Greenhouse effect 'may benefit man' * Claims by pro-Bush think-tank outrage eco-groups

The Observer (UK) ^ | November 28, 2004 | Antony Barnett and Mark Townsend

[aculeus]

Climate change is 'a myth', sea levels are not rising and Britain's chief scientist is 'an embarrassment' for believing catastrophe is inevitable. These are the controversial views of a new London-based think-tank that will publish a report tomorrow attacking the apocalyptic view that man-made greenhouse gases will destroy the planet.

The International Policy Network will publish its long-awaited study, claiming that the science warning of an environmental disaster caused by climate change is 'fatally flawed'. It will state that previous predictions of changes in sea level of a metre over the next 100 years were overestimates.

Instead, the report will say that sea level rises will reach a maximum of just 20cms during the next century, adding that global warming could, in fact, benefit mankind by increasing fish stocks.

The report's views closely mirror those held by many of President George Bush's senior advisers, who have been accused of derailing attempts to reach international agreement over how to prevent climate change.

The report is set to cause controversy. The network, which has links with some of the President's advisers, has received cash donations from the US oil giant ExxonMobil, which has long lobbied against the climate change agenda. Exxon lists the donation as part of its 'climate change outreach' programme.

Environmentalists yesterday said the network report was an attempt by American neo-conservatives to sabotage the Prime Minister's attempts to lead the world in tackling climate change.

Last week, the network's director Julian Morris attacked Britain's highly respected chief scientist. 'David King is an embarrassment to himself and an embarrassment to his country.' He criticised preparations by Tony Blair to use his presidency of the world's most powerful nations next year to lead attempts in tackling climate change.

Morris described Blair's plans to use his G8 tenure to halt global warming as 'offensive'. Bush is understood to have objected to Blair placing the issue at the top of the agenda and to the robust tone of his recent speeches on climate change.

Blair, however, has garnered considerable international support for describing the issue as 'the single, biggest long-term issue' facing the world. According to the network, however, his passion on the matter is not shared by the British public. A poll it commissioned claims six out of 10 Britons believe Blair should not implement the Kyoto protocol if it will harm the economy.

The executive director of the environment group Greenpeace, Stephen Tindale, said: 'We've been watching how the network employs the same tactics as Washington neo-cons, now we know they employ some of the same people as well.

'For years, the tobacco companies blocked action on smoking by sowing doubt about the science. Esso and its friends have done the same thing in the US on climate change and now they're busy in Britain. Global warming is the biggest threat we face, the science is certain.'

Environmentalists believe this week's report will provoke a similar storm to that inspired by Danish statistician Bjorn Lomborg, who maintains climate change is not the greatest threat facing mankind and resources should be spent on more pressing issues, such as tackling HIV.

Tomorrow's findings echo a number of Lomborg's themes, as well as maintaining that 'extreme weather' is more likely caused by a natural cycle rather than man-made. It also challenges assumptions that climate change will lead to a rise in malaria along with more positive effects, such as increasing fish stocks in the north Atlantic and reducing the incidence of temperature-related deaths among vulnerable people.

Morris admitted receiving money from a number of companies, including $50,000 from Exxon, but denied the organisation was a front for neo-conservative opinion. 'I have written about these issues for many years. If a company wants to provide money, then I'd be happy to accept it.'

He added that his $1 million budget is small compared to those of international groups, such as Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth.

Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2004

[wildcatf4f3]

Its fun just to say stuff like this just to watch them go all apoplectic like

[Free_at_last_-2001]

Excellent!

[stubernx98]

There is nothing man can do to change the heating/cooling of the planet unless we figure out a way to change the orbit mechanics & sun output.

[JennysCool]

Interesting take. Simply because some of the report's conclusions mirror those of some of his advisors, the report is "Pro-Bush"?

[daviddennis]

I always thought global warming was a good thing, at least to the west, because most parts of the Western world are colder than normally comfortable. Wouldn't it be better for the majority of us if things warmed up a bit?

The melting of the polar ice caps seems overblown since, if my memory serves, most of the ice bergs are under water and therefore will not change the level at all.

I trust Lomberg. I think he's done a great job in his research. So I believe this think tank is right in saying that global warming is a non-issue, insofar as we can tell now.

D

[101st-Eagle]

There is nothing man can do to change the heating/cooling of the planet unless we figure out a way to change the orbit mechanics & sun output.

I believe Kerry "had a plan" for that. He was going to use some gadget Gore had invented

[rdb3]

This makes me want to watch "The Day After Tomorrow" again. That'll sharpen my propaganda senses.

[o_zarkman44]

Climate change is about as commonplace as people changing their undies. Change is good.

[lilmsdangrus]

btt

[Tax Government]

"Global warming" is about politics, not science.

Mankind is doing the biosphere a favor by freeing buried hydrocarbons from the ground and burning them. The resulting CO2 is the best kind of fertilizer in the world, and is carried around the planet. Also, a little rise in temperature helps plants grow. The idea that a temperature rise would accelerate and become catastrophically irreversible is stupid and not supported by any convincing evidence.

[SSG USA]

"In terms of climate change, the 20th century has not been just another century," said Henry N. Pollack, University of Michigan professor of geological sciences. "Subsurface rock temperatures confirm that the average global surface temperature has increased about 1 degree C. (1.8 degrees F.) over the last five centuries with one-half of that warming taking place in the last 100 years. The 20th century is the warmest and has experienced the fastest rate of warming of any of the five centuries in our study."

1ºC (1.8ºF) in 500 years????I wonder how good their thermometers were in 1504. Bet they were not as good as they are today, ya think?

The best part is watching people like Ted Danzen get up in front of people and talk about this kind of stuff like he had a PhD in Geology or Meteorology. When in reality he is probably not smart enough to balance his own checkbook.

[tubebender]

Bump...

[Diddle E. Squat]

I always thought global warming was a good thing, at least to the west, because most parts of the Western world are colder than normally comfortable. Wouldn't it be better for the majority of us if things warmed up a bit?

You wrote that to a Houstonian?!

:^)

[chiller]

most of the ice bergs are under water and therefore will not change the level at all.

Correct. Perhaps not all, but most of the ice masses are on water. Does a glass of water overflow when the ice cube melts? I think they call it displacemnt.

My favorite comment comes from my esteemed Sen. McCain who's been complaining about robins expanding their environs because of warming in Alaska (iirc). Yes. Robins, ie: birds. I'm not making this up. Now if it were pigeons, I'd complain too, but not pretty red breased ROBINS ! for gods sakes.

[Graybeard58]

It also challenges assumptions that climate change will lead to a rise in malaria

I posted an article about a month ago that debunked the malaria myth. It also pointed out that we already have a perfectly safe answer to malaria and that is DDT, which the environuts got banned needlessly years ago thereby causing unneccessary deaths by at least the hundreds of thousands from malaria all over the globe, not just in warm climates either.

I am searching for the article and if I find it I will post a link here.

[dog breath]

It is somewhat sad that while the majority of scientists and world governments seem to to accept global warming as fact, people who do not wish to accept it cling to the few scientific reports that question it. I have never been able to determine if it was a reluctance on the part of republicans to regulate pollution properly or just the effect of people listening to too much talk radio. Certainly there are many causes of climate change but to try to do nothing is like standing in front of a moving freight train and not even trying to move out of the way.

[dirtbiker]

I don't get it! How can "global warming" be bad? If it is occurring because of excessive CO2, etc.:
1) Green plants grow faster and hardier with more CO2...
2) Most of the warming would happen in the temperate zones, making it possible to farm where it was not possible before, and reducing the use of fossil fuels in the winter..
3) Warmer climate would cause more evaporation from the oceans. This would cause more clouds to form. Water vapor is one of the most reflective particulates in the atmosphere. Wouldn't that cause more of the sun's energy to be reflected back into space, thereby cooling the planet?
4) Man's use of fossil fuels adds about 3% of the total CO2 emissions to the entire global output per year. Sources such as volcanoes, the oceans, and even decomposition are not taken into consideration.
5) The Sun's solar output isn't constant.
6) The mean temperature of Earth has increased 1-3 degrees C. in the past 100 years, most of that increase occurring prior to the 1950's. Satellite temperature reading have not detected an increase in atmospheric temperatures.

Enviro-weenies need to realize that the Earth is not as fragile as they want you to believe. They have been preaching this for 40 years, first pollution, then the new ice age, now global warming.....All of this "is going to kill us all!" Here's a news flash: Anything that lives will eventually die, even our Sun. And I doubt if any of us will be here 4 billion years from now to witness it.....

[Monti Cello]

the science is certain

This is the give-away -- nothing about climate prediction is 'certain'.

I applaud these folks for taking a cost-benefit approach to the situation, because it's rational, and it isolates those who happily pursue this issue with a misanthropic fundamentalist religious zeal.

The zealots argue from the basic position that touching mother earth is a violation and that industry is inherently bad.

A cost-benefit approach forces the debate to account for the immense practical benefits of industry. The anti-industry crowd uses the potential for economic calamity as a debating point, but they are effectively pushing economic calamity as the 'solution'. The only thing this would accomplish is to provide a bit of psychic glee to luddites and communists, while forcing the rest of us to kneel at the altar of gaia.

[DOGEY]

The sky is falling...the sky is falling