« The greatest Englishman in history. | Main | A report worth reading »
January 26, 2005
Where is the science in this?
The Diplomad has done it again; the latest offering from the committee dealing with the "Global Warming" issue has published a report which is a masterpiece of unbelievable goobledegook. The Diplomad has kindly provided a precis with extensive quotation, and his comments are well worth examination. I find myself, not only in full agreement with him, but wishing I had read it before I put finger to keyboard and composed my last blast about "Crying wolf!"
The report he quotes states "the scientific community is united in the opinion that" - and goes on to say that this "united" agreement is that the earth is getting hotter! But this is very far from the case; in fact the scientific community isn't in agreement, they are very deeply divided over whether it will be meltdown or freeze, and they are not even united on what the root cause is. Frankly, the report is riddled with totally unqualified statements and massive assumptions which completely ignore the facts. As the Diplomad has pointed up, it begins with the assumption that "Global Warming" started in 1750! Pretty rich, as this is pretty much the point at which the "Little Ice Age" which started around 1340 and finished around 1870 started to lift. It then goes on to make the statement that very few temperature readings were available in the 1750 - 1850 period, which, while true, is not strictly the whole truth, either.
As far as I am concerned the fact that the committee that is pushing this as the "scientific" option - the report is remarkably thin on scientific data or figures of any sort - is none other than that master of the Transport, Local Government, and Regions who left office under something of a cloud after his personal adviser told people to "bury bad news" on the back of 9/11 and you will no doubt forgive me if I take the whole thing with a great deal of sceptical laughter! Sadly, it simply goes to prove that the "Global Warming" lobby is prepared to use any means available to drum up support for a scientifically unproven set of measures contained in a treaty that contains figures set for carbon reductions for which not even the scientists can give reasonable explanations.
Ironic, is it not, that they are desperately trying to justify the building of vast and ugly windfarms, hugely expensive "wave energy" stations, and blaming all the industries that they rely on for food, water, transport, household conveniences, and the like, while flatly refusing to even consider the safest and least globally damaging option of all - nuclear power. It seems that this lobby has only one intention: to drive us back to a pre-industrial idyll that they imagine was some sort of paradise in which we all hugged trees and lived healthy and fulfilled lives working our fingers to the bone simply to stay alive.
Surely someone, somewhere is prepared to expose this sham. By all means let us have research into what is happening in the climate, but with the continents migrating, the oceans changing, and overpopulation to deal with, surely this is far more complex than simply "cut carbon emmissions"? Damn it, anyone with half a brain should be able to check back and recognise that fact that, if in Roman times, the UK enjoyed a climate that allowed the growing of grapes and the making of wine as far North as Carlisle - then the climate must have been a whole lot warmer then than it is now!
The climate, like the continents, is slowly but inexorably changing. It's what planets like ours do! Let's stop the weeping and wailing and finger pointing and get down to learning what really makes it tick, what is really happening, and find out how to survive it! Face it, the human race is to this planet what a flea colony is to a dog - and about as influential.
As to the number of aircraft flying about and polluting the upper atmosphere, well, that may be more of a problem, but again, our climatologists can only model the first mile of atmosphere and these big aircraft fly at the upper edge of that. Simply put, we don't actually know what is happening as a result of those aircraft and we currently can't measure it. It is not a simple problem and the answer is far more complex than Kyoto or the simplistic vision of the 10 second soundbite crew". Where is REAL science when you need it?!
Posted by The Gray Monk at January 26, 2005 04:21 PM
Comments
The UN's committment to stop global warming reminds me of a fable about a king who commanded the tides to stop.
Unfortunately, global warming is not a myth. I lived for two decades on a pitiful glacial moraine left by the retreating glaciers. Not far from my home were small, deep holes left by this travesty. A bit farther were much larger, unsightly gouges left by the retreat. We could do little but give them fond names: Michigan, Superior, Erie, Huron...
Just remember when you hear that a consensus of scientists believe anything that a consensus of scientists believed the earth was flat, the sun revolved around the earth, in phlogiston and other such nonsense.
Posted by: greener at January 26, 2005 07:30 PM
Yes, let's continue to burn fossil fuels and ignore the polar ice caps melting, and increase emissions of all sorts of nasties into our atmosphere! Actually, we do need to look at this issue seriously - whether it's down to natural phenomena or caused by man. I suspect both causes. If we continue to treat this as the polarised issue it has become, and try to sweep it under the carpet (like American Big Business), we are then guilty of gambling with our planet and our future. Fancy a bet?
Posted by: Slim Jim at January 27, 2005 02:46 PM
Unlike what some believe, it's NOT just the USA. Actually, they've achieved, under their own national legislation, great reductions, quite a few below anything achieved in the UK or Europe, to the point the air is cleaner here than it is there. Don't snipe at us before you read the actual facts.
Posted by: MommaBear at January 27, 2005 05:22 PM
Contrary to the garbage that is pushed out by the earnest wooly sweater brigade at Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth, the US legislation on emmissions control is in many areas tougher than in the EU. Catalysers were required for petrol engines there before they were in the EU. So were Sulphur scrubbers for fossil fuel burning equipment and they introduced lead free petrol before it had become an issue in the EU.
My point remains - we do not know the direct cause of the climate change, the indicators are mixed and the science is very imprecise. The most persuasive evidence suggests that this is a natural cycle and it is certainly not helpful to blame the US for not jumping in line to the tune that the wooly jumper brigade choose to follow.
Posted by: The Gray Monk at January 27, 2005 07:18 PM
I agree with Slim Jim. Global warming is happening (for instance, the glaciers in the European Alps are receding quite noticeably) and it will have an effect on our living conditions on this planet in the future. So we better keep looking into this and learn more about what is causing it. Another topic is the way we are still squandering our fossil fuels. It's a fact that they won't last forever and we have to look for alternatives. Nuclear power seemed a brilliant idea thirty years ago but no one has come up with a solution so far of how to get rid of the nuclear waste.
Posted by: The Scarlet Manuka at January 27, 2005 08:20 PM
Is there one single reliable method available to show how much climactic change would have occurred without human activity; when there is, then such grandiose pronouncements can be made unchallenged. Until then, all is supposition, subject to much research, but until that day arrives, there should be NO pontification or mudslinging.
Posted by: MommaBear at January 27, 2005 10:08 PM