I have no expertise in environmental science, and have never made an intensive study. I realise that what I write here is so simple as to be taught to a six year old. But there is a reason I write it.
I am however trained as a historian. That mankind has changed the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is indubitable from a moment’s consideration of the evidence.
Early man lived in an earth covered by vast forest. Cultivation brought a cutting down of forest for clearings. Industrial development brought a cutting down of forests for fuel and raw material. We know this for certain because the process continued into historic times, and has never stopped but simply spread into lesser developed parts of the world, and because of the unlimited numbers of tree throws discovered by archaeologists in areas of prehistoric settlement.
The burning of the trees released carbon dioxide, but this process was greatly accelerated by the industrial revolution, where the start of intensive use of fossil fuels released the stored carbon dioxide of millennia. At the same time, of course, the destruction of the forests reduced the capacity to absorb carbon dioxide and replenish oxygen.
The Earth is big, but not that big. I’ve been round it a few times. The incredible scale is of human activity. It is impossible for an honest rational man to believe that the destruction of the forests and burning of fossile fuels on an ever accelerating scale has not had an effect on the atmosphere. Carbon dioxide is of course not the only pollutant involved.
Now I do not claim to understand the complex science of the interaction between man made atmospheric change and the natural processes of climate change. But plainly, as we change the atmosphere it is going to have some effect on the movement of gases and vapours within the atmosphere, which we call weather, and might perfectly well affect the extent to which the atmosphere absorbs or reflects energy from the sun.
I doubt that the processes are fully understood. But the argument seems to me unanswerable that mankind should seek to minimise its effect on the environment that bred us, for obvious reasons of self preservation.
We should also seek to reduce the astonishing rate at which we squander non-renewable resources. I view most of the opposition to the Copenhagen process as missing the point entirely – be it from the ultra-rich fossil fuels lobbies, scientific dissidents [I don’t despise them; all accepted science was once dissidence, including global warming], those who think anything agreed by governments must be a plot against us, or those who just want to keep on personally enjoying the fruits of untramelled consumption. The point they miss entirely is that we should stop polluting anyway.
I can’t say I fully support the Copenhagen process because it is too timid, the “cuts” offered by the US are derisory, and the oil producers should also be paying much more to the developing world. Carbon trading and its derivatives show we have still, despite the banking collapse. not learnt that inventive greed is not the best motivator.
But thirty years ago I never thought we would have this much agreement by governments to an environmental agenda. The broad direction is better, and Copenhagen must succeed to keep the dynamic going.
A review of the scientific consensus:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686
I can identify with most of that. The big BIG problem with Copenhagen though is its HIDDEN agenda. So far as Western elites and their banksters are concerned, carbon trading is THE next big thing; but it is a gigantic scam at least as big as soft (ie unrepayable) loans to underdeveloped countries ever was – which is saying something – and it will do virtually nothing to reduce overall CO2 emmissions. What it will do, per the now expiring ‘soft-loans’ regime, is continue to secure compliant governments in resource-rich areas and the effective sequestration of those resources by the West. Carbon trading (if the underdeveloped world are stupid enough to sign up to Copenhagen) is likely to produce even worse results for them. Those with the technology (The West) will ensure that those without remain without – and pay dearly for the privilage.
I give you a prediction: The West will move heaven and earth for wholesale adoption the carbon-trading protocols whilst making sweet noises with little binding committment on the rest.
“The CRU emails do not provide evidence that the CRU falsified data”
Errr..
“I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie, from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline”
“What’s your source for this?”
The key is to stick with a single raw data source. Once that source gets moderated, adjusted and, worst of all, combined with other sources (as per quote above) we are done for. Anyone can prove anything.
Also it’s a bit silly to be providing data for 2009 when the year isn’t over yet…
MJ: This is what P Jones actually published in Nature:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v391/n6668/abs/391678a0.html
“tree-ring density series display a strong coherence with summer temperature
measurements averaged over the same areas … During the second half of the
twentieth century, the decadal-scale trends in wood density and summer
temperatures have increasingly diverged as wood density has progressively
fallen. The cause of this increasing insensitivity of wood density to
temperature changes is not known” I.e. Jones has published in Nature what you
think he was trying to cover up.
Wikipedia lists scientific bodies on AGW theory:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
The Joint science academies’ statements are particularly important.
One Planet – One experiment
“The key is to stick with a single raw data source.”
There is no single raw data source. No body has thermometers world wide.
And you haven’t named yours yet. Do you know what it is?
The Argo ocean network is probably the best. It has thermometers world wide!
amk: “NWO paranoid fantasies are silly.”
You are the only one here to mention NWO. Is that The New World Order that Gordon Brown keeps harping-on about?
amk:”Politicians do not voluntarily give up their own power to a higher body, in secret or otherwise.”
Really? Explain the EU to me then.
Argo is new, so of limited use for historic temperatures.
The following article is hosted by NASA, so in undoubtedly part of the Knights Carbonic conspiracy (it says the oceans are still warming, and how earlier indications it may be cooling were found incorrect by checking other sources):
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/OceanCooling/
Duncan:
From Paul above:
“Copenhagen is about using the arrogant assumption that we can alter the planets climate as a cover for a global government body with tax raising powers that can force countries to do their bidding on any subject with a tenuous environmental link”
Sounds like NWO paranoid fantasy crap to me.
“Really? Explain the EU to me then.”
OK.
The most important EU bodies are the various councils of ministers, i.e. the members of the governments of the member states. The other important body, the commission, consists of appointed lackies of the governments of the member states such as Mandelson. When Blair said the EU should be based on the member state, he meant it should be based on people like him (and not you or me), and it is.
An actual EU federation created by the national governments with directly elected governing bodies would be an example of politicians voluntarily giving up their power. An actual EU federation isn’t going to happen because that is not what politicians do.
And I hope no-one thinks the EU has a President now.
http://www.barder.com/2156
“This is what P Jones actually published in Nature”
I’m more interested in what ‘Mike’ actually published in the same organ and why it was a trick.
“Jones has published in Nature what you
think he was trying to cover up”
Sounds a bit barmy. My reading of it was that he was trying to hide a trend of cooling. I may be wrong. Any ideas?
I think we are in a bull market (no pun intended) in hysteria .. perhaps a natural follow on to a bull market in stocks (ending 2000) and more recently, real estate.
A blogger that I read observes we are in a period of large group regression http://bit.ly/2yCwIp
“Argo is new, so of limited use for historic temperatures”
But damned good for current and future readings. I feel these are of some interest.
Whatever happens in terms of global warming will make very little difference to the earth, which will recover in a few tens of, or at most a hundred, thousand years once we are gone – a blink in geological time.
Part of the problem is that we homo sapiens have an inflated idea of our own importance. We also cannot readily comprehend geological time, especially what a miniscule percentage the lifetime of the planet we have been part of the animal kingdom.
We have been around for a very short time – recognisable art perhaps 50,000 years or so, written language 6,000 years. The “dinosaurs” were around for TENS OF MILLIONS of years.
So don’t worry about the planet, after we are gone all will revert to the path it took before, even the nuclear waste and plastics will decay eventually…
“why it was a trick.”
A “trick” is a clever technique.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nnVQ2fROOg
People like me use “hack” the same way, which could also be misunderstood.
“My reading of it was that he was trying to hide a trend of cooling. I may be wrong.”
The “decline” in question was the decline of tree ring data post 1960. Tree rings can be used as a proxy for directly measured temperatures, but the correlation breaks for some reason after around 1960. See this, starting four paras above the graphs at the bottom:
http://www.calgaryliberal.com/2009/12/06/climategate/
Who cares if carbon dioxide is deemed a pollutant or not? The important fact is that human activity is increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration rapidly and that a doubling in concentration will, all other things being equal, raise global temperature by about one degree Celcius. In fact, all other things are unlikely to be equal, which is what much of the technical argument is about: are feedbacks positive or negative? If they are positive as most climate models assume, we’d probably have noticed by now. Moreover, empirical evidence is accumulating to suggest that they are negative. So Monbiot’s nightmare of a world on fire is, barring divine intervention, unlikely to come to pass anytime soon.
Nevertheless, Craig is correct that human activity is impacting the planet in many ways on a huge scale. We are, in effect, engaged in a mindless exercise in what is known technically as planet formation. We need to hold back until we have a better idea of what we are doing. That means curbing rapidly growing carbon emissions.
Carbon dioxide emissions can most efficiently be limited by a carbon tax, or so most economists seem to believe. Such a tax can be revenue neutral: pay more for gas, pay less income tax (as if any government would be so reasonable). And the tax would not likely need to be as heavy as many assume. The recent rise in oil prices caused a noticeable reduction in car use in America, and has prompted a huge effort to bring fuel efficient automobiles to the North American market. In fact, the opportunities for increased energy efficiency throughout much of the economy are vast. With adequate insulation a house can be heated with a hair-dryer. A bicycle with a quarter-horse-power electric drive can propel a commuter through urban traffic as fast as a 300 horse-power car. In fact, the need for energy efficiency could initiate an industrial renaissance throughout the west, provided governments do employ fear of climate change to impose clumsy top-down measures of social and economic control.
Relevant bit of above Youtuve clip is at 3:20
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nnVQ2fROOg#t=3m20s
“My reading of it was that he was trying to hide a trend of cooling. I may be wrong.”
You are wrong. Up until about 1930 temperatures calculated from tree rings agreed well with actual observed values. After that date the real temperature (which was rising) began to depart from the tree ring value (which was falling), and the discrepancy was increasing, becoming very marked after 1960. Note that true temperature was *rising* – no doubt, no ambiguity.
Obviously this failure in recent times for tree ring proxies adequately to approximate real temperatures ?” ‘the decline’ – is of considerable interest. CRU is certainly not concealing this ?” it is a matter of such concern that Ian Harris of CRU submitted a paper to the Royal Society entitled ‘Trees tell of past climates: but are they speaking less clearly today?’ It’s not a decline in real temperature that is being discussed, but the decline in the temperature derived from tree ring measurements, a decline that we know to be an error.
You can get all this at the web site of John Graham Cumming (link in my last post), an expert and unbiased analysis of the code and data released, which includes (perhaps more to your palate) considerable objective criticism. His conclusion is that it looks like a highly unprofessional mess, but so far not an attempt at fraud.
Admittedly, if the mess as half as bad as it seems then the CRU material is inadmissible as evidence in the debate. If a geek with no background in climate science can unpick it in minutes then their credibility as a source is hopelessly compromised.
Vronsky: thanks for that, though I’m not sure why they’re so bothered about current tree ring data when methods for accurately measuring current temperatures are available. Does it cast doubt on the reliability of tree ring data for historical purposes? I would have thought tree rings reflect not only climate but other things too, such as soil fertility.
And while I accept amk’s suggestion that “trick” might in context simply mean “technique”, it’s less easy to explain away “hide”. Why is he so keen to hide tree ring anomalies? Why is a scientist keen to hide anything?
I’ve had a thought on my earlier EU post:
National governments move national powers to the EU, which is mostly themselves anyway. However they are moving power not just from themselves as national governments but also from national parliaments.
As the bit of the EU that isn’t member state government controlled (the EU parliament) is much less powerful than the national parliaments (e.g. it can’t propose legislation), the politicians of the national governments may actually be increasing their personal power by strengthening the EU. Bastards.
‘Course, I may be wrong.
Craig,
One of the main reasons the debate about climate change is becoming so sectarian and violent, is that now we are moving towards the thorny issue of who is going to pay for the ‘solutions’ required.
At core this is question about the distribution of wealth on a global scale. Are the rich countries willing to ‘pay’ poor countries not to pollute and follow in their development footsteps? I think the answer is clearly negative. The rich will won’t pay, they’ed prefer the burden to fall on the poor, because the poor have less power to defend their interests.
On a very fundamental level we face a kind of terrible dilemma. Do we really believe that this small planet has enough environmental ‘reserves’ that are available for China, India, Brazil, Indonisia ect. to progress and develope and consume, to a standard that is comparable to that of Western Europe, to say nothing of the United States?
Do we have the almost magically ability with our extraordinary technology to ‘manufacture’ or ‘conjure’ extra planets full of untapped resources for their developement along the lines we have followed over the last couple of centuries?
Even a rough, back of envelope calculation, which one doesn’t have to be a genius to understand, seems to indicate that we’d need an extra four planet earth’s if everybody is going to enjoy Western-style prosperity. How is this possible, except in the realm of science fiction?
You have young and beautiful son. What kind of world will he inhabit if we continue down this insane path based on the economic paradigm of limitless growth on a planet with finite resources? Our current economic system is blatantly unrealistic in its fundamental, core, assumptions; and our economic theories and practices are wilfully obscuring the harsh and difficult challenges we face as a civilization.
Being blunt, Copenhagen is a sham. The rich countries, led by US, UK, and the host Denmark, are attempting to give the impression that they are serious about climate change, which they are not, and that they support an equitable and just distribution of the costs. Such a response is simply outside the political and economic structure of the system the developed countries have built over the last couple of centuries. Exploitation, waste, and the destruction of nature, are built into the very dna of our way of life, which over the longterm, is really a way of death, and not just for all the other species we are subjecting to genocide on an almost unimaginable scale. Are we supposed to believe that the mass instinction of species is a myth as well?
Many of the comments relating to your remarks, are shockingly uninformed and display a lack of knowledge about not just the complexities of climate science, but the very nature and methods employed in science. In fact their certainty seems in inverse proportion to their understanding of the issues, and complexity involved.
I find this enormously frustrating, because where does one start? How far back does one have to go with basic education about how one thinks properly? This of course sounds incredibly elitist, which I suppose it is. Why do people insist on pontificating about subjects they know so little about? Is it a plea for attention or something else?
The point about climate science is that it’s a very young area of study. It’s really in its infancy, and therefore there are going to be a lot of mistakes, conflicts, and discussion involved as one tries to get a handel on the subject. There is always going to be differences between, theory, models,and observations of reality. A model is a model, not the physical world.
What is disturbing is that increasingly the models are being substituted by empirical observations that support the dire predictions of the computer models. In fact in a number of areas the models used by the IPPC are way too conservative and have been superceded by what one can now measure out in the real world.
The weather and climate are highly complex subjects, however, it’s a fundamental mistake to overstate how stabile our climate really is. It’s far, far, more ‘fragile’ than most people realise, and how ‘easy’ it is to destablize it. For example, here’s a crude analogy, a gallon of white paint appears stabil, as long as one doesn’t disturbe it. It doesn’t take much black paint to do that, and start the process of turning it grey, polluting it. So something that appeared stabil, can, relatively easily, be changed beyond recognition, by a small change.
Our planet’s eco-system is extremely complex, but because we are so small compared to the physical size of the biosphere, we have strong tendency to misunderstand how unique and finely balanced it is. We have already destroyed and damaged huge areas of our planet. This isn’t theory. This is patently observable. The examples are myriad. The theory that we can simply continue to ravage the biosphere without any consequences coming back to bite us, is absurd. One could mention fish stocks here as an important example. We have changed the world and we are still doing it, and the rate and scale of the damage is increasing. There will be a price to pay for this process, regardless of what the economic dogma says.
This story broke about six weeks before the ‘climategate emails’:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/09/29/yamal_scandal/
“….This dataset gained favour, curiously superseding a newer and larger data set from nearby….”
The issue within isn’t so much whether GW is man made or not, it’s the obfuscation involved in achieving the desired outcome.
Peer reviewed?: it seems it was not.
Quick question: If a University was to seek funding for research into ‘GW’ and another into ‘torture’ which one would get the funding more easily?
Another question: If a University was to seek funding for research into ‘GW’ and another into a viable, eco-friendly alternative to the internal combustion engine, which one would get the funding more easily?
People, even scientists, are allowed to think and express themselves like normal people, using the same kind of language people use in everyday life.
That’s what these e-mails represent. It’s people thinking aloud and throwing ideas around.
That scientists use language in ‘non-scientific’ fashion when speaking ‘privately’ with each other, shouldn’t surprise anyone. We use language differently in different contexts. This doesn’t mean one is lying in one context, or telling the truth in another.
And isn’t it telling that of the thousands of pages of documents published, how little ‘usuable’ material has been revealed? It’s the same few sentences, taken out of context, that are repeated over and over again.
What strikes me is how this amazing idea, the ‘ultimate conspiracy theory’ that thousands of climate scientists are involved in global, left-wing, hoax, to undermine our western way of life, is taken seriously by so many people.
It’s not as if there is really much controversy surrounding the science of climate change, at least not among climate scientists. There is a concensus. What’s also interesting is that most of the sceptics, are not professionally qualified climate scientists, and come from all sorts of other areas of study. Like Lomborg, who is an economist by profession. Also it’s a fact that many of them are financed by energy companies. So it’s not surprising, given the ultra-competative nature of the academic world, that there is close to contempt and disdain, when ‘amateurs’ stray onto the turf of other scientists.
At the risk of repeating myself, most of the commentary here is quite simply beside the point. The real point at issue being ‘What is Copenhagen REALLY all about?’ All the climate change gurus and wannabes working themselves into a frenzy are quite simply missing the point and making themselves unwitting dupes – Some things just never change eh?
You do not need to be a climate scientist, or know diddly-squat about the subject to see – clear as crystal – that Copenhagen has nothing whatever to do with addressing the issue (or non-issue as the case may be) of AGW and its derivatives (that word again) seriously; and everything to do with imposing a centralised Western Controlled (not to say NWO) bureaucracy charged with policing a trade in esoteric, manufactured derivatives of ‘carbon production’. A trade that is likely to dwarf ALL other trade in sheer volume and which thus has the potential for the Banksters and their masters to exercise control over what’s left of the earth’s natural resources (and uppity countries with ideas above their station) the like of which The British Empire at its zenith could only dream about.
Also, apropos my earlier comment and not by nature inclined to wallow in an ‘I-told-you-so’ halo, it seems the US/UK/NATO axis are indeed trying to rail-road the developing countries in exactly the fashion I mentioned:
http://tinyurl.com/yldymcs
Who would have thought, some developing countries are crying foul, they fear that they have been stitched up by a consensus worked out by the danish host which favours the western strategy and our approach of ‘selling low carbon technology’
Point is, if we really want all countries to cut down and create low carbon economies at an equal rate, we all have to have the means. Flogging some old tatt we regard as not sufficient anymore to the developiong countries, the old colonial way of making a buck, even if its called ‘recycling’, will not be good enough, the developing countries will need the same technology to provide an equally acceptable result.
We want to have our cake and eat as usual, selling off crap whilst installing the most advanced technologies for ourselves, enabling us to carry on to pollute.
Those who got us into this corner and who have funded the scinetific denial base, have the money to do different, but they rather want to cary on until we are coughing and spluttering, as long as they can flog us oil and gas and cars and and, they will carry on.
Unless they see the need for change and spend more money on alternatives and means to lower carbon , than they get fossile fuels out of the ground, they need curtailing and jostling and badgering, something not everyone might agree with.
And I mean by any way possible, a good starter would be to repeal the free trade laws for all carbon rich technologies and products, until the pips squeak, nationalisation is another ultimate tool of persuasion.
38. The scheme for the new institutional arrangement under the Convention will be based on three basic pillars: government; facilitative mechanism; and financial mechanism, and the basic organization of which will include the following:
a) The government will be ruled by the COP with the support of a new subsidiary body on adaptation, and of an Executive Board responsible for the management of the new funds and the related facilitative processes and bodies. The current Convention secretariat will operate as such, as appropriate.
b) The Convention’s financial mechanism will include a multilateral climate change fund including five windows: (a) an Adaptation window, (b) a Compensation window, to address loss and damage from climate change impacts [read: the “climate debt” Monckton refers to], including insurance, rehabilitation and compensatory components, © a Technology window; (d) a Mitigation window; and (e) a REDD window, to support a multi-phases process for positive forest incentives relating to REDD actions.
c) The Convention’s facilitative mechanism will include: (a) work programmes for adaptation and mitigation; (b) a long-term REDD process; © a short-term technology action plan; (d) an expert group on adaptation established by the subsidiary body on adaptation, and expert groups on mitigation, technologies and on monitoring, reporting and verification; and (e) an international registry for the monitoring, reporting and verification of compliance of emission reduction commitments, and the transfer of technical and financial resources from developed countries to developing countries. The secretariat will provide technical and administrative support, including a new centre for information exchange [read; enforcement].