Open Letter from Rory Young in today's Oban Times

[Pentlandpirate]

Who is to say that the scientists who say global warming is reality are not in the pay of the jolly green 'energy' giants who are making a killing out of energy and new inefficient energy generation systems?

Where is the proof of global warming? Don't just point to the polar caps for your evidence. Where are the effects of global warming elsewhere in the globe, bearing in mind we are talking about 'GLOBAL' warming, not LOCAL warming? Droughts, floods, hottest summer on record, coldest winter on record? What's new, what's different, now that we apparently have global warming????? Am I any madder than those who 'accept' the earth is warming without any tangible proof.

[Husker Doo]

It must be nice to have the time to sit.
What am i saying pento you do, sitting and worrying about a sodden muddy bit of Argyll in which you probably don`t even live in.
But hey why are we pretending that we[the human race] are having no affect on our world it`s like saying there was no holocaust or there was no clearances.
Don`t you think?

[Pentlandpirate]

Husker, the holocaust and the clearances I accept as fact. I don't believe the Earth is flat, nor that God created it. But some did, and some do. I accept the Earth may have warmed imperceptibly, but that this is only a temporary effect of insignificant proportions and that it is just as capable of cooling as it is warming as this fluctuation is due to the activity of the Sun and not due to anthropogenic CO2 emissions. I do not believe that any temperature change is due to Man's activity as Mankind is insignificant compared to the might of the Heavens above.

Just suppose it is proven that the Earth is cooling in the long term, what is everyone going to do then? Start building coal fired power stations? It's not long ago they were saying we are due another Ice Age. Am I right or am I wrong?

[NickB]

Am I right or am I wrong?

You're wrong.

[Pentlandpirate]

I thought you were more widely read. You don't have to look far to start finding pieces by apparently well respected, well qualified scientists, who have written pieces on the New Ice Age, one example as follows:

Contrary to the conventional wisdom of the day, the real danger facing humanity is not global warming, but more likely the coming of a new Ice Age.

What we live in now is known as an interglacial, a relatively brief period between long ice ages. Unfortunately for us, most interglacial periods last only about ten thousand years, and that is how long it has been since the last Ice Age ended.

How much longer do we have before the ice begins to spread across the Earth’s surface? Less than a hundred years or several hundred? We simply don’t know.

Even if all the temperature increase over the last century is attributable to human activities, the rise has been relatively modest one of a little over one degree Fahrenheit — an increase well within natural variations over the last few thousand years.

While an enduring temperature rise of the same size over the next century would cause humanity to make some changes, it would undoubtedly be within our ability to adapt.

Entering a new ice age, however, would be catastrophic for the continuation of modern civilization.

One has only to look at maps showing the extent of the great ice sheets during the last Ice Age to understand what a return to ice age conditions would mean. Much of Europe and North-America were covered by thick ice, thousands of feet thick in many areas and the world as a whole was much colder.

The last “little” Ice Age started as early as the 14th century when the Baltic Sea froze over followed by unseasonable cold, storms, and a rise in the level of the Caspian Sea. That was followed by the extinction of the Norse settlements in Greenland and the loss of grain cultivation in Iceland. Harvests were even severely reduced in Scandinavia And this was a mere foreshadowing of the miseries to come.

By the mid-17th century, glaciers in the Swiss Alps advanced, wiping out farms and entire villages. In England, the River Thames froze during the winter, and in 1780, New York Harbor froze. Had this continued, history would have been very different. Luckily, the decrease in solar activity that caused the Little Ice Age ended and the result was the continued flowering of modern civilization.

There were very few Ice Ages until about 2.75 million years ago when Earth’s climate entered an unusual period of instability. Starting about a million years ago cycles of ice ages lasting about 100,000 years, separated by relatively short interglacial perioods, like the one we are now living in became the rule. Before the onset of the Ice Ages, and for most of the Earth’s history, it was far warmer than it is today.

Indeed, the Sun has been getting brighter over the whole history of the Earth and large land plants have flourished. Both of these had the effect of dropping carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere to the lowest level in Earth’s long history.

Five hundred million years ago, carbon dioxide concentrations were over 13 times current levels; and not until about 20 million years ago did carbon dioxide levels dropped to a little less than twice what they are today.

It is possible that moderately increased carbon dioxide concentrations could extend the current interglacial period. But we have not reached the level required yet, nor do we know the optimum level to reach.

So, rather than call for arbitrary limits on carbon dioxide emissions, perhaps the best thing the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the climatology community in general could do is spend their efforts on determining the optimal range of carbon dioxide needed to extend the current interglacial period indefinitely.

NASA has predicted that the solar cycle peaking in 2022 could be one of the weakest in centuries and should cause a very significant cooling of Earth’s climate. Will this be the trigger that initiates a new Ice Age?

We ought to carefully consider this possibility before we wipe out our current prosperity by spending trillions of dollars to combat a perceived global warming threat that may well prove to be only a will-o-the-wisp

[NickB]

I thought you were more widely read. You don't have to look far to start finding pieces by apparently well respected, well qualified scientists, who have written pieces on the New Ice Age, one example as follows:

Contrary to the conventional wisdom of the day, the real danger facing humanity is not global warming, but more likely the coming of a new Ice Age . . . (lots of garbage snipped

The piece you quote appears to originate with one Gerald Marsh, a retired physicist from the Argonne National Laboratory and a former consultant to the Department of Defense on strategic nuclear technology and policy in the Reagan, Bush, and Clinton Administration.

I prefer to believe climate scientists, not random geriatrics googled up to feed my fantasies.

[Pentlandpirate]

But did you once believe all the nonsense that CND spouted?

[NickB]

But did you once believe all the nonsense that CND spouted?

What has CND got to do with climate change?

[Pentlandpirate]

I was just trying to understand if people coming from certain backgrounds would be more inclined to be believe what some might consider to be the 'persuasive propaganda' of the global warming camp:

To understand the politics behind the environmental movement and its persuasive propaganda, let's look at the social ambitions that drive it. Its agenda was formed during the sixties, when four overlapping anti-establishment groups joined to form the Green Party in Germany: radical feminists, Marxists (the new Left), peace-niks (the anti-war movement), and hippies seeking spiritual enlightenment.

Apparently a recent survey revealed more than 50% of the UK population do not believe in global warming.

[NickB]

Apparently a recent survey revealed more than 50% of the UK population do not believe in global warming.

The public believe a lot of strange things. I understand that some of you down there in Englandshire believe that you subsidise Scotland, but the facts say otherwise.

If you prefer to believe polls in the Daily Mail to the conclusions of 30 years study by thousands of climate scientists all over the world then that is your perogative. Fortunately though we are still a long way from a society where reality and policy are decided by pressing the appropriate coloured button on your universal remote control.

[Pentlandpirate]

I don't think the public are so stupid. 'Scientists' make up a tiny proportion of the population and we all know so many 'brainy' people have absolutely no common sense. It has always fascinated me how travellers can visit men in mud huts in the hills of Ethiopia or the jungles of New Guinea to find old village chiefs who have never travelled outside their tribal areas, who speak with such wisdom and knowledge about the World and its ways. You should not discount the truck driver, the manual labourer, the fisherman, the farmer, or the average person in the street who gives their opinion in surveys. Many of them are not 'scientists' but are every bit equal to scientists in mental agility.

Some will hint at a big business conspiracy that 'controls' what we think and do, just as you suggested in the case of Nigel Lawson, but there are many who would say the bigger 'big' business conspiracy is by the 'global warmists'. If you wanted to you could very easily string together a whole mountain of evidence that convincingly shows that the whole global warming thing is a myth, used to control the direction we take in Life whilst making vast amounts of money out of the peeps.

The government takes a huge amount in taxes from 'energy'. The energy industry provides alot of jobs. The energy industry is rich and very profitable. The university scientists are funded by the government and in some cases by big business. Every one of them has an interest in perpetuating global warming propaganda. There is no one, apart from the common man out there, who has any financial interest in proving that temporary, and small, temperature blips on Earth are to do with the Sun's variable activity and not Man's activity.

[MonaLott]

Your comments about scientists are frankly a disgrace, Pentland Pirate. These folk dedicate their lives to understanding, monitoring and modelling the past climate and its fluctuations and its causes. They are motivated by the search for truth. Their work must be peer-reviewed by multiple unknown others to be published, which isn't easy. There isn't a respectable peer-reviewed scientist on this planet who agrees with you. There isn't any respected academic body that agrees with you. Instead you prefer to read the guff in the Daily Mail and to abuse those whose life efforts are aimed at improving our understanding of our planet. You are that old village chief in the jungle who knows nothing of the mechanisms of this planet but is happy to spout mindless mumbo jumbo.

[Maggie]

Well, I think that there's a lot in what Pentland says.
I used to believe in Global Warming but there's so much in the papers (not just the Daily Mail) and on the internet these which says it was a mistake (putting it politely) that I'm not at all sure anymore. I keep reading, also, that even if it was true it doesn't matter any more since temperatures have not risen for a couple of decades.
Seeing as the only reason for windfarms is Global Warming and seeing as that is dubious I voted against Clachan on the questionaire.
The thing about scientists is they find it hard to admit it when they are wrong. In the old days people used to be burned at the stake when they showed that scientists were wrong. Also I don't really trust scientists as they have brought so much harm to the world eg nuclear weapons, chemical weapons, biological weapons.
Anyway not many people still believe in Global Warming unless they're getting paid for it.
That's my tuppence worth.

mags
x

[NickB]

That's my tuppence worth.

A fair assessment of its value Mags

[Tony the Toad]

Can we not just go the whole hog on this thread and supply a link to the Fortean Times?

[Maggie]

That's my tuppence worth.

A fair assessment of its value Mags

That is just so rude.
You may be a supporter of the windfarm and it looks like you're a believer in Global Warming too and you appear to own this website but none of that is a justification for insulting a fellow member of our small community just because I expressed my views which happen not to tie in with yours. Have I been rude to anyone in this debate?

mags

[Pentlandpirate]

I think Maggie makes a fair statement, "Anyway not many people still believe in Global Warming unless they're getting paid for it". And she's entitled to her opinion without being sneered at on what should be a friendly, community-minded chat site.

By human nature we look for easy answers. Fact: Some glaciers and ice caps melt over a period of accelerated human activity. (Ignore fact; some glaciers are growing). Scientists measure glacial and ice cap size variation (easy to do) record localised surface and air temperature and CO2 levels (easy to do). Fact: cars, humans and cows produce CO2 therefore, easy conclusion, it must be human (and cow) activity causing glaciers and ice caps to melt i.e.global warming.

But where are the facts about the ground below our feet? We know very little about the Earth below us. Deep bores into the earth's crust barely scratch the surface. Bore down 5000 feet and you are only one mile down into the crust which is 5-25 miles thick. You may think that is a long way down into the earth but then you have the mantle, and then the outer core, and then inner core. It's roughly 42 million feet down to the earth's centre from the surface, an impossible distance for scientists to survey or collect data from. But they do believe there are parts of the earth's core that are cooling and parts that are heating. Scientists (non geriatric, non CIA ones who have had their papers reviewed) say these changes in the earths core are happening deep down and are moving around, affecting things like the magnetic poles and the pattern of structures within the globe. But it''s difficult to measure if the mantle and core below the Poles is heating, causing them to melt.

So have the 'global warming' scientists come to their conclusion because it is the first one that 'adds up' even though they have been able to do very little research on other sources of 'localised warming? Have they been doing some algebra, such as, "If 2 + 2 + y = z what is z ?" You can conclude what z is only if you assume what y is. And as far as I am concerned the 'scientists' have only assumed what y is.

[NickB]

.
People have every right to object to the windfarm on landscape and amenity grounds, and indeed I have gone out of my way to facilitate open discussion of the issue, both on here and with the creation of the PACT website.

That does not excuse dredging up anti-science claptrap to try to justify your objection; climate change is not (currently) a planning matter. So - no apologies from me. If you want to spout anti-science guff on here then you can expect a firm response. I do not see any need to be polite to climate change deniers, who I regard as very dangerous people. If you don't like my response then find another forum to peddle your propaganda on.

Pirate, your last post demonstrates zero understanding of the science or the history of climate research. What makes you think you know so much better than the world scientific community?

[MonaLott]

I think that Pentland Pirate's last post should receive an award (a "Nicker"?) for the daftest ever on this website. He's either early on the bevvy or is clueless about earth science. I suspect that the low-grade media that he obviously devours is also to blame. These anti-climate-changers are comparable to but more dangerous than the flat-earthers were and the anti-evolutionists still are. Did someone mention burning at the stake.....?! As for poor Maggie's put-down of scientists, I suspect that her current comfortable life owes much to the successes of scientists and that the weapons she mentions were motivated by and deployed at the command of politicians.

[Herby Dice]

I used to believe in Global Warming but there's so much in the papers (not just the Daily Mail) and on the internet these which says it was a mistake (putting it politely) that I'm not at all sure anymore.

Most of the stuff printed in the papers comes from the internet, and much of that is wrong. The internet is not always a reliable source, believe it or nost some of the stuff on there is not correct. Most of the people saying climate change is not happening have a political, not a scientific, agenda - very few climate scientists (very few indeed) claim that it is not happening.

Anyway not many people still believe in Global Warming unless they're getting paid for it.

This is quite simply nonsense. Indeed, I think that you will find that pretty much all the "research" denying climate change is funded by the people who have most to lose from it.

As for PP's diatribe, I am almost lost for words, but it is typical of the scinetific nonsense I read every day on the web.

It really is pretty simple. The mechanisms by which increasing concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere increase the retention of heat from the sun are very simple, and have been understood for over a century. Average global concentrations of CO2 have increased steadily since the industrial revolution. Surprise surprise so have atmospheric temperatures.
PP is good at selective reporting and careful use of words. He reports that some glaciers are retreating (true) and that some are growing (also true). He does not qualify this statement with anything so inconvenient as facts, however. He does not report that the overwhelming majority of glaciers are in alarming retreat. Neither does he report that the few which have grown in recent years have done so because changes in local weather patterns (a consequence of climate change we are seeing all too clearly here on Seil) have led to localised increases in snowfalls feeding those glaciers.