Tuesday, March 27, 2012

Settled science unravelling?

The science around man-made global warming is supposed to have been settled years ago. Otherwise, governments around the world wouldn’t be spending billions of dollars to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide. Right?

There’s hardly a month that goes by, however, when some news story from reputable sources doesn’t cast doubt on the settled science, which holds that the Earth is experiencing global warming because of human CO2 emissions.

The latest news story to raise eyebrows is that the whole of the Earth heated up in medieval times (during the Medieval Warm Period over a 1,000 years ago) without human CO2 emissions. The Earth then cooled down naturally in what has become known as the “Little Ice Age.” Neither of these climate events have been attributed to man-made causes.

Heretofore, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has argued that the Medieval Warm Period was confined to Europe and that the world-wide warming we’re experiencing now is caused by human activity.

Source: Mail Online | h/t small dead animals

© 2012 Russell G. Campbell


  1. Does anyone really listen to these idiots anymore.They need a good old fashioned stoning,since they want to live in the dark ages.Back then they would be burned at the stake or drowned for coming up with these idiotic stories.

  2. Sorry, but whether or not the global warming we are experiencing is man-made or not, the fact that the globe has heated up and cooled down at different points in the history of the earth has little to no bearing on whether or not man has caused the current warming.

    The fact is there is a warming trend and the fact is that the trend is much shorter than those historical warming and cooling periods so we must at least conclude that it is something different now.

    The fact is also that somewhere north of 99% of all climate scientists have concluded that the earth is warming up and somewhere north of 97% of all climate scientists have concluded that that warming is caused by human activity.

    I was a skeptic myself, but the more I read actual science on this - as opposed to the screeching by celebrities and the knee-jerk reactions from industry and conservatives - the more I am convinced that it is very real.

    1. Ted, I remain a skeptic and notice an increasing number of scientists are questioning the science that is used support the man-made aspect of the current warming period.

  3. I think because of human activity global warming is increasing and we are leading to big danger. To stop experience bad weather condition we are the humans needs to come forward! Thanks

  4. Russ:

    The problem with the debate on this is that there are so many very many people speaking as though they are scientific authorities on this and making scientific claims who really are not experts. And there are layers and layers of it.

    You get pundits and media types who make money out of being dramatic and hyperbolic. You get pseudo-scientists making ridiculous claims that are easily debunked, which make the whole of their argument seem more questionable (I'm looking at you Mr. Gore). Layered onto that are a raft of new self-proclaimed "climate scientists" who are not in any way formally trained as climatologists but are treated as though they are, and they almost invariably have a political aim rather than a scientific aim (I'm looking at you Mr. Suzuki, but also all those directly in the pay of the oil industry). Then you have the politicos - both formal politicians trying to cater to their vote base, and political partisans who just carry the official line (whether it's knee-jerk automatically opposed to business or is on the right, knee-jerk automatically opposed to anyone who opposes business, supports the environment or is on the left).

    The worst is probably the forecasting which any real climate scientist will tell you is a useful part of what they do when it comes to long-term planning and projecting (eg. if you are designing a tall building, you need to know the worst and best case scenarios of weather patterns), but a real pseudo-science when it comes to government policy. But no one really delves into the detail because that is too much work/boring/not dramatic enough, etc.

    When you strip away all of the crap, at the bottom, you still have these scientists - the real ones - who almost invariably, way more than a mere "consensus", who say the world is warming and we are the cause.

    What we do about that, is another issue entirely.

    Sorry for the longwinded post. The politics that are spun on science always enrages me, whether it is suppressing real science (like evolution on which I wrote my MA (History) thesis, or disease, or environment) or using a bit of real science as a political sword (eg. while I think believing the world was created in 244 hours 6000 years ago is nuts and creationism/intelligent design should not be allowed anywhere near any science classroom, I don't think evolution science should be used as a means of attack).

    Anyway, hope you take my longwinded response as a reflection that I respect your opinion and you always are respectful. Even when so wrong! ;-)

    1. Ted, a well thought position and well put.

      You said: "When you strip away all of the crap, at the bottom, you still have these scientists - the real ones - who almost invariably, way more than a mere "consensus", who say the world is warming and we are the cause."

      You are correct, yet, the science is NOT settled as many would have us believe. I will not take the time/space here to reiterate my reasons for saying this, but here is a link to the sort of stories that have informed my opinion.