Thursday, 11 December 2008

Inhofe's 650 : on Hajo Smit

A couple of days ago, over at Desmogblog they already mentioned that senator Inhofe's sidekick and communications director Marc Morano after having claimed 400 scientists disagree on global warming, would be presenting yet another list with this time 650 scientists (supossedly) dissenting global warming.

The list of 400 was a melange of the usual suspects with a number of people with no scientific backgrounds. Not to forget the power of quote-mining to finalise the list.

The new list is online here (warning 257MB pdf)

The conservative Prison Planet website has an article on it already, with a preview and some quotes.

As i'm sure in the blogosphere there'll be enough attention going to the release (Deltoid seems to be first), i'm gonna stick to having a closer look at one single name on the list, because i suppose not everyone speaks the Dutch language.

Prisonplanet writes :

“Gore prompted me to start digging into the science again and I quickly found myself solidly in the skeptic camp…Climate models can at best be useful for explaining climate changes after the fact.” - Meteorologist Hajo Smit of Holland, who reversed his belief in man-made warming to become a skeptic, is a former member of the Dutch UN IPCC committee.

Hans Jolmer (Hajo) Smit runs a blog called and also made a guest post on GroenOpWeg in which he has given some comments on the subject of global warming. Let's start by having a closer look at what he writes at his website:

Hajo Smit Climategate
Hajo Smit

Apparantly the movie TGGWS reached it's goal to start an earnestly polemic and, as we know now, a non-misleading one towards Al Gore's movie.

Given the fact the movie consists of no more than misleading arguments, Smits remark is painfully inaccurate.

  • Smit's post on the Dutch political party PVV :
Hajo Smit links to an article in the Dutch Newspaper De Telegraaf in which the PVV states (my translation of the article) :
PVV announced on Monday to be "shocked" that 70.000 students "have wrongly been told that the North Pole is melting" and "that there is an alarming climate change going on"

"Our children have to learn to spell and to do calculus, and not that some pitiful
polar bears are living on melting ice because we are taking the airplane to go on holidays" said MP Martin Bosma in a question in parliament to the deputy-minister of education.

"Education has to be neutral and should not mingle with unproven theories. The climate problem is an issue, just like acid rain, in ten years noone will talk about anymore. It's a pity it's costing billions" Bosma says.
Smit's conclusion on this text of PVV is (my translation) :

[therefore] i say with all my heart : vote PVV ! For a better climate and a better economy. Nonsense kills us and the whole climate-story indeed is nonsense
He ends his post with saying "do you still doubt the climate problem, then watch this video's" :Professor Fred Singer on Climate Change Pt 1
Professor Fred Singer on Climate Change pt 2


People who don't know the S. Fred can p.ex. try checking out
Desmogblog. Singer is a man who's made a career of nay-saying, no matter the subject.

I'm not go in full detail on Smits other posts, because i suppose that the picture is starting to get clear.

  • Kannibaliseren op oud klimaatnieuws
A post in which he critisizes a CNN's post about polar bear cannibalism Polar Bear global warming klimaatverandering

Smit refuses CNN's claim that the arctic ice is in it's second lowest minimum (after the 2007 record) and claims the arctic ice has grown with 9 %.

A fact he thinks not to be very important (and i'm not necessaritly disagreeing on that) but he writes :

“Polar bears resort to cannibalism as Arctic ice shrinks” in plaats van het enige juiste: “Zeeijs noordpool weer 9 procent gegroeid”.
In the quote, he says the only correct title for the CNN-piece should've been :

"Arctic ice grew 9% again".
Which he supports by linking to Wattsupwiththat which ran this post. Whereas it's clear that 2008 is clearly following the downward trend that can be seen in arctic ice, and 2008 will have the second lowest ice-extent in the records. Comparing single years has nothing to do with climate science.

  • Trendbreuk berichtgeving klimaatverandering?
A link to a video of Dutch Television Channel RTL4 which claims the Dutch Delta Commision on sea-level rise is exagerating the scientific conclusion and deliberately is alarming so the public will not resist actions. Dutch Global warming and Dutch delta worksblogger Bart Verheggen already has some posts on it :Does the deltacommision exaggerate ?

Hajo Smit ends with quoting Hans Labohm, the Dutch contrarian libertarian who is one of the libertarian think-thank The Heartland Institute's global warming experts.

Given the fact the Heartland Institute is one of the most intellectual dishonest players in the climate change field, it's not really an honor to be called an expert by this thinkthank. Not the best source to quote imho.

His fifth post is a link to this clip that claims temperatures drives CO². In yet another post he presents the lay reader this skeptics handbook by Joanne Nova on "childrens level" (allover his blog, Smit is incredible arrogant) : well, Smit is correct to say the level in that paper is a disaster. It's very odd that someone with a degree isn't able to see linking to such a thing is ruïning your credibility.

In his guestlog on GroenOpWeg, Smit claims the debate isn't over as is proven by websites like Joe d'Aleo's Icecap and the even more infamous by Steven Milloy. Two sites that have not been known to be the most reliable sources in the world (follow the links). To say it politely.

Later on in the article he links to David Archibald's claim CO² is good for you and agrees with the infamous Australian Lavoisier group. Once again sources with very
low reliability.

i wouldn't call Hajo Smit's opinion on climate change all that important.


  1. Jules
    Romm has torn into the list "Will Inhofe Fool the Media Again?"

    and I have had a go at it too
    Fooled ‘em once, trying twice … who’s the fool?

  2. Hi, I'm Hajo Smit and true I'm not all that important. Our precious world and society is however and the AGW-alarmists are not doing the planet a great service. In 1991 I graduated with distinction at Wageningen Univesity in the field of Environmental Sciences. I majored in meteorology and climate science. I spent 3 months studying in Mainz Max Planck Insitute of Atmospheric Chemistry under nobel laureate Paul Crutzen's guidance and spent 11 months studying at the University of Illinois at Urbana Chamaign at the Atmospheric Sciences departmant doing climate modelling under Michael Schlesinger. After graduating I left climate science only to start studying the literature intensly again around 2006. I'm listed as an expert on I'm also listed on Inhofe's list and correctly so. If I'm not qualified to speak on these matters who is? Currently I'm working as a journalist/meteorologist on my own website which caters exclusively to the wintersports crowd in the Netherlands. Thanks for looking into my files.... the publications you mention are polemic blog postings and not scientific literature. Since when a former scientist is not allowed to turn to journalism and free writing styles to give his opinions with the best interest of nature and mankind in mind? That sounds a lot like censorship.

  3. i have the feeling you are adressing a strawman because it's a mystery to me where you see a call for censorship.

    All i'm saying is that if EVERY single source a person refers to is unreliable, his conclusions probably are too. is a well know unreliable source too, with Joe d'Aleo drawing conclusions on lots of cherry-picking. So i'm not sure what you are trying to prove by mentioning an unreliable source is mentioning you ?

    Nor do I see what the point is mailing someone who is deliberately misleading like Labohm that you've posted a comment on this blog ? I'm afraid once again it does not augment my confidence in the accuracy your conclusions.

    I'm afraid i stick to my initial conclusion.

  4. I'm afraid all the alarmists will stick to their conclusion... till the world freezes and they become obsolete like dinosaurs. It's sad to see so many young talented people - probably even with their heart in the right place - turn into dinosaurs. But feel comfortable about it for a while still you will not be alone... you'll feel safe from within the herd... the damage you do to society with your twisting of the obvious scientific truth you might not even ever be judged for (except the is always the law of karma)... I'm flattered with the attention... and even happy with all the above quotes of which I'm still happy to have made... it's really what Kuhn says about paradigm shifts: during the paradigm shift (thank mother nature for all the cold weather that's helping turn the mass psychosis around) there is no fruitful exchange possible between the two sides... Icecap just had a great post about what Mark Twain wrote about the harm consensus does... you'll be stuck in your camp and i'll be stuck in mine... till history settles the matter. It's always been like this and it always will be... nothing new under the sun! (Remember Kepler, Galileo?)... good luck with your blog... we are on separate universes... a funny thing to thing that after all it is possible to communicate between universes millions of light years apart! ;-)

  5. i remember when i went to my first music festival and saw the "alternative" music fans gathered there : 10.000 people thinking they are special and unique, yet to me they looked totally similar, having the same unwritten dresscode and following the same unwritten group rules. It was the first time i realised that people as a group can have a perception that isn't necessarily close to reality.

    The same feeling i get when seeing people repeating the same ol' Mark Twain or Galilei "argument" pretending to propose the idea of the lone ranger against the scientific majority moloch. While it is so obvious the repeated use of those two names is a clear indication of a similar herd like behavior. And therefore I see the irony of your argument...

    But anyway, i'd prefer to stick to content. Some fine examples of posts that have difficulties with the claims of Joe d'Aleo of Icecap can be found on RealClimate, Open Mind & More Grumbine Science.

    I invite you to demonstrate those posts are erronuous... Think it will be more useful than calling names, science after all is (or should be) about content. To me it seems those posts use arguments that indeed proof Joe d'Aleo & Icecap are unreliable ?

  6. Dear Jules, you are so right that it is hard to tell which side is made of the dinosaurs and which side of the mammals - only after the komet struck it was soon to be clear whoch side was to live and which side to die. A great quote in this regard is: it's better to die for an idea that will live than to live for an idea that will die. That's an individual choice to make. I am no longer active as a scientist... i do not measure, i do not model, i'm not proposing any new theories. I'll leave science to the people who have made it their carreers (like Svensmark! O how unreliable!).I'm just a 'civilian' now following all that's being said with great interest and playing from time to time with journalistic renderings of what I see might keep society on track or just enlighten us a bit. No rather than making it my mission to go through all that's being said and proposed on both sides i'll stick to my camp till my sense of logic tells me that I'm in the wrong camp. I have not always been right about everything. Even though I've always been top of my class in high school and university and I graduated with distinction in climate science, science was not the carreer for me, I'm happy other people do it. Just as nursing is not the carreer for me. I'm happy other people do it. Politics...neee not my carreer. Happy other people do it. I'm an internet entrepreneur, weatherman, skiing professional, freelance journalist, father, family man, loving husband, paraglider (great for understanding the troposphere better) and what have you. Rather than entering fruitless battles between camps, i'll just sit and wait what happens... so many exciting things to watch: La Ninja, sunspots (will cycle 24 kick off or not?), arctic and antarctic ice, glaciers, PDO, satellite temperature sets, Obama's choices (he's all for coal now), the possible plateau that atmospheric CO2 might attain anytime soon now, now that our oceans are cooling, the financial crisis, China's and India's economic rise, the return of brown bears to the Alps and the rest of Europe, the development of Africa... etc. etc. etc. such a great time to live! So many interesting trends to watch... and I'm really sure in about 10 years time the debate will surely be over ... either way... i'll just wait and see and have some fun on the way.

  7. Sticking to the contents, one could also refer to the Pielke Sr or Jr or the Idso's. Same science, all about content, but a different perspective.

    Are they wrong? And in general, who decides who is right and who is wrong? That is an issue that has dominated humanity throughout its existence, and many wars have been and are being fought about who is right and wrong. Fortunately, science has found a way to deal with this issue without fighting eachother to the death. Science evolves around an open, honest and preferably objective debate about facts and experiments and results. Although that would be in an ideal world, but we know from the philosophy of science that scientists are also human and that in science is also a social process, with all its issues. Nevertheless, it appears to work as science has been a very succesful enterprise in the long run. And it should be embraced and cherished. But that is something that these days seems to be forgotten or even unknown among many people involved in climate science. Maybe because many people involved in climate science lack a proper education in science or have forgotten their lessons.

    That is very unfortunate, and in the long turn may be detrimental for progress in science and thus science itself, as it becomes harder and harder for controversial or different views to be tested and discussed in a proper professional way because they are rejected only because they are politically incorrect.

    Think about it. Normally new young scientists who enter a scientific field are the ones who challenge the existing orthodoxy. Scientists should in general challenge orthodoxies, as it helps progress in science. But with the current circumstance, which (young) scientist would be willing to do so? So much pressure from inside and outside science to be correct, to follow the herd. Being critical can easily ruin a career even before it starts.

    In the end this all comes down to the problem of confronting theory with reality. For future climate, we simply cannot do that, there is no real laboratory to test theory, to test the climate system as a whole. We are doing the experiment and future will tell what happened (note: numerical climate models are nothing more - or less – than a numerical representation of the theory). As Hajo states, it will thus be history that settles this debate. And that the climate system as a whole cannot be tested is probably also the reason why climate science has become so politicized. So much at stake, but no possibility to test. That means that it comes down to risk assessment. How much risk we are willing to take? That differs from person to person. I will likely accept different risks than Hajo or you. How much risk there is can be science, but how much risk we are willing to take is an opinion, and opinions, that is politics. And thus, as Roger Pielke Jr. has noted many times, is climate science as much about politics as it is about science.

    Unfortunately, but maybe inevitable.


  8. Hajo,

    When I read your argument, I’m curious what made you come to the strong beliefs that you’re holding. I also studied environmental sciences in Wageningen, and the curriculum there cannot have been the cause.

    “No rather than making it my mission to go through all that's being said and proposed on both sides i'll stick to my camp till my sense of logic tells me that I'm in the wrong camp.” So how did you get in your camp? I also studied environmental sciences in Wageningen, and the curriculum there cannot have been the cause. Neither can an impartial reading of the literature. You must have carefully picked the sources you read according to their stance on climate change, otherwise you wouldn’t say things like “the possible plateau that atmospheric CO2 might attain anytime soon now, now that our oceans are cooling.” Why would atmospheric CO2 reach a plateau if the oceans were cooling (which they’re not)? The excess CO2 in the atmosphere comes from fossil fuel burning, not from outgassing of the ocean (the ocean actually takes up more CO2 than it emits, it is thus a net sink, not a source, of CO2). Perhaps it’s time for a refreshment course in Wageningen, or alternatively, take an impartial look at the scientific literature (e.g. via

    I see that you linked to Fred Singer on climate change; he’s been a professional anti-regulation campaigner for decades, from smoking to CFC’s and now climate change. See my reply to one of his nonsense pieces in the Dutch media here:

  9. Jenne,

    You wrote: “And in general, who decides who is right and who is wrong?” That’s a good question, and I think you give a thoughtful answer. In science, it’s other scientists who are the primary judge of the scientific merit. And if the overwhelming majority of scientists reach a particular conclusion, through the application of scientific standards and methods (plural!), it is more likely right than wrong. See eg Oreskes from a great review of the this ( Of the specific sources you mention, the Pielke’s are serious scientists (though a bit out of the mainstream perhaps). CO2science is not related to science at all.

    And you’re very right, since this concerns the future and can therefore not be known with absolute certainty, it comes down to risk assessment. Climate science and risk assessment is about the science, what choices to make to deal with those risks is politics and personal opinion. But we would be wise to base it on science. If there is a consensus in the scientific arena, all the better, since that provides a good basis for decision making.

  10. I'm delighted that you've come here to comment, Mr Smit. I was very surprised about your appearance on the Inhofe list after reading about your background. Like you say yourself: "I am no longer active as a scientist... i do not measure, i do not model, i'm not proposing any new theories. I'll leave science to the people who have made it their carreers." It makes one wonder why you're part of a list that suggests 650 scientists do not agree with the AGW theory.

    But anyway, after a bit of research one clearly sees the list is more about PR than science, so it's not that interesting.

    A much more interesting aspect that has been fascinating me for a while now is your comment regarding the camps and that in 10 years' time the debate will be over. It's quite possible the debate is over by then which would mean one of the camps turned out to be wrong.

    Speaking for myself (I see myself as alarmed rather than alarmist) I would be very happy to be wrong about my intuition that Global Warming is really taking place and that it's caused by humans, because it would mean that my children (and their children) have one huge problem less to deal with during their lifetime. Okay, I'd look like a fool for telling people to stop being brainwashed into mindless consumption because it can't be sustained, but, you know, I'm pretty certain I'm a fool already so nothing would change much. Sure, some money will have been spent unwisely (especially if those horrible carbon cap systems are put into place) but it will be peanuts compared to the trillions dished out for military strategic purposes in the Middle East and rewarding the free market for its financial failures, trillions being dished out as we speak.

    But how about you, Mr Smit? What if your camp is wrong? Then you not only turn out to be a fool but even worse, you have encouraged people to not do anything except oppose measures that 'limit' their freedom (as if it's not limited without them knowing it already) whereas they should have started acting a long time ago. You do realise that, I hope?

    The moral consequences of being wrong are different for both camps.

  11. Dear Neven, i'll say no more to you than to quote Feynman:

    In any organization there ought to be the possibility of discussion... fence sitting is an art, and it's difficult, and it's important to do, rather than to go headlong in one direction or the other. It's just better to have action, isn't it than to sit on the fence? Not if you're not sure which way to go, it isn't.
    -Richard P. Feynman

    And yes: you can be relieved. YUour children and grand children will not face catastrophic global warming. And it is our moral obligation to grow the world economy to the point where 80% have affluence (sticking to the 20/80 rule)... rather than 25% as is now. The welfare of mankind is the best safeguard for maintaining the kind of nature that we people like (elephants, forests, blue seas etc etc). Nature itself is fine regardless what we do. Plenty bacteria who like oil spills. Plenty creepers who like deforestated lands. Plenty fish who like sea level rise. etc. etc. It's arrogant to think that nature would even care what wo do or don't. We are alone... it's just us and the kind of nature that we apreciate (kill all the malaria bugs!!!)... stop war, grow the economy, multiply, conquer the skies and the heavens (plenty planets out there)! , be happy and all will be fine!

  12. Hajo, thanks for replying (I can say Hajo, right?).

    But what about the hypothesis that you're wrong? How would you feel about all you have written and the influence it had on people who read it? Would you feel foolish only, or would you feel a little bit responsible as well?

  13. Dear Neven,
    Of course you can call me Hajo! Let me put this straight right away: I would feel totally responsible if say in 10 years time it appers that the world is going headlong into AGW-catastophe (which would in the end just have the desired result for many environmentalists: collapsing world economy, mass starvation, reduction of overpopulation and room for a new utopian world order - remember Maurice Strong?). I would feel totally and utterly responsible. That's rule number one in any personal growth handbook from Dale Carnegie tot Steven Covey. I would feel just as responsible as I would have felt if I had lived in the late thirties in Germany and had been warning that Jews might not be untermenschen after all. And if it had then turned out that the Jews in fact were untermenschen destroying everything we hold cherished in this world. I would have felt totally responsible if I had lived in the Soviet Union and be sent to the Goelag as a dissident only to see kapitalism perish and communism flourish into the new heaven on earth. I'd be a bit ashamed even... but in the end I would step forward and say: "Sorry folks I was wrong!". Life is all about making mistakes and learning from them don't you think? I wonder when Al Gore steps forward and at least says sorry for a few of the minor errors in his movie, which I'm sure you are perfectly well aware of. Don't think so however. But aren't there times when people have to take sides and and stand firm and not be to Chamberlain-like? Isn't polarisation one of the fundamental principles of nature and society? Should I be worried about being inside a camp if my gut feeling, intuition and my logical reasoning tells me it's the right thing? Don't we all behave like that and have some predilictions one way or the other? Isn't that like Hegels dialectic proces that drives the world forward? It would not have been better to have a messy-messy kapitalism-communism and not put either viewpoint truly to the test! Let's have these great historical tests! Would you have been able to convince a young fanatic but intelligent German nazi in the late thirties that he is wrong? Probably not! History was needed to sort that out. Other than that I'm happy to place bets on AGW with anyone up to an amount of 1000 euro which is what I could miss these days. 1000 euro's to bet on wether or not AGW will go down the same road as acid rain has (we now know that the acid actually made the trees grow a little faster!)... Anybody? Also I am happy to debate anybody on this subject in front of any audience... because .... well I like a good fight! Nice sunday 2u, Hajo

  14. Hajo, You state that you would be “happy to place bets on AGW with anyone up to an amount of 1000euro". I know of some people who would be quite willing to take you up on that, e.g.
    The only bet taken up so far (at $10,000) is about a comparison of global surface temperatures in 1998-2003 with those in 2012-2017 (6 year average in both cases). Your bet is also eagerly awaited at
    Good luck. I hope you win.

    Apart from that I noticed that you didn't really address Neven's point of the large differences in consequences for each 'camp' when they turn out to be wrong.

    Sitting on the fence while it's burning is not recommended. Even if you think it's not burning, if the majority of experts say it is, wouldn't it be prudent to get off the fence?

  15. Dear Jules, I don't see a burning fence... I just had the greatest ice skating since 1997. I hear about record low temperatures and snowfall records in de US and Canada. I see a perfectly healthy arctic ice cap. Where's the burning fence? There are just manipulated models that are set up to predict that CO2 increase leads to warming. I see people die of AIDS and malaria though! I see great poverty! I see great illiteracy. I see wars. I see the gaza strip. Those are the burning fences we should jump of and the problems to tackle. And I don't bet on surface temperatures as long as there is reasonable doubt that they might be manipulated. No my bet is clear: AGW will go the way of acid rain to become a non-issue within the next 10 years. CO2 will emerge triumphant as a vital elixer of life that foolishly been called a pollutant. That would be 2019 then. I feel that Kopenhagen 2009 will be already the beginning of the end of alarmism... since Kyoto will not be superseded. That I am not placing bets on though, since mankind's foolishness is quite unbelievable at times (how about 70 years of communism?)... no 10 years feels like a safe bet to me since:

    “You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time.” Abraham Lincoln

    But now we are resorting to tomato and egg throwing accross the fences which as Kuhn pointed out cannot but be fruitless...

    This is a history thing.... and what's 10 years waiting on a lifetime.... I say: great exciting time to live.... especially since dissidents these days are not thrown into any kind of Goelag... even Guantanamo will be abolished now.... that's historically without precedent.... NO goelag! No inquisition! Complete freedom to say what I want to say on a platform like this... without some Stasi coming the next day to harress my children.... That's showing how great we are as people... that progress is possible... let China follow suit...

    I'd prefer to leave it at this!
    Happy on the fence,

  16. Thanks again for answering, Hajo. It reinforces the feeling I had when I read about your background. And don't take this personally but in my opinion the credibility of the Inhofe list isn't enhanced by the inclusion of your name.

    I sincerely hope you're right and that one day most of the people in the developing world can ski and paraglide and have a lot of fun in general. I personally don't think that will happen, even if it were possible, and even if AGW isn't happening. I do think that all people in the world could have at least a minimum standard of living if the current global economic system and the consumer culture that goes with it would be altered radically. No need for communism, just a high degree of transparency and decentralisation and on the individual level a higher consciousness, empathy and rational thinking instead of a blind obsession with identity and security.

    As for the bet: 1. I'm just a layman, not a scientist, so maybe you should go to one of the websites Jules mentions, 2. I don't have € 1000 to spare as I'm in the process of building a passive house with a permaculture garden in front of it, and I'm not sure if there'll be any money left at the end of the project. :-)

    We could bet that the loser writes an essay about personal responsibility, consequences of unconscious behaviour and how diminishing resources (such as fossil fuels, water and food) can put a great strain on freedom and democracy?

    ps Captcha reads 'actio' ;-)

  17. Dear mister Smit,

    Nice to see you commenting on this blog.
    You don't have to take anything from me cause I'm only a student, and not even in a hard science, but let me permit the freedom to reply to some of your comments.

    Overall, nevertheless reading the comments you make, I didn't notice you at any given point turning to the content of this topic. In contrary, I see you focusing on your private life and other problems that may be facing mankind, [ignoring the fact that for instance indeed climate change will give rise to the incidence of malaria... ]- which neither are directly related to the content of global change.
    Is that a conscious choice?

    I understand and will respect this choice, but I do think a discussion about the topic can be far more fruitful than discussing some meta-analytical perspective on the world. Cause I believe there are persons on this world that are able to change their viewpoints based on hard, scientifically and peer-reviewed evidence. ;)
    In assuming the point of view that there people aren't able to do that, I understand your choice of decenter from the content. But I also think that may make you in danger to some selffulfilling prophecy. Of course nobody will ever change his viewpoint, if we shut down the possibility of reaching knowledge to each other where we base(d) our conclusions on. The only result of that bevior will be that the exchange of communication between the two camps stops, while the other ignores important facts what increases the risks of our policy makers spilling very scarce money on the wrong resources (either climate change, or either everything but climate change ;) ).
    Apart from that, I just want to mention that I don't rule out the possiblity that no-one is right, something worth considering if you want to bet with someone and not end up in court. ;)

    Another point that did surprise me a bit, was that you say 'the agw alarmists don't do anything good for our world and society'. I agree with you on that, as far as people screaming loud for no reason do nothing but raise irritation ... But what if they are right and do have a reason?
    Just consider the possibility that indeed our world is facing a catastrophe and we will have problems with agriculture and fresh water and we can't let all this ecological immigrants let to another country because this country doesn't simply have enough of foodstocks for itself... what are we going to do then?
    Will you say then still that alarmists did not have
    Isn't it far more better to prevent now already than to wait, sit and eventually try to cure what is possible to cure if the problems got omnipresent (knowing that this means dying of x million persons??). (In contrary taking climate science for serious won't costs lives of any specie....).

    Please note that in history, every person ever that warned for a danger that his environment (I mean persons) was not taken seriously in the first place...
    The great economical crisis we are heading towards now is a tragic example of that sad fact...

    Best regards,

  18. The argument that we could do something about the Weather, is quite perplexing. The total output of the Carbon emissions as a result of the gigantic bush fires in Australia as well as any volcanic eruptions, is beyond human control. The total area of the Earth's oceans is 70% and the land therefore 30%. On this small landmass are a handful of people who imagine they can control the weather or even have an influence on it? There was a Minister of Climate Change in New Zealand who claimed he could not control the Weather but he can control the Climate. What a big Ego this man has and what delusions the AGW hysteria brings about!