I believe that, in the future, when people look back at the history of current decades, they will wonder how a sophisticated, technological society could be so misled by proponents of human-induced climate change, when so much scientific evidence is available to show that clear logical alternatives are available to the hysterical incantations of the doom-and-gloom cult.
It is actually fascinating to watch global climate change science being mixed into the extreme green emotional blender to such an extent that the truth becomes passing fragments in the swirl of emotional and distorted public discourse.
Against this background, it is necessary to stand back and pick out the truth and form a coherent picture that stands the scrutiny of correct scientific assessment. Correct scientific assessment was pioneered by people such as Sir Isaac Newton. The process has a long history, and is composed of well-defined protocols.
In the midst of the climate debate of confusion and counterclaim, painfully few members of the public stop to ask for the real credentials of the people making dramatic public statements that seem to be scientific.
Prior to the well-known climate conference in Copenhagen, Denmark, then British Prime Minister Gordon Brown made a dramatic speech in which he said that mankind had 50 days to save the world. He was looking for political points rather than scientific truth, just as some of Sir Isaac Newton’s detractors were over 400 years ago.
In a speech delivered in October 2009, Brown said: “But the threat is not confined to the developing world. The extraordinary summer heat wave of 2003 in Europe resulted in over 35 000 extra deaths. On current trends, such an event could become quite routine in Britain in just a few decades’ time. And within the lifetime of our children and grandchildren, the intense temperatures of 2003 could become the average temperature experienced throughout much of Europe. In Britain, we face the prospect of more frequent droughts and a rising wave of floods.”
So, why did he find it necessary to refer to the summer heat of 2003, when it was 2009? He said that the high temperatures of 2003 could become the norm in Britain “in just a few decades’ time”. He had no evidence for such a statement. In the meantime, Britain and Europe have had a couple of the coldest winters ever, with airports and roads being closed owing to record snowfalls.
As I write this article in South Africa, heading into our winter, I find that our temperatures are warmer than those of the UK, which is heading into summer. Brown’s predicted curve seems to be curving away from his prediction.
But I can now make a prediction with great confidence: within 200 days, the next United Nations (UN) environment conference, the seventeenth Conference of the Parties of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change will take place in Durban, South Africa, and considerable hot air will be produced by many humans at the conference.
In the mid-1970s, prestigious journals Time and Newsweek both predicted massive global cooling, and even featured covers showing a frozen planet covered in ice. Oops! That turned out to be a bad mistake. I wonder which members of their editorial teams are now kicking themselves for that blunder.
But the media continue to quote the green alarmists and to generally bypass the more stable element of the scientific community, who ask people to look at the real science. Newsweek, once bitten, twice shy, perhaps, is now taking a second look at the current global warming claims, and has said: “Some of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC’s) most-quoted data and recommendations were taken straight out of unchecked activist brochures, news- paper articles . . . Just as damaging, many climate scientists have responded to critiques by questioning the integrity of their critics, rather than by supplying data and reasoned arguments.”
Yes, personal attacks on people who dare to try to tell the truth are becoming common. The Climategate scandal showed just how bad this has become, but, sadly, much of the media brushed the Climategate revelations aside.
When overt manipulation of the data occurred, that was bad enough, but then these people went on to hatch plans to threaten and intimidate journal editors who attempted to publish the truth.
In 2007, I was part of an original group of 400 scientists, internationally, who were invited to sign a historic climate document of the US Senate. We said that the so-called ‘consensus’ that human-induced global warming is an established fact, potentially leading to the downfall of mankind, is just plain and simply not true and is not supported by scientific evidence. We were jumped on, but, interestingly, the document has now grown to over 1 000 qualified signatories, and can be found at http://www.climatedepot. com/a/9035/SPECIAL-REPORT-More-Than-1000-International-Scientists-Dissent-Over-ManMade-Global-Warming-Claims-Challenge-UN-IPCC-Gore
. Note that every signatory signs his or her name and clearly indicates where he or she comes from. The signatories can be found!
Many proponents of the alarmist cause sign no names, or make their affiliations so obscure that it is frequently difficult to actually find out who these people are. I wonder if Brown has a clear list of the various names and addresses of the people whose advice he used in 2009.
Well, let us see what comes out of Durban later this year.
Dr Kemm is a nuclear physicist and is the CEO of Stratek Business Strategy Consultants. He also sits on the board of advisers of the Committee for A Constructive Tomorrow, based in Washington DC - email@example.com