New Zealand scientist Dr Kelvin Duncan has written Global Warming: A Counter-blaste to the Man-made global warming hypothesis to clear away a psychosis created by repeated pronouncements that we humans are solely responsible for present climate change.
Dr Duncan is no lightweight. He has a PhD in biology from Canterbury University, taught biology and statistics and became Dean of Science there, was a member of the Royal Society New Zealand and of the New York Academy of Sciences, and has worked on developing products including a scar tissue repair, and a skin cancer cure.
Like a distinguished professor, in his new book Dr Duncan patiently goes through the science related to each aspect of the global warming hypothesis. He presents alarmist reasoning, shows the flaws, and hands out fail grades.
This common belief, that human induced global warming is leading us to a terrible fate, relies on just two assumptions, that:
a. A correlation between CO2 concentration in the atmosphere and global temperature means that CO2 is driving climate change.
b. Computer models that predict future temperatures mean that those future temperatures will eventuate.
Unfortunately, correlation does not mean causation. In 184 pages, a non-scientific fair-minded reader can grasp the science around:
• Carbon dioxide, which is a nutrient, not a pollutant as the alarmists wrongfully claim. CO2 is essential for our existence. It makes up just 0.041 percent of the Earth’s atmosphere which is a tiny amount. We are at a cold period in the Earth’s history and there is a worryingly low amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. Trying to reduce it seems wrong and dangerous.
• Water and clouds, which create a far more powerful greenhouse effect than CO2. There is a lot of water in the Earth’s atmosphere. At any one instant, the atmosphere contains 142 million-billion gallons of water vapor – enough to cover the entire surface of the planet with 2.54cm of rain if condensed. It can reflect light, absorb heat and light, and it can take up and give-off energy. The alarmist assumption that the effect of water and clouds over time is constant is wrong.
• Water, the Sun, as well as the orbit, wobble, and tilt of the Earth, which are all climate drivers. Alarmists simply declare that CO2 is the main driver.
• Crop yields, which are diminishing, and prices, which are increasing. It’s not too much CO2 that is doing it. It is mainly weakening energy from the Sun plus the current dip in CO2 which is actually used in greenhouses to increase plant yield. Organic farming is not the answer.
• Extreme weather events. Has more CO2 and more warming meant more fires, floods, and cyclones? Actually, no! The trend for such events since 1998 is downward.
• Temperatures, which have varied greatly over time, from well above present temperatures as in the medieval, Roman, and Minoan warmings, down to freezing as during the ice ages. Alarmists assert that 1850 temperatures were usual for the Earth before then, but the world was coming out of the Little Ice Age at that time. The peak temperature will be reached in 2039, and that will be a trivial increase of 0.085C above the maximum recorded.
• The Sun, which was accepted as the main driver of climate change from 1860 until recently. If the Sun did not shine, the temperature on Earth would be minus 243C.
• The atmosphere. Without its moderating influence, the temperature on Earth would be a roasting 127C during the day and a “cryogenic” minus 173C at night.
Numerous graphs are carefully explained, as are calculations, done by Dr Duncan, to present various what-if scenarios. He presents calculations in plain sight to counter dogmatic warmer beliefs.
After four pages of criticism of last year’s report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Dr Duncan concludes that “the interpretations they make of their own data is badly, even egregiously, wrong” and asks “why do we spend so much money on these alarmist institutions?”
Dr Duncan gives an example of IPCC data interpretation woes in another IPCC report when he quotes Lightfoot and Mamer (2017) on the importance of CO2:
Man-made global warming is not a real problem, Dr Duncan writes. But real problems are looming, and the unhealthy fixation on man-made global warming diverts attention from the problems associated with cooling and reduced food supply. Valuable time is being wasted.
Global Warming: A Counter-blaste to the Man-made global warming hypothesis, Dr Kelvin Duncan, Tross Publishing, 184 pages, illustrated, $40 (including postage within New Zealand) is available from www.trosspublishing.co.nz or email trosspub@gmail.com.
a. A correlation between CO2 concentration in the atmosphere and global temperature means that CO2 is driving climate change.
b. Computer models that predict future temperatures mean that those future temperatures will eventuate.
Unfortunately, correlation does not mean causation. In 184 pages, a non-scientific fair-minded reader can grasp the science around:
• Carbon dioxide, which is a nutrient, not a pollutant as the alarmists wrongfully claim. CO2 is essential for our existence. It makes up just 0.041 percent of the Earth’s atmosphere which is a tiny amount. We are at a cold period in the Earth’s history and there is a worryingly low amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. Trying to reduce it seems wrong and dangerous.
• Water and clouds, which create a far more powerful greenhouse effect than CO2. There is a lot of water in the Earth’s atmosphere. At any one instant, the atmosphere contains 142 million-billion gallons of water vapor – enough to cover the entire surface of the planet with 2.54cm of rain if condensed. It can reflect light, absorb heat and light, and it can take up and give-off energy. The alarmist assumption that the effect of water and clouds over time is constant is wrong.
• Water, the Sun, as well as the orbit, wobble, and tilt of the Earth, which are all climate drivers. Alarmists simply declare that CO2 is the main driver.
• Crop yields, which are diminishing, and prices, which are increasing. It’s not too much CO2 that is doing it. It is mainly weakening energy from the Sun plus the current dip in CO2 which is actually used in greenhouses to increase plant yield. Organic farming is not the answer.
• Extreme weather events. Has more CO2 and more warming meant more fires, floods, and cyclones? Actually, no! The trend for such events since 1998 is downward.
• Temperatures, which have varied greatly over time, from well above present temperatures as in the medieval, Roman, and Minoan warmings, down to freezing as during the ice ages. Alarmists assert that 1850 temperatures were usual for the Earth before then, but the world was coming out of the Little Ice Age at that time. The peak temperature will be reached in 2039, and that will be a trivial increase of 0.085C above the maximum recorded.
• The Sun, which was accepted as the main driver of climate change from 1860 until recently. If the Sun did not shine, the temperature on Earth would be minus 243C.
• The atmosphere. Without its moderating influence, the temperature on Earth would be a roasting 127C during the day and a “cryogenic” minus 173C at night.
Numerous graphs are carefully explained, as are calculations, done by Dr Duncan, to present various what-if scenarios. He presents calculations in plain sight to counter dogmatic warmer beliefs.
After four pages of criticism of last year’s report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Dr Duncan concludes that “the interpretations they make of their own data is badly, even egregiously, wrong” and asks “why do we spend so much money on these alarmist institutions?”
Dr Duncan gives an example of IPCC data interpretation woes in another IPCC report when he quotes Lightfoot and Mamer (2017) on the importance of CO2:
Robust scientific evidence shows the Sun angle controls water vapour content of the atmosphere, the main component of back radiation, as it cycles annually. Water vapour content measured as the ratio of the number of water molecules to CO2 molecules, varies from 1:1 near the poles to 97:1 in the tropics. The effect of back radiation on Earth’s atmosphere is up 200 times larger than that of CO2 and works in the opposite direction. Thus, if CO2 has any effect on atmospheric temperature and climate change, we show it is negligible. Consequently, current government policies to control atmospheric temperature by limiting consumption of fossil fuels will have negligible effect. Measured data reported in IPCC report Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis (AR5) indicated increased water vapour content of the atmosphere is the cause of the 0.5-degree temperature increase from the mid-1970s to 2011.That example alone should pose a warning for New Zealand’s Climate Change Minister James Shaw and other zero carbon zealots. But I guess we should not hold our breaths while waiting for any pause in zero carbon legislation.
Man-made global warming is not a real problem, Dr Duncan writes. But real problems are looming, and the unhealthy fixation on man-made global warming diverts attention from the problems associated with cooling and reduced food supply. Valuable time is being wasted.
Global Warming: A Counter-blaste to the Man-made global warming hypothesis, Dr Kelvin Duncan, Tross Publishing, 184 pages, illustrated, $40 (including postage within New Zealand) is available from www.trosspublishing.co.nz or email trosspub@gmail.com.
5 comments:
"In 1604, King James I of England published Counterblaste to Tobacco in which he condemned the smoking of this anti-social and health-destroying weed."
In 2022 Chloe Swarbrick reckons there is nothing wrong with smoking dope. Now anyone with half a brain knows that is not right. But I guess that anyone that smokes dope would have lost more than half their brain.
The same applies to climate change.
You must be smoking dope if you think throwing billions of dollars in the direction of the UN in the form of the IPCCC is going to have any effect on the climate of the world. All that will do is provide a source of finance for the corrupt UN and their scientists that are paid by the IPCCC to come up with the results they ask for. If there was any truth in climate change how come it takes billions of dollars over decades from multiple governments and there is still no solution. It hasn't been fixed. Where is the money?
James Shaw may have delusion of grandeur but not even he can have the solution to a non-existent problem. All governments are doing is compounding the problem of rising energy costs by preventing exploration for fossil fuels. The billions siphoned off this country over the years,by the corrupt UN, could probably have been used to make us self-sufficient in energy by now.
Excellent, enlightening article. Now, if our MSM were doing their job.... Mr Shaw, do you deny these are statements of fact, and if so, your logic please?
this is truly insightful. in any academic journal where you try to propose theories based on data, any hint of implying 'correlation could mean causation' is sure to get your article rejected. however, when it comes to global warming (aka climate change), that basic rule of statistics is safely ignored!
When NZS total carbon emissions are just 0.17% of man made emissions ( total world human emissions 3% while nature contributes 97%) how is NZ going to make one iota of difference if we ever manage to cut emissions by 50 or even an impossible 100%.
How is mankind going to make any difference by a similar reduction in the 3% we produce.
Carbon is the food for all plant life, trees and food. Earth's warming and cooling is a natural phenomenon always has been and always will be..
NZ will destroy our economy and the ability to be one of the world's great food producers by pursuing this total lie of climate change alarmist.
Just keep asking what difference can we make, the honest answer is nil, zero. And then at what cost.
If my memory serves, this Dr Duncan when dean of science at U Canty was involved in commercial promotion of 'potentiated' pollen. I appeared for a rival pollen-selling firm in a hearing on that firm's appeal to the advertising stds authority. The arbiter was Dr Mervyn Probine, who found against Duncan. The'potentiation' was not real, or anyhow could not possibly enhance the nutritiousness of pollen.
Post a Comment
Thanks for engaging in the debate!
Because this is a public forum, we will only publish comments that are respectful and do NOT contain links to other sites. We appreciate your cooperation.