March 17th, 2008 at 11:17am
If there is one thing I like more than people saying amusingly peculiar things, it’s people saying amusingly peculiar things in support of things I disagree with.
Take Wilfried Haeberli from the World Glacier Monitoring Service at the University of Zurich in Switzerland for example. Whilst talking about various glaciers “disappearing” due to global warming, he said “There are many canaries emerging in the climate change coal mine. The glaciers are perhaps among those making the most noise”.
As 2CC’s Mike Jeffreys pointed out this morning, Mr. Haeberli seems to be getting his metaphors mixed up. Canaries which emerge from a coal mine are a good thing, and melting ice doesn’t usually make much noise.
What I find particularly odd about the article is “The estimates, based on measuring the thickness of glacier ice, indicated an average loss of about 1.5 metres in 2006”, but it’s now March 2008, why don’t we have measurements from last year…does it really take fifteen months to calculate the average of the measurements taken during 2006, or are they just saving on carbon emissions by making their PR person swim across the oceans to each media outlet?
The other sentence of note in the article just makes the point that I’ve been trying to make for ages. “The thaw could disrupt everything from farming – millions of people in Asia depend on seasonal melt water from the Himalayas”. It’s quite simple…adapt. The world changes, we as the human race, just like every other animal and plant on this planet, have to adapt if we plan to continue to exist.
Moving on, and Jim Ball was talking about a book which sounds very interesting this morning. “Unstoppable Global Warming Every 1500 Years” by S. Fred Singer and Dennis T. Avery is described by Jim as a book which “totally and forensically demolishes the entire global warming fraud and of course the fraudsters”.
It has recently been re-released as a paperback and I intend on buying a copy as it sounds like a good read. Jim links to a review by Jay Lehr, Ph.D. which I’ll quote in part. As much as I would like to quote it in full, there just isn’t enough room here for that.
With their new book, Unstoppable Global Warming Every 1500 Years, S. Fred Singer and Dennis T. Avery skewer all the misinformation that has been used for so long in an attempt to convince society that mankind is the root cause of all global climate change.
The book is truly amazing! It meticulously supports, with hundreds of detailed, published references, the clear facts and conclusions that the Earth’s climate has been traveling a well-defined rollercoaster path of temperature change for at least 900,000 years.
In almost a point-by-point refutation of Al Gore’s unsupportable rant that “the debate is over; man is warming the Earth,” Singer and Avery explain technically but lucidly why nearly every cherry-picked fact in Gore’s movie “An Inconvenient Truth” is contradicted by science, which weighs heavily in favor of a very different truth: Man is in fact all but irrelevant to global climate, as the sun and its accompanying solar system rule.
Anthropogenic (human-caused) global warming has been the scare du jour of the collectivist environmental movement, socialist countries, and academic money launderers for nearly a decade now. Unlike the past Y2K scare, ozone elimination, and avian flu, efforts to combat global warming will have long-term, serious, negative impacts on the citizens of the world, whose quality of life, especially in the poorest nations, will be disastrously worsened.
It will not be possible to read Unstoppable Global Warming without being convinced a sham is being perpetrated on society. Even a 30-minute perusal of the text will impress the average unbrainwashed person that despite Gore’s beautiful pictures of heaving ice flows in both his movie and book, man is not the culprit behind climate change. Singer and Avery’s well-chosen book title alone should give the thinking person pause.
In the opening chapter, “Is Humanity Losing the Global Warming Debate?” Singer and Avery explain how the ratio of two isotopes of oxygen allows us to date the age in which air bubbles were trapped in ice, and that with almost a million years of ice cores we can readily tell that periodic warming of the Earth has occurred persistently almost every 1,500 years.
That obviously does not square with efforts to get us to reduce our use of cars, air conditioners, and fertilizer in order to reduce carbon in our atmosphere. Technological advances have increased our life expectancy by 30 years during the past century, but now we are being asked to give much of it up and return to organic farming, which was able to support only 1.5 billion people 100 years ago.
If we gave up high-yield farming, as many global warming alarmists desire, we would need to clear all the world’s forests to sustain our current food demands, and thus eliminate about half of the world’s wildlife.
Singer and Avery document the exhaustive data search they performed to confirm conclusively the existence of a 1,500-year warming cycle. They grappled with the 100,000-year elliptical cycle of the Earth’s orbit, the 41,000-year axial tilt cycle of the Earth, and the 23,000-year precessing or wobble cycle.
In addition to those cycles, they thoroughly document the most influential cycle of all: the 1,500-year solar cycle that drives most of the Earth’s climate cycle.
The authors shatter the greenhouse gas theory, making it clear humanity’s modest addition to the atmosphere’s small amount of carbon dioxide does not add up to a significant alteration in temperature.
In obliterating the Kyoto Protocol as a construct to change anything, the authors uncover a suppressed report from the federal government of Canada, which concluded that country’s expenditure of $500 million to reduce greenhouse gases was “largely wasted, producing neither a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions nor the development of new, cleaner technologies.”
The review goes on, but I think that’s enough for now.
Incidentally, there is a particular blog which links here, authored by a person who appears to be a believer in the theory of anthropogenic global warming (I assume that’s what they mean when they refer to global warming as a debacle). I haven’t named them or linked to them today, because I want to see if this post enough to prompt them to remove their link to me in a burst of frustration, or preferably register here and refute me.