A cold climate for the HAFs

Sucker!  Er, that means you, dear reader.  Well, it does if you did anything other than laugh out loud (or weep buckets) when that IPCC report was issued last week and all the main media, via journalists who could barely manage a GCSE in Biology let alone Maths, told you that it had put an end to any contrarians who might disagree with the idea of AGW - that's Anthropological Global Warming to you - see, I'm learning the jargon!  In a recent post I pointed you in the direction of  http://www.climateaudit.org, an excellent but sometimes highly technical site and I would urge you to put it on your Favourites list.  In particular, I would direct your attention to this post and the very interesting comments thread that follows, written by some highly intelligent and expert people.  I have been cheeky enough to lift a couple of the comments to give you the flavour.  They have the advantage of being rather less technical than some of the others:

"Quince says:

February 2nd, 2007 at 3:15 pm

OK, lets say IPCC proves to be correct and global average temperature increases by “1.8 to 4 deg C over the next 100 years”. What really does that mean?

Can I suggest a simple experiment that would indicate to each of us exactly what it might mean. I will use an Australian example.

Pack up your stuff and move to live in Hobart (42S) for a year (say 2007). You will experience an average annual temperature of 12.3 deg C. To understand what a 2.5 deg C increase in average temperature is like, pack up again and move to Melbourne (37S) for a year (2008) where the average annual temperature is 14.8 deg C. Is that scary?

Repeat the process through Sydney, Brisbane, Townsville and Darwin.

Here are the annual average temperatures for some Australian cities that I hope illustrate my point (I used full stops since I couldn’t get the spaces to work):

…………………Latitude……………..Annual Average Temperature
Hobart……………..42S……………………..12.3 deg C
Melbourne…………..37S……………………..14.8 deg C
Sydney……………..33S……………………..17.6 deg C
Brisbane……………27S……………………..20.5 deg C
Townsville………….19S……………………..24.1 deg C
Darwin……………..12S……………………..27.8 deg C

So, just by spending time in each of these Australian cities, each and any one of us can experience a range of annual average temperatures extending from 12.3 deg C right up to 27.8 deg C - 15.5 degs C in total. Doesn’t make 1.8 deg to 4 deg C seem all that scary to me!

Of course, I realise that increasing temperatures are not the only thing to be discussed. There is concern about droughts, storms, hurricanes, rising sea levels etc. Can I suggest that we would experience directly the real impact of each of these by following the simple experiment that I have proposed.

It is obvious for example that Townsville and Darwin are exposed to more hurricanes (actually cyclones in this part of the world) than the southern Australian cities. Surely that would be handled as it is today. If you are really concerned about it, you move. If you decide that the benefits of living in that climate are sufficient, you will just ensure that your insurance is good, and that you have storm shutters installed, and that your tie down cables are in good condition.

Similarly, if sea levels rise, wouldn’t the actual response be to move? And if this is a national scale problem, wouldn’t the national government take decisive action to deal with the issue, and to assist those affected to cope?

Obviously, northern hemisphere residents can do something similar. In fact, those in the Americas can experience (if they wish) average annual temperatures ranging the Arctic to the Equator.

Maybe I am missing something in all this. But I just don’t get what is SO scary about a temperature increase of 4 degrees.

Steve Sadlov says:

February 2nd, 2007 at 6:15 pm

RE: #41 - During the 1980s, when many of the current middle aged scientists were in school, there was a sort of perfect storm of radical ecotheology available on most campuses. I know, because at the time, I drank the Kool Aid. Some of my peers did also, and ended up in jobs similar to Mann et al. Meanwhile, among the elder statespersons in science, there had been, since the late 1960s, a significant minority who bought in early to the notions of Steward Brand, Amory and Hunter S. Lovins, David Brower, etc. Put it all together, and we have ended up with people from more of a hard sciences background who have gone into Climate Science, and carried with them radical beliefs. From time to time we see some government scientist moaning about being silenced - what they fail to mention is that they were silenced due to border line libel on a web site they ran, or, suggesting the overthrow of the government, or like ideas.

In parallel with all of this, the business community was quietly changing from being old school conservative run, to being run by the 1960s generation. So all of the sudden there is an environment where business leaders want to wear their “corporate social responsibility” stripes and get on the ecotheological / “progressive” bandwagon.

Another perfect storm has arrived and no one can stop it."

At last, a breath of commonsense to cool us down as the Hot Air Fanatics (HAFs) huff and puff!

Comments

[John Brissenden]

David, even someone as useless at science, and as uninterested in climate change, as I can see that this is bollocks on at least three counts. First, there is a world of difference between "naturally occurring" minor temperature variations between different cities on the one hand, and an average global change in average temperatures of the same amount, on the other; second, if it's all the same to you, I'd prefer to place more trust in peer-reviewed research than any blog; third, if the IPCC report is nonsense, why would the American Enterprise Institute, heavily funded by ExxonMobil, offer money to scientists prepared to speak out against it?

[N.I.B.]

David, I'm reluctant to get into this debate because (a)I don't know anything about it and (b)I don't really care. Anyway, that hasn't stopped you, so here goes:

What will Mr First Comment be saying when the 100,000,000-odd Bangldeshis who've 'got on their bikes' are knocking on his door asking for a cup of sugar?

Similarly, I hope to hear no complaints about Big Communist Government appropriating property, moving people into cities and generally being Too Socialist when it comes the time to "take decisive action to deal with the issue, and to assist those affected to cope?"

Still, it's not going to happen, so what the hell are we all rabbiting on about anyway?

[Mike Cunningham]

Re: the 100,000,000-odd Bangladeshi's;

My reply would be simple; I don't take sugar!

[Clairwil]

Re: the 100,000,000-odd Bangladeshis;

I would trade the sugar for some of their fine jute.

[David Duff]

Well done, 'NIB', never let ignorance or indifference spoil a good debate. As to your points:

The Bangladeshis are a very good example of how humans cope with catastrophes. They continue to live and work in area that is subject to an endless cycle of flooding with a resulting high death toll because the soil is particularly rich and produces excellent crops. In other words they take their chances, adapt to the conditions, breed in high numbers and cling on because to them it is worth it. If conditions become too difficult, presumably their government will take practical actions to deal with it - not least because they need the crops to feed their people. In other words they will apply measures to specific, existing problems, not waste zillions on ifs, buts and maybes. And it does not require a "Big Communist Government" to build, say, an increased-size Thames water barrier.

Also, well done, 'Brisso', no point ever knowingly missed! What the writer was indicating was the *fact* that different people choose to live in different climatic areas and cope in different ways with the problems. As to your complaint concerning 'peer review' - do me a favour! Just read the contributers to Steve McIntyre's site (It suffered server problems over the last two days but it's up again now), you will get all the peer review you want from some very expert people. Also, if you think the IPCC report was whiter than white, read my post above this and take note of the fact that several distinguished team leaders of the various specialist groups quietly dropped out because they were unhappy at the spin put on their findings.

What amuses me is that you and 'NIB' and all your ilk leap about like scalded cats if the Home Secretary and/or the media whip up what you call a false crisis and use it as a means of inhibiting our liberties by excessive regulations. It's like complaining about a man on a bicycle coming towards you whilst ignoring the juggernaut approaching at high speed!

[N.I.B.]

Oh David, David, David... Please give the 'and all your ilk' stuff a rest. I'm sure you're old enough and ugly enough to know what a straw man is - and I already *told you* I don't care!

I'll remind you that 'it does not require a "Big Communist Government" to build, say, an increased-size Thames water barrier' when that nasty Ken Livingstone (or his equally evil Stalinst successor) asks for the extra tax money to build such a thing...

[David Duff]

But obviously you care enough to continue the debate, 'NIB', well done!

Of course, I will complain about *all* government taxes because that is part and parcel of living in a democracy. My point, which you appear to be wilfully avoiding, is that specific expenditure on specific projects to cope with a specific threat can be argued to and fro on a basis of reality. Spending zillions and appointing an army of 'government inspectors' to boss us all around on the basis of an if or a but or a maybe is complete lunacy and opens the door to tyranny!

Both you and 'Brisso' should beware of allowing your dislike/disagreement of my other views to cloud your judgement on this issue.

[N.I.B.]

Yes, you've made that point before, once or twice...

But yet (and this is *my* point) the commenter you approvingly quoted is willing to trust his Government to 'do the right thing' when a catastrophe is happening, but not willing to trust the same Government before a catastrophe has happened.

Sorry, but if that's not walking blindly into tyranny, I don't know what is.

[John Brissenden]

"You and 'Brisso' should beware of allowing your dislike/disagreement of my other views to cloud your judgement on this issue"

David, you should beware of allowing your prejudices on climate change to cloud your healthy scepticism. If you had bothered, you could have discovered that the guy behind your ClimateAudit site, Stephen McIntyre, is no more qualified to pronounce on the issue than you or me. Whereas the IPCC is a multinational project lasting many years, subject to minute scrutiny from hundreds, if not thousands, of accredited experts.

Incidentally, you still haven't explained why ExxonMobil needs to pay people to contradict the report.

[David Duff]

'Brisso', "if you had bothered" to read carefully what I wrote you will be unable to find any endorsement by me of the particular views of the owner (Steve McIntyre) of the Climate Audit site not least because I would be unable to follow his statistical analysis - and I have never hidden my mathematicical ignorance. It was the general thrust of the site *plus* the comments threads (some running to 250+ entries) which I recommended. In those threads there are arguments for and against and all the 'peer revue' of the most technical kind you might wish as an interested observer - which I seem to recall, you are not! What I did recommend was an essay linked to from this site which is required reading - but again, only to those with an interest which lets you out.

I already knew McIntyre's general background because he indicates it in his blog. Heaven forfend that a keen amateur (with a technological background) should take an interest in scientific specialities! The next thing you know, mere clerks from the Patent Office in Berne will be telling us that clocks runs slower at speed. Preposterous! Funny how a 'Bolshie bugger' like you who could normally be relied on to sneer at authority figures, rolls over to let people pick your pocket just because 'they're experts and its scientific, innit?'

As to Exon supporting their own research into climate change, is it surprising when much of the HAFs are virulently anti-capitalist? Also, you should ask yourself where the money comes from to support all these climate change scientists desperately seeking any real proof of their hypothesis. The answer is government money and any keen young scientist whose research fails to support the current orthodoxy will find his grants suddenly coming to an end. At least the likes of Exon, for their own good reasons allow *interested* observers to hear both sides of the story.

[John Brissenden]

I'll keep this short, as I'm now remembering how "debating" with Duff is much like reasoning with a small, rather slow-witted child.

"the general thrust of the site" - which fits with your prejudices, and therefore makes it more worthy of your recommendation than the IPCC report itself, which I'm guessing you've not bothered to read.

This is not a question of sneering at authority figures, rather trying to make sense of a complex and controversial issue. Indeed your haste to endorse the views of partial, interested parties - whose arguments you admit to not understand - seems to be the real example of credulous submission to "authority" here.

As for your closing para, I'm inclined to believe that our mutual friend Snotty McShot has hacked into your blog, it's such a delicious parody of your wilful ignorance.

Non-sequitur: As to Exon supporting their own research into climate change, is it surprising when much of the HAFs are virulently anti-capitalist?

Misunderstanding: all these climate change scientists desperately seeking any real proof of their hypothesis - if you'd read any of the report, you'd see that the whole project is about discovery rather than hypothesis.

Bias: At least the likes of Exon, for their own good reasons allow *interested* observers to hear both sides of the story. - "their own good reasons" being the legal requirement to put shareholder returns above any competing interest! They're hardly the neutral observers you profess.

[David Duff]

'Brisso', let me start again because for a man who professes no interest in this subject you seem to have much to say, or to be precise, little at great length. However, try and follow this:

a) I do agree that the earth's average temperature is fluctuating.
b) I have no idea what is causing the current fluctuation (by "current", I mean the last 1,000 years) and nor am I sure whether it is going up or down, because the last 1,000 years is the tiniest of tiny fractions in the history of the world and "up and down" requires a yardstick by which it can be measured.
c) I, personally, would not bet the deeds of my house on a report which cannot be published in full until it has been vetted by UN bureaucrats to ensure that it fits their criteria.
d) Nor would I take the word of *self-appointed* busybodies whose main imperative appears to be virulent anti-capitalism.
e) Therefor, I welcome any source of information which one may take or leave but which appears to test the hypothesis of *some* scientists whose incomes, status and funding is dependent on producing 'research' that conforms to the political orthodoxy.
f) I hereby proudly confirm that I treat the pronouncements of *all* experts, no matter how 'scientific', with considerable scepticism particularly if they are likely to cost me money!

Now there you are, 'Brisso', tell me precisely and exactly why you would disagree with any of that but, please, do not waste your time invoking the memory of 'Snotty McShot' (MIA) who is, alas, lying comatose in an 'Oirish' bog and has done for the last two months - thank God!