Go 40 minutes in for my debate live on the BBC today with UKIP MEP and Ian Gibson, on the UEA emails controversy, and after that about the prospects for smaller Parties at the General Election... http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00r0srl/The_Politics_Show_East_21_02_2010/
Let me know how you think I did!
(I was fairly pleased with how it went... ...I think Mr. Agnew may not be quite as pleased... Just a shame that he pipped me by 1% at the Euro-election last June, such that we now have a scientifically-illiterate climate-denier in Brussels representing us, rather than your's truly... Better luck next time, Eastern Region!)
Comments
I understand the difference between weather and climate, and you cannot escape the fact that ultimately climate is defined by weather.
I would be pleased to hear you explain how you can claim that January was "the second warmest in the historical record" when it has been stated by the Met Office that it was the coldest in the last 30 years.
[I agree with you 100%, K!]
I suggest that you watch the video. Whether you agree with him or not, the UKIP representative was simply making a point based on his own - indisputable, and apparently painful - experience.
For the record, I am undecided about the science behind climate change, and am investigating with an open mind. It seems to me, from what I have read so far, that even those most closely involved with climate science recognise that they do not have all the answers, and that the data presented to date is by no means the final answer. Therefore it is disappointing when others who are not directly involved put forward the argument as if it is totally irrefutable fact. As with all scientific endeavour, the best results are obtained when those involved approach it with an open mind, and are willing to consider alternative views.
Sometimes we come to hold a view so tightly, that we are so focused upon it we are unable to see anything else.
Rupert, please visit http://cloud.web.cern.ch/cloud/documents_cloud/kirkby_iaci.pdf and consider first of all the content. These people have worked tirelessly to understand what affects the climate and if nothing else, their work on the Chilling Stars may stimulate you. Their work is transdisciplinary and goes much further than the climate science that proposes we are the cause of warming and their models that feature dubious assumptions (assuming the role of the sun is constant, ignoring the drivers of cloud formation etc). Not to mention dubious treatment of data - the object of greatest value in science, by the CRU for one.
Even if you are speaking with an idiotic member of UKIP, you would be wise to remember that some people's position is based on an honest belief that there is another explanation for our changing climate and avoid causing them offense by labeling their position 'irresponsible'. They may turn out to be right.
Furthermore, if the theory of human-made global warming is shown to be false (or perhaps, more fairly, exaggerated), for example when we enter into another solar Minimum creating an extremely cold period, it will be deeply embarrassing for the Green Party. People will say you do not understand the environment, the very thing proponents of green philosophy should show themselves as worthy leaders on.
There is a great temptation to go along with this theory of human-warming as it ties in with deep green goals such as contraction and convergence, limits to industry and steady state economy. It also prompts consideration of our intimate relationship with nature. But what if it is shown to be false. Then you will be labelled alarmist, as asserting the absolute truth of something shown to be faltering (human-made global warming). That will be much more damaging in the long run.
Imagine the support you would reap if you say, "we need to respect the environment and change the way we live, but the warming is not caused as a direct result of our consumption, industry and transport. We should still limit these things however as doing so would offer so many social, environmental and health benefits, for us and for future generations". When you are shown to be right when no-one else is, that's when your support will explode.
Time for a cup of tea...
I am a philosopher of science, as well as a politician. You are plain wrong if you think that we need to be certain about the science before taking action. Look at http://www.facebook.com/note.php?saved&&suggest¬e_id=10150110978430301
I have looked at your links and they refer to the temperature charts on the NASA website, a reference to which you make in your letter (facebook link). The data comes from the GISS, and the methodology of GISS was designed by Hansen (who's scary predictions you also mention). This is the same Hansen who is alleged to have manipulated data. Smith and D'Aleo have investigated the data and they "found [Hansen & co] systematically eliminated 75 percent of the world's stations with a clear bias towards removing higher latitude, high altitude and rural locations." If this is correct, then the GISS records of global temperature are untrustworthy.
You did not get my position right if you think that I am against taking action to help those most vulnerable to changes in our climate.
I understand and value the precautionary principle, but not deception. To take precautions recommended by those who must mislead in order to persuade us (some might say, manipulate) is surely unwise.
If Svensmark and Co are right and cosmic weather drives the weather on Earth, then the reaction to our changing climate should be all together different than it is (but that is not to say that it would entail inaction). There are limited resources with which to respond to a changing climate, which will cost us all. I want to be sure it is being allocated in the most sane way.
You seem to be saying that, even though there is reason to suspect the scientists were fixing their results, they are nevertheless on the right side so we should overlook this. Any other views are irresponsible, mean that we are stiffing our children as you put it and so on. The dialogue reminds me of Chomsky's explorations in Manufacturing Consent.
I thought the Green Party was different.
and as such you should be aware that human beings are not rational but emotional entities.
I agree with so many of the Green principles, but what I can't stomach, is how the Greens seem to offer themsleves as some all-knowing, all-caring, all-righteous, new religion. They are not, and it's a shame it has, what some view, such an arrogant view of itself - for within it's members are so many very genuine, honest and caring people.
All political parties have deep flaws - for they naturally contain career orientated, greedy, power-hungry individuals. It's easy to test this. I often reflect on the level of true honesty, and intention of those putting forward their views, and (most importantly) the degree as to how much they are willing to mislead people. In the quest for power, honesty is usually the first victim.
For example, the Greens are (quite rightly), strongly opposed to PFI's (I would agree with that 100%), BUT - this is a hypocrtical stance, because, on one hand they might be saying this, but on the other - they wholeheartedly support the very institution (the EU) which has forced UK Govt's to use this source of "funding". Not many people are aware of this, but the Greens seem to make that a glaring ommission in their argument. Why? Because they are probably using such a wicked institution as the EU to promote their own policies; not caring to fully take into acoount some of the most important issues like democracy and accountability. That's certainly not honest politics in my opinion. They are promoting a policy that know full well, will never be able to be actualised - for (unfortunately) the Green leadership seem to believe in the Power-down, undemocratic, unaccountable nature of their masters in the European Union.
I find that, the saddest thing about Green politics. Otherwise, I do acknowledge that many in the party do have well intentioned, honest motivations and concerns.
Your calumnies against Hansen are a true disgrace. You are libelling a great man. When (If) the history of the climate crisis is written, giants like him will be revered in the kind of way that today we revere (e.g.) MLK, who at the time was widely despised and calumnied.
Read the book CENSORING SCIENCE to understand where the campaign of vilification against Hansen is coming from. And then maybe you will stop behaving like a lackey of Glenn Beck and George W. Bush.
As per Hansen comments, I do not think there is anything disgraceful about what I said, and it certainly wasn't malicious. What I put in my comment are statements made by others who claim to have reviewed his work. However, if you look at Hansen's computer predictions in 1988, Scenario A exaggerated global temperatures today by over 50%. And although you will say Scenario A was the worst case scenario and I am only picking this to try to attack Hansen, in fact my reason for picking this is that this scenario had the greatest rise in CO2. Hansen forecasted it to increase, but to be at lower levels than CO2 is today. CO2 is now higher than this worst case scenario, and temperatures are over 50% lower than predicted by Hansen. The book you recommend may address my concerns about Hansen et al so I shall read it with an open mind.
Perhaps you could consider some of my own points, with a similarly open mind. Your brief responses do not indicate any awareness of the science of cosmoclimatology, and I'd hope to receive some reasoned response from you about why you think the human-made case has greater precedence (possibly offering an explanation for the heavily overstated positive feedback in current computer models to force a hockey stick warming prediction).
Incidentally I have never supported Bush, Blair or the likes as my moral base would not allow it. I would go so far as to say such comments are hurtful. I also don't even know who Glenn Beck is!
As per my identity, I would rather my comments be judged BASED ON WHAT IS BEING SAID. I am not an industrialist and I'm not being funded by big corporations - I'm an environmentalist/ecologist who wants to understand what is really going on.
Anon1
As for your claim that you are not to blame for the anti-Hansen jibes in your own message, because you were only leaning on what other people have said: That's like quoting from anti-Semites or racists and then saying you can't be blamed because you are only quoting! :-(
You seem like a decent person. So do try to make sure that you only write things that are decent.
I've spent a lot of time attempting to track down detail behind the NASA charts, but it does not seem to be available. What is clear is that the early data (e.g. look at a plot for 1900)has virtually no contribution from the Southern hemisphere, so will tend to bias the numbers toward the cooler Northern hemisphere for those years, hence making later years appear to be relatively warmer. The monthly averaging means that the results will be skewed by the rate of movement of weather systems. I think this can be observed on the January 2010 chart which shows two elongated systems - one over Europe and the other over the USA. I also observe that the charts use different scales. This probably only affects the extremes of temperature, but it makes direct visual comparison difficult. I would certainly not want to be making important decisions on the basis of this data. What leads you to believe that it is credible? Even if we accept that it is credible what leads you to believe that it is primarily due to the actions of man?