Anthro-centric global scare-mongering, XXXV

A whole host of news on the anthopogenic global warming front today, some on the scare-mongering side, some on the skeptic side. We'll start with the scare mongers.

Agence France Presse reports that France has experienced the hottest April since reliable nationwide record-keeping began in 1950

with the average temperature four degrees Celsius higher than the usual 10 degrees (50 Fahrenheit), the national weather office said Monday.

In the northern half of France, averages recorded between the first and the 24 of April were between 8 and 12 degrees higher than the seasonal norm, said Meteo France.

Holy cow! That oughta give global warming a huge boost, don't you think? But at the end of this brief article comes a review of the GW data:

Amid growing fears over global warming, experts say average temperatures have already risen 0.74 degrees Celsius over the past century and predict that they will rise another four degrees Celsius by the end of this century.

So it would appear that 8-12 degrees higher than seasonal norms doesn't translate into a big uptick in the rate of global warming temperature increases. But couldn't the conclusion be drawn that the press adds the global warming reference to forward the idea that those huge increases in seasonal temperature norms are caused by global warming?

Next, our erstwhile Vice President has stuck his oar in the water of environmental politics in Canada. According to the AP:

Canada aims to reduce the current level of greenhouse gas emissions 20 percent by 2020. But the government acknowledged it would not meet its obligations under the Kyoto Protocol, which requires 35 industrialized countries to cut greenhouse-gas emissions by 5 percent below 1990 levels by 2012.

The country's emissions are now 30 percent above 1990 levels.

So Mr. Gore said:

...the plan did not make clear how Canada would reach its 2020 emissions goal. He also criticized the plan for allowing industries to pollute more if they use emissions-cutting technologies while increasing production.

"In my opinion, it is a complete and total fraud," Gore said Saturday. "It is designed to mislead the Canadian people."

At least he also acknowledged that, as an American, he had "no right to interfere" in a Canadian decision. But, by golly, he was going to get some TV time by denouncing them!

Then there's a story about how a British airline has rejected the advances of numerous "snake oil" carbon offset entrepreneurs and decided to offer carbon offsets to its passengers by itself. This whole area is one that messes with my head. According to the Guardian story:

Carbon offsetting is one of the most popular means of atoning for CO2-generating activities such as flying or driving to work. It allows consumers to contribute to projects such as tree planting to negate the effect of their flight or commute.

"Atoning?" What the heck does that mean, you ask? Well, it beats my pair of jacks! Atone for what? Elsewhere in that same article comes this:

There is also debate about the efficiency of such schemes. Scientists warned recently that one of the most popular offsetting investments, in planting trees, could contribute to global warming if the trees were planted outside the tropics because they would trap heat and absorb carbon.

So if you do your personal part to save the planet by planting trees, you might be making things worse by forgetting that tree-planting to offset your carbon dioxide emissions only works if you live in the tropics. At least, that's the way it sounds to me.


Now, to get away from the fever swamps of the global warmists, more from the United States' leading hurricane forecaster:

global ocean currents, not human-produced carbon dioxide, are responsible for global warming. William Gray, a Colorado State University researcher, also said the Earth may begin to cool on its own in five to 10 years.

Well, hallelujah! Don't let up on 'em, Mr. Gray! This story appeared in the Daily Telegraph relating Gray's presentation before a group of Members of Parliament in England:

Dr Gray had harsh words for researchers and politicians who said man-made greenhouse gases were responsible for global warming.

"They are blaming it all on humans, which is crazy," he said.

"We're not the cause of it."

Dr Gray said in the past 40 years the number of serious hurricanes making landfall on the US Atlantic coast had declined even though carbon dioxide levels had risen.

He said increasing levels of carbon dioxide would not produce more, or stronger, hurricanes.

Dr Gray, 77, has long criticised the theory that heat-trapping gases generated by human activity are causing the world to warm.

Music to my ears!

And this from Mars:

From The Sunday Times
April 29, 2007

Climate change hits Mars

Mars is being hit by rapid climate change and it is happening so fast that the red planet could lose its southern ice cap, writes Jonathan Leake.

Scientists from Nasa say that Mars has warmed by about 0.5C since the 1970s. This is similar to the warming experienced on Earth over approximately the same period.

Since there is no known life on Mars it suggests rapid changes in planetary climates could be natural phenomena.

I like that last bit: "...could be natural phenomena." As if somehow it could be un-natural, perhaps human-caused phenomena! Say! Maybe it's all of those Martian exploration bots that we've been sending up there lately, and those rockets that orbited the planet and polluted the atmosphere!

And, finally, the Daily Mail reports that UN scientists – the ones that brought you the IPCC report that has been so much in the news in the past couple of months – are suggesting something very interesting to save the planet:

Nuclear power will save the world, UN scientists claim

30th April 2007

Leading scientists are today expected to back a major expansion of nuclear power as a way of saving the world from global warming.

Other measures in a United Nations report include the use of GM crops to produce biofuels and the "capture and storage" underground of harmful CO2 gases.

The new report is the third this year by the UN climate panel. An IPCC report in February said it was at least 90 per cent certain that mankind was to blame for global warming and on 6 April it warned of more hunger, droughts and rising seas.

"We're moving from two very sobering reports to what we can do about climate change," said Achim Steiner, the head of the UN's environment programme. "And we can do it."

As well as plans for more nuclear power, genetically modified biofuels and carbon storage, the report sets out a vision of the future that is a mixture of existing policies, such as energy efficiency and renewable energy from wind and wave farms, and more futuristic ideas for hydrogen car fleets and "intelligent" buildings which can control energy use.

Of course, not all global warmists are happy about this development:

The report has also angered environmentalists. Tony Juniper of Friends of the Earth said: "Nuclear reactors are dangerous and land clearance and chemical pesticides and fertilisers used to grow fuel crops can cause huge environmental damage."

My, my! You just can't please these people!