What a Simple Graph Shows Us About Global Warming
There’s very little to be said about this article and the chart below. If you don’t believe that the temperature of the Earth is increasing, you’re badly misinformed.
There’s very little to be said about this article and the chart below. If you don’t believe that the temperature of the Earth is increasing, you’re badly misinformed.
Craig,
Goodness ! Well that seems pretty conclusive ! A graph ! Who could argue with that ? Especially when accompanied by an alarmist political dissertation by Joe Fromm.
The existence of anyone who dissents, or even question the conclusiveness of this holy graph must immediately become the target of a pitchfork wielding mob, crying “burn the heretic” !
Joe Fromm and his fellow alarmist advocates with their sensationally exaggerated, politically motivated claims do more damage to the environmentalist cause than and army of climate skeptics could do in ten years!
Why are people skeptical about such simplistic alarmists ? Is it because they’re perverse, obtuse or just ignorant ?
Well that’s what Joe Fromm and his fellow advocates would have you believe. However, there may be another explanation.
It may not be an explanation you what to hear when sharpening your pitchfork, but (at the risk of repetition) it’s worth considering.
Australia was the probably the first country in the world to elect a very pro GW/CC federal government in November 2007, was followed by counterparts in several states.
Huge sums of public money (mostly borrowed) were squandered on “green’ initiatives to meet, in the words of the then Prime Minister, “the greatest moral challenge of our time”.
The absolute hero of the hour was the alarmist advocate, doyen scientist of the government and media, the internationally renowned climate scientist, Professor Tim Flannery.
“Australian of the Year” , media idol, and hero of idealistic students, Professor Flannery’s influence reached deep into the halls of power. He was provided with lavish taxpayer funding and celebrity status.
At the zenith of his influence he persuaded the Federal and Queensland governments that global Warming had reached a stage where desertification of the Queensland hinterland was “irreversible” and produced amazing “graphs” and modelling to support his contention.
Doubts expressed by a real Professor from the University of Adelaide, Ian Plimer, were derided in the press (especially the Guardian) and the unfortunate Prof dismissed as a climate denier with a vehemence usually reserved for pedophiles.
The Federal and State governments placed the faith in the “graphs’ of Tim Flannery and diverted funding from levee and flood prevention into funding the Climate Change Commission, headed by the new Climate Change Commissioner, Tim Flannery.
Tim Flannery appointed as one of his deputies, fellow “climate scientist” and green activist, Clive Hamilton, who advocates “suspension of democratic processes” as a necessary response to the threat of climate change.
Tim Flannery’s predictions sound so serious in 2007, he predicted that Australia’s largest city, Sydney, would run out of water by 2010 or inevitably by 2015. (accompanied by impressive graphs).
When this didn’t occur, he announced that there was a consensus among climate scientists (listing 154 fellow travelers), that ” Australia will lose its northern rainfall by 2010′. (New Scientist 2007).
Now this would all be fairly harmless, and could be dismissed as the rantings of an over-excited advocate, were it that State and Federal politicians placing faith in the predictions of this “prophet” , based policy decisions on his advice.
2010-11 a series of floods hit Queensland. The floods swept aside the neglected levees, engulfed new housing estates previously prohibited to be built on land zoned aa “flood prone”, forcing the evacuation of tens thousands of people from over 90 towns and cities.
200,000 people suffered damage estimated at around in excess of $5 billion dollars, while reduction to Australia’s GDP was over A$60 billion.
But the most tragic consequence, was the death 46 people and 208 injured. Hundreds of thousands of animals were also lost.
Tim Flannery’s only response was to issue a statement saying basically, ” cataclysmic weather events are caused by global warming ! ”
But what about all those impressive graphs ? Well, not to worry, ol’ Tim’s got a whole new set proving a new theory!
One curious phenomenon was observed. The huge volume of rainfall across Queensland caused a drop in world sea level of more than 7 mm, lasting nearly two years. The drop in level is attributed to Australia’s arheic and endorheic basins soaking up water previously evaporated from the oceans.
Professor Richard Lindzen (an real scientist) responded to Tim Fanney’s predictions with the observation;
“Using current weather events to bolster a case for human-induced climate change is fundamentally unscientific.
Aside from confusing weather and climate-something sceptics are often accused of-it is also an un-falsifiable hypothesis, a key requirement of any scientific theory. If lots of rain, no rain at all, cold temperatures and hot temperatures are all evidence of climate change, what could we observe that would disprove any climate theory?”
It’s not as simple as your graph would suggest. Climate change alarmists seem to work from the position that the planet once enjoyed an idealized, stable “natural” condition, and that condition has been destroyed by human activity.
In truth the climate has always been changing, human contributions is simply a new factor he extent and effects of which remain a matter of considerable scientific conjecture.
Saying, “I believe in in climate change” is like saying “I believe in the planets existence” ! It’s meaningless, unless used in a political/ideological context.
Attempting to transform the natural phenomenon of climate change into a new religion by adding a moral element concerning human activity, is neither scientific nor productive.
When it comes to scientifically measuring the effects of human activity and and accessing the detrimental effects to both the environment and human society, moral, political and ideological considerations can’t be allowed to replace or distort scientific analysis.