“IMAGINING OTHER…”
Protecting the Planet
(a WEA course)
Week 6: Global Warming (i) the science
Links:
LINKS:
Protecting the Planet 1:
Introduction
Protecting the Planet 2: key industries
Protecting the Planet
3: some case studies
Protecting the
Planet 4: strategies
Protecting the
Planet 5: some solutions
Protecting the Planet
7: effects of global warming
Protecting the
Planet 8: species decline
Protecting the Planet 9: energy policies
Protecting the Planet 10: the movement
SUMMARY:
1.
Summary/overview: #overview
Global warming – man-made (anthropogenic) climate
change - the most serious environmental danger we face.
Greenhouse effect, role of CO2, CFCs, methane...
‘Climate’ is not the same as ‘weather’. Effects are
uneven.
2. Brief History of
International Agreements on Climate Change #history
3. More detail on Global Warming – evidence and
scale: #evidence
(i) Is it a
scam? #scam
- 97% of climate scientists agree the world is
warming as a result of our activities, mainly through carbon dioxide
production.
- the Intergovernmental Panel on climate
Change (IPPC) agrees, having scrutinised thousands of peer-reviewed studies.
- the Academies of Science of 34
different countries all signed the IPCC statement.
- the recent Paris agreement on
climate change was signed by 194 countries.
(ii) Correlation of changes in CO2 with temperature
change. #correlation
Evidence (Al Gore 2006): ice cores can be used to
measure CO2 (bubbles) and temperature (isotopes of oxygen).
Ice ages and interglacial periods: during the ice
ages the concentration of CO2 was below 200ppm, and large
parts of the earth were covered with a sheet of ice a mile thick!
The ‘warm periods’ show levels of
up to 260ppm. ‘At no point before the industrial era did the CO2
concentration go above 300 parts per million.’
Temperatures show
dramatic and steady increase of around 0.5 degrees since the mid-20th century. Global
temperatures have risen by almost 1 degree since 1880 (NASA).
Levels of CO2 now: 403.3ppm (parts
per million) – highest for 3 million years. (WMO)
Recent high global temperatures. Increase in
CO2 still going on (and effects will last, and we cannot remove it).
4. What does NOT cause global warming
(sceptics claim these do): #other things
(i) Sunspots, (ii) the earth’s orbit or tilt, (iii)
CO2 is heavy, how can it cause global warming? (iv) volcanoes... Other
sceptics’ arguments (and response): (v) We cannot trust scientists: UEA
emails, (vi) An Inconvenient Truth film taken to court (but no evidence of
misrepresenting facts) (vii) Arctic ice is getting thicker, (but it’s covering
less ground) (viii) There have been periods (mediaeval) when warming has not
occurred (but short!) (ix) It’s a Chinese plot to undermine
the USA, or a socialist plot (but US economy would benefit from
change to low-carbon/renewables)
5. Who are the climate
sceptics? #who?
5.1 NB: no refereed scientific papers deny
global warming, while most (53%) newspaper articles give the ‘sceptical’
point of view equal space to the mainstream view.
5.2 ‘Doubt is our product’ – (tobacco company 1960.
5.3 Lobbying: American Enterprise Institute –
contributions to Exxon Mobil.
5.4 key figures: Phillip Stott, Piers Corbyn, Nigel Calder, Nigel Lawson: not scientists, but mostly
pro-market and on the right politically (see also Donald Trump!).
5.5
Representation in the press: three sceptics - Christopher Booker (Sunday
Telegraph), Peter Hitchens (The Mail on Sunday), Matt Ridley (Times,
former chair
Northern Rock) vsone
for consensus: George Monbiot (Guardian).
NOTES:
Many observers believe that the most serious threat
facing the earth today is climate change as a result of global warming. The
aspect of air pollution that is involved here is “the greenhouse effect”. When sunlight warms the
earth, some of that heat is lost through radiation (bouncing off the earth)
back into space. But there are some gases in the atmosphere that retain or reflect
the heat back to earth – like the glass in a greenhouse. The effect, as noted
below, was first discovered in the late 19th century.
Here we have another example of the precise balancing phenomenon
at work in the ecosphere, since we are kept at just the right temperature for
life to exist! (See the Gaia hypothesis). The most notable of these ‘greenhouse
gases’ is carbon dioxide. In itself
this is a harmless gas: we breathe it out all the time, when the oxygen we
breathe in has been used in the lungs. (We could not live in an atmosphere of
pure carbon dioxide, however). The balance of oxygen, nitrogen, carbon dioxide
and other gases is just right for life.
However, human industrial activity
- especially the burning of fossil fuels - including cars, has resulted in an
increase in the amount of carbon dioxide, which has been carried up into the
atmosphere and now keeps in some of the sun’s heat. Other contributing gases
are CFCs (see notes on the ozone layer...) and methane: the latter is naturally produced by
rotting vegetation, in ponds etc, but the amount of methane produced by human
activity has actually increased with the industrialisation of farming, since
cows’ flatulence contains the gas! A large proportion of greenhouse
gases some from this source.
With regard to carbon dioxide emissions in
the UK, levels are likely to be higher than government statistics suggest,
and everyone agrees they are going to keep on rising so long as we continue to
burn fossil fuel (especially coal and oil, but also gas).
There are a few people who say there is a
correlation but not cause and effect – but given some of the changes to weather
etc, and the measured warming of the globe, something is causing the temperature
to rise, and the vast majority of climate scientists are convinced it is due to
the greenhouse effect. (See the section on ‘sceptics’ below).
Notes
above adapted from w3schools.com
2. Brief History of Climate Change (from Earthmatters,
published by Friends of the Earth, Summer 2009,
extra notes from Wikipedia):
1750
– 1800 start of industrial revolution –
rises in average global temperatures are measured as from pre-industrial level.
1896 Swedish
Chemist Svente Arrenhuis describes
how greenhouse gases work and predicts a doubling of carbon dioxide in the
atmosphere could increase global temperatures by 5 degrees.
1957
David Keeling measures changes in CO2 (Hawaii), correlates
with fossil fuel use. Climate scientists now use the Keeling curve to describe
the increase in CO2.
1979
first World Climate Conference highlights
CO2 levels.
1990
IPCC: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (established
by United Nations Environment Programme, and World Meteorological Organisation)
1st Report says human activity likely to be
contributing to climate change. Details of working methods etc. of
IPCC at: http://www.ipcc.ch/index.htm
1992 Rio Earth Summit or UN Conference on Environment and
Development. 172 governments participate (2,400
representatives of NGOs, and 17,000 attended a parallel NGO Global Forum which
had ‘consultative status’. Issues addressed included: patterns of production
(toxic components such as lead in petrol, poisonous waste, radioactive chemicals),
transport, air pollution, water, protection of land of indigenous
peoples. ŕ Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC). US
had reservations about the Convention. Also: Convention on Biological
Diversity (US did not sign), and other statements.Criticised
for not recognizing need to fight poverty.
1995 2nd IPCC Report.
1997 Kyoto Protocol (building
on the Framework Convention) signed by 192 parties (Canada withdrew in
2012 and US has not ratified it), to reduce greenhouse gas emissions ‘to
a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the
climate system.’ To come into force in 2005, and expire 2012.
2001 3rd IPCC Report.
2001 George
W Bush opposes Kyoto ‘because it exempts 80% of the world from
compliance and because it would cause serious harm to
the US economy’.
2002 Larsen
B ice shelf breaks up – a piece of ice a quarter the size of Northern
Ireland falls into the Antarctic Sea.
2003 estimated
35,000 Europeans die in extreme summer temperatures.
2004 sudden
cold temperatures cause cracks in Empire State Building.
2005 Hurricane
Katrina hits New Orleans.
2007 IPCC
Fourth Report says there is a 90% chance that human activity is warming
the planet, and that global average temperatures will rise by another
1.5 to 5.8C this century, depending on emissions.”
2007 IPCC
and Al Gore share Nobel Peace prize. Gore’s film/powerpoint presentation An
Inconvenient Truth wins an Oscar. ‘Washington Declaration’ initiates a
‘cap-and-trade’ system to apply to industrialisedand
developing countries.
2008 Ed Miliband climate
change minister, UK passes Climate Change Act (world first).
2009 Barack Obama
becomes president and puts billions into renewables.
2009 ‘Climategate’ – e-mails hacked from Climatic Research Unit
at University of East Anglia – scientists accused of
distorting evidence and suppressing opposing data.
2010 Reports by
Lord Oxburgh, Sir Muir Russell
and Commons Science and Technology Committee find no malpractice, no
withholding of evidence and no suppressing of dissenting views. Public trust in
climate scientists drops from 60% to 40%.
2009, 2010: Conferences
in Copenhagen Cancun
2012 Doha extension of
(1997) Kyoto Protocol: 37 countries adopt binding targets (of which 7 have
ratified), by July 2016 the number of countries adopting it rose to 66, but 144
are required for it to enter into legal force. EU and others agree to extend
treaty to 2020.
2015 Paris Conference (UN Climate Change Conference – COP21: 21st annual
session of the Conference Of the Parties to the 1992 Framework Convention). 196 parties
attended. Agreement will enter into force when joined by at least 55 countries
representing at least 55% of global greenhouse emissions.
2016 Earth Day – 22nd April:
174 countries sign in New York. Goal: to limit global warming
to less than 2 degrees Celsius compared to pre-industrial levels. Parties will
also ‘pursue efforts to’ limit the increase to 1.5 degrees. This will require
zero emissions between 2030 and 2050.
2017 Nov 6th, COP23
in Bonn: 10,000 government delegates, 8,000 others. Fiji is chair.
3. More detail on Global
Warming – evidence and scale:
(Notes initially
written in response to a paper by a student on one of my WEA courses,
who said climate change is a ‘disaster myth’):
(i) Introduction: is it
a scam? ‘There is not agreement among scientists that global warming is
happening’:
It seems to me that a
small group of ‘sceptics’ manage to have an influence that outweighs their
number and their importance. It may be a bit odd to arrange these notes in the
form of a ‘reply to sceptics’, but I was prompted to do so, a few years ago, by
a detailed paper prepared by a student – until then perhaps I had been guilty
of assuming that everyone knew how global warming worked!
I have also recently
(2016) had cause to write to a local paper, because they have printed at least
two letters from a local councillor who is a climate sceptic! The councillor’s
argument was (in part) that changes in CO2 occur after changes in temperature,
not before.
I wrote two replies,
and the second (which they published) points out that no sources were
given for this claim, while:
- ‘97% of climate
scientists agree the world is warming as a result of our activities,
mainly through carbon dioxide production.
- the Intergovernmental Panel on climate Change (IPPC) agrees, having
scrutinised
thousands of peer-reviewed studies.
- the Academies of Science of 34 different countries all signed the IPCC
statement.
- the
recent Paris agreement on climate change was signed by 194
countries.’
I added that in the
light of this ‘It is just nonsense to talk of a 'scam' perpetrated by
mysterious 'interests' (which is what climate sceptics often say) - as it is
no-one's interests to deny that global warming/climate change is happening. The
World Health Organisation has said that 'climatic changes already are estimated
to cause over 150,000 deaths annually.'
My letter ended: ‘In
my view it is irresponsible of a local paper to keep printing these false
claims when across the globe people are already suffering from the effects of
climate change.’ However, this sentence was not printed!
I hope this explains
my concerns over ‘climate scepticism’!
I replied to various
points made in the student’s paper as follows:
(ii) Correlation of changes in CO2 with temperature change.
NASA has a graph on
their website: http://climate.nasa.gov/keyIndicators/ which takes a
mean temperature between 1951 and 1980 and plots the changes since 1880. It shows
that around 1880 the temperature was 0.4 (degrees Celsius) below the
mean, and now it is approaching 0.6 above. You can either say this
is a 0.6 rise or I guess you could say it is 1 degree. I have seen other
figures of 0.8 (Robin McKie – science editor
of the Observer newspaper) or even more... and if, as many argue, the warming
is a trend, then mean temperatures are likely to carry on increasing. There is
a great danger if the upwards curve
is, as Al Gore and others argue, exponential.
In his 2006
book, An Inconvenient Truth, Al Gore points out (p65) that scientists
(he quotes Dr Lonnie Thompson, School of Earth Sciences, glaciologist,
Distinguished University Professor at Ohio State University, and Senior
Research Scientist at the Byrd Polar Research Center at Ohio) can measure both
the past temperature of the earth’s atmosphere and the amount of CO2 in it, by
examining ice cores. The CO2 is present in bubbles in
the ice, and the ratio of different isotopes of oxygen (Oxygen
16 and Oxygen 18) records the temperature. He prints graphs (p64) which show
the changes over the past 1,000 years. These show a dramatic and steady
increase of around 0.5 degrees since the mid-20th century.
Andrew Simms, G2 19th Jan 2017 says ‘temperatures have
risen by almost 1 degree since 1880.’
There have been other
fluctuations – such as the ‘medieval warm period’ – but this can be seen to
have been a small, short-lived ‘blip’.
Perhaps the most
striking chart, however, shows (p66-7) measurements
in Antarctica going back 650,000 years. Here it is really clear that
the changes in temperature and in CO2 concentration correlate very
closely. You can see ice ages with periods of warming in
between. During the ice ages the concentration of CO2 was below 200ppm,
and this means large parts of the earth were covered with a sheet of ice a mile
thick! The ‘warm periods’ show levels of up to 260ppm. ‘At no point before the
industrial era did the CO2 concentration go above 300 parts per million.’
Current levels of CO2
are around 403.3 ppm (parts per
million) – and this has increased in the last few years (2013 – 2017)
(Wikipedia, quoting National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration). Note
that this is (only) 0.04% by volume... [Note also: CO2 is essential for life,
as the carbohydrates in the plants we eat are our primary source of energy;
carbohydrates are made by plants through photosynthesis, which uses sunlight to
convert CO2 and water into carbohydrates]. There has been a 40%
increase (from 280 to 400) since the start of the industrial revolution in
the middle of the 18thcentury. The level of 280 ppm held for 10,000 years before the industrial revolution. The
present concentration is the highest in at least the past 800,000 years, and
likely the highest in the past 20 million years (Climate Change 2001: The
Scientific Basis). It is currently rising at a rate of approximately 2ppm per
year – and accelerating (Peter Tans, Trends in Carbon Dioxide,
NOAA/ESRL).
These increases may
appear small, but:
(a) only a few
degrees (5 – 10) drop would produce an ice age, and Robin McKie, drawing on UN sources, says that an increase of 2 degrees would lead
to 3 billion people suffering water shortages, and global food production being
disrupted: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/dec/26/robin-mckie-carbon-emissions-up
(b) taking a global average, the 20 warmest years have occurred since the
1970s, and the 10 warmest years have occurred in the last 12 years (NASA) –
the rate of change seems to be accelerating (see the point
below on exponential growth). 2016 has been the hottest year to date, and each
preceding year has shown warming.
However, an increase
in global temperatures does not mean that everywhere gets
warmer! There is a difference between weather and climate, and
the weather effects of global warming are not easy to predict. However, Al Gore
(2006) - see point 9 below - lists not just glaciers melting but also some
places getting more rain, some having droughts, more hurricanes and other
extreme weather events; the more frequent closing of the Thames flood barrier
etc. The Association of British Insurers has pointed out that claims from storm
and flood damage doubled between 1998 and 2003 (to over Ł6 bn) (sorry, I forget
my source for this!).
Already Bangladesh suffers
damaging floods, and these could become worse. In Britain the Thames
Barrier has been raised more often recently (19 times in 2003, as against 3
times in 1983) – there is even talk of building another flood barrier. Just as
worrying is the possibility that weather conditions will change so that there
are more storms, hurricanes etc. Or, temperature changes (e.g. to the Gulf
Streamwhich warms Britain’s coast line) would affect crops and even turn
some areas to desert.
We have already had freak weather conditions in
Britain – the floods in Cornwall, at Boscastle in
2004 for example – and scientists such as John Schellnhuber,
of the Tyndall Centre, warn that things could get worse (Observer 7/11/2004).
Apart from the damage, Schellnhuber and
others argue that a point will come when insurers will not be able to pay for
the damage: Insurers Munich Re believe that by 2060 the “cost of our changing
weather will outstrip the total value of commodities and services produced by
the global economy” The United Nations reports that the number of natural
disasters has doubled over the past decade, and resultant economic losses have
more than trebled. (Observer loc cit)]
A piece in New York
Times (Sat Apr 15th 2012) asks whether the more variable
weather we now see in the northern hemisphere is a result of climate change. In
March parts of the US were very cold, after a freak heat wave – in France it
was the other way round...
An IPCC report issued
in late March (2012) suggested there is a link, and that climate change is
leading to increased frequency of heat waves, and of heavy rainfall, and
coastal flooding. The most likely explanation is that this is connected to the
melting of Arctic ice, which has shrunk 40% since the early ‘80s – an area the
size of Europe is now water, which does not reflect heat away from the surface
as ice does. Dr Jennifer Francis of Rutgers University (quoted in
the NYT article) says the question is ‘how can it not be’ (how can
the loss of sea ice not be affecting atmospheric circulation). In particular,
the heat is probably affecting the jet stream, producing ‘kinks’ which disrupt
the normal temperatures.
Andrew Simms (loc
cit) points out that in the Arctic in Nov 2016 the temperature was 20 degrees C
above normal! Giant icebergs are breaking off in Antarctica.
However, some
scientists dispute the link between extreme weather and climate change (loc
cit): John R. Christy, University of Alabama, says it is simply down to the
very dynamic nature of weather. Martin P. Hoerling, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration analyst, says what is happening in the Arctic is mostly staying in the
Arctic, and some researchers are in too much of a hurry to establish a link
between weather and human causes. But please note: these are
arguments about the exact effects of climate change/global warming, not about
the underlying trends. The same point needs to be made with reference
to the criticisms of the IPCC report which claimed glaciers would melt quickly:
this section was written by a separate group to the scientists who measured
temperature change etc, and whose task was to speculate about the impact. No
errors have been pointed out in the scientific summaries.
(c) the crucial point
is that previous rises/falls (going back 600,000 years) have correlated very
clearly with the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, and the vast majority of
scientists believe the major cause of the increased global temperature is
increased CO2, not other factors such as:
4. Other things,
specifically sun spots are the cause of any ‘global warming’:
(i) Sunspots:
There has been
a low level of sunspot activity between 2005 and 2010 – the
lowest levels recorded during the satellite era. This means that the earth has
been absorbing less energy from this source – recent (2011/12) calculations by
the Goddard laboratory for NASA (cited on the NASA website – see References
below, and in Hansen’s book) show about 0.25 watts per square kilometer. But
the earth’s ‘energy imbalance’ (the difference between energy absorbed by the
earth and energy returned to space) is 0.45 watts per square kilometer, that
is: there is more energy generated inside the system than the amount that exits
(a positive imbalance). Temperatures have been going up – but solar activity
cannot be a cause of this. Solar activity varies over 11 year cycles – usually
pretty regularly, despite the latest dip (see the next point).
(ii) Another key
factor is the orbit and tilt/wobble of the planet:
There are of course
natural cycles which affect the climate (including variations in solar
irradiation, La Nina etc) – and no proponents of man-made climate change would
deny this! The point is that these are natural changes, and pretty much predictable (because
their patterns are usually regular), which work over long cycles –
whereas the pumping of CO2 into the atmosphere through burning fossil fuels is
not natural, and can be shown to have affected the composition of the
atmosphere dramatically in a short time:
The increase was
first measured by David Keeling in 1957 (Hansen p 116) – and he also noticed a
24 hour cycle as trees and plants absorbed CO2 during the day and gave off CO2
during the night. He also found that there were variations near to human
habitation – which is why he then made more measurements at a remote spot at
Mauna Loa, Hawaii.
His measurements,
which have never been refuted, (Robin McKie) show that CO2 increased from around 310 ppm to over 390 between 1957 and 2010. (*) There is no doubt that the
levels will continue to rise unless major changes are made in the way energy is
generated. Moreover, CO2 remains in the atmosphere for some time so that there
is a time-lag: even if we start reducing our output now, the results will not
be noticeable immediately.
Scientists believe it
is important to reduce the level to 350 ppm to restore the energy equilibrium of the planet.
(*) This is a rapid
change over a short period of time – and the rate of change seems to be
accelerating. This is probably what is called exponential growth –
like a compound interest savings account where the amount of increase each year
goes up if the interest is left in. However, in nature exponential growth is
very dangerous: nothing serious seems to be happening at first, but when the
change gets more rapid we get to a ‘tipping point’ beyond which it is
impossible to reverse the change. (The example I usually use to illustrate this
is a pond in a garden: if weeds, say, are growing exponentially this means that
the time in which it takes them to double the space they take up gets shorter
and shorter. It is quite possible for weeks of growth to occur before the weeds
cover half the pond, but they will then fill it entirely overnight! Your fish
will suffocate before you have done anything about it.)
(iii) CO2 is a heavy
gas and falls out of the atmosphere:
There is a CO2 or ‘carbon’
cycle – described by Hansen on pp 118 ff: plants, the oceans and the land act
as ‘reservoirs’ for CO2 (plants/trees hold 600 billion metric tons [gigatons or GtC] primarily as wood
in trees, soils contain 1,500 GtC, and the ocean holds
40,000 dissolved GtC – the
atmosphere holds about 800 GtC as
CO2). Again, we know there are natural cycles such as the
glacial to interglacial periods due to the movement of the earth in space. Also,
when the ocean becomes colder it holds more CO2, so the atmosphere then holds
less and this leads to more cooling. But when snow and ice melt, due to the
earth’s changing orbit or tilt, then more CO2 is released, leading to more
warming. These are examples of positive feedback – and Hansen
says they account for nearly half the interglacial global temperature change.
An estimated 30-40%
of the CO2 released by humans into the atmosphere dissolves into oceans, rivers
and lakes which contributes to ocean
acidification: we will deal with the various consequences of global warming
later.
The crucial point,
once again, is how human activity is interfering with these natural cycles.
(iv) Other natural phenomena such as volcanoes affect the picture:
Yes Mount Pinatubo
erupting in 1991 had an effect on global temperatures, by the aerosols it put
into the atmosphere: it ‘reduced solar heating of Earth by almost 2%... this...
however, was present only briefly – after two years most of the Pinatubo
aerosols had fallen out of the atmosphere.’ (Hansen: Storms of my Grandchildren, Bloomsbury 2009, p 5). If there were a
series of volcanoes continually erupting we would see a longer-term change.
Hansen in fact
identifies no fewer than 9 ‘climate forcings’ – factors that affect the climate (p 6):
- CO2,
- other greenhouse gases,
- ozone,
- black carbon aerosols,
- reflective aerosols,
- aerosol cloud changes,
- land cover change,
- the sun
- and volcanoes.
Hansen gives precise
quantifications for the different amount of effect each has... and concludes
that CO2 is the most significant. This is neither a ‘myth’ nor what you call
‘denial’ (!) but scientific work based on real, detailed and thorough
measurements.
(v)
Global warming is being unfairly used by such scientists as those at East
Anglia University, to explain famines, when these are man-made:
(i) I am not aware of any environmentalists who would say climate change
is the only factor in food shortages. UNEP (UN Environmental
Programme) did suggest that the Darfur problem originated in climate
change, and it seems to me incontrovertible that failure of rainfall causes
crops to fail. Of course, civil conflict is a crucial factor as well in these
crises, and in some parts of the world civil war has aggravated food shortage,
(see John Vidal, Guardian 22.07.11, on the contribution of climate change + war
to famine in Somalia) but would you want to rule out climate change altogether?
(ii) Please remember
that ‘climategate’ originated when the
computer at EAU’s Climate
Research Unit was hacked into (by whom?) in order to release emails, which then
were publicised by Fox News and other anti-global warming media. Eight
committees have since investigated the CRU emails, and no evidence has been
found of fraud or scientific misconduct. The scientific findings are
not in doubt. The researchers did ‘fail to display the proper degree
of openness’ in responding to queries about their data. I suspect they were
bombarded with requests from would-be deniers and simply lost patience. Every
time I encounter a climate-change sceptic I get the same feeling!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy
(vi) The film
‘An Inconvenient Truth’ was so full of errors that is was banned from being
shown in schools:
The film has not been
banned, and the court that was asked to ban it did not disagree with its
central theme:
BBC (online)
News 11th Oct 2007: A campaign to stop the
government sending DVDs to all secondary schools as part of a climate change
package was started by a parent governor Stewart Dimmock (a member of the [right-of-centre] New Party). ‘The judge said he
had no complaint about Gore’s central thesis that climate change was happening
and was being driven my emissions from humans.’ He had reservations about 9
specific points which were not backed up by sufficient scientific agreement,
including:
- the claim that polar bears have drowned because they have had to swim
further (some
have died in storms);
- the claim that sea levels would rise by 6 metres in the near future
(it would take
millennia said the
judge);
- there was also ‘not sufficient evidence’ that global warming caused
hurricane Katrina;
- ditto for the melting of snows on Mt Kilimanjaro, or evaporation
of Lake Chad.
The judge said that
the film should have guidance notes accompanying it to draw pupils’ attention
to these points. ‘The government has sent the film to all secondary
schools in England, and the administrations
in Wales and Scotland have done the same.’ A 60 page
guidance document now goes with it.
The book has many,
many examples of the effects of global warming, and it seems significant to me
that the court ruled that only the specific ones cited were doubtful.
(vii)
Polar ice is not melting:
You can check out
details of all this on the NASA website, which has a ‘Global Ice Viewer’ that
illustrates dynamically the changes that have been taking place - e.g.
the annual minimum amount of Arctic ice (it shrinks in the
summer and grows in the winter) has been decreasing by 11.2% per decade over
the past 30 years, and in 2007 reached the lowest recorded level.
Greenland’s glaciers
are losing 100 – 250 billion tons of ice each year and 400 billion tons has
been lost from all glaciers per year since 1994, W. Antarctica has
been losing up to 150 billion tons of ice per year). It seems to me that even
if (as you claim) the ice is thickening - which the NASA figures
at http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/ deny – still
the area occupied by the ice has shrunk, and so less heat is
reflected back into space and the warmer the planet gets (positive feedback).
Moreover, other
changes have occurred in the oceans:
- sea levels have
risen by 6.7 inches (17 centimeters) in the last century (approx 4 mm per
year)– the rate of change in the last decade has been double
that of the previous century.
- the oceans’ acidity has also increased by 30% since the beginning of
the industrial revolution (NASA – full references on the webpage; a change of
0.1 pH = 30% acidification)
- plankton, which
control the carbon cycle, nitrogen cycle and part of the oxygen cycle (every
second breath we take is of oxygen from plankton), are dying off as the oceans
warm.
(viii) There have
been other periods of temperature change.
Yes but these have
been short-lived and due to natural events – the current changes are mad-made,
and they show a steady rise of temperature which cannot be reversed.
(ix) It’s a Chinese (or communist) plot!
This reveals the most
common denominator among climate sceptics: opposition to the state and to
governmental regulation. See below on lobbying... It is worth stating that
the US economy would benefit from a change to renewables (see Week 7) – provided
government subsidies are not used for other kinds of energy production. Lord
Stern pointed out that we would save money by trying to prevent global warming,
as the costs if it increases are huge....
5. Who are the ‘Climate Sceptics’?
5. 1 The biased media:
Al Gore in his book cites a study done by Dr Naomi Oreskes of University of California, which was published in
Science magazine. She took a random sample (about 10%) of all the peer-reviewed science journal articles on
global warming from the previous 10 years. There were 928 articles in
the sample, none of which raised any doubts about the cause of global warming (though
only three-quarters addressed the 'central elements of the consensus' and the
rest were about specific issues not to do with CO2). On the other hand,
another study was done of all the articles in the previous 14 years
from what were considered as the four most influential papers in the US (New
York Times, Washington Post, LA Times and Wall Street Journal). Again a random
sample was taken, amounting to almost 18% of the articles, and this
time 53% gave equal weight to the 'consensus view' and to the
opposition (sceptics/deniers) - thus giving the impression there was
disagreement in the scientific community about the issue. (See more below).
5.2 Doubt
He follows this up with points about how the tobacco industry adopted
exactly the same tactics when the link with cancer was identified: a memo was
uncovered from the Brown and Williamson Tobacco Company, written in 1960: "Doubt
is our product, since it is the best means of competing with the 'body of fact'
that exists in the mind of the general public. It is also the best means of establishing
controversy."
5.3
Lobbying:
The lobby group American
Enterprise Institute, (AEI), an ExxonMobil-funded
think-tank, has offered scientists and economists $10,000 each for articles
questioning the report of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC)…. The AEI has received more than $1.6m from ExxonMobil,
and more than 20 of its staff have worked as consultants to the Bush
administration.
5.4 Names:
Robin McKie, Observer, 04.03.07(?), points out that those who contest the scientific
consensus, e.g. Phillip Stott, Piers Corbyn, Nigel Calder, Nigel
Lawson, have often got a political agenda. To deal with global
warming, says McKie, quoting philosopher John Gray, will
require government action and intervention in our lives – and
probably bureaucracy – all of which is anathema to the sceptics, several of
whom have pronounced pro-market views. (We are told, for
example, that Europe will ban the inefficient fluorescent light bulb:
I wonder if the Daily Mail will start a campaign to save it?!)
The names that McKie gives are of people who regularly
can be heard on Today and seen on Newsnight (so they cannot claim,
as they do, that there is a conspiracy of silence over their views!).
5.4 The Press (again)
Peter Wilby (New Statesman 16 Dec 2016 – 5
Jan 2017) says: ‘By my calculations, ten global-warming sceptics – including
the Sunday Telegraph’s Christopher Booker, The Mail on
Sunday’s Peter Hitchens, and the Times’s Matt Ridley – have regular columns in the main
sections of national newspapers.’ According to Geoffrey Lean, environmental
correspondent (formerly of Telegraph, Independent on Sunday and Observer)
‘There used to be four of us [columnists in national newspapers accepting the
consensus]. But three of us have been sacked in the past 18 months.’ Only
George Monbiot remains...
Extra notes from DeSmogUK – the Brexit
connection:
There is a deep-rooted connection between UK climate science deniers and those campaigning
for Britain to leave the European Union, new mapping by DeSmogUK can reveal.
Tying together this close-knit network reveals
how organisations residing behind the doors of Westminter's 55 Tufton Street share many of the
same members and donors.
And the reach of this small group of Brexit climate deniers extends beyond this Westminster building
to include prominent politicians such as former London Mayor Boris
Johnson, Justice Secretary Michael Gove, and Energy Minister Andrea Leadsom as well as traditional British media outlets.
Perhaps the epitome of this nexus between climate science deniers
and Brexit campaigners came last week when former environment secretary
Owen Paterson delivered a speech at this very
same address.
Advertised by Grassroots Out and hosted
by Paterson’s UK2020 think
tank, Paterson argued “Why the UK environment would be improved by leaving the EU.”
His speech was quickly criticised for being out-of-touch by Green MP Caroline Lucas, who said: “I’m as likely to ask Donald Trump
for advice on race relations as I am to trust Owen Paterson on protecting
our environment.”
But it's hard to ignore the political movers and shakers
working inside the walls of this four-storey,
multi-million pound building located just steps from the Houses of Parliament.
This small, mostly male, contingent is a significant driving force
behind the 'leave' side of the 23 June EU referendum and
the same group that wants less, not more, done to tackle catastrophic
climate change.
The overlap stems from a common neoliberal ideology that
fears top-down state interventions and regulations which are perceived as
threatening values of individual freedom, economic (market) freedom, or the
sovereignty of national governments. Under this logic, we must reject both
the European Union and most climate policy.
It begs the question: If Britain leaves the EU, what will then happen to the country's climate
change policy?
Mapping the Bubble
Delving into the web, you’ll quickly get a sense of the deep-rooted
connection between these various organisations.
DeSmog UK first reported on this relationship
in January when a slew of climate science deniers published comment pieces
blaming European bureaucracy, not climate change, for the
December flooding.
Then, in February, the Independent revealed that
these inter-related groups all share the 55 Tufton Street address.
So now, with the Brexit vote less than two weeks away, DeSmog UK has for the first time mapped, in-depth, the climate-euro sceptic
bubble for you to explore.
How to use the map: Zoom in and out
to see the web of relationships between the residents of 55 Tufton Street and its neighbours. Hover over the lines to see the
type of relationship between the two entities, and click on the person or
organisation’s name to find out more (this will open up a new tab where you can
find out more information about all of this entity’s various relationships and
stance on climate change).
Looking at the map, you will see 55 Tufton Street at the centre. Above, you have the building’s owner,
Richard Smith, and below you have two rows: organisations which currently
reside (or did until recently) at this address, and key figures within each
organisation. And then you have the many other relationships that are derived
from this.
Please note that this is not an exhaustive list of all people affiliated
with each 55 Tufton Street organisation. Nor is
it likely to be an exhaustive list of all the relationships between the
entities included in the map. If you spot something we’ve missed, let us know
in the comments section below.
Below we highlight some of key relationships contained in
this map:
Who is Richard Smith? He keeps a low
profile and is perhaps best known for when he flew David Cameron to his home
in Shobdon, Herefordshire in 2007.
The Midlands businessman owns HR Smith group, which works on advanced aerospace technologies. Not
only is he associated with several of the organisations at 55 Tufton Street, but as the map shows, Smith has also donated money to the
Vote Leave campaign, Labour Leave, and the Bruges Group (via his company Techtest).
Meet Vote Leave’s climate science
deniers: The prominent Vote Leave campaign group draws several of its members
from Paterson’s UK2020 think tank and Lawson’s Global
Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF), including Matt Ridley who’s a member
of both. UKIP MP Douglas Carswell is also a supporter of Vote Leave
– Carswell is known for saying his biggest
regret is voting in favour of the 2008 Climate Change Act.
The TaxPayers’ Alliance’s
ties to everyone: In 2010 following the general election, the TaxPayers’ Alliance hosted a roundtable meeting to discuss the
Conservative Party’s return to power. Among those in attendance included
the GWPF, Global Vision, the Centre for Policy
Studies, the Institute of Economic Affairs, as well as oil giant BP.
Matthew Elliott: While not at
the centre of the map, Elliott is definitely at the centre of many of the
55 Tufton Street organisations, including
the TaxPayers’ Alliance (and its donations wing, the
Politics and Economics Research Trust), Vote Leave, Business for Britain, and
The European Foundation. It’s also interesting to note that Elliott’s wife,
Florence Heath, is a petroleum geologist who at one time worked for Shell and
was a Charles G. Koch fellow at the Competitive Enterprise
Institute (known for promoting climate science denial) in
the summer of 2001.
**************
Updates:
Another argument that comes up from time to time is that the solar
minimum will cause a cooling. It is said there was a solar minimum during the
‘little ice age’ – however, recent scientific studies show that the most likely
outcome would be very slight cooling that would make no difference to overall
warming:
https://skepticalscience.com/How-would-Solar-Grand-Minimum-affect-global-warming.html