pictures by Gus  — Top: part of the Hammersley range, Western Australia. Below: salt lake, central Australia

Now that I have your attention with a couple of harsh pretty pictures, a few "points of views" on "global warming"...

First, here are mine:
In the science of cause and effect in a flux system, can we afford to fiddle-faddle with "points of views" that are ill-informed and will slow down our necessary and urgent responses to earthly problems, especially should these problems show a prognosis — small or large — of danger?
------------------

In the 1920s many "developed countries" governments became aware of the link between diseases and smog from smoke coming out of factory chimney stacks. Eventually the factories were made to be less "polluting" or were moved somewhere else — including China. People's health improved.
...........

In the 1890s, asbestos was "proven" to be dangerous to human health. But the link was refuted or hushed up for many years by governments and industries that profited from it. Now we have to deal with "asbestosis" cancers. More than 120 years later after the discovery of the danger of asbestos, judges have to go and hear cases by the bedside of dying patients.
.........

We "know" (by comparative study of groups) that about 60 per cent of lung cancers are caused by smoking tobacco... Some other lung cancers cases are possibly related to "passive smoking" and also to exposure to radon gas. The rest of cancers is due to various dusts and other causes — including genetics and "natural causes". Not all smokers will contract lung cancer, but a great proportion will... As well, smoking can induce chronic bronchitis and a plethora of other diseases, including emphysema and necrosis.

In the 1980s, we were made aware of the ozone layer HOLE... Many scientists worked their butts off to try and find a "reason" for what was happening. Ozone (O3) is a gas that filters out most of the UV radiation coming from the sun. Without ozone, the thin layer of the atmosphere would not protect life, under a ten fold increase of UV radiation. That's what we were facing. We were going to cook fast. A "strong" relation was established by scientists between human-made CFC gases and the depletion of the ozone layer... Straight away, CFC gases were declared ILLEGAL in production and in use in most countries around the planet. Since this very DRASTIC action was taken, the ozone layer has stabilised and started to reform. But it still is thinner than it should be in some places, for comfort.

---------------------------------------------

In 1824, a relationship was recognised between the various gases in the atmosphere and the warmth of it. This relationship was discovered by a scientist named Joseph Fourier. Should these gases not be "greenhousey" then the surface temperature of the earth would be super-hot during the day and super-cold during the night. Simple.

Since that time, complex scientific studies have been made to calculate the influence of each and every gases on this "greenhouse effect". We know the greenhouse is not uniform. It differs from place to place in relation to land mass, sea mass and position in relation to the sun.

In the polar regions for example, temperatures are low — not so much because these regions are further away from the sun but the angle of the sun rays is such, these have to traverse an "apparently thicker" layer of atmosphere and the same amount of sunlight ends up covering a much larger surface than say at the equator.

We have learned that the earth climate is a complex dynamic entity that behaves and "balances" according to many factors.

Past and present observations have led most scientists to conclude that the atmosphere is presently warming. World temperature measurements tell us there is a trend towards warming.

Changes to the ice sheets and greater extreme climatic events seem to furthermore indicate a change towards warmer climate — albeit with variations according to place and time. The United Nations has a department dedicates to this study collecting data from around the world, while many countries have dedicated departments of scientists collecting and interpreting data.

Yet some people, including a few scientists (mostly outside this source of knowledge), are not prepared to believe the increase of temperature — they challenge the idea of a general warming trend. Fair enough to a point as it is hard to prove with absolute certainty that there is a trend towards warming, although there has been for the last 150 years.

But so far the arguments presented by those who dispute the warming trend are mostly emotional and totally irrational in the face of the amount of proper evidence.

Yes, there has been some mistakes made in the collection of data and the interpretation of it, but these have been very small compared to the overwhelming body of data indicating a strong "change" towards warm all over the world.

In this change I also include the various recent weather anomalies:

Record warmest year for southern Australia — 2009

Record Russian heat-wave — 2010

Record Pakistani floods — 2010

Fiercest record storms in Europe — early 2010

Worst ever bush-fires in Victoria — 2009

Droughts and floods in China — 2010

-------------------

The surface temperature records have shown that since the mid 1800s, temperature has generally gone up by 0.6 degree till the late 1900s. The latter measurements exclude modern cities — because they are places that create their own extra "warming".

0.6 degree? Small potato one would say, but the energy to raise world temperature in such a way is quite considerable. In the greenhouse condition of the earth, this represents about four (4) per cent increase in the energy of the atmosphere at the surface.

So, what has added this extra energy considering that by the stage of measurement, all "natural" influences have been scientifically accounted and compensated for — including the sun intensity variability, the earth axis wobble, volcanic activity, rhythm of glaciation, et cetera?

In just over one hundred and fifty years, the energy contained in the atmosphere has increased by four (4) per cent. This energy can translate as a greater difference of potential in atmospheric disturbances that rely on cold and warm to activate, such as low and high pressure systems, creating super storms, or as previous difference of potential, yet with a "warmer" and sometimes wetter output.

This increase has been attributed to the most likely culprit: an atmospheric greenhouse effect change. And what can create such change? A variation in the composition of gases in the atmosphere. Studies have show that carbon dioxide (a warming greenhouse gas) has increased in quantity from about 150 ppm in 1850 to about 360 ppm in 2000. Methane (another warming greenhouse gas) has also increased, though not so dramatically.

CO2 has more than doubled in quantity.

Other gases have more or less stayed the same.

The next question to ask is would this increase of carbon dioxide be enough to increase the warming "energy" in the atmosphere?

Scientific tests can help conclude: mostly if not entirely.

The next question is where is this extra carbon dioxide coming from?

The surface carbon equation has been more or less the same for about 100 million years... Carbon in plants, animals and in "natural" CO2 has interacted, changing places, moving from plants to animals to atmosphere and sea "storage" in "natural" cycles. Could this extra carbon dioxide in the atmosphere be part of these cycle/shifts?

The simple answer is no.

The variation is too great and would mean dramatic plant and animal disturbances, beyond imaginable such as the destruction of 200 per cent of forests (which would be impossible). We can quantify extra carbon dioxide in the oceans as well.

We know we add billions of tons of carbon dioxide every year from burning FOSSIL FUELS. We can measure that the increase of fossil fuel carbon dioxide from "burning" corresponds neatly to the increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and in the sea.

The next question is what does this mean?

We know exactly what we add in the atmosphere from burning fossil fuels. It's measurable. So many tons of carbon in whatever form — coal, oil, gas — extracted from below the surface of the earth that we burn will use so much oxygen to make CO2. Thus we are "converting" oxygen (O2 which is a cooling gas in the greenhouse) into CO2 (which is a warming gas in the greenhouse).

The "natural" cycle of CO2 absorption is broken. There aren't enough plants (the major consumers of CO2), nor enough sea surface to absorb the EXTRA CO2. Thus the CO2 stays in the atmosphere and the extra portion that is absorbed by the sea turns the sea more "acidic". The extra CO2 warms up the atmosphere.

Sure, it's a slow process, but in terms of geological time what is happening at the present is mighty fast and furious. And unnecessary.

Sure we could get hit by a meteor tomorrow and our estimates would be bunkum.

Meanwhile, serious science of global warming prediction using massive computers tells us that even with a worldwide reduction of 50 per cent of emission of carbon dioxide by 2050, the temperature of the earth surface will rise by two (2) degrees C by 2100. And rising still beyond that.

What about the computing format being wrong? Well, let's say the computers inputs have been geared to be highly "CONSERVATIVE" yet the atmospheric disturbances computer predictions of 2020 are happening NOW in 2010.

How can computers predict climate when they struggle to predict weather?

That's a good question. Weather is a complex localised disturbance in a complex pattern. Computers would need to be ten times more powerful and would need a hundred times more input to predict weather. Climate is a prediction of pattern — and a prediction of pattern-change in the case of global warming.

WARMING IS REAL AND POTENT.

Now how can the ABC chairman come to us and say without a blink that our national broadcaster should indulge the sceptics more? In what proportion should we indulge them? 50/50? In the private media, the sorry saga of promoting private interests versus the reality of global warming is overwhelming. Private media earns its money from consumption. It's not going to push for a meaningful reduction of it. It might allow a bit of "greenery" to humour us, but in general private media will be 80/20 against the "concept" of global warming. Should the national broadcaster indulge in a 50/50 "battle" on this subject, then REAL science of global warming is behind the eighth ball from the start... We cannot allow this. Scientific bodies around the world are about 95 per cent in tune with the reality of the data from global warming. Giving the opposing 5 per cent of profiteering dissenters a 50/50 voice is distorting the facts of research and proper observations.

The chair of the ABC should resign for trying to "enforce" bad judgement in an area in which he seems to know little except being influenced by friends or ideas with powerful financial interests, resisting the reality of what is scientifically sound — whether he gains from these interests or not.

The other "point of view" supporting the sceptics — the deniers — comes from Joanne Nova, who of course, diminish the people who UNDERSTAND the science of global warming, beyond the emotions and sacrifice it will demand.

Pity that Abbott is such a ning-nong on the issue... Actually he is a shifty. He will change his utterance to capture voters, but will do very little else apart from illusionary motions of the budgies... He has no clue about the problem nor does he want to know, because most of his mates in the Liberal party don't want to know either.

Science cannot fight deliberate and dogmatic ignorance — nor can it fight clever lies.

-----------------------------

Maurice Lionel Newman AC (born April 20, 1938, Ilford, England)[1] is the current Chairperson of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation,[2] as well as former chair of the board of the Australian Stock Exchange.[1][2] He was Chancellor of Macquarie University until 2008.[2]

He is a close personal friend of past Australian Prime Minister John Howard[3].

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maurice_Newman

-----------------

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/media/maurice-newman-speech/story-e6frg996-1225839427099

extracts from Newman's speech:

...

Climate change is a further example of group-think where contrary views have not  been tolerated, and where those who express them have been labelled and mocked.  In his ABC Online blog last October Chris Uhlmann wrote a piece called In praise of the sceptics.  ‘“Climate science we are endlessly told is “settled”’ he wrote.  “But to make the, perfectly reasonable, point that science is never settled risks being branded a “sceptic” or worse a “denier”…one of those words, like “racist”, which is deliberately designed to gag debate…You can be branded a denier if you accept the problem and question the solutions.”


This collective censorious approach succeeded in suppressing contrary views in the mainstream media, despite the fact that a growing number of distinguished scientists were challenging the conventional wisdom with alternative theories and peer reviewed research.

Then came the sensational revelations of unprofessional conduct by some of the world’s most influential climatologists exposed by the hacked or leaked emails from the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Institute.  This was followed by more evidence of dubious research and politicised advocacy contained in scientifically unsupported claims and errors in the IPCC 4th Assessment, including in the carefully vetted Synthesis Report.  Questionable methods of analysis resulting in spurious temperature data have added further doubts on the underlying credibility of the science.
The lack of moral and scientific integrity shown by the IPCC serves only to reduce clarity and increase confusion, disappoint believers and give fuel to doubters.  It has frustrated policy makers, and as polling now shows, it has clearly weakened public belief in climate change and devalued respect for science in general.

[Note from Gus: the chairman is wrong on this: The IPCC has been proven right after extensive re-analysis]

In defending the indefensible, Mr Gore, university vice-chancellors and those in the media, do a disservice to the scientific method and miss the point that no matter how noble your work, your first responsibility must always be to the truth.

As you would expect, as Chairman of a public broadcaster, I followed with interest the announcement by the BBC Trust that it would carry out a review of the accuracy and impartiality of the BBC’s coverage of science.  It came after a year in which online science bloggers continued to raise concerns about mainstream media coverage. 
A contributing factor for the review was the revelation that the CRU emails were known to Paul Hudson, the BBC climate correspondent one month before the story broke – but not reported at the time.  While disturbing, it is heartening to know that the BBC takes quality control seriously.

The Guardian noted “The moment climatology is sheltered from dispute its force begins to wane.”  Which raises an important question for a media organisation: who, if anyone, decides what to shelter from dispute?  And when?  Should there be a view that the ABC was sheltering particular beliefs from scrutiny, or failing to question a consensus, I would consider it to be a dangerous perception that could lead to the public’s trust in us being undermined.

The lack of moral and scientific integrity shown by the IPCC serves only to reduce clarity and increase confusion, disappoint believers and give fuel to doubters.  It has frustrated policy makers, and as polling now shows, it has clearly weakened public belief in climate change and devalued respect for science in general.

[Note from Gus: the chairman is wrong on this: The IPCC has been proven right after extensive re-analysis. That some scientists question their own work is healthy, but their conclusion was proven correct. 99 per cent of the private media promoted "doubt" is financed by strong private interests that benefit from the burning of coal, gas and oil — which of course are deemed to be the culprit for the increase of CO2, itself leading to global warming]

Whether tech boom and bust or the prelude to the global financial crisis – we can see that history has at times proven not to be on the side of conventional wisdom, or the consensus view, but on the side of those who dissented from them. More significantly, we see too how media have failed us by not being rigorous and questioning enough, resulting in many misrepresentations taking too long to be discovered.  We have seen so often that the time of greatest certainty is, in fact, the time to be most sceptical.  If we spent more time on biopsies in journalism, as Adrianna Huffington has suggested, there would be far fewer autopsies.

.....In his book Can You Trust the Media, Professor Adrian Monck, Head of Journalism at City University London - Britain’s only graduate school of Journalism - asserts that the job of journalists is to gain audience share from competitors and keep it. If it means pretending to tell the truth, so be it. Monck maintains the public shouldn't trust the media and never could. I don't agree with that.  Indeed, I contend that media organisations that show this cynical disregard for their audience are providing positive encouragement for them to go somewhere else.  In other words they are marginalising their value proposition.

[Note from Gus: the chairman is wrong on this: Murdoch]

To take it out of a media setting, consider the damage done to Toyota’s trusted brand through skimping on a minor accelerator component. Toyota has now lost its exalted reputation for quality, its primary value proposition, and is now back with the pack.

I am supported in this view by the results of the Pew Research Centre's survey on media trust.  Released last September, it showed that confidence in the media in the US has reached a new low, with a record number of Americans saying that reporting is inaccurate, biased, and shaped by special interests.  On the crucial measure of credibility, faith in the news media has fallen materially, with just  29 percent of respondents saying the news organisations generally gets the facts straight.  74% believed they favoured one side or another in reporting on political or social issues and the same percentage said the media was often influenced by powerful interests.  The public perception of the accuracy of news stories is now at its lowest level in two decades of polling. [Note from Gus: the chairman is wrong on this: Murdoch Fox being popular beyond belief. Who are the powerful interest? the yeah or the neah?]


For an independent public broadcaster like the ABC which, within tolerable limits, is indifferent to ratings and unconcerned with advertising, the Internet is less of a danger. Nonetheless, while our technical people have been smart in the way they have harnessed the Internet to bring choice and flexibility to the public, it is still a threat to us. It is a direct threat in that it can facilitate the defection of our audiences to our competitors and other providers. If that takes audience levels below tolerable limits, the ABC will lose relevance and risks becoming marginalised and so unfunded. The indirect damage can come from the pressure it puts on our competitors and their reaction to us.[Note from Gus: the chairman is wrong on this: private media has little relevance to "proper news and  proper information by mostly indulging in infotainment" ]

The best and safest course for the ABC, is to stay faithful to our Act and our Charter, to remain distinctive and to ensure that audience trust and respect is mutual.  For our audiences to respect us, we must equally respect them.

On this point I was struck by Rupert Murdoch’s reference in his 2008 Boyer Lecture to an American study which reported that many editors and reporters simply do not trust their readers to make decisions, Mr Murdoch says, “This is a polite way of saying that these editors and reporters think their readers are too stupid to think for themselves”.  These organisations are run for the benefit and personal indulgence of the editors and journalists.  It is a recipe for disaster. [Note from Gus: the chairman is wrong on this: Murdoch success with Fox slanted news giving a certain rabid red-neck public what it wants to hear]

So my contention is that while technological innovation is important because of the ways it is changing the shape of the industry, it cannot solve the industry’s credibility problems.  To be clear, the media’s destiny lies within – in the culture and ethical constructs of each organisation - not in the latest technological innovation.

Which is why I have concluded that if the ABC can deliver to Australians of all points of view, quality programmes of integrity which are challenging, unpredictable and, at times, surprising, the world will beat a path to our door.

Nothing else I can think of will so underwrite our future.

This is what the Walkley journal though of the speech:

---------------------

http://joannenova.com.au/2010/03/abc-chairman-says-let-them-speak-greens-say-nooooo/


        ABC Chairman says “Let them speak.” Greens say “Nooooo.”

Today the Chairman of “our ABC” (it’s paid for by Australian taxpayers) said the unthinkable.

It’s not that he said man-made global warming was a scam, and he didn’t announce that carbon wasn’t a pollutant; he just asked for journalists to listen to other points of view.

“At the ABC, I believe we must re-energise the spirit of enquiry. Be dynamic and challenging, to look for contrary points of view, to ensure that the maverick voice will not be silenced.”

In a speech to senior ABC staff, he said that climate change was an example of “group-think”, and that they should listen perhaps “to other points of view that may be sceptical.”

Contrary views on climate change have not been tolerated and those who express them have been labelled and mocked.

I’ve been around long enough to know that consensus and conventional wisdom doesn’t always serve you well and that unless you leave some room for an alternative point of view you are likely to go down a wrong track…

These innocuous non-judgemental lines are too far from the doctrine.

Christine Milne of the Australian Greens responded, and in the true spirit of an open democracy and a free press, urged ABC journalists to ignore him. Fully 40% of Australians might be sceptical,* but Christine Milne wants to make sure that information that aligns with their opinions is not represented by our national government-funded broadcaster. Like Clive Hamilton, she hides in the dark… don’t let them speak. Where is the compassion and tolerance the Greens claim to defend? We’ll defend you if you agree with us, but if you come from a different culture (one that respects data more than “doctorates” and logic over bluster), we’ll use every tool at our disposal to suppress you.

Milne called it “anti-science” nonsense. Why? Because Newman said the unthinkable: “I still have an open mind on climate change.” So closed minds are the way to go?

“So as I said, I’m not a scientist and I’m like anybody else in the public, I have to listen to all points of view and then make judgments when we’re asked to vote on particular policies.”

These innocuous non-judgemental lines are too far from the doctrine.

He might be the Chairman, and obviously has some influence, but he fights a culture where many journalists think it’s conversational to insult scientists. Brendan Trembath, the journalist who interviewed him after the speech, even asked:“Would you say you’re a climate change denier or not as obvious as that?”

Imagine on any other scientific topic, if a journalist asked: “Would you say your opinion is equivalent to someone who denies the halocaust?” Or, “Would you agree that you deny the scientific evidence from an entire branch of science?”

Take this question literally from Brendan Trembath: Is there some doubt in your mind about climate change? It’s a bit like suggesting you have doubts that the tides come and go.

---


The caretakers of the Big Scare Campaign have reframed basic English. “Climate change” is so branded now, it’s loaded with inference and double-meaning. The same with the word “denier”. Many people hide behind these terms as if they are labels, but there is no paper or Law of Nature that skeptics deny, and the global climate is constantly changing on every timescale from  hours-to-eons. This false rebranding is insidious and must be exposed for the marketing tactic that it is.

Lastly, one day even journalists may recognize that the effects of global warming are not evidence of the cause of that warming.


-------------------------

Gus: in regard to that last silly utterance from that Joanne Nova, refer to my article at top.

Meanwhile Russia burns and Pakistan is flooded, both like NEVER BEFORE. Climate change theory is not something that should be left to public opinion, itself influenced by private media, itself influenced by powerful financial interests...

And as Sydney has experienced its coldest winter in 12 years, it was not really cold — mostly wet and miserable, from the shift of the "usual" winter high pressure systems, nearly 1000 kilometres southward. This probably due in parts to "global warming"...

-------------------------

Meanwhile somewhere some people are losing the plot:

European Union countries must drop their biofuels targets or else risk plunging more Africans into hunger and raising carbon emissions, according to Friends of the Earth (FoE).

In a campaign launching today, the charity accuses European companies of land-grabbing throughout Africa to grow biofuel crops that directly compete with food crops. Biofuel companies counter that they consult with local governments, bring investment and jobs, and often produce fuels for the local market.

FoE has added its voice to an NGO lobby that claims local communities are not properly consulted and that forests are being cleared in a pattern that echoes decades of exploitation of other natural resources in Africa.

In its report "Africa: Up for Grabs", the group says that the key to halting the land-grab is for EU countries to drop a goal to produce 10% of all transport fuels from biofuels by 2020.

"The amount of land being taken in Africa to meet Europe's increasing demand for biofuels is underestimated and out of control," Kirtana Chandrasekaran, food campaigner for FoE in the UK, said. "Especially in Africa, as long as there's massive demand for biofuels from the European market, it will be hard to control. If we implement the biofuels targets it will only get worse. This is just a small taste of what's to come."

A number of European companies have planted biofuel crops such as jatropha, sugar cane and palm oil in Africa and elsewhere to tap into rising demand. But the trend has coincided with soaring food prices and ignited a debate over the dangers of using agricultural land for fuel.

Producers argue they typically farm land not destined, or suitable for, food crops. But campaigners reject those claims, with FoE saying that biofuel crops, including non-edible ones such as jatropha, "are competing directly with food crops for fertile land".

ActionAid claimed this year that European biofuel targets could result in up to 100 million more hungry people, increased food prices and landlessness.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/aug/30/biofuels-land-grab-friends-of-the-earth

-----------------------

Gus' note: I have used pictures of "iron-ore" mountains and of dry salt lakes to convey the concept that these places are "not just for grab"... These are places that through our stylistic interpretations of life we may choose to find beautiful or majestic or grand. Some other people could deem these places to be exploited for profit — destroying or at least modifying the naturalness of these environments. These places in the pictures are I believe presently protected...