Bishop Hill Climate cuttings 60
Jan 31, 2012 Climate: Cuttings There's a lot of material floating round the climate blogosphere at the moment, none of which I really have time to do justice to, so here's a round up of what you are missing.
Katharine Hayhoe has posted up some of the emails she has received. One or two of them are very ugly, the rest still rude in a way that we can really do without. Given that Prof Hayhoe has been known to use the 'd' word I'm less sympathetic than I might be, but this is not to condone the messages she has been sent. I hope she eschews name-calling in future though.
Damian Carrington is horrified by the idea of environmental regulation being reduced. Planetary possibilities before people I guess.
This morning, tweeters of the left looked as if they were about to form a lynch mob based on David Attenborough's article accusing Nigel Lawson of cherrypicking data about polar bear populations. Attenborough didn't actually explain how Lawson was supposed to be cherrypicking data or indeed what his favoured interpretations of the data is, but for most it was good lefty against wicked right-wing tyrant, so no further evidence was required. If you read Ben Pile's article on the subject of polar bears, however, you discover that the data is being grossly misrepresented. I don't suppose Attenborough has read anything more than the Guardian on the subject though. If so, accusing Lawson of cherrypicking is rash, to say the least.
The David Rose article over the weekend is still causing outrage among upholders of the IPCC consensus, with the excitable Bad Astronomy blog the latest to weigh in. I was interested in the author's idea that the little ice age has been shown to be a Europe-only phenomenon. Is that right? I recall this Tibetan reconstruction which has what looks like a little ice age. Loehle et al - a global reconstruction - has one too.
A report has shown that biofuels produce higher greenhouse emissions than fossil fuels. This seems like a good time to remind ourselves of Friends of the Earth's call for a "biofuels obligation".
Reader Comments (58)
Or else an activist who has infiltrated herself into an academic job.
According to Donna Laframboise's book there are rather a lot of them around.
Richard Drake - Your summary of the downside of bio-energy is just the tip of the iceberg in this misguided initiative. And they were warned at the beginning.
I gave a presentation recently based on this article by Matt Ridley which some may not have seen.
http://www.rationaloptimist.com/blog/bioenergy-versus-planet
I titled some of my slides "and it gets worse!"
Retd Dave: thanks for the reminder. I did note Ridley's shocking article at the time but I need - we all need - to internalise all of this.
"People should not be too spooked by the evangelical Christian aspect. Sir John Houghton has been influential on US evangelicals like Hayhoe and Cook, in making them think this is part of their Christian duty to care for the world, as God does, who loved the world so much that he gave His only Son. This isn't too dangerous an idea, in my considered view :)"
It is a dangerous idea, Richard.
Evangelism must stay out of science just as politics must.
If these people want to be gods' stewards so as to guide the rest of the flock for research and action and other 'good' things in the scripture then they ought to become nuns and priests, not scientists.
sXs: My wording wasn't perhaps as clear as it could have been. It is dangerous if evangelicals or any other influential group get the science, economics and politics of climate wrong. But I don't think the answer is for all to become nuns or priests. From its earliest days the church has had a profound influence on the society in which it's found itself. (Without the later corruption by power justified by theologies of theocracy, I hasten to add.) I personally greatly desire that church leaders in the UK wake up to the disastrous effects of much carbon policy meddling on the poorest. That should be of great interest to all, out of respect for the Man who kicked off the show, but they don't get to hear it. I don't rule out that Mr Houghton could help, based on his reaction to the Great Global Warming Swindle in 2007.
She claims this was orchestrated? It seems anything but orchestrated. Was it rude? In the examples she offered, yes.
Does she think that calling people 'deniers' and such is not going to have some cost in civility? It would appear she has not considered that at all. Is it better to communicate with civility? This is meant to intimidate? Bunk. Intimidation is groups seeking to hurt meteorologists for doubting the climate consensus. Intimidation is the 10:10 video message. Intimidation is government employees calling for war crimes trials against climate dissidents.
I wasn't aware of that 10:10 video until I read the above posts. Interesting. Funny, even. But I'm not sure that it's likely to persuade anybody about anything. In fact, I'm not even sure what they are trying to achieve. Prince Philip must have sold them some strong medicine or something.
@Michael Hart
what !!
have you been away expoloring the heart of Africa for the last 5/10 yrs, if so do tell your tales :-)
ps. sorry Barry but kinda agree with Foxgoose on this.