Thread: The world is COOLING not warming says scientist Peter Taylor

Copenhagen summit: The world is COOLING not warming says scientist Peter Taylor - and we're not prepared...

By Peter Taylor
Last updated at 6:41 AM on 10th December 2009
Comments 70

Natural scientist Peter Taylor is afraid we are not preparing for a global cool-down that could be part of a long-term cycle

In his provocative book Chill, natural scientist Peter Taylor warns that the world is cooling not warming and that solutions proposed at Copenhagen ignore the risks of a possible return of the Ice Age...

Like a magician who fools themselves but not audience, the Anthropomorphic Global Warming (AGW) lobby have identified the wrong problem and the wrong solution.

Global cooling threatens disaster for humanity in the developed and developing world alike, yet the media and the scientific consensus ignores this peril.

The Climategate controversy revolves around whether warming has been real and why it has not persisted – but it misses the point.

Cycles are involved, not short-term trends, and many respected scientists, especially those in Russia and China, think that a cooling cycle is coming.

The AGW brigade have mistaken the current warm period for a trend caused by carbon emissions. But the detailed science says it could be natural and part of a cycle.

Behind the scenes at the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change there is no consensus – the dissenting views have been covered over in the summary documents for policy makers – and among UK and EU politicians it’s even worse, and criminally expensive for the British taxpayer.

The real science points to the sun’s magnetic cycle as the key driver by unknown mechanisms. Right now, NASA is throwing its hands up and saying ‘we’ve never seen anything like it and can’t tell what it is going to do next’.

Many scientists expect a repeat of the Maunder Minimum of the 17th century when the Thames froze every winter – and famine spread through Europe and China.

Natural climate change, especially cooling, is already dangerous for very large numbers of people who are vulnerable to climate changing - the urban poor in the developed world, including the UK, plus the poor nations currently dependent on food aid.

Cooling reduces food surpluses upon which we all depend. The biofuels programmes aimed at preventing climate change will expose them to greater risk by decreasing the amount of land available and raising costs of food, while this problem coupled with peak oil will affect everyone worldwide and drive up transport and manufacturing costs to levels even the super rich will struggle to afford.

These threats are real and here now, not in 50 years time.

Some dramatic changes are needed but not those proposed the EU, IPCC and UK politicians as they try to hunt down the will-of-the-wisp that is CO2 emissions.

Business as usual is not an option since cooling actually does put humanity at risk. The apocalyptic scaremongering has made us weary and casual about such threats but we need to act if we are to maintain our humanity.

Our human ecosystems are threatened by the world development model and unintelligent economic growth. No one yet has found a way to develop economically without massive increase in demand for scarce resources – soil, water, timber, land and food.

However, it can be done – with changes in developed economies, and restructuring development in poor countries – and it will require billions.

We need to showcase the projects that work - the unglamorous grass-roots initiatives that enhance the quality of life – rather than indulge in the theatrical gestures about solving a AGW that doesn’t exist.

Copenhagen won’t broker a solution – not only has the IPCC hyped the warming and misrepresented the science with regard to CO2 and ‘warming’ – but it has also proposed a system of cap-and-trade and technology transfer that means huge profits for banks and brokers.

These useless technology sales coupled with a massive global and unelected bureaucracy that decides which technology and which projects get funded – merely provide jobs for the boys rather than address the issues

What we need is the creation of resilience – the rich world is unstable and will try to buy its way out of problems, by buying food on the world market – the rest of the world is at grave risk of starvation.

Food not energy will be the big issue we urgently need to address in the next few years. In the developed world we need to systematically restructure and reduce demand and in the developing world, people need to stay in communities on the land and not be forced to seek work in unsustainable megacities

Climategate does not just demonstrate the corruption of science and peer-review; it also demonstrates the incompetence of specialists who do not understand planetary ecology, especially its cycles.

We’re being fatally led up the wrong garden path by green businesses, politicians, the IPCC and their computer geeks with their doctored spreadsheets and forecasts. They need to get out more and study the real world – not their virtual reality – because, like the asset bubbles of the financial crisis, the global warming bubble is about to burst…

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ ... aylor.html

Cooling reduces food surpluses upon which we all depend.

This is because people don't change their basic food crops to accomodate the weather for a given period. During the "Little Ice Age" from 1300 to 1850, the famines that occurred were because people kept trying to grow cereals since they were the base crops for centuries. That worked fine with the mild conditions of the "Medeveil Warm Period", because cereals flourished during that time. But when the cold spells of the Little Ice Age hit, they still tried to grow those same cereals and the rains and constant cooler weather in general beat the crops to the ground rendering them useless. It was man's uneillingness to change that caused the famines. Even the French Revolution could have been avoided if the farmers had changed to a base crop of a newly discovered food source from the New World, in the form of the potato, as it weathered the cooler temperatures of the era better than the wheat and barley that were staples of the day. The Germans caught on quickly to it, as did the Irish. But where the Irish went wrong was in their idea of going with the "lumper" which was an easist and most prolific potato to grow, but the downside of it was it's suseptibleness to disease, which resulted in the potato famine of the 1800's. There were actually about 5 varieties they could have gone with, and that would have ended, or even prevented the famine to begin with. But the French refused to adapt, and even the Church helped instigate this attitude, even though the King tried to convince the people to switch to this new food source, by admitting that he himself consumed this tuber.

So what seems to be the biggest issue is man's unwillingness to adapt to changes that can and will occur. Being stuck on the idea that things won't change, and we can continue to keep going on as usual without having to adapt is foolish, and we do it at our own peril.

Instead of growing what we are use to eating, we have to eat what grows. All we have to do is flex with the changes and we will be fine. Whether it is warming or cooling or neither, it is all natural. There is not much we can do about it except to adjust as the changes occur. We can do it. If worse comes to worst, we can always use greenhouses to grow food. We just have to make the most efficient use of whatever resources exist thats all.