Peter Taylor’s CHILL: a Reassessment of Global Warming Theory is really two books in one. The first part covers the science of climate change in exhaustive detail and provides an alternative to the orthodox view. Taylor, who has impeccable green credentials, describes “the technocratic and communalist approach” in a masterly analysis of how we arrived at this point through “a combination of zealotry which somehow has managed to portray the science as unequivocal when it’s not”. The second part covers policy, politics and remedies.
A main theme of the first part of the book is that we take too linear a view of
climate-trend projections, without recognising past patterns and cycles
which could include future cooling. I am comfortable with that notion, as any observer of history is provided with clear evidence that climate oscillates in numerous
cycles of warm and cold periods.
Readers who believe Al Gore’s Inconvenient Truth, and who consider the IPCC
climate assessments are factual, unbiased and objective, will not like this
book. As Taylor says: “It is clear to me that IPCC has made such a forthright commitment to the standard (Co2 ) policy model, that it has a biased attitude to new data that does not conform to that model.” And:
“It is striking that a small group of men working behind computer screens created a virtual reality in which the future climate became the enemy of mankind. That original cabal was likely innocent of any underhand motivation and genuinely believed mankind faced a threat and that they would sound the alert and potentially stave off disaster. But sociologists will go a little bit further and look at the social environment that pawned the very concepts of the climate game, many of which we take entirely for granted. For example the notion that humanity itself can be under threat or that the planet might need to be saved. These are very recent notions, at least from a societal perspective, and do not bear closer scientific scrutiny. “
This book is a breath of fresh air in pointing out the numerous contradictions in the orthodox climate science camps that believe themselves uniquely exempt to the notion that they should actually prove their scientific hypotheses – that by altering the climate and doubling Co2 emissions, mankind will cause a rise in temperatures of up to 6 degrees C.
The author clinically examines areas of uncertainty, plain misunderstandings, and assertions in the existing ‘consensus’ by reviewing numerous high quality ‘contrarian’ papers that rarely receive much coverage in the science and popular media, which is obsessed with the notion of anthropogenic global warming. Climate science is a very small world with authors frequently peer reviewing each other’s papers, some of which might be based on their own work in the first place (Google US Congress hearing by Wegman). Also, they often pronounce on subjects of which they have little
knowledge. When talking of Solanki – a leading solar scientist – Taylor comments:
“This is another classic example of senior scientists publishing in the peer
reviewed literature and commenting on issues entirely outside of their field,
such as carbon dioxide and atmospheric physics, without reference to other
entire fields of relevant climatology, seriously compromised by
compartmented approach or political correctness in the face of
‘controversial’ science.”
That Taylor – and many other commentators – believes that even the IPCC’s
lowest Co2/temperature rise scenario exaggerates its case by at least a
factor of three is amply illustrated, and as the author demonstrates, sea
levels and temperatures have obviously not read the IPCC’s script.
Having demolished what currently passes for peer reviewed and settled
science, Taylor moves on to remedies and the consequences of the politics in
the second part of his book. He argues that we are not doing enough to adapt to
inevitable changes, and that in particular we are vulnerable to the climate
cooling, for which there is no ‘Plan B’ whatsoever. The author believes many
of the actions for mitigating the supposed impacts of warming are counter
productive. He stresses the need to create ‘resilient systems’ to cope with
all eventualities. As the author says in examining the ‘collusion of
interests’ he has identified; “I can see how it works to everyone’s interest
to believe in the scary climate story.”
This excellent but lengthy book deals with a difficult subject and therefore
its structure is especially important to ensure accessibility and achieve
the influence it deserves, but in this there are problems. For example,
omitting the chapter number at the head of each page yet referring to
chapter numbers in the text was irritating, as wer the constant references to
papers placed on the author’s web site. As much of the science is complex
and multi-layered, it cannot be read like a novel at one go, so it would be
useful to provide a chapter summary. Also I felt it was missing a chapter on
the IPCC’s politics, rationale and peer review processes, that would
illustrate how they became part of the ‘collusion of interests’ intent on scaring
everyone to death when really we have far more important things to worry
about. Nevertheless, the book remains essential and provocative reading.
Finally, to extract from the major review of the science in the first part
of the book is not easy, given the volume of material covered. But here is a
dip into the section on ocean cycles (page 131), which illustrates the tone
of the message:
“The oceans play a crucial role in the absorption and dissipation of heat
over decadal and millennial timescales and with distinct cyclic patterns.
These patterns are poorly understood and not replicated in global warming
models, and any conclusions drawn with respect to those models being able to
isolate an anthropogenic global warming signal must be regarded as unproven
and unlikely”.
These are brave words from a career environmentalist who has managed to keep his head when all around him are losing theirs.
CHILL: a Reassessment of Global Warming Theory
Peter Taylor
Clairview Books, 2009, 404 pages
£14.99 Pbk ISBN 978 1 905570 19 5
[or try www.abebooks.co.uk – TonyN]
For a profile of Peter Taylor follow the link;
I apologise TonyN, and I’ll leave you guys to it. I can’t help getting rude when people don’t show common courtesies like reading before writing. It is my problem and I will not inflict it on the discussion further.
TonyN: Apology received with goodwill. If everyone read the comments they are responding to properly then I wonder if the blogosphere would survive!
JH
You wrote:
Well put. Now toss all those 1,000-page IPCC reports on the fire. Summer is over and it is starting to get cold (happens every year, dynamically).
Yawn!
Max
JH 292
I would contend there is no empirical evidence to support your view that CO2 absorbs enough heat to then cause additional water vapour to “evaporate” and this in turn cause further warming. I would love to see this evidence, and I suspect so would the IPCC, Jim Hansen et all. If you have it tucked away please produce it.
Now what I believe Max may have produced is a set of figures that show the Mathematics used in certain assumptions was wrong and that a particular sensitivity must be much less than calculated or assumed. A lot of this work goes on to try and demonstrate that the whole AGW project is an exaggeration of sometimes monumental proportions. In other words, if we accept your premise about CO2, you are still wrong.
Now I also contend that nothing is un-provable. As an engineer I have seen issues resolved that had everyone stumped. It just takes time and hard work. Unfortunately the AGW monster shuts out those that can provide the answer, as they don’t like the answer they are going to get. All your flash logic and analysis talk will not ensure a Jumbo jet gets off the ground. Real science and engineering does that, something that is lacking in the IPCC armoury.
I go back to my original statement that until the “AGW believers” nee alarmists can convincingly demonstrate CO2 forcing then all bets are off and this whole thing will be dead and buried in 2 years. And it’s a bit rich you telling me I need to consider the whole CO2 system, when we are asked on a daily basis to believe that the tiny amount of CO2 (itself a trace gas) that man produces, is entirely responsible for the small amount of warming seen in the late 20th century, and if we don’t act now a disaster will ensue. No it is you that needs a dose of practical reality.
And lastly to the whole board; there is only one word and its alarmist. If you disagree then please tell me what that was on UK television last night, because the word believer does not fit.
JH
I think we can cap off the “Goldilocks” discussion.
You were not able to pick an optimum temperature.
It just shows that there is no good estimate of what the best “globally and annually averaged land and sea surface temperature” for our planet really is.
History tells us it is likely NOT 1°C to 2°C COLDER than today, as it was in the depths of the LIA, with resulting loss of arable land, crop failures, famines, etc. At that time there were less than 1 billion people on Earth.
There are now seven times this many mouths to feed, so major crop failures or loss of arable land would be very disrupting (as Peter Taylor points out on p.305 of his book).
So if today’s temperature is “x”, the “Goldilocks optimum” is very unlikely to be “x-1” or “x-2”.
It is either at the current level (let’s say the average since 2001) or possibly somewhat higher than this.
Is it “x+1”, “x+2” or maybe ”x+4”? Who knows?
But, hey, it is probably regionally different from place to place. Canada wheat farmers might like “x+4”. Inuit seal hunters might also not mind a warmer climate. I live in Switzerland and wouldn’t mind “x+2”. How about Brazilian sugar cane growers? Or Japanese rice farmers? (Not to mention polar bears and all the other creatures out there, who have survived temperatures much warmer than today’s.)
Greenhouse warming is supposed to occur more rapidly at latitudes further from the Equator than in tropical regions, so a bit of warming might be a “win-win” situation, with those that can benefit most from it getting most of it.
We simply do not know.
Sea level rise is measured in millimeters per year (with a measurement accuracy of centimeters), so adapting to higher sea levels of coastal regions should be no problem.
So when you wrote:
You hit the nail on the head.
(And BTW, implementing a direct carbon tax or indirect tax via cap ‘n trade will do nothing to “deal with” this “dynamic world”.)
Let’s be smart, as Peter Taylor advises us, and prepare ourselves for either a global warming or a global cooling (which he, personally, believes is both more likely to occur and would be considerably worse for humankind than a warming).
And let’s forget carbon taxes or futile attempts to change our planet’s climate (which we are not able to do in any case).
Max
JH
I sincerely hope you do not move on, but you do seem to have a certain impatience and intolerance of other views. You characterise the rest of us as not being logical or not understanding, and continually put down your debating opponents.
It is not that we are stupid or intellectually inferior to you, it is just that we diasgree with you! Why is that so hard to understand?
We don’t promote our own viewpoint in an unthinking fashion, to the contrary we cite report after report, scientist after scientist, institute original research project after original research project.
Do you or Peter Martin engage with that or try to dismantle the evidence by correcting the information? Or apply superior arguements?
No. Reports are ignored. Sceptical scientists are personally and professionaly demeaned. Research is airily waved away. The other ‘side’ are stupid and therefore wrong.
Sea Level rises. Unprecedented temperatures. glacier changes. arctic ice variation. These and many more topics discussed and evidence shown from official sources to demonstrate we HAVE been this way before climatically in man’s recorded history. In the cae of arctic ice melt as recently as the 1920′-1940’s.
The science does not back up the observational evidence. In some cases it has been constructed to put forward a particular view, when the opposing opinion could more easily have been made.
You believe yourself to be so logical but have failed to grasp the fundaamtals of the debate and that it long ago moved out of the realms of science (questionable or otherwise) and into that of poltics and idealogy.
The AGW hypothesis is being promulgated by the bureaucrats of the IPCC, the EU, and now America, by following the instructions of their political masters.
Since around 2004 they decided that although the science was by no means settled it suited them to push forward the global warming agenda which provides power, control, and the means to express personal idealogies.
We all know that common sense and rationality can go out of the window when someone wants to promote their personal belief system.
The arguement is not the rational logical scientific one you believe, but has moved into another higher realm entirely.
I suggest you look at other threads on this blog and see what is going on behind the scenes. If you do not know I or others will provide the links where you can find out for yourself.
Whatever we have at the moment are not rational decisions based on science and logic, but emotive, raw, and visceral politics, designed to change the way we think and act in ways the propagators see as being for the good of everyone, because they know best.
tonyb
Max,
A cap off is a good idea. The debate is hitting the end of its usefulness.
As for the optimum, you are in a cold climate; I am in a hot one. Please consider other people’s situations as well as your own. I live in the red patch in FP2.8 which is a biodiversity hotspot. It is not near the equator and will not be part of your win-win. We ‘simply do not know’? Not true, we can play the odds. Deciding on an optimum requires a lot of judgments about the worth of people, places and other life forms which we are not informed enough to debate. I react strongly to your argument because you are quite happy to trade off my home and its unique species for something you ‘wouldn’t mind’. Maybe I’m taking it too personally, but I’m OK with that. When it comes to protecting one’s country murder is socially acceptable so long as it’s called war. I’m not advocating killing or anything like that; just showing the realm that the question enters. I consider it a stupid question because it is not what is ‘perfect’, but what is ‘perfect for who’. It is dangerous territory I walk away from.
I came here with an open mind and have tried to see your side of each argument and to find common ground, but mostly I can’t follow your logic. You belittle the methods of arguments you don’t like and support the ones you do. When I showed you the flaw of the Fielding panel’s logic you said I ‘misunderstood’ and changed your interpretation. When Wong did the same thing you used it to discredit her whole argument. It is not consistent. I like criticism; I seek challenges and am always happy to change my mind. You failed to do so. Maybe I’m an idiot; feel free to call me one if it helps you sleep at night. “It probably won’t happen”, “even if it does, it might be good” and now “even if we wanted to stop it we can’t”. There is just too much faith in the lucky side of uncertainty in your argument for me to accept that we will actually be so lucky. I refuse to bet my house on such odds. I don’t think it is pessimistic, but realistic. I accept that you are willing to take the bet, and know that you do so in full knowledge of your decision. These decisions are not science and there is no right or wrong, just opinion. I have not tried to force my opinion on anyone here, but I have been strong with my logic and confidence of the science. I have learnt a lot about our understanding of solar influence, especially non-irradiative forcing, which I had not given enough attention. I do not want you to stop being ‘AGW Sceptics’ as it is an important role that somebody has to play. Do it properly. Don’t rely on weak arguments (see #302 for confusing short and long term trends to give a confident sounding argument which says nothing), cherry picked data and fabricated, extremist or stereotyped opponents. I don’t say that to discredit, but for you to learn. Proper criticism is always constructive.
JH (292)
It doesn’t matter if you believe or not, as value is value.
A thought that presumably sustains used car salesmen when they have just disposed of another ‘nice little runner’ to some unsuspecting old lady. What are you selling, carbon credits?
This from the BBC?
What happened to global warming?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8299079.stm
Max,
I think that you’ve just announced “checkmate” to JH as an opponent……..and, as usual with Warmists when their argument falls apart, he’s upset the chessboard and walked away in a tantrum.
JH
I have read your last post several times, and have still been unable to make much sense of it. Nevertheless, I am going to do my best to respond.
You wrote
This sounds very good, JH, but your behavior on this site shows that it is not accurate. Your mind was made up from the start.
You switched from the real topic here (Peter Taylor’s book) to:
When I showed you the flaw of the Fielding panel’s logic you said I ‘misunderstood’ and changed your interpretation. When Wong did the same thing you used it to discredit her whole argument. It is not consistent.
Sorry, JH. The whole Fielding thing came up when Peter Martin erroneously suspected Fielding of fudging HadCRUT temperature data to prove a point (that it has stopped warming). I went to the trouble of checking this out in detail, plotting the referenced HadCRUT data and comparing this with Fielding’s graph. I found that Fielding’s data were, indeed, 100% accurate, and informed PM of this fact, which I believe he has reluctantly accepted now.
You then took up the attack on Fielding (and his panel of four experts, in particular Kininmouth), and then declared:
Making his sort of blanket criticism without specifics, supported by one cherry-picked example, is stepping onto a very “slippery slope”, JH. I pointed this out to you and took you to task for it, saying it did, indeed, make you look like the amateur you said you were and asking you to provide examples of “flawed reasoning” in the panel’s response to Wong.
Up until that point I could not have cared one iota (or fiddler’s f—) about the debate between an Australian Senator (and his panel of four scientists) and the Australian climate minister, Penny Wong, but this awakened my interest, so I checked the situation out.
I found that the Senator had asked the Minister three very specific and pointed questions, which she and her panel of experts did not answer directly, but for the most part waffled around them a bit with discussions of interesting but not directly related peripheral issues.
The most significant clear answer that I found to the first question (regarding the current lack of warming since 1998 despite all time record increases in atmospheric CO2 concentration) was that this was attributed to “natural variance”, which was more than offsetting the CO2 warming signal.
This was a “red flag”, not only for the Fielding panel, but also for me (having heard the same bit of hokum in a press release by Vicky Pope of the Met Office), for it raises the very embarrassing question (to IPCC and the Met Office): “if these natural variations are strong enough today to more than offset all-time record increases in atmospheric CO2, could it not have been that they (working in the other direction) could have caused the whole late 20th century global warming largely attributed to increased atmospheric CO2 in the first place?”
This question (worded somewhat differently) was also posed to Wong by the Fielding panel. You ignored the implication of the Wong/Pope “natural variability” rationalization, but found the “nit-pick” important that the panel accused IPCC of totally ignoring natural factors (0% natural, 100% anthropogenic forcing), whereas in fact they had only essentially ignored natural factors (7% natural, 93% anthropogenic).
Now you come with the statement:
This rambling statement, wherein you express to all on this site what a great guy you are, and how others apparently misunderstand you, how you are not trying to force your opinion on anyone, but how you are strong with your logic and confidence in what you call “the science” is all a bit self-serving, JH.
In addition, your blanket insinuation that I am “confusing short and long term trends to give a confident sounding argument which says nothing”, or using “cherry picked data and fabricated, extremist or stereotyped opponents” (whatever that last part is supposed to mean) is, quite frankly, self-serving and meaningless rubbish.
JH, learn to debate on a level playing field. Learn to stick with facts. Learn to respect your debate partner, even if you disagree. Learn to avoid unsubstantiated blanket criticism of opinions, which you do not like. Argue hard and fair, but with real data, not with veiled but unsubstantiated insinuations. When someone makes a claim, check it out with rational skepticism. Hold your debate opponent’s feet to the fire with data, not with idle rhetoric. You will become a more effective debater that way.
Max
The Dog Ate Global Warming
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZTBiMTRlMDQxNzEyMmRhZjU3ZmYzODI5MGY4ZWI5OWM=&w=MQ==
Max and Brute,
You seem to feel that you’ve hit on a winning point about an ‘optimum temperature’ and silly talk of checkmate. Its a false argument. Naturally everyone will have their own preference for the kind of climate they would prefer. Naturally there isn’t going to be any agreement on that.
The world has a wide ride of sub-climates to suit all tastes without having to change the overall climate at all. It is much better for an individual to move than for the climate itself to change. However, it is inevitable that the human population of 6 billion or more is going to have some effect on the world’s climate. Up until the mid 19th century it did look like the Earth was gradually moving out of its interglacial period. Even though that would be entirely natural, I would still argue that it would be undesirable.
However, as C02 levels rose in the early 20th century, increasing the GH effect, that danger was removed. It can well be argued that a small amount of enhanced GHE is a good thing.
In other words, we can say that 280 ppmv of CO2 is probably too low for long term human comfort and that a higher figure will need to be agreed upon. At some stage in the future it will be necessary to agree on something like 350 ppmv. Some will no doubt argue that this is too high a figure. The purists will push for 280 ppmv no doubt.
However we are a long way off even to have to think about that. The atmospheric concentration of CO2 is now 385 ppmv and rising fast. The immediate challenge is to keep it going much higher than 450ppmv.
As far as terminolgy goes…..Monkton refers to Warmists as “Bedwetters”……..I think it fits…..
The second paragraph in this story ends with “The more sympathy we can exhibit for Al Gore’s polar bear or David Suzuki’s whining, the more trendy and acceptable we become.” ……which is spot on also.
Pete,
Back to controlling the worldwide weather system again are ya?
JH used the term “dynamic” whereas I feel the correct description is “chaotic”.
The haughtiness of the eco-chondriacs is astonishing. You’re a smart guy Pete, however; controlling the average temperature of the Earth is a bit of a stretch……and claiming that you or anyone else has the ability to do so is equivalent to professing to transcend divinity (however you’d describe it). You must think very highly of your (mankind’s) abilities.
Why not try something simpler such as achieving world peace first?
How about just solving the Mid-East crisis for starters?
Do you have any idea how much energy is involved within a Category 3 hurricane?
I should’ve thrown “egotist” in the last comment also……… which seems appropriate for self proclaimed “Weather Diviners” such as Al Gore and Jimmie Hanson.
Sheez.
What have we come to as a species when we actually consider a politician that claims to possess the ability to control planetary weather.
CO2 concentrations are spiralling upwards without anyone making the decision that it should happen. The problem for our generation is that we’ve lost control.
In 200 years time, that will change and control will be regained. There may well be a discussion, a debate even, among our descendants, on just what the GHG content of the atmosphere will need to be stabilised at. I’m happy to leave it to them to decide.
That doesn’t mean that every storm or hurricane will be controlled. One should never say never, but it looks unlikely, from our 21st century viewpoint, that will ever be possible.
Brute,
Its always good to check the little details in articles like the one written by people like Michael Coren. Its a good test. It gives you an idea if they really know what they are talking about.
Take his claim on DDT. According to Wiki this wasn’t banned in America until 1972, some 9 years after President Kennedy was killed. Wasn’t some guy called Nixon your president then?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DDT
Pete,
The basic premise of the global warming argument is flawed.
CO2 levels have been steadily rising and surface temperatures have not, Arctic and Antarctic ice levels are rising (Antarctic Ice is at the highest level in recorded history), sea levels are stable, hurricane frequency and intensity has diminished and ocean temperatures are falling.
The “climate” has always been, and will always be, “dynamic”, “chaotic”, sometimes violent, sometimes benign……that’s the nature of a chaotic system.
Warmists saw an “effect” and attempted to attribute a “cause”……they chose CO2. The “effect” has now reversed, however the attributed “cause” has remained constant.
Why politicians would choose a trace atmospheric, naturally occurring gas as the cause for worldwide apocalypse I don’t know…… (although the tax implications/control of the means of production may have provided motivation).
Now they are attempting to bolster their failed prophecies with caveats and disclaimers.
It isn’t working anymore.
If you’d like to discuss “green” technologies in a worldwide forum to resolve some other (perceived) problem then I’m all ears………but the global warming/climate change excuse is a ruse, and people have caught on.
Cmon Pete……pretty flimsy. Argue the main body of the article…….(if you want to).
The same Wikipedia blurb contains the following:
Kennedy was shot on November 22nd, 1963. The committee that he created and it’s subsequent recommendations resulted in banning DDT.
Pete,
Remember that the heat that created this hurricane was transfered millions of miles through space by the “inconsequential” stellar furnace that is the source of all climate……and you’re asserting that light bulbs, automobiles and soda pop gas are going to impact this system?
The Warmists are tilting at windmills Pete.
Subject: D7) How much energy does a hurricane release?
http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/tcfaq/D7.html
Brute,
You say “Why politicians would choose a trace atmospheric, naturally occurring gas as the cause for worldwide apocalypse I don’t know”
You’ve had it explained often enough so I guess if you don’t understand it now, you never will. Its not politicians -its scientists. And they didn’t choose – they’ve described. Its not worldwide apocalypse – its serious environmental damage.
Yes, it {Co2} is naturally occurring. You got that bit right.
You might have a somewhat better understanding of DDT. I’m not particularly knowledgeable in this area, but my guess would be the benefits of DDT would have outweighed the environmental costs if it had been used more sensibly. As you say, there probably was “indiscriminate spraying of DDT in the US” and elsewhere too. It is now being used again in some countries. Hopefully in a much more responsible way than previously, but technology has moved on and better alternatives often exist.
One of the problems with its previous overuse is that insects, mosquitoes in particular, evolved a DDT resistance.
President Kennedy did exactly the right thing. He didn’t make a decision himself, but referred the matter to scientific study. You could say the same about President Reagan twenty years later. But, why bother doing this if you are going to dispute what the scientists advise later?
My wife still does exactly the same. She’ll ask what I think about something and if she doesn’t like the answer she’ll start arguing with me about it. It drives me up the wall!
Peter (312)
The immediate challenge is to keep it going much higher than 450ppmv
How high would you like it? :-)
More seriously, at which point do you think it might be a problem (assuming it doesn’t get reabsorbed into cooling oceans)?
Have you encountered a burning bush lately Pete?
What “serious” damage would that be?
Seems quite subjective.
The “scientists” that you cite have made many outlandish prophecies over the years……let’s check the record. Choose the “serious environmental damage” the Alarmists had prognosticated and we’ll check results of their predictions.
Catastrophic Ice Melt?
Rising Sea Levels?
Massive Extinctions?
Horrific Monster Hurricanes?
Widespread Drought?
Widespread Flood?
Worldwide Pestilence?
Massive Crop Failure?
Pick one Pete or choose your own not included and we’ll delve into the details.
Climate fear mongering seems to be quite profitable…..
Peter Martin #321 said to Brute
“You’ve had it explained often enough so I guess if you don’t understand it now, you never will. Its not politicians -its scientists. And they didn’t choose – they’ve described. Its not worldwide apocalypse – its serious environmental damage.”
What an extraordinary and incorrect thing to say! You are demonstrably wrong. Climate change has been highly politically charged since Margaret Thatcher decided to use it as a reason to promote Nuclear over coal and made a speech on the world stage about it in 1988.
She then opened the Hadley Centre in 1990 through whose offices several co-chairs of the IPCC have been provided. Since then vast funds have been diverted to it. (see the recent post on the New Statesman thread)
Defra, and now the Dept for energy and climate change, see AGW as being the vehicle to promote ‘one planet living’
http://www.defra.gov.uk/evidence/social/behaviour/documents/behaviours-1206-scoping.pdf
extracts;
“This work has contributed to a shared understanding of the vision for environmental behaviour to underpin ‘one planet living’
“ as part of our mapping of Defras work we drew up an initial set of ‘desired’ behaviours”.
This scoping report was the original basis for the advert on itv through implementing Futerras ‘new rules of the game’
http://www.futerra.co.uk/downloads/NewRules:NewGame.pdf
This tv advert
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6867046.ece
and the Copenhagen treaty are directly related to Agenda 21-again a highly political way of managing world affairs.I have posted here on this extensively. I have a 25 link document on this explaining the politics. Fortunately for you it is difficult to make a post of more than three links here.
The science has always come a poor second to the politics and since 2005 has become virtuallu irrelevant.
tonyb