Lots more reasons to believe in Global Warming

1. We trust the Daily Mail!   It’s telling us that Global Warming will inevitably give us colder winters in Europe.  Of course.  So silly of me!  Why didn’t I see that before?  Apparently as the Arctic ice recedes (not that it is, very much), it exposes warmer sea-water to the atmosphere and this in turn leads to a high pressure area, creating severe northerly winds across northern Europe, and consequent lower temperatures.  But don’t worry!  Stefan Rahmstorf, Professor of Physics of the Ocean at the Potsdam Institute, says: “If you look ahead 40 or 50 years, these cold winters will be getting warmer because, even though you are getting an inflow of cold polar air, that air mass is getting warmer because of the greenhouse effect. So it’s a transient phenomenon. In the long run, global warming wins out”.  So that’s alright, then.  Will someone please set the alarm for 2060 and tell me when it’s safe to get out from under the duvet?
 
2. We trust the BBC!    According to the BBC, this is set to be the coldest December since records began.  So if cold winters are evidence of Global Warming, a record cold December is very strong evidence indeed.
 
3. Thermal expansion.  We know that as things warm, they expand.  As the earth’s orbit expands, we shall be that little bit further away from the Sun.  This will lead to temporary cooling for a few decades.  But don’t worry!  We have Professor Rahmstorf’s promise that “global warming wins out in the end”.
 
4. More thermal expansion.  As the oceans warm, their volume increases, and rising sea levels will create a greater sea surface area.  This will result in increased evaporation, leading to more cloud formation, higher albedo, more sunlight reflected into space, temporary cooling for a few decades.  But keep Prof. Rahmstorf’s reassurance in mind.  In fact water vapour is a more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2, so that should help get Global Warming back on track.  (The only problem is that actual measurements of sea level rise show that it is proceeding no faster now than it has for centuries – around six inches a century.  But Hey, we don’t want to let the facts spoil a good story, do we?).
 
5. Even more thermal expansion:  A warming earth will expand, so the surface will be that little bit further from the centre of gravity – and on the sunny side, a little bit closer to the Sun.  Lashings of Factor 50 called for.
 
6. Follow the money!  We have to believe in Global Warming, because thousands of jobs depend on it, in academia, in the media, in local councils, in the new “green” industries – even Chris Huhne’s job!  There are millions of pound in research grants for Global Warming.  And billions of dollars for wind farm merchants, the photo-voltaic industry, and a clutch of snake-oil salesmen.  Vast profits in trading carbon futures – Al Gore and Rajendra Pachauri are growing rich in the proceeds.  Challenge the theory behind Global Warming, and all that lovely money goes up in smoke.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

8 Responses to Lots more reasons to believe in Global Warming

  1. Axel says:

    This is what I have been saying for years, that the entire pantomime / jamboree is really a FRAUD and all those involved are CRIMINALS. Those who knowingly defraud the taxpayer (or anyone) are committing CRIMINAL offences. This cannot continue.

    Sadly the entire global-warming / climate-change / climate-disruption / CO2-boondoggle is just a distraction from the real agenda of World Governance, which was Hitler’s Dream. He planned all this way back in the 1930’s and now we are the victims once again of the scourge of Marxism.

    ENOUGH! PUT THESE CROOKS IN JAIL/GAOL/PRISON.

    See the many videos at the website linked to my name. Click the name “Axel” and be amazed at the brazen attituide of these crooks, and see the true story from reputable and proven science.

  2. Edward says:

    The trouble is Mr. Helmer, this AGW ‘thing’ has been rooted
    now in the EU DNA, to reverse the wrong doing and waste, would take
    a herculean effort. The sadness is: how this vast amount of money
    could have and should have been better spent! It has been frittered
    away on white elephants – useless palliatives (wind turbines – if
    we covered every square inch of Britain, it would not matter one
    iota, if the wind was not blowing) and empire building by venal
    men, most of them government shills and civil servants. People
    should pay and pay dearly for this fraud but who is to stand
    up….and rid the alarmists from the temple? Let alone, cast the
    first stone, because: “we were all in it together and only
    following orders!”

  3. Another excellent blogpost from Roger, about the ongoing fraud of “man-made global warming”. Indeed, it is preposterous that most of our mainstream media continue to take the side of climate hysteria. We need more commentators, politicians and others to raise public awareness of the key facts (as Roger has regularly been doing using his blog and other methods). I found out from following this blog, for example, a list of 1,000 scientists who do NOT share the so-called consensus that global warming is a man-made problem. Indeed, a growing scientists and others very much doubt that there is any proof at all of global warming. To add to the scandal, a number of famous people are actually making huge sums of money by trying to panic the public into believing such nonsense. Surely, our country is not in a position to pay for measures intended to facilitate reductions in carbon emissions and expensive publicity campaigns? This has got to stop.

  4. Jonathan Ward says:

    Roger – I’ll come back to you on the first 5 points when I get time, but on the last point – why do you always conflate ‘green’ with global warming? Do you think when Unilever and other large businesses embark on sustainability strategies they do this for CSR and solely because of global warming? Or perhaps might you admit that many business, organisations and individuals think it prudent, fiscally sensible, and ethically preferable to limit damage to nature, conserve resources for future generations, and not operate with a high degree of vulnerability to either the weather (climate) or resource disruption (which could be due to scarcity, environmental impact, price spikes from externalities).

    So, is it fair, or even worth trying to lump disparate ideas, sectors, political persuasions and causes under one umbrella called ‘green’?

    One thing that has interested me when reading blogs on global warming is that those with a strong sceptical persuasion, and not those who wish to actually enter a genuine scientific debate, contextualise ‘glboal warming’ in very different ways. For instance, Axel’s comments suggest a perspective of politics is the context for the discussion, namely that anthropogenic global warming/climate change is a Marxist plot.

    Roger, you however, suggest people and markets are making a lot of money out of it, suggesting that this is a capitalistic/elitist plot?

    Some others suggest it is because ‘greens’, that mysteriously homogenous group of people(?), don’t like fun/progress/capitalism and so set out to prevent others from advancing.

    That said, I am only discussing some of the sceptics I have encountered, I know sceptics who are willing to enter into genuine debate, because, like with all areas of discussion in life, there tends to be a spectrum of views, and not a polarised block here, and there.

    • The fact is, Jonathan, that 90% (I’m guessing) of all the money and effort on green policies is about Global Warming and emissions reductions. I’m all in favour of companies conserving resources, increasing efficiency and reducing cost. I’m also in favour of stopping pollution — but CO2 is not a pollutant. It’s a natural trace gas which is essential for life on earth to survive.

      • MaxIvory says:

        “CO2 is not a pollutant. It’s a natural trace gas which is essential for life on earth to survive.”

        Roger, Im not sure what point you are trying to make here? Are you implying that we should not be spending money on reducing CO2 emissions because actually CO2 is good for us? If it is so good for us, perhaps we should be spending money to increase CO2 emissions?? Is this your position?

        This is all a bit silly, frankly.

        The argument is not about whether CO2 is intrinsically a “good” or “bad” gas. Of course it is a fact we need some C02 to survive – but in point of fact its also true that in high concentrations the gas can be fatal http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Monoun

        But I digress. The real argument, as you well know, is about what the risks of continuing to add extra CO2 into the atmosphere may be. The honest debate is about what the level of risk is, based on what we know, and what we can realistically do to address it, given economic and political constraints.

        Nobody will really know for certain how the climate will develop until a hundred or maybe 200 hundred years hence, but since we cannot travel forward in time we have to study past data, examine our current behaviour, make further observations and use this as a guide to the decisions we take now.

        I would be happy to have that debate, and I think it is essential to do so.

        The problem I have is that it is not really possible to have that debate with the so called skeptics because they ultimately do not have an agreed or coherent position. They simply move the goalposts and cherry pick random ideas and objections to suit the moment.

        Elsewhere on your own website you reference may well worn skeptics arguments, but taken together these do not add up to a coherent position. I have summarised some of these below:

        1) Warming isn’t happening, scientists are just lying to us to get research money

        2) Warming is happening – but its all because of sun spots (solar scientists are pure and not motivated by money)

        3) Warming isn’t happening, its just the “urban heat island” effect skewing the data (scientists are not clever enough to factor this into their observations)

        4) Warming is happening but it won’t affect us because its only a matter of a few degrees

        5) Warming isn’t happening because the winter is colder than usual at the moment (weather and climate are one and the same phenomenon)

        6) Warming is happening but its just part of a Mother Earth’s natural cycles that man cannot possibly have any influence over (though man can influence other atmospheric phenomena such as the ozone layer)

        7) Warming isn’t happening because some scientists once predicted an Ice Age 40 years ago and that never happened (scientists must always be right, and if they are proven wrong once this means all future science cannot be trusted)

        etc etc etc etc

        Sorry but its hard to take this seriously. I think a more honest and productive approach for the skeptics would be to move away from the scientific ground (where they have no real credibility or counter data) and concentrate on the political side. There is a legitimate argument about how we should respond to this challenge, but the argument about whether it is happening is already won.

        Its time to move on.

      • Axel says:

        @MaxIvory

        Your arguments are facile, sadly.
        They consist almost entirely of peripatetic logical fallacies.

        You attempt to belittle what Mr. Helmer says by referring to individual statements in part, without reference to the whole in the round. You attempt to refute what Mr. Helmer says by imposing an inferred contrary position, to that which he had stated. That is not logically sound.

        You then attempt to make an appeal to authority, and pose a knowledge of the biologocal actions of CO2 gas. However you merely demonstrate your lack of understanding, by then quoting an example of asphixiation, by dint of exclusion of oxygen, and chemical burns caused by well known effects of such phenomena.

        Your understanding of both the actions of CO2, and the relative concentrations of CO2 and O2 in the biosphere is seriously flawed, and this makes your attempt at a refutation of Mr. Helmer’s statements, frankly risible.

        Let us leave the debate about the physical effects of CO2 to the one side for the moment, and allow me to comment on the second premiss that you put.

        There is indeed a political dimension to these matters, and this is actually the more important factor. The supposed actions of CO2 are being used as an excuse to impose draconian legislation, and swingeing taxation regimes upon every aspect of our lives.

        Politicians do this because they want to have more authority, and because they have been deliberatly misinformed by those who have a vested interest in mis-representing the facts.

        Some well-meaning people go along with the flawed ideas because they have either, been misled by others, or have an incomplete understanding of the chemical and physical processes involved in the premiss, and are making mere suppositions, without proper diligence. I shall give you the benefit of doubt, and put you in this latter category.

        As to the hypotheses which you enumerate, they are curtly and badly put, and not a fair relection of the arguments to which you refer in your critique. However I shall make some reference to these, in the hope that this will better inform your understanding.

        1)
        This is indeed facile. Warming has been happening, in fits, since the end of the Maunder and Dalton minima, this much is true. Nevertheless it is the case that in recent years the average temperature has been stationary or falling, negating entirely the warming observed in the records of the twentieth century. You put a second point about lying scientists, and indeed this is a fact for many. Some even lie to themselves, and justify their actions as an expediency.

        2)
        As I stated in the last, warming has been happening, but you appear to dismiss The Sun as the primary cause for this, when it is self-evident that The Sun is in fact the power source for all the radiated energy that reaches the planet Earth.

        3)
        There is an observed heat island effect, and scientists look at data, and not necessarily at the physical location of every gauge which measured the datum. There is a controversy about the siting of these gauges, of which you are aware I am sure.

        4)
        Indeed the temperature change between night and day at any spot on the planet is tens of times greater than any predicted imminent rise, which you allude to. This hasn’t adversely affected the population.

        5)
        Which lexicon would you prefer to refer to for a definition here, but I wonder whether you have actually ever looked this up. Let’s take three common references.
        i. Websters Dictionary defines “Climate” as:
        “the average course or condition of the weather at a place usually over a period of years as exhibited by temperature, wind velocity, and precipitation”
        ii. Collins Dictionary defines “Climate” as:
        “the typical weather conditions of an area”
        iii.
        Microsoft Encarta defines “Climate” as:
        “meteorology – typical weather in region: the average weather or the regular variations in weather in a region over a period of years”

        6)
        Indeed this is broadly correct, however you cannot resist the “straw man” codecile can you? This is something which you consistantly do. It is a peripatetic logical fallacy. The two part question, with disparate assertions cannot be answered with a single rebuttal.

        7)
        Predictions which were flawed 40 years ago remain the same as flawed predictions made today. They are flawed because of insufficent attention to doing due diligence in the matters under investigation. In many cases these conclusions are arrived at hastily because of expediency, as I have said. You would wish to try and make some definite point, and draw some conclusion from statements which are so tenuous as to make that impossible.

        You conclude by saying it is time for skeptics to move away from science, but in fact this is how scientific debate actually works, in the peer review process, and from day to day in the laboratory. It is the scientists remit to question “accepted beliefs” and to examine the processes which led to that belief. Science advances by disproving long held beliefs.

        As Albert Einstein was once reputed to have said: “No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.”

        Finally again the tired old assertion that “the science is settled” is alluded to by you in your closing remark, and that is as false today as when it was first mooted by Albert Gore.

  5. Sceptic says:

    MaxIvory, anyone who quotes wikipedi as a source really can’t be taken seriously can they!

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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