I have little but respect and admiration for Greta Thunberg, the 16-year-old Swede who has launched a worldwide movement of students on strike from school to protest anthropogenic climate change. I think she’s mistaken, and I’m inclined to agree with British climate scientist Piers Corbyn that she’s being manipulated, but she seems sincere in her beliefs, and she’s acting on them. Lots of adults could take that lesson from her.
But, despite her having been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize, she’s no expert on the scientific evidence regarding the magnitude of human contribution to global warming, the scientific and economic evidence supporting predictions of its consequences, the economics and engineering of traditional and renewable energy, or the economics of how any given mix of those two options will affect human beings.
It’s one thing when policymakers around the world trust properly credentialed scientists to provide data and theory regarding climate change in response to which the policymakers make their policies. It would be nice if they’d also pay attention to equally credentialed scientists who provide contrary data and theory.
It’s another thing when they start taking advice on such matters from 16-year-olds.
So it’s madness, plain and simple, for political leaders to take Miss Thunberg’s advice on such matters. Yet some are doing that. Yesterday British Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn (brother of Piers), Green Party leader Caroline Lucas, Liberal Democrat leader Sir Vince Cable, Scottish National Party leader Ian Blackford, and Plaid Cymru leader Liz Saville Roberts. And she’s been getting similar treatment in other countries.
Greta, if this obscure blog post comes to your attention, I hope you’ll accept my admiration for your courage, your determination, your willingness to act on your beliefs. At the same time, I hope you’ll also accept my invitation to learn why thousands of scientists, including many climate scientists, reject the notion of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming and instead embrace climate realism, also known as climate skepticism.
Those who hold that view aren’t “science deniers” or “climate deniers.” They’re serious scientists who believe, with the British Royal Society, whose motto is nullius in verbum, roughly translated as “on nobody’s word,” that skepticism is the hallmark of science. They affirm that average global atmospheric surface temperature has risen, by about 1 degree Celsius, over the last 150 years. They affirm that adding CO2 to the atmosphere almost certainly makes it warmer than it otherwise would be. They recognize that such warming could cause some problems for humans and other living things. But they think CO2’s warming effect is considerably less, and therefore whatever problems it causes are considerably less, than you’ve been told. They also think that smaller warming effect will bring its own benefits to offset its harms, and that added CO2 has another beneficial effect, enhancing plant growth and so making food more abundant and affordable for everyone, especially the world’s poor. And they think mandating drastic replacement of fossil fuels with wind, solar, and other renewable energy sources would cause far more harm than good.
For a quick introduction to such thought, you might read “An Open Letter to Pope Francis on Climate Change,” which was signed by hundreds of scientists and other intellectuals, as well as laymen. From there, you might advance to A Call to Truth, Prudence, and Protection of the Poor 2014: The Case against Harmful Climate Policies Gets Stronger, and then to climate scientist Dr. Roy W. Spencer’s Global Warming Skepticism for Busy People. Or you might start frequenting www.JudithCurry.com, the blog of climate scientist Dr. Judith Curry, who used to be on the alarmist side and has moved, over the last decade, to the realist/skeptic side.
Will these persuade you to change your mind? Maybe, maybe not. But if you read them, you’ll know you’ve seen at least some of the evidence for another perspective, and you’ll have reduced the credibility of claims like Piers Corbyn’s that you’re being manipulated.
Grietje says
Thank You for this article. I am just an ordinary person, but I have read and also watched everything I can on Climate, the weather.. and Co2 .. Sun Spots .. each time I am beginning to understand more and more. Also have listened to the political agenda side of things and i am totally dismayed about it … I now do see the manipulation that’s taking place .. even on the News ! it’s so blatant .
.. I am with a low income, I went through winter 2018 – 2019 under blankets or in my bed with hot water bottles as I could not afford electricity ( just £2 a weeks worth ) our government did not help me .. I took hot water in my flasks from work.
I hope people will read about Global Cooling so that we can figure something out. Meantime I don’t want to go through another winter shivering so am not buying Sun glasses ! am buying to keep warm as no one was around to help me when i was freezing cold.
Latus_Dextro says
“They affirm that average global atmospheric surface temperature has risen, by about 1 degree Celsius, over the last 150 years. They affirm that adding CO2 to the atmosphere almost certainly makes it warmer than it otherwise would be.”
Okay, the usual climatism polemic.
So, how much exactly (and how much CO2 caused it) since this change in temperature is consistent across centennial periods in the Holocene, ie. business as usual, or as the UNFCCC define it, ‘climate variability’, as opposed to unfalsifiable ‘climate change’ predicated solely on direct and indirect putative anthropogenic influence on atmospheric composition and land usage. Zero ‘climate change’ = zero human beings aka. the UN Green Death: de-industrialisation, de-population and destitution.
Holocene records up to 8000 years before present, from several ice cores were examined. The differences in temperatures
between all records which are approximately a century apart were determined, after any trends in the data had been removed. The differences were close to normally distributed. The average standard deviation of temperature was 0.98 ± 0.27C.
Lloyd PJ 2015, Energy & Environment; AN ESTIMATE OF THE CENTENNIAL VARIABILITY OF GLOBAL TEMPERATURES
John Duncan says
It’s always possible, of course, that she is listening to the 97% rather than the 3%. I prefer to do the same.
Val Resnick says
Ha. Have you actually reviewed the Cook study, which is from where the false 97% number came? If not, I would suggest running the numbers yourself. Only 1.6% of the papers considered took the position that human activity is likely responsible for 50% or more of global warming. 32.6 percent took the position that human activity is responsible for less than 50% of warming. And the remaining took no position. The 97% number is false, and the method used to arrive at it is shoddy. Embarrassingly so. Check it our for yourself.