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.