Al Gore speak at the December 2009 Climate Talks in Copenhagen this week, and you would not believe how he got mauled by the Media and the Denier-Sceptics. Watch and listen to the links below and consider if you can detect the part that stuck in the throat of those who resist putting a halt to Global Warming.
George Monbiot goes head to head with Professor Ian Plimer, but fails to get a straight answer out of the Australian mining geologist.
The Daily Express newspaper (ably echoed by its cousin The Daily Telegraph) issued an outright Global Warming denial on its front page today :-
“100 REASONS WHY GLOBAL WARMING IS NATURAL : ‘No proof that human activity is to blame’ : Tuesday December 15,2009 : By Martyn Brown : CAMPAIGNERS yesterday attempted to pour scorn on “tenuous” global warming theories by issuing a dossier detailing 100 reasons why climate change is natural and not man-made. The list includes the controversial claim that there is “no scientific proof” that rising levels of greenhouse gases are caused by human activity…”
Intrigued, I actually went to the trouble of purchasing the print edition of the newspaper, so I could gen up. On page 5, the headline “‘There’s little we can do about global warming'”. Oh, so tens of thousands of people in Copenhagen, Denmark, negotiating about the need to reduce Carbon Dioxide Emissions, are all wasting their time ? I think not.
It appears that the Yes Men have staged a huge coup at the Copenhagen Climate Change talks. First they issued a Press Release saying that Canada was going to offer 40% Carbon Emissions reductions. And then they held a Press Conference with a delegate from Uganda to herald the news – see the video here :-
“Canada: We Accept Concept of Climate Debt : Canada gives details of new “Climate Debt Mechanism,” announces details of pilot program in Africa. Ugandan delegation lauds proposal.
Peter Jensen 14/12/2009 13:20″
Some news organisations try really hard to bring you crack-up-to-date, snazzy, intriguing, hot-off-the-press narrative on the unfolding chaos of Climate Change.
Other news organisations think that writing about “Climategate”, as if it were a genuine challenge to Climate Change Science, is a serious piece of journalism.
But they’re wrong; so, so wrong.
The real story is Climate Change. It’s here, and it’s happening now. And it’s frightening.
Clive James has openly admitted that he knows nothing about Climate Change :-
“In praise of scepticism”, 23 October 2009
and yet he still continues to pass judgement on the way the Science is conducted, and accepts the validity of the arguments of the Climate Change deniers :-
“Climate change – a story too often told the same way”, 11 December 2009
I ask you this : since he knows nothing about Climate Change Science, how can he possibly justify accepting the views of the Climate Change deniers ?
Dr Myles Allen, head of the Climate Dynamics group at the University of Oxford’s Atmospheric, Oceanic and Planetary Physics Department is confused. “It is odd that we still don’t take climate change seriously”, he writes in The Guardian online, discussing the fact that a good proportion of the British public don’t believe in Global Warming :-
He might need to wake up to the fact that the British Press are being misled, and in turn, misleading the country.
NEW WEBSITE ! MUST SEE ! The Comeback Real Fightback Truth about Climategate ! :-
ASTONISHING ! REVELATION ! Climate Scientists happily share data ! :-
INCREDIBLE ! EXPLOSIVE ! The “noughties” have been the hottest decade on record ! :-
SCANDAL OF THE WEEK ! Sarah Palin gets press coverage for her views on Global Warming ! :-
Enough of the alerts. Now on to the chewy substance of this posting. If you’re not an American, the term “swiftboating” will probably mean zilch (zero) to you, so you might want to ask the Internet before we continue with our discussion.
Professor Mike Hulme has been the science chap the BBC nearly always call, of late, when they want to inject an alternate view into a piece on Climate Change.
“Chaotic world of climate truth” Viewpoint by Mike Hulme, 4 November 2006
The author of the book “Why We Disagree About Climate Change” has been bravely trying to reframe Climate Change, not as a problem of science, but a problem of society. To some extent, I regard his work as useful. On the other hand, I find some of his work a mind trap.
We’ve had Oxbridge Classics and Language graduates denying Global Warming in the Press in the last couple of weeks; now we’re on to the political commentators.
Why Global Warming Science is a matter for adversarial politics, you know Left and Right, liberal and conservative, I don’t know.
Global Climate Change is affecting us all, and pretty much the same steps will need to be taken by whichever party is in power, in whichever country. It doesn’t really have a political flavour. It’s not a matter of choice, or choice of policy. Climate Change policy is not based on political ideology.
Now, I believe in fairness, fair play and being a good sort, a good sport.
And so for that reason, I’ve been toying with the idea of suggesting that if you’ve been in email contact with a Climate Change denier, and you think the information exchanged would be interesting to others, to post that email correspondence here in a comment.
Truth is, I’m intrigued to know what Climate Change deniers (or “sceptics”) say to each other in private correspondence, and how it is that they have managed to coordinate over the “Climategate” affair when they are in different countries. I’m guessing it’s all been done by email, of course, so I would be interested to read what they’ve been saying to each other.
George Monbiot has written another post on his The Guardian weblog, anxiously chewing his own lips to bloody shreds with the stress of the Climategate situation :-
“Pretending the climate email leak isn’t a crisis won’t make it go away : Climate sceptics have lied, obscured and cheated for years. That’s why we climate rationalists must uphold the highest standards of science : Posted by George Monbiot : Wednesday 25 November 2009 : I have seldom felt so alone. Confronted with crisis, most of the environmentalists I know have gone into denial. The emails hacked from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia, they say, are a storm in a tea cup, no big deal, exaggerated out of all recognition. It is true that climate change deniers have made wild claims which the material can’t possibly support (the end of global warming, the death of climate science). But it is also true that the emails are very damaging. The response of the greens and most of the scientists I know is profoundly ironic, as we spend so much of our time confronting other people’s denial. Pretending that this isn’t a real crisis isn’t going to make it go away. Nor is an attempt to justify the emails with technicalities. We’ll be able to get past this only by grasping reality, apologising where appropriate and demonstrating that it cannot happen again. It is true that much of what has been revealed could be explained as the usual cut and thrust of the peer review process, exacerbated by the extraordinary pressure the scientists were facing from a denial industry determined to crush them…”
Look, George love, we’d like to do something useful, but the problem is one of sheer exhaustion. People are tired of the relentless waves of hysteria and mania coming from the “denial community”. Nothing we say makes them stop, not even for one second. On and on they moan and clatter and hammer.
Sometimes I just want to run and plant a big, fat kiss on your boyish little brow, James Delingpole. Or pat your head in a more appropriately respectful, yet somehow patronising fashion.
For time and time again you prove to me that you do not know what you are talking about, squashing your own arguments flat as a pancake.
Here you prove that you (a) do not know how to do investigative journalism and are (b) quite prepared to repeat verbatim, gaffe by gaffe, what other people write :-
If you were only to skim and skate the Internet for a few minutes more, you could find out that there is an perfectly reasonable explanation for the “Kiwi Korrections” :-
Of course, since you have not been trained as a scientist, you will probably find yourself unable to fully appreciate how perfectly ridiculous you could appear in some eyes.
But not mine. All of a sudden I just love and adore you, for you have presented me with a golden gift with which I could dismiss your rantings as frustrated twaddle, egged on by a wunch of cynics.
Except I wouldn’t. I’m way too nice.
If you care to actually spend 10 seconds looking at the NASA GISS “Blob Chart” (see link above), you will easily detect a continually warming trend. Yes, there are dips and climbs. Yes, there is variability. No, Global Warming did not stop in 1998.
This very easy-reading level of visual information, apparently, is not good enough to convince Janet Daley that Global Warming is happening. She just can’t make it out amongst all the noise, probably coming from the Climate Change Deniers.
Whether she knows it or not, she is not telling the truth.
What on Earth motivates the Competitive Enterprise Institute ? It can’t be the Free Spirit of Free Enterprise. I mean, what organisation sincerely devoted to the principles of honest, open competition would employ the weight of the litigation process to make their arguments for them ? And against a weblogger ? For moderating the weblog ? You are joking ? No, I’m not :-
“Competitive Enterprise Institute intends to sue blogger over moderation policy : Posted on: November 25, 2009 1:59 AM, by Tim Lambert : Gavin Schmidt has done a wonderful job at RealClimate patiently explaining the context of the stolen emails. He’s made it perfectly clear that the claims of scientific malpractice are without foundation. He must be doing a really good job, because the Competitive Enterprise Institute intends to sue him…”
This should get thrown out of court at the earliest possible second. It is patently ridiculous. If Climate Change skeptics/sceptics want Free Speech, they can run their own, privately-funded weblog. Oh yes. They already do. Several. Large corporations/companies are still outsourcing their resistance to Carbon Control via third parties for a handsome remuneration. Maybe somebody should sue Big Business for repeated, outsourced, attempts to cloud, delay and deny Climate Change science ?
The Daily Telegraph seems most keen that the business sector should be at the Copenhagen Climate Change negotiations :-
“Copenhagen Climate Change summit: do businesses need to be there? : The Copenhagen Climate Change summit is fast approaching. There’s going to be an army of negotiators in the Danish capital but do businesses need to be there? By Kamal Amed : Published: 19 Nov 2009 : …while there’s been an awful lot on the politics of Copenhagen…there has been relatively little on what the business sector is supposed to be saying or doing. Many big players are privately indicating that they need to be there for political reasons rather than business reasons and that the whole thing is, ahem, a load of hot air. Looking more broadly, […] there is a danger that the whole event becomes little more than a photo-opportunity…that might give us all time to consider exactly the business and finance sector is supposed to be doing to tackle climate change…”
George Monbiot has called for the head of the Climatic Research Unit on a plate, but I don’t think Phil Jones should jump, myself :-
“Global warming rigged? Here’s the email I’d need to see : The leaked exchanges are disturbing, but it would take a conspiracy of a very different order to justify sceptics’ claims : George Monbiot, guardian.co.uk, Monday 23 November 2009 : It’s no use pretending this isn’t a major blow. The emails extracted by a hacker from the climatic research unit at the University of East Anglia could scarcely be more damaging. I am now convinced that they are genuine, and I’m dismayed and deeply shaken by them. Yes, the messages were obtained illegally. Yes, all of us say things in emails that would be excruciating if made public. Yes, some of the comments have been taken out of context. But there are some messages that require no spin to make them look bad. There appears to be evidence here of attempts to prevent scientific data from being released, and even to destroy material that was subject to a freedom of information request. Worse still, some of the emails suggest efforts to prevent the publication of work by climate sceptics, or to keep it out of a report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. I believe that the head of the unit, Phil Jones, should now resign. Some of the data discussed in the emails should be re-analysed…”
Phil Jones shouldn’t be pushed, either, in my view.
Phil Jones should be tasked with clearing up this mess, starting with rooting out and disciplining whoever made these e-mails public.
Stay in post, Phil, and get the job done !
This post is made about Paul Hudson, a BBC weatherman who penned an article sceptical about the Science of Climate Change, and promoting the perhaps pseudo-scientific views of Piers Corbyn, a weather forecaster, entitled “What happened to Global Warming” :-
Paul Hudson is also the author of a weblog post on “Climategate”, the “liberation” of years of e-mails from inside the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia.
I’m going to cut and paste the whole of his post here, because it contains information regarding the alleged crime that took place when the e-mails were removed from CRU.
Far be it from me to comment on a matter under criminal investigation… Oh, OK then, I will.
As some readers of this post will know, some time in the recent past, a person or persons unknown allegedly took some files from a computer server belonging to the CRU, the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia.
They may have been “hackers”, “stealing” the files. They may have fabricated them. That is a matter for the Police and authorities yet to decide. The files may have been taken/invented last week : another fact open to investigation.
These alleged files allegedly contained information and e-mails pertaining to work by Climate Change scientists spanning a number of years.
It’s there, right in the script, an outright fallacy. If you were in converstion with your friend on the sofa you would have missed it.
ExxonMobil have been playing an advertisement on British television about algae. Apparently there’s green algae, red algae, golden… While the rest of the world is trying to get rid of pond scum, they’re growing it. To make biofuel. Green, Low Carbon driving fuel.
And it’s not competing with the world’s food supply. Hurrah !
And it eats up Carbon Dioxide, the narrator narrates in passing… “Algae are very beautiful… they absorb CO2 so they help solve the Greenhouse problem as well.”
Is that a hooray, also ? No, it’s not.
To be honest, he was taller than I expected, and more Eastern in appeareance, a kind of lanky version of Mehmet behind the deli counter at my local Turkish International Food Emporium.
David Miliband was also considerably thinner than I would have liked, considering he might one day rule the New Labour Party, who might just rule my country again. We wouldn’t want him blown away by the slightest breeze, surely, would we ? He needs feeding in my opinion.
[ PREVIOUS ARTICLE : https://www.joabbess.com/2009/11/02/everyone-should-read-this/ ]
Since the book “Climate Cover-Up : The Crusade to Deny Global Warming” by James Hoggan does not appear to be available in the United Kingdom as of now, I have taken the liberty of transcribing a brief passage about Carbon Capture and Storage.
The thrust of the passage, and in fact two whole chapters of the book, which everybody should read, is that
(a) even with Carbon Capture, Coal will never be “Clean” and
(b) that there has been a deliberate propaganda campaign amongst the public and in the corridors of power to promote Carbon Capture even though it cannot clean up Coal.
Here’s a round-up of some of the published opinion regarding the new Superfreakonomics book (since the last time I weblogged about it) [ UPDATE : adding a few more links at the end. ] :-
“An open letter to Steve Levitt : raypierre @ 29 October 2009 : Dear Mr. Levitt, The problem of global warming is so big that solving it will require creative thinking from many disciplines. Economists have much to contribute to this effort, particularly with regard to the question of how various means of putting a price on carbon emissions may alter human behavior. Some of the lines of thinking in your first book, Freakonomics, could well have had a bearing on this issue, if brought to bear on the carbon emissions problem. I have very much enjoyed and benefited from the growing collaborations between Geosciences and the Economics department here at the University of Chicago, and had hoped someday to have the pleasure of making your acquaintance. It is more in disappointment than anger that I am writing to you now.”
Brussels, Eurostar Departure Lounge, 14:00 CET : Face to face with a huge glass-fronted display of crumpled blue bottled-water bottles, red soft drinks cans, white paper plates, paper cups, serviettes and assorted detritus. All shaped to form a Union Jack. Tasteful. A “Never-Mind-The” punk cut-out letter style message in the centre reads “Welcome to Green Britain”. Reflected in the glass : advertisements for Fossil Fuel companies Total (“Our energy is your energy” – yeah, at a cost) and ExxonMobil (“We’ve always looked for new energy…” – yeah and you’re not finding it so much these days).
My questions. First : why does “green” have to be associated with “recycling” ? Why is “green” always associated with “recycling” in the British public mind ? Who made sure that the concept of “green” was so strongly associated with the activities of “recycling” in the British public mind ? “Recycling” is so strongly connected with “green” in the British public mind, that people don’t think about anything else (like walking instead of driving).
Secondly, why do the major Fossil Fuel companies have to advertise ? What do they hope to achieve ? Why do they need to be so “current” in the British public mind ? Their products aren’t “new” or in the realm of “new formulation”. Their “discovery” quota keeps going down, and there’s no real “refinement” of the technology. It really is a mystery why they think they need to get their names on the wall…”Train now boarding…”