Some funny factoids here. Just who previously logged the forests that have been undisturbed for 1000 years? Regrowth has a different biology eg it is free of thylacines. Snow buildup has caused a few glaciers to increase; one day that snow will turn to rain. Small numbers make a big difference to sensitive systems; try putting 0.7% salt in your next cup of tea.

Alan Moran is the Director of the Deregulation Unit at the Institute of Public Affairs - says it all really, doesn't it?

Alan Moran says "In fact the area of the globe over which mankind might be said to exercise some dominance - the top one kilometer of the surface - comprises only 0.7 per cent of the planet." I suppose this is designed to be confusing. What does the top one kilometer of the surface mean.

The figures I am familiar with are a little different. There are about 97 million square kilometres of inhabitable land on the earth. That does not include Death Valley and Antarctica or the oceans and lakes. Mankind farms about 17 (mil sq km), uses 10 for grazing, uses about 7 of the forests (although only 2 for intense harvesting) and 0.5 for cities, towns and villages. That adds up to about 34.5 million square kilometres or about 36%. Compared to 0.7% he is off by a factor of about 50.

I sure hope he was not off by a factor of 50 on his global warming calculations.

This is especially amusing two sentences after he says ". . . the scientific establishment is all too reticent to offer correct facts." Maybe he thinks that since he is an economist he gets a free kick. It is also ironic that he criticises NGOs for exaggerating and distorting. They could learn a thing or two from him about exaggeration and distortion.

Don't worry Alan - it would take no one less than Fidel Castro to convince these people otherwise.

Possibly the most laughable of all Moran's writings. Not really worth a response.

Instead, re his reference to Michael Crichton's latest novel, 'State of Fear,' the article by Chris Mooney (writing in CSICOP* Online) 'Bad Science, Bad Fiction' makes worthwhile reading. See http://www.csicop.org/doubtandabout/crichton/

It also explains why Moran chooses to allude to this particular novel when seeking to cast environmentalism and environmentalists in his particularly murky light. For the record, I am a fan of Chrichton's work, and wouldn't dream of curtailing the author's right to get it wrong (on climate change science in this instance) or to misrepresent environmentalism.

*CSICOP - the Committee for Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal - is a US organisation whose focus is on promoting critical thinking in the public interest.

Interesting viewpoint Alan - shame it hasn't one reference, bar a fictional novel, to back up the opinions expressed.

Regards

Jo

The main problem with the environmental “debate” these days is that there is no debate. How often has anyone heard the fact that over 18000 scientists have publicly declared that there is no conclusive scientific evidence that the activity of humans is causing global warming? How often are people told that over the last 20 years satellite and weather balloon technology has detected almost no global warming over this time? What about the fact that of all greenhouse emissions produced on Earth, only 3% are attributable to human activity? The rest are natural. How often are the public alerted to what damage the complete implementation of the Kyoto agreement would have not only Western economies (hundreds of billions of dollars per year, massive job losses, enormous disruption of industry and every persons way of life) but on the world’s poorest and most desperate people who need access to energy? All this in the name of saving the planet?

How often do you hear the fact that environmental advocacy groups worldwide have a budget of over $US8 billion a year? Quite a large industry if I must say with a lot of jobs, reputations, egos and fame to support. These groups are driven by exactly the same things that drive any other industry – influence and profits.

Anyone read the quote from global warming ‘super salesman” Stephen Schneider (who, incidentally, used to be a global cooling “super salesman”?) It goes, “we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest."

Or what about French President Jacques Chirac, who thinks that the Kyoto Protocol is "the first component of authentic global governance." And not to mention former editor of the Boston Globe Ross Gelbspans’ quote which displays the giddy heights journalism ethics has reached, "Not only do journalists not have a responsibility to report what skeptical scientists have to say about global warming. They have a responsibility not to report what these scientists say."

Environmentalism has almost become a religion these days, and like religion, its adherents can exhibit intolerant and extremist views. If society is going to have a sensible and fair debate on climate control then both sides must be given a fair go.

Interesting first paragraph Cranky - have you got the references for these stats. please?

Regards

Jo

Cranky, your most recent anti-global warming post is yet another example of the fiddled facts and delusional logic that infest this website and spoil the debate for the rest of us. I hope that you do the decent thing and reply to Jo-Jo's question. Show us your sources, Cranky. In the meantime, my comments as follows:

Cranky says, "The main problem with the environmental “debate” these days is that there is no debate. How often has anyone heard the fact that over 18000 scientists have publicly declared that there is no conclusive scientific evidence that the activity of humans is causing global warming?"

Actually, Cranky, I would be surprised if every scientist on the planet did not agree with this statement. Global warming is a theory (like the theory of evolution). There is not yet any "conclusive scientific evidence" that proves that global warming is occurring and we are to blame. However, "Occam's Razor" would suggest that we are to blame, given the massive increases in man-made CO2 emissions in the last century. There are a few who claim that the planet has seen this all before so we should stop worrying and blaming ourselves, but they are not able to prove their case "conclusively" either.

Why should we take any notice of a "theory"? We do this every day of course in a multitude of ways, but I suspect that Cranky just does not understand scientific method. Any substantial scientific theory is based on carefully collected evidence, replicable experimentation and modelling, argument and refutation, and constant peer review. Most of this incremental scientific endeavour is invisible to the average Jo, but what we do hear about is the tens of thousands of scientists around the world who agree that global warming is already being measured in the warming of the Arctic and Antarctic, and that it is very likely that human activity has something to do with it.

And if you do not believe the scientists Cranky, then what about the insurance industry (follow the money...). Major insurance companies around the world are becoming very anxious about the increasing frequency of extreme weather events. When big business discovers that insurance is unavailable, then the governments that they support will sit up and take notice. But by then it will probably be too late to do anything about our own human activities under the "precautionary principle", and the full catastrophe will be upon us, or at least upon our grandchildren.

Do you really understand how the theory of global warming works Cranky? It is not a nice linear and predictable series of warming steps, that we could probably just manage to deal with in an ordered world. No, the suggestion is that with warming initially taking effect in the polar regions, the global weather system could wobble off course in an unpredictable manner, possibily tipping us into a big freeze just long enough to extinguish life. If we are going to refer to fictional sources (Michael Crichton) then perhaps you should have a look at the movie "The Day After Tomorrow". The timelines are impossible, and much of the scientific and political behaviour is laughable, but the underlying premise is noteworthy, assuming you can follow the speculative logic.

Cranky says, "How often are people told that over the last 20 years satellite and weather balloon technology has detected almost no global warming over this time...."

Doh? Apart from your lack of sourcing for these assertions, your lack of understanding of how these thing work has let you down. Satellites and weather balloons cannot detect global warming by themselves, because warming is not expected to happen evenly and predictably, even assuming you are asking the right questions for data collection, and you are feeding this data into the appropriate weather system model. Sending up a balloon and finding no global warming does not prove anything Cranky.

Cranky says, "How often are the public alerted to what damage the complete implementation of the Kyoto agreement would have not only Western economies (hundreds of billions of dollars per year, massive job losses, enormous disruption of industry and every persons way of life) but on the world’s poorest and most desperate people who need access to energy? All this in the name of saving the planet?"

Actually Cranky, what we do hear loudly and at length is just this, especially from the Howard and Bush governments, who have refused to sign Kyoto to the dismay of the rest of the world. Whose interests are being served here? Not yours Cranky, but the interests of the global oil cartels, big business cronies, and the Bush and the Saudi families, including the bin Ladens. Our governments are corrupted by political payola from these vested interests, the conventional media, including the internet, is saturated with paid propagandists for crony capitalism and big energy interests, and meanwhile the starving millions are beaten into submission as giant oil profits are extracted. Yes, poor countries need access to reliable energy sources, but this does not have to be provided and used in the way it is in the west, to feed the next gas-guzzling SUV (ever tried to cook on a dung fire?). If this means that we have to do more with less, so that the poor can feed their families, then this is the way we should go. Sounds pretty "christian" to me.

Cranky says, "How often do you hear the fact that environmental advocacy groups worldwide have a budget of over $US8 billion a year? Quite a large industry if I must say with a lot of jobs, reputations, egos and fame to support. These groups are driven by exactly the same things that drive any other industry – influence and profits."

This is really silly Cranky. We don't see many environmentalists driving around in BMWs, and you would be hard pressed to prove your case that these advocacy groups are engaged in raw profiteering. Influence-peddling yes, because the other side of the story must be told. If it costs a mere $US8B globally (sources?) to hear the other side, then its a small price to pay.

Cranky says, "If society is going to have a sensible and fair debate on climate control then both sides must be given a fair go." I agree with you, Cranky, both sides

Where to start? Firstly the lack of satellite evidence was sourced from Science News 31/3/90 article by R. Monastersky and National Policy Analysis #203 June 1998 by John Carlisle. And the 18000 scientists have signed the "Oregon Petition" to say that there is no evidence to support global warming.

Actually I'm surprised that someone of Grace's vast knowledge on the subject has not heard of the Oregon Petition. Actually I'm really not surprised, for one this petition is rarely talked about by the media and someone of Grace's lunatic bias would be unlikely to blunder across it.

Whichever way you look at it Grace the evidence for global warming is weak at best. The term was invented in 1988 and guess what the big scare was before this? That's right, global cooling!! You really love ranting on about how anyone who dismisses eco-imperialism is in the employ of big business and are somehow dubious and shoddy scientists. Well guess what - your beloved enviro crusaders have just as much to lose, are probably more in the pocket of the quaint little NGO's they rabbit on for and I have no doubt drive around in just as fancy cars as the next con artist. What a ridiculous statement, " We don't see many environmentalists driving around in BMWs", how would you know Grace? I suppose because they obviously love and care for the planet so much they must all ride bicycles? Yeah right!

It's really quite simple Grace - the science behind your blind following is unreliable at best. It really is along the same lines as the "millenium bug" fears. The price that the developed world is expected to pay is far, far too much, especially when there is NO GENUINE, INDISPUTABLE EVIDENCE that global warming is man made. Wait until you can only afford to run your electricity for 2 hours a day and can't afford to run your car at all then we'll see how many true environmentalists we have left. Grace might find it charming and rustic to eat her food cooked on a camp fire (dung only, wood gives off CO2)by candlelight, but I'd get sick of it pretty quick. Maybe we all should form little tribes and live off the land like we did for hundreds of thousands of years? Sounds like fun! Sort of like camping! Let's just hope it doesn't get too cold or we'll all be back burning coal to warm the globe up a bit.

Sure it's ridiculous, but no more so than some of the stupid scenarios painted by our "saviours" in the enviro movement. Scare-mongering nitwits feathering their own nests.

No matter how much you moan Grace there is no environmental debate. It's all one-way traffic, highjacked in the beginning by very vested interests. Contrary to what you may think I love my planet and my environment just as much as you. The difference is I really require some scientific proof. I can't really swallow too much religion because I need proof. Seems you're the same Grace except that you only apply that logic to religion. You're more than happy to swallow everything anyone tells you with no proof at all when it comes to the environment.

Here's one more source for you - Common Sense.

Cranky, I don't mind healthy scepticism, but you are so far into denial and so lacking in common sense that you have become a silly dupe of vested interest groups like the Institute of Public Affairs.

I don't know Alan Moran, but his job at the institute is apparently to write essays promoting the deregulation of industry, and ensure that these essays are published on websites and newspapers as propaganda for those who fund the organisation.

We do not know who funds the Institute for Public Affairs, but given that they are heavily on the side of big business, and virulently anti-green, then common sense tells us that they are probably profiting from polluting industries that cause damage to the environment.

Think outside the envelope. Who benefits from such deregulation, Cranky? When all environmental constraints have been removed from the mining and energy industries, as is happening in the USA, then you will have some difficulty finding the environment that you love so much.

I won't criticise your scientific understanding any further, its a waste of time. But one small note. I wrote my first scientific article on "global warming" in 1980. So who exactly was it who invented the term in 1988, Cranky?

One final coda, and then I will leave it to you, Cranky. My comment about dung fires was actually ironic in tone. Irony does pass you by, Cranky, so I will remember not to use it in future. My point was that it is is very unpleasant to cook on dung fires, but that is all the fuel that many poor people have, to cook for their families. Perhaps a small supply of cooking oil, to feed these families, rather than a large supply of motor fuel to feed the next SUV, would be better for the planet.

So it's you Grace who kicked off the environmental non-debate back in 1980. A quaint little theory of yours that really seems to have caught on. If you're so au fait with global warming then you of all people should know that THERE IS NO EVIDENCE!!! You should also know about the vested interests on both sides of the debate, you should also know that climate science is unreliable and you should be aware of the blatent scare-mongering of your team.

Instead of running around spruiking pseudo-science theories your lot would be much better off spending your $8 billion in research grants trying to find alternate energy sources. How about wind?! We could cover the earth in dinky little windmills that send us all quietly insane as they swish in the breeze. No - we'll leave it up to the evil oil and energy companies to come up with real solutions to your problems.

Your irony doesn't allude me, nor does your monumental compassion in allowing people a little bit of cooking oil to use but denying them any energy to cook anything with it.

I always thought scientists demanded quantifiable and independently verifiable proof. Seems this only applies to some areas of science hey Grace?

You are sooo tiresome, Cranky, get a life.

Here's a few reputable references so you can chase down your silly conspiracy theories. They are dated prior to my own article (not funded by a research grant from your imaginary $US8B), which on checking I find was published in 1984, not 1980, but still before your invented date of 1988:

National Research Council 1979, "Carbon Dioxide and Climate: a Scientific Assessment". Washington DC, National Academy of Sciences.
National Research Council 1982, "Carbon Dioxide and Climate: a Second Assessment". Washington DC, National Academy of Sciences.
National Research Council 1983, "Changing Climate". Washington DC, National Academy of Sciences.

Pearman, G.I. 1980. "Carbon Dioxide and Climate: Australian Research". Canberra, National Academy of Science.
Tucker, G.I. 1980. "The CO2 Climate Connection: a Global Problem from an Australian Perspective". Canberra, Australian Academy of Science.
Pittock, AB et al, 1981. "Human Impact on the Global Atmosphere: Implications for Australia". Search 12(8): 260-272
Pittock AB and Salinger MJ. 1982. "Towards Regional Scenarios for a CO2 Warmed Earth". Climate Change 4:23
Harris, S. 1976 "Economic Aspects of Possible Climate Change", In: Report of Committee on Climate Change. Canberra. Australian Academy of Science.

Now can we see a few more of your sources please Cranky. I think you are probably empty-handed, but never mind, Alan Moran and the Institute of Public Affairs are laughing all the way to the bank, with your strenuous if inept defence of their interests.

Your allusion to dung fires simply eludes me Cranky...

Calm down Grace! I'd hate to see you take a turn and fall into your dung fire.

All of your resources start from the assumption that global warming is occuring. That may well be but you've offered nothing to show conclusively that it's caused by man! The reason for this is, of course, because there is no evidence. All I'm asking for is proof that global warming is not a natural event and is directly caused by man.

I won't hold my breath.

I agree with Cranky.And another point.Grace puts the spotlight on the IPA and it's funding arrangements and then proceeds to trot out a series of references from various Acadamies of Science.What are these acadamies and their funding arrangements?I suspect that they are significantly reliant on research grants which would of course dry up if they were to admit that a perceived problem such as global warming did not exist.

The global atmospheric concentration of CO2 stayed at about 290 ppm for about 10,000 years. In 1880 it was about 290 ppm. In 2005 it is about 390 ppm. During this 125 years mankind has burnt about a trillion (10^12) barrels of oil and an equal amount (in terms of carbon produced) of natural gas and coal. That is about 500 billion tonnes of CO2 over what was put into the atmosphere in the previous 10,000 years, by my rough calculations. I am happy to hear a better referenced quote.

Most discussions pro and con on climate change say that there has been an increase in average world temperature in the past 20 years. Climate change doubters admit that there has been warming, but say that it isn't man's fault and that a much longer data series is needed to be conclusive.

The data is not conclusive, but it is compelling.

The real horrific predictions of global warming impacts are from models that are difficult to understand and even more difficult to verify. It is all well and good to say the scientific method relies on verifiable and replicable experiments, but when the whole world is your lab and we don't have enough data to assess really long term trends, it is impossible to do replicable experiments.

We do sometimes have to put our trust in people who may be getting grants that they would not get if they determined that there was no problem. Is that worse than trusting the fossil fuel industry and a political system that has billions of dollars tied up in the status quo? We probably need to be careful about what both have to say.

If population growth slows a little and our desire to consume slows a little, it may give us time to figure it out.

Thankyou Ericc,

At last an intelligent answer and a reasonable explanation.

Grace.. did u note Erics point ? hope so,
I observe that there are usually only 2 views expressed here.. the 'Right' which tries to baffle u with science about why there is "not a problem" with the capitalistic, economic rationalist, exploitation of natural resources, which they occasionaly glance at in between reading the next prospectus mock up where they have enlarged for the 2nd time the words 'increased shareholder value'....

Then there is the LEFT.. which baffles u with science to show that there is so MUCH of a problem, we all better get ready for the 2nd coming of Marx in the next week or two !!!

How about the .... wait for it... hold ur breath.. make sure ur sitting down...dont let anyone see u read this.... CHRISTIAN view of it all ? Which is basically 'Responsible Stewardship' of the creation.
The old testament is often used as a cat and nine tails to flail away at fundamentalists and conservatives.. Grace loves that feminist author who ranted and raved about all the evils of Israelite patriachy and the 'evil deity' who did this and that..the usual stuff. But seldom do we see the focus put on the origins of Social welfare, where farmers were forbidden to 'clear fell' or harvest ALL of their crop. They were to leave some for the socially disadvantaged to come along and pick up. But, hey.... thats a bit too 'nice'.. it doesn't fit the 'leftist rule book' about God etc... How DARE we find 'niceness' decreed by the tyranical Deity of the Israelites.
BOAZ