Study: Climate Sceptics Know More About Climate Science Than Believers

cartoonIn my opinion no one … should close the road to free philosophizing about mundane and physical things, as if everything had already been discovered and revealed with certainty. Nor should it be considered rash not to be satisfied with those opinions which have become common. No one should be scorned in physical disputes for not holding to the opinions which happen to please other people best. –-Galileo Galilei’s timeless warning in his famous Letter to Grand Duchess Christina of Tuscany (1615)

Are global warming skeptics simply ignorant about climate science? Not so, says a forthcoming paper in the journal Advances in Political Psychology by Yale Professor Dan Kahan. He finds that skeptics score about the same (in fact slightly better) on climate science questions. The study asked 2,000 respondents nine questions about where they thought scientists stand on climate science. On average, skeptics got about 4.5 questions correct, whereas manmade warming believers got about 4 questions right. –Maxim Lott, Fox News, 12 February 2015

Scientists are facing a crisis of trust. Increasingly, Americans believe that what’s called science is actually political posturing. —Editorial, Mercury News, 13 February 2015

Global warming has been blamed for the Arab Spring, the current conflicts in Syria and Sudan, etc. They haven’t said anything about what’s going on in the Ukraine yet. A paper published in PNAS in 2009 bluntly declared that “Warming Increases The Risk of Civil War in Africa.” The problem is that the conflicts that are cited as examples of the phenomenon are located in areas known for both frequent conflict prior to the current warming period and for historical patterns of extreme climates similar to those seen today. It would appear that those believing that climate change is a contributor to conflict may be intuitively making sense, but they do not appear to have numbers on their side. —The Lukewarmer’s Way, 13 February 2015

There is much uncertainty in estimates about ocean warming and its changing heat content. Sea surface temperature (SST) have shown no significant trend since 1998 and possible explanations for it are many. Once – when it was rising between the 1970s and the 1990s – SST was one of the prime metrics to measure ‘global warming’ deemed important because the greater heat capacity of the oceans would mean it would absorb more heat than the flighty atmosphere. When it became obvious that surface temperatures did not show the increases some expected it was replaced by ocean warming. –David Whitehouse, Global Warming Policy Forum, 10 February 2015

Encouraging progress at climate change talks points to the likelihood of an overall accord being reached at the Paris conference in December, but the deal is unlikely to adequately fight global warming, a top IPCC official said Sunday. Jean-Pascal Van Ypersal, the Belgian deputy vice president of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, told AFP: “I am optimistic. We will have an accord in Paris.” But the goal of limiting the global temperature increase to just two degrees Celsius remains elusive, and Van Ypersal said it appeared the world is not ready to do what is needed to deliver that essential target. –Christian Spillmann, Associated Press, 15 February 2015

Trackback from your site.

Leave a comment (newest first):

Comments (63)

  • Avatar

    Dan Pangburn

    |

    CO2 has been considered to be a forcing with units Joules/sec. Energy change, which is revealed by temperature change, has units Joules. Average forcing times duration produces energy change. Equivalently, a scale factor times the time-integral of the CO2 level produces the temperature change.

    During previous glaciations and interglacials (as so dramatically displayed in An Inconvenient Truth) CO2 and temperature went up and down nearly together. This is impossible if CO2 is a significant forcing (scale factor not zero) so this actually proves CO2 CHANGE DOES NOT CAUSE SIGNIFICANT AVERAGE GLOBAL TEMPERATURE CHANGE.

    Application of this analysis methodology to CO2 levels for the entire Phanerozoic eon (Berner, 2001) proves that CO2 levels up to at least 6 times the present will have no significant effect on average global temperature.

    See more on this and discover the two factors that do cause climate change (95% correlation since before 1900) at http://agwunveiled.blogspot.com . The two factors which explain the last 300+ years of climate change are also identified in a peer reviewed paper published in Energy and Environment, vol. 25, No. 8, 1455-1471.

    Reply

    • Avatar

      amirlach

      |

      Been reading through your blog.

      While according to lab tests or what these guys are calling “the very settled science”, a doubling of Co2 -should- cause a 1 C warming, this has not been observed in nature. So while i think Co2 should have some effect, it has not been proven.

      The models that can skilfully predict climate say Co2 is a bit player at best. And irrelevant at worst.

      The claimed positive feedbacks are nonsense.

      My money is on the sun.

      Reply

      • Avatar

        amirlach

        |

        RE: Conservation of Energy & Sunspot Number Time-Integral

        [quote]Future temperature anomalies depend on future sunspot numbers and future ocean temperature oscillation behavior, neither of which has been confidently predicted for more than a decade or so in advance although assessments using planetary synodic periods appear to be relevant. As shown in Figure 3, the sunspot time-integral has experienced substantial change over the recorded period. [/quote]

        When you mention ocean, temperature oscillations and them not being “confidently predicted for more than a decade or so in advance although assessments using planetary synodic periods appear to be relevant.”

        Are you referring to the Solar Angular Momentum changes caused by the orbits of the planet’s?
        https://landscheidt.wordpress.com/
        [img]http://www.landscheidt.info/images/jup_dist_diff.png[/img]

        Which should be very predictable.

        [quote]The effective global sea surface temperature oscillation, although dominated by the PDO, depends also on complex phase interaction with lesser oscillations.[/quote]
        This paper here talks a lot about the ocean cycles(oscillations?) and how they interact with fish populations.
        http://alexeylyubushin.narod.ru/Climate_Changes_and_Fish_Productivity.pdf

        Reply

  • Avatar

    amirlach

    |

    Calculating the “forcing” of Co2 you would first need to quantify natural variability.

    This has never been done.

    Reply

    • Avatar

      Dan Pangburn

      |

      Are you aware that the time-integral of a forcing is an energy change?

      Are you aware that energy change times a scale factor gives a temperature change?

      Is it clear that if the forcing and temperature go up and down nearly together that the temperature can not be a scale factor times the time integral of the forcing?

      If your answer to any of these is no, your science skill sucks. If you answered yes to all of them you have just proven that CO2 has no significant effect on climate.

      Reply

      • Avatar

        amirlach

        |

        As Co2 has never “driven” climate in the past, I sure don’t think it is doing so now.

        I’m more inclined to consider model’s driven by empirical observations than one’s that use invalidated Co2/Positive feedback loops.

        The Models that “work” say Co2 has little to no effect on climate.

        Reply

        • Avatar

          David Appell

          |

          Ever hear of the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum?

          Reply

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            [quote] The absolute age and duration of the event remain uncertain, but are thought to be close to 55.8 million years ago and about 170,000 years of duration?[/quote]

            So? You say that like it means anything. They don’t even know when exactly it happened or why. What solar records exist for that time period? What other possible causes exist?

          • Avatar

            David Appell

            |

            What *is* known about the PETM is that a large pulse of carbon warmed the planet for about 200,000 years. It’s probably the best analogue to today’s warming.

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            [quote]If you notice, NSIDC no longer gives Arctic SIE before 10/26/1978:[/quote] So Data from the 70’s does not “stack up”, but a period from 55.8 million years ago, that they are still uncertain of exactly when it happened are ok?

            “It’s probably the best analogue to today’s warming.”
            [quote]The absolute age and duration of the event remain uncertain, but are thought to be close to 55.8 million years ago and about 170,000 years of duration?[/quote] Right!

        • Avatar

          David Appell

          |

          Ever hear of the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum?

          Reply

    • Avatar

      David Appell

      |

      No, you don’t need to quantify natural variability in order to calculate the forcing of CO2. They’re independent of one another.

      Reply

      • Avatar

        amirlach

        |

        Is this why all of the warmist models based upon this Co2 “Forcing” are such abysmal failures? They claim to know Co2’s forcing along with imaginary possitive feedbacks, yet they cannot make a single skillful prediction?
        [quote]This beautiful graph was posted at Roy Spencer’s and WattsUp, and no skeptic should miss it. I’m not sure if everyone appreciates just how piquant, complete and utter the failure is here. There are no excuses left. This is as good as it gets for climate modelers in 2013.[/quote]

        [img]http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/CMIP5-73-models-vs-obs-20N-20S-MT-5-yr-means1.png[/img]


        If it disagrees with experiment, it is wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It does not make any difference how beautiful your guess is, it does not make any difference how smart you are, who made the guess, or what his name is — if it disagrees with experiment, it is wrong.”
        http://www.brainpickings.org/2012/05/11/richard-feynman-key-to-science/

        Reply

        • Avatar

          David Appell

          |

          Actually, there is good evidence feedbacks are already happening:

          “Observational determination of albedo decrease caused by vanishing Arctic sea ice,”
          Kristina Pistone et al, PNAS v111 n9 pp 3322-3326 (2014).

          From the abstract:
          “Using satellite measurements, this analysis directly quantifies how much the Arctic as viewed from space has darkened in response to the recent sea ice retreat. We find that this decline has caused 6.4 ± 0.9 W/m2 of radiative heating since 1979, considerably larger than expectations from models and recent less direct estimates. Averaged globally, this albedo change is equivalent to 25% of the direct forcing from CO2 during the past 30 y.”

          Reply

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            1979 was the height of the Global Cooling scare. There is a good reason alarmists cheery picked 1979. If they went back further there would be no “alarming” trend.
            [img]https://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/screenhunter_306-feb-22-10-26.gif[/img]
            http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0485(1979)009%3C0580%3AAAOASI%3E2.0.CO%3B2
            [quote]According to the the 1990 IPCC report, the Arctic sea ice anomaly in 1974 was almost -1.0 million km². Essentially identical to 2014. There has been no change in Arctic ice coverage over the past 40 years.[/quote]
            [img]https://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2014/07/screenhunter_1445-jul-30-09-15.gif[/img]

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            There were IPCC Satellites measuring Arctic Sea ice since 1975.
            [img]https://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/screenhunter_707-apr-25-06-06.jpg?w=640&h=491&h=491[/img]

          • Avatar

            David Appell

            |

            By the way, the IPCC doesn’t have any satellites, or do any science — it assesses the science that has been done.

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            And this is what they “assessed” the arctic sea ice extent was in 1990.
            [quote]According to the 1990 IPCC report, the Arctic sea ice anomaly in 1974 was almost -1.0 million km². Essentially identical to 2014. There has been no change in Arctic ice coverage over the past 40 years.[/quote] Page 224 of the IPCC Report here, http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/far/wg_I/ipcc_far_wg_I_full_report.pdf Fig. a shows 1974 arctic sea ice extent was far below the 1979 point when NSDIC starts reporting. [quote]Sea-ice conditions are now reported regularly in marine
            synoptic observations, as well as by special reconnaissance
            flights, and coastal radar. Especially importantly, satellite
            observations have been used to map sea-ice extent
            routinely since the early 1970s.[/quote] http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/far/wg_I/ipcc_far_wg_I_full_report.pdf

            [quote]By the way, the IPCC doesn’t have any satellites, or do any science — it assesses the science that has been done.[/quote] I’ll concede the point the satellites were not the IPCC’s( I never labeled the graph). But they did “assess” the science done at the time. The graph is from the IPCC Repot.

            Alarmists are guilty of doing what your claiming Spencer and Christy are doing. Cheery picking a start point that supports their claims.

          • Avatar

            David Appell

            |

            Your text clearly said “There were IPCC Satellites measuring Arctic Sea ice since 1975.” There weren’t.

            [i]But they did “assess” the science done at the time.[/i]

            No, they did not. There was no IPCC in 1975. Their first assessment report came out in 1990. A quarter of a century ago. Four newer ARs have come out since.

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            Yes David, attack the straw man, and ignore the fact that Arctic ice has not changed in 40 years.

            Bravo! 😀

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            The Graph was in the first IPCC Repot. Stop lying.

          • Avatar

            David Appell

            |

            You too: if you can’t refrain from ad hominem comments, I’m done here.

            Yes, the IPCC assessed that science done, but 15-20 years afterward.

            Are you going to adjust the nominal anomalies (-1 Mkm2) to a common baseline, or admit your claimed equality was wrong?

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            David, when you tell a falsehood here, expect to be called out.

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            Was or was this graph in the first IPCC Report or not?

            [quote]Your text clearly said “There were IPCC Satellites measuring Arctic Sea ice since 1975.” They weren’t.

            But they did “assess” the science done at the time. [/quote]

            And I conceded your point about them not being the IPCC’s satellites. So get over it already. If you can’t refrain from attacking the same straw man over and over, you should be done here.

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            [quote]I wonder why. (You should too.) Perhaps they have concluded its quality doesn’t stack up.[/quote] And much like the Lamb Graph, it shed doubt on the Co2 warming narrative.

            The quality of the Mr. Fraudy Pant’s Graph the IPCC Concluded did stack up better, didn’t.

          • Avatar

            David Appell

            |

            “According to the 1990 IPCC report, the Arctic sea ice anomaly in 1974 was almost -1.0 million km². Essentially identical to 2014.”

            What was the baseline for the -1 Mkm2 anomaly in the 1AR?

            What was the baseline for the -1 Mkm2 anomaly in 2014, from whatever source you’re using (you didn’t say).

            Until you adjust the data to a common baseline, you can’t compare their nominal values.

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            Yes amirlach, until grantologists torture the data, you cannot possibly know how quickly we will all burn.

        • Avatar

          David Appell

          |

          “If it disagrees with experiment, it is wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science.”

          All models are wrong.

          But that hardly exonerates CO2. It’s becoming clear most of the last 20 years’ worth of temperature change is due to natural variablity, which is holding down CO2.

          (That’s OK — in the 1990s to early 2000s, the temperature increase was above what’s expected from GHGs — again due to natural variability.]

          Reply

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            [quote]”If it disagrees with experiment, it is wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science.”[/quote] Models are seldom 100% correct, but are still useful.

            Co2 Models that are 100% wrong are of no use. Except to tell you to “adjust” your hypothesis, or discard it.

            [quote]All models are wrong. But that hardly exonerates CO2. [/quote] These failed models “hardly” convict Co2 either.

            Funny! Alarmists first claimed “natural variability” could not be responsible for recent observed climate. Now it’s an excuse for the “pause”.

            Until the IPCC has quantified natural variability they cannot claim to really know anything.

            “Models and simulations are critical to the IPCC’s case for man-made warming but in its Third Assessment
            Report (TAR) the IPCC admitted that the level of scientific understanding (LSU) of 7 of 11 known climate factors
            was “very low” and that for another the LSU was “low”.”

          • Avatar

            David Appell

            |

            “Co2 Models that are 100% wrong are of no use.”

            Define “100% wrong.”

            There are many factors that determine climate — CO2 is just one of them.

            So if a model is “wrong,” how are you able to determine it’s all the fault of CO2 and not, say, clouds, and/or aerosol emissions, and/or any of several feedbacks?

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            [quote]So if a model is “wrong,” how are you able to determine it’s all the fault of CO2 and not, say, clouds, and/or aerosol emissions, and/or any of several feedbacks?[/quote] Exactly! Even “if” a Model was “correct” how are you able to determine it’s all the fault of CO2 and not, say, clouds, and/or aerosol emissions, and/or any of several feedbacks?

            This is why natural variability has to first be quantified. Yet the IPCC has little to no understanding of these natural forces.

            “Models and simulations are critical to the IPCC’s case for man-made warming but in its Third Assessment
            Report (TAR) the IPCC admitted that the level of scientific understanding (LSU) of 7 of 11 known climate factors
            was “very low” and that for another the LSU was “low”.”

            If your going to claim recent climate is “unnatural” first step is quantifying what is natural. Models based on unproven assumptions are worthless.

          • Avatar

            David Appell

            |

            [i]Alarmists first claimed “natural variability” could not be responsible for recent observed climate.[/i]

            Who said that?

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            Who said that? NOAA for one.
            [quote]It is very unlikely that the 20th-century warming can be explained by natural causes. The late 20th century has been unusually warm. Palaeoclimatic reconstructions show that the second half of the 20th century was likely the warmest 50-year period in the Northern Hemisphere in the last 1300 years. This rapid warming is consistent with the scientific understanding of how the climate should respond to a rapid increase in greenhouse gases like that which has occurred over the past century, and the warming is inconsistent with the scientific understanding of how the climate should respond to natural external factors such as variability in solar output and volcanic activity.[/quote] http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/pd/climate/factsheets/canwarming.pdf%5Bquote%5DThere are no “experiments” in climate science. It’s an observational science, not an experimental science. You can’t line up a thousand Earths all in the same initial state and run them under the same emissions scenario for a hundred or thousand or 10,000 years. [/quote]
            No experiments in climate science? It’s all observational?
            Not according to NOAA. From the same link as above.
            [quote]Numerous experiments have been conducted using climate models to determine the likely causes of the 20th-century climate change. These experiments indicate that models cannot reproduce the rapid warming observed in recent decades when they only take into account variations in solar output and volcanic activity.[/quote]

            The model “experiments” worked for around twenty years, they have diverged for over 18 years. What is called the “pause”.
            [img]http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c0163035afa80970d-800wi[/img]

          • Avatar

            David Appell

            |

            [i]These failed models “hardly” convict Co2 either.
            [/i]

            CO2’s “conviction” happened 150 years ago, when Tyndall measured CO2’s absorption cross section for IR, combined with the rules of quantum mechanics in the early 1900s. That’s all you need to know to begin working out the consequences; science has certainly established that the warming from a doubling of CO2 is, absent feedbacks, 1.2 C. It’s the feedbacks where the uncertainty lies.

            Also “convicting” CO2 are observations that show the greenhouse effect increasing specifically at the wavelengths CO2 absorbs and emits. You can read:

            “Increases in greenhouse forcing inferred from the outgoing longwave radiation spectra of the Earth in 1970 and 1997,” J.E. Harries et al, Nature 410, 355-357 (15 March 2001).
            http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v410/n6826/abs/410355a0.html

            “Comparison of spectrally resolved outgoing longwave data between 1970 and present,” J.A. Griggs et al, Proc SPIE 164, 5543 (2004). http://spiedigitallibrary.org/proceedings/resource/2/psisdg/5543/1/164_1

            “Spectral signatures of climate change in the Earth’s infrared spectrum between 1970 and 2006,” Chen et al, (2007) http://www.eumetsat.int/Home/Main/Publications/Conference_and_Workshop_Proceedings/groups/cps/documents/document/pdf_conf_p50_s9_01_harries_v.pdf

            “Radiative forcing – measured at Earth’s surface – corroborate the increasing greenhouse effect,” R. Phillipona et al, Geo Res Letters, v31 L03202 (2004)
            http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2003GL018765/abstract

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            So what is the “forcing” of a doubling of Co2 alone?

            Forget about the imaginary and refuted positive water vapor feedback “theory”. Observations show water vapor has declined. The Hot Spot is still missing.
            [quote]An analysis of NASA satellite data shows that WATER VAPOR, the MOST IMPORTANT GREENHOUSE GAS, has declined in the upper atmosphere causing a cooling effect that is 16 times greater than the warming effect from man-made greenhouse gas emissions during the period 1990 to 2001.[/quote]
            http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/06/nasa-satellite-data-shows-a-decline-in-water-vapor/

          • Avatar

            David Appell

            |

            [i]So what is the “forcing” of a doubling of Co2 alone?[/i]

            Already answered.

            Again, quoting WUWT doesn’t fly. I’m not wasting my time responding to the boatloads of misinformation that appears there.

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            WUWT is at least impartial, unlike the funding piglets at the IPCC.

            Your whining about sources while quoting the biggest propaganda giant in climate studies is beyond childish David.

            Grow up.

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            Oh… 1.2C Right. Hardly alarming or in denial. [quote]It’s the feedbacks where the uncertainty lies.[/quote] This is the truth.

            If there are “positive feedbacks” they should be measurable effects. The Tropospheric Hot Spot for example. It does not exist.

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            Now he is quoting himself? 😀

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            [quote] What I’ve read says the data doesn’t rule it in or rule it out:[/quote] Compelling science right there Davey!

            So you can’t find it either? 😀 Neither could 35 Million Radiosonode’s.
            [quote] The big problem for the believers of AGW is that years of radiosonde measurements can’t find any warming, as shown in part E of Figure 5.7 in section 5.5 on page 116 of the US CCSP 2006 report. [/quote]

          • Avatar

            David Appell

            |

            “Compelling science right there Davey!”

            It’s the scientifically accurate position. You can’t make conclusions which the data doesn’t support. Until the uncertainties get smaller, the hot spot can neither be ruled in or ruled out. Sorry if that’s inconvenient to your denial.

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            Can’t be ruled in or out? Until the “uncertaintes” get smaller? Radio Sonodes that measure in tenths of a degree failed to find the “predicted” 2-3 degree Hor Spot?

            Uhh sure, 35 Million empirical observations never detected it.

            Much like those Big Foot hunters and Ancient Alien guys, we still “can’t rule it out. 😮

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            Come on amirlach, everyone knows Bigfoot cannot exist unless he is seen by Schrödinger’s cat, or something…

            You know, infinite universes where anything is possible (except a working climate model built by alarmists), all driven by the unifying theory. CO2 is the God Particle.

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            [quote]It’s the scientifically accurate position. You can’t make conclusions which the data doesn’t support. Until the uncertainties get smaller, the hot spot can neither be ruled in or ruled out. Sorry if that’s inconvenient to your denial.[/quote] Much like the existance of leprechauns
            has not been “ruled” out, but keep looking. 😀

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            [quote]I’m not wasting my time responding to the boatloads of misinformation that appears there[/quote]

            So along with cherry picked dates, video games and tortured data, David now cherry picks questions to which he will respond.

            The emperor is buck naked, and doesn’t even know it.

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            [quote]Again, quoting WUWT doesn’t fly. I’m not wasting my time responding to the boatloads of misinformation that appears there.[/quote] Quoting himself is perfectly acceptable though!
            After comparing comment numbers at Watt’s site to David’s, you can see why he say’s “Again, quoting WUWT doesn’t fly.” 😀

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

          • Avatar

            David Appell

            |

            Why are you quoting the 3AR and not the latest report, the 5AR?

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            Why are you quoting papers from 2001 and not from 2015?

            Why have all of the Alarmist predictions failed?

          • Avatar

            David Appell

            |

            “Why are you quoting papers from 2001 and not from 2015?”

            Because the 2001 paper found a basic result that is still very relevant, and an assessment that has been updated twice isn’t.

            At this point, quoting the 3AR (or 1AR) immediately smells fishy.

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            Quoting any intergovernmental agency that has espoused wealth redistribution is [i]beyond[/i] fishy.

        • Avatar

          David Appell

          |

          >> If it disagrees with experiment, it is wrong.

          Reply

        • Avatar

          David Appell

          |

          [i]If it disagrees with experiment, it is wrong.[/i]

          There are no “experiments” in climate science. It’s an observational science, not an experimental science. You can’t line up a thousand Earths all in the same initial state and run them under the same emissions scenario for a hundred or thousand or 10,000 years.

          Detecting and attributing climate change is more subtle and more difficult than any experiment.

          Reply

  • Avatar

    Aido

    |

    Recently, a representative from Greenpeace knocked on my door. He was seeking donations “to help the Amazon rainforest which is in danger of disappearing due to deforestation and global warming”.
    I invited him in for a coffee.
    Once we were settled, I asked him “just how big is the Amazon rainforest?
    “It’s very big”, he replied. “And an area the size of Wales is disappearing every year. The forest is the lungs of the planet and it will be catastrophic for mankind if it disappears”.
    “Yes”, I said “but how big exactly is this forest?”.
    He admitted he didn’t know exactly.
    I said “ it might surprise you to know that it’s about 2,000 miles from east to west and in area it’s about two thirds the size of the USA”.
    “Oh”, he said. He clearly hadn’t expected this.
    I asked him how much of the deforestation was due to commercial logging and how much was clearance for agricultural land to support the growing population.
    He didn’t know that, either.
    Did he know the area of Wales in square miles? Nope. Did he know that deforestation had slowed down since 2009 and an area less than half the size of Wales now disappears annually? No again.
    Did he know how much of the atmosphere’s oxygen comes from the rain forests as opposed to how much CO2 they absorb? He was surprised to learn that one actually balances the other, so there’s no net gain from forests.
    He finished his coffee, thanked me politely and scooted, sans donation.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Amber

    |

    Well Aido you did more than most .The fewer the facts the stronger the opinions as they say .
    I would think he needed the donation to pay for the Greenpeace Peru clean up or did they get sent to jail ?

    Reply

Leave a comment

Loading Disqus Comments ...

No Trackbacks.