GORE = CARSON

Al Gore's new movie, An Inconvenient Truth is a powerful visual rendering of a variety of natural events that are claimed to prove that manmade global warming is upon us and rapidly getting worse. We all know that a well-done film can have a powerful emotional impact. This is a well-done film

While you might have been under the mistaken impression that such things have happened before the modern global warming era, Gore associates severe weather events such as floods, droughts, and storms (for instance Hurricane Katrina) with mankind's use of fossil fuels. Other than the possibility that current tropical warmth could be making hurricanes a little stronger (which is debatable), there is little or no scientific evidence that global warming has caused more severe weather.

One of the more dramatic themes of the movie is the melting of the ice sheets -- Greenland and Antarctica -- and their contribution to sea level rise. Views in the movie of ice crashing into the ocean as it calves from glaciers will no doubt have the intended effect -- to scare people into believing that global warming is serious, ergo we must do something about it. Many people will come away from the film thinking, "global warming is obviously real because all that ice is falling into the ocean." But glaciers are continuously flowing entities. As long as snow continues to fall on them, they slowly spread outward like thick molasses, dramatically dumping their frozen cargo into the ocean.

Global warming is not required for this ice calving process to occur, any more than it is required for a river to flow toward the sea. It is part of the Earth's natural hydrologic cycle, whereby the ocean continuously evaporates water into the atmosphere, which is later returned back to the ocean again, either in liquid or frozen form.

Yet these movie visuals will appeal to our emotions, confusing our more rational thought processes. The intent is to associate in our minds these entirely natural processes with manmade pollution. Al Gore recently told Grist Magazine, "I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it (global warming) is..." I am reminded of Gore's angry, bellowing accusation of President Bush with respect to Iraq: "He played on our fears!" That is exactly what Mr. Gore is doing in this movie.

If we move beyond the emotional appeals, we find that the current science on the subject of whether the ice sheets are losing more ice than they are gaining from snowfall (the real issue), is somewhat mixed. Currently, the consensus of opinion is that the Greenland ice sheet has been experiencing a net loss in recent years, while the same conclusion about Antarctica is much less certain.

But a note of caution: our ability to actually measure this net loss is quite new and -- like all global warming related measurements -- subject to large uncertainties in both the measurements themselves and whether the measured changes can be attributed to mankind's activities. As an example, it has been fifteen years since John Christy and I started measuring global temperature trends from satellites. Yet we (and others) are still finding new corrections that need to be made to the data. The signals of global warming are so small compared to natural climate variability that it is usually difficult to measure them with any degree of certainty.

Another common mistake among scientists (and we never seem to learn our lesson on this one) is to infer some sort of long-term trend from an observed short-term change. If Greenland has lost ice in recent years, just the possibility that this could be part of a long term trend is sufficient to get lots of press claiming this conclusion as fact. But even if Greenland has been losing more ice than it has been gaining in recent years, this says nothing about whether the process is due to mankind.

But let's assume that the current period of global warmth is mostly due to mankind, and that this warming is indeed causing a net loss of ice from the ice sheets. What should we do about it? It's one thing to point out a problem, but another thing entirely to do something substantial to fix the problem. Therein lies the potential danger of movies such as "An Inconvenient Truth."

Al Gore's movie is reminiscent of Rachael Carson's 1962 book Silent Spring, which helped give birth to the modern environmental movement. The book provided scientific evidence, conveyed through eloquent prose, that our indiscriminant use of the pesticide DDT was having some negative environmental, and possibly human, side effects.

Unfortunately, it is often the case that policy decisions based upon emotion rather than facts can lead to unintended, negative consequences. As an eventual result of Carson's book, many countries of the world severely restricted the use of DDT. But without access to even very small amounts, some African countries now have a combined death toll of about 1-1.5 million people per year from malaria. Many millions more are permanently disabled.

Only relatively recently has the pendulum begun to swung with regard to DDT, and Africans are increasingly employing small amounts of the substance (despite international restrictions) and experiencing dramatic reductions in the incidence of malaria.

The dangers of misguided global warming policies resulting from activist movies like An Inconvenient Truth could have similar or worse effects on the world's poor than what has resulted from restrictions on DDT. While responsible DDT use has many more human benefits than dangers -- with virtually no negative effects on the environment -- the effect of DDT restrictions on our daily lives pales in comparison with the negative consequences that restricting access to affordable energy would bring.

Human health and longevity are directly related to wealth generation, which in turn requires abundant, inexpensive energy. Humans must alter their environment in order to thrive, and this takes energy.

I fear that Al Gore is becoming a modern day Rachel Carson. The New York Times book critic Michiko Kakutani favorably compared the book and film versions of An Inconvenient Truth with Silent Spring. The New Republic's Frank Foer called it a "cinematic Silent Spring." Emotional appeals will effect public policy changes, which will have widespread, unintended negative consequences.

On a positive note, Gore's movie provides an opportunity to spur public debate on the global warming issue. It is critically important for us to become better informed about global warming, how much of it is natural versus manmade, and especially what might be done from a policy standpoint about the manmade part.

We must be wary of letting emotional appeals govern policy decisions that have real world, life-or-death consequences, especially in the poorer countries of the world.

TCS Daily, 8 June 2006






IN THE UK, JUST ANOTHER DAY OF CARBON CLAPTAP ....

Post lifted from Philip Stott

Yesterday was a classic for carbon claptrap in the UK, from BBC Television, from scientists, and from big business. What nonsense is being peddled in the name of 'global warming'!

BBC Television, as ever, was the worst, with yet another gloom-mongering effort, 'Five disasters waiting to happen' (BBC 2). The only disaster is that we have to pay a licence fee for what is, essentially, Government propaganda (give me radio any day). Interestingly, I received e-mails (timed during the programme) from incensed 'EnviroSpin' readers about 'the twaddle' that was being peddled uncritically on the programme. I got the impression that the red-hot e-mails were sent to let off steam before folk were tempted to throw a brick through the screen. I have to say that, personally, I gave the programme the widest of berths - the weather was too nice to waste on watching hyperbolic 'rubbish on the tele'. Until BBC Television grows up about the science, economics, and politics of climate change, it really is better for one's health to chill out with a glass of wine and The Times crossword in the garden. Thankfully, today's Times also gives the programme a wide berth, their television reviewer likewise having had better things to do or to watch. I'm not surprised - the more BBC Television churns out this unbalanced stuff on climate, the more people will switch off, both physically and mentally. It really is time for a hard-nosed Beeb producer to declare that "enough is enough", and to put an end to so much over-egged output. Meanwhile, the rest of the world sails happily away from the Good Ship 'Kyoto'.

But, of course, jaw-droppingly naive scientists don't help either. Yesterday, some earnestly warned of the dangers of drag in cars proudly sporting two St George's flags in support of 'Our David' and the lads at the World Cup - that's an extra litre of of fuel per hour! I think, for once, a two-finger sign is entirely justified. "Put out more flags", say I. And, don't underestimate the hidden class warfare in all this - St. George's flags are perceived as working class, the ill-bred bling of Essex Man. "Get yer flags out, luv!"

Then, finally, there was big business and a wondrous meeting between members of the pompously-named 'Corporate Leaders Group on Climate Change' (including Shell UK and Standard Chartered Bank) with Tony Blair. This proved to be a glorious example of protean capitalism at work. Of course, we have to help (lead?) on climate change, but only when we have positive incentives and a boost to that bottom line. I just love the way that big business embraces the 'global warming' myth, and then turns it to its own advantage, ever (quite rightly) with an eye to building that competitive edge. The same is happening with 'organics'. "Go for it lads!"

So, Tuesday was but another day of carbon claptrap.

I suspect, at some point, that we are really going to weary of it. In the meantime, we must smile wryly, yet again, at La Com,die Humaine, and at our self-delusional world. Sadly, as readers of this blog are too well aware, not a smidgen of the carbon claptrap will make one blind bit of predictable difference to climate.






One price of Greenie dam-hatred is loss of plants and gardens



Australia: The gardening and irrigation industries say up to 6,000 jobs have been lost, because of water restrictions in several states. Some nursery operators have lost more than 30 per cent of their turnover and they say it is the worst downturn in memory. With many dams across Australia down to 30 to 40 per cent of capacity, state and local governments say they do not have any choice but to implement water restrictions. Sydney is already on level three water restrictions and Brisbane is about to do the same.

Brisbane gardeners will only be able to water with buckets or watering cans from next week. But Jolyon Burnett, from the Irrigation Association of Australia, says the banning of sprinkler systems is hurting the industry. "We estimate that turnover across the board is probably down somewhere between 30 and 40 per cent," he said. "We're seeing some 6,000 job losses across the entire green industry, both full and part-time."

Tom Swift has been installing irrigation systems for 30 years and says the introduction of water restrictions has cut his turnover by more than a third. "I'm just hanging in there to be honest, and trying to make the most of a much smaller business than what I had before," he said.

The Federal Government's water spokesman Malcolm Turnbull says there is no need for long-term restrictions and he is calling on the states to stop using water utilities as cash cows. "We can have as much water as we need," he said. "There is ample scope for augmenting or increasing the water supply in our big cities. We don't have to build pipelines across Australia, we don't even have to build new dams. "There is more than enough water that can be won from recycling and better use of waste water and storm water." The states say the Federal Government should increase its own spending on water management.

Source






Australians agreeing to nuclear power: poll

Almost half of Australians have given nuclear power plants the thumbs up as a replacement for coal, oil and gas power plants, a poll shows. A Morgan Poll has revealed that 49 per cent of Australians approve of nuclear power plants, while 37 per cent disapprove of their use to help cut greenhouse gas emissions. The remaining 14 per cent are undecided

But the poll shows 87 per cent of Australians are concerned about the disposal of nuclear waste if plants are introduced here. Twelve per cent of people say they are not concerned about the waste while one per cent are undecided.

Morgan research surveyed 594 Australian men and women aged 14 and over on June 7 and 8. The poll reported 54 per cent of respondents agreed Australia should continue developing and exporting uranium for peaceful purposes. But 36 per cent said we should not produce uranium.

Pollster Gary Morgan said after much debate on the nuclear industry, more Australians approved than disapproved of the introduction of nuclear power plants to replace coal, oil, and gas plants to stop greenhouse gas emissions. "However, with 87 per cent of Australians concerned about the disposal of nuclear waste the government needs to assure Australians that there will be no adverse effects if nuclear energy is introduced," Mr Morgan said.

The release of the poll comes after Prime Minister John Howard announced an inquiry, to be headed by nuclear physicist and former Telstra boss Ziggy Switkowski, would investigate Australia's nuclear options.

Source

***************************************

Many people would like to be kind to others so Leftists exploit that with their nonsense about equality. Most people want a clean, green environment so Greenies exploit that by inventing all sorts of far-fetched threats to the environment. But for both, the real motive is to promote themselves as wiser and better than everyone else, truth regardless.

Global warming has taken the place of Communism as an absurdity that "liberals" will defend to the death regardless of the evidence showing its folly. Evidence never has mattered to real Leftists

Comments? Email me here. My Home Page is here or here. For times when blogger.com is playing up, there are mirrors of this site here and here.

*****************************************