Science is done by evidence, not consensus. It is humble. It questions assumptions and corrects them so future work isn’t built on mistakes. Yet here we are. Burning fossil fuels doesn’t cause climate change, because carbon dioxide doesn’t cause climate change.
"Martin Durkin’s excellent new documentary" - yes it is. Should be required viewing by all the climate change idiots, but of course they'll dismiss just like the authors of the GBD were.
BTW, still waiting for the "cheaper renewables" to kick in and see my electricity bill lowered. Any idea when that will happen Chris Bowen ?
This is an interesting article, but one thing that is often ignored is the effect on the health of the planet due to pollutants from coal oil and gas….
If you want to talk about hard times, look at 1914 in Victoria. Massive drought, high temps, the men had left the farms and gone to war, the cattle and sheep dropped dead. No air conditioners, obvs. I thought that if people could get by then they should be able to get by in 2006, when John Howard mooted nuclear power and I decided to give him no reason. Spent a lot of time in the community pool/dam, went around the house in wet clothes and slept under a wet towel. I thought my kids should know how it's done.
Is it the carbon dioxide that raises the temperature in a greenhouse, or is it the surrounds keeping the heat in, and preventing the cold from entering? These assumptions we grew up with...
As I have mentioned before and before that. I see the overall problem is a lack of true spiritual direction, I’m not talking about corporatized for profit and control religions.
When people don’t connect with their own purpose in life and develop their own beliefs they become vulnerable. Vulnerable to shallow virtue signaling and being easily manipulated aka mind control/ brainwashing. These are empty lost souls looking for meaning, trying to save the world when they cannot even control themselves. We only need to look at the rates of obesity, alcohol, drugs and medication to know modern science mostly offers evidence that increases corporate profits and government agendas. There’s nothing like getting people to look the wrong way when you want to pull a swiftie. The Kindom of heaven lies within, to change the world change yourself first.
I commend Alison for referencing three scientific articles in this piece.
1. https://earth.org/data_visualization/a-brief-history-of-co2/ which gives a good account of the history of CO2, with an interesting graphic which show the dramatic increase in CO2 levels since 1950 as compared to levels over the preceding 800000 years.
It is this last article, which is quite technical and difficult to read, that Alison uses to support the claim that scientists have found no correlation between atmospheric levels of CO2 over the last 500 million years, and the geologic record of climate variations. (see the second last paragraph headed: Comparison with the Climate Record).
I think the evidence provided by this study does not support Alison’s claim, and perhaps there is a misunderstanding of the scientific method.
The author of this article, geophysicist and mathematician, Daniel H Rothman, Ph.D. says that if our null hypothesis is that levels of CO2 do not exert dominant control over the earth’s atmosphere, then his study does not provide evidence upon which we can reject this hypothesis.
This is something very different to saying that his study provides evidence supporting the null hypothesis. In science we gather data in order to build a case against the null hypothesis, not in support of it.
For example, in the 17th century, zoologists held the null hypothesis that all swans were white. If scientists did a detailed audit of all swans in Belgium, say, and found no swans that were not white, this does not change our position, which is that all swans are white. This is not seen as proof that all swans are white, but simply a failure to disprove what we already believe.
So, Dr Rothman’s article does not stand as proof or evidence that CO2 levels don’t affect climate.
Again well done to Alison for citing these three scientific articles. I would encourage people to read these and to look for other scientific articles and studies on this question. There are a lot of them.
If AGW deniers can accept that the small amount of carbon dioxide in the Earth's atmosphere plays an important role in keeping the planet warm, then they might wonder how much warmer it has become since the first accurate measurements of its concentration in 1958 were recorded. It is now over a third more in concentration now. Exon Mobil decades ago conducted its own research on C02 emissions and climate and found the results somewhat inconvenient for their vested interests and switched from climate research to man made climate change denial. A similar strategy used by the tobacco industry when their products were proven to be a major cause of lung cancer, not to mention other health problems. An unfortunate aspect of human nature where money is concerned. Another is believing what one wants to despite evidence to the contrary.
"Martin Durkin’s excellent new documentary" - yes it is. Should be required viewing by all the climate change idiots, but of course they'll dismiss just like the authors of the GBD were.
BTW, still waiting for the "cheaper renewables" to kick in and see my electricity bill lowered. Any idea when that will happen Chris Bowen ?
This is an interesting article, but one thing that is often ignored is the effect on the health of the planet due to pollutants from coal oil and gas….
If you want to talk about hard times, look at 1914 in Victoria. Massive drought, high temps, the men had left the farms and gone to war, the cattle and sheep dropped dead. No air conditioners, obvs. I thought that if people could get by then they should be able to get by in 2006, when John Howard mooted nuclear power and I decided to give him no reason. Spent a lot of time in the community pool/dam, went around the house in wet clothes and slept under a wet towel. I thought my kids should know how it's done.
Is it the carbon dioxide that raises the temperature in a greenhouse, or is it the surrounds keeping the heat in, and preventing the cold from entering? These assumptions we grew up with...
Excellent article - thank you!
Nice concise statement of the facts (including some unpopular ones).
As I have mentioned before and before that. I see the overall problem is a lack of true spiritual direction, I’m not talking about corporatized for profit and control religions.
When people don’t connect with their own purpose in life and develop their own beliefs they become vulnerable. Vulnerable to shallow virtue signaling and being easily manipulated aka mind control/ brainwashing. These are empty lost souls looking for meaning, trying to save the world when they cannot even control themselves. We only need to look at the rates of obesity, alcohol, drugs and medication to know modern science mostly offers evidence that increases corporate profits and government agendas. There’s nothing like getting people to look the wrong way when you want to pull a swiftie. The Kindom of heaven lies within, to change the world change yourself first.
I commend Alison for referencing three scientific articles in this piece.
1. https://earth.org/data_visualization/a-brief-history-of-co2/ which gives a good account of the history of CO2, with an interesting graphic which show the dramatic increase in CO2 levels since 1950 as compared to levels over the preceding 800000 years.
2. https://science.nasa.gov/earth/climate-change/greenhouse-gases/the-atmosphere-getting-a-handle-on-carbon-dioxide/, which gives an insight into the incredible technology used by scientists to accurately monitor CO2 levels in the atmosphere.
3. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.022055499. Atmospheric carbon dioxide levels for the last 500 million years.
It is this last article, which is quite technical and difficult to read, that Alison uses to support the claim that scientists have found no correlation between atmospheric levels of CO2 over the last 500 million years, and the geologic record of climate variations. (see the second last paragraph headed: Comparison with the Climate Record).
I think the evidence provided by this study does not support Alison’s claim, and perhaps there is a misunderstanding of the scientific method.
The author of this article, geophysicist and mathematician, Daniel H Rothman, Ph.D. says that if our null hypothesis is that levels of CO2 do not exert dominant control over the earth’s atmosphere, then his study does not provide evidence upon which we can reject this hypothesis.
This is something very different to saying that his study provides evidence supporting the null hypothesis. In science we gather data in order to build a case against the null hypothesis, not in support of it.
For example, in the 17th century, zoologists held the null hypothesis that all swans were white. If scientists did a detailed audit of all swans in Belgium, say, and found no swans that were not white, this does not change our position, which is that all swans are white. This is not seen as proof that all swans are white, but simply a failure to disprove what we already believe.
So, Dr Rothman’s article does not stand as proof or evidence that CO2 levels don’t affect climate.
Again well done to Alison for citing these three scientific articles. I would encourage people to read these and to look for other scientific articles and studies on this question. There are a lot of them.
If AGW deniers can accept that the small amount of carbon dioxide in the Earth's atmosphere plays an important role in keeping the planet warm, then they might wonder how much warmer it has become since the first accurate measurements of its concentration in 1958 were recorded. It is now over a third more in concentration now. Exon Mobil decades ago conducted its own research on C02 emissions and climate and found the results somewhat inconvenient for their vested interests and switched from climate research to man made climate change denial. A similar strategy used by the tobacco industry when their products were proven to be a major cause of lung cancer, not to mention other health problems. An unfortunate aspect of human nature where money is concerned. Another is believing what one wants to despite evidence to the contrary.
Anjali Sharman, have you heard of photosynthesis? No, it is not Taylor Swift's back-up band, you dill.