Greenhousies on bandwagon?

Ruapehu Bulletin, Volume 6, Issue 282, 11 April 1989, Page 2 (Supplement)

Greenhousies on bandwagon?

As an amateur meteorologist and climatologist who has studied this subject for many years, I am fast becoming angry and bewildered at the articles of some of our scientists who are continuing to propagate and nurture this bizarre greenhouse effect nonsense.

I truly amazes me that something like this, a totally unproven theory that has become such an obvious obsession with them is allowed to continue to be bandied about without someone raising an eyebrow. I guess only rationalists like myself have the gall to question scientists or politicians. Quite frankly, if this halfblown theory was taken into a court of law it would be smartly thrown out through lack of substantial evidience. Of course, the gullible public is probably unaware of the facts concerning climate and climatic change throughout recorded and prerecorded history. If they did know some of the facts and looked at them without raising an eyebrow a this rather obvious over-publicised theory that has made so many of its followers totally over-react. World renowned au-

thors of articles written about the greenhouse theory have warned other scientists not to "orchestrate" figures to try and support this theory. It would seem, however, that this happening and the recently retired head of the Meteorological Service, Dr John Hickman, may have been concerned about it when he made a point of saying that although New Zealand had undergone some warming recently the Indian Ocean was in fact cooling. These facts seem never to be made known by other scientists. Warmer Our globe is in continual state of warming and cooling. Late last century it was much warmer than it is today. So warm, in fact that in 1886 much of the Siberian permafrost melted to such an extent that rivers were indiscernible from the melt-off. The British winter of

1890/91 was extremely mild with roses and trees blooming in December - mid winter. This very warm period of the late 1800's had followed a very cold period of the late 18th century and first half of the 19th century. There was another general cooling in the first half of this century when in one bitter year people were able to walk across the frozen Baltic Sea. There was another warming during the 1940s and 1950s with another big cooling (especially in the Northern Hemisphere) in the 1960s-1970s then into another warming again. They are cycles, just cycles. Nothing more, nothing less and simply because there has been some increase in the levels of CO2 in our atmosphere of late it would be a very unprofessional person who would read more into it than is actually there. However, because of this present coincidental warmth and increase in CO2 some of these clever gentlemen have put two and two together and come up with a magnificent five. Eureka! CO2 plus warmer equals green-

house! No doubt about it. Yes, there have been some mild winters this decade, (mind, they will never tell you about the cold ones) and these are "consistent" with the greenhouse effect. The only way to describe this rather pathetic logic is to give an analogy. Analogy I have had it said to me by several well meaning people that since daylight saving was introduced their curtains and furniture have faded. Another that his chickens had not been laying as well and yet another that the paint on his house had faded since the longer daylight hours had been introduced. There are two basic facts here. Fact one is that indeed the curtains and furniture had faded, the chickens have not laid as well and the paint surely has peeled from the house. Fact two is that all these things have happened since daylight saving began. Now, having those two facts in mind we might well reason that daylight saving has been the cause of everything happening. After all, these happenings are "consistent" with daylight saving. We have put two and two together and come up with five. What garbage! Frankly, that seems to be the reasoning that some scientists have used in determining if there is any reality in

this greenhouse theory with apparent little regard for past historical climatological data. The greenhouse effect is total theory and it is total theory that is being propagated. They are now pushing this bandwagon and piling it high with hangers-on from other local and national departments who are trying to get in on the act and, I suppose, make a name for themselves. Last year one gentleman said the sea would rise by 2m. Later, it was amended to 20cm. Now its gone back up to lm. Jce age Many theoretical models have been made of oui; world warmed up by a greenhouse effect but the bandwagons seem very reluctant to divulge the various scenarios possible with a warming. Like the great possibility of a warming creating its own ice age, caused by the warming creating a big increase in cloud cover that would of course block out the Sun's warmth. Not only that, it would cause more snow to fall and that in turn would reflect much heat back out into space therefore cooling the Earth down. The extra cloud cover would in itself reflect much radiation back into . space. Then there's the scenario that the particles in the atmosphere from the burning of fossil fuels would help to reflect radiation back into space thereby cooling the Earth. Volcanos are good at doing this, their ash particles reflecting warmth into space. I also read recently that a mere 2% increase in cloud cover would take care of a 100% increase in CO2. We've also been led to believe that the burning of the great Amazon forests would help to create a greenhouse effect. Now an eminent South American scientist has said that the destroying of the forests would create an ice age! They are all mouthing off different statements of pure theory, not one or the other knowing any actual facts except perhaps for an American government research

team that has come up with some interesting ones. There are other interesting scenarios too, but you will never get to hear about them because to know of them would be to make thinking people question the credibility of two and two making five. Not a lot of people would know that this flimsy greenhouse theory raised its ugly head in the 1940s and 1950s when another warm period was on the globe. However, it wasn't long before scientists pulled the plug on it when the extreme cold returned in the 1960s and 1970s, especially in the northern hemisphere. I well remember some bitter ones in New Zealand as well. About turn This then saw the scientists do an abrupt about turn and proclaim a mini-ice-age was imminent. So great was the concern in the 1970s that conferences were held and amazing ideas flaunted to them in an endeavour to stop the encroaching ice. Now, of course, these "same" scientists have changed course once more and are now pushing their new, improved ELZ model bandwagon. They are spending many millions of our tax money making vast tests, holding their conferences, solemnly advising governments, shaking their heads and stroking their beards in concern and making computer models that truly "blow" the minds of the local and national hangers-on, who now seem to be trying to build their own personal bandwagons. Britain and Western Europe are prone to batches of mild winters. This happens because of the unique placement of the high and low pressure systems that track across the Atlantic. There are, of course, other natural factors like the presence of the warm Gulf Stream. They have had several mild winters this decade. From past history not at all unusual, but now some scientists are using these mild winters as a prop to enhance their greenhouse theory by saying it is "consistent" with the greenhouse effect. Because it throws their theory all to pot they will never mention that some of this decade's winters in Britain have been severe, making then the worst for 20 years. Because places on our globe are plunged into extremes of cold (obviously taking no notice whatsoever of any greenhouse effect), as it happened this year, it only goes to

make this greenhouse business more and more suspect. British scientists must now be well aware of this for I see that although they say that Britain's mild winter is "consistent" with the greenhouse effect they are quick to append their latest statement by saying, that in fact they have NO conclusive evidence that man is altering the planet's climate. Mild winters, cold summers, wet Octobers and dry Aprils are all from natural effects, not greenhouse ones. Our own mild spring and early summer was caused by nothing more than a larger number of nor'westers than normal and a moist northerly tropical airstream over the country. We need only to have a couple of extra nor'west days in the month to send the means above average and the greenhousies in panics of delight like children at a birthday party. One climatological scientist from America, James O'Brien, admitted in a recent article in Time magazine that "the massive energy released by the two E1 Ninos during this past decade may have pushed average global temperatures up, leaving a false impression of a global warming trend". Briefly, take a look at what this greenhouse effect has produced this past year. • In Dunedin I recorded the coldest year the past four years and recorded more frosts and twice as many air frosts as normal. No greenhouse blanket here. • Central Otago had the coldest winter for about 30 years and the earliest start to ice skating for that same time. The record cold even killed young pine trees. No greenhouse blanket here either. • Afghanistan is having the coldest winter in 60 years. • Russia has been iced in since about last September. •Parts of Canada and Alaska are recording record cold temperatures. • Southern California is experiencing record cold temperatures with snow falling in Malibu! Not bad for a greenhouse warming is it? But, to top it all off, probably the most interesting facts (not theories) that have come to hand have been from an official American government climatological research team who reported just recently back to that government that their in-depth research had found that there had been NO increase in Turn page 7

Greenhousies

From page 2 that country's temperatures over the past 100 years! There were other facts, too, that completely opposed greenhouse theorists' calculations. It is now time to stop this bandwagon and expel the driver and the hangers-on but I fear that we have not heard the last of them yet. I expect there will be more talk about it. More meetings, more exaggerated newspaper

reports, more radio and television reports to keep their theory alive and the egg from getting on their faces. There is going to be an even more shocking waste of taxpayers money on their multimillion -dollar needless research programme. Still, I suppose they have to justify their keep to their bosses. I just wish they would earn their keep in some other rational manner instead.