Bishop Hill The lukewarmer's ten tests
Jan 28, 2013 Climate: Sceptics GWPF Matt Ridley has a new paper out at GWPF.
I have written about climate change and energy policy for more than 25 years. I have come to the conclusion that current energy and climate policy is probably more dangerous, both economically and ecologically, than climate change itself. This is not the same as arguing that climate has not changed or that mankind is not partly responsible. That the climate has changed because of man-made carbon dioxide I fully accept. What I do not accept is that the change is or will be damaging, or that current policy would prevent it. For the benefit of supporters of climate change policy who feel frustrated by the reluctance of people like me to accept their assurances, here is what they would need to do to change my mind.
Reader Comments (65)
Because GWPF is thought of as the Nigel Lawson web site, and the Tory associations and the Thatcher years means that no Guardian or Independant reader will take anything on the GWPF web site seriously.
And unfortunately these are in my view exactly the people who need to be re-educated. These are the people who are actively implementing the crazy climate change policies for local government, and desiging this latest daft "green deal" loan schemes, and pushing for more windmills, and ensuring that the newly build college in Watford has a massively expensive wood burner installed that they cannot even turn on because of local emmision rules!
michel writes:
The sources MR uses are popular and mostly easily accessed online. Clearly, this suggests a popular audience for MRs piece, not science geeks like here.
MR has done more traditionally documented - but critical and skeptic friendly - before, including last year. Why not seek out these sources instead?
'steveta' draws attention to the demonising of critics which seems to be part and parcel of being leftwing, possibly since the dawn of time.
Other factions no doubt have for-instances of the same thing, but those who believe a strong state will be their salvation seem to be particularly prone to it, as illustrated on a grand scale in the Germany of the National Socialists and the Soviet Union of the Bolsheviks and the China of Mao. I think it is because theirs is an emotional position, often dominated by hatred of the status quo, and as such is vulnerable as a balloon is to being pricked.
Anyway, I think he is probably right about Guardian and Independent readers. The words 'Daily Mail' can trigger apoplexy amongst them, and the more informed ones on climate matters will no doubt have their antibodies well-primed to react to 'GWPF'. Despite the wisdom that can be found in both sources.
@ dung
Well, yes. If natural variations can mask warming over 16 years, then they can presumably exaggerate or even simulate it outright over the previous period.
It's not even necessary to postulate natural variations that can either warm or cool. They could have only one effect or only the other, but be intermittent. This would mean that when not in evidence, the opposite temperature trend would manifest.
This is an obviously simpler model of what's going on but as, unfortunately, all the psyentists were bought and paid for years ago, it's not going to be taken up or even looked into any time soon. They may not be very bright, but even climate psyentists can work out that there's not much return on funding them to study a phenomenon that can be observed but not influenced.
Matt doesn't make any statement about the degree to which man-made CO2 has an effect, and I think that's the correct attitude to adopt.
Everything man does, just by being present, just by respiring even, has *some* effect on the atmosphere. That statement makes no judgement about how large any impact is related to ay particular activity, no judgement on whether the activity is beneficial or damaging (however *thats* defined and measured)
So I can't see why anyone should take offence or adopt a combatative stance to that on either side of the debate. It's trivially true (but by the same token, as stated in the article, totally uninformative).
Hear, hear, 'mrsean2k'!
Matt's piece could of course be more candidly entitled
" Top Ten Reasons I No Longer Appear In The Economist But Am Still Plenty Good Enough To Send To Brussells."
Oh Russell, such a wit. Let's hope your drive by sneers make you feel good, because they certainly don't make anyone respect you or think you have a contribution to make. Why don't you try to make a substantive comment someday?
Skihil, looks like you missed the leading "t" in the last work here: "Oh Russell, such a wit".
When naming the city of Brussels
My spelling is better than Russell's.
I'm sorry to tell
There's only one 'L'
In that town where they serve chips with mussels.
Why bother with Spellcheck when Matt can't be prevailed upon to check his facts against the serious literature ?
Tried 'Russell spouts' in Word spellcheck. It offered Brussels, but not sprouts. Fail.
Russell, my last word is this:
Your orthography’s all hit and miss.
So put up your feet,
Have a plate of moules frites
And stop taking the Manneken Pis.
LOL.
Bish - please can you add a "Matt Ridley" tag to this piece? Thanks
Matt - given the recent threads on Doug K's work, please can you revisit your statement:
"That the climate has changed because of man-made carbon dioxide I fully accept."
and provide your evidence. You never replied to the critique of your previous sources.