3/15/2010 5:10:30 PM Sydney - Australia's top scientists on Monday released a "State of the Climate" report at a time of growing scepticism over climate change as a result of revelations of errors in some global scientific reports.
The scientists said their monitoring and research of the world's driest inhabited continent for 100 years "clearly demonstrate that climate change is real".
"We are seeing significant evidence of a changing climate. We are warming in every part of the country during every season and as each decade goes by, the records are being broken," said Megan Clark, head of Australia's state-backed Commonwealth Scientific & Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO).
The UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change acknowledged in January its 2007 report had exaggerated the pace of Himalayan glaciers melting, and in February said the report also had overstated how much of the Netherlands is below sea level.
The 2007 report is based on the work of thousands of scientists and is the main policy guide for governments looking to act on climate change. Sceptics have leapt on the errors, saying they undermine the science of climate change but the IPCC, which has announced a review, has defended its work.
This article was sent to me recently and i couldn't help responding.
When i tell people that i don't believe in the hype of Global Warming, they automatically take it to mean that i don't believe in Climate Change. This is rubbish. not believing in Climate Change is like not believing in the moon. It's everywhere and has been for forever, certainly long before our or any species was around to notice. It's an integral part of the chaotically fluctuating system that makes up our world - hell, our universe, for that matter. I'd happily bet money - if i thought i'd live long enough to see it pay out - that when we eventually find ourselves a new planet to colonize, we'll eventually end up having the same problems over there. Why? Because it's nature, and it's our phenomenally arrogant assumption that it's all our fault that i find mind-boggling. I don't deny that we may have helped it on it's way, but when you consider that we're approximately 2500 years overdue for a new Ice Age, it's hard to imagine we've helped it by much.
Anyway, go ahead and read the rest of the above article if you're interested (especially if you live in Australia). It's nothing new, though.
Here's my response:
So... They’re trying to defend a report based largely on conjecture – which is systematically being proven inaccurate and purposefully exaggerated (the purpose of which can only be global opinion manipulation in a dishonest attempt to gain political and financial leverage) - by using another report that, for all we know, is based on the same research methods and directed by the same fears propagated by the original report, and, in all likely-hood, is based largely on conjecture.
“Okay, you got us. We lied. Our bad. But we’re totally telling the truth this time. Promise. We’re totally not terrified that your discovery of our three years of fear-mongering (never mind the ten years or so before that – but I promise we didn’t know about that) is going to be detrimental to the incredibly lucrative idiom that is ‘climate-change’, also know by the terms; ‘global warming’ (but we don’t use this one anymore – not nearly subtle and malleable enough), ‘climate shift’ (this one has promise), ‘My new Mercedes SLK’, and ‘That gorgeous week the family and I spent in the Maldives last year which I would really like to do again’.
“Sure, ‘global warming’ was, maybe, a little misleading. But ‘Climate Change’? You certainly can’t fault us for that one. The climate changes all the time. But this time it’s our fault. Definitely. This is totally not like our planets last nine Ice Ages. I mean, they were cold. Duh! Except for that one with the volcanoes, of course, but lets face it, there’s always one guy who doesn’t want to play ball (just ask the jack-ass who let slip about the 2007 report).
“And a solid ‘Shame on you’ to all the haters out there who claim we’re doing this for any financial gain. US$128 billion annually is a perfectly acceptable price to pay when it comes to breaking the backbone of Mother Nature and bending her to our will. As much as we love the old girl, left to her own devices, she’s bound to do something unconscionable like drop another rock on our heads. The silly Goose seems to think that climate change is all her doing, but we know better, don’t we? A millennia-squared of unstoppable, universal entropy is little compared to the logic born of five-hundred years of ‘enlightened’ thinking, when you think about it.
“Besides, what’s a few billion here and there? Take Australia, for instance. Those crazy Shauns and Sheilas earn around US$38.4 billion a year on agricultural output. Surely a small percentage of that is worth a little piece of mind, especially when you’re coming out of a decade long drought (not that we’re taking advantage of that situation at all, oh no!)
“Let’s face it, guys, battling climate change is an expensive business. We’d know; we’ve been doing it for a hundred years. Used to be, we’d have a guy stand on a hillside and yell “Hot!” or “Cold!” whenever the temperature changed. But for the last five decades we’ve been investing annually in constantly bigger and better, far more accurate and far more expensive machines and, do you know what? We get a different reading every year! If that isn’t conclusive proof of climate change, then I don’t know what is.
“When it comes down to brass tax – not that we pay any, of course – fighting climate change is helping people. We’re heros. Superheros, really. We even have a costume. Mine has a smiling whale on the front. The point I’m trying to make is that the world would be a far worse place without our efforts. We’re just trying to keep things balanced. Heaven knows what the superpowers would spend their money on if we weren’t around. I’m not trying to say there aren’t other good causes, just that most of them pale into comparison to the horror of all those multi-million dollar mansions sliding into the ocean two hundred years from now. Sure, a portion of that 128 billion could go a way to alleviating world hunger and third world debt, curing illness, and helping to stabilizes novice democracies in chaotic political and economic decline, but what’s the point when, a century from now, none of the beneficiaries will be able to spend a morning on the beach without a factor fifty sunblock? The honest truth is, they don’t need the money. After all, their Carbon Footprints are the lowest out of all of us.
“We’re the good guys, people. You can tell because we all drive Prius’s and not one of our scientists has ever been refferd to as ‘dissenting’. Like The CSIRO and the Bureau of Meteorology report said; “[I]nternational research showed it is extremely unlikely that global warming could be explained by natural causes alone.” Extremely unlikely, guys.