The global warming deniers 04 July 08

Mark,

You are my new hero, keep up the good work. Your book Six degrees was a real eye-opener for me.

Valdemar Stockholm, Sweden

Dear Mark.

Don’t worry so much about the future.

I am more in terested in your position on what to do, rather than whether to do something.

If I am not wrong your position has much in common with the Stern report and the Indian National Action Plan on Climate Change.

I cannot find the article you wrote in the New Statesman when I was in Cambridge sometime in June, where you argued in effect that we must leave the carbon market to the polluters.

I think it is time you got off the fence and committed to global cap and share.

Will you read my blog of today, which I repeat below? I do hope you change your mind and if you get a chance to write in the New Statesman again, you come out loud and clear in favour of a democratic Convention bank under Article 11.

The rest below is from my blog.

The UK’s Stern Review commissioned by ex-Prime Minister Blair and the Indian Prime Minister Man Mohan Singh’s National Action Plan on Climate Change have much in common: there is concern about climate change, a willingness to act based on scientific evidence, a recognition that a neo-liberal economic approach will not do the trick and that moral commitment and government intervention is required; also an admission/reiteration that developed countries must do the bulk of the reductions. One of Stern’s two scenarios envisages developed countries taking responsibility for cuts equal to 90% of their 1990 levels by 2050. The Indian PM also promises that India’s per capitum emissions will never exceed those of developed countries. Convergence is thus on both agendas. Both authors however steer clear of our most important concern in the run up to Copenhagen: financing. Stern and the PM only touch tangentially on how to finance the transition. There is a glaring omission in both reports of the need for a democratically accountable financing mechanism under Article 11 of the Convention to replace the woefully inadequate interim arrangements.

Both authors subscribe to the view that a global quantity constraint can be achieved without command and control. Stern on p.471 says: “We argued in Chapter 14 that in the long-term, a global quantity constraint is the appropriate guide for policy-making. A global quantity constraint can be used to drive intergovernmental trading of emissions quotas, and this has already been adopted within the current multilateral framework, the Kyoto Protocol. Moreover, as we explained in Chapter 14, a key benefit of trading schemes for emissions quotas is that they allow the cost-effectiveness (via a common price) and distributional equity of action (via flows based on quota allocations) to be managed separately but simultaneously. In a global and comprehensive system of quota trading, the initial allocation of national limits on emissions affects the distributional equity of the scheme, but not the equilibrium distribution of emissions reductions, the market-determined carbon price or the costs of abatement. Therefore these allocations represent the overall level of responsibility that each country undertakes, rather than the emissions reductions that are required to physically occur within its borders.” This is a carbon market administered by the UNFCCC but not managed.

The PM says: “The principle of equity that must underlie the global approach must allow each inhabitant of the earth an equal entitlement to the global atmospheric resource. The NAPCC will be guided by the following principles: - Protecting the poor - Achieving national growth objectives - Devising efficient and cost-effective strategies for end-use demand side management - Deploying appropriate technologies for adaptation and mitigation - Engineering new and innovative forms of market, regulatory and voluntary mechanisms to promote sustainable development. (2. principles, p.2) …Carbon market financing would enable access to technologies where there are higher investment costs, or higher economic cost of the required energy service, or both.” (3.3.1.1. costs and financing, p.24)

Thus both authors think the free market will set prices for emission permits and that reductions will be financed by global capital outside of their national boundaries.

But even if you set a global quantity constraint, and even if you have a constitution at Copenhagen that explicitly allows each inhabitant of the earth and equal entitlement to the global atmospheric resource, you will not achieve the objective of the convention through the free carbon market.

We saw this under the first phase of Kyoto when the polluters set their own prices in the European Trading System for example. Europe did hardly any better than the US in the first Kyoto commitment period – and in fact if aviation and shipping are included both exceeded their 1990 emissions and emissions rose absolutely in both regions every year since Kyoto came into force in 2005.

Commitments are nothing without enforcement and enforcement requires agency.

If we think a global solution is needed we must put in place the mechanism to manage it. If we think each sovereign state must do its own thing within a vague scientific consensus, then we must say so, and not bother with a Convention. But you cannot say that the global market which is 100% based on fossil fuels today will be the benign agent of the transition. This is at best wishful thinking and at worst the continued facilitation of business as usual which at this stage is very irresponsible not only because we will suffer the effects of climate change but because the poor who are ostensibly the reason why Prime Ministers and advisors do their work will get rapidly much poorer. The interest of global corporations under capitalism will always be to minimise their cost. A market based pricing mechanism for emission permits in which these polluters are the only participants and set their own price of permits based on their competing willingness to pay will always shadow global fossil energy prices. In other words, the poor will continue to be exploited and ignored and fossil fuels will continue to be more preferable to labour as the basis of the global economy.

If you are serious about the poor and about climate change therefore you need to limit the access of polluters to fossil energy effectively. This can only be done under the Convention. We need a global constitution under the UNFCCC that authorises the Conference of the Parties to set global quantity constraints (Stern), based on the principle of equity that allows each inhabitant of the earth an equal entitlement to the global atmospheric resource (INAPCC) PLUS a democratically controlled bank managed on the basis of 1 party one vote to do the work in the transition period 2012 to 2040 and beyond. This is what G77&China group discussed at the last working group on long-term cooperative action and they have asked anyone and everyone to provide details of how this will work between now and the next meeting in Accra. The results will be the basis for the negotiations at Poznan. In 1995 when we wanted a democratically accountable financing mechanism under the Convention we were defeated. Instead we got an interim arrangement under Article 11. But Article 11 is as much up for review in Poznan and Copenhagen as is Kyoto and this time really if Stern is anything to go by, there is not a negotiation about what, but about how. We all want to achieve the objective of the convention, and we all want equitable rights to the global commons. Now all that is left is to create the agency that can make polluters pay, an agency with the authority to sell permits in the national territories of Annex 1 developed countries.

Let us not beat around the bush. This is the real controversy. Whether a new world climate bank can manage developed country economies.

That is why the G8 is so desperate to create a new aid-type bank for adaptation, mitigation, technology, anything in fact as long as we are prevented from selling OUR emission permits in THEIR national territories.

And do not forget. We have not even begun to sell them the retrospective permits for the emissions from 1900 onwards.

Whether the US join in or not, right thinking Prime Ministers and right thinking advisors can throw their weight behind the creation of an accountable financing mechanism such as a global climate bank under Article 11 with a remit to sell emission permits at one thousand times today’s carbon market price. This will hit polluters hard in their own national territories which is where it matters. We do not want their investment. We want our money.

Developing countries can easily concede as the PM has done in the INAPCC that our emission level will never exceed that of developed countries. As the INAPCC says, there is enough for everyone’s need but not for everyone’s greed.

The democratic global system for managing the sale of emission permits on behalf of global citizens is called “cap and share”. It allocates each citizen of the world a living wage to manage the transition by raising funds through selling emission permits. CDM and flexible mechanisms are irrelevant in this financing scenario. Developing countries obviously will get much more money under cap and share because they are in control of the emission permit price. They will have the power to price the global fossil economy out of business.

Postscript

In place of the global economy during the transition period 2012 to 2040 and after we will have the incommensurability of ecological quality.

All human beings want quality but we cannot currently enforce it in the face of the massive juggernaut of fossil energy based industry. We know that the middle class has just five years to give up its exploitative ways. We know that there will be no more international aviation, and no more international shipping. Why not just say it?

The poor will inherit the earth. We all know perfectly well that there is enough for everyone’s need but not for everyone’s greed. It is lovely having a society of equals. It is not communism, which was command and control for national growth. It is a society of equals where each family has a garden. 5000 Euros equivalent per year probably, generated with local resources. Incommensurable ultimately, but nice.

Please read my blog of 3rd July to see the emission permits per annum the Convention bank will sell on behalf of the world’s citizens in the period 2012 to 2040.

References

National Action Plan on Climate Change http://mnes.nic.in/nap-climates.htm

Stern Review on the economics of climate change http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/independent_reviews/stern_review_economics_climate_change/stern_review_Report.cfm

Warm regards

Anandi

Oh God yes we are all going to die. I don’t know where to turn. We are all going to die. Painfully, slowly and we deserve it. The polar bears first and then the penguins and then the innuits and then us. What can be done? My hands are cracked with all the hand wringing, it’s awful. The IPPC are right we are all going to die, Painfully and slowly. What can be done? Thank God for one such as you and the Enfield division of the intergalactic save Earth campaign which will fight this scourge. Phasers on kill troops especially those from the Enfield sector. We are gonna fight these alien masses and win. I’ve watched UFO and the persuaders and by Sunday afternoon before four o clock we can defeat the menace. Keep up the good work especially those in the Enfield sector.

Next time someone insists global warming IS happening, ask yourself where their views come from – and whose interests they serve.

Let’s see if we can find some beneficiaries …

Well, the environmentalists will benefit. They will gain more supporters and have more influence.

Big business will benefit. Many have thousands of employees who will now all be trying to save energy and hence reduce the company’s energy costs. Many companies will be able to expand into the “eco-friendly” arena by making wind turbines, electric motors, generators, low energy cars, fuel cells etc.

Oil companies will benefit. Yes, they will sell less oil but they should be able to sell it at a much higher price. So with less work they will make more profit and the oil will last much longer.

Advisors to governments and big business on Climate Change will obviously benefit. As will people who give talks on Climate Change to invited audiences. Anyone smart enough to see a business opportunity in the trading of carbon credits will quickly become a multi-millionaire. The business requires no manufacturing effort or stock, only a modest amount of office staff and, all being well, governments will make it compulsory thus maximising revenue. Only a very small “rake off” will generate millions. (Anyone spring to mind?)

Governments will benefit. They have been trying to find a popular tax for years. This could be the opportunity they have been waiting for. They should beware, though, the electorate might see through this quite quickly once the taxes begin to bite.

The nuclear industry will benefit. No-one wants to live next to a nuclear power station but some governments have already started removing steps from the planning negotiation process to speed up their deployment.

Global Cooling will be a more serious problem than Global Warming. We should start planning now how we are going to decommission those new nuclear power stations when they are under a mile of ice.

@Philipa Are you really stupid as hell? Or are you just pretending?

Oh God,yes The Wall Street Journal and the American Enterprise Institute are going to save us. Why cannot we have similar institutions in UK? I know where to turn, General Motors! We are all going to be saved by reading Ayn Rand. Although this might be painful, we must do it. Now that righteousness has defeated communism, we must defeat the socialists who would direct our attention at melting ice. Polar bears, penguins and Eskimos are the enemies. Margaret Thatcher has led the way My hands are cracked with all the hand wringing, about the Stern Report. it’s awful but my pain is assuaged by watching Nigella Eats and thinking about her loving father who will slay the evil Stern, the yellow Kyoto hoard and the IPPC. We aren’t going to die because W, Dick Cheney, Haliburton (again, where are our big UK firms when we need them?) and God will save the Earth and tax subsidies for big, really big Agriculture. We are gonna fight organic gardening and win! UFOs are nothing compared to the Pigovian AntiChrist. The Enfield sector?

@Richard Let’s take you a bit at a time. “Next time someone insists global warming IS happening, ask yourself where their views come from – and whose interests they serve. Let’s see if we can find some beneficiaries … Well, the environmentalists will benefit. They will gain more supporters and have more influence.”

Interesting logic… Anybody who believes anything will gain more supporters and influence if they happen to be right! So they must be wrong.

“Big business will benefit. Many have thousands of employees who will now all be trying to save energy and hence reduce the company’s energy costs.”

Is this not to everybody’s advantage, anyway? Who gains if energy is wasted? However, companies will have to invest to save, so it is not at all clear that saving energy will be saving money, at least in the short to medium term.

"Many companies will be able to expand into the “eco-friendly” arena by making wind turbines, electric motors, generators, low energy cars, fuel cells etc."

Again, all things which are useful even if there were no climate change. They will be needed as the finite resources of oil and gas become depleted and more expensive.

“Oil companies will benefit. Yes, they will sell less oil but they should be able to sell it at a much higher price. So with less work they will make more profit and the oil will last much longer.”

A reduction in demand will lead to higher prices? Aren’t you confusing with Peak Oil which will cause a reduction in supply?

“Advisors to governments and big business on Climate Change will obviously benefit. As will people who give talks on Climate Change to invited audiences.”

An argument you can apply to anyone promoting any viewpoint, including your own.

“Anyone smart enough to see a business opportunity in the trading of carbon credits will quickly become a multi-millionaire. The business requires no manufacturing effort or stock, only a modest amount of office staff and, all being well, governments will make it compulsory thus maximising revenue. Only a very small “rake off” will generate millions. (Anyone spring to mind?)”

You can apply the same argument to any kind of financial trading. If it’s so easy there should be plenty of competition. I suggest you do it yourself

“Governments will benefit. They have been trying to find a popular tax for years. This could be the opportunity they have been waiting for. They should beware, though, the electorate might see through this quite quickly once the taxes begin to bite.”

If you think “green” taxes are popular I think we must live in a different universe. However, if they were I’d see this popularity as a benefit. Taxes (you can argue on the level) are an unpopular necessity. For them to be more readily accepted would be good.

“The nuclear industry will benefit. No-one wants to live next to a nuclear power station but some governments have already started removing steps from the planning negotiation process to speed up their deployment.”

The nuclear industry will probably benefit. But none of this, or indeed any of the above arguments have the slightest relevance to the issue, which is: - Is global warming occuring? - If so, – to what extent? – what are the implications of this? These are matters of fact, totally uninfluenced by anyone’s opinions or ulterior motives.

“Global Cooling will be a more serious problem than Global Warming. We should start planning now how we are going to decommission those new nuclear power stations when they are under a mile of ice.”

Whatever. Why should anyone take the slightest notice of a bald assertion made with absurd imagery and without a shred of supporting evidence? Lynas has set out the views of the experts working in the field. The conclusions of these experts are accepted by the scientific academies of every major country. This does not mean they are necessarily right - 100-1 shots have been known to win horse races, and scientific method doesn’t do absolute certainty - but it’s pretty clear where the balance of probability lies, and it isn’t with the politically-motivated stance of some think tank with an axe to grind.

“sceptics are supported by politically powerful conservative think tanks funded by wealthy foundations and corporations”

Perhaps many “sceptics” are actually supported by the fact that there is now no observational evidence that global warming is caused by carbon emissions.

If you know of any references that point to causality rather than just correlation please direct me to them.

OK Mark.

So you must be the fellow who has the evidence that industrial-CO2 is bad for the environment. Otherwise you wouldn’t be talking in this arrogant fashion right?

But I know for a fact that you don’t have this evidence. Since all extant evidence attests to the fact that industrial-CO2 is good for the environment.

Admit you are wrong.

Swear off rampant public dishonesty for good.

With anything in life it’s always easier to deny a problem or issue, to bury your head and pretend it will go away. I remember Sting going to the Amazon in the mid 80’s to campaign for the indigenous tribes and the rainforest, he was widely laughed at in the media and by his peers. Right now tackling climate change or even admitting it is a problem with all it’s knock on effects is just too big an issue for many people to contemplate, too risky for many political leaders and too “inconvenient” for the rest of us. The reality is we need strong political leadership (Gordon Brown is not the man) to put more pressure on industry, the big polluter. At the same time we need to find a way to help people in their own homes and lives feel that they can make a difference. As Schwarzenegger has said we have to get young people to think it’s cool to get them involved. I dont have the answers but i do know without change in leadership and social attitudes towards the environment there is no hope! Never campaigning for money and medicine for Africa or third world debt, do them all a favour and campaign to save their eco-systems. That will help them feed themselves and the rest of the world as well. Funny but I dont hear U2 or Coldplay or Jay-Z campaigning like Sting did. Maybe they just want the fame, the money and to ease their social consciences when the cause is championed by the media, so they can make even more money!

This whole blog is predicated on the idea that industrial-CO2 is bad for the environment.

A fundamentally idiotic and wrong idea. And it just so happens the exact opposite of the truth.

Philipa, a sorry little mind that simply can’t face it all. Go back to bed, dear, have a cup of tea, turn on the telly & shut off altogether whatever cogitations you seldom attempt. And please, stay off the web…

The end is nigh… for climate alarmists like you Mark. I hope in years to come, when the only source of global warming emanates from the red faces of those who’ve bought your opportunistic, hypocritical calp-trap, someone cools your face with the application of an ice cream pie.

Do unto others and all…

It’s like a slow-motion car wreck seeing all this crumble, I used to think that in five years the pubic and those with traditional scientific method would put paid to this brand of medieval scaremongering (and its attendant financial rewards) but now that the cooling contradicts the computer models (didn’t see that, pal) I give it 18 months.

And I’ll be back on here to gloat when it all falls apart – in the eyes of the public and the deliberations of those in the west who make policy, when faced with electoral oblivion and mounting empirical data.

It feels like we ought to be preparing practically and mentally for going through this in the least painful way possible, even if we would be facing human extinction.

On a practical level this would be preparing self-reliant small societies, where one could live independently from surrouning infrastructure. A great deal of mental/spiritual preparation would also be needed in order to reduce the pain for oneself and others.

Mark, If skeptic commentary can be linked to think tanks, what about the publicly promoted linkage between alarmist communication/methods and the PR strategies paid for by governments? Strategies such as created by IPPR (“Warm Words”) etc.

You have no concern about masking real scientific discourse behind a facade of agreement?

The science is far less settled than you imagine. (BTW, I’m not a denialist, just someone who wants to see the truth. Including admissions of “we don’t really know” when that’s the case. It disturbs me greatly that the IPCC adjusted the scientific result (1/2 of all conclusions were considered by scientists to be least-confident in the final scientifically-reviewed version) in a very biased way (NO conclusions were considered least-confident in the final summary for policymakers.)

Amazing, isn’t it. Mark Lynas tells us that if someone slightly disagrees with his extreme views on global warming then they are funded by nasty american think tanks so you should ask them who benefits from their viewpoint. he also says that himself having no scientific qualifications makes him idea to explain science to others who also have no science qualifications.

But Mark is an ‘activist’ so where is he coming from. How can you be even handed and accurate and an activist. Which direction does an ‘activist’ with no science qualifications come from?

He would say that wouldn’t he…and by the way. The truth is that the world has been cooling for ten years – no getting away from it. Please provide the reference in the IPCC reports that said that.

I am neither owned by a large multinational corporation nor do I work for the oil industry. I state that because no doubt someone will accuse me of just that.

I am however an astronomer and take a keen interest in what’s going on elsewhere in the solar system.

Our Sun is a G-Type variable star – basically it varies in its luminosity and energy output. Why is that important? Well at 96 million miles distance its very important. Imagine your sat in front of a four bar fire with two bars lit. Light another and you will stand farther back or you will burn.

Well our sun has being acting funny recently. Sunspot output has been increasing for the past 100-150 years and infact solar cycles 21-23 have seen the largest 11 year solar maximum for the past 8,000 years. We just need to look back to the maunder minimum (attributed to being around during the little ice age) to realise theres an important factor here.

Interestingly the sun went into a funny phase about two years ago and we are entering an extended period of solar mimima. Now long minima are not unknown, however should the 24th cycle remain low, then you guys will notice (allegidly) cooling over the next several years. Believe me global cooling is a far bigger problem.

Interestingly, global warming has been noticed on Mars and Jupiter – with Earth warming, is this coincidental.

I am not saying we should abandon plans to look after earth and clean up, but sometimes it concerns me when scientists and the g.warming community attack others for remaining doubtful.

Most interglacials last approx 10,000 +/- a few thousand years. Noticable there are always huge CO2 increases before (and just before) the interglacials end.

With the sun going odd on us, with a warming trend and the present interglacial now approaching 12,000 years old, it does make one wonder what’s really going on?

Incidentally, the antarctic ice sheet has expanded to its greatest recorded extent over the past few years – contradicting the arctic melt – somethingodd there.

I dont say global warming is not happening but just how mich is hype and how worried should we be about its evil twin – global cooling?

Buy shares in fur coats – you may soon need them folks

I was neutral in the AGW debate until I was given a copy “High Tide”. The I did some checking and found that some of your arguments were flawed:- World glaciers started retreating BEFORE the days when fossil fuels were in general use, thus glacier melting can not be the result of increased CO2. Also the seas are not rising any faster than they have done for centuries. The sea around Tuvalu has not risen by the amount you imply. Tide readings in the area confirm this. Satellite and balloon temperature readings agree that the world temperature has not increased for ten years despite rising CO2.(2ppm annually). Does this not suggest that some other agency than CO2 has caused much of 20th Century warming? Argo buoys show that the Pacific Ocean has now cooled (slightly), no climate computer model forecast this, and it is probable that the PDO has moved into a cold phase that will bring about Global COOLING for the foreseeable future. Does this not suggest to you that CO2 is but a small player in the forces that change world temperature? Recent reliable, scientific papers suggest that CO2 is responsible for a tiny fraction (about 30%) of the world warming during the last century, i.e. 30% of 0.6C. The IPCC themselves estimated (in AR4) that when CO2 reached today’s level of 385 ppm, temperature would have risen by between one degreeC and two and a third degreesC, say a median figure of one and two third degrees (1.66C) however the actual rise is only 0.6C . The IPCC computer programmes seem to have got warming wrong; too high, by a factor two or three. This suggests the new research is right, and that to date CO2 is responsible for no more than about one fifth of a degreeC. This is tiny and may even be beneficial. We will be glad of this when Global Cooling caused by the Pacific Ocean kicks in! A due regard for science seems to be missing from your writing, perhaps you should have spent more time at KB than the Old Quad!!

when humans began the change from hunter gathers to agrarians some 15,000 years or so years ago, in earnest, the CO2 dynamic was tipped.

Mark, keep up the good work. Yes, it’s alarming that so little has been done, and it is unsettling that the global economic route is further delaying action, but articulate, informed people like you are making quite a difference. I had been only mildly interested in the climate issue before reading Six Degrees; I can honestly say you have persuaded me to change my life, and to persuade others to change theirs.

Dear readers, why don’t you join the debate on Mark’s “World saved . . . planet doomed 21 November 08” blog. That debate is very short of CONSTRUCTIVE contributors on both sides.

Here is an extract from my latest submission.

QUOTE Manmade global warming sceptics like myself are frequently referred to as “deniers” by evangelical environmentalist (e.g. see the Mark Lynas blog “The global warming deniers 04 July 08”). We “deniers” have tried unsuccessfully recently to get “priests” of the manmade global warming religion (e.g. Al Gore) to engage with them in honest, constructive and open public debate of both sides of the argument. Since becoming actively involved a couple of months ago in openly debating this issue I, as a “denier”, have repeatedly but unsuccessfully tried to get honest, constructive and open debate going with “priests” such as Jonathan Porritt, his fellow members of the “Sustainable Development Commission and Mark Lynas. I have also emphasised repeatedly my preference that abuse should be avoided. UNQUOTE

Note that the most up-to-date blog submissions are at http://www.marklynas.org/2008/11/21/world-saved-planet-doomed/comments/8049#comment-8049

Regards, Pete Ridley, Anthropogenic Global Warming “Denier”

Here are some comments directed mainly towards “believers” like Valdemar (4th Jul.) and David (3rd Dec.).

Valdemar’s opening comment reminded of an occasion when a young lady approached me in a park ( No, it’s not what you think). Opening her attempt to convert me from agnosticism, this Christian evangelist declared enthusiastically “I love Christ”. I listened patiently for a while then commented “Beware false prophets”. I repeat this to you both.

It is obvious that Mark’s booklet “Six Degrees …” has never been subject to independent and thorough scientific peer review. If it had been submitted to a respected scientific publisher then none of the scientific omissions and distortions that it contains would ever have been published. Instead it was submitted to Harper Perennial, who claim to offer “the very best in new paperback fiction and non-fiction.”. Six degrees must be from the fiction section.

The Sunday Times said of it ‘The saga of how, in the world as imagined by thousands of computer-modelling studies, global warming kicks in degree by degree. “Six Degrees”, I tell you now, is terrifying.’ Yes, it is indeed – terrifying but unsubstantiated scare mongering “believer” propaganda.

I am presently preparing a paper to be published n the Climate Change Coalition Web-site. I’ll advise when it is available. It is entitled ” Six Degrees – The truth” and will expose all of the misleading omissions and distortions that Mark permits in his “Six Degrees .. ” in his effort to promote the manmade global warming myth. The burning of fossil fuels does NOT cause significant global warming or pollution of the global environment. I have provided detailed comments about this on Mark’s blog “World saved . . . planet doomed”. Meanwhile here are a few of those misleading omissions and distortions that I previously posted on that blog.

1) “Six thousand years ago, when the world was one degree warmer than it is now, the American agricultural heartland around Nebraska was desert”. The implication is clear, returning to a climate one degree warmer than now “requires no great feat of imagination”. What is missing is that twelve thousand years ago the melt-down of the last ice age was beginning. “The continental interior of .. North America .. had vast cold deserts with little or no rain and consequently no vegetation.”. (from “Prehistoric Past Revealed”). It requires “no great feat of imagination” to appreciate that it would take thousands of years (no time at all in geological terms) to convert these deserts to the “American agricultural heartland around Nebraska” that is enjoyed today. Of course, one degree of warming from the present “agricultural heartland ” status is a totally different scenario, impossible to compare with the conditions pertaining six thousand years ago.

2) “Without knowing how much fossil fuel will be burnt, the best science can offer is a range of plausible ‘scenarios’” This is wrong. Science did NOT offer the scenarios. These scenarios were imposed upon the scientists by the politically orientated IPCC. Several are IM-plausible, e.g. Scenario A2 assumes a figure for CO2 emissions in 2100 of 7 times the measured figure for 2000; a global population in 2100 at 2.5 times that measured for 2000 and coal production in 2100 at 10 times that of 2000. Neither these assumptions nor the scenarios on which they are based are “reasonable or probable” (from The Concise Oxford Dictionary)! The IPCC itself admitted that “there is no objective way to assign likelihood to any of the scenarios.” (from “Climate Change Mitigation”)

3) “They (the scenarios) vary so widely that the IPCC .. was able to suggest only that global average temperatures by the end of the 21st century will have risen between 1.4 and 5.8C above the average for 1990 .. last month pushed up to 6.4C ..” The IPCC has never claimed that temperatures WILL have risen and has acknowledged that “No judgement is offered .. as to the preference for any of the scenarios .. neither must they be interpreted as policy recommendations” (from “Special Report on Emissions Scenarios”).

David, I agree that Mark is certainly “articulate”, but “informed”? – NOT about the science of climate change. You need to do a lot more reading, but not only of the “believers” words. There are plenty good “deniers” scientific publications available on the Web. Perhaps you should start by reading my paper “Politicization of Climate Change and CO2” on the Climate Science Coalition Web-site at:- http://nzclimatescience.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=374&Itemid=1

PS: “Hot off the Press”. 54 fanatical “believers” hit the headlines today when they attacked one of the UK’s major airports. Stanstead airport was brought to a halt early this morning. They not only totally disrupted the operation of the airport and its passengers but even prevented fellow “believers” from traveling to the UN Climate Change Conference. It is reported that they are to be charged under the UK Terrorism Act. Members of the Manmade Global Warming priesthood promised to continue the fight at all costs.

Regards, Pete Ridley, Anthropogenic Global Warming “Denier”

I’m not a scientist, but it is painfully obvious that anyone who thinks industrial emissions of CO2 are good is a lunatic. Isn’t that the theory of the nutcase Robinson of Oregon Petition infamy? He thinks the more CO2 we pump into the atmosphere the more wonderful life on earth will be. It doesn’t require a scientist to understand that this is utter nonsense. Period.

Environmentalism is common sense.

I remember being about 9 or 10 years old and watching exhaust coming from auto tailpipes, and wondering how long that can go on before the air is poisoned. No I’m not saying CO2 is poison, relax deniers. But you get my point or should, if you have a half a watt of intelligence. It’s common sense. Irrespective of the science, anyone with any common sense should have a gut feeling that spewing a gas into the atmosphere, thereby upsetting a balance hundreds of thousands of years old at the very least, just might have some unintended and unwanted consequences.

The science is complicated but anyone who isn't starting from such a position of common sense is a lost cause.

Richard, common sense can be misleading. Common sense told us that the earth is flat as well as being the centre of the universe, with the sun travelling through the sky from one end to the other before vanishing for a while underneath. They locked poor old Galileo up for his remaining years after being daft enough to suggest that the sun is the centre of the solar system. I know that some of the earth’s inhabitants still believe these falacies, but surely you don’t, even though you are not a scientist.

I would never suggest that any car exhaust fumes (harmful or unpleasant emissions) would be other than bad for the atmosphere or anyone/thing damaged by them, however, what you saw as a child was only the fumes. You didn’t see the harmless CO2 and H2O. The sooner any fumes from vehicle exhaust emissions (or any other fossil fuel burners) are removed the better.

You obviously aren’t using your common sense in concluding that there is a balance in the concentrations of the various atmospheric gases, because you cannot see any of the normal gases therein. Neither can you be using your common sense to conclude that there has been such a balance for hundreds of thousands of years, since you haven’t been around that long. How do you come to this conclusion?

Maybe its because some scientist has told you this, or you’ve heard it second hand.? If so, then at least you are prepared to give some consideration to what scientists say (rather than merely acceptng environmentalist propaganda). If you are, then I suggest that you take a careful look at the comments on Mark’s ” World saved . . . planet doomed” blog, then follow up on the references that I have given in my paper. That should help to improve your understanding of the climate science involved in the debate on manmade global warming and assist you in making a CONSTRUCTIVE contribution to the debate, rather than merely indulging in petty insults.

Best regards, Pete Ridley, Anthropogenic Global Warming Agnostic

Some of the comments are so stupid and so predictable, same old denier nonsense unsupported by science. Would rather listen to someone who shares their ideology, regardless of whether what they say has any scientific basis. It doesn’t, but they believe it does, because to not believe it might mean their ideology is too rigid and they might have to change their perspective a little.

“The position of a vast majority of people that believe in the seriousness of climate change as a human induced problem is that they believe so because of the following line of reasoning… see if you can follow the complicated steps of logic…

1) An overwhelmingly vast majority of the scientists that actually study climate science hold this view.”

http://climateprogress.org/2008/02/11/how-do-we-really-know-humans-are-causing-global-warming/ by RhapsodyInGlue

You know that I don’t like the information like this one because I have 3 children and I hope that they have a future. But the facts are facts. According to the changes that take place all over the world we are waiting for the top of global warming by 2018. It seems to me that the society is tired of the financial crisis that they have no time to think about the weather.

I hate to break it to you all, but there is nothing we can do to stop global warming. Sure, we are contributing somewhat, and yes, we certainly need to stop polluting regardless of global temperature. But the fact is that we are neither the cause of global warming nor the solution.

The liberals say global warming is a man-made crisis, and that our only hope is to stop emitting carbon dioxide. The conservatives say it’s a short-term cycle that’s just going to go away soon on its own. YOU’RE BOTH WRONG.

For one thing, if you’re looking at carbon emissions as the key factor in global temperature, then you’re looking in the wrong place. The main greenhouse gas is not carbon dioxide but water vapor (which is responsible for the vast majority of the greenhouse effect). There is a lot more CO2 in the atmosphere that there used to be, and this can increase global temperature…. but not as much as you probably think.

But mainly, contrary to all popular belief, the rising trend in Earth’s temperature is not a short-term phenomenon, nor did it start with the Industrial Revolution or even the rise of civilization. Historically speaking, our current global temperature is much, much COLDER than normal, not warmer. We are STILL warming up from the Ice Age, and we can expect to keep warming until, sometime in the VERY distant future, we reach 25 C, the temperature we saw in the age of the dinosaurs. If you don’t believe me, you can wait a few million years, or you can just check out this website: http://www.scotese.com/climate.htm

Thank you for your article and I must say that I have mixed your opinion about this situation. I liked your manner to represent the real facts. Yes, you are right that the reason of the global warming are obvious and it will be difficult to solve it with the economy of the resource.

There are solutions to global warming available to us today and it’s time we put them to use. These solutions will reduce the amount of heat-trapping gases that we emit into the atmosphere. Among the solutions are ways of reducing the amount of fossil fuels we use to power our vehicles and generate our electricity, and protecting threatened forests, which store carbon in their biomass.

Welcome back Richard (Mercer), it took you such a long time to respond to my post of 10/12/08 that I thought you’d seen the light about the significant human-made global warming myth (please note the word “significant”). It is quite clear that you did not bother to follow up on the suggestion in the final paragraph of my previous post. I had hoped that you would do some independent research and thinking about the subject but you are obviously only prepared to listen to the “believer” arguments. Shame on you – but that’s the same approach as is taken by believers in a benevolent super power.

Based upon the people that I talk with (which I do quite randomly), your “vast majority of people that believe in the seriousness of climate change as a human induced problem” is in fact an insignificant minority. Of course, mine is a very small sample, so don’t come back with criticisms on that basis (I do understand the basics of statistics).

I’ve checked the Climate Progress “believer” site that you reference and am pleased to see that (like Mark Lynas) it does allow open debate with “deniers”, which is more than can be said for Jonathan Porritt’s “Forum for the Future” charity. As well as the expected standard “believer” arguments on Climate Progress I notice a lot of good “denier” submissions, e.g. from Tilo Reber 16/2/08 and Jonathan 18/3/08, 6/4/08, 9/4/08. Jonathan may have it wrong on the “flat earth” but the argument behind his example still stands (see the example in my earlier post regarding geocentricism). He also may be wrong with his “Fortunately there are a small minority of people”. I think it’s a large majority on this issue. Other interesting submissions came from Caw 7/5/08, John Johnson 20/6/08, E.M.Smith 5/7/08 and Simon 19/708.

I was particularly drawn to what “believer” Bill D 9/2/09 arrogantly said. I quote: “It has been very simple to measure the direct increase in the atmosphere’s CO2 over the last 60 years, the human contribution to the increase (essentially all of the increase) and rate of increase if we continue to use fossil fuels. Accurate estimates of past CO2 values (over the last 10’s of thousands of years come from glacial cores. These are just basics found in any science text book. Anyone whose post reflects an ignorance of basic, well known facts can hardly make intelligible comments. Ignoring such simple facts is ignoring science. Scientific debates start with what is known and then consider the cutting edge, where there is room for disagreement”. He appears not to have read what Earnst-Georg Beck had to say in “180 Years of atmospheric CO2 Gas Analysis by Chemical Methods” which looks at more than the measurements at the top of a single extinct volcano in the Pacific. In my draft paper “Interpretation of Ice Core Air Samples” I say “One contrary hypothesis is that the composition of the air in the ice cores is altered significantly after decades and centuries within the ice. Possible mechanisms for altering the trapped air composition are the preferential removal of constituent gases through dissolving in water or through effusion and clathrate formation within the ice sheets”. If you are aware of any scientific evidence contradicting my hypothesis then please let me know.

I didn’t spot who contributor “JR:” is but his confident proclamation that “Global temperatures are driven by all forcings, of which CO2 is increasingly dominant. The temperature profile of the last 100 years is well explained by all the forcings combine, but cannot be explained by a group of forcings that do not include human-caused greenhouse gas emissions” ignores the fact that the science underpinning the analysis of the forcings is riddled with uncertainties. Under these circumstances models based upon such incomplete science cannot be expected to accurately predict future global climates. It’s interesting to see that “JR:” has as yet made no response to Serious Skeptic 23/12/08 who asked “If manmade carbon dioxide emissions are causing global warming, then why have temperatures been going down for 10 years now”. I shall be issuing to “JR:” the same challenge that I have issued on numerous occasions and continue to make to you believers. Provide detailed scientifically sound rejections of the arguments of several scientists which show that increasing atmospheric CO2 levels have negligible impact upon global climates and that water (in all of its phases) is of far greater significance. None of those challenged have yet responded. Take a look at my paper “Politicization of Climate Change and CO2” on the Climate Science Coalition Web-site at:- http://nzclimatescience.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=374&Itemid=1 and see if you can refute what is in it.

Within the scientific community, open debate on the subject continues, just as there is with any hypothesis that is based upon significant uncertainties and assumptions. Contrary to what the politicians and devout environmentalists say there is no consensus among scientists that the science of climate change is settled. The science behind global climate control mechanisms is so complex that scientists have to make significant assumptions and simplifications before they can even start unraveling it. You might recognise this if you removed your blinkers and read more widely.

Unfortunately both sides of this argument get dragged into exchanging insults and pettiness instead of conducting the debate in a rational manner. One example is your “Some of the comments are so stupid and so predictable, same old denier nonsense unsupported by science” (I don’t want to go too far with the olive branch so leave you to pick out an example of mine). Just like the politicians, we pour out a lot of hot air and achieve nothing (notice I say “we”). To try to resolve this stalemate I tried to make it simple for another confirmed believer, Pete Best by putting to him several simple questions requiring just a “yes” or “no” response. Surprise surprise, all he does is refuse to answer but continues to pour out the old dogma. Would you be good enough to respond to those same questions with “Y” or “N” then give me some to do the same with. Maybe then we can move the debate along, or do you just not want this. (see Mark’s blog “A New Green Era” 6/02/09).

You may be interested in reading or even joining the debates on Mark Lynas’s “A New Green Era” and “World Saved .. ” blogs, or even on Jonathan Porritt’s blogs. Jonathan plays a much more significant roll in UK environmental and sustainability activities than Mark does and he also allows open debate, although, like Mark, he refuses to get involved himself.

Regards, Pete Ridley, Human-made Global Warming Agnostic

All my skepticism about global warming was dissipated with all this news about the prolongation of the globe night period and all the weather perturbations have become our cruel reality and not just simple frightening from behind the screen.

Dear readers, you may be interested in seeing my comments on Jonathan Porritt’s “Sustainable Population” blog about the Climate Change Convention in Copenhagen and the myth about significant sea level rises.

Regards. Pete Ridley, Human-made Global Warming Agnostic.

Personally I believe gw reasoning is still based on incomplete facts and information. I haven’t accepted it as anything more than speculation.

What I would like to know are what activities do I participate in that cause irreversible climatic change?

I drive a 4 cyl automobile 20 miles a day (car is turbocharged and uses gasoline and alcohol).

My home’s AC/heat is less than 1 year old (set at 76°F in summer/69°F in winter).

I exercise daily producing additional CO2 when I exhale.

For the above, what exact compounds, reactions, and mechanisms are the contributors? Additionally, assuming I am wrong, and I hope not for what’s a stake, that as individuals we do contribute to dangerous irreversible catastrophic climatic/environmental changes, what am I doing that is more detrimental than those that are convinced it’s fact, or worse, than those who push the movement tyrannically because of their status, legislative authority, or personal gain?

Thank you for the opportunity to express. I’m actually neutral on this and only here for being convinced, everyone want’s the truth. But, hopefully this won’t be considered ad hominem by contra, we’ll see.

Thankyou. Weeks of scorching temperatures, peaking at 49 degrees, raging and uncontrollable bushfires in Victoria and ever decreasing rain, gave us all the ‘proof’ we needed as a family to sell our lovely property in N.S.W. and begin our migration to Tasmania. Some of our friends tell me that we are pessimists, but my interest in the history of this beautiful, fragile earth and in the persistance of human foibles throughout the centuries, provides very little confidence that we will curb our emissions. I’m so very tired of the debate, ‘common sense is a very uncommon thing’ my grandfather used to tell me, and to my growing dismay, I find myself agreeing with him more each day. Keep up the good work. Messengers have long been derided however vital the imformation they bring.