Archive for the ‘IPCC’ Category

Global Warming, global roundup.

February 23, 2007

Hi Brit,

Not surprisingly, Global Warming is rearing its ugly head in today’s news.

First, and also not surprisingly, we find that Al Gore lied in his alarmist “documentary” by indicating that hurricanes are wore lately because of, you guessed it, Global Warming.  However, in this article, Expert disputes storms’ link to global warming, we find just what the title says:

Chris Landsea, science and operations director of the National Hurricane Center in Miami, said the notion that global warming is causing an increase in hurricanes gained widespread attention after the stormy seasons of 2004 and 2005.

But that perception is wrong and the statistics don’t bear it out, Landsea told about 200 students and professors in the auditorium at USC’s geography building.

It seems that even the IPCC bought into the Gore propaganda, as on page 5 of the IPCC WGI Fourth Assessment Report, they also blame Global Warming for an increase in intensity of tropical cyclones. 

Moving on we have, State distances itself from climatologist.  Here we find an expert “climate scientist,” who is experiencing political pressure because he does not hold with the consensus opinion on Climate Change.  The article mentions that this has also happened in other States than Delaware.  So much for “science.”

Which leaves us with the Business of Global Warming, China, India Smile as West Overpays for Climate: Andy Mukherjee.  You really should read this one as it’s choked full of information.  However, this bit bares repeating:

Sydney-based Easy Being Green says it will mitigate your cat’s flatulent contribution to global warming for A$8 ($6). The same company could also make your granny “carbon-neutral” at A$10 a year, according to a report in the Australian newspaper last weekend.

Then there’s Carbon Planet Pty, another company cited in the article. If you are hopping on a short-haul flight between Sydney and Canberra, and feeling bad about the damage you are doing to the ecosystem, you can buy credits worth A$23, for which the Adelaide-based company will guarantee to keep 1 ton of carbon dioxide out of the air for 100 years.

Well, I must go now as I have some scheming, ah, thinking to do.

the Grit

Some sense from Down Under

February 19, 2007

Hi Brit,

It appears that the good folks in Australia haven’t fallen as hard for the Global Warming hoax as we have up here, Scaremongers.  While the whole article by Cardinal Pell is worth reading, and it’s not very long 😉 there are a couple of quotes that are really good.  He starts with, “Global warming doomsdayers.”  I like that turn of phrase.  Besides, who should know more about doomsdayers than the Catholic Church?  The ending is great, “The science is more complicated than the propaganda!”  Which hits right to the heart of the problem with understanding Global Warming, and why it’s such a good scheme.  One would think that a list of temperature readings would be simple to understand, and, if we could see the raw data, it probably would be.  That, however, is keep carefully hidden in a web of statistics, corrected data, computer models, ice core samples, and graphs that have been “smoothed.”  When one gets right down to it, the Global Warming Alarmists sound more like lawyers than scientists.

the Grit

Global warming and the Sun

February 17, 2007

Hey Grit

I have been told in the past that I should change the UK newspaper that I use to do research on the Global Warming issue, so this week I did just that, moving up to the highly respected UK Sunday Times, a broadsheet paper that prides itself on the educational, intellectual and scientific approach to most issues, and what did I find? Nothing less than another article dealing with a cautionary message to those in the IPCC who remain dogmatic regarding their findings.

I have to say from the outset that the author of the article, Nigil Calder, is also the co-author of the book that illustrates the cosmic ray effect on Global Warming, that I mentioned in an earlier post. However, he is also a former editor of the very prestigious publication “New Scientist.” Therefore, one has to take notice of his views. There are a number of aspects of the article that deserve attention.

Mr Calder mentions the potential error of taking a “90% certainty” as a basis for accurate action, drawing an analogy with the scientifice comment made in 1958 when it was said to be 90% certain that we could control nuclear fusion, a comment that has subsequently proven to be totally wrong. However, as we know, having start on the route of developing nuclear power no-one knows how to stop the effects of it. A similar situation could develop with controlling global warming. If we do not understand fully the implications of the problem, how the heck can we be sure that remedial actions are controlable? 

Mr Calder also confirms that the IPCC are paying too little regard to the sun as a contributory cause of Global Warming and that, if this is not taken into account, the planned man-made adjustments may be too much, causing the reverse of the result sought, in other words, too much cooling. There is a level of CO2 that is necessary to maintain the equilibruium of the planet. If we reduce our emissions by too great a level and then find that cosmic activity does have a significant impact, we may find ourselves sometime in the future yelling “light the fires again!”

What does seem strange to me is, that whilst many are just dismissing this as just a “denialist” view, it is being treated seriously enough in scientific circles for a major research study to be undertaken. Does this not suggest that it is something that those intent on proving man-made global warming have failed to take into account sufficiently in their own researches? It is this lop-sided and unbalanced approach to scientific research that always bothers me.

Unlike the politicians on Global Warming, Mr Calder does not claim to have all the answers, but he reasonably suggests that the issues should be approached with caution. I repeat my previous comment that the problem with mainstream research is the direction given within the original hypothesis. If you say to someone “I want to find out how much global warming is due to man” the sub-conscious inclination is to prove that fact and, to some degree, this tends to blind them to the opposite viewpoint. To get an accurate and balanced view one needs to research the positive and negative at the same time, then compare the findings.

The have been too many instances in past research where findings have been stated as being absolute facts and solutions, only to find later that either they were not, or the remedy produced was more harmful than the original problem. I fear that we are in danger of taking this same route with global warming unless we proceed with care.

the Brit

Well, well, more bad news for Al Gore.

February 16, 2007

Hi Brit,

Sorry to keep bringing this up, but news is news.  It would seem that there is another blow to the crotch of the Church of Global Warming riding the wires of the press services, not that it will make it to TV or anything higher than page 30 of a major paper, Antarctic temperatures disagree with climate model predictions.  Now, just the title should be enough to make us Deniers sing and dance, but, buried in the report, is this gem, “Only a small amount of detailed data is available – there are perhaps only 100 weather stations on that continent compared to the thousands spread across the U.S. and Europe.”  This brings us back to the methodology the “climate scientists” use to “average” temperature data in order to prove their pre-decided conclusion of Global Warming.  Using this method, each of these weather stations is given the same weight as hundreds of stations in other areas.  Obviously, this has the potential to propagate even tiny errors into serious ones, bringing the whole data set the theory is based on into question.  It’s also interesting to note that the number of weather stations in the Arctic, where the most Warming is said to be occurring, is never mentioned.  For that matter, I spent an hour or two not that long ago trying to find that information on the net, with no success.  Now, I may not be the best researcher, but I can find out what Britney Spears’ beaver looks like, the background of the head writer of the latest IPCC report, raw economic data on almost any country, that John Kerry had the worst attendance record in the Senate last year, and the lyrics to almost any song ever recorded.  That something as important as the number of weather stations in the Arctic doesn’t jump off the screen with a simple Google search, makes me very suspicious of the data.  I would say that I’d just look it up in the latest IPCC report, but only the summary of that has been written.  While we are on the subject of raw data to support Global Warming, just try to find the actual temperature data record.  If you can find it, kindly leave me a link.

the Grit

Global Warming, following the money trail

February 15, 2007

Hi Brit,

I’ve said before that the case for “Global Warming, end of the world so we must act NOW” is motived more by money and politics than science.  It seems that I am not alone in this belief, On Global Warming: Follow the Money Indeed!  However, even though the lie of Global Warming is now so entrenched in the public mind that there is no stopping these fear mongers from winning, we can still learn some lessons from this gigantic and corrupt conspiracy.

1.  Always follow the money before trusting anyone’s motives.

2.  Never, under any circumstances, ever, trust anyone either employed by, or connected to, the United Nations.

3.  It’s past time to question why scientific research needs to be funded by the Government.

4.  It’s way past time to question our continued funding of the UN.

5.  Most politicians get their jobs by being good liars.  Why do we expect them to change their ways once they get in office?

6.  We, as a country, have few friends outside our boarders.  We should start acting like it.

7.  Almost all fanatics, be they religious, political, or environmentalists, are evil and should be dealt with accordingly.

the Grit

Al Gore, wrong again.

February 14, 2007

Hi Brit,

By now I’m sure you’ve seen the glacier melting scene from Al Gore’s propaganda film, “An Inconvenient Truth.”  Well, it turns out that the Global Warming alarmist wasn’t telling the whole truth:

Study: Glacier melting can be variable

Experts question theory on global warming

It appears that the Climate Change fanatics have been cherry picking the data they consider, and not bothering to mention that not all glaciers show signs of melting or behave in consistent ways.  Of course, that would make the theory easier to support and, as a minor benefit, keep billions of dollars in research funding poring into the coffers of an otherwise minor area of science. 

the Grit

Great, new evidence of Global Cooling!

February 13, 2007

Hi Brit,

Great news on the Global Warming front!  “Climatologists at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York City have found that 2006 was the fifth warmest year in the past century. ”  Since we had the hottest year on record was 2005, then, logically, if last year wasn’t warmer, we are cooling.  What fantastic news!  This, of course, means that we can call off all the Climate Change taxes, cut the billions of dollars in research grants for “climate scientists”, and go back to spending that money on fighting disease, poverty, and starvation.  Oh, and we can officially tell AlGore to kiss the collective Global Ass.  Pucker up you evil tobacco farmer!

 The article also adds, “Most places on the globe have warmed in recent decades, with the greatest warming at high latitudes in the Arctic Ocean, Alaska, Siberia and the Antarctic Peninsula.”  Which, obviously, means it’s not a GLOBAL phenomena, but appears to be localized to the poles.  It would seem that the “climate scientists” need to come up with a better story to justify the massive investment in their theorizing.

the Grit

Global Warming and cosmic rays

February 12, 2007

Hi Grit

Yet again, hard on the heels of a report saying that humans are creating Global Warming and it is nearly too late to do anything about it, we find another contradictory report. This time it is in the Sunday Telegraph (11 Feb).  To be fair this report is not saying that man is not contributing to Global Warming, just that, because of the effects that cosmic rays are having, the extent of man’s effect, and its growth pattern may have been seriously miscalculated.

The theory behind this research is that the cosmic rays activity affect the cloud cover that the earth experiences. The higher the cosmic ray activity, the lower the cloud cover and the more warming occurs. At present we are in such a high cosmic ray activity period. If correct, this research means that the calculations used in the IPCC report need to be adjusted. Although there are some scientists who dismiss these claims, it is important enough for a group of at least 60 to conduct tests to check its validity. 

You will hardly be surprised to note that this report was relegated to page 16 of the newspaper in question, rather than the front page. However, this is not my main criticism. It is obvious from the comments of the scientists in question that they are not “denialists.” They accept that man does contribute to global warming, just that the rate is significantly different than has been reported. My problem is, as I have mentioned before, the lack of full research when addressing an issue such as climate change. Three points I would like to make, which I have probably covered before.

Firstly, if one is researching a subject, it is encumbent upon the researcher to fully address and study issues that contradict the findings. This does not appear to have been done in the case of cosmic activity, as the fact that only now 60 scientists are going to do research suggests.

Secondly, in environmental issues the accuracy of numerical findings is paramount. This is important so that one can accurately measure the impact and the level of remedy needed. In this case, if cosmic rays are proved have a significant effect it means that man’s response can be more controlled, accurate and less damaging both to the environment and the economic structure than has been suggested by the IPCC. As has been mentioned in other posts, overkill responses to these issues can be just as damaging to the environment as the global warming itself.

Thirdly, the habit of labelling people because they do not fully accept ones findings, in this case as denialists or sceptics, is becoming boring and counter-productive. There are no absolutes in science. The scientists who have come up with this current research cannot be labelled as sceptics or denialists, because they accept the concept of Global Warming and man’s contribution. All they are saying is get the facts straight. I wonder if those who support the IPCC report will respond positively to this challenge?

It is time to stop the media dramatics and hype and approach this subject on a sensible, factual discussion basis.

the Brit

This is most UNusual.

February 11, 2007

Hi Brit,

I did not know that this was possible, but the UN just fired a staff member for being UNqualified, U.N. Fired Staff Members With Academic Degrees From Diploma Mill.  This is disturbing on several levels. 

First, how can such a massive bureaucracy not have several people who have nothing else to do but check the backgrounds of job applicants?  What have they instituted the Old World tradition of buying one’s job?

Second, since the position filled by the UNcredentialed individual is chief of the Human Resources Information Technology Section, how could someone without the proper education do the job to begin with?  Perhaps, besides improving their applicant screening process, the UN needs to prune some of the deadwood from their organizational charts.

Third, this does cast some light on the lack of educational credential listings for the “scientists” working for the IPCC.  Could this be the reason for keeping that information secret?

On the bright side, one down, tens of thousands to go.

the Grit

Disorder in the ranks of Global Warming fanatics?

February 10, 2007

Hi Brit,

It seems that the Church of Global Warming should pick a High Priest to coordinate things.

On one hand we have, Congress eyes legislation to fight climate change (which I mentioned previously,) many countries are trying to implement the Kyoto Treats, and the EU is in the process of adding all sorts of new environmental laws.

On the other hand, we have, Climate Change Verdict: Science Debate Ends, Solution Debate Begins.  While I contest the “Science debate ends” part, having posted about this several times in the recent past, I point out the “Solution debate begins” part, as it relates to what I just mentioned above.  If there is still debate, even among the ranks of the faithful, as to what to do about Global Warming, then a rational person would have to question how our politicians can know what laws to pass to fix it?  If they understand things better than the Climate Scientists on who’s’ knowledge rests the concept and proof of Global Warming, perhaps they should write the IPCC reports on the subject.  Wait, sorry, I forgot, they did.  Still, one would think that some scientific basis would be needed to formulate solutions to a real problem.

On the gripping hand, I found this, UTSA researchers examine effects of global warming on Antarctic.  Now, call me crazy, but I thought this was “settled science,” and we know that the Antarctic ice is melting.  So, a rational person must ask, why are we waisting money examining things we already know all about?  Shouldn’t those funds be going to find a solution to Global Warming, or at least to implementing the solutions the politicians already seem to know about?

I have to say, Global Warming fanatics, y’all really should anoint a High Priest in an effort to get your act together.  How about AlGore?

the Grit

How long can you hold your breath?

February 9, 2007

Hi Brit,

I just read this, Congress eyes legislation to fight climate change, and immediately asked myself “how long can I hold my breath?”  After all, each of us expel the Evil Greenhouse Gas CO2 with each breath, and, now that Nanny Pelosi has the issue firmly clinched in her dentures, I expect that soon we will be faced with a Breath Tax, to encourage us to slow down our individual contributions to Global Warming.  By my quick, and not necessarily totally accurate, calculations, we in the US can offset her jet set life style if we each take 30 fewer breaths per day.  Of course, this increased interest in decreasing our breath rates will have at least one benefit, that being, getting some of the joggers off the road.

Although, considering that:

The White House said Snow was referring to figures from the International Energy Agency that from 2000 to 2004, U.S. carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel combustion grew by 1.7 percent, while in the European Union such emissions grew by 5 percent.  From: U.S. cuts emissions better than Europe: White House.

It would seem obvious to any rational person, thus excluding most Democrats I admit, that we are on the correct path to achieve the liberal agenda of reducing CO2 emissions without further Government meddling.  With liberals in control, of course, they will ignore the facts, raise taxes and piddle around in our lives until they manage to, not only, increase Greenhouse Gas Emissions, but, also, screw up our economy.  Typical.

the Grit

Global Warming, the political battle.

February 7, 2007

Hi Brit,

As we’ve discussed before, Global Warming has gone beyond science and is now a political issue.  For instance, in today’s news I’ve found two instances of Climate Scientists being attacked by the news media and/or politicians just for expressing their professional opinion that Global Warming facts don’t fit the politically correct version of the United Nations’ lap dog group, the IPCC (International Panel on Climate Change.)

Global warming debate spurs Ore. title tiff

Del. scientist’s view on climate change criticized

If you need more proof that this issue is now all about politics, check out this poll of politicians.  Not only does it show that Global Warming has moved into the realm of politics, it makes it clear that our two parties have chosen sides. 

the Grit

I found another Global Warming Denier!

February 5, 2007

Hi Brit,

It would seem that we are not alone in questioning the whole Global Warming/Climate Change issue, and this guy has some high powered credentials, Global Warming: The Cold, Hard Facts?  Just as a general question, how many Climate Scientists have to tell you that the UN, through their puppet group the IPCC, is not being honest, no doubt for financial and political reasons, about Global Warming before you get the message?  Keep in mind, that the price for this scam is going to come out of your pocket.

the Grit

Global Warming, the real story

February 4, 2007

Hi Brit,

I’ve found a few bits and pieces of evidence that the Church of Climate Science rests on a hoax, but it’s difficult to tie them all together.  Fortunately, I found where someone else has had a go at that task, Statistics needed.  This is the first in a series of articles about Deniers of Global Warming, why the science put forth by the IPCC is wrong, what tactics are used within the scientific community to stifle any hint that the science of Climate Change is not settled, and points out some of the lies the UN has placed in the reports on the subject.  Links to the other 9 articles are included on that page.  Considering that this series contains enough evidence to seriously damage the Myth of Man-Made Global Warming, and we all know how angry people get when their religion is questioned, it would be best to read it soon, as I suspect the host will be brought under great pressure to remove it.

Oh, and I just found this, Researchers build lasers for NASA climate studies, which points out even more of the inadequacies in the current state of Climate Science.

 Oh, oh, and in case there is some question as to what other motives may be at work behind the scenes, 45 Countries Push for New Worldwide Environmental Body.

the Grit

Global Warming 2007

February 4, 2007

Hi Grit

I believe our first post on the issue of Global Warming was getting on for three months ago. Since then I have participated a few times and read with interest all of the comments from both sides of the divide, along with studying all of the literature that people who have commented have posted have directed us towards. I hasten to add here that I am not a scientist, so there are aspects that I would not understand. However, I consider myself an intelligent person capable of assimilating sufficient data and making a reasoned judgement. Therefore, I feel that I have a reasonable understanding of the issues so far made available. A rider to this of course is that, in view of the enormous amount of data on the subject, both for and against, it is impossible for any one individual, scientists included, to be able to assimilate it all and I would be no exception to that rule.

I do not intend this post to become embroiled in detailed scientific argument, as that will produce just a series of scientific counter arguments from both sides. It is my intention to comment on the structure and management of the analysis and the way the global warming issue is being handled.

1.) IPCC REPORT
With the IPCC report being published this month (February 2007) and it being one of a series being produced this year, many are claiming that this puts beyond doubt all of the global warming issues, particularly with regard to this being a “man-made” phenomena. However, whilst I accept that global warming exists, there are several factors that I would take issue with, both in terms of the report itself and the general reaction.

My first point of concern here is the secret nature of parts of the process building up to the report issue. In letters to Governments and Organisations in December and October 2006, although having made these letters public, they have deleted text within them, which appears to be access to the draft report. This raises two issues. Firstly, as the report is intended to benefit all of mankind, why is there a need for withholding any information? Secondly, does one presuppose that, by virtue of some deletions there could be changes of significance that the IPCC would rather the public did not see? In my view, transparency in this above all issues facing mankind is of paramount importance. Anything less is unacceptable.

Terminology
(Un)Certainty – In a document issued in July 2005, the IPCC issued guidance notes regarding the ways the lead authors should address uncertainty. It could be construed that some of these guidance are of a leading nature as it is asking that all issues to be consistent with the approach determined in the document. Another issue related to this document, which I will come to later is Table 4 – Likelihood Scale (on page 4.)

Consensus – My understanding of the term consensus is that it is the agreement of the majority, after having mitigated the objections of the opposing views. I read somewhere that, in this report it was to be a consensus of 300. I believe this needs more clarification. Bearing in mind that the report was produced by over 2,500 scientists, plus 800 contributing authors, plus 450 lead authors, I have difficulty in equating the consensus of 300 with these figures and feel they need further explanation.

Confidence – The levels of confidence are divided into five sectors, as can be seen on page 3 (table 3) of the summary report. On the other hand, the likelihood scale is divided by seven. In my view, this inequality between the two scales is confusing. Surely, it would have been more rational to have equal divisions on the two scales.

2.) The Response
In a number of areas, the immediate response to the report has not been rational. The hype concentrated on the term moved from “likely” to “very likely.” As you say Grit, the latter term relates to 90% probability. However, this also does not accurately reflect the findings of the report.

On the summary for policymakers, page 3, there is a chart of human influence on trends. The chart lists seven areas of influence under three references. The term “very likely” only appears in two instances. In media and other responses, there is no reference to other aspects of this table. Whilst I do not blame the scientists for this, it does appear that the “powers that be” are guilty of misrepresentation in this instance. Again, this raises suspicions in the minds of the public and questions as to the agenda for the report.

Is it thought that the public is not intelligent enough to understand the full information or was the hype deliberately directed by politicians?

3.) Remedies
It is disappointing to learn that a detailed study on remedies will not be available from the IPCC until later in the year. If, as has been reported, we only have ten years to address this problem, I fail to see any conceivable reason why the research on remedies was not designed to produce results in the same timescale as this current report. Six months or more has been lost. The argument that the scale of the problem has only just been defined does not wash as this report follows on from one that was issued six years ago.

Of the remedies that are being put into action, there are some issues as well. Firstly, there is serious concern regarding the consequences on remedies and cooperation between agencies. The case of Basel in Switzerland as I reported earlier is a classic example. Looking to achieve global warming saving measures, people began drilling into the earth’s surface starting a chain tremor reaction that they cannot possibly control, potentially unleashing more harm than good. How many more projects are being mishandled in this way?

In addition, there is the problem that has been raised regarding the potential danger from energy saving light. Has anyone evaluated the potential future harm of following this route, if not, why not?

Only a few weeks I posed the question how do we know that remedies can be controlled. The above are two obvious examples of that not being the case.

Another contentious issue is nuclear energy. Scientists say that this will go a long way to addressing the global warming issue, and I agree that this is one of the most efficient ways of producing energy. However, it is almost impossible to use this option within a volatile world, where there are countries such as Iran and North Korea who could not be guaranteed to utilise this method for peaceful purposes. Similarly, accidents happen as we saw in Russia, and that can be equally damaging.

In the UK, the go ahead has been given to build two huge wind farms off the coast. All of the reporting on this has concentrated on the benefits, which is admirable. Nevertheless, little has been written about the downside of such action. The effect on the bird life needs to be identified, an area where naturalists have raised concerns. But what about the effect on tides and wave patterns?

Finally, in this section, I would like to ask why existing remedies, which require little cost, are not being used. For example, with the airline issue there is a “greener” fuel available, but is currently only being used in military aircraft. The emission levels are significantly lower than normal aircraft fuel and there is, as I understand it, no cost differential. I have heard that the argument against it is safety, which I find incredible. Are we saying that the lives of the military are of less value than other citizens? If not, take the step and change the fuel.

4.) The Carbon Footprint
Much is being made of the need to reduce the global footprint. However, there seems to be a great deal of double standards in this area. The media, the UK BBC organisation being a case in point, are saying that their contribution is by publishing the issues and that, in some way, this seems to exempt them from responding to the carbon footprint limitations. At the same time, the IPCC, governments and other NGO’s are spending millions of dollars transporting thousands of people to conferences and meetings all over the globe. Yet, these organisations are asking us, airlines, and other sectors to reduce our carbon footprint. Surely, one should lead by example. Whatever happened to the ability to achieve video and Internet conferencing?

There is a lot of pressure being placed upon airlines to cut their carbon footprint, yet unless I have missed it, no one has answered the question of why, in the 24 hours post 9/11 when most air travel was grounded, there was an increase in earth warming for that day. Has anyone analysed what effect reducing the carbon footprint, particularly in air travel, will have in this respect? In other words, has the downside of the equation been quantified?

In my view, one of the largest and most expensive carbon footprints is laid by governments nationally and globally. Yet, we see no clear picture of measures that these people are taking steps to address this. In the UK, politicians are asking us to reduce our carbon footprint, and even putting pressure on the Royal family to do so. All well and good, but what do we see the politicians doing? The answer is very little. Do not ask me to do something unless you are prepared to match it and lead by example Mr Government.

5.) Political
I have to admit that I was amazed at the token gestures made by some governments by calling for an hour without lights. This seems to me to have been counter-productive. Did anyone monitor the results of these actions? As I have said, I am no scientist, but from what little I know the resultant surge from it, with all electrical compliances being switched on again more than counteracts the benefits of the gesture in the first place. Has there been a study made of this and is it a responsible response? Surely, such theatricals should have been left until the position was well known by the public and they could have been advised about the cost.

In respect of the above, the political response is similar in many ways to the media reaction. It is uncontrolled, irrational and without serious thought as to how to present the issue in a way that will generate the right response. The political response between nations is also not harmonious, which does little to engender confidence.

6.) The media Circus
Unfortunately, the media circus has continued, even on the latest event. I watched a news programme in the UK, which was designed purely to entertain the public, rather than get the message across. In this programme, they spend the time passing a copy of the report through screens to reporters in different countries, such as Europe, Australia, India and the US. No attempt is made to explain the message properly.

In addition to the previously mentioned carbon footprint of this situation, I noticed also another problem. The report they were passing was a fake. They were wads of blank paper with just the title cover printed. It was obvious from the reporter’s comments that none of them had read any of the documents and it was just a publicity stunt to show how clever the network was.

Can this be the right approach to what is meant to be a serious matter? I seriously doubt it.

7.) The Cost
Another issue that really annoys me is cost, and here I am talking about the financial side. Every aspect of the global warming issue in terms of conservation and remedies always seems to be followed by additional cost to the individual. What happens to the resultant savings from change? Who gets those?

Leaving aside the dangers of energy efficient light bulbs discussed earlier, one of the main reasons their use is limited is the cost. In the UK, they are over 6 times the price of current bulbs. If politicians and scientists are serious about this issue, then use some of the billions of waste to reduce the cost of remedies to a competitive level. It is a short-term commitment. Then demand will grow and the effective change desired will be achieved with far more speed and fluency. Another example is public transport service. Raising prices and cutting services on what is considered a “greener” method of transport does not seem to me to be an approach that will increase its usage.

Every time someone mentions global warming, it seems to result in the public having to put their hands in their pockets. Is it any wonder that this meets with resistance?

8.) Kyoto Agreement
There have been arguments about the effectiveness of the Kyoto agreement, mainly centring on those countries that have not signed up to it. However, there are countries within the agreement that have not met their targets, such as Canada. Before the world goes off trying to find another agreement, we need to know how effective this one has been, and that information has not been publicly forthcoming.

How many countries met the targets set? What effect has it had on carbon emissions? How much worse would it have been were the agreement not in place? Surely, we are entitled to this information in the public arena. If it has not been effective, even with those countries that signed up, then it is the wrong answer or structure and we need to look for another resolution.

The other matter here is the developing countries, which has still not been properly addressed in my view. All this documentation seems to be indicating that the only way they can help is to deprive themselves of the advances in technology that the developed world has. Is this going to be acceptable to them? I cannot see this being the case. Therefore any agreement needs to take their situation into account, without placing an untenable burden on the developed world. 

9.) Nation, NGO Bashing and fairness
Why is it that every time there is an issue of global importance there is an automatic nation, NGO or business witch-hunt? This posturing does nothing to confirm the validity of the situation, in fact the opposite. The French attack on the US is a prime example. It is almost as if it is just a fight amongst politicians to see who can be top dog, rather than a serious issues that requires global accord. Besides, there are other countries that have taken the same stance as the US, so singling out the big boy on the block is not only unfair, it smacks of this will get me the biggest headline. Countries antagonising each other will lead only to one conclusion, namely that nothing constructive will be done.

Other sectors are also being bashed, in my view sometimes unfairly. Business is always a favourite. Whilst I accept that, in some cases their response is not good on some issues, they are generally responsive to consumer demands. In the case of global warming, it is fair to say that in many cases business is being far more positive in their actions than politicians are. For example, the supermarket industry in the UK is taking active reduction measures, whereas politicians are looking at costly offset programmes, which in the end are second best options.

Similarly, I object to some of the rhetoric and language that is used by the various lobbies on global warming, from both sides of the divide. To call someone a denialist or sceptics because they do not accept ones argument is as bad as calling someone an “eco-nut” for proposing the argument in the first place. Serious issues demand serious discussion and conversation and this requires patience. At present, the stance taken by some scientists and many politicians on the issue of global warming is too dictatorial, dismissive and impatient. All it does is make both sides more entrenched in their views, which is counter-productive.

The problem with a divide of this nature is that both sides lose. Both sides spend so much time attacking the other that they do not a) fully understand the argument of the other and b) do not gain from the potential valid points within the others cases, validity that could be of significance to their own studies.

I do not consider myself a denialist or a sceptic on this issue. However, I am also not going to be sat down and told this is the problem and anyone who disagrees is wrong. I need to understand the full facts supporting the issue, including analysis of assumptions; explanations of provable facts and honest acceptance and discussion on those that cannot be proven. I want risk assessment on all aspects of the issue, including remedies and I want acknowledgement of and discussion regarding opposing views.

As I said previously, one of the things that infuriate me about the current IPCC/Political situation is the piecemeal approach. In my years as a business consultant any report that I produced did not only identify and make conclusions about the problem, it was also required to provide recommendations that had been expertly evaluated. If it did not I was failing in my task. Governments and the scientific world have taken six years to prepare this report. I fail to see why, at the same time, and for publication at the same date, the remedial data could not have been produced.

the Brit

Thank you Scientific American!

February 3, 2007

Hi Brit,

Well, the buy in to the Global Warming hoax is complete with this bit from Scientific American, Final Report: Humans Caused Global Warming.  The once independent and respected science magazine has, obviously, been either bought or pressured by Higher Powers into this trite piece of crap journalism.  What a sad day.

For instance, they say “a panel of climate experts has confirmed,” when they know, or should know, that the “climate experts” have backgrounds in a wide range of disciplines having nothing to do with climate studies.

Then they continue with, “The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a working group of some 3,000 delegates from 113 countries, today issued its final report here on the state of climate change”  Which is another bit of reportage dung, since this isn’t the final report but, rather, the premature release of the summary of a report that will be issued later, but which will be edited to conform to the political statement represented by this summary.  Shame on you once great science journal.

Then they go on to include this bit of drek, “Some of the models show an ice-free Arctic. We see more severe extremes, heat waves. We see a lot of heavier precipitation, drought increases in a lot of regions. Tropical cyclones are projected to become more intense in a lot of areas with ongoing increases in sea surface temperatures,” says Gerald Meehl, an atmospheric scientist at the U.S. National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) and a contributing author. “We see what we’ve already seen but everything becoming a lot more extreme.”  Knowing full well that computer models of climate change are not intended to be predictive, but, rather, are merely a means of testing scientists’ understanding of what has happened to date.  I would ask, “who is paying you off SA, and what is the dollar amount necessary to buy your integrity?”

 Then they slip this in, “This warming would vary from place to place, with some regions experiencing far more,” begging the question of what is actually meant by “global warming?”

Back to computer models we have this pearl of wisdom: For instance, thanks to a diversity of computer models—as well as several runs of each—the scientists can now provide a best estimate for the temperature change based on a doubling of carbon dioxide (CO2) levels in the atmosphere: three degrees Celsius.  To which I must ask, if the models are worth the cost of the electricity it takes to run them, then why are several runs of each necessary?  The answer, of course, is that the models are tossing dice (random numbers) somewhere in their bowels so each run comes out different.  Keep this in mind when your taxes go up based on these “facts.”

Finally, we come to the real problem with this article, and the IPCC report.  Instead of being based on science, it’s based on politics and committee meetings as is shown by, “The process of drafting this summary report proved contentious at times. For example, a sentence was ultimately removed that said man-made greenhouse gases outweigh the contribution of the sun by a factor of five.”  Sorry to bother you “climate scientists” with this, but “facts” are either true, or they are not true.  Anytime data has to be followed with a plus/minus degree of accuracy, it’s a guess just like an opinion poll.  Scientific American should know better than to fall for this crap.  You disappoint me greatly.

the Grit

IPCC report fixed!

February 2, 2007

Hi Brit,

After the release of the new IPCC study, the news is full of story after story about Climate Change! I’ve got half a dozen in different tabs that I’ve been trying to connect together for a post.  Then I found this, Climate Change’s Carnival Atmosphere, which does a pretty good job of summing things up.

This is the best bit:

 First, the UN isn’t releasing its full report this week – just the curiously edited “Summary for Policy Makers.” The detailed report on the science won’t be issued until May or so because it’s not finished.

If you’re wondering how the UN can issue a summary of a report that’s not even finished, fear not. The UN has announced that changes to the full report shall be made “to ensure consistency with the Summary for Policy Makers.”

Basically, this admits that the results come first, and the research is rigged later to match.  Not a bad scam, but hardly worth the $5,000,000,000 the US is spending a year on this junk.  So, in the coming years, as your utility bill gets larger, your light bulbs become poisonous, you can’t fit comfortably into your over priced “green” car, and your local, state, and Federal taxes shoot through the roof, it’s all for a good cause.  Climate Scientists need the money.

the  Grit

BBC double standards

February 2, 2007

The BBC, a UK media organisation that has been at the forefront of the issue of Global Warming, has come under attack from one of its own presenters. He says that, despite all their talk about the need to reduce the danger from things such as carbon emissions, the corporation is doing exactly the opposite.

Jeremy Paxman says the the BBC are guilty of double standards. On the one hand they are promoting restraint and conservation to members of the public, whilst still sending journalists around the world in jets and other so-called “damaging” transport, making no attempt to seek to reduce their “carbon footprint.” Why is this not a surprise? The term “do as I say, not as I do” springs to mind.

The BBC’s response when Paxman asked the questions was that their programmes were helping by airing the issue. As he says, you don’t solve the problem by just talk!

Situations like this devalues the argument significantly when someone or body pontificates about what we as individuals should be doing on issues such as Global Warming, relying on the underlying guilt factor to press home the message, whilst at the same time they are ignoring their own advice and warnings.

To me this type of action only confirms that the media is in Global Warming for the money and increase market share. Such reports are not likely to persuade people that the issue is to be taken seriously.

the Brit

Global warming protection measures causes tremors

February 1, 2007

Hi Grit

I don’t know if you have seen this article. It tells how in the Swiss town of Bassel (Switzerland is home of the IPCC), it was decided that to reduce the incidence of Global Warming, they would utilise the earths heat by pumping water deep under the earth’s surface to assist with the generation of safe electricity.

However, in their rush to get this project under way, they made a couple of fatal mistakes. Firstly, they decided to site the project that is suscepitable to earth tremors and, secondly they omitted to ask the local Seismological service if it was okay to proceed. The result? In the last month there have been at least three major tremors in the area, 700 claims for compensation and, despite the fact that the project has now been halted for investigations to be carried out. These investigations will take up to four years to complete.

As far as I can see there are four issues here.

1) Why did the scientists not understand the dangers of the project and talk to the experts before commencement?

2) What is the point of localised action like this to address potential global warming issues, if by doing so you are significantly multiplying the dangers to the lives of thousands in the process.

3) I am no scientist but, bearing in mind that there are similar projects elsewhere, where was the geological reports from these project which could have been used as guidance? Is it not logical to assume that if one goes drilling holes into the earth’s crust, that there is a fair chance if it is not handled properly it could cause more danger than it is solving?

4) Surely a much wiser use for the investment made, which now will stand idle for a substantial period of time, could have been found.

What really bothers me is the current situation where scientists and other researchers are becoming so jealous of their own field of work that, for fear of others taking over, there are not sharing or discussing the safety of their recommended action with others.

the Brit

The Global Warming hoax continues!

February 1, 2007

Hi Brit,

Apparently, not everyone on the planet has bought into the Global Warming hoax yet, so they’re putting out this: Satellite data vital to UN climate findings.  While I would be fine with the title, I would also question why the satellite data wasn’t vital to the previous findings.  Could it be because previous satellite data didn’t back up the Global Warming Theory and was thus discarded?

Anyway, even this bit of media biased reporting casts suspicion on the entire Global Warming scheme in its opening line, “The most authoritative report on climate change to date will be released tomorrow in Paris, France.”  If the previous reports were not “authoritative” then why, a rational person might ask, are we in a rush to base policy on them? 

Then we have this bit of scandal, “Predictions for the future of global warming in the report, intended as a summary for policymakers, are based on 19 computer models.”  I would point out that I can have you any number of computer models, within a month, that will show anything you want them to predict.  To verify the projections of these computer games, one has to wait until the date of the projection and take REAL MEASUREMENTS!  This is admitted in the next paragraph of the report, “The ability of satellites to deliver global data on the Earth System makes them particularly useful to study climate change and to validate and assess the quality of climate models.”

Then we have this twisted bit of misdirection, “Satellites are often the only means of studying the Earth’s Polar Regions because of their remoteness, darkness and cloudiness.”  Which makes me wonder how, considering that the greatest warming in the other IPCC reports occurred in the Arctic, was measured without the aid of this satellite data included in the latest report. 

Another interesting quote from the story is, “Satellites are useful for helping build scenarios of greenhouse gas emissions, such as methane — the second most important greenhouse gas after carbon dioxide. Using the Scanning Imaging Absorption Spectrometer for Atmospheric Chartography (SCIAMACHY) instrument aboard Envisat, researchers at the University of Heidelberg in 2005 were able to confirm increased methane concentrations induced mainly by human activities. ”  Which raises the question of why the 2001 report was presented in such a definitive manner if it wasn’t confirmed until four years later?  Of course, that delay, and the obvious agenda being pushed by these “scientists” brings anything they say after the initial report into doubt.

As a parting shot, allow me to present this:

A space-borne instrument known as a radar altimeter offers valuable information on the state of the ocean by providing measurements of the height of the ocean surface. Data acquired by radar altimeters aboard Envisat and ERS show sea levels have been rising by three mm a year since the early 1990s.

I would point out that the alarmist predictions of the initial IPCC report were of sea level rises of several feet, even hundreds of feet.  For the record, 3 mm is 0.11811 inches, so a hundred years at this rate is less than a foot.  Of course, one would have to question the ability of satellite measurements of a wave tossed ocean to have this level of accuracy.

the Grit