Saturn or Stupider?

I hope this is the last time I have the privilege of a G8 summit hosted locally. I can’t get into Edinburgh this week to look for work thanks to the thousands of long-haired, unwashed, maggot-infested anarchists, communists, hippies, and other unsavoury characters clashing with police. At least the “Make poverty history” crowd managed to have a relatively respectable demonstration last Saturday.

One thing the G8 has provided is a plethora of humorous material on climate change. I don’t think any piece sums up the current state of the movement quite as well as this one: ‘Earth may have its own rings like Saturn’. A group of ‘scientists’ are suggesting that we create an artificial ring around the Earth to shade the tropics and thus help cool the planet. Only drawback is it would create a glow in the night sky as great as a full Moon and cost between $6 and $200 trillion for a particle ring or a bargain $500 billion for small spacecrafts. Did they ever think about creatures that rely on the full moon for mating habits or the effect of cooling the equatorial regions would have on the ocean and air currents? Are these honestly the people getting research grants?

Also out of Live Science, ‘Global Warming Might Create Lopsided Planet’. Remember how a few months ago Antarctic ice sheets were disappearing? Well that was so February! This is July, dude, and the ice is going to expand down under!

A great quote from that article is “overall warming, which most but not all scientists believe is underway”. Wait, I thought “The debate is over” according to Arnold Schwarzenegger this week. “We know the science. We see the threat posed by changes in our climate. And we know the time for action is now.” Isn’t this the man that owns a fleet of Hummers and commutes cross-state on a weekly basis, now promising an 80 percent reduction by 2050? I like how he requires lower-emissions vehicles to be sold in California beginning in 2009, about the time he leaves office. Fantastic guarantees he will never live to see fail in the future and sacrifices he will not personally practice today: welcome to politics, Mr. Governator.

Last weekend, Morag and I watched a program on BBC Scotland on climate change to coincide with the G8 summit. It featured three ‘experts’ on climate change and a group of teenagers. The first ‘expert’, the most radical one, set up the debate by giving the standard climate change apocalypticism. The next two debated nuclear energy versus massive small-scale, renewable energy coupled with drastic increases in energy efficiency. One did mention, albeit in passing, that there were a few scientists who disagreed with anthropogenic climate change, but there was absolutely no representation of this view whatsoever during the program. Instead, Mr. Blair’s assertion that climate change was the most important issue of the 21^st century was repeated. Why is it that with the number of distinguished climatologists who disagree with or are sceptical of the so-called ‘consensus view’, they can’t even get a public hearing? Why just a few weeks earlier either the BBC or Channel 4 had given extensive time to the moon-landing disbelievers!

As for the notion of a ‘consensus view’, it is the disingenuous construct by green political action groups, backed up with bad research. It has entered the public dialogue despite the debunking of the research behind it. (see Dr Peiser of John Moores University’s discrediting of Dr Naomi Oreskes’s assertion that 75 per cent of 1,000 papers explicitly or implicitly backed the ‘consensus’ view with no dissentions). I think that fellow global warming sceptic Michael Crichton sums the ‘consensus’ up best here. Also see: Why Politicized Science is Dangerous (Excerpted from State of Fear).

Science, like religion, is not a democracy. The truth is not reached when a majority of scientists consent to a given proposition. We hear ad nauseam of a scientist’s dispute with outside authority such as the Galileo affair, but what is less often mentioned is that many of science’s great innovations have been made by a lone researcher standing up to scientific consensus. Not that I am suggesting that it is the case that the ‘consensus’ view is as much of a ‘consensus’ as proponents are selling to the public. What is happening in this case is that climate change proponents are attempting to avoid debate by stating that the matter is settled because they know they cannot convince the public and politicians to enact the radical changes they believe necessary based on a sober analysis of the scientific data available.

Two last points while I am on the subject. Proving my assertion a couple of weeks ago that anthropogenic climate change is the eschatology of the environmentalist religion, UK Environment Secretary Margaret Beckett made two illuminating statements this week:

"I think what matters more than the exact theology is where people end up," she said. "What we hope for is quite an ambitious action plan on steps that the international community can take and also agreement to try and take forward discussion and dialogue about the future." [emphasis mine]

“The environment secretary, Margaret Beckett, hinted at a compromise by responding to Mr Bush's remarks about uncertainties in the science. ‘The UK is in no doubt about the strength of scientific evidence on climate change. But the theology is less important than action.’” [emphasis mine]

Tell me again who is blurring the ‘separation of church and state’?

Best of all, ‘Clearing smoke may trigger global warming rise’. “Global warming looks set to be much worse than previously forecast, according to new research. Ironically, the crucial evidence is how little warming there has been so far.” The article details how some industrial emissions such as smoke and dust have been counteracting CO2 warming, and that as we clean those emissions, the world will dramatically increase in temperature. “It is so far outside the range covered by our experience and scientific understanding that we cannot with any confidence predict the consequences for the Earth” states Meinrat Andreae of the Max Planck Institute for Chemistry in Mainz, Germany. A alternative title for this article could be ‘Global climate catastrophe looms despite lack of evidence.’ The problem with it is that they let the cat out of the bag by admitting how little warming has actually taken place. In fact, if you take it to the next level, you can see the thinking that went into the hypothesis in the first place: Massive global warming is a real catastrophe. Global warming doesn’t seem to be occurring as much as it should. What could be preventing the global warming that we know is happening from actually happening?

Oh, and I almost forgot: despite the anti-Bush and anti-American rhetoric surrounding the G8 summit concerning climate change, it seems that most European countries are behind schedule and do not foresee fulfilling their Kyoto promises. In fact, if the USA were participating, it would only be tied for fourth with Ireland as most behind Kyoto CO2 emission reductions in Europe.

Stay tuned for how I believe the CO2 problem will solve itself.