The death throes of the Bush climate vandals
The struggle around the position the G8 will take on climate change at its June 6 meeting is hotting up. Angela Merkel, the conservative German Chancellor, is pushing for a relatively strong postion on climate change while the Bush administration is seeking to stop any serious statement. The document with the Bush administration’s feedback is apparently posted here. Assuming it is accurate, it shows a deep rift between Bush and Merkel.
Merkel is pushing for an emissions reduction target of 50% below 1990 levels by 2050 (the same as John Key incidentally). While we need much greater cuts than 50%, it is certainly a start. It would be useful if our government would issue a clear statement supporting Germany and the UK and opposing the climate vandals in Washington. Bush is trying to use his last months int he White House to stop action on cliamte change - we need to do everything we can to try to stymie him.
May 27th, 2007 at 8:18 pm
It is reported that US carbon dioxide emissions declined last year, whilst European emissions rose by 1%-1.5%.
Perhaps your thread title should be changed to something like “The rank hypocrisy and the worthless, empty promises of bandstanding European politicians”?
But I guess the pull of the simplistic anti-Bush headline was too great?
The good news is that “The Great Global Warming Swindle” is going to be aired in Australia. It’s getting nearer…
May 27th, 2007 at 8:51 pm
The Great Global warming swindle should be compulsory viewing in our schools and be shown on TV one in prime time.
Kiwi’s need to know we are being conned.
May 27th, 2007 at 10:00 pm
BB, I think it would be a great idea for both pro and anti AGW videos to be shown in schools and for the students to discuss the issues raised by each. It’s only fair that both viewpoints are presented.
I remember in school biology we got evolution and other competing theories presented and discussed.
It would be great experience for the students, weighing up the evidence and debating and so on and I’m sure that the truth will out.
May 29th, 2007 at 7:49 pm
# big bro Says:
May 27th, 2007 at 8:51 pm
> The Great Global warming swindle should be compulsory viewing in our schools and be shown on TV one in prime time.
Big Bruv wants to make extremist communist party propaganda compulsory?
May 29th, 2007 at 11:47 pm
There is a common misconception that there is a significant proportion of climate scientists who are skeptical about anthropogenic global warming. In fact, the overwhelming majority of climate scientists have no doubt as to the cause of global warming since the industrial revolution being human burning of fossil fuels, and to a lesser extent emissions of other gases, such as methane.
Now, it would be nice, as stuey says, for school students to be able to weigh up all the evidence themselves. Unfortunately, this is impractical, because there would be no time left to study any of the other areas of science. Instead, teachers rightly should present the viewpoints which the overwhelming majority of experts in the field agree with.
Now getting off topic a little bit: there is considerable debate amongst atmospheric scientists as to the details of global warming. For example, has there been an observed increase in hurricanes which can be attributed to sea surface warming? There are good arguments on both sides of this issue. However, we should not allow uncertainty about the details lull us into doing nothing. The fact remains that greenhouse gases are increasing to levels which have not been seen in millions of years, and this will have a major impact on the climate, we just don’t know all the details (which makes it even more scary).
Here is an example of where I believe the details can hide a looming catastrophe: sea level rise. Now most of the predictions for the next 50-100 years are for a modest (less than 1m) sea level rise (not a modest rise if you happen to live in many of the Pacific Islands). However, there is considerable uncertainty about how long the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets will take to melt. Now some doom and gloom merchants would have you believe these large land based ice sheets might melt in as short a period as decades, causing a sea level rise of many metres. Other more conservative estimates put the time period for the melting as hundreds of years or longer. However, the argument over the detail misses the important point: if global warming continues, these ice sheets will melt. Whether they melt in 50 years or 300 years is almost of secondary importance. It might be us who see them melt, or our great great grand children, either way, it will be a catastrophe.
If we all thought in time periods of hundreds of years (difficult as it may be), we would be less concerned about the details (will adverse climate change happen in my next term as a politician), and more concerned about the bigger picture: will the human species survive, or not?
May 30th, 2007 at 9:59 am
timo,
Well said
May 30th, 2007 at 11:43 am
Stuey said: It’s only fair that both viewpoints are presented. I remember in school biology we got evolution and other competing theories presented and discussed.
Hang on, Stuey - are you seriously suggesting that so-called “creation science” should be taught in schools as a competing theory to evolution? It is not a theory at all - it is a load of unscientific mumbo jumbo that belongs not in our schools but over on this thread with ‘Bishop’ Brian and his homophobic followers.
May 30th, 2007 at 12:21 pm
Thanks Toad… I might have missed that one.
Schools need to teach science in science classes.
The idea of showing the swindle and the inconvenient truth side by side has value only if the teachers have the ability to point out exactly where the “swindle” lies… because it DOES lie (and the schools must be indemnified against damages from the scientists about who’s viewpoints it is lying)..
Science teachers are generally well enough informed to point out why the arguments being presented in “the swindle” fail the test of being actual science. It isn’t that hard, though it seems difficult for both MW and BB.
This is indeed similar to the problems that creationists face when they argue that their “beliefs” should be taken as seriously as a theory as evolution can be taken.
================
As for Bush vs Merkle, I think he’s not EVER going to be forgiven for his unwanted familiarity, and I don’t think that she’s going to give him a millimeter. HER country is running a trade surplus and the Euro is, despite being a fiat currency, in better nick than the US $,
As for the US diminishing its output of CO2, it is also diminishing its output of manufactured goods and building a lot fewer houses. In other words, it is entering a recession whether its increasingly fraudulent statistics show it or not.
It is amusing to contemplate the magical scenario in which Cheney is somehow compelled him to answer all questions honestly, as in the film “Liar Liar”…
respectfully
BJ
June 1st, 2007 at 6:38 pm
I think it makes quite a big difference whether it takes 50 or hundreds of years for the world’s ice to melt (or slip into the sea, which would raise sea levels by 97% as much as if it melted) - if it only takes 50 years we are in big, big trouble but if it takes 300 that should be plenty of time for humanity to adjust (although obviously it would still be better to prevent it happening if possible).
Anyway, there is a petition circulating prior to the summit to encourage the G8 countries to adopt binding targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions -
http://www.avaaz.org/en/climate_g8/c.php?cl=9944734
(although server seems to be overloaded at the moment)
June 1st, 2007 at 8:44 pm
Daveh
Since nobody’s ever seen it happen, nobody really knows how long it will take, but no way it all falls in in 50 years. There’s a massive chunk of Antarctica that would actually have to melt. The risk ice is the WAIS and chunks of Greenland . The risk however, is not quantifiable in terms of the current available data. We know that it has gone in the past and some indications are that the WAIS can go pretty quickly, but the data is too sparse. IPCC declines to speculate, sticking to what is known, and that is bad enough. Inconvenient truth speculates but that’s infotainment. It is intended to alarm people, and people NEED to be alarmed. The knowns are bad enough… but not dramatic enough to make a good film.
respectfully
BJ
June 5th, 2007 at 11:33 pm
I thought the risk wasn’t just water levels rising, but also the disruption of certain tidal forces that regulate the environment?
June 6th, 2007 at 3:29 am
Ari,
You can find the answer to your question at
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/