Global Warming: An Answer to Dennis Brown

(Warning: This is going to be a long one.)

A few days ago, I was commenting on a CBC website on the issue CBC's bias and in the course of the debate, a fellow by the name of Dennis Brown and I had an exchange about global warming. (Ya, we had drifted off topic, but one of the most consistent and egregious areas of CBC bias occurs in its coverage of the global warming scam, which is to say, they don't cover it.)

Anyway, Dennis appears to be not only intelligent but a Class "A" gentleman, certainly by comparison to many other loyal CBCers who comment on various stories, in any case.  His response is copied below. I promised to respond to him on my blog, but on Saturday morning, when I was all fired up to compose a reply, I lost access to the internet. Sasktel's trusty technicians have just fixed the problem (I was undergoing some deep withdrawal pains, believe me, so thanks, guys).

So, anyway, here goes. Dennis's remarks are in blue. I've bolded the points to which I am responding. In my response, I am going to quote at length from an Australian scientist, Ian Plimer's book Heaven and Earth: Global warming, the missing science (Taylor Trade Publishing, 2009)

First, Dennis's reply:

"I realize I didn’t address Louise’s points on what she calls “the AGW scam”. In my previous post, I wanted to present my thoughts on the Erin report. Let’s look at the links on the climate change issue that Louise has provided. In the first one, a story that appeared May 29 in the Times of London, a small group of scientists affiliated with the Royal Society has demanded that the Society revoke a statement made by the previous head of the Society, Lord May, that “the debate on climate change is over.”

Lord May’s science specialty is chemical engineering and theoretical physics. Heavy stuff but not climatology or meteorology. Sir Alan Rudge, leader of the dissenters, has a specialty in electrical engineering. Again heavy stuff but not in the field where the observations, measurement and analysis must be done.

This is absolute nonsense. Climate is influenced by chemical composition of the atmosphere and most certainly all earth sciences come under the general field of physics.   And besides that, Lord May was the Head of the Society. That doesn't make him anything more than an officer of the organization. It doesn't imply that he has any more or any less expertise in the field of climatology than anyone other member of the Society. He was simply filling a role on the executive, which almost every organization worth it's salt must have in order to carry out its business.

Back to Plimer's book, though. You should buy it, Dennis. My copy is 492 pages and a bit, with ample footnotes on virtually every page to thousands of peer-reviewed articles which have appeared in the scientific and other (most notably historiographic) literature. Dr. Plimer is "Australia's best known geologist." Among his many other publications is the book, A Short History of Planet Earth. In other words, he knows his stuff and he's done his research.

And while you're at it, buy a copy of the book for CBC's Dr. Fruitfly, who is a geneticist, not a climatologist and a copy for Bob McDonald, whose field of expertise I don't know, but it sure ain't climatology. In any case, neither of them are practicing scientists. They are TV personalities and I bet they haven't published a peer-reviewed scientific paper in years, if ever.

Any Yanks reading this, I would suggest you send a truckload of Plimer's book to both of Algoracle's mansions, 'cause he sure isn't a climatologist, either. He ain't even a scientist, but he is invested up to his ears in green technology. No conflict of interest, there, is there, Dennis.  I'm all for investing in green technology, but not for non-existent problems.

Before I quote Plimer words themselves, though, I will take a little snippet from the back cover:

"This book's 504 pages and over 2,300 references to peer-reviewed scientific literature and other authoritative sources engagingly synthesize what we know about the Sun, Earth, ice, water, and air.  Importantly, in a parallel to his 1994 book challenging "creation science", Telling Lies for God, Ian Plimer describes Al Gore's book and movie An Inconvenient Truth as long on scientific "misrepresentations." "Trying to deal with these misrepresentations is somewhat like trying to argue with creationists," he writes, "who misquote, concoct evidence, quote out of context, ignore contrary evidence, and create evidence ex nihilo."

That's right, Dennis, your heroes are the new "creationists".

The information on the back cover also says, "Ian Plimer, twice winner of Australia's highest scientific honor, the Eureka Prize,  is professor in the School of Earth and Environmental Sciences at the University of Adelaide and is author of six other books written for the general public in addition to more than 120 scientific papers." So, Dennis, how do Dr. Fruit Fly and Bob McDonald measure up on that score? My hunch is they ignore at will any scientific paper that contradicts the narrative.

Back to Dennis:

The Global Warming Policy Foundation, with which Rudge is affiliated, has its own controversies to deal with, its funding sources private, and temperature graphs on its website showing data contrary to actual measurements.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Warming_Policy_Foundation#Temperature_graph

So the fact that one non-specialist in the field made a sweeping statement of opinion as if it were official consensus in the field, and the fact that a representative of a climate skeptic advocacy group dissents doesn’t really settle any science question, does it?

Dennis seems to believe that the earth is something completely separate from the climate. Not so my friend. Climate is influenced by the entire earth system, no less than the atmosphere where the dreaded bogey man, CO2, is supposedly driving rapid climate change, as well as the sun.

What I can agree with is that the CBC should have reported this as political controversy under the politics or international section. Not hidden away in the science section.

The second link is to a conference sponsored, not by a gathering of climate researchers or even the Royal Society, but by the Heartland Institute, whose mission statement reads:

Heartland’s mission is to discover, develop, and promote free-market solutions to social and economic problems. Such solutions include parental choice in education, choice and personal responsibility in health care, market-based approaches to environmental protection, privatization of public services, and deregulation in areas where property rights and markets do a better job than government bureaucracies.

Maybe free market theoreticians know more about climate change than chemists or physics professors? The Heartland has its own list of critics and controversies:

Similarly, SourceWatch reports contributions to Heartland by ExxonMobil and implies improper influence, but again presents no evidence of this occurring. Walter Buchholtz was a public relations advisor for ExxonMobil during his service on The Heartland Institute’s Board of Directors, and like Marden, he helped persuade his company to contribute to Heartland. He never exerted improper influence on any Heartland staff, and his company never gave more than 5 percent the organization’s annual receipts.

http://www.heartland.org/about/truthsquad.html

At least the Heartland is up front about its funding, which is more than you can say about the GWPF.

I didn’t find these stories covered on the CBC website. Does that constitute bias? No, but in my opinion it constitutes negligence. If there are climate skeptic organizations or promoters of climate change controversies with unclear funding or qualifications, I’d want to know about it, wouldn’t you?

Funding sources have absolutely nothing to do with whether or not the science is solid, Dennis. Peer review, does. If you want to believe that funding sources imply dishonest or biased science, then you must also take into account who receives funding from green technology industries and also explain away the evidence produced in the Climategate emails that suggests warmist scientists took great pains to prevent proper peer review of their published findings. Better luck next time.

Now, to quote some key passages from Plimer's book, from the introduction alone:

"The IPCC gathered many climatologists, meteorologists, environmentalists and political activists and published several voluminous publications, the first of which was in 1990. These reports comprised a three-part scientific report under IPCC's directed headings.  Three working groups had authors who contributed to a series of chapters under the guidance of lead authors and a lead chapter author. These people are touted as the 2500 scientific experts who constitute a consensus.


In the 1996 report on the impact of global warming on health, one contributing author was an expert on the effectiveness of motorcycle helmets. That author had also written on health effects of mobile phones.  Other authors were environmental activists, one of whom had written on the health effects of mercury poisoning from land mines.  If a land mine explodes, the last thing one thinks about is the health effects of mercury poisoning.  In the 2007 report, the health effects of global warming were expertly dealt with by two lead authors, one of whom was a hygienist and another a specialist in coprotlites (fossil faeces).  Those who drove the publication of the chapters on the health effects of global warming had no formal expertise in the chapters' subject material, especially  tropical  diseases. In fact, the expert opinions of tropical disease scientists were ignored by the other lead authors with no expertise in the field." (pg. 19-20)

Gives a whole new meaning to "shit happens", doesn't it, Dennis. But to continue with Plimer:

"The second stage of the IPCC process is that the draft Summary for Policymakers is submitted to governments, each of which can insist upon changes. These changes are made behind closed doors, the scientists who wrote three bulky volumes have no avenue for objection to political changes, and the final draft of the Summary forms the basis for a negotiating process and is not a peer review process. It is the process of politics. ---The IPCC process is related to environmental activism, politics and opportunism. It is unrelated to science." (pg. 20)

Now, to the really good stuff. This one puts the lie to Dennis's belief that only climatologists have the authority to pontificate on climate change:

"Climate science lacks scientific discipline. Studies of the Earth's atmosphere tell us nothing about future climate. An understanding of climate requires an amalgamation of astronomy, solar physics, geology, geochronology, geochemistry, sedimentiology, tectonics, paleontology, glaciology, climatology, meterorology, oceanography, ecology, archaeology and history." (pg. 15)

Here's more:

"The history of temperature change over time is related to the shape of the continents, the shape of the sea floor, the pulling apart of the crust, the stitching back together of the crust, the opening and closing of sea ways, comet dust, impacts by comets and asteroids, volcanic activity, bacteria, soil formation, sedimentation, ocean currents and the chemistry of air. If we humans, in a fit of ego, think we can change these normal planetary processes, then we need stronger medication." (pg. 11)

[---]

"If we look at the history of CO2 over time, we see the atmospheric CO2 content has been far higher than at present for most of time. Furthermore, atmospheric CO2 follows temperature rise - it does not create a temperature rise. To argue that human emissions of CO2 are forcing global warming requires all the known, and possibly chaotic, mechanisms of natural global warming to be critically analysed and dismissed. This has net even been attempted. To argue that we humans can differentiate between human induced climate changes and natural climate changes is naive. To argue that natural climate changes are slow and small is contrary to evidence. The slogan "Stop climate change" is a very public advertisement of absolute total ignorance as it is not cognisant of history, archaeology, geology, astronomy, ocean sciences, atmospheric sciences and the life sciences." (pg. 12)

[---]

"The level of scientific acceptance of human-induced global warming is misrepresented. Furthermore, the claim by some scientists that the threat of human-induced global warming in 90% certain (or even 99%) is a figure of speech reflecting the speaker's commitment to the belief. It has no mathematical or evidential basis. It is comparable to the 100% certainty professed by religious devotees that theirs if the one and only true faith. My experience of dealing with blindingly obvious arguments against creation "science" was that data and logic were treated with anger, rejection and hostility. Scientific arguments were never addressed. With some rabid environmentalists, human-induced global warming has evolved into a similar religious belief system, disconnected from Nature, and it evolved to fill a yawning spiritual vacuum in the Western world. Contrary scientific data and conclusions are greeted with anger, rejection and hostility. As more contrary data is aired, the defence of the indefensible produces grimmer and grimmer future climate scenarios. The scientific arguments are not addressed. These are the characteristics of a fundamentalist religion." (pg. 14-15)

[---] 

"The IPCC continued to claim a consensus of scientists despite the fact that the UN Climate Change Bulletin in 1996 reported that only 10% of the 400 American, Canadian and German climate researchers expressed strong agreement that they are "certain that global warming is a process already underway". Some 48% of those surveyed stated they did not have faith in global climate forecast models. This finding was confirmed in 1997 by a survey of climatologists employed by 50 states in the USA.  Nevertheless, the IPCC and the media still claimed a consensus as support for their findings.

One of the persistent problems that the IPCC faced was the Little Ice Age (1280-1850 AD) and the Medieval Warming (900-1300 AD). Evidence from a great diversity of sources showed that during the Medieval Warming, the global temperature was a few degrees higher than today.  This created a problem for the IPCC because there were no major CO2 emitting industries at that time. The solution was simple and elegant - change history. By creating ex nibilo a "hockey stick" graph that showed that the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warming did not exist and that temperature started to rise dramatically in the early 20th Century, clearly a result of industrialisation. In the 2001 version of the IPCC's report, the "hockey stick" was used as proof that we were all doomed to fry and it was all our fault." (pg. 22)

[---]

"The warm climate of Greenland 1000 years ago allowed the growing of grain, sheep and cattle. This warm climate could not have resulted from human emissions of CO2. A few hundred years later, the bitterly cold weather of the Little Ice Age could not have derived from a decrease in human emissions of CO2. There must be other causes of warming and cooling. How can we know that the slight warming since 1850 is due to humans adding CO2 to the atmosphere? Furthermore, there have also been coolings since 1850.  There must be other global-scale natural processes at work and the question must be asked: Does atmospheric CO2 have anything at all to do with climate?  


If CO2 derived from modern industrialisation is the culprit for global warming, then why did global temperature increased from 1918 to 1940, decrease from 1940 to 1976, increase from 1976 to 1998 and decrease from 1998 to the present? Throughout this period, humans were adding increasing amounts of CO2 to the atmosphere. The IPCC does not explain the temperature variations in the 20th century. There was alarm in the 1970s that the decreasing temperature was heralding another ice age. This was an important lesson from which nothing was learned. After 1976, temperature started to rise and again there was alarm, this time that there was going to be a period of global warming.  Then temperatures started to fall after 1998. There is now silence. It is not possible to make computer model forecasts of climate change for the year 2040, 2100 or 2300 based on a few decades of data.


If we change the time scale and look at the last 6 million years, for 3 million years it was warmer than now. For the other 3 million years there was an increase in the magnitude of high-frequency warm and cold cycles. During the last three warm cycles, it was 5C warmer than now. Past natural climate changes have been partly cyclical and partly unpredictable and have nothing to do with human additions of CO2 to the atmosphere." (pg. 24-25)

[---]

"The year of 2008 was an exceptionally cold year. By the end of January 2008, blizzards and cold temperatures in China had killed 60 people, millions lost electricity service, nearly a million buildings were damaged, airports were closed and Hong Kong had the second longest cold spell since 1885.  In February 2008, cold weather in Vietnam destroyed 40% of the rice crop and killed 33,000 head of livestock.  In Mumbai (India), the lowest temperature for 40 years was recoded.  In the USA, International Falls (Minnesota) set a new record (-40 C) breaking the old record (-37 C) set in 1967.  In Reading (Pennsylvania), the temperature stayed below -40 C for six consecutive days for the first time since the 18th Century. Alaskan glaciers grew. On October, 29 2008, the USA beat or tied 115 low-temperature records for that date. Alaska, which was unusually warm in 2007, recorded -32C for that night, beating the previous low by 2C.

In the first week of December 2008, blizzards closed roads and schools, across northern England and Scotland.  Large parts of the UK were blanketed with snow for the third time in the 2008-09 winter. At the time the UK government's Committee on Climate Change issued its first report on how Britain is to handle the terrifying threat of runaway global warming. Nature certainly has a keen sense of humour." (pg. 26-27)

That reminds me of my trip to Edmonton, Alberta, in mid-December (just six months ago).  On the day I left to come home again, the Edmonton International Airport reported a temperature of -51C.  That tops (or should I way "bottoms") the day I was in Flin Flon, Manitoba in the 1990s when the temp dipped to -50 C. Global warming, my ass.

Another passage from Plimer:

"If human emissions of CO2 have forced warming in the late 20th Century, then those making such a claim need to show that this warming is above and beyond natural warming.  This not been done." (pg. 34)

Regarding the "alarming" rapidity of supposed AGW, Plimer has this to say in Chapter One:

"The change from warmth to the bitter cold of the Younger Dryas (ED: The period in earth history from 12,900 to 11,600 before the present) took less than 100 years and maybe only a decade."(pg. 43)

[---]

"It appears that the end of the Younger Dryas took place over 40-50 years in three different steps, each of about five years duration.  Other data indicates a warming of 7 C in only a few years, half of the warming taking place in a 15-year period.  Such a warming rate is far higher than even the most alarmist catastrophic warming suggested by models of human-induced global warming.  The warming was to temperatures similar to those today. Humans, plants and animals adapted to rapid intense warming and rapid sea level rise after the Younger Dryas. This post-Younger Dryas warm period lasted for 2600 years.  (pg. 46)

And finally, one more quote from the good Dr. Plimer:  

"We humans on Earth have never had it better. Compared with 100, 200 or 500 years ago, we Westerners live longer, have a better diet, are wealthier, are healthier and the elderly have far better health care.  Even in the Third World, times are far better than before, despite population increase.  The daily food intake has increased by 38% since the 1960s to 2666 calories per person per day despite the fact that the population in those countries has increased by 83%. Food prices have decreased by 75%.  Improved agricultural production and freer trade have guaranteed that a smaller proportion of the Third World starves.  In the 1970s, 16% of people in the Third World subsisted on less than $1 per day.  Now it is 6%. Those living on $2 per day dropped from 39% to 18%.  Life expectancy has also improved.  In China, it has increased from 41 years in the 1950s to 71 today; in India it has increased from 39 to 63.  In both countries the lifespan of 2 billion people has been almost doubled.  In 1900, the average life expectancy globally was 31 years.  Now it is 67 years. There is a long way to go, but never in human history have so many people been liberated from the clutches of starvation and poverty.


Many environmentalists have a romantic view of the past and do not acknowledge the enormous struggle to stay alive in past times when unemployment, famines, disease, high child mortality, shortened lives and bitter cold dominated everyday life.


Don't give me the environmental romantic view about the good old days.  They were not." (pg. 27)

Well said, Dr. Plimer.  So, Dennis, if we have to reduce our "carbon footprint", I say the first step would be to dismantle that pack of hypocrites that infest the CBC.

Related: Shucks. We'll have to come up with a revised list.