open Democracy News Analysis - the politics of climate change - Comments

Blythboy on "The global politics of climate-change: after the G8 "

Blythboy — Wed, 03 Sep 2008 18:02:32 +0100

I quote from Chris Brooker,

"The idea that the IPCC represents any kind of genuine scientific "consensus" is a complete fiction.

A gain and again there have been examples of how evidence has been manipulated to promote the official line, the most glaring instance being the notorious "hockey stick".

Initially the advocates of global warming had one huge problem. Evidence from all over the world indicated that the earth was hotter 1,000 years ago than it is today.

This was so generally accepted that the first two IPCC reports included a graph, based on work by Sir John Houghton himself, showing that temperatures were higher in what is known as the Mediaeval Warming period than they were in the 1990s.

The trouble was that this blew a mighty hole in the thesis that warming was caused only by recent man-made CO2.

Then in 1999 an obscure young US physicist, Michael Mann, came up with a new graph like nothing seen before.

Instead of the familiar rises and falls in temperature over the past 1,000 years, the line ran virtually flat, only curving up dramatically at the end in a hockey-stick shape to show recent decades as easily the hottest on record.

This was just what the IPCC wanted, The Mediaeval Warming had simply been wiped from the record.
When its next report came along in 2001, Mann's graph was given top billing, appearing right at the top of page one of the Summary for Policymakers and five more times in the report proper.

But then two Canadian computer analysts, Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick, got to work on how Mann had arrived at his graph.

When, with great difficulty, they eventually persuaded Mann to hand over his data, it turned out he had built into his programme an algorithm which would produce a hockey stick shape whatever data were fed into it.

Even numbers from the phonebook would come out looking like a hockey stick.

By the time of its latest report, last year, the IPCC had an even greater problem. Far from continuing to rise in line with rising CO2, as its computer models predicted they should, global temperatures since the abnormally hot year of 1998 had flattened out at a lower level and were even falling – a trend confirmed by Nasa's satellite readings over the past 18 months.

So pronounced has this been that even scientists supporting the warmist thesis now concede that, due to changes in ocean currents, we can expect a decade or more of "cooling", before the "underlying warming trend" reappears.

The point is that none of this was predicted by the computer models on which the IPCC relies.
Among the ever-growing mountain of informed criticism of the IPCC's methods, a detailed study by an Australian analyst John McLean (to find it, Google "Prejudiced authors, prejudiced findings") shows just how incestuously linked are most of the core group of academics whose models underpin everything the IPCC wishes us to believe about global warming.

The significance of the past year is not just that the vaunted "consensus" on the forces driving our climate has been blown apart as never before, but that a new "counter-consensus" has been emerging among thousands of scientists across the world, given expression in last March's Manhattan Declaration by the so-called Non-Governmental Panel on Climate Change.

This wholly repudiates the IPCC process, showing how its computer models are hopelessly biased, based on unreliable data and programmed to ignore many of the genuine drivers of climate change, from variations in solar activity to those cyclical shifts in ocean currents.

As it was put by Roger Cohen, a senior US physicist formerly involved with the IPCC process, who long accepted its orthodoxy: "I was appalled at how flimsy the case is. I was also appalled at the behaviour of many of those who helped produce the IPCC reports and by many of those who promote it.
"In particular I am referring to the arrogance, the activities aimed at shutting down debate; the outright fabrications; the mindless defence of bogus science; and the politicisation of the IPCC process and the science process itself."

S. Whiteknact on "Living with Gustav"

S. Whiteknact — Tue, 02 Sep 2008 23:04:52 +0100

Tuesday 6:46 EST and I did not really, truly know if all is well (the media is always so wrong about it all) in the state and city that I love until I read this from the inimitable and wonderful Jim Gabour. Thanks baby.

Therese on "Living with Gustav"

Therese — Mon, 01 Sep 2008 00:58:01 +0100

Is you crazy? I'm a New Orleanian with my family tree existing only in Louisiana, who stayed till the last minute for Katrina before evacuating about an hour away (not much better), though my sister stayed behind, and I think that you're utterly insane to stay so late when you can leave early.

Leigh Harwood on "Live Earth's limits"

Leigh Harwood — Sun, 03 Aug 2008 17:03:27 +0100

I fully agree with one of the previous comments made on this issue regarding the Live Earth event. The shining definition of the word 'hypocrisy' in my opinion. We are living in a society today that for all intents and purposes - thrives on the 'perverse'. Companies, governments and industry are the worst for it - solely because they stand to profit from it far more than the working man/woman. Many issues relating to current matters of our time are exploited in this menacing way, particularly Global warming. Everything today seems seems so superifical; image is seen as everything, but the substance to justify it - irrelevant or unworthy of attention. This puzzles my sense of understanding in more ways than one. I really do think that most of our problems today are attributable to the wealthy elite of our world, as seen in the Live Earth event, who spare no time in preaching their self-righteous messages to the rest of us, fuelling the heated debate even further, whilst remaining remarkably unaffected by the same given standards. If more people in this world were given a taste of their own medicine, particularly those in positions of power and influence, they may very well think twice before infliciting it on others. A wise man once said 'that authority without wisdom is like a heavy axe without an edge; it is fitter to bruise than polish'. Truer words have never been spoken,

Climate Guru on "The global politics of climate-change: after the G8 "

Climate Guru — Sat, 19 Jul 2008 12:10:14 +0100

This is a very clear account of some of the doublespeak that comes out of G8 leaders. Well done to the ippr for bringing together civil society in this new network.

Not logged in on "Climate change: the last chance"

Not logged in — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 05:36:09 +0100

This is a great idea; it is the most workable solution to bring GHG emissions under control that I've heard.

I would change the proposal slightly: Do not let the UN get anywhere near the regulation of this. The UN is a toothless pawn that will be unable to effectively curb emissions.

jayr on "Climate change: the last chance"

jayr — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 16:51:32 +0100

Discovery channel is doing a special called Alaska week, and have shown some effects of the climate change, warmer weather allowing a particular beetle to survive has been killing forests, ice is melting faster each summer and one of the scientists who had visited a glacier when he was a child took a photo from the same location and they showed how far back it has melted. I've been doing my part to help reduce energy usage by changing all the bulbs in my house to CFL's, adding extra insulation through out the house, sealing up cracks where air can get in / out as well as getting double glazing for some windows that were older.

Kathryn Elizabeth on "Undercurrent"

Kathryn Elizabeth — Fri, 11 Apr 2008 14:34:58 +0100

This sounds like something my brother could have written! I only wish he and his family didn't live so far.

reconcile on "Jesus pulls a right cross"

reconcile — Mon, 25 Feb 2008 22:46:50 +0000

Hi Jim,

I hope you are well.

I read your article with laughter, although I'm ultimately very sad about the story - laughter because I really like your writing style that totally brings the story to life, sad because of the insulting experiences you and many of your friends have experienced over many years at Mardi Gras. I very much doubt that the actual Christ would have hurled abuse at random strangers.

As for me, Mardi Gras is not really my scene, but I'm fully aware of the log in my own eye.

Have a great day Jim.

Blessing,

Olau

Follower of Christ

alleywattson on "Who gains from global warming?"

alleywattson — Sun, 24 Feb 2008 16:19:10 +0000

Stopping global warming isn't realistic right now. Our beautiful blue-green globe is warming so fast right now it can't be halted immediately. The best we can do is slow the warming. Then we can stop the warming and, hopefully, reverse it.

But first things first. It's great there are lots of individuals who are consuming less energy and recycling as much as they can. Unfortunately, there aren't enough of them to make much of a change.

That's why the government has to exercise strong leadership and prerequisite commitment. Treaties and studies are important, but doesn't change anything. Doing good things now is better than waiting until later to do the perfect thing.

Andy's site

Greek Tragedy on "Greece: the political ecology of disaster"

Greek Tragedy — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 14:21:20 +0000

Indeed Greece is a shithole with no bottom to this abyss of government corruption and corruption in multi-national companies. Ordinary people get treated like dirt in Greece and there is no meritocracy based on skills, knowledge and aptitude or ability. The media, television and the government is ruled by rogues, criminals and people of “total nothingness”. Basically the only thing that will save Greece is a bloody revolution. What can one say when the only ambitions of Greeks are to own a Cayenne or some other overly priced gas guzzling SUV, when government, local authorities and companies are behind the destructive fires of last summer which burnt at least a third of the country - where the price of a coffee is 5 euros where people are threatened by their managers to work up to 11 at night in multinational companies with no extra pay because they too are subject to fraudulent tactics, where people do not know their basic human rights and even if they do there is no way of fighting for these, where the justice system is constantly bribed and all judges and lawyers involved in black money and shady contracts, where the minister of employment employs illegal immigrants with no social security and moreover, was hiding income and property from the IRS and he is still free rather than having being locked up in jail for 30 years, where nobody wants to get involved in anyhting of substance, where unemployment is rife among qualified personnel almost 30% (do not believe government figures - they are false) because jobs are held by people of “nothingness” earning 600 euros per month - illegal pay according to EU law - I too, was a victim in the last company I worked for Proodos S.A. - Seafreight Department where the obnoxious and inferiority complexed manager coerced me and threatened me on a daily basis to stay in the office until 11 at night with 1000 euros pay - where everything sucks - where people purposefully and willingly destroy the environment for profit where if people do not take power into their own hands Greece will turn into a disaster without rebait and without return.

Unfortunately Greece is not worthy of anything anymore - all people care about is to buy a Cayenne or another environmentally unfriendly gas guzzling SUV, destroy their forests and natural habitats, appear on a cheap show on the abismal and subcrap Greek television, work in companies with euro 600 per month up to 11 o’ clock at night and the only things banks do is to dish out more loans as though they were chocolates.

I will do my best to discourage people from visiting my country be it for business or holidays - we deserve the worst!!

PROUD TO BE GREEK BUT DISMALLY ASHAMED OF LIVING IN GREECE.

eduardodfj on "Who gains from global warming?"

eduardodfj — Mon, 07 Jan 2008 21:00:47 +0000

There is no direct relationship between economic growth and population, in despite of the fact that richer countries have lower population growth rates. Reality is much more complex: population growth in poorer countries is bigger because of many factors: lower education, family planning, better health care than in the past (sensibly as a consequence of their interaction with richer countries), and so on. So "Lower economic growth" or "negative economic growth" have no absolute meaning: there is lower economic growth if there is a war of a famine, also if there is a crisis affecting a nevertheless rich country (say Japan)... Also if the policy is to reduce economic growth in order to make it sustainable. This later case is not very realistic, given capitalism, but I'm afraid is the only way around the wall we all seem to be heading at a very fast pace. In my opinion, there will be no credible alternative until we (meaning the people plus the politicians plus basically everybody else) realize we need to change or erradicate capitalism... In spite of this being very highly unlikely.

jamesg17 on "Who gains from global warming?"

jamesg17 — Sun, 30 Dec 2007 19:40:50 +0000

"The growth in pollution and consumption over the last decades has a direct correlation with economic growth." Correlation is not causation. This idea is one of those simplistic pervading myths which leads you to draw false conclusions. In fact, the population explosion comes entirely from the poorer countries. In all the richer countries the populations are shrinking or level - which is why the economists are fond of talking about the demographic time-bomb. The US is the only G8 country with increasing population but that is entirely due to immigration from poorer countries. Why is this? It's just a plain fact that richer families tend to have fewer children, mainly because they have their children later in life and specifically plan the number of children they want - usually 2. Isn't that what all of you did? In contrast, in poorer countries they start young and have many. So increasing economic growth reduces the number of babies born. One might then expect that reducing economic growth will increase the population. So not only is it morally wrong to do so, it is completely wrong. This is not controversial but is proven in study after study.

pendragon.jay on "The world and climate change: all together now"

pendragon.jay — Thu, 20 Dec 2007 17:30:11 +0000

Civilisation – The Reckoning For millennia wise men (and women), have told us that what we think creates how we live, and few would disagree. In this 21st century we still understand little about who and what we are as a species, as our technological achievements continue to outstrip our understanding of each other . . . and this is at the heart of our inability to make progress in dealing with climate change. It is our traditional beliefs that cause our ceaseless conflict with each other and have created the desperate global situation we now find ourselves in. Consequently it must follow that these beliefs are totally incapable of providing the solutions to the problems they have created. We believe it is our right to take from this planet whatever, whenever and however we choose, without any thought or responsibility for managing what we are doing – and still continues today in spite of accelerating climate change. We are seeing increasing droughts and drying up of riverbeds, as well as flooding from whatever causes and rising temperatures. All of these changes in environmental balance directly affect our water supplies and seriously hinder food production, leading to our increasing inability to feed ourselves. We are now further increasing this dangerous situation as we begin to our use our food stocks for ethanol production to propel our transport. If we now place in this equation our belief in financial management and the law of supply and demand to regulate what we use, then a growing shortage of food means ever increasing prices. This in turn will see an increasing number of people unable to feed themselves as basic life sustaining nourishment is taken beyond their financial capabilities. We are already beginning to see the price of basic foodstuffs rise to feed the growing demand for ethanol. Rising grain prices directly affect the prices of our other food sources such as meat and eggs, where up to a 20% increase in prices has occurred over just the last 12 months in China alone – and theirs is quite a large population! As this problem escalates our traditional political institutions will need to be seen to be doing something, and so we lapse into blame as one nation accuses another of hoarding. The application of “labels” begins as hatred is stirred up between supposedly differing groups, be they racial, religious or any other ethnic grouping. And so we deteriorate into conflict, further expanding the threat to our existence as a civilisation through the powerful weapons we have now developed, and our inability to manage them effectively because of the ancient beliefs we still hold about each other and our surroundings. The most powerful nation may come out on top by annihilating everyone else - but as global war escalates, who can say with any degree of certainty that they too will not blow themselves off the face of this beautiful planet, given the nature of modern terrorist warfare and the inability to determine who is the ”enemy”? I honestly do not believe I am exaggerating anything within this scenario, but simply applying the effects of our traditional and limiting beliefs to the growing problem we are creating, and which they can only fuel rather than resolve. By challenging what we believe, and in so doing changing our relationship with each other and our surroundings, I believe it is possible to create the opportunity for a huge evolutionary leap forward as a species. We are at a unique moment in time in our history and embedded within this era are the ingredients for either our destruction or survival – the choice is ours. If we do not bother to commit to fundamental changes in what we believe in, and the time comes when we seek to protect our young from rising temperatures - holding them close to us as we huddle precariously on the roofs of our houses, and with rescuers unable to get to us because of the approach of more tidal waves which will sweep over us, it’s no good saying “We’re very very sorry, we won’t do it again!” – Its not right or wrong - it just didn’t work.

steven_12 on "Who gains from global warming?"

steven_12 — Thu, 20 Dec 2007 10:30:21 +0000

Hey daniel,

I think I can agree with most of what you say. But there's another problem.

Steven