More evidence that Climate Change is a load of.....

[Adamy]

Its a long read - but interesting if you get to the end of it. Doing a university paper on the climate change industry - lots of interesting reading (I wont bore you with it) but theres so much more real science against climate change then there is for it. It just gets suppressed.

From The Sunday Times
February 11, 2007
An experiment that hints we are wrong on climate change

Nigel Calder, former editor of New Scientist, says the orthodoxy must be challenged

When politicians and journalists declare that the science of global warming is settled, they show a regrettable ignorance about how science works. We were treated to another dose of it recently when the experts of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change issued the Summary for Policymakers that puts the political spin on an unfinished scientific dossier on climate change due for publication in a few months’ time. They declared that most of the rise in temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to man-made greenhouse gases.


The small print explains “very likely” as meaning that the experts who made the judgment felt 90% sure about it. Older readers may recall a press conference at Harwell in 1958 when Sir John Cockcroft, Britain’s top nuclear physicist, said he was 90% certain that his lads had achieved controlled nuclear fusion. It turned out that he was wrong. More positively, a 10% uncertainty in any theory is a wide open breach for any latterday Galileo or Einstein to storm through with a better idea. That is how science really works.


Twenty years ago, climate research became politicised in favour of one particular hypothesis, which redefined the subject as the study of the effect of greenhouse gases. As a result, the rebellious spirits essential for innovative and trustworthy science are greeted with impediments to their research careers. And while the media usually find mavericks at least entertaining, in this case they often imagine that anyone who doubts the hypothesis of man-made global warming must be in the pay of the oil companies. As a result, some key discoveries in climate research go almost unreported.


Enthusiasm for the global-warming scare also ensures that heatwaves make headlines, while contrary symptoms, such as this winter’s billion-dollar loss of Californian crops to unusual frost, are relegated to the business pages. The early arrival of migrant birds in spring provides colourful evidence for a recent warming of the northern lands. But did anyone tell you that in east Antarctica the Adélie penguins and Cape petrels are turning up at their spring nesting sites around nine days later than they did 50 years ago? While sea-ice has diminished in the Arctic since 1978, it has grown by 8% in the Southern Ocean.
So one awkward question you can ask, when you’re forking out those extra taxes for climate change, is “Why is east Antarctica getting colder?” It makes no sense at all if carbon dioxide is driving global warming. While you’re at it, you might inquire whether Gordon Brown will give you a refund if it’s confirmed that global warming has stopped. The best measurements of global air temperatures come from American weather satellites, and they show wobbles but no overall change since 1999.


That levelling off is just what is expected by the chief rival hypothesis, which says that the sun drives climate changes more emphatically than greenhouse gases do. After becoming much more active during the 20th century, the sun now stands at a high but roughly level state of activity. Solar physicists warn of possible global cooling, should the sun revert to the lazier mood it was in during the Little Ice Age 300 years ago.


Climate history and related archeology give solid support to the solar hypothesis. The 20th-century episode, or Modern Warming, was just the latest in a long string of similar events produced by a hyperactive sun, of which the last was the Medieval Warming.


The Chinese population doubled then, while in Europe the Vikings and cathedral-builders prospered. Fascinating relics of earlier episodes come from the Swiss Alps, with the rediscovery in 2003 of a long-forgotten pass used intermittently whenever the world was warm.


What does the Intergovernmental Panel do with such emphatic evidence for an alternation of warm and cold periods, linked to solar activity and going on long before human industry was a possible factor? Less than nothing. The 2007 Summary for Policymakers boasts of cutting in half a very small contribution by the sun to climate change conceded in a 2001 report.


Disdain for the sun goes with a failure by the self-appointed greenhouse experts to keep up with inconvenient discoveries about how the solar variations control the climate. The sun’s brightness may change too little to account for the big swings in the climate. But more than 10 years have passed since Henrik Svensmark in Copenhagen first pointed out a much more powerful mechanism.
He saw from compilations of weather satellite data that cloudiness varies according to how many atomic particles are coming in from exploded stars. More cosmic rays, more clouds. The sun’s magnetic field bats away many of the cosmic rays, and its intensification during the 20th century meant fewer cosmic rays, fewer clouds, and a warmer world. On the other hand the Little Ice Age was chilly because the lazy sun let in more cosmic rays, leaving the world cloudier and gloomier.


The only trouble with Svensmark’s idea — apart from its being politically incorrect — was that meteorologists denied that cosmic rays could be involved in cloud formation. After long delays in scraping together the funds for an experiment, Svensmark and his small team at the Danish National Space Center hit the jackpot in the summer of 2005.


In a box of air in the basement, they were able to show that electrons set free by cosmic rays coming through the ceiling stitched together droplets of sulphuric acid and water. These are the building blocks for cloud condensation. But journal after journal declined to publish their report; the discovery finally appeared in the Proceedings of the Royal Society late last year.


Thanks to having written The Manic Sun, a book about Svensmark’s initial discovery published in 1997, I have been privileged to be on the inside track for reporting his struggles and successes since then. The outcome is a second book, The Chilling Stars, co-authored by the two of us and published next week by Icon books. We are not exaggerating, we believe, when we subtitle it “A new theory of climate change”.


Where does all that leave the impact of greenhouse gases? Their effects are likely to be a good deal less than advertised, but nobody can really say until the implications of the new theory of climate change are more fully worked out.
The reappraisal starts with Antarctica, where those contradictory temperature trends are directly predicted by Svensmark’s scenario, because the snow there is whiter than the cloud-tops. Meanwhile humility in face of Nature’s marvels seems more appropriate than arrogant assertions that we can forecast and even control a climate ruled by the sun and the stars.

[russ81]

Hows it going mate
A very interesting read .
Recently i have been interested in all the reports and docos coming out and i find it interesting that the docos based solely on science and not politics reveal that the conditions that the earth has experienced over the past however many thousands of years is the exception rather than the norm previous to this the earth has had unpredictable wild and uninhabitable weather.

[elprez]

This is a steam train that no-one is going to stop unless undisputable evidence is produced which probably wont happen unfortunately. Adamy you must know the competition for research grants, in a lot of cases its not about the research but he who dies with the most toys wins (even though he's still dead). If researchers cant get grants they have to get a real job so what better way to secure funding is there than making people feel insecure. The general public, in my opinion, arent worried about the state of the environment but the state of their wealth and security and for that research money may be unlimited. Remember in the case of traffic congestion or polution reduction via private vehicle use 90% of the population support increased public transport for the other 10% to use.The only positive I can make out of it is that some of the actions being called for probably aren't a bad thing and if you can set yourself up with a lab, team of reasearchers and secure industry funding you could end up a very wealthy individual. Probably with all the toys youve always wanted and just told others to give up.

[straddie]

My eyes glaze over every time I read one of these debunking articles.

Adamy can you point out anything at all in that article that suggests what is written in it should be taken seriously? Honestly it looks like an argument that would be used to convince homer simpson to do something.

[elprez]

Heres another line of thought. If man could change the weather by his actions (global warming) he would be doing it now, rain snow heat whatever you need whenever you need it.

[mowerman]

Same reply as Blazes thread.

Biggest con job since Y2K.

[PinHead]

yep..global warming and all its doom and gloom merchants are making a fortune out of it..including the Australian of the Year..biggest load of crap of my lifetime.
If we get rid of this so called man made global warming then what will happen....doom and gloom again...we will be heading for an ice age..man made global cooling and not enough fuels to keep us warm...another avenue for the energy boffins to come up with expensive fuel.

[John_R]

Yep, good old "Glow-Ball" warming - a religion for the legion of ignoramuses. Led by the high Priest Al Gore. Steve Milloy on www.junkscience.com does a fair job of lampooning these morons. Quite entertaining.

Has many parallels with the smoking health fraud. Check out www.forces.org for info on that one.

[Mullet Musketeer]

A very interesting article - I am really fed up with being told that we have reached a consensus on the science of global warming when clearly the scientific community has not.

My 9 year old son was shown Al Gore's movie at school the other day. I am not sure that is appropriate and I have written to his teacher to ask how the views represented in the movie will be balanced with other research and opinions.

[Ozwald]

Before chat boards came along where did all the idiot conspiracy theorists hang out?
I think my eyes are even more glazed over than Staddies.........

Any 9/11 truthers out there who want to dispute the thermal properties of structural steel?

[TIMMY 666]

While there is evidience that suggests global warming isn't being influenced by greenhouse gas emissions, there is also evidence that suggests it is being influenced by our emissions. Personally I don't think that there will be any definitive answer soon, if ever. I don't like the fact that the media portrays global warming as if it's a definite occurence, they are having a great time blaming so many issues on global warming IMO the move to truly sustainable energy sources like solar, wind, etc is vital to the environment; even if global warming is not occuring there are many other negatives attributed to using fossil fuels, plus we will run out one day! I also think that some people search for evidence against the arguement as a means of justifying their own excessive consumption of resources. Oh, and the thread is just a tad bias

Tim.

[luigi]

Hey Ozwald & Straddie, here's another conspiracy theory:

A big result from the global warming scare appears to be "carbon trading".

Who will benefit most from carbon trading? - Big business & Governments who, in turn will stick it to the rest of us by passing on the resulting higher costs.

By now you two probably realy are 'too blind to see.' LOL

Cheers - Lou

[gwin]

Global warming gets a pretty good run, considering this is a fishing web site. Can't really see how it's related. I think that people just enjoy doing a bit of greeny bashing.

Glen

[B_E_N]

well if the greens want to keep infecting us with false facts then #### em ill bash em all i want, this may turn out to be a "the world is flat, wait no its not" circumstance

[cuzzamundi]

it's all interlaced glenn. thanks for the info adam-always fascinated to hear the counter arguments. keep up the great research mate.

cuzza