The climate wars

Just finished watching the BBC's history of the climate wars in which a geologist called Ian Stewart manages to emit more carbon dioxide than most people manage in a year. In episode one he managed to visit Hawaii, Greenland, Colorado, the south-west of England, California. A powerboat trip was, of course, essential to his historical case. which was largely a predictable environmentalist take on the last half century. .

It included a wonderful moment where Ian Stewart tried to write off a committee reporting on the issue of climate change by saying its head was "a passionate believer in free markets". Well, that settles it then. He did engage in some pretty grubby innuendo at times.

The programme adviser was Naomi Oreskes, which kind of gives you an idea of the integrity of the piece. Oreskes has a companion piece in the Sunday Times today, which rather suggests that the show is part of a campaign rather than a serious attempt at a history of the controversy.

One interesting point was that when they got onto the subject of temperature reconstructions, they only talked about ice cores and not tree rings. It's possible that they'll cover this next week, but could it be that they are going to skip over the subject of the hockey stick entirely? They couldn't could they?

Comments

[jnicklin]

Can't imagine Oreskes omitting the hockey stick, it was on her exhaustive search of 928 papers, and the new study just confirms its accuracy. Once again, more stew for the uninformed to feast on.

[Nick]

Hi, I thought the bit where he filled a tube full of CO2 to demonstrate how it 'trapped' heat was iinteresting but I wonder exactly what trapped means,, absorbed? Same thing? Anyway, I daresay there is such a thing as greenhouse gases that trap heat,, but 300- 400 parts per millon? I wonder if there has been laboratory tests to demonstrate discernable heat retention.

Regarding the believer in free markets,, well, free markets is a very ambiguous idea 'kicking away the ladder' etc, free but not that free.
I do believe that the way markets manifest are very problematic,, esp from a christian conservative perspectve (you may find ths laughable, I don't consider myself a christiian, but I was bought up in the faith and still have such bias regarding values, ethics). How conservative, in the Edmund Burke sense, gets conflated with so much of the anti environmentalist discourse is yet another of lifes many, if repugnant, mysteries.

[jnicklin]

It looks like Naomi hasn't increased her reading list from her original 928.

[Rich]

What I found interesting is how they protrayed the early 70's fear of Global Cooling as "before" we understood the climate. I have serious doubts about our ability to currently understand the Climate. One fun example is the total failure of the UK Met office to get even close to an accurate 3 month summer prediction. (watts up with that blog), and yet they want me to believe their 30 year projections. hmmm....

I've become extremely cynical while watching any show on Climate Change, especially those on the BBC.

[punkscience]

FYI

http://punkscientist.blogspot.com/2008/09/challenge-to-climate-change-denialists.html

[jnicklin]

So during the cooling scare, we didn't understand that it was really warming but just being masked by a temporary natural phenomenon. That would explain it.

I'm beginning to think that the best way to get the upper hand away from Oreskes, Gore, Suzuki, King, Hansen, and their ilk is to write a pro-warming, pro-climate change catastrophe book. Just make it up, get it published and then explain that it was all made up. Several people have done the first part, they just haven't admitted the latter.

[Bishop Hill]

Go for it JNicklin!

[AlanB]

Further to the guy who calls himself "punkscientist":

He seems to have a grudge against you. Do you know him?

Why is he using the nonsense descriptor "climate change denier"?

I am SURE you believe, along with just about every rational scientist, that climate has changed, is changing and will continue to change. To deny that would be beyond science. Climate changes. It's what it does. Get over it!

We have had the Roman warm period, the Medieval warm period, the Little Ice Age - all supported by documentary evidence. We have not had ice fairs on the Thames for a few years now ...

To deny that there is a concensus that the primary factor affecting climate change is anthropogenic carbon dioxide is a reasonable position but has nothing to do with denying climate change. Does he really understand the words he is using?

[Bishop Hill]

Alan

I dunno really. He came over here the other day calling me rude names. He now seems to be asking me to defend a view that I don't think I've ever actually advanced. CO2 forcing is negligible? Seems a bit unlikely to me.

[Novus]

Iain (he is a Scot, after all) Stewart has form in this area. There is a BBC series called "Earth: the Power of the Planet" from a few years ago. To be absolutely fair to him much of the programme is unexceptionable, as well as being very interesting and, to his credit, well and enthusiastically presented. But, with the tedious inevitability of an unloved season, there is unfailingly a five or ten minute segment in each episode devoted to hectoring us with questionable science and moral judgement - and if you thought his intinerary was hectic in ths new one, then TPOTP will leave you dizzy....

[fewqwer]

Punkscience's link is worth following for a laugh - he's losing an argument with a 'denier'. He's even resorted to deleting posts and hurling abuse.

Are there *any* AGW fanboys who aren't nasty, egotistical, emotionally retarded leftists?

[AlanB]

Dear Bishop

Thought it might be like that. Accuses a "Climate Change Denier" of cherry picking individual peer reviewed documents and then deletes posts when his "adversary" lists a whole load. I admit to not having read all of them but some I have and they seem to be along the lines of looking back to the recent geological past and showing changes at least as big and as fast as what has been unswervingly attributed to anthropogenic carbon dioxide.

I understand that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. I also understand that the forcing produced by carbon dioxide is far below what is required for the scare stories produced by Dr Hansen and Al Gore. As soon as you require enhancement by water in the atmosphere you run up against feedback that reduces the effect. Otherwise, we would have REAL runaway global warming.

By the by, it is interesting to look at the links provided by punkscientist on his blog. A well-balanced list that includes Real Climate and FOTE but also Climate Audit, Prometheus (Piekle Jnr.) and Piekle Snr (NOT!).

I for one will not be doing his work for him when he asks us to critique the paper he has chosen to review.

[Dodgy Geezer]

"To deny that there is a concensus that the primary factor affecting climate change is anthropogenic carbon dioxide is a reasonable position but has nothing to do with denying climate change."

Actually, I suspect that it would be unreasonable to deny that there is a consensus amongst 'scientists' that the IPCC warnings are true. Dr Jolliffe, for instance, makes this point even as he is denying Mann's hockey stick.

What such a consensus means is a moot question. It probably means 'I have not studied this in any detail, but I hear it being voiced from everyone, so there must be something in it..". We can deny that anthropogenic carbon dioxide IS the primary factor affecting climate change, but I think we must agree that most people who have not studied the subject believe that AGW has been proven - they just don't know who by.

This, in fact, is our greatest problem. It does not seem difficult to disprove the AGW hypothesis, but that will have no effect so long as everyone believes it has been proven...

[punkscience]

FYI, Gentlemen.

http://punkscientist.blogspot.com/2008/09/re-challenge-to-climate-change.html

I'm flattered to have gained the attentions of so many of you. The reason I call you climate change deniers is because you deny anthropogenic emissions have any effect upon climate change. All respectable climate scientists and every academic body in every country on the planet now agree that this is the case so you are clearly deluded if you believe that you have some insight into this problem that they have missed. My post was a challenge to you people to bring evidence to the table to support your position. That is what you seem to be parodying here- an evidence-based debate, yes? Well, I've already destroyed the reference supplied by David Duff. Please feel free to suggest your own reference and I will do the same for you.

Oh- by the way, don't expect to post long lists of references copied from Marc Morano's blog or any other climate change denier. Don't expect to abuse me or deploy extensive sarcasm. I will moderate the comments thread on this post to keep the debate factual and evidence-based and I will delete material I consider to be offensive apart from my own. Its my blog and I can use it to offend people. Put up or shut up. Also, please READ your own references before posting them. Duff did not and as a result was not aware that the closing sentence in the reference he cited in support of his position of denial specifically stated that the review in question was nothing of the sort.

Think you have what it takes to prove your denial? Bring, it bitches!

[punkscience]

Sorry- could I also emphasise that I require your reference to be PEER-REVIEWED. No exceptions, no magazine articles summarising and misrepresenting peer-reviewed articles, no blog posts or letters from your mum telling everyone what naughty chaps those scientists are for scaring all the little children and telling them we're going to die.

[Andy]

Dear Punk, you are an idiot.
One would assume you will either ignore the papers referenced; at least you cannot delete posts here although you can as appears to be your forte resort to the language of the gutter.
Go away you silly little boy, I doubt very much a diminutive PhD candidate can teach many here any science...go on your nappy needs changing...run along back to mummy.....

Oh and the failure of GCM's has a rather large effect on "climate panic".

[Bishop Hill]

Dear Mr Punk

As I've pointed out above, I have no recollection of ever having said that CO2 emissions have no effect on climate. Can you please point me to where I have said this?

And by the way, I would appreciate it if everyone would adopt a less angry tone here. Mr Punk, I've told you about this before. Thanks.

[punkscience]

Bishop Hill,

I will show you where you said that CO2 emissions have no effect on climate if you show me where I said that you said that you thought that CO2 emissions had no effect on climate.

Confused? You should be.

Andy: As a visitor in BH's house I will refrain from sharing my opinion of you with those browsing this thread.

[Bishop Hill]

Mr Punk

When you issued your original challenge you asked me for evidence that "anthropological forcings are negligible in comparison to natural ones."

Just up above you say:
"The reason I call you climate change deniers is because you deny anthropogenic emissions have any effect upon climate change."

I think you'll find you have just contradicted yourself.

[Andy]

Probably a good idea, your opinion counts for little.