Search This Blog

Thursday, June 09, 2011

Global Dumbing - Science is the cure for the myth of AGW

Courtesy of

Jun 08, 2011
Climate isn’t up for debate
Alarmists refuse to take on skeptical geologists
By Tom Harris

Anyone not already familiar with the stance of geologists towards the global warming scare would have been shocked by the conference at the University of Ottawa at the end of May. In contrast to most environmental science meetings, climate skepticism was widespread among the thousand geoscientists from Canada, the United States and other countries who took part in GAC-MAC 2011 (the Joint Annual Meeting of the Geological Association of Canada, the Mineralogical Association of Canada, the Society of Economic Geologists and the Society for Geology Applied to Mineral Deposits).

The lead symposium of the conference, Earth climate: past, present, future, was especially revealing. Chaired by University of Toronto geology professor Andrew Miall, the session description starts: “The scientific debate about climate change is far from over. Some of the projections of climate change and its consequences contained in the 2007 Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (the United Nations’ IPCC) have been called into question. This symposium will address some of these issues and present a geological perspective on the scientific debate.”

The talks were from “climate rationalists,” defined by Australian geology professor Bob Carter of James Cook University as “persons who are critical (on balanced scientific grounds) of the IPCC’s alarmism ...reflecting the primacy that such persons give to empirical data and thinking. The climate rationalist approach contrasts markedly with the untestable worlds of computer virtual reality that so many climate alarmists now inhabit.”

Leading off the GAC-MAC climate symposium was fellow Australian, Ian Plimer, professor in the School of Civil, Environmental and Mining Engineering at the University of Adelaide. In a keynote presentation entitled Human-induced climate change: Why I am skeptical, Plimer completely dismantled the greenhouse-gas-driven climate-change hypothesis. He showed how climate has varied naturally on all time scales and how recent changes are not unusual. Plimer explained the lack of meaningful correlation between the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide (CO2) and planetary warming and cooling, and how “climate models throw no new light on climate processes.” He concluded, “"Pollution kills, CO2 is plant food, H2O vapour is the main greenhouse gas. Humans can adapt to future changes.”

Following Plimer were 14 other climate presentations by leading geoscientists. Henrik Svensmark of the National Space Institute in Denmark spoke about how cosmic ray variations in the atmosphere are influencing climate by changing the microphysics of clouds. University of Ottawa emeritus professor Jon Veizer presented his research describing the role of the Sun and water vapour on CO2 and climate change. Calgary geophysicist Norm Kalmanovitch showed how satellite radiation measurements demonstrate that the “enhanced greenhouse effect” from greenhouse gas emissions has never even existed to any measurable extent. Carleton University researcher Hafida El Bilali showed how her work with paleoclimatologist professor Tim Patterson revealed that variations in the output of the Sun have had major influences on regional climate for the past nine millennia.

And so it continued. Although one speaker presented information that was consistent with IPCC claims, no other presentation in the symposium supported the UN's human-caused dangerous global warming hypothesis. In the discussion period following the talks, climate rationalists decried the lack of media or public attention to the symposium or their research findings. In the exhibit hall, few participants seemed interested in human-caused global warming. The catastrophic messages that so overwhelm other climate-related conferences were nowhere to be found.

Where were all the other scientist supporters of climate alarmism? Did they not know that climate was a major focus of this, the largest geologic conference in the country?

They knew. According to Miall, even though some were directly invited, they either refused to participate or ignored the invitation. “The people on the IPCC side generally will not debate, explained Miall. Anything thats brought up that they disagree with, they say has been dealt with and is no longer considered important, or is a minor effect. This is often quite wrong.”

In the Q&A following the public lecture at last June's Canadian Meteorological and Ocean Society (CMOS)/Canadian Geophysical Union Congress in Ottawa, the prospect of a public debate between the two sides was put to keynote speaker Warwick Vincent of Laval University. Vincent was supportive, as was a CMOS past president communicated with later. Yet, when I approached CMOS executives and directors about taking the steps necessary to arrange such a public event, the responses were negative to the point of abuse and nothing transpired.

This was perhaps not surprising. Proposals for a proper climate science debate have been opposed by CMOS leaders for a long time. As early as 1990, the chairman of the CMOS congress scientific committee, Tad Murty (then a senior research scientist with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans’ Institute of Ocean Sciences) tried to arrange a global-warming debate. But it never happened. Murty cites a "lack of enthusiasm" from other committee members as the reason.

When the Kyoto Protocol was created in December 1997, long-time CMOS member Madhav Khandekar (then just retired from his research scientist position at Environment Canada) highlighted several uncertainties in IPCC science and called for an open debate on the issue in the CMOS Bulletin. His article, Global warming & climate change in Canada: A need for an open scientific debate, was completely ignored by CMOS executives and its membership at large.

At this week’s congress in Victoria, CMOS, like many organizations of its ilk, still maintains a rigid stance of climate catastrophilia. The congress includes sessions described with clearly mistaken statements such as "Recent research has highlighted the irreversibility of CO2-induced climate change on centennial timescales...” Other, less extreme but also unjustified assertions abound: “It has become widely recognized that under a changing climate, the frequency and intensity of meteorological/hydrological extreme events and associated damage costs would more likely increase in the 21st century.”

The narrow-mindedness of CMOS and other climate alarmists matters because they have the ear of the mass media, most of which uncritically reports on CMOS’ statements that the science is settled and debate unnecessary. Recent surveys show that the public is highly influenced by these assertions and so seriously flawed CMOS messages are incorporated into government pronouncements.

Miall maintains that the views of geoscientists are crucial for a proper understanding of climate.

“This should have been accepted practice all along, not because geoscientists are necessarily right, but because this should be the normal process of science,” said Miall. “The idea that any science is ‘finished’ violates all the norms of the science process, which should, by definition, be permanently open to new data and new ideas. The history of science is full of examples of so-called ‘normal science’ that is shown to be wrong on the basis of a single critical piece of data or a new idea. That's all we were trying to do at the GAC meeting - keep our minds open.”

Uncomfortable though it may be for geoscientists, society needs them to speak out forcefully now. Otherwise, the climate alarm, its science failing but the movement still heavily funded, will stagger on, leading society into wasting billions of dollars more and destroying millions of jobs worldwide.

Tom Harris is the executive director of the International Climate Science Coalition


Anonymous said...


Seriously though, do you pay so little attention to what you copy and paste onto your own blog that you don't even realize that you posted this exact article one day ago.

Anyway, check out this article for a little background on your new buddy, Tom Harris.

And if you're actually interested in what Geologists from around the world have to say about the topic of global climate change, just take a look here.

Hmmm... makes you wonder who's funding guys like Tom Harris and his so callde "International Climate Science Coalition", doesnt it. Of course, they are completely mum on the topic. That said, this guy thinks he knows.

I'm not sayin', I'm just sayin'


AmericanVet said...




Say what you will, the scientists are turning against the cockeyed theory that man is warming the planet. Actually, most greenhouse gasses are just evaporation, carbon is plant food and we are in a cooling trend at the moment, which is why we are having more tornadoes in the USA. Cooling brings colder fronts into summer so bigger storms and badder winds.

The UN and Al Gore and lots of administration hacks still believe in AGW but scientists in general are realizing it is a bunch of hooey AND that if global warming comes back, it would be a good thing.

Anonymous said...

Looks like my first comment got deleted. American vet, AKA Radar, are you going to do something about this or do I have to do it myself by resubmitting?

You say in your comment above,

"The UN and Al Gore and lots of administration hacks still believe in AGW but scientists in general are realizing it is a bunch of hooey AND that if global warming comes back, it would be a good thing."

This is a lie Radar. You simply cannot back this statement up. I understand, that you desperately want it to be true, yet, unfortunately it is not. In the last 12 months scientific evidence of the negative impacts of global warming has only got stronger.


radar said...

I went into spam and found Canucklehead. I saw your comment in the email and didn't realize it was caught as spam. What do you do to get tagged for that, anyway?

As for the content of your comments, the world has been in a cooling trend recently no matter what ridiculous unscientific nonsense the greens come up with. Carbon is plant food. The ocean is the major source of greenhouse gas. Fossil fuels have almost no impact on the climate. The climate of our planet is driven by the activity of the Sun and I don't think the UN can tax the Sun! If by chance a very big volcano happens then we will have disastrous cooling for a year or two.

The dumbest part of this is that global warming and carbon in the atmosphere are both good for us. More carbon means plants grow faster and with less water required. Warmer temperatures give us longer growing seasons and extend the area that can be tilled and planted and harvested both North and South.

The UN and CMOS and IPCC and CRU and the Obama administration had lots of cronies investing in carbon offsets and other scams to make money on the misery of others by taxing emissions and energy. This kills off third world countries trying to develop using cheap fuels. It kills businesses that are forced to pay more to produce goods. It raises the price of everything thus harming families. It is part of what is sending the USA into a depression, not a recession, and only an influx of cheap fuel and a massive upgrade of intellect and wisdom in Washington will keep us from some very hard years, years of poverty and crime and depression.

But you are for all that, right?

radar said...

Kind of ironic that Darwinists would use the concept of "a lie repeated often enough" seeing as how that is pretty much all they have...

Anonymous whatsit said...

"Kind of ironic that Darwinists would use the concept of "a lie repeated often enough" seeing as how that is pretty much all they have..."

Seeing as the theory of evolution is abundantly confirmed and has yet to be refuted, there's no irony to be had here.

Derision is not an argument, Radar. If you could think of something that actually disproves the theory of evolution, anything at all, surely you would have posted it by now. I'm not talking about all those logical fallacies you like so much, I'm talking about an actual refutation that isn't based on misunderstanding or misrepresenting the theory of evolution.

You still got nothing?

Anonymous said...

"The dumbest part of this is that global warming and carbon in the atmosphere are both good for us."

1. Nobody's arguing that carbon dioxide by itself is dangerous. It's about the balance of CO2 in the atmosphere.

2. Global warming good for us? Perhaps nobody would mind if all it meant was a couple of extra degrees... but surely you can't be unaware of the other consequences?