Thursday
Sep302010
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill Royal Society on climate change
Sep 30, 2010 Climate: other Royal Society I'm slightly late to the story, but it's being reported this morning that the Royal Society has bowed to pressure from sceptics and will replace its position paper on climate change, incorporating more of the uncertainties that concern sceptics.
Climate change: a summary of the science states that “some uncertainties are unlikely ever to be significantly reduced”. Unlike Climate change controversies, a simple guide — the document it replaces — it avoids making predictions about the impact of climate change and refrains from advising governments about how they should respond.
This is certainly welcome.
Reader Comments (97)
Can anyone hear the beep beep beep of a juggernaut reversing ?
BBC has got into neutral but pausing before engaging reverse, still reporting overwhelming evidence of human causes of Global Warming, just new uncertainties. DOH
I've skim read the report and commented all over the place. Apart from the bias of many authors, my main comment is:
The RS report states in the introduction "the aim of this document is to summarise the current scientific evidence on climate change and its drivers."
In the conclusion it states "There is strong evidence that changes in greenhouse gas concentrations due to human activity are the dominant cause of the global warming that has taken place over the last half century."
In between there is no evidence. It is all based on calculations and climate models. We know that climate models are not evidence. There is no strong evidence. Therefore the conclusion is invalid.
It is the usual argument of ignorance.
Pallab Ghosh sounded very confused on the radio this morning, and still thinks that hurricanes are increasing because of AGW. Of course, no-one from the BBC ever thinks to query the extent of the 'A' contribution or how long we might have to wait after crippling our economy before any result is apparent...
James P: As I recall, Pallab Ghosh shied away from answering the questions about natural climate change, but I would have to listen to it again to get the real obfuscation.
"There is strong evidence"
I heard that phrase several times on the radio this morning. I just wish that an interviewer would have the wit simply to ask: "OK, what is it?"
One small step for man.
One large step for mankind.
Peter Walsh
The reversal is happening all over the place. Anyone with a modicum of scientific objectivity who has read AR4 sees the glaring flaw in the argument for highly amplified AGW from CO2, 'global dimming', 75% of present estimated median AGW.
Not only does the 'cloud albedo effect' part have no theoretical justification or experimental proof except for the special case of thin clouds, the direct effect look as if it has been over-estimated too.
One paper: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/325/5937/187 reduces the estimate of the direct effect by 40%. Another report: http://www.physorg.com/news105192948.html is particularly interesting in that it claims that the Asian Brown Cloud increases AGW by 50%.
The latter is an astonishing effect. I think the real reason is the modification of a key optical process in clouds in which case recent warming may have been wrongly attributed exclusively to CO2.
This may explain why, according to ocean heat capacity, global warming stopped in 2003.
'confused'
This is not a juggernaut reversing - they are just chucking a few boxes of stuff that have gone off out the back.
They have re-affirmed the main IPCC points (AGW is stronger than ever and that CO2 ist zer enemy)
and have dropped a few of the sillier bits, that's all.
They say their models can't cope with clouds yet Henrik Svensmark can't get his Sun/Cloud papers
published despite this document's statement 56 - There remains the possibility that hitherto unknown aspects of the climate and climate change could emerge and lead to significant modifications in our understanding.
Message to Society - don't talk - listen.
So that's it then. Yes, perhaps some over-zealous but well-meaning commentators have over-egged the AGW pudding. But the pudding is still delicious!
Maybe the Science wasn't as Settled as it should have been but, if anything, the Consensus is even stronger than it was.
B******s.
We are dealing with a bunch of people cleverly hoodwinked into believing something they thought ought to be true, highly amplified AGW by CO2, when its effect is probably much lower than claimed. So, because they have supported major changes to our lives on the basis of false science, in which they are supposed to be experts, they are backtracking at a rate sufficient to maintain face.
As to who hoodwinked them, look at NASA which has apparently invented a new physics of 'reflection from clouds' to claim we have been protected from high CO2-AGW by global dimming. There ain't no such physics. There's probably a different explanation operating in parallel with a much diminished CO2 effect, and it looks as if it has saturated. Add natural effects, and it's collapse of stout party time.
Good riddance to bad science.
I know I keep repeating this but the establishment cannot reason themselves out of the position that they didn't reason themselves into. They have no way out.
My conclusion is that the weather/climate will not effect their agenda.
I didn't hear the Palab Ghosh piece, but around 0735 on the Today radio programme there was a tight lipped spokesman for the RS who would only repeat the 'summary' that the science was the same, and the interviewer, although clearly aware that the reports detail was a big winding back of the previous one, had clearly not read the two to be able to compare them, and had not been briefed by researchers as to what the significant differences were - no quoted words at all! So, an interviewer with poor research back up, and a spokesman who was determined not to say anything.
Bit of a waste of airtime really.
This a modest but perhaps politically-significant step forward for those of us not convinced there are grounds for alarm about CO2 in the atmosphere. The IPCC had taken great pains, through its somewhat devious and emotive summary reports, to play down uncertainties, and make use of such inventions as 'confidence by acclamation' spun to look like statistical insight. The notorious quotes by Schneider and by Gore about, in effect, downplaying uncertainty to enhance political impact are well known, and seem to have inspired some of the IPCC and Royal Society spin in the past. But this has now been weakened. Politicians previously unwilling to challenge assertions of 'settled science' by people in positions of political or scientific authority, might now be emboldened to be more sceptical of their claims. Claims which underpin a remarkably feeble case for urgent actions involving massive damage and disruption to our economies, our countryside, our way of life, and the emotional wellbeing of vulnerable groups such as children exposed to deliberate scaremongering. It is not much by itself, this new position paper, and it still bows to the politically-correct position, but it does nevertheless add a little spark of light in a pretty gloomy, noisy, and muddled room.
What got them there:-
Groupthink
Groupthink is a type of thought exhibited by group members who try to minimize conflict and reach consensus without critically testing, analyzing, and evaluating ideas. ...
What they are doing now:-
Taking out insurance, which ever way it goes – “we told there were uncertainties”
A real hidebound establishmentarian position.
Nullius in verba? Obviously meant to include all statements that do not include proof, including and especially those from the RS.
The position statement (or 'guide' - perhaps a gesture to that once-noble aspiration of not taking up positions?) is available here: http://royalsociety.org/climate-change-summary-of-science/
There are 59 paragraphs. Paragraph 2 states "There is strong evidence that the warming of the Earth over the last half-century has been caused largely by human activity" and paragraph 57 states "There is strong evidence that changes in greenhouse gas concentrations due to human activity are the dominant cause of the global warming that has taken place over the last half century."
Between these two statements about 'strong evidence' there is no strong evidence presented whatsoever. Is this 'strong evidence' just some secret knowledge for a cabal that they can't state it? All this talk of 'strong evidence' is nonsense, it's a case of 'point weak, shout loud'. Keep up the matra and eventually everyone will fall into line.
And what about uncertainties? A tiny change in albedo due to clouds will have a massive effect, and what do they say about that? "...projections of climate change are sensitive to the details of the representation of clouds in models. Particles originating from both human activities and natural sources have the potential to strongly influence the properties of clouds, with consequences for estimates of climate forcing. Current scientific understanding of this effect is poor."
'consequences for estimates of climate forcing' is, in context, a bit of an understatement. The consequences are that no estimates of climate forcing whatsoever can be relied upon, simply because 'current scientific understanding of this effect is poor'.
And I think the Met Office ought to heed the following:
"The ability of the current generation of models to simulate some aspects of regional climate change is limited, judging from the spread of results from different models; there is little confidence in specific projections of future regional climate change..."
If the RS paper has cast even a tiny shadow of doubt over the dogma preached by the IPCC, then surely our politicians should be urged to reconsider policies created because of the oft quoted 'overwhelming consensus.' Whenever I have written to politicians from all parties complaining about their, so called, green policies they have often quoted the Royal Society's stance in support of the consensus.
Now is the chance for the few experienced sceptical politicains to take their party's leaders to task.
The new RS guide can be found here.
It is worth reading carefully. It is not a U-turn but it is a step in the right direction.
It is an improvement, with less misleading spin than for example their previous pronouncements or the IPCC reports.
For example they admit:
para2, other influences like land use and deforestation important - Pielke sr will be happy!
para 4 the sun drives the climate
para 6, water vapour is a bigger influence on the greenhouse effect than CO2 (a fact carefully hidden away by the IPCC).
para 9,10,11 climate has changed in the past for many reasons
para 18, computer models can't model things properly
para 30, it may be that past CO2 variation was driven by temperature rather than vice versa
para 48, future uptake of CO2 by land an ocean is very poorly understood
Also note that there is no mention at all of the hockey stick or any paleo reconstructions!
But the conclusions are a non sequitur as pointed out by Phillip and SFT.
The FUTILITY of Mankind trying to Control Climate
Just running the numbers
On average world temperature is +15 deg C. This is sustained by the atmospheric Greenhouse Effect 33 deg C. Without the Greenhouse Effect the planet would be un-inhabitable at -18 deg C. The Biosphere and Mankind need the Greenhouse Effect.
Just running the numbers by translating the agents causing the Greenhouse Effect into degrees centigrade:
• Greenhouse Effect = ~33.00 deg C
• Water Vapour accounts for about 95% of the Greenhouse Effect = ~ 31.35 deg C
• Other Greenhouse Gases GHGs account for 5% = ~1.65 deg C
• CO2 is 75% of the effect of all accounting for the enhanced effects of Methane and Nitrous Oxide GHGs = ~1.24 deg C
• Most CO2 in the atmosphere is natural, more than 93%
• Man-made CO2 is less than 7% of total atmospheric CO2 = ~0.087 deg C
• the UK contribution to CO2 is 2% equals = 1,740 millionths deg C
• the USA contribution to CO2 is ~20% equals = 17.6 thousandths deg C
So closing carbon economies of the Whole World could only ever achieve a virtually undetectable less than 0.01deg C. How can the Green movement and their supporting politicians think that their remedial actions can limit warming to only + 2.00 deg C?
So the probability is that any current global warming is not man-made and in any case such warming could be not be influenced by any remedial action taken by mankind however drastic.
As this is so, the prospect should be greeted with Unmitigated Joy:
• concern over CO2 as a man-made pollutant can be discounted.
• it is not necessary to damage the world’s economy to no purpose.
• if warming were happening, it would lead to a more benign and healthy climate for all mankind.
• any extra CO2 is already increasing the fertility and reducing water needs of all plant life and thus enhancing world food production.
• a warmer climate, within natural variation, would provide a future of greater opportunity and prosperity for human development. This has been well proven in the past and would now especially benefit the third world.
Nonetheless, this is not to say that the world should not be seeking more efficient ways of generating its energy, conserving its energy use and stopping damaging its environments. And there is a real need to wean the world off the continued use of fossil fuels simply on the grounds of:
• security of supply
• increasing scarcity
• rising costs
• their use as the feedstock for industry rather than simply burning them.
The French long-term energy strategy with its massive commitment to nuclear power is impressive, (85% of electricity generation). Even if one is concerned about CO2, Nuclear Energy pays off, French CO2 emissions / head are the lowest in the developed world.
However in the light of the state of the current solar cycle, it seems that there is a real prospect of damaging cooling occurring in the near future for several decades. And as power stations face closure the lights may well go out in the winter 2016 if not before.
All because CO2 based Man-made Global Warming has become a state sponsored religion.
The position paper has some hostages to fortune, which if the weather gods have a sense of humour (and I think they do, vide the Gore Effect) it will be interesting to keep an eye on, e.g.
'42 Even in the extremely unlikely event that there is no increase in climate forcing, a further warming would be expected to occur as the oceans slowly respond to the existing climate forcing, amounting to a further few tenths of a degree centigrade by the year 2100.
43 The uncertainty in the predicted warming as a result of human activity over the next two decades is smaller, the range being 0.2 to 0.4 C per decade. On these shorted timescales, the actual change could however be reduced or enlarged significantly by internal climate variability and natural climate forcings.
44 Increases in temperature are predicted to be larger on land, particularly on the northern continents in winter. Less warming is predicted, for example, over the North Atlantic Ocean. Climate models tend to predict that precipitation will generally increase in areas with already high amounts of precipitation and generally decrease in areas with low amounts of precipitation.
45 Because of the thermal expansion of the ocean, it is very likely that for many centuries the rate of global sea-level rise will be at least as large as the rate of 20cm per century that has been observed over the past century. Paragraph 49 discusses the additional, but more uncertain, contribution to sea-level rise from the melting of land ice.'
I note the use of 'predictions' rather than 'projections', and I welcome it. Their skill in prediction has not been, as far as I know, in the slightest bit impressive. But that's by the by. We have some statements capable of disproof,and that is something - although I may be being naive at taking them at face value.
So, weather gods, you have the PDO, the MDO, the 'internal climate variability', the 'natural climate forcings', and some scope for negative feedbacks. Will you give us some respite from the alarmists by reducing temperatures more widely over the next 10 or 20 years? (and don't let them mess about with the temperature records, or put more tarmac and AC exhausts by the weather stations).
When your betters tell you the world is flat, it sometimes takes a funeral or two to start thinking for yourself. There is a calm. A stillness in the air. The weather would seem to be changing. What will tomorrow bring?
SFT: Indeed, what does this report mean for UKCIP, which claims to be able to model (project) future climate in 25km squares? Many areas of policy (flooding, coastal defence etc) are currently based on UKCIP projections. Money being wasted in vast amounts.
Do the radiation calculations and the real greenhouse heating should be c. 60 K. It falls to 33 K because of convection partially driven by water vapour/latent heat.
Here's Pallab Ghosh's story about the new RS guide at the Beeb's website:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-11438570
Nice pic, eh? Very scientific. 'An artist's impression of the consequences of climate change'. (SPL is the Science Photo Library.)
It does make me smile that some of you deniers are trying to claim this as some form of U-turn.
They're saying that there is still uncertainty about how much the temperature will rise, and how severe the effects will be. That's just good science. To try and claim that the official position of the Royal Society, is anything other than one which thinks AGW is a horrible reality, is just desperate.
First thing I took from the report is this:
"It shows that there is strong evidence that over the last half century, the earth's warming has been caused largely by human activity "
That's pretty unequivocal. They're saying we played a bigger part than anything else.
He he he just listening to radio 4 on CCS....a quote that it would need a well the size of England to store the CO2 released from a single coal fired power station.....
have a look at
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wy0_SNSM8kg
to see the futility of Man-made Climate Control by limiting CO2 emissions
Pallab Ghosh always sounds confused, except when he's saying "um" or 'er" which is quite a lot.
caption at The Guardian article:
¨Polar bears have become a threatened species since the Arctic sea ice has been retreating. The Royal Society's guide explains the physical science behind the environmental change. Photograph: Juniors Bildarchiv/Alamy¨
The "strong evidence" has gone missing. Sounds familiar.
According to the BBC:
"But according to Bob Ward, policy and communications director at the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment, membership of the Royal Society and groups sceptical of climate change are hard to reconcile.
"The key question is whether the Fellows of the Royal Society who contributed to this document believe they can reconcile this core mission with membership of Lord Lawson's Global Warming Policy Foundation, which campaigns against climate researchers and promotes inaccurate and misleading information about climate change," he said."
Bob ward makes less and less sense.
This paragraph...
'There is very strong evidence to indicate that climate change has occurred on a wide range of different timescales from decades to many millions of years; human activity is a relatively recent addition to the list of potential causes of climate change.' (paragraph 10)
...is very hard to reconcile with...
"It shows that there is strong evidence that over the last half century, the earth's warming has been caused largely by human activity "
Which is all the official spokesman this morning would say. Any journalist that had read the whole thing would have taken him to the cleaners.
Can somebody help me on this?
If "less warming is predicted ... over the North Atlantic Ocean", surely one would expect also lower increases on the northern continents in winter, certainly over most of Europe whose climate/weather is driven to a great extent by the Atlantic.
To the poster at 1.40 pm, it's not being a 'denier' to point out that the IPCC's case for highly amplified AGW from CO2 is unproven because that can be checked just by looking at AR4's science: so many holes you can use it as a colander.
However, the proponents of the CO2-AGW hypothesis still held the master trump, 'How else do you explain significant recent ocean heating' [enough since 1985 to warm the atmosphere by about 22 K]. So, you've got to have another credible form of AGW and explain how it switched off in 2003 when ocean heat capacity stopped rising and global warming ceased [sea level rise is a delayed effect.]
In the absence of a major change in cloud cover, for which there is no evidence, or the direct effect of aerosols, again with no evidence, the most likely explanation is a significant increase in energy transmission by clouds over tropical seas. All you have to do is to explain the physics.
The answer is so trivial I don't know why it hasn't been picked up before, but it does involve a bit of lateral thinking.. All present, theory assumes cloud optical properties are controlled by internal optical scattering. However, that predicts a maximum albedo of 0.5 when you can measure up to 0.9 for cumulo-nimbus clouds. And therein lies the clue.
They can become very dark through the operation of a shielding mechanism whereby the strong convective updraught places large cloud droplets in line of sight with the sun. It's probably to do with the very high size-dependence of forward scattering and an enhanced back-scattering as the light loses directional information. An albedo of 0.9 means 70% of the light energy is excluded by that process.
For non-raining clouds, albedos are up to c. 0.7. If pollution reduces droplet size by a factor of three, as observed, you can switch off the shielding process. Change albedo to 0.55 and energy transmission increases by 50%, leveraged by the increase of light available for internal scattering.
It was probably the growth of Asian industry which triggered recent fast heating but because the process is self-limiting, it saturated in about 2003. CO2-AGW clearly has very little amplification.
Reading the guide again, I think paragraphs 37 to 39 are also likely to embarrass the authors. They repeat the mantra that because the computer models (and their 'forcings') need added CO2 (not mentioned by name - why's that?) in order to fit 'surface warming on decadal and longer timescales' (would that include the past decade I wonder?), then it follows that 'human-induced climate forcing' (from the 3% of the annual CO2 flux attributed with much guesswork to humans?) must be the cause of 'the observed climate change' (why not 'warming'?). Neither the models nor the logic impress me much. They also describe the failure to find the model-predicted hotspot in the upper troposphere as 'an ongoing controversy'. I'd be more inclined to reach for the phrase 'a clear revelation of model limitations'.
Cumbrian Lad. If you can't reconcile the two paragraphs, then, er, well, hmm, let's just say that the issue might lie more with you than the report. Agreeing there is natural climate change, in no way means that humans can't also change the climate, one should read the two paragraphs in the same light.
It is interesting that Hoskins, the Royal Society lead on climate matters and former council member also has Bob Ward as a spokesman for him for his position at the Grantham institute. This does seem a move in the right direction for the Royal Society, but as many people point out it would be good if someone like the Royal Society could summarise the 'strong evidence' for AGW which it doesn't do in this policy statement.
In relation to the Bob Ward thread concerning funding, I do find it slightly odd that the Grantham's funding of Imperial and LSE describes them as philanthropists. I have no interest at all in who funds who but surely a hedge fund manager has at least some interest in policies originating from global warming based economic policies.
ZDB,
"AGW is a horrible reality"
Obviously "desperate"
but not serious
Your joking drives
me delirious
-Adam Ant
It is clear that the effects of Climategate, which occurred about 10 months ago, are still rippling through the fabric of the Great Lie machine, and they are building, not diminishing. One by one, those behind the great lie have fallen silent, with those in the RS the most recent. Others will follow shortly. It is interesting to note that Al Gore was the first to disappear, within days Copenhagen ending. I guess that is because he is a better politician than most and saw what happened in the last year would happen.
And it is also clear that the opinion of the average punter has turned to skeptic as well. Last winter may well have more to do with that than Climategate, but still they are laughing at "Global Warning" HERE
Even Bill Clinton has joined the skeptics with this quip.
While I still fully expect COP 16 to occur at the end of November, it will be more a celebration of Climategate when it turns out most of the "delegates" end up on the beach at Cancun instead of in the meeting hall.
ZedsDeadBed
I guess it is very difficult for most of us to take you even slightly seriously. Your knowledge appears to be limited to a pedantic knowledge of English, for your knowledge of American Pop culture is matched by your complete lack of scientific knowledge. May I point out to you that the correct quotation you are using for your Nom de Plume is "Zed's dead, baby". It was spoken by "Butch" in Pulp Fiction 1994.
Don Pablo de la Sierra.
"Zed's dead, baby"! Pulp Fiction is one of my favourite movies. This line is actually the last line in the film: maybe our troll wants the last word?
Shall we stay on topic and ignore our esteemed troll?
Cumbrian Lad: Good point.
Since the RS is now at odds with the IPCC FAR conclusions, what does our government now rely on for its climate change information? The IPCC or the RS which has cast great doubts and uncertainties on the future climate?
From the RS:
“The size of future temperature increases and other aspects of climate change, especially at the regional scale, are still subject to uncertainty......There is little confidence in specific projections of future regional climate change, except at continental scales.....some uncertainties are unlikely ever to be significantly reduced.” Of course "temperature increases" should be "temperature increases or decreases".
I agree with Zed. It does smack of desperation to expect the Royal Society to not toe the IPCC line
;) :)
Come on, guys. Stop being the 'eternal hopefuls' and try some denial for a change.
Well - the BBC are at it again - am at a loss to understand why my comment at 210 ie
Re ~209
You mean like when some of those same scientists told us back in the '70s we were entering a new ice age!!!
in reply to
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/09/something_new_and_not_altogeth.html#P101151724
has been censored.
Another one that "broke the House rules" ?????
Posting:
Re #56. At 11:38am on 23 Sep 2010, johntherock
Well, not hairdryers as you suggest but their proximity to air conditioning units exhausts and car parks can't help matters!
http://gallery.surfacestations.org/main.php?g2_itemId=660
in reply to
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/09/something_new_and_not_altogeth.html#P101068757
Methinks the debate is a little one sided on BBC sites !!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I have recently become frustrated by the forum because the focus is on the detail only and not on the big picture.
I have tried to post my big picture ideas but Zed gets more response than I do ^.^
The big picture proves conclusively that CO2 is not now warming the planet so why bother arguing over the details?
The good thing about the RS guide is that even though it states "strong evidence that human activity has been responsible for most of the warming in the last century" it also says that future climate can not be predicted.
That is a direct contradiction of IPCC reports. Come on Dave who are you going to believe?
Will somebody attempt to debate with me that the case against AGW is NOT totally proven?
In defence of the BBC (and I had over 10 comments removed from that article)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/09/something_new_and_not_altogeth.html#comments
They let this one in ( a bit toned down)
242. At 11:03pm on 25 Sep 2010, Barry Woods wrote:
Well I've toned 218 down a bit
(it was all my own opinion, however if anyone didn't like it, who are they to complain about my opinion, as it was the very topic of intolerance to debate, that I was criticising)
I know I come across as quite passionate, Richard is shocked by 'warmist' intolerance... by email
I have experienced it, in my local community, being called a deniar to ones face by an activist, is even more unpleasant, a Transitions Town meeting..
Where the leader is a long standing customer of our family business, the mayor and local councillors present and other members of the local community present.
After pointing out, why do you have graphics of a plant withering and dying, as counter goes up for CO2 levels reach 380 ppm.
This is untrue, yes they admitted, it was just to give an impression....
But it is NOT true... why show it.
"WE have taken the desiscion NOT to discuss the science.."
But what about where you say rates of warming higest in the 20th century..Look at Roger Harrabin's BBC interview, with Phil Jones, where he says that this is incorrect (ie similar rates, in previous periods)
Not interested.. Who are you, Where are you from?
and they want to go into local schools.....
But try again...
-------------------------
218. At 3:25pm on 25 Sep 2010, you wrote: (modified)
Like Richard Black – Jo Nova has her email address on her website/blog..
So I emailed her a link to this article as I’m very aware of the abuse she has receveived from ‘warmists’ all the way up to establishmnet political figure..
‘Warmist’ intolerance, is not a surprise ‘in her experience’ I know for sure.
I found out about Jo Nova, as I was curious when Richard Black refered to a couple of female australian blogger, as I’ve relatives in Aus… (without actually saying who – my perception of probably ’subconcious’ BBC media consensus gatekeeping)
Following his article: (take a look at the comments,If I'd have writtten it I'm sure it would have been removed against house rules, it got a lOT of compliants, and was widely reported)
Richard Black BBC:
COP15: Climate ’scepticism’ and questions about sex
Why are virtually all climate “sceptics” men?
“..The other is that climate scepticism has psychological roots; that it stems from a deep-seated inability or unwillingness to accept the overwhelming evidence that humanity has built with coal and lubricated with oil its own handcart whose destination board reads “climate hell”.
As one ex-scientist and now climate action advocate put it to me rather caustically a while back: “I’ve been debating the science with them for years, but recently I realised we shouldn’t be talking about the science but about something unpleasant that happened in their CHILDHOOD”.
Thus climate sceptics are deniars/sceptics because of damaged childhood, another attempt at negative labels, to discourage people to be associated with climate sceptics..
……. of course, the proponents of catastrophic AGW could equally be identified as ALL men ! ……………..
Richard listed a few men – Like “TV PRESENTER David Bellamy”…..
Why NOT list Dr David Bellamy's scientific qualifications –
DR David Bellamy, OBE
(they give out OBE’s to denairs? he should be stripped of it, right away, surely, sorry sarcasm)
————————–
Professor David J. Bellamy OBE. BSc., PhD., Hon:- FLS,. FIBiol., DSc., DUniv., FIBiol., FCIWEM Hon (born 1933) is an English professor, botanist, author, broadcaster and environmental campaigner.
He attended Sutton County Grammar School, Sutton, Chelsea College of Science and Technology and Bedford College, all in London.
He was brought up as a strict Baptist.
Bellamy and his wife Rosemary, whom he maried when he was 19, have five children – four are adopted.
He originally trained as a botanist at Durham University, where he later held the post of senior lecturer in botany until 1982. He is still their Honorary Preofessor for Adult and Continuing Education.
He first came to public prominence as an envoironmental consultant at the time of the Torrey Canyon disaster.
In 1983, he was JAILED for blockading the Franklin River in protest at a proposed dam.
He has been the writer and presenter of some 400 television programmes on Botany, Ecology and Environment.”
——
Dr David Bellamy was campaigning and being JAILED for the environment and conservation, whilst Richard Black (and George Monbiot)werevery young. He was campaigning, whilst there WAS a Big businees vested interest against, environmentalism..
But because of his views of AGW and man made global warming, George Monbiot (Guardian), has him in a deniars Hall of Shame. The BBC’s Richard Black refer to his as a ‘TV Presenter’.
All his environmental/conservation acheivments ignored/forgotten, unlauded, because he will not submit to the ‘consensus’
Whether Dr Bellamy is right or wrong on AGW, (he may not come across as well in hostile debates with George Monbiot, he perhaps was far too polite), that is moot, the point is the ‘consensus’ demands that deniars are ‘anti-science’.
Even to the point where DR Judith Curry is now being dismissed by the usual pundits as ‘failing’ as a scientist…..
Roger Harrabin had his Al Gore moment: (3 years ago)
“And after the interview he [Al Gore] and his assistant stood over me shouting that my questions had been scurrilous, and implying that I was some sort of CLIMATE SCEPTIC TRAITOR.
Jo Nova, mentions another scientists experience at the hands of Al Gore:
“Hello, Richard, yes, exactly, and you are catching up fast on the world in 1990. Around then, an intolerant culture was established that scorned anyone who so much as asked difficult questions. Some eminent scientists were sacked. Al Gores staffers attacked Fred Singer so viperously, that he took them to court and won. But what message did that send to the world’s scientists? You can speak your doubts on the hypothesis of man-made-catastrophe, but be prepared to spend thousands on lawyers, risk your job, and lose your friends. Singer won the battle, but Al won that war.”
At the time Al Gore was a US Senator – and became Vice -President of the USA in 1993….. A powerful message to scientist was sent.
Yet Roger Harrabin a while back, asked sceptical bloggers for a list of sceptical scientists. Well, perhaps they were still keeping there heads down.
Maybe Richard should give Jo Nova a call and 'investigate' whether ‘warmists’ have behaved like this for a long time.
Fear not, the Grauniad remains on message. Complete with polar bears. Didn't they get that memo?
Their caption kind of sums their scientific knowledge though.
"Polar bears have become a threatened species since the Arctic sea ice has been retreating. The Royal Society's guide explains the physical science behind the environmental change."
And the RS don't mention polar bears once, but if they did would hopefully point out they've been thriving since hunting bans were imposed.
Also something potentially rotten with the state of windmills-
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100056158/wind-farms-yet-another-brewing-disaster/
If true, ouch. Also wondering if this may be related to vibration/infrasound that windmills don't emit because the wind industry won't measure LF sound.