The facilitator at the event I was attending was blunt. “Most people believe in global warming. Some people don’t. That’s a point of view. If you don’t believe in global warming, it means you drive an SUV, you don’t care about food miles and you don’t care about the planet.”
Not one person in the room listening to this demurred. Not even me. I was too gobsmacked to respond.
She continued: “I’m from England. What has really surprised me living here is how carefree you are. In England, we agonise all the time about whether we should take a plane, because of the carbon footprint. Here, everyone catches planes all the time. You have so much to learn.”
When the facilitator at a simple business meeting kicks off the session (which had nothing to do with the environment) with such dogmatic, bald statements, and when none of the 100 quite educated people present took issue with her, then all hope of reason, rationality and science seems lost.
Truly has global warming become a religion. It was even in the words she used: “Most people believe in global warming. Some people don’t.”
Nothing about science here. Just belief.
I take a great interest in the science of climate change, and I also take a great interest in how the media, and certain environmental activists, have beaten the science up into yet another Armageddon scenario. “We’re all doomed!”
I listen and take note of the climate change theories put forward by qualified scientists. I am skeptical about the more extreme claims being made by the media and the political activists promoting the Armageddon scenario, which I’ve seen all too often before. Think the Ice Age predicted in 1975. Think the Y2K Bug and Bird Flu as more recent harbingers of doom that never happened.
I am well aware that 1000 years ago, the world was warmer than it is now (the Medieval Warm Period) and grapes grew in the north of England, and that it cooled, to the extent that by the 1700s Europe was so cold that the Thames froze in winter (the Little Ice Age). I am well aware that the world has been warming since the Little Ice Age, but that the warming has not been consistent. From 1940 to 1976 it cooled so much that it led to the “ice age” predictions of 1975. It warmed continously from 1976 to 1998 (apart from the Pinatubo eruption cooling of 1991). There has been no average global warming since 1998, but many scientists predict that carbon dioxide emissions we are responsible for will cause the globe to warm further, perhaps with serious results. And maybe that will happen.
But just because I am skeptical about the extremist views does not make me a wanton abuser of the planet, which the facilitator painted me by association. I am very supportive of having a clean environment, air, land and sea, and I don’t want to see pollutants poured out into it. I don’t waste power or petrol — I have used energy saving bulbs since they became available, I do not leave any appliances in standby mode (I turn them off if they are not being directly used) and I have never turned on the heated towel rail that came with my house. I catch the bus not only to work (and I go out of my way to catch a trolley if one comes by), I use it frequently at evenings and weekends too. I have a modest Japanese car which even at today’s prices, costs me $50 to top up every few weeks, so infrequently do I drive it. I am appalled at the plunder of the sea and the pillage of the rain forests and I will support any reasonable measure to reverse these serious issues.
I also have a well-developed “bullshit detector,” the result of many years working as a journalist and seeing as an insider how the media often cynically beats up issues (including climate change) far in excess of their actual merit, and how pressure groups and other interested parties use the media to promote causes which may or may not be worthy of support.
My “bullshit detector” was ringing loudly as I listened to this facilitator rabbit on about food miles and carbon footprints and how if you didn’t “believe” in global warming, then you were an SUV-driving environmental destroyer. She was talking total bullshit, but the fact that even I did not leap to my feet and tell her so shows how deeply imbedded this new secular religion of global warming has become. I was too scared in a room full of nodding believers to give a contrary view. It would have been worse than standing up during a church service and denying the existence of god or the virgin birth. I suspect a church congregation would have given my heresy a better reception. I have been ashamed of my silence since.
I was reminded graphically of US president George W Bush’s declaration after September 11: “Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.” It was a statement that left no middle ground or even other choices.
“You either believe in global warming, or you’re out to wreck the planet.” This is equally an insane position to be taking, the opposite of scientific rigour which is to put forward a theory and test and test and test it. Einstein once famously said that nothing could prove his theories were correct, but one experiment could prove him wrong.
Science is what has made the wonderful civilisation we have created on this planet possible. Science produced the Green Revolution that enabled us to feed ourselves despite the massive population increases of the past century. Science has given us electricity, television, the Internet, space travel, jet airliners and everything else we take for granted. The religion that has developed around global warming is anti-science because it is based on belief, not scientific rigour. We are told we have to believe, while closing our minds to any inconvenient alternatives. In the meantime, the religion-driven push to “biofuels” has created an international food crisis as productive farmlands and rain forests are replaced with palm oil plantations.
It is entirely possible, according to the computer predictions that underly climate change theory, that human-caused greenhouse gas emissions could harm the planet. After all, human-caused industrial pollution has caused massive environmental damage, and we have taken action to reverse that, successfully so in many countries. So it is prudent to adopt measures to reduce the risk of greenhouse gas harm, while continuing not only to test the theory, but also to look and see if it is coming to pass. The lack of any warming for a decade now seems to undermine the theory, but it could be the temporary blip that many scientists believe.
But when I see people raving about “food miles” and saying I need to plant a tree if I fly to Christchurch, I see unscientific lunacy and bullshit and luddites everywhere. This whole issue is being used here and in many countries to bash private enterprise (while encouraging speculation in “carbon credits”), to stop the free trade that would lift the world’s poorest countries from poverty, to suppress progress and to attempt to paint humanity as some kind of cancer on the planet, which we are not. A solid dose of skepticism is desperately needed lest we destroy our civilisation not from breathing, but from bullshit.
54 Comments
June 28, 2008 at 1:35 pm
I agree with you that some people treat environmentalism (including climate change) as a religion, but that does not, in and of itself, mean that climate change is not a real threat to our current way of existence.
I think the science is there to show climate change is happening, but for some reason the language of theology is being brought to bear on a scientific issue. As a religious person I find this problematic in that I find that God’s creation is becoming divinized rather than the focus being upon God himself. As someone who agrees with the scientific method it’s troublesome because it’s stepping outside of rational arguments.
June 28, 2008 at 1:59 pm
Well said.I feel the same as yourself. I am anti pollution but belief in the extent of global warming is something else. I suspect the vast majority of NZers agree with you also.
June 28, 2008 at 2:09 pm
I wonder why it is that New Zealanders of generally good character have become timorous wee beasties as of recent years? Congratulations for having the courage to reveal that despite hearing the most rabid bullshit being slung hither and yon at this conference that you recently attended,like so many other Kiwi’s today,you felt unable to line this nut-case up and give her a well deserved serve.Not aimed at at your good self by any means,rather something that perhaps we should all consider,”All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing”.It therefore follows, with so many appalling issues currently confronting us,that even our diminishing number of “Good Men” are more likely to qualify for a place in the Vienna Boy’s Choir than to ever do battle with the noisy and frequently deranged. Perhaps if we dose the water supply with testosterone we could turn this sad situation around.
June 28, 2008 at 2:48 pm
Dave,
You need to upgrade your Bullshit Detector to “Batshit 1.04″. That has all the necessary responses in it.
JC
June 28, 2008 at 2:58 pm
Very well said Poneke.
June 28, 2008 at 3:25 pm
Are you really busting out the “Y2K was a fuss over nothing” trope again? Do we really need to revisit that all over?
[Poneke: No. The context is media beat-ups, not the actual facts of something.]
June 28, 2008 at 4:27 pm
Good Lord, a messianic facilitator and a disciple of new age climate alarmism trying to surpass the equally messianic Jo Abbess (http://www.christian-ecology.org.uk/ealing.htm).
June 28, 2008 at 4:29 pm
Just how did the “facilitator ” get here, swim
I note that a lot of the true believers are more interested in us making changes in our lives rather than them
Just look at the Greens
Having said that there is no real doubt that the weather is changing but it always has and it always will
What we have to do is make sure we can survive but there is no need to panic
June 28, 2008 at 4:36 pm
Perhaps it was an anecdote that the facilitator used to encourage conformity and establish her control of the meeting? If so, it worked. Nobody challenged her.
“You have so much to learn.” Uggh! Dripping with colonial condescension. I’d have been tempted to walk out, but probably wouldn’t have done so. “Don’t make a fuss” was part of my childhood indoctrination. I’d have fumed for days, though.
Personally, I think pressure to conform may be a greater danger to humanity than any system of irrational thought, religious or otherwise.
June 28, 2008 at 5:03 pm
“…I see unscientific lunacy and bullshit and luddites everywhere.”
Everywhere? Mightn’t this be because you WANT to see them everywhere? Could it be that doing so allows you to downplay the closely reviewed scientific evidence (yes, evidence – not just theories and models) and the carefully phrased and caveated predictions? If you can reduce, and personalise, an issue to the mouthings of the most self-righteous individuals who’ve climbed on board the issue’s bandwagon, you can dismiss it as a “religion” and essentially wish it away (despite your token concession that “It is entirely possible… that human-caused greenhouse gas emissions could harm the planet”).
Poneke, the facilitator you describe sounds egregiously offensive, and was quite possibly an idiot. But every important issue gets exploited by self-indulgent alpha types for their own gratification. Does the fact that Madonna, perhaps the shallowest person on the planet, adopts a Malawian baby to “raise awareness of Africa’s problems” mean that Africa’s problems are over-hyped and possibly only theoretical? Does the fact that many people and regimes hypocritically misuse the concept of human rights – the UN Human Rights Commission has recently seen Iran criticising Switzerland’s record, for God’s sake – mean that human rights are a sham?
If the message is inconvenient, shoot the messenger. Or rather, cherry-pick the most hysterical and superficial messenger, and ignore the weight of the credible ones.
June 28, 2008 at 5:37 pm
Nicely observed, Poneke.
I put the climate change doomsters down to the decline of Christianity.
Half a century ago they would have been the wackos parading around with signs warning: Repent! The End is Nigh
Some of us just seem to have an inbuilt need to spread gloom, doom, and fear. It would be easier to laugh them away if they were on about the next world rather than this one.
For God’s sake let the climate nutters get another, traditional religion. Let them join the Jehovah’s Witnesses so they can pester us only at weekends.
June 28, 2008 at 5:47 pm
I wouldn’t have put avian influenza alongside Y2K. The virus is still out there and human infections (and deaths) still occur.
While I agree with your point about over-hyping possible events, there is also often an expection, partly driven by the nature of modern media and TV programs, that things should be “instant” or very-near future or they are non-events. If nothing happens, in say, a few months its “over”, or at least forgotten about.
June 28, 2008 at 8:00 pm
Excellent points, Poneke.
Don’t be surprised, though, if the comments get swamped with Al Gore disciples – not necessarily making factual statements (because that is becoming more difficult, as the years pass, and the atmospheric temperatures refuse to obey the computer simulations, and go up, as predicted.)
Meanwhile, over a thousand scientists have signed the Manhattan declaration demanding an end to climate hysteria.
I’m with them.
June 28, 2008 at 8:06 pm
Well, your facilitator or whatever she called herself was certainly being foolish, but she makes one interesting point: that views on this issue are hugely different in the UK (and Europe in general). And that’s because over there they have, in the main, moved on from trying to dispute the overwhelming balance of evidence, and are trying to do something about it.
Meanwhile, you make a few errors yourself…
I am well aware that 1000 years ago, the world was warmer than it is now (the Medieval Warm Period)
No, it wasn’t. The MWP was warm in Europe, not around the globe, and even then it was cooler than Europe today.
and grapes grew in the north of England
Only in monastery gardens, to make communion wine. Nowadays, French winemakers from Champagne are buying land in the S of England (because their vineyards are getting too warm, and England is making more wine than ever.
…that by the 1700s Europe was so cold that the Thames froze in winter (the Little Ice Age)
The Thames would have frozen over in London in 1963, if the old London Bridge, which had many piers and acted as a weir had been there.
From 1940 to 1976 it cooled so much that it led to the “ice age” predictions of 1975.
Actually, it didn’t so much cool as pause in warming, and there was considerable uncertainty in the 70s about warming versus cooling. There was certainly no consensus view about a rapidly approaching ice age.
There has been no average global warming since 1998
Sorry, but this is simply wrong. 2005 was warmer than 1998, and the current decade is 0.1C warmer on average than the preceding ten years (to 1998).
..but many scientists predict that carbon dioxide emissions we are responsible for will cause the globe to warm further, perhaps with serious results. And maybe that will happen.
I would suggest that it is already happening. The evidence is pretty clear – and is not a scientific or media beat-up (though the latter certainly exist on both “side” of the climate debate).
Poneke, it would be much better to recognise that the debate about climate is not about science, it’s about politics. The fact of warming and its impacts is not going away, and it will shape our lives over the coming century. That may be uncomfortable, but it’s the truth. If we can accept the science – and that, broadly speaking means the IPCC’s conclusions – then we can have a good argument about what to do. Better to do that now, while there’s time to do something, than when it’s too late.
PS: Happy to let you have a “review copy” of my book on the subject…
June 29, 2008 at 12:38 am
One has to be careful to distinguish between the validity of a thing by itself separate and distinct from the way that thing may be presented or used by some person.
The person you describe may well be a dogmatic flake, but that has nothing whatever to do with climate change’s validity or otherwise. People listening to her may well have thought the same as you, but didn’t bother saying anything because…..well…in the BIG picture, who cares what she thinks anyway?
I’m doing what I can to reduce my own emissions. That’s all I can do.
June 29, 2008 at 3:36 am
“Ignore the weight of the credible ones …” Would that be the ones who want to put climate sceptics on trial for crimes against humanity?
June 29, 2008 at 4:51 am
very well said. you believers are all doom mongers wanting the rest of us to change our behaviour. IF global temperatures really rise it will open up Canada and Russia for human settlement rather than being excessively cold. That is a rather inconvenient fact. It would certainly change human behaviour but it will not be the end of the world.
That said I completely agree with your position on conserving our environment for its own sake. Not blindly, but sensibly
June 29, 2008 at 10:47 am
sagenz: Why not over-generalise? It’s so much fun.
June 29, 2008 at 11:18 am
Malcolm: “Would that be the ones who want to put climate sceptics on trial for crimes against humanity?”
I’m not suggesting you be put on trial, Malcolm, but – assuming you mean James Hansen – you’re committing crimes against accurate quotation. What Hansen called for was for the CEOs of the major oil and coal companies who’ve been funding misinformation on AGW to be put on trial for crimes against humanity and nature. He didn’t, as far as I’m aware, refer to those who swallow or further disseminate the misinformation.
He did, however, provide a nice soundbite for denialists to foam over. For that reason alone, his hyperbole – which was about politics, not about science – was regrettable. Or, from the point of view of those who would drag red herrings in front of inconvenient facts, not so regrettable.
June 29, 2008 at 12:34 pm
Gareth, I don’t know where you get your bullshit, for that’s what it is, from about the medieval warm period being European only. There are demonstrable records from all over the world, from NZ, from South Africa, from the Americas, from China, but of course to a convinced AGW alarmist, these are all Europe are they not ? Not only werte grapes grown in places they aren’t today, but the treelines in Scandanavia for example, and in Siberia for that matter, were significantly further North.
The bit about London bridge was a joke, I would like to see you prove that the mere presence of a new bridge, because there were bridges aplenty across the Thames, prevented freezing.
Re 2005 being warmer, but only if you believe the way the current surface and other records are edited and adjusted, which, IMHO, you shouldn’t until the methodologies are fully elucidated. If the records are so good, why can’t us “mere mortals” be told just how the results are arrived at ?
You seem to have an unfounded belief in paleo-climate studies, and probably even think MBH98 and 99 are legitimate “proof” of the current climate being warmer than the past. I suggest that you conduct some actual research of your own into the state of data about climate, you might be surprised if you looked beyond the “true believer” literature. You probably even think that the models are reasonable representations of the climate.
Ian, Hansen called for those people to me prosecuted the same as “war criminals”. If we are dealing with misinformation, then Hansen should be charged with exactly the same, and prima facie, he is guilty.
June 29, 2008 at 12:56 pm
Poneke…I’m waiting for the Greenpeace spokes-entities to accuse you of being paid by oil companies. One of their favourite lines is that anyone who doubts the gospel of climate warming is being supported by the oil industry and big business.
June 29, 2008 at 1:50 pm
My word, Bentley, you do adopt a rather brusque tone, don’t you? My sources are the scientific literature, of which the IPCC’s 2007 report is an admirable summary. If you want to dismiss that as some sort of conspiracy, be my guest, but don’t expect me to take you seriously.
As for the Thames, it is an uncontroversial fact that the destruction of the old London Bridge made the river more tidal. Add to that the construction of embankments, locks and weirs to improve navigability during the 19th century, and you have a river with very much more tidal flow than in the days of frost fairs. During the very cold winter of 1963 (which was at least as cold as many of those that froze the Thames in central London) the river froze down to Teddington lock, but no lower.
To read what Hansen actually wrote, and some reaction to it, you might refer to my post on the subject.
June 29, 2008 at 2:18 pm
Well said Poneke.
But all this global warming bullshit is not about ‘climate change.’
It’s about control.
Having lost the ideological battle between Capitalism and Communists, the collectivists have regrouped under the eco-friendly banner of Gaia to push their statist agenda.
It’s not about protecting the environment , but freedom in our everyday lives.
The freedom to drive, holiday where we want, eat what we want, how we heat our homes, and even, after the goverment’s latest bit of nannying, how we light them.
I referred to this/your post in my post today’ Are We Up for the Great Battle For Freedom?’
http://www.nominister.blogspot.com
PS I read where 60% of Brits doubt climate change.
June 29, 2008 at 2:39 pm
Poneke,
I think you’re being a tad hypocritical. I agree that the media are often terrible and there are often idiots preaching doom. I also agree that it is important to use science to cut through this bullshit.
Yet – at the same time you engage in preaching anti-science.
The world hasn’t warmed since 1998? Here’s a challenge for you. Pick any temperature set, satelite or suface. Download the data youself. Put it in excel. Calculate the average trend. They’re all positive.
You claim the world was warmer 1000 years ago. There are ten (or eleven?) different quantitative temperature reconstructions of the Northern hemisphere published in journals, made by a number of different researchers. None of these show the dramatic changes in the average temperature that you claim over this period. (These are all put on the same graph in the IPCC report see pg 467)
I think you are being hypocritical because you claim to support scientific method, yet your “bullshit filter” also seems to filter out scientific research published in scientific journals using transparent scientific method.
June 29, 2008 at 4:26 pm
Here’s Jim Hansen reported in the Guardian.
“When you are in that kind of position, as the CEO of one the primary players who have been putting out misinformation even via organisations that affect what gets into school textbooks, then I think that’s a crime.”
Note the words “that kind of position”. Being an oil company executive is clearly intended as just one example of a broader group.
Also note the dog whistling. This is clearly a statement intended to whip up public outrage against anybody sceptical of the AGW hypothesis. I think the alarmism and misreporting on AGW are entirely in line with, and strongly encouraged by, the sentiments of that statement.
June 29, 2008 at 6:04 pm
Malcolm – I’m struggling to read the words “When you are in that kind of position” as anything other than a limiting phrase which makes it clear that Hansen is referring only to such CEOs as he identifies. Perhaps interested readers, if any are left following this thread, should go to the interview and Hansen’s Congressional testimony and make up their own minds.
I’m getting off this roundabaout now – as I said before, I regard Hansen’s statement as political hyperbole (remember his audience) and a regrettable distraction. My real point still stands: that such hyperbole, from EACH side, allows extremists to caricature the issues, caricature opponents, and polarize – even better – quash threatening debate. Both sides are guilty. My subjective impression is that AGW deniers are rather more prone to doing this than those who accept AGW; but yes, it’s a subjective impression. Like Poneke in the post that kicked this off, I tend to notice the, er, excitable folk who confirm my prejudices. (Straight from central casting, there are some examples in the posts above.)
June 29, 2008 at 7:56 pm
Ian, I have very much enjoyed your input and think you have raised the tone of this debate considerably.
Gareth, ditto (always).
Poneke, scepticism is all very well when it is well-informed, but your views on climate change don’t appear to qualify as well-informed. Which is a pity as I am in general a great fan of your writings in general.
In case you are wondering where my views come from, well, I have read the IPCC report, and I took the chance to attend Prof Martin Manning’s public lecture in Wellington last week. He’s definitely a well-qualified scientist in this area.
June 30, 2008 at 6:17 am
re greg “I think you are being hypocritical because you claim to support scientific method, yet your “bullshit filter” also seems to filter out scientific research published in scientific journals using transparent scientific method.”
Here is a synopsis on scientific method from wiki..
“Scientific method refers to the body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. It is based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning. A scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.
Although procedures vary from one field of inquiry to another, identifiable features distinguish scientific inquiry from other methodologies of knowledge. Scientific researchers propose hypotheses as explanations of phenomena, and design experimental studies to test these hypotheses. These steps must be repeatable in order to dependably predict any future results. Theories that encompass wider domains of inquiry may bind many hypotheses together in a coherent structure. This in turn may help form new hypotheses or place groups of hypotheses into context.
Among other facets shared by the various fields of inquiry is the conviction that the process be objective to reduce a biased interpretation of the results. Another basic expectation is to document, archive and share all data and methodology so they are available for careful scrutiny by other scientists, thereby allowing other researchers the opportunity to verify results by attempting to reproduce them. This practice, called full disclosure, also allows statistical measures of the reliability of these data to be established.”
First both raw datasets for the instrumental record used by the Met (hadcru) have been not been available as a public record.Phil Jones has refused access.
Second the extrapolation methodology (mathematical alogrthims) are also not available citing ip.
Third the monthly published seasonal and yearly say Temperature anomalies are NOT the global T/A these are the variances from the “ensemble mean ‘ a statistical “sample” of around 60-120 datapoints dependent on whose data is being reviewed.
This bring interesting problems by themselves as the weightings are inverse (sea/land/atmosphere) to the real world,and incorporates a natural bias.
This is also a problematic for predictive capability for the GCM,and the level of predictive skill of which very little has been seen.
We can also say that the level of predictive skill will not increase for the ’state of the art GCM’ in the future,due to well known limitation’s in mathematical physics (a geometric ceiling )
The last statement is well described in the mathematical literature, by those who wrote the theory,and those who have added to the theory.
June 30, 2008 at 8:40 am
The last time I looked at the scientific method, criticism of process and conclusion was every bit as important as criticism of empirical data. And no theory ever has all ducks in a row – finding exceptions is a prime path to new explanations for data sets. Denying the value of this seems very anti-science.
June 30, 2008 at 11:00 am
“The world hasn’t warmed since 1998? Here’s a challenge for you. Pick any temperature set, satelite or suface. Download the data youself. Put it in excel. Calculate the average trend. They’re all positive”
Greg. I’m puzzled by this. The data-sets tend to show cooling since 1998. Are you using an earlier starting point? Popular starting points are mid-1970s and 1880, since these are local minima, and therefore yield the greatest upwards trend. But that begs the question, when will the trend reverse. Or do you expect the oceans to eventually boil? To my mind, simple extrapolation is not a sensible way to predict temperature, and is not usually accepted in statistics. OLS is a way of summarizing the past – you need theory to predict the future.
For example – there was a pyroclastic volcanic eruption on the Arctic sea-bed in 1999. This will have affected Arctic sea temperature. If we simply extrapolate a trend, do we therefore assume another such pyroclastic volcanic eruption every five years?
June 30, 2008 at 3:22 pm
There has been no average global warming since 1998
To my mind you still haven’t quite got that statement to the point where it means anything. It think that by ‘global warming’ people hopefully mean something other than warmer-this-year-than-last-year.
And what’s with the complaining about ‘believe’? Rodney Hide was doing this too. Isn’t saying you believe something just a slightly more honest version of asserting it as a fact?
Anyway, FWIW I recall listening (on the radio) to a UK chap here for some environment thingy good-humouredly talking about being laughed at when he enquired why he couldn’t just take a train from place to place here.
There’s a point about our infrastructure, but I think our friends from the North can also miss some goegraphy and population issues.
June 30, 2008 at 10:22 pm
“As for the Thames, it is an uncontroversial fact that the destruction of the old London Bridge made the river more tidal. Add to that the construction of embankments, locks and weirs to improve navigability during the 19th century, and you have a river with very much more tidal flow than in the days of frost fairs. During the very cold winter of 1963 (which was at least as cold as many of those that froze the Thames in central London) the river froze down to Teddington lock, but no lower.”
It is of no doubt that a faster moving body of water will not freeze as easily as that of a very slowly moving body of water represented by the Thames River above Teddington Lock as Gareth suggests and found to be so in the cold whether snap of Jan/Feb 1963. But it is debatable that this cold snap was in fact colder than that of 1739/40 when one considers the extended time of that cold snap compared to 1963.
In 1739/40 the mean temperatures of both January and February were below 0 °C in the Midlands and southern England. The only other known instance of two successive months with mean temperatures below freezing took place in December 1878 and January 1879 while in 1963 at several stations in southern England and south Wales, mean maximum temperatures were below 0 °C in January and little higher in February
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/education/secondary/students/winter.html
June 30, 2008 at 11:22 pm
Serum, you might find this page of interest. Click on the “Comparisons” link on the right.
Wherever ‘63 comes in the pecking order, it was bloody cold. I was living in the Inner Hebrides at the time, and in one of the mildest places in the British Isles we had weeks of frost. I remember walking out onto the middle of lochs, and seeing pictures (from a special edition of the South Wales Echo) of sea ice encrusting Cardiff Docks.
I don’t think Britain will be seeing the likes of that winter again. Or frost fairs – even at Teddington…
July 1, 2008 at 9:00 am
Gareth, thank you for that link. Although I did eventually find the “Comparisons” link on the left rather than on the right (and not a play on political words) it is unfortunate that the temperature list is incomplete in the sense that for each year there is missing data for each of the months presented other than for 1684, 1740 and 1963. By taking the monthly mean temperature in Jan/Feb and averaging them for each of the years 1684 (-2.05degC), 1740 (-2.2degC) and 1963 (-1.4 degC) indicates quite clearly that for those records 1740 was the coldest snap.
From your description of the cold weather that you did experience I bet you are pleased that you are in NZ for the more milder weather.
July 1, 2008 at 9:05 am
Mild? You should see the frost on lawn this morning!
July 1, 2008 at 11:33 am
“I’m puzzled by this. The data-sets tend to show cooling since 1998.”
If you pick the maxima in 1998, and compare that point with today (well the yearly average, as today is really cold), then today is less. But two data-points don’t make a trend.
Now back to what I said. Download the temperature data. Plot it, and add in a moving average to the graph. You will still see a positive trend. Try it.
Pick 1995, and you will see an even steeper trend.
Re: Scientific method. All of the techniques are used to weight the temperatures are published. Multiple groups using different sets of data end up with similar results. Seems pretty open to me.
Also I thought the issue with access to the temperature data, was just around fees. i.e. the Met office charges money if you want to buy the raw dataset.
Sound’s a bit far fetched to suggest that it’s all a conspiracy theory driven by the scientists.
If that was the case the oil and coal companies would have figured it out long ago, and ponied up the cash to pay for a transparent review to expose it.
July 1, 2008 at 1:16 pm
Here’s a nice graph of various temperature data sets, and trend lines, since 2001. The purple OLS trend is flat (or slightly negative).
And
here’s a nice one of actual temperatures versus Jim Hansen’s 1988 predictions. This does show warming over the period, but at an even lower rate than if emissions had been cut drastically in 1990 (Hansen’s original scenario C).
And
here’s one that shows a more sophisticated trend-fitting than simple OLS provides, and goes from 1997. It shows recent cooling, but of course it is a short time period and could just be a temporary blip downwards.
And here’s a nice one of the global sea ice anomaly, showing that global sea-ice levels are currently more or less identical to the 1979-2000 average.
July 1, 2008 at 1:23 pm
“It would have been worse than standing up during a church service and denying the existence of god or the virgin birth.”
Jesus Fucking Christ. You have the temerity to compare the work of thousands of the world’s scientists (who publish their results and methodology for all to see, and criticise and critique, and after 20 years still haven’t been disproven) to a “virgin birth”. Climate science may sound a bit like “believe me” to you, but that’s because it’s bloody complicated, not because it’s mysticism.
There are however certain things that are very easily understandable, and which form the building blocks upon which the rest is formed.
The first the fact that increased carbon causes warming. This is both observed and testable in a laboratory.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_forcing
The second is the observed rise in carbon dioxide concentrations, measured continuously since 1959.
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/
Please, skepticism means knowing at least the most basic facts, not being pissed off because you’re being lectured by a sanctimonious hippy.
(Yes, this might also count as sanctimonious hippy lecturing, but I’m not interested in ‘the truth’ TM, but rather people accepting well tested scientific facts. I get equally upset when Sue Kedgely starts spouting bullshit.)
Malcolm, you’re either stupid or dishonest.
Cherry picking 2001 as the first graph does shows nothing – climate is defined by climate scientists as movement over periods of 30 years – 5 years is essentially noise.
The second graph shows quite a strong fit with Hansen C.
The third one is again cherry picking – using the hottest year on record as the starting point. But even if we give you that, the “more sophisticated” analysis is quite the opposite. If you want to prove a trend you use linear regression. Which wouldn’t give you what you want.
Your fourth point is equally useless. Arctic sea-ice anomaly shows a very clear trend. More or less identical? You’ve got to be kidding me. If you actually look at the anomaly properly – same site: http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/sea.ice.anomaly.timeseries.jpg
you see that the trend is very much downward.
July 1, 2008 at 1:55 pm
George, calm down.
I was going to make more or less the same point to Malcolm, Maksimovich and various other contributors to this thread, re endless tedious and ill-informed wrangling over data sets:
There are people who make their living analysing this kind of data. They are called ‘climatologists’. A large group of them got together and published something called the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report. Most of you would do well to read the thing rather than presume that you have more insight than thousands of the world’s top professional scientists in this field.
And note – I don’t dispute that some leading scientists do disagree with the consensus. This is probably not surprising for such a complex and rapidly-evolving branch of science.
[Poneke: Carol, it is heresy to reveal that anyone, let alone leading scientists, disagree with the Consensus. You will find crosses being burned on your lawn if you persist!]
July 1, 2008 at 2:27 pm
I missed this one the first time:
Meanwhile, over a thousand
scientistspeople have signed the Manhattan declarationFixed that for you. Jeez, David, even your link doesn’t say they’re all scientists. Careful about that not necessarily making factual statements, there.
July 1, 2008 at 2:50 pm
It’s quite interesting that of the five public spokespeople for the Manhattan Declaration, there is one actual climatologist, two television weather presenters (or ‘anchors’ as they like to call them), a professor of marketing and Fred Singer, who is in a category of his own.
All of which, I think, goes some way towards supporting Gareth’s point that this debate is heavily political.
July 1, 2008 at 2:54 pm
Carol, I appreciate your point, but I don’t think the argument from authority and majority opinion is very scientific. I would find it more convincing if, when I raised a question, I got a reasoned answer and explanation, backed by evidence. Instead, I often get the opposite (with exceptions – and kudos to Gareth in that regard). That raises my hackles and prompts me to dig for myself.
Please also remember, there are many types of expertise. Science has faced serious philosophical challenges – from post-modern analysis of its power structures, to criticisms of the philosophical basis of empirical observation and inference, to the claim that consensus knowledge depends on sociological forces rather than objective research. These are serious, well-thought out critiques by many extremely smart people.
There are methods and principles that protect science from these radical criticisms, in my view. But I don’t see them on display in the AGW debate. Instead, the public debate on the IPCC consensus sound more like the pronouncements of priests and theologians than the words of people who are willing to confront their theories with the facts.
Sorry for a second consecutive post, but I thought George deserved some answers:
(1) I thought 1998 was the “cherry picking” point. A graph starting at 2001 seems to be actively avoiding cherry picking. Starting in the mid-1970’s is also “cherry picking”, as at that time people thought it was remarkably cold, compared with normal.
(2) While there is a fit with Hansen C, I don’t believe the conditions of Hansen C were fulfilled. So the fit with Hansen C seems to be a disproof of AGW, rather than a proof.
(3) *Sigh*. The linear regression is in the first chart. This chart has a better technique than linear regression.
(4) I was posting on the global sea ice anomaly, not the arctic sea ice anomaly. It’s true that the global anomaly is usually given little precedence and is hard to find. I wonder why?
By the way, none of these are my graphs – just data analysis from other interested folks. I do notice that, unlike these graphs, none of the AGW-supporting graphs around the web have been updated with recent data. Again, I wonder why?
Must be because I’m either stupid or dishonest.
July 1, 2008 at 3:41 pm
Poneke: Carol, it is heresy to reveal that anyone, let alone leading scientists, disagree with the Consensus. You will find crosses being burned on your lawn if you persist!
Hmm. You huff and puff about the outrage of AGW skeptics being called deniers (”a terrible word coined to describe fruitcakes like David Irving who say the Holocaust never happened”), yet it’s just a friendly giggle when you liken AGW believers to the Ku Klux Klan…
Can we believers get away with this too? If I describe skeptics as “a raving lynch mob of slack-jawed inbred psychotics”, is that just good fun? I’m giving up on trying to talk sensibly, so I need to know where the insult tolerance lines are drawn.
[Poneke: Carol has a well developed sense of humour. Many True Believers could do with one, but I suppose that waking up every day believing your mission is to Save The Planet is such a burden to shoulder that there is no time for frivolity.]
July 1, 2008 at 3:41 pm
It appears to me that there are three very different “debates” being conducted simultaneously, and that they get mixed up in public perceptions.
The first is the scientific debate amongst the people working in the field. This is the detailed nitty-gritty stuff about measuring things, figuring out how things work, and seeing where that takes you. To me, that’s fascinating. It also makes for pretty sobering reading, as anyone who follows my blog will know.
The second debate is the policy debate that flows from accepting what emerges from the science, usually taken to be the IPPC findings. This is, more or less, where governments are, and politicians get stuck in. This stuff is also really fascinating, and needs to be robustly discussed and debated.
The third “debate” seems to me to be entirely sterile. It centres around the “it’s not happening/if it is, it won’t be bad” viewpoint. The motivations of those who make that sort of argument are interesting, but only from a political science point of view. Of course, the fact that there are lots of people out there unconvinced, or unwilling to be convinced (for whatever reason) of the reality or seriousness of the problem – and who are willing to campaign against action (cf NZ Climate “Science” Coalition), means that those who are convinced that we face a huge problem want to argue the veracity of their case. So we have an argument that involves science, but is not itself a scientific argument. It’s politics. And it distracts from the really important stuff going on.
As for the religious metaphor that Poneke seems so keen on, it’s a pretty sterile bit of name-calling. As a debating tactic it serves to annoy, but throws no light on anything.
July 1, 2008 at 4:06 pm
Er, thanks, Poneke .. I’ll watch for the thorns in the bunch of roses!
Malcolm, re your point (2) above: so you have disproved AGW!
Great news. Can you now turn your attention to finding a cure for cancer and ending global poverty?
(Sorry Malcolm, I also have a well developed facility for sarcasm which is entirely regrettable).
July 1, 2008 at 4:54 pm
Carol – lol! Very good. I’m sure the answer will be there in the data somewhere
We can all get a bit serious at times, but the debate’s been fun, and I’ve enjoyed your contributions and learnt a lot through the process. I think the next 18 months will clarify things – whether we have a temporary flattening or a turning point. I support cap and trade in the meantime! And I’m enjoying my bet with Gareth too – win or lose, it focuses the mind.
July 1, 2008 at 5:05 pm
Poneke, I’m sure Carol has a wonderful sense of humour. But you seem to have left your irony detector in power-saving mode.
Gareth’s outline of the different strands of “debate” is excellent, and it’s difficult to disagree with it (but I expect some will do so vehemently!). My only slight reservation is: there may be a tiny fraction of the third “debate” that’s not totally sterile. There are a few cases of equal-opportunity skeptics making reasoned critiques of some AGW-related evidence, which have been accepted and discussed as worthwhile contributions to ongoing inquiry. (I’m thinking mainly of civil contributions by skeptics on sites like Realclimate.) Certainly much of the rest, on the web, in the media and conferences, seems like pretty naked tribalism and contrarian superiority.
But I don’t think all skeptics are locked inside their own echo chambers. There has to be political value in building reasoned debate with them – I don’t mean in the sense of party politics, but of helping to achieve the necessary broad political & social consensus that NZ is still a long way from. At present, polarisation still rules, and feeds on the disconnect between the policy debate (Gareth’s second strand) and public perceptions of the issue, which are strongly influenced by the third “debate”. Can’t be good for a democratic society facing a potentially very urgent issue.
Anyway, I’m pretty tired from shouldering the burden of saving the planet. Or maybe it’s from the cat jumping on the bed at 4:30 this morning. They feel like much the same thing…
July 2, 2008 at 1:02 am
She continued: “I’m from England. What has really surprised me living here is how carefree you are. In England, we agonise all the time about whether we should take a plane, because of the carbon footprint. Here, everyone catches planes all the time. You have so much to learn.”
OMG… Who wants to bet there’s a branch in her family tree that spent most of Victoria’s reign condescending to the natives and rude colonials for God, Queen and Empire?
July 3, 2008 at 2:17 pm
Interesting discussion and good points Gareth.
The only thing I might add is I thought the line: “Science produced the Green Revolution that enabled us to feed ourselves despite the massive population increases of the past century” was a little odd.
I might have phrased it: “Science produced the Green Revolution that enabled the massive population increases of the past century.” The increase wouldn’t have happened if the food wasn’t there in the first place.
July 4, 2008 at 9:40 am
Harmless?
You could be forgiven this story is a hoax but evidently it is genuine. Use the link to check it out for yourself. Does anyone have access to the Journal?
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/melbourne_boy_first_victim_of_climate_change_delusion/
Andrew Bolt
Friday, July 04, 2008 at 06:07am
The warming preachers truly are driving people mad with fear. In the Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, Joshua Wolf and Robert Salo of Melbourne’s Royal Children’s Hospital write:
We describe a patient with climate change delusion, a previously unreported phenomenon. A 17-year-old man was referred to the inpatient psychiatric unit at Royal Children’s Hospital Melbourne with an 8 month history of depressed mood… He also …had visions of apocalyptic events…
The patient had also developed the belief that, due to climate change, his own water consumption could lead within days to the deaths of ‘millions of people’ through exhaustion of water supplies. He quoted ‘internet research’ to substantiate this. The patient described that ‘I feel guilty about it’, had attempted to stop drinking… He was unable to acknowledge that the belief was unreasonable when challenged.
July 4, 2008 at 10:03 am
Owen: And your point is? His delusion wasn’t caused by reports, one way or another, of climate change. His mental instability just picked up on a fragment and amplified it.
July 4, 2008 at 11:23 am
And Owen, sorry to break this to you, but unfortunately climate change isn’t a delusion, nor an illusion. If only it were.
July 4, 2008 at 4:04 pm
Poneke has some good company here.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121486841811817591.html
Climate change is not a delusion but catastrophic AGW is.
July 4, 2008 at 4:39 pm
On the good news front, our Kyoto liability bill has decreased from $1,009b to $480m. Reductions appear to be due to lower agriculture and transport activity. If economy continues to slow, could be a case that we could see Kyoto becoming a positive for NZ.
http://www.treasury.govt.nz/government/liabilities/kyoto/
apologies if the link doesn’t work