Climate Change, and the Kubic theory of relativity

[fareastjunebug]

o  avoid breast cancer - double mastectomy

These are types of the radical interventions you state would be needed.   Leading a healthy life, good food, exercise, checkups, are just precautionary and assured.   

Kubes - that is a very good point. If you have the wrong set of genes, the double mastectomy can be an indicated preventative treatment. Certainly a better option than palliative treatment.   

 

[Kubes.SG]

o  avoid breast cancer - double mastectomy

These are types of the radical interventions you state would be needed.   Leading a healthy life, good food, exercise, checkups, are just precautionary and assured.  

Kubes - that is a very good point. If you have the wrong set of genes, the double mastectomy can be an indicated preventative treatment. Certainly a better option than palliative treatment.  

I added this one, as I recall a case in AU exactly like this.  A teen wanted her breasts removed because her mother and aunties (mum's sisters) had all developed breast cancer by their late 30s or early 40s.  Some of them dying.  The Doctors did not want to do it and there was much debate about the right action.  The Doctors POV was that there was no certainty the teen would develop the cancer, plus in another 20 years it was likely much better medical capabilities would be in place to remove or mitigate the risk.

No idea what was the outcome.

Man-made global warming is only theory that despite over US$80 billion spent over the last 20 years there is still no evidence or proof that man-kind is the cause.  It is insane to destroy economic  development and quality of life on earth, simply because of some crazy unproven theory.

[Kubes.SG]

Oh dear.  Looks like I might have gone in a little to hard and already knocked JP out of ring before we even got warmed up (no pun intended). 

JP,  is there anybody out there?   Hello, is there anybody out there?

I am still willing to challenge your man-made global warming dogma with scientific debate.  You still have to answer my two straight forward questions.


"What observable scientific evidence is there that proves that man-kind's emission of CO2 since the start of the industrial revolution, is the cause of global warming?"

"What observable scientific evidence is there that CO2 has caused global warming in the past?  Start at 500 years ago (well before mankind's alleged  influence) and go way back in time as long as you want."

[jalanperak]

Oh dear.  Looks like I might have gone in a little to hard and already knocked JP out of ring before we even got warmed up (no pun intended). 

JP,  is there anybody out there?   Hello, is there anybody out there?

Hi Kubes,

No, you didn't scare me off, or knock me out. I'm not exactly a "prolific poster," and I had a short trip that got in the way of extracurricular activities here. Since your posting, I've only had time to make one quickie (and snarky) post on the dearth of Mexican restaurants here in Singapore. But don't worry, our topic has been on my mind, and I have a number of comments and illustrations for you (sadly, just the word kind. Nothing as clever as your allegory above :-).

[jalanperak]

I am still willing to challenge your man-made global warming dogma with scientific debate.  You still have to answer my two straight forward questions.


"What observable scientific evidence is there that proves that man-kind's emission of CO2 since the start of the industrial revolution, is the cause of global warming?"

"What observable scientific evidence is there that CO2 has caused global warming in the past?  Start at 500 years ago (well before mankind's alleged  influence) and go way back in time as long as you want."

The problem with the whole climate change thing is, as you've pointed out, that it's become much more of a political debate than a scientific one. Scientific debate is pretty boring to the general public (although I personally agree with the immortal words of Richard Dawkins that "Science is interesting, and if you don't agree...."  http://www.rathergood.com/science ). It takes a long time, there's a lot of back and forth, some egos get bruised, but at the end of it there is usually consensus and a greater understanding of our world. That makes for good science, but really boring news.
 
The scientific work focuses mainly on trying to separate the very minor effects of man-made CO2 from the much larger effects of solar variations and other natural changes. Statistically, this is a little like trying to determine the effects of a recently discovered allergen that appears to cause heart attacks in a population of obese, hard drinking, chain smokers. That's not a trivial bit of statistical work. The best way I can describe the methodology is to take your graph that overlays sunspot activity with global temperature, normalize out the variations caused by sunspot activity (which dominate, as you pointed out), then see if there is a statistically significant correlation between CO2 levels and residual temperature change. Then, to the extent possible, do the same thing with data from before man's time and again looking for differences. There is good science going on that is trying to understand all of this, and while it's a long way from finished, the community (I know, I know, you don't trust any of the scoundrels) is converging on the consensus that it does appear that atmospheric CO2 can drive global temperatures (as opposed to the one-way theory that temperatures can only drive CO2 levels), and that the recent increase in CO2 levels has had some (albiet very, very small) impact on global temperatures.

Here's a short paper that is a good snapshot of the discussion ( http://climatechange.pbworks.com/f/Positive+feedback+between+global+warming+and+CO2+-+Scheffer+Cox+2005.pdf ) (in academic publishing, "Letters" is a format for a lightly reviewed, quickly published, short article. It's usually followed up by a more lengthy and rigorously reviewed journal article. You don't get any academic brownie points for publishing in a Letters venue. You've just "planted a flag" to announce your work). It's hardly the apocalyptic stuff that makes for good headlines, but it's a decent peek into the science of all this. Their final paragraph from the discussion is telling:

   "The main merit of our approach as we see it, is that it allows for an estimate of the potential boost in global warming by century-scale feedbacks which is quite inde- pendent from that provided by coupled CO2-climate models that explicitly simulate a suite of mechanisms. Like our approach these models have considerable uncertainty. Not only are the quantitative representations of the mechanisms in the models uncertain, there is also always an uncertainty related to the fact that we are not sure whether all important mechanisms have been accounted for in the models. In view of the independence of our approach it is encouraging that our estimate of a boost in global warming corresponds roughly to what was found in simulation studies."

I'd be interested in hearing your comments on the statistical methods used in the paper. Are there any you disagree with?

So what is all this concern about something that seems so trivial, and why? The answer is twofold. First, there is the concern about positive feedback. It's generally accepted that CO2 levels tend to be driven by global temperatures, with the ocean releasing more CO2 into the atmosphere as temperatures increase (it's more of a shift in equilibrium point than an absolute number, but still..). But that doesn't mean that CO2 can't drive temperature, and if it does, then increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere would lead to higher temperatures, which would lead to more CO2, etc., etc. As you point out, the whole system is horrendously complex. It also doesn't help that water vapor can both raise temperatures by retaining heat, and lower temperatures by reflecting VIS/IR sunlight, and trying to model clouds is even harder than trying to model CO2 effects (If all the weathermen became economists, and the economists weathermen, would anything be any different?).

Which leads to the second half of the concern. We're in very uncharted territory. This is the first time in history that something other than nature has had such a significant effect on the overall ecosystem, and all indicators are that these effects are going to increase exponentially as China and India become greater consumers of energy. While I agree that Copenhagen was a bust, I can't take anything China says seriously. Their economic survival depends on building more and more coal burning power plants (been to Tianjin recently?), so they have a vested interested in denying anything that makes their activities look bad, CO2 production in particular (although the amount of soot they produce will probably affect things much more in the short term).

Finally, there's the biggest, and least scientific term in the overall equation: Economics. If eliminating CO2 production didn't cost anything, I don't think anyone, including you, would object to doing so. At the other extreme, threw out a price in the trillions that would significantly lower the standard of living worldwide. I don't think anyone disagrees with the idea that mankind needs to mitigate the impact of our "footprint" on the environment, and that a free market economy won't do this on it's own. What's a realistic middle ground?

[Kubes.SG]

JP, you really do know my hot buttons so now you are bringing the man-made concept of Gods into the discussion.  Dawkins is a great scientist and is working hard to ensure that rational thought based on scientific understanding is not trampled by ridiculous religious dogma.  Not sure where you stand on God Belief, but I will not get distracted for now.

You make some serious errors in your discussion.  Firstly you state "It takes a long time, there's a lot of back and forth, some egos get bruised, but at the end of it there is usually consensus and a greater understanding of our world. That makes for good science, but really boring news. "   Science is not about consensus - there is no voting to decide what is the truth.  Scientific understanding is based on observable evidence and empirical proof.  There was no vote to decide if the work of Copernicus, Newton, Darwin or Einstein were true.  (actually for Copernicus the Church did vote and locked him for the rest of his life).  So please get rid of this bullshit about "scientific consensus" - makes you sound like that idiot Gore.

Next you state that the climate system is complex with many different effects or forcings, and we do agree on this.  But where we diverge is that I reckon that mankind understands less than 5% of how the climate system on earth operates.  We don't even know what the inputs are and their different levels.  It is just ridiculous to say: "This is the influence of CO2 and this is the influence of Solar so how are they related?"  What about all the other likely forcings such as: tides, water vapor, clouds, seismic activity, solar dust, ocean currents, etc., not to mention the ones we don't even know about?  This is massively more complex than we understand.

You then go on about consensus again.  Stop that !!!  There is either evidence and proof or not.  It is not a vote or popularity contest.  Like all elements and factors, it is reasonable to conclude that CO2 would causes some warming.  Even I cause warming by siting at my desk and being a few degrees warmer than the air around me.  We see this all the time in my office by putting a dozen people in a small meeting room for 1 hr, each with a laptop - it gets damn hot.  In the greater scheme of the atmosphere is this (CO2) a significant or even measurable contributor to warming - NO.  So everything that we do or everything that exists has some level of influence on the climate and temperatures.  It is just a matter of how significant it is.

Now to the 2005 paper or letter you shared.  When I opened I thought, here we go again, using statistics instead of evidence to support a theory.  And I was right.  Proper statisticians have started to get involved in the Climate Change/Global Warming debate, usually as skeptics.  Reason is they have found that the leading, high profile Climate Scientists have as a group been found to have an extremely weak grasp of statistical method and processes and have often completely misused or misunderstood the statistical results produced.  What is most troubling from the research in this letter/paper is that they have started with the belief (as though it is a fact), that CO2 directly causes warming, and are using IPCC published articles to support that belief.  It goes like this:  CO2 causes warming, warming causes CO2 to go up;  when CO2 goes up it warms even more. etc.  An infinite loop that will burn up the earth.  Using this circulate logic they try to predict how man-kind's industrial age CO2 forces even more warming.  In doing this and ignoring all other factors, they have effectively claimed that the earth's climate is a closed system, that there are no external forcings such as the sun, or radiative effects.  Such assumptions are completely and utterly absurd as 98% of the heat in the earth's climate system comes from the sun, while the rest comes from seismic activity.  How can they isolate the earth from 98% of its heat source and then try to analysis it as a closed system?

The other big issue is that they are using computer models of the climate system to examine the past "CO2 forcings" and forecast future forcing influences, instead of using actual data.  Using models is a perfect example of GIGO, garbage in, garbage out.  But it does not stop there.  They use some of the work of Mann and Jones, the two CS fraudsters who fabricated results, destroyed data and manipulated data to "hide the decline" in global temperatures during the last decade.  Using their work as inputs into their statistical analysis completely invalidates it.  

Given that this was written in 2005, and that there has not been any followup work that I could finds indicates that this letter was a complete waste of time.  They knew it, as they openly stated as you quoted that they have claimed uncertainty, weak and inaccurate models, unaccounted mechanisms, etc.  In other words, it's a wild stab in the dark.


Towards the end you make the claim we are in uncharted territory.  When in the history of the earth has it been in charted territory?  When has it been in equilibrium?   When did mankind become unnatural.  I am damn well natural, certainly no Vulcan that has come to earth.   We are part of the earth's system.  We, and what we do are part of nature, just as are the frogs, fish, birds and bees.  Looking at CO2 is CO2, it is natural irrespective of whether it comes from my decaying body, my can of Coke, a volcanic eruption or released by a warming ocean.  To claim that what mankind does on earth is not natural and not part of the natural climate system is complete bullshit.  We are natural.  (now if you are a silly God believer then maybe you do think you are something special)  

All life on earth influences the earth's systems.  Some tiny way, some just a little.  None however have the level of climatic influence to actually cause the climate to cool to an ice age, or warm to growth-age, no, the evidence suggests that that massive influence to change is triggered by solar activity.

Finally, if reducing CO2 was free, would I push to do that?  Probably not.  CO2 is good.  It is food for plants and increases food production/yield and overall prosperity and growth.  It is a very good thing.   But to take your lead on the question of economics (and you as scientist are much closer to this) the whole paranoia about global warming has completed distorted the investments need to fix REAL PROBLEMS that exist, like:  clean water, pollution, education, health-care, by sucking money out of research and programs to address those real and present issues facing billions of people today.  



 

 

[BoardAdmin2]

Science is not about consensus - there is no voting to decide what is the truth.  Scientific understanding is based on observable evidence and empirical proof.  

Kubes;

A general view of the scientific method is this:

1. A theory is developed
2. Observations are taken
3. If obervations can be predicted by the theory (i.e the theory can predict outcomes), confidence in it increases.  Goto step 2.
4. If observations contradict the theory, confidence in it decreases.  Either repeat step 1 (refine the theory or discard entirely) or goto step 2.

You may want to check out a recent article in New Scientist magazine; it's called "What's wrong with the sun?".  Has a nice section on the relationship between the little warm-period and little ice-age and solar observations, and how Europes climate is affected differently from other parts of the planet, the ways it differs and why this is so.  

I strongly suggest you read it with a open mind.  



As for artic ice etc - check out the following: http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/arctic_thinice.html

As we have discussed before, CO2 by its fundamental nature traps heat.  It consists of one carbon atom with an oxygen atom bonded to each side. When its atoms are bonded tightly together, the carbon dioxide molecule can absorb infrared radiation and the molecule starts to vibrate. Eventually, the vibrating molecule will emit the radiation again, and it will likely be absorbed by yet another greenhouse gas molecule.

This absorption-emission-absorption cycle serves to keep the heat near the surface, effectively insulating the surface from the cold of space as CO2 dominates the lower levels of the athmosphere more than upper levels.

This aspect of CO2 doesn't change because the molecules are running around in the atmosphere. Science proving the heat-trapping (or more specifically, radiation trapping) qualities of CO2 have existed since John Tyndall conducted his experiments back in 1859, and, as explained above, numerous observations have confirmed this, thus confidence in the theory that CO2 absorbs heat is very high; about as high as it can get.

Hence to my mind, the real issue is: is man-kind causing the increase in Co2 observed in the atmosphere? if yes, how do we reduce it? if the answer is no, the next question is still: how do we reduce it? (as the result will be a hotter planet).

We can also trace a significant proportion of CO2 directly to mans activities through isotopic fingerprints (i.e C13/C12 ratios etc) which ice-core samples from the little warm-period and little ice age confrim (i.e C13 CO2 didn't increase as much in the earth's previous warm periods as now observed).

Hence we know a significant proportion of CO2 is man made.  We know it traps heat.  The theory is that this will; overall, warm the planet whilst changing the climate.  Observable data to date confirms this.

The questions now to be answered: how much change, how fast and how to best deal with it?  This is where data collection and observation play an on-going role.

In the mean-time I have no issue with some form of carbon tax etc being put in place.

What I object to is the assertion by developing countries such as China that amount to:

"The west go rich by polluting so we should be allowed to get rich this way, pollute for a while and the west can bear the burden for solving the problem

It's flawed logic.  It assumes that one development track must be followed.  Did every developing country repeat EVERY mistake made by the West? of course not.  They followed in the footsteps of the West and learnt from its successes and failures (i.e mass immunisation programs, universal education, various engineering tools, planning principles etc). 

China did not blindly follow every dead-end that the West tried and discarded, they took what worked and tweaked what didn't.  This is, INMHO, a large part of why China is growing so fast.  It's a myth that nothing like it's 10% growth per year hasn't been seen before.  The USSR, West Germany, Japan etc all did so.  Other countries (baltic tigers for example) grew even faster, again, all by learning from history about what works and what doesn't.  What DOES make china unique is the SCALE of human population affected by its growth.

How does this relate to climate change? the west should tell India and China to phuck off with one big finger and stop the west-got-rich-at-the-planets-expense-crap.  I mean come on! two can play at that game! if you go far enough back in history you could argue that the (now) Iranians got rich by destroying a fertile river plain and hence they should reimburse the world for the damage that caused. Please.  Enough.

If I was a major western world leader, i'd be pushing for some minor changes to the WTO (e.g Articles XX of the GATT) to specifically include climate change as an environmental / health issue (which it is).

This then allows those countries to whack massive tarrifs onto goods from countries without a carbon tax / ETS etc.  Hence the message would be:

"Fine China.  You are right.  We evil selfish westerners have gotten rich polluting the planet.  You are also right that we should fix it, so we are going it.  Part of fixing it is doing our part to reducing global emissions, so you know what China? we aren't going to stop you polluting, because that would be applying our moral values on you and forcing you to follow our footsteps.  So tell you what, you do what you want, oh yeah, one more thing... there is a 1000% tariff on goods from countries without a price on carbon... sorry if that screws your export markets, but we are serious about solving the problem you see as we are so bad....

Anway, I have real life to get back to, but do track down and read the article.  I don't think it will change your mind re: global warming / climate change, but it MAY make you re-consider some of your asseritions regarding sea-ice and the relationship between the sun and global tempretures etc.

[Kubes.SG]

Science is not about consensus - there is no voting to decide what is the truth.  Scientific understanding is based on observable evidence and empirical proof.  

Kubes;

A general view of the scientific method is this:

1. A theory is developed
2. Observations are taken
3. If obervations can be predicted by the theory (i.e the theory can predict outcomes), confidence in it increases.  Goto step 2.
4. If observations contradict the theory, confidence in it decreases.  Either repeat step 1 (refine the theory or discard entirely) or goto step 2.

BM2,   welcome back. 
 Let's look at your statements and beliefs.  I agree with your first summary of scientific method:

1. A theory is developed
2. Observations are taken
3. If observations can be predicted by the theory (i.e the theory can predict outcomes), confidence in it increases.  Goto step 2.
4. If observations contradict the theory, confidence in it decreases.  Either repeat step 1 (refine the theory or discard entirely) or goto step 2.

The serious problem is that this has not been followed by Global Warming establishment and man-made Climate Change advocates.  Last month the Robert Fuller, Professor and Director,
Program on Law, Environment and Economy, University of Pennsylvania Law School presented his independent analysis titled:  GLOBAL WARMING ADVOCACY SCIENCE: A CROSS EXAMINATION.  He looked not so much at the science itself but the processes that have been followed to determine the quality of the scientific method.

He was shocked to find that the climate establishment does not follow the scientific method. Instead, it “seems overall to comprise an effort to marshal evidence in favor of a predetermined policy preference."

The abstract is:

Legal scholarship has come to accept as true the various pronouncements of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and other scientists who have been active in the movement for greenhouse gas (ghg) emission reductions to combat global warming. The only criticism that legal scholars have had of the story told by this group of activist scientists – what may be called the climate establishment – is that it is too conservative in not paying enough attention to possible catastrophic harm from potentially very high temperature increases.

This paper departs from such faith in the climate establishment by comparing the picture of climate science presented by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and other global warming scientist advocates with the peer-edited scientific literature on climate change. A review of the peer-edited literature reveals a systematic tendency of the climate establishment to engage in a variety of stylized rhetorical techniques that seem to oversell what is actually known about climate change while concealing fundamental uncertainties and open questions regarding many of the key processes involved in climate change. Fundamental open questions include not only the size but the direction of feedback effects that are responsible for the bulk of the temperature increase predicted to result from atmospheric greenhouse gas increases: while climate models all presume that such feedback effects are on balance strongly positive, more and more peer-edited scientific papers seem to suggest that feedback effects may be small or even negative. The cross-examination conducted in this paper reveals many additional areas where the peer-edited literature seems to conflict with the picture painted by establishment climate science, ranging from the magnitude of 20th century surface temperature increases and their relation to past temperatures; the possibility that inherent variability in the earth’s non-linear climate system, and not increases in CO2, may explain observed late 20th century warming; the ability of climate models to actually explain past temperatures; and, finally, substantial doubt about the methodological validity of models used to make highly publicized predictions of global warming impacts such as species loss.

Insofar as establishment climate science has glossed over and minimized such fundamental questions and uncertainties in climate science, it has created widespread misimpressions that have serious consequences for optimal policy design. Such misimpressions uniformly tend to support the case for rapid and costly decarbonization of the American economy, yet they characterize the work of even the most rigorous legal scholars. A more balanced and nuanced view of the existing state of climate science supports much more gradual and easily reversible policies regarding greenhouse gas emission reduction, and also urges a redirection in public funding of climate science away from the continued subsidization of refinements of computer models and toward increased spending on the development of standardized observational datasets against which existing climate models can be tested.

Full report:  http://www.probeinternational.org/UPennCross.pdf


Next you direct me to some NASA work that indicates sea ice has been decreasing.  I have seen that before and I have also seen the reports that sea ice has been increasing in both the artic and antarctic regions.  What is for sure is that it is changing, just as it has since water formed on earth billions of years ago.  The question is why is it changing now (like it has forever), and is that because of man-made CO2, which you believe is the case.  Just because ice melts (and freezes) this is not proof that CO2 is the cause, or mankind is involved.


Then you jump back in the real question of CO2.  I don't doubt that CO2 can capture heat, just like all elements and entities can.  The fact is that CO2 has very limited heat absorption capabilities and once CO2 reaches a certain density in the atmosphere it's ability to absorb more heat drops to zero, much like the fact that you can only absorb so much water into a sponge. 

But the real problem is that there is absolutely ZERO EVIDENCE that increasing levels of CO2 are causing any warming.  Remember the AGW Theory is simple.  CO2 is a GHG.  Increasing levels of CO2 will result in more radiative heat from the sun (source of 98% of heat on earth) being trapped in the atmosphere, which then leads to rising temperatures on earth.  Sounds simple, and simple people believe this.  But it is totally wrong as the observable evidence does not support the theory.  (note your scientific method point 2 and 3)

Here is the BIG PROBLEM for the AGW alarmist like you and Al Gore.  The theory of AGW and CO2/GHG lead warming requires that atmospheric heat map should like you chart A.  That is we have a clear hot spot in the atmosphere (tropospheric level).  The theory requires it, the computer models produce this hotspot.  But the evidence from satellites and weather balloons shows that this hotspot does not exist (chart B).  This observable evidence from 30+ years of satellite data, and 70+ years of weather balloon data shows that the theory of manmade Global Warming caused by CO2 is TOTALLY WRONG.  The observations contradict the theory.



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

Finally you have a go a China simply because their scientists have been listened too (like Russia's) and the politicians are making the right choices for their countries journey to prosperity.  Since CO2 is NOT the cause of warming, why should China, India and Russia not increase their CO2 emissions and develop modern economies.  Just because we have millions on idiots in the West who don't understand science, and have turned a lie into a massive new pursuit of economic decay, why should developing countries jump off the same cliff.

[TheWrathOfGrapes]

Kubes - using your own warped deduction - are you on BP's payroll?

 

[Kubes.SG]

Kubes - using your own warped deduction - are you on BP's payroll?

 

Not BP. 

But I have submitted a proposal for research funding so I can research the "Impact of Global Warming on the toe nail growth of the Amazonian Three Toed Sloth".  Seeking $3.5million for the 3 year study.  Negotiating right now as they want me to take $5million.

[Kubes.SG]

Hey JP and BM2:

You know I am outraged by science based on consensus, voting and popular opinion.  Check out the appalling and desperate research that is now being presented and reported by MSM.  It is presented as fact, that because these self-proclaimed experts believe something, then it must be true.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/scientists-expect-climate-tipping-point-by-2200-2012967.html

[TheWrathOfGrapes]

Hey JP and BM2:

You know I am outraged by science based on consensus, voting and popular opinion.  Check out the appalling and desperate research that is now being presented and reported by MSM.  It is presented as fact, that because these self-proclaimed experts believe something, then it must be true.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/scientists-expect-climate-tipping-point-by-2200-2012967.html

In the words of a not-so-wise man:

Just you watch.

Yes, I intend to hang around until the year 2200 to see the tipping point...

[Kubes.SG]

Can't wait any longer for JP or BM2 to respond and am wondering what their silence really means. Are they giving up, or has the focus on science rather than dogma, faith and distortion got them seeing things as they really are.  Can't wait to see their thoughts shared here.

What is interesting is a look at the political changes.  Politicians are all about self preservation and respond to what they think people want no matter how insane or irrational.  They are now sniffing the wind and realizing that voters are starting examine the facts and not just accepting the alarmist lies and exaggerations as willingly as they did before the Climategate emails highlighted the massive fraud.

So now we see the changed mood, as well as some changed leaders.  Self preservation is an interesting thing.  Much like hypocrisy.


Catastrophism collapses

G20 leaders in Toronto tried to avoid the fate of colleagues felled by warming advocacy

Last week’s G8 and G20 meetings in Toronto and its environs confirmed that the world’s leaders accept the demise of global-warming alarmism.

One year ago, the G8 talked tough about cutting global temperatures by two degrees. In Toronto, they neutered that tough talk, replacing it with a nebulous commitment to do their best on climate change — and not to try to outdo each other. The global-warming commitments of the G20 — which now carries more clout than the G8 — went from nebulous to non-existent: The G20’s draft promise going into the meetings of investing in green technologies faded into a mere commitment to “a green economy and to sustainable global growth.”

These leaders’ collective decisions in Toronto reflect their individual experiences at home, and a desire to avoid the fate that met their true-believing colleagues, all of whom have been hurt by the economic and political consequences of their global-warming advocacy.

Kevin Rudd, Australia’s gung-ho global-warming prime minister, lost his job the day before he was set to fly to the G20 meetings; just months earlier Australia’s conservative opposition leader, also gung-go on global warming, lost his job in an anti-global-warming backbencher revolt. The U.K.’s gung-ho global-warming leader during last year’s G8 and G20 meetings, Gordon Brown, likewise lost his job.

France’s President Nicolas Sarkozy, who had vowed to “save the human race” from climate change by introducing a carbon tax by the time of the G8 and G20, was a changed man by the time the meetings occurred. He cancelled his carbon tax in March, two days after a crushing defeat in regional elections that saw his Gaullist party lose just about every region of France. He got the message: Two-thirds of the French public opposed carbon taxes.

Spain? Days before the G20 meetings, Prime Minister José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero, his popularity and that of global warming in tatters, decided to gut his country’s renewables industry by unilaterally rescinding the government guarantees enshrined in legislation, knowing the rescinding would put most of his country’s 600 photovoltaic manufacturers out of business. Italy’s Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi similarly scrapped government guarantees for its solar and wind companies prior to the G8 and G20, putting them into default, too.

The U.K may be making the biggest global-warming cuts of all, with an emergency budget that came down the week of the G20 meetings. The two government departments responsible for climate-change policies — previously immune to cuts — must now contract by an extraordinary 25%. Other U.K. departments are also ditching climate-change programs — the casualties include manufacturers of electric cars, the Low Carbon Buildings Program, and, as the minister in charge put it, “every commitment made by the last government on renewables is under review.“ Some areas of the economy not only survived but expanded, though: The government announced record offshore oil development in the North Sea — the U.K. granted a record 356 exploration licences in its most recent round.

Support for global-warming programs is also in tatters in the U.S., where polls show — as in Europe — that the great majority rejects global-warming catastrophism. The public resents repeated attempts to pass cap and trade legislation over their objections, contributing to the fall in popularity of President Barack Obama and Congress. Public opinion surveys now predict that this November’s elections will see sweeping change in the United States, with legislators who have signed on to the global-warming hypothesis being replaced by those who don’t buy it.

In the lead-up to the Toronto meetings and throughout them, one country — Canada — and one leader — Prime Minister Stephen Harper — have stood out for avoiding the worst excesses associated with climate change. Dubbed the Colossal Fossil three years running by some 500 environmental groups around the world, Canada — and especially Harper — are reviled among climate-change campaigners for failing to fall into line.

Not coincidentally, Canada has also stood out for having best withstood the financial crisis that beset the world. Fittingly, Canada and its leader played host to the meetings.

[jalanperak]

Can't wait any longer for JP or BM2 to respond and am wondering what their silence really means.

In my case, it means I haven't been here for a few days. Let me read your links and get back to you.

[juli888]

I consider that the earth has started to change poles. In Africa it becomes fast coldly, and in Antarctic hot)))