When the mood takes me I like to add links to Skeptical Science's Global Warming Links Directory. I only ever add skeptic links, that's because I'm not sure that I'm scientifically literate enough to spot a bias in pro-AGW material. So I read a lot of skeptic material, which I have to say I'm largely sceptical of myself. Now here's some words from the GWPF website that just caught my eye "Even with the impact of climate change on extreme weather, the best
advice is it will be several decades before science is able to unpack
the impact of climate change from natural variability."
I filed that under 'It's natural variability', but perhaps I should have added a new skeptic argument to reflect the way natural variability has been couched in an uncertainty argument over time. I'd like to ask the author Graham Lloyd of The Australian why his is the best advice.
Lloyd isn't denying AGW but I wonder whether never ending nuanced scepticism from journalists is worse.
Showing posts with label climate change. Show all posts
Showing posts with label climate change. Show all posts
Is Anthony Watts airbrushing his past ?
Watching Anthony Watts on PBS Newshour I was struck by how reasonable Anthony appeared. He stressed at least three times how he agreed Global Warming exists, and his account of his past was shall we say surprising. Anthony mentions James Hansen's testimony to Congress in '88 and claims that he was motivated by it. So the viewer could be forgiven for thinking that Anthony has taken a measured path from AGW proponent to skeptic over the years.
Ironic how climate denial blogs claim their view is being suppressed yet are quick to censor any dissent or probing questions.
IMHO it's a worthwhile question. Conceding the world is warming but taking the stance that warming is insignificant is much more nuanced than his flat denial of the consensus back in 1995. We need to know whose judgment to trust and it seems Anthony can't account for his earlier stance. How can we take Anthony Watts seriously now ?
Is it really worth reading yet another climate blogpost ?
I think a graphic comment is in order .
Tweet
Climate *Skeptics* Shift Their Ground
The term climate skeptic leaves a hell of a lot of room for manouver. It could mean you're skeptical of the policies or the science, or that global warming is bad or of the anthropogenic bit.
Or it could mean that you're just skeptical of one little bit of the conventional wisdom that is climate change science. In which case I can claim to be a climate skeptic too.
Last week I blogged about these words by Geoff Chambers "We don’t deny that global temperatures have been rising irregularly for centuries, and that anthropogenic CO2 may be responsible for some of the recent rise. Where we disagree with the consensus is on the higher estimates of climate sensitivity endorsed by the IPCC and the catastrophic effects which are supposed inevitably to follow." Skeptics are moving the goalposts here. How is global cooling or Svensmark's cosmic ray theories, say, reflected in that statement ?
But it's a statement that makes the goalposts much much narrower, in fact it's basically unfalsifiable.
Perhaps that's why it's a meme being explored more and more by the skeptical blog-o-sphere. Witness Jo Nova's bad tempered blogpost in which she states "the debate (which you evidently aren’t aware of) is not about whether CO2 absorbs infra red, but whether that warming effect is significant."
So who's right, the majority of the world's top scientists or Jo Nova and co? Hell I don't know. But I'd venture the majority of the the world's top scientists trumps it because the question of the net importance of the greenhouse effect means weighing up a whole bunch of pluses and minuses to form a collective opinion. Climate skeptics cant and aren't matching that, they are merely picking holes - perhaps it should really be called Climate Pedantry.
Jo Nova is author of The Skeptics Handbook which states (amongst other things): "Proof of Global Warming is not proof that greenhouse gases caused that warming" I'm looking forward to reading how Jo Nova has disowned that work.
Tweet
Or it could mean that you're just skeptical of one little bit of the conventional wisdom that is climate change science. In which case I can claim to be a climate skeptic too.
Last week I blogged about these words by Geoff Chambers "We don’t deny that global temperatures have been rising irregularly for centuries, and that anthropogenic CO2 may be responsible for some of the recent rise. Where we disagree with the consensus is on the higher estimates of climate sensitivity endorsed by the IPCC and the catastrophic effects which are supposed inevitably to follow." Skeptics are moving the goalposts here. How is global cooling or Svensmark's cosmic ray theories, say, reflected in that statement ?
But it's a statement that makes the goalposts much much narrower, in fact it's basically unfalsifiable.
Perhaps that's why it's a meme being explored more and more by the skeptical blog-o-sphere. Witness Jo Nova's bad tempered blogpost in which she states "the debate (which you evidently aren’t aware of) is not about whether CO2 absorbs infra red, but whether that warming effect is significant."
So who's right, the majority of the world's top scientists or Jo Nova and co? Hell I don't know. But I'd venture the majority of the the world's top scientists trumps it because the question of the net importance of the greenhouse effect means weighing up a whole bunch of pluses and minuses to form a collective opinion. Climate skeptics cant and aren't matching that, they are merely picking holes - perhaps it should really be called Climate Pedantry.
Jo Nova is author of The Skeptics Handbook which states (amongst other things): "Proof of Global Warming is not proof that greenhouse gases caused that warming" I'm looking forward to reading how Jo Nova has disowned that work.
Tweet
Donna's Magnificent Contradiction
Touring the Lucky Country giving speeches about how wrong climate scientists are must be nice work if you can get it, but Donna Laframboise has been getting her knickers in a twist about a consensus statement on coral reefs and climate change.
Donna's beef is that not only do the scientists agree, but they display no doubt about their findings. "The statement doesn’t sound scientific, however. For one thing, the language isn’t circumspect" moans Donna.
She's written an entire blog post entitled Delusions Down Under which argues that the statement from the Center for Ocean Solutions is invalid because it is worded with certainty. Leading to a conclusion of her own that a "magnificent self-delusion" has taken hold of the coral reef scientists.
This is the same Donna Laframboise who wrote a book dissing the IPCC consensus. In which , musing on a favourite climate *skeptic* meme Donna wrote "it isn't terribly plausible that scientists [...] can know for certain that current temperature fluctuations aren't part of a [...] natural cycle."
So for Donna only certainty from scientists is good enough, except when scientists are certain and then it's not good at all.
Tweet
Donna's beef is that not only do the scientists agree, but they display no doubt about their findings. "The statement doesn’t sound scientific, however. For one thing, the language isn’t circumspect" moans Donna.
She's written an entire blog post entitled Delusions Down Under which argues that the statement from the Center for Ocean Solutions is invalid because it is worded with certainty. Leading to a conclusion of her own that a "magnificent self-delusion" has taken hold of the coral reef scientists.
This is the same Donna Laframboise who wrote a book dissing the IPCC consensus. In which , musing on a favourite climate *skeptic* meme Donna wrote "it isn't terribly plausible that scientists [...] can know for certain that current temperature fluctuations aren't part of a [...] natural cycle."
So for Donna only certainty from scientists is good enough, except when scientists are certain and then it's not good at all.
Tweet
Anthony Watts can't do Attribution
Update: This post has been substantially rewritten now that Anthony Watts has printed my comment to his blog.
Anthony Watts declares on his blog : USA’s record warm March 2012 not caused by “global warming”
Tweet
Anthony Watts declares on his blog : USA’s record warm March 2012 not caused by “global warming”
To support this assertion Watts draws on the work of Dr Martin P. Hoerling of NOAA . Hoerling finds GHG forcing "likely contributed on the order of 5% to 10% of the magnitude of the heat wave" which turns Watts's headline on it's head. Dr Martin P. Hoerling is an expert on attribution. Anthony Watts is not. So there's a wide gulf between the words of a NOAA scientist and what the blogger says the scientists said. WUWT cannot reflect the highly nuanced question of attribution. And that's not opinion, that is observation.
Tweet
Ross McKitrick a fish out of water
Another IPCC contributor with think tank connections is Ross McKitrick who says "far from being an open network of top experts it has turned itself into a narrow clique of like-minded activists."
I'd like to venture why Professor McKitrick feels that way. McKitrick served on Working Group I which deals with the physical science basis for anthropogenic global warming. McKitrick's field is the dismal science of economics.
McKitrick is far more at home at the Fraser Institute . In 2001 this libertarian think tank published "Global Warming A Guide to the Science" an opus which staes "A review of the scientific literature concerning the environmental consequences of increased levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide ... have produced no deleterious effects upon global climate or temperature." It also tells us "There is no clear evidence, nor unique attribution, of the global effects of anthropogenic CO2 on climate." Although this guff was published in 2001 it didn't stop Professor McKitrick from contributing to the IPCC's 2007 report.
Tweet
I'd like to venture why Professor McKitrick feels that way. McKitrick served on Working Group I which deals with the physical science basis for anthropogenic global warming. McKitrick's field is the dismal science of economics.
McKitrick is far more at home at the Fraser Institute . In 2001 this libertarian think tank published "Global Warming A Guide to the Science" an opus which staes "A review of the scientific literature concerning the environmental consequences of increased levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide ... have produced no deleterious effects upon global climate or temperature." It also tells us "There is no clear evidence, nor unique attribution, of the global effects of anthropogenic CO2 on climate." Although this guff was published in 2001 it didn't stop Professor McKitrick from contributing to the IPCC's 2007 report.
Tweet
Is This Man Britain's most dishonest hack ?
Yes it's a crowded field but Telegraph blogger James Delingpole finds the chutzpah to present two conflicting arguments within days of one another. James suggests corruption in this interview without presenting any actual evidence whatsoever noting (at 4:25) " You can buy a lot of vested interests a lot of businessmen a lot of politicians for that kind of money."
A couple of days later I suggest James sign himself up for George Monbiot's proposed register of interests for Journalists . James declines but blocks my twitter for the trouble . But over the next couple of days environmentalists (and Monbiot in particular) persistently trouble James's brain cell " It simply does not occur to them that those on the other side of the argument might actually hold the views they hold sincerely and honestly" James muses in another blogpost on the Daily Telegraph website.
So in the first case money corrupts , in the second case that same notion is "demonstrably untrue" .
Apropos Delingpole back in July he coined the term Polarbeargate in this blogpost about the travails of hard working scientist Dr Charles Monnett. In an article long on speculation and short on facts Delingpole noted that the investigation of Monnett would be "definitely one to watch." He was right about that. Monnett is now back at work, and the investigation floundered when no evidence turned up. Curiously , James Delingpole has not updated his readers about any of this "definitley one to watch" story.
Tweet
A couple of days later I suggest James sign himself up for George Monbiot's proposed register of interests for Journalists . James declines but blocks my twitter for the trouble . But over the next couple of days environmentalists (and Monbiot in particular) persistently trouble James's brain cell " It simply does not occur to them that those on the other side of the argument might actually hold the views they hold sincerely and honestly" James muses in another blogpost on the Daily Telegraph website.
So in the first case money corrupts , in the second case that same notion is "demonstrably untrue" .
Apropos Delingpole back in July he coined the term Polarbeargate in this blogpost about the travails of hard working scientist Dr Charles Monnett. In an article long on speculation and short on facts Delingpole noted that the investigation of Monnett would be "definitely one to watch." He was right about that. Monnett is now back at work, and the investigation floundered when no evidence turned up. Curiously , James Delingpole has not updated his readers about any of this "definitley one to watch" story.
Tweet
The tricks of No Tricks Zone
You don't have to be a scientist to see that most of the so-called climate skepticism out there is complete bollocks. Step up to the plate Pierre Gosselin in Germany who writes the ironically titled "No Tricks Zone" .
Take this. Amospheric changes on all 9 planets explains the cause of global warming as "the sun, stupid" . A real skeptic would doubt any conclusion that is so forthright but Pierre expresses no doubts whatsoever and if you don't agree you're stupid. But what evidence is there that warming on other planets and the Earth share the same cause? Pierre offers none . He has arrived at his explanation for global warming on the Earth by ... looking at completely different planets. Unfortunately none of those other bodies in the solar system support life, a point that I have made to P but it seems to have gone past him.
A few days later Pierre's headline is "NOAA Data Shows Slowing Sea Level Rise". Pierre sorts the results of a selection of coastal stations around the globe into four categories which he calls 'observed most recent rate trend'. Although he claims six stations show a 'steady drop' three of those (Karachi, Walvis Bay and Tenerife) actually record numerical rises in sea level. So how does Pierre arrive at his 'observed most recent rate trend'? I ask if it's simply Pierre's opinion of the most recent direction of the line on the graph perhaps. "It was arrived at by looking at the data" is P's cryptic response. He then suggests "your time would be better spent if you asked [Stefan] Rahmstorf at the PIK how they reached their conclusions of accelerating SLR. " Quite.
Tweet
Take this. Amospheric changes on all 9 planets explains the cause of global warming as "the sun, stupid" . A real skeptic would doubt any conclusion that is so forthright but Pierre expresses no doubts whatsoever and if you don't agree you're stupid. But what evidence is there that warming on other planets and the Earth share the same cause? Pierre offers none . He has arrived at his explanation for global warming on the Earth by ... looking at completely different planets. Unfortunately none of those other bodies in the solar system support life, a point that I have made to P but it seems to have gone past him.
A few days later Pierre's headline is "NOAA Data Shows Slowing Sea Level Rise". Pierre sorts the results of a selection of coastal stations around the globe into four categories which he calls 'observed most recent rate trend'. Although he claims six stations show a 'steady drop' three of those (Karachi, Walvis Bay and Tenerife) actually record numerical rises in sea level. So how does Pierre arrive at his 'observed most recent rate trend'? I ask if it's simply Pierre's opinion of the most recent direction of the line on the graph perhaps. "It was arrived at by looking at the data" is P's cryptic response. He then suggests "your time would be better spent if you asked [Stefan] Rahmstorf at the PIK how they reached their conclusions of accelerating SLR. " Quite.
Tweet
What are Fox Expert's Scientific Qualifications?
There's not much I can add to this excellent little video , but I notice that Fair and Balanced Fox calls on Chris Horner's expert opinion (at about 3 mins in). He has a Juris Doctorate, which sounds fancy but it's a legal qualification. I wonder what his scientific qualifications are.
Dear Dr Horner,
I am a Wikipedia and Sourcewatch editor and was wondering if you could supply me with a little information about yourself that is relevant to our profiles of you.
What are your scientific qualifications? Which Institutions awarded them, when?
I’ve viewed both your Heartland Institute and Competitive Enterprise Institute profile pages and neither of them list any scientific qualifications at all. Your frequent contributions to Fox News on such subjects as global warming would, I suggest, carry more weight if your scientific qualifications could be added to the context of what you have to tell us.
Salutations and thanks in advance,
Hengist McStone
Tweet
SpongeBob more convincing than Morano
Two shorts from Fair and Balanced Fox News . First, today's final nail in the coffin of AGW is that SpongeBob Squarepants has come out as a warmist. Note that Fox cannot actually point to any errors in SpongeBob's worldview, just 'disputed facts', disputed by Fox that is.
To set the record straight here's Marc Morano, who sadly isn't able to keep his testimony as error free as our underwater imaginary friend . "The global warming theory is in utter collapse " spouts Marc , " you can go from A to Z from the Antarctic to the Arctic ..." Ok Marc's spelling is a little shaky but what about his science? "They're now saying chinese coal will save us from global warming" attests Marc, in fact what scientists are really saying is that chinese coal is so polluting it will blot out the sun for a while. Marc goes on... "scientists are predicting cooling from the sunspot cycle" , yes but that doesn't mitigate carbon based warming.
Oh and Marc, Richard Tol is not a climate scientist like you suggest, his field of learning is the dismal science of economics, oh, what's the point ?
Hat tip : Bob Ward
Tweet
To set the record straight here's Marc Morano, who sadly isn't able to keep his testimony as error free as our underwater imaginary friend . "The global warming theory is in utter collapse " spouts Marc , " you can go from A to Z from the Antarctic to the Arctic ..." Ok Marc's spelling is a little shaky but what about his science? "They're now saying chinese coal will save us from global warming" attests Marc, in fact what scientists are really saying is that chinese coal is so polluting it will blot out the sun for a while. Marc goes on... "scientists are predicting cooling from the sunspot cycle" , yes but that doesn't mitigate carbon based warming.
Oh and Marc, Richard Tol is not a climate scientist like you suggest, his field of learning is the dismal science of economics, oh, what's the point ?
Hat tip : Bob Ward
Tweet
Is climate skepticism pseudoscience ?
From a *skeptic* blog
"My (admittedly inexpert) understanding of the impact of global warming on hurricanes is that because the poles are expected to warm the most, the temperature difference between poles and equator will be reduced and there will be less energy to transport between them. In other words there will be fewer, weaker hurricanes."
From NOAA
" The strongest hurricanes in the present climate may be upstaged by even more intense hurricanes over the next century as the earth's climate is warmed by increasing levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. "
Hmmmm. Skeptics like to remind us that theirs is a dispassionate search for truth and that nobody is right all the time. But if their position is supported by ignorance, as the above statement by Andrew Montford would appear to be , then at what point has it crossed in to the realm of denialism ?
"My (admittedly inexpert) understanding of the impact of global warming on hurricanes is that because the poles are expected to warm the most, the temperature difference between poles and equator will be reduced and there will be less energy to transport between them. In other words there will be fewer, weaker hurricanes."
From NOAA
" The strongest hurricanes in the present climate may be upstaged by even more intense hurricanes over the next century as the earth's climate is warmed by increasing levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. "
Hmmmm. Skeptics like to remind us that theirs is a dispassionate search for truth and that nobody is right all the time. But if their position is supported by ignorance, as the above statement by Andrew Montford would appear to be , then at what point has it crossed in to the realm of denialism ?
Consistency with Andrew Montford
How much weight should be placed on a particular type of evidence? For Andrew Montford the answer depends on whether the evidence is good or bad for your case .
"The latest bright idea" writes Montford "from CAGW subscribers is to use opinion polls to measure climate change. I kid you not... " Well Montford may not be kidding but he is certainly being economical with the truth. He is referring to researchers taking evidence from remote villagers in the Darjeeling Hills and suggesting that amounts to 'opinion polls' . It's Montford's way of ridiculing a scientific study that produces evidence he disagrees with.
Last month, in his write up of the Spectator debate there was no doubt about the most impressive argument "Benny Peiser's talk was the one that intrigued me. He essentially argued that the science is irrelevant - that the public have made their minds up and that they vote out any party that pushes the green line too far." Doctor Peiser's argument relied solely on opinion polls . And on that occasion Montford found opinion polls very impressive.
"The latest bright idea" writes Montford "from CAGW subscribers is to use opinion polls to measure climate change. I kid you not... " Well Montford may not be kidding but he is certainly being economical with the truth. He is referring to researchers taking evidence from remote villagers in the Darjeeling Hills and suggesting that amounts to 'opinion polls' . It's Montford's way of ridiculing a scientific study that produces evidence he disagrees with.
Last month, in his write up of the Spectator debate there was no doubt about the most impressive argument "Benny Peiser's talk was the one that intrigued me. He essentially argued that the science is irrelevant - that the public have made their minds up and that they vote out any party that pushes the green line too far." Doctor Peiser's argument relied solely on opinion polls . And on that occasion Montford found opinion polls very impressive.
Benny Peiser hopes this is helpful
Re: seeking supporting evidence or clarification
Dear Mr McStone
Here is some more information for your blog readers. I hope this is helpful:
Only a quarter of Britons believe climate change is one of the most important environmental issues facing the UK today, according to a survey conducted by Ipsos MORI and released to the Ecologist this week.
http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_analysis/849698/only_a_quarter_of_uk_population_concerned_about_climate_change.html
A poll for this week’s Climate Week found 45% of the younger generation think climate change is man-made but only 26% of people close to retiring age agree. And 56% of women are committed to changing their behaviour to be greener, compared to 44% of men.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2011/03/25/old-men-in-midlands-are-the-biggest-climate-sceptics-115875-23013783/
The number of British people who are sceptical about climate change is rising, a poll for BBC News suggests. The Populus poll of 1,001 adults found 25% did not think global warming was happening, an increase of 10% since a similar poll was conducted in November. The percentage of respondents who said climate change was a reality had fallen from 83% in November to 75% this month. And only 26% of those asked believed climate change was happening and "now established as largely man-made".
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8500443.stm
With best regards
Dr Benny Peiser
Director, The Global Warming Policy Foundation
1 Carlton House Terrace, London SW1Y 5DB
tel: 020 7930 6856
www.thegwpf.org
registered in England, no 6962749
registered with the Charity Commission, no 1131448
This e-mail is confidential to the intended recipient. If you have received it in error, please notify the sender and delete it from your system. Any unauthorised use, disclosure, or copying is not permitted. This e-mail has been checked for viruses, but no liability is accepted for any damage caused by any virus transmitted by this e-mail.
Dear Mr McStone
Here is some more information for your blog readers. I hope this is helpful:
Only a quarter of Britons believe climate change is one of the most important environmental issues facing the UK today, according to a survey conducted by Ipsos MORI and released to the Ecologist this week.
http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_analysis/849698/only_a_quarter_of_uk_population_concerned_about_climate_change.html
A poll for this week’s Climate Week found 45% of the younger generation think climate change is man-made but only 26% of people close to retiring age agree. And 56% of women are committed to changing their behaviour to be greener, compared to 44% of men.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2011/03/25/old-men-in-midlands-are-the-biggest-climate-sceptics-115875-23013783/
The number of British people who are sceptical about climate change is rising, a poll for BBC News suggests. The Populus poll of 1,001 adults found 25% did not think global warming was happening, an increase of 10% since a similar poll was conducted in November. The percentage of respondents who said climate change was a reality had fallen from 83% in November to 75% this month. And only 26% of those asked believed climate change was happening and "now established as largely man-made".
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8500443.stm
With best regards
Dr Benny Peiser
Director, The Global Warming Policy Foundation
1 Carlton House Terrace, London SW1Y 5DB
tel: 020 7930 6856
www.thegwpf.org
registered in England, no 6962749
registered with the Charity Commission, no 1131448
This e-mail is confidential to the intended recipient. If you have received it in error, please notify the sender and delete it from your system. Any unauthorised use, disclosure, or copying is not permitted. This e-mail has been checked for viruses, but no liability is accepted for any damage caused by any virus transmitted by this e-mail.
One for the GWPF's Inbox
From : Hengist McStone
To: Benny Peiser
17/04/2011 19:20
Subject: seeking supporting evidence or clarification
Dear Doctor Peiser,
Thank you for the copy of your script you sent me, which I have posted on my blog .
I don’t feel that any of the points I have put to you have been addressed, so please allow me to be a little more direct. The argument ‘that the public have made their minds up’ has been attributed to you . Do you think that is an accurate précis of your speech at the Royal Geographical Society? If so, please direct me to some evidence which supports the argument that the public have made their minds up.
My concern is that between Mr Montford’s account and your own a misrepresentation of the public’s view may have been made. I am simply seeking supporting evidence or clarification on that point.
Salutations,
Hengist McStone
To: Benny Peiser
17/04/2011 19:20
Subject: seeking supporting evidence or clarification
Dear Doctor Peiser,
Thank you for the copy of your script you sent me, which I have posted on my blog .
I don’t feel that any of the points I have put to you have been addressed, so please allow me to be a little more direct. The argument ‘that the public have made their minds up’ has been attributed to you . Do you think that is an accurate précis of your speech at the Royal Geographical Society? If so, please direct me to some evidence which supports the argument that the public have made their minds up.
My concern is that between Mr Montford’s account and your own a misrepresentation of the public’s view may have been made. I am simply seeking supporting evidence or clarification on that point.
Salutations,
Hengist McStone
Doctor Peiser shoots from the script
Benny Peiser responds below. He doesn't take issue with Andrew Montford's précis but the key question remains how is that statement "that the public have made their minds up " supported? First thoughts: It strikes me as odd that for a man arguing that public concern is waning only offers a copy of his script to an enquiry from a member of the public asking to see support for the claim "that the public have made their minds up. " If it's a fait accompli how was it accomplished ?
Dear Mr McStone
Thank you for your query. I have attached below my short contribution at the recent Spectator debate.
With best regards
Benny Peiser
---------------------
The Global Warming Concern Is Over. Time for a Return to Sanity
Benny Peiser
The hype and obsession with global warming is well and truly over. How do we know? Because all the relevant indicators – polls, news coverage, government u-turns and a manifest lack of interest among policy makers – show a steep decline in public concern about climate change.
Public opinion is the crucial factor that determines whether policy makers advance or abandon contentious policies.
Surveys in the United Kingdom and other European nations reveal that the levels of concern about global warming have been falling steadily in recent years. Media coverage of climate change has dropped sharply. And, as I will show, some of the world's leading science institutions have begun to tone down the rhetoric and alarm about climate change.
The public's concern about global warming as a pressing problem is in marked decline not least because of the growing realisation that governments and the international community are ignoring the advice of climate campaigners.
Instead, most policy makers around the world refuse to accept any decisions that are likely to harm national interests and economic competitiveness.
They are assisted in this policy of benign neglect by a public that has largely become habituated to false alarms and is happy to ignore other claims of environmental catastrophe that are today widely disregarded or seen as scare tactics.
Part of the reason for the evident waning of public concern can be attributed to the issue-attention cycle, a concept developed by Anthony Downs in 1972.
According to the by now well established attention-cycle, certain environmental events can trigger public interest and concern. After a while, though, and even if the supposed problem remains unresolved, other issues replace the original concern because the huge costs to 'solve' the problem become apparent while boredom and fatigue set in.
That future impacts of global warming have been exaggerated by some climate scientists is now widely accepted. Even the government's chief scientific advisor, Professor Beddington, has criticised the failure to disclosure the manifest uncertainties in climate predictions about the rate and extent of climate change.
Let me quote Professor Beddington: "I don’t think it’s healthy to dismiss proper scepticism. Science grows and improves in the light of criticism. There is a fundamental uncertainty about climate change prediction that can’t be changed."
I fully agree with Beddington. I also agree with Prof Beddington that uncertainty about aspects of climate science should not be used as an excuse for inaction.
However, what kind of political and economic action is most appropriate and most cost-effective cannot be decided on a whim of some scientists but only after careful economic, social and political considerations.
The Royal Society too has revised and toned down its position on climate change. Its new climate guide is certainly an improvement on their more alarmist 2007 pamphlet which caused an internal rebellion by more than 40 fellows of the Society and triggered a review and subsequent revisions.
The former publication gave the misleading impression that the 'science is settled' - the new guide accepts that important questions remain open and uncertainties unresolved. The Royal Society now also agrees with the GWPF that the warming trend of the 1980s and 90s has come to a halt in the last 10 years.
In their old guide, the Royal Society demanded that governments should take "urgent steps" to cut CO2 emissions "as much and as fast as possible." This political activism has now been replaced by a more sober assessment of the scientific evidence and ongoing climate debates.
Last, but not least, the InterAcademy Council, an umbrella organisation of national science academies, was forced to review the IPCC after a number of scientific scandal had hit the UN-led climate body. The review revealed serious flaws and distortions in the IPCC's reports, its structure and its management.
Harold Shapiro, the IAC chairman, said the IPCC's review on the likely impacts of climate change “contains many statements that were assigned high confidence but for which there is little evidence.”
The Council also criticised the IPCC for over-emphasising the negative impacts of climate change, many of which were “not supported sufficiently in the literature, not put into perspective, or not expressed clearly.” The InterAcademy Council (IAC) has called for fundamental reforms of the IPCC. It recommends that, I quote, "review editors should ensure that genuine controversies are reflected in the report and be satisfied that due consideration was given to properly documented alternative views.”
It also recommends that, quote, "lead authors should explicitly document that a range of scientific viewpoints has been considered, and Coordinating Lead Authors and Review Editors should satisfy themselves that due consideration was given to properly documented alternative views.”
From these and other recommendations is it clear that the IPCC and many of its lead authors have been narrow-minded and have not take into account any other views than the 'mainstream' and that lead authors ignored views that did not tally with their own.
Let me conclude:
The scale and long-term effects of climate change will remain uncertain for decades to come.
Moreover, climate change will be generally gradual. This gradualism means that most people have become used to living with moderate warming, not least because the warming trend of the 1980s and 90s has come to a halt during the last decade.
In all likelihood, we will not know for the next 20 or 30 years who is right or wrong on the scale and impact of global warming. The stalemate in international climate negotiations is likely to become cemented for years to come.
As long as global temperatures remain more or less stable, as long as climate policies and green taxes are a growing political liability and as long as the deadlock between the West and the rest of the world lingers, we should not expect much progress in the heated climate debates.
Unless a significant warming trend re-emerges in the next 10 years, it will be near impossible to revive climate change as a major public concern. I believe we should use this time to restore reason and sanity to a debate that has become far too emotional and doom-laden and all too often depressingly intolerant.
Dear Mr McStone
Thank you for your query. I have attached below my short contribution at the recent Spectator debate.
With best regards
Benny Peiser
---------------------
The Global Warming Concern Is Over. Time for a Return to Sanity
Benny Peiser
The hype and obsession with global warming is well and truly over. How do we know? Because all the relevant indicators – polls, news coverage, government u-turns and a manifest lack of interest among policy makers – show a steep decline in public concern about climate change.
Public opinion is the crucial factor that determines whether policy makers advance or abandon contentious policies.
Surveys in the United Kingdom and other European nations reveal that the levels of concern about global warming have been falling steadily in recent years. Media coverage of climate change has dropped sharply. And, as I will show, some of the world's leading science institutions have begun to tone down the rhetoric and alarm about climate change.
The public's concern about global warming as a pressing problem is in marked decline not least because of the growing realisation that governments and the international community are ignoring the advice of climate campaigners.
Instead, most policy makers around the world refuse to accept any decisions that are likely to harm national interests and economic competitiveness.
They are assisted in this policy of benign neglect by a public that has largely become habituated to false alarms and is happy to ignore other claims of environmental catastrophe that are today widely disregarded or seen as scare tactics.
Part of the reason for the evident waning of public concern can be attributed to the issue-attention cycle, a concept developed by Anthony Downs in 1972.
According to the by now well established attention-cycle, certain environmental events can trigger public interest and concern. After a while, though, and even if the supposed problem remains unresolved, other issues replace the original concern because the huge costs to 'solve' the problem become apparent while boredom and fatigue set in.
That future impacts of global warming have been exaggerated by some climate scientists is now widely accepted. Even the government's chief scientific advisor, Professor Beddington, has criticised the failure to disclosure the manifest uncertainties in climate predictions about the rate and extent of climate change.
Let me quote Professor Beddington: "I don’t think it’s healthy to dismiss proper scepticism. Science grows and improves in the light of criticism. There is a fundamental uncertainty about climate change prediction that can’t be changed."
I fully agree with Beddington. I also agree with Prof Beddington that uncertainty about aspects of climate science should not be used as an excuse for inaction.
However, what kind of political and economic action is most appropriate and most cost-effective cannot be decided on a whim of some scientists but only after careful economic, social and political considerations.
The Royal Society too has revised and toned down its position on climate change. Its new climate guide is certainly an improvement on their more alarmist 2007 pamphlet which caused an internal rebellion by more than 40 fellows of the Society and triggered a review and subsequent revisions.
The former publication gave the misleading impression that the 'science is settled' - the new guide accepts that important questions remain open and uncertainties unresolved. The Royal Society now also agrees with the GWPF that the warming trend of the 1980s and 90s has come to a halt in the last 10 years.
In their old guide, the Royal Society demanded that governments should take "urgent steps" to cut CO2 emissions "as much and as fast as possible." This political activism has now been replaced by a more sober assessment of the scientific evidence and ongoing climate debates.
Last, but not least, the InterAcademy Council, an umbrella organisation of national science academies, was forced to review the IPCC after a number of scientific scandal had hit the UN-led climate body. The review revealed serious flaws and distortions in the IPCC's reports, its structure and its management.
Harold Shapiro, the IAC chairman, said the IPCC's review on the likely impacts of climate change “contains many statements that were assigned high confidence but for which there is little evidence.”
The Council also criticised the IPCC for over-emphasising the negative impacts of climate change, many of which were “not supported sufficiently in the literature, not put into perspective, or not expressed clearly.” The InterAcademy Council (IAC) has called for fundamental reforms of the IPCC. It recommends that, I quote, "review editors should ensure that genuine controversies are reflected in the report and be satisfied that due consideration was given to properly documented alternative views.”
It also recommends that, quote, "lead authors should explicitly document that a range of scientific viewpoints has been considered, and Coordinating Lead Authors and Review Editors should satisfy themselves that due consideration was given to properly documented alternative views.”
From these and other recommendations is it clear that the IPCC and many of its lead authors have been narrow-minded and have not take into account any other views than the 'mainstream' and that lead authors ignored views that did not tally with their own.
Let me conclude:
The scale and long-term effects of climate change will remain uncertain for decades to come.
Moreover, climate change will be generally gradual. This gradualism means that most people have become used to living with moderate warming, not least because the warming trend of the 1980s and 90s has come to a halt during the last decade.
In all likelihood, we will not know for the next 20 or 30 years who is right or wrong on the scale and impact of global warming. The stalemate in international climate negotiations is likely to become cemented for years to come.
As long as global temperatures remain more or less stable, as long as climate policies and green taxes are a growing political liability and as long as the deadlock between the West and the rest of the world lingers, we should not expect much progress in the heated climate debates.
Unless a significant warming trend re-emerges in the next 10 years, it will be near impossible to revive climate change as a major public concern. I believe we should use this time to restore reason and sanity to a debate that has become far too emotional and doom-laden and all too often depressingly intolerant.
Email to Benny Peiser
Subject: Fact or opinion or fiction at the Spectator Debate
Dear Dr. Peiser,
I am writing to ask how you support a statement you are said to have made at the recent Spectator Debate at the Royal Geographical Society. I rely on Andrew Montford’s account , who writes:
“Benny Peiser's talk was the one that intrigued me. He essentially argued that the science is irrelevant - that the public have made their minds up and that they vote out any party that pushes the green line too far. He also noted that they have moved on to other issues, such as the economy.”
I don’t mean to argue with your opinion, but I do ask commentators to distinguish between their own opinion and what is an accepted fact. I suggest that the statement “the public have made their minds up” whilst appearing as fact by way of completeness is unsupportable and is ergo opinion . There has been no referendum in this country, nor anywhere in the world (to my knowledge) to support such a statement. In order for the the public have made their minds up a proposition needs to have been put to them and the matter needs to have been considered. In a democracy there is always some formal way of assessing the public’s will, a plebiscite resulting in a counting of votes. No such formality has ever been attempted on this issue and the statement attributed to you appears to usurp the vox populus and bypass the democratic process.
I would be very grateful if you could affirm that your statement is not fact but your own opinion and offer anything else in support of this statement.
Salutations ,
Hengist McStone
Dear Dr. Peiser,
I am writing to ask how you support a statement you are said to have made at the recent Spectator Debate at the Royal Geographical Society. I rely on Andrew Montford’s account , who writes:
“Benny Peiser's talk was the one that intrigued me. He essentially argued that the science is irrelevant - that the public have made their minds up and that they vote out any party that pushes the green line too far. He also noted that they have moved on to other issues, such as the economy.”
I don’t mean to argue with your opinion, but I do ask commentators to distinguish between their own opinion and what is an accepted fact. I suggest that the statement “the public have made their minds up” whilst appearing as fact by way of completeness is unsupportable and is ergo opinion . There has been no referendum in this country, nor anywhere in the world (to my knowledge) to support such a statement. In order for the the public have made their minds up a proposition needs to have been put to them and the matter needs to have been considered. In a democracy there is always some formal way of assessing the public’s will, a plebiscite resulting in a counting of votes. No such formality has ever been attempted on this issue and the statement attributed to you appears to usurp the vox populus and bypass the democratic process.
I would be very grateful if you could affirm that your statement is not fact but your own opinion and offer anything else in support of this statement.
Salutations ,
Hengist McStone
Climate Debate - Start Here
Today's op-ed in the New York Times is making quite a splash. Entitled"The Truth, Still Inconvenient", Paul Krugman argues that a moral dimension is lacking in the so called 'debate' around global warming. His wise words really resonate with me, and I reproduce some of them, in the hope that this quotation ought to throw some light on the darkness . Professor Krugman over to you:
"For years now, large numbers of prominent scientists have been warning, with increasing urgency, that if we continue with business as usual, the results will be very bad, perhaps catastrophic. They could be wrong. But if you’re going to assert that they are in fact wrong, you have a moral responsibility to approach the topic with high seriousness and an open mind. After all, if the scientists are right, you’ll be doing a great deal of damage."
"For years now, large numbers of prominent scientists have been warning, with increasing urgency, that if we continue with business as usual, the results will be very bad, perhaps catastrophic. They could be wrong. But if you’re going to assert that they are in fact wrong, you have a moral responsibility to approach the topic with high seriousness and an open mind. After all, if the scientists are right, you’ll be doing a great deal of damage."
Did Benny Peiser make this bit up ?
This week a debate on global warming was held at The Royal Geographical Society. Sponsored by The Spectator magazine, it included a couple of notable names from the Global Warming Policy Foundation, Benny Peiser and Nigel Lawson.
Now I've been watching the climate scene for long enough to know that "debate" isn't really happening. Mudslinging , yes. So I wasn't tempted to shell out thirty quid to watch something that was unlikely to really challenge my perceptions or inform me. Even though the line up also included the excellent Dr Simon Singh, whose book on codebreaking I am reading right now.
Instead I rely on Andrew Montford's account who writes: "Benny Peiser's talk was the one that intrigued me. He essentially argued that the science is irrelevant - that the public have made their minds up and that they vote out any party that pushes the green line too far."
I wonder how Dr Peiser arrived at the line that 'the public have made their minds up'. No plebiscite has ever been called, nor any proposition put to the public. So how could any reasonable person reach this conclusion? Dr Peiser, a sports psychologist with a background in anthropology is affiliated to the Global Warming Policy Foundation but he has not been elcted to speak for the public. And I am pretty sure I am right when I say that 'the public have made their minds up' is unsupportable.
Now I'm not quibbling that this is how things are working out, but I suggest Dr Peiser is misrepresenting the public's view. I argue that the public have been largely misled, but the fact is there has been no plebiscite or referendum to support Dr Peiser's assertion. And I figure we really ought to get to the bottom of this. Perhaps it is more opinion dressed up as fact. Perhaps Montford's account was a little wide of the mark. Whatever , it looks like I shall have to email the great man himself.
Now I've been watching the climate scene for long enough to know that "debate" isn't really happening. Mudslinging , yes. So I wasn't tempted to shell out thirty quid to watch something that was unlikely to really challenge my perceptions or inform me. Even though the line up also included the excellent Dr Simon Singh, whose book on codebreaking I am reading right now.
Instead I rely on Andrew Montford's account who writes: "Benny Peiser's talk was the one that intrigued me. He essentially argued that the science is irrelevant - that the public have made their minds up and that they vote out any party that pushes the green line too far."
I wonder how Dr Peiser arrived at the line that 'the public have made their minds up'. No plebiscite has ever been called, nor any proposition put to the public. So how could any reasonable person reach this conclusion? Dr Peiser, a sports psychologist with a background in anthropology is affiliated to the Global Warming Policy Foundation but he has not been elcted to speak for the public. And I am pretty sure I am right when I say that 'the public have made their minds up' is unsupportable.
Now I'm not quibbling that this is how things are working out, but I suggest Dr Peiser is misrepresenting the public's view. I argue that the public have been largely misled, but the fact is there has been no plebiscite or referendum to support Dr Peiser's assertion. And I figure we really ought to get to the bottom of this. Perhaps it is more opinion dressed up as fact. Perhaps Montford's account was a little wide of the mark. Whatever , it looks like I shall have to email the great man himself.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)