Who's Telling Who?
- 17 Jun 06, 12:05 PM
Hello, Beatrice here - one of the team out in Greenland at the moment. Just wanted to mention a bit about the people living here in East Greenland. We've asked people living here, like Carl in the picture above, if they've noticed the weather changing, ice melting etc and how they feel about it. Carl said he can feel that it's getting warmer - but when we asked him whether this worries him, he said that there are other issues in the community to worry more about at the moment, like the pollution from the open waste dump, social problems, noise pollution from the helicopters coming and going....
We spoke to Dinas, a hunter. He also told us how the weather is changing here, how it's much warmer than it used to be. He said that a benefit of this is that there's more cod here now, which is a good thing for hunters. There are quotas for the amount of polar bears & narwhal the East Greenlanders are allowed to hunt each year, but Dinas feels that these quotas have not been based on studies of animal populations in East Greenland, populations that his family have known and respected for generations, or set by people from East Greenland. Traditionally, hunting in East Greenland is about community rather than personal enterprise. It's the person who first sees the polar bear who is awarded the skin, the person who shoots it gets one of the legs, the first one to touch it another part and so on. The kill is shared out and every part of the animal is used. Dinas worries that the introduction of quotas will make hunting more competitive amongst individuals as there is a limit to the number of animals that can been killed, and so a limit to the number of people who can profit from these kills.
Jacqueline McGlade, Exec Director of the EEA, has also told us about the high levels of toxins (travelling north from Europe) that have got into the food chain here, so high that women are being advised not to breast feed. It seems very strange as Greenland, with all its ice, looks so pure and beautiful. It's hard to imagine this invisible poison...
Comments Post your comment
Ice Maidens & colleagues,
I think I can see you!
and
or just google earth
66 14 13.76N 37 51 44.80W
xx
ed
Complain about this post
How refreshing that the Real Greenlanders are more worried about their everyday problems than the fanciful eco-babble which so permeates the 大象传媒 these days. Yes you can ask rhetorical questions of locals and elevate their subjective answers to the point of unquestioned validity.A recent paper in Geophysiacl Research letters indicates that warming trends on Greenland are nothing new, in fact the warming trend of 1920-30 was 50% more than that of 1995-2005. Yet, I suppose this is an American organisation and these are all lies - one thing is sure the story will not appear on the 大象传媒 news.
Complain about this post
Ice Maidens & colleagues,
One for any Forest Nymphs who are feeling a wee bit bereft of trees in that ice-bound landscape. From a friend in the Rocky Mountains (one for Howard?):
It's a draft article on the effects of land-use changes on climate.
Hope it's useful.
Vaya con Gaia
ed
Complain about this post
Here's an interesting one suggesting that the fundamental basis of the anthropogenic warming thesis may be wrong:
And here's one discussing the apparent retreat of ice and the supposed rising sea levels:
And an accessible summary of the connections between solar cycles and warming/cooling phases on Earth:
Complain about this post
Euan,
Your first learned professor does indeed cast doubt on the paleoclimate data, but has nothing to say regarding the more recent measurements of atmospheric CO2, which all have pronounced upward trends, as can be seen here:.
There is no evidence that he ever appeared before the named Senate committee, and the paper was never published in a peer-reviewed publication.
Some background on the main sources for your second and third links:
and
and
Do I detect the sulphurous stink of vested interests?
Vaya con Gaia
ed
Complain about this post
Professor Zbigniew Jaworowski's debunking debunked:
The rest are from sources funded by coal and oil interests.
Vaya con Gaia
ed
Complain about this post
I don't think it matters who funds sources, provided the data is accurate. I assume you would not discredit pro-warming statements from environmentalist groups with an anti-capitalist or pro-state agenda, because they too might be biased? No? Thought not.
There's no doubt oil and coal lobbies want to encourage scepticism about warming, because it's in their fiscal interest to do so. Equally, there's no doubt that anthropogenic warming advocates in academia and government want to play up the issue, because their jobs and grants depend on it. Who to believe?
There is a substantial body of evidence that links warming unambiguously to the solar cycle and which demonstrates weaknesses and speculation in the anthropogenic models. The models don't work very well, cannot explain previous experiences with high CO2 and low temperature nor low CO2 and high temperature, and don't relate to current actual conditions from their assumed starting points. The correlation between solar output and warming is striking, that between CO2 and warming extremely unconvincing. On the balance of probability, the rational mind without a vested interest must conclude that the anthropogenic warming thesis is at a minimum in serious trouble, and quite possibly just plain wrong.
Incidentally, I followed through the various links provided. From Tim Lambert one eventually gets to a "devastating" debunking of the graphs linking solar output with warming. Two data points right at the end change, but the overall effect is unchanged and warming still tracks solar output very closely. Now it appears they say "ah, but...*this* current bit of warming isn't to do with the sun...err...even if all the rest of it is." Big deal. Colour me unconvinced, if that's the "critique"
Also, Sourcewatch is hardly an unbiased outfit itself, drawing most of its practical support from anticapitalist / anti-western organisations. Perhaps in your own logic they shouldn't be believed, because they clearly are tainted?
Complain about this post
"I assume you would not discredit pro-warming statements from environmentalist groups with an anti-capitalist or pro-state agenda, because they too might be biased? No? Thought not."
Carry on making assumptions, if you wish, but remember: a good scientist remembers that assumptions are just that, and poorly-informed ones are just that as well. From your own blog, you appear to be more pro-state than I.
As to solar forcings, it may well be 'different this time', as never before has there been a population of creatures spanning almost all landmasses and releasing carbon (and energy) stored over billennia in mere centuries.
I also noted that one of the sceptical papers I perused discarded urban heat islands as irrelevant to the examination of anthropogenic warming....
Vaya con Gaia
ed
Complain about this post
You see, this interview perfectly demonstrates how shortsighted humankind at large is about the approaching catastrophe. In my mind's eye, I can almost see how, while we will be preoccupied with the mundane matters of day-to-day existence, our follies will come back to us.
My point is that climate change should not be regarded as something that is remote from our lives. Quite the contrary. It's ramifications will be ours and ours alone to suffer. In any case, I believe the time for action is past. Gloomy as this not-quite-original prediction may sound, the chain of events soon to impact our lives has already been set into motion. Our indifference, meanwhile, is the perfect catalyst.
Complain about this post
"In any case, I believe the time for action is past. Gloomy as this not-quite-original prediction may sound, the chain of events soon to impact our lives has already been set into motion. Our indifference, meanwhile, is the perfect catalyst."
Amen to that, sadly, but action there will be - and panic and all.
We are destined to live in interesting times.
xx
ed
Complain about this post
Great article.
Complain about this post
Oh dear, so much hot air on both sides. There is no doubt that global warming is occurring - glaciers are melting, sea level rising, species limits creeping polewards. It doesn't matter whether the 'cause' is solar or human, the latter is making some contribution regardless of any effect of the former, so we need to control our input to the problem (i.e. to reduce our output of greenhouse gases) if we are to stand any chance of influencing the rate of change.
With a burgeoning population all generating roughly 100 watts each as well as making increasing demands for energy to fund their lifestyles (me included) we shall probably soon (geologically speaking) achieve a virtual monoculture of human beings supported by similar monocultures of those species required to maintain us.
Ever since I read (at school) that economic growth needs to be about 5% per annum, I have wondered why and I still have no sensible answer. Who or what is it that gives you the extra 5%? Seems to me that ultimately it is the planet. In less than my lifetime, 5% annual compound growth over 50 years leads to an 18-fold increase over base value, a slight underestimate if one considers salaries in the UK, and in the same time, world population has doubled. What is the point? Can you really call this progress?
The one ray of hope for the PLANET that I see, which will no doubt annoy many readers, is that sooner or later monocultures become vulnerable to widespread epidemics. Past pandemics caused local crashes in the human population but now, with such rapid mixing via air travel and over half the world population living in close proximity in cities, the liklihood of a global crash is coming closer. What a sad end that would be for such a clever species with so much potential but quite unable to control its greed for growth (space, power, money, offspring or whatever).
Complain about this post
Having watched the Planet Earth Programme last Sunday, I was very moved by the reporting of the predicament of the Penguins & Polar Bears, hitting home just how important it is to help reduce climate change. So much so, I am watching with great interest to see if any bear charities come to the rescue in the way of fund raising to help assist the Bears plight.
I was however very disappointed & disgusted with the 2nd programme, in particular with the tactics used by the film crew reporting an elephant being
attacked & killed by Lions.
My family of four love wildlife documentaries & we do our bit to help animal charities whenever we can. We sat together on Sunday evening to relax & be educated whilst watching your programme Planet Earth. It wasn鈥檛 long before my 17 year old Daughter left the room, then my Husband, then my 15 year old son. I was the only person left to watch the whole programme & feel strongly that this wasn鈥檛 the natural animal behaviour being reported.
I am convinced that the film crew that night hindered the elephants natural hearing & its ability to escape the lions, drawn to the fact that the crew members were whispering to each other & the Land Rover engines running, all unnatural noises which would have confused & hindered the elephant, un-enabling him
to listen for the safety of his herd.
SHAME on those crew members!
I don鈥檛 dispute the fact that Lions will occasionally take weak or sick elephants but the 鈥楽tage Set` was in no way natural.
The Lions had had several nights to learn that the elephants were at a disadvantage during the night with all the noise & sounds from the film crew &
eventually took advantage of the situation. A situation created mainly by the need for water, but a circumstance also impaired by the programme maker鈥檚
greed and ambition to be the first to film such an event.
This wasn鈥檛 entertainment or informative natural behaviour being witnessed, it was like watching 19th Century Safari hunters, a past we as a species should be ashamed of.
I would like you the 大象传媒 to pass on my letter to the film crew / programme makers. I want my feelings to be known to them, hopefully this was a misjudged experience, a mistake not to be repeated in the future. Reporters & film crew need to understand & be more in-tune to the natural behaviour of the wildlife they are dealing with & of course show a fair balance when reporting. The Lions have their excellent eye sight for better night vision but the elephants rely on their hearing as their natural aid to defence, which was surely hindered that night.
As a family who live on a small holding, with the company of lots of animals in our care, we will be thinking twice before watching further episodes of this 鈥榥atural` documentary series.
Tracy McCluskey
Complain about this post