Climate Change

Bang

As I said below, deal with some of the massive problems we already have and that we can deal with, and adapt to changes in climate, as animals and plants of all kinds (including us) have had to do in the past in order to survive. It is the people who think we can control the climate of something as big as our planet who are in denial – essentially they are denying that nature is more powerful than we are. We have to go with nature rather than fight it. Eskimos survived in glacial 'deserts' by changing their behaviour to suit the climate and environment that they found themselves in; Saharan people survived in that desert by adapting their behaviour and way of life to suit the climate and environment they found themselves in. The same thing repeats across the world in all kinds of different climates and environments, some more hostile and some less hostile. It is human adaptability in the face of challenges from nature that has been our great strength in the past and it will be again.

Besides, the predictions made twenty or so years ago have been proved wrong. The models are wrong. Climatology is an ology in its infancy. They don't know what the climate will do. They are guessing. So far their guesses have been wrong. They are in denial about this and refuse point blank to address perfectly reasonable scientific criticisms of their work or to enable others to replicate their experiments with the raw data (because they won't publish the raw data. If, as we are told ad nauseam, "the science is settled", they wouldn't need to hold back their data. Anyway, all that's being referred to there is that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. That's settled. Its role as a climate driver is not).

Much of climatology is a disgrace to the name of science.

I may seem like a lone voice on this but I'm not. I just decided to muster up enough courage to say these things in spite of the name-calling and being told to shut up and, yes, the hysteria. Why else would scientific matter push anyone's blood pressure up? Why would anyone want to put a stop to the fact that with a slightly higher proportion of CO2 in the atmosphere it will be easier to feed the world's growing human population because CO2 is plant food? Crops and forests will benefit and, indirectly, so will we. Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant.

A sceptic is a person who refuses to accept popularity or authority as proving the truth of opinions.

And as if in confirmation of what I have been saying, here is an article published today on the "second thoughts" on global warming by one of Germany's first investors in alternative energy, Fritz Vahrenholt:

Second thoughts

another point of access to same article

Like me, like most of us, he believed all the IPCC hype until he began to look at the scientific evidence more closely. We are not rare nowadays, we doubters of the infallibility of the IPCC. The UNIPCC is, after all, a political body, not a scientific one. That shows in its reports.

bagsyou are not a lone voice. I agree with you! What more could you want?

Thanks, Bags.
Good point, too, about the UNIPCC being a political body.

I apologise Bags - I was not "telling you to shut up" - but wondering why you are so passionate about this, when all the measures that would be taken on "climate change" (insulation, energy efficient boilers and cars, diversifying into renewables) are sensible ways of saving individuals money and securing the energy supply for this country and our grandchildren in the future. I'm sure you agree that those are good things, help to reduce environmental degradation and are therefore not a big waste of money. So mystified as to why you are so vehement on the subject.
It does really wind me up though, which I don't enjoy, so i need to stay out of this discussion on GN.

What has made me passionate in this area is the abuse of science and the dissemination of misinformation.

Do not twist what I have said. I'm in favour of improved energy efficiency but it needs to be both effective per se (which wind power, for instance, so far, isn't) and it needs to be cost effective and not throw more and more people into fuel poverty in COLD climates!

I admire your tenacity, Bags. You present your arguments in a balanced and informed way, and I certainly appreciate the insights you provide which I would probably never find by myself.
It's all too easy to label folk on either side of the argument as 'fanatics' or 'hysterics'.

'The abuse of science and the dissemination of misinformation' golly, that's a bit strong!
I'm dipping out of this discussion too, for the same reasons as JessM ( my BP)
My views Jeni are merely that and not hysteria (BP even higher since I looked up hysteria in my trusty Penguin English Dictionary
I can see evidence of change, icecaps reduced, glaciers receding AND the great white egret has nested in Somerset for the first time!
I echo JessM when she writes:
.... when all measures that would be taken on 'climate change' are sensible ways of saving individuals money and securing the energy supply for this country and our grandchildren in the future.'

We used to have elephants etc in England!

Did we? When?

Prehistoric! And sabre toothed tigers! All well before man's "global warming"

Before my time, jeni.

I don't think anyone is arguing against sensible measures to preserve earths reserves or people's money. Onl against the theory that man's activity is causing a rise in global temperatures! There is ample evidence that the earth has undergone numerous warming and cooling periods in its history, well before man came on the scene!

I agree. Don't think Bags is, either.
It's a pity that feelings run so high on this subject that they threaten to affect health. Surely an open mind is preferable?

YES!

People who question the role of atmospheric CO2 in driving climate change are sometimes called "climate change deniers". This is an abuse of language and it used to derogate the questioners. What the questioners are questioning is how much changes in CO2 levels affect global climate. They are not questioning whether climate changes take place; these questioners are also the ones who talk of ice ages and warm periods in Earth's history. Here is a good article by Jo Nova about this Orwellian "language diversion tactic"

Every day there is something new that tends to refute fears of alarming anthropogenic global warming. Here is a link to one of the things I came across today — about a study which found that Antarctic sea ice has actually been increasing lately. I had heard this before but not with a reference to back it up though global sea ice data is freely available from various sources.

Noting that "southern sea ice has shown modest increases and established new record ice coverage in the summer of 2008 by a wide margin," Pezza et al. conclude their study by rhetorically wondering how this "peculiar behavior" meshes with the theory of currently-unprecedented anthropogenic-CO2-induced global warming.

www.co2science.org/articles/V15/N25/C1.php

Meanwhile the foundations of 1000 Danish offshore wind turbines are crumbling apparently

and

United Nations see natural gas (and fracking) as key to improving  the environment and helping the poor

Sorry, been ill, still am, so not happy sitting at computer.

Re Antarctic sea ice. I suggest you all have a look at:

news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/08/100816-global-warming-antarctica-sea-ice-paradox-science-environment/

National Geographic quite a reliable source I would have thought but if you google "Antarctic sea ice cover" you will find lots of articles explaining the paradox.
Its easy to keep picking out discrepancies but we all know how complicated it all is. But real scientists try to work out what is happening - they don't just say "I don't believe.....whatever" That means absolutely nothing. You have to provide evidence.

Re Lovelock, he has always been a maverick, always been in favor of nuclear power. He does not really "care" what happens, because he knows the Earth will sort things out (as a lot of you keep saying) - but the thing is: how will the Earth sort things out? Lovelock gave the answers: it does not matter to planet Earth if humans die out, its not interested in humans, it just keeps balancing things out as it goes along: if there are too many of a species (humans) then wipe them out and let another species have a go..... if a species messes up parts of the planet then the planet fights back - with weather and suchlike. I think some of you think we can adapt - but its not the same as in the past when people could just move if things got bad (too hot, too cold, no food). We have drawn lines all over the place and don't allow movement of people, we round them up and call them refugees. Even the animals can't move about as they always have done.

I do know a lot of people who think we should just let it happen and hope the dolphins take over from us. Thats a lot better than being in denial. But I, personally think it beholds every one of us to at least try and preserve our species. But not to end up with an overpopulated planet with most people living in misery (don't know why I said "end up" because that how we are now.....). The only answer is a considerably reduced population living reasonable happy lives on a healthy planet - that is what I think we should strive for...

back to bed (don't worry I think the huge & horrible, yellow antibiotic tabs are starting to work - just 3 weeks of a nasty virus - they leave a horrible taste in my mouth which today I discovered is assuaged by chocolate.......must be getting better, I'll be back to chocolate & wine tonight I think.

Sorry to hear you've been ill, carbon, and I hope you will feel better soon.

Thanks for the Geographic link. I had a look. Interesting, but based on faulty models yet again, unfortunately. Only time will tell if the models are right. So far they've not done very well.

I agree that the ideal would be planet Earth with fewer people living comfortable and undamaging lives. I suspect that most, if not all of the people who think about these things would agree on that. How to achieve it is the problem. The only thing that seems to be certain, judging from experience of what has already happened (the whys and wherefores), is that increasing people's wealth (bringing them out of poverty) is what reduces birth rates. Takes a while but I think that's what we have to do to prolong human existence on this planet — always supposing some bloody great meteor doesn't finish us off in the meantime.

Once again, hoping you regain full health as soon as poss.

I know that bringing people out of poverty reduces the birth rate, if not the population. Trouble is that there just are not the resources (or the will I think) on this planet for us to be able to bring that many humans up to decent living standards. Also there is not time for us to rely on this. Of course we have to improve peoples lives but at the same time we have to convince ALL people, rich or poor, that overpopulation is a large part of our collective problem - and everybody's responsibility. And that it is URGENT.

Climate change (whatever the cause) will necessitate people migrating around the planet when crops fail; floods etc.) and this will cause terrible hardship and distress (can't think of a better word) to all of us. The more people there are, the less room for manoeuvre. Also, the more people there are the greater risk of fighting over resources (eg water).

jeni We still have elephants in England - only now they are in the room !!

jeni We still have elephants in England - only now they are in the room !!