Home > Melanie Phillips

Friday 5 September 2008

Dare to dream and make your ultimate trip a reality

The latest culture as recommended by our staff

Clemency Burton-Hill

Clemency suggests

Email registration

Free weekly email update

Great products and special offers for Spectator readers

Click here for great value reader offers and events

Click here for the latest Spectator Wine Offers

Brr! The climate cools for reality-deniers

Tuesday, 20th May 2008

I have previously written about the work of Lawrence Solomon for Canada’s National Post. He has been regularly charting in his column the ever-increasing number of climate scientists around the world who have been either crying foul about the man-made global warming scam or, having initially signed up to it, have been having second thoughts about it. This was a journey of discovery for him, to put it mildly; he had previously been inclined to believe the claims that ‘deniers’ were oil industry stooges, since he himself had worked for an anti-nuclear energy group and so was duly cynical about the way that industry’s scientists could twist the truth to suit their paymasters. But then to his astonishment he discovered that, when it came to MMGW, the scientists who were corrupt weren’t pushing the boat out for big business but for its holier-than-thou green challengers.

Now he has written a book, provocatively entitled The Deniers, in which he shows that not only is the fabled climate change ‘consensus’ itself a sham but the so-called MMGW ‘deniers’ are by far the more accomplished and distinguished scientists than those pushing the theory as a settled and incontrovertible truth. A number of them indeed, are so eminent they were used as experts by the IPCC – but then came to realise that this was an innately corrupted process and that even some of their own work was being abused and distorted in order to promulgate the false doctrine of MMGW.

Among those he cites are Dr Edward Wegman, chairman of the National Academy of Science’s Committee on Applied and Theoretical Statistics and the granddaddy of statisticians, who administered the definitive coup de grace to the ‘hockey stick curve’ research that underpinned the whole IPCC doomsday prognosis by showing that its author Dr Michael Mann (an impressive authority in his own field of paleoclimatology) had made a catastrophic statistical error (and had thus managed to ‘lose’ several hundred years of climate history including the Little Ice Age) which vitiated his entire study; Dr Richard Tol, an author with all three IPCC working groups and who called the Stern review of the economics of climate change ‘preposterous’; Dr Christopher Landsea, a former chairman of the American Meteorological Society’s Committee on Tropical Meteorology and Tropical Cyclones and another IPCC author, who discovered that the IPCC was telling lies about the relationship between climate change and hurricanes; Dr Duncan Wingham, Director of the Centre for Polar Observation and Modelling, who revealed that Antarctic ice was expanding, not contracting; Dr Robert Carter, former head of the School of Earth Sciences at James Cook University Queensland, who says science was never about ‘consensus’ and that there are many sides to the climate change debate; Dr Richard Lindzen, a much garlanded professor of meteorology at MIT and another IPCC author, who says that the IPCC’s politicised summary of its defining 2001 report created the false impression that climate models were reliable when the report itself indicated precisely the opposite, with numerous problems with the models including those arising from the effects of clouds and water vapour; Dr Vincent Gray, a participant in the IPCC science reviews who has described the IPCC process as a ‘swindle’; Dr Syun-Ichi Akasofu, founding director of the International Arctic Research Centre of the University of Alaska Fairbanks, who says the world’s temperature has shown a linear progression since the 17th century and that 20th century warming was nothing to do with carbon dioxide but the planet’s emergence from the Little Ice Age; Zbigniew Jaworowski, former chairman of the UN Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation, who says the IPCC’s ice-core research is wrong and that therefore it has

based its global warming hypothesis on arbitrary assumptions and these assumptions, it is now clear, are false;

David Bromwich, head of the Polar Meteorology Group of the Byrd Polar Research Centre, who says

It’s hard to see a global warming signal from the mainland of Antarctica right now;

Hendrik Tennekes, former director of research at the Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute, who says climate change computer models are profoundly flawed and that

blind adherence to the harebrained idea that climate models can generate ‘realistic’ simulations of climate is the principal reason why I remain a climate sceptic... There exists no sound theoretical framework for climate predictability studies;

Dr Antonino Zichichi, president of the World Federation of Scientists, who says the IPCC models are

incoherent and invalid from a scientific point of view;

and Dr Tom Segalstad, head of the Geological Museum at the University of Oslo and another IPCC reviewer, who says

most leading geologists throughout the world know that the IPCC’s view of Earth processes are implausible if not impossible

and that climate change scientists have launched

a search for a mythical CO2 sink to explain an immeasurable CO2 lifetime to fit a hypothetical CO2 computer model that purports to show that an impossible amount of fossil-fuel burning is heating the atmosphere. It is all a fiction’.

Ouch.

And now this nonsense is beginning to exact a political price as the public – who have a talent for sniffing out bogus assertions even when (or perhaps because) the entire nomenklatura is pumping out propaganda and smearing any dissidents – begin to exact their revenge on the politicians who have gone along with it. Philip Stott notes on his blog that Labour is about to be greenwhacked in the Crewe and Nantwich by-election:

In attempting to appear 'Green', Alistair Darling, the Chancellor, and Mr. Brown are having to defend the indefensible, a retrogressive, retrospective tax change which will especially hit poorer members of society and less well-off families, with no environmental benefits.

While Richard Rahn in the Washington Times observes:

What do you think was the most costly intelligence failure of all time? No, was is not the world's leading intelligence agencies' failure to notice that Saddam had few, if any, weapons of mass destruction. It was the failure of many leading climate model builders to be modest enough about their predictions, and the politicians' and media's failure to ask the tough questions of these climate experts. As a consequence of what we now know was an overblown global-warming scare, everyone on the planet is paying substantially more for food and fuel than is necessary.

Meanwhile, the carbon really has hit the fan with the highly inconvenient truth that global temperatures are not only currently static but are predicted not to rise at all for the next decade. Andrew Bolt links to a debate on the Politics and Environment blog between climate change believers who are trying to reconcile the IPCC predictions with reality. Officially, the greens are claiming that the prediction that rising CO2 inevitably meant rising temperatures always allowed for, er, pauses. Of a decade. But in the P&E debate, there is the distant clang of a spade being called a spade:

The IPCC projections remain falsified.

Where now is that fabled ‘consensus’ when it is urgently needed to defend all those reputations which depend upon it?

You’d have to have a heart of Antarctic ice not to laugh.

Previous Back to Melanie Phillips Next

Blogs: Clive Davis | Stephen Pollard | Americano | Coffee House | Trading Floor

Actions: Print this article | Email to a friend | Permalink | Comments (29)

Post this entry to: del.icio.us | Digg | Newsvine | NowPublic | Reddit

MagicAldo

May 20th, 2008 5:27pm

Sadly, the damage is done.

Ann

May 20th, 2008 5:49pm

No serious (!) scientist has been 'pushing the theory as a settled and incontrovertible truth', but only promoting its recognition as a likely (!) scenario. To call these people 'corrupt' is absurd, a bit like accusing Israel of being the root-cause of strife in the Middle East.
Melanie, do you have a background in science? Do you understand how scientific theories arise as hypotheses to be supported (or not) by the evidence, but never actually 'proved'?
The media, especially the BBC, are guilty of distorting the science. That much is evident. But again, to use that as a stick to beat scientists with is akin to finding Israel guilty of all the crimes in the world because 'the BBC says so'.

Robin

May 20th, 2008 6:05pm

Ahh... it's Ann again.

So the UK's former Chief Scientific Officer was not a serious scientist? Mmm... that explains a lot.

MacZed

May 20th, 2008 6:07pm

I have a very simplified view of this global warming situation, and all of my friends say I am flat wrong...but this is how I see it: We have only been keeping barometric readings and temperature readings for how long, officially...on the books? Records are broken because our records don't go back that far in meteorolgy. With a planet that is millions of years old...that has gone through multiple ice ages caused by events we can only guess at...what makes us believe we have a large enough sample group of the Earth's climate map to believe we can predict anything beyond tomorrow's rainshower? Global warming on a 1 to 2 degree scale may just be the biggest crock since the 1950s when scientists believed we were going into another ice age.

The fact is, we don't have one clue...not enough of a clue, anyway, to dictate expensive cleaning measures for power plant cfc emissions...all we have is a propaganda machine that is now being fed by the NGO fairytale land...a process that has left us with the spectacle of pie in the sky dreams revolving around food. Corn has always been a staple of the world food supply - so what do green people do? They try to make fuel out of it and realize suddenly, a world gone mad with starvation. I mean, come on...Chavez is trying to get Cuba to grow nothing but corn for ethanol...how much Corn can Cuba grow?

The insanity of the green movement, to me...is not about science, it is about perception, and so long as perception rules over common sense, America is in danger of being bled through Kyoto protocol after Lost Treaty.

It is as if we seek the destruction of our sovereignty.

Lance Grundy

May 20th, 2008 6:12pm

Excellent post Melanie. It would seem the inconvenient truth [for the climate change fanatics that is] is well and truly out.

This whole preposterous shebang has, from the start, been seen for what it really is by taxpaying Joe Public. Another excuse to curb our freedom of movement, raise our taxes, reduce our living standards and exercise even more left-wing control-freakery over our lives.
No-one, with the possible exception of tax-dodging students, their ‘neo-com’ professors, pop stars and revenue-minded politicians believes this crap anymore.

Ann

May 20th, 2008 7:18pm

Thank you, Robin, for reminding me that I need your prior permission to post here. Or at least, that I need it in your delusional universe.
Such pathetic comments as yours do not further your cause: they only make you look very silly.
The Chief Scientific Officer is a government apparatchik, an administrator. He is not, therefore, a serious scientist, whatever he may be saying at the time, certainly not while holding that office, because he is politically controlled (you have never realised that this government is made up of control freaks, then? What planet were you on for the past 11 years?). But perhaps you don't quite understand the concept of free science.

Ian C

May 20th, 2008 7:37pm

Wake up and smell what's going on here Ann. All Melanie has done is translate for us what is going on elsewhere as a journalist is meant to do. She is reporting thatt here is agorwing opinion (held by some for along time) that the scientists roped in to the IPCC's projetct were ambushed by the IPCC to help the Green politicians on that panel to present a political judgement on new scientific hypotheses (all developed within the past 20 odd years) and then present that hypothesis as cast in stone fact.

Now we have a major element of those contributors to that political document telling us that a) they were hijacked and as a result b) the hypothesis is not worth the attention and spending wrong turns that have resulted.

We hould all be paying attention instead of going along with an institution that has been findamentlaly holed by these criticisms. It is as simple as that.

Augustus

May 20th, 2008 11:55pm

It's true that model predictions of Global Warming are inexact to put it mildly, and that numerous scientists are undecisive regarding future temperature levels, but there are facts which are proven:-

Africa is generally becoming more arid with less rainfall.

Our coastline in places like Norfolk has been eroding faster in the last few decades than previously was the case.

Excessive burning of fossil fuels does affect the ozone layer and marine life.

There is more, but although the hype is overdone, and people like Al Gore have turned the issue into a global movement now worth billions, a change of direction to reduce pollution, which is basically what CO2 does, can only be commended if the world can manage by alternative means. And in any event, oil reserves are not infinite. But I certainly don't see why we have to pay more than any other country on earth for a liter of petrol, or burning fuel. There's certainly something wrong with that somewhere.

Peter

May 21st, 2008 12:00am

"Do you understand how scientific theories arise as hypotheses to be supported (or not) by the evidence, but never actually 'proved'?"

The flaw here,is that governments are about to spend hundreds of billions on the basis of this unproved hypothesis.Already vast carbon trading schemes are in operation,selling...nothing.We are about to have vastly expensive wind power farms planted all over the country,wind farms which still need conventional power stations running all the time to back them up.
People like Miliband are floating the idea of carbon rationing swipe cards foe us all.
This is one hell of an unproved hypothesis you have.

Frank Pulley

May 21st, 2008 1:35am

Melanie's march against mendacity in the cod science of forecasting apocalyptic climate change, allegedly caused by human activity, has been consistent, rational and right.

She presents in this post more facts to back up her campaign and to oppose those political pressure groups that have deeply anti-American (or in Gore's case partisan and venal) reasons for telling lies about the so called scientific proof of man's impact on the climate.

European governments, particularly our own, are using the scare stories to justify gigantic price gouging and iniquitous increases in taxes.

This was a volatile planet before humanity was spawned on to it and, as has been shown during the past few weeks, it remains an iffy place, in parts, for humanity to be comfortable - regardless of man's propensity to foul its own nest.

Planetary upheavals are normal and we have to adapt when they occur. Some cosmic cycles are predictable and can account for much of the phenomena that is attributed by whackos to man's 'impact' on the planet.
Most of the proposals to combat 'climate change' are as risible as they are wicked.
The issue here is distortion, lies and panic politics for a variety of ulteria motives. By all means support ways of decreasing pollution; but the attempt by enviro-nutters and cultish greens to destroy the capitalist western way of life and replace it with their utopian nonsense is a far greater threat to humanity than naturally (and slowly) evolving patterns or cycles of climate.

Individually we can't live for ever; as a species sooner or later we shall disappear like so many before us. For God's sake enjoy what you can for as long as you can and stop scaring the skitters out of gullible folks who have been manipulated for eons by priests, prophets, witches, warlocks, seers, snake-oil pedlars, poxy politicians, philosophers and cynical copy hungry journos - all with a vested or ideological interest -lying bastards all!

We're all bound for oblivion, in the long run (some of us in the short run). Gather ye rosebuds ... and :-)

Bobby Swan

May 21st, 2008 1:40am

Hypothesis - basis of science - measure temperature change on our nearby planet Mars - track temperature changes on that planet - compare to temperature changes on Earth - see if any detected temperature changes over time on these planets track together or are they divergent.

MMGW hypothesis is that Earth's temperatures are rising at a greater rate than those of other planets, such as Mars. MMGW by definition is saying the sun is not a player (or major player) in temperature change on Earth. The test is planetary to confirm or negate the hypothesis.

Dave M

May 21st, 2008 2:44am

The prediction I've been making for a while now is harsh and blunt but I believe it has foundation. If human beings don't take our population levels and environmental issues seriously, we will all fall victims to floods, earthquakes, famine and other natural disasters. This is because Mother Nature won't allow other species to be wiped out by our activities indefinitely, i.e. hunting of endangered whales, slaughter of seals, chopping down forests, polluting waters, carrying out nuclear weapons tests and vast oil spillage. To say nothing of Chernobyl. The list goes on. We aren't sure as of yet about global warming but I think it is now apparent we have been hunting many species of wildlife to extinction through selfishness and greed, linked to a desire to just keep building bigger and bigger economies. Thus, tragic as it may sound, if we don't address this issue, we will certainly see more natural disasters to rival Katrina in Louisiana and, more recently, events in China, Thailand and Burma. Rather than scratching at the surface with issues such as "green" bin collecting, bio fuel and carbon footprints, we need to be actively preventing the hunting of endangered whales and accepting the fact other species have the same rights to exist as we do. The sad thing is Blair has already met Arnold Scwharzennegger for cosy chats over global warming but, when in office, the record shows the Labour Party put economic growth well ahead of any conservation or population issues.

Verity

May 21st, 2008 2:44am

Augustus wrote: "Africa is generally becoming more arid with less rainfall.

"Our coastline in places like Norfolk has been eroding ..."

... well, the unimaginably vast continent of Africa, with 11,677,239 sq miles,and the coastline of Norfolk! You've certainly convinced me!

John

May 21st, 2008 10:16am

Ann what has Israel got to do with MMGW? Couldn't you find a better analogy? The whole business of MMGW is about making loads of money for people like Gore and our governments... it' simple we are being conned.

stanley Jerusalem

May 21st, 2008 11:04am

Oh gawd! here we go again. Maunders Minimum. Millenium Bug and oh yes, Denier? Isn't that the degree of fineness of silk stockings.
You are all barking. There's NOTHING YOU CAN DO ABOUT IT!
I rest my monthly case.

Augustus

May 21st, 2008 12:06pm

Verity, I used Norfolk as an example of a particularly bad case of erosion, but the sea is winning in other places too.

Albert Scroat of Mundesley also thinks fishing patterns have
changed 'doo t'global wummin. Why, jus the other day oi wus danglin' me hook orf a Crummer peear when I snagged a sardine. Thass a rummun, cuz normally they come in tins if they is locally sussed.'

London Calling

May 21st, 2008 6:18pm

Obviously our planet goes through a cooling and heating up cycle and if the Mayans are to be taken seriously, we are currently going through High sun spot activity (magnetic storms) and this no doubt has a great influence on our planet in many ways, of which has been witnessed by scientists for many years and is still being studied.

What is happening to the Sun?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3238961.stm

To ignorantly assume though, that our technology, phone masts, ultra low frequencies communications for Submarines etc, is not interfering with nature and harming the environment, as pestersides in farming, also nano particles, food additives, the list is endless, the question is, how can we blatantly sit back and not questioned what effects all of this is having on our planet, our animal kingdom, insects and ourselves, is evident in parts and will no doubt be fully understood in years to come, because meanwhile we don’t really wants to ask these kind of questions and if we do, it would make no difference because too much money has been invested by people like 02 and the global market.

Its laughable that not so long ago Green peace was seen as a
bunch of Hippies who just loved the planet too much and some think tank in Government devised a way to convince the public that being Green and taxing everyone was going to make it all better, when in fact it was just another strategy to get more money out of the public.

Yes some good comes from it in parts, but we are so ignorant to the truth, its too overwhelming for words.

Sergey

May 21st, 2008 9:13pm

Global warming swindle originated when EU politicians and UN apparatchiks look for pretext to justify their existence and expand their powers. This "hypothesis" fit best to this power grab. Scare public to hysteria and than impose on it regulatory regime making joke from the notion of national sovereignty. That is the root of all this sad story.

Dan Gibsho

May 21st, 2008 9:32pm

I find it quite ironic that the don't worry be happy crowd and the evil democracy hating psychotic greens will soon be driven to common concensus by the same plain truth. Oil prices will force us to enact all of the AGW countermeasures anyway. We should move on and seek greater truths such as -will the price of oil and the lack of viable alternatives lead to global food shortages (such as we might now be seeing), civil unrest, the fall of governments, or the most unthinkable thought of all-the demise of capitalism. Pretty dismal thoughts, but I think a tax cut will cure all, personally.

Wilson

May 21st, 2008 9:56pm

Well Ann, I have two degrees in a science, a first and a PhD and I understand where theories come from but I have never been able to figure where the MMGW hype came from. Computer predictions are not science. There are no control experiments where MMGW is concerned. And since when was the president of the Royal Society not a serious scientist. As he said, the science is settled. The whole thing smacks of McCarthyism and will end in tears.

David B

May 21st, 2008 10:56pm

Considering the amount of egg that Ms Philips got on her face over MMR you would think she'd have learnt not to talk about scientiic issues she doesn't understand. When you're in a hole...

Jonathan Robson

May 21st, 2008 10:59pm

Augustus - I think I should point you in the direction of a an article in New Scientist.

"New Scientist has learned that a separate analysis of satellite images completed this summer reveals that dunes are retreating right across the Sahel region on the southern edge of the Sahara desert. Vegetation is ousting sand across a swathe of land stretching from Mauritania on the shores of the Atlantic to Eritrea 6000 kilometres away on the Red Sea coast.

Nor is it just a short-term trend. Analysts say the gradual greening has been happening since the mid-1980s, though has gone largely unnoticed. Only now is the evidence being pieced together."
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn2811-africas-deserts-are-in-spectacular-retreat.html

The climate and environment changes - it is a fact. The problem is that the people who advocate MMGW, point to things that "back up" their theories but disregard things that don't. A scientist tries to disprove his theory - he does not try and prove it. There are no caveats, either the theory is sound or it is flawed. That is science.

Donald Hayward

May 22nd, 2008 1:41am

At last some revealing info on the global warming scam.

Randy Washburn

May 22nd, 2008 1:45pm

Their hypothesis is this: Global temperatures are rising because of increases in CO2.
Major premise: Temperatures are rising and atmospheric CO2 is increasing.
Minor premise: Man is putting more CO2 in the air than ever before.
Their conclusion: Man is causing Global warming.
Their proof: Man-made computer program.

My hypothesis is: Atmospheric CO2 is increaseing because global and ocean temperatures have generally risen over the past 158 years.
Major premise: Air temperatures have risen 0.7C over 158 years. Oceans temperatures have risen 0.3C in past 50 years.
Minor premise: Atmospheric CO2 has increased.
Conclusion: Rising global and ocean temperatures are causing an increase in CO2.
Proof: 1. Fact:Gases are less soluble in warmer water therefore gases escape from warmer oceans. 2. Oceans contain more than 50 times the amount of CO2 in PPM than air. 3. Increases in ocean temperatures track almost perfectly with increases in atmospheric CO2.

Now which theory stands up to scrutiny.

Jay

May 22nd, 2008 5:29pm

A well meaning fool with a megaphone in his hand is still a fool only louder. I have green friends who glare at me with hate when I point out the obvious and tell me its polution thats responsible for our cold spring. They just make it up as they go along and this shell game is far from done.

Jonathan Robson

May 22nd, 2008 8:09pm

You can tell who the scientists are when they describe CO2.

A scientists describes CO2 as a gas -A MMGW advocate calls CO2 polution.

If the theory is plausable - lets have it without the emotive and incorrect words - Did Newton describe gravity as the "devils force" and blame everything that was bad as being caused by it?

Is this what is meant by post-enlightenment? Have we come full circle back to a dark age?

Thanks to people like Melanie at least we have not gone completly "Mediavel".

Brian O'Connor

May 23rd, 2008 2:47am

Augustus wrote: "Verity, I used Norfolk as an example of a particularly bad case of erosion, but the sea is winning in other places too."

I don't know what the sea "winning" means . . . could you expand on this a bit?

Thanks

Augustus

May 23rd, 2008 9:19pm

Brian, the Dutch could tell you a thing or two about fighting back the sea. As for the Norfolk coast, in one instance someone bought a house a few years back (I can't remember exactly when) which was a couple of hundred yards from the cliffs, with a field in between his garden and the beach. Now the cliff edge is only about three feet from his back wall. There are many instances of houses falling over the cliffs, and ballasting the beaches with rubble is only a temporary measure until it gets washed back into the sea.

Today's erosion is, by all accounts, greater than in previous generations. Also, on the south coast in places like Lyme bay in Dorset cliffs are falling down. The costs of sea defences are high and local authorities are not always willing to meet these costs, preferring to let the sea take over. in that sense the sea is winning.

JR

June 1st, 2008 3:18am

Great article Melanie.

Augustus. I recently saw a news item about coastal erosion in UK. It might have been Norfolk. It was laughable. The local council had been trying to prevent the erosion by building solid structures which predictably the sea had destroyed. The council had then just given up. The council should have sought advice from an ecologist instead of an engineer. An effective and inexpensive coastal protection can be achieved using sand dunes. They are easy to establish once you know how. Dunes can withstand very large storms and repair themselves so long as they are protected from humans. The second reason it was funny was because they were blaming the erosion on sea level rise caused by global warming. Sea levels are rising but only at about 1 to 2 mm per decade. The houses were at least 2 metres above high tide. It is possible the land there is subsiding. Tectonic plates sometimes tilt, which makes sea level appear to change much faster. These houses were being washed away because they had tried to use a high tech solution when they really needed a low tech solution and a little bit of thought.