Monday
Mar072011
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill Ask a Green a question
Mar 7, 2011 Greens Questions have been invited for a Green question time at the University of Oxford this Thursday. The panel features Myles Allen amongst others and the theme is on John Beddington's "Perfect Storm" theory, which supposes that if sufficient funds can't be raised from the prospect of global warming then it should be possible to drum up interest from scaremongering on other fronts (I'm paraphrasing here somewhat).
Final Session: Perfect Storm "Question Time Panel" 5.30pm Thursday 10 March 2011
Please send your questions to: ridingtheperfectstorm@gmail.com by 12pm Wednesday 9 March 2011
Panel:
- Professor Myles Allen, Professor-elect of Geosystem Science, SoGE, and Leader, Climate Dynamics, Department of Physics, University of Oxford
- Professor Jim Hall, Director ECI, Professor of Climate and Environmental Risks, University of Oxford
- Dr Steve Jennings, Head of Programme Policy Team, Oxfam
- Professor Chris Leaver CBE, Emeritus Professor, Department of Plant Sciences, University of Oxford
- Mr Colin Tudge, Author and co-Founder, Campaign for Real Farming
H/T DR
Reader Comments (44)
The detachment from reality is underscored by the essay competition (see linked article): 'How important will Sustainable Energy be in helping us to ride the "Perfect Storm" '?
'Sustainable energy' will have made little impact in decarbonising the UK, European or US economies by 2030 but let's be generous and say 20% of fossil fuels displaced by wind/solar.
80% of the world's energy needs will no doubt still be being met by fossil fuels and a growing nuclear sector.
So the winning entry should be the essay pointing out that renewables are always going to be too little, too late. The essayist would need to conclude that the forced march toward renewables will inflict considerable economic and social damage. This will materially weaken our collective ability to withstand the buffetings of this hypothesised 'perfect storm'. So the strategically sound approach would be to accept that renewables will always be marginal contributors to the energy mix, and start building nuclear.
Somehow, I doubt that this will be how the prize-winning submission reads.
This "Environmental Change Institute" is nothing more than institutional pessimism.
Their glass is always half empty - everything has a downside and even good news is an omen that bad news is on the way.
The villain of the piece is always mankind. It's Original Sin 2.0.
I would be asking them what are the basic principles of the green movement and what would be a "Mission Accomplished" moment.
How was Jesus in touch with the natural world? What do you think was green about what Jesus said and did?
BBD, don't go there!!
Anon, interesting how religion does not make much of an appearance on climate blogs. Is there a reason for your question?
My question is this: Imagine that global warming was disproved in 2013. Would you be ecstatic that the end of the world had been averted or would you think it was a travesty that your mission to save the world had been erroneous?
Is one allowed to ask "WDYFO"?
Dear Greens, why don't you all become televangelists? This would enable you to tap into a ready source of funding. Furthermore, you would not need to justify what you say or do with pseudo-scientific-statistical machinations, and the perks and benefits are attractive. Even greater power and wealth can be yours.
I note with some amusement the last member of the panel, Mr Colin Tudge, author and co-founder, Campaign for Real Farming. Looked up his site, and on it found an essay by Ruth (reminds me of Lydia Wilson's portrayal of Dr Diane Cassell's (Juliet Stevenson's) daughter in The Heretic, (which my wife and I enjoyed immensely last week on Josh's recommendation). It is here
http://www.campaignforrealfarming.org/2011/03/further-thoughts-on-beddingtons-foresight-report/
but I fancy that essay will not win the prize, castigating Beddington for being too mainstream. In fact the whole Campaign fro Real Farming website is an aberrant joy-a positive fountain of gonzo to obnubilate ones mind on a Monday night. On second thoughts, it may win.
I would ask:
Mar 7, 2011 at 8:53 PM | smallbiz
IIRC, this cropped up on WUWT some time ago and the gist of the response from advocates of AGW was that "disproval" would be a catastrophe because then all the little people would start buying 5 litre Chelsea Tractors and taking even more long haul flights and and and it would be, well, just awful!
Josh, a UK judge has said that, "a belief in man-made climate change ... is capable, if genuinely held, of being a philosophical belief for the purpose of the 2003 Religion and Belief Regulations".
I guess they are now embarrassed about it. In other word, unlike Islam, no courage of their conviction.
Queston:
Are all those who campaign on the issue of man-made climate change guilty of crimes against the planet/climate/weather or whatever if they use a jet to fly abroad? Even once?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/03/07/climate-ugliness-gets-personal/
Anoneumouse:said;
Josh, a UK judge has said that, "a belief in man-made climate change ... is capable, if genuinely held, of being a philosophical belief for the purpose of the 2003 Religion and Belief Regulations".
And where does (may have left now) the guy that brought this case work!!!
at the 10:10 campaign
http://www.1010global.org/uk/about/inside/team/tim
"He joined the Campaign for Greener Healthcare in January 2009 and after successfully putting in place a licence for the whole NHS to see the Age of Stupid for free he was invited to run 10:10 Health. In November 2009 Tim set a groundbreaking legal precedent resulting in protection from discrimination for people with a philosophical belief in the need to act on climate change."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/6494355/Belief-in-man-made-climate-change-as-important-as-religious-faith.html
!0:10's director Eugenie Harvery no longer seems to be with them; (feb11)
Why do environmentalists always paint a bleak future when history proves then wrong?
see www.rationaloptimist.com
I would ask:
Oil, coal and gas are wonderfully concentrated and transportable fuels. If we do not burn them, someone else will until none is left. Do you agree?
Or maybe "given that GB is the only country in the world to implement a Climate Change Act, it is reasonable to assume that there is a consensus of countries/governments who do not believe it necessary. The Government place great store on the so called scientific consensus that man is causing climate change through releasing CO2 into the atmosphere. Can you please tell us what conditions must be in place for the Government to accept a consensus is worth acting upon?"
"10:10's director Eugenie Harvery no longer seems to be with them"
Obviously Eugenie wasn't careful with that axe, and it fell...
Nice paraphrasing your grace!
Considering Myles Allen was one of the authors on the recent paper in Nature regarding UK rainfall in the Autumn of 2000, you might make use of the following.
http://img573.imageshack.us/img573/9612/highestukrainfalls.png
http://img819.imageshack.us/img819/8870/engwalesrainfallvshadce.png
http://img249.imageshack.us/img249/1669/engwalesprecipvshadcetk.png
http://img101.imageshack.us/img101/4800/dailyrainfallenglandwal.png
http://img249.imageshack.us/img249/1669/engwalesprecipvshadcetk.png
As well as Willis Eschenbach's deconstruction:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/02/24/nature-magazines-folie-a-deux-part-deux/
I need to ask, exaxtly what is this perfect storm of which he speaks?
I know what a storm is, and I know what a perfect storm is:- as per the movie of the same name, but his statement seems to imply there is another meaning towhich I am ignorant.
Would the panel please tell us the financial and career interests they have in promoting AGW ?
Accepting that the burning of fossilised carbon adds CO2 to the carbon cycle: what verifiable evidence exists that since 1950, this has had a detrimental effect on planetary life?
The entire CAGW hypothesis relies on an extremely strong positive water-vapour feedback in the IPCC computer models, i.e. as carbon dioxide increases it causes more water vapour to be produced by evaporation due to increased temperatures.
If this model were correct, and the "consensus" assures us it is so, we must thus necessarily be seeing an increase in atmospheric humidity over time.
However, measurement studies do not show such an increase in atmospheric humidity. See http://icecap.us/images/uploads/SPECIFICHUMIDITYSINCE1948.gif
Applying the scientific method, based on this information, what would be an appropriate conclusion to draw?
Chris Ulman is the new joint presenter on the Australian ABC 7.30 pm news review program.
Chris really got stuck into Julia Gillard, the Austrailian PM who is touring the USA.
He told her, very directly, that the world is moving away from taxing carbon (read CO2 emissions), particularly in the USA.
After the interview, he subsequently went into some detail on this.
He also challenged the PM on the record low rating of her Labor government in the latest public opinion polls.
He commented that the government were doing just as bad a job as did former PM Kevin Rudd.
KR lost his position as PM in large part because he had lost the debate on CO2 taxes.
This is the first time that anybody on the ABC TV has come clean about the real position.
"Whats up?", is all I can say.
What will all my loving "carbon tax" friends think now?
Goodness gracious me xxxxxxx .........
"The end of the world is nigh. Repent ye sinners."
How many times has humanity heard that thru the ages!
http://theendisnighmagazine.blogspot.com/
Here's a good question to ask, posted over at The Blackboard.
George Tobin (Comment#71354)
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2011/climate-response-team-two-suggestions/
" Last year, the head of the IPCC defended an indisputably erroneous reference to the imminent disappearance of Himalayan glaciers. That particular error is obviously not dispositive of any larger climate issues. However, what is noteworthy is the manner in which Dr. Pauchuri framed his response: (a) that there was a scientific consensus on the issue; (b) it was based on substantive research and (c) the motives, methods and qualifications of those who disputed the claim in question are suspect at best. This is a common, almost uniform mode response to criticism or questions about any claim presented in support of AGW. This raises two questions:
(a) Given that that exact same form of defense is offered in defense of the erroneous (eg. the 30-year imminent Himalayan glacier death), the highly debatable (e.g., Mann’s paleo-climate hockey stick, Steig’s model of Antarctic warming) and the highly substantive (the radiative physics of GHG), doesn’t that rhetorical habit of “circling the wagons” to defend even unworthy assertions diminish confidence in the science overall?"
If CAGW is a scientific theory it must be 'falsifiable'. Explain what observations could falsify the CAGW hypothesis.
O/T
Guardian: Public sector to be told to cut carbon emissions by 25% by new campaign
25:5?
Maybe they can blow the Civil Servants up who are resisting...
Two part question:
1. Do you believe in homeopathy?
2. If not, why do you assume that an increase in concentration from 3 to 4 parts per thousand of atmospheric CO2 can have the catastrophic effects you predict.
Yes, I know the two things are different but I wonder how many of that panel (Allen aside) would be able to give a sane answer without prevaricating.
And a follow-up.
If a doubling of CO2 from pre-industrial times is going to cause havoc with the climate, given that we have already seen 40% of that increase we should have seen a sizeable increase in the number and/or severity of the events which will demonstrate that havoc. What are they?
There is money to be made from alarmism, £500 to be exact.
How would a sceptical student respond in such an essay?
You could split the essay title 'How important will Sustainable Energy be in helping us to ride the "Perfect Storm"?' into two parts.
How sustainable is sustainable energy when it is clear that the current UK energy policy will result in high consumer prices and energy shortages? Is a high cost energy system based on availability sustainable in a high-tech society?
Is the world really at risk from a "Perfect Storm" of emerging food, water and energy shortages, which, on reaching a critical threshold, could lead to public unrest, cross-border conflicts and mass migration by 2030, or is this just another manufactured scare story? Does the science hold up or are we dealing with naked alarmism by climate-change activists?
If one or both arguements surrounding the issues in the essay title don't stack and as a consequence fall should society be asking such questions in the first place? Why is our future continually being blackened by educated people?
Could we provide a completed essay that would allow Oxford students to challenge for the £500 prize.
Mar 7, 2011 at 8:53 PM , smallbiz
My question is this: Imagine that global warming was disproved in 2013. Would you be ecstatic that the end of the world had been averted or would you think it was a travesty that your mission to save the world had been erroneous?
***********************************
To quote Captain "Redlegs" Terrill in "The Outlaw Josey Wales", I think when he'd been told the Civil War was over,
"Doin' The Lord's work ain't got no end".
So no, they wouldn't be deflected, because what they are about is really nothing to do with reducing emissions or saving the planet.
There's a competition here (Isle of Wight) to name the new windfarm to be built off the Needles. As it's on a bird migratory route, it shouldn't be too hard to think of something...
A glimpse of hell...
Recent poll projects the Greens in Scotland could grow their existing two seats to six and hold the balance of power.
Can you imagine the damage they could do to the Scottish economy? Truly chilling.
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/politics/green-coalition-could-hand-power-to-labour-1.1088884
Same
"3 to 4 parts per thousand of atmospheric CO2"
3 to 4 parts per 10,000, I believe. Just shows how slippery the 'ppm' figure can be...
Mac
'An essay competition sponsored by npower (£500 1st prize, £250 2nd prize) is associated with the Linacre Lectures and the preceeding [sic] Climate Panel Discussion.'
The write messedge being moor importent than the grammer and speling.
Mac
See comment #1 in this thread.
James P
Yes. I've just returned with the express intention of correcting that slight error!! I did indeed mean 10,000.
Question 1:
What reaction would you expect from the UK public when they realize that the price to be paid for "sustainable energy" were ever more frequent and longer power cuts, and ever higher power bills?
Question 2:
Would any measures have to be put in place to protect politicians and NGOs who backed current policies, to prevent them from being castigated in public by an enraged populace for example?
Can I put CAGW as my religion in the forthcoming Census?
Accepting that electric cars are considered the green replacement for petrol ones: how does that fit with the current National Grid acceptance, voiced by its CEO Steve Holliday, that the ability to charge one will be intermittent and variable?
Question sent!
Dear Panelist, please can you explain why real-World measurements (below) do not agree with Climate Change theory, or Climate Change models?
1) All Global Circulation models (GCMs) predict an equatorial trophospheric "hot spot". Thermal imaging from satellites does not show this.
2) Global warming theory predicts as the Earth warms there will be more water vapour in the atmosphere and hence less outgoing infra-red radiation escaping into space (as water vapour is a greenhouse gas). However the Earth Radiation Budget Experiment (ERBE) satellite shows exactly the opposite. As the Earth warms more infra-red escapes into space. i.e. the Earth is behaving like a simple black-body radiator.
3) Satellite data also shows no significant increase in atmospheric water vapour.
4) Satellite measurements of sea level rise show no increase in the rate of rise- it has remained constant over the measurement period
5) Finally satellite measurements of ground temperatures show only half the rate of temperature rise compared with ground-based thermometers- which are often compromised by the urban heat island effect.
My apologies BBD.
Mac
No, didn't mean it like that ;-) I meant: FYI.
Posting in haste, I'm afraid.
My Question...
What evidence do you have to counter all experience of Bureaucrat run economies, namely that they are inefficient, dirty and filled with poor people pretending to do work?