2. It seems pretty obvious to me that flooding has killed millions in Bangladesh and that if flooding gets more frequent due to climate change, Bangladeshis will be worse off. Drought has killed millions in Africa. If droughts get more common due to climate change, Africans will be worse off. This is not rocket science.

3. You think that manufacture of low emissions technology accounts for a significant proportion of global CO2 emission? I don’t. Got any evidence?

4. You do think that developing countries cannot develop technology, despite two massive examples disproving that? OK…

Chris Schoneveld: here’s a short response to a long piece: I disagree with your assumptions, your analysis and your conclusions.

THE SANCTIFICATION OF THE CLIMATE CHANGE MESSAGE

There is a remarkable similarity between the belief in the supernatural (i.e. religion) and the belief in catastrophic man-made global warming. Indeed, both beliefs appeal to man’s moral conscience and cause in him a sense of fear, but the most striking parallel lies in the inherent uncritical acceptance of the content of these beliefs by their followers.

Let me demonstrate this with an observation that anybody with a normal, logical mind can appreciate, or at least cannot deny. Most – if not all – cultures are characterized by their adherence to a dominant religion: Japan and China by Buddhism, India by Hinduism, the Middle East and Indonesia by Islam, Western societies by Christianity and Judaism, isolated tribal communities by other forms of animist beliefs. What this shows is the sheer inability of individuals to recognize, or accept, that the unquestioned belief in their own religion is the product of their upbringing, and thus the result of a form of childhood indoctrination. Only rare individuals are able to shake off the religion of their parents. On the strength of statistics one has to accept this observation as fact, which necessarily reduces the chance of any of these religions being credible virtually to zero. Here I paraphrase Richard Dawkins, who aptly remarked that everybody is an atheist with regard to every other religion than their own, and that the outright atheist just believes in one religion less.

Having said this, I have to appease a large part of the populace who would argue that the universe and life must have been created one way or another and could not have come into existence by chance alone. Indeed, one cannot dismiss the possibility of a creator, but it does not negate the above line of reasoning that one’s own religion is unlikely to be the only true representation of that creator. As a matter of fact, it requires an extraordinary leap of faith, as well as a dose of arrogance or self-righteousness, to maintain that one’s own religion is the correct one. And, as I will explain below, it requires a similar attitude to believe that all the causes of earlier non-catastrophic severe climate changes have suddenly disappeared, to be supplanted by a man-made catastrophic one, purely on the basis of the voice of a politically motivated organisation like the IPCC, the Vatican of the global warming congregation.

First of all, we have to realize the undeniable fact that climate is a naturally varying phenomenon. Even the most ardent climate change alarmist will admit that in the earth’s history global average temperatures have been much higher or much lower than today. Furthermore, if we believe the vast majority of research papers published in the last decade, there is hardly any benefit to be had from climate change or global warming. The – again undeniable – implication is that the present climate is the most beneficial one to us humans, but equally to flora and fauna in general. This is highly unlikely and unbelievably coincidental – coincidental in the sense that, in the 4.5 billion years of the earth’s existence, our modern society happens to have developed when conditions for life on earth were at an optimum. Also coincidental is that only since 1979 do we have the ability to monitor our climate accurately, with the help of satellites, and that at about the same time the global temperatures happen to have risen at a – claimed – unprecedented rate. In reality the average temperature of the upper troposphere – the part of the atmosphere most affected by greenhouse gas warming – has only risen 0.4 °C in the Northern Hemisphere and less than 0.2 °C in the Southern Hemisphere.

One only has to Google the term “climate change” or “global warming”, in combination with any aspect of life or nature that we find likable, such as butterflies, dolphins, sea turtles, coral reefs, wine or ancient monuments, and the dire effects of global warming will become apparent, because all these things we like are reported to be in danger. If we do the same exercise with all those things we dislike or fear, such as cockroaches, feral cats, poisonous spiders, jellyfish, scorpions, storms or malaria, then we will see that they all happen to benefit or spread, thanks to global warming. The implication is that, if the opposite happened, i.e. global cooling, everything we like would thrive, and everything we dislike would suffer. Hence, fewer cockroaches, fewer jelly fish, fewer storms, but more butterflies, more dolphins, healthier coral reefs etc. Not a single person in his right mind will believe in that scenario, nor have I as yet come across anybody (whatever his state of mind) expressing a longing for this, however consistent with his present fears.

Not asking a number of obvious questions – for which you don’t have to be a scientist to think of – such as “ how come that today’s global warming is all bad, yet the earth has gone through so many climate changes without spelling the end of species, or more specific, the polar bears?” is incomprehensible. Similarly incomprehensible is the inability of most humans to question their own religious belief. Already in 1841, it was Charles Mackay who in his famous book “Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds” alluded to the fact that “whole communities suddenly fix their minds upon one object, and go mad in its pursuit; that millions of people become simultaneously impressed with one delusion, and run after it”. Indeed, most people gullibly believe in the, invariably negative, even catastrophic, effects of climate change in the same way that religion is able to maintain its influence in an age of erudition. Catastrophic global warming and religion are both subject to uncritical acceptance by the masses – a sad but clear demonstration of our susceptibility to the unbridled repetition of a single moral message, be it a plainly religious one or one with a scientific veneer.

Such susceptibility may, in its turn, well originate from man’s innate sense of responsibility and his adherence to a common moral code – a code of which environmentalism is a direct consequence. And, since there is only so much moral baggage one can handle, this may also explain why Christian fundamentalists – especially the conservative evangelical Christians in America’s bible-belt – are less likely to believe in man-made global warming than secular socialists, who have a tendency to embrace environmentalism as a moral equivalent of religion and are unlikely to join the ranks of climate change skeptics. It is hardly surprising that few environmentalists are charmed by the likes of Bjorn Lomborg, the self-proclaimed “skeptical environmentalist” – for them a contradiction in terms.

It appears that the Norwegian Nobel Committee has fallen prey to the same uncritical attitude by awarding the Nobel Peace Prize to the IPCC and Al Gore. The award is certainly impetuous and possibly motivated by political expediency, reminiscent of the one that landed Arafat with the Nobel Peace Prize in 1994. But worst of all is the British Government’s decision to promote the idea of catastrophic climate change by means of a nation-wide distribution of Al Gore’s flawed movie to British schools – an unacceptable form of childhood indoctrination that is only surpassed in its impact on children by the above religious indoctrination. Here they missed a great opportunity to encourage a healthy debate on climate change within schools by also freely distributing The Great Global Warming Swindle documentary – a movie with fewer scientific “inaccuracies” – with the instruction that both movies have to be shown.

To conclude, I would like to point out that, even if today’s global warming is wholly or partially anthropogenic, this would not invalidate the above argument. After all, it is the over-representation of the unfavorable effects and not the cause of climate change that gives rise to catastrophism. Yet, the alternative scenario, of global cooling, is something only few would welcome, whilst the wish for a stable climate is – in view of our knowledge of geological and historical climate data – as unrealistic as wishing for the seasons to disappear.

Chris Schoneveld

I have not seen any farmer or poor person in a developing country stab themselves in the heart as a result of the weather, no matter how demanding it got for them as a result of lava/ice/wind/water.

I have, however, seen on too many occasions people doing just that as a reaction to Western trade policies, such as those that deliberately restrict their ability to farm and care for themselves.

The kind of policies that limit their ability to use their own resources for their own purposes.

1) Norway’s economy is totally reliant on the export of fossil fuels. France is totally reliant on nuclear. I for one happen to being dating someone who had to have her thyroid removed as a result of Chernobyl fallout. That aside, nuclear requires government subsidy, which is my main reason for being against it. I don’t know much about Iceland.

More importantly, as I said in my original point, I was talking partiularly from developing country perspective. None of the economies you mention developed without the use of fossil fuels.

2) Nonsense. I hear this repeated time and again by AGW proponents who obviously haven’t spent any time studying the developing world. Give me some some examples, and some evidence of your belief that their problems will be any worse in the future than they are now.

3) Can you provide me evidence of the embodied energy of wind turbines and solar and the rest.

In addition, what you are calling for is the replacement of an enormous energy infrastructure with green technology. This will require the manufacture and distribution of said technology. Do you believe that can be done without increasing emissions?

4) Yes, I do. For the same reason that many developing countries have to export timber, then buy it back at twice or thrice the cost after it has been processed. Have a read about Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property. See also http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/SAP.asp.

China is an anomaly for the developing world, simply because of its enormous population and strict control. And the West has been terrified of upsetting the country since it bounced back after the British burnt down its parliament in the 1860s. The development model China is following is similar to that follwed by the 8 East Asian Miracle states, before the introduction of TRIPS, TRIMS and GATS around 1994. This cannot be followed by most of the developing world – particularly those you claim will be worst hit by AGW.

M.

1. I’ll give you three examples of highly successful economies that generate a minority or none of their power from fossil fuels: Iceland, France and Norway. In the UN Human Development index, these three countries rank first, tenth and second respectively.

2. The billions living in poverty will be some of the worst hit by rapid climate change. My own economy is strong and I am well off.

3. I do not think it is the case that switching to non-CO2 emitting technologies will require CO2 emission to rise. I have seen no evidence to suggest that.

4. Do you think developing countries cannot develop their own green technologies? One of the largest manufacturers of solar cells is Suntech, a Chinese company. One of the largest manufacturers of wind turbines is Suzlon, an Indian company.

Chris Schoneveld: You can believe everything Roy Spencer says if you want to. As far as I’m concerned, anyone who describes ‘intelligent design’ as viable a theory as evolution is by definition not a scientist. No, climate feedbacks are not like lighting a fuse. What temperature drop are you referring to that occurs before CO2 has peaked?

Like igniting a fuse which leads to an explosion? According to the Vostok ice cores there is indeed a delay of some 800 years. But what process causes the temperature to go down again 800 years before CO2 has reached its peak, if (as you allege) the small orbital changes are not capable of affecting temperatures appreciably? That’s akin to extinguishing the fuse during the explosion in an attempt to stop the explosion before all the gunpowder has ignited.

RW writes: “plenty of religious beliefs do not conflict with science. Why does my description of belief in creationism as incompatible with being a good scientist irk you so much?”

Ok, let’s stick for the moment to Christianity, Judaism and Islam. All these three monotheistic religions make unscientific claims as to the origin (creation) of the universe. Yet thousands of reputable scientists are followers of these 3 religions. The only difference with evangelicals (who believe unquestionably in creationism) is that the less fundamental congregations are less dogmatic as to the age of the universe, however, none will denounce many of the other unscientific claims (e.g.”Virgin” Marie or that the universe is ultimately created by a God, etc.) that these religions make. So I don’t think it is right to question Roy Spencer’s credibility as a scientist because of his religious conviction, as that would disqualify 50% of the scientific community in the US and 5 % in Europe. Attack him through scientific reasoning not with ad homs!
The ultimate irony would be if Hansen, Gavin Schmidt and Michael Mann, happen to be churchgoers and pray (a highly unscientific exercise). I wouldn’t hold that against them unless they would pray for global warming to continue since a cooling trend would be most embarrassing for them

RW, you said “You seem to believe that economies can only grow if they emit carbon dioxide. Why do you believe this? Do you oppose the use of non-carbon emitting energy generation?”, and coupled with much of what you have said about governments, I must assume that you are for legislated restriction of CO2. A few thoughts:

1) No economy has grown without the use of fossil fuels. I say this particularly from the point of view of the 4-5 billion people who don’t live in developed countries, and therefore don’t have the luxury to worry about how much CO2 their cow is belching into the atmosphere.

2) The West has economic control over developing countries and limits their access to all technology, not just the green ones. This is a contentious and complicated point but raises the question, do you just care about your own economy? Or do you care about the aforementioned 4-5 billion people?

3) Green technologies are not cure-alls. There is little evidence available of the embodied energy of wind turbines, solar etc.

With all your concern over feedbacks, you must realise that widespread deployment of green technologies and associated infrastructure will only increase CO2 emissions over the very time period we are so concerned about. Over the very long term these technologies may be a good thing, but we don’t have a “long term” if you are right about the effects of feedbacks.

4) The introduction of national caps on CO2 emissions will force less-developed countries to remain reliant on the West. We will sell them green technologies, on the condition that they continue to kowtow to our desires. I could go on, but that’s probably enough to start.

Interested in your thoughts on these issues.

M.

I have had this debate with many others, the points are always the same.

CO2 = Temperature = Water Vapour = Temperature = Water Vapour
CO2 = Temperature = Methane = Temperature = Methane

The atmosphere is a huge positive and negatively coupled system.

It is hard to illustrate here but the effects are better illustrated as a three dimensional branching system with nearly every forcing creating a feedback and each feedback creates even more multiple feedbacks of both signs, additionaly the planet comes with some really effective regulators. Like precipitation, diurnal oscillations, seasonal variations, ocean transports, atmospheric expansion, solar variance, orbital excentricity then of course there is that huge black void the planet hurtles through and we radiate IR radiation into every second.

The very notion that a system encased in a thin layer of atmosphere directly bordering on the cold emptyness of space can somehow produce a feedback that will result in a heat related catastrophe is beyond comprehension. The more plausible theory and one that is proven is that the planet will decend into an ice age, we do not have Heat Ages, we have interglacials. We are reaching the end of our current one, there is no reason to think that the current warming, man-made or otherwise can prevent it.

In regards to Paleo-climatology, according to NOAA’s website “the best estimate is that 50% of the current 20th century warming is from greenhouse gases” based on our understanding of the past climate. Next there can be no parallels with things like the PETM 55 million years ago the atmosphere was different, the ocean currents were different, the continental positions were different so there is no common basis for current conditions.

So if 50% of 0.6C is natural, we have 0.3C from the 38% increase in CO2 levels where does all your catastrophic predictions from CO2 go. Do the math yourself.