jump to navigation

Warming millions good, sceptics’ thousands bad July 3, 2009

Posted by honestclimate in Discussions.
Tags: ,

Warming millions good, sceptics’ thousands bad

Andrew Bolt
Herald Sun, July 04, 2009

The ABC’s Emma Alberici yesterday tried to smear Senator Steve Fielding as the dupe of corrupt scientists, paid by Big Oil to deny global warming.

ALBERICI: Bob Ward (above) – a policy director at the London School of Economics – first wrote to ExxonMobil in 2006. He was concerned about the financial support the company provided to climate change deniers

WARD: They have stopped funding for a number of the groups that have been denying climate change but they haven’t stopped funding them all. Yet they have been telling people that they have stopped all that funding. So I think they should either own up that they are continuing funding for some of these groups or they should keep their promise.

ALBERICI: How many groups and what are the kinds of figures we are talking about as far as sums of money?

WARD: Several hundred thousand dollars a year… These organisations are not informing public debate on climate change, they are trying to mislead people…

Already a couple of things scream out from this report. First, if Fielding’s facts are wrong, then why not simply show why, rather than smear? But if they are right, then what does it matter if Big Oil helped to fund some of the groups publicising the science? All I see here are red herrings.

Second, why does Alberici – who is better than this – stoop to use the term “denier”, which is not only false but a deliberate and disgraceful attempt to align sceptical scientists and politicians with Holocaust deniers?

But here is the most astonishing thing about Alberici’s report. Not only is the money ExxonMobil gives an insigificant fraction of the billions handed out to global warming scientists and spruikers, but it’s also a fraction of the money that Ward’s own Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change at the LSE got from a global warming evangelist to preach the doomsday gospel:

Jeremy Grantham has given British universities £24m in a bid to save the planet… The British financier, who founded the Boston-based investment fund GMO, which has £55 billion under its management, gave the money to the London School of Economics (LSE) to fund an institute for researching the economics of climate change. A similar amount went to Imperial College London to study climate science.

Altogether, the £24m is one of the largest donations ever made to climate research… So why did Yorkshire-born Grantham do it?

“Because climate change is turning into the biggest problem humanity has ever faced. I wanted to invest my money in places where it might actually help tackle that problem,” said the financier last week…

Which makes Ward a monumental hypocrite.He complains that a few hundred thousand dollars from Big Oil corrupts debate, but says nothing about the more than $20 million his own university gets from Big Warming.

Why did Alberici not mention this?

So here’s the deal for the ABC. Debate the science, but if you must claim that the funding corrupts, at least admit which side gets the most of it.



1. Tinny - July 5, 2009

Who are the real Deniers?

Many people, including a relatively small number of scientists, believe that increased carbon dioxide levels will eventually (perhaps 50 years in the future when the claimers will no longer be around) cause ‘catastrophic damage to the environment’ because they believe (with no real world evidence to back up those beliefs) that some time in the future the increased carbon dioxide levels will cause ‘runaway’ increases in the world’s average annual temperature.
One of the most common ploys of some of these people, when confronted by real world evidence suggesting strongly that such apocalyptic views have no basis and are most likely wrong, is to attack the messenger rather than try to refute the real evidence with real evidence of their own. One of the most common and hysterical claims is that anyone who disagrees with the “settled science” is a ‘denier’ likened to deniers of the holocaust.
However, who are the real deniers here?

Here is a list of a few things which are universally denied by the proponents of AGW (catastrophic climate change caused by mankind burning fossil fuels).

They Deny;
• That variations in the activity of the sun have any significant effect on the earth’s temperature, despite evidence that there has been a strong correlation between the sun’s activity levels and the earth’s average temperature over many centuries.
• That there was a Medieval Warm Period (MWP), or any other period in the current interglacial, where average temperatures were higher than in the twentieth century, despite the enormous historical record of events which could only have been true if temperatures were indeed significantly higher than now. They know that the existence of the MWP makes their argument that “temperatures are now higher than they have been for millions of years’ look rather silly.
• When confronted with the above they then deny that such warm periods were global and claim them to have been only local to the northern hemisphere. This despite the evidence of hundreds of peer reviewed studies using temperature proxies, the great majority of which (>75%) indicate that not only was there a medieval warm period but that it was global rather than confined to the northern hemisphere.
• That the start of the industrial age, when man began to use increasing amounts of fossil fuels, coincided with the end of the Little Ice Age (LIA), when temperature were about 2 degrees colder than now and indeed colder than any other time in the current interglacial period (except the Dark Ages around 500 AD). Of course they won’t accept that the rather slow temperature rise (about 2 degrees in two centuries since the LIA) might be due to natural causes, even though most of the rise occurred before man started using significant amounts of fossil fuels other than as a replacement for wood, the burning of which also releases carbon dioxide.
• That the retreat of glaciers started in about 1820, and that the rate of retreat has not increased despite increasing hydrocarbon use. That there has been no increase in the average number of severe Atlantic hurricanes since 1900. That the rate of sea level increase (average 7 inches per century) has remained constant since 1850, despite increasing hydrocarbon use.
• That polar bear numbers have increased from about 5000 in 1970 to around 25000 today, mainly due to restrictions on hunting (although about 500 per year are still shot by hunters)
• That levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are no higher than they have been many times in the last few millions of years. This despite peer reviewed papers citing more than 90000 determinations using wet chemical techniques showing that carbon dioxide levels were up to 50% higher in the period between 1812 and 1960.
• That the evidence from ice core data shows conclusively that over hundreds of thousands of years, temperature increased before carbon dioxide levels increased and decreased before carbon dioxide levels decreased. This shows that increasing carbon dioxide could not have caused the temperature to increase and that it is more likely that temperature changes caused the changes in carbon dioxide.

In short, it’s probably true to say that they deny anything which doesn’t neatly fit the theory for which they are unable to produce any real world evidence. Such real world evidence that they have produced has either been totally discredited (Michael Mann’s infamous ‘hockey stick’ temperature graph, for example). Or of little connection (the fact that temperatures rose slightly during the course of the twentieth century says absolutely nothing about the cause of the increase). The way in which carbon dioxide levels have been measured to increase over the course of the twentieth century (a steadily increasing trend) bears no correlation to the way in which the earth’s average temperature has been measured to increase (lengthy periods of slight increase interspersed with a lengthy period of cooling). The fact that there is no correlation between the two trends is really conclusive evidence that there is no causality between the two.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: