Climate Change - Human cause or not?

Whilst the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change concludes that climate change is very likely to have a human cause. There are others who would wish to dispute that.
Scientists and economists have already been sent letters offering them $10,000 each by the American Enterprise Institute if they provide essays that “thoughtfully explore the limitations of climate model outputs”. The AEI has an interesting background - more than $1.6m of its funds are provided by ExxonMobil and more than 20 of its staff have worked for the Bush administration as consultants.
At least one scientist feels that the letters are an attempt to undermine public confidence in the scientific community.
The IPCC Summary says there is a 90% chance that climate change is due to human activity. It also states that global average temperatures will rise by 1.8-4C this century - all dependent upon the weight of emissions. It projects sea level rises of 28-43cm, (not including rises caused by ice cap melt), and that tropical storms will probably intensify. The full report will be published later this year.

A Canadian based Exxon-funded organisation will be launching their review on Monday of the IPCC report. Its authors include Tad Murty who believes human activity makes no contribution to global warming and attendees include Nigel Lawson and David Bellamy, who also believes that there is no link between fossil fuels and climate change.

Meanwhile oil still lies in Prince William Sound where the Alaskan disaster of the Exxon Valdez occurred 18 years ago in 1989. A study by the NOAA, to be published in a couple of weeks found that the 26,600 gallons of oil, which lie beneath the surface are having a detrimental impact on the environment.
The study concludes that the persistence of the oil slick can “pose a contact hazard to inter-tidally foraging sea otters, sea ducks, and shore birds, create a chronic source of low-level contamination, discourage subsistence in a region where use is heavy, and degrade the wilderness character of protected lands.”
Because dispersal is so slow, it could be decades before the Sound returns to a clear unpolluted habitat. The response from Mark Boudreaux at Exxon Mobil however, though acknowledging that they would review the findings, said their initial reaction was that there is nothing “newsworthy or significant in the report”.
Boudreaux also said that Exxon has supported over 350 independent studies in which no evidence of significant long-term impact was found.

Well, that does not bode well for any reviews Exxon, sorry, AEI may support of the IPCC report.

Courtesy of Greenpeace at www.exxonsecrets.org you can see an interesting map of links between personages and organisations funded by Exxon.

Having said all this, I personally am still not convinced that we are to blame for climate change. I’m not even sure that we need to find blame. My interest is in behaving responsibly in our home environment - earth, (which is where I differ from the Exxonites). We do not need to adopt a fear or panic culture - merely a responsible culture.
Just as food for thought - we are at the beginning of the solar phase Cycle 24, which is known to have strong sun spot activity. It is also known that sun spot activity directly influences climatic activity on the earth and other planets in the solar system. The Chilling Stars is a book just published that looks at these theories behind climate change, noting that there is a far greater correlation between sun spot activity and global warming than can be deduced from fossil fuel use.
Unstoppable Global Warming is another book, just out, by David Avery which pertains that global warming is natural, it can’t be stopped, and that it’s not very dangerous.

We just need to live with it.

3 February 2007 | climate change, global warming, ExxonMobil | Comments