Gerald Warner is not a scientist: he is a polemicist. A very good polemicist, if that means someone who knows how to make good use of the diatribe dictionary. If there is a word or phrase which will get Gerald Warner a high ranking in a Google search, you can be sure to find it in his latest anti-warmist diatribe.
I have four questions and a request for you, Gerald Warner.
Question #1
Why do you feel the need to use the loaded language which I cite below ?
If you have any facts about climate science which thousands of scientists have missed, you should publish them. Who knows, if they stand up to scrutiny you might win a Nobel Prize.
Question #2
Have you ever read anything about the history of the discovery of global warming ?
I earnestly recommend that you read Spencer Weart's excellent history: The Discovery of Global Warming. You will then, no doubt, wish to retract your claim that: "The global warming hysteria began in the 1880s" once you learn that scientific discussion of the mere possibility of warming only began in 1896.
Question #3
What is your source for claiming that: "The global warming hysteria began in the 1880s but was discredited when its prediction that CO2 would increase the mean global temperature by more than 1C by 1940 was not borne out." ?
You should state who it was in the 19th century who was so exceedingly prescient that he (or she) predicted - in 1880, 1896 or whenever - a temperature rise of more than 1oC due to CO2 by 1940. If you will deign to read the history I recommended, you will see that: " Arrhenius made a calculation for doubling the CO2 in the atmosphere, and estimated it would raise the Earth's temperature some 5-6°C (averaged over all zones of latitude)." and that: "Arrhenius did not see that as a problem. He figured that if industry continued to burn fuel at the current (1896) rate, it would take perhaps three thousand years for the CO2 level to rise so high."
Question #4
What is your source for the claim: " if all mankind stopped producing CO2 ... 96.5 per cent would remain." ?
Question #5
For how long would 96.5 per cent remain, a day, a month, a year, a century, a millenium, in perpetuity ?
Now, before I make my very modest request, I would like my readers to see why I make it. Here is the core and essence of your article in the Scotsman:
By Gerald Warner
Published on 02/06/2013 00:00
The climate is changing ... blah blah ... global warmist fanatics.
... man-made climate change industry, ... blah blah ... the scam ...
... much-hyped imposture ... Climategate (“Hide the decline!”), ... “hockey stick”, ... “melting” Himalayan glaciers ... blah blah ... polar bear ... climate change superstition ... there has been no global warming since 1997.
... face-saving response ... a pause of a decade and a half ... blah blah ... warmist fanatics ...
... Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ... extravagant predictions ...
... warmist zealot ... Anthropogenic Global Warming hierarchy ...
The global warming hysteria began in the 1880s but was discredited when its prediction that CO2 would increase the mean global temperature by more than 1C by 1940 was not borne out. ... a pretext for taxing citizens ... the “green” scam has been among the most extreme.
... Proliferating wind turbines are blighting the landscape despite being a wholly inefficient source of energy. ...
... Alex Salmond is a born-again renewables fanatic ... Al Gore, ...
... Martian whirligigs ... All this to satisfy a superstition: if all mankind stopped producing CO2 ... 96.5 per cent would remain. ... climate Anabaptists ... mad creed ...
My request ? I will let Phil Plait state it plainly for you.
Comments