大象传媒

Has the US killed any chance of a climate accord at Copenhagen?

Our trans-Atlantic cousins' actions might represent a big straw for this particular camel's (and remember the rather appropriate definition of that animal's design brief) back, but for a UK journalist (especially one going in the name of our national broadcaster) to fly to the USA, again, might look like making such a claim, even just as a 'question', to be pushing the special relationship a tad.

Not to mention ignoring the vast geo-political complexity of the various climate-related issues being stirred up.

But at least that is alluded to in the body of this piece, towards the end.

Talk about tall poppies. The expectation dumped on Obama and his administration seems to be rather coming back to haunt him, them, and those who managed divorce reality from idealistic notions of what might be possible. And pushed a lot of envelopes to where the Royal Mail doesn't collect, much less looking to deliver any time soon.

Especially when, with certain irony, there has been a lot in the interim on what cuts 'others' might be expected to make vs. those 'with important jobs to do'.

An important message seems to be being less than well served by many who see themselves as the 'best' messengers. Again.

Justin Rowlatt.

"The US is no longer the biggest polluting nation on the planet - China knocked it off the top spot last year.."

this bit of misleading information clearly indicates one of the major stumbling blocks for COP15: emissions are only talked about in terms of totals when we should be using per capita figures to get a 'level playing field'.

Justin, what would the historical pollution figures be if European industry hadn't been devastated during the war? I suspect Europe would be right up there with the USA. I guess we should have let ourselves be overrun by the Axis in order to spare the planet, eh?

Obama has scaled back his efforts on climate change because Congress has pointed out to him that while tough rhetoric about climate change is a vote winner, tough action is a vote loser. Americans would rather have a cold beer than a hair shirt.

as an american living in our west i can tell you that the majority of the people who live here are against any cap and trade bill that would raise our cost of living. also, the majority of people i talk to, including me, don't believe in anthropogenic global warming, so therefore, any legislation to reduce emissions is unnecessary. co2 is not a pollutant! it is a necessary component to life on earth. more co2 means more and greener plants which means more oxygen production. the major driver of climate is the SUN along with the pacific decadal oscillation. co2 is a bit player in climate. if the climate is getting warmer (which it has gotten cooler lately) it is not mankinds fault. none of the climate models predicted any type of cooling, just a constant increase in temperature. co2 levels are still rising yet the temperature has dropped over the last ten years. obviously, some other mechanism is at work in climate change.

#4. americanmale wrote:

"..some other mechanism is at work in climate change."

Seems reasonable to me, then we, as a planet, should strive to invest in solutions that are designed to mitigate the effects of Global Warming howsoever it is caused. I accept the data which describes the thinning of the Arctic Polar ice, the speeding up of the glaciers in Greenland and the Antarctic and the break up of some of the ice shelf currently still attached to that continent. Sea level rise seems likely if this continues. (As well as changes in the planetary weather that we have not seen in recent times.)

There is an interesting conference taking place this Wednesday 28th October at Imperial College, London "Climate Change, The Solar Weather Technique & The future of forecasting" and here the non CO2 theories of Global Warming will be aired. americanmale you may be interested by its findings. [Session I (1.15 pm) - Refutation of the CO2 driver theory of Climate Change - And what to do now. Session 2 (3.30pm) - What Does Cause Climate Change etc.]

americanmale #4.

"..the majority of the people who live here are against any cap and trade bill that would raise our cost of living."

not everyone agrees:

ethical man - it sounds like you need to stop your tour of America and go to the conference John_from_Hendon has highlighted. You might also want to read the blog too ... IMHO you should then be upfront and honest with us, and ask yourself the question "am I really on a mission to save the world, or I am just another person joining in on the latest gravy train" ...

There are many eminent climatologists and scientists with opposing views regarding 鈥淐limate Change鈥�; also many people I know with science and engineering backgrounds strongly oppose the establishment鈥檚 view, yet their denial of access to the mainstream media is virtually total.

It is time we had a proper adult debate on the so-called "science" surrounding these claims, as it is clear from the daily newspaper threads (and even recent 大象传媒 HYS) that huge numbers of people simply no longer believe the outputs of this unbalanced one-sided reporting.

From one Justin to another:
I鈥檝e stumbled across your blog and I鈥檓 frankly horrified not only at the self-righteous, indignant anti-Americanism but also the vindictive and accusatory tone you use to demonstrate your virtue.

I suggest you don鈥檛 feel so good when you spy on the fruits of your neighbours鈥� labour because your neighbour does not conform to your worldview, votes for a different party, congregates at another church and makes different life choices, informed by a different set of values, experiences and evaluations about the world in which he/she lives. I find this is a very disturbing, voyeuristic example of how to view other people鈥檚 choices, but I鈥檓 not at all surprised.
And to americanmale, I would like to say that fortunately there are fewer English people that hold the same convictions as Justin Rowlatt than you are led to believe 鈥� and that many of us support and endorse those of you that are against Waxman-Markey because we too can see that lagging lofts and getting the bus are the two of the most futile gestures for saving a planet - that doesn鈥檛 need saving - there is.

Albionbus #8.

"It is time we had a proper adult debate on the so-called "science" surrounding these claims.."

science is major issue on current and previous Richard Black's 'Earth Watch' blog entries.

Ethical man ( my we certainly are full of ourselves aren't we?), You should have started by telling how many European nations FAILED to meet their Kyoto targets?? Also, there is a good paper in the journal of non-equalibrium thermodynamics about joust how absolutely SILLY it is to think we can measure the temperature of the earth to a resolution of a few degrees...much less TENTHS of degrees! "Equally scientifically valid methods can yield opposite trends for a given time period". Your own 大象传媒 just had a piece about how none of the modules predicted the currne tcoooling (10 YEARS!) that we are in. Why do you believe in this silliness? WHere is John Cleese when we need him? To Fly in a CO2 emitting airplane all the way here just to do whatever it is you do ..YOU are KILLING the planet!! Al Gore's house uses 20 times the average as far as energy goes so he is a total HYPOCRIT! Even if he buys green credits, he is still crouding out others in the energy economy and contributing to the problem. Also, his living in such a large house is using resouces and blah blah blah Have a happy day!

justinert #9.

"..I鈥檓 frankly horrified not only at the self-righteous, indignant anti-Americanism but also the vindictive and accusatory tone you use to demonstrate your virtue."

dear oh dear, Justin Rowlatt must be doing something right!

can you please supply quotes from the article to substantiate your claims?

RIGHT ON americanmale! I'm tired of listening to the "global warming" propaganda.

jr4412. you are right, not everyone agrees. however, where i live, which is a huge resort town with some very educated people, the majority do agree that agw is not the cause of global warming. or is it climate change? i'm not saying we shouldn't pursue other forms of energy, that would be foolish. however, until alternate forms are fully developed we shouldn't decrease our dependence on oil as co2 is not a major player in climate change. there may be other consequences we don't understand but global warming is not one of them. i definitely approve of finding better and more economic forms of energy, but until that day oil is what we have got and oil is what we shall use.

americanmale #14.

climate change debate isn't all about CO2 though, what about deforestation, sending toxic industrial waste products to African countries, overfishing, etc.?

modern warfare using DU shells etc doesn't have much of a positive impact either. ;-(

This article just goes to prove what a joke the Nobel Peace Prize award was!.
Mr Obama has given lofty speeches on greenhouse gasses but has got cold feet when the time for action has come - Actions speak louder than words.
I am sure he will be nominated for the Peace Prize again and might even win it again with a few more speeches - Words are cheap!

This is going to an angry rant; so I apologize in advance, but it's something I need to say to my fellow Americans who are reading this.

I have to speak out against americanmale, who seems to be among my more ignorant countrymen.

The way I see it, if your toilet backs up, you call a plumber. If your car is busted, you get a mechanic. If you have a heart attack, you call a cardiologist. If you think there's something wrong with your climate, you talk to a climatologist. And right now, the vast majority of climatologists think that the world is warming and anthropogenic greenhouse gases are the main cause.

Just because A does not equal B doesn't mean there isn't a relation between the two. No, no climatologist will tell you "This WILL cause this" just as no oncologist will say "this particular cigarette will give you cancer." The fact that so many Americans pick out the few inconsistencies in climate science as proof of the entire field's implausibility only highlights how ignorant Americans are in general of scientific process and methodology. That's a bit like cigarette companies saying "Well, if you can't prove my brand of cigarettes gave you cancer, then I'm not responsible for selling you a carcinogenic product." It's intellectually dishonest.

In my honest opinion, most Americans know that the science is against this hopelessly optimistic viewpoint that you can dump gigatons of anything anywhere and not expect some kind of ramification. I think they choose to ignore it because it means now we have to take personal responsibility for our lifestyle. We've built our country up on the idea that your entitled to consume as much as you can afford to pay for (or just borrow to pay for, as our recent credit crisis illustrates) that to say that we may need to moderate that is simply unacceptable, so you manufacture some dissent to reinforce your opinion. You wag the dog a little bit.

The fact is you are NOT entitled to a large house, a big car, and all the other gluttonous activities we engage in as a society (the rest of the world isn't off the ethical hook: they've been all too happy to copy our model). What happened to those much-vaunted national values of frugality, temperance, and honesty with one-self? What of hard-work, sacrifice, and leaving something for the generations yet to come? What of modesty and moderation? What happened to personal responsibility?

No offense to my UK friends, but we've turned into the biggest bunch of hypocrites since the British Empire sought to "Christianize" Africa.

It's time we grew up, America. Suck it up and take responsibility for your actions!

Hi Justin

There's a couple of misleading concepts behind the idea of China overtaking the US in emissions, beyond the historical question.

Firstly on a per person basis, the average Chinese person emits less than 15% of the emissions of the average American.

Secondly much of those Chinese emissions are associated with the production of products for foreign markets, consumed abroad. The nation that consumes the products should be held to account for the emissions, even if they happen in another country.

Will COP15 address this question of emissions of imported goods?

www.biotruckexpedition.org

China and India have already agreed that they will not support internatinal emission standards so what the US does or doesn't do would be only symbolic. The turn down in the global economy has already reduced carbon emissions to some extent. Wind, solar, etc are all being implemented on both the individual and small regional scales. The bankers, whose best use would be to be burned as fuel, but I am sure they are toxic, have also harmed the potential for the development alternative fuels. The facts are that as long as countries rely on carbon based fuels there will the issue of CO2 emissions. Alternative fuels are needed not his playing around the edges with reductions that for the most part will achieve little. The oil and coal industries support this process because they can cry about restrictions, pass on the cost to consumers and maintain the status quo of continued use.

8. At 9:13pm on 26 Oct 2009, Albionbus wrote: "It is time we had a proper adult debate on the so-called "science" surrounding these claims, as it is clear from the daily newspaper threads (and even recent 大象传媒 HYS) that huge numbers of people simply no longer believe the outputs of this unbalanced one-sided reporting."

Disparaging the honest hard work of thousands of scientists by bracketing 'science' with pejorative quotation marks does not make for a robust argument, it merely shows poor manners and is disrespectful. If it is a proper adult debate you want, please come forward and kindly elucidate any flaw in reasoning or methodology that you suspect rather than resort to dismissive punctuation and argument through innuendo.


4. At 4:44pm on 26 Oct 2009, americanmale wrote: "the majority of people i talk to, including me, don't believe in anthropogenic global warming, so therefore, any legislation to reduce emissions is unnecessary."

You do your fellow American males a great disservice with your reasoning, confusing popular belief for fact. It's as ridiculous as if you had stated, 'The majority of people i talk to, including me, don't believe in lead toxicity, so therefore, any legislation to reduce lead content in children's toys is unnecessary.' [BTW, did you mean to suggest that you talk to yourself, or was that just a happy accident?] Please don't take this as an attack on your character, as opposed to your reasoning, when I say, your whole post is filled with similarly embarrassing assertions. I was going to address your claims one by one, but (uncharacteristically perhaps) in the interest of brevity I鈥檒l refer you instead to skepticalscience.com - one of many websites where the big kids play and like to get into the nitty gritty of these things. I cannot help but wonder though how much of the discussion you will actually understand when you don鈥檛 seem even to appreciate nuance - for example, just why CO2 may be classified as a pollutant.

And that there is really the core of the problem with this whole public 鈥榙ebate鈥�. Our lives are increasingly influenced by science that too few of us really understand, yet the vote of the specialist, amateur, and the scientifically illiterate should be weighed equally? On some issues that鈥檚 fine; on issues of global significance, that鈥檚 frankly disturbing.

Last Chance for Fairness. Roger Clark


One of the foundation stones for human society was the principle of 'fairness'.
Indeed, not just humans but most social animals (chimps, bonobos, crows etc) recognise this code.
One might claim the concept is a primary component of forming a society, and as societies outlive the individual, so it becomes a reinforced survival trait. And as a social meme, it evolves... over countless generations.

It has some interesting corollaries:


A Set of Rules: The Law

Although biologically set, fairness is subjectively applied, and to be regulated by society it needs rules.
Even in the most primitive societies these evolve; The Ten Commandments being a relatively recent example.
Next, as society coagulates into larger lumps, you need a National Law, a Constitution, a Magna Carta.
Further on, an International Law, a Global set of rules.
Perhaps one day, a Universal Law, a Cosmic Charter even.

Democracy, Freedom of Speech, Universal Suffrage, Human Rights, Racial Equality are merely spin-offs of the fairness theme. This has extended to Animal Rights, Freedom of Information, and all the other PC stuff.

Whenever the government cheats and robs you; stealth taxes, warmongering, wire-tapping, zero-tolerance policies, it offends your sense of fairness even if they can claim it is 'legal'. It is a reminder of how far we have come from simple principles to the (some would say over-) complex rulebooks of today.

A grand cycle from innate fairness, through basic Law, ending in over-regulated mindlessness. Such is the rise and fall of civilisations.


God and Religion

Life is unjust; nature, your rulers and your enemies conspire to shaft you.
Even life itself is intensely unfair; you just get your act together and your thoughts and finances straight by about the age of sixty, for your body to start telling you it?s time to die. What a waste of all that experience, stability and resources; all those struggles.

You need three things for a good life: health, means and the time to enjoy them.
When you are young you have health, time but not the means.
In your middle years, you have health, means but no time.
When you are old you have the time and the means, but not the health.
How inherently iniquitous can life be?

And society doesn't help.. you are robbed, and the police tell you they are too busy catching people who drive too fast. Your insurance company wriggles out of its commitments through some legal loophole. You are prosecuted because some burglar got hurt while you were struggling to defend your property, your life even.

So you need someone to appeal to, some universal ombudsman...
Rather than just hearing your plea, better if they are endowed with the power to do something about it.
And with the Book of Justice in their mighty mitt!

So why doesn't it happen? Where is my avenger, my compensation, my closure?
Ah, you have to wait.. maybe even until your after-life. Nothing is instant, you know.
So pray quietly in the privacy of your home, your bedroom, and be patient.
God has heard you and written it down in his Big Book.

So our desire for fairness, for justice for balance, especially in times of repression, drives us to seek God.
And politicising of this urge by society leads naturally to religion, 'the opiate of the masses'.
Its attendant add-ons: after-life, heaven, judgement, purgatory, neatly crafted to motivate us to tow the line, be good citizens, even fight for the cause!
Then, of course, the greed of the Church usurps the Religion.. everybody must give 10% of his income... leave to the church your best olive trees, else no redemption; we need more soldiers, ban contraception.

So typically human; from a concept of fairness full circle to "Let's clobber them over there because they believe in a different God".


Buddha

Now Buddha had a different take... out with the Gods and in with Karma.
Your fate, actions and reactions are training.
You are robbed to teach you about equality, about giving.
You are lied to to teach you about equanimity, composure, tolerance.
The government cheats and robs you to teach you about humility, about joy in small things.

So what add-ons does this invoke?
Well, you are judged again.. bad Karma means you end up as an insect in the next life.
Next Life?
Yes, we live thru a series of lives designed to hone us and allow us to lift ourselves to universal enlightenment.
Wow, that's cool. When do I get there?
Have patience; life is the journey not the getting there.. Enjoy, learn, love your brothers and sisters.

Sounds too good to be true; and indeed it claims to be a belief, a way of life, rather than a religion. So it's more difficult to politicise, and thus less 'successful' if you measure success in a non-Buddhist way. It can't compete.



So Where is Fairness in 2009?

Fairness was heavily eroded during the Bush/Cheney tyranny. The 'War on Terror' was invented to divert attention from a corrupt leadership. Other nations followed suit, chiselling away at their citizens freedoms in the name of Security. The Law was not only disregarded, but blatantly perverted.
The other foundations of fairness are being eroded; religion is in disrepute, either irrelevant or hijacked by extremists. Karma is replaced by consumerism.
The naked truth of Atheism is no consolation, nor the revelations of Science or the wonders of Engineering.

Global Warming has highlighted the worldwide nature of unfairness. The developed nations have burnt the coal, exploited their production capabilities, had the luxuries, and are determined to hang onto them.
The developing nations now have chainsaws and bulldozers and the ability to cut down rainforest seven times faster than it can replace itself. Their populations are burgeoning, demanding more food, more power, more everything.
More people are shouting "More"
Everyone else is shouting "Not Less"
Various agencies calculate our current consumption as being between 2 Earths Capacities and 7.

The Internet, too, plays its part. Whereas historically the rich have lived in luxury behind high walls, now they are subject to the glare of publicity; Google Earth reveals all.
Want a bigger television? There it is at http//www.GettaBiggaBox.com
Can't afford it? not available in your region? for members only? that's not fair!
Can't wait for the film to come to your local cinema? Steal it, download it!
Disquieting ideas which you perceived vaguely before are now revealed, discussed, exposed even.
Forget the quiet grumblings of your bedside prayers and put it all on a blog which will wind up the world. For sure if it is spread wide enough it will offend someone; the Jews, the Sunnis, the Orthodox Christians, the Mormons, the Aborigines.


Give it Up?

So in 2010 will Global citizens abandon the concept of Fairness?
No, they cannot. It is deeply built into human nature, however much it has been subsequently concreted over.

And if it is not attainable?
They will do what they have always done? Fight!
Liberte, Equalite, Fraternite has forever been an irresistible rallying call.

Will logic and caution restrain them?
No Way! Countless psychological tests have proved that humans will take huge losses to punish someone who they perceive to have cheated them.
Mutually Assured Destruction is not sufficient disincentive in these circumstances.


Last Chance

The UN negotiations in Copenhagen in December this year are supposed to be the venue for negotiating a replacement for the Kyoto Protocol. Already there are signs of cheating.. many countries have declared unilateral carbon reduction targets, thus building lines of defence to hide behind when they should be open to discussion.
China has openly stated it will not cut emissions in the near future, and Africa is more concerned with extracting 'compensation' from the climate process, most of which will end up in Presidential Bank Accounts.

This conference will be heavily monitored and widely discussed; probably more than any previous assembly. The ordinary people of the world will be watching; many of them acutely aware of the issues involved and how it will affect them and their families.

If the politicians fudge it again, refusing to grasp the nettle, hiding behind rhetoric and obfuscations, kowtowing to their domestic interests and coming up with no meaningful deal, there will be hell to pay.. everybody in the world will feel cheated.
And they will react, in their millions. Not overnight, of course, it takes time to prepare for war.

And don't imagine it won't affect you.. there's only one atmosphere, one ocean and, for us humans, no escape from human nature.

When Obama was elected we all believed that he would make a difference, and that change really had come to America.

The American people perhaps, but not American Politics. Obama still got into office only by knowing the right people, and being funded by the right businessmen. The businessmen that then come to him and the other politicians that get elected when they want to stop or start new laws and regulations.

Obama's reign has so far been underwhelming and he has failed to implement most of the things he based his presidential campaign around. will be no different, not when the US economy is already failing, and their big businesses are making billions from the price of oil.

People need to take a real look at Congress. It is simply corrupt. The President can try to do this or that but Congress is owned by powerful special interest whose interest is not the interest of the people.

# 21:

The Buddha says nothing and hears nothing. There is human suffering because it is a condition of the existence. There are niether rewards nor punishments.

18. At 2:31pm on 27 Oct 2009, Biotruck wrote:
Hi Justin

There's a couple of misleading concepts behind the idea of China overtaking the US in emissions, beyond the historical question.

Firstly on a per person basis, the average Chinese person emits less than 15% of the emissions of the average American.

I would have to say that your statement is a bit of a red herring. The fact that China is way to far over populated sort of balances out, take the per person basis then redo the math to reflect population and it is hands down China. Don't get me wrong that does not let the US off the hook but let us be realistic.

Aside from pollutants the planet is already servicing well over 200% the human population that is sustainable. Remove 1/2 the humans on earth and we will be much better off. No one would want to discuss that but even aside from our industrial pollution the human pollution does not help as far as sustainable eco friendliness goes. To go a step farther, even if we fixed the 鈥榗limate issues鈥� over then next decade there will still be drought and poor farming in the future as we have far too many people to feed and water then is sustainable.

20. At 03:50am on 28 Oct 2009, bushouhige-murph wrote:

bushouhinge, Thanks for the web site . I will continue to research but, already I am wondering where the funding comes from, as with most things, be it political or scientific opinion the most intelligent question we can ask is where does the money for this come from? Often when an issue becomes political money tends to go to those of the 鈥榞ood鈥� opinion (I AM NOT saying this is the case with THIS web site specifically but, that it happens is undisputable) 鈥楽cience鈥� has become it鈥檚 own religion and like organized religion 鈥榮cience鈥� is not to be trusted. Once science and religion agreed the world was flat and the earth was the center of the universe and those who disagreed were ridiculed or worse..

Don鈥檛 get me wrong Science (noticed this time unquoted) should be trusted as it is based on extended testing, retesting, and verification, re-verification and then external confirmation. If you can not recreate the result it is not scientifically 鈥榩roven鈥�

I only mention this as your posts, although well written and intelligent often seemed to be laced with 鈥榮cience be praised鈥� type language and then the skeptic-skeptic website makes me think you may be a full blown devotee unwilling to consider the other side. Now I will review the website more and watch for your posts and apologize if I feel I have misjudged it and you but, as you are all over this blog I though it important to question.

I see this question about where the science research money comes from a lot. It seems to assert that scientists are driven by pursuit of grant money above all else. I have a couple of earth science degrees and work outside academia. I'm an avid student of what used to be called 'natural history' and follower of as many fields as scant time allows. I'm also trying to raise my kids with enough scientific/skeptical thinking skills to see through life's smoke and mirrors.

Where does the money for both sides of the 'debate' come from? The money to lobby against IPCC, the money to lobby against cigarette/cancer links, against asbestos claims, etc. all came plentifully from BIG business. That money feeds what seems to me to be a largely false 'debate'. And that money feeds many lawyers who have more financial stake than scientists.

The grant money that scientists get is pretty pitiful in comparison; nobody chooses the fairly austere and intensely busy years that an academic scientist spends in grad school and on the tenure track to get rich. It is more of a 'calling' profession that people choose for non-monetary reasons just as some select the health care or education fields or become poor outdoor guides rather than rich bankers. Most academic researchers I know in the earth sciences have a specialty that they apply to several different research problems, and I don't know any hitched to a single topic or a grant 'gravy train' as so many climate change skeptics suggest is typical of science.

Scientists are human and once can dig up examples or rivalry, pettiness, and grudging credit to colleagues; egos can get in the way of some people's best work. But by and large they are a group driven by a simple quest for truth. Everything that I know about the field from my education does not square with the depiction of scientists as a colluding gang of grant-seekers plotting a vast scientific-political global warming conspiracy. That story may sell books or sound good 30 seconds at a time from pundits, but it does not ring true. The follow-the-money arguments tell us instead to look more closely at BIG fossil fuel businesses and vested interets, and their lobbyists.

There are some open questions to fill in details about climate change, such as the exact role of sunspots, clouds, etc. Those questions of detail don't seem to change the massive evidence piling up more each day of retreating glaciers, melting permafrost, earlier springs, forest blights, animal and disease movements, that all tell us the earth is warming and at an atypically fast rate.

11. At 9:44pm on 26 Oct 2009, terabika wrote:
==============================================================
Europeans may have failed, the rest of the world (excluding America) is not doing any better. Not a european, not an american either.

The point here is not to blame anybody, everybody is in this together. I suppose you must have heard about the melting ice and following flooding of our coastal cities. So we're pretty sure about the temperature going up - their is pictorial evidence (from NASA) to support lessening ice in the arctic. There is video evidence of huge chunks of ice breaking from antartica and greenland too.

Next I should add the ocean doesn't care much for ethnicity, history, geographical boundaries etc. When it floods - it floods everywhere pretty much the same. Now if you dont live in a low elevation coastal city then you might be feeling a little pissed off that you have to pay for problems other people will have.

But I have 2 ideas for you to think over:
1. if coastal cities start to flood - all those people living in those cities will move to where you live. Think crowding - not to mention a big mess in your city as well, more taxes on people for government to help people in distress and so on. Insurance rates and the whole shebang.

2. Secondly if there is variation in the size of water bodies there is more climate change - freakier storms and the like.

Anyways helping the earth freeze that ice on the poles is not a bad idea.