PLEASE NOTE:
*
CCNet CLIMATE SCARES & CLIMATE CHANGE, 11 June 2001
---------------------------------------------------
"It hardly needed explanation. 'Everyone knows the planet is
in bad
shape,' thundered a Time magazine article last year. The seas are
being
polluted, the forests devastated, species are being driven to
extinction at record rates, the rain is acid, the ozone layer
vaporising,
and the rivers are so poisonous fish are floating on the surface,
dead. As
Al Gore, former US vice-president, put it in his book Earth in
the
Balance : 'Modern industrial civilisation is colliding violently
with
our planet's ecological system.' We inherited Eden and are
leaving our
children a depleted rubbish tip.
But there's a growing belief that what everyone takes for granted
is
wrong: things are actually getting better. A new book is about to
overturn our most basic assumptions about the world's
environment. Far
from going to hell in a handcart, it is improving by almost all
measures. Those things not getting better are getting worse at a
slower
rate."
--Anthony Browne, The Observer, 10 June 2001
"At the beginning, the environmental movement had reason to
say that
the end of the world is nigh (sic), but most of the really
serious
problems have been dealt with. Now it's almost as though the
environmental movement has to invent doom and gloom
scenarios."
--Patrick Moore, co-founder of Greenpeace, The Observer 10
June 2001
(1) LEADING CLIMATE SCIENTISTS ADVISE WHITE HOUSE ON GLOBAL
WARMING
National Academy of Sciences, 6 June 2001
(2) NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES RAISES MORE CLIMATE QUESTIONS
Reason Public Policy Institute, 7 June 2001
(3) THE US NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES ISSUES A DISTORTED REPORT
Science & Environmental Policy Project, 9
June 2001
(4) APPLYING PROBABILITY CALCULATIONS TO CLIMATE MODELS
EUREKALERT, 4 June 2001
(5) COMMENTARY OF THE WEEK: THE KYOTO ACCORD FINALLY FLAMES OUT
National Post, 8 June 2001
(6) RECOVERING EARTH: WHY GREEN SCARE MONGERING IS GETTING OUT OF
FASHION
The Observer, 10 June 2001
(7) AND FINALLY, MORE BAD NEWS FOR PESSIMISTS: 'CLEANEST LONDON
AIR FOR 400
YEARS'
The Sunday Times, 10 June 2001
============
(1) LEADING CLIMATE SCIENTISTS ADVISE WHITE HOUSE ON GLOBAL
WARMING
From National Academy of Sciences
http://www4.nationalacademies.org/news.nsf/(ByDocID)/854F0F191BB3912385256A6300697720?OpenDocument
Date: June 6, 2001
Contacts: Bill Kearney, Media Relations Officer
Mark Chesnek, Media Relations Assistant
(202) 334-2138; e-mail <news@nas.edu>
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Leading Climate Scientists Advise White House on Global Warming
WASHINGTON -- In a report requested by the Bush administration, a
committee
of the National Academies' National Research Council summed up
science's
current understanding of global climate change by characterizing
the global
warming trend over the last 100 years, and examining what may be
in store
for the 21st century and the extent to which warming may be
attributable to
human activity. The committee -- made up of 11 of the nation's
top climate
scientists, including seven members of the National Academy of
Sciences, one
of whom is a Nobel-Prize winner -- also emphasized that much more
systematic
research is needed to reduce current uncertainties in
climate-change
science.
"We know that greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's
atmosphere,
causing surface temperatures to rise," said committee chair
Ralph Cicerone,
chancellor, University of California at Irvine. "We don't
know precisely how
much of this rise to date is from human activities, but based on
physical
principles and highly sophisticated computer models, we expect
the warming
to continue because of greenhouse gas emissions."
Based on assumptions that emissions of greenhouse gases will
accelerate and
conservative assumptions about how the climate will react to
that, computer
models suggest that average global surface temperatures will rise
between
2.5 and 10.4 degrees Fahrenheit (1.4 and 5.8 degrees Celsius) by
the end of
this century.
With regard to the basic question of whether climate change is
occurring,
the report notes that measurements show that temperatures at the
Earth's
surface rose by about 1 degree Fahrenheit (about .6 degrees
Celsius) during
the 20th century. This warming process has intensified in the
past 20 years,
accompanied by retreating glaciers, thinning arctic ice, rising
sea levels,
lengthening of the growing season in many areas, and earlier
arrival of
migratory birds.
The committee said the conclusion of the Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate
Change (IPCC) that the global warming that has occurred in the
last 50 years
is likely the result of increases in greenhouse gases accurately
reflects
the current thinking of the scientific community. However, it
also cautioned
that uncertainties about this conclusion remain because of the
level of
natural variability inherent in the climate on time scales from
decades to
centuries, the questionable ability of models to simulate natural
variability on such long time scales, and the degree of
confidence that can
be placed on estimates of temperatures going back thousands of
years based
on evidence from tree rings or ice cores.
The greenhouse gas of most concern is carbon dioxide since the
naturally
occurring chemical also is generated by the continuing burning of
fossil
fuels, can last in the atmosphere for centuries, and
"forces" more climate
change than any other greenhouse gas, the committee said. Other
significant
greenhouse gases include methane, nitrous oxide, water vapor,
tropospheric
ozone, and chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), which together have a
"forcing" on
climate change approximately equal to that of carbon dioxide.
Man-made
sources of methane, nitrous oxide, and ozone have resulted in
substantially
increased concentrations in the atmosphere in the 20th century,
although
each of these gases also has natural sources. CFCs are entirely
synthetic
compounds.
The best information about past climate variability comes from
ice cores
drilled miles deep in Antarctica and Greenland, which reveal that
temperatures changed substantially over the past 400,000 years.
Although
most of these changes occurred over thousands of years, some
rapid warmings
took place over a period of decades.
The ice cores also trapped carbon dioxide and methane, which
shows that the
gases were present in the atmosphere at their lowest levels
during cold eras
and at higher levels during warm eras. Carbon dioxide did not
rise much
above 280 parts per million by volume (ppmv) until the industrial
revolution. By the end of the 20th century, it had reached 370
ppmv, with an
average increase in the last two decades of 1.5 ppmv a year. Both
carbon
dioxide and methane are more abundant in the atmosphere now than
at any time
during the 400,000-year ice core record.
The committee noted that the IPCC has examined a range of
scenarios
concerning future greenhouse gas emissions. The committee called
such
scenarios valuable because they provide a warning of the
magnitude of
climate change that may occur if emission rates continue to climb
at a rate
similar to last century, but it also said alternative scenarios
are needed
to illustrate the sensitivity to underlying assumptions,
particularly with
regard to future technological development and energy policy.
The committee also was asked by the White House to examine
whether there
were any substantive differences between the IPCC reports and
their abridged
technical and policy-maker summaries. The IPCC was established by
the United
Nations and World Meteorological Organization in 1988 and its
reports and
summaries have been influential in international negotiations
related to the
Kyoto protocol.
The full IPCC Working Group 1 report does an admirable job of
reflecting
research activities in climate science, and is adequately
summarized in the
technical summary, the committee said. The corresponding summary
for
policy-makers, it added, placed less emphasis on the scientific
uncertainties and caveats. Looking to the future, the committee
suggested
that improvements to the IPCC process may need to be made to
ensure the best
scientific representation possible, and to keep the process from
being seen
as too heavily influenced by governments "which have
specific postures with
regard to treaties, emissions controls, and other policy
instruments."
To reduce some of the uncertainties inherent in current climate
change
predictions, a strong commitment must be made to basic research
as well as
to improving climate models and building a global climate
observing system,
the committee said. More comprehensive measurements of greenhouse
gases and
increased computational power also will be needed.
Although potential impacts from global warming were looked at in
the report,
it was not part of the committee's charge to make policy
recommendations for
dealing with them.
The White House requested this fast-track review of the state of
climate
science in preparation for international discussions on global
warming
scheduled to take place in the coming weeks. "In view of the
critical nature
of this issue, we agreed to undertake this study and to use our
own funds to
support it," said Bruce Alberts, president of the National
Academy of
Sciences and chair of the National Research Council. The study
took a month.
The National Research Council is the principal operating arm of
the National
Academy of Sciences and National Academy of Engineering. It is a
private,
nonprofit institution that provides scientific and technical
advice under a
congressional charter.
Read the full text of Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some
Key
Questions as well as 1,800 other publications from the National
Academy
Press. Printed copies are available for purchase from the
National Academy
Press Web site or by calling (202) 334-3313 or 1-800-624-6242.
Reporters may
obtain a copy from the Office of News and Public Information
(contacts
listed above).
NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL
Division on Earth and Life Studies
Committee on the Science of Climate Change
Ralph J. Cicerone1 (chair)
Chancellor, and
Daniel G. Aldrich Professor
Department of Earth System Science and Department of Chemistry
University of California
Irvine
Eric J. Barron
Director
Earth and Mineral Sciences Environment Institute, and
Distinguished Professor of Geosciences
Pennsylvania State University
University Park
Robert E. Dickinson1
Professor of Dynamics and Climate
School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences
Georgia Institute of Technology
Atlanta
Inez Y. Fung1
Richard and Rhoda Goldman Distinguished Professor for the
Physical Sciences;
Professor
Departments of Earth and Planetary Science and of Environmental
Sciences,
Policy, and Management; and
Director
Center for Atmospheric Sciences
University of California
Berkeley
James E. Hansen1
Head
NASA/Goddard Institute for Space Studies
New York City
Thomas R. Karl
Director
National Climatic Data Center
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Asheville, N.C.
Richard S. Lindzen1
Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology
Department of Earth, Atmospheric, and Planetary Sciences
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Cambridge
James C. McWilliams
Slichter Professor of Earth Sciences
Department of Atmospheric Sciences
Institute of Geophysics and Planetary Physics
University of California
Los Angeles
F. Sherwood Rowland1,2
Donald Bren Research Professor of Chemistry and Earth System
Science
Department of Chemistry
University of California
Irvine
Edward S. Sarachik
Professor
Department of Atmospheric Sciences;
Adjunct Professor
School of Oceanography; and
Director
S.P. Hayes Center of the Joint Institute for the Study of the
Atmosphere and
the Ocean
University of Washington
Seattle
John M. Wallace1
Professor of Atmospheric Sciences
Department of Atmospheric Sciences, and
Co-Director
Program on the Environment
University of Washington
Seattle
RESEARCH COUNCIL STAFF
Vaughan C. Turekian
Study Director
1 Member, National Academy of Sciences
2 Member, Institute of Medicine
THE FULL NAS REPORT CAN BE ACCESSED AT:
http://www.nap.edu/catalog/10139.html?onpi_newsdoc060601
=========
(2) NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES RAISES MORE CLIMATE QUESTIONS
From Reason Public Policy Institute, 7 June 2001
http://www.rppi.org/rr103.html
Key Findings from "Climate Change Science: An Analysis of
Some Key
Questions" - a Report to the Bush Administration from the
National Research
Council of the National Academy of Sciences
by Kenneth Green, D. Env.
"A thorough understanding of the uncertainties is essential
to the
development of good policy decisions."
-"Climate Change Science" Report, Page 22
"The most valuable contribution U.S. scientists can make is
to
continually question basic assumptions and conclusions, promote
clear
and careful appraisal and presentation of the uncertainties about
climate
change as well as those areas in which science is leading to
robust
conclusions, and work toward a significant improvement in the
ability to
project the future."
-"Climate Change Science" Report, 6/6/01, Page 23
On June 6, 2001, an 11-member panel of the National Academy of
Sciences
(NAS) released "Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some
Key Questions,"
a report they prepared for President George W. Bush. The report
confirms
important points that many analysts critical of mainstream
portrayals of
climate change science and policy have argued for years.
In this report, NAS points out that:
Uncertainties in climate science throw the question of human
causality of
climate change into doubt;
Uncertainties in projecting future social trends make predictions
of future
climate conditions "tentative;"
Political influences played a significant role in shaping the
"Summary for
Policymakers of the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate
Change (IPCC), a key formal document in the U.N.'s three-volume
Third
Assessment Report on climate change; and
Understanding of climate change science is far from complete and
is, in
fact, still rudimentary in many areas.
The NAS report begins with an adamant statement that
"temperatures are, in
fact, rising." This is not news, however; virtually no one
has argued that
this is not the case. While the NAS goes on to affirm some of the
technical
claims from both the third Assessment Report of the U.N's IPCC
and the
National Assessment Report of the United States Global Change
Research
Project, the NAS report has many sharply cautionary warnings
scattered
throughout.
This document culls key statements from the NAS report into
discrete
categories:
1. Key statements on understanding of the climate system and our
forecasting
abilities;
2. Key statements on human causation of observed 20th century
climate
changes;
3. Key statements on research needs (the only actual
recommendations given
by the NAS); and
4. Key statements on the IPCC process, scientific representation,
and
political influence on the "Summary for Policymakers"
in the U.N.'s third
Assessment Report.
1. Key Statements on Understanding of the Climate System and our
Forecasting
Abilities
While the NAS "generally agrees with the assessment of
human-caused climate
change" presented by the United Nations' IPCC, the authors
of the NAS report
seek to "articulate more clearly the level of confidence
that can be
ascribed to those assessments, and the caveats that need to be
attached to
them."
The following quote from the NAS report summarizes that effort
quite well:
"Because there is considerable uncertainty in current
understanding
of how the climate system varies naturally and reacts to
emissions of
greenhouse gases and aerosols, current estimates of the magnitude
of future
warming should be regarded as tentative and subject to future
adjustments
upward or downward."
-"Climate Change Science" Report, Page 1
The NAS report points out the many weaknesses in current
understanding of
climate processes:
"Much of the difference in predictions of global warming by
various
climate models is attributable to the fact that each model
represents
these [feedback] processes in its own particular way."
-"Climate Change Science" Report, Page 4
"The study of the role of black carbon in the atmosphere is
relatively new. As a result, it is characterized poorly as to its
composition, emission source strengths, and influence on
radiation."
-"Climate Change Science" Report, Page 13
"There is the possibility that decreasing black carbon
emissions in
the future could have a cooling effect that would at least
partially
compensate for the warming that might be caused by a decrease in
sulfates."
-"Climate Change Science" Report, Page 13
"Climate forcing by anthropogenic aerosols is a large source
of
uncertainty about future climate change."
-"Climate Change Science" Report, Page 13
"The greatest uncertainty about the aerosol climate
forcing-indeed,
the largest of all the uncertainties about global climate
forcings-is
probably the indirect effect of aerosols on clouds."
-"Climate Change Science" Report, Page 14
"The great uncertainty about this indirect aerosol climate
forcing
presents a severe handicap both for the interpretation of past
climate
change and for future assessments of climate change.
-"Climate Change Science" Report, Page 15
And while the NAS report clearly affirms the usefulness and
importance of
climate models, it observes that:
"However, climate models are imperfect. Their simulation
skill is
limited by uncertainties in their formulation, the limited size
of
their calculations, and the difficulty of interpreting their
answers
that exhibit almost as much complexity as in nature."
-"Climate Change Science" Report, Page 15
"Projecting future climate change first requires projecting
the
fossil-fuel and land-use sources of CO2 and other gases and
aerosols.... However, there are large uncertainties in underlying
assumption about population growth, economic development, life
style
choices, technological change and energy alternatives, so that it
is
useful to examine scenarios developed from multiple perspectives
in
considering strategies for dealing with climate change."
-"Climate Change Science" Report, Page 18
"Scenarios for future greenhouse gas amounts, especially for
CO2 and
CH4 are a major source of uncertainty for projections of future
climate.
Successive IPCC assessments over the past decade each have
developed a
new set of scenarios with little discussion of how well observed
trends match with previous scenarios."
-"Climate Change Science" Report, Pages 18-19
Finally, in another powerfully cautionary statement, the NAS
confirms that
some of the proposed factors involved in climate change are so
uncertain
that it is unknown whether the factors will cause warming or
cooling:
"The range of model sensitivities and the challenge of
projecting
the sign of the precipitation changes for some regions represent
a
substantial limitation in assessing climate impacts."
-"Climate Change Science" Report, Page 21
2. Key Statements on Human Causation of Observed 20th Century
Climate
Changes
When it comes to the all-important question of causality, the NAS
report
contains cautionary statements far stronger than those seen from
other
august scientific panels:
"Despite the uncertainties, there is general agreement that
the
observed warming is real and particularly strong within the past
twenty years. Whether it is consistent with the change that would
be
expected in response to human activities is dependent upon what
assumptions one makes about the time history of atmospheric
concentrations
of the various forcing agents, particularly aerosols."
-"Climate Change Science" Report, Page 3
"Because of the large and still uncertain level of natural
variability inherent in the climate record and the uncertainties
in the
time history of the various forcing agents (and particularly
aerosols), a causal linkage between the buildup of greenhouse
gases in the
atmosphere and the observed climate changes during the 20th
century cannot
be unequivocally established."
-"Climate Change Science" Report, Page 17
"The fact that the magnitude of the observed warming is
large in
comparison to natural variability as simulated in climate models
is
suggestive of such a linkage, but it does not constitute proof of
one
because the model simulations could be deficient in natural
variability
on the decadal to century time scale."
-"Climate Change Science" Report, Page 17
3. Key Statements on Research Needs
While the NAS report does not make outright recommendations, it
does point
out research needs and encourages additional research. This
itself points to
weaknesses in the underlying scientific understanding of climate
change.
"Reducing the wide range of uncertainty inherent in current
model
predictions of global climate change will require major advances
in
understanding and modeling of both (1) the factors that determine
atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases and aerosols, and
(2) the
so-called 'feedbacks' that determine the sensitivity of the
climate system
to a prescribed increase in greenhouse gases. Specifically, this
will
involve reducing uncertainty regarding: (a) future usage of
fossil
fuels, (b) future emissions of methane, (c) the fraction of
fossil
fuel carbon that will remain in the atmosphere and provide
radiative
forcing versus exchange with the oceans or net exchange with the
land
biosphere, (d) the feedbacks in the climate system that determine
both
the magnitude of the change and the rate of energy uptake by the
oceans, which together determine the magnitude and time history
of
the temperature increases for a given radiative forcing, (e) the
details of
the regional and local climate change consequent to an overall
level of
global climate change, (f) the nature and causes of the natural
variability
of climate and its interactions with forced changes, and (g) the
direct
and indirect effects of the changing distributions of
aerosol."
-"Climate Change Science" Report, Page 23
4. Key Statements on the IPCC Process, Scientific Representation,
and
Political Influence on the "Summary for Policymakers"
in the U.N.'s Third
Assessment Report
Perhaps the most fascinating element of the NAS report is its
inquiry into
the limitations of the IPCC process, and its questioning whether
the IPCC
"Summary for Policymakers"-the most widely quoted
element of all the IPCC
publications-faithfully represents the underlying technical
reports.
While the NAS finds the underlying technical reports of the IPCC
on the
science of climate change (a.k.a. the "Working Group 1"
section of the Third
Assessment Report) to be rigorous and representative of
mainstream
scientific thought, it raised many concerns about the influence
of political
forces on the IPCC's overall reporting process and on key
documents such as
its "Summary for Policymakers" in the Third Assessment
Report.
The NAS also confirms a practice that many critics of past IPCC
reports have
questioned: that of retroactively altering the technical studies
to support
the statements given in the "Summary for Policymakers."
While "most" of
these changes were acceptable to the IPCC chapter authors, the
NAS suggests
that "some scientists may find fault with some of the
technical details,
especially if they appear to underestimate uncertainty"
(page 23).
Additional points raised by the NAS report include the following:
"The 'Summary for Policymakers' reflects less emphasis on
communicating the basis for uncertainty, and a stronger emphasis
on
areas of major concern associated with human- induced climate
change. This
change in emphasis appears to be the result of a summary process
in
which scientists work with policy makers on the document.
-"Climate Change Science" Report, Page 5
"Changes to the 'Summary for Policymakers' are only approved
by 'a
fraction of the lead and contributing authors,' not the full body
of
authors of the WG1 report."
-"Climate Change Science" Report, Page 5
"After analysis, the committee finds that the conclusions
presented
in the 'Summary for Policymakers' and the 'Technical Summary' are
consistent with the main body of the report. There are, however,
differences. The primary differences reflect the manner in which
uncertainties are communicated in the 'Summary for Policymakers.'
The
'Summary for Policymakers' frequently uses terms (e.g., likely,
very
likely, unlikely) that convey levels of uncertainty; however, the
text
less frequently includes either their basis or caveats."
-"Climate Change Science" Report, Page 22
"Confidence limits and probabilistic information, with their
basis,
should always be considered as an integral part of the
information
that climate scientists provide to policy- and decision-makers.
Without
them, the IPCC 'Summary for Policymakers' could give an
impression that
the science of global warming is 'settled' even though many
uncertainties still remain."
-"Climate Change Science" Report, Page 22
"In addition, the preparation of the 'Summary for
Policymakers'
involves both scientists and governmental representatives.
Governmental representatives are more likely to be tied to
specific
government postures with regard to treaties, emission controls,
and other
policy instruments."
-"Climate Change Science" Report, Page 23
"Without an understanding of the sources and degree of
uncertainty,
decision-makers could fail to define the best ways to deal with
the
serious issue of global warming."
-"Climate Change Science" Report, Page 23
The newly released "Climate Change Science: An Analysis of
Some Key
Questions" report of the National Academy of Sciences is a
noteworthy
contribution to the ongoing debate over climate policy. While
understanding
that the Earth's average temperature has increased recently, and
affirming
the mainstream scientific view that some of this warming is
attributable to
human action, the NAS report also acknowledges the current
limitations of
scientific understanding, and the dangers of mischaracterizing
those
limitations by exaggerated reporting that downplays uncertainty.
About the Author
Kenneth Green, D.Env. is Director of the Environment Program at
Reason
Public Policy Institute, a national, nonpartisan policy research
organization based in Los Angeles, California.
==========
(3) THE US NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES ISSUES A DISTORTED REPORT
From Science & Environmental Policy Project, 9 June 2001
http://www.sepp.org/weekwas/2001/June9.htm
1. Comments on the National Academy Report on Climate Change
By S. Fred Singer
The panel was made up of 11 persons, some of whom were involved
in the IPCC
report. While well qualified individually, the panel lacked
balance. It did
not include a geologist or glaciologist; nor did it include more
than one
identified skeptic or anyone critical of the IPCC report. The
panel also
lacked demonstrated expertise in statistics, someone qualified to
judge the
adequacy of the data as a basis for conclusions drawn from them.
My comments
are confined to the report's Summary (NAS/S), consisting of the
first five
pages of a total of 24.
Overall comments:
The very first sentence of the Summary (NAS/S) states
unambiguously:
"Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as
a result
of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and
subsurface
ocean temperatures to rise."
Only near the end of the report (p. 17) do we learn of the
considerable
uncertainties that could offset the clear and unequivocal
conclusion of the
first paragraph.
"Because of the large and still uncertain level of natural
variability inherent in the climate record and the uncertainties
in the
time histories of the various forcing agents (and particularly
aerosols),
a causal linkage between the buildup of greenhouse gases in the
atmosphere and the observed climate changes during the 20th
century cannot
be unequivocally established. The fact that the magnitude of the
observed warming is large in comparison to natural
variability as
simulated in climate models is suggestive of such a linkage, but
it does
not constitute proof of one because the model simulations could
be
deficient in natural variability on the decadal to century time
scale." And
they certainly could be!
In any case, the statement is wrong in several respects:
1. The claimed temperature rise of the past few decades is based
entirely on
surface data from poorly controlled stations and sea-surface
measurements
(of water not air temperatures); they are judged to be
contaminated and
therefore suspect. The NAS/S ignores the observed climate cooling
that took
place between 1940 and 1975, so obviously at variance with the
increase in
GH gases. It completely ignores the data from weather satellites
and
radiosondes, which show no appreciable warming trend since 1979.
In
addition, none of the many proxy measurement (tree rings, ice
cores, etc)
shows any warming trend after 1940.
2. Even if one were to accept the claim that the climate has
warmed in the
last 50 years, there is no evidence (in the form of
"fingerprints," for
example) that such a warming is human-related. On the contrary,
the
available evidence directly contradicts the idea that humans have
made
and are making a substantial contribution to temperature changes.
Past
century's trends can best be explained in terms of natural
variability, most
likely caused by solar variability.
3. Furthermore, if one were to assign such a warming entirely to
an increase
of GH gases, the "climate sensitivity" thus obtained
would be well below
even the lowest value quoted by the IPCC, a rise of 1.5 C for a
doubling of
GH gases.
4. The observed warming trend of the deep ocean is best explained
as a
delayed consequence of the pre-1940 warming. There is also an
observed
cooling trend of the ocean, ignored in the NAS/S, again a
reflection of a
previous surface cooling (Singer in Eos, AGU Spring mtng 2000)
5. The first paragraph of the NAS/S mentions "associated
sea-level rise" as
if SL rise were a necessary consequence of an anthropogenic
climate warming.
Geologic evidence confirms that SL rise has been ongoing for the
past 18,000
years and has resulted in a total rise of 120 meters [400 feet].
The current
SL rise is mostly due to the slow melting of Antarctic ice
sheets, which
will continue for several more millennia.
Detailed comments:
a) NAS/S understates natural variability of climate by at least a
factor of
100. The geologic record shows variability of a few degrees C in
decades not
millennia.
b) The "removal time" (lifetime) of CO2 as >100 yrs
is overstated by a large
factor.
c) Notice how the NAS/S sidesteps the fact the atmosphere has not
been
warming since 1979 (according to satellite data): "The
troposphere warmed
much more during the 1970's than during the two subsequent
decades." Of
course; there was a major sudden warming between 1975 and 1978,
unconnected to any human activity.
d) The NAS/S constantly refers to "observed warming of the
last 50 years" in
spite of overwhelming evidence against.
e) The NAS/S gives credence to extreme scenarios used by the IPCC
and leaves
the impression that a future warming of 5.8 C is as likely as a
lower value.
But it admits later that the IPCC scenarios have already been
proven wrong
by actual observations of CO2 growth rates.
f) The very strange statement that "The contribution of
feedbacks to the
climate chnge depends upon climate sensitivity" should of
course be
reversed.
g) In discussing weather extremes on a regional basis, the NAS/S
states
"Some models project an increased tendency towards
drought," but fails to
mention that other models predict the opposite -- extreme
precipitation for
the same regions!
h) Finally, the NAS/S manages to sidestep the fact that the IPCC
Summary, a
political document, quotes the IPCC report selectively and
exaggerates
disasters while downplaying uncertainties. As the NAS/S puts it
artfully:
"The [IPCC] Summary for Policymakers reflects less emphasis
on communicating
the basis for uncertainty and a stronger emphasis on areas of
major concern
...This change in emphasis appears to be the result of a summary
process in
which scientists work with policymakers on the document."
Yes indeed!
Conclusion:
The Academy report stands or falls principally on whether the
climate warmed
in the past 50 years, and esp. since 1980. The overwhelming bulk
of data
from different independent sources shows no such warming trend.
We are not
talking just about science but about evidence. A full-scale open
debate is
in order to settle this matter.
********************************
2. Letter to Editor, New York Times (sent June 7)
The conclusion of the National Academy report to the White House
that human
activities are causing global warming [Front-page story in NY
Times, 7 June]
is largely based on the claim that there was an unusually rapid
rise in
surface temperatures during the last two decades, according to
readings from
surface thermometers. But another committee of the National
Academy, with
some of the same experts, published a report in January 2000 that
tried to
explain why the global atmosphere showed little if any warmng
since 1979,
according to the best data from weather satellites and weather
balloons. The
current report makes no explicit mention of the incontrovertible
disparity
between the different data sets. Yet the obvious importance of
this matter
for setting national policy calls for an evidentiary hearing in
an open,
trial-like setting during which the proponents of the differing
data sets
can be questioned and cross-examined in front of a jury of
scientists and
non-scientists.
S.Fred Singer
Professor emeritus of Environmental Sciences
University of Virginia
***********************************
3. Postscript: National Academy Report On Global Warming
By Patrick J. Michaels
Two weeks ago I saw the list of participants who were asked by
the White
House to produce a new report on global warming via the National
Academy of
Sciences. Two weeks ago, I knew what the report would say: that,
while
uncertainties remain, global warming is an important problem and
that the
planet will warm somewhere between 1.4 and 5.8ºC by the end of
this century.
This is the same range projected by the United Nations'
Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change, in a report to be released with great
fanfare some
sixty days from now. The reason that the National Academy report
looks a lot
like the UN's is that it was produced by a microcosm of the same
people, and
with the same process: groupthink.
In order to produce whatever you want, all you have to do is
select the
right people. But, for cover, include one or two known dissenters
who can
then be listed as participants even as they are ignored by the
dynamics of
the larger group.
I know because I have been in similar meetings with many of the
very same
people on the Academy panel; instead of being called by the White
House, the
one I recall was requested in response to Congressman John
Dingell (D-MI).
Eric Barron, from Penn State, a member of the current Academy
panel, chaired the meeting. There were about 15 participants, the
same
number involved in this most recent report. And what
"we" said then looks
quite a lot like what the Academy said yesterday.
The other dissenter in that case was MIT's Richard Lindzen. For
several
hours, we raised a number of objections concerning facts and
uncertainties
about climate change. Finally the Chairman announced that if we
didn't stop
objecting he was going to stop the meeting. This is how
legitimate
scientific dissent was handled.
We can only surmise that similar things happened with the new
report by
looking not at what it says, but what it omits. In this case, the
two likely
dissenters were again Mr. Lindzen, and John ("Mike")
Wallace, who chairs the
Atmospheric Science Department at University of Washington.
Wallace invited me for a very well-received seminar last year and
expressed
considerable agreement with arguments that warming may well be
overestimated, and that the process by which we assemble
"consensus" (the
new report being the latest example) may be fundamentally biased.
But he
also thinks we should lower our use of fossil fuels, his personal
opinion.
Want proof that groupthink smothered inconvenient dissent in this
new
report? Here are four glaring examples:
1. Lindzen recently published a bombshell paper in the Bulletin
of the
American Meteorological Society demonstrating there is a huge
tropical
"thermostat" that regulates planetary warming. It
reduces the likely warming
in the next century to, at warmest, somewhere around 1.6ºC, or
the lowest end of the National Academy's range. I find no mention
of this
paper in the new Academy report. It is impossible for me to
believe that
Dick did not bring it up.
2. The first sentence of the Academy report talks about how
changes in the
earth's greenhouse effect are "causing surface air
temperatures and
subsurface ocean temperatures to rise". Wouldn't it be
logical if one then
immediately asked what this meant? The paper on ocean
temperatures was
published only three months ago, in Science. When the rise in
ocean
temperatures is coupled to a predictive climate model, the
warming for the
next 100 years again comes out at the low end, around 1.4ºC.
3. Almost all of our climate models predict that once human
warming starts,
it takes place at a constant (not increasing) rate. The Academy
report
concurs with the UN that much of the warming of the last several
decades is
caused by people. Therefore, the warming rate that has been
established
should be the most likely one for the next 100 years, unless all
those
climate models are wrong. Again, it works out to 1.4ºC.
4. The physics of the greenhouse effect requires that warming
begin to damp
off if the increase in a greenhouse compound is constant. So the
only way
that the computer models can maintain a constant warming rate for
the next
100 years is to assume that the greenhouse gases go in at
ever-increasing (exponential) rates. They are not doing this.
Despite the
prior beliefs of every atmospheric scientist on the Academy
panel, the
increase in the last 25 years has been constant, not exponential.
This will
tend to reduce, rather than maintain warming in coming decades.
The Academy
report makes brief mention that the increase in atmospheric
greenhouse gases
is below the projections of the UN, but that's all. If one
assumes their
projected range, a non-exponential increase in greenhouse gases
will drive
the warming right down to it's bottom, or 1.4ºC in this century.
Is there a pattern here? You bet. By far the most consistent
interpretation
of that thing that climatologists must ultimately
confront--reality--is that
warming is destined to be modest. Further, the atmosphere has
already told
us that two-thirds of this will take place in the winter, with
three
quarters of that in the dead of Siberia, northwestern Canada, and
Alaska.
The logical question to ask is why the Academy didn't put all of
these
things together, and instead left it to this predictable nag to
do it for
you. The answer is simple: the people on this panel are largely
the same
ones who produce the United Nations reports, as well as earlier
Academy
reports. They have been touting big warming for nearly two
decades.
Reversing course, and saying anything else would have been
self-destructive.
That's why the contents of this report were quite predictable,
with as small
a range of uncertainty as is indicated by a critical look at our
climate's
behavior.
**************************
4. A view from Australia:
John Daly's Critique Of The NAS Report
(adapted from www.john-daly.com)
This report contains no new science, no new evidence, and most
critically -
it did not address in any detail a single point of contention
raised by
global warming sceptics. Specific problems with this latest
report are:
"Temperatures are in fact rising" - Only according to
the surface record,
mostly from third world instruments. The satellite record shows
little or no
warming, and the surface record from the U.S. shows a climate
today little
different to what it was 70 years ago. This remark confirmed the
committee's
support for the surface record - no reason given.
"There is general agreement that the observed warming is
real and
particularly strong within the past twenty years." With this
remark, the
committee have clearly rejected the satellite temperature record
outright,
with not a single reason offered. Because the satellites show no
strong
warming `within the past twenty years', the committee clearly
have given
100% blessing to the disputed surface record - without so much as
a reason
to justify that choice.
"The committee generally agrees with the assessment of
human-caused climate
change presented in the IPCC Working Group I (WG1) scientific
report." - So
they toss the ball back into the IPCC court, choosing not to
raise a single
point of criticism of that over-politicised UN body. This is
hardly
surprising as several committee members were themselves involved
in the IPCC
process.
"The committee finds that the full IPCC Working Group I (WG
1) report is an
admirable summary of research activities in climate science, and
the full
report is adequately summarized in the Technical Summary."
The IPCC summary
was also highly selective, choosing to summarise only those
research
activities which reinforced the IPCC mindset. That this NAS
committee should
find it so admirable clearly establishes them as ideologically
pro-IPCC with
no scientific justification offered. They gave no reasons for the
selectivity exercised by IPCC reviewers, accepting some research
studies,
but ignoring others.
"After analysis, the committee finds that the conclusions
presented in the
SPM and the Technical Summary (TS) are consistent with the main
body of the
report." - Again no discussion of the numerous points of
difference between
the two IPCC documents raised many times by sceptics. The SPM and
TS are
clearly incompatible in many respects, but the committee again
resorts
to endorsement without justification.
On sulfate aerosols, whose effects are highly disputed -
"The monitoring of
aerosol properties has not been adequate to yield accurate
knowledge of the
aerosol climate influence." This is an admission that little
is known about
these aerosols, but the committee did not proceed to find any
fault with
models which use those aerosols to prevent the models from
over-heating
their virtual earths beyond existing real climate. Those aerosols
are used
in the models like an accountants `balancing item' in a balance
sheet, and
are assumed to be real only in order to keep the models in some
kind of
agreement with current climate. The committee should have been
more detailed
on this issue, given their admission that little is known about
the effect
of aerosols in the real world.
On solar forcing, the direct effect of which the committee claims
to be
small (+0.3 w/m2), they dismiss the well published secondary
feedback
effects of solar forcing - "Numerous possible indirect
forcings associated
with solar variability have been suggested. However, only one of
these,
ozone changes induced by solar UV irradiance variations, has
convincing
observational support." With these dismissive words, the
entire body of
published and peer-reviewed solar science built up over the last
ten years
is thrown out - without so much as an explanation.
On the `National Assessment' - "The U.S. National Assessment
of Climate
Change Impacts, augmented by a recent NRC report on climate and
health,
provides a basis for summarizing the potential consequences of
climate
change." The National Assessment has been one of the most
criticised climate
documents of recent times. It was attacked not merely by global
warming
sceptics, but also by scientists normally sympathetic to the IPCC
and the
global warming scenario. It was a manifestly political and
alarmist document
and exceeded even the alarmism normally associated with radical
environmental groups. But this NAS committee endorses the
National
Assessment. More shame to them for doing so.
On the delicate issue as to why the satellites and surface do not
agree as
to recent warming trends - "The finding that surface and
troposphere
temperature trends have been different as observed over intervals
as long as
a decade or two is difficult to reconcile with our current
understanding of
the processes that control the vertical distribution of
temperature in the
atmosphere." With these mealy-mouthed words, the committee
put themselves
squarely in the business of pseudo-science, not science.
Having admitted they could not understand why the satellites
measuring the
free atmosphere were producing a different trend to the surface
record, this
lack of understanding did not compel them to question the
validity of the
models which depend critically on an assumption that an enhanced
greenhouse
must warm the troposphere first, before the surface warms. What
has been
observed is quite the reverse. From this, it requires no great
leap of
thinking to conclude that either the models are working to a
completely
false premise, or else the surface record itself is wrong, or
both. Either
way, having endorsed the models without explanation, and having
endorsed the
surface record again without explanation, they could only pass
off this
fundamental conflict with the inane and worthless comment given
above.
In conclusion, the NAS committee made many assertions, none of
which they
chose to justify or explain other than to state it was `their
view' - as if
their mere authority as representing the National Academy of
Science were
enough to prevail in the argument.
Well it isn't. The days when mere `authority' could win an
argument or
debate are long gone. Such deference is more characteristic of a
medieval
priesthood, not a modern science where every important claim must
be
justified and explained. Only evidence counts in this modern
world, and this
committee have provided none, merely re-stated what has already
been stated
in politically contaminated documents by the IPCC and National
Assessment.
***************************************
5. Steve Forbes Takes A Dim View Of The National Academy Report
On Global
Warming (as reported in the Washington Times of June 8)
"The Kyoto global warming treaty would do to the American
economy what Dr.
Kevorkian does to the Hippocratic oath." Don't you just love
that.
===========
(4) APPLYING PROBABILITY CALCULATIONS TO CLIMATE MODELS
From EUREKALERT, 4 June 2001
http://www.eurekalert.org/releases/uiuc-csm060101.html
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: 4 JUNE 2001
Contact: James E. Kloeppel, Physical Sciences Editor
kloeppel@uiuc.edu
217-244-1073
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Climate sensitivity may be higher than many think, researchers
say
CHAMPAIGN, Ill. - In the wake of mounting evidence of global
warming,
decision-makers are wrestling with related policy issues. Now,
researchers
at the University of Illinois have shown that the probability of
severe
climate change is much greater than many scientists or
policy-makers had
thought. "The size and impacts of anthropogenically induced
climate change
strongly depend on the climate sensitivity - the change in
equilibrium
surface warming due to a doubling of the concentration of carbon
dioxide in
the atmosphere," said Michael Schlesinger, a UI atmospheric
scientist.
"According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,
the climate
sensitivity lies between 1.5 and 4.5 degrees Centigrade."
If the climate sensitivity is less than 1.5 degrees Centigrade,
then climate
change may not be a serious problem, Schlesinger said. "If,
however, the
climate sensitivity is greater than the IPCC's upper bound, then
climate
change may be one of humanity's most severe problems of the 21st
century. By
judging the likelihood of the climate sensitivity having any
particular
value - that is, by its probability density function - the
crafting of
robust adaptive climate-change policy could be greatly
facilitated."
Schlesinger and UI atmospheric scientist Natalia Andronova used a
simple
climate/ocean model and the near-surface temperature record to
estimate the
probability density function for climate sensitivity. They
considered 16
radiative-forcing models, which included such factors as
greenhouse gases,
anthropogenic sulfate aerosol, solar irradiance and volcanoes.
For each
model, the changes in global-mean near-surface temperature were
calculated
for the years 1765 through 1997.
The researchers found that, as a result of natural variability
and
uncertainty in the radiative forcing, the climate sensitivity
could lie
between 1 and 10 degrees Centigrade. "Consequently, there is
a 54 percent
likelihood that the climate sensitivity lies outside the IPCC
range,"
Schlesinger said. "Our results show that the probability
density function
very strongly depends on which radiative forcing factors have
actually been
at work during the period of the temperature measurements,"
he said. "At
present, the most likely scenario is one that includes
anthropogenic sulfate
aerosol forcing but not solar variation. Although the value of
the climate
sensitivity in that case is most uncertain, there is a 70 percent
chance
that it exceeds the maximum IPCC value. This is not good
news."
One way to reduce the uncertainty of which probability
distribution is the
appropriate one to use in impact and policy studies is "to
determine whether
the sun's irradiance has actually changed during the past 150
years,"
Andronova said. "Another way would be to consider the net
radiative forcing
of all the anthropogenic aerosols, not just the sulfate
aerosol."
###
A paper discussing the researchers' findings has been accepted
for
publication in the Journal of Geophysical Research. The National
Science
Foundation and the U.S. Department of Energy supported the work.
-----
AND A COMMENT BY JUNKSCIENCE
http://www.junkscience.com/
This is a good one. No idea about the relative importance of
various
forcings but allocates "probabilities" anyway:
"Our results show that the probability density function very
strongly depends on which radiative forcing factors have actually
been
at work during the period of the temperature measurements,"
he said. "At
present, the most likely scenario is one that includes
anthropogenic
sulfate aerosol forcing but not solar variation. Although the
value of the
climate sensitivity in that case is most uncertain, there is a 70
percent
chance that it exceeds the maximum IPCC value."
Translation: in order for people to be "responsible"
for alleged accelerated
climate change, solar irradiance must be constant (it isn't,
click here for
graph) and the sulfate aerosol excuse ("masking" of
anthropogenic warming
via increased aerosol albedo) must be valid. This point has been
covered to
death but, for those not familiar with it, the sulfate aerosol
mask
hypothesis is a dog that just won't hunt. The great majority of
anthropogenic sulfate aerosols are in the northern hemisphere and
they are
not particularly durable (unlike CO2, they don't mix throughout
the global
atmosphere but precipitate or decay, i.e., those produced in the
northern
hemisphere complete their atmospheric lifecycle in the northern
hemisphere).
Empirical measure shows the atmosphere to be warming slightly in
the
northern and cooling in the southern hemisphere (where there is a
virtual
absence of these aerosols) - the inverse of what should be
anticipated if
these reflective particles are temporarily overwhelming purported
anthropogenic warming. Moreover, sulfate aerosols are
concentrated
relatively close to emission points in Europe and North America
and least
prevalent over Siberia and Mongolia, suggesting that the latter
pair should
demonstrate at least winter warming since GHG forcing is most
effective in
dry, cold air masses (they could wish, having just suffered
through their
worst winters for many decades).
Given that the authors state "the most likely scenario is
one that includes
anthropogenic sulfate aerosol forcing," which is highly
unlikely since the
physical world demonstrates the inverse response to that
anticipated, and,
"but not solar variation," which is demonstrably false,
the assertion
"Although the value of the climate sensitivity in that case
is most
uncertain, there is a 70 percent chance that it exceeds the
maximum IPCC
value" is truly bizarre.
A tragic demonstration of science being sacrificed on the altar
of
politically correct assertion.
==========
(5) COMMENTARY OF THE WEEK: THE KYOTO ACCORD FINALLY FLAMES OUT
From National Post, 8 June 2001
http://www.nationalpost.com/commentary/columnists/story.html?f=/stories/20010608/585452.html
By Terence Corcoran
The great policy fiasco known as climate change is unravelling.
Nations are
at each other's throats, corporations are sparring for the
spoils, the
science is a gas and most people couldn't give a hoot. Who's got
the keys to
the SUV? And we want more electricity!
The freshest news is the report of the U.S. National Academy of
Sciences,
commissioned by U.S. President George W. Bush to come up with the
hard facts
on global warming. Instead, it came up with scientific mush. Some
of the
language seemed hard enough. "Global gases are accumulating
in Earth's
atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air
temperatures
and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise." But these
declarations gradually
unwound into a maze of uncertainty and unproven hypothesis.
Here's a humdinger for true believers: "Because of the large
and still
uncertain level of natural variability inherent in the climate
record and
the uncertainties in the time histories of the various forcing
agents ... a
causal linkage between the buildup of greenhouse gases in the
atmosphere and
the observed climate changes during the 20th century cannot be
unequivocally
established."
In short, just because the 20th century was a little warmer
"does not
constitute proof" that there's a link to greenhouses gases.
The NAS report
also branded as scientifically unreliable the United Nations'
official claim
that the 20th century was worse than any century over the past
millennium.
That proof, if such exists, "will require more extensive
data and analysis."
This is a report Canada should have produced, and would have if
Ottawa had
not been a mindless global cheerleader. In fact, the surest
Canadian sign
that the draconian Kyoto Protocol to curb the world's greenhouse
gas
emissions is dead came the other day from David Anderson, federal
Environment Minister of the Greenest country in the world.
After a decade of holier-than-the-U.S. hype and five years of
planning and
maybe $1-billion in spending, we're sneaking out the back door.
Mr. Anderson
said: "We won't ratify that here -- and I'll tell you why --
because we
can't take it to the public at the present time."
No time will be a good time for the Kyoto Protocol. It was signed
by the
Chrétien government after the Prime Minister, heading a Liberal
policy team
that had no policy, decided he would agree to anything so long as
Canada
committed to outperform the United States in cutting greenhouse
gas
emissions. Nothing of substance has happened since.
Canada's new official policy is that we no longer have to cut
emissions all
that much because Canada is a great big natural carbon sink that
will absorb
most of the carbon dioxide we produce. "We believe,"
said Mr. Anderson in an
interview with the Ottawa weekly The Hill Times "that carbon
dioxide, which
is absorbed by plants, kept out of the atmosphere, is just as
important as a
ton of carbon taken out of a smokestack and kept out of the
atmosphere."
Sinks schminks. What Mr. Anderson is really saying is that Canada
committed
to a crazy Kyoto plan that is unachievable and doomed, so let's
send up a
smokescreen while we escape out the back door. Maybe we'll even
be able to
blame the Europeans.
Just because the science isn't solid doesn't mean the Bush
administration is
turning its back on global warming. News leaks suggest Bush is
under the
spell of his Treasury Secretary, Paul O'Neill. Fox News columnist
Steven
Milloy reports (see today's FP Editorial page) that a new Bush
alternative
to Kyoto will attempt to eliminate all carbon dioxide emissions
from the
planet by 2050.
If this seems strange to you -- if the science isn't rock solid,
why bother?
-- here's an explanation. O'Neill is a former chairman of Alcoa.
Alcoa,
along with three dozen other major U.S. global corporations, are
big backers
of Kyoto. Other corporate fans of Kyoto include Enron, DuPont and
BP.
They're all members of the Pew Centre for Global Climate Change.
Eileen
Claussen, the executive director, said these companies "very
much like the
Kyoto framework and hope there is a way to preserve the best
parts."
The best parts are those that will reward these companies in hard
currency
for every molecule of carbon emissions they've cut since 1992 and
those they
can unload in the future.
Despite these corporate pressures -- and there are just as many
opposed to
Kyoto as for it -- Kyoto is likely to be officially interred in
Europe next
week. The new Italian government has already said it will not
support Kyoto,
ending the European Union's solidarity. The new Bush plan is a
certain
non-starter, which means the future of the great climate movement
is today
as uncertain and unpredictable as the science.
Copyright © 2001 National Post Online
=========
(6) RECOVERING EARTH: WHY GREEN SCARE MONGERING IS GETTING OUT OF
FASHION
From The Observer, 10 June 2001
http://www.observer.co.uk/focus/story/0,6903,504481,00.html
Environmentalists said our planet was doomed to die. Now one man
says they
are wrong. Anthony Browne reports
Special report: global warming
Sunday June 10, 2001
The Observer
It hardly needed explanation. 'Everyone knows the planet is in
bad shape,'
thundered a Time magazine article last year. The seas are being
polluted,
the forests devastated, species are being driven to extinction at
record
rates, the rain is acid, the ozone layer vaporising, and the
rivers are so poisonous fish are floating on the surface, dead.
As Al Gore,
former US vice-president, put it in his book Earth in the Balance
: 'Modern
industrial civilisation is colliding violently with our planet's
ecological
system.' We inherited Eden and are leaving our children a
depleted rubbish
tip.
But there's a growing belief that what everyone takes for granted
is wrong:
things are actually getting better. A new book is about to
overturn our most
basic assumptions about the world's environment. Far from going
to hell in a
handcart, it is improving by almost all measures. Those things
not getting
better are getting worse at a slower rate.
Rivers, seas, rain and the atmosphere are all getting cleaner.
The total
amount of forests in the world is not declining, few species are
being made
extinct, and many of those that were endangered are thriving
again. The
Skeptical Environmentalist by Bjørn Lomborg, professor of
statistics at the
University of Aarhus in Denmark, is a scathing attack on the
misleading
claims of environmental groups, and the 'bad news' culture that
makes people
believe everything is getting worse, when by almost all
indicators, things
are getting better.
When it was first published in Scandinavia, it caused a deafening
storm of
protest, and transformed the nature of the debate. The book is
part of a
growing backlash against green groups, and potentially the most
dangerous.
Most previous criticisms have come from right-wing think-tanks
hostile to
the environment agenda.
Now the attacks are increasingly coming from left-wing
environmentalists
such as Lomborg, a former member of Greenpeace. The accusation is
that,
although the environment is improving, green groups - with
revenues of
hundreds of millions of pounds a year - are using increasingly
desperate
scaremongering tactics to sustain donations.
Lomborg's book, to be published in September by Cambridge
University Press,
doesn't deny global warming - probably the biggest environmental
threat -
but demolishes almost every other environmental claim with a
barrage of
official statistics.
Many of his arguments were given added credibility last week by
the European
Environment Agency's annual report, which pointed out just how
much things
were improving across the continent.
In 1997, the WWF's international president Claude Martin made a
desperate
plea: 'I implore the leaders of the world to pledge to save their
remaining
forests now - at the eleventh hour for the world's forests.' The
Worldwatch
Institute claims that 'deforestation has been accelerating over
the last 30
years'.
But Lomborg says that is simply rubbish. Since the dawn of
agriculture the
world has lost about 20 per cent of its forest cover, but in
recent decades
depletion has come to a halt. According to UN figures, the area
of forests
has remained almost steady, at about 30 per cent of total land
area, since
the Second World War. Temperate forests in developing countries
such as the
US, UK and Canada have actually been expanding over the past 40
years.
Britain has more forest now than 200 years ago, and the growth is
all
broadleaf natural woodlands, not pine plantations. Tropical
forests in
developing countries are being cut down or burnt, but at a slow
rate; and
despite all the dire warnings the Amazon rainforest has only
shrunk by about
15 per cent. Lomborg concludes: 'Basically, our forests are not
under
threat.'
Nor are all our species dying out. In the 1979 book The Sinking
Ark,
campaigner Norman Myers claimed that each year 40,000 species
were being
made extinct. Others have suggested a figure of 250,000, and
claimed that 50
per cent of all species will have died out within 50 years.
But Lomborg cites other studies that show only 0.08 per cent of
species are
dying out each year. The IUCN - the world conservation union that
officially
recognises which species are endangered - said recently that
'actual
extinctions remain low'.
Conservation efforts have been spectacularly successful. Whales
are no
longer threatened with extinction, elephants are being culled
because their
numbers are so high, and the bald eagle is off the endangered
list. Never
has so much of the habitat of the developed world been protected
- the
number of officially protected areas in Europe has risen from a
handful 20
years ago to more than 2,000 now.
But the most dramatic improvements are elimination of most of the
main forms
of pollution. Cleaner fuels and clampdowns on emissions mean the
last time
sulphur dioxide emissions in London were so low was in the
sixteenth
century. Getting rid of lead from petrol means that in the US
lead
concentrations in the air have dropped 97 per cent.
The same is true of almost all other main forms of pollution,
including
soot, ozone, nitrous oxide and carbon monoxide. According to
Lomborg: 'Air
pollution is not a new phenomenon that has been getting worse and
worse, but
an old phenomenon that has been getting better and better,
leaving London
cleaner than it has been since the Middle Ages.'
The oceans have also been getting cleaner. According to the
European
Environment Agency, in seas around Europe in the past 10 years
the amount of
cadmium, mercury and lindane has fallen by around 80 per cent.
Many environmental scares have simply failed to happen. Despite
repeated
fears about a looming 'energy gap', the world now has more energy
than ever.
In 1980, it was predicted we only had 30 years of oil left but,
20 years on,
we know we have at least 40 years left. Improvements in
exploration
techniques mean the known oil reserves are at record levels.
In the Eighties, there was alarm that acid rain would destroy
Europe's
forests. Ten years later the fears had evaporated: studies showed
acid rain
rarely affected trees. It did, however, affect life in lakes, and
emissions
of acid-making gases were curbed.
'Acid rain does not kill the forests, and the air and water
around us are
becoming less and less polluted,' says Lomborg. The UN said in
1997 that
'the widespread death of European forests due to air pollution
which was
predicted by many in the Eighties did not occur.'
'Mankind's lot has improved in terms of practically every
measurable
indicator,' concludes Lomborg. A recent study by the right-wing
Institute of
Economic Affairs backed the claim. It produced indicators for
most forms of
environmental damage and concluded: 'Contrary to public opinion,
in most
instances, objectives for protecting human health and the
environment are
being met.'
Environmental groups claim, with justification, that many of the
improvements are the results of the success of their campaigns.
Stephen
Tindale, executive director of Greenpeace UK, said: 'There are
important
examples, such as acid rain and ozone, where things weren't as
bad as
predicted, and that's because behaviour changed.
'The ozone layer is beginning to recover because ozone depleters
are being
very rapidly phased out. It's a triumph of the environmental
movement.'
Charles Secrett, director of Friends of the Earth UK, insisted
that the
environment was facing new threats: 'The more obvious and simple
environmental issues have by and large been tackled. But we have
replaced
smelly pollutants you can see with invisible, sneaky pollutants
that affect
you over the long term.'
But this change of emphasis comes under heavy fire. Patrick
Moore, one of
the co-founders of Greenpeace who fell out with the organisation
over its
radical tactics, said that having been victorious in its early
battles the
environmental movementhad invented new ones.
He said: 'At the beginning, the environmental movement had reason
to say
that the end of the world is nigh, but most of the really serious
problems
have been dealt with. Now it's almost as though the environmental
movement
has to invent doom and gloom scenarios.'
Environmentalists admit that there has been a change in emphasis
- from
problems that have actually occurred to warnings about those that
might,
such as genetically modified foods. 'It is not scare-mongering to
draw
attention to a risk that could have very serious consequences if
it comes to
pass,' said Tindale.
Indeed, some potential risks - such as climate change - end up
becoming
reality if nothing is done. Secrett said: 'Very few environmental
groups are
doom and gloom merchants. What we say is based on science.'
Critics such as Moore claim that environmental groups have a
vested interest
in exaggerating problems, because alarming people helps to raise
funds. But
Lomborg warns it can have serious consequences: 'It makes us
scared and it
makes us more likely to spend our resources and attention solving
phantom
problems while ignoring real and pressing, possibly
non-environmental,
issues.'
Copyright 2000, The Observer
========
(7) AND FINALLY MORE BAD NEWS FOR PESSIMISTS: 'CLEANEST LONDON
AIR FOR 400
YEARS'
From The Sunday Times, 10 June 2001
http://www.sunday-times.co.uk/news/pages/sti/2001/06/10/stinwenws02040.html?
Nayab Chohan
IF you want to taste clean air, go to London. According to new
research, the
capital's atmosphere is cleaner than at anytime since 1585.
In findings that will surprise cyclists and pedestrians labouring
through
the capital's traffic fumes in the sun, a Danish professor has
argued that
the decline of industry and the domestic fireplace, together with
cleaner
exhausts, means that the level of smoke particles and sulphur
dioxide have
fallen by more than 95% since their peak in the 19th century.
They are back
down to levels last seen in the year William Shakespeare left
Stratford to
savour the sweet air of London.
In his book The Skeptical Environmentalist, to be published in
September,
Professor Bjorn Lomborg, a former member of Greenpeace, says:
"London air
has not been as clean as it is today since the Middle Ages.
Almost all the
modern period has been more polluted with smoke than its
today."
Before the Clean Air Act of 1956, London had been known for its
"pea-souper"
atmosphere since the industrial revolution. The act was passed
after the
Great London Smog of December 1952, which killed 4,000.
In his book, Lomborg, a statistician at Arhus University,
challenges many
assumptions of the environmental movement. He argues that the
world's
environment has improved over recent decades, that pollution has
fallen, and
many species, such as the bald eagle, previously close to
extinction, have
recovered.
His work will also call into question the basis for the Kyoto
protocol,
which calls on all countries to sign up to further cuts in the
emission of
fossil fuels, thought to be the main cause of global climate
change.
George W Bush, the American president, will fly to Europe this
week and
Kyoto will form a major part of negotiations with the EU. Bush
has refused
to sign up to Kyoto, arguing that it is based on unproven
science.
Lomborg's work, to be published by Cambridge University Press,
does not deny
the threat of global warming but attacks almost every claim being
made by
environmentalists with a barrage of statistics.
In sections covering Britain, he uses figures from coal
production to show
an increase in pollution over 300 years to a peak at around 1850.
Lomborg
says that Britain now has more forest cover than it had 200 years
ago.
Across the world forest cover has increased from 30.04% of total
land area
in 1950 to 30.89% in 1994.
Average oil spills have fallen from 14.3m gallons per year in the
1970s to
2.6m per year in the 1990s. Lead in the air fell 90% in Britain
between 1980
and 1995. Toxic chemicals in North Sea fish declined up to 76%
between 1982
and 1996.
Copyright 2001, The Times
-------------------------------------------------------------------
THE CAMBRIDGE-CONFERENCE NETWORK (CCNet)
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The CCNet is a scholarly electronic network. To
subscribe/unsubscribe,
please contact the moderator Benny J Peiser <b.j.peiser@livjm.ac.uk>.
Information circulated on this network is for scholarly and
educational use
only. The attached information may not be copied or reproduced
for
any other purposes without prior permission of the copyright
holders. The
fully indexed archive of the CCNet, from February 1997 on, can be
found at
http://abob.libs.uga.edu/bobk/cccmenu.html
DISCLAIMER: The opinions, beliefs and viewpoints expressed in the
articles
and texts and in other CCNet contributions do not
necessarily reflect the
opinions, beliefs and viewpoints of the moderator of this
network.
*
2300BC CATASTROPHE
From Alasdair Beal <a.beal@btinternet.com
>
Dear Benny,
2300BC Catastrophe - new papers by Moe Mandelkehr
Those interested in evidence that the Earth suffered a major
catastrophe
around 2300BC may be interested to know that Moe Mandelkehr, who
first put
forward the theory in a series of articles in SIS Chronology
& Catastrophism
Review in the 1980s (C&CR V 1983 pp. 77-95, C&CR IX
1987, pp. 34-44 and
C&CR X 1988, pp. 11-22), has continued his researches and a
new series of
paper by him is being published in SIS Chronology &
Catastrophism Review.
'The Causal Source for the climatic Changes in 2300BC' and 'The
Causal
Source for the Geological Transients at 2300BC' appeared in
C&CR 1999:1 (pp.
3-16) and C&CR 2001:1 features Moe Mandelkehr's latest paper
'Geomagnetic
Effects of an Earthwide Event in 2300BC' (pp. 4-10).
More details of these plus subscription details can be obtained
at
http://www.knowledge.co.uk/sis/
Yours sincerely,
Alasdair Beal
Editor SIS Chronology & Catastrophism Review