Chill: A Reassessment of Global Warming Theory [Englisch] [Taschenbuch]

There are now quite a number of books that challenge accepted global warming theories. This one is unique as it is written by a genuine environmentalist and long-time campaigner. The author is a hard scientist with solid credentials, having advised everyone from the United Nations to Greenpeace. The evidence he presents against the accepted theory is overwhelming, and his analysis of the present situation is profound. This is the book to read if you want to be truly informed on this critical subject. And, unlike the usual naysayers, Peter Taylor gives many ideas for what we should be doing to protect ourselves from the 'chilling' effects of climate change that ARE likely to happen over the coming years...

Taylor's central thesis is that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) process stifles informed dissent in favor of a false unanimity on global warming intended to support political and economic action. He supports this view by lucidly outlining the climate science evidence on which there is no consensus.

In his review of Taylor's book, Alister MacIntosh suggests we ignore Taylor's views because they contravene scientific consensus. On the contrary, Taylor chronicles and exemplifies the absence of consensus among climate scientists. This is as it should be in any scientific discipline, particularly one as immature as climate science. A healthy scientific process absolutely thrives on dissenting evidence to arrive at ever-better (i.e. more predictive) hypotheses. That is how a scientific discipline grows and eventually matures.

MacIntosh proposes Taylor is an unquallified messenger we should ignore in favor of an "authority" like the IPCC. Had science followed MacIntosh's advice historically, the earth would still be flat, the center of the universe, and devoid of evolution. Science based on authority, as MacIntosh implicitly advocates, is dogma; science based on evaluation of all relevant evidence, as Taylor urges explicitly and by example, is the essence of the scientific method.

Why are global warming believers like MacIntosh and many "greens" so fearful of dissenting viewpoints? I helped author the Kyoto Protocol yet treasure Taylor's carefully marshaled and reasoned evidence precisely because it provides the opportunity for advancing climate science. If there is an effective rejoinder to Taylor's contrarian climate views, the views of the greens will be correspondingly strengthened; and if not, Taylor gives the opening to modify positions to better reflect the evidence. Isn't that the aim?

If global warming is real and anthropogenic, global action is certainly justified, and that will be supported when genuine consensus emerges. In the meantime, stifling dissent, ignoring contrary evidence, and attacking the messenger, reflect the absence of consensus and cannot lead to effective and enduring change. Scientific dissent is to be treasured precisely because it is the foundation of paradigm shifts essential to effective and lasting political action.

Disclosure: Taylor is an old and dear friend. Precisely for that reason, however, I know him well, respect his astonishing breadth, and honor his eclectic process. Irrespective of your position on climate change, we should all thank Taylor for his courage, time and the intellectual effort he has invested to help us all toward a more informed position. Read this important book and decide for yourself.

Ecologist and scientist Peter Taylor has written an extraordinary book on climate change. It is also full of stimulating thoughts on energy, land use, biodiversity, housing, food production, migration, etc.

The warm years 1980-2005 followed the cool years 1950-80, in a natural cycle. He contends that these unusually warm years gave rise to the theory of unstoppable global warming.

He notes, "Most of the sea-level rise to date (and all other environmental effects laid at the door of `global warming', such as the retreat of glaciers and calving ice shelves), can be accounted for by the rebound from the Little Ice Age. Indeed, the trend in sea-level rise from 1800 has been consistent, and in the last ten years, as the oceans have cooled, that trend has levelled off."

He studies satellite data, cloud cover, and ocean and solar cycles. Satellite data, particularly since 2005, has told us much that is new about the climate. Solar magnetic cycles drive cloud changes, which drive ocean temperatures. More sunlight means less cloud, warming the oceans. Cloud cover decreased 1980-2000. The consequent sunlight rise of 6 watts per square metre lifted temperatures by 0.60C, far more than the 0.8 watt rise due to carbon dioxide.

Cloud cover increased again after 2000, reducing sunlight by 2 watts per square metre. 2007 saw a sharp fall in the global surface temperature. The solar cycles are in decline, so we are more likely to face cooling.

The Arctic has heatwaves every 70 years; the previous one was in 1920-40. Another, in 2000-07, caused rapid ice loss there. But the record 2007 summer ice-melt was not repeated in 2008 (ice cover rose 30 per cent in October 2008, compared to 2007). 2007 saw record ice extent in Antarctica, in the poles' usual see-saw.

Taylor opposes our present market-driven energy policy. He proposes, "I make the startling conclusion that now is not the time to expand renewable energy supplies. A precautionary, no-regrets strategy would put all available funding into reducing consumer demand, better housing regulations and design, urban and industrial planning, heat distribution, small-scale CHP [Combined Heat and Power], micro-CHP in homes, and PV [photovoltaic] roofing."

He notes, "If all new housing were built to Scandinavian standards of energy efficiency, making use of passive solar technology, heat pumps, micro-CHP and PV roofs - there could be a net supply rather than demand from the growth in that sector."

He writes, "cities need to study the Cuban example of an economy that had to manage without cheap fossil fuel and fertilizer and yet developed effective educational and health programmes and an efficient organic agriculture." He urges us to promote cooperation and community, not competition.