There is No Global Warming?

[conspiracy analyst]

There is No Global Warming

There is no global warming. Period.

You can't find a real scientist anywhere in the world who can look you
in the eye and, without hesitation, without clarification, without
saying, kinda, mighta, sorta, if, and or but...say "yes, global
warming is with us."

There is no evidence whatsoever to support such claims. Anyone who
tells you that scientific research shows warming trends - be they
teachers, news casters, Congressmen, Senators, Vice Presidents or
Presidents - is wrong. There is no global warming.

Scientific research through U.S. Government satellite and balloon
measurements shows that the temperature is actually cooling - very
slightly - .037 degrees Celsius.

A little research into modern-day temperature trends bears this out.
For example, in 1936 the Midwest of the United States experienced 49
consecutive days of temperatures over 90 degrees. There were another
49 consecutive days in 1955. But in 1992 there was only one day over
90 degrees and in 1997 only 5 days.

Because of modern science and improved equipment, this "cooling" trend
has been most accurately documented over the past 18 years.
Ironically, that's the same period of time the hysteria has grown over
dire warnings of "warming."

Changes in global temperatures are natural. There is no proof that
temperature is affected by anything that man has done.

In fact, recent severe weather has been directly attributed to a
natural phenomenon that occurs every so often called El Nino. It
causes ocean temperatures to rise as tropical trade winds actually
reverse for a time.

The resulting temperature changes cause severe storms, flooding and
even draught on every continent on earth.

It's completely natural. El Nino has been wreaking its havoc across
the globe since long before man appeared.

How about the reports that the polar ice cap is melting?

Well, yes it is. In fact, it has been for about a million years or so.
We are at the end of the ice age in which ice covered most of North
American and Northern Europe.

There's at least one environmentalist, named Al Gore, who is panicking
over the possibility that we may soon lose Glacier National Park in
Montana because the ice is melting.

One hates to tell him that we've already lost the glacier that used to
cover the whole country.

Perhaps he'll want to start working for new regulations from the
Interior Department to begin immediately restoring this lost
historical environmental treasure. Re-establishing a sheet of ice
covering the entire continent would certainly serve to stop mining,
timber cutting and urban sprawl.

The truth is, someday humans may be able to take tropical vacations at
the North Pole - and it will be perfectly natural.

Yet our world is being flooded with the dire predictions of Global
Warming.

We are being warned of killer heat waves, vast flooding and the spread
of tropical diseases. Ocean levels are rising, they say. America's
coast lines are doomed, they tell us. Hurricanes and tornadoes have
already become more violent, we are warned. Floods and droughts have
begun to ravage the nation, they cry.

Any change in temperatures, or an excessive storm or extended flooding
is looked upon as a sure sign that environmental Armageddon is upon
us. Diabolical environmentalists are using the natural El Nino
phenomenon to whip people into a Global Warming hysteria.

TWO KINDS OF SCIENTISTS

We are assured by the White House that scientists everywhere are
sounding these warmings and that we may only have one chance to stop
it.

Well, as the debate rages, we find that there really are two kinds of
"scientists."

There are those who look at facts and make their judgements based on
what they know.

Their findings can be matched by any other scientist, using the same
data and set of circumstances to reach the same conclusions. It's a
age-old practice called peer reviewing. It's the only true science.

And then there are those who yearn for a certain outcome and set about
creating the needed data to make it so. Usually you will find this
group of scientists greatly dependent on grants supplied by those with
a specific political agenda who demand desired outcomes for their
money.

Let's just take NASA, for example - the most trusted name in American
science.

A lot of NASA scientists have fallen into this trap. Environmental
science has become the life-blood of the space program as the nation
has lost interest in space travel. To keep the bucks coming, NASA has
justified shuttle trips through the use of earth-directed
environmental research. And the budgets keep coming.

At the same time, many of NASA's scientists come with a political
agenda in great harmony with those who advocate the green agenda. And
they're not above using their position to aid that agenda whenever the
chance is available.

This was never more clearly demonstrated than in 1992 when a team of
three NASA scientists were monitoring conditions over North America to
determine if the Ozone layer was in danger.

Inconclusive data indicated that conditions might be right for ozone
damage over North America, if certain things happened.

True scientists are a careful lot. They study, they wait and, many
times they test again before drawing conclusions.

Not so, the green zealot. Of this three-member NASA team, two could
not be sure of what they had found and wanted to do more research.

But one took the data and rushed to the microphones, with all of the
drama of a Hollywood movie, announced in hushed tones that NASA had
discovered an Ozone hole over North America.

Then Senator Al Gore rushed to the floor of the Senate with the news
and drove a stampede to immediately ban freon - five years before
Congress had intended - and without a suitable substitute. He then
bullied President George Bush to sign the legislation by saying the
Ozone hole was over Kennebunkport - Bush's vacation home.

Two months later NASA announced, on the back pages of the newspapers,
that further research had shown that there was no such damage. But it
was too late. Remember that when you have to buy a new air conditioner
or refrigerator for no reason other than your freon has run out of the
old one.

FLAWED COMPUTER MODELS

Then there are those computer models. Night after night Americans
watch the local news as the weatherman predicts what kind of a day
tomorrow will be. These meteorologists, using the most up-to-date
equipment available, boldly give you the five-day forecast.

But it's well known that, even with all of their research and
expensive equipment, it really is just a "best guess." There are just
too many variables. If the wind picks up here it could blow in a
storm, if the temperature drops here it could start to snow. The earth
is a vast and wondrous place. Weather does what it wants.

Yet those who are promoting the global-warming theory have the
audacity to tell you they can forecast changes in the global climate
decades into the future.

The truth is computer models are able to include only two out of 14
components that make up the climate system. To include the third
component would take a computer a thousand times faster than we now
have. To go beyond the third component requires an increase in
computer power that is so large only mathematicians can comprehend the
numbers.

Moreover, even if the computer power existed, scientists do not
understand all the factors and the relationships between them that
determine the global climate.

So it's an outrage for Al Gore, Bill Clinton and the Sierra Club to
tell you that Global Warming is a fact and that we Americans must now
suffer dire changes in our lifestyle to stop it.

SCIENTISTS ARE NOT ON AL'S BAND WAGON

And so too is it an outrage for Al Gore to tell you that most true
scientists now agree that global warming is a fact.

What he doesn't tell you is that almost 500 scientists from around the
world signed the Heidleburg Appeal in 1992 just prior to the Earth
Summit in Rio de Janeiro, expressing their doubts and begging the
delegates not to bind the world to any dire treaties based on global
warming. Today that figure has grown to over 4000.

He also doesn't tell you that recently a Gallup Poll of eminent North
American climatologists showed that 83 percent of them debunked the
global warming theory.

And the deceit knows no bounds. The United Nations released a report
at the end of 1996 saying Global Warming was a fact, yet before
releasing the report two key paragraphs were deleted from the final
draft.

Those two paragraphs, written by the scientists who did the actual
scientific analysis said:

1. "none of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we
can attribute the observed climate changes to increases in greenhouse
gases."

2. "no study to date has positively attributed all or part of the
climate change to ...man-made causes."

Global warming is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the people of
the world - bar none.

THE CLIMATE CHANGE PROTOCOL

Those who have been fighting against the green agenda have been
warning that modern-day environmentalism has nothing whatsoever to do
with protecting the environment.

Rather it is a political movement led by those who seek to control the
world economies, dictate development and redistribute the world's
wealth.

They use the philosophical base of Karl Marx, the tactics of Adolph
Hitler and the rhetoric of the Sierra Club.

The American people have been assaulted from all directions by rabid
environmentalists.

School children have been told that recycling is a matter of life and
death.

Businesses have been shut down. Valuable products like freon have been
removed from the market. Chemicals and pesticides that helped to make
this nation the safest and healthiest in the world are targeted for
extinction.

Our entire nation is being restructured to fit the proper green mold.
All of it for a lie about something that doesn't exist.

But the lie is about to grow to massive proportions --- and the game
is about to get very serious indeed.

In December of this year Bill Clinton will travel to Kyoto, Japan to
sign a legally-binding United Nations treaty called the Climate Change
Protocol.

The sole argument for this treaty is that Global Warming is a fact and
we must take severe action to stop it.

Right now the Clinton Administration is bombarding the airwaves with
the sales pitch. Conferences are being held in cities across the
country. Special reports, magazine articles and documentaries are all
being used to pound home the message - global warming is here - we
must stop it.

But the most offensive assault on the expression of free thought by
the American people, as the Administration drives to sell you this
snake oil, was committed by Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt. Babbitt
said that anyone opposed to the fight to stop Global Warming was
"unAmerican."

He accused those opposed to the Climate Change Treaty of engaging in a
"conspiracy to hire pseudo scientists to deny the facts." So now,
according to Babbitt, to disagree with the Clinton Administration is
tantamount to treason.

In fact the Climate Change Protocol is a legally binding international
treaty through which signing nations agree to cut back their energy
emissions to 15 percent below 1990 levels. And the treaty says this
goal is to be accomplished by as early as the year 2010.

That means that all of the energy growth since 1990 would be rolled
back, plus 15 percent more in just twelve years.

Yes, there are negotiations, debates and arguments taking place over
the exact terms of the treaty as we speak. Perhaps the final version
won't be so severe.

But it doesn't matter. Such a massive disruption in the American
economy, particularly since it has nothing to do with protecting the
environment, will devastate this nation.

To meet such drastically-reduced energy standards will, in the short
run, cost the United States over one million jobs. Some estimate it
will cost over seven million jobs in 14 years. If the treaty sends the
economy into a tailspin, as many predict, it will cost even more jobs.

It will cost the average family $1,000 to $4,000 dollars per year in
increased energy costs. The cost of food will skyrocket.

It has been estimated that in order for the United States to meet such
a goal the U.S. gross domestic product will be reduced by $200 billion
- annually.

To force down energy use the Federal government will have to enforce a
massive energy tax that will drive up the cost of heating your home by
as much as 30 to 40 percent.

In all likelihood there will be a tax on gasoline - as high as 60
cents per gallon.

There will be consumption taxes and carbon taxes.

The purpose of these punitive costs is to drive up the cost of modern
living in order to force you to drastically change your lifestyle.
That is the diabolical plan behind this restructuring scheme.

Every single product that is produced with the use of energy will
increase in price. Including items like aspirin, contact lenses and
tooth paste.

Yet just recently Bill Clinton said that compliance with the treaty
would not hurt the economy. He said he can "grow the economy and do
right by the environment."

The truth is, to date, the Clinton administration has refused to
release an economic impact analysis of the effects of the treaty.

But a leaked study by the Department of Energy's Argonne Laboratory
finds that the treaty will cripple six U.S. industries including
paper, steel, petroleum refining, chemical manufacturing, aluminum and
cement. That about sums up the economy.

When Clinton is through complying with the treaty you may find
yourself sitting in a dark house after lights have been ordered off
early in the evening, unable to drive your car because of gas
shortages, unable to walk to the shopping mall because stores will be
ordered closed after dark, even if you have a job and money to spend.

GLOBAL RAID ON AMERICAN WEALTH

But perhaps you still are not convinced. Maybe you still cling to the
idea that such drastic action is necessary - that our president and
the UN delegates are really in a panic over global warming and are
trying to find a solution.

Then ask yourselves why the treaty will only bind developed nations to
its draconian emission levels.

You see, only developed industrial nations will be bound by the
treaty.

Undeveloped Third-World nations will be free to produce whatever they
want. These will include China, India, Brazil and Mexico. And guess
what? 82% of the projected emissions growth in coming years is from
these countries.

Now ask yourself, if the Climate Change Protocol is all about
protecting the environment - then how come it doesn't cover everybody?
The truth, of course, is that the treaty is really about
redistribution of the wealth.

The wealth of the United States is and has always been the target. The
new scheme to grab the loot is through environmental scare tactics.

If, today, you were to attend a UN session on the Climate Change
Protocol you would find yourself in a discussion with excited
delegates from Third-World countries. They would make comments to you
like, "when the technology transfer takes place my country will begin
producing this or that item."

Translation - when the United States is stupid enough to fall for this
scheme, the third world will take up the slack and get rich.

And international corporations, who owe allegiance to no nation, will
bolt America and move their factories, lock, stock and computer chip,
to those Third-World countries where they will be free to carry on
production.

But that means the same emissions will be coming out of the jungles of
South America instead of Chicago.

So where is the protection of the environment? You see it's not about
that - is it?

Still not convinced? One more thing. Hidden in the small print of the
treaty is a provision that calls for the "harmonizing of patent laws."

Now, robbing a nation of its patent protection is an interesting
tactic for protecting the environment, don't you think?

CAN IT BE STOPPED?

Bill Clinton, pushed by Al Gore and the massive green lobby, is
determined to sign that treaty. The war has been engaged.

Industry is finally beginning to wake up to the terrifying threat of
the green monster that it helped to create. For the past three decades
industry has given into every outrageous green demand. And it has
fueled the monster by filling green coffers with massive tax-
deductible donations. Now industry finds itself trapped.

But more frightening is the fact that many prominent proponents of
property rights and limited government still fail to see the danger in
the treaty. Many say the Senate will never ratify such a treaty.

They point out that, in a vote of 95-0, the U.S. Senate rejected in a
"non-binding" resolution the Climate Change Protocol. That
overwhelming vote, they say, will stop Clinton in his tracks.

That resolution was presented by Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia.
He, along with Congressman John Dingle of Michigan have led the
opposition against the treaty. Republican leadership, so far, has been
silent.

It is, of course, commendable that Senator Byrd and Congressman Dingle
have taken the lead to do "something" to protect American interests.
But both of them are established liberal Democrats, who have based
their opposition solely on the fact that only industrial nations are
tied to the treaty.

That's not fair, they say, and so they oppose the treaty - "as now
written." Apparently they are taking the stand that if America must be
enslaved, then it's only fair that the rest of the world share our
misery.

Not once have they said the whole concept is wrong. Not once have they
challenged the validity of the science that is based on the supposed
fact of global warming.

Is this then the wall of defense that we are to hide behind? Are we
now to entrust the very future of our Republic onto the shoulders of
Senator Byrd and Congressman Dingle? That appears to be the current
wisdom of our leaders on Capitol Hill.

Wary Americans, of course, know what will happen next. The story is
all too familiar. Very soon Clinton will summon Byrd and Dingle to the
White House and offer them a compromise. Then everyone will smile for
the cameras and the Republicans, in the spirit of bipartisanship, will
give away the store. In fact, that process has already begun.

So Bill Clinton is moving full-speed-ahead with his plan to travel to
Kyoto, Japan this December to sign the Climate Change Protocol. When
he does, and after the Senate has ratified it, the final blow will
have been struck.

The United States of America will begin a long, agonizing decent -
strangled by its own hand.

The question now is; can it be stopped? And more importantly, will we
even try.$ e target. The new scheme to grab the loot is through
environmental scare tactics.

[Ignatz]

The above is a copy+paste from
http://www.americanpolicy.org/un/thereisnoglobal.htm ,
a right-wing, virulently anti-UN site. Check the site for yourselves.

If anything is funded by the NWO/Illuminati, this baby is.

How ironic.

[ian neal]

You have a point ignatz, not that you should be posting here.

I am extremely wary of the likes of Paul Joseph Watson (someone not noted for his academic studies of climate change) supporting the arguments made in the recent C4 swindle documentary apparently without qualification.

My advice is don't jump to conclusions unless you have really studied the science from all sides. What I would acknowledge is that there is considerable uncertainty about climate science and the modelling of climate change, but I have read equally compelling evidence that challenges the evidence put forward in the 'swindle' documentary and present a convincing argument that the dangers of runaway change (fed by positive feedback mechanisms) is very real.

When the stakes are this high, you had better know your science. Otherwise we risk having the world run by slick 'economists' like Bjorn Lomborg who acknowledge they know precious little about climatology

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/february2007/130207globalwarming. htm

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/march2007/120307Breathing.htm

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/march2007/120307newworldorder.htm

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/march2007/130307doanything.htm

One area I would like to know more about is the relationship between the schumann resonance and climate change. Any help?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schumann_resonance

[conspiracy analyst]

is copy paste from an anti-UN site does not mean much to me.

Bush is anti-UN leading the invasion of Iraq without a vote as he would have lost it.

The issue is that although much is being played out about 'climate change' I would position it somewhere else.

Big business is seeking to exploit concerns to its advantage.
In the last week we have been informed of a return to the middle ages in terms of rubbish collection. It soon will be cancelled.

Ealing council is only collecting rubbish 2 a month which soon will become 1 a month and then never despite the 100% increases in council taxes in the last 10 years.

Marks and Spencers has started a 'green' campaign despite outsourcing most of its production to third world countries whose labour and environmental standards are non existent. They now make jeans in Bangladesh, jackets in Indonesia and other apparel in Morocco...

[ian neal]

No argument from me that the majority of business claims to be socially and environmentally responsible are largely corporate propaganda and froth that fails to acknowledge the fundamental injustice of global trade and the corporations responsibility in perpetuating this injustice.

But then I would argue that a great deal of the noise about business facing up to climate change is also greenwash. BP: Beyond Petroleum, etc, pleeeeese.

Many of the voices featured in the 'swindle' documentary are clearly linked with the business-as-usual, global warming denial lobby. That should lead us all to question their motivations and sincerity.

[truthseeker john]

Yes, there is global warming. Period!

The debate is often over what is causing global warming and people ask stupid binary (on or off) questions such as, 'is it due to a natural cycle or is it because of man’s pollution?' when it does appear to be both.

Like it or not global warming is here and yes it does seem to be (partly) because of a natural cycle. The thing we humans are doing wrong is accelerating global warming and because it’s very inconvenient for some to admit any responsibility, they try to prove that global warming doesn’t exist at all. Typical.

[ian neal]

The other important area to feed into the debate on climate change and which I still believe receives insufficient attention is the potential of global warming to throw up what the IPCC refers to as 'large scale singular events' and which could be summarised as the risk of runaway climate change: i.e. climate change being driven by one or a combination of positive feedback mechanisms that accelerates change and moves it beyond the ability of humanity to check and stabalise.

Here is an exchange that explores some of these risks

The climate is changing in ways that threaten to deepen poverty throughout the world. Those involved in engineering have a particular responsibility to highlight the challenges posed by climate change and to help develop solutions that put poverty reduction at the heart of our responses to it. But questions remain about the rate and severity of climate change and about the best ways to respond. We asked freelance journalist (Y) debate these issues with (X). I'm X

Dear X

I’m concerned that alarmist rhetoric is confusing our response to climate change. Writing in the Independent recently, James Lovelock said that “before this century is over billions of us will die and the few breeding pairs of people that survive will be in the Arctic where the climate remains tolerable.” The Institute for Public Policy Research recently studied attitudes to climate change and dubbed this kind of coverage “climate porn.” The danger is that people start to believe that the situation is so hopeless that there is no point in acting and when we do act, we produce bad policy.

It is my view that the climate is changing and that poor people are likely to be disproportionately effected by those changes. We must act, but it would be a mistake if our responses were based on the most extreme predictions. Thirty years ago remember, scientists were predicting cataclysmic results from ‘global cooling’. Perhaps we should be thankful that governments didn’t listen to the most extreme global cooling advice they were given at that time.

I worry too that there is a misanthropic subtext to the debate. Michael Meacher for example, a former Minister for the Environment, once referred to humans as ‘the virus’ infecting the Earth’s body. It is simply wrong to frame the problem in terms of the degradation of nature by an apparently malevolent human species. We should remember that the story of human progress is one of people using science and technology to adapt to changing circumstances.

Dear Y

Climate change induced by human activity is real and unprecedented. Because this reality has only become widely accepted recently and because the global climate is infinitely complex, the science of modelling global climate systems in the face of human induced climate change is new and uncertain. This lack of scientific certainty makes the debate about how quickly and radically we should respond a messy and heated one between competing schools of thought.

My concern is that with the lack of scientific consensus, the natural tendency of politicians, business and the media is to play down the risks of the most extreme predictions and stick on ‘safe ground’. And yet scientific uncertainty actually makes these extreme predictions more, not less likely. Far from being alarmist I find the growing body of science supporting the sudden onset climate chaos thesis to be distressing, but based on a sound understanding of how the global climate system functions and evolves.

Recently, many climatologists have come to understand that the world’s climate is more unstable than previously thought. Past climate patterns have shown episodes of rapid, catastrophic change as systems reach critical tipping points. Science now finds conclusively that in the past, the engines of world’s climate, the ocean currents, have radically changed direction and strength with devastating consequences-this change occurred quickly and semipermanently.

The 2 tipping points that are of most concern are the weakening of the warming influence of the Gulf Stream and the reversal of the Pacific Ocean currents known as el niño. The droughts and floods that followed in the wake of the1997-98 el Niño were so devastating that no one should underestimate the scale of the consequences and costs were this to become an established pattern.

Whilst we should remember the amazing capacity of humanity to adapt, we should also remember that humanity has never faced the risk of such a daunting global challenge before. The risk for catastrophic sudden onset climate change is sufficiently real. Its economic and human consequences would be so devastating that urgent and radical steps are needed to avert them now. We need to transform the global economy to a post carbon world rather than following a policy of “business as usual” with a few energy saving bulbs added on in the hopes that change will be slow and predictable enough that humanity will be able to adapt. In the case of climate change, prevention is better than cure. The question is how radical do our prevention strategies need to be.

Dear X

I was surprised that you made no reference to the needs of the poorest in all this. You seem preoccupied with the possibility of a medium or long term catastrophe at the expense of a real catastrophe here and now. Close to 40,000 people die each day of poverty related causes. Climate change is important, in as much as it affects our poverty reduction efforts. Given that you acknowledge the lack of a scientific consensus, your calls for ‘radical’ and ‘urgent’ steps seem odd. Surely, what we need is a cautious response, one that recognises the caveats and uncertainties in the science and balances competing demands on resources. After all, our planet is subject to many forces that as yet we know very little about and it would be an act of hubris and extreme imprudence to proceed as if we know more than we really do.

The costs of shifting to the low carbon economy that you seem to advocate are potentially enormous. Before we divert the massive resources needed, we should understand whether adapting to climate change could offer better returns. It is perfectly possible to change land use, build flood defences and create better infrastructure, particularly if we continue to grow wealthier in the meantime. That’s how China has lifted close to 500 million people out of poverty in recent years. Do you think it would have achieved that if it was simultaneously working towards a low carbon economy?

The adaptation and poverty reduction agendas are closely related. Activities aimed at building the capacity of poor countries to adapt to climate change for example, would be similar to those aimed currently at strengthening local institutional networks. Similarly, a lot of effort already goes into governance and natural resource management, both obvious points of intervention for building adaptation capacity too.

In summary and to paraphrase a former US President - it’s the elimination of poverty stupid!

Dear Y

You won’t find any disagreement between us on the close relationship between poverty reduction and the need to build the capacity especially of low income countries to adapt to climate change. This urgently needs greater investment.

The principle area of disagreement seems to lie in our understanding of the risks of the most harrowing or in your view “alarmist” scenarios. In particular I draw your attention again to the risk of catastrophic sudden onset climate change or the potential for global warming to generate “surprises”: what IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) refers to as “large-scale singular events”. The House of Lords Select Committee on Economic Affairs report on addresses this issue highlighting the consequences of the ‘gulf stream’ shutting down. Apart from its potential for large scale impacts, evidence also suggests that past climate change occurred within very short periods, leaving little time to react.

Sir David King thought this shut-down process might take only a decade and that temperatures might fall by 20C in this country. He suggested the tipping point would be the disappearance of the Greenland ice sheet and estimated a global temperature rise of just 2C would cause this. Given that the average of leading models predicts an increase of 3C by 2100, this is surely grounds for serious concern.

The truth is we don’t know how long we have before we reach an irreversible tipping point and at what level we need to stabilize, then reduce green house gas emmissions if we are to reverse global warming before reaching this tipping point. We are uncertain about where these tipping points lie and adaptation strategies would be futile in the face of runaway climate chaos.

Poverty reduction efforts are currently oriented towards increasing economic growth in developing countries. However, growth is nearly always dependent on activities that increase carbon emissions. Surely, the industrialized world has an obligation to radically reduce its carbon footprint whilst not constraining poverty reduction in ‘developing’ countries. A policy known as 'contraction and convergence’ would allow the domestic economies of poor countries to grow.

To summarize, I view these credible warnings of climate chaos as alarming rather than “alarmist”. Those that argue the world should adapt to climate change rather than restructuring the global economy to mitigate it, far from being cautious, I see as complacent bordering on extreme recklessness.

Dear X

Forgive me for drawing out the inconsistencies in your arguments. You acknowledge for example that “the global climate is infinitely complex”, but have no doubt that a reduction in carbon emissions will induce a linear and predictable reduction in climatic temperatures in the midst of that infinite complexity. You go on to claim that “scientific uncertainty [about
global warming] actually makes . . .extreme predictions more not less likely.”

Uncertainty doesn’t make something more or less likely, it simply means that we don’t know. And I’m at a loss to understand how you reconcile your acceptance of the need to help low income countries “adapt to climate change” with your claim of “the utter futility of adaptation strategies in the face of runaway climate chaos.” I have to concede that your contributions to this exchange illustrate much better than mine do, why we can’t allow such muddled thinking to inform our response to these problems.

Your criticism of “business as usual” and your cryptic call for “contraction” betray a coyness on your part to criticise economic growth directly. I’m not surprised. People appreciate the benefits of economic growth such as better standards of living, improved health and greater longevity and are likely to resist policies that threaten those benefits. More importantly, curtailing economic growth would be a tragedy when so many people still live in extreme poverty. Do you think for example that the G8 countries will honour their recent commitments on aid, trade and debt if their economies are simultaneously contracting?

This issue is too important to allow muddled thinking, apocalyptic ‘end times’ scenarios and climate porn to get in the way of cautious science and evidence based policy-making. Above all, our responses to climate change must be shaped by the overwhelming priority to eliminate poverty. Perhaps it’s time for us to be really visionary and start thinking about arnessing the positive effects of climate change?

Dear Y

My argument can be summarized as follows

Human activity is, beyond any reasonable doubt, significantly contributing to global warming.

A growing number of eminent climate scientists accept there is a very real risk, as articulated by Sir David King, the UK government’s Chief Scientific Advisor, that this warming could result in catastrophic “surprises”.

The speed and scale of these “surprises”, if they occur, would overwhelm the efforts of humanity to adapt.

In the face of these dangers, the only responsible action is to focus on mitigation: on stabilizing then reducing human impact on climate as opposed to continuing with a “business as usual” approach and trusting our capacity to adapt.

At the same time, greater investment is required in climate modeling to reduce the gaps in our knowledge. In case I was overly coy previously, let me say categorically that the prevailing global economic system is inherently unsustainable. Without major reform, the existing continuous growth model will undermine the very basis of our wealth creation: our biosphere.

The responsibility and capability for reforming this system and contracting our environmental footprint lies with the rich world. A policy of “contraction and convergence“ does not preclude economic growth in the poor world. Indeed, such a model allows for continued economic growth at the global scale provided this growth is achieved whilst simultaneously reducing our environmental footprint.

Now allow me to address specifically what you see as my muddled thinking. My claim that “scientific uncertainty [about global warming] actually makes...extreme predictions more not less likely” is true. To claim otherwise is to misunderstand the very basics of risk assessment, probability and data analysis. If the science was more certain and assuming this science did not support extreme scenarios, then the likelihood these predictions would come true becomes less and so the inverse applies.

Secondly, it is entirely consistent and reasonable to both support building capacity to adapt to the inevitable affects of climate change whilst warning of the futility of adaptation strategies were the world to face runaway climate change.

Finally, you appear to argue that we must choose between either tackling poverty or addressing climate change. This is a false argument. Given the political will, the resources exist to end extreme poverty tomorrow. The choices the world faces in addressing climate change require careful, impartial analysis of the risks, opportunities, costs and benefits of different options grounded in a strong understanding of the scientific evidence available whilst acknowledging its gaps. What is not helpful is a debate based on loaded terms such as ‘climate porn’ and ‘alarmist’, especially when such analysis is promoted by ‘economists’ who demonstrate limited understanding of climate science.

X

Post script: To clarify the risk argument, I should have said scientific uncertainty means that the risk or probability that an extreme scenario being true increases, rather than scientific uncertainty actually changing the truth

Sorry for the long cut and paste job but for obvious reasons I would rather not link to my work site

[bgmark2]

of course all based on carefully discerned arguemnets based on hystria, and a fear mongering media...what happened to the ozone layer hole...the media is so forgetful at times

[karlos]

Yes the whole ozone thing seams to be on the back burner
what about sulphur dioxide and methane too
for some reason the globalists want us to
use less water remember ken livingstone put a brick in your toilet
use less electric by using energy saving light bulbs
sit all day in traffic jams pumping more crud into our lungs
fly here, there and everywhere for £24.99 low cost causing alot of pollution
fly dead actors ashes into space
fly tourists into space
conctrete over the countryside and build more houses
import foods grown in israel by refridgerated air freight
drive bigger and faster cars
yet tax us to the hilt every which way

It is a load of lies this whole global warming conspiracy.
Ever since the ice age the world has been warming, the sunspots and solar flares affect us much more than any number of lightbulbs.
In roman times Britain was warm, wines were grown and made here and it was called the bread basket of europe.
Clean energy makes economic sense, conservation too, but for every one of us who is green what about those fat sweating yanks in their hummers eating their deep fried burritos.

And how environmentally freindly is those depleted uranium bombs being dropped on IRAQ?
That is why we should not be distracted by the media and concentrate on the real polluters of this planet
Bush and Blair and their cronies.

[rodin]

[conspiracy analyst]

Similar to the mad cow which they played permanently on tv footage to prove the disease exists in order to get rid of beef production we now have the newsreel of the melting ice cap the size of inner London which is a computer animated version done on a home laptop.

The fact that ice caps melt or weather changes is no sign of any imminent environmental collapse. Fake fears are substituted for real ones.

Those of wars, poverty, disease. They are the real environmental threats.