Reason fights back

Peter Turner

I have yet to see, in a constantly changing world, any declaration of what the climate should be. I also await a statement from the high and the mighty indicating that plants need CO2 to grow and that we need the O2 released from the CO2 to live. But of course, instead of being recognised as an essential gas for life on this planet we are told to regard CO2 as a pollutant. Long may we be polluted.

Davo

Consensus has, in democratic societies, been a major driving force of politics but it should never be allowed to be the major driving force of Science- otherwise we should consign the word 'science' to the dustbin. We have seen how the commmunists used the work of Lysenko to create huge famines in the USSR or how genetics were used by the Nazis to promote the vision of "the Master race". Now we are witnessing the "environmentalists" doing the same with "global warming" or rather climate change which is how it must now be addressed to cover cooling too. Let the pariahs speak out!

Professor Robert WILCOCKS

Excellent piece of rigorous (& politically incorrect)sanity from Melanie Phillips. As the great French scholar, Henry de Lumley, currently in charge of the Institut de Paléontologie humaine, states: "L'influence de l'homme sur le climat reste dérisoire en comparaison de la gravitation. Dans notre période interglaciaire, qui dure depuis 10,000 ans, il y a eu des périodes plus chaudes." (See Le Nouvel Observateur, 5 décembre 2997, p. 57.

George Steiner

Climate change is as old as the planet itself. If you look at the temperature of the Earth over the last 14,000 years, you see it going up and down like a yoyo. With as much as 2°C between highs and lows. With a certain regularity to boot. Temperature will go up and down like a yoyo for the next 14,000 years also. The idea that we can control this change by farting or driving less is the arogance of ignorance.

Neil Turner

Surely the reason British politicians subscribe to the "man-made global warning" doctrine, is that they have yet another opportunity to tax us ? As a footnote, I've been seeking, over the last 12 months, a cost-effective means of generating my own power through solar or wind energy. I can tell you that it is expensive, and the government offer virtually no help. So what is the real agenda here ?

korova

What I fail to understand from Melanie is the obvious contradiction in her arguments regarding this. On the one hand, she claims that we cannot be 100% certain of anything scientifically, yet on the other she claims to be 100% certain that global warming is part of some vast conspiracy. If, as she argues, global warming is a debatable issue, would it not be wise to err on the side of caution? The consequences that face the planet if it was true are far greater than if they aren't. Reason suggests that you balance up these two eventualities and make a sensible decision. It would appear that reason abandoned Melanie's confused arguments a very long tiem ago.

Rev Goat Boy

Regarding the Pope's view's on climate change I will start to take notice when he can point to a computer model that can shows a 90% chance that god exists.

Gary Luke

It's the era of myths from religion crossing over to embed themselves in contemporary secular interests. First we had the wicked spell of the apocalyptic year 2000, "fixed" by the same flock of technology witch-doctors who cast the spell. Now we have a technological version of original sin, where modern life will lead us to ruination unless we all become moralistic carbon traders. Scare stories make attractive myths. These ones have been with us for centuries embedded in the Christian roots of western civilization. Even after chucking out religion we still seem to need the antique scary myths.

Manuel

Thank goodness for global warming. If it wasn't for an increase in temperatures the British Isles and most of Europe would be under miles of ice and snow. This scam is the new religion of the left, to whack the US again - as illustrated on BBC Radio5Live this morning - and to extract taxes out of us through purveying a dogma of doom and dread. The 'believers' remind me of the emporer's clothes scam. Johnny Ball is very dismissive of this new cult (BBC Northwest Tonight earlier this week.)

Corsair

Ideological Environmentalism is the lastest totalising millenialist creed to plague the Modern era (the Modern era is, I suppose, defined by the political success of these creeds). It's predecessors were the 'scientific' doctrines of Marxism and National Socialism, and the 'Reason' worshipped by the French revolutionaries. Pope Benedict is perfectly within his rights to address the 'political religion' of his day, just as his predecessors addressed Communism and Nazism. The Pope's statement for Peace Day is available on the Vatican website in English, Paras 7 and 8, and the (false, as it happens) economic assumptions that unlie his comments are clearly made from the Left of the political spectrum, reflecting Ratz's origins as a German academic of the 1960s. As for his explicit statements about environmentalism, I suspect they will be entirely uncontraversial to the Warmers. Except for the bit about being 'uninhibited by ideological pressure to draw hasty conclusions'. As for comment above, Pope Benedict nowhere in his statement makes any assertion about any scientific theory - except perhaps in para 8 where he says 'The problems looming on the horizon are complex and TIME IS SHORT.". (my emphasis) Goat Boy would have known that, and spared himself embarrassment, had he actually bothered to read the Pontiff's statement.

Fisher

Peter Turner, your knowledge of the biochemistry of photosynthesis is lacking. The oxygen released during the photosynthetic light reactions comes from the oxidation of water via photosystem II, not carbon dioxide. Cardon dioxide itself is fixed by the enzyme Rubisco, catalysing the carboxylation of ribulose-1,5-bisphosphate. Going back to Mel's blog. Ms Phillips recently published a column in the Mail supporting the fairy story that is Creationism. A scientist she is not. A climatologist she most definitely is not. Perhaps she believes the Earth to be flat too. Make your own conclusions.

Nick Green

Linking to one blog, two articles on a website called 'American Thinker' and an article written in the National Post, a Canadian newsletter, is hardly rigorous. Actually, it's not rigorous at all; it's just shabby journalism. The fact of the matter is, the climate is changing rapidly in historical terms, and will continue to do so, and humans are contributing significantly to this rapid change.

But it's neither a left-wing conspiracy nor a scam to raise taxes, as some here seem to think. And nor is it some sort of bizarre millennial creed.

The point of trying to reduce the human contribution to change is to minimise the levels of disruption to societies across the globe. And yes, that's a political issue, because the behaviour of 6.6 billion people does make a difference to the Earth's eco-system.

Is it really so wrong to want not to damage one's environment?

Philip Martin

Is Nigel Lawson a prominent scientist? Or should that have been Nigella the well-known food technologist?

John

Governments will be reluctant to change their view as they have discovered how much tax revenue they can squeeze out of us over this, while trying to be "good"

Tom Scott

It's sad to see so many Spectator readers happily using Melanie Phillips's ludicrously ill-informed opinions as an excuse to keep their heads firmly in the sand. Failure to come up with an ambitious and firmly worded agreement, with unshirkable targets, will be seen by future historians as a moral and political failure on a par with the Munich Agreement of 1938. Neville Chamberlain may have been able to claim later that he did not understand the extent of the threat posed by the Nazis. Given what the world's leading climate scientists have been telling us for some time now, George Bush and his apologists will not have even such a threadbare excuse as that.

Hank Bradley

Our local paper this morning headlines, "If Climate Goals Are Set, How Will They Be Met?" Be very ready for some serious attempted diktats as 'world leaders' at the UN (mostly unelected, come to think of it) set themselves up to supplant God as Directors of the Weather. Their immediate goal is to prevent Greenland from returning to the state in which it was forested and had humans busily farming it, a millennium before the automobile. And as sureley as death and taxes, said 'world leaders' will do their utmost to extract vast taxes to fund their vast God-playing, as well as enacting an unGodly list of prohibitions on the rest of us unwashed proles.

Rev Goat Boy

Corsair life is to short to read the ramblings of man who represents nothing but superstition & the suppression of human thought. Anyway my comment was obviously light hearted you guys commenting on this blog need to get yourself a sense of humour

N.E.F.

Melanie, since you're clearly an expert in these matters perhaps you could direct me to your publication record in the peer-reviewed climatology literature?

Garry Anderson

This is exactly what I have been saying. UK Government see GW as tax raising excuse. If UK are TRULY serious about cutting our CO2 - why the airport expansion - why have millions more immigrants?

E.H.

I can understand that it would be hard to believe in the arguments of a mere journalist,Korova et al.However,this article is not just about Melanie's opinion, but about the consensus of one hundred scientists who do not believe that climate change can be altered by man. I don't see you addressing that at all, nicely avoiding the conclusions of experts who actually know what they are talking about.

Tony Allwright

I have one question for those who think they are reversing climate change via the jamboree in Bali: "Whom Do They Think They're Helping?" The answer always boils down to "the world's poor". Well, if those are the people they say they want to help - by spending 1.6% of GDP, ie USD 24 trillion - why not instead divert a tiny fraction of this to helping the poor become rich like us, through capitalism and democracy and free trade of course. Then they can look after themselves in the event of climate change, just like the rest of the rich will have to. Oh, but that would mean the poor won't be poor any longer, and no-one in Bali can stomach that scenario. See also tallrite.com/blog.htm

Max Kaye

Why do environmentalist have their conferences in nice, sunny places like Bali? (The next one is scheduled for - yep - Hawaii). If they held these junkets in, say, Huddersfield in mid February, I'm certain very few would even bother to turn up. Now, that would really reduce their carbon footprint. Better still green-people: hold these shindigs via video-conference and put your paid-for-holidays-in-the-sun where you supposed convictions are.

Peter England

"The fact of the matter is, the climate is changing rapidly in historical terms, and will continue to do so, and humans are contributing significantly to this rapid change."

Yes, the faith based argument,you believe "science settled".

Why not adopt a rational approach instead of denouncing disbelievers of AGW as heretics.

Surely this issue is too important to adopt the Salem mode of thought.

These scientists disagree.Vastly radical policies are going to be based on what is a computer model.Billions will be spent,economies damaged.Remember the Year 2K debacle?

All sides of the argument must be examined carefully before the ignoramuses who govern us stampede into ill thought out solutions.

Drew

I generally like hearing your thoughts on areas such as Europe's problem with Islamism, but I have to strongly disagree with you here. When 93% of the world's scientists conclude that climate change from man-produced carbon emissions is causing a problem, I am going to believe the majority of the world's scientists who are an expert in their field, not to mention that many religious organizations from the National Association of Evangelicals to the Anglican Communion conclude that we need to care for God's children. If we don't do something, we will directly affect hundreds of millions of people, and if we don't do something and it's not a "conspiracy" after all as you say, who is to blame?

ASG

It’s with some relevance here, that in 1992 under the UN’s “The Framework Convention on Climate Change” where it set the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) the task for supplying sound scientific evidence with the belief that human emissions of greenhouse gases are harming the climate, it laid down a restricting frame of reference by defining “climate change” in it’s Article 1 as: “Climate Change” is a change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods”. Thus with this restrictive proposition imposed and nationally accepted as a self regulating definition, attributing anthropogenic generated green house gases as the prime cause of climate change while depreciating the natural climate variability and essentially excluding consideration of scientific investigation into other possible natural effects, the political climate was, and still is, set in a direction on a path of an uncompromising neo-religious zeal suppressing any scientific contributions which challenges the status quo.

Nick Green

To Peter England: Sorry to disappoint, but my view is not at all faith-based. I haven't denounced anybody, but would point you to this wikipedia page (the usual Wikipedia health warnings apply, link at end of message) which lists scientists opposing the mainstream consensus (which I support).

You'll see that many oppose certain aspects, and that there are others who, like you, are of the view that human forcing is relatively insignificant.

However, there are also plenty of people listed who accept that global temperatures are changing relatively rapidly, even if they do not accept an anthropogenic component. Even Richard Lindzen, one of MP's most oft-cited sceptics, accepts that some global warming has occurred over the last century.

But the nub of the issue is this. Global warming is happening, and it will cause problems at a global scale that are broadly predictable, despite the evident scepticism here about computer models. How - politically, economically, environmentally, socially - should we deal with them?

Link to wikipedia page.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming

Brian Pol

Unbelievable that a supposedly rational, secular writer still chooses to see serious science as voodoo at best or left wing conspiracy at worst. In reality, China and the Soviet Union had the worst environmental records so that shatters that one. Melanie doesn't appear to be either stupid, ignorant or an obvious beneficiary of biased funding (as she ludicrously accuses ALL GW believers as being),so I am genuinely fascinated as to how she can deny all of: 1)GW is happening 2)It is human caused 3)It is worth trying to stop This is before we even get onto the fact of scarce resources which I suppose is another anti-capitalist conspiracy. Madness.

Mr Grumpy

Re the Pope's message, I'd suggest getting it from the horse's mouth to see how far it can bear the spin put on it by the Daily Mail and in turn picked up by Melanie (http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/messages/peace/documents/hf_ben-xvi_mes_20071208_xli-world-day-peace_en.html). I'd put him down as a moderate Green - certainly not a GW sceptic. As others have said, Melanie is not at her best on this issue.

David Lindsay

Reducing CO2 emissions has a long history as a solution in search of a problem. At one time, it was allegedly the solution to global cooling. And its attractions are clear: the prevention of everyone except the likes of Al Gore and George Monbiot from travelling, the preclusion of people in the poor world from using their natural resources to develop as we did, and the destruction of the high-wage, high-skilled, high-status jobs of the working class. I believe in nuclear power both in order to restore such jobs, and in order to secure independence from Middle Eastern oil and former Soviet gas. If the Government believed in those things, then it would be building many new nuclear power stations. As it would be doing if it believed in man-made global warming. Indeed, if it so believed, then it would also be reducing or eradicating its huge fleet of cars, and reducing dramatically its members' air travel. Clearly, then, the Government does not believe in man-made nuclear power. It just believes in the prevention of everyone except the likes Al Gore and George Monbiot from travelling, in the preclusion of people in the poor world from using their natural resources to develop as we did, and in the destruction of the high-wage, high-skilled, high-status jobs of the working class.