Return to: Home | Politics | Environment

61 comments from readers

john Prendergast
03 July 2008 at 10:30

This is typical of the GW lobby, any one who gainsays them is a Nazi or peadophile in equivalence. This writer does not realise that the Arctic is melting because there is acrack 1300 km longunder it which is providing volcanic heating, part of the same effect that Keeps Iceland on the boil. Despite all this "underfloor" heating, there was record Ice cover in the Arctic last winter, and of course Wimbledon has just been cancelled through heat stroke, and no it did not snow in April either.

blog
03 July 2008 at 11:12

Official temperature records of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, that for the years 1998-2005 global average temperature did not increase (there was actually a slight decrease, though not at a rate that differs significantly from zero).

Have a look at what the US Senate thinks about global warming...

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.S...

dobermanmacleod
03 July 2008 at 11:42

"Few seem to realise that the present IPCC models predict almost unanimously that by 2040 the average summer in Europe will be as hot as the summer of 2003 when over 30,000 died from heat. By then we may cool ourselves with air conditioning and learn to live in a climate no worse than that of Baghdad now. But without extensive irrigation the plants will die and both farming and natural ecosystems will be replaced by scrub and desert. What will there be to eat? The same dire changes will affect the rest of the world and I can envisage Americans migrating into Canada and the Chinese into Siberia but there may be little food for any of them." --Dr James Lovelock's lecture to the Royal Society, 29 Oct. '07

There is a very inexpensive simple way to immediately cool the Earth: just put a small amount of aerosol into the air to dim the sun. We won't be able to stop rapid ecosystem collapse without geoengineering.

Carl Jones
03 July 2008 at 12:55

Lynas is lost in space, an empty space in his head. No golbal warming for the last 10 years, this year will see a fall in global tempreature and we are entring a 30 year long cooling cycle. In a way, I feel sorry for Lynas and his kind, when they reach the interlectual wall, its like some massively advanced alien visiting Earth and telling us that his ancestors designed humans x million years ago and sorry, the concept of God was a programming glitch, so sack the Bishops and turn the chuches into police holding cells. What is it with a journalist who ignors the most basic facts....is Lynas on some 5 year NWO contract with no way out?lol

G. Tee
03 July 2008 at 13:31

It must be wonderful, to have the secret knowledge that the Earth is in fact alright, despite the fact that all these scientists and experts and what-have-you say it's not and despite the fact that you're just an ignorant old member of the public. And it must be wonderful to have the time to hunt down anyone saying that climate change is a problem and have a pop at that, all in your own free time, even if you're in America and the comment is in a relatively small British publication.

As Lynas says, think about what the deniers are really standing for before you believe a word of their bilge.

Great True Bwana
03 July 2008 at 13:38

Lynas is right of course. And of course there are responses from the usual pseudo-science theorists who have spent just about zero time really thinking objectively about GW models. After all is said however, there remain many ethical questions. One such is to pose the question of whether or not a species that democratically elects George W. Bush as President of the planet's most powerful nation deserves much better than to fry itself slowly.

blog
03 July 2008 at 13:53

Just believe the propaganda and pay your carbon tax like good little sheep.

Whats going on at the south pole..http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/topstory/20020820southseaice.html record levels of sea ice..where's your global warming now?

WhoCares
03 July 2008 at 14:19

And what is the problem with the human race being wiped out ? The planet will continue and another species will take over. We don't own the planet we just live on it, in time the human race will be removed either by our own doing or by natural means.

DocMartin
03 July 2008 at 14:38

Oh dear, some of the loopier denialists have popped up to post here.

Bizarre sob story re being likened to Nazis; a crack under arctic ice, assertion re a cooling spell just beginning, and even mention of aliens... - plus a link to NASA info from 6 years ago.

For some more re the global warming lies n hysteria from the denialist crowd

http://www.drmartinwilliams.com/global-warming/global-warmin...

fben
03 July 2008 at 14:42

I have a theory that the legions of deniers and skeptics who throng like flying monkeys to climate change articles like this are actually investors in old energy, and are very worried about losing their shirts (as well they should be). I used to see it in the late 90's in the run-up of the stock market, with pump-and-dumpers posting disinformation on discussion boards at Yahoo, Motley Fool and Silicon Investor. These people are protecting the value of their accounts. -Fred

babybearsporridge
03 July 2008 at 14:55

So, arctic ice is disappearing eh? Wow, if it keeps on like this Greenlanders will be able to resurrect the dairy farms of their Viking ancestors!

I have noticed that commentators like Mark Lynas are becoming ever more shrill, or is it desperate, in their denunciation of the "deniers" as more and more evidence contradicts the official IPCC line. A recent American petition disputing the whole idea of anthropogenic global warming now has the signatures of over 9,000 scientists - phD and above! (http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/3214)

By dismissing the significance of this number, perhaps it is Lynas who is the denier!

davef
03 July 2008 at 15:35

Yes, G. Tee, I too am often amazed how many Americans read New Statesman. They all seem to be red-necked-salute-the-flag-the-rest-of-the-world-don't-count types. Spooky. Is New Statesman being monitored by the CIA?

Strangely though, I don't think any of it matters. The NWO (as Carl Jones likes to call it) is much too powerful and pervasive to allow to do much about frying. I can only hope that climate change deniers are right, because if they aren't it's a long walk North if you want to survive.

writeon
03 July 2008 at 22:04

Mark,

If we really are heading for 4 degrees, which I believe we probably are, then James Lovelocks's dire and close to apocalyptic predictions begin to make sense.

Society will have enormous problems adjusting to 4 degrees. It's not really sufficient to talk about "mitigation" in this context, the applicable word is, "survival".

I've met a very famous, or infamous, super-denier a couple of times at private functions, and he simply drove me to distraction and dispair. Talking to him was bizarre. He was simply unable or unwilling to discuss his ideas rationally, in my opinion. He reminded me of religious fanatic or fundamentalist. His dogmatic stance was disturbing. Yet he has the ear of the Whitehouse and is one of the most influential deniers on the planet.

After talking to him I came away thinking he was a total and very dangerous charlatan, a psuedo-scientist, selling junk thought to gullable people for a large fee. How is this possible? I believe it's because ignorance of very basic mathematics, logic and statistics is widespread and unfortunately growing. Rationality and educational standards are being undermined systemastically and with purpose. The purpose is to rule and control the many by the few.

As a last thought, if one examines the IPCC raport, one can find an inbuilt bias which has consequences. The report assumes that technological progress will automatically increase over time and lead to startlingly improved rates of efficiency in our use of energy which will reduce our release of greenhouse gases by around around 60% over the coming decades. This assumption obviously means that we don't have to curtail our use of energy or emmisions by anywhere near as much as we would have to without this technological fix. Yet there is really no concrete evidence that we will make this great, technological, leap forward. It is a faith-based assumption, not based on a calm and neutral examination of historic or current rates of technological progress.

Carl Jones
04 July 2008 at 00:34

I`ve never seen Lynas defend himself with a comment....mind you, reading some of the replies, the NWO has despatched a few drones to do their hands free dirty work.LOL

Carl Jones
04 July 2008 at 00:37

MR LYNAS....are global warming DENIERS on a NWO par with HOLOCAUST DENIERS?LOL

Jympton
04 July 2008 at 00:40

PEAdophile? Anyway, it didn't smow at Wimbledon, so the world is SAFE. To quote Thatcher - "Rejoice! Rejoice!" Come on, these people deny global warming to protect their M O N E Y. "It's the economy, stupid" - George Bush senior.

kwg1
04 July 2008 at 02:13

The vast majority of Global Warming alarmists ignore these recent findings. Some are listed in NASA, some on NOAA, and all do quote original sources and all have been published within the last 6 mos.

Reading these and understanding that the current computer models do not incorporate any of these issue and facts in their modeling should lay to rest any accuracy of the Anthropomorphic side of any possible GW to any significant degree and any accuracy in general predictions since there are recent article which question even the small models of water vapor in current computer models as being totally in accurate! OUCH! It is interesting that one of the recent articles, published within the last day or so, covers the Antarctic Ice cores for a period of about 14,700 years ago and one of the findings was that during a fifty year (50 year) period at that time (14,700 years ago), the earth experienced a 22-degree Fahrenheit increase in temperature. I wonder how much of that increase was caused by man and the industrial revolution. Oh the IR didn’t happen until 12,820 years later!

Volcano eruption heretofore not know under both the Arctic and the Antarctic continue to add unforeseen land mass which would have to be included in the models for sea level rise but obviously haven’t been because until the last year we did not know just how active they may be or how many there are and where they are. Since we measure annual sea level increases in millimeters per year I see no reason to not to believe that these volcanoes play a significant role in these millimeter rises! But no that can’t be it is all man made!

Happy reading if you can keep an open mind!

News: Greenland Ice Core Analysis Shows Drastic Climate Change Near End of Last Ice Age:

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/MediaAlerts/2008/2...

Destruction of greenhouse gases over the tropical Atlantic:

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/MediaAlerts/2008/2...

Accurate thermometers in Space:

http://science.nasa.gov/newhome/headlines/essd06oct97_1.htm

Role of the Ocean Conveyor Belt as a Cause of Multidecadal Climate:

http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/phod/acvp/gray.htm

GEOLOGISTS DISCOVER SIGNS OF VOLCANOES BLOWING THEIR TOPS IN THE DEEP OCEAN

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/MediaAlerts/2008/2...

Buried Volcano discovered In Antarctica:

http://www.livescience.com/environment/080120-antarctic-volc...

Is the Earth Getting Warmer or Cooler? NASA (A sub title within the article: NASA is Rewriting History, Time and Time Again:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/05/02/a_tale_of_two_thermo...

Ken Gareau

Oro Valley, AZ

Carl Jones
04 July 2008 at 10:51

Jympton; what has "PEAdophile" got to do with it????lolYour assertion that global warming cynics are only trying t protect their money is rarther simplistic. Global economic parity is narrowing, the West is product saturated...rigged energy costs and the global warming scam are designed to create financial viability and new expensive high-tech products for gullible consumers.  I was talking with a guy yesterday, he is planning to farm trees in Madagascar. These trees produce small oil rich nuts for biofuel. Banks are lending money, he has loads of cheap labor and the crop will need to be shipped somewhere. Business wins all round. Money is making more money. The West is moving onto a higher technological footing, which will widen, or at least maintain economic parity.

Look at the economic benefits of man made flooding in Britain. Over £3 billion, the tax man took £440 million, 14,000 businesses trashed and 500 schools damaged....Hull, one of the most economically backward areas of Britain is getting a huge cash injection from insurance....how much money did Haliburton make from hurricane Katrina? Minneapolis bridge collapse; this is a crucial NAFTA road link...it needed upgrading, someone got a huge contract....you work it out.LOL

Wars make the rich richer...man made violent weather makes the rich richer and so does the wider global warming scam, wake up, get you head around the NWO.LOL

marklynas
04 July 2008 at 13:07

Well I have to say that most of the comments this piece (and many of my others) has attracted simply prove my rather depressing conclusion that a lot of probably very decent people have swallowed the line pumped out by industry-funded US conservative think tanks. Almost ever denialist argument I've ever seen first made an appearance courtesy of them - there's very little in the 'denialisophere' (apologies) which is in any way original.

None of the citations of course mention the peer-reviewed literature, where there isn't any discussion of whether anthropogenic global warming is real or not, because all the systematic data shows that it is. But it's pointless to go on digging trenches - and personally I've got better things to do than engage with entirely close-minded people. This is a political debate, not a scientific one, and has been for a long time.

Mark

nonamouse
04 July 2008 at 15:10

Ah Mark, well may you shake your head. Why are humans programmed such that the stronger the rational evidence for anything (evolution, climate change), the stronger the paranoia that people cling to in resistance? Are these things that we simply do not want to believe?

In response to 'Blog' (03 July 2008 at 11:12), please do not besmirch the University of East Anglia, with it's world renowned reputation in climate change science, by presenting misleading, out of context citations which appear to link it to any 'denialist' agenda.

mememine69
04 July 2008 at 15:12

This New age Narcissism called globull whining has convinced an entire generation that suicide is an option in their toxic earth future. Thanks, you fear mongering self-serving do-gooders.

I used to be a globull whiner until I realized that I’ve been waiting 25 years for the dire predictions to come to pass and now La Nina is stronger than global warming itself? Gees!

I don’t let others do my thinking for me, unlike you miserable practitioners of fear who hang on to every word from politicians, scientists (consultants), PR firms and the blood letting corporate media. Be good liberals and doubt and challenge authority like you used to.

How dare you disrespect Mother Nature and assume that after billions of years, some SUV gas is going to bring it to it’s knees. Are you all that insecure that you must make yourself feel important by going saying the end is near?

Preserve our environment, not save it from a non-existent crisis with fear. I don’t miss the smoggy 60’s when a river caught fire in Ohio.

EnivronMENTALism causes global warming and history will laugh and cry at this modern day witch burning.

Its Not Raining
04 July 2008 at 15:41

Why am I so cold? My better half is knitting me a jumper because it has been getting colder every year and even at the last 10 Christmases’ I had a jumper on & the last 4 beanies too. It was never this cold 50 years ago. The governments and "enviro natzies" have their own agenda and it is nothing more than another way to TAX the poor workers. They are calling it Carbon Tax. The facts are that everything biological eventually dies and goes back into the Carbon Cycle. This gives a whole new meaning to the only 2 things certain in this life are death & taxes, now before you die you are going to prepay for going into the Carbon Cycle after death which is a natural phenomenon.

The government is peeing down your legs and trying to tell you it is raining. What is really going on is the World is getting COLDER, the price of Oil, fares, & food is skyrocketing, and in general this all happens to make people cranky enough so the governments can declare a WAR somewhere and kill a lot of people so they can get wealthy by selling their war machines then forcing the losers to pay for repairs to their country. The governments can fool some of the people some of the time, most of the people most of the time, but they can’t fool all the people all the time.

Uncertain Future

mememine69
04 July 2008 at 15:43

George Carlin: "There is nothing wrong with the planet."

"I'm tired of these self-righteous environmentalists, these white bourgeois liberals who think the only thing wrong with this country is there aren't enough bicycle paths, people trying to make the world safe for their Volvos. There is nothing wrong with the planet. Nothing wrong with the planet. The planet is fine. The people are (bleep) -- difference, difference. The planet is fine. Compared to the people, the planet is doing great. It's been here four and a half billion years. Did you ever think about the arithmetic? The planet has been here four and a half billion years. We've only been engaged in heavy industry for a little more than 200 years."

"Two hundred years versus four and a half billion, and we have the conceit to think that somehow we're a threat, that somehow we're going to put in jeopardy this beautiful little blue-green ball that's just a-floatin' around the sun? The planet has been through a lot worse than us, been through all kinds of things worse than us, been through earthquakes, volcanoes, plate tectonics, continental drift, solar flares, sunspots, magnetic storms, the magnetic reversal of the poles, hundreds of thousands of years of bombardment by comets and asteroids and meteors, worldwide floods, tidal waves, worldwide fires, erosion, cosmic rays, recurring ice ages, and we think some plastic bags and some aluminum cans are going to make a difference? The planet isn't going anywhere. We are! We're going away."

writeon
04 July 2008 at 20:59

Mark,

I appriciate your reluctance to engange in a debate with people who appear to have closed minds and a frivolous attitude to logic, elementary maths, and basic science.

You are correct about the filter of peer review and it's importance. The Great Denier whom I seen to bump into more than I'd really like to, has never, not ever, had a paper relating to "global warming" peer-reviewed in any scientific journal of repute. There's a reason for this. His views simply don't stand up to proper scientific analysis or review, because they are not real science, they are spin and paid for by the fossil fuel industry. Yet, despite these collosal flaws, he is regarded as an expert on climate change. How can this be?

It's because his views are a kind of intellectual lifeline and an excuse for not really doing anything substantial in relation to climate change. One catchy sentance from a junk-thought merchant often requires whole paragraphs or pages of reasoned counter-argument, and who has time for that and where will it be published?

There have always been "fools" and charlatans ready and willing to "comfort" the rich and powerful and tell them what they wanted and needed to hear. But part of the problem one faces today is that the media is so managed and controlled. It's as if charlatans and quacks are more entertaining and made for better copy, than real scientists with real knowledge.

Unfortunately, real knowledge and real science is telling us some inconvenient truths that on a very basic level question many of the fundamental assumptions and dogmas about Western society, namely the idea that market forces are "sovereign", pure and benign.

To examine or question these "faith-based" assumptions about the nature and consequences of "the market" and "growth" on a finite planet with finite resources, is a form of dangerous heresy, not far removed from treason, and in some countries is punishable by death.

So "climate destruction" and what we do to stop it, or mitigate it, is, in essence, an attack and critique of the power structure we live under. When the elite lash out at the "greens" for wanting to undermine, curtail and destroy, "capetalism", this isn't just rhetoric and spin, it's an accurate statement of what's at stake.

Can the "free market" and "growth" and "neoliberal" social and economic models survive "unreformed" and "unbound" in a society that's really serious about mitigating global meltdown, (I prefer this phrase to global warming), and saving the biosphere?

I believe the "green movement" will be forced to become far more political and activist in future. The old divisions between Left and Right won't matter very much as the biosphere is degraded and destroyed. The conflict and struggle will be between those who are militant about saving the planet before it's too late and those whose minds are still closed.

Badgersouth
04 July 2008 at 23:21

The USA has had a government of Big Oil, by big Oil, and for Big Oil during the past eight years. Power to the people! Change is on the way!

Climate Resistance
05 July 2008 at 00:32

Mark is recycling a fairly standard argument made by environmental alarmists. We’ve heard before about a ‘well-funded denial machine’, especially with respect to Exxon. It turns out, however, that the funds in question amount to little over $45million over the course of a decade. Compare that to the $billions – yes, $billions – that are at the disposal of the likes of Greenpeace, WWF, NRDC and so on. The annual budget for UK Govt. organisations such as The Carbon Trust and Energy Saving Trust are in the high £tens of millions. The influence of ‘denialist’ cash is greatly exaggerated, especially when compared to Green budgets. http://www.climate-resistance.org/2008/01/well-funded-well-f... and http://www.climate-resistance.org/2008/05/well-funded-world-...

We can turn Lynas’ newer argument on its head too. Guess what… almost all writers on climate change arguing for action to stop it have been involved in climate change activism! Shocking, isn’t it! Some of them have even been involved in… political organisations, such as… the Green Party! If it’s wrong for sceptics to be affiliated to political interest groups, why isn’t it wrong for the likes of Lynas?

Lynas the activist emerged from obscurity by throwing custard pies at Bjorn Lomborg. His books may have achieved some grown-up respectability recently, but his inability to cope with the existence of an opposition reveals as childish an intellect as it ever was.

Badgersouth
05 July 2008 at 02:13

I'm old enough to remember how the tobacco industry fought tooth and nail against the medical and scientific community over the causal effect between cigarette smoking and cancer. It's no secret that Big Oil, Big Coal, right wing-nuts like Rush Limbaugh, Libertarians, and others have used the tobacco industry's tactics to cast doubt on the validity of what the scientific community has concluded about the causal effect between climate change and the release of greenhouse gases by mankind. Many Americans died because of Big Tobacco's greed and selfishness. This time around, the stakes are exponentially higher. For the sake of our children and future generations, we need to take action now to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and to mitigate against the climate change consequences that have already been set in motion.

oldenough
05 July 2008 at 18:45

i think the problem we face is one of emotional attachment to our subjective point of view. basically by what we would like to have happen. personally, i would like to see the way my life is lived continue in the way it has, i like my air conditioning( i live in south florida), i like the clean fresh water that comes form my tap, i LOVE my electric bill, i wouldn't even be able to post this without it. however it is a given that nothing stays the same and i am afraid this will all change, and change VERY quickly, just look at the change in the price of energy. perhaps we contemplate where THAT will lead

debate all we want to, but i think it is impossible to deny the 61/2 + billion people on the planet or the fact that we have never before experienced such numbers. i think it would be very difficult to argue that we (some worse than others, especially here in the u.s.) are using the planets resources faster than they can be replaced. we as a species need to change our entire paradigm about how we consume or the planet will do it for us. our scientist's are doing the best job they can but by definition they cannot be intuitive, science is about accurate measurement, however, things are moving so fast that by the time things are measured, sterilized in the crucibal of academia, peer reviewed and published, the information is virtually useless.

george carlin was right, the planet is fine, it is we who are in danger, i think it is high time we expand the scientific method to include intuition. instead of measuring after the fact we might try anticipating what results we might expect. for instance, fossil fuel burning, a gallon of fuel when burnt puts about 24-26 pounds of CO2 into the atmosphere, there are 42 gallons per barrel and we use about 84,000,000 pbd ,i hope my figures are near accurate, but if not i am sure someone will point it out. now 24x42x84.000,000=8,467,200,000 pounds of co2 put into the atmosphere from fossil fuel burning alone. if we went to the world court say 60 years ago and presented a plan to put that much co2 into the atmosphere as an experiment to see what would happen, to see if the planet cooled as a result, or if the planet warmed, or if the planet stayed the same. if the planet stayed the same, which is unreasonable to expect, no harm, but in either of the other two happened the result to human civilization would likely be catastrophic. i like to think the court deny the experiment, in fact this what we have done and the results are just coming in. from where i sit it's not looking to good as far as preserving life the way we know it is concerned. things are changing, and changing fast. debate is good, but i hope it leads to intelligent action while we still (if) have time to act, for once the planet decides we will all be on for the ride

yours for a better tomorrow in peace and love

ron jeffers

phildowd
06 July 2008 at 05:52

I thought Mr Lynas said he never reads the comments below his blog!

The big problem he has, and from his article on it a few months ago, is that he does not have an adequate explanation for the world not warming in the past ten years. Reputable scientists have differeing views on the matter - there is no scientific consensus here.

It seems that 2008 will be cooler than 2007 - the world is cooling. Mr Lynas, go and re-read Dr Whitehouse's prescient New Statesman article of last December - he is right.

TerryB
07 July 2008 at 10:24

What a joker - where do people like Lynas get their research done? Whatever happened to well informed incisive left wing journalism? I really hope Pilger dives into this area of public policy before he gets too old .......

If Lynas (et al) looked in the right places and read the latest papers - peer reviewed as well, mind - he would find out that the Arctic's recent melt has been influenced by ocean currents; he would find out that the Antartic is at record ice extents; he would find out that the atmosphere (measured by satellites) and the oceans have been cooling since 2004; and all this despite CO2 emissions outstripping predictions. This is not right wing propaganda - these are facts. The science is NOT settled by a long long way. Socialists (and I am one, believe it or not) need to wake up fast. When will the intellectual left finally wake up and see that the enviro movement was hijacked long ago by capitalist forces and is contributing to the rape of Africa and the 3rd world? What's going on when the WWF (amongst others) vehemently opposes proposals for desalination plants to help thirsty parts of Africa because of C02 emissions?; What's going on when biofuels contibute to up to 75% of the rise in world food prices (World Bank leaked report last week) and the left stays silent? Wake up, read the real science, ignore the propaganda, change the policies, help the 3rd world.

TerryB

Yousef
07 July 2008 at 16:21

Let's keep to the science (I'm a scientist). Man made global warming theory predicted temperature increases based upon a link between increases in levels of atmospheric CO2 (a colourless, odourless gas essential to life) and global mean temperature. This theory is now considered to be seriously flawed by scientists because measured (actual) temperatures don’t match the computer models. In fact, as has been observed in earlier posts, the earth has cooled slightly over the past 10 years. Subsequent debates are, I'm afraid, political rather than scientific, and I'm saddened that so many on the left are prepared to suspend reason and propagate a failed theory simply in order to push progressive policies. Policies that are, and will continue to hurt the poorest and weakest societies on the planet. TimM

knave
07 July 2008 at 17:10

As a molecular biologist, and most of nthe general public, I haven't a clue which side is right. I do have sympathy for some of the comments about the third world from TerryB, although the Pilger dig was unnessary. What I will say, any idea to stop any type of pollution cannot be all bad. I remember just, the pea soupers in London and similar arguments by the right about interferring with industry when they brought in the clean air acts.

TerryB
07 July 2008 at 19:01

Knave,

I wasn't having a dig at Pilger - a true hero in my opinion. I meant that he should turn his attention to this area of politics, because when he does, others will follow, and what will be revealed will astonish those who think they're being progressive. It was actually a dig at Lynas et al (with Monbiot being the biggest culprit of all). By the way, CO2 is not a pollutant, it's necessary to all life - you should know that in your field. All I want is people on the true left to wake up to the reality - enviro-capitalist millionaires like Goldsmith, Gore, Soros, etc are no friends of the poor or the environment. (Now, as an aside, which of those 3 enviro heroes has secretly been building up a portfolio in Halliburton...............?)

knave
07 July 2008 at 21:36

TerryB

Yes I know CO2 is an odourless gas that is used by plants in the process of photosynthesis. I was talking about the other chemicals, such as benzene derivatives released by car engines and SO2 released by power stations. Wherever CO2 is released other gases and chemicals are also set free into the environment by any man made process apart from breathing.

As I said before I have sympathy for your views.

knave
07 July 2008 at 21:44

Also Terry B, the life expectancy for town dwellers, especially those living next to motorways, usually the poor, have much lower expectancy than country dwellers. This may be due to diet and other factors but there is evidence that it is due to car pollution and the benzene derivatives, a known carcinogen.

So as socialists don't we a responsibility to the poor in the towns.

knave
07 July 2008 at 21:45

sorry life expectancy

TerryB
08 July 2008 at 00:10

Knave, you are correct of course - car pollution in totality is a scourge, and it should be curbed. I would agree with anyone who said that. I was merely stating that CO2 itself is not a pollutant because thats the bi-product grabbing the headlines. Interesting point you make though. May I ask your opinion (out of interest, not for argument!) - do coal burning power stations release those noxious chemicals you mentioned? I don't know for sure. I would expect though that the health benefits to society as a whole from coal derived electricity would outweigh the faults (I'm thinking of the developing world again).

knave
08 July 2008 at 21:31

I don't know Terry but my good gut feeling is that coal fired power stations release more SO2, which has been implicated in the increase in acid rain and deforestation.

The trouble with this debate is that we don't really know one way or the other.

TSM
09 July 2008 at 04:59

A great discussion! Who do we believe? Is this really about the science? Almost everyone here quotes their science and why we should believe it. How does the average person know who to believe? Do we believe Al Gore? or do we believe Sean Hannity? Is the IPCC believable?

Are there any other believable sources of scientific information out there we can trust to guide us on this controversial topic? Can we trust the science? What about other major national and international scientific societies. Have they "weighed in" on this issue? Can we trust their stance? Groups like National Science Foundation, National Academy of Science, European Science Foundation, World Meteorologic Association, American Meteorologic Society,etc. The list goes on and on. Where do the REPUTABLE national and international scientific groups stand on Climate Change? How many of these long standing and reputable scientific groups are "deniers" and how many support the IPCC findings?

The fact that so many scientific societies would come forward with a public statement is in itself unprecedented. But it is also understandable because of the amount of disinformation out there they are trying to dispell.

I would like to see anyone find a significant number of reputable scientific organizations that have publicly disagreed with the IPCC. Especially after the 2007 statement of the AASP( American Association of Petroleum Geologists, or as I like to call them "the society of engineers whose jobs are threatened by limiting fossil fuel use") saying they admit climate models show a continued warming trend. Since this capitulation by the AASP after the 2007 IPCC report, my understanding is there is not one reputable "denier" international or national major scientific societiy . Deniers, have you found any? the OISM? lets talk about that group....

The science is solid. Mark Lynas is right on. We have to believe the REAL scientists of the IPCC. We must ignore the pseudo science of the non peer reviewed fossil fuel lobbyists and libertarian think tanks .We all have to face the fact that our fossil fuel burning way of life has to change. Deniers, get your heads out of the sand, there may be oil down there but it is just going to make things worse.

Carl Jones
09 July 2008 at 13:30

TSM, LOL

Get on google and find out just how many scientists question the NWO global warming mantra. There was a 20,000 strong convention in New York recently....the MSM ignored it.LOL

Google "HAARP" and related technology. The NWO can control the weather on a continental scale.

Flooding is good for a failing economy.LOL Is it raining today?LOL

Claddach
09 July 2008 at 13:41

THE term climate change "denier" is vile abuse used by climate change proponents who are not prepared to debate the facts. It is distasteful because the only other time we hear the term is in relation to extremists who deny the Holocaust. That sets the intellectual level at which most of this nonsensical article wallows. Your time is nearly up, Mark. Can't fool all of the people all of the time.

TerryB
09 July 2008 at 14:29

TSM,

Why would you say that? For sure there are right-wing interests putting out bad science - but there are left-wing interests doing the same. Enviro-capitalists can be just as unscrupulous as old school capitalists. Look, there are plenty of eminent scientists in this field and plenty of peer reviewed research (yes there are) that suggests the science and the predictions are not as solid as you think. For example look for recent papers by Spencer, Schwartz, Tsonis, Stott (all in gold standard periodicals). I could cite loads. In fact the IPCC core documents (not the politicised Summary for Policymakers) admits the science is not settled by recognising that the effects of oceans, clouds, and solar activity are little understood yet. Read the detail, not the summary. And what does the observational evidence show? So it's not helpful tarnishing anyone who legitimately questions the consensus as a "denier". The true deniers are those who are promoting enviro policies that are actually hurting the developing world right now. It's like the DDT fiasco all over again. And that brings me back to my original point - that the left should wake up and understand that some environmental issues are being hijacked by capitalist interests and some policies are ill conceived. Anyway, if you're open minded, why not pop over to Climate Audit and ask some questions about the current science.

Finally for Knave, what I was alluding to was that (I'm led to believe) the technology already exists to strip out all SO2 and NOx at coal fired power stations - even CO2. But I'm not sure if the technology has widely been put into practice anywhere.

I shall depart now. I did find this discussion informative and I hope I made some valid points. Thank you and goodbye.

TerryB
09 July 2008 at 16:00

http://www.wwf.org.uk/news/n_0000004044.asp

try this link guys - now this is the sort of thing I'm on about.

James
09 July 2008 at 16:12

"Whats going on at the south pole..http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/topstory/20020820southseaice.html record levels of sea ice..where's your global warming now"

Of course there is more ice at the SOUTH pole, when the ice melts in the north it naturally drips down there!!

TerryB
09 July 2008 at 16:14

Did that link work? Let's try another couple:

http://www.uah.edu/News/newsread.php?newsID=875

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/08/070801175711.ht...

And finally. I'm no huge fan of the crowd over at SpikedOnline but at least someone over there is savvy enough to see what's going on:

http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/4196/

http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/3788/

Thank you and goodnight.

Thisisme
09 July 2008 at 17:20

With any scientific debate or question there will be scientists willing to fudge the stats to show the results that there sponsors want them to show... That is one of the joys of statistics, if you only give part information and don't say how your conclusion were come to you can make them say pretty much anything you like.

People in general do not understand science or statistics, that's why people are paid to do the understanding for us. Unfortunately that means the results they give can be altered by who so ever is doing the paying (in some cases). The only way to decide which side is right it to do the reading of research yourself, deeply. I don't have time for that so I'd rather hedge my bets that the people such as Lynas are right and cut down my emission, and the things I do to cut them down cost me nothing and don't help capitalists...

People are starting to realise that Bio fuels aren't the magic answer they first thought, and yes sometimes bad decisions are justified in the name of slowing/stopping global warming, but there will always me people who are good at manipulating any situation for their own gains and I'd still rather go with trying to cut carbon emissions, it can't hurt?

TSM
10 July 2008 at 02:00

Carl Jones, sorry but I do not understand most of what you are saying. what is the NWO? and what's so funny?

TerryB, My understanding is that coal is the "dirtiest" of the energy sources and of the fossil fuels. Mainly because of byproducts like SO2 as well as producing the most CO2 release per unit of energy .

So with regard to my earlier post, I get the impression you all must accept that virtually every major respected scientific society in the world that has made a public statement about climate change supports the IPCC findings. Have you not found any? Is this not a scientific consensus? I am not saying there are not some scientists that are not convinced. We all know there will never be a complete agreement of everyone on anything. Especially when so much is at stake.

I am sorry about the term "denier" if it offends you. I am open to other terms. Perhaps "skeptic" is better.To me if you deny what the worlds climate experts (the IPCC) have a consensus agreement on as well as many other major scientific societies a "denier" is not a completely inappropriate term. Don't read to much into it.

With respect to the Earth cooling of late this is not true. Granted 1998 was globally the warmest year ever recorded. But according to the IPCC AR4, 11 of the last 12 years have been the warmest ever recorded. Therefore the last decade has been the warmest ever recorded. So if someone is telling you that the Earth is cooling, it is a lie!

I agree the IPCC admitted there were things it was not sure about. I thought they were very open about what they were sure of and what there was not enough data to be conclusive (such as the effect on huricanes and the amount sea level will rise)This does not mean you can discount all their findings. They stated they are confident in the data that the earth is clearly warming and human activity (greenhouse gas emissions)is causing it.

TerryB
10 July 2008 at 02:35

Dear ThisIsMe,

I respect your views, and in fact that is probably what I would have thought a couple of years ago.

But it is easy to follow the majority and take what "scientists" say as fact. But I was curious. I read the "science". I investigated the debates. What I discovered was disappointing and, frankly, disturbing.

The evidence is lacking. The conclusions are shaky. The peer reviewed "hockey stick" temperature reconstructions were discredited. The recent warming is not unique nor unprecedented. The non-existent peer reviewed contradictions do exist. The non-existent contrary scientists are plentiful.

I read & understood the basic physics & chemistry, and I understood how CO2 is a greenhouse gas capable of warming the atmosphere in some way. But I challenge you to give a reference to any bona fida peer reviewed literature that:

a) sets out how CO2 caused significant temperature rises in the past

b) how a doubling of CO2 would lead to a 4degree C temperature rise.

While you're looking, please read this link and the links I posted above earlier on:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jul/03/biofuels.r...

So, you say "it can't hurt?"........?

TerryB
10 July 2008 at 02:50

Dear TSM,

I think I answered questions re- scientific consensus & SO2 outputs but to recap:

1) yes the contrarians are in a minority, hence scientific organisations as bodies would naturally back the majority view. But does that make it right? Not necessarily - look at the the most recent research and the observational evidence - and the history of scientific discovery.

2) technology already exists now to limit SO2 and NOx from fossil fuel power stations.

As for recent temperature rises, please look at the satellite recordings and the recorded problems with ground-level readings. Why not pop over to Climate Audit and Anthony Watts. What is there to lose by being nosey?

Please, I urge you to be open minded and at least look at some of the links I have posted. I may be wrong, but I do have have some serious concerns about the way policies are impacting on the poor.

TSM
10 July 2008 at 03:21

Will do

TSM
10 July 2008 at 04:48

Blog: the article you linked regarding Antarctic ice growth is interesting. I assume you know it was published in 2002. therefore it was included in the data for the IPCC AR4 in 2007. As a matter of fact, I remember it being discussed in the summary report. Thanks, It is a great example of how important it is to have a peer reviewed process such as the IPCC to review all data that pertains to a particular topic. Also how important it is to look at data from all parts of the planet.Thanks again!

1)Secret report on Biofuels

TSM
10 July 2008 at 06:47

KWG1,

The IPCC is done, they are not going to be able to address studies released in the last 6 months, after their final meeting!

Secondly, when you wrote about temperature increase 14000 years ago,you seem to be completely missing one of the most important points regarding increased atmospheric greenhouse gases(CO2, methane,N2O etc). They are not the only cause of heating of the planet! No one is claiming greenhouse gases are the only causes(atleast no one that understands the science). It is clear greenhouse gases are only one of many things that effect the climate. The fact that the planet warmed 14000 years ago just means there was some other cause, and does not mean in any way that greenhouse gases are not causing the climate to change today.

TSM
10 July 2008 at 08:02

terryB I read the article about desalination. I don't see the relationship to article and whether or not we have anthropogenic climate change?

TerryB
10 July 2008 at 09:15

TSM,

Thanks for reading it. Well it's not a science article, but more like political pressure to determine policies. The relationship is that desalination is very energy intensive, so they are suggesting it shouldn't be done because it will contribute to AGW.

zebafella1
10 July 2008 at 14:17

There is nothing we can do to stop it. The earth will repair itself after setting itself back into an ice age. Humans will survive in space; when it looks like it is alright to go back. ( 1 to 100 years) We'll go back and start over. The life-cycle will try again.( That 's why the urgent space station and moon station upgrade)

Why? All because we take the oil out of the earth!!! Oil stops the ocean from getting warm (like a shield or a cover ), and it's a gas tank for the earths core (earths motor).

The ocean is warm so the ice melts.

This is not hard to see!

In the past 100 years+, we have been taking oil, and that's when the problem started!!!!

TSM
19 July 2008 at 06:51

TerryB,

Sorry, I wanted to reply sooner. but I went camping for a vacation this last week. Nothing like enjoying the outdoors with the constant sound of ATVs loudly whinning in the background, early morning to 10PM.

As I have looked at the links you posted, I see 2 themes. First, sites that try and distract the reader away from the overwhelming evidence of global warming.

Such as the: WWF wants to block desalination in Africa! The way I look at it, sInce the "science " is so strong for anthropogenic global warming they try and have the reader focus on WWF(an environmental group) and their opposition to desalination, because of the energy(and CO2 production) required. The reader becomes alarmed at how cruel this is to those denied the water from the desalination plant, and how cruel those who belief in global warming are.

Secondly, you list links to sites regarding "climate change research" which have no original research, and have no verifiable or peer reviewed conclusions. So what I see is: 1)There is no significant peer reviewed research that disagrees with the IPCC; and 2)all the claims used by deniers are based on research that supports the IPCC findings. I suppose I would not be surprised if you could find maybe one or two peer reviewed original paper in the last 5 years that had material findings that contested the IPCCs findings, but now more( compared to the hundreds supporting the IPCC findings)

Due to some ominous warming trends, what scientific group was set up to gather all the worlds climate research experts to review all of the data? The IPCC. How many times over 20 years did they convene? 4. What was the progress? Each meeting the findings were more and more solid. At the 4th and final meeting in 2007 The conclusions were, the Earth is warming, and we are causing it!

Is there some other group we should believe? Actually no scientific accredited national or international group has disagreed with the IPCC.

If you claim to believe the science, the The IPCC is the "gold standard".

TerryB
19 July 2008 at 10:32

Dear TSM,

Wow! I think you're fudging the issues I've raised and are trying to portray me as some sort of denier. I can only re-post what I've already written and hope you read it in more detail. I haven't criticised the core IPCC, but if you think that they are the gold-standard, then I have 2 words - hockey stick. This is what I posted earlier :

Enviro-capitalists can be just as unscrupulous as old school capitalists....there are PLENTY of eminent scientists in this field and PLENTY of peer reviewed research (yes there are) that suggests the science and the predictions are NOT AS SOLID AS YOU THINK. For example look for recent papers by Spencer, Schwartz, Tsonis, Stott (all in gold standard periodicals). I could cite loads. In fact the IPCC core documents (not the politicised Summary for Policymakers) admits the science is not settled by recognising that the effects of oceans, clouds, and solar activity are little understood yet. Read the detail, not the summary. And what does the observational evidence show? So it's not helpful tarnishing anyone who legitimately questions the consensus as a "denier". The true deniers are those who are promoting enviro policies that are actually hurting the developing world right now. It's like the DDT TRAGEDY all over again. And that brings me back to my original point - that the left should wake up and understand that some environmental issues are being hijacked by capitalist interests and some policies are ill conceived. Anyway, if you're open minded, why not pop over to Climate Audit and ask some questions about the current science."

And there's still no widespread media coverage of the "75%" cause of rising world food prices ..........amazing.

TSM
27 July 2008 at 03:34

Well, it looks like my last post did not make it to the thread. It's probably for the best.

As I said earlier, there is plenty out on the internet to support anyone's view. Pro or con.

Personally, I believe all the reputable scientific societies around the US and the world, that support the findings of the IPCC. Yes, THAT IS EVERY SINGLE SCIENTIFIC SOCIETY IN THE WORLD. Are they all just stupid? Are they all liars? No. They can scientifically and rationally see the evidence is conclusive.

mkwrk2
13 August 2008 at 10:37

Regrettably for some green "prophets", no such thing as "a denial of the global warming" might be existing but a realistic approach to a natural process of the Earth aging sustained by inextricably linked and interfering gradual geo-structural alterations, solar radiation, space rays, planetary magnetism as ozone depletion and climate change followed up the unstoppable deteriorating (on merits of a human existence) of biosphere accustomed:

M. Kerjman, The X-Challenge

http://omega.twoday.net/stories/302957/

And "global warming" is rather a climate change reflecting alteratioins of planetary MAGNETIC characteristics, surely.

Michael Kerjman

Carl Jones
29 October 2008 at 19:06

Today parliament debated climate change (aka global warming), as the first October snow fell on parliament since 1922.LOL Last week Sydney had its coldest October day for 40 years......

.....so much for global warming.LOL

Alan
30 November 2008 at 09:15

Mark Lynas seems to hink that because he is a reporter, he should tell people what to believe. He should look at the facts. 1997 was the hottest year, since then the world has cooled. 2007 was the coldest year by a long way. The average world temperature cooled in 2007 by half a degree. That is twice as much as the total warming for the whole of the 20th centuary. Yes, sadly carbon emissions continue to rise. With temperatures falling carbon is clearly not the answer. Sunspot activity has a high correlation with world temperatures and the last year has seen the lowest sunspot activity for decades. That is why temperatures were so low last year.

I suspect the only reason Mark Lynas continues to ignore the facts is that his job depends on perpetuating the global warming myth. I have been studyning climatic change since before he was born. I studied it at university in the 1960's. The world climate had been cooling then for 25 years.

Dont ask "most scientists" about climatic change - they are physicists, biologists, chemists, etc etc. Ask climatologists. And ask the ones whose jobs and research grants dont depend on a particular answer.

Alan Mathews

New Zealand