Sunday, 3 January 2016
Global warming and climate change are very real - unless you are staunchly sticking your head in the sand
That perennial verbal battle over the existence of climate change continued in The Daily Examiner letters section right up to the end of last year.
These views were published on 14, 17 and 23 December 2015 and, as usual Perring and Ibbotson didn't let little things like science and historical fact get in the way:
Ted's a believer
TED Strong is that fanatical, one-eyed believer in the IPCC version of anthropological causes for climate change who hails from up river and John Ibbotson is the more liberal-minded sceptic from the lower river with an open view on the science pertaining to IPCC modelling and its overall veracity.
Ted Strong would well know that the IPCC "bible" has been rewritten many times to cover up some of the more elaborate porkies put forward by many of the elite scientists.
I notice Ted Strong uses the words "almost and probably" when stating "almost every mainstream climate scientist on the planet" and, when addressing the matter of whether scientists can tell the difference between steam, smoke and CO2, he says, "I think they probably can".
That is typical, never a definite statement, always it's almost, probably, perhaps, maybe, could occur, may happen, appears to be, and so on.
Will there ever be a climate change disciple who will stand up on his hind legs and say the words, "I swear on my life that I am absolutely certain beyond all doubt that what the IPCC predicts is going to happen, will happen".
Move over Tim Flannery!
At last, after decades of procrastination, and despite the urging of Clarence Valley 'experts' who assure us climate change is a 'con', the Paris climate deal has been signed and delivered, giving us hope for a cleaner, more sustainable future.
Yet still the anti-climate change rubbish continues to be published on your letters to the editor page.
For example Fred Perring's letter (DE 14/12) harangues Ted Strong for his pro-climate change beliefs, describing him as a "fanatical one-eyed believer".
Coming from Fred, that gave many of us a good laugh, because anyone who has read Fred's on-going diatribes would have to put that comment in the "pot calling the kettle black" category.
Never have I encountered anyone as one-eyed and unwilling to accept a contrary opinion than Fred, with the possible exception of John Ibbotson, who Fred describes as a "more liberal-minded sceptic".
For several decades, thousands of climatologists, and scientists have contributed to the enormous body of evidence that now exists, warning us of the realities of climate change.
In Paris, the United Nations, the political leaders of more than 200 countries, and the leaders of the world's major religions, joined in accepting that scientific evidence, and have vowed to work together to clean up our collective act.
With that overwhelming endorsement of the science, we have to marvel at the egos of those who, with no relevant qualifications whatsoever, continue writing letters, not
only denying the reality of climate change, but ridiculing anyone asking that action be taken to reduce atmospheric pollution.
Who is denying reality?
Thank you John Edwards (17/12) for the compliment. Top of the class. Wow!
As Einstein once remarked that "No matter how great my theory is, if one person can demonstrate that it is wrong then it's back to square one."
Taking six of the AGW-green theories and see how they've stood up in practice:
The sea levels are going to rise 12 or 25 or 100m. So far they've risen about 0.25m in the last 150 years.
In Oz it's never going to rain again so we must build desalination plants. Oops. Lots of rain and floods and the dams are over flowing.
Get your kids to play in the snow because in 10 years there won't be any. Really!
The oceanic islands are going to be swamped resulting in 20,000,000 eco refugees. So far it has been found that most are stable or increasing in size, and number of accepted eco-refugees stands at zero.
That there will be worldwide famine because of all this CO2. Plants love CO2 and the world's food production continues to grow.
Temperature: The AGW folk rely on 100 computer models, based on green theory and CO2.
When compared to the actual satellite temperatures (which are hard to fiddle) 99% of the models can't get within two standard deviations of the actuals. In other words they're crap.
I could go on with more but you get the idea.
John, it would be appreciated if you could respond with some of the great AGW theories from years ago, which have actually been proven to be scientifically correct in practice. I won't hold my breath.
And John you obviously don't understand the difference between science, politics, religion and the power of money, which drives this AGW shemozzle.