My thoughts on Climate Change.

There is much divisiveness within our current era in regards to climate change and what we are to do about it. There is always a danger in simplifying complex issues and yet the complexity of issues require us to synthesise complex issues into issues that can be simply understood. Perhaps one of the most complex issues that our era is facing into the future is that of climate change. It’s important to note that within the framework of climate change, it’s not a new thing that our generation faces.

Scripture tells us that indeed there is nothing new under the sun. And history tells us that past generations have faced the issues surrounding climate change. Within the context of Australia, there was a time when Tasmania was connected to mainland Australia. It’s believed that there was also a land bridge connecting Australia to what is known as Papua New Guinea. These land bridges are believed to have been the mechanisms which allowed this nation many thousands of years ago to be settled by transient wanderers. Over time because of sea rise land become isolated islands and continents.

Archaeologists and geologists tell us that much of Australia was once covered by a vast inland sea, and yet today, those same areas are vastly different and for the most part are now arid deserts. In talking about arid areas though, it’s important to note that arid doesn’t mean dead as most of the deserts throughout the world are thriving examples of eco systems which are thriving habitats.
While I have used Australia as an example, the geological and archaeological sciences show us that the rising seas which affected Australia also had a global effect.

Fast forward into the last 1000 years and again history and science tells us that humanity faced two major climatic changes. The first was that of a global warming period which took place in 1000 -1400’sAd. The second major climatic change was that of a global cooling period which is known as the “Mini Ice age,” which took place in the 1400’s – 1800’s AD. Science shows us that the peak of the global warming period was up to 2 degrees warmer than what our current global temperatures are now.

From the 1850’s we saw a gradual increasing of global temperatures with some cooling happening in the 60’s and 70’s. During this time science started to think that we were headed towards a time of a global ice age. During this time a group of academics become what is known today as “Climate Alarmists.” One well known academic was John Holdren who is now a scientific advisor to the President of the United States. He wrote a number of books about an impending disaster of massive proportions in which he raised the alarm for the impeding ice age that was coming. In his books he called for drastic measures such as forced population control. Indeed such was the influence of this alarmism of the time movies were made along those themes, such as the block buster, “The Day After Tomorrow.”

In the late 80’s and early 90’s scientists discovered that CFC’s were depleting the Ozone layers. Armed with solid proof, the regulation of CFC’s stopped their production and release into the atmosphere and science has shown that the depletion of the Ozone layers has in fact stopped.

A change began in the mid 70’s where the science began to move away from a global cooling to that of a global warming event. And for the next 20 – 30 years the slogan “Global Warming” began to propagate. Today the slogan of Global Warming has changed once again to that of Climate Change where it’s recognised that climate may change to that of warm and cold.

It’s important to note up front that all scientists believe in climate change. There is basically a 100% consensus that the climate is changing. However when it comes to climate change, there are those within our scientific community who believe its caused by human influences; mainly that of C02 and those who believe that climate is changing because that is what the earth does. And so within the framework of climate change we find ourselves face to face with two terms. Alarmists and Denialists.

It’s important for us in talking about climate change to understand and acknowledge that denialists do not deny that the climate is changing. They whole heartily believe that the climate is changing. They do however deny that the change is because of human interference of the earth.
One of the most common sweeping portrayals within the scientific and alarmist media is that of finger pointing of the greed of big oil who it’s said fund the science for any dissenting science which denies climate change is human induced. This is mostly said from a position of self-righteous indignation in that their side is pure and just in their pursuit of science.
However a closer look will reveal that this is not the case.

There is much greed within the alarmism camp of which much profiteering has taken place. One such high profile alarmist is Al Gore the past vice president of the United States of America. His film “An Inconvenient Truth” was shown around the world to highlight the dangers of human caused climate change. Yet his movie was proven in a UK court to have a large number of errors and lies throughout it.
Despite Al Gores call for a simpler lifestyle he built a bigger mansion to live in with a large fleet of gas guzzling cars. Richard Sandor, an economist and professor had the bright idea of setting up the Chicago Climate Exchange. This exchange was set up via a 1 million dollar grant band not thei founders own monies. Al Gore and a number of others bought the shares of this exchange for the grand total of 1 million dollars and promoted this as the next big thing in the finance markets.
However 6 months before this exchange collapsed, Al Gore sold his shares, netting himself a nice little profit of 18 million dollars. Richard Sandor made a nice little sum of 98 million dollars. And it’s not really known how much the other initial founders raked in from selling their shares. The investors who bought their shares ended up with zilch. Not a cent from the failed exchange which totally collapsed in 2010.

One must also note that Al Gore’s promotion of his movie wasn’t coming from a philanthropist position. Through his promotion of his movie; he made huge profits through his other renewable companies and so we can see huge personal profits being made through the alarmist position.

Within the current and past alarmism, none of Al Gores nor our own prophet of doom, Tim Flannery’s prophetic utterances have come to pass. Yet these two men and others like them are held up as prophetic icons within the alarmist camps.

When it comes to monies the United Nations have used perhaps billions to set up a system to help nations who are going to be affected by climate change. But, none of those monies it received went to any of those countries. Instead the monies was used to set up bureaucracy’s, multimillion dollar rented premises, large payments for staff, consultants and a whole heap of other stuff which lined the pockets of those who chaired the various committees and boards.. all without giving a cent to those who actually need it.

Science has shown that global temperatures have not risen over the last 16 years. They have been stable. It is true that they have risen a small percentage each decade before hand. But keep in mind that our current temps are still considered to be at the minimum 1 degree lower then what it was during the warming period of 1000-1400 AD and could be as much as 2 degrees lower. The medieval ice age moved into a warming period in the mid to late 1800’s. And so it’s to be expected that each decade after a cooling period will see an increase of temperature.

.

 

Within the framework of climate change – it’s easy to see that vast sums of monies are not being spent wisely. Recently our own CSIRO released a paper which has shown a 10% increase of foliage in arid areas through the use of satellite imagery – they have pin pointed the cause of this is the increase of C02 into our atmosphere.
A warming period does not create a gloom and doom scenario. Warm weather creates better growing conditions for crops, which results in more food. According to the CSIRO increased Co2 increases plants water efficiencies in growth and indeed another study on legumes showed that these plants thrived in higher Co2 environments. Note that legumes are a staple food source.
Furthermore, warmer weather causes less deaths. The previous Australian winter which was an unseasonal warm one saw a decrease of deaths by 20% of normal trends.

So where do we go from here. It’s agreed that climate is changing. It’s not agreed as to what is causing it. We have to acknowledge that indeed there is greed and profiteering within both camps of alarmists and denialists. We have to acknowledge that huge amounts of monies have been spent without much help being given to anyone who really needs it.

This should be cause for us to “Selah” – that is to pause for a moment, reflect and think what could be a better way to go.

Advertisements

About Craig Benno

I'm an average aussie guy who has lived perhaps a not so average life.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

29 Responses to My thoughts on Climate Change.

  1. Tiribulus says:

    Not bad Craig. I didn’t know what I was gonna to see outta you on a topic like this, but this is pretty even handed.

    I know this. Not one jot or tittle of God’s word will fail. Man cannot overcome His purposes if he here were to cover every square inch of the earth with carbon spewing machinery.

    I’m not saying we shouldn’t study this like any other issue as stewards of this planet in dominion over it under Him, but only mean to say that global ________________ doesn’t scare me in the least. Of course the alarmists will cite that attitude as why right wing religious extremests like myself are so dangerous, but that’s tough. I’m not losin sleep.

    Been SOOPER busy man. In the middle of an unforeseen monstrous controversy.

  2. tildeb says:

    Craig, if what you say here is justified, then why do over 95% of climate scientists disagree with you? Well, the main reason is that what you are saying here is called ‘PRATT’: Points Refuted A Thousand Times by literally every major scientific body in the world and tens of thousands of scientists who work in this field. I recognize much of the PRATT coming from organizations funded by producers of fossil fuels to try to convince the public that there is a controversy that doesn’t exist in what climate science reveals. The intention of these organizations is to paint white as black, up as down, and pretend there is some middle ground that is reasonable between reality as we know it to be (which is what these science organizations and climate scientists have ADDUCED FROM REALITY) and the wishful thinking of some who don’t want to face it.

    What I see happening is like trying to convince the alcoholic to seek treatment: the very first step is to recognize that there really is a problem. Those who deny there is a problem related to human activity driving climate change at rates unequivocally unprecedented anywhere in the earth’s historical record are quite properly identified as ‘denialists’. And this is the problem we all face because how can we move to addresses the problem when so many deny that there is a problem? Yet the evidence we have is all in one direction: climate change driven by human activity is increasing the amplitude and frequency of local weather and creating new weather patterns. This is data available to all of us in the form of ‘unusual’ weather but it only the beginning of effects from human caused climate change that’s store for us. And we can’t even start to prepare as long as people like you honestly believe that the jury’s still out, that god won’t permit catastrophic change, that there are no tipping points of force feedbacks we are closing in on, that all of this data and compelling evidence is part of some grand conspiracy.

    The reason why the Montreal protocols were so effective addressing the loss of ozone is because everyone accepted that the motivation of the climate scientists was to report good science. We were causing an environmental problem. We needed to do something to alter that: stop using CFCs that had been identified as the main culprit. These are the same climate scientists using the same climate science now telling us why we are causing an environmental problem and need to do something to alter that: curtail CO2 emissions identified as the main culprit in altering our climate and affecting local weather patterns. But the difference this time is that much more powerful economic interests that stand to have their businesses negatively affected should we take similar measures are directly involved with countering this science with whatever means they can use to get people to do nothing. This, in effect, is what you are doing: working for these interests by posting information created by these interests to achieve just enough doubt and uncertainty to do nothing. And it’s far easier to do nothing than it is to have to do something. That’s why it’s effective, and that’s why you have allowed yourself to be manipulated into being part of the problem by suggesting there really is no problem. And by the time you recognize why this is true, why you must educate yourself and discard the PRATT to be able to take the very first stepw to face the problem non action promotes, all of us will face a problem that should have been effectively addressed thirty years ago in public policy (like the US Navy and Air Force have done in military policy incorporating this science into everything from their missile guidance systems, to greening their carriers independent of fossil fuels, to FOB solar arrays for global communication) but instead have taken another thirty years when tipping points have begun their cascading and catastrophic effects. That you feel empowered to burden your kids with your inaction should be a red flag to you that maybe, just maybe, every major scientific organization and tens of thousands of climate scientists deserve your attention because they might actually know what they’re talking about.

    • Craig Benno says:

      Tildeb.

      There is no 95% of scientific consensus that our current climate issues are human induced problems. That is simply a huge lie that is propagated by the alarmist camp.

      • tildeb says:

        You’re right, Craig. From NASA:

        Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities,and most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position.”

        The hint was the word ‘consensus’. In perspective, there’s significantly more scientific agreement about human caused climate change than there is on evolution – a foundation of modern biology.

        I don’t know you are convinced that this problem isn’t real or why you insist that there is some kind of global conspiracy promoting it. The internet allows you access to raw and compiled data that clearly and succinctly explains why all the major scientific organizations have adduced from compelling evidence that this problem is here, it’s real, and it requires very serious attention. I also don’t understand why you think your contrary opinion is somehow better informed than tens of thousands of working climate scientists.

        Look, I too did not think human activity was the driving force behind radical climate change. But I held that opinion conditionally (like any reasonable skeptic) and was asked what evidence would change my mind (I worked in the climate science department on ice core samples in my undegrad days and knew a lot about hydrology and went on to study remote sensing). I thought about that and decided a difference had to be shown as correlational for the link between CO2 and the increase in amplitude and frequency of weather events as a changing pattern. In other words, dry had to be drier, wet wetter, warm warmer and cold colder on a global scale. The increasing atmospheric temperature differential had to translate into longer term patterns (that drives local weather). By the end of the 90s this data was beginning to show exactly so I had no choice if I was to remain intellectually honest but change my opinion. The link was established and has only strengthened over time.

        I was wrong then. You are wrong now.

        The cherry picking data used to paint discrepancies (that you have used throughout your post) is obvious to anyone who knows anything about climate science and how its done. I can say unequivocally that your contrary opinion is absolutely wrong not because I think so but because the global climate data stands contrary to you. And we see this throughout the year with exactly what we would expect to see if global warming caused by human activity was true: an increase in both the amplitude and frequency of weather events that are changing historical weather patterns. When combined with other successful predictions like rising global temperatures, rising sea levels, glacial melt, changes in migration patterns, loss of sea ice, more extreme weather events, and so on, all the data is pointing in only one direction. The denialist camp simply doesn’t deal with these supporting facts but spends its time cherry picking, misrepresenting, distorting, and outright lying to keep their contrary opinion afloat in a veritable sea of toxic data.

        But don’t take my word for it, Craig: honestly investigate and find out why your contrary opinion is rejected in full by our scientific knowledge. The quality of your children’s lives depends on us, so the least we can do is face reality with adult courage and honest integrity. Admitting one can be wrong and change one’s mind is the sign of a healthy skepticism.

      • Craig Benno says:

        Tildeb a nice short link to the peer reviewed paper which shows a 97% stat would be appropriate.

      • tildeb says:

        Sorry for the broken link: it’s here.

      • Craig Benno says:

        Tildeb. There is no link to the actual paper which has proven that 97% of scientists believe that climate change is human caused. Have you a link to a peer reviewed paper by NASA or other org which shows how that figure was arrived at.

      • tildeb says:

        Maybe part of the problem for you to understand why you are being fooled and used is this strange notion of climate scientists ‘believing’ in anthropogenic global warming (AGW)… as if it were a matter of faith or that some scientific controversy exists. Neither is true. AGW has been adduced from overwhelming mutually supportive and highly compelling evidence and this scientific explanation has been recognized to be strong enough to establish scientific consensus. Your misunderstandings (temp drives CO2 levels) are not an equivalent ‘belief’ but a gross misunderstanding of how this science is done and why scientific consensus has been achieved, and you continue to empower your misunderstandings not by equivalent inquiries into the reality we share but by your misplaced and misguided beliefs. There’s a cure for that, and it’s called knowledge.

      • Craig Benno says:

        Tildeb.. in your post you have neglected the science that says temp drives co2 levels and not co2 levels drive temp…

      • tildeb says:

        The point of my comment was to indicate to you that denying that the rate and direction of today’s climate change is not ‘opinion’ or ‘belief’ – and it certainly isn’t dependent on particular people. It is an established conclusion by the world’s scientific community. This is what you face when you assume your contrary opinion has any validity. Your contrary opinion is not based on equivalent scientific understanding. By all means hold me and how I express this fact in contempt but it changes nothing: your opinion is contrary to the scientific consensus and your reasons for doing so an indication that you have much to learn. It’s not my job to teach you and answer every question you have to your satisfaction; it’s my job to point out that your denialism based as it is on ignorance and lack of respect for what scientific consensus means is very much a part of the problem all of us face. You need to do a better job and I will criticize you for ignoring the ramifications of your denialism… not to the cumulative effects it may have on me but to your own children and the generations that must live with the consequences of our collective failures to act as responsible stewards of our shared environment. Our generation is culpable and not acting because of ignorance is no excuse when good information is available to us at our fingertips. Each of us needs to do our part and pretending there we are not responsible is not a very smart or wise opinion or belief.

        As for the specific link about the percentage of scientific consensus, please recheck the link I already provided that shows dozens of major scientific bodies that endorses AGW as the primary cause of today’s climate change. They represent tens of thousands of working climate scientists – the same who initiated the Montreal protocols against CFCs and ozone loss that youn seem willing to respect – and none disagree with the AGW position. Now take a moment and think, Craig. Why? Use this question to figure out the strengths and weaknesses of your current opinion and you will find you have been misled and are now being used to maintain a skepticism that is undeserved. Your questions directed at me have already been addressed a thousand times by people far more qualified than I. The next question you need to ask yourself is why are you willing to be duped?

      • Craig Benno says:

        You made a comment to say that 95 or 9% of scientists have a consensus… please link to the evidence of the truth of this.

        It should be simple to do so.

      • tildeb says:

        It is and I see you are making no attempt to find out for yourself. Why is this, Craig?

        Okay, I’ll play your silly game:

        “Several studies have shown that about 97% of climate scientists actively doing research agree that climate change is happening and is human-caused.7,8 A study published in May, 2013 examined 11,944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 in peer-reviewed scientific literature and affirmed that 97.1% of these scientists endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.9”

        7: Doran, PT and MK Zimmerman (2009). Examining the scientific consensus on climate change. Eos Trans American Geophysical Union. 90(3): p. 22.

        8. Anderegg, WRL, JW Prall, J Harold, and SH Schneider (2010). Expert credibility in climate change. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA. 107: p. 12107-12109.

        9 Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature. http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article

        Specifically, go to town reading Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature.

        Why do I think you couldn’t care less about establishing the credentials of the 97% consensus figure on human caused global warming resulting in driving historical records for climate change? I think you want to believe something and so you refuse to recognize reality’s unfavourable arbitration of that belief? This is why I think you are busy trying to argue with me rather than learning for yourself why your belief in this matter is false, and dangerously so, that you are being used, and that you base your opinion not on knowledge but misinformation that you think is more credible that the work of scientists you already respect. You’ve been fooled but I don’t think you care to admit even to the possibility. I would love to be proved wrong.

      • Craig Benno says:

        I was really hoping you would point to the work of John Cook. That paper has been proven to be fraudulent and was never peer reviewed. Many of the scientific papers which were examined by Cook and Co whom they say agreed with their position, were analysed and found that the scientists actually said the reverse.
        Furthermore due to internal leaks from disgruntled Skeptical Science members – private emails from Cook and Co were made public with showed that John Cook and Co had made the 97% number up before hand and had planned the media and publishing campaign of this paper before it was even written.

        Regarding the Doran paper 2009… the questions asked of scientists did not include “Do you believe that climate change is caused by humans.. rather the questions were do you believe in climate change… Again the simplicity of the survey questions and the misleading conclusions from it are not real good examples of great work.

      • tildeb says:

        Again, Craig, your contrary position has zero scientific credibility. Please cite (it’s your turn, champ) one major scientific body that supports your denialist opinion.

      • Craig Benno says:

        I see your diverting attention from Cook and Co’s study.

        Judith Curry is a great example of a highly credentialed “Climatologist” who disagrees with the so called status quo.

      • Craig Benno says:

        Or should I have said Cook and Co’s miss-study.

      • tildeb says:

        Craig, you stand contrary to 5 IPCC reports and every major scientific organization in the world. One might be tempted to think this could be a clue you’re missing… in your haste to feel like you are privy to information unavailable to tens of thousands of working climate scientists. Do you really believe you’re that clever? I know I’m not. But if so, please cite the reputable scientific sources that have convinced you with compelling evidence that your contrary opinion has any equivalent scientific merit. If you can’t do this (and you know and I know you can’t because that evidence is missing from the denialist camp) then consider the following question: what evidence from reality would convince you that you are wrong? And if you can’t answer this straightforward question (a sure-fire sign of delusional thinking), then consider what it means: you are either unable or unwilling to allow reality to arbitrate your beliefs about it. This has significant and dysfunctional consequences to your relationship with reality…

      • Craig Benno says:

        Why don’t you stick to the issue of the 97% consensus and the fraudulent claims around it. Can you please link me to “Solid” research which proves the 97% consensus.

        So far you have failed to do so.

      • tildeb says:

        Starting at the bottom of page 66 of the Oreskes pdf is the subtitle The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change and it’s an excellent explanation of what it is and why it exists in this matter of human caused warming that drive today’s climate change… even when a few climate scientists can be found who disagree, and issues of disagreement can be found and cited to question the quality of these studies. Craig’s fixation on the actual percentage in order to offer criticism of the papers from which they were drawn (as if this was a meaningful way to mitigate the scientific consensus that does exist) is a very typical ploy of deniers (not unexpected when he draws his information not from any major scientific organization but from other deniers). Why that ploy isn’t good science but an intentional misdirection is also well explained at the link.

      • Craig Benno says:

        In that paper I do not see any figures of 97% or 95% or even 51%.Again can you link me to solid research which points out to the usage of any %>

        I also note that this paper uses the terminology of Global Warming. This terminology fell out of use a long time ago. The correct terminology is that of “Climate Chang.”

        Even the IPCC no longer uses the terminology of global warming.. therefore this paper is now no longer useful to claim a consensus.. and even at the time of printing.

        The Hockey Stick of Michael Mann has since found to be fraudulent. Email Gate has proven him to be unethical. Many scientists who once believed in Global Warming now believe instead in “Climate Change” (which includes global cooling)

        Many scientist have changed their position in that while they believe that CC is real, they doubt that humans have contributed a great deal towards it.

        In fact regrinds to the increase c02 the CSIRO released a few months a ago a paper which shows a 10% increase of foliage in arid regions which they have said is a direct result of increased co2.

        There have been no global temp increases in 16 years. And the global temp at the moment is still up to 2 degrees Celsius lower then what global temps were in the medieval warming period where Vikings who settled Greenland grew Barley.

      • tildeb says:

        Okay, I give.

        Taking Tiribulus’ cue, you’ve proven yourself to be an idiot and a willing one. All you’re doing is reiterating PRATT. Each cherry picked point you use to defend this PRATT is either factually wrong or a gross misrepresentation of what real data is telling us. This should concern you but it doesn’t… leaving me to presume you don’t care what’s true. You care only for what you wish to believe. I’ll say it again: you’re being used and rather than learn from reputable scientific sources why and how and for what reason, you seem determined to continue being not just duped but a mouthpiece for it. And that’s why you’re an idiot.

      • Craig Benno says:

        You are very typical of the alarmist camp. Your use of emotional rhetoric. Putting words in peoples mouths and not to mention your down right rudeness has gone to far.

        From now on Tildeb. You are banned from my blog.

      • Craig Benno says:

        P.S.. It was you alarmists who were fixed on percentages. I never bandied around any number of percentages..

        As for consensus from the so called scientific community.. History tells us about a lowly nurse who made her medical staff, including doctors to wash their hands.

        The consensus of the then trained doctors was that she was a nut case who didn’t know what she was saying…

        The was a scientific consensus in the 60s – 70s which claimed global proportions that we were going to hit another ice age.. aka movies like The Day After Tomorrow…

        again consensus means nothing within the scientific community.

    • prkralex says:

      I agree that many organizations try to cover it stating that its not a fossil fuel effect. recently an article was published related to the same on how 90 companies – the majority of which are fossil fuel firms including BP, Shell and Exxon Mobil, have been blamed for causing the climate change crisis carried out by US-based Climate Accountability Institute. Here is the link.

      • tildeb says:

        I’m not trying to blame energy producers for meeting a need; I’m saying that we have a very real problem that needs to be tackled, and this problem is one of sustainability. I don’t think oil and gas is ‘bad’; I think its use has to be sustainable and we’re so far past the mark of sustainability that major changes have to be implemented. Thanks for the link.

        The real problem is trying to get more people to even admit there is a problem and we are causing it. People like Craig assume they have compelling evidence contrary to this scientific consensus and utterly fail to realize why this misplaced trust in their contrary arguments that there is no problem is very much part of making the problem worse… for everyone!

      • Craig Benno says:

        Tildeb, you have failed in your rambles to link me to solid research that backs your claim of 95% or 99% of scientific consensus.

        I’d really like a simple link please.

  3. Tiribulus says:

    tildeb says: “what it means: you are either unable or unwilling to allow reality to arbitrate your beliefs about it. This has significant and dysfunctional consequences to your relationship with reality…
    Now don’t you like the way I jab you much better Craig? I would have just said “YOU”RE NUTS!!!” 😀

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s