British History, Culture & Sports, History of Freedom, Heroes, Inventors, Brits at their, English country scene

Blog Home | All Posts

Some like it cold


Australia, August 2007
Image: Colleen Bradley

Anglo skeptics of "man-made" climate change are on the increase.

Quadrant, a journal of ideas, literature, poetry and historical and political debate published in Australia, has taken another look at the science behind climate change theories. Robert M Carter writes -

The basic flaw that was incorporated into IPCC methodology from the beginning was the assumption that matters of science can be decided on authority or consensus; in fact, and as Galileo early showed, science as a method of investigating the world is the very antithesis of authority. A scientific truth is so not because the IPCC or an Academy of Science blesses it, or because most people believe it, but because it is formulated as a rigorous hypothesis that has survived testing by many different scientists.

. . .science reality in 2008 is that the IPCC’s hypothesis of dangerous, human-caused global warming has been repeatedly tested and failed. In contrast, the proper null hypothesis that the global climatic changes that we observe today are natural in origin has yet to be disproven. The only argument that remains to the IPCC — and it is solely a theoretical argument, not evidence of any kind — is that their unvalidated computer models project that carbon-dioxide-driven dangerous warming will occur in the future: just you wait and see! . . .

Lord Monckton has given us a number of reasons to be skeptical about "man-made" climate change, particularly when it is more likely that real climate change is being caused by the Sun, as we wrote last January - Sun's low magnetic activity may portend an ice age.

Shiver. You will note when you click on the post's link that observed flux density values have not moved upward in eleven months. This means that the Sun, which was expected to show increased levels of magnetic energy after its typical eleventh-year-low, has not done so. In the past, decade-long low levels have been accompanied by mini ice ages on Earth.

Global warming alarmist James Hansen of NASA has not joined the skeptics, but he has increased their firepower by being the source of repeated mathematical and statistical mistakes. His most recent error - that October 2008 was the hottest ever - could not be supported since it was based on September temperatures

British historian Paul Johnson, who is quoted in Robert Carter's article, bluntly states -

Marxism, Freudianism, global warming. These are proof — of which history offers so many examples — that people can be suckers on a grand scale. To their fanatical followers they are a substitute for religion. Global warming, in particular, is a creed, a faith, a dogma that has little to do with science. If people are in need of religion, why don’t they just turn to the genuine article?

In Britain, Roger Helmer MEP has an excellent video-talk on the subject.

UK Astrophysicist Piers Corbyn, founder of the UK based long-term solar forecast group Weather Action and creator of the solar-particle based "Solar Weather Technique" of long range weather forecasting, asserts that the global warming Theory has ‘failed consistently and dramatically’.

Robert Carter concludes that "Attempting to ‘stop climate change’ is an extravagant and costly exercise of utter futility".

Do you want to pay high carbon taxes to save our earth from a threat that does not exist - when the money could be spent to save our seas and forests from real pollution and destruction?

Comments (1)

Interesting post, but is there not a confusion, especially in the conclusion? Three hypotheses are discussed: a) there is warming, but it is not man-made; b) climate change may be for the colder, not the warmer; c) there is no climate change. The conclusion implies that either c) is true or that we have no way of knowing what's going to happen or doing anything about it if we did.

Now, whichever of the three hypothesis one favours (and so far the arguments, conclusive or not, tend tentatively to support that of warming, however caused), the activities being undertaken are in any case likely to bring benefit to an overpopulated planet. They cost money; but since in the current crisis public money should be spent, not hoarded, that too may be beneficial.

Might we not do better to insist, as a New York Times columnist suggested some time ago, that large emerging countries do (and pay) their share, rather than trying to diminish or abolish ours?

Post a comment

(Please do give us your name or the name you write under in the form below and your URL if you have one. Your comment may take a little time to appear. Thanks for waiting.)