Global warming? Really? If this is still a fact, why do the global warming believers keep refusing to debate it?
Well over a decade ago, when producing my magazine The Best Underground Press – Critical Review in some concern that in this country there was (and is) so very little in the way of investigative analysis into important issues of the day, my attention was drawn to the debate beginning to centre around the possible issue of AGW. The latter, as we know, is the anthropogenic global warming theory that human beings are responsible for most of the slight warming trend seen since the Little Ice Age.
One fact that interested me, when reviewing both sides of the debate, was that even then, a consensus of about 25,000 scientists, in what was written up at the time as the Seattle Agreement, disassociated themselves from the AGW theorising, arguing that the temporary temperature rise was entirely natural, and could well be assigned to other causes – as, for example, noted increases in solar activity (now declining) and apparently paralleling the rise. They argued that computer analysis, relying on input from researchers, was simply not capable of factoring in enough varied complex data; and that CO2 is not only a very minor atmospheric gas, but that it is actually beneficial to life on earth, vital to plant growth.
At the subsequent annual Summersounds Symposium, which I ran for a decade and half to provide for genuine debate on similar important issues, keynote speakers included highly reputable scientists with impeccable backgrounds in this area, such as New Zealand geologist and paleoclimatologist, Dr Gerrit van der Lingen, with a Ph.D. in Geology from Utrecht University.
Other very interesting contributions from highly regarded scientists raised a number of questions. See: http://nzclimatescience.net/index.php?option=com_search&searchword=lingen
What was puzzling is that Gerrit and other scientists equally well qualified, and held in considerable respect overseas, were given little or no opportunity to engage in the debate in the mainstream media in this country. Among those we were fortunate enough to have presenting highly relevant material – and apparently virtually blacklisted by the media (let alone quite disgracefully sidelined from what should have been vigorous debate in our universities) has been Auckland’s Dr Chris de Freitas, Associate Professor in the School of Environment at the University of Auckland. See =466&objectid=10886282=466&objectid=10886282
Possibly the most important question of all is why, rather than indulging in genuine debate – the only realistic way of getting to the truth of any issue – the facts presented by those concerned at what was happening were met from the very beginning with astonishing degrees of intolerance, and even venom. Why the childish name-calling as “deniers” those scientists who simply want a genuine debate? And what has happened to our universities?
Wellington’s Victoria University’s refusal to tolerate anyone on campus to debate the issues is fundamentally shocking – the antithesis of what a university should be. Moreover if one is sure of one’s facts, shouldn’t one be willing to have these tested in debate? An eminent IPCC reviewer, Dr Vincent Gray – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vincent_R._Gray – has for some years now called for the IPCC to be abolished, claiming it is fundamentally corrupt – due to his conclusion that significant parts of its work and scientific methods are unsound and that “ it resists all efforts to try to discuss all rectify these problems. ”
The reaction to a recent thoughtful editorial in the National Business Review shows to what extent an otherwise lively debate is obfuscated by some of those commenting. Check out the Editor’s Insight: Sceptics’ Guide to the Paris climate summit
What then of the actual debate? We have the evidence that some of the so-called proofs of global warming have been falsified – as, for exampl,e with the now infamous hockey stick graph which managed to do away with the Medieval warm period and the Little Ice Age!
So what has been behind the unprecedented propaganda drive which has resulted in so many – especially (but by no means only) of the less experienced and more potentially gullible younger generation convinced by what has become a quasi-religious creed – that the planet is threatened by a relatively minor and now past temperature rise? Thousands have converged on Paris convinced that we are faced with a potential doomsday scenario.
What is actually true? And should we be more worried that we are being faced with a global hoax on an unprecedented scale? If so, who benefits? Check out these “facts” with which the mainstream media continue to obligingly deluge us.
. Thanks to the rise in CO2 emissions, we are faced with a rise in global temperatures never before seen in history·
. The overall temperature rise of the past 200 years has been wholly unprecedented, and the C02 emitted since the start of the industrial revolution must still be a major factor
. Two recent studies have shown that “97 per cent of all climate scientists” still believe in man-made global warming. How can this evidence be denied?
. Global sea levels are still rising – so worryingly, that little island nations like Kiribati, Tuvalu and the Maldives may soon have vanished beneath the waves
. Terrible hurricanes and cyclones like Katrina and Erica give clear proof of how global warming is bringing us more deadly storms.
. It’s still better to rely on “renewable energy” than fossil fuels
Are these “facts” correct? And if not, who benefits by persistently pushing them?
On the Daily Telegraph website, Christopher Booker presents and examines these constant claims. His analysis puts that of our mainstream media editorial writers to shame – or it should. There is little excuse for the once- over-lightly, lazy material with which the New Zealand public is being inundated. His analysis shouldn’t be missed.
The AGW theorising is described on pretty accurately on , pointing out that it was and is “highly favoured by liberals, as it provides justification for carbon taxes and the Kyoto Protocol. It targets human beings for being responsible for most of the slight warming trend seen since the Little Ice Age. This theory began to be highly attractive to those seeing its possibilities as a multi-million-(billion) dollar earner for those dreaming up the concept of trading carbon credits, and for governments to take advantage of a promising source of increased taxation, in the form of carbon taxes, other emissions trading controls and for an an opportunity for the creeping State to intrude even further into our lives.
The AGW theory in fact has been seized upon as the only acceptable explanation for the 1.5 degrees F of warming of the air near the earth’s surface recorded since 1850. The idea that human activities, such as the combustion of fossil fuels, can significantly warm the earth’s atmosphere is called the enhanced greenhouse effect. “However, Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore also said global warming is most likely a “natural phenomenon,” because there is no proof of man-made global warming, and suggested that alarmism is driving politicians to create bad environmental policies.” It has also now created what has become a kind mass hysteria, propagated with the near religious fervour that brooks no contradiction… as well as very much enriching prominent individuals and institutions trumpeting it.
But what if it is wrong? And what of the hypocrisy involved in turning a blind eye to the very real pollution poisoning the air in developing countries, and accommodating their continuing to do so – while damaging the economies of the West by imposing punitive taxation, attacking productive industries and best farming practices? The ultimate futility of all must be in raising taxes across a country such as ours, with a struggling economy, to buy carbon credits, which do nothing whatever to reduce any real pollution – regardless of its origins.
Bryan Leyland is a power industry consultant and New Zealand Climate Science Coalition energy adviser. In a 2012 Dominion Post article  he challenged the computer modelling, and the disinformation, whether accidental or deliberately misleading – saying he leaned towards the latter.
Today he argues, “Any scientist worth his salt* would realise that the objective is to stop dangerous man-made global warming that, it is claimed, is caused by carbon dioxide emissions. But if he read the latest IPCC technical reports he would note that the IPCC admit that the world has not warmed for the last 12 years or so, that there is huge uncertainty about the “climate forcing factor” that drives the climate models to predict dangerous warming and he would realise that all the climate models failed to predict the lack of warming. This proves that they are worthless for predicting future temperatures.
If he* did a little bit more research, he would note that many competent scientists are predicting the return of a Little Ice Age. They would also note that, unlike the global warmers, their research is based on past climate cycles – rather than speculations fed into computer programs. They would therefore assign that much more credibility.
They would then be driven to the inevitable conclusion that a dangerous man-made global warming is most definitely not happening, and that more than $2 trillion has been squandered on wind and solar power and suchlike for no reason at all.”
If so, our government has a great deal to answer for. But then, we are increasingly finding that our government has indeed a great deal to answer for…in this and other important areas. And all this costs us a great deal – in more ways than one…