Nov 29 2009
Different strands of global warming scepticism
There is clearly an appetite on this site for reasoned analysis of global warming theory and the policies that flow from it. There are now several different camps of sceptics setting out their thoughts:
1. Global warming sceptics. This group argues from recent temperature data that the world has not been warming for the last ten years, despite the theory and predictions of the models. They also point out that there have been cold periods during periods of industrialisation and rising population when man made carbon outputs were rising, most recently from the early 1940s for about 30 years. They argue that there is climate change but it is difficult to predict and is unlikely to succumb to human control. There has been violent cliomate change in the past before mankind was born.
2. People who do not believe that man made carbon causes warming. They argue the world may well be warming. They argue that man made carbon is tiny compared to natural carbon dioxide levels. There have been long periods prior to mankind’s efforts when the world has generated high levels of carbon dioxide. They suggest mankind cannot control carbon dioxide levels and/or that it is not established that these levels cause warming.
3. Lawsonists. Nigel lawson and his followers argue that they do not know whether the science is right or wrong. They go on to say even if the global warming theory is scientifcally correct, it makes no sense to spend large sums on trying to stop the rise in temperature. The correct economic response is to spend lesser sums on adapting our planet to the new circumstances as and when it warms. The economics is based on the likely fact that future generations worldwide will be richer than we are and more inventive, so we only need spend on those things – water supply/flood protection – that need immediate treatment.
4. Pragmatists. They argue there is no point trying to prove the science wrong, given the force of the scientific estalishment on this issue. Time will eventually resolve it one way or the other. The thing to do is to plan for the likely effects of warming, and spend money appropriately on tackling the consequences.
These four groups are pitted against the funadamentalist global warmers. They believe the climate will warm. They believe this is caused by man made carbon emissions. They believe it must be prevented by creating less carbon, rather than by tackling the consequences. This group has both left and right wing advocates, with the more free market people wanting to do more by tax incentives and working with human nature, whilst the left of centre advocates favour more heavy handed tax and regulatory responses to change lifestyles. Global warming theory requires you believe
a)The world is warming. It would help if it warmed continuously in proportion to man made carbon increases.
b) Warming is caused by extra CO2, rather than by sunspot cycles, changes in weather and wind patterns etc.
c) The extra CO2 that matters is man made, not natural in origin
d) The right response is to cut man made carbon emissions massively to stop warming.
I have been working in Parliament and outside to try to ensure policy responses make sense anyway. I think it is the case that tackling consequences as and when they arise is the cheaper and more sensible approach. Reducing carbon output worldwide is a political impossibility in the next few years , given the attitudes and needs of large countries like China and India. We are clearly short of water in the east of the UK,and should put in more capacity now to handle the rise in population and in individual demand. There is an enhanced flood risk, thanks mainly to too much building on flood plain. We need to put in more anti flood measures. There is a sea risk, especially to the much battered east coast. We need to be planning the next Thames barrier and other measures now.
We also need to work toward energy self sufficiency and to more fuel efficient processes in all that we do. It is best to do it by tax incentive rather than by higher taxes and more regulations.
128 Responses to “Different strands of global warming scepticism”
John Redwood has been the Member of Parliament for Wokingham since 1987. First attending Kent College, Canterbury, he graduated from Magdalen College...
A neat analysis. I like the observation that there are different grades of those who don’t buy into the MMCW theories.
Conversely, I’ve only noticed two grades of person who believes in MMGW – the zealot, and the beneficiary. This doesn’t make for a reasoned debate on the matter.
My view is that option 2 above is correct; also that managing the low-lying Eastern coast is pragmatic. In general, building should never have been permitted on the flood plains – they developed for a reason, and fighting Nature is not sensible.
Efficient use of energy is important both to help become self-sufficient, and to reduce the cost of what we need to consume to run our daily lives. The by-product of efficiency is that there is less pollution (in its broadest definition), which is good for everyone.
I really enjoyed reading this article, and hope to see it get a wider audience. The current green front is very choosy in their climate passion – they want to police waste collection and cover the earth with wind farms, and squander British tax payers money to tackle climate change in the developing world, while the aid promised by Gordon Brownfor the most recent flooding here stands at a measly £1 million. Compare that to the the £62bn of secret loans to banks and a little veing on my forehead starts to seriously bulge!
I think the jury is still out on man-made global warming. When the temperature was much colder 300 or 400 years ago people used to skate on the Thames so obviously changes occurred without man’s intervention.
I think the main problem is that climate change is now a quasi religion with attendant zealots and politicians grandstanding to gain votes and enhancements to their reputation.
I agree with you that we need to be pragmatic. China and India are entitled to have their stints at the consumer-fest and nothing will stop them.
What baffles me is that given the Prime Minister’s zeal on the matter it stares you in the face the Government is missing out on obvious measures – switching power off in empty offices, policies over street lights and changes to daylight saving time.
We should also watch out that climate change is not simply used as an excuse to levy stealth taxes.
The UK population will increase by 10 million in the next couple of decades and soon it will become obvious that CO2 cannot be cut, its only going to keep rising no matter what you do.
Still, as China and India grow we become irrelevant anyway. 2.6bn people with western lifestyles will make it rather hot if the scientists are correct!
It’s a bit of a coincidence but I woke at 4am this morning and couldn’t get back to sleep so the wife kicked me out to the office. I opened up a couple of blog links and, as one does sometimes, wandered across pages following links and I started to read up on this leaks and have been engrossed for 4 hours now.
I used to be of the opinion that man made global warming was a given and that sceptics were simply people (mainly Americans I thought, I am ashamed to admit) who wanted to have their cake and eat it. I also thought that if there was any error in the theory then surely the sceptical scientists could analyse the data and present a counter argument. I had absolutely no idea that the data and models used were not, as is normal scientific practice, published in papers and out in the open for everyone to see. The thought that data could be withheld never even entered my head.
One of the released files ‘HARRY_READ_ME.txt’ is particularly explosive – (short version of this text talking of changes to models and data removed as it mentioned individuals by name who will wish to explain what they did-ed) That’s just the tip of the iceberg, the whole thing seems like a complete shambles and left me feeling, for the first time in my life, like a member of the tin foil hat brigade!
The sad thing about this, as you have commented in your post, isn’t whether or not man made global warming is or isn’t a reality but it is that environmental disasters are waiting to happen and we shouldn’t sleepwalk into them. The danger is that now that the (questionable methods -ed) of certain scientists have been exposed people will simply dismiss any environmentalist arguments as a cheap way for politicians to introduce unpopular ‘green’ taxes and cause resentment towards environmental projects.
What politicians do from here is going to be interesting. I don’t think that any politician will come out and dismiss man made global warming but I believe that a more sceptical and reasoned line needs to be taken with everything out in the open rather than the (from what I’ve gathered from the media, I don’t know what politicians have been asking of scientists behind the scenes) uncritical acceptance of the fact that CO2 has caused the planet to warm that has been happening for the last 20 years.
Mike Stallard Reply:
November 29th, 2009 at 6:25 pm
I began to question global warming some time ago. But the warmists have some extremely valuable thoughts. First of all, recycling makes a lot of sense and I am proud to do it. Second, it also makes a lot of sense to live within your means and be thrifty. It worked for us with the invention of credit cards. Thirdly, as we face what is probably a bleak couple of years, it will make sense to get hardier.
Like you, I do hope these valuable insights are not lost.
thespecialone Reply:
November 29th, 2009 at 6:48 pm
Norman, I think you are correct up to a point. I am a ’sceptic’. A very strong sceptic. Just like I was a sceptic for salmonella, 100000s of Brits would die from HIV/AIDS (yes I know many more in Africa have died from this), SARS, bird flu, swine flu etc etc. The trouble is is that the people who come out with these ’scares’ need funding. What better way to get funding from governments than to scare them into doing it?
I am not a scientist of any kind, just a normal bloke who believes in the practicalities of life. I would love the world to be pollution free (cycle everywhere even in this dreadful weather we are having), be able to recycle everything etc etc. But it aint going to happen in my life time.
These scientists involved in this ‘global warming/climate change’ scam should be (challenged-ed). They have (misled-ed) the world. I am just disappointed that no senior Conservative politician has come out and said that all funding to the CRU should be stopped immediately and that Copenhagen should not go ahead. Unfortunately they are all too frightened to do so.
John Chaytor Reply:
November 30th, 2009 at 4:11 pm
thespecialone, you forgot to add acid rain to your list!
Remember, all the trees in Europe were going to die. It probably still exists but we no longer hear about it. Climate change is the new hot topic. I reckon, in 20 years people will look back and realise that the media went OTT again.
A good analysis of the different threads of the Global warming sceptic argument.. Even though I had no idea that Nigel Lawson was involved in this issue , I fit into a camp somewhere between Lawsonist and 2. I personally believe we cannot know if the science is correct, but that we should adapt to the fact that Oil is finite, and Gas is expensive, by applying many of the same polices that would be used if Co2 was the real issue. Indeed pollution is still relevant, as we know all to well. As an example our coal powered electricity generation, was partially responsible for the bio-death of a number of northern European lakes. Warming seems to be present in our climate, that much most of us agree on, although some insist that cooling is now taking place. The real cause is far more at issue, and I agree with those who say that Co2 at 300 or so, parts per million is not the trigger. Indeed Methane is far more likely to be the real devil, and as it clings to the lower atmosphere for far longer and is many times more effective as a greed house gas one wonders why It has not been cited as a problem by more people? In fact we may well have a simple answer to this seeming missing out of the key baddy, Cattle! Cattle are such big business in the US, that scientists may well have under played their importance in the warming equations. Strangely in the 70’s global cooling was often put forward as a danger from our industrialised civilisation. This being down to the particulate matter in the atmosphere. My final thought is in this vain, after 9/11 there was a period when few aircraft were allowed in US airspace, this resulted in slightly increased temperatures at ground level, it has been alleged.
Clearly this is a complex issue with far to many variables for most lay persons to reach firm conclusions. Should we look to our political class for answers? I believe that we should.
The only difference between 3 Lawsonists and 4 Pragmatists, seems to be politics – they are saying the same thing are they not? Only the Lawsonists want an enquiry into how we got here -and I agree. It is a scandal that you have had a group of so called scientists taking public money and acting in (such a way-ed).
If wrong has been done it needs censure. We need to make sure it does not happen again – this is where I think the people who are questioning the ’science’ (the people you unpleasantly call deniers) come in to the picture. I also think they are right that we need to look at the models and ask if the world is warming and if so, if man is in anyway responsible, even the pragmatists need to know this !!
So in the end the arguement is between those of us who never believed in this scam and want any wrong doing undone, and those who have fallen for the scam and are now trying to save face. As in China, it is diplomatic to let people save face, but not those who perpretrated this (connsensus-ed) – so Lawsonists probably have it.
Amanda Reply:
November 29th, 2009 at 12:28 pm
In fact John, I’m absolutly furious at being called ‘a denier’, I’m nothing of the kind, I seek the truth and I wish the Conservative Party did !! If I had a good alternative I would vote elsewhere, and I may still do. The new leader of UKIP looks interesting, and as far as I am concerned we need a drastic game changer in politics.
The MP’s we elect are there to serve us and represent our views, David Cameron needs to stop doing what he thinks and start representing US – that is your party’s face saver if you need one.
I see Greg Clark is “signalling unequivocal backing for Govt in Copenhagen talks” – if I put into words my feelings on that you would not publish this but it would be on a par with language you might tend to see on Guido!! All I can say is good for Nick Griffin, who at least can be relied on to tell a more truthful story on this matter – I’m glad we northerners got too BNP members into Europe !!
Amanda Reply:
November 29th, 2009 at 12:29 pm
two, not too, of course
The New Aristocracy Reply:
November 29th, 2009 at 8:00 pm
Amanda feel free to post on Guidos site, I look forward to reading your full unredacted thoughts on the matter : 0
Stuart Fairney Reply:
November 30th, 2009 at 9:39 am
It is both a sad reflection and indeed a worrying development that reasonable people can (legitimately) say good for Nick Griffin.
If this isn’t a shrill siren-blast wake-up call for the Westminster elite that you are being rejected by the people then don’t act all shocked, stunned and outraged when he and his cohorts start taking real political power.
Despite my occasional contrarian comment on here I consider myself to be a reasonable person (married to an immigrant, mixed race son, tax payer etc) but I am disenfranchised on two major issues (Lisbon and AGW) by the major parties. Time to start offering choice I fancy or reap the electoral whirlwind
ManicBeancounter Reply:
November 30th, 2009 at 9:07 pm
Although Nick Griffin falls into the sceptics camp, he calls the whole thing a hoax. That is a deliberate conspiracy. The leaked e-mails show something different. It is not a group of scientists pulling the strings, but something more akin to the corresspondance of Marx and Engels. That is a group of people who have a set of ideas increasingly at odds with the real world. Their reaction is to question motives, call names and try to massage the reality into their world view.
Compare “The Red Prussian” by Leopold Schwarzschild with the e-mails.
Stuart Fairney Reply:
December 2nd, 2009 at 9:36 am
Manicbeancounter ~ if I may sir, that is a very clever observation
I wonder which camp i fall into for i belive the warmists protest too mutch.I cannot see how increacing the price of a bag of coal by 3p or making everyone strap a dynamo on his bike will stop this predicted slide into hell.
Please don’t use the term ‘deniers’. It is an awful insult to compare those with a different opinion on recent meteorology and geology to those who wish to justify the Nazi Party and their annihilation of the Jews. It is extremely offensive and entirely innapropriate.
Mark Cooper Reply:
November 29th, 2009 at 12:38 pm
I agree strongly with Darknight- PLEASE change the reference from Denier to Skeptic- Denier is an appalling label deliberately lfted from “holocaust Denier” by the ‘global cooling deniers’
Duyfken Reply:
November 29th, 2009 at 12:56 pm
It’s something to do with the mesh of ladies’ stockings.
I read Cameron’s latest on The Blue Blog. Totally sold on man-made climate change, no mention of the CRU at the University of East Anglia. TAXPAYERS’ MONEY used to (produce-ed) results to match a theory but Cameron and your party say NOTHING. This is a scandal. Is it embarrassment or something more sinister that prevents the Conservative party from performing its duty?
An overwhelming majority of more than 200 comments in reply to Cameron were in total opposition to his views on climate change. This despite censorship on the blog (my comment was not posted). I don’t suppose Cameron is interested in any views which differ from his own. Perhaps you might care to tell him that more and more people whose votes you should have expected are in the balance if not already lost. UKIP may have no chance of forming a government but they have policies which represent the views of traditional Conservative supporters far more then Cameron’s modernised party.
Clare Reply:
November 29th, 2009 at 5:19 pm
I agree, they are supposed to be our representatives, but on important areas of policy, think EU as well as climate change, no party takes any account of the majority viewpoint. The political classes all agree – so much for democracy.
Clare Reply:
November 29th, 2009 at 5:23 pm
Sorry, I should have said “none of the main parties” not “no party”
APL Reply:
November 29th, 2009 at 7:59 pm
Brian Tomkinson: “This is a scandal. Is it embarrassment or something more sinister that prevents the Conservative party from performing its duty?”
It is something more sinister.
Stuart Fairney Reply:
November 30th, 2009 at 9:43 am
It’s not just Mr Cameron but the cosy political elite that are just waiting for the story to die (JR honourably excepted of course) and carry on regardless. How can you seriously consider major global treaties when the very basis of the science is to put it mildly, open to question regarding not just the result but the very methodolgy itself?
The truth is, it’s just too convenient a stick to beat us with ~ sorry taxes up, freedom restricted, save the planet old boy, if you don’t agree you are a denier, debate closed down.
I think sceptics is a better phrase to use than deniers. It’s an emotive phrase often deployed by warmists to effectively compare those who remain unconvinced by climate change to those who deny the holocaust.
I agree though, with your main point that there needs to be a reasoned debate, however it’s very difficult when the main party leaders, the BBC and all of the media are basically staying silent regarding the leaked data from the CRU. The BBC in particular has been a disgrace and in clear breach of its impartiality rules
Deniers, deniers………I’d rather you used a less pejorative term Mr. R. I’m certainly a sceptic and usually fairly thick skinned but a couple of years ago I was shocked to be called a denier by a Guardian reading friend who was clearly angry at the certainty of my threatening the well being of her grandchildren in fifty or so years.
The PR and spin of the man made global warming camp seems to have been designed to shut down scientific debate. The word ‘denier’ with its holocaust connotations has been used to brand those that dare question the man made global warming hypothesis as evil. In my mind denier also suggest an element of dishonesty. ‘He denied all knowledge of….’ may literally mean ‘He said he had no knowledge of……’ but I’d say there is a hint of an accusation of lying in the phrase.
Moi….Sceptic – yes; Denier – no; pretentious – perhaps.
Your suggestions seem very sensible, as usual. But they will cost money. Luckily it seems that there is some £800 million a year available.
John,
Once again, thank you for covering this. Please comment upon you views regarding the CRU emails, and the implications this has for the peer-review process and the validity of the research used by the IPCC.
This is fundamental to the anti-AGW arguments.
I suppose in this instance I am a Lawsonist. The fact that the people who believe AGW is correct are trying to shutdown any debate from ‘deniers’ does make me suspicious though. Science should be contested and debated until the truth is found. To say ‘the debate is over’ is mandacious in the extreme. The debate hasn’t properly started yet.
And as for reducing our carbon footprint, the most important reason is the simple fact that we will in the next century have exhausted many of the planet’s existing carbon resources. Conserving what we have left in a sensible manner until we have an effective alternative seems to be the most prudent option.
And I am glad to see the conservative party seem to be adopting the carrot-rather-than-stick approach. Rewarding good behaviour rather than punishing bad behaviour is the best way to influence human behaviour.
What is a flood plane?
Where can I buy one?
Is it like a sea plane?
When will you politicians realise that the world does not revolve round tax.
Your world might, because it is your entire raison d’etre, but there are other ways of rationing commodoties without giving the rich the opportunity to get more than their fair share. It worked well in the ‘39-’45 war. But I suppose we had a less greedy breed of politician in those days.
A T Reply:
November 29th, 2009 at 5:13 pm
I guess the alternative is the personal carbon allowance/quota, that is touted. Infrequently, but with the monotonous regularity that tells you the watermellons are not going to let go of the idea. The totalitarians dream – everything we do and own has some energy implications, so the minutae of our lives will be logged, controlled and approved by the state, via our monthly carbon credit statements. Wonderful idea.
I do not see how paying more taxes will have any affect whatsoever on the weather. I have been paying carbon tax on my heating bills for months now but the weather is as it usually is for November – rain, wind and a hint of snow on the way.
To suggest that mankind can affect the climate of a planet most of which is underwater and what is above it remains untouched by man is to argue that all Gods and religions are irrelevant. Copenhagen is effectively a way of taking power from God and the sun and further, that the organised worshipping of what are therefore false Gods is to be outlawed. Hail, Gordon Brown, Saviour of the Known World!
Nah. Not to worry – it is only about taxation and trying to bring an end to the capitalist system.
Sue Doughty Reply:
November 30th, 2009 at 12:09 am
Yet another unusual response from Sue Doughty of Woodley (words left out-ed) I’m not the same person but sadly share the same name.
I would very much like to see how the people of Cockermouth and Workington respond to her view that the weather is normal for November.
This, sadly is nothing to do with taxation but it to do with those who live in areas increasingly affected by global catastrophe.
My only reason for this posting is to ensure that no one …… confuses the former MP for Guildford with this person.
If the above is typical of Conservative belief, heaven help us all.
Sue Doughty Reply:
December 3rd, 2009 at 1:08 pm
I do not see how anyone could confuse Sue Doughty, any Sue Doughty, even this one from Twyford, with the former Lib Dem MP for Guildford whose real name was Susan Powell. (more of the same deleted – this site does not want to get too involved in personal battles -ed)
I digress – the weather works in patterns dependent on the path the sun takes through the spiral arm of the Milky Way, our home galaxy. The only way man can influence the weather, therefore, is to control the movement of the sun and the influences, magnetic field variations, it picks up on the way. The only way mankind can cope with the fluctuations is to know how those who lived through the previous repeat of the cycle coped and emulate what they found worked. As we know, they left the flood plains well alone and managed water flow uphill by subsidising hill farming. If those rules had been adhered to then Cockermouth and other such disasters would been averted. The hand of history works in mysterious ways …..
Sue Doughty Reply:
December 3rd, 2009 at 8:01 pm
Quite right Ed. I do have the marriage certificate making me Sue Doughty. And as a politician, I won’t claim to know how water flows up hill. I have worked in Cockermouth and Workington and certainly at that time it didn’t.
Ollie Clokie Reply:
December 3rd, 2009 at 8:17 pm
Sue Doughty from Twyford – I find your grasp of the science behind this really very worrying, although I genuinely admire your passion…
… being part way through studying undergraduate level electromagnetism (again), I can safely say that magnetism has no effect on the weather… just gravity, light & heat… Perhaps you’re thinking of fridge doors, it does keep them shut…
So, these three things (2 really by the time they are actually influencing the weather, the light has become heat) are all that counts. We can’t do anything about the gravity, but we can do something about the heat. Co2, Methane and numerous other gases, as well as dust, all trap heat. This makes everything warmer and also more chaotic, like boiling a kettle – things get messy. There is no serious debate between scientists about global warming – although there is debate about the extent (just how much of a mess are we in?!). It is very basic and very easy to follow.
Approach the evidence objectively (I mean really approach the evidence, read some scientific studies instead of things that say what you want them to say), and you will change your mind.
So, do you have any comment on the suppression of the unfolding “climategate” scandal by the main stream media John?
Seems to me the blogsosphere is well up on current events and the “good ol boys” just dont want to report on a situation ( they likely stand to lose financially by drawing attention to it suspect ) that is of vital importance as on one hand its going to cost us trillions ( i cant afford it thanks) and on the other its addressing a non-problem.
If the science is as flawed as it now appears to be, then peer review is worthless, the data is worthless and the models also are utterly worthless.
The destruction of data alluded to by UEA is (serious-ed).
Their reasons for refusing to allow the public ( who paid for the research) to see the actual data being relied upon is now obvious.
How can the validity of claims made by such organisations be checked and confirmed/denied if the original unmolested, unmassaged data is now gone?
What were they thinking? Were they even thinking?
(strong allegations left out-ed)
One last thing, do me, the readers and yourself a big favour also John, please please stop referring to carbon dioxide as “carbon”, the two are entirely dissimilar im tired of the perversion of language that engenders confusion. (agreed-ed)
JR: “There are now several different camps of sceptics setting out their thoughts:”
Of your categories group 1 & 2 seem to be the same.
Group 3 can only remain a distinct group if they ignore the most recent news that (about East Anglia-ed). These are supposed to be ’scientists’.
There is a close parallel between the Global warming and Global finance camps, each have ‘models’ that they adhere to, but when the behavior of the model diverges from 1) the state of the real world and 2) the preordained ‘ideal’ state of the model, they (vary the raw data -ed) and yes, deny the real world data.
Group 4 are clearly in ‘la la’ land or in receipt of government grants ………. to support the established global warming models. These models coincidently, permit the politicians to discuss ‘cap and trade’ at expensive junkets like Copenhagen and to jet around the world to other conferences and junkets. Congregating at which clearly produces enormous amounts of ‘Carbon’. This in turn permits them to raise taxes then slice off a fraction and give it to the ‘researchers’ who then (reinforce the theory with their work).
The evidence coming out of UEA CRU,(should lead to serious questions being investigated and suitable action taken -ed)
Sadly, we are unable to rely on the Conservatives to do the right thing. Not least because the Tory leader has (words left out-ed) intimately associat(ed) it with a wealthy member of the environmental movement.
As soon as the government started to raise taxes claiming that tax rises meant being green it damaged the message. Giving money to the government does not mean I lower emissions.
They did the same with cigarettes, its just a shallow con to raise taxes only these taxes are not related to income.
The idea of tax incentives as proposed by the Conservatives is more effective if it happens.
John I think you have adopted a clear commonsense approach to this whole new religion.
Both the main parties are in agreement regarding promoting the new religion but, I suspect for different reasons; Labour like the new taxation opportunities the green agenda brings with it and introducing more control over people’s lives, our party do support it because a large single issue doner has paid us to.
Big business and the rich see opportunites to invest in the new religion, I understand the person that made the film that kicked off this new cult has invested millions in companies that will offer carbon trading schemes.
A former French President has recently said that climate change consensus is the first step towards global governece…Perhaps that is the real leftist agenda and the EUSSR is likely to be a good tool to deliver such an agenda.
What annoys me about the whole new religion is that anyone that takes a view contary to the government’s view is silenced and ridiculed, look at the enviromentalist Dr David Bellamy and how he’s been treated. If he doesn’t go along with it surely any sensible person should also question it, he is after all a real enviromentalist!!….Science, as I recall from my school days, is not about consensus or majority decisions, its about experiments, research and facts……If scientists rely on funding from a government that will only accept papers that support their chosen view point then it all becomes pointless. He who pays the piper and all that!!
I feel it is far more sensible to invest to adapt to any changes that come about rather than spend a fortune to fight nature…King canute comes to mind.
Throughout the history of our planet, climate has never been fixed. Other planets in our solar system are seeing similar climatic changes in relation to polar ice caps according to NASA. If there is such a problem as Messers Gore, Brown, Goldsmith et al would have us believe, why are we still destroying rainforests to plant rape for bio fuels and why are the world leaders still flying everywhere for climate talks and other jollies when there is video conferencing technology at their disposal?…It seems another case of don’t do as we do, do as we say….As always, it will be the poorer members of society that will be affected the most by this new religion.
Recycle, conserve energy and go nuclear are all sensible ideas as we only have finite resourses and when they’re gone, they’re gone. Most of the so called renewable power technologies aren’t yet much use this far north, wave power being the exception. The other problem with renewables is that we would still need to have conventional power stations on stand-by for when the wind doesn’t blow nor the sun shines, that will cost a fortune and push up energy costs……The real elephant in the room though remains un tackled; The size of the population, until we address the size of the population we cannot expect to make any real progress. Government suggest our population is heading toward 74m over the next decade or so, we need to reduce our island’s population down to 30m….How will we achieve that? What politician will have the courage to raise this issue?
Your last paragraph says it all and makes the case for more freedom and markets as the ‘answer’ to MMCC. In other words ‘capitalism’ trends towards increasing effieciency, whilst lawlessness, leftyism and fundamentalism of all kinds trends towards totalitarianism and increasing inefficiency.
Ross J Warren Reply:
November 29th, 2009 at 4:58 pm
Anno IVxvii Sol 7° Sagittarius, Luna 6° Taurus Dies Solis
29 November 2009 e.v. 16:58
I very much agree with you Lola. “‘capitalism’ trends towards increasing efficiency”. Like so many intelligent people I have found the last 12 years of leftist governance, very difficult. By far our most pressing task is to return a solid Conservative majority at the coming G.E.
zack Reply:
November 30th, 2009 at 10:17 am
Indeed.
But DC is a committed convert to AGW – so there will be no real change in the eco-sanity or tax sanity of the British Government after the next GE.
DC is more akin to a third way social democrat than Blair – particularly on AGW – so dont expect too much to change when the current fiscal lunatics shuffle off stage far left.
For the first time in my life at the next GE I will not be voting Conservative – & DC praying at the alter of the cult of AGW is one significant reason for that change.
Is anyone in the Consevrative party actually reading the CRU leaks in any detail?
Ross J Warren Reply:
November 30th, 2009 at 12:16 pm
I have not as I consider that they were not obtained in a reasonable way. Even so I am a believer in the scientific method and as such realise that the arguments put forward as certain, cannot have any sort of scientific basis. Scientists being far to sensible for that sort of thing.
Sadly my comment to D.C. that we might consider making climate change denial a criminal matter
with a clear wink, and followed by a rational plea for him to take a more sceptical stance, was reported out of context by the telegraph blog just yesterday.
I am very much a loyalist and I do not share many peoples downbeat assessment of D.C. who I believe will make a very fine PM indeed.
Few points
Pollution is more than carbon, the complex emissions from a factory producing something like optical fibre needs much more subtle analysis than a simplistic world view based on carbon only
Don’t know if you have listened to James Whale on LBC radio but he always stirs this debate up, some of what he says makes sense, although remembering much is said just to stir up debate for entertainment
It is very much in India and Chinas interests to have ever tighter emissions regulations imposed in Europe and the USA, because guess what that just means ever more production will shift to their nations
We are at economic war with China and India and it has to be said we are loosing big time, I am staggered at how naive we are at dealing with them sometimes
Para left out as referred to site I don’t have time to check.ed
Then I really do wonder what we are doing, we cannot compete as a nation or individually with a society which is prepared to disregard the basics of good employment practise, the basics of health and safety, and the basics of pollution control, the sooner we start figuring out how we are going to fight back and start holding some ground the better, otherwise we will just become a nation of non workers
“We are clearly short of water in the east of the country,and should put in more capacity now to handle the rise in population”
Why is it that politicians buy into the inevitable rise in our population? Why don’t they offer us the alternative to stabilise our population?
Why should we take anything a politician says on global warming seriously when they are engineering the biggest rise in our population in living memory, it is a completely contradictory message, and makes sure we have no hope of achieving sustainability.
Essentially you politicians are saying we will have to endure rationing, but as you want to expand our population by millions more people, we will, for the joys of having all these millions more people here , have to endure extreme rationing. I have a feeling its not going to be a very well received policy, and people are going to tell you to go take a hike, and don’t talk to us about rationing until you have closed the bloody door to our country!
There is one further thing, Gordon Brown has said there needs to be a $100 billion p.a. fund to support developing countries. Oh yes where did this figure come from? How was it arrived at? And where and how is this money going to be spent? It seems to me its going to be another Aid circus where the Western tax payer gets robbed of his money to sate some dreamt us anguish of the guilt ridden bleeding hearts, unfortunately Cameron’s Conservatives, now all fanatical believers of the global warming religion, won’t be asking any of these questions, and so failing in their duty as an opposition.
PS As we are broke, where is all this money Brown is committing us to, and Cameron is going along with , going to come from?
Stuart Fairney Reply:
November 30th, 2009 at 9:46 am
They have to increase the population so the national insurance Ponzi scheme doesn’t collapse, rational being you need an ever bigger pool of suckers…
There is another way of looking at it. All fossil fuel is finite, therefore when it is all used up, there will be no man-made carbon emissions. Does it really matter how soon? We are just postponing the inevitable. In the longer term even nuclear power will be used up, but that is another story.
Excellent analysis as normal John and I agree with your conclusions.
I wonder why you waste your time and talent on a Party that has Zac Goldsmith as it’s environmental spokesperson. And George Osbourne as it’s economic one come to that.
Stuart Fairney Reply:
November 30th, 2009 at 9:49 am
The Sunday Times reported yesterday that Mr Goldsmith who aspires to tell the rest of us how to live, does not pay taxes like the rest of us being a non-dom. I don’t know if this is correct however.
I can’t believe that’s true because how could you with all sincerity, comment and try to change laws and taxes that don’t affect you?
John,
I think you should redefine your first set of people as realists not deniers. They are stating facts not denying them.
It seems that the “science” on which much of the Climate Research Unit/IPCC agenda is based is flawed. The leaked emails suggest that data has been manipulated to make the warming case, that the peer review process has been corrupted, that the underlying raw data is not available (apparently now said to be “lost” thus obviating independent scrutiny), and that the databases and software employed are inadequate (not fit for purpose, to borrow an overworked phrase).
In these circumstances I cannot see how taxpayers are going to accept imposts based on such shoddy work. Somehow I think that the poll tax riots would look like a Sunday afternoon picnic if politicians stray down this road.
I belong to the common sense group. It is common sense to promote energy efficiency. It is common sence to reduce pollution. It is common sense to diversify our sources of energy supplies, especially from unreliable sources. It is common sense to do this step by step, in a measured and doable way. I agree with you that regulation and tax incentives have a part to play.
There was an interesting Time Team program on last night:
“Ten thousand years ago, before the melting ice from the end of the last Ice Age led to a huge rise in sea levels, the map of Britain looked very different to what it is today.”
http://www.channel4.com/history/microsites/T/timeteam/2007_dogger.html
The AGW proponents would have you believe that climate change:
a) Is a new phenomenon
b) Is man made
c) Can be avoided
d) Should be avoided
In the seventies scientists were claiming we were heading into a new ice age. Scientific funding follows AGW reseach as long as they come up with statistics that support more green taxes. They’re trying to turn us into tax slaves.
The real problems will result from overpopulation and destruction of forest land but I don’t see or hear our government making any noises about that, rather they seem to encourage human reproduction and house building.
The socialist model appears to depend on continuing population growth.
I think JR, you will be having to buy a lot more memory space on your site server before this climate debate is concluded, if ever it is. For those who are still deciding which “strand” to follow, like me, it is worth following the science, as was said yesterday.
Who do you believe? Well, for a starter have a look at the following on the planet’s carbon cycle. This bit, and other articles on this site make engineering sense to me. I am looking forward to when one of these guys tell me where the three billion tonnes of CO2 are, that they reckon is missing from the atmosphere. Is the planet indulging in a bit of off balance sheet accounting?
http://www.eoearth.org/article/Carbon_cycle
At last some real sense being put forward instead of the Politically motivated Control and Tax policies being pushed
using the usual tool of Fear.
Let us hope a few more brave souls will have the courage to
question the establishment line so that we may have the real truth.
As an off message question, I gather the Amazon Rain Forest
produces 20% of the Earth Oxygen, so surely by stopping the destruction of any rain forest and planting more and more trees
we can influence the situation for the better.
You will gather I am not a scientist !! Who are beginning to
be measured with Politicians and Bankers in the popularity stakes.
As usual a sensible, sober analysis. I have long been in the sceptical camp with regard to man made global warming. There are so many recorded incidences of global warming in history which cannot be due to man made carbon emissions that to commit the colossal sums advocated by the enthusiasts is plain stupid. So I am firmly in your and Nigel Lawson’s camp. There is the further suspicion that governments [and particularly this govt] are cynically hyping the argument to wrest further taxes from us. For the life of me I can’t see why so called scientists cannot agree on a multitude of what should be observable and measurable facts.
I really do not know where I stand at present, given that I do not think anyone has put up a convincing argument, one way or another.
Clearly the earth has had fluctuations in climate since it was formed, with or without the help of humans.
Clearly there are finite resourses which it would be sensible to try and preserve, by using less wastefully.
Clearly an ever increasing population is a threat to its very existance, as eventually food production will cease to cope.
Clearly if we continue to poison the earth with our toxic waste/pollution, then we will poison the very earth and seas which we rely upon.
The solution is I would suggest rather more complex than just raising taxes.
Please to all the above, no is denying that the climate changes. It always has and always will and there is nothing we/you/man can do about it. The use therefore of the word “denier” is an attack on those who are sceptical of the “concensus”, except of course that science does not work on concensus. For years the concensus was that the earth was the centre of the universe until someone said it wasn’t and produced evidence to back it up.
It is now (alleged-ed) that fiddling with the evidence did take place, deliberately, so the argument from that evidence is not valid. This is backed up by the fact that all the so called evidence was kept secret, changed and the original data sets have been “lost”. That is NOT science.
CO2 is an important gas, although only being about 0.038% or so, but it is a necesary requirement for all plant growth so cannot really be classed as a pollutant. Compared the the 40s and early 50s there is no pollution, hence no pea soup fog and plenty of lychen on tree trunks.
Derek
You have missed out a new and currently growing group of sceptics, Mr. Redwood. I am referring to the people who are appalled by the “Climategate” revelations released onto the internet by a (probable) whistleblower within the Climatic Research Unit based at the University of East Anglia. I understand that Professor Phil Jones of CRU has admitted the emails and data are genuine. This means the HadCRUT temperature dataset (may be-ed) either very inaccurate or worse,(word left out).
Since the HadCRUT dataset is one of four similar datasets fed into the Global Climate Models (GCM), and the actual coding appears to be (quesitonable-ed), the GCMs must be treated as highly suspect. It explains why GCMs predict imminent Thermageddon but not the cooling currently underway. Not only that, how is a computer model attempting (and failing) to predict the world’s chaotic climate system superior to empirical science? Since when did climate science become a branch of astrology? And why are we pouring more than a trillion pounds into a project based on dodgy science and consensus? Consensus isn’t science, it’s anti-science. If the data coming out of CRU is tainted then so is everything based on that data or matching that data. The Conservative party cannot, surely, procede with this carbon reduction and trading madness. It would be (foolish-ed) to procede without an independent investigation.
The Conservatives want to stop making policy based on popular focus groups and start making common sense policies that won’t wreck our economy and energy security. Stop believing that the “science is settled” because it isn’t. AGW is a political agenda. It is devoid of any meaningful, falsifiable science!
CO2 is not our enemy nor is it a pollutant. It is a minor trace gas that lags a rise in global temperature by some 800 years. This is an established scientific fact. (not so according to many scientists -ed) It is a gas vital to life and we are attempting to reduce it. Doesn’t that sound rather stupid? CO2 does not drive global warming and while it’s levels are slowly increasing at the moment the global temperature reached a plateau in 1998 and has been in decline since 2002. CO2 is a plant food and increased CO2 gives us an increase in crops. Nor do we need carbon sequestration. Nature has already provided us with a variety of carbon sinks, the largest of which is the oceans. How can we possibly match that? (sentence left out-ed)
The last anomalous rise in global temperature was the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) – approximately 800 years ago! The people responsible for the now thoroughly discredited “hockey stick” graph tried to lose both the MWP and the Little Ice Age (LIA) to smooth out the long term temperature proxies and cherry picked their data to produce the alarmist hocky stick curve. A vital section of the tree ring proxy turned out to be based on ONE tree. (personal allegation removed-ed)
If you take the proxy temperature data (ice cores, tree rings and lake sediment) and the actual observed data, the temperature record for the last one thousand years is not remarkable. In fact it is stable and the climate is not doing anything unprecedented. Empirical evidence suggests the recent warming we experience is a natural fluctuation as is the present cooling. Only the data being used to prove there is a problem is unprecedented in the fact that it is being manipulated to prove the global temperature is rising at a time when it is doing the opposite.
The seas are not rising any faster than they have been and even that seems to have stopped over the last few years. The land along the east coast of the UK is sinking due to isostatic rebound and has nothing to do with global warming. However, sea defences and flood barriers are a sensible precaution. Polar bears are not endangered and how come we only hear about the reteating glaciers and not the ones that are growing? The shrinkage of Arctic summer ice was due to anamalous weather conditions and natural oceanic oscillations. The ice is now increasing again. The shrinkage is natural and has happened a number of times this century and before the post war industrialisation blamed for AGW. The recent Catlin expedition to the Arctic failed to reach the north pole yet it’s results are treated like they mean something even though (there are questions about how well their equipment workded-ed). A joint German/Canadian survey actually succeeded in measuring the multi-year ice at the pole and found it to be approximately four metres thick. Their equipment didn’t fail. This latter survey was completely ignored by the UK’s mainstream media and government. Why is this?
I’m a life long Tory voter. Or I used to be. The fudge over the EU turned my stomach and the Climate Greening of the Tories is suicidal. I’m not against reducing pollution or recycling but I won’t be party to you lot impoverishing this country over climate (change-ed)!
I’ll be voting UKIP come the next general election. I know I’m not alone.
APL Reply:
November 30th, 2009 at 8:19 am
Lynne Lancaster: “CO2 is not our enemy nor is it a pollutant. It is a minor trace gas that lags a rise in global temperature by some 800 years. This is an established scientific fact. (not so according to many scientists -ed) ”
JR: “not so according to many scientists -ed”
The point is Mr Redwood, many scientists *are* of this opinion. It’s just that scientists who are, often do not get tax funded platforms to present their contrary view. The global warming doctrine is not ’settled science’. Despite what people such as Gore say.
This is a movement that has now admitted to destroying original raw data and only keeping manipulated. That is figures, it is no longer ‘data’, that supports their assertions.
Lynne Lancaster: “It is a gas vital to life and we are attempting to reduce it.”
Exactly. The vast majority of living things on this planet are based on Carbon chemistry. Carbon is not a pollutant. The use of the term ‘Carbon’ as a synonym for pollution or something bad is anti science anti knowledge. It is shocking that it has gained currency in a supposedly educated population.
Nice article – I like your categorisation of the sceptics
But not much analysis on ‘Climategate’
Have a glance at David Cameron’s blog entry on Copenhagen on the Conservative website. It appears to have triggered a wave of revulsion amongst conservative supporters
I’m no genius, but a dramatic decline in the lead over the worst PM ever to 6% post-Lisbon followed by Cameron’s complete support for the globalist anti-democratic Copenhagen agenda – I think the Conservative party will haemorrhage support over this from its base and may end up losing the next election
The conservative leadership need to do some drastic reevaluation of AGW, Copenhagen and CO2 policy in the light of the Climategate affair. Their electability may depend on it.
I have decided to switch my vote to UKIP for now
APL Reply:
November 30th, 2009 at 8:27 am
Onion: “But not much analysis on ‘Climategate’”
I do sympathize with Mr Redwood, he has supported a non rational candidate for leader of the Tory party. Cameron has repeatedly jumped on the wrong bandwagon, he hardly articulates the core Conservative doctrine.
This naturally places Mr Redwood in a difficult position. Redwood is a rational thinking man, but he wants to avoid disagreeing with the Tory party leader in public. After all, Cameron was Redwoods candidate.
Nice analysis Mr Redwood. Could you explain it to Mr Cameron please who judging by his statement on the Conservative website has either not heard of the events at HadCRU or does not understand their significance.
Despite claims of “scientific” evidence, the AGW claim relies primarily on showing correlation between rise in mean global temperatures and rise in CO2 concentrations.
Correlation is NOT accepted in science as evidence of causal link.
The real fraud is so-called scientists passing off correlation as scientific evidence and manipulating data to show it, and the Lemmingocracy has fallen for it without asking questions.
Non-correlation is however accepted as evidence of no causal link, and the long term data (importantly the last 11 years of increased Man-made CO2 emissions) shows lack of correlation.
To improve energy efficiency money should be spent on: better wire and transformer technology to reduce transmission loss; generation sites closer to points of use to reduce transmission loss; more effective “lean burn” combustion of fossil fuels and better generators; development of new generation nuclear reactors. Forget windmills and solar: both cause local climate change.
A very fine summation. I would quibble that it is possible to hold positions 1-3 simultaneously (that the world has slightly cooled over the last 10 years; that while there is some effect from the human proportion of CO2 it is tiny, possibly unmeasurably tiny; and that it is theoretically possible the science will change but until there is real proof the theory is simply a theory & that in any case technical solutions are available far cheaper than the War On Fire.
If alarmists really believed their own catastrophe stories nothing could prevent them endorsing nuclear power since it is the only practical way of powering the world without fire. I have never seen any real argument from any alarmist why this would not be so. QED they don’t believe it either.
An overwhelming majority of more than 200 comments in reply to Cameron’s latest Blue Blog were in total opposition to his views on climate change. This despite censorship on the blog (my comment was not posted). If you haven’t read them I suggest you do. I don’t suppose Cameron is interested in any views which differ from his own. Perhaps you might care to tell him that more and more people whose votes you should have expected are in the balance if not already lost. UKIP may have no chance of forming a government but they have policies which represent the views of traditional Conservative supporters far more then Cameron’s modernised party.
Bristol Steve Reply:
November 30th, 2009 at 12:00 am
I agree entirely. When Cameron reneged on his “iron-clad promise” to hold a referendum on the Lisbon European Constititution Treaty he showed himself to be Blair’s true successor. But only Blair-lite. Can he be trusted on anything now that we know iron-clad promises can be weasel-worded away? Not by me (an ex Constituency deputy chairman) he can’t. I’m voting UKIP. And to those silly Greenies thinking of cuddling up to Dave and Zac – can you trust him? Stay on Planet Zarg – it needs you!
APL Reply:
November 30th, 2009 at 8:41 am
Brian Tomkinson: “Perhaps you might care to tell him that more and more people whose votes you should have expected are in the balance if not already lost.”
That assumes that Mr Redwood actually has any influence in the Tory party.
I think Mr Zak Goldsmith has more influence with Mr Cameron than Mr Redwood.
I think Mr Clarke has more influence with Mr Cameron than Mr Redwood.
Bob Reply:
November 30th, 2009 at 7:31 pm
My comment wasn’t posted either.
It appears that the vast majority of comments are sceptical of AGW, he doesn’t appear to have much support for the Tory position but he’s not listening.
UKIP makes more sense on the subject:
Warmist equals fog of war?
Denier equals mass in grams of 9,000 metres of fibre, and therefore is a measure of diameter for a given material such as nylon.
The other reality that people are reluctant to allude to is the risk of competition for resources leading to wars. If you perceive such risks then you can indulge in appeasement – roll over and let others have the resources and acquiesce to decline – or you can consider measures to enhance your security of access. I would venture to suggest that these issues are much more pressing than the speed with which the climate is changing (whatever cause you choose to ascribe to that).
The answers are far from simple. Masking the debate behind “climate change” will give very sub-optimal answers, and may in fact create a greater risk of flashpoints as the consequences of lack of proper attention to these real issues bite.
Another excellent analysis Mr. Redwood.
Just a couple of points about flooding and coastal erosion, somthing I know a little about.
First there is nothing wrong with building on a flood plain. You can get permission from the Environment Agency. You just need to build the right sort of buildings. e.g on stilts, hydraulic lifters, floats of all kinds. Holland has existed for centruries and most of it is below sea level. Their existence is threatened by the mighty North Sea and some major rivers. They know a thing or two about flood prevention and coastal defences.
Second, contrary to what the Government and others are telling us, the amount we are spending is pitiful. The EA and its private contractors are jam packed with engineers. In my experience, engineers either want to fix things or build them.
The lack of cash has led to the current policy of handwringing and saying, “we can’t do anything about flooding, (hence the ban on flood plain building) and of abandoning any attempt to tackle coastal erosion in an effective manner (the abandonment of seaside/rural communities).
You are on record as saying, “flood prevention is not rocket science”.
The most effective solution is to run off rivers in flood, to water reservoirs or to underground aquefers. And start building a national water distibution network. New surface water drainage and sewer systems are needed too.
In addition, since the UK has many thousands of miles of rivers and water ways, huge amounts of electricity could easily be generated and fed to the national grid by large numbers of various size water wheel type generators. Just think of the jobs that could be created, the revenue raised, the “green credentials” and the overall benefits if just some of this was done.
The problem for most of us on climate change (and many other issues) is separating the truth from lies.
So thank you again for such a helpful analysis.
Bob Reply:
November 29th, 2009 at 5:07 pm
Can you imagine if the floodwater from places like Cockermouth had been diverted into a reservoir and distributed through a network of pipes to drier parts of the country. We could avoid the need for helicopters flying around enforcing hosepipe bans, and a lot of people could have been spared the misery caused by the flooding.
The answers lie in UKIP’s Enviromental Policy:
John, you forgot on the `free market’ side all those wanting to trade and hedge carbon credits (such as Goldman and Morgan Stanley). This is the most powerful lobby in favour of current and suggested policy frameworks. It’s us, the people who use fuel, who are going to pay as usual. The bankers will this time be taking a cut on*everything* we purchase (as everthing manufactured, transported, or grown requires energy and fuel at some point along the line).
But I’m a little dissapointed that you don’t provide much of an analysis on the facts of the matter here unfortunately. You haven’t really mentioned the (possibly-ed)fraudulent nature of the science.
Reply: I have set out the range of opinions and offered a forum for developing the debate. I have also stated clearly what policy recommendations I draw, which is ultimately what matters.
Is carbon dioxide a pollutant? Common sense tells you that it is. An earth like self supporting eco system has never been artificially recreated by man that has survived any significant amount of time. Better not to add something in large amounts that we do not know the effects of will be in the long term is an undeniable truth.
The age of ‘conquering nature’ and man doing whatever he like to the eco system are over. Anyone who does not believe this is a ‘denier’. Often these people have some sort of religious and political fundamentalist beliefs or leaning in that direction. In a nutshell they believe that whatever man does it will not make any difference as the future is already been written not just on global warming, but on me moving my hand to type this. If you believe that then you need psychiatric treatment.
The other side to the coin was Soviet Russia that believed nature could be conquered using science such as nuclear explosions to move mountains, nuclear powered trains and even planes. How they where supposed to take off and what would happen if one did and crashed was anyone’s guess.
In the real world can anyone deny that saving and more efficient use of energy with research into more sustainable and maybe cheaper sources is a bad thing? A number of groups do. This is often used to further other causes such as race immigration and vested interests. These sort of people are probably still denying that asbestos and cigarette smoking are bad for the health. Many of these fundamentalists are vehemently opposed to any controls on pollution. The Bush governments opposition to the Clean Air Act springs to mind. Fundamentalist deniers of anything against their own interests.
Eotvos Reply:
November 30th, 2009 at 6:23 am
“Is carbon dioxide a pollutant? Common sense tells you that it is.”
Well Baz, science is often counter – intuitive. Most life on Earth depends on CO2. No CO2 – no you. Not how I would define a pollutatnt!
<
“The trouble with common sense is that it is not very common” – Mark Twain.
Three things, most human beings seem incapable of understanding that the physical world and life itself are dynamic, everything changes constantly, so it is foolish to assume that somewhere in the last century the earth reached its optimum climate level.
Secondly climate conditions vary around the world anyway and the populations in Australia cope as do those in Iceland, man is extraordinarily adaptable without realising it.
Thirdly a warm climate is infinitely better than a cold one, more crops can be grown and certainly less effort is required to go about daily business.
What is all the fuss about?
Thank you for a very clear exposition of an extremely emotional subject.
If I were Ed Miliband, and I’m glad I’m not, I should be stalling fast and I think that is, actually, what most politicians throughout the world are doing.
It doesn’t help that the scientists of the UEA at the heart of the orthodox position are behaving so very badly.
Interesting, too, that even on Sunday you get well over 50 comments by touching this nerve.
Or a combination of some of your reasons;
1. The world isn’t warming nearly as much as the scientists say and the future trend is greatly exaggerated by the IPCC – the CRU takeaway.
2. Other factors may be playing a part – e.g. cosmic rays on temperature and deforesattion on railfall/ice retreat – the papers the IPCC don’t want to talk about.
3. The may be a little bit of warming due to carbon but its not very significant.
4. De carbonisation via renewables etc is extremely expensive compared with better energy effciency, reafforestation etc but the IPCC debate is entirely focused on decarbonisation. For example the money being spent on destroying the countryside with winfarms would have a much more benficial effect if it was spent on insulation or reafforestation.
In general while euro and agw scepticism and immigration concerns made the Tories look “nasty” in 2005, hard facts have now made the public come round to these points of view.
So the repositioning now looks a bit premature? Suspect Cameron’s more “human face” could perhaps sell not quite so nasty policies quite well if he tried.
[...] more: Different strands of global warming scepticism | John Redwood MP Tags: Global Warming, policies, the-policies Share this [...]
“I have set out the range of opinions and offered a forum for developing the debate. I have also stated clearly what policy recommendations I draw, which is ultimately what matters.”
The fact that you think a policy response is needed at all is what I’m questioning. Building flood defences and trying to mitigate risk from flooding I don’ t have a problem with. Indeed these things should be part of Government contingency planning and/or risk management regardless of which direction the thermometer is moving. The same can be said of energy security (surely a vital national interest).
But the support for the paradigm (the cause, if you like) your leader has recently published on his blog seems to me to imply an explicit acceptance of punative economic instruments which have at their root the rather unusual assumption that we can actually control the climate. As we have seen recently, certain interests groups have become a hostage to fortune on this issue.
I think you missed out #5, the cynic and his close relation #6 the conspiracy theorist.
I’m a #5, I think that the climate change agenda is being pushed by big money interests who want to turn pollution rights into a new mega-currency to rob everyone with and useful idiots who either can’t think for themselves or who don’t like oil companies, 4×4 drivers or even humans in general.
Then there are the #6’s who agree with the #5’s that big money interests are behind all of this but think that the sinister objective is depopulation of the 3rd world.
The simple truth is that capitalism will burn itself out.
Its flaw ? That its the only effective method of elevating the masses out of poverty but will reach a tipping point where
consumption over reaches supply.
There is another facet to this: The celebrity elites. They instinctively dislike ordinary people bettering themselves. But rather than be overt about this they devise ideologies whereby the masses self-flaggelate and cut their own throats.
Note that many of the advocates for the theory of global warming are pop stars and celebrity politicians and demonstrate no inclination to curtail their own excesses.
APL Reply:
December 2nd, 2009 at 11:29 am
Kevin Peat: “That its the only effective method of elevating the masses out of poverty but will reach a tipping point where
consumption over reaches supply.”
Capitalism has an effective mechanism to address that situation, it’s called price. If the demand for a thing increases and that think is is plentiful supply the price will often, indeed usually fall.
On the other hand if the demand for a thing increases and its supply is restricted the price will rise, thus naturally choking off demand.
Socialist systems on the other hand prefer straight forward rationing. A case in point is N.I.C.E. It’s sole intent is to ration expensive drugs yet dress the rationing up as concerns over safety. As if a person dying of Cancer would be too concerned about the side effects of a new anticancer drug.
Kevin Peat: “The celebrity elites [ ] devise ideologies whereby the masses self-flaggelate and cut their own throats.”
Not behavior restricted to a capitalist society, what about the communist party in the USSR, and the shops that only communist party members could shop in?
Kevin Peat: “Note that many of the advocates for the theory of global warming are pop stars ..”
Noted and agreed. Why being able to scream into a microphone qualifies one to pontificate on for example, global warming, escapes me.
They can call me “denier” if they like, all they are doing is undermining Holocaust remembrance. If I were Jewish, I’d be pretty angry about this.
Big supplement in the with the Sunday Times today wholly given over to climate change. Cynically touted on the front cover as “A sceptics guide to saving the planet”. It was nothing of the sort, just trotting out huge amounts of the usual garbage. Let us not forget the Times Newspapers’ recent erroneous advertisments on the North West Passage. Most telling to me though, is just how many of the climate change lobby’s movers and shakers are inordinately wealthy. Goldsmiths, Rothschilds and many others. Why? Because the remedies they espouse can easily be absorbed by them financially, whereas the man in the street (let along the poorest of the poor) is going to be totally screwed over
The whole global warming thing is a HOAX. So please put me down for Group 1. Thanks
I see that several words in my previous post have been edited out. ( I edit out allegations of criminal conduct and othe possible libels against people, institutions and companies – not because I agree with those being attacked, but because you can make your anti points without risking a libel -ed – I also edit out such comments against Labour Ministers) Some rather learned people have been pouring over the Climategate documents and the conclusions they are drawing are damning.
I guess that I have an answer to my question – the Tories seem to be running shy of the Climategate problem. Do you intend to sweep the troublesome inconvenience under the carpet and hope it goes away. Well it isn’t going to go away.(Hardly what I am doing on this website-ed)
You also question the idea that CO2 lags temperature. I’d be pleased if you could name the scientists that you mention and refer to the papers they have written on the subject. Scientists independent of CRU and the IPCC if you please; the value of papers peer reviewed by the Anglo-American Climategate group and their associates has been brought into question. Here are a few papers that support a lag in CO2. Perhaps you would be so kind as to actually read one or two of them. (I am providing a forum for debate of this issue. The scientific establishment does alrgely believe in man made CO2 causing climate change – ed)
Indermühle et al. (GRL, vol. 27, p. 735, 2000), who find that CO2 lags behind the temperature by 1200±700 years, using Antarctic ice-cores between 60 and 20 kyr before present.
Fischer et al. (Science, vol 283, p. 1712, 1999) reported a time lag 600±400 yr during early de-glacial changes in the last 3 glacial–interglacial transitions.
Siegenthaler et al. (Science, vol. 310, p. 1313, 2005) find a best lag of 1900 years in the Antarctic data.
Monnin et al. (Science vol 291, 112, 2001) find that the start of the CO2 increase in the beginning of the last interglacial lagged the start of the temperature increase by 800 years.
Caillon et al. (Science vol 229, p. 1728, 2003) measured the isotopic composition of argon in air bubbles in the Vostok core during Termination III which finds that the CO2 increase lagged Antarctic deglacial warming by 800 ± 200 years.
I am grateful that you did not actually question the current cooling trend. Even the IPCC has had to admit warming ceased a decade ago. If they are wrong about that what else are they wrong about? And why did the IPCC quietly drop the hockey stock graph from its AR4 presentation when it played such a pivotal role in AR3?? Could it be because it has been thoroughly discredited by McIntyre and McKitrick?
What evidence is there for Thermageddon, besides a falsified proxy temperature dataset and computer models that are the technological equivalent of fortunetelling? Enquiring minds would like to know.
Copenhagen is about a world government run by the UN which will abolish private property and many other things.
In theory the people promoting it believe that there will be widespread chaos if they don’t control things and only they can know whats best.
In reality this is just an excuse to create world government something that was on the cards long before AGW.
The club of Rome repeatedly say this is about world government and are key drivers in this. Their policy papers from the 70s say the will use environmental fear to bring about the world government they ostensibly believe is necessary.
All scientists know this issue has been co-opted and exploited for political purposes, many go along with it for funding and their careers.
What the science is nobody knows for certain, there is still debate.
Recent climategate emails have raised concerns about the accuracy of the world temperature data itself, never mind all the extrapolations being made off of it.
“Warmism” is the new religion of the liberal left, and like all religions it requires a massive leap of faith to swallow it. Its acolytes have the same mindsets of yesterday’s socialists, who have been shown to have been wrong on EVERY major issue in the past.
“NO NUKES/GREENHAM COMMON” – what ended the cold war and the risk of nuclear armageddon was Maggie and Ronnie facing down the Soviets, not rolling over for them
“NO NUCLEAR POWER” – then, but not now. Hey – it’s carbon free!
“PUBLIC OWNERSHIP OF EVERYTHING” – Labour are now flogging off the State faster than those nasty Tories
“LET IT ALL HANG OUT” – has given us social breakdown, rocketing teenage pregnancies, semi-literate school leavers. And dirty hospitals.
If these naifs would concentrate on the credible aspect of their argument – that pollution should be avoided per se – they could make a case. Mouthing their repetitive “4 legs good, 2 legs bad” mantra really does show up their lack of intelligence.
Presentation is everything and the Met Office/Hadley Centre/Tyndall and their affiliates have been conducting science by press release. Short term data is extrapolated into long term scenarios of doom. However, a look back in history shows there is nothing unique about our current climate. In fact we ought be grateful that we have not had to live through the vicissitudes of the Little Ice Age and the famine and starvation that ensued.
We have had higher sea levels, we have had worse flooding and storms: Brian Fagan, Floods, Famines, and Emperors: El Niño and the Fate of Civilizations
The Little Ice Age changed the course of European history. Dutch canals froze over for months, shipping could not leave
port, and glaciers in the Swiss Alps overwhelmed mountain villages. Five hundred years of much colder weather changed European agriculture, helped tip the balance of political power from the Mediterranean states to the north, and contributed to the social unrest that culminated in the French Revolution.
The poor suffered most. They were least able to adjust to changing circumstances and most susceptible to disease and increased mortality. These five centuries of periodic economic and social crisis in a much less densely populated Europe are a haunting reminder of the drastic consequences of even a modest cooling of global temperatures.
As Maya civilization collapsed in A.D. 900 and the Anasazi suffered through the great drought of the twelfth century, Europe enjoyed five and a half centuries of warmer temperatures and ample rainfall, commonly called the Medieval Warm Period. Average temperatures in the British Isles between 1140 and 1300 were up to 0.8 degrees C higher than those of 1900 to 1950. Only today are some summer
temperatures reaching Medieval Warm Period levels. ”
The Met Office’s own data, the Central England Temperature Record, shows earlier periods of warming comparable to that from 1988 to 1998 which started the global warming paradigm.
CRU acknowledges these earlier warm periods but doesn’t explain the lack of a CO2 link: Climatic Research Unit: Information sheets: 3: UK Weather and Climate (CET/EWP) 12
“…seasonal and annual temperatures for the entire CET series…. show unprecedented warmth during the 1990s, but earlier decades such as the 1730s and 1820s are comparable.”
So the 1990’s were not unprecedented, but we are told constantly that they were. Selection of measurement periods is purely arbitrary, but as the period 1961-1990 is generally accepted as “normal”, it is instructive to project this 30-year time period backwards through the CET record and compare period averages.
From 1961-1990 atmospheric CO2 increased by 37.28ppm, yet the period average CET was 0.13 °C lower than 1931-1960, with only winter and autumn showing slight increases.
Conversely, from 1931-1960, atmospheric CO2 increased by only 11.71ppm, yet the period temperature average was 0.35°C higher than 1901-1930, which in turn was 0.19°C up for only an 8.7ppm increase in atmospheric CO2. Therefore for the 20th century, a direct temperature response to increasing atmospheric CO2 levels is not apparent in the CET record. Earlier temperature increases also occurred independently of atmospheric CO2 levels. From the late 1950’s to the late 1980’s, temperatures cooled against a rise in CO2.
The CET average for the 30 year period 1961-1990 was only 0.11 degrees C higher than the CET 30 year period 1721-1750, in spite of almost a 30% increase in CO2 during that time, covering the advent of the industrial revolution.
These figures are their own, yet you will not see them presented like this. The data hasn’t been lost yet and can be accessed at http://www.hadobs.org. Almost all their charts are presented as anomalies of the period 1961-1990, giving the classic high rise hockey stick type graph. When they say “above normal”, this is the period they use.
David Cameron could have taken advantage of Climate Gate to pull back from the CO2, low carbon nonsense without losing face. What a pity he is so in tune with Al Gore and the government.
Thankfully for the human race we had sceptics who refused to believe in:
Flat Earthism
McCarthyism
Stalinism
Maoism
Nazism
Communism
Socialism
Communitarianism
Globalisationism
Multiculturalism
Puritinism
Creationism
Darwinism and even ‘BigBangism’.
Now all we have to do is settle disputes about Climatism, Environmentalism, Globalism, Capitalism, Corporatism and Marxism and we can return to Individualism and back to sane politics.
Hopefully, someone like Margaret Thatcher will rise and show us the way out of this mess soon.
I don’t see how anyone could argue against reducing waste and pollution and increasing efficiency. But we all know the easiest and simplest and most effective way of doing all these things is to increase the price.
Is it me, or am I the only one to notice that John has not told us to which of the camps he actually has allegiance? Could he be in a camp he has not enumerated,namely , a “denier” but fearful of admitting it? I think we should be told!
Some links were corrupted in my previous post. Try again: –
Second time lucky, I hope.
In regard to CO2 and action against it;
Surely its better to do the right thing than just anything?
In the case of interfering in the climate, as with introduction of species ( cane toad in australia, africanisation of honey bees etc) we simply do not understand enough to know what the outcomes of our meddling will be.
Better to work out which wire is the live one than take a chance.
Stuart Fairney Reply:
November 30th, 2009 at 1:57 pm
In the words of Sir Humphrey, most politician’s thinking goes as follows:
1. Something must be done
2. This is something
3. Therefore we must do it
On reflection I probably fall into category 4 with a smidge of 3. I’d like to add a dash of 2 but the one group I’d hope to trust for objective assessment I clearly can’t. I don’t care if the desperately keen people call me a denier though this does suggest their version of science can’t stand on it’s own merit and their arguments increasingly lack credibility.
Whatever the situation encouraging a more economically sensible approach to resource consumption, waste and sovereign production seems the most enlightened policy and a lot of common sense is being displayed in this discussion.
I welcome an incentive based approach as opposed to the current one of taxing people until they can’t afford it then tax them some more and give those taxes away to other countries. I would also welcome an approach that encourages individuals to take a degree of responsibility for their own situation and doesn’t penalise them if they do, tax incentive rather than tax increases seems the fairest way to do this.
Please introduce it quick though as my gas boiler is on it’s last legs and I’d like to move to something other than gas or oil.
But how do you fairly incentivise the private utilities to do the right thing strategically? For example, to ensure a dependable national energy supply and establish a national water distribution network to alleviate floods and droughts.
I’m not sure there’s much difference between group 1 and 2.
How can anyone believe the “warmist” propaganda when it’s clear that most of the data they rely on is (words left out-ed) manipulated?
Also it’s hard to convince anyone there’s a shortage of water given the weather these last few weeks. Any problems are more to do with over population and over development than too little rainfall.
Refreshingly sane. Well done. We need a lot more of this.
Norman on 29 Nov 2009 at 9:04 am
“I also thought that if there was any error in the theory then surely the sceptical scientists could analyse the data and present a counter argument. I had absolutely no idea that the data and models used were not, as is normal scientific practice, published in papers and out in the open for everyone to see. The thought that data could be withheld never even entered my head.”
Without wishing to sound hurtful, I do find it quite depressing that so many British have been as gullible as you Norman, unquestioningly soaking up whatever the MSM and these so-called ’scientists’ feed them.
This mind-set is one that firmly belongs to the 20th century
Never believe everything you watch or read, even this esteemed blog! Question everything!
Hopefully with the growth of the internet and decline of traditional media sources, there will be a greatly reduced need for this kind of ‘news.
Well thought through, and logically laid out. Very much overdue. And that’s the problem. This stopped being about science and became pure politics a long time ago. Sadly, Her Majesty’s opposition were, and are still, AWOL. The cover story that carbon reduction targets are OK because they will help tackle pollution and energy conservation is disingenuous. Where were the calls for an enquiry when the IPCC4 – Kyoto hockey stick was found to be wrong ? Who is calling for Copenhagen to be put on hold until the extent of the CRU problems, and any similar practices, are bottomed out ?. The dissenting voice from the group-think hysteria in Copenhagen is going to be the BNP – that’s how far we’ve sunk !
As one of the “lucky” recipients of David Cameron’s weekly e-letters I have been asking for months that he/the Conservative party at least acknowledge that there must be some doubt about Global Warming. Even if only because Al Gore is in favour of it. But no, like so much else with DC and the Cons I feel that until the focus groups start to show that AGW is a busted flush there will be no acknowledgement of Another Way. As soon as the focus groups shift – next fortnight? – of course DC will be saying that he’s been an AGW sceptic all along…….
We have to vote for him to get rid of the Brown Terror but I wish I could do it with more conviction that he has some conviction……
John you appear to have an intelligent view on this – can’t you give Dave a “nudge” on AGW?
stabledoor Reply:
November 30th, 2009 at 12:51 pm
John Williams – I’m with you on this. We have to vote Conservative to get rid of Brown, but it is a disaster to me that the only party that matches my view on AGW is the BNP. I guess DC has to be very careful how he plays this – any divergence from the mianstream warmist agenda will produce howls of outrage about killing polar bears and wanting to destroy the planet.
DennisA Reply:
December 1st, 2009 at 11:41 am
Those are my thoughts as well. Unfortunately we have this:
15th March 2007 – Al Gore in London
http://blog.algore.com/2007/03/
I had some really interesting and productive meetings in London this week — discussing the climate crisis with the Chancellor of the Exchequer Gordon Brown, who is widely expected to be the next Prime Minister when Tony Blair retires.
Chancellor Brown has introduced a package of binding CO2 reductions in the United Kingdom that represent real leadership. The same day I met with the leader of the Conservative Party, David Cameron, and 80 of his fellow Tory Members of Parliament.
They were unanimous in their determination to propose meaningful solutions to the climate crisis. There has been a revolution in British politics, with the two largest parties now wholeheartedly committed to CO2 reductions and international leadership to solve the climate crisis.
You’re still missing the only factor of importance.
You mention that extra capacity should be made for the rise in population. Why? Stop the population increase. All the worlds problems come from the population explosion, and over the last 13 years we have deliberately imported the problem here, when we have a reducing, home grown, population.
Even Prince Charles can see this one.
I suspect that in Europe the primary motivations are politico-economic, insofar as politicians are concerned to:
a) Reduce energy demand/consumption due to the strategic imbalance caused by dependence on hydrocarbon fuels from what are seen as either potentially unstable and/or hostile regimes.
Additionally of course if people can be persuaded that they are criminals for using 100 watt incadescent bulbs etc and be willingly prepared to endure a miserable “low energy lifestyle” to “save the planet” then think what could be saved from the UK’s annual oil and gas import bill.
A true cynic would also be looking at the effect of extending North Sea field lifetime by forcibly reducing domestic demand and of course this might then free up more production for export to earn foreign currency.
Further, unpopular forms of energy generation, like nuclear, can be steamrollered through with negligible hindrance from things like Public Enquiries etc and of course they will also try to bypass things like full “Safety Case” reviews – a costly and time consuming process – since it’s already a “proven design” – watch this space with the French PWR’s that will be built in the UK.
b) Develop extremely lucrative new taxation stream(s),with the added benefit that anyone who objects is in the same category as those who don’t believe in the Holocaust – thus pretty much ensuring that the necessary legislation will go through and that the peasants will willingly pay up.
There are also subsiduary benefits for UK Government if the City can grab a substantial share of world carbon trading – lots of nice extra tax revenue again.
Not much to argue with there EXCEPT that 10 years is just about nothing in geological time frames.
Plainly there has been some local climate warming in Europe over the last 40 or 50 years. The ice and snow cover on the alps is much less than it was in the 60s and the UK suffers far less regularly hard winters.
In the long scheme of egological time we are probably in warming phase after the last ice age. That does not mean that within that warming phase there will not be fairly wide short term variation. That is the nature of weather.
Pragmatism is surely the best response, accepting that SOME of the measures we might take are just good house keeping in looking after the environment. Let us do some the simple things, look after the environment and observe. Let us not be panckied. Let us explain things better.
Your redaction of my opening paragraph and subsequent comment is duly noted and I accept your reasoning. This country seems set on becoming the libel (tourist) litigation capital of the world and you are a well known member of the political establishment. Perhaps the Tories would consider doing something to address this travesty of justice should you find yourself in office in the near future.
If the Tories are not running shy of ClimateGate how come we haven’t seen any sign from David Cameron acknowledging that something may be rotten in the county of East Anglia? Instead he seems to have ignored this formerly invisible elephant in the room and insists the Copenhagen Summit is of historic importance. If the science has been called into question then surely the most important thing to do is investigate? At the very least the data (if you can find the original raw data) should be examined before we take a blind leap into the AGW/global government abyss. Or is it because Copenhagen isn’t about science or the climate? Are we looking down the maw of a political agenda here? Is that why politicians refuse to acknowledge that climate alarmism isn’t cut and dried as it’s proponents would like us to think?
With respect, Mr. Redwood, the scientific establishment is making it abundantly clear the “science” isn’t settled. For years sceptics have endured withering ad hominem attacks from their warmist colleagues. Speaking out against the consensus carried a risk of withdrawn funding, having reputations besmirched, being blacklisted by peer reviewed science journals and in one case an alleged attempt to have a science degree revoked. ClimateGate has provided a catalyst for more sceptical scientists to speak out. Over the last decade or so the debate has effectively been stifled by the warmists. Climategate has changed that.
I am grateful that you have provided this platform. I only hope that you recognise there is more to this debate than deficient GCMs. Even Gavin Schmidt of NASA GISS admits the climate models are flawed yet we are expected to take long range model predictions on trust and accept them as empirical evidence). Then there is also a matter of the raw data CRU says it has lost or destroyed. Let’s not forget the proxies that have been falsified. If this constitutes “proof” no wonder the warmists resorted to tricks to” hide the decline”.
To be blunt, Mr. Redwood, we taxpayers are expected to foot the bill for so called “anthropogenic climate change”. It seems set to go ahead despite the fact the “science” underpining it has been brought into serious question. At the very least our politicians owe it to us to ensure that AGW isn’t an excuse to deliver the most cynical, controlling and impoverishing tax hike in history.
I’ve had my eye on this scam since 1883. It was obvious it was a scam then, and it is obvious today!
CARBON TAX IS THEFT – PLAIN AND SIMPLE.
Deja Vu, didn’t we do this a few days ago? Similar comments anyway.
There is no mention of the scientists in all this, who are virtually united on climate change. The public on the other hand are split. Partly to blame for this are politicians, who won’t tell the truth on this. Lab/Lib Dems talk about reducing emissions then promote airport expansion, so the public get the message that they aren’t serious.
I await with interest what the next Tory Government will do.
AT Reply:
December 4th, 2009 at 4:57 pm
Adrain, scientist are not united on this. The so-called consensus is a media myth. No matter how many times this is repeated, it does not make it true.
Adrian Windisch Reply:
December 6th, 2009 at 11:56 am
The scientific consensus is clearly expressed in the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
The question of what to do about climate change is also still open, but there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change. Climate scientists have repeatedly tried to make this clear. It is time for the rest of us to listen.
Some information for you
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686
http://www.ipcc.ch/
http://logicalscience.com/consensus/consensusD1.htm
A T Reply:
December 7th, 2009 at 2:21 pm
We know Mann’s IPCC hockeystick was just plain wrong (from the American Statistical Association)
We know from the CRU emails that the AGW (believers-ed) are a small clique that peer review each other’s papers, and are in the game ( of winning -ed) against anyone who is critical.
We know the UN is a deeply political organisation. At times very dodgey – (egs left out -ed)
We know that no-one in their right mind would trust the code in the CRU emails
I could go on. But what do facts matter in the AWG debate ?
Adrian Windisch Reply:
December 8th, 2009 at 2:05 pm
The facts are still there, because you don’t like the answer is no reason to wish them to go away.
In response, see;
The hockey stick –
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=behind-the-hockey-stick
CRU emails http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack/
Mr Redwood,
What do you think of this presentation about AGW by Lord Monckton?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=stij8sUybx0
What do you think of his comments about the coming Copenhagen treaty?
Regards
Reply: I have not had time to see this but as I know Chris well I am happy to keep in your reference to it from this site.
APL Reply:
November 30th, 2009 at 10:25 pm
Warning to anyone else who visits that link, it is well worth the visit but be aware it is a 1.5 hour presentation.
Climate Science is fundamentally an empirical science. It relies on confronting theories to the data. There are thus close parallels with economics, a more mature science. The fundamental difference between the two is state-funding verses competition. In climate science, governments (and the UN) have funded one-particular viewpoint, not only in theoretical fundamentals, but also on the forecasts. There is therefore a strong bias towards conformity. Dissenters are those who say it is a non-problem, or not a problem to get het up about. If their view prevailed, there would be a great loss of prestige (and jobs) for the majority. The way to establish one’s reputation is by conforming to the consensus in novel ways. For instance by making more extreme forecasts, or by relating every bit of unusual weather to the climate change.
In economics, reputations are established through novelty and dissent. But the established reputation of a senior professor, based on faulty research, can be torn apart by a sharp doctoral student. So assumptions are stated, statistical results published and conclusions are made tentative. Dissent leads to opportunities for further research and justification of research grants.
The problem that science faces is that most of those in government do not see the problems that government-sponsored science can cause. All what is required is to state the issue forcefully enough, denigrate the opposition. Any failure is due to failure of the message. But just like in the economic consensus of the post-war period, error is reinforced, anomalies ignored, and the outsiders called extremists. We need to open up climate science to some real competition.
I appreciate your attempt to categorise the skeptics. It shows there are possible differences of opinion, even from a scientific starting point. A refreshing change from the mainstream media,which shows the sides as the extremes of the mainstream scientific consensus and a hodge-podge of deniers/conspiracy theorists.
To see why your view, Mr Redwood, is better one, one needs to consider that Climate Science is fundamentally an empirical science. It relies on confronting theories to the data. There are thus close parallels with economics, a more mature science. The predominant difference between the two is state-funding verses competition. In climate science, governments (and the UN) have funded a particular viewpoint, not only in theoretical fundamentals, but also in the forecasts. There is therefore a strong bias towards conformity. Dissenters are those who say it is a non-problem, or not a problem to get het up about. If their view prevailed, there would be a great loss of prestige (and jobs) for the majority. The way to establish one’s reputation is by conforming to the consensus in novel ways. For instance by making more extreme forecasts, or by relating every bit of unusual weather to the climate change.
In economics, reputations are established through novelty and dissent. But the established reputation of a senior professor, based on faulty research, can be torn apart by a sharp doctoral student. So assumptions are stated, statistical results published and conclusions are made tentative. Dissent leads to opportunities for further research and justification of research grants.
The problem that those interested in the most objective science, is that most of those in government do not see the problems that government-sponsored science can cause. All what is required is to state the issue forcefully enough and denigrate the opposition. Any failure is due to failure in getting message across. But just like in the economic consensus of the post-war period, error is reinforced, anomalies ignored, and the outsiders called extremists. We need to open up climate science to some real competition.
[...] Redwood’s attempt to categorise the global warming skeptics is useful in show the different shades of opinion possible. Here I enlarge on my claim that the [...]
John: I too am pleased to read your comments and look forward to seeing more. There are reputable scientists on all sides of this argument and this only means that the science remains unsettled, no matter what any particular group might claim. I like your pragmatic approach very much and wish you well in trying to ensure policy responses that make sense.
Great Blog John – and good reply Mick.
1421 is a book about chinese discovering america before columbu (1492) – and includes details of a map of greenland constructed in 1425.
A very precise map showing coast of greenland, which today is covered by 2 miles (on average) of ice… so how was a map of the landmass made in 1425 when it is covered in ice…
Also how did the fleet of (container sized) ships get back to China without passing UK – of yes they used the North-West passage (over usa) and North-East passage (over russia)…. which for last 600 have not been navigatable due to ice…..
It looks like history tells us that the greenland ice sheet and NW/NE passage dissappear for about 10 years in 1425….
10-ish years odd number… of yes its the cycle of the sun which has an 11 year cycle of power output.
As ever it depends which history you read, Al Gores – last 300 years is a convenient number, take last 700 years and the lack on ice in 1425 is a huge problem for mr gores man made heat wave.
Also if the sun does have a dip (very few sun spots at present we may be entering a spot mimimum ) and we have the 1860 winters (skating on thames) then the recent fuel rises (35% in some years) will devistate our finances…
If a big freeze occurs then the arugment will be made to increase co2 release to help out….
lol
Pardon the pun Mr Redwood but I don’t suppose you’d like to have a bash at breaking the ice on Agenda 21 too by any chance?
Agenda 21 is said to be linked with climate change as this giving the means to panic people enough to get its measures through unhindered whilst at the same time taking our eye off what they are really up to.
You can read about it anywhere on the internet but clearly none of our politicians are telling anyone about it despite it being a 13 year programme and being put into force at the Copenhagen talks.
adam Reply:
December 1st, 2009 at 11:17 pm
Agenda 21 was signed in 1992 at Rio.
…. Al Gore was there with his mates like Maurice Strong.
In the opening speech Maurice Strong celebrated that this would de-industrial the west.
It stands for Agenda for the 21st century and is an overarching policy guideline for implementation by lower regional federations (eg EU) underneath the Earth federation, and then to be built on again at the regional level (eg EU regions).
I noticed today that there is some doubt being expressed over the GISS temperature reconstruction. Seemingly over time the number of temperature measuring points has changed, starting very low, increasing to a maximum then deteriorating again. The locations have either changed their character or been moved to other sites. When attempting to analyse the data there were many bits missing so they fiddled the data and put in a number, an average of other places and so on.There is a long but readable article on the net refered to by “Bishop Hill’s” blog. Worth the read but could be damning when added to what we already know.
“In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself.”
The Club of Rome’s The First Global Revolution (1991) Page 75
source:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/13160503/The-First-Global-Revolution-Club-of-Romes-1991-Report
Indeed Mr Redwood is rational and not without some intellectual rigour in his various arguments, but I think he’s going off down a dead-end here.
It would be a better use of his time to consider how to put systems in place to keep scientists (and those with political interest in their work) honest, in my humble opinion.
Stuart Fairney Reply:
December 5th, 2009 at 11:20 am
Are you able to provide some examples of the flaws in the thought process or merely content in the ad hominem?
Some respondents have mentioned the size of the world population, but I am surprised that there are so few. There is quite a lot of evidence that the human species has already become too numerically dominant for its own good. It is not just the gross emissions of CO2; the net emissions are important, and we don’t seem to have sufficient land available for forests. The pollution of the seas continues apace; there is now an area of sea off the north west coast of the USA that is essentially dead. It is also said that we are running out of agricultural land and that we will in due course be unable to feed ourselves; of course, there are always GM crops, if you like that sort of thing.
Haven’t we had four ice ages, with three warm periods in between them? What were the highest temperatures and CO2 levels then? Is there any way of knowing? And how do today’s levels compare?
By inclination, I am a Lawsonist, so let us start with a few pragmatic measures:
- stop producing 100 copies of three inch thick Environmental Impact Assessments for circulation within the United Nations
- quantify the carbon footprint of self important people, and their lackeys, and the journalists in tow, that attend international conferences like Tokyo and Copenhagen
- research video conferencing as a low energy alternative to international conferences
- lower by three degrees centigrade the minimum temperature at which offices may be maintained
- use carrot and stick to reduce domestic heating costs
- stop worshiping at the altar of longevity. If useful human life slows at about age 65, why spend vast fortunes on drugs to extend life artificially. Why invest in yesterday?
And counter the malign anti family planning propoganda of the Roman Catholic Church and Islam.
Great posting. Thanks for useful information.