CLIMATE CONCERNS
HOW DO YOU Save the Planet When You Don't Even Allow Others the Right to Discuss It....
an encapsulation of Richard Giles' presentation at Accidentally Carbon Street
in Maleny on April 23rd, 2010 |
In 2006 I, like many of us here, saw the movie from Al Gore - "An Inconvenient Truth " and I had already accepted a lot of the data that he passed on in the movie - but , within another year I had begun to become a concerned climate questioner. I use the term 'questioner' as I am not and cannot be called a 'denialist'.
What is a denialist? My immediate reaction to defining the word based on what is discussed in newspapers around the world today is that a 'denialist' seems to be someone who denies that global warming is happening and further denies that carbon dioxide is the main culprit in the global warming phenomena.
The Macquarie dictionary says of 'denial'... " 1/. a contradiction of a statement,
2/. refusal to believe a doctrine, 3/. refusal to recognise or acknowledge. "
It seems that the word 'denial' has taken on a new meaning. As someone who's been active and instrumental in the environment movement for over 25 years I am now nonplussed by the anger and vehemence that some in the green movement express to attack those who question the scientific 'consensus' on climate, carbon dioxide and temperature. The role of the democratic right to question and query orthodox views seems to have been thrown right out the window. Those who do this are those who previously espoused the rights of all citizens to protest it is a democratic right to do so. But, no more is this allowed!
PM Kevin Rudd in a speech in November 2009 said that those who question the climate consensus have the fate of all children's lives on their conscience. In the UK a conference has been held to discuss the notion that climate denialism is a "mental illness". In February 2008 Dr David Suzuki publicly called for politicians sceptical of a man-made climate crisis to be thrown " into jail because what they are doing is a criminal act ".
|
PM Kevin Rudd in a speech in November 2009 said that those who question the climate consensus have the fate of all children's lives on their conscience. In the UK a conference has been held to discuss the notion that climate denialism is a "mental illness". In February 2008 Dr David Suzuki publicly called for politicians sceptical of a man-made climate crisis to be thrown " into jail because what they are doing is a criminal act ".
Al Gore's movie caused some considerable ruckus in schoolrooms across the western world as some teachers and parents objected to the use of the movie in schools maintaining it was not educational but political and thus had no place in the education system. In the UK a parent by the name of Stewart Dimmock legally challenged the use of the film as an educational aid.
I quote from Wikipedia on the case -
"The plaintiff sought to prevent the educational use of An Inconvenient Truth on the grounds that schools are legally required to provide a balanced presentation of political issues. The court ruled that the film was substantially founded upon scientific research and fact and could continue to be shown, but it had a degree of political bias such that teachers would be required to explain the context via guidance notes issued to schools along with the film. The court also identified nine errors in the film, and ruled that the guidance notes must address these errors specifically."
|
|
Meteorologist Hajo Smit of Holland |
The British court cited nine 'facts' passed off as science in the Gore movie:
- The film claims global warming is responsible for the gradual retreat of the alpine glacier atop Africa's Mount Kilimanjaro. Scientists have conclusively demonstrated no such link exists.
- The film presents graphs indicating that fluctuating carbon dioxide levels have always preceded and caused global temperature fluctuations. In fact, temperature changes have always preceded carbon dioxide changes.
- The film suggests global warming caused Hurricane Katrina. Few hurricane experts believe this, and substantial scientific evidence indicates global warming is having no impact on hurricane frequency or intensity.
- The film asserts global warming is causing Central Africa's Lake Chad to dry up. In fact, land use practices are causing the drying up of Lake Chad, and Central Africa is in an unusual and prolonged wet period.
- The film asserts global warming is leading to polar bear deaths by drowning. Yet the only documented drowning deaths occurred due to a freak storm, and polar bear numbers are growing substantially.
- The film claims global warming threatens to halt the Gulf Stream and initiate a new ice age. The vast majority of scientists who have studied the issue have determined such a scenario is implausible.
- The film asserts global warming is causing the destruction of coral reefs through bleaching. Scientists have identified other causes for coral bleaching and have additionally noted bleaching is a natural process by which coral continually selects ideal symbiotic algae.
- The film asserts Greenland is in danger of rapid ice melt that will raise sea levels by 20 feet or more. The scientific consensus is that any foreseeable Greenland ice melt will be gradual and will take centuries to substantially raise sea levels.
- The film asserts the Antarctic ice shelf is melting. In fact, only a small portion of Antarctica is getting warmer and losing ice mass, while the vast majority of Antarctica is in a prolonged cold spell and is accumulating ice mass.
There are a considerable number of pressures put onto those people who have decide to move from the climate change and carbon dioxide theory and go over towards a more questioning role.
| Prof. Garth Paltridge, CSIRO Atmospheric Researcher |
|
Right here in Australia we have a clear example of the CSIRO's leading atmospheric physicist and Chief Research Scientist with the Division of Atmospheric Research, Emeritus Professor Garth Paltridge. He was Director of the Institute of Antarctic and Southern Ocean Research Studies and CEO of the Antarctic Co-operative Research Centre.
When he made a comment in the mainstream media about his doubts about global warming, within two days of the comment he was told from in the highest levels of the CSIRO that if he should make such public comments again then it (the CSIRO) would not support his Antarctic research centre just then about to be set-up. After the event of the threat he found that the CSIRO was about, in his words "to abstract many millions of dollars of new climate research money from the federal government. "
He also informed us in his book ( The Climate Caper , 2009) of Dr Brian Tucker who was former Chief of CSIRO's Division of Atmospheric Research and a specialist in climate modelling. When he retired he began to write on all his concerns about global climate modelling and took a strong stance against the "sacred cows" of the global warming establishment. They eventually attempted to write him off by labelling him a 'usual suspect' in the pay of industry. This is a great label, Garth Paltridge says, which sidelines all those who question the influence of the "politically correct" line on warming.
|
The CSIRO and the BOM now present a joint front on global warming and Paltridge points out that there is no independent source of publicity for data on climate in Australian apart from a few scattered retirees out of these bodies, and they are usually marginalised.
|
At the International Conference on Climate Change in the held USA in 2008 in New York, it featured about 100 speakers including a team of international scientists who've formed an alternative body to the UN's IPCC. At this conference participant scientists revealed the lack of tolerance for alternative and sceptical views on climate and the role of merciless science journal editors when trying to get papers published that explored non-consensual views on climate.
Dr William Briggs, climate statistician, US Meteorological Society Probability and Statistics Committee and associate editor of Monthly Weather Review said at the conference, " Some of the guys had absolute horror stories of what happened to them when they tried getting papers published that explored non-consensus views. Really outrageous and unethical behaviour on the parts of some editors. I was shocked."
Meteorologist Joseph D'Aleo, director of Meteorology at the Weather Channel and former chairman of the US Meteorological Society's Committee on Weather Analysis noted that the fear of retribution kept many of his colleagues from the conference as they feared their attendance might affect their employment status. He noted in a speech that its very likely a silent majority of scientists in climatology, meteorology and allied sciences do not endorse what is said to be the 'consensus' position.
|
|
Dr William Briggs, climate statistician |
The issue of polar bear numbers in the northern hemisphere prompts a similar debate and a putdown over dissenting scientists. In a Wall Street Journal news story of 2009[1], leading polar-bear biologist Mitchell Taylor says he has been ostracised by former colleagues for his views that global warming isn't man-made, and therefore, he says, its hard to predict what will happen to the climate or polar bears in the future.
"For the sake of polar bear conservation," Mr. Taylor's views "are extremely unhelpful," says fellow polar-bear biologist Andrew Derocher, explaining why most of Mr. Taylor's colleagues wouldn't welcome him at an international meeting.
Here in our own community of Maleny the Maple Street Coop published in their December 2008 edition an article by our Maleny resident Jon Woodlands titled "Global Warming: A Crisis of Credibility". The article dealt with a number of issues arguing inconsistency in the data on temperature rises and the state of the ice in Antarctica. It also dealt with the belief in carbon dioxide as a key global warming culprit pointing out that carbon dioxide constitutes about 0.038 % of the earth's atmosphere whereas water vapour makes up a half to 1 percent of the atmosphere. It ought to be considered a key contributor to warming on the planet but is not.
The publication of the newsletter hit the streets of Maleny like an Icelandic volcano. Within days the Coop email address was deluged with emails complaining about or supporting the article. The editor was deluged with emails as well and the resultant pressure caused her considerable distress. The email 'offensive' continued for weeks and even resulted in a couple of Maleny people threatening legal action if the Coop did not retract the article. Maple Street Coop hadn't seen much like this since the WTC came down after being hit by a couple of jet airliners (my exaggeration).
The anger directed at Jon Woodlands as author and the Coop and editor was simply not the sort of result that should have come from a community of people dedicated to creating a better world. The role of democracy in our system, which gives us the right to hold divergent views, seemed to fall away for weeks after that newsletter issue hit the streets. There were even accusations that copies of the newsletter were taken from outside the Coop and dumped in the bin.
Why does this happen in Maleny? Why does an article questioning global warming and putting an alternative point of view create such fear, loathing and anger? This is something that I'd really like you to address to each other in the audience here tonight and understand why we have allowed members of our community and Coop to be virtually persecuted because they hold a divergent view. If you strongly support global warming theory what makes you so angry at dissenters and questioner? Ask yourself why. What's the anger about? This is a legitimate question to ask.
The hoary issue of multinational funding of dissenters does not need a mention here in Maleny. You don't need to be told that no-one here is on the payroll of Enron, Shell, BHP or WalMart. It simply doesn't apply.
I'll close on this note from James Lovelock, developer of the Gaia Hypothesis, from the BBC[2] to show how divergent scientist's views can be.
"Professor James Lovelock, the scientist who developed Gaia theory, has said its too late to try and save the planet. The man who achieved global fame for his theory that the whole earth is a single organism now believes that we can only hope that the earth will take care of itself in the face of completely unpredictable climate change. What is more, he predicts, the earth's climate will not conveniently comply with the models of modern climate scientists.
As the record winter cold testifies, he says, global temperatures move in "jerks and jumps", and we cannot confidently predict what the future holds. Scientists, he says, have moved from investigating nature as a vocation, to being caught in a career path where it makes sense to "fudge the data".
At the age of 90, Prof Lovelock is resigned to his own fate and the fate of the planet. Whether the planet saves itself or not, he argues, all we can do is to "enjoy life while you can". Trying to save the planet 'is a lot of nonsense'. "
| Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson |
|
Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera |
Accidentally Carbon Street pages:-
References
|
