Dear All,
May I please make an important (and indeed profound) suggestion that might
help all your efforts/wishes ?!
Can I greatly recommend not using words that produce a "them and us" effect
at ANY time - particularly if you wish to get your way. Issues/Words like
Israel and Palestine, Black or White, British and Pakistani, Pro-Climate
Change or Anti-Climate change, Devious and Cooperative, Human and Animal,
Christian and Muslim, etc...etc... are just some of the very simple-seeming
things that create Barriers where in reality none exist, and hence
Obstinacy, Wars, Hatred, automatic repulsion and disagreement, etc, and
many of the Human World's problems that exist result from such simple
things. We're all Human beings, whether you agree with other Humans or not,
but, like it or not, you will change nothing if they're not on your side,
and all you'll do is formed barriered camps and aggressive discourse, or
worse, and chase your own tail getting nowhere fast. Best to walk in the
same direction together, even if you're not holding hands ;) , and you'll
have a massive affect towards what you want at the same time (no wasted
effort on barriers) both headings the same way together - now that is
skill, and worth the working for...
It's also true in my experience that much, but by no means all, of the
science that is communicated about IS derived from financially-dependent
bias, fashionable bias, personal ego, personal inexperience or
narrow/restricted viewpoint, incorrect or narrow/too focused assumptions
and interpretations, and other Human imperfections. It's as well to see and
get ourselves right first before blaming others !
I, to a very great extent, have as much to learn from this as each of you,
and am myself trying! ('course, still write too much!! :) )
Best Wishes to All of You !
Chris. M.
Quoting SowNet <[log in to unmask]>:
> Dear All,
>
> Aubrey's right. Lawson, like Lomborg, is scientifically ignorant -
> literally, choosing to ignore the extent of the evidence. I think he is
> probably also terrified that the days of continuous economic growth are
> numbered.
>
> Here's my (unpubished) letter to the G on Blair's U-turn on Climate
> Change, faxed to Blair, Howard,Kennedy and Margaret Beckett - the last
> with the PS in response to her letter today.
>
> It's time to stop mincing our words, don't you agree?
>
> Jim Scott
>
> _________________________________________________________
> Wednesday 2 November 2005
>
> The Editor,
>
> The Guardian,
>
>
>
> Sir,
>
> U-turn on Climate Change
>
> Ever since 'The Limits to Growth' was published in 1979, it was clearly
> just a matter of time for the predominant ideology of continuous economic
> growth to hit the buffers. Now Blair is signalling that it is happening -
> in the face of the most devastating challenge to the survival of life as
> we know it - climate change ('Blair signals shift over climate change'
> Guardian 2 November 2005).
>
> Just over a year ago he tried to make out that the 'UK had demonstrated
> that economic growth did not have to be at the expense of the environment
> ('Blair calls for UK lead on climate change' Guardian 15 September 2004).
> It was not convincing then, and he has clearly abandoned it now.
> Unfortunately he uses weasel words to justify the change, implying that
> no 'external force is (really) going to ... restrict your economic
> growth' - despite the evidence that the latest wave of hurricanes is
> already doing precisely that.
>
> Of course 'no country will want to sacrifice its economy in order to meet
> this challenge' - but we don't employ heads of state to act as
> soothsayers. Since this is a real challenge, we need leadership, not
> deviousness. We need Blair to warn the people of the dangers and make the
> 'tough choices' that he is always talking about, with regard to lesser
> matters. He is so keen on setting targets for health and education, why
> does he shy away from them when they are really needed, in order to
> ensure all our survival in the face of what he himself has described as
> 'a greater threat to the world than terrorism'?
>
> People may quite understandably be "very nervous and very worried" over
> setting legally binding targets to reduce pollution - but not nearly as
> worried as they will be to discover that their Prime Minister is in a
> funk and running away from the necessity for them. If such action is
> 'politically unacceptable', is he not in fact saying that our system of
> party politics, and so parliamentary democracy itself, is incapable of
> facing such challenges?
>
> Yours faithfully,
>
> Jim Scott, Chairperson, SAVE OUR WORLD
>
> C/c Tony Blair, Michael Howard, Charles Kennedy, Margaret Beckett - [with
> this] PS: 4/11/05 With reference to your Guardian letter to day, the
> prime minister may not 'condemn targets' but he clearly does not support
> them. Kyoto was an attempted 'binding international framework' [which
> she calls for] but its targets were both unenforced and too low.
>
> [If I had more space I could have added: "but at least Kyoto did attempt
> to set targets, which the prime minister now proposes to abandon.
> Although you say 'the prime minister has been a strong supporter of the
> Kyoto protocol', is he still a supporter of it?" Margaret Beckett's
> letter is 'well spun!']
>
> Visit www.save-our-world.net (global) & www.save-our-world.org.uk
> Registered charity no. 1111210 in England & Wales
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Aubrey Meyer
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Sent: Thursday, November 03, 2005 7:52 PM
> Subject: Re: Nigel Lawson joins ranks of climate change deniers
>
>
> Powerful in the 'financial-world' though he may be, the Noble Lord is
> more Lawless than Lawson if he thinks his power extends to being able to
> suspend the laws of physics.
>
> George Marshall <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Dear friends,
>
> in this new article Nigel Lawson, still a powerful figure in the
> financial world, argues for growth and adaptation rather than
> mitigation. His analysis comes from Lomborg and some of his critique
> from the hard core climate change deniers. What is especially
> concerning
> is his aggressive line against environmentalism and the IPCC, and his
> apparent disregard for the impacts in the poorest countries.
>
> Yours
>
> George Marshall
> Co-Executive Director
> The Climate Outreach and Information Network (COIN)
>
>
>
>
> November 2005 | 116
> » Web
> exclusive
> » Against
> Kyoto
>
> Not only is the Kyoto approach to global warming wrong-headed, the
> climate change establishment's suppression of dissent and criticism
> is
> little short of a scandal. The IPCC should be shut down
>
>
> Nigel Lawson
>
> *http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/article_details.php?id=7117*
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> Nigel Lawson is a former chancellor of thee exchequer
>
> Nothing could better illustrate the intellectual bankruptcy of what
> might be termed the climate change establishment than Michael Grubb's
> September article in Prospect "Stick to the Target." He is clearly
> outraged by the fact that, in July, the House of Lords select
> committee
> on economic affairs published a report, "The Economics of Climate
> Change," which had the temerity to express considerable scepticism
> about
> both the reliability of the IPCC process--the intergovernmental panel
> on
> climate change, set up under the auspices of the UN to inform and
> advise
> governments on what is clearly a global issue--and the desirability
> of
> the Kyoto/emissions targets approach to tackling the problem.
>
> Although I was a member of that committee, I cannot speak for it as a
> whole. But my own understanding of the issue is clear. The IPCC
> story,
> which appears to have been swallowed hook, line and sinker by most
> governments, not least our own, is as follows. Over the past
> millennium,
> the world's mean temperature scarcely changed at all until around
> 1860,
> when direct records first began. Since then it has risen (not
> steadily,
> in fact: there was a period of cooling between 1945 and 1965) by an
> unprecedented 0.6 degrees Celsius. This can only be due to the
> simultaneous growth in the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere
> as
> a result of industrialisation, which warms the planet by the
> so-called
> greenhouse effect. Unless something is done about it, this warming is
> set to continue, and probably to accelerate, as world economic growth
> continues apace, and with it carbon dioxide emissions. On this basis,
> a
> range of possible scenarios can be produced, showing further
> increases
> in world temperature ranging from 1.7 degrees to 6.1 degrees by the
> end
> of the present century, with dire consequences on a number of fronts.
> The only solution is to cut back on carbon dioxide emissions as much
> and
> as soon as possible, and the best way to do this is by the Kyoto
> process
> of internationally agreed emissions targets.
>
> While there is little doubt that carbon dioxide emissions, other
> things
> being equal, do warm the atmosphere--although reputable climate
> scientists differ over the extent of this warming--every other aspect
> of
> the IPCC story iis seriously flawed.
>
> First, the history. The "hockey-stick" chart of temperatures over the
> past millennium (so called because the constant temperature over the
> long period up to 1860 resembles the straight handle and the
> subsequent
> rise the curved blade), which featured prominently in the
> government's
> 2003 energy white paper, is almost certainly a myth. There is, for
> example, ample evidence of a warm period--warmer than today--in the
> middle ages and of a very cold period around 1800. Historical
> treeline
> studies--showing hoow far up mountains trees are able to grow at
> different times, which is clearly correlated with climate
> change--confirm this variation. This would not matter very much,
> merely
> indicating that the climate fluctuates all the time and that the
> present
> warming phase is by no means without precedent, were it not for the
> IPCC's consistent refusal to entertain any dissent, however well
> reseached, over the issue since it first published the "hockey-stick"
> chart.
>
> Next, the scenarios. It is of course hard to form a view of the
> likely
> rate of world economic growth over the next hundred years; but it is
> striking that all the IPCC scenarios incorporate a heartwarmingly
> rapid
> rate of growth in the developing world, so that by the end of the
> century income per head in the developing world is well above what it
> is
> in the rich world today. This may happen--I hope it does--but it is
> clear that the IPCC scenarios do not capture the true range of
> realistically possible outccomes.
>
> This upward bias is further compounded by the translation from
> economic
> growth to growth in carbon dioxide emissions. The recent historical
> record shows a steady decline in this rate of growth, from 2.3 per
> cent
> a year over the past 40 years, to 1.6 per cent a year over the past
> 30
> years, to 1.3 per cent a year over the past 20 years, to 1.2 per cent
> a
> year over the past 10 years. This should not be surprising. In the
> first
> place, economic progress is a story of increasing efficiency in the
> use
> of all factors of production. In the case of labour this is
> customarily
> referred to as growth in productivity, but precisely the same applies
> to
> land and energy. Second, the pattern of world economic growth has
> been
> changing, with services, which are less energy-intensive, growing
> faster
> than manufacturing, which is more so.
>
> What is surprising, however, is the IPCC's assumption that this trend
> will now be reversed. Its six scenarios for the 21st century are
> based
> on an annual rate of growth in carbon dioxide emissions ranging from
> 1.4
> per cent a year (appreciably greater, rather than less, than in the
> recent past) to 2.3 per cent a year (almost double the rate of the
> recent past). Once again, although the future is inevitably
> uncertain,
> it is clear that the IPCC scenarios do not capture the true range of
> plausible futures. And of course this upward bias feeds directly into
> an
> upward bias in projected climate change.
>
> There are two possible reasons why this should be so, and why the
> IPCC
> is so adamant that it will not revisit its assumptions. Both may be
> true. The first is that those involved in the exercise are so
> profoundly
> concerned about the perils of global warming, and the risk of
> governments deferring the action they believe is needed, that the
> scarier the outlook they can produce the better. The second is a
> characteristic of any institution looking into any problem: the more
> serious the problem can be made to appear, the more important the
> institution and its personnel become and the more attention they can
> command.
>
> But however understandable, this is not helpful in a world of limited
> resources where there are many other problems jostling for attention
> and
> the devotion of additional resources: to take just two examples,
> dealing
> with the more imminent dangers posed by Islamic terrorism and by
> nuclear
> proliferation--and by the possible interaction between them.
> Humanitarian aid to the world's poorest is another obvious candidate
> for <
> more resources. At the margin, choices have to be made, and it is
> essential they are made on the basis of the most rational assessments
> we
> can achieve.
> Which brings us to the question of what is to be done about such
> global
> warming as is likely to occur. There are two possible approaches, not
> mutually exclusive: mitigation: seeking to stabilise and, if
> possible,
> reduce the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere; and
> adaptation:
> to accept that the climate may well be warming, and to take action to
> counter any harmful consequences that may flow from this. The IPCC
> and
> its acolytes make only the most perfunctory acknowledgment of
> adaptation, base their estimates of the damage from global warming on
> the assumption that very little adaptation occurs, and focus almost
> exclusively on the need for mitigation. By contrast, perhaps the most
> important conclusion of the House of Lords report is that adaptation
> needs to take centre stage.
>
> Numerous studies have shown that adaptation is the more
> cost-effective
> option. Not only is it the way we normally come to terms with
> climatic
> vagaries, but--a fact which the IPCC does its best to play
> down--there
> are benefits as well as costs from global warming. There are, off
> course,
> regional variations: in northern Europe, for example, including
> Britain,
> for the rest of this century the benefits are likely to exceed the
> costs, whereas for the tropics the reverse is the case. But
> adaptation,
> which implies pocketing the benefits while acting to diminish the
> costs,
> has obvious attractions.
>
> The four principal costs potentially involved in global warming are
> damage to agriculture and food production, water shortage, coastal
> flooding (as sea levels rise), and--allegedly--malaria. In the case
> of
> agriculture, adaptation, much of which will occur without the need
> for
> governmentt action, would consist of cultivating areas which have
> hitherto been too cold to be economic and, in other cases, switching
> to
> crops better suited to warmer climates. In the case of water
> shortage,
> we already waste water on a massive scale, and there is ample scope
> for
> water conservation measures.
>
> The most serious likely cost is that caused by coastal flooding of
> low-lying areas, where government action is clearly required, in the
> form of the construction of effective sea defences--as the Dutch have
> had for more than 500 years. With modern technology this becomes a
> highly cost-effective option. Finally, as to malaria--which leading
> malaria experts argue is unrelated to temperature, noting that the
> disease was endemic in Europe until the 17th century--the means of
> combating if not eradicating this scourge are well established.
>
> By contrast, the Kyoto/emissions targets approach seems a most
> unattractive option. Michael Grubb admitted, in his evidence to the
> House of Lords committee, that even if the existing Kyoto targets
> were
> attained, they would make little if any difference to the rate of
> global
> warming: Kyoto's importance for him was as a first step to other,
> stiffer, such agreements. But this is pie in the sky. The developing
> countries, including major contributors to future carbon dioxide
> emissions like China and India, are determined to remain outside the
> process, while the US, the biggest emitter of all, has declined to
> ratify the treaty. Moreover, since the only sanction against
> non-compliance with Kyoto (which is likely to be widespread) is even
> stricter targets in any successor agreement, the realism of this
> approach is even harder to detect.
>
> This is no bad thing, since the cost of going the emissions targets
> route, if it were effective, would be horrendous. Essentially, it
> would
> work by raising the cost of carbon-based energy to the point where
> carbon-free energy sources, and other carbon-saving measures, become
> economic. Given that only last month Gordon Brown told the annual TUC
> conference that the recent rise in oil prices was a global problem
> requiring a global solution, and called on the oil-producing nations
> to
> reduce their prices, there seems to be some lack of coherence in the
> government's approach. For Kyoto-style mitigation to be seriously
> effective involves a substantially greater rise in energy prices than
> anything we have yet seen--although the government's energy white
> paper
> was curiously silent about this.
>
> But the real cost of this approach is not so much dearer energy as
> the
> reduction in world economic growth. It is far from self-evident, not
> least for the developing world, that over the next 100 years a poorer
> but cooler world is to be preferred to a richer but warmer one. And
> why
> should the present and next generations sacrifice their living
> standards
> in order to benefit more distant generations, who are projected in
> any
> event to be considerably better off?
>
> The IPCC process is so flawed, and the institution so closed to
> reason,
> that it would be far better to thank it for the work it has done,
> close
> it down, and transfer all future international collaboration on the
> issue of climate change to the established Bretton Woods
> institutions.
> Meanwhile, whether this happens or not, it is imperative that in this
> country the treasury becomes fully involved in all this. In my time
> as
> chancellor, it would have been unthinkable for the treasury not to
> have
> made its own independent and rigorous economic analysis of a matter
> as
> important as climate change.
>
> But the IPCC's apparent determination to suppress or ignore
> dissenting
> views, which has become little short of a scandal, is part of a wider
> problem. In Europe, where climate change absolutism is at its
> strongest,
> the quasi-religion of greenery in general and the climate change
> issue
> in particular have filled the vacuum of organised religion, with
> reasoned questioning of its mantras regarded as a form of blasphemy.
>
> We have recently seen a further example of this in the widespread
> assumption that the Mexican gulf coast hurricanes, Katrina and Rita,
> are
> a consequence of global warming--a punishment, it is implied, for our
> heedless materialism and disregard of the planet. One wonders, in
> that
> case, whhat caused the region's worst recorded hurricane, which
> devastated Galveston in 1900. In fact, the balance of scientific
> opinion
> is that there is no convincing evidence that the further climate
> change
> which is feared might occur over the coming decades will lead to an
> increased incidence and severity of hurricanes, let alone the modest
> degree of warming that we have seen so far.
>
> As Dick Taverne has pointed out, we appear to have entered a new age
> of
> unreason, which threatens to be as economically harmful as it is
> profoundly disquieting. It must not be allowed to prevail.End of the
> article
>
>
> --
>
> George Marshall
> Co-Executive Director
> The Climate Outreach and Information Network (COIN)
> 16B Cherwell Stt. Oxford, OX4 1BG, UK.
> Telephone 01865 727 911
> Mobile 0795 150 4549
> E-mail [log in to unmask]
> Web: www.COINet.org.uk
>
> COIN is a charitable trust, registration number 1102225. It supports
> initiatives and organisations that increase public understanding and
> awareness of climate change.
>
>
>
>
|
