Wednesday, July 20, 2005

Danger in Africa

July 20, 2005

Having just arrived in Johannesburg, President Clinton addressed a throng of young South Africans. He spoke of the great danger ahead. What was it? Was it the threat of AIDS, which is rampant throughout South Africa? Was it the threat of world terrorism? Was it the nation’s poverty and the need for young people to pursue education in order to escape poverty? None of these. He warned them about global warming! He said if trends continue, Africa would be under water because of the earth's ice melting.

When the global warming scare appeared in the 1980s, it was said if all the planet’s ice melted, ocean levels would rise 20 feet. But the world’s oceans have risen 350 feet in the last 18,000 years without any help from factories and automobiles burning fossil fuels and emitting carbon dioxide. The mean elevation of Africa is 1,900 feet, compared to 980 feet for Europe and 1,000 feet for Australia. So for Africa to be under water, Europe and Australia would have to be 900 feet under water.

Ocean levels have been rising ever since the end of the last Ice Age, about 12,000 years ago. For the last several centuries the rise has been 4 to 6 inches per century. And it would take a temperature rise of 55 degrees F. for a thousand years to melt the Antarctic ice cap.

Furthermore, the world’s largest ice masses, in Antarctica and Greenland, have been growing, not melting. The Greenland ice sheet has thickened by seven feet since it was first measured by laser altimetry from satellites in 1980.

For 95 percent of the past 100 million years the earth has been warmer than it is now. It was warmer 1,000, 3,000 and 6,000 years ago. We’re even below the average for the last 3,000 years.
So where is the “global warming”? It’s in the minds of the scaremongers and in invalid computer models that cannot be reconciled with actual temperature measurements, geologic records, and other physical evidence. For more on global warming, get my 3,000-word booklet on the subject from American Liberty Publishing.


Calvin Jones said...

Well its a shame to hear about youre existance but on a positive note you may have a chance of getting an award!

If you are actually interested in the science i reccomend the IPCC TAR which was prepared by the worlds top climate scientists. Or "stabilisation 2005" held in exeter as at the invite on Prime minister tony blair.

Anonymous said...

TAR is the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The highlight or central feature was the “hockey stick” presentation by Michael Mann et al. It showed a millennium of “reconstructed” global temperatures as a long horizontal trend looking like the long handle of a hockey stick—with a sharp rise since 1900 looking like the blade of the hockey stick, due to global warming. This spurious work has now been thoroughly discredited; even the IPCC no longer accepts or defends it. It survived only as long as it did because Mann refused to divulge his data or the computational code by which he arrived at the “hockey stick.” It is customary to make such information available so that others can check the validity of the computations, but Mann for a long time resisted on the grounds his work was proprietary even though it was paid for by the taxpayers though National Science Foundation funds. That should have been a red flag that his work was a fraud or a hoax. Eventually, Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick exposed an array of errors in the data and in his methodology. You can read McKitrick’s devastating explanation at You can also find at McIntyre and McKitrick’s published articles on the subject in the respected scientific journals Energy & Environment and Geophysical Research letters. It is also significant that once Mann’s computational code was unearthed, even random data plugged into it yielded a “hockey stick!” Even Mann conceded that his method would find a hockey stick even where there wasn’t one.
So let’s turn to the SAR, the Second Assessment Report by the IPCC. It featured a crucial graph that was doctored by Benjamin Santer to make it appear to support the hypothesis of global warming. But two climatologists, Michaels and Knappenber caught him. They looked up the data and exposed the fraud in “Human Effect on global Climate?” (See Nature 384, pp 522-523.) Santer accepted responsibility and said he did it to make the science conform to political policy—but shouldn’t policy conform to science rather than the other way around?
Then there’s the FAR, First Assessment Report. This was the one that was touted as being endorsed by a “consensus” of 2,400 scientists. But most of those were SOCIAL scientists—you know, sociologists, political scientists, etc.—not PHYSICAL scientists. And many were surprised to discover that they had allegedly “approved” the report when they had merely allowed their own work to be cited in it. Some of these scientists have since signed petitions against the very report that they had allegedly “approved.” Also, scientists who were asked to review the report were all listed as having approved it—even those who disapproved of it! The IPCC report is not a scientific report but an example of scientific corruption.
Science is not determined by “consensus,” but it is misleading even to claim that a “scientific consensus” (or the world’s foremost experts) support global warming. More than 100 professors of climatology or other climate specialist have signed the Leipzig Declaration, which calls the Kyoto treaty “dangerously simplistic, quite ineffective, and… based solely on unproven scientific theories, imperfect computer models, and unsupported assumptions.” And more than 17,000 scientists—all physical scientists, no social scientists—have signed the Oregon Petition against global warming, and 10,000 of them have advanced degrees. The Oregon Petition was spearheaded by Frederick Seitz, former president of both the National Academy of Sciences and the American Physical Society (and a man with honorary doctorates from more than thirty universities), and Arthur Robinson, President of the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine.
If you are actually interested in the science, a good place to begin your education is the five-part video you can view at Also the Science and Environmental Policy Project has an excellent website with a lot of info on global warming at For books, try those by Patrick J. Michaels, M. Mihkel Mathiesen, Ronald Bailey, S. Fred Singer, Bjorn Lomborg, and Christopher Essex and Ross McKitrick.

Anonymous said...

The Copenhagen Consensus (Google that phrase) of 2004 had 30 economic specialists, eight leading international economists (of which four are Nobel Prize winners) assess and prioritize the best solutions to ten of the greatest global challenges. Climate change was at the bottom. The consensus of 2006 put global warming way down in priority.