I only got home last night after being out of the country for most of the last two and a half weeks. It may take a while to catch up, so if I have missed anything important or urgent please leave a comment here.
Oct 082009
Sep 282009
The other day I was talking to a friend who had a serious problem with a large quango that is supposed to look after the countryside. He is unfortunate enough to have a remarkably robust species of lichen on his land that ecologists are interested in, and a Site of Special Scientific Interest has been created to ensure its protection, although there is absolutely no indication that the lichen is in any danger, or is ever likely to be.He needed to do some work in the area concerned and, although there was no question of the lichens being harmed, it was necessary to get permission from the quango. Letters and phone calls got him nowhere, so a site visit was arranged. He had assumed that, as is usually the case, once he met someone face-to-face common sense would prevail and an agreement which accommodated everyones interests would be quickly reached. He is rather proud of his lichens and is keen that they should continue to flourish.
At this stage I should say that the quango is very, very environmental and so is my friend. He moves in environmental circles, does environmental things, and is happily convinced that humans are destroying the planet, which gives him even more environmental things to do. On the other hand, there is a part of him that still takes a very levelheaded view of bureaucracy, activism and extremism.
When I spoke to him he said that the person from the quango and he had spent several hours walking the land, examining, considering and discussing everything. “And did you managed to sort it all out?” I asked. Continue reading »
Sep 152009
Back in February I posted about BBC Newsnight – Warming up President Obama’s inaugural speech? Aunty’s flagship current affairs magazine programme had taken three isolated phrases out of context from the speech and cobbled them together into what appeared to be a verbatim statement on global warming. This digitally created sound bite had then been used as an introduction to a report by Susan Watts, Newsnight’s Science Editor, which was recorded before the text of the speech became available, and evidently on the assumption that climate change would be a major feature in what the president had to say. In the event no single sentence in the speech, let alone a whole paragraph, was devoted to this subject.
I made a complaint about this and have also posted on various responses that the BBC have given me (here). The most recent one was a letter from the Editorial Complaints Unit (ECU) which I discussed here. Evidently the ECU were comfortable with what Newsnight had done, but perhaps they were unaware of the reaction to what became known as ‘splicegate’ in the great wide world outside their comfortable offices.
A vast number of blogs and web sites all over the world had picked up the story, as well as some of the MSM. Not least was a site in the US with the quaint name (to British ears) of StinkeyJournalism, which seems to be a pretty fearsome watchdog on journalistic ethics over there. North Americans have a high regard for the BBC, and are shocked when it fails to live up to expectations. Continue reading »
Professor Bob Carter will be giving a lecture at 11.00 am on Wednesday 20th May 2009 in the City of London. This is not a public event, but I understand that it may be possible for some members of the public to squeeze in.
If you would like to attend, then please let me know in a comment and I will put you in touch with the organisers.
The alarming rumours about George Monbiot that began to circulate on the internet last night have now taken a more sinister turn. Apparently the alarm was raised when he failed to turn up at the BBC Television Centre for a cocktail party to launch their Climate Change Causes Poverty season of documentaries. If even half of what is being said is true, then this should be a matter of grave concern to both warmists and sceptics.As yet, reliable information is hard to come by, but according to a report on the BBC’s website (which has now been taken down) the climate activist has been deeply depressed about new research that is due to be published in Science later this month. Apparently this provides robust evidence of solar influence on recent variations in global average temperatures. Continue reading »
Last April I had some All Fools Day fun with a photograph of a very exotic butterfly sitting on a bunch of primroses in our garden. This was in response to a front-page story in the Independent headed ‘How the blurring of the seasons is a harbinger of climate calamity’. The article claimed that the somewhat archaic science of phenology is a reliable method of detecting dramatic changes in the climate.In Victorian times it became fashionable to keep a natural history diary in which observations of any curiosities noticed on country walks or around the garden were noted. Of course first flowering dates were recorded together with other information about plants, birds and of course the weather. As such records proliferated they were collated and analysed. From this material the science of phenology developed: the study of recurring natural phenomena such as the onset of each season of the year.
During the twentieth century interest in phenology waned although the Royal Meteorological Society collected data until 1948. The reason for this fall from favour has been explained by Philip Eden, a vice-president of the RMS:
Plants and animals are, of course, affected by the weather, but they are affected by other things too. Information collected about flowering dates, hibernation times, the arrival and departure of snow and ice, are all called ‘secondary data’ or ‘proxy data’ by climate experts.
All these secondary indicators are affected by other factors such as human intervention, genetic modification, pesticides, fertilisers, pollution, and complex interactions with other elements of a changing ecology. Some of them respond to climate change with a delay of years or even decades.
Philip Eden, A Change in the Weather, p 188-9
But with the advent of concern about global warming, phenology has been revived. Over the last few years an ecologist called Dr Tim Sparks has been responsible for numerous stories in the media about early flowering dates, mushrooms that appear when least expected, and even the extension of the grass cutting season. Most recently he forecast that the UK would have its first ‘green Christmas’ this year, with leaves still on the trees. His research has, of course, been presented as incontrovertible evidence of man-made global warming, in spite of what the Royal Meteorological Society might think, and news media like The Independent and the BBC have been very happy to report his findings in these terms.
Dec 232008
(For nearly a year now, Peter Martin has been a regular contributor to a remarkable thread which started at the New Statesman and is now, nearly 6000 comments later, hosted at Harmless Sky. By energetically representing a point of view that most of the other contributors disagree with, he makes sure that none of us get complacent. Thanks Peter!)
There are many thousands of posts on numerous websites, both arguing for and against the scientific consensus position on global warming, or climate change if you prefer. There is probably no precedent for such a scientific controversy. Previous disputes about smoking and health, or evolutionary theory seem relatively tame by comparison. There have been other scientific controversies over the years, which have been settled, as they should in the way that science should settle them, by a process of discussion and acceptance. Famously, Einstein had conceptual problems with the ideas of quantum mechanics that were emerging in the 1920s and 30’s. Schrodinger, himself a pioneer of quantum mechanical theory, was uncomfortable with some of the philosophical implications, expressed doubts, asked difficult questions and was happy to test his own theories against the general scepticism of many physicists at the time. Continue reading »
Nov 112008
In the first part of this post, I suggested that the global banking crisis, and an economic downturn that may lead to years of recession, will bring about a change in the general public’s attitude to global warming.
Concerns about climate change are hardly likely to compete for our attention with real day-to-day fears about employment, the cost of living, pensions, and even the security of our savings and our homes. Exhortations to have blind faith in a ‘scientific consensus’ are likely to fall on deaf ears, and appeals for self-sacrificing compliance with costly schemes to save the planet will prompt question about what these measures are likely to deliver.
Of course, this applies mainly to the domestic sector of the economy, but what will be the reaction in the commercial world and in the public sector? Will the currently fashionable acceptance of the doctrine of climate alarmism continue to be the norm, or will there be a growing scepticism here too?
When a recession bites, plans for long-term capital expenditure come under scrutiny; uncertainties are likely to be reassessed and particularly the credibility of predictions that underlie plans for the future. Here are some examples of how predictions about the future climate influence decision makers who need sound guidance if they are to avoid making very expensive mistakes.
In the wake of the West Country floods last summer, the Environment Agency launched a campaign to publicise the need for a new Thames Barrier to protect London from flooding.
The BBC reported the story in these apocalyptic terms: Continue reading »
Oct 272008
The twin threats of climate change and Islamic terrorism have been at the top of the international political agenda for nearly a decade now, and it is no coincidence that this has happened during a rare period of global economic stability and growth.
Both these threats have provided opportunities for alarmist grandstanding on the part of politicians, with enthusiastic support from the media. George Bush’s war on terrorism and Al Gore’s crusade against climate change have much in common; they focus on what might happen rather than what is happening, and neither of these threats has had a significant impact on the day-to-day lives of the general public in the developed world.
Although terrorism has left its mark on New York, Madrid and London, the citizens of these capital cities continue to go to work, shop, enjoy their leisure time and return to their homes in much the same way as they did before the attacks. Terrorism has not changed or disrupted the humdrum routine of their existence, and nor has global warming.
Dire predictions of impending climate change are concerned with events that may occur during the lifetimes of our children or grandchildren, but pose no immediate threat. No one is going to cancel a holiday or put off moving to a larger house because of rising temperatures. The minor changes in global average temperatures that have occurred over the last century are measured in tenths (and sometimes hundredths) of a degree centigrade; they are almost imperceptible to everyone except to climate scientists.
Of course the ‘concerned’ statements by politicians, the sanctimonious ranting of environmental activists, and a constant stream of scare stories in the media, have had some effect on public opinion, but no major new policies have intruded on our lives as a result. Being green has become fashionable, but helping to save the planet is an optional life style choice, not a necessity. Like all voguish trends it is ephemeral, and can vanish at any moment.
Because global warming has not constrained our enjoyment of life, there has been a general willingness to accept what we are being told about this supposed threat. The general public has little understanding of the scientific issues that underpin climate alarmism, and it would require some effort on their part to acquire knowledge that would allow them to reach an informed opinion. For most people it is easier to accept what ‘the experts’ say, as it does not seriously affect their day-to-day lives anyway.
But all this is set to change. We have entered a period of severe economic turbulence, and there is no reason to believe that it will be short lived. Our priorities during the coming months and years are likely to be very different from those of the last benign decade. A banking system that seems to be in tatters, coupled with deep global recession, are likely to have a very real impact on the availability and security of employment, the amount of disposable income that we enjoy, and even whether we can be certain that the roof over our head will continue to be the one that we would choose to have.
At no time in recent memory have people had such good reason to fear for their well-being and that of their dependants. At a time when many banks can only repay the money that we have deposited with them because of massive government intervention, a sense of insecurity has become universal. And no one seems to know which financial institutions will need a lifeboat next. The economic climate has certainly changed, and our hopes and fears are going to change with it.
Already there are signs of a shift of emphasis in news coverage. Last week, a report that five people had been arrested in the Birmingham area on terrorism charges barely made the headlines. Ten days ago, the BBC’s environment analyst indulged in an astonishing display of hand-ringing when EU talks about reducing carbon emissions ran into difficulties on a day when plans to save the banking system were leading the news. His agitated warnings of environmental disaster, which a week or two before would have been the lead story, seemed irrelevant. People do not worry about carbon emissions when their jobs, their life savings, their homes and their pensions are at risk.
Of course global warming is not going to vanish from the political agenda – or from the headlines – over-night; far too much political capital has been invested in alarmism for that to happen. On the other hand, the public’s willingness to accept without question what they are told about climate change is likely to diminish.
Reducing carbon emissions was never likely to be a pain-free process, but the inflationary pressures of carbon trading, converting to expensive alternative energy sources and coercive taxes intended to change behaviour might have been accepted during the good times. Even if people did not understand quite what all the fuss was about, their acquiescence could be bought with nebulous promises of a cleaner, safer world.
During a recession, when every household will be feeling the day-today effects of a shrinking economy, the prospect of additional costs is going to look very different. Policies that might have been accepted a year ago – because ‘the experts’ said that they are necessary – are now going to receive far more scrutiny from the taxpayers who are expected to fund them. People who are worried about the security of their jobs, paying for food and keeping the mortgage company at bay are going to want to know just how plausible the scientific evidence for man-made global warming is. The days when they were content to meekly accept what they were told will be over.
Even before the banking crisis, the electorate were not clamouring for action on climate change. Why should they? It has had no effect on their lives and opinion polls show that their priorities lie elsewhere. Politicians have had to resort to ruthless manipulation of public opinion in order to persuade the general public that any kind of environmental threat exists.
A decade of easy credit, financial security, and continuous economic growth has made room in our lives for insubstantial threats to be blown up out of all proportion. In other circumstances these would have received far less attention, but in the coming months, a dose of stark and unpalatable economic reality will lead to a radical re-assessment. It is unlikely that the spin and outright propaganda that has become the common currency of climate change alarmism will withstand this process.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
In the second part of this post I want to look at how the recession is likely to affect the attitude of corporations and government agencies that are making massive infrastructure investments on the basis of what climate scientists have told them about future climate. They are likely to be asking some awkward questions too.
Recent Comments