Heretics of the new religion?

Yan, that was a big part of the documentary – how anyone who disputes the CO2 theory is instantly labelled as a selfish, uncaring threat to future generations. It's hardly surprising. My nine year old daughter has been going round the house singing songs from her upcoming school show about how we unthinking humans ruined the earth. She was genuinely distraught the other day when her friend’s mum commented that we’d all better get used to living under water! I don’t blame anyone for believing in CO2 driven global warming, we’ve heard nothing *but* that theory since the early eighties. But if it is wrong – it’s doing more harm than good, isn’t it? We have a duty to consider the alternative theories. That *is* giving a shit, Yan – the fact that it’s unpopular to say so, shouldn’t make people cower away from doing it but it does. Put it this way, given how embedded the theory has become, what serving politician in their right mind would stand up and say, actually I don’t think CO2 emissions are a problem. Nigel Lawson was also interviewed. He was the first Chancellor to fund a study into Global Warming. He said when the report came back he was very surprised how flimsy the evidence backing the CO2 theory was. Margaret Thatcher was keen to run with the theory anyway, however, and gave more funding to research departments to find further evidence of the link. The implication is, you get what you pay for. More studies were produced, looking specifically for that relationship as opposed to any other cause. As to why Thatcher championed such research, one commentator pointed out, she didn’t trust the Middle East, she didn’t want to be beholden to the miners – she wanted to push the case for ‘clean’ nuclear fuel. I can’t see why the solar activity theory shouldn’t be given at least as much credence as the CO2 one. But to be honest, I think it’s gone so far, it’d just be too politically embarrassing. ~ www.fabulousmother.com

No, Yan. I’m thinking of the real life or death costs to people living now of pushing a polemic that is fundamentally flawed. Yes, *we* could play safe and say that, well this might be the correct theory and therefore let’s play it safe and lower carbon emissions anyway. But in the struggling Third World it is hampering their attempts to develop. And I mean develop as in achieving the lowest basic standards of living that we’ve been enjoying for a couple of hundred years. No gas. No electric. That is what great swathes of peasant populations in the developing world are coping with. Indoor wood smoke, the only available method to cook or boil water is a common cause of premature death of children and mothers through pulmonary disease; hospitals where they have to choose between having the lights on *or* the fridge on, forget about any electrically driven sterilizers or operating equipment. There is no pre-industrialised idyll for these people. Life is hard and short. They should be encouraged to progress along the lines of the rest of the developed world, not be penalised for it. As AG noted, the African health official provided the most sobering wake-up call in the whole argument. If you get the chance, I really would recommend you watch any repeat of the programme before making up your mind. ~ www.fabulousmother.com

Wanted to check the figures for my above post. According to the World Health Organisation, four million children, under the age of five, die every year from respiratory diseases caused by indoor wood smoke and many million mothers die early from lung diseases because of it. Two billion people, nearly a third of the world's population, live under these conditions. ~ www.fabulousmother.com

Yeah I agree the title was a tad OTT. But the doc wasn’t a wholesale attack on environmental issues because it was at pains to point out that the green lobby started out with all sorts of issues before global warming became *the* issue. The harm being done by polluting rivers, toxic waste, screwing with biodiversity, destroying habitats, endangering species, knackering food chains, chemical contamination, lead in petrol… The Greens have been incredibly successful in bringing issues like these into the mainstream and getting legislation passed to try and deal with them. It’s become, rightly, a given now that environmental issues must be taken into account. The programme's argument was, that on the CO2-led climate change issue, the Greens have been misled. I would have liked to have heard some reply to some of the points raised too. I was kind of hoping there may be some discussions scheduled on the back of this, but I haven’t heard of any as yet. In a way though, this doc was a reply to the Al Gore doc, and others like it. One of the points I’d like to hear discussed was the issue of how greenhouse gases work. According to this doc, if greenhouse gases (which they’re not denying exist) are responsible for the current rise in temp., then the temperature should rise as you go up through the atmosphere, with the highest temperatures being at the top (sorry, crap at terminology for such stuff). However, they said that the data from both satellite and air balloon measurement, consistently show this not to be the case. Apparently, they have found no rise in temperature as they go up, when they have found changes in temp, it’s been in the opposite direction – i.e. cooler at the top. I would like to know if there’s an alternative explanation for this and whether it really does rule out the greenhouse gas effect as contributing to the rise in global warming. In answer to Rokkit’s point – the ‘it’s going to happen anyway’ model is comforting because there is absolutely no reason to assume that it will keep on rising. For this phase of global warming to keep moving in only one direction would be to go against every available record since time began. Luckily astronomers have been counting sun spots (big explosions on the surface of the sun that indicate it’s being rather lively) for centuries. And their observations do seem to coincide directly with climate records (again, it would have been good to have given others the opportunity to refute this point). In Medieval England, the temperatures were far higher than they are today. That’s why you have addresses such as Vine Street and the Vineyard in London. There was a massive heat wave that went on for decades enabling people to produce wine in London and further north. It didn’t last though, centuries later there was the, ‘mini ice-age’ when the Thames froze over every year. That obviously didn’t last either. One scientist said that to blame human interference for climate change is like finding something wrong with your car. You ignore the engine (the sun), the transmission (the oceans) and spend all your energy studying a man-made nut on the back wheel. Another said he thought it was extremely arrogant for humans to assume their actions would have more of an affect on the climate than the sun. I don’t believe it’s arrogance at all – the reverse in fact. I think we’ve become so conscious that we can harm the environment, because we can, that to assume that we’re harming it to the extent of causing climate change is an easy next step. Couple this with the natural tendency to feel somehow guilty for having it so good and for believing that every gain must have its price – and you’ve got the whole world believing it’s all our fault. ~ www.fabulousmother.com

Thanks, Al. I will. ~ www.fabulousmother.com

I’ve heard people are already asking Channel 4 to provide some form of two-sided scientific discussion over the issues raised. It would be great to hear the experts discuss things head-to-head instead of relying on ping-pong documentaries. I hope they do it. ~ www.fabulousmother.com

Why, thank you, Liana. Alan, yes that sort of discussion would be very helpful. You need experts in the same room to prevent the use of selective counter-claims. “Well, it means they don't have to put any effort in, have no responsibility for it, and can therefore get on their high horse about other life and death matters while refuting claims that they're planet-ravaging tossbags themselves. Much more important than your grandchildren's future.” Oh of course! There’s me thinking that I was alarmed by the possible destruction of the planet like you *good* people and therefore I was comforted by the possibility of those predictions being wrong. Whereas the *real* cause for my potential rise in comfort levels was the thought that I wouldn’t have to use long-life lightbulbs anymore. I actually have kids, but I couldn’t give a toss about them or theirs. Thanks for clearing that up. ‘High horse’? Fuck me – the irony. Swindle – a Sex Pistols fan couldn’t resist it, I expect. ~ www.fabulousmother.com

Well, it’s certainly an example of why we could do with a live public debate involving both sides where views cannot be readily edited. Here’s an excerpt from an open letter to Steven Green of Wag TV from one of the scientists quoted on the doc: “...I was approached, as explained to me on the telephone, because I was known to have been unhappy with some of the more excitable climate-change stories in the British media, most conspicuously the notion that the Gulf Stream could disappear, among others. When a journalist approaches me suggesting a "critical approach" to a technical subject, as the email states, my inference is that we are to discuss which elements are contentious, why they are contentious, and what the arguments are on all sides. To a scientist, "critical" does not mean a hatchet job---it means a thorough-going examination of the science. The scientific subjects described in the email, and in the previous and subsequent telephone conversations, are complicated, worthy of exploration, debate, and an educational effort with the public. Hence my willingness to participate. Had the words "polemic", or "swindle" appeared in these preliminary discussions, I would have instantly declined to be involved. .... An example where my own discussion was grossly distorted by context: I am shown explaining that a warming ocean could expel more carbon dioxide than it absorbs -- thus exacerbating the greenhouse gas buildup in the atmosphere and hence worrisome. It was used in the film, through its context, to imply that CO2 is all natural, coming from the ocean, and that therefore the human element is irrelevant. This use of my remarks, which are literally what I said, comes close to fraud. .... Carl Wunsch, Cecil and Ida Green Professor of Physical Oceanography, Massachusetts Institute of Technology” In the interest of balance, here’s an excerpt from a complaint regarding RealClimate's handling of the controversy. “While you are correct to express outrage over the manner in which Wunsch's perspective was distorted in this documentary, I don't believe that you expressed similar outrage when Landsea felt that his perspective was being misrepresented by the IPCC, nor did you express similar outrage when Pielke felt that his perspective was being misrepresented by CCSP Committee. Insofar as you care about the issue, and appropriate policy responses to it, your over-riding concern should be that overly-zealous advocates should not undermine the credibility of the scientific community by politicizing key bodies representing scientific consensus. To an outsider, politicized misrepresentations at the IPCC or CCSP are far, far scarier than are misrepresentations in a documentary. The fact that Lindzen predicted that this type of politicization would take place and thereby create a "consenus," in the early 1990s, adds to his credibility.” For what's it worth, I'd say that the majority (I'd have to go back and count) of the other contributors, gave catagoric statements regarding their position on the overall question that I imagine would be hard to willfully misinterpret. It's a shame credibility on all sides seems to be suffering. With that in mind, I still think the programme is very worth watching. ~ www.fabulousmother.com

“As I understand, there is no distinction between the two theories except that the one blames global warming on mankind's activities, while the other says it's natural. So you've got no reason to feel any comfort - the outcome is the same.” I’ve already explained why I would feel comforted, Jack. (See reply to Rokkit’s original post.) It’s because if it *isn’t* rising this time round because of man-made CO2, then there is no reason to assume that it will keep on rising. I guess it *may* go on indefinitely, just as it was feared that the drop in temperature in the 60s/70s might have continued indefinitely. Thing is, it didn’t. However, as I’ve said before, I wasn’t at all sure about the program’s portrayal of the – it’s not hot enough near the top of the atmosphere, therefore it can’t be a greenhouse gas thing – argument. But even if the greenhouse gases are contributing to the rise, it would still be of some comfort to find out that solar activity was the *major* factor in temp change – not because I want to run out and buy a 4x4, but because there would then the realistic expectation that the next phase of solar inactivity could swiftly undo the harm done. An inactive sun may be our best bet – let’s face it – so far all the governments have done is sign bits of paper. IMO, the idea that solar cycles are the main driving force behind global temperature is a very persuasive one. See this for example: http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/articles/V9/N29/EDIT.jsp And yeah, I hope it’s true. So sue me. ~ www.fabulousmother.com