It really annoys me that he will be widely read…and believed.

Elaine – Thanks for sending me that link. Unfortunately, Lawson has a lot of things wrong and a few things right.

First, Lawson suggests that the recent plateau may turn into a drop in global temperatures. There’s a very small chance he’s right, but the scientists looking at the last several decades of global temp data don’t agree. Check out this image from NASA. If you look closely, there are multi-year plateaus around 1960, 1980, and 1990. Lulls happen, but the trend remains upward.

Second, he claims the vast bulk of the CO2 in the air is put there by natural sources, but that depends on what he means by “vast”. Human beings have increased the amount of CO2 in the air by about 25% since the late 1800s. 75% vs. 25% is hardly “vast” by most definitions – that usually requires a 90%/10% split.

Third, he claims that the UK will suffer fewer cold deaths as a result of heating. That’s almost certainly true. But if you look at the global effects, the deaths caused by global heating are anticipated to be in the tens of millions, and that’s just from direct causes such as storms, disease, and flooding. Add in wars over energy, fresh water, food, and the number of dead could well be in the hundreds of millions.

Fourth, he claims that higher CO2 will make food more plentiful, and while plants do grow better with more CO2, there’s new science that he apparently missed that shows that staples like wheat, corn, rice, and potatos all lose nutritional value with higher CO2. Check out this Carboholic for the link/

Fifth, he’s either lying about, or misunderstanding, the IPCCs assumptions about technology and adaptation. The IPCC says that the developing world is less able to adapt to global heating, not that it can’t adapt. And the IPCC does assume that food technology will continue to improve, just not at the rate it has in the past. And, given the EU’s resistance to GM foods and the U.S.’ rising resistance to the same, do you really buy into his “GM food will save us all” argument?

Sixth, the “established majority view” of the IPCC from 2007 is now 2 years out-of-date on the state of the science. The IPCC models are being proven out as their predictions are coming true and a number of the IPCC models are being exceeded, especially the sea level rise, indicating that the IPCC estimates are most likely conservative, not excessive.

Lookee at the latest article…

Daily Mail

This week: Gore launches $300 million media campaign; a review of California’s recent global heating news; new device removes CO2 from atmosphere directly; expected CO2 tariffs on developing nation goods may reverse offshoring trend….