Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

 
 
Sunday, 29th June 2008 Change Date

Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the Scotland On Sunday site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

As we face rising sea levels, famine, disease and the loss of the most precious treasures of our planet, UN warns it is our last chance



Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 18 November 2007
THE Earth faces "abrupt and irreversible changes" that will make the planet unrecognisable unless urgent action is taken, the most definitive report on climate change so far has revealed.
The UN's Nobel-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) also warned of inevitable human suffering and the threat of species extinction.

However, the landmark report also offered blueprints to avert the worst catastrophes. UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said climate change imperils "the most precious treasures of our planet".

The potential impact of global warming is "so severe and so sweeping that only urgent, global action will do," Ban told the IPCC yesterday, after it issued its fourth and final report this year.

The IPCC adopted the report, along with a summary, after five days of sometimes tense negotiations. It lays out blueprints for avoiding the worst catastrophes - and various possible outcomes, depending on how quickly and decisively action is taken.

The document says recent research has heightened concern that the poor and the elderly will suffer most from climate change; that hunger and disease will be more common; that droughts, floods and heatwaves will afflict the world's poorest regions; and that more animal and plant species will vanish.

The Summary for Policymakers, and the longer version, called the Synthesis Report, distil thousands of pages of data and computer models from six years of research compiled by the IPCC.

The information is expected to guide policy makers meeting in Bali, Indonesia, next month to discuss an agreement to succeed the Kyoto Protocol, which expires in 2012.

The panel was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize this year along with former US Vice President Al Gore for their efforts to raise awareness about the effects of climate change.

The report is important because it is adopted by consensus, meaning countries accept the underlying science and cannot disavow its conclusions. While it does not commit governments to a specific course of action, it provides a common scientific baseline for the political talks.

The UN says a new global plan must be in place by 2009 to ensure a smooth transition after the expiration of the Kyoto terms, which require 36 industrial countries to radically reduce their carbon emissions by 2012.

"There are real and affordable ways to deal with climate change," Ban said, adding that a new agreement should provide funding to help poor countries adopt clean energy and to adapt to changing climates.

The report says carbon emissions, which come primarily from fossil fuels, must stabilise by 2015 and go down after that. Otherwise, the consequences could be "disastrous," IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri said.

In the best-case scenario, temperatures will continue to rise from carbon already in the atmosphere, the report said. Even if factories were shut down today and cars taken off the roads, the average sea level will reach as much as 1.4 metres (4.6 feet) higher than the preindustrial period, or about 1850.

"We have already committed the world to sea level rise," said Pachauri. If the Greenland ice sheet melts, the scientists could not even predict by how many feet the seas will rise, drowning coastal cities.

As early as 2020, between 75 million and 250 million people in Africa will suffer water shortages, residents of Asia's megacities will be at great risk of river and coastal flooding, Europeans can expect extensive species loss, and North Americans will experience longer and hotter heat waves and greater competition for water, the report says.

"What's new is the clarity of the signal, how clear the scientific message is," said Yvo de Boer, the UN's top climate change official. "The politicians have no excuse not to act."

Opening with a sweeping statement directed at climate change sceptics, the summary declares that climate systems have already begun to change.

Environment campaigners hailed the report as indispensable for the 10,000 delegates who were expected at Bali.

"We expect to see their personal copies of the Synthesis Report return from Bali, battered and worn from frequent use, with paragraphs underlined and notes in the margin," said Stephanie Tunmore of Greenpeace.

Yet differences remain stark on how to control carbon emissions. While the European Union has taken the lead in enforcing the carbon emission targets outlined in Kyoto, the United States opted out of the 1997 accord.

US President George W Bush described it as flawed because major developing countries such as India and China, which are large carbon emitters, were excluded from any obligations.

Sharon Hays, a White House science official and head of the US delegation, said the certainty of climate change was clearer now than when Bush rejected Kyoto.

"What's changed since 2001 is the scientific certainty that this is happening," she said in a conference call to reporters late Friday.

"Back in 2001 the IPCC report said it is likely that humans were having an impact on the climate," but confidence in human responsibility had increased since then.

Prime Minister Gordon Brown said he was seeking to introduce greater long-term cuts in carbon emissions than previously planned. Brown will set out in the next few days various ways in which he believes emissions can be cut.

He also said the UN climate change conference in Bali next month "is the opportunity to provide political answers to these scientific findings".

And he warned: "Climate change will affect developing countries the most. Those who are most vulnerable are also the most at risk from this threat."

Brown added: "The IPCC's measured assessment shows that the world needs to face up to the challenge of climate change, and to do so now. It is clear that climate change poses an urgent challenge, not only a challenge that threatens the environment but also international peace and security, prosperity and development."

Brown said developed countries "must show leadership and take the first and largest responsibility".

He added: "That is why I am asking the UK's independent climate change committee to report on whether our target of a 60% reduction in emissions by 2050, already greater than most other countries, should be even stronger still.

"I will be setting out in the next few days some of the further action we will be taking in Britain to reduce carbon emissions, and climate change will be one of the key issues discussed at next week's meeting of Commonwealth leaders."

The Government is facing pressure after it emerged that up to £270m of cuts are being planned at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra),

which could hit a wide range of Defra responsibilities, such as recycling, nature protection and reducing energy use.

International development agency Christian Aid called on world leaders to agree an emergency programme of carbon emission cuts in the light of the report.

Andrew Pendleton, the charity's senior climate change policy analyst, said: "It is difficult to welcome a document that contains so much bad news, but it is a timely, and very stark warning, that urgent action is needed.

"Countries rich and poor need to agree an emergency programme where the industrialised world, which has grown rich through carbon emissions, puts its own house in order while helping emerging economies cut emissions.

"There has been a lot of talk about climate change this year but what little action there currently is to cut emissions amounts to corrections in the margin when the whole story needs rewriting."

Kit Vaughan, climate change adaptation adviser with WWF-UK, said: "We think it's a cracking report. It sends a really strong signal that climate change is happening here and now, it's an urgent global priority.

"We are seeing impacts already, and they are only going to get worse. We are pleased that Ban Ki-moon gave a personal account of climate change.

"By coming out with such a strong message on top of the report, he's signalling that there must be progress at Bali. It's a global emergency, and politicians must respond."

The Liberal Democrat's environment spokesman Chris Huhne commented: "This report highlights the urgency with which the meetings in Bali must now address the global crisis of climate change. We are stealing the future from our children and grandchildren, and it is imperative we put our own behaviour on a sustainable footing.

"The industrial countries have to take the lead because they are responsible for 70% of the carbon that has been emitted, and every extra ounce of carbon has a life of 100 years in the atmosphere."

Meanwhile, Opec has said it is concerned about climate change and is willing to help develop ways to cut emissions.

The group's Secretary General, Abdullah al-Badri, said Opec would be willing to play its part to develop the technology alongside developed countries.

"This needs a lot of money, this needs a lot of research," al-Badri said ahead of an Opec heads of state summit this weekend.

Key warnings that give major cause for concern

Climate systems have already begun to change, with rising air and sea temperatures melting ice caps.

• The poor and the elderly will suffer most from climate change.

• Hunger and disease will be more common.

• Droughts, floods and heatwaves will afflict the world's poorest regions.

• More animal and plant species will vanish.

• Emissions of carbon, which comes primarily from fossil fuels, must stabilise by 2015 and then go down, otherwise the consequences could be "disastrous".

• As early as 2020, between 75 million and 250 million people in Africa will suffer water shortages.

• Residents of Asia's large cities will be at greatest risk of river and coastal flooding.

• North Americans will experience longer heatwaves and greater competition for water.

The full article contains 1628 words and appears in Scotland On Sunday newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 17 November 2007 10:44 PM
  • Source: Scotland On Sunday
  • Location: Scotland
  • Related Topics: Climate change
 
1

John M,

Melbourne, Australia 18/11/2007 01:19:47

More blather from an organisation whose charter is to assess the risk of human-induced climate change. (i.e. no risk would mean no IPCC).

Its reports are written and reviewed by scientists who are funded to research human influences on climate. (i.e. don't agree then don't get research funding and don't build reputation.)

In a major blunder for the IPCC's claims, just 5 expert reviewers agreed with the crucial 9th chapter of the IPCC WG I report. Four had clear vested interests and the other made one comment for the whole report.

Summary - a partisan organisation that can't even get support from its own people.

Read several more reasons for disbanding the IPCC at http://mclean.ch/climate/SPPI-disband_the_IPCC.pdf

2

sceptic,

18/11/2007 01:34:23

When UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon gives up his 6 litre V12 12mpg Mercedes Benz for a bicycle I might listen to what he has to say on climate change!

3

sceptic,

18/11/2007 01:43:02

Seems half the world is going to die of thirst, if they avoid that they will definitely drown in a flood.

4

Carolyn 1,

land of foliage and leaf peepers 18/11/2007 02:12:41

We can drink beer and old whiskey while floating on an inflatable raft; which will last a day or two until the climate changes again.

5

airmick,

Delaware USA 18/11/2007 02:15:26

Beware the hipocrite who says, do as I say, not as I do.

Consider AlGore if you will, Mr. earth in the balance. Living large in that 30,000 sq. ft. house, that sucks up as much energy as 15 normal houses. Or how about flyin' around in a G-4 personal jet sucking down those hydro-carbons. Well, Al don't talk the talk to me unless your willin' to walk the walk yourself.

There is definately some warming, but the question is, man-made or nature made. The science is as yet not conclusive despite alarmist views.

I'll rule out nothing, until the empirical proof is in.

6

Carolyn 1,

18/11/2007 02:46:13

#6
Rehoboth Beach?- to get away from the stress of DC., a group of us used to drive up and sleep on the beach surrounded by evergreens twenty feet from ocean waves and huge sand dunes- so break it to me- there are no evergreens but there are lots of hotels and gambling and malls and wall to wall people? Or did they keep it natural?

7

airmick,

Delaware USA 18/11/2007 03:05:15

#7

Not exactly there, but close. Unfortunately commerialism has raised it's ugly head. Many new developments, malls, traffic, congestion, locals now call it Ocean City north. Still all in all a nice place to be, especially off- season.

8

tomi,

Fort Lauderdale, Florida 18/11/2007 03:05:19

Remember the old man who walked the streets with the sandwich boards reading "THE END OF THE WORD IS NIGH"? We used to laugh at him. But now we are expected to take seriously all those "experts" who now prophesy "Gloom and Doom".
I now suspect that the old man was much wiser than all these overeducated idiots. At least he had a positive message! "Prepare to meet thy maker!" None of us are going to get out of this world alive. But, in the meantime, enjoy life and don't be scared of the Boogie-man.

9

Conan,

Moffat 18/11/2007 06:40:34

Where the 'Scotsman' Building stands there used to be a lava from that covered most of what became Scotland. There also used to be a rather deep sea overhead. At another time there was a steaming jungle, swamp and forest that became coal. There was a clacier probably at least a half mile high.

The point?

We've been there and done that.

The difference now is that we have total nitwits who actually are so arrogant and belive that humans could in some way have something to do with the galaxy's changes - and, better yet, are actually delusional enough to think humans have the power, or could even get the power ond day, to change any of it.

Like I say - nitwits, one and all.

10

Conan,

Moffat 18/11/2007 07:38:53

that was supposed to be lava 'flow'

11

Arthur Borges,

Zhengzhou 18/11/2007 08:09:13

I love the American position about leaving out China and India: the world's leading polluter just sits back, redirects blame elsewhere and reclines into non-commital hold mode.

This is starting to make me believe some of the material floating around the Internet about "Global 2000 Population Downsizing".

Google it and see how well you sleep.

12

nabodican,

Skye 18/11/2007 08:11:57

Here we go again, a totally discredited political organisation spouting its claptrap again.
What is worse is that it appears that paw broon is quite happy to fall for it. Probably because he see's it as a good excuse to tax us even more. No doubt Al Gore and the wind industry are rubbing their hands with glee.

13

Plodjfriss, Hammer of the Numpties,

18/11/2007 08:18:03

10: I don't believe that the lava was even remotely close to covering most of Scotland. The steaming jungle, swamp and forest helped to transform the Earth's climate from something resembling an enormous greenhouse by removing CO2 from the atmosphere and locking it up in the ground in the form of coal and oil. Unfortunately, we're busy burning all the coal and oil and returning the carbon to the atmosphere. What makes you think this won't have any effect on the climate?

14

Crone,

US Louisiana 18/11/2007 08:29:55

You foolish people it does not matter who gives you information. The simple fact is we humans have started the destruction of Mother Earth and we ALL better wake up and change our throw away society and start conserving or very simply, we will all die. There will be no more life as we know it. Not that it matters, because we will be all dead. Do you honestly have your head stuck in the sand so far that YOU cant see the changes in the climate, the Arctic poles are melting, sea leavel is rising, more and more wildlife are becoming extinct each day, more rain forests are cut down and they are the lungs of the planet. All water on Earth is polluted, all the air, even the food you eat is polluted and worse, because most is genetically enginered. Dont worry about my spelling correctly ....LOL... some of you will comment on that first thing. Its not important, its that you understand that what the officials are saying about the environment being destroyed is true and its up to all of us to open our eyes and make some changes. Paying attention to warnings and not making idiotic remarks might be a good start.

15

Ubi,

Edinburgh 18/11/2007 08:33:38

In the midst of which Aberdeen City Council will vote on Wednesday to turn a Park Ride facility into a travellers' halt. This will force hundreds of commuters out of public transport and back on to the roads. I look forward to hearing Aberdeen City Council's explanation for exempting themselves from environmental responsibility.

16

Rulesbutnotrulers,

Not in denial 18/11/2007 08:42:53

Are there any scientists in the above posts? I ask because there are thousands of scientists who support the global warming thesis and very few who deny it. I tend to support those who provide evidence and verifiable hypotheses, rather than those who are paid up members of the awkward squad and unprepared to act on the precautionary principle.

I wish we would cancel the Olympic and Commonwealth games as evidence that we wish to reduce needless air travel and construction. (Every bag of cement used has already produced its own weight in carbon emissions).

17

wisdom,

Edinburgh 18/11/2007 09:04:04

Yet more scary fairytales.

18

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 18/11/2007 09:10:55

For more than a year I have been reading and responding to the comments concerning climate change in these threads.

Time and again the global warming deniers come out with fatuous arguments, or often just with bile and a blind refusal to consider evidence.

Time and again their points, if they make any, have been answered with reason and evidence. With some it makes not the slightest difference.

I hope that many others, perhaps those who haven't studied the issues in detail or who have had doubts and questions on particular aspects, are now better informed as a result of all the extra information that has been released and discussed.

But it is obvious that many will continue to deny. Many apparently think that this subject is going to disappear and leave them in peace. #1 Chairman Gordon, for example, thinks that global warming was "LAST week's trendy guilt trip for the gullible?"

You are wrong Gordon. For the rest of your life you will be hearing about global warming and the attempts to combat it. Perhaps, just perhaps, you and others like you may yet look closely at the evidence. But it seems there will always be some who refuse to do so. Theirs is a future of self-imposed anger and frustration, kicking against the pricks of scientific evidence. Whilst the rest of us get on with the more positive and hopeful course of trying to solve the and ameliorate the problem.

19

Guga II,

Rockall 18/11/2007 09:19:52

All that will happen in the YUK is that Maggie Broon will use it as an excuse to follow the usual New Labour Numpty Party policy of Tax and Squander.

In any event, his current policy of screwing the motorists with fuel tax is going to grind the country to a halt, especially in the remote areas (we're currently paying £1.15 a litre, and rising).

20

Ataloss,

Bathgate 18/11/2007 09:19:59

The majority of these posters should get back in their bras, I might as well smother my weans now because the climate change deny-ers (ostriches)will no doubt hold more sway in future decision making than the scientists who are screaming a warning that things must change. What's a bit of drought or flood when it's a bunch of Africans or Bangladeshias who will suffer?
Quite right about the UN's big motors.

21

Mcsnagpile,

18/11/2007 09:21:44

Help me Boab I am going to die. We are going to be flooded out or dried out. We are going to have famines and there will be a dearth of scabby heeded weans. I thought I could live long enough to be like king Tut and become a museum piece.
I do not understand why everyone is talking about cutting emissions. We have a finite amount of fossil fuels on the planet either we burn them or we don’t. Cutting carbon emissions is simple; only sell oil and coal to users that make no carbon emissions. Alternatively an international tax on oil to high emission producers; the proceeds used for the rectification of world pollution problems. The tax would be based on emissions per head of population. An international bank account could be set up. Then a team of international scientists made available to find solutions and resolve.
The biggest problem is, human co-operation usually only happens when they are at war.

22

Selgovae,

Scottish Borders 18/11/2007 09:27:13

#10 Conan

"The difference now is that we have total nitwits who actually are so arrogant and belive that humans could in some way have something to do with the galaxy's changes"

Or other nitwits who aren't aware of how physically tiny the habitat we live in is. Not on a galactic scale, but on a planetary scale, we live in a monopoly-game sized house on a golf ball. You fart in your house and everyone knows.

23

fred bloggs,

18/11/2007 09:41:09

We exist in a paper thin interface of gas between the earth's surface and space. If you imagine the earth as the size of a football the atmosphere is less than a millimetre thick. Burning fossil fuels is fouling it and the oceans that slowly try to absorb the carbon emitted.

24

Allen,

Glasgow 18/11/2007 10:14:26

What about the sunspots? Na they have nothing to do with it.

The Earth hasn't been warmer than this before-Na

IPCC respected- sued to take information from their research out because eminent Profs who contributed, said “The IPCC has manipulated the facts to suit themselves" and they were forced to amend the research. mmmmm

What other way can Governments find ways to TAX us- oh, wait a minute "climate change" good idea.

What about all these goody doers who are making serious salaries to keep this crap running-another pay day for the liars?

We are contributing, but nothing on the scale of natural phenomenon.

LIES LIES LIES

25

Rabhairt,

Australia 18/11/2007 10:46:14

NO,19 SLIOCH, you are spot on the money Mate, goodonyer, it is not last weeks news and its not going away, those who laugh it off need to look into the situation more deeply, I am involved in oceanography and have contact with others around the world almost daily, it is not just carbon, there are a lot of other issues as well, we can no longer afford the "I'm alright jack" attitude, Australia's record does not really earn a gold star, but if we all do our own little bit at least we have tried, but to be in DENIAL as a lot of you are is just plain stupidity.

26

Nellie,

18/11/2007 11:02:14

#17 Ah, let the doubters all fiddle while Rome burns. If they are so sure nothing is happening I'll be happy to sell my nice little house at market rate to any of them - it's only about 1m (3'3") above sea level. Me? Oh, I'll be moving to higher ground ... just for the view, of course.

27

Nellie,

18/11/2007 11:04:34

PS
I wish these scientists would give us at least an estimation of WHEN they think the sea level rises will be at their peak. I'm thinking, do I move now? Or, will it take 10 years before my home is under water? (In which case, I can afford to stay where I am.)

28

Colin Midlem,

Boston MA USA 18/11/2007 11:26:00

It's encouraging that Global Warming/Climate Change are finally attracting some serious attention from the general population in addition to the technology community. My research only goes back to '73.

The Centre for Global Development has just released an important report on emissions from power generation across the world. The report was prepared by the the agency, Carbon Monitoring for Action and is a must read for both environmental activists and deniers. As are "The Economics of Climate Change' and 'An inconvenient Truth.'

As a Scot in the US there is ample scope to compare the differing attitudes. The US faces strong opposition from the Republicans and industrialists and the great unwashed. The UK seems to have a more thinking population with an uncaring hoi poloi.

At the moment my plan is to find a Pacific island with a height > 80m to form a climate shelter for my family and friends. This will offer a safe haven and avoid the procrastination of politics over science and technology. While they argue we will ensure safety and comfort.

29

Guga II,

Rockall 18/11/2007 11:27:01

Anyway, what about the poor Martians? Their planet is warming up. Obviously they need to cut their carbon emissions; maybe this bunch of IPCC chancers can give them some help, and Maggie Broon can advise them of how to tax their motorists out of existence.

30

Am-Bodach,

18/11/2007 11:27:16

#19 "Time and again the global warming deniers come out with fatuous arguments, or often just with bile and a blind refusal to consider evidence."

I am in complete agreement with you - however when it comes to mitigating climate change, science is frequently abandoned. Nuclear power (considered essential by the IPCC), the Severn barrage, genetic manipulation of photosynthesis genes to enhance plant CO2 uptake - all of these measures are rabidly opposed by environmentalists, who tout costly and ineffective wind turbines as an alternative solution to climate change.

31

Am-Bodach,

18/11/2007 11:28:41

#19 "Time and again the global warming deniers come out with fatuous arguments, or often just with bile and a blind refusal to consider evidence."

I am in complete agreement with you - however when it comes to mitigating climate change, science is frequently abandoned. Nuclear power (considered essential by the IPCC), the Severn barrage, genetic manipulation of photosynthesis genes to enhance plant CO2 uptake - all of these measures are rabidly opposed by environmentalists, who tout costly and ineffective wind turbines as an alternative solution.

32

SteveSC,

West Lothian 18/11/2007 11:29:17

Certainty in this matter is absurd. We cannot be 100% certain whether warming is a long term trend or short term blip, and is mankind causing it. The doubters would say carry on as normal, the loony greens say shut down the economy.

Expecting humans to lower their expectations of a good life is a non starter. It is time to seriously put population control on the agenda. Imagine the UK with one quarter of its current population. Good homes for everybody, no need for new roads, schools or airports. Plenty room to park at IKEA. Bliss.

33

Dr. James Wilkie,

18/11/2007 11:39:37

#1. Last week's event on global warming, and more besides, was the conference of the International institute for Applied Systems Analysis, when 700 of the world's leading scientists more than adequately confirmed the disaster that is facing us if present trends continue.

IIASA was set up - at the height of the Cold War - by US President Lyndon Johnson and Soviet Prime Minister Alexei Kosygin to study and provide answers to the most fundamental issues facing the planet. It is completely non-partisan and non-political, and is one of the principal sources of policy-making research for the UN and national governments. Its scientific assessments of climate change are of fundamental importance for the IPCC and other bodies - and these assessments are based on scientifically ascertained fact, not speculation. www.iiasa.ac.at

#19 Slioch is right all the way. I commend his numerous contributions to these columns on this theme over a long period. He clearly knows what he is talking about, which is more than can be said for those who deny that there is a problem.

Whether there is an element of cyclical change in the climate is a moot point; what is now certain is that human activity is at least aggravating it, and that worldwide overpopulation is the root cause. It is not just too many motor vehicles; galloping industrialisation in developing countries is another main factor. And there are now five times as many domestic cattle as there were in 1950, with five times as much methane gas being emitted - just one example to scratch the surface of the population problem.

As I said at the IIASA conference, with obvious agreement from some of the listeners, an astronomer looking at the Earth from several light-years away could well come to the conclusion that a biochemical ferment on the surface of this planet is destroying its protective mantle and could eventually render it sterile - unless pr

34

inoui,

Bordeaux 18/11/2007 11:40:56

No vine yards in Scotland in the future then?

35

Rabhairt,

Cannons Creek Australia 18/11/2007 12:06:52

36, Goodonyer Doc, well said, you are obviosly well up with the BIG PICTURE, what we now need is for all the relevant information to be collated and put out to the people in a way that they can understand, then maybe they can influence the polititions to stop using their BS for political gain and hollow laws. you scientists can put the power into the peoples hands.

36

Am-Bodach,

18/11/2007 12:08:26

#36

Would you like to comment on the role of fuel cells in mitigating climate change?

37

Conch Basher,

Cayman Brac, British West Indies 18/11/2007 12:15:15

Living 10' above sea level and having lost my home to Hurricane Ivan, and having rebuilt my home in 2005, I have 4 words of advice for those who enjoy living on beachfronts all around the world. Head for the hills. Already in past 3 years hundreds of houses have been built on the "BRAC" (Gaelic, we are told for "Bluff") 140' tall cave-pocked cliff running down spine of this 12 sq mile island 90 miles south of Cuba. And atop this high Bluff are limestone deposits showing fossils of seashells and undersea creatures of previous primordial living denizens of the Caribbean. And so it goes. A bit of "in the long run" perspective from the Caribbean to the comment posters of The Scotsman.

38

Hugo, Ayrshire,

18/11/2007 12:47:12

Four serious questions:-

1) Do you accept Global Warming/Climate Change is happening. I expect most people agree, at least on the climate change.

2) Is it due entirely to natural forces?

3) Is caused entirely by human activity?

4) Is it caused by natural forces but accelerated by human activity?

I suport the view that it is a mix. The natural forces on their own take a very long time. Thousands of years? Possibly exponentially i.e. a long slow change which becomes an increasingly rapid change

However, human activity could well significantly hasten the rate of change by exceding the cruicial value of one or more key factors. Net carbon emission is one.

So there is a final question. Do we know what these cruicial values are?

39

nabodican,

Skye 18/11/2007 13:02:39

I see the usual bunch of ill informed greenwashed have finally woken up.
Get a life folks, the world is not going to end because a political organisation such as the IPCC say's so.
You are going to have to learn to live with climate change as all before us have done.

40

Hetman,

USA 18/11/2007 13:13:39

Easy solution. Eliminate half of the human population sooner rather than later.

41

Harbinger,

Fraggle Rock 18/11/2007 13:15:57

VALENCIA, Spain (AFP) — "UN climate experts wrangled here Tuesday over a landmark document on global warming amid criticism that the draft report was bland (not scary enough) and some of its findings out of date.

One negotiator described the talks among the Nobel-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) as "difficult".

Why does this "scientific" report, supposedly state of the art, have to be "negotiated" by political appointees. It is political, pure and simple.

So who caused this warmer Arctic, Fred Flintstone in his SUV?

http://www.thestar.com/article/277301

"The High Arctic, Basinger concluded, was once as warm and lush as the Carolinian forests of Georgia in the United States are today. Several scientists have since discovered evidence that the Arctic was warm for a very long time after that.

On Ellesmere Island, there's a 4.5-million-year-old beaver pond site where Dick Harington and a team of scientists from the Canadian Museum of Nature spent more than a decade unearthing fossils of miniature beavers that were preyed upon by ancestral black bears, weasel-like carnivores and Eurasian badgers. Some of the fossils were so detailed they were able to determine what tundra bunnies were eating at the time. Temperatures then were at least 10C warmer in summer and 15C warmer in winter than they are today.

NO ONE KNOWS why the Arctic was so warm for so long previously."

So why does anyone think that trying to control CO2 levels to a target of around 0.05% of the atmosphere, if it were even possible, can magically conjure up an ideal global temperature, if anyone knows what that should be?

Who's really in denial here? The warmers above simply will not accept any facts that conflict with the Playstation computer models of catastrophe.

For some facts about CO2 check

42

scully,

colchester 18/11/2007 13:59:33

It is alleged that some one asked Jesus when the world was going to end.. He is alleged to have replyed he did not know . That only God knew when the world would end. So if Jesus did not know who would know.

43

Dr. James Wilkie,

18/11/2007 14:11:38

#41. I am not an expert on the technology of fuel cells, and would have to defer to those more knowledgeable than myself. My impression from recent discussions is that their utility is on the same level as that of biofuels, i.e. a good deal less than the hopes that have been placed in them. They are of course at an early stage of development, but some models are already on the market as reserve batteries, etc. They don't loom large in the sights of environmental forward thinkers at the moment, but we will certainly hear more of them as at least part of the answer to current problems.

44

Carolyn 1,

Woods Hole, Ma, usa 18/11/2007 14:13:42

The planet is shifting alignment within the balance of the solar system; climate change is a result of the realignment and is ongoing.. the universe is not stagnant.
Proof of this is the relocation of the magnetic north pole which has moved about 500 miles in the past 100 years. -- or about 25 miles a year.

www.science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2003/29dec_magneticfield.htm
this links to many interesting scientific articles that have not been diluted/polluted by politics or movie awards

45

Bob Beal,

Edmonton, Canada 18/11/2007 14:14:35

19 - Slioch. Thanks for making sense.

Al Gore and the IPCC are such easy straw-men. What about every major scientific organization in the world? They all agree. That includes the UK Royal Society and the U.S. National Academies of Sciences. Are they all part of some kind of left-wing conspiracy? Or are they all just deluded? It has to be one or the other, doesn't it?

If they are all fools, perhaps some of the posters here who know so much better than they do can tell us, reasonably specfically, where and how these organizations got it so wrong.

46

Dennis Skinner,

18/11/2007 14:48:11

50. Bob Beal, Edmonton, Canada

'What about every major scientific organization in the world? They all agree."

Big Deal. They once agreed about phlogiston and the ether as well. In the seventies they were well on their way to consensus on the coming ice-age.

The scientists who advance science are the ones who question the consensus. Today, that consensus is bought and paid for by governments around the world. The "anthropogenetic" models are as scientific as spreadsheet models used to forecast stock-market movements. Sometimes even the red braces brigade get it right.

Climate change junkies would receive a more respectful hearing in this forum if they showed a little of that self-doubt and self-questioning that is the hallmark of scientific enquiry. They might also fess up to the fact that there are eminent scientists of high repute who dispute the consensus and deplore their enthusiasm for doom-mongering.

#43, Hugo

"1) Do you accept Global Warming/Climate Change is happening. I expect most people agree, at least on the climate change.

2) Is it due entirely to natural forces?

3) Is caused entirely by human activity?

4) Is it caused by natural forces but accelerated by human activity?"

Answers:

1) absolutely;
2) almost absolutely due to natural forces as to whose nature more research is needed;
3) Almost not at all: as likely as a fleabite to make an elephant die of haemmorhage;
4) Nice try: I believe the game is called "heads I win, tails you lose." How many people, who would not give the time of day to Intelligent Design, can advance this pseudo-scientific claptrap is beyond me. Such outcomes are delivered in climate change models by playing around with variances in inputs. They are just like the City barrow-boy doing the same with his financial market "mathematical model".

Let us see global warming, which does seem

47

Kobi,

18/11/2007 15:09:17

20 years ago we were all going to be irradiated because of the hole in the ozone layer.

Well, it appears that that threat was somewhat exaggerated too. Al Gore was telling porkies then too:

http://www.policynetwork.net/main/article.php?article_id=862

48

Bob Beal,

Edmonton, Canada 18/11/2007 15:18:35

Dennis Skinner: Do you mean to suggest that because a 17th-century scientific theory (phologiston) was flawed, therefore it is possible that every major scientific organization in the world might even remotely be wrong today?

Actually, phologiston theory was not a denialist or skeptical theory. It was actually an advance on the scientific knowledge of the day. Though the basics of it were reasonably quickly shown not to work, it was a significant addition to scientific thinking of its day.

I am not a scientist, but I am a historian.

49

Mart on Skye,

18/11/2007 15:24:25

Read this blog for some light relief from all the doom merchants.

http://web.mac.com/sinfonia1/iWeb/Global%20Warming%20Poli...

50

MA,

18/11/2007 15:35:17

44 nabodican et al - Well, actually, rather a lot of posters of all shades are 'ill-informed', or have an axe to grind.

For worthwhile info check out eg 19 Slioch and 36 Dr J Wilkie.

Of course the world's not going to end - it was around for millions of years before human beings appeared on the scene; and I guess it's going to be around for millions of years after human beings are extinct.
That is the point - we may NOT be able to live with climate change.
Whether that worries you or not is a matter of choice.

It's the painful process of what happens in the meantime that worries me.

51

Methspaña,

18/11/2007 15:44:56

47. scully, colchester

"It is alleged that some one asked Jesus when the world was going to end.. He is alleged to have replyed he did not know . That only God knew when the world would end. So if Jesus did not know who would know."

God knows scully.

ps...yer mad as a hatter.

52

Carel,

Isle of Skye 18/11/2007 16:15:38

Comment 55, "Mart of Skye"

Would you consider coming to the "Question Time" format discussion, in Aros, On Tuesday (this Tuesday) after a showing of Al Gore's film (showing starts 7.30pm)?

I'm worried that no climate fruitcakes might turn up at all, and that the importance of showing the deniers up for what they are might fail to get highlighted.

Check on Aros's website if you want to know who'll be on the panel. Cailean MacLean will be doing his Dimbleby and you can be pretty sure of making a point or two from the audience. Maybe your question will get selected - it's likely even. Like I said, we might be short of the kind of people who would believe the rubbish in the site you directed us to.

53

Rita,

18/11/2007 16:27:03

start stocking up on the beer and crisps NOW

54

Who cares ?,

the world 18/11/2007 16:30:14

are we saving the planet? or saving the humans ?

I for one think when we are gone the planet will get on with what it needs to do just fine like it has for quite a few years now.or we could evole ? or even start a war with some mad idealised society that triggers a biological plague a couple of billion dead gives us say another 50 -60 years

55

Mart on Skye,

18/11/2007 16:48:12

#58 Carel

"Like I said, we might be short of the kind of people who would believe the rubbish in the site you directed us to."

So what your saying is that a Professor of Biogeography who doesn't deny climate change and accepts that what mankind does influences the climate but doesn't believe that CO2 is the single most important factor or that we can realistically and predictably manage the global weather system knows less that Al Gore about climate change and talks rubbish.

Oh and I'm a fruitcake on the basis of the link I put up?

56

Urban Guerrilla,

18/11/2007 16:56:06

What a load of blethers this global warming stuff is.

The climate has changed ever since the world existed, and it will continue to change until the world ends.

57

Guga II,

Rockall 18/11/2007 17:01:09

#42 Conch Basher. You place name "brac" does not mean bluff. I think in your case it probably means "curve" as in the curve of a wave, in which case it would be bràc. Other meanings include deer and the branches in deer's antlers. There are quite a few meanings for the word, but defintely none meaning "bluff".

58

Guga II,

Rockall 18/11/2007 17:02:45

#62 Urban Guerilla. You've got it in one. Anyway, nobody has come up with a "global warming" answer as to why Mars is warming up. Something to do with the sun maybe?

59

Carel,

Isle of Skye 18/11/2007 17:06:24

comment 61 "Mart on Skye"

Yep, that's what I am saying. Al gore hasn't dreamt any of this up, he's just followed the work getting done by tens of thousands of researchers, and hundreds of modellers, and is reporting their findings. No oddball/charlaton/temperamental awkward squad type spouting important sounding gobbledigook with a sincere expression alters what we now know, for sure.

But, you clearly think your right. And the debate will be the better for all viewpoints, incuding the ones that I'm sure are pure garbage. So, if you're really on Skye, turn up. Cailean MacLean if a professional media man and will be a scrupulously fair compere.

60

mikej77,

Victoria, B.C. 18/11/2007 17:08:35

Relax!
You will all be dead of old age soon if nothing else gets you. We die, the Earth does not die.

61

jumanji,

canada 18/11/2007 17:22:16

reading Dr.Wilkie's post, perhaps someone should invent some sort of balloon that could be fitted on the ass of cattle, then when filled with methane gas. could be sold as a bi-product.

That way methane will not get into the atmosphere.


frigging great idea.

Richard Branson will save the planet no need to worry

62

Martha,

18/11/2007 17:25:03

Here I sit in Florida, most of which is as flat as a dish. Oddly enough, we're still not inundated by the supposedly rising oceans. If any place on Earth is going to go underwater, Florida is probably right up there in the top five. The highest spot in the Florida Keys is five feet above sea level. The Keys are still chugging along, and the sea isn't overtaking them yet. So where are these rising oceans, anyway?

So I'm not sure what to make of this doomsday report from the UN. Right now, four or five volcanos are active in Indonesia. Anak Krakatoa is erupting daily. Mt. Kelut is on the verge of a major eruption. If even two of them erupt explosively at the same time, we might be in for a real volcanic winter. Maybe then all the doomsayers will shut their collective mouths.

63

Martha,

18/11/2007 17:28:16

PS: is mankind responsible for volcanic activity as well as he is alleged to be for the current cycle of climatic warming? How about tectonic plate activity? Is that our fault? Comets? Asteroids? Are we going to be blamed for that too, when one of them smashes into the earth?

Fact: the Earth is dynamic, and has been in flux since it first formed. Mankind has been around for a million years, much of which consisted of Ice Ages. Frankly, I'd rather face global warming than a real Ice Age.

64

Am-Bodach,

18/11/2007 17:36:51

#48

Thanks

65

sceptic,

18/11/2007 18:12:54

#65
Your certainty on GW is hardly borne out by the IPCC political appointees "Summary for Policymakers" their "Changes in physical and biological systems and surface temperature 1970-2004" is hardly based on firm foundations, I quote "However, there is a notable lack of geographic balance in data and literature on observed changes, with marked scarcity in developing countries." Even that statement is a bit disingenuous and any resident of Skye might be particularly suspicious. You will note that for the Skye area changes over 1970 - 2004 are very notably represented - by their absence. Surprisingly the area left blank on the IPCC map is one that is particularly well served by long term meteorological data. A more cynical person than myself might say that the area was left blank because it doesn't fit with the GW story, an inconvenient truth perhaps.
Of course, the west of Scotland does not a world make, however, if the part of the globe with which we are familiar is miss-represented what conclusions might be drawn about the rest of the data.

66

Sambo,

The deep south 18/11/2007 18:53:17

I arrived in Scotland at the end of May and stayed until mid September. Every evening I'd say a little prayer to god to help us through the climate problem, but alas, it was all in vain. I froze my butt off the whole time. Maybe next year I'll try again.

67

thewitness,

18/11/2007 18:56:12

Short Story...
In the beginning, many moons ago, the elites told "the it's", sheeple, that the moon was going to swallow the sun.

Bingo! The sheeple produced MORE TAX revenues and were saved from darkness by the good shepherd's.
The End.

WaRmeRS, gROw uP!

68

MS,

Back in harness, no longer in Limousin 18/11/2007 19:02:47

Slioch,

You asked what I made of the reference I suggested that you might wish to read on Antarctic Ice cores done by Ohio University.

Firstly, it corroborates what I've ever said in every post. The so-called Medieval Warm period was not regional but, as the ice cores from Antarctica have shown, there is a clear global signature, backed by so many pieces of evidence, that show quite clearly that it was a global phenomenon.

Incidentally, for those who only read these threads occasionally, Slioch - seems to believe that the next glacial period is due to start in 16,000 years - despite the more commonly accepted view that the glacial periods are currently operating on a 40,000 cycle PLUS this interglacial only began 10,000 years ago (thus making it 30,000 years before ice returns, en masse as it were).

Secondly, the cores also show a clear global signature for for the Little Ice Age. It was a global phenomenon. Slioch appears to believe, that although it is commonly accepted that solar activity may well be responsible (look up the Maunder Minimum), NOTHING viz. none of the other factors such as the variations of the earth's orbit, the precession of the earth's axis etc can possibly have any effect on what's happening just now. He said as much several threads ago.

Thirdly, read the precise wording quite closely. It only suggests that inversions MAY give one possible explanation for the lack of apparent cooling over the 20th Century.

For those who have never read about this interglacial, most studies identify TEN phases of this interglacial.

You may not be aware but a lot of articles being produced just now have very carefully worded conclusions which appear to follow the current consensus BUT which allow the authors to slip out sideways should research eventually prove otherwise.

Slioch, I am back in full-time harness and I hope to have some very interesting results for you to contemplate over the next few years

69

Carel,

Isle of Skye 18/11/2007 19:05:38

If someone comes along and says that he's a professor of paleobiology and that he knows Darwin got it all wrong then we don't ask ourselves if he's right or wrong - we know he's wrong. We know his reasons for saying so are twisted. That whatever institution he's a professor in has either made a terrible mistake or is itself a fraud.

That IMO is the stage we're at with the basic man-made GW theory - it is so, deniers are fools, charlatans or badly misinformed, end of story.

The consequences of the temperature rises that are and will be caused by the change in the atmosphere is a different story. Here the scientists are feeling their way, and are supplying scenarios, with estimated degrees of probability, etc. Here there is much genuine debate among the scientists.

That said, year by year they are in a better and better position to give best and worst case scenarios that are not just drawn out a hat. And it's not looking good - best case scenarios are less good and worst case less unlikely.

Is waiting to see an option? You bet it is! And I bet that we will ignore the warnings and boot out any government that seriously tries to do enough to make a real difference. I reckon my children and grandchildren will see alright! And they'll curse the memory of the blind idiots who couldn't take a telling.

70

MS,

Back in harness, no longer in Limousin 18/11/2007 19:06:23

Can I suggest that interested parties 'google' the 'Hoxnian' interglacial for some very interesting information abut recent temperatures ?

71

MS,

Back in harness, no longer in Limousin 18/11/2007 19:08:18

"The consequences of the temperature rises that are and will be caused by the change in the atmosphere is a different story. Here the scientists are feeling their way, and are supplying scenarios, with estimated degrees of probability, etc. Here there is much genuine debate among the scientists."

Unfortunately not.

72

Sambo,

The deep south 18/11/2007 19:15:24

You know, tons of money are contributed to "think tanks" and climate organizations. If they didn't report that the planet was being damaged then perhaps the money would dry up and they would be out of a job.

73

TheScotsman,

Scottish Borders 18/11/2007 19:16:30

Most people will have seen the photos of the big game hunters in Africa at the turn of the century. Any sane person would find them repulsive in the extreme.
Every person in the developed world is now the equivalent of one of these lunatics.

One person car journeys
Fly to Europe for £10.99
20 billion plastic bags produced each year
Asda this week.. A Tuxedo for £35!!!!
Bottled Water??
WASTE WASTE WASTE

74

MS,

Back in harness, no longer in Limousin 18/11/2007 19:17:33

No 43:

The only valid question is "to what extent could / may human activity affect climate changes" ?

Anecdotal evidence suggests that the area around Churchill may be freezing earlier and thicker over the last two years. Is this the start of a cooling period ? If the earth goes into - as it could possibly - a stabilised or cooler period over the next decade or two then people (like Slioch) and scientists have burned their boats to the points where thay have absolutely no credibility.

75

Sambo,

The deep south 18/11/2007 19:32:36

If the globe is warming, why are pensioners getting a heating allowance?

76

MS,

Back in harness, no longer in Limousin 18/11/2007 19:34:39

I may not have as much time as I would like to contribute to these threads over the next three or four years due to a re-energised career, but I will try to drop in occasionally. However, I will drop in whenever I can


Incidentally, for those who rarely ever follow these threads, I am on record as pointing out that there is a whole raft of genuinely good reasons (academic and otherwise) for making the effort to utilise the resources of the earth efficiently and well. Climate change is, probably, the least important of those reasons.

One thing you can be absolutely sure of, is that if any of the planks that underpin the climate change apostles are withdrawn, or if the whole thing goes belly-up, that these self-same people will not admit their errors in any shape or form.

If I am wrong - and I am closer to modern research than most - then I know I will admit my mistakes - but do I expect to see most of the so-called experts (or Slioch and his like) if the position is reversed, then the answer is an absolute and resounding 'no'.