Climate Change Debunked

climate-changeSo, how’s that for a blog post title? Catchier even than last Saturday’s New Harry Potter Trailer, right? So, is it just another spurious headline designed to grab attention or is there something in it? Well, you will no doubt have read about the recent APS debacle over the paper from Lord Monckton in which he stands up the anthropogenic climate change straw man and, pardon the pun, burns it down.

If you’re in the UK, or have figured out the BBC iPlayer hack to let you use that tool outside the UK, you may have seen the recent global-warming-coming-oil-crisis-we’re-all-doomed drama Burn Up. You probably also heard about a little fella called Al Gore and his inconvenient movie and the Channel 4 documentary that attempted to shred it, perhaps a little conveniently ignoring some key facts as it did so.

Meanwhile, power companies report massive profits and price rises for gas and electricity. They simultaneously pump up prices from well to wheel as the oil price bounces like a proverbial vulcanised rubber ball and everyone is looking to save gas.

I’ve published several items about alternative energy sources recently and still stand by the didact: waste not, want not. It’s important that we cut pollution and it’s important that we reduce the amount of energy we waste. We should be looking at what we are planning for the world, especially in light of madcap schemes like adding lime to the oceans, before it’s too late.

30 thoughts on “Climate Change Debunked”

  1. Three articles say it all. Anthropogenic CO2 is not nor will not be a climate or environmental issue.

    A fourth publishing will show why human emissions did not raise the levels from 250 ppma (preindustrial revolution levels) to 385 ppma

    Since Mr. Gore owns Generation Investment Management, a company that buys and sells carbon credits, then his movie is an infomercial – 31,478 scientists in the US alone say so. – 31478 with a minimum BS degree in select sciences and disciplines say there is no such thing as Anthropogenic Climate Change or GLobal Warming.

    There are more than 40,000 scientists world wide that also disagree with Mr. Gore and his assertions. The consensus was derived from articles published in a (one single) ideological environmentalist magazine, not the science community.

  2. No problem with increaseing energy efficeincy, recycling everything, reducing consumption individually. But why arent we dealing with the rapid growth of population? For every extra person on the planet, given we all live so much longer, we wipe out any gains we make in reducing our existing impact. In reality as teh population goes up we have to reduce our individual impact by the same proportion……when did that ever happen?

  3. Barry, science is not based on proof…it s based on observation and the construction of a hypothesis based on that evidence. Enough observations in support of the hypothesis can allow science to build a theory to explain those observations. A single result demonstrating that the hypothesis is wrong will wreck a theory.

  4. Hmmmnn. I didn’t know that science was based on consensus, or that consensus was even a word associated with science. I’m not a scientist, but I thought you had to be able to prove things or disprove them as the case may be.

  5. @Kamal Happy to let your comment stand, but I couldn’t leave in the personal remarks. As to whether there is a consensus. It’s a scientific fact that there never is a consensus on any subject, however, there are thousands of scientists and decades of work that do indeed suggest that anthropogenic pollution is causing changes in our climate.

  6. It may well be true that the human race is failing to recognize itself as harbingers of our own doom, it is certain to me that we as a race have embarked on a potentially disaster prone course of action in regards to our abuses of the physical environment, but sharing this world view with you, and having a moral and ethical concern that we should conduct our affairs in a more sustainable manner, is entirely different than brazenly, blithely, and ignorantly, claim there is a scientific consensus on the specific issue of anthropogenic global climate warming.

    There is no scientific consensus on this issue, the only consensus is ideological and political. There were hundreds of high ranking scientists, many of whom have environmentalist credentials, some of whom were Nobel prize winners, some ow whom were MEMBERS of the UN IPC, who have openly stated that the claim of a scientific consensus is a lie.

    Some of these people have had their careers affected. Earlier this year a majority of the largest scientific organization in America completely broke rank with their president over his claim of a Scientific consensus on the issue in an interview.

    All of these things are facts. The question is NOT answered, it IS in debate, there IS no consensus on the issue and several scientists who once supported human caused global warming theories have later recanted this.

    The earth will survive us, we may not survive our own stupidity.

    Remolding society globally in ways that could economically entire communities of the poor all on the basis of a theory that is far from being established as fact in scientific circles, no matter what you think you have heard and read, and moreover instituting global carbon tax schemes that will harm millions and possibly billions of people, could be a grave mistake.

    These very schemes – investigative research has shown – could very well end up massively financially benefit certain of the public figures now claiming that a consensus exists (such as Al Gore who has clear financial and investment ties that will benefit greatly under carbon credit trading schemes) all of this is evil.

    Evil prospers when the good do not challenge it. Human caused Global warming COULD WELL be a fact, but there is no consensus on it, and both sides of the issue deserves to be heard.

    Follow the money, there are people who are exploiting your fear, and your honest sincere concern for the environment, law, and order, in order to make money off you and impoverish entire societies. Your ignorance of this possibility does not make it less potent.

  7. Craig,

    Congratulations on your red herring colony and straw man farm. They seem to be thriving.

    Let me lay this out simply: The Earth will survive us. But, as it stands now, we may not survive ourselves. The issue is not that we will turn the Earth into Neptune, the issue is that we will change the planet enough that the population now living on it will not be able to survive the resultant accelerated changes. We are not hardy Vikings, grown hale and strong over time; We are a more vulnerable (and enormous) population which will not weather a rapid radical change well. In short, it’s about us surviving and not hastening inevitable climate change which will significantly alter our world.

    There is much “stupidity bordering on arrogance” that we manifest in our lives. But failing to recognize ourselves as the harbingers of our own doom should not be one of them.

    Science and the consensus of the scientific community is still against those who would deny our effect on the global climate. That has not changed.

  8. Anytime politicians take up the banner for another crisis I reach for my wallet and guard my freedom.

    Climate change alarmists ignore climate history. Why is that? Are they too stupid or deliberately obtuse to read Caesars memoirs, a great peak into the climate when he lived. Or, deliberatly forget that the Vikings occupied Greenland at a time when it was warmer than today? Or, ignore the sunspot cycles of the sun? Any peak into climate history shows wide and sometimes alarming variation having nothing to do with man. It is stupidity bordering on arrogance to think we can terraform the earth (deliberately or inadvertently).

    When it comes to climate change follow the money. Carbon footprint trading will become big business and produce nothing but wealth for the privileged few and a monstrous burden for the rest of us.

  9. Interesting article Rajinder. I didn’t want to duplicate online content so trimmed it to the intro. Here’s the link you didn’t provide to the Sci Am article.

    Meanwhile, Britain having had very wet summers these last couple of years, I note that the UK’s Environment Minister in 2006 is on record as saying climate change would mean hotter and drier summers to come;, it’s almost like he jinxed us.

    Anyway, I still cannot see how we can reconcile the definite short-term cooling period we are in these last few years with the global warming trend. debunks the notion, saying that one cannot compare long-term climate change with temporally local weather variations. But, how does anyone know for certain that a short-term weather cooling will not become the long-term climate trend. Are such cooling effects built into the computer models? If not why not, and moreover, and once again how can anyone know that such short-term trends won’t be the long term history in years to come.

  10. Climate has changed for the worse in arid regions of the US
    Source: Scientific American
    “News – August 20, 2008
    Fewer April Showers for U.S. Southwest as Climate Changes
    Things could get uglier for desert flowers looking to bloom in May–and for the region’s water supply, year-round
    By David Biello
    The already parched U.S. Southwest is drying up even more, at least in early spring, because of climate change. A new study in Geophysical Research Letters shows that since 1978, the jet stream that brings rainstorms from the Pacific over the western U.S. has been shifting northward—and so has the rain and snow…..

  11. @Rajinder – none of those changes you cite are particularly extreme. There have been periods in the past when there was no ice, there have been periods where there was much more ice. Temperatures have fluctuated wildly over the millennia and so too carbon dioxide levels. However, I certainly agree that our increasing population, rampant consumption and pollution are not a good thing, whether or not that is the underlying cause of any local effects we are currently observing is a different matter, especially given the current global average cooling period in which we apparently find ourselves at the moment, despite the warming trend.

  12. North pole is going to be ice free this/next year for the first time in thousands of years.
    Temperatures have risen much more than reported above. 1.23 degress Celsius from 1880 to 2004. Roughly 0.05 degrees Celsius (0.09 degrees Fahrenheit) per year.
    CO(2) has increased from 280 ppm (from 1000 to 1800 A. D. constant) in 1800 to 380 ppm in 2000. (URL:
    Increased population and consumption of natural resouces at a pace which is much more than what Mother earth can sustain is leading to pollution of air, water and land. It is a catastrophy which has already happened in many places. Ground water is non-potable, rivers are befret of oxygen and are becoming sewers and even the sea has developed pockets which are oxygen free.
    It is later than one thinks.

  13. Thanks for all the comments on this post, I’ve been on vacation so not had a chance to respond.

    @Jim – The idea behind the article was not to take a stance, but to throw out some of the ideas that apparently are taken as read, but are not necessarily proven, I’ll leave it to others to dig out the papers that support or disprove the various myths. Nice of you to use the acronymic vernacular of the streets in your comment.

    @Anonymoose – thanks for spotting the typo. In my rush to meet the deadline before my vacation I missed that, which is a shame as it probably lost some of the traction because of it.

    @Rajinder – Climate is most certainly not to be taken lightly, which is why I think there needs to be more openness about the doubts. @Robert – aren’t we in the middle of a cooling period, within the so-called hockey-stick of warming. I’m totally confused as to how average global temp can be falling if there is all this warming going on. Moreover, the whole debate hinges on average global temperatures, that could mean warming in one part of the globe counteracted by cooling elsewhere.

  14. David,

    Good post.

    I think we are forgetting that like nanotechnology and stem cells, any scientific issue that has possible social relevance typically gets picked up by the scientifically illiterate media and rammed down our throats. Unfortunatly, the average American is not sharp enough to actually question what they hear.

  15. I will agree with Rajinder Sandhir. I’ve had the good fortune to live in the US Pacific NW since ’68, and it’s definitely gotten warmer and drier in that time. Given the doubling of human population since I was in school, and the proportionally even larger energy consumption, I’ll tend to believe that humans are the main cause.

  16. # Myth: It must be true, they say so.
    # Truth: What if it’s a lot of hot air?

    What makes it true if YOU say so? You give no references for your ‘facts’.

    You want me to believe you, give me facts.

    Otherwise you’re just another screaming monkey.

    Rating: P.O.S.

  17. And on the flip side of this coin, the AGU and the APS (in spite of Lord Monckton’s ‘burning’, as you put it) updated and affirmed, their positions on the reality of climate change and man’s hand in it. The AGU also took the chance to apply stronger language than they previously had.

    I had quite a chuckle when you warned against not erring on the side of the “10% chance” implied by the IPCC’s statement that they hold a 90% certainty that we’re a major contributor. Given that 90% for is a great deal more worrisome than 10% against, which one should we err on the side of again? As a “stickler for scientific accuracy” you no doubt have exposure to statistics and, more to the point, the concept of ‘probability’?

    If not, what the IPCC is saying it that it’s probable and that they feel there’s very little chance they’re wrong. And the APS and AGU and any number of august scientific bodies agree.

    Further, by your own logic, how much harm we cause if the 10% comes to be? Our complicit impact on the climate isn’t enough to make such great changes, yet our implicit impact on the climate will make great changes? You can’t have it both ways.

    And to possumboy: Both of your arguments are meaningless in context. 30 years ago climate modeling was done by hand and using computers less powerful than an iPhone. And the plants and animals you speak of that lived on Earth in a co2 rich atmosphere… are dead. Replaced by plants and animals that cannot. Yes, life will likely go on should such conditions arise again… but YOU will not. And that is the point. The Earth will survive, the question is, “will we?”

  18. Well said Mr. Bradley!

    It is a shame that the popularization of science (which on the whole should be a good thing) has led to such a shaky hypotheses being “passed into law” (right past ‘theory’!) by the public acclaim of goofy (if well-meaning for the most part) activists.

    Worst of all? Anti-consumerism berks are distracting the media (and thereby the populace) from looking at realistic solutions to what may well be a real problem, by focusing on what they suspect (in our ‘oh so guilt ridden post-imperialist way‘) is the root cause.

    Reducing emissions related air pollution, and working to reduce fossil fuel consumption are good things – but may have little or nothing to do with global climate change.

  19. What is printed above are opinions and scintifically formulated conclusions.
    Whole mountain ranges are becoming befret of snow cover. Glaciers all over the world are receeding. I live in India and have personal experience of climate changes from west to east and south to north. Distances covered are more than 1400 km either way and range from deserts to deep forests and icy mountians.
    It has definitely become warmer. Places where it was cool earlier cannot do without ceiling fans and desert coolers now.
    UN report on environment very conclusively establishes these points.

    Climate is not be taken lightly.

  20. David,

    I was going to post my long 2-penny’s worth. But I see that possumboy performed that task for me.

    But I could add one more bullet to the list:

    Myth: Al Gore is genius at analyzing global warming and its causes.
    Truth: Al Gore is America’s joke on the World. His home is one of the highest energy users in his home state. He travels in a private jet that is one of the most inefficient in the air. He travels in large SUV’s and stretch limo’s. The bulk of his income now comes from useless “carbon trading”.

    Meanwhile, I drive my smartcar and pass the fuel pump with a large smile.

    Great article, it’s a keeper.

  21. i’m not a scientist or pretend to know much about power/energy. However, why could not turbines (or something similar) be placed in the ocean and turned by the Gulf Stream, etc. in the way they are utilized on rivers? I would really appreciate a response so my couriosity will be quenched. Will someone please email me an answer or give me a place where i can ask the question and get an answer. I do not read blogs etc so i’d really appreciate an email response to

  22. One English Phrase Everyday – Aug. 13
    the same meaning as from cradle to grave
    They should put error bars on the temperature plot of global warming.

  23. Now I’m not so sure that your clever headline does not have a typo…

    * “there’s a 400-4000 timelag” … second, day, year?
    * We don’t even know the historical level of CO2. 90% of native americans died around 1500, so the continent suddenly started sequestering carbon until industrial sawmills took down the forests centuries later.
    * You omitted that temperatures have been rising for over a century but little petroleum was burned until after World War II. So oil’s carbon dioxide could not have caused warming during half of that century.

  24. I love you =]
    Nobody seems to accept that there’s even a chance that we aren’t the cause of “global warming”.
    The media have just brainwashed people into thinking that we are destroying the world, and anybody who disagrees with that idea is actually considered to be ignorant.

    I have had to argue against such brainwashed people on this subject.
    Trying to explain that about 30 years ago they were worried about global cooling.
    And that co2 is actually not that bad :P In fact, when the earth first formed, plants managed to survive in an atmosphere that was almost 100% c02. Fair enough the plants can photosynthesize, but it means that they weren’t burnt up.

    I also completely agree with your opinion that, while we probably aren’t the cause of global warming, that there’s no reason for us to pollute, or to waste electricity. I mean let’s face it – it costs more to waste electricity than it does to conserve it, so it makes sense to just conserve it as much as possible. Not necessarily for environmental reasons…

    This is a great post, and I didn’t actually know about what you said about the ice caps!
    =] so thanks for giving me some info to carry on the arguments!

    well done, that’s all I can say really!!

Comments are closed.