tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7820485130017459619.post1512686474654772300..comments2023-10-24T01:46:47.151-07:00Comments on CynicusEconomicus: Climategate and EconomicsUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger38125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7820485130017459619.post-39667177290830529812010-01-02T00:11:55.309-08:002010-01-02T00:11:55.309-08:00As the skeptics have noted, it's the degree of...As the skeptics have noted, it's the degree of global warming that is uncertain. On some climate models, it will actually get significantly colder in the Northern part of the hemisphere ,40 degrees latitude and up, if the gulf stream is disrupted. This is why global warming is now called "climate change". It's an acknowledgement, by honest scientists and politicans, that the Earth's weather systems are extremely complex and therefore it's difficult to predict exactly how increased CO2 levels will affect every area on Earth. Some areas may not necessarily get warmer or colder, they might just get drier. There's plenty scientists don't understand because there's missing data for all possible factors that influence climate. For example, in the Little Ice Age that happened a few centuries ago, scientists don't know what the sun's activity was like at that time. However, there's a conclusion that can be reached by observing evolution for the last several million years. For the last several million years, the Earth's climate has been cool... subtropical at least. This would explain the disappearence of large reptiles, the dinosaurs, from inhabiting most of the land. Reptiles need extremely warm weather to get big as the dinosaurs did. When dinosaurs roamed the global climate was extremely warm...and that has not been the case for several million years. Climate ususally changes slowly enough for life to adapt. A lot of reptiles died off, but the smaller ones survived. At the current rate that mankind is changing the atmospheric composition of the air and acidifying the ocean, basically messing around with ecosystems they couldn't be bothered to at least understand, life can't adapt fast enough. The problem with global warming skeptics is that they also tend to be skeptics of science in general. They think Man can do no wrong to the planet. They're the kind of people who tend believe if man overworks a piece of farmland in Africa or North Korea to the point it becomes a desert, it's because God wills it. They tend to find refuge in religious fundementalism. I can't tell you how many people you can find anywhere in America who have a habit of imappropriately quoting the Bible when they are encounter a piece of news but can't understand how a food chain works or...accept overpopulation as a problem.A Real Black Personhttp://www.msn.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7820485130017459619.post-53289473728564850792009-12-25T17:27:21.463-08:002009-12-25T17:27:21.463-08:00I've taken time to consider the (typically) qu...I've taken time to consider the (typically) quality opinions and facts here regarding this important issue; it has certainly helped to further my thinking. In my own high-level (but hopefully salient) way, I have come to the following conclusions:<br /><br />1. Whatever the subject, there will usually be an agenda of sorts: personal, business or political. It's the human way.<br /><br />2. Therefore, to get closer to the truth/facts/likelyhood on a given issue, the 'weight of evidence', or consensus, should be regarded. <br /><br />(I'm reminded of a poster in the 80s that, on one side, listed organisations that thought smoking was harmful - it was a long list. <br /><br />On the other side, organisations that thought smoking wasn't harmful were listed. There was just the one - FOREST - which happened to be supported by the tobacco companies! Just to illustrate.<br /><br />3. Global warming induced by CO2 is just one symptom of the 'big problem' which includes: increasing overpopulation, ongoing destruction of rainforests, acidation of the seas, ecosystem loss etc. <br /><br />4. Reaching a 'tipping point' (i.e. when human intervention - despite best efforts - will not deal with the problem) in any of these areas will turn out to be catastrophic.<br /><br />5. I believe we are heading slowly (but surely) towards a tipping point because it seems to me things are getting progressively worse in all these areas. Tackling these problems head on could be helped by high-level hard decision making, but as Copenhagen demonstrated, agendas get in the way. Which takes me (sadly) back to point 1.<br /><br />And that's as far as my thinking goes.<br /><br />On a separate note, I wish happy holidays to you Cynicus and all correspondents.<br /><br />BobAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7820485130017459619.post-28165860939019137362009-12-24T03:57:10.457-08:002009-12-24T03:57:10.457-08:00I remember hearing about a scientist who had been ...I remember hearing about a scientist who had been working on a theory for many years and attended the presentation of a paper by one of his rivals. The rival scientist's paper systematically disproved the first scientist's theory through weight of evidence and at the end of the presentation the first scientist said to his rival "Thankyou Sir, for although my own theory that I have worked on for many years is shown to be wrong, you have advanced our science considerably.". This prompted a spontaneous standing ovation from the assembled attendees.<br /><br />Whether this event really happened or not, isn't important. It is a story that sends a tingle down the spine of anybody who truly believes in science. As more evidence is collected, theories that looked perfectly reasonable at the start, no longer fit with reality. Good science modifies or discards theories to make the theory match the evidence. Bad science coerces the data to fit the theory.<br /><br />[Where I refer to AGW below, I mean harmful AGW that requires action. I think few would argue that humans have no effect (urban heat haze etc.) but the question is whether the 'signal' of AGW is significant above the 'noise' of natural variations.]<br /><br />AGW is a theory. People use the term "scientific fact" where the evidence is so overwhelming (large volume, many difference sources, reliable sources) that further evidence would likely refine rather than challenge the theory - even so-called "scientific fact" is still a theory.<br /><br />We often hear the words "AGW is scientific fact" or a phrase that particularly rings alarm bells for me: "The debate is over". Another favourite is "The vast majority of mainstream scientists agree...". If AGW is to be called scientific fact then there must exist a body of evidence that is truly overwhelming. For example, why do I believe Darwin's theory of evolution? because there is a vast body of evidence collected over hundreds of years from several sources (fossils, DNA, selective breeding) that has continually reinforced the validity of the theory. Why is it easy for me to find tons of evidence of evolution but really difficult to find any evidence of AGW?<br /><br />Even if we discard the term scientific fact and go to the lowest confidence level that could justify action: "AGW theory is probably right", we would still expect a reasonable level of evidence to support that claim. Otherwise, why is it any more legitimate than Bertrand Russell's Celestial Teapot?<br /><br />It seems that the AGW theory is lacking in any supporting evidence. There was the original set of ice core data that got people excited about the theory because it was measured across a statistically significant length of time and showed a strong correlation between CO2 and temperature but there wasn't enough detail to show causation (i.e. that CO2 causes temperature rise rather than just moving with it) so new samples were taken at a finer resolution and this showed that the opposite was true (that CO2 changes occur about 800 years after temperature changes - so CO2 changes can not *cause* temperature changes).<br /><br />Science is not an opinion poll. It rests entirely on weight of evidence. The problem is that activists will argue that we can't wait for evidence to be collected in case it turns out that we could have done something to prevent the terrible consequences. Let's take that argument to its logical conclusion: I can postulate any number of theories for how we could all perish in an end-of-world scenario - why pick AGW over my theories? If we try and prevent the outcomes predicted by all those theories (AGW included) then we would spend all our effort on futile objectives rather than solving the world's real problems.<br /><br />We need to select how we use our limited resources based on sound evidence. From what I have seen, I would say there is more evidence that CO2 reduction initiatives will cause more harm to us than CO2 output.Jeremy Ormehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02562312858264349902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7820485130017459619.post-70549834623480325012009-12-23T15:08:09.405-08:002009-12-23T15:08:09.405-08:00Tiberius:
You are right that there is no reason t...Tiberius:<br /><br />You are right that there is no reason to dismiss all of the science of AGW. You are right that CO2 will impact upon the climate, at least to some degree. The critical question is to what degree. <br /><br />The problem that we are confronted with is as follows:<br /><br />- the scientists involved in AGW research have used models and data that they have withheld from other researchers and scientists, and have not given them information on their 'adjustments' to temperature data. Why?<br />- the scientists involved in AGW have sought to manipulate the peer review process. Why?<br />- In presenting results, scientists have buried data that calls into question their conclusions. Why?<br />- the scientists involved in AGW research have thrown away data (as one wag put it, sorry, the dog ate my data). Why?<br /><br />If they are so confident in their AGW thesis, why has this been the case. I have offered many links and quotes that have shown concerns about the data. For example, the Russian report on temperatures. One of the papers rejected in the peer review process has similar concerns for Siberia:<br /><br />http://climateaudit.org/2009/12/21/climategatekeeping-siberia/<br /><br />There is more similar 'dodgy data'. Take this example from New Zealand:<br /><br />http://www.climatescience.org.nz/images/PDFs/global_warming_nz2.pdf<br /><br />http://www.climateconversation.wordshine.co.nz/2009/12/18/niwas-obfuscation-unequivocal-its-worse-than-we-thought/<br /><br />If you read these links, you will find a pattern that is familiar to others who have sought the data and methodology used for global temperature records. If you look at their research you will find that they have found that the raw data contradicts the warming found by others. They just want to know how data suggesting no warming became data showing warming. This seems reasonable. Read their paper. <br /><br />This is who they are:<br /><br />http://nzclimatescience.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=blogsection&id=12&Itemid=45<br /><br />Ah, but they are in the pay of 'big oil' etc. This seems the answer to everything. However, it is apparent they are just a group of concerned scientists and concerned laymen. <br /><br />General: One commentator suggested I 'know nowt'. I have been following this for a long, long time. I do not know all the science, as this area covers many disciplines. However, I have taken the trouble to read on temperature reconstructions, and the skeptical scientists fill in many other gaps. I have conducted my own research in a different area of study, and have therefore (as all researchers should) studied the philosophy of science. <br /><br />My own research established that a theory was founded on nothing more than a series of errors made by earlier researchers (and some blatant distortion of earlier research).<br /><br />General 2: Thanks for the many comments overall. <br /><br />I will leave this subject here.Markhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14983165364072918091noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7820485130017459619.post-46185888775622755392009-12-23T12:04:44.074-08:002009-12-23T12:04:44.074-08:00Cynicus,
As always with these kind of debates, it...Cynicus,<br /><br />As always with these kind of debates, it seems people are pretty quick to lose sight of what it is they are actually 'skeptical' of.<br /><br />Rather than dismissing the whole theoretical process of "AGW", it makes more sense for 'skeptics' to ask themselves questions along the following lines:<br /><br />- Do I believe that Carbon atoms exist?<br /> - Do I believe that Carbon atoms exist with great abundance in fossil fuels, e.g. oil, coal?<br />- Do I believe that human beings have been burning vast quantities of fossil fuels in the last century?<br />- Do I believe that when Carbon bonds are broken the released Carbon atoms form bonds with other atoms - most significantly Oxygen?<br />- Do I believe that human activity (i.e. burning fossil fuels) is creating greater levels of CO2 in the planet's atmosphere?<br />- Do I believe CO2 is a 'greenhouse gas', i.e. a gas that absorbs and emits radiation within the thermal infrared range?<br />- Do I believe that plants and trees absorb CO2?<br />- Do I believe that human beings have been destroying vast areas of the rainforest in the past century?<br />- Do I believe that destroying plant and tree life is likely to decrease that amount of CO2 absorbed?<br /> - Do I believe that this increased proportion of CO2 is likely to have an effect on the Earth's climate?<br /><br />Calling yourself an 'AGW skeptic' is, to my way of thinking at least, a cop-out: it's a meaningless shorthanded away of avoiding the ridicule that would come with saying, for example, "I am a Carbon skeptic", or, "I am a skeptic of the basic principles of Chemisty". <br /><br />I find that most lay-skeptics have no real scientific background and therefore don't understand that a) almost all academic science shows some signs of bad science when money is thrown at it (a look into the Cancer Research industry can show this) but this does not invalidate the whole field of research (Cancer does exist, a cure may be found), b) science is not about closing the book on any issue, and AGW is never going to be 'proven' in a way that would satisfy many of these skeptics.<br /><br />As a final note I find that any article that continually and unequivocally refers to AGW as a 'fraud', and that talks about what 'the West can afford' with no qualification for what the West may actually <b> owe</b>, to be extremely cynical in the most negative sense of that word.<br /><br />T.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7820485130017459619.post-57188572742791363132009-12-23T10:21:53.228-08:002009-12-23T10:21:53.228-08:00For the best rebukes of AGW Look up Lord Monckton ...For the best rebukes of AGW Look up Lord Monckton on Youtube.<br /><br />www.youtube.com/watch?v=bKrw6ih8Gto<br /><br />www.youtube.com/watch?v=OzkB5DuveDE<br /><br />I am convinced its a cynical way of keeping the West ahead of the emerging markets, whilst similtaneously allowing certain individiuals and/or groups to become enormously wealthy.Jonnyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16119442844302447926noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7820485130017459619.post-33524879733611231482009-12-23T06:36:05.631-08:002009-12-23T06:36:05.631-08:00Research showed that 'climate deniers' are...Research showed that 'climate deniers' are more likely to be male, over the age of 40 and to the right of centre in their politics. Anyone? ;)<br /><br />I think some folk should stick to politics and not dabble in science, when even disregarding the dodgy behaviour of some scientists, the overwhelming majority can show that the evidence is in favour of it being man-made.<br /><br />And perhaps you'd like to point out to your readers how many of the anti-mand made climate change scientists have received funding by the large oil companies - who understandably are keen to rubbish the science...Andrewnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7820485130017459619.post-32903409451620052452009-12-23T06:26:31.856-08:002009-12-23T06:26:31.856-08:00Even if global climate change was overstated/mista...Even if global climate change was overstated/mistaken/a hoax/a conspiracy, we still face major problems with energy security, rising energy prices and increasing the acidity (decreasing alkalinity) of the oceans. Hence there are several good reasons to reduce energy use (through efficiency), moving to other power generation methods and generally decarbonise our economy. Many of these measures actually save us money in the medium to long term. So the initial steps to counter Climate Change, should be taken anyway.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05277167568446993017noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7820485130017459619.post-58158990882197125112009-12-23T06:19:34.918-08:002009-12-23T06:19:34.918-08:00In a few dacades time the whole AGW fiasco will co...In a few dacades time the whole AGW fiasco will come to be seen as a millennial mass delusion. A modern day version of the perennial religious 'The end of the world is nigh' prediction. In 50 years time temperatures will be nowhere near what they are predicted to be by the Warmists, and reality will trump their belief system just as it has for all the religious nutjobs who came before.sobersnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7820485130017459619.post-11422931646244557172009-12-23T01:55:49.829-08:002009-12-23T01:55:49.829-08:00Just thinking about my earlier comment, it was jus...Just thinking about my earlier comment, it was just an elaborate way of saying<br /><br /><i>"It takes one to know one"</i>Lemmingnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7820485130017459619.post-53938787787301587292009-12-23T01:16:12.087-08:002009-12-23T01:16:12.087-08:00Stop talking about stuff you know nowt about. Stop...Stop talking about stuff you know nowt about. Stopped windmills? No global warming? Co2 doesn't matter?Anonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7820485130017459619.post-59249046499367972232009-12-23T01:10:56.272-08:002009-12-23T01:10:56.272-08:00To Bob earlier who was wondering why pockets of s...To Bob earlier who was wondering why pockets of scepticism prevail:<br /><br />I wonder if you, yourself, have ever been involved in processing raw data of some kind to produce a 'presentation' to someone controlling the purse strings of funding? On a few occasions I have been in the position of gathering large amounts of 'multi-dimensional' data from remote sensors and trying to show if it is possible to detect certain events through patterns in the data. From my experience, the following is true:<br /><br />(1) Some data are more troublesome than others. Very tempting to leave them out, but the declared set of data still has the appearance of completeness. The reader of the report has no way of knowing that you have discarded data.<br />(2) A solution or 'model' can appear very robust until you add more to the data set, then it falls apart quite distressingly. It is tempting to avoid adding the new data.<br />(3) It is very easy to produce an impressive result without 'cheating' as such. Declare what you have done openly as though it is the only obvious solution, and the reader cannot spot the omissions, fudges etc. without completely repeating the work.<br />(4) What you say you have done, and what your software does may be different, simply because of a simple mistake. <br />(5) When funding is in the offing, it is very tempting to create a positive preliminary report and not worry too much about the lack of robustness (if you are even aware of it yourself). In engineering you know that the problems may show up in the future but it is tempting to make your superiors happy today and worry about that later. It occurs to me that in climatology you will never be 'found out' as such.<br />(6) If you have an extra subjective dimension such as 'correction' of historical weather station results, tree ring proxies etc. my instinct is that that the final result could easily be complete fiction.<br /><br />I had all these suspicions before the UEA emails, and they merely confirmed my sceptical view. <br /><br />Of course there is anecdotal evidence of ice melting etc. but AGW proponents use the argument that the Mediaeval Warm Period was merely a local occurrence and the rest of the world was actually getting colder. I don't see why this doesn't apply to any 'evidence' that we apparently see with our own eyes, such as polar bears perched on melting ice, and so on.Lemmingnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7820485130017459619.post-20329841692793401302009-12-22T12:30:11.099-08:002009-12-22T12:30:11.099-08:00NASA data fyi:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/g...NASA data fyi:<br />http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.lrg.gif<br /><br />I didn't really think there was a problem with the climate until I saw this:<br />http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png<br /><br />Holy crap - has that been furtled by the pesky East Anglians or are we heading for hell in a handcart?<br /><br />I'm sure we'll be fine as long as we don't expect more than a billion people to live on the planet...Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06608926469432567123noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7820485130017459619.post-66006297350801291522009-12-21T15:00:19.904-08:002009-12-21T15:00:19.904-08:00I'd recommend viewing this AGU presentation by...I'd recommend viewing this AGU presentation by Richard Alley, presented to the AGU Fall Meeting in San Francisco last week:<br /><br />http://www.agu.org/meetings/fm09/lectures/lecture_videos/A23A.shtml<br /><br />cynicus, if your grasp on the science of climate change is so lacking, why should we trust any of your prognostications?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7820485130017459619.post-82898681620473056302009-12-21T15:00:14.891-08:002009-12-21T15:00:14.891-08:00The problem is barely to do with CO2 or slight war...The problem is barely to do with CO2 or slight warming, that's just a convenience.<br /><br />The problem is we are shitting up our planet, the seas ecosystems are collapsing, jungles and forests are getting stripped and desertified. Our rivers and lakes are so polluted nothing can live in them.<br /><br />There are two main issues we are ignoring, there's too many people and we are not spending any money on R&D for Fusion.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7820485130017459619.post-56668713269755381562009-12-21T12:29:21.833-08:002009-12-21T12:29:21.833-08:00Lord Sidcup: It is not the agreement that prompted...Lord Sidcup: It is not the agreement that prompted my comment, but the polite and reasonable disagreement. e.g. no use of the word 'denier' etc. <br /><br />You are wrong about right wing libertarian clusters. I started my cynicism about AGW when looking at a stopped windmill. I realised that, if that was the 'solution', how can we be sure about the problem. Then started reading. Essentially, you are accusing me of 'groupthink', which seems to ignore the history of this blog. <br /><br />Chris: You are quite right about the phrase being the wrong way round. I would change it, but make it a principle to never change a post once published. It is too easy to rewrite history on these blogs, so I leave it all on - warts and all. <br /><br />Thanks for the many other comments and links. Again, thanks for the consistently intelligent responses.Markhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14983165364072918091noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7820485130017459619.post-9140911612227379432009-12-21T11:39:02.423-08:002009-12-21T11:39:02.423-08:00Surely the real problem is too difficult. Anyone ...Surely the real problem is too difficult. Anyone who really thinks about the problem is too frightened to address it. James Lovelock says the unspeakable but is ignored. The crisis is not one of CO2 or methane or flurocarbons but one of overpopulation. The distractions such as Copenhagen are comfortable and manageable. The real problem is not.<br /><br />None of us can really face the reality of rapid population reduction. Simple wars are not destructive enough.<br /><br />I will now go back to just reading the interesting posts on my favourite blog.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7820485130017459619.post-82375251616305199352009-12-21T11:18:01.084-08:002009-12-21T11:18:01.084-08:00Warming or cooling what does it matter ? If as you...Warming or cooling what does it matter ? If as you have been saying for so long, the western economies are on the point of collapse, then surely no one will be able to afford any of the above "solutions" . <br /> Does anyone really believe, if the U.S dollar or the UK pound collapses - with all the social unrest that will result, that Mr Obama or Mr Brown will then go to their people and ask for some more money for climate change measures ? I don't think so.....Even they aren't that daft. I say : roll on the collapse, it could be our only way out !!<br /><br />John C.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7820485130017459619.post-37877652361029108982009-12-21T11:15:04.642-08:002009-12-21T11:15:04.642-08:00UK pointed the finger of blame at China for blocki...UK pointed the finger of blame at China for blocking progress at the summit in Copenhagen. Brown played a major part in a desperate attempt to get a legally binding deal at copenhagen, his interest is not in cleanining up the planet, the publication of e-mails and documents leaked from one of the worlds leading climate research institutions tell an all but to familiar story, the public might not be able to describe fluid dynamics using mathematics but are quite able to recognise deliberate untruthfulness and ambiguity when they see it, suprisingly China seems to see it this way also.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7820485130017459619.post-74002807153082080932009-12-21T05:44:25.418-08:002009-12-21T05:44:25.418-08:00while AGW is still up in the air in my mind, and a...while AGW is still up in the air in my mind, and although i believe if it exists, there are good arguements in favor of it, one thing that can be denied is <a href="http://www.planetforlife.com/co2history/index.html" rel="nofollow">The History of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide on Earth</a>rjshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15681812432224138582noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7820485130017459619.post-39610124101848713282009-12-21T02:54:21.901-08:002009-12-21T02:54:21.901-08:00"I am pleasantly surprised at the comments so..."I am pleasantly surprised at the comments so far, which all reflect the high standards of readership of the site. "<br />Hmmm. . . because they largely agree with you. <br /><br />This issue exposes the huge problems of human belief: people beliefs are usually not arrived at rationally (inherited from parents, created in opposition to disliked others, groupthink etc), but are then rationalized. <br /><br />There is a glut of bad science on both sides, and propaganda. Although agnostic on this issue myself, I regard this article as heartfelt propaganda (in the same Monbiot's work is) because the author already had his conclusions before investigating the issue. Even the most intelligent humans are all too good at confirming their own biases. <br /><br />CE's stance on global warming is fairly predictable as right-libertarian, as beliefs seem to cluster, just as we can predict that the majority of left-libertarians believe that AGW is a real and present danger.Lord Sidcupnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7820485130017459619.post-41694935859456016902009-12-21T02:22:18.989-08:002009-12-21T02:22:18.989-08:00Hi Cynicus, just one question from an AGW agnostic...Hi Cynicus, just one question from an AGW agnostic: why do you think this 'fraud' has been perpetrated?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7820485130017459619.post-69092195287992472772009-12-21T02:20:17.880-08:002009-12-21T02:20:17.880-08:00Another thought which occurs is it doesn't rea...Another thought which occurs is it doesn't really matter what is driving climate change. Everything I've heard suggest man-made or not it's going to cause massive upheaval and economic disruption. However even if it IS man made it's clear that we are not prepared to take the economic hit required to reduce our emissions. <br /><br />So, irrespective of what the cause is a geo-engineering solution looks like the best bet not reductions in emissions.Jameshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05867971145121657203noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7820485130017459619.post-47341896720456821512009-12-21T01:51:09.967-08:002009-12-21T01:51:09.967-08:00I am really not sure why this has come so far, exc...<i>I am really not sure why this has come so far, except that people believed the 'science'.</i><br /><br />CE<br /><br />Are we sure that our leaders haven't latched desperately onto 'green industry' as the next source of Western-led growth? (with the bonus that we can limit Asian competition directly: from this morning's Telegraph <i>Gordon Brown is drawing up plans for the European Union to become a global warming "policeman", monitoring individual countries' compliance with carbon-cutting targets. </i>).<br /><br />But I also have the fanciful notion that our leaders are beginning to understand that resources (e.g. oil) are running out and that economic growth as we know it cannot continue. The global threat of AGW would have been a brilliant way of persuading people to pay more tax and reduce their standards of living without a fight.Lemmingnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7820485130017459619.post-3484254712576149482009-12-21T00:51:50.577-08:002009-12-21T00:51:50.577-08:001st para "..a fundamental shift of wealth cre...1st para "..a fundamental shift of wealth creation from the East to the West"<br /><br />Shouldn't that be the other way around?Chris Hutthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01532451004057748734noreply@blogger.com