Global warming: Reasons why it might not actually exist

[Hobjob]

[Please don't shoot the messenger]

From Global warming: Reasons why it might not actually exist - Telegraph

Global warming: Reasons why it might not actually exist
2008 was the year man-made global warming was disproved, according to the Telegraph's Christopher Booker. Sceptics have long argued that there are other explanations for climate change other than man-made CO2 and here we look at some of the arguments put forward by those who believe that global warming is all a hoax.

Last Updated: 1:51PM GMT 30 Dec 2008

Some icebergs are melting -but not necessarily because of mankind's actions Photo: REUTERS
Temperatures are falling, not rising

As Christopher Booker says in his review of 2008, temperatures have been dropping in a wholly unpredicted way over the past year. Last winter, the northern hemisphere saw its greatest snow cover since 1966, which in the northern US states and Canada was dubbed the "winter from hell". This winter looks set to be even worse.

The earth was hotter 1,000 years ago

Evidence from all over the world indicates that the earth was hotter 1,000 years ago than it is today. Research shows that temperatures were higher in what is known as the Mediaeval Warming period than they were in the 1990s.

The earth's surface temperature is not at record levels

According to Nasa's Goddard Institute for Space Studies analysis of surface air temperature measurements, the meteorological December 2007 to November 2008 was the coolest year since 2000. Their data has also shown that the hottest decade of the 20th century was not the 1990s but the 1930s.

Ice is not disappearing

Arctic website Crysophere Today reported that Arctic ice volume was 500,000 sq km greater than this time last year. Additionally, Antarctic sea-ice this year reached its highest level since satellite records began in 1979. Polar bear numbers are also at record levels.

Himalayan glaciers

A report by the UN Environment Program this year claimed that the cause of melting glaciers in the Himalayas was not global warming but the local warming effect of a vast "atmospheric brown cloud" over that region, made up of soot particles from Asia's dramatically increased burning of fossil fuels and deforestation.

Temperatures are still dropping

Nasa satellite readings on global temperatures from the University of Alabama show that August was the fourth month this year when temperatures fell below their 30-year average, ie since satellite records began. November 2008 in the USA was only the 39th warmest since records began 113 years ago.

[Ukwildlifeo]

I thought on here I'd be free of the ramblings Christopher Booker. He was going on about how with the economic climate we cant afford to worry about climate change. I mean we short of money so who cares about our grandchildren.....

What all this '2008 is colder' doesn't consider is that the temperature varies but the OVERALL TREND is an increase.

As for the earth was hotter a 1000 years ago, that is due to variations in the climate due to variations in the earths orbit and various other reasons. Some say these are to blame for the current increase (if they admit there is one) but the fact is the temperature has not increased at anywhere near this rate in over 30million years!

But then we can just dismiss it and keep going on polluting the atmosphere if we deny global warming even exists...

[Neil Jones]

Booker is a bit of an idiot when it comes to science of any kind it seems.

Read this.
George Monbiot: The patron saint of charlatans is again spreading dangerous misinformation | Comment is free | The Guardian
Here is an excerpt the article goes on to show what an ignoramus Booker is on cliamte change too at the end is the quote "The Sunday Telegraph continues to employ a man who cannot tell the difference between summer and winter. "

If journalists have any remaining function, it is to help people navigate this world: to try to understand the crushingly dull documents that most people don't have time for, to smoke out the fakes and show how to recognise the genuine article. But we mess up too. The most we can promise is to try not to make the same mistake twice.

So what can you say about a man who makes the same mistake 38 times? Who, when confronted by a mountain of evidence demonstrating that his informant is a charlatan convicted under the Trade Descriptions Act, continues to repeat his claims? Who elevates the untested claims of bloggers above peer-reviewed papers? Who sticks to his path through a blizzard of facts? What should we deduce about the Sunday Telegraph's columnist Christopher Booker?

This week Richard Wilson's book Don't Get Fooled Again is published. It contains a fascinating chapter on Booker's claims about white asbestos. Since 2002, he has published 38 articles on this topic, and every one of them is wrong. He champions the work of John Bridle, who has described himself as "the world's foremost authority on asbestos science". Bridle has claimed to possess an honorary professorship from the Russian Academy of Sciences, to be a consultant to an institute at the University of Glamorgan, the chief asbestos consultant for an asbestos centre in Lisbon, and a consultant to Vale of Glamorgan trading standards department. None of these claims is true. Neither the institute at the University of Glamorgan nor the centre in Lisbon have ever existed. His only relationship with the Glamorgan trading standards department is to have been successfully prosecuted by it for claiming a qualification he does not possess.

None of this deters Mr Booker. Armed with Bridle's claims, for the past six years he has waged a campaign against asbestos science. White asbestos cement, he maintains "poses no measurable risk to health". He contends that "not a single case" of mesothelioma - the cancer caused by exposure to asbestos - "has ever been scientifically linked with asbestos cement". A paper commissioned by the UK's Health and Safety Executive, he says, "concluded that the risk from white asbestos is 'virtually zero'".

Booker tells me he has read this paper. Oh yes? The term he quotes - "virtually zero" - does not appear in it. It does show that white asbestos (chrysotile) is less dangerous than brown or blue asbestos. But, while there is uncertainty about the numbers, it still presents a risk of mesothelioma, which depends on the level of exposure. People exposed to a high dose (between 10 and 100 fibres per millilitre per year (f/ml.yr)) have a risk (around two deaths per 100,000 for each f/ml.yr) of contracting this cancer. Only when the dose falls to less than 0.1 f/ml.yr does it become "probably insignficant". But Booker's columns contain no such caveat. He creates the impression that white asbestos is safe at all doses. The paper he misquotes also cites five scientific studies of exposure to asbestos cement, which record "high levels of mesothelioma mortality".

Two years ago, John Bridle's misleading CV and dodgy record were exposed by the BBC's You and Yours programme. So the BBC immediately became part of the conspiracy: in Booker's words "a concerted move by the powerful 'anti-asbestos lobby' to silence Bridle". He suggested that the broadcasting regulator Ofcom would clear Bridle's name. In June this year it threw out Bridle's complaint and published evidence even more damning than that contained in the programme. So has Booker changed the way he sees "Britain's leading practical asbestos expert"? Far from it. He tells me that "my view of Ofcom has plummeted": it too has joined the conspiracy.

We are not talking about trivia here. This is a matter of life and death. How many people might have been exposed to dangerous levels of asbestos dust as a result of reading and believing Booker's columns?

[Digit]

May I point out the Booker, whether right or wrong, quotes his sources. All are verifiable by Googling appropriate posts.
Please don't shoot the messenger!

Roy.

[Digit]

Like so many consesus consensi? there ain't no such thing...

Asbestos Assessment & Control Ltd

[Ted Pearson]

New research published this week in Geophysical Research Letters

Nature's Ability To Absorb CO2 May Complicate The COP15 Party

[ChrisR]

This one's going to run and run! The problem is that there are too many vested interests on both sides and nobody wants to back down.

Personally, my view is that global warming is a given - it is happening all around us and we can not only chart the effects scientifically but we can all see the way that our weather is changing dramatically from year to year. The net effect is obvious to anyone who watches the countryside and sees animal & plant phenologies changing.

The only doubt is exactly what has caused the changes and I think it will eventually turn out to be any number of things - one of which will be man's influence on the environment. In any case I think it makes sense to lower our impact on the planet in whichever ways we can - eg. by recycling (so that we don't consume as many resources) and reducing our CO2 output so that we burn less fossil fuels and impact the atmosphere less.

[Ted Pearson]

Originally Posted by ChrisR

This one's going to run and run! The problem is that there are too many vested interests on both sides and nobody wants to back down.

This is true and all too often I see the sentimental masses clinging to visions of catastrophe promoted by AGW alarmists while deniers are wrongfully believed to think the climate is not changing at all. There is a ton of money being made in climate modeling and associating natural climate changes to anthropogenic global warming. The vested interests on the side of American oil companies is purely one of continued profits. If the Government taxes the oil, the consumer will pay (If they can). Oil companies will not allow operation at a loss so they will increase fuel prices, move oil operations to non-compliance countries or just shut their plants down. I have personally seen this happen during the recent recession and the only result will be millions of lost jobs in the oil fields, refinery plants and those who can no longer afford the fuel to get to work. Further jobs will be lost from reduced purchasing of the unemployed and the cycle goes on. Lost jobs mean less revenue in taxes and more expenditures in unemployment checks or welfare. The US government will keep printing greenbacks to counter this massive loss of revenue only to cause runaway inflation and may never have the funds for subsidizing green power or green jobs. Someone is planning to get rich from all of this and it looks like the people who trade carbon stocks and credits. Anyone who is in the stock market should buy heavily in carbon at first but keep in mind there will be a ‘bubble’ in the future.

Originally Posted by ChrisR

Personally, my view is that global warming is a given - it is happening all around us and we can not only chart the effects scientifically but we can all see the way that our weather is changing dramatically from year to year. The net effect is obvious to anyone who watches the countryside and sees animal & plant phenologies changing.

I agree with you completely on this.

Originally Posted by ChrisR

The only doubt is exactly what has caused the changes and I think it will eventually turn out to be any number of things - one of which will be man's influence on the environment. In any case I think it makes sense to lower our impact on the planet in whichever ways we can - eg. by recycling (so that we don't consume as many resources) and reducing our CO2 output so that we burn less fossil fuels and impact the atmosphere less.

Efficiency is the key. This is easy for the advanced countries where we use so much energy. Small methodical technological changes make large reductions in energy use. However, we must not starve the populace of money or energy while we do this. Who would not install a solar panel on their home if they had the ready cash and it proved to pay for itself in a few years? I would very much like to insulate my home better, but the cost is taking longer and longer to save for. If my taxes go up, I will never be able to insulate my home and may ultimately need to burn wood to heat my home instead of burning propane. Not only would my Carbon footprint go up but now I am causing deforestation. My point is that wealth promotes choice and choice promotes efficiency. If governments take wealth from the people to reduce CO2, it will only exacerbate the issue it is trying to control.

[freefeet]

Originally Posted by Ted Pearson

Efficiency is the key. This is easy for the advanced countries where we use so much energy. Small methodical technological changes make large reductions in energy use. However, we must not starve the populace of money or energy while we do this. Who would not install a solar panel on their home if they had the ready cash and it proved to pay for itself in a few years? I would very much like to insulate my home better, but the cost is taking longer and longer to save for. If my taxes go up, I will never be able to insulate my home and may ultimately need to burn wood to heat my home instead of burning propane. Not only would my Carbon footprint go up but now I am causing deforestation. My point is that wealth promotes choice and choice promotes efficiency. If governments take wealth from the people to reduce CO2, it will only exacerbate the issue it is trying to control.

I agree that efficiency is key, but i don't agree that people will invest in things to save money.

Example... I ride a 50cc scooter, it cost £900 on the road and i can get 104mpg on it if i ride it nicely, 90mpg if i rag it. First years road tax comes free with the bike and after that it's £15 a year. With no no claims bonus i got insurance for £112 a year - that'll be a lot cheaper with no claims next year. And because it's new there's no MOT required for 3 years - saving even more money.

As a commuting vehicle, not only will this save lots of money it will also save lots of time because it's no bigger than a push bike and can cut through traffic jams just as easy. The only time i ever stop is at traffic lights - and even then i ride to the front of the queue and get ahead of all the cars.

So can someone explain why people still insist on driving big fat cars to and from work that they replace at great expense every two years? That cost a fortune to run, that cost a lot to insure and get stuck in traffic jams for several hours a week.

Personally i'm sick of seeing all the traffic on our roads, most of which are selfish fools driving only themselves to work and back.

Surely it would make more sense to forego buying that new car this year and buy a scooter instead and leave the car at home unless you really really need it!

Like i said, most people aren't interested in efficiency. They're interested in looking better and wealthier than their neighbours and to hell with the environment!

[Ted Pearson]

Originally Posted by freefeet

I agree that efficiency is key, but i don't agree that people will invest in things to save money.

Some will and some will not, but if none have the opportunity then none can.

Originally Posted by freefeet

Example... I ride a 50cc scooter…….

Very admirable. I rode a motorcycle for many years in California for the economy you describe. If my logistics and weather were the same now, I still would be on two wheels.

Originally Posted by freefeet

So can someone explain why people still insist on driving big fat cars to and from work ……….

You answered the question mostly right here.

Originally Posted by freefeet

They're interested in looking better and wealthier than their neighbours and to hell with the environment!

It’s the ‘flash’, the décor, the coat of paint that one covers themselves with to impress others. Avarice and pride are always the downfall of society. It has become the human plumage that many strut around to attract power and the opposite sex. Those who judge a person by these possessions instead of the person’s character are just as much to blame. The environment is so far down the list of priorities for these people, it may very seldom even cross their mind.