Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

PHILIP STOTT: The sky is far from falling in on the climate
The Times ^ | October 22, 2002 | Philip Stott

Posted on 10/21/2002 10:33:45 PM PDT by MadIvan

This week the climate change caravanserai has moved on from Kyoto, via The Hague and Marrakesh, to Delhi, where portents of our imminent demise will be divined from the entrails and innards of computer models.

It is time to say “enough”. This latter-day millenarian nonsense has to stop. Our childish discovery that climate alters is making a mockery of science, of history, of the long and turbulent geology of the Earth, and of human adaptation to climate and weather from time immemorial, and long before.

The nadir was plumbed, as so often, on the Today programme when a well-meaning, tear-stained voice lamented the plight of the poor plants and anxious animals which could not be expected to cope with change. The comment was so wet that you could shoot snipe off it. Good grief! Nature has been coping with change since some archaic Nigella was stirring the primal amino acid soup while earthquake, fire and flood raged all around. “I just love those rich blue-green stromatolites, don’t you?” (Sly, girlish glance.)

So, a few benighted birds, such as the lesser-striped sporan, might have to migrate to live in Sweden: how dreadful. And think of our feathered friends from the South: they might have to seek asylum in Britain under Blunkett’s brutal regime, confined to a webfooted wilderness in the Fens. Meanwhile, back in the hedgerow, spring was dangerously early this year and the autumn colours are not quite the same. “We’re all doomed!” as Private Fraser would intone, with twisted mouth and goggle eyes.

Has nobody read Gilbert White’s 18th-century journals? “Oct 18. 1770. Vast floods on the Sussex rivers: the meadows all under water. Nov 15. Vast rain at night. The ground so wet that no sowing goes forward.” And then: “Oct 26. 1781. Men sow their wheat in absolute dust. Oct 31. The water is so scanty in the streams that the millers cannot grind barley sufficient for mens (sic) hogs.” All is change, past, present and future. And would our beleaguered farmers not have revelled in the years between 1100 and 1300, when May frosts were virtually unknown? Yet, by the winter of 1309-10, dogs were hunting hares on the hard frozen Thames and bread, even when wrapped in straw, froze solid in the larders.

But the 22-carat gold nonsense starts when our politicians declare that we can manage climate change to produce “a sustainable climate” — the world’s most outrageous oxymoron. I have this preposterous vision of a quixotic Michael Meacher, accompanied by a faithful Sancho Prescott, tilting at the Sun, capping exploding volcanoes, diverting conveyer-belt ocean currents with snorkels to the fore, and, like Superman, heaving meteors back into space. The idea that, by fiddling about with a couple of politically chosen gases (carbon dioxide and methane), we can make climate do what we want is one of the most dangerous myths of our post-industrial age.

Perhaps I should play Lex Luther, Superman’s alter ego. If you really want to mess up the world’s climates, especially in the Tropics, then cover the Tibetan high plateau with black plastic sheeting and see what that does to the subtropical jet stream, the monsoons, and Lois Lane’s hairdo and make-up.

This bunkum over climate is warping policy. The “threat of global warming” is too often a mask for those who want no growth, no development and no globalisation. And the “renewable” energy alternatives either do not work or are not “renewable”. Even a man from The Times could not get the hydrogen car to go last week (it was raining), while you need lots of energy to produce the hydrogen. Many solar cells likewise take more energy to make than they give out, wind farms are despoiling much of the landscape, hydroelectic power disperses both fish and folk, tidal energy wrecks estuarine ecosystems, and we cannot have nuclear fission or fusion at any costs, can we? It is all carbon claptrap.

The author is Professor Emeritus of Biogeography at the University of London


TOPICS: Editorial; Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events; United Kingdom
KEYWORDS: climate; environmentalism; frauds; globalwarminghoax; greens; kyoto
Nice to see that someone in academia here is willing to take on environmentalist orthodoxy.

Regards, Ivan


1 posted on 10/21/2002 10:33:45 PM PDT by MadIvan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: BigWaveBetty; BlueAngel; JeanS; schmelvin; MJY1288; terilyn; Ryle; MozartLover; Teacup; rdb3; ...
Bump!
2 posted on 10/21/2002 10:34:13 PM PDT by MadIvan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MadIvan
bump
3 posted on 10/21/2002 10:38:39 PM PDT by knews_hound
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MadIvan
And a bump back at ya!!

Thanks!! Too right, nice to see someone finally calling this pseudo science for what it is.

This is not science, it is religion.

No REAL proof, but the gods say it is so!!
4 posted on 10/21/2002 10:39:53 PM PDT by Aric2000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: MadIvan; *Global Warming Hoax; Stand Watch Listen; RightWhale; Free the USA; Carry_Okie; ...
OH, very nice!!
Thanks for posting this article!

Global Warming Hoax :

To find all articles tagged or indexed using Global Warming Hoax , click below:
  click here >>> Global Warming Hoax <<< click here  
(To view all FR Bump Lists, click here)



5 posted on 10/21/2002 10:41:36 PM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MadIvan
Anyone the greenies hate as much as this guy deserves some kind words of support.

More of Professor Stott's papers can be read here.

I couldn't find an email,he has a guestbook and also a poll question towards the bottom of the page...you know what to do FReepers. ;-)

6 posted on 10/21/2002 11:06:59 PM PDT by PeaceBeWithYou
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PeaceBeWithYou
Current Poll Numbers:

The 'AntiEcohype' Mini Poll
Is 'sustainable development' a meaningful concept?
  votes percent
 1.)  No; 109   58%
 2.)  Yes; 73   39%
 3.)  Don't know. 7   4%
  
  1 2 3
Total Votes:  189
View Archive

7 posted on 10/21/2002 11:48:01 PM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
BTTT
8 posted on 10/22/2002 12:29:20 AM PDT by PeaceBeWithYou
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: MadIvan
Excellent! More of this sort of thing is needed to counter this global warming nonsense.

Climate has always been changeable and always will be... the examples Stott chooses are right on the spot and there are many more in English writings, as far back as the Anglo-Saxon chronicle.

PS Ivan, could you please add me to your ping list?

Regards

Mike

9 posted on 10/22/2002 2:02:46 AM PDT by Da_Shrimp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Da_Shrimp
PS Ivan, could you please add me to your ping list?

Done, my thanks.

Regards, Ivan

10 posted on 10/22/2002 2:06:16 AM PDT by MadIvan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: MadIvan
BUMP.

11 posted on 10/22/2002 7:04:26 AM PDT by conservatism_IS_compassion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
One point no one ever talks about, when they want us to stop using petroleum and switch to hydrogen, is that we have no container for hydrogen, other than temporary storage. Hydrogen is the smallest atom and goes right through the walls of any container, as it's atoms go through the atoms of the container, no matter what it is made of.
12 posted on 10/22/2002 6:39:30 PM PDT by XBob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: XBob
Yep. And this hydrogen will go right up to the stratosphere and combine with ozone there, destroying the ozone layer. Don't expect any environmental impact studies pointing this out.
13 posted on 10/25/2002 5:54:20 PM PDT by Number_Cruncher
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: XBob
Yep. And this hydrogen will go right up to the stratosphere and combine with ozone there, destroying the ozone layer. Don't expect any environmental impact studies pointing this out.
14 posted on 10/25/2002 5:55:29 PM PDT by Number_Cruncher
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson