Saturday
Jun192010
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill Roger Harrabin on libertarian columnists
Jun 19, 2010 BBC Climate: HSI Climate: other Roger Harrabin has an article about "libertarian columnists" in New Scientist.
Libertarian columnists have helped turned many British Conservative parliamentarians into climate doubters, and the Conservative prime minister, David Cameron, has installed a Liberal Democrat climate secretary to give his coalition's green policies some protection from his own party's right wing.
Libertarian columnists? Whoever can he mean?
Reader Comments (25)
Yes, just imagine if Camoron had put a sane Conservative in that office - we might have been able to claw back some of the £18 billion a year (plus whatever other lunacies Huhne is hell-bent (sic) on pushing through) that Dave is determined to waste on the Climate Change Bill measures!
Libertarian columnists? Whoever can he mean?
Not the Mooonbat (from his latest bilious attack on Matt Ridley):
“he's being celebrated throughout the rightwing press, as well as in parts of the liberal media (sometimes I wonder whether we're too liberal for our own good)”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cif-green/2010/jun/18/matt-ridley-rational-optimist-errors
Yep, freedom of opinion is far too liberal, George. Time for a bit of good old-fashioned Green Fascism.
Just another example of Roger's activism - no mileage for the cause in reporting the facts of the hockey stick.
I was actually quite disapointed by that article.
Roger is perhaps more of an activist than I thought...
"The majority of the sceptic scientists at the conference appear now to acknowledge that the world has warmed and that humans may be partly to blame. Most agree with the scientific consensus that basic physics means CO2 will warm the planet by about 1 °C above pre-industrial levels"
'now appear to acknowledge' is irritating, it was ever such amonsgt the scientists, they just had issues of computer projections of 'imagined' +ve feedbacks, tipping poits, and +6.0C - +12.0C scares..
To imply that 'climate scientists' have brought them to this position, in my mind is disingenuous (I'm talking scientists, not an ignorant (of the co2 science, green house effect) sceptical general public)
It will all come out........
Eventually
"Climate doubters"? Is that a new one?
@ Liam
Maybe, the doubt is out?
"Climate doubters"? Is that a new one?
I guess we have been demoted from "deniers". Me, I am a climate "surer". I am sure it is bunk.
Maybe next month we will be Climate Surers. That would be nice.
He means people like Robert Mendick, who had the effrontery to report in today's Telegraph that windmill owners are being paid by the government to turn them off when the wind is blowing.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/windpower/7840035/Firms-paid-to-shut-down-wind-farms-when-the-wind-is-blowing.html
There is a pattern here, and if you look carefully you can see it. Most of these people have never engaged with sceptics on any level, so believe we are an arm of the creationist movement, devoid of any scientific knowledge, who'd vote Hitler into power if we got the chance and re-introduce capital punishment. They assume the IPCC is right and don't bother to look beyond the newspaper reports they read about it. I would bet my pension that Huhne, Yeo, Miliband Minor and Brown haven't even browsed the SPM. They see people who question the scientists as nutters. That's why at least three of the above refer to large parts of the electorate as "deniers" they believed that it was the raving loony fringe and they could insult them without political damage.
Harrabin engaged with sceptics at Heartland and was surprised to learn that they were fully aware of the science of CO2 and the outcomes of increases and seems to have been surprised. It's typical of a mindset that accepts the teachings of the church and believes those who even question some of the teachings are heretics.
Harrabin is a case in point, I doubt that he could debate with anyone on these blogs because his knowledge of the subject is limited to the press coverage, although in his case there is an outside chance he's read the SPM, yet there he is pouring out the propoganda for the cause without even trying to understand what the heretics are questioning and why.
At least he's put his head out of the bunker and found some human beings with knowledge and questioning minds.Maybe he'll engage more and see that, for the most part, we are courteous and knowledgeable people with a genuine point of view. Heaven forbid, maybe he'll read the Hockey Stick Illusion and question Jones, Mann, Wahl, Briffa et al on its contents and then judge for himself who are the nutters.
Excellent Geronimo, I remain a flat earther myself, it is the same for all the political 'elite' and the MSM, they huddle together for warmth (natural of course) and gossip and convince themselves that they're omniscience is noble and people who doubt are savages who haven't or are unable to see reason.
It is all part of the Socialist mantra, "we know better and are superior anyway".
And the government will take care of you if only you will trust us to be your guiding Ubermensch.
Harrabin (part of the Ox-bridge elite thinkers) bought into that long ago, the doubt doth stir within him though.....and it appalls him that the 'proles' may even have a point, worse, far worse! - That they are sentient, thinking human beings capable of joined up thinking, Gadzooks! - it wasn't supposed to be like this*?!*!
What sloppy reportage! Or sloppy thinking. How much CO2 are you talking about, Roger? 1 ppm? 100pmm? 1000ppm? A doubling (which seems to be the usual AGW mantra)? And compared to when? And over what period?
It could be just me but whenever I read recent comments by both (alarmist) journalists and scientists of late there seems to be a common thread. They simply have no clue as to who or what a "sceptic" is or what a "sceptic" might believe. Strange for them to have spent decades fighting an enemy they know so little about.
How long has Roger been fighting the "deniers"? It has taken him until mid 2010 to realise that the enemy possesses the ability to follow the quantum mechanics of the CO2 molecule and the ability to read and evaluate published papers. Jeez Roger, wake up.
At least he got half way before "oil and tobacco" got a mention. I suppose that is an improvement.
Hmm basic physics. Yes CO2 is a "greenhouse" gas and in theory it could cause warming, none of the sceptics disagree with that. In fact many will say that it might be responsible for as much as 1C although the rise from the LIA to the 1970s, as much as .5 -.7C can only have been natural.
But Roger, where are the observations that support this basic physics?
An what is an emvironmental analyst anyway. Is Roger trying to obtain some scientific creds?
Paul
Roger has a degree in .... English Literature.
This says everything you need to know about "New Scientist".
Harrabin claims that
"A few months ago, I put out feelers on three sceptic websites asking for sceptical scientists at British universities to contact me anonymously. I could count the positive replies on one hand with a few missing fingers."
Well, I was one of those positive replies and I got a one-word reply from the man.
He was more responsive to someone else - a one-line reply.
"To those of a different political persuasion, this reeks of denialism." With a nice link to all the fallacious arguments you could possibly muster in one tidy webpage of denial-o-clickdom..
He said in February on the beeb, (and we all thought he had suffered a Morano "moment of clarity") “I think that phrases like climate deniers and flat earthers have absolutely no place in the debate whatsoever“. I guess he's changed his mind.
We should start a competiton to create a new name for NewScientist. My offerings would be (a) NewLysenkoist or (b) NewAstrologist or (c) NewPostnormalist. Does anyone know where to get information on the monthly readership/subscription numbers for this publication? Are they bottoming out at the moment or are they sky-rocketing in the wake of science-gates?
Just Wondering
Sam the Skeptic - I think Harrabin is referring to the 3.7watts per metre squared for a doubling of CO2 which equates to a fraction over 1 degree Celsius warming (all other factors being equal).
That's for any doubling - say for example starting from 300ppm and doubling to 600ppm. To get a further 1 degree Celsius of warming (all other factors being equal), you need to double the amount again - from 600ppm to 1200ppm. A further 1 degree Celsius warming (all other factors being equal) requires a further doubling from 1200ppm to 2400ppm.
As you can see, the higher the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere, the smaller the response to an increase in concentration. If you use 280ppm as the pre-industrial baseline, we have already had two-thirds of the warming for a doubling of CO2 with our present level of 388ppm. The effect of CO2 in the atmosphere is near-instantaneous so that warming has to have happened according to the understanding of the energy budget. This is why you have people like James Hansen and Kevin Trenberth scrambling to find where this 'lost energy' is.
There's not enough warming to equate to the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere (given that part of the warming since 1900 has been natural), let alone support the positive feedbacks argument which gives the scary numbers used by the computer modellers.
An explanation for Roger Harrabin, about lack of sceptical climate scientists, and/or a reason they might not want to come forward, included in my post below:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I spoke to Sir John Houghton (former IPCC co-chair) last Thursday (17th June 2010) for about 15-20 minutes following a presentation by him:
- God, Science and Global Warming - (1st Power point slide)
http://www.wargravechurch.org.uk/welcome.htm
John Houghton set up the Hadley centre and was instrumental in the early days of the IPCC and he defended and fought to get Michael Mann's 'hockey Stick' into the IPCC reports and to keep it in..
In last weeks presentation John Houghton said:
"don't believe any rubbish you see on the internet.."
Presumably that includes everything Dr Judith Curry has ever contributed. (let alone my contributions ;) )
"The enquiries have completely exonerated everybody."
"All that was wrong with the IPCC, was one tiny typo 2035 instead of 2350 on glaciers."
"There is a consensus amongst thousands of scientists"
"their is a well funded exxon/mobil denial campaign against global warming, they thought the had something with these stolen emails"
Sir John Houghton's presentation last week of course included a 'hockey stick' graph.
(an audio recording by the church - to verify this will be available)
His voice of authority, and many other similar ones, political as well (Al Gore, etc) and this message, from the IPCC, lobby groups, wwf, greenpeace, etc, remains the sole mesage that the UK/EU political establishment get to hear.
It is the only message the general public hear..
It is the prevailing CURRENT message.
Back in the real world outside the internet amongst friends, parents at school, etc
I know of no one who has even heard about climategate, let alone the discussion. I know of no one else that has come across:
Climate Audit
Bishop Hill
Watts Up
or even Real Climate
Sir John Houghton, started up the Hadley Centre, co chaired the early IPCC reports, his replacement at Roger Napier the MET office previously chaired the WWF- UK (a vocal advocate of AGW)
Roger Harrabin(BBC environment analyst), asked various sceptical websites for a list of uk ' sceptical climate scientists' in post...
How could there be any?!
The key figures in the UK scientific and political establishment is in consensus on AGW for 25 years. No one would have ever received funding for, or studied for a phd if they were remotely sceptical, because all the 'climate' professors, phd supervisors, grew out of, worked with or were connected with, Hadley, Tyndall, met office, etc..
All the UK has done for 25 years is breed consensus 'climate scientists'.
15 - 20 years ago, it was decided that man made global warming was proven. Since then it has not been about science, but the use of science to support this preconceived agenda.
It was by shear chance that I attended this meeting with Sir John Houghton. His brother happens to live in Wargrave, Berkshire UK. Some people are trying to make Wargrave and Henley Transition Towns and they invited him along to speak in suport of this.
Literally on my doorstep, at the church where I have taken all my children to the church toddler group and family services.
Transitions Towns say this:
"Haven’t they disproved Climate Change?
They have tried, but the science has stood up to the onslaught. The discussion among climate scientists is about how bad it is going to be, how quickly it will happen and how best to minimise possible disastrous consequences."
http://www.henley-in-transition.org.uk/about-transition/index.htm
Have a look at their highly emotive movie, using children extensively.
http://www.transitionnetwork.org/about/publications/transition-movie
Small (cute) child saying:
"CO2 is one of the MAJOR greenhouse gases"
"the weather is becoming more and more unpredictable, JUST because we are releasing more and more CO2 into the air."
Transitions Towns have many things I agree with, sustainability, thinking locally, even alternate energy sources, but I would be labelled a 'deniar' by them.
So whilst, we may discuss the science here, 15 years ago the key 'climate science elite' (ie IPCC lead authors, chairs, etc) scientists became political/social public policy activists. Environmental lobby groups, social change political groups all jumped on board the AGW bandwagon to use it for their own political agenda.
Following his presentation: - God, Science and Global Warming -
I asked Sir John Houghton a direct question afterwards:
Have you looked at the Climategate emails for yourself, in context, and the code, and looked at what people are saying..
Sir John Houghton's answer: No
There is a well funded fossil fuel exxon mobil denial campaign using the same people that lobbied against tobbaco.
We had a long discussion.
Mainly around the lines of as a scientist..
phil Jones's comment pre-climategate to Warwick Huges:
"why should I supply data, you only want to find things wrong with it"
Which is appalling to any scientists that is NOT a 'post normal scientist'
What if, that scientist, found something wrong (if you supplied the data) that found that the risk/temperature were UNDERESTIMATED, it is indefensible not to publish data/code used to derive results for scrutiny.
You need to see the code as well, because whilst you say you programmed it a certain way (as I am an IT profesional) you may NOT have actually done it in the code correctly, it must be available for audit.
I have no doubt Sir John Houghton sincerely believes what he says:
As do virtually ALL the European and UK politicians.
The rest of the conversation, will be 'hearsay' to many, so I will not repeat it here.
Let me know, if you want tho hear full audio recording of this public meeting/presentation.
How to get the real scientific debate here and eslewhere, to the politicians and vast majority of the general public is going to be a challenge.
Apart from the (are they obligatory for this class of journalist?) sneers and smears, the piece by Harrabin has some interesting phrases being smuggled in. A little judicious editing could produce something quite sensible:
'Climate scepticism is on the rise, boosted in large part by...the scientists at the University of East Anglia (UEA) in the UK, and by ... the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The damage to the public standing of climate science has been substantial...
'...climate science points towards a global socialism ...'
'...a UN trick to foist on the world policies transferring hard-earned wealth from citizens in western democracies to corrupt governments in the global south: not an act of generosity, but moral blackmail...
'How much does CO2 warm the planet? Are the computer projections right when they forecast catastrophe?...
'He said many scientists he knew were queasy about what he called "climate alarmism"...
'These sceptics claim they already enjoy quiet support from many academics scared to speak out for fear of losing tenure. Groupthink, they insist, has taken over...
'..the world has warmed and humans may be partly to blame...basic physics means CO2 will warm the planet by about 1C above pre-industrial levels <not so scary, eh?>
'...Where they disagree is over computer models supported by the IPCC, almost all of which project that [a speculative hypothesis about]..feedback mechanisms will amplify the CO2 warming, probably to a dangerous degree. If the debate can focus on this [hypothetical] feedback warming, we might be able to remove some of the political heat. But don't hold your breath.'
Some of these phrases will be quite subversive for many alarmists, unaccustomed to seeing them in the Pravda-like New Scientist or BBC. Very interesting.
Meanwhile, for a less jaundiced, and quite detailed, summary of the Heartland conference, see here: http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/06/heartland_conference_establish.html
I see Panorama is covering climate change tonight, although ostensibly it's about weather. Tom Heap is presenting, so it will be interesting to see if he involves Harrabin or any of the other arts graduates on the staff...
June 21, 2010 | Barry Woods
That is a seriously depressing post sir, no wonder Huhne continues blindly along the path to energy oblivion and Cast iron is so glued to the 'message', if all they get is Houghtonesque AGW guff, lies and obfuscation and tractor production figures.
There is a serious information gap and a even more grave, a lack of joined up thinking - no surprise there!
What will it take?
A glaciation it seems....... !
Sigh!
There seems to be some confusion as to whether this is actually showing today or not...
Hmm.. I can't find it on their website, either. It's difficult not to be a conspiracy theorist sometimes!
It seems to have been pulled in favour of a programme about the BP oil disaster. That must have been an easy decision!
I gather from the producer that it has been rescheduled for the 28th. We shall see...