Climate Denial Crock of the Week - The "Temp leads Carbon" Crock

The following is reprinted here with the consent of the author, George Monbiot.  There is much more on his website about climate and a great many other topics.  He does seem to be one of the thinkers of our times.  The link below will take you to his site.  This article on his website includes many references which are well worth looking at. I have not included them here because of gigabyte constraints.

www.monbiot.com

Tell people something they know already and they will thank you for it.
Tell them something new and they will hate you for it. ~George Monbiot

The Real Climate Censorship  Posted April 10, 2007

It’s happening, it’s systematic, and it is precisely the opposite story to the one the papers are telling.
By George Monbiot. Published in the Guardian, 10th April 2007.


The drafting of reports by the world’s pre-eminent group of climate scientists is an odd process. For many months scientists contributing to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change tussle over the evidence. Nothing gets published unless it achieves consensus. This means that the panel’s reports are extremely conservative – even timid. It also means that they are as trustworthy as a scientific document can be.
Then, when all is settled among the scientists, the politicians sweep in and seek to excise from the summaries anything which threatens their interests. While the US government has traditionally been the scientists’ chief opponent, this time the assault was led by Saudi Arabia, supported by China and Russia(1,2).
The scientists fight back, but they always have to make some concessions. The report released on Friday, for example, was shorn of the warning that “North America is expected to experience locally severe economic damage, plus substantial ecosystem, social and cultural disruption from climate change related events”(3). David Wasdell, an accredited reviewer for the panel, claims that the summary of the science the IPCC published in February was purged of most of its references to “positive feedbacks”: climate change accelerating itself(4).
This is the opposite of the story endlessly repeated in the right-wing press: that the IPCC, in collusion with governments, is conspiring to exaggerate the science. No one explains why governments should seek to amplify their own failures. In the wacky world of the climate conspiracists, no explanations are required. The world’s most conservative scientific body has somehow been transformed into a cabal of screaming demagogues.
This is just one aspect of a story which is endlessly told the wrong way around. In the Sunday Telegraph, the Daily Mail, in columns by Dominic Lawson, Tom Utley and Janet Daley the allegation is constantly repeated that climate scientists and environmentalists are trying to “shut down debate”. Those who say that manmade global warming is not taking place, they claim, are being censored.
Something is missing from their accusations: a single valid example. The closest any of them have been able to get is two letters sent – by the Royal Society and by the US senators Jay Rockefeller and Olympia Snowe – to that delicate flower ExxonMobil, asking that it cease funding lobbyists who deliberately distort climate science(5,6). These correspondents had no power to enforce their wishes. They were merely urging Exxon to change its practices. If everyone who urges is a censor, then the comment pages of the newspapers must be closed in the name of free speech.
In an interview four weeks ago, Martin Durkin, who made Channel 4’s film The Great Global Warming Swindle, claimed that he was subject to “invisible censorship”(7). He appears to have forgotten that he had just been given 90 minutes of prime time television to expound his theory that climate change is a great green conspiracy. So what did this censorship amount to? Complaints about one of his programmes had been upheld by the Independent Television Commission. It found that “the views of the four complainants, as made clear to the interviewer, had been distorted by selective editing” and that they had been “misled as to the content and purpose of the programmes when they agreed to take part.”(8) This, apparently, makes him a martyr.
If you want to know what real censorship looks like, let me show you what has been happening on the other side of the fence. Scientists whose research demonstrates that climate change is taking place have been repeatedly threatened and silenced and their findings edited or suppressed.
The Union of Concerned Scientists found that 58% of the 279 climate scientists working at federal agencies in the US who responded to its survey reported that they had experienced one of the following constraints. 1. “Pressure to eliminate the words ‘climate change,’ ‘global warming’, or other similar terms” from their communications. 2. Editing of scientific reports by their superiors which “changed the meaning of scientific findings”. 3. Statements by officials at their agencies which misrepresented their findings. 4. “The disappearance or unusual delay of websites, reports, or other science-based materials relating to climate”. 5. “New or unusual administrative requirements that impair climate-related work”. 6. “Situations in which scientists have actively objected to, resigned from, or removed themselves from a project because of pressure to change scientific findings.” They reported 435 incidents of political interference over the past five years(9).
In 2003, the White House gutted the climate change section of a report by the Environmental Protection Agency(10). It deleted references to studies showing that global warming is caused by manmade emissions. It added a reference to a study partly funded by the American Petroleum Institute, which suggested that temperatures are not rising. Eventually the agency decided to drop the section altogether.
After Thomas Knutson at the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) published a paper in 2004 linking rising emissions with more intense tropical cyclones, he was blocked by his superiors from speaking to the media. He agreed to one request to appear on MSNBC, but a public affairs officer at NOAA rang the station to tell the programme that Knutson was “too tired” to conduct the interview. The official explained to him that the “White House said no”. All media inquiries were to be routed instead to a scientist who believed there was no connection between global warming and hurricanes(11).
Last year the top climate scientist at NASA, James Hansen, reported that his bosses were trying to censor his lectures, papers and web postings. He was told by public relations officials at the agency that there would be “dire consequences” if he continued to call for rapid reductions in greenhouse gases(12).
Last month, the Alaskan branch of the US Fish and Wildlife Service told its scientists that anyone travelling to the Arctic must understand “the administration’s position on climate change, polar bears, and sea ice and will not be speaking on or responding to these issues.”(13)
At hearings in the US Congress three weeks ago, Philip Cooney, a former aide to White House who was previously working at the American Petroleum Institute, admitted he had made hundreds of changes to government reports about climate change on behalf of the Bush administration(14). Though he is not a scientist, he had struck out evidence that glaciers were retreating and inserted phrases suggesting that there was serious scientific doubt about global warming(15).
The guardians of free speech in Britain aren’t above attempting a little suppression, either. The Guardian and I have now received several letters from the climate sceptic Viscount Monckton, threatening us with libel proceedings after I challenged his claims about climate science(16,17,18,19). On two of these occasions he has demanded that articles are removed from the internet. Monckton is the man who wrote to Senators Rockefeller and Snowe, claiming that their letter to ExxonMobil offends the corporation’s “right of free speech”(20).
After Martin Durkin’s film was broadcast, one of the scientists it featured, Professor Carl Wunsch, complained that his views on climate change had been misrepresented. Wunsch says he has now received a legal letter from Durkin’s production company, Wag TV, threatening to sue him for defamation unless he agrees to make a public statement that he was neither misrepresented nor misled(21).
Would it be terribly impolite to suggest that when those who deny that climate change is happening complain of censorship, a certain amount of projection is taking place?

Climate change in North America: Heat waves, storm surges

UNITED NATIONS -- Severe storm surges could hit New York and Boston. Chicago and Los Angeles will likely face increasing heat waves. And cities that rely on melting snow for water may run into serious shortages.
These are some of the findings about North America in a report by hundreds of scientists that tries to explain how global warming is changing life on Earth.
According to the panel, global warming is already having an effect on daily life but when the Earth gets a few degrees hotter, the current inconvenience could give way to danger and even death.
The panel says Boston's transportation network may be at risk from a sea level rise and the increased probability of a powerful storm surge.
Near the end of the 21st century, under a strong warming scenario, the New York City area could be hit by increasingly damaging floods from surges.
(Copyright 2007 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.)

New York, very close to my home, "rely on melting snow for water ", that's us alright. ~Stuey

You need Adobe Flash to see this video
Get Adobe Flash Player
Endangered species, caged in fright
Shot in cold blood, no chance to fight
The stage is set, now pay the price
An ego boost, don't think twice
Technology, the battle's unfair
You pull the hammer without a care
Squeeze the trigger that makes you Man
Pseudo-safari, the hunt is canned...
The hunt is canned

Chorus
All are gone, all but one
No contest, nowhere to run
No more left, only one
This is it, this is the Countdown to Extinction

Tell the truth, you wouldn't dare
The skin and trophy, oh so rare
Silence speaks louder than words
Ignore the guilt, and take your turn
Liars anagram is "lairs"
Man you were never even there
Killed a few feet from the cages
Point blank, you're so courageous...
So courageous

Chorus

One hour from now,
another species of life form
will disappear off the face of the planet
forever...and the rate is accelerating

Chorus

Megadeth - Countdown to extinction

Breaks over; back to the salt mine.  Let's talk Migration.

Migration:  Pretty word, migration, reminds me of the geese flying south in the fall, with the hummingbirds hitching rides on their backs, the Monarch butterfly making the same trip on it's own, and the many other species that go south every fall and arrive back in the spring.  Well, last fall some of the geese were flying north in the fall.  Why? Guess they got confused.

The thing is that as the US, our southern neighbour gets hotter many of the US varmints will find living close to the equator too hot.  They will want (or have) to move north.  Since they have bigger sticks than we do, and even though we can't feed them all, we will let them in.  To begin with it could mean a real-estate boon.  I think I might sell if some guy offered me 2.5 billion for my 8 acres.  Of course I'd have to think about it.  Thing is he might just shoot me. I guess what I'm trying to say here is that it's not just the pathogens and diseases that will want to move to Canada or Northern Europe.  It will be all sorts of people from all around the planet.  Net result?  Over population, and everybody bites it. Those of you southerners who can learn to cope in the hotter climate may be the only winners.

Oops!  Did I say over population?  I was trying to avoid that.  Well too late now. (See The Elephant in the Room)

The whole problem in a nutshell.  There are too damn many of us.  Sadly, the idea of not having children just doesn't fly with 90% of the population (Gay's, the other 10%, are exempted, They're doing their part.).  China has been way ahead on the birth control thing for a long time but our whole economic system is based on growth and to grow it needs more people. Many European countries are suffering population declines.  Suffering because their economies also depend on growth.  Africa is resolving population growth in a most horrific manner, HIV/AIDS.  We are contributing to the number one cause of climatic change in the most pleasurable way we know.  The crazy thing about this is that having children kills children.  What can I say?  I'm not so sure that my great grand children, if they survive, are going to look back on their great grandfather with any kind of respect.  If I were them, I'd want to kill me.  There are those who will say that the world can feed many more people.  Ask them to explain why 1000's of children starve to death every day.

Let's take a break here.  Don't know about you, but all this doom and gloom gets to me.

In recent news reports the following story has been unfolding.  This guy is not an Al Gore fan and he does like to shoot the messenger.  Personally, I believe his wrath should be directed at his fellow scientists, not Al Gore.  The following is an excerpt from the media.


Over the past 24 years, Gray, 77, has become known as America's most reliable hurricane forecaster; recently, his mentee, Philip Klotzbach, has begun doing the bulk of the forecasting work.

Gray's statements came the same day the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change approved a report that concludes the world will face dire consequences to food and water supplies, along with increased flooding and other dramatic weather events, unless nations adapt to climate change.

Rather than global warming, Gray believes a recent uptick in strong hurricanes is part of a multi-decade trend of alternating busy and slow periods related to ocean circulation patterns. Contrary to mainstream thinking, Gray believes ocean temperatures are going to drop in the next five to 10 years.

Gore's documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, has helped fuel media attention on global warming.

Kerry Emanuel, an MIT professor who had feuded with Gray over global warming, said Gray has wrongly "dug (his) heels in" even though there is ample evidence that the world is getting hotter.


OK.  Let's give him the benefit.  Let's just say it was not our, ...oops, I meant your fault.  Does that actually mean that we can forget about it?  I'm thinkin' that how it came about may be a red herring.  I hate herring of any colour.

Sun saying Your Toast

GLOBAL WARMING? CLIMATE CHANGE?


     Now that the credible scientific community has finally reached a general agreement that climate change is upon us and that we have, most likely, contributed to the cause we must each respond in our own way.  I, personally, have been trying to make a minimal effect on our environment by conserving and recycling for over 30 years, but this is not the only way.   I suppose that I should apologize for this effort because I realize now that environmentalists are really bad people. I'm not going to apologize, I'm just recognizing that, perhaps, I should.  My way assumes that one accepts the science as true.  The trouble is that in so doing I am accepting responsibility for climate change or global warming and for resultant limited life spans of future species including my children's and their children.

   A much better way to deal with the whole problem might be to deny the science. To say that, even though these thousands of professionals have spent much of their lives studying the worlds ecosystems and weather patterns, and geology, and, and, and, ...they must be wrong. Now this approach is much more helpful. Firstly and most importantly it relieves me completely of any responsibility. I can say "Of course I care about my children's future" while still driving that big ol' gas guzzler or crank up the thermostat when it gets chilly outside and even suck up all the juice I can from those coal fired generators to run my antiquated air conditioner when it gets to warm. No need to feel any guilt at all. Heh! What can I say? Denial is the perfect solution to the whole thingy. Global Warming is just another of those scare tactics to give us something to take our minds off the fact that we're so pampered we actually have virtually nothing to do. So don't loose your cool over global warming like I've done. Big mistake. Who really gives a damn about his children's future anyway. Once we're gone it's their problem to deal with. And if your kids actually have the unmitigated nerve to question what your doing just tell 'em

"Shut the eff up"

Not happening?  Better rethink this.  Watch out for the deniers.

A recent film broadcast in the UK called "The Great Global Warming Swindle"  is edited to give the impression that global warming is a hoax.  In that film one scientist says that the increases in climate temperature cannot be measured accurately due to the cities.  The cities create their own weather and temperature conditions and this is offered as some sort of proof that global warming is not created by mankind.  Well there you go.  Global warming is created by the cities.  Not by mankind.  Boy, I thought all along it was caused by you,  I'm so sorry.

Cityscape

The buildings are a little tall in the picture at left but the scale of the whole picture shows the size of the city (40 miles wide) relative to the height of the atmosphere (10 miles high) above it.  Of course most of the gases from the city spread around that 10 mile high atmosphere so we can all share in their aroma.


From news stories about the most recent IPCC report:

“The worst stuff is not going to happen because we can't be that stupid,” said Harvard University oceanographer James McCarthy, who was a top author of the 2001 version of this report. “Not that I think the projections aren't that good, but because we can't be that stupid.”

I guess the scientists can get it wrong sometimes. The worst is going to happen because mankind is that stupid. If we were intelligent we wouldn't have gotten into this mess in the first place? ~Stuey

Nearly 30 per cent of all species are estimated to be "at high risk of irreversible extinction" if average temperatures rise more than 1.5-2.5C, as predicted by the end of the century.

Damage to Earth's weather systems from greenhouse gases will change rainfall patterns, punch up the power of storms and boost the risk of drought, flooding and stress on water supplies, the IPCC said.

I'm wondering if I'm a member of the 30% club, ~Stuey

At US insistence, (IPCC) drafters dumped a paragraph that said North America was "expected to experience severe local economic damage and substantial ecosystem, social and cultural disruption," delegates said

In God we trust, sure can't trust our governments.  Wonder how they intend to keep this one a secret. ~Stuey


A little warmer is a good thing? Another story we get is the popular idea that a little warmer is a good thing for those of us living north of the equator.  It will mean longer growing seasons and increased crops for our farmers.  I, myself, certainly enjoy the warmer winter.  Unfortunately, we are already seeing some of the bad side of this in British Columbia, Canada where the pine beetle is no longer being killed off by the cold winters and millions of hectares of pine trees are being destroyed. (1 hectare = 2.47105381 acres)  Since trees are one of the main defenses against warming their loss will snowball climate change conditions.  Where I live the local farms may well have increased growing seasons but they may also have much more volatile weather conditions.  We may even have tornados and hurricanes which have been extremely rare in the past.  A proud standing field of corn, the preferred crop, will be reduced to nothing in a few hours.  Of course with the warm temperatures come the corn borers and the locusts and grasshoppers and a host of other never seen here before, pests will move north from our southern neighbour the United States.  Nor will our animals be left out of this calamity.  Our farms for the most part are dairy farms specializing in Holstein cattle.  The diseases and sicknesses that afflict these cattle will be more virulent and new problems will arise. In some cases whole herds will have to be put down.  . 

Imported food is another problem.  We will no longer be able to safely import foods.  For two reasons.  Firstly, the risk of disease, and secondly, the destruction of the source of these foods.  Already many vineyards, banana trees, coffee plantations, maize farms, citrus trees, and potato crops have been destroyed due to increasing storm and seismic activity.  This destruction will continue and the inhabitants of these countries, man and beast, will need everything they produce for themselves and in some cases they will need to import our food.  (If we have enough)

Volatility of the weather is another climate change concern.  We are already seeing much more rapid swings in our weather.  The Weather Channel and The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) are the main sources of weather forecasting for our area.  It is only within the last decade that is was possible for them to forecast the weather for our region for a week or more in advance.  Now we are lucky if they get it right for the next day or two.  Every morning when I check the forecast it has changed from the previous night.  Not really a problem for old farts like me who just sit around the house all day and pass wind.  But if a man is on the land every day or out building a new edifice then the forecast is very important.  If he decides to cut the hay when he sees the weather is sunny and warm, and half way through the wind comes up hard and blows all the fresh cut hay into the tree line he may just be a little frustrated.  Maybe even angry.  The builder stands up a new wall and pins it with a couple of boards only to have a gust of wind take it over to the edge of the yard and neatly pile it there.  All of this will come to pass, and a great deal more.  These are only little examples of what to expect.  Put your cap on and you will be able to come up with many more related to your own field of endeavour. 

     Volatility is not just about daily weather .  It also relates to seasonal change.  One summer may start as a terrific planting season with moist ground and warm days and so the crops are sown.  This is followed by a month or two of daily downpours that drop 5 cm of rain daily and cause flooding and washouts and the seeds either rot in the ground or are washed of the land along with much of the topsoil.  Next we get hot hot days in which anything that did survive the monsoon like conditions is dried out and scorched by the sun.  The possibility of wild fires is very real.  Of course the following year may start with cold cold weather only to be followed by either rains or heat.  Many combinations are possible but we can count on them from now on.  So how does a farmer know what to plant?  I would suggest food rather than cattle corn with a major herd reduction and a more local farming style.

Heat!  Although this is really about  weather it deserves special mention.  This is the one that kills, not just people but crops and cattle and almost everything but pathogens.  It is especially of concern to the very old, the very young, and to the farming community.   My great grandchildren and I have a heat problem. 
As mentioned in a page about hydro the chances of our grid system carrying the load with 10's of 1000's of air conditioners running full out while the sun is beating down and the thermometer is pushing 40 degrees centigrade (The US has already experienced temperatures at 126 deg. F breaking all previous records and thousands died in 2006)  is not very likely and if we do run it at peak we will need all the coal generation we have available which will make the situation irretrievable.  The sun will show it's ugly side killing not just we varmints, but our animals, including pets, our crops, and all but the pathogens who seem to love that heat.  The words
"Your Toast" will have real meaning.  You will need to know how to keep cool without hydro.  No not a generator 'cause that creates CO2.  I have a few solutions and you will need one too.

High temperatures beat lows - Gerald Meehl (NCAR) on Current & Future Climate
Where's the missing heat? Kevin Trenberth (NCAR) on solar energy & climate change
Four Hot Questions about Climate Change (audio)
UCAR: What Are the Likely Impacts of Global Warming?
UCAR: What is Causing Global Warming?
The YouTube videos below are a sampling of UCAR & NCAR presentations that are designed to help the layperson understand both the science of climate change and how the deniers deliberately pervert the science.

Is Denial, The Only Way Forward?

Getting too hot for you?
Smoke stack
Sometimes when trying to regurgitate something that you've only half digested, it can be very difficult to maintain an orderly flow.  But I'll do my best.

"Don't loose your cool over global warming"

Users Online