So, are you a climate change denier? Do you deny that people are dying of starvation caused by severe drought? Do you deny that superstorms like Sandy cost billions of $? Do you deny the sea levels have risen? That coastal areas are at risk of disappearing? Do you deny that global warming and climate change is and will continue to be a bit problem for humanity? Or don't you give a crap?
Hi Jeff,
This thread has moved on, but I couldn't resist addressing your biased reporting.
I don't deny most of your points above, so I guess I'm not a climate change denier. I've never actually met a climate change denier. However, I have met many skeptics, that is, scientists who understand that the great complexity of the subject of climate science does not allow for scientific certainty on the effects on the world climate, that rising levels of CO2 might have.
The first fact that anyone interested in or worried about climate change should understand, is that climate has always been changing throughout the history of the earth, sometimes slowly and sometimes quickly, sometimes with catastrophic effects, and sometimes with beneficial effects.
One of my favourite locations for photography is the Angkor Wat region in Cambodia. I just love walking around the many ancient ruins which cover a huge area, photographing monkeys jumping around, and the beautiful bas-reliefs of semi-clad ladies (apsaras).
One of the intriguing mysteries of this ancient Khmer civilizations, consisting of dozens of large temples connected by a huge network of canals, reservoirs and irrigation systems, is why it became deserted and lost in the jungle, until the French colonists rediscovered it in the 19th century. Why did the population disperse and never return?
We know that the Khmers were invaded by the neighbouring Thais in the 14th century, but generally the whole population of a large empire based on fertile and productive land does not just disappear because of an invasion. If they were to, would not the invaders take over and occupy the great cities?
This mystery now has a possible explanation, thanks to the work of scientists examining the tree rings of ancient trees in the area. The following article addresses the issue:
http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/news-events/did-climate-influence-angkors-collapse"Scientists led by Buckley were able to reconstruct 759 years of past climate in the region surrounding Angkor by studying the annual growth rings of a cypress tree, Fokienia hodginsii, growing in the highlands of Vietnam’s Bidoup Nui Ba National Park , about 700 kilometers away. By hiking high into the mountain cloud forests, the researchers were able to find rare specimens over 1,000 years old that had not been touched by loggers. After extracting tiny cores of wood showing the trees’ annual growth rings, researchers reconstructed year-to-year moisture levels in this part of Southeast Asia from 1250 to 2008. The tree rings revealed evidence of a mega-drought lasting three decades—from the 1330s to 1360s-- followed by a more severe but shorter drought from the 1400s to 1420s. Written records corroborate the latter drought, which may have been felt as far away as Sri Lanka and central China.
The droughts may have been devastating for a civilization dependent on farming and an irrigation system of reservoirs, canals and embankments sprawling across more than a thousand square kilometers. The droughts could have led to crop failure and a rise in infectious disease, and both problems would have been exacerbated by the density of the population, Buckley says."The implication is that the Thais invaded because they realised that the civilization was collapsing due to a rapid change in climate and that they would stand a good chance of prevailing, which they did.
Another implication, and lesson to be learned from history, is that devastating climate changes can occur in any region of the planet without the help of human-produced CO2. One could argue that increased levels of CO2 will increase the frequency and severity of extreme weather events, but again there's no sound evidence that this is happening. Even the IPCC has admitted this in its latest report.
Every time there's an extreme weather event in Australia, such as a flood or a heatwave, the media reports it as the worst flood or highest temperature on record, or in living memory. However, when one later examines the records available in the Bureau of Meteorology, one usually finds that what was described as the highest or worst event on record is actually the second, third or fourth worst.
In January 2011 there was a massive flood in the city of Brisbane, Australia. I experienced it. It was described at the time as the worst flood ever, causing billions of dollars worth of damage resulting from rising river levels swamping roads and thousands of houses in the city. It was cited as yet another example of climate change due to rising CO2 levels.
Yet when I now look at a chart of the historical flood levels of the Brisbane river, issued by the Bureau of Meteorology,
it's clear that in terms of flood heights the 2011 flood was not even nearly the worst on record. It was the 7th worst in Brisbane city during the past 180 years or so[/b], since records have been kept. Refer attached image. The two worst floods by a big margin, about 4 metres higher than the 2011 flood, occurred in 1841 and 1893. Refer attached photo of the 1893 flood in the heart of the city.
There's no doubt that the media is guilty of disseminating a lot of 'fake news'. I sympathise with Donald Trump in that respect.
