web analytics

THE EU CRUSADERS…

By ATWadmin On March 15th, 2008

Lacking any serious military power, the dhimmified soft power European Union has decided instead to lead a world crusade for a "low-carbon" economy. A European Union summit promised to push through legislation within 12 months to impose ambitious targets to reduce the 1990 level of carbon emissions by one fifth by 2020. The European leaders also pledged, however, to take action, if necessary, to counter unfair competition from less eco-friendly countries, such as China or the United States. The French President, Nicolas Sarkozy, suggested that this could mean "carbon" taxes on manufactured goods from nations which refused to take radical action against global warming. So, the poor old EU will chase the imaginary and fantastical benefits of lower carbon emissions whilst punishing those nations which have rather better judgement. Sarkozy should be ashamed of his protectionism, wrapped up in the green rhetoric which now characterises the conniving euro-political class. 

33 Responses to “THE EU CRUSADERS…”

  1. So, the poor old EU will chase the imaginary and fantastical benefits of lower carbon emissions…

    No, the EU is making a serious attempt to wean itself off Saudi oil and Russian gas. Pretty sensible I’d say.

  2. I for one am astonished at the EU lumping the US in with China on this or any issue.

  3. Charles,

    Yeah, and what about India??

  4. David,

    "the imaginary and fantastical benefits of lower carbon emissions "

    There are at least four completely independent benefits of lower carbon emissions and they are by no means imaginary:

    1) CO2 is a GHG which (despite your denial of it) leads to global warming. This view is supported by basic physics, theory, observation, multiple independent lines of evidence, and most scientists. Everything we know about it says it will end badly. The main uncertainties are how badly (just severe, or catastrophic?), and when.

    2) CO2 is increasing the acidity of the oceans at an unprecedented rate. This is happening already, it is completely independent of the GHG effect and it follows from basic chemistry. This is likely to cause massive disruption to the entire marine food web. Yes, those poor whales.

    3) We are dependent on fossil fuels which are finite. We have to wean ourselves off them at some point and the later we leave it the more it will cost.

    4) Our dependence on fossil fuels means we are funding, and dependent on, some very nasty regimes.

    How many reasons do you need?

  5. The true aim of the global warming alarmists liars was exposed this week: socialist taxation, euro fredralist protectionism and an assault on freedom.

    Peter makes a good point. fossil fuels might become scarcer, and we are increasingly at the mercy of the communist hangover and Islamic nutjobs.

    But the answer is in finding alternatives, not restricting individual freedom. Notice how the climate change liars are now attacking bio fuels. They want to make people do what they say, they don’t reallly care about anything else.

  6. Frank, I would add that independent of CO2 levels from burning fossil fuels are the other chemicals released. For those of us who live in cities, we are fouling the air WE breathe. Respiratory problems are on the rise.

    We in the US are dealing with this and making a good deal of headway. Pity the poor Chinese however!

    I absoulutey agree with your #4.

  7. NRG

    You seem to be saying that the market will produce solutions without any governmental directions. It won’t. Governments need to set the framework, eg 20% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2020 in order to provide a market for alternative energy. Then the private sector and innovation can be left to get on with it.

    A good UK example is that by guaranteeing a massive investment in nuclear power, the government is discouraging investment in renewable energy. I support nuclear, but it should not be allowed to crowd out other energy solutions.

  8. Charles,

    "We in the US are dealing with this and making a good deal of headway."

    Dealt with by regulations, right?

    NRG,

    "Notice how the climate change liars are now attacking bio fuels. "

    No I don’t. Here’s one of those ‘climate change liars’, the chief scientist at BP, not attacking bio fuels. It is also one the best presentations of energy issues and options about.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wt_mluFK7xk

    At about 21mins he gets to talking about the environmental impacts.

  9. Frank

    The Youtube timebar says 85 minutes!

    I watched most of it – very interesting that the chief scientist of one of the largest oil companies totally accepts the AGW theory. But his message is depressing – we aren,t going to stabilise CO2 emissions at any safe level and they will probably continue to rise throughout this century.

    Of course the elephant in the room is population growth – from 3 billion in 1950 to 6 billion now to 9 billion in 2050. I think James Lovelock is pretty close to reality – he predicts that climate disaster is now inevitable and that it will reduce the population to around 2 billion by 2100. Think Irish Famine (population went from 8 million to 4 million in 40 years) but on a planetary scale and with no emigration escape route.

  10. Peter,

    Ireland’s position in some of those graphs was a surprise for me.

    I read James Lovelock’s last book but I found it fairly alarmist. I also think his Gaia theory is mystical nonsense. It’s a good analogy and I know he doesn’t mean it quite literally, but the idea that the earth somehow wants to create the conditions for life seems a bit barmy to me.

    That said, when you think about projections involving 2 doublings of CO2, which is very much on the cards, the appropriate response seems to be ‘holy crap’. We may also be blindsided yet by some other thing we are doing to the environment. Ocean acidity, deforestation (imagine sudden dieback of the Amazon rainforest), some tipping point we haven’t noticed, one too many extinctions in the food chain, or something else may be the ticking bomb.

    We are basically standing on top of a brick wall and knocking out bricks with a sledgehammer. One day we might hit something important.

  11. Frank

    I think Gaia is not meant to be pure science. But Lovelock is on solid ground about population increase and runaway climate change.

    One tipping point that was absent from The Revenge of Gaia was the collapse of the Gulf Stream due to melting arctic ice. I think we are going to hear a lot more about that in the next few years, and the chances of it happening suddenly are increasing rapidly. It would mean a new ice-age for northern Europe.

  12. Peter,

    "It would mean a new ice-age for northern Europe."

    Not necessarily, it could keep Europe cooler while the rest of the world warms, but with more weather extremes. Anyway I’m a lot more sceptical about this kind of regional prediction although the weakening of the ‘chimneys’ is pretty worrying. Maybe we were using those.

    Also I thought that was due to reduced salinity (never understood why they couldn’t just go to greenland and tip a load of saxo in the ocean if this was the case 🙂

    The latest thing to hit the deny-o-sphere is that the greenhouse effect is calculated wrongly. Considering the source it is most likely horse manure but it is interesting anyway. This article about it is absolutely hilarious. I’m sure we will be hearing about it at ATW before long. 🙂

  13. God’s a little smarter than we are. We can rest easy in that, knowing that as long as we don’t grossly abuse what God has given us, He’s built it well enough to maintain itself.

    Actually Frank, I think you have hit on an imporftant strand of denialist thinking. In the west, the denialists are almost invariably right-wing politically and fundamentalist christians by religion. Many of them believe that the world is due to end in this century (the "final days") and consequently climate catastrophe and / or nuclear war are part of the great scheme of things.

    The Gulf Stream is generally reckoned to be worth around 5 degrees celsius to northern Europe. A drop of that order could well trigger an ice age before AGW gets a grip.

  14. Peter,

    Well there are three strands to it…one is the type that believes that Katrina and tsunamis etc are god’s wrath for whatever, usually homosexuality (too bad about those kids playing on the beaches). Then there are the end times types. But I think the mainstream denier tends to believe in providence, just have faith and it will all be OK no matter how reckless we are. There is also I think an unspoken belief that the weather is God’s domain and humans can’t affect it. If it was volcanos putting out all the CO2, no problem. That would be an act of God.

    Of course this is not all and probably not even most Christians or believers, for example I don’t know if James Hansen is a Christian but I’d be surprised if he wasn’t, as he often refers to the possibility that we are destroying creation. If so I suspect his beliefs would be a major motivator of his work.

  15. Frank

    The Southern Baptists in the USA have recently come out in favour of the AGW theory and have called for their country to sign up to Kyoto. But there is still a vociferous minority of denialists within that religion.

  16. Frank/Peter, just wondered what your thoughts on the Manhattan Declaration were?

    ‘That there is no convincing evidence that CO2 emissions from modern industrial activity has in the past, is now, or will in the future cause catastrophic climate change’.

    http://devilskitchen.me.uk/2008/03/manhattan-declaration-on-climate-change.html

    You might find this interesting as well.

    Miklós Zágoni isn’t just a physicist and environmental researcher. He is also a global warming activist and Hungary’s most outspoken supporter of the Kyoto Protocol. Or was. That was until he learned the details of a new theory of the greenhouse effect, one that not only gave far more accurate climate predictions here on Earth, but Mars too. The theory was developed by another Hungarian scientist, Ferenc Miskolczi, an atmospheric physicist with 30 years of experience and a former researcher with NASA’s Langley Research Center.

    After studying it, Zágoni stopped calling global warming a crisis, and has instead focused on presenting the new theory to other climatologists. The data fit extremely well. "I fell in love," he stated at the International Climate Change Conference this week.

    "Runaway greenhouse theories contradict energy balance equations," Miskolczi states. Just as the theory of relativity sets an upper limit on velocity, his theory sets an upper limit on the greenhouse effect, a limit which prevents it from warming the Earth more than a certain amount.

    http://devilskitchen.me.uk/2008/03/positive-feedback.html

  17. Ah, I see you’d already spotted it Frank. As predicted, it didn’t take long. Why exactly is it ‘hilarious’?

  18. GA,

    Just the post that I linked is hilarious to me because it comes from a supporter of intelligent design, which is creationism 2.0 and is not science. The ‘skeptics’ need that kind of support like a hole in the head.

    Aside from that I think the paper mentioned could be interesting but I do not trust the source. This is the same source that misrepresented Kenneth Tapping’s views a short while back, for example. So I will wait for the real story to emerge and then see what I think. I am also curious how his results are quantified, and indeed if NASA wouldn’t publish them because of ‘money’, or simply because they were bollocks (and indeed if there is any truth to this charge that they wouldn’t publish). Still and all if this is a peer reviewed paper with any merit then it will be interesting to see what it means.

    The ‘manhattan declaration’ is not very interesting to me. It is the usual suspects making the usual arguments. I also looked at their ‘report’, and if you take away the attacks on the IPCC not a lot is left aside from the usual discredited arguments. Amusingly, I read that when they tried to take a group photo of the scientists at the conference, 19 people stepped forward.

    It is also rather sad in itself that so much of their report is about the IPCC rather than the climate. Compare to the real IPCC report, which doesn’t need to venture into any asides about how Singer et al are full of it. Even funnier is the fact that it purports to be a summary and there is no actual report to summarise!

    Last but not least they are calling world leaders and governments to reject a report that representatives of world leaders and governments have already signed off on line by line.

  19. GA,

    One other thing, neither that declaration nor the paper you reference alter the result that CO2 is also changing the pH of the oceans, i.e. making them more acidic. This is completely independent of any consideration that CO2 is a GHG (which it is).

  20. The method of getting the ridicule in first is the manner of operation of the blinkered warmist. I first saw the paper by Dr Miskolczi in the site below:

    http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=865dbe39-802a-23ad-4949-ee9098538277

    From the above link, one reads:

    Prominent Hungarian Physicist Dr. Miklós Zágoni, a former global warming activist who recently reversed his views about man-made climate fears and is now a skeptic, presented scientific findings at the conference refuting rising CO2 fears. Zágoni’s scientific mentor Hungarian scientist, Dr. Ferenc Miskolczi, an atmospheric physicist, resigned from his post working with NASA because he was disgusted with the agency’s lack of scientific freedom. Miskolczi, who also presented his peer-reviewed findings at the conference, said he wanted to release his new research that showed "runaway greenhouse theories contradict energy balance equations," but he claims NASA refused to allow him.

    “Unfortunately, my working relationship with my NASA supervisors eroded to a level that I am not able to tolerate. My idea of the freedom of science cannot coexist with the recent NASA practice of handling new climate change related scientific results,” Miskolczi said according to a March 6 Daily Tech article.

    Most important is that the paper has been peer-reviewed (i.e. not by Frank O’Dwyer so where Frank’s "hilarious" comes from with respect to the content of the paper can only be guessed at by a qualified psychiatrist). What is most despicable (warmist perspective) about Dr Miskolczi is that he has changed his mind in the light of review and evidence.

    I down-loaded the paper and I’ve given it to a colleague for his opinion. Maybe Frank can ask his colleagues at the bike shop for their opinions of Dr Miskolczi’s paper.

  21. Allan,

    "i.e. not by Frank O’Dwyer so where Frank’s "hilarious" comes from with respect to the content of the paper can only be guessed at by a qualified psychiatrist"

    You need to work on your reading comprehension. My "hilarious" referred to the article that I linked to, not the paper.

    If you have kept the receipt from your schooldays I think you should ask for the money back.

    "I down-loaded the paper and I’ve given it to a colleague for his opinion"

    Was it the guy in charge of the fries or the girl who puts the buns on the burger that you asked?

  22. "You need to work on your reading comprehension. My "hilarious" referred to the article that I linked to, not the paper. "

    Correct: 1-0 Frank

    "I down-loaded the paper and I’ve given it to a colleague for his opinion"

    Was it the guy in charge of the fries or the girl who puts the buns on the burger that you asked?

    My colleague has a PhD in one of the fields of Applied Maths.

    1-1.

    Now Frank, what about that paper? If it refutes the basis of your case (the ‘case’ being that MMGW has man-made CO2 and other greenhouse gases as drivers of global temperature increase), would you be willing to change your mind? Just to be absolutely clear here, I don’t oppose sensible policies (fiscal and conservation) on energy. I don’t use a car and I always take public transport because it’s convenient (in Norway, anyway). The author of the paper changed his mind. So Frank, can you envisage such a possibility?

  23. Allan,

    "My colleague has a PhD in one of the fields of Applied Maths."

    Perhaps then you should hand him or her these posts you are replying to so they can tell you what they mean. You’re not doing too well reading them on your own.

    You better move fast as with that kind of qualification they won’t always be working with you there at McDonalds.

    "Now Frank, what about that paper? If it refutes the basis of your case (the ‘case’ being that MMGW has man-made CO2 and other greenhouse gases as drivers of global temperature increase), would you be willing to change your mind?"

    Yes. Although that still leaves us with the increased acidity in the oceans.

    I will also go further and say that if this guy is correct and the story about NASA not publishing is true, then shame on them. Indeed even if it is not correct I find that disturbing and I would like to hear the explanation.

    Anyway so far the reaction to this paper that I have seen is that it is a strawman Allan. He says that runaway greenhouse effects cannot happen, but nobody’s talking about a runaway greenhouse effect for earth except as a tail end possibility – that would mean oceans boiling and so forth. After all this planet has ice age cycles so we already know there is something that stops the effect running away, at least so far. Another problem he has is that runaway greenhouse is what’s thought to have happened on Venus. If they are not possible then what happened there.

    Another point I will make is that in his conclusions he says this:

    "Considering the magnitude of the observed global average surface temperature rise and the consequences of the new greenhouse equations, the increased atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations must not be the reason of global warming."

    Another way of saying that is that his model disagrees with observations. He accounts for this by saying that some unknown cause is responsible for the warming. But, it may simply be that his model is not a model of reality. Or, perhaps it does not make any difference on the timescales we are talking about. Meanwhile the models that we’ve had so far based on equations he says are wrong *do* accord fairly well with reality. This doesn’t seem like a data point in his favor, though he might still be right.

    Anyway as I said I will be interested to see the discussion of it.

  24. McDonalds will do just fine without me Frank, and I’m sure that the bike shop will survive your re-capture.

    The thermal model (Figure 1, page 2) reminded me of something which is never mentioned when global temperature is considered. If the earth were shielded from the sun’s heat, its temperature would not be absolute zero. There is considerable heat created within the planet and I would reckon that this output is not constant.

    But it would now appear that there is a limit to your belief in MMGW.

    (Why ‘favor’ and not ‘favour’?)

  25. Allan,

    "McDonalds will do just fine without me Frank"

    Apologies, I didn’t know you’d been fired. There’s always the bread factory. In 20 or 30 years (if you learn to read) you could be driving the van. Think of that Allan. Chin up.

    "There is considerable heat created within the planet and I would reckon that this output is not constant."

    This is never mentioned because the heat from the interior is negligible relative to the input from the sun.

    "(Why ‘favor’ and not ‘favour’?)"

    No real reason, I just prefer American spellings for some things and this is an international site.

  26. Meanwhile back in the real world of melting glaciers:

    "The world’s glaciers are melting faster than at any time since records began, threatening catastrophe for hundreds of millions of people and their eco-systems. The details are revealed in the latest report from the World Glacier Monitoring Service and will add to growing alarm about the rise in sea levels and increased instances of flooding, avalanches and drought.

    Based on historical records and other evidence, the rate at which the glaciers are melting is also thought to be faster that at any time in the past 5,000 years, said Professor Wilfried Haeberli, director of the monitoring service. ‘There’s no absolute proof, but nevertheless the evidence is strong: this is really extraordinary.’

    Experts have been monitoring 30 glaciers around the world for nearly three decades and the most recent figures, for 2006, show the biggest ever ‘net loss’ of ice. Achim Steiner, head of the UN Environment Programme (UNEP), told The Observer that melting glaciers were now the ‘loudest and clearest’ warning signal of global warming."

  27. From Pweter’s linked report in The Guardian:

    "The revelation that the world’s glaciers are in retreat came as Tony Blair began a series of high-level environmental meetings in Japan, China and India as the leader of a new international team charged with securing a global deal on climate change. In a speech yesterday in Chiba, Japan, Blair said that the world now faced catastrophe."

    Oh dear, what a time to go to China and warn them of ‘global warming’. Do you know what I mean, Peter?

  28. This is interesting:

    http://www.ippr.org.uk/members/download.asp?f=%2Fecomm%2Ffiles%2Fwarm%5Fwords%2Epdf

    It’s the IPPR’s advice on how to present the case for MMGW – very slick indeed. It includes:

    Treating climate change as beyond argument.

    Much of the noise in the climate change discourse comes from argument and counter-argument, and it is
    our recommendation that, at least for popular communications, interested agencies now need to treat the argument as having been won. This means simply behaving as if climate change exists and is real, and that individual actions are effective. This must be done by stepping away from the ‘advocates debate’ described earlier, rather than by stating and re-stating these things as fact.
    The ‘facts’ need to be treated as being so taken-for-granted that they need not be spoken. The certainty of
    the Government’s new climate-change slogan – ‘Together this generation will tackle climate change’ (Defra
    2006) – gives an example of this approach. It constructs, rather than claims, its own factuality.
    Where science is invoked, it now needs to be as ‘lay science’ – offering lay explanations for what is being
    treated as a simple established scientific fact, just as the earth’s rotation or the water cycle are considered.

  29. Allan

    Are the glaciers melting or not? How many canaries need to die in the mine before denialists like you get the message?

  30. Peter –

    It would mean a new ice-age for northern Europe.

    Bring it on. As good as last week was in Courchevel, you can never have too much snow.

  31. Peter, if the glaciers were melting, then (you say that) sea levels would be rising, and the low-lying islands would have disappeared. Have the islands disappeared? Are the islands disappearing?

  32. Arctic Ocean Getting Warm; Seals Vanish and Icebergs Melt.

    The Arctic ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot, according to a report to the Commerce Department yesterday from Consul Ifft, at Bergen, Norway.
    Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers, he declared, all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone. Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met with as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes. Soundings to a depth of 3,100 meters showed the gulf stream still very warm.
    Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, the report continued, while at many points well known glaciers have entirely disappeared. Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic, while vast shoals of herring and smelts, which have never before ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing grounds.

    The Washington Post Nov. 2, 1922

  33. Henry,

    There is some data on sea ice going back that far and the recent melt is a record over the entire data set.

    See here for a good discussion of it.

    (But also see here, for somebody saying it’s perhaps just a blip and what matters is the long term trend in the ice – which is downward)