Thursday
Jul212011
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill Contradictory Chris
Jul 21, 2011 Climate: Parliament Climate: WG2 Chris Huhne is on the climate change warpath again. Here's the transcript from his latest speech. Much to take issue with, such as this apparent contradiction:
Severe droughts are now twice as common as they were in 1970. Research suggests human action doubled the risk of the 2003 European heatwave. And climate change made the autumn 2000 floods in the UK about twice as likely....Climate change above 2 degrees is called catastrophic for a reason. Warmer air carries more water. Humidity means storms, hurricanes, flash floods.
Update on Jul 21, 2011 by
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill
Also this is hilarious:
This is our Munich moment. Every country must commit itself in full to meeting this common but differentiated challenge...
From today, for the first time, humankind will work together as one in defence of our most precious inheritance.
From today, we acknowledge that we are held to a higher responsibility.
One that transcends profit and loss, and peace and war, and trade and aid.
From today, we commit to work not to the prejudices of the past, but in service of a greater and more lasting good. The planet earth, and the life it sustains.
Reader Comments (66)
"Climate change above 2 degrees is called catastrophic for a reason. Warmer air carries more water. Humidity means storms, hurricanes, flash floods."
...and it getting colder, Chris?
Show me the "real World" data to support this?
I thought that making misleading statements to Parliament was a serious offence
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/To_mislead_parliament
Matt Ridley's recent post shows drought severity index has been falling for the last few decades
http://www.rationaloptimist.com/blog/greener
Apparently, it is necessary to be sure that this stuff was actually delivered by Huhne.
However, I bet he could not resist this:
"This is the last Parliament with a chance to avoid catastrophic climate change."
Perhaps a scientific civil servant could help us with nuance surrounding the word "chance" in the face of the scientific uncertainties?
I'm trying to clarify this in my head.
AGW causes droughts - right, got it.
AGW causes floods - yes, yes, I'm getting there.
AGW causes heatwaves - OK I think I've got a hold of that one.
AGW causes storms - oh yes, I'm getting the hang of this now.
AGW causes hurricanes - of course it does, how could I not see it.
Thank you Christopher, you've helped me to 'see the light'.
Who said the Huhnatic didn't do irony?
These type of statements beg the question 'What set of circumtances will falsify the Theory of AGW' , to which there is never an answer.
Where are the men in white coats when you need them?
JohnH: fair question, however, what if they ask you "What set of circumstances would lead to you accept the Theory of AGW?"
This bit about droughts and floods is old news; here is Gordon Brown in October 2009:
PM warns of climate 'catastrophe'
The UK faces a "catastrophe" of floods, droughts and killer heatwaves if world leaders fail to agree a deal on climate change, the prime minister has warned.
Gordon Brown said negotiators had 50 days to save the world from global warming and break the "impasse".
see http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8313672.stm
@Brownedoff
Thank Heaven he's promised to shut up after the next election. So glad to hear this is the LAST Parliament with a chance to ruin the country. Maybe now #10 can finally get it's head out of cranial rectal insertion and do something to actually save the country... well, after they save it from "excessive" media hype and lying MP's and coppers on the take and... ShaaZamm Batman this is getting to be a long list... Another cup of Tea please... well, I guess we're toast (frozen or not)... we'll never get to the point of actually saving the country... (What's that Old Man? Hummmm... hadn't thought of that. Been a while. How does one pray?)
It is interesting that Huhne should use the CRUTEM figure for rate of atmospheric warming per decade of 0.135 degrees C. The more important figure for sea surface temperature at 0.048 degrees is only a fraction of this with the difference between the two as yet wholly unexplained.
His statement of temperatures since 1998 might equally truthfully say that the hottest year so far is still 1998 (or for the US 1934) and that there has been no statistically significant warming since 1998.
His positition on the "threat" depends on the AR4 assumed climate sensitivity of 2 to 6 degrees. Roy Spencer right now,for example, has reasonably compelling evidence that a sensitivity of around 1.1 is fits the data much better and that the water vapour feedback is probably negative.
It is sobering to think how many billions of our taxes are being wasted on account of science like this, that as it appears is largely unsubstantiated and most probably wrong..
Also from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8313672.stm
Richard Black, BBC News
Whether current scientific understanding warrants his warning of "catastrophe" for the UK if greenhouse gas levels rise unchecked is perhaps open to question. A recent report by Kofi Annan's Global Humanitarian Forum found the UK was one of 12 nations least likely to be affected by climate impacts.
JohnH: fair question, however, what if they ask you "What set of circumstances would lead to you accept the Theory of AGW?"
A 2m increase in sea levels by 2100
No Himalayan glaciers by 2035
A verified Global temp raise of 30 years with a significantly faster rate of increase than the warming periods in the 20th Century (as they were all the same rate before and after 1945)
No Artic Ice by 2015
No more snow during UK winters
An increase in Hurricanes
A decrease in Antarctic ice while the Artic ice also decreases
I could go on but its boring listing all the threatened plaques that have never and will never come to pass
JohnH. Even were all those to happen, AGW would still not be proven.
Dave @ 6:16pm
I'm puzzled by what you say:
Are you saying that the slope of the trend for SST is 0.048/decade? Because it isn't. See this comparison between HadSST2 and UAH (TLT). HadSST2 trends at 0.13C/decade; UAH at fractionally under 0.14C/decade.
The trend is what matters, not any absolute difference between surface T or TLT and SST.
Perhaps I have mistaken your meaning. If so, apologies.
Given Huhne's conversion (under pressure?) from staunch anti-nuclear to 'okay: nukes are back in play' I'm left wondering why he has not been forced to resign. What, after all, does this say about his competence?
Only someone with a weak grasp of the potential in achievable terms from offshore wind could ever have allowed things to go on as they are.
Only someone with no understanding of the way baseload must be met could have ever delayed new nuclear plant in the UK.
"Strauss supports lie detector idea"
"Andrew Strauss has voiced his support for the MCC World Cricket Committee’s (WCC) suggestion that lie detector tests could be used to prevent corruption in cricket."
http://www.lords.org/latest-news/news-archive/strauss-supports-lie-detector-idea,2110,NS.html
Mr Huhne, I have an idea, won't take up much of your time.....
Huhne, from linked transcript:
This is verbiage and nothing more. Huhne needs to do some reading. He could do worse than starting with this.
The clue is in the name:
The British Climate Change Act: a critical evaluation and proposed alternative approach; R Pielke Jr.
2009 Environ. Res. Lett. 4 024010
Apologies - wrong link at 6:45pm
The actual graph is here.
BBD - some context, and incidentally I wonder what the trend was in the early 1700s?
http://oi49.tinypic.com/rc93fa.jpg
Huhne is in competition with Hage for biggest joke of a minster in government. Given Hage's 'abilities' the fact that Huhne could well bet him in this contest shows how bad his is . Frankly no one would surprised to see him moved on when the first re-shovelful in government happens . So the fact his spouting BS is hardly a surprise.
You say that the update to your item is "hilarious".
I actually find it quite chilling in a Nazi'ish-deranged-ranting-kind-of-way.
This man is NOT funny, in the same way that Goebbels was NOT funny.
This has all gone beyond the 'ho ho what's that loonie Huhne saying now' stage.
The sooner this man is slung out of office the better, by fair means or foul.
Quote from Nick Clegg
"Whatever people say about Chris Huhne, I don't know any politician better at getting his points across."
Broom-Broom
[No]
JohnH writes: "fair question, however, what if they ask you "What set of circumstances would lead to you accept the Theory of AGW?" ".
May I have a go? For my part, if the UAH MSU temperature series rises above the 0.98C peak of 1998 in, say, more than half the months in the coming decade I'll conclude that my scepticism was misplaced and change my current view that we're well within the range of natural variation.
Your turn, sir. Falsifiability criteria for AGW, please.
Z
If I may precis (manipulate) your comment to retain the commentary pertinent to the subject matter of the post- your comment 'loopy' is a profound one.
QUOTE Phillip Bratby
'Where are the men in white coats when you need them?'
Right on at least two levels! - cheers Paul
who is John Galt?
Dear ZedsDeadBed - If you disagree with what someone has said, simply say why you have that view, without the ad hominem embellishments.
Saying that people are dishonest/unpleasant/loopy is hardly likely to convince anyone here. The reverse in fact.
Martin A
"What set of circumstances would lead to you accept the Theory of AGW?"
I think most people on here would accept the theory of AGW, if that theory is that carbon dioxide produces some degree of warming, that is not really in question, but also requires no blind panic, no major action and no wholesale destruction of economies.
Where the issues arise is with Catastrophic AGW and here things are less clear. I'd be prepared to listen more closely to this if several criteria were met, none of which are, to my mind, outside the bounds of the way science is (should be) undertaken:
1) Present a clear, falsifiable hypothesis. If a theory cannot be falsified by any means then it is in no way a scientific theory, more a semi-religious fancy.
2) Make all data, computer codes and other calculations and adjustments publicly available. If the data used to produce the various pronouncements is kept secret then the 'science' can neither be checked, verified or falsified.
3) Use the clear, falsifiable hypothesis to produce one or more clear and time limited predictions in order that the theory is actually testable in a real world scenario, along with a firm commitment to accept that the theory is wrong should the predictions turn out to be false.
To paraphrase Richard Feynman talking about the key to science:
We take a guess (or make a prediction), then we observe nature (or we experiment) and if the observation doesn't match the guess then it's wrong.
"It doesn't make a difference how beautiful your guess is, it doesn't matter how smart you are who made the guess or what his name is, if it disagrees with experiment....wrong."
Apply that simple statement to any of the global climate models, all of which failed to predict the 10+ year stalling of global warming ergo they are wrong, not they need tinkering to fit hindcasting thereby making them useful as tools to predict the future, they are wrong.
It really is that simple.
I think Chris Huhne gets his speeches written by Monty/Rommel. Either way, they make little sense, except that the speech-writer is paid from the taxes that Huhne insists we pay - the taxes that will make CAGW go awayyyyyyyyy......
C'mon Monty/Rommel - even Nick, you are far more entertaining than Zed, not to say, better educated. So, if you (Monty) can drag yourself away from that class of spotty adolescents at the Truro Poly (sorry, that should be, of course, UCLE: University of Cornwall, Lands End), come and give us the benefit of your wisdom. Oh, and bring along your answer to the question of why you think your 'theories' should cost us TRILLIONS of dollars to assuage!
Lapogus
Early CET data prior to 1772 are not considered reliable. So the comparison cannot carry weight. There is also the issue of the CET representing surface T in central England as compared to global SST and global TLT.
I am amazed that a House full of supposedly sentient politicians allowed this to pass without wetting themselves laughing. Or calling for the keepers. Or both. I usually see the funny side of things, but I tend to agree with Jazznick on this. The fact that Huhne can actually recite nonsense such as this in all seriousness and not be hauled off to a rubber room says something about politics here that is deeply worrying. How many of the others with him are similarly afflicted and doing untold damage with their flights of weird imaginings in other important spheres?
Bish,
I don't find it hilarious, I find it scary.
It brings to mind the US Air Force General in "Dr. Strangelove" who launches a nuclear attack on the USSR because he thought water fluoridation was a communist plot to contaminate everyone's precious bodily fluids.
Someone obviously not in contact with reality with the ability to take catastrophic decisions.
That second post was a great "Fire and Brimstone" sermon.
I thought the 2003 European heatwave was blamed on the clean air acts that had cleaned up the western European air and let all that nasty extra sun and heat in. This same thinking is the reasons temperatures since 2000 have not increased, because China does not have the same clean air acts, hence all those particulates blocking the sun's heat.
And if the Uk is one of 12 countries least likely to be adversely affected by climate change and while we emit such a minuscule amount of CO2, WHY do we have to beggar ourselves to show the world how to do it? Why, why, why?????
Chris may not know that people are trying to explain the non-warming by blaming aerosols from China and volcanic activity. So the extreme weather is due to non-warming, not global warming.
Munich moment; I have never heard this term before. Terrorists executing Israeli athletes? The Munich Air disaster? I'll take it to mean Britain and France looking the other way in 1938 and letting Germany take control of Sudetenland.
The threats faced by Europe in 1938 were tangible. You could not argue that they didn't exist. The actual threat from climate change is arguable at almost every turn both in if it is being caused by humans *and* if it is a threat, and thirdly what should be done in either case. Yet like the interwar generation we are being committed to a programme of restrictions, costs and state interference. To knuckle down and do our duty. Carbon credits. Carbon taxes. Carbon rations. Huhne shaping the argument in this fashion leaves no room for dissent based on not agreeing that the threat exists.
Or has Huhne just got Munich Re on the brain?
I find it darkly amusing that our representatives concern themselves more and more with further and further into the future clearly at the expense of sorting out the problems of today.
biddyb @ 11:15
Why indeed. That would be politics trying to trump reality.
This never works out in the long run. Frighteningly expensive and essentially untested offshore wind is a hell of a gamble. Renewables are supposed to improve energy security. This is unlikely given intermittency, variability, unpredictability and hand-waving on the marine engineering front.
Then there is the claim that renewables can deliver baseload. It's all nonsense.
Energy policy in the UK, Germany and elsewhere is in dreamland at present.
Munich moment indeed...walking to (economic) disaster obliviously waving a intentionally delusional paper (AR4) at the press. Chamberlain is reborn!
Breathtaking. And like Chamberlain he doesn't understand.
BBD - I suppose that Huhne has to try to find some justification for pushing the renewables nonsense. It's like deciding on a course of action that "feels" right and then trying to find the argument that justifies that course of action. The fact that the justification argument is so far-fetched is neither here not there. There is a good reason why the LibDims would never win an election by themselves. Sadly, Cameron seems to be of a like mind, Milliband even worse. SOOO depressing. Surely, someone, somewhere inside Westminster must have a differing view. Late night rantings are not good for the spirit; I'm going to slit my wrists while listening to Leonard Cohen. Let's hope we have a return to a bit of global warming tomorrow and I can stop wearing a jumper and a scarf.
Most annoying that he is still in a position to try to implement his insane policies - it seems as though the investigation of his traffic offence has fallen down the same hole as the UEA "hack" investigation. I wonder if Neil Wallis has been advising him.
"One that transcends profit and loss, and peace and war, and trade and aid"
....
aka "One ring to rule them all"
Huhne, the Montebank of Doom.
"Nil points" for accuracy, same for integrity but "douze points" for driving his message home!
Not all Hobbits are "Good Guys" and it's about time that our wooden-headed representatives David (Tax the Ash) Cimarron and his good old boy Nicolarch Horsefly realised that throwing your lot in with Grima and his cabal of selected ClimatEnt scientists may be badly frowned upon by future commentators!
Great to the ADVICEou are so comfortable with your chosen cast that you'll bet your reputations and your kiddies shirt on their prognostifications.
Fantastic excuse that you hold up your sleeves, only needing to be playedclaims of lucrative pension later, that you, as non-scientists, believed THE ADVICE of your (selected and appointed by YOU) CSA's.
You picked 'em, you payed 'em and you'll throw them alone into the Hell that you created. Nowt wrong with that that I can see.
PS. I was being a tad ironic with that last sentence.
Sorry folks. Got annoyed there and didn't review and polish my post.
Guess that you got the gist though. Just saddened that our Lords and Masters are leading us to an ignominious future.
I'll be long gone but it's the young ones that I feel saddened about.
RIP, GB.
This is the part that scares me;
"Only an overarching legal framework can ensure the compliance and certainty that will underpin the low-carbon transition. And the only way to build that framework is through the United Nations."
This is a request to give the UN the power to enforce carbon targets. There is no way most countries will ever allow that.
[No]
BBD at 6.45pm in response to Dave at 6.16pm
I'm not certain exactly what Dave is driving at but I think I know where he gets his figure for SSTs of 0.048 degC/dec. HadSST2 has just been replaced by HadSST3 and the earlier step change in 1940s has been adjusted out (quite correctly I think). According to SM at CA, this now reduces the 1940-2006 trend from 0.074 degC/dec to 0.048 degC/dec. I haven't had time to read Steve's post thoroughly, so I'm not 100% certain and I'm not sure why 2006 (I'm guessing that may be when he originally raised the issue of the step change). Accordingly, the CRUTemp trend over the same timeframe will apparently be around 17% lower. Hope this helps. If you've time, you may be able to chase this down and clarify the matter.
Thanks for the link in your 11.59pm post by the way. On first quick look it seems an interesting and thorough critique, with some actual, real world figures thrown in as well. I will certainly return to it when I have more time.
Perhaps Huhne read those Update words on Jul 21, 2011 in this, buried in the Climategate files 27 Mar 2003:
http://www.geoffstuff.com/Earth%20Government.doc
[No]
Where on earth did you come by that extraordinary idea?
Parliament is full of people whose vast egos are in complete contrast to their meager abilities and non-existent integrity.
To get elected, you simply need extreme vanity and a strong desire to bolster that vanity with public recognition.
[No]