After yesterday’s post you may wonder if I watched it.
But I did see the first fifteen minutes and I have visited the QandA site this morning to see that there at least I didn’t miss much. I should add that my real reason for not watching was that I simply needed an early night! I should also add that it was a lie when I wrote yesterday that “I would rather have root canal therapy or listen to Alan Jones all day than watch the insufferable child-debater in adult garb Nick Minchin”. Well, almost a lie.
Nick is a classic example of what happens in this debate when ideology – Green/Bolshevik Plottism in his case – not science is your starting point. You tend to stick with things no matter how idiotic they are or how thoroughly they have been discredited or how often…
Take Nick’s article this morning:
Professor Michael Ashley, in yesterday’s Herald, expressed the usual denunciation of sceptics like me: the experts are on the global warming side; I am a cynical former politician who doesn’t understand ”the science”; they have found ”the truth” about climate – debate over.
Oddly, what he doesn’t argue is exactly the science – and that is because reality has got in the way of the theory. Indeed, the absence of warming since 1998 – despite rising CO2 levels and contrary to Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change predictions – shakes the foundations of the alarmists’ cause, as the Green icon James Lovelock, father of the Gaia theory, recognised this week.
OK, Lovelock. Nick is selective, as ever. Check the reports yourself.
Asked if he was now a climate skeptic, Lovelock told msnbc.com: “It depends what you mean by a skeptic. I’m not a denier.”
He said human-caused carbon dioxide emissions were driving an increase in the global temperature, but added that the effect of the oceans was not well enough understood and could have a key role.
“It (the sea) could make all the difference between a hot age and an ice age,” he said.
He said he still thought that climate change was happening, but that its effects would be felt farther in the future than he previously thought.
“We will have global warming, but it’s been deferred a bit,” Lovelock said…
Its annual climate summary for 2011 said that the combined land and ocean surface temperature for the world was 0.92 degrees above the 20th century average of 57.0 degrees, making it the 35th consecutive year since 1976 that the yearly global temperature was above average.
“All 11 years of the 21st century so far (2001-2011) rank among the 13 warmest in the 132-year period of record. Only one year during the 20th century, 1998, was warmer than 2011,” it said.
In the interview, Lovelock said he would not take back a word of his seminal work “Gaia: A New Look at Life on Earth,” published in 1979.
But of “Revenge of Gaia,” published in 2006, he said he had gone too far in describing what the warming Earth would see over the next century.
“I would be a little more cautious — but then that would have spoilt the book,” he quipped.
Today, just coincidentally, we read:
Antarctica’s massive ice shelves are shrinking because they are being eaten away from below by warm water, a new study finds.
That suggests that future sea levels could rise faster than many scientists have been predicting.
The western chunk of Antarctica is losing 23 feet (seven metres) of its floating ice sheet each year. Until now, scientists weren’t exactly sure how it was happening and whether or how man-made global warming might be a factor. The answer, according to a study published Wednesday in the journal Nature, is that climate change plays an indirect role — but one that has larger repercussions than if Antarctic ice were merely melting from warmer air.
Hamish Pritchard, a glaciologist at the British Antarctic Survey, said research using an ice-gazing NASA satellite showed that warmer air alone couldn’t explain what was happening to Antarctica. A more detailed examination found a chain of events that explained the shrinking ice shelves.
There is a wealth of material out there and what individuals like the extremely ancient Lovelock may think is beside the point really. What Nick calls “the hype of the Al Gores and Tim Flannerys” is also beside the point – whether or not one accepts that characterisation of either gentleman. It is the overall picture which has convinced every major scientific body in the world and the overwhelming majority of properly qualified climate scientists that there really is a crisis and that it is being largely driven by what we have done on this planet in the last century or two – one of those factors being anthropogenic climate change involving greenhouse gases, primarily CO2 from fossil fuel.
And really, Nick, not the “no warming since 1998” crapdoodle again! How often does this have to be rebutted???? Sheesh…