|
« The flight from reason
Main |
January 12, 2004
The global warming fraud
Daily Mail, January 12 2004 Daffodils are on sale in some of our shops unseasonably early. Such evidence that spring seems to be arriving before winter has departed, along with excessively hot summer temperatures, has convinced many that global warming is well under way. Unease that something funny is happening to the weather is reinforced by constant reports claiming imminent environmental doom, such as the article in Nature magazine last week claiming global warming will cause more than one million species to die out over the next fifty years. In another article in the journal Science the government’s Chief Scientific Adviser, Sir David King, claims global warming is an even more serious threat to the world than terrorism. He maintains that the ten hottest years on record started in 1991, that global warming is causing the ice caps to melt and the seas to rise, and that mankind’s activities in producing carbon dioxide have been proved to be the cause. With all due respect to Sir David’s eminence, every one of these claims is utter garbage. What science actually tells us is that we just don’t know whether global warming is happening and, if it is, why. Much of the research behind this theory is specious, anti-historical and scientifically illiterate. If the world’s climate is indeed warming up beyond normal patterns, this could be due to natural reasons rather than the actions of mankind. It is not true that the seas are generally rising. Some are; some aren’t. The claim is based on the atypical North Atlantic, ignoring the seas around Australia where levels have remained pretty static. Indeed, around parts of New Zealand and elsewhere they are falling. What’s more, there’s no correlation between rises in climate temperature and sea levels. During the ‘Little Ice Age’ in the Middle Ages, sea levels rose; and between 1900 and 1940, when temperatures rose, sea levels actually dropped. The ice-caps tell a similar story. Some are melting; some are not. The Larsen ice shelf in the Antarctic is breaking up, but most of the Antarctic ice is increasing. Then there’s the claim that the climate is now the hottest on record. But this statistical record only goes back a few centuries, if that. Yet there’s plenty of other evidence that the climate in Europe was warmer than now by at least 2 degrees in 1100, when vines grew in Northumberland and farmers settled in Greenland. Since this was followed by the Little Ice Age which lasted until about 1880, it’s hardly surprising — and surely a cause for rejoicing — that since then the climate has warmed up by about 0.6 degrees, well within normal patterns. As for the presumed villain of the piece carbon dioxide, this makes up such a tiny fraction of the atmosphere that even if it doubled it would make little difference to the climate. And like sea levels, it doesn’t correlate with climate change. Historically, it has increased hundreds of years after the climate has warmed up. Between 1940 and 1975, when industrial activity — which produces carbon dioxide —rose rapidly, the climate actually cooled. Far from being proved, the claim of man-made global warming is a global fraud. Instead of being drawn from observable facts, it is based on computer modelling which churns out wholly artificial — and eminently manipulable — visions of the world. Computers can only process the information fed into them. This is an inadequate procedure, not least because climate change is affected by billions of variables which are beyond any computer programme. The sea level ‘rise’, for instance, omits the full influence of certain crucial natural meteorological changes. And if the disaster scenarios of global warming are fed into the computer as a premise, it is hardly surprising that it will then ‘predict’ the disappearance of species as a consequence. In other words, if you feed rubbish into a computer, you get rubbish out. The claim that there’s a scientific consensus behind global warming is also utterly bogus. In 1992, more than 40 atmospheric scientists said the theory was highly uncertain and warned against using theoretical climate models which they said were not supported by existing records. In 1997, dozens of meteorologists, geologists, atmospheric scientists and other experts said global warming was based solely on unproven scientific theories and imperfect computer models. In 1998, 18,000 scientists signed the Oregon petition which again criticised this ‘flawed’ research, said historic evidence showed that increased atmospheric carbon dioxide was environmentally helpful, and predicted that the 1997 Kyoto agreement to reduce industrial emissions would keep the developing world trapped in poverty. One of the world’s most eminent meteorologists, Professor Richard Lindzen, has also protested that while the science behind the Kyoto protocol was suitably equivocal about global warming, the document’s highly politicised summary — the part actually being used to force reduced industrial activity onto the western world — was written instead by government representatives, who had conjured up ‘scary scenarios for which there is no evidence’. Indeed, global warming has little to do with science and everything to do with politics. Those scientists who endorse the theory command the lion’s share of government-funded research grants. Since the global warming prediction emerged in the late 1980s, climate science funding has gone through the roof. Scientists know, however, that they won’t get funded unless their research confirms global warming. Too many enormous reputations would go down the plug otherwise; too many political agendas depend on the theory. So global warming has become big business. This is ironic. For it is yet another variation of left-wing, anti-American, anti-west ideology which goes hand in hand with anti-globalisation and the belief that everything done by the industrialised world is wicked. The agenda to cripple this world is revealed by highly questionable assumptions made by climate modellers about likely developments in economics, technology or population movements, which affect emissions and consequent temperature predictions. As the Economist recently pointed out, they assume growth rates that are beyond any historical experience, resulting in predictions of a bizarre economic future in which the United States stops growing and developing nations overtake the industrialised world. But that reversal of fortune is, of course, precisely the objective. And if anyone objects, they are demonised. As Professor Lindzen has protested, science is now being used ‘as a source of authority with which to bludgeon political opponents and propagandize uninformed citizens’. Dr Bjorn Lomborg, the Danish statistician who became famous for his book ‘The Sceptical Environmentalist’, paid a heavy price for pointing out that richer countries were cleaner countries, and observing that the costs of implementing the Kyoto protocol for less than one year would provide clean water for every human being on Earth. For his demolition of the environmental scam, he was vilified across the globe and accused by a Danish scientific committee of ‘dishonesty’ — a disgraceful verdict that has now been demolished by a superior committee that tore into Dr Lomborg’s inquisitors for intellectual inadequacy. The claim of man-made global warming represents the descent of science from the pursuit of truth into politicised propaganda. The fact that it is endorsed by the top scientist in the British government shows how deep this rot has gone.
Posted by melanie at January 12, 2004
Comments
It is astounding how well-entrenched these people became so quickly, against all evidence to the contrary that people can actually observe with their own eyes. Last winter, I was following the temperatures in the south of France and there was almost an entire month when the daytime temperature never rose above zero. (But than doesn't count! Only heatwaves count!) Some SE Asian countries close to the Equator also experienced weather that was eight or 10 degrees cooler than the norm. (But that doesn't count, either!) It was glaringly obvious to me right from the first whisper of "global warming" that this was to inhibit the growth of the West. I look around at the tiny cars people in Britain and Europe drive (except for the luxury cars - but that's OK; they're ferrying important people to global warming conferences) and I shudder. At least Americans still have the guts to drive big cars and screw global warming. By the way, we never hear how much jet travel to all these global warming conferences (on, naturally, palm-fringed islands in the tropics or at least Mexico) contributes to global warming. And how much global warming is contributed by the carbon dioxide the hotel air-conditioners put out to keep those all-important delegates comfy cool. I have absolutely no sympathy with anyone who is taken in by these people with their blatent lefty, anti-Western, anti-capital agenda. When I am in a hot country, I run the air conditioner on Max all night and have a nice cozy duvet on the bed to keep me from freezing to death! Yayyyy! I drive my car to the supermarket five minutes' walk away. So what? Posted by: Caroline at January 12, 2004 11:52 AMYes Ken, and the elevating power of hot air can be overcome by keeping ones feet anchored to the ground. Posted by: Frank Pulley at January 12, 2004 12:19 PMSane people forced our Labour Govt to csncel it's "FART TAX" on our farmers. But they won't give up because "they" know best. Keep writing Melanie Melanie says: The fact that it is endorsed by the top scientist in the British government shows how deep this rot has gone. Yet surely we are all aware that Blair is a tranzi with a tranzi-socialist agenda? What would be surprising is if people in the Blair redoubt weren't pushing this agenda on the British people. What would be good news would be if someone sued them for losses suffered due to their patently phoney programmes. Not only is it all anti-capitalistic and anti-Western, but it is also all about control of the population. Many thanks for this article, Melanie, an effective counter-blast to the bogus environmental lobby. One could spend a lifetime looking at climate based websites but two I have found useful are those of the Association of British Drivers and an American scientist named D.V. Hoyt. Hoyt points out that the 'warm' temperatures recorded in recent years are in the northern hemisphere and are accounted for by the high-rise effect of expanding urban areas. Satellite-based temperatures, recorded over the last few decades, do not show global temperature increases, simply random variations. I put this data in summary form to some HE students last year. They didn't really want to know, unfortunately. It may have been too much of a culture shock. “The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed — and hence clamorous to be led to safety — by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary” H.L. Mencken "The sky is falling!" Chicken Little Interesting article. Wouild melanie like to tell us what her scientific qualifications are? Obviously she knows so much more about this than the UK's top scientists, I just wondered where she gets her information from? Posted by: amused_bystander at January 12, 2004 05:05 PMAmused bystander. Since when did scientists have a monopoly on truth and logic? Viewed from a historical perspective, intelligent commentators with a broad spectrum of experience and knowledge, and first class analytical minds, have often enough proved more accurate than 'scientists' with a political agenda, or those paid by others, with a political agenda in cash or in kind. Read Melanie's articles and diary posts on this blog and you may find it similar to the Road to Damascus. As Melanie often writes - go figure! Posted by: Frank Pulley at January 12, 2004 07:16 PMPS I think I may have released a flock of moonbats with my unfortunate "Damascus" analogy, ooops! Posted by: Frank Pulley at January 12, 2004 07:19 PMamused bystander who doesn't understand the point of capital letters for proper nouns: What an exclusive, off centre belief you have in science. Clue: If the traffic lights aren't working, I don't have to understand why. I just know they're not working. There is absolutely no evidence on the ground of "global warming" - and so fast! It used to take two million years, but, hey! in today's fast paced society, itonly takes two! You've got to agree that our efficiency's gone up. Posted by: Caroline at January 12, 2004 07:45 PMIn other words, if you feed rubbish into a computer, you get rubbish out. How true! I had a good giggle. Thanks Melanie. Thanks. Frank. Posted by: Frank. at January 12, 2004 08:08 PM
is that the turtleman of ml? Posted by: turtlewatcher at January 12, 2004 10:16 PMThank you Caroline and Frank Pulley. I thought that Phillips had given me my big laugh of the day with her hilarious article but you two have topped even that. Cheers. Posted by: Stan at January 12, 2004 11:18 PMPerhaps Mr Mennier could give us his credentials so that we use them to measure his contribution to this debate, given that credentials seem to be his criterion for judgement. Turtlewatcher seems to imply that they may include a rap sheet of previous, in the field ofenvironmental politics, but perhaps I infer too much from that cryptic comment. I'm not sure that accusing one set of scientists as alarmist when other eminent scientists have also made similar accusations amounts to Positivism. You obviously haven't read much of Melanie's work, which is hardly Panglossian. As for Stan, his credentials are self-evident from his sense of humour. Obviously Care in the Community would suffice. Maniacal misplaced laughter, in and of itself, would not justify sectioning. And my own credentials? I gratuitously offer them before you ask: merely living on this earth for seven decades listening to swathes of highly qualified scientific assertions; stuff which later turned out to be absolute bollocks, has taught me to be sceptical of all doomsday theories. I am more inclined to believe that scientists with a political agenda are a greater danger to humanity than global warming. And if the leftist elite have their way with us, the great levelling down will follow; initiative and incentive will be stifled and science will go down the plughole with the rest of humanity. The great socialist experiments of the past may just be the signals that tell us something. Barometer/thermometer gazing is fun, with or without scientific degrees. Drilling holes in the ice is also fun if someone provides a large enough budget to include a fur coat. But it won't even tell you whether Thierry Henri will score in the next Arsenal match, let alone forecast domesday. We each have our individual domesday and that will continue until humanity has finally run it's course. It is nature that will decide on that date, not us, I fear. Gaia wil getcha before you get her. But that's just a layman's opinion. And I've met some very reliable and trustworthy laymen in my time. Posted by: Frank Pulley at January 13, 2004 01:47 AMSorry, a slip of the finger. I spelled Monsieur Henry's name wrong in above posting. Unforgivable! Posted by: Frank Pulley at January 13, 2004 03:18 AMMay I recommend the following website for critical comments on global warming Tom Mennier is just another long-winded Frenchie. God, those people do talk. They've perfected the art of talking and breathing at the same time. There is never any pause in the cascades of yap, yap, yap. Some of the comments above illustrate how credulous so many people are. You can tell them anything, with absolutely no evidence, and if you tell them often enough, and have it repeated by worthy people on TV news panels, they believe it fiercely and angrily. The temperature in the balmy south of France had almost an entire month of exceptionally cold weather - seldom rising more than 2 degrees above zero during the daytime, for over a month. No one could remember the last time it had been so bitter. But evidence to the contrary never counts with these people. (They believe Africa is suffering from an AIDS epidemic; and they believed that SARS was going to decimate the world.) Posted by: Caroline at January 13, 2004 08:44 AMCaroline “(They believe Africa is suffering from an AIDS epidemic; and they believed that SARS was going to decimate the world.)” They also believe that rate of AIDS in developed countries can be reduced by preaching the condom message and ignoring the homosexual lifestyle and immigration. Any AIDS “researcher” that did not preach the politically correct line would soon find their funding dried up. Yes, Chuck. That is precisely the problem. The tranzis and the politically correct lefties are in control of the purse strings. There was an excellent article in The Spectator a while back on the AIDS "epidemic" in Africa. The figures have been pumped up because AIDS is where the money is. This is not to say that tens of thousands of Africans are not dying from other wasting diseases, of which there are plenty in Africa, and are not receiving adequate treatment. But the incidence of AIDS is much smaller than is being reported. Why? Because the tranzis and the AIDS industry have determined there there are large sums of money available to any enterprise that has AIDS in its title. So people dying from other wasting diseases are being recategorised as AIDS sufferers. And the computer projections are now revealed to be mysteriously, way, way off. Posted by: Caroline at January 13, 2004 10:58 AMAmazing. I'm particularly intrigued by the 'sloping' sea level between Australia and New Zealand. Good evidence Melanie, but hardly proof, since you have ignored (wilfully or not) tectonic uplift in the Southern Alps, and are therefore wrong. Posted by: matt at January 13, 2004 12:42 PMOmigod! Tectonic uplift in the Alps? Sounds like a Wonderbra. We haven't read about any sagging of the Grand Tetons, either! Posted by: Caroline at January 13, 2004 01:36 PMThanks Caroline, but how about a sensible reply, or are you selectively immune to facts? Posted by: matt at January 13, 2004 01:54 PMP.S. The Southern Alps are in New Zealand... Sorry for assuming you knew that. Posted by: matt at January 13, 2004 01:57 PMWhy would I know or care where the Southern Alps are? Do you know where KK is? (No fair googling it.) My experience, not drawn from the World Bank or any other tranzi source, is that there's no immediately apparent climate change. Unusual summers and unusual winters are part of recorded history. Climate change takes thousands of years, except the tranzis haven't got that long, so now it's been upgraded and only takes two or three years. Carbon emissions are puny by standards of the universe. Mt Helen's in Washington state spewed out more carbon emissions in three days than are put into the atmosphere by the whole planet Earth over the course of a year. And what happened? Nothing, much. My car in Houston got volcano dust on it. That was about it. Melanie looks at things with a clear, unbiased eye. She is correct that "global warming" is a scam to tamp down progress in the West. Whether you like it or not, I think we should drive big comfortable cars on cheap petrol. Long before the petrol runs out, the Americans will have come up with a new procedure for running personal vehicles. Why the Europeans seem unable to grasp the nature of change confounds me. Just because we are driving petrol-driven cars at the moment does not mean that this is how we will get around until the world comes to an end. We'll all be doing something else in 20 years' time. We'll probably all switch to something new long before the oil runs out. There will be plenty left in the ground by the time we abandon this means of locomotion. Remember steam trains? Posted by: Caroline at January 13, 2004 02:31 PMHmm. The only reason you should know or care where the Southern Alps are is if you are interested in a clear discussion of the article and whether it is factually correct. These things matter after all! I have to say that I am not impressed with your ability to rationalise the information you are given. Do you have an education in climate science or politics or economics? And don't give me that 'university of life' guff that is put forward here with alarming frequency. Another point - I'm not old enough to remember steam trains, but I do know they don't run on water!!! Posted by: matt at January 13, 2004 02:51 PMBy the way, could someone tell me what a 'tranzi' is? Posted by: matt at January 13, 2004 02:59 PMCaroline, your ignorance of politics is almost as great as your ignorance of science. You are convinced Blair has some grand socialist agenda of which this is a part. Please can you tell me which are the other socialist policies he has introduced because I seem to have missed them! Posted by: Simon at January 13, 2004 03:12 PMSimon: I don't think Caroline is overly concerned with her own ignorance, which is indeed staggering. I still await her replies eagerly, they give me some considerable amusement, albeit mixed with horror and dismay. Posted by: matt at January 13, 2004 03:16 PMMatt: I hope I haven't done her an injustice, she actually refers to Blair as a tranzi-socialist which may mean something completely different, or she may just have just made this up too. Posted by: Simon at January 13, 2004 03:21 PMBoth a tranzi and a tranzi- socialist. The mind boggles. I've thought of many names for Blair, but haven't yet resorted to making up words. She must be really desperate. Posted by: matt at January 13, 2004 03:33 PMMatt, I guess I'll just have to come to terms with the fact that you are not impressed with my ability to rationalise the information I am given. I shall endeavor to be brave. Meanwhile, I will continue to question "information I am given" and consider the prejudices of the source. You seem to have misunderstood Melanie's column. She is not writing for climate scientists. She is not a science writer. She is an opinion columnist. She has an opinion about global warming, with which I happen to agree - in the face of all your objections - and, with her provision of a Comments thread, she generously invites her readers to comment. We are not presenting papers at MIT. You are taking this all a little too seriously. Oh, dear! The "university of life"! What a trite way of thinking you have! I would prefer not to be accused of having so poor a facility in the English language as to be driven to resorting to clichés. A tranzi is a transnational. I.e., the International Red Cross and its "humanitarian disaster" du jour, the World Bank, Amnesty International, the AIDS mafia and all the other non-elected busybodies who have arrogated unto themselves the power to tell elected governments what to do. Another name is NGO - non-governmental organization. Another famous tranzi is the UN and its sidekick, the tranzi most beloved by Blair, the EU. The term has been in common currency for around a year, although I'm sure it's not employed in The Guardian and similar tranzi cheering sections. I sensed a note of triumph when you said you know that steam trains didn't run on water. I don't know why you felt you were scoring a point, but who cares? Steam trains went the way of the horse and cart many years ago. The car in its present form will go the same way. You seem to want the world to be set in amber the way it is, at this very moment. Global warming is a load of anti-globalisation rubbish. Posted by: Caroline at January 13, 2004 03:42 PMDon't knock the Guardian, Melanie used to write for it! Thanks for clarifying the 'tranzi' bit. Your point about taking the debate seriously has nothing to do with whether we are presenting papers at MIT or not. The real point is that we should try and use our facilities in a non-biased way, hence my emphasis on facts. Therein lies the problem with Melanies column. It's hardly a monument to thousands of years of human intellectual development is it? Yet she purports to tell people what is right. Opinions are all very well, but it is mostly necessary to qualify them. Something that you and Melanie have failed to do. Perhaps one of your problems is that you lump a number of 'issues' together. For example, global warming, socialism and anti-globalisation are all tarred with the same brush. This is self-evidently a classic symptom of the opinionated. A final bout of point-scoring - you should note that the very organisations you condemn (World Bank, Red Cross etc) are standard-bearers for your loosely defined 'globalisation' (which you apparently support). Confusion reigns. Posted by: matt at January 13, 2004 04:02 PMMatt - Melanie will doubtless be surprised to learn that you have imposed academic qualifications requirements for commenting on her articles. Given the nature of your posts, she will be less surprised at your lack of grace in the personal comments you make about her. Here is something very important for you to take away with you, as the world of journalism seems to baffle you. Opinion columnists traffick in opinions. Melanie comments with clarity and great cogency of thought on matters of the day. Your behaviour on this thread has been infantile, spoiled, ungracious and ignorant. I am not going to respond to your points about tranzis as you are a naive and simplistic thinker. Boring. Posted by: Caroline at January 13, 2004 04:13 PMDear Caroline, Thank you for your gracious response. I am sorry that you do not appreciate my occasional sarcasm. I don't require you to respond to my points about 'tranzis'. Incidentally, I had always understood transnational to be a reference to transnational corporations (TNCs), which feature prominently in the globalisation literature. You will be relieved to hear that your last paragraph did not cause me great offence. May I point out, however, that to a neutral observer it may have come across as slightly infantile and ungracious. You have hit the nail on the head in some respects. I have always tried to be aware that my thought processes are naive and simplistic. That is the best that any of us can hope to do. Anyone who thinks otherwise is opinionated, and generally wrong. Finally, I apologise for having bored you. I must say though, that I am somewhat relieved we are not on the same wavelength. Do keep in touch. Posted by: matt at January 13, 2004 04:36 PMCaroline, you say Melanie trafficks in opinion, that is fine. But you cannot be surprised if her views are taken with a degree of incredulity if by your own admission she is neither a scientist nor a science writer, and has no expertise in this area. My next-door neighbour might give me well-meant advice for a health complaint but I would rather seek out the opinion of a doctor! Wouldn't you? Posted by: Simon at January 13, 2004 04:41 PMShe knows more about everyhting than everybody doesn't she? Really, why do we bother with university research departments when we have Ms Phillips? Any let's get rid of the editorial boards of peer reviewed scientific journals - all we need is Mel! Thanks - I'll cancel my subscirptions ot Nature, Science, the BMJ and just read your column every week - you obviously know far more than all those egg-heads Posted by: blah at January 13, 2004 04:44 PM------------------------------ January 13, 2004 New York Times Alaska Thaws, Complicating the Hunt for Oil DEADHORSE, Alaska — Harry Bader slogged across a patch of America's only Arctic shore, leaning into a late December gale that filled the midday twilight with blowing snow and sent the wind chill to 40 below. Despite the weather, Mr. Bader, the state's land manager for the oil-rich North Slope, was consumed with one thing — the warming climate. Oil-prospecting convoys in search of new deposits are allowed to crisscross the fragile tundra only when it is snowy and solid. But over three decades, rising temperatures have cut this frozen season in half, to 100 days from 200. Environmentalists have begun to point out the contradictions in a situation where Arctic-wide warming, which many scientists say is at least partly driven by smokestack and tailpipe emissions, is curtailing the quest for a fossil fuel that is a prime source of such pollution. Nowhere is the warming trend more acute than here on this Minnesota-size stretch of pond-pocked plains and shrubby foothills. But even as temperatures have risen, so has the demand for oil from the Slope, which holds the country's last big known domestic reserves. And Mr. Bader's agency, the Department of Natural Resources, is bound by the State Constitution not only to protect the land, but to increase extraction of the oil and gas beneath it... There was once a time when I mourned the passing of Chris Morris's "Brasseye" as being the highest achievement of Western satire. Now I have "Fox News" and melaniephillips.com and it all seems rather tame in comparison. Keep up the good work!! BTW - the idea of the global scientific community deliberately fabricating evidence to launch some sort of left-wing attack on global capitalism has to top it all. Posted by: confused onlooker at January 13, 2004 10:10 PMCaroline Casting pearls before piglets is frustrating ... 'twas ever thus. Posted by: Frank Pulley at January 14, 2004 01:29 AM"confused onlooker" Was it the kiddie porn on Brasseye that interested you, confused onlooker? I first visualised you with one eyebrow raised and a supercilious smirk on a patronising face. Now I see a strange, sad face, looking for a brief respite from more 'interesting' websites.Funny how written words evoke images of cyberpeople. "beyond satire" Yep. That's the NYT. Posted by: Frank Pulley at January 14, 2004 01:46 AMI think you have a problem Posted by: freaked out onlooker at January 14, 2004 03:03 AMThe previous article was called The Flight from Reason. This one is really about authority and trust. As with so many of these issues it all depends on who you believe. And if you're wise to be sceptical about the authority of those should know better than yourself you have to be pretty reckless to sound off as dogmatically as Melanie does. Before dismissing ecological concerns with her usual eerie confidence, Melanie might like to pause and reflect on that other, rather less ambiguous, man-made eco-nightmare, the destruction of the ozone layer. However much one might wish otherwise, the polar holes in the ozone layer (which were photographed from space)were inarguably a result of human activity, and human activity alone. Naturally, this goes unacknowledged, as it would undermine Melanie's own political agenda. Likewise, the fact that we'd destroyed almost 40% of our protection from UV radiation over two continent-sized areas before we even admitted the problem goes unremarked. As does the fact that our last-minute efforts to stop further damage were largely the result of the very same 'leftwing, anti-American, anti-west' lobbyists. As I recall, the Republican policy, with which Melanie seems to have such sympathy, opposed any efforts to curtail our destruction of stratospheric ozone, even when our best estimates predicted that in six decades or so there would be no ozone at all above two regions the size of Antarctica. Left unchecked, the artic ozone hole would have periodically lingered right above Britain, including Melanie's house. I, for one, would rather not have cataracts, skin cancer or periodic blistering. Hey matt. Tell this Kiwi more about the tectonic shifts in the Southern Alps and how they lower the sea levels around New Zealand! Or are you trying to say that the S. Alps get taller, so that makes the sea levels look lower? By the way, why don't you check out the January 2004 edition of 'Pacific Islands'? http://www.pacificislands.cc/pm122001/pmdefault.php?urlarticleid=0009 You might find interesting "expert" (you asked for it) evidence that recent sea levels in the Pacific have shown no sign of rising as a result of so called "global warming". Have a nice day. Posted by: Tony at January 14, 2004 10:26 AMTony The rather basic premise that I was questioning was that it is not possible for sea level to remain constant in parts of Australia and to be falling in parts of New Zealand as part of a long-term trend (on the same sort of timescales as global climate change is thought to occur). If this was possible, in a few thousand years you would be able to water-ski from Australia to New Zealand without needing a boat to pull you... So what is actually happening? It seems that parts of New Zealand are experiencing what is called tectonic uplift, meaning that the land mass of New Zealand is actually rising out of the sea - i.e. the sea level is falling relative to the land. I do not know where Melanie has obtained her facts for this article, but it stikes me that given the well documented constant sea level around parts of Australia, tectonic processes are the most likely explanation for this phenomenon. If you are genuinely interested you might want to have a look at the following for starters: http://www.geography.dur.ac.uk/conferences/IGCP/carter.html The point is that using the example she did, Melanie oversimplified the problem (to say the least), to falsely support her position. I think it is fair to object to this, whether or not I support the notion that global sea levels are rising, and whether or not I am an expert in tectonics, which I am not. On the issue of global sea level rise, it has never been my contention that it is rising, in fact I think you will find that I have made no mention of it in any of my posts other than to question the incorrect assumptions made by Melanie. Please don't jump to conclusions. However, there is evidence in the scientific literature to support the notion that global sea levels have risen in recent years (e.g. Cazanave A., et al (2003) Present-day sea level change: Observations and causes. Space Science Reviews 108). This is not to say that there cannot be short-term regional variations to this apparent pattern. Whether this is a result of global warming is unclear, but it certainly stands to reason that thermal expansion would cause sea levels to rise. Please feel free to email me if you cannot get hold of the article. I hope that this has been informative. Posted by: matt at January 14, 2004 01:26 PMTony, One more article for you (this one on Fiordland geology): http://www.gps.caltech.edu/~gurnis/Papers/House_et_al_2002.pdf Posted by: matt at January 14, 2004 01:43 PMI will almost certainly regret this, but anyway. I am geologist, and as such I, along with most earth scientists, take the long view. There is far from a genuine scientific consensus that the entire climate is warming. There is even less consensus that the warming that has been measured is related to human emissions of the "greenhouse gases". One striking anomaly in the 20th century is the warming has largely been measured at the end of century, while cooling trends were noted during the early and mid century--precisely when the volume of human emissions began rising dramatically. There are of course many other points of contention, the existance of the pre-industrial warming following the Little Ice Age being one. When it comes to credentials many of the so called experts are not climatologists, but the same doomsayers of academe who predicted in the 1970s that oil, gas, most metals would have run out by 2000. There is no consensus that there is global warming as records were not kept before the eighteenth century and then only in Europe and later North America. Tropical records are less than 100 years old and we have no knowledge of how wet,dry, hot or cold it was 200 or 300 or 500 years ago, so how much we can say it is hotter is relative to the short term and not the long term. There have always been quite significant variations in the weather. If in Europe the weather seems to be getting warmer, and we have had warm spells before, then what's new? If sea levels are rising, then again, what's new? Sea levels can only be measured relative to land and land levels rise and fall depending on geologic conditions. Parts of Europe and North America are supposed to be still rising as the weight of the ice sheets which have melted allows the crust to "bounce" slowly back after being bowed down a bit. Whether this true or not is open to debate! Those allegedly drowning coral atols are evidence of either rising sea levels or falling land levels, but where they actually are hasn't been discovered yet. The Greenland ice sheet may be melting but it was warmer in Greenland 800 years ago and it wasn't because of gas guzzling outboards on the Viking longboats. So what does it prove? Absolutely no more than the weather changes. As man's economic activity increased in the nineteenth century and early twentieth century it got colder in Europe and now it's a bit warmer, but not as warm as in the early middle ages. In fact it is all open to debate as no one can predict with any certainty the weather more than a few days ahead. The models used to predict future weather have no track record of accuracy, so we cannot use them to say that they were right over the past fifty years. The same climatologists who now say temperatures will rise were the ones in the 1970s who said we were heading for a mini ice age. How wrong could they have been? None of the guys who now have the brass neck to say they know, for sure, that global warming is real have ever apologised for getting the mini ice age predictions wrong, which they knew then, for sure, was right. All they say is that we have better models now and more data to model from. Sure enough, if we had even more data and better models we'd come up with something else, and that means funding for discovering this - it's all a bandwagon to generate research grants. If these bigger and better models are inconclusive because they don't come up with the right answer that we have global warming, then more research is needed until we get the right answer! Scientists are pretty lemming like in that they all parrot the same stuff and have no difficulty at all once the opposite is proven to parrot how right that is without ever admitting how wrong they all were before. Trust none of them, because all those who make predictions extrapolate from insufficient data collected over an insufficient time frame and allocate cause and effect to things which are unconnected without having any statistical evidence of significant relationship existing. Carbon dioxide is put into the air from a great number of sources and taken out of the air by plants. As the sources of inputs are numerous and few can be measured with any degree of accuracy, blaming man as just one of the sources without blaming such things as random volcanic eruptions and lightning strikes is not going to produce much of an answer. Doesn't everyone know that the sun is a bit hotter recently and that's what causes it to be a bit warmer!! So there is no point trusting the predictions of scientists as their track record in the forecasting field is no better than any one who thinks he can guess what the world will be like in 20 to 50 years time. They all have a vested interest to spend our money on investigating things that are interesting but not always of much use to anyone. The Kyoto protocol is an example of academics advocating measures out of all proportion in cost benefit terms to allegedly reduce the increase in global warming - not stop the increase, just slow it down a tiny weeny bit, allegedly. One volcano can pump as much carbon dioxide, sulphur dioxide and particulates into the atmosphere as all of man's activities combined and hey, they blow up all the time, so logically it would be a whole lot cheaper to stop one or two of them erupting than to stop us driving our cars about. That would make a real contribution to the reduction in the increase in greenhouse gases, but that we can't do. So we dismiss that. Global warming and cooling is a natural phenomenon of the earth. It's been happening throughout history. We adapt. The people who once lived in the Sahara when it was savanna grassland have moved on. If that happened today, would we try put sprinklers on the African savanna so that the giraffes and hippos may safely graze? We'd be bonkers to try that and we'd be bonkers to waste a huge amount of money to reduce carbon dioxide emissions in the West while the East is building power stations like there is no tomorrow. Who wants to live in a mud hut made of natural biodegradeable recyclable materials sourced from round the corner? As the answer is nobody, least of all those advocates of global warming with their save the planet doom-mongering. When all these folk actually prove to me that they are using less energy than I am as they jet about to conferences and commute in gas guzzling four by fours from their leafy suburb homes and work in air conditioned offices and labs, then I might pay them some attention. Until then they are like 2 Jags Prescott telling people to use the train while he is driven a few hundred yards from his office to Parliament in luxury every day, or a few hundred yards so his wife's hairdo isn't messed up by the wind. Any politician or scientist who bangs on about global warming had better be walking or riding a bicycle to work, using little or no electricity, not own a car or a big house, never go abroad, have no more than 2 children and eat only locally produced food before he gets any street credibility that he is playing his part to save the planet. The days of do as I say but not as I do have gone forever. Until all the doom mongers and save the planet folk reduce their own living standards and reduce their energy consumption, they are just pontificating windbags. If it is so bad, they need to make sacrifices themselves and not expect manufacturers and energy providers to make sacrifices on the altar of dubious science. It is the consumer who creates the demand and drives the economy not the supplier. Consumers want to use more energy, and are unwilling to cut consumption. They allegedly cause global warming: they are the problem and not the producers of energy who merely meet the demand. People who think we are hurting the planet need to lead by example and up until now, they aren't, and so what they say cannot be taken seriously as they really don't take it seriously themselves. Every mighty river begins as a drop of rain. Posted by: Peter H at January 14, 2004 05:21 PMhttp://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/milltemp/ Posted by: brrrrr at January 14, 2004 05:23 PMhttp://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/science/climatewars.shtml Posted by: bernie at January 14, 2004 08:00 PMMatt and other enviro-acolytes: Melanie gives lots of factual information in support of her opinion, but the nature of her article did not lend itself to thorough footnoting. One source she did cite, however, The Guardian (no right-wing screed), exposed the wildly unrealistic economic assumptions used in the models that predict several degrees of warming this century. If growth projections consistent with historical patterns are used instead, most of the predicted warming disappears (along with most of the funding for climate change research). You could easily look it up. The global-warming faithful are impervious to contrary facts, but I will refer to two other sets of data that open minds might consider. First, global temperature fluctuations over the last several centuries show no correlation to atmospheric CO2 levels, but correlate almost exactly to variations in solar radiation (I know: "radiation" is a horrible thing, but it is a natural phenomenon through which the sun warms the earth). In short, it's the sun, stupid! (To modify a phrase from a 1990's USA presidential election campaign.) Second, the surface temperature readings upon which "warmest year/decade/century on record" pronouncements are based are inconsistent with satellite readings that show little or no change in troposheric temperatures (which should show significant increases if the global warming models were correct). One possible explantion for the discrepancy is the urban "heat island effect" that distorts the surface temperature record. In any event, evidence of actual warming over the last half century is ambiguous (after two decades of cooling following World War II, while CO2 production was climbing rapidly). The point of all this is that the alleged "scientific consensus" is non-existent. Human induced global warming might be a matter of faith to many, but it is far from a scientifically established fact. Research will continue, with studies showing evidence for and against the proposition. At least, that is how science is supposed to work. Theory is tested by observation and study, and contrary findings cause the theory to be refined or possibly abandoned. Global warming contrarians, however, are treated not as colleagues pointing out flaws in the theory but as apostates, like modern-day Galileos who dare question the church's dogma. Citizens and voters must avail themselves of the abundant information that is available to make up their own minds about this vital public issue. Scientists may disagree on the validity of the theory, and politicians and bureaucrats may take positions that appear correct to them or helpful to their own interests. But in the democracies at least, "we the people" must make up our own minds about how our governments spend our money and control our way of living. Whether we have scientific "credentials" or not. If your philosophy is that draconian measures are justified whenever there is a mere possibility that harm may result otherwise (global warming, GM food, you name it), you may decide that the Kyoto treaty is necessary because human activity "might" be causing the earth to warm and reducing CO2 emissions "might" affect the rate of warming (although I'm not sure why the "precautionary principle" applied to global warming should not require Kyoto to be proven harmless before adoption). I think that is irresponsible thinking, and harmful to the economic well-being of rich and poor countries alike. But we each have to make our own decisions, and not simply swallow what some scientists or bureacrats with vested interests want to shove down our throats. Posted by: Agnostic at January 14, 2004 08:11 PM"In 1998, 18,000 scientists signed the Oregon petition which again criticised this ‘flawed’ research, said historic evidence showed that increased atmospheric carbon dioxide was environmentally helpful, and predicted that the 1997 Kyoto agreement to reduce industrial emissions would keep the developing world trapped in poverty."
I've read the articles, I've read the comments. Most (including the articles) are hypocrisy ('politicising science is bad' *sheesh* politicising everything you write is as bad) and grossly wrong. Some, like 'Frank Pulley' are just deluded. Others have perhaps become blinded about the real story going on because science is never certain about anything~ it has merely a strong theory.
Talk about arguing about violin arrangements whilst Rome burns... basic ecology people, basic ecology. I came, I saw, I got depressed by such narrow minded fools. Enjoy the decline & fall, enjoy... Guest - the (tragic) deaths of "thousands of species" is just insects and microbes and some of them, not even having been discovered yet, are assumed to exist. Species have been dying out since time began. So bloody what? The species we care about, the gorillas and the orang-utans, are victims of greedy logging companies who are de-jungling the jungle. There are already laws in intelligent countries (for instance, Malaysia) against excess logging and the companies, when detected and caught, face punishment in court. It's got nothing to do with mythical global warming. During Roman times in Britain, around 50 AD, there were vineyards covering the south of England and the upper class Saxons had adopted the dress of the conquerors and wore togas year round. In other words, it was a hell of a lot warmer in Britain 2,000 years ago than it is today, and those clever Romans did it all without carbon emissions! Posted by: Caroline at January 15, 2004 08:47 AMInsects and microbes are just as important as Orang Utans, it's just that we don't notice them as much. Any stable ecosystem is dependent on all its flora and fauna. There's some more basic ecology for you Caroline. Agnostic - the name says it all and makes a very good point. It's just that most scientists are working on the same principles as you, except they know more about their subjects, and that leads them towards accepting the global warming theory, based as it is on a very large amount of evidence. On the matter of satellite data, for example, I would draw your attention to the MSU debate. It is certainly not clear that the satellite records are correct. On the matter of who to trust, which seems to have cropped up more than once in this discussion, I would instinctively trust scientists rather than politicians - they have less at stake. Also, they are better at dealing with uncertainty - that is their job. And that is the reason we have a debate on this issue, which is a good thing. Posted by: brrrrr at January 15, 2004 10:18 AMbrrrrr - Thanks for your didactic opinion, sweetie, but there's no such thing as a "stable ecosystem". You people are dreamers. Every single species is constantly evolving. Some die off and some go from strength to strength whether we drive gas guzzlers or walk. Between an orang utan (no need to capitalise, brrrrr; it's not a proper noun)and a horsefly, the orang utan has the greater value. I trust neither scientists nor politicians, both these sectors of humanity being great self-promoters and seekers after glory (and funding). Posted by: Caroline at January 15, 2004 11:03 AM"Species have been dying out since time began. So bloody what?" "The species we care about, the gorillas and the orang-utans" "Between an orang utan (no need to capitalise, brrrrr; it's not a proper noun)and a horsefly, the orang utan has the greater value." "it was a hell of a lot warmer in Britain 2,000 years ago than it is today, " Thanks for the tips though Caroline. Must go and break the bad news to my horsefly, Richard. PS there still are vineyards in teh south of england. Posted by: Midge at January 15, 2004 01:08 PMsomething very strange is happening...but who the hell knows what and why...and how to stop it...maybe it's already too late and we will all be either burning or freezin' (brrrr!) in 20 years from now...is the end nigh for us as well as the simple horsefly?... Posted by: David at January 15, 2004 01:17 PMDear irritating midge - "The rate of the extinctions is higher than it has ever been, including during the period ni which dinosaurs died off." This is total balderdash. You have absolutely no basis in fact for claiming that more species are dying out now than ever. Who was compiling evidence of dying species 100 years ago? 200 years ago? Two hundred years ago there was more of the world that hadn't been discovered by white people than had been discovered. So who was thoughtfully keeping all these meticulous notes all the way back to dinosaurs? Another fallacy of your argument is, you seem to accord more importance to a dinosaur dying off than a wood louse, just because a dinosaur is bigger. It's still one dead thing that will not be reproducing. The world is in a constant state of flux. The south of England was a wine-growing region when the Romans were in Britain (tracts of land, not a couple of boutiquey vineyards) and people were poncing around in togas. In today's Britain, you couldn't go out in a toga, even if the neighbours didn't fall over in their gardens laughing, on more than a couple of dozen times a year. So, for all the "global warming" that's going on, it's still not as warm in Britain as it was a mere 2,000 years ago which, the course of time, isn't even the blink of an eye. Although it's a non sequitur, yes, actually, I do value orang utans because they are captivating and share 94% of our genetic make-up. "Guest - the (tragic) deaths of "thousands of species" is just insects" caroline, it might interest you to know that you could not access the internet if it were not for "just insects". i.e. ant behaviour has been used by computer scientists to route data efficiently. Bernie, thank you. I didn't know that and it's interesting. However, ants are but one species of insect out of hundreds of thousands if not millions less well-organised insects. On the other hand, forgive me for believing that computer scientists would have figured out a way of routing data without the ants. I'm not saying the ants weren't useful; I just doubt that they were critical to the development of the internet. Posted by: Caroline at January 15, 2004 05:07 PMCaroline, Yes it's me again... In your reply to Midge you say that we cannot tell what the rate of species extinction was 100 years ago, yet you glibly accept that we can tell what the temperature was in Britain 2000 years ago. You can't rubbish one assertion' accept the other, and base your entire argument on that - that's ridiculous! They both need to be treated with healthy scepticism. And just because the Romans grew vines on 'tracts of land, not a couple of boutiquey vineyards' doesn't mean we couldn't do that in the UK today - we could. (The reason we don't has more to do with the fact that we can get cheap high-quality imports). Posted by: matt at January 15, 2004 06:30 PMit's amazing the human arrogance one detects in most of the "anti-global warming" comments. the fact that species are the result of evolutionary processes that may contain periodic mass extinictions does not excuse our responsibilities. especially when the adverse imapacts of man's behaviour are predicted in eminent journals such as Nature. Posted by: bernie at January 15, 2004 06:49 PMI don't want to debate the relative "worth" of the deer vs. the deer tick. In the cosmic sense none of us can judge, and the "value" of either to humans may depend on such things as medical research not yet performed. But climate will continue to change as it always has, species will continue to go extinct as they always have, and a quest to reverse either of those processes will be quixotic at best. I agree with brrr that scientists ordinarily may be more trustworthy than politicians, except when science and politics are mixed as in the global warming controversy. Then scientists are as result-driven as politicians, selectively citing the facts to support the policy that they favor and obtain the grants, fees, and recognition they desire. Compare the deference global warming proponents have received to that accorded scientists in other fields. When Pons and Fleischmann reported in 1989 that they had achieved sustainable cold fusion (contrary to common beliefs), other researchers were quick to test their research and pronounce them wrong or worse. When Michael Mann published a paper in 1998 declaring that the medieval warm period and the Little Ice Age never occurred (contrary to common scientific and historical knowledge), his conclusions formed the basis for the IPCC to declare that the warming seen in the late 20th century was "unprecedented" (an assertion apparently still believed today by Midge and millions of others). Critics pointed out the absurdity of Mann's conclusions, but the "unprecedented warming" mantra lives on. Not until 2003 were Mann's data audited, and based on that audit, McIntyre and McKitrick demonstrated that Mann's conclusions were wrong. Will Mann suffer the same fate as Pons and Fleishmann? Not a chance. His study is too important to the political/economic structure that has grown up around the global warming theory. Posted by: Agnostic at January 15, 2004 07:22 PMBernie - I do not believe we have a single duty to the planet. Not one. We're simply not that important, and it's only people with an inflated idea of themselves and humanity who think we amount to a hill of beans. The adverse effects (if any) of a volcano's behaviour, the adverse effects (if any)of a flight of locusts' behaviour and the adverse effects (if any) of humans driving their cars around and flying in jets are just things that go on. Like droughts and floods and heatwaves and blizzards. The towering arrogance of the belief that we alone are in charge of the planet is absurd. Matt - You think wine in Britain is cheap? Are you serious? If it were easy, there would still be plenty of people who would love doing it, and making money. I have no idea what the temperature was in Britain 2000 years ago. I just know that in cold climates, people wear warm clothes, and as Britain had plentiful sheep and carding had been invented, if it had been cold enough, they'd have been wrapped up in brightly patterned polo necks. All you environmentalists commenting have ignored the fact that Mt St Helena spewed out, over three or four days, more chemicals than the carbon emissions of the entire world in a year. It's been mentioned twice, but you have failed to address it. The world trundled on and no one noticed icebergs off the coast of San Diego. All this "for our children; and their children's children" garbage is the product of inflated egos. The world will go on without your management talents, thanks. "The world will go on without your management talents, thanks" It is important to remember that radical environmentalism is, in essense, a religion. It is based on a set of assumptions that are based on faith rather than facts. It preaches the inevitable Armageddon unless people follow the "true path." And it violently attacks anyone who deviates from that "true path" not just as wrong, but as a sinner. The chances of changing the mind of someone like Matt, for example, are as likely as changing my Christian beliefs or Mr. Sharon's Jewish faith. Have you ever tried to explain the principles of evolution to a fundamentalist Christian? It can't happen. His mind is wired to accept only that which fits into a certain pattern. Centuries ago, we devised a way of dealing with this type of confict. It is called the Scientific Method and requires that anything you claim, must be replicable by not only other scientists but other scientists who are convinced you are wrong. You can claim that water flows uphill but unless it can be proven by scientists across the world and spectrum of beliefs, it is just that. Your claim and nothing more. The claims made by the global warming crowd have never stood up to true, critical review. The more they are investigated, the shallower their foundations are found to be. But remember, religious claims of faith CANNOT stand up to critical investigation. That is why they are identified as "faith" and not "proven fact." I wish I had the ability to know the physical ages of the posters to this page. As a child of the late Sixties, I have seen lots of claims made. If they were correct, I should be dead 4 or 5 times by now. I should have died from pollution in the late Sixties. I should have died from The New Ice Age in the Seventies. I should have died from the famines of the Eighties. I should have died from AIDS in the Ninties. Strangely enough, it seems that the same group of people were involved in each of these. Paul Ehrlich (sp?) was famous for this in the Seventies and I understand he is now doing the same thing with GM foods. If a sucker is born every minute, it seems that Mr. Ehrlich and his like must have stopwatches. He has certainly generated an excellent standard of living from said suckers. The rap group Public Enemy had a hit in the 90s with a song called "Don't Believe The Hype." Imagine you were driving on a highway in Australia or America's Midwest; one of those highways that go on forever to the horizon. Imagine that out on the horizon, barely visible and certainly not distinguishable, a person started walking across that highway. Would you suggest that we suddenly slam on the brakes for fear of hitting this person? Of course not. Too many things can happen between where we are and where this supposed threat lies. The person might just continue to cross the road and would be miles away before we got to that point. We may have even driven off that highway and are headed in a totally different direction. Heck, we may have even stopped the car entirely for a hamburger and milkshake. Overreaction to a perceived problem is, once again, the hallmark of religious faith. In response to the poster who objected about combining the issues of global warming, globalization and such, remember that religions may seem different and separate but grow from a common tree. If Socialism is the Catholic Church, then Environmentalism (note the capital E) would be like the Protestants. Or maybe like the Lutherans. Or maybe like one of those crazy Baptist sects that handle the snakes. Different hymnals, same song. Posted by: Mike A at January 15, 2004 08:25 PMBernie - Take comfort. The shrieking of a single or a million tiny egos into the cosmos won't make a blind bit of difference. Go ahead and have that extra cheeseburger and turn the heating up to max. You're just not that important. And neither are the rest of us. We won't be skidding the universe to a halt because we consume something that gives us comfort or pleasure. Posted by: Caroline at January 15, 2004 08:28 PM"radical environmentalism" caroline as far as i understand the argument is against over-production in the economic system. not over-consumption. Posted by: bernie at January 15, 2004 08:31 PMMike - happy co-incidence of posts ... and we should all have retreated into caves because petroleum was going to run out by the year 2000. Yup. Same old, same old. Posted by: Caroline at January 15, 2004 08:38 PMBernie- Nature and other scientific journals gain their respect by the quality of science they publish, not by the qualities of their political commentary. When Nature deals with scientific issues in a dispassionate, controlled manner, there is no greater source of information. When they discard this to play in politics and character assasination (Lundborg flap), they damage their credibility. Journals are staffed with humans. When they start believing that the answer to a question is political rather than scientific, it should not surprise anyone what happens. Posted by: Mike A at January 15, 2004 08:47 PMCaroline: proof that ignorance is bliss? Posted by: Stan at January 15, 2004 10:16 PMMike A, "In response to the poster who objected about combining the issues of global warming, globalization and such, remember that religions may seem different and separate but grow from a common tree. If Socialism is the Catholic Church, then Environmentalism (note the capital E) would be like the Protestants. Or maybe like the Lutherans. Or maybe like one of those crazy Baptist sects that handle the snakes. Different hymnals, same song." I'm really not sure what your point is. Surely the historical development of Capitalism is intimately bound up with the development of a rather austere Protestantism. From "the same tree", as it were. Does that make anyone argueing for the virtues of Capitalism a religious fanatic? Are "one-nation" Torries and right-wing libertarians from the "same tree"? Surely the more intelligent route (ignored by Phillips and her fanatical followers)is to question each individual thinker/writer on what he/she says rather than lump together various discourses (Environmentalism, Socialism, Anti-Globilisation, Postmodernism)and fail to deal with the tensions between them. Caroline, You obviously think that driving large cars with a high petrol consumption is some sort of right. At least, you don't think that curbing car use would change anything or that there is sufficient evidence to proove otherwise. Now, I have to agree with the global scientific community that global warming is a major threat. This is not a question of scientific ability on my part. I genuinely can't see what the majority of scientists worldwide have to gain from fabricating such a threat. Surely, long-term environmental concerns are the last thing that any expedient govenment is interested in. Let's say I do not believe this, for sake of argument. Surely, at least, it is beyond doubt that car fumes contribute significantly to asthma and other respiratory diseases. Should this not give reason for restrictions upon the level of exhaust fumes. Seems like your ideological commitments have blinded you to pragmatic solutions regarding human welfare. It's a sad state of affairs on both left and right. Ray Sanderson - You've taken a poll of "the global scientific community"? Funny, I don't remember reading about it. Did you include medical scientists engaged in the development of microsurgery? Nuclear physicists? Aeronautical engineers? Who did you poll, exactly? The same self-selecting gang that pops up everywhere? How about all the dissenting voices who have scrupulously kept themselves outside the "global warming" club? Yes, actually, I do think that driving a gas guzzler is a right that I share with everyone else on the planet. If you can afford a gas guzzler, then you have a right to it. Stan thinks he has come out with a telling little zinger. He presents not a single argument for his Kumbaya Weltanschauung, but is incensed that there are people who don't buy into his little comfort zone and wants to discredit us, but without putting any effort or knowledge into his lazy,ignorant, infantile rebuttal. You've got real scientific evidence, by reputable scientists who are not on various government/tranzi "funding" programmes, of global warming? Bring it on! By the way, all you Kumbaya people, surely you're aware that there is an alternate world out there full of environmental scientists who don't buy into global warming? Of course, global warming's where the money is, like AIDS, and dissenting voices are ridiculed noisily and unscientifically and with all the hysteria of a pack of wolves baring their teeth and guarding their kill. Posted by: Caroline at January 16, 2004 08:56 AMMike A You're absolutely right. I remember Paul Ehrlich saying in his book about Conservation and Ecology in the early 1970s that we'd all run out of oil, metals by 2000, and that we'd all be suffering from pollution. His predictions were untrue, based on false data, and based upon a false hypothesis of his own making. He used the data he had to prove his notion that we needed to reduce our living standards and that the US life style was unsustainable. Well the standard of living has improved since the 1970s and energy use increased with energy and those metals that were supposed to have run out being relativlely cheaper now than they were then - so much for scarcity forcing them to be unaffordable.
Recently we had the prediction that 1 million species will be extinct over the next hundred years. Well this is an extrapolation based on a very low number of species becoming extinct and makes the assumption that the curve continues to develop exponentially in the same direction. This is a big assumption and so may be completely wrong. Peter H - Very apt point. This is what happened with the computer projections of the "AIDS epidemic" in Africa. The computer projections are wild - it has lately been acknowledged - although, strangely, erring on the side of the AIDS industry. Posted by: Caroline at January 16, 2004 09:37 AMCaroline Those people that are so certain that global warming is occurring because of increased CO2 levels and that they alone have the solution are very selective. I am sure that they would accept that tobacco companies paid corrupt scientists to claim that cigarettes did not cause lung cancer. However, they would unlikely see that the so called researches that are paid by governments to find ways of stopping the spread of AIDS are corrupt. I don’t have any medical qualification or a science degree but if the homosexual community followed my advice the incidence of HIV would be a fraction of what it is now. The advice is simple. First, take note of the advice on condoms. Homosexuals should always use condoms. Second, do not have anonymous sex. Thirdly, reduce your number of sexual partners to about the same number as heterosexuals have on average. Fourthly, know your own and your partners HIV status. If you or your partner are HIV+ do not have anal intercourse. Any researcher that gave such advice would soon be out of a job. Anyone researching global warming in the pay of a left wing government would suffer the same fate. It is worth noting that the America and Australia do not buy into this theory masquerading as fact. Mike A: I don't regard myself as a follower of the environmental 'faith' and I do agree with you that it is often presented as such. I am going on facts as much as it is possible to do, and not drawing any conclusions from them. I find that I am forced into a position of defending that which I think is probably correct against a vociferous onslaught from the likes of Caroline and occasionally yourself, who, might I say seem to be more certain in your beliefs than I. I am then derided for being an 'enviro-acolyte'. My first post on this thread questioned a very basic error made by Melanie in her article. You can see where we have got from there - it's become pretty heated, so to speak. And I am not saying either side is definitively correct. Obviously, the point we should all be noting is that this is not a particularly encouraging outcome if it represents anything like the wider behaviour of people trying to debate an important scientific or policy issue. Yet this is what happens. We should all be pretty shocked at this. There has been an appalling lack of sensible debate. Caroline: I've tried a number of English wines, and I'd certainly drink them if I couldn't get hold of a decent Marlborough or Sancerre. This is most likely the position the Romans found themselves in. It's probably time we stopped using this as a supporting argument isn't it. Posted by: matt at January 16, 2004 11:07 AMMatt - I really can't be bothered arguing the viticulture point because I don't care. No one has addressed the fact, mentioned three times above and now the fourth time herewith, that Mt St Helen's in Washington state flung out over three/four days massively more tons of particulates of a dangerous kind than the entire population of mankind and all its busy and "harmful" activities throws out in a year. All you true believers, address this issue,please. And Mt St Helen's is just one example of volcano activity all over the world, all the time. Posted by: Caroline at January 16, 2004 11:42 AMCaroline - You can't be bothered to argue the viticulture point? But it has been a pillar of your argument. Is this a thinly veiled concession? On the Mt St Helens issue, you are verifiably incorrect. The following link might help clarify this for you: http://volcano.und.nodak.edu/vwdocs/frequent_questions/grp6/question1375.html To clarify this simply, of the net CO2 put into the atmosphere 3% comes from volcanoes, and 97% from man made sources. (NB 'natural' biosphere cycling is not said to have a net effect on atmospheric CO2 in this instance). As far as particulates are concerned, the net radiative forcing properties of atmospheric dust are unknown. There is considerable literature on this. Volcanic emissions are regarded as having a cooling effect - for example it has been shown that the Pinatubo eruption in 1991 cooled the atmosphere significantly, but not enough to reverse the warming climate experienced throught the 1990s. As a proportion of the overall particulate matter emissions into the atmosphere volcanoes are not as significant as the major deserts of the world. In particular, the Bodele Depression in Chad accounts for a large proportion of this. This is also well documented. Try these links: http://toms.gsfc.nasa.gov/aerosols/aermovie.html http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Observatory/Datasets/aerosol.toms.html This should give you an idea of the magnitude of global aerosol emissions. I don't know whether you can dispute these facts. Of course whether you trust the sources or not is up to you. Please let me know if you can be bothered to discuss the vulcanism point further. Posted by: matt at January 16, 2004 12:22 PMLate to the debate, so just some quick thoughts: An earlier poster insisted that ozone depletion was entirely man's fault, no doubt, no debate! Hardly. The ozone hole existed before CFC's, recorded by a team of French scientists in the 1950s. It has always been there. The overall depletion of ozone coincided with a now measured and quantified increase in UV radiation from the sun. (UV is what breaks down ozone in the stratusphere.)The prediction about CFC's is that they would persist for at least 50 years, not allowing any improvement in the ozone layer until 2040, but the ozone layer is already showing signs of improving. Reason: Some, or perhaps all, of the fluctuation in the ozone layer are natural and sun driven. I am a climate scientist and I agree with Melanies conclusions. In fact I have been saying much the same things since the early 1990's when the evidence against the theory became overwhelming as did the hype supporting it. It is interesting to note that the Oregon petition has been 'proven a fraud' by people who make all their money by scaring others into giving them money (environmental groups). My name is on the petition along with the names of many other climate scientists who I know personally support the concepts stated in the petition. The Phd's currently listed on the petition have all been validated. The idea that any adult, much less a scientist, could sign this simple petition 'without realizing what they were signing' is ridiculus and insulting. I have often compared man-made global warming science to the science of alchemy. During it's day, alchemy was highly supported by 'the government', and eminant scientists gathered to discuss their latest findings. No doubt, they did excellent scientific work, taking careful measurements and keeping precise logs. However, their entire field of study was based on a fallacy and was basically worthless! Posted by: Jim at January 16, 2004 12:58 PM"Another fallacy of your argument is, you seem to accord more importance to a dinosaur dying off than a wood louse, just because a dinosaur is bigger. " ummm, no. my argument was precisely the opposite - you had been banging on about how orang-utans were more valuable than others because they are 'captivating'. I find Bruce Forsyth 'captivating' - is he more valuable than other people as a result? Are tramps less valuable than other people? Do tell. Secondly, you say that we are "simply not that important" in the general sceme of things its odd that you draw the conclusion that this means we can do what we like to the planet. Anyway about global warming: all the IPCC has noted is that there appears to be an "anthropogenic signal" amongst the background noise of natural temperature variations. Volcanic eruptions can heat and cool - but the warming we are seeing is VERY LIKELY to be further inflated by mans actions. Given the consequences of not acting (inconvenient for man not the planet per se) it seems to me to make sense to act on this probability. It seems a little stupid to stand on the road watching an approaching truck, because you are not certain that it won't pull off the road before it reaches you. This is the principle of prudence and is a survival mechanism used by, among other aniumals, your beloved orang-utans. It would be a shame if we as humans forgot this. In amongst all this talk of why this myth is perpetrateed - don't forget that the big money is against global warming. Global warming helps neither corporations nor governments -in fact it is extremely inconvenient to OECD governments. Melanie, Heavyweight support today in the Speccy - from Paul Johnson. A beautifully crafted piece (as usual) stuffed with sound sense, lots of facts and the usual garnish of anecdotal witticisms. Recommend it to all bloggers who enjoy beautiful prose and windows of wisdom. You'll have to buy the Spectator, though. He obviously has an embargo on his article being reproduced on the web page. Another example of his shrewdness. Posted by: Frank Pulley at January 16, 2004 01:37 PMJim: Congratulations. You are the first climate scientist I have come across who can't spell stratosphere. Please can you supply references for your ozone information, I am very interested. The Oregon Petition is of laughable significance. it was signed, among others, by someone masquerading as Geri Halliwell, and there is no way of independently verifying all the signatories, contrary to your suggestion. Additionally, OISM will not reveal who funded the mailshots for this petition - something that any scientist should be required to do. Posted by: matt at January 16, 2004 02:30 PMMidge: You can't be that naive! Governments thrive off scams such as global warming. More regulations and mandates, higher taxes or rationing to curb energy consumption, all give more power to governments at the expense of individuals. Further, the majority of governments benefit directly because their countries can continue to increase their CO2 emissions (and grow) while indutrialized nations must cut back. Global warming policy also dovetails nicely with the aims of politicians like Gore who support "Green" policies like pollution reduction and alternative energy sources. I'm not here to argue against "Green" politics in general (I'll leave that to Caroline), but only to point out that global warming policy gives their proponents another means to achieve their goals. Governments sweeten the pot for corporations, too, creating carbon credits that can be traded like money. Big multinationals like Ford bet on Kyoto's adoption and position themselves to profit. However, let's assume that IPCC, Al Gore, and Tony Blair are right and the worst projections are true. If the Kyoto treaty were ratified and implemented by all countries right now, even the most ardent proponents concede that there will be almost no effect on global temperature by 2100. Given the enormous economic cost of implementation, what sane cost-benefit analysis justifies throwing the world economy into a deep recession in order to obtain virtually no benefit? Posted by: Thomas at January 16, 2004 03:21 PMFrank Pulley: "Heavyweight support today in the Speccy - from Paul Johnson" Brilliant! Thank you. Posted by: Stan at January 16, 2004 10:47 PM"Midge: Thomas I agree that there will be little effect even if we act now - but a typical cost-benefit analysis is not run over a hundred year timescale. We are not talking about pure economics either - we have, IMHO, an innate responsibility to this planet both per se (controversial perhaps) and also for out children and their descendents (not very controversial). MIdge Posted by: Midge at January 17, 2004 06:54 PMI didn't realise Paul Johnson was a heavyweight in climatology. Isn't it great when a busy person such as a journalist has a second string to his bow! Posted by: KJN at January 19, 2004 02:02 AMKJN Several strings to his bow, I understand, and admits to all of them in his full name. Bit of an all round genius in fact, but has ridden a variety of political horses, as I'm sure he would admit. But I'm sure he recognises a fraud when he spots one. He must have met so many in his long and accomplished life. Not that I am suggesting that you are not entitled to your anonymity KJN, which you seem to be protecting even more so in your e-mail address. Don't blame you. It's easier to snipe in the dark. Posted by: Frank Pulley at January 20, 2004 12:54 AMFrank - The reason I don't give away my email address is that I already get 100 spam messages a week because my address has been harvested from discussion boards. Something like 90% of the mail I receive. My ISP filters spam: before filtering, the figure is more like 1000 useless messages a week. Penis enlargements, herbal viagra, human growth hormone, pornography of the most vile nature, 419 frauds. If you haven't had this sort of rubbish yet, you soon will. Keith Nash, I do believe that Paul Johnson (as well as Melanie Phillips) are in principle entitled to comment on global warming, fraud or not. Although I haven't read the Johnson piece, my general feeling on Melanies piece is that she is pushing a prejudiced agenda. She chooses to base her argument on facts which are in many cases verifiably wrong, as well as an obviously poor understanding of the science. This leads me to believe my feelings are correct, and I doubt her conclusions. The case that Melanie is trying to make is actually damaged by this narrowmindedness. Were she able to present a broader discussion based on correct and relevant facts - and then draw the same conclusions - she would have more credibility. It surprises me that so many are able to accept her conclusions on the basis of her article. It would be refreshing to read an opinion columnist presenting both sides of the debate, and analysing the merits of each for a non-scientific audience. There are pitfalls on both sides of the climate debate (scientific, economic, political, social and philosophical), and Melanie has only succeeded in highlighting some of those on the 'pro' side. It's shoddy work, and I'm sure she could do better. Posted by: matt at January 20, 2004 10:50 AMKJN Your explanation is immaculate. And thanks for the further and better particulars. I shall now take note of your comments with even more interest. And of course you made a valid point, with characteristic irony. But I'm sure that Paul Johnson, in his mature years has, like me, grown tired of the assertions of many so-called experts, whether climatologists or any other 'ists' who often enough seem to have an irritating propensity towards being mind-numbingly wrong when they try to auger the future; particularly when the future becomes the present - minus their worst predictions. Many also have an even stronger willingness to take the shilling of vested interests in return for coming to scientific conclusions, based on very dodgy data and computerised extrapolation that tends to benefit those very interests. And during my time in Central London Courts, for every 'expert' called to testify, there always seemed to be another available to scientifically refute what his counterpart had asserted and the jury (in this case Melanie and Paul) have to make up their own minds. But then I'm just an old cynic who would rather read the beautiful prose of a modest visionary like Paul Johnson and a political philosopher like Melanie Phillips, both of whom have the interests of homo sapiens sapiens at heart. Or so I infer from their writings. And discussions such as occur on this site can only make people think and come to their own conclusions. And a little irony is as good for the soul as iron is for the blood (as Bismarck might have said - but that's only aposite to another thread). Posted by: Frank Pulley at January 20, 2004 12:15 PMCaroline. I think I'm in love. Have you any clones in the USA, unmarried? Serially. er seriously... I've always wondered about 'computer models' used to predict global warming. If they leave even 1 miniscule factor out, doesn't that make the model unreliable? It turns the models conclusions into 'best guess'. How can we possibly know what is going to happen to the climate when we cannot track has happened to the climate throughout human existance? Every time a volcano erupts, there is a large amount of pollution spewed into the atmosphere. How does this figure into climate models? It can't because you cannot predict the occurance of volcanic activity. This is interesting conversation. I hope it can continue. Posted by: Lurch at January 20, 2004 08:31 PMAnother aspect of the 'global warming' issue that has always intrigued me, is the creedence blindly given to 'celebrities' supporting the cause. Who really cares what Sting has to say, or Barbra Streisand, or any other of the celebrity crowd chiming in? I've always been amused to the slavish attention given to a celebrity when they expound on their knowledge of 'global warming' Or any other subject for that matter. Posted by: Lurch at January 20, 2004 08:37 PMMidge: I am at a loss to respond to an argument in favor of draconian measures that will cripple economies worldwide while admitting that those actions will have utterly no effect on the supposed menace that is their justification. Tell the poor African that her infrastructure can't be developed because we want to feel good about doing something symbolic for our planet. If we are going to talk about "responsibility to this planet ... for our children" shouldn't we be reasonably certain that what we do will inure to their benefit? If one concedes that the scientific evidence for anthropogenic global warming is equivocal at best (as a reasonable person must), and admits that warming (as opposed to cooling - the only alternative) might actually be beneficial (were it to occur), wouldn't the responsible course be to adopt such policies as are justified in terms of evidence, cost, and efficacy? Otherwise we are bequeathing our children the consequences of emotional decisions taken out of self-indulgent political correctness rather than sound judgment. Imagine your unhappiness if our elders had ground our economies to a halt to prevent the global cooling that the same "experts" were confidently predicting 30 years ago. Where were you then? Posted by: Thomas at January 22, 2004 02:14 AMLurch, A model - by definition - is an attempt at a simplified representation of reality. Therefore the exclusion of at least one 'miniscule factor' is a given. If you don't understand that there's not much point in having a discussion about climate models. However, most major climate models are able to reproduce present day climatologies and climate variability quite well. If you think that they are based on (admittedly a very large number of) simple physical equations and parameterisations, this reproduction of the climate is remarkable to say the least. Moreover it is probably fair to say that these models have been a key driver of supercomputer development, and quite possibly represent one of the most significant scientific/engineering achievements over the past half century. Posted by: matt at January 22, 2004 01:20 PMI'm a New Yorker who really Poor sharone. You must feel so GUILTY consuming all that energy, most of it generated by technology that produces "greenhouse gases," as you run your computer to converse with people across the globe. I don't quite know what you mean by "living selfishly;" I hope it doesn't include watching football on TV while sipping a Guinness. Of course, you have made a "very conscious decision" to engage in your chosen activity, which must make it quite virtuous. By the way, do Americans consume the most resources because they produce the most goods and services, or is it the other way around? It's always remarkable to be reminded how resilient the Luddite philosophy is. Posted by: Thomas at January 23, 2004 03:04 AM[quote]If you haven't had this sort of rubbish yet, you soon will.[quote] How awfull :( :) :) :) :) To Thomas, I don't want your pity but perhaps you can "show me the light." Perhaps I am somewhat of a Luddite, but what am I supposed to think when I read the following? It should be mentioned that the process of extinction is not a new one - nor is it unusual. In Last Chance to See, Mark Carwardine writes: Extinctions, of course, have been happening for millions of years: animals and plants were disappearing long before people arrived on the scene. But what has changed is the extinction rate. For millions of years, on average, one species became extinct every century. But most of the extinctions since prehistoric times have occurred in the last three hundred years... And most of the extinctions that have occurred in the last three hundred years have occurred in the last fifty... And most of the extinctions that have occurred in the last fifty years have occurred in the last ten (Adams & Carwardine, 1990). Carwardine continues by indicating "there are now more than a thousand different species of animals and plants becoming extinct every year" (Adams & Carwardine, 1990). Furthermore, Daniel Simberloff, a University of Tennessee ecologist and prominent expert in biological diversity, in an April 21, 1998 interview with Joby Warrick of the Washington Post, stated, "The speed at which species are being lost is much faster than any we've seen in the past - including those [extinctions] related to meteor collisions" (Warrick, 1998). These are frightening figures to be sure, even more so when one considers the fact that this modern mass extinction is, by and far, the fault of humankind. In the same Washington Post article mentioned above, Joby Warrick reported that: Nearly seven out of 10 of the biologists polled said they believed a "mass extinction" was underway, and an equal number predicted that up to one-fifth of all living species could disappear within 30 years. Nearly all attributed the losses to human activity, especially the destruction of plant and animal habitats (Warrick, 1998).
Your thing on radio 4 was totally kick ass! I've never laughed at anyone so hard. Do you write this stuff yourself Mel? or do you just take it from script? You should do a show at the komedia in brighton. Me and all my mates would buy tickets for sure. Posted by: kraftycuts at February 3, 2004 07:49 PM |
