~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Raelian Movement
for those who are not afraid of the future : http://www.rael.org
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Hysteria is the real threat, not global warming
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1198188/Hysteria-real-threat-global-wa\
rming.html
By Andrew Alexander
Last updated at 12:45 AM on 09th July 2009


With Tony Blair launching his own plan to save the world (groans), and
the G8 leaders also unveiling their thoughts about global warming,
this is a big week for environmental fanaticism.

Whatever he or they offer, it will not be enough to quell the
warmists' semi-religious fervour.

They are like medieval preachers, proclaiming to baying crowds that
the end of the word is nigh.
World leaders will be debating climate change at the G8 summit in
Italy this week

On the agenda: World leaders will be debating climate change at the G8
summit in Italy this week

Well, is it? There are two separate climate issues - the extent of
global warming and the role that humanity plays in it.

Some facts help. The famous 1996 report by the International Panel on
Climate Change predicted serious global warming and blamed mankind.

But, since then, the world has disobligingly stopped warming. And two
years of global cooling erased nearly 30 years of recorded temperature
rises.

What was the worrying rise in temperature - so exciting for those
whose computer models used the past to predict a grim future?

Given the margin of error associated with the old-style thermometers
which were, until only recently, used to record temperatures, it
should be stated thus: over the past 100 years, temperature has risen
by 0.7C - plus or minus 1.3 degrees!

The only importance the serious scientists can attach to such a figure
is that less serious people think it meaningful.

My own science teacher would have kept me in after school for saying
this was a valuable figure.

But, as you will have noticed, it worked. The catastrophists piled in
- some of whom had previously flourished warnings about global
cooling. For some, any figure will do, especially when it gives them a
media profile (and grants for research).

Those who worry about facts should look at the findings of NASA (see
the website), whose up-to-date and sophisticated global surveys throw
such doubt on the warmists' claims.

They should also read Heaven And Earth by Ian Plimer, Emeritus
Professor of Earth Sciences at The University of Melbourne and
Professor of Mining Geology at The University of Adelaide.

It is the best book on science and scientists I have ever read. Piece
by piece, he takes apart the work of the fanatics. Far from denying
global warming, he stresses its regularity and occasional abruptness
and how humans have had to adapt.

A millennium ago, Greenland was warm, with a rich agriculture - not
much man-made carbon gas then. Over half of the past six million
years, the climate was warmer than it is now.

He explains that the supposed consensus view of the IPCC is nonsense.
The much-touted 2,500 scientists supposed to have backed its
conclusion included many non-scientists or were even the same
contributors counted twice.

The finding that human activity influenced global climate involved the
deletion of an original passage saying they had no evidence that
greenhouse gases played a role and that the best answer was 'we do not
know'.

There is always a temptation to assume that anyone labelled a
scientist thinks scientifically. Learned philosophers have discussed
how experiments are regularly conducted to prove a desired conclusion
rather than to ascertain truth.

Prof Plimer provides the sharp-end view of this. The use of computer
models excites his particular disdain.
Ian Plimer

We have to adapt: In his new book, Ian Plimer (above) stresses
regularity and occasional abruptness of global warming

He cites 17 areas of science, ranging from tectonics to meteorology,
which need to be utilised in analysing climate change. No computer I
have ever heard of can do this meaningfully.

In every area, conclusions, such as they are, are subject to wide
margins of error (and often fierce debate).

Simple multiplication demonstrates that even modest margins of error
must collectively become magnified into enormous final ones.

As he says: 'If computer models torture the data enough, the data will
confess to anything.'

Yet all this leaves a big problem. If the data is really so
inconclusive, not to say contradictory, why is the fanatics' message
so successful?

This is a profoundly important phenomenon requiring the study of
social, political, historical and even religious trends.
Catastrophists have, of course, always been with us. There is
something in humanity's psyche which delights in impending disaster.

Politicians are attracted because the cause must involve a great
increase in the power of government.

The supposed danger has also provided fuel for those who are
determined, come what may, to demonstrate that capitalism and
industrialisation are the roots of our woe.

The religious instinct is satisfied by the opportunity for pious
preaching and noisy protest. Yet the cause is so flawed.

Are we being conned? Yes, why not? Think of all the grand causes in
our lifetime which have been bogus, starting with Iraq and Afghanistan
and working backwards. Or consider the dishonesty in public affairs,
as in MPs' expenses. Fraud is the common coinage of public affairs.

Think, too, that it is little over 200 years since Europe stopped the
execution of witches, and less than that since Spain finally abolished
the Inquisition. We are, of course, too enlightened now to be in
danger of being carried away by superstition or hysteria - so we say.

• Heaven And Earth: Global Warming, The Missing Science, by Ian Plimer
(Quartet, £25)


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

WARNING FROM RAEL: For those who don't use their intelligence at its
full capacity, the label "selected by RAEL" on some articles does not
mean that I agree with their content or support it. "Selected by RAEL"
means that I believe it is important for the people of this planet to
know about what people think or do, even when what they think or do is
completely stupid and against our philosophy. When I selected articles
in the past about stupid Christian fundamentalists in America praying
for rain, I am sure no Rael-Science reader was stupid enough to
believe that I was supporting praying to change the weather. So, when
I select articles which are in favor of drugs, anti-semitic,
anti-Jewish, racist, revisionist, or inciting hatred against any group
or religion, or any other stupid article, it does not mean that I
support them. It just means that it is important for all human beings
to know about them. Common sense, which is usually very good among our
readers, is good enough to understand that. When, like in the recent
articles on drug decriminalization, it is necessary to make it
clearer, I add a comment, which in this case was very clear: I support
decriminalizing all drugs, as it is stupid to throw depressed and sad
people (as only depressed and sad people use drugs) in prison and ruin
their life with a criminal record. That does not mean that there is
any change to the Message which says clearly that we must not use any
drug except for medical purposes. The same applies to the freedom of
expression which must be absolute. That does not mean again of course
that I agree with anti-Jews, antisemites, racists of any kind or
anti-Raelians. But by knowing your enemies or the enemies of your
values, you are better equipped to fight them. With love and respect
of course, and with the wonderful sentence of the French philosopher
Voltaire in mind: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to
the death your right to say it".