The Realists Take on Climate Change
Sorted by: Date Posted
Thursday, July 3rd 2008, 4:56 PM EDT
We thought you would want to read a serious article concerning what people think about CO2 Sceptics, this is from the New Statesman by Mark Lynas.
Comment's are welcome on this.
The arguments of climate sceptics have largely been moulded by a far more sinister force - the US-based conservative think tanks
I am finding it increasingly difficult to maintain my optimism that we can stabilise global temperature increases below the "danger level" of 2°C. First, there is no sign that emissions are being reduced; rather, the opposite is happening. Second, it is becoming clear that the danger level for temperature increase is a good deal lower than 2°C.
The Arctic Sea ice cover is already approaching a new low. The new topic of speculation is not whether the Arctic ice will disappear completely in the summer months by 2080, but whether this will happen by 2018. An ice-free North Pole will have a significant effect on the planet's energy balance, given the important role this huge white "mirror" plays in reflecting incoming solar radiation. Once it is gone, the warming process can only speed up further. Already, a new study suggests that an ice-free Arctic Ocean will dramatically increase warming in surrounding land areas, accelerating the degradation of permafrost and resulting in huge releases of carbon and methane -driving yet more warming. Setting a danger level of 2°C, as the UK and EU have done, now looks dangerously optimistic.
Thursday, July 3rd 2008, 4:49 PM EDT
The Guardian seems to have their share of "green" and "environmental" news at the moment, this time Tim Yeo gives a break down on the Car "Green Tax" in the UK.
The chancellor is under fire from both Labour and Conservative MPs over the changes he announced to annual road tax (vehicle excise duty, or VED) in this year's budget. What has united these critics is the proposal to raise – and, in many cases, double – the road tax on those cars with the worst emissions that are already on the road. Cars in Band F that were bought between 2001 and 2006 are currently charged £210 a year. From 2010, this will go up to between £270 and £455, depending on the amount of their emissions.
This is unfair, say the critics. Green tax is meant to change behaviour – otherwise, it's just a tax. Unlike fuel duty, VED doesn't vary with the amount you drive. So changing behaviour, in the case of VED, can only mean changing people's mind about which car to buy. But how can people change their mind about a car that has already been bought?
Thursday, July 3rd 2008, 4:39 PM EDT
They are digging deep to win you over with guilt on consumer goods, this time according to the Telegraph by John Bingham, if you buy a Flat screen TV your adding to "Man Made Climate Change", what an absolute load of tosh!
If there is a real scientist in the house, please explain to us how they calculate this nonsense.
The boom in flatscreen television could be fuelling global warming more than official estimates, scientists have warned.
Experts in California estimate that production of a powerful greenhouse gas used in their production has hit 4,000 tonnes a year - enough to match the annual carbon dioxide emissions of Austria.
Research published in New Scientist estimates that the industrial component - known as "NF3" - is 17,000 times more powerful as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. But it is not covered by the Kyoto protocol because it was only made in tiny amounts when the agreement was signed in 1997.
Thursday, July 3rd 2008, 6:41 AM EDT
Now listen to this, we have a Journalist from the Guardian (Tahmima Anam) saying that the Government should make people fear "Man Made Climate Change", you could not make it up!
We agree that we should be in fear of a Journalist who wants to spread fear and anxiety about the non scientific cause of MMCC. Tahmima Anam went on to say the recent cyclone in Bangladesh was the result of MMCC, Ok Tahmima, you can make it up!
Two recent polls attempting to judge the public mood about climate change have revealed contradictory results. Last week's Ipsos Mori poll told us that most people doubt the human causes of climate change. Yesterday's Guardian/ICM poll told a slightly different story, one of a growing concern with climate change, with many people considering it a higher priority than the faltering economy.
The roots of scepticism can be traced to many sources. In this newspaper on Monday, Peter Wilby criticised the media for not doing its part to lend credibility to the argument. Some have pointed the finger at that fateful Channel 4 documentary, The Great Global Warming Swindle; others at the sometimes contradictory messages from environmentalists. Whatever the reason, there is no doubt that many people still remain unsure of the causes of climate change, and the seriousness with which we need to tackle it.
The scientists and campaigners have done their best. The IPCC's latest report states that there is a 90% chance that humans are the main cause of climate change. Al Gore has gone around the world with graphs and arresting photographs of the melting Arctic ice, proving that climate change really is happening. And, of course, there is the anecdotal evidence: everyone knows someone who has witnessed an extreme storm, or had their house flooded, or watched from a balcony as the Asian tsunami leapt from the sea.
Thursday, July 3rd 2008, 5:41 AM EDT
“But we must have power, power to order all things as we will, for that good which only the Wise can see.” The power-corrupted Saruman of Many Colours declaiming in J. R. R. Tolkien’s masterpiece, The Fellowship of the Ring (1954, p. 272)
The planet has warmed up since the Little Ice Age and it has warmed up relatively quickly between 1975 and 1998, so much so that we humans are becoming consumed with guilt and anxiety about our place on Earth. Our production of CO2 into the atmosphere is supposed to be the cause.
I’ve set out elsewhere the reasons for my reservations about CO2 being the cause but let’s put that aside for a while and consider whether our production of CO2 is blameworthy in any moral sense.
CO2, A BREATH OF FRESH AIR – by Stephen Wilde
Wednesday, July 2nd 2008, 6:38 PM EDT
KansasCityStar by KAREN DILLON had this to say about people who misquote statistics and weather events.
A 100-year flood occurs once every 100 years.
Right? Wrong, experts say.
In fact, since 1973, four 100-year or 500-year storms have hit the Midwest, said Tony Lupo, chairman of the University of Missouri’s School of Natural Resources. It may be time to rethink “what we call a 100-year flood,” Lupo said.
A 100-year flood is defined as a flood so big that it has a 1 percent chance of happening in any given year. A 500-year flood is one with a 0.2 percent chance of happening in a given year — a 1-in-500 chance.
Lupo and some other scientists and disaster officials say the use of terms such as “100-year flood” should be re-evaluated because they are often misunderstood and can give the public a false sense of security.
“Whoever invented that term should be shot,” said Villanova University professor Robert Traver, who specializes in storm-water management.
A 100-year flood could occur once in 200 years. Or, said hydrologist Gary Wilson of the U.S. Geological Survey Missouri Water Science Center in Rolla, “it could happen twice a year, if you’re unlucky.”
Wednesday, July 2nd 2008, 5:03 AM EDT
An article about words! We are sure you have played this at home but this is the Newsweek take, is it "Global Warming" or is it "Climate Change" by Jerry Adler.
What is the most pressing environmental issue we face today? "Global warming"? The "greenhouse effect"? At the Oscar ceremonies, Al Gore referred to a "climate crisis," but in his State of the Union address President Bush chose the comparatively anodyne phrase "climate change." They all refer to the same thing, but the first rule of modern political discourse is that before addressing any empirical problem each side must "frame the debate" in the most favorable way. If you doubt it, just try to get a Republican to utter the phrase "estate tax" rather than "death tax." Behind the overt campaign to head off whatever it is—environmental heating? thermal catastrophe?—is a covert struggle over what we should even call it.
In recent years this has played out largely as a contest between "global warming" and "climate change." Bush's use of the latter was consistent with Republican practice, which calls for de-emphasizing the urgency of the situation, as recommended in a 2002 memo by strategist Frank Luntz. Unlike the "catastrophic" connotations of global warming, Luntz wrote, "climate change sounds a more controllable and less emotional challenge." So should activists favor "global warming"? Well, not necessarily. Richard C.J. Somerville, a leading researcher on—um, worldwide calorification?—at Scripps Institution of Oceanography, thinks "global warming" is problematic because it puts the focus on worldwide average temperature, rather than the more serious regional dangers of storms, floods and drought.
Wednesday, July 2nd 2008, 4:50 AM EDT
Now the question is, is this a good thing or a bad thing? From the Daily Green by Dan Shapley we have the ruling of a Judge for the proposed building of a coal plant.
We can also see from this article "Green" legislation in force on a complete assumption that CO2 is driving world temperatures, if that were true, then World temperatures would still be on the increase, but they are NOT. World temperatures have fallen for the past 10 years whilst CO2 has increased!
In a ruling believed to be unprecedented, a Georgia judge halted the construction of Dynegy's Longleaf coal-fired power plant because it had not made provisions for reducing its emissions of carbon dioxide, the greenhouse gas most widely implicated in man-made global warming.
The judge ruled that the plant must limit its pollution, according to the Sierra Club, which has been waging a campaign against Dynegy, an energy company with plans to build more coal-fired power plants than any other.
The Supreme Court has ruled that carbon dioxide can be regulated under the Clean Air Act, but the state judge's ruling applies that decision to a specific plant before any state or federal regulations have been set in place. For that reason, the impact of the decision is unclear, according to the New York Times.
Wednesday, July 2nd 2008, 4:31 AM EDT
Now here is a news blog concerning "Green" car stickers from TheMustangNews.
Just when you might of started thinking that California was not run by a bunch of whack jobs, another state sponsored “Green” initiative to raise awareness of “global warming” has been foisted upon the auto industry. California has bought on to the Great Global Warming Swindle hook line and sinker. And if you are a resident of the state, you get to be a part of it whether you like it or not. The Detroit News is reporting that all new vehicles sold in California starting next year will have to display window labels that rate their “environmental score”.
The “Green Stickers” will carry scores, from 1-10, to supposedly reflect the level to which vehicles contribute to “global warming” and smog. So, if the score is low, you are a dirty dog who is killing the planet one tank at a time. If the score is high, you are better than everyone else and drive with your nose in the air. Being printed and designed by the California Air Resources Board, you also get the pious admonition on the sticker: "Protect the environment, choose vehicles with higher scores."
Wednesday, July 2nd 2008, 4:14 AM EDT
If you want to keep upto date on "Climate Alchemy" then read this article from the American Enterprise Institute, it's their recent newsletter.
The topic: How to reduce the level of CO2 without using trees!
At an AEI event in early June on how to control global warming, scientists and climate policy experts examined a unique idea called geoengineering--that is, employing technologies that would change features of the earth's environment in ways that would counteract the warming effects of greenhouse gases.
"There is not much question that there is some real risk that the consequences of warming may prove to be significant, and possibly catastrophic," AEI's Samuel Thernstrom said, and geoengineering could be a "safety valve" if other mitigation policies do not work. Thernstrom, along with AEI's Lee Lane, directs a new project at AEI that will explore the policy implications of geoengineering, which, according to Thernstrom, is the "most original and potentially important idea in climate policy--and also the most controversial."