An Inconvenient Truth

[Mtbeaver]

They were good weren't they, Jess.

-... . .- ...- . .-. .. ... .- -... .. --. --. .. .-. .-.. -.-- --. . . -.- ?

beaver is a big girly geek?

[Flamethrower]

Ahhssoh!! Beaver been using Google

[Burgs]

Excerpts from Bruce Bartlett, of the National Center for Policy Analysis of Dallas, Texas, who has compiled a history of alarmism.

Climate History

It is a disturbing thought that perhaps the problem of climate change is imaginary. The historical record tells us of many warming episodes and subsequent cooling periods that have bedeviled humans for thousands of years. The ancient Greek philosopher Plato(427 - 347 BC), wrote about major climate changes that were known in his day. In the dialogue, "Timaeus," he wrote that warming at regular intervals often leads to great floods. When the gods purge the earth with a deluge of water, the survivor are herdsmen and shepherds who dwell on the mountains. Those who live in cities are carried by the rivers into the sea." In his dialogue, "Critias," Plato wrote about weather-related geological changes, referring to "formidable deluges"
that washed away all the top soil, turning the land into a "skeleton of a body wasted by disease." What were now plains had once been covered with rich soil, Plato said, and barren mountains were once covered with trees.
The yearly "water from Zeus" had been lost, he went on, creating deserts where the land was once productive. Plato's student, Aristotle, who lived from 384 BC to 322 BC, also recorded evidence of global warming in the first book on meteorology, "Meteorologica." He noted that in the time of the Trojan War, the land of Argos was marshy and unarable, while that of Mycenae was temperate and fertile. "But now the opposite is the case," Aristotle wrote. "The land of Mycenae has become completely dry and barren, while the Argive land that was formerly barren, owing to the water has now become fruitful." He observed the same phenomenon elsewhere covering large regions and nations. In turn, Aristotle's apprentice Theophrastus(374 -287 BC), discussed climate change in his work, "De ventis," which means "The Wind."
He observed that in Crete, "nowadays the winters are more severe and more snow falls." In earlier times, Theophrastus said, the mountains there bore grain and fruit, and the island was more populous. But when the climate changed, the land became infertile. In his book, "De causis plantarum,"
Theophrastus noted that the Greek city of Larissa once had plentiful olive trees, but that falling temperatures killed them all.
Through the ages books were rare, and books on weather more so. There were the popular almanacs that served as calendars, medical guides and agricultural instruction manuals. But other books were extremely rare. If any copies existed they were handcopied. They were housed in monasteries and libraries, but few got to read them. in the first century AD, an ancient Roman named Columella wrote a specifically agricultural treatise called, "De re rustica." In it, he discussed global warming that had turned areas once too cold for agriculture into thriving farm communities. Columella cites an authority named Saserna who recorded many such cases. According to Saserna, "regions which formerly, because of the unremitting severity of winter, could not safeguard any shoot of the vine or the olive planted in them, now that the earlier coldness has abated and weather is becoming more clement, produce olive harvests and the vintages of Bacchus [wine] in greatest abundance."
While these rare books described and noted climate changes, no one appeared to be in a moral panic over their writings. As literacy and printing became commonplace in the Middle Ages, many diverse peoples, professional and amateur began recording the temperature and climate-related phenomena, such as the dates when plants began to blossom annually. They were aware of a warming trend that began around 900 and a cooling trend that began around 1300. Due to several recordists we know that during the warm period, the Vikings established settlements in Greenland where perpetual ice had previously covered the land. Ancient Norse records tell us that these settlements were abandoned after 1250 when falling temperatures made farming less viable and spreading ice in the sea made transportation more difficult.
The cooling trend led to heavy rains in 14th century Europe that were too much for the crops, leading to reduced agricultural output and numerous famines. In the 15th century, a warming trend returned, which lasted until the middle of the 16th century when temperatures again started to fall. By the 17th century, it was clearly apparent that a cooling trend was altering sea routes, changing the kinds of crops farmers could grow, fishing patterns and so on. Glaciers began to advance rapidly in many places and rivers that had long been ice-free year round started to freeze in the winter. This "little ice age" continued well into the 19th century. Since then, we have been in a warming cycle that appears to have accelerated around 1950.
We now know a great deal about climate changes from the historical record.
These changes occurred long before industrialization and could not possibly have been man-made in any way whatsoever. They don't prove that man is not now affecting the climate through carbon dioxide emissions, but they do tell us that temporary warming trends are common in human history. So what is different, because never before have newspapers been so full of doom?
Because climate is more or less constantly slowly changing, from ice ages through interglacials over hundreds of thousands of years, local or international changes in the environment can be discounted. However the hype is upwardly exponential. Is it driven solely by newspapers? Not really, because all newspapers want to do is sell more newspapers. They report what they can sell and sell what they can report. By politicians? All they want to do is get re-elected.
Whilst environment concerns are far from new, the real reasons for the new concern may have more to do with the human psyche than the planet we walk on. It may have something to do with a newly developing combination of gullibility, greed and graft, with a topping of guilt for good measure.
Where once a whacky notion usually died a quick natural death, now the internet puts a magnifying glass on anything remotely dramatic, and in a matter of hours it can be read by billions. Perhaps what has changed is not the climate, but the reporting of it.

[Em-Forcer]

Interesting... something to ponder...

However, there are considerably more of us these days: upping sticks and re-establishing a settlement elsewhere is trickier - where would you find space? I think perhaps it's nature's way of carrying out a 'correction' in population size, before we grow too many for the planet to support us!

But whether or not one believes climate change is entirely, or partly, a product of human behaviour, I do believe that there is absolutely no harm in being a bit more considerate about the way we live, and a bit more humble about how we treat the planet we live on. In the past, each community was probably more self-sufficient and better able to adapt to what was locally available, whereas we are much more demanding and wasteful of resources, and in this technological age our waste is much less biodegradable.
So, if these concerns make us reconnect with nature, and with each other (the best form of globalisation!), then maybe the alarm's a good thing, misplaced or not!

OK, I'm going to take off my sandals and woolly jumper now, I've let my inner hippy have her say!

[Darren]

on ABC TV Tonight (July 12th 2007, 8:30pm)

THE GREAT GLOBAL WARMING SWINDLE
We've almost begun to take it for granted that climate change is a man-made phenomenon. But according to a group of leading scientists, if the planet is heating up, it isn't your fault and there's nothing you can do about it.

[frontrow]

I watched it, very interesting viewing(til i fell asleep)....Makes you wonder really, although it really doesn't hurt either way in treating the earth with more respect anyway...

[shasta]

I watched it, very interesting viewing(til i fell asleep)....Makes you wonder really, although it really doesn't hurt either way in treating the earth with more respect anyway...

It also had me re-thinking. Until the second half of the show which proved that the wanker who made the docco had wilfully manipulated the data as well as the credentials and views of some of his experts to support his view that climate change is not caused by man made emissions. He was also accused of doingt so in a number of previous doccos.

[The EnForcer]

I knew it was on and meant to watch it but forgot...bugger.

Funny thing is I was listening to ABC radio yesterday, yes yes I know, and before the show was even shown there was reports of research that had proven some of the statements made as being wrong. The most equivocal of them being the fact that the suns output, in any terms, has reduced since 1987. The basis of the docos argument being that the sun has increased it's output.

Anyway, I agree with frontrow, whether you believe or not what harm is there in looking after our home?

[shasta]

Anyway, I agree with frontrow, whether you believe or not what harm is there in looking after our home?

I do too. But the bigger picture of energy policy potentially has some very poor people possibly bearing the biggest cost at least in terms of opportunities to develop their economies.

His theory about solar activity was spot-on. He presentad various data which showed a direct, obvious correlation between that and global warming/cooling independant of atmospheric carbon. But there also lay his most glaring fraudulent omission. After about the 1970's there has been, for the first time in the history of the Earth. a dramatic warming where the normal pre-industrial trend would show cooling. It coincides with a surge in man-made emissions. He deliberately concealed/disguised that among other facts.

[Jamie_S]

My appraisal of The Great Global Warming Swindle, for what it's worth:
Utter and complete nonsense!
The data was shown to be manipulated by the writer/director, and it was also shown that he is a bit of a recidivist when it comes to this kind of thing.
As for the debate afterwards; where did the ABC get so many fruit cakes from? At one point some of them were carrying on about eugenics and Nazism....ohhh, please!

[Burgs]

More from my contact Ken Ring to rattle your cage TEF

Letters to NZ Herald

I write regular letters to the editor, although these days mysteriously none get to print. So I enclose them in this new column. (In reverse order but they aren't linked.)

13/7/07
Dear Editor
It should be noted that the carbon dioxide released when wood is burned is the same as that absorbed by the tree when it was growing. No more and no less. It is the same for coal and oil. Therefore no more carbon dioxide is released into the atmosphere than was removed for the growing or forming process, so banning open fires because of carbon dioxide emissions is absurd. Further, the main emissions from a wood-fired plant consist of water vapour. That is the visible part of the smoke coming from a chimney. Dark or smelly smoke just means the wood is not burning completely.
In the past cities were much more polluted from coal fires and factories but somehow the climate did not change. That aside, there is always everything to be said for moving factories and heavy trucks away from residential suburbs. But a city's pollution should not be confused with a country's climate, and no one ever died from sitting around a fireplace despite the fact that about half of the world's population is using biomass as the heating source in their private households. The danger from dying from the cold is far greater.
Granted, smoke does contain particles of unburned fuel which form as a result of incomplete combustion and harmful pollutants can trigger coughs, runny noses, headaches and eye and throat irritation, not to mention the harm to lung tissue, but one would have to sit so close to the source that they breathed it all in most of the time instead of clean air. The same can be said for vehicle exhausts which are fatal if inhaled. The fact is, most people choose not to stick their noses in their car's exhaust pipe. Similarly few fireplaces are designed with seating halfway up the chimney. Carbon monoxide is far more deadly than smoke from a fireplace but I have not heard of any call to ban all cars.

Lest they be accused of revenue-gathering, councils and government keen on issuing permits for everything should leave open fireplaces alone. We have always enjoyed them for free.
Ken Ring
Titirangi
------------------------------------------
1/7/07
Dear Editor
It seems not a day goes past without yet another mention of how doomed we all are because the planet's temperature may have risen 0.6 of one degree in the past century. Would it be asking the impossible for this newspaper to not mention global warming or climate change in just one edition? I am getting a bit hot and bothered having to hear about it day after day after day. Besides, it is winter time and some of us find comfort in warmth.
Ken Ring
Titirangi
------------------------------------------
19/4/07
Dear Editor
It seems a newspaper cannot mention weather, anywhere, anytime, anymore, without mention also of 'climate-change'. It is like some mantra belonging to a fundamentalist religion. I remember life b.cc. Weather happened, and was dealt with until the next lot. Nobody was held to blame. Certainly nobody was taxed for it. Yet amazingly the world survived. Scientists were paid to do real research, not just what pleased the government. The weather was something that was actually expected to change. Please, can we get back to that?
Ken Ring
Titirangi
--------------------------------------------
18/4/07
Dear Editor
The global warming debate is certainly not over. If a range element is only 2C above current room temperature a kettle will not heat up, because when the day cools so will the kettle. A kettle of water weighs a couple of kilos. We are talking about the air which weighs five thousand million million tons, being supposedly warmed daily by CO2, something that is only 1/3000th of the air's volume, through 2C in 100 years, according to the IPCC. That's 100 winters and summers, many cooler than average, that the extra 2C warmth has to break through. Just like a stray spark from a fire, any rising CO2 molecule has its heat stripped off it at 10,000 feet, where it is 0C, above which the surroundings go into subzero temps. At the top of the troposphere, where the supposed greenhouse effect operates to reflect heat back down to earth, it is -57C. Yet the new climate science asks us to believe that one molecule in 3000 can heat up hundreds of miles of air that is colder than it gets in Antarctic in autumn(today the S Pole was -54C). One is therefore left wondering, if atmospheric CO2 can do that, why isn't it doing it right now to Antarctica?
Ken Ring
Titirangi
----------------------------------------------------
31/3/07
Dear Editor
It is odd to hear NIWA's announcement of rain last as bad 150 years ago, when in 1857 no countrywide metservice existed. If so, where are the records? The storm is barely over, and already, according to their nationwide press statement, NIWA are certain that global warming is to blame. Yet they didn't predict this one until it was already on us. If they knew it was coming then where were the stopbanks and frenzied activities getting well prepared for it? Why is not NIWA accountable for the lack of warning? Perhaps some metservice accountability for insurance claims may up their diligence and stop the nonsensical press releases. That logic will, as usual, not be addressed. Neither will the equally absurd suggestion that these storms are going to occur more regularly, now that global warming is supposed to be here. If they couldn't predict this one, they logically can't be certain of the next and the next. Or am I missing something? Actually this storm WAS repeated in the past, on 2 February 1936, described often by historians as the worst storm of last century. The fact that it was exactly four moon cycles ago is probably sheer coincidence.
Ken Ring
Titirangi
-------------------------------------------------------------
16/3/07
Dear Editor
The golden days of summer are perhaps not yet over, despite what forecasters have predicted in reaction to the week's sudden temperature drop. The cold snap was due to Tuesday's moon being not only at its southernmost position for the month, but the furthest point south it reaches all this year. The previous southernmost point was on 13 February, when another very cold snap occurred bringing unseasonal wintry temperatures to the far south. The next southernmost point will be 9 April. The moon's latitudinal position always brings barometric changes, something modern meteorology has yet to notice.
Ken Ring
Titirangi
-----------------------------------------------------------------
4/2/07
Dear Ed
Our population is growing all the time, and that alone means we are breathing more and filling the air with CO2. We are industrialised nations, so industrial growth is essential to our economy, and the emissions must continue. The greens of this world are not really talking about reducing emissions, but lifting the foot slightly off the accelerator so the rise is less fast. Having emissions grow less fast becomes equivalent to reducing them. So the measures are for what? CO2 is going to eventually increase despite Kyoto, and forestry sinks will never outpace CO2 output both anthropogenic and natural because annual bush fires are also part of the CO2 contribution. There is nothing we can do to prevent CO2 output apart from by completely stopping breathing, running, cooking, driving, working and eating - immediately.
It may be what the green lobby wants for their children, but not me for mine.
Ken.Ring
West Auckland
------------------------------
4/1/07
Dear Editor
So..the world is in for the hottest year since records began, according to the World Meteorological Organisation, and our experts apparently concur. If untrue then such baseless and inflammatory warnings would be highly irresponsible. The great news then, is not the prospect of a hottest year, but that meteorologists can now forecast for more than a day or two ahead, in fact up to a year. Snow, hail, drought and flood-prone farmers will be welcoming with open arms this wonderful new farm-saving service. When will we see the first cyclone prediction of summer?
Ken Ring
Titirangi

[The EnForcer]

It's a shame Ken doesn't put more of his efforts towards making a change that he believes in rather than being negative about peoples efforts to try to drive change that they believe in. Perhaps he is correct that CO2 emmissions can't be reduced and perhaps he is correct that Global Warming is not the issue that it is claimed to be but as I have said before what harm is there in making the efforts to improve our environment.

I have recently had many discussions on this point with people that are sceptical and it seems that a lot of people say what's the point we can't make a difference anyway. I say that is crap. The issues we are talking about are not going to be fixed in the short or medium term and it may be generations before we really see any improvements but it is our efforts now that can change the attitudes of future generations where the real changes will be made and felt. We need to change our culture and that takes time and if my efforts now will influence others and my sons to think differently about the way we treat the world then I am doing my job. Every little counts and don't let the detractors say any different.

[Happy]

Global warming and climate change are important, it doesn't matter if you think it is man mad occurance or not, it is going to affect you!

What surprises me though is soo many people think that the greenhouse gas effect of warming our planet is the entire arguement when it is clearly not.

How about nearly 10 percent of the yangtse rivers flow being industrial waste and sewerage? That is millions of liters but isn't causing our planet to warm up, it causes disease and wipes out species - isn't this just as important??

[hopep]

How about nearly 10 percent of the yangtse rivers flow being industrial waste and sewerage? That is millions of liters but isn't causing our planet to warm up, it causes disease and wipes out species - isn't this just as important??

Agree Happy. But its less than 100 years since the Thames was much worse - society was changed and it recovered. If we can make societal level changes many positive flow-on effects are likely. But, it takes a lot of "little people" making a lot of "little changes".

[fulvio sammut]

Are you lot still trying to save the world via a rugby blog?

There's a simpler solution to improving things: exercise your vote wisely in the coming general election and write to your local members and candidates of your concerns.