Did you notice the subtle and not so subtle nattering about climate change, climate change and more climate change over the holidays. Given the newstainment media’s on cue desperate voices and the holodeck-like green screen (shiny bauble extraordinaire), you know that award season is upon us.
Ooh, don’t eat meat red meat.
Ooh, don’t burn fossil fuels.
Ooh, don’t support pipelines.
Ooh, don’t object to Trudeau’s carbon tax; oh, excuse us—”carbon-pricing-system.”
For the cold, hard non-fiction listen to the late Prof. Reid Bryson (link below), atmospheric scientist and father of modern climatology. The interview is from CNBC, which shows that the newstainment media can curb its propagandist ways.
Q: Is the earth warming?
RB: It’s been warming for at least 300 years because we are coming out of a little ice age.
Q: Is human-kind causing the warming?
RB: For 300 years, no. Maybe some effect now; back in 1968 I suggested that perhaps man could have some small effect on the climate and I was laughed off the stage.
Q: Is carbon dioxide (CO2) the main cause of global warming?
RB: I don’t think so. The effect that you calculate depends on what kind of constants you stick into your model. You can make it do anything you want to. I have done enough climate modeling to know that I can make anything be the main thing. I don’t think its CO2 because the effect of CO2 is actually very very small—a few hundredths of a percent of what water vapour does.
Q: How did we get to this point where policy makers, corporations and 2500 scientists have reached a consensus that the earth is warming and its due to human activities related to greenhouse gas emissions?
RB: How did we get to the point of thinking that consensus is the way we get at science? Copernicus was in the minority when he said the earth revolved around the sun, instead of the sun revolving around the earth.
If we still believed the consensus then, we would still believe the sun revolved around the earth. Consensus has nothing to do with scientific truth. If everyone agreed on everything we would never have progress or new ideas.
Q: For humans to look at the age of the earth through the prism of one’s own life isn’t that absurd right from the start? You have made the case that if we look at the last hundreds of thousands of years we may be entering a cooling phase where we are headed toward an ice age—not New York being swamped by a tidal wave.
RB: In the last couple of billion years (that’s a pretty good sample) we’ve been through a number of ice ages. They come at predictable intervals. My calculations show that we will be in the next ice age, with maximum ice, in about 8000 years.
Editor’s note: Our apologies for the unapoplectic prose and unalluring graphics.
Trumping Trudeau: How Donald Trump will change Canada even if Justin Trudeau doesn't know it yet