Monday, June 11, 2007

MAIS SOBRE 'CLIMATOLOGIA'

NOVOS CONTESTATÁRIOS

http://www.melaniephillips.com:80/diary/?p=1547

e

RodLiddle:http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/rod_liddle/article1909925.ec

June 11, 2007

Reason fights back, again

What’s happening? That most endangered species Sanity, has now been spotted twice on the same day. In the Sunday Times, Rod Liddle observes:

The Washington Post recently quoted the following from a scientist speaking in 1972: ‘We simply cannot afford to gamble. We cannot risk inaction. The indications that our climate can soon change for the worse are too strong to be reasonably ignored.’ This chap, though, was talking about global cooling - which was the apocalyptic consensus 35 years ago. In the past 100 years or so the scientific consensus has twice held that the earth is definitely cooling (1895-1930 and then 1968-75) and twice that it is instead warming up (1930-60 and 1981 to the present). In almost every case it has been our fault and something has been needed to be done about it.

While Gerald Warner in Scotland on Sunday also tears into the, er, consensus:

Suppression of dissent is made necessary by the inconsistencies between the Greens’ propaganda and observed reality. Their claim that the polar ice-caps are melting and sea levels rising was contradicted even by the recent fourth report of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which unobtrusively reduced its 2001 prediction of sea level rises by 52.7%, to preserve a minimal scientific credibility. As for the Arctic ice-cap, shrinkage has been observed - it happens seasonally - but its depth increased as it bunched up close to the Canadian land-mass. At the opposite pole, despite much-hyped film of the Larsen ice shelf fragmenting, the ice mass has increased by 8%. Temperatures in East Antarctica have fallen, which is what one would expect if the sun is the principal agent in climate change…

The CO2 hysteria is absurd, considering the minute contribution made by human beings. Of course the climate is changing - it always has done, hence the thriving vineyards of Northumberland in the 12th century and the Thames frozen three feet deep in the 19th - but human activity is largely irrelevant. The world’s climate is controlled by solar activity, by variations in the earth’s rotation and orbit, by external factors in space and, terrestrially, by clouds and volcanic activity. If the Canutes of the IPCC imagine they can control those elements, they are even more infatuated than they appear.

Reason is fighting back at last.