from Michigan Pete, comment at Gristmill
on 26-04-08: I think we need to stop worrying
about the polar bears... A survey of the animals'
numbers in Canada's eastern Arctic has revealed
that they are thriving, not declining... In
the Davis Strait area, a 140,000-sq kilometre
region, the polar bear population has grown
from 850 in the mid-1980s to 2,100 today. "There
aren't just a few more bears. There are a hell
of a lot more bears," said Mitch Taylor,
a polar bear biologist who has spent 20 years
studying the animals."
As an environmentalist I used to believe
in Global Warming. I now know that CO2 was not remotely the
cause of recent warming.
I saw Al Gore's film and was convinced by his science that
is built on the work of Roger Revelle and others, and the
beliefs of most scientists today. I was convinced by his statement,
backed up by a study by Prof. Naomi Oreskes, that there was
consensus among scientists, and that only "kooks or crooks"
now differed. Al Gore showed a very serious picture - threatening
our whole future - unless we drastically lower our carbon
dioxide emissions, and unless we act quickly. James Hansen,
high up in NASA, showed even more alarming scenarios possible.
I then joined Transition Towns and learned about Peak Oil
as well. I checked and checked the official science of Global
Warming, the "greenhouse effect" of CO2, and the
many "rebuttals of skeptics' arguments" at New Scientist,
BBC, Gristmill, Royal Society, Skeptical Science, Met Office,
and RealClimate. They all said, in effect "...
there are a very limited number of objections or attacks on
what is really very sound and well resolved science"
- Our CO2 emissions were the cause
of the "unprecedented" rising
CO2 levels, they said,
- ...since "nothing
else" could have caused this...
- ...and the rising CO2 must have
caused the "unprecedented" global
temperature rise, they said,
- ...since, again, there was
I was then challenged by contradictory evidence -
- that steadily rising CO2 does NOT fit cooling periods as
well as warming periods -
- that "Anthropogenic Global Warming" is bad science
and even outright fraud -
- that no runaway "tipping points" are even possible
- that there is no science "consensus" -
- many have done two "U-turns", ignorant skeptic
> AGW believer > informed skeptic
- Global temperatures have been falling for ten years, yet
CO2 is rising as steadily as ever
- Carbon Dioxide is the foodstuff of plants, and cannot
cause more than a tiny amount of global warming
- Global warming is not bad for life; cooling is far more
- Global temperatures have been changing at all times, in
both recorded history and geology
- there is no consensus - and any claim that "the debate
is over" is at best unscientific, at worst fraudulent
- Most scientists are only familiar with their particular
discipline and, doubting their ability to assess the whole
global warming thesis, often say "I believe in Global
Warming... except in my speciality"
- Climate Science has been taken over by people with political
agendas, headed up by the UN IPCC
- Seriously suspect "alarmist" science has arisen,
some directly sponsored by IPCC
- All the the media and science publications are putting
out the alarmist science
- All the major science bodies have "refutations"
of the skeptics' science - but the refutations do not hold
- Activists and much of the media have been engaged in libellous
slander against all the best skeptics
- People are now in grave danger of making blunders of a
size never seen before, based on bad science.
Who pays me: I'm not now, nor ever was
or will be, in the pay of any big business to promote their
position. I wish I had more money.
I wish I didn't have to put in this disclaimer - especially
since almost all the slush funding now goes towards AGW support.
It took me a solid month of study to be sure
which side was correct.
Some basic issues have been skewed or ignored; some areas
are still unclear.
Checking and counter-checking both sides was essential.
For evidence and references to back all this up, please see
the full story
Scientists have been naturally driven by concern for the
environment. But they have also discovered that predicting
catastrophe, and claiming that research is needed to avert
the catastrophe, is the most effective way, even the only
way, to secure research grants. Official Climate Science has
increasingly abused public trust, and, together with the media,
it has been trading its birthright of evidence-based truth,
for sensation. It also serially withholds data - whose inspection
might reveal the scams and the bad science. Climate scientists
have debunked and marginalized much good science and, unbelievably,
set up theories to support Anthropogenic Global Warming that
appear to override already-well-established scientific laws
and evidence (eg the "buffer" effect overriding
Henry's Law - see Primer). Unbelievably, some activists have
gained positions of power in scientific organizations where
they can - against the most basic principles of openness and
checkability in Science - suppress the debate - so that many
do not know, or do not want to believe, or have neither time
nor skill to investigate, the suppression that has happened.
Commonsense should remind us that CO2 is an essential resource
for plants to live - in fact, plants have benefited from the
recently increased CO2 levels, and could easily take a lot
more. Market gardeners use up to FIVE TIMES the current levels
in their greenhouses to maximise growth - without harm to
anything or anyone. The only "Precautionary Principle"
of any use is to ask questions - ask for
evidence that CO2 has ever caused any measurable warming let
alone runaway heat - and learn the basic science here. I was
lucky to have time to check the evidence. In order to make
the journey manageable, I have done various things:
- To read the story in brief, go here.
- To learn the real science, and understand how innocent
concern became corrupted, go to my Skeptics'
Primer - "Curious Anomalies in Climate Science".
- The video page is a nice relaxed
way of learning the true science in easy steps and from
top scientists - Christy,
- Here are references to important
info sources you will, sadly, never find in the once-unbiassed
- Join our Forum
(or if inactive currently, join another like WUWT)
and explore key issues.
- Look here at a more detailed
exploration of key topics, with the most clinching evidence
- If you want to learn to stay with key issues in debate,
see Joanne Nova's Skeptics'
- If you want to read my first long study, go here.
I only left it in for the record - it's not where I'm at
Accusations of "oil-funded!" and "not peer-reviewed!"
are frequently levelled when accusers are unable to address
the science itself. Sadly, the
peer-review process itself has become corrupt - difficult
to prove and most unwelcome to believe. The high level of
specialization today can make the number of scientists even
capable of peer-reviewing an inbred group. I thought that
watchdogs would watch for corrupt science, but I now realize
that most of the activists have been taken in by the bad science,
or are on a power roll themselves. But there are also environmentalists
with superb track records who are now fighting for the truth
in Climate Science.
Look at the Science Blog of the Year 2008, WattsUpWithThat
- and the 2007 winner Climate
Audit. Watts at WUWT was once an AGW believer; his blog
stays manageable by being chatty but that belies a huge amount
of science actually happening there. CA is doing exactly what
its name says, auditing the science. CA shows that
the official science has been playing fast and loose with
data, again and again, to arrive at desired IPCC-alarmist
conclusions. Look for the science threads. Bear with the humour
that forbids ad hominem personal accusations but may sometimes
poke fun. Allow for some odd posters; these sites still compare
favourably, both re courtesy and re science, with the AGW
believers' mainstay, RealClimate.
Through slander and silence in the media, many do not even
realize of the existence of friendly, informed, active skeptics
networks where real science happens. RealClimate censors or
pillories those who disagree, and does not even mention WUWT
or CA by name except to disparage, whereas all can post at
WUWT and CA providing courtesy is maintained.
If you don't believe me, try these three and see for yourself.
If you still find otherwise, contact us. Only if you
are firmly ensconsed with RealClimate, don't waste my time.
Chances are you'll just keep on repeating their stuff while
not listening to ours. I've seen this happen. Chances are
you'll not even visit the experts we can point you towards
because you believe you already "know" they are
"suspect". I say, give truth and evidence a chance.
Revised 5th September 2009