The truth does not win; the truth is just what is left when everything else is wasted
Quote of the day
Email & RSSSign up to oD's editorial summaries email:
openDemocracy likes
NavigationOur writers |
 |
Selling climate changePosts: Joined: 2005-10-05
The only way to sell climate change is get rid of the ballast of regressive environmentalists. Those who consider that the only way to combat climate change is by going back to living in caves and in general reminisce about the good old days. You know the ones: planes are bad, cars are bad, nuclear power is bad, and humans are bad too...
Get rid of regressive environmentalism and embrace progressive environmentalism. There are so many exciting new and old technologies that can help us deal with global warming. Hydrogen fuels, solar and wind energy, nuclear energy, GM crops.
We are humans, we worked so hard to get out of the caves. Let's not crawl back!
Message was edited by: ILJAY
Submitted on Fri, 2006-05-26 11:50
Re: Selling climate change? Well... I ain't buying it
ILJAY,
I think the problem is far, far worse than what you allude to. I don't believe there is such a thing as 'progressive environmentalism'. Well... if there is, I haven't seen any recently.
Right now we've got that well known climatologist, Sir David Attenborough shoving environmentalism down our throats like it's going out of fashion. Now it's openDemocracy, doing exactly the same thing. They argue that they need people of 'vision' to persuade people like me to change my behaviour - but, I wont. I'm not going to stop travelling on cheap flights to Europe, nor will I stop driving my car, and, nor do I care where the electricity comes from that powers my laptop. I will always continue to flush the loo everytime I use it, and I will always leave my TV and laptop on standby when I'm not using it.
If climate change is decending upon us - then let it decend. Bring it on I say. Humanity can deal with anything that's thrown at it, including climate change. It's environmentalists who believe that humanity cannot cope with such things as climate change, and it's this lack of belief in the human potential, is what makes environmentalism so regressive.
The way this debate is going, it's only a matter of time before people start realising that, climate change, is actually, a price well worth paying for our modern way of living, and for progress in general.
http://neo-jacobins.blogspot.com/
Submitted on Fri, 2006-05-26 13:11
reply Re: Selling climate change? Well... I ain't buying it
Courtney,
I am not sure if you were sarcastic but Sir David Attenborough is not a climatologist at all. He's a wildlife documentary maker.
Humanity can deal with anything that's thrown at it, including climate change. It's environmentalists who believe that humanity cannot cope with such things as climate change, and it's this lack of belief in the human potential, is what makes environmentalism so regressive.
That is exactly what I was referring to.
Submitted on Tue, 2006-05-30 09:23
reply Re: Selling climate change? Well... I ain't buying it
Sorry Courtney, of course you know who David Attenborough is, being a London boy :-) By the way, I like your blog.
I guess the main issue I have with environmentalism is that they want their cake and eat it too. Like burning coal is bad, solar and wind are not there yet and not reliable but we don't like nuclear, so we can't have it. Or we need to save Africa from malaria but we don't like DDT (curiously the reason malaria is no longer a threat in the developed world) so some Africans must die while we are saving the planet.
I suspect they are more interested in moralizing and posturing that makes them feel more self-important rather than solving the problems. Makes me chuckle when they have a conference and plant trees to offset emissions afterwards. Perhaps just cancel the conference. Or when Australian academic Tim Flannery flies to Canada to stand next to a polar bear and let us know that due to the dreaded emissions (planes are the worst, I hear), the polar bears face extinctions. It's telling isn't it?
Ilya
Submitted on Tue, 2006-05-30 11:46
reply
Re: Selling climate change? Well... I ain't buying it
Ilya,
Your right, I knew David Attenborough M'lud, was not a climatologist, and neither is the Arch Bishop of Canterbury, but that didn't stop him from pontificating on the BBC radio 4's Today programme, about the 'moral' aspects of climate change.
"I suspect they are more interested in moralizing and posturing that makes them feel more self-important rather than solving the problems."
This aptly describes Simon Retallack's article, he no longer wants to debate the science of climate change, or global warming. Questions, like hasn't the Earth been warming since the Ice-age, some 18,000 years ago, no longer need to be answered. Indeed, those who have the termerity to question environmentalists orthodoxy about climate change, can now expect to be recast as irresponsible, or morally degenerate, or worse, someone who just has plan 'old thinking'.
As far as Retallack is concerned, discourse on climate change should, if at all possible, be devoid of scientific content, and a more moral tone should be adopted in order to change peoples behaviour. Or as the FrameWorks Institute put it, the issue of global warming needs to reframed into 'the context of higher-level values' - or, in other words, heavily moralised.
"Makes me chuckle when they have a conference and plant trees to offset emissions afterwards. Perhaps just cancel the conference."
Precisely. Or like environmentalists who fly around the globe (sporting a better tan than myself), moaning about the 'evil' aviation industry. Or, the environmentalists who constantly bombard my my high-tech laptop, with low-tech messages about the 'nightmare of modern living'. It's just like what you argued above, they want their cake, and they want to eat it all too.
Submitted on Thu, 2006-06-01 12:34
reply Re: Selling climate change? Well... I ain't buying it
Courtney,
I think that the big reason for the rampant environmentalism and so called scientific consensus stems from the monetarisation of global warming issue. Basically, because it is such a topic of concern, there is a lot of money around for scientists to research climate change. Prove that it is not happening or of it is nothing to worry about and see the grants dry up.
I saw a great sketch once where the cancer charity worker announces to his colleagues that the cure for cancer is found. They all let off a lukewarm cheer and go home looking pretty sad, as their services are no longer required. Next day it is announced that the earlier announcement was a mistake, but the bad news are met with high fives.
I first became skeptical of global warming when I began to realize that there is literally no "visible" debate over this complex issue. I got curious and learnt that some scientists are being muzzled and discredited not based on the arguments put forward but based on the sources of their funding or their association. Surely if global warming was such an obvious certainty there would be no need to resort to personal attacks.
David R. Legates is Associate Professor in Climatology in the Center for Climatic Research at the University of Delaware is a prominent global warming skeptic. In the past he was frequently attacked for his association with the industry even though his academic credentials are impeccable. Legates made these points well in his Senate evidence when he said, "As a Christian, my ethics and morality would preclude me from making a scientific statement without scientific proof. On the other hand, I cannot say that everyone holds themselves to such standards. A colleague of mine went to a Regional Assessment Group meeting associated with the 'United States National Assessment of the Potential Consequences of Climate Variability and Change'. A climatologist providing the regional assessment indicated that the climate would be 'warmer and wetter'. At the meeting, my colleague confronted the group, arguing that it is just as likely to be 'colder and drier'. The response from the group: "We're getting funding from the EPA to say that it's warmer and wetter, so it'll be warmer and wetter."
Submitted on Mon, 2006-06-05 13:26
reply Re: Selling climate change? Well... I ain't buying it
Wow, coming into these comments is like stepping into a time warp. Either you folks are not serious or are not well read.
Are you really suggesting that there is a conspiracy among the vast majority of scientists in the world who share the view that the world is the hottest it has ever been and is getting hotter because of our impact on the world?
Do you seriously believe that scientists from every part of the globe who have reached the same conclusion based on their indpendent studies just want to pontificate and are ego driven?
Amazingly you raise as some sort of proof comments by D. Legate who reviewed the work done by two of the leading climatology scientists in the world but it is obivous that you have read neither report. Or you forgot the most important part of his findings that he reported to the congressional committee.
He did not dis the report as you seem to think. In fact what he did was acknowledge that the scientific work was sound and he could not argue with the methodolgy or its findings.
The only part of the report he found fault with, he did so dishonestly. As per the quote you add here, Legate suggested that probability projections in regard to potential future impacts were presented as facts when that is not true.
If you read the report the Scientists clearly identify and tell the reader that these are projections only, based upon the science available to them and should not be taken as fact.
No doubt that bit of misrepresentation by Mr.Legate is in keeping with his Christian principles which was probably his main qualification for being called on by the Republicans.
Then you go on to suggest there is no visible debate! Pardon me? Where have you been, in a cave perhaps?
The entire world is involved in an intensive sharing of studies and debates. Scientists from all over the world have met; shared perspectives; the findings from intensive studies and debated the issue over and over again.
If it seems now that everyone seems to be on the side of immediate action to slow global warming, that is true;
a) because nearly every single nay sayer, including Mr. Attenborough has come to recognize, based on massive studies and evidence that climate change is real and a serious threat.
I am not sure that you knew or recall that at one time Mr. Attenborough was one of the great skeptics about climate change.
b) nearly every skeptic claiming that global warming was a 'natural' phenomenon and that what is happening today is more of the same,has now been disproved.
I have been a journalist for 30 years, I have never heard a scientist nor an environmentalist suggest we need to go back to living in a cave. If you catch Mr. Attenboroughs excellent documentary that is being shown at the moment, you will see that we can halt climate change, fairly easily with minor modifications to our lifestyle. You will also see that scientists are scrambling to develop the means to counter CO2 emmisions.
Contrary to what some think here,wind and solar have proven effective, subject to the climate they are used in and wave power is currantly under intense study with very promising first reports.
There is no question that cars, planes and day to day use of energy in our homes are large contributing factors. But science is working to meet those needs with better alternatives.
Right now there is a car coming to market in California that will match the porsche not only for its good looks, but for speed and handling and it is electric. It will be on the market next year and is already sold out its first production run.
I am not sure if you really understand what the impacts of climate change are going to be if we do not all endeavour to change, but I hope you have enough respect for human and animal life that you will make the effort to find out.
Submitted on Thu, 2006-09-28 11:08
reply Re: Selling climate change? Well... I ain't buying it
I am not sure that you knew or recall that at one time Mr. Attenborough was one of the great skeptics about climate change.
David Attenborough makes fantastic documentaries about wildlife. He is not a climatic scientist and as such I would not take his opinion as some sort of proof. Attenborough was never a great nor vocal skeptic of climate change as you claim:
I was sceptical about climate change. I was cautious about crying wolf. I am always cautious about crying wolf. I think conservationists have to be careful in saying things are catastrophic when, in fact, they are less than catastrophic.
http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article570935.ece
b) nearly every skeptic claiming that global warming was a 'natural' phenomenon and that what is happening today is more of the same,has now been disproved.
Really? Well how about this new research from Duke University that attributes 45-50% of the 1900-2000 warming and 25-35% of the 1980-2000 global warming to solar influence. If this study is correct it would mean that human CO2 contributions could only be at most responsible for the warming of 0.3-0.33 degree based on the 45-50% figure.
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2006.../2005GL025539.shtml
Or this open letter by 60 Canadian scientists to Prime Minister Stephen Harper that says things like:
Observational evidence does not support today's computer climate models, so there is little reason to trust model predictions of the future. Yet this is precisely what the United Nations did in creating and promoting Kyoto and still does in the alarmist forecasts on which Canada's climate policies are based.
If, back in the mid-1990s, we knew what we know today about climate, Kyoto would almost certainly not exist, because we would have concluded it was not necessary.
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/story.html?id=3711460e-bd5a-475d-a6be-4db87559d605
If you catch Mr. Attenboroughs excellent documentary that is being shown at the moment, you will see that we can halt climate change, fairly easily with minor modifications to our lifestyle.
Really? Even if all nations implement Kyoto to the full extent and given all the assumptions about the climate change are 100% correct we are going to get a barely perceptible change of 0.06 degrees Celsius by 2100. Seems like a symbolic gesture rather than a real policy.
Right now there is a car coming to market in California that will match the porsche not only for its good looks, but for speed and handling and it is electric.
And the power comes from where? In best case nuclear fired power plant, in worst case from coal fired power plant (incidentally the major contributors to global CO2 emissions).
I am not sure if you really understand what the impacts of climate change are going to be if we do not all endeavour to change, but I hope you have enough respect for human and animal life that you will make the effort to find out.
Have done that already and found that most of them are overblown doom and gloom predictions that have little likelihood of coming true. Recently the UK?s Labour-leaning Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) analysed 600 newspaper and magazine articles, as well as broadcast news and adverts. They found that apocalyptic visions of climate change used by newspapers, environmental groups and the UK government amount to "climate porn". The study particularly singled out the "alarmist" camp with articles published in newspapers such as the Independent, Financial Times and Sunday Times, as well as the statements from environmental groups and academics including James Lovelock.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5236482.stm
Perhaps you should check out some recent research that disputes the doom and gloom climate porn yourself?
Greenland is actually cooler now than 40 years ago:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2840137.stm
The glaciers in Himalaya are growing:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/tyne/5283278.stm
Antarctica is also cooling as well as getting thicker ice and is in no danger of melting any time soon:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/1752999.stm
http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0118/p02s01-usgn.html
Who could've predicted that the Earth's oceans would start cooling all over sudden in 2003 and would loose about 20% of the heat accumulated in the last 48 years?
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2006/s2704.htm
The polar bears are not going to die any time soon:
http://makeashorterlink.com/?V285528ED
The list goes on.
But hey, why should we look at all these inconvinient facts, the models are correct and the real world is clearly wrong.
[Edited by: oD Forum Moderator. shorter link created.]
Submitted on Wed, 2006-10-04 16:48
reply Re: Selling climate change? Well... I ain't buying it
I do find that people still skeptical about climate change, and man's involvement in it, are basing their views on what they would like to believe rather than the unpleasant facts. As I said in another post "If a large number, the vast majority, of people I regard as intelligent, knowledgable, expert in a field of work and have no vested interests tell me I should be doing something, I take notice. I find it unbelievable that there are people who do not take this view because there are a few politicians telling them otherwise."
The vast majority of the few saying that climate change is not happening HAVE vested interest, hence the interest in looking at funding - just like the tobacco isn't bad for you bunch were funded by the tobacco industry. It is possible that the small minority are right but I would not bet the planet on it like some seem content to do. It is simply not a good idea to ignore the vast amount of knowlegdable opinion. If we took this attitude we may as well give up science now and base all decisions on throwing entrails.
I agree that there is no need to go back to living in tents, and the people who promote this idea do not do their cause any good, but we need a genuine multifaceted approach to drastically reduce greenhouse gas output. We may all like cheap flights and big cars etc. but perhaps we should start paying in advance for the future cost to the earth.
Submitted on Wed, 2006-10-04 20:59
reply Re: Selling climate change? Well... I ain't buying it
Englishman,
There it truth in what you say. However if you bothered to do some research you will find out that the case for Global Warming theory is fraught with uncertainties. You will also learn that environmental groups, politicians and media are in the business of consistently overstating the effects of Global Warming while understating the substantial uncertainties that exist.
This field is relatively young and we are barely scratching the surface. New research is coming out every day and some of it makes Global Warming a lot less scary and even disputes its causes. That was the point I am trying to make. For example here are the findings of the recent study by Richard Seager, a Senior Research Scientist with the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, a research unit of the Earth Institute of Columbia University published in the Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society.
Seager argues that it is wind patterns influenced by Rocky Mountains rather than Gulf Stream that are responsible for mild winters in Europe.
Gulf Stream has little effect on the contrast in winter temperatures between Europe and eastern North America, dispelling a long-held assumption. Instead, atmospheric circulation, augmented by the Rocky Mountains, plays a larger role.
That the Gulf Stream heat transport has a minor effect while the Rocky Mountains loom large in causing the differing winter conditions of Western Europe and eastern North America will 'certainly require some rewriting of textbooks as well as tourist guides' says Seager. "But now we must also look differently at theories of climate change, which in the past have revolved around water circulation in the Atlantic Ocean.
http://www.americanscientist.org/template/AssetDetail/assetid/51963?fulltext=true&print=yes
http://www.columbia.edu/cu/news/03/02/richardSeager_research.html
Video Here:
http://www.columbia.edu/cu/news/media/03/richardSeager/
If this study is correct, England is not going to be plunged into deep freeze "The Day After Tomorrow" style even if the Gulf Stream shuts down. Wow! I bet I will not be reading about this in the "Independent" any time soon.
The vast majority of the few saying that climate change is not happening HAVE vested interest
If you familiarized yourself with the position of skeptics you will find that not many dispute that the world is heating up. What is disputed is the causes of the observed warming as well as its future impact.
Those that are in business of scaremongering too have their vested interests. For instance, Greenpeace now has the operating budget of US$360 million. Environmentalism is a big busness.
http://www.activistcash.com/organization_overview.cfm/oid/131
Former director of Greenpeace Patrick Moore left Greenpeace after becoming disillusioned with Greenpeace's motives, criticizing the rise of environmental extremism. He believed Greenpeace became more concerned with anti-capitalism and anti-globalization rather than environmental issues.
By the mid-1980s, the environmental movement had abandoned science and logic in favor of emotion and sensationalism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Moore_(environmentalist)
And just think of how many scientists get their funding for climate research only because this topic is so hot and dire right now. Would the same funding be available if we were told everything was hunky dory, nothing to worry about?
English, I wonder why those that are so convinced in the ultimate rightness of their position have to continuously resort to ad hominem attacks on the sceptics. Let facts do the talking. Unfortunately they are not as cooperative as you are.
In closing, environmental groups have an appalling record of touting the scares that never came to pass and were not based on sound science. The ban on DDT, hailed at the time as huge victory to environmentalists, was based on junk science and caused tens of millions of death many of which were children. Finally WHO has woken up to it and removed DDT from the banned substance list. But what has been the costs inflicted on humanity by this eco scare? Is anyone going to be held responsible?
At the time people must've also said they had to do something because it felt like the right thing to do even if the science was incomplete, and those that opposed were accused of having vested interests.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/5350068.stm
The list of junk science continues with the population time bomb, nuclear winter, Chernobyl, global cooling, running out of natural resources and so on.
PS Don't take this the wrong way, but have you noticed that you have not put forward any facts yet? Only predictable tobacco and oil vested interest smears?
Submitted on Thu, 2006-10-05 08:01
reply Re: Selling climate change? Well... I ain't buying it
Iljay, thankyou for your considered reply. I do hear what you say and understand that there is uncertainty in the causes and cures for global warming. I'm glad to see that you at least acknowledge the planet is heating up. As you will appreciate, this latter fact was also denied by a few skeptics until the evidence could no longer be disputed. Even if there is doubt in the causes and cures, this is still a poor argument for ignoring the situation if we have the chance to do something about the likely consequences. The cost to the people of the earth of droughts and sea level rises is far in excess of the costs of addressing the issue now. If it doesn't work, it has not cost us too much, and many of the changes in energy sources that we will get into gear will be of benefit anyway. If it does work it will be of huge benefit. Seems like a good bet to me.
I have not presented references because I have limited time to search them out on the web. There are plenty though. There are some with vested financial interest but not many. There are some with a more idealogical view, like Greenpeace perhaps, but it is easy to find straw men on both sides of the discussion.
The media and scientific opinion do not always coincide. Take the MMR vaccine debate where scare mongering by a tiny number of people was leapt on by the media and frightened the public into not trusting the vast majority's recommendations. Here is a case where the vast majority of expert opinion is saying we should do something and a few are not. The media are generally agreeing with the majority scientific opinion, but like to appear balanced so air contrary views which get the headlines.
Submitted on Sat, 2006-10-07 12:58
reply Re: Selling climate change? Well... I ain't buying it
If it doesn't work, it has not cost us too much, and many of the changes in energy sources that we will get into gear will be of benefit anyway.
Not cost us much? I am sorry but there is no free lunch. Remember the scare about power lines causing cancer? According to the White Hose Science Office that scare alone cost US taxpayers over 25 billion dollars. That is more than the combined GDP of the world's 50 poorest nations. That is the sort of money we piss away on unjustified scares.
Global Warming is a lot costlier. Kyoto protocol alone would cost $150 billion to $350 billion annually. Given that nobody knows how much of the recent warming was due to natural variations and how much was due to man, such exuberant waste of resources is hardly justified.
http://www.newsweekly.com.au/articles/2001dec01_lomborg.html
http://www.spiked-online.com/Articles/00000002D2C3.htm
I'm glad to see that you at least acknowledge the planet is heating up. As you will appreciate, this latter fact was also denied by a few skeptics until the evidence could no longer be disputed.
Actually there is still a lot of debate going on about this. The climate has warmed up by 0.6 degrees in the last century, which is less than our ability to measure the Absolute Surface Air Temperature (SAT) which is roughly 14 +/- 0.7 degrees C. In fact the Absolute SAT is kind of a guess. Explanation courtesy of NASA:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/abs_temp.html
Another thing so many people dont understand is just how difficult it is to measure the global temperature. It is not a matter of sticking a thermometer into the Planets rectum once a day to get an accurate reading. It requires collection of data from many different weather stations that use different equipment, are in different geographical locations and employ different standards and equipment. Some records are incomplete and some are plain dubious. The temperature collection can be hampered by such small local variations such as a new tree growing near the measuring equipment or one thermometer being replaced by a new one. It is not a trivial task and requires a lot of statistical adjustments often based on guesswork. It is far from precise.
Here is a good explanation that looks at the different global temperature sets and evaluating discrepancies between them. It is hard going but quite revealing if you want to learn how temperatures derived and just how accurate they are:
http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/Common/Fruit_salad.htm
Submitted on Mon, 2006-10-09 07:19
reply Re: Selling climate change? Well... I ain't buying it
The power lines issue was not supported by the majority of the scientific community. It was a scare story driven by the media like the MMR case. Politicians had to act on it despite the lack of science. This is another straw man.
I looked at the junk science web site and some of the critics' sites e.g.:
http://skepdic.com/refuge/junkscience.html
I rather agree with this guy.
Bjorn Lomborg, I note, is a professor of political science, not really a science subject despite the name, and an ex member of Greenpeace. He has a right to his point of view but probably would not have made the press had it not been for the ex-Greenpeace association.
I am no expert in meteorology but I am a physicist and engineer so am aware about the difficulty in measuring the data. Of the studies I have seen and the support from people whom I respect, I would conclude there is an issue to be dealt with.
As for cost estimates of Kyoto, you can make them what you like. The whole thing is open to negotaition anyway. The one thing that should not have been done is to debunk the concept behind the need to act, which was how GWB dealt with it. Even the figures you quote are less than the cost of the Iraq war but nothing like the cost if the sea level rises significantly. The costs also do not take off the benefits gained from early adoption of cleaner and more efficient power sources.
Message was edited by: englishman
Submitted on Mon, 2006-10-09 13:29
reply Re: Selling climate change? Well... I ain't buying it
English,
Yet again you are resorting to ad hominem attacks. I am well aware of who Bjorn Lomborg is and who publishes junkscience.
Have you read Lomborg's book yourself? Lomborg, a former Greenpeace activist set out to disprove the views of the late Julian Simon, an economist that claimed that dire environmental fears were wrong and the world was actually improving. To Lomborg's surprise it turned out that Simon was mostly right. Since publication Lomborg was pretty much accused of heresy by the establishment and subjected to ad-hominem attacks (exactly what you are doing now without even looking at the data). The conclusions of his book were never objected in any serious scientific way.
Did you actually read the junkscince article? The article does not dispute global warming, it just sheds light on how difficult and slippery the term global temperature is. Besides this junscience article is more scientific and considered than the Al Gore's entire doomsday epic "An Inconvenient Truth".
Can you counter Lomborg or junkscience with research?
The fact of the matter is all scientists are paid by somebody. Take for example James Hansen the lead climate scientist and director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Science and one of the fathers of Global Warming:
The scientist touted by CBS News '60 Minutes' as arguably the worlds leading researcher on global warming and spotlighted as a victim of the Bush administration's censorship on the issue, publicly endorsed Democrat John Kerry for president and received a $250,000 grant from the charitable foundation headed by Kerry's wife.
Scientist James Hansen also admitted he contributed to two recent Democratic presidential campaigns. To complicate matters, Mr. Hansen acted as a consultant to former Vice President Al Gore's slide-show presentations on global warming, a display that Gore has presented around the country.
http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=11634
Hansen's profile:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Hansen
Do you believe Hansen is not politically motivated? What about NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) that he leads?
Message was edited by: ILJAY
Submitted on Mon, 2006-10-09 13:57
reply Re: Selling climate change? Well... I ain't buying it
Unless you are personally researching an issue as complex as this, it is reasonable to question the veracity of the sources and to determine whether they are taking a view based on scientific knowledge or from a predetermined political view, or even both or neither. I am not in a position to adjudge all the facts, are you? We have to rely on what gets filtered by media and groups with vested interests and political (and even religious) views which influence their presentation and interpretations. If this results in what is an ad hominem attack, I'm afraid that is what I am going to do in selecting who I believe is more or less likely to be telling me the truth and who is most qualified to do so. Most of the world's scientific community are agreed that global warming exists and that we need to take action to reduce it. Lomborg (a political scientist) being convinced by Simon (an economist) is not going to convince me to spend my valuable time reading these arguments, any more than I spend my time trying to present arguments to the looney bunch who believe in intelligent design, now that the idea that the earth was created in 7 days a few thousand years ago looks untenable (even to them). As you say the data published in junkscience did show the temperature rise and I would not argue the hard data which does not deny global warming. I would argue the conclusions. I would also be suspicious of arguments that say that the temperature measurements are unreliable but, if they happen to be right, they are due to sunspots. It seems a bit desperate to argue in this way - methinks he doth protest too much.
Who would I rather believe James Hansen or Michael Crichton? Not a difficult one. It seems that Crichton is one of his main critics. It would also seem that Hansen could have done much better for himself financially if he had backed the other horse. It seems an obvious case of a man saying what he thinks is the case and not saying it to make money. Michael Crichton on the other hand makes his money by being a self publicist and by writing popular science fiction.
Submitted on Mon, 2006-10-09 16:05
reply Re: Selling climate change? Well... I ain't buying it
I am not in a position to adjudge all the facts, are you?
I would think I am in a better position than you, as I actually taken time to study the issue in a way that goes beyond media hype.
We have to rely on what gets filtered by media and groups with vested interests and political (and even religious) views which influence their presentation and interpretations.
Media is not in the business of fact-finding, it is in the business of selling papers. Doomsday stories sell rather well. Keep reading.
Lomborg (a political scientist) being convinced by Simon (an economist) is not going to convince me to spend my valuable time reading these arguments
Lomborg is not only political scientist but a professional statistician, and he was not convinced by Simon, he was going to disprove Simon. Did you even read what I wrote?
any more than I spend my time trying to present arguments to the looney bunch who believe in intelligent design, now that the idea that the earth was created in 7 days a few thousand years ago looks untenable (even to them).
The theory of evolution was proposed in 1859. It faced plenty of criticism and stood the test of time. Global Warming is barely 30 years old and everyone is convinced it is just as sound as the theory of evolution. In fact everyone is absolutely convinced that a 0.008% (that's eight one thousands of a percent) change to the composition of atmosphere will cause the biggest catastrophe known to man.
It would also seem that Hansen could have done much better for himself financially if he had backed the other horse.
250K is a lot of money. It is 2.5 times more than the prominent skeptic Patrick Michaels got from the oil interests.
Michael Crichton on the other hand makes his money by being a self publicist and by writing popular science fiction.
He could've just as easily written a Global Warming doomsday epic. He doesn't purport to be a scientist and didn't need to be subjected to all the bile he received from environmentalists for his book. Has that occurred to you?
I am not sure about the sunspots myself but knowing that you like the papers to inform you, here is one from the BBC (hardly a right-wing neocon think tank run by big oil and tobacco):
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/56456.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1045327.stm
Sun affects our climate... hmm that must be bogus! It just sounds wrong, doesn't it?
Submitted on Mon, 2006-10-09 18:12
reply Re: Selling climate change? Well... I ain't buying it
You are a true believer Iljay.
http://www.lomborg.com/biograph.htm
Looks like a politics man to me. Certainly not a climatologist. Certainly a consumate self publicist. Even has 11 pics of himself on his website. You believe him, I'll believe Hansen and the other scientists.
Submitted on Mon, 2006-10-09 21:10
reply Re: Selling climate change? Well... I ain't buying it
So it is about belief and not facts after all. Thanks for confirming what I have already suspected.
There is only one problem Lomborg doesn't dispute global warming nor that he purports to be a climatologist. But you don't need to know that, do you? You mind is already made up. Sad. I bet you would argue you were a free thinker too, wouldn't you?
Here is the link to Lomborg's book just in case you change your mind:
http://makeashorterlink.com/?S5AD22FED
Just one example from the book:
Claim: The widely quoted "Global Environmental Outlook 2000" tells us that worldwide polluted water is estimated to affect the health of about 1200 million people and contribute to the death of about 15 million children under five every year.
Sounds impressive, doesn't it? And scary too.
Fact: The total number of death for children under five from all causes is estimated by WHO to be 10 million.
The book is 352 pages long and contains numerous examples of this and worst on almost every page.
But go on, believe whatever you want to believe. The papers will tell you what to do.
Submitted on Tue, 2006-10-10 06:48
reply Re: Selling climate change? Well... I ain't buying it
Many years ago a friend of mine, someone who I knew quite well and thought of as a rational person, explained to me how he had read that razor blades became sharper if placed in the centre of a 4 sided pyramid. Thinking he was joking, I made some quip about it. He was upset by this and we had an argument where he suggested that I was being close minded about new ideas and that I had not done the research that he had done in making this discovery. He had built cardboard pyramids and tested out the newly sharpened razor blades, presumably, by shaving with them. It convinced him anyway.
I am an expert in certain fields though I would never claim to know everything about a subject. In other fields, like most people, I listen to arguments and make judgements on the soundness of argument and on the expertise of the people purveying the argument. I would not extend my knowledge to try to become as expert as the specialists, as this is not a practical possibility, at least not in any reasonable and useful timescale. I read about subjects of interest in newspapers, on the net, in magazines and journals and form opinions based on this data. As humans we all make judgements based on the sum of information we receive and often guided by an inate, or at least a deep seated, view of the world. You could call such a view a belief but it is not, in the sense that it can change. I have done so on many occasions so I know this is the case! Belief (without the indefinite article) seems a different beast. It is something that somehow becomes part of the "deep seated view" and does not change easily. We all have these too, but being philosophically opposed to this position means that I do try to avoid "belief". You could say I believe in not having belief. This is as near as having an open mind as I can get.
Iljay, you have argued that there is not enough evidence to confirm global warming, but, if there were, then it may not be due to man. That if it exists that there is not enough evidence to suggest that it will be all that bad, so we should not do anything about it. That even if we try we would not be likely to succeed. And finally that we would be better spending the money elsewhere. You do give the impression that you will use any argument to support your cause, whatever its validity.
The latter argument would be a good one if it were not for the fact that, unfortunately, the western world does not seem inclined to help the third world get clean drinking water, at least not to the extent of $300B of aid. As I am sure you know, the argument that the money could be better spent elsewhere than avoidance of global warming would be, and is, an excuse not to make a decision to spend the money and it would not get further than that. In any case there are issues depending on where you stand politically, and these depend on the extent of sea level rise. If the sea level rises considerably, there would be huge cost to the world's industrialised countries because of the number of major cities that are coastal. This would be of prime concern to many. To others, the loss of life in the third world countries resulting from famine and the more direct damage of climate change would be of the greatest importance. In either case, the ability of the west to support the third world would depend on the continuation wealth production, so both arguments would lead to avoidance of climate change. It would be nice if the west would spend money on clean water too. The arguments are to some extent independent although the pot is not infinitely deep. I will try to get Lomborg's book to add to a long list of books I ought to read!
Submitted on Tue, 2006-10-10 10:48
reply Re: Selling climate change? Well... I ain't buying it
If the sea level rises considerably, there would be huge cost to the world's industrialised countries because of the number of major cities that are coastal.
The se levels have been rising for thousands of years since the last Ice Age and have not shown to be accelerating. Occasionally these rates will increase like after the El Nino event and than they can even retreat. Models predict they will increase in the future but predictions are not proof. Here is the paper from the Australian Bureau of Meteorology, hardly a right wing think tank. They conclude:
On page 20:
As at June 2005, based on the short-term sea level trend analyses performed by the National Tidal Centre using the Tuvalu SEAFRAME data, a rate of +5.0 mm per year has been observed. Accounting for the inverted barometric pressure effect and vertical movements in the observing platform, the sea level trend is +4.3 mm per year. By comparison, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in its Third Assessment Report (IPCC TAR, 2001) estimates that global average long-term sea level rise over the last hundred years was of the order of 1 to 2 mm/yr.
Than on the page 22:
A longer sea level record is available at Tuvalu, from the Funafuti tide gauge operated by the University of Hawaii (UH) from 1977 until the end of 1999 - about 22 years of data (see Figure 13). The UH data exhibits a sea level rise of +0.9 mm/year over the period 1977 to the end of 1999. This gauge was primarily designed for monitoring El Ni?o and shorter-term oceanic fluctuations rather than long-term sea level monitoring which requires a high level of precision and datum control. Hence, even with 22 years of data, the trend cannot be established without sizeable uncertainties.
http://www.bom.gov.au/fwo/IDO60033/IDO60033.2005.pdf
Does this sound to you as: CRISIS WARNIG!!! TUVALU IS ABOUT TO DOWN!!! ???
This would be of prime concern to many. To others, the loss of life in the third world countries resulting from famine and the more direct damage of climate change would be of the greatest importance.
There is no proof that GW have caused or will cause famine or any specific adverse climatic event. Remember predictions are not proof. To add, there is plenty of research that shows that extended growing period from warmer climate will result in higher crop yields and more food to go around.
Unfortunately, the science of Global Warming GW is simply an exercise in scientific clairvoyance. IPCC, the main body that researches GW states so itself on page 774 of its 2001 report:
In sum, a strategy must recognise what is possible. In climate research and modelling, we should recognise that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/pdf/TAR-14.PDF
PS I am impressed that you are considering reading Lomborg's book. It is brilliant in separating facts from fiction.
Submitted on Tue, 2006-10-10 11:23
reply Re: Selling climate change? Well... I ain't buying it
The Tuvalu study is quite interesting and does show a sea level rise of 4.3mm pa which corresponds well to other models. A good site is The United Nations Environmental Programme site which has a range of projections to 2100. The sea level one is:
http://www.grida.no/climate/vital/24.htm
but all the data is worth a view.
The problem is not only the potential range of about 20 to 94cm rise (the graphs show a limited range of models giving a range of 40 - 60cm) predicted by a range of models which, in turn, depend on what we do now, but what happens in the following century. The inertia within the system means that there would be nothing that could be done to stop the sea level rising then unless action is taken soon.
http://www.grida.no/climate/vital/26.htm
is interesting as it shows the losses due to weather and flood catastophes over the last 40 years and I note that the last 10 years have amounted to $300B.
Other pages look at the impact on food production and fresh water availability, disease control. Not all effects are negative but invariably costly overall. Hot summers in the UK is great for me for example.
This study seems fairly coservative compared with some others, however. This maybe because it is based on historical numbers which do not take full account of the acceleration effect that could occur due to ice melting on land masses at a faster rate. Another fairly conservative prediction comes from The US Environmental Protection Agency which predicts a 1% chance of a 1.2m rise by 2100.
http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming.nsf/content/ClimateFutureClimateSeaLevel.html
Unchecked, this would flood a good deal of the cities on the Eastern seaboard of the US as well as cause havoc in major cities elsewhere in the world. These places mostly have the resources to prevent this but at some expense. The big problem would be in the next century. Did you know the tidal barrier in the Thames built about 20 years ago has to close an increasing number of times each year and is projected to be inadequate in 30 years (or so) to protect from flooding in London? It was designed to cope with a 60cm rise over 100 years and is about meeting its targets, but a more ambitious and costly scheme is in planning to supercede it. The cost of a single flood in London is currently estimated at 30B. The Barrier cost about 1B to build so good value and forward thinking.
Of course the EPA also say there is a 5% chance there will be no significant sea level rise such is the level of uncertainty. It is just that the consequences are serious if even the most likely scenario plays out let alone the worst case. The problem is all of the potential is on the downside. If the anatarctic ice sheet were to melt the ocean would rise 7m or so. None but the most pessimistic predict this but it is a theoretical possibility.
Submitted on Tue, 2006-10-10 18:10
reply Re: Selling climate change? Well... I ain't buying it
English,
The Tuvalu study is quite interesting and does show a sea level rise of 4.3mm pa which corresponds well to other models. A good site is The United Nations Environmental Programme site which has a range of projections to 2100.
That's short term. Long term trend is 0.9mm pa which is well below IPCC's projections. They also state that even 22 years is not long enough to establish a trend.
is interesting as it shows the losses due to weather and flood catastophes over the last 40 years and I note that the last 10 years have amounted to $300B.
Flood catastrophes are mainly caused by increasing populations, development and conversion of flood-moderating wetlands as well as lack of information and clear policies. The famous summer flooding of the Yangtze and Songhua areas in China that caused $30 billion damage was caused mainly by clear cutting forests on the upstream slopes causing massive runoff. Cutting CO2 use would do nothing to help.
Even hurricane damage is increasing not because of the weather but us humans. Munich Re, the World's largest re-insurer explains:
The main reasons for this dramatic development continue to be the concentration of population and values in an ever growing number of larger and larger cities, which are often located in high-risk zones, the greater susceptibility of modern industrial societies to catastrophes, the accelerating deterioration of natural environmental conditions, and also, as far as insured losses are concerned, the growing amount of insurance cover for natural hazards being offered and bought in many countries. There are also more and more indications of a climate-related accumulation of extreme weather events.
http://makeashorterlink.com/?U17F230FD
There are some problems with the data you provide:
http://www.grida.no/climate/vital/26.htm
Firstly demographic trends changed as per Munich Re above. Secondly we are simply richer, have bigger houses, more expensive cars, more home contents and so on. Of course natural disasters will be ever more expensive.
In regards to the sea level rises, they have been rising for thousands of years and humans coped so far. There is no indication to suggest that we will not cope in the future. The world is getting wealthier and better positioned to respond to the future sea level rises. The only reason why we may not cope in the future will be if we waste too many resources on largely useless and expensive measures such as Kyoto instead of doing what humans do and spend a lot less to build flood defences.
If the Antarctic ice sheet were to melt the ocean would rise 7m or so. None but the most pessimistic predict this but it is a theoretical possibility.
Believe it or not Antarctica is getting cooler, so there is no reason to worry.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1758772.stm
Submitted on Tue, 2006-10-10 20:35
reply Re: Selling climate change? Well... I ain't buying it
Courtney,
Thanks for such generous acknowledgement of our humble debate.
I wholeheartedly agree with you. Climate change is sold on the bases of scare stories that are far from adequately explained. In my opinion this constitutes subversion of democratic process. Amazingly the scrutiny that politicians are normally subjected to on other issues is virtually absent.
Consensus science is also dangerous. Science is not decided by votes, politics is.
Submitted on Tue, 2006-10-10 20:51
reply Re: Selling climate change
It is not a matter of selling climate change. It is a matter selling the PC version of why there is climate change. It is good that man try to clean up his act, if only for the benefit of his own respiratory health, but no one should delude themselves into believing that will have any noticable effect on any pending "climate change".
There is ample evidence that any warming trend, such as those that have repeatedly occured since long before man existed, is far beyond our control, and that it also extends beyond just planet Earth. I realize that writers don't like to talk about things for which they don't think they have an answer, and it probably just as well that they don't, but niether should they prattle on as if they human behavior were the total answer when, in reality, it is a very minor part.
Submitted on Wed, 2006-05-31 11:53
reply
Re: Selling climate change
Ilya,
"The only way to sell climate change is get rid of the ballast of regressive environmentalists. Those who consider that the only way to combat climate change is by going back to living in caves"
I have a real hard problem trying to seperate the 'regressive' from the 'progressive' environmentalist. For example, where exactly would you place an eco-worrier like Simon Retallack ? In his latest article, he aviods mentioning 'caves', but he seems to want humanity to move in that direction. Retallack bemoans the fact that not enough people are curbing their use of flying, or that people openly admit that they won't reduce their car use. Or, that hardly anyone has even bothered to install such things as 'renewable micro-generation such as solar PV or thermal panels'.
As far as Retallack is concerned, people raising their standard of living, or people wanting to fly away and seek out new horizons, are things that 'need to be reversed'. Ok, I admit that Retallack is not arguing openly for a return to the caves, he just has a very negative, and miserable attitude towards social progress in general. The things he describes as 'sobering', are in fact, sure signs of human progress.
Also, if Retallack is a 'progressive', why is he so obsessed with changing human behaviour? Retallack is adamant that global warming is man-made, end of story, therefore, we have to drastically change human behaviour - regardless of whether humans actually want to change their behaviour or not. This seems to be the conclusion that everyone in the environmentalists movement have arrived at.
Not once did he mention the potential benefits that could come if we invested more money towards research and development of nuclear science. Retallack mentions we need 'alternative sources of energy', but, being a green, means nuclear is simply not an option - not even an option.
It stands to reason, as far as Retallack seems to be concerned, nuclear power cannot even be an option, because, if nuclear scientists could power cars, planes and trains using nuclear power in the future, then there would be no need for us to change our behaviour. We could use as much energy as we wanted, without having to worry about it running out.
The 'imperative' for us to change our behaviour, for the sake of diverting climate change would cease to exist.
Submitted on Thu, 2006-06-01 11:45
reply Post new comment |
|
|
