Posts from — March 2008

Homo sapiens. A fly’s faeces in the vast of the universe? Or a major player - powerful enough to smash and trash the planet we live on? Do we underestimate our influence? Or do we think too highly of ourselves?

In the current climate debate humans are often portrayed as greedy villains who proliferate, exploit and devastate. In order to save the Earth and thereby ourselves from destruction we must turn away from the sin of burning fossil fuels and adopt an environmentally sustainable lifestyle. The latter is defined as anything from refraining from flying to embracing the humble ways of the Amish. Is it fair?

Six and a half billion human beings are accused of jointly polluting the atmosphere to a catastrophic extent. Slowly but surely, we will boil ourselves, melt the ice caps, exterminate all species and put an end to all life on Earth. Are we really that powerful? Or are we just a bunch of megalomaniacs?

When our grandparents were in school it was thought that the universe was very small, perhaps only 5,000 light years across. 500 years ago it was thought that space was only a little bit bigger than the Earth. In modern times, with the power of technology, we are finally starting to grasp the immense size of the universe, and it is much bigger than anyone could have ever imagined. What do we know about all the forces that rule the universe? What do we know about all the mechanisms ruling the climatic system?

The Earth is around 4.5 billion years old and there have been at least four major ice ages in its past. It has withstood asteroids, reverses in polarity and many other truly catastrophic events. The modern form of Homo sapiens first appeared about 100,000 years ago and the Industrial Revolution started in England around 1733 with the first cotton mill. Supporters of AGW claim that in just about 300 years man has managed to strike a deathblow to the Earth’s fragile climate. Reversing the course of things will require total abstinence from fossil fuels.

I don’t have all the facts. Neither do I have all the answers. However, I dare to believe that blaming man for altering the climate and destroying the planet is giving ourselves way too much credit.

In today’s Times Argus, a Vermont publication, Dr. Alan Betts reflects on the analogy between smoking and the “global carbon-dioxide pollution” that comes from the burning of fossil fuels.

We now have public health advertising to warn teenagers of the long-term hazards of smoking. Why? Because for decades the tobacco industry encouraged teenagers to start smoking as a way of building its future market. (…) The biggest consequences from all our carbon dioxide emissions are also in the future, so it’s hard to grasp the significance of our addiction to fossil fuels for our children.

Dr. Alan Betts is Vermont’s leading climate scientist and the past president of the Vermont Academy of Science and Engineering. He received his B.A. in Theoretical Physics in 1967 and his M.A. in 1971 from Cambridge. He received his PhD. in Meteorology in London in 1970. From 1971-1979, he was a professor at Colorado State University before founding Atmospheric Research in Pittsford, Vermont, in 1979. Now how can such a well-educated man call carbon dioxide a pollutant and compare its effect with that of nicotine fumes?

All animals, including us humans, breathe out carbon dioxide, which is then used by plants during photosynthesis. Carbon dioxide is the principle food of plants. When the amount of carbon dioxide in the air increases the food available to the Earth’s plants increases. Carbon itself is the basis of all life on Earth and carbon atoms continually move through living organisms, the oceans and the atmosphere. When you watch your child grow, you actually watch CO2 being further processed. So why all those horror stories about CO2 poisoning the planet?

Another climate change scientist, Dr James Lovelock of Great Britain, predicts Apocalypse in The Daily Mail.

We’re all doomed! 40 years from global catastrophe – and there’s NOTHING we can do about it.

What is it with all those scientists? Are their predictions of total disaster just clumsy efforts to get noticed and published? And are journalists really so ignorant to the basic facts of biology?

A friend of mine got very upset at a recent news item in Wall Street Journal. Obviously, US bankers have just begun discussing development of lending guidelines similar to the new “carbon principles” that make it tougher to build coal-fired power plants. The carbon principles pledge the banks to investigate and analyze the risks associated with CO2 emissions and integrate that analysis into lending and underwriting decisions. The rise of global warming hysteria leads to one brainless decision after another. Perhaps all entrepreneurs will soon have to factor in climate change when seeking private funding.

Many seem to think that going back to the Stone Age is the only right resolution. In Minneapolis, for example, all lights in municipal buildings will be turned off for one hour on a Saturday evening as part of the Earth Hour, initiated by WWF. Earth Hour is an initiative “to finding solutions for climate change”. I tell you one thing - it will be damn hard to find any solution in complete darkness.

In Petaling Jaya, showing some extraordinary intelligence, the Malaysian Qualifications Agency shut down all electrical appliances in its premises for 2.5 hours as part of efforts to combat global warming. All computers, printers, scanners, lights and air-conditioners were switched off. As if prayer and contemplation rather than technology and invention would save the planet.

It is also amazing how global warming is overheating the brain. In an instantaneous poll, the Wall Street Journal asked the audience to select the most pressing societal problem from a list of five that included infectious disease, terrorism and global warming. Global warming was the most popular response, receiving 31 percent of the vote, while infectious disease came in last with only 3 percent of the vote.

My mother, a very wise woman by the way, can’t understand how we can speculate over what might happen in 50 years from now while 854 million people go to bed hungry every day. While every five seconds, one child dies from hunger related causes. The world today is more prosperous than it ever has been. New technological advances create opportunities to improve economies and reduce hunger and poverty. Why, oh why do we keep insisting on financial sacrifices that are a pointless waste of money?

A Mr Matthew Roman from Binghamton, New York, explains to us in PressConnects why scientists shouldn’t be trusted. According to Mr Roman, who probably has done extensive research on the subject, the global cooling argument presented in the 70s is just part of The Big Lie.

Global warming deniers claim there was scientific consensus about global cooling 30 years ago. They state that scientists are not to be trusted because they believed in global cooling once, they now believe in global warming and they will soon again believe in global cooling.

This is an example of “Big Lie” propaganda. As noted in the Feb. 21 edition of USA Today, the American Meteorological Society surveyed the scientific literature from 1965 through 1979. They found 44 peer reviewed articles on global warming and seven on global cooling.
The real consensus was the same then as it is now. Scientists agree that global warming is real and is exacerbated by human activities.

Now, this story isn’t really about Matthew Roman and I want to point that out. Neither is it about trusting science and scientists. What I find intriguing instead is how easy it is for someone to accept something that has been printed in a newspaper. There are many Matthew Romans in this world. People who rely on media reports without even thinking, questioning.

Of today’s global warming, most of it has occured not in reality but rather in the media. Science has been manipulated, exaggerated and misused, all to prove that humans are destroying the planet. There has never been a consensus among scientists about the causes of global warming. Perhaps there never will be. Perhaps the whole purpose of science is to question and to disagree in order to advance our knowledge.

What I wish for is objectivity and a balanced view of what is going on. But as long as there is no news like bad news, I guess that isn’t going to happen.

The Inconvenient Truth..

Climate scientist Jimbo Hansen at NASA has just drafted a fresh paper urging us to return the CO2-levels back to those of 1988 (350ppm).

Humanity today, collectively, must face the uncomfortable fact that industrial civilization itself has become the principal driver of global climate. If we stay our present course, using fossil fuels to feed a growing appetite for energy-intensive life styles, we will soon leave the climate of the Holocene, the world of human history. The eventual response to doubling pre-industrial atmospheric CO2 likely would be a nearly ice-free planet.

The stakes, for all life on the planet, surpass those of any previous crisis. The greatest danger is continued ignorance and denial, which could make tragic consequences unavoidable.

Sounds to me more like sermon than science. I wonder if Hansen at all believes returning to 1988-levels of CO2 is possible with emissions pouring out of China and India. Someone should tell the guy to get a grip.

Science Daily reports today that scientists have for the first time detected regionally elevated atmospheric CO2 originating from manmade emissions. Using data from the SCIAMACHY instrument aboard ESA’s Envisat environmental satellite, they have found an extended plume over Europe’s most populated area, the region from Amsterdam in the Netherlands to Frankfurt, Germany.

I can almost see the alarmists dancing with rapture. However, we should first have a closer look on the diagram.

In the picture above, we can clearly see the areas of higher CO2 concentration marked in red. But look at the scale below the diagram. The difference between high and “normal” is measly 2.5 ppm. How is that for significant contribution? Also, let’s not forget that the IPCC predicts that increasing CO2 concentrations will result in a warmer climate. I got my hand read once. None of the predictions made then came true.

Dr Michael Buchwitz from the Institute of Environmental Physics (IUP) at the University of Bremen in Germany says that carbon dioxide emissions occur naturally as well as being created through human activities, like the burning of fossil fuels (oil, coal, gas) for power generation, industry and traffic. Dr Buchwitz doesn’t mention the CO2 we all emit in our breath. It kind of makes sense that there is more CO2 in a densely populated area, such as the Netherlands.

“The natural CO2 fluxes between the atmosphere and the Earth’s surface are typically much larger then the CO2 fluxes arising from manmade CO2 emissions, making the detection of regional anthropogenic CO2 emission signals quite difficult,” Buchwitz explains. “This does not mean, however, that the anthropogenic fluxes are of minor importance. In fact, the opposite is true because the manmade fluxes are only going in one direction whereas the natural fluxes operate in both directions, taking up atmospheric CO2 when plants grow, but releasing most or all of it again when the plants decay.”

Dr Buchwitz admits though that significant gaps remain in the knowledge of CO2 sources, such as fires, volcanic activity and the respiration of living organisms, and its natural sinks, such as the land and the ocean. He also says “more studies are needed before definitive quantitative conclusions concerning CO2 emissions can be drawn”.

That leaves us with a nice little diagram that basically means zilch. Or as Shakespeare would say: “Much ado about nothing”.

Source: European Space Agency (2008, March 19). Satellite Makes First Ever Observation Of Regionally Elevated Carbon Dioxide From Manmade Emissions. ScienceDaily. Retrieved March 19, 2008, from http://www.sciencedaily.com– /releases/2008/03/080318110330.htm

Porsche’s manager for energy and the environment, Herbert Ampferer, has told Automotive New Europe that it is impossible for the company to meet the goals that the European Commission is targeting for carbon dioxide reduction.

Although the EC is proposing a 130 g/km CO2 fleet average, the paper says Porsche will have to cut average CO2 emissions from its new cars to 144 g/km from 242g/km, or face progressive fines of up to €95 per gram over the limit. If the EU approves the Commission’s proposals, Porsche executives say every Cayenne S premium SUV sold in 2015 and beyond would carry a fine of €9,702.

Then again, if you are in the market for a Porsche, perhaps a few hundred dollars extra don’t matter.

I got this wonderful link from a “brother-in-arms”. Enjoy!

New Zealand-based Scoop published today a column by Bill Berkowitz. It is another good report from the recent climate change conference in New York.

Bill Berkowitz also mentions a recent BMI report called “Global Warming Censored: Networks Stifle Debate, Rely on Politicians, Rock Stars and Men-on-the-Street for Science,” written by Dan Gainor, vice president of BMI and Julia A. Seymour. This report is an analysis of 205 network news stories about “global warming” or “climate change” published between July 1, 2007, and Dec. 31, 2007. The authors found that “a meager 20 percent of stories even mentioned there were any alternative opinions to the so-called ‘consensus’ on the issue.”

Here’s a link to the full report.