You only lie twice, Mr. Bolt

Excuse the title, but I must admit that given the opportunity to rebut, I cannot help but quote a James Bond villain, and if a corruption should fit so perfectly, who am I to ignore it?

EDIT: The graphs below may not fit your screen. If so, simply click on them while holding Ctrl or Shift to open them in a new tab or window to see them in full. Also, on an unrelated note, work on my next major post is slow, so it may take a number of weeks yet. But I haven't forgotten!

It has been a long time since I heard earnest debate about global climate change; it would seem that with the expulsion of many conservative governments in the Western world, environmental issues have come to the forefront (or as near as they can, given politicians) at the behest of concerned populaces the world across, and the war against climate change denial has been won. Or so it would seem. I heard little under a week ago from some friends of mine who seem to worship Andrew Bolt (a practice I have quite unnecessarily named Boltolatry) that he had written a rather interesting article in which he 'demolished' all of the arguments put up by "alarmists" (people I assume to recognise anthropogenic climate change as fact). Intrigued, I searched for the article, and found a copy on the web.

I couldn't honestly say I'm an admirer of Bolt. In fact, like many Herald Sun opinion writers, I disagree with him on most counts. However, what I do like about him is that, whether intended or not, he promotes discussion, and I'm always in favour of discussion. When my friends rant on about how fantastic he is on the odd occasion, I let it slide though I disagree, and am secretly somewhat pleased that at least they're getting an alternative viewpoint to what they're usually presented (the fact of the matter is that most educators you'll find these days have a slight liberal bias (not that that's necessarily a bad thing...)). Because in the end, alternative viewpoints combined with critical thinking leads, ultimately, to progress.

But a problem arises when the critical thinking aspect is removed. People should be constantly wary of others' statements (especially those with which they agree) lest they be taken in time and again. So I read Mr. Bolt's piece with a critical eye, and found it to be quite assertive, even convincing. Persuasive, you might say. But I know when I'm being persuaded, and it only makes me more suspicious, so knowing I wouldn't be able to focus on anything but finding out what was really going on, and who was really right, I did some research. But I think the best way to discuss that is through the good old fashioned method of the running commentary. So, without any further ado, I give you my very own commentary on Andrew Bolt's 'Global warming alarmists out in cold'.

MYTH 1

THE WORLD IS WARMING

Wrong. It is true the world did warm between 1975 and 1998, but even Professor David Karoly, one of our leading alarmists, admitted this week "temperatures have dropped" since - "both in surface temperatures and in atmospheric temperatures measured from satellites". In fact, the fall in temperatures from just 2002 has already wiped out half the warming our planet experienced last century. (Check data from Britain's Hadley Centre, NASA's Aqua satellite and the US National Climatic Data Centre.)

Some experts, such as Karoly, claim this proves nothing and the world will soon start warming again. Others, such as Professor Ian Plimer of Adelaide University, point out that so many years of cooling already contradict the theory that man's rapidly increasing gases must drive up temperatures ever faster.

But that's all theory. The question I've asked is: What signs can you actually see of the man-made warming that the alarmists predicted?

I can't speak on behalf of Prof. Karoly or Prof. Plimer. I'm suspicious that they've been quoted out of context, but as I have nothing to support it, I'll give Mr. Bolt the benefit of the doubt on his quotations. However, I was not satisfied by his claims that, firstly, global temperatures have been dropping since 1998, and that global temperatures built up over the last century have been halved since 2002. So I decided to do as Mr. Bolt suggested, and checked the data from the Hadley Centre and the US National Climatic Data Centre. The results were not, for me, surprising. According to the Met Office Hadley Centre, the combined land and sea surface temperature anomaly has been steadily increasing for years (source) while global average temperature has been decreasing since roughly 2004 (not 1998) and as can be plainly seen, the decrease is nowhere near half of the gain since 1908 (source). Graphs are shown below:

I then obtained some data from the NOAA Satellite and Information Service, as per the NCDC website, of global temperatures over the past 128 years. The line graph of the data points was evident- there was a clear and unabating upwards trend. The service is excellent - the website (link) will plot for you the values of temperature anomalies for any month between Jan 1880 and Dec 2007. Just to be sure I wasn't glossing over any points, I went in for a closer look and made a graph of those points from Jan 1988 to Dec 2007 - 20 years. The graph I made (link) was even clearer. The departures from the average were not decreasing, but rather, increasing in severity. The world is warming. Myth 1 is confirmed. What else do you have for me, Mr. Bolt?

MYTH 2

THE POLAR CAPS ARE MELTING

Wrong. The British Antarctic Survey, working with NASA, last week confirmed ice around Antarctica has grown 100,000 sq km each decade for the past 30 years.

Long-term monitoring by the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reports the same: southern hemisphere ice has been expanding for decades.

As for the Arctic, wrong again.

The Arctic ice cap shrank badly two summers ago after years of steady decline, but has since largely recovered. Satellite data from NASA's Marshall Space Flight Centre this week shows the Arctic hasn't had this much April ice for at least seven years.

Norway's Nansen Environmental and Remote Sensing Centre says the ice is now within the standard deviation range for 1979 to 2007.

I don't know much about the Arctic, but I did decide to check up on that claim about Antarctica. So I visited the website for the British Antarctic Survey, and yes, apparently, Antarctic sea ice has grown over the past 30 years. However, what Mr. Bolt omitted was that this was due to the impact of the ozone hole over Antarctica slowing the effects of global warming (more detail can be found here). Now unless Mr. Bolt is suggesting we further ozone depletion and subject the human race to all manners of skin disease and cancer, this is not cause for celebration, as all it means is that the ice in the sea around Antarctica has been spreading due to the effect of global warming being delayed (not stopped) by the hole in the ozone layer. To top it off, when I visited the BAS website, I found this article about the Wilkins ice bridge, a 40km long strip of ice pinning the Wilkins Ice Shelf in place, snapping. From the article, emphasis mine: "According to British Antarctic Survey glaciologist Professor David Vaughan the retreat of Wilkins Ice Shelf is the latest and the largest of its kind. Eight separate ice shelves along the Antarctic Peninsula have shown signs of retreat over the last few decades. There is little doubt that these changes are the result of atmospheric warming on the Antarctic Peninsula, which has been the most rapid in the Southern Hemisphere." Check mate, Mr. Bolt. What other myths shall I tackle?

MYTH 3

WE'VE NEVER HAD SUCH A BAD DROUGHT

Wrong. A study released this month by the University of NSW Climate Change Research Centre confirms not only that we've had worse droughts, but this Big Dry is not caused by "global warming", whether man-made or not.

As the university's press release says: "The causes of southeastern Australia's longest, most severe and damaging droughts have been discovered, with the surprise finding that they originate far away in the Indian Ocean.

"A team of Australian scientists has detailed for the first time how a phenomenon known as the Indian Ocean Dipole - a variable and irregular cycle of warming and cooling of ocean water - dictates whether moisture-bearing winds are carried across the southern half of Australia."

Actually, this is correct. Any reasonably in-depth knowledge of Australian history should make this clear. As to whether this particular drought is caused by global warming, that's rather irrelevant- the fact is that the world is warming, and this will not be Australia's last drought.

MYTH 4

OUR CITIES HAVE NEVER BEEN HOTTER

Wrong. The alleged "record" temperature Melbourne set in January - 46.4 degrees - was in fact topped by the 47.2 degrees the city recorded in 1851. (See the Argus newspaper of February 8, 1851.)

And here's another curious thing: Despite all this warming we're alleged to have caused, Victoria's highest temperature on record remains the 50.7 degrees that hit Mildura 103 years ago.

South Australia's hottest day is still the 50.7 degrees Oodnadatta suffered 37 years ago. NSW's high is still the 50 degrees recorded 70 years ago.

What's more, not one of the world's seven continents has set a record high temperature since 1974. Europe's high remains the 50 degrees measured in Spain 128 years ago, before the invention of the first true car.

Again, this is correct, but even more so than the last point, it is irrelevant. What does a freakishly high temperature in the past in one specific location have to do with climate change in the present, Mr. Bolt? The fact that the average temperature of the Earth is increasing does not preclude there being hot times in the past, does it?

MYTH 5

THE SEAS ARE GETTING HOTTER

Wrong. If anything, the seas are getting colder. For five years, a network of 3175 automated bathythermographs has been deployed in the oceans by the Argo program, a collaboration between 50 agencies from 26 countries.

Warming believer Josh Willis, of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, reluctantly concluded: "There has been a very slight cooling . . ."

On this point, I'm afraid I must most vehemently disagree Mr. Bolt, and again the data is on my side. While I couldn't access Argo data, nor could I find any products that supported or refuted Mr. Bolt. Then I re-read what he said, and found that he didn't even say that Argo indicated such a drop in temperature. Very sneaky, Mr. Bolt! Unsatisfied, I looked for other sources to determine ocean temperature. I found one such source in the form of the National Oceanographic Data Centre, which is operated by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Organization (NOAA) (yes, the same NOAA whose data is archived by Mr. Bolt's National Climatic Data Centre from the first 'myth'). As shown, the global ocean heat content (i.e. the temperature) has increased and increased (source); the graph is below:

MYTH 6

THE SEAS ARE RISING

Wrong. For almost three years, the seas have stopped rising, according to the Jason-1 satellite mission monitored by the University of Colorado.

That said, the seas have risen steadily and slowly for the past 10,000 years through natural warming, and will almost certainly resume soon.

But there is little sign of any accelerated rises, even off Tuvalu or the Maldives, islands often said to be most threatened with drowning.

Professor Nils-Axel Moerner, one of the world's most famous experts on sea levels, has studied the Maldives in particular and concluded there has been no net rise there for 1250 years.

Venice is still above water.

Since 1993, sea levels have been rising at a rate of approximately 3mm per year, according to both TOPEX/Poseidon and Jason-1. And while sea levels have dropped ever so slightly since 2007, any high school science student will tell you that any small number of data points on a graph are not important; a decrease in temperatures over the past two (or three, to go with Mr. Bolt's figure) years is no more suggestive that levels will continue to drop than it is that levels with jump by 500% tomorrow; all that is important in that respect is the trend, and clearly, the trend is upwards. (Source)

MYTH 7

CYCLONES ARE GETTING WORSE

Wrong. Ryan Maue of Florida State University recently measured the frequency, intensity and duration of all hurricanes and cyclones to compile an Accumulated Cyclone Energy Index.

His findings? The energy index is at its lowest level for more than 30 years.

The World Meteorological Organisation, in its latest statement on cyclones, said it was impossible to say if they were affected by man's gases: "Though there is evidence both for and against the existence of a detectable anthropogenic signal in the tropical cyclone climate record to date, no firm conclusion can be made on this point."

In Year 9 Geography we learnt that the number of cyclones isn't increasing, so I suppose I don't have a lot more to say about that, do I?

MYTH 8

THE GREAT BARRIER REEF IS DYING

Wrong. Yes, in 1999, Professor Ove Hoegh-Gulberg, our leading reef alarmist and administrator of more than $30 million in warming grants, did claim the reef was threatened by warming, and much had turned white.

But he then had to admit it had made a "surprising" recovery.

Yes, in 2006 he again warned high temperatures meant "between 30 and 40 per cent of coral on Queensland's Great Barrier Reef could die within a month".

But he later admitted this bleaching had "minimal impact". Yes, in 2007 he again warned that temperature changes of the kind caused by global warming were bleaching the reef.

But this month fellow Queensland University researchers admitted in a study that reef coral had once more made a "spectacular recovery", with "abundant corals re-established in a single year". The reef is blooming.

I don't know if the Great Barrier Reef is getting worse, but if it isn't, well that's just fantastic news, Mr. Bolt. But what does it have to do with the change in global temperatures? This is still about global warming, isn't it? Also, the website your online article linked to, that of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, has a rather large section devoted to how climate change is causing coral bleaching (example). I have no idea why you linked to it- to be honest it wouldn't surprise me if you didn't expect anyone to look there.

MYTH 9

OUR SNOW SEASONS ARE SHORTER

Wrong. Poor snow falls in 2003 set off a rash of headlines predicting warming doom. The CSIRO typically fed the hysteria by claiming global warming would strip resorts of up to a quarter of their snow by 2018.

Yet the past two years have been bumper seasons for Victoria's snow resorts, and this year could be just as good, with snow already falling in NSW and Victoria this past week.

Do I really even have to comment? One year of hysteria due to low seasonal falls has nothing to do with proving or disproving scientific research! My god, Mr. Bolt, this game is starting to wear thin! So long as you keep quoting these unnamed, anonymous 'alarmists', who might as well not exist, how can I rebut you? Your myth busting is ridiculous! I've never even heard this claim being made before! I swear, if I hear one more piece of nonsense from you...

MYTH 10

TSUNAMIS AND OTHER DISASTERS ARE GETTING WORSE

Are you insane? Tsunamis are in fact caused by earthquakes. Yet there was World Vision boss Tim Costello last week, claiming that Asia was a "region, thanks to climate change, that has far more cyclones, tsunamis, droughts".

Wrong, wrong and wrong, Tim. But what do facts matter now to a warming evangelist when the cause is so just?

And so any disaster is now blamed on man-made warming the way they once were on Satan. See for yourself onwww.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm the full list, including kidney stones, volcanic eruptions, lousy wine, insomnia, bad tempers, Vampire moths and bubonic plagues. Nothing is too far-fetched to be seized upon by carpetbaggers and wild preachers as signs of a warming we can't actually see.

Not for nothing are polar bears the perfect symbol of this faith - bears said to be threatened by warming, when their numbers have in fact increased.

Bottom line: fewer people now die from extreme weather events, whether cyclones, floods or blinding heatwaves.

Read that in a study by Indur Goklany, who represented the US at the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: "There is no signal in the mortality data to indicate increases in the overall frequencies or severities of extreme weather events, despite large increases in the population at risk."

So stop this crazy panic.

First step: check again your list of the signs you thought you saw of global warming. How many are true? What do you think, and why do you think it?

Yes, the world may resume warming in one year or 100. But it hasn't been warming as the alarmists said it must if man were to blame, and certainly not as the media breathlessly keeps claiming.

Best we all just settle down, then, and wait for the proof -- the real proof. After all, panicking over invisible things is so undignified, don't you think?

Ok, that's it. I've had it. Am I insane? Are YOU insane, Mr. Bolt? I have no idea whether or not Tim Costello said that. He probably did. But for crying out loud, since when did one person saying something ridiculous mean that everyone else on his side is so misguided? Anyone with a high school education in science would be able to tell you that tsunamis are due to seismic activity- why tar all with the one brush, eh? Illogical, Mr. Bolt. And then there is your claim from Number Watch. An admirable effort on behalf of the maintainers of that site, but you must understand that none, not a single one of the more outlandish claims made on that list came from a scientific journal. Not one. All from the media. The media reported last year incorrectly that man had found life on Mars- a clearly sensationalist misquotation of a statement of real scientists regarding a completely unrelated topic. The media historically does not report science well. It never has, and that is an unfortunate fact, but it is the fault of reporters, not scientists, those people who have spent half a lifetime devoted to finding the truth about how the universe works, those 'alarmists' you so disrespectfully scorn.

Polar bears are not the symbol of any faith, let alone the 'faith' in global warming. By the way, Mr. Bolt, faith precludes solid evidence, something which is found in great abundance in support of global warming. There is no panic, Mr. Bolt, not any more than is appropriate given the alarming state of world affairs. And to be perfectly honest, I'm sick of your crap. So long as you continue to misrepresent facts and put forward uncited claims, I will find your articles on these topics to be of the greatest offense. Either do some real research and present some reasonable arguments, or continue condescending to people clear far more learned than you, sounding like a perfect jackass, and lose the respect of all students of reality. The warming of the Earth is continuing, and it is due to man. Mr. Bolt, you have been served.

Homosexuality

A great deal has been said recently about homosexuality, and it seems to, like all politicised issues, descend from discussion to debate to mindless table-thumping extraordinarily quickly with little consideration for thought about exactly what it is that has become such an inflammatory topic of late. It would seem that most of the controversy stems from the accusation that homosexuality is inherently wrong.

My first instinct is as always to challenge this premise. Why would this be so? There seems to be significant evidence to the contrary; homosexuality amongst animals has been documented thoroughly in over 500 species, and observed in another 1000, and humans have been known to engage in homosexual acts since antiquity. In fact, all of the Roman emperors bar Claudius are known to have kept male lovers at some point during their reigns; in ancient times, the distinction between 'heterosexual' and 'homosesxual' was far more blurred. Indeed, the ancients did not even possess equivalent terms, and it was considered unusual for a Roman man not to engage in sexual activities with a man (or boy) as he did with a woman. And of course, lesbianism, though not as well documented, was likewise common (indeed the lesbian poet Sappho was revered as one of the best lyric poets of ancient times).

Similarly, during the classic revival during the Renaissance in northern Italy, homosexuality was known to be widespread. Indeed, since then homosexuality has been documented thoughout recent history, often in spite of social sexual or homosexual repression. And though this does not necessarily mean homosexuality is 'right', it lends strong credence to the notion that to some degree at the very least it is natural.

Considerable opposition to homosexuality comes from religious groups, most of whom cite various scriptures or religious beliefs as explanations for this. If you know me, then you know that this simply does not stick- if something cannot be shown to be right or wrong within the confines of the natural world, then it is not right or wrong in the natural world. Logic and reason should dictate such matters, not the inviolate words of beings who may or may not exist nor persons long dead who may or may not have said such things as they are quoted as saying.

An argument used against homosexuality is that the genitalia of men and women fit together simply far too snugly for anything other than male-female sexual relationships to be normal, an argument which is riddled with fallacy. I could number any amount of objects in my house which could be said to be similarly accomodating, not to mention that the anal cavity is of similar size to the vagina in any case, and even if it weren't this in and of itself would prove nothing of normalcy or rectitude.

More moderate critics might say that what adults do in their own homes is up to them, but that such activities should not be exposed to youths lest homosexuality should be normalised and somehow convince those young people to turn gay or lesbian. Even as a straight man I find this idea to be somewhat offensive; as has been demonstrated above, in terms of nature homosexuality is normal enough. If society is too insecure, fearful or reticent of tradition irrespective of worth to adapt to that then that is indicative only of where society is left wanting.

As to the risk of turning people gay, I can't understand the logical basis for this. Nobody chooses to be gay - if you could choose between being gay and straight with no other influencing factors, why on Earth would anyone choose the potential social ostracism over social acceptance? If one cannot choose to become gay, then either sexuality is hardwired or it is developed in early childhood; I am not expert enough in the fields of sociology or biology to say definitively, but for the purposes of discussing this point, it is not necessary that I am; it would seem to me that exposure to homosexuals is not going to turn anyone, even young children, who would be far too young to understand what they are seeing regardless.

And let's face it: even if this weren't the case, homosexuality would not become rampant. As it is, homosexuality is generally between only 1 and 20% of populations, and any mass conversions or infiltration of society (a charge levelled against those pushing the so-called 'gay agenda') isn't going to change that. Personally, I think that the very idea of straight and gay is an unnecessary one (indeed it has only come into use within the past two centuries) created to suit social perception rather than reality. Considering the multitude of sexual identities in the modern age anyway, it seems almost irrelevant to try and classify people into certain groups when it seems clear that sexuality is not something which easily lends itself to definite classification, seeming to be far more fluid. And ultimately, what does classification achieve? If anything, all it does is make it easier for discrimination and the tyranny of the masses to take hold.

Of course, I couldn't write a piece, however brief, about the status of homosexuality in society without consideration of gay marriage. My point of view is simple, and, as always, it comes down to definition: if marriage is a religious institution, as is so often claimed, and those religions forbid gay marriage, then that seems perfectly alright. However, the State, as a secular body, should not therefore be allowed to wed people, and married people should not recieve any special benefits from the government - in a legal sense, marital status should be something of irrelevance to the government. Irreligious straights as well as gays would be forced to take up civil unions instead; this could very well make it so that the benefits of the married could be conferred indiscriminatorily. But then, if it looks like marriage, and it smells like marriage...

I would venture to say, however, that marriage has become more than a religious instituation, and is now ingrained into all aspects of society. If so, then this robs the aforementioned argument against gay marriage of its main sticking point, and so, all things considered, it would seem like there is little reason to forbid gay marriage. A culture of irrational fear is not something solid enough to build a society on - it's about time people started to realise that.

ADDENDUM: It has occurred to me that in my haste to complete the post, I ommitted a number of points on this topic which I had wished to address, if only briefly. First and foremost, another matter of contention regarding gays is as to whether or not they should be permitted to adopt or in the case of lesbians, recieve IVF treatment. This is a more complicated aspect, I think; individuals should be permitted to do as they wish so long as they don't impact negatively on others. No matter how how good a gay couple might be as parents, in today's society, it would be impossible for a child to be raised by gay parents and not be in some way negatively impacted by it, if only by the consequences of that child being excluded or bullied for their parents' sexual orientation.

It may seem at this point that I would be in favour of preventing gay couples from having children. I do not think this is the answer, however; ultimately, it is society that must adapt to be more accepting - in the case of the hypothetical good gay parents, they have done nothing wrong, and so it does not make sense for them to be punished by the iron boot of social self-righteousness. Irrespective of this, it should be noted that aspects such as social, fiscal, or other standards can negatively affect a child in the same way, something which all parents are equally culpable to. It would seem wrong to prevent poor people from having children, merely because the parents have not, for whatever reason, acculmulated enough wealth throughout the course of their life to afford them another lifestyle. In many cases, such a thing would simply not have been feasible. In a sense, gay couples are in a similar situation - the fact that they are gay is out of their control, and so to prevent them from rearing children on that reasoning would be a flawed approach.

Another major point which I failed to address was the fact that homosexuality and heterosexuality I dislike as terms because they are both exceedingly rigid. The addition of further terms such as MSM and WSW, though permitting better categories for some, further muddy the waters of sexual terminolgy that already include terms such as bisexual and pansexual. Are so many classifications necessary? Why? But this is besides the point; what I seek to point out is that primarily these terms are limited to sexual preference, when in reality the complex situation of love far oftener enters the equation than some of us are perhaps ready to acknowledge, gay or straight alike. It seems cruel at worst and inaccurate at best to so readily discuss the topic acknowledging only the sexual side. The fact is, gays fall in love as straights do. For people who hear me speak my opinion relatively often may this may seem an unusually emotional argument coming from me, but even so I feel compelled to bring it up: how can anyone deny someone the rights and recognition they deserve on, of all things, what must be truly the most sacrosanct human emotion? People can't help the way they feel, and the idea that what would have to be, if one is to be selected, the holiest of all emotions, which in some manifest form is surely felt by all of us, as one underlying current of togetherness that conflates our common humanity, is used as an excuse to further intolerance must surely be one of the most absurd statements I have ever come across in the short time of my being. And on that note, I bid you, my devoted readership, adieu.