Why geoengineering can't turn down the global thermostat

Posted by christian — 2 September 2009 at 3:34pm - Comments

"Hacking the only planet we've got rather than simply changing the way we live shows a lack of judgment, to put it mildly." - Alex Steffen of Worldchanging

When the Royal Society do a report on something, they do it properly. Their latest, 'Geoengineering the climate: Science Governance and Uncertainty' - is the product of a year's worth of work by some of the most prestigious scientists in the world.

And we should be grateful that they took the time, because based on a cursory glance, it looks like they've produced a thoughtful and detailed summary of proposals for so-called 'geoengineering' - or trying to deliberately manipulate the planet's climate.

What do they say? Well you can read the summary for yourself, but let's take a couple of quotes from the summary that give the flavour of it:

The safest and most predictable method of moderating climate change is to take early and effective action to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. No geoengineering method can provide an easy or readily acceptable alternative solution to the problem of climate change... Nothing now known about geoengineering options gives any reason to diminish these efforts...

And, commenting on proposals for 'Solar Radiation Management' - trying to reduce the amount of the sun's energy that hits the Earth by pumping reflective aerosols like Sulphur Dioxide into the atmosphere, or suspending mirrors in space - they point out that as well as being technically dubious:

...the large-scale adoption of Solar Radiation Management methods would create an artificial, approximate, and potentially delicate balance between increased greenhouse gas concentrations and reduced solar radiation, which would have to be maintained, potentially for many centuries. It is doubtful that such a balance would really be sustainable for such long periods of time, particularly if emissions of greenhouse gases were allowed to continue or even increase.

So - they're being very, very cautious. The report is couched in the language of risk - from the risk that geoengineering will become technologically viable, to the risk that there will be unforeseeable and serious side affects to these schemes, to the risk that there will be no robust way to include planet-scale geoengineering within strong political frameworks.

Nevertheless, they conclude, further levels of research would be a good idea - equivalent to keeping a 'watching brief' on the subject, if you like.

Sir David King - it should never take priority over reducing emissions

The government's ex-chief scientist shared his views on the report on this morning's Today programme, picking up first on this need for further research:

... this is a very good report from the Royal Society and the recommendation that we should spend ten million over ten years on research and development in this area is a good one, let me compare that however with the one billion pounds over ten years that I managed to set up while I was in government for low carbon energy research through the Energy Technologies institute. That's roughly the right proportion, because geo-engineering is very unlikely to be an appropriate solution, and this is clearly stated in the report, I'm just concerned that there will be a misunderstanding about this and that geo-engineering could be used as an excuse for inaction, as a kind of fig leaf.

The last point he raises is the key one - and it's why, I think, the Royal Society have been so careful to caveat their report and base it all around their central conclusion: that geoengineering is in no way a 'Plan B' alternative to reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

 

Our chief scientist - vested interests could use it to argue for avoiding action

Dr Doug Parr, our chief scientist, spoke at the launch of the report. Doug and I had a chat about his views of the report and geoengineering more generally, and he had this to say:

We have no concerns with The Royal Society's presentation of this, because they led by saying that geo-engineering is not a substitute for mitigation and nothing should stop the urgency of the talks leading to Copenhagen and a 50% cut by 2050 in CO2 emission. But we worry how it might be received and understood by others.

Geoengineering is not a plan B for the climate, it should be used only in desperation, can have their widespread undesirable impacts, and raises major ethical and political issues of its own. It may be very expensive, and it may well never work.

Many of these proposals still have risks - there is no simple global thermostat that can be turned up and down and proposals that reflect sunlight can still, as Susan Soloman and others have pointed out, have impacts on weather and precipitation leading to exactly the sorts of problems we are trying to avoid by averting climate change.

So geoengineering propositions may well have a wealth of social, political, legal and economic issues of their own. Even though the technical propositions are often poorly developed it still seems that the technical propositions are running ahead of the regulation and governance. Already there are people out to use geoengineering to undermine mitigation efforts and this could be misused by them as a stamp of approval.

For an example of a group using geoengineering to argue against mitigation, Doug pointed me to the American Enterprise Institute's webpage entitled 'Governing Geoengineering,' which begins:

As Congress moves forward with plans to cap greenhouse gas emissions, many experts are pressing for consideration of other policy options. Geoengineering strategies represent one such policy option. ..[which]...aim to alter temperature without changing the levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere by slightly reducing the amount of sunlight reaching the Earth. Such approaches may be quite inexpensive relative to other options.

Another particularly disingenuous example came from Bjorn Lomborg recently who also suggested geo-engineering as an alternative to cutting our emissions. So already we can see the potential for geoengineering to be used as an argument for not reducing greenhouse gases. Doug continued:

This debate comes at a time when the first serious federal climate legislation, the Waxman-Markey Bill, on which a great deal rides in terms of success at Copenhagen, is making its way through the US Congress. It is worth bearing in mind that the American Enterprise Institute is known to be funded by companies like Exxon, and that geo-engineering is now being investigated because we have collectively, as a society, failed to take on the fossil fuel interests. 

The Media

So, of concern here is not so much what the Royal Society say in a cautious scientific exploration of the topic, but how their work gets presented. Indeed, a quick look at the coverage of the report shows a spread of headlines:

From the cautious:

Hopes dashed for geo-engineering solutions (The Financial Times)

To the ambiguous:

Engineering a Climate Solution (The New York Times)

Investment in geo-engineering needed immediately, says Royal Society (The Guardian)

To the positively enthusiastic:

Cloud ships and artificial trees could offer last hope to save climate, say British experts (The Daily Mail)

Geo-engineering should be developed as insurance against dangerous climate change (The Telegraph)

and

Could mechanical trees save the world? (BBC)

Clearly, however careful the Royal Society were, there's still going to be a tussle over this. But the interesting bottom line for me is that the Royal Society have emphatically put the nail in the coffin of the argument that geoengineering could be an alternative to reducing carbon emissions.

Read the report: Geoengineering the climate: Science Governance and Uncertainty »

There are many scientists who reject The Hypothesis that the emission of CO2 through our use of fossil fuels has significant impact upon mean global temperatures. Since the last IPCC report (AR4) in 2007 there have been several papers showing that The Hypothesis is flawed. I have challenged numerous supporters of The Hypothesis to refute the analyses in those papers with equally detailed scientific analysis. I have challenged Jonathan Porritt, his Forum for the Future, The Sustainable Development Commission, the Australian Government's chief climate change advisor Professor Barry Brook, etc. etc. etc. None have done so.

Green peace is an organisation that fully supports The Hypothesis and claims to do so because the science is proven. I challenge Greenpeace to provide equally detailed analyses to refute the complementary fundamental analyses provide in “Climate Change (a fundamental analysis of the greenhouse effect)” (Note 1) by Dr. John Nicol in 2008 and “Mistakes in IPCC Global Warming Calculations” by Roger Taguchi (Note 2).

Using fundamental laws of physics, these papers show that the global temperature sensitivity to atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations (at today’s levels) is only a fraction of that claimed by the IPCC in AR4. They show that a doubling of concentration from 300 to 600 ppm will result in only a 1 degree C increase, not the IPCC’s 3C and that with further increases the impact get smaller and smaller.

If these papers cannot be proven to be flawed then sceptical scientists will convince more and more people like myself that the UN’s climate change publications as mere propaganda used by politicians, environmentalists, journalists and others for reasons other than controlling global climates.

NOTES:
1) see http://mistakesinipcccalculations.blogspot.com/2009/08/mistakes-in-ipcc-...
2) see www.ruralsoft.com.au/ClimateChange.doc

Regards, Pete Ridley, Human-made Global Climate Change Agnostic

If only capitalising things was enough to make them go away. I could capitalise my Gas Bill, or Annoying People Talking On Their Mobile On The Train. If only - but it doesn't work like that in the real world.

And unfortunately, we don't get to go to organisations we disagree with and say 'Provide detailed refutations of these papers we found down the back of the internet or give up your hopeless crusade!'

Nah, this is the real world. When what is probably the most authoratative panel of scientists the world has ever assembled gets together and says, at great length, that something is happening, you pay attention. And then some.

Sorry, but your arguments are poor and reflect basic misunderstandings about how the real world works. Try this to begin with:

http://www.pewclimate.org/global-warming-basics/

Which for starters has some information on what the planet has been doing since the last IPCC report was published.

Christian @ GPUK

Christian, why don't you stop avoiding the issue and instead, try refuting the papers to which I made reference. You can't, can you?

Pete Ridley, Human-made Global Climate Change Agnostic

Sorry Pete, but if you're already convinced that the hundreds of emminent scientists who comprise the IPPC are a bunch of fools and charlatans, then why would you give any credence to what we at Greenpeace think?

So why (even if we had the time to debate the minutiae of the subject with you, which we don't) would we bother trying to convince you of something which, as you've already made abundantly clear, you will never believe?

Just a waste of our time, and yours, really.

Perhaps at least that's something we can agree on.

Joss @ GPUK

PS Just for the record, the conclusions of the previous IPCC (Third) Assessment Report were explicitly endorsed by (among others) the following scientific bodies:

  • Academia Brasiliera de Ciências (Bazil)
  • Royal Society of Canada
  • Chinese Academy of Sciences
  • Academié des Sciences (France)
  • Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)
  • Indian National Science Academy
  • Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)
  • Science Council of Japan
  • Russian Academy of Sciences
  • Royal Society (United Kingdom)
  • National Academy of Sciences (United States of America)
  • Australian Academy of Sciences
  • Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts
  • Caribbean Academy of Sciences
  • Indonesian Academy of Sciences
  • Royal Irish Academy
  • Academy of Sciences Malaysia
  • Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand
  • Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences

Which looks like a pretty comprehensive international consensus on the subject, really. Presumably they don't feel that differently about AR4, but I haven't been able to lay my hands on any stats for that in the short time I have available to respond to your comment.

Not good enough, my friend. It is not only myself who needs to be convinced that humans have any significant impact upon global climates through their use of fossil fuels. You will not achieve your objective of cutting global CO2 emissions during the next few decades for the simple reason that your propaganda-based arguments are not convincing, whereas those of people like John Nicol and Roger Tagouchi are based upon fundamental laws of physics.

The reason that I challenged Greenpeace was that a friend who is a member of your organisation said that you’d be keen to face a scientific argument. It is obvious that you do not have the competence to refute what Nicols and Tagouchi have proven.

I repeat whatr I posted today to the Sustainable Development Commission’s web-site

The supporters of The (significant human-made global climate change) Hypothesis are getting more and more worried as increasingly their propaganda is being exposed for what it is. First we had the UK government’s one-time climate change guru (albeit not a scientist by any stretch of the imagination) Jonathan Porritt’s blog Forum for the Future removing my posts early this year. Shortly afterwards the Australian Government’s chief climate science advisor Professor Barry Brook banned me from his site. A month ago Jonathan’s own blog started banning my submissions and now Mark Lynas (another self-appointed climate change “expert” with no scientific background) is removing any that are contentious.

The latest paper “Mistakes in IPCC Global Warming Calculations” by Roger Taguchi (Note 1) shows, using fundamental physics, that the global temperature sensitivity to atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations (at today’s levels) is only one third of that claimed by the IPCC. He shows that a doubling of concentration from 300 to 600 ppm will result in a 1C increase, not the IPCC’s 3C and that with further increases the impact get smaller and smaller.

Roger Taguchi’s paper complements that of Dr. John Nicol’s 2008 paper (Note 2) “Climate Change (a fundamental analysis of the greenhouse effect)”. Both of these show that our use of fossil fuels has much less of an impact upon global temperatures than supporters of The Hypothesis would have us believe.

Roger Taguchi followed a physical chemistry PhD program on reaction dynamics under Professor John C. Polanyi (who shared the 1986 Nobel Prize for “contributions concerning the dynamics of chemical elementary processes" - Note 2). He had been sceptical of the IPCC report since it seemed to ignore water vapour. Rather than read a text on climatology and be led into making the incorrect basic assumptions which had apparently led everyone else astray, Roger started with the Stefan-Boltzmann Law which he knew to be sound and worked from there. As he said, he “took derivatives and quickly realised why the IPCC and climatology literature value for climate sensitivity was all wrong”.

So, it might appear at first glance that the world’s politicians, environmentalists, journalists and propaganda booklet authors like Mark were hoodwinked by the IPCC, but I’m not convinced of that. After all, they do have other interests, don’t they. As an ex-RAF associate of mine said many years ago “Where there’s confusion, there’s opportunity for profit”.

We now have two detailed fundamental analyses which show that any release of CO2 arising from our use of fossil fuels has negligible impact upon mean global temperatures. So, once again I challenge all of The Hypothesis supporters. Prove with equally detailed fundamental analyses that these papers are flawed and if you can’t then stop your nonsense. In other words, put up or shut up. I have issued this challenge to Greenpeace UK (Note 3) and eagerly await their response, but if previous experience with Dr. Nicol’s paper is anything to go by I won’t be holding my breath.

NOTES:
1) see http://mistakesinipcccalculations.blogspot.com/2009/08/mistakes-in-ipcc-...
2) see www.ruralsoft.com.au/ClimateChange.doc
3) see http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/blog/climate/perspectives-geoengineering-20...

Regards, Pete Ridley, Human-made Global Climate Change Agnostic

It is claimed (Note 1) that QUOTE: .. in 2008 Greenpeace announced an official policy of not debating the causes or merits of climate change UNQUOTE. The reaction that I’ve had here so far supports this claim but I have not been able to find confirmation of this on the Greenpeace site so would appreciate confirmation of otherwise. I quote from Greenpeace FAQ (Note 2) QUOTE: Debate is part of science, isn’t it? Real scientists always debate science – that is correct, its part of the scientific process, testing hypotheses and introducing new data and analysis. UNQUOTE.

Back in April 2008 it was reported (Note 3) QUOTE: New Delhi, Apr.29 (ANI): “Act now to prevent climate change or rehabilitate 12.5 crore people, Greenpeace warns”.
In a dramatic action early this morning, singer Rabbi joined Greenpeace activists who have occupied “prime real estate” and set up a “migrant colony” of hutments 35 feet above the Delhi Noida toll bridge. This occupation will continue all day and will highlight the urgency of creating a National Climate Action plan (NCAP) that focuses on taking action now to prevent climate change. Indications are that the government’s approach to the NCAP is to wait and deal with the nightmarish consequences through “adaptation”.
The Greenpeace report, ‘Blue Alert Climate Migrants in South Asia: Estimates and Solutions’ (1), authored by Dr. Sudhir Chella Rajan professor of Humanities & Social Sciences at IIT Madras, warns that if greenhouse gas emissions continue to grow under the business-as-usual scenario as projected, leading to global temperature rise by 4-5degC, the South Asian region is estimated to face an enormous wave of 12.5 crore climate migrants. UNQUOTE.

Terrifying, isn’t it! So terrifying that as recently as July the Indian Government rejected any binding agreements on resticting carbon emissions (Note 4) QUOTE: “India won't accept any legally binding emission reductions: .. ”. Environment minister Jairam Ramesh asserted that New Delhi was "simply not in a position" to accept any legally binding emission reductions and made it clear that India was not running away from responsibilities on the issue. The minister's comments came at a joint press conference with US secretary of State Hillary Clinton .. The US wants India to agree to limit its carbon emissions ahead of the signing of a new UN climate treaty in Copenhagen in December. .. Clinton pointed out that India's green house gas pollution was projected to grow by about 50 per cent between now and 2030 and the country was vulnerable to climate change. However, she said that the US does not and will not do anything that would limit India's economic progress. Ramesh underlined India's stand that its GHG emissions would never exceed those of the developed nations. ..
UNQUOTE.

So, despite the Greenpeace leader’s (Note 5): QUOTE "Leipold told the BBC that there is an urgent need for the suppression of economic growth in the United States and around the world. He said annual growth rates of 3 percent to 8 percent cannot continue without serious consequences for the climate." “We will definitely have to move to a different concept of growth. ... The lifestyle of the rich in the world is not a sustainable model,” Leipold told the BBC. “If you take the lifestyle, its cost on the environment, and you multiply it with the billions of people and an increasing world population, you come up with numbers which are truly scary," Leipold explained.UNQUOTE and all of those scare-mongering tactics adopted as campaigne policy by Greenpeace, India will not toe the Greenpeace line andneither will other Asian or African developing counties.

In the last few months the Heartland Institute ran three full-page ads in the Washington Post calling for an open debate over the science of global warming (Note 6), yet Greenpeace is too cowardly to get involved. Greenpeace is fighting a losing battle and knows it. By refusing to debate The (significant human-made global climate change) Hypothesis Greenpeace is further detracting from its already seriously diminished credibility.

NOTES:
1) see http://www.climatechangefraud.com/politics-propaganda/4370-the-wong-fiel...
2) seehttp://www.greenpeace.org/usa/campaigns/global-warming-and-energy/exxon-secrets/faq
3) see http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/south-asia/act-now-to-prevent-climat...
4) see http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/news/india/India-wont-accept-any-lega...
5) see http://www.climatedepot.com/a/2521/Greenpeace-Leader-There-is-urgent-nee...
6) see http://www.heartland.org/suites/environment/LetUsDebate.html

Regards, Pete Ridley, Human-made Global Climate Change Agnostic

Pete,

I'd encourage you to go and find a leading climatologist, and persuade them that you're right. Because, if you can do this, you will be internationally famous beyond your wildest dreams, and it will have massive political impact.

I'd start with either the Tyndall Centre - www.tyndall.ac.uk -  or the Hadley Centre, who are attached to the UK's MET office - www.metoffice.gov.uk

However, until you can persuade a leading climatologist that you're right, I'm not that interested in your arguments.

Good luck!

Christian @ GPUK

Just as I expected, Christian, you've stuck to the Greenpeace party line and refuse to debate constructively. Your blind faith does you no credit.

Best regards, Pete Ridley, Human-made Global Climate Change Agnostic

International fame beckons!

Good luck,

Christian @ GPUK

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BwI8dOw5JAI

Here is your amswer.

Why geoengineering can't turn down the global thermostat
Posted by christian on 2 September 2009.

Poor old Daniel Dingel has been dreaming for 30 years about changing our attitude towards fossil fuel use to power motor cars. Isn't that just about the same length of time that Greenpeace has been dreaming of changing our attitude towards the environment.

It appears that neither have had much success.

Pete Ridley, Human-made Global Climate Change Agnostic

There are many scientists who reject The Hypothesis that the emission of CO2 through our use of fossil fuels has significant impact upon mean global temperatures. Since the last IPCC report (AR4) in 2007 there have been several papers showing that The Hypothesis is flawed. I have challenged numerous supporters of The Hypothesis to refute the analyses in those papers with equally detailed scientific analysis. I have challenged Jonathan Porritt, his Forum for the Future, The Sustainable Development Commission, the Australian Government's chief climate change advisor Professor Barry Brook, etc. etc. etc. None have done so. Green peace is an organisation that fully supports The Hypothesis and claims to do so because the science is proven. I challenge Greenpeace to provide equally detailed analyses to refute the complementary fundamental analyses provide in “Climate Change (a fundamental analysis of the greenhouse effect)” (Note 1) by Dr. John Nicol in 2008 and “Mistakes in IPCC Global Warming Calculations” by Roger Taguchi (Note 2). Using fundamental laws of physics, these papers show that the global temperature sensitivity to atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations (at today’s levels) is only a fraction of that claimed by the IPCC in AR4. They show that a doubling of concentration from 300 to 600 ppm will result in only a 1 degree C increase, not the IPCC’s 3C and that with further increases the impact get smaller and smaller. If these papers cannot be proven to be flawed then sceptical scientists will convince more and more people like myself that the UN’s climate change publications as mere propaganda used by politicians, environmentalists, journalists and others for reasons other than controlling global climates. NOTES: 1) see http://mistakesinipcccalculations.blogspot.com/2009/08/mistakes-in-ipcc-... 2) see www.ruralsoft.com.au/ClimateChange.doc Regards, Pete Ridley, Human-made Global Climate Change Agnostic

If only capitalising things was enough to make them go away. I could capitalise my Gas Bill, or Annoying People Talking On Their Mobile On The Train. If only - but it doesn't work like that in the real world. And unfortunately, we don't get to go to organisations we disagree with and say 'Provide detailed refutations of these papers we found down the back of the internet or give up your hopeless crusade!' Nah, this is the real world. When what is probably the most authoratative panel of scientists the world has ever assembled gets together and says, at great length, that something is happening, you pay attention. And then some. Sorry, but your arguments are poor and reflect basic misunderstandings about how the real world works. Try this to begin with: http://www.pewclimate.org/global-warming-basics/ Which for starters has some information on what the planet has been doing since the last IPCC report was published. Christian @ GPUK

Christian, why don't you stop avoiding the issue and instead, try refuting the papers to which I made reference. You can't, can you? Pete Ridley, Human-made Global Climate Change Agnostic

Sorry Pete, but if you're already convinced that the hundreds of emminent scientists who comprise the IPPC are a bunch of fools and charlatans, then why would you give any credence to what we at Greenpeace think?

So why (even if we had the time to debate the minutiae of the subject with you, which we don't) would we bother trying to convince you of something which, as you've already made abundantly clear, you will never believe?

Just a waste of our time, and yours, really.

Perhaps at least that's something we can agree on.

Joss @ GPUK

PS Just for the record, the conclusions of the previous IPCC (Third) Assessment Report were explicitly endorsed by (among others) the following scientific bodies:

  • Academia Brasiliera de Ciências (Bazil)
  • Royal Society of Canada
  • Chinese Academy of Sciences
  • Academié des Sciences (France)
  • Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)
  • Indian National Science Academy
  • Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)
  • Science Council of Japan
  • Russian Academy of Sciences
  • Royal Society (United Kingdom)
  • National Academy of Sciences (United States of America)
  • Australian Academy of Sciences
  • Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts
  • Caribbean Academy of Sciences
  • Indonesian Academy of Sciences
  • Royal Irish Academy
  • Academy of Sciences Malaysia
  • Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand
  • Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences

Which looks like a pretty comprehensive international consensus on the subject, really. Presumably they don't feel that differently about AR4, but I haven't been able to lay my hands on any stats for that in the short time I have available to respond to your comment.

Not good enough, my friend. It is not only myself who needs to be convinced that humans have any significant impact upon global climates through their use of fossil fuels. You will not achieve your objective of cutting global CO2 emissions during the next few decades for the simple reason that your propaganda-based arguments are not convincing, whereas those of people like John Nicol and Roger Tagouchi are based upon fundamental laws of physics. The reason that I challenged Greenpeace was that a friend who is a member of your organisation said that you’d be keen to face a scientific argument. It is obvious that you do not have the competence to refute what Nicols and Tagouchi have proven. I repeat whatr I posted today to the Sustainable Development Commission’s web-site The supporters of The (significant human-made global climate change) Hypothesis are getting more and more worried as increasingly their propaganda is being exposed for what it is. First we had the UK government’s one-time climate change guru (albeit not a scientist by any stretch of the imagination) Jonathan Porritt’s blog Forum for the Future removing my posts early this year. Shortly afterwards the Australian Government’s chief climate science advisor Professor Barry Brook banned me from his site. A month ago Jonathan’s own blog started banning my submissions and now Mark Lynas (another self-appointed climate change “expert” with no scientific background) is removing any that are contentious. The latest paper “Mistakes in IPCC Global Warming Calculations” by Roger Taguchi (Note 1) shows, using fundamental physics, that the global temperature sensitivity to atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations (at today’s levels) is only one third of that claimed by the IPCC. He shows that a doubling of concentration from 300 to 600 ppm will result in a 1C increase, not the IPCC’s 3C and that with further increases the impact get smaller and smaller. Roger Taguchi’s paper complements that of Dr. John Nicol’s 2008 paper (Note 2) “Climate Change (a fundamental analysis of the greenhouse effect)”. Both of these show that our use of fossil fuels has much less of an impact upon global temperatures than supporters of The Hypothesis would have us believe. Roger Taguchi followed a physical chemistry PhD program on reaction dynamics under Professor John C. Polanyi (who shared the 1986 Nobel Prize for “contributions concerning the dynamics of chemical elementary processes" - Note 2). He had been sceptical of the IPCC report since it seemed to ignore water vapour. Rather than read a text on climatology and be led into making the incorrect basic assumptions which had apparently led everyone else astray, Roger started with the Stefan-Boltzmann Law which he knew to be sound and worked from there. As he said, he “took derivatives and quickly realised why the IPCC and climatology literature value for climate sensitivity was all wrong”. So, it might appear at first glance that the world’s politicians, environmentalists, journalists and propaganda booklet authors like Mark were hoodwinked by the IPCC, but I’m not convinced of that. After all, they do have other interests, don’t they. As an ex-RAF associate of mine said many years ago “Where there’s confusion, there’s opportunity for profit”. We now have two detailed fundamental analyses which show that any release of CO2 arising from our use of fossil fuels has negligible impact upon mean global temperatures. So, once again I challenge all of The Hypothesis supporters. Prove with equally detailed fundamental analyses that these papers are flawed and if you can’t then stop your nonsense. In other words, put up or shut up. I have issued this challenge to Greenpeace UK (Note 3) and eagerly await their response, but if previous experience with Dr. Nicol’s paper is anything to go by I won’t be holding my breath. NOTES: 1) see http://mistakesinipcccalculations.blogspot.com/2009/08/mistakes-in-ipcc-... 2) see www.ruralsoft.com.au/ClimateChange.doc 3) see http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/blog/climate/perspectives-geoengineering-20... Regards, Pete Ridley, Human-made Global Climate Change Agnostic

It is claimed (Note 1) that QUOTE: .. in 2008 Greenpeace announced an official policy of not debating the causes or merits of climate change UNQUOTE. The reaction that I’ve had here so far supports this claim but I have not been able to find confirmation of this on the Greenpeace site so would appreciate confirmation of otherwise. I quote from Greenpeace FAQ (Note 2) QUOTE: Debate is part of science, isn’t it? Real scientists always debate science – that is correct, its part of the scientific process, testing hypotheses and introducing new data and analysis. UNQUOTE. Back in April 2008 it was reported (Note 3) QUOTE: New Delhi, Apr.29 (ANI): “Act now to prevent climate change or rehabilitate 12.5 crore people, Greenpeace warns”. In a dramatic action early this morning, singer Rabbi joined Greenpeace activists who have occupied “prime real estate” and set up a “migrant colony” of hutments 35 feet above the Delhi Noida toll bridge. This occupation will continue all day and will highlight the urgency of creating a National Climate Action plan (NCAP) that focuses on taking action now to prevent climate change. Indications are that the government’s approach to the NCAP is to wait and deal with the nightmarish consequences through “adaptation”. The Greenpeace report, ‘Blue Alert Climate Migrants in South Asia: Estimates and Solutions’ (1), authored by Dr. Sudhir Chella Rajan professor of Humanities & Social Sciences at IIT Madras, warns that if greenhouse gas emissions continue to grow under the business-as-usual scenario as projected, leading to global temperature rise by 4-5degC, the South Asian region is estimated to face an enormous wave of 12.5 crore climate migrants. UNQUOTE. Terrifying, isn’t it! So terrifying that as recently as July the Indian Government rejected any binding agreements on resticting carbon emissions (Note 4) QUOTE: “India won't accept any legally binding emission reductions: .. ”. Environment minister Jairam Ramesh asserted that New Delhi was "simply not in a position" to accept any legally binding emission reductions and made it clear that India was not running away from responsibilities on the issue. The minister's comments came at a joint press conference with US secretary of State Hillary Clinton .. The US wants India to agree to limit its carbon emissions ahead of the signing of a new UN climate treaty in Copenhagen in December. .. Clinton pointed out that India's green house gas pollution was projected to grow by about 50 per cent between now and 2030 and the country was vulnerable to climate change. However, she said that the US does not and will not do anything that would limit India's economic progress. Ramesh underlined India's stand that its GHG emissions would never exceed those of the developed nations. .. UNQUOTE. So, despite the Greenpeace leader’s (Note 5): QUOTE "Leipold told the BBC that there is an urgent need for the suppression of economic growth in the United States and around the world. He said annual growth rates of 3 percent to 8 percent cannot continue without serious consequences for the climate." “We will definitely have to move to a different concept of growth. ... The lifestyle of the rich in the world is not a sustainable model,” Leipold told the BBC. “If you take the lifestyle, its cost on the environment, and you multiply it with the billions of people and an increasing world population, you come up with numbers which are truly scary," Leipold explained.UNQUOTE and all of those scare-mongering tactics adopted as campaigne policy by Greenpeace, India will not toe the Greenpeace line andneither will other Asian or African developing counties. In the last few months the Heartland Institute ran three full-page ads in the Washington Post calling for an open debate over the science of global warming (Note 6), yet Greenpeace is too cowardly to get involved. Greenpeace is fighting a losing battle and knows it. By refusing to debate The (significant human-made global climate change) Hypothesis Greenpeace is further detracting from its already seriously diminished credibility. NOTES: 1) see http://www.climatechangefraud.com/politics-propaganda/4370-the-wong-fiel... 2) seehttp://www.greenpeace.org/usa/campaigns/global-warming-and-energy/exxon-secrets/faq 3) see http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/south-asia/act-now-to-prevent-climat... 4) see http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/news/india/India-wont-accept-any-lega... 5) see http://www.climatedepot.com/a/2521/Greenpeace-Leader-There-is-urgent-nee... 6) see http://www.heartland.org/suites/environment/LetUsDebate.html Regards, Pete Ridley, Human-made Global Climate Change Agnostic

Pete,

I'd encourage you to go and find a leading climatologist, and persuade them that you're right. Because, if you can do this, you will be internationally famous beyond your wildest dreams, and it will have massive political impact.

I'd start with either the Tyndall Centre - www.tyndall.ac.uk -  or the Hadley Centre, who are attached to the UK's MET office - www.metoffice.gov.uk

However, until you can persuade a leading climatologist that you're right, I'm not that interested in your arguments.

Good luck!

Christian @ GPUK

Just as I expected, Christian, you've stuck to the Greenpeace party line and refuse to debate constructively. Your blind faith does you no credit. Best regards, Pete Ridley, Human-made Global Climate Change Agnostic

International fame beckons!

Good luck,

Christian @ GPUK

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BwI8dOw5JAI Here is your amswer. Why geoengineering can't turn down the global thermostat Posted by christian on 2 September 2009.

Poor old Daniel Dingel has been dreaming for 30 years about changing our attitude towards fossil fuel use to power motor cars. Isn't that just about the same length of time that Greenpeace has been dreaming of changing our attitude towards the environment. It appears that neither have had much success. Pete Ridley, Human-made Global Climate Change Agnostic

About Christian Hunt

me.jpg

Sea ice geek, former web editor at GP.

Follow Greenpeace UK