Thursday
Jan062011
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill Fun with Brenda
Jan 6, 2011 Climate: Surface Brenda Ekwurzel is discussing cold winters on the Huffington Post:
Even with climate change, you're still going to wake up on a January morning and see snow falling. I walk to the bus stop, too, so I know about cold ears and fingers.
In the comments, mean-spirited sceptic Alex Cull has this to say:
This made me smile, though..
It's from the conclusion of the BBC World Service's One Planet programme, broadcast in February 2007, presented by BBC science correspondent Richard Hollingham:Richard Hollingham: Those of us who grew up with very cold winters, who tell our children that winter's not what it used to be, we're right aren't we?
Brenda Ekwurzel (Climate Scientist, Union of Concerned Scientists): Yes. Absolutely. It has changed.
Reader Comments (13)
This Union of Concerned Scientists????
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/06/union-of-concerned-scientists-unwarranted-concern-about-the-northeast-us/
"Yes. Absolutely. It has changed." Meaning it hasn't changed. Oh no, that it has changed, just in a deep underlying way that we can't detect. Of course. Keep taking the post-normal tablets. We'll be round to check the graphs in another three years.
"plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose"
I do appreciate the focus on huffpo. I appreciate their political slant on some things like when they stand up to the financial establishment who sticks it to the middle class. However, their politics on climate change are gloriously bright green. It's hard to take sometimes when they deliberately and stubbornly spin climate horsesh!t in the face of the obvious and evidential.
Keep up the honorable mentions...
"plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose"
For those who might not know, it is a famous French expression meaning "when sh*t happens, choose any meme you like". Maybe, I should put it through google translate to be sure. :-D
Hee hee, thanks for the mention, Bishop!
I kind of liked Hollingham's fatuous follow-on to Brenda's bloomer: '..as most people...will testify, a cold crisp winter's day with snow on the ground is infinitely preferable to the mild damp miserable winters many of us are having to get used to'.
=============
We can use this to some advantage. Accepting the AGW hypothesis is true the rate of change in climate is so slow as to be imperceptible, let alone completely drowned out by regular weather and seasons. The 'fingerprint of man' has stubbornly remained smaller than the margins of error.
Natural resources will continue to be put under pressure by changes in land use and population rather than climate and those factors should be informing policy decisions not carbon emissions. Weather will continue to be the thing that matters most. Countries should continue (or in the UK, restart) planning for expected extremes of weather. There is no need to do any more than that.
So even if they are correct the rational answer is we need do nothing beyond prepare for the usual variability of weather and let each nation manage their natural resources as they see fit. The averages they are considering, calculating and corrupting are irrelevant to our daily lives and always will be. The 'global' average temperature while interesting is utterly inconsequential. The average temperature over say 10 years, which itself may be composed of the average annual temperature composed of the average monthly temperature composed of the average daily temperature composed of the average of the min and max temps tells us nothing of any use. What matters is weather.
There is another angle to this all too - is 'combating' CAGW an end or merely a means to an end? I'd be much more content with things if the assorted socialist wealth redistributionalists, population reductionists, etc just nakedly campaigned for those things rather than corrupted science to get a foot in the door.
Gareth,
Doesn't corrupting the science so as to produce untestable assertions feed the faithful better than experimental science? We apparently have a significant part of our populations here in the US and in the UK who must operate on faith and are perfectly comfortable avoiding the challenge of "thinking it through."
For them, you need articles of faith. And with the CO2 induced apocalypse, you have one of the best invented to date.
Gareth,
I don't believe most of the measures to combat climate change work in reducing emissions, not when you look at the big picture. E.g. what's the point of forcing heavy industry offshore to places where they don't give a fig about emissions, and so emissions are probably increased? Once you get past the simplistic idea of the wind blowing and windmills producing electricity, it isn't clear that wind turbines actually reduce emissions.
Given that, it's clear that 'combating climate change' is serving other agendas and you can't put it all down to politicians being naive about technical matters and indulging in groupthink.
Brenda appeared one evening on the Chris Matthews show (US commentator who thinks anyone unconvinced by the CAGW mania must be mentally defective). Fun with Brenda seems most improbable, if not impossible.
Cosmic, one of the agendas in play, particularly attractive to bankrupt governments, is the notion that combatting climate change jobs will produce lots of nice new green industries/jobs, a new tax base for the bankrupt politicos. Alas for them, they may be disappointed. New industries/jobs rarely appear as a result of governments 'planning'. Oh-but-it'll-be-different-this-time......well, perhaps....
sorry didn't preview, meant '.......climate change will produce lots of nice new......'