As I remember it that was the title of the B side of Black Lace’s classic 80s disco track Agadoo. But today the focus on the city is a little more mainstream.
56 newspapers in 45 countries have taken the unprecedented step of speaking with one voice through a common editorial. “The science is complex but the facts are clear” the editorial says:
Unless we combine to take decisive action, climate change will ravage our planet, and with it our prosperity and security. The dangers have been becoming apparent for a generation. Now the facts have started to speak: 11 of the past 14 years have been the warmest on record, the Arctic ice-cap is melting and last year’s inflamed oil and food prices provide a foretaste of future havoc. In scientific journals the question is no longer whether humans are to blame, but how little time we have got left to limit the damage. Yet so far the world’s response has been feeble and half-hearted.
But the doubters are gaining credibility and publicity. Funded by a well organised and industry backed network they remind me of those scientists who were wheeled out through the 70s and 80s to raise doubts about the links between cancer and smoking.
People are easily confused by science. By planting seeds of doubt it will be even harder to persuade people that they need to alter their lifestyles as part of coming to terms with a carbon constrained future.
It seems de rigueur on the right to question the links between human activity and global warming, and even to doubt the planet is warming. It is a shame that Glyn Davies is genuflecting in the direction of the sceptics.
Put aside the details of climate change science, it seems common sense to me that we have developed an economy and society based on over consumption which cannot be maintained without a significant impact on the environment which we rely on.
Perhaps that it is putting it too simply, but you can overcomplicate these things. We cannot exploit our natural resources indefinately without consequences.
Simple as…Push pinapple, ground coffee…
Dr. Christopher Wood 3:10 pm on 7 December, 2009 Permalink
“It is a shame that Glyn Davies is genuflecting in the direction of the sceptics.”
It’s not a question of being sceptic – it’s a question of the lack of good old fashioned reliable science. The whole area of climate science has been corrupted by politicization – to the extent it is questionable if it is justifiable to use the term “science”.
As to your common sense argument, please answer this question: what happens if you add heat to an object? It looses more heat. As the world warms up – so it loses more heat to surrounding space, the earth will radiate more heat energy into space. It seems that the computer models make the assumption that this will not happen, that the earth will retain more of the heat instead of irradiating the heat into space. This is against common sense and perhaps explains why the computer models did not predict the current cool down cycle that the Earth is experiencing. It looks like we have to relearn King Canute’s lesson all over again.
The climate research groups are not releasing the raw data on which their models are based – they are using every trick to stop the release of the raw data despite numerous requests for this data. This is plain wrong – why are they fighting the release of the data?
Yes, the world’s climate is changing – it is always changing, it is either cooling up or cooling down. Back in the 70s climate scientists were arguing that man’s activities would cause a global cool down and a new ice age.
Supercomputer modeling can deliver what ever answer you want, it is inherently inaccurate because of the approximations that have to be used to get an answer in reasonable time. None of the supercomputer models can accurately predict the world’s climate – for starters they did not predict the current cool down.
I am very much in favour of cutting back on pollution – Canada is fast becoming a problem in that regard – China too.
If folks want to reduce pollution, then stop buying things made in China – the pollution caused by the huge ships bringing the goods is ENORMOUS … these ships burn dirty extremely dirty fuel (including high sulphur/sulfur content fuel).
Btw, the Earth is not going to be fundamentally damaged by anything we do – think about it. The entire world’s nukes and all the world’s nuke power stations could detonate tomorrow – mankind would be damaged – but actually animal and plant life would in general flourish. Look at Chernobyl – the areas around the nuke plant are bursting with life – plants and animals are flourishing. Man isn’t flourishing – but man less able to cope with such large radioactive leaks. Dying for us is a big issue, animals and plants die as a way of adapting to the new environment. Radiation is part of the evolution of life on this planet – it is a driving force.
Lee Waters 5:58 pm on 7 December, 2009 Permalink
Christopher. I am reassured by your example, if Chernobyl is what lies ahead of us what is the fuss all about?
Dr. Christopher Wood 7:36 pm on 7 December, 2009 Permalink
Lee> We are but a blimp on Gaia – there is literally nothing that we can do to stop or destroy life on this planet – it is not within our power. That is a baseline that you obviously are unaware of. Even Al Gore recently stated that global warming will have no real impact on life on this planet – just that if global warming happens it will impact on mankind, e.g., coastal cities. But actually, the real worry is not global warming but a new ice age. If temperature drops agriculture will vastly diminish whereas with global warming plant life will be more abundant and if CO2 levels do rise further, there will be bumper harvests.
Green house operators often boost the CO2 in their greenhouses to accelerate plant growth (e.g., tomatoes).
It’s an application of Le Chatlier’s principle – a scientific principle that man uses in the manufacture of ammonia – by boosting pressure we shift the equlibrium to the right. If the earth’s atmosphere warms up – there will be counter affects – more heat will be radiated into space – something that is generally ignored in the models – and one has to ask the serious question: why?
Now a question for you: do you know why Lord Kelvin got the age of the Earth wrong? Many people believed he got it right. But he was billions of years out. Do you know why?
Lee Waters 11:47 am on 8 December, 2009 Permalink
Christopher, I tolerate your verbose posts in a spirit of mutal respect. I’d be grateful if you didn’t patronise me.
Dr. Christopher Wood 2:36 pm on 8 December, 2009 Permalink
It’s a serious question Lee, which you haven’t answered. Let me answer it for you, Lord Kelvin is a giant in science – his contributions to the field of Thermodynamics are beyond question, some refer to him as the Father of Thermodynamics, you may of heard of him by way of the Absolute Temperature Scale – or perhaps you have heard scientists and/or Engineers refer to temperature in Kelvin.
During his career Kelvin calculated the age of our planet based on available data – it took a few years to correct his miscalculation – he was out by billions of years. His calculations were wrong because they were based on an incomplete data set, but his calculation was correct based on the known data set. He acknowledged later his error (he didn’t take into account that fission events inside the planet contribute heat to the planet). So for a time the world of science was wrong on a crucial issue because of an incomplete data set.
The current data-set as used by East Anglia University has not been released; there are active elements at East Anglia University that have sought to frustrate attempts to release the raw data that they based their modeling on.
We know now, from the emails that the research group at East Anglia University has no explanation for the cooling trend over the past decade.
Release of that raw data is crucial to allow scientific examination and debate.