The Expanding Sahara, UK Pushback on Deniers, Misquotes, And Other Links

Here are some links to what’s being said around the blogisphere:

  • The nef (new economics foundation) triple crunch blog describes itself as offering “new economics solutions for the interlinked credit, climate and energy crises“. In “Denying the Evidence” blogger Karen Schucan-Bird discusses UK Minister for Climate Change and Energy Ed Milliband’s recent “declaration of war”  on climate change skeptics. Milliband recently said:

“It’s right that there’s rigour applied to all the reports about climate change, but I think it would be wrong that when a mistake is made it’s somehow used to undermine the overwhelming picture that’s there.

We know there’s a physical effect of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere leading to higher temperatures, that’s a question of physics; we know CO2 concentrations are at their highest for 6,000 years; we know there are observed increases in temperatures; and we know there are observed effects that point to the existence of human-made climate change. That’s what the vast majority of scientists tell us.”

  • Opinion Nigeria” talks about the very close-to-home issue of the encroaching Sahara desert:

Soon Nigeria will be part of the Sahara Desert Heritage if the desertification being experienced in Northern Nigeria is not tamed. The Sahara is entering our country at the rate of 0.6 km per year! Now that is problem. That is 600 metres. Walk this distance every day reflecting on the problem everyday, I bet the CC worry will catch you.
You should be actually. Because the adaptation of Northern Nigerians’ to water scarcity will be so stressed that they will reach breaking point. The resulting problem, people trooping into the South because their lands would have become almost uncultivable, hunting impossible, fishing in dried-up rivers or streams a tall dream etc. A living testimony is the Lake Chad, shrinking by the day.

Latif pushed back hard against the Mail, saying that the tabloid took his comments out of context to make an editorial statement. “It comes as a surprise to me that people would try to use my statements to try to dispute the nature of global warming. I believe in manmade global warming. I have said that if my name was not Mojib Latif it would be global warming,” he said. “There is no doubt within the scientific community that we are affecting the climate, that the climate is changing and responding to our emissions of greenhouse gases.”

  • Okay – here’s a link to a Huffington Post article: “Obama Hatred: Large Number of Republicans Think President is Racist, Socialist, Not U.S. Citizen“. I’m including it here because it’s in my “Wow? Really??” category.  Apparently, according to a recent poll, 36% of Republicans believe that Obama wasn’t born in the United States, 63% think he’s a socialist, and 31% of them believe he is a “racist who hates white people” (ala Glenn Beck). The article quotes Markos Moulitsas, founder and publisher of Daily Kos, who conducted the poll (the Daily Kos headline on this reads “New Daily Kos Poll Reveals Insane Attitudes of Republican Voters“):

This is why it’s becoming impossible for elected Republicans to work with Democrats to improve our country. They are a party beholden to conspiracy theorists who don’t even believe Obama was born in the United States, and already want to impeach him despite a glaring lack of scandal or wrongdoing. They think Obama is racist against white people and the second coming of Lenin. And if any of them stray and decide to do the right thing and try to work in a bipartisan fashion, they suffer primaries and attacks. Given what their base demands — and this poll illustrates them perfectly — it’s no wonder the GOP is the party of no.”

It should be no surprise, then,  to hear that fifty-seven percent of Republicans surveyed say there is no solid evidence of global warming (up from 31 percent in early 2007), compared to 75% of Democrats who recognize the reality of global warming. If these people don’t believe their president was born in the United States – even though he has produced a birth certificate from Hawaii – how can they be expected to understand an issue like climate change where there is a concerted and deliberate attempt on the part of vested interests to misinform the public? Okay, I guess that last statement might be true regarding President Obama as well (ala Glenn Beck and Fox “News” again – check out this link to “Glenn Beck Update: The Back-Pedaling Begins” on his outrageous and inflammatory statements – that he is now denying – that Obama and his administration were going to “slaughter” people). Anyway, kudos to Ed Milliband across the pond for tackling the climate skeptics head on – it will be interesting to follow how this story develops. May sanity prevail!

Here in Canada, if you are on Facebook, you can now join “Canadians Against Canada’s Climate Plan” , if you haven’t already. Join the discussion with other concerned citizens!

0 thoughts on “The Expanding Sahara, UK Pushback on Deniers, Misquotes, And Other Links”

  1. With reference to global warming which unfortunately so long as governments are considering Cap and Trade and CO2 taxes is still with us.

    Incidently it is a serious error and tantemount to being a porky to say that warmer climates cause desertification.

    As the air warms there is more evaporation and therefore more precipitation including in the polar regions as snow. One should be aware that during the Holocene Optimum with temperatures significantly higher than the present, the Sahara Desert was lush and fertile.

    There might be global warming or cooling but the important issue is whether we, as a human race, can do anything about it.

    There are a host of porkies and not very much truth barraging us everyday so its difficult to know what to believe.

    I think I have simplified the issue in an entertaining way on my blog which includes some issues connected with climategate and “embarrassing” evidence.

    In the pipeline is an analysis of the economic effects of the proposed emission reductions. Watch this space or should I say Blog

    Please feel welcome to visit and leave a comment.



    PS The term “porky” is listed in the Australian Dictionary of Slang.( So I’m told.)

    • Warning:

      Roger’s website is one big “porky” recycling the whole tired – and tiresome – contrarian arguments and personal attacks on scientists. For the story behind this kind of nonsense, check out :,, and/or Climate Science Watch (particularly this link, where Richard Somerville, a distinguished professor emeritus and research professor at Scripps Institution of Oceanography, UC San Diego, is quoted as saying, in response to a recent request to address claims recently made by climate change denialists,. “Science…does not work by unqualified people making claims on television or the Internet,…The first thing that the world needs to do if it is going to confront the challenge of climate change wisely is to learn about what science has discovered and accept it.” . for starters.

      Also, see my post today (Feb 4) on approaching this issue as risk management, like buying house insurance, rather than debating the science among non-experts (which 99% of the population is!).

    • With regards to your further comments on this issue, Roger, I refer you to my “Comment Policy”. In case you don’t get a chance to visit it, here’s a part:
      In keeping with the critical urgency of this situation, comments that argue that climate change is not happening, that CO2 is good for us, that Al Gore isn’t a scientist (we all know this!!), that as a meteorologist/geologist/etc. you know better than the IPCC and every National Academy of Science, humans are too insignificant to cause climate change, and so on, will be deleted without comment. If you are high on the credibility spectrum – that is, you are a publishing scientist – and you are quoting from a legitimate peer-reviewed source, and you have something to say about the science of climate change, then your comments will be posted. Referencing other blogs DOES NOT count!

      I would be very interested in hearing the Kiwi perspective on this issue (New Zealand is one of my favourite countries – both the scenery and the people are wonderful), but as my comment policy makes clear, this blog IS NOT for debating the science. This is not because I think everything is settled but because I’m not a climate scientist and I doubt that you are. Unless both of us are experts in this field, it’s kind of pointless (see my posting “Would you Let Climate Skeptics Perform Brain Surgery On You?”). However, if you want to discuss the fact that from where you sit in New Zealand, your observations are that nothing has changed with regard to the climate (although you are awfully close to the Antarctic ice shield, and pretty much surrounded by water so you might want to delve a little deeper into the facts), or to debate risk management (which both of us are probably slightly more familiar with, as chances are we’ve both bought life/house/car insurance), have at ‘er!
      (BTW, your stats notwithstanding, I definitely did visit your blog – I make sure before I make a statement about something on my blog, I’ve done my research:)

  2. Well you disappoint me by not displaying all reasonable comments but I expected no less to tell you the truth.

    I encourage all comments on blog because I am not afraid of the truth.

    However I wanted to pickup on your analogy “Would you Let Climate Skeptics Perform Brain Surgery On You?”). ”

    I have had some reasonably major surgery (3-4 hours is major?) and I am therefore qualified to tell you how I would approach brain surgery if it arose.
    First of all yes I would choose the very best surgeon. But if that surgeon was unable or refused to explain to me each step of what was neccesary, the reasons for the proposed actions, give me the % chance of failure as well as explain other treatments such as drugs to be used etc., he wouldn’t get the job.
    At the same time I would do my own research, get second opinions and make sure the diagnosis is consistent with my symptoms, check out personally the side effects of proposed drugs etc.
    Although this might be a little difficult if my brain was impaired I think I make my point.

    You are correct that Climate change is important, but I wonder why you are afraid of trying to understand the science and the important issues.

    If you can identify the critical points then in actual fact it is not really that complicated.

    I dont mean to make a personal attack but you are acting as if this is a religious exercise and your faith and belief is about to be challenged at any time.




Leave a Comment