The New Axis of Evil: Russia, Canada, Israel, and Denmark?

There is a story that has been making its way around the globe, it would seem. Later last year, an individual by the name of Caroline Lucas -- an MEP for the Green Party of England and Wales -- began making claims that Global Warming denial should be treated as Holocaust Denial; and this in a country where Holocaust Denial is a felony. How, precisely, is the world to react to this?

Over and over again the catechism comes in: "The science is in... the science is in..."; one could be reminded far too easily of a bad zombie movie from the 50's: "Brains.... brains...". Regardless of whether it is or not, however, there is one overwhelmingly obvious statement to anyone with any comprehension of the scientific process: The day you make the process of questioning itself criminal, that same day your science becomes worthless. Recall: Despite the diameter of the earth having been measured -- to within a few miles! -- twice in BCE times, it was criminal within the Holy Roman Empire to question the church's canon that the Earth was flat, for quite some time. Similarly so treated was the idea that the Earth went 'round the sun.

Despite being well-meaning, the anthropogenic global warming advocates who agree with M. Lucas are committing that same sin against the human race; such a powerful precedent permits for the possibility -- even if they are not mistaken of a new Dark Age. Given the predilections of the "Dark Green" movement, which desires the outright abolition of all manufacturing technologies, this isn't precisely far off the mark. Google "Deep Ecology" and see what comes up for yourself, if you doubt this.

It makes one wonder: what would happen to the Henrik Svensmarks, the Nir Shavivs, the Tim Pattersons, and the Khabibullo Abdusamatovs of the world? Chances are, if you're like the average person, you've never heard these names before. What all four of these men have in common is that they are prominent scientists in their respective countries, and each believe that the earth is going to begin a period of global cooling within ten years, with a potential drop as great as 3 °C!

In the immortal words, however, of Kuntu Kinte -- Don't Take My word For It.

Abdusamatov's statement, via UPI:

MOSCOW, Aug. 25 (UPI) -- A Russian scientist predicts a period of global cooling in coming decades, followed by a warmer interval.

[...]

Abdusamatov and his colleagues at the Russian Academy of Sciences astronomical observatory said the prediction is based on measurement of solar emissions, Novosti reported. They expect the cooling to begin within a few years and to reach its peak between 2055 and 2060.

Tim Patterson's statements, via NCPA.org:

Climate stability has never been a feature of planet Earth. Ten thousand years ago, temperatures rose as much as 6 degrees Celsius in a decade -- 100 times faster than the past century's 0.6C warming, says Timothy Patterson, professor and director of the Ottowa-Carleton Geoscience Centre at Carleton University.

Given this variability throughout time, factors other than man-made CO2 emissions need to be considered as the driving force behind climate change. According to Patterson, one likely culprit is the sun:

• Many scientific papers have demonstrated that as the output of the sun varies, and with it, our star's protective solar wind, varying amounts of galactic cosmic rays from deep space are able to enter our solar system and penetrate the Earth's atmosphere.
• These cosmic rays enhance cloud formation which, overall, has a cooling effect on the planet.
• When the sun's energy output is greater, not only does the Earth warm slightly due to direct solar heating, but the stronger solar wind blocks many of the cosmic rays from entering our atmosphere; cloud cover decreases and the Earth warms still more.

Henrik Svensmark's statements, via Junkscience.com:

Such claims of solar variation insufficiency survive because indications of feedback mechanisms were supported only by historical records and statistical associations but were not empirically demonstrated (never mind that situation applies particularly to the enhanced greenhouse hypothesis, the simple fact is that hypothesis is currently politically correct and hence requires no evidentiary support). This situation has now changed because Svensmark and the team at the Danish National Space Center have experimentally demonstrated the very mechanism they proposed a decade ago.

How big a deal is this indirect cloud effect? Huge, actually. In just 5 years it was responsible for a 2% decrease in low clouds (the kind that reflect incoming solar radiation by day) which, in turn, equates to an increase in surface warming of 1.2 Wm-2 from incident radiation -- equivalent to some 85% of the IPCC's estimate for the effect of all carbon dioxide increase since the Industrial Revolution.

Significantly, the "Svensmark Effect" only operates in the lower troposphere because there is always more than sufficient ionization of the upper atmosphere to ensure no shortage of cloud nuclei. This is important since high, thin clouds do not reflect incoming sunlight and are a net warming influence while the reverse is true of low, bright clouds. The effect then directly influences cooling cloud cover.

Nir Shaviv's statements, via "Sciencebits.com", his self-hosted site:

In a later analysis, with Ján Veizer of the University of Ottawa and the Ruhr University of Bochum, it was found that the cosmic ray flux reconstruction agrees with a quantitative reconstruction of the tropical temperature (Shaviv & Veizer, 2003). In fact, the correlation is so well, it was shown that cosmic ray flux variations explain about two thirds of the variance in the reconstructed temperature signal. Thus, cosmic rays undoubtedly affect climate, and on geological time scales are the most dominant climate driver.

[...]

The implications of this link are far reaching. Not only does it imply that on various time scales were solar activity variations or changes in the galactic environment prominent, if not the dominent climate drivers, it offers an explanation to at least some of the climate variability witnessed over the past century and millennium. In particular, not all of the 20th century global warming should be attributed to anthropogenic sources, since increased solar activity explains through this link more than half of the warming.

Now, recall -- it is entirely irrelevant to the point being made in this article if these men are correct or if they are quacks. It is entirely irrelevant. The question is: Can we afford the price of locking up such men simply because they disagree with the IPCC?

Read More:
-- Can the Environment Survive the Environmentalists?
-- Converging Nano/Bio-tech, and the Energy Future
-- Clean Tech Investments Pull In 10 Percent Of US Venture Capital
-- Global Warming & The Scientific Process
-- A Hidden Truth
-- Thoughts on organization (What Anime Teaches us about Global Warming Environmentalism)
-- Articles On Global Warming
-- Articles On Secularism