Maurice Newman, former chairman of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, has the necessary lack of scientific qualifications to write about climate science in The Australian (Google “Losing their religion as evidence cools off”):
So when in 1969 Paul Ehrlich claimed because of global cooling it was an even-money bet whether England would survive until the year 2000, he could not immediately be proven wrong. After all, this was a cooling period.
Newman is just making things up here. Ehrlich did say that there was a 50% chance of England’s collapse by 2000, but not because of global cooling, but rather because of “plague, thermonuclear war, overwhelming pollution, [and] ecological catastrophe”. In his 1969 book, The Population Bomb, Ehrlich said that “we cannot predict” global cooling.
As the greenhouse effect is being enhanced now by the greatly increased level of carbon dioxide… [this] is being countered by low-level clouds generated by contrails, dust, and other contaminants… At the moment we cannot predict what the overall climatic results will be of our using the atmosphere as a garbage dump
Newman continues:
Unfortunately for him, England is still inhabited and his predictions are still remembered. Ehrlich is now a warmist. Like a good stock analyst, when the company doesn’t perform as you thought, better to change the recommendation from a sell to a buy, than admit you were wrong.
When will Newman admit that he was wrong about climate science?
However, the British arm of the climate establishment silently released an encyclical that revealed no discernible rise in aggregate global temperatures from the beginning of 1997 until August this year.
This communique was unearthed by the heretic newspaper, the Daily Mail, which pointed out that this period was of about the same duration as when temperatures rose between 1980 to 1996.
Here, from woodfortrees.org, is a graph showing the temperature trend from 1980 to 1996 (the green line) and global temperatures since 1980. Is it “discernible” that since the beginning of 1997 temperatures have been mostly above the trend line? Who to believe, Maurice Newman or your lying eyes?
And “Daily Mail” in Newman’s piece refers to David Rose, central to the Rosegate scandal. Tamino and Dana Nuccitelli have more on this episode of Rosegate.
