next message in archive
next message in thread
previous message in archive
previous message in thread
Index of Subjects
Index of Subjects Hi folks, I did see the 5th Estate program. Its focus was an expose of the "climate-change-denial" movement, who the players are, who funds them, and what their motives are, etc. not a comprehensive review of scientific evidence that establishes climate change. See Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" for that sort of exposition. The thrust of what they found was that the small coterie of climate- change-deniers are a) (astonishingly!) in large measure some of the same people who were employed by the tobacco industry in the past to present "scientific" evidence that tobacco smoke was not harmful to human health; b) don't publish, or haven't published in decades, any studies in independent peer-reviewed scientific journals; c) are funded by companies (like Exxon) and other players in the petro- chemical industry that have a vested interest in not reducing the consumption of green-house gas producing substances (i.e. a rather blatant conflict of interest); and d) are supported by the same infrastructure (i.e. ad companies) that mounted previous tobacco- smoke denial campaigns. In my viewing who was inflicting damage on their pedal extremities was the petro-chemical industry and associated players who continue to believe that a well-orchestrated publicity campaign will somehow cause the processes that contribute to climate change to miraculously disappear (in a puff of climate-change inducing smoke, no doubt ;->). And, indeed, as the program pointed out, in some measure they succeed. The 5th Estate reported a poll that showed that 50% of Canadian believe that there is a hot debate amongst climate change scientists as to whether climate change is actually occurring, whereas the truth is that virtually all recent science indicates that it is happening. Although I'm not an astronomer, I thoroughly support Patrick Kelly's position that, "Coming from a background in astronomy I tend to be of the opinion that I would rather err on the side of caution when the sustainability of my home world is concerned." In my view, having just about any background except that of a vested interest in the petro-chemical industry ought to incline one towards this sort of caution. Cheers! Chris On 22-Nov-06, at 10:52 PM, Stephen Shaw wrote: > Quoting David & Alison Webster <dwebster@glinx.com>: >> >> Hi Jim & All, Nov 21, 2006 >> I watched that 5th Estate segment & came away with the belief >> that the global warming story is just another case of activists >> shooting themselves in the foot while bringing down harm on >> everyone else. If the case for global warming is so sound then why >> was so much time spent in attempts to discredit those who question >> it ? I may have blinked at the wrong time but I don't recall any >> evidence that the current warming trend is man-made as opposed to >> being a natural fluctuation. > > Hi Dave: I didn't see the programme, but I this sounds perversely > backwards. > Before any scientific study gets published in a credible journal it > has to pass > by 2-3 reviewers who act variably, but some of whom would be only > too happy to > be nasty or find something wrong with it -- if you can't be > original at least > you can be critical. By contrast, the folks in the White House who > "edited" > the climate > report by scientists (if you saw that recent program too) didn't > have to answer > to anyone outside the Bush back room when they altered a foreboding > prediction > "will happen" to read only "may possibly happen". A report some > months ago I > think from Britain which doesn't seem to have been challenged > seriously in > stuff I've seen, concluded that (from memory) the arctic sea ice > will have > completely melted in summer in this century, the only uncertainty > being whether > it will take 45 or take ~60 years to get there (approx range, from > memory). Of > course since it is not 2060 yet, it would be possible to render > this entirely > conjectural by amending it to say "possibly may be melted, given > certain > debatable assumptions". > >> If we assume that global warming, brought about by greenhouse >> gasses (CO2, CH4, etc), will at some future date lead to problems >> then certain changes in lifestyle are indicated. These changes in >> lifestyle, so far as I am aware, all come to a focus at one point; >> a need to decrease per capita energy consumption. > Indeed it might be advisable to reduce consumption, but the focus > is not on > the Watts, but the Undesirable Byeproducts per Watt. If the Watts > were generated without greenhouse pollutants, e.g. > photoelectrically, there > should be less of a future problem on top of the historical > accumulation, there > already. >> >> But these same changes in lifestyle are also indicated by >> problems that have been around for decades; smog, low-level ozone, >> acid rain, mercury pollution, urban sprawl and the associated >> degradation of watersheds and pollution of waterways to name a few >> that come to mind. >> Too much emphasis on hypothetical future problems draws attention >> from these current problems and provides a convenient excuse for >> inaction while the problem is 'studied'. > But these aren't independent new variables are they? Aren't 3 of > the first 4 > partly related to gas and other emissions from powerstations and cars? >> >> It is informative to look back a few years and observe the >> concerns of climatologists in 1975 (H. Lansford, Climate outlook: >> variable and possibly cooler Smithsonian 6(8): 140- 151). In the >> best traditions of Laputa, the future in 1975 also looked bleak >> but then the prospect was cooling of the Northern Hemisphere. >> "Most climatologists agree on one documented fact-- the Northern >> Hemisphere has been cooling off for the last quarter-century or >> so, especially in higher latitudes....This cooling, which began in >> the 1940s and became more pronounced after 1960, followed a >> warming trend that had begun in the 1880s....We feel that the >> downturn of temperature since 1950...represents a trend..." and >> "...cooler average temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere will >> continue for 20 or 30 years..." >> Based on a chart of global temperature over the last 860,000 >> years included in this 1975 article, on which there are about 10 >> peak temperatures and 11 glacial advances, we are due for a >> glacial advance within the next 20,000 years or so. >> Since this 1975 article was written (I think) these or similar >> fluctuations in tem