You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
-Signs, Portents, and the Weather-
Ignore Al Gore - but not his Nobel friends
2007-11-12
By Bjorn Lomborg

This week, the United Nations' climate scientists will release a major report synthesising the world's best global warming research. It will be the first time we've heard from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) since its scientists won the Nobel Peace Prize with former US vice-president Al Gore.

The IPCC's Assessment Report will tell policy-makers what to expect from man-made climate change. It is the result of rigorous and painstaking labour: more than can be said for the other Nobel Prize winner. The difference between Gore's claims and IPCC research is instructive.

While Gore was creating alarm with his belief that a 20-foot-high wall of water would inundate low-lying cities, the IPCC showed us we should realistically prepare for a rise of one foot or so by the end of the century. Beyond the dramatic difference, it is also worth putting that one foot in perspective. Over the last 150 years, sea levels rose about one foot - yet, did we notice?

Most tellingly, while Gore was raising fears about the Gulf Stream halting and a new Ice Age starting, the scientists discounted the prospect entirely. The Gulf Stream takes warm water from around Mexico and pushes it toward Europe. Around 8,000 years ago, a melting lake in the region of the present-day Canadian Great Lakes broke through and a massive torrent of cold, fresh water flooded into the North Atlantic, significantly slowing the Gulf Stream for around 400 years. Gore worries that Greenland's ice shelves could melt and do the same thing again.

Ice in Greenland is obviously melting. But over the next century, it'll spill 1,000 times less water into the ocean than occurred 8,000 years ago. It will have a negligible effect on the Gulf Stream.

In his movie An Inconvenient Truth, Gore claimed that scientists were discovering that the current is "surprisingly fragile". However, the IPCC scientists write in their 2007 report: "None of the current models simulates an abrupt reduction or shut-down" of the Gulf Stream.

But what sort of nightmare would ensue if Gore were right? Siberia-like conditions in Europe? Actually, no. Europe would need to plunge by almost 13C to get that cold. Halting the Gulf Stream wouldn't achieve anything near that.

Gore and others have bought into a popular myth: that the Gulf Stream is the reason that western European winters are so much warmer than those of eastern North America. It is true the Gulf Stream provides a few degrees of extra heat to Europe, but it actually warms the west side of the North Atlantic almost as much. It's not the reason Europe is warmer than the US in winter; warm winds are. Let's hear from the IPCC again: "Catastrophic scenarios about the beginning of an ice ageÂ… are mere speculations, and no climate model has produced such an outcome. In fact, the processes leading to an ice age are sufficiently well understood and completely different from those discussed here, that we can confidently exclude this scenario."

Gore's claims have received a lot of notice. Hopefully, the careful work of the IPCC will also receive the attention that it deserves.

• Bjorn Lomborg is the author of Cool It: The Sceptical Environmentalist's Guide to Global Warming (Cyan-Marshall Cavendish).
Posted by:Deacon Blues

#9  More:
Everyone will feel its effects, but global warming will hit the poorest countries hardest and will "threaten the very survival" of some people, he said.

"Failing to recognize the urgency of this message and act on it would be nothing less that criminally irresponsible" and a direct attack on the world's poorest people, De Boer said.

The report will provide the factual underpinning for a crucial meeting next month in Bali, Indonesia.


you can bet every one of these assholes will be flying in on private jets
Posted by: Frank G   2007-11-12 20:50  

#8  No one honestly thinks that our collective use of the earth's resources - whether of fish stocks, fresh water (currently living in atlanta, so this one hits close to home), carbon-based fuels, etc. - is sustainable, do they? Do you feel in your gut that the status quo 'works'?

Yes, in countries with a free market and democratic elections, and Yes with the same condition.
Posted by: Nimble Spemble   2007-11-12 20:49  

#7  Here it comes, Carla Del Ponte can't wait:

The U.N.'s top climate official warned policymakers and scientists trying to hammer out a landmark report on climate change that ignoring the urgency of global warming would be "criminally irresponsible."

Yvo de Boer's comments came at the opening of a weeklong conference that will complete a concise guide on the state of global warming and what can be done to stop the Earth from overheating. It is the fourth and last report issued this year by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, co-winner of this year's Nobel Peace prize.

Environmentalists and authors of the report expected tense discussions on what to include and leave out of the document, which is a synthesis of thousands of scientific papers. A summary of about 25 pages will be negotiated line-by-line this week, then adopted by consensus.

Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the Nobel Prize-winning panel, said scientists were determined to "adhere to standards of quality" in the report. It was indirect barb at the government representatives, who have been accused by environmentalists of watering down and excluding vital information from the summaries of earlier reports to fit their domestic agendas.

The document to be issued Saturday sums up the scientific consensus on how rapidly the Earth is warming and the effects already observed; the impact it could have for billions of people; and what steps can be taken to keep the planet's temperature from rising to disastrous levels.
Posted by: Frank G   2007-11-12 20:47  

#6  Okay, Geoffro, you're right: Al Gore is a retard and let's do something. You can start by not eating fish more than twice a year, not showering more than once a month, and cutting your fuel consumption by 90%. That includes electricity that is made using carbon-based fuel. Drop back in a year and let us know how things are going.

Seriously, I'll bet that:
You drove more than 10 miles today in a vehicle that gets less than 30 mpg.
You've made no effort to consolidate trips this week.
There are lights on in unoccupied rooms in your house right now.
You have more rooms than people.
You shower daily.
You've put food in the trash can in the last 24 hours.
Posted by: Darrell   2007-11-12 20:37  

#5  Get a grip Geoffro. It's not the first world killing the environment as much as the impoverished world. How many square miles of 'precious' Amazon rainforest are being burnt for more 'ecological' power alternatives? The water and air is cleaner with 100 million more people around the US today than it was forty years ago. The obstruction from employing French/Swedish style nuke plants wasn't because of raving capitalism, but the very same community you're swimming in. We're tired of the hysteria and irrational spin as fronts for Marxism Part Two - the Collective.
Posted by: Procopius2k   2007-11-12 20:13  

#4  Hysteria aside and recognizing no one has the answer:
No one honestly thinks that our collective use of the earth's resources - whether of fish stocks, fresh water (currently living in atlanta, so this one hits close to home), carbon-based fuels, etc. - is sustainable, do they? Do you feel in your gut that the status quo 'works'? Then let's stop arguing about *how much* the oceans will rise, just *how few* fish there will be and start doing something about it. Seems alot of folks are missing the point just because Al Gore is a retard.
Posted by: Geoffro   2007-11-12 19:56  

#3  I have no problem with accepting the earth may be warming...or cooling. It's called weather, and it goes in cycles. I do have a problem with the level assumed of human impact and the efforts to throttle our economy and lifestyles to keep the grant-whores, Gaia worshipping socialists, and holier-than-thou hypocrites
Posted by: Frank G   2007-11-12 18:40  

#2  Actually you can think of it as Pure BS and Slightly less Pure BS that people might buy if they're stupid and have nails in their head.
Posted by: Silentbrick   2007-11-12 15:26  

#1  So the choice is between "crazy" and "less crazy"?
Posted by: Iblis   2007-11-12 13:31  

00:00