Peter Taylor's CHILL: an environmentalist's very cool look at global warming

Posted by Tonyb on 07/09/2009 at 12:33 pm The Climate 421 Responses »
Sep 072009

Peter Taylor’s CHILL: a Reassessment of Global Warming Theory is really two books in one. The first part covers the science of climate change in exhaustive detail and provides an alternative to the orthodox view. Taylor, who has impeccable green credentials, describes “the technocratic and communalist approach” in a masterly analysis of how we arrived at this point through “a combination of zealotry which somehow has managed to portray the science as unequivocal when it’s not”. The second part covers policy, politics and remedies.

A main theme of the first part of the book is that we take too linear a view of
climate-trend projections, without recognising past patterns and cycles
which could include future cooling. I am comfortable with that notion, as any observer of history is provided with clear evidence that climate oscillates in numerous
cycles of warm and cold periods.

Readers who believe Al Gore’s Inconvenient Truth, and who consider the IPCC
climate assessments are factual, unbiased and objective, will not like this
book. As Taylor says: “It is clear to me that IPCC has made such a forthright commitment to the standard (Co2 ) policy model, that it has a biased attitude to new data that does not conform to that model.” And:

“It is striking that a small group of men working behind computer screens created a virtual reality in which the future climate became the enemy of mankind. That original cabal was likely innocent of any underhand motivation and genuinely believed mankind faced a threat and that they would sound the alert and potentially stave off disaster. But sociologists will go a little bit further and look at the social environment that pawned the very concepts of the climate game, many of which we take entirely for granted. For example the notion that humanity itself can be under threat or that the planet might need to be saved. These are very recent notions, at least from a societal perspective, and do not bear closer scientific scrutiny. “

This book is a breath of fresh air in pointing out the numerous contradictions in the orthodox climate science camps that believe themselves uniquely exempt to the notion that they should actually prove their scientific hypotheses Continue reading »

Lies, damned lies and Jonathan Porritt

Posted by TonyN on 30/08/2009 at 12:36 pm The Climate 23 Responses »
Aug 302009

What happens when a leading environmental campaigner meets a Spectator columnist, who is sceptical about climate change, on a BBC discussion programme, and there is a question about carbon emissions and wind farms?This was the situation on last Friday’s Any Questions, which was chaired by Jonathan Dimbleby who, while scrupulously trying to maintain an appearance of impartiality on such subjects, never quite manages to conceal his sympathy for the warmist cause.

Any Questions is broadcast from a different venue each week, with a local audience, although it is not unusual for panellists with a cause to make sure that there are a few of their supporters in the audience. The venue for this edition was the quaintly named Middle Wallop, a rural community set in the rolling Hampshire countryside.

At the beginning of the programme, he introduced the main protagonists in the following way:

Jonathan Porritt: Doyen of the green party, founder of Forum for the Future, and until a few weeks ago, chairman of the Sustainable Development Commission, and the government’s chief environmental adviser, to which post he was appointed by Tony Blair a decade ago.

James Delingpole: comes from a rather different tradition, author and Spectator columnist, he reviles what he calls the deceit and lies of the anthropogenic global warming industry … He’s also scathing about left liberals who he is prone to see in his words as ‘stupid’.

There were two other members of the panel, Kate Mosse, a novelist who has sold some 5 million books, and Mark Stephens a lawyer specialising in the entertainment industry.

The question about climate change came from a Mr Gent, who asked, ‘Is the answer to an 80% reduction in carbon emissions blowing in the wind?’

On this programme the panel genuinely do not know what the questions will be, although they may be able to guess what is likely to be come up and do some home work. The chairman immediately slipped the poisoned pill to Delingpole, although he must have realised that pitting a journalist with no specialised knowledge of this subject against a specialist like Porritt could make for an uneven contest. And addressing the question first is always a disadvantage; there is nothing to react to and no thinking time. Continue reading »

The Information Commissioner: faithful watchdog or the BBC's cuddly poodle?

Posted by TonyN on 22/08/2009 at 10:39 pm The Climate 20 Responses »
Aug 222009

Doug Keenan has an excellent post at WUWT about his experiences trying to persuade Queens University Belfast to release some tree-ring data using the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). Not least of his problems has been the very strange conduct of the Information Commissioner’s Office, which is supposed to be the watchdog that enforces the legislation and ensures that recalcitrant public agencies, such as universities, abide by the law.

What follows is another example of how this eminently sensible piece of legislation actually works in practice, or in this case, seems not to work at all.

In  July 2007 I made an application to the BBC under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and the Environmental Information Regulations (EIR) for information about a seminar on climate change that was mentioned in the BBC Trust’s blockbuster report on impartiality published in June 2006. This is what it said in the section on climate change:

The BBC has held a high-level seminar with some of the best scientific experts, and has come to the view that the weight of evidence no longer justifies equal space being given to the opponents of the consensus.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/assets/files/pdf/review_report_research/impartiality_21century/report.pdf

This decision was one that would inevitably have far reaching effects on public opinion. Continue reading »

Summers come, and summers go

Posted by TonyN on 14/08/2009 at 11:09 pm The Climate 8 Responses »
Aug 142009

When the Met Office predicted a ‘barbecue summer’ this year they were giving a hostage to fortune, and reality has visited savage retribution on them. If the public were sceptical about the ability of scientists to warn us about climate change before this debacle, they are now downright scornful.

The climate seems to be as unpredictable as it ever it was, but the natural progression of the seasons is not so capricious, nor are computer models required to tell us what is in store. As the gradual – or occasionally dramatic – warming of spring leads into the holiday season, our expectations – or hopes at least – grow ever more optimistic; will this be one of those truly memorable summers? And later, as the days begin to shorten noticeably, and leaves turn from rich green to brown, we know that soon the trees will once again be bare poles outlined against a cold sky, with morning frosts and the chance of a flurry of sleet or snow in a passing shower not too far away. Then, as the cold months near their end, the first signs of growth in sheltered spots reassures us that the whole cycle will start again.

There is a point in the passage of the seasons that always makes a deep impression on me, Continue reading »

Who owns the The Royal Society?

Posted by TonyN on 09/08/2009 at 11:17 am The Climate 11 Responses »
Aug 092009

There is no doubt that The Royal Society has a position on climate change, but to what extent is this venerable and distinguished organisation able to express a truly independent and objective opinion on a matter of current public policy?

Here is what the Society say at the head of the main page on their web site dealing with climate:

International scientific consensus agrees that increasing levels of man-made greenhouse gases are leading to global climate change. Possible consequences of climate change include rising temperatures, changing sea levels, and impacts on global weather. These changes could have serious impacts on the world’s organisms and on the lives of millions of people, especially those living in areas vulnerable to extreme natural conditions such as flooding and drought

http://royalsociety.org/landing.asp?id=1278

At a glance, this appears to be a reiteration of the current orthodoxy, but a more careful reading reveals it is remarkably cautious. There is no reference to conclusive, or even compelling, scientific evidence but only to ‘international scientific consensus’, it speaks of ‘possible consequences’ rather inevitable consequences, and suggests that these ‘could’ be serious rather than predicting certain disaster. There is plenty of wriggle-room here should opinion change. Continue reading »

Eco-towns, what scientists are for, and a bit about education

Posted by TonyN on 01/08/2009 at 11:11 pm The Climate 10 Responses »
Aug 012009

It’s a while since I’ve written a post, ‘John A’ having contributed last week’s piece. So here are a few things that caught my eye over the last fortnight while I’ve been doing other things.Our small and crowded island is still fortunate in having some lovely countryside which has been preserved as a result of sensible planning laws. On the other hand it has been recognised for some time that there is a housing shortage. The problem here is that more houses means less countryside, and this is likely to lead to protests. What to do?

Our very resourceful government — in matters of spin at least — had no difficulty finding an answer; a bit of creative re-branding:

The village of Ford in West Sussex was turned on its head last April when the Government  announced it was a “favoured location” to become an eco¬town. One of 10 spots to be transformed into a carbon¬neutral settlement, it would have more than 5,000 sustainably powered homes built on and around it. To encourage residents to take up a more eco-friendly lifestyle, it would be given impeccable new ‘”green” credentials.

Car journeys  would be curtailed by a l8mph speed limit. Bath water would be recycled and fed to communal flowerbeds. Each home would pump excess power generated by its solar panels and turbines back into the National Grid. It all sounded very  worthy.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/5858971/How-Ben-Fogle-helped-save-his-village-from-becoming-an-eco-town.html

And very expensive too. Bog-standard houses are expensive enough to put them beyond the reach of first time buyers, and the urgent need is for low cost housing. Eco-homes come with so many bells and whistles that they are something that only the affluent can afford.

When the then housing minister, Caroline Flint, unveiled the towns shortlisted to be “eco-fied”, she stated that “we will revolutionise how people live”. It sounded more like Nineteen Eighty-Four than the dawn of a green revolution. New developments, given a lick of green paint, could be forced onto towns like Ford, where similar projects would previously have been rejected. The word “eco” would make residents feel guilty if they voiced opposition. It would allow the Government to feel smug about its environmental friendliness, and to steamroller its developments through. Wrap something in green recycled paper and you’ll get away with anything. But Flint hadn’t reckoned on the power of local feeling.

That was a mistake, because the people of Ford seem to be a pretty feisty lot who were quite ready do a bit of campaigning and demonstrating to prevent a vast area of Grade 1 agricultural land being concreted over and their rural community being destroyed. They even attempted a bit of consultation with their opponents: Continue reading »

Lindzen, Holdren, the Erlichs and Lysenko; Progressive moral fashions.

Posted by John A on 24/07/2009 at 2:58 pm The Climate 3 Responses »
Jul 242009

Richard Lindzen (CCNet, 22 July 2009) was too generous by half in his assessment that “although ideally science is independent of moral fashions, in practice there is undoubtedly an influence”.

The history of science is rife with examples of political, social and moral fashions which not simply influence, but pervert the scientific method and corrupt the conduct of scientists. Einstein faced off the political and moral fashions of Nazism and eugenics but plenty of his colleagues happily incorporated those twin systems into their own research. Eugenics also laid the foundations for the moral crusade against alcohol in early 20th Century America which was again a supposedly scientific assessment delivered as a moral panic which must be addressed immediately lest America fall into a deep pit of moral degeneration.

The example of Trofim Lysenko and the political outlawing of Mendelian genetics in Stalinist Russia is a particularly scary example of a political fashion given to be a moral and political imperative by a dangerously unstable man who became President of the Russian Academy of Sciences. The parallels with the modern global warming scare are obvious.

Another example would be neo-Malthusianism as popularised in the 20th Century Continue reading »

The G8 in La-la Land: warm words but no promises

Posted by TonyN on 10/07/2009 at 11:01 am The Climate 8 Responses »
Jul 102009

Does anyone remember the unanimous statement on decisive action to combat the global economic crisis that the world leaders handed down from their meeting at L’Aquila this week? You don’t? Well nor do I, actually.

But global warming has its uses if you are a politician stuck for some good headlines, and as second item on the G8’s agenda it seems to have come in handy to save the leader’s blushes.

Apparently the climate is not to be allowed to change by more than 2 °C, and everyone agrees that carbon emissions  should be reduced dramatically by 2050; about the time that most of those gathered at L’Aquila will be learning to play the harp. As to what will be done to achieve this, how it will be done, or when it will be done, they are silent.

But for politicians, with a mighty spin machine to back them up and a poorly informed public as an audience, climate change is so much easier to deal with than economic woes. Here is a selection of first reactions after the meeting that buck the trend:

World leaders, including the developing nations, committed themselves only to “substantially reducing global emissions by 2050”, but failed to agree a specific target. The lack of a substantive agreement, other than the desire to keep global temperatures down, leaves world leaders facing daunting negotiations to reach agreement at the Copenhagen conference in December, which is due to set the entire climate change framework covering the period from 2012 to 2050.

Patrick Wintour and Larry Elliott, The Guardian, 9 July 2009

So all the “Gs” gathered in Italy this week appear to be floundering in their efforts to craft some sort of meaningful deal on climate change. Rich countries agreed to far-off, ambitious targets on emissions reductions, but shuddered at any more immediate commitments. Developing countries basically punted altogether. None of that bodes well at all for the year-end climate confab in Denmark.

Keith Johnson, WSJ Environmental Capital, 9 July 2009

Brazil’s chief climate negotiator criticized the Group of Eight rich nations on Thursday for not taking more forceful steps to curb global warming, saying proposed long-term targets were meaningless.

    Reuters, 9 July 2009

Does the 50% cut by 2050 sound familiar? The same countries agreed at the 2007 G8 summit to “seriously consider” such a target. By 2008, they had moved to “consider and adopt” it. Come 2009, well, we can consider it well and truly adopted.

David Adam, The Guardian, 9 July 2009

So the planet is saved after all. Before you crack open the low-carbonated champagne, consider the weasel wording of the Group of Eight summit communiqué. Are such carefully-hedged words worth the paper they are printed on? What are these politicians committing themselves to do during their own term of office? Most will be dead and buried by 2050.

Paul Taylor, Reuters, 9 July 2009

And of course the BBC, who must have been at a different meeting:

BBC environment analyst Roger Harrabin says the declaration is a significant step, with all big countries – rich and poor – agreeing there is a scientific limit on the amount we can warm the climate.

http://www.harmlesssky.org://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8143566.stm

(Hat tip to Benny Peiser of the incomparable CCNet)

Obama adviser: ‘How to become an extremist'

Posted by Robin Guenier on 05/07/2009 at 8:43 am The Climate 14 Responses »
Jul 052009

On this blog, many of us have commented from time to time on the remarkable unanimity of politicians, the media, public institutions and, sadly, scientists about what they see as the clear truths that mankind’s Co2 emissions are the cause of potentially dangerous global warming (now “climate change”) and that painful action is essential to curb such emissions if we, and in particular our grandchildren, are to avoid a dreadful future. As many of us see it, it is extraordinary how these opinions are expressed with such utter certainty in view of the powerful arguments that question that thinking – arguments that rarely get even a hearing in mainstream public discourse. We wonder – how can this have happened?

Well, I have just read an article that may provide the answer. Entitled To become an extremist, hang around with people you agree with, it’s by Cass R Sunstein – who is author of the much admired “Nudge” and an adviser to Obama. It can be found here.

Using the rise of fascism, 1960s student radicalism, the growth of Islamic terrorism, the Rwandan genocide and the 2008 financial crisis as examples, Sunstein argues that there is a general fact of social life that: Continue reading »

The perils of being a space virgin?

Posted by TonyN on 04/07/2009 at 9:37 pm The Climate 4 Responses »
Jul 042009


The other evening, Newsnight had a story about the future of space exploration which included an interview with Buzz Aldrin, who was the second man on the moon and by all accounts is a climate change sceptic, although he certainly wasn’t asked about this.

Earlier in the programme, the focused had been on suggestions that instead of leaving everything to NASA, the private sector should play a bigger role. The idea is that technology being developed for space tourism could also be used for other purposes.

There was an interview with a man called Will Whitehorn, President of Virgin Galactic who plan to operate the first scheduled passenger trips into space. They have recently signed a contract with NASA to put a climate research satellite into orbit and are also considering the possibility of feeding back solar power from space and developing server farms in an environment were air conditioning would definitely not be needed. Having established that Virgin intend to diversifying out of passenger transport, which they obviously understand, into the realms of fantasy technology, he then said this:

What people must realise is that space is crucial to the survival of mankind on the planet. Without being in space we wouldn’t even know, to any extent, about the climate change issue.

Mr Whitehorn is clearly not a fool, and he is obviously aware that concern about climate change can open up opportunities for Virgin. What is more puzzling is that he is evidently also aware that the much hyped ‘evidence’ of potentially catastrophic climate change over the last century has actually been so inconspicuous that, if it were not for the space programme, we probably wouldn’t even have noticed.

I’m sure we all wish Virgin Glactica every success, whatever planet they live on.

Older Entries Newer Entries
© 2011 Harmless Sky Suffusion theme by Sayontan Sinha