Sunday, September 26, 2010

"The global elite is perfectly well aware that global cooling represents a far more serious and imminent threat to the world than global warming, but is so far unwilling to admit it except behind closed doors."

More chilling information here.

At cocktail receptions at scientific dinners, I have pulled the pro-GW people aside and asked the question, "which would be worse for humanity, global warming or global cooling?" Almost most all will answer, "global cooling" but they will hasten to add, "but there is no chance of cooling."

I agree: Warmer temperatures worldwide since the 1970's, along with the Green Revolution, have allowed adequate food to be grown for the growing world population. If we cool significantly (with shorter growing seasons), all bets are off.


  1. Your presentation at the DC-AMS was entertaining, but parroting fools like Delingpole does nothing to enhance your scientific credibility:

    "His blog posts for the Telegraph consist of the kind of ill-informed viciousness provided for free by trolls on comment threads everywhere, but raised by an order of magnitude. He puts a wrecking ball through any claims the denial lobby might have to being civilised, intelligent or serious. His followers act as an echo-chamber, magnifying his nastiness. Between them they succeed in alienating anyone who might want an informed debate. But this week he surpassed himself."

  2. Glad you enjoyed the D.C. presentation, thank you for attending.

    I'll let my "scientific credibility" speak for itself.

    Rather than get into a discussion over whether Delingpole or Climate Progress is "nastier," I would like to ask you about the substance of the post: Do you agree that significant cooling (lets say 0.75°C) in world temperature would be worse for humanity than an equal amount of warming?


Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.