“But there are three pretty simple facts. One, greenhouse gases trap heat in the atmosphere…
two, humans have emitted these gases since the industrial revolution…
three, since then the world has warmed.
I realise this simple truth has been repeated to death, but correlation is not causation. In fact, we can in fact rule this out by noting the temporal association between the variables carbon dioxide and temperature. Temperature started rising after the little ice age (~1650), which was before the industrial revolution. This observation by Rose is entirely spurious.
”Our carbon dioxide levels are 40 per cent higher than they were before the Industrial Revolution and that has led to a rise of 0.8 degree centigrade. That can seem small until you realise it is a global average. For example, Arctic temperatures have risen six degrees.”
Don’t forget to ignore the fact that these six degrees have to be counteracted by cooling in other places in order for it to average out to less than a degree. Oh wait, you did.
“I did get Nick to a point in London where he said the world had warmed and that humans are probably responsible for part of it. I thought that was a big step forward because he had said in the past that warming had stopped.”
Perhaps Minchin failed to adequately explain this distinction, or maybe Anna never quite got it. Yes, the world has warmed since the industrial revolution and yes, humans have likely contributed to some of it with greenhouse gases, but this warming stopped around the turn of the millennium. It all depends on the time scale you are referring to.
Next, the author of this article offers this line:
She is now on a three-month road trip around Australia to promote it, spreading the environmental gospel to school groups and community forums.
Poor choice of words, or Freudian slip?
She says the great sceptic push began in the 1990s when ”mining and other carbon-intensive companies joined with right-wing think tanks and allies in the main political parties to orchestrate a campaign to undermine climate science”.
I’ve always found this assertion exceedingly arrogant and close-minded. It excludes the possibility that there could be some scientific merit to the other side and that by asking questions of the mainstream position, you are seen to be undermining science altogether. It also has to ignore where all the climate money is really coming from and where the bulk of vested interests lie. This idea of a great fossil fuel conspiracy allows the warmists to dismiss anything out of hand that contradicts their theory.