Climate Change
Given the complexity of the draft documents available ahead of the Copenhagen meeting of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) Conference of the Parties (COP) 15, starting 7th December 2009, I’m not going to probe it in detail at this point.
What I am going to do is outline a few of the Trojan horses, and, if I get the time, unpack them further closer to the conference season.
Here’s a round-up of some of the published opinion regarding the new Superfreakonomics book (since the last time I weblogged about it) [ UPDATE : adding a few more links at the end. ] :-
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/10/an-open-letter-to-steve-levitt
“An open letter to Steve Levitt : raypierre @ 29 October 2009 : Dear Mr. Levitt, The problem of global warming is so big that solving it will require creative thinking from many disciplines. Economists have much to contribute to this effort, particularly with regard to the question of how various means of putting a price on carbon emissions may alter human behavior. Some of the lines of thinking in your first book, Freakonomics, could well have had a bearing on this issue, if brought to bear on the carbon emissions problem. I have very much enjoyed and benefited from the growing collaborations between Geosciences and the Economics department here at the University of Chicago, and had hoped someday to have the pleasure of making your acquaintance. It is more in disappointment than anger that I am writing to you now.”
I’ve just chosen a really bright orange paint for my cosy room walls.
Does that make me a “domestic extremist” ?
I ask this in a week when the term has been the subject of quite some discussion and debate amongst some of the people around me :-
https://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/oct/25/police-surveillance-protest-domestic-extremism
In the continuing saga of the travels of Ed Miliband’s favourite suit and tie, here they are again, this time in South Africa, with not a crumple or hint of poor, local dust on them. Marvellous !
There I was, meekly in line with the other London Underground commuters, learning to be a sheep on the Tube train escalator.
And then I saw it : a poster that said “Day of the Dead” with “Supported by BP” with a logo and everything.
I just couldn’t stop laughing.
https://www.britishmuseum.org/whats_on/events_calendar/november/day_of_the_dead.aspx
Is this like some kind of anti-sense meme to attract interest in what BP is doing by adding a huge dose of irony, so much so that people report it virally ?
(Just to explain the mild hysterics : within the next 20 to 30 years, the Fossil Fuel companies will be pretty much history, I reckon. That’s why I found British Petroleum’s support of this event highly chortling. If they don’t get Beyond Petroleum, I project that BP’s business is doomed to failure in the coming era of Carbon constraint).
So, I’m sitting in a bar, chatting with some acquaintances.
We start talking about the adjustments that will have to take place in Europe as Climate Change starts to bite : mass migration, changes in the food growing systems, water management, waste management, that sort of thing.
Then I mentioned Australia. I said I had watched part of the Scorched TV presentation, which portrays the urban areas of Australia as suffering from severe water shortages and raging bushfire in the very near future.
In the group of people there, we knew of current cases of water supply problems and enforceable water restrictions already in place.
I must say, the Daily Telegraph gets top marks for loyalty.
On the occasion of the publication of a book based on Global Warming myths and mendacities, by Christopher Booker, the author himself gets a huge chunk of online column to promote himself, his views and his opus, without the shred of a question about a possible conflict of interest :-
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/6425269/The-real-climate-change-catastrophe.html
So Climate Change scepticism is not only a legitimate position to hold, it’s a bag of laughs, a jolly jape, a wheeze and a pile of fun. Well, that’s according to Clive James writing on the BBC Online :-
https://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/8322513.stm
“Friday, 23 October 2009 : In praise of scepticism : Claims over global warming are not accepted by all : A POINT OF VIEW : In a light-hearted essay, Clive James takes a look at Montaigne, golf-ball crisps and our attitude towards climate change sceptics…”
Yes, it’s all erudite : in terms of philosophy it’s even quite appropriate to apply scepticism to various branches of science…I’m thinking social sciences…But not to Climate Change Science.
Empirical science, as you all know by now, is the study of things natural, taking measurements, postulating mechanisms and predicting the results of further observations, against which the theory is evaluated.
From this piece from Mr laugh-a-minute James, I would posit a theory : that Clive writes poorly-informed opinion pieces about Science.
It’s like they say on tee-shirts : “Look busy, Jesus is coming !”
The Great Miliband Brothers’ Flying Circus has come to town and told us to look sharp and get active :-
https://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6886363.ece
“From The Times : October 23, 2009 : Foreign Secretary David Miliband accuses public of climate change apathy : Hannah Devlin : The Foreign Secretary accused the public yesterday of lacking a sense of urgency in the face of the potentially devastating consequences of climate change. David Miliband said that people had grown apathetic about the issue when they needed to be galvanised into action before the Copenhagen climate change summit in December. “For a lot of people the penny hasn’t dropped that this climate change challenge is real and is happening now,” he said. “There isn’t yet that feeling of urgency and drive and animation about the Copenhagen conference.” Mr Miliband and his brother, Ed Miliband, the Climate Change Secretary, were opening an exhibition at the Science Museum in South Kensington designed to illustrate the potential impact of world temperatures increasing by 4C. Current models predict that this could happen by 2060 if no action is taken. Mr Miliband warned of water and food shortages, mass migration and conflict. A map unveiled at the exhibition showed temperatures increasing by up to 15C in the Arctic, storm surges hitting the East Coast of Britain and forest fires and droughts in Europe. Ed Miliband said that only 18 per cent of people believed that climate change would affect their children…”
La, la, la, fingers in our ears.
I mean, if you show us a Government-funded TV advertisement with cartoon tearful bunnies and drowning dogs, how exactly are we supposed to take you seriously ?
The rumour mill about the propsects for new Nuclear Power is quite active, a kind of underground semaphore.
About a year ago, the idea that the United Kingdom would be burdened with eleven new Nuclear Power stations entered the mill and popped out all over the shop, being greeted with ridicule, dismissiveness, anger and despair.
When the Energy Supply companies started going into “free capital” meltdown over new investments, owing to issues concerning insurance and the general Economy, there was concern that they wouldn’t come along with the new Nuclear plan.
The Government kept pumping out the information that we should have at least four new Nuclear Power stations. How critical this project was ! How bright and shiny new Nuclear would be ! The unwritten back room understanding that any new Nuclear Power plant could expect State support in one form or another. However, the public statements were that there would be no Public Money for new Nuclear build.
Where will I be on 24th October 2009 ? What will I be doing on 24th October 2009 ?
Ssh ! It’s an open secret.
It won’t be violent. It won’t be terrorism. It won’t be breaking and entering. It won’t be dropping banners. It won’t be Climate camping. It won’t be marching in the streets. It won’t be leafletting. It won’t be organising a rally. It won’t be taking part in a stunt.
I’ll be doing the most radical thing that anyone can do given the prevailing cultural winds : not consuming. I’ll eat and breathe, but I won’t shop.
I’m not buying into the system that built all those cars, that flew all those planes, that logged all those trees, that spilled all that oil, that flared all that gas, that heated all those buildings, that chilled all that food, that poisoned all those minds, that sold us all that non-essential land-filling plastic-coated stuff.
I’ll be keeping the (green) peace.
The Grist magazine is recommending people take actions of civil disobedience on 24th October 2009, in support of “350 Day” :-
Image Credit : Baby Creative
Over the last couple of years, almost everything I have been involved with, the E.On Energy supply company has sought to get its big coal-dust grubby hands on. It seems. The latest twist in this saga involves the Claverton Energy Research Group.
Now even friends break ranks with Levitt and Dubner over their new tome Superfreakonomics – a clear throw-back to the 1980s.
Is it time to ask for a reprint with all the errors corrected ?
https://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&sid=aVKXZg_Z.vMY
Oct. 20 (Bloomberg) — Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner are so good at tweaking conventional wisdom that their first book, “Freakonomics,” sold 4 million copies. So when Dubner, an old friend, told me their new book would take on climate change, I was rooting for a breakthrough idea.
No such luck. In “SuperFreakonomics,” their brave new climate thinking turns out to be the same pile of misinformation the skeptic crowd has been peddling for years.
“Obviously, provocation is not last on the list of things we’re trying to do,” Dubner told me the other day. This time, the urge to provoke has driven him and Levitt off the rails and into a contrarian ditch.
…Having downplayed the problem, they try to solve it with a set of silver-bullet technologies known as geoengineering. One would shoot millions of tons of sulfur dioxide 18 miles into the air to artificially cool the planet. This could work; it also could have dire unintended consequences.
Caldeira, who is researching the idea, argues that it can succeed only if we first reduce emissions. Otherwise, he says, geoengineering can’t begin to cope with the collateral damage, such as acidic oceans killing off shellfish.
Levitt and Dubner ignore his view and champion his work as a permanent substitute for emissions cuts. When I told Dubner that Caldeira doesn’t believe geoengineering can work without cutting emissions, he was baffled. “I don’t understand how that could be,” he said. In other words, the Freakonomics guys just flunked climate science.”
https://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/10/superfreakonimics-climate-change-controversy.php
https://www.theatlanticwire.com/features/view/feature/SuperFreakonomics-on-Global-Warming-220
“It all started with climate activist Joe Romm accusing the authors Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner of global warming denial and misrepresenting the research of a key climate scientist. They pushed back, and fellow New York Times blogger and celebrated columnist Paul Krugman jumped in the fray…”
Compare and contrast the perfectly reasonably statements from Gordon Brown against the fearmongering of Christopher Monckton :-
https://www.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474977860385&grpId=3659174697241980
https://www.rightpundits.com/?p=4893
If Climate Change takes a “One World Government” to solve it, I say “bring it on” ! (And can we have Gordon Brown as the President ?)
The Competitive Enterprise Institute in the United States of America wants to save the bottled water market.
It also wants to try to convince people that Climate Change policy is bad news, against Freedom, and based on fear.
There will be a new film, charmingly entitled “Climate Chains” with a whole new palette of Climate Change denial and policy refusal arguments, so it would be well worth watching it when it comes out, to help us work out how to nip these myths in the bud.
https://www.globalwarming.org/2009/09/17/climate-chains-trailer/
https://www.climatechains.com/about.html
https://www.grist.org/article/2009-10-19-chamber-plays-the-fool-in-yes-men-hoax
https://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=a3IaPOkIataY
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/19/chamber-of-commerce-hoax_n_326069.html
https://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKN1939867120091019
This will probably get taken down eventually :-
https://www.oneclimate.net/2009/10/19/us-chamber-of-commerce-announces-free-enterprise-climate-policy/
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/22/20091019/tpl-environment-us-chamber-climate-legis-02bfc7e.html
Image Credit : Bankside Press
The big problem with re-tooling for the new Low Carbon world is not so much about changing Energy consumption behaviour, although that plays a part.
It’s not even really Energy supply behaviour, although that is probably more significant.
No, the key to the door to the greener future is investment behaviour.
“The headlines have been harrowing to say the least. “Some experts believe that mankind is on the threshold of a new pattern of adverse global climate for which it is ill-prepared.” one New York Times article declared. It quoted climate researchers who argued that “this climate change poses a threat to the people of the world.” A Newsweek article, citing a National Academy of Sciences report, warned that climate change “would force economic and social adjustments on a worldwide scale.” Worse yet, “climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for the climatic change or even to allay its effects.” Who in his or her right mind wouldn’t be scared of global warming ? But that’s not what these scientists were talking about. These articles, published in the mid-1970s, were predicting the effects of global cooling…”
And so, in just a few short paragraphs from Chapter 5, in the new Superfreakonomics book from the Freakonomicsts Levitt and Dubner, the authors show they’ve been taken in by a Climate Change sceptic Trojan horse.
Following in the wake of the rabidly successful crowd-funded “Age of Stupid” film, the Climate Change deniers hit back with a little film of their own.
By some fluke of irony, just like the film that was entitled “The Great Global Warming Swindle”, which was a swindle, this film calls itself “Not Evil, Just Wrong” :-
https://www.noteviljustwrong.com
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_Evil_Just_Wrong
“They want to CLOSE OUR FACTORIES” ? I’ve got news for you, sunshine. You don’t own the factories. The factories are owned by the big, rich people.
Tears Before Bedtime
The UK Government’s latest infommercial on Climate Change is appallingly bad. It has been aired on television for millions of unsuspecting soap opera addicts.
Last year I complained to Roger Harrabin of the BBC by electronic mail regarding what I considered to be an unhelpful headline to an online article concerned with Global Warming. I also criticised the way that part of the article was written, as it had the potential to be misinterpreted.
Some of the people who read this web log who are in personal communication with me will know what happened next, but I’m not going to go over it again at this juncture, suffice it to say that a person or persons unknown reported the electronic mail exchange to a group of people who self-style as “Climate Change sceptics”, after which I found myself curiously infamous, and found it best to lie low for a while.
Even after this furore, why do we continue to see horrible headlines ?
The computer equipment you are at this moment using relies on an effect known as “quantum tunneling”, delivering an energy payload across a seemingly inpenetrable medium.
It is, if you like, a subversion of the apparent macro-scale laws of the universe. Nothing is quite what you think it is.
Sometimes you can learn a snippet of useful information from television. It’s rare, and fleeting, but can have impact.
The other night on terror-vision, I watched the sumptuous Fahrenheit 451, a film made in 1966 by Francois Truffaut, based on the science fiction book by Ray Bradbury. I forget which channel it was on. Who cares ? All television is the same in the end.
***************** College, University of ****************
MSc ******************************* programme
Year : 1 : Course Module : Climate Change
Reading Task : 6th October 2009
Read : Michaels, P.J. (2009) : “Global Warming and Climate Change”.
In : Cato Handbook for Policymakers (ed. D. Boaz, 7th edition). Cato Institute, p. 475-485.
Available from :-
https://www.cato.org/pubs/handbook/hb111/hb111-45.pdf
1) How does he explain the observed periods of warming in the IPCC record?
Michaels states : “human activity has been a contributor since 1975.”