Depressing photo on the centre spread of the Guardian today.
They got it from the National Geographic, link here.
National Geographic copy:
At 88, Joe Jessop is an elder of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (FLDS), the controversial sect that split from the Mormon Church after it banned plural marriage. In Hildale, Utah, he has tried to fulfill his duty to build up his "celestial family"—5 wives, 46 children, and 239 grandchildren. "I've had a blessed life," he says. "I wouldn't trade places with anyone."
One man has 285 descendants in 2 generations.
Six people (Jessop and 5 wives) have multiplied their number by a factor of 47.
And he is pleased with himself. His God has blessed him. He cares nothing about reason, mathematics or ecological reality. God will provide.
God has provided us with the ability to reason, but s/he has also provided us with the ability to give reason a manual override when it does not suit our prejudices.
Ah well. 'Twas ever thus. La lutte continua. If we cannot limit our numbers, Gaia will do it for us. All we can do is try.
Showing posts with label denialism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label denialism. Show all posts
Monday, February 08, 2010
Thursday, December 31, 2009
Are Climate Computer models reliable?
A common objection of climate change "skeptics" is that the computer models are hopelessly primitive to represent the very complex climate system.
Ironically, sceptical scientists Lindzen and Spencer do use models to try to prove their point. But the models they use are primitive, simple types that exclude the many factors in the more modern models.
Models are simply computerised theories, and are necessary because of the hugely complex nature of the atmospheric system. They are not perfect, but become more accurate as knowledge increases.
However, they have made successful predictions, which does give them credibility and validity.
In 1988 James Hansen correctly predicted that global temperature would climb until 2000.
Coby Beck also lists these correct predictions:
* the warming at the surface should be accompanied by cooling of the stratosphere and this has indeed been observed
* as well as surface temperatures warming, models have long predicted warming of the lower, mid and upper troposphere even while satellite readings seemed to disagree. But it turns out the satellite analysis was full of errors and on correction, this warming has been observed
* models expect warming of ocean surface waters as is now observed
* models predict an energy imbalance between incoming sunlight and outgoing infrared radiation. This has been detected
* models predict sharp and short lived cooling of a few tenths of a degree in the event of large volcanic eruptions and Mount Pinatubo confirmed this.
* models predict an amplification of warming trends in the Arctic region and this is happening
The models can also be tested by hindcasting : rolling the time back, entering the variables into the model, and seeing if the output matches the observations. They do.
The basic position of the skeptics is that they demand perfection. Since perfection is not attainable, they will accept nothing. By rejecting modelling, they reject climate science in its totality, which means that their position is incapable of refutation, and therefore not scientific.
Ironically, sceptical scientists Lindzen and Spencer do use models to try to prove their point. But the models they use are primitive, simple types that exclude the many factors in the more modern models.
Models are simply computerised theories, and are necessary because of the hugely complex nature of the atmospheric system. They are not perfect, but become more accurate as knowledge increases.
However, they have made successful predictions, which does give them credibility and validity.
In 1988 James Hansen correctly predicted that global temperature would climb until 2000.
Coby Beck also lists these correct predictions:
* the warming at the surface should be accompanied by cooling of the stratosphere and this has indeed been observed
* as well as surface temperatures warming, models have long predicted warming of the lower, mid and upper troposphere even while satellite readings seemed to disagree. But it turns out the satellite analysis was full of errors and on correction, this warming has been observed
* models expect warming of ocean surface waters as is now observed
* models predict an energy imbalance between incoming sunlight and outgoing infrared radiation. This has been detected
* models predict sharp and short lived cooling of a few tenths of a degree in the event of large volcanic eruptions and Mount Pinatubo confirmed this.
* models predict an amplification of warming trends in the Arctic region and this is happening
The models can also be tested by hindcasting : rolling the time back, entering the variables into the model, and seeing if the output matches the observations. They do.
The basic position of the skeptics is that they demand perfection. Since perfection is not attainable, they will accept nothing. By rejecting modelling, they reject climate science in its totality, which means that their position is incapable of refutation, and therefore not scientific.
Tuesday, November 03, 2009
Talking with a libertarian climate sckeptic
KS says But if I decide that I have some quibbles about who is at fault about the climate, I am attacked and castigated.
I am very sorry this has happened to you. But try to see it from our perspective, it may make you feel less castigated and attacked.
Imagine you are in a the front passenger seat of a car, navigating, and you see from the map that the car is going down a narrowing track that leads to a crumbly cliff. You note that the terrain is changing in accordance with the map, and that pretty soon the hill and narrowness will forbid turning back. So you suggest to the driver that we stop and turn round.
Now imagine that the driver turns up the stereo, floors the accelerator, and begins to argue the point of your map reading skills with all the legal exactitude of Messers Carter Ruck on a particularly juicy and lucrative libel case?
In the circumstances, would it not be excusable, or at least humanly understandable to raise one's voice a little?
I am very sorry this has happened to you. But try to see it from our perspective, it may make you feel less castigated and attacked.
Imagine you are in a the front passenger seat of a car, navigating, and you see from the map that the car is going down a narrowing track that leads to a crumbly cliff. You note that the terrain is changing in accordance with the map, and that pretty soon the hill and narrowness will forbid turning back. So you suggest to the driver that we stop and turn round.
Now imagine that the driver turns up the stereo, floors the accelerator, and begins to argue the point of your map reading skills with all the legal exactitude of Messers Carter Ruck on a particularly juicy and lucrative libel case?
In the circumstances, would it not be excusable, or at least humanly understandable to raise one's voice a little?
Monbiot's question: What do we do about AGW denial?
There is an interesting counterpoint to the current discussion of Alan Johnson's rejection of scientific evidence on drug abuse, in the ongoing rejection of climate science by the AGW (man-caused global warming) denial lobby.
George Monbiot has an excellent piece in today's Guardian about climate change denial.
Denial in the US has risen from 44% to 74% in the last 2 years. 6 of the top 8 books on global warming are by denialists. He rips into Clive James, showing him to be a sucker, not a sceptic/skeptic. And he points to the Prostatic Problem - evidence that older men favour denial. He mentions Ernest Becker, a social anthropologist who argued that fear of death deives us to protect ourselves with "vital lies".
Denial is a real problem, in that the Copenhagen Climate change negotiations are stalled by a US Congress stacked to the ceiling with global warming denialists. Congress is a ball and chain tied to Obama's ankle, and the EU and UN are pressing for him to show leadership in addressing decarbonisation of the economy.
Monbiot's final question is -
"How do we confront this reaction of denial in the face of annihilation?"
Elisabeth Kubler-Ross wrote the classic work in answer to this question as it was posed by patients faced by death. A paychiatrist, she defined the stages of coming to terms with impending death as denial, bargaining, depression, anger and acceptance.
This could be a little depressing in itself, if we have to wait for the denialists to go through three more stages before they come to terms with reality. It is not as as bad as this, as the stages are not in a fixed linear pattern, can come as a mixture, and not everyone has to experience all five stages separately.
The denialists are angry as well as in denial. Anger seems to be the basic leitmotif of conservatives everywhere in all aspects of their thinking, as anyone who has glanced at comment lists on political blogs will know only too well. The bargaining is represented in their tactic of saying "Well, what about this link to Malinkovitch cycles/warming preceding CO2/polar bear population increasing &c" The depression stage is reflected in the well known jump that denialists make from "There is no problem" to "There is nothing anyone can do about it".
The first thing we as climate realists have to do is to recognise that we are dealing with people who have a psychological problem, not a rational problem. Sure, we can point them to places where their questions are answered, such as Real Climate, and we can point out clearly that global warming is happening now. The point about recognising that we are dealing with an irrational problem, not a rational one, will help us to avoid becoming frustrated with their inability to see what we can see. Kubler Ross is clear that the process cannot be rushed.
We should not make too close an analogy between the stages of grief and the predicament that humanity faces with AGW, since individual death is inevitable, but catastrophic climate change is not. The analogy is much closer to a nicotine addict with chronic bronchitis who is rejecting advice from his doctor that he must give up smoking. We know that he can be helped to give up, but we also recognise that the first step is that he must want to give up. Clive James and the other suckers who buy the denial story do not want to give up. They are coming towards the end of their lives anyway, so why should they not spend their children's inheritance on a flight to Disneyland?
Which brings us to the fundamental problem with the philosophy of Individualism, which is the intellectual underpinning of free-market capitalism. Have a look at the wikipedia article in the link, to get a flavour of the religious fervour of the writer. I am pleased to see that there is a Criticism chapter now inserted, and a Neutrality Dispute notice at the head. It took me several attempts to get that put in.
The basic philosophical problem with Individualism (which, interestingly, it shares with Scientific Materialism) is its ethic. There are plenty of ethical individualists, who can make the Enlightened Self-Interest argument: "If I behave in such a way as to allow others to be free, they will also allow me to be free". This is a bit of a step of faith, but it works for some. (We would argue that it works because they are tuning in to humans' social instincts). But there are plenty of others, ranging from sociopaths to Clive James' genial and quasi-amusing buffoonery, who are prepared to say "Blow you Jack, I'm all right".
So, back to the question - how to deal with denialists?
First, we can move the debate beyond the endless roundabout of academic paper-swapping to where it really stands: "What economic choices do we need to make? How does the Cost Benefit Analysis of the two options, decarbonise or Business as Usual, stack up?"
This is Cognitive Behaviour Therapy, aimed at pointing out the basic beliefs that underly their position. Their construct is "The case for AGW must be proven with mathematical certainty before I will take my foot off the accelerator". This is a wrong framing of the case, because it is not an academic argument, but an existential one, and the Cost Benefit Analysis comes down emphatically in favour of decarbonisation.
Second, reality will put an end to AGW denialism, just as death puts an end to terminal illness denialism. Something like the Great Flood of London will get the politicians to put their money where their mouth is.
Third, we can keep on keeping on, at a practical household level, implementing the 5 Rs -
Refuse (to buy unnecessary things)
Reduce (the amount we consume)
Repair (things that break)
Re-use (old underpants instead of a new J-cloth)
Recycle
We can keep on keeping on with talking, writing to papers and MPs.
We can keep on voting Green. Not nearly enough is made of the virtue and influence of the Green vote in causing the grey parties to buck their ideas up.
Fourth, we can start thinking and talking about widespread Civil Disobedience. The people are like an elephant tied to a stake with a bit of baling twine. We can easily break free. This is a serious thing to do, as a loose elephant can be a destructive force, but when the alternative is a 4*C rise in global temperature, it may become necessary. The approach I favour is to give a tiny warning tug on the string with a General Tea Break, a gentle nod in the direcion of a General Strike.
Fifth, we must not give up hope. Schumacher said, "We must do the right thing, and not worry about whether we will be successful, because if we do not do the right thing, we will be part of the problem, not part of the solution".
Green activism is like a parachute on a hang glider - it may or may not save your life, but it sure gives you something to do while you are spiralling out of control towards the ground.
George Monbiot has an excellent piece in today's Guardian about climate change denial.
Denial in the US has risen from 44% to 74% in the last 2 years. 6 of the top 8 books on global warming are by denialists. He rips into Clive James, showing him to be a sucker, not a sceptic/skeptic. And he points to the Prostatic Problem - evidence that older men favour denial. He mentions Ernest Becker, a social anthropologist who argued that fear of death deives us to protect ourselves with "vital lies".
Denial is a real problem, in that the Copenhagen Climate change negotiations are stalled by a US Congress stacked to the ceiling with global warming denialists. Congress is a ball and chain tied to Obama's ankle, and the EU and UN are pressing for him to show leadership in addressing decarbonisation of the economy.
Monbiot's final question is -
"How do we confront this reaction of denial in the face of annihilation?"
Elisabeth Kubler-Ross wrote the classic work in answer to this question as it was posed by patients faced by death. A paychiatrist, she defined the stages of coming to terms with impending death as denial, bargaining, depression, anger and acceptance.
This could be a little depressing in itself, if we have to wait for the denialists to go through three more stages before they come to terms with reality. It is not as as bad as this, as the stages are not in a fixed linear pattern, can come as a mixture, and not everyone has to experience all five stages separately.
The denialists are angry as well as in denial. Anger seems to be the basic leitmotif of conservatives everywhere in all aspects of their thinking, as anyone who has glanced at comment lists on political blogs will know only too well. The bargaining is represented in their tactic of saying "Well, what about this link to Malinkovitch cycles/warming preceding CO2/polar bear population increasing &c" The depression stage is reflected in the well known jump that denialists make from "There is no problem" to "There is nothing anyone can do about it".
The first thing we as climate realists have to do is to recognise that we are dealing with people who have a psychological problem, not a rational problem. Sure, we can point them to places where their questions are answered, such as Real Climate, and we can point out clearly that global warming is happening now. The point about recognising that we are dealing with an irrational problem, not a rational one, will help us to avoid becoming frustrated with their inability to see what we can see. Kubler Ross is clear that the process cannot be rushed.
We should not make too close an analogy between the stages of grief and the predicament that humanity faces with AGW, since individual death is inevitable, but catastrophic climate change is not. The analogy is much closer to a nicotine addict with chronic bronchitis who is rejecting advice from his doctor that he must give up smoking. We know that he can be helped to give up, but we also recognise that the first step is that he must want to give up. Clive James and the other suckers who buy the denial story do not want to give up. They are coming towards the end of their lives anyway, so why should they not spend their children's inheritance on a flight to Disneyland?
Which brings us to the fundamental problem with the philosophy of Individualism, which is the intellectual underpinning of free-market capitalism. Have a look at the wikipedia article in the link, to get a flavour of the religious fervour of the writer. I am pleased to see that there is a Criticism chapter now inserted, and a Neutrality Dispute notice at the head. It took me several attempts to get that put in.
The basic philosophical problem with Individualism (which, interestingly, it shares with Scientific Materialism) is its ethic. There are plenty of ethical individualists, who can make the Enlightened Self-Interest argument: "If I behave in such a way as to allow others to be free, they will also allow me to be free". This is a bit of a step of faith, but it works for some. (We would argue that it works because they are tuning in to humans' social instincts). But there are plenty of others, ranging from sociopaths to Clive James' genial and quasi-amusing buffoonery, who are prepared to say "Blow you Jack, I'm all right".
So, back to the question - how to deal with denialists?
First, we can move the debate beyond the endless roundabout of academic paper-swapping to where it really stands: "What economic choices do we need to make? How does the Cost Benefit Analysis of the two options, decarbonise or Business as Usual, stack up?"
This is Cognitive Behaviour Therapy, aimed at pointing out the basic beliefs that underly their position. Their construct is "The case for AGW must be proven with mathematical certainty before I will take my foot off the accelerator". This is a wrong framing of the case, because it is not an academic argument, but an existential one, and the Cost Benefit Analysis comes down emphatically in favour of decarbonisation.
Second, reality will put an end to AGW denialism, just as death puts an end to terminal illness denialism. Something like the Great Flood of London will get the politicians to put their money where their mouth is.
Third, we can keep on keeping on, at a practical household level, implementing the 5 Rs -
Refuse (to buy unnecessary things)
Reduce (the amount we consume)
Repair (things that break)
Re-use (old underpants instead of a new J-cloth)
Recycle
We can keep on keeping on with talking, writing to papers and MPs.
We can keep on voting Green. Not nearly enough is made of the virtue and influence of the Green vote in causing the grey parties to buck their ideas up.
Fourth, we can start thinking and talking about widespread Civil Disobedience. The people are like an elephant tied to a stake with a bit of baling twine. We can easily break free. This is a serious thing to do, as a loose elephant can be a destructive force, but when the alternative is a 4*C rise in global temperature, it may become necessary. The approach I favour is to give a tiny warning tug on the string with a General Tea Break, a gentle nod in the direcion of a General Strike.
Fifth, we must not give up hope. Schumacher said, "We must do the right thing, and not worry about whether we will be successful, because if we do not do the right thing, we will be part of the problem, not part of the solution".
Green activism is like a parachute on a hang glider - it may or may not save your life, but it sure gives you something to do while you are spiralling out of control towards the ground.
Monday, October 26, 2009
The case for a General Pause to counter Global Heating
Weggis has asked my opinion on the best treatment for the climate change denialists such as Clive James, Richard Littlejohn, Jeremy Clarkson and Melanie Phillips.
Denial. It's a very difficult condition to treat, because it is a psychological ego defence mechanisms set in place in order to blank out information that would tend to take them out of an existing in a comfort zone. Apologies if this sound like psychobabble. It really is not. It's quite simple; we all do it; forgetting to go to the dentist involves denial.
The model lies in addiction treatment, and as you point out, James, Clarkson, Littlejohn and their gullible readers are addicted to the carbon based lifestyle. As we all are, but some of us want to break the addiction before it kills us, but Clive, Richard, Jerry and Mel have no intention or desire whatsoever to break their habit.
Therapists agree that the addict has to come up smack against the wall of reality before they can start to be motivated to make the challenging life style changes that they need. Once they have done that, recovery is possible, and my 30 year experience convinces me that the 12-step process of Alcoholics Anonymous is the most successful approach, certainly for alcoholics.
It is the reality testing that we are waiting for at the moment , which is why, sadly, I think it is going to take something in the order of a Great Flood of London to make our leaders turn their talk into walk.
The alternative to waiting for disaster to start the process of the transition to a green, decarbonised economy, is a General Strike. Since the people are far from being ready for this at the moment, we should start with a little General Pause: (or perhaps, General Tea-break) a ten minute delay in work, which we spend discussing AGW with our work colleagues. This should take place on Monday at 10am until 10:10am
The idea of the General Pause/Tea-break is that it is slight enough for people to do it without fear, and not enough for productivity to be threatened so that it is not a sackable offence. On the other hand, once it has spread to a critical mass of the workforce, and associated with slightly more asertive means, such as turning off lights, and putting computers on standby, employers and politicians will see in it the seeds of a potential General Strike, and this may move them to start to take action on AGW instead of continuing with their meaningless chuntering and blithering about how good they are at solving it.
I have to say, before the ubiquitous Anonymous steps in to say it for me, that it is all very well for me to advocate the General Pause, because I am retired. However, I do locums, and sometimes my locums are on Mondays, so I could request no bookings at 10am, and go and speak to the patients in the waiting room.
Denial. It's a very difficult condition to treat, because it is a psychological ego defence mechanisms set in place in order to blank out information that would tend to take them out of an existing in a comfort zone. Apologies if this sound like psychobabble. It really is not. It's quite simple; we all do it; forgetting to go to the dentist involves denial.
The model lies in addiction treatment, and as you point out, James, Clarkson, Littlejohn and their gullible readers are addicted to the carbon based lifestyle. As we all are, but some of us want to break the addiction before it kills us, but Clive, Richard, Jerry and Mel have no intention or desire whatsoever to break their habit.
Therapists agree that the addict has to come up smack against the wall of reality before they can start to be motivated to make the challenging life style changes that they need. Once they have done that, recovery is possible, and my 30 year experience convinces me that the 12-step process of Alcoholics Anonymous is the most successful approach, certainly for alcoholics.
It is the reality testing that we are waiting for at the moment , which is why, sadly, I think it is going to take something in the order of a Great Flood of London to make our leaders turn their talk into walk.
The alternative to waiting for disaster to start the process of the transition to a green, decarbonised economy, is a General Strike. Since the people are far from being ready for this at the moment, we should start with a little General Pause: (or perhaps, General Tea-break) a ten minute delay in work, which we spend discussing AGW with our work colleagues. This should take place on Monday at 10am until 10:10am
The idea of the General Pause/Tea-break is that it is slight enough for people to do it without fear, and not enough for productivity to be threatened so that it is not a sackable offence. On the other hand, once it has spread to a critical mass of the workforce, and associated with slightly more asertive means, such as turning off lights, and putting computers on standby, employers and politicians will see in it the seeds of a potential General Strike, and this may move them to start to take action on AGW instead of continuing with their meaningless chuntering and blithering about how good they are at solving it.
I have to say, before the ubiquitous Anonymous steps in to say it for me, that it is all very well for me to advocate the General Pause, because I am retired. However, I do locums, and sometimes my locums are on Mondays, so I could request no bookings at 10am, and go and speak to the patients in the waiting room.
Tuesday, August 04, 2009
Peak Oil - someone has finally noticed there is an elephant in the room.
The Independent yesterday gave its front page over to Peak Oil. Fair play to them for bringing it into public consciousness - a mere 53 years after Hubbert first raised the science of oil field depletion. As Eyore said, Give Rabbit time, and he'll always get the answer".
Or if you prefer, it is 27 years since the Club of Rome published "Limits to Growth".
Jeremy Leggett, writing in the Indie, quotes Gillian Tett, writing about how the financial experts failed to notice what was going on with the derivatives market. Elites exert "ideological domination" to maintain power, and determine what can be discussed in the public sphere, and what will be dismissed as idealistic woolly hatted conspiracy theory nonsense.
For 30 years the Green Party have been speaking sweet reason about the need to challenge the world's manic belief that it is possible to expand forever in a limited space. We have to continue with this reason, but at the same time, we have to appreciate that our target audience of opinion formers is not in fact driven by reason, but by irrational short term self interest. The thing that will bring about change is not intellectual argument, but reality. The limits to growth will only be generally appreciated when the train actually crashes into the buffers at the end of the track.
.
Or if you prefer, it is 27 years since the Club of Rome published "Limits to Growth".
Jeremy Leggett, writing in the Indie, quotes Gillian Tett, writing about how the financial experts failed to notice what was going on with the derivatives market. Elites exert "ideological domination" to maintain power, and determine what can be discussed in the public sphere, and what will be dismissed as idealistic woolly hatted conspiracy theory nonsense.
For 30 years the Green Party have been speaking sweet reason about the need to challenge the world's manic belief that it is possible to expand forever in a limited space. We have to continue with this reason, but at the same time, we have to appreciate that our target audience of opinion formers is not in fact driven by reason, but by irrational short term self interest. The thing that will bring about change is not intellectual argument, but reality. The limits to growth will only be generally appreciated when the train actually crashes into the buffers at the end of the track.
Thursday, March 19, 2009
Sustainability? Never mind the reasoning, just feel the poople!
Good luck to the Sustainable Development UK 09 Conference which is taking place today in London. They say "Soaring oil prices, global food shortages and rising carbon emissions mean now is the time for decisive action by all those concerned with the role that sustainability plays in the future safety and security of the UK".
This attracts the attention of the Today Programme, and our John interviews Prof Beddington.
John Humphreys takes the line that there is nothing we can do about population increase, energy, food and water. I know he does not mean it (or maybe he does), he is just being adversarial, which is presumably in his job contract: Para3.5.4: "If an interviewee makes any statement, you are obliged, not to seek clarification, but to put the opposite point of view".
The result of adversarial interviewing is a sense of confusion and frustration in the listeners, going on to nihilism. This, in my view, is not helpful especially when dealing with serious global problems. We need to be solution-oriented.
How much better it would be if John Humphrys had said,
Population is a very emotive issue, but would it not be sensible for Governments to say to their citizens, "We will undertake to feed you, if you will undertake to restrict your offspring to replacement levels".
Even this would draw criticism from some listeners, but at least it is a constructive approach that suggests the idea that we are not all doomed, and there is nothing we can do.
Prof Beddington said, first, recognise there is a problem. This in itself is difficult enough. Denialism is rampant, whether primary denialism, not wanting to face up to the fact that humanity is in deep doo-doo unless it makes radical changes in the way it goes about things, or secondary denialism, because the radical changes required clash with deeply held beliefs regarding the need for the privileged few to live their individual live lives free of any restraint on doing exactly what they want to do.
We face a clash between logic and emotion, reason and ideology.
Logic says that since the trends on water, food, and energy show that we are on a course that ends in disaster, it follows that we should take action.
Emotion says that to change the habit of a lifetime is a drag, and it would be better to continue as we are doing, and hope for the best.
Reason says that decarbonising our economy is possible, but will take a huge effort, so we had best start today.
Ideology says that decarbonising our economy is a challenge to free market fundamentalism, so should be deferred as long as possible.
Logic says that human population cannot expand forever into a finite space, but ideology says that the Pope and the Hadith both agree that God/Allah want Catholic and Muslim populations to expand forever, even if it means widespread starvation, eco-degradation and war.
It would be easy to get a bit depressed and cynical over all of this. However, it takes a long time and many nautical miles to turn a supertanker around, and this may explain why it is taking so long to get any action on population, water management, food production and distribution and global warming. I have been in the Green Party for 30 years, and I can say that never have our concerns been so high up on the political and scientific agenda, nor at so high a level of the political pyramid. The Green Party in the UK is still to a very great extent shut out of the political and mass media process, but our time will come. Politicians and corporate media can feel some of the poople some of the time, and they can poop on some of the fools all of the time, but they cannot pop all of the feebles all of the time. Something like that.
Anyway, it's a lovely day, and I'm off out to plant some seeds.
This attracts the attention of the Today Programme, and our John interviews Prof Beddington.
John Humphreys takes the line that there is nothing we can do about population increase, energy, food and water. I know he does not mean it (or maybe he does), he is just being adversarial, which is presumably in his job contract: Para3.5.4: "If an interviewee makes any statement, you are obliged, not to seek clarification, but to put the opposite point of view".
The result of adversarial interviewing is a sense of confusion and frustration in the listeners, going on to nihilism. This, in my view, is not helpful especially when dealing with serious global problems. We need to be solution-oriented.
How much better it would be if John Humphrys had said,
Population is a very emotive issue, but would it not be sensible for Governments to say to their citizens, "We will undertake to feed you, if you will undertake to restrict your offspring to replacement levels".
Even this would draw criticism from some listeners, but at least it is a constructive approach that suggests the idea that we are not all doomed, and there is nothing we can do.
Prof Beddington said, first, recognise there is a problem. This in itself is difficult enough. Denialism is rampant, whether primary denialism, not wanting to face up to the fact that humanity is in deep doo-doo unless it makes radical changes in the way it goes about things, or secondary denialism, because the radical changes required clash with deeply held beliefs regarding the need for the privileged few to live their individual live lives free of any restraint on doing exactly what they want to do.
We face a clash between logic and emotion, reason and ideology.
Logic says that since the trends on water, food, and energy show that we are on a course that ends in disaster, it follows that we should take action.
Emotion says that to change the habit of a lifetime is a drag, and it would be better to continue as we are doing, and hope for the best.
Reason says that decarbonising our economy is possible, but will take a huge effort, so we had best start today.
Ideology says that decarbonising our economy is a challenge to free market fundamentalism, so should be deferred as long as possible.
Logic says that human population cannot expand forever into a finite space, but ideology says that the Pope and the Hadith both agree that God/Allah want Catholic and Muslim populations to expand forever, even if it means widespread starvation, eco-degradation and war.
It would be easy to get a bit depressed and cynical over all of this. However, it takes a long time and many nautical miles to turn a supertanker around, and this may explain why it is taking so long to get any action on population, water management, food production and distribution and global warming. I have been in the Green Party for 30 years, and I can say that never have our concerns been so high up on the political and scientific agenda, nor at so high a level of the political pyramid. The Green Party in the UK is still to a very great extent shut out of the political and mass media process, but our time will come. Politicians and corporate media can feel some of the poople some of the time, and they can poop on some of the fools all of the time, but they cannot pop all of the feebles all of the time. Something like that.
Anyway, it's a lovely day, and I'm off out to plant some seeds.
Saturday, March 14, 2009
Is the game up for climate change skeptics?
Sponsored by the free market fundamentalist Heartland Institute, up to 600 elderly men gathered at the 2009 International Conference on Climate Change to refresh their convictions that the International Panel on Climate Change is wrong, and that they are right.
The keynote address was delivered by "Lord" Christopher Monckton. He begins:
"Where are they all today, those bed-wetting moaning Minnies of the Apocalyptic Traffic-Light Tendency--those Greens too yellow to admit they’re really Reds?"
Such a well argued question clearly demands a response. They are to be found here, if it please your lordship, and their conclusions are here.
More to the point for the Noble Lord, Lord Monckton is, where are they today, those doughty sceptics of received scientific "wisdom", the Flat Earth Research Society? Their present location is not certain, but their arguments are set out as clearly as those of the climate change sckepticks, in this location here. The climate change denialists (preferable term, as some self-styled english speakers have such trouble spelling "sceptic") would be well advised to contact the rump of flat earthers as fertile recruiting ground since they are going to need recruits in a few years' time. Maybe they should contact the Immortalists while they are at it, given the advancing age of International Conference on Climate Change attendees...
The last few months have not been kind to the climate change sckepticks. "large corporations like Exxon Mobil, which in the past financed the Heartland Institute and other groups that challenged the climate consensus, have reduced support. Many such companies no longer dispute that the greenhouse gases produced by burning fossil fuels pose risks.
From 1998 to 2006, Exxon Mobil, for example, contributed more than $600,000 to Heartland, according to annual reports of charitable contributions from the company and company foundations.
Alan T. Jeffers, a spokesman for Exxon Mobil, said by e-mail that the company had ended support “to several public policy research groups whose position on climate change could divert attention from the important discussion about how the world will secure the energy required for economic growth in an environmentally responsible manner.”
To round off their unhappiness, Al Gore, still in control of his bladder despite months of name calling activities on the part of the AGW-septics, is delivering a non-moaning, up-beat message, arguing that a political tipping point is about to happen, with a massive global effort to decarbonise the economy.
This is not to say that we should not seek out and contradict influential septicks like Melanie Phillips and Christopher Hitchens.
Just copy and paste the following into their comment slots. It doesn't take more than a few seconds, and it can help save humanity:
In the end, this is not an academic debate, because we and our children are part of the experiment. The consensus among scientists (yes, with a few exceptions, as is always the case in science) that we should decarbonise our economy as a matter of urgency.
Say we decarbonise our economy, and it turns out that AGW theory is wrong? Well, we will have created hundreds of thousands of jobs in insulation and manufacturing and taken thousands out of fuel poverty. Not bad, but that's not all. We will also have reduced the shock of Peak Oil and Peak Gas. And addressed our energy security problems. And prosperity in hot countries. Not bad.
Say we go the way of the denialists/sceptics? We will have problems with energy security, Peak Oil, Peak Gas, fuel poverty, unemployment, poverty, civil unrest and finally, massive, catastrophic climate disruption from droughts, floods, crop failures, disease, and war. With massive migration caused by environmental collapse. Not good.
If I were a betting man, I would put my money on decarbonising the global economy.
I'm sure Pascal would agree.
The keynote address was delivered by "Lord" Christopher Monckton. He begins:
"Where are they all today, those bed-wetting moaning Minnies of the Apocalyptic Traffic-Light Tendency--those Greens too yellow to admit they’re really Reds?"
Such a well argued question clearly demands a response. They are to be found here, if it please your lordship, and their conclusions are here.
More to the point for the Noble Lord, Lord Monckton is, where are they today, those doughty sceptics of received scientific "wisdom", the Flat Earth Research Society? Their present location is not certain, but their arguments are set out as clearly as those of the climate change sckepticks, in this location here. The climate change denialists (preferable term, as some self-styled english speakers have such trouble spelling "sceptic") would be well advised to contact the rump of flat earthers as fertile recruiting ground since they are going to need recruits in a few years' time. Maybe they should contact the Immortalists while they are at it, given the advancing age of International Conference on Climate Change attendees...
The last few months have not been kind to the climate change sckepticks. "large corporations like Exxon Mobil, which in the past financed the Heartland Institute and other groups that challenged the climate consensus, have reduced support. Many such companies no longer dispute that the greenhouse gases produced by burning fossil fuels pose risks.
From 1998 to 2006, Exxon Mobil, for example, contributed more than $600,000 to Heartland, according to annual reports of charitable contributions from the company and company foundations.
Alan T. Jeffers, a spokesman for Exxon Mobil, said by e-mail that the company had ended support “to several public policy research groups whose position on climate change could divert attention from the important discussion about how the world will secure the energy required for economic growth in an environmentally responsible manner.”
To round off their unhappiness, Al Gore, still in control of his bladder despite months of name calling activities on the part of the AGW-septics, is delivering a non-moaning, up-beat message, arguing that a political tipping point is about to happen, with a massive global effort to decarbonise the economy.
This is not to say that we should not seek out and contradict influential septicks like Melanie Phillips and Christopher Hitchens.
Just copy and paste the following into their comment slots. It doesn't take more than a few seconds, and it can help save humanity:
In the end, this is not an academic debate, because we and our children are part of the experiment. The consensus among scientists (yes, with a few exceptions, as is always the case in science) that we should decarbonise our economy as a matter of urgency.
Say we decarbonise our economy, and it turns out that AGW theory is wrong? Well, we will have created hundreds of thousands of jobs in insulation and manufacturing and taken thousands out of fuel poverty. Not bad, but that's not all. We will also have reduced the shock of Peak Oil and Peak Gas. And addressed our energy security problems. And prosperity in hot countries. Not bad.
Say we go the way of the denialists/sceptics? We will have problems with energy security, Peak Oil, Peak Gas, fuel poverty, unemployment, poverty, civil unrest and finally, massive, catastrophic climate disruption from droughts, floods, crop failures, disease, and war. With massive migration caused by environmental collapse. Not good.
If I were a betting man, I would put my money on decarbonising the global economy.
I'm sure Pascal would agree.
Sunday, February 15, 2009
Debate with a Climate Change sceptic
Dash RIPROCK III has commented on the David Bellamy piece below. I have replied here, rather than in the comment slot, as they can be overlooked.
Hi Mr Riprock
Thanks you for pasting in your thoughts, which I also find here:
Your comments are in italics:
“The UN IPCC is a political body”
Here’s how they describe themselves:
The IPCC is a scientific intergovernmental body set up by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). Its constituency is made of :
· The governments: the IPCC is open to all member countries of WMO and UNEP. Governments of participate in plenary Sessions of the IPCC where main decisions about the IPCC work programme are taken and reports are accepted, adopted and approved. They also participate the review of IPCC Reports.
· The scientists: hundreds of scientists all over the world contribute to the work of the IPCC as authors, contributors and reviewers.
· The people: as United Nations body, the IPCC work aims at the promotion of the United Nations human development goals(http://www.ipcc.ch/about/index.htm)
“spitting out reports that are designed to support a predetermined political agenda”.
Please back this claim. What is the predetermined political agenda? Are you suggesting that there is a conspiracy on the part of politicians to boost the energy conservation industries. or what?
”As for Al Gore:”
I did not mention Al Gore in the piece, so will not discuss his film here, (Real Climate discusses it here) but I will address your point about the “mediaeval warming period”.
Brain Angliss summarises : “The evidence used by most scientists that believe this claim is anecdotal at best and that while this evidence applies regionally to the area between Greenland and the Ural Mountains, there is not yet enough evidence to support this claim on a hemispherical basis, never mind a global basis”.
This is developed in more detail here. Nielsen, R. 2005, 'Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age Myths', http://home.iprimus.com.au/nielsens/.
”He also stated that sea level would rise by 20 feet by the end of the century. Even the UN IPCC (hardly conservative on this issue) estimates only 4 to 36 inches”
“The sea level rise numbers published in the new IPCC report (the Fourth Assessment Report, AR4) have already caused considerable confusion. Many media articles and weblogs suggested there is good news on the sea level issue, with future sea level rise expected to be a lot less compared to the previous IPCC report (the Third Assessment Report, TAR). Some articles reported that IPCC had reduced its sea level projection from 88 cm to 59 cm (35 inches to 23 inches) , some even said it was reduced from 88 cm to 43 cm (17 inches), and there were several other versions as well (see "Broad Irony"). These statements are not correct and the new range up to 59 cm is not the full story.” http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=427
There is a full discussion of seal level rise here.
”…claims that for the first time ever, a significant number of polar bears had drowned. First of all, they can swim around fifty miles.”
Arctic sea ice is declining. Therefore polar bears are losing their habitat. Therefore they will die off in proportion to their loss of habitat, except those that manage to adapt to new habitats. Period.
Do not be fooled by reports that Arctic sea ice is extending. There is more room for temporary sea ice to form in winter, precisely because there is now more sea room for this to happen.
"Furthermore, he quotes a quickly debunked paper suggesting there is a 100% consensus among scientists that anthropogenic global warming is real. Here are a few scientists who must have missed the memo:http://www.hootervillegazette.com/GlobalWarming.html"
Before we pay any attention to these surveys, we need to know that they are validated, that is, that the signatories are all scientists with expertise in atmospheric physics. It is not enough simply to tick the PhD box on the form. I am holding (for reference) an email offering me a PhD; no work needed, just a fee…
Here is the evidence on the consensus.
”It is worth noting that a UK Court ruled that AIT contained many errors and should not be shown in public schools without a warning about the errors”.
I think I can speak for everyone here by saying that UK judges are a law unto themselves, and their judgments, especially in matters of science, are of next to no value at all.
Thanks for commenting, I hope this helps, and good wishes to all in Hooterville.
Hi Mr Riprock
Thanks you for pasting in your thoughts, which I also find here:
Your comments are in italics:
“The UN IPCC is a political body”
Here’s how they describe themselves:
The IPCC is a scientific intergovernmental body set up by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). Its constituency is made of :
· The governments: the IPCC is open to all member countries of WMO and UNEP. Governments of participate in plenary Sessions of the IPCC where main decisions about the IPCC work programme are taken and reports are accepted, adopted and approved. They also participate the review of IPCC Reports.
· The scientists: hundreds of scientists all over the world contribute to the work of the IPCC as authors, contributors and reviewers.
· The people: as United Nations body, the IPCC work aims at the promotion of the United Nations human development goals(http://www.ipcc.ch/about/index.htm)
“spitting out reports that are designed to support a predetermined political agenda”.
Please back this claim. What is the predetermined political agenda? Are you suggesting that there is a conspiracy on the part of politicians to boost the energy conservation industries. or what?
”As for Al Gore:”
I did not mention Al Gore in the piece, so will not discuss his film here, (Real Climate discusses it here) but I will address your point about the “mediaeval warming period”.
Brain Angliss summarises : “The evidence used by most scientists that believe this claim is anecdotal at best and that while this evidence applies regionally to the area between Greenland and the Ural Mountains, there is not yet enough evidence to support this claim on a hemispherical basis, never mind a global basis”.
This is developed in more detail here. Nielsen, R. 2005, 'Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age Myths', http://home.iprimus.com.au/nielsens/.
”He also stated that sea level would rise by 20 feet by the end of the century. Even the UN IPCC (hardly conservative on this issue) estimates only 4 to 36 inches”
“The sea level rise numbers published in the new IPCC report (the Fourth Assessment Report, AR4) have already caused considerable confusion. Many media articles and weblogs suggested there is good news on the sea level issue, with future sea level rise expected to be a lot less compared to the previous IPCC report (the Third Assessment Report, TAR). Some articles reported that IPCC had reduced its sea level projection from 88 cm to 59 cm (35 inches to 23 inches) , some even said it was reduced from 88 cm to 43 cm (17 inches), and there were several other versions as well (see "Broad Irony"). These statements are not correct and the new range up to 59 cm is not the full story.” http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=427
There is a full discussion of seal level rise here.
”…claims that for the first time ever, a significant number of polar bears had drowned. First of all, they can swim around fifty miles.”
Arctic sea ice is declining. Therefore polar bears are losing their habitat. Therefore they will die off in proportion to their loss of habitat, except those that manage to adapt to new habitats. Period.
Do not be fooled by reports that Arctic sea ice is extending. There is more room for temporary sea ice to form in winter, precisely because there is now more sea room for this to happen.
"Furthermore, he quotes a quickly debunked paper suggesting there is a 100% consensus among scientists that anthropogenic global warming is real. Here are a few scientists who must have missed the memo:http://www.hootervillegazette.com/GlobalWarming.html"
Before we pay any attention to these surveys, we need to know that they are validated, that is, that the signatories are all scientists with expertise in atmospheric physics. It is not enough simply to tick the PhD box on the form. I am holding (for reference) an email offering me a PhD; no work needed, just a fee…
Here is the evidence on the consensus.
”It is worth noting that a UK Court ruled that AIT contained many errors and should not be shown in public schools without a warning about the errors”.
I think I can speak for everyone here by saying that UK judges are a law unto themselves, and their judgments, especially in matters of science, are of next to no value at all.
Thanks for commenting, I hope this helps, and good wishes to all in Hooterville.
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
Product placement and beyond...
Just been surfing Wikipedia, beginning with Product placement, viral marketing astroturfing, shills, stealth marketing. We are being manipulated, not just through overt advertising, but through covert invasions of our everyday lives.
I'm thinking of the climate change denialist trolls who live on OpenDemocracy, and I'm thinking of Exxon's tentacles stretching into academia.
Here's a bit of evidence that the denialism industry can sometimes be due to undercover marketing:
In August 2006, a science journalist for the Wall Street Journal[11] revealed that a YouTube video, "Al Gore's Penguin Army", which was claimed to be an amateur work, in fact came from the computers of DCI Group, a Washington, D.C.-based PR firm whose client list includes ExxonMobil and General Motors. (See Al Gore's Phttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Undercover_marketingenguin Army video controversy.) This hoax was discovered when journalist Antonio Ragalado noticed that the YouTube video was the first sponsored listing when he performed a Google search for Al Gore. The fact that someone was paid to have the alleged amateur film promoted was in itself suspicious.[12]
Bit depressing really. Think I'll go and have a cup of tea.
I'm thinking of the climate change denialist trolls who live on OpenDemocracy, and I'm thinking of Exxon's tentacles stretching into academia.
Here's a bit of evidence that the denialism industry can sometimes be due to undercover marketing:
In August 2006, a science journalist for the Wall Street Journal[11] revealed that a YouTube video, "Al Gore's Penguin Army", which was claimed to be an amateur work, in fact came from the computers of DCI Group, a Washington, D.C.-based PR firm whose client list includes ExxonMobil and General Motors. (See Al Gore's Phttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Undercover_marketingenguin Army video controversy.) This hoax was discovered when journalist Antonio Ragalado noticed that the YouTube video was the first sponsored listing when he performed a Google search for Al Gore. The fact that someone was paid to have the alleged amateur film promoted was in itself suspicious.[12]
Bit depressing really. Think I'll go and have a cup of tea.
Monday, January 26, 2009
Polar Bear floats through the Great Wen
A life-like 16ft high sculpture of an iceberg featuring a stranded polar bear and its cub was launched on the Thames today to mark the launch of the new Natural History TV channel Eden.
Eden’s programming starts at 9am, Monday 26th January 2009, with Attenborough Explores...Our Fragile World at 10pm. Further information about the programmes can be found at: www.exploreeden.co.uk
Sir David Attenborough: “The melting of the polar bears’ sea ice habitat is one of the most pressing environmental concerns of our time. I commend Eden for highlighting the issue; we need to do what we can to protect the world’s largest land carnivores from extinction.”
Eden goes live at 9am on 26th January with a schedule packed full of high-end premieres. From the scale and beauty of Superstorm, Ganges and Wild China to the revelation and intimacy of Tribe (series 3), Elephant Diaries (series 2) and Tribal Wives – that will play alongside landmark series such as Planet Earth, Ray Mears’ Extreme Survival, Life of Mammals and Full Circle with Michael Palin. A complementary website with the url www.exploreeden.co.uk goes live on the same day.
Eden can be found on:
Sky Channel: 532
Virgin TV Channel: 208
-------------
Richard Lawson: The retreat of the ice is the most easily understood key piece of evidence of global Warming. I recall that the Koguis noticed years ago that the snow level at the place they did their rituals was gradually rising, and ascribed it to the actions of the "Younger Brother" - that's us.
To anticipate argumentative comments from climate denialists, I am not claiming that the observed fact that the planetary ice cover is nearly everywhere in retreat does "scientifically prove" that we have to decarbonise our economy. Nothing is ever "proven" in science, only "not-yet-disproven".
What we are claiming is that we have enough scientific evidence to convince 99% of serious atmospheric scientists that there is an urgent political need to decarbonise the world economy. That should be enough to convince every human on the planet, with the sole exception of the climate change denialists, who will never be convinced, any more than a person with anrexia nervosa can be convinced that they are not fat when they look in a mirror.
Fixing the global atmospheric crisis is a huge economic challenge, almost as expensive in the short term as fixing the global debt crisis. But we can be a lot more confident about getting positive outcomes by of putting money into the physical energy systems.
Renewable energy is a better investment than the City of London. A better bet.
The beauty of it is that in fixing the ecological problem, we will also be fixing the economic problem.
Monday, December 22, 2008
Climate change denialist Myth#6 : CO2 reduction will not work
"Anonymous", in a comment to this blog , challenges me to demonstrate that “That trying to limit CO2 emissions will actually accomplish something”. So let us look at
Myth No. 6: “Limiting CO2 emissions will not have any effect on global warming”
Certainly, if you are a denialist who does not accept the basic physical observation of the Greenhouse Effect, or if you do not accept the fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, reducing CO2 will not affect the climate one bit.
If, with the scientific community, we accept the physics of the Greenhouse Effect, then CO2 emission reduction is necessary, but not sufficient. It must be part of a range of measures on all GFGs (Greenhouse Forcing Gases), the first being to stop their growth, then reducing them down to as near zero as practically possible. This will be achieved by working on energy efficiency and renewable energy technologies.
At the same time, mankind must also carefully defend and support the carbon sinks in soil, vegetation, and oceans, thus aiding the Earth’s natural ability to absorb CO2.
These measures will reduce the atmospheric GFGs, and atmospheric science predicts that catastrophic AGW will be averted.
The act of addressing AGW, which is going to be a mighty economic undertaking, similar to the way we geared up for war in 1940, will also address the current serious economic recession according to Keynesian theory - the Green New Deal. This debunks another favourite Denialist Myth that says "Coming off Carbon will ruin the economy". In fact, the project of coming off carbon will pull the world economy out of recession.
So by coming off the carbon economy and entering the Solar Age, we can make a difference not just to the world environment, but to society and the economy at the same time.
Let's look at it this way: it is in the nature of science that its theories must be capable of being disproven by unexpected observations in the future.
I, along with the overwhelming majority of the scientific community, hold to the AGW theory.
Anonymous, along with an insignificant minority of scientists, is in denial, sorry, is sceptical (=skeptical) of AGW.
If we are wrong, we have still pulled the world economy out of a serious recession, we have taken the sting out of Peak Oil, and avoided a host of pollution problems. Not a bad way to be wrong.
Anonymous, if you are wrong, and the earth heats up by 2 degrees Celsius, do you know what will happen? Or at 4 degrees? Or 6?
Any denialist who wishes to comment, please put "global warming effects" into any search engine, and summarise the picture in a few sentences in your own words at the beginning of your comment.
Myth No. 6: “Limiting CO2 emissions will not have any effect on global warming”
Certainly, if you are a denialist who does not accept the basic physical observation of the Greenhouse Effect, or if you do not accept the fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, reducing CO2 will not affect the climate one bit.
If, with the scientific community, we accept the physics of the Greenhouse Effect, then CO2 emission reduction is necessary, but not sufficient. It must be part of a range of measures on all GFGs (Greenhouse Forcing Gases), the first being to stop their growth, then reducing them down to as near zero as practically possible. This will be achieved by working on energy efficiency and renewable energy technologies.
At the same time, mankind must also carefully defend and support the carbon sinks in soil, vegetation, and oceans, thus aiding the Earth’s natural ability to absorb CO2.
These measures will reduce the atmospheric GFGs, and atmospheric science predicts that catastrophic AGW will be averted.
The act of addressing AGW, which is going to be a mighty economic undertaking, similar to the way we geared up for war in 1940, will also address the current serious economic recession according to Keynesian theory - the Green New Deal. This debunks another favourite Denialist Myth that says "Coming off Carbon will ruin the economy". In fact, the project of coming off carbon will pull the world economy out of recession.
So by coming off the carbon economy and entering the Solar Age, we can make a difference not just to the world environment, but to society and the economy at the same time.
Let's look at it this way: it is in the nature of science that its theories must be capable of being disproven by unexpected observations in the future.
I, along with the overwhelming majority of the scientific community, hold to the AGW theory.
Anonymous, along with an insignificant minority of scientists, is in denial, sorry, is sceptical (=skeptical) of AGW.
If we are wrong, we have still pulled the world economy out of a serious recession, we have taken the sting out of Peak Oil, and avoided a host of pollution problems. Not a bad way to be wrong.
Anonymous, if you are wrong, and the earth heats up by 2 degrees Celsius, do you know what will happen? Or at 4 degrees? Or 6?
Any denialist who wishes to comment, please put "global warming effects" into any search engine, and summarise the picture in a few sentences in your own words at the beginning of your comment.
Sunday, December 21, 2008
Climate change Denialists: what to do about them?
Debate on the Green Party climate list about what to to with climate change deniers. I have spent time on OpenDemocracy.net clashing with these guys. They are very troll-like, utterly dogged, and work by seizing on some fact or factoid, and presenting it as the clinching piece that will overthrow the thousands of papers by serious climate scientists who have arrived at consensus that climate change is caused my our emmissions, climate change is very serious indeed, more serious than terrorism, and that we should have a technological revolution in the way we source our energy.
This view is a threat to the oil industry, and also to the particular form of capitalism advocated by free market fundamentalists. George Soros uses this term, and it identifies that it is close in many ways to a religion, based on the philosophy of individualism. I find that the strictest adherents are the libertarians.
One characteristic of this movement it its use of insult instead of argument.
It is tempting to ignore their rantings, because talking to them is like trying to discuss literature with someone who cannot read. But if we leave them alone, they will influence many good people with their idiosyncratic theories.
The evidence that climate change is not a theory, but a fact, is here.
More later.
This view is a threat to the oil industry, and also to the particular form of capitalism advocated by free market fundamentalists. George Soros uses this term, and it identifies that it is close in many ways to a religion, based on the philosophy of individualism. I find that the strictest adherents are the libertarians.
One characteristic of this movement it its use of insult instead of argument.
It is tempting to ignore their rantings, because talking to them is like trying to discuss literature with someone who cannot read. But if we leave them alone, they will influence many good people with their idiosyncratic theories.
The evidence that climate change is not a theory, but a fact, is here.
More later.
Thursday, September 18, 2008
Melanie Phillips and denialists should read this...
One for the climate sceptics here:
"Arctic sea ice melted to its second-lowest level this summer, rising slightly from 2007's record but still showing a downward trend that is a key symptom of climate change, US scientists said on Tuesday.
The ice slipped to its minimum extent for 2008 on Sept. 12, when it covered 1.74 million square miles (4.52 million square km), and now appears to be growing as the Arctic starts its seasonal cooldown, the National Snow and Ice Data Center said.
This is 33 percent below the average summer ice cover in the Arctic since satellites began measuring it in 1979 and is less than 10 percent above last year's all-time record low, said Walt Meier, a research scientist at the ice center".
"Arctic sea ice melted to its second-lowest level this summer, rising slightly from 2007's record but still showing a downward trend that is a key symptom of climate change, US scientists said on Tuesday.
The ice slipped to its minimum extent for 2008 on Sept. 12, when it covered 1.74 million square miles (4.52 million square km), and now appears to be growing as the Arctic starts its seasonal cooldown, the National Snow and Ice Data Center said.
This is 33 percent below the average summer ice cover in the Arctic since satellites began measuring it in 1979 and is less than 10 percent above last year's all-time record low, said Walt Meier, a research scientist at the ice center".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
