« Coal verses Nuclear | Main | Energy Efficiency »

Globalism & Regionalism

OK, so the global economy is in freefall, the days of cheap oil are gone, for good, the latest data about climate change is fast exceeding our worst fears, and severe food shortages loom for hundreds of millions of people. But there are still lots of people out there who think the "globalisation project" is firmly on track.

There is no clearer example of the kind of contradictions now arising out of clashing world views. Every government in the world is theoretically signed up to sustainable development, but not one of them believes that this entails anything other than "business-as-usual" with a few low-carbon trimmings added on. Yet all the evidence regarding the state of the planet shows far more dramatic, structural changes are inevitable. And imminent. Clashing tectonic plates come to mind.

My view on this is simple: this particular model of globalisation (US-led, neo-liberal, deregulated globalisation) is dead in the water. What’s more, the need for a completely different kind of globalisation (based on dramatic decarbonisation and the accelerated achievement of the Millennium Development Goals, underpinned by local and regional economic development) has never been more urgent.

And that’s exactly what my new book (or booklet rather!) "Globalism & Regionalism" is all about. It pulls no punches. The ideological fundamentalism that has shaped the last two decades is at last in retreat, but it will take a long time to repair the massive damage caused. We desperately need some new – and honest – thinking to create a more equitable, resilient and sustainable model of globalisation.

Whatever some people may say, it’s not too late. There’s still time to turn things around. But every year we press ahead – unheedingly, it would seem – with our current model of globalisation, it makes it that much harder to bring forward the necessary alternatives.

globalism_regionalism_front_cover.jpgGlobalism and Regionalism
Edge Futures
Paperback, 19.0 x 14.0 cm, 96 pages
UK £7.99
Globalism and Regionalism considers the impact that dwindling resources and restricted travel will have on global competitiveness and regional identity. Competition between countries is likely to increase. Whilst this may lead to conflict it could also facilitate greater creativity. This in turn will put a premium on technological advancement and on our ability to respond rapidly to change. Simultaneously, regionalism will develop and localities could become more distinctive and potentially aggressive.

Posted by Jonathon Porritt on August 14, 2008 5:33 PM |

Comments (25)

I agree with your sentiments wholeheartedly Johnathon.

I hope your book delves into the significance of the credit crunch and more importantly, the economy of debt, which the world has come to rely on.

Monetary reform, or even a 'monetary revolution' in the banking system must be debated by people such as yourself. The world cannot survive the greed of financial institutions as they exist today.

Interest on loans will always be unethical and unsustaianble as long as deregulation allows lenders to conjur up money out of thin air.

I look forward to reading your book.

Posted by Simon Evill | August 15, 2008 12:58 PM

"Think Global; Act Local". Or something similar. Globalisation should work - the bigger picture informing regional and even local efforts with regard to food production, transportation and consumption, waste management, poverty alleviation, power production...

Trouble is the global view is only pursued by those looking at a global market with an eye to making a profit. Big business IS big business; stockholders don't care for altruistic sentiment. If it were profitable then they'd be interested. Governments are best placed, through multi-lateral agreements, to address these issues, but they seem reluctant to challenge the private sector and content to leave it to individuals to make a moral or ethical decision. Good governance shouldn't lead from the rear...

Posted by Ironspider | August 19, 2008 8:03 AM

I'd be very interested for you to tell us what "the latest data about climate change is fast exceeding our worst fears" is. Is it the rapid global cooling that started at the beginning of 2007? Is it the increased ice coverage of the Antarctic? Is it the falling sea level? Is it the worrying lack of sunspots and the failure of sunspot cycle 24 to start? Is it the flip to ocean cooling cycles? My worst fears are that all the latest data concerning global cooling could be the fore-runner to another Little Ice Age, even a period as severe as the Maunder Minimum.

Given that carbon dioxide increases follow warming by about 800 years (carbon dioxide is released from warm oceans), i.e. warming causes increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, what exactly are your worst fears?

Posted by Phillip Bratby | August 31, 2008 8:56 PM

Jonathan

I enjoyed your book(let) very much. You are completely right to show how stale the anti-globalisation debate has become. Instead of rejecting globalisation we need a positive vision for what it can achieve.

Reading the Foresight Flooding work (recently updated for the Pitt Review) I find it interesting that they us four socio-economic climate scenarios:

1 Local Stewardship (Medium-Low emissions)
2 National Enterprise (Med-High emissions)
3 World Markets (High emissions)
4 Global Sustainability (Low emissions)

'Western' development seems to have followed the path from 1 to 2 and we are currently in 3, World Markets. Business wants to keep us here, politicians can't see any other place to be. Anti-globalisation folk seem to want to go back to Local Stewardship and pitchforks, but Global Sustainability is where we need to be going. The problem is, what does it look like and how do we stop the Americans bombing it?

Anyway, thought-provoking stuff, thanks.

Posted by Sean Furey | September 1, 2008 4:10 PM

Has commenter Phillip Bratby not seen recent reports about relatively scarce and thin arctic ice? His comments are clear climate change denial - the best collection of scientific evidence we can currently accumulate (see IPCC reports) soundly contradict his position. I very seriously doubt his scientific credibility given that he talks about rapid global cooling starting in 2007 (!!) - not exactly a long term trend is it!

Posted by Glenn Vowles | September 12, 2008 5:43 PM

Sean:

I am not a "climate change denier" (whatever that phrase may be or may imply). I believe that there is evidence of billions of years of climate change and also believe that the climate will always change because it is an unstable system. Yes there has been arctic ice thinning, but that is a small indicator, countered by increased antarctic ice. As a scientist of considerable credibility (so my scientific colleagues tell me), I have a healthy scepticism for what politicians tell me to believe (and there is nothing more political than the IPCC). I have read several of the IPCC scientific reports and I prefer to examine the evidence for myself. The evidence of the PDO having gone into a cooling mode (acknowledged by NASA to last for 20 to 30 years) and the 106 year sunspot cycle minimum being with us, suggest cooling for the next several decades, but there is no hard evidence for this as we do not fully understand how or why these affect the climate.

The global temperature rise from ~1979 stalled several years ago, before the onset of the recent fall. I would point out that the arctic ice reduction last year was also only a short term event, the ice extent this summer not having reduced as much as it did in the summer of 2007 (NOAA data). The change this winter and next summer will be interesting to watch.

Posted by Phillip Bratby | September 17, 2008 8:26 PM

'As a scientist of considerable credibility' Phillip Bratby what do you think of the fact that the only way actual the global average temperature trend of the last 150 yrs can be explained by climate models is by factoring in the release of greenhouse gases by human activity? Its the piece of evidence that Sir David Attenborough says finally convinced him that this problem is human-caused, serious and urgent.

Posted by Glenn Vowles | September 18, 2008 8:35 PM

Glenn;

Firstly I don't believe climate models. They have no validity.

The warming over the last 150 years can be explained as the natural warming since the little ice-age, just as there was natural cooling from the medieval warm period to the little ice-age. Factors affecting the changes in climate from warm periods to cool periods in the Holocene inter-glacial are believed to be due to ocean current behaviour (oceans are where most of the earth's energy is stored), sun-spot activity, volcanic activity etc. The climate is not understood enough to explain all the natural climate changes and not enough research has gone into examining natural climate behaviour.

Posted by Phillip Bratby | September 19, 2008 1:40 PM

'...I don't believe climate models. They have no validity.'

Is there little point in trying to forecast the weather (with climate models) then Phillip??

Isn't this service vital to modern society?? Ask a farmer, a fisherman, the emergency services...

Posted by Glenn Vowles | September 19, 2008 7:05 PM

To Philip and Glenn:

I'm a little sceptical of climate change models and believe the whole system is probably too complex to be easily explained or even clearly understood. However, I don't think the uncontrolled release of pollutants, regardless of their molecular make-up, into the environment - be it terrestrial, aquatic or atmospheric - is a long-term recipe for a healthy system.

If nothing else can we not at least use the climate change debate as a way in to the re-assessment of our pollution footprint?

Posted by Ironspider | September 22, 2008 7:34 AM

A healthy scepticism of climate modelling is a very good, and scientific, thing Ironspider (and I largely take your point). Scepticism is a way of making ongoing improvements in the models or judgements made using models as one source of evidence, and so on.

All the evidence from all sources should be subjected to healthy scepticism. Scientists and others are modelling reality all the time, in their experiments, their equations, their thinking...

It's unwise and unscientific to merely assert, as Phillip Bratby does, however, that climate models have no validity at all ( what he should do is state their drawbacks, give evidence to back points up...rather as you do Ironspider, by referring to the complex systems). Zero model validity is a pretty extreme view and obviously not shared by large numbers of scientists. Consider the high practical benefits of weather forecasting using climate models, of a sort - they aren't perfect of course but they are still very useful indeed!

The 'pollution footprint' concept you use, Ironspider, is an idea, if used in the modern sense, that comes from modelling.

Posted by Glenn Vowles | September 22, 2008 9:56 PM

Weather forecasting is different from climate forecasting. Weather forecasting has improved over the years but still cannot be relied on for more than a few days ahead (some say up to two weeks!), and even then, unless we are in a period of calm weather, such as a large anti-cyclone, the timing is often wrong. Weather forecasters are able to rely on experience from lots of historical data showing similar weather patterns from which they can get useful information. They are only looking at a small portion of the globe and can therefore calculate using a small grid.

Climate forecasting is a different matter altogether, involving many other unknown long term effects that do not affect the local weather and being on a much larger scale (the effect of chnages in the oceans, the sun-earth system and land and are much more important than just the atmosphere). Climate models cannot take advantage of lots of previous climate experience. In other words they cannot be validated against real data, which weather models can on a daily basis.

Having worked with large system models for many years, I understand the problems involved in the equations, the solution techniques (grid size, convergence problems) the verification, validation etc. I categorically state that climate models do not yet have all the models (there is so much about the climate that we do not understand) or validation to enable them to be used to forecast the future climate with any confidence.

Long term climate is not the same as short term weather.

Posted by Phillip Bratby | September 23, 2008 8:27 AM

My point is obviously not to say that weather and climate forecasting are the same! The point is Phillip that there are problems with all modelling but that does not totally invalidate them (though you do). Far from it, they have been and are very useful indeed.

That they 'cannot be validated against real data' is not true. I gave an example of such a validation earlier on. Go here to view a brief, well viewed, video clip of what I mean.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S9ob9WdbXx0

Posted by Glenn Vowles | September 23, 2008 1:32 PM

Glenn,

I see no point in continuing this discussion. I have watched the video. Using a media star like David Attenborough does not convince, nor does one hind-cast from a global warming alarmist like Peter Cox. The climate models have a built-in feedback mechanism to increase temperature in line with CO2. There are many other natural effects not in the models that could cause the warming (as natural effects have done in the past - Medieval Warm Period). I quote from the IPCC (I don't normally quote from political organisations) "In climate research and modelling, we should recognise that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible". J Norris of the Scripps Institute of Oceanography has stated that "Clouds have been and continue to be the greatest source of physical uncertainty in our understanding of climate change". Since the effect of clouds on radiation is an order of magnitude greater than CO2 and we just don't know what effect warming has on clouds, then we don't know what the effect of CO2 is (is the feedback positive or negative?). Norris again "Is earth’s aggregate feedback positive or negative – we don’t know".

Posted by Phillip Bratby | September 24, 2008 7:41 AM

The graph in the video clip is the important bit, Phillip, not the presenter. The modelled data follows the measured temperatures, and therefore is validated pretty well. Not sure of the source of your IPCC quote but their statements and reports are stuffed full of future climates based on various scenarios!

As for the medieval warm period you refer to, the data reveals it as a North Atlantic and not a global phenomenon.

No doubt modelling is problematic. No doubt there are many uncertainties, some small, some large. But it's wrong to portray models as having no validity (more ideology than science I'd say).

By the way recent reports on the release of methane into the atmosphere at a rising rate due to warming, on changing albedo due to melting ice and snow, on the reducing rate of ocean take up of carbon dioxide as the water warms...would seem to indicate that the aggregate feedback is positive ie warming caused by us produces more warming.

Posted by Glenn Vowles | September 24, 2008 10:12 PM

Real science based on valid reseach and not hyped computer models is warning of immenent global cooling. See http://www.spaceandscience.net/id16.html

Posted by RodD | September 25, 2008 2:41 AM

Looks like this exchange could run and run!!

Apparently model-based research evidence gathered by the Nobel Prize winning IPCC is not 'real science', or 'valid research'. Climate modelling is dismissed out of hand as 'hyped'!

Take a look here for some interesting views and examples of climate change denial:
http://climatedenial.org/

Posted by Glenn Vowles | September 25, 2008 12:38 PM

Glenn: As I said above, I see no point carrying on this discussion. You just ignore the evidence (climate models are flawed and not validated - one calculation with a model containing an arbitrary positive feedback mechanism proves nothing, the MWP was global, the world is cooling and we should be worried about it (very, very worried as warming is good for mankind, cooling is bad and most people are not prepared for it)). I suggest you look at sunspot activity and the PDO with an open mind.

Oh and by the way, I spent many years validating and verifying computer models (not climate models!) before they could be used in anger and I can say that none of the current climate models would have been allowed out of the starting gate.

Posted by Phillip Bratby | September 29, 2008 8:25 AM

Glenn: I don't understand the term "model-based research evidence". Models do not produce evidence, they produce forecasts. The model forecasts are very much hyped, as if they were facts, and not the output from what are in reality no more than computer games. Evidence is data. Where is the evidence that carbon dioxide is warming the troposphere and thus warming the earth? Where is the evidence that the carbon dioxide increase in the atmosphere is caused by man and is not a natural increase from oceans, plants, the soil? Oceans contain almost all the heat that determines the climate and most of the carbon dioxide that exists. Carbon dioxide is just a trace element in the armosphere.

Don't forget that the IPCC is a political organisation. Who believes what politicians tell us? I seem to remember a recent opinion poll that put politicians at the bottom of the list of people who are to be believed (marginally worse than estate agents and double-glazing salesmen).

I often read the term "climate change denial". What do you mean by it? I am an avid believer in climate change. So much so that I have built up a large reserve of seasoned timber for my wood-burning stove for the cold winters that I expect climate change to bring. Bring on real global warming, like they had in the Medieval Warm Period!!

Posted by Phillip Bratby | September 29, 2008 9:40 PM

OK Gentlemen, select your pistol, take ten paces then turn and fire...

Is this a healthy debate or are we descending into the rabid exchanges for which the internet is such an apt medium?

I doubt they'll ever be concensus on climate change - "anthropogenic or not?" - even if there were to be a severe climate shift one way or the other. So I return to my previous stance and ask if this is not the time to look at our global pollution footprint. Surely, tackling something we can agree upon as a problem must be better than arguing constantly over an issue that looks likely to polarise opinion until doomsday (whether hot or cold)?

Posted by Ironspider | October 2, 2008 2:44 PM

Glenn,

In response to your comment of Sept 18th re explaining temperature changes, I suggest you look at the fllowing paper: Anastasios A. Tsonis, Kyle Swanson, and Sergey Kravtsov: Atmospheric Sciences Group, Department of Mathematical Sciences, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, U.S.A.
Geophysical Research Letters (GRL) paper 10.1029/2007GL030288, 2007
They investigated the collective behaviour of known climate cycles such as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, the North Atlantic Oscillation, the El Nino/Southern Oscillation, and the North Pacific Oscillation. By studying the last 100 years of these cycles' patterns, they found that the systems synchronised several times. In cases where the synchronous state was followed by an increase in the coupling strength among the cycles, the synchronous state was destroyed. Then a new climate state emerged, associated with global temperature changes and El Nino/Southern Oscillation variability. They showed that this mechanism explains all global temperature tendency changes and El Nino variability in the 20th century.
No wonder the climate models have to rely on CO2 to explain the warming when they don't have the capability to model the ocean cycles. It's the oceans that hold the energy that drives the climate, not the atmosphere.

Posted by Phillip Bratby | October 4, 2008 8:02 AM

The debate on climate change between Glenn Vowles and Phillip Bratby is more about human influence on climate change than the total climate change issue. All of us (should) accept that climate change is and always has occurred, throughout the earth's long existence. The big question is to what extent is this affected by human activity.

Philip is quite right to challenge the opinion in Jonathan's blog that "the latest data about climate change is fast exceeding our worst fears". Perhaps a more accurate view is that "some of the latest reports about data on climate change are predicting a future fast exceeding the worst fears of some groups of people". Many of us do not accept this view due to the lack of convincing evidence for it and the evidence against.

Propagandists are very clever at merging facts and opinions in order to obtain public support for their particular cause, whether they be politicians (including failed ones), religious leaders, environmentalists, industrialists, vegetarians, etc. etc. etc. Jonathon Porritt's book "Playing Safe: Science and the Environment" is a prime example of this.

On the other hand honest physical scientists use known facts in order to prove laws. Where the known facts are incomplete, available expert opinion is then introduced in order to develop theories. These theories are then tested against actual outcomes to see if they still apply. If a theory is considered by the experts to be based upon sound (factual) argument, then it is usually accepted if and until proven to be flawed, when the theory is either modified or rejected.

Multiple complex factors affect the global climate, interacting in such an extremely complex way that our present scientific understanding, although improving all the while, remains seriously incomplete. The climate system is so complex that use of the scientific method, despite Jonathon's apparent aversion to it (see his above referenced book, Chapter 2) and his aversion to science in general (also clear from his book) is essential in trying to unravel its complexities. Without properly applied scientific method we would be reduced to accepting opinion through faith, in the same way as we are encouraged to do by all religions - but that's for a different debate.

The IPCC scientists themselves acknowledge this complexity and have never claimed that they are able to PREDICT the future global climate, even with the help of their models. Predictions of weather (albeit limited in accuracy even for just a few days ahead) are made easier through the use of computer models, but this practice makes use of relatively accurate data obtained from current global measurements of relevant parameters. This is far from the case regarding global climate prediction. Accurate weather prediction, difficult as it is, is trivial by comparison.

Any computer model based upon significantly incomplete knowledge of the system it purports to model will generally produce misleading predictions. It can be made to produce plausible (but not necessarily accurate) predictions by feeding it with appropriate "prompts" based upon assumptions, but these must always be treated with suspicion and should not be relied upon when making important decisions. In other words "Garbage In, Garbage Out". Don't forget that:-

NO GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE MODEL HAS EVER BEEN VALIDATED!

It is very easy for any one of us to merge chosen bits of scientifically identified knowledge with our own opinions in order to present a persuasive argument supporting our preferred point of view. This is precisely what the politically appointed authors of each IPCC Summary for Policy-makers appear to have done.

From the referenced posts, I do not believe that Glenn has read any of the IPCC WG1 reports, only perhaps the SPM's or has merely heard things second hand, perhaps via the media (if I am mistaken Glen, then I sincerely apologize). Anyone trying to debate the issue seriously should read the WG1 reports, which are readily available on the IPCC web-site.
"I very seriously doubt his scientific credibility given that he talks about the only way" … "actual the global average temperature trend of the last 150 yrs can be explained by climate models is by factoring in the release of greenhouse gases by human activity?".


Yesterday I sent a challenge to Jonathan Porritt (plus about 14 "climate change" scientists to provide a detailed scientific analysis refuting a paper by John Nicol, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Physics, James Cook University, Australia. This paper, which supports arguments of Dr. Heinz Hug and Dr Jack Barrett, includes the conclusion that:
QUOTE
The above analysis … shows that the actual level of GHGs in the atmosphere…is almost of no consequence in determining the increase in surface temperature from the Greenhouse effect.
……In summary, small quantities of radiation from excited Greenhouse gases …. provide direct feed back of heat towards the earth…The proportion of this free radiation…. is a characteristic of the gas and will be independent of … the concentration of a given Greenhouse gas.
UNQUOTE

Note that I have not INTERPRETED what Dr Nicol says, but have presented EXTRACTS from it (this is another clever trick of the propagandists). Anyone who wants the complete picture should read Dr Nicol's paper, not just a selection of extracts.

In the same way, anyone who wants a proper understanding of the true status of current understanding of climate change should read the actual reports of WG1 The Physical Science Basis (not the summaries for policy makers). Also required is fair consideration to the views of the anthropogenic global warming agnostics. Climate science is nowhere near a developed state that permits reliable predictions to be made.

I eagerly await a response from Jonathan (and the others to whom I have issued this challenge) but will one appear and will this comment be allowed on Jonathan's blog?.

Pete Ridley,
Anthropogenic Global Climate Change Agnostic

Posted by Peter Ridley | October 15, 2008 6:06 PM

Ironspider's comment of 22 September that "If nothing else can we not at least use the climate change debate as a way in to the re-assessment of our pollution footprint?" is worth developing further. Is this suggesting that even if significant ANTHROPOGENIC global warming is a myth, then use it anyway - the end justifies the means.

This is already going on, and more. In some cases this does relate to causes involving our polution of the environment, but not always. Politicians and others are (mis)using the anthropogenic climate change issue to further their own individual vested interests, regardless of whether there is any validity in the arguments for and against the issue.

Gordon Brown is doing just that at this very minute. In order to claim to have conquered the "boom and bust economics of the Conservatives" Gordon has promoted 11 years of unsustainable economic growth based upon relentless and reckless consumer spending of borrowed money, without any regard as to how the money would be repaid. The consequences are upon us:-
PAY-BACK TIME HAS ARRIVED, WITH INTEREST.

Present British public opinion about his leadership of the UK (I nearly said "his country", but Scotland's his country, isn't it) has sunk to almost as low a level of that of George Bush in the USA. In an attempt to recover some ground, Gordon is now using the genuine global economic situation and the alleged anthropogenic global climate change cause to present himself as the world's savior. His latest proposed cuts in CO2 emissions will waste enormous amounts of tax payers hard-earned money and achieve nothing except to make us less reliant upon the Middle East, Russia and other less dependable sources for our energy supplies, for political reasons. This money would be far better spent dealing sensibly with all of the many genuinely serious pollution and deprivation issues around the globe.

Who on earth is advising politicians about climate change and other environmental issues. It's time we all started paying proper attention to all sides of the argument and not just to those of the scare-mongers. Let's have a bit more honesty and open-mindedness in these debates instead of mere scare-mongering. Few of us expect this from politicians (remember the scare about "weapons of mass destruction" and the consequences of that) or from other cause advocates (including failed law students), but we ordinary folk need not stoop to that level. To ignore another person's honest argument is plain arrogance, which often arises from privilege, whether in upbringing, education or wealth (earned or inherited). Also, lets try resisting insulting those who challenge our views and simply let our arguments stand or fall on their own merits, rather than resorting to ridiculing those who disagree with us.

This blog encourages us to spend hard-earned money on biased books by an author who bases his arguments more upon emotion than upon facts. There are some worthwhile alternatives such as "The Skeptical Environmentalist" and "Cool It", by Bjorn Lomborg, an adjunct professor at the Copenhagen Business School and "The Greenhouse Delusion" by Dr. Vincent Gray, a highly respected research scientist.

By the way, Jonathan, have you seen the latest news? Despite the fact that "the days of cheap oil are gone" the price of crude has more than halved in the last couple of months. By the time the global economic depression reaches its deepest level (well after the next election) those earlier days may have returned. Of course, by then we will be well on the way into the next ice age (unless we start burning much more fossil fuel, which will be far cheaper than now).

Regards,
Pete Ridley.
17 October 2008

Posted by Peter Ridley | October 17, 2008 6:39 PM

A new Democrat majority in the US plans to put in place carbon taxes which will diametically touch every part of our ecconomic life. A pledged reduction of 80% will totally dismantle the western civilization as we know it. Lets hope that this climate change nonsense will be stopped soon enough to prevent outcomes which will do unrepairable damage to our environment which would accomplish just the opposite of what any serious environmentalist would want to see happen.

Posted by Rod Dierking | October 27, 2008 2:51 AM

I am surprised that this debate on climate change appears to have dried up. Surely it cannot be because the "carbon crusaders" on this blog have accepted my comments of 15th and 17th without challenge. If they have, then I wish the politicians would capitulate as easily.

Joking aside, can anyone advise me of an influential INTERNET site that is debating both sides of this issue in a balanced and constructive manner. There is far too much hype around at the moment promoting the myth about our impact on climate change. The media has a lot to answer for on this, although I accept that their cause is to sell papers or attract audiences. Scare-mongering helps them do that.

Meanwhile, on 21 October I E-mailed to Forum for the Future and Jonathan Porritt a draft paper in which I presented my current agnostic understanding of anthropogenic climate change. They have not managed to respond to it yet, but I have now sent a finalized version to them hoping that they will provide a link to it and make it accessible on their sites. Here is an abstract.

Politicization of CLIMATE CHANGE & CO2
Vested interest groups are abusing the issue of climate change to further their own causes. Climate scientists cannot predict climate and computer models have significant limitations. Model projections are flawed because the models cannot as yet be validated. The IPCC summaries for policy makers are merely a political interpretation of the IPCC's scientific reports. These reports do not take into consideration recent research which shows that increasing CO2 content has negligible affect on global climate. The proposed reductions in consumption of fossil fuels will do nothing about controlling climate change but will horrendously impact the economic well-being of many of the world's most deprived communities.

Pete Ridley, Anthropogenic Global Warming Agnostic. 28 October 2008.

Posted by Peter Ridley | October 28, 2008 6:11 PM

Post a comment

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)





TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.jonathonporritt.com/jpblog/mt-tb.cgi/71

Subscribe to this blog's feed
[What is this?]