Some correspondence was generated from my sending out the notice for the UK documentary film, out of which developed the following letters. More will come on this subject. J.D.
I'd encourage you to view the entire film, which goes into various details about the greenhouse-gas global warming debate which rarely get mentioned. It presents evidence of significant climate changes over the last several thousand years, especially of the Medieval Warm Period, which was significantly warmer than today, and the Little Ice Age, which ended only around 1850, and from which we have been progressively warming ever since. Given there was no industrial pollution during the Medieval Warm Period, overall the existence of these pre-industrial climate cycles undermines several of the arguments being presented by the greenhouse theory advocates. CO2 as a climate-moderating gas is problematic, but there are other candidates such as ordinary water vapor which are suggested, but which humans historically have not had any control over. Solar variation does have such an influence, however, and good correlations can be shown between solar activity and climate changes. So the film lays down the argument, that the modern climate changes are mostly natural in origins, and not so different from what factually occurred in the past, without big sea-level rises, extinctions of polar bears, etc. Beyond this, the film interviews and summarize evidence from the primary climatologists who are critics of greenhouse warming theory -- or the greenhouse theory of warming, as they do appear to accept that a warming is going on, but simply reject industrial pollution and CO2 as the driving force behind it. They have been shunted aside by the political and media forces, because they argue solar-moderated influences are at work over very long periods.
To dissect this issue into its specific components:
1. Is there a real warming going on, and to what extent?
2. If so, is this being driven by CO2 and other industrial gasses? Or by other human-produced causes? Or by natural processes such as solar variation?
3. If being driven by human activity, does Kyoto Treaty provide a solution?
4. Should we anticipate big climate catastrophes based upon any of this, whatever the cause?
To these questions, I would answer:
1. Yes, there is a slow warming, but at very low levels.
2. CO2 is an unlikely candidate to drive this process. It shows only inexact and even lagging correlations to measured temperature changes, while solar variation has quite a good predictive correlation.
3. Kyoto Treaty appears driven by socialist agendas, and does not address many large chunks of human activity which may be more at fault -- if you accept the human-activity arguments -- than Western industry and CO2. Nevertheless, there are other good arguments for pressing forward with more controls of ordinary air pollution (but not against CO2 necessarily) and reductions of imported fossil fuels. I'm a big advocate of renewable energy over decades.
4. Earth went through the Medieval Warm Period with warmer conditions than today, with a reduced Arctic ice cap, but no significant sea-level changes, nor extinctions of polar bears, etc. Even the big climate disaster of Saharasia, at 4000 BCE did not produce significant sea-level or ice-cap changes, to the best of our knowledge.
I formerly taught all this material in Earth Science and Climatology classes at the university, including the greenhouse theory and criticisms against it. Back then, 30 years ago, the same data was being used to argue for a coming "Ice Age" (based upon a measured cooling over the period c.1900-1940), and "greenhouse warming" was the New Idea in opposition to mainstream thinking, and for a time I also embraced it as a logical counter to the Ice Age hysteria. Today, greenhouse-CO2 advocates are the new dogmatic orthodoxy, decidedly political in their attacks against ideas such as I touch upon above, to the point where we are called "deniers" as in "Holocaust deniers", in major national newspapers. Movie stars and political hacks declare "The Debate Is Over" while climatologists who disagree are not consulted or interviewed, and professionally isolated.
None of this means, air pollution should be ignored or is not a problem. Clearly it is. And Reich's discussions actually have a lot to say about the matter, but not in resonance or support with the kinds of arguments laid down by the greenhouse theory advocates. For example, one of the claimed consequences for greenhouse warming is the spreading of droughts and deserts. My own research, and that of others who focus on the desert issues, is that this claimed causality is backwards. It is the spreading of deserts, and the droughts and heat-waves which are consequent to this spreading, which drives the claimed "global" warming. It isn't really "global" but regional in nature. The regions adjacent to the large Saharasian Desert Belt, discussed in my writings, suffer from repeated droughts and heat-waves. And when temperature data from those regions is averaged into the global statistics, one sees a "global" warming. And in some ways, the warming may spread more widely, but it appears to have a source region within the Saharasian Desert Belt, perhaps assisted a small bit by urban heat-island effects. There is much we do not know, about the relationships between, for example, spreading Saharasian deserts, droughts and heat-waves over land surfaces and open ocean regions, warming of the ocean waters, and subsequent thermal effects upon the air mass and ice sheets.
This more or less flows from Reich's ideas, where we make an equivalence between what the classical climatologist calls "dust particles" or "atmospheric haze" as from deserts, and DOR as described by Reich. You can get a day-by-day review of this process by periodically taking a look at the global desert-dust "TOMS" satellite sensor loop:
This shows, every day, the gigantic influence of the Saharasian Desert Belt, as everywhere those yellow-orange plumes of dust are blown, there is drought and temperature increases, along with the provoking of storms (as DOR provokes healthy OR into stormy reaction).
It appears to me, the greenhouse theory advocates have a part of the truth, a recognition that there is something going on which offends the senses as experienced in large urban regions, the effects of the urban "heat island" and noxious air pollution, while the solar-cycle advocates have another part (more life-energetic, actually), which goes to the core of the long-term climate-change issues. Both tend to focus upon aerosol particles and gas dynamics, without appreciation for anything approximating life-energy. And both tend to ignore the CFP of deserts and drought (except as a consequence), and specifically the Saharasian desert belt is flatly "blocked out" of discussion. The creation of Saharasia was THE largest climate change since the end of the Pleistocene Ice Age, and yet it is not discussed anywhere except in my books and articles, and a few of the obscure citations mentioned in them. Even those discussing the Medieval Warm Period or the Little Ice Age appear oblivious to it, that gigantic change from wet and lush to dry and barren, across such a big part of the Earth's surface. And Saharasia continues to have dramatic and powerful influences upon the entire globe, both climatically and socially. But nobody wants to mention it, anymore than they mention Reich. And when I mention it, I am attacked with violent rage. As with this email just received, following my posting out of the notice on the Dispatches movie:
F**k you, motherf**ker. F**k you, a**hole. You know that global warming is a fact.
Do you want to debate it? This is just knee-jerk right-wing bulls**t.
You discredit the scientific integrity of Reich. Marco Ermacora
This, from a "Reichian" (therapist?) no less, and one of many similar ones I have got over the years whenever I have dared to express an opinion which went against PC "consensus".
I view this as a kind of emotional resistance, an emotional denial and "outrage reaction" against looking at the core of not only what creates the biggest climate problems, but which historically is the point of origins of human armoring in ancient history, and which underlays much of the modern international disaster. It provides powerful support to Reich on the larger "origins of violence" question, and the "dor-crisis" question, but not in the usual "politically correct" manner which some people desire. If you "hit the nail on the head", those who are emotionally protecting that nail become very upset.
From this standpoint, "greenhouse CO2 warming" is an evasion of the essential. Just look at the TOMS satellite images. Why is nobody speaking about this, which is pumping toxic stuff all around the planet every day, in quantities far greater than anything from industrial pollution. Only agricultural burning in third world regions gets close, but since that is biogenic aerosols, and does not have an intrinsicially DOR-ish character, it tends to be a good hydroscopic cloud condensation nuclei, and so does not have the drying influence of the desert haze, which contains both dor and dust particles. My forthcoming book on the subject of my weather-work will go into this matter in more details.
PS. I found some eBay vendors selling DVD versions of "The Great Global Warming Swindle", so if it is taken down from Google Video, it might still be available that way. I also will be adding several excellent books on climate cycles and critiques of greenhouse theory, from purely classical viewpoints, to the OBRL on-line bookstore,
Clearly we have a disagreement on the Dispatches film, which I found fascinating and of great interest precisely because it exposed a lot of issues which normally don't get the time of day from regular media. The Channel 4 Dispatches program is the same group who produced "The AIDS Catch" and "AIDS in Africa" documentaries, which shook the established view on "infectious HIV", but like so much else important on that issue, was subsequently banned from further showing by BBC executives. My point here is, that the kind of mistreatment and censorial abuse to which Reich's work was subjected, and which many of the scientists on this group have experienced personally, is not isolated only to orgonomy, but is a wider trend in the natural sciences which extends to modern issues -- AIDS is one, greenhouse-gas-driven climate change is another. We both could make a list of censored scientists and physicians, I'm sure. "Political Correctness" and "Consensus Science" is killing us with their deadly consequences, and the censorial attitudes of the 1950s FDA have unfortunately spread today into other institutional structures, including environmental groups.
Further cleaning up the environment, lowering energy consumption, finding energy alternatives and so on, are all worthy goals which I have supported all my professional life. I also don't care to discuss political issues. But where politics intrudes into scientific matters, smashing down one side so as to silence them, one is not being political to point that out. I felt the Dispatches program did an excellent job in exposing just that, how politics has both misrepresented and silenced dissenting opinion on the greenhouse CO2 issue, as well as summarizing some of that contrary evidence.
I'd also recommend this article on a real-world aspect to CO2 hysteria, the current push to ban incandescent light bulbs and force everyone into using toxic fluorescents:
This is typically brain-dead environmentalism. Whenever scientists or doctors get political power, watch out!
Some might forget how the Sierra Club and Audobon Society, as well as some European "greens" supported nuclear power plants. Or their current nearly-total ignoring of low-level EMF issues.