Bishop Hill Hysteria
Oct 1, 2013 Climate: Parliament Economics Environmentalists are a never-ending source of fascination for me. There is hardly a day that passes without them whipping themselves into a frenzy over something somebody said somewhere.
Take Owen Paterson's unexceptionable observation that there will be upsides to any global warming as well as downsides, which has been greeted by industrial-scale hysterics from the usual suspects:
Professor Kevin Anderson, of Manchester University, told the Independent: “His view that we can muddle through climate change is a colonial, arrogant, rich person’s view.”
And Professor Myles Allen of Oxford University, one of the authors of the report, said: “I find it very worrying that this person is charged with adapting [Britain] to climate change. I do think it is a good idea for whoever is planning for adaptation to have a realistic understanding of what the science is saying.”
One can't help but think that politicians' understanding of the science might be helped if scientists, including Professor Allen, had tried to write a clear explanation of it rather than trying to obfuscate any difficulty that might distract from the message of doom.
However, that aside, we know from Tol's review of the literature that the net effect of small amounts of global warming are expected to be positive (note that the temperatures given are above the present, rather than the more normal pre-industrial baseline). And as estimates of climate sensitivity fall, the timescales for reaching the scarier scenarios at higher temperatures stretch further into the future.
;)
I can't see how anyone can argue then that Paterson has not stated something that is unequivocally true. Saying true things seems, however, to be considered beyond the pale by Kevin Anderson, who apparently went on to describe Paterson as "immoral".
To see a senior academic frothing at the mouth in this way is not, after all the years, much of a surprise. It is nevertheless a continuing source of wonder that anyone should take them seriously.
Reader Comments (54)
Anderson is a frothing-mouthed advocate of putting us back to the stone age.
From the weeks of discussion over AR5, I thought that no one could hear what the science was saying as it had been overpowered, bound, gagged and held incommunicado by the Green politicians and their activist cronies. What sort of scientist would be party to such an obvious act of Piracy against Truth?
Owen Patterson's sin? Citing a peer-reviewed survey paper published in a top journal.
Our Tyndall friend
“His view that we can muddle through climate change is a colonial, arrogant, rich person’s view.”
As opposed to a green religious nutcase who doesn't care what he does to poor people because he is saving the planet from evil?
Myles Allen the 10 degree kid. My, my does anyone believe what he says. Especially given the amount of nonsense he has spewed over the last month.
Time for this quote again, from Callendar's famous 1938 paper on CO2:
“In conclusion it may be said that the combustion of fossil fuel .. is likely to prove beneficial to mankind in several ways, besides the provision of heat and power. For instance the above mentioned small increases of mean temperature would be important at the northern margin of cultivation, and the growth of favourably situated plants is directly proportional to the carbon dioxide pressure. In any case the return of the deadly glaciers should be delayed indefinitely.”
Anyone who frames their criticism around the complaint that someone exhibits a "colonial, arrogant, rich person’s view", is clearly a political activist and class warrior.
They are absolutely right to have temper tantrums. There is an unequivocal sea change going on. There is no way any public figure would have said that 3 or 4 years ago. Osborne stated that Britain should no longer be leading the world which we definitely have been.
Andersen and Allan should remember they are expendable employees and if the wind changes, they will have to keep their stupid mouths shut.
Or as I put it, following a cue from the Sceptical Environmentalist, a couple of degrees of warming is like Oxford having the terrifying climate of..Bordeaux. How will I cope? Four degrees might give me Portugal. Wow.
Two good examples of the environmentalist: scientist/true believer and scientist/activist.
Anderson is the chap who prefers to attend the office unbathed, because of his religious scruples concerning hot water (using either heat or water is a sin). For the sake of his colleagues, we must hope that he doesn't ride a bike to work. Although if he doesn't...
More seriously, Allen, (despite being a Professor at Oxford University and therefore, one would normally assume, a person of some intellectual subtlety), pretends to believe that "the science" has an opinion all of its own - no interpretation required. When did such casual dishonesty become acceptable?
Callender didn't have a computer, nor a degree in physics, in today's world he wouldn't even have the right to call himself and engineer as his qualifications were attained at the City and Guilds Institute, so he didn't have a degree. Yet he beat CMIP5 by a country mile using scientific deduction from observations.
As for the two Profs, they're not Professors, they're "Profits" of Doom, and like prophets from time immemorial do not like having their prophecies challenged by oicks who wouldn't know which way to hold a birds entrails let alone make accurate "projections" from them. Quite understandably they're shocked that anyone would challenge them and their fellow high priests, especially, as Gavin calls us, a "civilian".
I wonder how much money Anderson and Allen (no, that's not the name of a comedy duo) have been paid over the years by the UK taxpayers for their part in the Climate ChangeTM scam? Enough to make them both rich persons by normal standards, I'm sure.
Owen Paterson is one of the few sensible politicians we have in the HoC. Listening to him on the radio, you wouldn't think he was a politician, as he is always on top of his brief and he talks a lot of commonsense.
Lets be honest here, there is no doubt but that Owen Patterson is guilty
on this occasion.
Guilty of expressing an opinion and guilty of positive thinking.
This person is obviously a menace to society and needs to be stopped.
"Sarc" as if it was necessary.
A new script-writer would certainly help.
I just had a rather tedious and unpleasant discussion with Dr Alice Bell of Sussex University, which I wrote about here:
http://geoffchambers.wordpress.com/2013/10/01/alice-is-at-it-again/
It ended with this exchange:
Alice: you maybe misunderstand my role here, which isn’t as an academic.
Me: Does that mean you are not to be held to the normal academic standards of rational debate? Or what?
Alice: I don’t think there is such thing as “normal academic standards of rational debate” nor should there be as such admonishments are usually used to silence people.
I sometimes think a Lewandosky style analysis of the irrational behaviour and thought patterns of environmentalists might be worthwhile.
Some people have Climate Munchausen's
From NHS direct...
The last bit chimes with Naomi Klein and her "No Lego" book about a childhood without toys and how it has left her unhappy and obsessive.
I think "spittle-flecked" is an accurate description of some of these academics.
This type of person used to be seen in the streets, often unshaven and dishevelled, carrying a clapboard, or placard saying "Repent! The End is Nigh!".
Can't say I have seen any of these recently. I had thought they had been quietly taken away for treatment.
I now know better.
Remember: Climate Alchemists fail to understand the difference between Thermodynamic temperature and Radiation temperature. This is a physicist's view. In engineering terms the radiation field measured by a pyrgeometer is a potential energy flux, not a real flux.
Also in 1981_Hansen_etal.pdf, they made the mistake of failing to include the decrease of albedo when you 'remove ghgs from the atmosphere' in their Para 4 thought experiment. This increases the ghe by a factor of 3, the imaginary 'positive feedback'.
So, people like Anderson who appear not to understand the physics used by the climate models, are woefully ignorant of the truth which is that the climate models are worse than useless.
"Environmentalists are a never-ending source of fascination for me. There is hardly a day that passes without them whipping themselves into a frenzy over something somebody said somewhere."
Could one not say the same for you Bish??
A phrase that says more about the mind-set of the speaker than a whole book of psycho-analysis.
Kevin Anderson, who apparently went on to describe Paterson as “immoral”
Isn’t this known as ‘projection’ in psychology?
Now where have I seen that word before?
@Paul Matthews
Time for this quote again, from Callendar's famous 1938 paper on CO2:
“In any case the return of the deadly glaciers should be delayed indefinitely.”
Quite right. I strongly advise the use of the 'Precautionary Principle'. After all, recent climate has consisted of Ice Ages lasting around 100,000 years and Interglacials lasting around 10,000. We must be nearing the end of the current Interglacial.
On that basis, we need to dispose of the windmills, solar panels and nuclear generators and start digging up and burning coal, oil and gas as fast as we can to prevent the glaciers once again covering most of the hemisphere, which would devastate plant, animal and human life, just like it did last time.
After all, you can't be too careful.
... and provides one of those occasional glimpses into the real underlying motivation of many in the "climate community".
Why would someone whose real interest is scientific enquiry be worried about an opinion being "a colonial, arrogant, rich person's view"?
Anderson is clearly a strident, full-on, Guardian-reading, fringe lefty - whose "science" is mainly guided by his politics.
Dellers was right - he's a Grade A "watermelon".
Oct 1, 2013 at 9:58 AM | mike fowle
Lewandosky? Analysis? sorry, you've lost me there.
at 10:03 AM | Don Keiller
Great stuff, Don! Let's have more of it - much more!
AlecM: "In engineering terms the radiation field measured by a pyrgeometer is a potential energy flux, not a real flux."
You have just committed the same sin as Paterson by stating an inconvenient fact: the hysteria requires that it not be true.
It would be even better if the analysis were done properly.
The science peddled by these people is as robust as someone seeing the Holy Infant Jesus' face in a Domino's Pizza.
Anyone who frames their criticism around the complaint that someone exhibits a "colonial, arrogant, rich person’s view", is clearly a political activist and class warrior.
Oct 1, 2013 at 9:28 AM | Unregistered CommenterGeckko
-----------------------------------------------------
Well said.
As for "muddling through", I suppose that describes democracy pretty well. Presumably the alternative is governance by all-knowing technocrats. No, thanks.
Dear Myles,
The science is saying clearly that the UK has been cooling rapidly since 2000.
What are your proposals for dealing with this? Shall we dig up our the Mediterranean garden?
Marvellous stuff, a walking, talking product of the progressive's global warming inculcation agitprop - now charging rampant in British education - all the way up from primary level through to tertiary academia.
Kevin Anderson:
No sh&7?
link.
From above first quote, "colonial, arrogant, rich person’s view" and he'd know all about it - being an arrogant rich shill himself and doubtless paid well over the odds, as he is riding in first class - on the green gravy train. I'd say that, he majored in cant and hypocrisy and minored in science.
Dave 10,10am
I have seen no evidence at all that the Bishop does "frenzy". If you have read and/or heard him, calm and sometimes rather amused rationalism is a rather more accurate description of his usual demeanour.
Maybe obssesional would be a better phrase, sorry!
I wish that people wouldn't keep reducing the multiple motives of climate alarmists down to one: usually money or politics.
No doubt some alarmists are politically motivated, no doubt some have become wealthy, no doubt some people would need to be alarmist to keep their jobs or gain grants but even with these people neither of these is necessarily their only, or even primary motivation.
Different alarmists have different motivations and it is easy for any alarmist to point to people who are believers who evidently have not made money out of CAGW or who have no obvious political motivations.
Pursuing, only, the "it's all about money"or "they are all marxists" line is just erecting an easy target for warmists.
Agreed artwest and describing 'greens' as one monolithic group.
The real problem is not that he says it but that people like this get immediate media coverage whereas those telling the truth are censored. Such is journalism in Britain.
artwest, you are missing the subtleties of debate here.
There are multiple motives and drivers at work in any large political movement. Identifying and analysing the components is not the same as tarring everyone with the same brush.
I would be interested if you could find a quote from BH which accuses all (including the general public) believers in CAGW of being Marxists, spongers or anything else.
Dave
Did you visit the Heartland Institute site I pointed to you to. Did you view the videos of Fred Singer, Nir Shaviv and Bob Carter.
Any comment about their presentations ?
Sorry Ross, not had time, work and stuff but I will.
Someone should tell that Anderson dude that it is October. Global-warming season is over for this year (in the Northern hemisphere, at least).
I expect a few Chinese could also tell him what arrogant colonialism really is: comfortable Western environmentalists telling them that they should not improve their living standards the same way we did. That these comfortable "lifestyle" environmentalists wish to roll back the industrial revolution AND the enlightenment in the West, does not make it sound policy in the East either.
artwest,
Remarkable is it not that, there is a common theme running through the whole gamut of the alarmist agenda, and even more remarkable, it does rather seem that in general, the left marches to the tunes played by the Alarmist high command.
True capitalists, abhor the idea of the green agenda, particularly the small businessman/woman. In manufacturing and industry and here one must be careful to draw the distinction between corporate conglomerates and the SME's, incontestably the crony statist corporates including big oil companies all play the green fiddle. All of which is very much in stark contrast to the small and medium business concerns, who are appalled at the stifling regulations - good for the big boys and very bad for the small un's. Then, those heaped enforced costs and implications of the green agenda with it's carbon floor price, emissions trading enforcement but with a caveat - that, unless of course that small business is adhered to selling the snake oil charms of solar panels and the like.
Indubitably, one must beware of making over simplified generalization but the two tribes, alarmist and realist are mostly very far apart, one thing should also be remembered, that, without small and medium businesses paying tax and employing millions of people here in the British economy - there would be no 'green agenda' because there would be no effin taxes paid. You will also note how much tax the big boys pay in relation and proportion to the little boys.
The end game of the green agenda is control, the green agenda is the stillborn scion of another altogether more sinister global movement [agenda 21] hatched by some very powerful men, politicians and vested interests - and is in effect is a tax monies redistribution scheme from north to south and from west to east and isn't that what communism-Marxism all about but in the end [of Marxism or communism] it was found that some people were definitely more equal than others. Moreover, judging by what I can perceive and observe - that's the road [unequal redistribution] upon which we again travel now.
Athelstan - sounding a little un-hinged! Thankfully, the majority who comment on here are not.
Very interesting the term *adaptation* here. It is actually adaptation that Paterson is giving a nod towards when he suggests the positive things that will arise due to a modest warming, but it is the mitigation policies that he, very wisely, suggests we think about moving away from. I think Myles Allen is fudging the adaptation versus mitigation policy responses because he knows that AR5 spells the end for eye-watering, global-level, mitigation and emissions reductions policies, and all that will be left for the green believers will be policies based on local adaptation. Which is where we should have been for the last 20 years.
Dave
I do not agree with Athelstan about right/left issues and influence but the Agenda 21 issue is bang on. I am not sure that most people realise just how important that is.
[Snip - venting]
artwest - it is clear that there's a variety of motivations for the warmists.
Some honestly believe they're Saving The World From Doom.
Some just think They Know What's Good For The Unwashed, and any pretense toward science is just to sell the rabble on the great future of lilacs and unicorns they know is out there.
Some just want to kiss up to one or both of the groups above.
There's probably a couple at the top who probably realize in their heart of hearts that they've done really bad work, but they can't face the harm to career and reputation that'd come from walking it back.
There's doubtless a few lower-level folks who got involved in the field in much the same way that someone might answer an ad for a great-sounding important job overseas and, having ended up in a bordello, wonder 'How the hell did I end up HERE?'
And there's some who've discovered it's just a great way to stuff their pockets.
Oh! Where did that comment go? Anyway it was Mann commenting on WG1-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_CrfafTebrE
Professor Anderson
“His view that we can muddle through climate change is a colonial, arrogant, rich person’s view.”
Actually it is a poor person's view. They live from day-to-day and have neither the resources nor time to devote to the long-term perspective. It is a sign of a rich country that large numbers of people can devote time and resources to wider questions.
Oh Dave, equanimity is a prize.
However, it ain't as easy as that, life isn't ball for most people. It's hard graft - in the real world, where hardship and making ends meet is an effort, a real effort - it can polarize one's view somewhat. To be quite honest - I am a little fed up with the casuistry and bollocks talked - man made global warming is but a fiction, people need to be reminded it is more usefully - a vehicle for transport to something else - these are the thoughts of people - far more learned than I.
Capisce?
When I contrast the manifest good sense displayed by Owen Paterson on this and every issue he handles with the nonsense spouted by Davis Cameron on the 95% 'consensus', I dearly wish it were the former who was Prime Minister.