I am attending a major debate on climate change at the Scott Polar Research Institute in Cambridge tomorrow. I will be meeting David Buckland who runs the Cape Farewell project. He has spent the past seven years trying to capture public attention on climate change by leading expeditions to the sub-zero wild and beautiful Arctic on his 100-year old Dutch schooner ship.
There are still many sceptics on climate change, so what are your questions, what should I ask David and other illustrious speakers?
What do they think of the research linking climate change to solar activity?
Where does the funding for their research come from?
Oooh, those piccies remind me of the time I was working in Antarctica 🙂
Yes, there are a number sceptics about this topic, and actually the sceptics are gaining ground.
If you really want to put the cat among the pigeons, ask about the credibility of “Dr Mann’s hockey stick” graph. This is the graph that purports to have a very long flat bit of slow temperature increase over the centuries, then takes a very rapid upturn in the last century (akin to a hockey stick laid on the ground with the foot turned up). You can google it for further info.
This graph has been a central feature in the IPCC Third Annual Report (talk about “TAR” to sound informed) but some have discredited it because the flat bit of the stick was worked out by proxy data from fossil tree rings, whereas the upturned bit is recent actual measurements. This is called “splicing” and a lot of statisticians consider it untenable. In particular it tends to rubbish the Mediaeval Warming period and the “Little Ice Age”.
So, frame your question something like: “Do you accept that splicing of proxy data invalidates Mann’s hockey stick?” and be prepared for a long ride. It may even spark considerable heated argument! Now, that would be very runcible!
Dying to hear how you get on, I’m away for most of the weekend (seeing Tamara) but I look forward to your report 😉
Ellee, you might try looking at this one:
http://www.john-daly.com/hockey/hockey.htm
Bon courage!
Thanks Jim, I knew this would be of interest to you, I bet you would like to be there, pity you live so far away.
The problem for me is that it will be an all day event and I have to go out Fri evening and all day Saturday, so I’m not sure when I can report back on it.
Cityunslicker, solar activity too, I will sound the most knowledgeable person there when that is far from the case.
How about:
Why is one half of Antarctica getting warmer and the other half getting colder? How does this fit with the Massive Catastrophic anthropogenic Climate Change hypothesis?
Does the sun have any effect on climate?
You might also ask about UHIs!
(Urban Heat Islands).
Sorry, Ellee, I’m hogging your space. Just to answer Jackart, yes the sun has an over-riding totally dominating effect on the earth’s climate. If it were to fizzle out, we’d freezle; it it were to blow up we’d frazzle.
Fluctuations of solar energy output are said to have caused the Medieval Warming Period and the Little Ice Age. We are entering a period of rapid warming right now, and the question is whether it is solely due to solar (or other natural) influences, or due to anthropogenic greenhouse emissions. I’d put my money on it being a bit of both.
The reason why the debate is so heated, IMO, is that the ‘camps’ have become so entrenched and there are considerable reputations at stake. It is doubtful if we will get to the real truth in our lifetimes.
Thoughts in a Garden was written by Andrew Marvell who dies in 1678.
What a wondrous life is this I lead
Ripe apples drop about my head
The luscious clusters of the vine
About my mouth do crush their wine
The nectarines and curious peach
Into my hands themselves do reach
Stumbling on melons as I pass
Ensnared with Flowers I fall on grass
Judging by the Loire valley conditions evidently prevailing it would appear the world has got a lot colder. Then the questions keep coming …This all pertains to the alleged misrepresentation of the hockey stick. The point about this is that that there were clearly vested interests who wanted to do this .Why are air taxes set at such a level as to not to make any change in behaviour? Why at the same time are airports allowed to keep growing so that by 2030 the number of passengers will have risen from £228,000,000 to £465,000,000.So environmentalism is used to justify taxes but the y are not neutral they are additional
Why are other emissions ignored although there supposed to be a 2.7 times as great affect from them (International Governmental Panel on Climate Change) Environmentalism sticks to apocalyptic simplicity and avoids true science where debate is allowable
Why do we continue to subsidise air travel then? Unjoined up thinking is of course everywhere in this area because it is used as a cultural symbol by politicians with little interest in its reality. You will be aware of the marketing potential. In 1421 why was a Chinese naval squadron able to sail around the North Pole and find no ice?Eh ?Why has the Antarctic been gaining ice consistently over the past 30 years ?6000 bore holes world wide show that temperatures were higher in the middle ages than now ,
why is this problem absent from UN assessments ?Why is the fact that the doomsday predictions of climatologists are often disproved ignored. For example James Hansen in 1988told the US Congress in 1988 that the sea would rise several feet by 2000. It rose one inch ?Why are questions of scale so childishly misrepresented by scare mongers who openly refer to the weather as the “climate�?Why did Al Gore emote about the snows leaving Kilimanjaro when he knows there has been no rise in temperature and it is entirely the result of deforestation and consequent dehydration ? He is absolutely aware of this ;even if you are not .Why are the most conspicuous consumers always the most self righteous . Prince Charles bought his “staff� bikes?
(He has asked for a Greener fleet of vehicles but will retain his Bentley , a Jaguar and an Aston Martin)Why would the government rather monitor every car from the sky and feed that information into combined data bases than increase fuel tax ?Environmentalism is used as an excuse for the state to grab and keep more power of the individual whenever possible
Why do people refer to a consensus on “climate change� when there is no such thing ? Is it because the funding of environmental studies depends on its predictions of gloom so useful for governments .Why , when the UK is responsible for 2% of emissions do we bother with domestic policy ? Is it to make us feel on a war footing and create a climate where further illiberal measures are possible . If the|UK stopped emitting carbon completely the Chinese economy would take up the slack in about 8 months
I think the serious key accusations are as follows
1 The evidence has been misrepresented as a consensus when there isn’t any
2 We can see exactly how this suits the super nationalists bureaucrats by the way miilipede used Environmental concerns to justify the montrous EU.
3 It is used as a way of increasing taxes with out reducing them on good things like growth and employment ( Irwin Stelzer)
4 It us further being used to , in Jaque Chiraques chilling phrase “Create world Government�it will continue to be used as a lever for the slow ceding of national autonomy to bodies like THE UN. We can tell from the child abuse allegations surrounding this collection of crooks and chancers what that government would be like.
5 All governments are still heading for growth ..how does that add up
6 the global problem is that the developing economies will not be told they must bear costs in the industrialisation that the developed world did not . China will do whatever it likes.
7 There are aspect of the environmental movement that look alarmingly like a new religion complete with self flagellating attitudes and blind faith in the cause….a minor point perhaps .
David Cameron has recognised the danger of allying environmental concerns with a big state high tax super national authority anti Liberal agenda. A good start would be to remove VAT from Green products . Then we would know they were sincere. He has at least seen that there is danger of losing the support of reasonable people in taking a responsible view. SCIENTITSTS SAY WHAT THEY ARE PAID TO…but with the change of the last 100 years it is not unreasonable to be concerned about what effects this may be having . It would be surprising if there was no effect .
“If our climate in Wales is going to be more like Spain’s or southern California’s in the summer,” the clown Prince of Wales, First Minister Rhodri Morgan remarked robustly the other night, “it will hardly be unhelpful to Wales.”
A study of the snowline on Wales’ icon mountain has found its winter cap has retreated over the past 10 years. Mt. Snowdon could be snow free in under 15 years….
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/north_west/6264931.stm
Wow! You certainly know how to get a debate going, Ellee! Newmania has certainly outlined many of the arguments used by the ‘sceptics’. I am not equipped to deal with the political aspects, though he/she does appear to be a bit cynical. However I do agree that airport taxes are nowhere near enough to change behaviour (I have myself this week booked recreational flights to St Petersburg and Buenos Aires – naughty!).
Just a couple of points of information: climate models do actually explain local anomalies (e.g. Newmania’s Loire and Jackart’s Antarctica), it is the global annual average that matters. It is not in dispute that this is rising quite fast (some say it is not yet as high as it reqached during the Medieval Warming Period, as pointed out by Newmania).
About the consensus thing, there was a large number of eminent international scientists involved in the construction of the IPCC report (which actually isn’t published in full yet). I think he/she does not do justice to the scientific peer-review process, it is actually quite rigorous) and I don’t think many scientists would jeopardise their reputations by prostituting their discipline. The “consensus” amounted to an agreement of a 90% likelihood that the current warming episode is contributed to by anthropogenic emission. axiomatically there is a 10% chance that it is not – this is all above board.
I try not to use emotive words like “scaremongering”. One man’s scaremongering is another’s expression of concern. There was alleged “scaremongering” by the dreaded environmentalists in the 50s and 60s about chlorinated hydrocarbon pesticides, and other issues which came to pass. Personally, I prefer to adopt the precautionary principle. It makes sense for all sorts of reasons to reduce carbon emissions, not least of which my fuel bills are lower 🙂
I’d like to know if these folks anticipate that the world would be a better place for treating the “damaging effects of anthropogenic Global Climate Change” AS REAL vs. NOT. This springs from sociology’s well-known Thomas Theorem: “Situations that are defined as real become real in their consequences.” Just as our daughter was never conclusively diagnosed with asthma, but was simply and very quickly diagnosed as if she really was asthmatic (with positive consequences flowing from that), so too isn’t it wise to wonder whether a similar strategic application of the Thomas Theorem isn’t warranted with regard to AGCC?
I think I will have to print off all these questions, there is far too much here for me to remember. As I do not have a scientific background, I hope I understand the answers.
scientists would jeopardise their reputations by prostituting their discipline.
And yet those finanaced by oil companies are routinely accused of exactly this.
climate models do actually explain local anomalies (e.g. Newmania’s Loire and Jackart’s Antarctica),
Thats misleading the science may be fine as far as it goes( although I donot believe it is untainted and there is anecdotal evidence of this see DT ) but this is a very soft science indeed.Where quite obviously there is no way of testing a hypothesis that this or that model is correct.
It would be quite reaosnable to say the science of “modelling” was sound but totally misrepresent the predictive reliability of the model.
Neither is there any way of knowing on what scale which fluctuations might be happening .
Such problems as the medieaval warm period are simply playing the propoganda game on its own terms . Also the Victorian mini ice age of Dickensian fame.
The real problem is a misrepresenation of the science involved for political reasons both benign and malign.
I agree caution is a good idea but so is caution about a loss of Liberty .I have far far harder evidence iof the progress of this cancer I suggest you don`t get me started
I’m pessimistic about the remedial measures which can be taken against global warming. The effects must surely be too deep and progressive to ‘turn off’ now.
Who’s to blame ? We might be innocent after all. But …
…further ecological damage, in all forms, is unforgivable on our part.
My questions would be:
What can we do to constrain powerful emerging economies who know little and care less for this issue ?
And how on earth do we do this without being hypocritical ?
Excellent blog BTW, Ellee.
Thanks electro-kevin, and a belated response to Newmania, what a wonderful poetic comment. I do have a soft spot for the metaphysics, it was a wonderful age of discovery when explorers discovered the world was round and not flat, how amazing was that! If I had the time, I would respond in kind, I have Marvell, Donne and Herbert’s poetry on my shelves.
Jim says, “it is the global annual average that matters.”
Why? What makes that the most important?
He adds, “It is not in dispute that this is rising quite fast (some say it is not yet as high as it reqached during the Medieval Warming Period, as pointed out by Newmania).”
But isn’t it important that we are not yet as warm as during the Medieval Warming Period? (When there was farming and sheep herding in Greenland, wine growing in England….)
We know that MAN was not responsible for the Medieval Warming Period — cars and airplanes and industry not yet being invented. That was a NATURAL phenomenon. We know that climate change is a normal and natural feature of the life of Planet Earth. How can we then distinguish / determine mankind’s contribution? And are our actions speeding the rate of change or slowing it? How do you know if you don’t know the natural rate of change?
And if you don’t know where the climate is going on its own, how do you know that doing anything — even abandoning technology altogether and starving en masse — would slow / stop / reverse climate change?
Count me as a skeptic, Ellee: I would be more inclined to believe prophesies of weather in the next century if forecasts of tomorrow’s weather were more accurate.
And the tax-grabbing potential of all this must be enormous, Curmudgeon !
(Sorry if I’m repeating a point already made earlier – a bit busy at the moment)
I don’t think the grass-roots are at all convinced of the honesty of the establishment position – not by the disgraceful amounts claimed in MPs’ travel expenses.
Herbert’s poetry on my shelves.
Brag alert.Mrs. N.(.Marian`s) family are realted to George Gerbert that , obviously , would be on the Welsh side, not the Trinidadian.
you may bow and scrape….
Jim says, “it is the global annual average that matters.�
Why? What makes that the most important?
Because that is an absolute measure of the heat content of the atmoshphere. A sort of “gold standard”, if you like.
Newmania, you have a very good “brag” there, most impressive, I expect you and Mrs M enjoy many moments reciting his great works.
Sorry for the long comment here Ellee. My colleagfue in the USA wrote this about “climate change” at his site. http://www.anxietycenter.com
I’m sure there’s a question there somewhere. Alan does raise some interesting issues about halfway into his piece. Read on…………
(I’ve got my own climate change tomorrow – Tanzania awaits)
America Goes Insane Over the Weather
By Alan Caruba
January 2007
It’s official. America is now totally insane over the weather.
Even the Weather Channel that used to simply provide reasonably accurate, short-term information about the weather is now telling everyone we’re doomed because global warming is going to destroy the Earth. Why not just rename it the AlGore Channel?
The weather used to be the concern primarily of farmers and ranchers. It determines how well or not crops would grow and herds will thrive. As America became more urbanized, the rest of the population wanted to know whether to bring an umbrella or what to wear. Now it is a source of daily anxiety over the fate of the Earth.
To make matters worse, people are being told and actually believing that what they do or not can affect the weather in ways to keep the seas and temperatures from rising. It is no longer the domain of the sun, the oceans, volcanoes and clouds. These puny things are nothing compared to what kind of car you drive or what you use to heat your home.
That is a definition of insanity. It is so far removed from reality that Hollywood has to conjure up films showing New York under miles of snow or so-called documentaries demanding that industry must come to a stop in order to save the Earth.
I suggest we need to save the Earth from the legions of fear mongers who are seeking to control our lives for the crime of having abundant food, longer life spans, technological and scientific advances, or that permits you to get on a jet and be anywhere in the world within hours. We take for granted that trucks, the heart’s blood of an economy, will deliver anything you purchase on Monday by the following Wednesday. Try to imagine our nation without cars?
Let me provide an example of how far we have come since I was a child nearly seventy years ago. We had an icebox, not a refrigerator. A man would come and provide a big block of ice to keep food cool for a day or so. Air conditioning meant opening the window and turning on a fan. Washing clothes involved using a washboard and then hanging them out to dry in the sun. There was no television, no computers, no iPods, and no cell phones. Milk was delivered by a horse-drawn wagon during World War II because gas was scarce. Polio crippled thousands of people, including then-President Franklin Delano Roosevelt.
Do you really want to return to those “good old days”? In essence, that is exactly what the Global Warming Gestapo wants to inflict on every American these days.
The single most insipid phrase that any environmentalist or politician says is “climate change” because they actually believe humans are responsible for the change and ignore the fact that climate is always in a state of change.
None of us can read a newspaper or a magazine, or turn on the radio or television, without being told that we are just years, if not months, from the horror of global warming. A few weeks ago Colorado was digging out from three horrendous blizzards the likes of which have not been seen in a lifetime, while the East Coast had temperatures in the 70s.
The definition of weather and climate is “chaos.”
Mother Nature has a message for you: Get out of the way! Here comes a flood, a blizzard, a tornado, a tsunami, a hurricane, a wildfire or an earthquake. Get out of the way!
The wisest climatologists who study weather trends over hundreds of years have no idea why mini-Ice ages or warming spells occur and meteorologists with access to the most sophisticated computer models cannot tell you with any certainty what the weather in your area will be a week from now!
In Congress, the newly empowered Democrats are getting ready to impose an insane program of “caps and credits” on so-called greenhouse gas emissions that is straight out of the UN’s Kyoto Protocol that totally exempts China and India, home to more than two billion of the six billion people on Earth.
Meanwhile, those same greenhouse gases are being emitted globally by millions of livestock that are responsible for 9% of anthropogenic CO2 (Carbon dioxide) emissions, 37% of methane emissions, 64% of ammonia emissions, and 65% of global nitrous oxide.
When you add in the methane and other emissions of the world’s swamps and forests, and all the chemicals emitted by the world’s active volcanoes, plus the fact that every human on Earth exhales two pounds of CO2 every day, the notion of crippling every element of the nation’s economy to “control” such things is, well, insane.
Carbon dioxide is not a “pollutant” no matter how many times Speaker Pelosi, Senator Boxer, Governor Schwarzenneger and a legion of global warming alarmists say it is. It exists in the Earth’s atmosphere and, other than the oxygen that keeps us alive, is the single most important part of our environment because all vegetation, forests and crops, depend on it.
Is there more of it around? Yes, since 1850 the Earth’s population has increased 600%! Is it a bad thing? No. The Earth has had periods of far higher CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere and life thrived.
Right now, that eminent body of scientists, the Supreme Court of the United States, is deciding whether CO2 is a pollutant. That is insane.
Finally, during the last 100 years, the average global temperature has increased less than one degree centigrade. Some places like the poles remain encased in ice and snow all year. Other places like the deserts remain arid all year.
What we do not lack is a legion of “scientists” who cannot wait to run out in the streets and announce that their research conclusively proves we are doomed. We have others who run around saying that our weather is unusual or getting worse. It’s the weather! The weather is always in a state of change.
Are we supposed to return to the days when virgins were thrown into volcanoes or hearts were cut from living bodies in order to appease the gods that “control” the weather? Or are we all going to fall victim to those in Congress and elsewhere who insist we ruin our lives in order to achieve “control” over the weather?
The next time someone talks about global warming, keep repeating to yourself, this person is insane, because they are.
Alan Caruba writes a weekly column, “Warning Signs”, post on the Internet site of The National Anxiety Center, http://www.anxietycenter.com. His new book, “Right Answers: Separating Fact from Fantasy”, has been published by Merril Press.
[…] Climate change, the questions […]
[…] Climate change, the questions […]