Climate Change & Global Warming (part two)

low and behold as soon as I publish part one of my blog on global warming BBC Radio4 attempt a discussion with an actual sceptic about how British scientists at the University of East Anglia are manipulating the data to make their science support their global warming theories. Apparently the alleged stolen emails from the Universities Climate Research Unit reveal that figures on global warming were actually changed to exacerbate the threat. The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has told the BBC it is taking the matter very seriously and will investigate the emails. Take it from me, this will be yet another white-wash. According to the BBC, Saudi Arabia has said that the emails will have a "huge impact" on the talks and that countries will now be unwilling to cut emissions. Philip Stott, emeritus professor of Biogeography at the University of London, and environmentalist and writer Jonathon Porritt have discussed whether the row could have the potential to derail the Copenhagen climate talks.

According to Professor Stott scientists are apparently becoming very defensive about their positions especially when the science leads to a change in government policy and the inevitable spending of huge sums of public money. There has been the creation of other scientists outside the climate science fraternity with other ideas and theories which contribute to climate change. These respected climate change scientists have become excluded voices. According to Professor Stott climate science is an inverted pyramid which rests on a remarkably small foundation and that climate science relies on just a few people, perhaps just 30/40 scientists/researchers. If any of the science is proven to be questionable then the whole of that pyramid in effect, collapses.

Jonathon Porritt had to admit that the integrity of the science had been severely damaged but then accused Stott of slightly over egging the case about the inverted pyramid metaphor because the research is based on thousands of pieces of evidence that is happening in the climate now i.e visible evidence like polar ice-caps melting and so on. Professor Stott’s riposte was that simply seeing things happen does not necessarily give us an idea of cause. In other words you are going to have climate change no matter what happens. Professor Stott went on to explain that temperature and Co2 are driven by the hydrological cycle – water vapour – so to suggest that melting polar ice-caps is caused by rising co2 levels is in fact a false correlation.

Professor Stott reckoned that the really crucial aspect about the leaked emails is the political impact more than the science because prior to the Copenhagen summit there was a private meeting between China, India, Brazil and South Africa setting a unique agenda that not all politicians have grasped. These countries have apparently agreed to walk out of the talks if they don’t get what they want. Jonathon Porritt had to agree that the impact was profound and that there are lots of countries who will take a stand based on their national interests and that they don’t want deep cuts or to find a different way in order to live in a low-carbon world.

Finally, professor Stott said that there is undoubtedly an element of human influence on climate change and that in so complex a system managing one factor at the margins will not produce a predictable outcome. Because of this the whole agenda should change to how do we adapt to change – hot – cold – wet – dry. Putting a vast amount of resources in trying to produce a given result is the inherent danger we face because the politicians do not really grasp the complexities of climate science.

To a simpleton like me what Stott is saying here seems to be perfectly reasonable given that scientists now accept that the earths temperature has not increased in the last ten years. Scientists appear to be basing their global warming theories on the assumption that the earth’s temperature has gradually risen over the last 100 years by 0.75% degrees centigrade and claim that the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation is largely to blame. Scientists can’t even agree on what was the hottest year in the last 100 years, some say 1998 and others 1934. Anyway, if you consider how people lived during the first part of the 20th century i.e most houses across Europe were heated with open coal fires etc. this is obviously no longer the case. With this in mind, if it is being claimed that the 0.75% is the human contribution it would be interesting to find out whether or not the devastating effects of say two World Wars, Vietnam and Chernobyl, are being factored into this 0.75% increase in temperature, in other words what percentage of that 0.75% is directly attributable to said factors? If it is, then what about natural phenomenon like volcanic activity and Sun spots?

The real answer is that they simply don’t know. Humans clearly contribute to green house gas emissions but are not the sole cause of climate change, which is inferred in the way in which the case is being presented by the politicians and some journalists. That said, I do believe that even if it were proven beyond doubt that humans could overt disaster by decreasing green house gas emissions and counteract gas emissions caused by natural events it is still worth cleaning up our act. What I disagree with is the way all the so-called experts are recommending we achieve this, because the answer is bleeding obvious. Have less children, stop deforestation. That’s it folks..no need for wind farms, solar panels, electric cars and everything else that’s going to be rammed down our throats over the coming years. The thing that most concerns me is that in the face of conflicting evidence the politicians only concern themselves with how they are going to be able to persuade the public to embrace a low carbon economy, whether we actually need it or not.

Higgs Boson

Copyright Higgs Boson 2009