Na klimatološkem blogu RealClimate so recenzirali novo knjigo dr. Roya Spencerja Great Global Warming Blunder – Globalno segrevanje – velika zmota. Spencer je verjetno najbolj izpostavljen “klimatski skeptik”, ki je istočasno znanstvenik, ki v polju klimatologije tudi deluje in objavlja (četudi večkrat močno kontroverzno, od kasneje umaknjenih trditev, da satelitske meritve ne dokazujejo segrevanja, ki sta jih pred leti izrekala z Johnom Christyjem in o katerih smo že pisali, do njegovega javnega nasprotovanja evoluciji in podpiranja “teorij” inteligentnega načrta).
I will present new evidence for an insensitive climate system, one dominated by negative feedbacks. This means that Earth’s climate will not change nearly as much in response to our carbon dioxide emissions as is widely claimed.
I believe that this neglect of natural cloud fluctuations has been the Achilles’ heel of the so-called scientific consensus on global warming. By ignoring natural variability in clouds, researchers have reached the conclusion that the climate system is very sensitive to mankind’s pollution. This, they argue, means that no natural source of climate change is needed to explain global warming since humanity’s greenhouse gas emissions are sufficient to cause the warming we have seen over the last 50 to 100 years.
I am currently very supportive of fossil fuels because I know that we really have no adequate alternatives. I recognize the importance of abundant and affordable energy to help eliminate the greatest scourge that humanity faces: poverty. Forcing expensive alternative forms of energy on people in the futile attempt to fight global warming is nothing less than a war on the poor by those who are wealthy enough to pay higher prices for energy. …Yes, I look forward to the day when we can begin a public dialog on the harmful consequences of making energy more expensive, and maybe even discuss what I regard as a very real possibility: More atmospheric carbon dioxide might be good for life on Earth. We have enough real problems to address in this world without making up imaginary ones.
In contrast, the environmentalist lobbyists have been heavily funded by people who support specific political goals and policy outcomes. These leanings are almost always against free markets and against big business. While petroleum companies continue to provide goods that are demanded by most of humanity, many environmental interests would fade away if the threat of global warming were to disappear. Petroleum companies will survive with or without environmental concerns, since they will continue to provide commodities that everyone needs. In contrast, the existence of environmental advocacy groups depends on a constant stream of environmental fears.
