Friday, March 16, 2007

Natural vs. CO2- Induced Climate Change

This is a BBC documentary that you'll never see on The Nature of Things. Go to the second segment, watch the Al Gore pitch on the correlation between C02 levels in the Vostok ice core air samples, then continue through the discussion on those levels.
Then run the clip back and watch the Gore clip again.
I guarantee:
(a) you'll see the CO2 increases follow the rise in temperatures, rather than lead them (the left-right axis of the Al Gore graph representing time, the up-down axis representing C02 levels and mean global air temperature); and
(b) some level of doubt regarding the orthodox media/political take on C02-induced climate change will creep into your mind.
I'm not some kind of right-wing dinosaur, nor am I a shill for an oil company. I am a student of history and paleontology and it's clear to me that climate does change, often very dramatically and very quickly. What is not clear to me is the mechanism for the change: whether it's one thing, a combination of things, and how human activity fits in.
Keeping the third world poor and in political bondage by transferring wealth to third-world elites who sell carbon credits based on their pledge to keep the vast mass of the population in its current level of non-industrialization strikes me as bad politics and bad economics. It is immoral and it is not likely feasible, no matter how much force the elites of the third world use in their attempts to make it work.
And, quite frankly, I'm very leery of anything Maurice Strong supports, whether it's "oil for food", aid to North Korea, or Paul Martin and Bob Rae.
I've lived through the "New Ice Age", "Population Bomb" and other fear-inducing political-media scenarios. All of them make the same demands on the West: de-industrialize and end the consumer-driven economies. They make the same demands on the poor parts of the world: forget about industrializing, remain in poverty, and die; we can't afford your desires to live longer or better, to have kids, and to develop your nation into a place where the best and brightest stay, rather than emigrate.

2 comments:

nomdeblog said...

“to keep the vast mass of the population in its current level of non-industrialization strikes me as bad politics and bad economics.”

Jared Diamond’s Guns Germs and Steel deals with that issue too. As does Michael Creighton’s State of Fear, albeit a novel, but with lots of data on the climate.

Both make the point that the romantic notion of the simplicity of the third world is nuts. I’ve seen a bit of the third world , I’m not an expert , but we have to help get them out of it and simply transferring wealth ain’t gonna do it.

We have 2 related issues from the left:
-its desire to carry on with the class struggle despite the fall of the Berlin Wall
-a new game plan, using climate change to trump the industrial West at every turn.

So what do we do? Particularly since conservatives are just as keen to conserve the environment as anyone else. In fact, we believe capitalism and wealth creation is the best way to go about getting focused results on a better environment.

Even Michael Creighton admits he doesn’t fully understand what’s going on with climate change. But one point he makes stuck with me. Why not publicly fund a bunch of scientists who “aren’t shills for oil” or Greenpeace?

Would I be naive to thank a non-partisan Parliamentary committee could be set up with several millions to select some “non-shill” scientists, like a jury selection and have them report to parliament quarterly so that we can start to get the facts in the middle of the discussion?

Holly Stick said...

Don't you do any research?

First, it's not a BBC documentary, it's a doc produced by Channel 4 in the UK; the Great Global Warming Swindle. The doc itself is the swindle, and it's mostly just ignorant rightwingers who are biting anymore.

Second, for your CO2 questions see this site which includes a debunking of TGGWS, and the comments at the bottom which explain the CO2 involvement and give links for further information. The scientists do not say that CO2 started the warming, but they say that in this centurey CO2 is the main driver.
http://www.desmogblog.com/a-global-warming-swindle-play-by-play

Another debunking of TGGWS:
http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2007/03/13/channel-4s-problem-with-science/#more-1047

Another debunking which discusses the CO2 issue at the top:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/swindled/

Another article, by a reputable scientist who appears on TGGWS and whose views were misrepresented by the doc:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/swindled-carl-wunsch-responds/#more-417

As for Michale Crichton, not Creighton, he's a fiction writer and has no credibility. If you want real science, go to where the real scientists are: at RealClimate and at the IPCC.