The Great Global Warming Swindle

[Tjalfe]

Global warming or not, it is causing people to notice the environment and do something about it. That can't be all bad

[Brian Ellis]

Doc didn't start this thread. I did. And your assumption as to why I started it is wrong. I await your apology.

I apologise for the mistake as to the OP. I don't apologise for pointing out that Dr M is throwing red herrings into the thread by confusing weather and climate.

As for his later quote, Claude Allègre does not deny climate change or man's contribution to it, nor does he affirm the latter. Again, this is also journalese. The journalist cannot even spell the guy's name correctly, dammit! There are also other blatant errors in the article. He could never have been Lionel Jospin's minister of education, research and technology from 1997 to 2000. Jospin has never been president, as the article states, and the French constitution states clearly that only the President, after consultation with the Prime Minister, can appoint or dismiss Ministers. It was therefore Jacques Chirac who appointed Allègre, and dismissed him later because of the chaos he caused in educational and research circles. I would also point out that Allègre has made monumental errors in the past, such as his dispute with Haroun Tazieff over the nature of the eruption of La Soufrière in Guadeloupe. He caused a totally unnecessary and expensive evacuation to take place as he thought the eruption was a pyroclastic lava flow when, as Tazieff pointed out, it was only a swelling of magma into a phreatic water table, creating vast quantities of steam.

His rise into French politics was only because of cronyism with his childhood friend, Lionel Jospin, who initially appointed him as a consultant (they roomed together at university). Today, he is in an awkward position because he tried to persuade Jospin to run for President and the latter refused. He then supported Chevènement, pronouncing "anyone but Ségolène Royal", whom he considered as a nobody. Royal was appointed as the official Socialist candidate, so Allègre has lost what little political standing he had left. He is doing no scientific work now and spends his time writing books (mainly opposing the removal of asbestos from buildings and ships) and a weekly column for L'Express (similar to Newsweek or Time). In the cited article, last year, he wrote:

Les théories météorologiques mathématiques le confirment. Donc, prudence. Mais la dénonciation de la responsabilité de l'homme quant au réchauffement de la planète permet de ne rien faire (les effets des mesures préconisées ne se feront sentir que dans un demi-siècle!). En revanche, la lutte contre les théorèmes extrêmes peut être menée avec des résultats!

My translation:
Meterological mathematical theories confirm it [BE: the capriciousness of climate]. Therefore, prudence. But the denunciation of the responsibility of man as to global warming allows nothing to be done (the effects of the proposed measures will be felt only in half-a-century!). On the other hand, the fight against extreme theorems can lead to results.

I read this as a call to prudence, not as a denunciation of climate change so much as a denunciation against extremism.

Incidentally, Allègre states that mathematics is not a science!!!

[Dr Mordrid]

It isn't that obvious. While math has similarities to science it has major differences that put it apart, hence Allègre's comment.

While sometimes referred to as the 'formal science' mathematics works from a different logical base than the natural and social sciences. Natural and social use empirical evidence while mathematics uses a-priori.

Empirical: evidence and/or consequences that are observable by the senses; they study the physical world.

A-priori: knowledge that is independent of experience; it studies abstract idealized objects; its truths are necessary rather than contingent.

In fact his opinion is that of the majority; most mathematicians do not consider themselves to be scientists 1.

There is also disagreement at the institutional level: Stanford awards a Bachelor of Science degree for mathematics; UCLA, a Bachelor of Arts.

[jms]

Global warming or not, it is causing people to notice the environment and do something about it. That can't be all bad

Very, very true. We're gonna be in trouble when the ice melts no matter what caused it.

[Dr Mordrid]

Even the UN report estimates only a 17" rise in sea levels, not the 20+ feet Gores wacked out movie postulated, and that 17" is 30% lower than their previous estimate.

U figure the trend line

Then there's this new study that sez the Greenland glaciers are growing again. Seems they're short term cyclical & have been for >1000 years.

[TransformX]

My greatest concern about the melting of the ice is this:
1. Is that ice made of real pure water as people seem to think?
2. If so, is there an cheap & efficient way for transporting it over here, instead of having it spilled into the ocean? By cheap, I mean considerably cheaper than bottled water and hopefully cheaper than desalinated water.

If both points are true, we're in for some serious fun

[Dr Mordrid]

Funny you should mention that

1. For the most part, yes. 90% of the worlds fresh water is there.

2. An old but good discussion of moving icebergs

and I'll add another;

3. New found liquid resources

WASHINGTON (Reuters) -- Lasers beamed from space have detected what researchers have long suspected: big sloshing lakes of water underneath Antarctic ice.

These lakes, some stretching across hundreds of square miles, fill and drain so dramatically that the movement can be seen by a satellite looking at the icy surface of the southern continent, glaciologists reported in Thursday's editions of the journal Science.

Global warming did not create these big pockets of water -- they lie beneath some 2,300 feet of compressed snow and ice, too deep to be affected by temperature changes on the surface -- but knowing how they behave is important to understanding the impact of climate change on the Antarctic ice sheet, study author Helen Fricker said by telephone.

About 90 percent of the world's fresh water is locked in the thick ice cap that covers Antarctica; if it all melts, scientists estimate it could cause a 23-foot rise in world sea levels. Even a 39-inch sea level rise could cause havoc in coastal and low-lying areas around the globe, according to a World Bank study released this week.
>

[Brian Ellis]

I found a recent World Bank Report giving IF scenarios of the effects of hypothetical sea level rises of 1-5 m on developing countries. Note that it does not state that the sea level will rise and it is based on data from the previous IPCC report. The current IPCC report predicts sea level rises of 0.18 m minimum and 0.59 m maximum by 2090 to 2099, relative to 1980 to 1999 levels (6 different scenarios). However, there will be further expansion rises of 0.3 to 0.8 m by 2300 and this will continue for many centuries due to the thermal inertia of the mass of water. If the Greenland ice sheet melted, there would be a sea level rise of 7 m, but the IPCC suggest that 4 to 6 m would be more realistic. The Antarctic scenario is less cut and dried as the IPCC predict that surface ice melting will be small and compensated by increased snowfalls. However, net loss of ice mass could occur if dynamical ice discharge dominates the ice sheet mass balance.

The report does not touch on small island states, such as the Maldives, and is lacunary in that respect.

A pity that the data does not include developed countries. Many could be severely touched, e.g., the barrier islands of E USA, Florida, Mississippi delta, Fenlands of UK, Netherlands, Danube delta etc.

[Dr Mordrid]

I would also point out that Allègre has made monumental errors in the past, such as his dispute with Haroun Tazieff over the nature of the eruption of La Soufrière in Guadeloupe. He caused a totally unnecessary and expensive evacuation to take place as he thought the eruption was a pyroclastic lava flow when, as Tazieff pointed out, it was only a swelling of magma into a phreatic water table, creating vast quantities of steam.

After re-reading this I find it disturbing and indicative of what happens to those who even modestly 'defect' from the GW crowd; first your politics and competency are questioned, often with glee, then your past and unrelated decisions are attacked.

At la Soufrière the man acted in good faith and excess caution to save lives, the prefect agreed and you use that to discredit him?

BIG EFFING DEAL!! Pfffttttt....

As for his history;

* the Crafoord Prize for geology
* the Wollaston Medal of the Geological Society of London
* the Golden Medal of the Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique

member of:

* French Academy of Sciences (11/1995)
* United States National Academy of Sciences (foreign associate)

[Dr Mordrid]

Translation of Allègre's article (US Senate records);

L'EXPRESS

THE SNOWS OF MOUNT KILIMANJARO

By Claude Allègre

The cause of climate change remains unknown. So, let us be cautious.

September 21, 2006

During the same fortnight, we have seen Yann Arthus-Bertrand’s stunning photographs showing the vanishing ice cap of Mount Kilimanjaro, and we have immediately heard the same old story about global warming and read in Science magazine an important paper co-authored by several distinguished glaciologists which showed that glacier mass balance in Antarctica has not changed during the past thirty years[1]. There is a general consensus among specialists on one point: if widespread global warming occurs, it will be experienced more intensely near the poles than at the equator. Yet, these authors explain that we can observe a massive retreat of glacial ice in some places on the Antarctic continent while there is also a thickening of ice sheets in other places.

So, the question that arises is whether there is climate warming or not? The argument that builds upon the retreating white cap of Kilimanjaro seems implacable. The retreating white cap is observable, tangible. Indeed, but things are not as straightforward as they seem. The gradual retreat of the snows of Kilimanjaro is often imputed to local phenomena, the main one of these being desertification in East Africa. In a recent issue of Science magazine, French researchers have shown that this desertification was in a large measure due to tectonic activities responsible for the gradual uplift of the African continent, thereby inducing a reorganization of atmospheric circulation. Greenhouse effect plays no significant role in these processes.

Following the month of August experienced by the northern half of France, the prophets of doom of global warming will have a lot on their plate in order to make our fellow countrymen swallow their certitudes. In all likelihood, there is a climate change, but the latter is characterized more by sudden shifts, both in space and time (the heat wave or the “rotten summer”, just like the violent tornadoes or the increased frequency of floods, are examples of these) than by global warming. The cause of this climate change is unknown. Is it man? Is it nature?

The part Brian posted:

Glaciers’ chronicles or historical archives point to the fact that climate is a capricious phenomena. This fact is confirmed by mathematical meteorological theories. So, let us be cautious. But the exposure of man’s responsibility as regards global warming allows us to sit idly by (the effect of the measures advocated will be felt only in half a century!).

Brian omitted this part (big suprise)

On the other hand, the crusade against extreme theories can be led with tangible results! However, as this is not fashionable, we choose to remain passive. In the meanwhile, the ecology of helpless protesting has become a very lucrative business for some people!

My interpretation: The crusade against GW can be led with tandgible results, but many choose to remain silent because of the attacks from the GW elite. That said GW is a lucrative cash cow that many proponents are profiting from.

[1] A. Monaghan et al., Science, vol. 313, August 11, 2006.

Click here for the Op/Ed (French):

http://www.lexpress.fr/idees/tribune...asp?ida=451670

[RedRed]

Dr M - on water levels.

A rise of 17 inches would be catastrophic!

on several fronts...
a significant of the worlds population lives within an altitude 10 feet.

a very substantial percentage of the worlds agricultural land is within 10 feet also.

A tidal surges- a difference of 17 inches could cause sea levels on tides to rise by over 3 feet - more near the equator... Vbad indeed.

Finally, (and probably most important) - when there is flooding (and there will be) byond the 17-24 inches - the land afterward will essentially unuseable due to salt poisoning....

global warming is a positive feedback loop now. You and I probably wont be around to see its effects - we are possibly feeling the effects of the industrial revolution... However, we have defrosted the siberian permafrost - that will release decades worth of grenhouse gassess over a few years.... Significant methane deposits are melting in the Norht Sea and off Canada (v bad).... Its probably too late to do much about it now - a significant proportion of mankind is screwed - and it will be those least able to cope will get hit worst.

[Dr Mordrid]

In the Great Lakes 17" is a hiccup.

[Brian Ellis]

At la Soufrière the man acted in good faith and excess caution to save lives, the prefect agreed and you use that to discredit him?

BIG EFFING DEAL!! Pfffttttt....

He deserved to be discredited. First of all, Allègre was not a vulcanologist. Tazieff was acknowledged, worldwide, to be the greatest scientific vulcanologist of the time and since. By his political influence, he managed to pull rank when Tazieff said that an evacuation was totally unnecessary. Good faith? No! Good science? No! Jealousy? Possibly! Stupidity? Certainly! Expensive? Yes!

The same kind of thing can happen to any scientist who goes beyond his area of competence. For example, Tazieff made stupid declarations about ozone depletion because of a lack of knowledge of basic chemistry.

However, you state a contradiction in your own thinking. You congratulate Allègre for using the Precautionary Principle regarding La Soufrière, yet you won't admit the same Precautionary Principle when it comes to climate change.

Generally speaking, I mistrust all scientists who dabble in politics (I'm not talking about honest scientists who impartially consult for politicians). Allègre took a very active part in the quite left-wing politics of the French Socialist Party which had a manifesto that he was obliged to follow, even over and above his scientific activities. It is not for nothing that he raised the ire of research scientists (and educators) throughout France during his short tenure as Minister, as he didn't have sufficient influence within the Party to divert cash from social policies for what was needed, and he was obliged to cut spending drastically. In fact, his only ally in the Party hierarchy was Jospin, PM at the time but also unpopular and seen as weak. Jack Lang, who succeeded Allègre, had the political clout to redress the situation to a large extent and he was (is) a very popular figure. In fact, I cannot think of a single scientist who turned politician who did not turn his back on his scientific speciality, generally dabbling in things outside it and often making monumental errors. There is a good reason for this: many politicians see a scientist as knowing all things about all sciences, so they are often plunged into decisions about disciplines in which they are totally lay.

[TransformX]

I'm still curious about the daily amount of solar energy our planet gets every day.
Aren't we a little vain, thinking we're so big and mighty that we're responsible for a natural cycle of warming up and cooling down of the planet?

Just out of curiosity, what do people here consider as natural and unnatural?
Petrol, is it natural? I mean, it is part of nature and nobody had to dig 2km down to discover it for the first time.. Yes, yes, I know, people hate petrol, even though it's a natural thing, it's still 'unnatural'.
What about volcanos? They're natural, that's for sure, if only because we can't control them. Their massive pollution is also 'natural' and less harmful than our own.
Lets try going further, say.. and asteroid heading for earth. Let's say a large rock is heading our way, something large enough to demolish an area as large as iceland.
Is that natural too? We sure have no hand in that, right?
Now, if we manage to nuke it into a zillion little pieces, turning it into beautiful and rather harmless fireworks as the debrees enter the atmosphere, would all the anti war, anti nuke, anti whatever people eat their hats and agree than being such a war mongering, resource eploiting race just happened to save the planet?
As far as I know, and please correct me if I'm wrong: Reiki, yoga, pilatis, scientology or even spiritual guidance will do nothing to peacefully convince the asteroid to shift it's fatal course into our small planet.
With a good chance of such an asteroid hitting earth sometime SOON(tm), 17inch or even whopping two feet raise in sea level is not really such a big deal, right?
Bottom line - avoid it *if* you can, but better invest your time and resources where you can really make a difference.

Edit: Ofcourse there's another, often neglected option, which is to pay billions of whatever currency you have in mind to Uri Geller, so he can divert the asteroid using telekinesis and stop the ice meltdown as well as global warming with the power of his mind and those dimwits watching him on TV.

[Brian Ellis]

In the Great Lakes 17" is a hiccup.

That, I think, is the most stupid remark to emanate from your keyboard.

In the first place, it is extremely parochial. It ignores the millions of Bengladeshi who will suffer and those living in delta regions (Mississippi, Florida, Nile, Ganges, Danube, Rhine etc.), as well as those living on low-lying islands (Maldives, Kiribati, Florida Keys, E. Coast Barrier Islands etc.)

Secondly, the 17", which you are so fond of quoting, is not an absolute maximum. Even within the 21st c only, the 6 scenarios go up to 59 cm, but the rise will continue in the 22nd and 23rd centuries. The IPCC don't predict levels beyond this century but they do say that IF the Greenland Ice Cap melted totally, the SLR will be 7 m, although 4-6 m would be more likely for a partial melt-down.

Thirdly, and most important, how the hell can a 17" SLR (or even a 7 m rise) affect the Great Lakes? The lowest-lying lake (Ontario) is connected to the Atlantic, OK, but it's about 75 m higher, isn't it?

Get real, man!