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 20th Century)]
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
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.
(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
David Bellamy (2011)
- including arguments about ‘bias’ at the
5. From the press: updates etc. (most recent first) #press
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! With regard to carbon dioxide emissions in
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).
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) 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
1995 2nd IPCC Report.
Protocol (building on the Framework Convention) signed by 192 parties (
2001 3rd IPCC Report.
2001 George W Bush opposes
2002 Larsen B ice shelf breaks up – a piece of
ice a quarter the size of
2003 estimated 35,000 Europeans die in extreme summer temperatures.
2004 sudden cold temperatures cause cracks in
2005 Hurricane Katrina hits
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
2009 Barack Obama becomes president and puts billions into renewables.
2009 ‘Climategate’ – e-mails
hacked from Climatic Research Unit at
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
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
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.
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-20th 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
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 18th 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 (
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
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
However, some scientists dispute the link with climate
change (loc cit): John R. Christy,
(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
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:
Hansen in fact identifies no fewer than 9 ‘climate forcings’ – factors that affect the climate (p 6):
- other greenhouse gases,
- 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.
Global warming is being unfairly used by such
scientists as those at
(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
(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!
(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:
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
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
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.
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 (
(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
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 8th 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.
in his book cites a study done by Dr Naomi Oreskes of
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."
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:
George Monbiot’s archive:
Articles by Robin McKie:
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)
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
“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.”
“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:
- 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’
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
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 8th 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.
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…
(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!
The best known “sceptic” is Bjorn Lomborg (2001) – and the
(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
I hadn’t realised how intemperate he had become (!) until I found this article in The Australian. ‘The price of dissent on global warming’:
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
- 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:
Here’s another article on the same report:
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.
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?). .
see George Monbiot on Brand and
(viii) ‘Rational optimist’ - Science writer Matt Ridley - The Rational Optimist 4th 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
Review of ‘The Evolution of Everything’ in New Statesman 20-26 Nov 2015.
Update: 15th 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
(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:
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)
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,
(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 (
see also the ‘Planet Oz’ blog by Graham Redfearn:
- 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:
Of course the ‘dissenters’ don’t speak with one voice, but there are some very dodgy bedfellows among them:
(xii) Finally, see my notes on corporate lobbying at: csr6environment.htm#corporatelobby
Dec 2016: Alice Bell of 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.’
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:
We could have heat waves
up to 48C in
Global warming would affect our imports of food (we import 40% of our food).
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.”
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
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’ (
New equipment is being used to measure the melting: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/aug/09/omg-nasa-project-oceans-melting-greenland
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!!
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
May 2015 Kari Mathiesen, Guardian reports (p 17) that
the British Antarctic Survey has measured ice loss in the Antarctic – the largest ice shelf (Larsen C) is thinning, because of warmer water
underneath as well as warmer air temperatures. Between 1998 and 2012 it has
lost four metres in depth. The danger is that glaciers and ice built up behind
the ice shelf would collapse. Larsen C is two and a half times the size of
3rd May, Observer p 9, Mark Townsend on Garden Bridge project: mining giant Glencore (linked to environmental and human rights abuses, and one of the largest exporters of seaborne coal in the world, so contributing to climate change) is involved, making a metallic lining – encasing the underside in cupro-nickel. The London Mining Network is protesting, as is Greenpeace. Each tree on the bridge would cost 636,000 gbp, as against 4 gbp a tree in a tree-planting scheme. RSPB and Wildlife Trust have withdrawn support.
Interesting that very young children (as young as 3) can distinguish intention from accident – problem is that climate change is caused without intention... We construct social narratives to deal with the issue e.g. we find someone to blame (e.g. oil industry, capitalists etc whilst for denialists it is the leftist conspiracy etc). We need a narrative of shared common purpose.
Gray is his (usual?) pessimistic self: Klein’s argument is that corporate elites are in denial (in fact the opponents of climate change are more on the ball when they reject the predictions of catastrophe).
The first of the book’s three sections details how the environmental movement has been derailed by the financial crisis and the aftermath of austerity, together with the corporate promotion of climate denial. In the last of the three Klein deals with the movements that are springing up in a wide variety of contexts to challenge the neoliberal order. The second section, dealing with what Klein calls “magical thinking”, is in many ways the core of the book. Here she considers technical fixes for climate change, including schemes of geoengineering. In one of the more grandiose schemes, dimming the rays of the sun with sulphate-spraying helium balloons has been proposed in order to mimic the cooling effect on the atmosphere of large volcanic eruptions. The risks of such technical mega-fixes are obvious. As any climate scientist will tell you, we simply don’t know enough about the Earth system to be able to re-engineer it safely. Yet as Klein notes, such madcap schemes will surely be attempted if abrupt climate change gets seriously under way.
Gray’s conclusion: The Earth is vastly older and stronger than the human animal. Even spraying sulphuric acid into the stratosphere will not trouble the planet for long. The change that is under way is no more than the Earth returning to equilibrium – a process that will go on for centuries or millennia whatever anyone does. Rather than denying this irreversible shift, we’d be better off trying to find ways of living with it.
From ? Sunday Times end Sep: by Camilla Cavendish: over-determined to make everyone a villain (even charities and some ‘greens’ – also the reinsurance industry, who have actually been warning about climate change for decades according to Cavendish) so gives the impression that climate change is a ‘leftist conspiracy.’ Not as shocking as her previous books, though it ought to be; good on why we find it difficult to accept (we move fast, climate change moves slowly) – and on mindless consumerism (but why do we crave material goods? We are not just victims of multinationals surely? Cavendish: ‘humans are deeply competitive, acquisitive beings who might retain those characteristics even if all corporations were abolished’ [I say: not so!!].
Too simplistic to say ‘the elites have stolen all the power’? She praises the public sector (but Cavendish: the private sector innovates, invents and invests), and needs to explore what is meant by ‘a completely different economic system’. .
Interesting that very young children (as young as 3) can distinguish intention from accident – problem is that cc is caused without intention... We construct social narratives to deal with the issue e.g. we find someone to blame (e.g. oil industry, capitalists etc whilst for denialists it is the leftist conspiracy etc). We need a narrative of shared common purpose.
‘You know, a lot of the power of the rulers comes from what Bacon said, the marriage of knowledge with power, a particular kind of knowledge, a very mechanistic knowledge that defined nature as dead—and, on the other side, women as passive. So, the exception to the rulers, in this case, is about resurrecting the knowledges that are about the living Earth and our tradition.’
On the legacy
of the First Nations:
‘To me, this is the
patriarchy’: ‘People have knowledge. It might not be recognized
by the dominant system, which I call "corporate patriarchy" now. It
was "capitalist patriarchy" when Chipko
happened, because the corporations weren’t such big players in our lives. They
were contained by all the rules of democracy. And they’ve knocked those rules
off bit by bit. The other thing I always do is build the movement
simultaneously, because I don’t think you can fight these battles top to top.
You just can’t. So, for every study we’ve done and every piece of research
we’ve done, one, we’ve counted a paradigm. I mean, all my work on the green
revolution—it was assumed the green revolution produces more—found out, no, it
doesn’t. Produces more commodities, but commodities are not food. And then we
build the movement. When I came to know about how intellectual property rights
were being put into the World Trade Organization, I traveled the length and
breadth of the country sitting and holding workshops with farmers, who then
rose, and 500,000 came to the street. We’re talking about '92, before
And I think
the challenge of this summit is to put forth another paradigm about how to live
on the Earth—what the Earth is first, she’s not a—you know, she’s not there to
be engineered, she’s not bits of dead rock; she is the living Earth that we
were reminded about—and also, through that, bring forth another leadership for
another world, because we don’t want leadership in that rotten world of
destruction. It’s not worth it anyway. It’s not going to last too long. We want
the seventh generation, cultivation of leadership for the future. And it’s
interesting, the seventh generation logic that Janice talked about, that every
action we take should bring to our minds the seventh generation, in
The first thing is to bring it down from the stratosphere. I think one reason the climate movement on the grassroots has taken longer to grow than movements around biodiversity conservation or water, etc., is because everyone got so overwhelmed with the parts per million, and everyone was looking at the graphs and how they climb and the hockey stick. And looking at the hockey stick is something that is out of control. There’s nothing you can do. But every emission begins on the ground. And every mitigation and adaptation action is on the ground. That’s why I wrote my book, Soil Not Oil. I was starting to feel worried that not only were we only dealing with the IPCC reports, that had kind of become the only place you could act, and go to the climate summits, but we were missing the biggest piece of where do greenhouse gas emissions come from.
You might remember the Kyoto Protocol was supposed to reduce emissions by 5 percent, and by the time we went to Copenhagen, emissions had increased 16 percent, because the solution in Kyoto was allow the polluters to trade in emissions and buy credits from those who don’t pollute. Not only did this make big money for the polluters, I know Arcelor—the Mittal family, which bought up all the steel plants, including the ones in Eastern Europe and France, he made a billion a year just through these emissions trading. But worse, because it all became such a racket, all kinds of really devastating activities started to be treated as Clean Development Mechanisms. One example is the fact that this year, 15th, 16th, 17th of June, we had the most intensive rains, and a glacial lake burst, and flooding like I’ve never seen in my life took place. Twenty thousand people have died in my region, the region where the Chipko movement started. The damage was accelerated by hydro projects, which were all getting Clean Development Mechanism money, in addition to all the benefits government gives.
Agriculture, industrial globalized agriculture is 40 percent of the greenhouse gases. We can do something about it today. If you notice, the official agenda is biochar. Biochar is burning biomass without oxygen, basically how charcoal is made. That’s not what the soil lives on. The soil lives on humus. But biochar is another place to make huge profit, whereas humus is just giving back to the Earth what we’ve received from her. And I think the word "humus" has such power, because I think humanity comes from it, humility comes from it, humidity comes from it—everything that gives life and creates our humanity comes from it. So, even though it might look a bit strange, but I think creating organic farms and organic gardens is the single biggest climate solution, but it’s also the single biggest food security solution. And given the economic crisis, both in this country—you watch southern Europe, you see the riots in Greece and Italy and Spain, and I work with youth, unemployed youth, in all of these places, one of the things I’m telling them all is go back to the land. You know, the banks messed up your lives. The governments have given up on you with their austerity programs. But the Earth will never abandon you. She is inviting you to be co-creators and co-producers so that we can solve all these multiple problems, which are interconnected.
And I think if there’s one thing women can bring to this discussion, in addition to those beautiful words that Jane used of love and compassion, the capacity to have compassion is the capacity to see connections. That’s the disease that the deeply patriarchal mindset has not been able to overcome, that they can’t transcend fragmentation and separation and thinking in silos, and, worse, thinking as if we are separate from the Earth, and therefore, as masters and conquerors, there’s just another experiment of control that you need the freedom to have. And I think we need to give a message saying, no, the Earth was not made by you, therefore you can’t fool around further. You’ve already messed up enough. Stop these geo-engineering experiments. We had a discussion on Democracy Now!, I remember, once about this. We need to tell them this world is about life, not just about your profits and your bottom line, so don’t reduce everything to a commodity, and don’t financialize every function of the Earth and all her gifts. So I think this is really the moment for another discussion, another thinking. And in all of this, the beautiful thing is, the concrete solutions are the most radical ones. The abstract has had its day.
With a 2°C increase, “sea level rise of several meters could be expected,” they say. “Increased climate extremes, already apparent at 0.8°C warming, would be more severe. Coral reefs and associated species, already stressed with current conditions, would be decimated by increased acidification, temperature and sea level rise.
The paper’s lead author is James Hansen, now at Columbia University, New York, and the former NASA scientist who in 1988 put global warming on the world’s front pages by telling a US government committee that “It's time to stop waffling so much and say the evidence is pretty strong that the greenhouse effect is here.”
fellow authors include the economist Jeffrey
Their argument is that humanity and nature - “the modern world as we know it” - is adapted to what scientists call the Holocene climate that has existed for more than 10,000 years - since the end of the Ice Age, the beginnings of agriculture and the first settlement of the cities.
The scientists’ case is that most political debate addresses the questions of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, but does not and perhaps cannot factor in the all potentially dangerous unknowns – the slow feedbacks that will follow the thawing of the Arctic, the release of frozen reserves of methane and carbon dioxide in the permafrost, and the melting of polar ice into the oceans.
97% of climate scientists agree that mankind is causing climate change. A survey by Naomi Oreskes of every peer-reviewed paper on ‘global climate change’ (928 in total) found not one that rejected the consensus position. The IPCC goes through thousands of peer-reviewed papers every year. The academies of science from 34 different countries have signed up to the IPCC position. Climate change deniers talk of this being a conspiracy – but how on earth could that number of people take part in such a conspiracy? And why? Meanwhile the WHO says that already 150,000 lives are lost every year to climate change...
Hasan says the real conspiracy theorists are the deniers! He quotes an interview he did with Richard Lindzen (professor of meteorology at MIT) – who claims that all the scientists who have argued that climate change is happening have been told ‘issue a statement on this’ – but he wouldn’t say who was telling them to do it!
- includes an interesting series of comments. One has a diagram showing CO2 levels and temperature going back into prehistoric times, and apparently showing temperatures going down while CO2 rises etc. I am sure there must be an answer to this...
Nature Geoscience 28th July reports that clouds scatter light back into space (as well as down to earth, which is why they look bright). On Venus, CO2 built up so much that became a hot, barren planet (a runaway greenhouse effect in other words). We are a wet planet and so our clouds could prevent this. A leaked IPCC report, which was publicised in the Economist, says the clouds may slow down global warming. Whereas they had previously said that 445 – 490 ppm of CO2 were likely to lead to a temperature rise of 2 to 2.4 degrees, they now say the likely rise would be 1.3 – 1.7 degrees.
while the Economist says that ‘some IPCC scientists think the projected rise in
CO2 levels might not have a big warming effect as was once thought,’ Brooks
points out that we have now discovered that methane is leaking from gas pipes
in urban areas in the US.
Twelve of the 14 warmest years on record have occurred since 2000; the last two years have been marked by catastrophic floods in Australia and record-breaking temperatures in the US; and the loss of north polar ice has accelerated at such a rate that climate modelers expect the Arctic Ocean to be routinely ice-free in September after 2040.’
These points are made in the light of the suggestion that the recent slowing in the rate of warming is due to cyclic cooling of the oceans. It may be that the deep oceans are warming. But there is no room for complacency: the greenhouse gases emitted 20 years ago have still to make their effect – and the energy in heated water in the oceans has to come out eventually.
These authors support nuclear (and the reviewer says the French cut 80% of their carbon emissions by nuclear in the ‘80s) and CCS, and to work out a way of doing photosynthesis to produce fuel (leaving natural photosynthesis for food growth).
The two biggest problems facing the world he says are poverty and climate change. He expressed alarm that global temperatures could increase by 4 degrees by 2060, and asked the leaders of the environment movement “where’s the plan?”
“We need to present [a plan] to the population and say there are going to be trade-offs and life is going to change a bit, but how much do you love your kids. The scientific evidence on climate change is overwhelming, and if you believe the science it is about family values. It’s not about your great grandchildren, it’s about your children.”
Aug. 2012: CCS - Carbon capture and storage – article by Simon Neville, Guardian 6th Aug tells how this no longer looks viable because the price of carbon is too low, owing to the credit crunch... Hey Ho, another success for marketisation!!!
August 2012 – excellent account by George Monbiot of how the melting of the Arctic
sea ice (which is happening much faster than expected – and faster than IPCC
predicted) is probably affecting the weather: the north polar jet stream
normally functions as a barrier between the cold wet weather to the north and
the warmer drier weather to the south; its meandering (the Rossby waves) is
made steeper and wider by arctic heating (see a paper in Geophysical Research
Letters). Thus we get stuck with either wet weather or warmer weather for
longer periods than usual. See: http://www.monbiot.com/2012/08/27/the-heat-of-the-moment/
- for fully referenced version of the
Guardian article of
does need updating itself, though, since the Russian company Gazprom has decided not to try to extract shale gas in the
Update: Monday May 7th 2012 from Guardian, Leo Hickman reports on Diageo (the drinks company) withdrawing support from the Heartland Institute because of its advocacy of climate scepticism, when it ran a series of adverts comparing people concerned about climate change to mass murderers such as the Unabomber... General Motors has also withdrawn support, and Microsoft (which has provided software) has rejected its stance. See:
Dec 2011. New Scientist reports on
14.06.11: John Vidal on extreme weather – we had the warmest spring for 100 years
followed by the coldest winter in 300 years. In 2010
26.12.10 Robin McKie article – we have known about the danger of CO2 since David Keeling (climate scientist) installed measuring devices on Mauna Lee in 1958. He found rising and falling corresponding to trees in winter or summer – when he started the levels were around 315 ppm, and today they are nearer 390 – and will touch 400 around 2015. Climate sceptics have never refuted the Keeling curve. In 1990 we reached 350, which many scientists believe was the most the planet could take without suffering climate change. We have seen the average global temperature rise by 0.8 degrees C, and if we stopped all emissions tomorrow they would still rise another 0.2. If 2 degrees is reached then 3 billion people will suffer water shortages, and global food production will be disrupted (says the UN). See:
James Hansen, NASA scientist, in defence of 114 activists
who planned break into Eon coal-fired plant near
Nov 2010: (John Vidal, G 24.11.10) UN report by 30 leading scientists says the pledges made by 80 countries to reduce CC emissions fall far short of what is needed to reduce temperature rise by 2 degrees C. If they do all they promised (i.e. best case scenario – things could work out worse), would still be a 5 bn tonne per year gap (equivalent to emissions from all the world’s vehicles in one year).
More than half the world’s countries are pressing for max 1.5% rise – which would need annual cuts of 4 – 5% after 2010 (UN environment programme chief scientist Joseph Alcamo). Above a 2 degrees rise would mean more loss of icecaps, and more extreme weather events.
Oct 2010 (NY
Times): Carbon neutral city: ‘Self-sufficient and carbon-neutral city’: Masdar, on the outskirts
summit to be held in
Damian Carrington adds: Only 32m tonnes of pollution permits will need to be surrendered to meet the cap – a tiny fraction of the 1.9bn tonnes of emissions covered by the ETS each year. This saving is the result of the economic crisis having driven down economic activity while the caps remain at the same level.
(GM): Recession has led to rise in number of carbon permits waiting to be used. No likelihood of lowering the caps either. Targets achieved are unreal anyway, since exclude net emissions that arise from outsourcing (and buying back manufactured products), also exclude tourism, shipping and aviation!!! If these were included our emissions would have risen by 48%. Govt claims we have reduced emissions since 1990 by 19% when really we have increased by about 29%.
agreement on funding of ‘mitigation and adaptation’ (effects on developing countries, and how to avoid in future).
Investment in clean technology: need clear signal to markets, otherwise development and investment will not happen says head of UN environmental programme Achim Steiner. EU has offered $110 bn a year (£60 bn) by 2020 but this is at bottom end of what needed. Need $50 bn by 2015.
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!
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…
Recently Brown and Stern have recommended we reduce CO2 by 80%, not 60%, by 2050, to prevent 2 degree rise – previous figures based in 1995 paper. Monbiot 04.12.07 calculates reduction needed is much greater (95 – 98%)!!! Currently average production per person is 3.58 tonnes. See below on value/cost of carbon etc.
Nov 2008 Contraction and Convergence, and carbon rationing: (from Ecologist mag,): Western countries must reduce (contract) their CO2 emissions, while some developing countries can be allowed to increase theirs until the world converges on a sustainable carbon footprint (between 1 and 2 tonnes annually [per person?] at current population levels.) The website for CRAG (Carbon-Rationing Action Group) has table showing how the average footprint of its members has reduced: www.carbonrationing.org.uk there are 650 members (2008) and a wiki-based site also…
Feb 2008: Climate Change is killing people… says Dr Simon Lewis (G260208): but there is no monitoring, so we don’t know how many. He was an expert witness at a trial of activists who shut down an EON power station to “prevent deaths” – judge said this could not be proved. WHO estimates 150,000 die each year but this from a 2002 study, including only 4 impacts/causes: malaria, malnutrition, diarrhea, flooding. Need to work out ways of measuring and to publicise!
Jan 2008: Tom Burke, founding director of E3G (not-for-profit sustainable
development organisation) (G 160108): scale of problem must be recognised: need
avoid 2% increase but have already increased 0.7, and cannot prevent another
0.7… Must cut all CO2, including agriculture, deforestation, etc – no time to
learn from our mistakes, and dwarfs anything we have faced before. Agrees must
move to electricity, as CO2 from oil/gas cannot be stored
(especially cars, also home boilers?). Only 3 sources: renewables, nuclear,
fossil + CCS. Wind added 15 GW last yr – nuclear added only 2GW. Coal is main
21.01.2008: Caitlin Fitzsimmons, mediaguardian: The Advertising Standards Authority criticised Shell for claiming its waste CO2 was used to grow plants when only 0.5% of its waste was CO2. “Green marketing” one of the fastest growing areas of consumer/marketing: 61% of marketers agree a company’s sustainability practices affect customers’ buying decisions (Marketing Trends Survey Autumn 2007). Proctor and Gamble (Ariel), Innocent Drinks, Head of Eurostar: green marketing an imperative now, or companies will be left behind… Pitfall: accusations of “greenwash...” To avoid this accusation, companies have to follow up on their claims. Social marketing is now part of the profession. Makes a company good to work for, too. [see notes on ethical marketing in csr notes]
04.12.07: George Monbiot: recently Brown and Stern have recommended we reduce CO2 by 80%, not 60%, by 2050, to prevent 2 degree rise – previous figures based in 1995 paper. Monbiot calculates reduction needed is much greater (95 – 98%)!!! Currently the average production per person is 3.58 tonnes.
Problem of feedback: as climate warms, sea and soil may produce more CO2, also
tropical forests may die so the environment may be less able to absorb CO2.
Taking CO2 from air is possible but expensive: @ £256 – 458 per tonne, 3 x cost
of wind turbines, 2 x cost of nuclear power, slightly cheaper than tidal power,
8 x cheaper than domestic solar panels (government figures).
Also Prof Rod
Guardian letter (07.11.07): How to measure emissions, and who pays? Letter suggests that there should be “four protocols for green firms carbon footprint”: direct emissions (by the organisation), indirect emissions (purchased from electricity generators etc) other indirect emissions (supply chain e.g. transport, waste disposal), and what about emissions caused by use of the product? At present, this is down to the consumer, but products should be manufactured in such a way that there is minimal CO2 used.
Consumer/marketing: 61% of marketers agree a company’s sustainability practices affect customers’ buying decisions (Marketing Trends Survey Autumn 2007). “Green marketing” one of the fastest growing areas of the sector, (Caitlin Fitzsimmons, mediaguardian 210108) Proctor and Gamble (Ariel), Innocent Drinks, Head of Eurostar: green marketing an imperative now, or companies will be left behind… Pitfall: accusations of “greenwash” and ASA criticised Shell for claiming its waste CO2 was used to grow plants when this only 0.5% of its waste CO2. To avoid accusation, have to follow up on claims. Social marketing now part of the profession. Makes a cy good to work for, too. [and see on ethical marketing in CSR…]
Contraction and convergence. Devised by Global Commons Institute – see Mayer Hillman letter G 090707. Greenpeace, FOE, WWF not agree? “Requires contraction of global carbon emissions to a safe level and convergence towards sharing them equally among the world’s population.”
25.07.07: CO2: Climate science: not true that no proof that CO2 can cause global
warming: can demonstrate in lab that CO2 absorbs infra-red
radiation – satellites measure emissions, etc. Just because the solar magnetic
cycle etc can influence the earth’s temperature - as Piers Corbyn
of Weather Action says - (and as accepted by climate-scientists) this does not
mean it is the only factor. Keith Shine,
Also: Martin Durkin, Director of The Great Global Warming Swindle (see below!): 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)
“The report released on Friday was shorn of the
warning that “
Accusations from “climate change deniers” (Dominic, Lawson, Tom Utley, Janet Daley among others) that the environmentalists are trying to shut down debate are thus the reverse of the truth! Martin Durkin (The Great Global Warming Swindle see link below) claims he was subject to “invisible censorship” because the Independent Television Commission found that he had misrepresented the views of four complainants! Professor Carl Wunsch, 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!
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.
Leggett says that the reason for this is that lobbyists from Exxon, OPEC etc tried (at first unsuccessfully) to soften the language of the report by lobbying governments and the IPCC. The lobbying became
more effective afterwards, for example by the oil industry getting “proxy” representation in politics, especially at the White House. There were two more IPCC reports that removed more of the initial doubts
of the environmental crisis: there could be feedback mechanisms in the environment which would lead to a runaway effect, and we should cut down drastically on carbon fuel use. If this were a warning of
would be taken without delay. Billions should be invested in renewable and
Jan 2007: Carbon footprint: carbon reduction action groups (crag) aim to
get members to reduce carbon footprint – can be penalized by the group if go
beyond [how?!]. Andy Ross (in FoE) set one up in
Warwickshire (Obs 21.01.07 – Cash section!). Targets
www.climatecare.org or www.carbonrationing.org.uk which is more complex – also see www.cred-uk.org (carbon reduction project – national and in US). Royal Society website has figures so you can compare with others: www.rsacarbonlimited.org
Oct 2006: Stern Report – cheaper to tackle issue than wait to
deal with consequences – Global warming could swallow up 20% of world’s
George Monbiot’s criticisms: G 190208) the Stern Report uses a formula where he attaches a price “equivalent to a reduction in consumption” to measure the costs of climate change (some of which are quantifiable e.g. food prices, flood damage; but what about destruction of ecosystems, loss of life, refugees, disease?). Consumption is not just of material goods, food etc but education, health and the environment, which he admits “raises profound difficulties”. Still, he comes up with a figure of between 5% and 20% “equivalent reduction in consumption” should global temperature rise by 5 – 6 degrees. Apart from the absurdity of putting a money value on health and wellbeing in this way, it also follows from all this that the poor are less valued than the rich, since the “equivalent reduction in consumption” is lower!!!
Stern then calculates a “social cost of carbon” – but the government has simply turned this into a price, currently £25 a tonne: it then weighs up the savings from a new airport runway, by calculating passengers’ time saved, against the cost of damage to the environment in terms of CO2 at £25 a tonne. But we have to note that it is the poor, especially in the third world, who are most likely to be damaged as a result of climate change – and against their “value” the government puts the savings to wealthy travellers’ time!!!
2001: (?) IPCC has
revised its estimate for rise in temp of globe by 2100, because of positive
feedback, from + 5.8C to + 6.4C. Melting ice-sheets: these reflect nearly 80%
of sunlight – if become soil/darker water, role decreases. Oceans, soils and
trees absorb half CO2 that humans produce. Oceans: phytoplankton dying off as
oceans warm. Soil will reach maximum absorption levels.