicely. But it is not. There has NEVER been any evidence that the Southern hemisphere is warming. See here. So the warming pattern sure is looking moth-eaten.

    The chaos theory people have told us for years that the air movement from a single butterfly’s wing in Brazil can cause an unforeseen change in our weather here. Now we are told that climate experts can “model” the input of zillions of such incalculable variables over periods of decades to accurately forecast global warming 50 years hence. Give us all a break!

    I am not a global warming skeptic nor am I a global warming denier. I am a global warming atheist. I don’t believe one bit of it. That the earth’s climate changes is undeniable. Only ignoramuses believe that climate stability is normal. But I see NO evidence to say that mankind has had anything to do with any of the changes observed — and much evidence against that claim.

    Global warming atheists appeal to reason while Warmists appeal to authority. And when that authority — the IPCC — is a tentacle of the terminally corrupt United Nations, it is clear that the motivation for Warmism is political rather than scientific.

    Scientists have politics too — sometimes extreme politics. Read this: “This crippling of individuals I consider the worst evil of capitalism… I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an educational system which would be oriented toward social goals. In such an economy, the means of production are owned by society itself and are utilized in a planned fashion. A planned economy, which adjusts production to the needs of the community, would distribute the work to be done among all those able to work and would guarantee a livelihood to every man, woman, and child.” — Albert Einstein

    Global warming has taken the place of Communism as an absurdity that “liberals” will defend to the death regardless of the evidence showing its folly. Evidence never has mattered to real Leftists

    Seeing that we are all made of carbon, the time will come when people will look back on the carbon phobia of the early 21st century as too incredible to be believed

    The intellectual Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius (AD 121-180) must have foreseen Global Warmism. He said: “The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.”

    The Holy Grail for most scientists is not truth but research grants. And the global warming scare has produced a huge downpour of money for research. Any mystery why so many scientists claim some belief in global warming?

    For many people, global warming seems to have taken the place of “The Jews” — a convenient but false explanation for any disliked event. Prof. Brignell has some examples.

    Global warming skeptics are real party-poopers. It’s so wonderful to believe that you have a mission to save the world.

    The “precautionary principle” is a favourite Greenie idea — but isn’t that what George Bush was doing when he invaded Iraq? Wasn’t that a precaution against Saddam getting or having any WMDs? So Greenies all agree with the Iraq intervention? If not, why not?

    There is an “ascetic instinct” (or perhaps a “survivalist instinct”) in many people that causes them to delight in going without material comforts. Monasteries and nunneries were once full of such people — with the Byzantine stylites perhaps the most striking example. Many Greenies (other than Al Gore and his Hollywood pals) have that instinct too but in the absence of strong orthodox religious commitments they have to convince themselves that the world NEEDS them to live in an ascetic way. So their personal emotional needs lead them to press on us all a delusional belief that the planet needs “saving”.

    A classic example of how the sensationalist media distort science to create climate panic is here.

    There is a very readable summary of the “Hockey Stick” fraud here

    The Lockwood & Froehlich paper was designed to rebut Durkin’s “Great Global Warming Swindle” film. It is a rather confused paper — acknowledging yet failing to account fully for the damping effect of the oceans, for instance — but it is nonetheless valuable to climate atheists. The concession from a Greenie source that fluctuations in the output of the sun have driven climate change for all but the last 20 years (See the first sentence of the paper) really is invaluable. And the basic fact presented in the paper — that solar output has in general been on the downturn in recent years — is also amusing to see. Surely even a crazed Greenie mind must see that the sun’s influence has not stopped and that reduced solar output will soon start COOLING the earth! Unprecedented July 2007 cold weather throughout the Southern hemisphere might even be the first sign that the cooling is happening. And the fact that warming plateaued in 1998 is also a good sign that we are moving into a cooling phase. As is so often the case, the Greenies have got the danger exactly backwards. See my post of 7.14.07 and very detailed critiques here and here for more on the Lockwood paper.

    As the Greenies are now learning, even strong statistical correlations may disappear if a longer time series is used. A remarkable example from Sociology: “The modern literature on hate crimes began with a remarkable 1933 book by Arthur Raper titled The Tragedy of Lynching. Raper assembled data on the number of lynchings each year in the South and on the price of an acre’s yield of cotton. He calculated the correla­tion coefficient between the two series at –0.532. In other words, when the economy was doing well, the number of lynchings was lower…. In 2001, Donald Green, Laurence McFalls, and Jennifer Smith published a paper that demolished the alleged connection between economic condi­tions and lynchings in Raper’s data. Raper had the misfortune of stopping his anal­ysis in 1929. After the Great Depression hit, the price of cotton plummeted and economic condi­tions deteriorated, yet lynchings continued to fall. The correlation disappeared altogether when more years of data were added.” So we must be sure to base our conclusions on ALL the data. In the Greenie case, the correlation between CO2 rise and global temperature rise stopped in 1998 — but that could have been foreseen if measurements taken in the first half of the 20th century had been considered.

    Wednesday, November 21, 2007

    Some things the IPCC has ignored

    An email from David Whitehouse []

    Some media commentators have told us that the IPCC’s “Synthesis” report has settled the science of global warming beyond doubt and that alternative approaches or indeed modifications to the CO2 greenhouse warming effect have lost the scientific argument. Certainly the working hypothesis of CO2 induced global warming is a good one that stands on good physical principles but let us not pretend our understanding extends too far or that the working hypothesis is a sufficient explanation for what is going on.

    Clearly the world of the past 30 years is warmer than the previous decades and there is abundant evidence (in the northern hemisphere at least) that the world is responding to those elevated temperatures, though not yet the Polar Bears.

    However, it was a pity the Synthesis report did not look in more detail at the recent warming trend the Earth has experienced – that has taken place since about 1980, as this and the rising CO2 levels are surely at the heart of the problem. Had this warm period not occurred we would have no talk of global warming and perhaps, as happened in the 1970’s, we would fear a new Ice Age! This omission means that, contrary to what Ban Ki-Moon said, the Synthesis report has not answered so many questions relating to global warming or what will happen in the future. It seems that one can only understand what is going on (and make predictions) if one’s vision is narrow and one talks in soundbites.

    The fact that the recent warming period can be divided into two distinct periods is surely instructive and has a direct bearing on the IPCC’s projections for the future and its mitigation strategies. The period 1980 -98 was one of rapid warming – a temperature anomaly of about 0.6 degrees C or 0.3 deg C per decade (CO2 rose from 340ppm to 370ppm). Since then the global temperature has been flat (whilst the CO2 has risen from 370ppm to 380ppm) meaning that the global temperature is about 0.3 deg less than it would have been had the rapid increase continued. (This leads me to suggest, slightly tongue-in-cheek, that there has been global cooling in the past decade as a decrease in the increase of temperature is a cooling!) The 1980 – 98 increase is generally similar to the increase seen between 1910 and 1940 which was 0.6 deg C in 30 years. It may be that the current flatlining of global temperature will be similar to that seen between 1940 and 1980 in that it will be followed by another increase (as the UK’s Met Office believes will commence in 2009) but we don’t know.

    Incidentally, all the indications are that the global temperature of 2007 will be the coolest since 2000. This is interesting as there have been no significant volcanic events and no La Nina cooling.

    How can it be that the atmosphere has responded so differently to a steady increase in CO2 levels and the constant temperature forcing that implies? As I argued in a previous post to CCNet (25th October 2007) the flat temperature of the past decade is difficult to explain. Adding reflective aerosols to the atmosphere (a byproduct of greenhouse gas emissions or volcanoes) is contrived and requires unlikely circumstances. Other explanations such as the ocean cooling effect of the Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation or the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation are also difficult to adjust so that they exactly compensate for the increasing upward temperature drag of rising CO2.

    Also disappointing in the IPCC report was the lack of mention of the uncertainties involving solar effects and what they could mean for future predictions of global warming. There is a growing school of thought that suggests that the next solar cycle, cycle 24, could be weak and possibly the start of a prolonged period of low activity. There are certainly signs of a decline after a significant increase in solar activity throughout most of the last century. In the past when this has occurred the Earth has cooled though by what mechanism is unknown.

    Despite what has been said the Sun is still an important factor to consider, more so if the temperature flatlining continues. It was thought (by climatologists) that solar driven climate change was too small to be detected but recent studies of decadal solar influences show they can be detected. Mostly their influence is small but there are huge differences that point to unknown amplification effects.

    In the past few years we have been learning more and more about such things as differential solar heating, trade wind effects, solar induced upwelling of cooler water in the oceans and the fact that solar activity alters the interaction between the Earth’s surface and the atmosphere in driving fundamental convection cells. In the past decade we have also discovered that the cloudy lower atmosphere absorbs more visible and IR radiation than previously thought. It has also been realised relatively recently that the IR from the sun varies more than visible. In addition, the unexpectedly large global decadal cycle of 0.1 deg C seen at an altitude of 2 km cannot easily be explained.

    The point is that we cannot predict the future until we understand these things. Clearly the Earth’s natural state is not to have so much CO2 in its atmosphere and it would be prudent to reduce it. But let’s acknowledge the considerable scientific uncertainties and differentiate between the effects of increasing global temperatures on the one hand and increasing CO2 levels on the other.

    I have heard it said, by scientists, journalists and politicians, that the time for debate is over and that further scientific debate only causes delay in action. As scientists we must never bend our desire to know what is going on to any political cause, however noble. The science is fascinating, the ramifications profound, but we are fools or perhaps politicians if we convince ourselves that we know more than we do and when we are satisfied to describe such a complicated system in a soundbite.

    Greenie people-hate on display again

    Halting population growth in developing countries should be part of a global strategy to reduce mankind’s impact on the environment, according to an eminent expatriate Australian scientist. Immediate past president of the Royal Society, Professor Lord Robert May said that, given the threat of climate change, a declining global population was “a prerequisite” if humanity was to achieve a sustainable ecological footprint in the future. Addressing the Lowy Institute in Sydney last night, Lord May said a priority was educating and empowering women, “particularly in those cultures where this is not currently the case”.

    Lord May, a former chief scientific adviser to the British government who was made a companion of the Order of Australia in 1998, said this would be assisted by achieving universal primary school education and promoting gender equality. The United Nations estimates 700 million women, or two thirds of all those married or in stable unions, use some method of contraception. “In my view, religious beliefs or other ideological prejudices prompt some major international organisations to oppose contraception, forbidding distribution of condoms or even advice about fertility control,” Lord May said.

    He said it was encouraging that in the past year global fertility rates fell below replacement levels for the first time in recorded history, with the average female now having slightly less than one female child. Global population growth is predicted to increase to 9 billion by 2050, driven by strong growth in developing countries, while declining birth rates in developed countries create their own inter-generational problems.

    Lord May warned that cutting population alone would not address environmental problems, as smaller populations tended to be associated with increasing standards of living and higher environmental impacts per capita. He warned of the growing threat of conflicts and mass movements of people as the world’s population fought over limited water supplies and other resources. “All this rolls together with rapid and continuing advances in information technology, which simultaneously makes things better and worse,” he said. “Better because we can more easily and effectively co-ordinate action, once motivated to do so; worse because in such a global village the massive inequities between groups are clearly exposed.”

    Lord May warned that the re-emergence of fundamentalism in the world was a reaction against the liberating force of the new information age.



    In the latest Nature, Chris Thomas says:

    “This year the baiji river dolphin (Lipotes vexillifer), a victim of the pollution and boat traffic of China’s Yangtze river, was added to the list of creatures on the verge of extinction. Is this part of the sixth mass extinction in 450 million years, or does the recent spate of losses caused by humans represent a blip in the history of life on Earth? Michael Novacek’s Terra takes stock of the situation and provides an opportunity to learn from the past. …

    Of course, we shall solve some of these issues with technological fixes. Yet if we maintain 9 billion avaricious people on Earth for the next millennium, a sixth extinction event seems inevitable. The geological perspective of Terra is bizarrely reassuring. Humans will presumably be gone within a few million years, perhaps sooner. If the past that Novacek describes is a guide to the future, global ecosystem processes will be restored some tens of thousands to a million years after our demise, and new forms of life over the ensuing millions of years will exploit the denuded planet we leave behind. Thirty million years on, things will be back to normal, albeit a very different `normal’ from before. It is good to be optimistic. The problem is living here in the meantime.”

    Thomas is “optimistic” that humans and any descendants with a remotely similar population or resource-intensive technology will be extinct in a million years. Yet if a plague, for example, were to produce this outcome within the next ten years, I’m pretty sure most everyone would see this as a catastrophe of the highest possible order. So how does this become a good thing if it happens in the next million years?



    Much safer to spend the money on a metastasizing bureaucracy

    British astronomers were last night shocked by a sudden funding cut that will prevent them having access to two of the world’s most advanced telescopes. A Government funding council yesterday announced it would pull out of the Gemini Observatory – twin 26ft telescopes in Hawaii and Chile which together can be used to observe the entire sky. The Science and Technology Facilities Council (STFC) said it was pulling out of the observatory, in which Britain has a 23 per cent stake, despite the Government having invested 35 million pounds in building it.

    Prof Michael Rowan-Robinson, President of the Royal Astronomical Society (RAS), said: “This decision is a serious mistake and a shock to all of us. “If it goes ahead it will deny UK scientists access to large telescopes in the northern hemisphere and hinder their ability to study almost half the sky. I call on the STFC to rethink this proposal.”

    FULL STORY here


    The Independent, the `compact’ UK newspaper known as the Indie (the Independent on Sunday being the Sindie), which is infamous for its doom-laden front pages on `global warming’ (and many other PC topics), is clearly in trouble. I have just been trawling through a few interesting reports and facts:

    Writing in The Observer (November 11), Peter Preston comments that “the relaunched, more anorexic Independent on Sunday is 8.37 per cent off October 2006 (with only 132,000 UK readers prepared to stump up 1.80 pounds)” and that, at the newsstand, the “Independent, with not much of a net presence at all, is down 6.72 per cent in a year.” The circulation of the Indie in August, 2007 was a mere 240,116 [according to the UK ABC (Audited Bureau of Circulations)], a 5.37% drop from November 2006, and way, way below The Guardian, The Telegraph, and The Times.

    Moreover, unlike The Guardian (c. 18 million unique users), the poor Indie is unlikely to be saved by its website, which must be one of the dullest in the world. The word `anorexic’ again crosses one’s mind.

    And now, today, the `Financial Section’ of The Times reveals that “Denis O’Brien, the Irish telecoms billionaire, has called on Sir Anthony O’Reilly to sell The Independent newspaper and resign as the chief executive of the company behind the loss-making London-based title. `The Independent has to go, as do other vanity projects,’ Mr O’Brien told The Times in an uncompromising interview.”

    Well, I never like the loss of media and debating outlets, but I have to say that the demise, if that were ever to happen, of the Indie would bring fewer tears to my eyes than most. As a purveyor of gloom and doom, it has been second to none. Even one environmentalist confided to me that, when on the tube or the bus, she felt she had to read it hidden between less lurid covers.

    Still, it would be a pity. Over the years, the Indie has proved a rich seam for bloggers and commentators alike – even beats the old Guardian, and that is saying something these days. Clearly doom and gloom on a daily basis doesn’t in the end sell. After all, why bother to read a newspaper when the triffids are lurking behind every page?


    A fit of peak

    The doom-laden vision of a post-oil world put forward in a radical new documentary is as crude as the black stuff that gushes from the ground

    With crude oil prices pushing up towards $100 per barrel, it’s a good time to release a documentary that argues we’re in imminent danger from dwindling oil supply. According to A Crude Awakening, demand for oil is accelerating while supply has peaked and will shortly go into rapid decline. The result will be social disruption on a scale unseen since the Great Depression. Sounds scary – but in reality these arguments seem as crude as the black stuff gushing from the ground.

    The film, made by Swiss journalist Basil Gelpke and Irish producer Ray McCormack, is a diatribe against the evils of an oil-based economy. Opening with a narration befitting a horror movie, we are told that oil is the `devil’s excrement’ and the `blood of the earth’. Through interviews with a number of experts, activists and politicians, Gelpke and McCormack argue that developed economies, most notably the USA, are utterly dependent on oil. Farming, transportation, plastics – in fact, the production of pretty much everything – depends on a supply of oil. For example, every calorie of food energy we produce requires 10 calories of energy inputs – mostly oil. The vast majority of travel, too, is powered by oil pumped from the ground.

    Supply and demand

    The problem, according to the film, is that production may have peaked or is just about to do so. The world is currently using roughly 85million barrels of oil per day (1). (A barrel of oil is 42 US gallons or 159 litres.) Demand is booming due to rapid economic growth in China and India and steadily increasing demand in the developed world. The filmmakers argue that there have been no new big oilfield discoveries since the late 1960s when huge quantities of oil were discovered in the North Sea and Alaska.

    As it happens, the film’s opening in the UK coincided with an announcement by the Brazilian government of a new offshore field, Tupi Sul, that could ultimately provide eight billion barrels of oil. But this will not come fully on-stream for a few years and will only provide a small portion of the world’s growing oil needs each year (2). In fact, the total oil from this field would only supply current levels of world consumption for about three months. Worse, according to the film, the declared remaining reserves of oil in many members of the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) may be greatly overstated. In the past, OPEC members have had an interest in exaggerating their remaining stocks since OPEC production quotas have been based on declared reserves.

    The really big fields with long potential reserves are in the Middle East – hardly a stable region. This question of stability informs comments in the film by Stanford politics professor Terry Lynn Karl, who provides a fairly outrageous example of the war-for-oil thesis. Karl believes that the two Gulf Wars were driven by a desire to seize and control oil reserves – which is slightly bizarre, given that Iraq’s oil could more easily and cheaply have been controlled by propping up Saddam rather than removing him. But this war-for-oil thesis apparently knows no bounds, with Karl glibly suggesting that everything from the civil war in Sudan to the two World Wars can be put down `in part’ to a scramble for oil.

    Solving the problem

    The film is already showing its age, however. Much of the discussion in the film is about how there is more oil under the ground, but that it is not economically viable to dig it up. As one US oil worker notes, in incredulous tones, the oil price would have to be $50 a barrel for it to make sense. But since prices have now shot up to nearer $100 a barrel, a range of possibilities opens up, even if current high nominal prices are to some extent a product of the weak dollar.

    Suddenly, getting that oil out of the ground is good business. Other opportunities arise: expensive exploration in relatively uncharted territories starts to make sense because the gamble could have such a huge pay-off; exploration methods themselves can improve; finding ways to recover a greater percentage of the oil in any particular field would be a boon; producing liquid fuels from the world’s abundant stocks of coal – pointless when oil itself is cheap – is now practical and economic. For all the severe limitations of the free market, it is quite clear that a rising oil price provides strong incentives to explore both oil-based and non-oil avenues for future energy production.

    But the filmmakers seem uninterested in the possibility that declining oil stocks are a problem that could be solved. `The demand is so huge there is nothing we can imagine to replace oil in those quantities’, suggests David L Goodstein, professor of physics at the California Institute of Technology. Instead, A Crude Awakening provides a litany of disastrous consequences that must inevitably result from peak oil. Particularly enthusiastic doom-sayers include the rather excitable Colin Campbell, a former oil geologist and founder of the Association for the Study of Peak Oil (ASPO), and Matthew Savinar, whose website, Life After the Oil Crash, greets us with the cheery thought that: `Civilization as we know it is coming to an end soon.’ The film draws to a close with footage of an Amish man driving his pony and trap, as if to say that this is the future of transport.

    Against the pessimism of the peak oil theorists is the reality that we do not `worship’ oil nor are we addicted to it. Oil is simply an extremely cheap and very effective solution to a number of technical problems. If oil production does decline – and it would be wrong to simply assume that as yet – we’ll have to find new solutions instead. In the short term, no single alternative fuel source will take the place of oil. But unless oil production suddenly collapses, which is unlikely, replacements only need to substitute for part of what oil would otherwise supply in the short-term. Bio-fuels, clean coal, nuclear power, hydrogen, solar and wind power will all, to some extent, have a part to play – along with technologies that have not yet been developed.

    Greater efficiency will surely also kick in. When oil is cheaper than bottled water or milk, there is little incentive to find more efficient modes of transport or alternative precursors for chemicals currently produced from oil. The oft-quoted saying `We didn’t stop using horses because we ran out of hay’ is very true. Long before supplies completely run out, oil and the technologies that demand it, like the internal combustion engine, will be replaced by something else. In all likelihood, those substitutes will be better than the technology we currently have.

    A crude outlook

    The notion of peak oil appeals to a mindset that cannot believe that the future holds anything but disaster. This outlook can be found in all manner of discussions from the `obesity epidemic’ to the pensions crisis precipitated by the `demographic timebomb’ to catastrophic climate change. This mood was beautifully summed up by the journalist and former Independent editor Rosie Boycott as she chaired a question-and-answer session with the co-producer of A Crude Awakening, Ray McCormack, in London last Friday. Responding to the suggestion from the audience that the refusal to see that oil has peaked is `macho’, Boycott said:

    `Completely hard-wired into every one of us is a belief that literally since we came out of the swamp we’ve been in this thing called Progress. And while it may have brought ups and downs, it’s never let us down. You can chart that things have got more extraordinary and more amazing and diseases have been solved and everything has been solved. I’m in my fifties and I’ve grown up as a child believing that science solved everything. It’s only in the last few years that I’ve realised that science can’t solve some things and science makes things worse. for the first time in all these millions and millions of years that we’ve been here, we’re actually going to go backwards.’

    Boycott’s outlook is widely shared, particularly amongst former radicals like herself (she was once at the forefront of feminist publishing, co-founding Spare Rib and Virago Books). Society, it is believed, can no longer move forward and, in fact, the very attempt to solve problems will actually make things worse.

    This worldview cannot account for the continuing expansion of both wealth and the duration and quality of life. That does not mean that there are no problems in the world today – there are many massive problems to be tackled. New problems, some of them the product of human activity, will emerge. But the most serious possibility that society might really `go backwards’ will come from the belief that Progress is a failure. Boycott’s comments are a very good illustration of the societal suicide note that many people seem anxious to write.

    Oil production has almost certainly not peaked. Even if it has, it’s high time we moved on to smarter technologies. But if the ideas that underpin A Crude Awakening become truly popular, then civilisation itself may well have peaked, disintegrating into a heap of self-doubt.

    The Global Green Agenda – The First Global Revolution

    “We stand at a critical moment in Earth’s history, a time when humanity must choose its future. As the world becomes increasingly interdependent and fragile, the future at once holds great peril and great promise. To move forward we must recognize that in the midst of a magnificent diversity of cultures and life forms we are one human family and one Earth community with a common destiny. We must join together to bring forth a sustainable global society founded on respect for nature, universal human rights, economic justice, and a culture of peace.”
    – opening paragraph of the United Nations endorsed Earth Charter

    The First Global Revolution

    The environmental movement has been described as the largest and most influential social phenomenon in modern history. From relative obscurity just a few decades ago it has spawned thousands of organisations and claims millions of committed activists. Reading the newspaper today it is hard to imagine a time when global warming, resource depletion, environmental catastrophes and ‘saving the planet’ were barely mentioned. They now rank among the top priorities on the social, political and economic global agenda.

    Environmental awareness is considered to be the mark of any good, honest, decent citizen. Multi-national companies compete fiercely to promote their environmental credentials and ‘out-green’ each other. The threat of impending ecological disasters is uniting the world through a plethora of international treaties and conventions. But where did this phenomenon come from, how did it rise to such prominence, and more importantly, where is it going?

    While researching for these articles, and during my academic studies, I have come across many references to the The Club of Rome (CoR), and reports produced by them. Initially I assumed that they were just another high-level environmental think-tank and dismissed the conspiracy theories found on many websites claiming that the CoR is a group of global elitists attempting to impose some kind of one world government.

    However, as I have struggled to untangle the convoluted web that is the Global Green Agenda, I have been amazed that the same names keep appearing as the authors of binding international agreements, as the organisers of key summits and conferences, and as the most vocal proponents of new systems of governance. A core group of very influential leaders appear to be working in unison to implement a far-reaching global agenda.

    When I searched for links between these men, who keep appearing in nearly every area of global environmental politics, I discovered that they were all members of the Club of Rome. Now extraordinary claims, like a global conspiracy, demand extraordinary proof. While I have found the evidence to be compelling I will try to just lay out the facts and let the reader reach their own conclusions.

    So, what exactly is the Club of Rome and who are its members? Founded in 1968, the CoR describes itself as “a group of world citizens, sharing a common concern for the future of humanity.” It consists of current and former Heads of State, high-level politicians and government officials, diplomats, scientists, economists, and business leaders from around the globe.

    Some of the more high-profile members are not listed on the membership pages of the CoR website because they are members of CoR ‘National Associations’. For example, Javier Solana is a member of the Spanish CoR Association, and Al Gore and Bill Clinton are both members of the USA CoR Association. However, they publicly admit to chairing CoR meetings, and are often referred to as CoR members by major news agencies.

    Some Past and Present Members of the Club of Rome

    Al Gore – former VP of the USA, leading climate change campaigner, Head of the Alliance for Climate Protection, lead the US delegations to the Rio Earth Summit and Kyoto Climate Change conference, environmental activist, largest shareholder in the Chicago Climate Exchange

    Javier Solana – Secretary General of the Council of the European Union, High representative for EU Foreign Policy

    Maurice Strong – former Head of the UN Environment Programme, Chief Policy Advisor to Koffi Annan, Secretary General of the Rio Earth Summit, co-author (with Gorbachev) of the Earth Charter, co-author of the Kyoto Protocol, member of the UN Commission on Global Governance and author of its report, Chair of the UN Reform Committee, board member of the World Economic Forum, founder of the Earth Council, board member of the Chicago Climate Exchange, devout Baha’i

    Mikhail Gorbachev – former President of the Soviet Union, Founder of Green Cross International and the Gorbachev Foundation, co-author (with Strong) of the Earth Charter

    Sir Crispin Tickell – former British Permanent Representative to the United Nations and Permanent Representative on the Security Council, Convenor of the Government Panel on Sustainable Development, Chairman of Earthwatch Europe, Chairman of the ‘Gaia Society’, Chairman of the Board of the Climate Institute, leading British climate change campaigner

    David Rockefeller – former Chairman of Chase Manhattan Bank, founder of the Trilateral Commission, executive member of the World Economic Forum, donated land on which the United Nations stands

    Steven Schneider – Stanford Professor of Biology and Global Change. Professor Schneider was among the earliest and most vocal proponents of man-made global warming.

    Other influential members:
    Henry Kissinger – former US Secretary of State
    Eduard Shevardnadze – former Soviet foreign minister and President of Georgia
    Juan Carlos I King of Spain
    Prince Philippe of Belgium
    Queen Beatrix of The Netherlands
    Jimmy Carter – former President of the United States
    Ted Turner – American media mogul, philanthropist, founder of CNN
    Bill Gates – founder of Microsoft
    George Soros – multibillionare
    Bill Clinton – former President of the United States
    Tony Blair – former Prime Minister of the United Kingdom
    Frederik W. de Klerk – former President of South Africa
    Vaclav Havel – former President of the Czech Republic
    Arpad Göncz – President of The Republic of Hungary
    Ruud F.M. Lubbers – former Prime Minister of the Netherlands, UN High Representative
    and many more….

    The concept of ‘environmental sustainability’ was first brought to widespread public attention in 1972 by the Club of Rome in their book entitled The Limits to Growth. The official summary can be read here. The report basically concluded that the growth of the human population, and an increase in prosperity, would cause an ecological collapse:

    “If the present growth trends in world population, industrialization, pollution, food production, and resource depletion continue unchanged, the limits to growth on this planet will be reached sometime within the next one hundred years. The most probable result will be a rather sudden and uncontrollable decline in both population and industrial capacity.”

    “It is possible to alter these growth trends and to establish a condition of ecological and economic stability that is sustainable far into the future. The state of global equilibrium could be designed so that the basic material needs of each person on earth are satisfied and each person has an equal opportunity to realize his individual human potential.”

    “The overwhelming growth in world population caused by the positive birth-rate loop is a recent phenomenon, a result of mankind’s very successful reduction of worldwide mortality. The controlling negative feedback loop has been weakened, allowing the positive loop to operate virtually without constraint. There are only two ways to restore the resulting imbalance. Either the birth rate must be brought down to equal the new, lower death rate, or the death rate must rise again.”

    “The result of stopping population growth in 1975 and industrial capital growth in 1985 with no other changes is that population and capital reach constant values at a relatively high level of food, industrial output and services per person. Eventually, however, resource shortages reduce industrial output and the temporarily stable state degenerates.”

    “Man possesses, for a small moment in his history, the most powerful combination of knowledge, tools, and resources the world has ever known. He has all that is physically necessary to create a totally new form of human society– one that would be built to last for generations. The two missing ingredients are a realistic, long-term goal that can guide mankind to the equilibrium society and the Human Will to achieve that goal.”

    “Without such a goal and a commitment to it, short-term concerns will generate the exponential growth that drives the world system toward the limits of the earth and ultimate collapse. With that goal and that commitment, mankind would be ready now to begin a controlled, orderly transition from growth to global equilibrium.”

    So as you can see the even back in 1972 the Club considered modern industrial society to be completely unsustainable. They state that even if population was frozen at 1975 levels, and industrial activity at 1985 levels, then the earth’s ecosystems would still ultimately collapse. The CoR has not changed these views in the slightest, in fact, in the last three decades their warnings have become increasingly more urgent and alarmist. They call this imminent collapse the ‘World Problematique’ and their proposed solution the ‘World Resolutique’.

    The Limits to Growth is considered to be the most successful environmental publication ever produced and propelled the Club of Rome to its current position of an environmental thought-leader and a major consultant to the United Nations. It has been translated into more than forty languages and sold more than 30 million copies. Throughout the 1970s and 80s the concept that humanity was irreparably damaging the earth gained credence and facilitated the formation of mainstream and activist environmental groups.

    All meetings of the CoR are held ‘behind closed doors’ and no public records are kept. However the Club does produce many ‘discussion reports’ that can be found on its website. The United Nations contracts the Club of Rome to prepare ‘Policy Guidance Documents’ which it uses in formulating its policies and programmes. As many high ranking UN officials are actually CoR members, this is like a man asking himself for advice, and then agreeing with advice. Not very objective!

    Twenty years after the Limits to Growth the CoR published another major report that became an instant best-seller. In The First Global Revolution the Club of Rome claimed that the time to act had run out. It was now or never. Delay in beginning corrective measures will increase the damage to the world ecological system and ultimately reduce the human population that will eventually be supportable. They also stated that that democratic governments were far too short-sighted to deal with the ‘problematique’ and new forms of governance are urgently required.

    In order not too violate any copyright protection I will not reproduce the text of the book on this site. However, it is permissible for me to quote brief excerpts in the context of this wider discussion. The complete text can be found elsewhere on the web. As you read the following quotes please remember the names of the leaders listed above. This is not some quirky little cult. This is the stated agenda of the leaders of the environmental movement:

    “This is the way we are setting the scene for mankind’s encounter with the planet. The opposition between the two ideologies that have dominated the 20th century has collapsed, forming their own vacuum and leaving nothing but crass materialism.

    It is a law of Nature that any vacuum will be filled and therefore eliminated unless this is physically prevented. “Nature,” as the saying goes, “abhors a vacuum.” And people, as children of Nature, can only feel uncomfortable, even though they may not recognize that they are living in a vacuum. How then is the vacuum to be eliminated?

    It would seem that humans need a common motivation, namely a common adversary, to organize and act together in the vacuum; such a motivation must be found to bring the divided nations together to face an outside enemy, either a real one or else one invented for the purpose.

    New enemies therefore have to be identified.
    New strategies imagined, new weapons devised.

    The common enemy of humanity is man.

    In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself.

    The old democracies have functioned reasonably well over the last 200 years, but they appear now to be in a phase of complacent stagnation with little evidence of real leadership and innovation

    Democracy is not a panacea. It cannot organize everything and it is unaware of its own limits. These facts must be faced squarely. Sacrilegious though this may sound, democracy is no longer well suited for the tasks ahead. The complexity and the technical nature of many of today’s problems do not always allow elected representatives to make competent decisions at the right time.”

  32. Truth says:

    Al Gore is like Jim Jones, and we’re drinking his Kool-Aid


    Professor Roger Gottlieb, a leading proponent of religious environmentalism, spoke at Vanderbilt University this past week. Gottlieb, the author of A Greener Faith, maintains that we are to be caretakers of our planet. I certainly agree.

    I’m a big fan of clean air and clean water. But this postmodernist environmental movement Gottlieb finds himself in the middle of bears little resemblance to its forerunner, the ecology movement of the 1960s. Back then, Captain Kangaroo simply told us to never throw trash out the window. Soot-belching factories and straight-pipe waste into rivers were put under the microscope. The government ultimately responded with the EPA, formed in 1970 and tasked with cleaning up the land, air and water that had been abused for so long.

    Now, schoolchildren scold their parents because they haven’t traded in their incandescent lightbulbs for the depressing yellow light of compact fluorescent bulbs. Environmentalism, which used to simply include anyone concerned about pollution, somehow morphed into radical environmentalism. Gottlieb and others have taken up the banner of global warming under the guise of religious responsibility. Radical environmentalism has become a religion in and of itself. Its heaven is a utopia in which we all give up our modern conveniences and technological advancement for some austere, Amish-type lifestyle.

    Al Gore, the Jim Jones of this new religious cult, preaches doom and gloom from his pettifogger pulpit, all the while living the lifestyle of an energy hog. He actually uses twice the amount of electricity in one month at his Nashville home than the average household uses in an entire year. He has two homes in Tennessee, one in Virginia, at least. He flies all over the world on his Magical Hysteria Tour, s*cking down resources and belching out tons of carbon, all to tell us we need to conserve. We’re trying to make ends meet just to afford gas in our cars while Al Gore has a carbon footprint the size of Sasquatch. And no one seems to care.

    The Branch Algorians read from the Gospel of Al and never question a word. The movement’s devil is carbon dioxide, an essential component of photosynthesis and the substance we all exhale with every breath. Understand this: CO2 is not a pollutant. However, Gore and the radical environmentalists have been quite successful in convincing people that smog and CO2 are the same. They are not. CO2 has nothing whatsoever to do with the smog or haze we see over our cities. There is absolutely no evidence that CO2 has anything to do with any kind of warming.

    The Gore Kool-Aid drinkers will point to “all these scientists” but can’t give you one link between CO2 and any kind of climate change. As the founder of The Weather Channel, John Coleman, recently put it, global warming is the greatest scam in history.

    When Professor Gottlieb is not writing a guilt-trip treatise on the environment, he’s writing about Marxism and how the Soviets just didn’t quite get it right.

    You see, global warming is the perfect template for Marxism because it’s the great equalizer. The wealthier a nation, the more CO2 it produces. To atone for its sins, it must pay carbon offsets. In other words, the producing nations pay the non-producing or under-producing nations in cash for the sin of emitting a harmless gas. It’s beautiful.

    The global warming movement is a way to not just confiscate money and wealth from the producers, but because of their guilt, they gladly hand it over. If Karl Marx were still alive, he’d be beaming with pride.

    My Nobel Moment


    November 1, 2007; Page A19

    I’ve had a lot of fun recently with my tiny (and unofficial) slice of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize awarded to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). But, though I was one of thousands of IPCC participants, I don’t think I will add “0.0001 Nobel Laureate” to my resume.

    The other half of the prize was awarded to former Vice President Al Gore, whose carbon footprint would stomp my neighborhood flat. But that’s another story.Large icebergs in the Weddell Sea, Antarctica. Winter sea ice around the continent set a record maximum last month.

    Both halves of the award honor promoting the message that Earth’s temperature is rising due to human-based emissions of greenhouse gases. The Nobel committee praises Mr. Gore and the IPCC for alerting us to a potential catastrophe and for spurring us to a carbonless economy.

    I’m sure the majority (but not all) of my IPCC colleagues cringe when I say this, but I see neither the developing catastrophe nor the smoking gun proving that human activity is to blame for most of the warming we see. Rather, I see a reliance on climate models (useful but never “proof”) and the coincidence that changes in carbon dioxide and global temperatures have loose similarity over time.

    There are some of us who remain so humbled by the task of measuring and understanding the extraordinarily complex climate system that we are skeptical of our ability to know what it is doing and why. As we build climate data sets from scratch and look into the guts of the climate system, however, we don’t find the alarmist theory matching observations. (The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration satellite data we analyze at the University of Alabama in Huntsville does show modest warming — around 2.5 degrees Fahrenheit per century, if current warming trends of 0.25 degrees per decade continue.)

    It is my turn to cringe when I hear overstated-confidence from those who describe the projected evolution of global weather patterns over the next 100 years, especially when I consider how difficult it is to accurately predict that system’s behavior over the next five days.

    Mother Nature simply operates at a level of complexity that is, at this point, beyond the mastery of mere mortals (such as scientists) and the tools available to us. As my high-school physics teacher admonished us in those we-shall-conquer-the-world-with-a-slide-rule days, “Begin all of your scientific pronouncements with ‘At our present level of ignorance, we think we know . . .'”

    I haven’t seen that type of climate humility lately. Rather I see jump-to-conclusions advocates and, unfortunately, some scientists who see in every weather anomaly the specter of a global-warming apocalypse. Explaining each successive phenomenon as a result of human action gives them comfort and an easy answer.

    Others of us scratch our heads and try to understand the real causes behind what we see. We discount the possibility that everything is caused by human actions, because everything we’ve seen the climate do has happened before. Sea levels rise and fall continually. The Arctic ice cap has shrunk before. One millennium there are hippos swimming in the Thames, and a geological blink later there is an ice bridge linking Asia and North America.

    One of the challenges in studying global climate is keeping a global perspective, especially when much of the research focuses on data gathered from spots around the globe. Often observations from one region get more attention than equally valid data from another.

    The recent CNN report “Planet in Peril,” for instance, spent considerable time discussing shrinking Arctic sea ice cover. CNN did not note that winter sea ice around Antarctica last month set a record maximum (yes, maximum) for coverage since aerial measurements started.

    Then there is the challenge of translating global trends to local climate. For instance, hasn’t global warming led to the five-year drought and fires in the U.S. Southwest?

    Not necessarily.

    There has been a drought, but it would be a stretch to link this drought to carbon dioxide. If you look at the 1,000-year climate record for the western U.S. you will see not five-year but 50-year-long droughts. The 12th and 13th centuries were particularly dry. The inconvenient truth is that the last century has been fairly benign in the American West. A return to the region’s long-term “normal” climate would present huge challenges for urban planners.

    Without a doubt, atmospheric carbon dioxide is increasing due primarily to carbon-based energy production (with its undisputed benefits to humanity) and many people ardently believe we must “do something” about its alleged consequence, global warming. This might seem like a legitimate concern given the potential disasters that are announced almost daily, so I’ve looked at a couple of ways in which humans might reduce CO2 emissions and their impact on temperatures.

    California and some Northeastern states have decided to force their residents to buy cars that average 43 miles-per-gallon within the next decade. Even if you applied this law to the entire world, the net effect would reduce projected warming by about 0.05 degrees Fahrenheit by 2100, an amount so minuscule as to be undetectable. Global temperatures vary more than that from day to day.

    Suppose you are very serious about making a dent in carbon emissions and could replace about 10% of the world’s energy sources with non-CO2-emitting nuclear power by 2020 — roughly equivalent to halving U.S. emissions. Based on IPCC-like projections, the required 1,000 new nuclear power plants would slow the warming by about 0.2 ?176 degrees Fahrenheit per century. It’s a dent.

    But what is the economic and human price, and what is it worth given the scientific uncertainty?

    My experience as a missionary teacher in Africa opened my eyes to this simple fact: Without access to energy, life is brutal and short. The uncertain impacts of global warming far in the future must be weighed against disasters at our doorsteps today. Bjorn Lomborg’s Copenhagen Consensus 2004, a cost-benefit analysis of health issues by leading economists (including three Nobelists), calculated that spending on health issues such as micronutrients for children, HIV/AIDS and water purification has benefits 50 to 200 times those of attempting to marginally limit “global warming.”

    Given the scientific uncertainty and our relative impotence regarding climate change, the moral imperative here seems clear to me.

    Mr. Christy is director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville and a participant in the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, co-recipient of this year’s Nobel Peace Prize.

  33. Zach says:

    The US Senate Minority report has been exposed as a SHAM!

    Among it’s findings are such things as:

    “After assessing 687 individuals named as “dissenting scientists” in the January 2009 version of the United States Senate Minority Report, the Center for Inquiry’s Credibility Project found that:

    • Slightly fewer than 10 percent could be identified as climate scientists.
    • Approximately 15 percent published in the recognizable refereed literature on subjects related to climate science.
    • Approximately 80 percent clearly had no refereed publication record on climate science at all.
    • Approximately 4 percent appeared to favor the current IPCC-2007 consensus and should not have been on the list. “

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s