By Viv Forbes
A scheming cabal of green bureaucrats, academics and corporate speculators is trying to scare us into a mess of energy taxes, subsidies and rationing in order to combat what they call “catastrophic man-made global warming”.
Climate alarmists speculate that if the level of harmless carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is doubled (which may or may not happen in a century or so), world temperature may be one or two degrees warmer than it would have otherwise been.
The proposition that this mild warming, if it occurs, would be “catastrophic” is so laughable that they had to invent “positive feedbacks” to multiply this scare to maybe six degrees in a century. However the emerging evidence, and Earth’s past history, show that feedbacks are negative – the vast oceans tend to stabilise warming temperatures so that even the two degree forecast is probably excessive.
In many places in Australia, temperature rises about sixteen degrees from dawn to mid-afternoon – over say eight hours, or two degrees per hour. So people who can cope with a daily warming of 16 degrees over 8 hours are supposed to panic about a fudged forecast of two degrees over a century – about the warming we feel in just one hour every morning. Even less “frightening” is the less than one degree of warming that has occurred over the last 200 years.
Why worry about warming anyhow?
The world has never suffered “runaway global warming” even when carbon dioxide levels were far above those of today. But it does suffer regular ice ages. It is not warmth that causes hardship and mass extinctions – it is the deathly grip of ice. The Little Ice Age that ended just 150 years ago was a time of failed crops, abandoned farms, advancing glaciers and famines. Even in modern times, there are more deaths caused by winter cold snaps than by summer heat waves. And those people free to move (tourists and retirees) always flock to warm places like Florida, Bali and the Riviera, not to frigid climes like Siberia, Alaska or Antarctica.
Moreover, more warmth always causes extra evaporation from lakes and oceans. What goes up, must form clouds and come down somewhere as extra precipitation. And if there is more carbon dioxide and water in the atmosphere, plants will grow better. Why do we need carbon taxes and ration cards to protect us from a warm moist climate with more luxuriant plant life?
The whole climate scam is just a smoke screen to hide the UN inspired grab for more taxes and more power.
Viv Forbes,
Rosewood Qld Australia
I am happy for my email address to be published.
Chris says:
“Now let’s look at Viv’s posting: warmth is good, moisture is good, CO2 is good, cold is bad. Does that not strike you as being so overtly simplistic as to to be almost useless?”
No, because those are all factual statements.
D Böehm says:
October 2, 2012 at 9:45 pm
“No, those are all factual statements.”
Well, I suppose if we are applying analytical skills of 3rd graders to the discussion, then yes. The farmers in the US Midwest were not well served by extra warmth this year, which dried out already dry fields and contributed to lower yields, not higher. Cold winters (nighttime lows of -30 to -40) used to keep mountain pine beetles in check, now that those are rarely reached, the beetle population has exploded and they have expanded their destructive habitat. Extra moisture in the air has led to devastating floods this year in Manila, and last year in Pakistan. The increased CO2 levels in the ocean are leading to acidification, which in turn is affecting shellfish populations, and the warmer ocean waters are causing bleaching of coral. Are there locations that will benefit from increased warmth? Of course – parts of Canada will see increased crop yields, likewise for Siberia. But the overall result is more adverse than positive.
atheok says:
October 2, 2012 at 1:48 pm
What does a person’s career have to do with science? Is it your opinion that once a person chooses a career then that makes them unsuited or incapable of working in other areas of science?
So you desire to be relegated to one career/specialty for all of your life and everyone should denigrate you and belittle your attempts in other knowledge spheres?
Two points – first, since posters on this and other skeptic sites see fit to continuously attack the credibility and motives and scientists who work in this space (they’re in it for the money, or for prestige), isn’t it only fair to question the motives of those who are in industries that clearly stand to lose should action be taken on CAGW? If you think someone who spent 40 years in the coal industry has purely neutral, unbiased motives, then we’ll just have to agree to disagree on that one.
Secondly, I didn’t say that people can’t change careers or have interests. But the same people who say that the atmospheric sciences are incredibly complicated, and need to be studied more, don’t seem to have a problem in accepting at face value posts like the above, which provide no scientific basis for their conclusions. If you or someone in your family had cancer, would you weight the opinion of the mechanic or accountant next door equally with a team of oncologists you consulted?
Chris, you wrote to me, “You say ad hominem accusations of hidden ulterior competing interests. So it’s OK for readers here to continuously attack the motives of scientists (greed, prestige) but it’s not ok to raise the question of competing motives of someone who spent 40 years in the coal industry?”
Not at all Chris. I never said anything even remotely like that. The question should be raised equally on both sides, and on both sides it should occupy a step below examining the science itself. The motives of the “scientists” are no less questionable than the motives of the coal barons — and in some ways they’re even more questionable since the coal barons have to wrestle with their consciences while many of the “scientists” salve their consciences over with their belief that their fudging of the research is “in a good cause” and “will save the children” and “won’t hurt anything if it’s wrong.” In Dissecting Antismokers’ Brains I classified that subgroup of Antismokers as being “The Idealists” — and I’m sure you’ve got a fair parcel of them in the Global Warming area as well.
I’m glad to see you bring up the question of prestige however as part of the overall package of “greed.” I had done so in Brains but it’s not something I’ve seen done a whole lot elsewhere and it’s important: these people have their entire careers wrapped up in their crusades. It’s not just their mortgages on the line but their entire reputations: The greed for glory can be as strong as the greed for gold.
– MJM
Chris,
Your snark is insufficient. Viv made valid points.
Since you’re so smart, I challenge you to submit an article. We’ll see how many microseconds pass before it’s falsified.
So your tactic is to smear, belittle, falsely accuse and then try for a different direction. Give it up, you’re caught in the act.
This blog, courtesy of Anthony Watts who was very similarly smeared in a recent PBS interview commentary, publishes many different viewpoints. Preferably, posters back up their article with references to science, but not necessarily.
Now, you have taken umbrage both with the article over unspecified points. You do take umbrage with some of us commenters and you toss off several items as ‘invented’, even though the author never questioned them directly. You’ve created different discussion points so you can continue to be difficult.
The statement, “…The proposition that this mild warming, if it occurs, would be “catastrophic” is so laughable that they had to invent “positive feedbacks” to multiply this scare to maybe six degrees in a century…” stands alone and you don’t like it. OK, tough! Get over it.
Nowhere are the catastrophic predictions of AGW proven. Instead we are asked to accept the opinions of experts who used models and words meaning maybe in their predictions. Viv is not required to prove the normal! Scientists, using that term loosely, are supposed to prove their projections! Show us where the scientists you apparently approve of, have absolutely proved a disaster because of climate!?
Meanwhile, in the world of geology where geologists look at 4+ billion years or physical science evidence, there are no identified previous episodes of ‘catastrophic warming’, caused by climate or CO2; asteroids maybe. Nor can they identify any local sites of catastrophes because of CO2 caused warming.
We’re still asking those climate scientists who refuse to share all details of their work and research for definitive proof. Instead they wail about our grandkids, disaster, oceans, shrinking fish and whatever just so it gets them more money.
So Chris, put up or shut up. Deal your hidden agenda cards and provide real proof that Viv is wrong. Real proof as mentioned above is definitive and replicated. Replicated means by anyone whose desires to try the experiment, not just certain ‘special’ friends.
As for your ‘special scientist’ versus a general mechanic or accountant, my answer is YES. That is, yes, if the person next door just spent several years of their own time studying the topic in depth and the oncologist you referred is inexperienced and earns money on the side selling ‘the end of man cancer catastrophe’ rubbish.
D Böehm says:
October 3, 2012 at 7:49 am
Chris,
Your snark is insufficient. Viv made valid points.
Viv’s points are valid because? What, just because you agree that makes them valid? So let me understand – CAGW scientific papers involving millions of data points and sophisticated models need to be cross checked and picked apart (and I’m fine with that) before they can be accepted as valid, but broad statements such as “the emerging evidence, and Earth’s past history, show that feedbacks are negative – the vast oceans tend to stabilise warming temperatures so that even the two degree forecast is probably excessive” do not require supporting documentation and thus can be accepted at face value?
Here are 2 papers that refute Viv’s “warmer is always better” statement: http://www.cohencommission.ca/en/pdf/TR/Project9-Report.pdf
Which documents the fact that the Frasier River in British Columbia has warmed by 2C over the last 60 years, and the adverse impact that has had on salmon mortality.
And: http://www.npr.org/2012/09/24/161701420/as-arctic-ice-melts-so-does-the-snow-and-quickly
Regarding the 18%/decade decline in land-based snow in the Arctic regions, and the impact that will have on river flow, drier conditions in the summer in forests, and on weather experienced in US (less cooling effect in the summertime).
atheok,
Regarding my comment that climate scientists’ credibility is regularly attacked here, you said “Blatant falsehood and smear, ATK”
Search on this, you’ll find it on Aug 6th on this site: “The propaganda/lies from the Climate Liars is becoming more outlandish and desperate each day. They’ve given up the pretext of even doing phoney science, now it’s science fiction science.” So your statement is a falsehood, these kind of comments appear with regularity.
You said: “So your tactic is to smear, belittle, falsely accuse and then try for a different direction..” Questioning whether a guest poster who spent 40 years in the coal industry is unbiased is smearing?
You said: “Now, you have taken umbrage both with the article over unspecified points.” No, not unspecified points, I was very specific. To repeat, his comments that warmth is good, moisture is good, CO2 is good, cold is bad.
You said, in BOLD: “Viv is not required to prove the normal!” Once again, that is false – unless a warming planet is the normal. Viv is saying that an increasingly warm and moist world is a good thing, and that the impact of that on the planet will be positive, not negative. You apparently are willing to accept his predictions without any evidence, that’s your perogative.
You said: “You’ve created different discussion points so you can continue to be difficult.” I had 2 main points – 1) that if it’s ok to challenge the bias of climate scientists (which happens all the time here), it should be ok to challenge the bias of a 40 year coal industry employee. 2) that he didn’t back up his assertions with any substantive facts. That’s it. Is that too much for you?
You said: “So Chris, put up or shut up. Deal your hidden agenda cards and provide real proof that Viv is wrong.” I did this already when I gave multiple examples on 2 Oct at 10:25pm, if you want papers, look at my reply to D. Boehm above.
Regarding the neighbor question, you said: “YES. That is, yes, if the person next door just spent several years of their own time studying the topic in depth and the oncologist you referred is inexperienced and earns money on the side selling ‘the end of man cancer catastrophe’ rubbish.”
But I didn’t say that, did I? Just a mechanic – unless you have proof that guest posters like Viv have been studying climate science for years. Nice touch on making the oncologist inexperienced – except that I said a team, not an individual. Oh, and explain to me how the scientists earn money on the side. I am working now with a university (in Singapore, where I live) on a research area unrelated to climate science, the principal researcher (a professor in Mechanical Engineering) is NOT allowed to augment his professor’s salary in any way from the grant. All monies go to grad students or equipment. I have researched the grant system in the US, where I used to live. It is essentially the same. So exactly how are these climate scientists profiting from their grants?
Chris,
Who said that warming is “always” better? We are talking global warming here, not some cherry-picked location that suits your argument.
Your comments reek of increasing desperation. The reason is clear: the planet itself is deconstructing your alarmist beliefs. That is not easy to take, is it? The whole CO2=CAGW conjecture is going down in flames because the ultimate Authority — Planet Earth — is falsifying that nonsense.
Who should we believe? Planet Earth, or your false alarmist narrative?
DBoehm,
Um, Viv did. His guest post was the topic we were discussing, remember? I won’t bother to quote any of his statements, it’s clear you don’t apply any kind of critical analysis to anti-CAGW articles.
You say my comments reek of desperation. No, I continue to post actual studies, while you, thus far, have posted 0 links to studies to support your position. A sign of desperation, or weak argumentative skills, is to assert that things are true without supporting documentation – something which you do time and time again.
As far as Planet Earth falsifying CO2=CAGW, that’s pretty amusing after we just experienced a dramatic reduction the Arctic Sea ice extent – a figure even below what the readers of WUWT predicted.
Chris,
Give up on the Arctic sea ice. The IPCC predicted that both poles would lose ice. Since the Antarctic is still gaining ice (and is now at a record high), the IPCC’s prediction has been falsified. It was wrong. The alarmist crowd loses again.
Let’s see now, how many alarmist predictions have come to pass… um, that would be none.
D Boehm,
Once again, you ignore specific postings that I have made on the impact of global warming. What about the paper on the increase in temperature in the Frasier River and the associated impact on salmon mortality? No response? This is one of the “alarmist” predictions, and it has come true.
As far as the Arctic and Antarctic, first, the Arctic sea ice extent has declined by 50% over the last 40 years, compared to 1% gain per decade for the Antarctic. Not exactly similar rates of loss/gain. Second, if you read the IPCC report and other scientific studies on Antarctica, it notes that because Antarctica is a large land mass surrounded by sea, and is much colder than the Arctic, it may experience some slight increase in size due to increased precipitation due to slightly warmer water. But in the long run – not now, but 25-50 years from now – the trend will be downward, with an expectation of loss of up to 1/3 of the ice mass.
Jimbo says: ”Thanks! Now I know that Greenland is in the Mediterranean. Did I say civilizations and the Mediterranean? Take you time to read what I said next time”
Roman times / roman empire was around the Mediterranean.. Talking about Greenland; you need to learn the truth, not your pagan believes, which you are still pushing. Here is about your Greenland; the correct version, Don;t be scared from some reality, it will help you better to understand why the Warmist don’t take the Skeptics seriously; even though the Warmist cannot have a single solid proof of GLOBAL warming; because there isn’t such a thing -Greenland”.
http://globalwarmingdenier.wordpress.com/2012/08/25/skeptics-stinky-skeletons-from-their-closet/