<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:default="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:admin="http://webns.net/mvcb/" xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"><default:channel xmlns="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:admin="http://webns.net/mvcb/" xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/" rdf:about="http://climate.blog.co.uk/"><title>Shepherd on Climate</title><link>http://climate.blog.co.uk/</link><description></description><dc:language xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">en-UK</dc:language><admin:generatorAgent xmlns:admin="http://webns.net/mvcb/" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" rdf:resource="http://www.blog.co.uk"/><sy:updatePeriod xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/">hourly</sy:updatePeriod><sy:updateFrequency xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/">8</sy:updateFrequency><sy:updateBase xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/">2000-01-01T12:00+00:00</sy:updateBase><items><rdf:Seq><rdf:li rdf:resource="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2009/04/25/life-on-earth-6003538/"/><rdf:li rdf:resource="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2009/03/31/second-letter-to-ella-5864384/"/><rdf:li rdf:resource="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2009/01/11/shepherd-on-climate-list-of-contents-5358559/"/><rdf:li rdf:resource="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2008/08/02/letter-to-ella-4532259/"/><rdf:li rdf:resource="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2008/07/24/shepherd-on-climate-list-of-contents-4491538/"/><rdf:li rdf:resource="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2008/04/27/climate-deceits-4100221/"/><rdf:li rdf:resource="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2007/12/09/sea_levels~3417710/"/><rdf:li rdf:resource="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2007/08/29/cows_aamp_moose~2888145/"/><rdf:li rdf:resource="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2007/08/20/inconvenient_truth_three~2837631/"/><rdf:li rdf:resource="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2007/08/16/ice_ages_aamp_science_wars~2821253/"/><rdf:li rdf:resource="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2007/08/15/kyoto_economics~2813807/"/><rdf:li rdf:resource="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2007/08/12/whirling_dervishes~2795502/"/><rdf:li rdf:resource="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2007/08/04/stern_reports~2753464/"/><rdf:li rdf:resource="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2007/08/04/data_quality~2753430/"/><rdf:li rdf:resource="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2007/08/04/moon_aamp_ice~2753371/"/><rdf:li rdf:resource="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2007/08/04/car_food~2753280/"/><rdf:li rdf:resource="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2007/08/03/climate_weapons~2747984/"/><rdf:li rdf:resource="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2007/04/23/treetalk~2145572/"/><rdf:li rdf:resource="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2006/11/13/consensus_statistics~1324679/"/><rdf:li rdf:resource="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2006/11/11/carry_on_lying~1318835/"/><rdf:li rdf:resource="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2006/11/11/lying_made_easy~1318827/"/><rdf:li rdf:resource="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2006/10/11/good_science~1208886/"/><rdf:li rdf:resource="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2006/07/11/who_is_listening~951538/"/><rdf:li rdf:resource="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2006/06/27/sunken_knowledge~915558/"/><rdf:li rdf:resource="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2006/06/19/cloud_cuckoo_land~893306/"/><rdf:li rdf:resource="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2006/06/12/global_cooling~872594/"/><rdf:li rdf:resource="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2006/06/12/the_story_of_global_warming~872572/"/><rdf:li rdf:resource="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2006/06/12/carbon_emissions_trading~872534/"/><rdf:li rdf:resource="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2006/06/12/greenhouse_aamp_nuclear_effects~872461/"/><rdf:li rdf:resource="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2006/06/06/unnatural_disasters~858787/"/></rdf:Seq></items></default:channel><default:item xmlns:default="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" rdf:about="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2009/04/25/life-on-earth-6003538/"><default:title>Life on Earth</default:title><default:link>http://climate.blog.co.uk/2009/04/25/life-on-earth-6003538/</default:link><dc:date xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">2009-04-25T08:51:50+02:00</dc:date><default:description>	&lt;p&gt;
The fourth part of &lt;em&gt;Small is Beautiful&lt;/em&gt; is much more important for modern audiences than much of the rest of the book. E.F.Schumacher's essay on &lt;em&gt;Buddhist economics&lt;/em&gt; has historical significance as it sent a whole generation scuttling off to the Orient but Schumacher always preferred the &lt;em&gt;Homecomers&lt;/em&gt; to the &lt;em&gt;Onward and Upward Brigade&lt;/em&gt;. His Catholic theology, much of which is synonymous with the best of Western philosophy, provides the intellectual underpinnings for &lt;em&gt;Small is Beautiful&lt;/em&gt; and for its follow-up, the Catholic primer, &lt;em&gt;Guide for the Perplexed&lt;/em&gt;.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
There is a lot of bad Catholic thinking and much ignorant nonsense preached on God’s authority by other Christian churches, particularly those obsessed with &lt;em&gt;The Book of Revelations&lt;/em&gt;. However truth can be found in the strangest of places. Certain aspects of the &lt;em&gt;Creationist&lt;/em&gt; worldview, for instance, deserves serious consideration because it has kept alive some of the questions about the historic fossil record, raised in the 1950s by Immanuel Velikovsky's books, &lt;em&gt;Worlds in Collisions&lt;/em&gt; (1950, ISBN 0-963-97590-0) and &lt;em&gt;Earth in Upheaval&lt;/em&gt; (1955, ISBN 0 349 13574 6).
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
Velikovsky argued that the fossil record points not to the current conventional wisdom of gradual geological change over millions of years but to catastrophic change within historic times, with Noah's flood merely the last of several widespread annihilations…before the next one. Professor &lt;a href="http://www.cesc.net/adobeweb/climate/velikovsky.pdf"&gt;&lt;em&gt;Einstein&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt; even has a walk-on part in the controversy…see &lt;em&gt;Beyond Velikovsky: the history of a public controversy&lt;/em&gt; by Henry Bauer (ISBN 0-252-01104-X).
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
Subsequently in the early 1990s, Maurice Cotterell unearthed corroborating evidence from ancient pyramids in Mexico and Egypt…see &lt;em&gt;The Mayan Prophecies&lt;/em&gt; (ISBN 1-85230-888-5). Both the Maya and the Egyptians knew what Velikovsky had rediscovered, understood its causes, and left a record of their knowledge encoded in their pyramids. They associated global upheavals with the long-term cyclical behaviour of the sun's magnetic fields and in particular the regular instability in the 3750 year long cycle which is capable of reversing the Earth's magnetic poles.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
These ancient civilizations clearly understood the influence of the sunspot cycles and their related electromagnetic fields upon climate changes on Earth. Schumacher’s &lt;em&gt;Catholic Church&lt;/em&gt; may also be endeavouring to come to terms with galactic influences on their Church, its religion and the future of its flock. Many of the sacred books from Mesoamerica were removed by the Jesuits who accompanied the victorious conquistadors. Some were burnt but others would have been removed to the safekeeping of the Vatican vaults.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
There is also circumstantial evidence from the Vatican's interest in NASA’s solar data that the obsession of ancient civilizations in the fertility of their crops and themselves was based on the historical memory of its failure. In Appendix 1 of &lt;em&gt;The Tutankhamun Prophecies&lt;/em&gt; (1999, ISBN 0-7472-6050-8), Maurice Cotterell published a long essay about the sun (pps. 244-314 in the 1999 &lt;em&gt;Headline&lt;/em&gt; edition). The essay ends with a hypothesis the effect of solar radiation on &lt;a href="http://sundance.blog.co.uk/2009/04/28/sun-honeybees-6023190/"&gt;&lt;em&gt;honeybees&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
Cosmic rays, clouds and climate is the focus of &lt;em&gt;The Chilling Stars: a cosmic view of climate change&lt;/em&gt; by Henrik Svensmark and Nigel Calder (2007, ISBN 978-1840468-66-3). But the authors also summarise the evidence that cosmic rays from outside our solar system have an impact on life on Earth…see, for instance, &lt;em&gt;Starbursts, tropical ice and life’s changing fortune&lt;/em&gt; (pps. 156-179 in the 2007 &lt;em&gt;Icon&lt;/em&gt; edition) and &lt;em&gt;Children of the supernovae?&lt;/em&gt; (pps. 180-203).
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
The &lt;em&gt;Roman Catholic Church's&lt;/em&gt; repeated refusal to countenance contraception also suggests that the Vatican is aware that the historic record reports a periodic fluctuation in fertility. A failure of human fertility for just forty or fifty years would eliminate the human species and recent evidence with other species suggests that reproduction might be much more fragile than we realize.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt; &lt;small&gt; &lt;a href="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2009/04/25/life-on-earth-6003538/#comments"&gt;Comments&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/small&gt; &lt;/p&gt;</default:description><content:encoded xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"><![CDATA[	<p>
The fourth part of <em>Small is Beautiful</em> is much more important for modern audiences than much of the rest of the book. E.F.Schumacher's essay on <em>Buddhist economics</em> has historical significance as it sent a whole generation scuttling off to the Orient but Schumacher always preferred the <em>Homecomers</em> to the <em>Onward and Upward Brigade</em>. His Catholic theology, much of which is synonymous with the best of Western philosophy, provides the intellectual underpinnings for <em>Small is Beautiful</em> and for its follow-up, the Catholic primer, <em>Guide for the Perplexed</em>.
</p>
	<p>
There is a lot of bad Catholic thinking and much ignorant nonsense preached on God’s authority by other Christian churches, particularly those obsessed with <em>The Book of Revelations</em>. However truth can be found in the strangest of places. Certain aspects of the <em>Creationist</em> worldview, for instance, deserves serious consideration because it has kept alive some of the questions about the historic fossil record, raised in the 1950s by Immanuel Velikovsky's books, <em>Worlds in Collisions</em> (1950, ISBN 0-963-97590-0) and <em>Earth in Upheaval</em> (1955, ISBN 0 349 13574 6).
</p>
	<p>
Velikovsky argued that the fossil record points not to the current conventional wisdom of gradual geological change over millions of years but to catastrophic change within historic times, with Noah's flood merely the last of several widespread annihilations…before the next one. Professor <a href="http://www.cesc.net/adobeweb/climate/velikovsky.pdf"><em>Einstein</em></a> even has a walk-on part in the controversy…see <em>Beyond Velikovsky: the history of a public controversy</em> by Henry Bauer (ISBN 0-252-01104-X).
</p>
	<p>
Subsequently in the early 1990s, Maurice Cotterell unearthed corroborating evidence from ancient pyramids in Mexico and Egypt…see <em>The Mayan Prophecies</em> (ISBN 1-85230-888-5). Both the Maya and the Egyptians knew what Velikovsky had rediscovered, understood its causes, and left a record of their knowledge encoded in their pyramids. They associated global upheavals with the long-term cyclical behaviour of the sun's magnetic fields and in particular the regular instability in the 3750 year long cycle which is capable of reversing the Earth's magnetic poles.
</p>
	<p>
These ancient civilizations clearly understood the influence of the sunspot cycles and their related electromagnetic fields upon climate changes on Earth. Schumacher’s <em>Catholic Church</em> may also be endeavouring to come to terms with galactic influences on their Church, its religion and the future of its flock. Many of the sacred books from Mesoamerica were removed by the Jesuits who accompanied the victorious conquistadors. Some were burnt but others would have been removed to the safekeeping of the Vatican vaults.
</p>
	<p>
There is also circumstantial evidence from the Vatican's interest in NASA’s solar data that the obsession of ancient civilizations in the fertility of their crops and themselves was based on the historical memory of its failure. In Appendix 1 of <em>The Tutankhamun Prophecies</em> (1999, ISBN 0-7472-6050-8), Maurice Cotterell published a long essay about the sun (pps. 244-314 in the 1999 <em>Headline</em> edition). The essay ends with a hypothesis the effect of solar radiation on <a href="http://sundance.blog.co.uk/2009/04/28/sun-honeybees-6023190/"><em>honeybees</em></a>.
</p>
	<p>
Cosmic rays, clouds and climate is the focus of <em>The Chilling Stars: a cosmic view of climate change</em> by Henrik Svensmark and Nigel Calder (2007, ISBN 978-1840468-66-3). But the authors also summarise the evidence that cosmic rays from outside our solar system have an impact on life on Earth…see, for instance, <em>Starbursts, tropical ice and life’s changing fortune</em> (pps. 156-179 in the 2007 <em>Icon</em> edition) and <em>Children of the supernovae?</em> (pps. 180-203).
</p>
	<p>
The <em>Roman Catholic Church's</em> repeated refusal to countenance contraception also suggests that the Vatican is aware that the historic record reports a periodic fluctuation in fertility. A failure of human fertility for just forty or fifty years would eliminate the human species and recent evidence with other species suggests that reproduction might be much more fragile than we realize.
</p>
<p> <small> <a href="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2009/04/25/life-on-earth-6003538/#comments">Comments</a> </small> </p>]]></content:encoded></default:item><default:item xmlns:default="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" rdf:about="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2009/03/31/second-letter-to-ella-5864384/"><default:title>Letter to David</default:title><default:link>http://climate.blog.co.uk/2009/03/31/second-letter-to-ella-5864384/</default:link><dc:date xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">2009-03-31T10:20:20+02:00</dc:date><default:description>	&lt;p&gt;
Dear David,
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
In your daughter's recent letter she wrote that even if I don't accept the reality of greenhouse gases, all the other arguments hold true, and are reason enough to legislate limits on carbon production and emissions for individuals, communities and corporations. I am not sure I agree.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
The H20 (water) and the CH4 (methane) molecules in the atmosphere completely overwhelm the supposed 'global warming effect' of the CO2 (carbon dioxide) molecule. But more importantly, history has taught us, time and again, that doing the right thing for the wrong reasons is usually a mistake.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
For several years I have been warning &lt;em&gt;The Left&lt;/em&gt; not to jump aboard the climate bandwagon but to read the science instead of relying on the spin. I am what the &lt;em&gt;German Green Party&lt;/em&gt; once called a &lt;em&gt;Fundi&lt;/em&gt; and, like most &lt;em&gt;Fundis&lt;/em&gt;, I believe that in the long run &lt;em&gt;Fundis&lt;/em&gt; are &lt;em&gt;Realos&lt;/em&gt;.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
Getting things done that need to be done by using unproven facts and partial theories about greenhouse gases and climate change is a tactical error. The road to hell is paved with good intentions...and unanticipated consequences...and is trod by those who put their trust in faith instead of facts. Computer forecasts are not facts. Nowadays any fool can command a spreadsheet to produce nonsense.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
In the beginning, the &lt;em&gt;Environmental Movement&lt;/em&gt; insisted that no one should dump anything into the atmosphere or into the oceans, nor bury obnoxious substances underground or leave them trashing up the planet. From this came the &lt;em&gt;Polluter Pays Principle&lt;/em&gt;. They should also have insisted on the &lt;em&gt;Closed System Principle&lt;/em&gt; backed up by binding treaties and financial penalties imposed on those responsible for industrial and distribution pollution and man-created environmental pollution (e.g. cities). They should have been compelled to take in their own rubbish at their own expense.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
Instead &lt;em&gt;The Right &lt;/em&gt;diverted &lt;em&gt;The Left&lt;/em&gt; and &lt;em&gt;The Greens&lt;/em&gt; off into the weeds by packing them off (all expenses paid) to exotic places to chat at pointless summits (Johannesburg) about meaningless treaties (Kyoto).
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
The practice of the past 500 years has been to permit the owners of private property...and in particular judicial persons who should never have been given equality before the law with real persons in the first place…to enclose and trash the commons and to steal the personal possessions of real people. Passing on private costs to the personal and the public purse is wrong. It is time to make it unprofitable too. This means laws, courts, fines, bailiffs and prisons.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
The invention of the &lt;em&gt;Global Warming Scare&lt;/em&gt; with &lt;em&gt;Carbon Dioxide Emissions&lt;/em&gt; as its cause has enabled &lt;em&gt;The Right&lt;/em&gt; to drastically limit the application of the &lt;em&gt;Polluter Pays&lt;/em&gt; and the &lt;em&gt;Closed System&lt;/em&gt; principles to a tiny percentage of the pollution they are responsible for.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
Duping environmentalists to go along with &lt;em&gt;Carbon Emissions Exchanges&lt;/em&gt;...with many more exotic exchanges to follow...legitimises the practise and ensures that the public purse picks up the tab for even this relatively minor clean-up operation. The world has been steadily moving from carbon to hydrogen as its source of piped energy for decades and recent increases in oil and gas prices will accelerate the trend.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
&lt;em&gt;The Left&lt;/em&gt; has been fooled by the &lt;em&gt;Climate Scare&lt;/em&gt; into extending into the &lt;em&gt;Real Economy&lt;/em&gt;, the application of market mechanisms and exchange manipulations, which had previously been limited to the &lt;em&gt;Financial Economy&lt;/em&gt;.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
The techniques of the &lt;em&gt;Commodity Exchanges&lt;/em&gt; in London, New York and Chicago are being rapidly expanded until, the &lt;em&gt;Exchange Masters&lt;/em&gt; can, at a whim, throttle the lifeblood out of the worldwide supply and distribution system delivered by the globalisation of the latter part of the 20th century.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
Until now, apart from the froth and exuberance of futures contracts, these exchanges have served a useful purpose in hedging against volatility in supply and demand, and smoothing fluctuations in the prices of real commodities that readily lend themselves to such manipulations…the overground metal mines, air- and container-ship freightable plantation produce and the like.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
But now the scope of these market practices…cornering, insider trading, speculation, gambling etc…are involving ever more exotic commodities like electricity and pollution with the practices institutionalised to create structural monopolies that are impossible to dismantle and easy to meter and monopolise. Pollutants like sulphur dioxide should not be in the atmosphere in the first place.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
Electricity grids, gas pipelines and wind farms are the wrong answers for a planet which receives enough energy from the sun in forty-five minutes to meet its needs for a year. We are on a slippery slope.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
&lt;em&gt;The Right&lt;/em&gt; is intent on transforming &lt;em&gt;Financial Capitalism&lt;/em&gt; into &lt;em&gt;Resource Capitalism&lt;/em&gt;. And it will use the &lt;em&gt;Disaster Capitalism&lt;/em&gt; described by Naomi Klein in &lt;em&gt;The Shock Doctrine&lt;/em&gt; to force us through the transition. The end result will be global genocide on an unparalleled scale. Susan George has described how the global operation will be carried out in &lt;em&gt;The Lugano Report&lt;/em&gt;. When written, this was fiction. It is rapidly becoming reality.&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;To add insult to the coming massacre, the elitists and their global conglomerates are getting paid for their ethnic cleansing of the planet. Just as bankers create money out of nothing so these &lt;em&gt;Exchange Masters&lt;/em&gt; receive their licences to pollute for nothing to sell on to the &lt;em&gt;Real Economy&lt;/em&gt; for windfall profits.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
Energy Companies get their carbon credits for free…or they have until now. One tiny light at the end of the tunnel is that someone in Whitehall has finally woken up and is pushing the idea of auctioning off the carbon credits as if they were bandwidth for mobile phones.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
&lt;em&gt;The Left&lt;/em&gt; is being taken for a ride by the &lt;em&gt;One World Government&lt;/em&gt; conspirators. These men in suits are not nice guys and it's time &lt;em&gt;The Left&lt;/em&gt; started playing hardball again. Instead they are letting themselves be outgunned and outmanoeuvred. It's time to wise up and figure out how to get even. Getting mad is a pretty good way to start.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
Best wishes as always.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;William Shepherd&lt;br&gt;
Monday 11th August 2008
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt; &lt;small&gt; &lt;a href="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2009/03/31/second-letter-to-ella-5864384/#comments"&gt;Comments&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/small&gt; &lt;/p&gt;</default:description><content:encoded xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"><![CDATA[	<p>
Dear David,
</p>
	<p>
In your daughter's recent letter she wrote that even if I don't accept the reality of greenhouse gases, all the other arguments hold true, and are reason enough to legislate limits on carbon production and emissions for individuals, communities and corporations. I am not sure I agree.
</p>
	<p>
The H20 (water) and the CH4 (methane) molecules in the atmosphere completely overwhelm the supposed 'global warming effect' of the CO2 (carbon dioxide) molecule. But more importantly, history has taught us, time and again, that doing the right thing for the wrong reasons is usually a mistake.
</p>
	<p>
For several years I have been warning <em>The Left</em> not to jump aboard the climate bandwagon but to read the science instead of relying on the spin. I am what the <em>German Green Party</em> once called a <em>Fundi</em> and, like most <em>Fundis</em>, I believe that in the long run <em>Fundis</em> are <em>Realos</em>.
</p>
	<p>
Getting things done that need to be done by using unproven facts and partial theories about greenhouse gases and climate change is a tactical error. The road to hell is paved with good intentions...and unanticipated consequences...and is trod by those who put their trust in faith instead of facts. Computer forecasts are not facts. Nowadays any fool can command a spreadsheet to produce nonsense.
</p>
	<p>
In the beginning, the <em>Environmental Movement</em> insisted that no one should dump anything into the atmosphere or into the oceans, nor bury obnoxious substances underground or leave them trashing up the planet. From this came the <em>Polluter Pays Principle</em>. They should also have insisted on the <em>Closed System Principle</em> backed up by binding treaties and financial penalties imposed on those responsible for industrial and distribution pollution and man-created environmental pollution (e.g. cities). They should have been compelled to take in their own rubbish at their own expense.
</p>
	<p>
Instead <em>The Right </em>diverted <em>The Left</em> and <em>The Greens</em> off into the weeds by packing them off (all expenses paid) to exotic places to chat at pointless summits (Johannesburg) about meaningless treaties (Kyoto).
</p>
	<p>
The practice of the past 500 years has been to permit the owners of private property...and in particular judicial persons who should never have been given equality before the law with real persons in the first place…to enclose and trash the commons and to steal the personal possessions of real people. Passing on private costs to the personal and the public purse is wrong. It is time to make it unprofitable too. This means laws, courts, fines, bailiffs and prisons.
</p>
	<p>
The invention of the <em>Global Warming Scare</em> with <em>Carbon Dioxide Emissions</em> as its cause has enabled <em>The Right</em> to drastically limit the application of the <em>Polluter Pays</em> and the <em>Closed System</em> principles to a tiny percentage of the pollution they are responsible for.
</p>
	<p>
Duping environmentalists to go along with <em>Carbon Emissions Exchanges</em>...with many more exotic exchanges to follow...legitimises the practise and ensures that the public purse picks up the tab for even this relatively minor clean-up operation. The world has been steadily moving from carbon to hydrogen as its source of piped energy for decades and recent increases in oil and gas prices will accelerate the trend.
</p>
	<p>
<em>The Left</em> has been fooled by the <em>Climate Scare</em> into extending into the <em>Real Economy</em>, the application of market mechanisms and exchange manipulations, which had previously been limited to the <em>Financial Economy</em>.
</p>
	<p>
The techniques of the <em>Commodity Exchanges</em> in London, New York and Chicago are being rapidly expanded until, the <em>Exchange Masters</em> can, at a whim, throttle the lifeblood out of the worldwide supply and distribution system delivered by the globalisation of the latter part of the 20th century.
</p>
	<p>
Until now, apart from the froth and exuberance of futures contracts, these exchanges have served a useful purpose in hedging against volatility in supply and demand, and smoothing fluctuations in the prices of real commodities that readily lend themselves to such manipulations…the overground metal mines, air- and container-ship freightable plantation produce and the like.
</p>
	<p>
But now the scope of these market practices…cornering, insider trading, speculation, gambling etc…are involving ever more exotic commodities like electricity and pollution with the practices institutionalised to create structural monopolies that are impossible to dismantle and easy to meter and monopolise. Pollutants like sulphur dioxide should not be in the atmosphere in the first place.
</p>
	<p>
Electricity grids, gas pipelines and wind farms are the wrong answers for a planet which receives enough energy from the sun in forty-five minutes to meet its needs for a year. We are on a slippery slope.
</p>
	<p>
<em>The Right</em> is intent on transforming <em>Financial Capitalism</em> into <em>Resource Capitalism</em>. And it will use the <em>Disaster Capitalism</em> described by Naomi Klein in <em>The Shock Doctrine</em> to force us through the transition. The end result will be global genocide on an unparalleled scale. Susan George has described how the global operation will be carried out in <em>The Lugano Report</em>. When written, this was fiction. It is rapidly becoming reality.</p>
	<p>To add insult to the coming massacre, the elitists and their global conglomerates are getting paid for their ethnic cleansing of the planet. Just as bankers create money out of nothing so these <em>Exchange Masters</em> receive their licences to pollute for nothing to sell on to the <em>Real Economy</em> for windfall profits.
</p>
	<p>
Energy Companies get their carbon credits for free…or they have until now. One tiny light at the end of the tunnel is that someone in Whitehall has finally woken up and is pushing the idea of auctioning off the carbon credits as if they were bandwidth for mobile phones.
</p>
	<p>
<em>The Left</em> is being taken for a ride by the <em>One World Government</em> conspirators. These men in suits are not nice guys and it's time <em>The Left</em> started playing hardball again. Instead they are letting themselves be outgunned and outmanoeuvred. It's time to wise up and figure out how to get even. Getting mad is a pretty good way to start.
</p>
	<p>
Best wishes as always.
</p>
	<p>William Shepherd<br>
Monday 11th August 2008
</p>
<p> <small> <a href="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2009/03/31/second-letter-to-ella-5864384/#comments">Comments</a> </small> </p>]]></content:encoded></default:item><default:item xmlns:default="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" rdf:about="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2009/01/11/shepherd-on-climate-list-of-contents-5358559/"><default:title>Shepherd on Climate - List of Contents</default:title><default:link>http://climate.blog.co.uk/2009/01/11/shepherd-on-climate-list-of-contents-5358559/</default:link><dc:date xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">2009-01-11T15:42:09+01:00</dc:date><default:description>	&lt;p&gt;
&lt;a href="http://www.cesc.net/climateweb/shepherd/index.html"&gt;&lt;em&gt;Shepherd on Climate Website&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
&lt;strong&gt;THE SHEPHERD CLIMATE BLOGS&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;a href="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2006/05/09/energy_infrastructure_make_over~786760"&gt;01&lt;/a&gt;. Energy Makeover&lt;br&gt;&lt;a href="http://williamfranklin.blog.co.uk/2006/01/12/william_shepherd_on_rwe_strategy~463498"&gt;02&lt;/a&gt;. Wind Farm Politics&lt;br&gt;&lt;a href="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2006/05/09/otto_pettersson~786814"&gt;03&lt;/a&gt;. Blue Moonwaves&lt;br&gt;&lt;a href="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2006/05/09/cosmic_warning_on_global_warming~786829"&gt;04&lt;/a&gt;. Cosmic Warning&lt;br&gt;&lt;a href="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2006/05/09/temperature_on_planet_earth~786839"&gt;05&lt;/a&gt;. Earth Temperature&lt;br&gt;&lt;a href="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2006/05/09/the_six_million_year_temperature_curve~786855"&gt;06&lt;/a&gt;. Six Million Years&lt;br&gt;&lt;a href="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2006/05/09/global_baloney~786866"&gt;07&lt;/a&gt;. Global Baloney&lt;br&gt;&lt;a href="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2006/05/09/michael_crichton_s_state_of_fear~786925"&gt;08&lt;/a&gt;. State of Fear&lt;br&gt;&lt;a href="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2006/05/09/think_global_act_local~786926"&gt;09&lt;/a&gt;. Think Global Act Local&lt;br&gt;&lt;a href="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2006/05/09/the_global_electricty_grid~786943"&gt;10&lt;/a&gt;. Global Electricity Grid&lt;br&gt;&lt;a href="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2006/05/09/carbon_emissions_aamp_the_imf~786965"&gt;11&lt;/a&gt;. Carbon Emissions&lt;br&gt;&lt;a href="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2006/05/09/local_energy_power~786974"&gt;12&lt;/a&gt;. Local Energy Power&lt;br&gt;&lt;a href="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2006/05/09/title~786991"&gt;13&lt;/a&gt;. Arctic Photo Opportunity&lt;br&gt;&lt;a href="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2006/05/09/state_of_ignorance~787015"&gt;14&lt;/a&gt;. State of Ignorance&lt;br&gt;&lt;a href="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2006/05/09/the_politico_legal_media_complex~787029"&gt;15&lt;/a&gt;.  Politico-Legal-Media Complex&lt;br&gt;&lt;a href="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2006/05/09/orthodoxy_aamp_heresy~787035"&gt;16&lt;/a&gt;. Orthodoxy &amp; Heresy&lt;br&gt;&lt;a href="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2006/05/09/title~787042"&gt;17&lt;/a&gt;. Who? Whom?&lt;br&gt;&lt;a href="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2006/05/12/changes_in_climate_change~793620"&gt;18&lt;/a&gt;. Changing Climate Change&lt;br&gt;&lt;a href="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2006/05/12/changing_climate_change~794662"&gt;19&lt;/a&gt;. Global Warming Orthodoxy&lt;br&gt;&lt;a href="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2006/05/13/per_s_peer_review~796615"&gt;20&lt;/a&gt;. Per's Peer Review&lt;br&gt;&lt;a href="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2006/05/18/majority_against_orthodoxy~809575"&gt;21&lt;/a&gt;. Majority Against Orthodoxy&lt;br&gt;&lt;a href="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2006/06/12/carbon_emissions_trading~872534"&gt;22&lt;/a&gt;. Carbon Emissions Trading&lt;br&gt;&lt;a href="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2006/05/22/right_aamp_left_aamp_useful_idiots~820347"&gt;23&lt;/a&gt;. Useful Idiots&lt;br&gt;&lt;a href="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2006/06/12/the_story_of_global_warming~872572"&gt;24&lt;/a&gt;. Story of Global Warming&lt;br&gt;&lt;a href="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2006/06/12/global_cooling~872594"&gt;25&lt;/a&gt;. New Ice Age&lt;br&gt;&lt;a href="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2006/06/06/unnatural_disasters~858787"&gt;26&lt;/a&gt;. Unnatural Disasters&lt;br&gt;&lt;a href="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2006/05/31/hubris_aamp_nemisis~843458"&gt;27&lt;/a&gt;. Hubris &amp; Nemesis&lt;br&gt;&lt;a href="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2006/06/06/limits_to_models~858773"&gt;28&lt;/a&gt;. Limits to Models&lt;br&gt;&lt;a href="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2006/06/12/greenhouse_aamp_nuclear_effects~872461"&gt;29&lt;/a&gt;. Greenhouse Effects&lt;br&gt;&lt;a href="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2006/06/19/cloud_cuckoo_land~893306"&gt;30&lt;/a&gt;. Cloud Cuckoo Land&lt;br&gt;&lt;a href="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2006/06/27/sunken_knowledge~915558"&gt;31&lt;/a&gt;. Sunken Knowledge&lt;br&gt;&lt;a href="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2006/07/11/who_is_listening~951538"&gt;32&lt;/a&gt;. Right Science&lt;br&gt;&lt;a href="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2006/10/11/good_science~1208886"&gt;33&lt;/a&gt;. Good Science&lt;br&gt;&lt;a href="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2006/11/11/lying_made_easy~1318827"&gt;34&lt;/a&gt;. Medieval Warm Period&lt;br&gt;&lt;a href="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2006/11/11/carry_on_lying~1318835"&gt;35&lt;/a&gt;. Climate Thermodynamics&lt;br&gt;&lt;a href="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2006/11/13/consensus_statistics~1324679"&gt;36&lt;/a&gt;. Consensus Statistics&lt;br&gt;&lt;a href="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2007/04/23/treetalk~2145572"&gt;37&lt;/a&gt;. Treetalk&lt;br&gt;&lt;a href="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2007/08/03/climate_weapons~2747984"&gt;38&lt;/a&gt;. Climate Weapons&lt;br&gt;&lt;a href="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2007/08/04/car_food~2753280"&gt;39&lt;/a&gt;. Car Fodder&lt;br&gt;&lt;a href="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2007/08/04/moon_aamp_ice~2753371"&gt;40&lt;/a&gt;. Moon &amp; Ice&lt;br&gt;&lt;a href="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2007/08/04/data_quality~2753430"&gt;41&lt;/a&gt;. Data Quality&lt;br&gt;&lt;a href="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2007/08/04/stern_reports~2753464"&gt;42&lt;/a&gt;. Stern Reports&lt;br&gt;&lt;a href="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2007/08/12/whirling_dervishes~2795502"&gt;43&lt;/a&gt;. Whirling Dervishes&lt;br&gt;&lt;a href="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2007/08/15/kyoto_economics~2813807"&gt;44&lt;/a&gt;. Kyoto Economics&lt;br&gt;&lt;a href="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2007/08/16/ice_ages_aamp_science_wars~2821253"&gt;45&lt;/a&gt;. Ice Ages &amp; Science Wars&lt;br&gt;&lt;a href="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2007/08/20/inconvenient_truth_three~2837631"&gt;46&lt;/a&gt;. Inconvenient Truths&lt;br&gt;&lt;a href="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2007/08/29/cows_aamp_moose~2888145"&gt;47&lt;/a&gt;. Cows &amp; Moose&lt;br&gt;&lt;a href="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2007/12/09/sea_levels~3417710"&gt;48&lt;/a&gt;. Sea Levels&lt;br&gt;&lt;a href="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2008/04/27/climate-deceits-4100221"&gt;49&lt;/a&gt;. Climate Deceits&lt;br&gt;&lt;a href="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2008/07/24/shepherd-on-climate-list-of-contents-4491538"&gt;50&lt;/a&gt;. The New Religion&lt;br&gt;
&lt;a href="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2008/08/02/letter-to-ella-4532259"&gt;51&lt;/a&gt;. Letter to Ella&lt;br&gt;
&lt;a href="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2009/03/31/second-letter-to-ella-5864384"&gt;52&lt;/a&gt;. Letter to David&lt;br&gt;
&lt;a href="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2009/04/25/life-on-earth-6003538"&gt;53&lt;/a&gt;. Life on Earth&lt;br&gt;
&lt;a href="http://sundance.blog.co.uk/2009/04/28/prologue-6023144/"&gt;54&lt;/a&gt;. Sundance Chronicles
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
&lt;a href="http://www.cesc.net/climateweb/shepherd/shepherdonclimate.pdf"&gt;&lt;em&gt;England's Climate &amp; Energy Politics by William Shepherd&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt; &lt;small&gt; &lt;a href="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2009/01/11/shepherd-on-climate-list-of-contents-5358559/#comments"&gt;Comments&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/small&gt; &lt;/p&gt;</default:description><content:encoded xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"><![CDATA[	<p>
<a href="http://www.cesc.net/climateweb/shepherd/index.html"><em>Shepherd on Climate Website</em></a>
</p>
	<p>
<strong>THE SHEPHERD CLIMATE BLOGS</strong><br><a href="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2006/05/09/energy_infrastructure_make_over~786760">01</a>. Energy Makeover<br><a href="http://williamfranklin.blog.co.uk/2006/01/12/william_shepherd_on_rwe_strategy~463498">02</a>. Wind Farm Politics<br><a href="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2006/05/09/otto_pettersson~786814">03</a>. Blue Moonwaves<br><a href="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2006/05/09/cosmic_warning_on_global_warming~786829">04</a>. Cosmic Warning<br><a href="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2006/05/09/temperature_on_planet_earth~786839">05</a>. Earth Temperature<br><a href="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2006/05/09/the_six_million_year_temperature_curve~786855">06</a>. Six Million Years<br><a href="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2006/05/09/global_baloney~786866">07</a>. Global Baloney<br><a href="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2006/05/09/michael_crichton_s_state_of_fear~786925">08</a>. State of Fear<br><a href="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2006/05/09/think_global_act_local~786926">09</a>. Think Global Act Local<br><a href="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2006/05/09/the_global_electricty_grid~786943">10</a>. Global Electricity Grid<br><a href="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2006/05/09/carbon_emissions_aamp_the_imf~786965">11</a>. Carbon Emissions<br><a href="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2006/05/09/local_energy_power~786974">12</a>. Local Energy Power<br><a href="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2006/05/09/title~786991">13</a>. Arctic Photo Opportunity<br><a href="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2006/05/09/state_of_ignorance~787015">14</a>. State of Ignorance<br><a href="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2006/05/09/the_politico_legal_media_complex~787029">15</a>.  Politico-Legal-Media Complex<br><a href="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2006/05/09/orthodoxy_aamp_heresy~787035">16</a>. Orthodoxy & Heresy<br><a href="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2006/05/09/title~787042">17</a>. Who? Whom?<br><a href="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2006/05/12/changes_in_climate_change~793620">18</a>. Changing Climate Change<br><a href="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2006/05/12/changing_climate_change~794662">19</a>. Global Warming Orthodoxy<br><a href="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2006/05/13/per_s_peer_review~796615">20</a>. Per's Peer Review<br><a href="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2006/05/18/majority_against_orthodoxy~809575">21</a>. Majority Against Orthodoxy<br><a href="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2006/06/12/carbon_emissions_trading~872534">22</a>. Carbon Emissions Trading<br><a href="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2006/05/22/right_aamp_left_aamp_useful_idiots~820347">23</a>. Useful Idiots<br><a href="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2006/06/12/the_story_of_global_warming~872572">24</a>. Story of Global Warming<br><a href="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2006/06/12/global_cooling~872594">25</a>. New Ice Age<br><a href="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2006/06/06/unnatural_disasters~858787">26</a>. Unnatural Disasters<br><a href="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2006/05/31/hubris_aamp_nemisis~843458">27</a>. Hubris & Nemesis<br><a href="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2006/06/06/limits_to_models~858773">28</a>. Limits to Models<br><a href="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2006/06/12/greenhouse_aamp_nuclear_effects~872461">29</a>. Greenhouse Effects<br><a href="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2006/06/19/cloud_cuckoo_land~893306">30</a>. Cloud Cuckoo Land<br><a href="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2006/06/27/sunken_knowledge~915558">31</a>. Sunken Knowledge<br><a href="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2006/07/11/who_is_listening~951538">32</a>. Right Science<br><a href="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2006/10/11/good_science~1208886">33</a>. Good Science<br><a href="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2006/11/11/lying_made_easy~1318827">34</a>. Medieval Warm Period<br><a href="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2006/11/11/carry_on_lying~1318835">35</a>. Climate Thermodynamics<br><a href="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2006/11/13/consensus_statistics~1324679">36</a>. Consensus Statistics<br><a href="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2007/04/23/treetalk~2145572">37</a>. Treetalk<br><a href="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2007/08/03/climate_weapons~2747984">38</a>. Climate Weapons<br><a href="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2007/08/04/car_food~2753280">39</a>. Car Fodder<br><a href="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2007/08/04/moon_aamp_ice~2753371">40</a>. Moon & Ice<br><a href="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2007/08/04/data_quality~2753430">41</a>. Data Quality<br><a href="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2007/08/04/stern_reports~2753464">42</a>. Stern Reports<br><a href="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2007/08/12/whirling_dervishes~2795502">43</a>. Whirling Dervishes<br><a href="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2007/08/15/kyoto_economics~2813807">44</a>. Kyoto Economics<br><a href="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2007/08/16/ice_ages_aamp_science_wars~2821253">45</a>. Ice Ages & Science Wars<br><a href="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2007/08/20/inconvenient_truth_three~2837631">46</a>. Inconvenient Truths<br><a href="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2007/08/29/cows_aamp_moose~2888145">47</a>. Cows & Moose<br><a href="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2007/12/09/sea_levels~3417710">48</a>. Sea Levels<br><a href="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2008/04/27/climate-deceits-4100221">49</a>. Climate Deceits<br><a href="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2008/07/24/shepherd-on-climate-list-of-contents-4491538">50</a>. The New Religion<br>
<a href="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2008/08/02/letter-to-ella-4532259">51</a>. Letter to Ella<br>
<a href="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2009/03/31/second-letter-to-ella-5864384">52</a>. Letter to David<br>
<a href="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2009/04/25/life-on-earth-6003538">53</a>. Life on Earth<br>
<a href="http://sundance.blog.co.uk/2009/04/28/prologue-6023144/">54</a>. Sundance Chronicles
</p>
	<p>
<a href="http://www.cesc.net/climateweb/shepherd/shepherdonclimate.pdf"><em>England's Climate & Energy Politics by William Shepherd</em></a>
</p>
<p> <small> <a href="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2009/01/11/shepherd-on-climate-list-of-contents-5358559/#comments">Comments</a> </small> </p>]]></content:encoded></default:item><default:item xmlns:default="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" rdf:about="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2008/08/02/letter-to-ella-4532259/"><default:title>Letter to Ella</default:title><default:link>http://climate.blog.co.uk/2008/08/02/letter-to-ella-4532259/</default:link><dc:date xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">2008-08-02T09:14:36+02:00</dc:date><default:description>	&lt;p&gt;
Dear Ella
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
For the past few years I have been warning colleagues on &lt;em&gt;The Left&lt;/em&gt; to be careful about the positions they choose to take on climate change and global warming.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
Increasingly I have come to the view that bigger games are in play and that the &lt;em&gt;Carbon Dioxide Hypothesis&lt;/em&gt;...which I don't think stands up to scientific scrutiny... is part of an orchestrated (and to date a very successful) attempt to blindside the left and divert them away from challenging the shift going on from &lt;em&gt;Financial Capitalism&lt;/em&gt; via &lt;em&gt;Disaster Capitalism&lt;/em&gt;...see Naomi Klein's &lt;a href="http://www.naomiklein.org/shock-doctrine"&gt;&lt;em&gt;The Shock Doctrine&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;...to &lt;em&gt;Resource Capitalism&lt;/em&gt; where resources are controlled directly (seed, soil, water, energy etc) instead of through central banking and financial intermediaries.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
I also agree with the views of &lt;a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dtbn9zBfJSs"&gt;&lt;em&gt;Bjorn Lomborg&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href="http://www.complexsys.org/crichton_movies/crichton_movies5.htm"&gt;&lt;em&gt;Michael Crichton&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt; and have posted interviews with them on my &lt;a href="http://www.holobolo.net/"&gt;&lt;em&gt;holobolo&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt; website...although the best link is to my &lt;a href="http://www.holobolo.net/musicweb/agnetha.html"&gt;&lt;em&gt;Agnetha Fältskog&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt; page...the best female voice in the world.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
I suspect that the point of the &lt;em&gt;Carbon Dioxide Hypothesis&lt;/em&gt; is to set up the trading exchanges for manipulating and then controlling the ownership and distribution of resources. There are then secondary benefits such as getting the public purse to pick up the tab for the conversion of the global transport fleet from oil to hydrogen grids, nuclear power etc. but control of the &lt;em&gt;Resource Exchanges&lt;/em&gt; is the main purpose.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
My daughter...one of my fiercest critics...recommends that you read &lt;a href="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2007/08/16/ice_ages_aamp_science_wars~2821253"&gt;&lt;em&gt;Ice Ages and Science Wars&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt; before making up your own mind about global warming. My approach to climate change has been to explore the science behind the political headlines. The fifty posts on my &lt;a href="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2008/07/24/shepherd-on-climate-list-of-contents-4491538"&gt;&lt;em&gt;climate blog&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt; is one measure of the complexity of the issues. But I hope that my honesty at least is infectious. My blog statistics show that the &lt;em&gt;Shepherd on Climate&lt;/em&gt; blog received 1932 page views and 856 visitors in July 2008 while my website dispatched several dozen copies a day of my 2006 pamphlet &lt;a href="http://www.cesc.net/climateweb/shepherd/shepherdonclimate.pdf"&gt;&lt;em&gt;England's Climate &amp; Energy Politics&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt; into cyberspace in response to requests flowing into my webserver from somewhere out there in the ether.&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
It may be that many of these went to &lt;em&gt;Right Wingers&lt;/em&gt;. Most people like to have their prejudices reinforced and many people come to the right conclusion for the wrong reasons. However my own position is about as far to the left as you can get. I don't like ordinary people being bossed around (and necessarily slaughtered) by rich, wealthy unaccountable elites and I don't want to see a &lt;em&gt;One World Government&lt;/em&gt; imposed on my grandchildren...my first was born earlier this week and is likely to be alive in 2108.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
I believe that by the mid 2030s most of the energy and electricity grids and pipelines that lace our world with a network of vulnerable terrorist targets will be closed down and dismantled. They are unjustifiable by either economics or energy fundamentals.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
The sun showers enough energy on the Earth in forty-five minutes to meet the planet's need for a year. No elite, however powerful, can alter this reality. They can hide the fact. They can obstruct honest attempts to exploit its implications. But not for ever. It would be smarter for them to change tack sooner rather than later. The &lt;a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/audio/2008/jun/16/science.weekly.extra.dan.nocera?gusrc=rss&amp;feed=science"&gt;&lt;em&gt;MIT Professor Daniel Nocera&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt; has put another nail in their coffin. Predictably their first reaction to his breakthrough on solar energy storage will be to steal, control and restrict access to the invention. But reality will break through. It always does...in the end.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
This grid-pipeline demolition job is not one I would give to the energy companies and the pipeline operators. They have strong vested interests in doing the exact opposite, namely monopolising the energy flows and creating artificial energy scarcities.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
I think that is enough to give you a flavour of the issues surrounding the climate change debate. My underlying attitude should also come through clearly from my climate blogs. More and more people will be moving this way as &lt;a href="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2006/10/11/good_science~1208886"&gt;&lt;em&gt;Good Science&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;...the method rather than the individual scientist...leads us ever closer to the truth. Sensible steps are best made on firm foundations and not shifting sands. Slow and small are beautiful.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
Best wishes as always.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
William Shepherd&lt;br&gt;
Saturday 2nd August 2008
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt; &lt;small&gt; &lt;a href="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2008/08/02/letter-to-ella-4532259/#comments"&gt;Comments&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/small&gt; &lt;/p&gt;</default:description><content:encoded xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"><![CDATA[	<p>
Dear Ella
</p>
	<p>
For the past few years I have been warning colleagues on <em>The Left</em> to be careful about the positions they choose to take on climate change and global warming.
</p>
	<p>
Increasingly I have come to the view that bigger games are in play and that the <em>Carbon Dioxide Hypothesis</em>...which I don't think stands up to scientific scrutiny... is part of an orchestrated (and to date a very successful) attempt to blindside the left and divert them away from challenging the shift going on from <em>Financial Capitalism</em> via <em>Disaster Capitalism</em>...see Naomi Klein's <a href="http://www.naomiklein.org/shock-doctrine"><em>The Shock Doctrine</em></a>...to <em>Resource Capitalism</em> where resources are controlled directly (seed, soil, water, energy etc) instead of through central banking and financial intermediaries.
</p>
	<p>
I also agree with the views of <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dtbn9zBfJSs"><em>Bjorn Lomborg</em></a> and <a href="http://www.complexsys.org/crichton_movies/crichton_movies5.htm"><em>Michael Crichton</em></a> and have posted interviews with them on my <a href="http://www.holobolo.net/"><em>holobolo</em></a> website...although the best link is to my <a href="http://www.holobolo.net/musicweb/agnetha.html"><em>Agnetha Fältskog</em></a> page...the best female voice in the world.
</p>
	<p>
I suspect that the point of the <em>Carbon Dioxide Hypothesis</em> is to set up the trading exchanges for manipulating and then controlling the ownership and distribution of resources. There are then secondary benefits such as getting the public purse to pick up the tab for the conversion of the global transport fleet from oil to hydrogen grids, nuclear power etc. but control of the <em>Resource Exchanges</em> is the main purpose.
</p>
	<p>
My daughter...one of my fiercest critics...recommends that you read <a href="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2007/08/16/ice_ages_aamp_science_wars~2821253"><em>Ice Ages and Science Wars</em></a> before making up your own mind about global warming. My approach to climate change has been to explore the science behind the political headlines. The fifty posts on my <a href="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2008/07/24/shepherd-on-climate-list-of-contents-4491538"><em>climate blog</em></a> is one measure of the complexity of the issues. But I hope that my honesty at least is infectious. My blog statistics show that the <em>Shepherd on Climate</em> blog received 1932 page views and 856 visitors in July 2008 while my website dispatched several dozen copies a day of my 2006 pamphlet <a href="http://www.cesc.net/climateweb/shepherd/shepherdonclimate.pdf"><em>England's Climate & Energy Politics</em></a> into cyberspace in response to requests flowing into my webserver from somewhere out there in the ether.</p>
	<p>
It may be that many of these went to <em>Right Wingers</em>. Most people like to have their prejudices reinforced and many people come to the right conclusion for the wrong reasons. However my own position is about as far to the left as you can get. I don't like ordinary people being bossed around (and necessarily slaughtered) by rich, wealthy unaccountable elites and I don't want to see a <em>One World Government</em> imposed on my grandchildren...my first was born earlier this week and is likely to be alive in 2108.
</p>
	<p>
I believe that by the mid 2030s most of the energy and electricity grids and pipelines that lace our world with a network of vulnerable terrorist targets will be closed down and dismantled. They are unjustifiable by either economics or energy fundamentals.
</p>
	<p>
The sun showers enough energy on the Earth in forty-five minutes to meet the planet's need for a year. No elite, however powerful, can alter this reality. They can hide the fact. They can obstruct honest attempts to exploit its implications. But not for ever. It would be smarter for them to change tack sooner rather than later. The <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/audio/2008/jun/16/science.weekly.extra.dan.nocera?gusrc=rss&feed=science"><em>MIT Professor Daniel Nocera</em></a> has put another nail in their coffin. Predictably their first reaction to his breakthrough on solar energy storage will be to steal, control and restrict access to the invention. But reality will break through. It always does...in the end.
</p>
	<p>
This grid-pipeline demolition job is not one I would give to the energy companies and the pipeline operators. They have strong vested interests in doing the exact opposite, namely monopolising the energy flows and creating artificial energy scarcities.
</p>
	<p>
I think that is enough to give you a flavour of the issues surrounding the climate change debate. My underlying attitude should also come through clearly from my climate blogs. More and more people will be moving this way as <a href="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2006/10/11/good_science~1208886"><em>Good Science</em></a>...the method rather than the individual scientist...leads us ever closer to the truth. Sensible steps are best made on firm foundations and not shifting sands. Slow and small are beautiful.
</p>
	<p>
Best wishes as always.
</p>
	<p>
William Shepherd<br>
Saturday 2nd August 2008
</p>
<p> <small> <a href="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2008/08/02/letter-to-ella-4532259/#comments">Comments</a> </small> </p>]]></content:encoded></default:item><default:item xmlns:default="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" rdf:about="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2008/07/24/shepherd-on-climate-list-of-contents-4491538/"><default:title>The New Religion</default:title><default:link>http://climate.blog.co.uk/2008/07/24/shepherd-on-climate-list-of-contents-4491538/</default:link><dc:date xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">2008-07-24T09:04:56+02:00</dc:date><default:description>	&lt;p&gt;
Many of the new offences created by Parliament in the coming years will stem from the new religion of global warming. The reason is simple. It increases the power of government. Indeed it is a politician's dream because the scope for governmental interference and pious lectures is limitless.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p class="center"&gt;&lt;a href="javascript:window.open(" title="pipelines"&gt;&lt;img src="http://data5.blog.de/media/128/3138128_1ba5eab5d7_m.jpeg" alt="pipelines" vspace="5" hspace="5"&gt;&lt;/a&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
Industry can be splattered with new regulations. The private citizen can be subjected to constant hectoring on how this or that might save the planet. Politicians can appear in the media, unquestioned, and new fields of supposed expertise can be created. The subject can be ordained for the schoolroom so children can sternly rebuke their parents over their carbon emissions and reckless lifestyles.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
One of the oddities about the cult of planet-saving is the wide acceptance of the gospel of global warming, despite the fact that most of us are shivering in the cold. History shows that the planet has over the ages warmed up and cooled down over long periods before the arrival of any SUVs or anything else on wheels. Since we are dependent on the sun's seemingly enigmatic behaviour for our heat, this is not altogether surprising.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
So far as the scientific debate is concerned, it is fascinating to observe the rush to join the new religion. As Andrew Alexander pointed out on 2nd January 2009 in his column in the Daily Mail 'Some of you will knowingly add, grants and posts and promotion are readily forthcoming for those accepting the new orthodoxy, not the challengers. After a lifetime observing the whimsical views of orthodox 'experts' in so many fields and the publicity their views receive, I find this pattern familiar.'
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
The heretical Danish professor Bjorn Lomborg prefers to deal in facts and numbers about global warming than join the priesthood. This puts him on a collision course with 'the crazed extent of global warming argued by Al Gore in his famous and fatuous film &lt;em&gt;An Inconvenient Truth,&lt;/em&gt;' to quote Alexander. Unfortunately the facts are turning against the new religion.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
Satellite data show that global sea level is rising by a truly tiny amount, with no rise for the past two years. And global temperatures have probably fallen in the past year-and-a-half, leaving the global position unchanged over the past decade. &lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;Lomborg declares that the vast sums of money due to be involved in preventing global warming could be better spent elsewhere...food and water for all and a war against malaria just for starters. He calculates, for instance, that if all the Kyoto agreements were fulfilled it would reduce the global temperature in the year 2100 by only .0075 degrees.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
Britain's contribution to Kyoto would be tiny to the point of immeasurable in terms of global warming. But would there be any casualties from a refusal to worship at the altars of the carbon exchanges? Individual ones undoubtedly...and deservedly so for they stand accused of misleading the people...after deluding themselves. But the majority would prosper from a change of tack.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
We are told that hardworking scientists with families to support would find themselves short of employment, no longer with fame and fortune within their grasp. Or would they? The real threat from our ignorance of cosmic and galactic affairs needs every scientist and astronaut we can muster. The real risks of catastrophic change in the Earth's climate will come from without and not from within.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
But pity the poor power companies. Their share price will be exposed to the folly of their nuclear power fiascos. How will they survive the cancellation of their free grants of carbon pollution vouchers without lucrative profit offsets from their inefficient wind turbines?
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
The real need is to dismantle the planet's electricity grids, oil and gas pipelines and the related transport infrastructure and rebuild energy needs and energy supply from the ground up...one household, one business, one village, one town, one rural county and one city region at a time. For bankers profit rules and they would soon go about once it is worth their while.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
And what of our politicians going boldly into a brave new world of controlled climate and ambient temperatures? Must they admit the error of their ways? I don't think so. John Maynard Keynes once said that a sound banker is not one who foresees ruin and avoids it, but one who, when he is ruined, is ruined in a conventional and orthodox way along with his fellows, so that no one can really blame him. My advice? Stick with the herd but get it headed in the right direction. Where the planet's climate is concerned it is hard facts and not blind faith that will be needed in the 21st century.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt; &lt;small&gt; &lt;a href="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2008/07/24/shepherd-on-climate-list-of-contents-4491538/#comments"&gt;Comments&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/small&gt; &lt;/p&gt;</default:description><content:encoded xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"><![CDATA[	<p>
Many of the new offences created by Parliament in the coming years will stem from the new religion of global warming. The reason is simple. It increases the power of government. Indeed it is a politician's dream because the scope for governmental interference and pious lectures is limitless.
</p>
	<p class="center"><a href="javascript:window.open(" title="pipelines"><img src="http://data5.blog.de/media/128/3138128_1ba5eab5d7_m.jpeg" alt="pipelines" vspace="5" hspace="5"></a>
</p>
	<p>
Industry can be splattered with new regulations. The private citizen can be subjected to constant hectoring on how this or that might save the planet. Politicians can appear in the media, unquestioned, and new fields of supposed expertise can be created. The subject can be ordained for the schoolroom so children can sternly rebuke their parents over their carbon emissions and reckless lifestyles.
</p>
	<p>
One of the oddities about the cult of planet-saving is the wide acceptance of the gospel of global warming, despite the fact that most of us are shivering in the cold. History shows that the planet has over the ages warmed up and cooled down over long periods before the arrival of any SUVs or anything else on wheels. Since we are dependent on the sun's seemingly enigmatic behaviour for our heat, this is not altogether surprising.
</p>
	<p>
So far as the scientific debate is concerned, it is fascinating to observe the rush to join the new religion. As Andrew Alexander pointed out on 2nd January 2009 in his column in the Daily Mail 'Some of you will knowingly add, grants and posts and promotion are readily forthcoming for those accepting the new orthodoxy, not the challengers. After a lifetime observing the whimsical views of orthodox 'experts' in so many fields and the publicity their views receive, I find this pattern familiar.'
</p>
	<p>
The heretical Danish professor Bjorn Lomborg prefers to deal in facts and numbers about global warming than join the priesthood. This puts him on a collision course with 'the crazed extent of global warming argued by Al Gore in his famous and fatuous film <em>An Inconvenient Truth,</em>' to quote Alexander. Unfortunately the facts are turning against the new religion.
</p>
	<p>
Satellite data show that global sea level is rising by a truly tiny amount, with no rise for the past two years. And global temperatures have probably fallen in the past year-and-a-half, leaving the global position unchanged over the past decade. </p>
	<p>Lomborg declares that the vast sums of money due to be involved in preventing global warming could be better spent elsewhere...food and water for all and a war against malaria just for starters. He calculates, for instance, that if all the Kyoto agreements were fulfilled it would reduce the global temperature in the year 2100 by only .0075 degrees.
</p>
	<p>
Britain's contribution to Kyoto would be tiny to the point of immeasurable in terms of global warming. But would there be any casualties from a refusal to worship at the altars of the carbon exchanges? Individual ones undoubtedly...and deservedly so for they stand accused of misleading the people...after deluding themselves. But the majority would prosper from a change of tack.
</p>
	<p>
We are told that hardworking scientists with families to support would find themselves short of employment, no longer with fame and fortune within their grasp. Or would they? The real threat from our ignorance of cosmic and galactic affairs needs every scientist and astronaut we can muster. The real risks of catastrophic change in the Earth's climate will come from without and not from within.
</p>
	<p>
But pity the poor power companies. Their share price will be exposed to the folly of their nuclear power fiascos. How will they survive the cancellation of their free grants of carbon pollution vouchers without lucrative profit offsets from their inefficient wind turbines?
</p>
	<p>
The real need is to dismantle the planet's electricity grids, oil and gas pipelines and the related transport infrastructure and rebuild energy needs and energy supply from the ground up...one household, one business, one village, one town, one rural county and one city region at a time. For bankers profit rules and they would soon go about once it is worth their while.
</p>
	<p>
And what of our politicians going boldly into a brave new world of controlled climate and ambient temperatures? Must they admit the error of their ways? I don't think so. John Maynard Keynes once said that a sound banker is not one who foresees ruin and avoids it, but one who, when he is ruined, is ruined in a conventional and orthodox way along with his fellows, so that no one can really blame him. My advice? Stick with the herd but get it headed in the right direction. Where the planet's climate is concerned it is hard facts and not blind faith that will be needed in the 21st century.
</p>
<p> <small> <a href="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2008/07/24/shepherd-on-climate-list-of-contents-4491538/#comments">Comments</a> </small> </p>]]></content:encoded></default:item><default:item xmlns:default="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" rdf:about="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2008/04/27/climate-deceits-4100221/"><default:title>Climate Deceits</default:title><default:link>http://climate.blog.co.uk/2008/04/27/climate-deceits-4100221/</default:link><dc:date xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">2008-04-27T09:23:37+02:00</dc:date><default:description>	&lt;p&gt;
Over the past decade the need to save the planet from global warming has become one of the most pervasive issues of our time. In 2004 Tony Blair's chief scientific adviser, Sir David King, even claimed that global warming posed 'a far greater threat to the world than international terrorism', warning that by the end of this century the only habitable continent left will be Antarctica.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
But whenever such claims are questioned, the messenger is denounced, the evidence is ridiculed and the message is ignored. Inevitably, many people have been bemused by this somewhat one-sided debate, imagining that if so many experts are agreed, then there must be something in it. But is there? Here is the story of how this fear was promoted. It will leave any honest believer in global warming feeling uncomfortable.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
One consistent critic has been the &lt;em&gt;Daily Telegraph&lt;/em&gt; columnist Christopher Booker. At the end of last year he and his long-term colleague Richard North published a book entitled &lt;em&gt;Scared to Death: From BSE To Global Warming - How Scares Are Costing Us The Earth&lt;/em&gt; where the case was made against Global Warming in general and against the &lt;a href="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2006/05/09/global_baloney~786866"&gt;&lt;em&gt;Carbon Dioxide Theory&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt; in particular. In the UK the book's publication was met with a deathly silence. Why?
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
Christopher Booker explains that the story of how the panic over climate change was pushed to the top of the international agenda falls into five main stages. Stage one came in the 1970s when many scientists expressed alarm over what they saw as a disastrous change in the earth's climate. Their fear was not of warming but global cooling, of 'a new Ice Age'.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
For three decades, after a sharp rise in the interwar years up to 1940, global temperatures had been falling. The one thing certain about climate is that it is always changing. Since we began to emerge from the last Ice Age 20,000 years ago, temperatures have been through significant swings several times. The hottest period occurred around 8,000 years ago and was followed by a long cooling. Then came what is known as the 'Roman Warming', coinciding with the Roman empire. Three centuries of cooling in the Dark Ages were followed by the 'Medieval Warming', when the evidence agrees the world was hotter than today.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
Around 1300 began 'the Little Ice Age', that did not end until 200 years ago, when we entered what is known as the 'Modern Warming'. But even this has been chequered by colder periods, such as the 'Little Cooling' between 1940 and 1975. Then, in the late 1970s, the world began warming again.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
A scare is often set off when two things are observed together and scientists suggest one must have been caused by the other. In this case, thanks to readings commissioned by Dr Roger Revelle, a distinguished American oceanographer, it was observed that since the late 1950s levels of carbon dioxide in the earth's atmosphere had been rising. Perhaps it was this increase that was causing the new warming in the 1980s?
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
Stage two of the story began in 1988 when, with remarkable speed, the global warming story was elevated into a ruling orthodoxy, partly due to hearings in Washington chaired by a youngish senator, Al Gore, who had studied under Dr Revelle in the 1960s. But more importantly global warming hit centre stage because in 1988 the UN set up its &lt;em&gt;Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (the IPCC)&lt;/em&gt;. Through a series of reports, the &lt;em&gt;IPCC&lt;/em&gt; was to advance its cause in a rather unusual fashion.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
First it would commission as many as 1,500 experts to produce a huge scientific report, which might include all sorts of doubts and reservations. But this was to be prefaced by a &lt;em&gt;Summary for Policymakers&lt;/em&gt;, drafted in consultation with governments and officials - essentially a political document - in which most of the caveats contained in the experts' report would not appear. This was very similar to the process that produced the notorious Blair/Campbell Dodgy Dossier that duped the &lt;em&gt;House of Commons&lt;/em&gt; into sending military forces into Iraq in 2003.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
This contradiction was obvious in the first report in 1991, which led to the Rio conference on climate change in 1992. The second report in 1996 gave particular prominence to a study by an obscure US government scientist claiming that the evidence for a connection between global warming and rising CO2 levels was now firmly established. This study&lt;br&gt;
came under heavy fire from various leading climate experts for the way it manipulated the evidence.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
But this was not allowed to stand in the way of the claim that there was now complete scientific consensus behind the CO2 thesis, and the &lt;em&gt;Summary for Policy-makers&lt;/em&gt;, heavily influenced from behind the scenes by Al Gore, by this time US Vice-President, paved the way in 1997 for the famous &lt;em&gt;Kyoto Protocol&lt;/em&gt;.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
Kyoto initiated stage three of the story, by formally committing governments to drastic reductions in their CO2 emissions. But the treaty still had to be ratified and this seemed a good way off, not least thanks to its rejection in 1997 by the &lt;em&gt;US Senate&lt;/em&gt;, despite the best attempts of Mr Gore.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
Not the least of his efforts was his bid to suppress an article co-authored by Dr Revelle just before his death. Gore didn't want it to be known that his guru had urged that the global warming thesis should be viewed with more caution.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
One of the greatest problems Gore and his allies faced at this time was the mass of evidence showing that in the past, global temperatures had been higher than in the late 20th century. In 1998 came the answer they were looking for: a new temperature chart, devised by a young American physicist, Michael Mann. This became known as the '&lt;a href="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2006/11/11/lying_made_easy~1318827"&gt;&lt;em&gt;hockey stick&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;' because it showed historic temperatures running in an almost flat line over the past 1,000 years, then suddenly flicking up at the end to record levels.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
Mann's hockey stick was just what the IPCC wanted. When its 2001 report came out it was given pride of place at the top of page 1. The Mediaeval Warming, the Little Ice Age, the 20th century Little Cooling, when CO2 had already been rising, all had been wiped away.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
But then a growing number of academics began to raise doubts about Mann and his graph. This culminated in 2003 with a devastating study by two Canadians showing how Mann had not only ignored most of the evidence before him but had used an algorithm that would produce a hockey stick graph whatever evidence was fed into the computer. When this was removed, the graph re-emerged just as it had looked before, showing the Middle Ages as hotter than today.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
It is hard to recall any scientific thesis ever being so comprehensively discredited as the hockey stick. Yet the global warming juggernaut rolled on regardless. And now it was led by the &lt;em&gt;European Union&lt;/em&gt;. In 2004, thanks to a highly dubious deal between the EU and Putin's Russia, stage four of the story began when the &lt;em&gt;Kyoto Treaty&lt;/em&gt; was finally ratified.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
In the past three years, we have seen the &lt;em&gt;European Union&lt;/em&gt; announcing every kind of measure geared to fighting climate change, from building ever more highly-subsidised wind turbines, to a commitment that by 2050 it will have reduced carbon emissions by 60 per cent. This is a pledge that could only be met by such a massive reduction in living standards that it is impossible to see the peoples of Europe accepting it.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
All this frenzy has rested on the assumption that global temperatures will continue to rise in tandem with CO2 and that, unless mankind takes drastic action, our planet is faced with the apocalypse so vividly described by Al Gore in his Oscar-winning film &lt;em&gt;An Inconvenient Truth&lt;/em&gt;.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
Yet recently, stage five of the story has seen all sorts of question marks being raised over Gore's alleged consensus. For instance, he claimed that by the end of this century world sea levels will have risen by 20 ft when even the &lt;em&gt;IPCC&lt;/em&gt; in its latest report, only predicts a rise of between four and 17 inches.There is also of course the harsh reality that, wholly unaffected by the &lt;em&gt;Kyoto Protocol&lt;/em&gt;, the economies of China and India are now expanding at nearly ten per cent a year, with China likely to be emitting more CO2 than the US within two years.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
More serious, however, has been all the evidence accumulating to show that, despite the continuing rise in CO2 levels, global temperatures in the years since 1998 have no longer been rising and may soon even be falling.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
It was a telling moment when, in August, Gore's closest scientific ally, &lt;a href="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2006/05/09/state_of_ignorance~787015"&gt;&lt;em&gt;James Hansen&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt; of the &lt;em&gt;Goddard Institute for Space Studies&lt;/em&gt;, was forced to revise his influential record of US surface temperatures showing that the past decade has seen the hottest years on record. His graph now concedes that the hottest year of the 20th century was not 1998 but 1934, and that four of the 10 warmest years in the past 100 were in the 1930s.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
Furthermore, scientists and academics have recently been queuing up to point out that fluctuations in global temperatures correlate more consistently with patterns of radiation from the sun than with any rise in CO2 levels, and that after a century of high solar activity, the sun's effect is now weakening, presaging a likely drop in temperatures. At least scientists, unlike politicians, understand that correlation and causation are different things.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
Let Christopher Booker have the last word. 'If global warming does turn out to have been a scare like all the others, it will certainly represent as great a collective flight from reality as history has ever recorded. The evidence of the next 10 years will be very interesting.'
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p class="right"&gt;&lt;a href="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2008/07/24/shepherd-on-climate-list-of-contents-4491538"&gt;&lt;em&gt;more from Shepherd on Climate&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt; &lt;small&gt; &lt;a href="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2008/04/27/climate-deceits-4100221/#comments"&gt;Comments&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/small&gt; &lt;/p&gt;</default:description><content:encoded xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"><![CDATA[	<p>
Over the past decade the need to save the planet from global warming has become one of the most pervasive issues of our time. In 2004 Tony Blair's chief scientific adviser, Sir David King, even claimed that global warming posed 'a far greater threat to the world than international terrorism', warning that by the end of this century the only habitable continent left will be Antarctica.
</p>
	<p>
But whenever such claims are questioned, the messenger is denounced, the evidence is ridiculed and the message is ignored. Inevitably, many people have been bemused by this somewhat one-sided debate, imagining that if so many experts are agreed, then there must be something in it. But is there? Here is the story of how this fear was promoted. It will leave any honest believer in global warming feeling uncomfortable.
</p>
	<p>
One consistent critic has been the <em>Daily Telegraph</em> columnist Christopher Booker. At the end of last year he and his long-term colleague Richard North published a book entitled <em>Scared to Death: From BSE To Global Warming - How Scares Are Costing Us The Earth</em> where the case was made against Global Warming in general and against the <a href="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2006/05/09/global_baloney~786866"><em>Carbon Dioxide Theory</em></a> in particular. In the UK the book's publication was met with a deathly silence. Why?
</p>
	<p>
Christopher Booker explains that the story of how the panic over climate change was pushed to the top of the international agenda falls into five main stages. Stage one came in the 1970s when many scientists expressed alarm over what they saw as a disastrous change in the earth's climate. Their fear was not of warming but global cooling, of 'a new Ice Age'.
</p>
	<p>
For three decades, after a sharp rise in the interwar years up to 1940, global temperatures had been falling. The one thing certain about climate is that it is always changing. Since we began to emerge from the last Ice Age 20,000 years ago, temperatures have been through significant swings several times. The hottest period occurred around 8,000 years ago and was followed by a long cooling. Then came what is known as the 'Roman Warming', coinciding with the Roman empire. Three centuries of cooling in the Dark Ages were followed by the 'Medieval Warming', when the evidence agrees the world was hotter than today.
</p>
	<p>
Around 1300 began 'the Little Ice Age', that did not end until 200 years ago, when we entered what is known as the 'Modern Warming'. But even this has been chequered by colder periods, such as the 'Little Cooling' between 1940 and 1975. Then, in the late 1970s, the world began warming again.
</p>
	<p>
A scare is often set off when two things are observed together and scientists suggest one must have been caused by the other. In this case, thanks to readings commissioned by Dr Roger Revelle, a distinguished American oceanographer, it was observed that since the late 1950s levels of carbon dioxide in the earth's atmosphere had been rising. Perhaps it was this increase that was causing the new warming in the 1980s?
</p>
	<p>
Stage two of the story began in 1988 when, with remarkable speed, the global warming story was elevated into a ruling orthodoxy, partly due to hearings in Washington chaired by a youngish senator, Al Gore, who had studied under Dr Revelle in the 1960s. But more importantly global warming hit centre stage because in 1988 the UN set up its <em>Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (the IPCC)</em>. Through a series of reports, the <em>IPCC</em> was to advance its cause in a rather unusual fashion.
</p>
	<p>
First it would commission as many as 1,500 experts to produce a huge scientific report, which might include all sorts of doubts and reservations. But this was to be prefaced by a <em>Summary for Policymakers</em>, drafted in consultation with governments and officials - essentially a political document - in which most of the caveats contained in the experts' report would not appear. This was very similar to the process that produced the notorious Blair/Campbell Dodgy Dossier that duped the <em>House of Commons</em> into sending military forces into Iraq in 2003.
</p>
	<p>
This contradiction was obvious in the first report in 1991, which led to the Rio conference on climate change in 1992. The second report in 1996 gave particular prominence to a study by an obscure US government scientist claiming that the evidence for a connection between global warming and rising CO2 levels was now firmly established. This study<br>
came under heavy fire from various leading climate experts for the way it manipulated the evidence.
</p>
	<p>
But this was not allowed to stand in the way of the claim that there was now complete scientific consensus behind the CO2 thesis, and the <em>Summary for Policy-makers</em>, heavily influenced from behind the scenes by Al Gore, by this time US Vice-President, paved the way in 1997 for the famous <em>Kyoto Protocol</em>.
</p>
	<p>
Kyoto initiated stage three of the story, by formally committing governments to drastic reductions in their CO2 emissions. But the treaty still had to be ratified and this seemed a good way off, not least thanks to its rejection in 1997 by the <em>US Senate</em>, despite the best attempts of Mr Gore.
</p>
	<p>
Not the least of his efforts was his bid to suppress an article co-authored by Dr Revelle just before his death. Gore didn't want it to be known that his guru had urged that the global warming thesis should be viewed with more caution.
</p>
	<p>
One of the greatest problems Gore and his allies faced at this time was the mass of evidence showing that in the past, global temperatures had been higher than in the late 20th century. In 1998 came the answer they were looking for: a new temperature chart, devised by a young American physicist, Michael Mann. This became known as the '<a href="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2006/11/11/lying_made_easy~1318827"><em>hockey stick</em></a>' because it showed historic temperatures running in an almost flat line over the past 1,000 years, then suddenly flicking up at the end to record levels.
</p>
	<p>
Mann's hockey stick was just what the IPCC wanted. When its 2001 report came out it was given pride of place at the top of page 1. The Mediaeval Warming, the Little Ice Age, the 20th century Little Cooling, when CO2 had already been rising, all had been wiped away.
</p>
	<p>
But then a growing number of academics began to raise doubts about Mann and his graph. This culminated in 2003 with a devastating study by two Canadians showing how Mann had not only ignored most of the evidence before him but had used an algorithm that would produce a hockey stick graph whatever evidence was fed into the computer. When this was removed, the graph re-emerged just as it had looked before, showing the Middle Ages as hotter than today.
</p>
	<p>
It is hard to recall any scientific thesis ever being so comprehensively discredited as the hockey stick. Yet the global warming juggernaut rolled on regardless. And now it was led by the <em>European Union</em>. In 2004, thanks to a highly dubious deal between the EU and Putin's Russia, stage four of the story began when the <em>Kyoto Treaty</em> was finally ratified.
</p>
	<p>
In the past three years, we have seen the <em>European Union</em> announcing every kind of measure geared to fighting climate change, from building ever more highly-subsidised wind turbines, to a commitment that by 2050 it will have reduced carbon emissions by 60 per cent. This is a pledge that could only be met by such a massive reduction in living standards that it is impossible to see the peoples of Europe accepting it.
</p>
	<p>
All this frenzy has rested on the assumption that global temperatures will continue to rise in tandem with CO2 and that, unless mankind takes drastic action, our planet is faced with the apocalypse so vividly described by Al Gore in his Oscar-winning film <em>An Inconvenient Truth</em>.
</p>
	<p>
Yet recently, stage five of the story has seen all sorts of question marks being raised over Gore's alleged consensus. For instance, he claimed that by the end of this century world sea levels will have risen by 20 ft when even the <em>IPCC</em> in its latest report, only predicts a rise of between four and 17 inches.There is also of course the harsh reality that, wholly unaffected by the <em>Kyoto Protocol</em>, the economies of China and India are now expanding at nearly ten per cent a year, with China likely to be emitting more CO2 than the US within two years.
</p>
	<p>
More serious, however, has been all the evidence accumulating to show that, despite the continuing rise in CO2 levels, global temperatures in the years since 1998 have no longer been rising and may soon even be falling.
</p>
	<p>
It was a telling moment when, in August, Gore's closest scientific ally, <a href="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2006/05/09/state_of_ignorance~787015"><em>James Hansen</em></a> of the <em>Goddard Institute for Space Studies</em>, was forced to revise his influential record of US surface temperatures showing that the past decade has seen the hottest years on record. His graph now concedes that the hottest year of the 20th century was not 1998 but 1934, and that four of the 10 warmest years in the past 100 were in the 1930s.
</p>
	<p>
Furthermore, scientists and academics have recently been queuing up to point out that fluctuations in global temperatures correlate more consistently with patterns of radiation from the sun than with any rise in CO2 levels, and that after a century of high solar activity, the sun's effect is now weakening, presaging a likely drop in temperatures. At least scientists, unlike politicians, understand that correlation and causation are different things.
</p>
	<p>
Let Christopher Booker have the last word. 'If global warming does turn out to have been a scare like all the others, it will certainly represent as great a collective flight from reality as history has ever recorded. The evidence of the next 10 years will be very interesting.'
</p>
	<p class="right"><a href="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2008/07/24/shepherd-on-climate-list-of-contents-4491538"><em>more from Shepherd on Climate</em></a>
</p>
<p> <small> <a href="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2008/04/27/climate-deceits-4100221/#comments">Comments</a> </small> </p>]]></content:encoded></default:item><default:item xmlns:default="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" rdf:about="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2007/12/09/sea_levels~3417710/"><default:title>Sea Levels</default:title><default:link>http://climate.blog.co.uk/2007/12/09/sea_levels~3417710/</default:link><dc:date xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">2007-12-09T14:56:29+01:00</dc:date><default:description>	&lt;p&gt;Sea levels will rise over the coming century about a foot or about as much as they rose over the past 150 years. This is Bjorn Lomborg's best guess...and his guesses are better than most because he knows what he is talking about.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;To learn more read &lt;a href="http://www.lomborg.com/"&gt;&lt;em&gt;Cool It!: The Skeptical Environmentalist's Guide to Global Warming&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;...the antidote to what Lomborg refers to as 'choreographed screaming'. This detailed study of global warming is published by Marshall Cavendish. (London, 2007, 352 pps, £19.99, ISBN 978-0-462-09912-5) and includes a thousand references and a thousand endnotes.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;If sea levels rise this amount it will be a problem...but it won't be a catastrophe. Ask a very old person about the most important issues that took place in the 20th century. She will likely mention the two world wars, the cold war, the internal combustion engine and perhaps the IT revolution. But it is very unlikely she will add: 'Oh, and sea levels rose.'&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;We dealt with sea levels rising in the past century, and we will do so in this century too. It doesn't mean that it will be unproblematic, but it is unhelpful...and incorrect...to posit it as the end of civilization.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Moreover sea level rise will be a much bigger problem for countries that are poor than for countries that are wealthier. In fact if we work hard at reducing sea level rises, it is likely that we will reduce the rise by 35% but at the same time end up making each person about 35% poorer. The upshot is that places such as Micronesia and Tavalu will get three times more flooded, simply because lower incomes more than outweigh the lower sea level rise.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Thus we cannot talk about CO2 when we talk about dealing with climate change...we need to bring it into the dialogue considerations both about carbon emissions and about economics, for the benefit of both humans and the environment.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;br&gt;
&lt;p class="right"&gt;&lt;a href="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2007/08/29/climate_blog_listing~2888198"&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;a href="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2008/07/24/shepherd-on-climate-list-of-contents-4491538"&gt;&lt;em&gt;more from Shepherd on Climate&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt; &lt;small&gt; &lt;a href="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2007/12/09/sea_levels~3417710/#comments"&gt;Comments&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/small&gt; &lt;/p&gt;</default:description><content:encoded xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"><![CDATA[	<p>Sea levels will rise over the coming century about a foot or about as much as they rose over the past 150 years. This is Bjorn Lomborg's best guess...and his guesses are better than most because he knows what he is talking about.</p>

<p>To learn more read <a href="http://www.lomborg.com/"><em>Cool It!: The Skeptical Environmentalist's Guide to Global Warming</em></a>...the antidote to what Lomborg refers to as 'choreographed screaming'. This detailed study of global warming is published by Marshall Cavendish. (London, 2007, 352 pps, £19.99, ISBN 978-0-462-09912-5) and includes a thousand references and a thousand endnotes.</p>

<p>If sea levels rise this amount it will be a problem...but it won't be a catastrophe. Ask a very old person about the most important issues that took place in the 20th century. She will likely mention the two world wars, the cold war, the internal combustion engine and perhaps the IT revolution. But it is very unlikely she will add: 'Oh, and sea levels rose.'</p>

<p>We dealt with sea levels rising in the past century, and we will do so in this century too. It doesn't mean that it will be unproblematic, but it is unhelpful...and incorrect...to posit it as the end of civilization.</p>

<p>Moreover sea level rise will be a much bigger problem for countries that are poor than for countries that are wealthier. In fact if we work hard at reducing sea level rises, it is likely that we will reduce the rise by 35% but at the same time end up making each person about 35% poorer. The upshot is that places such as Micronesia and Tavalu will get three times more flooded, simply because lower incomes more than outweigh the lower sea level rise.</p>

<p>Thus we cannot talk about CO2 when we talk about dealing with climate change...we need to bring it into the dialogue considerations both about carbon emissions and about economics, for the benefit of both humans and the environment.</p>
<br>
<p class="right"><a href="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2007/08/29/climate_blog_listing~2888198"></a><em><a href="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2008/07/24/shepherd-on-climate-list-of-contents-4491538"><em>more from Shepherd on Climate</em></a></em></p>
<p> <small> <a href="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2007/12/09/sea_levels~3417710/#comments">Comments</a> </small> </p>]]></content:encoded></default:item><default:item xmlns:default="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" rdf:about="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2007/08/29/cows_aamp_moose~2888145/"><default:title>Cows &amp; Moose</default:title><default:link>http://climate.blog.co.uk/2007/08/29/cows_aamp_moose~2888145/</default:link><dc:date xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">2007-08-29T09:10:19+02:00</dc:date><default:description>	&lt;p&gt;
&lt;em&gt;extracted from &lt;a href="http://williamshepherd.blog.co.uk/2006/09/15/saturday_16th_september~1128199"&gt;&lt;em&gt;weblog two hundred and fifty nine&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt; published on Saturday 16th September 2006&lt;/em&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
Across the &lt;em&gt;Irish Sea&lt;/em&gt;, out in the country and down on the farm policymakers have discovered that Irish agriculture accounts for 29% of Ireland’s greenhouse gas emissions…and that half of this emerges from the front and back ends of the animals which give us &lt;em&gt;Irish Beef&lt;/em&gt; and &lt;em&gt;Kerrygold Butter&lt;/em&gt;.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
The &lt;em&gt;Kyoto Protocol&lt;/em&gt; reckons that methane is twenty times as lethal as Carbon Dioxide. New Zealand has known this for quite a while...ever since local scientists calculated that the country's thirty million sheep and ten million cows were giving off thirty seven million tons of methane a year…more than any other part of the economy. How was it to meet it’s &lt;em&gt;Kyoto Commitments&lt;/em&gt;?
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
A &lt;em&gt;Flatulence Tax&lt;/em&gt; on the country’s sheep, cows and deer was the answer New Zealand’s &lt;em&gt;Labour Government&lt;/em&gt; came up with. You couldn’t make it up. The idea was not to persuade the dumb beasts to hold back their wind but to delude the dumber politicians that the £14 million a year raised by the tax would be used to subsidise research into ways of getting the animals to give off rather less of the noxious gas sometime in the future.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
The nationwide guffaw of incredulity was soon followed by a roar of protest from New Zealand’s 130 000 farmers who launched a &lt;em&gt;Fight Against Ridiculous Tax&lt;/em&gt;…FART…campaign.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
Polls showed that only 12% of the population were green enough to think the &lt;em&gt;Fart Tax&lt;/em&gt; was anything other than a bad joke. On behalf of the 84% opposed to the tax, farmers blocked the streets of Wellington the capital with 200 tractors. One &lt;em&gt;Member of Parliament&lt;/em&gt; even drove a tractor up the steps of the parliament building in protest…and earned himself a bossy reprimand on health and safety grounds from the country’s Prime Minister Helen Clark for his pains. A local newspaper gave out free baked beans to the demonstrators so they could make up for all the cows and sheep which could not be represented.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
Up until now New Zealand’s farmers were best known for the fact that alone in the developed world they receive no government subsidies. Since these were abolished agriculture has become the fastest growing sector of the economy. New Zealand’s farmers are now so efficient they can transport their lamb and butter half way round the world to Britain and still compete on price with their lavishly-subsidised &lt;em&gt;European Union&lt;/em&gt; counterparts.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
But terrified that their country might get the reputation of being a bastion of the free market New Zealand’s politically correct &lt;em&gt;Labour Party&lt;/em&gt; ministers seem determined to make their country the laughing stock of the farming world. At least Ireland hasn’t announced plans to do the same…yet.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
But the really terrifying thought is that when the &lt;em&gt;Department for Environment Farming and Rural Affairs&lt;/em&gt; works out that Britain has even more sheep and cattle than either of these countries the English might be commanded to save the planet by following New Zealand’s example.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
Not that the Irish and the Kiwis are the only ones in trouble. Pity the poor Norwegians. Their national symbol is the moose and they are worried about the noble beast's propensity to burp and fart his way through the forest. Moose too produce a steamy heap of methane. According to calculations at &lt;em&gt;Trondheim Technical University&lt;/em&gt; one moose lets fly with the equivalent of a couple of long-haul flights a year. And it's getting worse. Here's the science.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
The planet warms up, the snows recedes, the moose eat more blueberries and make more baby moose, up goes the Norwegian methane count and down goes their &lt;em&gt;Kyoto&lt;/em&gt; compliance. The ultimate perpetual motion machine.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
So the next time David Cameron drives a husky sledge across Norway's Svalbard Peninsula he might think about shooting a passing moose. The perfect carbon offset for his &lt;a href="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2006/05/09/title~786991"&gt;&lt;em&gt;photo-shoot&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;. A shoot for a shoot. And think of the side-effects. Who wouldn't want a rugged hunting 'n shooting man as their next Prime Minister?
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
Read &lt;a href="http://71.18.187.11/climateweb/shepherd/shepherdonclimate.pdf"&gt;&lt;em&gt;England's Climate &amp; Energy Policy&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt; for background or visit my &lt;a href="http://71.18.187.11/climateweb/shepherd/index.html"&gt;&lt;em&gt;climate website&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt; for more on the politics of climate change.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p class="right"&gt;&lt;a href="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2008/07/24/shepherd-on-climate-list-of-contents-4491538"&gt;&lt;em&gt;more from Shepherd on Climate&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt; &lt;small&gt; &lt;a href="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2007/08/29/cows_aamp_moose~2888145/#comments"&gt;Comments&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/small&gt; &lt;/p&gt;</default:description><content:encoded xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"><![CDATA[	<p>
<em>extracted from <a href="http://williamshepherd.blog.co.uk/2006/09/15/saturday_16th_september~1128199"><em>weblog two hundred and fifty nine</em></a> published on Saturday 16th September 2006</em>
</p>
	<p>
Across the <em>Irish Sea</em>, out in the country and down on the farm policymakers have discovered that Irish agriculture accounts for 29% of Ireland’s greenhouse gas emissions…and that half of this emerges from the front and back ends of the animals which give us <em>Irish Beef</em> and <em>Kerrygold Butter</em>.
</p>
	<p>
The <em>Kyoto Protocol</em> reckons that methane is twenty times as lethal as Carbon Dioxide. New Zealand has known this for quite a while...ever since local scientists calculated that the country's thirty million sheep and ten million cows were giving off thirty seven million tons of methane a year…more than any other part of the economy. How was it to meet it’s <em>Kyoto Commitments</em>?
</p>
	<p>
A <em>Flatulence Tax</em> on the country’s sheep, cows and deer was the answer New Zealand’s <em>Labour Government</em> came up with. You couldn’t make it up. The idea was not to persuade the dumb beasts to hold back their wind but to delude the dumber politicians that the £14 million a year raised by the tax would be used to subsidise research into ways of getting the animals to give off rather less of the noxious gas sometime in the future.
</p>
	<p>
The nationwide guffaw of incredulity was soon followed by a roar of protest from New Zealand’s 130 000 farmers who launched a <em>Fight Against Ridiculous Tax</em>…FART…campaign.
</p>
	<p>
Polls showed that only 12% of the population were green enough to think the <em>Fart Tax</em> was anything other than a bad joke. On behalf of the 84% opposed to the tax, farmers blocked the streets of Wellington the capital with 200 tractors. One <em>Member of Parliament</em> even drove a tractor up the steps of the parliament building in protest…and earned himself a bossy reprimand on health and safety grounds from the country’s Prime Minister Helen Clark for his pains. A local newspaper gave out free baked beans to the demonstrators so they could make up for all the cows and sheep which could not be represented.
</p>
	<p>
Up until now New Zealand’s farmers were best known for the fact that alone in the developed world they receive no government subsidies. Since these were abolished agriculture has become the fastest growing sector of the economy. New Zealand’s farmers are now so efficient they can transport their lamb and butter half way round the world to Britain and still compete on price with their lavishly-subsidised <em>European Union</em> counterparts.
</p>
	<p>
But terrified that their country might get the reputation of being a bastion of the free market New Zealand’s politically correct <em>Labour Party</em> ministers seem determined to make their country the laughing stock of the farming world. At least Ireland hasn’t announced plans to do the same…yet.
</p>
	<p>
But the really terrifying thought is that when the <em>Department for Environment Farming and Rural Affairs</em> works out that Britain has even more sheep and cattle than either of these countries the English might be commanded to save the planet by following New Zealand’s example.
</p>
	<p>
Not that the Irish and the Kiwis are the only ones in trouble. Pity the poor Norwegians. Their national symbol is the moose and they are worried about the noble beast's propensity to burp and fart his way through the forest. Moose too produce a steamy heap of methane. According to calculations at <em>Trondheim Technical University</em> one moose lets fly with the equivalent of a couple of long-haul flights a year. And it's getting worse. Here's the science.
</p>
	<p>
The planet warms up, the snows recedes, the moose eat more blueberries and make more baby moose, up goes the Norwegian methane count and down goes their <em>Kyoto</em> compliance. The ultimate perpetual motion machine.
</p>
	<p>
So the next time David Cameron drives a husky sledge across Norway's Svalbard Peninsula he might think about shooting a passing moose. The perfect carbon offset for his <a href="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2006/05/09/title~786991"><em>photo-shoot</em></a>. A shoot for a shoot. And think of the side-effects. Who wouldn't want a rugged hunting 'n shooting man as their next Prime Minister?
</p>
	<p>
Read <a href="http://71.18.187.11/climateweb/shepherd/shepherdonclimate.pdf"><em>England's Climate & Energy Policy</em></a> for background or visit my <a href="http://71.18.187.11/climateweb/shepherd/index.html"><em>climate website</em></a> for more on the politics of climate change.
</p>
	<p class="right"><a href="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2008/07/24/shepherd-on-climate-list-of-contents-4491538"><em>more from Shepherd on Climate</em></a>
</p>
<p> <small> <a href="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2007/08/29/cows_aamp_moose~2888145/#comments">Comments</a> </small> </p>]]></content:encoded></default:item><default:item xmlns:default="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" rdf:about="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2007/08/20/inconvenient_truth_three~2837631/"><default:title>Inconvenient Truths</default:title><default:link>http://climate.blog.co.uk/2007/08/20/inconvenient_truth_three~2837631/</default:link><dc:date xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">2007-08-20T10:38:52+02:00</dc:date><default:description>	&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Inconvenient Truth One&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
There was acute embarrassment at &lt;em&gt;NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS&lt;/em&gt;) following the exposure of a serious flaw in its record of US surface temperatures since 1880. The error was so glaring that on 7th August 2007 &lt;em&gt;GISS&lt;/em&gt; had to post revised figures which show instead of temperatures reaching their highest level in the past decade that the hottest year of the 20th century was not 1998 but 1934. Of the ten warmest years since 1880 it turns out that four were in the 1930s and only three in the past decade.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
According to Christopher Booker writing in the &lt;em&gt;Sunday Telegraph&lt;/em&gt; on Sunday 19th August 2007, the significance of this is that the head of &lt;em&gt;GISS&lt;/em&gt; is &lt;a href="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2006/05/09/state_of_ignorance~787015"&gt;&lt;em&gt;James Hansen&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt; the inventor of global warming and for the past 20 years, Al &lt;em&gt;'Inconvenient Truth'&lt;/em&gt; Gore's closest scientific ally in his promotion of the global warming scare. The revised figures relate only to temperatures in North America but the fact that the pre-eminent scientific champion of the orthodoxy has been promoting erroneous data has considerable implications.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
The expert responsible for spotting &lt;em&gt;GISS's&lt;/em&gt; error was Stephen McIntyre, a Canadian computer analyst who four years ago scored the greatest coup in the history of this debate by demolishing the notorious &lt;a href="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2006/11/11/lying_made_easy~1318827"&gt;&lt;em&gt;hockey stick&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt; - the graph which purported to show temperatures flat-lining for centuries until they suddenly began an exponential rise in the late 20th century was produced by concealing data for the &lt;em&gt;Medieval Warm Period&lt;/em&gt; recognised by all historians of the period. The &lt;em&gt;hockey stick&lt;/em&gt; was adopted as the supreme icon of the global warming lobby led by the &lt;em&gt;Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)&lt;/em&gt; which reproduced it no fewer than five times in its 2001 sexed-up report.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
Since McIntyre exposed the mass of basic computer errors on which it was based, the &lt;em&gt;IPCC&lt;/em&gt; in its most recent dodgy dossier quietly dropped it. The new &lt;em&gt;GISS&lt;/em&gt; graph, conceding that the last decade may not have seen the hottest years of the past century, follows the latest satellite figures from the &lt;em&gt;National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)&lt;/em&gt; showing that in recent years global temperatures have not continued to rise (as orthodox CO2 warming theory would suggest) but have flattened out at a level significantly lower than in 1998.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Inconvenient Truth Two&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
Officials in the UK &lt;em&gt;Department for Business, Enterprise &amp; Regulatory Reform&lt;/em&gt; briefed ministers on how to explain to the &lt;em&gt;EU's&lt;/em&gt; energy commissioner Andris Piebalgs that the UK will not be able to comply with a &lt;em&gt;European Council&lt;/em&gt; decision in March 2007 that the &lt;em&gt;EU&lt;/em&gt; must derive 20 percent of its energy from renewable sources by 2020.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
The officials calculated that this could cost UK electricity users alone an additional 22 billion pounds a year equivalent to two thousand pounds per household. This is two percent of GDP and double Sir Nicholas Stern's estimate for the entire cost of halting global warming.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
Whitehall officials advised the Government that the target was not remotely achievable anyway and, taking a leaf out of the &lt;em&gt;Yes Minister Handbook&lt;/em&gt;, recommended ministers to start being economical with the actualite. So expect nuclear power to become sustainable (as well as carbon-lite) again. Germany meanwhile would like to move the target up seven percentage points to 27 percent.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Inconvenient Truth Three&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
Cuts in greenhouse gas emissions on the scale proposed by Al Gore might possibly save $12 trillion but their cost would be $34 trillion.&lt;br&gt;
&lt;em&gt;Professor William Nordhaus of Yale - the world's leading expert on the financial costs of  tackling global warming.&lt;/em&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
Then there are the inconvenient supplementaries as to who pick up the costs and the benefits. Who? Whom?
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p class="right"&gt;&lt;a href="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2008/07/24/shepherd-on-climate-list-of-contents-4491538"&gt;&lt;em&gt;more from Shepherd on Climate&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt; &lt;small&gt; &lt;a href="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2007/08/20/inconvenient_truth_three~2837631/#comments"&gt;Comments&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/small&gt; &lt;/p&gt;</default:description><content:encoded xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"><![CDATA[	<p><strong>Inconvenient Truth One</strong></p>
	<p>
There was acute embarrassment at <em>NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS</em>) following the exposure of a serious flaw in its record of US surface temperatures since 1880. The error was so glaring that on 7th August 2007 <em>GISS</em> had to post revised figures which show instead of temperatures reaching their highest level in the past decade that the hottest year of the 20th century was not 1998 but 1934. Of the ten warmest years since 1880 it turns out that four were in the 1930s and only three in the past decade.
</p>
	<p>
According to Christopher Booker writing in the <em>Sunday Telegraph</em> on Sunday 19th August 2007, the significance of this is that the head of <em>GISS</em> is <a href="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2006/05/09/state_of_ignorance~787015"><em>James Hansen</em></a> the inventor of global warming and for the past 20 years, Al <em>'Inconvenient Truth'</em> Gore's closest scientific ally in his promotion of the global warming scare. The revised figures relate only to temperatures in North America but the fact that the pre-eminent scientific champion of the orthodoxy has been promoting erroneous data has considerable implications.
</p>
	<p>
The expert responsible for spotting <em>GISS's</em> error was Stephen McIntyre, a Canadian computer analyst who four years ago scored the greatest coup in the history of this debate by demolishing the notorious <a href="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2006/11/11/lying_made_easy~1318827"><em>hockey stick</em></a> - the graph which purported to show temperatures flat-lining for centuries until they suddenly began an exponential rise in the late 20th century was produced by concealing data for the <em>Medieval Warm Period</em> recognised by all historians of the period. The <em>hockey stick</em> was adopted as the supreme icon of the global warming lobby led by the <em>Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)</em> which reproduced it no fewer than five times in its 2001 sexed-up report.
</p>
	<p>
Since McIntyre exposed the mass of basic computer errors on which it was based, the <em>IPCC</em> in its most recent dodgy dossier quietly dropped it. The new <em>GISS</em> graph, conceding that the last decade may not have seen the hottest years of the past century, follows the latest satellite figures from the <em>National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)</em> showing that in recent years global temperatures have not continued to rise (as orthodox CO2 warming theory would suggest) but have flattened out at a level significantly lower than in 1998.
</p>
	<p><strong>Inconvenient Truth Two</strong></p>
	<p>
Officials in the UK <em>Department for Business, Enterprise & Regulatory Reform</em> briefed ministers on how to explain to the <em>EU's</em> energy commissioner Andris Piebalgs that the UK will not be able to comply with a <em>European Council</em> decision in March 2007 that the <em>EU</em> must derive 20 percent of its energy from renewable sources by 2020.
</p>
	<p>
The officials calculated that this could cost UK electricity users alone an additional 22 billion pounds a year equivalent to two thousand pounds per household. This is two percent of GDP and double Sir Nicholas Stern's estimate for the entire cost of halting global warming.
</p>
	<p>
Whitehall officials advised the Government that the target was not remotely achievable anyway and, taking a leaf out of the <em>Yes Minister Handbook</em>, recommended ministers to start being economical with the actualite. So expect nuclear power to become sustainable (as well as carbon-lite) again. Germany meanwhile would like to move the target up seven percentage points to 27 percent.
</p>
	<p><strong>Inconvenient Truth Three</strong></p>
	<p>
Cuts in greenhouse gas emissions on the scale proposed by Al Gore might possibly save $12 trillion but their cost would be $34 trillion.<br>
<em>Professor William Nordhaus of Yale - the world's leading expert on the financial costs of  tackling global warming.</em>
</p>
	<p>
Then there are the inconvenient supplementaries as to who pick up the costs and the benefits. Who? Whom?
</p>
	<p class="right"><a href="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2008/07/24/shepherd-on-climate-list-of-contents-4491538"><em>more from Shepherd on Climate</em></a>
</p>
<p> <small> <a href="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2007/08/20/inconvenient_truth_three~2837631/#comments">Comments</a> </small> </p>]]></content:encoded></default:item><default:item xmlns:default="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" rdf:about="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2007/08/16/ice_ages_aamp_science_wars~2821253/"><default:title>Ice Ages &amp; Science Wars</default:title><default:link>http://climate.blog.co.uk/2007/08/16/ice_ages_aamp_science_wars~2821253/</default:link><dc:date xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">2007-08-16T23:35:19+02:00</dc:date><default:description>	&lt;p&gt;
From 1962 to 1966, Nigel Calder edited the scientific journal &lt;em&gt;New Scientist&lt;/em&gt;. Subsequently he became well-respected as a science journalist with many books and articles to his name. Forty years on he joined forces with Henrik Svensmark and wrote &lt;a href="http://www.iconbooks.co.uk/book.cfm?isbn=1-84046-815-7"&gt;&lt;em&gt;The Chilling Stars: A New Theory of Climate Change&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt; (&lt;em&gt;Icon Books&lt;/em&gt;, ISBN 1-84046-815-7).
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
The book launch earlier this year was coordinated with publication of Dr. Svensmark’s peer-reviewed article entitled &lt;em&gt;‘Cosmoclimatology: a new theory emerges'&lt;/em&gt; which appeared in the February 2007 issue of &lt;em&gt;Astronomy &amp; Geophysics&lt;/em&gt;, (Vol. 48, Issue 1, pages. 1.18-1.24). The article represented the culmination of ten years of work at the &lt;em&gt;Danish National Space Center&lt;/em&gt; correlating satellite records of low-altitude clouds with variations in cosmic rays.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
Experiments in the basement of the &lt;em&gt;Danish National Space Center&lt;/em&gt; showed that electrons are set free when cosmic rays pass through air. These free electrons then act as catalysts in the assembly of nuclei onto which water vapour condenses to make clouds.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
But dust particles from air-borne pollution and ash from erupting volcanoes play a similar role. It was a key mechanism in Carl Sagan’s &lt;em&gt;Nuclear Winter Scenario&lt;/em&gt; that has been quietly forgotten. Cloud science is at an early stage and the best cloud scientists sit with their backs to the window. They plan to turn their chairs around if their computer models ever look like simulating what goes on outside their windows.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
Cosmic ray intensities change because of a number of factors…the Sun’s own activity such as solar flares, the variations in the Sun’s magnetic field which is crucial in shielding planets in our solar system from cosmic rays coming from elsewhere in the galaxy, and changes in the properties of the local interstellar medium (LISM).
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
&lt;a href="http://www.blog.co.uk/srv/media/media_item.php?item_ID=1889040" title="interstellarmedium"&gt;&lt;img src="http://data4.blog.de/media/040/1889040_bfd241f992_m.jpeg" alt="interstellarmedium" vspace="5" hspace="5"&gt;&lt;/a&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;According to Professor D.E. Shemansky of the &lt;em&gt;Department of Aerospace &amp; Mechanical Engineering&lt;/em&gt; at the &lt;em&gt;University of Southern California&lt;/em&gt;, ‘the dominant role of neutral hydrogen in the formation of the termination shock in the collision of the solar wind with the LISM has only recently been recognized by the particles and fields research community. Indeed he claims that ‘…the &lt;em&gt;NASA Space Physics Division&lt;/em&gt; has shown a persistent pernicious bias against work on the effects of the neutral gas in the LISM in the United States, from the time of the formation of the division.’ Strong words but suggestive that Henrik Svensmark might just be onto something.&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
Cosmic rays intensity varies on both short and long timescales and with it the concentration of radioactive carbon-14 and other unusual atoms created by these cosmic rays…thereby providing a record of shifting cosmic-ray intensities. And this record shows repeated alternations between cold and warm periods during the past 12 000 years.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
Nir Shaviv of the &lt;em&gt;Hebrew University&lt;/em&gt; in Jerusalem and Ján Veizer of the &lt;em&gt;Ruhr University&lt;/em&gt; and the &lt;em&gt;University of Ottawa&lt;/em&gt; linked these changes to the journey of the Sun and the Earth through the Milky Way galaxy. They blame the icehouse episodes on encounters with bright spiral arms, where cosmic rays are most intense. More frequent chilling events, every 34 million years or so, occur whenever the solar system passes through the mid-plane of the Galaxy. In &lt;em&gt;Snowball Earth&lt;/em&gt; episodes around 700 and 2300 million years ago, even the equator was icy. At those times the birth-rate of stars in the galaxy was unusually high, which would have also meant a large number of exploding stars and intense cosmic rays.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
According to Svensmark, whenever the Sun was feeble, cosmic-ray intensities were high and cold conditions ensued. The most recent occurrence was in the &lt;em&gt;Little Ice Age&lt;/em&gt; that climaxed 300 years ago. During the past 500 million years the Earth has passed through four ‘hothouse’ episodes, free of ice and with high sea levels, and four ‘icehouse’ episodes like the one we live in now, with ice-sheets, glaciers and relatively low sea levels. The theory of cosmic rays and clouds would also seem to explain why the Earth did not freeze solid when it was very young. The Sun was much fainter but also more vigorous in repelling cosmic rays, so the Earth would not have had much cloud cover.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
But the &lt;em&gt;Cosmoclimatology Hypothesis&lt;/em&gt; may also have a contribution to make to discussions of the fossil record. While calculating the changing influx since life began about 3.8 billion years ago, Dr Svensmark discovered a surprising connection between cosmic-ray intensities and a variability of the productivity of life. The biggest fluctuations in productivity coincided with high star formation rates and cool periods in the Earth’s climate. Conversely, during a billion years when star formation was slow, cosmic rays were less intense and the Earth’s climate was warmer, the biosphere was almost unchanging in its productivity.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
In any properly conducted scientific endeavour these ideas of Shemansky, Svensmark and Calder would be treated seriously. They would be formed into an hypothesis, predictions would be made, experiments designed to test them and attempts made to replicate results with a view to disproving or modifying the hypothesis. This is the scientific method one of the most powerful tools ever invented by mankind.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
Its purpose…articulated by Sir Francis Bacon…is to advance knowledge by the deployment of a collective enterprise that pushes back the boundaries of ignorance, prejudice and superstition. This has never been easy…in part because it is too easy to cherry-pick the data. &lt;em&gt;New Scientist&lt;/em&gt; indicates the scope of the problem in this diagram from an article published on 16th May 2007 in Issue 2604 (page 34-42) entitled &lt;em&gt;‘The Seven Biggest Myths about Climate Change’&lt;/em&gt;.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
&lt;a href="http://www.blog.co.uk/srv/media/media_item.php?item_ID=1889010" title="carbondioxide"&gt;&lt;img src="http://data4.blog.de/media/010/1889010_4deb3cc700_m.jpeg" alt="carbondioxide" vspace="5" hspace="5"&gt;&lt;/a&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
In the &lt;em&gt;Age of the Gentleman Scientist&lt;/em&gt; real attempts were made to uphold &lt;em&gt;The Baconian Oath&lt;/em&gt;. Minds were open, royal societies were free and open. Scientific careers advanced on merit more than patronage. But this is no longer the case. Nowadays rhetoric is deployed to discredit ideas and assassinate character at the behest of the political agendas of shadowy forces that are only ever seen as through a glass darkly. &lt;em&gt;New Scientist &lt;/em&gt;it seems is among their public spokesmen. Here is &lt;em&gt;New Scientist&lt;/em&gt; in its published critique of the &lt;em&gt;Cosmoclimatology Hypothesis&lt;/em&gt; that the ionisation of air by cosmic rays imparts an electric charge to aerosols that encourages them to clump together; the clumps become large enough to trigger the condensation of water, and hence clouds form.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
‘As yet there is no convincing evidence that such clumping occurs. Experiments under way at the &lt;em&gt;CERN&lt;/em&gt; particle physics laboratory near Geneva should settle the issue, but will not reveal if it matters in the real world: the atmosphere already has plenty of cloud condensation nuclei, so it is not clear why cosmic rays should have any great effect on cloud formation.’
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
This is unlikely to be the whole truth and would doubtless be challenged by Dr Svensmark. But the journal continues in the best Alistair Campbell manner with a piece of classic spin.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
‘A series of attempts by Svensmark to show an effect have come unstuck. Most recently, he has claimed there is a correlation between low-altitude cloud cover and cosmic rays. Yet a correlation does not prove cause and effect. What's more, the correlation holds up after 1995 only if data is "corrected", and others in the field say this correction is not justified. "It's dubious manipulation of data in order to suit his hypothesis," says Joanna Haigh, an atmospheric physicist at &lt;em&gt;Imperial College London&lt;/em&gt;. A few independent studies by other groups hint at a very tiny effect on clouds, but most have found no effect.’ This is disingenuous.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
Every scientist’s data is ‘manipulated’. Peer review is one technique that is deployed to address the potential problem. It is not always so easy to separate out scientific fact from scientific fraud. The deliberate suppression of data providing evidence of a medieval warming period went too far…and a &lt;em&gt;Senate Committee&lt;/em&gt; rightly rapped IPCC on the knuckles for being party to the planting of false evidence in the public domain. Every temperature-time series needs massaging. There is very little data in very few fields of scientific endeavour that do not need adjusting for operant conditions or to ensure a better fit to other data. The whole point of statistical techniques is to do precisely that. Any set of data can be forced to fit any mathematical equation. And so to &lt;em&gt;New Scientist’s&lt;/em&gt; final point.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
‘Even if changes in cosmic ray intensity do turn out to influence cloud cover and temperature, they cannot explain the rapid warming of the past few decades. Direct measurements going back 50 years show a periodic variation in intensity, but no downward trend coinciding with the recent warming. Indirect measurements of cosmic rays, based on the abundance of certain isotopes, suggest that their intensity fell between 1900 and 1950. While there can be a lag between a big change in a climate ‘forcing’ and its full effect on temperature, most warming should occur within a few years and taper off within decades. This is not the pattern we see.’
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
&lt;a href="http://www.blog.co.uk/srv/media/media_item.php?item_ID=1889011" title="cosmicrays"&gt;&lt;img src="http://data4.blog.de/media/011/1889011_54857c1a87_m.jpeg" alt="cosmicrays" vspace="5" hspace="5"&gt;&lt;/a&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
This again is disingenuous. At the heart of the scientific debate about global warming is the &lt;em&gt;Lambda Factor&lt;/em&gt; that converts &lt;em&gt;Heat-Energy Forcings&lt;/em&gt; into &lt;em&gt;Temperature Changes&lt;/em&gt;. There is no scientific consensus about its value. Accountants always make sure they include a line in their spreadsheets called ‘adjustment’. Lambda is the climate modeller’s adjustment. Here is what I posted to my climate blog on 11th November 2006 about the ‘&lt;em&gt;Battle of the Lambdas&lt;/em&gt;’ in a piece entitled &lt;em&gt;&lt;a href="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2006/11/11/carry_on_lying~1318835"&gt;Climate Thermodynamics&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/em&gt;.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
‘The &lt;em&gt;Stefan-Boltzman Law&lt;/em&gt; is to the thermodynamics of climate as Einstein’s equation E=mc2 is to astrophysics. Boltzman relates energy to the square of the speed of light but by reference to temperature rather than mass. It was derived experimentally 100-years ago by a Slovenian professor and proved by his Austrian student. Buried in the small print of &lt;em&gt;IPCC’s&lt;/em&gt; third assessment report is the bizarre statement that its climate models had found &lt;em&gt;lambda&lt;/em&gt; to be 0.5C per watt of Forcing. &lt;em&gt;Lambda&lt;/em&gt; from the &lt;em&gt;Boltzman Equation&lt;/em&gt; is half this…based on &lt;em&gt;Experiments with Nature&lt;/em&gt; not &lt;em&gt;Manipulations with Computers&lt;/em&gt;.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
&lt;em&gt;Lambda Inflation&lt;/em&gt; is in fashion because the bigger the value of &lt;em&gt;lambda&lt;/em&gt; the bigger the temperature increase you can predict from any particular set of &lt;em&gt;Forcings Data&lt;/em&gt;. James Hansen who invented &lt;em&gt;Global Warming&lt;/em&gt; in his evidence to &lt;em&gt;Senate Hearings&lt;/em&gt; in the middle of a &lt;em&gt;Washington Heatwave&lt;/em&gt; offers &lt;em&gt;lambdas&lt;/em&gt; of 0.67, 0.75 or 1.0. John Houghton who chaired the &lt;em&gt;IPCC&lt;/em&gt; working group trumps this with 0.8 while &lt;em&gt;IPCC’s&lt;/em&gt; computer models now use 1.0. But &lt;em&gt;The Stern Report&lt;/em&gt; deserves an &lt;em&gt;Oscar&lt;/em&gt; for its implied &lt;em&gt;lambda&lt;/em&gt; of 1.9…between six and eight times the &lt;em&gt;Boltzman lambda&lt;/em&gt;.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
Multiply by &lt;em&gt;Boltzman’s lambda&lt;/em&gt; and temperature rise this century is in line with observation at 0.44 to 0.6C. Stern’s lambda gives nonsense. The Hadley Centre had the same problem so they now have one lambda to predict with and another…lambda divided by three…to match actual 20th Century temperatures.’
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
In his article Svensmark writes that the ‘multidisciplinary nature of &lt;em&gt;Cosmoclimatology&lt;/em&gt; is both a challenge and an opportunity for many lines of inquiry. Even the search for alien life is affected because it should now take into account of the need for the right magnetic environment if life is to originate and survive on the planets of other stars.’  We can take this thought further. Our sun is at the heart of every religion…including Christianity…and it is becoming increasingly clear that something is going on. We need to find out and understand what this is.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
&lt;a href="http://www.blog.co.uk/srv/media/media_item.php?item_ID=1889012" title="solaractivity"&gt;&lt;img src="http://data4.blog.de/media/012/1889012_cccf5144f4_m.jpeg" alt="solaractivity" vspace="5" hspace="5"&gt;&lt;/a&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
With new data from all over the universe pouring into the antennae of the &lt;em&gt;Hubble Telescope&lt;/em&gt; and with &lt;em&gt;NASA’s&lt;/em&gt; planetary missions collecting an incredibly rich archive of data and images from within our own solar system we should be on the brink of a golden age of science. Analysing and understanding the true implications of this treasure trove is much too important to be left to the small-minded.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
The warring of bureaucrats and the political shenanigans of public relations firms with scant regard for truth and cavalier attitude to scientific integrity and the scientific method will lead us to disaster. Their way is to deploy rhetoric, disinformation, character assassination and dodgy dossiers in pursuit of strange hidden political agendas.  Science is increasingly threatened with enclosure by shadowy forces with little interest in the fate of their fellow man and great ignorance of the consequences of their arrogant disregard for the web of life created on this planet.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
This creeping enclosure this stealthy clearance of the commons must be stopped. Our way, the right way, the only sane humane ecological way must be the way of truth and not authority. The fruits of science are our common wealth;  part of the heritage our generation passes on to our children. It is not just another commons to be bought and sold at the whim of the rich, the powerful and the ignorant.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p class="right"&gt;&lt;a href="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2008/07/24/shepherd-on-climate-list-of-contents-4491538"&gt;&lt;em&gt;more from Shepherd on Climate&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt; &lt;small&gt; &lt;a href="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2007/08/16/ice_ages_aamp_science_wars~2821253/#comments"&gt;Comments&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/small&gt; &lt;/p&gt;</default:description><content:encoded xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"><![CDATA[	<p>
From 1962 to 1966, Nigel Calder edited the scientific journal <em>New Scientist</em>. Subsequently he became well-respected as a science journalist with many books and articles to his name. Forty years on he joined forces with Henrik Svensmark and wrote <a href="http://www.iconbooks.co.uk/book.cfm?isbn=1-84046-815-7"><em>The Chilling Stars: A New Theory of Climate Change</em></a> (<em>Icon Books</em>, ISBN 1-84046-815-7).
</p>
	<p>
The book launch earlier this year was coordinated with publication of Dr. Svensmark’s peer-reviewed article entitled <em>‘Cosmoclimatology: a new theory emerges'</em> which appeared in the February 2007 issue of <em>Astronomy & Geophysics</em>, (Vol. 48, Issue 1, pages. 1.18-1.24). The article represented the culmination of ten years of work at the <em>Danish National Space Center</em> correlating satellite records of low-altitude clouds with variations in cosmic rays.
</p>
	<p>
Experiments in the basement of the <em>Danish National Space Center</em> showed that electrons are set free when cosmic rays pass through air. These free electrons then act as catalysts in the assembly of nuclei onto which water vapour condenses to make clouds.
</p>
	<p>
But dust particles from air-borne pollution and ash from erupting volcanoes play a similar role. It was a key mechanism in Carl Sagan’s <em>Nuclear Winter Scenario</em> that has been quietly forgotten. Cloud science is at an early stage and the best cloud scientists sit with their backs to the window. They plan to turn their chairs around if their computer models ever look like simulating what goes on outside their windows.
</p>
	<p>
Cosmic ray intensities change because of a number of factors…the Sun’s own activity such as solar flares, the variations in the Sun’s magnetic field which is crucial in shielding planets in our solar system from cosmic rays coming from elsewhere in the galaxy, and changes in the properties of the local interstellar medium (LISM).
</p>
	<p>
<a href="http://www.blog.co.uk/srv/media/media_item.php?item_ID=1889040" title="interstellarmedium"><img src="http://data4.blog.de/media/040/1889040_bfd241f992_m.jpeg" alt="interstellarmedium" vspace="5" hspace="5"></a>
</p>
	<p>According to Professor D.E. Shemansky of the <em>Department of Aerospace & Mechanical Engineering</em> at the <em>University of Southern California</em>, ‘the dominant role of neutral hydrogen in the formation of the termination shock in the collision of the solar wind with the LISM has only recently been recognized by the particles and fields research community. Indeed he claims that ‘…the <em>NASA Space Physics Division</em> has shown a persistent pernicious bias against work on the effects of the neutral gas in the LISM in the United States, from the time of the formation of the division.’ Strong words but suggestive that Henrik Svensmark might just be onto something.</p>
	<p>
Cosmic rays intensity varies on both short and long timescales and with it the concentration of radioactive carbon-14 and other unusual atoms created by these cosmic rays…thereby providing a record of shifting cosmic-ray intensities. And this record shows repeated alternations between cold and warm periods during the past 12 000 years.
</p>
	<p>
Nir Shaviv of the <em>Hebrew University</em> in Jerusalem and Ján Veizer of the <em>Ruhr University</em> and the <em>University of Ottawa</em> linked these changes to the journey of the Sun and the Earth through the Milky Way galaxy. They blame the icehouse episodes on encounters with bright spiral arms, where cosmic rays are most intense. More frequent chilling events, every 34 million years or so, occur whenever the solar system passes through the mid-plane of the Galaxy. In <em>Snowball Earth</em> episodes around 700 and 2300 million years ago, even the equator was icy. At those times the birth-rate of stars in the galaxy was unusually high, which would have also meant a large number of exploding stars and intense cosmic rays.
</p>
	<p>
According to Svensmark, whenever the Sun was feeble, cosmic-ray intensities were high and cold conditions ensued. The most recent occurrence was in the <em>Little Ice Age</em> that climaxed 300 years ago. During the past 500 million years the Earth has passed through four ‘hothouse’ episodes, free of ice and with high sea levels, and four ‘icehouse’ episodes like the one we live in now, with ice-sheets, glaciers and relatively low sea levels. The theory of cosmic rays and clouds would also seem to explain why the Earth did not freeze solid when it was very young. The Sun was much fainter but also more vigorous in repelling cosmic rays, so the Earth would not have had much cloud cover.
</p>
	<p>
But the <em>Cosmoclimatology Hypothesis</em> may also have a contribution to make to discussions of the fossil record. While calculating the changing influx since life began about 3.8 billion years ago, Dr Svensmark discovered a surprising connection between cosmic-ray intensities and a variability of the productivity of life. The biggest fluctuations in productivity coincided with high star formation rates and cool periods in the Earth’s climate. Conversely, during a billion years when star formation was slow, cosmic rays were less intense and the Earth’s climate was warmer, the biosphere was almost unchanging in its productivity.
</p>
	<p>
In any properly conducted scientific endeavour these ideas of Shemansky, Svensmark and Calder would be treated seriously. They would be formed into an hypothesis, predictions would be made, experiments designed to test them and attempts made to replicate results with a view to disproving or modifying the hypothesis. This is the scientific method one of the most powerful tools ever invented by mankind.
</p>
	<p>
Its purpose…articulated by Sir Francis Bacon…is to advance knowledge by the deployment of a collective enterprise that pushes back the boundaries of ignorance, prejudice and superstition. This has never been easy…in part because it is too easy to cherry-pick the data. <em>New Scientist</em> indicates the scope of the problem in this diagram from an article published on 16th May 2007 in Issue 2604 (page 34-42) entitled <em>‘The Seven Biggest Myths about Climate Change’</em>.
</p>
	<p>
<a href="http://www.blog.co.uk/srv/media/media_item.php?item_ID=1889010" title="carbondioxide"><img src="http://data4.blog.de/media/010/1889010_4deb3cc700_m.jpeg" alt="carbondioxide" vspace="5" hspace="5"></a>
</p>
	<p>
In the <em>Age of the Gentleman Scientist</em> real attempts were made to uphold <em>The Baconian Oath</em>. Minds were open, royal societies were free and open. Scientific careers advanced on merit more than patronage. But this is no longer the case. Nowadays rhetoric is deployed to discredit ideas and assassinate character at the behest of the political agendas of shadowy forces that are only ever seen as through a glass darkly. <em>New Scientist </em>it seems is among their public spokesmen. Here is <em>New Scientist</em> in its published critique of the <em>Cosmoclimatology Hypothesis</em> that the ionisation of air by cosmic rays imparts an electric charge to aerosols that encourages them to clump together; the clumps become large enough to trigger the condensation of water, and hence clouds form.
</p>
	<p>
‘As yet there is no convincing evidence that such clumping occurs. Experiments under way at the <em>CERN</em> particle physics laboratory near Geneva should settle the issue, but will not reveal if it matters in the real world: the atmosphere already has plenty of cloud condensation nuclei, so it is not clear why cosmic rays should have any great effect on cloud formation.’
</p>
	<p>
This is unlikely to be the whole truth and would doubtless be challenged by Dr Svensmark. But the journal continues in the best Alistair Campbell manner with a piece of classic spin.
</p>
	<p>
‘A series of attempts by Svensmark to show an effect have come unstuck. Most recently, he has claimed there is a correlation between low-altitude cloud cover and cosmic rays. Yet a correlation does not prove cause and effect. What's more, the correlation holds up after 1995 only if data is "corrected", and others in the field say this correction is not justified. "It's dubious manipulation of data in order to suit his hypothesis," says Joanna Haigh, an atmospheric physicist at <em>Imperial College London</em>. A few independent studies by other groups hint at a very tiny effect on clouds, but most have found no effect.’ This is disingenuous.
</p>
	<p>
Every scientist’s data is ‘manipulated’. Peer review is one technique that is deployed to address the potential problem. It is not always so easy to separate out scientific fact from scientific fraud. The deliberate suppression of data providing evidence of a medieval warming period went too far…and a <em>Senate Committee</em> rightly rapped IPCC on the knuckles for being party to the planting of false evidence in the public domain. Every temperature-time series needs massaging. There is very little data in very few fields of scientific endeavour that do not need adjusting for operant conditions or to ensure a better fit to other data. The whole point of statistical techniques is to do precisely that. Any set of data can be forced to fit any mathematical equation. And so to <em>New Scientist’s</em> final point.
</p>
	<p>
‘Even if changes in cosmic ray intensity do turn out to influence cloud cover and temperature, they cannot explain the rapid warming of the past few decades. Direct measurements going back 50 years show a periodic variation in intensity, but no downward trend coinciding with the recent warming. Indirect measurements of cosmic rays, based on the abundance of certain isotopes, suggest that their intensity fell between 1900 and 1950. While there can be a lag between a big change in a climate ‘forcing’ and its full effect on temperature, most warming should occur within a few years and taper off within decades. This is not the pattern we see.’
</p>
	<p>
<a href="http://www.blog.co.uk/srv/media/media_item.php?item_ID=1889011" title="cosmicrays"><img src="http://data4.blog.de/media/011/1889011_54857c1a87_m.jpeg" alt="cosmicrays" vspace="5" hspace="5"></a>
</p>
	<p>
This again is disingenuous. At the heart of the scientific debate about global warming is the <em>Lambda Factor</em> that converts <em>Heat-Energy Forcings</em> into <em>Temperature Changes</em>. There is no scientific consensus about its value. Accountants always make sure they include a line in their spreadsheets called ‘adjustment’. Lambda is the climate modeller’s adjustment. Here is what I posted to my climate blog on 11th November 2006 about the ‘<em>Battle of the Lambdas</em>’ in a piece entitled <em><a href="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2006/11/11/carry_on_lying~1318835">Climate Thermodynamics</a></em>.
</p>
	<p>
‘The <em>Stefan-Boltzman Law</em> is to the thermodynamics of climate as Einstein’s equation E=mc2 is to astrophysics. Boltzman relates energy to the square of the speed of light but by reference to temperature rather than mass. It was derived experimentally 100-years ago by a Slovenian professor and proved by his Austrian student. Buried in the small print of <em>IPCC’s</em> third assessment report is the bizarre statement that its climate models had found <em>lambda</em> to be 0.5C per watt of Forcing. <em>Lambda</em> from the <em>Boltzman Equation</em> is half this…based on <em>Experiments with Nature</em> not <em>Manipulations with Computers</em>.
</p>
	<p>
<em>Lambda Inflation</em> is in fashion because the bigger the value of <em>lambda</em> the bigger the temperature increase you can predict from any particular set of <em>Forcings Data</em>. James Hansen who invented <em>Global Warming</em> in his evidence to <em>Senate Hearings</em> in the middle of a <em>Washington Heatwave</em> offers <em>lambdas</em> of 0.67, 0.75 or 1.0. John Houghton who chaired the <em>IPCC</em> working group trumps this with 0.8 while <em>IPCC’s</em> computer models now use 1.0. But <em>The Stern Report</em> deserves an <em>Oscar</em> for its implied <em>lambda</em> of 1.9…between six and eight times the <em>Boltzman lambda</em>.
</p>
	<p>
Multiply by <em>Boltzman’s lambda</em> and temperature rise this century is in line with observation at 0.44 to 0.6C. Stern’s lambda gives nonsense. The Hadley Centre had the same problem so they now have one lambda to predict with and another…lambda divided by three…to match actual 20th Century temperatures.’
</p>
	<p>
In his article Svensmark writes that the ‘multidisciplinary nature of <em>Cosmoclimatology</em> is both a challenge and an opportunity for many lines of inquiry. Even the search for alien life is affected because it should now take into account of the need for the right magnetic environment if life is to originate and survive on the planets of other stars.’  We can take this thought further. Our sun is at the heart of every religion…including Christianity…and it is becoming increasingly clear that something is going on. We need to find out and understand what this is.
</p>
	<p>
<a href="http://www.blog.co.uk/srv/media/media_item.php?item_ID=1889012" title="solaractivity"><img src="http://data4.blog.de/media/012/1889012_cccf5144f4_m.jpeg" alt="solaractivity" vspace="5" hspace="5"></a>
</p>
	<p>
With new data from all over the universe pouring into the antennae of the <em>Hubble Telescope</em> and with <em>NASA’s</em> planetary missions collecting an incredibly rich archive of data and images from within our own solar system we should be on the brink of a golden age of science. Analysing and understanding the true implications of this treasure trove is much too important to be left to the small-minded.
</p>
	<p>
The warring of bureaucrats and the political shenanigans of public relations firms with scant regard for truth and cavalier attitude to scientific integrity and the scientific method will lead us to disaster. Their way is to deploy rhetoric, disinformation, character assassination and dodgy dossiers in pursuit of strange hidden political agendas.  Science is increasingly threatened with enclosure by shadowy forces with little interest in the fate of their fellow man and great ignorance of the consequences of their arrogant disregard for the web of life created on this planet.
</p>
	<p>
This creeping enclosure this stealthy clearance of the commons must be stopped. Our way, the right way, the only sane humane ecological way must be the way of truth and not authority. The fruits of science are our common wealth;  part of the heritage our generation passes on to our children. It is not just another commons to be bought and sold at the whim of the rich, the powerful and the ignorant.
</p>
	<p class="right"><a href="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2008/07/24/shepherd-on-climate-list-of-contents-4491538"><em>more from Shepherd on Climate</em></a>
</p>
<p> <small> <a href="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2007/08/16/ice_ages_aamp_science_wars~2821253/#comments">Comments</a> </small> </p>]]></content:encoded></default:item><default:item xmlns:default="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" rdf:about="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2007/08/15/kyoto_economics~2813807/"><default:title>Kyoto Economics</default:title><default:link>http://climate.blog.co.uk/2007/08/15/kyoto_economics~2813807/</default:link><dc:date xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">2007-08-15T18:27:26+02:00</dc:date><default:description>	&lt;p&gt;
In 1998 Bjørn Lomborg, an associate professor at the &lt;em&gt;Department of Political Science&lt;/em&gt; at &lt;em&gt;University of Aarhus&lt;/em&gt; in Denmark published &lt;em&gt;Verdens Sande Tilstand&lt;/em&gt;. Three years later &lt;em&gt;Cambridge University Press&lt;/em&gt; published the book in English under the title of &lt;a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Skeptical_Environmentalist"&gt;&lt;em&gt;The Sceptical Environmentalist: Measuring the Real State of the World&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt; (ISBN 0 521 01068 3).
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
Later in 2001 Professor Lomborg circulated a 2500-word essay on the economics of the &lt;em&gt;Kyoto Protocol&lt;/em&gt;. &lt;a href="http://www.cesc.net/climateweb/kyotoeconomics.pdf"&gt;&lt;em&gt;Here&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt; is the full text of the article. He worried that global warming was getting a blank cheque with cost-benefit analysis being thrown out of the window. His essay included numerous references to the &lt;em&gt;2001 IPCC Report on Global Warming&lt;/em&gt; on which he made his position quite clear.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
‘Global warming is important, environmentally, politically and economically. There is no doubt that mankind has influenced and is still increasing atmospheric concentrations of CO2 and that this will increase temperature. I will not discuss all the scientific uncertainty, but basically accept the models and predictions from the 2001 report of the &lt;em&gt;UN Climate Panel (IPCC)&lt;/em&gt;. Yet, we will need to separate hyperbole from realities in order to choose our future optimally.’
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
For good measure he added a diagram showing the impact of &lt;em&gt;Kyoto&lt;/em&gt;…on which there is a scientific consensus.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
&lt;a href="http://www.blog.co.uk/srv/media/media_item.php?item_ID=1885593" title="kyotoimpact"&gt;&lt;img src="http://data4.blog.de/media/593/1885593_20a48a4560_m.jpeg" alt="kyotoimpact" vspace="5" hspace="5"&gt;&lt;/a&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
&lt;em&gt;Figure 1: The expected increase in temperature with business-as-usual and with the &lt;em&gt;Kyoto&lt;/em&gt; restrictions extended forever. &lt;/em&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
So far so good. Here is the crux of Lomborg’s argument in his own words:
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
‘If Kyoto is implemented with anything but global emissions trading - a scheme which seems utterly unattainable, and was not at all addressed in Bonn - it will not only be almost inconsequential for the climate, but it will also constitute a poor use of resources. The cost of such a Kyoto pact if implemented, just for the US, will be higher than the cost of solving the single most pressing problem for the world - providing the entire world with clean drinking water and sanitation. It is estimated that the latter would avoid 2 million deaths every year and prevent half a billion people becoming seriously ill each year. If no trading mechanism is implemented for Kyoto, the costs could approach $1 trillion, or almost five times the cost of world-wide water and sanitation coverage. For comparison, the total global aid today is about $50 billion annually. If we were to go even further - as suggested by many - and curb global emissions to the 1990 level, the net cost to the world would seriously escalate to about $4 trillion extra - comparable almost to the cost of global warming itself. Likewise, a temperature increase limit would cost anywhere from $3 to $33 trillion extra. This emphasizes that we need to be very careful in our willingness to act on global warming.’
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
Common sense to you or me. But at this point all hell broke loose around the good professor. Why? Lomborg again.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
‘Economic analyses clearly show that it will be far more expensive to cut CO2 emissions radically than to pay the costs of adaptation to the increased temperatures. The Bonn meeting was convened to agree the implementation of the &lt;em&gt;Kyoto Protocol&lt;/em&gt;, which aims to cut carbon emissions to 5.2 percent below 1990-levels in 2010, or a reduction of almost 30 percent, compared to no-intervention. The effect of Kyoto on the climate will be minuscule (and even more so after Bonn). All models agree that the &lt;em&gt;Kyoto Protocol&lt;/em&gt; will have surprisingly little impact. One model by a lead author of the 1996 IPCC report shows us how an expected temperature increase of 2.1°C in 2100 will be diminished by the protocol to an increase of 1.9°C. Or to put it more clearly, the temperature that we would have experienced in 2094 we have now postponed to 2100. In essence, the &lt;em&gt;Kyoto Protocol&lt;/em&gt; does not negate global warming but merely buys the world six years.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
Basically, global warming will be expensive ($5 trillion) and there is very little good we can do about it. Even if we were to handle global warming optimally which would mean cutting emissions a little fairly far into the future, we can only cut the cost very little (about $0.3 trillion). However, if we choose to enact Kyoto or even more ambitious programmes, the world will lose. And this conclusion does not just come from the output from a single model. Almost all the major computer models agree that even when chaotic consequences have been taken into consideration ‘it is striking that the optimal policy involves little emissions reduction below uncontrolled rates until the middle of the [twenty-first] century at the earliest.’
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
Lomborg is making a perfectly sensible point…and the average grant-funded academic would have stopped there. But there is a different scientific tradition in Scandinavia. This can be traced back to Carl Linnaeus in the 18th century and perhaps even further to the mythologies of their Nordic cultures. Scientists are not easily intimidated, truth still matters, facts are respected and ordinary people have real access to public information. Lomborg once more in his own words.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
‘So is it not curious that the typical reporting on global warming tells us all the bad things that could happen from CO2 emissions, but few or none of the bad things that could come from overly zealous regulation of such emissions? Indeed, why is it that global warming is not discussed with an open attitude, carefully attuned to avoid making big and costly mistakes to be paid for by our descendants, but rather with a fervour more fitting for preachers of opposing religions?
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
This is an indication that the discussion of global warming is not just a question of choosing the optimal economic path for humanity, but has much deeper, political roots as to what kind of future society we would like. This understanding is clearly laid out in the new 2001 IPCC report.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
Last month in Bonn most of the world’s nations (minus the US) reached an agreement to cut carbon emissions. Generally the deal was widely reported as almost saving the world. Yet not only is this untrue in the scientific sense - the deal will do almost no good - but it is also unclear whether carbon emission cuts are really the best way for the world to ensure progress on its most important areas.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
When the &lt;em&gt;IPCC&lt;/em&gt; tells us that the world might warm some 5.8°C over the coming century, this is based on an enormous variety of scenarios and models, where the &lt;em&gt;IPCC&lt;/em&gt; has explicitly rejected making predictions about the future, and instead gives us ‘computer-aided storytelling,’ basing the development of crucial variables on initial choice and depicting normative scenarios ‘as one would hope they would emerge.’
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
Yet the high-end scenarios seem plainly unlikely. Reasonable analysis suggest that renewables - and especially solar power - will be competitive or even out-compete fossil fuels by mid-century, and this means that carbon emissions are much more likely to follow the low emission scenarios, causing a warming of about 2-2.5°C.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
Professor Lomborg then remarks that global warming would neither decrease food production nor increase hurricanes and cyclones. As for disease…and malaria in particular….he points out that the &lt;em&gt;IPCC Report&lt;/em&gt; concluded that additional exposure would come from middle or high income countries where a well functioning health sector and developed infrastructure makes actual malaria unlikely. Thus the global study of actual malaria transmission shows remarkably few changes, even under the most extreme scenarios. For Lomborg an increase in flood victims was also unlikely because a much richer world would protect itself better just as the Dutch have been doing for centuries. ‘The cost of protection is estimated at 0.1 percent of GDP for most nations, though it might be as high as several percent for small island states.’
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
By this time civil servants, bureaucrats and politicians are starting to claim that Professor Lomborg has exceeded his scientific brief…a charge he has anticipated. His response is to turn it against his accusers. Lomborg again.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
‘Of course, while using global warming as a springboard for other wider policy goals is entirely legitimate, such goals should in all honesty be made explicit. Moreover, it is problematic to have an organization which often quite successfully gathers the most relevant scientific information about global warming, also so clearly promoting a political agenda, which seldom reaches the news headlines.’
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
Aye! There’s the rub! Particularly when global warming will hit hardest on developing countries with rich countries actually likely to benefit from a warming lower than 2-3°C. Being poor means you have less adaptive capacity so you are hit harder. Our intuition might tell us to do something drastic immediately. But Professor Lomborg’s scientific credentials give him the perfect right to question whether the cure might not be worse than the original affliction. Not least because few other scientists seem to be doing so.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p class="right"&gt;&lt;a href="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2008/07/24/shepherd-on-climate-list-of-contents-4491538"&gt;&lt;em&gt;more from Shepherd on Climate&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt; &lt;small&gt; &lt;a href="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2007/08/15/kyoto_economics~2813807/#comments"&gt;Comments&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/small&gt; &lt;/p&gt;</default:description><content:encoded xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"><![CDATA[	<p>
In 1998 Bjørn Lomborg, an associate professor at the <em>Department of Political Science</em> at <em>University of Aarhus</em> in Denmark published <em>Verdens Sande Tilstand</em>. Three years later <em>Cambridge University Press</em> published the book in English under the title of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Skeptical_Environmentalist"><em>The Sceptical Environmentalist: Measuring the Real State of the World</em></a> (ISBN 0 521 01068 3).
</p>
	<p>
Later in 2001 Professor Lomborg circulated a 2500-word essay on the economics of the <em>Kyoto Protocol</em>. <a href="http://www.cesc.net/climateweb/kyotoeconomics.pdf"><em>Here</em></a> is the full text of the article. He worried that global warming was getting a blank cheque with cost-benefit analysis being thrown out of the window. His essay included numerous references to the <em>2001 IPCC Report on Global Warming</em> on which he made his position quite clear.
</p>
	<p>
‘Global warming is important, environmentally, politically and economically. There is no doubt that mankind has influenced and is still increasing atmospheric concentrations of CO2 and that this will increase temperature. I will not discuss all the scientific uncertainty, but basically accept the models and predictions from the 2001 report of the <em>UN Climate Panel (IPCC)</em>. Yet, we will need to separate hyperbole from realities in order to choose our future optimally.’
</p>
	<p>
For good measure he added a diagram showing the impact of <em>Kyoto</em>…on which there is a scientific consensus.
</p>
	<p>
<a href="http://www.blog.co.uk/srv/media/media_item.php?item_ID=1885593" title="kyotoimpact"><img src="http://data4.blog.de/media/593/1885593_20a48a4560_m.jpeg" alt="kyotoimpact" vspace="5" hspace="5"></a>
</p>
	<p>
<em>Figure 1: The expected increase in temperature with business-as-usual and with the <em>Kyoto</em> restrictions extended forever. </em>
</p>
	<p>
So far so good. Here is the crux of Lomborg’s argument in his own words:
</p>
	<p>
‘If Kyoto is implemented with anything but global emissions trading - a scheme which seems utterly unattainable, and was not at all addressed in Bonn - it will not only be almost inconsequential for the climate, but it will also constitute a poor use of resources. The cost of such a Kyoto pact if implemented, just for the US, will be higher than the cost of solving the single most pressing problem for the world - providing the entire world with clean drinking water and sanitation. It is estimated that the latter would avoid 2 million deaths every year and prevent half a billion people becoming seriously ill each year. If no trading mechanism is implemented for Kyoto, the costs could approach $1 trillion, or almost five times the cost of world-wide water and sanitation coverage. For comparison, the total global aid today is about $50 billion annually. If we were to go even further - as suggested by many - and curb global emissions to the 1990 level, the net cost to the world would seriously escalate to about $4 trillion extra - comparable almost to the cost of global warming itself. Likewise, a temperature increase limit would cost anywhere from $3 to $33 trillion extra. This emphasizes that we need to be very careful in our willingness to act on global warming.’
</p>
	<p>
Common sense to you or me. But at this point all hell broke loose around the good professor. Why? Lomborg again.
</p>
	<p>
‘Economic analyses clearly show that it will be far more expensive to cut CO2 emissions radically than to pay the costs of adaptation to the increased temperatures. The Bonn meeting was convened to agree the implementation of the <em>Kyoto Protocol</em>, which aims to cut carbon emissions to 5.2 percent below 1990-levels in 2010, or a reduction of almost 30 percent, compared to no-intervention. The effect of Kyoto on the climate will be minuscule (and even more so after Bonn). All models agree that the <em>Kyoto Protocol</em> will have surprisingly little impact. One model by a lead author of the 1996 IPCC report shows us how an expected temperature increase of 2.1°C in 2100 will be diminished by the protocol to an increase of 1.9°C. Or to put it more clearly, the temperature that we would have experienced in 2094 we have now postponed to 2100. In essence, the <em>Kyoto Protocol</em> does not negate global warming but merely buys the world six years.
</p>
	<p>
Basically, global warming will be expensive ($5 trillion) and there is very little good we can do about it. Even if we were to handle global warming optimally which would mean cutting emissions a little fairly far into the future, we can only cut the cost very little (about $0.3 trillion). However, if we choose to enact Kyoto or even more ambitious programmes, the world will lose. And this conclusion does not just come from the output from a single model. Almost all the major computer models agree that even when chaotic consequences have been taken into consideration ‘it is striking that the optimal policy involves little emissions reduction below uncontrolled rates until the middle of the [twenty-first] century at the earliest.’
</p>
	<p>
Lomborg is making a perfectly sensible point…and the average grant-funded academic would have stopped there. But there is a different scientific tradition in Scandinavia. This can be traced back to Carl Linnaeus in the 18th century and perhaps even further to the mythologies of their Nordic cultures. Scientists are not easily intimidated, truth still matters, facts are respected and ordinary people have real access to public information. Lomborg once more in his own words.
</p>
	<p>
‘So is it not curious that the typical reporting on global warming tells us all the bad things that could happen from CO2 emissions, but few or none of the bad things that could come from overly zealous regulation of such emissions? Indeed, why is it that global warming is not discussed with an open attitude, carefully attuned to avoid making big and costly mistakes to be paid for by our descendants, but rather with a fervour more fitting for preachers of opposing religions?
</p>
	<p>
This is an indication that the discussion of global warming is not just a question of choosing the optimal economic path for humanity, but has much deeper, political roots as to what kind of future society we would like. This understanding is clearly laid out in the new 2001 IPCC report.
</p>
	<p>
Last month in Bonn most of the world’s nations (minus the US) reached an agreement to cut carbon emissions. Generally the deal was widely reported as almost saving the world. Yet not only is this untrue in the scientific sense - the deal will do almost no good - but it is also unclear whether carbon emission cuts are really the best way for the world to ensure progress on its most important areas.
</p>
	<p>
When the <em>IPCC</em> tells us that the world might warm some 5.8°C over the coming century, this is based on an enormous variety of scenarios and models, where the <em>IPCC</em> has explicitly rejected making predictions about the future, and instead gives us ‘computer-aided storytelling,’ basing the development of crucial variables on initial choice and depicting normative scenarios ‘as one would hope they would emerge.’
</p>
	<p>
Yet the high-end scenarios seem plainly unlikely. Reasonable analysis suggest that renewables - and especially solar power - will be competitive or even out-compete fossil fuels by mid-century, and this means that carbon emissions are much more likely to follow the low emission scenarios, causing a warming of about 2-2.5°C.
</p>
	<p>
Professor Lomborg then remarks that global warming would neither decrease food production nor increase hurricanes and cyclones. As for disease…and malaria in particular….he points out that the <em>IPCC Report</em> concluded that additional exposure would come from middle or high income countries where a well functioning health sector and developed infrastructure makes actual malaria unlikely. Thus the global study of actual malaria transmission shows remarkably few changes, even under the most extreme scenarios. For Lomborg an increase in flood victims was also unlikely because a much richer world would protect itself better just as the Dutch have been doing for centuries. ‘The cost of protection is estimated at 0.1 percent of GDP for most nations, though it might be as high as several percent for small island states.’
</p>
	<p>
By this time civil servants, bureaucrats and politicians are starting to claim that Professor Lomborg has exceeded his scientific brief…a charge he has anticipated. His response is to turn it against his accusers. Lomborg again.
</p>
	<p>
‘Of course, while using global warming as a springboard for other wider policy goals is entirely legitimate, such goals should in all honesty be made explicit. Moreover, it is problematic to have an organization which often quite successfully gathers the most relevant scientific information about global warming, also so clearly promoting a political agenda, which seldom reaches the news headlines.’
</p>
	<p>
Aye! There’s the rub! Particularly when global warming will hit hardest on developing countries with rich countries actually likely to benefit from a warming lower than 2-3°C. Being poor means you have less adaptive capacity so you are hit harder. Our intuition might tell us to do something drastic immediately. But Professor Lomborg’s scientific credentials give him the perfect right to question whether the cure might not be worse than the original affliction. Not least because few other scientists seem to be doing so.
</p>
	<p class="right"><a href="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2008/07/24/shepherd-on-climate-list-of-contents-4491538"><em>more from Shepherd on Climate</em></a>
</p>
<p> <small> <a href="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2007/08/15/kyoto_economics~2813807/#comments">Comments</a> </small> </p>]]></content:encoded></default:item><default:item xmlns:default="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" rdf:about="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2007/08/12/whirling_dervishes~2795502/"><default:title>Whirling Dervishes</default:title><default:link>http://climate.blog.co.uk/2007/08/12/whirling_dervishes~2795502/</default:link><dc:date xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">2007-08-12T13:26:15+02:00</dc:date><default:description>	&lt;p&gt;
The tropical seas of the Atlantic have been quiet this summer. There have been no hurricanes and only three tropical storms. The official hurricane season begins in June and peaks from August to October. Last year disappointed the global warming fraternity - now re-branded as the extreme climate brotherhood. After getting 2005 billed as the worst hurricane season in history including &lt;em&gt;Hurricane Katrina&lt;/em&gt; which came close to wiping out New Orleans they could claim just five hurricanes in 2006, none of which hit the US.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
El Niño continues to confound the brotherhood every four years. Nobody has much idea how to model it and last year was no exception. A surge of warm water in the Pacific shifted high-altitude winds across the North Atlantic and ripped apart many fledgling storms before they could develop. Huge clouds of dust sweeping off the Sahara into the Atlantic choked off several other storms.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
But that is only one small part of our planet’s 2006 hurricane story. The Earth has &lt;a href="http://www.cesc.net/adobeweb/siriusweb/sevenoceans.pdf"&gt;&lt;em&gt;Seven Oceans&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt; and it was a different story elsewhere. The Eastern Pacific had ten hurricanes with &lt;em&gt;Hurricane Ioka&lt;/em&gt; in the Central Pacific breaking all records. Over in the Western Pacific there were twenty-three typhoons and together they killed more than two thousand people with the Philippines being struck five times. The Australians also had a bad year that included &lt;em&gt;Hurricane Monica&lt;/em&gt;, the biggest one on record for the southern hemisphere.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
The better forecasters reckon that hurricanes probably wax and wane in natural cycles lasting decades. They tell us that, if it turns out with hindsight that we are in a period of growing storminess, then this could last for many years. The best forecasters admit they are just guessing.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
Their present view is that neither past trends nor the millions of dollars of computer modelling have been much help. Indeed the suspicion is that global climate modelling is turning out to be counterproductive because it has produced a well-funded priesthood imposing its flawed visions, partial theories and bad science on fellow climate scientists at the behest of those who delight in spreading fear and despondency among the global elite’s chattering classes.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p class="right"&gt;&lt;a href="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2008/07/24/shepherd-on-climate-list-of-contents-4491538"&gt;&lt;em&gt;more from Shepherd on Climate&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt; &lt;small&gt; &lt;a href="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2007/08/12/whirling_dervishes~2795502/#comments"&gt;Comments&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/small&gt; &lt;/p&gt;</default:description><content:encoded xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"><![CDATA[	<p>
The tropical seas of the Atlantic have been quiet this summer. There have been no hurricanes and only three tropical storms. The official hurricane season begins in June and peaks from August to October. Last year disappointed the global warming fraternity - now re-branded as the extreme climate brotherhood. After getting 2005 billed as the worst hurricane season in history including <em>Hurricane Katrina</em> which came close to wiping out New Orleans they could claim just five hurricanes in 2006, none of which hit the US.
</p>
	<p>
El Niño continues to confound the brotherhood every four years. Nobody has much idea how to model it and last year was no exception. A surge of warm water in the Pacific shifted high-altitude winds across the North Atlantic and ripped apart many fledgling storms before they could develop. Huge clouds of dust sweeping off the Sahara into the Atlantic choked off several other storms.
</p>
	<p>
But that is only one small part of our planet’s 2006 hurricane story. The Earth has <a href="http://www.cesc.net/adobeweb/siriusweb/sevenoceans.pdf"><em>Seven Oceans</em></a> and it was a different story elsewhere. The Eastern Pacific had ten hurricanes with <em>Hurricane Ioka</em> in the Central Pacific breaking all records. Over in the Western Pacific there were twenty-three typhoons and together they killed more than two thousand people with the Philippines being struck five times. The Australians also had a bad year that included <em>Hurricane Monica</em>, the biggest one on record for the southern hemisphere.
</p>
	<p>
The better forecasters reckon that hurricanes probably wax and wane in natural cycles lasting decades. They tell us that, if it turns out with hindsight that we are in a period of growing storminess, then this could last for many years. The best forecasters admit they are just guessing.
</p>
	<p>
Their present view is that neither past trends nor the millions of dollars of computer modelling have been much help. Indeed the suspicion is that global climate modelling is turning out to be counterproductive because it has produced a well-funded priesthood imposing its flawed visions, partial theories and bad science on fellow climate scientists at the behest of those who delight in spreading fear and despondency among the global elite’s chattering classes.
</p>
	<p class="right"><a href="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2008/07/24/shepherd-on-climate-list-of-contents-4491538"><em>more from Shepherd on Climate</em></a>
</p>
<p> <small> <a href="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2007/08/12/whirling_dervishes~2795502/#comments">Comments</a> </small> </p>]]></content:encoded></default:item><default:item xmlns:default="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" rdf:about="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2007/08/04/stern_reports~2753464/"><default:title>Stern Reports</default:title><default:link>http://climate.blog.co.uk/2007/08/04/stern_reports~2753464/</default:link><dc:date xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">2007-08-04T10:26:20+02:00</dc:date><default:description>	&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;extracted from &lt;a href="http://williamshepherd.blog.co.uk/2006/12/27/friday_29th_december~1483364"&gt;weblog three hundred and sixty three&lt;/a&gt; on Friday 29th December 2006&lt;/em&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
A &lt;em&gt;Government Report&lt;/em&gt; hailed by Tony Blair as ‘the most important document ever published in the history of the world’ predicts a terrifying scenario for mankind in the very near future. As temperatures soar to levels which will make all life unsustainable and sea levels rise by an estimated 120 feet flooding more than 90 percent of the earth’s land mass, experts have predicted that house prices in the south-east of &lt;em&gt;England&lt;/em&gt; may collapse by as much as 20 percent. This catastrophic end of the world scenario could mean that a typical 4-bedroom detached family house in &lt;em&gt;Godalming&lt;/em&gt; could see as much as £75 000 wiped off its asking price overnight.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
The story was the same throughout &lt;em&gt;Great Britain&lt;/em&gt; as hard-pressed decent hardworking homeowners read through the 565-page &lt;em&gt;Stern Report&lt;/em&gt; with a sense of mounting despair. Sidney Greenslade a 71-year old retired accountant who lives with his 69-year old wife Pearl in &lt;em&gt;Chertsey Surrey&lt;/em&gt; said ‘We bought our executive bungalow in 1989 as our pension scheme. Now we find that the sun is about to fry the earth to a crisp and where does that leave me and Mrs Greenslade? I blame the government.’
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
First-time buyers wept openly in the streets as the government condemned them to death by drowning as the ice caps melt before they had even got a first foot on the property ladder.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
To accompany publication of &lt;em&gt;The Very Stern Report&lt;/em&gt; commissioned by &lt;em&gt;Her Majesty’s Treasury&lt;/em&gt; the &lt;em&gt;Daily Mail&lt;/em&gt; produced this &lt;em&gt;Ten Point Summary&lt;/em&gt; headlined &lt;em&gt;We’re All Going To Die Unless We Pay More Tax&lt;/em&gt;.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
1. &lt;em&gt;Global Warming&lt;/em&gt; is the greatest threat which has ever faced the human race;&lt;br&gt;
2. Unless very drastic steps are taken immediately human life as we know it will end in forty-five minutes;&lt;br&gt;
3. It is now an unchallenged fact that as CO2 levels soar to unsustainable levels, scalding hot giant tsunamis will sweep across the world at millions of miles an hour leaving a path of unprecedented devastation in their wake;&lt;br&gt;
4. No form of life will be left unscathed from the mighty elephant to the humblest bacteria;&lt;br&gt;
5. That includes the human race who face imminent and painful extinction unless extremely drastic steps are taken by responsible governments acting in the best interests of humanity as a whole and those of future generations;&lt;br&gt;
6. It is too late for mere talk. It is now the time for action...and unprecedentedly drastic action at that;&lt;br&gt;
7. There can be no half measures;&lt;br&gt;
8. There is only one possible way in which the planet can be saved from a fate too horrible to imagine;&lt;br&gt;
9. Taxes will have to be raised immediately. And by quite a lot;&lt;br&gt;
10. And, to be honest, Gordon’s run out of money, so this end-of-the-world thing couldn’t have come at a better time.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
Not to be upstaged the &lt;em&gt;Daily Express&lt;/em&gt; published an article headlined &lt;em&gt;Did Global Warming Kill Diana?&lt;/em&gt; Here it is.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
'Scientists yesterday revealed that the &lt;em&gt;Arctic&lt;/em&gt; winter that descended on &lt;em&gt;Paris&lt;/em&gt; ten years ago causing Princess Diana’s &lt;em&gt;Mercedes&lt;/em&gt; to skid on ice whilst trying to avoid a polar bear driving a white Fiat Uno was actually caused by global warming on the direct orders of the &lt;em&gt;Duke of Edinburgh&lt;/em&gt;. Said one meteorological expert yesterday, ‘A thick fug reduced visibility around fuggin’ &lt;em&gt;Paris&lt;/em&gt; because the fuggin’ Duke ordered &lt;em&gt;MI6&lt;/em&gt; to increase fuggin’ carbon emissions all over the fuggin’...&lt;em&gt;continued every Monday [Ed.]&lt;/em&gt;.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p class="right"&gt;&lt;a href="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2008/07/24/shepherd-on-climate-list-of-contents-4491538"&gt;&lt;em&gt;more from Shepherd on Climate&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt; &lt;small&gt; &lt;a href="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2007/08/04/stern_reports~2753464/#comments"&gt;Comments&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/small&gt; &lt;/p&gt;</default:description><content:encoded xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"><![CDATA[	<p><em>extracted from <a href="http://williamshepherd.blog.co.uk/2006/12/27/friday_29th_december~1483364">weblog three hundred and sixty three</a> on Friday 29th December 2006</em>
</p>
	<p>
A <em>Government Report</em> hailed by Tony Blair as ‘the most important document ever published in the history of the world’ predicts a terrifying scenario for mankind in the very near future. As temperatures soar to levels which will make all life unsustainable and sea levels rise by an estimated 120 feet flooding more than 90 percent of the earth’s land mass, experts have predicted that house prices in the south-east of <em>England</em> may collapse by as much as 20 percent. This catastrophic end of the world scenario could mean that a typical 4-bedroom detached family house in <em>Godalming</em> could see as much as £75 000 wiped off its asking price overnight.
</p>
	<p>
The story was the same throughout <em>Great Britain</em> as hard-pressed decent hardworking homeowners read through the 565-page <em>Stern Report</em> with a sense of mounting despair. Sidney Greenslade a 71-year old retired accountant who lives with his 69-year old wife Pearl in <em>Chertsey Surrey</em> said ‘We bought our executive bungalow in 1989 as our pension scheme. Now we find that the sun is about to fry the earth to a crisp and where does that leave me and Mrs Greenslade? I blame the government.’
</p>
	<p>
First-time buyers wept openly in the streets as the government condemned them to death by drowning as the ice caps melt before they had even got a first foot on the property ladder.
</p>
	<p>
To accompany publication of <em>The Very Stern Report</em> commissioned by <em>Her Majesty’s Treasury</em> the <em>Daily Mail</em> produced this <em>Ten Point Summary</em> headlined <em>We’re All Going To Die Unless We Pay More Tax</em>.
</p>
	<p>
1. <em>Global Warming</em> is the greatest threat which has ever faced the human race;<br>
2. Unless very drastic steps are taken immediately human life as we know it will end in forty-five minutes;<br>
3. It is now an unchallenged fact that as CO2 levels soar to unsustainable levels, scalding hot giant tsunamis will sweep across the world at millions of miles an hour leaving a path of unprecedented devastation in their wake;<br>
4. No form of life will be left unscathed from the mighty elephant to the humblest bacteria;<br>
5. That includes the human race who face imminent and painful extinction unless extremely drastic steps are taken by responsible governments acting in the best interests of humanity as a whole and those of future generations;<br>
6. It is too late for mere talk. It is now the time for action...and unprecedentedly drastic action at that;<br>
7. There can be no half measures;<br>
8. There is only one possible way in which the planet can be saved from a fate too horrible to imagine;<br>
9. Taxes will have to be raised immediately. And by quite a lot;<br>
10. And, to be honest, Gordon’s run out of money, so this end-of-the-world thing couldn’t have come at a better time.
</p>
	<p>
Not to be upstaged the <em>Daily Express</em> published an article headlined <em>Did Global Warming Kill Diana?</em> Here it is.
</p>
	<p>
'Scientists yesterday revealed that the <em>Arctic</em> winter that descended on <em>Paris</em> ten years ago causing Princess Diana’s <em>Mercedes</em> to skid on ice whilst trying to avoid a polar bear driving a white Fiat Uno was actually caused by global warming on the direct orders of the <em>Duke of Edinburgh</em>. Said one meteorological expert yesterday, ‘A thick fug reduced visibility around fuggin’ <em>Paris</em> because the fuggin’ Duke ordered <em>MI6</em> to increase fuggin’ carbon emissions all over the fuggin’...<em>continued every Monday [Ed.]</em>.
</p>
	<p class="right"><a href="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2008/07/24/shepherd-on-climate-list-of-contents-4491538"><em>more from Shepherd on Climate</em></a>
</p>
<p> <small> <a href="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2007/08/04/stern_reports~2753464/#comments">Comments</a> </small> </p>]]></content:encoded></default:item><default:item xmlns:default="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" rdf:about="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2007/08/04/data_quality~2753430/"><default:title>Data Quality</default:title><default:link>http://climate.blog.co.uk/2007/08/04/data_quality~2753430/</default:link><dc:date xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">2007-08-04T10:18:13+02:00</dc:date><default:description>	&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;extracted from &lt;a href="http://williamshepherd.blog.co.uk/2006/12/27/thursday_28th_december~1483338"&gt;weblog three hundred and sixty two&lt;/a&gt; published on Thursday 28th December 2006&lt;/em&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
The &lt;em&gt;Chinook&lt;/em&gt; is a mountain wind named after a &lt;em&gt;Native American&lt;/em&gt; tribe from the &lt;em&gt;Pacific North-West&lt;/em&gt;. They named it snow-eater because of the heat of the wind racing down the eastern slopes of the &lt;em&gt;Rockies&lt;/em&gt;. Moist winds sweeping off the &lt;em&gt;Pacific&lt;/em&gt; are lifted up over the mountain range, cool and condense into thick clouds and pour with rain. Then the winds become dried out and as they race down the other side of the mountain they warm up and dry even more.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
The temperature change is so dramatic that on 14th January 1972 at &lt;em&gt;Loma Montana&lt;/em&gt; a 57 Celsius rise was registered from -48C to +9C…a world record for a 24-hour temperature increase. &lt;em&gt;Boulder&lt;/em&gt; in &lt;em&gt;Colorado&lt;/em&gt; often gets particularly hard hit by &lt;em&gt;Chinooks&lt;/em&gt; as the winds are funneled down through nearby canyons. A gust of 143 miles per hour was registered during January 1971 and in January 1982 a &lt;em&gt;Chinook&lt;/em&gt; caused more than $10 million of damage.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
In my &lt;em&gt;&lt;a href="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2006/06/19/cloud_cuckoo_land~893306"&gt;Cloud Cuckoo Land blog&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/em&gt; I mentioned the scientific problem with &lt;em&gt;Temperature Gauge Data&lt;/em&gt; in &lt;em&gt;Temperature-Time Series&lt;/em&gt;. I wrote that you can either measure the temperature in the same place for as long as possible…hopefully for centuries...or you measure under similar operant conditions. Here is some of what I wrote.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
‘The first course of action seems to make sense because the shape of the landscape affects the local climate. A number this side of the hill will not be the same as one from the other side. But there is a problem. A hundred years ago your measuring point was in the middle of a field five miles out of town. Today it’s in the middle of a shopping centre’.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
The operant conditions of your data point matter because built-up environments are typically several degrees warmer. I ended by remarking that ‘even something as simple as collecting data is far from simple’. This data quality effect might be enough to explain the fact that global temperature data from the &lt;em&gt;Northern Hemisphere&lt;/em&gt; appears to suggest that it has warmed more than the &lt;em&gt;Southern Hemisphere&lt;/em&gt;…something that is puzzling scientists as it is inherently unlikely.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
In a scientifically-literate world this 200-word caveat about &lt;em&gt;Data Quality&lt;/em&gt; would be unnecessary. But &lt;em&gt;Public Science&lt;/em&gt; is now a branch of &lt;em&gt;Public Relations&lt;/em&gt;...and truth an early casualty.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
The reported average 30-year temperature in &lt;em&gt;Britain&lt;/em&gt; from 1961 to 1990 was 9.47 Celsius. Since 1990 every second year has been at least one degree higher than this. The top yearly averages since have been 1995-10.52C; 1997-10.53C; 1999-10.63C; 2002-10.60C; 2003-10.50C; 2004-10.48C and 2006-10.84C.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
This year has been particularly warm. July was billed as &lt;em&gt;Britain’s&lt;/em&gt; warmest month ever at 19.66 Celsius and we also had the warmest September since 1729 at 16.55C. Globally 2006 will be our sixth warmest year since 1850.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
There are &lt;em&gt;Carbonistas&lt;/em&gt; who point the finger of suspicion at &lt;em&gt;The Carbon Economy&lt;/em&gt; to explain all this but little of their science stands up to rigorous scrutiny.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p class="right"&gt;&lt;a href="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2008/07/24/shepherd-on-climate-list-of-contents-4491538"&gt;&lt;em&gt;more from Shepherd on Climate&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt; &lt;small&gt; &lt;a href="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2007/08/04/data_quality~2753430/#comments"&gt;Comments&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/small&gt; &lt;/p&gt;</default:description><content:encoded xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"><![CDATA[	<p><em>extracted from <a href="http://williamshepherd.blog.co.uk/2006/12/27/thursday_28th_december~1483338">weblog three hundred and sixty two</a> published on Thursday 28th December 2006</em>
</p>
	<p>
The <em>Chinook</em> is a mountain wind named after a <em>Native American</em> tribe from the <em>Pacific North-West</em>. They named it snow-eater because of the heat of the wind racing down the eastern slopes of the <em>Rockies</em>. Moist winds sweeping off the <em>Pacific</em> are lifted up over the mountain range, cool and condense into thick clouds and pour with rain. Then the winds become dried out and as they race down the other side of the mountain they warm up and dry even more.
</p>
	<p>
The temperature change is so dramatic that on 14th January 1972 at <em>Loma Montana</em> a 57 Celsius rise was registered from -48C to +9C…a world record for a 24-hour temperature increase. <em>Boulder</em> in <em>Colorado</em> often gets particularly hard hit by <em>Chinooks</em> as the winds are funneled down through nearby canyons. A gust of 143 miles per hour was registered during January 1971 and in January 1982 a <em>Chinook</em> caused more than $10 million of damage.
</p>
	<p>
In my <em><a href="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2006/06/19/cloud_cuckoo_land~893306">Cloud Cuckoo Land blog</a></em> I mentioned the scientific problem with <em>Temperature Gauge Data</em> in <em>Temperature-Time Series</em>. I wrote that you can either measure the temperature in the same place for as long as possible…hopefully for centuries...or you measure under similar operant conditions. Here is some of what I wrote.
</p>
	<p>
‘The first course of action seems to make sense because the shape of the landscape affects the local climate. A number this side of the hill will not be the same as one from the other side. But there is a problem. A hundred years ago your measuring point was in the middle of a field five miles out of town. Today it’s in the middle of a shopping centre’.
</p>
	<p>
The operant conditions of your data point matter because built-up environments are typically several degrees warmer. I ended by remarking that ‘even something as simple as collecting data is far from simple’. This data quality effect might be enough to explain the fact that global temperature data from the <em>Northern Hemisphere</em> appears to suggest that it has warmed more than the <em>Southern Hemisphere</em>…something that is puzzling scientists as it is inherently unlikely.
</p>
	<p>
In a scientifically-literate world this 200-word caveat about <em>Data Quality</em> would be unnecessary. But <em>Public Science</em> is now a branch of <em>Public Relations</em>...and truth an early casualty.
</p>
	<p>
The reported average 30-year temperature in <em>Britain</em> from 1961 to 1990 was 9.47 Celsius. Since 1990 every second year has been at least one degree higher than this. The top yearly averages since have been 1995-10.52C; 1997-10.53C; 1999-10.63C; 2002-10.60C; 2003-10.50C; 2004-10.48C and 2006-10.84C.
</p>
	<p>
This year has been particularly warm. July was billed as <em>Britain’s</em> warmest month ever at 19.66 Celsius and we also had the warmest September since 1729 at 16.55C. Globally 2006 will be our sixth warmest year since 1850.
</p>
	<p>
There are <em>Carbonistas</em> who point the finger of suspicion at <em>The Carbon Economy</em> to explain all this but little of their science stands up to rigorous scrutiny.
</p>
	<p class="right"><a href="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2008/07/24/shepherd-on-climate-list-of-contents-4491538"><em>more from Shepherd on Climate</em></a>
</p>
<p> <small> <a href="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2007/08/04/data_quality~2753430/#comments">Comments</a> </small> </p>]]></content:encoded></default:item><default:item xmlns:default="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" rdf:about="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2007/08/04/moon_aamp_ice~2753371/"><default:title>Moon &amp; Ice</default:title><default:link>http://climate.blog.co.uk/2007/08/04/moon_aamp_ice~2753371/</default:link><dc:date xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">2007-08-04T10:04:03+02:00</dc:date><default:description>	&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;extracted from &lt;a href="http://williamshepherd.blog.co.uk/2006/12/27/friday_22nd_december~1483202"&gt;weblog three hundred and fifty six&lt;/a&gt; first published on Friday 22nd December 2006&lt;br&gt;
&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
Two years ago a massive earthquake off the coast of &lt;em&gt;Sumatra&lt;/em&gt; triggered the biggest and most devastating tsunami known in recent history. The quake measuring more than 9.0 on the &lt;em&gt;Richter Scale&lt;/em&gt; released monstrous waves up to 100 feet high along coastlines across the &lt;em&gt;Indian Ocean&lt;/em&gt; from &lt;em&gt;Somalia&lt;/em&gt; to &lt;em&gt;Thailand&lt;/em&gt; that left 230 000 people killed or lost. The immediate cause of the &lt;em&gt;Asian Tsunami&lt;/em&gt; was a sideways rupture of about 50 feet along a seismic fault line under the sea with the sea bed lifting up some ten feet or so.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
But the moon may also have played a part in it because recent research has shown that this fault line is sensitive to the monthly lunar cycle. A team of &lt;em&gt;British&lt;/em&gt; scientists compared the patterns of quakes and tremors including the &lt;em&gt;Boxing Day 2004 Tsunami&lt;/em&gt; with the phases of the moon. Publishing in &lt;em&gt;Geophysical Research Letters&lt;/em&gt; the scientists reported that quakes were 86% more likely around full moons and 38% more likely around new moons when tides are at their most extreme. The movement of huge masses of water at these tides could stress fault lines under strain.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
As our planet whizzes across the face of the sun at this time of the year on its elliptical orbit...and summer is now on the way...it has always seemed surprising to me that the tilt of the earth?s axis is responsible for the difference between hot summers and cold winters. At the &lt;em&gt;Winter Solstice&lt;/em&gt; the &lt;em&gt;Northern Hemisphere&lt;/em&gt; is leaning away from the &lt;em&gt;Sun&lt;/em&gt; while at the &lt;em&gt;Summer Solstice&lt;/em&gt; it is leaning towards it. Why should a few thousand miles make so much difference in ninety three million. Perhaps someone can explain before I try to set up my life to spend half of it in &lt;em&gt;New Zealand.&lt;/em&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
One person asking such questions was James Croll. In 1864 he published a ground-breaking scientific paper on how fluctuations in the &lt;em&gt;Earth's&lt;/em&gt; orbit around the &lt;em&gt;Sun&lt;/em&gt; could explain the coming and going of &lt;em&gt;Ice Ages&lt;/em&gt;. He had figured out that ice ages came and went as the earth's orbit changed from a circle to an oval-shape...and with changes in the tilt of the &lt;em&gt;Earth&lt;/em&gt;. According to his calculations only small changes in the &lt;em&gt;Earth's Orbit&lt;/em&gt; were needed because the cooling was amplified by the huge ice sheets reflecting heat from their white surface back into space.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
It took some 60 years for these ideas to become widely accepted...and another hundred years to be buried as &lt;em&gt;Bad News&lt;/em&gt; by the &lt;em&gt;Global Warming Conspirators&lt;/em&gt;. But at least Croll who died in 1890 gained recognition as an inspirational scientist in his own lifetime suggesting there was more good honest horse sense talked about our planet's climate before the &lt;em&gt;Computer Boys&lt;/em&gt; hijacked the subject with their &lt;em&gt;Clip Boards&lt;/em&gt; and &lt;em&gt;Computer Forecasting Models&lt;/em&gt;.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p class="right"&gt;&lt;a href="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2008/07/24/shepherd-on-climate-list-of-contents-4491538"&gt;&lt;em&gt;more from Shepherd on Climate&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt; &lt;small&gt; &lt;a href="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2007/08/04/moon_aamp_ice~2753371/#comments"&gt;Comments&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/small&gt; &lt;/p&gt;</default:description><content:encoded xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"><![CDATA[	<p><em>extracted from <a href="http://williamshepherd.blog.co.uk/2006/12/27/friday_22nd_december~1483202">weblog three hundred and fifty six</a> first published on Friday 22nd December 2006<br>
</em></p>
	<p>
Two years ago a massive earthquake off the coast of <em>Sumatra</em> triggered the biggest and most devastating tsunami known in recent history. The quake measuring more than 9.0 on the <em>Richter Scale</em> released monstrous waves up to 100 feet high along coastlines across the <em>Indian Ocean</em> from <em>Somalia</em> to <em>Thailand</em> that left 230 000 people killed or lost. The immediate cause of the <em>Asian Tsunami</em> was a sideways rupture of about 50 feet along a seismic fault line under the sea with the sea bed lifting up some ten feet or so.
</p>
	<p>
But the moon may also have played a part in it because recent research has shown that this fault line is sensitive to the monthly lunar cycle. A team of <em>British</em> scientists compared the patterns of quakes and tremors including the <em>Boxing Day 2004 Tsunami</em> with the phases of the moon. Publishing in <em>Geophysical Research Letters</em> the scientists reported that quakes were 86% more likely around full moons and 38% more likely around new moons when tides are at their most extreme. The movement of huge masses of water at these tides could stress fault lines under strain.
</p>
	<p>
As our planet whizzes across the face of the sun at this time of the year on its elliptical orbit...and summer is now on the way...it has always seemed surprising to me that the tilt of the earth?s axis is responsible for the difference between hot summers and cold winters. At the <em>Winter Solstice</em> the <em>Northern Hemisphere</em> is leaning away from the <em>Sun</em> while at the <em>Summer Solstice</em> it is leaning towards it. Why should a few thousand miles make so much difference in ninety three million. Perhaps someone can explain before I try to set up my life to spend half of it in <em>New Zealand.</em>
</p>
	<p>
One person asking such questions was James Croll. In 1864 he published a ground-breaking scientific paper on how fluctuations in the <em>Earth's</em> orbit around the <em>Sun</em> could explain the coming and going of <em>Ice Ages</em>. He had figured out that ice ages came and went as the earth's orbit changed from a circle to an oval-shape...and with changes in the tilt of the <em>Earth</em>. According to his calculations only small changes in the <em>Earth's Orbit</em> were needed because the cooling was amplified by the huge ice sheets reflecting heat from their white surface back into space.
</p>
	<p>
It took some 60 years for these ideas to become widely accepted...and another hundred years to be buried as <em>Bad News</em> by the <em>Global Warming Conspirators</em>. But at least Croll who died in 1890 gained recognition as an inspirational scientist in his own lifetime suggesting there was more good honest horse sense talked about our planet's climate before the <em>Computer Boys</em> hijacked the subject with their <em>Clip Boards</em> and <em>Computer Forecasting Models</em>.
</p>
	<p class="right"><a href="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2008/07/24/shepherd-on-climate-list-of-contents-4491538"><em>more from Shepherd on Climate</em></a>
</p>
<p> <small> <a href="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2007/08/04/moon_aamp_ice~2753371/#comments">Comments</a> </small> </p>]]></content:encoded></default:item><default:item xmlns:default="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" rdf:about="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2007/08/04/car_food~2753280/"><default:title>Car Fodder</default:title><default:link>http://climate.blog.co.uk/2007/08/04/car_food~2753280/</default:link><dc:date xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">2007-08-04T09:44:12+02:00</dc:date><default:description>	&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;extracted from &lt;a href="http://williamshepherd.blog.co.uk/2006/11/13/wednesday_15th_november~1324643"&gt;&lt;em&gt;weblog three hundred and nineteen&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt; first published on Wednesday 15th November 2006&lt;/em&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
2006 broke the record for the hottest September. &lt;em&gt;UK&lt;/em&gt; temperatures averaged sixty degrees Fahrenheit and broke the previous record from 1949 by one and a half degrees. &lt;em&gt;Ireland&lt;/em&gt; also broke its September record…as did &lt;em&gt;Oslo&lt;/em&gt;. The other side of the world has been unusually warm too. It is spring in &lt;em&gt;New Zealand&lt;/em&gt; which has had the third warmest September on record. And Melbourne logged its warmest September since records began in 1907.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
&lt;em&gt;Australia&lt;/em&gt; has been unusually dry with drought meaning poor grain harvests and rising bread prices next year. Price hikes may be a &lt;em&gt;Dead Cert&lt;/em&gt; but not for this reason. Three quarters of the world’s corn exports come from the &lt;em&gt;US&lt;/em&gt; but these are vanishing fast.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
In &lt;em&gt;South Dakota&lt;/em&gt;, &lt;em&gt;Ethanol Distilleries&lt;/em&gt; now claim half the corn harvest. And if all the &lt;em&gt;Ethanol Plants&lt;/em&gt; proposed for &lt;em&gt;Iowa&lt;/em&gt; get built they would use all the corn grown in the state. There is a &lt;em&gt;US Ethanol Subsidy&lt;/em&gt; of 51¢ per gallon until 2010 so with oil at $70 per barrel distilling &lt;em&gt;Fuel Alcohol&lt;/em&gt; promises huge profits. World grain consumption grew by 20 million tons in 2006…with 14 million tons of it going into the fuel tanks of &lt;em&gt;American&lt;/em&gt; cars.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
Almost everything we eat can be converted into fuel so the line between &lt;em&gt;Food and Energy Economics&lt;/em&gt; is rapidly disappearing. Ten years ago &lt;em&gt;Food Processors&lt;/em&gt; and &lt;em&gt;Livestock Producers&lt;/em&gt; converted &lt;em&gt;Farm Commodities&lt;/em&gt; into products for &lt;em&gt;Supermarket Shelves&lt;/em&gt;. Now the &lt;em&gt;Ethanol Distilleries&lt;/em&gt; and &lt;em&gt;Biodiesel Refineries&lt;/em&gt; are piling into the market for &lt;em&gt;Farm Commodities&lt;/em&gt; to supply fuel to service stations.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
So the &lt;em&gt;Oil Price&lt;/em&gt; is now the support price for &lt;em&gt;Food Commodities&lt;/em&gt;. The vast number of distilleries coming on stream is also drawing grain away from beef, pork, poultry, milk, and eggs production. Another problem is that corn and soybean production in the &lt;em&gt;American Midwest&lt;/em&gt; is ecologically unsustainable. It produces massive topsoil erosion and pollutes surface and groundwater with pesticides and fertilizer runoff that travels down the &lt;em&gt;Mississippi River&lt;/em&gt; to deplete oxygen levels in the &lt;em&gt;Gulf of Mexico&lt;/em&gt;.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
The world’s crop-based fuel production is concentrated in &lt;em&gt;Brazil&lt;/em&gt;, the &lt;em&gt;United States&lt;/em&gt; and &lt;em&gt;Europe&lt;/em&gt;. Last year the &lt;em&gt;US&lt;/em&gt; and &lt;em&gt;Brazil&lt;/em&gt; each produced over four billion gallons of ethanol. &lt;em&gt;Brazil&lt;/em&gt; uses sugarcane as the feedstock while the &lt;em&gt;US distillers&lt;/em&gt; use grain…mostly corn. The 55 million tons of &lt;em&gt;US corn&lt;/em&gt; going into ethanol this year represent 16% of the country’s grain harvest…and supplies 3% of its automotive fuel.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
&lt;em&gt;Brazil&lt;/em&gt; is converting half of its sugar harvest into &lt;a href="http://www.earth-policy.org/Updates/2006/Update55_data.htm"&gt;&lt;em&gt;Fuel Ethanol&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt; …doubling the world sugar price by effectively withdrawing 10% of the harvest. In 2005 the &lt;em&gt;European Union&lt;/em&gt; produced 1600 million gallons of biofuels…half of it biodiesel produced from vegetable oil in &lt;em&gt;Germany&lt;/em&gt; and &lt;em&gt;France&lt;/em&gt; and the other half ethanol from grain in &lt;em&gt;France, Spain&lt;/em&gt; and &lt;em&gt;Germany&lt;/em&gt;.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
Last year &lt;em&gt;China&lt;/em&gt; converted two million tons of grain into ethanol mostly corn but also some wheat and rice. In &lt;em&gt;India&lt;/em&gt; ethanol is produced largely from sugarcane. &lt;em&gt;Thailand&lt;/em&gt; is concentrating on ethanol from cassava, while &lt;em&gt;Malaysia&lt;/em&gt; and &lt;em&gt;Indonesia&lt;/em&gt; are investing heavily in additional palm oil plantations as well as &lt;em&gt;biodiesel refineries&lt;/em&gt;. &lt;em&gt;Malaysia&lt;/em&gt; has approved 32 biodiesel refineries but has also had the sense to call a pause to assess the future for &lt;em&gt;Palm Oil Supplies&lt;/em&gt;.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
The grain required to fill a 25-gallon SUV gas tank with ethanol can feed one person for a year. Ominously the world grain stocks are at their lowest level in 34 years with 76 million more mouths to feed each year. As the reality of this trade-off works its way through global markets the poorest 2 000 million people in the world who already spend well over half of any income they have on food will be priced out. Grain importers like &lt;em&gt;Indonesia, Egypt, Nigeria&lt;/em&gt; and &lt;em&gt;Mexico&lt;/em&gt; will need to find the money to match their grain imports with imports of tanks and guns and riot gear.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
Back to our European superstate where its joined-up government has decreed that by 2020 ten percent of all transport fuel in the &lt;em&gt;EU&lt;/em&gt; must be biofuels. Forget the science and get the arithmetic. To meet their share of the EU target Brits will need 14 million tons of wheat. At present the country only grows half of this…and puts it on the kitchen table. But ever since a barrel of oil set the bread price, wheat prices have doubled. Goodness knows where they will be by 2020.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
What to do? Reclaim set-aside and annihilate the country’s bird and wildlife populations? Global set-aside trading exchange like Jimmy Carter promised Robert Mugabe &amp; Joshua Nkomo back at &lt;a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/6958418.stm"&gt;&lt;em&gt;Lancaster House&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt; in 1980? Import palm oil from &lt;em&gt;Indonesia&lt;/em&gt; and massacre orang-utans whose tropical forest habitats have made way for palm oil plantations? Looks like those tanks, guns and riot gear will be needed here.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
Picture the scene. Lunch-time at the &lt;em&gt;Travellers’ Club&lt;/em&gt; in St. James. No briefcases or files allowed in the member’s lounge. Just the sound of hushed voices from the leather upholstery.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
‘Time we set the terrorist laws on those tree huggers at &lt;a href="http://www.caat.org.uk/"&gt;&lt;em&gt;CAAT&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;. Had it up to here with their bloody &lt;a href="http://www.caat.org.uk/getinvolved/FoIact.php"&gt;&lt;em&gt;FOIRs&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;.’&lt;br&gt;
‘Only a thousand media chaps at the &lt;em&gt;MOD&lt;/em&gt;? Double it. Get the girls in.’&lt;br&gt;
‘Should let &lt;em&gt;BAE&lt;/em&gt; have those arms salesmen over at the &lt;em&gt;DESO&lt;/em&gt;. Learn from the &lt;em&gt;Yanks&lt;/em&gt;. Call ‘em private contractors. Funding from black ops. Get 'em off balance sheet.’&lt;br&gt;
‘Good piece by &lt;a href="http://del.icio.us/williamshepherd/politics/"&gt;&lt;em&gt;Roberts&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;. That’s the way to go, old boy. Must stay ahead of the dykes and pinkos, eh what? Them or us!&lt;br&gt;
Your father in the &lt;em&gt;Guards&lt;/em&gt;? Well, I’ll be blowed! And at &lt;em&gt;Eton&lt;/em&gt; together too!’
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p class="right"&gt;&lt;a href="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2008/07/24/shepherd-on-climate-list-of-contents-4491538"&gt;&lt;em&gt;more from Shepherd on Climate&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt; &lt;small&gt; &lt;a href="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2007/08/04/car_food~2753280/#comments"&gt;Comments&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/small&gt; &lt;/p&gt;</default:description><content:encoded xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"><![CDATA[	<p><em>extracted from <a href="http://williamshepherd.blog.co.uk/2006/11/13/wednesday_15th_november~1324643"><em>weblog three hundred and nineteen</em></a> first published on Wednesday 15th November 2006</em>
</p>
	<p>
2006 broke the record for the hottest September. <em>UK</em> temperatures averaged sixty degrees Fahrenheit and broke the previous record from 1949 by one and a half degrees. <em>Ireland</em> also broke its September record…as did <em>Oslo</em>. The other side of the world has been unusually warm too. It is spring in <em>New Zealand</em> which has had the third warmest September on record. And Melbourne logged its warmest September since records began in 1907.
</p>
	<p>
<em>Australia</em> has been unusually dry with drought meaning poor grain harvests and rising bread prices next year. Price hikes may be a <em>Dead Cert</em> but not for this reason. Three quarters of the world’s corn exports come from the <em>US</em> but these are vanishing fast.
</p>
	<p>
In <em>South Dakota</em>, <em>Ethanol Distilleries</em> now claim half the corn harvest. And if all the <em>Ethanol Plants</em> proposed for <em>Iowa</em> get built they would use all the corn grown in the state. There is a <em>US Ethanol Subsidy</em> of 51¢ per gallon until 2010 so with oil at $70 per barrel distilling <em>Fuel Alcohol</em> promises huge profits. World grain consumption grew by 20 million tons in 2006…with 14 million tons of it going into the fuel tanks of <em>American</em> cars.
</p>
	<p>
Almost everything we eat can be converted into fuel so the line between <em>Food and Energy Economics</em> is rapidly disappearing. Ten years ago <em>Food Processors</em> and <em>Livestock Producers</em> converted <em>Farm Commodities</em> into products for <em>Supermarket Shelves</em>. Now the <em>Ethanol Distilleries</em> and <em>Biodiesel Refineries</em> are piling into the market for <em>Farm Commodities</em> to supply fuel to service stations.
</p>
	<p>
So the <em>Oil Price</em> is now the support price for <em>Food Commodities</em>. The vast number of distilleries coming on stream is also drawing grain away from beef, pork, poultry, milk, and eggs production. Another problem is that corn and soybean production in the <em>American Midwest</em> is ecologically unsustainable. It produces massive topsoil erosion and pollutes surface and groundwater with pesticides and fertilizer runoff that travels down the <em>Mississippi River</em> to deplete oxygen levels in the <em>Gulf of Mexico</em>.
</p>
	<p>
The world’s crop-based fuel production is concentrated in <em>Brazil</em>, the <em>United States</em> and <em>Europe</em>. Last year the <em>US</em> and <em>Brazil</em> each produced over four billion gallons of ethanol. <em>Brazil</em> uses sugarcane as the feedstock while the <em>US distillers</em> use grain…mostly corn. The 55 million tons of <em>US corn</em> going into ethanol this year represent 16% of the country’s grain harvest…and supplies 3% of its automotive fuel.
</p>
	<p>
<em>Brazil</em> is converting half of its sugar harvest into <a href="http://www.earth-policy.org/Updates/2006/Update55_data.htm"><em>Fuel Ethanol</em></a> …doubling the world sugar price by effectively withdrawing 10% of the harvest. In 2005 the <em>European Union</em> produced 1600 million gallons of biofuels…half of it biodiesel produced from vegetable oil in <em>Germany</em> and <em>France</em> and the other half ethanol from grain in <em>France, Spain</em> and <em>Germany</em>.
</p>
	<p>
Last year <em>China</em> converted two million tons of grain into ethanol mostly corn but also some wheat and rice. In <em>India</em> ethanol is produced largely from sugarcane. <em>Thailand</em> is concentrating on ethanol from cassava, while <em>Malaysia</em> and <em>Indonesia</em> are investing heavily in additional palm oil plantations as well as <em>biodiesel refineries</em>. <em>Malaysia</em> has approved 32 biodiesel refineries but has also had the sense to call a pause to assess the future for <em>Palm Oil Supplies</em>.
</p>
	<p>
The grain required to fill a 25-gallon SUV gas tank with ethanol can feed one person for a year. Ominously the world grain stocks are at their lowest level in 34 years with 76 million more mouths to feed each year. As the reality of this trade-off works its way through global markets the poorest 2 000 million people in the world who already spend well over half of any income they have on food will be priced out. Grain importers like <em>Indonesia, Egypt, Nigeria</em> and <em>Mexico</em> will need to find the money to match their grain imports with imports of tanks and guns and riot gear.
</p>
	<p>
Back to our European superstate where its joined-up government has decreed that by 2020 ten percent of all transport fuel in the <em>EU</em> must be biofuels. Forget the science and get the arithmetic. To meet their share of the EU target Brits will need 14 million tons of wheat. At present the country only grows half of this…and puts it on the kitchen table. But ever since a barrel of oil set the bread price, wheat prices have doubled. Goodness knows where they will be by 2020.
</p>
	<p>
What to do? Reclaim set-aside and annihilate the country’s bird and wildlife populations? Global set-aside trading exchange like Jimmy Carter promised Robert Mugabe & Joshua Nkomo back at <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/6958418.stm"><em>Lancaster House</em></a> in 1980? Import palm oil from <em>Indonesia</em> and massacre orang-utans whose tropical forest habitats have made way for palm oil plantations? Looks like those tanks, guns and riot gear will be needed here.
</p>
	<p>
Picture the scene. Lunch-time at the <em>Travellers’ Club</em> in St. James. No briefcases or files allowed in the member’s lounge. Just the sound of hushed voices from the leather upholstery.
</p>
	<p>
‘Time we set the terrorist laws on those tree huggers at <a href="http://www.caat.org.uk/"><em>CAAT</em></a>. Had it up to here with their bloody <a href="http://www.caat.org.uk/getinvolved/FoIact.php"><em>FOIRs</em></a>.’<br>
‘Only a thousand media chaps at the <em>MOD</em>? Double it. Get the girls in.’<br>
‘Should let <em>BAE</em> have those arms salesmen over at the <em>DESO</em>. Learn from the <em>Yanks</em>. Call ‘em private contractors. Funding from black ops. Get 'em off balance sheet.’<br>
‘Good piece by <a href="http://del.icio.us/williamshepherd/politics/"><em>Roberts</em></a>. That’s the way to go, old boy. Must stay ahead of the dykes and pinkos, eh what? Them or us!<br>
Your father in the <em>Guards</em>? Well, I’ll be blowed! And at <em>Eton</em> together too!’
</p>
	<p class="right"><a href="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2008/07/24/shepherd-on-climate-list-of-contents-4491538"><em>more from Shepherd on Climate</em></a>
</p>
<p> <small> <a href="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2007/08/04/car_food~2753280/#comments">Comments</a> </small> </p>]]></content:encoded></default:item><default:item xmlns:default="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" rdf:about="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2007/08/03/climate_weapons~2747984/"><default:title>Climate Weapons</default:title><default:link>http://climate.blog.co.uk/2007/08/03/climate_weapons~2747984/</default:link><dc:date xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">2007-08-03T09:22:02+02:00</dc:date><default:description>	&lt;p&gt;
Shepherd turned to Calderón. ‘Come on Constanza. Time out. Let’s go outside for lunch. We need some fresh air. Did you think any of that was getting through?’
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
‘Oh yes,’ Constanza replied. ‘People are always persuaded by you. But most of them are always persuaded by the last person they listened to. The real question is whether any of it sticks.’
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
‘I think the scepticism…the attitude…sticks and acts as an inoculation. Coleridge divided readers into four categories: sponges who absorb all they read and return it nearly in the same state, only a little dirtied; sand-glasses who retain nothing, and are content to get through a book for the sake of getting through the time; strain-bags who retain merely the dregs of what they read; and mogul diamonds, equally rare and valuable, who profit by what they read and enable others to profit by it also.’
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
‘I have another question before we veer off at a tangent about Romantic Poets. Whenever I hear you talking about climate change you censure any mention of the role of the military and their climate weapon development programmes. But you always include it whenever you write about the risks of climate change. In fact your first strategic bullet point is always ‘We will outlaw the use and development of climate weapons immediately’. What is actually going on?’
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
Shepherd stopped and turned to Calderón. She held his gaze. ‘The first question is easy to answer. I don’t talk about it because I am uncertain of my facts. Your second question is harder to answer. I need a Deep Throat or a whistleblower. What is actually going on? The quick answer is ‘I don’t know.’ What have you managed to turn up? We have twenty minutes. Perhaps we should compare notes. Let’s sit over there by the herb garden. You go first. Let us try to agree about the background. Not right back to the Armada and the claims that the Wessex witches created the storm that scattered the Spanish fleet. But more recently.’
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
‘How about starting with Tesla?’ Calderón suggested.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
‘Good idea. Tesla filed a bunch of wild patents for an unmanned electrically propelled aircraft that could fly at eighteen thousand miles per hour and could be used as a weapon. He came up with something called teleforce, which was a death ray that could melt airplane engines at a distance of two hundred and fifty miles. He did a lot of work on wireless transmission of electricity. He was fascinated by the possibility of focusing electrical force and amplifying its effect. He even claimed to have once produced an earthquake from his lab. Take it from there.’
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
‘In a moment. But let’s stay with the Wessex witches. You asked for something more recent. The &lt;em&gt;Great Crash&lt;/em&gt; on the &lt;em&gt;London Stock Exchange&lt;/em&gt; in 1987 coincided with the &lt;em&gt;Great Storm&lt;/em&gt; in the south of England. There were several very puzzling things about this storm of twenty years ago.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
For starters the weathermen completely failed to predict the hurricane. In fact the &lt;em&gt;English Weather Service&lt;/em&gt; went out of the way to pour scorn on a report from a French weather station because they could see little in the weather conditions prior to the storm to suggest a meteorological horror show was on the way.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
But then quite suddenly across southern Britain and on the other side of the channel in northern Brittany, the storm hit with devastating results. In southern England, some fifteen million trees were felled and three million households left without electricity.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
Among this devastation, the worst damage was concentrated in a path just thirty miles wide. Why such a narrow zone? This remained a mystery until satellite pictures of the storm were re-examined and an unusual cloud, hooked like a scorpion’s tail, was discovered among the swirling mass of storm clouds. It seems that this scorpion-shaped cloud packed a nasty sting: superfast winds dubbed a ‘sting jet’.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
The phenomenon had been spawned some two and a half miles high in the sky. Cold air plunged down through the tops of the storm clouds which were packed with snow and ice. This turned the air drier, colder and so dense that the air accelerated downwards like an avalanche bursting down a mountainside, until it smashed into the ground with winds reaching up to a hundred miles an hour.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
Other intense Atlantic storms have been revealed with sting jets, and all have a common feature - an explosive drop in atmospheric pressure. They are not common but have been estimated to cause six hundred million pounds of damage across Europe each year.’
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
‘Interesting,’ mumbled Shepherd, although he appeared to be only half-listening. ‘Tesla could simply have been ahead of his time as far as ballistics missiles and lasers are concerned.’ He said eventually. ‘His concepts were sound. Indeed his influence upon the electrification of technology cannot be overestimated. Do we have time for a run-through of the work of this Croatian genius? Constanza nodded. 'So, where to start?'  Shepherd said, rubbing his eyes with the palms of his hands. 'Let's go back a hundred years.'
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
'In 1899, during his experiments with phenomenally-high voltage equipment, Tesla experienced the effects of artificial ball lightning which appears as a glowing spherical mass of incandescent plasma that floats into houses and along telephone or power cables, passing through glass windows without affecting the glass. Tubs of water can be brought swiftly to the boil when ball lightning drops into them. Witnesses to ball lightning include Niels Bohr; the director of MIT, Victor Weisskopf, and even former US Secretary of State, Dean Acheson, who reported seeing ball lightning cross the breakfast table aboard the presidential plane. Anything to add?'
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
'I read an article recently about &lt;em&gt;Hill Airforce Missile Radiographic Facility&lt;/em&gt; in Utah,'Calderón said. 'Apparently the phenomenon occurs regularly at some places and during the 1970s ball lightning formed about once a year inside Building 985. A great volleyball-sized ball of blue fire would drop out of space next to the high voltage supply of a linear accelerator, float down to the floor, roll about at random and then suddenly rise again to the power source where it dissipated. On one occasion, lightning struck the building, and at the same moment, an intense sphere of fire about the size of a tennis ball formed above a power conduit on the wall. It moved along the wall for about thirty feet, floated out and around the neck and shoulders of a technician standing nearby, moved back to the wall and continued on its way for several feet until it reached a junction box, where it exploded causing major electrical damage.'
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
'Just one of many similar stories,' Shepherd said and continued. 'Ball lightning appears to be another form of power transmission, somehow connected with the earth, or in the case of artificial ball lightning, the power source causing it. At his Colorado Springs laboratory, Tesla was working on a related phenomenon, electricity transmission of power without wires. On one occasion he managed to transmit enough power to light up 200 fifty-watt light bulbs twenty six miles away.'
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
'He then decided to follow up on Benjamin Franklin's investigation of natural lightning by monitoring the movement of lightning during a thunderstorm. To Tesla's surprise he discovered that the lightning organised itself into standing waves and he believed that it should be possible to build a transmitter capable of picking up the energy in these standing lightning wave, pump it into the ground and retrieve the energy again at fixed harmonic distances from the transmitter. It was an audacious idea.'
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
'Anyway over the next few decades Tesla pushed further and further away from any of the known science of his day in his quest for electricity that would be too cheap to meter. Then on 1st July 1934 he announced to  that he had perfected a 'death ray' that spelt the end of war. He had found a way to transmit concentrated beams of particles at tremendous speed through free air.'
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
'Tesla claimed that the charged particles in the beam could destroy any enemy aircraft and even burn a spot on the moon. Apparently in 1937 he offered his invention to the British government who supposedly turned it down. But the genie was out of the bottle and the Germans got wind of it and immediately put their top scientists to work on Tesla's ideas. And there the trail runs cold. Hitler's Nazis failed to build a weapon capable of deploying Tesla's particle beam technology.'
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
'Was that the end of the story?' Calderón asked. 'Not quite.' Shepherd replied. 'But the facts have been hidden by the fog of war. In 1936, to mark Tesla's 80th birthday, the government of Yugoslavia founded the &lt;em&gt;Tesla Institute&lt;/em&gt; in Belgrade and granted Tesla a pension of $7200 a year. The &lt;em&gt;Tesla Institute&lt;/em&gt; had collected together all Tesla's published and unpublished material before his death in 1943 but these were impounded by the Americans at the end of the war. It took ten years for Tesla's relatives to wrest control of these valuable papers from the US authorities.'
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
'But how did they know it was all there.' Calderón asked. 'They didn't, of course. The Americans would only have released those papers that suited them. But this is only one part of the puzzle. In 1941 Yugoslavia had been overrun by the German army, at which point the Tesla archives fell into the hands of Himmler's SS. Himmler was interested in all forms of power and would have been the last person to miss the significance of this archive.' Shepherd arms fall down to his side. He has come to the end.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
'So that is that?' Calderón says. 'The research files disappear into the secret world of government and corporate laboratories, while Tesla becomes some sort of shadowy cult figure.'
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
'Yes. It has a familiar ring about it. Does it remind you of what happened to Wilhelm Reich experiments with weather control?’
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
‘You mean Reich’s cloud-busters [1] that landed him in gaol and got his books burned at the end of the 1940s?’ Calderón responded. ‘Well that’s not the whole story.’ Shepherd said. ‘The official case focused on his orgone accumulator. But Reich’s work is all of a piece. Anyway both Reich and Tesla have attracted attention. But there is a third man, a brilliant electrical engineer from Budapest where Tesla worked in the late eighteen hundreds who picked up on Tesla’s work in the 1930s and concentrated on extra-low-frequency electromagnetic transmission. His name was Lazlo Kovacs. What do you know of him?’
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
The trouble is that this information comes, not from a scientist or a historian, but from a novelist. And novelists are not accepted as credible sources even though Michael Crichton was the first person to testify before a &lt;em&gt;Senate Committee&lt;/em&gt; investigating scientific fraud at the &lt;em&gt;ICPP&lt;/em&gt;. As thrillers both &lt;a href="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2006/06/06/unnatural_disasters~858787"&gt;&lt;em&gt;State of Fear&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt; and Clive Cussler's &lt;a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_Shift_%28novel%29"&gt;&lt;em&gt;Polar Shift&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt; are marvellous reads, the kind of book I get through in a half a dozen sittings...and then have to catch up on a couple of weeks' sleep. But how good is their research. Peer review is a necessary condition for scientific authenticity and novelists don't do it. Anyway I'm wandering. Perhaps you can take it from here.’
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
‘What does anyone know about Kovacs? Even if he is the figment of a novelist's imagination, such is the nature of this subject, that there might have been many Kovacs at work all over Europe and America after the war.’ Calderón replied. So it may be instructive to continue with Cussler's character.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
‘Kovacs worried about his work. He reckoned that certain transmissions could be used to disrupt the atmosphere and produce severe weather and earthquakes. I read somewhere that he had actually developed a set of frequencies to focus electromagnetic resonance and use the surrounding material to amplify the effects. Apparently his findings were published and can be found in the scientific literature. He refused to make public the complete set of frequencies necessary to build a real device so other scientists were understandably pretty sceptical. But I have never followed any of this up in the literature.’
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
‘No but some people have. The Nazis were very open to ideas of mysticism, the occult and pseudoscience. Those stories about Nazi archaeologists searching for the Holy Grail are true. They pounced on Kovacs and kidnapped him and his family. After the war ended, it was disclosed that they had put him to work in a secret lab on a project to develop a super-weapon that would win the war.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
Papers uncovered after the war suggested that he was on the verge of an electromagnetic warfare breakthrough when the Russians overran his lab in East Prussia. Kovacs had disappeared but the Soviets carried out research based on the Kovacs Theorems, something the US was aware of. The significance of electromagnetic radiation has never been lost on the military. There was a big conference at Los Alamos to talk about applied weapons technology based on his work, which concluded that the manipulation of electromagnetic waves could be more devastating than a nuclear device. The military took Kovacs very seriously.’
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
‘Are you implying that the Kovacs Theorems were behind the testing of electromagnetic pulse weapons in 1991 in the first Gulf War?
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
‘The testing definitely took place and there are those who claim the Soviets conducted similar ones that caused earthquakes, volcanic eruptions and weather disturbances. Witnesses report bright light flashes in the sky and an &lt;em&gt;aurora borealis&lt;/em&gt;. There’s a great deal of controversy over a project called &lt;em&gt;HAARP&lt;/em&gt;, short for &lt;a href="http://www.cesc.net/adobeweb/climateweb/haarpeffects.pdf"&gt;&lt;em&gt;High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;, being carried out by the US. The idea is to shoot a focused electromagnetic beam into the ionosphere. It’s been billed as an academic programme to improve worldwide communications but some people speculate that the goals are military, from Star Wars defence to mind control. Whatever the truth, &lt;em&gt;HAARP’s&lt;/em&gt; roots are in Tesla’s coil and Kovacs theorems.’
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
A young woman and an older man came over and sat down beside Shepherd and Calderón. Shepherd turned to Calderón and introduced her as the ocean geologist Kerstin Henriksson. ‘And my colleague,’ said Henriksson, ‘is the Ukrainian physicist Petrov Goldberg’.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
‘Good timing Doctor Henriksson. Nice to meet you Petrov.’ Shepherd said. He turned back to Calderón. ‘Correct me if I’m wrong Kerstin but a Tesla coil is a resonant transformer made up of two coils which transfer pulses of energy between one another until they produce a lightning-like discharge.’
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
‘Close enough. How much do you know of our latest work? We are through with solid ground and the atmosphere and are now sending transmissions to the bottom of the ocean. Our amplified electromagnetic waves can penetrate deep into the earth’s crust. Our guess is that the transmissions can cause anomalies in the earth’s mantle in roughly the same way the &lt;em&gt;HAARP&lt;/em&gt; programme disturbs the atmosphere.’
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
‘What sort of anomalies?’ Calderón asked.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
‘Whirlpools and eddies.’
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
‘And then?’
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
‘The swirling molten layer under the earth's crust is what creates the magnetic field that surrounds the earth. Any disruption of the field has the potential to cause all sorts of disturbances. Of course on the face of it power from the Tesla-Kovacs spark plug will be puny compared to the mass of the earth. So you don’t deploy it this way. Instead you have perhaps a dozen of these devices spread out and concentrating their power on a small area. We think that might work and produce something a bit more than waves in a bathtub.’
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
Shepherd was looking grim. ‘So this is where Einstein’s letter to the President comes in.’
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
‘Einstein!’ exclaimed Calderón. ‘But his letter to Roosevelt was about nuclear weapons.’
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
‘You are half right,’ Shepherd responded. ‘His other letter was to Harry Truman. This one has never been published. In it he warned of the dangers of electromagnetic war based on Kovacs. Presidents do not ignore Einstein. Truman appointed a committee to look into it. Out of it came a research effort similar to the &lt;em&gt;Manhattan Project&lt;/em&gt;.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
‘We’ve heard that the Russians were pursuing the same line of research,’ Henriksson said.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
‘That’s right. By the mid-sixties the US and the Russians were neck and neck. The Russians concentrated on the land rather than the sky and created some earthquakes. After the big Alaskan quake the US retaliated and caused some floods and droughts in Russia. But this was only the warm-up. Scientists from both countries discovered about the same time that the combined force from their experiments could cause major changes in the earth’s electromagnetic field. A top secret meeting between the two countries was held on a remote island in the Bering Sea. Scientists and government officials attended. Both countries were presented with evidence showing the serious consequences of further experimentation using the Kovacs Theorems.’
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
‘How do you two know all this if it was so secret? Calderón asked.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
‘Kerstin was one of the participants,’ Shepherd replied. ‘And I have friends at &lt;em&gt;Draper Labs&lt;/em&gt; in the heart of the &lt;em&gt;MIT campus&lt;/em&gt;. We talk regularly and share our concerns.’
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
‘We agreed to end research and get back to lesser evils such as nuclear warfare.’ Henriksson added with a wry smile. ‘Hard to believe isn’t it. A nuclear holocaust as a lesser evil.’
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
‘Believe it.’ Shepherd leaned forward and lowered his voice as if the low railings around the herb garden were bugged. ‘Keeping the secret was considered of such consequence that a security apparatus was set up in each country. Anyone who became too inquisitive or knowledgeable about Kovacs and his work was discouraged or eliminated.’
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
‘A &lt;em&gt;Kovacs Society&lt;/em&gt; was established as part of the set-up,’ Henriksson remarked. ‘The reasoning was that it would be a first stop for someone interested in Kovacs’ work. Before the Berlin Wall came down one telephone call would get rid of anyone who got too curious. But nowadays disinformation and half-truths are placed on conspiracy websites instead which is just as effective and a lot less messy.’&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
‘But of course this does nothing for the threat itself which cannot be eliminated quite so easily,’ Shepherd added. ‘What scared everyone was the possibility that the electromagnetic manipulation would cause a shift of the earth’s poles. Constanza, you’re up on this. Explain how it could happen.’
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
‘The earth’s electromagnetic field is created by the spinning of the outer crust around the solid part of the inner core. Scientists at &lt;em&gt;Leipzig University&lt;/em&gt; developed a model that showed the earth as a gigantic dynamo. The heavy metals and liquid magma of the inner core electromagnet are the clutch. The lighter metals at the crust are the windings. The planet’s poles are determined by the electromagnetic charge. The magnetic poles tend to wander. Navigators take this phenomenon into account all the time. If one pole declines in strength, you might see an actual reversal of the magnetic north and south poles.’
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
‘Right,’ broke in Henriksson. ‘The effect would be disruptive but not catastrophic. Power grids would be knocked out, satellites rendered useless, compasses confused and atmospheric holes punched in the ozone allowing bursts of solar radiation to get through. You’d see the &lt;em&gt;aurora borealis&lt;/em&gt; farther south and migrating birds would be disoriented. But this would be nothing compared to the effects of a geological polar shift. Deep-ocean geologist know the effect of the earth’s crust moving over the inner core - the solid part moving over the liquid part - because it has happened before when a comet passed close to the earth.’
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
Shepherd took up the story. ‘A comet is one thing but man-made machinations causing physical changes is something else. Electromagnetism runs the universe. The earth is charged up like a huge electromagnet. Changes in the field can cause a shift in polarity. But it can also do something much worse than this. And this is what Kovacs homed in on in his research. Kerstin?’
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
‘We know two things about matter.’ Henriksson explained. ‘We know there could be twenty times more matter in the universe than we know about. And we know that matter oscillates between the matter and the energy state. Hollywood directors have figured out the consequences. By changing the electromagnetic field of the planet, the location of matter on the earth’s surface could change. The forces of inertia would react to this shift of matter.’
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
Calderón could keep still no longer. She jumped up and paced back and forth gesticulating energetically.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
‘My God! The waters in the world’s oceans and lakes would be jerked around like water in a cooking basin, pounding the coastlines. All electrical devices would fail. We’d have hurricanes and tornadoes of unheard-of force. The earth’s crust would break open causing huge earthquakes and volcanic eruptions and massive lava flows. Climate changes, radiation sickness, millions - billions - would die. Stalin and Hitler, Hiroshima and PolPot would pale by comparison. This is monstrous. Evil in its purest form. How dare…’
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
Shepherd interrupted her. ‘Time we went back in Constanza. Have I answered your question? What happened to your Catholic faith? Forgive them for they know not what they do might be more appropriate?’
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
Shepherd turned to Goldberg and Henriksson. ‘Petrov, what part do you play in all this?’
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
Petrov pondered the question for a moment. ‘Did you ever hear of the Russian &lt;em&gt;Woodpecker Project&lt;/em&gt;? It was an effort to control weather for military purposes using electromagnetic radiation. The US were following a similar line of research. And the Chinese are probably not far behind. And where China go Japan and Taiwan are sure to follow.’
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
‘How successful were these projects?’ Calderón asked.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
‘Over a period of time, there was a series of unusual weather events in both countries. They ranged from high winds and torrential rains to drought. Even earthquakes. I have been told on good authority that the research ended with the Cold War and the break-up of the Soviet Union. But it seems unlikely. Some disruption to budgets under Yeltsin. Sure. But Russian President Putin will have restored the programmes. The Russian military is skilled at defending its budgets and protecting its weapon programmes.’
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
‘We really must get back,’ Shepherd said. ‘I am sorry to rush you Petrov. I assume you are, or were, &lt;em&gt;KGB&lt;/em&gt;. We have quite a lot to talk about. But if I understand where you are heading, you suspect that today’s climate effects, if they turn out to be real, could be a hangover from &lt;em&gt;Woodpecker&lt;/em&gt;?’
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
‘Yes but there is something else. Many years ago Zbigniew Brzezinski, President Carter’s &lt;em&gt;Security Adviser&lt;/em&gt;, predicted that an elite class would arise, using modern technology to influence public behaviour and keep society under close surveillance and control. They would use social crises and the mass media to achieve their ends through secret warfare including weather modification. At the &lt;em&gt;KGB&lt;/em&gt; we concluded that such plotters would not advertise the fact but would instead lead people to believe that they opposed such an elite. My concern is that you might be looking the wrong way.’
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
&lt;strong&gt;Endnotes&lt;/strong&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;[1] Tom Graves discusses Reich’s experiments with cloud control (and UFO dispersal) in &lt;em&gt;Needles of Stone&lt;/em&gt; (see pages 101-104 in the 30th Anniversary Edition published by Grey House in the Woods in 2008; ISBN 0-9540531-X). Graves remarks that ‘…Reich’s persecution by the American authorities  led to his death in prison in 1957, following a questionable legal action against Reich by the &lt;em&gt;Federal Food and Drugs Administration&lt;/em&gt;’ who destroyed most of Reich’s equipment and research records on the ‘unproven and largely untested grounds that his work was fraudulent’. Many of his works are still banned in the United States today. In an endnote to the 2008 edition, Graves expands on his original comments. ‘The Administration based its charge of fraud on the grounds that its scientists had found that Reich’s accumulators could not work with any of the physical energies they knew and understood,’ (something with which Reich agreed) ‘and therefore could not work at all’. (a rather unscientific deduction that according to Reich flew in the face of the facts as available in his experimental data). [Ed]  &lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p class="right"&gt;&lt;a href="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2008/07/24/shepherd-on-climate-list-of-contents-4491538"&gt;&lt;em&gt;more from Shepherd on Climate&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt; &lt;small&gt; &lt;a href="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2007/08/03/climate_weapons~2747984/#comments"&gt;Comments&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/small&gt; &lt;/p&gt;</default:description><content:encoded xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"><![CDATA[	<p>
Shepherd turned to Calderón. ‘Come on Constanza. Time out. Let’s go outside for lunch. We need some fresh air. Did you think any of that was getting through?’
</p>
	<p>
‘Oh yes,’ Constanza replied. ‘People are always persuaded by you. But most of them are always persuaded by the last person they listened to. The real question is whether any of it sticks.’
</p>
	<p>
‘I think the scepticism…the attitude…sticks and acts as an inoculation. Coleridge divided readers into four categories: sponges who absorb all they read and return it nearly in the same state, only a little dirtied; sand-glasses who retain nothing, and are content to get through a book for the sake of getting through the time; strain-bags who retain merely the dregs of what they read; and mogul diamonds, equally rare and valuable, who profit by what they read and enable others to profit by it also.’
</p>
	<p>
‘I have another question before we veer off at a tangent about Romantic Poets. Whenever I hear you talking about climate change you censure any mention of the role of the military and their climate weapon development programmes. But you always include it whenever you write about the risks of climate change. In fact your first strategic bullet point is always ‘We will outlaw the use and development of climate weapons immediately’. What is actually going on?’
</p>
	<p>
Shepherd stopped and turned to Calderón. She held his gaze. ‘The first question is easy to answer. I don’t talk about it because I am uncertain of my facts. Your second question is harder to answer. I need a Deep Throat or a whistleblower. What is actually going on? The quick answer is ‘I don’t know.’ What have you managed to turn up? We have twenty minutes. Perhaps we should compare notes. Let’s sit over there by the herb garden. You go first. Let us try to agree about the background. Not right back to the Armada and the claims that the Wessex witches created the storm that scattered the Spanish fleet. But more recently.’
</p>
	<p>
‘How about starting with Tesla?’ Calderón suggested.
</p>
	<p>
‘Good idea. Tesla filed a bunch of wild patents for an unmanned electrically propelled aircraft that could fly at eighteen thousand miles per hour and could be used as a weapon. He came up with something called teleforce, which was a death ray that could melt airplane engines at a distance of two hundred and fifty miles. He did a lot of work on wireless transmission of electricity. He was fascinated by the possibility of focusing electrical force and amplifying its effect. He even claimed to have once produced an earthquake from his lab. Take it from there.’
</p>
	<p>
‘In a moment. But let’s stay with the Wessex witches. You asked for something more recent. The <em>Great Crash</em> on the <em>London Stock Exchange</em> in 1987 coincided with the <em>Great Storm</em> in the south of England. There were several very puzzling things about this storm of twenty years ago.
</p>
	<p>
For starters the weathermen completely failed to predict the hurricane. In fact the <em>English Weather Service</em> went out of the way to pour scorn on a report from a French weather station because they could see little in the weather conditions prior to the storm to suggest a meteorological horror show was on the way.
</p>
	<p>
But then quite suddenly across southern Britain and on the other side of the channel in northern Brittany, the storm hit with devastating results. In southern England, some fifteen million trees were felled and three million households left without electricity.
</p>
	<p>
Among this devastation, the worst damage was concentrated in a path just thirty miles wide. Why such a narrow zone? This remained a mystery until satellite pictures of the storm were re-examined and an unusual cloud, hooked like a scorpion’s tail, was discovered among the swirling mass of storm clouds. It seems that this scorpion-shaped cloud packed a nasty sting: superfast winds dubbed a ‘sting jet’.
</p>
	<p>
The phenomenon had been spawned some two and a half miles high in the sky. Cold air plunged down through the tops of the storm clouds which were packed with snow and ice. This turned the air drier, colder and so dense that the air accelerated downwards like an avalanche bursting down a mountainside, until it smashed into the ground with winds reaching up to a hundred miles an hour.
</p>
	<p>
Other intense Atlantic storms have been revealed with sting jets, and all have a common feature - an explosive drop in atmospheric pressure. They are not common but have been estimated to cause six hundred million pounds of damage across Europe each year.’
</p>
	<p>
‘Interesting,’ mumbled Shepherd, although he appeared to be only half-listening. ‘Tesla could simply have been ahead of his time as far as ballistics missiles and lasers are concerned.’ He said eventually. ‘His concepts were sound. Indeed his influence upon the electrification of technology cannot be overestimated. Do we have time for a run-through of the work of this Croatian genius? Constanza nodded. 'So, where to start?'  Shepherd said, rubbing his eyes with the palms of his hands. 'Let's go back a hundred years.'
</p>
	<p>
'In 1899, during his experiments with phenomenally-high voltage equipment, Tesla experienced the effects of artificial ball lightning which appears as a glowing spherical mass of incandescent plasma that floats into houses and along telephone or power cables, passing through glass windows without affecting the glass. Tubs of water can be brought swiftly to the boil when ball lightning drops into them. Witnesses to ball lightning include Niels Bohr; the director of MIT, Victor Weisskopf, and even former US Secretary of State, Dean Acheson, who reported seeing ball lightning cross the breakfast table aboard the presidential plane. Anything to add?'
</p>
	<p>
'I read an article recently about <em>Hill Airforce Missile Radiographic Facility</em> in Utah,'Calderón said. 'Apparently the phenomenon occurs regularly at some places and during the 1970s ball lightning formed about once a year inside Building 985. A great volleyball-sized ball of blue fire would drop out of space next to the high voltage supply of a linear accelerator, float down to the floor, roll about at random and then suddenly rise again to the power source where it dissipated. On one occasion, lightning struck the building, and at the same moment, an intense sphere of fire about the size of a tennis ball formed above a power conduit on the wall. It moved along the wall for about thirty feet, floated out and around the neck and shoulders of a technician standing nearby, moved back to the wall and continued on its way for several feet until it reached a junction box, where it exploded causing major electrical damage.'
</p>
	<p>
'Just one of many similar stories,' Shepherd said and continued. 'Ball lightning appears to be another form of power transmission, somehow connected with the earth, or in the case of artificial ball lightning, the power source causing it. At his Colorado Springs laboratory, Tesla was working on a related phenomenon, electricity transmission of power without wires. On one occasion he managed to transmit enough power to light up 200 fifty-watt light bulbs twenty six miles away.'
</p>
	<p>
'He then decided to follow up on Benjamin Franklin's investigation of natural lightning by monitoring the movement of lightning during a thunderstorm. To Tesla's surprise he discovered that the lightning organised itself into standing waves and he believed that it should be possible to build a transmitter capable of picking up the energy in these standing lightning wave, pump it into the ground and retrieve the energy again at fixed harmonic distances from the transmitter. It was an audacious idea.'
</p>
	<p>
'Anyway over the next few decades Tesla pushed further and further away from any of the known science of his day in his quest for electricity that would be too cheap to meter. Then on 1st July 1934 he announced to  that he had perfected a 'death ray' that spelt the end of war. He had found a way to transmit concentrated beams of particles at tremendous speed through free air.'
</p>
	<p>
'Tesla claimed that the charged particles in the beam could destroy any enemy aircraft and even burn a spot on the moon. Apparently in 1937 he offered his invention to the British government who supposedly turned it down. But the genie was out of the bottle and the Germans got wind of it and immediately put their top scientists to work on Tesla's ideas. And there the trail runs cold. Hitler's Nazis failed to build a weapon capable of deploying Tesla's particle beam technology.'
</p>
	<p>
'Was that the end of the story?' Calderón asked. 'Not quite.' Shepherd replied. 'But the facts have been hidden by the fog of war. In 1936, to mark Tesla's 80th birthday, the government of Yugoslavia founded the <em>Tesla Institute</em> in Belgrade and granted Tesla a pension of $7200 a year. The <em>Tesla Institute</em> had collected together all Tesla's published and unpublished material before his death in 1943 but these were impounded by the Americans at the end of the war. It took ten years for Tesla's relatives to wrest control of these valuable papers from the US authorities.'
</p>
	<p>
'But how did they know it was all there.' Calderón asked. 'They didn't, of course. The Americans would only have released those papers that suited them. But this is only one part of the puzzle. In 1941 Yugoslavia had been overrun by the German army, at which point the Tesla archives fell into the hands of Himmler's SS. Himmler was interested in all forms of power and would have been the last person to miss the significance of this archive.' Shepherd arms fall down to his side. He has come to the end.
</p>
	<p>
'So that is that?' Calderón says. 'The research files disappear into the secret world of government and corporate laboratories, while Tesla becomes some sort of shadowy cult figure.'
</p>
	<p>
'Yes. It has a familiar ring about it. Does it remind you of what happened to Wilhelm Reich experiments with weather control?’
</p>
	<p>
‘You mean Reich’s cloud-busters [1] that landed him in gaol and got his books burned at the end of the 1940s?’ Calderón responded. ‘Well that’s not the whole story.’ Shepherd said. ‘The official case focused on his orgone accumulator. But Reich’s work is all of a piece. Anyway both Reich and Tesla have attracted attention. But there is a third man, a brilliant electrical engineer from Budapest where Tesla worked in the late eighteen hundreds who picked up on Tesla’s work in the 1930s and concentrated on extra-low-frequency electromagnetic transmission. His name was Lazlo Kovacs. What do you know of him?’
</p>
	<p>
The trouble is that this information comes, not from a scientist or a historian, but from a novelist. And novelists are not accepted as credible sources even though Michael Crichton was the first person to testify before a <em>Senate Committee</em> investigating scientific fraud at the <em>ICPP</em>. As thrillers both <a href="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2006/06/06/unnatural_disasters~858787"><em>State of Fear</em></a> and Clive Cussler's <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_Shift_%28novel%29"><em>Polar Shift</em></a> are marvellous reads, the kind of book I get through in a half a dozen sittings...and then have to catch up on a couple of weeks' sleep. But how good is their research. Peer review is a necessary condition for scientific authenticity and novelists don't do it. Anyway I'm wandering. Perhaps you can take it from here.’
</p>
	<p>
‘What does anyone know about Kovacs? Even if he is the figment of a novelist's imagination, such is the nature of this subject, that there might have been many Kovacs at work all over Europe and America after the war.’ Calderón replied. So it may be instructive to continue with Cussler's character.
</p>
	<p>
‘Kovacs worried about his work. He reckoned that certain transmissions could be used to disrupt the atmosphere and produce severe weather and earthquakes. I read somewhere that he had actually developed a set of frequencies to focus electromagnetic resonance and use the surrounding material to amplify the effects. Apparently his findings were published and can be found in the scientific literature. He refused to make public the complete set of frequencies necessary to build a real device so other scientists were understandably pretty sceptical. But I have never followed any of this up in the literature.’
</p>
	<p>
‘No but some people have. The Nazis were very open to ideas of mysticism, the occult and pseudoscience. Those stories about Nazi archaeologists searching for the Holy Grail are true. They pounced on Kovacs and kidnapped him and his family. After the war ended, it was disclosed that they had put him to work in a secret lab on a project to develop a super-weapon that would win the war.
</p>
	<p>
Papers uncovered after the war suggested that he was on the verge of an electromagnetic warfare breakthrough when the Russians overran his lab in East Prussia. Kovacs had disappeared but the Soviets carried out research based on the Kovacs Theorems, something the US was aware of. The significance of electromagnetic radiation has never been lost on the military. There was a big conference at Los Alamos to talk about applied weapons technology based on his work, which concluded that the manipulation of electromagnetic waves could be more devastating than a nuclear device. The military took Kovacs very seriously.’
</p>
	<p>
‘Are you implying that the Kovacs Theorems were behind the testing of electromagnetic pulse weapons in 1991 in the first Gulf War?
</p>
	<p>
‘The testing definitely took place and there are those who claim the Soviets conducted similar ones that caused earthquakes, volcanic eruptions and weather disturbances. Witnesses report bright light flashes in the sky and an <em>aurora borealis</em>. There’s a great deal of controversy over a project called <em>HAARP</em>, short for <a href="http://www.cesc.net/adobeweb/climateweb/haarpeffects.pdf"><em>High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program</em></a>, being carried out by the US. The idea is to shoot a focused electromagnetic beam into the ionosphere. It’s been billed as an academic programme to improve worldwide communications but some people speculate that the goals are military, from Star Wars defence to mind control. Whatever the truth, <em>HAARP’s</em> roots are in Tesla’s coil and Kovacs theorems.’
</p>
	<p>
A young woman and an older man came over and sat down beside Shepherd and Calderón. Shepherd turned to Calderón and introduced her as the ocean geologist Kerstin Henriksson. ‘And my colleague,’ said Henriksson, ‘is the Ukrainian physicist Petrov Goldberg’.
</p>
	<p>
‘Good timing Doctor Henriksson. Nice to meet you Petrov.’ Shepherd said. He turned back to Calderón. ‘Correct me if I’m wrong Kerstin but a Tesla coil is a resonant transformer made up of two coils which transfer pulses of energy between one another until they produce a lightning-like discharge.’
</p>
	<p>
‘Close enough. How much do you know of our latest work? We are through with solid ground and the atmosphere and are now sending transmissions to the bottom of the ocean. Our amplified electromagnetic waves can penetrate deep into the earth’s crust. Our guess is that the transmissions can cause anomalies in the earth’s mantle in roughly the same way the <em>HAARP</em> programme disturbs the atmosphere.’
</p>
	<p>
‘What sort of anomalies?’ Calderón asked.
</p>
	<p>
‘Whirlpools and eddies.’
</p>
	<p>
‘And then?’
</p>
	<p>
‘The swirling molten layer under the earth's crust is what creates the magnetic field that surrounds the earth. Any disruption of the field has the potential to cause all sorts of disturbances. Of course on the face of it power from the Tesla-Kovacs spark plug will be puny compared to the mass of the earth. So you don’t deploy it this way. Instead you have perhaps a dozen of these devices spread out and concentrating their power on a small area. We think that might work and produce something a bit more than waves in a bathtub.’
</p>
	<p>
Shepherd was looking grim. ‘So this is where Einstein’s letter to the President comes in.’
</p>
	<p>
‘Einstein!’ exclaimed Calderón. ‘But his letter to Roosevelt was about nuclear weapons.’
</p>
	<p>
‘You are half right,’ Shepherd responded. ‘His other letter was to Harry Truman. This one has never been published. In it he warned of the dangers of electromagnetic war based on Kovacs. Presidents do not ignore Einstein. Truman appointed a committee to look into it. Out of it came a research effort similar to the <em>Manhattan Project</em>.
</p>
	<p>
‘We’ve heard that the Russians were pursuing the same line of research,’ Henriksson said.
</p>
	<p>
‘That’s right. By the mid-sixties the US and the Russians were neck and neck. The Russians concentrated on the land rather than the sky and created some earthquakes. After the big Alaskan quake the US retaliated and caused some floods and droughts in Russia. But this was only the warm-up. Scientists from both countries discovered about the same time that the combined force from their experiments could cause major changes in the earth’s electromagnetic field. A top secret meeting between the two countries was held on a remote island in the Bering Sea. Scientists and government officials attended. Both countries were presented with evidence showing the serious consequences of further experimentation using the Kovacs Theorems.’
</p>
	<p>
‘How do you two know all this if it was so secret? Calderón asked.
</p>
	<p>
‘Kerstin was one of the participants,’ Shepherd replied. ‘And I have friends at <em>Draper Labs</em> in the heart of the <em>MIT campus</em>. We talk regularly and share our concerns.’
</p>
	<p>
‘We agreed to end research and get back to lesser evils such as nuclear warfare.’ Henriksson added with a wry smile. ‘Hard to believe isn’t it. A nuclear holocaust as a lesser evil.’
</p>
	<p>
‘Believe it.’ Shepherd leaned forward and lowered his voice as if the low railings around the herb garden were bugged. ‘Keeping the secret was considered of such consequence that a security apparatus was set up in each country. Anyone who became too inquisitive or knowledgeable about Kovacs and his work was discouraged or eliminated.’
</p>
	<p>
‘A <em>Kovacs Society</em> was established as part of the set-up,’ Henriksson remarked. ‘The reasoning was that it would be a first stop for someone interested in Kovacs’ work. Before the Berlin Wall came down one telephone call would get rid of anyone who got too curious. But nowadays disinformation and half-truths are placed on conspiracy websites instead which is just as effective and a lot less messy.’</p>
	<p>
‘But of course this does nothing for the threat itself which cannot be eliminated quite so easily,’ Shepherd added. ‘What scared everyone was the possibility that the electromagnetic manipulation would cause a shift of the earth’s poles. Constanza, you’re up on this. Explain how it could happen.’
</p>
	<p>
‘The earth’s electromagnetic field is created by the spinning of the outer crust around the solid part of the inner core. Scientists at <em>Leipzig University</em> developed a model that showed the earth as a gigantic dynamo. The heavy metals and liquid magma of the inner core electromagnet are the clutch. The lighter metals at the crust are the windings. The planet’s poles are determined by the electromagnetic charge. The magnetic poles tend to wander. Navigators take this phenomenon into account all the time. If one pole declines in strength, you might see an actual reversal of the magnetic north and south poles.’
</p>
	<p>
‘Right,’ broke in Henriksson. ‘The effect would be disruptive but not catastrophic. Power grids would be knocked out, satellites rendered useless, compasses confused and atmospheric holes punched in the ozone allowing bursts of solar radiation to get through. You’d see the <em>aurora borealis</em> farther south and migrating birds would be disoriented. But this would be nothing compared to the effects of a geological polar shift. Deep-ocean geologist know the effect of the earth’s crust moving over the inner core - the solid part moving over the liquid part - because it has happened before when a comet passed close to the earth.’
</p>
	<p>
Shepherd took up the story. ‘A comet is one thing but man-made machinations causing physical changes is something else. Electromagnetism runs the universe. The earth is charged up like a huge electromagnet. Changes in the field can cause a shift in polarity. But it can also do something much worse than this. And this is what Kovacs homed in on in his research. Kerstin?’
</p>
	<p>
‘We know two things about matter.’ Henriksson explained. ‘We know there could be twenty times more matter in the universe than we know about. And we know that matter oscillates between the matter and the energy state. Hollywood directors have figured out the consequences. By changing the electromagnetic field of the planet, the location of matter on the earth’s surface could change. The forces of inertia would react to this shift of matter.’
</p>
	<p>
Calderón could keep still no longer. She jumped up and paced back and forth gesticulating energetically.
</p>
	<p>
‘My God! The waters in the world’s oceans and lakes would be jerked around like water in a cooking basin, pounding the coastlines. All electrical devices would fail. We’d have hurricanes and tornadoes of unheard-of force. The earth’s crust would break open causing huge earthquakes and volcanic eruptions and massive lava flows. Climate changes, radiation sickness, millions - billions - would die. Stalin and Hitler, Hiroshima and PolPot would pale by comparison. This is monstrous. Evil in its purest form. How dare…’
</p>
	<p>
Shepherd interrupted her. ‘Time we went back in Constanza. Have I answered your question? What happened to your Catholic faith? Forgive them for they know not what they do might be more appropriate?’
</p>
	<p>
Shepherd turned to Goldberg and Henriksson. ‘Petrov, what part do you play in all this?’
</p>
	<p>
Petrov pondered the question for a moment. ‘Did you ever hear of the Russian <em>Woodpecker Project</em>? It was an effort to control weather for military purposes using electromagnetic radiation. The US were following a similar line of research. And the Chinese are probably not far behind. And where China go Japan and Taiwan are sure to follow.’
</p>
	<p>
‘How successful were these projects?’ Calderón asked.
</p>
	<p>
‘Over a period of time, there was a series of unusual weather events in both countries. They ranged from high winds and torrential rains to drought. Even earthquakes. I have been told on good authority that the research ended with the Cold War and the break-up of the Soviet Union. But it seems unlikely. Some disruption to budgets under Yeltsin. Sure. But Russian President Putin will have restored the programmes. The Russian military is skilled at defending its budgets and protecting its weapon programmes.’
</p>
	<p>
‘We really must get back,’ Shepherd said. ‘I am sorry to rush you Petrov. I assume you are, or were, <em>KGB</em>. We have quite a lot to talk about. But if I understand where you are heading, you suspect that today’s climate effects, if they turn out to be real, could be a hangover from <em>Woodpecker</em>?’
</p>
	<p>
‘Yes but there is something else. Many years ago Zbigniew Brzezinski, President Carter’s <em>Security Adviser</em>, predicted that an elite class would arise, using modern technology to influence public behaviour and keep society under close surveillance and control. They would use social crises and the mass media to achieve their ends through secret warfare including weather modification. At the <em>KGB</em> we concluded that such plotters would not advertise the fact but would instead lead people to believe that they opposed such an elite. My concern is that you might be looking the wrong way.’
</p>
	<p>
<strong>Endnotes</strong>
</p>
	<p>[1] Tom Graves discusses Reich’s experiments with cloud control (and UFO dispersal) in <em>Needles of Stone</em> (see pages 101-104 in the 30th Anniversary Edition published by Grey House in the Woods in 2008; ISBN 0-9540531-X). Graves remarks that ‘…Reich’s persecution by the American authorities  led to his death in prison in 1957, following a questionable legal action against Reich by the <em>Federal Food and Drugs Administration</em>’ who destroyed most of Reich’s equipment and research records on the ‘unproven and largely untested grounds that his work was fraudulent’. Many of his works are still banned in the United States today. In an endnote to the 2008 edition, Graves expands on his original comments. ‘The Administration based its charge of fraud on the grounds that its scientists had found that Reich’s accumulators could not work with any of the physical energies they knew and understood,’ (something with which Reich agreed) ‘and therefore could not work at all’. (a rather unscientific deduction that according to Reich flew in the face of the facts as available in his experimental data). [Ed]  </p>
	<p class="right"><a href="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2008/07/24/shepherd-on-climate-list-of-contents-4491538"><em>more from Shepherd on Climate</em></a>
</p>
<p> <small> <a href="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2007/08/03/climate_weapons~2747984/#comments">Comments</a> </small> </p>]]></content:encoded></default:item><default:item xmlns:default="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" rdf:about="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2007/04/23/treetalk~2145572/"><default:title>Treetalk</default:title><default:link>http://climate.blog.co.uk/2007/04/23/treetalk~2145572/</default:link><dc:date xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">2007-04-23T12:37:26+02:00</dc:date><default:description>	&lt;p&gt;
Photosynthesis enables trees to take carbon dioxide in through their leaves and swap it for oxygen. They use the sequestered carbon to make molecules like cellulose and thus more trees. So rich people who love to burn things containing carbon…like petrol and aircraft fuel…pay others to plant trees on their behalf on the assumption that planting trees cools the world down. Nice idea but probably wrong.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
Trees being generally green and bristly remain quite a dark shade even after a blizzard. They are certainly darker than grasslands smothered in snow. Thus they can absorb more of the sun’s heat than vegetation which might otherwise cover the same stretch of land.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
Then there is transpiration…the process by which plants suck up groundwater and evaporate it into the atmosphere. Woodlands are usually better than other ecosystems at getting water vapour into the air. In warm places this tends to make things cloudier and those clouds in turn reflect the sun’s heat back into space.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
Dr Govindasamy Bala at the &lt;em&gt;Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory&lt;/em&gt; in California has built a computer model to reflect these realities. Unlike most climate-change models…with their list of greenhouse gas absorbing and radiating heat…Dr Bala’s &lt;em&gt;Integrated Climate and Carbon Model (ICC)&lt;/em&gt; has sub-sections that represent how the carbon cycle actually works…and how it influences climate. Thus Dr Bala’s model can be told to replace all the world’s forests with shrubby grasslands and work out how such a change would influence the temperature in different places on the planet.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
Perhaps one day &lt;em&gt;HAL&lt;/em&gt; or &lt;em&gt;Deep Thought&lt;/em&gt;…or some other clever offspring of the &lt;em&gt;ICC&lt;/em&gt; computer model…might have a sector for people. People produce five times as much carbon dioxide as industry…they breath in oxygen and breathe out carbon dioxide…so an alternative strategy for rich people who like flying off to far-flung places would be to slaughter three-quarters of the world’s population…although then they would have no one to drive their aeroplanes. But back to Dr Bula’s forests.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
When Dr Bala ordered global clear-cutting, his model calculated that the carbon dioxide levels would double by 2100…and produce not global warming but nuclear winter. Here is why. Brighter high latitudes reflect more sunlight in winter cooling the environment but because the tropics are less cloudy they warm up. Dr Bala’s computer predicts that a treeless world would be a degree or so cooler. His findings were published recently in the &lt;em&gt;Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences&lt;/em&gt;.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
Of course the more sceptical among us have to wonder if Dr Bula made any allowance for all the sheep that would find their way onto the new grasslands after their subsequent enclosure by the rich and powerful. England has as many sheep as people. Sheep give out greenhouse gases from both ends of their anatomy…carbon dioxide from one end and methane from the other. Then there are cows and horses, dogs and cats. Cows are responsible for a third of Ireland’s greenhouse gas emissions. And England is famous for having more cats than people. But let us stay with its forests and woodlands. Should it be public policy to hound the &lt;em&gt;Carbon Offsetters&lt;/em&gt; out of business? Regrettably the real world is not so simple.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
According to the &lt;em&gt;Livermore Model&lt;/em&gt; cutting down trees in Russia and Canada leads to local cooling but the released carbon dioxide spreads itself about and warms the whole world. But around the equator warming acts locally as well as globally so tropical countries warms themselves up when they let in the loggers. Offsetting is double or quits for the Amazon rain forest…but hypocrisy in Europe and North America.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
On the other hand computers are nothing more than great big dumb calculating machines where garbage in guarantees garbage out. The more expensive the computer, the faster the doctored data gets pumped in and the sooner half-baked nonsense pours out. Scientists are beginning to lack all credibility. It is already necessary for research findings to carry government health warnings that might go something like this.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
‘Predictions based on computer modelling. Half of all scientific predictions may be wrong but unfortunately nobody has the foggiest idea which half. For budgeting purposes please assume that temperatures can go down as well as up but unfortunately nobody has a clue when and where and by how much. Design criteria should be based on fuzziness and redundancy. Effective rapid response capabilities should be in place to deal with problems as and when and where they arise. When in doubt don’t just do something stand there.’
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
In other words quit meddling with the planet and stop trying to control its climate.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p class="right"&gt;&lt;a href="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2008/07/24/shepherd-on-climate-list-of-contents-4491538"&gt;&lt;em&gt;more from Shepherd on Climate&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt; &lt;small&gt; &lt;a href="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2007/04/23/treetalk~2145572/#comments"&gt;Comments&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/small&gt; &lt;/p&gt;</default:description><content:encoded xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"><![CDATA[	<p>
Photosynthesis enables trees to take carbon dioxide in through their leaves and swap it for oxygen. They use the sequestered carbon to make molecules like cellulose and thus more trees. So rich people who love to burn things containing carbon…like petrol and aircraft fuel…pay others to plant trees on their behalf on the assumption that planting trees cools the world down. Nice idea but probably wrong.
</p>
	<p>
Trees being generally green and bristly remain quite a dark shade even after a blizzard. They are certainly darker than grasslands smothered in snow. Thus they can absorb more of the sun’s heat than vegetation which might otherwise cover the same stretch of land.
</p>
	<p>
Then there is transpiration…the process by which plants suck up groundwater and evaporate it into the atmosphere. Woodlands are usually better than other ecosystems at getting water vapour into the air. In warm places this tends to make things cloudier and those clouds in turn reflect the sun’s heat back into space.
</p>
	<p>
Dr Govindasamy Bala at the <em>Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory</em> in California has built a computer model to reflect these realities. Unlike most climate-change models…with their list of greenhouse gas absorbing and radiating heat…Dr Bala’s <em>Integrated Climate and Carbon Model (ICC)</em> has sub-sections that represent how the carbon cycle actually works…and how it influences climate. Thus Dr Bala’s model can be told to replace all the world’s forests with shrubby grasslands and work out how such a change would influence the temperature in different places on the planet.
</p>
	<p>
Perhaps one day <em>HAL</em> or <em>Deep Thought</em>…or some other clever offspring of the <em>ICC</em> computer model…might have a sector for people. People produce five times as much carbon dioxide as industry…they breath in oxygen and breathe out carbon dioxide…so an alternative strategy for rich people who like flying off to far-flung places would be to slaughter three-quarters of the world’s population…although then they would have no one to drive their aeroplanes. But back to Dr Bula’s forests.
</p>
	<p>
When Dr Bala ordered global clear-cutting, his model calculated that the carbon dioxide levels would double by 2100…and produce not global warming but nuclear winter. Here is why. Brighter high latitudes reflect more sunlight in winter cooling the environment but because the tropics are less cloudy they warm up. Dr Bala’s computer predicts that a treeless world would be a degree or so cooler. His findings were published recently in the <em>Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences</em>.
</p>
	<p>
Of course the more sceptical among us have to wonder if Dr Bula made any allowance for all the sheep that would find their way onto the new grasslands after their subsequent enclosure by the rich and powerful. England has as many sheep as people. Sheep give out greenhouse gases from both ends of their anatomy…carbon dioxide from one end and methane from the other. Then there are cows and horses, dogs and cats. Cows are responsible for a third of Ireland’s greenhouse gas emissions. And England is famous for having more cats than people. But let us stay with its forests and woodlands. Should it be public policy to hound the <em>Carbon Offsetters</em> out of business? Regrettably the real world is not so simple.
</p>
	<p>
According to the <em>Livermore Model</em> cutting down trees in Russia and Canada leads to local cooling but the released carbon dioxide spreads itself about and warms the whole world. But around the equator warming acts locally as well as globally so tropical countries warms themselves up when they let in the loggers. Offsetting is double or quits for the Amazon rain forest…but hypocrisy in Europe and North America.
</p>
	<p>
On the other hand computers are nothing more than great big dumb calculating machines where garbage in guarantees garbage out. The more expensive the computer, the faster the doctored data gets pumped in and the sooner half-baked nonsense pours out. Scientists are beginning to lack all credibility. It is already necessary for research findings to carry government health warnings that might go something like this.
</p>
	<p>
‘Predictions based on computer modelling. Half of all scientific predictions may be wrong but unfortunately nobody has the foggiest idea which half. For budgeting purposes please assume that temperatures can go down as well as up but unfortunately nobody has a clue when and where and by how much. Design criteria should be based on fuzziness and redundancy. Effective rapid response capabilities should be in place to deal with problems as and when and where they arise. When in doubt don’t just do something stand there.’
</p>
	<p>
In other words quit meddling with the planet and stop trying to control its climate.
</p>
	<p class="right"><a href="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2008/07/24/shepherd-on-climate-list-of-contents-4491538"><em>more from Shepherd on Climate</em></a>
</p>
<p> <small> <a href="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2007/04/23/treetalk~2145572/#comments">Comments</a> </small> </p>]]></content:encoded></default:item><default:item xmlns:default="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" rdf:about="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2006/11/13/consensus_statistics~1324679/"><default:title>Consensus Statistics</default:title><default:link>http://climate.blog.co.uk/2006/11/13/consensus_statistics~1324679/</default:link><dc:date xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">2006-11-13T11:14:09+01:00</dc:date><default:description>	&lt;p&gt;
&lt;em&gt;Dr Benny Peiser&lt;/em&gt; is a social anthropologist at &lt;em&gt;Liverpool John Moores University&lt;/em&gt; and the editor of the &lt;em&gt;Cambridge Conference Network (CCNet)&lt;/em&gt;. His research focuses on the effects of environmental change and catastrophic events on contemporary thought and societal evolution. In my 17/5 blog…posted to my climate blog as &lt;em&gt;Majority Against Orthodoxy&lt;/em&gt;…I mentioned his analysis of scientific papers on &lt;em&gt;Climate Change &lt;/em&gt;which Dr Dennis Bray of the &lt;em&gt;German&lt;/em&gt;-based &lt;em&gt;GKSS National Research Centre &lt;/em&gt;checked out and endorsed. The &lt;em&gt;Peiser Analysis &lt;/em&gt;concluded that dissenters were in a healthy majority. Here is my edited version of the letter Peisner sent to &lt;em&gt;Science Magazine &lt;/em&gt;for publication.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
‘On December 3rd 2004, only days before the start of the &lt;em&gt;10th UN Conference on Climate Change&lt;/em&gt;, &lt;em&gt;Science Magazine &lt;/em&gt;published the results of a study by Naomi Oreskes. For the first time, empirical evidence was presented that appeared to show a unanimous scientific consensus on the anthropogenic causes of recent &lt;em&gt;Global Warming&lt;/em&gt;.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
Oreskes claims to have analysed 928 abstracts she found listed on the &lt;em&gt;ISI Database&lt;/em&gt; using the keywords "climate change". However, a search on the &lt;em&gt;ISI Database &lt;/em&gt;using the keywords "climate change" for the years 1993-2003 reveals that almost 12 000 papers were published during the decade in question. What happened to the countless research papers that show that global temperatures were similar or even higher during the &lt;em&gt;Holocene Climate Optimum&lt;/em&gt; and the &lt;em&gt;Medieval Warm Period&lt;/em&gt; when atmospheric &lt;em&gt;CO2&lt;/em&gt; levels were much lower than today; that &lt;em&gt;Solar Variability &lt;/em&gt;is a key driver of recent climate change; and that &lt;em&gt;Climate Modelling &lt;/em&gt;is highly uncertain?
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
These objections were put to Oreskes by science writer David Appell. On 15 December 2004 she admitted that there was indeed a serious mistake in her &lt;em&gt;Science&lt;/em&gt; essay. According to Oreskes her study was not based on the keywords "climate change" but on "global climate change". Her use of three keywords instead of two reduced the list of peer reviewed publications by one order of magnitude. On the &lt;em&gt;UK ISI Databank&lt;/em&gt; the keyword search "global climate change" comes up with 1247 documents. Since the results looked questionable I replicated the &lt;em&gt;Oreskes Study &lt;/em&gt;by analysing all abstracts listed on the &lt;em&gt;ISI Databank &lt;/em&gt;for 1993 to 2003 using Oreskes’ keywords.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
1117 of the 1247 documents listed included abstracts…130 listed only titles, author' details and keywords. The 1117 abstracts analysed were divided into Oreskes’ six categories plus two which I added: explicit endorsement of the consensus position; evaluation of impacts; mitigation proposals; methods; paleoclimate analysis; rejection of the consensus position; natural factors of global climate change and unrelated to the recent global climate change issues.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
My results contradict Oreskes' findings and essentially falsify her study: Only 13 (1%) of the 1117 abstracts explicitly endorse the &lt;em&gt;Consensus View&lt;/em&gt;. 322 abstracts (29%) implicitly accept the &lt;em&gt;Consensus View&lt;/em&gt; but mainly focus on impact assessments of envisaged global climate change. 89 (less than 10%) focus on mitigation; 67 on methodological questions; 87 deal exclusively with paleo-climatological research unrelated to recent climate change; 34 reject or doubt the view that human activities are the main drivers of the ‘the observed warming over the last 50 years’ and 44 focus on natural factors of global climate change. 470 abstracts (42%) include the keywords "global climate change" but do not include links or reference to greenhouse gas emissions or anthropogenic forcing of recent climate change.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
According to Oreskes, 695 of the 928 abstracts (75%) ‘either explicitly or implicitly accepting the &lt;em&gt;Consensus View’&lt;/em&gt;. This claim is incorrect on two counts. Only 424 abstracts…less than a third…fall into Categories 1 to 3 and many abstracts on ‘evaluation of impact’ and ‘mitigation’ do not discuss the drivers of global climate change but concern themselves with the effects of elevated &lt;em&gt;CO2&lt;/em&gt; levels on plant growth and vegetation. Many do not include any implicit endorsement of the &lt;em&gt;Consensus View &lt;/em&gt;but discuss hypothetical impact assessments or mitigation strategies.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
Quite a number of papers emphasise that &lt;em&gt;Natural Factors &lt;/em&gt;play a major if not the key role in recent climate change. There are almost three times as many abstracts that are sceptical of the notion of anthropogenic climate change as explicitly endorse it. In fact, the explicit and implicit rejection of the &lt;em&gt;Consensus View &lt;/em&gt;includes distinguished scientific organisations. This is not to deny that a majority of publications go along with the view of anthropogenic climate change and apply models based on its basic assumptions. Yet it is beyond doubt that a sound and unbiased analysis of the full &lt;em&gt;ISI Databank&lt;/em&gt; will find hundreds of papers…many by the world's leading experts in the field…that have raised serious reservations and outright rejection of the concept of a &lt;em&gt;Scientific Consensus &lt;/em&gt;on climate change.’
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
On 18th February 2005 Peisner received the following reply from Etta Kavanagh, &lt;em&gt;Associate Letters Editor&lt;/em&gt; at &lt;em&gt;Science Magazine&lt;/em&gt;. ‘Dear Dr. Peiser, a couple of weeks ago you submitted a &lt;em&gt;Letter to the Editor &lt;/em&gt;on Naomi Oreskes' Essay &lt;em&gt;The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change&lt;/em&gt;. In its current form it is too long for a letter but we would consider a shorter version if you are willing to edit it. It should be 500 words or less, not counting the references. A correction dealing with the mistake in the search terms "global climate change" vs. "climate change" was published in our Jan. 14 issue.’ Well that’s all right then. My tip is to sell shares in companies trading in &lt;em&gt;Carbon Emissions&lt;/em&gt;…or bet on their collapse.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p class="right"&gt;&lt;a href="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2008/07/24/shepherd-on-climate-list-of-contents-4491538"&gt;&lt;em&gt;more from Shepherd on Climate&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt; &lt;small&gt; &lt;a href="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2006/11/13/consensus_statistics~1324679/#comments"&gt;Comments&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/small&gt; &lt;/p&gt;</default:description><content:encoded xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"><![CDATA[	<p>
<em>Dr Benny Peiser</em> is a social anthropologist at <em>Liverpool John Moores University</em> and the editor of the <em>Cambridge Conference Network (CCNet)</em>. His research focuses on the effects of environmental change and catastrophic events on contemporary thought and societal evolution. In my 17/5 blog…posted to my climate blog as <em>Majority Against Orthodoxy</em>…I mentioned his analysis of scientific papers on <em>Climate Change </em>which Dr Dennis Bray of the <em>German</em>-based <em>GKSS National Research Centre </em>checked out and endorsed. The <em>Peiser Analysis </em>concluded that dissenters were in a healthy majority. Here is my edited version of the letter Peisner sent to <em>Science Magazine </em>for publication.
</p>
	<p>
‘On December 3rd 2004, only days before the start of the <em>10th UN Conference on Climate Change</em>, <em>Science Magazine </em>published the results of a study by Naomi Oreskes. For the first time, empirical evidence was presented that appeared to show a unanimous scientific consensus on the anthropogenic causes of recent <em>Global Warming</em>.
</p>
	<p>
Oreskes claims to have analysed 928 abstracts she found listed on the <em>ISI Database</em> using the keywords "climate change". However, a search on the <em>ISI Database </em>using the keywords "climate change" for the years 1993-2003 reveals that almost 12 000 papers were published during the decade in question. What happened to the countless research papers that show that global temperatures were similar or even higher during the <em>Holocene Climate Optimum</em> and the <em>Medieval Warm Period</em> when atmospheric <em>CO2</em> levels were much lower than today; that <em>Solar Variability </em>is a key driver of recent climate change; and that <em>Climate Modelling </em>is highly uncertain?
</p>
	<p>
These objections were put to Oreskes by science writer David Appell. On 15 December 2004 she admitted that there was indeed a serious mistake in her <em>Science</em> essay. According to Oreskes her study was not based on the keywords "climate change" but on "global climate change". Her use of three keywords instead of two reduced the list of peer reviewed publications by one order of magnitude. On the <em>UK ISI Databank</em> the keyword search "global climate change" comes up with 1247 documents. Since the results looked questionable I replicated the <em>Oreskes Study </em>by analysing all abstracts listed on the <em>ISI Databank </em>for 1993 to 2003 using Oreskes’ keywords.
</p>
	<p>
1117 of the 1247 documents listed included abstracts…130 listed only titles, author' details and keywords. The 1117 abstracts analysed were divided into Oreskes’ six categories plus two which I added: explicit endorsement of the consensus position; evaluation of impacts; mitigation proposals; methods; paleoclimate analysis; rejection of the consensus position; natural factors of global climate change and unrelated to the recent global climate change issues.
</p>
	<p>
My results contradict Oreskes' findings and essentially falsify her study: Only 13 (1%) of the 1117 abstracts explicitly endorse the <em>Consensus View</em>. 322 abstracts (29%) implicitly accept the <em>Consensus View</em> but mainly focus on impact assessments of envisaged global climate change. 89 (less than 10%) focus on mitigation; 67 on methodological questions; 87 deal exclusively with paleo-climatological research unrelated to recent climate change; 34 reject or doubt the view that human activities are the main drivers of the ‘the observed warming over the last 50 years’ and 44 focus on natural factors of global climate change. 470 abstracts (42%) include the keywords "global climate change" but do not include links or reference to greenhouse gas emissions or anthropogenic forcing of recent climate change.
</p>
	<p>
According to Oreskes, 695 of the 928 abstracts (75%) ‘either explicitly or implicitly accepting the <em>Consensus View’</em>. This claim is incorrect on two counts. Only 424 abstracts…less than a third…fall into Categories 1 to 3 and many abstracts on ‘evaluation of impact’ and ‘mitigation’ do not discuss the drivers of global climate change but concern themselves with the effects of elevated <em>CO2</em> levels on plant growth and vegetation. Many do not include any implicit endorsement of the <em>Consensus View </em>but discuss hypothetical impact assessments or mitigation strategies.
</p>
	<p>
Quite a number of papers emphasise that <em>Natural Factors </em>play a major if not the key role in recent climate change. There are almost three times as many abstracts that are sceptical of the notion of anthropogenic climate change as explicitly endorse it. In fact, the explicit and implicit rejection of the <em>Consensus View </em>includes distinguished scientific organisations. This is not to deny that a majority of publications go along with the view of anthropogenic climate change and apply models based on its basic assumptions. Yet it is beyond doubt that a sound and unbiased analysis of the full <em>ISI Databank</em> will find hundreds of papers…many by the world's leading experts in the field…that have raised serious reservations and outright rejection of the concept of a <em>Scientific Consensus </em>on climate change.’
</p>
	<p>
On 18th February 2005 Peisner received the following reply from Etta Kavanagh, <em>Associate Letters Editor</em> at <em>Science Magazine</em>. ‘Dear Dr. Peiser, a couple of weeks ago you submitted a <em>Letter to the Editor </em>on Naomi Oreskes' Essay <em>The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change</em>. In its current form it is too long for a letter but we would consider a shorter version if you are willing to edit it. It should be 500 words or less, not counting the references. A correction dealing with the mistake in the search terms "global climate change" vs. "climate change" was published in our Jan. 14 issue.’ Well that’s all right then. My tip is to sell shares in companies trading in <em>Carbon Emissions</em>…or bet on their collapse.
</p>
	<p class="right"><a href="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2008/07/24/shepherd-on-climate-list-of-contents-4491538"><em>more from Shepherd on Climate</em></a>
</p>
<p> <small> <a href="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2006/11/13/consensus_statistics~1324679/#comments">Comments</a> </small> </p>]]></content:encoded></default:item><default:item xmlns:default="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" rdf:about="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2006/11/11/carry_on_lying~1318835/"><default:title>Climate Thermodynamics</default:title><default:link>http://climate.blog.co.uk/2006/11/11/carry_on_lying~1318835/</default:link><dc:date xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">2006-11-11T14:16:34+01:00</dc:date><default:description>	&lt;p&gt;
Two centuries ago the astronomer William Herschel was reading Adam Smith’s &lt;em&gt;Wealth of Nations &lt;/em&gt;when he noticed that grain prices fell when the number of sunspots rose. Temperature tends to be warmer at solar maxima so grain grows faster. Better harvests. Lower prices. Farmers always complain of terrible harvests or ruinous prices. In the second half of the 20th century the sun has been at its hottest for over ten thousand years. This is a fact. The influence of this particular &lt;em&gt;Forcing&lt;/em&gt; on the temperature of &lt;em&gt;Planet Earth &lt;/em&gt;is the very stuff of &lt;em&gt;Skulduggery&lt;/em&gt; and &lt;em&gt;High Treason&lt;/em&gt;.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
The &lt;em&gt;Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change&lt;/em&gt; dates its &lt;em&gt;Temperature Forcings&lt;/em&gt; from 1750 when the sun was as warm as now. But its start-date for the increase in world temperature is 1900 when the sun was much cooler. This is just a little too contrived…&lt;em&gt;Scientific Fraud&lt;/em&gt; in fact…because the warmer the air the more water vapour it holds.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
Water is a very odd substance. &lt;em&gt;School Physics &lt;/em&gt;has taught my generation that water expands when it freezes which is why unlagged pipes spray water everywhere in the thaw after &lt;em&gt;The Big Freeze&lt;/em&gt;…and why there are fish to catch beneath the thin layer of air under the two feet of ice in which &lt;em&gt;Swedish Sports Fishermen &lt;/em&gt;cut their holes in the depths of winter. Afterwards they pile into their saunas, drink beer…and sweat profusely before diving into the ice-cold lakes to join the fish they failed to catch. Sweating only makes sense because of the odd properties of water.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
In the &lt;em&gt;Climate Changelings’ Theology Carbon Dioxide &lt;/em&gt;is just one of several &lt;em&gt;Greenhouse Gases&lt;/em&gt;. &lt;em&gt;Methane&lt;/em&gt; is another. And &lt;em&gt;Water&lt;/em&gt; another. Both &lt;em&gt;Methane&lt;/em&gt; and &lt;em&gt;Water&lt;/em&gt; have an impact many times greater than &lt;em&gt;Carbon Dioxide&lt;/em&gt;. In scientific terms demonising &lt;em&gt;Carbon Emissions &lt;/em&gt;means slaughtering cows and eradicating termites to reduce &lt;em&gt;Methane Emissions&lt;/em&gt;. According to the &lt;em&gt;Carbonistas&lt;/em&gt; the &lt;em&gt;H2O&lt;/em&gt; molecule is four times better at destroying the planet than the humble &lt;em&gt;CO2&lt;/em&gt; molecule. But not even the &lt;em&gt;IPCC&lt;/em&gt; has the nerve to ignore water vapour...though they have a damn good try.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
The &lt;em&gt;IPCC&lt;/em&gt; expresses &lt;em&gt;Heat-Energy Forcings &lt;/em&gt;in watts per square metre per second. Twentieth Century warming from all sources is around two watts per square metre per second. Not only must &lt;em&gt;IPCC&lt;/em&gt; get rid of the &lt;em&gt;&lt;a href="http://williamshepherd.blog.co.uk/2006/11/08/friday_10th_november~1308921"&gt;Medieval Warm Period &lt;/a&gt;&lt;/em&gt;they must also ensure that man-made &lt;em&gt;Carbon Emissions &lt;/em&gt;are responsible for a significant proportion of this 2.0 watts. Otherwise there is no case to answer and its case would be thrown out of court. So &lt;em&gt;IPCC &lt;/em&gt;fiddled the figures.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
The first trick was to contrive 0.3 watts for the extent of &lt;em&gt;Solar Temperature Feedback Forcings&lt;/em&gt;. The figure would have been 0.7 watts if the &lt;em&gt;IPCC&lt;/em&gt; had adopted 1900 instead of 1750 for its start-date and…1.9 watts if it had adopted the &lt;em&gt;Royal Society’s &lt;/em&gt;climate feedback 2.7 multiplier guideline. Next the &lt;em&gt;IPCC&lt;/em&gt; slashed the &lt;em&gt;Natural Greenhouse Effect&lt;/em&gt; by 40 percent from 33C in the climate physics textbooks to 20C making the man-made additions appear bigger.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
Finally there is the &lt;em&gt;Battle of the Lambdas&lt;/em&gt;…the factor converting &lt;em&gt;Forcings&lt;/em&gt; to &lt;em&gt;Temperature&lt;/em&gt;. The &lt;em&gt;Stefan-Boltzman Law &lt;/em&gt;is to the thermodynamics of climate as Einstein’s equation E=mc2 is to astrophysics. Boltzman relates energy to the square of the speed of light but by reference to temperature rather than mass. It was derived experimentally 100-years ago by a &lt;em&gt;Slovenian&lt;/em&gt; professor and proved by his &lt;em&gt;Austrian&lt;/em&gt; student. Buried in the small print of &lt;em&gt;IPCC’s &lt;/em&gt;third assessment report is the bizarre statement that its climate models had found &lt;em&gt;lambda &lt;/em&gt;to be 0.5C per watt of &lt;em&gt;Forcing&lt;/em&gt;.  &lt;em&gt;Lambda&lt;/em&gt; from the &lt;em&gt;Boltzman Equation &lt;/em&gt;is half this…based on &lt;em&gt;Experiments with Nature &lt;/em&gt;not &lt;em&gt;Manipulations with Computers&lt;/em&gt;.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
&lt;em&gt;Lambda Inflation&lt;/em&gt; is in fashion because the bigger the value of &lt;em&gt;lambda &lt;/em&gt;the bigger the temperature increase you can predict from any particular set of &lt;em&gt;Forcings Data&lt;/em&gt;. James Hansen who invented &lt;em&gt;Global Warming &lt;/em&gt;in his evidence to &lt;em&gt;Senate Hearings&lt;/em&gt; in the middle of a &lt;em&gt;Washington Heatwave &lt;/em&gt;offers &lt;em&gt;lambdas&lt;/em&gt; of 0.67, 0.75 or 1.0. John Houghton who chaired the &lt;em&gt;IPCC&lt;/em&gt; working group trumps this with 0.8 while &lt;em&gt;IPCC’s&lt;/em&gt; computer models now use 1.0. But &lt;em&gt;The Stern Report &lt;/em&gt;deserves an &lt;em&gt;Oscar&lt;/em&gt; for its implied &lt;em&gt;lambda&lt;/em&gt; of 1.9…between six and eight times the &lt;em&gt;Boltzman lambda&lt;/em&gt;.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
Multiply by &lt;em&gt;Boltzman’s lambda &lt;/em&gt;and temperature rise this century is in line with observation at 0.44 to 0.6C. &lt;em&gt;Stern’s lambda &lt;/em&gt;gives nonsense. The &lt;em&gt;Hadley Centre &lt;/em&gt;had the same problem so they now have one &lt;em&gt;lambda&lt;/em&gt; to predict with and another…&lt;em&gt;lambda&lt;/em&gt; divided by three…to match actual 20th Century temperatures. My &lt;em&gt;Texan&lt;/em&gt; artist friend Bob Stuart had a parrot in his studio. He had trained it to say ‘Get A Rope and Hang The Bastards!’ Hark! I hear it even now!
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p class="right"&gt;&lt;a href="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2008/07/24/shepherd-on-climate-list-of-contents-4491538"&gt;&lt;em&gt;more from Shepherd on Climate&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt; &lt;small&gt; &lt;a href="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2006/11/11/carry_on_lying~1318835/#comments"&gt;Comments&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/small&gt; &lt;/p&gt;</default:description><content:encoded xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"><![CDATA[	<p>
Two centuries ago the astronomer William Herschel was reading Adam Smith’s <em>Wealth of Nations </em>when he noticed that grain prices fell when the number of sunspots rose. Temperature tends to be warmer at solar maxima so grain grows faster. Better harvests. Lower prices. Farmers always complain of terrible harvests or ruinous prices. In the second half of the 20th century the sun has been at its hottest for over ten thousand years. This is a fact. The influence of this particular <em>Forcing</em> on the temperature of <em>Planet Earth </em>is the very stuff of <em>Skulduggery</em> and <em>High Treason</em>.
</p>
	<p>
The <em>Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change</em> dates its <em>Temperature Forcings</em> from 1750 when the sun was as warm as now. But its start-date for the increase in world temperature is 1900 when the sun was much cooler. This is just a little too contrived…<em>Scientific Fraud</em> in fact…because the warmer the air the more water vapour it holds.
</p>
	<p>
Water is a very odd substance. <em>School Physics </em>has taught my generation that water expands when it freezes which is why unlagged pipes spray water everywhere in the thaw after <em>The Big Freeze</em>…and why there are fish to catch beneath the thin layer of air under the two feet of ice in which <em>Swedish Sports Fishermen </em>cut their holes in the depths of winter. Afterwards they pile into their saunas, drink beer…and sweat profusely before diving into the ice-cold lakes to join the fish they failed to catch. Sweating only makes sense because of the odd properties of water.
</p>
	<p>
In the <em>Climate Changelings’ Theology Carbon Dioxide </em>is just one of several <em>Greenhouse Gases</em>. <em>Methane</em> is another. And <em>Water</em> another. Both <em>Methane</em> and <em>Water</em> have an impact many times greater than <em>Carbon Dioxide</em>. In scientific terms demonising <em>Carbon Emissions </em>means slaughtering cows and eradicating termites to reduce <em>Methane Emissions</em>. According to the <em>Carbonistas</em> the <em>H2O</em> molecule is four times better at destroying the planet than the humble <em>CO2</em> molecule. But not even the <em>IPCC</em> has the nerve to ignore water vapour...though they have a damn good try.
</p>
	<p>
The <em>IPCC</em> expresses <em>Heat-Energy Forcings </em>in watts per square metre per second. Twentieth Century warming from all sources is around two watts per square metre per second. Not only must <em>IPCC</em> get rid of the <em><a href="http://williamshepherd.blog.co.uk/2006/11/08/friday_10th_november~1308921">Medieval Warm Period </a></em>they must also ensure that man-made <em>Carbon Emissions </em>are responsible for a significant proportion of this 2.0 watts. Otherwise there is no case to answer and its case would be thrown out of court. So <em>IPCC </em>fiddled the figures.
</p>
	<p>
The first trick was to contrive 0.3 watts for the extent of <em>Solar Temperature Feedback Forcings</em>. The figure would have been 0.7 watts if the <em>IPCC</em> had adopted 1900 instead of 1750 for its start-date and…1.9 watts if it had adopted the <em>Royal Society’s </em>climate feedback 2.7 multiplier guideline. Next the <em>IPCC</em> slashed the <em>Natural Greenhouse Effect</em> by 40 percent from 33C in the climate physics textbooks to 20C making the man-made additions appear bigger.
</p>
	<p>
Finally there is the <em>Battle of the Lambdas</em>…the factor converting <em>Forcings</em> to <em>Temperature</em>. The <em>Stefan-Boltzman Law </em>is to the thermodynamics of climate as Einstein’s equation E=mc2 is to astrophysics. Boltzman relates energy to the square of the speed of light but by reference to temperature rather than mass. It was derived experimentally 100-years ago by a <em>Slovenian</em> professor and proved by his <em>Austrian</em> student. Buried in the small print of <em>IPCC’s </em>third assessment report is the bizarre statement that its climate models had found <em>lambda </em>to be 0.5C per watt of <em>Forcing</em>.  <em>Lambda</em> from the <em>Boltzman Equation </em>is half this…based on <em>Experiments with Nature </em>not <em>Manipulations with Computers</em>.
</p>
	<p>
<em>Lambda Inflation</em> is in fashion because the bigger the value of <em>lambda </em>the bigger the temperature increase you can predict from any particular set of <em>Forcings Data</em>. James Hansen who invented <em>Global Warming </em>in his evidence to <em>Senate Hearings</em> in the middle of a <em>Washington Heatwave </em>offers <em>lambdas</em> of 0.67, 0.75 or 1.0. John Houghton who chaired the <em>IPCC</em> working group trumps this with 0.8 while <em>IPCC’s</em> computer models now use 1.0. But <em>The Stern Report </em>deserves an <em>Oscar</em> for its implied <em>lambda</em> of 1.9…between six and eight times the <em>Boltzman lambda</em>.
</p>
	<p>
Multiply by <em>Boltzman’s lambda </em>and temperature rise this century is in line with observation at 0.44 to 0.6C. <em>Stern’s lambda </em>gives nonsense. The <em>Hadley Centre </em>had the same problem so they now have one <em>lambda</em> to predict with and another…<em>lambda</em> divided by three…to match actual 20th Century temperatures. My <em>Texan</em> artist friend Bob Stuart had a parrot in his studio. He had trained it to say ‘Get A Rope and Hang The Bastards!’ Hark! I hear it even now!
</p>
	<p class="right"><a href="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2008/07/24/shepherd-on-climate-list-of-contents-4491538"><em>more from Shepherd on Climate</em></a>
</p>
<p> <small> <a href="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2006/11/11/carry_on_lying~1318835/#comments">Comments</a> </small> </p>]]></content:encoded></default:item><default:item xmlns:default="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" rdf:about="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2006/11/11/lying_made_easy~1318827/"><default:title>Medieval Warm Period</default:title><default:link>http://climate.blog.co.uk/2006/11/11/lying_made_easy~1318827/</default:link><dc:date xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">2006-11-11T14:12:33+01:00</dc:date><default:description>	&lt;p&gt;
In 2004 John Youngdahl was charged by the &lt;em&gt;Securities and Exchange Commission&lt;/em&gt; with &lt;em&gt;Securities Fraud&lt;/em&gt; and &lt;em&gt;Insider Trading&lt;/em&gt;. In October 2001 Youngdahl found out that sales of the &lt;em&gt;Treasury Department’s&lt;/em&gt; 30-year bonds were going to be cut off. He found this out before the news was made public…and gave his firm’s &lt;em&gt;Bond Traders&lt;/em&gt; the tip-off. In a matter of minutes they made a killing estimated at £3.5 million. Youngdahl was working for &lt;em&gt;Goldman Sachs&lt;/em&gt; at the time and is now behind bars…incarcerated in the &lt;em&gt;Land of Striped Sunshine&lt;/em&gt;.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;a href="http://www.blog.co.uk/srv/media/media_item.php?item_ID=944220"&gt;&lt;img src="http://data2.blog.de/media/220/944220_4abc81d703_m.jpg" alt="medievalperiod" title="medievalperiod" vspace="5" hspace="5"&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;

&lt;p&gt;
Ways need to be found to put scientists in the dock too. They have their own forms of &lt;em&gt;Insider Trading&lt;/em&gt; and need to be held publicly accountable for their &lt;em&gt;Scientific Fraud&lt;/em&gt;. So far they have had an easy ride. This particular buck starts and stops at the top with the &lt;em&gt;United Nations&lt;/em&gt; and its corrupt &lt;em&gt;Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change&lt;/em&gt; which stands accused of knowingly undervaluing the sun’s effects on historical and contemporary climate, slashing the greenhouse effect, overstating the past century’s temperature increase, arbitrarily repealing a fundamental law of physics for political convenience and tripling the man-made greenhouse effect to shoehorn its computer data into its prejudices.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
&lt;em&gt;IPCC’s&lt;/em&gt; third assessment report released four years ago is a &lt;em&gt;Scientific Fraud&lt;/em&gt;…right up there with the &lt;em&gt;Blair Dodgy Dossier &lt;/em&gt;on non-existent &lt;em&gt;Weapons of Mass Destruction&lt;/em&gt; in &lt;em&gt;Iraq&lt;/em&gt;. The report implies that carbon dioxide ended the last four ice ages by displaying two 450 000 year graphs…a sawtooth curve of temperature and a sawtooth of airborne CO2 that is scaled to look similar. Usually similar curves are superimposed for comparison. The &lt;em&gt;IPCC Report&lt;/em&gt; didn’t. If it had the truth would have shown…the changes in temperature preceded the changes in CO2 levels.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
In 1995 David Deming…a geoscientist at the &lt;em&gt;University of Oklahoma&lt;/em&gt;…reconstructed North America’s historical temperatures from borehole data. He later wrote: ‘With the publication of my article in &lt;em&gt;Science&lt;/em&gt; I gained significant credibility in the community of scientists working on climate change. They thought I was one of them…someone who would pervert science in the service of social and political causes.’ One of the more important players foolishly let his guard slip and sent Deming an email that said ‘We have to get rid of the &lt;em&gt;Medieval Warm Period&lt;/em&gt;.’ So they did.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;a href="http://www.blog.co.uk/srv/media/media_item.php?item_ID=944228"&gt;&lt;img src="http://data2.blog.de/media/228/944228_e173f66bbc_m.jpg" alt="ipcchockeystick" title="ipcchockeystick" vspace="5" hspace="5"&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;

&lt;p&gt;
The second &lt;em&gt;IPCC Report &lt;/em&gt;in 1996 showed a 1000-year graph demonstrating that temperature in the &lt;em&gt;Middle Ages &lt;/em&gt;was warmer than today. But the third &lt;em&gt;IPCC Report &lt;/em&gt;in 2001 contained a new graph showing no medieval warm period. It concluded that the 20th century was the warmest for 1000 years. This is wrong. Here is how it was done.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
Firstly &lt;em&gt;IPCC&lt;/em&gt; gave one technique for reconstructing pre-thermometer temperature four hundred times more weight than any other…and omitted to mention the fact. The overweighted technique was one which &lt;em&gt;IPCC’s&lt;/em&gt; second report had said was unsafe…measurement of tree-rings from bristlecone pines. Tree-rings are wider in warmer years because temperature speeds up growth. But tree fertiliser speeds up growth too and one of them is carbon dioxide so this distorts the calculations unless some way is found to make allowance for shifting carbon dioxide levels.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
This might be bad science but need not be criminal. But closer scrutiny shows that the deception goes deeper…a domain of barefaced lying and &lt;em&gt;Scientific Fraud&lt;/em&gt;. &lt;em&gt;IPCC&lt;/em&gt; stated that 24 data sets were included going back to 1400. But without saying so they left out the set showing the medieval warm period...tucking it away in a folder marked ‘censored data’.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
&lt;em&gt;IPCC&lt;/em&gt; then used a computer model to draw the graph from the data. Now anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of statistics knows you can best fit data to any curve. Give it a=x+b and you will get a straight line. Give it a=x to the power of b and you will get a curve. &lt;em&gt;IPCC&lt;/em&gt; asked for hockey-sticks so it got them…even from random electronic ‘red noise’.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
The large full-colour hockey stick was the only graph to appear six times in the &lt;em&gt;IPCC Third Report &lt;/em&gt;in 2001. The &lt;em&gt;Canadian Government&lt;/em&gt; copied it to every household. It is a lie. It took four years for a leading scientific journal to publish the truth. It was ignored. The &lt;em&gt;Canadian Government &lt;/em&gt;did not apologise...and &lt;em&gt;IPCC&lt;/em&gt; still uses it. The good news is that the &lt;em&gt;US Senate &lt;/em&gt;investigated. They unearthed a conspiracy, labelling the graph ‘meretricious’ and noting that known associates of the scientists who had compiled the graph wrote many of the papers supporting its conclusions.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
&lt;em&gt;IPCC&lt;/em&gt;…and the &lt;em&gt;Stern Report&lt;/em&gt;…pretend the graph is not important. But scores of scientific papers show the medieval warm period was real, global and up the 3C warmer than now. There were no glaciers in the tropical &lt;em&gt;Andes&lt;/em&gt;, &lt;em&gt;Viking&lt;/em&gt; farms in &lt;em&gt;Greenland&lt;/em&gt; and little ice at the &lt;em&gt;North Pole &lt;/em&gt;when a &lt;em&gt;Chinese&lt;/em&gt; naval squadron sailed round the &lt;em&gt;Arctic&lt;/em&gt; in 1421.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p class="right"&gt;&lt;a href="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2008/07/24/shepherd-on-climate-list-of-contents-4491538"&gt;&lt;em&gt;more from Shepherd on Climate&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt; &lt;small&gt; &lt;a href="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2006/11/11/lying_made_easy~1318827/#comments"&gt;Comments&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/small&gt; &lt;/p&gt;</default:description><content:encoded xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"><![CDATA[	<p>
In 2004 John Youngdahl was charged by the <em>Securities and Exchange Commission</em> with <em>Securities Fraud</em> and <em>Insider Trading</em>. In October 2001 Youngdahl found out that sales of the <em>Treasury Department’s</em> 30-year bonds were going to be cut off. He found this out before the news was made public…and gave his firm’s <em>Bond Traders</em> the tip-off. In a matter of minutes they made a killing estimated at £3.5 million. Youngdahl was working for <em>Goldman Sachs</em> at the time and is now behind bars…incarcerated in the <em>Land of Striped Sunshine</em>.
</p>
<a href="http://www.blog.co.uk/srv/media/media_item.php?item_ID=944220"><img src="http://data2.blog.de/media/220/944220_4abc81d703_m.jpg" alt="medievalperiod" title="medievalperiod" vspace="5" hspace="5"></a><br>

<p>
Ways need to be found to put scientists in the dock too. They have their own forms of <em>Insider Trading</em> and need to be held publicly accountable for their <em>Scientific Fraud</em>. So far they have had an easy ride. This particular buck starts and stops at the top with the <em>United Nations</em> and its corrupt <em>Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change</em> which stands accused of knowingly undervaluing the sun’s effects on historical and contemporary climate, slashing the greenhouse effect, overstating the past century’s temperature increase, arbitrarily repealing a fundamental law of physics for political convenience and tripling the man-made greenhouse effect to shoehorn its computer data into its prejudices.
</p>
	<p>
<em>IPCC’s</em> third assessment report released four years ago is a <em>Scientific Fraud</em>…right up there with the <em>Blair Dodgy Dossier </em>on non-existent <em>Weapons of Mass Destruction</em> in <em>Iraq</em>. The report implies that carbon dioxide ended the last four ice ages by displaying two 450 000 year graphs…a sawtooth curve of temperature and a sawtooth of airborne CO2 that is scaled to look similar. Usually similar curves are superimposed for comparison. The <em>IPCC Report</em> didn’t. If it had the truth would have shown…the changes in temperature preceded the changes in CO2 levels.
</p>
	<p>
In 1995 David Deming…a geoscientist at the <em>University of Oklahoma</em>…reconstructed North America’s historical temperatures from borehole data. He later wrote: ‘With the publication of my article in <em>Science</em> I gained significant credibility in the community of scientists working on climate change. They thought I was one of them…someone who would pervert science in the service of social and political causes.’ One of the more important players foolishly let his guard slip and sent Deming an email that said ‘We have to get rid of the <em>Medieval Warm Period</em>.’ So they did.
</p>
<a href="http://www.blog.co.uk/srv/media/media_item.php?item_ID=944228"><img src="http://data2.blog.de/media/228/944228_e173f66bbc_m.jpg" alt="ipcchockeystick" title="ipcchockeystick" vspace="5" hspace="5"></a><br>

<p>
The second <em>IPCC Report </em>in 1996 showed a 1000-year graph demonstrating that temperature in the <em>Middle Ages </em>was warmer than today. But the third <em>IPCC Report </em>in 2001 contained a new graph showing no medieval warm period. It concluded that the 20th century was the warmest for 1000 years. This is wrong. Here is how it was done.
</p>
	<p>
Firstly <em>IPCC</em> gave one technique for reconstructing pre-thermometer temperature four hundred times more weight than any other…and omitted to mention the fact. The overweighted technique was one which <em>IPCC’s</em> second report had said was unsafe…measurement of tree-rings from bristlecone pines. Tree-rings are wider in warmer years because temperature speeds up growth. But tree fertiliser speeds up growth too and one of them is carbon dioxide so this distorts the calculations unless some way is found to make allowance for shifting carbon dioxide levels.
</p>
	<p>
This might be bad science but need not be criminal. But closer scrutiny shows that the deception goes deeper…a domain of barefaced lying and <em>Scientific Fraud</em>. <em>IPCC</em> stated that 24 data sets were included going back to 1400. But without saying so they left out the set showing the medieval warm period...tucking it away in a folder marked ‘censored data’.
</p>
	<p>
<em>IPCC</em> then used a computer model to draw the graph from the data. Now anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of statistics knows you can best fit data to any curve. Give it a=x+b and you will get a straight line. Give it a=x to the power of b and you will get a curve. <em>IPCC</em> asked for hockey-sticks so it got them…even from random electronic ‘red noise’.
</p>
	<p>
The large full-colour hockey stick was the only graph to appear six times in the <em>IPCC Third Report </em>in 2001. The <em>Canadian Government</em> copied it to every household. It is a lie. It took four years for a leading scientific journal to publish the truth. It was ignored. The <em>Canadian Government </em>did not apologise...and <em>IPCC</em> still uses it. The good news is that the <em>US Senate </em>investigated. They unearthed a conspiracy, labelling the graph ‘meretricious’ and noting that known associates of the scientists who had compiled the graph wrote many of the papers supporting its conclusions.
</p>
	<p>
<em>IPCC</em>…and the <em>Stern Report</em>…pretend the graph is not important. But scores of scientific papers show the medieval warm period was real, global and up the 3C warmer than now. There were no glaciers in the tropical <em>Andes</em>, <em>Viking</em> farms in <em>Greenland</em> and little ice at the <em>North Pole </em>when a <em>Chinese</em> naval squadron sailed round the <em>Arctic</em> in 1421.
</p>
	<p class="right"><a href="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2008/07/24/shepherd-on-climate-list-of-contents-4491538"><em>more from Shepherd on Climate</em></a>
</p>
<p> <small> <a href="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2006/11/11/lying_made_easy~1318827/#comments">Comments</a> </small> </p>]]></content:encoded></default:item><default:item xmlns:default="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" rdf:about="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2006/10/11/good_science~1208886/"><default:title>Good Science</default:title><default:link>http://climate.blog.co.uk/2006/10/11/good_science~1208886/</default:link><dc:date xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">2006-10-11T10:20:57+02:00</dc:date><default:description>	&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;first published as &lt;a href="http://williamshepherd.blog.co.uk/2006/09/29/monday_2nd_october~1171968"&gt;weblog two hundred and seventy five&lt;/a&gt; on Monday 2nd October 2006&lt;/em&gt;
 &lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
From William of Normandy in 1066 to Dwight Eisenhower in 1944, &lt;em&gt;England’s&lt;/em&gt; fortunes have been hostage to the weather. The ferocious winter of 1941-42 was an ordeal for the long-suffering &lt;em&gt;English Speaking Peoples&lt;/em&gt; of these war-torn &lt;em&gt;European Offshore Islands &lt;/em&gt;cowering in their air-raid shelters. But for &lt;em&gt;Nazi Germany &lt;/em&gt;it was a catastrophe. Its impact on their invasion of Russia was as devastating as the storms that scattered the &lt;em&gt;Spanish Armada&lt;/em&gt;.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
At the end of 1941 temperatures on the continent dropped to minus forty…the same number in &lt;em&gt;Centigrade&lt;/em&gt; and &lt;em&gt;Fahrenheit&lt;/em&gt;…machinery froze and hundreds of thousands of troops froze to death. &lt;em&gt;Hitler’s Blitzkrieg&lt;/em&gt; was stopped dead in its tracks. The &lt;em&gt;Nazi Military Machine&lt;/em&gt; never recovered and was destroyed at &lt;em&gt;Stalingrad&lt;/em&gt;. We were very lucky.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
Two years ago &lt;em&gt;Swiss Climatologists&lt;/em&gt; figured that Hitler should have consulted his &lt;em&gt;Argentinean Agents&lt;/em&gt; instead of his &lt;em&gt;Astrology Charts&lt;/em&gt;. Then he would have seen it coming. The right kind of &lt;em&gt;El Niño&lt;/em&gt; set off the disturbances in the stratosphere. This surged like a wave across the globe and created the extreme conditions in Europe. Wonderful stuff hindsight.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
But with stories like this doing the rounds it is no wonder that the &lt;em&gt;Global Supremacy Boys&lt;/em&gt; show such a keen interest in &lt;em&gt;Climate Meddling&lt;/em&gt;. It will all end in tears. But put out enough propaganda and the idiots will put down the ensuing disasters to &lt;em&gt;Global Warming&lt;/em&gt;…and dig deep into the &lt;em&gt;Public Purse&lt;/em&gt; to solve the problem by redoubling the &lt;em&gt;Kyoto Carbon Emission Targets&lt;/em&gt;. &lt;em&gt;Useful Idiots&lt;/em&gt; was Lenin’s phrase for people who could be fooled all of the time.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
A study from the &lt;a href="http://www.sone.org.uk/"&gt;&lt;em&gt;Supporters of Nuclear Energy&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;, the &lt;a href="http://www.smmt.co.uk/home.cfm?CFID=2574394&amp;CFTOKEN=53223291"&gt;&lt;em&gt;Society of Motor Manufacturers&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;, the &lt;a href="http://www.cefic.be"&gt;&lt;em&gt;European Chemicals Association&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt; or the &lt;a href="http://www.api.org/"&gt;&lt;em&gt;American Petroleum Institute&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt; will normally be broadly supportive of the issuer’s publicly stated positions…otherwise the report will be hidden away in a bottom drawer. Normal people bear this in mind.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
The same is true for reports from the &lt;a href="http://www.wwf.org.uk/core/"&gt;&lt;em&gt;World Wildlife Fund&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href="http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/"&gt;&lt;em&gt;Greenpeace&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;, the &lt;a href="http://www.soilassociation.org.uk/"&gt;&lt;em&gt;Soil Association&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;, the &lt;a href="http://www.isec.org.uk/"&gt;&lt;em&gt;International Society for Ecology &amp; Culture&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt; or &lt;a href="http://www.theecologist.co.uk/"&gt;&lt;em&gt;The Ecologist&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;. More enlightened people bear this in mind…in much the same way. Leaks and Whistle Blowing complicate matters because some is bottom drawer stuff…and some is disinformation.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
Whatever the source, an &lt;em&gt;Act of Discernment&lt;/em&gt; is required to discriminate between &lt;em&gt;Fact&lt;/em&gt; and &lt;em&gt;Truth&lt;/em&gt; on the one hand and &lt;em&gt;Prejudice&lt;/em&gt; and &lt;em&gt;Untruth&lt;/em&gt; on the other. Whether any particular individual is capable of &lt;em&gt;Right Discernment&lt;/em&gt; is another matter…the discernment of a &lt;em&gt;Third Party&lt;/em&gt; might be called upon.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
&lt;em&gt;Governments&lt;/em&gt; once provided such a service by taking the &lt;em&gt;Public View&lt;/em&gt;. They were the &lt;em&gt;Competent Receiver&lt;/em&gt; of the &lt;em&gt;Common Wealth &lt;/em&gt;and the &lt;em&gt;Impartial Discriminator&lt;/em&gt; of  the &lt;em&gt;Common Sense&lt;/em&gt;. But no longer. Nowadays &lt;em&gt;Government&lt;/em&gt; are rightly seen as just another &lt;em&gt;Outside Interest Group&lt;/em&gt;…with their own &lt;em&gt;Special Pleadings &lt;/em&gt;and their own &lt;em&gt;Private Agendas&lt;/em&gt;. So who is sound? Where resides &lt;em&gt;Common Sense&lt;/em&gt;?
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
In these days of public relations, media manipulation and advertising, &lt;em&gt;Front Organisations&lt;/em&gt; distribute results and a &lt;em&gt;Tied Tenancy&lt;/em&gt; carries out the studies. &lt;em&gt;Scientific Research&lt;/em&gt; is tuned by the &lt;em&gt;Piper’s Patrons&lt;/em&gt;. The &lt;a href="http://www.core-online.org/"&gt;&lt;em&gt;Congress of Racial Equality&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;, the &lt;a href="http://www.jrf.org.uk"&gt;&lt;em&gt;Joseph Rowntree Trust&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href="http://www.scientific-alliance.com/"&gt;&lt;em&gt;Scientific Alliance&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;, the &lt;a href="http://www.cei.org/"&gt;&lt;em&gt;Competitive Enterprise Institute&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;, the &lt;a href="http://www.heritage.org/"&gt;&lt;em&gt;Heritage Foundation&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;?&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
Where do they stand? Who do they represent? These are not disinterested bodies. They have their own agendas…some of them open and some of them hidden…and they have paymasters with other agendas. What to do?
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p class="right"&gt;
&lt;a href="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2009/01/11/shepherd-on-climate-list-of-contents-5358559/"&gt;&lt;em&gt;more from Shepherd on Climate&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt; &lt;small&gt; &lt;a href="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2006/10/11/good_science~1208886/#comments"&gt;Comments&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/small&gt; &lt;/p&gt;</default:description><content:encoded xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"><![CDATA[	<p><em>first published as <a href="http://williamshepherd.blog.co.uk/2006/09/29/monday_2nd_october~1171968">weblog two hundred and seventy five</a> on Monday 2nd October 2006</em>
 </p>
	<p>
From William of Normandy in 1066 to Dwight Eisenhower in 1944, <em>England’s</em> fortunes have been hostage to the weather. The ferocious winter of 1941-42 was an ordeal for the long-suffering <em>English Speaking Peoples</em> of these war-torn <em>European Offshore Islands </em>cowering in their air-raid shelters. But for <em>Nazi Germany </em>it was a catastrophe. Its impact on their invasion of Russia was as devastating as the storms that scattered the <em>Spanish Armada</em>.
</p>
	<p>
At the end of 1941 temperatures on the continent dropped to minus forty…the same number in <em>Centigrade</em> and <em>Fahrenheit</em>…machinery froze and hundreds of thousands of troops froze to death. <em>Hitler’s Blitzkrieg</em> was stopped dead in its tracks. The <em>Nazi Military Machine</em> never recovered and was destroyed at <em>Stalingrad</em>. We were very lucky.
</p>
	<p>
Two years ago <em>Swiss Climatologists</em> figured that Hitler should have consulted his <em>Argentinean Agents</em> instead of his <em>Astrology Charts</em>. Then he would have seen it coming. The right kind of <em>El Niño</em> set off the disturbances in the stratosphere. This surged like a wave across the globe and created the extreme conditions in Europe. Wonderful stuff hindsight.
</p>
	<p>
But with stories like this doing the rounds it is no wonder that the <em>Global Supremacy Boys</em> show such a keen interest in <em>Climate Meddling</em>. It will all end in tears. But put out enough propaganda and the idiots will put down the ensuing disasters to <em>Global Warming</em>…and dig deep into the <em>Public Purse</em> to solve the problem by redoubling the <em>Kyoto Carbon Emission Targets</em>. <em>Useful Idiots</em> was Lenin’s phrase for people who could be fooled all of the time.
</p>
	<p>
A study from the <a href="http://www.sone.org.uk/"><em>Supporters of Nuclear Energy</em></a>, the <a href="http://www.smmt.co.uk/home.cfm?CFID=2574394&CFTOKEN=53223291"><em>Society of Motor Manufacturers</em></a>, the <a href="http://www.cefic.be"><em>European Chemicals Association</em></a> or the <a href="http://www.api.org/"><em>American Petroleum Institute</em></a> will normally be broadly supportive of the issuer’s publicly stated positions…otherwise the report will be hidden away in a bottom drawer. Normal people bear this in mind.
</p>
	<p>
The same is true for reports from the <a href="http://www.wwf.org.uk/core/"><em>World Wildlife Fund</em></a>, <a href="http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/"><em>Greenpeace</em></a>, the <a href="http://www.soilassociation.org.uk/"><em>Soil Association</em></a>, the <a href="http://www.isec.org.uk/"><em>International Society for Ecology & Culture</em></a> or <a href="http://www.theecologist.co.uk/"><em>The Ecologist</em></a>. More enlightened people bear this in mind…in much the same way. Leaks and Whistle Blowing complicate matters because some is bottom drawer stuff…and some is disinformation.
</p>
	<p>
Whatever the source, an <em>Act of Discernment</em> is required to discriminate between <em>Fact</em> and <em>Truth</em> on the one hand and <em>Prejudice</em> and <em>Untruth</em> on the other. Whether any particular individual is capable of <em>Right Discernment</em> is another matter…the discernment of a <em>Third Party</em> might be called upon.
</p>
	<p>
<em>Governments</em> once provided such a service by taking the <em>Public View</em>. They were the <em>Competent Receiver</em> of the <em>Common Wealth </em>and the <em>Impartial Discriminator</em> of  the <em>Common Sense</em>. But no longer. Nowadays <em>Government</em> are rightly seen as just another <em>Outside Interest Group</em>…with their own <em>Special Pleadings </em>and their own <em>Private Agendas</em>. So who is sound? Where resides <em>Common Sense</em>?
</p>
	<p>
In these days of public relations, media manipulation and advertising, <em>Front Organisations</em> distribute results and a <em>Tied Tenancy</em> carries out the studies. <em>Scientific Research</em> is tuned by the <em>Piper’s Patrons</em>. The <a href="http://www.core-online.org/"><em>Congress of Racial Equality</em></a>, the <a href="http://www.jrf.org.uk"><em>Joseph Rowntree Trust</em></a>, <a href="http://www.scientific-alliance.com/"><em>Scientific Alliance</em></a>, the <a href="http://www.cei.org/"><em>Competitive Enterprise Institute</em></a>, the <a href="http://www.heritage.org/"><em>Heritage Foundation</em></a>?</p>
	<p>
Where do they stand? Who do they represent? These are not disinterested bodies. They have their own agendas…some of them open and some of them hidden…and they have paymasters with other agendas. What to do?
</p>
	<p class="right">
<a href="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2009/01/11/shepherd-on-climate-list-of-contents-5358559/"><em>more from Shepherd on Climate</em></a>
</p>
<p> <small> <a href="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2006/10/11/good_science~1208886/#comments">Comments</a> </small> </p>]]></content:encoded></default:item><default:item xmlns:default="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" rdf:about="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2006/07/11/who_is_listening~951538/"><default:title>Right Science</default:title><default:link>http://climate.blog.co.uk/2006/07/11/who_is_listening~951538/</default:link><dc:date xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">2006-07-11T15:58:14+02:00</dc:date><default:description>	&lt;p&gt;
In our stupidity we have entrusted computers with the job of forecasting our future. But since this is impossible the machine-minders in their grey suits and white coats have been busy inventing new fears and forecasting imminent disasters to back-up their own self-seeking wild-eyed prophesies.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
In half an hour our nuclear reactor in the sky a hundred million miles away showers our back gardens with enough power to keep everyone in energy for a year.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;Behind the &lt;em&gt;Kyoto Protocol&lt;/em&gt; on carbon emissions was a UN report claiming a scientific consensus that global warming is real, damaging, man-made and caused by burning fossil fuels…economical with the actualité the latest draft of &lt;em&gt;IPCC’s&lt;/em&gt; next climate change report removes the phrase ‘caused directly or indirectly by human activity’ and replaces it with fluffy wording about ‘any change over time whether due to natural variability or human activity’. This is tantamount to admitting that &lt;em&gt;Kyoto&lt;/em&gt; is based on a pack of lies or…more charitably…on a case which is unproven.&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
We are told that 99% of the earth's atmosphere has no insulating properties and only Carbon Dioxide keeps the earth at an even temperature. But insulation theory tells us that the secret of effective insulation is still air.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
Then there are sea levels…whatever that means in spherical geometry. Sea levels don’t rise and fall they move around. Twice daily the sea surrounding my houseboat goes up and down six feet and then drains away leaving me high and proud on the mud.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
Meanwhile the waters of my local &lt;em&gt;North Atlantic Ocean&lt;/em&gt; swirl around like water in a cooking basin. A planet moving through space at speed produces tides and currents in its oceans.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
Untold billions of pounds is being siphoned off to utility bosses, jerry builders, crooked politicians and bloated bankers on the back of fraudulent prospectuses. Only our &lt;em&gt;House of Peers&lt;/em&gt; and the &lt;em&gt;Audit Commission&lt;/em&gt; puts up any token resistance.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
The claim that nuclear power can solve the problem of rising sea levels is humbug. Rising sea levels make nuclear plants unfeasible because all the existing sites would be six fathoms deep. Feasibility studies will need two contradictory sets of predictions. One lot for building new plants and another to prove they will be safe for 100 years. Ignorant is a polite way to put it.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
How much energy will it take to make and move all that construction concrete around and pump those billions of gallons of cooling water to the steam kettles high on the &lt;em&gt;Yorkshire Moors&lt;/em&gt;…on the off chance oceans overrun the coastal plains 100 years hence? The &lt;em&gt;Nuclear Energy&lt;/em&gt; account will be millions of gigawatts in the red…and rising…before any nuclear plant opens for business.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
It makes more sense to shut down existing plants, drape black roofing felt over them and run a few hundred miles of water-filled copper coils on top of them. Atomic power that was &lt;em&gt;Too Cheap To Meter&lt;/em&gt; in the 1950s is &lt;em&gt;Too Expensive In Energy&lt;/em&gt; today. But the root of the problem lies elsewhere…in our 19th century piped energy mentality.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
The national piped energy grids…electricity, oil, gas and hydrogen…must be dismantled.  Water leaks can be plugged by replacing broken pipes. But leaking energy is what electricity grids do, leaking oil is what oil pipelines do eventually. And who needs to strap explosives round their waist when gas pipelines criss-cross the country.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
Each town and every county, each village and every urban parish needs to disconnect from the national piped energy grids. But to ask the nuclear, oil, electricity, hydrogen and utility industries to take the initiative is like expecting turkeys to vote for Christmas.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
My investment tip is companies making black roofing felt and firms recycling copper piping from the telephone cables made redundant by glass fibre optics.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
A hundred years ago the world’s leading &lt;em&gt;Economic Geographer&lt;/em&gt; predicted that the politics of the 20th Century would pit &lt;em&gt;Locality&lt;/em&gt; against &lt;em&gt;Interests&lt;/em&gt;. &lt;em&gt;Locality&lt;/em&gt; has been losing heavily. There are no adequate theories of locality and the wealth of villagers. There are no examples of viable self-sufficient &lt;em&gt;Village States&lt;/em&gt;. The &lt;em&gt;Napoleons of Notting Hill&lt;/em&gt; are ridiculed. The &lt;em&gt;Good Life&lt;/em&gt; for all the community…real people in real places…never makes it through the planning jungle. Without viable alternatives outside interests will continue riding roughshod over local people.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
Countervailing power needs harnessing to stop the scientific juggernaut of the &lt;em&gt;Political-Legal-Media (PLM)&lt;/em&gt; complex and its &lt;em&gt;Big Banks, Big Industry and Big Government (BIG-BIG)&lt;/em&gt; backers.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
The interests of &lt;em&gt;Homecomers&lt;/em&gt; are not those of the &lt;em&gt;Onward and Upward&lt;/em&gt; brigade…to use the terms coined by E.F.Schumacher 40 years ago to explain the idea of an Intermediate Technology Development Group. A coalition of &lt;em&gt;Gentlemen Scientists&lt;/em&gt; and &lt;em&gt;Royal Scientific Societies&lt;/em&gt; needs to reclaim &lt;em&gt;The Idea of Science&lt;/em&gt;.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
The &lt;em&gt;Dodgy Climate Dossiers&lt;/em&gt; provide the opportunity. The task of the &lt;em&gt;Human Scale Movement&lt;/em&gt; is to represent the inside interests of real people in real places, to design models for right livelihood in the towns and in the countryside.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
The movement must furnish &lt;em&gt;Local Fronts&lt;/em&gt; with the tools and recipes to bypass the moneylenders and traders and invest in their own solutions to their own problems.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
Control of &lt;em&gt;Science&lt;/em&gt; must pass out of the dead hands of &lt;em&gt;Interests&lt;/em&gt; and flow into the life-giving care of &lt;em&gt;Locality&lt;/em&gt;.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
Another Schumacher innovation…the &lt;em&gt;Soil Association&lt;/em&gt;…shows us the way forward. The &lt;em&gt;Human Scale Movement&lt;/em&gt;…the champions of locality over outside interests…must put our own mark on scientific research so that ordinary people can discriminate between &lt;em&gt;Good Science&lt;/em&gt; and &lt;em&gt;Bad Science&lt;/em&gt; just as the &lt;em&gt;Soil Association Mark&lt;/em&gt; enables them to distinguish between &lt;em&gt;Good Food&lt;/em&gt; and &lt;em&gt;Bad Food&lt;/em&gt;.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
But as the &lt;em&gt;Organic Movement&lt;/em&gt; has discovered this is necessary but not sufficient. A loose-knit world-wide organisation that academics, scientists and activists can join is also needed.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
Over the past 40 years the &lt;em&gt;Organic Movement&lt;/em&gt; has developed recipes that a &lt;em&gt;Real Science Movement&lt;/em&gt; can adopt. The &lt;em&gt;International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements (IFOAM)&lt;/em&gt; is a new form of organisation that is neither trade association nor special interests lobby group but a functional democratic confederation of individuals and small societies who share a mutual interest in &lt;em&gt;Good Food, Good Soil&lt;/em&gt; and &lt;em&gt;Good Farming&lt;/em&gt;. This is what the &lt;em&gt;Real Science Movement&lt;/em&gt; needs.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
Internally &lt;em&gt;IFOAM&lt;/em&gt; provides space for inside interests to resolve their differences and grapple with their mutual problems. Externally &lt;em&gt;IFOAM&lt;/em&gt; supplies the ambassadors and the diplomatic function that &lt;em&gt;Good Food&lt;/em&gt; interests needs to negotiate effectively with &lt;em&gt;Global Agribusiness&lt;/em&gt;. Just as food is too important to be left to the &lt;em&gt;Agriculture Industry&lt;/em&gt;, science is too important to be left to the &lt;em&gt;Science Business&lt;/em&gt;.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p class="right"&gt;&lt;a href="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2008/07/24/shepherd-on-climate-list-of-contents-4491538"&gt;&lt;em&gt;more from Shepherd on Climate&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt; &lt;small&gt; &lt;a href="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2006/07/11/who_is_listening~951538/#comments"&gt;Comments&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/small&gt; &lt;/p&gt;</default:description><content:encoded xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"><![CDATA[	<p>
In our stupidity we have entrusted computers with the job of forecasting our future. But since this is impossible the machine-minders in their grey suits and white coats have been busy inventing new fears and forecasting imminent disasters to back-up their own self-seeking wild-eyed prophesies.
</p>
	<p>
In half an hour our nuclear reactor in the sky a hundred million miles away showers our back gardens with enough power to keep everyone in energy for a year.
</p>
	<p>Behind the <em>Kyoto Protocol</em> on carbon emissions was a UN report claiming a scientific consensus that global warming is real, damaging, man-made and caused by burning fossil fuels…economical with the actualité the latest draft of <em>IPCC’s</em> next climate change report removes the phrase ‘caused directly or indirectly by human activity’ and replaces it with fluffy wording about ‘any change over time whether due to natural variability or human activity’. This is tantamount to admitting that <em>Kyoto</em> is based on a pack of lies or…more charitably…on a case which is unproven.</p>
	<p>
We are told that 99% of the earth's atmosphere has no insulating properties and only Carbon Dioxide keeps the earth at an even temperature. But insulation theory tells us that the secret of effective insulation is still air.
</p>
	<p>
Then there are sea levels…whatever that means in spherical geometry. Sea levels don’t rise and fall they move around. Twice daily the sea surrounding my houseboat goes up and down six feet and then drains away leaving me high and proud on the mud.
</p>
	<p>
Meanwhile the waters of my local <em>North Atlantic Ocean</em> swirl around like water in a cooking basin. A planet moving through space at speed produces tides and currents in its oceans.
</p>
	<p>
Untold billions of pounds is being siphoned off to utility bosses, jerry builders, crooked politicians and bloated bankers on the back of fraudulent prospectuses. Only our <em>House of Peers</em> and the <em>Audit Commission</em> puts up any token resistance.
</p>
	<p>
The claim that nuclear power can solve the problem of rising sea levels is humbug. Rising sea levels make nuclear plants unfeasible because all the existing sites would be six fathoms deep. Feasibility studies will need two contradictory sets of predictions. One lot for building new plants and another to prove they will be safe for 100 years. Ignorant is a polite way to put it.
</p>
	<p>
How much energy will it take to make and move all that construction concrete around and pump those billions of gallons of cooling water to the steam kettles high on the <em>Yorkshire Moors</em>…on the off chance oceans overrun the coastal plains 100 years hence? The <em>Nuclear Energy</em> account will be millions of gigawatts in the red…and rising…before any nuclear plant opens for business.
</p>
	<p>
It makes more sense to shut down existing plants, drape black roofing felt over them and run a few hundred miles of water-filled copper coils on top of them. Atomic power that was <em>Too Cheap To Meter</em> in the 1950s is <em>Too Expensive In Energy</em> today. But the root of the problem lies elsewhere…in our 19th century piped energy mentality.
</p>
	<p>
The national piped energy grids…electricity, oil, gas and hydrogen…must be dismantled.  Water leaks can be plugged by replacing broken pipes. But leaking energy is what electricity grids do, leaking oil is what oil pipelines do eventually. And who needs to strap explosives round their waist when gas pipelines criss-cross the country.
</p>
	<p>
Each town and every county, each village and every urban parish needs to disconnect from the national piped energy grids. But to ask the nuclear, oil, electricity, hydrogen and utility industries to take the initiative is like expecting turkeys to vote for Christmas.
</p>
	<p>
My investment tip is companies making black roofing felt and firms recycling copper piping from the telephone cables made redundant by glass fibre optics.
</p>
	<p>
A hundred years ago the world’s leading <em>Economic Geographer</em> predicted that the politics of the 20th Century would pit <em>Locality</em> against <em>Interests</em>. <em>Locality</em> has been losing heavily. There are no adequate theories of locality and the wealth of villagers. There are no examples of viable self-sufficient <em>Village States</em>. The <em>Napoleons of Notting Hill</em> are ridiculed. The <em>Good Life</em> for all the community…real people in real places…never makes it through the planning jungle. Without viable alternatives outside interests will continue riding roughshod over local people.
</p>
	<p>
Countervailing power needs harnessing to stop the scientific juggernaut of the <em>Political-Legal-Media (PLM)</em> complex and its <em>Big Banks, Big Industry and Big Government (BIG-BIG)</em> backers.
</p>
	<p>
The interests of <em>Homecomers</em> are not those of the <em>Onward and Upward</em> brigade…to use the terms coined by E.F.Schumacher 40 years ago to explain the idea of an Intermediate Technology Development Group. A coalition of <em>Gentlemen Scientists</em> and <em>Royal Scientific Societies</em> needs to reclaim <em>The Idea of Science</em>.
</p>
	<p>
The <em>Dodgy Climate Dossiers</em> provide the opportunity. The task of the <em>Human Scale Movement</em> is to represent the inside interests of real people in real places, to design models for right livelihood in the towns and in the countryside.
</p>
	<p>
The movement must furnish <em>Local Fronts</em> with the tools and recipes to bypass the moneylenders and traders and invest in their own solutions to their own problems.
</p>
	<p>
Control of <em>Science</em> must pass out of the dead hands of <em>Interests</em> and flow into the life-giving care of <em>Locality</em>.
</p>
	<p>
Another Schumacher innovation…the <em>Soil Association</em>…shows us the way forward. The <em>Human Scale Movement</em>…the champions of locality over outside interests…must put our own mark on scientific research so that ordinary people can discriminate between <em>Good Science</em> and <em>Bad Science</em> just as the <em>Soil Association Mark</em> enables them to distinguish between <em>Good Food</em> and <em>Bad Food</em>.
</p>
	<p>
But as the <em>Organic Movement</em> has discovered this is necessary but not sufficient. A loose-knit world-wide organisation that academics, scientists and activists can join is also needed.
</p>
	<p>
Over the past 40 years the <em>Organic Movement</em> has developed recipes that a <em>Real Science Movement</em> can adopt. The <em>International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements (IFOAM)</em> is a new form of organisation that is neither trade association nor special interests lobby group but a functional democratic confederation of individuals and small societies who share a mutual interest in <em>Good Food, Good Soil</em> and <em>Good Farming</em>. This is what the <em>Real Science Movement</em> needs.
</p>
	<p>
Internally <em>IFOAM</em> provides space for inside interests to resolve their differences and grapple with their mutual problems. Externally <em>IFOAM</em> supplies the ambassadors and the diplomatic function that <em>Good Food</em> interests needs to negotiate effectively with <em>Global Agribusiness</em>. Just as food is too important to be left to the <em>Agriculture Industry</em>, science is too important to be left to the <em>Science Business</em>.
</p>
	<p class="right"><a href="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2008/07/24/shepherd-on-climate-list-of-contents-4491538"><em>more from Shepherd on Climate</em></a>
</p>
<p> <small> <a href="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2006/07/11/who_is_listening~951538/#comments">Comments</a> </small> </p>]]></content:encoded></default:item><default:item xmlns:default="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" rdf:about="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2006/06/27/sunken_knowledge~915558/"><default:title>Sunken Knowledge</default:title><default:link>http://climate.blog.co.uk/2006/06/27/sunken_knowledge~915558/</default:link><dc:date xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">2006-06-27T15:17:49+02:00</dc:date><default:description>	&lt;p&gt;
&lt;em&gt;first published as weblog &lt;a href="http://williamshepherd.blog.co.uk/2006/06/27/sunday_25th_june~915568"&gt;one hundred and seventy six&lt;/a&gt; on Sunday 25th June 2006&lt;/em&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
Christopher Strangeways is in the vanguard of environmental activism in and around &lt;em&gt;Rye&lt;/em&gt; and is the mastermind behind the &lt;em&gt;Rye Farmer’s Market&lt;/em&gt;. As he is thinking of entering mainstream local politics by standing for the &lt;em&gt;Rye Town Council &lt;/em&gt;next year he has started addressing such local issues as a &lt;em&gt;Town Programme &lt;/em&gt;to counter the effects of &lt;em&gt;Global Warming&lt;/em&gt;. During a recent e-mail exchange I pointed him to my &lt;em&gt;Climate Blog &lt;/em&gt;and he responded by giving me his understanding of what my climate blog was saying.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
Christopher picked up on Michael Crichton’s presentation in &lt;em&gt;State of Fear&lt;/em&gt; of the idea that increasing concern for the environment since the fall of the &lt;em&gt;Berlin Wall&lt;/em&gt; had been orchestrated by those with an interest in creating a crisis to preoccupy &lt;em&gt;The West&lt;/em&gt;…and that this &lt;em&gt;Fear Generation&lt;/em&gt; had got out of control. I share Crichton’s suspicion about the &lt;em&gt;Fear Factories &lt;/em&gt;but &lt;em&gt;Fear Generation&lt;/em&gt; being out of control is mine...though not my central idea.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
I don't think I suggested that environmental fears were irrational and based on dodgy science…although this might be the case...so I responded to this interpretation of my views by remarking that my principal concern was the extent to which the &lt;em&gt;Climate Change&lt;/em&gt; scene was bedevilled by bad science. Everybody was spinning findings that were derived from preconceived prejudices and manipulating public information. For the &lt;em&gt;Environmental Movement&lt;/em&gt; this was a mistaken strategy. They should change tack and be seen as cleaner than clean whenever they adopt scientific findings to champion a particular case. Truth will win through in the end. The quality of the science matters.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
I was also concerned to see a shift in the way the &lt;em&gt;Precautionary Principle &lt;/em&gt;was applied. To do anything just because the situation was desperate begged two questions. Firstly how desperate was the situation and secondly whether what was being suggested would help or hinder. The answers at the moment are that we don’t know whether the situation is desperate…the data is ambivalent, poorly collected and badly processed…and we don’t understand the planet’s climate. So we have no way to appraise the consequences of our meddling.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
While in this state of limited knowledge &lt;em&gt;Environmentalists&lt;/em&gt; should be sceptical about the &lt;em&gt;Smoke and Mirrors Departments&lt;/em&gt;. Bad science is always bad science, every scientist is paid by someone and pipers calling the tune have agendas. In summary I am calling for intellectual clarity. One thing we know little about is &lt;em&gt;Ocean Algae&lt;/em&gt;.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
For centuries there has been anecdotal evidence that small creatures can sense the approach of earthquakes. But it now turns out that tiny algae in the sea are every bit as sensitive to earthquakes. Studies of recent earthquakes with epicentres close to the coast…&lt;em&gt;Gujurat In&lt;/em&gt;dia (2001), &lt;em&gt;Algeria&lt;/em&gt; (2002) and &lt;em&gt;Bam, Iran &lt;/em&gt;(2003)…have supplied evidence of a huge surge in &lt;em&gt;Chlorophyll&lt;/em&gt; levels just before a quake. It might therefore be possible to programme satellites to flag up unexpected algal blooms and to use this data as the basis for a reliable &lt;em&gt;Earthquake Early Warning System&lt;/em&gt;.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
The behaviour of algae is important because algae fix half the world’s &lt;em&gt;Carbon&lt;/em&gt;. Every year more &lt;em&gt;CO2&lt;/em&gt; is produced than can be accounted for in the atmosphere so the numbers don’t work out. Algae and photosynthesis might explain the missing &lt;em&gt;CO2&lt;/em&gt; and &lt;em&gt;European Oceanographers &lt;/em&gt;may have found the missing &lt;em&gt;Carbon Sink &lt;/em&gt;and how it works.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
Water surging into the open ocean from the &lt;em&gt;Iberian Peninsula &lt;/em&gt;pulls &lt;em&gt;Carbon&lt;/em&gt; out of the air. Nutrient-rich water from a deep &lt;em&gt;Upwelling&lt;/em&gt; near the coast causes a burst of algal growth. When algae are eaten the &lt;em&gt;CO2&lt;/em&gt; they absorb is recycled back into the atmosphere. But some of the water travels hundreds of miles out into the &lt;em&gt;Open Atlantic &lt;/em&gt;causing even more algae to grow. In the open ocean the algae simply die and sink taking their &lt;em&gt;Carbon&lt;/em&gt; with them. The effect is much greater than was previously realised.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
Something else that has been puzzling &lt;em&gt;Ocean Researchers &lt;/em&gt;is the way that half the algal species in our oceans need to take in &lt;em&gt;Vitamin B12 &lt;/em&gt;from outside in order to grow properly. They do so by means of a beneficial relationship with bacteria. Here is the science. It seems that no algae have the necessary genes to produce &lt;em&gt;Vitamin B12&lt;/em&gt;. Those that do not require a supply are like higher plants with an alternative metabolic process that does not need the vitamin.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
However algae that need &lt;em&gt;Vitamin B12 &lt;/em&gt;cannot make it themselves and must get it from somewhere else. But the numbers do not add up because the amount of &lt;em&gt;Vitamin B12&lt;/em&gt; required to grow the types of algae that do not need the vitamin in the laboratory is much higher than natural levels in the seas and rivers.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
It turns out that in the natural environment &lt;em&gt;Bacteria&lt;/em&gt; supply the necessary &lt;em&gt;Vitamin B12&lt;/em&gt;. But this is not a one way relationship. The algae support the bacteria by providing them with &lt;em&gt;Carbon&lt;/em&gt; from their own photosynthesis. What these observations demonstrate is that although algae live by harvesting the sun’s energy through photosynthesis many of them are like animals in that they need another organism to supply them with a vital nutrient. Time and time again as you look at the science it becomes apparent that these are early days in &lt;em&gt;Climate Science&lt;/em&gt;. Caution and not desperation is what is called for. Don’t just do something…anything…stand there!
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p class="right"&gt;&lt;a href="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2008/07/24/shepherd-on-climate-list-of-contents-4491538"&gt;&lt;em&gt;more from Shepherd on Climate&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt; &lt;small&gt; &lt;a href="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2006/06/27/sunken_knowledge~915558/#comments"&gt;Comments&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/small&gt; &lt;/p&gt;</default:description><content:encoded xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"><![CDATA[	<p>
<em>first published as weblog <a href="http://williamshepherd.blog.co.uk/2006/06/27/sunday_25th_june~915568">one hundred and seventy six</a> on Sunday 25th June 2006</em>
</p>
	<p>
Christopher Strangeways is in the vanguard of environmental activism in and around <em>Rye</em> and is the mastermind behind the <em>Rye Farmer’s Market</em>. As he is thinking of entering mainstream local politics by standing for the <em>Rye Town Council </em>next year he has started addressing such local issues as a <em>Town Programme </em>to counter the effects of <em>Global Warming</em>. During a recent e-mail exchange I pointed him to my <em>Climate Blog </em>and he responded by giving me his understanding of what my climate blog was saying.
</p>
	<p>
Christopher picked up on Michael Crichton’s presentation in <em>State of Fear</em> of the idea that increasing concern for the environment since the fall of the <em>Berlin Wall</em> had been orchestrated by those with an interest in creating a crisis to preoccupy <em>The West</em>…and that this <em>Fear Generation</em> had got out of control. I share Crichton’s suspicion about the <em>Fear Factories </em>but <em>Fear Generation</em> being out of control is mine...though not my central idea.
</p>
	<p>
I don't think I suggested that environmental fears were irrational and based on dodgy science…although this might be the case...so I responded to this interpretation of my views by remarking that my principal concern was the extent to which the <em>Climate Change</em> scene was bedevilled by bad science. Everybody was spinning findings that were derived from preconceived prejudices and manipulating public information. For the <em>Environmental Movement</em> this was a mistaken strategy. They should change tack and be seen as cleaner than clean whenever they adopt scientific findings to champion a particular case. Truth will win through in the end. The quality of the science matters.
</p>
	<p>
I was also concerned to see a shift in the way the <em>Precautionary Principle </em>was applied. To do anything just because the situation was desperate begged two questions. Firstly how desperate was the situation and secondly whether what was being suggested would help or hinder. The answers at the moment are that we don’t know whether the situation is desperate…the data is ambivalent, poorly collected and badly processed…and we don’t understand the planet’s climate. So we have no way to appraise the consequences of our meddling.
</p>
	<p>
While in this state of limited knowledge <em>Environmentalists</em> should be sceptical about the <em>Smoke and Mirrors Departments</em>. Bad science is always bad science, every scientist is paid by someone and pipers calling the tune have agendas. In summary I am calling for intellectual clarity. One thing we know little about is <em>Ocean Algae</em>.
</p>
	<p>
For centuries there has been anecdotal evidence that small creatures can sense the approach of earthquakes. But it now turns out that tiny algae in the sea are every bit as sensitive to earthquakes. Studies of recent earthquakes with epicentres close to the coast…<em>Gujurat In</em>dia (2001), <em>Algeria</em> (2002) and <em>Bam, Iran </em>(2003)…have supplied evidence of a huge surge in <em>Chlorophyll</em> levels just before a quake. It might therefore be possible to programme satellites to flag up unexpected algal blooms and to use this data as the basis for a reliable <em>Earthquake Early Warning System</em>.
</p>
	<p>
The behaviour of algae is important because algae fix half the world’s <em>Carbon</em>. Every year more <em>CO2</em> is produced than can be accounted for in the atmosphere so the numbers don’t work out. Algae and photosynthesis might explain the missing <em>CO2</em> and <em>European Oceanographers </em>may have found the missing <em>Carbon Sink </em>and how it works.
</p>
	<p>
Water surging into the open ocean from the <em>Iberian Peninsula </em>pulls <em>Carbon</em> out of the air. Nutrient-rich water from a deep <em>Upwelling</em> near the coast causes a burst of algal growth. When algae are eaten the <em>CO2</em> they absorb is recycled back into the atmosphere. But some of the water travels hundreds of miles out into the <em>Open Atlantic </em>causing even more algae to grow. In the open ocean the algae simply die and sink taking their <em>Carbon</em> with them. The effect is much greater than was previously realised.
</p>
	<p>
Something else that has been puzzling <em>Ocean Researchers </em>is the way that half the algal species in our oceans need to take in <em>Vitamin B12 </em>from outside in order to grow properly. They do so by means of a beneficial relationship with bacteria. Here is the science. It seems that no algae have the necessary genes to produce <em>Vitamin B12</em>. Those that do not require a supply are like higher plants with an alternative metabolic process that does not need the vitamin.
</p>
	<p>
However algae that need <em>Vitamin B12 </em>cannot make it themselves and must get it from somewhere else. But the numbers do not add up because the amount of <em>Vitamin B12</em> required to grow the types of algae that do not need the vitamin in the laboratory is much higher than natural levels in the seas and rivers.
</p>
	<p>
It turns out that in the natural environment <em>Bacteria</em> supply the necessary <em>Vitamin B12</em>. But this is not a one way relationship. The algae support the bacteria by providing them with <em>Carbon</em> from their own photosynthesis. What these observations demonstrate is that although algae live by harvesting the sun’s energy through photosynthesis many of them are like animals in that they need another organism to supply them with a vital nutrient. Time and time again as you look at the science it becomes apparent that these are early days in <em>Climate Science</em>. Caution and not desperation is what is called for. Don’t just do something…anything…stand there!
</p>
	<p class="right"><a href="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2008/07/24/shepherd-on-climate-list-of-contents-4491538"><em>more from Shepherd on Climate</em></a>
</p>
<p> <small> <a href="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2006/06/27/sunken_knowledge~915558/#comments">Comments</a> </small> </p>]]></content:encoded></default:item><default:item xmlns:default="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" rdf:about="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2006/06/19/cloud_cuckoo_land~893306/"><default:title>Cloud Cuckoo Land</default:title><default:link>http://climate.blog.co.uk/2006/06/19/cloud_cuckoo_land~893306/</default:link><dc:date xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">2006-06-19T11:04:14+02:00</dc:date><default:description>	&lt;p&gt;
&lt;em&gt;first published as weblog &lt;a href="http://williamshepherd.blog.co.uk/2006/06/19/sunday_18th_june~893290"&gt;one hundred and sixty nine&lt;/a&gt; on Sunday 18th June 2006&lt;/em&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
Whilst wintering in &lt;em&gt;Llangolman&lt;/em&gt; I made it through the long dark &lt;em&gt;Welsh&lt;/em&gt; winter nights by watching &lt;em&gt;DVDs&lt;/em&gt; of a twelve-part series of &lt;em&gt;The Best of the TV Detectives &lt;/em&gt;acquired for the price of a copy of the &lt;em&gt;Daily Express &lt;/em&gt;each weekday for two weeks. The plot of one of these dramas hinged on a claim that there was no mobile phone signal. The hero of the hour did his research and at the last moment…with the situation at its bleakest for the poor besieged train driver up for manslaughter…a defence witness was rushed onto the stand. He was an expert on mobile phones and duly explained to the judge and the jury that mobile phone signals are affected by wind and rain.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
The strength of a mobile phone signal dips in the rain…and in sleet, snow and hail. The heavier the precipitation the greater the interference. So next time you are on the train tell your caller that it is raining outside as well. This presents an interesting opportunity for a new era of &lt;em&gt;Gentlemen&lt;/em&gt; and &lt;em&gt;People Science&lt;/em&gt;. Mobile phone networks can replace radar as a back-up to rain gauges…with the big advantage that they record what happens under the clouds instead of guessing that where there are clouds there must be rain like the radar does. But then guessing is what meteorologists do…and climatologists have carried on the tradition.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
The atmosphere is a big mystery. The &lt;em&gt;Carbonistas&lt;/em&gt; like to push the notion that &lt;em&gt;Global Warming &lt;/em&gt;is going to raise the temperature so more moisture will evaporate from the ocean and put more moisture into the air and that this will increase the &lt;em&gt;Greenhouse Effect&lt;/em&gt; by fifty percent. Their computer models tell them that a doubling of CO2 in the air will heat the planet by 3 to 8 degrees Celsius. The trouble is when you talk to people who understand things like the scientists at the &lt;em&gt;Center for Clouds, Chemistry and Climate&lt;/em&gt; in &lt;em&gt;La Jolla California &lt;/em&gt;they tell a rather different story.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
A warmer moister atmosphere will create a different pattern of cloud cover. This might dramatically enhance the heating…or it might counteract it. Five years of satellite measurements between 1984 and 1989 established that clouds cool the planet more effectively than they heat it…for now. Clouds remove the heat of a 60-watt light bulb from every six-by-six foot patch of &lt;em&gt;Earth’s&lt;/em&gt; surface. These results show that net cloud cooling is four times greater than the warming expected from doubling CO2. Without clouds the planet could be twenty degrees hotter.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
So &lt;a href="http://www.holobolo.net/musicweb/littlecloud.mp3"&gt;&lt;em&gt;clouds matter&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;…so water is one of the greenhouse gases that &lt;em&gt;Carbonistas&lt;/em&gt; have mixed feelings about because it might just play merry hell with their &lt;em&gt;Carbon Story&lt;/em&gt;. The H2O molecule has four times the power of the CO2 molecule. So the climate modellers take the only course open to them. They make a stab at it when it comes to clouds. As far as cloud cover is concerned they guess…although it is only the very best scientists that call it that. The rest use words like estimate, parameterisation or approximation. But how do you approximate something you don’t understand? Finger in the wind? Whistle in the dark? It’s a guess. But perhaps the humble mobile phone can come to the rescue.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
The evidence is not there yet but the thinking is that if the mobile phone mast is picking up fluctuations caused by wind and rain then it is probably reacting to shifting levels of water vapour in the atmosphere as well. Mobile phone masts might not be the scourge we all thought they were. They could be the leading edge of the &lt;em&gt;War Against Global Warming&lt;/em&gt;. Now there’s a thought…and a rather useful one…because collecting scientific date is no simple matter.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
It is no accident that so much science is qualified by the term ‘under laboratory conditions’. Operant conditions have a way of playing havoc with the best-laid scientific hypotheses so good scientists always record all of them. Take the temperature-time series to illustrate. You can do one of two things. You measure the temperature in the same place for as long as possible…hopefully for centuries...or you measure under similar operant conditions.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
The first course of action seems to make sense because the shape of the landscape affects the local climate. A number this side of the hill will not be the same as one from the other side. But there is a problem. A hundred years ago your measuring point was in the middle of a field five miles out of town. Today it’s in the middle of a shopping centre. In fact as a general statement towns have expanded to overwhelm most of the climate scientists’ data collection points.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
Built-up environments are several degrees warmer than similar places without people. On that at least there seems to be a consensus…although I have not delved that deeply and have become sceptical about the idea of consensus. So what does our poor scientist do? He looks for an article in the scientific press with a graph of temperature versus land use. He gets a little hot under the collar when he sees that it swamps any shifts in his own data but he has learnt how you do this sort of thing in college…and besides everybody else does it. It is best practice. So he alters his data.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
He has clever names for these alterations like correcting for anomalies. But to you and me what he is actually up to is crossing out the numbers he measured and replacing them with different numbers that he has made up. Now just a minute! What we thought was raw data is now adjusted raw data. And this brings in a whole new question about how the data is adjusted, where that graph came from, what algorithms are being used and the different operant conditions at the graph site and the measurement site. Even something as simple as collecting data is far from simple.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p class="right"&gt;&lt;a href="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2008/07/24/shepherd-on-climate-list-of-contents-4491538"&gt;&lt;em&gt;more from Shepherd on Climate&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt; &lt;small&gt; &lt;a href="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2006/06/19/cloud_cuckoo_land~893306/#comments"&gt;Comments&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/small&gt; &lt;/p&gt;</default:description><content:encoded xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"><![CDATA[	<p>
<em>first published as weblog <a href="http://williamshepherd.blog.co.uk/2006/06/19/sunday_18th_june~893290">one hundred and sixty nine</a> on Sunday 18th June 2006</em>
</p>
	<p>
Whilst wintering in <em>Llangolman</em> I made it through the long dark <em>Welsh</em> winter nights by watching <em>DVDs</em> of a twelve-part series of <em>The Best of the TV Detectives </em>acquired for the price of a copy of the <em>Daily Express </em>each weekday for two weeks. The plot of one of these dramas hinged on a claim that there was no mobile phone signal. The hero of the hour did his research and at the last moment…with the situation at its bleakest for the poor besieged train driver up for manslaughter…a defence witness was rushed onto the stand. He was an expert on mobile phones and duly explained to the judge and the jury that mobile phone signals are affected by wind and rain.
</p>
	<p>
The strength of a mobile phone signal dips in the rain…and in sleet, snow and hail. The heavier the precipitation the greater the interference. So next time you are on the train tell your caller that it is raining outside as well. This presents an interesting opportunity for a new era of <em>Gentlemen</em> and <em>People Science</em>. Mobile phone networks can replace radar as a back-up to rain gauges…with the big advantage that they record what happens under the clouds instead of guessing that where there are clouds there must be rain like the radar does. But then guessing is what meteorologists do…and climatologists have carried on the tradition.
</p>
	<p>
The atmosphere is a big mystery. The <em>Carbonistas</em> like to push the notion that <em>Global Warming </em>is going to raise the temperature so more moisture will evaporate from the ocean and put more moisture into the air and that this will increase the <em>Greenhouse Effect</em> by fifty percent. Their computer models tell them that a doubling of CO2 in the air will heat the planet by 3 to 8 degrees Celsius. The trouble is when you talk to people who understand things like the scientists at the <em>Center for Clouds, Chemistry and Climate</em> in <em>La Jolla California </em>they tell a rather different story.
</p>
	<p>
A warmer moister atmosphere will create a different pattern of cloud cover. This might dramatically enhance the heating…or it might counteract it. Five years of satellite measurements between 1984 and 1989 established that clouds cool the planet more effectively than they heat it…for now. Clouds remove the heat of a 60-watt light bulb from every six-by-six foot patch of <em>Earth’s</em> surface. These results show that net cloud cooling is four times greater than the warming expected from doubling CO2. Without clouds the planet could be twenty degrees hotter.
</p>
	<p>
So <a href="http://www.holobolo.net/musicweb/littlecloud.mp3"><em>clouds matter</em></a>…so water is one of the greenhouse gases that <em>Carbonistas</em> have mixed feelings about because it might just play merry hell with their <em>Carbon Story</em>. The H2O molecule has four times the power of the CO2 molecule. So the climate modellers take the only course open to them. They make a stab at it when it comes to clouds. As far as cloud cover is concerned they guess…although it is only the very best scientists that call it that. The rest use words like estimate, parameterisation or approximation. But how do you approximate something you don’t understand? Finger in the wind? Whistle in the dark? It’s a guess. But perhaps the humble mobile phone can come to the rescue.
</p>
	<p>
The evidence is not there yet but the thinking is that if the mobile phone mast is picking up fluctuations caused by wind and rain then it is probably reacting to shifting levels of water vapour in the atmosphere as well. Mobile phone masts might not be the scourge we all thought they were. They could be the leading edge of the <em>War Against Global Warming</em>. Now there’s a thought…and a rather useful one…because collecting scientific date is no simple matter.
</p>
	<p>
It is no accident that so much science is qualified by the term ‘under laboratory conditions’. Operant conditions have a way of playing havoc with the best-laid scientific hypotheses so good scientists always record all of them. Take the temperature-time series to illustrate. You can do one of two things. You measure the temperature in the same place for as long as possible…hopefully for centuries...or you measure under similar operant conditions.
</p>
	<p>
The first course of action seems to make sense because the shape of the landscape affects the local climate. A number this side of the hill will not be the same as one from the other side. But there is a problem. A hundred years ago your measuring point was in the middle of a field five miles out of town. Today it’s in the middle of a shopping centre. In fact as a general statement towns have expanded to overwhelm most of the climate scientists’ data collection points.
</p>
	<p>
Built-up environments are several degrees warmer than similar places without people. On that at least there seems to be a consensus…although I have not delved that deeply and have become sceptical about the idea of consensus. So what does our poor scientist do? He looks for an article in the scientific press with a graph of temperature versus land use. He gets a little hot under the collar when he sees that it swamps any shifts in his own data but he has learnt how you do this sort of thing in college…and besides everybody else does it. It is best practice. So he alters his data.
</p>
	<p>
He has clever names for these alterations like correcting for anomalies. But to you and me what he is actually up to is crossing out the numbers he measured and replacing them with different numbers that he has made up. Now just a minute! What we thought was raw data is now adjusted raw data. And this brings in a whole new question about how the data is adjusted, where that graph came from, what algorithms are being used and the different operant conditions at the graph site and the measurement site. Even something as simple as collecting data is far from simple.
</p>
	<p class="right"><a href="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2008/07/24/shepherd-on-climate-list-of-contents-4491538"><em>more from Shepherd on Climate</em></a>
</p>
<p> <small> <a href="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2006/06/19/cloud_cuckoo_land~893306/#comments">Comments</a> </small> </p>]]></content:encoded></default:item><default:item xmlns:default="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" rdf:about="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2006/06/12/global_cooling~872594/"><default:title>New Ice Age</default:title><default:link>http://climate.blog.co.uk/2006/06/12/global_cooling~872594/</default:link><dc:date xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">2006-06-12T13:52:03+02:00</dc:date><default:description>	&lt;p&gt;
&lt;em&gt;first published in &lt;a href="http://williamshepherd.blog.co.uk/2006/05/26/wednesday_24th_may~830788"&gt;weblog one hundred and forty four &lt;/a&gt;on Wednesday 24th May 2006&lt;/em&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
It was cold last night. I gave the boat a half-hearted burst of heat for a few minutes in mid-evening but then thought better of it and dug out a sweater. But we had the best of it. In Scotland the &lt;em&gt;Sassenachs&lt;/em&gt; shivered through one of the coldest nights recorded for May with temperatures plunging to 25 Fahrenheit at &lt;em&gt;Tulloch Bridge &lt;/em&gt;in the &lt;em&gt;Highlands&lt;/em&gt;. Clear skies and an Arctic wind produced a freezing snap. We are clearly heading for a &lt;em&gt;New Ice Age&lt;/em&gt;.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
On 23rd May 1935 Britain was carpeted in snow. Small villages in the &lt;em&gt;Yorkshire Dales &lt;/em&gt;were two to three feet deep in snow and villages had to dig themselves out of their homes according to a report in &lt;em&gt;The Times&lt;/em&gt;. Cars were abandoned in snowdrifts on roads and trains derailed on frozen railway points. &lt;em&gt;Devon&lt;/em&gt; and &lt;em&gt;Cornwall&lt;/em&gt; were said to look like a scene from a Christmas card. The bitter cold spelt disaster for fruit and vegetable farmers from &lt;em&gt;South Wales&lt;/em&gt; to &lt;em&gt;Kent&lt;/em&gt;.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
&lt;em&gt;The Times&lt;/em&gt; reported a loss of thousands of pounds in &lt;em&gt;Sittingbourne&lt;/em&gt;. In desperation one apple grower used thousands of oil lamps to save his crop from freezing. And at the &lt;em&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/gardening/flower_shows/chelsea_2006/chelseaplants_bffvote_index.shtml"&gt;Chelsea Flower Show&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/em&gt; exhibitors worked frantically to save prize plants using heaters in greenhouses to keep the blooms alive in the bitterly cold nights. With this wasteful and extravagant use of oil no wonder the world is running out. Oil for flowers indeed!
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
But what does this tell us about the temperature? Snow was falling so it would have been hovering around 32 Fahrenheit. Humidity levels and wind chill factors would have done the rest. A fall in temperature of seven degrees over 71 years is an average drop of 0.0547731 degrees per year. What a disaster. By 2100 temperatures will have fallen by a massive ten degrees. There will be icebergs in the &lt;em&gt;Thames&lt;/em&gt; while Londoners mud-skate on the river’s edge.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
But there is some good news. There will be no need to &lt;a href="http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2184327,00.html"&gt;&lt;em&gt;tow icebergs &lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;from &lt;em&gt;Greenland&lt;/em&gt; to solve the capital’s water shortages. &lt;em&gt;Thames Water &lt;/em&gt;will be quarrying its own ice and delivering it to the ice houses of the rich and famous in &lt;em&gt;Thames Ditton &lt;/em&gt;and &lt;em&gt;Wokingham&lt;/em&gt;. But spare a thought for the poor farmer. There are a thousand &lt;em&gt;Sittingbournes&lt;/em&gt; in England and there will be thousands of cold spells between now and 2100. With decades of arctic weather, falling sea levels and declining soil fertility the apple orchards will disappear as the farmers throw themselves on the mercy of the bankruptcy courts and their new &lt;em&gt;Debt Orders&lt;/em&gt;. There will be massive emigration to &lt;em&gt;Nigeria &lt;/em&gt;and the &lt;em&gt;West Indies&lt;/em&gt;.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p class="right"&gt;&lt;a href="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2007/08/29/climate_blog_listing~2888198"&gt;&lt;em&gt;more from Shepherd on Climate&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p class="right"&gt;&lt;a href="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2008/07/24/shepherd-on-climate-list-of-contents-4491538"&gt;&lt;em&gt;more from Shepherd on Climate&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt; &lt;small&gt; &lt;a href="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2006/06/12/global_cooling~872594/#comments"&gt;Comments&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/small&gt; &lt;/p&gt;</default:description><content:encoded xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"><![CDATA[	<p>
<em>first published in <a href="http://williamshepherd.blog.co.uk/2006/05/26/wednesday_24th_may~830788">weblog one hundred and forty four </a>on Wednesday 24th May 2006</em>
</p>
	<p>
It was cold last night. I gave the boat a half-hearted burst of heat for a few minutes in mid-evening but then thought better of it and dug out a sweater. But we had the best of it. In Scotland the <em>Sassenachs</em> shivered through one of the coldest nights recorded for May with temperatures plunging to 25 Fahrenheit at <em>Tulloch Bridge </em>in the <em>Highlands</em>. Clear skies and an Arctic wind produced a freezing snap. We are clearly heading for a <em>New Ice Age</em>.
</p>
	<p>
On 23rd May 1935 Britain was carpeted in snow. Small villages in the <em>Yorkshire Dales </em>were two to three feet deep in snow and villages had to dig themselves out of their homes according to a report in <em>The Times</em>. Cars were abandoned in snowdrifts on roads and trains derailed on frozen railway points. <em>Devon</em> and <em>Cornwall</em> were said to look like a scene from a Christmas card. The bitter cold spelt disaster for fruit and vegetable farmers from <em>South Wales</em> to <em>Kent</em>.
</p>
	<p>
<em>The Times</em> reported a loss of thousands of pounds in <em>Sittingbourne</em>. In desperation one apple grower used thousands of oil lamps to save his crop from freezing. And at the <em><a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/gardening/flower_shows/chelsea_2006/chelseaplants_bffvote_index.shtml">Chelsea Flower Show</a></em> exhibitors worked frantically to save prize plants using heaters in greenhouses to keep the blooms alive in the bitterly cold nights. With this wasteful and extravagant use of oil no wonder the world is running out. Oil for flowers indeed!
</p>
	<p>
But what does this tell us about the temperature? Snow was falling so it would have been hovering around 32 Fahrenheit. Humidity levels and wind chill factors would have done the rest. A fall in temperature of seven degrees over 71 years is an average drop of 0.0547731 degrees per year. What a disaster. By 2100 temperatures will have fallen by a massive ten degrees. There will be icebergs in the <em>Thames</em> while Londoners mud-skate on the river’s edge.
</p>
	<p>
But there is some good news. There will be no need to <a href="http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2184327,00.html"><em>tow icebergs </em></a>from <em>Greenland</em> to solve the capital’s water shortages. <em>Thames Water </em>will be quarrying its own ice and delivering it to the ice houses of the rich and famous in <em>Thames Ditton </em>and <em>Wokingham</em>. But spare a thought for the poor farmer. There are a thousand <em>Sittingbournes</em> in England and there will be thousands of cold spells between now and 2100. With decades of arctic weather, falling sea levels and declining soil fertility the apple orchards will disappear as the farmers throw themselves on the mercy of the bankruptcy courts and their new <em>Debt Orders</em>. There will be massive emigration to <em>Nigeria </em>and the <em>West Indies</em>.
</p>
	<p class="right"><a href="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2007/08/29/climate_blog_listing~2888198"><em>more from Shepherd on Climate</em></a>
</p>
	<p class="right"><a href="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2008/07/24/shepherd-on-climate-list-of-contents-4491538"><em>more from Shepherd on Climate</em></a>
</p>
<p> <small> <a href="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2006/06/12/global_cooling~872594/#comments">Comments</a> </small> </p>]]></content:encoded></default:item><default:item xmlns:default="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" rdf:about="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2006/06/12/the_story_of_global_warming~872572/"><default:title>Story of Global Warming</default:title><default:link>http://climate.blog.co.uk/2006/06/12/the_story_of_global_warming~872572/</default:link><dc:date xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">2006-06-12T13:44:57+02:00</dc:date><default:description>	&lt;p&gt;
&lt;em&gt;first published as &lt;a href="http://williamshepherd.blog.co.uk/2006/05/24/monday_22nd_may~825191"&gt;weblog one hundred and forty two&lt;/a&gt; on Monday 22nd May 2006&lt;/em&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
&lt;em&gt;Media Studies&lt;/em&gt; is a standing joke to many...conjuring up images of &lt;em&gt;PhDs in Elvis Presley &lt;/em&gt;and studies of the &lt;em&gt;Sociology of Big Brother&lt;/em&gt;…not the one from &lt;em&gt;1984&lt;/em&gt;. But occasionally something interesting emerges. What begins as shifting verbal fashions…slang to you…in TV soap operas can lead to investigations of cycles, periodicities, correlation and randomness. From here it is one small step to mental abstractions, ideas, thought…and memes.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
Within modern-day cultures ideas rise and fall. For a while everybody believes something and then they stop believing until no one can remember the old idea. In fashion as in natural ecology there are disruptions and sharp revisions of the established order. A lightning fire burns down a forest. A different species springs up in the charred acreage. This happens to science too…the scientific process encourages it. Thomas Kuhn identified the internal mechanisms and structures at work creating these scientific revolutions.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
In environmental thought in the 1960s the idea of the balance of nature was widely accepted. Leave nature alone and it will come into a self-maintaining state of balance. The young James Lovelock born in 1926 called it his &lt;em&gt;Gaian Hypothesis &lt;/em&gt;but the idea has a longer pedigree…the &lt;em&gt;Ancient Greeks &lt;/em&gt;believed it three thousand years ago.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
But by the 1990s no scientist believed in the balance of nature anymore. Ecologists spoke of dynamic disequilibrium and multiple equilibrium states. Nature is never in balance, never has been and never will be. Nature is always out of balance. Man…the great disrupter…is nothing of the sort. The environment is being disrupted constantly.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
Then one day at the leading edge of &lt;em&gt;Media Studies &lt;/em&gt;some American media scientists set their search engines to work analysing the rise and fall of &lt;em&gt;The Idea of Environmental Crisis&lt;/em&gt;. Others looked at transcripts of news programmes from the major networks…&lt;em&gt;NBC, ABC, CBS&lt;/em&gt;. Others studied stories in the &lt;em&gt;New York, Washington, Miami, Los Angeles&lt;/em&gt; and &lt;em&gt;Seattle&lt;/em&gt; newspapers. They got their computers to count the frequency of certain concepts and terms used by the media. The results were very striking. There was a major shift towards the end of 1989.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
Before that time the media did not make excessive use of terms such as &lt;em&gt;crisis, catastrophe, cataclysm, plague &lt;/em&gt;or &lt;em&gt;disaster&lt;/em&gt;. For example during the 1980s the word &lt;em&gt;crisis&lt;/em&gt; appeared in news reports about as often as the word &lt;em&gt;budget&lt;/em&gt;. In addition prior to 1989 adjectives such as &lt;em&gt;dire, unprecedented&lt;/em&gt; and &lt;em&gt;dreaded&lt;/em&gt; were not common in television reports or newspaper bulletins. But then it all changed. These terms started to become more and more common. The word &lt;em&gt;catastrophe&lt;/em&gt; was used five times more often in 1995 than it was in 1985. Its use doubled again by the year 2000.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
In 1989 the stories changed too. There was a heightened emphasis on &lt;em&gt;fear, worry, danger, uncertainty &lt;/em&gt;and &lt;em&gt;panic&lt;/em&gt;. The critical question is why it should have changed in 1989 which seemed like a perfectly normal year. A Soviet sub sank in Norway; &lt;em&gt;Tiananmen Square&lt;/em&gt; in China; the &lt;em&gt;Exxon Valdez&lt;/em&gt;; Salmon Rushdie sentenced to death; the &lt;em&gt;Episcopal Church &lt;/em&gt;hired a female bishop; Poland allowed striking unions; Voyager went to Neptune; a San Francisco earthquake flattened highways; and Russia, the US, France and England all conducted nuclear tests. A year like any other.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
But in fact the rise in the use of the term &lt;em&gt;crisis&lt;/em&gt; can be located with some precision to the autumn of 1989. And it seemed suspicious that it should have coincided so closely with the fall of the &lt;em&gt;Berlin Wall &lt;/em&gt;on the &lt;em&gt;Ninth of November&lt;/em&gt;. At first the media scientists dismissed this association as spurious. But it wasn’t. The &lt;em&gt;Berlin Wall &lt;/em&gt;marks the collapse of the &lt;em&gt;Soviet Empire&lt;/em&gt;…and the end of a &lt;em&gt;Cold War &lt;/em&gt;that had lasted for half a century.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
For fifty years Western nations had maintained their citizens in a state of perpetual fear. Fear of the &lt;em&gt;Other Side&lt;/em&gt;; fear of &lt;em&gt;Nuclear War&lt;/em&gt;...the &lt;em&gt;Communist Menace&lt;/em&gt;, the &lt;em&gt;Iron Curtain&lt;/em&gt;, the &lt;em&gt;Evil Empire&lt;/em&gt;. Within the &lt;em&gt;Communist blocs &lt;/em&gt;it was the same in reverse…fear of us…but with the heightened fear of personal betrayal and incarceration.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
Then suddenly in the fall of 1989 it was all finished…gone, vanished, over. The &lt;em&gt;Fall of the Berlin Wall &lt;/em&gt;created a vacuum of fear. Nature abhors a vacuum and the evidence suggests that instead of inventing the moral equivalent of the &lt;em&gt;Cold War &lt;/em&gt;as William James would have wished…in the absence of any initiative from &lt;em&gt;the Left&lt;/em&gt;…&lt;em&gt;the Right &lt;/em&gt;homed in on &lt;em&gt;Environmental Crisis &lt;/em&gt;to serve up for global consumption. But there is an irony here.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
As far as &lt;em&gt;the Right &lt;/em&gt;is concerned the &lt;em&gt;Environmental Crisis &lt;/em&gt;has served its purpose. It is beyond its sell-by date. They have moved on and have generated new fears like &lt;em&gt;Islamic Fundamentalism&lt;/em&gt; and &lt;em&gt;Al Quaeda Terrorism&lt;/em&gt;. But in reality they have created a monster…and they cannot stop their &lt;em&gt;Fear Machine&lt;/em&gt;. It is like the &lt;em&gt;Sorceror’s Apprentice&lt;/em&gt;. &lt;em&gt;Communist Menaces, Toxic Environments, Wars against Terrorism&lt;/em&gt;…it is unstoppable.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
But the environmentalists are trapped in their time warp. The momentum of their careers and their funding means that like military generals they are fighting the last war. The &lt;em&gt;thinking right &lt;/em&gt;are doubtless much amused. Be our guests, they cry. Fight your old stale environmental wars. We have moved on. We have created new fears and new wars for your distraction. But it’s no fun having the field to ourselves. When will you start to catch up?
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p class="right"&gt;&lt;a href="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2008/07/24/shepherd-on-climate-list-of-contents-4491538"&gt;&lt;em&gt;more from Shepherd on Climate&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt; &lt;small&gt; &lt;a href="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2006/06/12/the_story_of_global_warming~872572/#comments"&gt;Comments&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/small&gt; &lt;/p&gt;</default:description><content:encoded xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"><![CDATA[	<p>
<em>first published as <a href="http://williamshepherd.blog.co.uk/2006/05/24/monday_22nd_may~825191">weblog one hundred and forty two</a> on Monday 22nd May 2006</em>
</p>
	<p>
<em>Media Studies</em> is a standing joke to many...conjuring up images of <em>PhDs in Elvis Presley </em>and studies of the <em>Sociology of Big Brother</em>…not the one from <em>1984</em>. But occasionally something interesting emerges. What begins as shifting verbal fashions…slang to you…in TV soap operas can lead to investigations of cycles, periodicities, correlation and randomness. From here it is one small step to mental abstractions, ideas, thought…and memes.
</p>
	<p>
Within modern-day cultures ideas rise and fall. For a while everybody believes something and then they stop believing until no one can remember the old idea. In fashion as in natural ecology there are disruptions and sharp revisions of the established order. A lightning fire burns down a forest. A different species springs up in the charred acreage. This happens to science too…the scientific process encourages it. Thomas Kuhn identified the internal mechanisms and structures at work creating these scientific revolutions.
</p>
	<p>
In environmental thought in the 1960s the idea of the balance of nature was widely accepted. Leave nature alone and it will come into a self-maintaining state of balance. The young James Lovelock born in 1926 called it his <em>Gaian Hypothesis </em>but the idea has a longer pedigree…the <em>Ancient Greeks </em>believed it three thousand years ago.
</p>
	<p>
But by the 1990s no scientist believed in the balance of nature anymore. Ecologists spoke of dynamic disequilibrium and multiple equilibrium states. Nature is never in balance, never has been and never will be. Nature is always out of balance. Man…the great disrupter…is nothing of the sort. The environment is being disrupted constantly.
</p>
	<p>
Then one day at the leading edge of <em>Media Studies </em>some American media scientists set their search engines to work analysing the rise and fall of <em>The Idea of Environmental Crisis</em>. Others looked at transcripts of news programmes from the major networks…<em>NBC, ABC, CBS</em>. Others studied stories in the <em>New York, Washington, Miami, Los Angeles</em> and <em>Seattle</em> newspapers. They got their computers to count the frequency of certain concepts and terms used by the media. The results were very striking. There was a major shift towards the end of 1989.
</p>
	<p>
Before that time the media did not make excessive use of terms such as <em>crisis, catastrophe, cataclysm, plague </em>or <em>disaster</em>. For example during the 1980s the word <em>crisis</em> appeared in news reports about as often as the word <em>budget</em>. In addition prior to 1989 adjectives such as <em>dire, unprecedented</em> and <em>dreaded</em> were not common in television reports or newspaper bulletins. But then it all changed. These terms started to become more and more common. The word <em>catastrophe</em> was used five times more often in 1995 than it was in 1985. Its use doubled again by the year 2000.
</p>
	<p>
In 1989 the stories changed too. There was a heightened emphasis on <em>fear, worry, danger, uncertainty </em>and <em>panic</em>. The critical question is why it should have changed in 1989 which seemed like a perfectly normal year. A Soviet sub sank in Norway; <em>Tiananmen Square</em> in China; the <em>Exxon Valdez</em>; Salmon Rushdie sentenced to death; the <em>Episcopal Church </em>hired a female bishop; Poland allowed striking unions; Voyager went to Neptune; a San Francisco earthquake flattened highways; and Russia, the US, France and England all conducted nuclear tests. A year like any other.
</p>
	<p>
But in fact the rise in the use of the term <em>crisis</em> can be located with some precision to the autumn of 1989. And it seemed suspicious that it should have coincided so closely with the fall of the <em>Berlin Wall </em>on the <em>Ninth of November</em>. At first the media scientists dismissed this association as spurious. But it wasn’t. The <em>Berlin Wall </em>marks the collapse of the <em>Soviet Empire</em>…and the end of a <em>Cold War </em>that had lasted for half a century.
</p>
	<p>
For fifty years Western nations had maintained their citizens in a state of perpetual fear. Fear of the <em>Other Side</em>; fear of <em>Nuclear War</em>...the <em>Communist Menace</em>, the <em>Iron Curtain</em>, the <em>Evil Empire</em>. Within the <em>Communist blocs </em>it was the same in reverse…fear of us…but with the heightened fear of personal betrayal and incarceration.
</p>
	<p>
Then suddenly in the fall of 1989 it was all finished…gone, vanished, over. The <em>Fall of the Berlin Wall </em>created a vacuum of fear. Nature abhors a vacuum and the evidence suggests that instead of inventing the moral equivalent of the <em>Cold War </em>as William James would have wished…in the absence of any initiative from <em>the Left</em>…<em>the Right </em>homed in on <em>Environmental Crisis </em>to serve up for global consumption. But there is an irony here.
</p>
	<p>
As far as <em>the Right </em>is concerned the <em>Environmental Crisis </em>has served its purpose. It is beyond its sell-by date. They have moved on and have generated new fears like <em>Islamic Fundamentalism</em> and <em>Al Quaeda Terrorism</em>. But in reality they have created a monster…and they cannot stop their <em>Fear Machine</em>. It is like the <em>Sorceror’s Apprentice</em>. <em>Communist Menaces, Toxic Environments, Wars against Terrorism</em>…it is unstoppable.
</p>
	<p>
But the environmentalists are trapped in their time warp. The momentum of their careers and their funding means that like military generals they are fighting the last war. The <em>thinking right </em>are doubtless much amused. Be our guests, they cry. Fight your old stale environmental wars. We have moved on. We have created new fears and new wars for your distraction. But it’s no fun having the field to ourselves. When will you start to catch up?
</p>
	<p class="right"><a href="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2008/07/24/shepherd-on-climate-list-of-contents-4491538"><em>more from Shepherd on Climate</em></a>
</p>
<p> <small> <a href="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2006/06/12/the_story_of_global_warming~872572/#comments">Comments</a> </small> </p>]]></content:encoded></default:item><default:item xmlns:default="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" rdf:about="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2006/06/12/carbon_emissions_trading~872534/"><default:title>Carbon Emissions Trading</default:title><default:link>http://climate.blog.co.uk/2006/06/12/carbon_emissions_trading~872534/</default:link><dc:date xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">2006-06-12T13:35:50+02:00</dc:date><default:description>	&lt;p&gt;
&lt;em&gt;first published in weblog &lt;a href="http://williamshepherd.blog.co.uk/2006/05/19/thursday_18th_may~811938"&gt;&lt;em&gt;one hundred and thirty eight&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt; on Thursday 18th May 2006&lt;/em&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
I have been reading the &lt;em&gt;Financial Times &lt;/em&gt;for the past couple of days to understand the &lt;em&gt;European Carbon Trading Exchange&lt;/em&gt;. The newspaper clippings spread out on the cabin table in front of me…I am working on my &lt;em&gt;laptop&lt;/em&gt;…have headlines like &lt;em&gt;Blair’s Decision Time On Nuclear Power, Carbon Credit Errors Throw Permit Scheme Into Turmoil, Independent Auditing a Must if Carbon Trading is to be a Success, The Real Story Behind the Collapse of Carbon Prices&lt;/em&gt; and &lt;em&gt;Give the Emissions Trading Scheme a Fair Chance&lt;/em&gt;...written by the ceo of &lt;em&gt;RWE npower&lt;/em&gt;. These shenanigans lend credence to those claiming that the whole point of &lt;em&gt;The Kyoto Treaty &lt;/em&gt;is that it should fail.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
&lt;a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/jan/27/industry-abusing-ets-carbon-trading"&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="javascript:window.open(" title="carbonprices"&gt;&lt;img src="http://data5.blog.de/media/978/3225978_321bf86e92_m.jpeg" alt="carbonprices" vspace="5" hspace="5"&gt;&lt;/a&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
I don’t believe the &lt;em&gt;Global Warming Orthodoxy &lt;/em&gt;that sees &lt;em&gt;Armageddon&lt;/em&gt; in carbon emissions. But that is no reason not to eliminate them. The side effects often turn out to be the main effects. It is almost a &lt;em&gt;Rule of Nature&lt;/em&gt;. The less muck spewed into the atmosphere the better. But some of the side effects have to be seen to be believed…and many have little to do with cutting back on atmospheric pollution or reining in the emission of greenhouse gases.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
My &lt;em&gt;Crap Detector&lt;/em&gt; first began to register with the allocation of CO2 emissions permits for 2005…based on self-assessments which made &lt;em&gt;Cod Quotas &lt;/em&gt;look like divine justice. The &lt;em&gt;Dirty Half Dozen &lt;/em&gt;are Germany with 473 million tonnes, the UK with 242, Italy with 215, Spain with 181, France with 131 and Holland with 81. The other ten countries in the &lt;em&gt;European Commission’s&lt;/em&gt; scheme account for just 12% of all permits and can be disregarded.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
Demand on the &lt;em&gt;Carbon Trading Exchange &lt;/em&gt;is driven by the UK, Spain and Italy …respectively 15%, 11% and 4% over quota. The UK has to buy 40 million tons-worth of CO2 emission permits, Spain 20 and Italy 10. Who has them for sale? Last week it was France and Germany. But then Angela Merkel announced that Germany would give 12 of her 21 million tonnes surplus back to &lt;em&gt;Brussels&lt;/em&gt;. But France with her massive ‘non-polluting’ nuclear industry wants to keep her 15 for 2006. Market chaos duly ensued as carbon prices shoot up from €9 to €15 overnight. What a game!
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
It gets worse. Britain has enforced the toughest cuts on the electricity generators. Here’s the logic. The electricity sector is more insulated from overseas competition than sectors like chemicals, cement and steel so costs can be passed on to customers in higher prices. But the giant German polluter &lt;a href="http://williamfranklin.blog.co.uk/2006/01/12/william_shepherd_on_rwe_strategy~463498/"&gt;&lt;em&gt;RWE&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt; owns &lt;em&gt;Yorkshire Electricity&lt;/em&gt; and &lt;em&gt;npower&lt;/em&gt; which supply UK consumers. Electricity companies have been accused of profiteering by charging customers for the free carbon permits they were given by &lt;em&gt;Brussels&lt;/em&gt;. Now there’s a surprise. You couldn’t make it up.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
&lt;em&gt;Private Eye Updated the Saga in January 2009 in (No. 1228)&lt;/em&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
No, indeed you couldn't. Here we are two and a half years later in January 2009 and we find out that the &lt;em&gt;EU&lt;/em&gt; leaders' 'historic' climate change deal secured at the end of 2008 in fact promises an 'historic' windfall profit-in-waiting for some of Europe's biggest polluters. Here is how this latest &lt;em&gt;Carbon Emissions Exchange Scam&lt;/em&gt; works.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
The windfall will be generated by the &lt;em&gt;EU's &lt;/em&gt;emissions trading scheme, which caps the emissions of polluting heavy industry and requires big firms such as steel makers to buy extra emission allowances if they pollute beyond their cap. However, up to the cap most allowances are given to firms for free. If firms cut their emissions, they can sell any excess and make a profit. This isn't new; but December's deal included an obscure rule that, when combined with effective industry lobbying, is set to increase the windfall to scandalous proportions.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
Crucially, firms can bank allowances they currently receive for free and hold on to them into the next phase of emissions trading. Until now, the amount of free allowances given to companies has been decided by individual governments. Subjected to massive lobbying, not to mention blackmail from firms that have threatened to relocate to India or Ukraine, the emission allowances given have been overly generous to heavy industry.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
Take steel maker &lt;em&gt;Corus&lt;/em&gt;, for example. From 2005-2007, its CO2 emissions were around 26.5 million tonnes. But for each year from 2008-2012, it has been given a 34.5 million tonne allowance - or a surplus of around 32 million over the four years (the surplus will probably be even more given falling demand for steel in the economic downturn).
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
&lt;em&gt;Corus&lt;/em&gt; just needs to sit on its unused allowances until the emissions trading scheme's next phase (2013-1020), when the emissions cap will be tightened, allowances will be in short supply and the carbon market price for a tonne of emitted carbon may have risen to, say, last summer's level of €30 from its present level of €12 and falling. Then, hey presto, almost €1 billion for free! There is nothing like volatility and a fluctuating politically manipulated price for insider trading on the exchanges.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
To join in, start by reading the October 2006 article &lt;a href="http://www.moneyweek.com/investments/commodities/how-to-profit-from-carbon-trading.aspx"&gt;&lt;em&gt;How to Profit from Carbon Trading&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt; by Merryn Somerset Webb, the Editor-in-Chief at &lt;em&gt;MoneyWeek&lt;/em&gt;. To get closer to the action consult an article entitled &lt;a href="http://www.altenergystocks.com/archives/2006/10/carbon_financethe_next_bonanza_1.html"&gt;&lt;em&gt;Carbon Finance: The Next Bonanza&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;. On September 20, 2006 &lt;em&gt;Goldman Sachs&lt;/em&gt; paid $23 million...peanuts by &lt;em&gt;Goldman Sachs&lt;/em&gt; standards…for a ten percent stake in &lt;em&gt;Climate Exchange plc (LSE:CLE)&lt;/em&gt;. A month later &lt;em&gt;Morgan Stanley&lt;/em&gt; unveiled a plan to invest three billion dollars in global carbon markets over the next few years.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
Similar views to these went mainstream when &lt;em&gt;The Guardian&lt;/em&gt; published an article by Terry Macalister entitled &lt;a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/jan/27/industry-abusing-ets-carbon-trading"&gt;&lt;em&gt;Polluters Cash In&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt; on Wednesday 28th January 2009. Macalister opens his article with the words: 'Britain's biggest polluting companies are abusing a European emission trading scheme (ETS) designed to tackle global warming by cashing in their carbon credits in order to bolster ailing balance sheets.' In a companion piece the same day entitled &lt;a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/jan/28/cap-trade-schemes-carbon"&gt;&lt;em&gt;Just a Money Redistribution Exercise Where We Foot the Bill&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;, Bryony Worthington...an expert on Climate Change and the founder of &lt;a href="http://www.sandbag.org.uk"&gt;&lt;em&gt;sandbag.org.uk&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;...remarked that 'what should have been a way to kick start investment in much-needed low-carbon, efficient technologies is now a cash redistribution exercise.' She seemed mildly surprised.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
&lt;em&gt;A Few Words in the Spirit of Impartiality&lt;/em&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
The surpluses given to steel, concrete and glassmakers have been counterbalanced by extremely stingy allowances for power companies, who must go to market to make good the shortfall. But as they can pass the cost directly to consumers via higher energy prices, it means they won't lose out either. Brussels claims everyone's a winner when it comes to fighting climate change - but not if you're struggling to pay a (rising) electricity bill. Airlines are due to be included in the &lt;em&gt;European Union’s&lt;/em&gt; emissions trading scheme from 2012.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
&lt;a href="http://www.europeanclimateexchange.com."&gt;&lt;em&gt;The European Climate Exchange (ECX)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt; was launched by &lt;em&gt;Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX)&lt;/em&gt; in 2005, and is now the leading exchange operating in the &lt;em&gt;European Union Emissions Trading Scheme&lt;/em&gt;. Since 2006, &lt;em&gt;CCX&lt;/em&gt; and &lt;em&gt;ECX&lt;/em&gt; have been owned by &lt;em&gt;Climate Exchange PLC&lt;/em&gt;, a publicly traded company listed on the AIM division of the &lt;em&gt;London Stock Exchange&lt;/em&gt;.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
&lt;em&gt;ECX&lt;/em&gt; manages the product development and marketing for &lt;em&gt;ECX Carbon Financial Instruments (ECX CFIs)&lt;/em&gt; futures and options contracts, listed and admitted to trading on the &lt;em&gt;ICE Futures&lt;/em&gt; electronic platform. &lt;em&gt;ECX/ICE Futures&lt;/em&gt; is the most liquid, pan-European platform for carbon emissions trading, attracting over 80% of the exchange-traded volume in the market. &lt;em&gt;ECX&lt;/em&gt; emissions futures contracts are standardized and all trades are cleared by &lt;em&gt;LCH. Clearnet&lt;/em&gt;.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
More than 65 leading businesses, including global companies such as &lt;em&gt;ABN AMRO, Barclays, BP, Calyon, E.ON UK, Fortis, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley&lt;/em&gt; and &lt;em&gt;Shell&lt;/em&gt; have signed up for membership to trade &lt;em&gt;ECX&lt;/em&gt; products. In addition, several hundred clients can access the market daily via banks and brokers.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p class="right"&gt;&lt;a href="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2008/07/24/shepherd-on-climate-list-of-contents-4491538"&gt;&lt;em&gt;more from Shepherd on Climate&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt; &lt;small&gt; &lt;a href="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2006/06/12/carbon_emissions_trading~872534/#comments"&gt;Comments&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/small&gt; &lt;/p&gt;</default:description><content:encoded xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"><![CDATA[	<p>
<em>first published in weblog <a href="http://williamshepherd.blog.co.uk/2006/05/19/thursday_18th_may~811938"><em>one hundred and thirty eight</em></a> on Thursday 18th May 2006</em>
</p>
	<p>
I have been reading the <em>Financial Times </em>for the past couple of days to understand the <em>European Carbon Trading Exchange</em>. The newspaper clippings spread out on the cabin table in front of me…I am working on my <em>laptop</em>…have headlines like <em>Blair’s Decision Time On Nuclear Power, Carbon Credit Errors Throw Permit Scheme Into Turmoil, Independent Auditing a Must if Carbon Trading is to be a Success, The Real Story Behind the Collapse of Carbon Prices</em> and <em>Give the Emissions Trading Scheme a Fair Chance</em>...written by the ceo of <em>RWE npower</em>. These shenanigans lend credence to those claiming that the whole point of <em>The Kyoto Treaty </em>is that it should fail.
</p>
	<p>
<a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/jan/27/industry-abusing-ets-carbon-trading"></a><a href="javascript:window.open(" title="carbonprices"><img src="http://data5.blog.de/media/978/3225978_321bf86e92_m.jpeg" alt="carbonprices" vspace="5" hspace="5"></a>
</p>
	<p>
I don’t believe the <em>Global Warming Orthodoxy </em>that sees <em>Armageddon</em> in carbon emissions. But that is no reason not to eliminate them. The side effects often turn out to be the main effects. It is almost a <em>Rule of Nature</em>. The less muck spewed into the atmosphere the better. But some of the side effects have to be seen to be believed…and many have little to do with cutting back on atmospheric pollution or reining in the emission of greenhouse gases.
</p>
	<p>
My <em>Crap Detector</em> first began to register with the allocation of CO2 emissions permits for 2005…based on self-assessments which made <em>Cod Quotas </em>look like divine justice. The <em>Dirty Half Dozen </em>are Germany with 473 million tonnes, the UK with 242, Italy with 215, Spain with 181, France with 131 and Holland with 81. The other ten countries in the <em>European Commission’s</em> scheme account for just 12% of all permits and can be disregarded.
</p>
	<p>
Demand on the <em>Carbon Trading Exchange </em>is driven by the UK, Spain and Italy …respectively 15%, 11% and 4% over quota. The UK has to buy 40 million tons-worth of CO2 emission permits, Spain 20 and Italy 10. Who has them for sale? Last week it was France and Germany. But then Angela Merkel announced that Germany would give 12 of her 21 million tonnes surplus back to <em>Brussels</em>. But France with her massive ‘non-polluting’ nuclear industry wants to keep her 15 for 2006. Market chaos duly ensued as carbon prices shoot up from €9 to €15 overnight. What a game!
</p>
	<p>
It gets worse. Britain has enforced the toughest cuts on the electricity generators. Here’s the logic. The electricity sector is more insulated from overseas competition than sectors like chemicals, cement and steel so costs can be passed on to customers in higher prices. But the giant German polluter <a href="http://williamfranklin.blog.co.uk/2006/01/12/william_shepherd_on_rwe_strategy~463498/"><em>RWE</em></a> owns <em>Yorkshire Electricity</em> and <em>npower</em> which supply UK consumers. Electricity companies have been accused of profiteering by charging customers for the free carbon permits they were given by <em>Brussels</em>. Now there’s a surprise. You couldn’t make it up.
</p>
	<p>
<em>Private Eye Updated the Saga in January 2009 in (No. 1228)</em>
</p>
	<p>
No, indeed you couldn't. Here we are two and a half years later in January 2009 and we find out that the <em>EU</em> leaders' 'historic' climate change deal secured at the end of 2008 in fact promises an 'historic' windfall profit-in-waiting for some of Europe's biggest polluters. Here is how this latest <em>Carbon Emissions Exchange Scam</em> works.
</p>
	<p>
The windfall will be generated by the <em>EU's </em>emissions trading scheme, which caps the emissions of polluting heavy industry and requires big firms such as steel makers to buy extra emission allowances if they pollute beyond their cap. However, up to the cap most allowances are given to firms for free. If firms cut their emissions, they can sell any excess and make a profit. This isn't new; but December's deal included an obscure rule that, when combined with effective industry lobbying, is set to increase the windfall to scandalous proportions.
</p>
	<p>
Crucially, firms can bank allowances they currently receive for free and hold on to them into the next phase of emissions trading. Until now, the amount of free allowances given to companies has been decided by individual governments. Subjected to massive lobbying, not to mention blackmail from firms that have threatened to relocate to India or Ukraine, the emission allowances given have been overly generous to heavy industry.
</p>
	<p>
Take steel maker <em>Corus</em>, for example. From 2005-2007, its CO2 emissions were around 26.5 million tonnes. But for each year from 2008-2012, it has been given a 34.5 million tonne allowance - or a surplus of around 32 million over the four years (the surplus will probably be even more given falling demand for steel in the economic downturn).
</p>
	<p>
<em>Corus</em> just needs to sit on its unused allowances until the emissions trading scheme's next phase (2013-1020), when the emissions cap will be tightened, allowances will be in short supply and the carbon market price for a tonne of emitted carbon may have risen to, say, last summer's level of €30 from its present level of €12 and falling. Then, hey presto, almost €1 billion for free! There is nothing like volatility and a fluctuating politically manipulated price for insider trading on the exchanges.
</p>
	<p>
To join in, start by reading the October 2006 article <a href="http://www.moneyweek.com/investments/commodities/how-to-profit-from-carbon-trading.aspx"><em>How to Profit from Carbon Trading</em></a> by Merryn Somerset Webb, the Editor-in-Chief at <em>MoneyWeek</em>. To get closer to the action consult an article entitled <a href="http://www.altenergystocks.com/archives/2006/10/carbon_financethe_next_bonanza_1.html"><em>Carbon Finance: The Next Bonanza</em></a>. On September 20, 2006 <em>Goldman Sachs</em> paid $23 million...peanuts by <em>Goldman Sachs</em> standards…for a ten percent stake in <em>Climate Exchange plc (LSE:CLE)</em>. A month later <em>Morgan Stanley</em> unveiled a plan to invest three billion dollars in global carbon markets over the next few years.
</p>
	<p>
Similar views to these went mainstream when <em>The Guardian</em> published an article by Terry Macalister entitled <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/jan/27/industry-abusing-ets-carbon-trading"><em>Polluters Cash In</em></a> on Wednesday 28th January 2009. Macalister opens his article with the words: 'Britain's biggest polluting companies are abusing a European emission trading scheme (ETS) designed to tackle global warming by cashing in their carbon credits in order to bolster ailing balance sheets.' In a companion piece the same day entitled <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/jan/28/cap-trade-schemes-carbon"><em>Just a Money Redistribution Exercise Where We Foot the Bill</em></a>, Bryony Worthington...an expert on Climate Change and the founder of <a href="http://www.sandbag.org.uk"><em>sandbag.org.uk</em></a>...remarked that 'what should have been a way to kick start investment in much-needed low-carbon, efficient technologies is now a cash redistribution exercise.' She seemed mildly surprised.
</p>
	<p>
<em>A Few Words in the Spirit of Impartiality</em>
</p>
	<p>
The surpluses given to steel, concrete and glassmakers have been counterbalanced by extremely stingy allowances for power companies, who must go to market to make good the shortfall. But as they can pass the cost directly to consumers via higher energy prices, it means they won't lose out either. Brussels claims everyone's a winner when it comes to fighting climate change - but not if you're struggling to pay a (rising) electricity bill. Airlines are due to be included in the <em>European Union’s</em> emissions trading scheme from 2012.
</p>
	<p>
<a href="http://www.europeanclimateexchange.com."><em>The European Climate Exchange (ECX)</em></a> was launched by <em>Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX)</em> in 2005, and is now the leading exchange operating in the <em>European Union Emissions Trading Scheme</em>. Since 2006, <em>CCX</em> and <em>ECX</em> have been owned by <em>Climate Exchange PLC</em>, a publicly traded company listed on the AIM division of the <em>London Stock Exchange</em>.
</p>
	<p>
<em>ECX</em> manages the product development and marketing for <em>ECX Carbon Financial Instruments (ECX CFIs)</em> futures and options contracts, listed and admitted to trading on the <em>ICE Futures</em> electronic platform. <em>ECX/ICE Futures</em> is the most liquid, pan-European platform for carbon emissions trading, attracting over 80% of the exchange-traded volume in the market. <em>ECX</em> emissions futures contracts are standardized and all trades are cleared by <em>LCH. Clearnet</em>.
</p>
	<p>
More than 65 leading businesses, including global companies such as <em>ABN AMRO, Barclays, BP, Calyon, E.ON UK, Fortis, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley</em> and <em>Shell</em> have signed up for membership to trade <em>ECX</em> products. In addition, several hundred clients can access the market daily via banks and brokers.
</p>
	<p class="right"><a href="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2008/07/24/shepherd-on-climate-list-of-contents-4491538"><em>more from Shepherd on Climate</em></a>
</p>
<p> <small> <a href="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2006/06/12/carbon_emissions_trading~872534/#comments">Comments</a> </small> </p>]]></content:encoded></default:item><default:item xmlns:default="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" rdf:about="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2006/06/12/greenhouse_aamp_nuclear_effects~872461/"><default:title>Greenhouse &amp; Nuclear Effects</default:title><default:link>http://climate.blog.co.uk/2006/06/12/greenhouse_aamp_nuclear_effects~872461/</default:link><dc:date xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">2006-06-12T13:13:39+02:00</dc:date><default:description>	&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;first published as weblog &lt;a href="http://williamshepherd.blog.co.uk/2006/05/19/thursday_18th_may~811938"&gt;one hundred and sixty two&lt;/a&gt; on Sunday 11th June 2006&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
My &lt;em&gt;Curriculum Vitae &lt;/em&gt;has an entry for ‘&lt;em&gt;Wheelock College, Boston, USA, 1981-1985&lt;/em&gt;’ that reads: 1981 &lt;em&gt;Assistant Professor of Education&lt;/em&gt; teaching &lt;em&gt;Organisational Development&lt;/em&gt;; 1983 &lt;em&gt;Co-Founder &lt;/em&gt;and &lt;em&gt;Tutor-in-Residence &lt;/em&gt;of &lt;em&gt;Human Scale Institute &lt;/em&gt;on &lt;em&gt;Martha’s Vineyard&lt;/em&gt;; 1985 Publication of &lt;em&gt;The Ecology of Learning &lt;/em&gt;course for teachers and professional educators’. The summer campus for the &lt;em&gt;Human Scale Institute&lt;/em&gt; was at Anna Edey’s &lt;em&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0966234901/002-2045016-4609603?v=glance&amp;n=283155"&gt;Solviva Gardens&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/em&gt;.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
Anna Edey was born and raised in &lt;em&gt;Sweden&lt;/em&gt; and moved to the &lt;em&gt;USA&lt;/em&gt; in 1957 where she raised three daughters and built herself a career on &lt;em&gt;Martha’s Vineyard &lt;/em&gt;dyeing and weaving wool from her own sheep and Angora rabbits before the gods took her under their wings and set her to work weaving a web of life. Here is Anna in &lt;em&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.growingedge.com/magazine/back_issues/view_article.php3?AID=50320"&gt;Growing Edge Magazine&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/em&gt;.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
‘At four o’clock in the morning on the coldest night of 1984, I am awakened by the howling blizzard. To my utter surprise, inside the greenhouse it’s like a balmy night in June. The thermometer reads 13 Celsius. The Angora rabbits are quietly muffling about in their communal dens. Moon and stars shine brilliantly through the four layers of clear glazing. Here among the tall, lush tomato vines loaded with red sweet tomatoes the thermometer reads 7 degrees. I proceed toward the east end, scooping up deep comforting breaths of humid, mild air fragrant with nasturtium, thyme, sage, dill and living earth. At the far end a hundred chickens acknowledge me with sleepy murmurs, cozy at 21 degrees in their spacious quarters’.  The insulation comes from the still air between the layers of glazing.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
A greenhouse is a hot and sticky place. Light from the sun is absorbed by the dark plants and partially re-radiated as infrared radiation. Not much escapes because glass blocks radiation at the infrared end of the spectrum. This is the &lt;em&gt;&lt;a href="http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/earthguide/diagrams/greenhouse/"&gt;Greenhouse Effect&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/em&gt; and the Earth is a greenhouse…for dark green plants read the planet’s surface and for the glass read the earth’s atmosphere.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
There are two problems with this analogy. The earth’s atmosphere does not behave like glass and although the &lt;em&gt;Amazon Rain Forest &lt;/em&gt;may be dark green the polar ice caps are not, much of the planet’s land surface is desert and semi-savannah and almost three quarters of the earth’s surface is ocean. We are told that 99% of the earth’s atmosphere has no insulating properties, that oxygen and nitrogen have no role and that carbon dioxide alone keeps the earth warm enough for life. Why do we allow ourselves to believe this nonsense?
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
Nuclear power plants generate steam that turns turbines to produce electricity. So the nuclear debate is not a debate about energy needs but about electricity supply. Electricity accounts for 18 per cent of total energy used in the &lt;em&gt;United Kingdom &lt;/em&gt;and nuclear power stations contribute 19 per cent of this….falling to 7 per cent by 2020 as reactors are switched off before they get so old that they break apart from corrosion and spew &lt;em&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.ratical.org/radiation/Chernobyl/"&gt;radioactivity&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/em&gt; into the atmosphere.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
So that’s 3.4% falling to 1.3% of the country’s energy requirements. The &lt;em&gt;Channel Tunnel &lt;/em&gt;cables can cope. So what’s all the shouting about? My mind has started to have uncharitable thoughts about the perfidious &lt;em&gt;French&lt;/em&gt; and the dastardly &lt;em&gt;Germans&lt;/em&gt;. They are up to something and &lt;em&gt;Brits&lt;/em&gt; are the fall guys. My headline would be &lt;em&gt;Blair Duped Again&lt;/em&gt;.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
First the &lt;em&gt;Texans&lt;/em&gt; and the &lt;em&gt;Israelis&lt;/em&gt; take him for a ride over the &lt;em&gt;Iraq Invasion&lt;/em&gt;. Now the &lt;em&gt;European Bank&lt;/em&gt; is trying to get its two biggest clients off the hook by flogging Blair a dead nuclear horse. Nuclear power is an archaic technology for goodness sake. It’s more than 50 years old. It has no more place in a modern economy than a horse and cart. Blair must go urgently. He is dangerous to our health. This latest &lt;em&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,1072-2187270,00.html"&gt;love-in&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/em&gt; could be the death throes of &lt;em&gt;President Blair&lt;/em&gt;.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
Renewable forms of energy are almost limitless in their potential. They are flexible and offer good security of supply. Nuclear, by contrast, requires uranium to be mined and transported, produces toxic waste and poses a potential terrorist threat. No one has the foggiest idea of the cost of new nukes, new designs will have to be imported…so much for freedom from foreign control of our energy supplies…and the &lt;em&gt;Ministry of Truth &lt;/em&gt;will have to control the whole of &lt;em&gt;Government&lt;/em&gt; if real economic appraisals of actual past and future reactor costs are to be kept as state secrets.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
The real opportunity is not renewable technologies but local energy. All the energy we need for a year arrives in half an hour of sunlight…the rest is complications. Cross-channel cables for &lt;em&gt;Surplus French Nuclear Electricity (SFNE)&lt;/em&gt; and a gas pipeline from Norway are all the &lt;em&gt;Energy Insurance &lt;/em&gt;this country will be needing. All our national utility grids can be dismantled. The &lt;em&gt;English&lt;/em&gt; have no need of them. Over the past 14 years &lt;em&gt;Woking Borough Council&lt;/em&gt; has reduced energy demand by 50% and made savings of 77% in carbon emissions through green procurement, basic energy conservation, community use of combined heat and power, biomass, photovoltaics and fuel cells. The &lt;em&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/MultimediaFiles/Live/FullReport/7468.pdf"&gt;Woking Strategy&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/em&gt; is the way forward. Tackle energy locally…town by town, village by village and parish by parish.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
Disregard &lt;em&gt;private&lt;/em&gt; interests…the &lt;em&gt;personal&lt;/em&gt; and the &lt;em&gt;community sectors&lt;/em&gt; are more efficient…when working in tandem locally. Get &lt;em&gt;Energy Supply Pricing&lt;/em&gt; right…talk to the &lt;em&gt;Danes&lt;/em&gt;…and include utilities in your local tax calculations. The job of central government is to stop private interests getting in the way of local investments and to enable local development strategies by shutting down private utilities…tax them ‘til their pips squeak…and phasing out &lt;em&gt;Whitehall&lt;/em&gt; and &lt;em&gt;County Council &lt;/em&gt;budgets over a single parliament. This is the &lt;em&gt;Labour Party’s &lt;/em&gt;back-to-basics way to renewal.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p class="right"&gt;&lt;a href="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2008/07/24/shepherd-on-climate-list-of-contents-4491538"&gt;&lt;em&gt;more from Shepherd on Climate&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt; &lt;small&gt; &lt;a href="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2006/06/12/greenhouse_aamp_nuclear_effects~872461/#comments"&gt;Comments&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/small&gt; &lt;/p&gt;</default:description><content:encoded xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"><![CDATA[	<p><em>first published as weblog <a href="http://williamshepherd.blog.co.uk/2006/05/19/thursday_18th_may~811938">one hundred and sixty two</a> on Sunday 11th June 2006</em></p>
	<p>
My <em>Curriculum Vitae </em>has an entry for ‘<em>Wheelock College, Boston, USA, 1981-1985</em>’ that reads: 1981 <em>Assistant Professor of Education</em> teaching <em>Organisational Development</em>; 1983 <em>Co-Founder </em>and <em>Tutor-in-Residence </em>of <em>Human Scale Institute </em>on <em>Martha’s Vineyard</em>; 1985 Publication of <em>The Ecology of Learning </em>course for teachers and professional educators’. The summer campus for the <em>Human Scale Institute</em> was at Anna Edey’s <em><a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0966234901/002-2045016-4609603?v=glance&n=283155">Solviva Gardens</a></em>.
</p>
	<p>
Anna Edey was born and raised in <em>Sweden</em> and moved to the <em>USA</em> in 1957 where she raised three daughters and built herself a career on <em>Martha’s Vineyard </em>dyeing and weaving wool from her own sheep and Angora rabbits before the gods took her under their wings and set her to work weaving a web of life. Here is Anna in <em><a href="http://www.growingedge.com/magazine/back_issues/view_article.php3?AID=50320">Growing Edge Magazine</a></em>.
</p>
	<p>
‘At four o’clock in the morning on the coldest night of 1984, I am awakened by the howling blizzard. To my utter surprise, inside the greenhouse it’s like a balmy night in June. The thermometer reads 13 Celsius. The Angora rabbits are quietly muffling about in their communal dens. Moon and stars shine brilliantly through the four layers of clear glazing. Here among the tall, lush tomato vines loaded with red sweet tomatoes the thermometer reads 7 degrees. I proceed toward the east end, scooping up deep comforting breaths of humid, mild air fragrant with nasturtium, thyme, sage, dill and living earth. At the far end a hundred chickens acknowledge me with sleepy murmurs, cozy at 21 degrees in their spacious quarters’.  The insulation comes from the still air between the layers of glazing.
</p>
	<p>
A greenhouse is a hot and sticky place. Light from the sun is absorbed by the dark plants and partially re-radiated as infrared radiation. Not much escapes because glass blocks radiation at the infrared end of the spectrum. This is the <em><a href="http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/earthguide/diagrams/greenhouse/">Greenhouse Effect</a></em> and the Earth is a greenhouse…for dark green plants read the planet’s surface and for the glass read the earth’s atmosphere.
</p>
	<p>
There are two problems with this analogy. The earth’s atmosphere does not behave like glass and although the <em>Amazon Rain Forest </em>may be dark green the polar ice caps are not, much of the planet’s land surface is desert and semi-savannah and almost three quarters of the earth’s surface is ocean. We are told that 99% of the earth’s atmosphere has no insulating properties, that oxygen and nitrogen have no role and that carbon dioxide alone keeps the earth warm enough for life. Why do we allow ourselves to believe this nonsense?
</p>
	<p>
Nuclear power plants generate steam that turns turbines to produce electricity. So the nuclear debate is not a debate about energy needs but about electricity supply. Electricity accounts for 18 per cent of total energy used in the <em>United Kingdom </em>and nuclear power stations contribute 19 per cent of this….falling to 7 per cent by 2020 as reactors are switched off before they get so old that they break apart from corrosion and spew <em><a href="http://www.ratical.org/radiation/Chernobyl/">radioactivity</a></em> into the atmosphere.
</p>
	<p>
So that’s 3.4% falling to 1.3% of the country’s energy requirements. The <em>Channel Tunnel </em>cables can cope. So what’s all the shouting about? My mind has started to have uncharitable thoughts about the perfidious <em>French</em> and the dastardly <em>Germans</em>. They are up to something and <em>Brits</em> are the fall guys. My headline would be <em>Blair Duped Again</em>.
</p>
	<p>
First the <em>Texans</em> and the <em>Israelis</em> take him for a ride over the <em>Iraq Invasion</em>. Now the <em>European Bank</em> is trying to get its two biggest clients off the hook by flogging Blair a dead nuclear horse. Nuclear power is an archaic technology for goodness sake. It’s more than 50 years old. It has no more place in a modern economy than a horse and cart. Blair must go urgently. He is dangerous to our health. This latest <em><a href="http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,1072-2187270,00.html">love-in</a></em> could be the death throes of <em>President Blair</em>.
</p>
	<p>
Renewable forms of energy are almost limitless in their potential. They are flexible and offer good security of supply. Nuclear, by contrast, requires uranium to be mined and transported, produces toxic waste and poses a potential terrorist threat. No one has the foggiest idea of the cost of new nukes, new designs will have to be imported…so much for freedom from foreign control of our energy supplies…and the <em>Ministry of Truth </em>will have to control the whole of <em>Government</em> if real economic appraisals of actual past and future reactor costs are to be kept as state secrets.
</p>
	<p>
The real opportunity is not renewable technologies but local energy. All the energy we need for a year arrives in half an hour of sunlight…the rest is complications. Cross-channel cables for <em>Surplus French Nuclear Electricity (SFNE)</em> and a gas pipeline from Norway are all the <em>Energy Insurance </em>this country will be needing. All our national utility grids can be dismantled. The <em>English</em> have no need of them. Over the past 14 years <em>Woking Borough Council</em> has reduced energy demand by 50% and made savings of 77% in carbon emissions through green procurement, basic energy conservation, community use of combined heat and power, biomass, photovoltaics and fuel cells. The <em><a href="http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/MultimediaFiles/Live/FullReport/7468.pdf">Woking Strategy</a></em> is the way forward. Tackle energy locally…town by town, village by village and parish by parish.
</p>
	<p>
Disregard <em>private</em> interests…the <em>personal</em> and the <em>community sectors</em> are more efficient…when working in tandem locally. Get <em>Energy Supply Pricing</em> right…talk to the <em>Danes</em>…and include utilities in your local tax calculations. The job of central government is to stop private interests getting in the way of local investments and to enable local development strategies by shutting down private utilities…tax them ‘til their pips squeak…and phasing out <em>Whitehall</em> and <em>County Council </em>budgets over a single parliament. This is the <em>Labour Party’s </em>back-to-basics way to renewal.
</p>
	<p class="right"><a href="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2008/07/24/shepherd-on-climate-list-of-contents-4491538"><em>more from Shepherd on Climate</em></a>
</p>
<p> <small> <a href="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2006/06/12/greenhouse_aamp_nuclear_effects~872461/#comments">Comments</a> </small> </p>]]></content:encoded></default:item><default:item xmlns:default="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" rdf:about="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2006/06/06/unnatural_disasters~858787/"><default:title>Unnatural Disasters</default:title><default:link>http://climate.blog.co.uk/2006/06/06/unnatural_disasters~858787/</default:link><dc:date xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">2006-06-06T20:56:33+02:00</dc:date><default:description>	&lt;p&gt;
&lt;em&gt;first published as &lt;a href="http://williamshepherd.blog.co.uk/2006/06/01/sunday_28th_may~846039___##1##___
"&gt;weblog one hundred and forty eight &lt;/a&gt;on Sunday 28th May 2006&lt;/em&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
The case for &lt;em&gt;Global Warming&lt;/em&gt; does not hinge on a tenth of a degree Celsius or a few experts quibbling over the technical details behind a graph of carbon emissions. What the &lt;em&gt;Carbonistas&lt;/em&gt; need is something with emotional impact. &lt;em&gt;Tsunamis&lt;/em&gt; fit the bill. So their present case hinges upon the sea-level records. It won’t last. Their case will shift again when the scientific community refuses to kow-tow to their paymasters by permitting misleading use of their data. But it has served their purpose well. Truth after all is not where it’s at. With the &lt;em&gt;Fear Factory&lt;/em&gt; perception is all…from a &lt;em&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/goeb56.htm"&gt;Goebbel‘s Primer&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/em&gt;.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt; &lt;em&gt;Climate Changelings&lt;/em&gt; are shining their spotlights on helpless, victimized, impoverished people being flooded out of their ancestral homelands. They talk of the terror of sea levels rising precipitously…and inexplicably…with no conceivable cause. They tell of extraordinary events and unprecedented happenings affecting the entire world in recent years. Something unknown is causing sea levels to rise and threaten innocent men, women and children.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
The idea is that if a convincing record can be shown of rising sea levels then the &lt;em&gt;Carbonistas&lt;/em&gt; will be on very strong ground. When the public and the policy makers commanding the public purse strings…insurance companies for instance…see the damage that has been done and the costs they might incur…and here the computer modellers come into their own…they will spend money to solve the problem and scan the horizon for someone to blame for the mess.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
Grappling with problems is not what action-oriented types do. They define, act and solve. They get it sorted. Then they look for someone to blame…and somebody else to pay the bill. So not only is the sea level data important to the &lt;em&gt;Carbonista’s &lt;a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bait_and_switch"&gt;Bait &amp; Switch&lt;/a&gt; Strategy&lt;/em&gt; but the fact that sea levels are rising around the world must be beyond dispute.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
Unfortunately that’s the rub. There is considerable dispute about sea level. It is not simple at all. You cannot just put a mark on a dock at high tide, measure it year after year, watch it go up and publish your findings. One of the core concepts in the measurement of sea levels is the &lt;em&gt;geoid&lt;/em&gt;…the equipotential surface of the earth’s gravitational field that approximates the mean sea surface.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
Then there are the complexities of glacio-hydro-isosatic modelling and the eustatic and tectonic effects on shoreline dynamics. Even with some rudimentary grasp of these subjects there is still holocene sedimentary sequences and intertidal foraminifera distributions to master. And when that is done waiting in the wings are the carbon analysis of coastal paleoenvironments and aminostratigraphy. Sea level is not simple.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
Were this enough to determine the precise scientific nature of sea level data, a consensus about this data might be feasible even if some agreed to disagree. However there would be many different hypotheses about the causes of any drift or sudden shift in the data pattern. But unfortunately for the &lt;em&gt;Carbonistas&lt;/em&gt; this is likely to be the wrong consensus.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
One of several places around the &lt;em&gt;Indian Ocean&lt;/em&gt; decimated by the &lt;em&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.tsunami.maldiveisle.com/maldives/tsunami_Maldives_1.htm"&gt;Boxing Day Tsunami&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/em&gt; was &lt;em&gt;The Maldive Islands&lt;/em&gt;. But it would be quite wrong to think that the inhabitants of these islands had been sitting on the beach for the past few decades waiting for the tsunami to strike. They had arranged for a team of Scandinavian researchers to study sea levels in the ocean around them. The scientists found no rise in several centuries…and a fall in the last twenty years.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
&lt;em&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2092-1422283,00.html"&gt;Michael Crichton&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/em&gt; started his research for &lt;em&gt;State of Fear&lt;/em&gt;...published in 2004...in 2001. At that time I was reading through Tom Clancy’s published works and was somewhat alarmed to notice that many of Clancy’s plots turned up in the real world a few years after he had seemingly invented them. I had two conspiratorial explanations. Either Clancy was on a retainer with the &lt;em&gt;CIA&lt;/em&gt; or &lt;em&gt;Mossad&lt;/em&gt; were reading the plot outlines he sent to his publisher.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
Crichton and Clancy plots have wheels within wheels and move rapidly between different pieces of the action before bringing it all together in one hectic final sequence. Their plots are full of outrageous and improbable coincidences and...as in the old &lt;em&gt;Westerns&lt;/em&gt;...the hero comes through unscathed while the baddies and the secondary good guys go down like flies. That’s not a problem for me...it’s the nature of the genre. But one of Crichton’s subplots worries me.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
The &lt;em&gt;Island of Gareda&lt;/em&gt; is one of the &lt;em&gt;Solomon Islands&lt;/em&gt; off the coast of &lt;em&gt;New Guinea&lt;/em&gt; north of &lt;em&gt;Australia&lt;/em&gt;. Here the &lt;em&gt;Pacific Plate&lt;/em&gt; slides under the &lt;em&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.mantleplumes.org/OJ_Impact.html"&gt;Ontong Java Plateau&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/em&gt; resulting in the &lt;em&gt;Solomon Trench&lt;/em&gt;...a huge underwater feature that curves in an arc all along the northern side of the island chain and is an active geological region with a deep trench. Along the length of the trench are undersea volcanoes with lots of slope debris and therefore the potential for undersea landslides which displace enormous volumes of water very quickly...the most common way a tsunami is formed.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;
In Crichton’s book the really really bad guy heads up a global environmental organisation. The underlying action that provides the fiendish plot for the novel involves three earth shattering natural disasters...each timed to take place on the first morning of a conference on &lt;em&gt;Abrupt Climate Change&lt;/em&gt;...a lightning-induced flash flood in &lt;em&gt;Yellowstone National Park&lt;/em&gt;, an enormous ice floe breaking off from a glacier in Antarctica and...&lt;em&gt;you are there before me&lt;/em&gt;...a tsunami activated by giant &lt;em&gt;Hypersonic Cavitators&lt;/em&gt; placed on the seabed off the &lt;em&gt;Island of Gareda&lt;/em&gt;.
&lt;/p&gt;
	&lt;p class="right"&gt;&lt;a href="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2008/07/24/shepherd-on-climate-list-of-contents-4491538"&gt;&lt;em&gt;more from Shepherd on Climate&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt; &lt;small&gt; &lt;a href="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2006/06/06/unnatural_disasters~858787/#comments"&gt;Comments&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/small&gt; &lt;/p&gt;</default:description><content:encoded xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"><![CDATA[	<p>
<em>first published as <a href="http://williamshepherd.blog.co.uk/2006/06/01/sunday_28th_may~846039___##1##___
">weblog one hundred and forty eight </a>on Sunday 28th May 2006</em>
</p>
	<p>
The case for <em>Global Warming</em> does not hinge on a tenth of a degree Celsius or a few experts quibbling over the technical details behind a graph of carbon emissions. What the <em>Carbonistas</em> need is something with emotional impact. <em>Tsunamis</em> fit the bill. So their present case hinges upon the sea-level records. It won&#8217;t last. Their case will shift again when the scientific community refuses to kow-tow to their paymasters by permitting misleading use of their data. But it has served their purpose well. Truth after all is not where it&#8217;s at. With the <em>Fear Factory</em> perception is all&#8230;from a <em><a href="http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/goeb56.htm">Goebbel&#8216;s Primer</a></em>.
</p>
	<p> <em>Climate Changelings</em> are shining their spotlights on helpless, victimized, impoverished people being flooded out of their ancestral homelands. They talk of the terror of sea levels rising precipitously&#8230;and inexplicably&#8230;with no conceivable cause. They tell of extraordinary events and unprecedented happenings affecting the entire world in recent years. Something unknown is causing sea levels to rise and threaten innocent men, women and children.
</p>
	<p>
The idea is that if a convincing record can be shown of rising sea levels then the <em>Carbonistas</em> will be on very strong ground. When the public and the policy makers commanding the public purse strings&#8230;insurance companies for instance&#8230;see the damage that has been done and the costs they might incur&#8230;and here the computer modellers come into their own&#8230;they will spend money to solve the problem and scan the horizon for someone to blame for the mess.
</p>
	<p>
Grappling with problems is not what action-oriented types do. They define, act and solve. They get it sorted. Then they look for someone to blame&#8230;and somebody else to pay the bill. So not only is the sea level data important to the <em>Carbonista&#8217;s <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bait_and_switch">Bait & Switch</a> Strategy</em> but the fact that sea levels are rising around the world must be beyond dispute.
</p>
	<p>
Unfortunately that&#8217;s the rub. There is considerable dispute about sea level. It is not simple at all. You cannot just put a mark on a dock at high tide, measure it year after year, watch it go up and publish your findings. One of the core concepts in the measurement of sea levels is the <em>geoid</em>&#8230;the equipotential surface of the earth&#8217;s gravitational field that approximates the mean sea surface.
</p>
	<p>
Then there are the complexities of glacio-hydro-isosatic modelling and the eustatic and tectonic effects on shoreline dynamics. Even with some rudimentary grasp of these subjects there is still holocene sedimentary sequences and intertidal foraminifera distributions to master. And when that is done waiting in the wings are the carbon analysis of coastal paleoenvironments and aminostratigraphy. Sea level is not simple.
</p>
	<p>
Were this enough to determine the precise scientific nature of sea level data, a consensus about this data might be feasible even if some agreed to disagree. However there would be many different hypotheses about the causes of any drift or sudden shift in the data pattern. But unfortunately for the <em>Carbonistas</em> this is likely to be the wrong consensus.
</p>
	<p>
One of several places around the <em>Indian Ocean</em> decimated by the <em><a href="http://www.tsunami.maldiveisle.com/maldives/tsunami_Maldives_1.htm">Boxing Day Tsunami</a></em> was <em>The Maldive Islands</em>. But it would be quite wrong to think that the inhabitants of these islands had been sitting on the beach for the past few decades waiting for the tsunami to strike. They had arranged for a team of Scandinavian researchers to study sea levels in the ocean around them. The scientists found no rise in several centuries&#8230;and a fall in the last twenty years.
</p>
	<p>
<em><a href="http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2092-1422283,00.html">Michael Crichton</a></em> started his research for <em>State of Fear</em>...published in 2004...in 2001. At that time I was reading through Tom Clancy&#8217;s published works and was somewhat alarmed to notice that many of Clancy&#8217;s plots turned up in the real world a few years after he had seemingly invented them. I had two conspiratorial explanations. Either Clancy was on a retainer with the <em>CIA</em> or <em>Mossad</em> were reading the plot outlines he sent to his publisher.
</p>
	<p>
Crichton and Clancy plots have wheels within wheels and move rapidly between different pieces of the action before bringing it all together in one hectic final sequence. Their plots are full of outrageous and improbable coincidences and...as in the old <em>Westerns</em>...the hero comes through unscathed while the baddies and the secondary good guys go down like flies. That&#8217;s not a problem for me...it&#8217;s the nature of the genre. But one of Crichton&#8217;s subplots worries me.
</p>
	<p>
The <em>Island of Gareda</em> is one of the <em>Solomon Islands</em> off the coast of <em>New Guinea</em> north of <em>Australia</em>. Here the <em>Pacific Plate</em> slides under the <em><a href="http://www.mantleplumes.org/OJ_Impact.html">Ontong Java Plateau</a></em> resulting in the <em>Solomon Trench</em>...a huge underwater feature that curves in an arc all along the northern side of the island chain and is an active geological region with a deep trench. Along the length of the trench are undersea volcanoes with lots of slope debris and therefore the potential for undersea landslides which displace enormous volumes of water very quickly...the most common way a tsunami is formed.
</p>
	<p>
In Crichton&#8217;s book the really really bad guy heads up a global environmental organisation. The underlying action that provides the fiendish plot for the novel involves three earth shattering natural disasters...each timed to take place on the first morning of a conference on <em>Abrupt Climate Change</em>...a lightning-induced flash flood in <em>Yellowstone National Park</em>, an enormous ice floe breaking off from a glacier in Antarctica and...<em>you are there before me</em>...a tsunami activated by giant <em>Hypersonic Cavitators</em> placed on the seabed off the <em>Island of Gareda</em>.
</p>
	<p class="right"><a href="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2008/07/24/shepherd-on-climate-list-of-contents-4491538"><em>more from Shepherd on Climate</em></a>
</p>
<p> <small> <a href="http://climate.blog.co.uk/2006/06/06/unnatural_disasters~858787/#comments">Comments</a> </small> </p>]]></content:encoded></default:item></rdf:RDF>
