I have more on the sceptical scientists. I heard this evening an interview with Prof Freeman Dyson, about an article he wrote against the Climate Change orthodoxy.
Here is his article if you want to read it:
The Question of Global WarmingI have not read the article, but he did in the interview explain under hard questioning, what his position is.
He says there is no doubt the planet is warming up. Also there is no doubt the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere are very high.
However his primary argument was that he was not convinced that global warming was bad for us. In fact there is a good chance it will be beneficial - he gave the example of how the people in Greenland are happy that it is warmer.
He also says that it will be fifty years before we see any consequences worth noting, which is plenty of time to get a better idea of what is happening - then it will be two hundred years before any real problems arise.
He said the rise in sea levels has been happening for 10 thousand years, and is not necessarily connected with Global Warming.
But he also revealed himself as one of those who have the belief that science can find answers to the bad side-effects of Global Warming - he was very up-beat about the ability of science to solve problems. He had one idea of putting kites and balloons around some areas of Antarctica to change the wind patterns, and to direct snow to drop in the inland of Antarctica which would lower the sea levels.
I personally found his arguments silly, as I think the interviewer did also. The interviewer put to him the risk factor, which he dismissed.
My first suspicions began as the interview launched in discussing an article he had written about the Galápagos Islands. There is a growing question of whether they should retain the islands as a national park - not for humans. The settlers are growing and they want more land for themselves.
Dyson compared it to UK, thousands of years ago - what would have happened is the Brits were not allowed to occupy the whole of the British Isles? There would have been no Charles Dickens, and no Darwin. The man's a twit.
But he is one voice in this debate, and I don't think his view of harmlessness of Global Warming is the only argument these sceptical scientists have, so I will keep my ear to the ground. (Oh and he also scorned Hanson)