Carbon Credit Purchase...!

[Air Profit]

Are these narcistic people for real..? Here we are in month one of our six month pay cut, and the senior management announce that they are purchasing another umpteen thousand tons of carbon 'credits'...!!! WTF? Surely after coercing millions from your staff, you don't then go and announce you are spending it on one of the great politically correct frauds of all time? I cannot believe the...a) ignorance, b) stupidity, c) arrogance,..or d) contempt that this announcement implies. I am sick (SICK) on hearing this. I am having to make a real sacrifice for the next half of a year, and these arrogant morons are loudly announcing that they are throwing it away on a fraud of epic proportions. Even if you (naively) believe in 'global warming', surely NOW is NOT the time to make such a decision. What utter pr*cks. :yuk:

[Frogman1484]

I agree in global warming...but you are correct, this is not the time!!!:mad:

[14MonthInterview]

I would have thought the weekly reminder that "...we are cutting capacity by XX%" will have an environmental impact immediately and reduced our carbon emissions!? So we now pay for it aswell...wow!

[Ex Cathedra]

This most likely is due to the forecoming European regulations affecting airlines. Operators flying within/to/from Europe will be taxed according to their carbon footprint, but I believe airlines have an option of buying carbon credit to offset that footprint instead, and this is probably where this is going.

One way or another, I hope you're not honestly believing that CX management would spend a cent to save the planet if they didn't have to. This is HK after all.

[badairsucker]

Interesting read on the back of the business page of the SCMP today...CX might make up to 1 to 4 billion back from their fuel hedging........

[badairsucker]

Trev


How about "Trev might post an interesting post". Nah, me thinks NOT.


I put the word might in the sentence, so I suggest you read it yourself.

[freightdog188]

Gents, relax.

1. - the Carbon Credits were purchased for the "fly greener" programme, which means that the passengers that opt to offset their CO2 emissions pay for it themselves.

2. - a 1t offset costs 8.62 GBP => 20.000t cost = £ 172500.00 total
it's a) peanuts, and b) it's not out of our (nor the company's) pockets.

It just makes good reading in the newspapers, that's all...

[Big Picture]

Yep,

Carbon credits will be a part of future business and the current price of the above said credits are cheap compared to future projections, once global growth returns and companies want to expand (particularly companies that use high quantites of aviation fuel). Carbon credits will only get more expensive, maybe to the tune of 400% more expensive over the next 4 or 5 years, so this may well be a smart move. Carbon credits will be a new and important tax to business, better to get prepared for it now, than later, when these credtis will probably cost more.

The managers at CX (read here swire group) have given little in the way of pay increases to their workers over the last 7 years, particularly aircrew. They wouldn't be buying these credits without a long term goal and future projections that justify this expendtiure in regard to the bottom line of the balance sheet.

[Air Profit]

Big Picture....the whole idea of 'carbon credits' will prove to be one of the greatest frauds in the history of civilization. Man is responsible for approximately 3% of total carbon emissions per year. All the so called 'carbon reduction' programs might influence man made sources by approx 5% of our total emissions. In other words, we might reduce world wide carbon emissions by .0015 %...!! And that is after spending and taxing to the tune of TRILLIONS of DOLLARS. Yea, that is a GREAT use of resources. What do you think we could accomplish if we spent that kind of money on disease prevention...? The looney left will destroy the world they naively think they are saving. God help us.:ugh:

[Big Picture]

Air Profit irrespective of our views on the effectiveness of these scheme's, Carbon Emmission trading scheme's are going to be a part of future business. I am purely making the observation that the current price of these credits is probably low in contrast to future projections.

I am not endorsing nor criticising the merits of these scheme's, I am purely making the observation that Carbon credits are going to be a burden upon business in the future, and now may well be a pudent time to buy. CX wouldn't be spending the money if the

[Big Picture]

Sorry that one fired off early! Just wanted to sat that they probably wouldn't spend the cash if they didn't feel a requirement to do so.

[Air Profit]

..oh, you mean like their brilliantly timed and well thought out fuel hedging purchases....yea, I see your point...! :ugh:

[Frogman1484]

Carbon credits are good...as I'm selling them from my timber plantation I had to buy to reduce my tax with!!!:ok::}

[SIC]

AIR PROFIT wrote:

Man is responsible for approximately 3% of total carbon emissions per year.

Would you care to elaborate?

[Air Profit]

Out of the total carbon emissions produced worldwide annually, man is responsible for between 3 and 4 percent. The majority is from the sea bed vents, volcanoes, and believe it or not....cow flatulence. This is verifiable from any legitimate and politically neutral scientific journal. As you can see, spending trillions of dollars to save maybe 5% of 3% (.oo15%)is the most pointless exercise in the annals of human folly. Furthermore, while we turn our societies upside down trying to shave a miniscule amount of emissions of our total, China and India will continue to add to the annual total far in excess of anything we save....and, as the math shows, to no consequene. The same amount of money dedicated to cancer research would be of far more help to the human race.

[SIC]

So you figure all the crap I see in the air here in Hong Kong has no affect whatsoever on the earth or our climate. Human created carbon is insignificant??

How to explain then that the carbon in the atmosphere has gone up by about 35% in the past 100 years?? More volcanoes? Or more cows ? (which by the way I count as human created carbon since we keep those cows):ok:

[Air Profit]

...localised pollution is a localised problem. Has no relevance on the greater issue of turning our western economies upside down in a futile attempt to 'change the climate'. As for increased carbon in the atmosphere, read the following:

The most important players on the greenhouse stage are water vapor and clouds. Carbon dioxide has been increased to about 0.038% of the atmosphere (possibly from about 0.028% pre-Industrial Revolution) while water in its various forms ranges from 0% to 4% of the atmosphere and its properties vary by what form it is in and even at what altitude it is found in the atmosphere.

In simple terms the bulk of Earth's greenhouse effect is due to water vapor by virtue of its abundance. Water accounts for about 90% of the Earth's greenhouse effect -- perhaps 70% is due to water vapor and about 20% due to clouds (mostly water droplets), some estimates put water as high as 95% of Earth's total tropospheric greenhouse effect (e.g., Freidenreich and Ramaswamy, “Solar Radiation Absorption by Carbon Dioxide, Overlap with Water, and a Parameterization for General Circulation Models,” Journal of Geophysical Research 98 (1993):7255-7264).
The remaining portion comes from carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, methane, ozone and miscellaneous other "minor greenhouse gases." As an example of the relative importance of water it should be noted that changes in the relative humidity on the order of 1.3-4% are equivalent to the effect of doubling CO2.
Important distinction:


Because the greenhouse effect and its players vary with altitude and latitude there is often confusion over differing statements regarding the greenhouse potential of constituent gases.
Given the present composition of the atmosphere, the contribution to the total heating rate in the troposphere (the portion of the atmosphere of most interest -- it is the region from the surface to basically the top of the active weather zone) is around 5% from carbon dioxide and around 95% from water vapor.
However, in the stratosphere, the contribution is about 80% from carbon dioxide and about 20% from water vapor, although this makes a relatively small contribution to total greenhouse effect.
Naturally, calculations for the total atmosphere yield different results yet again, as does consideration of latitude and season but the net effect in which we are interested is that which can realistically be expected to have significant effect on life at the surface, thus average tropospheric greenhouse at 95:5% water to carbon dioxide and other minor greenhouse gases.
The net total atmosphere greenhouse effect then is about 90% water (as vapor and cloud droplets) and 10% carbon dioxide and other minor greenhouse gases. Remember that atmospheric properties in the Polar winter are tremendously different from the tropics, say during the monsoon rain season. Thus people may be correct citing widely varying greenhouse figures, always providing they are specific about the where and when. Unless otherwise specified this document refers to global net total atmosphere yearly average effect 90:10 H2O:CO2.

[Air Profit]

...a few more salient points:


The temperature effect of atmospheric carbon dioxide is logarithmic, not exponential.
The potential planetary warming from a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide from pre-Industrial Revolution levels of ~280ppmv to 560ppmv (possible some time later this century - perhaps) is generally estimated at around 1 °C.
The guesses of significantly larger warming are dependent on "feedback" (supplementary) mechanisms programmed into climate models. The existence of these "feedback" mechanisms is uncertain and the cumulative sign of which is unknown (they may add to warming from increased atmospheric carbon dioxide or, equally likely, might suppress it).
The total warming since measurements have been attempted is thought to be about 0.6 degrees Centigrade. At least half of the estimated temperature increment occurred before 1950, prior to significant change in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels. Assuming the unlikely case that all the natural drivers of planetary temperature change ceased to operate at the time of measured atmospheric change then a 30% increment in atmospheric carbon dioxide caused about one-third of one degree temperature increment since and thus provides empirical support for less than one degree increment due to a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide.
There is no linear relationship between atmospheric carbon dioxide change and global mean temperature or global mean temperature trend -- global mean temperature has both risen and fallen during the period atmospheric carbon dioxide has been rising.
The natural world has tolerated greater than one-degree fluctuations in mean temperature during the relatively recent past and thus current changes are within the range of natural variation. (See, for example, ice core (http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/Greenland_GISP2.html) and sea surface temperature (http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/Sargasso.html) reconstructions.)
Other anthropogenic effects are vastly more important, at least on local and regional scales.
Fixation on atmospheric carbon dioxide is a distraction from these more important anthropogenic effects.
Despite attempts to label atmospheric carbon dioxide a "pollutant" it is, in fact, an essential trace gas, the increasing abundance of which is a bonus for the bulk of the biosphere.
There is no reason to believe that slightly lower temperatures are somehow preferable to slightly higher temperatures - there is no known "optimal" nor any known means of knowingly and predictably adjusting some sort of planetary thermostat.
Fluctuations in atmospheric carbon dioxide are of little relevance in the short to medium term (although should levels fall too low it could prove problematic in the longer-term).
Activists and zealots constantly shrilling over atmospheric carbon dioxide are misdirecting attention and effort from real and potentially addressable local, regional and planetary problems.

[cpdude]

Purchasing Carbon Credits to benefit Global Warming is like saying the oceans are rising too high, you are no longer allowed to throw rocks into the water.

It's a scam and it's so insignificant it's ridiculous!:ugh:

[freightdoggiedog]

Geez, and there I was trusting the best minds and the most distinguished scientists the world has to offer, practically all of whom (if you've ever put your nose into a Scientific American or a New Scientist) have reached consensus that global warming IS a threat and IS largely due to human activity... when all I had to do was log on to PPRUNE and discover it's all bollox!!! :ok:

Next thing they'll want us to believe we really walked on the moon... :}

[Avitor]

That man can influence climate change is, imo bollox. It is a political ploy to get their hands in our pockets.

[Apple Tree Yard]

Freight doggie...you are typically guilty of espousing the usual false propoganda. The facts are that there is NO consensus whatsoever amongst scientists. There are as many leading scientists who debunk the idea of 'global warming' as there are who support it. Never mind the fact that the world's average temp has actually DECREASED 3 of the past 5 years. The world goes through millenial cooling and heating cycles....5 to 10 thousand years on average. The real irony is that the same scientists who say we are about to 'burn up' are the very same ones who were warning about the coming ice age 30 years ago.... Let's worry about doing something about issues we can actually effect, like disease prevention, poverty...education etc, etc. We can have sod-all effect on the climate.

[GlueBall]

SIC ". . . So you figure all the crap I see in the air here in Hong Kong has no affect whatsoever on the earth or our climate. Human created carbon is insignificant??"


Yes, so totally insignificant [except for your health]. In fact the human existence on this planet is but a blip in time. Over the past estimated 4.5 billion years, this planet has had more tectonic, volcanic, climate, ice age, meteorite upheavals than what our collective, man-made pollution will ever produce, nuclear bombs included.

Just to give you a small grip on reality: Imagine that a single eruption of just ONE volcano, such as when in 1980 Mt. St Helens had blown its top, has spewed more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere than all of the world's automobiles from day one.

Yes, we are in a global warming period, but it has nothing to do with what we do. Because in the cosmological calendar, what we do is infinitesimal and unmeasurable. Besides, the next inbound 1Km-sized asteroid will have us go by the way of the dinosaurs. :{

[Apple Tree Yard]

Nearly all of the climate variation in temperature is caused by changing solar activity. As the previous poster mentioned, a single eruption like St Helens pushed into the atmosphere more carbon than all the automobiles since their invention. As another poster also said, man is responsible for between 3 and 5 % of the annual total. What difference would we make even if we spent hundreds of trillions. Oh, and another thing, those stupid little hybrid cars...they are actually MORE polluting to the enviornment than regular cars. When you take into account the harm to the enviornment caused by the production and disposal of their batteries, a regular car is about 30% less polluting over its lifetime. Once again, another looney liberal idea that is actually more harmful. :ugh:

'...the road to hell is paved with good intentions...'

[freightdoggiedog]

Oh I'm with you gentlemen, absolutely: it's those tree-hugging liberal power-lobbies to blame, the dirt-poor and powerless oil corporations and car-makers haven't got a chance against such financial and political clout, I mean they're limping all the way to the bank bare-footed through the melting snow (sniffle). Those glaciers in the alps and the vanishing ice caps at the poles are in on the scam too. And hey, if during the summers the north pole is now ice-free it's good for the shipping routes; business as usual. Let the bears swim, I say, they're all fat anyway. :}

To get back OT, whether you "believe" in global warming or not, Joe Public generally does, and I think CX is wise to be seen as concerned and doing something about it.

Sorry, must run now and feed my silly Scientific Americans to the bonfire, they're full of harmful and wildly inaccurate propaganda... ;)

[Apple Tree Yard]

So, exactly how are we going to 'change the climate'...? Considering that we effect only a very small percentage of the total annual emissions. Fascinating how some people can't use logic to reach the obvious conclusion. Please explain why the world was much warmer during the middle ages....must have been all those nasty cars...! Oh, and btw, where is the ice age these same scientists were predicting was imminent during the late 70's..? Must have been a quick one. Funny thing about it...these same scientists were suggesting we should quickly find a way to 'warm up' the planet.....good thing we didn't do that huh? Why don't you go down to the pub and stop worrying about something you can't do a thing about either way. The world will warm and cool as it has done for millions of years. It is the height of conciet to think that 'we' can have an effect on something as vast and complicated as climate. Feel free to live in fear of the poor polar bears disappearing though. http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/puppy_dog_eyes.gif

[freightdoggiedog]

I appreciate global warming and man's contribution to it is an extremely complex, contentious and (for some) emotive issue. The myriad interrelationships between water vapor cycles, marine salinity and conveyor belts, ice cover and reflectivity, run-away phenomena, CO2 and other greenhouse gasses are certainly beyond the ability for your average layman (as I believe we all are on this forum, being mostly pilots) to appreciate. You wouldn't expect your average scientist to be able to command a B777, so why expect your average pilot to master the intricacies of climate change?

So to my mind, it boils down to two simple questions:

WHO DO YOU TRUST? (and who has the most to gain or lose?)

I assume we can safely discount internet conspiracy-theory crackpot sites as sources of verifiable information, else you may as well believe the earth is flat, Elvis is alive, Amelia Earhart was abducted by aliens and 9/11 was a CIA plot. So who do you turn to for trustworthy information?

Do you listen to the trained biologists, chemists, physicists and climatologists who have dedicated their life to studying these issues, especially if writing in well-respected, peer-reviewed scientific publications? In those forums, the discourse has long since turned from "is this really happening and are we playing a part?" to "uh-oh, what do we do now?" The only scientists bucking this trend unsurprisingly and inevitably turn out to be on the paybooks of the seven sisters and all those manufacturing/heavy industry corporations who stand to lose MUCHO DINERO. Until fairly recently, big tobacco was still producing "scientists" with "evidence" that smoking was really not that bad for you...

Or do you really believe that New Scientist et al are just going for a quick buck by scare-mongering and thus selling a few more copies?

WHAT ARE THE CONSEQUENCES OF GETTING IT WRONG?

Even if the best and brightest minds of our generation and most of the scientific establishment have it all wrong, what do we stand to lose? We re-gear our economies towards renewable energy and efficient use of resources, we spend less to fill up our energy-efficient cars, we eat fish without that pleasant mercury aftertaste, and God forbid, we breathe cleaner air in southeast asia?

But what if the climate change deniers have it wrong?

Just my two PPMs of carbon worth, don't shoot the messenger just because you don't like the message :ok:

[freightdog188]

my thoughts exactly. :ok:

[Air Profit]

A few simple FACTS:

1) there is no consensus

2) even spending trillions, we would barely budge the meter

3) most of the 'pro global warming scientists' stand to recieve billions in funds...those that say it isn't an issue will get...NOTHING! (wonder why the pro scientists are pro..hmm, tough one that!)

4) the earth has been cooling and heating on a fairly regular schedule, closely following solar cycles

5) the trillions of dollars at stake would be FAR better of being spent on something that will actually benefit mankind. My loved ones will most likely die of cancer rather than 'global warming'....so you figure it out, where do you think the money should be applied?

....why bother arguing with reason....:ugh:

[freightdog188]

Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, the concentrations of most of the greenhouse gases have increased. For example, the concentration of carbon dixode has increased by about 36% to 380 ppmv, or 100 ppmv over modern pre-industrial levels. The first 50 ppmv increase took place in about 200 years, from the start of the Industrial Revolution to around 1973; however the next 50 ppmv increase took place in about 33 years, from 1973 to 2006.

Recent data also shows the concentration is increasing at a higher rate. In the 1960s, the average annual increase was only 37% of what it was in 2000 through 2007.


guess that's just coincidence, then...

[Air Profit]

Public Information Statement
National Weather Service New York Ny
455 Pm Edt Wed Jul 1 2009

...unusually Wet And Cool June For Central Park...

For Some Perspective...here Are The Top Ten Coolest And Wettest
Junes On Record Since 1869 For Central Park Ny:

Coolest Wettest
Avg. Temp. Year Inches Precip. Year
64.2 1903 10.27 2003
65.2 1881 10.06 2009
65.7 1916 9.78 1903
66.8 1926/1902 9.30 1972
67.2 1958 8.79 1989
67.3 1927 8.55 2006
67.4 1928 7.76 1887

67.5 2009/1897 7.58 1975 (coldest since the late 19th century!)

67.7 1878 7.13 1938
67.8 1924 7.05 1871


Due To The Unusually Cool And Wet Conditions In June...here Are Some
Interesting Facts To Note:

This June Is Tied For The 8th Coolest On Record. The Average
Temperature Was 67.5...3.7 Degrees Below Normal...which Also
Occurred In 1897.

This Was The Coolest June Since 1958...when The Average Temperature
Was 67.2 Degrees.

Below Average Temperatures Occurred On 23 Out Of 30 Days This
June...or 75 Percent Of The Month.

Central Park Has Not Hit 90 Degrees In The Month Of June This Year.
The Last Time This Occurred Was Back In 1996.

Central Park Has Not Hit 85 Degrees In The Month Of June This Year.
The Last Time This Occurred Was Back In 1916. This Has Only Occurred
2 Other Times...1903 And 1886.

The Last Time That Central Park Hit 90 Or Greater This Year Was In
April. The Last Time That Central Park Hit 90 In April...but Not In
June Was Back In 1990.

The Last Time That Central Park Hit 85 Or Greater This Year Was In
May. The Last Time That Central Park Hit 85 In May...but Not In June
Was Back In 1903. The Last Time That Central Park Hit 85 In
April...but Not In June Was Also Back In 1903.

The Lowest Temperature Reached In Central Park In The Month Of June
Was 50 Degrees. The Last Time This Occurred Was Back In 2003.

The Low Temperature Dipped Below 60 Degrees 11 Times In The Month Of
June. The Last Time This Occurred Was In 2003 When It Occurred 17
Times.


ps...freightdog...how much are you willing to spend to have sod all effect on the actual yearly amount of carbon release (remember, man is responsible for a little more than 3% of the total each year). No matter how much we turned our societies upside down in pursuit of the futile, we would make almost NO difference. For every gram we save, China/India will produce two....

[Air Profit]

Freightdog, perhaps you should hold onto your winter coat just a little while longer....:ok:

Dr. Kenneth Tapping is worried about the sun. Solar activity comes in regular cycles, but the latest one is refusing to start. Sunspots have all but vanished, and activity is suspiciously quiet. The last time this happened was 400 years ago -- and it signaled a solar event known as a "Maunder Minimum," along with the start of what we now call the "Little Ice Age."Tapping, a solar researcher and project director for Canada's National Research Council, says it may be happening again. Overseeing a giant radio telescope he calls a "stethoscope for the sun," Tapping says, if the pattern doesn't change quickly, the earth is in for some very chilly weather. [ICSC 2/9/08 (http://www.climatescienceinternational.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=31:vanishing-sunspots-prelude-to-global-cooling&catid=1:latest)]
http://whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/sunspots_number.png
Over the past year, anecdotal evidence for a cooling planet has exploded. China has its coldest winter in 100 years. Baghdad sees its first snow in all recorded history. North America has the most snowcover in 50 years, with places like Wisconsin the highest since record-keeping began. Record levels of Antarctic sea ice, record cold in Minnesota, Texas, Florida, Mexico, Australia, Iran, Greece, South Africa, Greenland, Argentina, Chile -- the list goes on and on. No more than anecdotal evidence, to be sure. But now, that evidence has been supplanted by hard scientific fact. All four major global temperature tracking outlets (Hadley, NASA's GISS, UAH, RSS) have released updated data. All show that over the past year, global temperatures have dropped precipitously. [DailyTech 2/27/2008 (http://www.dailytech.com/Temperature+Monitors+Report+Worldwide+Global+Cooling/article10866.htm)]

[Air Profit]

Why confuse the myth with facts huh Freightdog...?

http://whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/globaltemperature1979-2008b.gif

[Air Profit]

...here's another 'Inconvenient Truth'...:ok:

Arctic ice extent was 30 per cent greater on August 11, 2008 than it was on the August 12, 2007: (notice the extent of arctic ice has been INCREASING the past several years.....yea, those 'poor polar bears' again!)
http://whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/arctic_sea_ice.gif

[Air Profit]

The period between about 1645 and 1715 was particularly cold and coincides with the Maunder Minimum, where only about 50 sunspots appeared, compared to an expectation of from 40,000 to 50,000. [New American (http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech-mainmenu-30/environment/759)] [In 2008 the Sun] hit a 50-year low in solar wind pressure, a 55-year low in radio emissions, and a 100-year low in sunspot activity. [BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8008473.stm)]
Realtime sun image
http://whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/sun2_small2.jpg
Click for full size. (http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/data/realtime/mdi_igr/1024/latest.html)
http://whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/lions_global_warming.jpg



hmm....why don't you ask these African lions what they think of 'global warming'...?

[Air Profit]

And as for the 'legitimacy' and 'integrity' of the so-called 'experts' on global warming:

NASA's press office "marginalized or mischaracterized" studies on global warming between 2004 and 2006, the agency's own internal watchdog concluded. In a report released Monday [4/4/2008], NASA's inspector general office called it "inappropriate political interference" by political appointees in the press office. [PhysOrg (http://www.physorg.com/news131687979.html)] A simple method of manipulating surface temperature data which does not involve rocket science is to place temperature monitors in areas prone to heating or next to heat outlets (http://www.surfacestations.org/odd_sites.htm).
http://whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/incinerator2.jpg
Temperature monitor next to incinerator (http://whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/incinerator.jpg)

[Air Profit]

April 6, 2008...7:11 am
No rise in world temperatures for the past decade, UN’s top weather man admits in BBC news revelation that also concedes some scientists doubt climate change theory

Jump to Comments (http://poneke.wordpress.com/2008/04/06/nina/#comments)
Sometimes there is a simple fact that is impossible to ignore. I have been vaguely aware of claims that the earth’s temperature has not warmed one little bit for a decade now, but had assumed they were the manufacturings of the anti-globalwarmists, so I ignored them. But on Friday night it leapt from the middle of a weather item buried in the BBC World news. It therefore must be true, and I say that with no sense of irony.
The BBC has been to the forefront internationally of promoting scare stories about man-made global warming. Scarcely a week goes by without its running several items purporting to show warming this or melting that is being caused by human-originated greenhouse gas emissions.
But the BBC also seeks to maintain its credibility and its deserved reputation for accuracy and reliability. Thus, while its bulletins are usually politically correct (and I mostly like political correctness, so I am not using the term disparagingly), its news editors also try to ensure they get inconvenient truths into a story, no matter how unpalatable that may be.
The story that caught my attention was well into one of BBC World’s regular hourly bulletins and started off innocuously enough. Reporter Roger Harrabin told us that global temperatures this year will be lower than in 2007 because of the cooling effect of La Nina.
La Nina, of course, is why Wellington has been enjoying the best summer in a decade (http://poneke.wordpress.com/2008/03/18/clock/), and I have been grateful to it for that. It is the opposing oceanic-atmospheric phenomenon to the more annoying, more powerful El Nino. During La Nina, the sea surface temperature across the equatorial Eastern Central Pacific Ocean is lower than normal, and it affects weather in much of the world.
Half-listening to the item and mentally thanking La Nina again, I was astonished to hear the reporter say that a cooler year this year would mean that global temperatures had not risen since 1998 and that this fact “had prompted some people to question climate change theory.”
Pardon? This explosive factoid is buried in a story about the weather? Surely the fact that global temperatures have not risen for a decade is a major news story? Maybe I got it wrong, maybe I misheard it. I immediately clicked on to the BBC news website and there it was again, the same explosive fact (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7329799.stm), again buried in the same story about La Nina.
The story quotes no less an authority than the secretary-general of the World Meteorological Organisation, Michel Jarraud, hardly someone the True Believers could label a “denier,” that appalling term they use to try to shut down anyone who questions even the most extreme claims about climate change.
“El Nino warms the planet when it happens; La Nina cools it,” the BBC story added. Pardon?
It contined: “Mr Jarraud told the BBC that the effect was likely to continue into the summer, depressing temperatures globally by a fraction of a degree. This would mean that temperatures have not risen globally since 1998 when El Nino warmed the world. A minority of scientists question whether this means global warming has peaked and the earth has proved more resilient to greenhouse gases than predicted.”
Pardon? Pardon? Temperatures have not risen globally since 1998 when El Nino warmed the world? So 1998 was a warm year because of El Nino, and average global temperatures have not risen since? And some scientists, even a minority, are having doubts about global warming, when we have been force-fed the mantra of a universal “scientific consensus?”
Why aren’t the news media giving us more information about something like this? Why is the only news of it from a reliable source buried halfway into a weather story halfway through a news bulletin?
This was a genuine revelation to me, because, though I am sceptical about the more extreme claims of the True Believers, and though the news media are beating up the climate change issue (http://poneke.wordpress.com/2008/01/01/2008/) into another Armageddon the way they did with the Y2K Bug and Bird Flu, I really had believed the underlying science, and thought the world had been getting warmer over the past decade, such was the dominance of news items claiming this. They couldn’t all have been wrong, surely?
Of course, given the line pushed for years by the BBC, and the WMO, the story could not end without trying to cast doubt on its own revelations.
It continued: “But Mr Jarraud insisted this was not the case and noted that 1998 temperatures would still be well above average for the century. ‘When you look at climate change you should not look at any particular year,’ he said. ‘You should look at trends over a pretty long period and the trend of temperature globally is still very much indicative of warming’.”
Well, I agree with Michel Jarraud that we should not look at any one year, but at the long term. I get particularly annoyed with the True Believers and journalists who try to blame every cyclone and iceberg on global warming, when there have always been cyclones and icebergs.
But 10 years is a “pretty long period,” and 10 years without any global warming, despite the massive increase in greenhouse emissions over the decade caused by the huge economic growth in China and India, is starting, just starting, to look to me a tad like the boy who cried wolf.

Update 9.35am: Since I published the above at 6.11am, the BBC wesbite version of the story was changed from the original by the addition of contrary opinions and dates being inserted high up in it. Fortunately, I copied the original web story (as also run on the BBC World bulletin on Friday night) and this was it:Global temperatures ‘to decrease’
By Roger Harrabin
BBC News environment analyst
April 4 2008
Global temperatures this year will be lower than in 2007 due to the cooling effect of the La Nina current in the Pacific, UN meteorologists have said.
The World Meteorological Organisation’s secretary-general, Michel Jarraud, told the BBC it was likely that La Nina would continue into the summer.
This would mean global temperatures have not risen since 1998, prompting some to question climate change theory.
But experts have also forecast a record high temperature within five years.
‘Variability’
La Nina and El Nino are two great natural Pacific currents whose effects are so huge they resonate round the world.
El Nino warms the planet when it happens, La Nina cools it. This year, the Pacific is in the grip of a powerful La Nina.
It has contributed to torrential rains in Australia and to some of the coldest temperatures in memory in snow-bound parts of China.
Mr Jarraud told the BBC that the effect was likely to continue into the summer, depressing temperatures globally by a fraction of a degree.
This would mean that temperatures have not risen globally since 1998 when El Nino warmed the world.
A minority of scientists question whether this means global warming has peaked and the earth has proved more resilient to greenhouse gases than predicted.

[alvega]

Guess who is in big business in trading carbon credits nowadays. Yes, that's right, mr. Al Gore (an inconvenient hoax). Humm!!... makes you think, doesn't it?

[alvega]

Global warming alarmism enriches Gore, bankrupts the rest of us - baltimoresun.com (http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bal-op.smith10jul10%2C0%2C7648404.column)


Just a follow up on my previous post, for those interested.

[freightdoggiedog]

An ultra-rightwing columnist giving his opinion on the Baltimore Sun's editorial is your idea of a source??? :ugh:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Smith_(radio_host)

Gentlemen, no matter how many ultra-conservative radio talk-show hosts you quote, or how many graphs from unknown sources you post, anyone can stick their nose into any New Scientist or Scientific American, or even a Nature or Geographic, and see that science plainly HAS come to the conclusion that A) global warming is really happening and B) we are contributing to it.

They may not be agreed as to how much we're contributing or what precisely to do about it, but they all agree that we should probably stop faffing around and act.

Do you really believe there's some sort of "boffin conspiracy" that has managed to pull a charade of this magnitude even though it's against the interests of all the world's big oil companies, manufacturers and most governments? Or isn't it perhaps more likely that we DO have a problem, but it's potentially an expensive one to fix, and guess what, the people who stand to lose most (big oil et al) are furiously trying to sandbag the issue?

Let's face it, I make my living by burning ten-plus tonnes of kerosene per hour and I like my thick cut of rare steak as much as the next guy, but if the world's scientific community tells me that we've been pi$$ing in the corner of our house for too long and that's why it's starting to smell a little, I'll have to trust them over you. And based on my own (admittedly anecdotal) experience of being unable to find any clean air anywhere in the continent of Asia, or my equally unsuccessful attempts in finding a beach anywhere in the world that is not lined with garbage, I fear they may be right (much as I would love for them to be wrong).

All I can do is urge any thinking people out there who are reading this thread to verify for themselves and grab any respectable scientific publication from their library rack and make up their own mind.

PS the Sun, Mirror and the Baltimore Sun do NOT qualify as respectable scientific publications! :}

[boofta]

As a thinking person, I say crap to your argument, there
are about an equal number of naysaying scientist's to the
global warming swindle. About pollution, I totally agree.
The earth will ultimately take revenge on man's stupidity.

[freightdoggiedog]

there
are about an equal number of naysaying scientist's to the
global warming swindle

And that's where it becomes apparent that you haven't looked into a major scientific publication in a while... there IS by now a clear consensus, or as much as there can be on such an important, contentious and divisive issue.

Most laymen also seem to have already made up their mind one way or another, but for those keeping an open mind, please don't get your facts from internet forums where any crank can post anything they want (and yes that includes me :}), but for heaven's sake get your hands on any scientific journal or other reputable and knowledgeable source (and that rules out most journalists) before forming your opinion.

Enough (I'm starting to feel like a tree-hugging proselytizer :suspect:)