Debunking a climate change debunker

Eric Grover’s recent contribution to BlogActiv (“Global-warming theology threatens freedom and prosperity”) is a useful example of the denial strategy of the few left-over climate sceptics. Its polemic tone (“global-warming theology”, “romantic environmentalists”, Kyoto as a ploy to undermine the US economy, “Taliban global-warming religionists” who are as dangerous as “resurgent Islamic ideology”) is meant to hide the lack of real knowledge about and even interest in the scientific facts behind the climate-energy challenge.

The authors quoted by Grover have been debunked on several occasions by climate experts and some of them have been linked to financial sponsoring by corporations who until recently tried to fight the global warming scientific truths. Therefore let’s give Eric some reading advice:

On Fred Singer’s book read, for instance:

On Mars and other planets warming (implied message: the sun is the culprit, not human emissions):

On the water vapour issue:

And than there is the “global warming is good for mankind” argument which completely proves any lack of understanding of the global warming challenge. On the balancing of negatives and positives of global warming, the IPCC reports are clear. Overall, the effects of global warming will be negative, although indeed some countries might experience some positive developments (I would love great wines in Belgium :) ).

On the idea of geo-engineering climate change solutions, see the following excellent article from the BBC: “Hold back the geo-engineering tide”.

Now, for some of Grover’s more political arguments:

Climate policies are a risk for our freedom”. Maybe Eric can read the study by eleven ex-generals “National Security and the threat of climate change” which states the following:

The study, “National Security and the Threat of Climate Change,” explores ways projected climate change is a threat multiplier in already fragile regions, exacerbating conditions that lead to failed states — the breeding grounds for extremism and terrorism”.

But then again, maybe these retired army generals have now become” Taliban religionists”?

And, last but not least: climate policies will handicap US economy and “impoverish us all”. A good read here is of course the Stern report and a recent McKinsey study “Reducing greenhouse gas emissions. How much at what cost?” (Dec 2007). Both studies come to the same conclusions: yes there will be costs but these are much lower than the costs of non-action and mitigation measures will also create new business opportunities which will lower the cost of securing ourselves against a possible climate disaster even more.

So, Eric, a bit more science and a bit less ideology, please :) .

Even your current President and most likely also your future one now accepts the reality of global warming. You might have missed that in your sunny and wonderful California :)

About these ads

One response

  1. global warming was occuring but definitely has stopped now.
    it is much cooler now for this time of year ( december 2008 ) in australia. as for the ipcc a bigger bunch of frauds cant be found anywhere else.
    to spew forth the rubbish that 385 parts per million of co2 is forcing climate change, come on mate I’m no fool.
    the major oxygen and nitrogen gasses are greenhouse gasses without which we would not enjoy the world average temps we have now. Get it!
    to call co2 a greenhouse gas is only half accurate. The real warming effect in a greenhouse comes from it being encased in glass ( much like the effect of a locked car under the sun ) and co2 was pumped into these houses at rates of 500 – 1000 parts per million not to increase the temperature but to increase plant growth which it does dramatically.
    You know the old saying you can fool some of the people some of the time, but you cant fool all of the people……
    And to imply that this short trend of warming 1970 – 1998 is going to cause a runaway greenhouse effect and destroy all life on earth is so stupid that any one who spews this v.d. must have his head stuck up his or her’s (you know what.)
    admittedly you gotta be pretty flexible to do that and you alarmist are pretty flexible alright with the truth.
    The ipcc does not predict the future they just say IF. Al Gore says IF.
    everything is based on IF. what a load of crap. That’s not science.
    So on the word ‘IF’ we gotta pay lots more for electricity, water, fuel,
    put up oversized toys called solar panels that barely do the job, at definitely serious prices.
    and then when this oversized expensive toy starts to play up and stops giving me electricity I’m supposed to go up on the roof when I most probably will be in my 70s on a pension, unable or barely able to pay for an oversized toy technician to come and fix it That is STUPID!
    now I get all my electricity from 2 WIRES coming into my house, that’s all i have to worry about. the experts look after everything at the power station. that’s smart.
    Alarmists don’t have the right to force their dogma on anybody, go find an island and you all live together and enjoy all your solar panels and noisy windmills and sing songs of praise to Gaia.
    Although I have doubts about your ability to build any of these things as you wont have the benefits of todays modern technology, and medicine created by the discovery and use of fossil fuels.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 69 other followers

%d bloggers like this: