Greenhouse gas update

All this greenhouse gas argument; is it all a load of hot air?

Well, not according to this from NatureNews, which indicates that levels of greenhouse gases are continuing to rise, and are doing so in line with the IPCC's oft maligned forecasts.

And from the same source, an article on how Methane is released from areas of tundra even after the start of the winter re-freeze.

OK, we simply do not know what the future impacts might be, but does anyone else, like me, find such facts and figures rather disturbing?

IPPC in the news

Bearing in mind the obviously serious nature of what has been deemed 'an imminent catastrophe to humanity', I have just decided to do a quick scope of the coverage.

BBC - Pictured. And as I write, they have gone live to have a reporter be told that there's nothing new on a old murder enquiry. In fact, at 9.08 they cut away from the IPCC reporter in Valencia to something more important. Bless.

Mind you, if the best thing they can come out with is 'the next step' is to have another meeting next month in Bali, then I guess that might not exactly perk up the ratings.

Times - Top of tree online on global. Kudos! UK... er. Front page... nope!

Telegraph - Online.. well hidden if it's there! Front page... tba.

Guardian - Online... sort of. Front page.... tba.

Indy - Online. Front page... um, no.

FT - Not obvious. Front page... tba.

Tabs - Don't ask

Newsnight -

Seems the world's about to collapse. And now, on a lighter note, remember that sketch... (at least this critical piece wasn't truncated by '... and that's all we have time for, because here's a skateboarding turtle'. Oh... but wait... there IS another).

I just woke up to the Breakfast News coverage of the IPCC report. So Climate Change IS down to man and we are on the verge of a catastrophe. And this time is for sure. Well, more than the last. Not as much as the next, maybe. Odd then that it was not top priority in the national newscaster's morning report (not figuring too high in the national papers either. Pity the Spice Girls reformed on the same day as Children in Need.... as the world goes down the tube).

Anyway, watching Newsnight's coverage of the next big thing I mainly discover the Green Elite and their media caravans are off from Valencia to Bali (will we getting the same selection of ladies and gents to stand in front of the same building to say the same thing? Nice use of money, not to mention footprint example) to doubtless issue yet another 'this is the one' (Couldn't they all stay in one place, and where most are already... say... New York?) .

Ironically in the same breakfast show there was a Newswatch about a piece where a hotel in Las Vegas was covered live as it was demolished by explosion. So we waited... and waited... and almost gave up. And then it exploded, but only as many had given up waiting despite being told it was coming. Not really the BBC's fault as they had been told the time and it didn't happen as and when advised. But that's the problem with relying on uncertainties to issue endless warnings.

I am just not sure how many such 'outings' can be engaged upon, at least in this manner, before people begin to 'drift'. And such is my weariness with the assault, and lack of faith in their commitment to balanced science, despite the fact that it is clearly stated that it IS, NOW, man-made, I simply am not able to believe it and will continue to concede only man-worsened. I also rather suspect there are others who feel the same, or are even more dubious. Which all distracts from just getting on a DOING tangible things to engage with the general public rather than wittering on, going on jollies ('because our job requires it even if we're saying yours shouldn't') and giving sceptics ever more ammo.

Then we go on to learn by way of major advances in mitigation that Coke is 'thinking' of popping its carbon footprint on its cans, as have Walkers on its packs. No one had a clue what it was all about. So at least the BBC had a slight sense that this aspect was a bandwagon that was out of control. Shame they can't make the connection with the main... er.. almost main... piece. It is not up to the consumer to wade through all this, with the endless proliferation of hugely funded 'awareness' campaigns from pointless quangos we are being bombarded with... to little effect, evidently (see above, below, sideways). Or our national media.

What's going on? A crisp maker puts a label that means nothing to anyone and can be compared with nothing, yet get a load of publicity.... again. Newsnight covered this a while ago! http://junkk.blogspot.com/2007/09/black-stuff.html And this on the day the IPCC report features second after an ongoing historical murder investigation. Shame the Spice Girls and Comic Relief got in on the act to distract from mankind's cat-astrophe, too. Or is that why we also got Sgt. Podge, the 4x4 hitching moggy? Is everything now totally driven by PR luvvies and their speed dial chums who only look at ratings before jumping?

No wonder no one is taking much seriously!

Absolutely the lastest and worstest... yet

I just woke up to the BBC's coverage of the IPCC report.

Seems that Climate Change IS down to man and we are on the verge of a catastrophe. Really.

Odd then that it was about third in priority the national newscaster's morning report (not figuring too high in the national papers either. Pity the Spice Girls reformed on the same day as Children in Need.... as the world goes down the tube).

Anyway, the Green Elite are off from Valencia to Bali to doubtless issue yet another 'this is the one'. Ironically in the same show there was a Newswatch about a piece where a hotel in Las Vegas was covered live as it was demolished by explosion. So we waited... and waited... and almost gave up. And then it exploded, but only as many had given up waiting despite being told it was coming.

Not really the BBC's fault as they had been told the time and it didn't happen as and when advised (the jolly piece about the urban cat being picked up daily... in a dirty great 4x4... being simply an 'interesting' piece).

That's the problem with relying on uncertainties to issue warnings.

I am just not sure how many such 'outings' can be engaged upon, at least in this manner, before people begin to 'drift'.

And such is my weariness with the assault, and lack of faith in their commitment to balanced science, despite the fact that it is clearly stated that it IS, NOW, man-made, I simply am not able to believe it and will continue to concede man-worsened, for all sorts of personal and professional and personal reasons.

I also rather suspect there are others who feel the same, or are even more dubious.

Of course, I will continue, as I have done for years, to DO all I can to mitigate our impact anyway, because I reckon what is going on it's best to get on with some less wasteful behaviour.

STOP PRESS - Coke is thinking of popping its carbon footprint on its cans, as have Walkers. No one had a clue what it was all about. So at least the BBC had a slight sense that this aspect was a bandwagon that was out of control. Sahme they can't make the connection with the main... er.. almsot main... piece. I totally agreed with The Friends of the Earth lady who said it was not up to the consumer to wade through all this, and totally despaired at the Carbon Trust executive's defence of the role of organisations such as his in the proliferation of endless awareness campaigns we are being bombarded with... to little effect, evidently (see above).

Greenhouse gas levels rising faster than predicted

This from the WBCSD reports that "Greenhouse emissions are rising faster than the worst-case IPCC scenarios".

"This paper suggests that there exists evidence that the IPCC process may have led to an underestimation of the risk of greater warming and that the impacts of climate change are occurring more rapidly than previously projected"

The report is from an independent Australian research group, who I've not come across before, but it's made me quite depressed.

Addendum:
A slightly more comprehensive report from News.com.au.

Just sharing

BBC - No consensus on IPCC's level of ignorance

Though there is a counter-view linked, it seems odd that the BBC would give lead to 'a' person, no matter how qualified.

It will be fun... no... sad seeing how this plays out. I'm guessing he'll be accused of god knows what. The sceptics will take all sorts of stuff out of context and blow it up. The usual.

BBC - The IPCC: As good as it gets
BBC - Unravelling the sceptics
BBC - Climate scepticism: The top 10

Now... any the wiser? Going to change your ways?

Real Climate - BBC contrarian top 10 - Kind of a summary of summary of summarys, with at least more than a hint that scientists are involved. Still suffers from various main protagonists being labelled/outed as poster kids for an entrenched view (seems by various finger-pointings even IPCC contributors and the Real Science top brass are stuck in various 'camps').

The main thing to me is still how all these guys are so much happier engaged in this theoretical debate than actually thinking too much on what can be done now.

First leak of the final IPPC report

This comes from canada.com and makes for very depressing reading. Essentially, the message is prepare to adapt to a hotter climate because it is too late to stop accelerating global warming.

"Many impacts can be avoided, reduced or delayed by mitigation, but adaptation is also necessary."

And the report misses some key new evidence, which came to late for inclusion.

"The report is said to understate the danger since alarming new evidence missed the deadline for inclusion. It does not, for example, include data showing global emissions are now climbing faster than ever as China and India power their economic booms with fossil fuels. And there is no mention of this summer's Arctic ice retreat, described as 'astounding' by scientists and government officials who fear the Arctic may be hitting a 'tipping point.'"

Coming on a day when most of the east and south east of England has just about survived a combined tidal and storm surge by a matter of centimetres, all I can say is, have a happy weekend.

Addendum:
Of course, there are always some who cannot accept that what scientists say is correct, as exemplified in this from Fox News. Note his figures are based on 54 survey responses out of 345 IPCC scientists. (There were 2500+ overall involved.) Note the last two questions. As I've said before, ask the right question and you can get the answer you want.

Nobel Cause

Gore unlikely peace hero

'...the motivation behind the committee handing the award to Gore and the IPCC, is less about future gazing and more about wanting to make a clear and unequivocal statement ahead of the UN climate change conference in Bali this December'

Studiously trying to avoid any actual comment in any way (the MMGW optimist/pessimist keyboards are being sharpened as a write, I'm sure), I get a bit concerned reading such analysis of such 'awards' if/when it may be seen that they are being used more to send messages and/or plug future events.

That can result in consequences that often cause more problems down the line than they solve.

Guardian - Gore and peace - Unless the the BOFDis are better organised than I give them credit for, bearing in mind this is The Guardian the blog posts tell a tale

Guardian - The truth will out - Trouble with a headline like that is when what comes out isn't true. And while a person's background does not always have any bearing on what they have to say or how they say it, I seem to recall this chap calling the cancellation on Planet Relief 'a right-wing conspiracy when the truth was the BBC sensed no one fancied another Live Earth.

'That's not a game I want to play with my kids. Do you?'

No.

But then again, I'd prefer messengers whose message doesn't immediately leave itself open to the absolutist 'tis/tisn't, all-or-nothing MMCC exchanges that inevitably ensue. See above.

There are a lot of folk DOING a lot more that may not be as sexy as celeb-fuelled 'awareness' talkfests, but might achieve more. And with luck are not over-egging the case to the point a lot of good gets compromised by trivia or, worse, inaccuracies. Or sulking and making wild accusations when the majority of the public show resistance to fondly cherished notions, such as Planet Relief.

And messengers are as important, if not more so, as message these days. Choose them with care.

The headlines reporting this are really as polarised as any discussing the causes of climate change. There's also the small matter of how thew facts of the award get reported. As with teh Oscar, it often seems Mr. Gore alone won it. This from Science Daily is perhaps a more appropriate summary:

Climate Change Research Recognized - In 2007 Nobel Peace Prize - The Norwegian Nobel Committee has decided that the Nobel Peace Prize for 2007 is to be shared, in two equal parts, between the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and Albert Arnold (Al) Gore Jr. for their efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change, and to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract such change.

As to whether using Mr. Gore's efforts... and views... were the best way to 'send a message', especially via a Peace prize, and it seems targeted rather unsubtly at the US, remains to be seen.

LA Times - Gore's Nobel win stirs hope — and speculation - It seems odd to see this being projected to a potential presidential effort. Especially like this.

BBC - Indian's surprise at Nobel award - Interesting back story

BBC - Gore says prize must spur action

We now have a choice between a future with a damaged world or a severely damaged world

So why the media silence?

During the early hours of this morning, almost certainly as a consequence of one too many beverages at my local, I was forced to make a visit to the small room. Bladder pressure duly relieved, I then decided, I don't know why, to proceed to the kitchen to make myself a brew, and sat down with the radio on a volume setting almost as low as possible. (Waking she who must be obeyed at that sort of hour could attract a death sentence!)

There was a report about a report that was predicting horrendous consequences for mankind as a direct result of climate change - you know the sort of stuff - millions dying from famine, water, food and oil wars, coastal cities inundated and permanently flooded, increasing typhoons & hurricanes, the extinction of some country states, and, up to [I think they said] 30% of all native species.

Well, I thought to myself, this is absolutely going to be wall to wall in the newspapers and on-line media tomorrow; it was the first time I had heard anything realistic on the Beeb reporting on the potential consequences of climate change, and it was really radical, hair raising stuff.

Yet, apart from this one article in today's Guardian, there is hardly a peep about it, and even this takes a very 'watered down' approach. I can't even find a mention on the BBC website.

"Mitigation has got all the attention but we cannot mitigate out of this problem. We now have a choice between a future with a damaged world or a severely damaged world." OK OK, I agree, that particular bit doesn't sound excessively watered down.

Now the report appears to be the next part (the fourth?) of the next bit of a series from the IPCC. Previous reports have taken up inordinate amounts of media space and coverage.

I'm a curious person, I can't help it. Does anybody out there have any ideas why the deafening media silence on this? Does the media think we can't take the scary scenario stories?
______________
Addendum [Wed 19/9]:

Today has seen at least some reporting of the IPCC's latest report.

Here's the Telegraph's take on the report:
"Stopping global warming in its tracks is no longer feasible because about 1.1ºC of warming is already in the climate system"
"Ten years ago we were all talking about our children and grandchildren. Now when you look at these impacts they will be in the lifetimes of people in [this] room."

And the Indy's interpretation:
"substantial global impacts will occur, such as species extinctions, and millions of people at risk from drought, hunger, flooding."
"the effects of this rise are being felt sooner than anticipated with the poorest countries and the poorest people set to suffer the worst of shifts in rainfall patterns, temperature rises and the viability of agriculture across much of the developing world."

This from The Times:
"Action to limit the impact can only make the difference between moderate and severe damage rather than preventing it altogether."
"Failure to keep rises below 2C, the target of European governments, would leave up to two billion people facing water shortages and condemn at least 10 per cent of animal and plant species to extinction."

The BBC:
They did have something on their news site yesterday - I missed it. And it is very considered and un-emotive (and, I personally think, quite selective) in comparison to what was in the radio report early yesterday.
"And it's evident from the work of the IPCC that even with a maximum of 2C we're not going to avoid some major impacts at the regional level."
"estimate was that the rise could be constrained to between 2C and 3C."
"millions, if not tens of millions, would be at increased risk to their lives from a rise above 2C"

The report actually says millions will probably die as a result of a 2C rise which is now inevitable!

The Daily Mail:
Nothing.

The Express:
Nothing.

The Mirror:
Nothing.

The Financial Times:
Nothing that I can spot yet.

And this is a link to the actual report for anyone with the time to read the entire thing in full.

The clear thing is, the report implies that it is already too late even to mitigate against a 2C temperature rise, and efforts need to be made extremely urgently to prevent any additional temperature rise. It is clearly telling us that millions are probably going to die, and millions more will suffer major food and water deprivation and/or face migration elsewhere to survive.

It's a major wake up call to humanity, yet half of our media seem oblivious to reporting on it!
There was extensive reporting on the publication which came down on the 'climate change IS man made' side. Why so little on the first report that details the impacts that such climate change may have on mankind?

DEFRA Appoints Heavyweight

In ol' Golden's new team we have a new Environment Minister that we know little about at all, and have so far heard little from at all.

Hoewever, DEFRA appear to have made a significant appointment today. Professor Robert Watson, no less than the one time chair of the IPCC, and currently Chief Scientist and Senior Advisor for Sustainable Development at the World Bank, has been brought in as their new Cheif Scientific Advisor. From the Government News Network.

Let's hope his new role can prove influential in bringing Hilary Benn up to speed in what is surely going to become an increasingly important ministerial position.

Addendum:

I spotted this from BYM News - strange that nobody else seems to have reported Hilary Benn's (aka, in the tabloids now, 'Veggie Benn') comments from the Local Government Associations conference at all.

"Nothing is of greater importance to all of us today than the environment and the future of our planet. As councils and national governments we need to work together with citizens and businesses to provide a clean and green local environment and make sure that we are all tackling climate change and making best use of the world's limited resources. It's a task for all of us, G8 leader and council leader alike, and citizens too. This is the new politics; personal responsibility, not leaving it to others. I am my planet's keeper."

Well, that sounds quite encouraging, Hilary Benn certainly knows how to talk the talk - let's hope he follows up his words with genuine actions.

IP, IP 'ooray!

I was away dawn 'til dusk yesterday at an ultimately very useful conference on Intellectual Property hosted by a West Midlands organisations called Fillip.

At first I thought I made a big mistake and was in for a loooong day, as I sat surrounded by what seemed every lawyer in the region, to be talked at by every other lawyer in the region. The seminar pack was certainly not encouraging, as the curse of PowerPoint was again to be unleashed - I cringed when one speaker actually said "I'll just read what's on the screen and, of course, in your notes". Thank the lor' that we were not being billed by the minute!!!

But, as with all things, you have to sift a lot of silt to get a nugget, and they did appear. A fact here, an anecdote there. Bearing in mind the target audience was the SME market, I was getting quite frustrated to have presentation after presentation that was pitched at companies to whom 'only a few thousand' is not a real issue to find, albeit for a key aspect of business such as IP. But one real beacon was Mandy Haberman, of anywayup cup fame, who was a real inspiration (her turning point was sending a prototype, filled with Ribena, in an unpadded box to a Tesco buyer... who called with and order by return), much like Heather of Wiggly Wigglers the other week, not just for her success but the fights she had to (successfully) take on to emerge triumphant. Though it must be said the sheer number of scumbuckets around worldwide (mainly in major corporates) there are ready to screw anyone for a penny is depressing.

I was there mainly for the RE:tie but, thanks to the trusty Lappy Sling, Junkk.com got a look in, too.

One of the speakers was from CadburySchweppes, and seemed keen to talk more and introduce me to the right people.

I certainly came away more than ever convinced of the vale of IP, but also the sheer complexity and cost of it. This honestly does put best practice out of the reach of many at the small 's' of the SME spectrum, and it is always worth trying to get that across.

That was my message, and it was welcomed. In fact, as a consequence of the day, I am now more than happily off on a another tangent, but one I hope will for once be more than productive and even profitable.

Poor coral reef spoils diving. Meanwhile, in other news, the planet collapses

An interesting twist on IPCC 2, the sequel.

I haven't quite figured out yet how or why this drib is drabbing out, but we have another doom & gloom from 'them', whoever 'they' are.

But this time it seems to have been designed on another tack. Rather than talk about the totality of it all and how it affects every one of us, the move seems to now be from fear to guilt.

So 'we' are now being told that 'our' behaviour is going to hurt 'them'.

As I say... interesting. If we can't be motivated by threats to our personal situation, I wonder how effective it will be to play it that the Easter holiday flight is hurting a herdsman in Africa.

BBC - Billions face climate change risk
LATimes - Dire warming report too soft, scientists say
Reuters - Stark climate change warning

ADDENDUM - Kids bear brunt of climate warming - report - What next... or the bunny gets it? This seems to be a slight sledgehammer approach where I would advise more caution. Still, what's done is done. Hope it works.

10 years and the human race is screwed. But first, Kylie has been dumped!

OK. Here's Saturday (that I could track in terms of influential major media information and commentary):

BBC - How Green is my Auntie?
Times - New fears on climate raise heat on leaders
Times - Damning report seeks to end debate over global warming
Times - Bush takes his place on the bandwagon
BBC Newsnight (which seems to have closed already as they didn't add my comment) - How green should we be?
Telegraph - Scientists: Only man can stop climate disaster
Telegraph - The changing face of the planet
Guardian (nice to see a power co. will stick a tree in for you) - Worse than we thought
Guardian CiF - A call to arms on climate change
Guardian CiF - An unforgivable truth
Indy - Global warming: the final warning
BBC - Miliband in climate 'action' call
BBC - Humans blamed for climate change

BBC Newsnight - See if they add my comment

And here's today:

Telegraph (wonder if they'll post my comment)- Carbon omissions
Telegraph - IPCC puts it bluntly on global warming
Telegraph - The next few years are critical in the fight for the climate
Times - The greening of business
Indy (this is so sweet) - Green: They are. Are you?
Indy - Chirac leads calls for new UN body to save the environment
Indy (always worth repeating, so make that a final, final..) - Global warming: the final warning
Observer - We cannot let the Kyoto debacle happen again

No tabloids that I can see. I doubt Richard and Judy got too excited (esp. with Kylie 'n all). BBC Breakfast has moved on. Andrew Marr didn't mention it in his preamble earlier (though I have yet to watch). It certainly has moved off the front pages.

Politically, it seems saving personal skins (more immediately, missing the point that all skins could be at risk pretty soon) may be higher on most agendas, though it looks like one Minister was called upon to say something. Which he did. I believe the 'word' is 'action'. Moving quickly on...

Oh, and case you're really worried, here's Kylie.

Didn't take the few who did pay attention long to lose interest, did it?

I think I'll just get back to Junkk.com duties now.

However, looking at Supermarkets discover shoppers hate excess packaging as waste campaign gathers force whilst I still can't get a peep out of said supermarkets, relevant government bodies or much support from the media for our free, non taxpayer-funded, reuse website still rankles.

Can we now move on? Clearly.

This Man's guilt for global warming clear seems pretty, er, clear.

Though I would wish that headlines and facts tallied more closely, to avoid Achilles Heels that others can exploit:

Scientists are now overwhelmingly confident...

The exact phrasing of the report... was still being negotiated by scientists.

The best estimate is that...

This is expected to mean...

If it is as alarming as experts predicted...

'Scientists' or 'experts' are pretty catch-all terms, and I think need to be put in context much more clearly and up-front to establish credibility.

And those disclaimer terms seem to be the work of a person trying to steal a march. Wait until you know, and then state it loud... and clear

Finally, without sounding like a denier, I am not sure if Man's guilt for causing GW in totality is proven, but there seems a clear case for us making it lots worse and hence needing to do something about making it better. Again, I hope creating an opening for such semantics will not in turn lead to more pointless debate.