alt.global-warming | Google Groups

Global dimming and ice age predictions after WW2 contradict global warming theory

Steve Wallis <revolutionarysocialistst...@yahoo.co.uk>

I've been involved in a long debate about solar power (particularly
concentrating solar power/solar thermal energy) versus nuclear power,
mainly with the pro-nuclear socialist David Walters, but another pro-
nuclear socialist called Fran has recently joined in, on
alt.politics.socialism.trotsky in the thread "Guardian: Solar power
from Sahara could provide Europe's electricity, says EU".

Others, including David, thought that crossposting on these issues
may
be OK, so I'm also sending this to a few other newsgroups. I'm also
posting my messages on this subject to my Revolutionary Platform
Network Forum (including to the Global Warming board there at
http://www.revolutionaryplatform.net/forum/index.php?board=107);
please state if you object to me posting replies to your comments
there.

On 10 Aug, 13:19, Fran <Fran.B...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Aug 10, 4:11 am, Steve Wallis <revolutionarysocialistst...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> > I've had some doubts about my position on global warming, but finding
> > out that the weather got colder during the post-war boom (despite the
> > increasing levels of carbon dioxide due to industrialisation)

> Google "global dimming" for the effect of SO2 on global temperatures
> from 1943-74 ...

I did find out about the sulphur claim (I wasn't sure it was SO2 and
thought I'd wait for somebody else to mention it), when doing earlier
browsing. I was sceptical then and still am now of this explanation.
Isn't it amazing that you get all this talk of global warming and yet
very little mention of the fact that temperatures did increase after
the second world war. Obviously, those who agree with global warming
need some sort of explanation when pushed to justify their theory, but
they generally don't want to mention global dimming and SO2 (and I
didn't find out about the SO2 explanation until I read a critique of
"The Great Global Warming Swindle").

> > and
> > another ice age was predicted by scientists reinforced my view.

> Another meme put about by deniers. Even at the "height" (if that is
> the right word) of the speculation in the early 1970s, more
> scientists hypothesised about global warming than a new ice age. Even
> the article generally credited with circualting this idea foreshadowed
> the opposite as a distinct possibility. There was never peer-reviewed
> science behind the claim, and certainly nothing like the process that
> has informed the IPCC assessment reports.

I did Google "global dimming" as you suggested and came across the
Wikipedia page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_dimming. The graph
on that page, which takes data from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_temperature_record,
does not show dimming for anything like the period 1943-74 - in fact
it's only in the 1940s according to those graphs.

Critics of "The Great Global Warming Swindle" such as George Monbiot
didn't claim that the post-war dimming was incorrect, and it must have
been in the late 70s or early 80s when I heard of the ice age
prediction, which certainly doesn't tally with dimming just in the
1940s.

> > [I
> > remember this at the time but I'd forgotten about it until reminded by
> > the Channel 4 TV programme "The Great Global Warming Swindle"

> This was put about by a self-styled swindler of the Thatcher and Hayek-
> loving "Living Marxism" crowd.

I did discover that the person responsible for that programme is
linked to LM, and found a page with an interview the day after the
programme went out on their current Spiked project website, but he and
they claim that he is not a member of the ex-RCP.

I disagree with a lot of the ideas that that organisation/ex-
organisation puts out, but that doesn't mean that valid points they
make about global warming can be discounted.

> You need to stop believing the first thing you read on the internet.

> Fran

I don't. I've researched global warming theory quite a lot and found
arguments against global warming more convincing than those in support
of it. When you tell people that China had the coldest winter for 50
years (according to TV news in the UK) or that Scotland had the
coldest Easter for 46 years, or that the UK sea level is only rising
3.1mm a year, then people do tend to get very sceptical about the cosy
consensus of envrionmentalists, most of the media and virtually all
politicians that global warming is caused by mankind and heading for a
catastrophe.

--
Steve Wallis (Glasgow, Scotland)
For important/urgent communications, please email:
warcryst...@yahoo.co.uk
Blogs: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/steve-wallis-socialist-blog,
http://blog.myspace.com/galaxiasteve
My socialist website: http://www.socialiststeve.me.uk
My pages at MySpace: http://www.myspace.com/galaxiasteve and Bebo:
http://www.bebo.com/SteveW519
Founder, Good Intentions Network: http://www.goodintentionsnetwork.org
Founder, Ethical Capitalism Network: http://www.ethicalcapitalism.net
Founder, Foundation for PR-based Socialism: http://www.PRsocialism.org
Founder, Revolutionary Platform Network: http://www.revolutionaryplatform.net
My socialist band, Red Day: http://www.red-day.net
Author, "Revolution Destroyed? Have I ensured that a world socialist
revolution will never happen?": http://www.revolutiondestroyed.net
For discussion of the credit crunch, go to
http://www.revolutionaryplatform.net/forum/index.php?board=156
For discussion of 9/11 conspiracy theories, go to
http://www.revolutionaryplatform.net/forum/index.php?board=89