People who dispute climate change can’t be called ‘liars’

Have your say

It was interesting whilst reading Cat Turner’s latest article entitled ‘It’s Global Warming, Stupid’ to note that she and her colleagues at Friends of the Earth consider anyone who disputes their opinion on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) to be a LIAR, no ifs, ands or buts just liars plain and simple.

Apparently, ‘climate deniers/climate liars’ are people with a different view from theirs so are fair game to be labelled, put in a box and publicly pilloried. I would have thought the correct scientific response would be to convince them of your argument about whether any warming was human induced, after all there are many thousands of scientists, politicians and journalists who dispute this theory and they cannot all be liars, Ms Turner.

Her article also alluded to the fact that hurricane Sandy was made worse by the effects of global warming. This I would dispute as she offers no evidence to back up her statement and here are some facts about Sandy which the alarmists have not mentioned.

Firstly, when Sandy came ashore it had already been downgraded by the National Hurricane Centre to a grade 1 tropical storm and if we make some comparisons over time by adjusting past losses to account for inflation and the population growth of coastal communities Sandy, if it causes $20 billion in damages would only rank as No 17 as the most damaging hurricane or tropical storm out of 242 to hit the US since 1900, not even close to the top 10.

Furthermore the US.has had 285 hurricane strikes since 1850 with 86 per cent of the strikes occuring when the CO2 level was below 350ppm which is the level James Hansen has declared safe! So I cannot see Sandy as being proof of AGW causing extreme weather, it is just another example of green and media climatology. To put things into even starker perspective consider that from August 1954 through August 1955 the east coast of US saw three different storms make landfall (Carol, Hazel and Diane) that in 2012 would have caused roughly twice as much damage as Sandy. One other point not mentioned by the likes of FOE and the media is that the US is currently in an extensive and intense hurricane ‘drought’ with the last Cat 3 or stronger storm to make landfall being Wilma in 2005.

The longest period in over a century. Also, the drought and heatwave of 2012 was nowhere near as long or as hot as those that occurred in the 1930s again when the CO2 level was below Hansen’s safe level. These are cold hard facts Ms Turner not theories or figures from computer models or lies.

As a follow up to the above, the largest and most prestigious scientific journal in the world – Nature – has come down squarely against the kind of claims made by Ms Turner by saying ‘better models are needed before exceptional events can be reliably linked to global warming’, or do you think they are lying Ms. Turner?

Ms. Turner in her article alludes to big business taking AGW seriously and in particular mentions Bloomberg Business Weekly and Munich RE, perhaps if she had done some research she would have discovered, surprise, surprise, that ‘big business’ has a vested interest in pushing manmade global warming in order to get rich from the green agenda.

Firstly Bloomberg have a subsiduary called Bloomberg New Energy Finance which is now more dominant in the finance industry than Reuters and it sees green products as a huge opportunity for making money as it claims it ‘delivers independent and comprehensive coverage across the clean energy industry and the carbon markets’ for its investors.

Munich RE as well gets very rich on the back of global warming, with just one example of its investments being the Desertec Concept built in the deserts of North Africa and the world to provide carbon free power from solar and wind. Just follow the money.

In her article this week she again mentions the Met Office berating the Daily Mail about its report on the supposed rise of 0.16C over the last 16 years.

This rise of just over one tenth of a degree is looked on by Prof Jones of the Climate Research Unit as being so insignificant that he says that if this lack of warming carries on for another four years they will have to admit that they and their models got it wrong about AGW.

She then goes on to quote a paper released by Price Waterhouse Cooper which says that if we don’t change, average global temperatures will rise by 6 C in the next 38 years, this is a figure that not even James Hansen in his wildest predictions has ever made but then astonishly Ms Turner tells us that this is only the rise in sea temperatures not the rise in land temperatures which she predicts will be in the order of 10C (18F) by 2050, a figure so ridiculous she is in danger of losing credibility as I can think of no scientist in the climate field who would be stupid enough to predict this.

Perhaps she had the following quote from Emeritus Professor and environmentalist Daniel Botkin: ‘The only way to get our society to truly change is to frighten people with the possibility of a catastrophe’ on her mind or even this from a FoE spokesperson after the Kyoto conference – ‘a climate change response must have at its heart a redistribution of wealth and resources’, I don’t think so. If these people want to redistribute their wealth and resources so be it, but I’m hanging on to mine.

J Craige

Baldrine Park

Back to the top of the page