As the final freezing hours of 2008 fade into history, this would seem to be a good time to look back at the year and also at the short history of Harmless Sky, which is now just over a year old.The first rather tentative pages went live on 17th December 2007.It would be tedious to rehearse all that has happened, so I am going to focus on just one topic which encapsulates much of what this blog is about and highlights issues that are now at the heart of the climate debate.At the beginning of the year I came across two articles published by the New Statesman, which had generated a huge number of comments on their website. The first was by Dr David Whitehouse, an astrophysicist who was the BBC’s Science Correspondent from 1988-98 and then science editor of BBC News Online from 1998-2006. During this period he must have been ideally placed to see how concern about global warming grew from being the preoccupation of a few scientists and environmental activists into a new scientific and moral orthodoxy. His article was provocatively entitled, ‘Has Global Warming Stopped?’
After describing the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis, Dr Whitehouse pointed out that although CO2 levels have continued to rise during this century, temperatures have failed to do so. He then explored a weakness in the hypothesis, demonstrating that, although it can explain the warming of the last decades of the twentieth century very well, it cannot explain why temperatures have levelled off, and then fallen, without a commensurate decline in CO2 levels. Dr Whitehouse did not in any way suggest that the hypothesis was bad science, but merely probed the way in which it relates to recent temperature trends that are quite unexpected. He also suggested that this flaw in the hypothesis might indicate that there are natural influences on global temperature of which we are still unaware, and questions whether our understanding of the climate is adequate to draw firm conclusions about what is happening.
So we are led to the conclusion that either the hypothesis of carbon dioxide induced global warming holds but its effects are being modified in what seems to be an improbable though not impossible way, or, and this really is heresy according to some, the working hypothesis does not stand the test of data.
It is the use of the term heresy that puts this thoughtful, cautious and scrupulously argued article in context. The Environment Columnist of the New Statesman is Mark Lynas, one of the high priests of global warming alarmism, and that venerable publication’s editorial policy on climate change is set accordingly.
A month later, a furious and somewhat hysterical response from Mark Lynas appeared. It started like this:
On 19 December the New Statesman website published an article which, judging by the 633 comments (and counting) received so far, must go down in history as possibly the most controversial ever. Not surprising really – it covered one of the most talked-about issues of our time: climate change. Penned by science writer David Whitehouse, it was guaranteed to get a big response: the article claimed that global warming has ‘stopped’.
But of course Dr Whitehouse’s article does no such thing, as the title makes clear. He merely points out that temperatures have ceased to rise in the way in which climate scientist have predicted they would, and that this is good reason for further scrutiny of the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis. But, as Dr Whitehouse obviously suspected when he wrote his article, posing questions about the validity of the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis really is heresy so far as people like Mark Lynas are concerned. Readers may like to draw their own conclusions from Mr Lynas’ apparent need to enclose the word stopped in quotation marks, as though he hardly dares utter the term.
In an attempt to debunk a claim that Dr Whitehouse had not in fact made, Mark Lynas had only one argument to offer, and this was based on a graph showing global temperatures overlaid by what looks rather like a bird’s nest. On closer inspection this turns out to be a vast number of eight year trend lines – one for each year of the temperature record – and they create the impression that global temperatures have continued to rise during this century; which is, of course, rubbish. None of the institutions that publish annual global temperatures have produced such data.
Dr Whitehouse was scrupulous about citing well-accepted data on CO2 and temperature levels to support his arguments. It would seem that in order to find a way to attack these criticisms of the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis, Mark Lynas has been unable to find anything more convincing than a graph that relies for its effect on a highly contentious statistical construction. So we have a conflict between a scientist’s arguments based on empirical data on the one hand, and on the other hand the assertions of a layman based on a statistical confection. Although Mark Lynas is obviously very interested in climate science, his degree is in politics and history.
Perhaps Mr Lynas was aware that his response might fall rather flat, and this may explain why he ends his article with a gratuitous insult aimed at Dr Whitehouse, suggesting that he may have been intentionally trying to mislead the New Statesman’s readers. Why a respected journalist and scientist should wish to do such a thing is not made clear, but mindless vilification of opponents seems to be an essential weapon in the environmental activist’s armory.
Blog comments in response to these two articles continued to accumulate on the New Statesman’s website until they numbered over 3000, and I estimated that only about one in ten supported Mark Lynas views. The vast majority of contributors seemed to recognise the merit of sound scientific arguments from a professional, and deprecate the pseudo-scientific babbling of an avowed activist whose first claim to fame involved throwing a custard pie in Bjørn Lomborg’s face because he disagreed with his views.
Later, when the New Statesman closed the comments on the blogs associated with these articles, I offered to host a continuation of the discussion at Harmless Sky. Since then over three thousand more comments have been added, though the discussion has long since drifted away from the subject matter of the two articles that started it all. This massive thread is something of an outpost of Harmless Sky as I never intended that my blog should be concerned with detailed discussion of scientific controversies, but it makes an interesting contribution to the site nonetheless. The ratio of sceptics to warmers has stayed much the same.
Harmless Sky was launched just after the Bali climate change conference at which the head of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, Yvo de Boer, burst into tears when he thought that he might not get his way, and massive media hype proclaimed that a rather vague road map – to be implemented at another conference at Pozna? a year later – was a giant first step towards saving the planet. Those were the days when global warming was riding high in the political firmament, and everyone was being encouraged to believe that climate change is the worst peril that the world faces. In other words, this was before the oil price spike of last summer that, we were told, signalled the end of the fossil fuel era, and the banking crisis of the autumn that heralded a descent in to recession, or even depression.
A year after the Bali conference I am writing this in the aftermath of the Pozna? conference which was supposed to carry forward the Bali road map. This gathering of 11,000 diplomats, politicians and environmental activists has failed to bring these aspirations any closer to reality, and the reaction of the media has been very different to the blanket coverage of the Bali conference. Instead of the squeals of horror that these abortive negotiations might have been expected this to generate in the media, little attention has been paid to the failure of Pozna?. Attitudes to global warming have changed, and changed very radically, in the space of a year.
The Whitehouse and Lynas articles seem to me to be a microcosm of the climate debate; a contest in which activists expect to rule supreme by attempting to suppress or discredit even the mildest questioning of their beliefs, and are prepared to use any means at their disposal in order to do so. To some extent they still seem to have the attention of politicians and the media, but opinion polls suggest that the public are by no means convinced. And in democracies, where pubic opinion leads, politicians and the media eventually have to follow.
As we move forward into 2009, another cold year has made Dr Whithouse’s question even more relevant, and Mark Lynas’ graph looks even less convincing. No amount of trend lines can disguise what is happening. Statistical gymnastics are unlikely to convince the public that humans are now in control of the climate, and until the advocates of the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis are prepared to consider seriously the kind of questions posed by Dr Whithouse, rather than responding with accusations of bad faith, their case will only be likely to convince those who are predisposed to agree with them.
Much has changed during the last year, and I have no intention of joining the current fashion for prediction by trying to anticipate what will happen next, other than to suggest that next year will probably yield surprises, in the same way that last year did. I will welcome this as it is never knowing what might happen that makes blogging fun.
Very many thanks to all those who have contributed to Harmless Sky during the first year and helped to make it all seem worthwhile – for the proprietor at least.
TonyN
It is just accepted, because it is everyday matter of ‘fact’ in their workplace
A large part of the problem is that very many of the people doing the work are relatively young and have no knowledge of history and little interest in it either. Their eyes glaze over when you point out that current temperatures are nothing out of the ordinary or that sea levels are the same as in say 1900. In this latter respect their graphs might go back only to the early 1990’s and show a constant rise, if they were to bother to look further back they would see numerous peaks and troughs, but it wouldnt occur to them to do this.
A lot of it comes back to another post I made in a similar vein a month or so ago, whereby if the data doesn’t exist digitally it doesn’t exist at all. Similarly if the record is more than ten years old it is seen as irrelevant. Computer modelling is all that matters and unless the modeller has an enquiring mind and an interest in history they are unlikely to question ‘accepted’ facts.
TonyB
Being cast in the role of an optimist feels rather strange.
Robin says:
Short of stumbling into a totalitarian regime in this country – and that does seem very unlikely at the moment – then we have a disconnect between the electorate and their representatives that must eventually be resolved.
So far as the Spectator article is concerned, the Americans are at least two years behind us in their attitudes to AGW. If – and I appreciate that you do not agree with this – public belief in global warming is hysterical, then they have a way to go until it reaches its peak. When the incoming regime tries to reconcile their election promises on environmental matters with reality, and the credibility of the scientific evidence, I would expect this process to be hastened considerably.
TonyB:
I can well imagine your frustration, but if the attitudes the people you are meeting are formed as a result of workplace and peer pressure, then they are fragile indeed. How durable is the support of people who have climbed on a bandwagon when there may be another one coming along in a while?
On another – but related – subject, I am increasingly hearing claims that environmental projects may create the wealth that will eventually deliver us from recession. Can anyone explain to me how this process would work in economic terms? Governments can certainly create employment this way; they may even be able to create the illusion of economic growth in the same way that a consumer boom fueled by borrowing can look like growth; but if it was that easy to create wealth, then why would there ever be a recession?.
Yes, Tony, in normal circumstances you would expect the disconnect eventually to be resolved. And I daresay it will – eventually. But I cannot see what would trigger that resolution even in the medium term. The UK electorate – which in any case will now be focused on economic concerns – has no choice in the matter. All three major parties are committed to the AGW agenda. Have you, for example, seen this? (The launch of the Tories’ plan for “a Low Carbon Economy”.) The plan is full of references to “climate change” – with no hint of any doubts about the warmist scare. I suspect the best we can hope for is that other (ghastly) priorities will push the issue into the background, where it may in time fade away as practical realities cause the world to lose interest. But, in the meantime, I fear that immense damage may have been done – not least to our energy supplies. Ho hum.
My most recent post – coupled with my reply to Max here – is exceptionally pessimistic. So I’ve been struggling to determine something that might resolve the situation. My conclusion is that, assuming my earlier analysis is correct, a solution would occur only if a widely respected person or organisation with impeccable and established authority, and preferably with relevant scientific expertise, were to make an early public announcement that the AGW hypothesis is unproven, should be treated therefore with caution and that, in view of this, it would be most unwise to make it the basis for any action that could further damage our already increasingly damaged economy. I suspect that many politicians, burdened with concerns about the economy, desperate to find any way out of this extra bind they find themselves in (especially re energy supplies) and fearful of the public outcry that seems certain when, for example, the lights begin to go out, would breathe a huge sigh of relief – and seize the opportunity to face down the inevitable green howls of anger.
My problem is that I have little idea who or what that person or organisation might be. The Royal Society perhaps? Any ideas?
Hi Robin, Tony – I’ve been thinking about this a lot but haven’t come up with an answer. On the political side, someone like Boris Johnson, perhaps? On the scientific side, no idea.
A big problem is that global warming due to man-made CO2 has become something that “everybody knows”. It’s a given. Yesterday I noticed a billboard in the street which mentioned CO2 emissions from cars: “Us cars make the third largest contribution to your CO2 but I’m sure the way you drive can help…” Underlying this is the unquestioned assumption that CO2 emissions are bad and that we should be motivated to reduce them.
Most people would simply accept this, as it comes backed by the authority of the government, scientific bodies and NGOs. If I saw an advertisement for cholesterol-lowering margarine, for example, I’d probably not start to question it. Cholesterol is bad, right? I’d want to reduce it. But how do I know this? If someone put me on the spot and asked me how I know that cholesterol is bad, I’d probably say something about blocked arteries, but if they persisted, I’d have to admit that I know it’s bad because authority figures have told me it is. It just isn’t something I’d ordinarily question.
For the majority of people, who don’t click onto climate-related blogs every single day (!), it’s probably the same with CO2 and climate change.
Alex: for a pleasant change, I find myself assuming the role of optimist. I don’t agree that “everybody knows” that global warming is due to man-made CO2. On the contrary, opinion polls in the UK (and elsewhere) have consistently shown that there is considerable scepticism about this. See, for example, this July 2008 article by TonyN. To my mind, it’s both extraordinary and encouraging that, despite the policy adopted following the IPPR’s “Warm Words” recommendation (see #11 above) and the ensuing constant reference to AGW as a “given”, much of the public persists in its scepticism. And it’s because of that that I think the public announcement I referred to at #29 above would be so effective: it would fall on fertile ground.
However, pessimism returns when I try to imagine who or what might bring about that desirable outcome.
ALL: This is my first real visit to this thread, and I wish to declare the following in saying goodbye to the year 2008:
It was a year that was notable for variously creeping anti-clockwise “correctional” rotation of previously accepted published scientific data, that apparently was deemed necessary by alarmists to reinforce the fading AGW hypothesis.
Does anyone disagree with me?
Bob, #32
A list of examples would be illuminating.
I did see the Conservatives announcement on ‘an energy revolution’, but as all their proposals depend on massive government spending, I didn’t pay much attention to it.
Just two points to add:
At the moment, concern about AGW is being conflated with concerns about energy security and pollution in general, evidently in the hope that a scattergun approach will increase support for mitigation. But these problems are very different, and although reducing fossil fuel use may seem like a one-size-fits-all solution, that is far from being the case.
Robin has hypothesised about a key figure in the debate changing sides, and perhaps this may happen, but I cannot think of anyone who has the necessary authority to really sway opinion decisively either.
We are already seeing a marked reduction in the amount of coverage that ‘new scientific reearch’ relating to climate change is getting in the media, and editors are likely to be the first to detect a shift in public opinion. At the moment the pretence of absolute certainty, as prescribed in Warm Words, is still current, but this is propaganda, albeit retailed at third or fourth hand.
Propaganda can have two possible effects; to mislead those who it is aimed at, or to alert them to the fact that they are being misled once they realise they cannot rely on what they are being told. Then it begins to have exactly the opposite effect to the one intended. I would expect that a radical change in attitudes will come when the public and politicians groan every time they see another pronouncement about AGW, and that time may not be too far off.
Here are some quotes form press coverage of Cabinet deliberations on the third runway at Heathrow:
Of course this kind of reporting has to be taken with a pinch of salt, but it does sound quite convincing, particularly when you consider that Warm Words says:
How convinced are individual members of the cabinet that AGW is really happening? We only have their ‘popular communications’ to go by unless someone tells tales out of school. And why would a member of the cabinet who is genuinely convinced that AGW is about to destroy the planet want to provide Patrick Hennessy of the Sunday Telegraph with this kind of off the record briefing?
Robin: I’m tending to waver between optimism and pessimism on this subject, and may well be falling into the trap of thinking, at times, that acceptance of AGW is more widespread than it really is. Certainly among work colleagues, etc., there’s a healthy scepticism about the subject generally and a suspicion that it’s all exaggerated and an excuse to raise taxes. And there’s plenty of vocal opposition to AGW on the internet, of course. But I still have the sense that there’s still generally a lot of apathy about this topic, or a vague sense (prompted by memes of drowning polar bears, etc.) that man-made CO2 is not a good thing, and that “something must be done”, as long as it doesn’t cost too much.
However, I’m willing to be swayed! Especially when I saw this poll in the Times Online, re what Barack Obama should have as his No.1 priority. Now the numbers might have changed since I glanced at it (and may not mean much anyway) but as of about 11 PM GMT on Monday, by far the first priority at 43.3% is “Implement economic rescue plan”, second at 12.5% is “Close Guantanamo Bay” and only third at 11.3% is “Sign up to Kyoto Agreement.” So it could well be that you are right; hope so, anyway.
Tony: re the “scattergun approach” you mentioned, I’ve just had a look at the magazine that comes to us every year with our National Trust booklet, and found a rather interesting opinion piece written by Patrick Holden (Director of the Soil Association.) I wish I could copy and paste the entire article here, but it’s a bit long. It’s entitled “A Food Plan for Britain” and starts: “Picture the supermarket shelves of Britain empty; it could happen…” He manages to invoke a number of spectres: food shortages, energy security, failing food systems, the end of fossil fuel, the power grid failing.. oh, and climate change somewhere in the middle (one pellet, as it were, in the midst of others.) His argument is that food requires energy, and our energy supply is vulnerable (due to world conflict, terrorism, fossil fuels running out and because “we need to reduce our emissions.”) And the answer? Farms run on wind, solar and heat-pump energy, and everyone locally “growing your own”. Climate change gets a very brief mention – it’s all about energy security and making sure we have enough to eat, although his solution, I think, is a blind alley and would quickly reduce us to penury and subsistence living. But yes, it looks like the message is changing.
Alex: another poll has just been published – this time in the US – confirming that the public is increasingly sceptical about the alleged dangers of man-made global warming. The headline figures are that 44% of respondents say that long-term planetary trends are the cause of GW, whereas 41% blame human activity. Three years ago the equivalent figures were 35% and 46%.
So, yes, there appears to be a substantial mismatch between officialdom’s and the public’s views on this. The question is how might this be resolved. If indeed it ever is.
TonyN: Robin, was it you who mentioned a US Nature Conservancy poll on another thread, and some time ago, showing only 18% believers? I cant find it again.
Alex:
I’ve met Holden a number of times over the last thirty and more years; he lives not too far from here.
Back in the late 70’s, he and a very dear friend of mine, alas now dead, were instrumental in getting the organic movement up and running in this country. I have considerable respect for his intellect, his idealism and his determination, but so far as I can make out his ideas have not changed since those halcyon days. They are rooted in a belief that it is possible for people to live an idyllic rural existence modeled on 19th century agricultural practices, but with the safety net that 21st century technology provides. If he is backpedaling on global warming in his article, I suspect that it is only because word has gone out among the more pragmatic green opinion makers that this would be wise for the moment. He is a man with a lifetime of very successful campaigning behind him, and I am sure that he is shrewd judge of the public mood.
Tony: There are actually several things that I agree with Holden on, in the article – the importance of energy security, for instance, and the usefulness of some forms of microgeneration, e.g., geothermal heat pumps. And I like locally-grown food, mainly for the reason that it has character. But I think that in the short term, there is a greater threat to the UK’s energy (and thus economy, including the food supply) from blackouts caused by the closure of power stations, than from the Middle East or Putin. IMO, microgeneration will have to become a lot cheaper and more efficient (mid-century?) until the sort of self-sufficiency he advocates could be made feasible. One danger in the short/medium term, as I see it, is that this would create a patchwork of small communities which would become increasingly vulnerable to local climatic conditions, as these were in the Middle Ages, and also a severe narrowing of horizons, especially if a swingeing carbon tax means that travel is curtailed. If harvests are reduced or wiped out by a string of very cold/wet autumns, and if transport is made too expensive; then I think we’ll be worse off for food than we would be otherwise.
Robin, Tony: If there is a growing disconnect between what the public perceive re AGW and the official line held by most political parties, NGOs and corporations, then IMO, this will result (is already resulting?) in rising dissatisfaction, with no obvious outlet. Just wondering if power cuts/energy rationing will be the final straw?
Alex: suppose power cuts are “the final straw” – what happens then?
Maybe officialdom is starting to adjust its position. See this and this.
Robin
It is a pity that it will be in so many people’s interests that these matters are discussed behind closed doors.
This interesting article makes some good points. A quotation:
So officialdom has a convenient excuse for easing off its CO2 emission measures.
Apologies – I omitted the link in # 42. Here it is.
Robin, Tony: These are good articles and it will be interesting to see how things turn out over the coming year or so. Re the “final straw”, I note that the EU Referendum site mentions the “electricity riots of 2015”; maybe some disturbances similar to the poll tax riots of 1990 are on the cards, if we do get a long period of blackouts and energy rationing. Or perhaps there might be the sort of slow-burning breakdown of public services that we saw in the Winter of Discontent, 1978-79. Here’s hoping it won’t get quite that bad before those in charge see sense; based on these recent commentaries, perhaps a measure of cautious optimism is justified?
Alex: this FT article, Funding doubts for giant wind farm, is another example. A quotation:
The term ‘low carbon recovery from recession” seems to be gaining currency. Here is a short excerpt from today’s World at One on BBC Radio4.
http://ccgi.newbery1.plus.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/sound/WAO_2009_01_26.mp3
As I have asked before, can anyone explain in economic terms how the kind of schemes envisaged will generate wealth, rather than just increase debt in order to create employment.
I’m sorry, Tony, but I also find it hard to see how these schemes generate wealth. Here’s another puzzle: from this article, it would seem that Obama’s trillion dollar economic stimulus plan includes “not less than $140,000,000 [for] climate data modeling“. The article comments:
Er, yes … I tend to agree.
Mind you, those models (see my previous post) can be very useful. For example, we know from this BBC story that the Emperor penguin is facing extinction. It seems that
As Antarctic ice is rather high these days, we wouldn’t have known this without those models. Therefore, they’re worth every penny. I hope that’s clear.
There is a very definite air of certainty in the BBC Online news article. “Emperor penguins face extinction”, and “Emperor penguins… are heading towards extinction…”
Also note the use of the word “predictions”, which occurs twice. Surely models just produce “projections” with varying degrees of certainty; I didn’t think they were supposed to predict anything.
I had to smile (wryly) when I read the quote from Joel Cohen: “The penguins also serve as a species that particularly draws attention to the crisis in their region, he added.”
The penguins aren’t doing anything, it’s the media outlets like the BBC who are drawing attention to the region. As for the crisis, it appears to be taking place in a projected future inside a computer model, not right now in the real world.
A real crisis will probably soon make itself shown here in Europe and the US, when our remaining wealth has been blown on poorly planned and unworkable green projects.
In the meantime, “Happy Feet” and all his friends will be fine, I’m sure.
By the time I saw Robin’s reference to the BBC’s penguin story, I was already getting notes together for a post linking this with Susan Solomon’s ‘tipping point’ paper, which appeared at almost the same time. I hope to get back to it tomorrow, but things have been busy for the last few days.
Alex: the distinction between projections and predictions is interesting. At the time of IPCC TAR, Vincent Grey was on the review panel. He gave them a very hard time for their reliance on predictions in the report, and pointed out that these were, in any case, a hostage to fortune as people would expect them to be fulfilled. The IPCC’s response was to instruct all drafting and lead authors not to use the word in future, but to use ‘projections’ instead.
Robin: During the next few months, as politicians on both sides of the Atlantic begin to firm up on their plans to spend (and borrow) their way out of recession with low carbon recovery schemes, I feel sure that the matter of wealth creation will become an issue. One thing that most economists seem to agree on is that the Keynesian route out of recession only works if public investment is directed towards projects that are well thoughtout, necessary, and will in time create the wealth to pay off the debt incurred. This caught my eye this evening:
The reporter is Roger Harrabin (Environment Analyst), and looking at the URL the story has been filed under science and technology. I wonder why it was not given to the economics desk?
I’m seeing more and more suggestions that the Commission are putting pressure on the US to follow their lead on mitigation policy because it has finally dawned on them that otherwise the EU will be at a massive competitive disadvantage.