The only certainty is that YOU’RE paying for the hysteria of our politicians.
So heads the post by Christopher Booker, “The Daily Mail“.
Who would possibly have thought it? The latest news is that the world may be threatened by a sharp drop in temperatures, possibly so severe that it could herald a new mini ice age.
And one reason being put forward for this is that all the pollution being chucked out by thousands of coal-fired power stations may be blocking the sun’s heat from the Earth.
So here we have the pollution as a cause for cooler conditions, whereas the previous post pointed to the sun’s decreasing output due to an extended minimum and anticipated lower maximum in cycle 24. I am happy with the lower sun activity as the major cause, with volcanic and industrial pollution supplementing.
Whatever the detailed issues, the IPCC theory of CO2 levels forcing global temperature up has been left far behind. The computer modelled catastrophic temperature rise has been severely dented. Even if after another decade, during which CO2 levels may well have reached 400ppm, the temperature will then be more likely less than now, rather than more. (Based on this author’s conjectures).
Read the whole Sott.net article here.
Related articles
- Are we headed for a new ice age? (blogs.discovermagazine.com)
- Scientists Now Predict a new Little Ice Age is Near (chimalaya.org)
- “Earth Facing Mini Ice Age!!” Say The Media (milkandcookies.com)
- TEN MYTHS about Global Warming (raymondjclements.wordpress.com)
- Eminent geophysicist rejects global warming theory, says world on verge of ‘mini ice age’ (tipggita32.wordpress.com)
Alex's Journeys
bjjangles
cesarzambrano
ggita32
gogofishgreen
Ken McMurtrie
kristalklear
patricktech
yuma progressive
As the article wrongly concludes “Even if after another decade, during which CO2 levels may well have reached 400ppm, the temperature will then be more likely less than now, rather than more. (Based on this author’s conjectures).
The Earth’s temperature has been increasing rapidly as a response to the growing concentration of greenhouse gases, primarily carbon dioxide, in the atmosphere. As we put more CO2 into the air, the Earth’s temperature will continue to increase unless some unforeseen natural disaster or a nuclear winter occurs. ( Based upon the scientific evidence.)
Thanks for your comment JC, but exactly what “scientific evidence” are you referring to? For it to have relevance here, it must be evidence disproving all the contrary evidence published on this site. Current scientifically achieved temperature data suggests that it is much more likely that the global average, in generally accepted terms, is trending level or maybe even cooling! I prefer that you read through a few relevant posts here, but if I need to spell them out, I guess I will have to.
Comments further to above:
In referring you to ‘this site’, I need to make clear that I intended to direct you to my own blog ” http://tgrule.com ” which has extensive information on this subject. Your further comments welcome.
I found your article on Climate Himalaya and clicked on” leave a response” as the article is not consistent with the peer-reviewed scientific evidence. If you would like to see the scientific evidence for global warming in graphs and pictures, that information is available at http://jcmooreonline.com/2011/08/31/bits-and-pieces-10-global-warming-in-pictures/.
The important factor, JC, is the data itself AND the interepretation of it AND whether it has been cherry-picked and/or even fiddled.
Rather than persue a personal debate with you, I just respectfully ask you to look at a couple of popular blogs which have valid commentary on this subject.
One is JoNova and the other is WattsUpWithThat, they are linked on my site.
http://tgrule.com
If they cannot convey what I consider to be the reality of the climate change science and agenda, there will be nothing much more I can contribute that is likely to impress you.
You can reasonably use the same argument on me, but it comes down to who has the reliable data and the realistic perception and interpretation response.
A particularly relevant post is
http://joannenova.com.au/2012/04/the-highest-authority-in-science-is-the-data/
For a simple example of my fiddlng claim, check out the graph in the first reader comment.
As for photos of ice extent, they have been proven to be misleading in some cases and current trends show increasing ice and snow and even some NEW glaciers.
The Himalaya article was a ‘cherry-pick’ but proves that that method works both ways, and is therefore lacking convincing proof.
To my mind, a meaningful measurement of “average global temperature” does not exist. To use short term observations as some proof of global warming is not scientifically valid as climate change is universal geographically and chronologically and will continue to be so!
In the 1970′s scientists were trying to convince us that the planet was cooling. That also was a political agenda.
If you really wish to continue debating, feel welcome to make a comment on my blog, there are plenty of relevant posts and pages there.
Thanks for the links. I often read articles on Whatsupwiththat but I find for the most part they are fiction.I would agree with the Joannenova site that the “highest authority of the data”, but they are not using the peer-reviewed science data and most of the discussion is about politics and religion, not science. As the saying goes” they’re entitled to their opinions, but not their own scientific facts.”
The curious thing about scientific facts, in this case, is that if they were, facts that is, it should be possible to agree on them. That it is apparently not possible to agree on them, surely says something about either the facts or our perception of them.
That is another road, one which another reader, Martin, and I have travelled without much success.
My dream (environmental) is that I live long enough for one of us to be convinced that the other is right. Join the queue JC.
Thanks again for commenting.
Scientific controversies are settled by evidence and reason, but there are always a few who will dispute the evidence, no matter how solid it is. It is significant that about 97% of the climate scientists and every major scientific organization of the world agree that the Earth is warming and that the major cause is man’s activity, in particular the 30 billion tons of carbon dioxide we are now putting into the air each year. There are a few legitimate skeptics who do not accept the evidence or the lines of reasoning but in this case the other 3% is mostly made up of people who do not wish the world’s governments to act on the scientific evidence, and are busy spreading doubt to keep that from happening.
This is typical of the pro- and anti-carbon ‘villain’ AGW arguments. We simply go around in circles leading nowhere.
Your judging the WUWT information to be mostly fiction is an insult to Anthony Watts, to his contributors and to my own intelligence.
Your reliance on rhetoric, not science, proven lies or misconceptions, from the ‘warmist’ scientists indicates to me a lack of applying your own thinking and logic to the process. Your belief in the so-called “peer review process” and that there is a 97% consensus supports this particular viewpoint of mine.
The peer review process, in this particular area, is corrupt and worthless.
The ’97% consensus’ is itself, purely and simply meaningless. Reference:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/18/what-else-did-the-97-of-scientists-say/
Anyway, thanks for your trouble and contribution.
Regards, Ken.