W

Is the obsession with climate change/global warming turning out to be the most costly scientific blunder in history

6 Answers
.
E

I have to disagree with what some of those answering above me contend particularly the suggestion "not being aware of climate change or global warming would be the most costly scientific blunder in history", or that "some businesses have a financial interest in pretending it is not happening". The precise opposite in fact appears to be the truth. All the really big money is not being spent on denial or scepticism, but on trying to perpetuate the propaganda of Al Gore and the United Nation International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that the consensus of all the world's top scientists all believe dangerous global warming is being caused by CO2 and unless addressed that issue will cause a rise in sea levels.

Yes the Earth appears to be warming BUT in truth it is happening at a very much slower pace than had been predicted by the IPCC. Predictions by them and Al Gore in his now thoroughly discredited documentary ?an inconvenient truth? seem to have badly misled the press and ill informed public opinion into believing that ?2,500 of the world?s leading scientists had reached a consensus that human activities are having a significant influence on the climate? and the alleged effect that would have throughout the 21st century. That also got believed by gullible politicians and the general public mainly in the USA, Australia and western Europe including the UK, although it was rejected totally in Russia, China, India and other developing nations so helping their economies to go up while ours plummet?

Many politicians all over the world including the likes of President Obama, UK?s John Major, David Cameron, Gordon Brown, Nick Clegg and Tony Blair, the entire European Union Commission , Australian PM Julia Gillard etc.etc., all seem to have swallowed hook line and sink the myth that ?most of the world?s top scientists believe man made CO2 emissions are the cause of global warming?. That deception is what is helping to destroy the world's economy. That is why various governments are cutting back on fossil fuel generation of electricity and changing to renewable sources such as solar and wind power and to nuclear power stations to try to save the doomed world, and as one Daily Telegraph journalist puts it "sadly the very last people to recognise this, alas, will be our politicians, because they seem incapable of looking properly at the evidence".

So what is the real truth? Firstly the price we are all increasingly having to pay for their gullibility is incalculable. For example here in the UK paying for our Climate Change Act is officially due to cost us up to £18billion a year at this time of austerity and it driving our entire national energy policy, threatening everybody with ever more crippling bills, power blackouts, and the sight of our countryside being covered in ever more giant wind factories which are all but useless, all because our politicians have swallowed the false propaganda.

The real truth also seems to be all over the world a range of very eminent scientists are in fact on record as stating the conclusions by the IPCC and All Gore are flawed, such as Dr Mike Hulme, a prominent climate scientist and UN-IPCC insider. Dr Benjamin Santer, author of the 2007 IPCC report chapter on the detection of greenhouse warming - Dr Richard Lindzen (Atmospheric Scientist) Professor at MIT UN-IPCC Lead Author, Dr John Christy ? Professor and Director of the Earth System Science Centre at the University of Alabama Russian Dr Yury Izrael, past UN IPCC Vice President, director of Global Climate and Ecology Institute, member and very many others of the highest eminence.

Moreover most importantly in gauging the true opinion of eminent scientists worldwide, a petition organised by www.oism.org/project signed by 9,000 Scientists (I repeat 9,000) who have PhDs and 31,000 scientists altogether actually states:-

?There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.? unquote.

Also despite efforts to mislead, distort and hide the truth, the world now know from the actual climate observations how exaggerated the IPCC computer predictions on forthcoming world temperatures were back in 1999 when they so wrongly predicted their massive increases in world temperature, unless we reduced CO2 emissions. Their propaganda still tries to cover up by personal attacks on eminent individuals who expose correct scientific facts.

Because there has in fact been a huge increase in world CO2 emissions over past 15 years, particularly from China who has increased its total coal consumption 14% in each of the past five years in the broadest industrialization ever, are every week yet another coal-fired power plant opened somewhere in China. India is right behind China in also hugely stepping up its construction of coal-fired power plants.

Yet despite this known gigantic increase in manmade CO2 emissions added to by huge increases in airline operations, official world temperature charts from 2000 to 2012 clearly reveal the actual observed temperature trend since the millennium has been NEGATIVE, while the IPCC computer models all predicted a huge POSITIVE upward trend they told us would happen if we did not drastically reduce worldwide CO2 emissions.

So why did the IPCC get their predictions so wrong? The basic reason seems to be because their computer models were foolishly and irresponsibly programmed, at very great expense of mankind, specifically to predict future world temperatures on the categoric assumption that the main driving force in determining them would be CO2. But as many top eminent scientists have pointed out, the same IPCC computer programming failed to take proper account of all the other important factors potentially shaping the earth?s climate from the negative impact of clouds and water vapour to the changing radiation of the sun and shifts in major oceanic currents.

But it does seem enlightenment is at last dawning in that we were all fooled by the likes of Al Gore. In recent months, even such fanatical proponents of the warmist orthodoxy as Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the UN?s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and James Hansen of NASA as well as the UK Met Office have finally admitted that since 1997, the warming trend has stalled virtually to a standstill. There have also been some predictions (right or wrong as they may prove to be) we are heading for "a new ice age" and global cooling is the real issue.

There has been no rise in sea levels over past 15 years but a fall in them since the millennium! Overall the statistical truth appear to be, there was indeed a modest temperature rise in the late 20th century up to 1998. But that now appears to have been just a continuation of the warming that began 200 years ago as the world naturally emerged from those centuries of cooling known as the Little Ice Age. But the 0.5C rise between 1976 and 1998 was no greater than the 0.5C rise between 1910 and 1940 with 35 years of cooling between them, so that the net rise in the past century has been only 0.8C, and it does seem nations like UK and other nations in the EU seeking to cut back on CO2 emissions may well be as you put it "the most costly scientific blunder in history". Thanks for asking such an excellent question.

...
B

I would say that the issue isn't with trying to combat climate change, it's the politicization of the topic. Once you have half the country take one side and the other half take the other side, it gets exceedingly difficult to sort through the propaganda to find actual facts. My personal view and logic is this:

1) Climate change is probably happening. Even if it isn't man-made, we should probably do something about it, so that we can continue to live how we've become accustomed to live.
2) Carbon dioxide, while required for plant life (and there is an **abundance** of people on one side of the debate that will remind you of that fact), is indeed a greenhouse gas. Therefore, it would be smart to try to avert climate change by keeping the atmospheric CO2 level constant.
3) A good way to keep atmospheric CO2 is to limit burning of fossil fuels. We can limit the burning of fossil fuels by reducing demand, which can be accomplished through efficiency gains and usage of renewables.
4) Although investment in renewables costs some money up front, there is literally no long-term downside to pursing the technology today. Even if global warming is not occurring, the end result is that we will be less dependent on foreign countries to meet our energy demands and will be prepared for the eventuality of when fossil fuels become prohibitively expensive to pull out of the ground.

...
B

There is indeed a somewhat obsession with climate change and global warming. However, the facts remain that our climate is changing and the earth is becoming warmer and warmer on average for every year that passes.

The difficulties arise when we try to quantify the amount that is caused by human activity and the amount that is caused by natural phenomena. It is here that the misinformation affects all of us. Some people claim that almost everything can be traced back to human activity while others state that almost everything is due to natural phenomena. The only thing, however, that is scientific sound and indisputable is that the amount of carbon dioxide that is emitted into the atmosphere is highly elevated due to human activity.

Now, common sense also tells us that it is highly unlikely that our climate changes can be attributed to solely human activity, nor can it be solely attributed to natural phenomena. As most things in our world, it is probably caused by a combination of factors.

I believe the most important thing to do is to make us all aware that the climate is changing and that part of this can be explained by human activity. As long as this point is made clear, I believe it is motivated for government and people to promote energy forms that limit the emission of greenhouse gases. There is simply too much at stake to ignore everything and hope for the best.

...
S

Pollution and climate change are real. Besides they started making things that are more efficient. Cars use less fuel and appliances use less electricity. That saves us money. In some places people have trouble breathing because the air is too polluted. I don't want to live in a place like that.

They should have tried to reduce the amount of pollution a long time ago. Most of the things that are being done in an attempt to reduce global warming also help to make the air, water and land better for us. Even if fumes coming out of the car are not causing global warming they are still very bad. I don't get why some people think we are overreacting when there is so much smog.

...
E

I think that climate change is happening and many people are spending a lot of money (still) on trying to pretend that it isn't happening. There is refutable evidence that we have too much carbon in the air and that the climate is changing. People are being affected by adverse weather conditions, and still people are wasting time and money denying that climate change is happening.

...
F

I think that NOT being aware of climate change or global warming would be the most costly scientific blunder in history. Like Bandit71 said, the problem is that the issue gets very politicized, as some businesses have a financial interest in pretending it isn't happening.

...