Academic Freedom Assets not Liabilities Bad Science Bait & Switch Be Prepared Climate Change Climate Chaos Conflict of Interest Corporate Pressure Delay and Deny Disturbing Trends Divide & Rule Dreamworld Economics Economic Implosion Emissions Impossible Energy Change Energy Denial Energy Insecurity Energy Revival Fossilised Fuels Freshwater Stress Gamechanger Growth Paradigm Hydrocarbon Hegemony Major Shift Mass Propaganda Neverending Disaster Non-Science Nudge & Budge Paradigm Shapeshifter Peak Emissions Peak Energy Policy Warfare Political Nightmare Public Relations Realistic Models Regulatory Ultimatum Renewable Resource Resource Curse Science Rules Social Capital Social Change Sustainable Deferment The Data The Power of Intention The War on Error Voluntary Behaviour Change Wasted Resource

What is my agenda ?

Tamino’s Arctic Sea Ice Poll

For some time I have not felt a keen sense of “mission” – a direction for my climate change and energy activities. However, I am beginning to formulate a plan – or rather – I have one important item on my agenda. I am aware that perception can be fatal – and that people in many “camps” are going to dismiss me because of this.

Suddenly I don’t fit into anybody’s pigeonhole – so the needle on the dial will probably swing over to “dismiss”. However, I think it’s necessary to pursue this. I think I have to try.

I am prepared to hold several conflicting ideas in the balance at one time, and let the data add mass to one version of the truth or another.

I’m prepared to accept the possibility of low climate change sensitivity (the reaction of the Earth biosystem to global warming) – apart from the fact that the evidence is accumulating – pointing heavily towards rapid instabilities emerging on short timescales. I don’t think I ever really left behind the hope – and I’m crossing my fingers here – that some massive negative carbon feedback will arise, heroically, and stem the full vigour of climate chaos. But as time slips by, and the Arctic cryosphere continues to de-materialise before our very eyes, that hope is worn down to the barest of threads.

And on energy security, I am prepared to accept the reasoning behind the IEA, BP, Shell and other projections of increasing overall energy demand between now and 2035, and the percentage of fossil fuel use that will inevitably require – apart from the fact that some evidence points towards increasing uncertainties in energy provision – if we are relying on more complex and inaccessible resources, within the framework of an increasingly patchy global economy.

If access to energy becomes threatened for more people globally, and also if climate change becomes highly aggressive in terms of freshwater stress, then I doubt that human population growth can carry on the way it has been – and in addition the global economy may never recover – which means that overall energy demand will not grow in the way that oil and gas companies would like their shareholders to accept.

My impression is that energy producing companies and countries are not openly admitting the risks. If energy supply chaos sets in, then the political and governance ramifications will be enormous, especially since the energy industry is so embedded in administrations. It is time, in my view, that projections of world energy use to 2035 included error bars based on economic failure due to energy chaos.

What do I need to do – given these pragmatic positions ? I need to include realists in the crisis talks – pragmatic, flexible thinkers from the energy industry. Just as we are not going to solve climate change without addressing energy provision, we are not going to solve energy insecurity without addressing climate change impacts on energy infrastructure. And so I need to find the energy industry people, meet them and invite them to the discussions on the risks of chaos. I need people to take in the data. I need people to understand the problems with slipping back into “thinking as usual”.

As to the setting – whether I should be an employee or an independent advisor/adviser, consultant or a researcher, I don’t have any idea what would be best. Collaborators would be useful – as I am but one person with a track record of being rather awkward – despite trying to engage my best behaviour. But then, nobody’s perfect. In a sense it doesn’t matter who does the job, but we have to break the public relations-guided psychology of denial. People are not generally stupid, and many are snapping out of their drip-fed propaganda delusions. I wonder exactly how many other imperfect people are out there who are coming to the same conclusions ? And what will be the game changer ?

One reply on “What is my agenda ?”

Jo – you say;-

“People are not generally stupid, and many are snapping out of their drip-fed propaganda delusions.”

And i believe this is correct – but not in the way that you suggest. Because in the sentence previous to the one above you use the same tired old term “denier”. And we sceptics of the hype and spin of those who have hijacked environmental concerns into a one subject agenda are indeed “snapping out of their drip-fed propaganda delusions”.

To anyone with a thinking mind the “propaganda delusions” is the reliance on computor models that rely on there being a positive correlation between CO2 and water vapour. And the observerd data suggests that this is NOT the case.

CO2 is a greenhouse gas – NO AUGUMENT HERE FROM ANY SCEPTIC! I would suggest.

The issue is Alarmist models all assume that the warming via CO2 produces a cascade warming effect via water vapour.

However, observed data indicates that when this same water vapour forms clouds the clouds reduce the warming effect of the suns rays and so the overall effect is a negative feed back loop. The models are shockingly bad at even trying to be realistic about clouds.

Please do some real research on this because it is this scam of those with the “Climatescience” vested interest that made me move from being someone with HUGE concerns over AGW/climate change to someone who feals cheated and angry that the science has been hijacked by those with an agenda.

And before those who “believe” start quoting sources such as the IPCC etc – look at what it stands for – the two last letters in particular!

Of course this QUANGO gravy train is going to support the alarmist concept – how else is it going to survive? If the IPCC told the truth about the lack of positive feedback re H2O and CO2, it would be like Turkeys voting for Christmas.


Fanatism is what you get when you have forgotten what your original aim was.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.