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 – that by altering the climate and doubling Co2 emissions, mankind will cause a rise in temperatures of up to 6 degrees C.
The author clinically examines areas of uncertainty, plain misunderstandings, and assertions in the existing ‘consensus’ by reviewing numerous high quality ‘contrarian’ papers that rarely receive much coverage in the science and popular media, which is obsessed with the notion of anthropogenic global warming. Climate science is a very small world with authors frequently peer reviewing each other’s papers, some of which might be based on their own work in the first place (Google US Congress hearing by Wegman). Also, they often pronounce on subjects of which they have little
knowledge. When talking of Solanki – a leading solar scientist – Taylor comments:
“This is another classic example of senior scientists publishing in the peer
reviewed literature and commenting on issues entirely outside of their field,
such as carbon dioxide and atmospheric physics, without reference to other
entire fields of relevant climatology, seriously compromised by
compartmented approach or political correctness in the face of
‘controversial’ science.”
That Taylor – and many other commentators – believes that even the IPCC’s
lowest Co2/temperature rise scenario exaggerates its case by at least a
factor of three is amply illustrated, and as the author demonstrates, sea
levels and temperatures have obviously not read the IPCC’s script.
Having demolished what currently passes for peer reviewed and settled
science, Taylor moves on to remedies and the consequences of the politics in
the second part of his book. He argues that we are not doing enough to adapt to
inevitable changes, and that in particular we are vulnerable to the climate
cooling, for which there is no ‘Plan B’ whatsoever. The author believes many
of the actions for mitigating the supposed impacts of warming are counter
productive. He stresses the need to create ‘resilient systems’ to cope with
all eventualities. As the author says in examining the ‘collusion of
interests’ he has identified; “I can see how it works to everyone’s interest
to believe in the scary climate story.”
This excellent but lengthy book deals with a difficult subject and therefore
its structure is especially important to ensure accessibility and achieve
the influence it deserves, but in this there are problems. For example,
omitting the chapter number at the head of each page yet referring to
chapter numbers in the text was irritating, as wer the constant references to
papers placed on the author’s web site. As much of the science is complex
and multi-layered, it cannot be read like a novel at one go, so it would be
useful to provide a chapter summary. Also I felt it was missing a chapter on
the IPCC’s politics, rationale and peer review processes, that would
illustrate how they became part of the ‘collusion of interests’ intent on scaring
everyone to death when really we have far more important things to worry
about. Nevertheless, the book remains essential and provocative reading.
Finally, to extract from the major review of the science in the first part
of the book is not easy, given the volume of material covered. But here is a
dip into the section on ocean cycles (page 131), which illustrates the tone
of the message:
“The oceans play a crucial role in the absorption and dissipation of heat
over decadal and millennial timescales and with distinct cyclic patterns.
These patterns are poorly understood and not replicated in global warming
models, and any conclusions drawn with respect to those models being able to
isolate an anthropogenic global warming signal must be regarded as unproven
and unlikely”.
These are brave words from a career environmentalist who has managed to keep his head when all around him are losing theirs.
CHILL: a Reassessment of Global Warming Theory
Peter Taylor
Clairview Books, 2009, 404 pages
£14.99 Pbk ISBN 978 1 905570 19 5
[or try www.abebooks.co.uk – TonyN]
For a profile of Peter Taylor follow the link;
I’ve just looked into Monckton’s calculations a little more and found that his figure of 0.241 deg K /W/ m2 for the climate sensitivity is a little on the low side.
The error is consistent with assuming that the Black Body temperature of the Earth is its physical temperature of about 285 deg K. Whereas it is actually 33 deg less than that due to the natural GHE.
So a figure of 0.3 degK/W/m2 is more appropriate. This means that the no feed back sensitivity is just above 1 deg C which, incidentally, corresponds Lindzen’s testimony to the UK House of Lords.
I must say I couldn’t completely follow Monckton’s line of argument for the feedback factor being 2.1 but, if that is applied, but his infamous factor of 3 is not applied, then any disagreement between what he and the IPCC are saying is quite small.
I have also can’t find any evidence that Lindzen has backed up Monckton is his use of a factor of 3, based on his own observations, and it would seem that any credibility that Monckton might claim would depend on that.
PeterM
Your personal philosophical opinion on the “difference between scientists and deniers who may be pretending to be scientists” is revealing.
Into which category do you put Prof. Lindzen?
I would, personally, put him into the “scientist” category (unlike Monckton or Gore).
I have also not seen that Lindzen has “backed up” “Monckton’s line of argument for the feedback factor [2xCO2 climate sensitivity] being 2.1”, but rather concluded that it is around 1C.
When Lindzen concludes that the hypothetical climate sensitivity (of 3.2C) as estimated by the climate model simulations and assumptions of IPCC is high by a factor of around 3, resulting from an improper handling of SW and LW cloud feedbacks, then I take note of his reasoning, his supporting data and his conclusion.
When Monckton says something slightly different, I first check his references (same goes for Gore). If the references are solid, then it really does not matter much who made a claim – it is the reference that lends it credibility.
Now to (non-scientist) Monckton’s critique of the flawed “science” cited in (non-scientist) Gore’s “AIT” film, it appears that Monckton is spot on: the film is full of exaggerations, sloppy science and pure hyperbole, as Monckton points out in detail.
The most important point to remember, Peter, is that Monckton (like Gore) is a private citizen, expressing his opinions on AGW, which are sometimes backed up with solid references and sometimes not.
The IPCC is an official organization, funded by taxpayer money, which is supposed to be the “gold standard” scientific and political organization providing unbiased and objective climate data, in particular with regard to any anthropogenic climate changes.
As a result, IPCC must be held to a much higher level of accountability than Monckton.
The recent examples of sloppy science, fudged and manipulated data, exaggerations of potential problems and outright falsifications on the part of IPCC are inexcusable (as Monckton rightly states).
And Monckton is certainly not the only one pointing this out.
So my advice to you (or Babaji): take your eyes off of Monckton (and any detailed errors he may have in his logic) and concentrate on the REAL problem here, which is an IPCC that is not living up to its “gold standard” reputation as an unbiased and objective supplier of climate information to the public, which pays its costs. That;s the problem that needs fixing (as Monckton rightly points out).
Max
IPCC must be held to a much higher
Max,
The aids/hiv deniers have their ‘Lindzen’ in the shape of one Peter H Duesberg who is the most important figure in HIV/AIDS denialism because he is a credentialled scientist who claims HIV does not cause AIDS. In fact, Duesberg says that HIV is harmless, although he has never actually worked on HIV or AIDS. Early in his career Duesberg was part of a research group that mapped the very first cancer-causing gene. Soon after, he refuted his own work and proclaimed that no genes could cause cancer. Rather, Duesberg says that cancers are only caused by environmental factors that deform our chromosomes. Using the same logic, he claimed that HIV cannot cause AIDS. Over the years Duesberg has been proven wrong on both accounts. But despite evidence to the contrary, Duesberg does not give in. He appears to fully believe that there is no genetic basis for any cancer and that HIV does not cause AIDS.
So there are always one or two mavericks from the herd. Sometimes they may be right and the the herd may indeed be heading the wrong way. But they may just be attention seeking individuals who achieve more fame by their dissent than they ever could hope for otherwise.
Senator Inhofe seems to have hit upon a new tactic of breaking up the consensus calling for a round of witch hunt trials. He has 17 ‘witches’ in his sights! Namely: Raymond Bradley, Keith Briffa,Timothy Carter,Edward Cook,Malcolm Hughes,Phil Jones,Thomas Karl,Michael Mann,Michael Oppenheimer,Jonathan Overpeck,Benjamin Santer,Gavin Schmidt,Stephen Schneider,Susan Solomon,Peter Stott,Kevin Trenberth,Thomas Wigley
Its rather old news but I’ve only just heard of it. I’m surprised that the Witchfinders on this site haven’t been calling for the ducking stools to be built!
LINK
PeterM
I can’t comment on your discussion of AIDS/HIV “deniers”, “mavericks”, etc., except that it all seems pretty contrived and irrelevant to our discussion here.
Try to stay on topic, if you can.
Now to Senator Inhofe. I am unaware of any “witch trials” (as you put it). I have read that many hundred years ago the prevailing thought of the day was that humans were responsible for the cold and disastrous LIA weather (punishment by the Lord for transgressions, rather similar to current so-called “mainstream” doomsday dogma). Some also blamed witches for the disastrous climate, and there were “witch trials” then.
In a similar vein, Hansen has suggested trying energy company executives as “climate criminals”.
Can you tell me more about what you have referred to as Inhofe’s “witch trials”?
I have seen a claim by a guest contributor on “Climate Progress” of “McCarthy-style” investigations of scientists, like Mann, who have allegedly put together false and exaggerated studies funded by taxpayer money, but nothing more substantial than this story.
http://climateprogress.org/2010/02/25/sen-inhofe-inquisition-seeking-ways-to-criminalize-and-prosecute-17-leading-climate-scientists/
After listing the 17 individuals allegedly targeted by Inhofe, “Climate Progress” waxes poetic with this bit of blarney:
“Lionized”? How about “beatified” (proclaimed one of the blessed and thus worthy of veneration)? Or maybe “canonized” (we need a second Saint Michael, right?)
Gimme a break!
If Inhofe feels that a totally independent audit should be made of this taxpayer funded work, with total transparency of the data, this seems logical.
If he feels that scientists who are funded by U.S. taxpayers should avoid reporting exaggerated, falsified or biased results to “sell a story”, he has a valid point.
If he feels that investigations should be made to establish whether or not this has been the case, I could also agree that this makes sense.
If the scientists have acted above board in accordance with the principles of scientific objectivity, they have nothing to fear. Those that have been shown to be feeding the public exaggerated or falsified conclusions in order to sell their personal beliefs on AGW, should have taxpayer funding withdrawn.
It’s pretty basic and also pretty simple: the taxpayers should not be paying people to lie to them.
We all know that AGW has become a multi-billion dollar big business.
We also know that extremely large sums of money can corrupt.
And we know from recent revelations that some of the influential scientists cited by IPCC, as well as IPCC reviewers and bureaucrats have been guilty of shenanigans, fudging and falsifying the data, etc., and that many of these falsehoods and exaggerations have ended up in the latest (taxpayer funded) IPCC report, which supposedly represents the “gold standard” report on climate science.
I believe that Inhofe is within his rights to have this investigated, at least with regard to work funded by US taxpayers..
What do you personally believe, Peter? Do you believe that “taxpayer-funded science” should be given a “free ride” as far as honesty, transparency, objectivity and complete openness to independent audit is concerned?
Please let me know your opinion on this, to see if it is any different from mine or that of Senator Inhofe.
Max
Max,
My opinion? My first reaction was its a simple case of wanting to shoot the messenger bearing the bad news as would have once happened. I’d always thought that at least the messenger had been believed though! So maybe its not quite so simple now.
It might be interesting to do a little thought experiment. Just suppose we accept the existence of a God sitting on his cloud. Now this God knows with absolute certainty just whether or not we have a genuine problem with AGW.
There are two possibilities
1) This God knows we don’t have a problem, or maybe its only a small problem. Therefore Senator Inhofe is correct.
2) This God knows we do have a serious problem as outlined by the IPCC. Therefore Senator Inhofe is incorrect.
But, either way, we do know that Senator Inhofe would be saying exactly the same thing and so it must follow that his views must count for absolutely nothing at all!
Max,
You seem to be a fan on Viscount Monckton. Reading his CV on the UKIP website I can see why.
http://www.ukip.org/content/latest-news/1675-christopher-a-man-of-many-talents
Have you read this?
“2008-present: RESURREXI Pharmaceutical: Director responsible for invention and development of a broad-spectrum cure for infectious diseases. Patents have now been filed. Patients have been cured of various infectious diseases, including Graves’ Disease, multiple sclerosis, influenza, and herpes simplex VI. Our first HIV patient had his viral titre reduced by 38% in five days, with no side-effects. Tests continue”
Blimey! Not only has invented cures for all these diseases, including MS, but it looks like he’s well on his way to curing HIV/AIDs too.
What a guy!
PeterM
You wrote:
Not really, Peter. It’s just that I found his critique of Al Gore’s sci-fi film (AIT) pretty much to the point. Did you read it? What did you think?
I have also read some of his general conclusions on sloppy and biased “science” by IPCC, which make sense (see my earlier post here). What do you think of the specific points Monckton made?
Are you a “fan of Phil Jones”?
How about James E. Hansen, are you “a fan of his”?
Are you a “fan of Al Gore”?
Shall I post his CV (including “inventor of the Internet” as well as breakdown of all the AGW-based ventures he is profiteering from) for you?
Fuggitaboudit, Peter. Stick with facts related to our topic here and forget the silly talk about “fans” and “CVs”.
Max
:
posted by Manacker
“Get a real scientist (like Hansen) to debate with Monckton, and back Monckton up with Lindzen for example, while backing up Hansen with Gore.”
Lets not have either Al Gore or Monckton debating anything. They’re both ignorant buffoons.
Lets have Wibjorn Karlen debating Hansen.
Posted by tonyb
“They are takling to different audiences and in an actual lecture Hall on climate science I would prefer Abrahams but as an ‘entertainment’ I would prefer to listen to Monckton.”
Monckton is a much better orator than Abrahams.
But Abrahams, whatever his flaws is qualified to talk about climate change. Monckton is a mere amateur, and a crank to boot!
Manacker posted:
“But don’t just write him off as a “buffoon” any more than you would write off Al Gore as one.”
Max, both of them are buffons. We should ignore anything they say on climate matters as merely their uninformed opinion. We need to listen to people that are qualified to talk about climate matters. Not fat millionaires or boggle eyed cranks.
Tempterrain said:
“They do have the breeding to be able to do this sort of thing you know.”
What? Make a complete fool of himself and make climate skeptics look like idiots. We need scientists, not nutters to promote our views.
Manacker said:
“Should we listen to Lindzen, Pielke or Spencer (or are they also “nutters”)?”
We should listen to skeptical qualified scientists that know what they’re talking about. Far too often we accept non qualified non scientist nutters as legitimate spokesmen for our skepticism.
Monckton is the Orly Taitz of climate skepticism. And he is doing more damage to us than help for our cause. On the odd occasion that he says something reasonable he comes out with something twice as crankish to negate it.
We need Monckton like a fish needs a bicycle.
Ditching this fool, and publically distancing him from our cause is the best option. Then we can get back on track with credible skeptical scientists providing much more informed criticism of the warmist propaganda.
Babaji
Agree with you that rational scientific skepticism of the dangerous AGW premise can best be presented and backed up by credible skeptical scientists, such as Christy, Lindzen, Spencer, Pielke, etc.
I suppose you are correct (in a scientific sense) in describing both Monckton and Gore as “buffoons” – but at least one of these “buffoons” has made a large pile of money off of the AGW scare (with hopes of much more to come), so (at least financially speaking) has been anything but a “buffoon”. Don’t believe the other one is earning much money in his “crusade” against the AGW scare, but who knows?
Case rested.
Max
Babaji,
Much as it pains me to do so, I do have to defend the good Viscount Christopher Monckton of Brenchley against the charge of making climate sceptics “look like idiots”. They are quite capable of doing that for themselves and, really, any extra intervention makes little difference, one way or the other.
For instance, would you believe, some of them even think that even a partial knowledge of the Stefan Boltzmann law is enough to enable them to claim the status of ‘climatologist’ :-) ?
“For instance, would you believe, some of them even think that even a partial knowledge of the Stefan Boltzmann law is enough to enable them to claim the status of ‘climatologist’ :-) ?”
Yeah,and some of them actually accept Monckton’s amateur bilge and stupidity like homeopathy;)
Babaji
By coincidence this has just appeared on WUWT. I havent read it thoroughly so can not offer an opinion on the quality of the rebuttal to Abrahanms rather good piece.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/12/a-detailed-rebuttal-to-abraham-from-monckton/#more-21799
tonyb
TonyB
Thanks for Abraham/Monckton links.
Babaji may be correct in saying that Monckton is not a climate scientist, but after going through the first 200 of his points, he has sure as hell nailed Abrahams, who may be a “scientist” (even if not directly related to climate science) and whose presentation was just a bit too glib and condescending (and full of apparent screw-ups intended to make Monckton look like a “buffoon”).
Not to defend Monckton, who may have his own peculiarities, as Babaji has observed, but I’d say the “buffoon” is this exchange was clearly Abrahams, because he failed to get his facts straight.
Max
Max
As you and Babaji know I have my misgivings anout Monckton. I read Abrahams piece in full and Mocktons rebuttal in full.
The latter is very long winded but once you get used to his bombastic style of writing it is very effective, in as much he makes the same point in 3 or 4 different ways.
I would agree with you that Monckton has ‘nailed’ Abrahams, whatever the rights or wrongs of who is the most qualified scientist.
It is a shame however that Moncktons style of writing/presentation will cause his critics to stop reading, close their eyes and believe ‘their’ man has won.
Tonyb
Tonyb said:
“I would agree with you that Monckton has ‘nailed’ Abrahams, whatever the rights or wrongs of who is the most qualified scientist.”
Monckton wants any criticism of his amateur climate science censored. So much for freedom of speech.
“May I ask your kind readers once more for their help? Would as many of you as possible do what some of you have already been good enough to do? Please contact Father Dennis J. Dease, President of St. Thomas University, djdease@stthomas.edu, and invite him – even at this eleventh hour – to take down Abraham’s talk altogether from the University’s servers, and to instigate a disciplinary inquiry into the Professor’s unprofessional conduct, particularly in the matter of his lies to third parties about what I had said in my talk at Bethel University eight months ago? That would be a real help.”
And arrogantly thinks he can instigate a disciplinary inquiry into Abrahams for criticizing him.
Way to go Monckton. If you don’t like whats being said about you get it censored. Now who’s the “Nazi”?
It would be a real help if we publically told Monckton to take a hike back to Nazi Germany, where he belongs.
Babaji
I also said
“It is a shame however that Moncktons style of writing/presentation will cause his critics to stop reading, close their eyes and believe ‘their’ man has won.”
I think both parties need to be more robust bearing in mind the medium this is being played out on-the internet.
I agree with you about the attempts at censorship but not the ‘nazi’ references.
Monckton is bombastic and does not represent me, but does puncture the pomposity of others. I do agree with you that it is a shame that one of our ‘leading’ sceptics is not a good reprsentative, but then again I suppose at that level it is about showmanship and grabbing attention, so in that respect Monckton should more fairly be compared to Al Gore.
tonyb
Babaji,
You obviously have a thing about Monckton, but, I might say in his defence, at least he does have a go at getting involved in scientific argument. As I showed in a previous post, if he hadn’t arbitrarily divided a certain parameter by three, his article’s main flaw, with just a vague reference to Lindzen in its justification, then his final result would have been within the IPCC’s range of estimates for CO2 climate sensitivity. Add in other few corrections, which any scientist would have been amenable to, then Monckton would have ended up right in the middle of the the IPCC range.
Would you prefer this sort of argument? From Delingpole of the UK’s Spectator:
“The Anthropogenic Global Warming scare is not about science and never was. As Climategate proved (but as some of us suspected long before), AGW is the invention of a cabal of activists, all working towards more or less the same ecofascist agenda: Mother Gaia is suffering; it’s mostly our fault; the only way to atone for our sins is to destroy Western industrial civilisation and shackle ourselves with a form of One World government run by ‘experts’ and bureaucrats over whom we have no democratic control. It is a battle against a tyranny every bit as great as we faced in the second world war or the Cold War. All what’s different about this enemy is that instead of jackboots it wears long hair, a warm, caring smile and drives a VW Combi with an ‘Atomkraft Nein Danke’ sticker.”
That sort of thing makes me despair. He makes Monckton seem a reasonable person by comparison!
PeterM
Your defense of Monckton (396) seems a bit contrived (i.e. applying some mathematical adjustments to make his conclusions the same as those of IPCC or comparing him with someone you personally feel is even worse).
He is not a “certified climatologist” (whatever that is), his style may be arrogant, and his details may be off in some cases (as are those of IPCC, as well), but he was quite incisive in pointing out the many blatant errors in his critique of Al Gore’s Oscar-winning film.
He also made the attack on him by Abrahams (a certified “scientist”, even if not one having much to do with climate study) look foolish, by pointing out errors and bombarding him with facts (over and over again).
I’d say that TonyB’s analysis of Monckton is pretty accurate and objective and that Babaji is a bit too tough on him in simply writing him off as a “buffoon” and net liability to the cause of AGW skepticism..
I suggest that it will be up to others to judge some day in the future whether he has been a “net asset” or “net liability” in helping to popularize a message of rational scientific skepticism on the AGW issue.
Time will tell.
Max
Max,
I’d not sure I’d make a good defence lawyer – making out a case for someone who is as guilty as hell, like Monckton, doesn’t come easily.
I can just about manage it as far as he’s concerned, but it would be totally impossible for the likes of Delingpole.
But the worrying thing is its those who argue like Delingpole who seem to have the greatest sway. For the simple reason, that at least 99% of AGW deniers haven’t got the any idea whether Monckton was, or was not, correct with his calculations, made during his foray into the scientific world. I’d go further, I’d say that haven’t got the faintest idea of what he was talking about.
PeterM
You are probably correct about your self-assessment of skills as a defense attorney.
I am not sure I would do much better myself.
I’d question your skills as a pollster or statistician, though, when you wrote:
It’s probably true that most of the public, whether or not they believe in the “dangerous AGW” premise, do not know whether Monckton (or the IPCC for that matter) got the details right or not, and that this percentage is most likely the same for both camps. But 99% on either side is probably an overstatement.
Being “guilty as hell” is rather meaningless, unless one defines the “crime”, of which Monckton (Delingpole, or the IPCC, for that matter) are alleged to be “guilty as hell”.
I’m sure you’d agree that as a prospective “defense lawyer” for IPCC (or “prosecuting attorney” against Monckton or Delingpole) you’d have to have the alleged “crime” defined before the trial.
Max
Max,
You ask, implicitly, if any crime is involved in being a climate change denier. I’d say in many cases ‘yes’. The worst of them would be those who have a immediate and vested interest in the profits generated by the mining and fossil fuel industry, know the science is sound, and yet fund the global disinformation campaign via pressure groups like the so-called ‘Institute of Public Affairs’ , ‘The Competitive Enterprise Insitite’, ‘The Heartland Institute’ etc using exactly the same tactics as were developed by the tobacco industry in the 60’s and 70’s.
Where do most climate deniers come in the overall scale of guilt? Where do you guys fit in? No doubt you’ll be quick to deny that you have shares in the big coal oil and coal companies except maybe through your pension funds, though I’m not sure how I stand on that one either. You certainly don’t want to pay a penny for polluting the planet so you aren’t totally free from guilt in that sense.
Your position is probably more like that of a smoker who has allowed himself to be convinced, by the pseudo scientists funded by big business, that the harzards of tobacco have been greatly exaggerated by the government whose only interest is in imposing ever higher taxes.
It’s not an exact analogy, as Robin will be keen to point out. For instance, it won’t be you who suffers from heart disease and lung cancer but your children and grandchildren.