the great global warming swindle

I'm scientific. I've got a degree in an applied science. I know about science stuff, or I did anyway, before I forgot it all. But the point about science stuff is that it isn't the facts that matter so much as the approach - the spirit of scientific enquiry.

But facts do matter as well. Climate has been changing a lot since before humans evolved - so humans had nothing to do with it - and that's a fact. There have been much wilder climactic swings than global warming gloomsbodies have been predicting. I'm reasonably familiar with these changes because my applied science was geology...a very long history of the earth. Humans tend to have a very short perspective - take a step back - there's been a lot of climate change.

So I have this long perspective which makes me sceptical. Also, I appreciate scientific enquiry which frankly I've been too lazy to look into when it comes to climate change - but I can't jump into one camp or another until I'm reasonably convinced. So I'm a global warming sceptic.

This week Britain's Channel 4 broadcasted a documentary called The Great Global Warming Swindle. It was an interesting mix of social commentary and science. The science bit is:

• that the greenhouse effect doesn't really work like it's commonly understood
• CO2 is lagging indicator of temperature not leading - so causation works the other way round (heating up of the earth releases carbon from ocean - and heating the ocean takes a loooong time),
• the earth heating is caused by changes in the sun,
• human CO2 is a relatively small amount of the total so cutting back on emissions won't make much difference.

The social science bit was:

• humans like to doom monger, this is just the latest in a long line of scary stories
• this is the cause that anti-capitalist political activists flocked to after the dismal failure of communism and socialism.
• scientists jump on the bandwagon because they're funding hounds - and there's now a ton of money in global climate change i.e. you want to study squirrels?, you want to get a grant? you better write a proposal that includes the effect of climate change on those fluffy-tailed rats or you ain't gonna get no money.
• and there was a little bit on how humans are a bit short sighted - gosh, it's an early spring this year* - I can't remember such an early spring - must be global warming

But not many dispute that in the past few decades the earth is warming up and that there are some consequences. Particularly for humans in marginal cirucmstances - the desperately poor living in areas where climate change has the largest impact.

So the key questions still are:

• does human activity have any impact on climate (even if it's not the major driver)?
• would changing some human behavior (e.g. consumption patterns that lead to carbon emissions) make a difference to climate change?
• is the benefit to some humans living in desperate conditions greater than the cost of changing our ways?
• if changing our beviour would make a difference to climate change, is there a sufficient benefit to humans of maintaining the habitats of interesting animals like polar bears? would we be really, really sad if they were gone? (probably)
  
• is it more efficient to compensate the humans who are most effected rather than change our ways?

And additionally...

• Are there other consequences to burning fossil fuels to human health and the environment?

I would suggest that there are severe consequences to our patterns of consumption - for example inner city children who suffer respiratory damage from the particulates in gas or petrol. I find it ironic that people Britain are so worked up about climate change (which probably wouldn't affect them too much) caused by burning fossil fuels and yet were extremely late to banning leaded fuel which is absolutely proven to damage children - both to their physical and mental health. That's just one example. If we concentrate too much on global warming, we may be in danger of overlooking other serious consequences of human behaviour on the environment and other humans.





*Note - I've seen heard a few comments here and there on how much earlier spring is this year and how that's a sign of global warming. My impression is that spring is just about on time this year, but was really late last year.

For example:


Last year - the first daffodils on 25 March - and I mean the very first - and there were no others in my garden.

The year before:

the daffodils are quite well established at the end of March

And this year - first daffs at the end of February.

But I have had them bloom much earlier - even in January.