Climate change denial and the facts.

[Guest Stephen Turner]

Before I commence it would be useful to know if any Forum members believe that global warming is (a) A false concept, ( Is happening, but is largely unrelated to Human activity. or, © is happening, is man made, and will prove to be a boon to humanity.

Regards, Steve.

[Jack White]

Before I commence it would be useful to know if any Forum members believe that global warming is (a) A false concept, ( Is happening, but is largely unrelated to Human activity. or, © is happening, is man made, and will prove to be a boon to humanity.

Regards, Steve.

Steve...A, B, and C may not cover all the possibilities, though B is perhaps a catch-all

that covers other things. It is likely that unknown cyclical forces in the cosmos produce

periodic tempeature swings. Remember the Ice Age, when glaciers covered many

parts of the earth which are now much warmer?

Also, it is too complicated to reduce to pat A-B-C answers. It may be a combination of

things, including air pollution. Remember that during periods of great volcanic activity

smoke covered much of the earth, leading to drastic cooling.

There are known govt programs aimed at controlling the weather.

Jack

[Guest Stephen Turner]

Before I commence it would be useful to know if any Forum members believe that global warming is (a) A false concept, ( Is happening, but is largely unrelated to Human activity. or, © is happening, is man made, and will prove to be a boon to humanity.

Regards, Steve.

Steve...A, B, and C may not cover all the possibilities, though B is perhaps a catch-all

that covers other things. It is likely that unknown cyclical forces in the cosmos produce

periodic tempeature swings. Remember the Ice Age, when glaciers covered many

parts of the earth which are now much warmer?

Also, it is too complicated to reduce to pat A-B-C answers. It may be a combination of

things, including air pollution. Remember that during periods of great volcanic activity

smoke covered much of the earth, leading to drastic cooling.

There are known govt programs aimed at controlling the weather.

Jack

Very well Jack, if members feel that some reasons are not covered above, or any combination of, please feel free to post them.

Although from my research those three are the main positions of the denial club, and I dont think it can be put down to volacanic activity, sun spots, solar flares or the Dallas cow-girls.

[Guest Stephen Turner]

Here are four questions for any climate change denier taken from George Monbiots excellent book, HEAT..

1, Does the atmosphere contain carbon dioxide?

2, Does atmospheric C/D raise the average global temp?

3, Will this rise be increased by the addition of more C/D?

4, Have human activities led to a rise in the net emission of C/D?

As Mr Monbiot says " If you can answer no to any of the above put yourself foward for a Nobel prize, you have turned science on its head."

As per usual those who polute the least pay the greatest price.

COUNTRY. C/D EMISSIONS 2003. TONNES PER CAPITA.

Luxemburg 24.3

United States 20.0

United Kingdom. 9.5

Bangladesh. 0.24

Ethiopia. 0.06

Source, US Energy informaton administration.

Both Bangladesh, and Ethiopia are countries that, in the initial stages,will be hit hardest by climate change. A one Mtr sea level rise (a real possibility within the next eight years) would permenantly flood 21% of Bangladesh, leaving some fifteen million people homeless, and starving(source Royal Society) Rising sea surface temp in the Indian Ocean means Ethiopia has already suffered several major droughts linked to climate change, that have left between 8-10 million Ethiopians at risk of starvation, and it will only get worse. The rich countries, located mostly in more temperate climates, and having far greater wealth will, initialy at least, be spared the worst damages of global warming. But, be assured,this is only a brief stay of execution.

SOME UNCOMFORTABLE FACTS.

Everytime you board a plane, and fly off to Florida, or Berlin or Timbuctoo, everytime you start up your high performance SUV, or even everytime you turn on your air-con you are helping to kill people in the third world, and if that doesnt move you, you are helping to kill your own Grand-children. Sorry to be so blunt, but its high time we in the rich Nations woke up to what our pampered, wasteful lifestyles are doing to the Planet, in short we have all become killers, silent, twice removed uncomprehending killers. So you can continue to drive, fly and generally squander the Earths resources, what you can no longer have is a clear concious while you do it.

HOW DO MAN MADE CARBON EMISSIONS WARM THE EARTH.

The simple answer is the burning of fossil fuels in manufacturing, transport, heating lighting and other forms of Human activity liberate two main gasses, Methane and Carbon Dioxide, which once in the atmosphere trap, and retain heat in the form of sunlight, this increases mean temperatures on the surface of the Planet. Carbon Dioxide is mainly produced by the burning of oil, and coal, and deforrestation, Methane by farming, mining and land-fill sites. I will only delve deeper into the overwelming scientific evidence surrounding global warming should any member be able to propose a different scenario, because as Monbiot says.

"To doubt, today that man made climate change is happening you must abandon science and revert to some other means of understanding the World:alchemy perhaps, or Magic"

THE OIL INDUSTRY AND THEIR PAID LIARS.

How dangerous is it that this man goes loose"

Yet must not we put the strong law on him"

He's loved by the distracted multitude"

Who like not in their judgement, but in their eyes" Shakespeare, Hamlet, Act iv Scene 3

[Guest Stephen Turner]

"Oh that a man may smile and smile, and still be a villian"

So why have the deniers, with their dubious, un peer reviewed, oil industry sponsored work been so successfull in preventing urgent action being taken in order to help divert the oncoming storm? easy, their telling you exactly what you desperately want to hear. Take this piece of unreconstituted drivel.

"George Bush is right, the Kyoto treaty is a silly waste of time. The greenhouse effect probably doesnt exist, there is, as yet no evidence for it." (Peter Hitchens, Mail on Sunday.)

Or how about this side splitter.

"As coal, oil and natural gas are used to feed, and lift from poverty vast numbers across the globe, more carbon dioxide will be released into the atmosphere. This will help to improve the health,and prosperity of all the people"...."We live in an increasingly lush enviroment of plants and animals, as a result of the Carbon increase. This is a wonderful, and unexpected gift from the industrial revolution." (F Seitz, the Marshall institute.)

Got that? Firstly global warming isnt happening, probably, This is known as being in denial, and secondly, if it is happening, it will prove to be a massive boon to all life on the Earth. This is known as a shamefull lie, that flies in the face of all accepted, peer reviewed scientific data.

So who are the C/C deniers, who sponsors them, and what, if any are their scientific credentials. I think we can safely leave Mr Hitchens out of this because he is neither a scientist, nor an expert in any allied field,a trait he shares with most deniers, he is in fact an ubber opinionated colomnist, for whom no lunatic right wing cause ever goes far enough (He is also the Brother of Christofer Hitchens, ex Trotskyite turned Neo_Con, Nice family) So lets turn to Frederick Seitz, what is his background, and who does he represent ( In this case Seitz must stand for all deniers with a scientific background, as (a) their views are remarkably similar, and ( I have not the time to individually debunk all of them.)

FROM "HEAT" BY GEORGE MONBIOT.

Seitz is a physicist, who was president of the US national acadamy of sciences for a period in the 1960s. In 1998 he wrote a document known as the Oregon petition, which every Journalist Politician and big business appologist who whishes to deny climate change endlessly quote. Without wishing to reproduce the whole thing, here are some quotes to give you a flavour.

"We urge the US Government to reject the Global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in Dec 1997 and any other similar proposals. The proposed limit on greenhouse gasses would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health, and welfare of mankind."...And...."There is no convinsing scientific evidence that Human release of carbon dioxide, and methane, or any other greenhouse gas is causing, or will cause, in the foreseeable future, heating of the Earths atmosphere, or disruption of Earths climate."( note. As I sit typing this the outside temp is 13 degres, on the 9th of January. The average for this time of year in UK is 5 dg, and so far its showing no signs of getting colder.)

There is plenty more but I hope you get the picture. anyone with a degree could sign it( it doesnt matter what subject the degree was awarded for, or from what educational establishment it was obtained) Seitz also attached a letter entitled "Research review of global warming evidence, which he signed F Seitz past president National Academy of Sciences..

Next I want to tell you who Seitz is, just whom he really represents, and what his old acadamy think of his "research"

[Norman Pratt]

I’m making rather slow progress reading the Stern Report. In fact, to be honest, I’ve got to the Appendix of Chapter 2, which is, if I understand it correctly, discussing the ethics of one generation (i.e. this one) defrauding other generations (i.e. the next two and probably more). The fact that it’s written by an economist makes up a little for the dreadful editorial in ‘The Economist’ some years ago which went through the litany of denial already referred to, and then majored on the fact that in any case the world economy was far more delicate than the environment. Although the scientific arguments were not so clear then as they are now, the complacent tone of the editorial convinced me we really had something to worry about!

The opening statement of the Stern Report is pretty clear:

‘Key Messages

An overwhelming body of scientific evidence now clearly indicates that climate change is a serious and urgent issue. The Earth’s climate is rapidly changing, mainly as a result of increases in greenhouse gases caused by human activities.

Most climate models show that a doubling of pre-industrial levels of greenhouse gases is very likely to commit the Earth to a rise of between 2 – 5°C in global mean temperatures. This level of greenhouse gases will probably be reached between 2030 and 2060. A warming of 5°C on a global scale would be far outside the experience of human civilisation and comparable to the difference between temperatures during the last ice age and today. Several new studies suggest up to a 20% chance that warming could be greater than 5°C.

If annual greenhouse gas emissions remained at the current level, concentrations would be more than treble pre-industrial levels by 2100, committing the world to 3 – 10°C warming, based on the latest climate projections.

Some impacts of climate change itself may amplify warming further by triggering the release of additional greenhouse gases. This creates a real risk of even higher temperature changes.

• Higher temperatures cause plants and soils to soak up less carbon from the atmosphere and cause permafrost to thaw, potentially releasing large quantities of methane.

• Analysis of warming events in the distant past indicates that such feedbacks could amplify warming by an additional 1 – 2°C by the end of the century.

Warming is very likely to intensify the water cycle, reinforcing existing patterns of water scarcity and abundance and increasing the risk of droughts and floods.

Rainfall is likely to increase at high latitudes, while regions with Mediterranean-like climates in both hemispheres will experience significant reductions in rainfall. Preliminary estimates suggest that the fraction of land area in extreme drought at any one time will increase from 1% to 30% by the end of this century. In other regions, warmer air and warmer oceans are likely to drive more intense storms, particularly hurricanes and typhoons.

As the world warms, the risk of abrupt and large-scale changes in the climate system will rise.

• Changes in the distribution of heat around the world are likely to disrupt ocean and atmospheric circulations, leading to large and possibly abrupt shifts in regional weather patterns.

• If the Greenland or West Antarctic Ice Sheets began to melt irreversibly, the rate of sea level rise could more than double, committing the world to an eventual sea level rise of 5 – 12 m over several centuries.’

The body of evidence and the growing quantitative assessment of risks are now sufficient to give clear and strong guidance to economists and policy-makers in shaping a response.

Stern Review Report is

http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/independent_...view_report.cfm

My usual late-night reading is ‘Chronology of the 20th Century’ by Neville Williams. Guaranteed to put you to sleep. However, scanning through ‘Science, Discovery and Technology 1967’ I came across this entry: ‘S Manabe and R T Wetherald warn that the increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, produced by human activities, is causing a ‘greenhouse effect’, which will raise atmospheric temperatures and cause a rise in sea levels.’ 40th Anniversary!

Edited January 9, 2007 by Norman Pratt

[Guest Stephen Turner]

Interesting, we have about a hundred threads devoted to the nonsensical proposition that the moon landings were faked, which have garnered thousands of replies,and this single one, dedicated to possibly the greatest threat our species has ever faced, and apart from two members nobody, apparantly, has an opinion. I wonder if you are all in denial. Our Prime Minister certainly is, when asked whether people should curtail their flying activities he responded by saying that people should continue flying, and using their cars and hope that science and tecnology will get us out of the mess we have created. And this from a man who recently said that global warming was the most serious threat we faced.

[John Geraghty]

Stephen,

I'm reading and agreeing, but don't feel that I have anything to contribute. Sometimes the amount of views a thread receives will tell that although some have little to offer they are still interested in the subject.

I'm with you on the moon landing matter. For a lot of people it is a matter of ego and who will win the argument.

John

[Sid Walker]

Stephen,

I'm reading and agreeing, but don't feel that I have anything to contribute. Sometimes the amount of views a thread receives will tell that although some have little to offer they are still interested in the subject.

John

John Geraghty speaks for me on this - and probably lots of others.

It's good to see Europe showing leadership on the climate change issue. And it's sorely needed. The atrocious head-in-the-oily-sand policies of the Bush Administration are replicated, more or less, by the Howard Government here in Australia.

And now... a brief commericial (for the planet).

If anyone would care to send an email to the Australian Environment Minister to help stave off a World Heritage threatening project to urbanize the patch of paradise close to me (and urbanize it in a manner that locks us into an energy-squandering future) I'd be very grateful.

It's all set up to take a couple of minutes - just visit this link.

Emails from around the world would be helpful.

Edited January 10, 2007 by Sid Walker

[Guest Stephen Turner]

As we have finally got around to discussing this fairly serious matter (thanks to Mark Stapleton) I thought I would revive this old thread from January, as I never really finished it. your thoughts on any of the above would be welcome.

[Mark Stapleton]

As we have finally got around to discussing this fairly serious matter (thanks to Mark Stapleton) I thought I would revive this old thread from January, as I never really finished it. your thoughts on any of the above would be welcome.

Steve, I think the global warming issue is an issue many hope will go away--or not affect this generation at least. I think they're wrong.

The west is fearful of the economic dislocation which would result from the dramatic cuts in carbon emmissions required to halt the slide. Some say the developing countries have to play a role and it's hard to argue considering China's rapidly increasing use of fossil fuels.

There's no choice, really. Climate change, rising sea levels and extreme weather events can potentially dislocate the global economy as effectively as economic factors.

[Guest Stephen Turner]

In response to Evan's thread, I keep meaning to finish this off, perhaps now's the time.