A climate sceptic has said that it is now time to end the debate over whether global warming is real after the most definitive study into temperature data gathered by weather stations over the past half-century. Professor Richard Muller, a physicist at the University of California, Berkeley, who has been an outspoken critic of the science underpinning global warming, said that there is little doubt in his mind the phenomenon of rising land temperatures is real. Over the past two years, he has chaired a group of scientists who have carried out an exhaustive analysis of more than 1.6 billion temperature recordings collected from more than 39,000 weather stations at land sites around the world.
Global warming is happening. That is the end of it. Conspiracy theories in all honor but you can't deny it. Even developing countries are investing heavily in green technology, not only via CDM or the greenfund but also independently; for an example China is taking drastic measures to reduce their CO2-emission.
@Vitality. Is it a tool to prevent the developing countries the right to develop? No it's not. Has that been the consequence? Unfortunately it has and that is because way the natural shift towards green technology via the free market has become realistic. We should strive for an idealistic solution but we can't do that as long as CDM etc is fueled by emission trading, which acts realistic atm.
I can see that green technology is holding back developing countries and I'd see this as a perfect time for the western world to pay back the ecological debt. But I can't see that global warming would be a "western fraud" . You can deny nation-bounded climate reports but their is many more individuals who are saying the same thing. Johan Kleman to name one.
I like your idealistic view on "green technology". My view is exactly opposite. You can look at the wind turbines and solar panel markets to see real value fo such "gree technology". As soon as taxpayer money are not used as stimulus to compensate horrid effectiviness of this "new technologies", things become very bleak.
Yeah its happening. But its not happening because of us or our technology. It happened before, and it happens now. Same as Ice Age. Will also come again, despite of humans.
There is no controversy among the scientific community. Notice that this latest contrarian from Berkeley isn't even qualified on way or the other, he's a Physicist, not a Climatologist. This is typical as contrarians who taut scientific credentials in nearly every case are from disciplines other than Climatatology and Atmospheric Sciences OR, they're on the Payroll of big energy companies. Then there are hacks like Willie Wei-Hock Soon, a Harvard Astrophysicist who manage the hat trick of speaking outside his discipline AND accepting gobs of cash from oil companies. He's a Astrophysicist and you can hear him talking about Polar Bears.
The National Science Academies of every major country have already spoken on the issue with unanimity -- right wing propaganda machines like Fox News notwithstanding.
There really isn't even much credible debate remaining on anthropogenic climate change. Naysayers are few and far between, unfortunately it's an upstream battle to get the truth out.
The developing countries I've been in sure aren't experiencing the green revolution and aren't being oppressed by regulation. It's so the opposite of that: developing countries trash their environments like there's no tomorrow. Any and all regulations that might be on the books are easily circumvented with a few cash payoffs.
Here's a video I produced 3 years ago (just prior to DSLR revolution), take a look and see if you think this country looks GREEN. Btw, shot with JVC hd100.
@Vitality You're right about the efficiency of green technology. It is not there yet. But why shouldn't we lay the foundation for the future. Because the future is green technology, there is no denying. Even from a realistic perspective the pragmatic solution still is green tech. If the developing countries want a position on the global market they can't relay on even by todays standards old tech.
I also want to point out that a nation can never act idealistic, it is against the nature of todays system. But here is where i now our opinions differentiate. I still want to strive for an idealistic solution in those aspects where the problems are global. Because global problems must be solved globally or we will have free-passengers.
This includes the I-countries responsibility to pay their ecological debt. Because we have been free-passengers of an luxury that does not exist any more. Therefore our western ideal of welfare must be crushed.
@fatpig Yes. Natural changes are common in the long perspective. But look at the latest 100 000 years it has been "stable". These 100 years has not been stable. And from a climatologist perspective 100 years is just over night. Climate changes does not happend naturally over night. Unless there is an external source in this case CO2 emissions, or do you deny that CO2-emissons are being released?
>But look at the latest 100 000 years it has been "stable". These 100 years has not been stable. And from a climatologist perspective 100 years is just over night.
It is false facts. I mean about stabilizy other 100.000 years, and unstability other last 100. No scientific proof exist that CO2 is responsible for any climate change. As well as no proof exist that such fluctuations are dangerous and never happened before.
@Vitaliy "No scientific proof exist that CO2 is responsible for any climate change." .............
NASA, and Jet Propulsion Labs seems not to agree with you. From NASA website:
* The heat-trapping nature of carbon dioxide and other gases was demonstrated in the mid-19th century.2 Their ability to affect the transfer of infrared energy through the atmosphere is the scientific basis of many JPL-designed instruments, such as AIRS. Increased levels of greenhouse gases must cause the Earth to warm in response.*
I do not see any scientific proof here. Problem with such potential proof is what different theories exist. Many state that CO2 fluctuation is normal for our earth, some state that it is of human origin but will cause colder climat, other state that it is human and will cause warming, and different kind that blame animals and methane for all climate changes. All this is possible because scientists fuckingly bad understand how climate works and changes in reality.
You know... BP used to have green energy TV commercials before the oil spill last year.
Without gov subsidies and purchases, green energy stocks are doomed. See the chart below. LDK is a chinese solar stock. Once almost $70 per share. It's $3 today.
A few years ago many believed in nuclear plants. Really?
Is liquidated natural gas truly green? Really?
Are we focusing on green energy or simply alternate energy to continue to supply MORE energy to meet the growing demand? We need to slow down the total energy usage... eventually negative growth.
This day will never come. Use less energy. Not more.
Technically... I think there's no other way than building more nuclear plants if we just wanna meet the growing demands. But I wouldn't call it a green energy.
@Vitaliy Problem with such potential proof is what different theories exist. Many state that CO2 fluctuation is normal for our earth, some state that it is of human origin but will cause colder climate ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Nope. You're misstating what science is saying on the subject. Again, there's near unanimity. I think it's a mistake to focus on the few contrarian and outliers. If you went to 100 doctors and 97 of them told you that your arm was broken, would you accept that?
edit: and note that the underlying principle that the climate is changing isn't even a discussion any more. The dicussion (if you can call it that) is about anthropogenic climate change -- at least among climate scientists. Fox News and right wing media outlets say otherwise of course.
@Vitaliy_Kiselev - "As soon as taxpayer money are not used as stimulus to compensate horrid effectiviness of this "new technologies", things become very bleak. "
That's a pretty succinct summary of the nuclear power industry as well - the poster child of $100 billion dollar government subsidies:
Whether global warming is proven or not, we best take no chance and should invest in fusion power, which will be a clean and nearly free source of energy. Maybe if we had invested as much money in the research of nuclear fusion as we did for fossil fuels or nuclear fission, we would have those reactors ready by now. In any case it would help development everywhere.
Remember that Kepler and Galileo couldn't prove the movement of the heavens until Newton. Yet the Earth didn't stop turning.
Do the "facts" from the body of scientific thinking matter? Or is the world of science just another 'interest group' as some here seem to think?
On the other hand, maybe science can tell us there is a problem, but is incapable of contributing to finding a rational solution. I know many think cutting back activity that produces CO2 would slow growth of all kinds and lead to more poverty for many, stagnation for many more.
Is it possible that many in the scientific community secretly desire to slow growth and population growth and see this as an opportunity to effect that?
When the growth is malignant, as is the toxic waste of all types produced by short-sighted exploitation of natural resources, then yes, slowing down population and economic growth will buy some time. Where research has always been sorely lacking is in ecologically sustainable waste disposal. Find politically effective solutions to those problems, and economic growth will no longer be a treacherously double-edged sword.
@LPowell - "then yes, slowing down population and economic growth will buy some time."
Are you aware of any data showing that economic/energy slowdowns historically slow population growth? I'm asking, I don't know the answer. I remember reading that staving people in fact tend to bread more quickly with the long term result of a larger population.
Would it be morally okay for scientists to selectively release information re climate change with the ultimate desire of slowing growth/populations for the good of the planet?
edit: Also, is it fair to call CO2 toxic waste? It may contribute long term to a large problem, but the term toxic to me implies a short term health hazard.
Bill Gates: There’s certainly lots of room for increasing efficiency. But can we, by increasing efficiency, deal with our climate problem? The answer is basically no. The climate problem requires more than a 90 percent reduction in CO2 emitted, and no amount of efficiency improvement is going to address that. As we’re improving our efficiency, poor people are increasing their energy intensity. You’re never going to get the amount of CO2 emitted to go down unless you deal with the one magic metric, which is CO2 per kilowatt-hour.
Some are saying 80% of population reduction will instantly solve all energy crisis issues. Crazy mofos...
@cosimo_bullo Scientists who work in government and corporate-subsidized research have established a long record of highly selective release of information to the public. Whether it's moral or not is rarely of consequence to a scientist's reputation or career.
CO2 is in fact a waste product and in excessive amounts it can be toxic. There are also many long-term toxic waste hazards, lead and asbestos contamination for example, both of which are naturally occurring substances that become health hazards when concentrated and improperly disposed of.
Good thing to understand about real theory is that it does not matter how many peoply believe that it is true. Otherwise it becomes not theory, but religion.
@LPowell - "CO2 is in fact a waste product and in excessive amounts it can be toxic."
I mean you no offense but this seems a bit like doublespeak. I'm not aware of anyone suggesting any scenario wherein CO2 would actually become toxic for humans (toxic for mother earth, possibly, but that's a different use of the term, isn't it?). And the idea of calling CO2 a waste product is new, is it not?
Lead and asbestos are really a different category of immediate danger and I don't think should be considered similar to CO2.
@Vitaliy_Kiselev - Can you please elaborate on your thoughts to Brian. I know english is a 2nd language and sometimes your enthusiasm is clear but not your meaning.
@cosimo_bullo Yes, I mean environmentally toxic, not just poisonous to human beings. CO2 is the primary greenhouse gas generated as a waste product from the combustion of fossil fuels:
Sorry, it seems like I'm splitting hairs but I think it's an important distinction: Are you aware of anyone who believes CO2 might build up to a point where CO2 itself would be a direct toxin for humans? Meaning like running your car in the garage, etc (carbon monoxide, but you know what I mean).
The issue with CO2 is always about its ability to trap heat and warm the planet, right? Not directly make us sick.