|Exaggeration or just wrong?|
In the article Vahrenholt essentially recants his belief that the burning of fossil fuels and the resulting release of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere is the primary driver of global warming/climate change. Of course that is the theory espoused by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and numerous environmentalists around the world.
In the article here, Vahrenholt uses historical data which shows that dramatic shifts in climate occurred in the absence of carbon dioxide fluctuations (no kidding) which Vahrenholt now attributes to the Sun. Imagine that? Here is a quote from the article:
"Based on climate reconstructions from North Atlantic deep-sea sediment cores, Professor Gerard Bond discovered that the millennial-scale climate cycles ran largely parallel to solar cycles, including the Eddy Cycle which is – guess what – 1,000 years long. So it is really the Sun that shaped the temperature roller-coaster of the past 10,000 years."Vahrenholt goes on to say:
"... the IPCC's current climate models cannot explain the climate history of the past 10,000 years. But if these models fail so dramatically in the past, how can they help to predict the future?"Indeed.
Vahrenholt even suggests that a model proposed by Danish physicist Henrik Svensmark (which has received very little public exposure) might be promising. I pointed out this hypothesis about a year ago here and here.
Given all of this and the data that shows there is a lack of correlation of temperature rise with CO2 increase Vahrenholt says:
"In the UK and Germany, (and I will add McGuinty's Ontario too) for example, power-station closures and huge expenditure for backup of volatile wind or solar energy or harmful ethanol production will raise energy prices massively and even threaten power cuts: the economic cost will be crippling, all driven by fear." .....and that there is no need for "....the massive (energy) poverty currently planned."
So what's going on here, is this the beginning of the end of the carbon dioxide theory, or should I say hypothesis of climate change? Vahrenholt seems to hedge, he thinks its time for "rational decarbonizing," whatever that means. He has too many friends in the system to just flush them away, so he calls for more research (keeps his friends happy) and all the usual central planning but with a greater variety of energy sources including fossil fuels.
Vahrenholt is no libertarian, but he does deserve credit for speaking out against the current orthodoxy.