Today’s (Friday’s) Wall Street Journal editorializes about the famous Hockey Stick graph of the world’s temperature chart that would seem alone to have motivated the Kyoto Protocols. The chart has been exposed as a fraud.
This brings two things to my mind: first, the persecution of Hans-Hermann Hoppe for illustrating his economic point with a politically incorrect example, and judicial review of court decisions. That Dr. Hoppe is in real danger of being marginalized for speaking truth is starkly evident from the careers mentioned in the editorial as having been destroyed by Climatologist Michael Mann’s lies. Why is not Dr. Mann being persecuted for falsifying data leading to globally ruinous government interventions in the processes by which humankind feeds, clothes, and shelters itself?
And now we see that the verdicts rendered by the Kyoto Protocols are based on false evidence. Why is there no “appeals” process by which, as in court cases so based, the draconian verdict can be reversed?
At least, since the US abjured the Kyoto Protocols, I am for once proud of my country’s government. For something it didn’t do.
{ 10 comments }
“Why is not Dr. Mann being persecuted for falsifying data leading to globally ruinous government interventions in the processes by which humankind feeds, clothes, and shelters itself?” Mr. Mann’s analysis, despite the false data and scientifically unsupported conclusions, give governments another, although fallacious, reason for further intervening into the market economy. The political interventionist types do not care about science and reason, only about further controlling private enterprise and increasing their power. And since energy production and consumption significantly impact a modern industrial/commercial economy, this is a great area for the statists to attack. With the discrediting of central planning, the statists really do need new topics to exploit.
Unfortunately, the natural sciences are moving down the same biased and irrational road as the social sciences did many years ago. I guess this is a logical result of government becoming so involved in the funding of education and scientific research. From another perspective, I guess somehow it is correct to conclude that the warm-up of the earth that began in earnest over 10,000 years ago when the last ice age ended is the result of man’s industrial activities, which have only existed for maybe 250 years.
If GW is a done deal, then we should be compensating. For example, by cancelling gov flood insurance in coastal areas and building new dams to provide drinking water for the predicted new drought areas.
If I was Tsar of All Americas I would double the height of all dams on the Columbia and use the excess power to pump water to Lake Shasta.
Letter in today’s Scotsman (a pretty good paper) which I wrote & with which, looking at it, I entirely agree:
According to Mark Ruskell (A Green Parliamentarian) “the debate on whether climate change is real or not is over”. He isn’t far from correct, if not in quite the way he suggests. The research used to scare us into supporting Kyoto, by “proving” that global temperatures had flatlined for a millennium until rising rapidly in the past few years, has been discredited. It was based on faulty calculations which would have given the same graph from almost any input figures. The author is even refusing to make the rest of his calculations public – thus entirely removing them from the realm of testable science.
Furthermore, there is still a legitimate debate on whether the rise, approximately 1C over the past century, will continue, whether it is caused by mankind, sunspot activity or something else and whether an increase of that level is a good thing for us or not.
The increase in CO² levels is almost certainly beneficial, as it allows crops to grow better.
Clearly, history will look back on the Kyoto process with the same bemusement we have when we read that in 1975 Newsweek claimed there was a “unanimous” scientific consensus that we were heading for a new ice age.
Neil, your comment “when we read that in 1975 Newsweek claimed there was a ‘unanimous’ scientific consensus that we were heading for a new ice age” has special significance for me. In the late 1970′s I was an undergraduate majoring in geology (I date myself), and I clearly remember the argument that we were entering into another ice age. And of course, quick and decisive national and international government action was necessary to prevent catastrophe. And then within about 10 years, the “expert” consensus had changed: earth was now warming up as a result man’s activities, again with projected dire consequences. In a space of 10 years the experts had come full circle. I note that the earth is over 5 billion years old, and 10 years even 1,000 years are tiny specs in geologic time.
This is the very weird thing about this. There is STILL a scientific consensus that we are heading straight into an ice age in the next several thousand years. The greenhouse alarmists never mention this. Their focus seems to be over the next hundred or two hundred years. They should be working on figuring out when the cooling is likely to bight. I don’t know whether these things can be finessed but I would like every last molecule of fossil fuel carbon to be in the air before it does bite.
Since Gandwanaland split up and reached the poles ice ages have been longer in duration than the interglacial periods. And they are the most threatening thing to the natural world there is almost. Europe becomes unihabitable. Even more so than it is now.
Nowhere is uninhabitable nowadays, given sufficient time to adapt. We could build habitable cities on an airless rock (moon, Mars, asteroids) if we could get men and materials there. Living in an ice-age Europe wouldn’t be a real problem.
[In some ways, it might not even be such a bad thing: for sure, the horrendous blight of socialism currently covering Europe thicker than the ice in the last ice age wouldn't be able to stand up to the requirements of keeping people alive. I think it'd have to be a more libertarian society]
To Neil: Increase in co2 might not be (at) all beneficial. During the 2003 heat wave in Europe plants _produced_ more co2 than absorbed and the primary productivity was _down_ 20 %. See Nature 9/22/2005 vol. 437 or this: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4269066.stm
To Sperduto: Can you please point out any scientific basis for your 70′s ice age argument? It might be hard because it is a myth. See here: http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/
I think science behind climate change is convincing and I want to do something to avoid worsening of my backyard. Maybe technology brings something or moving negative externalities of co2 production to prices in markets.
Dear sirs
I have stumbled upon this site purely by accident while using the internet and it has given me an eye opening insight into the short-sighted stance held by many individuals. One comment requesting “every last molecule of fossil fuel carbon to be in the air” is outrageous. Also, I find the thought that plants grow better with more CO2 equally alarming. On what basis is this comment grounded? There are many nutrients that aid plant growth, CO2 is just one of the contributors but an increase in CO2 produces less nutritious plants of lower N and higher indigestible products. As for the effect of CO2 to keep the planet warm, it may do this for a while but it has been shown that the Earth has reflexes against increased global warming that often result in ice ages. Fresh water from glaciers, floating on sea water, forming a layer of ice that reduces albedo and hence reflects large amounts of energy. Have any of you heard of any of this? Global warming will cause droughts in the prairies of America and their South American counterparts, droughts on the Russian Steppes and drought in the world’s rice paddies. Basically this is a catastrophe of all the world’s food sources waiting to happen. How do we know? Because it’s happened previously under global warming. So what is my point, you are probably asking yourself. Global warming happened before and had these effects, so how do we know it is not just another cycle. Take a trip to town, look at the horrible purple haze that hangs over many of our towns and cities on a hot day, look at the pollution figures. The Earth has taken billions of years to reach an equilibrium and has become very stable only recently. Now we are taking all the products locked in the Earth over these billions of years and releasing the en masse. How can you not see what is happening here?
One other comment that made my mouth drop in amazement was one suggesting that we could survive an ice age, how are you going to get your resources from under 1km of ice, as much of Europe and North America would be. Where will the crops be grown to support the population of Earth that is already exhausting the resources we have.
Have a think about it, I am not an “eco-warrior”, I’m a scientist and I’m startled to read the comments on your page. Yes, your country did abstain from the Kyoto protocol. Why? Because you produce more pollution than many third world countries and your president’s family owns various heavy industries. People like you will bring a premature end to the success of this planet and it’s time you realised.
Joeseph please do not dismiss arguments purely because they are “outrageous”. Deal with them on points of fact. You amy be alarmed to learn that plants grow better in enhanced CO2 but it is nonetheless the case.
“tests have shown that increasing the level of carbon dioxide in a greenhouse to 550 ppm will accelerate plant growth by 30 – 40 %. The natural level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is around 450 ppm, having increased from about 250 ppm in the last ice-age” < http://www.ox-an.com/>
Some of the points you made may arguably be valid, at least playing a part in a climate system that is almost infinitely complex. What is neede is more research & less assumed certainty.
Mr Craig
I did acknowledge the fact that plants grow faster in higher levels of CO2 but that this growth is unfavourable, more cellulose than fleshy nutritious material. Also, the current increasing CO2 is favouring specific species of C14 plants, which are unfortunately not many of the major global crop species.
I agree that there is a need for more research, but what is perhaps most essential is minimising our unnecessary and largely damaging contribution to global climate stability. What was most alarming was the attitude expressed in several articles that appeared to seriously underestimate the seriousness of the affect that humans are having on the environment.
Comments on this entry are closed.