Global Warming and the UN
Fear mongering in support of worldwide taxation
By Stephen Pidgeon
April 5, 2007
Andrew Revkin has published an article claiming that a “U.N. Study Shows Likely Impact of Global Warming (April 4, 2007) claiming that “the latest United Nations assessment of the role of humans in global warming has found with “high confidence” that greenhouse gas emissions are at least partly responsible for a host of changes already under way, including longer growing seasons and shrinking glaciers.”
A summary of the working draft of their report, to be released Friday in Brussels, was provided to The New York Times on Wednesday, April 4, by several people involved in reviewing it. It is worth a critical review. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change at the United Nations has issued its fourth assessment since 1990 of the basic science that points to a human culpability on the rise of global mean temperature.
This begs the question: how good is their science?
In their report, the IPCC said there was at least a 90 percent chance that most warming since 1950 had resulted from a continuing buildup of heat-trapping emissions in the atmosphere. On their own data, their conclusions are a chance, and there is a one-in-ten chance that they are completely wrong. Personally, I long for the express correlations to be set forth in a table where a concise analysis can be had. Something that shows, for instance, how much CO2 is evaporating from the oceans each day and comparing that with the estimated CO2 output of humans. Something that shows, for instance, exactly what percentage of the CO2 in the atmosphere is man-caused, and, even more specifically, something that shows the exact perpetrators. The IPCC report apparently considers forest fires to be a major contributor.
I have to ask the questions. Is man-made CO2 derived from automobile use? Is most of the greenhouse gas derived from electric generating power plants? Does this contribution include gases from nuclear powered electricity generating plants? How much does simple exhaling contribute to the problem? If the generation of electricity is the chief cause, should we continue to develop electric cars?
My great thirst is, however, for hard data. Does the IPCC have conclusive data that shows (not by means of computer forecasting, but actual hard data) 1) an actual increase in the mean temperature of the planet; 2) that is of statistical significance (more than 3%); 3) that such change can be conclusively shown to be non-cyclical (that is, is the warming significantly above in a statistically significant way the high-temperature marks in previous cycles); and 4) that can be statistically correlated with specific behaviors of man?
Why do I ask for this hard data? Suppose we have a solution, such as firing magnetic particles into the stratosphere to block UV rays, which may be guaranteed by the company producing such a product to lower the mean temperature on earth by, let’s say, 5 degrees. Should we do this, if in fact there is no non-cyclical global warming? What kind of disaster would that bring?
Let’s take a look at this hard science coming from the U.N., shall we?
The new report describes the specific effects of climate changes on people and ecology; identifies those species and regions at “greatest risk” for global warming disasters. The report does not describe species and regions that are currently being affected by global warming disasters, but rather, those that could be affected, IF their science, which is a chance at best and which has a one-in-ten chance of being completely wrong, is correct.
The U.N. goes on to describe their proposed options for limiting risks. I will discuss this at length below.
The IPCC believes that some of the changes could be beneficial (IF their science, which has a one in ten chance of being completely wrong [hereafter “ITS1-10WC”], is correct, but most will prove harmful in the long run, the report says.
It finds that “global warming caused by humans has almost certainly (or, as we used to say, “definitely maybe”) contributed to recent shifts in ecosystems, weather patterns, oceans and icy regions”, (such as what? I still need hard data that there has been recent shifts in ecosystems, recent shifts in weather patterns and recent shifts in the oceans and icy regions – SHOW ME THE DATA) and that it will have large and lasting effects on human affairs and on the planet’s web of life in this century” (ITS1-10WC).
The draft report predicts (which is to say that it hasn’t yet happened) a variety of health effects as well, with “increased deaths, disease and injury due to heat waves, floods, storms, fires and droughts,” (ITS1-10WC) but also “some benefits to health such as fewer deaths from cold.” Of course, fewer deaths from cold will only benefit those people who live where freezing temperatures are common – that is to say, the wealthy northern countries such as the EU, the US and Canada. Everyone else will miss out on this benefit.
Also in the plus column, according the IPCC, higher concentrations (I would like to see the hard data proving that there are non-cyclical higher concentrations) of carbon dioxide, the main heat-trapping gas, are contributing to a greener world, according to the draft. Oh no! More trees that will be either 1) frozen by the new ice age that will descend on us as a result of global warming; or 2) burned up by global warming.
“Based on satellite observations since the early 1980s, there is high confidence that there has been a trend in many regions towards earlier greening of vegetation in the spring and increased net primary production linked to longer growing seasons and increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations,” it said. Okay, let’s see the hard data on atmospheric CO2 concentrations and the comparative analysis over the centuries that does not include computer projections.
But “warming in cool regions can bring” (which is to say that it is not currently bringing) “mixed results,” the draft says. The report gives the example that “while temperate and higher latitudes could be (ITS1-10WC) friendlier to farming, they are also proving friendlier to weeds, as well as insect pests and wildfires that are likely (ITS1-10WC and note: not very likely, but merely, likely) to imperil forests.” The IPCC is of course finding that food production will at some time in the future (ITS1-10WC) imperil forests by bringing on more weeds, insects and the possibility of forest fires. Good thing the greenhouse gases are causing more trees to grow!
Fortunately, all the brains in the world that are worth knowing are discussing the report, including hundreds of authors and government representatives from more than 100 countries who are meeting this week in Brussels and conferring by e-mail (which by the way causes global warming). According to recent reports, “these scientists and government officials sparred over the wording of the draft today, according to some people involved, with disagreements on the level of certainty in projections of health and ecological consequences of warming.” In other words, the guesses have to be at least reasonable. Some people with a modicum of education – which may or may not include these scientists and government officials – are realizing that these predictions will be easily measured in just a few short years, which, if they prove to be wrong (and there is a one-in-ten chance that they are completely wrong) will destroy their legacy in perpetuity. This is to say, they will be historically understood as “fools.”
The IPCC report is expected to provide significant new detail on a world increasingly influenced by human actions, “most notably the buildup of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases emitted mainly “by burning fossil fuels and forests”. Okay, who is burning the forests? The only forest fires I know of are those caused by environmental groups who block efforts to farm timber in a reasonable manner in order to ensure that future generations (that is to say, children of other people who didn’t buy the over-population crisis) can count tree rings in old growth timber. Maybe, just maybe, they are talking about man’s consumption of refined oil products and coal. Okay, give me the percentage in hard data. Given the number of “scientists” on board with this theory of “global warming,” the hard data should not be that difficult to amass. As it stands, it looks like the bulk of the concern is over forest fires, which can present a real difficulty, since the greenhouse gases are causing more forests to grow. I’m not sure I can find the crisis in this yet, but then again, I’m not in Brussels, am I?
Instead of hard data proving global warming, we have “predictions.” Oh, good! Well, how about some hard data (that is to say, something other than computerized hockey stick projections based on red noise) that lend credence to the predictions?
The IPCC claims that “in the long run, most regions are likely (ITS1-10WC) to be more harmed than helped by the changes.” For example, projections (ITS1-10WC) for coming decades “foresee intensifying drought and downpours, as well as a relentless intrusion of rising seas — at an uncertain rate” (so uncertain, for instance, we can’t even be sure they’re going to rise at all!) “— along crowded coasts and around low-lying islands.” This means that there should be a transfer of wealth by force using the auspices of the U.N. from those who are not living on crowded coasts and low-lying islands, to those who do.
“Water supplies fed by alpine snows or ice sheets are already seeing changes (which so far are consistent with cyclic weather changes consistent with solar flare activity) and could be (ITS1-10WC) greatly disrupted,” the IPCC draft report says.
The draft report of the IPCC includes these predictions:
“Coasts are very likely (ITS1-10WC) to be exposed to increasing risks due to climate change and sea-level rise and the effect will be (ITS1-10WC) exacerbated by increasing human-induced pressures on coastal areas.” Which is to say, it is not happening now.
“It is likely (ITS1-10WC) that corals will experience (ITS1-10WC)a major decline due to increased bleaching and mortality due to rising seawater temperatures.” This prediction is apparently less likely than increase risks to coasts, which are very likely, this prediction being only likely. This, too, is not happening now.
“Many of the world’s regions that are already vulnerable to climate and coastal hazards are likely (ITS1-10WC) to see the biggest effects from additional changes driven by the buildup of greenhouse gases. “Poor communities can be especially vulnerable,” it says, “because they tend to be concentrated in relatively high-risk areas, have more limited coping capacities, and can be more dependent on climate-sensitive resources such as local water and food supplies.” This prediction is apparently less likely than increase risks to coasts, which are very likely, this prediction being only likely. This, too, is not happening now.
“The existing and projected threats to these regions are justification for a greatly intensified effort by development groups, wealthy countries and governments in poor countries to bolster the resilience (or, as we used to say, endeavor to persevere [see, The Outlaw Josey Wales – a pretty good movie]) in regions most at risk,” officials said. This means taking money from the wealthy nations and giving it to the non-wealthy nations.
Achim Steiner, a United Nations under secretary general who is executive director of the United Nations Environment Program, would not comment directly on the climate panel’s draft findings, because he would like to keep his job after they are proven false. But he said in an e-mail exchange that development projects in the world’s struggling countries would need to take climate hazards into account.
“Trillions of dollars (belonging to someone else who was willing to work for a living) will be invested in infrastructure in developing countries alone over the coming years,” he said. “The challenge is to ensure that climate change impacts are factored into investment decisions at the outset so that, say, a road, railway or power plant is planned with climate change in mind” (ITS1-10WC).