The Sun and the Ocean Do Not Lie Al Gore Does

Email Print

The moves
now being made by the world’s political establishment to lock us
into December’s Copenhagen treaty to halt global warming are as
alarming as anything that has happened in our lifetimes. Last week
in Italy, the various branches of our emerging world government,
G8 and G20, agreed in principle that the world must by 2050 cut
its CO2 emissions in half. Britain and the US are already committed
to cutting their use of fossil fuels by more than 80 per cent. Short
of an unimaginable technological revolution, this could only be
achieved by closing down virtually all our economic activity: no
electricity, no transport, no industry. All this is being egged
on by a gigantic publicity machine, by the UN, by serried ranks
of government-funded scientists, by cheerleaders such as Al Gore,
last week comparing the fight against global warming to that against
Hitler’s Nazis, and by politicians who have no idea what they are
setting in train.

What makes
this even odder is that the runaway warming predicted by their computer
models simply isn’t happening. Last week one of the four official
sources of temperature measurement, compiled from satellite data
by the University of Huntsville, Alabama, showed that temperatures
have now fallen to their average level since satellite data began
30 years ago.

Faced with
a "consensus" view which looks increasingly implausible,
a fast-growing body of reputable scientists from many countries
has been coming up with a ”counter-consensus”, which holds that
their fellow scientists have been looking in wholly the wrong direction
to explain what is happening to the world’s climate. The two factors
which most plausibly explain what temperatures are actually doing
are fluctuations in the radiation of the sun and the related shifting
of ocean currents.

Two episodes
highlight the establishment’s alarm at the growing influence of
this ”counter consensus”. In March, the US Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA), which has a key role in President Obama’s plans to
curb CO2 emissions, asked one of its senior policy analysts, Alan
Carlin, to report on the science used to justify its policy. His
90-page paper recommended that the EPA carry out an independent
review of the science, because the CO2 theory was looking indefensible,
while the "counter consensus” view – solar radiation
and ocean currents – seemed to fit the data much better. Provoking
a considerable stir, Carlin’s report was stopped dead, on the grounds
that it was too late to raise objections to what was now the EPA’s
official policy.

Meanwhile a
remarkable drama has been unfolding in Australia, where the new
Labor government has belatedly joined the "consensus” bandwagon
by introducing a bill for an emissions-curbing "cap and trade”
scheme, which would devastate Australia’s economy, it being 80 per
cent dependent on coal. The bill still has to pass the Senate, which
is so precisely divided that the decisive vote next month may be
cast by an independent Senator, Stephen Fielding. So crucial is
his vote that the climate change minister, Penny Wong, agreed to
see him with his four advisers, all leading Australian scientists.

the rest of the article

17, 2009

Email Print