[R-G] [BillTottenWeblog] The Global Warming Deniers

[Bill Totten]

by Mark Lynas

New Statesman (July 03 2008)


The arguments of climate sceptics have largely been moulded by a far
more sinister force - the US-based conservative think tanks

I am finding it increasingly difficult to maintain my optimism that we
can stabilise global temperature increases below the "danger level" of
two degrees Celsius. First, there is no sign that emissions are being
reduced; rather, the opposite is happening. Second, it is becoming clear
that the danger level for temperature increase is a good deal lower than
two degrees Celsius.

The Arctic Sea ice cover is already approaching a new low. The new topic
of speculation is not whether the Arctic ice will disappear completely
in the summer months by 2080, but whether this will happen by 2018. An
ice-free North Pole will have a significant effect on the planet's
energy balance, given the important role this huge white "mirror" plays
in reflecting incoming solar radiation. Once it is gone, the warming
process can only speed up further. Already, a new study suggests that an
ice-free Arctic Ocean will dramatically increase warming in surrounding
land areas, accelerating the degradation of permafrost and resulting in
huge releases of carbon and methane - driving yet more warming. Setting
a danger level of two degrees Celsius, as the UK and EU have done, now
looks dangerously optimistic.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reported last year
that emissions cuts within a decade could still keep temperature hikes
below two degrees Celsius. But global emissions are rising year on year,
not falling. Many climate models are underpinned by an assumption of 1.5
per cent increases annually in carbon releases. Instead, they have been
running at more than two per cent.

In the words of the Tyndall Centre scientist Kevin Anderson: "Since 2000
the world has gone ballistic in terms of carbon emissions". Anderson has
recently revised his projections for climate change and now thinks that
the "best we can expect" is stabilising atmospheric concentrations at
650 parts per million carbon dioxide equivalent, equating to warming of
about four degrees Celsius. He suggests we "mitigate for two degrees,
but adapt for four degrees".

Adapting to four degrees of warming would be quite a challenge. With
this level of temperature change, we can expect a huge increase in
drought-prone zones, a mass extinction of half or more of the life on
earth, hundreds of millions of refugees from areas deprived of fresh
water or inundated by rising seas, and widespread starvation due to food
and water shortages.

The Stockholm Network's Carbon Scenarios report (which I helped draft)
reaches a similar conclusion, projecting a warming of nearly five
degrees Celsius if global policy on climate continues to fail. Against
this terrifying backdrop, the denial lobby flourishes, its success
almost calling into question the capacity of mankind for reasoned thought.

Nigel Lawson's dreadful book, laughably entitled An Appeal to Reason
(2008), has been riding high in the sales charts and is only one of
several denialist tomes on global warming. The last time I looked, four
out of five of Amazon's top sellers on climate were penned by deniers.
And these are not just views from the fringe. A MORI poll reported by
the Observer last month found six out of ten people think, wrongly, that
"many scientific experts" disagree on whether human beings are causing
climate change. Four out of ten people asked believed that the impact
had been exaggerated.

Many climate-change sceptics like to think they are proudly independent
people, refusing to be cowed by UN-sponsored orthodoxy from the IPCC. In
fact, the arguments of climate sceptics have largely been moulded by a
far more sinister force - the US-based conservative think tanks. A
recent academic survey of environmentally sceptical books found that 92
per cent were linked with these think tanks, which include the Heritage
Foundation, the Cato Institute and the Competitive Enterprise Institute.
Since the early 1990s, these and other industry-funded front groups have
been leading an anti-environmental backlash, changing the tenor of the
political debate on environmental issues and bombarding the media and
the public with disinformation.

The authors of the study, published in the June edition of a journal
called Environmental Politics, argue that, far from being a true
grass-roots movement, "environmental scepticism is an elite- driven
reaction to global environmentalism, organised by core actors within the
conservative movement". The "self-portrayal of sceptics as marginalised
'Davids' battling the powerful 'Goliath' of environmentalists and
environmental scientists is a charade given that the "sceptics are
supported by politically powerful conservative think tanks funded by
wealthy foundations and corporations".

Next time someone insists global warming isn't happening, ask yourself
where their views come from - and whose interests they serve.

_____

Mark Lynas is a climate change writer and activist, author of the
acclaimed book High Tide (2004) and fortnightly columnist for the New
Statesman. He was selected by National Geographic as an 'Emerging
Explorer' for 2006, and blogs on www.marklynas.org

http://www.newstatesman.com/environment/2008/07/global-warming-lynas-climate


TO POST A COMMENT, OR TO READ COMMENTS POSTED BY OTHERS, please click
on the word "comment" highlighted at the end of the version of this
essay posted at http://billtotten.blogspot.com/