Published by paulmacrae on 03 Jun 2008 at 08:50 am
About me
Welcome
My name is Paul MacRae. I’m an ex-journalist who has worked as an editor, editorial writer and columnist for several newspapers over the past 40 years, including The Toronto Star, Globe and Mail, Bangkok Post, and Victoria Times Colonist. In 2002 I switched to academia and taught English and professional writing at the University of Victoria, University Canada West and Royal Roads University until 2020.
On this site you will find excerpts from and notes for my book on climate change entitled False Alarm: Global Warming—Facts Versus Fears. You can read more about the book and why I decided to take on this topic on the About My Book page on this site. In addition, I’ve put in links to other sites that deal intelligently with the question of climate change from a skeptical perspective.
I can’t claim to be an expert on climate science. But, as a former journalist, I do claim an ability to know when the public is being told partial truths or falsehoods. Everything I have read since I began my research in 2007 convinces me more and more that most of what we, the public, have been told about global warming is misleading, exaggerated, or plain wrong, including the claim that the planet is warming (it didn’t from at least 1998 to 2013, and then only slightly after that).
This site also includes blogs I’ve written on climate change and other topics.
I hope you’ll enjoy the information on this site and I look forward to your comments. You can also get in touch with me at prmacraeATgmail.com (replace the ‘AT’ with ‘@’; this is to discourage gobots).
Nick Bretagna on 17 Jun 2008 at 4:28 am #
> How can many, many respected, competitive, independent science folks be so wrong about this (if your premise is correct)?
LOL. Tell your friend to look up two topics: Phlogiston Chemistry and Ether Physics.
In both cases, someone had to produce one experiment each to blow apart a whole body of widely accepted principles:
Phlogiston’s Demise
Ether Toast
Science isn’t guaranteed to be correct, it’s just more likely to be correct than any other technique that might be used is.
As a whole, science is a slow, steady traversal of ideas to produce a clear concept of “how the universe works” — but there are times when a false branch of ideas fits the bill, and gets followed until some single idea is shown to be true but impossible if the branch were correct, which immediately prunes that entire branch of “knowledge” and for a brief time turns science on its head.
Phlogiston and Ether Physics are two excellent examples of such. The collapse of Ether Physics led directly, within 10 years, to Einstein’s first formulations.
Science is a technique for arriving at highly reliable notions of what is true. It does not *guarantee* absolute truth.
Darrin Fiddler on 02 Jul 2008 at 5:15 pm #
Regardless if we’re causing global warming, we’re still polluting the planet and feeding an onslaught of diseases. Cutting our emissions down will help dig us out and away from the looming pandemics. We still need to move towards sustainable energy for the well-being of us and our following generations.
By denying global warming, people will continue to be stupid and we’re only going to get more sick and disease-ridden. We just need to view this topic from a different perspective.
DLR Fiddler
Kelowna, BC
Bill on 15 Jul 2008 at 7:27 am #
“Cutting our emissions down will help dig us out and away from the looming pandemics.”
Really?!
“By denying global warming, people will continue to be stupid and we’re only going to get more sick and disease-ridden.”
Umm.. So by accepting a theory we know to be false we become smarter?? And healthier??
–Bill
Lucy Skywalker on 19 Jul 2008 at 4:54 am #
Trying to post here again, first time seemed to fail:
Great to see about your book. The sooner the better cos’ IMHO we’re building up to tipping-time. I hope it will include ideas about clean “open source” standards for science, so that the fascist control we’ve had has less chance of happening again. I hope it will start to separate out genuine environmental concerns, and encourage better environmental science standards, so that they don’t all need to get tarred with the AGW brush.
Have you seen this History of AGW: http://www.john-daly.com/history.htm -? I think that this nugget of info is important.
Tedd L. Kemper on 09 Aug 2008 at 7:14 pm #
An Old SciFi Story about Global Environmentalists
AlGore and his alarmists remind me of a science fiction story I ead a few decades ago. The premise of the story was that the Environmentalists had gotten total control. They decided that people were responsible for the demise of millions of microorganisms by just being alive and declared that on a specific day, everyone would commit suicide.
To be sure their edict was carried out, anyone protesting would be imprisoned and executed the day before the mass suicide.
Naturally, there were a lot of protesters. But, instead of speaking out in public, most of those who objected went underground—Literally—The subways and such had been abandoned long ago.
One young man knew that the underground existed, and managed to find a connection. Once he had been carefully questioned, he was taken to an elderly gentleman—who had obviously lived well beyond his allotted years.
As they talked, the young man said, “But we have to stop the.”
“No,” the gentlemen replied, “we don’t want to stop them. We want to survive them, then go on to rebuild the world as it should be.
Our problem today is, that Algore and his thugs won’t commit suicide for us.
Meme on 02 Oct 2008 at 12:01 pm #
If only we could get Elizabeth May, Stephane Dion, Jack Layton and all Canadian greenhouse gas Henny Pennies to read what you write!
Today the Financial Post reviewed a book titled An Appeal to Reason: A Cool Look at Global Warming by Lord Nigel Lawson. According to the article, Lawson had “immense trouble finding a publisher” because he contests the ‘greenies’. I do hope you (Paul MacRae) have an easier time of it.
I haven’t had success today in finding the FP article online. Nor have I been able to find online a June 26 squib from the National Post headlined, Natural Chemicals Contributing to Ozone Deterioration, Study Finds. I clipped the paragraph in June. The report does not contest global warming itself, but does suggest that “the mathematical model for calculating the sources of global warming could be flawed”. The study was led by John Plane at the University of Leeds. The conclusion is based on a finding that bromine and iodine oxide, natural chemicals produced by sea spray and emissions from microscopic sea organisms, destroyed ozone in the atmosphere west of equatorial Africa – destroyed 50% more ozone than than expected.
I don’t know who it is who first had such an expectation but it’s encouraging that some scientists, at least, are giving credit to nature for any depletion of the ozone layer. Still, we’d best be careful about alerting the UN Climate Panel about this finding else they’ll be wagging fingers at us for polluting the atmosphere by sprinkling iodized salt on our veggies.
RIDDEN on 01 Mar 2009 at 8:50 pm #
The thesis that the planet is NOT warming up is a damaging approach to a very real problem.
If this gentleman has written a book trying to convince people that warming is not happening,
then all we can do is to pray that he writes no more.
It is tempting for a layman to write about a technical or scientific subject since a journalist is
very able to collect and collate facts. Regurgitating the literature is not sufficient to enable the
lay person to produce a worthwhile piece of work.
Work such as the gentleman has written here is damaging to young and old minds…for reasons
which are clearly obvious.
The writer’s logic is totally faulty. Even if Global Warming did not exist, there is plenty of evidence
that, pollution in general, is damaging to our three Great Kingdoms…animal, vegetable, mineral.
The evidence for the above is overwhelming, and something that Mr. MacRae needs to think deeply
about. The sulphur gases have, over the years, turned many waterways acidic, resulting in severe
damage to animal and plant life. Sulphur gases have turned evergreen plants near my garden
a yellowish color…damage, Mr.MacRae!…..the damage to species and whole families is
clear.
In a writing such as Mr. MacRae’s the author must work hard to generate something new, something
innovative. It is not sufficient to produce a glossy cover book, full of muddled thinking and plagerism.
Perhaps Mr. MacRae would like to demonstrate his knowledge of polluting gases by writing down the
chemical formulae for the following, without ‘looking up’ the material.
1. The two common inorganic carbon containing gases.
2. The two oxides of sulphur, and state which is most responsible for acid rain.
3. The three most common oxides of nitrogen.
4. A common oxide of hydrogen.
In addition, MacRae must write down the solubility of each gas in potable (frresh) water and sea-water.
Try this approach, sir, then go on to something worthwhile…JR.
JQ_Public on 11 Mar 2009 at 9:22 am #
It amazes me to think that someone can even write that publishing something possibly 100% correct and contradictory to the “common knowledge” is damaging and should be stopped.
Maybe someone should “damn” Al Gore and co. on his protrayal of the falsities of global warming. Am I not correct to know that he is no scientist himself? Was he not just regurgitating others findings?
If pollution is a problem, and I sincerely think that it is to some, maybe a good extent, then fight pollution with anti-pollution legislation – not with global warming legislation and political agenda.
Global Warming and Pollution – they are two very different arguments. I’m not a scientist or chemist, but I don’t need to be able to diagram chemical properties to be able to see the difference.
Maybe layman should shut up and let the scientists and engineers figure everything out. Yes, they don’t ever work to prove their theories, only the truth.
Kelly Beninga on 18 Apr 2009 at 11:10 pm #
Why is anyone listening to an English major? See what qualified climate scientists have to say. 97% of them agree man-made climate change is real.
Paul MacRae on 19 Apr 2009 at 10:44 am #
Kelly,
In this book, I’m writing not as an “English major” but as an investigative journalist with more than 30 years experience at several newspapers, including The Toronto Star, The Globe and Mail, the Bangkok Post, and the Victoria Times Colonist.
And, are you suggesting that journalists who aren’t climate scientists shouldn’t be allowed to write about climate? That would eliminate Mark Lynas, George Monbiot, Eugene Linden, Thomas Friedman, and Ross Gelbspan, to name a few on the warmist side. Or would you bar all non-climate scientists, period? That would eliminate Al Gore, which might actually be a blessing.
Or do you only want to ban non-climate-scientist writers who don’t agree with you?
Just curious.
As for your figure of 97% agreement that man-made climate change is real: I, too, think man-made climate change is “real.” How can we not be affecting the planet with six billion people? The question, for me, is how important human activity is in the larger scheme of climate change (not that important, in my view) and whether other factors than carbon dioxide emissions also play an anthropogenic role.
If we’re primarily warming the planet through, say, agriculture, as William F. Ruddiman believes, or the urban heat effect, as Roger Pielke, Sr., believes, then cutting carbon emissions isn’t going to do much to stop warming.
Finally, at the moment, the planet isn’t warming, so it’s difficult to believe that our human activities are as important as the (you say) 97 per cent believe. (I wonder what happens to the grant money of those who say they don’t believe).
Chicken Little on 11 Oct 2009 at 6:57 pm #
While in graduate school, I studied under a professor that was internationally recognized in his field. Of all the thoughts he presented me, I have found the following quote to be the most profound.
“When the theory and the facts don’t agree, go with the facts.”
The fact is that the earth’s climate has been changing throughout the entire history of the planet as the result of a complex interaction between many variables. Humans, being late-comers to the scene, obviously had no impact on ancient historical fluctuations, which data shows to be as extreme or more extreme than any change in recent history. While humans without doubt impact our environment, why would we now suddenly assume that our contribution is the dominant factor, when current changes are clearly within the range of historical changes where we could have had no impact.
The belief system referred to as Man-made Global Warming is a dangerous combination of human hubris and a desire to use fear to control the populace.
Welcome to the MARTIX.
Grrr on 21 Nov 2009 at 5:34 pm #
Pleased to find another who is willing and able to apply some logic to the climate, almost said debate, science political agenda.
Pollution is a problem while there are living life forms on this planet. Get used to it but minimise the damage.
The politics of AGW is what disturbs me the most. Al Gore, Flannary, Rudd, Brown, Obama, and others have misrepresented the role of CO2.
If innocently and with a willingness to allow debate that would not be bad. Sometimes correcting a wrong introduces a new view on matters.
Here, however, there is political agenda. First confuse the people, then panic them, then land them with a Treaty and an ETS that they would normally protest.
The film ‘Not evil, just lies’ understates the enormity of this political move to disenfranchise the west.
It is evil; millions will die and our children will bear a burden both in tax take and in accepting the climate criminal mark.
Thank you for your carefully reasoned critique. It is a sign of our times that the main stream press is unwilling to be honest and choses to be politically correct.
JMW on 11 Dec 2009 at 8:44 am #
After reading many commentary articles on global warming, I have come to the conclusion that money drives many men and women to concede to desparate ideals. You are either motivated in part by money or selfless inspiration. As well, I believe that most people overlook the truth that scientific strudy must be broken down into two categories: Theory and Fact. We also have to understand that many Theories have been spoken so often as Fact that the general public (like lambs to the slaughter) have swallowed Theory for Fact.
Consider Darwin’s “Theory of Evolution”. As I understand it today, it is still a Theory. Only a Theory. One possibility. Global warming is a consensus of a Theory. “Henny Penny, the sky is falling. The sky is falling!” People are generally lazy and don’t take time to find the truth for themselves. They will believe whole heartedly the popular ideals of the few, rather than use their grey cells to discern facts or theory for what they are.
Scientists and doctors are not gods or even demi-gods for all their knowledge. We all have the capacity to think critically and come to conclusions that are not motivated by greed. Maybe we should start thinking for ourselves and work out those little grey cells for all they’re worth.
BTH on 16 Dec 2009 at 2:30 pm #
I agree that the scientific consensus can be wrong (as many people have pointed out). However, I hesitate to trust an ex-journalist who is now a professor of English when it comes to climate science. Certainly we can all think for ourselves and interpret data using logical principles but we must be careful about drawing conclusions based on partial evidence (such as the world temperature plot Mr. MacRae uses in his article “Glimmer of hope for consensus climate honesty is short-lived” which only includes 10 years of readings). My point here is not to debate the issue itself since I am not an expert on climate science. Rather, I take issue with Mr. MacRae’s approach to scientific debate.
Anyone who disagrees with the current scientific consensus on climate change should do what any other dissenting scientist would do: publish in a scientific journal–not write a book for the popular press! One may try to argue that the entire scientific community is biased and that no journal would ever accept a dissenting viewpoint. That simply is not true–dissenting views are published all the time. Only three criteria must be fulfilled: the evidence must be 1) clear 2) convincing and 3) novel. I challenge all who bad-mouth climate scientists to publish dissenting journal articles. If the evidence against climate change is so “obvious” and “logical,” this exercise should be exceedingly simple.
Paul MacRae on 16 Dec 2009 at 3:25 pm #
BTH,
You make good points. In general, I find it puzzling that I can’t find any empirical evidence in support of consensus climate science claims. I’ve been trying for more than two years and can report that, outside of the models, there isn’t a scrap of evidence supporting the idea that humans are the primary source of global warming. (Note that nobody is accusing humans of global cooling, so I’m also puzzled as to why the term “climate change” has come into use; why not just call it “warming”? Oh, yes, because the planet isn’t warming.)
However, given that I’m not a scientist (but, then, neither is Al Gore) and have been a journalist, it seems to be me legitimate to use my journalistic and academic skills to do what good journalists do are supposed to do: investigate official claims to see if they are valid. That’s what journalists like Jeffrey Simpson are doing, and they’re not publishing in scientific journals.
Here’s what I found when I did some due diligence: The consensus climate science claims are based on computer models. Those models use formulas for the amount of warming produced by increments of CO2. As far as I can tell from the actual climate facts–no warming for a decade–those formulas are wrong. That is, they predict more warming than actually occurs.
This isn’t surprising since CO2 and temperature are related logarithmically. That is, X amount of CO2 produces Y amount of warming. If you double X, however, you only get half the warming. If you double X again, you get only half the warming of the previous Y. After three or four doublings of X, the temperature increase becomes, effectively, zero. There is a lot of evidence, such as the fact that the planet isn’t currently warming, to indicate that we’ve reached that point, and probably did so at about 200 ppm. Extra amounts of CO2 will, therefore, produce very little warming. I could be wrong, but that’s where the physics of CO2 points, and that’s what the empirical evidence points to at the moment (no warming for a decade while CO2 continues to increase). Which do you want to go with, the facts or the theory?
Why does consensus climate science continue to push human-caused warming as the main driver of climate in the face of the evidence? My best guess is politics and environmentalist ideology. As the CRU affair shows, top climate scientists are simply ignoring or, worse, trying to bury evidence that contradicts the AGW hypothesis because they believe they are saving the planet. This is a very dangerous position for a scientist to take because it substitutes values for facts. In other words, much of climate science has become more religion than science. Also, the AGW hypothesis is a scientific paradigm that’s become politically charged. To admit it’s wrong means a loss of face that a scientist might be willing to accept but that a politician (and many climate scientists are, now, in effect, politicians) cannot.
Of course, I could be wrong, but I felt it my duty to point out, as much as I can while wearing my journalist hat, but with academic rigor (the facts in my book are carefully cited so readers can check them), that there is more than one side to climate science. After that, the public–the people who will be paying the huge climate bills that the scientists would like us to pay–can make an informed opinion based on a range of facts, not just those that the human-caused warming believers wish us to know.
By the way, I appreciate you taking the time to write.
Robin Edwards on 12 Mar 2010 at 7:43 am #
Just discovered your site, Paul, and am enjoying reading it. I used to be a scientist (industrial) and learned the hard way that in the real world it is essential to pay full regard to facts. Not doing so generates enormous problems, and is currently seen to be doing so as we all get dragged into funding gigantic schemes that are based on theories that have never been verified. Since “discovering” climate, about 16 years ago I have long known that it is unwise (to say the least) to believe what one reads, sees or hears in this field unless the numerical “FACTS” are freely available and published. We now also know that some “facts” as released by some scientists are not necessarily reliable. Some may have been invented, others chosen selectively to support a cherished idea, others misquoted or in error for typographical reasons. However, I recommend that anyone commenting on climate affairs be prepared to access the original data (so far as is possible now that significant portions have been discarded or lost) and to draw their own conclusions. Do not believe the smoothed curves or bar plots that politicians (and journalists?) find so attractive. The real world is not like that. Attempted simplification can and does produce profound errors. Always be alert and prepared to be sceptical. Unfortunately I am too old to expect to be able to see the total demise of the AGW theories. My guess is that it will take another 15 years before almost all politicians and most “scientists” will be forced to admit to being part of the greatest scam yet perpetrated by humankind.
Robin
Scott on 29 Apr 2010 at 4:41 pm #
You are doing some amazing work here Paul, don’t let the Kool aid drinkers get you down.
Regarding those that are saying “Oh, we are polluting the earth anyways, so whether or not global warming is happening, doesn’t matter” couldn’t be more wrong. Would you have heart surgery for brain cancer? Better yet, would you pay a million dollars to have heart surgery for your brain cancer?
The point is that those that insist MMGW is happening refuse to debate or look at evidence to the contrary. Why not?
DMX on 29 May 2010 at 7:47 pm #
“Consider Darwin’s “Theory of Evolution”. As I understand it today, it is still a Theory. Only a Theory. ”
No, at least that much has been conclusively proven. A theory becomes a fact when it can be demonstrated conclusively. We can do that with evolution (You can actually watch it in action with cell cultures) , so we know its very real despite the bizare and angry protestations of the evangelical right.
J Mailhiot on 18 Jul 2010 at 6:21 pm #
English professors have no basis to speak about climate change, much less talk on television about it. Listen to the climatologists, not this guy.
Paul MacRae on 19 Jul 2010 at 11:29 am #
J. Mailhiot:
How far are you willing to extend this? I’m also an ex-journalist–should journalists also not be allowed to write about climate change because they aren’t climatologists? In other words, the only people who can write about climatology are climatologists?
Just curious….
Michael Snow on 22 Jul 2010 at 7:29 am #
Yes, “listen to the climatologists” like IPCC lead author John Christy and Richard Lindzen of MIT. And allow investigative reporters to report what they find.
Dr. Richard Lindzen, served on IPCC: “”One of the things the scientific community is pretty agreed on is those things [carbon caps] will have virtually no impact on climate no matter what the models say. So the question is do you spend trillions of dollars to have no impact? And that seems like a no brainer.”
Dr. John R. Christy, Professor of Atmospheric Science and Director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama–Huntsville: [comments from debate on 11 Feb., 2009]: –Our ignorance about the climate system is enormous, and policy makers need to know that. This is an extremely complex system, and thinking we can control it is hubris. [THIS is the most important fact of the whole issue.]
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/lindzen_heartland_2010.pdf
The ignorance displayed in some comments here is astounding. CO2 is ‘pollution”? REAL pollution is ignored while Al Gore and his Goldman Sachs partner seek to become the world’s first carbon billionaires.
Michelle on 09 Dec 2010 at 9:30 am #
Let me get this right. You think that during 2 years of your research you now know enough about climatology to refute decades of independent research by thousands of climate scientists? The people you’re refuting have dedicated their entire lives to the disciplines of physics, chemistry, biology, geology, climatology, biogeochemistry… I could go on. You have a background in journalism. How can you be so arrogant to honestly think that in two years you have enough information and understanding of all those subjects to refute their work?
Arrogance, plain and simple. It is perfectly fine to beg questions from these people, because that is what science is all about… asking questions, looking for answers to holes or misunderstandings in the data. But to boast here that everything we’ve been told is wrong (about anything for that matter, not just climate change), is just plain arrogant and irresponsible journalism.
Paul MacRae on 09 Dec 2010 at 10:26 am #
Michelle,
Let me get this right. I’m a journalist (or ex-journalist). I don’t claim to be a scientist. So, for my book, I read what many scientists had to say from many disciplines, including physics, chemistry, biology, climatology, etc. And what I discovered was that much of what the public is told about climate is simply false or exaggerated or misleading. For example, are we facing “oblivion” if the temperature rises 2°C and CO2 levels double, as UN president Ban Ki-Moon told the Bali climate conference in 2007? How could that be given that for most of the past 600 million years, the planet has been much warmer than today, with much higher levels of carbon dioxide than today? Yet somehow dinosaurs and mammals evolved and flourished. So the “oblivion” thing is an outright falsehood, yet not one of the hundreds of climate scientists at that conference had the intellectual courage to correct Ban.
There are many more of these misleading climatological fictions, which I document in my book.
I’ve done two years of research into this issue. How much have you done, Michelle? Or are you just repeating what you’ve been told by the “authorities”? And, before you criticize me for poor research, shouldn’t you read the book, first, so you know what you are criticizing?
Authorities can be wrong. As recently as 50 years ago, the scientific “consensus” was that the continents didn’t move. As recently as 30 years ago, no one believed that catastrophes could affect evolution (Darwin was a uniformitarian; small, gradual changes cause evolutionary changes, which is true, but catastrophism is also a major player in evolution).
I read a comment by a medical school professor a while ago that impressed me. He said he told his students: “Half of what I teach you will be proven wrong. The problem is, I don’t know which half.” On climate as with everything else, it’s best to keep an open, but skeptical, mind. And take a very long look before leaping into anti-carbon economic policies that could be more disastrous than the so-called climate “oblivion.”
Deqaf on 05 Feb 2011 at 5:15 pm #
As a former CanWest journalist, I find MacRae’s writing on this topic refreshing. For too long journalists have adopted a defensive posture on global-warming and climate change, prostrating themselves at the feet of the climate-change demigods and smearing anyone who dares raise a skeptical brow.
This isn’t to offer a statement on climate-change at all, but to point out that MacRae is right about media failing to maintain neutrality and an attitude of intellectual inquiry on this topic.
tuxair on 17 May 2011 at 11:01 am #
Hi, I trained in geology, geography and environmental science at the University of Texas and CU-Denver. Paul is reporting the same things I have been saying since I was in school more than 25 years ago. I am very happy to find this site and I hope to further this discussion here and on my own forum.
I am in an interesting position of being in the geology field where people know that the earth has a very long history and take it in stride, and also having been trained in geography, which takes a more short-term social approach.
But I will say one thing, whether you believe it’s arthrogenic or not, understand that people are not as powerful as they percieve themselves to be. Good old Mother Earth has dished out some things that would more than curl your hair–and she doesn’t care. Anything you can think of has been worse in the past. Of course we couldn’t have lived in that past. But this is minor and even if it does warm up as much as they say–we are very adaptable.
What needs our attention is a defined space program that puts us back on the moon and then to other planets. I do not see the current administration addressing these goals. Another thing we need to get involved in is retiring the nuclear power plants and using other sources for electricity. I was absolutely disgusted when this stupid thing about climate made nuclear reactors more viable! What!?
These things, I believe, are very important for the future of the world.
Stephen Bolwell on 17 Jul 2011 at 1:13 pm #
Mr. MacRae is right about one thing. He isn’t a scientist, he is a journalist. ‘False Alarm’ is full of holes and if you must read this book – get a copy from the library – don’t buy it. Certainly, there is no harm in pointing out that we face other problems besides global warming, in particular over-population by one species in particular. But, to suggest that ‘if’ global warming is occurring, then man has nothing to do with it, is either mischievous or stupid. We have consistently modified our natural environments dramatically over short periods of time and this has had consequences climatically. Chop down a forest and ambient temperatures will change, slopes will erode and local weather patterns will alter. Even when we create gardens we make differences by forming micro-environments and when we add chemicals we cause even further changes. If we can do this in very small ways, then why is it so difficult to accept that we are doing so on a larger scale. Certainly releasing carbon into the atmosphere in large quantities should not be regarded as inconsequential. It is true that we can presently do little about volcanos and other natural disasters, but if our behaviour is likely to hasten global warming, or ice-age conditions – whatever it might be, then we should tread carefully. If the scientific community has reason to believe that there is a potential problem, then we should consider the problem seriously and not pay too much attention to a book full of grasshopper brained thinking, which often takes two ideas together and then confuses them, like using the existence of black and white swans to demonstrate a scientific point. Sure, if you see a black mute swan Cygnus olor on a lake in Europe then you might want to consider the significance seriously (perhaps look at the possibility of melanism and take a look at the MC1R locus of this species of swan if you are an evolutionary biologist) – at the very least, take the situation seriously. However, if you see a completely different species, say an Australian Black Swan Cygnus atratus, on the same lake, then you might come to a different and more rapid conclusion; but in order to do so you have to know one kind of swan from another and broadly speaking, I’m not sure Paul MacRae does, and that is the real problem with taking this book seriously.
John Bell on 19 Oct 2011 at 6:39 am #
Paul, great web site! I agree with you. I think that if Sherlock Holmes commented on GW, then he would say, “Be careful not to twist facts to suit theories, but rather twist theories to suit facts.” Al Gore has twisted facts to suit his theories.
I think the GW scare machine is cooling off, the media seem to be losing interest.
GW claims remind me of Irving Langmuir’s description of Pathological Science, which are;
The maximum effect that is observed is produced by a causative agent of barely detectable intensity, and the magnitude of the effect is substantially independent of the intensity of the cause.
The effect is of a magnitude that remains close to the limit of detectability, or many measurements are necessary because of the very low statistical significance of the results.
There are claims of great accuracy.
Fantastic theories contrary to experience are suggested.
Criticisms are met by ad hoc excuses.
The ratio of supporters to critics rises and then falls gradually to oblivion.
Pathological science, as defined by Langmuir, is a psychological process in which a scientist, originally conforming to the scientific method, unconsciously veers from that method, and begins a pathological process of wishful data interpretation.
Greg on 24 Oct 2011 at 7:59 pm #
Paul,
A few quick notes on some of your scientific points:
1) When talking about climate, you must talk about changes on the scales of millenia – not decades. Weather can flucuate from year to year so it’s completely unreasonable to say global warming is wrong because there’s been a cooling trend during the last 10 years. The sample size is too small and your argument is flawed.
2) I agree – climate is determined by natural causes. HOWEVER, humans (largely anthropogenic CO2) can easily perturb climate to be several degrees warmer over ~100 years. Yes, several degrees may not seem like a lot, but on the timescale it’s exceedingly fast. It will be too fast for humankind to react with regards to drastic changes in weather pattern and landscape (which affects farming, land use, etc…). It won’t be an apocalyptic nightmare that wipes out humankind, but it is something we should avoid.
3) The CO2 concentration and warming potential isn’t strictly logarithmic. “Adding three or four doublings of X” will NOT cause a negligible temperature increase. CO2 concentrations are set to hit ~700ppm (give or take) by 2100 and the GWP for additional CO2 will NOT be negligible. Please contact me if you wish for more detail.
4) Life can thrive in temperatures several degress higher. BUT, the RATE at which anthropogenic CO2 will take us there will be detrimental for humankind.
5) Saying models are “biased” or “wrong” isn’t proper scientific evidence. Models are the way to only way to guage climate change in advance. Please provide scientific evidence refuting current climate models.
The longer we wait to take action, the less effective said action will be.
I am eager to hear a response.
Cheers,
-Greg
Jim Baird on 26 Jan 2012 at 7:04 pm #
Paul, January 24 you wrote to the Times Colonist in response to my OpEd on the Northern Gateway that I was wrong on the facts.
According to you the oceans have not warmed for most of the past decade.
Research, published January 23, in Nature Geoscience refutes your statement. The so called “missing heat” isn’t missing, after all.
Second you pointed out that I offered no details as to cost, which is true. Not that the data isn’t available, the editorial constraints of the TC simply prevented me from showing that Deepwater Structures Inc. of Houston, now operating as OTECPOWER, offers a 100 MW design that uses a deepwater condenser similar to GWMM OTEC but without the counter-current heat return – for $450 million USD.
The projected cost of the 900 megawatts Site C Dam is $8 billion.
OTEC is therefore 45 percent of the cost of the local hydro project and can provide your choice of electricity, hydrogen, ammonia or methanol to power your car.
At a conference on Enhanced Ocean Upwelling last month, Gerard Nihous of the Hawaii Natural Energy Institute, University of Hawaii, ventured the maximum possible number of 100 MW OTEC power plants capable of being supported by our oceans is half a million. (Note: the post says half a million 100 MW plants produces 25 terawatts of power whereas it seems to me the math points to 50 terawatts.)
Five years ago, in a study A Preliminary Assessment of Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion Resources Nihous concluded 5 terrawatts was the maximum steady state electrical potential of the oceans.
It is my belief the additional 45 or (25) terawatts – currently the global annual use of primary energy from all sources is 15 terawatts -is attributable to the OTEC Counter-current Heat Transfer System, for which a Canadian patent application was filed March 16, 2011.
Deepwater Structures Inc of Houston, Texas, system with out counter-current return would be limited to producing 5 terrawatts in accordance with Nihous’ 2007 assessment.
With international patent protection for which I am struggling to raise the funding by the deadline of March 16, this province would be able to capitalize on the opportunity to export technology capable of producing over 55,000 Site C equivalents of sustainable power.
The conclusion of Patrick Takahashi, Director Emeritus of the Hawaii Natural Energy Institute following the “Upwelling” conference was; OTEC could be the only sustainable option in this century to provide energy and resources for the world.
If we don’t provide this sustainable and affordable energy, someone else will be happy to.
paulmacrae on 27 Jan 2012 at 12:01 pm #
Jim,
First, if OTEC is financially feasible, great! Most of the other alternative energies have proven to be too expensive compared to fossil fuels, at least for the moment. England, for example, is rethinking wind farms because they are much more costly than fossil fuels, and even created something they call “fuel poverty”–people who can’t afford their power bills. The same has been true of solar power, which has been a huge boondoggle in places like Ontario. Vast sums spent, little actual usable power, and rapidly increasing electricity bills for consumers, all due to (in my view, unfounded) fears of carbon-caused global warming.
Whether OTEC works and fighting global warming are, in my view, separate issues. There are many reasons for seeking efficient alternative sources of energy, and I’ve said so many times in my book and elsewhere, but climate is not one of those reasons. I don’t expect everyone to agree with my views, but they are based on years of research. I will add that at least you were able to get an oped into the TC. The TC has a policy of not allowing opeds by critics of global warming theory, although they’ve published a few of my letters. My articles have been rejected. So much for freedom of the press.
As for the “warming oceans.” You stated in your article that 95 per cent of the heat from carbon-caused warming was going into the “upper oceans.” I quoted a press release from the British Meteorological Office, which is affiliated with the Hadley Institute and the Climatic Research Unit (CRU), stating that there had been no warming in the upper oceans since 2003. You’ve got an article from National Geoscience saying the opposite. Who to believe?.
The Met Office, Hadley and CRU are all passionate supporters of global warming theory. Admitting they’ve been wrong in claiming that oceans have warmed in the past decade can’t have been easy for them. The Argo project is also, as I understand it, showing no warming over the past few years. It may well be that the heat is going into the deeper oceans, but that’s not what you said in your oped, so I stand by what I said in my letter.
That said, I appreciate you taking the time to write, and I wish you well with the OTEC project. I hope it is a viable source of energy and if it also reduces global warming, so much the better.
joe on 18 Feb 2012 at 12:53 am #
Almost every point Paul McRae has made here, and in his book, is a regurgitation of old, worn out climate skeptic mantras. The vast majority of these misconceptions and/or lies has been shown to be false in the peer-reviewed scientific literature at some point (as documented in an accessible way, for instance, at http://www.skepticalscience.com).
Paul, when making some banal point about past climate change, or CO2 saturation, etc, do you really think that the thousands of ACTUAL trained climate scientists have failed to consider these points? (Like oh really, we never considered it could be the sun?). Maybe one or two have, but not the entire community.
It strikes me as appalling arrogance for you to swan in and claim that you know better than the people who have PhD level-training and thousands of thought-hours invested in understanding the climate system. Are you just smarter than all those scientists? Why should anyone believe you?
joe on 18 Feb 2012 at 1:33 am #
I’m not just making an argument from authority. I don’t claim that you need a climate science qualification to enter the debate. I’m stating that the majority of your arguments and “facts” have clearly been shown to be false, yet you keep on regurgitating them, which is not in the spirit of science. For one example, your site prominently claims that the world has not warmed since 1997. But this is blatantly false: every major temperature record shows a warming trend since 1997.
Why do you persist with these sorts of false claims?
paulmacrae on 06 Apr 2012 at 1:00 pm #
Joe,
Sorry to be so late in responding. I’m baffled as to where you are getting your information on the temperatures since 1997. Have a look at some of my posts, including “Decade of Deception.” The graph there uses the data from the four major climate monitoring agencies. GISS shows some warming. The others are basically flat. And, if you’ve been following the discussion, and particularly the climategate emails, you’ll know that alarmist climate science has been in a flap over the lack of warming since at least 2005 and is making desperate attempts to explain it (away). Seriously, where are you getting your information?
Alexander on 02 May 2012 at 5:13 pm #
Ha, fun to watch mr macrae defeat all your argunments in these comments.
I am reading his book, great stuff. None of these comments seem to refute the book (likely never read it). They claim global warming has data, well not outside of computer data. I think this is empirical data (other then your book)
http://www.paulmacrae.com/?page_id=99
Anyway, global warming is a hoax, temperatures are falling, and colds worse then hot. Heat = better! Sure, we lose polar bears, but other things evolve to that. That’s also when mammals ruled the earth.
Anyway, great site and book. You need more praise then bully comments (like some of these on here). BEING A SCIENTIST IS NOT A PRE REQUISITE FOR BEING 100% CORRECT ON GLOBAL WARMING.
All commenters visit this: http://www.paulmacrae.com/?page_id=124
Good luck Sir, I convinced three people today to buy your book. 🙂
JamesG on 18 Jun 2012 at 2:26 pm #
Your fact about it being as warm in the 30’s is only true in the US and in the Arctic, not globally. This is a serious error and enough of an excuse for uncommitted folk to dismiss the rest. You can make an argument about those areas having the best coverage but the accepted truth, even by skeptics, that the world has been warming up steadily since the little ice age. Sure the global data is iffy but that’s another issue.
Incidentally, I hold it more important that the stratosphere has not cooled since 1995 because stratospheric cooling is supposed to be the one true fingerprint of global warming as written by the IPCC and it is currently downright missing. Sure they have several pathetic excuses as to why it is missing but as it currently stands, by their own stated test, the hypothesis is disproven. But if you have spent 25 years teaching thermageddon it is a bit difficult to admit you wasted your career on a myth so they ignore the flat part since 1995 and just mention the cooling bit before that.
Simon on 20 Aug 2012 at 11:20 am #
Goodday Mr MacRae,
In chapter one of your book, you put a reference (# 33) to a website page of Environment Canada regarding human contribution to CO2, that does not seem to exist.
Any other reference to support the 2% human contribution to CO2?
Thank you,
Simon
paulmacrae on 07 Sep 2012 at 4:44 pm #
Simon,
Sorry to be so long in getting back to you. I didn’t make it up–there was a posting on Env Can with 2%, which I included more as the lower end of the estimates (and they are all estimates), although I think it’s low. Most authorities think the human contribution of CO2 per year is 4-5%.
Hope this answers your question and, again, my apologies for such a tardy response.
Paul
ward zumsteg on 15 Oct 2012 at 2:13 pm #
I bought your book and am using it as a basic book to talk to my friends about looking at GW from a scientific aspect. I am a graduate of UCLA in geology, back in 1966, when plate tectonics was really just starting to become part of the basics, but I never worked in the field. What really got me restarted in the GW area was reading a book by Lisa Randall (Knocking on Heaven’s Door) which talked about scale, and it made me realize how ridiculous it is to be looking at 30 or 40 years worth of information.
What is your take on the GSA’s endorsement of GW by humans in their basic statement that was issued in the last couple of years
Georgia Horrocks on 11 Jun 2013 at 7:26 am #
Mr MacRae,
I thoroughly enjoyed reading your blog and wanted to recommend to you ‘The Age of Global Warming: A History’ by Rupert Darwall. I think this may be of interest to both you and your readers as it makes a compelling argument regarding the political implications of ‘global warming’ that your blog similarly focuses on. Darwall draws on history and science in order to expose the exaggerations of climate change and what he calls the ‘Global Warming Policy Paradox’; the assessment of whether proposed solutions are even effective.
Georgia
Michael on 24 Jul 2013 at 9:29 pm #
Kelly. Your claim that “97% of them agree man-made climate change is real” is what’s known as argumentum ad populum which is “The basic idea is that a claim is accepted as being true simply because most people are favorably inclined towards the claim. More formally, the fact that most people have favorable emotions associated with the claim is substituted in place of actual evidence for the claim. A person falls prey to this fallacy if he accepts a claim as being true simply because most other people approve of the claim.
It is clearly fallacious to accept the approval of the
majority as evidence for a claim. For example, suppose that a skilled speaker managed to get most people to absolutely love the claim that 1+1=3. It would still not be rational to accept this claim simply because most people approved of it.
After all, mere approval is no substitute for a mathematical proof. At one time people approved of claims such as “the world is flat”, “humans cannot survive at speeds greater than 25 miles per hour”, “the sun revolves around the earth”but all these claims turned out to be false.
This sort of “reasoning” is quite common and can be quite an effective persuasive device. Since most humans tend to conform with the views of the majority, convincing a person that the majority approves of a claim is often an effective way to get him to accept it. Advertisers often use this tactic when they attempt to sell products by claiming that everyone uses and loves their products. In such cases they hope that people will accept the (purported) approval of others as a good reason to buy the product.The consensus argument is a weak one. History is replete with examples of past consensus’ that have proven to be wrong. This consensus argument revolves around something called the Duran Survey. Thousands of questionnaires sent out to scientists and only 77 were returned, and 95 percent of that responded that humans are causing climate change. Not exactly a large sample rate. Just exactly how is oil money tainted and dirty, but government money is pure as the wind driven snow? I’ll take anyone’s money as long as they don’t tell me what to conclude.