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)
As a geologist myself – I would like to add to the previous comments.
Through Geology (often called Earth Sciences these days!) and the proper explanation of geology – this is the only way for Joe Average to get a ‘handle’ on the scale and variation of changes in earths climate. These changes are well known and documented in rocks (amazing, but true!) and are readily available (i.e. as the raw data!) for all to see!
The timescale is the other important benefit that geologists are able to grasp. When we look at a cliff face, we dont see just a rock face – we ‘see’ a definitive record of past conditions – and this (typically) may span hundreds of thousands of years or millions of years in a single face of rock. The palaeontologists can take it a stage further, and microscopically inspect the fossil flora and fauna changes over those ‘millions’ of years. From this, many other climatic factors can be deduced, but again, the important aspect is the timescale. It is precisely this ‘timescale’ aspect that makes many geologists sceptics or deniers – because they fully appreciate the tiny timeframe that constitutes modern climate science ‘data’ is a mere drop in the ocean of geological time!
I guess, by the same token, geologists (well me anyway) are probably also strongly ‘green’ – because we also appreciate that natural resources are NOT infinite and wastefulness is wrong. I don’t know about actual oil ‘use’ statistics today; but in the past, oil was MOSTLY used to make plastics and other products – fuel was almost a minor product! So, for me personally, everytime, I see a discarded plastic bag, or a plastic cup, or any electrical consumer goods – and I know that several ounces or many gallons of oil were used to produce it – I feel that its a needless waste – why couldn’t a more ‘green’ item be used? So, it should be readily apparent that for many geologists – the green versus climate debate is a bit of a dichotomy!
This discrepancy between the green movement and the climate change movement is therefore particularly annoying because on the one hand, I accept being ‘green’ but I cannot tolerate the BS of climate science. In the same way, as a geologist, I am fully aware that disposal of nuclear waste is a relatively easy challenge – but the likes of Greenpeace are totally anti-nuclear! – so in Greenpeace eyes, I would be a heretic! (I’m not a member of greenpeace and would never join simply for this blinkered attitude!)
The sooner climate science, and the environmental movement start listening to real scientists in an impartial manner the better.
Thank you Geraldo, thank you Anthony!
So essentially even though the bickering critics amongst each other back and forth the skeptic is a mentally healthy rational human being.
But the fear monger or otherwise hawker of dooms day scenarios is actually as f-ed up a hippie as can be expected.
See what I did there?
90,000 years from now, I wonder if there will be any trace of the Holocene civilizations and their scientific and political conundrums.
70,000-80,000 years in the next Ice Age will erase a lot.
I would fully expect the climate average to turn inexorably downward over the next millenia or two, with the 2nd episode of the Little Ice Age a noticably lower than the first.
——————-
Anthony,
I share Schadow’s curiosity about any differences you have with the paper. What is the basis of your statement “Note: the opinion of this author is not necessarily the same as mine.”? Or is this just boilerplate legal disclaimer?
There apparently will be 2 more parts to it, but in part one I find only one area that I differ with. It is Geraldo’s idea that the money would be better spent by government on other things than AGW scenarios. I object fundamentally the government’s involvement in all the areas suggested, including climate science. These things must be funded voluntarily and privately for the sake of keeping society free from authoritarian government.
John
The great masses of the people will more easily fall victims to a big lie than to a small one. If you tell a big enough lie and tell it frequently enough, it will be believed
All propaganda has to be popular and has to accommodate itself to the comprehension of the least intelligent of those whom it seeks to reach.
By the skillful and sustained use of propaganda, one can make a people see even heaven as hell or an extremely wretched life as paradise.
How fortunate for governments that the people they administer don’t think.
Excellent piece, thanks! It’s also important, imo, to put focus on actual problems that the UN and the rest of us could have tackled (i.e., spent money on) instead of the climate scare. This is summarized pretty strongly by one Fiona Kobusingye:
http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/26868
But that doesn’t go well with the Club of Rome agenda, obviously.
pleonasm. Another word added to my lexicon, thanks.
So appropriate for “climate change”.
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.
=================
On the topic of sea levels from a historical perspective there was an excellent comment in a thread here a few months ago. It’s maybe the most informative I’ve seen:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/04/13/ipcc-sea-level-prediction-not-scary-enough/#comments
Look for the comment by David Middleton at 4:45 am. And click at the links to the graphs for the different periods
Geraldo Luís Lino,
Excellent – well said and said with heart and soul. I look forward to parts 2 and 3 on this website and to the English language translation of your fine work.
As a geologist, similar to many others commenting here, I believe most of CAGW is BS, but then again one has to remember:
1. Geology is a real science, which is always seeking and questioning , while ‘climate science’ is like a religious sect, totally rigid in its beliefs, with its adherants committed to distorting the facts for their own personal gain.
2. Geologists are trained to understand natural cycles, while ‘climate scientists’ believe this obvious state of the Earth’s history and future to be a great heresy.
I can’t find a biography for this author, to see what other work he has done that merits listening to him as an authority.
This article seems to be the same old often recycled arguments against AGW that don’t hold water because they are illogical, and leave out important facts that show how illogical.
1)We have seen climate cycles before and the temperatures we are seeing today are nothing special.
This argument has been made many times. Here is a reply:
http://skepticalscience.com/argument.php?a=22&p=3
“A common skeptic argument is that climate has changed naturally in the past, long before SUVs and coal-fired power plants, so therefore humans cannot be causing global warming now. Interestingly, the peer-reviewed research into past climate change comes to the opposite conclusion.
….
There are a number of different forces which can influence the Earth’s climate. When the sun gets brighter, the planet receives more energy and warms. When volcanoes erupt, they emit particles into the atmosphere which reflect sunlight, and the planet cools. When there are more greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, the planet warms. These effects are referred to as external forcings because by changing the planet’s energy balance, they force climate to change.
It is obviously true that past climate change was caused by natural forcings. However, to argue that this means we can’t cause climate change is like arguing that humans can’t start bushfires because in the past they’ve happened naturally. Greenhouse gas increases have caused climate change many times in Earth’s history, and we are now adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere at a increasingly rapid rate.”
Also:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-change-little-ice-age-medieval-warm-period-intermediate.htm
“Natural climate change in the past proves that climate is sensitive to an energy imbalance. If the planet accumulates heat, global temperatures will go up. Currently, CO2 is imposing an energy imbalance due to the enhanced greenhouse effect. Past climate change actually provides evidence for our climate’s sensitivity to CO2.”
The second them in his article is:
2) Man has survived previous intervals when climate changed radically.
Of course he fails to take into account that the human population was much smaller than the 6Billion we have today, and climate change was slower. This permitted humans to deal with it by migration. That capability is not going to be open to the hundreds of millions who will become Climate Refugees due to the more extreme floods and droughts that are the projected result of global warming if we do nothing about it.
These omissions are so obvious I am surprised it has taken 40 responses for someone to notice.
Jim D;
a “thousand times higher world population”?
Give it a rest, Dude.
8 bn peak in 2030.
Reads a lot like Plimer’s Heaven and Earth. Well done sir.
The world’s most serius problems arise from two sources only:
1 Ignorance
2 Poverty
Geologists know a thing or two about the history of the planet, no wonder they tend to frown on alarmist claims that something very unusual is going on with the climate.
At the International Geological Congress held in Oslo in 2008 it was reported that:
“About two thirds of the presenters and question-askers were hostile to, even dismissive of, the IPCC (International panel on climate change) and the idea that the Earth’s climate was responding to human influences.”
http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2008/08/report-from-33d-intl.html
Peak Energy is dead. No foreseeable end to frac-able NG (and associated oil).
I’m glad to see this point brought up in an article, it always seemed to me that the whole AGW theory depended entirely on the ignoring of history. As far as I understand it the end of the Ice Age was a turbulent time on the Earth’s surface. Egypt was green before drying up, which amounts to a pretty massive climate change for that region. The Nile shrank. Yet the Egyptians formed a sophisticated civilization after what could be considered an “apocalyptic climate shift” in the region. The transition from the Ice Age to the Holocene was far more intense than anything we’re likely to encounter and not only did we survive it, we thrived and raised to new heights in Sumer and Egypt.
Then there is the argument that we have to stop AGW to save the Earth. If cooling and warming are natural, how are we going to save the Earth by trying to prevent those processes? As if we could in the first place. If the health of the planet is an issue (and when it comes to things living on it, it is always an issue) then historical perspective challenges AGW’s apocalyptic visions. The health of the planet will always be an important issue and should be treated as such as long as we’re living on it. But screaming that the sky is falling helps nothing. I’m sure the Earth has been through worse than us. God knows the amount of pollutants and carbon ejected into the atmosphere when the meteor struck that killed the dinosaurs. Yet the Earth recovered and here we are today.
As the point was already made, there are real ecological threats that AGW distracts us from. I’m sure BP dumping craptons of oil into the gulf is going to have far more devastating effects than global warming will.
——————–
Kev-in-UK,
You entire post was well said.
John
Dave Wendt says:
November 6, 2010 at 12:27 pm
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.
Did you mean this image:
Relative sea level record based on dated corals from Barbados, Araki, and assorted Caribbean islands compared to V19-30 δ18O sea level proxy.
Anyone with even a passing interest in human history, knows that humans have always thought/hoped that they could control the climate.
All that was required was the appropriate sacrifice to the appropriate god.
The only thing that has ever changed was the type of sacrifice and the particular God.
Nothing has changed, we are simply witnessing what history tells us is normal human behaviour.
I agree with CIRRIUS MAN 100%
Sorry, I appreciate your effort to write, but you lost me right here when you described the AGW POS as an (unmotivated) scare;
WRONG! It was clearly and always motivated by idealogues who wanted, worse than profit from the scare, to gain control of humanity.
The eviro-mentalists truely are fascists, in the same vein as Trotsky, Hitler, Stalin, Mao et al.
THEY MUST BE RESISTED!
Understand this: Due to technology, mostly the internet and air travel, the globe has become a “community”, whether anyone likes it or not. Some, eco-fascists par example, see it as a means to rule the world. The idealogues ALWAYS want to control others. The GREEN enivros WILL make common cause with the GREEN muslims …. to their, and our, detriment.
There are further global wars coming up, each as existentially necessary as WWII. I predict there will be WWV and WWVI. I hope I live long enough to see victory in both.
Brian H says:
November 6, 2010 at 5:03 pm
I knew that would confuse someone after re-reading it, and sure enough…
The 1000 times population increase is since the mid-Holocene warming (my guess) which was claimed to be 4 degrees warmer, but looking into it since I find that was only at the pole, where I suspect it didn’t affect anyone, so it was a red herring in the first place, and may have just been put there to mislead the readers.
eadler says “These omissions are so obvious I am surprised it has taken 40 responses for someone to notice.” To which the obvious retort is that this article is so accurate that it took 40 responses before an acolyte of the faith could muster some sort of specious reply.
John Cook is an authority for nothing; he is a warehouse for AGW agitprop; when comments refer to his site I know intellectual onanism is what is going to be offered. This particular bit of IO from eadler focuses on 2 paradigms of AGW, climate sensitivity and the exceptional nature of today’s “warming”.
In respect of climate sensitivity, Lindzen and Choi’s 2nd paper, Spencer and Braswell’s 2nd paper and Knox and Douglass’s many papers including their most recent one [ http://www.pas.rochester.edu/~douglass/papers/KD_InPress_final.pdf ] all show a climate sensitivity much less than relied on by AGW.
In respect of past warmings and the role of CO2 it is clear from Beenstock’s analysis that CO2 is a bit player while McShane and Wyner’s analysis of official AGW temperature history reveals that history to be a statistical sham. McKitrick, McIntyre and Hermann’s analysis of the accuracy of the AGW modeling completes the picture of a scientific farrago.
For me though perhaps the best analysis of the utter disconnect between CO2 and temperature is contained in Frank Lansner’s piece:
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/CO2,Temperaturesandiceages-f.pdf
eadler completes his comment with a few other lies such as climate change was much slower in the past [ http://www.pnas.org/content/97/4/1331.full ] and the usual alarmist claptrap which is predicated on a deep pessimissm and, as has been argued recently, a profound misanthropy towards humanity which underpins much of AGW.