13 replies to this topic

[colion]

Grizzly, our backgrounds are not dissimilar and I do follow the global warming debate in the scientific literature, as opposed to the mainstream media. As a result, I am unimpressed with arguments that aim at funding sources, claims of consensus, etc. instead of the merits. Consensus is certainly where most global warmers hang their hat, but as Reiter, Institut Pasteur in Paris, noted "consensus is the stuff of politics, not science." Time to move beyond the consensus argument. The literature clearly is definitely not one sided, as you suggest, and cannot be dismissed as whitewashing. To keep this short and to the point, two of the most visible global warming researchers, Hansen (grandfather of global warming panic) and Lindzen (MIT) who are in a sense the north and south poles of the issue, agree that the present trend will result in an increase of ~1 degree C in the next 50-100 years. Hansen predicts an increase of ~0.5 degree C in the next 50 years and a warming rate of ~0.1 degree C / decade (Hansen and Sun, J. Climate, 2003, 16, pp. 2807-26). Certainly more comforting than Hansen's 3-5 degree increase in the late 80s, but good to see both groups converge. Subsequent papers, including those by Hansen and the debunking of Mann's "hockey stick" theory, are in agreement with these figures. As NAS concluded not too long ago, we are about the same temperature as 1000 years ago but not surprisingly a little warmer than 400 years ago which was the little ice age. At least these figures are not as scary as those thrown around in the 70s when the "consensus of scientists" forecast that we would soon be "living in igloos." In addition, most agree that temperatures have increased ~1 degree F during the previous century with ups (through 1940) and downs (through 1970s) and ups (through 1998) and roughly flat since then. In short, climate has changed during this period, resulting in both cooling and warming, as has always been the case (quite rapidly sometimes). Up and down is also consistent with, surprise, surprise, Harvard's solar activity studies. There is also general agreement that CO2 has risen from about 280 ppmv to 390 ppmv over the past century or so. All also agree that CO2 is an IR absorber (i.e., greenhouse gas) and if everything else was constant temperatures should have risen more than observed. Current knowledge of climate change is so "good" that the output of the climate models are all over the map in terms of predictions and provide no basis for anticipating "dire consequences." As a result, it is not possible to address the key question which is what are the relative effects of the contributing factors (e.g., CO2, CH4, H2O, clouds, ocean temperature and composition, solar activity, surface and upper atmosphere temperatures, etc.) and in particular how much of observed climate change (warming or cooling) is due to human forcings. The disconnect between observations of all types and model output has been well documented. Some have critically evaluated the data and concluded that the effect of human activity is a relatively small factor in the observed change in temperature. However, even if it were a major factor the change, as noted by Hansen and Lindzen, is itself not very large although we might see Greenland again become green. We know that global warming and cooling have been going on forever. The difference this time is the unsubstantiated claims that it is due to "this or that." Absent valid models of climate change, it is not possible to attribute such cycles to a specific cause. As a result, it would be imprudent to push for particular political actions on the basis of "nothing." In spite of our ignorance of what causes climate change, inaction in the political arena is, imo, not a valid (although it could be reality) option. Certainly we know that oil, for example, is a finite resource (irrespective of the debate about peak oil). Regulations that address conservation by simply saying "thou shall use less," as done in the 70s with CAFÉ, will accomplish much of what the global warming activists want; more efficient use of gasoline will reduce, for example, CO2 emissions whether or not they are a significant factor in climate change. Think where we might be if the politicians in the 70s had listened to recommendations to have a dynamic CAFÉ that, for example, increased each year by 0.25 gpm. Given regulatory constraints, engineers and scientists will figure out the most cost-effective way to meet regulations which is often not possible when politicians ignorantly try to control a particular emission without regard to practicality or effectivness. I'll stop here and simply note that there actually is a "consensus" that opposes the EOTWAWKI global warming scenario and their work is published in the scientific literature. Here is an example of a couple of dozen scientists expressing that view: --------------------------------------------------------- The Sunday Telegraph Letters, April 23rd, 2006 The president of the Royal Society, Lord Rees of Ludlow, asserts that the evidence for human-caused global warming "is now compelling" and concerning (Letters, April 19).. In a public letter, we have recently advised the Canadian Prime Minister of exactly the opposite - which is that "global climate changes all the time due to natural causes and the human impact still remains impossible to distinguish from this natural 'noise' ". We also noted that "observational evidence does not support today's computer climate models, so there is little reason to trust model predictions of the future". -------------------------------------- (Dr) Ian D Clark, Professor, Isotope hydrogeology and paleoclimatology, Dept of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa, Canada (Dr) Bob Carter, Adjunct Professor of Geology, Marine Geophysical Laboratory, James Cook University, Townsville, Australia (Dr) R. Timothy Patterson, Professor, Department of Earth Sciences (paleoclimatology), Carleton University, Ottawa (Dr) Madhav Khandekar, former research scientist, Environment Canada. Member of editorial board of Climate Research and Natural Hazards (Dr) Tim Ball, former Professor of Climatology, University of Winnipeg; environmental consultant (Dr) L Graham Smith, Associate Professor, Department of Geography, University of Western Ontario, London, Canada Mr David Nowell, M.Sc. (Meteorology), Fellow of the Royal Meteorological Society, Canadian member and past chairman of the NATO Meteorological Group, Ottawa (Dr) Christopher Essex, Professor of Applied Mathematics and Associate Director of the Program in Theoretical Physics, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario (Dr) Tad Murty, former Senior Research Scientist, Department of Fisheries and Oceans, former Director of Australia's National Tidal Facility and Professor of Earth Sciences, Flinders University, Adelaide; currently Adjunct Professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa (Dr) David E. Wojick, P.Eng., energy consultant, Star Tannery, Va., and Sioux Lookout, Ontario Mr Rob Scagel, M.Sc., forest microclimate specialist, Principal Consultant, Pacific Phytometric Consultants, Surrey, B.C. (Dr) Douglas Leahey, meteorologist and air-quality consultant, Calgary, Canada Paavo Siitam, M.Sc., agronomist, chemist, Cobourg, Ontario (Dr) Chris de Freitas, climate scientist, Associate Professor, The University of Auckland, New Zealand (Dr) Freeman J. Dyson, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Institute for Advanced Studies, Princeton, N.J. Mr William Kininmonth, Australasian Climate Research, former Head National Climate Centre, Australian Bureau of Meteorology; former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology, Scientific and Technical Review Mr George Taylor, Department of Meteorology, Oregon State University; Oregon State Climatologist; past President, American Association of State Climatologists (Dr) Hendrik Tennekes, former Director of Research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute (Dr) Gerrit J. van der Lingen, geologist/paleoclimatologist, Climate Change Consultant, Geoscience Research and Investigations, New Zealand. (Dr) Nils-Axel Mörner, Emeritus Professor of Paleogeophysics & Geodynamics, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden (Dr) Al Pekarek, Associate Professor of Geology, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences Department, St. Cloud State University, St. Cloud, Minnesota (Dr) Marcel Leroux, Professor Emeritus of Climatology, University of Lyon, France; former Director of Laboratory of Climatology, Risks and Environment, CNRS (Dr) Paul Reiter, Professor, Institut Pasteur, Unit of Insects and Infectious Diseases, Paris, France.. Expert reviewer, IPCC Working Group II, chapter 8 (human health) (Dr) Zbigniew Jaworowski, physicist and Chairman, Scientific Council of Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection, Warsaw, Poland (Dr) Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, Reader, Department of Geography, University of Hull, U.K.; Editor, Energy & Environment (Dr) Hans H.J. Labohm, former advisor to the executive board, Clingendael Institute (The Netherlands Institute of International Relations), and economist who has focused on climate change (Dr) Lee C. Gerhard, Senior Scientist Emeritus, University of Kansas, past Director and State Geologist, Kansas Geological Survey (Dr) Asmunn Moene, past Head of the Forecasting Centre, Meteorological Institute, Norway (Dr) August H. Auer, past Professor of Atmospheric Science, University of Wyoming; previously Chief Meteorologist, Meteorological Service (MetService) of New Zealand (Dr) Vincent Gray, expert reviewer for the IPCC and author of The Greenhouse Delusion: A Critique of 'Climate Change 2001,' Wellington, N.Z. (Dr) Benny Peiser, Faculty of Science, Liverpool John Moores University, U.K. (Dr) Jack Barrett, retired chemist and spectrocopist, Imperial College London, U.K.

[mss]

Grizzly, our backgrounds are not dissimilar and I do follow the global warming debate in the scientific literature, as opposed to the mainstream media. As a result, I am unimpressed with arguments that aim at funding sources, claims of consensus, etc. instead of the merits. Consensus is certainly where most global warmers hang their hat, but as Reiter, Institut Pasteur in Paris, noted "consensus is the stuff of politics, not science." Time to move beyond the consensus argument.

The literature clearly is definitely not one sided, as you suggest, and cannot be dismissed as whitewashing.

AT LAST!!
Facts and logic.
mss

[grizzly]

With all due respect I disagree that there is validity to a scientific conclusion that, human activity is a relatively small factor in global warming. IN FACT, JUST THE OPPOSITE IS TRUE! The overwhelming scientific conclusion that has passed the scrutiny of scientific peer review is that:

HUMAN ACTIVITY IS THE PRIMARY CAUSE OF THE GLOBAL WARMING TREND OBSERVED IN THE LAST CENTURY.

Many people do not like this conclusion or the implications that may result from it. They do not want to accept that maybe something should be done to address global warming, so they deny that there is a problem. They would rather believe that global warming results from a collection of natural phenomena that man has little influence over. They used to say global warming was a hoax, -it was not occurring. However, it is getting more and more difficult to say that, given the warming trends, glaciers and ice caps melting, etc., and the overwhelming evidence of climatic changes, so the mantra for the skeptics now is that global warming/climate change may be occurring but it is caused by natural phenomena that man has no control over.

There are many factors that influence climate and the issues are complex. You can find "experts" who will support almost any view on climate change. If your desire is to support a preconceived and more
desired notion that man is not responsible for global warming you can find "experts" to support that belief, just as lawyers in litigation can find "expert" testimony on both sides to give testimony to support their
client's position even if the "experts" give conflicting and contrary testimony. This is why peer reviewed scientific evidence should carry much more weight, in my opinion, than all the "experts" who are trying
to support a preconceived conclusion (i.e., a conclusion that may be their own or the conclusion their financial supporters pay them for).

There are industries and interests that feel threatened by scientific results, and they are willing to support "expert" opinion that casts doubt or uncertainty on scientific results they don't like. The tobacco industry did not like the scientific evidence linking cigarette smoking to lung cancer, and they financed "studies" for years to discredit and cast doubt on scientific findings linking lung cancer to tobacco use. These efforts were successful for many years. Many doctors signed statements that cigarettes were safe, and doctors were shown happily smoking away to "prove" cigarette smoking did not pose health dangers. Centuries ago people wanted to believe the world was flat and discredited notions to the contrary.

It is much more comfortable to believe that global warming is due to natural phenomena that we have no control over, and thus, we can continue on our merry way without making any adjustments in our ways of
doing things. I would like to believe that too, but should I delude myself and ignore peer reviewed science because it is not consistent with a more desirable belief? I think about, -What if the more desired belief is not true? What then?

People who cannot accept peer reviewed scientific results will continue to believe the deceptive and inaccurate information that is passed off as valid science in efforts to create doubt and uncertainty regarding
the true scientific facts around global warming. In the long run they will only be deluding themselves and others, and the problem will get worse. World economies and societies and future generations will pay
the price for this more than we, the current generation. Just as many ignored the evidence on cigarette smoking, and people suffered unnecessarily as a result, future generations will suffer unnecessarily.

If I was more cynical and did not have children I might not care what happened on this planet in another 50 or 100 years, and I might agree with the skeptics and go on my merry way as well. However, I do have
children and hope to have grandchildren (I hope my grown children hear that), so I care about what happens in 50 -100 years even though I will likely be gone. (--there is no likely about it, I will be gone, but
there are some things I would like to continue to delude myself about)

In the long run science will win out. We need not cheer on one side or the other. This is not a popularity contest. The most popular or most desired opinion will not matter. Only true science will matter. I was
actually in the camp that thought global warming was part of natural cyclical climatic cycles until the warming evidence hit me in the head like a 2x4, and I evaluated the peer reviewed scientific information
about global warming and climate change and the link to greenhouse gas levels more thoroughly.

Anyone that does that with an open mind and can reject preconceived, more desired notions and give greater credibility to peer reviewed scientific results can come to only one conclusion, global warming is occurring, and the increases in greenhouse gas levels in our atmosphere are the major cause of this, and man's activities are responsible. That is not my desired result, but in the long run it does not matter what I desire. Global warming is happening and will continue to happen despite my dislike for it happening.

I am an engineer and have no desire to give up modern conveniences. I don't want to sit naked in a tree and eat nuts and berries as the bunnies and butterflies prounce around. I think there are engineered
solutions that would help stabilize and reduce greenhouse gas concentrations, and there are long term economic and societal benefits from implementing them now. Oh, and yes, I also believed the cigarette- lung cancer link and quit smoking long before many others.


FYI, below is a recent article from the Salt Lake Tribune that might provide some insight into reasons there is so much deceptive inaccurate information about global warming and climate change. (This is a newspaper article, and not peer reviewed science, but since these types of articles are tossed out by others to support their preconceived beliefs I guess I can show this article. It may provide some insight.)

Zealous global warming dissent a pernicious red herring
Gerald Willmore
Salt Lake Tribune
10/14/2006

I was surprised, after 30 years of environmental study and activism, to
discover I was wrong to think that global warming is real, man-made and
fueling catastrophic climate change. Worse, the world's leading
climatologists are wrong to say, just because the evidence confirms
global warming, that the debate is over.
My awakening was a petition, signed by 17,800 "scientists," denying
global warming. It said "CO2 emissions are beneficial, not harmful . . .
the industrial age's gift to society . . . promoting plant growth and,
by extension, the animals that eat the plants."
I wondered, "Could this be the same fraudulent petition repudiated by
the National Academy of Science in 1998 and Scientific American in
2001?" Sure enough.
They found its "research" was unscientific, unpublished, and not
peer reviewed; the mass-mailed petition was deceptively made to look
like an official NAS publication; most who signed the petition were
misled by its contents and would withdraw their names based on what
they've learned since.
But, who'd instigate a disinformation campaign to: "raise questions
about and undercut the prevailing scientific wisdom" on global warming?
Was it: a) political partisans for the energy corporations,
fundamentalist religious ideologues believing in apocalyptic prophecy or
c) the fossil fuel industry and its financial beneficiaries. Turns out
it was all three.
Among them: political partisans Rupert Murdoch (Fox News) and the
Richard M. Scaife (Gulf Oil), both right-wing extremists; religious
ideologues led by Rev. Sun Myung Moon (Washington Times), the Coors
family (John Birch Society) and Arthur B. Robinson, a Christian
fundamentalist who cobbled together the petition's specious "research";
and fossil fuel industry's ExxonMobil and American Petroleum Institute -
fronted by Frederick Seitz, 95 (president of NAS 35 years earlier), who
signed the petition's cover letter.
This was the same Frederick Seitz who, from 1975 to 1989, lent his
name, reputation and credentials to shill for RJ Reynolds and big
tobacco. He oversaw distribution of $45 million in tobacco payoff money,
inducing various laboratories to publish phony scientific research
discrediting the mounting evidence of a causal link between tobacco,
lung cancer and other fatal illnesses. That deception ended when 46
state attorneys general sued big tobacco for fraud, winning billions of
dollars.
So, who's hurt by a massive disinformation campaign against global
warming science? First, the mainstream media, which, for balance, tend
to report all sides of a "controversy" as equally valid - without
checking. Thus, they reported as authentic the undocumented views of
self-serving political extremists, religious ideologues and unqualified
energy industry partisans.
That amplified those views as having equal weight with the documented
information from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the
world's climatologists. Result? The media's "he said/she said" reporting
between "dueling scientists" is balanced to a fault - and in the
interest of truth, a lie is told.
Second, some politicians are so compromised, ideologically extreme or
scientifically challenged that they hide behind Seitz's fraudulent
petition or Michael Crichton's deceiving novel, State of Fear, to
dismiss global warming science as "science fiction." Those politicians,
corrupted by campaign donations from big oil and coal, perpetuate our
addiction to carbon-based fuels - feeding the flames of global warming.
And third, citizens are misled when depending on the mainstream media
for accurate information to vote intelligently.
The options? If the science is wrong, we lose nothing by acting
immediately to curtail CO2 - except pollution's degradation of our
health, economy and environment. But if the science is right and we
don't act now, civilization dies. Is it moral to gamble with what we
can't afford to lose - our children's future?
---
* GERALD WILLMORE is chairman of the Council for a Sustainable Future
and president of a leadership training company in Salt Lake City.

Pasted below are several other recent articles providing food for thought that skeptics can choose to ignore, since they don't want to see information that suggests that there is a problem. If one looks, there are hundreds and probably thousands of articles like this.


Global CO2 levels log biggest rise since 1978

Worldwide carbon dioxide levels are increasing by larger amounts every
year, according to an air sample library that predicts CO2 may be
increasing by 2 parts per million annually by the end of the year.

Australia's CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric research center, which has been
collecting air samples since 1978, measured CO2 concentrations rising
from 340 ppm to 380 ppm in the past 30 years, which it attributed to
fossil fuel burning.

Air librarian Paul Fraser said that while CO2 emissions have increased
70 percent per year since the 1970s, methane emissions have stabilized
over the past seven years. But scientists generally agree CO2 levels
have to stabilize at around 450 ppm by 2050 to avoid catastrophic
climate change (Matthew Warren, The Australian, Oct. 3).


Scotland facing dire climate change predictions

The Scottish Environment Protection Agency is predicting frequent and
severe river flooding, species loss, increased smog and "extreme"
weather events stemming from climate change.

In a report, the agency noted a 1 percent increase in temperatures since
1961 has produced a 60 percent increase in winter rain in the north and
west and a sea temperature increase of 1 degree Celsius within the past
20 years. It warned that higher temperatures could kill numerous
species, including island-breeding seabirds, through food chain
disruption. And current emission rates indicate "great risk" of reaching
a point of no return.

Air quality ranked as the worst problem, followed by the stratospheric
ozone layer and ground-level pollution. Land contamination has improved,
the report said, as well as river pollution.

SEPA head Campbell Gemmell said yesterday: "The impacts of climate
change on the environment, on the economy and on people's lives are
significant and our message has to be that it is real, it is impacting
on Scotland and action must be taken to tackle it now" (BBC News online,
Oct. 2).

The agency concluded that Scotland would continue to get warmer and
wetter and that stopping endangered species loss by 2010 would be
"challenging." In addition to seabirds, threatened species include the
hooded crow, meadow pipit, kestrel, lapwing and curlew.

Environment Minister Ross Finnie said the government's push toward
renewable energy would continue but would shift its focus from wind
power to other technologies like tidal, wave and biomass.

Almost 90 percent of renewable energy schemes planned or under
construction are wind farms, according to a report earlier this year,
enough to meet the government's 40 percent RPS for electricity by 2020.

"The rush [to build wind farms] came about because of the state of the
technology," he said. "It's a much more mature technology [than wave or
tidal] and in relative terms the cost of wind installations has come
down very dramatically indeed" (Ian Johnston, Scotsman, Oct. 3). -- DK

Iceland president warns of global warming's effects

The president of Iceland warned a Washington audience today of global
warming's effects on his country while gently chiding the United States
and other nations to take a more active stance on the issue.

Olafur Ragnar Grimsson, a three-term president, explained that melting
glaciers and shifting ocean currents could lead to species extinction,
more insects and depleted fishing stocks in Iceland.

"It is probably the scariest place to be if climate change will
continue," Grimsson said during a lunchtime speech hosted by the
Washington-based Climate Institute.

Grimsson said Iceland has done its share to reduce fossil fuel
consumption over the last half century by turning to abundant domestic
sources of geothermal energy. The country currently produces about 70
percent of its energy through geothermal sources, and it has recently
enacted policies to drill more than three miles beneath the Earth's
surface for more of the renewable fuel.

Iceland also has begun experiments to determine if it can bury
greenhouse gas emissions in its underground basalt chambers. Results
should be available in about five years and the country is in talks with
India to conduct studies on similar geologic formations.Grimsson did not
directly criticize the Bush administration for its positions on global
warming, though he did joke that California belonged on a list of
countries he saluted for taking steps to cut greenhouse gases from
industry.

"If we can do it in my small country, the potential for those with
greater resources are enormous," he said.

Spanish weather clear signs of warming, expert says

Increasingly hotter, drier conditions in Spain and surrounding areas of
the Mediterranean may be some of the first clear signs of the effects of
long-term climate change, a weather expert said in Madrid on Monday.

"This accumulation of evidence, with high temperatures, intense drought
and heavy rain, taken together is worrying and could be in line with
climate change," said Angel Rivera of Spain's National Meteorological
Institute.

He noted that Spain's recent string of mild winters combined with
consistent, near-record heat waves over the last several years have made
the region drier and more arid. Higher temperatures could mean disaster
for cities like Madrid or Seville, which already experience highs of 113
degrees Fahrenheit at points in the summers.
"If the climate models prove correct, as now looks likely to be the
case, the situation in a few decades could be truly worrying," said
Rivera (Julia Hayley, Reuters/PlanetArk).

Study confirms rapid melting of Greenland ice sheets

Greenland's glaciers lost about 100 gigatons of ice per year between
2003 and 2005, according to research published today in the online
version of the journal Science.

That figure, derived from data collected by NASA's GRACE satellites, is
smaller than other recent estimates of Greenland's glacier loss --
including some estimates taken from the same data set.

But the results are still alarming, said lead researcher Scott Luthcke,
a geophysicist at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center.

In the 1990s, the amount of melting was nearly balanced by the amount of
snow and other precipitation on the icy continent. But now, the melting
has outpaced precipitation. "Overall, you have a significant shedding of
ice, quite a large number," Luthcke said.

To put it in perspective, the amount of ice lost each year by
Greenland's glaciers during the study period -- about 100 gigatons -- is
equal to six years' worth of the Colorado River's annual flow, or three
times the amount of water in Lake Mead, Luthcke said.

That works out to about a 0.3 millimeter contribution per year to the
global sea level rise of about 3 millimeters -- slightly lower than
earlier results derived from the GRACE data, which gave a figure of
about 0.5 millimeters per year.

The difference in estimates is due to different techniques used by
researchers analyzing the data obtained by the twin GRACE satellites,
which orbit the Earth about 200 kilometers apart from other. Small
changes in the planet's gravity field can push the satellites together,
ever so slightly, or pull them apart -- variations that scientists use
to interpret the terrain below.

"Previous studies are obviously very important and showed us Greenland
has significantly changed from the last decade," Luthcke said. "Our
study shows the same thing, except we used a different approach" -- one
that looked only at data from Greenland, rather than data gathered from
points around the globe.

GRACE measurements are more accurate at higher latitudes, Luthcke noted.

The research released today, combined with earlier work that shows a
dramatic increase in Greenland's melt rate in the last few years, could
have serious implications for the future, said Anny Cazenave, a
researcher at the Observatoir Midi-Pyrenees in Toulouse, France, in an
accompanying perspective article.

"Even a small loss of ice mass from the ice sheets would have a great
impact on sea level, particularly on low-lying islands and coastal
regions," Cazenave noted.
Meanwhile, Luthcke said he and his NASA colleagues plan to continue
tracking Greenland's ice changes with GRACE data, and apply their
technique to study ice in Antarctica and large glacier systems in
Alaska. The scientists are also hoping to link GRACE data with
measurements taken by NASA's ICESAT, which uses a laser altimeter to
collect highly accurate pictures of ice surfaces.

Climate change is changing our world

Margaret Munro
CanWest News Service
Saturday, October 07, 2006

Drought in British Columbia's rain forest. Prairie rivers running dry.
Storms leaving trails of multi-milliondollar damage in Eastern Canada.
The climate has changed. The insurance industry knows it. So do savvy
municipal managers and scientists amassing evidence showing temperatures
are rising and impacting everything from ski conditions to wheat
harvests.

"Climate change affects every Canadian and every activity we're engaged
in, there's not one activity that's immune," says Don MacIver,
Environment Canada's director of adaptation and impact research.

Temperatures are climbing faster in parts of Canada than almost anywhere
on Earth. Permafrost and glaciers are melting, and the country has been
hit by a series of storms, droughts and heat waves of unprecedented
intensity.

Insects and fires are destroying vast tracts of Canada's forests.

More than 300 blazes were burning in bone-dry northwestern Ontario this
fall. And the mountain pine beetle, which has thrived in a succession of
warm winters, has infested more than eight million hectares of B.C.
forest, leaving a swath of dead trees that is visible from space.

Rising water is already worry on Canada's coasts, especially in
Tuktoyaktuk on the edge of the Beaufort Sea and Charlottetown, P.E.I.
Another 7,000 kilometres of coastline in the Atlantic provinces, British
Columbia and western Arctic are said to be "highly sensitive" to sea
levels that scientists predict will rise between 35 centimetres and one
metre by 2100.

Leading environmental scientists are so concerned, they have written an
open letter to Prime Minister Stephen Harper pleading with him to reduce
Canada's soaring greenhouse gas emissions, which are believed to be
fuelling climate change.

"Let it be a strong plan that makes Canada a world leader on this
critical problem," say John Smol of Queen's University and David
Schindler of the University of Alberta, recent winners of the country's
top science prize.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the Arctic
Climate Impact Assessment detail how global temperatures are rising. The
project teams warn the projected rate of climate change in the coming
century is without precedent in the last 10,000 years.


Geographer Christopher Burn, who holds a Northern Research Chair at
Carleton University, also sees disaster looming. "I consider climate
change a massive international crisis," Burn said recently at his
research site in the Mackenzie Delta, where his team has detected the
warming trend 15 metres underground. Earth has undergone dramatic
changes in the past, Burn says, but "the big difference this time is the
human dimension.

We've never had a big environmental change when people have been
around." He stresses the need to adapt and plan for everything from
rising seas to battles over fresh water from the Great Lakes, which
could help quench the growing thirst in the U.S. Large regions of the
U.S. are expected to become progressively drier as the planet warms.

Even without new water diversions, the levels of the Great Lakes --
which are surrounded by cities and towns that are home to 30 per cent of
Canadians -- could drop by up to metre before the end of this century
because of increased evaporation, according to a new report co-authored
by MacIver's team at Environment Canada. The receding water will
compound problems already faced by the cities, power utilities, shipping
companies, animals and people using the lakes, says the 162-page report.

The forecast also calls for more water woes like the one that saw Tofi
no, in B.C.'s rainforest, run out of water this summer.

"Yet, no money goes to rebuilding it different," he says, "just
returning it to the way it was."

While the negative affects of climate change dominate reports and
studies about global warming, there are some benefi ts for Canada.
Heating bills will drop as winters are expected to keep growing warmer.
And growing seasons are lengthening: Edmonton's trembling aspens have
been blooming almost a month earlier than they did 100 years ago. Trees
and shrubs are sprouting on the once-barren Arctic tundra and the
treeline is expected to move 500 kilometres north. New areas are opening
up for wine growing and the maple syrup industry; Quebec has already
surpassed Vermont as the world's top producer, "and the industry will
continue to move northward," MacIver says.

But, so too will insects and disease. Lyme disease and West Nile virus
are now established in Canada, as is an airborne fungus, Cryptococcus
gattii, that showed up on Vancouver Island in 1999 and can cause fatal
infections in humans and animals. "We are now seeing a climate that is
hospitable to disease we didn't even know existed," says MacIver. B.C.'s
fast-growing Okanagan region faces serious water shortages, as do the
Prairie provinces -- which get much of their water from rivers fed by
alpine glaciers that have shrunk by 25 per cent in the last 100 years.
These glacial "water towers," as Schindler calls them, will eventually
cease to exist.

The Prairie droughts from 1999 to 2002 were the worst in over 100 years
and carried the spectacular price tag of $3.6 billion in losses. The
Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences, which funds
climate research, says weather-related disasters in Canada have soared.
There were 30 in the 1950s, compared to 130 in the 1990s.
While the losses reflect the rising value of homes, buildings and
businesses in vulnerable places, recent studies say hurricanes and
cyclones are becoming more intense at least in part because of human
influence on the planetary climate system.

The impact is seen both globally and here in Canada. MacIver notes
recent storms in Ontario have unleashed "more intense rain events" than
Hurricane Hazel, the 1954 storm which Ontario's storm sewers are
designed to withstand.
Scientists are not the only ones keeping tabs on the climate. Munich
Reinsurance, a leading insurance company, reports a 10-fold increase in
losses globally from natural disasters, most of them weather related, in
the last 50 years.

In flood-prone parts of Toronto, it is now almost impossible to get
basement fl ood insurance, and insurance rates for municipalities in
Canada have gone up "substantially," says MacIver, who is also deputy
mayor of the township of Amaranth northwest of Toronto.

Insurance companies are also tuning into more subtle changes. They are
increasingly reluctant to cover ice damming on roofs, a growing problem
in Central and Eastern Canada where warmer winters see more freeze-thaw
events that can cause extensive damage and leaks, says Heather Auld,
associate director of Environment Canada's adaptation and impacts
research division.

She and MacIver say Canadians and their governments need to follow
industry's lead. There is close to $5.5 trillion worth of infrastructure
across Canada. It only makes sense, they say, to take climate change
into consideration when replacing and rebuilding roads, sewers, bridges
and dikes.

There needs to be "mainstreaming" of climate change into
decision-making, says Gordon McBean, of the Institute for Catastrophic
Loss Reduction at the University of Western Ontario. This would help
ensure governments factor in the new climactic reality when planning
developments and rebuilding after storms and disasters. "In my view,
that is almost never happening," says McBean.

Each year, the federal government -- through the Disaster Financial
Assistance Act -- pays most of the costs for major weather-related
disasters such as floods, fires and heavy rains.

Global warming devastes sea ice in Arctic Circle
By Steve Connor, Science Editor
Published: 04 October 2006

Sea ice in the Arctic last month melted to its second lowest monthly
minimum in the 29-year record of satellite measurements.

Scientists at the US National Snow and Ice Data Centre (NSIDC) in
Colorado said the total surface area covered by sea ice during September
was smaller than in any previous year apart from 2005, when it reached
an all-time record minimum. And it was only a sudden change to cool and
stormy weather in August that prevented another record low being set
this September, they said.

"At this rate, the Arctic Ocean will have no ice in September by the
year 2060," said Julienne Strove, one of the NSIDC's research
scientists.

The Arctic sea ice floats on the ocean and its surface coverage varies
naturally in line with seasonal temperature changes, with an absolute
minimum in summer occurring around mid-September. However, rising
temperatures have seen a steady long-term decline in sea ice during the
summer months, with little recovery during the Arctic winter. Summer sea
ice across the entire Arctic has been dwindling steadily since satellite
measurements began in 1977. But since 2002 scientists have detected a
noticeable acceleration in the rate of summer loss, which they believe
is caused by global warming.

Mark Serreze, a senior research scientist at the NSIDC, said this summer
could easily have surpassed last year's record loss if it had not been
for the change in the weather.

"If fairly cool and stormy conditions hadn't appeared in August, slowing
the rate of summer ice loss, I feel certain that 2006 would have
surpassed last year's record low for September sea ice," Dr Serreze
said.

"August broke the Arctic heatwave and slowed the melt, and storm
conditions led to wind patterns that tend to spread the existing ice
over a larger area."

Arctic sea ice acts like an insulating lid on the northernmost ocean,
reflecting sunlight and preventing the water from absorbing heat and
warming up.

Scientists fear that as more and more sea ice is lost, a "positive
feedback" will kick in, with the Arctic Ocean absorbing more sunlight,
which will in turn cause the loss of more sea ice.

"I'm not terribly optimistic about the future of the ice," Dr Serreze
said. "Although it would come as no surprise to see some recovery of the
sea ice in the next few years - such fluctuations are part of natural
variability - the long-term trend seems increasingly clear. As
greenhouse gases continue to rise, the Arctic will continue to lose its
ice. You can't argue with the physics."

The Arctic has seen some of the largest increases in average
temperatures in the world over the past few decades, and could be one of
the places hardest hit by climate change.

"Arctic sea ice is an important climate indicator because it's so
sensitive to this initial warming trend," said Ted Scambos, a senior
scientist at the Snow and Ice Data Centre.


Glaciers on two highest African mountains melting

The glaciers on top of Africa's two highest mountains -- Mount
Kilimanjaro and Mount Kenya, both in Kenya -- are melting and will lose
their ice cover in 25 to 50 years unless deforestation and industrial
pollution in the region are reduced, the Kenyan Green Belt Movement said
yesterday.

"This is a major issue because declining ice caps mean the water tap is
effectively going to be turned off and that is a major concern," U.N.
Environment Programme spokesman Nick Nuttall said (Malkhadir M. Muhumed,
AP/Seattle Times, Oct. 12).
Over the next 30 years the Green Belt Movement wants to collaborate with
the French Agency for Development to plant 2 million trees at a cost of
$2 million over 4,942 acres within range of the mountains to preserve
the water catchment areas created by the glaciers, Green Belt Movement
spokesman Fredrick Njau said (Ogutu/Ringa, Nairobi East African Standard
, Oct. 11).

ABC News: Global Warming Washing Away Entire Communities

Mounting Evidence Shows Warming Ocean Temperatures Contributing to
Destruction of Hundreds of Villages in Far North

Sept. 20, 2006 — - A funny thing happened just before a ceremony was to
be held last week to commemorate a $3 million sea wall around the
village of Kivalina way up on Alaska's Arctic coastline. The village,
home to Inupiat natives for 4,000 years, is about to be washed into the
sea, and the 1,800-foot wall is supposed to stop that.

But along came a modest storm, with winds of up to 40 miles per hour,
and 160 feet of the wall washed out. The ceremony was canceled.

You're right. It's not funny.

Kivalina is one of an estimated 200 villages in the far North, fighting
for survival, and at least three, including this historic community, may
be lost within the next decade. The reasons are many, but a growing body
of research suggests that global warming is at least partly to blame.
There is less ice along the Arctic coastline because of warming ocean
temperatures, and thus, less protection from relentless winter storms
that undermine the coastal area.


It's sad, because it affects people who have closer ties to Mother Earth
than most of us. As they have for many generations, the Inupiats depend
on hunting and fishing for their livelihood, both of which are alsothreatened by
global climate change. Ironically, their distant ancestors
came to this narrow spit of land each winter because it offered them the
best chance for survival. Now, Kivalina itself is doomed.

But it's not alone. Kivalina is sort of like New Orleans in cold
storage. Both face enormous odds in the years ahead. But each story will
have a different ending. The people of Kivalina will have to move
somewhere else. Anywhere else. After all, who's going to cough up the
billions of dollars that it would take to relocate the residents of a
bunch of Alaskan villages.

New Orleans will be rebuilt, at least partly. Few dare even ask the
question, "Is it worth it?"

That's unfortunate, because that question is going to have to be asked
over and over again, in areas from Miami to Kivalina, from New York City
to San Diego.

Scientists have made their case. Global warming is real. Now it's time
to address the really hard decisions. How are we going to deal with it
in the years ahead? Even if we were successful in reducing the emissions
of greenhouse gases, which doesn't seem likely at this point, the planet
would continue to warm.

It's time for community leaders from city hall to the White House to
take center stage away from the scientists and apply the same level of
energy and dedication to addressing the problems that will inevitably
come. Science and technology will play a role in solving those problems,
but the tough decisions are shifting to the political front.

Does it make any sense to allow continued high density developments
along the nation's coastline? Are some areas just too vulnerable to
hurricanes and coastal erosion? Should New Orleans be saved? How about
Kivalina?

And here's one more: How much time do we have?

Probably a lot less than we think. There is mounting evidence that
changes in global climate will feed upon each other, and nowhere is that
more evident than in the Arctic. Warmer winters are causing the
permafrost to melt, which in turn, releases more carbon dioxide and
methane into the atmosphere, which causes the temperature to go up, ad
infinitum.

Millions of acres of Alaska's forests have been wiped out in recent
years because warmer winters have allowed insects, particularly spruce
beetles, to thrive, turning once-green forests into brown morgues.

We aren't going to be able to stop that, but it may be possible to slow
it down. And one idea shows just how desperate the situation has become.

Since the 1970s, scientists have talked about taking bold initiatives to
counteract our sins of the past and gain control over the weather. Maybe
we could build our own volcanoes that would spew tons of climate-cooling
sulfates into the upper atmosphere each year to offset the greenhouse
gas emissions.

This nuclear winter scenario would require injecting about as much stuff
into the upper atmosphere as the eruption of Mt. Pintabuto in 1991,
according to researchers at the National Center for Atmospheric Research
in Boulder.

That might gain us about 20 years before it all hits the fan, according
to the researchers, who say they aren't pushing for this program,
although their computer model says it would help.

But the scientists themselves are probably worried about the most likely
outcome. More politicians would decide to put off any solutions for 20
years.

These difficult decisions need not be met with panic, unless they are
delayed too long. But it will require cooperation on a national level
that has been rarely seen in the past. And that won't be easy to
accomplish because not everybody faces the same kind of problems from
global climate change.

The town I live in is also in Alaska, more than 1,000 miles from
Kivalina. Frankly, I could use a little global warming, and the
consequences here are likely to be mild, at least compared to Kivalina.

And some communities will clearly benefit from global warming. More rain
in some areas will mean better farming.

But weather will probably become more unpredictable, even if we build a
few artificial volcanoes, and storms will likely be more powerful. It's
not the end of the world, but it could all be made a lot easier if
political leaders would do the hard thing and make the tough decisions.
We have a little time. We need to use it wisely.

[colion]

"With all due respect I disagree that there is validity to a scientific conclusion that, human activity is a relatively small factor in global warming. IN FACT, JUST THE OPPOSITE IS TRUE! The overwhelming scientific conclusion that has passed the scrutiny of scientific peer review is that:"



I'm afraid that posting four feet of mass media articles proves nothing. A similar length of articles that say the opposite could also be posted but that would prove nothing.



As you know, there are peer reviewed papers on both sides of the issue. Is one better than the other? Why? One can only argue on the scientific merits and not consensus, unsupported claims of overwhelming evidence, etc.



The whole issue is becoming moot as people like Hansen and Lindzen converge on similar estimates for warming in the next 50-100 years and those estimates are quite mild. As a result, even if all warming is due to human forcings (why did temperature ever go up and down before the industrial revolution?) it is not a big deal.



Finally, it cannot be stressed enough that consensus is not part of science and arguments based on consensus are inherently fatally flawed. The following articles address the consensus issue.



At this point, everybody reading this thread has probably reached a conclusion and further discussion or another zillion mass media articles will not achieve anything. Time to move on.



Bill



==================

A Consensus About Consensus

By George Taylor















"The vast majority of the most respected environmental scientists from all over the world have sounded a clear and urgent alarm. …these scientists are telling the people of every nation that global warming caused by human activities is becoming a serious threat to our common future."
-- Al Gore, MoveOn.org, January 2004

"…the widely accepted notion among the vast majority of scientists [is] that human activity is contributing to a warming planet, and that business as usual -- doing nothing about rising levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere -- will make things worse."
-- Sandy Tolan and John Harte, San Francisco Chronicle, November, 2005



Statements such as these appear quite frequently, usually directed at those considered to be on the wrong side of "the widely accepted notion among the vast majority of scientists" that global warming is getting worse, and that it's caused by people -- notably, the people of the United States.

However, some scientists persist, "in the face of the overwhelming conclusions of scientists" in believing that natural variations are the primary cause of observed changes in climate. Without denying that human activities affect climate, these scientists believe that natural factors such as solar radiation, ocean temperatures, and other factors exert a much more significant influence.



As proof of their thesis Tolan and Harte referenced Naomi Oreskes. Last year Science Magazine published the results of a study by Ms. Oreskes. She concluded that there is a "unanimous, scientific consensus" on the anthropogenic (human-induced) causes of recent global warming. Oreskes analyzed 928 abstracts she found listed on a scientific database using the keywords "global climate change."



So what about this "consensus" among scientists. Is it really that broad?

Dr. Benny Peiser of England's John Moores University attempted to duplicate Oreskes' work. Peiser found 1,117 abstracts using the same search technique. Of these, only 13 explicitly endorsed the 'consensus view.' However, 34 of the abstracts rejected or questioned the view that human activities are the main driving force of "the observed warming over the last 50 years."



Oreskes claimed, "none of these papers argued [that current climate change is natural]". According to Peiser, however, 44 papers emphasized that natural factors play a major if not the key role in recent climate change.

Hans von Storch and Nico Stehr, European climate scientists, stated earlier this year that "a significant number of climatologists are by no means convinced that the underlying issues have been adequately addressed. Last year, for example, a survey of climate researchers from all over the world revealed that a quarter of respondents still question whether human activity is responsible for the most recent climatic changes."



That survey involved responses from 530 scientists worldwide. They were asked: "To what extent do you agree or disagree that climate change is mostly the result of anthropogenic causes?" Only 9.4% strongly agreed, while 9.7% strongly disagreed. Another 19.3% were in general disagreement.



But even if there actually were a consensus on this issue, it may very well be wrong. I often think about the lives of three scientists who found themselves by themselves, on the "wrong side of consensus." There have been many in the history of science, but I singled out Alfred Wegener (Continental Drift), Gilbert Walker (El Niño), and J. Harlan Bretz (Missoula Floods). None is well-known now among members of the public, and all of them were ridiculed, rejected, and marginalized by the "consensus" scientists -- and each of the three was later proven to be correct, and the consensus wrong. As a well-known writer once said, "if it's consensus, it isn't science -- and if it's science, it isn't consensus."



Wegener suggested that the continents were all connected at one time but had drifted apart, a phenomenon we now call "continental drift." Among his critics was Dr. Rollin T. Chamberlin, of the University of Chicago, who said, "Wegener's hypothesis in general is of the footloose type, in that it takes considerable liberty with our globe, and is less bound by restrictions or tied down by awkward, ugly facts than most of its rival theories." In time, though well after his death, Wegener's "footloose" theory became dominant.



Walker was chided for his belief that climatic conditions over widely separated regions of the globe could be linked, and that fluctuations in the tropical Pacific affected the Indian Monsoon and other climatic features. We now call those Pacific fluctuations the "El Niño-Southern Oscillation," and recognize that it has a profound effect on world weather.

Bretz postulated that massive floods had transformed the landscape of the Pacific Northwest at some time in the past. Geologists, who believed in slow, uniform processes, called Bretz a "catastrophist" because he believed in large-scale events not currently seen. Bretz engaged in "flaunting catastrophe too vividly in the face of the uniformity that had lent scientific dignity to interpretation of the history of the earth," according to one fellow scientist. Decades after his research began, it was shown that post-Ice Age floods had indeed scoured the landscape, and that Bretz's theories were correct.



When I hear the rather strident words of people like Tolan and Harte I am reminded of Wegener, Walker, and Bretz and what they went through. Many of my fellow climate scientists have been criticized for many years for their "non-consensus" views. They persist in seeking truth, regardless of government policies or popular opinion. No matter how many people agree.



George H. Taylor is the State Climatologist for Oregon and past President of the American Association of State Climatologists. The opinions expressed are his own and do not necessarily reflect those of the State of Oregon nor Oregon State University, where he is employed.







======================



<H2 class=storytitle>What climate consensus?</H2>Peter C Glover



We see the headlines almost daily. “Global warming: passing the tipping
point” (The Independent, February 11, 2006), “Climate change a bigger
security threat than terrorism” (The Guardian, June 12, 2006) and “Sea rise
could be catastrophic” (BBC News, March 23, 2006). Anyone familiar with
the flow of media reports might easily conclude from all the media hype that
man-made global warming or climate change is established science-fact. Yet
nothing could be further from the truth. Which begs the question: why, in the
face of the highly speculative and selective nature of climate science, do
media reports assume there is a consensual view – and collude with it in
articulating a wholesale return of conjecture?



For those of us who have taken the trouble to study the issue and the
media coverage of it, the shrillness of the mainstream media’s approach
appears to owe more to scaremongering than to good investigative reporting
– on an issue that could waste billions if the climate dissenters are correct.
The fuss over global warming and climate-change revolves around one basic
fact: that the world has undergone a one-degree warming of the ambient
atmosphere over recent decades. And there is no doubt that a number of key
scientists subscribe to the basic premise that global warming is primarily due
to man’s activities and that, unless man cleans up his act, will continue on an
upward-linear warming trajectory for the next 100 years. These include Sir
David King, chief adviser to the UK Government, Dr James Hansen, director
of NASA Goddard Institute for Space Science, and Dr Michael Mann,
director of the Earth System Science Centre. No one questions that the
media’s reporting of these scientists is perfectly valid. But there are many
other eminent scientists who we are rarely hearing from.

As Richard S Lindzen and Alfred P Sloan, professor of atmospheric
science at the prestigious Massachusetts Institute of Technology, asked in
the The Wall Street Journal in April of this year: “How can a barely discernible,
one-degree increase in the recorded global mean temperature since the late
19th century possibly gain public acceptance as the source of recent weather
catastrophes? And how can it translate into unlikely claims about future
catastrophes?”



Lindzen believes: “The answer has much to do with misunderstanding
the science of climate, plus a willingness to debase climate science into a
triangle of alarmism. Ambiguous scientific statements about climate are
hyped by those with a vested interest in alarm, thus the political stakes for
policy makers provide funds for more science research to feed more alarm to
increase the political stakes. After all, who puts the money into science –
whether for AIDS, or space, or climate – where there is nothing really
alarming?” And he detects “a more sinister side to this feeding frenzy.
Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their grant funds
disappear, their work derided, and themselves libelled as industry stooges,
scientific hacks or worse. Consequently, lies about climate change gain
credence even when they fly in the face of the science that supposedly is their
basis… what the public fails to grasp is that the claims neither constitute
support for alarm nor establish man’s responsibility for the small amount of
warming that has occurred”. Lindzen has also drawn attention to what he
sees as “the peculiar standards in place in scientific journals for articles
submitted by those who raise questions about accepted climate wisdom. At
Science and Nature, such papers are commonly refused without review as being
without interest”.



Questioning the wisdom



He is not alone in doubting the scientific veracity of global warming
claims. Dr Robert E Davis, associate professor of environmental sciences at
the University of Virginia, takes up the running: “In reality, we have a
tragically short record of good [climate] observations.” In an article entitled,
“Climate Cycle or Climate Psychic?” in TCS Daily, the online journal in which
experts examine a wide range of contemporary issues, on May 12, 2006,
Davis points to the variable and cyclical nature of climate change throughout
history and questions the perceived wisdom that man-made greenhouse
gases are proven to be the chief cause of climate change. “With the
phenomenal accuracy afforded by hindsight, we know that, sometime
around 1977-78, our planet underwent an abrupt shift from one climatic state
(generally cold) to another (warm)… Of course, this climatic shift was
retrospectively blamed on increasing greenhouse gases, because such
dramatic and abrupt shifts just couldn’t be natural. Presumably nature, left
to her own devices, does not cotton to wild mood swings. But is global
warming really to blame? Not likely, based on some new analyses by
University of California at Los Angeles geographers.” Davis goes on to set
out the recent analysis from the university for which I do not have space here,
but which can be seen via TCSDaily.com. Davis alludes to new research confirming that warming and cooling are naturally cyclical. Further that the findings are borne out by the global cooling cycle experienced between 1940 and 1975. During this period – and this is a major stumbling block for the future catastrophe theorists – the ambient global temperature actually fell while carbon emissions kept rising.
Davis concludes: “The biggest problem with all of these somewhat cyclical
shifts is that no one knows for sure that a shift has actually taken place until
many years after the event, when its too late to be useful. So be wary of global
warming psychics warning us of unprecedented climate shifts. In most cases,
they are only unprecedented because of the short life span of most scientists.
Remember one of the absolutely fundamental and too-often unstated tenets
of science – there’s little point in studying anything that doesn’t vary during
a scientist’s lifetime.”



Dr Robert Balling, director of the Office of Climatology at Arizona
University, deals specifically with one of the key problems – the variability
and critical effect of clouds that makes accurate prediction just about
impossible, leaving researchers “scratching [their] heads over climate
change” (TCS Daily, April 5, 2006). Balling quotes Dr James Herbert,
responsible for getting the whole global warming ball rolling in the 1980s, as
admitting: “The forces that drive long-term climate change are not known
with an accuracy sufficient to define climate changes.”



Dr Roy Spencer, principal research scientist at Huntsville, University of
Alabama, observes of media coverage: “An intense global warming
propaganda campaign by the media is currently under way” (“Global
warming hysteria has arrived”, TCS Daily, April 4, 2006). He asserts that
“government heavily funds a marching army of climate scientists whose
funding depends upon man-made global warming remaining a threat. That is
not to suggest that there is a conspiracy going on. It is merely to point out
that climate scientists aren’t always unbiased keepers of the truth. The arena
of global warming overflows with more strongly held opinions than it does
unbiased or scientific truths”. (“Global warming, science or policy?”, TCS
Daily, January 13, 2006). Spencer concludes: “Scientists who don’t believe in
predictions of climate catastrophe need to rise above their fears of losing
funding and speak out. Otherwise, this growing storm of global warming
could do some real damage.”



As a recent House of Lords report noted, the mainstream media do have a
history of, and predilection towards, reporting alarmist stories. On March
14, 2005 a BBC news bulletin announced that violent crime was “spiralling”.
Not according to the police and British Crime Survey figures, however. In
fact, as the police and the survey pointed out, crime had declined steadily
since 1998. In January 2003 the BBC, warning of a potential smallpox
epidemic, broadcast: “Smallpox kills about 30 per cent of those infected.”
The result? Lots of vaccine sold; no epidemic. Numerous other similar media
scare stories could be cited. Prospective media epidemics related to killer flu
viruses, killer bees, SARs and MMR jabs, mad cow disease, the return of TB
and of course bird flu. None of which materialised. Whenever a research
scientist warns of a potential “global catastrophe” (and presumably receives
a grant to combat the threat) it seems that quite a few reporters, editors,
broadcasters and publications are only too willing to oblige with appropriate
headlines.



Pandora’s Box of scare stories



On March 1, 2006 the BBC announced: “Bird flu could kill your cat” – on
the basis of a single cat turning up its paws in Germany. The very same day
the BBC ran the headline: “Cancer chemicals found in drinks cans.” The Food
Standards Agency quickly put this scare story into perspective, pointing
out: “The levels found are of no concern.” Even so, the public climate had
received yet another media-induced dose of fear. But nothing seems to appeal
quite as much as the Pandora’s Box of scare stories that climate change
affords. Perhaps because their obvious “irrefutability” – we’ll all be dead by
the time they do or do not happen – lends dramatic appeal.


We’ve all probably heard or read that the Gulf Stream may be in danger of
“expiring”. But most of us will not have heard the report debunked by,
among others, Professor Carl Wunsch of the Massachusetts Institute. In a
letter to Nature, Wunsch wrote: “The occurrence of a climate state without
the Gulf Stream any time soon – within tens of millions of years – has a
probability of little more than zero. The only way to produce an ocean
circulation without a gulf stream is either to turn off the wind system, or to
stop the Earth’s rotation, or both.” In short the original reports posited an
entirely phoney climate scenario.



We have been told that the Greenland ice-cap, the whole of Antarctica
and various glaciers are melting away, threatening catastrophic rising sea
levels. The only problem with this scenario is that, as many other
climatologists report, such assertions are wholly selective. While the ice is
receding in some places, it is reported as advancing in others. And we were
recently warned that polar bears were in danger of “facing extinction”. This
report was however immediately rubbished by Dr Mitch Taylor, a polar bear
biologist from the Eskimo nation Nunavut, an area four times as big as
France. He wrote in the Toronto Star: “They are not going extinct, or even
appear to be affected at present. This complexity is why so many people find
the truth less entertaining than a good story. It is silly to predict the demise of
polar bears in 25 years based on media-assisted hysteria.”



A few months ago 60 scientists wrote an open letter to new Canadian
Prime Minister Stephen Harper. They called on him to “re-visit the science
on global warming and review the policies inherited from his left-wing
predecessor”. Referring to Kyoto as “pointless” – now proven to be a correct
analysis based on the failure of almost every signatory nation to meets its
ludicrously ambitious targets – the letter questioned both the climate
science and the public billions about to be “wasted” on it. The letter received
no coverage at all in the UK however until co-signatory Emeritus Professor
Phillip Stott pursued the media “omission” with national broadcasters and
editors, largely, as he notes on his website, without success. Can we imagine a
letter from 60 pro climate-change scientists being ignored?



In July, Professor Lindzen again took up his pen in The Wall Street Journal,
this time to respond to the further media hype created by former presidential
candidate Al Gore’s “disaster” movie, An Inconvenient Truth. Gore’s film
claims that we are headed for “a planetary emergency” made up of melting
ice-sheets, huge increases in sea levels, more and stronger hurricanes, and
invasions of tropical disease. Lindzen however reminded WSJreaders of the
scientific fact that the Arctic was actually “warm or warmer in 1940”, before
the last cyclical cooling period, after which a warming cycle took over again.
He also noted that the latest scientific research suggests that, on average, the
Greenland ice cap is actually growing, that mosquitoes, necessary for
“tropical invasion”, “don’t require tropical warmth”, and that we have not
been able to “attribute any particular hurricane to global warming”.

Most significantly, he approaches the whole issue with a humility rare in
today’s scientific research community, referring to “the primitive state of
weather and climate science”. The effect of this, he suggests, is that “science
just does not know” as “the earth and its climate are dynamic; they are always
changing”. Lindzen sums up the climate case thus: “Most of the climate
community has agreed since 1988 that global mean temperatures have
increased on the order of one degree Fahrenheit over the past century, having
risen significantly from about 1919 to 1940, decreased between 1940 and the
early 1970s, increased again until the 90s, and remained essentially flat since
1998.” As “we do not understand the natural internal variability of climate
change, this task… [of prediction]… is currently impossible”, he points out.



Infamous summary



“Nevertheless there has been a persistent effort to suggest otherwise,
and with surprising impact.” He also reminds us how the known climate
science was “accurately presented” in the 1996 text of the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change’s report, in which scientists had made it clear they
could not say with any certainty what role man played in climate change. By
the time the panel’s administrators re-drafted the now infamous “summary
for policy makers”, however, it read: “The balance of evidence suggests a
discernible human influence on global climate.” As Lindzen says: “This
sufficed as the smoking gun for Kyoto.”



What we, as journalists, personally believe about the science of
climatology and its associated predictions for global cataclysm is hardly the
point. What clearly is the point, however, is that we ought not to be
propagating media myths based on a “consensus” science view on global
warming and climate change. Dissident climate scientists are not the only
ones who cannot get the dissident science view into the mainstream. I have
had the same difficulty convincing some editors and producers of the need to
question the basic assumptions and wild predictions for the climate in 100
years time – surprising, really, when you consider the irony that
climatologists (or meteorologists, as we otherwise know them) can’t predict
what the “climate” will be in two weeks’ time with any degree of accuracy.