Published by paulmacrae on 03 Jun 2008 at 09:06 am
Book
False Alarm: Global Warming — Facts Versus Fears
Why Almost Everything We’ve Been Told About Global Warming is Misleading, Exaggerated, or Just Plain Wrong
On this site are excerpts from and notes for my book on the myths, exaggerations, and outright falsehoods being told to the public about “global warming”. The book was published in July, 2010, and is available in print format through Amazon for around $25 (click on the Amazon logo to the upper left), and also in epub format for iPad, iPod, Kindle, etc., at Apple’s iBooks and Kobo. The price in e-format is about $5.
My writing comes from an inquiring perspective that prefers not to accept any scientific “consensus” without solid proof. In this site and the book, I hope to show that the proof, in the case of global warming alarmism, simply does not exist.
Several of my columns for the Victoria Times Colonist were skeptical of these claims and, often, quite strongly attacked by environmentalists. I generally don’t take these attacks too seriously—to each his/her own opinions.
One column, however, was criticized by the University of Victoria’s Dr. Andrew Weaver, Canada’s leading computer climate modeler, as lacking in “scientific literacy.” Since I read a lot of science and based my columns on scientific research, I was surprised and looked for an avenue to reply. The best alternative was to research and write a book, which I did for two and a half years.
In the course of writing this book, I became a confirmed skeptic about the claims by the global warming alarmists. Why? Because in my research I’ve found that almost everything the public has been told about global warming is, in fact, misleading, exaggerated, or plain wrong—including the claim that the planet is currently warming (see “Is the planet still warming?”).
Why so much disinformation? Because many climate scientists and environmental groups appear to have lost their objectivity when it comes to global warming, to the point of not just criticizing but condemning as “irresponsible” or “immoral” (or “scientifically illiterate”) all viewpoints but their own position—that the primary cause of warming is human activity and that warming will be a disaster.
They regard this viewpoint as utterly certain, even though absolute certainty has no place in science. As a result, those who, based on an enormous amount of evidence, suggest global warming (and cooling) are primarily still caused by natural cycles are literally condemned as heretics.
Are human activities primarily responsible for global warming? Or are we experiencing natural cycles with some input from humanity? We don’t know for certain, and can’t know for certain, because we can’t get facts from the future. Therefore, logic suggests that all reasonable points of view, including those of the skeptics, should receive a respectful scientific hearing.
Instead, there is condemnation of those who are critical of the “consensus.” In short, when it comes to global warming, we are faced with scientific objectivity gone wrong. The inevitable result is misinformation, exaggeration and outright falsehood.
Is there a ‘consensus’? The three claims
The claims of the global warming alarmists, for which there is supposed to be 100 per cent “consensus,” according to Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth, come down to the following:
1. The earth is warming. There’s no problem accepting this claim since the earth came out of a glacial episode in the current ice age only 12,000 years or so ago and has been warming, with ups and downs, ever since. Unfortunately for the alarmists, as I was writing this book the earth didn’t warm for over a decade, as you can see in Figure 1, which shows the temperature record for 2000-2012 as recorded by Britain’s Hadley Institute. Note that the temperature trend, as shown by the green line, is almost flat for this time. As Figure 2 shows, there has been some warming since that time, but not a lot.
Figure 2: Hadley shows minimal warming between 2012-2022. Source: Woodfortrees.org
In the future, the temperature trend may show more warming, at least for a while—after all, the three previous interglacials (we are in an interglacial) were warmer than today’s so far, with no human input whatsoever (see Climate Change: Learning to think like a geologist). Therefore, there’s no reason to believe this interglacial shouldn’t become a bit warmer quite naturally, regardless of what humans do or don’t do, as in the previous warm interglacial peaks. In other words, we are still well within natural variation if we look at the big geological picture. Overall, though, the earth is currently in an ice-age mode but climate is always changing. We should really start to worry when the climate moves toward colder, not warmer.
2. Human beings are the principal cause of this warming through increased carbon dioxide emissions. Given that there are literally hundreds, perhaps thousands, of factors affecting climate, and given that human carbon emissions are about three per cent of total carbon emissions—the rest comes from “natural” sources like vegetable decomposition, ocean outgassing, volcanos, etc.—that humans now dominate the climate seems highly unlikely. At the very least, extreme skepticism should be exercised about any such claim, along with respect for differing points of view since the science clearly isn’t “settled.” Instead, however, those who question this “truth” are regarded as somehow deluded and on a par with Holocaust deniers.
3. Thanks to rising human carbon emissions, we are heading into “oblivion“ (to quote UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon) or a planet that will “burn up.” In the past, carbon dioxide levels have been up to 10 times current levels and temperatures more than 10 degrees Celsius higher than today’s, and the planet not only didn’t “burn up,” but its plants and animals evolved and thrived. Forty million years ago, when carbon levels were up to five times today’s and temperatures about eight degrees Celsius higher, the planet was lush and green; some paleo-geologists have called it an “Eden,” others “the golden age of mammals.” We are not heading into “oblivion” or the “demise of the planet,” as one Victoria, B.C., environmental activist put it, if carbon dioxide or temperature levels go up, although we may have to make major adaptations to a changing climate—a climate that will get warmer, or colder, no matter what we do or don’t do.
False Alarm: Global Warming—Facts Versus Fears examines each of these three claims in detail and finds all but the first one—that the planet is, overall, warming—dubious. Yet we are told there is a massive “consensus” of climate scientists around all of these claims. This claim of consensus, too, is false. Indeed, I’ve found very little written by the global warming alarmists that can stand up to scientific or logical scrutiny.
As I continue to add to this site, I hope you’ll continue looking in from time to time and add your comments. You can also send comments to my email address, prmacraeATgmail.com. (Replace the AT with ‘@’. This is to discourage Spambots.)
This page has the following sub pages.
Joe on 30 Aug 2008 at 4:27 am #
Thanks mate, you have practically confirmed my beliefs on the matter from the start. Excellent work and keep up the ‘Heresy’
Matthew on 24 Mar 2009 at 1:39 pm #
I have no evidence to point to the “theory” I am about to put next, more of my understanding of why Global Warming and Carbon Footprint’s are being made a big thing over here.
I live in the UK and after watching a political debate from some of the representatives of some of the Eu’s countries they moved onto the topic of power. The UK currently (if my memory is correct) is quite dependent on Russia for oil or gas (forgotten which), talks moved on to new pipelines being placed under a sea costing billions and how Britain has other sources coming to it from other countries but we use just too much for the max capacity of the alternative sources.
Well I paused in my mind at this point and thought to myself. Britain (and indeed the EU) don’t like being dependent on Russia for obvious reasons and all it would take was to cut our usage of resources by a small amount and the alternative sources would become viable. The “Global Warming/Reduce your Carbon Footprint” adverts and very opinionated propaganda in the UK but I’ve only recently thought of a political agenda for the reason such bias views are being supported by the government.
To think that they are using such tactics to get the public to reduce its usage of power and other energy sources is concerning but nothing unexpected from today’s governments.
This Theory of mine however doesn’t explain the American governments stance on the matter. Maybe its an attempt for America to be less dependent on oil, or an attempt to reduce the usage of “unclean” sources of energy and onto “clean” ones. Ford recently released its first hydrogen powered car, backing that technology would be beneficial to the American government but you would need a reason to move away from petrol not to mention a whining period for the nation to switch over. One thing about Hydrogen is its the most abundant substance in the universe and if this new technology takes off the American government can charge the American people whatever they like as its being sourced from inside the country. Same for every other country.
I moved way of topic, Good website. Glad to see the ideals of Science is still being defended. People forget sometimes the difference between fact and opinion. When the book is published it better be available in the UK, look forward to reading.
E. J. Mohr on 11 Jul 2009 at 10:48 am #
Years ago when I assumed the scare mongers might be correct I was intrigued by the fact that that average temperatures had not significantly broken above the statistical mean even though CO2 was steadily rising. I also knew that if CO2 was as potent a greenhouse gas, as AGW theory told us it was, that there was a major problem with the AGW theory.
Since higher temperatures decrease CO2 solubility in water, then rising temperatures would lead to a runaway greenhouse, since CO2 would be degassed in increasing amounts which would raise temperature and lead to even higher CO2 concentrations. This runaway amplifying effect makes it hard to see how an interglacial could ever end, and begs the question of why earth is not a steaming hot house.
Once the higher resolution icecore data came out that showed that CO2 lags temperature I knew that there was no doubt that AGW theory was dead; at least for me.
FALSE ALARM: Why Almost Everything We’ve Been Told About Global Warming is Misleading, Exaggerated, or Plain Wrong » Book launch for False Alarm: Tuesday, July 13, 2010 on 06 Jul 2010 at 3:06 pm #
[…] Book […]