Written by Geraldo Luís Lino, special to Climate Change Dispatch – reposted here at WUWT by request – Note: the opinion of this author is not necessarily the same as mine. I provide this for discussion by CCD’s request. – Anthony

In the not too distant future, it will likely be difficult to understand how so many educated people believed in and accepted uncritically for so long a scientifically unproven theory like the so-called Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW).
Taken almost as a dogma, the AGW has been forcefully imposed by means of a barrage of scare stories and indoctrination that begins in the elementary school textbooks and is volleyed relentlessly upon us by the media and many scientific institutions (including some pseudo-scientific ones), while gullible or opportunistic politicians devise all possible means of inserting climate-motivated items into their power-seeking schemes.
The threat allegedly posed by that supposed world emergency would justify the need of at least halving the human carbon emissions until mid-century, meaning a draconian reduction of the use of fossil fuels worldwide. Despite the drastic potential impact of such measures upon the living standards of all nations, the failure to do so and of establishing a “low-carbon economy,” we are told, would usher the environmental apocalypse in. Well, fortunately for Mankind it won’t.
However, that avalanche has gone too far. So, it’s high time to turn the alarmist page and discard the buzzwords with which the subject has been marketed once and for all: (undeserved) hype, (unmotivated) scare, (unnecessary) restrictions and (unacceptable) sacrifices. In their stead new keywords are needed to put the climatic phenomena into their proper perspective again: proportion, knowledge and resilience.
Let’s begin with trying to give the climate theme the right proportion concerning its nature and relationship with Mankind.
The environmentalist propaganda machine has ascribed an intrinsically negative and threatening connotation to the expression climate change, as if the climatic oscillations of the last century and a half were something unprecedented and implying that it should be combated at any cost – even if this would hamper the development perspectives of most of the developing countries (and as if Mankind had the necessary knowledge and means to do so). Notwithstanding, changing is the natural condition of the Earth’s climate – in the historical and geological time scales there has never been and there will never be such a thing as a “static” climate (so, climate change is sort of a pleonasm). As a rule of thumb, during 90% of the Phanerozoic eon (the latest 570 million years) the Earth has experienced temperatures higher than the current ones, and 90% of the Quaternary period (the latest 2.6 million years) have elapsed under glacial conditions and temperatures much lower than the current ones.
The Quaternary has also witnessed the most frequent and rapid climatic oscillations in the Earth’s geological history, alternating between cool glacial and warm interglacial periods in 41,000- and 100,000-year cycles. In the last 800,000 years the longer cycles have prevailed and the Earth experienced eight Ice Ages approximately 90,000-year long separated by eight interglacial periods averaging 10,000-11,000 years (although there are controversies about their length).
During the Ice Ages the average temperatures were 8-10°C lower than the current ones, the sea levels were 120-130 m lower and much of the Northern Hemisphere was covered by an ice pack up to 4 km thick, down to the 40°N parallel (the latitude of nowadays New York). During the interglacials the average temperatures reached 4-6°C and the sea levels 3-6 m above the current ones. Our own interglacial the Holocene, which started 11,500-11,700 years ago, had average temperatures up to 4°C and sea levels up to 3 m above the current ones between 5,000-6,000 years ago (Middle Holocene).
The transition periods between the warming and cooling phases and vice versa, when the average temperatures rose or fell the 6-8°C that make the difference between an interglacial and an Ice Age, have lasted from a few centuries to a few decades. [1]
The genus Homo appeared on Earth soon after the onset of the Quaternary. Our species the Homo sapiens sapiens emerged during the penultimate Ice Age, somewhere between 150,000-200,000 years ago. And our problem-solver, city-builder, technological, scientific, industrial and artistic Civilization has been existing entirely in the Holocene and its warmer temperatures that allowed the advent of agriculture.
Some useful tips emerge from such facts:
- The wild oscillations of the Quaternary are the general climatic condition faced by Humankind ever. We have been coping with them quite successfully and nothing suggests that we cannot continue to do so (as long as common sense and non-partisan science prevail).
- They outline a background “noise” that by far overshadows the tiny rise of the temperature and sea levels (and their gradients) that have occurred since the late 19th century – respectively 0.8°C and 0.2 m, according to the IPCC. [2] This simply means that there is no scientific way to attribute causes other than natural to these, because the background “noise” has yielded much wider and faster oscillations of the temperatures and sea levels occurring before the Industrial Revolution.
- The Quaternary climate dynamics seems to be “self-adjusted” to the boundary conditions outlined by the Ice Ages and interglacials. So, the suggested risk of a “runaway warming” or some kind of climate disruption from the human carbon emissions is far-fetched, specially regarding the much ballyhooed “magic number” of 2°C warming that supposedly could not be exceeded (a political contrivance admitted by its own author, the German physicist Hans Joachim Schellnhuber in an interview to the Spiegel Online website). [3] During the interglacials there were higher temperatures without any kind of “runaway” disturbance.
Real global emergencies
As to the real global emergencies requiring urgent actions on new levels of international attention, cooperation, coordination and funding, there is no shortage of them. For those seriously interested in this business, here are some that do not exist only in supercomputer-run mathematical models and that would benefit very much from fractions of the colossal amounts of money – and human resources – that have been wasted with the non-existent AGW:
- The world’s most serious environmental troubles, particularly in the developing countries, are those related to the lack of water and sanitation infrastructure, like water pollution and the water-borne diseases that kill a child every 15 seconds in the developing countries, according to the World Health Organization. [4] A 2007 poll conducted by the British Medical Journal among physicians all over the world elected fresh water and sanitation infrastructure as the greatest medical advance of the last 150 years – a “privilege” still unavailable for over 40% of the world’s population. [5] In Brazil, less than half of the population have access to sewage systems and two thirds of the child internments in the public health system are due to water-borne diseases. [6] (I’ve never seen Al Gore, Hollywood stars or the major environmental NGOs campaigning for sanitation.)
- Hunger and its consequences kill a child every six seconds, according to the FAO. [7] Almost one billion people all over the world suffer from chronic hunger, a scenario that will surely worsen due to the current speculation-driven price rise affecting some basic staples. [8] Besides the immoral waste of productive lives, the annual economic cost of such a tragedy in productivity, revenue, investment and consumption losses is estimated in the order of hundreds of billion dollars. [9]
- The lack of access by much of the world’s population to modern energy sources. Dung and firewood, the most primitive fuels known to Mankind, are still the basic resources for the daily needs of most of the Sub-Saharan Africans (besides being major sources of deforestation and respiratory diseases). Although with lower figures, the same happens in much of Asia, Latin America and the Caribbean. And, as over 80% of the world’s primary energy needs are provided by coal, oil and natural gas, it’s not difficult to ascertain the potential consequences of the intended restriction of their uses, as proposed by many scientists, environmentalists, politicians, carbon traders and all the people terrified by the AGW scare stories. Besides that, thermoelectric plants generate about two thirds of the world’s electricity, the rest being almost totally provided by hydroelectric and nuclear plants (also increasingly targeted by the environmentalists). [10]
The list of real troubles is much longer, but these few examples suffice to demonstrate the distortions of the agenda of global discussions, both among the policymakers and the public opinion in general (which, in the case of the climate issues, also reflect a widespread deficiency of scientific education among the educated strata of the societies).
In any case, make no mistake. Barring an unforeseen technological breakthrough, there won’t be large scale replacements for the fossil fuels until late this century at least. Massive national and international investments in efficient and integrated multi-modal and urban transportation systems may and should help to reduce the use of automobiles and trucks, particularly in the overcrowded big cities. For power generation, there are the options of harnessing the hydroelectric potential still available, the expansion of nuclear energy and the interlinking of continental and even inter-continental power grids in order to enhance both the energy efficiency and security for all countries involved (forget the current “alternative sources” for large scale uses, they are not technologically and economically feasible for energizing urban and industrial societies). However – and hence –, coal, oil and natural gas will continue to be sources of development and progress for a long time yet – and it is unacceptable that its growing use be hindered by an imaginary threat.
The author is a Brazilian geologist and author of the book “The Global Warming Fraud: How a Natural Phenomenon was Converted into a False World Emergency” (published in 2009 in Portuguese, with over 5,000 copies sold so far, and soon to be published in Spanish in Mexico).
Sources:
- The Paleomap Project, website of University of Texas (Arlington) geologist Dr. Christopher R. Scotese, provides a good overview on the Earth’s geologic, geographic and climatic evolution over the past 1.1 billion years, with a well-written text and didactic animated maps that are useful and interesting for general readers and professional geoscientists alike (www.scotese.com). For an excellent description of the Quaternary climatic history, see the Chapter 2 of Ian Plimer’s Heaven and Earth: Global Warming, the Missing Science (Lanham: Taylor Trade Publishing, 2009). Spanish language readers may find particularly interesting the website of Dr. Antón Uriarte, a geographer at the Universidad del País Vasco, Paleoclimatologia: Historia del Clima y Cambios Climáticos (http://homepage.mac.com/uriarte/).
- IPCC, Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report – Summary for Policymakers, http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr_spm.pdf.
- Marco Evers, Olaf Stampf and Gerald Traufette, “A Superstorm for Global Warming Research”, Spiegel Online, 1/04/2010, http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,686697,00.html.
- Oliver Cumming, Tackling the silent killer: the case for sanitation. London: WaterAid, July 2008, http://www.wateraid.org/documents/tacking_the_silent_killer_the_case_for_sanitation.pdf.
- Sarah Boseley, “Sanitation rated the greatest medical advance in 150 years”, The Guardian, 1/19/2007, http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2007/jan/19/health.medicineandhealth3.
- Marcelo Cortes Neri (Coord.), Trata Brasil: Saneamento e Saúde. Rio de Janeiro: Fundação Getúlio Vargas, 2007.
- Bread for the World, “Hunger Facts: International”, http://www.bread.org/learn/hunger-basics/hunger-facts-international.html.
- FAO, “Hunger”, http://www.fao.org/hunger/en/.
- FAO/Alessandra Benedetti, “Hunger on the rise: soaring prices add 75 million people to global hunger rolls”, 9/18/2008, http://www.fao.org/news/story/ch/item/7544/icode/en/.
- International Energy Agency statistics page, http://www.iea.org/stats/index.asp.
Geraldo Luís Lino is a Brazilian geologist and author of the book “The Global Warming Fraud: How a Natural Phenomenon was Converted into a False World Emergency” (published in 2009 in Portuguese, with over 5,000 copies sold so far, and soon to be published in Spanish)
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The only causes of hunger and starvation in this world are political. Think Zimbabwe and North Korea to name a few. We grow enough food to feed everyone, and yields will keep improving as long as the CO2 keeps rising. The problem is government.
No one has extended human life spans more than the plumber. Maybe we could get
Congress to proclaim a National Plumbing Day.
Right on!!!
It seems to me that the bigger picture is not just about global warming and cooling, or being manmade or not; but the application and use of propaganda by special interest groups in the 21st century on a world-wide basis.
I find it absolutely amazing to witness the hijacking of the Associated Press, various Science Organizations, and manipulation by politicians, and manipulation of the school system. Further, the tactics of group and peer pressure used and applied to people of different viewpoints rivaled only by those used by the totalitarians of WWII.
Have we gotten any smarter? Even with a communications boom of the ’80s and ’90s brought about by internet, we are still only sheep following (or preaching) one agenda or another.
Even more scary, the hypocrisy of people running around preaching the agenda, that do not follow it themselves. The outrageousness of the Copenhagen Summit with tens of thousands of people flying half way around the world just to hold a sign about global warming. Just about every high profile AGW screamer living in outrageous excess of that which they are preaching, yet so many people seem to follow blindly, and feel great in doing so.
Bob
The fear that has been generated generally concerns the threat to civilisation. Civilisation developed in the Holocene. 100 years ago it became clear by geological evidence (varves), and other evidence, that the climate variations observed across geological time continued to the present time, as (smaller shorter) variations were observed right through the holocene to the present. For some reason climate science kept forgetting this discovery.
The reason might indeed related to this fear. Bruckner, Huntington and Lamb all recorded the (sometimes cruel and merciless) impact of small variations in the global climate upon the course of civilisation.
We could only accept climate variation when in the 1970s a story was picked up that we might have some impact on it. This grew to the carbon-emissions ‘thermostat’ where we can control our climate destiny. It was this fear-control thing that got mixed up in the funding-political thing.
In this is the resilience of AGW. The only back-story that matters is climate and civilisation during the holocene. And there is a lot we can say about that, including that warm times are generally good times. The rest of the human-climate back-story hardly matters.
Juraj V. says:
November 6, 2010 at 11:14 am
I am not sure whether the sea level was several meters higher few thousand years ago. But hey, all I got is a stinkin’ graph from Wiki.
http://www.globalwarmingart.com/images/1/1d/Post-Glacial_Sea_Level.png
The relative sea level graph included in this piece seems to support their contention
http://www.radiocarbon.ldeo.columbia.edu/research/sealevel.htm
In re the graph I mentioned in the post above. You have to click on the photo sequence at the top right of the text several times to get to it. Sorry I neglected to include this before.
“while gullible or opportunistic politicians devise all possible means of inserting climate-motivated items into their power-seeking schemes.”
So many cats. So little time. (To paraphrase Obama )
@Mike McMillan I would rather use the plumbing to dispose of Congress. That would be an even greater advance.
4 says (November 6, 2010 at 11:56 am):
That’s the best news I have heard lately. It’s about time reason was re-introduced into academia.
Re: Juraj
Keep your “art”. I’ll stick to science
Link to sea-level changes from real scientist: http://www.idm.gov.vn/nguon_luc/Xuat_ban/2001/17_18/A1_B9.JPG
There is plenty of proof out there that world oil production either has or is about to peak, leading to an increased scarcity going forward.
Perhaps if we dealt with the real problem at hand, flat or decreasing oil production, and leaving aside this Potemkin of AGW (AKA Global Warming, AKA climate change, AKA climate disruption, etc) and the “Green jobs” that come with it, we would all be better served.
Excellent essay Sr. Lino. Thank you.
Might I just add-
-Overfishing of the oceans
-Poisoning of waterways and coastal areas due to agricultural practices.
-Unsustainable and devastating land use practices, such as slash and burn
-Ocean pollution, including garbage, oil and petroleum discharge, etc.
-Continued real air pollution through discharge of aerosols.
-Destruction of native habitat
The list could go on, but the point is the same.
The CAGW fixation has been a disaster for the environment. All though resources being wasted on a non-problem.
Again, thank you.
Jimmy Haigh says:
November 6, 2010 at 11:04 am
Strange that… Only in academia…
DaveE.
Great article! One quible.
Factoids like “one child dies of a water borne disease every 15 seconds” seem to be a favourite tactic of alarmists. It may be completely true, but as expressed, it is meaningless. Is that one child in 10? 10,000? 10,000,000? It sounds dire, and for the families afflicted it is. But if you’re going to rank it as one of the world’s leading problems, then please express it via numbers that can be meaningfully compared. It might turn out that water borne diseases are only 1/10th of say malaria on a per capita basis. Can’t tell when consistent means of measurement aren’t used.
Left off your list is also a matter that another commenter referred to, which is death by politics. Millions live in daily fear of death from agents of their own government in Darfur, yet not a peep from the “do gooders” of the planet. The Congo is a mess and Somalia is a diasaster. Robert Mugabe has transformed his country from the bread basket of Africa to the basket case of Africa with mice becoming a source of food for many. These are humanitarian disasters that cry out for intervention, and could be dealt with for a fraction of what we have flushed down the drain looking for evidence of a catastrophe of our own making. In the meantime we ignore the catastrophes we have made.
The difference I suppose is AGW is a debate predicated on a warmist position that policies must be implemented and law abiding citizens must comply. Fixing Darfur or Somalia on the other hand requires armed intervention and loss of lives. The “do gooders” don’t seem to understand that much of the world is NOT a law abiding society, and is run by gangsters who make their own rules.
The “do gooders” are exasperated that the rest of us cannot see the wisdom of what is obvious to them, and so commited are they to the conclusions they have drawn that presenting evidence to them is futile. Just as they ignore the science before their eyes they ignore the plight of millions whose real catastrophes are far more easily proven. They can admit to neither because both causes are predicated on the notion that all the world’s problems will go away if we would just listen and do as we’re told.
Remarkable that in a law abiding society they have actual influence. Can you imagine preaching the dire consequences to humanity of his agricultural practices to Robert Mugabe in a public forum in Zimbabwe? The preaching would be short, brought to an end by a bloody public beating. No wonder the “do gooders” stay away from the real problems.
Well written Geraldo. An excellent summary of the situation. Looking forward to your two follow up posts.
I’ve often wondered what would happen if we divided up our countries into 2 parts so as to allow warmists to live a separate zero carbon life using solar panels and wind turbines, cycling to work, eating only vegetables, hoping the wind would blow on cold nights, etc.
The rest of us could then go about normal business driving our cars, and being happy in our warm homes, heated by cheap electricity.
This post is a little self-contradictory. One point made is that it has been 4 degrees higher in the past, and humans coped, so no big deal. This seems to concede we will be 4 degrees higher again, otherwise why mention it. So this is fine. Then it talks about current crises related to water shortages, sanitation, starvation etc., but makes no effort to investigate how these will be affected by 4 degrees higher temperatures, and a thousand times higher world population. Would it not make sense to at least mention this connection between the two themes in the post? Do warmer temperatures make these things worse or not? What is the conclusion? Perhaps the other parts will address these combined crises in more detail.
fredJ says: “When one considers the number of people in this world who have unproven deeply held religious beliefs, it is not difficult to understand the acceptance of unproven AGW theory by those who accept with out question what the preacher says.”
There is a slight similarity. All the same, if Al Gore invites you to a sleepover at the AGW Church rectory, don’t go, Fred.
Anthony: Care to share differences you have with this paper? Inquiring minds and all that ….
““No wonder quite a few geologists are so openly hostile to AGW.”
Yup. Me and all my geologist mates are anti AGW. The only geologists I know who are pro AGW are in academia…”
Just don’t tell Bob Carter that – he is in academdia 🙂
This might be of topic but, I have been a supporter of this site for at least three yearsa. I have been reading and agreeing with your responders that we need to get out the popcorn and enjoy the ride as we watch indicators vindicate us and show that things have topped out and are not really warming up as much as the warmists are proclaiming. And artic ice was one of the prime indicators of this as it recovered from the low in 2007 (I think). Yet I watched as artic ice nearly hit a low this year when compared to the past years. Please stop playing games with us and trying to justify the numbers and come up with something that those of us who are lay persons in all of this can put a little faith in. Thanks.
Lots of interesting response to sea level, when the real import of the message is real problems we are facing. I would disagree with the author on the need for new technology to harness renewables. We have adequate technology now, that is economically uncompetitive only because we subsidize fossil fuels with the failure to force internalization of major costs. He is right that it will take decades to do enough about the problem. World oil supply has probably already peaked, in 2008, and world oil exports peaked in 2005. World oil supply will go into terminal decline starting not later than 2014, and maybe as early as 2012. World NG supply will peak by 2030, and coal supply by 2050. I’m sure a bunch of you will jump on me about shale gas, shale oil, bitumen etc. Unfortunately there are real problems with all of them, from overestimation of shale gas to low production rates for oil sands and bitumen, to extremely low energy return for shale oil. None of these supposed supplies will do anything but modestly slow post-peak declines. The reductions of fossil fuel energy will take place, even if not because of AGW fears. That is the first problem we should be addressing, and I guess we will start in about 3 years time, a decade too late to stave off a crisis. Now I will get flamed by people here who have the same kind of religious faith in plentiful fossil fuel supply that the warmers have in AGW.
Well written!
I also wonder how the young students of today ( and over the last 8 years or so) will be impacted, wrt their perception of science as a whole? Will it be for the good, as they will have ultimately been shown that skeptisism is a GOOD thing for science? Or will they view science as a joke, and turn themselves off to it?
The real hockey stick,
The hunger of Niños and Niñas.
http://typo3.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/publications/imgs/fig_1_en
in
FAO estimates that a total of 925 million people are undernourished in 2010 compared with 1.023 billion in 2009,
http://www.fao.org/publications/sofi/en/
Pleasant reading. Great job Geraldo.
Extremely well written and thought out Geraldo!
fredJ said at 11:15 am
When one considers the number of people in this world who have unproven deeply held religious beliefs, it is not difficult to understand the acceptance of unproven AGW theory by those who accept with out question what the preacher says .
fred, your logic is faulty. I have seen virtually zero connection between religious beliefs and AGW theory. Just the opposite. By far the majority of people I have encountered that believe the AGW theories have no religious beliefs, other than an a devout belief in the almighty “Computer Model.” Also, please keep in mind that those “deeply held religious beliefs” are unproven to YOU. And that is an inalienable right you have, to believe or not whatever you want, but you have no “standing” to say what is proven or unproven to others. Further, the great majority of the 1,000s of people I have personally encountered that hold deep “religious” beliefs did NOT come to that way of thinking by simply accepting what some other person says, but rather by extensive research on their own, quite often after direct, personal contact with either extreme evil, miraculous good, or both.