I am just back from a short and rather hectic trip to France. During the time that we were away, I lived a happily news-starved existence, neither switching on a television nor looking at a newspaper, so there has been quite a lot of catching up to do. Much has happened.Of course the main event in the UK has been the local government elections, the results of which suggest that the political landscape has changed more radically than at any time during the last decade. For many voters the New Labour dream seems to have turned into an economic nightmare, but there is also evidence of more fundamental change in the attitudes of voters. They no longer believe in the stale certainties that the present government has offered them for so long. Continue reading »
Myles Allen first hit the headlines when a research project that he was involved with issued a press release (26th Jan 2005) predicting that temperatures could rise by 11° C even if the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is limited to only double the level before the Industrial Revolution. Given that temperatures only 6°C higher than today are considered to be catastrophic, this warning received extensive and highly sensationalised coverage in the media. But all was not quite as it appeared to be.
There is a transcript of part of a BBC Radio4 programme made by Simon Cox and Richard Vadon some time later called Overselling Climate Change, see here. This gives a brief but fascinating account of the controversy that followed. It is essential reading for anyone who wishes to follow the rest of this post.
On 21st April 2006, soon after this programme was broadcast, even RealClimate.net, the most strident advocates for anthropogenic global warming on the net, put up a post entitled How not to write a press release criticising Myles Allen’s handling of the affair. This carried some authority, as the proprietors of this blog are all leading figures in climate research. Normally in this field, dog does not eat dog, but in this case the way in which climateprediction.net had publicised their research seemed to be so unacceptable that general condemnation was called for. Continue reading »
Yesterday afternoon, in bright spring sunshine and a cutting northwesterly breeze, I walked along the turf embankments that, for the last two centuries, have bounded the estuary below our house . On one side, lawn-like flats that will soon be ablaze with sea pinks (thrift) ran down to the water’s edge where boats restlessly tugged at their moorings as though eager for the sailing season to begin. On the other side were the level, rather wet meadows, studded with ewes and their new lambs, which the embankments had reclaimed from the sea all those years ago. A network of deep drainage ditches, almost too extensive to comprehend and now neglected and choked with tall norfolk reed, stretched into the distance.
Coming towards me I saw a tall figure, bent under the weight of a half bag of feed, and recognised him as the owner of the sheep. He limped slightly in the way that farmers in their sixties do after more soakings and heavy work than hip joints can stand. When we met he swung the sack to the ground and leaned on his stick while his dog gambolled round us. Evidently he was prepared to stop and chat.
If you read my post a few days ago on strange goings on at the BBC, you may remember that Jo Abbess, the climate activist, had various quite eye-catching things to say. This in one of them:
Several networks exist that question whether global
warming has peaked, but they contain very few actual scientists, and
the scientists that they do contain are not climate scientists so have
no expertise in this area.
The view that only scientists – and climate scientists at that – can express valid opinions on global warming is common among warmists. Or it is when anyone outside the charmed circle on which the IPCC smiles criticises research or asks awkward questions. And there are so many questions to ask, about predictions of future climate derived from computer models, the role that water vapour plays in controlling atmospheric temperature or what influence the sun has on natural climate variation. It is all too easy to dismiss unwelcome arguments by belittling the questioner’s qualifications in the hope that no one will notice that the substance of what is being said has not been considered at all.
This is very strange when you think about it. Do you really need to have a degree in economics to ask perfectly rational, and perhaps even perceptive, questions about the Chancellor of the Exchequer’s budget? Should patients with no medical training be completely uncritical of the treatment that they receive from doctors? Do you need a degree in sports management to assess the chances of Manchester United winning the FA cup? But one is expected to believe that climate science is different, a world in which only initiates should be listened to or believed. And where your qualifications are more important than what you say.
Some unkind souls at the Climate Audit Message Board have been doing research of their own, not into the causes of global warming, but into the qualifications of some of the people at the very top in the strange world of climate change. These are the results:
On another site, the “qualification” of global warming skeptics was raised.
These required qualification in physics, “climate science”, or a related field in order to have a relevant voice in the climate debate [the warmists say].
But how about the very top of the IPCC?
Here we have as Chair: Rajendra K. Pachauri, PhD in Industrial Engineering and Economics.
We also have 3 Vice-Chairs:
Richard Odingo (Kenya), graduate degree in Geography
Mohan Munasinghe (Sri Lanka), Engineering, PhD in Physics, Economics
Yuri A.Izrael (Russia), PhD in Physics, Climate Science
And then this:
Yvo De Boer, Executive Secretary of the United Nations Framework Committee on Climate Change has “a technical degree in social work”.
What more can one say?
Not long ago I was talking to a friend who is doing an academic course in renewable and sustainable energy. He is a physicist who acts as a reviewer for a couple of learned journals and also has his own instrument manufacturing company that he has built on the research that earned him his PhD. Not surprising he has a very good mind that has been enhanced by the combination of academic distinction and the more practical problem solving skills required in the commercial world.
When news of an extraordinary exchange of emails between the BBC’s Environment Analyst, Roger Harrabin, and a climate change activist called Jo Abbess broke earlier this month, it aroused my innate scepticism. It appeared that a fanatical climate change activist had effortlessly bullied our revered national broadcasting service into changing a story that displeased her. How could this be?
It may surprise warmists, who have come to use ‘sceptic‘ as a term of abuse, that many who question what the public are being told about anthropogenic climate change apply the same standards of scepticism to both sides of the debate.
Was it possible, I asked myself, that the BBC had really allowed itself to be pushed around by an unknown extremist? Was this story an example of disinformation emanating from those shadowy forces that warmists so often blame for the general public’s reluctance to embrace their beliefs? Was someone trying to discredit the BBC? Might the emails have been fabricated? It all looked just a bit too neat and tidy to be true. Was it really possible that a fanatical member of the militant pressure group Campaign Against Climate Change could influence mainstream news coverage of a topic as important as climate change?
Here is a rather sensationalised, but quite accurate, version of what happened:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=216v5AoQcFQ
For those of you who don’t have the software to play this, or would like to see all the evidence in black and white, here is the full story:
On 4th April the BBC put a news item on their website written by Harrabin. The headline was “Global temperatures ‘to decrease'”; quite surprising for an organisation dedicated to spreading alarm about climate change. What followed was based on an announcement by Michel Jarraud, head of the World Meteorological Organizations. Now this is not a body that can in any way be called sceptical about global warming; it is one of the UN agencies that set up the IPCC. Given the BBC’s proclivity for making the most of a global warming scare story, and the impeccable source of its information, there is no reason to suspect that rumours of a downturn in temperatures were being exaggerated.
The BBC’s report started like this:
Global temperatures ‘to decrease’
Global temperatures this year will be lower than in 2007 due to the cooling effect of the La Nina current in the Pacific, UN meteorologists have said.
The World Meteorological Organization’s secretary-general, Michel Jarraud, told the BBC it was likely that La Nina would continue into the summer.
This would mean global temperatures have not risen since 1998, prompting some to question climate change theory.
But experts have also forecast a record high temperature within five years.
[It also said this:]
A minority of scientists question whether this means global warming has peaked and argue the Earth has proved more resilient to greenhouse gases than predicted.
This did not please Jo Abbess, who sent an email to Harrabin headed, ‘Correction Demanded: “Global temperatures ‘to decrease'”.
Dear Roger,
Please can you correct your piece published today entitled “Global
temperatures ‘to decrease'” :-http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7329799.stm [this link is to the revised version of course]
1. “A minority of scientists question whether this means global
warming has peaked”
This is incorrect. Several networks exist that question whether global
warming has peaked, but they contain very few actual scientists, and
the scientists that they do contain are not climate scientists so have
no expertise in this area.2. “Global temperatures this year will be lower than in 2007”
You should not mislead people into thinking that the sum total of the
Earth system is going to be cooler in 2008 than 2007. For example, the
ocean systems of temperature do not change in yearly timescales, and
are massive heat sinks that have shown gradual and continual warming.
It is only near-surface air temperatures that will be affected by La
Nina, plus a bit of the lower atmosphere.Thank you for applying your attention to all the facts and figures available,
jo.
My emphasis
Referring to Jo Abbess’ first point, it would seem that she is not a scientist either, merely a dedicated activist.
Harrabin’s response to these criticisms of his story by someone who clearly has a limited knowledge of the subject and distinctly partisan views was patient but firm: Continue reading »
Part 1 of this post (here) dealt with an opinion poll published by Ipsos MORI last summer. This showed a surprising level of global warming scepticism among the UK public and also indicated a high degree of confusion among the respondents.Before moving on to discuss a couple of more recent polls, I want to look at some more results from the July ‘07 poll. These seem to confirm the impression that public opinion on this very important subject may be shaped more by a failure to understand the issues than by informed judgements. Here is an example:
Q2 Which of the actions on this list, if any, do you think will do the most to help reduce climate change?
%
Recycling 40 Developing cleaner engines for cars 34 Avoiding creating waste in the first place 22 Making fewer car journeys 17 Using less electricity 16 Taking fewer foreign holidays 11 Using public transport 10 Walking or cycling 10 Buying locally-grown food 7 Using water sparingly 4 Reusing bottles/containers 4 People having fewer children 4 Buying organic produce 1 None of these 2 Don’t know 3
More recycling seems a very strange choice to head this list. Although reprocessing waste may lead to a minor reduction in CO2 emissions, it is unlikely that a scientist would seriously claim that this could have a really dramatic effect; cuts in emissions from electricity generation, industry, and transport would be far more relevant. So why do so many people seem to hold this view? Continue reading »
If you would like to sign a petition against wind farms, you can do so on the Downing Street website when you click this link:
http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/windpower/
Petitions like this can be very effective, so if you can help publicise it by telling friends, putting a link on your website or posting links on other blogs, then please do so. This is something positive that you can do to help protect our beautiful and precious countryside.
The deadline for signatures is 13th May, so sign it now, and please leave a comment to let me know that Harmless Sky is playing a part in this campaign.
For more information about wind turbines and the landscape see:
The Visual Issue: Wind Farms and Virtual Landscapes
This post is mainly for people who have arrived here from a link at Steve McIntyre’s ClimateAudit blog. If you haven’t come from there, you will need to look here and then here to understand what it’s about.
Transcript from ‘Overselling Climate Change?’, A BBC Radio4 programme presented by Simon Cox and broadcast in April 2006. Continue reading »
In July 2007, the respected opinion pollsters Ipsos MORI published some of the results of a survey of public attitudes to climate change (here) in advance of the publication of their Tipping Point or Turning Point report. The findings were surprising, but the attitude of this company towards the subject they were researching was even more so.
During the last three years the media, politicians, environmental activists, scientists and companies that have an interest in selling goods and services related to global warming, have bombarded the public with information about climate change. These campaigns have been directed towards persuading people to adopt a particular viewpoint; that climate change is a real, man-made and a potentially catastrophic threat that can be averted by fairly minor adjustments to our lifestyles. Surely, in view of such an onslaught, there should be few people who continue to be sceptical about anthropogenic global warming and most will have a clear understanding of the issues. Section 1 of the Ipsos MORI poll shows otherwise.* Continue reading »
Recent Comments