GLACIERS that don’t melt, polar bears that aren’t dying, temperatures that haven’t increased – why global warming is nonsense
This newspaper has been vociferous in challenging the wisdom of the powerful climate-change lobby which insists humans have put the planet in peril. Yet it seems every week another “green” warning is repudiated by a scientific community reassessing how much danger we are really in. A few days ago, for instance, a new book was released that exposes one of the bedrocks of global warming – the so-called hockey stick graph – to be fatally flawed. it’s a confusing debate so here, with the help of investigative journalist Christopher Booker, we debunk the most commonly held myths.
WE ARE SOLELY TO BLAME FOR GLOBAL WARMING
The sun is the major cause of temperature variation on Earth’s surface and over long periods of time there are natural cooler and warmer cycles. Periodically sunspots – storms on the sun’s surface – appear and influence our temperatures by emitting more heat and causing the planet to warm naturally. When they are absent we experience mini ice-ages, such as the one between 1790 and 1830, but they are nothing to worry about.
COLD COMFORT: Frosty is right – we are in for a series of harsh winters
Some studies indicate sunspot activity has doubled in the past century. The result on Earth is that the sun glows brighter by about 0.1 per cent now than it did 100 years ago and unsurprisingly it’s warmer. So when studying global warming we should take much more notice of the vagaries of our most powerful life force; the sun. As well as affecting the surface of Earth it also influences the temperatures of the oceans. sometimes the tilt of the sun changes which also affects temperatures on Earth, and we shouldn’t ignore the influence of powerful solar winds and magnetic activity, which governs cloud cover.
WHAT’S THE FUSS ABOUT THE HOCKEY-STICK GRAPH?
Some studies indicate sunspot activity has doubled in the past century
Much of the current panic began in 1998 when Dr Michael Mann and his co-authors published their now-discredited “hockey stick” temperature plot. Named for its shape that showed a long trend of steady temperature drop over a 1,000-year period and a sudden rise since the early Nineties, it became the foundation stone for the global warming brigade.
New book The hockey stick illusion, by scientist Andrew Montford, tells how the figures don’t stack up and reveals how lone researcher steve Mcintyre exposed the myth. in fact the hockey stick, based on a computer-generated model, ignores natural climate fluctuations in the past. Christopher Booker, an author who believes the theory of man-made global warming has been disproved, describes the original work as “one of the most comprehensively discredited artefacts in the history of science” and adds: “Temperatures have always gone up and down over the years. The trend since 2001 is down.
No one knows what is going to happen but almost all the computer models on which man-made climate change claims are based have been shown to be wrong.”
THE WORLD HAS NEVER BEEN WARMER
Not so. Around 1,000 years ago when there were no cars or factories belching pollution, temperatures were actually warmer than today, allowing Vikings to till farms in currently frozen Greenland. it has also been documented that vines flourished in Britain as far north as Lincolnshire during Roman times. Accurate satellite, balloon and mountain-top observations made over the past three decades have not shown any significant change in the long-term rate of increase in global temperatures. Temperatures recorded in the past 100 years, when global warming is supposed to have soared, are within natural variations recorded over the past millennium.
GLOBAL WARMING CAUSES EXTREME WEATHER
There is no evidence that global warming is influencing our weather. There have always been heatwaves, hurricanes and cold snaps but they are unpredictable. in fact the number of hurricanes is lower now than it was 50 years ago and there were more global droughts in the first half of the 20th century. “One of the huge myths is that extreme weather conditions are increasing around the world,” says Booker.
GLACIERS ARE MELTING AND THE SEA’S GETTING HOTTER
It’s possible to find all sorts of different scenarios which change over time. According to the Us National snow and ice Data Center in Colorado, the low point of Arctic summer sea ice has increased by 26 per cent since 2007, ice thicknesses are also increasing in Greenland and Antarctica. Glaciers have been receding and growing in cycles for hundreds of years. scientists know of at least 33 periods of glaciers growing and then retreating.
This is normal and in fact the size of a glacier is also linked to rainfall levels. Recently scientists retracted their claims that glaciers in the himalayas could disappear by 2035 because of global warming. As for the oceans, temperatures fluctuate naturally. At present we’re in a cool phase so we can expect harsher winters and lower summer temperatures for a few years. This year record low temperatures have been recorded as far south as Cuba.
WE MUST SPEND BILLIONS TO PROTECT THE PLANET
Throwing money at climate change would be a major waste of aren’t man-made there’s little we can do to intervene.
Here government figures show that combating climate change will cost taxpayers £18billion from now until 2050. In the United States alone it’s been calculated that putting measures in place to cut emissions to levels demanded by campaigners would cost 2.4million jobs. The best strategy is to invest in atmospheric research and in reducing emissions sometime in the future if the science becomes more compelling.
EVIDENCE FOR WARMING IS OVERHWHELMING
Alarmists quote reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a United Nations organisation, to support predictions. Yet even the IPCC admits that forecasting climate change – just like predicting the weather more than a few days ahead – is notoriously difficult, even with the latest computers.
Over the past two years the Earth’s surface has actually cooled. Going back in time temperature increases can also be attributed to the fact that most of the observations are taken in cities or airports where temperatures may be skewed higher.
POLAR BEAR NUMBERS ARE DECLINING
Images of polar bears clinging pathetically to melting ice have made them the poster animals for climate change. There are thought to be between 20,000 and 25,000 polar bears in 19 population groups around the Arctic. While polar bear numbers are decreasing in two of these populations, two others are definitely on the increase. We don’t populations are doing so the truth is that no one can say for sure how overall numbers are changing.
One explanation for the increases may be a reduction in hunting but it’s just as likely that global warming is not having the terrible effect that TV images of the bears appear to show.
ATMOSPHERIC CO2 LEVELS ARE DANGEROUS
There is no proof carbon dioxide (CO2) is driving global warming. The role of the gas in polluting the atmosphere and causing global warming has been overstated. In fact CO2 gas accounts for a tiny fraction, measuring much less than one per cent of the atmosphere. If there is a greenhouse effect then it is actually being caused mainly by water vapour and clouds, which are beyond our control.
Even if we accept the risks posed by CO2 the role played by man is miniscule. Some scientists believe carbon dioxide levels fluctuate naturally with the temperature of Earth. Warmer ocean water expels gases, some of which are carbon dioxide.
ALL TOP SCIENTISTS STILL BELIEVE IN WARMING
Not the case. There is a growing group of dissenters but the problem is that politicians who are setting the climate-change agenda have based their policies on flawed research. The American climate- change campaigner Al Gore has, for example, based his claims on the hockey-stick model. Booker claims some supporters of global warming are now discredited after leaked e-mails showed how they covered up contradictions.
He says: “The leaked documents show the scientists trying to manipulate data through their tortuous computer programmes, always to point in only the one desired direction: to lower past temperatures and to ‘adjust’ recent temperatures upwards in order to convey the impression of an accelerated warming. There are now hundreds of world-ranked scientists who dispute the thesis that Earth is warming because of man-made emissions.”
More than 17,000 scientists have signed a petition circulated by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine stating: “There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of Earth’s climate.”
Compiled by Adrian Lee.
To Order The Real Global Warming Disaster by Christopher Booker (Continuum, £16.99) with free UK delivery, call 0871 988 8367 with card details, send a cheque payable to Express Newspapers to The Express Bookshop, PO Box 200, Falmouth TR11 4WJ or order via www.expressbookshop.co.uk
THIS ARTICLE IS DANGEROUS NONSENSE
23.02.10, 8:44pm
There may not be a consensus on human-caused global warming among all scientists, but there is amongst climate scientists, 97.4% of whom agree: http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus.htm As Jamestheagedparent points out, would you rather stake your grandchildren's future on the say-so of a journalist, or be safe and listen to the opinion of those who actually know what they are talking about?
This article unfortunately bears no relation to the science. For example:
The 'hockey stick graph' has not been disproved. Many studies show that the past few decades have been the hottest in the past 1,300 years. http://www.skepticalscience.com/broken-hockey-stick.htm
It's not caused by sunspots. In the last 35 years of global warming, the sun has shown a slight cooling trend. Sun and climate have been going in opposite directions.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm
Yes, natural CO2 emissions are greater than human ones, but they are equivalent to the amounts reabsorbed. It is human emissions that upset the balance. http://www.skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions.htm
Clouds are important in global warming BUT their effect is to amplify the effect of CO2. http://www.skepticalscience.com/water-vapor-greenhouse-gas.htm
I could go on...
On the whole, the more you know about a subject the less you worry about it. Where global warming is concerned, the more scientists learn about it the more worried they have become. I'm not a scientist, but I know it took millions of years for fossil fuels to be formed and it stands to reason that our use of them at the rate we are must be having some effect. I'm not sure about it, but I sure as hell wouldn't want to say to my grandchildren that I did nothing because I thought it was rubbish and it turned out to be true.
So let's do a little risk assessment, shall we? If the doom mongers are wrong and the Express is right, and we've done nothing, everyone's happy. If we've taken action to reduce our pollution levels, we'll be more efficient, possibly less happy, probably rather miffed, but we'll still be alive. If the doom mongers are right, and we've taken action as before, we're in the same position. BUT, if we've done nothing (which is what's happening now), and they are right (ie the Express is wrong) we face a long slow catastrophe that cannot be stopped because we should have put the brakes on fifty years earlier and didn't.
Come that time, I'll be dead, and so will the Express's editors. But my grandchildren won't be. So the question is not really whether you're right or wrong, but whether you can afford to take the risk. As Clint Eastwood put it - Do you feel lucky? And are you prepared to gamble your grandchildren's future on your opinion? I'm not.
However, there is a problem in the narrative regarding the polar bears. If there are 19 polar bear colonies and 2 of these are shrinking, the remaining 17 colonies are expanding and not 2 as stated.
Just read this article which states that (what we all learned in school) the air consists of 21% = oxygen, 78% = nitrogen and only 0.038% is CO2. Of this percentage 96% CO2 is produced by nature and only 4% by man. This is 4% of 0.038% = 0.00152%. Germany e.g. produces 3.1% of this, in other words: 0.00004712%. The article further states that the hysteria regarding CO2 emissions is nothing more than getting further taxes out of the man-in-the-street. Very interesting and makes one think and wonder ..........
You are to be congratulated on your stance against this absolute nonsense,please keep up the good work.
There are a few other myths that need exploding also,in a logical,factual way.
The main one being about a certain religion and its peaceful intentions.
THIS ARTICLE IS DANGEROUS NONSENSE
23.02.10, 8:44pm
There may not be a consensus on human-caused global warming among all scientists, but there is amongst climate scientists, 97.4% of whom agree: http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus.htm As Jamestheagedparent points out, would you rather stake your grandchildren's future on the say-so of a journalist, or be safe and listen to the opinion of those who actually know what they are talking about?
This article unfortunately bears no relation to the science. For example:
The 'hockey stick graph' has not been disproved. Many studies show that the past few decades have been the hottest in the past 1,300 years. http://www.skepticalscience.com/broken-hockey-stick.htm
It's not caused by sunspots. In the last 35 years of global warming, the sun has shown a slight cooling trend. Sun and climate have been going in opposite directions.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm
Yes, natural CO2 emissions are greater than human ones, but they are equivalent to the amounts reabsorbed. It is human emissions that upset the balance. http://www.skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions.htm
Clouds are important in global warming BUT their effect is to amplify the effect of CO2. http://www.skepticalscience.com/water-vapor-greenhouse-gas.htm
I could go on...
Posted by: CountingSheep Report Comment
SO - YOU FEEL LUCKY, DO YOU?
17.02.10, 6:33pm
On the whole, the more you know about a subject the less you worry about it. Where global warming is concerned, the more scientists learn about it the more worried they have become. I'm not a scientist, but I know it took millions of years for fossil fuels to be formed and it stands to reason that our use of them at the rate we are must be having some effect. I'm not sure about it, but I sure as hell wouldn't want to say to my grandchildren that I did nothing because I thought it was rubbish and it turned out to be true.
So let's do a little risk assessment, shall we? If the doom mongers are wrong and the Express is right, and we've done nothing, everyone's happy. If we've taken action to reduce our pollution levels, we'll be more efficient, possibly less happy, probably rather miffed, but we'll still be alive. If the doom mongers are right, and we've taken action as before, we're in the same position. BUT, if we've done nothing (which is what's happening now), and they are right (ie the Express is wrong) we face a long slow catastrophe that cannot be stopped because we should have put the brakes on fifty years earlier and didn't.
Come that time, I'll be dead, and so will the Express's editors. But my grandchildren won't be. So the question is not really whether you're right or wrong, but whether you can afford to take the risk. As Clint Eastwood put it - Do you feel lucky? And are you prepared to gamble your grandchildren's future on your opinion? I'm not.
Posted by: Jamestheagedparent Report Comment
POLAR BEAR POPULATION
27.01.10, 5:34pm
Let me start by saying this article is welcomed.
However, there is a problem in the narrative regarding the polar bears. If there are 19 polar bear colonies and 2 of these are shrinking, the remaining 17 colonies are expanding and not 2 as stated.
Posted by: TheJollyGreenMan Report Comment
EYE-BLIND
27.01.10, 1:02pm
Just read this article which states that (what we all learned in school) the air consists of 21% = oxygen, 78% = nitrogen and only 0.038% is CO2. Of this percentage 96% CO2 is produced by nature and only 4% by man. This is 4% of 0.038% = 0.00152%. Germany e.g. produces 3.1% of this, in other words: 0.00004712%. The article further states that the hysteria regarding CO2 emissions is nothing more than getting further taxes out of the man-in-the-street. Very interesting and makes one think and wonder ..........
Posted by: Mercutio Report Comment
I AGRRE WHOLE HEARTEDLY WITH POSTER BELOW.. WELL DONE DE
27.01.10, 10:00am
Now, and as i have said before..loony organisations like " Plane Stupid " don't call themselves that for nothing you know !
Green.. yeah go Green.. its exactly what colour one needs to be to believe all Gorl Al's lies and NWO Propaganda !
Posted by: Harri_if_hipphopper_wants_a_date_just_ask Report Comment
WELL DONE THE DE
27.01.10, 9:14am
You are to be congratulated on your stance against this absolute nonsense,please keep up the good work.
There are a few other myths that need exploding also,in a logical,factual way.
The main one being about a certain religion and its peaceful intentions.
Posted by: JackPershing Report Comment
To view all 'Have Your Say' comments, click this button...