It is a really important topic but has evoked some really bizarre responses and comment. I personally see the climate has changed in the north since my childhood. I do find it remarkable the number of people who deny the existence of global warming. And these are not credible scientists, but laypeople who would defer to an electrician or plumber where appropriate but commit to an ideological position that will damn the globe with views contrary to the experts.
As I said I am not a climate scientist but I had started my academic career in forestry before switching to environmental science and then to anthropology with a botany minor, before I moved to graduate level anthropology, but even then I did a mixture of development studies, media studies and so forth in trying to understand what the hell we humans are up to. So I do have an understanding of science as a process and how it is constructed. I also know “real” scientists and I know how consensus is created in the natural sciences.
The scientific consensus is really there on global warming. It is an inescapable fact that the earth is getting warmer and that humans have played a large role. All the media hype about “Climategate” and other denialist positions are premised off of a solid base of ignorance. A small group of scientists fudged some data, but this does not throw global warming into doubt as it is represented. That is media misrepresentation and spin-doctoring of a rather blatant kind. Please do not supply links to random non-peer-reviewed websites at this point as “proof”. And definitely do not supply YouTube videos as even more proof.
But of course that is what will happen. I may even get statistics to show how many people do not believe in global warming or that because many people do not believe in it then politicians better listen as if the heating globe is subject to democratic whims. I also find it really strange that my experience with denialists of global warming always seem to be rather right wing of some sort or at least rabid individualists.
Global warming needs to be treated with urgency. Global warming is happening and faster than we expect. And we are not doing enough.
Canada is one of the worst contributors on a per capita basis. While we can expect that our energy needs are greater as we need heating to survive our harsh winters, we must also acknowledge that we have the resources to make a greater contribution to the fight against man-made climate change. Instead we are currently doing the least and our boring Prime Minister Steven Harper is still dabbling with denialist theories. And Canadians can selfishly afford to do this as we will not suffer the worst of the climate changes. We have massive amounts of water and it is really *%$#ing cold so a few degrees will not damn us in the way it will the Sahel regions of Africa that will become full deserts.
I spend my life studying humans and sometimes I feel a sense of despair as we destroy the natural environment around us, deny the humanity of those around us, engage in horrific wars, brutalise our neighbours and continue to commit the same errors again and again.
And we really do treat each other badly. I was watching a documentary and in the film there were whole villages of people living off of a garbage dump in India. They were paid a pittance to recycle plastic, tin and steel. I still feel like crying when I think of it. Little children were digging through the dump looking for little bits that they could eat, sell or use. There were no schools, no health clinics and the dump was now marked as carbon capture site for methane that was to be harvested, which really means burnt off. Methane is 20 times worse than carbon dioxide so it was burnt off to convert it to carbon dioxide. Some of these dumps just burn it and sell the credits they gain from doing so instead of using the methane (let alone questioning why there is a huge garbage dump creating so much methane). Other dumps were using the energy to create electricity that was being sold locally. So it did not benefit the poor who lived off of other people’s rubbish.
But again I digress from what I was saying about global warming being a strange topic online. I am really puzzled why global warming denialists always seem so right wing. Videos abound that link ideas on global warming to global governance. As if a global will to fight a global problem will lead to global government based on socialism.
I don’t know, maybe I am spending too much online and get exposed to stupid views far too often.
As for Africa and the rest of the global south there seems to be a strong view that because of poverty in the south pollution and industrial standards do not matter. Issue of rampant population growth are downplayed as the poor have a small carbon footprint. The real problem with this view, no matter how accurate, is that to maintain this level of population requires the world to maintain the current levels of inequality.
The lack of environmental controls is also dismissed due to the level of industrialisation. It is argued that a factory in the south can be allowed to emit more pollution because of the small number, yet these plants and factories poison the people that work on them and live near them. Global strategies to combat global warming must be global in scope without compromises over past inequalities or we will continue to destroy the only earth we have.
This entry was posted
on Friday, March 19th, 2010 at 7:52 pm and is filed under Perspective.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
145 Responses to “Global warming, more than a heated debate”
Thank you for a well-thought out article which supports a lot of the opposition that we are making down here at the bottom of Africa!
You jump from the premise that the planet is warming right to the conclusion that we must do something about it.
There is a definite gap in the chain, there.
Otherwise, who are these people you characterize as deniers? They don’t know that wheat grown in Saskatchewan couldn’t have been done when glaciers covered it a short while back?
Meanwhile, the Hansenists are being made poster children of mock by the Creationists - to use as a vehicle to introduce their book along with the AWG book into schools. So science has really been put in the gutter.
Do you know what Plan B is if it doesn’t get warmer? Be louder. That’s it. Someone will actually need to be removed from the stage.
This post was mentioned on Twitter by zaranithin: Global warming, more than a heated debate: It is a really important topic but has evoked some really bizarre respo… http://bit.ly/cbfv0q…
Climate Change is not in dispute. The climate has changed many times and continues to do so. As far as can be measured it has changed for millions of years including several times historically.
But evidence or experience of climate change does not prove it was caused by man. The fact that it has been a feature of the earth for millions of years strongly suggests it has not.
There are two views of climate change:
1. Every single one of the climate change events in earth history was little or nothing to do with man.
2. Every single one of the climate change events in earth history was little or nothing to do with man except the warming at the end of the 20th century.
Number 2 is not logical or scientific to me, especially since CO2 continues to increase and warming does not, at least for the past decade or so. And no, I am not in any sense right wing. Pro universal health care, anti gun ownership and capital punishment and against making abortion illegal.
What a good article! Those that deny valid scientific findings are just showing their ignorance of the scientific method.
While there are people who call themselves scientists and who make spurious claims in the name of science, you will find that they are simply ignored or discredited by the professional scientific fraternity. The properly applied scientific method is the best way there is for humanity to further and apply its knowledge. Those who just have opinions on critically important subjects without valid evidence should just be ignored.
[…] Thought Leader » Michael Francis » Global warming, more than a … Tags: denialist, denialist-positions, earth, getting-warmer, Global Warming, media, […]
@Calliope
Nope, “honorary white” had a strict definition under apartheid. Again this shows the thinking capacity and hypocrisy of the apartheid regime. That’s why they needed white-AA!!!
@Michael Francis
“few degrees will not damn us in the way it will the Sahel regions of Africa that will become full deserts”
Hmm….isn’t this article simply a ploy to get more South Africans like your roommate Brandon Huntley to emigrate to Canada… LOL
Yes, humanity is the Earth’s worst species. And according to James Lovelock, there is no escape and no solution to global heating, as he calls it. The most we can hope is that some of us will survive the hotter new earth when temperatures suddenly rise, but the odds are that billions will die. Utterly depressing. And yet we continue to live as though “tomorrow is another day.”
The reason that right wingers deny global warming is simple - what drives a lot of of these extreme right-wing positions (denial of evolution, hatred of gay people, belonging to the NRA, speciesism, opposition to abortion) are two things: one - an extreme narcissism, that makes people feel very insecure if they don’t feel that they are the centre of God’s great universe, and two - a desire to control everything, including women’s sexuality, in very tight limits. So global warming means caring about the earth, caring about other species - “care” is not something that spoilt insecure children are capable of.
Climate has been changing on the earth for 4.5 Billion years. Climategate has shown that ALL of the data used to support warming over the last century has been “fudged or manipulated”. Any consensus was based on lies. CRU has admitted no warming! NASA’s data is based on the CRU! When the root information is a fraud, the consensus supporting the result is worthless! It doesn’t take more than average intelligence to recognize that! Repeat: it has been admitted that the premise data is a lie! by the principle researcher! The entire IPCC report has been debunked as not based on any research!
The last time I read that man-made global warming is an inescapable fact was in a recent Scientific American magazine. A few pages later there was an article on the demise of the Neandertals. Among the leading hypotheses for their disappearance is an non-adaptation to climate change. The European climate some 15,000 years ago swung wildly from cold to warm and back again within a few human lifetimes. Since there was no mention of the Neandertals having CO2-spewing generating stations or vehicles, I must assume that THEIR climate change was natural, not anthropogenic. Those who believe blindly in man-made global warming do all of us a disservice when they make unsupportable claims that the case for warming is unequivocal and that humans are undoubtedly the cause. You’d be far better off advocating that we strive for improving our energy efficiency, use the best available of the economically rational technologies to produce our energy, and continue to study the climate and our role in it. Vilifying those who don’t buy the “sky is falling” hype simply entrenches their opposition. Given shoddy management of–and suspicisious secrecy around–climate data, well-documented IPCC blunders, and climate models that are pathetically poor at predicting months into the future (let alone decades), people are right to demand further study. And by the way, I am an engineer and mathematician, and I don’t get my climate advice from my plumber of my electrician.
You are placing undue credence on “consensus” for several reasons. The first reason is almost irrelevant, but it does expose a gaping hole in your logic. That is, there is no scientific consensus on Man Made Global Warming to begin with! There is a Petition Project which has already been signed by over 31,000 scientists (over 9,000 with PhD’s) which refutes AGW. That alone refutes the consensus claim. But, perhaps more importantly, consensus–even when present–proves nothing. Just ask Galileo who stood alone against scientific consensus, religious absolutism, and state sponsored persecution in his very unpopular nearly solo-stance that the Earth was not the center of the universe. Perhaps you will consider the possibility that humans are not the center either. I find it a particulrly suspect argument that you make regarding “deniers’” using the large number of skeptics as evidence agaist AGW, while you use the (non-existent)”consensus” numbers as proof of AGW! At least try to be consistent in your fallacious arguments.
The facts themselves contradict this article. There is no scientific consensus on global warming’s causes. And it is scientists that says so, not lay-men. With other commentators, I agree the climate is changing, but not in the way global warming pundits would have it. Their own records showed that there was a 5 year cooling period in the past five years.
However, the scientific case for warming induced by human activities, still has to be argued by human-induced warming activists, for the facts say differently. Or, they should at least debate it and not digress to verbal abuse if they can’t answer the “denialists”.
The term “deniers” is nothing more than a smear.. Group us all together.. Give us a derogatory pet name.. its a tried and true way to make double sure none of your followers listen to a word we say..
Yet the fake science persists.. Its the big lie.. The scam of epic proportions.. No shortage of useful idiots to spread the word..
Question: What are the chances an infinitesimal (.04%) trace gas (CO2), essential to photosynthesis and life on this planet, is responsible for runaway Global Warming?
Answer: Infinitesimal
The IPCC agrees. See the IPCC Technical Report section entitled Global Warming Potential (GWP). And the GWP for CO2? Just 1, (one), unity, the lowest of all GHG. What’s more, all greenhouse gases combined constitute just 1% of the atmosphere. Of that 1%, water vapor, the most powerful greenhouse gas, makes ups 40% of the total. Carbon dioxide is 1/10th of that amount, an insignificant .04%. If carbon dioxide levels were cut in half to 200PPM, all plant growth would stop according to agricultural scientists. None of these facts have been reported in the national media. Why?
Anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is a complete lie concocted by a group of left-wing techno-phobes in order to bilk the taxpayers of the globe into making the perpetrators very wealthy.
Those same perpetrators were funded by big oil (British Petroleum), various companies that build nuclear powerplants, Greenpeace and the WWF.
If you doubt me, go and check the sources of funding at the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia.
Having done that, go and read all 1,001 of the Climategate e-mails or the excellent synopsis provided by Dr. John Costella (physicist). I did both. Both are readily available on the Internet.
You might also benefit from watching some of the videos available of Viscount Christopher Monckton, scientist, former policy advisor to Maggie Thatcher and a Nobel Laureate.
Enough of the socialist twaddle! Enough of the lies and deceit of the IPCC, CRU and Al Gore!
Since Al Gore and his friends based this whole controversy on the ability of CO2 to warm the planet, this is where “deniers” have based their disagreement. No one with half a brain denies that our Earth goes through periods of heat and cold. To quote Dr. Tim Ball: “The Carbon Dioxide Global Warming is not happening and DOES NOT HAPPEN. There is NO PHYSICS for the model which permits generalization.” And I paraphrase the next part for lack of space: “The average heat retained during the daytime hours slightly increases, but it is an illusion quickly destroyed by midnight’s chill. It is water which creates the insulation from the heat sink of cold space and there is both far more of it than the other gases and ALL ATTEMPTS TO MEASURE IT AND MODEL IT IN THE ATMOSPHERE HAVE FAILED. WE HAVE NEITHER THE BRAIN POWER NOR THE COMPUTERS TO DO SO.”
So lemme get this straight - you’ve seen the various websites, the Youtube videos and the unmistakeable march towards world government - and you call US the “deniers”? Who’s really in denial here? The moment you said “a small group of scientists” you lost all credibility. That was the CRU, the very cream of the industry (and yes, it’s become an industry). They’re the main source for the IPCC, the global government entity seemingly invisible to you? Happily, Nohopeinhagen failed - but you people just keep trying.
CO2 had never driven temps in the past, there’s no evidence it’s doing so now, and as for “warming faster than expected”, Phil Jones himself has admitted no real warming for about 15 years. How fast were you expecting?
Someone’s in denial alright, but not those skeptical of man-made catastrophe that requires a world government power to tax us back into the stone age.
Michael, do you really think global warming is real? Why? The planet warmed from 1850 to 1900, about .3 C, then cooled about .3 C. Then it warmed in the 1920’s to 1950 by around .5 C. Then it cooled from 1950 to 1975 by the same .5 C. Then it warmed again, about .3 C, now it has cooled and is still cooling. The planet has lost .2 C at present, waiting for the end of this cooling. Where do you see warming? Are you only talking about the warm periods without subtracting the cooling? At present, the planet is .1 C over temperatures at the end of the LIA. And the LIA was not one long period of cold. It warmed and cooled then too. I can tell you are not a climate scientist.
We see that you are truely open to debate and to look at the evidence.
Once you use the world denier you have show that no matter what evidence that may or may not contradict or prove the science you have already made up your mind..
As usual the nutters will argue against man made climate without supplying peer reviewed scientific data - yawn, here we go again, the belief in conspiracy theories they will beleive it like a religion.
Most important to me is that converting the worlds agriculture to organic agriculture will sequest or remove enough carbon from the atmosphere almost immediately to take us back to below 280 part per million, which is what we were at before the industrial revolution. We are currently sitting around 380ppm.
Consensus is not science, neither is deliberately distorting your data.
I am a computer scientist and I have seen the “Climategate” emails and the sourcecode accompanying it. There was genuine jiggery-pokery going on to create false reports.
I do not deny global warming what i deny is that it is caused by anthropogenic CO2 emissions, i believe that it is anthropogenic and the first politician that suggests the solution is a drastic reduction in the number of humans will get my support, and no i am not right wing. also i dont need a excuse to see that all polution should be reduced, it should be our mandate global warming or no, all this farce regarding global warming is doing is making some individuals very rich with little or no improvement to the environment
What are you trying to achieve with this blog? Some sort of warmist group hug or are you trying to shame denialists into changing? You weaken any ability to do the latter by demonstrating your ignorance of the basics of climate science and the issues.
There is no proof of CAGW, there is only a theory. The theory is largely generated from the same Met Office computer model that no longer predicts seasonal forecasts because it is consistently wrong. It relies on positive climate feedback, which is about as uncertain as science gets. It uses the data from ‘a small group of scientists [who] fudged some data’. It broadly agrees with Mann’s temperature reconstruction, which looks increasingly inaccurate. There are other models and temperature reconstructions but they share the same potentially flawed data and assumptions.
Peer review is not a rigorous testing of a research paper’s validity, it’s just a way of weeding out clearly spurious papers. Jones admitted that nobody had asked for his data or code before McIntyre. The bulk of climate literature is about what would happen in a warming world and is not proof of cause. The bulk of the IPCC report has nothing to do with cause.
If you want denialists to stop denying AGW you need to call for better, more transparent science. And if it’s just the hug, then why not swap your successful CO2 reduction stories… or are you only able to cut CO2 if denialists lead the way?
“There is a Petition Project which has already been signed by over 31,000 scientists (over 9,000 with PhD’s) which refutes AGW.”
That is probably the most fraudulent and discredited document around. Most hard-core climate change denialsits stopped quoting it ages ago, it has become too much of an embarrasment to them.
This author unwittingly makes a backhanded confession by claiming (with a straight face) to be “really puzzled why global warming denialists always seem so right wing”. So self-consistent, and telling, that it does not seem odd to him why Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warmist Alarmists always seem so…left wing.
Start firing on both cylinders, Mike, half a brain is a terrible thing to waste. With two working hemispheres, everything, and not just half the world, will begin to make perfect sense.
Oh dear…Looks like you’ve attracted the Denialist 101′ers to your column, Michael
Fortunately though, every single bit of tedious rhetoric they spout above has been thoroughly discredited by actual scientists (not demented libertarian laypeople); much of this is available at: http://www.grist.org/article/series/skeptics/
I suggest that people extract the main denialist arguments (and outright lies) from the comments above and compare them to the articles on that site.
It is a pity that the loonies haven’t come up with some new arguments against the ACC hypothesis yet…perhaps they’re too busy reading David Icke books. It must be tough now that their chief ideologues (like poor old Lomborg) have been so soundly thrashed.
@ EA Blair - Thanks for taking the time for writing your rebuttal blog.
I do not have time to respond to each item here. A few points:
You do not understand what statistically significant means the way you try to use a scientists’ statements about statistical significance. It is impossible to determine a five-15 year significance in light of the data set he was working with not because it was not happening. Don’t misconstrue his statements.
Some of your statements and the article you provided only discusses CO2 but what of methane and other greenhouse gases emitted by industry?
Anthony Watts is a meteorologist who left science 2 decades ago to be a TV and then a radio announcer and far from credible.
The only scientific paper you supply claims that CO2 affects may be overstated and that there is a feedback in global warming from water vapour. It is also self-admittedly tentative and makes use of may be may cause, may be overstated etc throughout and does not say that there has been no man-made global warming.
What I find really curious is that most who disagree with me seem to think it should be business as usual and nothing should be changed. Even if I am wrong cleaning up emissions from factories and refineries would be a great thing. Less smog over cities, less childhood asthma, less cancer - look at Durban South Basin around the refineries for an example of a poisoned environment.
And BTW I am open to being proven wrong as are any real scientist. Until such a time we really ought to make it a priority.And this is where Bjorn Lomborg is wrong - we should not prioritise simply based on where we can have a larger impact on the short term. Things like malaria, HIV need to be targeted immediately but that does not preclude capping emissions and cleaning up pollution.
With big business and economic institutions behind think tanks like the hartland institute ( http://www.heartland.org) who previously also protected smokers from the real information. The truth is hard to find. But this article has got it spot on. The fact is that climate change is real and is caused by humans.
No amount of scientific evidence will convince the denialists. Its like getting a religious fundamentalist to change their religion, they would rather be burned at the stake.
In most cases the people who respond to articles like this are public relations companies paid by the oil industry, not members of the public who beleive climate change is a left wing conspiracy.
Unfortunately this oil industry PR affects the person in the street who is only too happy to embarce any and every consiracy theory.
The debate about CO2 from burning fossil fuels causing climate change is over, the battle now is between the fossil fuel industry on the one hand and knowlegeable responsible people on the other.
It is now a political battle for the hearts and minds of the people. Without stong public pressure on governemnts we will never be able to reduce CO2 emissions enough to make a significant difference.
We now need to work out how to destroy the misinformation in the public mind put there by oil industry PR.
“All the media hype about “Climategate” and other denialist positions are premised off of a solid base of ignorance.”
Gee thanks. I studied climate for 10 years and have a masters in Earth science and still have a solid basis of ignorance. My professor too?
The issue is not climate warming but whether or not the main driver is human produced CO2 and whether or not the feedback is positive so that the warming effect is amplified.
The reason why climate warming is not the issue is because there was a Medieval Warm Period that was warmer than today before mankind emitted much CO2. So CO2 could not have been the cause. The warm period was followed by the Little Ice Age from which we have been recovering for over 100 years.
Paleoclimatologist have reported several warm and cold periods throughout history and prehistory. Have a read of William Burroughs’s book Climate Change in Prehistory, Cambridge University Press, 2005.
Climategate was brought to us by the “Hockey Team” a tight clique of scientists who misapplied statistics to climate proxy records to try to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period.
Well for some people may be impressed, but I have taught statistics and I have studied paleoclimatology and I am still skeptical, not of warming itself, but of the role of CO2 in warming. My advise to you, Mr Ferris, is to hit the books again, this time with an open mind.
Thank you for a well argued and thoughtful piece. The realities are indeed heart-wrenching, and I find it diagnostic that this kind of caring about the impact on others, or other species or habitats, will always pull denialists in the droves that it has here too…
Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. - Michael Crichton
@Frank White - you claim to have studied climate for ten years. By this do you mean staring at the clouds? As I can see you appear in no scientific publications or university anywhere search-able on the web or scientific database. This suggests you do not actually do research or have your masters. Don’t make claims that are not backed up especially in the global age of digital communication.
You do however appear on other blogs and news stories on climate change making silly claims and false statements. You are at least global in your trolling (Canberra Times, etc).
Climate change denialism is mind control by vested interests.
Adolph Hitler - “If you tell a big enough lie and tell it frequently enough, it will be believed.”
Spew out enough garbage often enough and there are enough idiots out there that will beleive it. We have some politicians in South Africa that get away with that tactic despite wearing expensive watches that should be a dead give-away to the uneducated folk they claim to represent, but alas, the people carry on worshining the ground he walks on.
Right wingers are easy meat for political charlatans and industry spin doctors, they don’t let facts get in the way of their emotions and political or religious beleifs. - i.e. Weapons of mass destruction.
@ clean air
converting all the worlds agriculture to”organic” will stop climate change by resulting in the starving of millions, organic is another massive con designed to remove money from rich people. the biggest breakthroughs of the last century were the ability to produce fertilizer and make unsuitable soil suitable for farming. by going organic no CO2 will be sequestered more will be released as we till more fielsd to grow the same amount of food
Michael and Jane, ever thought that the evil fossil fuel industry could be the biggest winner in the Global Warming oops sorry very un PC - in the Climate Change scam. Big oil has been investing and doing R&D in alternate fuels since the 1st oil shock in the mid 70’s and with their financial muscle are best placed to gain from development and use of alternate fuels.
That is not all, once the above gain ground and oil supplies start to dwindle = prices that will sky rocket the oil majors will make billions on “new energy” plus the old energy.
So stop blaming all doubters on big oil misinformation they could just be the main instigators of the Climate Change scam.
Michael if a similar scam had been unearthed about big oil similar to “Climategate” you Jane etc would be still in full froth mode and Al Gore would be into his 100th million dollar profitable new film.
That the earth is warming is provable but that mankind oops…… Peoplekind are causing it is still under debate and only Flat Earthers plus politicians believe that the debate is over.
Some scientists fudged some data …
That’s accurate, but misleading. The temperature for the entire planet was intentionally manipulated (?!). These obscure and incorrect conclusions have since been forced down our throats at every turn. Carbon credits, cap and trade, these are all schemes to take your money, for nothing. The IPCC, WWF, Greenpeace and the UN have all been found to be complit in making up lies to benefit financially from these scares.
How about we go back to ending plain old pollution?
Plenty of real problems out there that we can quite easily solve. In our cities and neighbourhoods.
Michael Crichton is a novilist and fiction writer, as well as a anthopological climate change denialist, hardly someone to refer to mainsteam consensus consensus on climate change as the first refuge of scoundrals. Lets get real, I mean you guys are really scraping the barrel now.
I have been reading through the Climategate emails, and I admit to being astounded by several glaring themes running throughout the series:
Firstly, there is a tiny clique of scientists around Mann and Jones doing their level best to obfuscate review of their data and methods, to block publication of papers that may provide ammunition to dissenting viewpoints, and to bully publications into selective publication in their favour. This raises serious questions regarding the pro-AGW camp’s consistent claims of a lack of peer-reviewed contrarian papers.
Secondly, the horrifying lack of method documentation, particularly regarding computer code. As any programmer will tell you, bugs are almost inevitable, and effective de-bugging relies on documentation. Undocumented code is a nightmare, particularly for reviewing by another party (which is of course the basis of science). I would contend that undocumented code is unlikely to have been checked or reviewed by anyone other than the programmer, and as such, errors are more likely than not.
Thirdly, and perhaps most disturbing, is the proprietary attitude towards data sets and methods. Science is based on repeatability of results, and unless ALL data sets, methods and code are made freely available, this is virtually impossible. Based on the Climategate emails, scientists want to have their cake and eat it - they consider their data and methods proprietary and protected by intellectual property rights, and are unwilling to share; yet they expect their results to be accepted as proven fact, which cannot be verified without full disclosure.
All in all, Climategate has illustrated that the scientists responsible for climate theories and models that influence economic and energy policies around the world, and are therefore a strong influence on the quality of life of most of the world’s poorest people, should not really qualify for the title scientist.
I don’t remember ever seeing such energetic reactionary propaganda in support of anthropogenic global warming before. Bill McKibben recently pointed out a massive push by the extreme right, funded by big business of course, to deny and falsify the obvious facts. It would appear it’s bearing a lot of fruit here.
@abraxas: You state: ‘The IPCC, WWF, Greenpeace and the UN have all been found to be complit in making up lies to benefit financially from these scares.’
That’s an enormously bold claim; can you back it up? I find it quite improbable that all these independent institutions (and countless more besides) are all part of some Big Green Conspiracy. You’ve heard of the scientific notion of ‘parsimony’, right?
@brent: Big oil, etc. only spend a tiny fraction of their money researching sustainable technologies; a token gesture (and something to showcase in those bile-raising Shell adverts) at most.
@Mark: You are clearly not looking at the right data: organic (well, more specifically, veganic permaculture) is by far the most resource and land efficient form of food production.
Big oil may be (or may not be) the biggest investors in R&D in alternate energy, but that does not mean they don’t intend to squeeze the last drop of oil out of planet earth as fast as possible at top dollar, causing untold human and environmental devastation.
The oil industry are not doing R&D into alternative energy for ultruistic reasons. They will burn the planet with climate change and then make as much as they can out of alternative energy when they have exhaused oil.
Wrong about organic agriculture, that is how to feed the world according to 400 agronomists in a four year study supported by the World Bank and most United Nationas agencies, but science never bothered a denailst did it? No, you guys don’t let facts get in the way of your right wing belief system.
Both the article and many comments push the idea of “right wing” skeptics. Yes, it is natural that those who disfavor collectivism and its offspring will be skeptical of problems requiring collectivism on a global scale.
As such we demand a higher level of proof before leaping into the next “great experiment”. Proof of CO2 causing signficant warming simply isn’t there, the small percentage of man’s contribution to natural CO2 even less so. On a large scale, current temperatures are well within normal.
We DO however have proof of fudged, distorted, hidden, “lost” and obscured data. We have deliberate hiding of the MWP, urban heat effects, selective removal of cool stations and a whole bunch more. On top of which, science is not about consensus anyway.
Now add the fact that historically, warmer temps have been good for mankind, including good for flora and fauna. Hint: that’s why they called it “Greenland”, not “Frozenwasteland”.
This isn’t science, it’s politics, big money, corruption and zeal. In simple terms, it’s the desire for power.
Someone mentioned the ‘big lie’. They got it right but in reverse!
Mankind releasing plant-food at a slightly higher than usual rate does not mean we all have to be heavily taxed and controlled. There are however, no limits to the amount of tax and control some people, sadly, desire.
On the free market we aint buying it - and we don’t want it with a gun to our bellies either.
@Wise Old Joe
Adolph Hitler - “If you tell a big enough lie and tell it frequently enough, it will be believed.”
An excellent point, but please be aware that your point applies equally to both sides of the debate: we have been told ad nauseum over the past decade and a bit that we are responsible for global warming, through our production of carbon dioxide, that will be exponential and catastrophic.
We have been told this based on the work of a small clique of “scientists” who (as I said above) have done their level best to prevent opposing views from being published, who have colluded amongst themselves to manipulate, bully and coerce the editorial staff of scientific journals into collaborating, and have gone to great lengths to obstruct any peers intent on testing or even checking their data and methods. There is in fact no archive of the raw temperature data used by Jones AT ALL.
By any reasonable standards, this is at best poor science, at worst conspiracy to defraud.
This doesn’t automatically validate the contrarian view, but it certainly does call the AGW theory into question.
I believe the AGW premise fits all of your criteria for a Nazi-style propaganda campaign - tell a big lie, and repeat it often.
Since 2007 no nationally or internationally recognised scientific organisation have challenged the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) findings that CO2 emissions exacerbate climate change, only a handful of crackpot scientists and oil industry funded spin doctors continue to argue to the contrary. The IPCC have made some minor errors which have been blown out of all proportion in the overseas media, but their overall conclusions based on peer reviewed scientific data remain unchallenged.
Right wing fundamentalists who cannot provide evidence in the form of peer reviewed scientific data to challenge the IPCC findings are repeating their BIG DENIALIST LIE in true Hitler fashion.
United States space agency Nasa scientists on global warming:
“Global warming is an increase in the average temperature of Earth’s surface. Since the late 1800’s, the global average temperature has increased about 0.7 to 1.4 degrees F (0.4 to 0.8 degrees C). Many experts estimate that the average temperature will rise an additional 2.5 to 10.4 degrees F (1.4 to 5.8 degrees C) by 2100. That rate of increase would be much larger than most past rates of increase………….
……………….. Causes of global warming
Climatologists (scientists who study climate) have analyzed the global warming that has occurred since the late 1800’s. A majority of climatologists have concluded that human activities are responsible for most of the warming. Human activities contribute to global warming by enhancing Earth’s natural greenhouse effect. The greenhouse effect warms Earth’s surface through a complex process involving sunlight, gases, and particles in the atmosphere. Gases that trap heat in the atmosphere are known as greenhouse gases.
The main human activities that contribute to global warming are the burning of fossil fuels (coal, oil, and natural gas) and the clearing of land. Most of the burning occurs in automobiles, in factories, and in electric power plants that provide energy for houses and office buildings.”
“…no nationally or internationally recognised scientific organisations challenged the IPCC…”
Could this be because the issue has become so heavily politicised, and much of these “recognised” organisations are beneficiaries of government funding? Yes, it could. There is an reasonable and credible explanation.
“…only a handful of crackpot scientists and oil industry funded spin doctors continue to argue to the contrary.”
This is only true to the extent that the scientists with a dissenting opinion are labelled oil-funded crackpots by the AGW establishment. Could it be true that the AGW movement resorts to such personal attacks because they can’t actually defend their work? Judging from the Climategate email archive, the answer could well be Yes. Have you read the emails? Do so, you might find some new “crackpot” candidates.
“… minor errors which have been blown out of all proportion…”
These “minor errors” include massaging the statistical treatment of the tree ring temperature proxy data to hide historical warm periods and thus support the “unprecedented warming” we are told about by Mann et al. In fact, it emerges that their knowledge of statistical methodology is in itself questionable.
“Get real, Climategate was a publicity stunt by climatechange denialsts.”
This statement demonstrates your own lack of credibility.
Dr. Phil Jones himself admitted that the climategate emails were in fact genuine, and the content shows the scientists’ disregard for basic scientific method. Enough said.
Seriously, some of you denialists need to think carefully about where you place the burden of proof…If you replace the words ‘climate alarmists’ or ‘warmists’ in your rants with the word ‘Evolutionists’, this point is indicated rather starkly
I’m guessing, by the way, that the denialists here are *mostly* fifty-something white male atheists of slightly above average IQ but without tertiary education in a scientific field who enjoy the idea of the free market and have strong views on things like gun control. Perhaps if they are they should consider why their demographic has been specifically targeted by the denialist industry.
So the Climategate emails change 20 years of peer reviewed scientific research? One small error by a scientist when there are thousands of pages of research does not discredit overall conclusions, East Anglia is only one of many institutions involved in climate research, others back up the overall conclusion, CO2 is linked to global warming since the start of the industrial revolution.
If the denialist lobby had any credibility I would read the climate gate files, but when people who used to work for the ’smoking does not cause cancer’ lobby suddenly pop up touting climate change denialism, why waste my time reading theirgarbage? They are charlatans.
The denial industry - For years, a network of fake citizens’ groups and bogus scientific bodies has been claiming that science of global warming is inconclusive. They set back action on climate change by a decade. But who funded them? Exxon’s involvement is well known, but not the strange role of Big Tobacco. In the first of three extracts from his new book, George Monbiot tells a bizarre and shocking new story http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2006/sep/19/ethicalliving.g2
“…if the denialist lobby had any credibility I would read the climate gate files…”
Ok, so you haven’t bothered to read them yourself and are using “credibility” as an excuse for your laziness, using derogatory terms like “denialist” to attack individuals with differing opinions and calling the contrarians a “lobby” to imply that they are an organised group with a political agenda.
“…Since the late 1800’s, the global average temperature has increased about 0.7 to 1.4 degrees F (0.4 to 0.8 degrees C)…”
Ok, so that’s not more than 0.8C in over a century, and they reckon at least another 1.4C in another 90 years.
Firstly, that implies an exponential CO2 insulation curve with some serious positive feedback. However, in fact CO2 has a logarithmic insulation curve (insulation increases much less with increased CO2 concentration) and the negative feedback factors largely match the positive feedback factors.
Secondly, as your quote says, “Many experts estimate…” - not all experts; and as your quote also says “That rate of increase [the “many experts” estimated rate] would be much larger than most past rates of increase” - yes, that’s most, not all, and as far as I can see, we’re still here.
“Climatologists (scientists who study climate) have analyzed the global warming that has occurred since the late 1800’s. A majority of climatologists have concluded that human activities are responsible for most of the warming”
- “Since the late 1800’s” is half a breath in terms of meaningful climatological time frames, and considering the final minimum of the Little Ice Age occurred around 1850, it is surely no surprise that the world has consistently warmed since then (and is still doing so).
@Wise Old Joe
…
“…go tell the Nasa scietists they talking rubbish and part of a Nazi style propaganda campaign.”
Actually, if you read it properly you will see that this little NASA passage you quote is packed with qualifications - “most” and “many” featuring prominently right where deniability counts. It looks to me very much like a document intended to appease political pressure to take a stand, while not stating any definitive NASA opinion at all. It looks to me like nobody needs to tell them - they already know.
1) Climate Change Conspiracies: Stolen Emails Used to Ridicule Global Warming - Climate sceptics are blamed for disrupting crucial negotiations, say scientists. http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2009/12/06
2) Climate Skeptics Are Recycled Critics of Controls on Tobacco and Acid Rain
We must not be distracted from science’s urgent message: we are fuelling dangerous changes in Earth’s climate http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/02/21-6
We need to keep in mind that denialists use rhetorical tactics to give the appearance of argument or legitimate debate when in actuality there is none, while another tactic is to present scientific fact and misinformation as two acceptable view points. This type of mind control keeps the population confused and in limbo, giving vested interests the freedom to exploit the situation.
Denialism is commonly used by governments, political parties, business groups, interest groups, or individuals who reject propositions on which a scientific or scholarly consensus exists. These rascals should be strongly censured for their mischief, as they have sold their souls for a penny to the detriment of individual health and happiness, and the environmental well being of our planet.
The world’s corals and coral-reef ecosystems are in crisis. In just a few decades, scientists warn, these “rainforests of the sea” and all their rich biodiversity could disappear completely.
While corals face numerous dangers, the overarching threats of global warming and ocean acidification are the greatest — and they’re accelerating the decline of corals around the world. Scientists have predicted that many of the world’s coral reefs could be lost within a few decades. Urgent action is needed.
Your support can promote strong Endangered Species Act protections for corals. Listing corals as threatened or endangered would promote coral conservation through habitat protections, recovery planning, and prohibitions against killing or harming corals. Most significantly, listing corals under the Act would require federal agencies to conserve and recover the coral species and evaluate the impacts of U.S. government actions — including those that contribute to greenhouse gas pollution — on the listed corals.
@Cleanair, you quote from Commondreams, a site well-known for outright censorship of any differing opinions. Which is rather ironic…
That you haven’t even bothered to read any of the Climategate emails about sums up the attitude of so many alarmists. Why look at the facts or think for yourselves, when there’s a massive government-sponsored “climate change” lobby to think for you?
Frankly I find the recent but constant references to some kind of slick, well-paid organized effort to discredit “global warming” to be somewhat hilarious. How come we never heard of this Grand Conspiracy until AFTER the catalog of errors, fudging and plain fraud have (repeatedly) come to light recently?
By the way, where do I apply for all this Big Oil money for my posting? I could do with a few more bux…?
Go on, admit it, you’re trying to reverse the facts. For around a decade or so we’ve had a massive propaganda push, with huge funding from governments, Big Oil, all manner of profit-seeking corporations and the mass media. Yet as the facts start to ooze out and the whole theory become more and more discredited, you and your ilk start screaming that somehow, somewhere, there’s this vast right-wing well-funded and organized conspiracy..?
Where exactly?
I keep hearing Monbiot quoted, but wasn’t he the guy who hung his head in shame about what his beloved “scientists” had been up to?
Thanks for the debate, it’s been fun; frustrating though that you can’t see the possibility that you are victims of your own arguments, but no doubt you think the same of me. I can’t help you with that, it’s something you’ll have to figure out on your own.
Jane, I’m neither in the “industry”, nor in PR, nor a hack, and it only costs me money (in time away from real work) to write here. As for Aragorn’s profile, it’s diametrically wrong on almost every count. Sorry.
@Alan - Greenland is called Greenland as it was one of the first PR campaigns launched in Europe. Setting out to sea in a small ship required hope and besides the summer is great in the north and they can produce crops along the coast. Lots of glaciers but never a frozen wasteland either.
Wrong, Commondreams are very liberal and promote freedom of expression, not sensorship, they are however selective and you won’t find junk by nutcases on their web site. The articles they post are from good reliable high quality sources as they have an intelligent respecable readership.
I won’t read the hysterical climategate publicity stunt files until they can back up their claims with peer reviewed science. Supporters of climategate won’t produce any quality backup science ever, it will get in the way of their conspiracy theories that climate change is a left wing government sponsored plot.
Seen you asked, the best place for climate change denialists to apply for Big Oil money is from Exon Mobil, you can contact them via their web site: http://www.exxonmobil.com/corporate/
Monbiot hanging his head in shame? More denialist nonsense by the sound of it, probably the denialists have misrepresented or misconstrued something he said, they spend their lives doing that.
Here is a George Monbiot video you should watch:
“IS THE EARTH FLAT?”
“A TV debate about whether climate change is happening”
Yes you better get back to work. Which fossil fuel related industry do you work for? I came across a Dr ‘Somebody’(the name will come back to me) in the petrochemical industry the other day who agrued along the exact same lines as you. Could have sworn you were twins but Vetinari was definately not his surname.
“It’s no use pretending that this isn’t a major blow. The emails extracted by a hacker from the climatic research unit at the University of East Anglia could scarcely be more damaging. I am now convinced that they are genuine, and I’m dismayed and deeply shaken by them.”
So, go ahead and spin your way out of that one?
Or, you know, try reading the emails you claim don’t matter?
If you did, you’d know how laughable your insistence upon some “peer-reviewed science” is. Because among other things, the emails reveal how the “peer review” process was (is) heavily compromised, allowing zero dissent from the party line of “man-made global warmingchange”.
Scientific evidence to the contrary simply doesn’t get published.
Allow me to quote Monbiot again for you:
“There appears to be evidence here of attempts to prevent scientific data from being released, and even to destroy material that was subject to a freedom of information request. Worse still, some of the emails suggest efforts to prevent the publication of work by climate sceptics”
@Dog-botherer - Are you arguing you for business as usual? That there is no need for change at all? That individual will trumps the protection of the earth?
First you argue that “Commondreams are very liberal and promote freedom of expression, not sensorship(sic)…,”
…then proceed to destroy that assertion by saying, “…they are however selective and you won’t find junk by nutcases on their web site.”
“junk by nutcases”, of course, meaning anything that runs counter to the warmist orthodoxy.
CA, you’re way off. Common Dreams (from which ALL my comments are promptly deleted), like Real Climate and a host of other “very liberal” sites, practices routine censorship. They rationalize it using a circular logic that presumes de facto correctness on their parts, and “not worthy of keeping” as anything that runs counter.
Someone trying to distort the truth about anthropologic climate change would have a problem with the articles Commondreams post, they are too close to the truth.
How come other denialists post comments in the comments section on climate change articles on Commondreams web site but yours are deleted?
You don’t convince me that poor little old you gets targeted by the editors of Commondreams provided what you say conforms with reasonable manners and is not slanderous or liabilous.
Thanks for digging out those Monbiot quotes. I knew you could not resist it and so would save me the trouble.
Despite this setback by very few scientsts who fudged data at East Anglia university, Monbiot like all reasonable people has realised that Climategate has not changed the overall conclusion that man made climate change is happening and he is going full stream ahead to warn govenrments and the public. Visit his web site, watch TV, read the newspapers, Monbiot is in your face talking about anthopogenic climate change. If Climategate had convinced him otherwise he would be on your side but he is not.
You denialists will however mercilessly milk his quotes for your gain. Climategate has just made it more difficult for honest respectable scientists to convince a sceptical world who are not too clever when it comes to science at the best of times.
“Dog Botherer”… I’m gratified that you are familiar with my history. I assume then that you are also familiar with my preference for allowing things to take their course with only a gentle, strategic nudge (or a well-placed blade in extremis) in the required direction :-).
I must also presume that you are aware of the fate of the last person to call me by that name… nothing more damaging than a quick and painless lesson in camouflage; but then he was a highly placed buffoon with little intelligence, and people such as him are useful tools to those in power and shouldn’t be wasted.
Largely yes, depending on your definition of business as usual. If you mean that mankind should use whatever cheap energy they can find to better their situation, then yes. Real prosperity came to human civilisation through the use of cheap energy, and it is the lack of energy that is a central cause of scarcity. With energy, water is available; with energy, food can be produced in enormous quantities… remember that as long as people’s survival (and comfort up to a certain level) is at stake, they will always choose survival and comfort over the “greater” consideration of the environment, no matter what laws you try to force onto them. It is the rich who care most about the environment, because they can afford to - their survival and comfort is not threatened by environmental considerations. Similarly, it is a proven fact that the surest way to stem population growth is prosperity.
My concern is that by far the greater threat to the earth is industrial and domestic waste (besides CO2 which is plant food) - something that can best be dealt with by a wealthy society, because recycling does add substantial costs. The best way to create a wealthy society is cheap energy.
By restricting the use of hydrocarbons in energy production, you are restricting wealth creation, encouraging population growth, and worsening the earth’s situation where it really counts.
The poor are very aware of environmental degradation, their survival depends on a healthy environment. Proof being climate change denialism is far more rampant in the Western industrial nations than those of the South who are already experiencing negative impacts of climate change.
A green economy in both agriculture and energy provide far more jobs than fossil fuel dependent economies.
1) The USA employs only three percent of its population on the land, eco-agriculture is by far a much higher employer.
2) Worldwide wind capacity is now over 121 GW, with over 27 GW added in 2008, creating 440 000 jobs and worth over €40 billion.
@Alan: Selective quoting is embarassingly immature, especially when you’re quoting from easily verifiable sources like internet articles. Here’s the original article Alan was cherry picking from, for transparency-sake: http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2009/11/23/the-knights-carbonic/
Here’s another Monbiot quote, post-Climategate: “Even if you were to exclude every line of evidence which could possibly be disputed - the proxy records, the computer models, the complex science of clouds and ocean currents - the evidence for manmade global warming would still be unequivocal. You can see it in the measured temperature record, which goes back to 1850; in the shrinkage of glaciers and the thinning of sea ice; in the responses of wild animals and plants and the rapidly changing crop zones.”
I have another quote too, for some of the more zealous libertarian commenters: “There are two novels that can transform a bookish fourteen year old’s life. The Lord Of The Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish daydream that can lead to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood in which large chunks of the day are spent inventing ways to make real life more like a fantasy novel. The other is a book about orcs.” - Raj Patel
@Clean Air
“How come other denialists post comments in the comments section on climate change articles on Commondreams web site but yours are deleted?”
That’s easy. They keep the poorly framed arguments around for a hollow, easy straw man victory, while maintaining the illusion of balance.
Oh, and btw, anyone who stoops to using the epithet “denialist”, regardless of their position, has already revealed themselves as a fraud — one who is fully willing to sell out science to politics. Think about it. Or not.
Re: “The best way to create a wealthy society is cheap energy.”
Well then, fossil fuels are definately not cheap, climate change will shrink our global economy by 20% according to the Stern Report.
Oil may trade for $75 a barrel, but what about the externalities? The cost of dependence on oil costs the USA $233 billion per year as they cannot risk an interruption in supply. If one adds up all the direct and indirect economic costs of oil including military expenditure it should trade for about $ 480 per barrel, and that excludes costs to human health, environmental destruction, and its contribution to climate change.
The externalised costs of using coal is also horrendous, besides the damage coal mining does to the environment including our ground water, pollution from burning coal costs 25 000 lives per year in the USA. There are no figures available for South Africa.
That leaves us with renewable energy, its cheap by comparison to the above and is a massive job creator. Jobs equal wealth where it counts, not in the pockets of CEO’s of Big Oil.
Hooray for peak oil on March 29th, 2010 at 1:46 pm
Havelock
“besides CO2 which is plant food”
Plants survived just as well on 285parts per million CO2 in the atmosphere before the industrial revolution as they do now on 380ppm or 450ppm (near future date if nothing is done).
In fact if you are worried about species surviving or dying out get worried about us sitting at 380ppm and heading towards 450ppm. Coral reefs polar bears, millions of humans dislocated and starving, etc kiss them all good bye.
This is moving from denialism to delusion, you argue they delete your posts but not other denialists because “They keep the poorly framed arguments around for a hollow, easy straw man victory, while maintaining the illusion of balance.”
So the denialist nonsense you trot out is superior to other denialists. Wow, hey, I’m in awe.
@ Dog botherer/ Havelock Veterneri - (it’s a literary reference from discworld - a flat earth that makes his perspectives perhaps funnier than intended).
You state that: “Real prosperity came to human civilisation through the use of cheap energy…”
When did we become civilized? Wars, famine, violence and increasing intolerance and hatred all increasing as we ‘progress’.
Agriculture is the worst thing ever invented for humans. It has allowed us to build up the means to control, enslave and kill one another. Modern industrial developments has brought us the holocaust, global warming and the ability to destroy the entire globe with ease.
Civilized is not how I would describe humanity as a whole.
There you go Steven Douglas, Commondreams web site, you have all this wisdom to sprout and no one wants to listen. Another missed opportunity for you, really sorry, and remember, just because you’re paranoid does not mean someone is not out to get you.
“Agriculture is the worst thing ever invented for humans.”
That about sums up the warmist mind-set, right there.
Admit it, you’re real problem is you hate people. What you’d really like is population reduction, some form of genocide but let’s call it something else?
I’ve seen first hand how poverty and lack of concern for the environment go hand in hand. Take East Malaysia and Kalimantan, both parts of the island of Borneo. Same people, same race and religion, same island. One area, E. Malaysia, is wealthy, the Indonesian area is poor.
Guess which one takes good care of the rainforests and environment and which one used “traditional” farming methods, such as burning down a few thousand acres? Often causing underground coal fires it cannot afford to put out and which can and do burn for decades?
Cheap energy makes looking after the environment affordable. For Indonesians survival comes first, and to heck with the environment.
Someone mentioned plants survived on 280ppm - yes, but they thrive better with more. And coped with much higher levels in the past.
Out of curiosity - what is the “correct” temperature of the Earth, as an average? I’m guessing you think it’s exactly as it is right now - because you’re afraid of change and progress.
Don’t be scared of climate change. It’s normal. Always has, always will - and warmer is a darn site better than colder.
You wrote: “When did we become civilized? Wars, famine, violence and increasing intolerance and hatred all increasing as we ‘progress’…Civilized is not how I would describe humanity as a whole.”
Michael, that revealed far more about you than it did the world, I think. I am quite confident that if you could take a time machine ride into the past, you would grow absolutely progressively more mad with disillusionment, as you became entirely dispossessed of your notions that the past was somehow more peaceful, tolerant, loving, non-enslaving, etc., A casual glance at even recent history should dispel those thoughts. WHy haven’t they? That mind of yours must be a very frightening place to live.
I didn’t say that energy made us civilised, only that energy brought prosperity to civilisation. I could have just as easily said that energy brought prosperity to our barbaric attempt at civilisation, or to our global battleground… it would have been just as valid - the point being that energy brings prosperity, not that we are civilised (another argument entirely). Naturally, being a rabid greenie, you saw what you wanted to see, just as you see what you want to see in the dissenters’ arguments.
By the way, the discworld (in its literary universe) IS flat. To ridicule that would be the same as to ridicule the notion that the Earth is round.
Agriculture (as it is currently practised) may or may not be healthy for the earth, but it is what has allowed us our “civilisation” - where enough food can be produced by a few people to allow the rest to diversify their interests, knowledge and skills. It is the very basis of specialisation and separation of labour. Without agriculture we would still be more concerned with finding food every day than with the things that make modern life good.
@Steven Douglas and Alan - I am actually a supporter of small-scale agriculture and my remarks were tongue in cheap even as they are true. If you look at archaeological remains from prior to the agricultural revolution humans lived into their 70s in small bands very little disease etc. It was with the advent of agriculture we dropped our life expectancy by a third through contact with new diseases (TB, influenza), population pressures, wars, famine etc.
I do not hate people just the way we treat each other. What has been done in the name of civilization is truly horrific. We need to think of alternatives that work towards a common future. The business as usual model is premised off of cheap resources from the periphery and accumulation at the core.
And as for industrial nations looking after their environment look at all the lush forests of England and what Canada is doing to the Arctic through Tar/oil sands developments.
2) Who is consuming this palm oil and destroying rainforests? Greedy capitalists not locals who have lived there for millenia: - Ecological Impacts of Oil Palm Indonesia and Malaysia have, concomitant with the destruction of enormous tracts of tropical rainforest, some of the world’s … www.cspinet.org/palm/
3) Argentina - Wealthy meat eaters in Europe feed cattle on GM soy imported from Argentina, the locals lived there sustainably for millenia until the superrich came along - Soy suppliers accused of rainforest destruction … Soy imports delayed as Argentina fights Monsanto over GM · Certification boost for ethical food makers … www.foodnavigator.com/…/Soy-suppliers-accused-of-rainforest-destruction
2) There is a solution - Please support this unique Global Initiative to make our food production system sustainable, to ameliorate climate change and guarantee food security for all http://www.i-sis.org.uk/SustainableWorldInitiativeF.php
Someone asked further up where to apply for denialist money from Big Oil.
See the Guardian/UK yesterday: US Oil Company Donated Millions to Climate Sceptic Groups, Says Greenpeace. Report identifies Koch Industries giving $73m to climate sceptic groups ’spreading inaccurate and misleading information’ http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2010/03/30-5
Unfortunately you are now getting the full vitroil from industry spin doctors who are paid troll the internet and attact anyone that threatens vested interests.
Don’t let this put you off writing good articles, we need rebels like you. . eep fighting the good fight.
Michael, I am also a supporter (staunch, in fact) of small-scale agriculture, but we are on that same page for entirely different reasons. For me it is only because I believe we should not ever be so entirely dependent on collectives and large infrastructures of any kind, and that includes Big Agriculture.
But your quote about archaeological remains, pre-agricultural life expectancy, and agricultural attribution to introduction or spreading of diseases, population pressures, wars, famine etc., all news to me. I don’t know about pre-agricultural, but in the past several hundred years, agriculture and civilization in general have statistically, dramatically, improved life expectancies, as well as addressing hosts of diseases.
Reputable source: the 2,500-page International Assessment of Agricultural Science and Technology for Development [IAASTD]
Sixty countries backed by the World Bank and most UN bodies have called for radical changes in world farming to avert increasing regional food shortages, escalating prices and growing environmental problems such as anthropogenic global warming.
Robert Watson, director of IAASTD and chief scientist at the UK Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, said: “Business as usual will hurt the poor. It will not work.”
The report - the first significant attempt to involve governments, NGOs and industries from rich and poor countries - took 400 scientists four years to complete. The present system of food production and the way food is traded around the world, the authors concluded, has led to a highly unequal distribution of benefits and serious adverse ecological effects and was now contributing to climate change.
You accused Commondreams of deleting your posts re-“They keep the poorly framed arguments around for a hollow, easy straw man victory, while maintaining the illusion of balance.”
Guess what, ha, ha, Kock Industries who have been secretly funding climate change denialists groups are erasing some of our posts from their Facebook page as we talk. Ha, ha, you denialsts caught red handed.
Best form of defense is attack I suppose, accuse someone else of something underhanded and then practice it yourself.
Read the full article published by Greenpeace and posted guess where, on the Commondreams web site. I look forward to seeing your comments in the comments section on the Commondreams page, full article: http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/03/31-7
@Clean Air wrote: “Guess what, ha, ha, Kock Industries…are erasing some of our posts from their Facebook page as we talk. Ha, ha, you denialsts caught red handed.”
Are you that daft? I’m not Koch, nor am I associated with them in any way.
You wrote, “Best form of defense is attack I suppose, accuse someone else of something underhanded and then practice it yourself.”, as if I was indeed Koch, and as if I was the one actually taking part in deleting your entries (on a FACEBOOK PAGE?!).
It’s only a hive-minded, group-thinking “we’re-all-in-this-together” thought process that could make such a strange illogical leap. But that pretty much sums up the kind of fear-based amplify-and-connect-anything pile-it-on mindset that got human-generated CO2 indicted and convicted as a pollutant, let alone the principle culprit as a (future) catastrophic planet scorcher.
Clean Air, your “reputable source” (Common Dreams again?), which I take is in lieu of the one I asked Michael cite, had absolutely ZERO, nothing, nada to do with Michael’s assertion that “…archaeological remains from prior to the agricultural revolution [revealed that] humans lived into their 70s in small bands very little disease etc…” that “…with the advent of agriculture we dropped our life expectancy by a third through contact with new diseases (TB, influenza), population pressures, wars, famine etc.”
If you’re going to interject, you might want to at least pay attention.
@Steven Douglas - The reputable source I am referring to is the archaeological record of the upper paleolithic era. Sorry I do not have a youtube video as proof for you. Maybe you could try Biological Changes in Human Populations with Agriculture by Clark Spencer Larsen found in the Annual Review of Anthropology, Vol. 24, (1995), pp. 185-213.
It discusses the erroneous assumption that life got better through agriculture. Evidence from bone deformities, density, teeth wear patterns, and etc show a decline in overall health and longevity.
This is now fairly well established in anthropology and archaeology. Just think of your own health if you went from eating a mix of vegetables, nuts and meat to eating only bread with rare bits of meat thrown in.
Michael, definitely stick with scientific citations, as a youtube would probably do little to persuade me.
I read Larsen’s paper, and found the arguments interesting, but his conclusions unpersuasive, as they admit little other than nutrition associated with a transition from hunter-gatherer to agricultural societies. I see far more to it than that. Government itself, for example, and people’s psychological dependencies thereon. Look at the difference between wolves and dogs to see striking differences. Lupine brains are far and away larger, and more intelligent, than the most intelligent canines found anywhere today. That is not because of diet and nutritional requirements, but rather a result of long term subjugation for survival. Dogs no longer need the same intelligence as wolves to survive. Likewise with the hive-minded in our society, who would like to become as dogs, persuading others to defer to a separate (elite if you will) class of those perceived as having higher intelligence… not understanding that intelligence and wisdom do not, of necessity, go hand in hand, and without considering that their desire for such dependencies is a form of voluntary slavery that will take a physiological toll on future generations. And not because because of food selections, or the sources thereof.
@Steven Douglas - You are rather arrogant in dismissing Larson’s article that if you bothered to look at the citations is based on the best and most up to date peer-reviewed science on the subject. But of course you dismiss anything that does not fit with your world view.
And your wolf/dog analogy is strained at best. Wolves are pack animals and like humans require others to survive. Your assumption that humans working together is detrimental is odd and at odds with humanity and human endeavor.
An interesting but at times rude, which is not needed, discussion. We are talkng about carbon dioxide induced global warming, however. There is no proof that carbon dioxide causes the planet to warm. There has been no statistically relevant warming for the past 150 years. For three quarters of this planet’s history temperatures were 8 to 15 degrees C higher than they are now. There is no problem therefore there is nothing to fix. The only people calling for carbon emission reduction are people who will profit from it.
Biofuel produces airborn paticulates and the increased price of grains because they are now used in biofuel is starving 10 to 20 Million people a year.
So we have a non problem being fixed by methods which do harm.
Nce going environmentalists.
I did not dismiss the peer reviewed science on the subject - only found Larsen’s interpretations and conclusions about that literature (which are not the same as ‘the science’) “strained at best”, to use your words. To equate anyone’s conclusions about the science to “the science” is the arrogance worthy of dismissal.
And I stand by my analogy. Hunter-gatherers grouped together and relied upon one another for practical survival reasons, just like wolves. Packs, tribes, essentially the same thing. Small groups with defended territories. It’s not until the advent of larger governments (and agriculture) that humans invented slavery en masse, and we have been practicing slavery in various forms, subjugating, siphoning/stealing other peoples’ labors for some “greater good”, be it a plantation, a corporation, or some larger societies machinations, ever since, even to this day.
That is why Al Gore, Rush Limbaugh, Al Sharpton, Glen Beck, Oprah and I are so fat and you are so terribly skinny.
Your above post refers; and I suppose the earth is flat as well, and I suppose there is no proof smoking causes cancer either.
Governments and corporations who undermine mainstream science on climate change without a shred of credible science to back up their conspiracy theories should be put on trial for genocide like the Nazi’s were.
“..should be put on trial for genocide like the Nazi’s were.”
First, it is commonly accepted that the first to bring up Nazis in a net debate loses…
Secondly, my first thought was “What about that Rachel environmentalist who got DDT banned, leading directly to the deaths of millions of Africans from Malaria and other mosquito-borne diseases?”
(since DDT was banned AFTER Europe and the US had used it to effectively remove malaria, leaving Africa and Asia unprotected, to protect birds - I am also reminded how wind turbines kill literally millions of birds every year.)
Be careful what you wish for. How about suitable fines and punishment for those caught manipulating data in order to scare the world population into poverty, taxation and “redistribution” (AKA communism), at the cost of billions, if not trillions, of dollars?
What sort of punishment should they, the warming alarmists, get?
How many billions have already been spent on this mindless drive to control the weather, when the science is not, by any means, settled?
They’re using computer models that they admit cannot accurately predict clouds, at any time, let alone decades into the future. That’s why they insist near-term forecasts are “weather” and long-term is “climate” - but they’re the same models. That was admitted recently in the farce of an “investigation” into Climategate.
Weather “experts”, modelling weather, admitting they can’t predict next week because they can’t figure out clouds!
Now you trotting out the old industry DDT ban caused deaths propaganda. Speak to experts in pesticides and malaria to find out superior alternatives.
Where is the solid scientific evidence to challenge the IPCC, other than snyping by a bunch of crackpot scientists who got laughed off the stage by mainstream science on climate change.?
@Alan: I agree with Froggie. When you start waffling on about DDT you expose yourself as a mindless sycophant of conservative free market thinktanks like CEI, Heartland Foundation, etc.
“old industry DDT ban caused deaths propaganda” ?
You do not know that 1.5 million people a year have died from malaria and continue to die at that rate, a preventable death if DDT was available? There no superior alternatives and none as inexpensive as DDT. Where have you been hiding?
As for the IPCC, they have shown what they are by citing references from the WWF and Greenpeace. These are not peer reviewed scientific papers and when reviewed were found not to be true.
Propoganda? Are you denying that in order to receive “aid” (I use the term loosely) most countries in Africa have accepted a defacto ban on DDT? Are you denying the massive death toll from malaria? Are you denying the well-established effectiveness of DDT as a mosquito killer in residential areas?
If “more effective” pesticides are available, what is their price? Because DDT is affordable, even in Africa.
But anyway, let’s stick to the topic - the loonytoon idea that man’s tiny contribution to the trace gas of CO2 (plant food) will bring about an increase in global temperatures - and that such an increase would be a Very Bad Thing, despite previous warm periods being highly beneficial and certainly a lot better than previous ice ages…
And this from the people who can’t figure out clouds.
Well lets have some Neuromburg trials and lets put both the IPCC on trial in the one instance, and the oil corporations on the other hand, and see who hangs for genocide.
Lets also put those who banned DDT on trial as well as the corporation that sells DDT it on trial and lets see who hangs for genocide.
GENEVA, Switzerland, May 6, 2009 (ENS) � In an effort to rid the world of the pesticide DDT, used to fight the mosquito that transmits malaria, 40 countries are set to test non-chemical methods to combat the deadly disease, three United Nations agencies announced today.
We cannot allow people to die from malaria, but we also cannot continue using DDT if we know about the health risks,” said Tiaan de Jager, a member of the panel who is a professor at the School of Health Systems & Public Health at the University of Pretoria in South Africa. “Safer alternatives should be tested first and if successful, DDT should be phased out without putting people at risk.” http://www.earthportal.org/news/?p=2834
Your climate change denialsm goes hand in hand with promoting DDT, which corporate think tank pays you?
Mexico: Fighting Malaria Without DDT…..Better management of the environment a key to disease control……..As a result of this integrated approach, Mexico was able to abandon DDT ahead of schedule. http://www.idrc.ca/en/ev-29136-201-1-DO_TOPIC.html
If Mexico can do it, Africa can do it. We don’t need to kill Africans with DDT.
There needs to be international courts to hold corporate CEO’s and government leaders accountable for this type of genocide.
@Alan: It’s like free market fundie 101 with you, isn’t it?
DDT is a nuanced issue. People stopped spraying it all over the place not just because of Silent Spring, but because entomologists discovered that mosquitoes were becoming resistant to it. There are also serious health and environmental implications, especially when it is diverted to general agricultural use, something the recent push by lobby groups to reintroduce DDT was obvious intended to encourage, given that said groups were paid by the manufacturers of DDT.
Now, about your tired, long-since-debunked denialist rubbish:
1: Weather != climate…if you don’t understand the difference, and how the models differ, how on earth can you expect anyone to take your criticisms seriously? Here’s a very brief introduction to the subject. Please feel free to read more *objective* information on the subject: http://www.grist.org/article/we-cant-even-predict-the-weather-next-week/
I won’t even bother with the ridiculous CO2 = plant food joke, except to suggest that you all go to Youtube and do a search for that hilarious CEI video, ‘CO2: they call it pollution, we call it life.’
You also misunderstand complex systems, by the way: in non-linear systems, tiny contributions matter greatly. Another reading project for you
The non-chemical experiment looks promising - but if the max’ reduction in Mexico was only 60% that leaves 40% left to suffer or die.
DDT has a far higher success rate, virtually eleminating the disease.
As far as I know, to date there has never been a single case of human death from DDT. If you know of any, show me? Not the kerosene solvent, the DDT iself?
I left the UK 6 years ago and now live in the tropics. The threat of malaria here is very real - and would be vastly less so if DDT were available. Not to mention other mozzie-borne diseases.
Anyway, back to the topic - plant food as a deadly pollutant, killing the planet via some vague hint of some possible warming, from what’s left of the tattered data that’s been fudged, manipulated, deleted, cherry-picked and censored.
Someone mentioned the more obvious blunders of the IPCC. Let’s not forget the manipulation of the “peer review” process, the deliberate hiding of the urban heat island effect, the faux “hockey stick” and desperate attempts to pretend the MWP never happened…
Not to mention NASA has now admitted they get much of their data from the CRU and it’s in an even worse state.
Let’s also not forget they managed to somehow not notice thousands of squar miles of ice, too.
@Aragorn Eloff, who wrote: “You also misunderstand complex systems, by the way: in non-linear systems, tiny contributions matter greatly.”
That is overly simplistic, but also presumptuous. It is certainly not axiomatic, as that can cut both ways in non-linear systems, especially systems laden with feedbacks, as the effects of tiny contributions can be even tinier, and matter much less than they would in a purely linear system. And that brings us to the houses of cards upon which catastrophic alarmist hypotheses rest. CO2 alone cannot account for large temperature variations (either way). That is why climate sensitivities are both invoked and heavily weighted in models that assume several variables at once, including incredibly high sensitivities (amplifying feedbacks), with high population and corresponding CO2 increases (not observed), among other things, without which the hypotheses miserably fail.
You sprout climate change denialist nonsense for nothing when you could be paid? That worries me, you are not as sharp as I thought. And you can be paid to lobby for the DTT lobby as well, don’t go out there making an ass out of yourself for nothing.
DDT has caused chronic effects on the nervous system, liver, kidneys, and immune systems in experimental animals. But of course no lobbyist would ever admit that if someone died as a result of this, it was related to DDT. Like tobacco lobbyists argue smoking never killed anyone, they died from lung cancer.
The US Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) has determined that ‘DDT may reasonably be anticipated to be a human carcinogen’. Work carried out by the US National Cancer Institute correlates breast cancer in women with increased levels of DDE in blood serum.
Teratogenic effects (birth defects). Again there is evidence that DDT causes teratogenic effects in test animals. In mice, maternal doses of 26 mg/kg/day DDT from gestation through to lactation resulted in impaired learning in maze tests.
So its OK to have people dying of cancer caused by DDT, poeple with birth defects caused by DDT, chronic effects on the nervous system, liver, kidneys, and immune systems caused by DDT?
Tough choices, but it looks like people who work in the fields of health and malaria choose to no longer tolerate the DDT option.
@Steven: I agree - we don’t know ‘which way it will cut’, to use your phraseology; invoking the precautionary principle is therefore the rational thing to do.
Please supply references for your claim, ‘CO2 alone cannot account for large temperature variations (either way)’ and the comments you make about weighting in contrast to observation.
Lab rats fed massive doses do not equate with human harm.
Consider the vastly larger volumes of DDT used throughout Europe and the US, for decades, with no noticable ill effects (and the total elmination of malaria). But DDT is so toxic we should ban the stuff, leaving people to die or suffer horribly from this dreadful disease?
Trust me, if you ever get malaria you’ll change your mind on this issue.
Happily, it seems some sane middle ground is being found, with limited spraying of home interiors. That’s enough to prevent the spread of disease, as after biting mozzies look for a flat surface to rest and digest. Spray the walls with DDT and they may bite you - but you’ll be the first and last person they bite.
Now, I hear “denialist nonsense”, yet everything I mention is out there and can be verified. Heck, much of it comes from their own emails and websites - these people are pretty much making up the “science” as they go along.
I found this blog via having a “google alert” for the word “climategate”. It’s been an eye-opening experience over the last few weeks. It’s literally a struggle to keep up with the revelations and exposures of wrong-doing.
Things seem to be dying down now, leaving a hardcore of “denialist” skeptics like myself - and your lot, true believers, despite the evidence of faked and flakey “data”.
You believe because you want to, not any evidence.
I have finally worked out the synergy between the DDT lobby and the climate change denialist lobby.
More malaria from global warming means more DDT needs to be sprayed, good for profits for DDT company, so keep that globe heating up and live in denial.
However:
Lancet Medical Journal: Managing the Health effects of Climate Change
Launched in London, UK, May 13, 2009
A collaboration between The Lancet and University College London, UK, resulting in the first UCL Lancet Commission report, setting out how climate change over the coming decades could have a disastrous effect on health across the globe.
MORE: http://www.thelancet.com/climate-change
Yes your argument of dousing Africans with DDT to save lives while climate change ravages the continent does not make sense, unless you lobby for the fossil fuel and DDT industry.
You sum up your ignorance with the opening line “More malaria from global warming…”.
Is there anything you wouldn’t blame on “global warming”? In point of fact, mozzies don’t mind the cold. Ask someone living in Canada.
One of the worst ever outbreaks of Malaria occured in Russia, you know, the cold place? DDT got rid of it.
Temperatures have little to do with malaria or mosquitos.
Since unfounded accusations seem to be the norm here, are you sure you’re not just keen on the idea of “population control” in Africa, by any means necessary?
It often strikes me that for many environmentalists the real ‘enemy’ is simply humanity itself. The more you can reduce populations and subject the survivors to poverty the better, huh?
Ignoring of course, that wealthier countries can afford to do a better job of looking after said environment…
Well, I’m unsubbing from the comments here, as I’ve never found arguing against religion to be productive. Believers just believe, regardless of facts or how often their leaders are exposed as charalatans.
I’m reminded of Phil Jones (who recently admitted there’s been no statistially significant warming for 15 years), stating he wished there was more catastrophic warming, just to prove him right.
What a swell guy!
Instead of doom and gloom, why can’t you people celebrate the fact that your “scientists” and leaders have been fudging the data to suit their theories?
Climate Sensitivity — defined as how much the average global surface temperature will increase if there is a doubling of greenhouse gases (expressed as carbon dioxide equivalents) in the air, once the planet has had a chance to settle into a new equilibrium after the increase occurs.
According to the IPCC it is 3 deg. C, with a range of uncertainty from 2 to 4.5 degrees.
* My comment: in other words, the range of uncertainty, which is larger than the projected amount, means the earth could cool by up to 1.5 deg. C as well - and that according to the IPCC, which I consider a dubious source.
Contd’: This sensitivity depends primarily on all the different feedback effects, both positive and negative, that either amplify or diminish the greenhouse effect. There are three primary feedback effects — clouds, sea ice and water vapor; these, combined with other feedback effects, produce the greatest uncertainties in predicting the planet’s future climate.
With no feedback effects at all, the change would be just 1 degree Celsius, climate scientists agree. Virtually all of the controversies over climate science hinge on just how strong the various feedbacks may be — and on whether scientists may have failed to account for some of them.
Well malaria happens like most diseases. DDT results in lung diseases. How do we achieve balance? By researching and working with the problem. We are not stupid just arrogant
All comments must be approved by our editors, click here to read the editorial guidelines for comments. Please allow some time for our editors to approve your comment after posting.
profile
I am a cultural anthropologist at Athabasca University who writes about ethnicity, identity and social change in a globalised Southern Africa. I am fascinated by the way in which people find and create their 'identity' in this rapidly changing world. Processes of cultural creativity and regeneration of histories was stark in Southern Africa , but I have found that returning to Canada I was shocked to find the familiar strange and when in Africa to see the strange as familiar. I started to see patterns of life that had once been unsee-able and just matter of fact ways of doing things. I enjoy seeing the patterns of life that inform us; the tropes of life that are silently transmitted from our past. And in our increasingly mass-mediated world how these are visualized, transmitted and transformed.
I have worked with Zulu speakers in the Drakensberg Mountains who claim dual identities of San and Zulu as well as different San communities in South Africa and Botswana. I have a deep love and respect for these rural communities who have been kind, welcome places for me since 2002 when I first moved to South Africa. I am sad to have left South Africa, but will return each year for research and to visit my friends.
I am a pacifist, but love a good verbal fight. My pacifism is based on reason and logic and not religious or spiritual beliefs. If I am not to be found in my office look high up in the mountains as I may be there seeking solace from the cruelty of the world.
Eugene Terre'Blanche was a figure of ridicule and disdain for many people. He evoked strong responses of anger and shame for his political beliefs and...
If there is no global warming then it is business as usual, right? We should remove any barriers to economic growth and dismiss the consequences. What...
I am echoing the old debate where Eugene Terre'blanche referred to a statue of Chief Tshwane as an "apie". For the record, I do not think he is ape-li...
One thing I dislike and like at the same time about the web is being anonymous. While I am always honest about my identity when I make comments or wri...
Actually many Africans do keep dogs and it is not just the white Africans that do so. There are stereotypes that abound, but like many stereotypes the...
Loading ...
Yes, Joe… whatever you say
Thank you for a well-thought out article which supports a lot of the opposition that we are making down here at the bottom of Africa!
(Report abuse)