Jack Century, a Climate Project presenter and geologist from Calgary, has just published a letter to the editor where he explains:

In 1987, Norman D. Newell documented the near-perfect statistical correlation between the increase of CO2, carefully measured by Charles David Keeling on top of Mauna Loa, and the detailed growth of population rigorously calculated by others. The correlation between CO2 and people was 0.9985.  

In many of my presentations, people have questioned the correlation between CO2 & human activity, and this is a clear concise explanation of this Anthropocene Epoch. 

http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/news/letters/story.html?id=2ed107e4-ea72-4569-a1ec-041a291f6a59

Some people who question the verity of global warming and climate change use the argument that the world is getting cooler due to particulates in the air, and rely on information about volcanic eruptions that caused ice ages to try to disprove global warming theories. Some others think that the effect of global dimming is actually slowing down global warming: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/horizon/dimming_prog_summary.shtml

Nobel Laureate Paul Crutzen has even suggested that we pump huge amounts of suphur into the stratosphere to cool the planet. http://www.springer-sbm.com/index.php?id=291&backPID=132&L=0&tx_tnc_news=2646. Somehow, I don’t think that putting out huge amounts of the ingredient that was the main cause of acid rain would be a good solution~I beg to disagree.

There is a factor where pollutants cause the reflection of solar radiation into the atmosphere before it reaches the earth (increasing the albedo), thereby preventing some of the global warming because those rays cannot be absorbed and reradiated back into the atmosphere. However, this global dimming is much smaller than the warming effect from greenhouse gases.

Global dimming is an important issue to understand if you are talking about government policy, because some policies advocate for addressing pollution (targeting gases that cause asthma and other health problems like sulphur dioxide), but ignore the carbon dioxide outputs. When companies address the sulphur problem (like Inco in Sudbury, which have significantly reduced SO2 emissions) but don’t reduce their CO2 emissions proportionally, they are adding exponentially to global warming~they are reducing the pollution that cools the earth and sending out more that warm it. Not to say that companies like Inco shouldn’t be working on improving air quality: far from it, I applaud their efforts. It is just that the GHG outputs should be reduced at the same level as the other pollution.

Encyclopedia of Earth author Stephen Nodvin (who is a Climate Project presenter & professor in Boston) wrote: The IPCC also found that anthropogenic contributions to aerosols in the atmosphere produce cooling effects, referred to as global dimming. However the cooling (global dimming) effects due to human-caused aerosols are equivalent to about half of the warming effects due to the combined radiative forcing of human-produced greenhouse gases, causing a net warming. http://www.eoearth.org/article/Global_warming

Wikipedia also has a big entry on global dimming: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_dimming

One of the reasons that the general population gets so confused about global warming and climate change is that the ideas are so complex, that many factors need to be balanced, and noone’s prediction is exactly accurate (like weather forecasts). They have a very good idea of what will happen, but don't know exactly when.

As our science modelling and understanding of these transparent interactionsgets more accurate, it will be easier for us all to make decisions that have a net improvement for the environment. It’s clear to me that we need to deal with global dimming and global warming together to prevent climate change.

One of the reasons that the general population gets so confused about global warming and climate change is that the ideas are so complex, that many factors need to be balanced, and noone’s prediction is exactly accurate (like weather forecasts).

As our science modelling and understanding of these transparent interactions gets more accurate, it will be easier for us all to make decisions that have a net improvement for the environment.

Watch out for Energy Probe (see speech excerpt below) - it sounds here like their Director is pumping up the Petroleum Club to go on a major attack. 

His big argument, once again, is doubt about a "consensus". All scientist have doubts, there are always more questions to ask and answer.

Don't get me wrong, scientist have opinions, they have guesses, and political positions likely. But when they write their papers for peer reviewed journals their scientific method is described, the results are stated, the stats are done, then IN their final conclusions -  THAT is where they may extrapolate: What could the results mean? What might be the next questions to ask for clarification? If any part of this process is garbage it generally won't be published. 

The nature of the scientific process is that it is never quite done. The environment changes, species change and the questions can be re-asked time and again. Furthermore, methodologies (ways of collecting data) change as new technologies are introduced and questions can be asked and answered differently. The questions can and should be continually asked.... its never done.

The real focus for us is - Is there enough data for us to apply the "precautionary priciple" and set policy to protect species, ecosystems and human civilizations. Why wait until island countries sink below the waves, until all our glacial freshwater sources have melted away to set policy. Even if it turns out that slowing the burn of fossil fuels doesn't help, why wait until these energy reserves all gone to make the transitions to sustainable energy sources.

So, if you get tired of fighting the skeptics with science you can always fight them on strategy! How can we move to a sustainable world, if we rely on a finite resource like fossil fuels?

Also, be careful about the last paragraphs that plea for the dignity and rights of the petroleum worker. They are not our enemy. Unions all over the world are fighting for the just transition of workers from polluting industries to green industries. The transition must be made with policies that protect the workers, that help them retrain for greener jobs or simply protect their income in a transition. These industries are dirty and dangerous to workers. Our fight for sustainable economies is a fight for their health and safety. 

Karen 

Here is part of  what Solomon, Director of Energy Probe, told the
Petroleum Club in Calgary recently:


The fears of cataclysm over global warming are unfounded. There is no
consensus on climate change, despite what Al Gore and the UN's Panel on
Climate Change would have you believe.

Let me tell you why most people think that global warming is a serious
problem. It comes down to one number: 2500. That's the number of
scientists associated with the UN's Panel on Climate Change that the press
reports has endorsed the UN Panel's conclusions. These are the conclusions
that get released in the UN's mammoth reports every six years or so, and
that then dominate the media airwaves for weeks.< /p>

"2500 scientists can't be wrong," the press always says, explicitly or
implicitly. Without that number, it would have no basis for the claim that
they repeat over and over again -- that there's a consensus on climate
change.

2500 is an impressive number of scientists. To find out who, exactly, they
were, I contacted the Secretariat of the United Nations Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change, and asked for their names. The Secretariat
replied that the names were not public, so I couldn't have them. And I
learned that the 2500 scientists were reviewers, not endorsers.

Those scientists hadn't endorsed anything. They had merely reviewed one or
more of the literally hundreds of background studies, some important and
some not, that were part of this immense United Nations bureaucratic
process. They did not review the final report or endorse it.

Their reviews weren't even all favorable. I know that from many sources,
including from among some of the scientists that I profiled -- several of
the deniers in my book are among those 2500. And those deniers, and
others, generally consider the UN's work a travesty.

There is no endorsement by 2500 top UN scientists. The press has been
taken. And so the public has been taken.

The extent to which the public has been taken may surprise you. Not only
is there no consensus, the scientists who are skeptics -- the deniers --
have extraordinary credentials, people at the very top echelons of the
scientific establishment. They are the Who's Who of Science.

Not only do they disagree with the UN conclusions, they often value CO2
for the benefits it provides the planet -- satellite data shows the planet
is now the greenest it has been in decades. Until recently, after all, CO2
was universally viewed as Nature's fertilizer.

If these top scientists are right, you are being attacked without
justification. You are being painted as criminals and your children are
being made to feel ashamed of what you do. You are being victimized, in a
modern form of shunning.

Your present strategy of lying low and hoping all this will pass has
gotten you nowhere. You need to make your case, factually and frankly. The
public will be skeptical of your arguments, as it should be. But if your
critics can't counter your factual arguments, it is your critics who will
fail.

You need to decide. Do you want to go on being attacked for something that
may be laudable, for producing CO2 may well be laudable? Do you want to go
on feeling guilty out of public ignorance of where scientists truly stand
on the global warming issue?

On global warming, the science is not settled. You have the facts on your
side. But facts will count for naught as long as you see the battle as
lost.

-Lawrence Solomon is executive director of Energy Probe.

Many people have asked me about the UK movie, The Great Global Warming Swindle and how accurate it is (or more precisely, how inaccurate it is). Read a bit more about how the producer of the movie skews the science...it is a very interesting read.

Skepticism on the need for urgent action on climate change has moved from the science to the economy. The line of argument being that money could be better spent elsewhere such as poverty reduction, fighting malaria, malnutrition etc.  Its an argument which is compelling for many in my home, India. This argument is built on two claims.

• 1. There are many global concerns of greater significance
• 2. Solving Climate Change is going to cost a lot of money

Both claims employ a sleight of hand that tries to hide illogical leaps in reasoning. But before I present my arguments on these, let me just say that there is a healthy line of skepticism that is useful for our global effort. We should maintain an ongoing reassessment on what is the most efficient means to solving Climate Change.

Challenging existing views on the right mechanisms, technologies and treaties can be positive contribution to the debate. Unfortunately, skeptics often venture beyond the healthy territory. Let’s turn to the oft cited argument that Climate Change is not the number 1 global concern. The Copenhagen Consensus, a body of independent academics (some with impressive pedigree) has drawn up a list of Global issues on which Climate Change ranks 14^th. They argue that we should not spend so much money on Climate Change when there are 13 more important issues to be resolved. Whether you accept their list or its order is another matter, but I find the argument confusing in itself.

Firstly, they imply that money for solving climate change comes from the same bucket as money for malaria or other global issues. Odd, why don’t they claim it comes from the same bucket as our spending on movies? Maybe if we all saw one movie less each year and donated the savings to solving Malaria, we could eradicate it? There are millions of things we choose to spend on so it makes no sense to single out a tax on carbon as something that robs from other very legitimate concerns. Interestingly, education on Climate Change, raise social consciousness on the interconnectedness of all living things on this planet. If anything, Climate Change activism brings attention to global problems. No wonder then that countries such as the Scandinavian nations and Britain have shown the biggest growth in deployment of foreign aid targeting health and poverty. Guess what? These are the same countries that are the biggest investors in addressing climate change. The US, which at the Federal level is a climate change laggard, has reduced its % contribution to addressing global development issues.

The second problem with the argument is the inter-connectedness between global concerns. Although a debate rages as to the size of impact, it is clear that the effects of climate change on water management issues, spread of diseases, food production and shelter is starkly negative. Certainly, Climate Change is not the primary cause but it is something that will make many of these concerns increasingly harder to solve. The business of development aid is complex due to the multitude of factors. Adding human caused Climate Change, which requires a rate of change in adaptation hitherto unseen, stands as a major obstacle to global development and poverty alleviation. But perhaps the biggest fallacy offered by the skeptics is their second claim that solving climate change is going to cost a lot of money. Estimates have ranged from hundreds of billions into the trillions. Sounds like a lot. Well let us be clear, whatever money gets spent doesn’t just simply disappear from the planet (although skeptics like to make it sound like that). So where would all that money spent on climate change go? It is worth thinking about this as being similar to landing man on the moon. A prolific amount of money was spent on getting us to the moon. That money went to individual scientists to pay their salaries and to shareholders of corporations to pay for their construction and material costs. These people of course subsequently spent their money in other parts of the economy. In other words, the money stayed on planet earth and did not disappear to the moon. Similarly, while we may be against the war in Iraq, claims that it is costing America billions of dollars a day is exaggerated because the vast majority of that money ends back in the American domestic economy. Rather, it is a transfer of wealth from American taxpayers to some dubious American corporations and to the salaries of soldiers. The issue therefore isn’t really the amount of money, it is more about the relative efficiency with which it is used. In the case of landing a person on the moon, there was a great amount of technological progress and IP developed from the process that has benefited all mankind. From the Iraq war well…to put it kindly, the jury is still out.

Investment in climate change promises to herald technological innovations that will not only be a solution for Global Warming but many of the other global concerns. Consider that bringing electricity to off-grid villages in India is best achieved through solar power, prices for which are dropping thanks to global climate change efforts. Solar cookers are being developed to solve the health crises that grips poor villagers who use soot releasing bio-fuels indoors. These cookers can be subsidized for their positive impact on climate change (airborne soot has been identified as a major Indian contribution to climate change because the particles trap heat).

Ultimately, its not the artificial value of money that matters, rather it is the relative pleasure we derive from an activity.  With increasing education on Climate Change, people are beginning to factor in sustainability into the utility they derive from a product or activity.  So claiming that climate change spending is just a cost, fails to acknowledge the savings made in adaptation, the utility individuals derive from living more sustainably and the positive impact on technological innovation which promises to help address broader issues than just climate change.