Copenhagen dispatch

Frank S

Given the huge amount of media, political and politicised organisations' promotion of AGW, this is a very reasonable and civilised article by a concerned non-scientist. I see myself as an unconcerned scientist. I see nothing whatsoever in the temperature and other climate records to be concerned about except for one thing. That one thing is the fact that we are in an ice age, and enjoying an inter-glacial within it. These typically last for roughly the age of the one we are in, and so we can expect to have the next glaciation in due course. This means, for example, ice over most of the UK all year round. But our knowledge of climate is so poor that even on this I see no need to lose sleep. One of my professors, a very distinguished meteorologist, when we students pressed him about this in the 1970s (when ice rather than fire was the topic due jour) he paused, and said that in the light of all we know about climate, you might encourage your children to set up house a little further south than your own, say 50m or so, and to continue the trend over the generations. Even this, he advised, was something of an over-reaction. Climate science is in a primitive condition, and this has facilitated a hijacking of it by mediocre scientists of low personal calibre such as we have seen at CRU. There seems nothing to worry about. We should wait and see, and challenge the alarmists to produce evidence, and that most certainly does not include the output of hopelessly inadequate computer models pre-set to exaggerate the effect of CO2.

Publius

"accept that the science is compelling"

-- The point, surely, is that the science is *not* compelling.

Viv Evans

Here we go again, with 'the science is compelling', and 'die-hard climate deniers'.

How can science based on fraudulent manipulation of data be compelling?
What is 'compelling' is the propaganda of the numerous activists, who besmirch all those who dare to question with such labels as you've used.

What, btw, is a 'die-hard climate denier' - someone who denies climate exists, right? What else can it be?

Those who question this 'compelling' science you mention, and have questioned it for some time, not just since the leak of the UEA Crutapes, do not 'deny' that climate exist, they don't even deny that there was some warming in the last century. They have in fact pointed out that there were much warmer periods in the 20th century than just the last decade.
They don't deny that there is a - very small - rise in CO2.
They do however point out that it has been cooling in the last decade, not warming. And they do point out that some far more important and powerful factors driving our climate have been utterly disregarded by those 'scientists' who have pandered to the political activists like Al Gore.

Any journalist worth his salt ought to investigate this scientific fraud, and the huge financial scandal perpetrated by carbon trading, as has been reported in Denmark.

But then, arguing that things aren't that bad, lets all be good people together, is far less taxing (pun intended)!

porkbelly

DK: Why do all your postings follow the "on the one hand, on the other hand, perhaps the conventional wisdom is correct" convention? Surely with a little more effort and time you can supply some original - even thought-provoking - ideas?

Frank P

Once again the Spectator, through one of its columnistas, ignores that thar 'elephant in the room': gigantic fraud - racketeering on an hitherto unknown scale and apparently no means or mechanisms to bring the perpetrators to book. Stop waffling with little vignettes of 'on the one hand ... but on the other hand'....

Get your asses out of Old Queen Street and do some real-time feet on the ground digging rather than pretending to read the 'evidence' and sitting on a cushion astride the fence. Very flat Norfolk, you should be able to plod around without getting out of breath; visit a few pubs around the campus; do bit of ear'oling; it must be abuzz with varying degrees of spite and chagrin just now. In vino veritas - though you might have to plough through some 'in ganja gobbledegook' in the process.

Or are you all too grand for that; can only exist on the rarefied air of the Westminster Village?

Peter From Maidstone

I am not a hard-core climate change denier, I just believe it is all a con. My Dad believes it is a con, and he spends no time at all on the internet visiting climate-change denial websites. My teenage children believe it is all a con - without my convincing them. In fact I am not sure I know anyone - in work, church, and among friends and family - who believes in AGW.

To be honest, if the Government really believed in it then it would already have done many things as a matter of urgency - a commitment to nuclear power stations 10 years ago; massive funding of battery and solar cell technology; massive funding of alternative energy sources; massive tax breaks for companies working in these areas.

It has done none of this, which suggests to me that it doesn't actually believe in AGW at all, but sees it as a useful tool to beat the populace with.

JohnPage

If we do not act and it turns out to be true, we are stuffed.

But we don't have to act now. If we wait, there may be better ways of adapting to the warming (if it's happened) - probably the world will be richer and there will be new technologies to help.

Even if you want to advocate acting now, you have to ask whether the courses of action proposed are actually likely to achieve much. Read Lomborg & Lawson. If then you want to argue against them, fine, but at least we will be past first base.

Jeremy

"Before deciding all this, though, we probably need to be less hysterical, more open to different views, accept that the science is compelling, but not overwhelming, and discuss the tradeoffs (rather than pretending that they don’t exist or deny any other options than one). That is not a very compelling protest slogan. But it is probably closer to where most people are on the subject than either diehard climate-deniers or environmental fanatics."

It is the fanaticism which strikes me as being the problem. There appears to be a sizeable minority of people who always like to believe they are in exclusive possession of some absolute truth which absolutely requires them to force the rest of us into wearing hair-shirts and eating diets of gruel. In it's time, Marxism and certain Marxist-inspired strands of political thought and action have appealed to precisely this same psychology - and so too have certain veins of religious belief. Given the collapse of these things (in the West) this same psychology now attaches itself to whichever fashionable political cause or modish piece of scientific enquiry appears to justify - in their own eyes - their hysteria and their dictatorial desire to compensate for their own inadequacies by forcing others to comply with their will and acquiesce - absolutely - to their "truth". But at the end of the day, science is not politics and nor is it religion. And scientific enquiry is no place for absolutist fanatacism of this sort. Science is by its very nature sceptical and scientific models, as I have stated before, are only as good as the available evidence. And the available evidence is subject to change, over time. Scientific "truths", if you prefer to call them that, are always provisional and never absolute. They are only ever as good as the state of our current understanding and they last only so long as it takes to postulate a newer and and a better model.

The hysterical fanaticism which has attached itself to the "cause" of Global warming says a great deal more - I fear - about that type of human being and that type of human psychology than it does about the climate itself.

lloydj

Pure scientists spend their time trying to disprove theories, NOT concocting data to prove their hypothesis.
If a theory has the backing of the scientific comunity it should not need reinforcing.
Scientists DO NOT prove theories they test them for ERRORS.

Neil Turner

Whether it be AGW or our membership of the EU......

Why, within a "democratic" society, where leaders are elected to implement the will of the people, do none of the 3 major parties express the will of the majority ?

Do they know better ?

Do they have a different agenda ?

Surely politics is broken and democracy dead

Diane C - London

All the the endless hysteria about man-made global warming is nothing but the liberal elite of the country, who attend the same parties, talking to the converted. Personally, I have never heard anyone discuss it at all, or do anything about it other than putting out their newspapers for collection. Don't forget, it is a fact that 55% of the country don't believe a word of it ....

John Levett

"We are, however, busy destroying our environment"

What does this greenspeak mean Daniel? What are we destroying? In urban areas, there's more litter than I would like and more graffiti but they are social problems. I've always been suspicious of some fertilisers and the possible build-up in waterways from run-off but in many years of fishing, I think I can honestly say that our waterways seem as healthy as they've ever done. We seem to be living longer which would suggest that air-borne toxins are in very small quantities or not especially harmful and whenever I fly, the view of the vast empty spaces and general beauty of the landscape - wild and managed - make me realise not only how insignificant we are compared to the space available but also the debt we owe to generations of farmers and landowners for their husbandry.

At a subjective level, there is some terrible damage being done to the rainforests but we have to remember that Britain, too, was once overwhelmingly forested.

So what is the damage that you claim we're doing?

paul kerr

'If we do not act and it turns out to be true we are stuffed' Ecactly how people feel about religion god etc but in the case we are going to pay trillions of taxes and do a lot of stuffing first so you have to use a little logic first...

What is the percentage of CO2 that is anthropogenic?
Is it possible to reduce this enough to alter the worlds climate?
Is Copenhagen going to produce an agreement that would reduce anthropogenic CO2?
Now multiply the three estimated probabilities and what are you left with?

Alternatively mix tree ring data,satellite data, surface records and adjust them as you see fit. Merge into a single line in the shape of a hockeystick (hide medieval warming and delete tree ring data late 20th c to dramatise)
Scary looking but is it science?

JohnW

So, basically you're saying we should adopt Socialist solutions. (Like that's been SO successful in the past.)

"Most scientists" I think you'll find its the other way around. Approx 30,000 scientist disagree with global warming while only 700-800 scientists agree. (All those whose livelihood depends on koe-towing the government line.)

oldtimer

The science most certainly is not compelling, as you put it. Even those at the centre of Climategate at the CRU and US universities have their doubts and uncertainties. See here for a good article on the subject:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/017/300ubchn.asp?pg=1

This does not amount to concensus or "settled science" as Brown describes it.

The fact is that no one has established a climate model or hypothesis of climate/temperature change that fits the available evidence - hence all the fudging at the CRU. There are too many variables, uncertainties, known unknowns, as well as unknown unknowns and system feedbacks for this to be possible.

I read that Al Gore has cancelled his expensive ($2k a head) dinner that was arranged for the Copenhagen summit. Perhaps he has realised something that Brown has not.

denis cooper

The AGM theory - "the science" as you call it - has never been, and still is not, "compelling". Arguably if it was correct then by now it should be compelling, but it isn't - in fact it's still more like an unproven and increasingly doubtful hypothesis. There's certainly no sound basis for making radical policy decisions, especially as the intention is to make them far more difficult to reverse by enshrining them in a treaty.

Hysteria

"If we do not act and it turns out to be true, we are stuffed"

Why? How? In what way? Were we "stuffed" in the MWP? I would say we will be more stuffed under an increase in glaciation rather than warming. Anyone care to think what living in Scotland or the Lake District would be like if all the glaciers came back?

Lets look after our resources, switch to alternative fuels based on market forces, pollute less, and encourage econmic growth in the third world to try to addrress the (over) population problem.

Tom Jaffray

I would like to echo the point made by Viv Evans, viz that journalists need to work harder to understand "the science" in which they seem to place so much unquestioning faith. Too often you read a journalist declaiming their lack of scientific expertise etc, and then going on unquestioningly to accept what they are told by "climate scientists", regurgitating this to us the public as if it were the result of their own judicious deliberation of the pros and cons.

Here are a few pointers:

1. all the doom and gloom about temperature change, sea levels, whatever is based upon computer models which are projected 50-100 years into the future. Climate "science" is not in any way remotely like, say, Einstein's laws of general relativity where the theory's predictions have been verified to at least 8 decimal places (light bending round the planet Mercury). The mathematics of weather is simply impossible to solve in this way - ie by the derivation of formualae relating say carbon dioxide concentrations to temperature(eg like E= mc squared). That is why computers have to be used to get approximate answers. Climate models are based upon approximations in the relationships between physical variables, the approximations are of varying sophistication and complexity, but all such models produce greater and greater error the further they are projected into the future. You surely do not need to have any scientific training to grasp that 50 year computer-based projections, however large and sophisticated the model, are fundamentally fraught with error and uncertainty. To underline the point, weather forecasts are made using basically the same type of physical models, and who would bet their mortgage on the weather forecast, say for next year never mind the next 50 (it is ironic to note here the way that banks have rightly been severely criticised for over-reliance on their risk models for bringing about the recent financial crisis, but no mainstream paper or environmental journalist seems to appreciate that climate models, which are vastly more complex, fall into exactly the same boat, viz over-reliance on them will almost certainly produce equally error-prone results).

2. all results from models depend upon the starting assumptions - for example what the temperatures are at the point in time that the model commences its projections. Ideally, these should be derived from actual observations but in something as complicated as climate models, this is not always possible so the assumptions are just that assumptions not based upon actual observations. Assumptions also extend to actual relationships between physical variables viz some models assume carbon dioxide and temperature move in tandem so the model measures how much the temperature willl rise as carbon concentrations increase not whether the assumed relationship is correct. And models do not necessarily include all physical phenomena which could potentially have an effect eg sunspot activity (which generates huge amounts of controversy not to say heat). It is therefore very important to know and understand what these assumptions are.

3. Of course it is impossible to do a controlled experiment with climate or weather so the classic scientific paradigm of refutabilty (viz that theories should predict results that can be measured and reproduced, and the theories discarded if the actual results differ) cannot be applied in practice. But models can and should be tested. For example can the model reproduce what has actually happened in the past? As I understand it, none of the models used by the IPCC (or indeed any climate model) can do this at all satisfactorily, and in particular they cannot reproduce the fact that global temperatures have not increased in the last ten years; and that they increased more in the first half of the twentieth century than the second, with carbon dioxide increases being the other way round.

4. What has actually happened to the climate in the past is a long way short of undisputed fact. Much climate data is incomplete, particularly from the distant past, or it is the subject of unavoidable observational error, or it has to be derived from other physical measurements (eg tree rings) rather than measured direct. This leaves a lot of room for interpretation and "tweaking" - tricks if you like. And it would take a scientist of strong moral fibre not to tweak their results in accordance with what they expect to be the results, particularly if their expectation coincided with the overwhelming scientific consensus. The "climategate" controversy is a case in point; scientists shutting their minds to the possibility that they might be wrong. So transparency is vital if confidence in the derived result is to be maintained.

5. Please would journalists (and scientists for that matter particularly the Meteorological Office) stop attributing every weather/climate related disaster to "climate change". Whatever we do or not do about climate it will continue to change, and disasters will continue to happen. Melting icebergs and glaciers, and stranded polar bears may make great television but, to put it mildly it is intellectually sloppy and lazy, not to say dishonest;

6. Not all climate change is bad. Crop yields improve for example, and winters are warmer which prevents the early death of thousands of elderly people world-wide. Al Gore is very quick to tell us about the catastrophic effects of the heat wave in France a few years ago, but never that warmer winters are generally good for people who would otherwise die of cold. I certainly dont remember reading any stories in the papers about the benefits of increasing temperatures.

7. Even if you allow, at least for argument's sake, that global warming is man made to a greater or lesser extent, it is surely open to argument that the only way to tackle the problem is to reduce Carbon concentrations in the atmosphere. And to say that climate change is the single most important problem facing the planet is surely debatable too? The risk of nuclear war in the Middle East is less important? Or starvation, disease and endemic civil war in /Africa? There will still be floods and Monsoons affecting Bangladesh. And tropical storms devastating the Caribbean whatever carbon levels are. Putting all our policy eggs, as it were, into one basket strikes me as daft not to say irresponsible. So why dont journalists question NGOs more rigorously ditto "climate" scientists? How have they weighed up the alternatives to the policies they advocate? I would love to see a Greenpeace spokesman given a hard time by a journalist who had done a bit of homework first.

My own position is very similar to Nigel Lawson as expressed in his admirably clear and concise book, (leaving aside the polemics at the end). Or Bjorn Lomborg's superb book "Cool it" which sets out a far more elegant and compelling case for looking at policy alternatives than I have managed.

Sorry to bang on at such length, but I hope the above is helpful.

Watt Tyler

As good as Swift: a Minister for Climate Change.

Krski betrays prejudices in his language - might not be his fault - he has allowed himself to be brainwashed:

The term environmental fanatic conjures up people camping in a field near an airport, not so-called respectible scientists. ANd of course, many respectible scientists are what Korski terms deniers, as if they don't believe in the holocaust.

Whenever you encounter the media doing a piece like this, it is because they are having to shift their ground - they do it cautiously. They can't just come out and say that they were wrong.

Which brings me to Cameron. So as far as I know, the Tory party stance is the same as it was, they want to tax us and give it away to third world dictators. They still do not recognise that AGW science has been discredited, and therefore they need to become cautious sceptics (much as Korski has done). There a story in the Guardian - can't remember the lnk - but it is about how the UK must become a place where the worlds climate change refugees can escape the catastraphe. How do the Tories stand on this sort of thing.

(and Korski, AGW proponents are mostly Lefties - can you spot how they would motivated to do that?)

Chris

>We are, however, busy destroying our environment, whatever role that may play in changing the climate. We ship goods from afar

If you believe that shipping goods from afar destroys the nevironment, you are disqualified from any further comment. Shipping lamb from NZ to Britain generates less C02 than rearing it on Welsh hills. (Not that it matters, since the whole manmade CO2 scam is just that, a scam, but I'm accepting the premise for the sake of argument.) Shipping cut flowers from Zambia makes Zambians better off, and environmental concern is a luxury good, which is why American atmospheric pollution has dropped spectacularly in the last 20 years - they can afford to pay attention to the issue. Do try harder.

Hysteria

Chris

"Shipping lamb from NZ to Britain generates less C02 than rearing it on Welsh hills"

evidence?

Tony Moore

This is one of the more sensible and balanced articles I have read on this matter.
What angers me is the abuse of this subject for political ends - in particular Mr Brown's assertion that all sceptics are "Flat Earthers". This is simply pure arrogance and an example of using a contentious topic as a smokescreen to help divert attention away from the immediate problems facing this country, most patricularly the economy.

Amadeus Plonquer

I know exactly what's causing global warming. iPods.

In fact everything Apple Computer makes, laptops, iPhones and the like gets very hot.

Apple's advertising is designed to make us believe that their products are 'cool'. Meanwhile iPods are setting fire to our shorts and laptops are exploding all over the place. Save the planet! Ban iPods.

Watt Tyler

I give the Tories a torrid time, but we MUST get at the lying Labour government.

On his way to Copenhagen, Milliband told reporters that the Earth has warmed in the last decade.

This is not true, and even the CRU scientists recognised it.

Our government has its fingers in its ears, and doesn't care what we think. Responsible journalists need to get after these shits and make them resign their posts so that they cannot endanger us anymore. (When the journalists can't, and when we realise that, then the only resort is taking to the streets).

Lady Amelia

Science is not "settled". dogma is "settled". Science is either proven, disproved or unproven. It cannot, like Schroedinger's cat, exist in more than one state at the same time.

At the moment, the science is not proven. We should prove it, one way or the other, before doing anything else.

oh, and re shipping lamb from NZ - go check out the levels of pollution caused by marine bunker oil. Its filthy nasty polluting stuff - and that IS proven.

Scary Biscuits

I get increasingly offended being told that the science is settled, or indeed anything about science, by journalists and politicians whose highest scientific achievement was a grade 'C' Maths O-Level.

Josina

Yes, climate science will never be able to come up with an E=mc˛ equation, it will always have to rely on models that might have to be adapted over time. Having said that, it doesn’t mean that it can’t come up with hypotheses that most likely depict an accurate model of the future. And just because two scientists might have wanted to tweak their results with a little “trick” doesn’t mean that climate change doesn’t exist or that all climate scientist are part of a big conspiracy theory. The articles by prominent climate scientists who are part of the IPCC, but also independent scientists such as the German Karl-Heinz Schellnhuber are all peer-reviewed and have always been accessible to the public, critics and applauders alike. However, as of lately, critics have become fewer and fewer. Even people like Bjorn Lomborg agree that the earth is warming and that something needs to be done about it. Granted, he has a different idea of what our priorities should be and how to effectively tackle the world’s problems, but he starts from the same basis as climate scientists.

But let’s put the climate-or no climate change debate aside for a minute as I guess I won’t be able to convince many people on this site of the happenings of climate change. If you all don’t believe in climate change, I would hope that you do believe in energy security. Europe and the United States are highly dependent on oil from the Middle East and, in Europe’s case, Russian gas. Is that really what we want? Have our economies be dependent on autocratic regimes that buy god-knows-what with their petro-dollars? Do we really want a Germany so dependent on Russian gas that it will have a hard time standing up to that Eastern neighbour? I doubt that, personally. So what to do? The US have a tiny bit of oil, Britain has a bit of oil, and Norway has a bit more oil. None of that will be enough for our energy hunger in the future, and everybody knows that. So the only alternative to fossil fuels will be renewable energies and possibly nuclear (I won’t get into the nuclear power debate now). So how can people be seriously opposed to politicians around the world trying to move towards a carbon-free future, based on renewable energies? How can people not like the idea of richer countries giving their know-how to poorer countries to have them build greener power plants? And be it for no other reason than the one that people in China might then finally be able to breathe clean air again. Even if all the climate-change skeptics can’t be convinced of the climate change argument, I cannot understand how they can be opposed to the move towards greener technologies and more sustainable living that the world leaders are trying undertaking right now, together. This is one moment in history where we might really be able to get everyone to sit down at the same table and find a common solution to our common problems. Even if it were for the wrong reasons, it would be for the right outcomes.

JohnAnt

"There is even a separate passport queue for COP participants at Copenhagen’s stylish airport."
That rather says it all. Politicians, NGO sincure-holders and climatology masters of the universe have absolute priority over the plebs, courtesy of the Danish taxpayer.

Cuffleyburgers

A reasonably sensible balanced position.

I too an a sceptic, how can one fail to be, but it does make sense to seek to reduce energy use where possible for all sorts of reasons, and even a carbon price cna be a sensible incentve to do so, provided othertaxes are reduced accordingly.

What would be totally wrong is some sort of massive global stiych up in which the rich countries see their economies hamstrung and required to pay hundreds of billions to poor countries, whilst the easy no-brainer loalised solutions are ignored.

unfortunately given the tendency to grandstand by all the participants of this summit, the worst outcome looks likely to be what we will get.

As usual.

Tom Jaffray

Can I briefly respond to Josina

One of the problems with this debate is the language used to conduct it. You say you are a believer in climate change. I neither believe in climate change nor do I deny it. It is not a matter of “belief”: that takes you into the realms of religion where faith not fact is what counts. All I want to know is what the facts are, as far as they can be established, the risks and uncertainties, what are the options and what it is we hope to achieve ie how do we gauge whether or not the policies followed are successful. Success should not be measured by tons of carbon removed from the atmosphere but by whether this - removal of carbon - has achieved the desired effect. I know this is very difficult territory but we must strive for it, surely?
The tone and style of language of both camps is deeply off-putting. I confess to much irritation at being described as a “denier” or equivalent to a “flat earther” for expressing what I think is reasonable and reasoned doubt about the certainties proclaimed by “believers". The sneering and patronising way in which, for example, Professor Watson of UEA, Lord Stern and the truly ghastly Ed Milliband express their views must add thousands to the doubters camp every time they open their mouths;
I completely agree that irrespective of climate, there is much we can and should do to improve the environment and at the same time reduce carbon emissions - this has the virtue of being much easier to do and to judge success or failure. I certainly would not want to live in some of the polluted cities in Russia and China. Having doubts about the remedies advocated for global warning should not be equated with complacency about the environment.

I just wish the world could have a sensible debate, but I suppose pigs will fly first.

Ian C

Re-start your education. In Christopher Booker's new book " The Great Global Wsrming Disaster" You will find a refenced riposte to most of what you have here asserted.

If those in two minds, especially those who work in the media did this, then we could begin to get a sensible investigation by truly curious journalists who have an interest in the subject.

It is a valuable source of data, and argument, from the sceptic's view. It describes the warmist's claims and then produces backed up evidence from science and it associated politics.

It is not infallible (I assume) but it is the product of careful research by someone who has long mistrusted (as surely all journalists should?) what is clearly, or was before the CRU scndal, a very cosy consensus?