This piece appeared in the Methodist Recorder, 1 Oct 21, and is republished here by permission of MR and the writer.
I do not have a problem with Ruth Anderson's views on flying (Recorder, 17 Sep)but I do have a problem with her statement that "global heating ... is resulting in more flooding, storms, melting ice-caps and rising sea levels". The facts do not bear out the view that the world is experiencing more of these things.
I recognise that my opinions carry little weight, but those who are wholly trusting in the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) consensus regarding anthropogenic global warming might take some notice of the views of Steven E Koonin, who was the under-secretary for science in the US Department of Energy under the Obama admiinistration.
His book, "Unsettled?" may not be an easy read, but it makes clear that many of the most dire warnings about the future are based on very unsteady and flimsy scientific foundations.
He makes clear that governments should base policy decisions on facts, not on over-simplified summaries of complex research.
Our Government's policy for net zero emissions might be thought to be such a case. I rather doubt that net zero is attainable in this country, but even if we reach it, it will have a negligible effect on the world climateand it will have been achieved in reality by exporting our emissions and our manufacturing industries to China, a China which is expandiing its coal-fired generation of electricity.
Thanks Howard - Ed.
Most of the world's carbon dioxide is in the oceans, and this responds to temperature, according to Henry's Law. When the temperature increases, CO2 is released; when it decreases, CO2 is absorbed. Chemists, engineers and physicists know this. Regretfully, most climate activists do not.
Back to top