January 09, 2004
The global warming scam
The British government's chief scientific
adviser,
Sir David King, has said that global warming is a more serious
threat to the world than terrorism. His remarks are utter balderdash
from start to finish and illustrate the truly lamentable decline of
science into ideological propaganda.
Sir David says the Bush administration
should not dismiss global warming because: 1) the ten hottest years on
record started in 1991 2) sea levels are rising 3) ice caps are
melting and 4) the 'causal link' between man-made emissions and global
warming is well established.
Wrong, wrong, wrong, and wrong. There is
no such evidence. The whole thing is a global scam. There is no firm
evidence that warming is happening; even if it is, it is most likely
to have natural, not man-made causes; carbon dioxide, supposedly the
culprit, makes up such a tiny fraction of the atmosphere that even if
it were to quadruple, the effect on climate would be negligible; and
just about every one of the eco-doomster stories that curdle our blood
every five minutes is either speculative, historical or scientifically
illiterate.
To take a few examples from Sir David's
litany.
1) Sea levels are rising. As
this article explains, this claim is not the result of observable
data. Like so much of the global warming industry, it is the result of
frail computer modeling using dodgy or incomplete data. It is
therefore not an observed value, but a wholly artificial model
construct. Furthermore, the data fed into the computer is drawn from
the atypical North Atlantic basin, ignoring the seas around Australia
where levels have remained pretty static. And anyway, as
this article
explains, sea level rises have nothing to do with warmer climate. Sea
levels rose during the last ice age. Warming can actually slow down
sea level rise.
2) Ice caps are melting. Some are,
some aren't. Some are breaking up, as is normal. But some are actually
expanding, as in the Antarctic where the ice sheet is growing, as
this
article points out. The bit of the Antarctic that is
breaking up, the Larsen ice-shelf, which has been causing foaming
hysteria among eco-doomsters, won't increase sea levels because it has
already displaced its own weight in the sea.
3) The hottest years on record started
in 1991. Which records? The European climate in the Middle Ages
was two degrees hotter than it is now. They grew vines in
Northumberland, for heaven's sake. Then there was the Little Ice Age,
which lasted until about 1880. So the 0.6% warming since then is part
of a pretty normal pattern, and nothing for any normal person to get
excited about.
4) The causal link is well
established. Totally false. It is simply loudly asserted.
Virtually all the scare stuff comes from computer modeling, which is
simply inadequate to factor in all the -- literally-- millions of
variables that make up climate change. If you put rubbish in, you get
rubbish out.
That's why this week's earlier eco-scare
story, that more than a million species will become extinct as a
result of global warming over the next 50 years, is risible. All that
means is that someone has put into the computer the global warming
scenario, and the computer has calculated what would happen on the
basis of that premise. But -duh! -the premise is totally unproven. The
real scientific evidence is that -- we just don't know; and the
theories so far, linking man, carbon dioxide and climate warming. are
specious. There's some seriously bad science going on in the
environmentalist camp.
After Kyoto, one of the most eminent
scientists involved in the National Academy of Sciences study on
climate change, Richard Lindzen, professor of meteorology at MIT, blew
the whistle on the politicized rubbish that was being spouted. Since
his article was so significant, I reproduce it in full here:
'Last week the National Academy of
Sciences released a report on climate change, prepared in response to
a request from the White House, that was depicted in the press as an
implicit endorsement of the Kyoto Protocol. CNN's Michelle Mitchell
was typical of the coverage when she declared that the report
represented "a unanimous decision that global warming is real, is
getting worse, and is due to man. There is no wiggle room."
'As one of 11 scientists who prepared the
report, I can state that this is simply untrue. For starters, the NAS
never asks that all participants agree to all elements of a report,
but rather that the report represent the span of views. This the full
report did, making clear that there is no consensus, unanimous or
otherwise, about long-term climate trends and what causes them.
'As usual, far too much public attention
was paid to the hastily prepared summary rather than to the body of
the report. The summary began with a zinger--that greenhouse gases are
accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities,
causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to
rise, etc., before following with the necessary qualifications. For
example, the full text noted that 20 years was too short a period for
estimating long-term trends, but the summary forgot to mention this.
'Our primary conclusion was that despite
some knowledge and agreement, the science is by no means settled. We
are quite confident (1) that global mean temperature is about 0.5
degrees Celsius higher than it was a century ago; (2) that atmospheric
levels of carbon dioxide have risen over the past two centuries; and
(3) that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas whose increase is likely
to warm the earth (one of many, the most important being water vapor
and clouds).
'But--and I cannot stress this enough--we
are not in a position to confidently attribute past climate change to
carbon dioxide or to forecast what the climate will be in the future.
That is to say, contrary to media impressions, agreement with the
three basic statements tells us almost nothing relevant to policy
discussions.
'One reason for this uncertainty is that,
as the report states, the climate is always changing; change is the
norm. Two centuries ago, much of the Northern Hemisphere was emerging
from a little ice age. A millennium ago, during the Middle Ages, the
same region was in a warm period. Thirty years ago, we were concerned
with global cooling.
'Distinguishing the small recent changes
in global mean temperature from the natural variability, which is
unknown, is not a trivial task. All attempts so far make the
assumption that existing computer climate models simulate natural
variability, but I doubt that anyone really believes this assumption.
'We simply do not know what relation, if
any, exists between global climate changes and water vapor, clouds,
storms, hurricanes, and other factors, including regional climate
changes, which are generally much larger than global changes and not
correlated with them. Nor do we know how to predict changes in
greenhouse gases. This is because we cannot forecast economic and
technological change over the next century, and also because there are
many man-made substances whose properties and levels are not well
known, but which could be comparable in importance to carbon dioxide.
'What we do is know that a doubling of
carbon dioxide by itself would produce only a modest temperature
increase of one degree Celsius. Larger projected increases depend on
"amplification" of the carbon dioxide by more important, but poorly
modeled, greenhouse gases, clouds and water vapor.
'The press has frequently tied the
existence of climate change to a need for Kyoto. The NAS panel did not
address this question. My own view, consistent with the panel's work,
is that the Kyoto Protocol would not result in a substantial reduction
in global warming. Given the difficulties in significantly limiting
levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, a more effective policy might
well focus on other greenhouse substances whose potential for reducing
global warming in a short time may be greater.
'The panel was finally asked to evaluate
the work of the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change, focusing on the Summary for Policymakers, the only part ever
read or quoted. The Summary for Policymakers, which is seen as
endorsing Kyoto, is commonly presented as the consensus of thousands
of the world's foremost climate scientists. Within the confines of
professional courtesy, the NAS panel essentially concluded that the
IPCC's Summary for Policymakers does not provide suitable guidance for
the U.S. government.
'The full IPCC report is an admirable
description of research activities in climate science, but it is not
specifically directed at policy. The Summary for Policymakers is, but
it is also a very different document. It represents a consensus of
government representatives (many of whom are also their nations' Kyoto
representatives), rather than of scientists. The resulting document
has a strong tendency to disguise uncertainty, and conjures up some
scary scenarios for which there is no evidence.
'Science, in the public arena, is
commonly used as a source of authority with which to bludgeon
political opponents and propagandize uninformed citizens. This is what
has been done with both the reports of the IPCC and the NAS. It is a
reprehensible practice that corrodes our ability to make rational
decisions. A fairer view of the science will show that there is still
a vast amount of uncertainty--far more than advocates of Kyoto would
like to acknowledge--and that the NAS report has hardly ended the
debate. Nor was it meant to.'
As Professor
Philip Stott wrote in
the Wall Street Journal on April 2 2001:
'"Global warming" was invented in 1988,
when it replaced two earlier myths of an imminent plunge into another
Ice Age and the threat of a nuclear winter. The new myth was seen to
encapsulate a whole range of other myths and attitudes that had
developed in the 1960s and 1970s, including "limits to growth,"
sustainability, neo-Malthusian fears of a population time bomb,
pollution, anticorporate anti-Americanism, and an Al Gore-like
analysis of human greed disturbing the ecological harmony and balance
of the earth.
'Initially, in Europe, the new myth was
embraced by both right and left. The right was concerned with breaking
the power of traditional trade unions, such as the coal miners -- the
labor force behind a major source of carbon-dioxide emissions -- and
promoting the development of nuclear power. Britain's Hadley Center
for Climate Prediction and Research was established at the personal
instigation of none other than Margaret Thatcher.
'The left, by contrast, was obsessed with
population growth, industrialization, the car, development and
globalization. Today, the narrative of global warming has evolved into
an emblematic issue for authoritarian greens, who employ a form of
language that has been characterized by the physicist P.H. Borcherds
as "the hysterical subjunctive." And it is this grammatical imperative
that is now dominating the European media when they complain about Mr.
Bush, the U.S., and their willful denial of the true faith.'
Go figure.
Founder Of 'Weather Channel' Calls Global Warming 'The Greatest Scam
In History'!
Posted by Melanie at
January 9, 2004 07:37 PM
Melanie, you really are an idiot.
That first assertion (and the one above, heh)
marks him out as a prat. When I saw him on the television I thought he
was an old man past his best. To assert as he did that global warming
is a more serious threat to the world than terrorism is a judgment
call for which he is farcically under qualified- and he's obviously
wrong.It points out what we all
know: that environmental issues are plagued by politics, and there is
a certain kind of frustrated politician who becomes an
environmentalist because he is unable to cope with the real world of
politics. Not to demonstrate awareness of that, and to yoke the
weighing of environmental risk to that of terrorism is just idiotic.
Nice work, Melanie. You can't say this
often enough for me. The thing that I am reminded though, is that
until people start researching in the opposite direction to these
people, or along more original lines, they'll just keep coming back,
like a dog to a bone.
er, when I said 'the one above', I meant the
one at the top of the thread which really has no place in it.
John Daly's 'Still Waiting For Greenhouse'
site is excellent.
But I feel there IS evidence for warming
over the last 50 years, though less than the doomsters say. And what's
causing it is still unclear.
After all, a thousand years ago it was a
lot warmer. The Vikings farmed southern Greenland and you can't put
that down to too many cars. The approaching Little Ice (among other
things) killed them off.
http://www.archaeology.org/online/features/greenland/
Brilliant, I just wish these points were
made more often, by more people. You are, as usual, quite correct in
every significant particular.
There may well be a causal link between
global warming and mankind's irresponsible squandering of fossil fuels
and global warming.
However, fortunately due to mankind's irresponsible squandering of
fossil fuels, in 10 years time there will no longer be a problem, cos
there wont be any fossil fuel left.
Hey, presto - problem solved !
Just make sure that you buy your place in the sun (somewhere within 10
degrees of the equator should suffice) before the price of a gallon of
unleaded is equivalent to a week's wages.
And in the meantime, I suggest you all take up cycling and knitting
woolley jumpers.
One must look at these things in geological
time.
I think Global Warming is a great thing.
We should do nothing about it. If we do nothing, then, perhaps the
greatest plague on the planet—mankind—will become extinct.
It certainly is getting warmer where I
live. And—we are LITERALLY running out of water. What the hell. I'll
be dead and so will Melanie before that happens. ;-)
We are but a grain of sand. . .
Lili
In the end humanity will arrogate unto
itself the responsibility for the entire universe and beyond. Just
before the human race becomes extinct, that is. It is not only
cannabis users who suffer from harmful delusions, it seems. When the
Gulf Strean clicks off again, as it does from time to time, we're all
doomed anyway. In the meantime we have to rub along the best we can,
make the best of today, plan a bit for tomorrow and attempt to cope
when it all turns out not quite as we expected. Individually we have
to depart anyway, so what's the difference if we all go together? Keep
on blogging and keep smiling. Just be thankful you're not Tony Blair.
Book a cheap package flight on George Bush's Mars express, via La Luna
... keep smiling - g'night All.
Excellent work Melanie,.
Man-made global warming is the biggest,
most expensive and dangerous hoax in the history of mankind.
Well they say you cant believe everything
you read then,
and its certainly true in this case, because I simply cant believe the
tripe that spews from your keyboard Melanie.
In difference to most of the worlds leading
academics you choose to believe the word of John Daly, a man with no
education or experience in the field of global warming save a string
of dodgy publications in such learned places as Daly J., "The
Greenhouse Effect: Is It Just Hot Air?", New Woman, 1990.
Indeed this mans biggest claim to fame is his crack pot status.
And then your next quote is from the greening earth society, a society
who admits that its own members are rural electric cooperatives and
municipal electric utilities, their fuel suppliers, and is funded in
part by the Western Fuels Association Forgive me if I am suspicious.
And then you quote Professor Philip
Stott. Philip Stott is professor emeritus at the School of Oriental
and African Studies. He has no qualifications in the field of global
warming, and does not appear to have had a single paper published in a
scientific journal in this field.
He does have opinions but those opinions have never had enough
credibility to stand up to peer review.
You can get opinions with the same
scientific merit down my local pub.
Its true, on the issue of global warming
opinion is divided.
The entire scientific world accepts it as a reality and these people
do not, Philip Stott, Matt Ridley, Pat Michaels, David Wojick, and
Melanie Philips.
Guess what Mike. I am an atmospheric
scientists who has been saying what Melanie has just said for over 10
years. You did not include me on your list of skeptics. I personally
know many more atmospheric scientists who are skeptical on the issue,
than support the IPCC stance. You didn't list any of them. In fact,
there are tens of thousands of atmospheric scientists around the world
and 99% have never been asked there opinion of Global warming. So how
is it you know what they all think? Must be one of those delusions
Melanie was writing about.Why do
we have the impression that everyone agrees on global warming? Because
there is no money in the skeptical view, while the doom and gloomers
receive billions in government grants and hundreds of millions in
donations from frightened individuals to perpetuate the myth, while
skeptics like myself must work and be productive in the real world. We
can not afford to live in the virtual realms of man-made global
warming. Not that I am complaining, mind you. I kind of feel sorry for
those that base there lives work on computer fictions and need to pass
them off as fact.
Then there is the media. Have you ever
heard of Chicken Big? He was the one who went around telling everyone
that the sky wasn't falling. Of course Chicken Big was right, but
Chicken Little still got all the press.
Do me a favor, learn about climate,
atmospheric physics and chaos theory before you call more
knowledgeable people idiots and attack their character. Thanks!
Hi Jim,
You don't have to be an atmospheric scientist to know that the
statement "there is no money in the skeptical view (to global
warming)" is just plain wrong.
The skeptical view has the backing the oil industry, which has plenty
of money.
Probably more money than any other industry on the planet.
Are you seriously suggesting that global
warming is the minority view among atmospheric scientists?
And besides, this does nothing to change
the fact that the sources Melanie quoted are either funded by the
energy industry or have very poor academic and scientific merit in
this field, and in some cases no credentials at all.
Facts which seems all too common among the skeptics.
Mike,
Would you care to enlighten us on just how much money the 'oil
industry' has spent on climate research and the support of atmospheric
scientists who are skeptical of global warming? What? No facts, just
hearsay? I thought as much. What ever the amount is, it is likely a
tiny fraction of the government and environmental group money that is
spent promoting it.
You wrote: "Are you seriously suggesting
that global warming is the minority view among atmospheric
scientists?"
Yes.
Over 18,000 scientists have signed the
Oregon petition stating as such. All the PhD's have been confirmed and
they are working on confirming more names. I know my name on that list
is accurate along many others that I know of and know personally. The
NAS and IPCC reports, which are continuously sited as 'the majority
view' have a far less number of contributors. Being a contributor does
not mean one agrees with the summary, which Lindzen so elegantly
pointed out.
In truth, no one knows what the majority
of atmospheric scientists belief, but what little evidence there is
supports my claim.
Research funded by the likes of oil
companies have a strong vested interest in proving that global warming
does not exist.
Government funded research does not have a pro-global warming bias,
indeed it is in a governments interest not to have to do anything
about global warming.
Preventative measures are expensive, and fuel tax increases are a sure
way to lose the next election.
So your assertion that government funded research equates to
pro-global warming funding, and consequently more pro-global warming
research funding is available is incorrect.
Furthermore oil companies are going to do their level best to hid the
funding they give to anti global warming research, not advertise it.
Which further weakens such an argument.
The Oregon petition you mentioned, is shall
we say, infamous.
Its reassuring to know that they have eventually removed Geri
Halliwell from the list. I guess its hard to be an expert on global
warming and a spice girl as well!
The truth, of course, lies somewhere in the
middle.1. Global Warming is
PLAUSIBLE.
2. IF it were to happen then the consequences MIGHT be very serious.
3. There ARE large industries who would prefer that we didn't do
anything too dramatic just now thank you very much.
All in all, I'd say that was a good
enough case to ask for further data...
And I don't think I'd want to rubbish the
he British government's chief scientific adviser quite so assertively
just in case he turned out to be an intelligent and well informed
professional making a sensible judgment call on a complex subject...
What would be really alarming, is if the
global climate was static. In a dynamic world, climate variation is
the norm. Just the Sun's variation of energy, is far greater then
anything that man or nature can do on this planet.
Melanie touched on water vapour and clouds as being more likely to
cause monotonic increase in temperature. But these two are really the
main agents in maintaining stability of climate by negative feedback.
Mike wrote: "Government funded research does
not have a pro-global warming bias, indeed it is in a governments
interest not to have to do anything about global warming."
You assume that 'government' doesn't want to
do anything, but the opposite is true. Crisis is the life-blood of
government. Without 'crisis' or at least the threat of 'crisis' there
would be little need for government. The people who comprise
governments are always looking for the next crisis to build their
power and influence. All the great dictators of the 20th century used
'crisis' (mostly imagined) to come to power.
Climate researchers have never had it so
good. While they may not support the entire theory of global warming,
they believe their research is important. They know that the budget
for climate research before the global warming myth was less than 5%
of what it is today. All they have to do to keep that gravy train
going is not directly attack the theory. That is why a paper showing
that Antarctic temperatures have been cooling the last 30 years stated
in it's summary that this finding did not, in any way, diminish the
theory of global warming. In reality, this finding directly
contradicted the theory which predicted that Antarctica would be
warming faster than anywhere on Earth. The scientists need the crisis
just as much as the politicians to keep the grant money flowing.
As for environmental organizations, the
more scary their mailers to an uneducated public, the more donations
they receive. In my opinion, the large environmental groups are simply
extortionists.
There is no logic in the widely held
assumption that only money from big business is corrupting. Global
warming skeptics are constantly being accused of being under the
influence of 'big oil' even if there is no evidence of any such
funding. But the thought of being under the influence of 'big-grant'
or 'big-donation' money would never even occur to the global warming
crowd, even though documented billions have been distributed. Global
warming enthusiasts use the 'big-oil' attack against skeptics because
they can not refute the science of the skeptics.
You have a lovely closed argument about
the oil companies. You know they are spending lots of money to fight
the global warming myth, but the are despicable people who hide what
they are spending so you can't prove if they are spending anything,
you just know it is a lot - because?
As for the Oregon petition: Of course,
there are some bogus names. For the sake of argument, let's assume
that 75% of the names are bogus. That would mean that 13,500 people
took the time to read through and fill out a petition that they didn't
believe in, as a joke - or something! Not very likely. Still that
leaves 4,500 legitimate signatures, far more than you can find
committing to the other side.
You made 3 assertions and I have
logically countered all of them. That's strike 3! Your out!
To Ian: Asking for further research is
all well and good. Demanding that people behave a certain way is
something else all together. I would have no problem with those who
believe in man-made global warming if they were not demanding that the
rest of the world do as they say.
Mike,
Instead of overall judgments like "John Daly, a man with no education
or experience in the field of global warming...", could you please say
exactly what facts are wrong on his site?
When John Daly says that something
alleged by global warming believers is wrong, he always has the graph,
the table or the data to prove his point. I would suggest that you try
to do the same.
Michael Crichton made a point worth
remembering on global warming in a 2002 speech to the International
Leadership Forum:
"The other thing I will mention to you is
that during the last 100 years, while the average temperature on the
globe has increased just .3 C, the magnetic field of the earth
declined by 10%. This is a much larger effect than global warming and
potentially far more serious to life on this planet. Our magnetic
field is what keeps the atmosphere in place. It is what deflects
lethal radiation from space. A reduction of the earth's magnetic field
by ten percent is extremely worrisome.
"But who is worried? Nobody. Who is
raising a call to action? Nobody. Why not? Because there is nothing to
be done."
Bring up the magnetic field at the next
party where a hand wringer on global warming spouts off and see if he
or she knows what the hell you are talking about.
Lefties love global warming because it
provides justification their favorite playtime fun, i.e., denuding and
bankrupting capitalist industry.
global warming - if it exists is likely due
to the sun's effect on cosmic rays. This has been proved by Danish
scientists but hasn't been accepted by the wider science community
because there is so much reasearch money being squandered on the
greenhouse myth.Don't take my word
for it - read the Manic sun by nigel calder or talk to Piers Corbyn
from weather action - he can forecast earth weather months in advance
by his climate models of the sun.
The greenhouse effect is the biggest
scientific swindle since they said the earth was flat.
It is my understanding that journalists (and
scholars) in Europe generally do not believe in "objectivity," that
they feel that any belief in objectivity is necessarily naive. After
all, we’re all prisoners of our own points of view. Indeed, the
association of newspapers and magazines with particular political
parties or ideological viewpoints is a strong tradition in Europe,
more so than in the U.S.
I agree that the passive, neutral "he
said–she said" journalism often seen in the States isn’t very helpful.
And I understand that a strong point of view, or a sense of mission,
can sharpen and energize reporters when they’re seeking and evaluating
information. Moreover, I’ve read that, since 9-11, American
journalists have been too passive when confronting government
spokesmen. They pretty much accept whatever the government says, and
they emphasize those themes, facts, and factoids that the government
chooses to emphasize. Many of our journalists do this without thinking
skeptically, without taking a step back and questioning the accounts,
terminology, and assumptions that they’re being fed. They act like
stenographers rather than savvy, aggressive reporters. That kind of
"objectivity" we don’t need.
The aim for objectivity does not entail a
refusal to come to definite conclusions. It does mean that the
conclusions we come to should involve as much reporting and research
as possible (even given deadlines), and as much skepticism as
possible. It means that we would have to question our own views and
assumptions as ceaselessly and mercilessly as we question those of
others.
Will that lead to objectivity? No, not
really.
I believe that objective reality exists,
just as physical laws exist. But in human affairs, any objective
reality is a messy, complicated mix of the concrete facts and the
motives/perceptions of the individuals, groups or governments
involved. These may be hard to uncover and hard to sort out.
But even if we concede that objectivity
isn’t possible, or at least that it’s extremely hard to achieve, that
doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t keep striving for it. One can hope to
approach objectivity asymptotically.
"Asymptotic" is a term I learned a
zillion years ago, in a calculus class at graduate school. Here’s a
definition of what it means, at least as I learned it: Assume you have
a straight line between points A and B. You’re at point A. If you try
to get from point A to point B by constantly dividing the distance
between yourself and point B in half, you’ll start by dividing the
whole line in half, then you’ll divide the interval between yourself
and B in half again, and then again and again. As you keep dividing
the distance between yourself and B, and you’ll get closer and closer
to B. But since there will always be some distance between yourself
and B—no matter how miniscule—you’ll never actually reach B. But
you’ll be much closer than when you started.
When I recommend reaching for objectivity
"asymptotically," I mean that reporters must try to reach for
objectivity even when knowing they’ll never get there. As a result,
they’ll at least reach a level of balance, accuracy, fairness, as well
as intellectual discipline and integrity, that they would never have
reached otherwise.
When people say that everything is
relative, and that objectivity is impossible, a red light starts
blinking for me. It means that they have given up any sense of
obligation to be honest, to face facts or ideas that don’t fit into
their worldview. It’s really an abdication from their responsibilities
as reporters, scholars, or whatever.
There may very well be a causal link between
human activity and climate change - I'd put money on it. However, I
would say that the change isn't as bad as the Jeremiahs For Hire at
the UN are saying, and most importantly, the cost of constraining
green house emissions are much higher than the costs of dealing with
the effects.These people who say
that the Great Barrier Reef will die if we have a 2C temp increase are
talking bollocks. Are they saying that the GBR is only 800 years old?
Not only did the people of the middle ages grow grapes in places like
Durham and Berwick, the Norsemen harvested barley in Greenland. And
how do they explain prehistoric underwater cave paintings in France?
Did Captain Caveman have scuba gear?
Typical Right Wing 'There's nothing to worry
about so shut up polemic'...Sigh.
Climate Change is a serious issue and we
should politicize it at our peril.
Science is science and not opinion.
Some of the evidence about enhanced
global warming is suspect BUT much of the 'there's nothing to worry
about' evidence is equally troubling.
As a trained environmental scientist let
me make the following points/questions:
1. Climate change is accelerating. Human
industrialization and the emissions therein / change in habitats (loss
of forest biome) et al are the large and significant X factor when
considering both global and regional ecosystems.
2. There is a complexity to the delicate
interaction between the differing elements in an ecosystem. It is
possible to alter established wind systems with only relatively minor
changes in local atmospheric and thermal conditions. We are
potentially doing this on a global basis. I would say, on the balance
of the evidence and my own understanding of both atmospheric physics/
chemistry and ecosystems in general that it is likely by 65 - 35 that
we are exacerbating climatic changes.
3. The points made about humans farming
in Greenland and us being pebbles are irrelevant.
There are 6.3 Billion of us existing in a world economy with an
increasing technology level but a decreasing resource base. Hopefully
the former will expand and increase / improve the efficiency the
latter. However, things on this rock are quite delicately balanced.
Small changes bring big upheavals - social / economic problems that
will be vastly more expensive to sort then taking action now.
3. Habitat destruction is morally wrong.
We are not medieval farmers, we know better now.
4. Pollution is morally wrong, as is
squandering
precious resources.
5. We can make a ton of money from
greener, leaner technologies.
5. Question - why are conservatives
generally prepared to see a polluted environment/squandered resources
and peoples lives ruined just so long as the big fossil fuel
industries don't have to change?
Basically - conservatives for a polluted,
degraded planet...what is that about?
Neil WI
can't believe that is all a "trained environmental scientist" can tell
us about climate change.
1. "emissions and change in habitat are a
significant X factor." Wow, that's a bold statement.
2. Based on your hunch there is a 65-35
chance we are affecting the environment. How can I argue with that?
3. "Habitat destruction is morally
wrong." Strange for a scientist to use morality as an argument.
4. see answer to 3. and; Is pollution
really morally wrong? Is any pollution morally wrong? Should we all
just stop breathing? That would reduce CO2 emissions. (See post by
Lili above)
5. Uh, okay, maybe we can.
5. Nice argument. The conservatives I
know do not want to destroy the planet, they just don't want to panic
based on insufficient evidence. The energy company argument is so
tired. I am poor, I have no interest in oil company performance, I
hold no stock, but I still think we should be prudent about our
environmental decisions. Why break the bank to change something if
there is no good evidence it will make a difference.
3. Habitat destruction is morally wrong. We
are not medieval farmers, we know better now.
Interesting. Are you saying that the
actions of the medieval farmers are responsible for the warmer climate
that allowed them to farm areas that today are too cold to farm?
I believe that the terms 'habitat
destruction' and 'pollution' as used first by Neil W above need
definition. Whacking weeds in the garden might qualify as habitat
destruction and cooking a meal outdoors might also qualify as
pollution.As for "we can make a
ton of money from greener, leaner technologies" the one making the
claim bears the burden of proof, in order for an assertion to move
towards being an argument.
Two items:
One:
"Habitat destruction is morally wrong."
Actually, habitat is neither created nor destroyed. As warm habitats
become warmer, colder habitats become warm. Animals can migrate given
the slow change. This is what they have been doing all along if we
look at the record.Two:
Global Warming Humor?
Last Sunday's Comics pages had a wonderful one:
http://www.comics.com/creators/wizardofid/archive/wizardofid-20040111.html
Heh...
http://www.igreens.org.uk/ - You want Conservative opinions about
the environment - see this website.
. Habitat destruction is morally wrong. We
are not medieval farmers, we know better now.
Interesting. Are you saying that the
actions of the medieval farmers are responsible for the warmer climate
that allowed them to farm areas that today are too cold to farm?
Posted by CanaveralDan at January 12,
2004 05:47 PM
The scientists are going back far further
than medieval times. 8000 years and the start of agriculture to be
precise.
http://www.nature.com/nsu/031208/031208-7.html
Hey Neil W! If you're so certain that you
can make money out of renewable energy and green technology then get
off your backside and invent it. Go on! Make yourself a billionaire so
you can spend all your millions that you earned on your silly little
social engineering projects.
Basically, put your money where your mouth is.
I still believe in Global Cooling!
TRAITORS!
Where do you apply for funding?
I may accept that "Global Warming" is
occurring, but if man is having an effect I doubt it is more than
pushing a bit on a system balanced on a razor edge and already
leaning.
I call upon those who blame man, and only man, to demand that General
Motors share with the rest of us the technology allowing them to ship
SUV's to Martian consumers -
-----
(The March 2003 Astronomy has an article by Peter Thomas titled,
"Mysteries of the Martian Poles." Among the other interesting aspects
of the article is the repeated mention that the [Mars] polar ice caps
"are receding at rates up to 15 feet (4 meters) a year."
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/mars_ice-age_031208.html
Mars Emerging from Ice Age, Data Suggest
By SPACE.com - Scientists have suspected in recent years that Mars
might be undergoing some sort of global warming. New data points to
the possibility it is emerging from an ice age... "Odyssey is giving
us indications of recent global climate change in Mars," said Jeffrey
Plaut, project scientist for the mission at NASA's Jet Propulsion
Laboratory
*Mars is Melting* )
-----
and other places in the local system
-----
http://www.spacetoday.net/Summary/1781 Pluto's tenuous atmosphere
is expanding and warming even as the planet moves away from the Sun...
*
http://www.arn.org/boards/ubb-get_topic-f-12-t-000268.html more:
seems several moons and planets are "melting".*
-----
so that we may all share in the benefits of successful space
exploration and, yes, exploitation.
If anyone actually went and read the various
supporting documents such as the SRES and so on there would be a lot
more sense in this whole debate.
Allow me to assume, for the moment, that GW is happening, and that it
is human emissions that are causing it. The question then becomes,
what should we do about it ? There are various possibilities,
reduction of emissions, adaptation, ignore it...
But if we look at the SRES models ( these are the economic and
technological assumptions that underlie the various IPCC scenarios )we
actually find something that more people should know. It is those
scenarios with the FASTEST economic growth that show the lowest
emissions rises and thus the least warming. This was confirmed when
Castles and Henderson made their critique in Energy and Environment,
and were then answered by a number of IPCC affiliated scientists.
This is nothing to do with climate science : it's to do with
economics, a sadly misunderstood subject amongst enviros. Poor
countries are by definition users of old technologies which are
wasteful of resources. As they become richer ( again by definition,
have economic growth ) they use more efficient technologies. And it's
right there in the SRES models that that scenario ( B1T MESSAGE )
which has the lowest emissions growth is the one that has the highest
economic growth. Rapid turnover of capital stock and approaching the
production frontier of an economy are what make this true. This is why
S Korea is both richer than and less emittive than N Korea : and why
China has been reducing overall emissions while growing at 8 % a year.
These are not whacko numbers : they are the assumptions upon which the
IPCC report was written.
So, leave aside for a moment whether GW is happening, or whether we
humans are causing it. Even the scientific proponents of those ideas
are telling us that the solution is simple. More and faster economic
growth. And we know how to do that. More free trade, more capitalism,
more FDI, more globalization, death to CAP and the Multi Fibre
agreement, up with the WTO.
If the assembled enviro hordes actually understood that the solution
to GW, as outlined by the IPCC, were actually more of the economics
they dread we would be hearing a lot less about Kyoto : can't you hear
it " Ah, a little warming is nothing, as long as we don't have greedy
capitalism ".Tim Worstall
( BTW, if anyone wants to actually write this up formally I can
provide all the references. )
I'm with Tim Worstall. My solution is to
condense the CO2 into dry ice, load it on space vessels and fire it at
Mars. There it will return to its gaseous state and provide both more
atmosphere and the beginning of warming to the planet. Win-win. Makes
at least as much sense as spending trillions of dollars to slow global
warming by 4-5 years in a century.
Some records suggests that CO2 concentration
follows warming, not the other-way around. Time for an earth-shade at
Lagrange One :-) (Though I suspect the same folks in favor of Kyoto
will argue that manipulating the weather is an act-of-war, and a
rising tide certainly can not lift all boats :-)
see:
http://www.wuss.org/Conference/papers/DA09.pdf
Pity the Renaissance and West are in
retreat (when status and who pays for research matters more than the
quality and repeatability of the results). Need a label for these
idiotarians. Perhaps: Lysenkobots, Lysenkonuts, ....
I doubt the claims of human induced global
warming because their data is patchy (to say the least), and their
models don't work (plug the year 1900 in and you don't get the year
2000 out). I find it far easier to believe that any warming (or
cooling) that is happening is far more likely to be due to variations
in solar output than me driving a car!
Global warming AND cooling have occurred
throughout Earth's history. There is scant evidence that any warming
is taking place right now and even if warming is occurring there is no
evidence that it is due to human activity. However, based on
geological evidence, global warming and cooling will occur at aom time
in the geological future and there is nothing that we can do about
that. However, Fred Hoyle did have a plan to protect Earth from the
next ice age (see his book Ice). Remember the warnings of an imminent
ice age, folks, when we were all going to freeze to death. I think
that was about the same time that Paul Erlich predicted mass
starvation and the Club of Rome predicted we would run out of just
about everything. The green doomsayers just can't give up; trying to
order other people's lives, all in the noble cause of saving Planet
Earth, is such a heady brew.
One disaster that has the potential to
wipe us all out is an asteroid impact. Yet the greens ignore that.
Perhaps because there are no international gabfests to attend. Perhaps
because any solution is likely to require the use of nasty nuclear
power.
May I suggest that one study very closely
all the temperature records John Daly has on his siet, and then
compare those with Mann
s graph? Away from the urban heat islands, no warming is evident and
at Albany and Esperance in southern West Australia, the trend is
towards cooling. This is so blindingly obvious that one is forced to
conclude that Global warming is anything but another instance of
millennial madness based on faith not fact.
Why is it always Melanie Phillips who keeps
saying the true but unacceptable things? I wish more people would
listen to her.If GW is happening
it's caused by outside influences, not man. It's typical of mankind
that (a) he thinks he's caused something as big as changing the
climate, and (b) he can fix it. We know the real motives of those on
the GW bandwagon are to reduce personal freedoms.
I'm a bit late with this comment - but am
looking into the origins and dissemination of the pseudo-science of
global warming. Here's an interesting parallel comment to Sir David
King's from the RSPB's 'climate change campaigner' at about the same
time....
Can anyone else come up with any similar comments made by other people
who should be in a position to know better?
International Environmental News
January 11, 2004
Compiled by Sean Kepple
Listen to the show
January 8, 2004 – Nature
The first comprehensive study regarding the effects of higher
temperatures on the natural world has been published in the journal
Nature. The study estimates more than 1 million species will be list
by 2050 as a result of global warming. Much of this loss – more than 1
in 10 of all plants and animals – is irreversible due to greenhouse
gasses already discharged into the atmosphere. Furthermore, if humans
continue to burn fossil fuels at the current rate, the study concludes
up to one third of all life forms on our planet will be doomed by
2050.
John Lanchberry, climate change campaigner for the Royal Society for
the Protection of Birds responded saying: “This is a deeply depressing
paper. President Bush risks having the biggest impact on wildlife
since the meteorite that wiped out the dinosaurs. At best, in 50
years, a host of wildlife will be committed to extinction because of
human-induced climate change. At worst, the outcome does not bear
thinking about. Drastic action to cut emissions is clearly needed by
everyone, but especially the USA.”
