What you must believe to be afraid of climate change
In order to fear climate change, there are several beliefs you must hold.
1. CO2 drives temperature change
This is a the central belief of the AGW theory. If you don't believe CO2 controls temperature, then the increase in mankind's emission poses no threat.
2. Strong positive feedbacks exist
Even if you believe that CO2 drives temperature change, this isn't enough. Without strong positive feedbacks the temperature increase is minimal. The fear from future climate change arises from the belief that the slight temperature increase will lead to positive feedbacks (such as water vapor) that will further increase the temperature.
3. The temperature record is reliable
The .7c degree increase over the last century is usually considered proof of the AGW theory. After all, CO2 emission have risen quite a bit in the last 50 years, so temperature should have risen as well. To use this evidence, the temperature record must be taken as valid.
4. Life on earth is not very adaptable
If you fear climate change, then you must believe that it will negatively affect life on the planet. This assumes that life will be unable to adequately adapt to the future change in temperature.
Conclusion
This isn't an exhaustive list and there may be some who fear climate change who don't hold all four of these tenets. However, if you throw out any one point then fearing climate change makes little sense. If CO2 doesn't drive temperature change, then increasing CO2 isn't a problem. If there are no positive feedbacks, then the minimal rise in temperature from CO2 isn't a threat. If you don't believe the temperature record, then there is absolutely no observational evidence for the AGW theory. If you believe that life on planet earth is sufficiently adaptable, then an increase in temperature isn't something to fear.
I would simply point out that CO2 hasn't driven temperaturesin the past, positive feedbacks are completely theoretical and very controversial, the temperature record is notoriously unreliable, and planet earth has already shown its incredible adaptivity in the past through several ice ages and other temperature fluxes.
Don't fear climate change.
IPCC reviewers pointed out wildfire mistake, ignored by authors
In a previous post I mentioned that the IPCC's claim of reduced tourism due to wildfires (section 14.2.7 of WGII) didn't match their source. They claimed there were millions of dollars in tourism losses, but their source did not make that claim. One of the reasons the claim was false was explained in their own source, a British Columbia Tourism newsletter. It said:
It is possible that the stronger performance of regions far from the fires is due to travellers who changed their plans to visit these regions instead of those heavily affected by the forest fires.
More DEFRA advocacy for climate change
Back in Feb. I posted about how the UK government Agency Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) had asked the UEA specifically for 'headline' socio-economic indicators linked to climate change, in order to create 'public resonance'. I noticed this emphasis on climate change again recently.
After looking around the documents section of the CRU leak/hack, I noticed a few interesting PDFs. Both were made by (or with) DEFRA. The first is named "Your guide to Communicating Climate Change", and the second is named "Rules of the Game : Evidence base for the Climate Change Communications Strategy" They both are guides for how to communicate the dangers of climate change to others. Let's look at some excerpts, first from 'Your Guide': Read the rest here...
Four reasons why Obama is wrong on climate change
Obama talked briefly about climate change the other day. He seemed tired, and he certainly didn't show any command of the issue. Here is the video:
- Reason 1: It isn't just conservatives
Obama starts off by saying "When the conservatives..." Yes, lots of conservatives are skeptical of climate change, but to imply that all conservatives are skeptics or that all skeptics are conservatives is false.
- Reason 2: Snow doesn't disprove climate change, but lack of snow proves climate change
Obama claims that the five feet of snow in DC shouldn't be used as evidence against climate change. He then uses the lack of snow in Vancouver as evidence for climate change. Oops Read the rest here...
UK government asked UEA to create climate ‘headline’
In looking through more of the AR4 references, I came across an old site created by the UK's Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) about the 'Indicators of Climate Change in the UK'. The site was created in 1999, and last updated in 2003. I was wandering around the site, marveling at their outdated information, and I found an interesting document. It is entitled:
Review of UK Climate Change Indicators
Contract EPG 1/1/158
June 2003
(Revised Jan 2004)
Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs
It then lists the main contractors and the subcontractors. The University of East Anglia CRU is one of the subcontractors. Here is the rationale in their words for the report:
An update of the current set of UK indicators was also necessary, along with a reappraisal to assess whether :
- the original set of indicators was still appropriate;
- new indicators should be devised;
- indicators should be removed from the set
More WWF citations found in AR3, three alongside CRU
Yesterday I looked in AR3 and found more Greenpeace citations. Today, I read about the WWF being cited in AR4, so I decided to look again at AR3. I found fifteen WWF citations, and interestingly enough three of them were done together with the Climate Research Unit of East Anglia.
The first is found twice, once in section 5.2.2. Current Models of Ecosystem Change and the second in 15.2.6. Tourism and Recreation of Working Group II:
"Box 5-2. Illustration of Use and Limitation of Ecosystem Movement Models
The study by Malcolm and Markham (2000) is a good example of modeling that uses the ecosystem movement paradigm, but it also demonstrates the inherent weaknesses of the approach."
"Moreover, a global analysis of habitat change resulting from climate change found that more than 50% of the territory of seven Canadian provinces and greater than 33% of the territory in 11 U.S. states are at risk (Malcolm and Markham, 2000)."
Malcolm and Markham are referenced as such:
Malcolm, J.R. and A. Markham, 2000: Global Warming and Terrestrial Biodiversity Decline. World Wildlife Fund, Gland, Switzerland, 34 pp
Osama Bin Laden: Climate change is real and the US is to blame
Osama Bin Laden is all over the news this morning, on Drudge, Yahoo, WaPo, CBS, New York Times, and other sites. What did the terrorist do to warrant such headlines?
He talked about climate change. He blamed mostly the United States, and called for a boycott of our goods. Osama Bin Laden apparently has read the IPCC reports, because he claims:
"Speaking about climate change is not a matter of intellectual luxury - the phenomenon is an actual fact"
He said that the only way to stop climate change is to:
"bring the wheels of the American economy to a halt"
Much of what he said sounds no different than any other climate alarmist:
"He blamed Western industrialized nations for hunger, desertification and floods across the globe, and called for "drastic solutions" to global warming, and "not solutions that partially reduce the effect of climate change." - Source
Could Osama Bin Laden have possibly become less relevant? He has mentioned climate change before, but never released an entire recording about it. He waits until now to do so? I'm not sure the alarmists really need Osama Bin Laden on their side.
I do believe that this is actually very fitting for the near future of climate science. Soon only those who live in caves will believe in man-made climate change.
Cap-and-trade is dead, but climate change regulations are alive and well
Cap-and-trade won't go anywhere this year, maybe never. However, this doesn't mean that politicians won't try and save the world from the threat of climate change. The EPA found in December 2009 that "greenhouse gases (GHGs) threaten the public health and welfare of the American people" - Source. They classified Carbon Dioxide as a pollutant thus allowing them to regulate it under the Clean Air Act.
Direct EPA regulation without legislation is potentially crippling to the economy, and has many legislators crying foul. With cap-and-trade dead, the EPA has taken the lead in climate regulations, but they are not the only agency to create climate change regulations.
The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires federal agencies to look at the environmental impact of their potential regulations. On January 15'th, the White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) said:
"CEQ believes that it is appropriate and necessary to consider the impact of significant Federal actions on greenhouse gas emissions and the potential for climate change to affect Federal activities evaluated through NEPA..." - Source
This means all agencies must ensure that their regulations do not impact greenhouse gas emissions negatively. Several Senators said about the CEQ's finding:
"Requiring analysis of climate change impacts during the NEPA process, especially at the project-specific level, will slow our economic recovery while providing no meaningful environmental benefits," - Source
Other agencies are involved. Just today the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) ruled that companies must disclose potential effects of climate change in their corporate findings:
"Guidelines approved today require companies to weigh the impact of climate-change laws and regulations when assessing what information to include in corporate filings, the commission said. The SEC is responding to investors who said companies aren’t providing enough data on the potential risks to their profits and operations from environmental-protection laws." - Source
These guidelines also had several detractors, one of which stated that he was:
“troubled by an undertaking which seems so transparently political and such a breathtaking waste of the commission’s resources.” Source
Well said. With the EPA's scientific basis for their regulation of CO2 under scrutiny it makes little sense to attempt regulation through other agencies. Common sense would seem to dictate that they wait until the spotlight is removed from the EPA and climate science in general before they attempt even more regulation. I suppose common sense isn't all too common in Washington.
Gordon Brown claimed glaciers could ‘disappear entirely’ in 25 years
Gordon Brown made the false claim in October 2009 at the Major Economies Forum in London. He said:
"...in just twenty-five years the glaciers in the Himalayas which provide water for three quarters of a billion people could disappear entirely." - Other Brown quotes
Here's the video:
While this is no surprise, I haven't yet seen others highlight this error. Scaring three quarters of a billion people sounds pretty serious to me. Do you think he will bother to correct his alarmist error?
The IPCC Meltdown and what it reveals, Part II
Let's look into the IPCC meltdown a little further, and take on some of the claims made in their defense.
Perhaps it was a massive blunder? I'm sure some would want us to give them the benefit of the doubt. As some have said, the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report is huge, it's unlikely it could be completely devoid of any mistake. Pachauri assures us that one mistake doesn't mean we should throw the whole report out (Although it is clear there are more mistakes). In other words, they made a mistake but there was no harmful intent. The words of Dr. Lal seem to indicate otherwise, but let's set them aside for the moment. If this was just one mistake with no malicious intentions, we should be able to tell by how they handled themselves when their false statement was challenged.
An entire team of Indian scientists led by the Indian Environmental Minister concluded that the IPCC's statement about the glaciers was 'alarmist and misplaced'. If the IPCC simply made a mistake without intent to deceive, when confronted with evidence of their failure they would have reviewed the data and concluded they were indeed wrong. Issuing a retraction would certainly have hurt their credibility, but at least they are engaging in the correct scientific procedure. This is not what happened. Instead, Pachauri lashed out at the report, calling it 'voodoo science', 'not peer-reviewed', and claiming 'we have a very clear idea of what is happening'.
Their response proved the IPCC as unscientific. Even if you can still claim (a difficult argument) that they did not intend to deceive, you are left with the reality that they did not even attempt to correct a blatant scientific error. Scientists' claims are always open to scrutiny. The IPCC didn't need the science on their side. One profession can always make claims without any data to support them, and then defend them vehemently when they are proved wrong. They are called politicians.