Standing against the consensus Print
Written by Dr Eamon Butler   
Tuesday, 01 July 2008

Meteorologist Fred Singer is always amusing. He has a cheery disposition, and takes particular delight in teasing the likes of Al Gore when their enthusiasm gets the better of their reason. His Non-Government International Panel on Climate Change points out that melting glaciers and suchlike may be evidence of rising temperatures, but they are not evidence that human beings have caused them. And he states simply and confidently that human influence over the climate is insignificant.

The world has been much hotter, and much colder, long before we arrived on the scene. Carbon dioxide has been twenty times the level it is now. The sun – gushing out radiation, gas clouds, and magnetic fields – is a much more important cause of climate change. Carbon 14 and Oxygen 18 isotopes in ancient ice samples allow us to gauge both solar activity and temperature over the millennia; and indeed there is a strong correlation.

Singer has been in London, promoting his new report, Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate. The idea that human beings are causing climate change, he says, has produced damaging distortions in our energy policy – increasing our costs, damaging our economic growth and lowering our living standards. Instead, he says, since our activities have almost no influence on the climate, we should carry on using coal (and nuclear power) to generate electricity, and use our potentially-insecure supplies of natural gas for less strategic purposes such as transportation.

You might not agree with Singer, but it's hard to dislike the good-natured way he is prepared to stand up against the consensus.

Comments (2)Add Comment
...
written by Dr Alister McFarquhar, July 01, 2008
Eamon Fred should be welcome good natured or not for his climate science.

Surveys, some recent, show no consensus among climate experts-only politicians, subsidy rent collectors, and evangelistic Greens. No evidence CO2 causes temperature increase, rather the reverse-and mans contribution is too small to measure. Evidence of warming is weakened daily by satellite observation and the curent decade of non warming plus the overdue cooling expected.

As Bret Stephens says today in WSJ, climate debate belongs in the realm of religion

“Socialism may have failed as an economic theory, but global warming alarmism, with its dire
warnings about the consequences of industry and consumerism, is equally
a rebuke to capitalism.................
A light carbon footprint has become the 21st-century equivalent of sexual abstinence.....................
What's remarkable is the extent to which penance sells among a mostly secular audience.2

[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121486841811817591.html?mod=todays_columnists]

As ASI Blog has said for years!
...
written by Steve Giess, July 01, 2008
As has been rightly said, the issue is not whether the ice sheets are melting because it is warmer now that thirty years ago, rather the issue is whether CO2 levels have much to do with this warming patch; ie, separate out objective measurements from subjective theories.

Write comment
This content has been locked. You can no longer post any comment.

Powered by Azrul's Jom Comment for Joomla!
busy