Make a Difference

Day: September 28, 2013

Climate Debate Confusion

There seems to be a large dose of confusion in some circles as to what the climate change debate is really about.

Firstly, no one doubts that climate change is happening. The climate is in constant flux. Temperatures are up and down like, well, the Assyrian Empire.


Secondly, there is no doubt human activity has some impact on climate, at least at a local level. The Urban Heat Island effect is one obvious example, and we also know that changes in land use can change local rain and snowfall patterns.

Third, there is substantial agreement that so-called greenhouse gasses are responsible for retaining sufficient of the heat from the sun to enable the earth’s temperature to stabilise at an average just over the melting point of H2O.

Substantial, not compete agreement on that point. Some scientists believe the chemical composition of the atmosphere has very little to do with temperature, and that warmth at lower levels of the atmosphere is a product of pressure. The same way a bicycle pump heats up when you use it.

There is also general agreement that doubling the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere to about 700ppm would result in an increase of about 1 degree Celsius in total.

This mild warming would occur mostly in cooler parts of the world and mostly at night. It would have very little if any negative impact, and combined with the positive impact of increased CO2 (current levels are so low that they almost at starvation point for most plants) which include increased crop yields and resilience, increased forest growth and reduced desertification, would likely be a very good thing.

So what’s the problem?

The problem is the assumption that slightly increased CO2 would result in increased water vapour in the atmosphere, and that this increased water vapour would produce a run away warming effect, raising temperatures by much more than for CO2 alone.

In reality (much abused and ignored!) increased water vapour produces increased cloud cover, which has a cooling effect.

The large temperature increase from increased water vapour is a guess. Various levels of guesses have been programmed into computer climate models used by the IPCC and others. None of them produces results which match reality.


Thousands of scientists from around the world have been saying for years that this is a perfect example of GIGO – garbage in, garbage out, that the amplification effect of water vapour is much milder than that inputted into the models, or doesn’t exist at all, or is negative – that is, that increased water vapour is cooling rather than warming.

In Australia this includes Professor Ian Plimer, Professor Robert Carter, David Evans, and Murray Salby. There are many, many others, whose peer reviewed work is summarised in the work of the NIPCC (the Non-governmental International Panel on Climate Change).

Climate alarmism is a mixture of zombie science, profiteering and scams, and a failure of leadership in journalistic, scientific, and political circles. It is the worst and most expensive scientific fraud ever perpetrated.

8tracks ..

Just discovered this wonderful little app. If you have a Windows, Android or IOS based device, you can download and listen to music mixes compiled by people from anywhere in the world. Just search for 8tracks in the app store. It’s free.

Many of them are just brilliant. If you have a PC you can log in to the 8tracks site and create and share your own compilations.

The search facility is confusing, and you cannot access a list of tracks in each 8tracks mix. But it is still doubleplus good.

Dishonest or Incompetent ..?

Emma Alberici and Julian Burnside must have read the same strategy book, one in which distorting your opponents’ views and values is perfectly acceptable.

What Tony Abbott actually said:

The last thing anyone should want is to have Australia’s relationship with Indonesia defined by this boats issue, which I am sure will be but a passing irritant.

What the ABC’s Emma Alberici, interviewing the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, says Abbott said:

How do you feel about a world leader describing asylum seekers as “irritants”?

What the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights dutifully replies:

I am appalled.

As should we all be, but not with Tony Abbott.


The Nastiness of the Compassionate Elite …

I am often horrified by the easy assumption of moral superiority made by people on the green/left side of politics.

It is as if they are so sure that they are intellectually and morally superior that it never occurs to them that they should actually check what the people they think they disagree with are actually saying, or planning, and why.

They live in a kind of bubble, where they only listen to one another. I guess they just think other people are stupid, or ignorant, or motivated by fear, or just evil, so why bother listening to them or trying find out why they think the way they do?

But Christians especially should resist this temptation to judge others, and to attribute evil motives to others, even politicians!

Most politicians, even those I disagree with, are decent people who want to make the world a better place. I wish some of them were better informed, or would work at implementing policies which actually work, instead those they simply think should work. But most of them are still good people.

This is a worthwhile thought: We are all capable of good and bad. To see or assume only the bad is cynicism; it is not fully human; and it is a condition of mind which the Christian is thus called to resist.

© 2024 Qohel