Rex Murphy recommends Ian Plimer's book...
Plimer's book, Heaven and Earth, is the best book on global warming...
I find it curious, though, that the city is so ambivalent in its response to this cooler-than-normal summer. Curious because it's very obvious that, if the weather were hotter, what now “stinks” would be rancid, what is barely tolerable would be utterly unendurable. Yet, night after night on most of the city's TV news shows, you hear in the faux hearty chatter that is now obligatory in the weather segment great moaning and whining about “where has our summer gone?”
Personally, I don't know what it is they're yearning for. More days of blistering mid-30-degree saunas during a garbage strike? Surely not. But gurgle on they do, hoping or promising for hotter days yet to come.
What we do not hear from them, from any one of them, is the slightest indication of puzzlement over how or why so suddenly, in this age of the greatest emergency our planet has ever faced - global warming - things have gotten cool. Not a furrowed brow among the lot over the consideration that, contrary to the visions of Al Gore and David Suzuki or NASA's own anti-global warming Nostradamus, James Hansen, the great trend line of an ever-warming world is being contradicted nightly in their own forecasts.
I do recall, however, when, during the few periods Toronto was experiencing higher-than-normal temperatures - there was that period, remember, almost coincident with Stéphane Dion's election as federal Liberal leader, when Ontario warmed up more than usual - no weathercast was complete without some reference to global warming. That the then current conditions were “proof” or “another sign” or an “indication” that global warming was upon us. When every weathercast was incomplete without some pointed reference to how “unusual” such weather was.
I bring this up merely to make a single point. Not that these studio meteorologists were making the elementary mistake of confounding weather with climate, for this is a distinction familiar now even to kindergartners. Rather, to point out how “accepted” the vague, soft, but relentlessly propagandized theory of global warming has become. That being on the “right” side of the global warming argument is so very much the politically correct place to be. It's the “virtuous” side to be on, so naturally our supper-hour meteorologists, even if unconsciously, were eager to encourage virtue.
Now, however, Toronto in July is cool and I am waiting in vain for the lips of just one forecaster to ask how can this be. Waiting just once to hear the familiar phrase “global warming” in a sentence that even hints that the theory behind it is so much more tentative than we have been urged with such fervour to believe.
And while I'm waiting, perhaps I could recommend to people who study or report on the weather a wonderfully comprehensive and fearless book on the subject by Australian geologist Ian Plimer called Heaven and Earth: Global Warming - The Missing Science. If there are any willing to hear some truly inconvenient truths on the stampeding advocacy of global warming, Mr. Plimer's book is a collection of some of the sternest.
5 Comments:
Maybe the weather forecasters are in the same boat as the many scientists who no longer believe in evolution, but have to keep quiet about it in case they lose their jobs. If the weather forecasters say anything against global warming or climage change, they could be out the door quicker than a tornado.
Not really, evolution is a fact!
fred
Well, to me the facts in regards to global warming are:
1) we are responsible for all the recent increase in CO2.
2) CO2 will absorb and then reemit longwave radiation.
3) absorbing longwave radiation will warm an object (or cause it to cool less quickly).
Are there any of those you disagree with?
In regards to Plimer's book - yes, please let the "skeptic" side produce more stuff like this. The more people read stuff like that and then see what the scientists do with it - the better established the science becomes. However I would love to discuss the science in it with you.
Regards,
John
Dear John: When should we discuss the science? Are you in Ottawa?
The real questions is: What is the evidence that the increase in C)2 from 280 ppm to 380 ppm is responsible for the warming from 1980 - 2000?
Fred
Fred: No, I am not in Ottawa. However please note that I said I was interested in discussing the science in Plimer's book. That seems to be a reasonable bit to chew on.
I am not sure I understand your question since you seem to be talking about different time frames. The CO2 rise is, of course, over the last 150 plus years. The temperature rise is over 20 years. However, it probably comes back to my initial three points. Do you have any problems with those three?
Regards,
John
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home