Friday, January 26, 2007

[climate change] un draft report debate

The UN Report will say:

■It is more than 90 per cent certain that human activities have caused global warming.
■Global temperatures will rise by 2 to 4.5 degrees.
■Earth will be increasingly unable to absorb rising carbon dioxide.
■Sea levels could rise by between 20cm and 60cm in the next 100 years, and will continue to rise for 1000 years.
■Snow will vanish from all but the highest peaks.
■More extreme, violent weather will ensue.

However, a different article says:

■Geological coring data shows that natural rises in carbon dioxide levels follow temperature changes rather than cause them;
■It is also a fact that more than 90 per cent of the greenhouse gas effect is caused by water vapour, and the contribution from man-made carbon dioxide is estimated at 0.1 per cent;
■The source of information is claimed by an exclusive few — government-funded scientists with an array of climate-change models and large computer systems;
■We would not like to buy at the top of the sharemarket cycle, nor should we buy into a possible global warming peak without a responsible and wide-ranging debate;
■1975 Newsweek Report saying temperatures were falling, not rising, based on the last 40 years;
■Even the man in the street sees himself as an expert.

Clearly the CO2 question above is the one which is in dispute and where both sides flatly contradict one another. Len Walker, the author, is a civil engineer, not a climate expert. However, I did find a site supporting Len Walker’s statement about CO2. Unfortunately, it was published by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, so we’re back where we started.

The UN report is written by 2500 scientists, citing 6000 reports and reviewed by 750 experts, operating under a United Nations banner. The UN banner worries me, as the UN has a global political agenda. However, the question still remains: “Why would 2500 scientists go to the trouble of destroying their reputations by stating a clear scientific error, even if UN backed?”

Late note: having now gone through 11 random ‘climate change myth’ sites, the layouts are impressive, for example this one, complete with graphs. However, there is no evidence backing the assertion about CO2, no links to a credible scientific authority. In the end it’s just a blogger’s assertion which directly contradicts 2500 scientists.

That’s the dilemma.


CityUnslicker said...

My onw conclusion, 2 cents it is not worth.

Clearly the earth is warming.
Humaity has a massive impact upon hte earth and is producing billionsof tons of gaseous waste and putting it into the atmosphere.
We don't really know what this will do.
The consesnsus is that it will cause big problems, but with little historical data we don't know what will happen really.

Denial is implausible,predicition has holes for the crtics to point out.

Do nothing though is surely the risky option. There is a big cost if we are wrong.
Wrecking our economy and failing to act on a global level is a risk to our country.

Jeremy Jacobs said...

UN,EU,NuLabour Spin + Lies,lies,lies

Neo Conservative said...

Apparently 43% of Globe readers believe that global warming is solely a man-made phenomena...

My question would be... are these folks a subset of the 47% of Globe readers who believe in flying saucers?


james higham said...

Jeremy - you say 'lies, lies. lies' but I'd rather see evidence from scientists that it is not induced to a large extent by humans. Not from bloggers basing their views on other bloggers who are basing it on MSM stories. I mean actually evidence form the scientific community as a whole.

I agree that this thing has become all spin by the UN, EU nd Blair and you know full well how caustic I've been about those. That's not in dispute. But there is the little matter of 2500 scientists on one side and oil company scientists and bloggers on the other. Where's the truth?

Neo mentions what Globe readers believe. Again, the Globe readers are nothing to go on because they're not scientists. Again and again, I've looked for the scientific evidence that climate change is human induced [and you only need look out of your window as well] and for evidence that it's not. I haven't found any hard evidence that it's not. As yet.

In fact, it looks to me as if the globalists have latched onto something which they, by their policies, know full well is happening and therefore are confident that the scientific community will back it.

Wil Robinson said...

What exactly do you see as the "UN's global political agenda?"