'The Great Global Warming Swindle': Is Climate Change A Myth?

[many_angled_one]

Aartificial pollutants are contributing to global warming, it is hard to deny, but by how much exactly is open to speculation. At the very least by reducting CO2 and other emitted pullutants we can slow down the process slightly to give us more of a chance to try and fix things, if at all possible.
Even if you take solar and cosmic radiation etc into consideration working to reduce emissions is the right thing to do. I would argue that even if there was no global warming we should be looking at reducing out pullutants anyway.

 

[almond13]

I hope that you read the one about the return of the ice age.

Er, that's from 1998. There has been quite a lot of work done since then. I don't think you'll find many taking that line now.

The facts as i see them are, that yes, we have warming and no we don't have a clue what's causing it,

Actually we have a very good idea what's causing it, as the IPCC made clear. But (as with the tobacco health issue) there are a lot of people who would rather obscure the issue. As with the tobacco health issue, we may not have 100% evidence yet - but how long would you like to wait?

First the skeptics said there was no global warming; next they said it wasn't caused by CO2. Prediction: their next move will be to deny that reducing CO2 emissions will help.

I have mentioned this before (ice age) and someone said it was from the seventies? The point being that we have a whole new warming scenario and it's all down to new and improved methods as it was when this was in vogue. If you wish to swallow it wholesale you have my blessing, but I recommend a pinch of salt.
No one wants a polluted environment and I think that you are using the old switcharoo here. The problem comes when we are told conflicting stories by those who invented the “coming ice age” in the first place. Why should we believe someone who says we will freeze and then that we will fry. In a private company environment this would be called gross incompetence, but in science people who screw-up are congratulated.

With regard to the tobacco issue, I suggest that you read: "Aliens Cause Global Warming" A lecture by Michael Crichton, http://www.crichton-official.com/speech ... ote04.html
He puts the case so much better than I could.

 

[rynner2]

With regard to the tobacco issue, I suggest that you read: "Aliens Cause Global Warming" A lecture by Michael Crichton, http://www.crichton-official.com/speech ... ote04.html
He puts the case so much better than I could.

Interesting article, and I agreed with a lot of it (especially about the rather useless Drake equation).

But then I came to this:

It is possible for an outside observer to ask serious questions about the conduct of investigations into global warming, such as whether we are taking appropriate steps to improve the quality of our observational data records, whether we are systematically obtaining the information that will clarify existing uncertainties, whether we have any organized disinterested mechanism to direct research in this contentious area.

The answer to all these questions is no. We don't.

Can he be serious? The number of weather and atmospheric research satellites seems to increase month by month, with the newer models incorporating ever more sensitive and accurate sensors. Satellites also measur vital oceanic data, from the height of waves to the progress of El Nino.

We drill and examine ice cores from both polar regions, getting data about temperatures and atmospheric make-up in earlier periods.

We have weather ships and buoys, and merchant shipping can easily report local weather conditions via satellite links. We have aircraft that will fly through tropical storms and record pressures and temperatures, etc.

So I think we are taking appropriate steps 'to improve the quality of our observational data records'. Crichton has let his rhetoric run away with him, which, ironically, is what he has accused many of those he mentions in the article of doing!

 

[almond13]

whether we have any organized disinterested mechanism to direct research in this contentious area.

I think that this is the question and also the crux of the matter and the answer is still no.

 

[rynner2]

whether we have any organized disinterested mechanism to direct research in this contentious area.

I think that this is the question and also the crux of the matter and the answer is still no.

Wrong.
http://www.wmo.ch/

WMO in brief

The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) is a Specialized Agency of the United Nations. It is the UN system's authoritative voice on the state and behaviour of the Earth's atmosphere, its interaction with the oceans, the climate it produces and the resulting distribution of water resources.

The World Meteorological Organization is an intergovernmental organization with a membership of 187 Member States and Territories. It originated from the International Meteorological Organization (IMO), which was founded in 1873. Established in 1950, WMO became the specialized agency of the United Nations in 1951 for meteorology (weather and climate), operational hydrology and related geophysical sciences.

As weather, climate and water cycle knows no national boundaries, international cooperation at a global scale is essential for the development of meteorology and operational hydrology as well as to reap the benefits from their applications. WMO provides the framework for such international cooperation

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

WMO facilitates the free and unrestricted exchange of data and information, products and services in real- or near-real time on matters relating to safety and security of society, economic welfare and the protection of the environment. It contributes to policy formulation in these areas at national and international levels.

WMO plays a leading role in international efforts to monitor and protect the environment through its Programmes. For instance, in collaboration with UN agencies and the National Meteorological and Hydrological Services (NMHSs) of its Members, WMO supports the implementation of relevant conventions such as the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, the International Convention to Combat Desertification, and the Vienna Convention on the Protection of Ozone Layer and its Protocols and Amendments. WMO is instrumental in providing advice and assessments to governments on matters relating to the above Conventions. These activities contribute towards ensuring the sustainable development and well-being of nations.

http://www.wmo.ch/web-en/about.html

Search their website for IPCC and it finds 1870 documents!

 

[rynner2]

whether we have any organized disinterested mechanism to direct research in this contentious area.

I think that this is the question and also the crux of the matter and the answer is still no.

Wrong.
http://www.wmo.ch/

WMO in brief

The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) is a Specialized Agency of the United Nations. It is the UN system's authoritative voice on the state and behaviour of the Earth's atmosphere, its interaction with the oceans, the climate it produces and the resulting distribution of water resources.

The World Meteorological Organization is an intergovernmental organization with a membership of 187 Member States and Territories. It originated from the International Meteorological Organization (IMO), which was founded in 1873. Established in 1950, WMO became the specialized agency of the United Nations in 1951 for meteorology (weather and climate), operational hydrology and related geophysical sciences.

As weather, climate and water cycle knows no national boundaries, international cooperation at a global scale is essential for the development of meteorology and operational hydrology as well as to reap the benefits from their applications. WMO provides the framework for such international cooperation

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

WMO facilitates the free and unrestricted exchange of data and information, products and services in real- or near-real time on matters relating to safety and security of society, economic welfare and the protection of the environment. It contributes to policy formulation in these areas at national and international levels.

WMO plays a leading role in international efforts to monitor and protect the environment through its Programmes. For instance, in collaboration with UN agencies and the National Meteorological and Hydrological Services (NMHSs) of its Members, WMO supports the implementation of relevant conventions such as the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, the International Convention to Combat Desertification, and the Vienna Convention on the Protection of Ozone Layer and its Protocols and Amendments. WMO is instrumental in providing advice and assessments to governments on matters relating to the above Conventions. These activities contribute towards ensuring the sustainable development and well-being of nations.

http://www.wmo.ch/web-en/about.html

Search their website for IPCC and it finds 1870 documents!

 

[rynner2]

PS: IPCC has its own website:
http://www.ipcc.ch/about/about.htm

Recognizing the problem of potential global climate change, the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) established the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 1988. It is open to all members of the
UN and WMO.

The role of the IPCC is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation. The IPCC does not carry out research nor does it monitor climate related data or other relevant parameters. It bases its assessment mainly on peer reviewed and published scientific/technical literature. Its role, organisation, participation and general procedures are laid down in the "Principles Governing IPCC Work"

 

[rynner2]

..and Michael Crichton has his critics too:

13 Dec 2004
Michael Crichton’s State of Confusion
Filed under: Climate Science Greenhouse gases Climate modelling Instrumental Record Arctic and Antarctic— gavin @ 10:09 pm - ()

In a departure from normal practice on this site, this post is a commentary on a piece of out-and-out fiction (unlike most of the other posts which deal with a more subtle kind). Michael Crichton's new novel "State of Fear" is about a self-important NGO hyping the science of the global warming to further the ends of evil eco-terrorists. The inevitable conclusion of the book is that global warming is a non-problem. A lesson for our times maybe? Unfortunately, I think not.

Like the recent movie "The Day After Tomorrow", the novel addresses real scientific issues and controversies, but is similarly selective (and occasionally mistaken) about the basic science. I will discuss a selection of the global warming-related issues that are raised in between the car chases, shoot-outs, cannibalistic rites and assorted derring-do. The champion of Crichton's scientific view is a MIT academic-turned-undercover operative who clearly runs intellectual rings around other characters. The issues are raised as conversations and Q and A sessions between him (and other 'good guys') and two characters; an actor (not a very clever chap) and a lawyer (a previously duped innocent), neither of whom know much about the science.

So for actors and lawyers everywhere, I will try and help out...

[snip]

In summary, I am a little disappointed, not least because while researching this book, Crichton actually visited our lab and discussed some of these issues with me and a few of my colleagues. I guess we didn't do a very good job. Judging from his reading list, the rather dry prose of the IPCC reports did not match up to the some of the racier contrarian texts. Had RealClimate been up and running a few years back, maybe it would've all worked out differently...

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=74

 

[wembley8]

The problem comes when we are told conflicting stories by those who invented the “coming ice age” in the first place. Why should we believe someone who says we will freeze and then that we will fry.

I'm not suggesting you do.

On the other hand, science is a process of discovery and learning. Ignoring new advances is not the same as ignoring fashion.

"They said the Earth was flat, now they say it's round. How absurd!"

 

[ghostdog19]

Arctic and Antarctic ice shelves really are melting, the permafrost of Siberia, ditto and giving up its ancient methane.

I read somewhere that one of the causes of the mini ice age we had in the last couple of hundred years was due to several volcanoes going off in the same year. I buy that the climate is changing, but the climate is always changing. I buy that's it's changing at a rapid rate, but it's changed at a rapid rate before. The government, I feel, is targeting our 'fear of change', and is finding a means to make money where it will potentially lose revenue. That's why the sudden interest. They couldn't give a stuff when climatologists were saying 'look what's happening' back in the seventies, but now... if they can make money out of it, they'll tax the air we breath. Sorry, to be deeply cynical about it, but I don't trust a government who can claim to quantify the unquantifiable in it's eagerness to present us with a bill.

 

[wembley8]

The government, I feel, is targeting our 'fear of change', and is finding a means to make money where it will potentially lose revenue.

But it's in the government's interest to ignore climate change, as the cost of combatting it will run to billions and it will have a severe impact on the economy (which basically runs on fossil fuels). This is one of the major reasons why the US government is so instransigent, and why they attract so much criticism.

The vested interestes, from oil companies to airlines to car makers are all big producers of CO2 and are digging their heels in. Nobody wants to be told they can't drive a 4x4 or fly to the Caribbean for the weekend. That's where you will see the most powerful and effective resistance.

(The nuclear power industry, meanwhile, is chortling away....)

 

[crunchy5]

, but now... if they can make money out of it, they'll tax the air we breath.

The govt has no problem taxing and never has, it doesn't need an environmental scare as an excuse, the tax on fossil fuels has actually come down in real terms under Brown, as a result of the fuel protest stopping the fuel price escalator set up by the Tories.

 

[Analis]

The use of the "water vapor is responsible of 95% of greenhouse effect" is a classic, but lies on a logic fault. It is a description (true or false is not the matter) of the curent situation. CO2 is a greenhouse effect gas (GEG). If its percentage increases, while water vapor levels remain constant, its part in the greenhouse effect will increase too. As a result, temperature will rise. It works in the same way with methane. It is of no use to say that CH4 currently plays only a very minor part in the greenhouse effect. What matters is that it is a very powerful GEG. Any rise of it in the atmosphere, even at low levels, will have important consequences.

People who doubt the importance of CO2 in atmospheric temperature should be given a free holiday on Venus... Earth itself is not out of danger of a bolting of the greenhouse effect. The oceans are an enormous source of GEG on a longer term.

Another point intrigues me: why do some people suggest that the Global Warming warnings are only a political issues? Implying, of course, that they're only the fact of ecologists. In fact, they come only from scientists. It is obvious that there was no manipulation by any government or any influential loobies (ecologists certainly do not have such influence). On the contrary, they tended to hide this fact. The Global Warming goes against general public opinion. There are political manipulations, but they work for the other side. Why suppose that the global mechanism of science is not disinterested in this instance?

 

[Peripart]

, but now... if they can make money out of it, they'll tax the air we breath.

The govt has no problem taxing and never has, it doesn't need an environmental scare as an excuse, the tax on fossil fuels has actually come down in real terms under Brown, as a result of the fuel protest stopping the fuel price escalator set up by the Tories.

I still reckon that if petrol companies took a stand and displayed the net price of a litre of fuel, showing the tax element separately, the government of the day (of whatever party) would fall by a landslide at the next election. At the very least, we'd have more fuel protests. Yes, we all agree that taxing sources of pollution may help to modify our behaviour, but the tax on petrol is already about 500%, and I'd love to see the reaction if more people realised that.

 

[AMPHIARAUS]

The govt has no problem taxing and never has, it doesn't need an environmental scare as an excuse, the tax on fossil fuels has actually come down in real terms under Brown, as a result of the fuel protest stopping the fuel price escalator set up by the Tories.

That statement has the seeds of its own disproval within it.

Why has the taxation of fuel not crept up? - because of problems incurred in protest and civil disruption making the treasury/gov. change its focus to more palatable subjects for taxation.

The science of climate change should IMO be thought of as seperate from the commercial opportunities that acceptance in the publics minds brings.

It is like marketing a product which is a totally new idea. Creating a need / desire for something we didn't need yesterday. The science has, as a byproduct of reporting done this just as well as a deliberate marketing campaign.

Yes, if we all consume less energy because we are buying energy saving appliances, smaller cars etc then some industries will loose out. But theres also a lot of money to be made from a wave of new businesses which will spring up. I would guess a lot of lobbying is going on by low energy ligh bulb producers and so on. The new taxes will come on the back of change.

As far as the science goes, the whole subject is so complex that the more I tried to learn the more I realised I knew nothing, Indeed I would doubt that one person could have sufficent detailed knowledge of all the contributing factors and interactions to make an informed descision. Which of course if why there is not full agreement between those in the know.

The only thing I would guess is that by releasing buried CO2 we ain't helping any.

 

[ghostdog19]

Why has the taxation of fuel not crept up? - because of problems incurred in protest and civil disruption making the treasury/gov. change its focus to more palatable subjects for taxation.

exactly. protests in the past have basically switched the country off, never mind just put us on hold for a bit. So it's proved a very powerful protest.

 

[DrPaulLee]

http://www.pacinst.org/topics/integrity ... update.pdf

 

[DrPaulLee]

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/9deb730a-19ca-1 ... 10621.html

 

[Pietro_Mercurios]

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/9deb730a-19ca-11dc-99c5-000b5df10621.html

I had a moment yesterday, when I suddenly wondered if the whole Global Warming Debate had been drummed up to cover for the massive economic recession, coming with the forecasted Peak Oil slump.

Of course, there are just too many scientists, for all of them to be faking it, and the fact is, it's the very combustion to exhaustion of the World's fossil fuel reserves which has helped create the greenhouse funk we now have to live with.

So there's Peak Oil and/or Global Warming to look forward too. Or, are there? :shock:

 

[ghostdog19]

Of course, there are just too many scientists, for all of them to be faking it

doesn't mean anything.

 

[Pietro_Mercurios]

Of course, there are just too many scientists, for all of them to be faking it

doesn't mean anything.

... If it hasn't got that swing?

They could be wrong, but I doubt they're all trying to deceive.

 

[ghostdog19]

Of course, there are just too many scientists, for all of them to be faking it

doesn't mean anything.

... If it hasn't got that swing?

They could be wrong, but I doubt they're all trying to deceive.

Is this science before politics gets a hold of it? Is it science not funded by politics also? Lots of factors to consider I reckon before accepting any scientific view on climate change, especially given our governments keen interest in taxing the air that we breath (pretty much) a government suddenly able to quantify the unquantifiable by telling us how much its going to cost us.

We worry about church and state and yet seem pretty relaxed about science and state.

 

[Pietro_Mercurios]

...

We worry about church and state and yet seem pretty relaxed about science and state.

Do you mean the scientists whose research supports the theory of Global Warming, or the scientists whose research supports the Oil Corporations, Big Business and the feet dragging, reluctant Global Warming virgins of the George W. Bush Administration?

 

[Pietro_Mercurios]

Or, put it another way, how many climate migrants from Africa, do you think, drowned in the Mediterranean, this month?

 

[ghostdog19]

Or, put it another way, how many climate migrants from Africa, do you think, drowned in the Mediterranean, this month?

There was a recent reflux on the issue when Greenpeace learned that one of the governments main interest in its rally on climate change was to open more Nuclear Power stations in the UK (as an alternative fuel source). Now, I'm with the guy that says we're all screwed and here's the evidence, I'm just not with the government that latches on to that and says "yeah, we can fix it and here's how much it'll cost you". It's like your boilers broken and a dodgy plumber coming round to tell you it'll cost you £xxxx. We don't have a government with our best interests at heart.

With reference to Science state, in a church state situation you have religion influencing politics that creates a concern, my concern is a slight flip on that in that it's state influencing science. I'm convinced enough that it's all going to shit, but what I'm not convinced by is some money grubbing politician cashing in on the situation and telling us it means this when really it means that. Something does indeed need to be done about it, but lets get some stuff straight before we start paying for the air we breath.

 

[ted_bloody_maul]

Or, put it another way, how many climate migrants from Africa, do you think, drowned in the Mediterranean, this month?

Are they neccessarily all migrating because of the climate, though? The recent case in Malta seemed to involve people fleeing from Sudan (although undoubtedly there are many people who're having to leave their homes to avoid the effects of climate change). Also, the argument here is not neccessarily that there is climate change but whether it's man-made or not. Whilst it makes sense to err on the side of caution regarding our contribution it might not prevent these kinds of problems.

As a general point is there anyone putting forward proposals as to how to deal with the effects rather than prevent them? I suspect that whatever the science suggests now on human contribution to climate the neccessary steps won't be fully backed until it's too late. If that's the case what is being proposed to treat the symptoms rather than prevent the illness, as it were?

 

[Anonymous]

Run away to somewhere cooler seems to be the idea there.

Failing that, get a boat or swim.

It won't last long, then there will probably be another Ice Age due to the Gulf Stream collapsing.

If that happens then carbon or no carbon, it will get cooler up north.

S'not all that bad though, apparently the Stradivarius was made out of wood in Italy that was altered slightly due to being frozen then warmed up a bit. Unique wood apparently came of this process.

See? Every cloud (if you have one in the sky in your part of the world) has a silver lining.

 

[ted_bloody_maul]

Run away to somewhere cooler seems to be the idea there.

Failing that, get a boat or swim.

It won't last long, then there will probably be another Ice Age due to the Gulf Stream collapsing.

If that happens then carbon or no carbon, it will get cooler up north.

S'not all that bad though, apparently the Stradivarius was made out of wood in Italy that was altered slightly due to being frozen then warmed up a bit. Unique wood apparently came of this process.

See? Every cloud (if you have one in the sky in your part of the world) has a silver lining.

At the moment, though, it's mainly for political reasons that people are becoming refugees. There's economic reasons as well and undoubtedly in non-industrialised countries those reasons can be informed by environmental factors but ultimately it's the lack of an adequately functioning economy that's forcing people to go to other countries. That malfunctioning has probably got more to do with political failures than environmental ones.

 

[Pietro_Mercurios]

...

At the moment, though, it's mainly for political reasons that people are becoming refugees. There's economic reasons as well and undoubtedly in non-industrialised countries those reasons can be informed by environmental factors but ultimately it's the lack of an adequately functioning economy that's forcing people to go to other countries. That malfunctioning has probably got more to do with political failures than environmental ones.

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/fromthefield/218275/117913187139.htm

World facing worst migration crisis

Reuters Alert Net. 14 May 2007. Source: Christian Aid - UK

At least 1 billion people will be forced from their homes between now and 2050 as the effects of climate change deepen an already burgeoning global migration crisis, predicts a new report by Christian Aid.

Download the report below: • Download the report (full graphic version) (2mb PDF- this file may take time to download) http://www.christianaid.org.uk/indepth/ ... n_tide.pdf

• Download the report (low graphic version) (748kb PDF) http://www.christianaid.org.uk/indepth/ ... tide3_.pdf

These future migrants will swell the ranks of the 155 million people already displaced by conflict, disaster and large-scale development projects. The vast majority will be from the world's poorest countries. Urgent action by the world community is needed if the worst effects of this crisis are to be averted, says Human tide: the real migration crisis.

'We believe that forced migration is now the most urgent threat facing poor people in the developing world,' says John Davison, the report's lead author.

Published to mark Christian Aid Week 2007, the report warns that the world is now facing its largest ever movement of people forced from their homes. The predicted numbers of displaced people could dwarf even those left as refugees following the Second World War.

The impact of climate change is the great, frightening unknown in this equation. Only now is serious academic attention being devoted to calculating the scale of this new human tide. Even existing estimates, more than a decade old, predict that hundreds of millions of people will be forced from their homes by floods, drought and famine sparked by climate change.

...

Mali lies in the Sahel belt of semi-arid land that straddles sub-Saharan Africa and is one of the areas vulnerable to global warming. Already farmers here are finding it impossible to live off the land in the way they have done for centuries. Erratic and declining levels of rainfall mean dramatically reduced crop yields - and people have to move in order to earn the money to feed their families.

...

>>Video: the human tide http://www.christianaid.org.uk/news/med ... 0514p.htm#

 

[ted_bloody_maul]

At least 1 billion people will be forced from their homes between now and 2050 as the effects of climate change deepen an already burgeoning global migration crisis, predicts a new report by Christian Aid.

All very depressing. Do you know how the present figures for climate migrants compare with non climate-related migrants at present, though (this article seems to be dealing with projected trends)?