A
Al_Masetti
Guest
Sorry to be a pest. ILM had a second segment to his post last evening on www.climatechangedebate.org As I mentioned, you need to sign in and use your real name to read or post. So here is the second segment:
THE PRESTER JOHN EFFECT [756 words]
By ILM
In the 12th century, stories began circulating in Europe about Prester
John, a rich and powerful Christian king in the mysterious Muslim “Orient”.
Stories about his existence and efforts to contact him persisted for five
more centuries. This is the Prester John Effect - stories circulating
endlessly with nobody questioning the underlying reality.
The same Prester John Effect is still active today. But now the subject
is “global warming”.
Every day we are inundated with climate scare stories. We are told that
Arctic ice is going to disappear in five years, that the poor polar bears
will die out, and that the world is warming dangerously. It’s all, the alarmists
say, because of our emissions of carbon dioxide.
The reality? Arctic ice has returned to its normal extent and is
twice as thick as expected. Antarctic ice is the greatest since satellite
measurement began 30 years ago. Polar bear populations are healthy. The
oceans are slowly cooling, not warming. And most important - world climate
has been cooling for at least six years and stopped warming a decade ago.
Global warming just is not happening.
But the media tell us the opposite on a daily basis, that disaster
is just around the corner. They unquestioningly repeat information from
biased press releases. Nobody is checking facts. Perfect examples of the
Prester John Effect in action.
It is this dubious information that local columnists use as their
source material, along with the deceits in Gore’s error-packed “An
Inconvenient Truth”.
Examples?
Carl Duivenvoorden (April 20) made much of the shattering of the
Wilkins Ice Shelf in Antarctica as a supposed signal of global warming. A
little checking would reveal that the shelf is on the Antarctic Peninsula, a
long and narrow hook of land extending out of the Antarctic Circle toward
South America. The Peninsula is subject to strong tidal effects as well as
passing currents. The shelf broke up. It didn’t melt. It has done the same
many times before and will again. Continental Antarctica, on the other hand,
has been growing colder for decades.
And in his May 4 column, the same writer claimed, without
elaboration, that “…higher levels of CO2 mean a warmer planet”. This
could be true in theory at levels of hundredths, or even thousandths, of a
degree. But in the real world, an increase in CO2 concentration has
virtually zero effect on temperature (and climate). If CO2 level did drive
temperature, then global temperature should still be rising. But it is
dropping.
Peter J. Smith, in a column boldly titled “Climate debate ended
long ago” made the glib assertion that the debate about the cause of
“climate change” is “over”. First, let’s call it “global warming” and not
the weasel words “climate change”, for warming is the supposed danger. (Our
climate has warmed and cooled forever.) Unfortunately for Mr. Smith, the
facts contradict him. Despite strenuous efforts of warmists to stifle that
debate, it is active and getting stronger as more and more facts contradict
the warmist story. Large numbers of climate experts disbelieve the supposed
global warming but are afraid to speak out against the prevailing (and
ignorant) orthodoxy that CO2 is warming our climate. They want to keep their
jobs and funding. Nevertheless, thousands of people with science educations
have indicated that they do not accept the warmist story of climate
catastrophe.
We are told that there is a “scientific consensus” and that 2500
scientists put together the latest IPCC reports. The reality is that the
most important chapter was produced by only 67 people, almost all of whom
were political appointees with the agenda of “proving” global warming. Not
climate scientists. They cherry-picked information to promote their agenda.
Mr. Smith’s assertions are indicative of underlying problems:
incorrect and misleading information is in general circulation and
columnists use that misinformation with righteous certitude. The media then
carry their columns without checking facts. The Prester John Effect.
Furthermore, information in circulation may be years out of date, but it
gets repeated nevertheless. Recycling is good, but not this kind! Endless
repetition of misinformation does not make it true. It is no better than
rumors.
This isn’t just idle discussion. Our governments accept the IPCC reports
as fact and are planning to act on them. This means either tax-and-trade or
just outright limits on CO2 emissions. Since our economy is built on energy,
and much of that energy will continue to come from carbon-based fuels, any
IPCC-based legislation will impoverish us for no useful purpose. Companies
don’t pay taxes. We, their customers, do.
ILM has a wide knowledge of science from two degrees in chemical engineering, and has spent more than 2500 hours researching climate. He has given several public talks on the subject. By establishing Climate Truth Initiative, he is attempting to bring rationality
and science to the discussion of climate.
THE PRESTER JOHN EFFECT [756 words]
By ILM
In the 12th century, stories began circulating in Europe about Prester
John, a rich and powerful Christian king in the mysterious Muslim “Orient”.
Stories about his existence and efforts to contact him persisted for five
more centuries. This is the Prester John Effect - stories circulating
endlessly with nobody questioning the underlying reality.
The same Prester John Effect is still active today. But now the subject
is “global warming”.
Every day we are inundated with climate scare stories. We are told that
Arctic ice is going to disappear in five years, that the poor polar bears
will die out, and that the world is warming dangerously. It’s all, the alarmists
say, because of our emissions of carbon dioxide.
The reality? Arctic ice has returned to its normal extent and is
twice as thick as expected. Antarctic ice is the greatest since satellite
measurement began 30 years ago. Polar bear populations are healthy. The
oceans are slowly cooling, not warming. And most important - world climate
has been cooling for at least six years and stopped warming a decade ago.
Global warming just is not happening.
But the media tell us the opposite on a daily basis, that disaster
is just around the corner. They unquestioningly repeat information from
biased press releases. Nobody is checking facts. Perfect examples of the
Prester John Effect in action.
It is this dubious information that local columnists use as their
source material, along with the deceits in Gore’s error-packed “An
Inconvenient Truth”.
Examples?
Carl Duivenvoorden (April 20) made much of the shattering of the
Wilkins Ice Shelf in Antarctica as a supposed signal of global warming. A
little checking would reveal that the shelf is on the Antarctic Peninsula, a
long and narrow hook of land extending out of the Antarctic Circle toward
South America. The Peninsula is subject to strong tidal effects as well as
passing currents. The shelf broke up. It didn’t melt. It has done the same
many times before and will again. Continental Antarctica, on the other hand,
has been growing colder for decades.
And in his May 4 column, the same writer claimed, without
elaboration, that “…higher levels of CO2 mean a warmer planet”. This
could be true in theory at levels of hundredths, or even thousandths, of a
degree. But in the real world, an increase in CO2 concentration has
virtually zero effect on temperature (and climate). If CO2 level did drive
temperature, then global temperature should still be rising. But it is
dropping.
Peter J. Smith, in a column boldly titled “Climate debate ended
long ago” made the glib assertion that the debate about the cause of
“climate change” is “over”. First, let’s call it “global warming” and not
the weasel words “climate change”, for warming is the supposed danger. (Our
climate has warmed and cooled forever.) Unfortunately for Mr. Smith, the
facts contradict him. Despite strenuous efforts of warmists to stifle that
debate, it is active and getting stronger as more and more facts contradict
the warmist story. Large numbers of climate experts disbelieve the supposed
global warming but are afraid to speak out against the prevailing (and
ignorant) orthodoxy that CO2 is warming our climate. They want to keep their
jobs and funding. Nevertheless, thousands of people with science educations
have indicated that they do not accept the warmist story of climate
catastrophe.
We are told that there is a “scientific consensus” and that 2500
scientists put together the latest IPCC reports. The reality is that the
most important chapter was produced by only 67 people, almost all of whom
were political appointees with the agenda of “proving” global warming. Not
climate scientists. They cherry-picked information to promote their agenda.
Mr. Smith’s assertions are indicative of underlying problems:
incorrect and misleading information is in general circulation and
columnists use that misinformation with righteous certitude. The media then
carry their columns without checking facts. The Prester John Effect.
Furthermore, information in circulation may be years out of date, but it
gets repeated nevertheless. Recycling is good, but not this kind! Endless
repetition of misinformation does not make it true. It is no better than
rumors.
This isn’t just idle discussion. Our governments accept the IPCC reports
as fact and are planning to act on them. This means either tax-and-trade or
just outright limits on CO2 emissions. Since our economy is built on energy,
and much of that energy will continue to come from carbon-based fuels, any
IPCC-based legislation will impoverish us for no useful purpose. Companies
don’t pay taxes. We, their customers, do.
ILM has a wide knowledge of science from two degrees in chemical engineering, and has spent more than 2500 hours researching climate. He has given several public talks on the subject. By establishing Climate Truth Initiative, he is attempting to bring rationality
and science to the discussion of climate.
