Bishop Hill Who are the deniers now?
Apr 3, 2014 Climate: Sceptics Climate: WG2 In the Spectator this week, Matt Ridley looks at the Working Group II report and notes the similarities between the IPCC's new line and that advocated by frontlines sceptic like Nigel Lawson.
Nigel Lawson was right after all. Ever since the Centre for Policy Studies lecture in 2006 that launched the former chancellor on his late career as a critic of global warming policy, Lord Lawson has been stressing the need to adapt to climate change, rather than throw public money at futile attempts to prevent it. Until now, the official line has been largely to ignore adaptation and focus instead on ‘mitigation’ — the misleading term for preventing carbon dioxide emissions.
That has now changed. The received wisdom on global warming, published by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, was updated this week. The newspapers were, as always, full of stories about scientists being even more certain of environmental Armageddon. But the document itself revealed a far more striking story: it emphasised, again and again, the need to adapt to climate change. Even in the main text of the press release that accompanied the report, the word ‘adaptation’ occurred ten times, the word ‘mitigation’ not at all.
Amazing. Read the whole thing.
Reader Comments (23)
One of the nice things about the CAGW disease is that saying this three times will cure you forever.
The medicine tastes horrible but it works a treat. Thanks to Matt Ridley for giving it central billing.
On past performance I doubt our politicos and their officers are capable of adapting.
Doing nothing is not their raison d'etre.
Green Sand: But they haven't 'mitigated' either, in that emissions of CO2 have not been reduced, though in some cases they have been exported to China. Voters are increasingly wary of high energy prices and Nigel Farage's lumping together last night of a corrupt political class with the leaders of big business rang true, including among traditional Labour voters, based on polls immediately afterwards. Farage also paid tribute to Lawson. Things they are a'changin. Some politicians will surely be smart (or self-interested) enough to adapt to the new realities, in both senses.
Are we winning yet, chaps..?
Marginally off-topic but I don't know where else to post it...
In last night's tv debate, Nick Clegg AGAIN managed to insert 'climate change' about half-a-dozen times (the debate was about EUROPE, for Chrissake) whereas Nigel Farage took the bull by the horns and, I thought, summarised the whole subject perfectly.
This is part of a general trend. I think it was Betts who first noticed how the WG-I report was at the end of the day quite warmly received in skeptic circles. Now with WG-II there is some form of vindication (Stern's figures officially wrong, adaptation, the end of the no-hope narrative). Maybe with WG-III we will read skeptical blog's texts copied verbatim (unattributed) (joke).
On the other hand alarmist amateurs like Abraham, Nutticelli and Ward are trying their luck and losing against actual scientists.
Things couldn't be more different than in 2007.
However, as one of the commenters under the Spectator article points out, the IPCC report on mitigation is due out later this month.
Stand by for another blast from the Neo-Luddites then.
So far, however, so good. Though it would still be nice to hear from Field (or Betts) why Tol's figures are wrong.
What is the connection between the preposterous figure of ridicule that is Nigel Lawson and science ?
He is being used to discredit global warming scepticism. Ditto fellow right wing nuts like Delingpole, Monckton and Ridley.
The advantage the other side has is that no one knows what idiots like Abraham, Nutticelli, Cook and Ward stand for.
We're not out of the woods just yet. The Green Behemoth is slowly dying, but it will probably prove a long & lingering death, until the next scary story comes along!
I think we have turned a corner. When the IPCC starts to advocate "sceptic" positions then true consensus is in sight.
The world does not have adequate infrastructure for preventing damages from floods and droughts resulting from the current climate. This is not just a developing world problem but even sophisticated cities such as New York are woefully underprepared for storm surges combined with high tides. In the future, if climate change has an effect on extreme events it will be gradual and adaptation will be relatively easy. One way to think of it is that a 100-year event may be equalled or exceeded on average every 90 years instead of 100 years. Hardly cause for panic.
Even if you prefer 'adaption', someone has to pay. Ridley gives the example of the people of Somerset preferring adaption, but what they really prefer is for the rest of us to pay for their adaption. They are not going to pay for it themselves. That only works if you belong to a rich country that has the resources necessary. Guess what, a lot of 'adaption' will be needed in countries that don't and instead of simple adaption they will take the third route: suffering.
A bit off topic, yet relevant. At the top right hand corner is a link to http://theaimn.com/2014/03/12/an-apology-to-dr-david-evans/ The story has been 'disappeared'. Here is a new link to the article. As theaimn REALLY doesn't want this apology seen I suggest putting it in a 'bit' more light! http://web.archive.org/web/20140312161035/http://theaimn.com/2014/03/12/an-apology-to-dr-david-evans/
Thank you for all of your efforts.... Jeff
Even if you prefer 'adaption', someone has to pay. Ridley gives the example of the people of Somerset preferring adaption, but what they really prefer is for the rest of us to pay for their adaption. They are not going to pay for it themselves. That only works if you belong to a rich country that has the resources necessary. Guess what, a lot of 'adaption' will be needed in countries that don't and instead of simple adaption they will take the third route: suffering.
Hi omnologos
Well the general trend is for 'skeptics' to have finally come to their senses and accept mainstream climate science! I've been in this debate long enough to remember when 'mainstream skepticism' was arguing that we were shortly going into a new ice age, that C02 had no effect on climate, that C02 was much higher than now in the recent past (remember the likes of Janscheid?). There are still enough mad 'skeptics' (read this blog or WUWT) who still argue for some of these things.
Of course, the clever 'skeptics' who see which way the wind is blowing have now morphed seamlessly into lukewarmers! Progress of sorts I suppose.....
Here's another : Tim Worstall, now aligning himself with Matt Ridley (Rational Optimist)
http://www.adamsmith.org/blog/energy-environment/a-very-important-point-about-climate-change
Putting the boot into Stern by the way.
Here's another : Tim Worstall, now aligning himself with Matt Ridley (Rational Optimist)
http://www.adamsmith.org/blog/energy-environment/a-very-important-point-about-climate-change
Putting the boot into Stern by the way.
So will we be having a Pause in the windmill building programme?
The greens etc will now try to "own" adaptation, since there are bound to be plenty of grants available and it's still in their interest to exaggerate risks and demonise sceptical or even just moderate voices.
This sounds like a devious plan to stop Sanity Claus coming down your chimney. There ain't no Sanity Claus. He has no more substance than the pre satellite temperature record.
Monty..Nice try..but fail.
Read the post again.
You have the whole post and claims back to front.
Yes..an ice age is coming..try geological records...co2 appears to have some effect on climate..but "we" have always argued that not as much as the alarmists claims..we have been vindicated on that..yes..co2 has been higher..
"Of course, the clever 'skeptics' who see which way the wind is blowing have now morphed seamlessly into lukewarmers! Progress of sorts I suppose....."
Many of us always were lukewarmers..you just dont read or see what you dont like.
But..many of us are also aware how you alarmists have always claimed you had a strong case for the destruction of earth.
Yet none of us could work out why your side had to fudge data/torture data/hide data/conspiire with others to block data..etc that supposedly proved your "strong"case.
Go and spend a day on a site like climate audit...and learn.. :)
And none of your "team" ever says anything about any of these games..or is the slightest bit interested,
Its all good for the cause right.??.
Are you all Moral and intellectually that shallow.?
,
I guess that Monty is the alarmist equivalent of Drake...
Monty, have you worked out whether the global anomaly temperature trends for GISS, HADCRUT, NOAA, BEST, RSS etc over the last 17+ years are statisticaly significant or not?
Meat and drink for an eminent climate scientist. Go on, you know you want to.
Thanks
This approach accepts the thesis, but that it isn't going to be catastrophic, effectively saying that Phil Jones, Ben Santer, Mann et al, are correct but it isn't as bad as they say. Adaptation to a changing climate has gone on for aeons. There is nothing unique about our current climate, in fact we are in a benign period compared to even recent history.