4 replies to this topic

[colion]

http://www.stuff.co....16618a3600.html




Shouldering the burden
OVER THE FENCE - JON MORGAN


The cynic in me can't resist seeing the climate change issue as being mainly about votes.



Labour has sensed a rising concern about the way we treat the environment and gone green. National has joined in.

Suddenly, the debate about the causes of climate change has ended.

It is too important to wait for more science. We have to act now to save the planet.

All very laudable. But it is farmers and foresters who, so far, are being told they will have to shoulder the burden.

Understandably, they are getting pretty irate.

The policy has taken over and science has been left behind. Farmers who try to argue the science - and conclude that our Kyoto Agreement commitment is fatally flawed - are told they have missed the bus. And I have been upbraided for saying so in a recent column.

But can the bus be stopped? Should it be? It would take a brave politician to repudiate an international agreement.

The United Nations-linked Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports a 90 per cent certainty among the scientists it consulted that humans are responsible for rising global temperatures.

An unhealthy hysteria has taken hold - anyone who doesn't agree is a loony of the flat earth variety.

But sufficiently large numbers of scientists remain to argue the reverse.

In New Zealand they include such luminaries as Dr Vincent Gray, of Wellington, an expert reviewer for the IPCC and most recently a visiting scholar at the Beijing Climate Centre; Dr Gerrit van der Lingen, of Christchurch, geologist, paleoclimatologist and former director of Geoscience Research and Investigations New Zealand; Professor Augie Auer, of Auckland, past professor of atmospheric science, University of Wyoming, and previously MetService chief meteorologist; Professor Bob Carter, a New Zealand-trained geologist with extensive research experience in palaeoclimatology, now at the Marine Geophysical Laboratory, James Cook University, Queensland; Warwick Hughes, a New Zealand earth scientist living in Pert; and Roger Dewhurst, of Katikati, a consulting environmental geologist and hydrogeologist.

As leaders of the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition they have formulated seven "pillars of wisdom".

Purely in the interest of bringing balance to this debate, here they are:

1. Over the past few thousand years, the climate in many parts of the world has been warmer and cooler than it is now. Civilisations and cultures flourished in the warmer periods.

2. A major driver of climate change is variability in solar effects, such as sunspot cycles, the sun's magnetic field and solar particles.

These may account in great part for climate change during the past century. Evidence suggests warming involving increased carbon dioxide exerts only a minor influence.

3. Since 1998, global temperature has not increased. Projection of solar cycles suggests that cooling could set in and continue to about 2030.

4. Most recent climate and weather events are not unusual; they occur regularly.

For example, in the 1930s the Arctic experienced higher temperatures and had less ice than now.

5. Stories of impending climate disaster are based almost entirely on global climate models.

Not one of these models has shown that it can reliably predict future climate.

6. The Kyoto Protocol, if fully implemented, would make no measurable difference to world temperatures.

The trillions of dollars that it will cost would be far better spent on solving known problems such as the provision of clean water, reducing air pollution and fighting malaria and Aids.

7. Climate is constantly changing and the future will include coolings, warmings, floods, droughts and storms.

The best policy is to make sure we have in place disaster response plans that can deal with weather extremes and can react adaptively to longer-term climate cooling and warming trends.

[stocks]

Sometimes media bias is blatant and grotesque; it can extend to flat misrepresentations, use of fake documents, etc. Much more often, it is relatively subtle, as reporters push their version of a story in small ways, day after day. Here is a textbook example, via Power Line News.

Yesterday, in an interview with the Associated Press, one of the world's leading weather experts, Dr. William Gray, blasted Al Gore for perpetrating global warming hysteria. Since Dr. Gray is generally recognized as the world's leading expert in the science of forecasting hurricanes, this is news. But let's examine how the AP handled it in the article that resulted from their interview. The AP begins in a straightforward manner:

A top hurricane forecaster called Al Gore "a gross alarmist" Friday for making an Oscar-winning documentary about global warming.

"He's one of these guys that preaches the end of the world type of things. I think he's doing a great disservice and he doesn't know what he's talking about," Dr. William Gray said in an interview with The Associated Press at the National Hurricane Conference in New Orleans, where he delivered the closing speech.

But watch where the story goes from there. First the subtle demeaning of the distinguished Dr. Gray:

Gray, an emeritus professor at the atmospheric science department at Colorado State University, has long railed against the theory that heat-trapping gases generated by human activity are causing the world to warm.

Gray is implicitly depicted as a crank; he "rails." Note that the hysterical and ill-informed Gore never "rails." Further, Gray "has long railed," which suggests that, rather than being a consistent critic of an unproven theory, he is a tiresome eccentric whose views have been heard and discounted. More on this later. The AP continues:

Gray's statements came the same day the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change approved a report that concludes the world will face dire consequences to food and water supplies, along with increased flooding and other dramatic weather events, unless nations adapt to climate change.

As we have noted elsewhere, the U.N.'s IPCC is a political body, not a scientific one, and its findings have been subject to withering criticism. But the AP implies that the U.N's report represents a scientific consensus. Next:

Rather than global warming, Gray believes a recent uptick in strong hurricanes is part of a multi-decade trend of alternating busy and slow periods related to ocean circulation patterns. Contrary to mainstream thinking, Gray believes ocean temperatures are going to drop in the next five to 10 years.

Now it's explicit. The elderly crank who "rails" and disagrees with the U.N. is not part of "mainstream thinking," notwithstanding the fact that, as the AP acknowledges, he is the world's foremost authority on hurricanes.

Now the conclusion: in evaluating media bias, it is always important to see who gets the last word. The AP signs off with a scientist who contradicts Gray's views:

Kerry Emanuel, an MIT professor who had feuded with Gray over global warming, said Gray has wrongly "dug (his) heels in" even though there is ample evidence that the world is getting hotter.

There you have it. Dr. Gray is a fuddy-duddy who "has long railed" and is outside the "mainstream." He has "dug his heels in" and is so out of date that he tries to dispute the obvious fact that the world is currently getting warmer! The AP is telling us that, however distinguished Gray may be, he can safely be disregarded on this issue.

But wait! Does Dr. Gray really deny the "ample evidence that the world is getting hotter"? Maybe the AP reporter just took Emanuel's word for it. Maybe he was too lazy to do any research. Maybe he deliberately misled his readers. Through the miracle of Google--do AP reporters know about Google?--it took me approximately 30 seconds to find this interview of Dr. Gray, in which he talked about whether the earth is "getting hotter":

Q: ... is global warming behind this increase in hurricanes?

Gray: I am very confident that it’s not. I mean we have had global warming. That’s not a question. The globe has warmed the last 30 years, and the last 10 years in particular.

The AP is resorting here to the media's constant trick of misrepresenting the position of those who oppose the global warming theorists. The issue is not whether the earth has recently warmed; it has, by around 7/10 of a degree in the last century. The questions are, 1) to what extent, if any, is that warming (or the cooling that also occurs periodically) caused by human activity, 2) how much warming (or cooling) is there likely to be in the future, 3) what will the net effects, good and bad, of such warming or cooling be, and 4) are the benefits, if any, of reducing CO2 emissions by a given amount worth the costs?



http://powerlineblog...ives/017274.php

[mss]

You guys have got to stop posting FACTS. Posting FACTS does not make fun reading. We must be beat over the head with ..... Chicken little .......type junk. Remember ..the sky is falling, the sky is falling......

[OEXCHAOS]

I too have been annoyed at the utter lack of critical thinking in the media reporting. The bias at NPR was palpable. If the media and government isn't HONESTLY and critically giving us the straight poop, why on earth should we be devoting massive sums to this issue? How do we know that there's any utility whatsoever? How do we know we're not damaging our ability to do the best thing possible by succumbing to the hysteria? Is the earth warming? Apparently. Is it due to man? I'm not at ALL convinced, but prudently I'd allow for some warming effect due to man. The massive asphalt heat sinks that we have built have to account for some small amount of surface warming right there. But before draconian measures are taken, we'd better see some explanation of the warming from 1910-1940, as well as prior sunspot related activity. I'd also like to know if there's anything we can do about it. But without that information what should we do? I say, try to conserve fossil fuel where we can and convert to nuclear where prudent. Solar, wind, and water power options should also be considered. Try to promote sustainable agriculture where possible. Try to be more efficient in general. Promote things that reduce the heat sink effects of our parking lots, roads and cities. Green roofs come to mind, as do lining parking lots and roads with trees. Aggressive promotion of more responsible forestry in South America also comes to mind. If all Hell is going to break loose and we can't absolutely prevent it, then we had better be devoting spare resources to figuring out how to deal with the problem that might occur. That has to be one of the highest priorities. What will all of that do? Well, if it has no measurable effect on global warming, we'll at least save some money, be less dependent upon middle eastern despots or those who would control our energy supplies. We'll have cleaner power, better air, and a more pleasant environment. That's the smart way to go, at least until some better science is in hand. The hysteria and willful misrepresentation is a lot like the Reefer Madness hooey and gets me about as hopped up as that did.--Not very. Mark

[colion]

Conservation is clearly a very desirable strategy. Whether or not global warming is a critical issue the earth is a finite volume so fossil fuel is also finite. In the last analysis, this will have to be a multi-pronged approach, including nuclear, more efficient autos (perhaps automatically increasing CAFE, as proposed back in the 70s), etc. Before all is said and done, all fossil fuel will be used, including "sacred" offshore oil resources that are estimated at 100B bbl plus gas. NIMBY arguments will crumble at some point - but when. Hopefully, sooner rather than later Washington will demonstrate some leadership before the first city goes cold and dark and use its scientific resources to produce a meaningful energy strategy that is appropriate for the country as a whole without bowing to the K Street lobbyists.