Friday, April 20, 2007

A coalition of interests

This Cutting Edge documentary made by Ch4 provides an excellent, balanced and far less sensationalist view of the global warming scam than the recent Great Global Warming Swindle recently aired.

There are some fascinating moments.

Like when one of the models used to predict climate change is shown to predict that - at the current time - the Sahara desert should be experiencing as much rainfall as Wales and Scotland and the evasive way the model creator tries to avoid answering a direct question about the accuracy of models.

Or the moment when a professor, challenged to admit that his support for global warming brings him much needed funding, shifts uneasily in his seat before doing his best to avoid answering.

And when an AGW supporting author claims that he didn't believe in the great global cooling scare of the seventies is then shown an excerpt from his book that demonstrates he did - he then shifts his position to say that he doesn't mind admitting he was wrong then, but he's right now.

It's a very good programme that breaks down the AGW theory into constituent parts - the four pillars of evidence, cause, models and physics - and then picks them apart with clear, although sometimes rather simplistic, scientific analysis. To be fair though, most of the AGW supporters are much more simplistic in their analysis (isn't that right Mr Gore).

It's very good and worth watching. I doubt that many AGW supporters will watch it - which is a shame - but if more bloggers post about it then more AGW supporters will have to.

And bear in mind that it was made some 17 years ago.


merjoem32 said...

The controversy and debates over global warming is still going on. However, I think that the authenticity of Gore on Global Warming is not important. The genuineness of global warming is not proven but we cannot deny that the climate change in some parts of the world is devastating farmers in developing countries. Finding solutions to this problem is much more important than proving or disproving global warming. There is a need for more action and less debates on this issue.

Stan said...

Thank you for your comments, marjoem32.

Did you watch the documentary?

The authenticity is unimportant IF you accept the solutions put forward by the AGW supporters such as Gore as either practical or effective - which they aren't.

Global warming IS proven insomuch as we know the earth warms and cools entirely naturally. The argument is not about whether it does warm or not - but whether it is man made. This is a seriously important point on which the lives and livelihoods of millions of people rest.

Now, if climate change is being caused by man - and there is NO evidence to suggest it is - there is little we can do about it now. Even if Kyoto was implemented in full it would make little overall difference in 100 years time. I believe the figure was something like 0.1 C less warming. Big deal.

If climate change isn't caused by man, then spending an estimated $100 billion dollars every year - as well as cutting global economic performance by some considerable margin too - will be a lot of money poured down the drain for no real net benefit.

The problems you refer to are localised conditions (farmers in other parts of the world are seeing benefits) - and, again, often blamed on AGW without any evidence to suggest the problems are caused by AGW. They are often problems caused by man - such as deforestation - but not by man-made global warming.

Incidentally - CO2 is an essential for farming. Plants need it as we need oxygen. It is NOT a pollutant.

My point of view on this has been consistent. The money - if it is going to be spent - would be far better spent on mitigating the effects of climate change than in trying to stop it. As I believe climate change is entirely normal and that there is nothing abnormal about the current cycle - then I believe those trying to stop climate change are akin to those who believed that King Canute could hold back the waves - hence I call them Canutists.

To me, mitigating the effects is a much more pragmatic solution than trying to stop it. There are many things we can do which are simple, affordable and practical - both here and in the developing world - and which we can do without damaging our own economies or decimating those of developing nations.

I believe, strongly, that the AGW supporters are puting their political ambitions and personal agendas (agendum?) ahead of real, genuine concerns for the earth or developing nations. As the gentleman said in the documentary - the scientists do it for the funding, the media for the story and the politicians for the cause. That is the coalition of interests - supported by the political ambitions of the NGOs - which are perpetuating the two great myths of climate change.

1)That it is man made and
2)That we can control it

At the root of these two great myths of AGW are he two great vices of man. Greed and power - both of which are obtained by the control of the argument and, therefore, the solution.

This why organisations like the UN (IPCC) and EU have bought into the theory so heavily. Both organisations lack the democratic mandate of national governments, but this cause gives them something to hang their hat on and manipulate the demos of nations. By creating a "consensus" (no such consensus exists in reality) it gives them a reason to assert their control through their regulation. Regulation needs enforcement. Enforcement requires enforcement agencies. Agencies require funding and funding is money. Greed and power.

The UN and Eu are the obvious examples,but all the NGO's are doing it for the same reason. They have no democratic mandate - nobody has ever voted for them - so they see this as a way to obtain power without having to go through the tedious rigmarole of campaigning, selecting candidates and fighting elections. Where these NGOs were once on the outside campaigning - genuinely - for a cause, they are now working side by side wih the suprantionals as partners - with the ensuing funding and control that brings. Greed and power.

The media are, perhaps,more straightforward. They buy into the AGW hypothesis because it sells. Stories about impending global doom sell papers and bring in viewers and advertising revenue. Increasing sales and distribution means more influence and more money. Greed and power.

Finally, you have the scientists. Scientists are often considered to be above such earthly motivations as money and power. Why? They're only human. Science needs funding - and funding is much more likely to be forthcoming if you are researching something which is considered - rightly otr wrongly - to be of global significance and potentially key to human survival. And, of course, once you get the funding to produce the research it is important to get that research published - otherwise future funding is unlikely to be forthcoming. So the findings will fit the narrative that ensures the money keeps flowing. And getting the research published also increases a scientist standing within the scientific and political community - more influence. Greed and power.

Sorry for going on so long, but this is an issue which I am passionate about. Perhaps I could have made it briefer with a simple analogy.

In the industry I work in there is a simple rule. Before implementing a solution to a problem, identify the cause of the problem. If your car won't start in the morning, rushing out and buying a new engine may solve the problem.

But if the cause of the failure was a minor $5 part, you will have just wasted several thousand dollars.

And if that part is the ignition switch, you'll have spent thousands and your car still won't start.

Problem, cause, solution