Saturday, December 18, 2010

Snowed in: Part 2 "Global Warming"

Once again there's several inches of snow outside and I'm sitting INSIDE working on my line-edits. Anybody watching the news might have noticed a sudden dearth of so called 'experts' waffling on about global warming, or 'climate-change' as it's now known. They tend to go extremely quiet when things go against the predictions they've been harping on about for the last 25 years, and they remain even quieter when the various climate-change myths they've been shouting from the melting mountain-tops get exposed.

For those of you who've been taken in by the great circus that is climate-change, here's a few carefully researched pointers for you that I've accumulated over the past four or five years that show what a mess the IPCC has made of scientific endeavour and public faith in our best and brightest.

1) The mean temperature of our globe has been cooling since 2000, not warming.

2) Carbon-dioxide in the atmosphere has continued, however, to rise, destroying the entire edifice of climate warming as being caused by atmospheric CO2.

3) Antarctica is getting colder, and despite losing sea-ice at it's edges is gaining ice in its centre, causing a net-gain in ice.

4) There have never been more polar-bears in the Arctic than there are now, and they're not dying out. Only two isolated populations are declining, the rest are on the rise.

5) Sea levels in the Maldives are dropping not rising, and have been for some years.

6) The Medieval Warm Period exceeded current global mean temperatures long before industry or fossil fuels. It was followed by a global chill that lasted almost 200 years.

7) Increases in atmospheric CO2 do not CAUSE increases in temperature, they FOLLOW increases in temperature. Fluctuations in solar radiance far better fit global mean temperature changes than CO2 levels.

8) Every single major claim made in Al Gore's documentary An Inconvenient Truth have been proven false by climate scientists. Chief of these is the so-called 'Hockey-Stick' graph, showing dramatic changes in global temperatures since the industrial age. Take this graph, extend it back 2,000 years instead of 200, and our current temperature is exceeded many times in natural fluctuations. Extend it back further, and it becomes an invisible blip of no significance. Nor is the speed of temperature change either unusual or unique. The graph as advertised is a deliberate falsehood promoted by the International Panel on Climate Change.

9) "If the Arctic melts, sea levels will rise!!" No, they won't. Take a glass of water, put an ice cube in it, and mark the level of the water. Wait for the ice to melt, and see what happens to the water level. It will fall. Water expands when it freezes, and the Arctic is a giant ice cube floating in the ocean, with most of its mass below the surface. Sea levels will fall if it melts: only if the Antarctic starts melting will we be in trouble, and it's not ( see above ).

10) In the past, there have been severe freezes and thaws throughout climate history, many of which were far more extreme than that being experienced now. The greatest danger on Earth is not global temperature through human activity, but global poisoning through human activity. Amphibians are called 'sentinel species' for a reason, they're sensitive to change. Pictures of three legged frogs, the deformity put down to climate change, are absolute rubbish. Temperature change won't easily cause such genetic mutations: but throw some heavy metals into the water table and it all makes more sense, and we do that all the time. Everyone's barking up the wrong tree, and that's what happens when science becomes politicised for profit, which is what's happened with climate-change.

11) Wind turbines are sold on their maximum theoretical output, not their actual output, increasing profits. Denmark, which has the world's greatest investment in wind turbines, has banned all further building of them having finally realised that they're useless. They either produce too much or not enough power, forcing the country to either sell power cheap or buy power in expensively from elsewhere depending on their turbine output.

12) Never believe anything you read without first checking it. If you think the above is incorrect, search for scientific studies and papers that are INDEPENDENTLY written and peer-reviewed (ie, not the product of either the IPCC or anti-global-warming interests ). Then you'll get confirmation.

I predict that within 15 years, people will wonder how the hell the IPCC got away with the deliberate mis-use of science for profit via carbon trading.


Anonymous said...

What a bunch of denier cult drivel and myths. Almost every point you try to make is factually wrong in some way. 2010 is the warmest year on record at the end of the three successively warmest decades on record.
NOAA: Past Decade Warmest on Record According to Scientists in 48 Countries
Earth has been growing warmer for more than fifty years
July 28, 2010

Antarctica is not "getting colder", nor is it "losing sea ice". Warmer oceans are causing increased snowfall so 'sea ice' is actually increasing but that increase is dwarfed by the ice loss from the interior ice as well as the ice shelves that rest on the sea floor. Antarctica is losing ice mass at accelerating rates.
Antarctic ice loss vaster, faster than thought: study
November 22, 2009

I could easily go through your entire list of fallacious points and show the evidence that each one is factually wrong. But I don't have time to educate the willfully ignorant.

You are a clueless fool who's been duped by a propaganda campaign mounted by the fossil fuel industry to protect the profit they make from selling CO2 emitting fuels by fooling people about the reality and dangers of global warming/climate changes.

Dean Crawford said...

In case anybody reads the above post, I thought I'd better respond. Whilst I don't want my blog to become a climate-change battleground, it's worth noting a few things about the response.

Firstly, the tone. You'll see the same things when people get agitated at criticism of their religion. The weaker their argument, the more aggressive the tone - "Cult denier drivel " and "willfully ignorant" and "clueless fool" being fairly obvious examples. If they can't attack the argument, they instead attack the person.

Secondly, both examples of websites are examples of what's called cherry-picking - search for things that uphold your argument, and ignore anything to the contrary. NOAA is an excellent organisation; unfortunately the link seems dead so I can't see what it says, but based on the second example, which when read properly reveals that "The margin or error, they cautioned, is almost as large as the estimate, meaning ice loss could be a little as a few billion tonnes or more than 100." This doesn't mean they're wrong, but it does mean that the poster hasn't checked the validity of their own example before using it. A knee-jerk reaction, in other words.

Finally, they hide behind an 'anonymous' identity. In addition, contrary to the myth used by the poster, the fossil-fuel industry actually OWNS the majority of the environmentally concerned companies developing alternative energies. They're not stupid - they know fossil fuels are running out and they are taking action themselves.

As a final thought, I repeat my own original post's final line - don't take my word for it, or the above poster's. Look at all angles yourself, and come to your own conclusions.

Eloise said...

Awesome post! You don't know me Dean, my husband is a writer and works with your friend Graham which is how we found out about you and your success (well done btw!!).

We've enjoyed reading your blog (especially the query letter, thanks so much you've given us some great ideas on submissions for Phil's novel - a young adult sci-fi book) but I especially loved this submission. It's a breath of fresh air after so many years of nonsense being spouted by ridiculous people (Al Gore being their chief...).

Am really looking forward to reading your first book and wish you the best of luck and much happiness in 2011!


Dean Crawford said...

Hi Eloise,

Glad to hear that my blog has been of help to Phil's writing. Since achieving my first deal I'd hoped that I'd be able to pass on what I've learned to others, and it's really great to hear that my work has been of use :o)

I was in touch with an editor a couple of years back by the name of John Jarrold. He's an established figure in the industry who's also been acting as a literary agent for science-fiction and fantasy for a while now. His website is under his name, so you might try there with submissions as I know that he was trying to build a new client list in order to become an agent full-time.... Tell Phil to keep at it - it's worth it in the long run!

Best wishes to you both :o)


Battycuss said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Battycuss said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Battycuss said...

I don't know what's happening here, but I keep getting shunted out of cyberspace!

I agree with every word of your post Dean, and if Wind Generators are efficient, why do we need so many? They are cluttering up the coastline and destroying some of the most beautiful scenery on the planet.

Scandalous. it seems they are there for one reason. To put money in shareholders' pockets.

One angry ex-matelot!


Dean Crawford said...

Indeed John, it's all a bit farcial and that's what happens when politics and business interfere with science.

I'd love to see solar power get going - that's the only really viable free energy source that could actually power the world. The technology's there, the materials there, the political cooperation and will.... oh, bugger.

Dean :o)