ViRedd
New Member
THAT GLOBAL WARMING IS BUNK SCIENCE.
Global Warming Petition - Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine
Global Warming Petition - Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine
On Global Warming - 16,000 scientistS agree ...
- Thread starter ViRedd
- Start date
medicineman
New Member
So, did you sign up? I saw no proof, just signatures. I'll agree most dr.s would like to keep their SUVs and Motorhomes going and their exhorbotant lifestyles alive, but where is the proof. Every link ended up in the same place, a message by some goof to sign the petition. This is Bunk science at it's peak. Hey, if I had a ton of money, I could promote and get signatures on a petition for almost anything. Do you think the oil companies had anything to do with this? Well of course not, how dare me assume that. Those benevolent captians of industry would never think of such a thing..Bunk, pure Bunk. as you would say, show me the proof!!!!!
skunkushybrid
New Member
There's a very respected man in my country, he works for the bbc studying our world and the creatures within it. This man has worked for the bbc, doing this job for 30 years. His name is Sir David Attenborough. A few weeks ago, he told us that global warming could well be a natural occurence. scientists have proved(?) that global warming has happened before, and in fact happens regularly on a 1500 year cycle.
Now, things have changed. David is now telling us (only from 2 days ago) that yes, it is a natural occurence. Yet this accelerated type of global warming has never been seen by this earth before. The ice sheets are melting at a tremendous rate, and I think by 2100 the sea will have risen by 4-5 metres. Which may not sound like a lot but it will be enough to ensure that London is completely submerged. There is a knock-on effect. We will also suffer hurricanes, severe weather conditions of the like we have never seen. A country like yours that already suffers severe weather, well... I can't even imagine. The conclusion is that we are responsible for this acceleration. The argument is over, at least to my mind. In his programme David did a very good job of convincing me, with masses of evidence to support his surmissions.
Now, things have changed. David is now telling us (only from 2 days ago) that yes, it is a natural occurence. Yet this accelerated type of global warming has never been seen by this earth before. The ice sheets are melting at a tremendous rate, and I think by 2100 the sea will have risen by 4-5 metres. Which may not sound like a lot but it will be enough to ensure that London is completely submerged. There is a knock-on effect. We will also suffer hurricanes, severe weather conditions of the like we have never seen. A country like yours that already suffers severe weather, well... I can't even imagine. The conclusion is that we are responsible for this acceleration. The argument is over, at least to my mind. In his programme David did a very good job of convincing me, with masses of evidence to support his surmissions.
bigbudeddie
Well-Known Member
skunk i back up your agruement 100%
Wavels
Well-Known Member
Skunky, here is a Brit who rejects Attenborough et al.
From The Sunday Times
February 11, 2007
An experiment that hints we are wrong on climate change
Nigel Calder, former editor of New Scientist, says the orthodoxy must be challenged
Older readers may recall a press conference at Harwell in 1958 when Sir John Cockcroft, Britains top nuclear physicist, said he was 90% certain that his lads had achieved controlled nuclear fusion. It turned out that he was wrong. More positively, a 10% uncertainty in any theory is a wide open breach for any latterday Galileo or Einstein to storm through with a better idea. That is how science really works.
also...
Enthusiasm for the global-warming scare also ensures that heatwaves make headlines, while contrary symptoms, such as this winters billion-dollar loss of Californian crops to unusual frost, are relegated to the business pages.
and...
Meanwhile humility in face of Natures marvels seems more appropriate than arrogant assertions that we can forecast and even control a climate ruled by the sun and the stars.
Excerpts from
An experiment that hints we are wrong on climate change-News-UK-TimesOnline
From The Sunday Times
February 11, 2007
An experiment that hints we are wrong on climate change
Nigel Calder, former editor of New Scientist, says the orthodoxy must be challenged
Older readers may recall a press conference at Harwell in 1958 when Sir John Cockcroft, Britains top nuclear physicist, said he was 90% certain that his lads had achieved controlled nuclear fusion. It turned out that he was wrong. More positively, a 10% uncertainty in any theory is a wide open breach for any latterday Galileo or Einstein to storm through with a better idea. That is how science really works.
also...
Enthusiasm for the global-warming scare also ensures that heatwaves make headlines, while contrary symptoms, such as this winters billion-dollar loss of Californian crops to unusual frost, are relegated to the business pages.
and...
Meanwhile humility in face of Natures marvels seems more appropriate than arrogant assertions that we can forecast and even control a climate ruled by the sun and the stars.
Excerpts from
An experiment that hints we are wrong on climate change-News-UK-TimesOnline
African Herbsman
Well-Known Member
it is real
watch an inconvieniant truth
i tihnk i spelled it right
watch an inconvieniant truth
i tihnk i spelled it right
Dankdude
Well-Known Member
I have seen it and it's bullshit herbsman.... Most of what global warming is based on is computer models.
As anyone who has ever written programs and works on computers knows, one line of code can throw off the whole thing....
What I think it funny is when he starts talking about Polar Ice Caps melting and him saying the sea levels would rise.
Does the Level of a drink rise if an ice cube melts?
No it just dilutes the drink.
If the salt in the oceans is diluted it slows the currents in the water down, which would make the waters colder. This would usher in an ICE AGE....
Al Gore is full of shit. And so is An Inconvenient Truth.
African Herbsman
Well-Known Member
why would you think that it is bullshit?
I mean there is plenty of data and it all shows that the global temperatures are increasing at a rapid pace.
Dankdude
Well-Known Member
Because of what is written below negates everything he says:
What I think it funny is when he starts talking about Polar Ice Caps melting and him saying the sea levels would rise.
Does the Level of a drink rise if an ice cube melts?
No it just dilutes the drink.
If the salt in the oceans is diluted it slows the currents in the water down, which would make the waters colder. This would usher in an ICE AGE....
What I think it funny is when he starts talking about Polar Ice Caps melting and him saying the sea levels would rise.
Does the Level of a drink rise if an ice cube melts?
No it just dilutes the drink.
If the salt in the oceans is diluted it slows the currents in the water down, which would make the waters colder. This would usher in an ICE AGE....
medicineman
New Member
Well yeah, that is the result of warming, it induces an Ice age. When the warm tropical current off the west coast of europe is overburdened with ice melt, it will stop circulating and an Ice age will begin. This might be described as a natural phenomonem, But surely you can see the accelerated melting might be a little the fault of man, Maybe not. Anyway I told myself I wouldn't waste my time debating this issue as it is a no brainer to me, and I haven't even seen big Als' movie! Keep drinkin!
ViRedd
New Member
Med sez...
But surely you can see the accelerated melting might be a little the fault of man, Maybe not. Anyway I told myself I wouldn't waste my time debating this issue as it is a no brainer to me...
So, "maybe yes" and "maybe no" ... and yet its a "no brainer?" If you haven't come to a definite conclusion, that means that you, like Al Gore etal, have no conclusive facts to back up your wishy-washy conclusions. I mean, "maybe so" and "maybe no," then at the same time supporting solutions that would cast the U.S. economy into the dumpers and also cast U.S. citizens into the morass of world socialism, via the Kyoto Treaty, isn't enough to sway me toward your "arguments" on global warming.
Now then, there are not too many people that I know of that don't think that something is happening with the climate. The earth's climate is in constant change ... but where's the proof that this change is caused by Man? I'm not willing to throw my life style, and the future of my children and grandchildren down the hole of "maybe yes" and "maybe no."
Vi
But surely you can see the accelerated melting might be a little the fault of man, Maybe not. Anyway I told myself I wouldn't waste my time debating this issue as it is a no brainer to me...
So, "maybe yes" and "maybe no" ... and yet its a "no brainer?" If you haven't come to a definite conclusion, that means that you, like Al Gore etal, have no conclusive facts to back up your wishy-washy conclusions. I mean, "maybe so" and "maybe no," then at the same time supporting solutions that would cast the U.S. economy into the dumpers and also cast U.S. citizens into the morass of world socialism, via the Kyoto Treaty, isn't enough to sway me toward your "arguments" on global warming.
Now then, there are not too many people that I know of that don't think that something is happening with the climate. The earth's climate is in constant change ... but where's the proof that this change is caused by Man? I'm not willing to throw my life style, and the future of my children and grandchildren down the hole of "maybe yes" and "maybe no."
Vi
medicineman
New Member
What I find ODD is most of the world accepts this as fact,except for a few 1 month ago there was a story on cnn about an ice sheet the size of rhode island that broke off the ice shelf. it got about 45 seconds of air time. About 3 months ago the scientists said that if polar ice keeps dissapearing at the rate it is today there will be NO MORE polar bears in 50 years. They will be extinct. It got 30 seconds of air time. HOW SAD. Anna Nicole Smith has a bastard child and no one knows who the cum donor is and its national news for 4 days. Its no wonder we americans are misinformed. The government rules the media.
We may have freedomm of speach and freedom of press this is true. but the government (FCC) hold alot of broadcast licences. "talk more about this and less about that or else !"
We are talking about something that has the potential to erase ALL life on earth in less then 100 years. i think it should be looked at it objectively and NOT with a government stance. Unless you think that weed is a dangerous drug.
__________________
The truth is always the hardest to swallow.
We may have freedomm of speach and freedom of press this is true. but the government (FCC) hold alot of broadcast licences. "talk more about this and less about that or else !"
We are talking about something that has the potential to erase ALL life on earth in less then 100 years. i think it should be looked at it objectively and NOT with a government stance. Unless you think that weed is a dangerous drug.
__________________
The truth is always the hardest to swallow.
Dankdude
Well-Known Member
Wrong my friend, it has happened once before.... end of the thirteenth century. THEY WEREN'T DRIVING CARS BACK THEN.
African Herbsman
Well-Known Member
ok but who do you thinks knows more about this situation you or idk a scientist that studies that field......
skunkushybrid
New Member
Global warming is happening... FACT. It is believed to be a natural phenomenon. Yet this type, or accelerated global warming has never been seen before. To say that cold spells aren't anything to do with global warming is ridiculous.
If we continue to deny that we are threatened by this, and that we aren't reponsible we will continue to suffer. This world needs to change, we need to change. In my country we already recycle more than most of the countries in the world, I actually read that we are the biggest recyclers in the world, but I'm not sure how true this is.
Car emissions are not only bad for the environment they are bad for our health too. Millions every year die from lung cancer, yet passive smoking gets more blame. A person lights up a cigarette and is stared at in disgust, yet this person with the disgusted look will think nothing of starting an engine and driving right past a bunch of kids. This world is fucked up, and we NEED to start making changes.
Global warming is a fact. We also know that it happens on about a 1500 year cycle. We know all this from studying ice cores, and layers of rock. The same way that we know it's a natural occurence is the same way that we know it has never happened this fast before. Man has definitely had an impact. Forests chopped down, trees breathe in co2, the great coral reef is actually dying. Miles upon miles of reef is dying, and this is the oceans equivalent to our rainforests. There will be a knock on effect, species will be wiped out causing ripples along our life line.
If we continue to deny we can do anything about what is happening our children will suffer, and after that their children will too, and after that? We'll probably be back living in caves.
If we continue to deny that we are threatened by this, and that we aren't reponsible we will continue to suffer. This world needs to change, we need to change. In my country we already recycle more than most of the countries in the world, I actually read that we are the biggest recyclers in the world, but I'm not sure how true this is.
Car emissions are not only bad for the environment they are bad for our health too. Millions every year die from lung cancer, yet passive smoking gets more blame. A person lights up a cigarette and is stared at in disgust, yet this person with the disgusted look will think nothing of starting an engine and driving right past a bunch of kids. This world is fucked up, and we NEED to start making changes.
Global warming is a fact. We also know that it happens on about a 1500 year cycle. We know all this from studying ice cores, and layers of rock. The same way that we know it's a natural occurence is the same way that we know it has never happened this fast before. Man has definitely had an impact. Forests chopped down, trees breathe in co2, the great coral reef is actually dying. Miles upon miles of reef is dying, and this is the oceans equivalent to our rainforests. There will be a knock on effect, species will be wiped out causing ripples along our life line.
If we continue to deny we can do anything about what is happening our children will suffer, and after that their children will too, and after that? We'll probably be back living in caves.
Dankdude
Well-Known Member
Herbsman, it was a field scientist who figured this out.... BTW when I was in college I did take a course in environmental science. You really got to quit believing everything you hear. Skunky, if we eliminated all the cars on earth tomorrow, we would still be facing the situation. It's a natural occurrence.
medicineman
New Member
I wonder if you respect Sir David Attenborough:
Attenborough: Climate is changing
Sir David's concerns Climate change is the biggest challenge facing the world, naturalist Sir David Attenborough has said.
The veteran broadcaster said scientific data clearly showed that human-induced climate change was now beyond doubt.
Sir David, 80, added that everyone had a responsibility to change their behaviour, including being less wasteful and more energy efficient.
It is the first time Sir David has voiced his concerns in public about the impacts of global warming.
His comments come ahead of a two-part BBC series in which he examines the impacts of global warming on the Earth.
Sir David has been criticised by environmentalists in the past for not speaking out on the matter.
Sir David Attenborough
"If you take one moment in time, you can't be sure what the trend is," he told the BBC.
"Now... when we look at the graphs of rising ocean temperatures, rising carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and so on, we know that they are climbing far more steeply than can be accounted for by the natural oscillation of the weather."
Sir David, whose distinguished broadcasting career spans more than half a century, says everyone has a responsibility to act: "What people (must) do is to change their behaviour and their attitudes.
"If we do care about our grandchildren then we have to do something, and we have to demand that our governments do something.
His comments came as a UK parliamentary body, the All-Party Environment Group, issued a report labelling the government a "climate laggard" for its record on reducing emissions.
Climate sceptic
Sir David, whose natural history programmes have been watched by millions of people around the world, is the latest high-profile figure to say the world is facing a climate crisis.
The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams; the government's chief scientist Sir David King, and former Royal Society president Sir Robert May have all expressed public concern on the issue.
This week, former US Vice President Al Gore has been at the Cannes Film Festival to promote a documentary on climate change.
Mr Gore told festival goers that the world was facing a "planetary emergency" due to global warming.
The man who beat him to the White House in the 2000 US presidential elections, George W Bush, remains sceptical about the influence of human activity on the state of the planet's atmosphere.
He says binding targets to reduce greenhouse emissions are inefficient and would harm the US economy.
Last year, he launched a partnership alongside five Asia-Pacific nations to promote technological solutions for reducing the world's dependency on fossil fuels. Sir David will present a two-part television programme that will explore how climate change is altering the planet, from drought-hit rainforest to the decline of polar bears. Sir David Attenborough presents Are We Changing Planet Earth? on BBC One, Wednesday, 24 May 2006, at 2100 BST
ViRedd
New Member
From The Sunday Times
February 11, 2007
An experiment that hints we are wrong on climate change
Nigel Calder, former editor of New Scientist, says the orthodoxy must be challenged
When politicians and journalists declare that the science of global warming is settled, they show a regrettable ignorance about how science works. We were treated to another dose of it recently when the experts of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change issued the Summary for Policymakers that puts the political spin on an unfinished scientific dossier on climate change due for publication in a few months’ time. They declared that most of the rise in temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to man-made greenhouse gases.
The small print explains “very likely” as meaning that the experts who made the judgment felt 90% sure about it. Older readers may recall a press conference at Harwell in 1958 when Sir John Cockcroft, Britain’s top nuclear physicist, said he was 90% certain that his lads had achieved controlled nuclear fusion. It turned out that he was wrong. More positively, a 10% uncertainty in any theory is a wide open breach for any latterday Galileo or Einstein to storm through with a better idea. That is how science really works.
Twenty years ago, climate research became politicised in favour of one particular hypothesis, which redefined the subject as the study of the effect of greenhouse gases. As a result, the rebellious spirits essential for innovative and trustworthy science are greeted with impediments to their research careers. And while the media usually find mavericks at least entertaining, in this case they often imagine that anyone who doubts the hypothesis of man-made global warming must be in the pay of the oil companies. As a result, some key discoveries in climate research go almost unreported.
Enthusiasm for the global-warming scare also ensures that heatwaves make headlines, while contrary symptoms, such as this winter’s billion-dollar loss of Californian crops to unusual frost, are relegated to the business pages. The early arrival of migrant birds in spring provides colourful evidence for a recent warming of the northern lands. But did anyone tell you that in east Antarctica the Adélie penguins and Cape petrels are turning up at their spring nesting sites around nine days later than they did 50 years ago? While sea-ice has diminished in the Arctic since 1978, it has grown by 8% in the Southern Ocean.
function pictureGalleryPopup(pubUrl,articleId) { var newWin = window.open(pubUrl+'template/2.0-0/element/pictureGalleryPopup.jsp?id='+articleId+'&&offset=0&§ionName=UK','mywindow','menubar=0,resizable=0,width=615,height=655'); }Background
Related Internet Links
So one awkward question you can ask, when you’re forking out those extra taxes for climate change, is “Why is east Antarctica getting colder?” It makes no sense at all if carbon dioxide is driving global warming. While you’re at it, you might inquire whether Gordon Brown will give you a refund if it’s confirmed that global warming has stopped. The best measurements of global air temperatures come from American weather satellites, and they show wobbles but no overall change since 1999.
That levelling off is just what is expected by the chief rival hypothesis, which says that the sun drives climate changes more emphatically than greenhouse gases do. After becoming much more active during the 20th century, the sun now stands at a high but roughly level state of activity. Solar physicists warn of possible global cooling, should the sun revert to the lazier mood it was in during the Little Ice Age 300 years ago.
Climate history and related archeology give solid support to the solar hypothesis. The 20th-century episode, or Modern Warming, was just the latest in a long string of similar events produced by a hyperactive sun, of which the last was the Medieval Warming.
The Chinese population doubled then, while in Europe the Vikings and cathedral-builders prospered. Fascinating relics of earlier episodes come from the Swiss Alps, with the rediscovery in 2003 of a long-forgotten pass used intermittently whenever the world was warm.
What does the Intergovernmental Panel do with such emphatic evidence for an alternation of warm and cold periods, linked to solar activity and going on long before human industry was a possible factor? Less than nothing. The 2007 Summary for Policymakers boasts of cutting in half a very small contribution by the sun to climate change conceded in a 2001 report.
Disdain for the sun goes with a failure by the self-appointed greenhouse experts to keep up with inconvenient discoveries about how the solar variations control the climate. The sun’s brightness may change too little to account for the big swings in the climate. But more than 10 years have passed since Henrik Svensmark in Copenhagen first pointed out a much more powerful mechanism.
He saw from compilations of weather satellite data that cloudiness varies according to how many atomic particles are coming in from exploded stars. More cosmic rays, more clouds. The sun’s magnetic field bats away many of the cosmic rays, and its intensification during the 20th century meant fewer cosmic rays, fewer clouds, and a warmer world. On the other hand the Little Ice Age was chilly because the lazy sun let in more cosmic rays, leaving the world cloudier and gloomier.
The only trouble with Svensmark’s idea — apart from its being politically incorrect — was that meteorologists denied that cosmic rays could be involved in cloud formation. After long delays in scraping together the funds for an experiment, Svensmark and his small team at the Danish National Space Center hit the jackpot in the summer of 2005.
In a box of air in the basement, they were able to show that electrons set free by cosmic rays coming through the ceiling stitched together droplets of sulphuric acid and water. These are the building blocks for cloud condensation. But journal after journal declined to publish their report; the discovery finally appeared in the Proceedings of the Royal Society late last year.
Thanks to having written The Manic Sun, a book about Svensmark’s initial discovery published in 1997, I have been privileged to be on the inside track for reporting his struggles and successes since then. The outcome is a second book, The Chilling Stars, co-authored by the two of us and published next week by Icon books. We are not exaggerating, we believe, when we subtitle it “A new theory of climate change”.
Where does all that leave the impact of greenhouse gases? Their effects are likely to be a good deal less than advertised, but nobody can really say until the implications of the new theory of climate change are more fully worked out.
The reappraisal starts with Antarctica, where those contradictory temperature trends are directly predicted by Svensmark’s scenario, because the snow there is whiter than the cloud-tops. Meanwhile humility in face of Nature’s marvels seems more appropriate than arrogant assertions that we can forecast and even control a climate ruled by the sun and the stars.
February 11, 2007
An experiment that hints we are wrong on climate change
Nigel Calder, former editor of New Scientist, says the orthodoxy must be challenged
When politicians and journalists declare that the science of global warming is settled, they show a regrettable ignorance about how science works. We were treated to another dose of it recently when the experts of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change issued the Summary for Policymakers that puts the political spin on an unfinished scientific dossier on climate change due for publication in a few months’ time. They declared that most of the rise in temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to man-made greenhouse gases.
The small print explains “very likely” as meaning that the experts who made the judgment felt 90% sure about it. Older readers may recall a press conference at Harwell in 1958 when Sir John Cockcroft, Britain’s top nuclear physicist, said he was 90% certain that his lads had achieved controlled nuclear fusion. It turned out that he was wrong. More positively, a 10% uncertainty in any theory is a wide open breach for any latterday Galileo or Einstein to storm through with a better idea. That is how science really works.
Twenty years ago, climate research became politicised in favour of one particular hypothesis, which redefined the subject as the study of the effect of greenhouse gases. As a result, the rebellious spirits essential for innovative and trustworthy science are greeted with impediments to their research careers. And while the media usually find mavericks at least entertaining, in this case they often imagine that anyone who doubts the hypothesis of man-made global warming must be in the pay of the oil companies. As a result, some key discoveries in climate research go almost unreported.
Enthusiasm for the global-warming scare also ensures that heatwaves make headlines, while contrary symptoms, such as this winter’s billion-dollar loss of Californian crops to unusual frost, are relegated to the business pages. The early arrival of migrant birds in spring provides colourful evidence for a recent warming of the northern lands. But did anyone tell you that in east Antarctica the Adélie penguins and Cape petrels are turning up at their spring nesting sites around nine days later than they did 50 years ago? While sea-ice has diminished in the Arctic since 1978, it has grown by 8% in the Southern Ocean.
function pictureGalleryPopup(pubUrl,articleId) { var newWin = window.open(pubUrl+'template/2.0-0/element/pictureGalleryPopup.jsp?id='+articleId+'&&offset=0&§ionName=UK','mywindow','menubar=0,resizable=0,width=615,height=655'); }Background
Related Internet Links
So one awkward question you can ask, when you’re forking out those extra taxes for climate change, is “Why is east Antarctica getting colder?” It makes no sense at all if carbon dioxide is driving global warming. While you’re at it, you might inquire whether Gordon Brown will give you a refund if it’s confirmed that global warming has stopped. The best measurements of global air temperatures come from American weather satellites, and they show wobbles but no overall change since 1999.
That levelling off is just what is expected by the chief rival hypothesis, which says that the sun drives climate changes more emphatically than greenhouse gases do. After becoming much more active during the 20th century, the sun now stands at a high but roughly level state of activity. Solar physicists warn of possible global cooling, should the sun revert to the lazier mood it was in during the Little Ice Age 300 years ago.
Climate history and related archeology give solid support to the solar hypothesis. The 20th-century episode, or Modern Warming, was just the latest in a long string of similar events produced by a hyperactive sun, of which the last was the Medieval Warming.
The Chinese population doubled then, while in Europe the Vikings and cathedral-builders prospered. Fascinating relics of earlier episodes come from the Swiss Alps, with the rediscovery in 2003 of a long-forgotten pass used intermittently whenever the world was warm.
What does the Intergovernmental Panel do with such emphatic evidence for an alternation of warm and cold periods, linked to solar activity and going on long before human industry was a possible factor? Less than nothing. The 2007 Summary for Policymakers boasts of cutting in half a very small contribution by the sun to climate change conceded in a 2001 report.
Disdain for the sun goes with a failure by the self-appointed greenhouse experts to keep up with inconvenient discoveries about how the solar variations control the climate. The sun’s brightness may change too little to account for the big swings in the climate. But more than 10 years have passed since Henrik Svensmark in Copenhagen first pointed out a much more powerful mechanism.
He saw from compilations of weather satellite data that cloudiness varies according to how many atomic particles are coming in from exploded stars. More cosmic rays, more clouds. The sun’s magnetic field bats away many of the cosmic rays, and its intensification during the 20th century meant fewer cosmic rays, fewer clouds, and a warmer world. On the other hand the Little Ice Age was chilly because the lazy sun let in more cosmic rays, leaving the world cloudier and gloomier.
The only trouble with Svensmark’s idea — apart from its being politically incorrect — was that meteorologists denied that cosmic rays could be involved in cloud formation. After long delays in scraping together the funds for an experiment, Svensmark and his small team at the Danish National Space Center hit the jackpot in the summer of 2005.
In a box of air in the basement, they were able to show that electrons set free by cosmic rays coming through the ceiling stitched together droplets of sulphuric acid and water. These are the building blocks for cloud condensation. But journal after journal declined to publish their report; the discovery finally appeared in the Proceedings of the Royal Society late last year.
Thanks to having written The Manic Sun, a book about Svensmark’s initial discovery published in 1997, I have been privileged to be on the inside track for reporting his struggles and successes since then. The outcome is a second book, The Chilling Stars, co-authored by the two of us and published next week by Icon books. We are not exaggerating, we believe, when we subtitle it “A new theory of climate change”.
Where does all that leave the impact of greenhouse gases? Their effects are likely to be a good deal less than advertised, but nobody can really say until the implications of the new theory of climate change are more fully worked out.
The reappraisal starts with Antarctica, where those contradictory temperature trends are directly predicted by Svensmark’s scenario, because the snow there is whiter than the cloud-tops. Meanwhile humility in face of Nature’s marvels seems more appropriate than arrogant assertions that we can forecast and even control a climate ruled by the sun and the stars.