SvD and Scientific Skepticism to Climate Alarmism

SvD continues its series on climate debate from different perspectives with so far the following

articles:

• Ban Ki-Moon: alarmism led by UN
• Björn Lomborg: alarmism without CO2 
• Jennifer Morgan: alarmism led by EU
• Stockholm Environment Institute: alarmism led by US and China without costs
• World Wildlife Preservation: alarmism putting pressure on Reinfeldt to pressure on Obama
• Professor of Global Energy Systems: alarmism of starvation without fossil energy
• Physics Professor: AGW exaggerated
• Uppsala Initiative reply: Alarmism based on claimed scientific consensus
• Ingemar Nordin reply: IPCC not scientific
  
• Stockholm Initiative reply: Emission limit meaningless waste.

So far an overweight of 5.5 for political alarmism to 2 for scientific skepticism and 1 for the poor.  A different perspective is reported by The Times but such perspectives do not reach SvD. In particular SvD is not open to the IPCC-critical perspective of Lars Bern. Why? At any rate SvD shows that there is no consensus, which should be reported to Reinfeldt and Carlgren.

Since the question of climate change is scientific, answers can only be sought in open debate between scientists, in particular an open debate where alarmists are directly confronted with the arguments of alarmism skeptics, and vice versa. SvD could invite to such a debate, when the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences has already declared one-sided alarmism. 

Why not invite Vaclav Klaus speaking about e.g. politicians promises? Some of us may recall that after the referendum in 1980 Swedish politicians promised to close down Swedish nuclear power by 2010. Today 10 reactors are still running, the older waiting to get replaced by new fresh more powerful ones...Maybe Klaus has a point...

But Klaus have many to argue with: The scientific academies of the G8+5 countries including US, China and India have made a statement:

• The IPCC 2007 Fourth Assessment of climate change  science concluded that large reductions in the  emissions of greenhouse gases, principally CO2, are needed soon to slow the increase of atmospheric  concentrations, and avoid reaching unacceptable levels.
• The need for urgent action to address climate change is now indisputable. 
• For example, limiting global  warming to 2°C would require a very rapid worldwide  implementation of all currently available low carbon  technologies. The G8+5 should lead the transition to  an energy efficient and low carbon world economy,  and foster innovation and research and development  for both mitigation and adaptation technologies.  
• Capitalizing on new technologies will require a major scientific effort and policy initiatives to accelerate  adoption of new technologies. The need to find  solutions to climate change presents a huge but as yet unrealized opportunity for the creation of new jobs  and for the stimulation of new and emerging markets.  The role of innovation in delivering energy efficiency  and a low carbon world should become a major part of the efforts to rebuild the global economy.  
  

How is it possible that the leading scienitfic academies without scientific questioning simply accepts the alarmism of IPCC as "undisputable"? Is the prospect of massive funding of "major scientific effort" and "to rebuild the global economy" so irresistable, that there is no place for 

scientific inquiry? 

No wonder that The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences has jumped the bandwagon, maybe encouraged by the fact that the American Physical Society (APS) has "overwhelmingly rejected" a proposal from a group of 160 physicists to alter its official position on climate change, on the recommendations of a six-person committee which spent the last four months carrying out what the APS calls "a serious review of existing compilations of scientific research".  Is this what is meant by scientific consensus? 6 speaking for 160?

It is natural to ask if the review covers the 450 Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism on AGW listed by Popular Technology?

New York Times reports from the APEC meeting in Singapore that also political consensus is lacking:

• President Obama and other world leaders have decided to put off the difficult task of reaching a climate change agreement at a global climate conference scheduled for next month, agreeing instead to make it the mission of the Copenhagen conference to reach a less specific “politically binding” agreement that would punt the most difficult issues into the future.
  

Of course, political consensus follows scientific consensus: For example, there is scientific consensus on an inescapable gravitational accelleration  of 9.81 m/s2 pulling all of us towards the center of the Earth, and there is accordingly political consensus to not seek a global agreement to limit gravitation to the Mars value of 3.7 m/s2, even if that would be desirable as a preparation to colonise Mars. 

Climate alarmism is effective only so far it leads to concrete actions to avoid the disaster which would follow if no actions were taken. To scream that the wolf is coming while doing nothing is not convincing, in particular not in politics. To avoid the contradiction between alarm and no-action, either the alarm has to be increased to such a level that no-action becomes impossible, or the alarm has to be decreased to such a level that no-action is possible. The dilemma of the politics of the Copenhagen meeting is to choose between increasing or decreasing the alarm. It will be interesting to see which option will be chosen...or if Obama will be able  come up with a compromise with at the same time both increased and decreased alarm...with at the same time action and no-action...

The Telegraph reports on Nov 15 that the UK Met Office warns that The World has only ten years to control global warming and also that Copenhagen climate change agreement is impossible. The contradiction is unbearable...

Meanwhile little childern get scared by ACTONCO2 "Bedtime Stories" about the coming horrors of CO2, with the child's question: Is there a happy ending? answered  by the cryptic: It is up to us how the story ends, see what you can do. Is this not abuse of children? Is it allowed in our enlightened society? Our Minister of Environment Andreas Carlgren supports the bedtime story with:

• The climate and people of the Earth cannot wait for actions to save the climate, and the people...it is up to us how the story ends, see what you can do...

But there are other bedtime stories more suitable for children, like the one by Nils Mörner, the World expert on sea level, comforting the children of the Maldives that they will not be flooded

because of the evils of CO2 polluters.

Denver Post reports that Obama retreats on climate change and Prof C-G Ribbing at the Ångström Laboratory at Uppsala University writes in SvD that AGW is exaggerated.  And Lord Monckton's alarmism skeptic video clip has received over 3.5 million views. Maybe little children can go to sleep without too much fear...after all...

SvD reports Nov 18 that the bill for climate alarmism may be up $800 billion per year of which so far only $10 billion is secured. Nobody is willing to pay, except EU led by Sweden a little, and the question is then if alarmism can survive. According to the above analysis, it cannot...to scream that we all have to pay because the wolf is coming and refusing to pay is contradictory. To understand that the wolf is not coming and instead pay to make the World better is not contradictory, and could be adopted as an honorable cause for the leaders of the World and all of us...Maybe SvD could help Reinfeldt and Carlgren to get on this road?

The Toronto Star and other media reports that in California a standard TV will not be allowed to consume more than 183 Watts, about the double of what a human being at rest consumes, or burns into heat. If the energy consumption of a standard human being in standby could be reduced to say 50 Watts by 2012, a lot would be saved...