Home > AGW, Climate Change, Omniclimate > World is warming. Pope is Catholic.

World is warming. Pope is Catholic.

UPDATE: this post has featured at WUWT

Quite an effort has been made by many people (including Dr Richard Muller) to portray the BEST pre-pre-pre-papers as some kind of death blow against climate skepticism, as if the whole debate had been a sports match with everybody pigeonholed in two opposite camps: here, the noble scientists finding out the world is warming; there, the ignoble skeptics pretending the world is not warming.

Needless to say, it’s all the usual crass, outdated lie.

How do I know? I know it from the About page at this very blog. Why? Because that page does not contain just a text by Yours Truly, rather a large quote by Willis Eschenbach.

It was simply such an appropriate, informed, short and straight argument, I knew it was going to describe pretty much all my future efforts at the blog.

Original publication place & date? The ClimateSceptics yahoo group, Mon Oct 22, 2007, 12:22pm:

I also think that increasing GHGs will warm the earth … but that is not the real question to me. The real question is, how much it will warm the earth. To date, I have not seen any “useful quantative results” regarding that question either …

Once those quantitative results are in, we can proceed to the next question — is a warmer earth better or worse on balance? The globe has warmed quite a bit since the 1600s, and in general this has been of benefit to humans. The sea level rise from the historical warming has not been a significant problem. In addition, a warmer world is predicted to be a wetter world, which overall can only be a good thing. So, will warming be a problem, or a benefit? This is a very open question, and one which will be difficult to answer as some areas will win and some will lose. To date, however, recent warming seems to be occuring outside the tropics, in the night-time, in the winter … this does not seem like a bad thing.

And at some future date when those questions are answered, we can proceed to the final question, viz:

If GHGs are determined to be a major cause of the warming (as opposed to landuse changes, or black carbon on snow, or dark colored aerosols, etc) and if we determine that the warming will be on balance a negative occurrence, is there a cost-effective way to reduce the GHGs, or are we better off putting our money into adaptation?

Until we can answer all of those questions, we should restrict ourselves to actions which will be of value whether or not there is future warming. The key is to realize that all of the problems that Al Gore is so shrill about are here now with us today — floods, heat waves, famine, rising sea levels, droughts, cold spells, and all of the apocalyptic catalog are occuring as I write this. Anything we can do to insulate the world’s population from these climate problems will be of use to everyone no matter what the future climate holds […]

  1. Russell
    2011/10/25 at 14:35

    The papacy and AGW have been synonymous since the discovery of the Urban Heat Island Effect in Capua in 1098, when temperatures soared after Urban the Second’s forces set the town afire.

    The abrupt, ‘hockey stick’ end of the Little Ice Age likewise coincides with the increased black carbon and CO2 emissions of the Industrial Inquisition.

  2. rogerthesurf
    2011/10/22 at 09:13

    Willis Eschenbach should read this book. Consensus has to be one of the biggest porkies in history.

    Here is an excerpt : “Having morphed into an obnoxious adolescent, the IPCC is now everyone’s problem. This is because it
    performs one of the most important jobs in the world. Its purpose is to survey the scientific literature
    regarding climate change, to decide what it all means, and to write an ongoing series of reports. These
    reports are informally known as the Climate Bible.
    The Climate Bible is cited by governments around the world. It is the reason carbon taxes are being
    introduced, heating bills are rising, and costly new regulations are being enacted. It is why everyone
    thinks carbon dioxide emissions are dangerous.
    Put simply: the entire planet is in a tizzy because of a UN report. What most of us don’t know is that,
    rather than being written by a meticulous, upstanding professional in business attire, this report was
    produced by a slapdash, slovenly teenager who has trouble distinguishing right from wrong.”

    I would like to give you a link for the entire pdf but the author does deserve her USD$4.99.
    I thoroughly recommend you download for yourself.




  3. John Marshall
    2011/10/22 at 09:05

    Since the only external heat source that this planet has is the sun and solar changes will affect climate. All else is small fry and change very little. The BEST paper uses the same disputed data sets sceptics argue about so don’t change anything.

    Same argument will continue.

  4. Boudu
    2011/10/22 at 07:38

    Having been brought up as a member of the Society of Friends, I prefer to ask ‘Was George Fox a Quaker?’

  1. 2011/10/24 at 06:00

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: