Global Warming & Climate Change: Humans' Reactions & Responses

[rynner2]

We're all facing climate peril:

Global warming 'is three times faster than worst predictions'
By Geoffrey Lean, Environment Editor
Published: 03 June 2007

Global warming is accelerating three times more quickly than feared, a series of startling, authoritative studies has revealed.

They have found that emissions of carbon dioxide have been rising at thrice the rate in the 1990s. The Arctic ice cap is melting three times as fast - and the seas are rising twice as rapidly - as had been predicted.

News of the studies - which are bound to lead to calls for even tougher anti-pollution measures than have yet been contemplated - comes as the leaders of the world's most powerful nations prepare for the most crucial meeting yet on tackling climate change.

The issue will be top of the agenda of the G8 summit which opens in the German Baltic resort of Heiligendamm on Wednesday, placing unprecedented pressure on President George Bush finally to agree to international measures.

Tony Blair flies to Berlin today to prepare for the summit with its host, Angela Merkel, the German chancellor. They will discuss how to tackle President Bush, who last week called for action to deal with climate change, which his critics suggested was instead a way of delaying international agreements.

Yesterday, there were violent clashes in the city harbour of Rostock between police and demonstrators, during a largely peaceful march of tens of thousands of people protesting against the summit.

The study, published by the US National Academy of Sciences, shows that carbon dioxide emissions have been increasing by about 3 per cent a year during this decade, compared with 1.1 per cent a year in the 1990s.

The significance is that this is much faster than even the highest scenario outlined in this year's massive reports by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) - and suggests that their dire forecasts of devastating harvests, dwindling water supplies, melting ice and loss of species are likely to be understating the threat facing the world.

The study found that nearly three-quarters of the growth in emissions came from developing countries, with a particularly rapid rise in China. The country, however, will resist being blamed for the problem, pointing out that its people on average still contribute only about a sixth of the carbon dioxide emitted by each American. And, the study shows, developed countries, with less than a sixth of the world's people, still contribute more than two-thirds of total emissions of the greenhouse gas.

On the ground, a study by the University of California's National Snow and Ice Data Center shows that Arctic ice has declined by 7.8 per cent a decade over the past 50 years, compared with an average estimate by IPCC computer models of 2.5 per cent.

In yesterday's clashes, masked protesters hurled flagpoles, stones and bottles and attacked with sticks forcing police to retreat. The police said they were suffering "massive assaults" and that the situation was "very chaotic". They put the size of the demonstration at 25,000; organisers said it was 80,000.

Further reading: Go to pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.0700609104

http://environment.independent.co.uk/cl ... 609305.ece

 

[rynner2]

Pegs back as eco-concerns set sales soaring
By Harry Wallop, Consumer Affairs Correspondent
Last Updated: 2:18am BST 14/06/2007

The humble clothes peg is enjoying an extraordinary renaissance thanks, it is claimed, to environmentally friendly housewives who want to save the world.

The bold claim is backed up by sales figures which suggest the little gizmos are flying off supermarket shelves, as people shun tumble dryers in favour of hanging their clothes up to dry on the washing line.

Asda yesterday said that it had sold 1.6 million pegs in the first five months of this year, an increase of over 1,200 per cent on the same period last year. :shock:

The supermarket's laundry buyer Chris Burns said: "Thousands of people have now decided that the potential embarrassment of having their smalls on public display on a washing line is far less important than saving energy. They're pegging out their washing - to peg back their bills."

According to the Energy Saving Trust, British households rack up electricity bills of £1.3 billion each year from running their dishwashers, washing machines and tumble dryers.

The trust, which was set up by the Government to help the UK hit its Kyoto targets, says drying clothes on a washing line, rather than in a tumble dryer, really can make a difference.

"Absolutely. The little things matter, because cumulatively they can have a huge impact. We do recommend that households adopt a package of measures, from the little things such as hanging washing up outside and turning off lights, to the big things such as installing cavity wall insulation and using a condenser boiler."

The clothes peg is frequently cited as one of the great household inventions of the 19th century. Patents for versions of the device were filed as early as 1852. In those days, the one-piece peg, made entirely of wood, prevailed.

These are frequently referred to as gypsy pegs as Romanies would hawk them round house to house. Only in the 20th century did the two-piece with metal spring come into fashion.

However, the rise of tumble dryers saw clothes pegs fall slowly out of favour. Asda reckons that sales have fallen steadily since the 1950s until this year.

One of the world's largest wooden clothes pegs factory CB Cummings, in Maine, USA, closed down in 2003 after it failed to compete with cheap plastic imports.

The rise of the clothes pegs is not without its problems. Over 400 people were admitted to hospital last year with clothes peg-related injuries - a figure likely to soar if Asda's sales are indicative of a long-term trend.

http://tinyurl.com/3dxy7q

peg-related injuries? I hope we're not straying onto weird sex territory here!

 

[rynner2]

The Earth today stands in imminent peril

...and nothing short of a planetary rescue will save it from the environmental cataclysm of dangerous climate change. Those are not the words of eco-warriors but the considered opinion of a group of eminent scientists writing in a peer-reviewed scientific journal.
By Steve Connor, Science Editor
Published: 19 June 2007

Six scientists from some of the leading scientific institutions in the United States have issued what amounts to an unambiguous warning to the world: civilisation itself is threatened by global warming.

They also implicitly criticise the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) for underestimating the scale of sea-level rises this century as a result of melting glaciers and polar ice sheets.

Instead of sea levels rising by about 40 centimetres, as the IPCC predicts in one of its computer forecasts, the true rise might be as great as several metres by 2100. That is why, they say, planet Earth today is in "imminent peril".

In a densely referenced scientific paper published in the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A some of the world's leading climate researchers describe in detail why they believe that humanity can no longer afford to ignore the "gravest threat" of climate change.

"Recent greenhouse gas emissions place the Earth perilously close to dramatic climate change that could run out of control, with great dangers for humans and other creatures," the scientists say. Only intense efforts to curb man-made emissions of carbon dioxide emissions and other greenhouse gases can keep the climate within or near the range of the past one million years, they add.

The researchers were led by James Hansen, the director of Nasa's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, who was the first scientist to warn the US Congress about global warming.

The other scientists were Makiko Sato, Pushker Kharecha and Gary Russell, also of the Goddard Institute, David Lea of the University of California, Santa Barbara, and Mark Siddall of the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory at Columbia University in New York.

In their 29-page paper, "Climate Change and trace gases", the scientists frequently stray from the non-emotional language of science to emphasise the scale of the problems and dangers posed by climate change.

In an email to The Independent, Dr Hansen said: "In my opinion, among our papers this one probably does the best job of making clear that the Earth is getting perilously close to climate changes that could run out of our control."

The unnatural "forcing" of the climate as a result of man-made emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases threatens to generate a "flip" in the climate that could "spark a cataclysm" in the massive ice sheets of Antarctica and Greenland, the scientists write.

Dramatic flips in the climate have occurred in the past but none has happened since the development of complex human societies and civilisation, which are unlikely to survive the same sort of environmental changes if they occurred now.

"Civilisation developed, and constructed extensive infrastructure, during a period of unusual climate stability, the Holocene, now almost 12,000 years in duration. That period is about to end," the scientists warn. Humanity cannot afford to burn the Earth's remaining underground reserves of fossil fuel. "To do so would guarantee dramatic climate change, yielding a different planet from the one on which civilisation developed and for which extensive physical infrastructure has been built," they say.

Dr Hansen said we have about 10 years to put into effect the draconian measures needed to curb CO2 emissions quickly enough to avert a dangerous rise in global temperature. Otherwise, the extra heat could trigger the rapid melting of polar ice sheets, made far worse by the "albedo flip" - when the sunlight reflected by white ice is suddenly absorbed as ice melts to become the dark surface of open water.

The glaciers and ice sheets of Greenland in the northern hemisphere, and the western Antarctic ice sheet in the south, both show signs of the rapid changes predicted with rising temperatures. "

The albedo flip property of ice/water provides a trigger mechanism. If the trigger mechanism is engaged long enough, multiple dynamical feedbacks will cause ice sheet collapse," the scientists say. "We argue that the required persistence for this trigger mechanism is at most a century, probably less."

The latest assessment of the IPCC published earlier this year predicts little or no contribution to 21st century sea level from Greenland or Antarctica, but the six scientists dispute this interpretation. "The IPCC analyses and projections do not well account for the nonlinear physics of wet ice sheet disintegration, ice streams and eroding ice shelves, nor are they consistent with the palaeoclimate evidence we have presented for the absence of discernible lag between ice sheet forcing and sea-level rise," the scientists say.

Their study looked back over more than 400,000 years of climate records from deep ice cores and found evidence to suggest that rapid climate change over a period of centuries, or even decades, have in the past occurred once the world began to heat up and ice sheets started melting. It is not possible to assess the dangerous level of man-made greenhouse gases.

"However, it is much lower than has commonly been assumed. If we have not already passed the dangerous level, the energy infrastructure in place ensures that we will pass it within several decades," the scientists say in their findings.

"We conclude that a feasible strategy for planetary rescue almost surely requires a means of extracting [greenhouse gases] from the air."

http://environment.independent.co.uk/cl ... 675747.ece

We're all doomed!

(One advantage of being old is, I've got less to lose...)

 

[rynner2]

Swimmer to attempt Arctic record

An endurance swimmer hopes to highlight the effects of climate change by swimming at the North Pole.
Lewis Gordon Pugh will swim for 1km in water temperatures as low as -1.8 degrees Celsius (28.7F), the coldest waters a human has ever swum in.

The City lawyer plans to complete the swim in 20 minutes, dressed in a swimming costume, a cap and goggles.

Pugh has left London to join a Russian icebreaker which will take him and his crew to the North Pole in seven days.

He is the only person to have completed a long distance swim in all the five oceans in the world.

'Regrettable' attempt

Pugh will attempt the record on 15 July, swimming along a crack in the ice to the geographic North Pole.

Earlier this year announcing his record attempt Pugh said: "Areas of open sea are now appearing and the sea temperature in the Arctic Ocean is predicted to increase by 9C by the end of the century.

"Just five or 10 years ago this swim would never have been possible - most people have no idea that you can find patches of open sea at the North Pole in summer.

"It's deeply regrettable that it's possible now because of the devastating effects of climate change."

During various challenges over the years, including in Arctic and Antarctic waters, Pugh has come into contact with crocodiles, sharks, hippopotami and polar bears.

His ability to endure extreme cold has also earned him the nickname of "The Polar Bear".

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/6282048.stm

 

[rynner2]

Looks like I'm not the only one concerned about London flooding:

London 'flooded' in disaster film

In scenes that may no longer be dismissed as far-fetched, a new film is to chart what would happen if the Thames Barrier was overwhelmed.
The movie, based on a book by Richard Doyle, imagines how London would look if it was deluged by a surge of water.

Flood, which features Robert Carlyle, was shot over 11 weeks last year.

The author has said he believes there is a real threat to the capital. He has called for the government to take "its head out of the sand".

Save London

Guernsey-born Doyle, who now lives in Dartmoor, wrote the book in 2003 after spending two-and-a-half years researching the issue.

Writing on his website Doyle says he came up with the idea for the book after reading an article on global warming.

"[It was] one of those terrifying pieces about more extreme weather, rising sea levels and frequent violent storms. Suddenly I remembered the Thames Barrier. I wondered how it would cope.

"I started to look into some of the details. Barrier height, tidal reports and so forth. The more I looked, the more concerned I became."

The film also stars Poirot's David Suchet and screen and stage actor Tom Courtenay.

Carlyle plays an engineering chief (Rob Morrison) who realises that his estranged father's worst predictions are coming true.

They have to put aside their personal differences to save London from destruction.

The film is due to be released in August.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6920284.stm

 

[lupinwick]

And to muddy the bio-fuel waters

Increasing production of biofuels to combat climate change will release between two and nine times more carbon gases over the next 30 years than fossil fuels, according to the first comprehensive analysis of emissions from biofuels.

Biofuels - petrol and diesel extracted from plants - are presented as an environmentally friendly alternative to fossil fuels because the crops absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere as they grow.

The study warns that forests must not be cleared to make way for biofuel crops. Clearing forests produces an immediate release of carbon gases into the atmosphere, accompanied by a loss of habitats, wildlife and livelihoods, the researchers said.

Britain is committed to substituting 10% of its transport fuel with biofuels under Europewide plans to slash carbon emissions by 2020.

"Biofuel policy is rushing ahead without understanding the implications," said Renton Righelato of the World Land Trust, a conservation charity. "It is a mistake in climate change terms to use biofuels."

Source

Around 40% of Europe's agricultural land would be needed to grow biofuel crops to meet the 10% fossil fuel substitution target. That demand on arable land cannot be met in the EU or the US, say the scientists, so is likely to shift the burden on land in developing countries.

Hmmm very nice to make the second and third worlds pay for our greed.

 

[Pete Younger]

So it's back to Nuclear power then, you know it makes sense!

 

[Pietro_Mercurios]

So it's back to Nuclear power then, you know it makes sense!

Only if they can make the coastal Nuke Pow. Stations submersible.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/aug/16/climatechange.greenland


Scientists warn on climate tipping points

Alok Jha. The Guardian. Thursday August 16 2007

Some tipping points for climate change could be closer than previously thought. Scientists are predicting that the loss of the massive Greenland ice sheet may now be unstoppable and lead to catastrophic sea-level rises around the world.

In drawing together research on tipping points, where damage due to climate change occurs irreversibly and at an increasing rate, the researchers concluded that the risks were much greater than those predicted by the latest report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

If the Greenland ice sheet melted completely, for example, it would raise global sea levels by seven metres. According to the IPCC report, the melting should take about 1,000 years. But the study, by Tim Lenton of the University of East Anglia, showed the break-up could happen more quickly, in 300 years. Professor Lenton said: "We know that ice sheets in the last ice age collapsed faster than any current models can capture, so our models are known to be too sluggish."

His study identified eight tipping points that could be passed by the end of this century. They include the destruction of the Amazon rainforest, the melting of the west Antarctic ice sheet, and a collapse of the global ocean current known as the thermohaline circulation. If that circulation stopped, the Indian monsoons and the gulf stream could be shut down.

Prof Lenton said the IPCC way of working, including multiple reviews, caused it to issue more conservative reports than his team's studies. He added that the inevitable collapse of the Greenland ice sheet was closer than thought because of the latency in the Earth's climate system. "If you could stabilise the greenhouse gas levels to today's level, you'll still get some further warming [by 2100]."

A global average temperature rise of just 1C would be enough to slip the Greenland ice over the edge. The IPCC's prediction for 2100 is a rise of 1.1C-6.4C.

 

[rynner2]

BBC switches off climate special
By Richard Black
Environment correspondent, BBC News website

The BBC has scrapped plans for Planet Relief, a TV special on climate change.

The decision comes after executives said it was not the BBC's job to lead opinion on climate change.

Celebrities such as Ricky Gervais were said to be interested in presenting the show, which would have involved viewers in a mass "switch-off" to save energy.

The BBC says it cut the special because audiences prefer factual output on climate change. Environmentalists slammed the decision as "cowardice".

"This decision shows a real poverty of understanding among senior BBC executives about the gravity of the situation we face," said activist and writer Mark Lynas.

"The only reason why this became an issue is that there is a small but vociferous group of climate 'sceptics' lobbying against taking action, so the BBC is behaving like a coward and refusing to take a more consistent stance."

Editorial wrangles

The Planet Relief concept originated about 18 months ago, and was tentatively scheduled for broadcast in January 2008. It was seen as a climate change counterpart to programmes such as Live8, which sought to raise awareness of global poverty.

But against the backdrop of intense internal debates about impartiality, senior news editors expressed misgivings that Planet Relief was too "campaigning" in nature and would have left the Corporation open to the charge of bias.

"It is absolutely not the BBC's job to save the planet," warned Newsnight editor Peter Barron at the Edinburgh Festival last month.

Head of TV news Peter Horrocks, writing in the BBC News website's editors' blog, commented: "It is not the BBC's job to lead opinion or proselytise on this or any other subject."

A number of right-wing commentators such as the Daily Mail's Keith Waterhouse also criticised the idea.

But a BBC spokeswoman said the cancellation was not due to concerns over impartiality.

"BBC One aims to bring a mass audience to contemporary and relevant issues," she said, "and this includes the topic of climate change.


Planet Relief was modelled on anti-poverty events such as Live8
"Our audiences tell us they are most receptive to documentary or factual style programming as a means of learning about the issues surrounding this subject, and as part of this learning we have made the decision not to proceed with the Planet Relief event.

"Instead we will focus our energies on a range of factual programmes on the important and complex subject of climate change. This decision was not made in light of the recent debate around impartiality."

Is is believed that poor ratings in the UK and elsewhere for July's Live Earth concert may have confirmed the internal belief that the public do not like being "lectured to" on climate change.

However, executives associated with Planet Relief, developed under the aegis of BBC Comedy, said the aim was not to campaign but to "raise consciousness" about the science of climate change, and to offer them the opportunity to take part in a mass temporary "switch-off" of electrical equipment.

Negotiating this with the National Grid had taken over a year, as engineers feared the switch-off might overload parts of the network.

Many blogs run by climate sceptics groups regularly accuse the BBC of bias and of ignoring evidence which runs against the idea that elevated levels of greenhouse gases from fossil fuel burning and land clearance are raising temperatures around the world.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6979596.stm

 

[Pete Younger]

So climate sceptics are a force to be reckoned with, I thought they were a minority and could be ignored.

 

[Anome]

How does the idea of a "switch off" work with a television program? They could get everyone to switch off, and then say they broadcast it. Would save a lot of money, not to mention the electricity needed to do that kind of broadcast.

 

[crunchy5]

Even more to worry about.

http://africa.reuters.com/top/news/usnBAN251297.html

LONDON (Reuters) - Climate change could have global security implications on a par with nuclear war unless urgent action is taken, a report said on Wednesday.

The International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) security think-tank said global warming would hit crop yields and water availability everywhere, causing great human suffering and leading to regional strife.

While everyone had now started to recognise the threat posed by climate change, no one was taking effective leadership to tackle it and no one could tell precisely when and where it would hit hardest, it added.

"The most recent international moves towards combating global warming represent a recognition ... that if the emission of greenhouse gases ... is allowed to continue unchecked, the effects will be catastrophic -- on the level of nuclear war," the IISS report said.

"Even if the international community succeeds in adopting comprehensive and effective measures to mitigate climate change, there will still be unavoidable impacts from global warming on the environment, economies and human security," it added.

Scientists say global average temperatures will rise by between 1.8 and 4.0 degrees Celsius this century due to burning fossil fuels for power and transport.

The IISS report said the effects would cause a host of problems including rising sea levels, forced migration, freak storms, droughts, floods, extinctions, wildfires, disease epidemics, crop failures and famines.

The impact was already being felt -- particularly in conflicts in Kenya and Sudan -- and more was expected in places from Asia to Latin America as dwindling resources led to competition between haves and have nots.

"We can all see that climate change is a threat to global security, and you can judge some of the more obvious causes and areas," said IISS transnational threat specialist Nigel Inkster. "What is much harder to do is see how to cope with them."

The report, an annual survey of the impact of world events on global security, said conflicts and state collapses due to climate change would reduce the world's ability to tackle the causes and to reduce the effects of global warming.

State failures would increase the gap between rich and poor and heighten racial and ethnic tensions which in turn would produce fertile breeding grounds for more conflict.

Urban areas would not be exempt from the fallout as falling crop yields due to reduced water and rising temperatures would push food prices higher, IISS said.

Overall, it said 65 countries were likely to lose over 15 percent of their agricultural output by 2100 at a time when the world's population was expected to head from six billion now to nine billion people.

"Fundamental environmental issues of food, water and energy security ultimately lie behind many present security concerns, and climate change will magnify all three," it added.

 

[WhistlingJack]

Ships' CO2 'Twice That of Planes'

Ships' CO2 'twice that of planes'

By Matt McGrath

Environment reporter, BBC News

Global emissions of carbon dioxide from shipping are twice the level of aviation, one of the maritime industry's key bodies has said.

A report prepared by Intertanko, which represents the majority of the world's tanker operators, says emissions have risen sharply in the past six years.

Previous International Maritime Organisation estimates suggested levels were comparable with those of planes.

Some 90,000 ships from tankers to small freighters ply the world's oceans.

Intertanko says its figures are the most realistic estimation of the current levels of CO2 from ships.

Its estimate suggests that the world's shipping uses between 350 and 410 million tonnes of fuel each year, which equates to up to 1.2 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions.

Intertanko says that growth in global trade coupled with ships burning more fuel to deliver freight faster has contributed significantly to the increase.

Dragos Routa, the technical director of Intertanko, told the BBC the figures were a work in progress but the levels of emissions had risen sharply.

While there are few accurate measures and even fewer restrictions on the amounts of carbon dioxide that ships can emit at present, governments in many parts of the world are considering a clampdown as part of their efforts to tackle global warming.

But Mr Routa argued that the much greater tonnage carried by each vessel, compared with aircraft, meant that shipping was still a much greener form of transporting freight around the globe.

Story from BBC NEWS:

Published: 2007/10/19 02:51:35 GMT

© BBC MMVII

 

[Pete Younger]

But Mr Routa argued that the much greater tonnage carried by each vessel, compared with aircraft, meant that shipping was still a much greener form of transporting freight around the globe
Bit of a pointless statement then! :?

 

[rynner2]

Ten arguments put forward by sceptics about global warming

- and how to counter them:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/629/629/7074601.stm

(I won't copy and paste it, because the tabulated structure makes it too much like hard work!)

 

[rynner2]

A long article on climate sceptic attitudes.
I've copied and pasted the intro and the conclusion - to read the whole article, click this link: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7092614.stm

Climate science: Sceptical about bias
By Richard Black
Environment correspondent, BBC News website

Of all the accusations made by the vociferous community of climate sceptics, surely the most damaging is that science itself is biased against them.

That was a view I put forward nearly a year ago now in another article for the BBC News website, and nothing has changed my mind since.

The year seems to have brought no diminution of the accusations flying around the blogosphere.

"The research itself is biased," as one recent blog entry put it.

"Scientists are quick to find what they're looking for when it means getting more funding out of the government."

That particular posting gave no evidence to support its claim of bias. I have seen none that did; which made me wonder whether there was any evidence.

Drought or deluge?

In that earlier article, I invited sceptics to put their cards on the table, and send me documentation or other firm evidence of bias.

For my part, I agreed to look into any concrete claims.

Given the fury evidenced by sceptical commentators, I was expecting a deluge.

I anticipated drowning in a torrent of accusations of research grants turned down, membership of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) denied, scientific papers refused by journals, job applications refused, and invitations to speak at conferences drying up.

I anticipated having to spend days, weeks, months even, sifting the wheat from the chaff, going backwards and forwards between journal editors, heads of department, conference organisers, funding bodies and the original plaintiffs.

I envisaged major headaches materialising as I tried to sort out the chains of events, attempting to decipher whether claims had any validity, or were just part of the normal rough and tumble of a scientist's life - especially in the context of scientific publishing, where the top journals only publish about 10% of the papers submitted to them.

The reality was rather different.

Paper trail

I received emails from well over 100 people; some had read my original article, others had seen the idea passed around in blogs and newsgroups.

Four people said they had had problems getting research published, and three sent me the papers in question.

The other said he did not want to disclose details as he was preparing his paper for submission to another journal.

Of the three papers I did receive, one was far from complete, and another was a review article from an author who endorsed the IPCC position and said the bias was against scientists "supporting man-made climate change".

The third was from Reid Bryson, a US meteorologist and climatologist whose team at the University of Wisconsin has developed its own method of looking at historical climate change.

He said he had had problems getting research published on the extent to which he believes volcanoes drive climate change. But he had not kept his rejection letters, so it was impossible to investigate specifically.

A fifth correspondent said magazines had turned down letters for publication; but letters are not research, and magazines are not journals, which perform a vital role in the formal processes of science.

In terms of first-hand claims of bias, that was it.

snip ------------------------------------------------------ /snip

Others said that with billions of dollars spent each year on climate research, no-one would risk "rocking the boat" by performing, or publishing, work that could refute humankind's carbon emissions as the cause.

Stefan Rahmstorf from the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany, who is something of an anti-hero to sceptics' groups as he believes IPCC projections of sea-level rise are far too conservative, had heard this argument before, and he wrote in telling me it was far from convincing.

"How likely is it that my funding would suffer if I found a good alternative explanation for the observed global warming, or that I would have trouble publishing it (assuming it would be methodologically sound, of course)?" he asked.

"Quite the contrary, I would see it as a path to certain fame! Scientists always strive to find something radically new and different - just reconfirming what is already quite well-known is boring, and certainly will not get you the Nobel Prize.

"In many countries, including my own, scientific funding is a lot less competitive than in the US - I'm a professor for life, my institute has a solid base funding for doing its research, and basically I can do what I want without risk that this is taken away from me. I don't need to get new grants all the time."

And some research groups are investigating ideas which could challenge anthropogenic warming. For example, several teams have published work within the last three years on the Sun's possible role as a driver of modern-day warming.

One is Henrik Svensmark's group from the Danish National Space Center (DNSC), which published results of laboratory work in the journal Proceedings A of the Royal Society last year - work which they claimed showed the Sun, rather than greenhouse gases, as the chief actor.

"As editor, I can't have a position on publishing any scientific paper other than that it should be peer-reviewed," commented the journal's editor-in-chief Professor Sir Michael Berry when I asked him whether there was a climate bias in scientific publishing.

"I wouldn't pay any attention at all to whether it's 'sceptical' or not."

Proof negative?

The sum total of evidence obtained through this open invitation, then, is one first-hand claim of bias in scientific journals, not backed up by documentary evidence; and three second-hand claims, two well-known and one that the scientist in question does not consider evidence of anti-sceptic feeling.

No-one said they had been refused a place on the IPCC, the central global body in climate change, or denied a job or turned down for promotion or sacked or refused access to a conference platform, or indeed anything else.

If there is an anti-sceptic bias running through the institutions of science, it is evidently keeping itself well hidden.

Whether this exercise has conclusively disproved a bias is not for me to say - I am sure others will find plenty to say, doubtless in the courteous and gracious language that typifies climate discourse nowadays.

But I will say this; if someone persistently claims to be a great football player, and yet fails to find the net when you put him in front of an open goal, you cannot do other than doubt his claim.

Andres Millan, who wrote to me on the subject from Mexico, offered another explanation for why scientific journals, research grants, conference agendas and the IPCC itself are dominated by research that backs or assumes the reality of modern-day greenhouse warming.

"Most global warming sceptics have no productive alternatives; they say it is a hoax, or that it will cause severe social problems, or that we should allocate resources elsewhere," he wrote.

"Scientifically, they have not put forward a compelling, rich, and variegated theory.

"And until that happens, to expect the government, or any source of scientific funding, to give as much money, attention, or room within academic journals to the alternatives, seems completely misguided."

link again: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7092614.stm

 

[rynner2]

IPCC to warn of 'abrupt' warming
By Richard Black
Environment correspondent, BBC News website, Valencia

Climate change may bring "abrupt and irreversible" impacts, the UN's climate advisory panel is set to announce.

Delegates to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) agreed a summary of its landmark report during overnight negotiations here.

Discussions were said to have been robust, with the US and other delegations keen to moderate language.

The summary will be officially launched by UN secretary-general Ban Ki-moon on Saturday.

It brings together elements of the three reports that the Nobel Prize-winning IPCC has already released this year, on the science of climate change, impacts and adaptation, and options for mitigating the problem.

Among its top-line conclusions are that climate change is "unequivocal", that humankind's emissions of greenhouse gases are more than 90% likely to be the main cause, and that impacts can be reduced at reasonable cost.

The synthesis summary being discussed here in Valencia strengthens the language of those earlier reports with a warning that climate change may bring "abrupt and irreversible" impacts.

Such impacts could include the fast melting of glaciers and species extinctions.

"Climate change is here, it's impacting our lives and our economies, and we need to do something about it," commented Hans Verolme, director of the climate change programme with the environmental group WWF.

"After this report, there are no politicians left who can argue they don't know what climate change is or they don't know what to do about it."

Local witnesses

At a news conference, WWF presented testimonies from "climate change witnesses" in various parts of the world.

Speaking by video link, Australian scientists and fishermen spoke of the changes they were seeing on the Great Barrier Reef. And Olav Mathis Eira, a Sami reindeer herder from Norway, said that his communities are seeing weather patterns unprecedented in their oral history.

"Winter is one and a half months later than it used to be," he said. "We observed birds and insects that do not have a name in Sami."

The 20-page IPCC synthesis summary is due to be accompanied by a longer, more detailed document, and discussions on that are continuing here.

The findings will feed into the next round of negotiations on the UN climate convention and Kyoto Protocol, which open in Bali on 3 December.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7098902.stm

 

[rynner2]

Now this is getting SERIOUS!

Dram-ageddon! Too much water will spoil top malts
By MARC HORNE

WHISKY aficionados have long insisted that a dash of water is vital to enhance the taste of a single malt.

But millions of gallons of seawater, caused by global warming, could wipe out some of the most famous names in the industry, scientists have told Scotland on Sunday. :shock:

Coastal distilleries producing a range of internationally famous brands such as Bowmore, Laphroaig, Talisker and Glenmorangie are at risk from storms and encroaching waves.

Dr Jim Hansom, of Glasgow University's Department of Geographical and Earth Science, insisted the threat to the whisky industry posed by climate change were very real.

"All the evidence suggests that sea levels are starting to rise," he said. "All the distilleries that are based on the coast, including a lot of world-famous names, are potentially in danger of flooding.

"People think climate change will be good for Scotland because we'll get warmer summers, but they haven't thought through all the other consequences."

Hansom, an adviser to the Government-funded conservation agency Scottish Natural Heritage, believes that the consequences of rising tides could be seen within 20 years.

He says the impact will be worst in the Inner Hebrides and Orkney, as well as on coastal mainland distilleries such Glenmorangie at Tain and Balblair in Ross-shire.

"Laphroaig and Lagavulin on Islay have cellars below high water mark and that is part of the mystique and allure of the whisky. They claim you can taste the tang of the sea. Well, in future we could see barrels completely surrounded by salt-water. It's that serious.

"Others like Bunnahabhain have got a beach right in front of them and could also be in danger of flooding.

"In the worst-case scenario, they will have to relocate distilleries to higher ground. In other cases they might have to move warehouses where whisky is maturing in a sort of phased withdrawal."

Hansom insisted he was not being alarmist. "My main objective is to alert coastal distilleries to the fact that they will face problems in the future and they need to think about it now. Creating coastal management plans now could save them lots of money in the future."

..................

Hansom's sentiments were echoed by Dr Toby Sherwin, reader in physical oceanography at the Scottish Association for Marine Science.

"The worst case long-term scenario would see sea levels rising by 60cm," he said. "That should be a real concern for the owners of the low-lying, sea-level distilleries, and they should start thinking about what strategies they should adopt now."

Because of their geographical position the Northern and Western Isles are affected by subsidence, and the slow sinking of land makes them particularly vulnerable to rising sea levels.

Dave Broom, an expert on the national drink and contributing editor to Whisky Magazine, added: "There is no doubt that the whisky industry will be directly affected by climate change. The science is now accepted and becoming increasingly and depressingly precise."

But John McLellan, the manager of Bunnahabhain Distillery on Islay, which directly overlooks the sea, was not overly concerned about being named as one of Scotland's most vulnerable whisky producers.

"Hopefully it is going to be quite a few years before we get to that stage," he said.

"To be honest, I'm more worried about the here and now rather than about things that could happen in the next 50 years. I'll certainly not be losing any sleep over these warnings."

....

But David Williams, a spokesman for the Scotch Whisky Association, said the industry took the threats seriously and was already planning to secure its future.

"We are currently working with our members to develop an industry environmental sustainability strategy and that will be published next year," he said. "Companies regularly undertake environmental audits of their sites and operations. Best practice is widely shared and most environmental matters are tackled co-operatively."

http://news.scotsman.com/latestnews/Dra ... 3594818.jp

 

[jefflovestone]

Dr Jim Hansom, of Glasgow University's Department of Geographical and Earth Science, insisted the threat to the whisky industry posed by climate change were very real.


"People think climate change will be good for Scotland because we'll get warmer summers, but they haven't thought through all the other consequences."

It worries me that for many people this is literally all the associate with climate change. They seem to focus on the idea of global warming and how great it will be if Britain had weather like the Med. Because that's what's going to happen in some people's minds:everything will be the same but with better summers. Crank up that barbeque and turn that fan on!

We should kill these people and use their bodies to make tidal barriers.

 

[lupinwick]

Tax the newborns!

What then should we do as environmentally responsible medical practitioners? We should point out the consequences to all who fail to see them, including, if necessary, the ministers for health. Far from showering financial booty on new mothers and thereby rewarding greenhouse-unfriendly behaviour, a “Baby Levy” in the form of a carbon tax should apply, in line with the “polluter pays” principle.2 Every family choosing to have more than a defined number of children (Sustainable Population Australia suggests a maximum of two3) should be charged a carbon tax that would fund the planting of enough trees to offset the carbon cost generated by a new human being. The average annual CO2 emission by an Australian individual is about 17 metric tons,4 including energy usage. As the biomass of trees in a mature forest sequesters about 6 metric tons of CO2 per hectare (104 m2) per year,4,5 each child born should be offset by planting 4 hectares of trees, to allow for the time they take to reach maturity, and attrition through crop losses, bushfires, dieback and so on. This infers a levy per child of at least $5000 at birth (to purchase the land needed and plant trees) and an annual tax of $400–$800 thereafter for the life of the child (for maintenance of the afforestation project) (based on 1990 figures,4 and probably much more now).

By the same reasoning, contraceptives, intrauterine devices, diaphragms, condoms and sterilisation procedures should attract carbon credits for the user and the prescriber that would offset their income taxes, and lead to rewards for family planning clinics and hospitals that provide such greenhouse-friendly services.

Source

And the critique via Sp!ked

The Aussie proposals may sound wacky, but in truth they are the logical conclusion to today’s trend for measuring humanity by its waste and ‘carbon footprint’. After all, if human life is seen as fundamentally polluting, then why shouldn’t the creation of new human life be viewed as irresponsible and problematic? At the heart of this hostility towards new life is a lack of faith in the capacity of humanity to solve its problems. First food, then oil, then scarce metals, now carbon footprints. In another 20 years, it will be collisions with asteroids. This adolescent hankering for Doomsday by the University of Woolloomooloo senior common room, and its fellow travellers elsewhere, stems not from facts, but from a smouldering hostility towards their own species. Walters treats the oracular David Attenborough as sacred writ: ‘Instead of controlling the environment for the benefit of the population, we should control the population to ensure the survival of the environment.’ How about barracking for the home team, lads?

In any case, American economist Julian Simon’s optimism about harmonising the environment and population growth has again and again been proved right. ‘The ultimate resource is people - especially skilled, spirited and hopeful young people endowed with liberty - who will exert their wills and imaginations for their own benefit and inevitably benefit the rest of us as well’, said Simon.

What Walters and Egger fail to take into account is that children create hope, not problems. Without the next generation - as Alfonso Cuaron’s stunning film Children of Men showed so vividly - there is no point in working for the future. Buildings decay, garbage piles up, injustice spreads like a cancer, and no one cares. But the birth of a child brings optimism and determination to make its world better than our own. The daft proposal for a baby levy would kill the very hope which sustains and drives our society.

Source

Interesting though.

 

[lawofnations]

We really only hear the side that is sold to us.

*sigh* Yes, yes, the large number of scientists warning us about the dangers of global warming are very rich, getting richer all the time off scaring us, and are laughing at how they are hoodwinking us...

Some people will exploit the issue, there are always people who try to exploit any situation. That is human nature. But the exploiters are not the scientists.

Try talking to them. Not reading their research, journal articles and books, I mean actually talk to them. Talk to climatologists, geologists and palaeontologists. Sit around in a pub and have a beer with them. Get them talking about climate change. And listen to the concern and fear. Listen to how genuinely frightened sober and rational men and women of science are by the changes that are occurring. How most of them will privately admit that it is hopeless now, it is too late, how if they had been listened to 40 years ago, then we might have made a difference. How their careers have been destroyed, and how they could have made so much more money if they had just stuck their heads in the sand and taken the oil money and worked for the petrochemical firms, who pay a good deal of money to them to bury their research. Talk to the younger ones, having earnest discussions about whether, morally, they should bring children into the world, knowing what will happen. I have been fortunate enough to talk to people intimately involved with the research, and these people are scared of the future.

There are natural cycles of global warming. They occur over thousands of years. The recent temperature changes recorded in ice core samples have shown changes over just shy of 300 years, that have previously only ever been seen over millennia. The Earth will heal and adapt, it always does. That has never been an issue. No-one has ever claimed that the Earth somehow would not survive. But the extremes that will occur during the changes before the Earth will heal are something that humanity may not survive.

The scientists are not trying to "save the world" - the world doesn't need saving. The scientists are trying to save humanity. Rapid climatic change will, over the long term, not harm the Earth. But the changes will be too rapid for mankind to be able to deal with, and adapt to.

I know it is de rigeur as Forteans to look to alternatives and challenge the "accepted truths", but must we always dismiss mainstream science because it is mainstream science? 40 years ago, when people like Van Andel and his colleagues were beginning to warn about the dangers of anthropogenic global warming, they were dismissed by mainstream science. They were proposing something radical, shocking, and on the fringe. They had the "damned data" of their age. After four decades the ideas have begun to gain acceptance. Must we now be dismissive because the idea has gained acceptance?

Have I been deluded for the better part of 12 years? Fortean is not a synonym for anti-science is it?

 

[tastyintestines]

I was talking about the governments,u.n., putting extra "eco" taxes on us. I was not disputing global warming or scientists. I was simply showing a small part of the other side.

 

[lupinwick]

*sigh* Yes, yes, the large number of scientists warning us about the dangers of global warming are very rich, getting richer all the time off scaring us, and are laughing at how they are hoodwinking us...

Some people will exploit the issue, there are always people who try to exploit any situation. That is human nature. But the exploiters are not the scientists.

Try talking to them. Not reading their research, journal articles and books, I mean actually talk to them. Talk to climatologists, geologists and palaeontologists. Sit around in a pub and have a beer with them. Get them talking about climate change. And listen to the concern and fear. Listen to how genuinely frightened sober and rational men and women of science are by the changes that are occurring. How most of them will privately admit that it is hopeless now, it is too late, how if they had been listened to 40 years ago, then we might have made a difference. How their careers have been destroyed, and how they could have made so much more money if they had just stuck their heads in the sand and taken the oil money and worked for the petrochemical firms, who pay a good deal of money to them to bury their research. Talk to the younger ones, having earnest discussions about whether, morally, they should bring children into the world, knowing what will happen. I have been fortunate enough to talk to people intimately involved with the research, and these people are scared of the future.

And all this goes on while the various governments do either fuck all to try and solve the problem, or do their very best to land all the problems on the poor bastards in the 3rd world.

Nobody is really doubting the figures per se, but rather the mechanisms being put in place (or not) to try and combat the issue. Carbon trading is not going to do it, nor is landing all the tax burden on the citizens of the West, nor is screwing the 3rd world again not while the various industries get away scot free (think excess packaging, lack of research into new power sources etc. etc.).

In the final analysis we know a handful of things:

1) The reliance on fossil fuels has to stop soon, the resource is finite and MUST be replaced by something else.

2) Global warming may be a problem, however only 1 side can afford to be wrong. Treat as a real issue and deal with it, If its not a problem then we may well have solved the fossil fuel issue as a side affect,

 

[rynner2]

Sign of the times as ‘millennium flame’ switches to electricity
Simon de Bruxelles

An eternal flame lit to mark the millennium is to be replaced by an electric bulb because of rocketing gas bills.

The 15ft-high Eternal Flame was a gift to the town of Bournemouth from local churches to mark the 2,000th anniversary of Christ’s birth.

The flame was meant to burn continuously, providing a focal point in the town’s main square.

But the price of gas has increased so dramatically that it was costing £8,000 a year to keep it alight. Church officials were also concerned that carbon emissions from the burner were contributing to global warming. A planning application has now been submitted to replace the live flame with an electric light.

Despite running on electricity, the proposed globe-shaped LED light will use less power than a standard light bulb and change colour every five seconds.

The Rev David Craig, a trustee behind the Eternal Flame, said: “The Flame wasn’t a worry until a few years ago. That was the time when gas prices suddenly rocketed and we began to realise the Flame was not only becoming a financial issue but also an environmental one.

“Clearly the constant burning of a gas flame isn’t the best way to go for the planet. We have now lodged a planning application to change the flame into an LED light that will be very cheap to run.”

The Eternal Flame was originally called the Millennium Candle and funded by the local churches. It has a gas pipe running up to the top and is ignited using a button at the bottom which controls a pilot light.

People started gathering at the base of the structure at times of worldwide strife, such as during the 9/11 terrorist attacks, and when protesting. But after costs rose the Eternal Flame was extinguished in May 2006.

Canon Jim Richardson, town centre rector for Bournemouth, was at the forefront of the campaign to erect the Flame. He said: “The Millennium memorial was designed for Bournemouth and is a very fine piece of sculpture.

“It speaks to the soul in some way. Bournemouth is not just about materialism. But in those days we weren’t so conscious of green issues.

“We had to turn it off, not only because of the cost but also due to the carbon going into the atmosphere.”

The Rev Craig added: “Once we realised there was a problem we took a step back and looked at the whole situation again. We wanted something that people would like and something that was economically and environmentally sound.

“We then came up with the idea of an LED globe. If we get the planning permission, there is nothing to hold us back from getting on with it.”

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/u ... 129986.ece

 

[Pete Younger]

Church officials were also concerned that carbon emissions from the burner were contributing to global warming

Oh good grief what next? ban cigarette lighters perhaps!

 

[rynner2]

Ocean floor sensors will warn of failing Gulf Stream
UK will be in a deep freeze if the current strays
Robin McKie, science editor The Observer, Sunday January 20 2008

An armada of robot submarines and marine sensors are to be deployed across the Atlantic, from Florida to the Canary Islands, to provide early warning that the Gulf Stream might be failing, an event that would trigger cataclysmic freezing in Britain for decades.

The £16m system, called Rapid Watch, will use the latest underwater monitoring techniques to check whether cold water pouring south from melting Arctic ice sheets is diverting the current's warm waters away from Britain.

Without the Gulf Stream, the UK would be as cold as Canada in winter. Ports could freeze over and snowstorms and blizzards would paralyse the country. An extreme version of this meteorological mayhem provided the film The Day After Tomorrow with its plotline.

'The Day After Tomorrow suggested the Gulf Stream could fail within a couple of days,' said Rapid Watch's co-ordinator, Meric Srokosz of the Southampton Oceanographic Centre. 'In reality, a collapse will take a lot longer, but could still occur in about 10 years.' Rapid Watch has been designed to discover if such weakening is already occurring or is about to begin.

The Gulf Stream starts in the Gulf of Mexico and follows the eastern US seaboard before crossing the Atlantic towards western Europe. The heat it brings across the Atlantic gives Britain its temperate climate. The former chief scientist, Sir Robert May, once calculated that the Gulf Stream delivered 27,000 times the warmth that all Britain's power stations are capable of supplying.

But scientists have recently warned that the current is threatened by meltwater from Greenland and the Arctic. As global warming takes a grip, glaciers and ice sheets are disappearing faster and faster. This could bring major cooling to western Europe. As the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change warned last year, the Gulf Stream is particularly warm and salty, and increasing amounts of fresh water pouring into it from the Arctic are likely to disrupt it.

These fears have been backed by studies involving research vessels that have zig-zagged across the Gulf Stream, measuring currents at various depths, data that indicated that the Gulf Stream was indeed beginning to switch off.

But in 2004, Dr Srokosz - with his Southampton colleagues Professor Harry Bryden and Dr Stuart Cunningham - set up Rapid, a temporary array of sensors fixed to the seabed that provided daily measurements of the Gulf Stream for the first time. The first results, which were published last year, revealed that the Gulf Stream fluctuates in a highly unpredictable fashion.

'The Gulf flows at an average rate of 20 million cubic metres per second,' added Srokosz. 'But this flow varies from as little as four million cubic metres to about 35 million. This means past isolated measurements could be highly misleading.'

As a result, Srokosz has designed Rapid Watch, which has just received £16m from the Natural Environment Research Council. 'Rapid was a proof of concept study,' he said. 'Rapid Watch is a full-scale detection system.' Rapid Watch, which will begin operations later this year, will monitor the Gulf Stream until 2014. Cables will moor monitoring devices to the seabed and measure current flow, temperature and other variables at depths down to 5,000 metres.

In addition, robot probes - called gliders - will study the current as they descend and ascend. 'Robot gliders can currently operate to depths of about 1,000 metres, but soon versions that can dive to 5,000 metres should be ready.

'Certainly, it is critical we now find out how the Gulf Stream is behaving,' added Srokosz. 'It has an immense influence on our climate - and our lives.'

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2 ... eteorology

 

[rynner2]

Tuvalu struggles to hold back tide
Environment correspondent, BBC News, Tuvalu

The fragile strips of green that make up the small islands of Tuvalu are incredibly beautiful but also incredibly vulnerable.

The group of nine tiny islands in the South Pacific only just break the surface of the ocean - but for how much longer?

During a King Tide, which is what the islanders call the highest tides of the year, waves rolling off the ocean can have a devastating effect.

The islands' main road is submerged and nearby homes are threatened by the rising waters.

"We have never seen this in the past," a concerned resident tells me. "We have never seen water coming in this far."

No respect

It is not just the shoreline that is at the mercy of the King Tide's sovereignty, the water also surges up from underground through the coral on which the islands are built.

In the space of just an hour, the lowest areas are all flooded.

Everyone feels the impact; a priest has to step carefully through the waters on his way to conduct a funeral.

The higher the King Tides get, the harder it is to keep things going here. A woman tells me that she is unable to grow any food crops because the land has become too salty.

The sea water is poisoning the soil and people are nervous. "It makes me feel scared," another woman confesses. "What will happen to us in 10 years' time?"

The rising waters are slowly creeping into the heart of these islands and slowly but effectively killing them off.

Water bubbles up in tiny streams; and everywhere you look, it just lies on the surface.

And the problem is getting worse. A local meteorologist tells me that the King Tides are getting higher, and it is a trend set to continue.

"The King Tides are getting worse and most of the coastal areas will be washed out," he forecasts for the coming decade.

Runway 'essential'

It is a gloomy prognosis for life on these shores. A typical high tide reaches about two-and-a-half metres, while a King Tide like this can be more than three metres.

The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) forecasts a rise of up to another half metre.

It is cold comfort for Tuvaluans, when the highest point of the islands reaches just about four-and-a-half metres above the encroaching waves.

Each scenario will cost Tuvalu precious land. Only a small rise will see parts of the islands disappear.

This includes the runway, which is a vital lifeline to the outside world.

People here say there must be a technological fix if a rich country like Dubai can build entirely new islands.

But the problem is that these islands are founded on coral which is porous; saving these islands will cost a fortune.

For the children, the floods are fun. However, for them to lead their lives on these islands will require massive international support.

But with a population of just 11,000 people, will the outside world think it is worthwhile?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7203313.stm

 

[Bullseye]

So now it's global cooling...
http://en.rian.ru/science/20080122/97519953.html

Yeah, I remember a good few years back that "The Scientific Community" were warning us about the forthcoming New Ice Age.
Now call me cynical if you want, but I don't believe a bloody thing from any large organisation/goverment/anyone with a vested interest/anyone seeking funding for a "popular" theory.

 

[rynner2]

Yeah, I remember a good few years back that "The Scientific Community" were warning us about the forthcoming New Ice Age.

But in the years since, new evidence has accumulated.

Now call me cynical if you want, but I don't believe a bloody thing from any large organisation/goverment/anyone with a vested interest/anyone seeking funding for a "popular" theory.

So, you don't believe in Global Cooling anymore, or Global Warming...?

So where does that leave you?

"If things don't change, I reckon it'll stay much as it is.." ?


Of course, no-one is forced to examine the evidence, as carefully as they can, in order to come to some opinion.

People are quite at liberty to say "I don't know", or even, "I don't care"...

As Frankie Howard used to say "Please yourself"...

 

[Bullseye]

Of course, no-one is forced to examine the evidence, as carefully as they can, in order to come to some opinion.

As it happens,I've been "looking" at evidence for this and many other things for the last few years.This is why I now have an overwhelming cynicisim about damn near everything !