global warming and the financial pudding, during record may temperatures...
On a fair autumn day, in Sydney, where the temperatures for the end of May have smashed many records since records have been kept in this fair country, and when the temperature in Moscow will be 29 degrees C today, one can ask the question: what are the Climate Sceptics worried about?
That we make fools of ourselves by predicting a global warming that does not exist?
That the science of global warming is not scientific enough and more research needs to be done to be certain of the theory?
That the observations of sea level rise, of glaciers melting, of increasing strong atmospheric disturbances, of acidification of oceans are all illusions?
That we should wait before making a conclusion about the origin of noted changes — as the earth is still on a long trend cooling, despite an observed rise of global temperature since 1850?
Nupe. None of the above...
No the climate sceptics and their scientific fiddlers are worried that the world economy will go down the drain, should we accept, and/or understand the theory of global warming and its implications. Simple.
So, should we do something about global warming, will the world economy go down the drain?
In reality, economies can evolve towards renewable sources of energy surprisingly rapidly. New innovations, techniques of applying ourselves to progress can cut the mustard. Humans welcome evolution... or do they? Have we got a brain?
But the climate sceptics are only worried that the (now getting soon antiquated) carbon industry is going to be hit hard should we switch our supply mechanisms. That is the only reason why the sceptics oppose the global warming concensus — or even oppose the study thereof.
The oil, gas, coal industries have been established and been entrenched in our lives since... well not so long ago, say not much more than before 1850, which is the accepted year for the start of the "industrial revolution"... By late 1890s, Arrhenius and his mates were already seeing the changes to aerial pollution and calculated with some remarkable precision the changes to climate brought on by adding more CO2 into the atmosphere. Till the 1940s, the scientific consensus was that the earth's surface was slowly cooling... until observations proved otherwise.
While miners died in coal mines, the risks of intensifying the carbon process were thus worth the investment. A huge capital mountain with Ali Baba caves was built around the carbon manufacture processes. It's been a boon. No need to deny it. An entire construct of activities from transportation via cars, planes and domestic appliances has seen the light... But more than these mechanical benefits, the biggest benefit has been financial and the huge fiddles of the money markets... including derivatives which have for a long time been removed from any reality.
Having to allow global warming into the manufacturing of stuff is not as hard as it looks, though we are reticent. For rabid bean counters of the capitalistic system, this is hard yakka. Allowing for environmental issues such as global warming into our financial institutions is likely to change geopolitics and the perception of the big cheese of who controls the world. Even this can only be an illusion of control, as new dynamics due to our avaricious need for more and more carbon, has led to say the rise of the Russian stranglehold on Europe, with its gas — and the rise of China with our delegating of manufacture to minimise our pollution of our own space.
Some banks, some financial institutions and some industries have sensed the rising problem of warming... They have thus chosen to also "invest" into the alternatives... But don't be fooled: a) should the alternatives really need to take off, they will be well place to quickly adapt and b) by their "smart" investments, they can control and slow down the degree of the development of the alternatives.
So, the sceptics and their financial institutions have had to garner some "scientific" weaponry in order to look reputable and knowledgeable in slowing down to a halt the concept of global warming. Global warming itself is irrelevant. For them, whether warming is happening or not, the restructuring of capitalism (into a fairer system and more aware of environmental issues) would create a lot of heartache for the engineers of profit and controls.
But to some extend, whether warming is happening or not, cleaning our act in regard to carbon usage would not be a bad thing, really.
But there are other issues at stake:
For example, a country like Canada would wish for a change towards warming. Many other countries along the Arctic Sea cannot wait soon enough for the warming to accelerate, in order for them to go and dig for more carbon resources from oil to gas in that region. Meanwhile, many nations are getting ready to go and plunder Antarctica for the same resources, under various guises. Australian firms have already invested heavily in the exploitation of Greenland for more "resources like coal, oil, gas and uranium..." as the ice sheet retreats at a rate of knots.
So in fact, many of the sceptics are not sceptics at all, they are major opportunists of global warming. They know it's happening but they don't want anything done about it...
And whether global warming is going to destroy the Philippines two (or three or ten) years in a row with the typhoon of the century, it's tough titties. there is oodles of cash to be made. Meanwhile some low lying lands in florida are already feeling the sea level rise...
As I have exposed here (and before on this site), being a sceptic of global warming is not about science being right or wrong, it's about cash.
Here we have a fine Swedish climatologist, Lennart Bengtsson, whose paper on climate change scepticism was rejected for "errors", and thus claims bias against the sceptics... Etc... Sure the fellow is an "expert" on small variability in the atmosphere, but if the errors are errors, then his paper should not be published... But Lennart Bengtsson used to be in the camp of the global warming theorists... So why the flip?
Considering that Bengtsson has joined the "Family", or the major Mafia of sceptics in England, led by no other than Lord Lawson, supported by most erroneous luminaries such as Lord Monckton and Ian Plimer in its ranks, one can wonder about the true reason he switched camps...
Most scientists are anyway sceptic of their own work, not because they feel they are wrong, but because the nature of science is to always question one's theory or school of theories, without having to become a rabid and erroneous observer to prove a point...
The point of global science denial is 100 per cent financial rather than being an ounce scientific, even if some scientists are batting for it...
for them, The planet can go to hell, as long as we make money...
Your local arachnid expert (see picture at top)