John Ward August 2, 2010 GOP mad., irresponsible, Lawrence McGinty, opponents of warmism ecstatic, Republicans and climate change, triumphalism inappropriate

CLIMATE DEBATE: There is no triumph in turning ‘don’t know’ into ‘no’ – whichever side you’re on.

The ‘why’ of climate change remains a subject for debate. The reality of it isn’t.

News that the Republican Party has almost completely derailed America’s anti-climate change agenda is doubtless causing dancing in the streets of Fairyland this morning. And we can be equally sure that highly convincing new data about the increasing evidence for serious climate change has merely caused more enthusiastic rolling-up of those sleeves among the anti-Warmists. But their triumphalism – whether they’re right or wrong – is wholly misplaced.

The eco-science bandwagon has been spurred along by cheating and jumped upon by hucksters, but the conspiracy theory element of the change-deniers simply doesn’t make sense….and the very action of the GOP in Congress last weeks makes it even more silly.

The simple fact is, we don’t know for sure. We don’t know for sure why it’s happening and what/who is most to blame. We don’t know clearly yet what the effects will be. We don’t know for certain the rate of acceleration, if any.

But to sit there and say it’s not happening is just as potty as local Councils dividing all our rubbish up because they think it’s going to make one iota of difference. I think travel’s carbon footprint and airline flights and car pollution are so many deckchairs on the Titanic, because the evidence is conclusive enough for me that its pollutant effect is minute compared to humans and livestock breathing and farting.

The ITN science correspondent Lawrence McGinty was my classmate at school. He’s been to both Poles and most points around the globe in between with the sole purchase of watching change and measuring it. He told me three years ago he is in no doubt whatsoever that a major climate shift is under way – and neither am I. But without any of this data, the human population has trebled in fifty years and the amount of water available is exactly the same. If that’s not a human disaster waiting to happen, what is?

I’ve also run out of patience with the bollocks about ‘you’re confusing weather with climate’. After a certain exponential rate of change, the weather is the climate. Lay off the triumphalism all you anti-warmists: we’re in a spot on this one, and denying all of it won’t make it go away.

13Comments

Add yours

1

Morningstar on August 11, 2010 at 10:33 am

I became a doubter when A)the first thing the socialist government did was to stick taxes on everything it could possibly attribute to being a 'cause' of Global Warming. B) The BBC started diseminating propaganda which brooked no other opinion – falling in line with its leftist paymasters requirements.Having since – with an open mind – investigated the subject myself – I have concluded that there may well be climate change occurring but if so there is little we can do about it except adapt. If – and it is IMHO a big if – mankind is causing it then taxing us more and wasting said taxes is not and never would be the answer. The money would be better spent on Thorium based nuclear power than carpeting the seas and country with limited lifespan and expensive to maintain renewable leftie luvvie solutions – yet no politician has even a clue about this potential (relatively) clean (small amounts of short half life radioactive material)and scaleable source of power. The only downside of which (to my research so far) is that no weapons grade uranium can be produced as a by product.Utube has some interesting info on Thorium based nuclear power generation for the interested and 'quick answer' people !By the way – thanks for an excellent Blog – I don't often comment (this is first) but absorb and disseminate gleaned info !

LikeLike
2

Anonymous on August 3, 2010 at 2:44 pm

"Population change = climate change"How do you know that then?(Population overshoot may lead to catastrophe, but that's a different issue.)"Tell me your evidence for 'no'."I'm not a 'no'. I'm a 'don't know'."Show me where I say 'yes'." Here:"He told me three years ago he is in no doubt whatsoever that a major climate shift is under way – and neither am I."Sorry, I don't have time to go into detail. I was just trying to point out the inconsistencies in your argument.

LikeLike
3

Anonymous on August 3, 2010 at 6:27 am

You are all talking BLKs, as one would expect on such a site. If there are 5 0r 6 billion people on the planet there is only one answer, everyone kill someone else so that the can use their water and air etc. you will be left with either one person or none and the climate can carry on in its own sweet way, changing for whatever reason it feels like, maybe el nino or north atlantic oscillation. Maybe it is tired of being the "same" which it never is, maybe there will be more clouds or the sun will continue to produce less energy, and the earth will start to cool as it loses the heat it has absorbed over the years? But we are not here to be told what to do and taxed on things that might or might not have some impact on a intellectually perceived problem, for which the evidence is inconclusive for the planet as a whole, which has in fact caused a lack of trust in the "facts", as they seem to be being manipulated.We have the same problem with all our governing instituitions and services, ie police,banks etc, as we allow them to serve themselves rather than serve us.So you can swap places with a peasant from somewhere poor if you wish, but do not expect me to, and realise that if you leave your slot in the western world, someone is only too willing to fill it and make use of it's services.

LikeLike
4

John Ward on August 2, 2010 at 6:31 pm

Allan TrayesThank you for the dose of sanity.Anon re Lol McGintyPopulation change = climate change. We breathe the atmosphere. I am not worthy to challenge Lol's findings, nor would I insult an old friend by suggesting he's a liar. He's a good Mancunian lad and a ManU supporter: pray tell me the motive for his alleged heinous lies.You're after a conspiracy without a motive….and playing craps with the one planet we have. If that makes you feel good, then you have a problem I'm not qualified to solve.Anon re not knowing exactly:Tell me your evidence for 'no'. Show me where I say 'yes'. Give me your strategy for solving exponential human increase and (at best) static water supply.I say throughout 'I don't know for certain'. But I've studied acres of evidence, and it points to change. Do we then do nothing?

LikeLike
5

Allan Trayes on August 2, 2010 at 2:17 pm

Interesting. Many nations came together for the international polar year that completed in 2009. Many experiments on all aspects of polar environment and ecology were conducted. A rationalist sceptic would look at the data from that extensive programme and say 99% certain the earths climate is changing. Why? All the evidence is consistent, even the building up of ice in the west antartic (its at -30c on a warm day, being at a few thousand feet, so snows a lot more now)We are currently at a "Maunder minimum" of sunspot activity and yet global temperature is still up, can't be just the sun then. No great exceptional volcanic activity, no luck there then. Only big change is Co2. We are filling in the gaps in the historic CO2 record and find the temperature record increasingly consistent with CO2 levels (New scientist ran an article on this a couple of months ago). So looks like CO2 is the culprit and from what we can see, man is at least 50% responsible for it.As an engineer who has studied thermal runaway, tipping points and exponentiation and had to deal with the consequences, everything suggests the earth flips in and out of states in a short period of time. Again looking at the data you can see how this can happen with methane traps, increased volcanic activity, less ice (lower albedo), dead zones in seas etc. Can we afford to discount the possibility it might (is?) happening again. Philosophical states of denial and irrational belief in "its all a conspiracy, not real" choke intelligent debate and lead us down a dangerous path. Having trawled through masses of data, met people who have worked on the international polar year, I conclude there is a case for action, the only debate is about what but to fail to act would be irresponsible. So start somewhere, even if you don't know the right answers, so using less and emmiting less, changing energy resources etc etc has to make collective sense. To do otherwise would be a mistake.

LikeLike
6

PT on August 2, 2010 at 1:00 pm

Earth's climate has been changing, often quite dramatically in one way or another, since Earth first had an atmosphere and hence a climate. Overwhelmingly, most of these changes occurred before any of those nasty humans existed, so I don't swallow the "mea culpa" nonsense pouring forth from the AGW-taxation axis. Earth's climate will continue to change, whatever we do or don't do. Whatever direction this change takes, and whatever its effects, taxing and "managing" our economy in punitive ways that seem designed to export manufacturing jobs and bankrupt us as a nation will not help one iota when and if these changes manifest themselves, as all the money siphoned off from the economy using the "global warming" excuse will already have been wasted or stolen by our political masters.Incidentally, are other nations being honest in toeing the AGW line on CO2 reduction and taxation etc, or is it just soft old Britain that's taking the hit?

LikeLike
7

Ed P on August 2, 2010 at 11:44 am

Whatever is happening to the climate, it's fairly certain that CO2 is NOT the major factor. All the massaged proxy data from "Professor" Mann & the CRU have done a great disservice to sensible analyses and understanding.E.G.: Although the extents of Arctic ice diminished 5 years ago, they have now returned and cover more of the Arctic Ocean, also to a greater thickness. The same with the Antarctic: different extents but more ice overall.We do not know what is happening! (It's so hard to predict that it's possible the warnings in the 1970s were correct, and we are seeing fluctuations in advance of a new ICE age, not warming.)

LikeLike
8

Anonymous on August 2, 2010 at 11:21 am

"As I say, I don't KNOW exactly what's going on"It seems like you have turned your 'don't know' into a 'yes'.

LikeLike
9

John Ward on August 2, 2010 at 11:12 am

BTAgree with a huge portion of what you say – hence my remarks about cars etc not really being the problem.As I say, I don't KNOW exactly what's going on – but I prefer the insurance policy to the denial.PWYou're right the recycling analism is just another way of little Hitlers ordering us about – and is irrelevent. I just don't think that this political normality disproves the cases. If you think the CO2/Man connection is thin, fair enough. I'd call it obese to the point of unavoidable.

LikeLike
10

Anonymous on August 2, 2010 at 11:11 am

"The ITN science correspondent Lawrence McGinty was my classmate at school. He's been to both Poles and most points around the globe in between with the sole purchase of watching change and measuring it. "So he has lots of measurement data then? Which you checked?"But without any of this data, the human population has trebled in fifty years"I think you will find that that is population change, not climate change.

LikeLike
11

Jimmy on August 2, 2010 at 11:06 am

http://china-economics-blog.blogspot.com/2010/07/climate-and-war-in-china.html

LikeLike
12

Peter Whale on August 2, 2010 at 10:54 am

John your article is bollocks there is no warming by co2 that is of any significance. Like you I have been around for too many decades. There is nothing going on but the desire by the political class to enforce and inflict greater control of the masses. The masses will eventually win by totally overwhelming the political class. So be it.

LikeLike
13

Bankrupt Taxpayer on August 2, 2010 at 8:48 am

I accept the view that some climate change is happening but the whole subject has been hijacked by miscellaneous socialist pressure groups, including Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace and a multitude of "get out of your car and back on the bus" car-haters.In the case of New Labour this was probably to empty the roads so Party Limos can rush from one important socialist congress meeting to another. A bit like the M4 Party Lane created by Prescott for Blair's use.IMHO New Labour bought into this agenda for several reasons:- it fitted exactly into their own socialist agendaand all the pressure groups are Lefties.- Brown & Co saw an opportunity to tap into public concern by imposing higher taxes on the back of climate change. That is what we've seen.I have long argued that the evidence that climate change is man-made is thin and has been subject to disinformation, perhaps some blatant dishonesty.Our efforts should be focused on mitigation of its effects and planning for a fossil-fuel-free society, not on trying to stop it which I believe is futile and misguided. But of course that would not satisfy all the Lefties who want to ban cars and anything else that detracts from their socialist utopia.The current cynicism across society about climate change has been caused by the lies and distortions peddled by socialists.During his election campaign, Obama said much about promoting investment into making America energy independent and getting itself off fossil fuels. But in office, I'm not sure what he's doing.Whatever, new clean, green, cheap energies are the way forward.

LikeLike