Imagining Other.

The Natural Environment – Protecting the Planet.

Part 2: Notes on man-made climate change, global warming, the ‘sceptics’ etc.

[This section is also part 8 of: Power and Protest/”People Power” (Social Movements in the 20^th Century)]

Links: Imagining Other Contents Page.

This is Part 2. Other parts of the section Natural Environment are:

Part 1 Introduction and overview

Part 3 The Environmental Movement

Part 4 Environmentalism as a political philosophy

Extra notes:

Environmental issues in Australia

Val Plumwood and the crocodile

Contents:

1. Summary: the greenhouse effect #summary

2. Brief History of Climate Change (from Earthmatters, published by Friends of the Earth, Summer 2009) #history

3. Response to a sceptic’s points on Global Warming as a ‘disaster myth’ (2012): #response

(i) No scientific consensus?

(ii) Sun spots etc.

(iii) Earth’s tilt/wobble.

(iv) CO2 is heavy.

(v) Volcanoes.

(vi) Famines not caused by climate change.

(vii) ‘An Inconvenient Truth.’

(viii) Polar ice is not melting.

(ix) The coalition government’s position. The role of the oil industry and other interests.

(x) A response: who is saying what?

(xi) Conclusion: the ‘big picture’.

References for ‘Response’: #references.

4. Notes on climate sceptics #sceptics

Including:

David Bellamy (2011) - including arguments about ‘bias’ at the BBC, and ‘who are the sceptics?’ #Bellamy

“The Great Global Warming Swindle” (TV programme, 2007): responses by Robin McKie and George Monbiot: #Great Global Warming Swindle – directed by #Martin Durkin

5. New! What can I do about it?

A useful and thorough guide comes from the US: https://www.couponchief.com/guides/guide_to_cheap_green_living

6. From the press: updates etc. (most recent first) #press

*******************

1. Summary/overview:

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 19^th 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! 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).

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.

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) 1^st 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. à 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 2^nd 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 3^rd 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 that there is a 90% chance that human activity is warming the planet, and that global average temperatures will rise by another 1.5 to 5.8 degrees C 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 industrialised and 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 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: 21^st 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 – 22^nd 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.

3. Response to a sceptic’s points on Global Warming as a ‘disaster myth’ (notes written in response to a paper by a student on one of my WEA courses):

Introduction:

It seems to me that a small group of ‘sceptics’ manage to have an influence that outweighs their number and their importance. It may seem 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 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 ‘It is just nonsense to talk of a 'scam' perpetrated by mysterious 'interests' - 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.'

The 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 (listed above) as follows:

(i) There is not agreement among scientists that global warming is happening:

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... ) 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 (O16 and O18) records the temperature. He prints graphs 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-20^th century.

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 400ppm (Wikipedia quotes 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 18^th century. This level 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 £6 bn) (sorry, I forget my source for this!).

A piece in New York Times (Sat Apr 15^th 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...

One part of the problem is that the north and south poles are covered in ice, and if the temperature of the earth rises this will begin to melt and low-lying areas of land will be flooded. 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 Stream which 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)

An IPCC report issued in late March 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.

However, some scientists dispute the link with 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:

(ii) Other things, specifically sun spots are the cause of any ‘global warming’:

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).

(iii) 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:

CO2 levels are now at 392 ppm (parts per million) according to NASA. This is the highest they have been for 650,000 years – previous highest levels have been around 300 ppm. 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.)

(iv) 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, and when the ocean becomes colder it holds more CO2, so the atmosphere then holds less and this leads to more cooling. 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.

The crucial point, once again, is how human activity is interfering with these natural cycles.

(v) 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.

(vi) 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

(vii) 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 11^th 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;

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.

(viii) 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.

See also below: updates from the press (9^th Aug 2015)

(ix) The coalition government paid lip-service to the idea of climate change but hasn’t done anything about it and is building more coal-fired power stations – so there can’t be a problem:

Yes, governments say what they think will get them votes, and then renege on their promises! The question is why? In this instance the interests of the energy industry have obviously out-weighed scientific opinion. It is fairly clear that behind much of the ‘climate scepticism’ there are voices backed up by the oil, coal, gas and electricity generating industries...

I do not agree with everything George Monbiot writes (he’s pro nuclear power, and went over the top in criticising the East Anglia CRU scientists) but he has done a thorough job on looking into who is behind climate change denial e.g.: US coal companies have set up a lobbying organisation called ICE; and Dr Patrick Michaels is often quoted as an expert, but is paid by the industry; the Heartland Institute, which also argues against climate change, was founded by Exxon (*). See: http:///monbiot.com/2009/12/07the-real-climate-scandal

(*) This is not to mention the well-known climate expert Nigel Lawson, who served as Chancellor under Mrs. Thatcher and who represents right-wing pro-market economics. (See section 4 below #sceptics for more on climate ‘sceptics’). Pro-market economists and others have always resisted the idea of climate change, since to deal with it would require government intervention... Are you happy to be in this kind of company – along with the Republicans and the Tea Party in the USA? Another well-known writer with no scientific credentials who nevertheless feels himself qualified to debunk climate change is Christopher Booker, author of ‘The Real Global Warming Disaster’. The book is reviewed by Philip Ball, (Obs 15.11.09), who says that much of the book is ‘bunk’, and refers to another website concerning temperature changes: http://tiny.cc/mpjJB

Monbiot takes two examples from: Climate Cover-Up by James Hoggan and Richard Littlemore, Greystone Books, 2009, others are in books by Ross Gelbspan and George Monbiot himself...

Another ‘sceptic’, Stewart Brand, wrote: Whole Earth Discipline (Atlantic Books) – but is paid by industry.

It is sometimes argued that TV companies etc are biased towards those who make the case for climate change, but it is in fact the case that these scientists are often subject to political pressure not to publicise their views. For example (drawing on George Monbiot’s work again – article in the Guardian 10.04.07): the film “The Great Global Warming Swindle”: Broadcast on Channel 4, Thursday 8^th March, Directed by Martin Durkin, was not only full of errors, but misrepresented the views of four scientists, including the oceanographer Professor Carl Wunsch, who, when he complained that he had been misrepresented, received a legal letter from Durkin’s production company threatening to sue him unless he retracted this statement!

Martin Durkin claims he was subject to “invisible censorship” because the Independent Television Commission found that he had misrepresented the views of four complainants!

In America, the Union of Concerned Scientists carried out a survey to find out about constraints that had been put on them – 279 climate scientists working for federal agencies responded: 58% felt that they had been subject to pressure to remove the words “climate change” “global warming” etc from reports, their work had been edited by superiors to change the meaning, their findings had been misrepresented by officials, reports on the web about climate change had disappeared or been delayed. They reported 435 incidents of political interference over the past five years.

Monbiot also claims that:

In 2003 the White House gutted a report by the EPA.

Thomas Knutson who published a paper in 2004 linking rising emissions with cyclones, was blocked from speaking to the media.

In 2006 the top Nasa climate scientist James Hanson reported that his bosses were trying to censor his lectures.

A former White House aide Philip Cooney – not a scientist – admitted he made hundreds of changes to government reports about climate change on behalf of the Bush administration.

(x) Finally, and consequently, I would argue we need to watch very carefully who is saying what about climate change.

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). 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).

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."

(xi) Conclusion:

In my (previous) lecture, on 'Environmentalism,' I pointed out that we do not simply face one environmental problem (global warming), but a series of inter-connected problems of pollution, resource depletion, population growth, and land shortage – not to mention the evil that is the mal-distribution of wealth and wellbeing, resulting in so many people throughout the world starving (and which requires solutions in the field of politics).

In fact, the crucial questions really do not concern the science (though that has to be right – which I believe it is), but the understanding we have of our place in the universe, and, building on this, the strategy to be adopted to deal with a range of interconnected environmental problems in order to make the world a place worth living in for the foreseeable future.

Main References for ‘Response’:

An Inconvenient Truth, by Al Gore, Bloomsbury 2006.

Storms of my Grandchildren, by James Hansen, Bloomsbury 2009.

Links to NASA site on climate change:

http://climate.nasa.gov/keyIndicators/index.cfm#globalTemp

http://climate.nasa.gov/effects/

George Monbiot’s archive:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/georgemonbiot?INTCMP=SRCH

Articles by Robin McKie:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/dec/26/robin-mckie-carbon-emissions-up

Additional source: 21.10.11:

The Berkeley Earth project has compiled more than a billion temperature records dating back to the 1800s, and found the earth is warming – and has warmed by around 1C since the mid-1950s. This report should put an end to the queries from some sceptics (probably only from the more serious ones – others will remain in denial). In particular the report shows that several issues that sceptics claim can cause global warming have no meaningful effect. (Ian Sample 21.10.11)

4. CLIMATE ‘SCEPTICS’: IS THERE A CONTROVERSY OVER GLOBAL WARMING?

4.1 Introduction (2004):

There is still some controversy over the precise effects of global warming, and some uncertainty as to the exact results, but the majority of scientists now believe that something must be done to reduce carbon dioxide emissions before the changes in the temperature bring about climate change. However, a small group of ‘sceptics’ seem to get a lot of publicity! We need to look behind this.

(i) The politics of scepticism: (Ian Sample, Science Correspondent, The Guardian, 2/2/07)

“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.

The IPCC report was written by international experts and is widely regarded as the most comprehensive review yet of climate change science. (World governments were given a draft in 2006). It says that 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.”

David Viner of Climatic Research Unit, Univ of East Anglia, says:

“It’s a desperate attempt by an organisation who wants to distort science for their own political aims… The IPCC process is probably the most thorough and open review undertaken in any discipline.”

Lord Rees of Ludlow, president of the Royal Society said:

“The IPCC is the world’s leading authority on climate change and its latest report will provide a comprehensive picture of the latest scientific understanding on the issue.”

(ii) The role of the media:

(i) Peter Wilby (New Statesman 16 Dec 2016 – 5 Jan 2017): ‘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...

(ii) Media reporting of science – an article by Robin McKie:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jul/24/science-reporting-climate-change-sceptics

- but misses question of ‘end’ of science, and difference between climate change or MMR (which affect our lives) and theories of the origin of the universe (which presumably don’t!).

4.2 Individual ‘Sceptics’

(i) 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!).

And yet, as McKie points out, the problems caused by CFCs were dealt with – by government and industry agreeing to phase them out and to find alternatives. All done with no sacrifices or suffering on the part of the consumer. Global warming is such a huge and widespread problem it simply has to be dealt with in the same way.

(ii) Martin Durkin, Director of The Great Global Warming Swindle Broadcast on Channel 4, Thursday 8^th March 2007: claims that the average global temperature peaked in 1998, then fell, then was static from 2001 – 2005, then fell slightly in 2006 (according to the Climate Research Unit, UEA, as used by the IPCC); also: when CO2 emissions rose during the post-war boom, global temperature fell… (Letter, Guardian, date?) See 5.2.8 (ii) below for the need to take a long-term view of temperature fluctuations.

This programme has sparked off many responses. It would be pointless to try to summarise more than one or two of these responses, but I liked the following:

George Monbiot, Guardian, 13.03.07:

- the claim is made that warming is due to sun-spot activity, as discovered by Dr Friis-Christensen in 1991. But a paper published in Eos in 2004 shows that the Danish astronomer made incorrect use of the data: in fact the length of the sun-spot cycle has declined recently, while temperatures have risen

- the same astronomer then published another paper (with Henrik Svensmark) claiming it was due to solar radiation, which he said correlated with cloud cover – but the problem with this was they had used satellite information which did not in fact measure cloud cover, and a paper in the Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-terrestrial Physics shows no correlation when the right data is used

- then Svensmark published an article claiming that cosmic rays could form tiny particles in the atmosphere – but the press release that accompanied took the argument way beyond what the paper actually showed – see Dr Gavin Schmidt, of Nasa, at www.realclimate.org

- the ”Great Global Warming Swindle” film makers publicise Svensmark’s claims as if they were unproblematic

- it then quotes Professor John Christy’s view that there are discrepancies in temperature at different levels in the atmosphere. This was shown to be incorrect by three papers in Science magazine in 2005. Christy himself has accepted he was wrong

- oceanographer Carl Wunsch on the other hand says the film “completely misrepresented” his views – not the first time the programme-maker, Martin Durkin has done this, and Channel 4 had to apologise after the ITC found he had (in a previous series of programmes) misled interviewees and distorted their views through selective editing.

(iii) George Monbiot, G 031109 on Clive James’ scepticism: surveys suggest number of people sceptical is increasing: Pew Research Centre: proportion of Americans accepting global warming has fallen from 71% to 57% in 18 months. Rasmussen: 44% American voters believe global warming is due to natural causes, as against 41% that is result of human action…Science Museum computer poll has had 1,006 endorsing ‘evidence for man-made climate change [mmcc]’ and 6,110 rejecting. Top books at Amazon are vs mmcc. Clive James claimed on radio 4 that there is a shift in scientific opinion – none, says Monbiot – and that there is no consensus – rubbish… M speculates that mainly older people are sceptical, and this due to ‘vital lies’ and ‘character armour’ which protect us from fear of death (Ernest Becker, 1973) – we engage in immortality projects and projects which boost our self-esteem… Recently Janis L. Dickinson, in Ecology and Society, suggests mmcc reminds people of death, and leads to strengthening of character armour in ways that reduce chances of survival. Others eat/consume more!!!

(iv) Review by Philip Ball of book (Obs 15.11.09) by Christopher Booker ‘The Real Global Warming Disaster’ – rounds up criticisms of majority scientific view of global warming – some of it is true, but much is bunk… stratagem of introducing climate sceptics with no comment, but attacking non-doubters. Attacks ‘hockey-stick graph’ which now accepted not reliable anyway. Devil is in details, so too much to cover in review, but does e.g. use cold winter of 2008 as grounds for attacking global warming (one swallow…) – also slight cooling since 2003, which doesn’t refute longer-term changes. See http://tiny.cc/mpjJB (says Philip Ball). Crucial point: either the world’s scientists have conspired to prove with computer graphs etc that something is happening which isn’t – and only Bush and the oil industry have not been foiled… or: they’re all wrong!

(v) The best known “sceptic” is Bjorn Lomborg (2001) – and the United States has taken the position that there is no crisis, by pulling out of the Kyoto agreement (see below). However, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate change, and Sir David King, scientific advisor to the UK government, are in do doubt about the dangers of climate change. King warns that, amongst other effects, many species of animal will become extinct (Guardian 24/11/04).

(vi) David Bellamy, the well-known television personality and president of the Wildlife Trust, argues that nuclear power is the best option to reduce gases, and he seems to play down the extent of the problem in comparison to, for example, campaigning journalist George Monbiot, with whom he has had a public debate.

On Bellamy’s claim that the BBC is biased and wouldn’t let him do programmes because of his views on global warming:

I hadn’t realised how intemperate he had become (!) until I found this article in The Australian. ‘The price of dissent on global warming’:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/the-price-of-dissent/story-e6frg7b6-1111118127677

Interesting that he says he opposed global warming theory as far back as 1996 – I’m not sure this is true (see 3. below).

But perhaps the BBC is actually biased towards ‘sceptics’ – the geneticist Steve Jones wrote a paper (reported by Robin McKie in the Observer 24.07.11:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jul/24/science-reporting-climate-change-sceptics

- in which he says they do not appreciate the nature of science, and fail to distinguish between ‘well-established fact and opinion’ and so they end up giving publicity to marginal beliefs such as anti-MMR activists. Brian Cox made the same point in a televised lecture (I think it was the annual Royal Society lecture). The reason for this is probably that the media like a controversy – which is understandable, but they need to get things into proportion surely?

The science: I haven’t followed up Bellamy’s specific points about African lakes or Russian use of water from lakes for growing cotton – he may be right; but his general attack on global warming is a fringe view not supported by the vast majority of scientists – see the latest ‘meta-study’ by a group of scientists at the university of California, Berkeley, who were originally sceptical. Here is a Guardian article which includes a graph from the report – and makes the point that since global temperatures fluctuate in the short term (up to 15 years) we need to take a long-term view. This the graph does:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/blog/2011/mar/31/scienceofclimatechange-climate-change-scepticism

Here’s another article on the same report:

http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2011/10/best-paper-release

The real reason no one listens to Bellamy? According to Wikipedia, in 1997 Bellamy stood for the Referendum Party against John Major, and acknowledged afterwards - in 2002 - that this was probably why he was not asked to appear on TV any more “it was probably the most stupid thing I ever did…”

It wasn’t until 2004 (as George Monbiot also points out) that he challenged the theory of global warming – yet he hadn’t been on TV for 10 years by then…

More importantly, in this article, George Monbiot seeks out where David Bellamy got his ‘facts’ about glaciers not melting.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2005/may/10/environment.columnists

Bellamy’s scepticism was reported on here, when he joined a group called The New Zealand Climate Science Coalition. This was founded by a former neo-liberal MP (see below: who are the sceptics?). .

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/technology/news/article.cfm?c_id=5&objectid=10406591

(vii) (3^rd Oct 2010 Obs.) Stewart Brand: Whole Earth Discipline (Atlantic Books) – compiled Whole Earth catalogue in ‘60s; founded one of the first online communities the WELL in 1985. Suggests we need more cities, nuclear power, GM food, planet-wide geo-engineering to avoid disaster from global warming. Says the green movement may be going this way. More people should get involved in technology to ensure we use good technology to undo the harm of bad tech.

- but see George Monbiot on Brand and Moore and their PR work for industry…

(viii) ‘Rational optimist’ - Science writer Matt Ridley - The Rational Optimist 4^th Estate May 2010 £20 – also author of: The Red Queen, about the evolution of sexual reproduction; The Origins of Virtue, 1996, on evolution of society in genes, animals and humans; The Genome: the autobiography of a Species in 23 Chapters, 2000 (just before human genome was mapped); Nature via Nurture….

In the Rational Optimist he argues that it is exchange of ideas, as well as artifacts etc that has made humans able to progress (animals don’t do it). Culture is the result of exchange, and this is what makes it evolve (while biological evolution depends on sex – bringing together different genes). (‘Sex is to biology as exchange is to culture’.) Consequently argues we have become better off over time, and doesn’t like ‘doom-mongering’ – yes there are limits to resources, but we can find ways round this if we exchange ideas. Is against regulation of commerce (things, services, etc) because it stifles progress; but admits that exchange of capital and assets is different and can cause bubbles. Shopkeeper has no interest in short-changing you if he wants you as a customer – this effect doesn’t happen in a market of capital and assets. Prosperity is a bottom-up thing – governments tend to see it as top-down.

Tends to rub e.g. Monbiot up the wrong way, presumably because of his optimism. Monbiot: government has a responsibility to ensure redistribution, as the system is bound to produce inequalities.

Note: he was a non-executive chairman of Northern Rock, and got into trouble for not preventing the crisis… (people without expertise were wanted on the boards at the time…) but started off as a naturalist, then science editor for the Economist, then its Washington correspondent; is nephew of Thatcher’s cabinet member Nicholas Ridley, and owns Blagdon Hall… Also set up Centre for Life (life sciences centre) at Newcastle.

Review of ‘The Evolution of Everything’ in New Statesman 20-26 Nov 2015.

Update: 15^th July 2016, (Damian Carrington, Guardian): Ridley – an influential member of the House of Lords (Viscount Ridley), and former chairman of Northern Rock – has been lobbying the government for the benefit of the coal industry. He benefits from coalmines on his estate, and has used his column in the Times to downplay the seriousness of climate change. He wrote to energy minister Lord Bourne in April: recommending a Texas-based company which has ‘fascinating new technology... [which] represents a PROFITABLE use for CO2 emissions from power stations, by turning them into cheap chemical feedstocks with a new process.’ He argue this might give Northumbrian coal mining a new lease of life... Guy Shrubsole of FoE says it is wrong that Ridley should lobby to extend the life of the coal industry while he attacks clean energy (‘I look forward to manning the barricades against windfarms once again on Tuesday’ [there was a debate in parliament during which he spoke up against wind power.]. Ridley is on the advisory panel of Lord Lawson’s climate-sceptic thinktank the Global Warming Policy Foundation.

The name of the company is redacted in the FOPI request, but Carrington believes it is Skyonics – they turn CO2 into chemicals, including baking soda and hydrochloric acid. It has received $25m from the US government.

(ix) Attenborough, David vs Nigel Lawson: in Observer Magazine, 28.10.12 talks about the environmental crisis – size of the world’s population is the main problem, but also working on a film on damage to the oceans (waste plastic especially). Has been criticised for not speaking earlier about global warming, but now has run up against Nigel Lawson for his arguments about melting polar ice (in an episode of his TV film Frozen Planet) – Lawson shows a complete misunderstanding of the global nature of the crisis we are facing (by picking on spots where the world has got colder!). He is ‘up a gum tree’.

Susanna Rustin interview:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/tv-and-radio/2011/oct/21/david-attenborough-frozen-planet-climate-change

Martin Hughes Games has criticised David Attenborough and his TV series, because it concentrates on entertaining pictures of animals without pointing out how many are facing extinction.

(x) Neo-greens: (Aug 2012)

Paul Kingsnorth argues this group tries to combine business, advanced technology, globalisation etc, with a post-modern outlook (nature as human construct) to solve the environmental dilemma. Groups: the Breakthrough Institute, Long Now Foundation, Copenhagen Consensus. Typical spokesperson Stewart Brand. Favours megacities, GM crops. Mark Lynas promotes nuclear power; Emma Marris argues there is no real wilderness to protect; Peter Kareiva: nature should be managed for our benefit. Kingsnorth argues greens have ‘asked for’ this – as they have avoided the intuitive, emotional relationship with the wild world. Explore and value the local, he says (see books below).

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/aug/01/neogreens-science-business-save-planet

(xi) Who are the sceptics?

My concern about many ‘sceptics’ is that their background and connections are on the ‘libertarian right’ (like the Tea Party) – see the recent issue (29^th Oct 2011) of New Scientist:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21228361.500-science-in-america-decline-and-fall.html?full=true

see also the ‘Planet Oz’ blog by Graham Redfearn:

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/planet-oz

- or they have connections with business, and specifically with the oil and energy industries. Here is a paper on links between ‘climate sceptics’ and oil companies:

http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2011/04/900-papers-supporting-climate-scepticism-exxon-links

Of course the ‘dissenters’ don’t speak with one voice, but there are some very dodgy bedfellows among them:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/04/climate-change-scepticism-climate-change

(xii) Finally, see my notes on corporate lobbying at: csr6environment.htm#corporatelobby

5. What can I do about it?

Have a look at this: https://www.couponchief.com/guides/guide_to_cheap_green_living

6. From the Press etc - updates on climate change (most recent first):

29^th Dec 2016: Birds migrating earlier: Researchers at the University of Edinburgh who looked at hundreds of bird species across five continents, found that birds are reaching their summer breeding grounds on average one day earlier for every degree of increasing global temperatures. (Guardian.) The research is published in the Journal of Animal Ecology, and supported by the Natural Environment Research Council.

21^st Dec 2016: soot. Fiona Harvey, Guardian: soot ranks second only to carbon dioxide as a contributor to global warming. And it would be quicker to cut soot than reduce CO2. Sources: Paul Bledsoe, former White House advisor, Hailong Wang, atmospheric scientist at US pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Piers Forster (Univ of Leeds) Maria Sand (Cicero Institute Norway): reducing soot could lower Arctic temperatures by 0.2 degrees in a few decades. Endorsed by Mike Childs at FoE.

Dec 2016: Alice Bell of 10:10 warns we are all climate change deniers unless we do something about it. And effects are here already:

‘Not everyone has the luxury of ignoring climate change. People are already feeling it as droughts, wildfires and floods become more common. As temperatures creep ever higher, it’ll hit more and more of us, more and more obviously. Knock-on effects mean that, along with battling fire, water and mud, food will become more scarce. If you don’t spot climate change in the rising tides, you may well feel it in your stomach. This is already happening. Arguably, the way climate change affected crops was a contributing factor in the Arab spring’... We mustn’t be discouraged, though, as we can measure the changes precisely and so long as we talk about it we will find solutions. We must ‘break the silence that allows it to go unnoticed and ignored.’

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/dec/06/trump-world-climate-change-denial

16^th Oct 2016 (Observer New Review, Bill McGuire, UCL) Climate change and the weather: Hurricanes vary year-on-year, and recently we have in fact not seen very many. One bad hurricane cannot be blamed on climate change, but there could be more of the most powerful and destructive kind (Kerry Matthew at MIT). There has been strong disagreement among experts, but ‘the weight of evidence looks to have come down on the side of a broad and significant increase in hurricane activity that is primarily driven by progressive warming of the climate.’ Trend is to more powerful and wetter storms, and rising sea temperature is main factor.

Other possibilities: typhoons reduce atmospheric pressure, and this could trigger earthquakes... ‘Global temperatures have risen to more than 1 degree above pre-industrial levels, and in southern Alaska, which has in places lost a vertical kilometer of ice cover, the reduced load on the crust is already increasing the level of seismic activity.’ See McGuire’s book: Waking the Giant: How a changing climate triggers earthquakes, tsunamis and volcanoes.

August 2016: NASA findings on global warming, from Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/aug/30/nasa-climate-change-warning-earth-temperature-warming?utm_source=esp&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=Green+Light+2016&utm_term=188701&subid=8565643&CMP=EMCENVEML1631

Climate reality blog:

http://www.climaterealityproject.org/blog/10-indicators-that-show-climate-change?utm_source=email-newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=General

12^th July 2016: Damian Carrington, Guardian:

The UK is not ready for the consequences of climate change, e.g. heat, floods and disease, according to the Committee on Climate Change (CCC) in report published today. In addition, international warfare and migration prompted by climate change could affect the UK through e.g. disrupted trade, and more military interventions overseas. The report was produced over three years by 80 experts, and reviewed by many more.

We could have heat waves up to 48C in London in the worst case scenario. High temperatures would lead to spread of viruses. Benefits could be that we grow more food – but only if the impact on water supplies and soil fertility can be overcome. Already 85% of the rich peat soils of East Anglia has disappeared. We could lose the remaining fertile soil in the next 30 – 60 years.

Global warming would affect our imports of food (we import 40% of our food).

climate-change-puts-13bn-people-and-158tn-at-risk-says-world-bank Climate change puts 1.3bn people and $158tn (double the total annual output of the global economy) at risk, says World Bank. The Global Facility for Disaster Reduction and Recovery said total damages from disasters had ballooned in recent decades but warned that worse could be in store as a result of a combination of global warming, an expanding population and the vulnerability of people crammed into slums in low-lying, fast-growing cities that are already overcrowded.

the annual cost of natural disasters in 136 coastal cities could increase from $6bn in 2010 to $1tn in 2070.

The report said that the number of deaths and the monetary losses from natural disasters varied from year to year, but the upward trend was pronounced.

Total annual damage – averaged over a 10-year period – had risen tenfold from 1976–1985 to 2005–2014, from $14bn to more than $140bn. The average number of people affected each year had risen over the same period from around 60 million people to more than 170 million.

The World Bank-run body said the population was expected to rise by at least 40% in 14 of the 20 most populated cities in the world between 2015 and 2030, with some cities growing by 10 million people in that period. “Many of the largest cities are located in deltas and are highly prone to floods and other hazards, and as these cities grow, an ever greater number of people and more assets are at risk of disaster.”

And: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/may/16/april-third-month-in-row-to-break-global-temperature-records NASA figures show. There is a spike in temperatures caused by a massive El Nino, which ‘is occurring over a background of rapid global warming.’ The 1.5 degree target rise agreed in Paris in November may be completely unrealistic. Andy Pitman, at ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate System Science, Univ. of NSW, Australia: ‘... it’s wishful thinking. I don’t know if you’d get 1.5C if you stopped emissions today.’

9^th Jan 2016, on TTIP: http://www.theguardian.com/news/2016/jan/09/earth-will-lose-every-time-when-companies-call-shots

2^nd Feb 2016: Patrick Barkham says ‘we are in the midst of a crazy killing spree, the slaughtering of elephants, rhinos and lions on a scale never before witnessed on Earth... In 2007, 13 rhinos were poached in South Africa. In 2014, 1,215 were poached... More than 129,000 elephants have been killed for their ivory since 2012.’

7^th Jan 2016: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/planet-oz/2016/jan/07/era-of-climate-science-denial-is-not-over-study-finds

4 – 10 Dec, New Statesman: Why we fear terrorism more than climate change: http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/energy/2015/12/why-we-fear-terrorism-more-climate-change - we fear terrorists because we are story-telling beings who respond to strong narratives; a terrorist threat is a stronger narrative than global warming. Many people, especially on the right, whilst they want strong action on climate change, they ‘feel ignored’ and do not support the greens because the latter seem to oppose their values of ‘respect, duty and patriotism’ and they see big government, grant-seeking scientists and environmentalists as the real threat... GM says we can overcome this, but to my mind doesn’t say how! GM is author of ‘Don’t even think about it: why our brains are wired to ignore climate change’ (Bloomsbury USA). His organisation is Climate Outreach...

21^st Nov 2015: Tim Flannery, cause for optimism http://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/nov/20/climate-crisis-future-brighter-tim-flannery

1^st Nov 2015: the need for drastic action - http://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/nov/02/atomsphere-hope-tim-flannery-planet-remade-oliver-morton-review

24^th Sep 2015: divestment:

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/sep/23/millions-of-uk-public-sector-pensions-exposed-to-risky-fossil-fuel-investments

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/sep/22/leonardo-dicaprio-joins-26tn-fossil-fuel-divestment-movement

9^th Aug 2015: Greenland’s ice sheets:

New equipment is being used to measure the melting: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/aug/09/omg-nasa-project-oceans-melting-greenland

28/5/15 George Monbiot; a warning from prehistory.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/may/27/threat-islamic-state-fossil-fuel-burning Drought in Syria 2006 – 10 led to one and a half million rural workers emigrating to the cities, and anger as Assad failed to deal with it. This contributed to rise of ISIS.It now seems that the main cause of extinction in prehistoric times was volcanoes spewing CO2 and other gases into the atmosphere, and burning fossil strata in the ground. During the Permian catastrophe 1 -2 gigatonnes of CO@ per year were produced. Now we are producing 30 gigatonnes a year!!

25/5/15: Treasury’s obsession with growth means no action on climate change: Juliette Jowit, G p 9 http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/may/24/growth-climate-change-fossil-fuel-subsidies-treasury-uk-oil-gas-renewable-energy

20/5/15 Refugees and global warming:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/may/19/rohingya-andaman-sea-refugees-migration - there will be more migration as temperatures – and the level of the sea – rise. ‘Already in Bangladesh 50,000 people migrate to the capital every month because rising sea levels have made their villages uninhabitable and have destroyed their arable land.’

20/5/15: Mining company Peabody exploiting Ebola crisis: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/may/19/peabody-energy-exploited-ebola-crisis-for-corporate-gain-say-health-experts