What global warming?

[Cornish Steve]

I realize it's a bit controversial to post this message in the Green Room but, as business owners, it's important we face facts when building a strategy.

I just read another report that criticizes the paranoia that exists around global warning. I've seen several such reports over the last few years, which claim that global warming either isn't an issue or just plain doesn't exist. Take some of the claims in this article, for example:

1) Global temperatures have cooled in the last decade, enough to wipe out the one degree rise of the previous 100 years.

2) Mankind is responsible for a fraction of one percent of the effect of greenhouse gases.

3) Governments are unnecessarily imposing regulations that make us poorer (higher prices for traditional fuels) and less safe (smaller and lighter cars).

If this is true, then businesses that play to the global warming message would appear to be riding on hype. Can such a strategy succeed in the long-term?

Of course, global warming is just one of many aspects of the green agenda. Still, it's the most emotive, so it's right to look at real data to see whether the tales of woe we hear all the time are based on fact.

For anyone interested, here's the report to which I referred above: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,334682,00.html .

 

[Ashley_Price]

I am a paid up member of the Green Party - so you can guess what my beliefs are.

But, can so many scientists be wrong? See this article from the BBC as just one of many examples

 

[Smudge]

Could it be just as simply as the Sun getting warmer. As it has done in the past?

 

[telemax]

We can argue whether climate change is happening or not. I tend to think it is, but it has been totally politicised, and there is mass media hysteria. Then everything is blamed on global warming.

For example Last year was one of the lowest snowfalls ever in Montreal, the media was talking about , how the skiing industry will need to adjust in the future, and how snow clearing may be cut back.

This year is 30 cm of snow away from an all time record and we are due a 35 cm wallop of snow tonight, we have had nearly 4 metres of the stuff. One of my friends here has a neigbour who hasn't bothered cleaning snow its 10 feet high with a car buried under it on the driveway.

Guess what the media is saying, it might be to do with global warming!!

 

[AdamW]

We can argue whether climate change is happening or not. I tend to think it is, but it has been totally politicised, and there is mass media hysteria. Then everything is blamed on global warming.

Well said! I strongly agree it is happening but the way it is politicised takes away from it, if that makes sense.

 

[templarmc]

I follow James Whale's stance on this I'm afraid.

Personally, is it not just like eating ten big Macs then drinking Diet Coke? Funny how all the political parties, big businesses etc. suddenly claim to be concerned - never mind the profits, the votes etc.

How many artists at Live Earth walked there, and how many flew in private jets, drove around in limos etc.?

 

[Grassman]

It was a lot warmer when it was colder, and I had a lot more money in my pocket

 

[Jenni384]

What gets me is that the media find a bandwagon and get everyone to jump on it. This year's buzz word is Global Warming.

I personally believe the Earth goes through her own cycles and gets cooler and warmer over the years. I believe that mankind has made a difference and speedd up the warming process, but not as much as is implied by the media.

Whoever is responsible, surely the focus should not be on Global Warming or whatever buzz-word is around at the time, but on fostering a respect for the world on which and through which we live. Typical of society that we only look for a solution to a problem, rather than pre-empting the problems before they happen. Logic says pollution is bad and wasting energy is bad. I don't give a monkey's about Global Warming - but am concerned about pollution and energy consumption and my relationship with the earth. It's the same end result but the focus is different.
I'm rambling, hopefully what I've said will make sense... we'll see!

 

well as we get all our energy from the sun therefore all our heat and the sun is 1 million times larger than the earth.

One has to wonder about our puny efforts in the scheme of things.

Earl

 

[Rhyl Lightworks]

Fox News does make the Daily Mail look like Communist propoganda.
Barrie

 

[Grassman]

This year's buzz word is Global Warming.

You are so 2007 FF
This years buzz words are 'Climate Change'
They cant really call it global warming any more because 1998 was (globally) the warmest year man has ever personally recorded. That record is now a complete decade away and so Global Warming goes more out of touch as each month passes.
Indeed, get with the times as Climate Change is fast becoming last years Global Warming. It's very clever too, because the slightest little obscure weather pattern around the world can be blamed on us and our taxes increased to 'save the planet'
Oh how our future ancesters will look back and mock us. 'The world is flat' springs to mind

 

[telemax]

It's also funny how the solution to this problem is thousands of politicians getting on jets and flying to the other side of the word for an all expenses paid trip. Why wasn't the carbon footprint of that conference in Bali made public?

 

[MH1]

According to the radio this is one of the coldest years on record around the world, with europe being an exception rather than the rule.

A load of hot air around the subject if you'll pardon the pun, I personally believe it is just a normal warming up cycle / alteration period in the earths history, doubtless it will get colder again in the future.

 

[Grassman]

There are 10 year old kids walking about that have never known it so cold

 

[ianw]

The earth does warm and cool naturally, this is caused by levels of CO2. As we are contributing to CO2 output the climate change is being brought about quicker then what it usually would.

"Ice cores reveal the Earth's natural climate rhythm over the last 800,000 years. When carbon dioxide changed there was always an accompanying climate change. Over the last 200 years human activity has increased carbon dioxide to well outside the natural range," explained Dr Wolff. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5314592.stm

 

[makhmalee]

The IPCC also warned that the cost of acting now to reduce emissions would be far less than having to adapt to the future consequences of climate change.

 

[Chris H]

It's very clever too, because the slightest little obscure weather pattern around the world can be blamed on us and our taxes increased to 'save the planet'

If there wasn't revenue to be raised with 'green taxes' or research grants set aside specifically for 'climate change' then no one in authority would give a toss.

The whole frenzy about global warming and climate change means that I've become cynical to the extreme whenever 'green issues' are raised.

Nowt wrong with dealing with pollution, recycling, waste or managing the earth's resources, all common sense stewardship things. But the other things that have piggy backed onto environmental issues?

Bah!

 

[Dawg]

The IPCC also warned that the cost of acting now to reduce emissions would be far less than having to adapt to the future consequences of climate change.

The IPCC report is flawed by many things, one of which is the lack of technological advances being factored into cost and growth calculations.
Technology has meant, for instance, the cost of long life bulbs is falling fast. Similarly, the cost of solar panels is due to fall substantially over the next decade. Given these falls, the perceived cost of change now is vastly greater than the future cost. If we spend the monies advocated by the IPCC, Stern et al. we are mortgaging the future incomes of grandchildren to pay for faulty analysis.

 

[Cornish Steve]

I read an interesting news article over the weekend. The founder of The Weather Channel in the US is going to sue Al Gore for fraud. He believes that, by taking the issue of global warming through the courts, the public will be able to see through all the hype and politics and get at the scientific truth. If there turns out to be no firm evidence for global warming, those who are making money from the lie (including Al Gore and his followers) will have to pay damages. It'll be interesting to see what happens next.

 

[AdamJ]

The one underlying problem is that none of us here, and most people in the world, know what we're talking about when it comes to climate change / global warming. Sadly this includes politicians who come up with tax-raising 'green' strategies based on little understandng of the facts.

I profess to also understand very little - one minute its 'confirmed - hottest year ever recorded', then you read another article stating how a lot of temperature recording is done using static weather stations. When these were built they were outside towns and cities whereas now they're subsumed by them, and hence are recording higher temperatures as urban areas are generally warmer than rural. Is this right - dunno. But if anyone is serious about understanding it, reading newspapers or watching anything in media is generally the last place to do it if you want sound, unbiased facts. E.g. constant newspaper reprots attributing a single weather event, or short series of weather events throught a year or even decade as being 'due to climate change', which is most palpably nonsense - even the most ardent 'man is responsible' scientists agree single short-term, and usually local, events are of no value in the climate change debate. This is then compounded that what one scientist says will be counteracted by what another says.

But, can so many scientists be wrong?

If any scientist says 'yes, this is proof that climate change is 100% absolutely and uncontestably man-made', then yes, they are wrong. Science at its most fundamental consists of the proposition of identifying a phenomena, creating a theory to explain how it works and then work to try and prove it, and most often work to prove it wrong. If it can't be proved wrong then its accepted, but true science is always open to the possibility that something may come along which proves the hypothesis untrue. To quote Einstein "No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right, a single experiement can prove me wrong". See 'scientific method' on Wikipedia for an explanation of how observing the effect (in this case climate change) cannot be taken as proof of the cause.


There is one scary element to the whole climate change issue though - this being that to deny that man is the cause, or even that man's effect is very low, usually results in screams of 'luddite'. Its almost as though believing it is compulsory and anyone who does not is a subversive threat to society and should be shouted down immediately. Most worrying.

 

[sapmi]

Statistically there have been changes in global temperature throughout the ages. We've just come out of a mini iceage!!

I think there is nothing humans can do to the whether. Just another excuse for taxing us heavily

 

[Grassman]

Nowt wrong with dealing with pollution, recycling, waste or managing the earth's resources, all common sense stewardship things.

Spot on.
There is not a single argument against that statement.

 

[Solar Water Heating Ltd]

Over the last 3 years we've all experienced significant rapid changes in the the pattern of seasons as well as minimum and maximum temperatures, leave alone floods and hurricanes in unexpected places. Agreed that some part of it is natural and expected. But at this rate? Obviously there's something that's expedited the process?

 

[AdamJ]

See my previous post - 3 years is nothing if you're looking at it scientifically, its meaninglessly short. Even the James Lovelock's of the world agree to that.

 

[Cornish Steve]

Over the last 3 years we've all experienced significant rapid changes in the the pattern of seasons as well as minimum and maximum temperatures, leave alone floods and hurricanes in unexpected places. Agreed that some part of it is natural and expected. But at this rate? Obviously there's something that's expedited the process?

Sorry, but I don't agree. What significant rapid changes have you experienced? Temperatures have remained within the usual averages. Temperature swings have largely been the result of El Nino and similar cyclical events. Plus, average temperatures in the last decade have dropped more than they rose in the previous century. Are we now going to say that man is causing global cooling? (Funnily enough, this is what my wife was taught years ago in school in Plymouth. Looking back, it's rather amusing.)

We need real data to draw conclusions, not occasional outliers followed by a media frenzy.

 

[Cornish Steve]

Here's the latest report from the UN: global temperatures continue to fall. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7329799.stm

I found this report very interesting. Because the data is not what the UN politicians 'want' to see, the drop is referred to as "very slight". Others refer to a temporary phenomenon and that temperatures will hit an all-time high in five years' time.

Come on! The drop is quite significant, and predicting a sudden rapid rise is complete guesswork. What matters in science is real data and little else. That data shows that the earth is beginning to cool and not heat up. What the article reveals to me is the apparent tension between real data and the apparent desire of politicians to spread doom and gloom. It's OK to be cautious, but it's stupid to spin the facts in such a way as to deny them.

 

[nickie1105]

Great topic! Does anyone remember a programme that was on the TV last year sometime called something like 'the great global warming scam'. It was great- world leading experts being fired because they wouldn't put their names on research papers to back up the 'global warming' theory. Some even think we're heading in the opposite direction and into another ice age! Personally, I've always believed that any change in temperature is due to natural phenomina-the earth has always warmed up and cooled down etc. I do however believe that we should make more of an effort to clean up our act regarding what we do with our waste etc.

 

[StephenW]

Dear Nickie

Yes, saw that program, plus some articles, all about the infamous hockey stick graph.

Some food for thought here: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/04/20/do2002.xml

 

[peebles]

Global warming? I wish! Where was our glorious summer last year? in 2006 i know july was lovely as we got married so i remember LOL but apparently august was dire? so please please please can we all contribute more and actually have some nice weather? ;-)

its all a load of bollony. i heard that one of the highest contributers to CO2 gas is animal poo. so what we going to do about that? all turn veggie, kill all the animals, or lace the grass with immodium? of course not, don't be ridiculous peebles, what we will do is tax the animals or more realistically tax the people who own the animals. we will take a sample of how much poo your animals do in a week as an average and then tax you per kilo of poo.

its a money making scheme. whoever thought it up is to be commended for the amount of money that has been made on the back of 'green' issues.

peebles.

 

[leemason]

Climate change is always a difficult topic because there are so many influences on Global temperatures and weather patterns (the person who originally came up with chaos theory was a weather forcaster). However we do see signs all around us that some changes are happening (i.e. flowers blooding earlier in spring, some animals either not hibernating or coming our of hibernation early, etc). For my part I do believe that our activities are contributing to these changes (but are not the only factor). But even if you don't believe this it is still a good idea to reduce the amount of rubbish that we throw away, reduce the amount of CO2 that we pump into the atmostphere and generally clean up our act.

What concerns me is that countries like China don't even seem to care about the effects of polution on their own people. They will eat anything that moves until there are none left and won't really care. The pollution is so bad in Beijing that they are having to stop local factories producing good during the Olympics to make the atmosphere breathable for visitors and athletes. Once the Olympics have finished they will all start up again and with Chinese economic growth this will only get worse.

 

[Cornish Steve]

Very true. Anyone who's ever visited Beijing or Shanghai in China, New Delhi or Mumbai in India, Bangkok in Thailand, etc., knows what real pollution is like. In comparison, Western Europe and the US are pretty good about controlling pollution.

This morning, I read that a well-respected scientist has been thrown under a bus because he doesn't believe global warming is a major issue. This is so sad.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/5736103.html

 

[AdamJ]

I didn't see any reference to his murder in that link - am I missing something??

 

[Chris H]

I didn't see any reference to his murder in that link - am I missing something??

Tis a euphemism for a fall-guy.

 

[leemason]

I went to Cario recently and the polution was really bad. At times it makes your eyes sting!

 

[AdamJ]

Ah right.. Oops..:redface:

 

[elainefu88]

I think the reason is steam from car and factory.

Do you agree with me?

 

[AdamJ]

Yes, those old steam powered cars are terrible. The sooner everyone moves to petrol the better.

 

[ineedcontent]

Part of the problem, in my opinion, is the phrase its self, it is far more accurate to describe this as global climate change, rather than global warming. I am in my forties and I don’t need the media to tell me the weather has changed dramatically since I was a child. Thirty-odd tornado’s in the UK last year, whoever heard of such a thing in the 60s or 70s?

 

[AdamJ]

heard

And therein lies a problem - as has been stated already, media reporting is not something which should be used as proof of one thing or another. E.g. The threat to children seems to be horrendous and getting worse according to the number of cases reported in the media but I remember hearing somewhere that it is falling. Just because tornadoes were not reported in the 60s and 70s doesn't mean they didn't happen, it just means that the media's focus was elsewhere.

 

[Dawg]

Average incidence of tornadoes in the UK, based on 30 years data, is 30 a year. The UK has more per unit of area than anywhere else; right old tornado tart.
From Torro,
, (Tornado and Storm Research Organization):
"On average, 33 tornadoes are reported each year in the United Kingdom. This average is based on a 30 year period, though in reality the actual yearly figures may vary dramatically from year to year."

As above, from AdamJ, they have always happened, just not being reported as they were not part of the orthodoxy; the 'lets panic over this coz we can't panic over that anymore' zeitgeist.