An item that appeared in a number of National newspapers this week and is now all over the Internet claims that ‘Global Warming’ has solved a territorial dispute between India and Bangladesh.
Example. 'An ongoing territorial dispute between India and Bangladesh has been resolved, South Talpatti Island (a/k/a New Moore Island) a ‘rock’ island in the Bay of Bengal has disappeared under the waves as sea levels rise due to Global Warming'.
On the face of it his would seem to be pretty conclusive proof that indeed sea levels are rising and Global Warming may be true after all.
However, after a little research what did I find? Well the key word in this particular bit of disinformation is ‘rock ‘. Because ‘Moore Island’ and a number of other islands in that part of the Bay of Bengal are actually sand banks that were thrown up during a particularly severe cyclone forty years ago. High enough to support some vegetation and big enough in area to be of limited use, both governments laid claim to them, but of course being made of sand they are -not unlike the Global Warming theory itself- gradually being eroded away over time
Sunday 28 March 2010
Friday 12 March 2010
Only the Money is Certain
The evidence for man’s involvement in changing climate is,and always has been very uncertain, very little science is simple and our planet’s climate is perhaps the most complex and chaotic system that scientists have to investigate, our understanding of it is commensurate with that complexity. In such a situation science cannot provide the firm evidence, based on well-founded theories and experiments that are needed for reliable predictions. The best that is available at present are mathematical models and computer simulations which make unverifiable predictions that are totally dependant on the validity and ‘objectivity’ of the data fed in.
Herein lies the problem, which is three fold. First there is the high, and at the moment irresolvable degree of uncertainty in respect of the science, second the dire consequences should the models be right and third the equally serious costs that will arise from the actions being proposed to mitigate the predictions whether they are right or wrong.
How might this dilemma be resolved rationally?
The uncertain science?
Well that’s easy, get rid of the IPCC and its 2498 non-climate scientists and vested interest politicians and set up a new scientific body comprised entirely of climate scientists (in all their forms) including all of those presently excluded from the IPCC. Then keep the media and politicians away and let them get on with it.
The serious consequences should the models be correct?
The seriousness of planetary warming and possible sea level rise is only serious if looked at negatively (default mode for 21st century media). Certainly some very low-lying areas could disappear under the sea if not protected but that was true of Holland many years ago but it didn’t happen. New areas of temperate land would become available for habitation and agriculture, Greenland could become green again, the Northwest Passage could open, climate shift could re-green the Sahara (bigger than the USA) and a warmer earth would support more plant life to take advantage of the extra CO2. The benefits of a warming planet would probably outweigh the disadvantages, especially if it postpones the end of the present inter-glacial period.
The cost of the solution?
The scale of the proposed geoengineering ideas to tackle climate change are beyond anything even a flourishing economy could afford, let alone one as bankrupt as ours. The only hope for the future of a warming planet and the economies of the western world would be to junk them, we cannot possibly reduce our carbon emissions enough to make a difference no matter what we do, its completely crazy. The costs will cripple us, deprive the third world of a future and have little or no effect other than to create the perfect scenario for the economic domination of China and India. Because they have no intention of risking their economies in this futile quest.
If man made climate warming becomes a fact in the years ahead the only realistic option would be to prepare for it, more nuclear power, better flood protection, better water management and pragmatic options to move populations that cannot be defended. These are not insurmountable challenges, trying to alter the climate is.
Why then are these obvious, common sense alternatives not being considered, we know that scientists and politicians seldom have much common sense but that is not the reason. The reason is.
Money.
Science funding amounting to billions world wide is riding this wave, and is the only explanation we need to understand the momentum it has gained. Carbon trading worldwide reached £80 billion in 2008. There are predictions that the carbon market will reach $2 - $10 trillion in the near future. Hot air will soon be the largest single commodity traded on global exchanges.
Businesses large and small are reaping huge profits from this new and apparently limitless cash cow. This statement from the ‘United States Climate Action Partnership’ shows how cynically intertwined climate and business have now become.
‘United States Climate Action Partnership (USCAP) is a group of businesses and leading environmental organisations that have come together to call on the federal government to quickly enact strong national legislation to require significant reductions of greenhouse gas emissions. USCAP has issued a landmark set of principles and recommendations to underscore the urgent need for a policy framework on climate change.’
Yes of course they have, they cannot wait to get their hands on the loot!
These kinds of businesses also benefit from “Green Funds’ and government subsidies which we pay for, if you have not already noticed an increase in your electricity bills you soon will. Here in the UK alone there are uncounted billions pouring into windfarm development, even here in north Norfolk there are now many who are getting rich on the back of it. The politicians and business people involved in this are the most powerful people on earth, what chance can there be that they will let go of this seemingly endless money stream. They control the media and as things stand they have some justification as for thinking that they control us. It is up to all of us to demonstrate that this is not true.
Anyone who believes in AGW without having taken a serious look at the evidence cannot convincingly argue that they have not been brainwashed. Can you?
Herein lies the problem, which is three fold. First there is the high, and at the moment irresolvable degree of uncertainty in respect of the science, second the dire consequences should the models be right and third the equally serious costs that will arise from the actions being proposed to mitigate the predictions whether they are right or wrong.
How might this dilemma be resolved rationally?
The uncertain science?
Well that’s easy, get rid of the IPCC and its 2498 non-climate scientists and vested interest politicians and set up a new scientific body comprised entirely of climate scientists (in all their forms) including all of those presently excluded from the IPCC. Then keep the media and politicians away and let them get on with it.
The serious consequences should the models be correct?
The seriousness of planetary warming and possible sea level rise is only serious if looked at negatively (default mode for 21st century media). Certainly some very low-lying areas could disappear under the sea if not protected but that was true of Holland many years ago but it didn’t happen. New areas of temperate land would become available for habitation and agriculture, Greenland could become green again, the Northwest Passage could open, climate shift could re-green the Sahara (bigger than the USA) and a warmer earth would support more plant life to take advantage of the extra CO2. The benefits of a warming planet would probably outweigh the disadvantages, especially if it postpones the end of the present inter-glacial period.
The cost of the solution?
The scale of the proposed geoengineering ideas to tackle climate change are beyond anything even a flourishing economy could afford, let alone one as bankrupt as ours. The only hope for the future of a warming planet and the economies of the western world would be to junk them, we cannot possibly reduce our carbon emissions enough to make a difference no matter what we do, its completely crazy. The costs will cripple us, deprive the third world of a future and have little or no effect other than to create the perfect scenario for the economic domination of China and India. Because they have no intention of risking their economies in this futile quest.
If man made climate warming becomes a fact in the years ahead the only realistic option would be to prepare for it, more nuclear power, better flood protection, better water management and pragmatic options to move populations that cannot be defended. These are not insurmountable challenges, trying to alter the climate is.
Why then are these obvious, common sense alternatives not being considered, we know that scientists and politicians seldom have much common sense but that is not the reason. The reason is.
Money.
Science funding amounting to billions world wide is riding this wave, and is the only explanation we need to understand the momentum it has gained. Carbon trading worldwide reached £80 billion in 2008. There are predictions that the carbon market will reach $2 - $10 trillion in the near future. Hot air will soon be the largest single commodity traded on global exchanges.
Businesses large and small are reaping huge profits from this new and apparently limitless cash cow. This statement from the ‘United States Climate Action Partnership’ shows how cynically intertwined climate and business have now become.
‘United States Climate Action Partnership (USCAP) is a group of businesses and leading environmental organisations that have come together to call on the federal government to quickly enact strong national legislation to require significant reductions of greenhouse gas emissions. USCAP has issued a landmark set of principles and recommendations to underscore the urgent need for a policy framework on climate change.’
Yes of course they have, they cannot wait to get their hands on the loot!
These kinds of businesses also benefit from “Green Funds’ and government subsidies which we pay for, if you have not already noticed an increase in your electricity bills you soon will. Here in the UK alone there are uncounted billions pouring into windfarm development, even here in north Norfolk there are now many who are getting rich on the back of it. The politicians and business people involved in this are the most powerful people on earth, what chance can there be that they will let go of this seemingly endless money stream. They control the media and as things stand they have some justification as for thinking that they control us. It is up to all of us to demonstrate that this is not true.
Anyone who believes in AGW without having taken a serious look at the evidence cannot convincingly argue that they have not been brainwashed. Can you?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)