Grand minima can last for decades. The previous one took place between 1645 and 1715, and has been linked to the little ice age in Europe. A new one might also cause localised cold periods, but many climate scientists see a silver lining to such a turn of events: a grand minimum offers ideal conditions for testing the effects of solar variability on Earth’s climate (see “Our star’s subtle influence”).
But don’t sweat it (so to speak). The largest energy source in the solar system has absolutely no influence over the planetary climate. Just ask the AGW folks.
OK, my question about this article is: who puts whole (or even cut) tomatoes in chicken soup? Honestly, the question being asked would never occur to me, because I’ve never been burned by a tomato in soup of any kind, let alone chicken.
A review of a new book on the global warming fraud:
What will especially raise readers’ ethical hackles are his disclosures of duplicity at what should be the most credible institutional levels in ensuring that counter-claims to the received wisdom are suppressed.
For a particularly egregious example of bad faith in communicating with the public, Solway cites a 2009 University of Illinois survey concluding that 97.4% of scientists agree that mankind is responsible for global warming. But the methodology of the survey was grossly corrupt. Of the 10,257 respondents, 10,180 demurred from the consensus. They were summarily rejected, even though included amongst them were solar scientists, meteorologists, physicists, and other scientific experts. Seventy-five of the remaining 77 respondents agreed with the proposition that global warming is caused by humans and voilà! That equals 97.4%. In fact, only .008% of the respondents concurred with the hypothesis. This is intellectual fraud of breathtaking arrogance, yet it is only one of a slew of truth-traducing offenses Solway has amassed.
How do academics and other global-warming stakeholders justify their complicity in manufacturing consent? Solway explains it as a form of cognitive dissonance of the type one often finds in religions and triumphalist ideologies, where ends are privileged over means. In his chapter on environmentalism as religion, Solway explains how Gaia, the earth’s divine avatar, replaced God in our secular age.
Environmentalism has been transmogrified from a wholesome movement to make the earth a healthier and cleaner habitat for human beings into an antihumanist, eco-worshipping cult, where man’s footprint anywhere at all is perceived as inherently toxic.
Yup. And the public schools are propagandizing our kids in this new religion.
NASA has to hope that Curiosity doesn’t find any. This is part of a broader issue. People who want to settle Mars had better hope we don’t find life there, or the biologists and greens will be decrying the “genocide” we might cause by contaminating the planet.
Mark Steyn has an amusing update over at The Corner. I find it amusing that some people really think that if it goes forward, it will be like the Scopes trial. I guess that’s how these people really think. It’s of a piece with the nuttiness that skepticism about AGW is on a par with creationism.
While it’s a nice romantic notion, the idea that there is just one person for you always struck me as nonsense, because the chances of finding them would be infinitesimal. But the indispensable XKCD actually runs the numbers.