No, you are right Big Brother, I have limited training in science but I did study logic as part of my university course. I am not sure that the grossly overpaid liberal arts graduates who staff up BBC News studied anything useful at all. Gender studies perhaps? Last night, the News at 10 Special Report was all about how man-made global warming is affecting Siberia and how we must all change our wicked ways to preserve the permafrost and save the eco-system. I do not deny that in recent years Siberia appears to have got warmer. However, and this is where logic and fact ( i.e. what HAS happened) comes in….
We can gauge very accurately what the climate, and by that I mean normal temperatures, were in Siberia in the past thanks to trees. Put very simply, increased temperatures will deliver a northward extension of boreal (that is to say sub arctic) forest into areas now occupied by tundra. There may also be an increase in the number of evergreen trees at the expense of deciduous trees.
A number of academic studies have shown that over the past century Siberia has got gradually warmer and thus the trees have advanced and the tundra retreated with less permafrost. So far so good for the BBC’s thesis, although that pesky global warming seems to have started a bit too early. But here is where it gets difficult.
For there are two other periods when we know from academic studies and archaeological work that the trees in Siberia made a rapid advance North at the expense of the tundra, that is to say the Medieval Warm Period of AD 800-1300 and also the Holocene Thermal Maximum ( c10,000 to c3,000 years ago). In both periods, the advance was far greater than the advance today. And for those who care about logic, that begs 2 questions:
1. Since the world clearly has an ability to get much warmer without any contribution from man’s addiction to burning fossil fuels, how can the global warming nutters and the BBC prove that any warming today is linked to man’s activities?
2. Since Siberia recovered from both the two cited periods of global warming to head into cooling phases without the intervention of mankind, on what basis can we prove that the trillions of dollars man is spending to reverse something he may not have created will assist God in doing his normal job? If you do not believe in God, take God to mean “the planet earth” which keeps going around and around and sometimes gets warmer and sometimes gets cooler whatever its inhabitants are up to.
If you do not believe in God but still insist that she is a she, then you are the sort of twisted Guardian-reading liberal who may find that this website triggers you and forces you to seek out a safe space and counselling. PS #DefundtheBBC
The BBC and the man-made global warming nutters cannot answer either of the two questions I raise. Their thesis is built on a foundation of absurd assumption about what will happen as a substitute for hard facts about what has happened and is then held together by a complete absence of logic. Yet according to the cultists, this is a settled science which is why it is taught as such in our schools today as part of the National Curriculum and any child foolish enough to try to interject a dose of logic, bolstered by facts drawn from archaeology, fails.
The Ministry of Truth believes in global warming so you must too.