Climate change - at last someone tells it like it is

[MOB]

I think people are slightly missing the point here. There have always been long, cyclical changes in climate, based on the milankovic cycles, based on the rise of different species (for example, the plants which evolved and made this an oygen rich atmosphere) and other variables acting over the long or very long term.


There have always been relatively quick fluctuations, for example changes induced by asteroid impact or volcanic activity.

These are things about which we can do nothing.

The present debate and the present 'Global Warming' concerns observed changes and predicted changes which are largely postulated to have been created by man. There are really three debates:
1. 'is this happening?'.
2. 'Did we cause it?'.
3. 'what if anything should we be doing?'

The problem here is that while many people are trying to conduct the third debate; many others are still at either No. 2. A few are still at No. 1.

 

[z104]

Do we go back to the happy clappy days of pre industrial revolution.
Nice thought but not realistic.

The world population is growing at a massive rate.
Technology and further advancement is the way to go.

Either that or a good old world war to cull the excess population.

 

[GeneralZod]

No explanation has been given for the global cooling trend that occurred for a period of decades up to the 1970s.

A possible explanation has been proposed. In those decades there was an increased level of volcanic activity and there was also aerosol pollution from human activities. As there was a reduction in the volcanic activity and clean air acts came into effect the warming effect became more apparent. During the early 90s there was also a cooling period that's been attributed to the eruption of Mount Pinatubo. After that the warming trend became apparent again.

Yet we are led to believe that the present global warming trend is a departure from the previous fluctuations, in that it is solely as a result of human actions. The people who are unable to explain previous global climate fluctuations except in terms of wholly natural phenomena are now trying to tell us that "this time its different". We've heard this one before...

We've never heard this one before with such strong evidence. The vast majority of climate scientists have proposed an internally consistent theory that explains the observed warming. The skeptics have not proposed an alternative natural process that accounts for the same observations.

 

[ubiquitous]

The problem is that "theory" and "possible explanations" (your words) have been postulated as fact.

 

[GeneralZod]

The problem is that "theory" and "possible explanations" (your words) have been postulated as fact.

Not by the scientists of the IPCC.

 

[ubiquitous]

Not by the scientists of the IPCC.

Why then are the IPCC proposing radical shifts in human social & economic development strategies as a reaction to their "theory" and "possible explanations"?

It makes no sense in my book to sacrifice economic development (particularly in the third world) on the basis of unproven theory.

 

[room305]

The skeptics have not proposed an alternative natural process that accounts for the same observations.

Yes they have. Theories based on the alignment of planets - particularly Jupiter and Saturn (predicting a cooling period that began in 1996 and will begin to affect us as early as 2010), others theories have been posited and published in respectable journals such as Nature. Gore has yet to answer why he himself got the temperatures wrong in his movie (it is now believed that 1934 was probably the hottest year on record), nor has he accounted for the known lag involved in ocean temperatures, roughly 800 years worth or so.

Carbon credits are not a bad thing. And Gore would be stupid to purchase his cabon credits from another company, I don't think that's such a big deal - as long as he's purchasing them from somewhere, and the company is putting the money to good use, i.e. really is using it to create carbon offsets.

There are some unsettling quirks to the carbon trading regimes that actually increase the amount of greenhouse gases produced (e.g. China switched prior to the baseline to an extremely toxic way of manufacturing fridges to reduce carbon dioxide but maintain a high credit base to sell). However, this ignores [broken link removed] in carbon trading.

So far, so good. But how Gore buys his "carbon offsets," as revealed by The Tennessean raises serious questions. According to the newspaper's report, Gore's spokesperson said Gore buys his carbon offsets through Generation Investment Management:

Gore helped found Generation Investment Management, through which he and others pay for offsets. The firm invests the money in solar, wind and other projects that reduce energy consumption around the globe, she said...

Gore is chairman of the firm and, presumably, draws an income or will make money as its investments prosper. In other words, he "buys" his "carbon offsets" from himself, through a transaction designed to boost his own investments and return a profit to himself. To be blunt, Gore doesn't buy "carbon offsets" through Generation Investment Management - he buys stocks.

And it is not clear at all that Gore's stock purchases - excuse me, "carbon offsets" purchases - actually help reduce the use of carbon-based energy at all, while the gas lanterns and other carbon-based energy burners at his house continue to burn carbon-based fuels and pump carbon emissions - a/k/a/ "greenhouse gases" - into the atmosphere.

 

[extopia]

It should be noted that the quote above is from the communications director of the Nashville Republican Party.

Nevertheless, Gore, along with the IPCC, was the joint recipient of this year's Nobel Peace Prize.

 

[GeneralZod]

Why then are the IPCC proposing radical shifts in human social & economic development strategies as a reaction to their "theory" and "possible explanations"?

It makes no sense in my book to sacrifice economic development (particularly in the third world) on the basis of unproven theory.

The IPCC are proposing options for climate change mitigation. It is for policy makers to look at the arguments including the economic ones and attempt to come up with the best compromise and most efficient use of resources. It is by no means a given that economic growth and sustainable development are mutually incompatible. The recent Stern report indicates this.

As for the term "theory" (possible explanation is mine not the IPCC's so I will not discuss it) this is simply the language of science. Scientists don't talk of anything as being fact, contradictory evidence may arise. They will express a degree of confidence in a theory however and they're very confident about man made climate change occurring.

 

[ubiquitous]

Just because Hicks (the author of the Gore item quoted above) is a Republican party activist (which he explicitly states on his blog), does not mean automatically that his allegations are baseless.

In fact Generation Investment's own site confirms the facts cited by Hicks. [broken link removed]

The Wikipedia feature on Generation Investment http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_Investment_Management links to the following article that echoes Hicks' criticism "Al Gore's Inconvenient Profit"
http://wizbangblog.com/content/2007/03/03/al-gore-inconvenient-profit.php

 

[extopia]

Just because Hicks (the author of the Gore item quoted above) is a Republican party activist (which he explicitly states on his [/url]

True, but neither does it mean that just because Al Gore buys his carbon credits from a company of which he is chairman that his motives are suspect.

Should he buy such credits from a competing company? Should shareholders of Diageo drink Murphy's instead of Guinness?

Anyway, discussion of Al Gore is a distraction at best. He is just an activist (albeit a high-profile one).

 

[ubiquitous]

As for the term "theory" (possible explanation is mine not the IPCC's so I will not discuss it) this is simply the language of science. Scientists don't talk of anything as being fact, contradictory evidence may arise. They will express a degree of confidence in a theory however and they're very confident about man made climate change occurring.

Fair enough, but it makes me wonder what basis Al Gore had for saying "The debate on global warming is over."... back in 1992.

True, but neither does it mean that just because Al Gore buys his carbon credits from a company of which he is chairman that his motives are suspect.

Should he buy such credits from a competing company? Should shareholders of Diageo drink Murphy's instead of Guinness?

Would you apply the same logic to Dick Cheney

 

[GeneralZod]

Fair enough, but it makes me wonder what basis Al Gore had for saying "The debate on global warming is over."... back in 1992.

Back in 1992 I was a climate change skeptic myself as the evidence wasn't strong enough then. Al Gore also famously invented the Internet.

 

[ubiquitous]

Back in 1992 I was a climate change skeptic myself as the evidence wasn't strong enough then.

Gore didn't make that statement as a global warming sceptic... His full statement was

“Only an insignificant fraction of scientists deny the global warming crisis. The time for debate is over. The science is settled.”

http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/blog/category/junk-science/

“Only an insignificant fraction of scientists deny the global warming crisis. The time for debate is over. The science is settled.”

So said Al Gore … in 1992. Amazingly, he made his claims despite much evidence of their falsity. A Gallup poll at the time reported that 53% of scientists actively involved in global climate research did not believe global warming had occurred; 30% weren’t sure; and only 17% believed global warming had begun. Even a Greenpeace poll showed 47% of climatologists didn’t think a runaway greenhouse effect was imminent; only 36% thought it possible and a mere 13% thought it probable.

Al Gore also famously invented the Internet.

Indeed

 

[GeneralZod]

Gore didn't make that statement as a global warming sceptic...

I didn't say he was.

Indeed

That was a joke. Are you deliberately misunderstanding by any chance?

 

[ubiquitous]

That was a joke. Are you deliberately misunderstanding by any chance?

No

"During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet" Gore said when asked to cite accomplishments that separate him from another Democratic presidential hopeful, former Sen. Bill Bradley of New Jersey, during an interview with Wolf Blitzer on CNN on March 9, 1999.

 

[GeneralZod]

Ok. Ready to resume sensible debate..

 

[extopia]

Would you apply the same logic to Dick Cheney

No, because at least Gore is spending his own money.

 

[extopia]

Ah no, let's not have the old Gore and the internet smear again...

http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.asp

 

[MOB]

"it is now believed that 1934 was probably the hottest year on record"

Factcheck required; I think this quote may well be misleading, though I am open to correction. I googled it and it appears that this statistic relates only to the weather in the 'lower 48' United States - not global average temperature and in particular not polar regions.