My apologies, I accidentally pressed the Send button before I had 
finished!!!

"In weighing the evidence and arguments, you don't have to be an expert
to look for the extent to which the protagonists are willing to
acknowledge and discuss the non-anthropogenic contributions to climate
change: variations in the sun's output, atmospheric dust, and water
vapor (a greenhouse gas present in orders of magnitude greater abundance
than CO2), and the clear geological evidence for climate change before
human activity could have been extensive enough to contribute - i.e.,
before the level of atmospheric CO2 began to rise measurably. If you
don't see variations in those natural, non-anthropogenic causes
discussed with the same level of detail as anthropogenic CO2, be
suspicious and look for an agenda."

If you read the science from IPCC, you will see that, as far as it can 
be ascertained and predicted, as many non-anthropogenic causes as 
possible HAVE been identified and taken into the modelling. In my 
forthcoming book, I have mentioned:
"The earth's climate and weather is the result of a delicate balance 
between a host of different natural phenomena:
- the "greenhouse effect"
- solar radiation
- cosmic particles
- the sunspot cycle
- elliptical orbits of the earth and moon
- wobble of the earth's axis
- the earth's magnetic field and positional polar changes
- ocean currents
- continental drift
- atmospheric convection cells, notably the Hadley cell
- photolysis and hydrolysis of organic matter
- volcanoes
- sulfate aerosols and other dust sources
- transpiration of living organisms
- forestation
- the size of the ice caps and glaciers
- “urban island” effect
- albedo changes
- and many others..."
Obviously, some of these are predictable and some are not (obviously, if 
a massive caldera blows, all our modelling will be for naught!). 
Extrapolation into the future therefore contains an element of risk. For 
example, a large volcanic eruption, will affect the weather, usually 
over one hemisphere for anything from 1 to 5 years, but this will make 
only a small blip on the climate curve because of the short time scale. 
It is therefore not unreasonable to average volcanic activity and this 
is what has been done. What is more difficult is the long-term 
prediction of ocean currents with changes of temperature and salinity. 
The IPCC consider it very unlikely there would be a catastrophic change 
in the N. Atlantic Conveyor (Gulf Stream) in this century, but they do 
rule it out thereafter. However, they did seriously underestimate the 
positive feedback effects in the Polar land regions and, in the year 
since the 2007 4th AR was prepared, they are already studying whether 
they may not have been too optimistic.

Anyway, climate change, whether we consider it anthropogenic or not, is 
for real. Just yesterday, the Swiss TV 
(http://www.tsr.ch/tsr/index.html?siteSect=200001&sid=7963901 - in 
French) reported that Switzeland is "heating up" twice as fast as the 
average for the N. hemisphere. This is because of the lack of maritime 
stabilisation and the enormous changes in albedo due to glacier ice 
melt. If we ignore this reality, then we shall have to take the 
consequence. What I don't understand is why it is not recognised that 
cutting down on fossil fuels as much as possible is a win-win situation, 
no matter what the causes of climate change. We win in terms of health, 
of economy and, if the scientists are right - as I believe - of climate 
and thus water and food availabilty. If the scientists are wrong, then 
we are still winning on the health and economy levels.

That is why I, on a personal level, am doing everything reasonable to 
reduce my carbon footprint, without reducing my level of comfort or 
standard of life, and why I would rejoice if at least half the world's 
population would do likewise.

Brian


Davy, Gordon wrote:
> Todd,
> 
> Please forgive me for misunderstanding what you wrote, and thanks for
> clearing up that you meant it was Klaus and not I who was making grand
> sweeping statements without factual basis. But I am still puzzled by
> what you say, so please forgive me in advance if I've misunderstand you
> again in your Friday posting. Why do you say that Klaus' essay has a
> "complete lack of supporting evidence" for his claims of threats to
> freedom by political correctness, and of the alarmists as being
> "Malthusian pessimists"? Do you mean to say a) that you think that there
> is no evidence for his claims, or b) that he did not present such
> evidence? 
> 
> I believe that Klaus' essay does present adequate evidence for his
> concerns, particularly given the limited space available in the
> Financial Times. In his first sentence he cites three examples of what
> he takes to be political correctness: Gore's film, the Stern report, and
> the fourth report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. I am
> not an expert on any of those, but they have been discussed in this
> forum. 
> 
> You object because Klaus labels as "Malthusian pessimists" those who "do
> not believe in the long-term positive impact of economic growth and
> ignore both the technological progress that future generations will
> undoubtedly enjoy..." To deprecate or ignore the benefits of economic
> growth and technological progress seems pretty pessimistic to me. I know
> I'm in favor of both for myself - aren't you? So if economic growth and
> technological progress, which occur naturally in a free society, are
> bad, who should be deprived of them? By what means should these elitists
> deprive other people of their liberty and pursuit of happiness? Isn't
> that a threat to their freedom? Shouldn't they feel threatened? 
> 
> If his criticism of them is invective, what level of disapproval would
> you direct at them? What would you call people who don't believe in
> economic growth and ignore technological progress? Is he just imagining
> such people, or do the three examples he cites reflect lack of favor for
> economic growth and ignore the benefits of technological progress? How
> does one cite chapter and verse of something that should be there and is
> missing? If Klaus is wrong, and the three reports he cites show that
> they really do exhibit a belief in economic growth and recognize the
> benefits of technological progress, maybe someone would care to cite the
> evidence so as to refute his claims.
> 
> Turning now to the notion that anthropogenic CO2 is a significant
> contributor to global warming, I'm sure that you will agree that those
> who favor it have more visibility (and, in many areas of the world,
> political clout) than those who disagree. In fact, that preponderance of
> opinion has been used by those who favor the notion as evidence for its
> truth. So I will put this question to you: are you aware of attempts to
> silence the dissidents - in any of these three examples or elsewhere? Is
> Klaus just imagining it, or is it maybe such attempts are so well known
> as to need no further documentation?
> 
> As for the "biggest threat to freedom" being a superlative, if there are
> at least three threats to freedom, there must be a biggest one, so
> what's so wrong with his stating his belief that it is "ambitious
> environmentalism"? I'll ask what I asked before: if he's wrong, what do
> you see as today's biggest threat to freedom? Which do you say is
> greater - this threat to freedom or the threat of global warming if we
> fail to take the steps that Gore and others are urging us to take? 
> 
> To refer to those who "completely dismiss the contributions of humans"
> as having a "marked disdain for science" and desiring to impose
> "doctrinal totalitarianism" is to erect a straw man. Many of those who
> challenge the majority position are scientists, including Professor
> Richard Lindzen of MIT, whom Klaus cites. It's hard to see how they
> exhibit a marked disdain for science, although I'll grant that they may
> well have a marked disdain for some of what the majority represents to
> be science - that's why they disagree. There aren't enough of them to
> exert any kind of control, let alone totalitarianism, unless
> totalitarianism means saying things that might induce people to not get
> with the agenda. 
> 
> I also disagree with your characterization of those who promote a
> position with certainty as propagandists. We expect people to promote
> their position with certainty - who'd bother to pay attention to anyone
> who didn't at least appear to know and believe what he was talking
> about? It isn't certainty but dishonesty in the presentation of the
> evidence and arguments, with an intent to mislead people, that
> constitutes propaganda. As I've said before, those who challenge the
> paradigm are much less likely to engage in propaganda because they know
> they will be challenged.
> 
> I don't see how it helps advance the cause to cite the IPCC conclusion
> that global warming "is unlikely to be entirely natural in origin". The
> issue is not whether human activity has had any influence but whether it
> has had an influence that is so significant and so detrimental to the
> public welfare as to warrant the costs associated with attempting to
> stop or reverse that influence. 
> 
> Also, to talk about "one hundred percent certainty" before taking action
> is missing the point. Where, outside of mathematics and the physical
> sciences, is there ever one hundred percent certainty? We elect leaders,
> whom we refer to as politicians, to sort out competing claims and
> interests and arrive at decisions in the absence of such certainty. That
> could even be taken as a brief job description. When they decide in
> accordance with our wishes, we laud their statesmanship. When they
> decide against our wishes, we don't conclude we were wrong; we dismiss
> their decisions as "just politics."
> 
> I have written for years on this forum and the Leadfree forum of what I
> have been calling demagoguery by environmental activists. In the case of
> removing "hazardous substances" from electronic products, it has been
> obvious that they don't have any evidence.
> 
> The case of global warming is clearly more complicated. No one disputes
> that the greenhouse effect is real or that CO2 is a greenhouse gas or
> that its abundance in the atmosphere has been rising. But those facts
> taken together do not constitute any kind of evidence that anthropogenic
> CO2 is causing significantly more global warming than would be going on
> otherwise. There is a logical fallacy referred to by its Latin name:
> "post hoc ergo propter hoc" - after the fact, therefore because of the
> fact.
> 
> In weighing the evidence and arguments, you don't have to be an expert
> to look for the extent to which the protagonists are willing to
> acknowledge and discuss the non-anthropogenic contributions to climate
> change: variations in the sun's output, atmospheric dust, and water
> vapor (a greenhouse gas present in orders of magnitude greater abundance
> than CO2), and the clear geological evidence for climate change before
> human activity could have been extensive enough to contribute - i.e.,
> before the level of atmospheric CO2 began to rise measurably. If you
> don't see variations in those natural, non-anthropogenic causes
> discussed with the same level of detail as anthropogenic CO2, be
> suspicious and look for an agenda. This isn't just a scientific debate.
> As in any other story, the advice given to reporters is valid: follow
> the money.
> 
> If your concern with global warming is about a deplorable oceanic
> encroachment on low-lying populated areas due to a rising sea level,
> have you ever seen a discussion of why the top layers of many areas of
> the earth, including many lofty mountaintops, are made up of sedimentary
> rock? I'm not a geologist, but I know that sediments deposit under
> water. Why, if such large areas of land now above sea level were
> evidently once covered by water, presumably due to natural causes, is it
> so obvious that this time a rising sea level is contributed to by human
> activity? 
> 
> On what basis does one conclude that sea levels must and can be held
> fixed? I recall a story of a Greek king a long time ago who tried to
> hold back the tide. In fact, to refer to an activity as "holding back
> the tide" is synonymous with calling it "futile." Have we become so
> sophisticated that are we now able to do something about the weather and
> to keep the mean sea level fixed? The Greeks had a word for this:
> hubris.  That's pretty close to arrogant, so maybe by your criterion I'm
> being propagandistic, too, in my comments.
> 
> Whether it's lead in electronics or global warming, these people claim
> that the situation they are concerned about is so serious that we must
> act now - we can't afford the luxury of ordinary reasoned discourse to
> reach a consensus before committing to a course of action. They say that
> their opponents are contributing to the worsening of the situation by
> not getting with their program now. That is demagoguery. I have asserted
> that their real reason for such alarmist rhetoric is that they know that
> their case would be weakened or fall apart if subjected to an ordinary
> cost-benefit analysis. 
> 
> The activists even trot out their "precautionary principle" when it's
> convenient, yet ignore it otherwise. Have you ever seen environmental
> activists discuss how the precautionary principle applies to the
> consequences of the draconian changes they advocate? Yet by their
> principle, it's up to them as proponents of change to show that when all
> consequences are considered the change they advocate won't make things
> worse. How thorough are their environmental (and economic) impact
> statements? Do they want to coerce the earth's inhabitants to revert to
> a style of life before the industrial revolution? How is that better? I
> wonder what they would advocate if we were experiencing global cooling.
> 
> Make no mistake. They don't just want to convince us of the truth (or
> likelihood) of their claims, they want to persuade us to adopt their
> remedies - their agenda. If they can't convince us with their evidence
> and arguments, they're willing to frighten us. They are much less
> interested in the integrity of their means than what they see to be the
> importance of their end. They don't want us to take the time to consider
> any consequences other than the ones they promise. 
> 
> Without coming out and saying so explicitly, they don't just want us to
> believe that human activity is causing significantly more global warming
> than would be occurring without it, but to agree to force most people
> (but not them!) to cut back on doing the things that they say are
> causing it (at least enough to cause a significant reduction in the
> trend), and to believe that the cost of doing so would be less than the
> cost of not doing so. 
> 
> Cutting back on the things that they say are contributing significantly
> to global warming would require a significant reduction, not just of our
> freedom, but in our standard of living. Who would oppose it otherwise?
> The reason they want us to do that is because, they say, they are
> concerned about what will happen to some people's standard of living if
> we don't. Or, for some of the more misanthropic activists, because polar
> bear habitat will be affected. That is a matter to be sorted out not by
> science but by politics.
> 
> Gordon Davy 
> 
>  
>