Climate Skeptic was asked to give an interview on… climate. He was asked some leading questions, from an obviously alarmist bias, and gave his answers.
The Air Vent listed the same questions for any interested commenters.
So, just for fun, here are my remarks, but CS has better ones.
Do you believe that global warming and climate change are a grave problem to the world at the moment ?
Yes, but not due to temperature fluctuations. Oh, you just mean temperature? Then no.
What gives you reason to believe that global warming and climate change are not really happening?
Nice dodge. Note the change in question from the “Do you believe” above. Global warming has happened to the tune of maybe 1 degree F over the last 120 some odd years.
Climate change has been happening for billions of years.
Of course, catastrophic warming is what the original remark was addressing and there is zero evidence to believe in CGW.
Is there any scientific evidence to support that global warming and climate change is not really that harmful?
The question is backwards and should be, “Is there any evidence to show that global warming is harmful?”
Or one could look at it this way: Climate change has been proven to be disasterous. Try to imagine living under a mile of ice. Much of Europe would be wiped out as would Canada, most of the northern US, and so on.
There is zero evidence to show that global warming is harmful (and by that I mean real global warming, not the CGW nonsense.)
Are most scientists wrong?
About what, exactly?
Most scientists have been wrong about most things since science was invented. Good scientists look at the data obtained and go back and fix their hypotheses. Eventually they refine their hypotheses into theories, through the collection of real world data, and have a better estimate of what’s real.
Then another scientist comes along and proves them wrong. Einstein and Newton, for example.
What do you think is causing temperature changes on a scale never seen before?
What changes? On what scale? And why do you think they haven’t been seen before? Unless you’re only looking back a few years?
This is an odd question since we’re not seeing temperature changes on a scale never seen before. There is nothing about the slight amount of warming that has not been seen before. Many times.
Science tells us that there have been many times in the past with far faster rises and drops. Though the rises usually occur from the coldest levels and the drops from the warmest.Clearly the climate is extremely stable, though within a certain range it shows definite variation. All natural.
Clearly the questioners are unaware of this fact.
What did you think to the results of Copenhagen?
Quite nice. It was lovely to see so many power and money hungry would-be dictators go home disappointed, especially after burning all that carbon to get there.
I expect they had some great parties, though.
Why do governments seem so concerned with the issue?
Because Al Gore is a superb marketer and because the issue is a bit win for lovers of big government (and socialism, totalitarianism, etc.)
The issue has a built in constituency. The Pols that shout “WARMING!” the loudest have all the greens automatically supporting (voting for) them. Gore shows his hockey stick and millions of people show an interest in him. Intoxicating. Not to mention what it did for the value of his investments.
Then there’s the vast amounts of tax money and the intoxicating power of being dictators.
If fossil fuels will run out anyway, surely we should move to find alternatives. Why not now?
The question has nothing to do with warming. Actually, if we burned off all known fossil fuel reserves we would not double our CO2 levels.
There are lots of reasons to move away from fossil fuels, certain political reasons being the big ones and CO2 being the least of them. Cutting our dependence on foreign oil has massive political benefits, but not if it cripples our economy.
Drill and build here first, then cut the ties as new domestic energy sources allow.
Even if it is not guaranteed that manmade emissions are to blame, wouldn’t it be wise to act anyway? It’s a hell of a gamble to our children’s future.
To blame for what? There is zero evidence of warming catastrophe so what’s the gamble?
However, we DO know that insane Gov spending is vastly more damaging to our kid’s future than is climate change.
CGW mitigation is a worthless waste of money and resources.
Don’t we have a duty to protect or planet for future generations? (i.e. save it from deforestation, pollution etc)
A separate question entirely and one that has nothing to do with warming. If fact, warming is probably last on a long list of environmental concerns, it’s just that it has the best chance to generate those increasing investments and massive tax revenues.
Of course we have a duty to prove a clean living space for our kids and we’ve been doing just that. The fact is that the world is much cleaner and greener than it was 30 years ago.
Since all the mitigation factors seem to be designed to make Al Gore and Goldman-Sachs very rich and massively increase governmental control and keep the 3rd world from developing and since those factors will do nothing to stop the non-existent CGW I think we do have a duty. That duty is to fight the CGW crowd every inch of the way.
How bad is climate change at the moment?
Given the economic destruction planned by the CGW crowd I think it’s potentially disasterous. The cures, not the climate change. Millions of people will live far less happy lives so that Gore, Pachauri, and various Governments can grow richer and more powerful.
What did you think to the results of Copenhagen?
Is it increasing at an uncontrollable rate? Or is there still a chance to reduce climate change and alter its predicted course of events?
Yes, Gov lust for money and power does seem to be increasing rapidly. What’s increasing more rapidly is the frustrations of the would be dictators pushing the CGW issue.
Climate change is uncontrollable and it’s not increasing, but there’s likely to be a pretty major change coming along at some point. It’s called an ice age.
Do you have any comments on the recent e-mail leak scandal that was publicized?
Wasn’t that great? Now we know what passes for science among the “in” crowd.
What do you think about the rising levels of climate change skepticism?
It’s a beautiful thing and absolutely necessary. It’s because of the skeptics that we might actually be able to generate some real climate science and get away from the Al Gore fantasies.
How could and/or will climate change or similarly global warming affect the Middle East region in particular the Arabian peninsula?
Climate change over the last 12,000 years has had significant effects on the middle east. Seal level rise after the last ice age seems to have drowned a few cities. The deserts have been much greener in the past and maybe, with a bit of warning, they will be again.
What about other vulnerable countries?
The economic hardships planned by the CGW community will be far more damaging than warming. If there’s major cooling then those countries are likely to be the choice of many people leaving the glaciered areas.
What can the average citizen do more or less to help reduce climate change and its impact?
Start by getting the CGW types out of office, especially Al Gore and his ilk. Strong economies will make adaptation to catastrophic weather effects and cooling much easier to deal will.
What do you predict will happen to major cities in the world if the problem of global warming is not addressed immediately?
Life will go on, much as it has. If warming is addresses, with the recommended “cures,” then their economies will collapse. However, the CGW crowd might see some heads exploding out of sheer frustration. Duct tape is a good preventative.
How will an increase in global warming change the earth’s natural weather activities i.e. how will people and animals be affected, ecosystems, the weather….
Based on actual historical records, warming will clearly be a good thing for people, plants, and critters. A warmer climate will likely bring about fewer storms and less chaotic weather.
Plants and animals will be able to expand their ranges and be less stressed. Crops will have longer and better growing seasons. There will be less winter-kill.
Critters in marginal environments (eg: polar bears) will be less stressed.
Any areas experiencing droughts will be outweighed by the areas experiencing improved conditions.
All in all, it would be a good thing.
How can we move forward on this issue?
By respecting the skeptics and working for real science. Send the Al Gore crowd on its way and lets get a real discussion going, instead of the endless stream on contempt heaped upon the skeptics.
Are you confident we can find a solution?
There is no warming problem to find a solution to, so the question is moot. Other, real, pollution problems have solutions and those are being used to good effect.
What are the chances of a new technology saving us? (for example, carbon capture)
Saving us? From what? Alien invasion? Carbon capture schemes are a poor idea. Drop the exotic tech and plant more trees.
Is carbon trading effectively passing the buck? Does it actually help?
The only people that it helps are those playing the carbon credit game (Gore, Soros, Goldman-Sachs, etc.) It does nothing for the environment, makes the poor poorer, and the truly poor will become desperate. Or starve.