Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

 
 
Saturday, 17th May 2008

Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the The Scotsman site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

California greenin' comes to Scotland



Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 17 April 2008
She helped clean up the most populous US state, defied Arnie and now wants to save the world. The female version of Al Gore talks to environment correspondent JENNY HAWORTH
AS Catherine Witherspoon talks to groups of students, she looks them in the eye and tells them they are the world's hope for saving the planet.

The former climate change adviser to California's governors – including Arnold Schwarzenegger – is conv
inced young people hold the key to changing public opinion by becoming more aware of the impact of their behaviour on the environment.

"I think little kiddies are going to save us," she said. "Little kids nag their parents to recycle. They say 'Can we have a Prius for our next car'. They ask their mummy to stop smoking.

"It is the really young kids that are crucial. By the time they hit their teens they are more concerned about what's hip, peer pressure, when do they get their driver's licence, can they get a new mobile phone that can show movies."

Speaking to The Scotsman at the Scottish Parliament ahead of a talk to MSPs about her experiences in climate change, she said she understands that it is human nature to enjoy creature comforts– and she wishes the world could continue the way it is.

"Consumer goods are nice," she said. "They make life comfortable. Ideally we would invent zero carbon electricity and fuel and it would be the way it has always been, but we are in a time crunch now and some scientists say we are already past the tipping point."

As a result she thinks it is urgent for every individual to start playing their part in helping the environment.

"It's the number one moral challenge facing the world. I agree with Al Gore about that. It's certainly in the top five of all concerns facing government. There are easy things everyone can do. Everyone can be more mindful of their power consumption. Everyone can think twice before they pop in the car and turn on their engine.

"Everyone can recycle more. Everyone can use canvas bags instead of plastic ones."

She also thinks urgent action is needed to reduce the number of flights. "The price of flying does not reflect the impact it has on the environment," she said.

And she thinks it will depend on individual consciences how readily they take up the challenge of helping the environment, particularly as it is poorer countries rather than richer developed nations that will be hardest hit.

"We will be confronted with a choice: how much do we care about protecting species on earth? How compassionate are we about the poor who will suffer more than the rich?

"Those of us who have wealth can work our way through these calamities but the poor cannot."

She was in Scotland yesterday as part of a European tour, giving climate talks after the US State Department touted her to governments. Next she will go to London, followed by Budapest.

Her talk is timely as the Scottish Government is in the process of drawing up its Climate Change Bill, which like California will aim to cut carbon dioxide emissions by 80 per cent by 2050 compared to 1990 levels.

Mrs Witherspoon thinks the key way this can be done is through boosting energy and fuel efficiency. But she thinks those in power must tread carefully, particularly with policies such as that just brought in across the UK to add 2.5 per cent of biofuels to petrol and diesel– a policy that has been met with horror by environmentalists who say efforts to grow biofuels are destroying crucial areas of rainforest and land needed to grow enough food to feed the planet.

"There are all these unintended consequences," she said.

But she thinks engineering technology, such as the creation of carbon sinks could be crucial, and thinks offshore wind farms have promise.

In fact she has more faith in scientists than in human nature.

"I'm optimistic about engineering solutions. I think we will figure out how to sequester carbon.

"It's human nature that is more problematic than engineering. It's human nature to want SUVs and other creature comforts."

She also worries that the public will get disillusioned, as they are one minute told that inventions such as biofuels are the future, and the next are told they are damaging the planet.

"How do we keep the public interested and motivated? That is crucial."

The daughter of a lawyer and social worker, Mrs Witherspoon grew up always wanting to work in government.

"I would have gone into any department that I thought was adding value to the human race," she said.

Straight out of university she started working for the Air Resources Board in California, and worked under five governors before Arnold Schwarzenegger came on the scene.

"I loved it. It was interesting, stimulating and it was matters of life or death. A career was born and I have been in air quality ever since."

She said when Governor Schwarzenegger came on the scene he was impressive in his concern for the environment.

"He came in with an environmental action plan. His motto was 'action, action, action'. We were supposed to put the plan on the wall and tick off all our actions."

But she said as climate change came onto the agenda, Schwarzenegger started taking decisions out of the hands of the independent Air Resources Board, on which Mrs Witherspoon was an executive.

There was a clash with the chairman of the board, Dr Robert Sawyer, and he was fired, and this then also spelled the end for Mrs Witherspoon.

"What caused me to quit was they invented a story about Chairman Sawyer to say he wasn't a real environmentalist," she said.

"I was reading the newspaper in my pyjamas one morning and was reading all these quotes and it was all wrong."

She phoned the newspapers to tell them the truth, and knew the move would cost her job. So she decided to quit before she was pushed.

"It was awful. I believed deeply in the mission. We hadn't done anything wrong. We had done it the right way but the stakes were so high."

But her mission to help the environment has not ceased, as she now works as an independent environmental consultant, spreading the expertise she has gained from her two decades in California.

HOW WE CAN LEAD WORLD ON CLIMATE

THE Scottish Climate Change Bill is currently out for consultation.

The consultation phase ends next Wednesday.

Stop Climate Chaos Scotland is campaigning to make sure the Scottish Government sticks to its election manifesto.

This would mean an 80 per cent reduction in carbon emissions by 2050, and a 3 per cent reduction per year.

Campaigners also want emissions from aviation and shipping to be included.

WWF Scotland is calling on Scotland to take a global lead in tackling climate change.

And John Swinney, the Scottish finance secretary, has said: "This is a truly global issue. It can only be tackled if we all work together: in this parliament; in Scotland; in the UK; and across the world."

And he said the aim was to set a mandatory long-term target to achieve a massive reduction in our emissions by 2050.

He said: "Our plans for a Scottish Climate Change Bill are ambitious.

"We recognise that meeting these ambitious targets is a huge challenge. We are under no illusions about the level, breadth and depth of action that is required.

"That is why we need to build a broad parliamentary and national consensus in moving forward to realise our ambitions and capitalise on our opportunities."



The full article contains 1281 words and appears in The Scotsman newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 16 April 2008 10:05 PM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
  • Related Topics: Climate change
 
1

Jock MacSprog,

17/04/2008 00:34:37
so how did she get from California to Scotland ? by rowboat ? and as she continues her trip around the world to pontificate how much pollution will she create ? ah but as she is enlightening the rest of us little people thats ok I guess.
2

,

17/04/2008 01:03:14
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
3

Mark Renton,

Edinburgh 17/04/2008 01:29:48
Fact: By far the most substantial "green" contribution anyone can make is also the simplest. Simply have fewer children. Any other contribution pales by comparison. Having one child creates a legacy of consumption that completely obliterates any and all "green" efforts that you could ever make in your own lifetime.
4

nabodican,

Rural Scotland 17/04/2008 01:44:19
God forbid that we have a female Al Gore!!
Why she would want to be compared to a poorly qualified, second rate, failed politician I do not know.
5

Navvy,

17/04/2008 01:55:04
#3 Absolutely correct, I could not agree more.
Forget growth. We want growth to meet rising expectations. With fewer people we can all have a bigger slice of the cake and if technology and a modest amount of work after the age of 65 can not take care of things then we deserve what we get. Medicine has largely delivered "death control" except in the most failed societies but society has not yet delivered birth control though it is coming. Across the world urbanisation and a better quality of life is delivering smaller families as parents ee that it is only with small families that they can give their children the best in life.
6

Clem,

17/04/2008 02:05:25
I don't believe in manmade "climate change," but I do believe the climate does change in long cycles - it has been that way for millions of years. Everything else is politics. Currently, we must be in a warming cycle as the last ice age left 15,000 years ago.

Hey Navvy, I have 5 kids and 4 grandkids - I must be bad and selfish. A lot of European countries have negative population growth, and what growth there is comes from immigration. I would believe that is a bigger problem than supposed global warming.
7

GalacticCannibal,

Murrieta; . CA.....a place in the Sun 17/04/2008 02:06:42
3
Mark Renton,
Edinburgh
-------------------------------

Dude U are on the correct track , but thats takes too long .

A faster way to cut pollution on our planet is to cull the 6+ billion parasites down to less than 3 billion.

HomoSapiens are a vicious , violent, greedy species of parasite.
And when we have used up all the planet's finite resources .The parasite will be history, dead and gone .

its a horizon beyond particle matter

GC
8

,

17/04/2008 02:08:15
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
9

Clem,

17/04/2008 02:17:53
In perusing science sites, I came upon this article about a 10,000 year old tree, note "dramatic climate changes over time." Oops

ScienceDaily (Apr. 16, 2008) — "The world's oldest recorded tree is a 9,550 year old spruce in the Dalarna province of Sweden. The spruce tree has shown to be a tenacious survivor that has endured by growing between erect trees and smaller bushes in pace with the dramatic climate changes over time."

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080416104320.htm



10

DunCraig,

Brisbane 17/04/2008 03:37:08
#2, Typical comments from someone who doesn't have a valid argument; abuse the crap out of someone, #1, who dares to ask valid questions!
You're the sort of self-abuser who thinks that by shouting loudest wins the debate. Well, you're wrong so get used to it!
11

DunCraig,

Brisbane 17/04/2008 03:37:54
Miss H., all very enlightening and I see your point but can't quite grasp it!
12

Law abiding ,

Wanting to survive 17/04/2008 03:45:20
Only the most stubborn and close-minded people dispute the facts about "Man made" climate change. Please read something beyond the 2nd grade level to learn what the vast majority of scientists are warning us. Al Gore, a brilliant, Nobel prize winning human being is trying to teach us to provide a better place for our children than we are currently on pace to. We are experiencing a relatively new phenomenon whereby one generation dumps its problems onto the next. Who can defend the morality of that? Seriously; who can condone pollution of the land and poisoning of people?
13

W Smith,

Middle East 17/04/2008 04:23:49
More utter drivel from the barely educated staff at The Scotsman I see.

1) The smog in Los Angeles is caused by car pollution NOT aviation. Does Ms Witherspoon still have her own car then?

2) Aviation accounts for 5% of carbon emissions while merchant shipping accounts for 10%.

Los Angeles has one of the biggest container ports in the USA.

Does this stupid women want to close shipping ports as well?

3) Arnie is backing the 'hydrogen highways' in California in attempt to make sure cars that run on hydorgen have filling stations facilities available. A simple plan that has yet to be introduced in Scotland desite numerous 'targets'.

So is Ms Witherspoon 'defying' Arnie on this one?

4) The catalytic converter was invented in the USA in the seventies partly to help car manufacturers to cope with meeting the tough emissions standards imposed by California's state government.

Long before the loony left Holyroood brigade starting prattling on and on about 'green issues' and some of them were looking for votes from coal miners.

Considering coal is 50% carbon the word 'irony' comes to mind.

5) Hefty tax increases on on air tickets will affect the lower income Scots not the millionaires like Salmond, Dalyell, Galloway, etc.

Flying will be a pleasure exclusively for the rich just like the good old days then eh?

Funny how the 'socialists' think this is fair.
14

Dave from Barra ©,

Western Isles 17/04/2008 07:28:29
"I think little kiddies are going to save us," she said. "Little kids nag their parents to recycle. They say 'Can we have a Prius for our next car'. They ask their mummy to stop smoking.

"It is the really young kids that are crucial. By the time they hit their teens they are more concerned about what's hip, peer pressure, when do they get their driver's licence, can they get a new mobile phone that can show movies."


Well ok then. It's just a phase for the kids and will stop nagging around the age of 12 Thank goodness for that. It's a phase, just like GW or CC or whatever you wish to name it.
15

Unimpressed one,

17/04/2008 08:15:32
'"There are all these unintended consequences," she said.'

Just like when they clamoured for the outlawing of DDT. A few million dying from malaria. The greens suffer hugely in their passion to ban all things they disagree with and never look at the whole picture. Just as a small child thinks medicine will be bad for them because of their limited intellect, so it is with the greens. Shame on any rational person who gives their ideas credence.
16

11+failed,

the pans 17/04/2008 09:27:17
Yep, let's follow the Californian example. Don't build any new power stations,except wind farms, or new oil refineries. Have a power crisis, import expensive electricity and petrol from neighbouring states and become the laughing stock of the nation.
17

11+failed,

the pans 17/04/2008 09:37:14
"I think little kiddies are going to save us," she said"
I have noticed that kids are now insisting on travelling by bus rather than the family car. When they get to 17 they are not interested in learning to drive, as a result, the number of cars on the road is steadily reducing.
Okay, I just had one of those FOE dreams!
18

Tweedmouth,

Coldstream 17/04/2008 10:04:11
There has been NO observed increase in planetary warming since 1998 - despite a smoothly rising increase in carbon dioxide levels.

The Northern hemisphere has just suffered the coldest winter in 50 years with record snowfalls in America, Russia, China and much of Asia.

It is now the 17th of April and from my window I can see the entire Cheviot massif across the Border - covered in deep snow from Wooler to Yetholm - and that snow has been there now for 2 weeks.

We are also enduring the coldest Spring for years with many beekeepers reporting the loss of many hives - after nearly SEVEN MONTHS of cold, wet, windy weather.

'Global Warmign' is a paranoid fantasy dreamed up by shysters like Al Gore and rapacious governments whow ant to tax 'the air you breathe'.

The planet has been warming at a very constant rate of 0.6 degrees per century since the late 1600s. This is NOTHING to do with human activity or carbon dioxide - it is a planetary-solar cycle beyond our control. In the Bronze Age, people in Scotland were growing barley above 1500ft on hillsides where we cannot do that today. At Skara Brae they were eating fish like Red Snapper, John Dory and others which are only found in the Mediterranean today. Climate 'changes', water is wet, fire is hot. Shysters are eternal and there is another sucker born every minute. The Politics of Fear is now the dominant strategy for the political and scientific elites who want to guzzle in the public tax trough for ever - see the Kinnocks for a fine example.
19

Bored,

17/04/2008 10:47:41
No. 12 Law abiding ,Wanting to survive

You state-
"Only the most stubborn and close-minded people dispute the facts about "Man made" climate change"

I put it to you that-
Only the most stubborn and close-minded people do not question the facts about "Man made" climate change and accept them blindly.
20

nabodican,

Rural Scotland 17/04/2008 11:07:58
Quite right # 19,
The problem that Law Abiding has is that he/she is obviously unable to differentiate between facts and spin. Al Gore is a master of spin but has very few facts to back up his posturing that keeps him in the limelight and allows him to make lots of money.
21

eyeswider,

angrier by the minute 17/04/2008 11:52:57
"unintended consequences" - you mean like rioting and revolution due to food shortages caused by the mistaken beliefs a) that oil derivatives used as fertilizer for maize and corn should be subsidized if those crops can be turned into bio-fuel (one SUV tankful being the equivalent of one years food for a lot of the worlds population), b) said bio-fuel is needed because c) the world is warming up AGAIN and d) this is a bad thing?


All the above who claim there are "too many people" are just plain wrong. The world can easily support twice the current population. The questions are:

Can we get there without the rape and pillage attitude that the western world has grown used to?
Can we use the massive amounts of useful stuff buried under the ever increasing ice of the Antarctic(currently under a moratorium - possibly as a "stash" for the elitists who believe in "population control") in a sensible manner instead of squandering it on mobile phones that always need "replacing" and labour saving devices and unneeded science like GM seeds or useless drugs or political jet set junkets and useless plastic toys and..... ??
Can we share, rather than fight over, natures bounty?
Can we utilize the billions of barrels of easily exploited oil(and the trillions of barrels of shale/sand based) as a stepping stone to a cleaner technology?
Can we all just get along while the above happens?


Stuck inside of Mobile....
http://www.al.com/news/mobileregister/index.ssf?/base/news/1208337313286800.xml&coll=3

22

eyeswider,

vocal pollution 17/04/2008 12:11:36
"I think we will figure out how to sequester carbon."

Hemp. Hemp, hemp and more hemp. Everything about it is magical.

"for those of you who believe we should limit our production of plant food (CO2), this marvel of nature can sequester over 20 tons of carbon dioxide per hectare per crop and if its mass, after extracting all the good stuff, is then made into its own extremely viable version of concrete you have the perfect double whammy - carbon sequestering par excellence and carbon reduction through concrete reduction."

"its seeds have an oil content of 34% (more than any other seed) and, after that oil is extracted, to make fuel (at a mind boggling 95% ratio) or foodstuffs, the remaining cake is only beaten by the perilous soy bean in protein content."

"produces more biomass per acre than any other almost anywhere on the planet with zero maintenance and no fertilizers, herbicides, insecticides or fungicides."
"massively efficient as a rotated crop, with corn and legumes for instance. It has a 3 to 4 month growing season even at altitude or in high latitudes. When dried in the field it returns over 50% of the nutrients it took from the soil during growth and this, coupled with the deep nutrients it draws upon with its root system and then sheds in its leaves, makes it easier on the soil and of more benefit to subsequent crops than any other"

Coming from California she should know that cannabis is even more efficient at the above but carries, shall we say, a certain whiff of far outed-ness that Arnie would refuse to stomach.

23

Guthrie,

Edinburgh 17/04/2008 12:40:44
#16- actually the California power crisis was caused by the companies deliberately reducing supply in order to drive up demand.

#18 Tweedmouth- way to go in twisting the facts to suit yourself. For starters, the earth has warmed since 1998. Then, so what if we have had a cold winter- it is the trend which matters. I don't know where you have gotten the idea we have had cold weather. Wet, yes, but also warmer than average:
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate/uk/2008/january.html
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate/uk/2008/february.html
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate/uk/2008/march.html
24

11+failed,

the pans 17/04/2008 13:15:21
#23
"caused by the companies deliberately reducing supply in order to drive up demand"
Your usual socialist conspiracy theory rubbish. Since when did reducing supply increase demand? Apart from the mistaken belief by the liberal Californian nutter lobby that modern technology application would reduce demand for power our very own Scottish Power,as it then was, managed to make a generator breakdown into a ten month outage.
25

techpunk,

17/04/2008 13:21:47
spot on #19

it's interesting to see that threads like this are far less populated by the (generally zealous) comments by the Pro-MMGW, than they would have been, say, six months ago.

the wheels are falling off this bandwagon far sooner than i had expected, as the broad-scope facts are being ingested by the general public.


26

Unimpressed one,

17/04/2008 13:26:16
Our CO2 levels have increased linearly since 1998, temperatures have not followed in any fashion, as all the models predicted. Theory 0, Earth 1.
27

11+failed,

the pans 17/04/2008 13:46:42
Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research.
Global surface air temperature,
January 1998....14.75C
January 2008....14.05C
28

eyeswider,

shivering at work 17/04/2008 13:52:41
Nobel prizewinner says temps have flattened off and IPCC should admit it:

http://ilovemycarbondioxide.com/letters/IPCC_letter_14April08.pdf

"14 April 2008

Dear Dr. Pachauri and others associated with IPCC

We are writing to you and others associated with the IPCC position – that man's CO2 is a driver of global warming and climate change – to ask that you now in view of the evidence retract support from the current IPCC position [as in footnote 1] and admit that there is no observational evidence in measured data going back 22,000 years or even millions of years that CO2 levels (whether from man or nature) have driven or are driving world temperatures or climate change."

"These latest temperature readings represent averages of records obtained from standardized meteorological
stations from around the planet, located in both urban as well as rural settings. They are augmented by satellite data, now generally accepted as ultimately authoritative, since they have a global footprint and are not easily vulnerable to manipulation nor observer error. What is also clear from the graphs is that average global temperatures have been in stasis for almost a decade and may now even be falling."

Nice graph also.


29

eyeswider,

idiot watching 17/04/2008 14:09:01
Maybe she should read more.



http://www.wecnmagazine.com/2007issues/may/may07.html


Reid A. Bryson holds the 30th PhD in Meteorology granted in the history of American education. Emeritus Professor and founding chairman of the University of Wisconsin Department of Meteorology—now the Department of Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences—in the 1970s he became the first director of what’s now the UW’s Gaylord Nelson Institute of Environmental Studies. He’s a member of the United Nations Global 500 Roll of Honor—created, the U.N. says, to recognize “outstanding achievements in the protection and improvement of the environment.” He has authored five books and more than 230 other publications and was identified by the British Institute of Geographers as the most frequently cited climatologist in the world.


Q: Could you rank the things that have the most significant impact and where would you put carbon dioxide on the list?

A: Well let me give you one fact first. In the first 30 feet of the atmosphere, on the average, outward radiation from the Earth, which is what CO2 is supposed to affect, how much [of the reflected energy] is absorbed by water vapor? In the first 30 feet, 80 percent, okay?

Q: Eighty percent of the heat radiated back from the surface is absorbed in the first 30 feet by water vapor…

A: And how much is absorbed by carbon dioxide? Eight hundredths of one percent. One one-thousandth as important as water vapor. You can go outside and spit and have the same effect as doubling carbon dioxide.


30

traprain,

17/04/2008 14:14:25
23 Guthrie,
"actually the California power crisis was caused by the companies deliberately reducing supply in order to drive up demand"
I guess Pacificorp, owned by Scottish Power, did their bit by taking so long to repair a breakdown. Unfortunately for SP they lost tens of millions of dollars buying in power to meet their contracts. So much for the nonsense pedalled by California's Governor, rejected at the following election, that it was a power company conspiracy.
31

eyeswider,

yawning 17/04/2008 14:17:46

Of course all these "denialist" people are oil funded, glossy website owning, retired or out of their field. Not like Catherine Witherspoon.

Ms. Witherspoon holds a B.A. in Politics from the University of California at Santa Cruz.

How does she get to pontificate about this stuff yet Fred Singer and Reid Bryson get slagged off for doing so???

Here is the answer:

"Why do people continue to believe in physical impossibilities even after being confronted with incontrovertible facts that refute them? Because you can’t convince a true believer of anything, for their beliefs are not based on science and reason, they’re based on faith and a deep-seated NEED to believe. Hence, most propaganda isn’t designed to fool the critical thinker, but rather;

Only to give self-deceiving cowards an excuse not to think at all."

32

Queen D,

Glasgow 17/04/2008 15:33:35
It's only an excuse to tax us for more pennies.
Fed up with doom sayers on all subjects!
33

Venachar,

17/04/2008 15:49:01
We have zero carbon electricity - its called nuclear power.
Go back and hug the great sequoia back in California, anybody growing up and "wanting" to be in government really is weird and should not be listened to.
34

A Voice From Scotland,

17/04/2008 15:55:09
#28 I wonder how the eco fascists will spin that one it is a revelation, and confirms what many people are now seeing.

We will have and always have had climate change which is and has been driven by the activity in the Sun which is what gives and takes life on Earth.

It is essential that we use our resources in a sustainable manner, but I do believe that the Gore army are guilty of a massive con which is now hurting the planet and it's poorest people.

The fact that Gore was allowed to get away with flogging his nasty movie which was full of lies and chicanery speaks volumes. The thing is all these world leaders have to find a way of saving face before they can admit the truth. Just like the millennium bug this man made global warming is a lie.

By this time we normally hear from the one called Slioch who puts us all right on this forum, since he supposedly lives in the Highlands maybe he has succumbed to one of the coldest winters on record.

What a read this letter is:

Dr. Rajendra Pachauri
Chairman Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
c/o World Meteorological Organization
7bis Avenue de la Paix
C.P. 2300 CH- 1211 Geneva 2,
Switzerland
14 April 2008
Dear Dr. Pachauri and others associated with IPCC
We are writing to you and others associated with the IPCC position – that man’s CO2 is a driver of global
warming and climate change – to ask that you now in view of the evidence retract support from the current
IPCC position [as in footnote 1] and admit that there is no observational evidence in measured data going back
22,000 years or even millions of years that CO2 levels (whether from man or nature) have driven or are driving
world temperatures or climate change.
If you believe there is evidence of the CO2 driver theory in the available data please present a graph of it.
We draw your attention to three observational refutations of the IPCC position (and note there are more). Icecore
data from the ACIA (Arctic Climate Impact Assess
35

A Voice From Scotland,

17/04/2008 16:02:06
Dr. Rajendra Pachauri
Chairman Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
c/o World Meteorological Organization
7bis Avenue de la Paix
C.P. 2300 CH- 1211 Geneva 2,
Switzerland
14 April 2008
Dear Dr. Pachauri and others associated with IPCC
We are writing to you and others associated with the IPCC position – that man’s CO2 is a driver of global
warming and climate change – to ask that you now in view of the evidence retract support from the current
IPCC position [as in footnote 1] and admit that there is no observational evidence in measured data going back
22,000 years or even millions of years that CO2 levels (whether from man or nature) have driven or are driving
world temperatures or climate change.
If you believe there is evidence of the CO2 driver theory in the available data please present a graph of it.
We draw your attention to three observational refutations of the IPCC position (and note there are more). Icecore
data from the ACIA (Arctic Climate Impact Assessment) shows that temperatures have fallen since
around 4,000 years ago (the Bronze Age Climate Optimum) while CO2 levels have risen, yet this graphical
data was not included in the IPCC Summary for Policymakers (Fig. SPM1 Feb07) which graphed the CO2 rise.
More recent data shows that in the opposite sense to IPCC predictions world temperatures have not risen and
indeed have fallen over the past 10 years while CO2 levels have risen dramatically.
The up-dated temperature measurements have been released by the NASA’s Microwave Sounding Unit (MSU)
[1] as well as by the UK’s Hadley Climate Research Unit (Temperature v. 3, variance adjusted - Hadley
CRUT3v) [2]. In parallel, readings of atmospheric concentrations of CO2 have been released by the Mauna
Loa Observatory in Hawaii [3]. They have been combined in graphical form by Joe D’Aleo [4], and are shown
below.
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Correlation_Last_Decade.pdf



36

connaughtboy,

stonehaven 17/04/2008 16:02:45
"It's the number one moral challenge facing the world"

I wonder how many people would actually agree with this statement. I certainly don't. Number one, it's nothing to do with "morals" and number two there are far greater, real moral challenges to be addressed before we but into this misplaced propaganda.
37

connaughtboy,

stonehaven 17/04/2008 16:05:44
"She also thinks urgent action is needed to reduce the number of flights. "The price of flying does not reflect the impact it has on the environment," she said."

Oh, really? Now I can see where you are coming from. I sincerely hope she will be passing through Terminal 5 as punishment for uttering such hypocritical drivel.
38

Law abiding ,

Some correction for 18,19,20,23 17/04/2008 16:12:47
OK; some people refuse to listen to Al Gore because he ran a campaign against the Uber Intellectual GW Bush. Bush's brain power has quite a few more believers in Scotland than I would have guessed. But hundreds of prominent professors provided thousands of irrefutable facts that support his (Gore's) arguments. These arguments have been made for decades, Al Gore simply helped bring them international attention. One can always find the odd excption to the rule, by the overwhelming majority of experts in the field agree that human activity is degrading the enviornment. For example, the US, China and India parade out theories to support the notion that pollution isn't all that bad, and why should we let it continue unabated. So we can investigate any of the facets of Climate Change and find massive preponderence of evidence of human interference causing unprecendnted acceleration. Just look around you, wherever you are. You will see changes that have occured in your own lifetime, if you are honest with yourself. Why is it wrong to think that we can do better?
Also, the California energy crisis began with deregulation of Electricty companies, gross manipulation by Enron, the largest player at the time (do we have anyone believing Enron acted in good faith?) and more importantly, hidden in the deregulation package was an allowance to let the Power companies charge current consumers for the multi-billion dollar failure of nuclear power-plants in the state. They were built substandard, over budget and became outdated within a few years. They will never turn a profit for their owners, and deregultion allowed these large companies to bill the public for plants that should never have been built. That place a massive shift of responsibility from those who incurred the cost, to the public. At the time, Dick Cheney said, "Well that's California's problem" although Texan companies, beyond the reach of California's law, were the beneficiaries of this massive public bail
39

Em,

17/04/2008 16:14:08
23 Guthrie

You say the earth has warmed since 1998, but reports confirm top UN scientists have been forced to admit that natural weather occurrences are having a far greater effect on climate change than CO2 emissions as a continued cooling trend means there has been no global warming since 1998.

The BBC was also forced to change a report that had originally confirmed the same due to threatening e-mails from an environmental activist who also demanded that man made climate change sceptics be censored.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/april2008/040708_bbc_caught.htm

The man made global warming theory is a massive lie foisted onto humanity. the notion of environmental catastrophe is being used to usher in a new system of socialistic control on a global scale, as a global problem requires a global body to deal with it.

In 1972 the club of Rome published the alarmist "Limits to Growth" warning of worldwide overpopulation and the need for sustainable development (ie. population reduction.) Then in 1991 the club of Rome published "The first Global Revolution" which contains the following statement

"In searching for a new enemy to unite us we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill...The real enemy then is humanity itself"

Painting humanity as a parasite that threatens the survival of our planet allows governments to take control of every aspect of human life with the pretence that it is for the greater good.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PYl4hkFRdTk
40

connaughtboy,

stonehaven 17/04/2008 16:14:55
#12 I have read substantial parts of the latest IPCC report (not just the summary) and can tell you that many of your so-called "facts" are not presented as such by the report itself. Science does not operate like that. There are theories, projections, assumptions. As for Al Gore, a learned judge has highlighted numerous areas where his docu-fictional movieh as mis-represented data and evidence. If you take Gore seriously then you are the closed-minded one.
41

connaughtboy,

stonehaven 17/04/2008 16:17:46
We are bringing our kids up to believe that carbon dioxide is a "bad" gas and is a "pollutant". Total and utter insanity.
42

connaughtboy,

stonehaven 17/04/2008 16:27:33
#31 eyeswider.

You are 100% correct. I particularly agree with your comments about the scientists being ignored whilst the politics graduate is believed unswervingly.

So damned depressing.
43

campaignerchick,

Edinburgh 17/04/2008 16:33:52
The IPCC takes scientific evidence from hundreds of scientists, not just one, and it's research suggests that "11 of the last 12 years (1995-2006) rank among the 12 warmest years in the instrumental record of global surface temperature (since 1850)." and that "there is very high confidence that the net effect of human activities since 1750 has been one of warming."

These changes are affecting people now - especially those who are least able to adapt to cope with the effects, such as farmers in developing countries that rely on consistent weather patterns to produce crops.

I agree with Ms Witherspoon that we can make changes in our lives to reduce our impact on the environment and that technology will drive positive change. Besides, the oil will run out eventually so it’s best to be prepared.
44

connaughtboy,

stonehaven 17/04/2008 16:36:45
#38 law abiding

"the overwhelming majority of experts in the field agree that human activity is degrading the enviornment"

That's naughty. We are not talking about "degrading the environment". what we are talking about is a causal link between the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and the resulting global atmospheric temperatures. This is where those sceptical of the MMGW nonsense can blow you out of the water. There are very many scientists who have gone on record to express their opinions that MMGW does not exist. It is untrue to state that the vast majority of scientists take the pro-MMGW view.
45

Guthrie,

Edinburgh 17/04/2008 16:39:25
Em #39- As I said, the important thing is the trend, which is actually upwards since 1998.
Now, what happened in 1998? Oh yes, a monster El Nino. And what happened the beggining this year? A La Nina!
That they have these effects is well known. Only scientificially iiliterate people assume that means the warming is over. Similarly large drops in temperature have occured in the past.

The BBC changed the report because it was factually innacurate, last I knew. The vast majority of climatologists agree about AGW, and the few that don't do not have any scientific credibility.

I see you bring up the club of Rome. That has no relevance to the science, and just goes to show you are a political hack.
46

Guthrie,

Edinburgh 17/04/2008 16:40:50
Connaughtboy #40 - you clearly know nothing about the science. Please finish reading the IPCC reports, and come back to us about bits you don't understand.
47

connaughtboy,

stonehaven 17/04/2008 16:45:29
#43 campaignerchick

The IPCC do not take "evidence". Where did you get that idea? This is not a court case. The IPCC request experts to write papers which are then meant to be "peer-reviewed" by an independent expert. The lead -writers on the IPCC tend to be a small group who actually peer-review other members of that group's papers. There is documented evidence from estwhile IPCC scientists who resigned because of their frustration at having their views ignored and having politicians tell them what to write.
48

connaughtboy,

stonehaven 17/04/2008 16:47:24
#46 guthrie

I am a science graduate. You are brain-washed. See the difference?
49

connaughtboy,

stonehaven 17/04/2008 16:49:53
Guthrie

what is your view on the Mann, Bradley and Hughes hockey Stick Graph? Are you a believer?
50

Em,

17/04/2008 16:52:47
Guthrie

This issue has more to do with politics than you care to realise.
51

connaughtboy,

stonehaven 17/04/2008 16:53:02
Also, is it not a bit worrying that if a scientist challenges the MMGW theory he automatically loses his credibility, even if he is an expert? Does that not seem a bit sinister to you?
52

Saoghal Beag,

17/04/2008 17:10:41
44 connaughtboy, the problem with carbon counting is that it is an economist's attempt to put a value on human activity's negative impacts on the environment. Carbon counting is fandementally flawed, grossly over simplified but allows mps and economists to understand where they can tax, (simple things that they are). Being fundamentally flawed that taxation regime is also flawed.
53

Neanderthal75,

Rocky Mountains USA 17/04/2008 17:50:37
Hello All,

Well, after reading her words, it's certainly true: the woman is as big a Liar as Al 'I'm the Father of the Internet' Gore!

She is just another Eco-Fascist out to make money, oppress people in a non-democratic manner, and generally abuse anyone and everyone who disagrees with her.

Yup, she's a Social Progressive-Politically Correct Moron for sure.

Cheers from the Rockies
54

Yankee girl,

California 17/04/2008 18:06:58
Hm. Never heard of her.

Some of the posters are correct about the issues in CA. We do try, though. Most of us recycle, a lot of us take the bus or carpool. Our vehicles have to pass emissions tests to be licensed. The list goes on. But it's hard to manage the scope of our environmental issues when there are 36 million of us, possibly 52 million by 2030. Maybe #3 is on to something. ;)
55

Guthrie,

Edinburgh 17/04/2008 19:23:07
connaughtboy #46- I have 2 science degrees, so there!

What didn't you like about the language of the IPCC report? It is perfectly good scientific boilerplate. Normally only the scientifically illiterate complain about it.
As for your own knowledge, you don't display any.

Hmmm, hockey sticks. Now, if you turn to chapter 6 of the FAR, and go to page 467, you find a whole page of hokcey sticks!
Would you like to try and disprove each and every single one of them?
56

Guthrie,

Edinburgh 17/04/2008 19:26:31
Em #50 - oh yes, I know it has lots to do with politics. So much so that the communist Baroness Thatcher set up the HAdley centre to study it, and George bush the first said he was worried by it.
Now of course, the opposition to the science comes mostly from market worshippers.
57

connaughtboy,

stonehaven 17/04/2008 20:13:09
#55 Guthrie

Why the aggression and sarcasm. Are you not able to debate both sides of this without letting your emotions get the better of you.

On the subject of MMGW, are you really saying that not one single scientist who disagrees with the MMGW has no credibility because of his views?
58

A Voice From Scotland,

What say you 'GUTHRIE' IS ACIA WRONG??? 17/04/2008 20:48:18
Dr. Rajendra Pachauri
Chairman Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
c/o World Meteorological Organization
7bis Avenue de la Paix
C.P. 2300 CH- 1211 Geneva 2,
Switzerland
14 April 2008



Dear Dr. Pachauri and others associated with IPCC,

We are writing to you and others associated with the IPCC position – that man’s CO2 is a driver of global
warming and climate change – to ask that you now in view of the evidence retract support from the current
IPCC position [as in footnote 1] and admit that there is no observational evidence in measured data going back 22,000 years or even millions of years that CO2 levels (whether from man or nature) have driven or are driving world temperatures or climate change.


If you believe there is evidence of the CO2 driver theory in the available data please present a graph of it.


We draw your attention to three observational refutations of the IPCC position (and note there are more).

Icecore data from the ACIA (Arctic Climate Impact Assessment) shows that temperatures have fallen since
around 4,000 years ago (the Bronze Age Climate Optimum) while CO2 levels have risen, yet this graphical data was not included in the IPCC Summary for Policymakers (Fig. SPM1 Feb07) which graphed the CO2 rise.


More recent data shows that in the opposite sense to IPCC predictions world temperatures have not risen and
indeed have fallen over the past 10 years while CO2 levels have risen dramatically.


The up-dated temperature measurements have been released by the NASA’s Microwave Sounding Unit (MSU)
[1] as well as by the UK’s Hadley Climate Research Unit (Temperature v. 3, variance adjusted - Hadley
CRUT3v) [2].

In parallel, readings of atmospheric concentrations of CO2 have been released by the Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii [3]. They have been combined in graphical form by Joe D’Aleo [4], and are shown below.


http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Correlation_Last_Decade.pdf
59

A Voice From Scotland,

17/04/2008 20:51:18
Guthrie, Is the NASA Microwave Sounding Unit (MSU) correct, or is the IPCC correct ?
60

John Blackley,

SwOTR 17/04/2008 21:15:57
Watch out for this lady and her ilk. All of her, "I think the little kiddies are going to save us. Little kids........" do this and "little kids" do that serve to remind me of other organisations who concentrated their propaganda effort on "the little kiddies" to create generations of right-minded adults.
61

eyeswider,

relaxed + vodka 17/04/2008 23:39:19
#45 Guthrie - read the letter - an ASTROPHYSICIST plus other scientists point out that the temps are NOT RISING, have plateaued and are maybe dropping. Especially if you use the satellite data which is what I have been saying all along.

I am probably asking too much.

The house is built on sand. CO2 is the best part of life. When you watch your children grow you are watching CO2 in action. We could do with Waaaay more of it. This is how dark the whole thing has become. Good is bad.

The ministry of truth says Al is the nice guy.

He will never debate in an open forum.
He never allows journalists into his shaminars.
He charges $100,000 per lecture.(the same one over and over ad nauseam which is probably why no journos)

Yet
Anyone who ever got a $500 gift from an oil company has rendered themselves incapable of ever again thinking straight, publishing their thoughts or having an opinion even.

But
Someone who inter-cuts atomic explosions with polar bears falling off ice cubes while he attempts to frighten "little kiddies" and dumbed down "grown ups" is revered as the savior of the ecosystem when all he has done is line his own pockets.

No-one died when Clinton lied. Gore's sick fantasy, and the mistaken belief that "something" can be "done" about it, will kill millions if it doesn't stop - and even now may be too late judging by the food-for-fuel-fiasco unfolding around us. The scientists who have backed him by cravenly chasing the money will forever be smeared with his stink.


http://www.businessandmedia.org/specialreports/2008/GlobalWarmingCensored/GlobalWarmingCensored_execsum.asp

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/2656

http://www.thetrumpet.com/index.php?q=5032.0.104.0

62

Sanny,

17/04/2008 23:44:08
12 Law abiding ,Wanting to survive:

You’re pretty free with your abuse of those that do not agree with you. As someone who has read beyond 2nd grade (I assume this to be some American school grade) and holds a BSc form a Scottish University I think even you will have to admit I have reasoning ability. Albeit some may consider me as stubborn, as I require evidential proof before accepting the latest outpouring of the doom and gloom brigade.

Now let me deal with the errors in your statement:
Al Gore is a failed Scientist who entered into politics where he failed yet again. Unfortunately the Nobel prize has been reduced to a political football.
The vast majority of scientists are not warning us of man made climate change. Indeed by far the majority of scientists complain about the bad science employed by IPCC. Many of the IPCC scientists themselves complain about the misuse of their research. Are you aware that they produce two reports – one scientific where the findings and assumptions are riddled with qualifiers: The other is a Political Summary report. Guess which one Al Bore quotes?

CO2 is NOT a pollutant. Without it in the atmosphere there would be no life on earth. Further the atmosphere is CO2 deficient! Over the last 600 million years there has been only one other occasion when CO2 levels and Global temperature have been as low as today and that was the Late Carboniferous/Early Permian period – just as we were tipping into an Ice Age!! The Mediaeval Warm Period about a thousand years ago was a couple of degrees warmer than today yet it predates the industrial era. The MWP was followed by a mini ice age in the 15th century, form which we are still recovering.

So why don’t you do some research into real climate change when you can then speak with some knowledge if not authority. A good place to start might be here: - http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html. This is really about fossils but understanding fossils requires an und
63

Sanny,

17/04/2008 23:44:54
continued: -
So why don’t you do some research into real climate change when you can then speak with some knowledge if not authority. A good place to start might be here: - http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html. This is really about fossils but understanding fossils requires an understanding of the climate of the period. After reading the material available at this site only a fool would continue to accept the Al Gore creed of Global warming.
64

seanie,

18/04/2008 00:12:01
"Nobel prizewinner says temps have flattened off and IPCC should admit it:"

What did he win a nobel prize for?

I'll give you a clue.

1988.
65

eyeswider,

offside 18/04/2008 01:09:02
#64 seanie I was so surprised to see anything like this in more than one place that I didn't scuttle off to realclimate, poste haste, and read all the lovely stuff being said about these people. It doesn't mean they ain't right.

Don't bother with the science play the man. Fear can sometimes create that reaction. Anger will raise your core temps. This may lead to a belief that all glass thermometers are equal.

Don't check out the graph it may upset you. We live in the satellite era. Welcome to question time.

Move on citizen nothing to see here. You don't have to go home but you can't stay here.

66

Guthrie,

Edinburgh 18/04/2008 11:36:33
Connaughtboy #57-
the aggression and sarcasm are becuase people like yourself insist on being right without actually being able to show it. You claim a science degree. Show that you know how to look at science. Show me that you understand the science behind AGW.

Oh look, your reply doesn't contain any reference to the science.

On the subject of AGW- any "scientist" who tells you that it is not happening, or that the warming is not our fault, has at this point no credibility.
If they want to argue about the precise sensitivity or timing etc, then they may have a point, but anyone who dismisses the current IPCC report has basically no leg to stand on.

67

Guthrie,

Edinburgh 18/04/2008 11:40:32
Sanny- your playing the man not the science. Isnt that what eyeswider accuses people of?

Oh, silly me, double standards apply!

Your lies are mounting. The vast majority of all scientists on the planet don't know much about global warming. The ones that do pay attention to it are nearly unanimous in their acceptance of the science.

CO2, like anything else in the wrong quantities in the wrong place, can be regarded as a pollutant. Ozone is a pollutant when at street level, but in the stratosphere it is necessary to keep UV levels down.

Furthermore, the atmosphere is not CO2 deficient- that assumes some ideal level of CO2. Unfortunately you are not a position to claim there is one.

PLease don't lie about the medieval warm period- it was not any warmer than the mid 20th century.
And we are not still recovering from the mini ice age.
68

Guthrie,

Edinburgh 18/04/2008 11:42:16
Eyes wider #65:

"Don't bother with the science play the man."

Eyeswider #61
"No-one died when Clinton lied. Gore's sick fantasy, and the mistaken belief that "something" can be "done" about it, will kill millions if it doesn't stop - and even now may be too late judging by the food-for-fuel-fiasco unfolding around us. The scientists who have backed him by cravenly chasing the money will forever be smeared with his stink."

Hmmm, yes, playing the man.
69

eyeswider,

18/04/2008 17:17:08
#Guthrie - your point....

Gore got straight d's and f's in science subjects yet claims he is "right" on a scientific issue. Hence a perfect target. He will be lucky to get away with just a kicking.

Astrophysicists ain't. As you well know.

and...

"The vast majority of all scientists on the planet don't know much about global warming. The ones that do pay attention to it are nearly unanimous in their acceptance of the science."

The ones that do are invested. Their funding depends upon it.

Jeesh this gets tiring.

The certainty of models is a fantasy. Even at "99% certainty" there is room for being wrong.

The coming cold will be more than an embarrassment to science/scientists. It will radically change the public's perception of them as they are used as the scapegoats by oleaginous creeps like Gore when they say "Hansen/Schmidt/Mann et al "told me it was true" sniffle sniffle. Please don't take my money/Nobel?oscar off me.






 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In