In message , Philip Eden
writes
Here is the summary I wrote for May (which, if course, includes a Central
Scotland Temperature as these summaries have done
for several years):
QUOTE
May 2008 was a truly exceptional month - dominated by easterly winds
to such an extent that it was the most 'easterly' May (i.e. the easterly
component of the mean sea-level flow was higher than in any other) in
136 years of records. It also ranked 29th most 'southerly'. The
consequence was that it was the warmest and driest May on record in
many parts of Scotland, Northern Ireland, and northwest England, and it
was also the sunniest locally in northern Scotland. Even in central and
southern districts it was the warmest May at some locations since 1848,
There is a big problem with this type of claim, Philip. The methods of
assessing temperature and the physical conditions in which readings are
taken (for example, no motor traffic in 1848 and coal and wood fired
heating was universal) have varied tremendously over the past 160
years.
The section "An example of a green propaganda tool" in the article below
(published in Mother Earth magazine) deals with this problem in detail.
Regards RH
Population - the elephant in the green room
Robert Henderson
Let me put my cards on the table: I see no hard evidence for man-made
global warming, nor do I believe that pollution generally will be the
undoing of humanity, although it can obviously have severe effects on
particular populations. Readers interested in my reasons for dismissing
environmental scares in general and man made global warming in
particular may refer to “my The overheated climate debate “ which
was published in the Mother Earth Feb 2007 issue.
Notwithstanding the lack of firm evidence, Western political elites,
egged on by the religiously devoted greens through their powerful
pressure groups, are behaving as though we shall all be going to
Hell in a handcart if things do not change and are consequently
burdening their societies with environmental laws. These laws, apart
from making life unpleasant for the masses because of their impingement
on their liberty, are imposing great costs on Western economies which
are not shared by the rest of the world. Nor will these laws have any
meaningful impact on greenhouse gases in the atmosphere because of the
vast and ever growing increase in emissions taking place in the
developing world.
This essay is designed to challenge these newly green political elites
on their own grounds, to take their claims and test them against their
actual policies by asking questions such as is there any possibility
that the claimed necessary reductions in greenhouse gases can be
achieved? Will the developed world “setting an example” persuade
the undeveloped world to cut back on greenhouse gases? Can the
industrialisation of the developing world continue without the creation
of vastly more greenhouse gases? Is the calculation of greenhouse gases
sound? Most importantly ,what are the implications of the world’s
present population and projected future growth for the environment?
Population
A monstrous and ever*expanding *elephant sits in the green
crusaders’ room. Amidst all the liberal internationalist angst about
greenhouse gases and pollution generally, the greatest and most
obvious cause of both is ignored by mainstream politicians: the already
great and rapidly rising population of the world.
The world population is estimated to be 6.5 billion now. Extrapolations
to 2050 go as high as 9.5 billion. The vast majority living now come
from the underdeveloped world and their proportion of the world
population will increase in the coming decades because the populations
of underdeveloped countries have much younger populations than those
of the developed world, viz:
"One of every six people on earth is an adolescent. In the developing
world, more than 40 percent of the population is under age 20. The
decisions these young people make will shape our world and the prospects
of future generations. On this World Population Day, let us recognize
their right to the health, information and services they need and
deserve."
http://www.forcedmigration.org/brows...population.htm
If the swelling world population*was overwhelmingly due to increases
in* the still very white first world you may be sure that we would be
daily berated for our selfish breeding. We would be told that any
increase in our population was at the expense of the third world,
that every extra mouth to feed, house, clothe and supply with energy
was absolutely unconscionable. Western governments would be instigating
programmes to reduce our populations and some of the bolder would be
advocating rationing of children and any industrial process deemed to be
producing the putative greenhouse gases,
But the overwhelming majority of people living today do not live in the
first world and the projected future expansion of the world’s
population is due almost entirely to third world increases, the first
world having at best stabilised their populations and at worst actually
set themselves on the path of democratic decline through a mixture of
contraception and too readily available abortion (Britain does not have
a fertility crisis but an abortion crisis, with 200,000 abortions being
carried out a year. If those babies were born Britain’s birth rate
would be above replacement level. Such increases in the first world as
occur will be due to immigration from the third world and the generally
higher breeding rates of immigrants.) Consequently, the subject goes
unmentioned by politicians because it is beyond the Pale for Western
liberal internationalist elites and not in the interests of the
developing world to raise it.
The Western green suicide national advocates
If Western politicians are as yet unwilling to advocate the most extreme
measures such as a dramatic reduction of Western populations, there are*
pressure* groups such as the Optimum Population Trust
(
http://www.optimumpopulation.org/) who will. They think it should be
the wicked energy guzzling first world which should show the way on
the grounds that each first worlder consumes*zillions of times more
energy than each third worlder.* Their recipe is that the first world
effectively commit suicide by reducing* its on average below
replacement reproductive level even further. Here are a couple of
snippets from their website which relate to the UK. The OPT advocate the
following policies:
“* (i) to welcome the current below-replacement total fertility rate;
* (ii) to oppose fiscal incentives specifically intended to encourage
women to have large families; * (iii) to reduce further (by
contraception and education) the number of teenage pregnancies, which
are still among the highest in Europe; “ ‘The UK’s sustainable
population based on current patterns of resource use is just over 17
million, less than a third of its actual population of 60 million*,
according to new research from the Optimum Population Trust.... ‘If
the whole world lived a “modest” Western European lifestyle based on
current energy patterns, it could support only 1.9 billion people. If
that “Western European” world then managed to cut its carbon dioxide
emissions by 60 per cent, this sustainable population figure would rise
to 2.8 billion. However, this would still only represent 40 per cent of
the current world population.’ OPT NEWS RELEASE December 4 2006
http://www.optimumpopulation.org/opt.release04Dec06.htm The danger for
the West is that our politicians may buy into this dangerous nonsense
sufficiently to act to suppress Western breeding rates even further.
Calculating emissions
The questioning reader may have a provoking question niggling away at
the back of their mind: how is that the industrialised First World with
only 1 billion of population at best, a population which lives in
countries which monitor and control their emissions ever more
rigorously, is so much more at fault for emissions than the 5.5 billion
who live in countries where the vast majority of energy is generated
either by the direct burning of fossil fuels in the home or workplace or
through power stations, mainly coal fired, which pump pollution into
the air with poor filtration and who are responsible for far more
agricultural generated greenhouse gas emissions than the First World?
The answer ostensibly lies in the convenience of scientists. Here is the
UN Environment Programme website giving the game away:
“ Central to any study of climate change is the development of an
emissions inventory that identifies and quantifies a country’s primary
anthropogenic sources and sinks of greenhouse gas. Emissions are not
usually monitored directly, but are generally estimated using models.
Some emissions can be calculated with only limited accuracy. Emissions
from energy and industrial processes are the most reliable (using energy
consumption statistics and industrial point sources). Some agricultural
emissions, such as methane and nitrous oxide carry major uncertainties
because they are generated through biological processes that can be
quite variable.”
http://maps.grida.no/go/graphic/nati..._emissions_per
_capita
Translated that means scientists rely on the sort of statistics which
the developed world produces (and the undeveloped world does not ),
while ignoring at worst and under-estimating at best emissions which
are not readily calculated or available. Take the case of methane and
nitrous oxide, the most plentiful greenhouse gases after water vapour
and carbon dioxide. Here is what the physicalgeorgraphy.net website
says about methane produced by man made means:
“The primary sources for the additional methane added to the
atmosphere (in order of importance) a rice cultivation; domestic
grazing animals; termites; landfills; coal mining; and, oil and gas
extraction. Anaerobic conditions associated with rice paddy flooding
results in the formation of methane gas. However, an accurate estimate
of how much methane is being produced from rice paddies has been
difficult to ascertain. More than 60 % of all rice paddies are found in
India and China where scientific data concerning emission rates are
unavailable. Nevertheless, scientists believe that the contribution of
rice paddies is large because this form of crop production has more than
doubled since 1950. Grazing animals release methane to the environment
as a result of herbaceous digestion. Some researchers believe the
addition of methane from this source has more than quadrupled over the
last century. Termites also release methane through similar processes.
Land-use change in the tropics, due to deforestation, ranching, and
farming, may be causing termite numbers to expand. If this assumption is
correct, the contribution from these insects may be important. Methane
is also released from landfills, coal mines, and gas and oil drilling.
Landfills produce methane as organic wastes decompose over time. Coal,
oil, and natural gas deposits release methane to the atmosphere when
these deposits are excavated or drilled.
“
http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/7a.html
And here is the journal Nature on methane emissions:
“There is a strong link between human diet and methane emissions from
livestock. Nations where beef forms a large part of the diet, for
example, tend to have large herds of cattle. As beef consumption rises
or falls, the number of livestock will, in general, also rise or fall,
as will the related methane emissions. Similarly, the consumption of
dairy goods, pork, mutton, and other meats, as well non-food items such
as wool and draft labor (by oxen, camels, and horses), also influences
the size of herds and methane emissions. The figures below present
recent estimates of methane emissions by type of animal and by region.
Due to their large numbers, cattle and dairy cows produce the bulk of
total emissions. In addition, certain regions - both developing and
industrialized - produce significant percentages of the global total.
Emissions in South and East Asia are high principally because of large
human populations; emissions per-capita are slightly lower than the
world
average”p://www.nature.com/nhttp://www.scidev.net/dossiers/index.cfm?fu
seaction=specifictopics&dossier=4&topic=182&CFID=2 340763&CFTOKEN=59109502
ature/journal/v443/n7110/full/Emissions of methane from livestock
As for nitrous oxide, here is the physical geography website again:
”The average concentration of the greenhouse gas nitrous oxide is now
increasing at a rate of 0.2 to 0.3 % per year. Its part in the
enhancement of the greenhouse effect is minor relative to the other
greenhouse gases already mentioned. However, it does have an important
role in the artificial fertilization of ecosystems. In extreme cases,
this fertilization can lead to the death of forests, eutrophication of
aquatic habitats, and species exclusion. Sources for the increase of
nitrous oxide in the atmosphere include: land-use conversion; fossil
fuel combustion; biomass burning; and soil fertilization. “Most of the
nitrous oxide added to the atmosphere each year comes from deforestation
and the conversion of forest, savanna and grassland ecosystems into
agricultural fields and rangeland. Both of these processes reduce the
amount of nitrogen stored in living vegetation and soil through the
decomposition of organic matter. Nitrous oxide is also released into the
atmosphere when fossil fuels and biomass are burned. However, the
combined contribution to the increase of this gas in the atmosphere is
thought to be minor. The use of nitrate and ammonium fertilizers to
enhance plant growth is another source of nitrous oxide. How much is
released from this process has been difficult to quantify. Estimates
suggest that the contribution from this source represents from 50 % to
0.2 % of nitrous oxide added to the atmosphere annually.
“
http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/7a.html
It is also important to understand that the quantity of the various
gases in the atmosphere is not a simple guide to their effectiveness as
greenhouse gases. Methane and Nitrous Oxide are thought to be much more
effective than Carbon Dioxide at warming the atmosphere, viz:
“Global Warming Potential (GWP). The normal reference is Carbon
Dioxide for which the GWP is 1. By comparison the GWP for Methane is 21,
Nitrous Oxide 310, most of the FCs are up in the 1000s with Sulphur
hexafluoride at the top with a whopping GWP of
23,900.”
http://www.envocare.co.uk/aboutus.htm
The GWP ratings mean that methane is 21 times more potent than CO2 and
Nitrous Oxide 310 times more potent.
Finally, all greenhouse gases have to be put into the contexts of (1)
that greenhouse gases form less than 1% of the atmosphere and (2) that
water vapour is the most common greenhouse gas in the atmosphere,
accounting for the majority of the greenhouse effect..
Interestingly, estimates of how much water vapour contributes vary
widely:
“If one pursues the question of how much of the greenhouse effect is
due to each of the various greenhouse gases one finds a perplexing
variety of answers in the literature. One source says that 95 percent of
the greenhouse effect is due to water vapour, another 98 percent. These
figures may be referring to the proportion, by weight or volume, of
water vapor among the greenhouse gases of the atmosphere. Another source
says that proportion water vapor is responsible for is between 36 and 70
percent. Water droplets in clouds account for another 10 to 15 percent
so water as liquid or vapor accounts for between 46 and 85 percent of
the greenhouse effect. The same source attributes 9 to 26 percent of the
greenhouse effect to carbon dioxide (CO2).”
http://www.applet-magic.com/radiativeff.htm
If there is such disagreement and uncertainty amongst climate scientists
about the extent of water vapour’s influence a gigantic question mark
hangs over claims for other gases such as CO2 and Methane. Suppose
90%+ is down to water vapour, about which Man can do little, it is
difficult to see that any increases due to Man made gases will be of
more than peripheral importance. It is also interesting to note that
that estimates of the other gases such as CO2 vary widely.
Imagine man made climate change is occurring
*
Let us suppose* for the sake of argument that global warming is
occurring largely or wholly because of* man made emissions.* Even in
those circumstances it would be madness for Britain or any other
developed country to load themselves with taxes and other burdens*
because quite clearly the five sixths of the world's population which
does not live in the First World is going to carry on industrialising*
without regard to what the First World does.* China is* on course to
become the largest carbon dioxide* emitter by 2010 , overtaking the
USA. Previous "expert" estimates which said this would not happen until
2020:
“China, one of the fastest growing economies of the world is all set
to overtake U.S as the leading air polluter by as early as 2010; a whole
decade faster than the previous estimates of 2020.
“The International Energy Agency has concluded this based on extensive
data studies, changing climatic conditions in the region etc. On the
other hand the United Nations is holding a conference in Nairobi to find
solutions to global warming and cutting the emission of greenhouse
gases.”
http://www.themoneytimes.com/article..._become_bigges
t_polluter_by_decade_end-id-102060.html
China will be in this position because she is quite naturally seeking
her national advantage by using a resource which she has in abundance -
coal - to fuel the energy need of her rapidly expanding economy. Nor
does she show any sign of slowing down:
“A blueprint to save the world from the worst effects of
climate change, drawn up at UN talks in Bangkok, is under threat from
China. Delegates said that Europe was insisting that the world should
try to keep the global temperature rise to an average of no more than
2°C or risk "dangerous" consequences.
“But China wanted to retain the right to pump out greenhouse gases
that would result in temperatures increasing by more than 2°C.
“ It was objecting to any wording that would mean it should impose a
Cap on its emissions, slow its economic growth or spend large amounts on
clean technologies in the future.
“China could overtake the United States as the world’s largest
producer of greenhouse gases by the end of this year, according to the
International Energy Agency.” Daily Telegraph 03/05/2007
China’s “one-child” policy is also coming apart:
“China's new rich are sparking a population crisis by
disregarding the nation's one-child rule. Under the controversial
policy introduced in 1979, families face fines if they have two or more
children. But rising incomes, especially in the affluent eastern and
coastal regions, mean that more people can afford to pay to have as many
offspring as they like.
“According to a recent survey by China's National Population and
Family Planning Commission, the number of wealthy people and celebrities
deciding to have more than one child has increased rapidly, despite
fines that can be as high as 200,000 yuan (£13,000) for each extra
child.
“Almost 10 per cent of high earners are now choosing to have three
children because large families are associated with wealth, status and
happiness in China. “daily Telegraph 08/05/2007
Of course, vast and rapidly growing as she is, China is simply part of
a larger picture of developing world pollution. Take the second largest
country on Earth, India. Just as China is happy to build coal- fired
power stations with abandon, India is content to engage in a policy of
small wood powered stations, a policy which not only introduces CO2
into the atmosphere but results in deforestation which reduces the
natural capture of CO2.
India is changing its greenhouse emissions contribution very rapidly:
”Greenhouse gas emissions, such as carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous
oxide, contribute to global warming and climate change. According to the
US-based 'think tank' the World Resources Institute, India was
responsible for over four per cent of total emissions in 2000 — making
the country the sixth largest emitter in the world. Emissions are set to
rise further still over the next 20 years as the Indian economy rapidly
develops. Both the International Energy Agency and the government of the
United States' Energy Information Administration predict over 90 per
cent growth in carbon dioxide emissions alone by 2025….
“India's coal consumption has increased from 110 million tonnes in
1980 to more than 350 million tones in 2000, representing an annual
growth rate of almost 6 per cent. Natural gas consumption has grown
similarly, at 5.6 per cent a year, to 75 million cubic metres in 2000.
But petroleum consumption has grown fastest since the 1980s, at an
annual rate of 14 per cent, to over 350 million tonnes in 2000….
”India emitted 16 million tonnes of methane in 1990, and 24 million
tonnes in 2000 — a little under 35 per cent of the country's overall
greenhouse gas emissions. [4] The agricultural sector dominates (see
Figure 2), contributing about 64 per cent. Within this sector, the
largest contributions come from livestock, which produce methane in
their digestive tracts, and rice crops, which emit approximately four
terragrams of methane per hectare as organic matter decomposes in
flooded fields. …
”India's greenhouse gas emissions are increasing, making up 4.47 per
cent of the global total in 2000. This places India in the top ten
emitters of the world. The United States leads the way, producing five
times more emissions than India, at almost 16 per cent of the world
total. China is the largest developing country emitter, accounting for
nearly 12 per cent of global emissions “. 31 August 2006 Source:
SciDev.Net*
http://www.scidev.net/news/index.cfm...e&itemid=3122&
language=1
The hopelessness of the liberal internationalist's belief that if the
"West sets an example" to the*developing world * is clear to see. Even
if* the developing world* population was stabilised immediately and
they restricted their emissions growth to half *of the average of the
first world at present, * that would increase emissions by*several
times what they are currently. If the first world ceased to emit
anything at all, the increase in the rest of the world's emissions,
through development and an expanding population, would still push the
emissions level way beyond what we have now and what climate scientists
consider safe. *
The sane response for the*first world *is* to *accept that even if
Man is creating global warming, the best that can be done is to guard
against its effects by doing what it has always done, namely,* use its
scientific and* technological skills to combat adverse effects.* If
Dutch engineers could reclaim much of the land which* now constitutes
the Netherlands in the 17 century it really should not be the wit of
21st century man to do the same.*
Green laws are only for “the little people”
*
Although they are forever berating their populations about global
warming, Western political elites subscribe to policies which
positively thwart their ostensible aims. They do this for reasons of
political ideology, fear of political repercussions if they follow the
logic of their ideas and personal selfishness.
Their greatest hypocrisy is to sign up to the free trade, free movement
of peoples agenda. The consequence of this is twofold: much energy is
expended transporting people and goods around the world and much of
the energy use needed for manufacture is exported from the developed
world , with its high standards of pollution control, to the developing
world, most notably China, where such controls are practically next to
non-existent and coal fired power stations are the primary means of
producing the necessary energy. The globalisation of business must also
have an impact on energy use because of the increased need to transmit
data over long distances by electronic means. If Western governments
were truly committed to the green agenda they would be advocating much
more national self sufficiency.
Then there is the mania for economic growth. All first world governments
seek continual growth. None says, hold on, if we want to “save the
planet” we should not be seeking ever more growth, ever more
expenditure of resources. That alone makes their supposed commitment to
“green” solutions to “global warming” a nonsense. If first
world economies continue to grow so must their emissions, at least for
the foreseeable future, because there is no ready made solution to
reduce greenhouse gas emissions sufficiently to counter the growth.
Congruent with free trade and growth is the “throwaway society”. We
increasingly produce and consume goods which are thrown away because
they are not worth repairing because of the cost, because they rapidly
become obsolescent or which are b poorly made but so cheap that the
owner is content to use them for a short period before purchasing
something else. How can that be squared with the idea that greenhouse
emissions must be radically reduced not in twenty years or even ten
years, but right now? The answer of course is that it cannot be squared.
..
The general approach of Western governments is not to honestly tackle
the problem they perceive to exist but to eat away piecemeal at one or
two visible aspects of the putative causes of the problem. For example,
“green” taxes are put on 4x4s and congestion charging applied to
cities, but such policies have little effect on the overall use of motor
vehicles.
Even where something is indubitably not for necessary purposes nothing
radical is done. Take the case of leisure air travel. Rhetoric spouts
from politicians about carbon offsetting and taxes on aviation fuel but
everyone knows nothing much will happen. There is of course a very
practical reason for this, the better off are the prime users of air
travel. The middle classes are generally the loudest proclaimers of
the virtues of green values yet they are also the ones most committed
to frequent flying as they go off on multiple foreign holidays a year
and regularly visit their foreign second home, but no British
Government would dream of overtly actually rationing such flights
however much they might talk about it. The most they will do is put on
an aviation tax, which of course penalises the poor.
The selfishness of the better off is a general problem for greens,
because on average the richer the person the more energy the person
will consume. An hilarious example of this came earlier in the year when
the “Unjolly Green Giant” Al Gore was exposed as a man whose
private residence consumed more than 20 times as much electricity as
the average American home in 2006:
“The average household in America consumes 10,656 kilowatt-hours (kWh)
per year, according to the Department of Energy. In 2006, Gore devoured
nearly 221,000 kWh—more than 20 times the national average. *
Last August alone, Gore burned through 22,619 kWh—guzzling more than
twice the electricity in one month than an average American family uses
in an entire year. As a result of his energy consumption, Gore’s
average monthly electric bill topped $1,359. *
Since the release of An Inconvenient Truth, Gore’s energy consumption
has increased from an average of 16,200 kWh per month in 2005, to 18,400
kWh per month in 2006. *
Gore’s extravagant energy use does not stop at his electric bill.
Natural gas bills for Gore’s mansion and guest house averaged $1,080
per month last year. “
*
http://www.economist.com/debate/free...oscar_win_for_
al.cfm
Or take the case of the Prince Charles’ second wife who recently
unconscionably embarrassed the religiously green Prince:
“The Duchess of Cornwall has flown out for a cruise, leaving
Prince Charles behind and his aides counting the cost of her gigantic
carbon footprint.
“ She took a private plane laid on by her holiday host, the
billionaire Dr Spiros Latsis, to join girlfriends for her annual jaunt
around the Greek islands on the Latsis yacht.” Daily Telegraph16/05/2007
The rich and powerful do not think that the green rules apply to them.
They are for “the little people” ,as the American millionairess
Leona Helmsley memorably said about taxes.
Why are Western political elites so keen on seeming green? The answer
lies in the type of personality which is attracted to politics.
Politicians are generally people who wish to control the lives of
others. In addition, even if they are not formally religious they tend
to have the religious temperament, that is, they have an instinctive
desire to believe in something and to force that belief on others. The
green ideology in general and global warming in particular provide an
outlet for those religious impulses.
The combination of the desire to control and the religious impulse fit
neatly together, because as every “religious” believer knows, their
creed cannot stand up to rational questioning. Consequently, the natural
tendency of all believers, religious and secular, is to quash dissent.
When they have power they invariably do so. Hence, the abuse and
censorship which currently is taking place of those who do not buy into
the green religion.
The other things which the green religion does is allow the political
elites to constantly interfere in the lives of the masses and to
manipulate public debate to keep the general public confused and afraid
and thus more malleable. Hence, we have the petty authoritarianism of
ever more draconian domestic waste obligations with householders being
turned into criminals for not sorting their waste “correctly” and
motorists being constantly berated for using their cars and threatened
with ever higher motoring costs through policies such as road charging.
The green agenda is also being cynically exploited by stories such as
the one below which tap a true and real fear of our age, mass
immigration:
“Climate change will take the number of refugees worldwide to a
billion by 2050, according to a report. Global warming and its
consequences will exacerbate a global crisis In which 155 million people
have been displaced by wars, natural disasters and development projects,
the study by Christian Aid warns. Daily Telegraph 14/05/2007
The green message is implicit but clear: obey us or you will be swamped
with immigrants.
An example of a green propaganda tool
Generally, Western elites, both politicians and the broader elite, are
happy to allow the new green religion to go unchallenged. To illustrate
the absurdities which are treated as fact I will examine one prime
example of this unquestioning attitude.
“Taking the past year as a whole, it has also been the hottest
12-month period since 1659. Daily telegraph 28/04/2007
The year 1659 appears with remarkable frequency in the media in
connection with the English climate, often in the form “since records
began in 1659”. It is a statement rarely if every questioned by
anyone with access to the mainstream media.
Just pause and think about that claim. Does it seem probable that
official weather records have been meticulously kept for three and a
half centuries, kept before the scientific and industrial revolutions,
kept before the English or British state became a bureaucratic monster?
The answer of course is that it is extremely improbable and did not
happen. What did happen in the third quarter of the last century is that
a British meteorologist by the name of Gordon Manley attempted to
produce an historical series for temperature in England which he
eventually extended to 1659. His work over a quarter of a century is
summarised in two papers published by the Royal Meteorological Society:
The mean temperature of central England 1698-1952 (1953) and Central
England temperatures – monthly means 1959-1973 (1974) The two papers
can be found at
http://www.rmets.org/publication/classics/cp1.php Other
academics have built on his work since.
Manley, like a good academic, was scrupulous in admitting the
difficulties in constructing such an historical series: “Methods of
approximation must be resorted to [when constructing any historical
series], most notably in England where, despite our very long
scientific tradition, almost all observation before 1841 was dependant
on amateur effort so that widely scattered records of diverse length and
accuracy provide endless problems... The English records offer a
formidable problem”. The opening paragraph of his 1953 paper.
“Formidable problem” is understating matters. Even readings of
temperature today using highly sophisticated equipment cause
considerable dispute because where the measurement is taken is all
important, for example, readings taken in or close to urban areas will
produce a higher temperature than ones taken in areas with little or no
human habitation. Trying to get a consistent environment to take
temperature over a long period of time is obviously difficult and
comparisons with the past questionable because we can never know what
the conditions were exactly at any point in the past. Hence, even with
the advent of official records early in Victoria’s reign it is not
simply a question of comparing data from one time with another. For
example, has can temperatures in London today be meaningfully compared
with those of 150 years ago when there were no motorised vehicles and
coal was the main energy source?
Once Manley enters the period before the official records (pre 1841) his
caveats become ever more severe, whether it be the paucity of the data,
breaks in the data, the widely different means used to collect data, the
absence of any information about how data was collected and even the
switch between the Julian to the Gregorian calendar in 1752 which means
every record prior to the change has to be recalibrated to the
Gregorian.
Manley’s research and analysis was honest but the most rational thing
to conclude from it is that it proved no meaningful historical
temperature series for England could be constructed over the period.
Yet his research is trotted out as having the status of certain fact by
the mainstream media, politicians and, to their shame, often by
scientists when they enter the realm of public debate.
Conclusion
The only sane conclusion to draw from the way the world is developing is
that nothing is going to prevent a massive increase in greenhouse gases
as the developing world industrialises. That being so, the rational
response of Western politicians would be to stop burdening their own
countries with expensive green laws and concentrate instead on dealing
with the effects of global warming if they materialise. That should not
be impossible because any change will be gradual and our technological
ability, already very substantial, will increase mightily in the next
century or so. Western elites must shift their mentality from that of
liberal internationalism to concern for their own countries and people
rather than the third world. Ultimately, it is for every nation to look
after its own people and territory. Western politicians should stop
kowtowing to their liberal guilt and start pointing out the facts of
life to the developing world.
These facts are, that the pollution from the developing world is on
schedule to utterly dwarf the pollution of the first world; that the
developing world must take responsibility for their population growth;
that the developing nations are responsible for the pollution they
create and its effects on their own people; that the first world cannot
be a milch cow for the rest of the world any longer and should not be
expected to pay for any ill-effects of industrialisation created by the
developing world.
Most importantly, Western elites need to stop peddling the line that
the fact that the first world is industrialised is a justification for
the rest of the world to industrialise to the same degree without
regard to the consequences. That is akin to arguing that because ten
people are on a life raft, the 100 in the water have the right to climb
on as well regardless of whether it sinks the life raft.
The existing population disparity between the first world and the rest
of the world places the question of development in a different moral
context. Nor is this simply a case of industrialisation. The likely
population expansion alone creates a great deal more pollution, whether
it be greenhouse gases, deforestation, pressure on water resources or
mass migration. That is the responsibility of the developing nations. If
they cannot or will not restrict their population growth, they must take
the consequences. The first world must look to its own interests and
safety.
--
Robert Henderson
Blair Scandal website:
http://www.geocities.com/ blairscandal/
Personal website:
http://www.anywhere.demon.co.uk