Monday, August 18, 2008
Sammy Wilson’s climate scepticism
Environment Minister, Sammy Wilson, is quoted in this morning’s Newsletter on the flooding of the Broadway underpass. He claims, erroneously, that the flash floods contradict scientific climate change predictions of warming in the northern hemisphere. Wilson’s comments are not supported by the most recent findings. For example, Jonathan Cowie’s Climate Change: Biological and Human Impacts (2007), concludes that increased major floods could well happen in the summer despite European summers becoming drier. Seemingly paradoxically, computer models predict an increase in intense summer rainfall with global warming. Instead of the less rain being spread across summer months, there will a tendency for this precipitation to clump into extreme weather events (Christensen and Christensen, 2002). The climate blogger, Climate Progress, also cites scientific findings that undermine the Minister’s position. Mr Wilson is not moved by any of the science. Instead, he has informed the Irish News that ‘he is not going to engage in a frivolous sideshow argument on climate change.’
Peter Doran @ 11:41 AM
Peter
If you’re going to post a link allegedly providing proof of some quote it would be nice if the link actually had said quote within it.Can’t find any evidence of any talk about climate change anywhere within the story.
Not that you’d let that problem get in your way I suppose.
Posted by on Aug 18, 2008 @ 01:09 PMBut Sammy Wilson does lots of scientific research wheres the general consensus of the scientific community: specialist scientists, meteorological evidence and year on year evidence and the disappearing ice sheets in Canada Greenland and the “so-called” north pole are mere facts and evidence based conjecture. Sammy runs through the countryside ballack naked so i know which side I’m on the in the debate. The earth is 6000 years old and it’s not heating up - the DUP have said so and they should know. Shouldn’t they?
Posted by on Aug 18, 2008 @ 01:16 PMInterested, we see what we want to see…
Posted by on Aug 18, 2008 @ 01:29 PMSammy Wilson claims that “the flash floods contradict scientific climate change predictions of warming in the northern hemisphere.”
His pal John O’Dowd tells us on the BBC that British soldiers cannot provide help to flood victims.
Keep the storm drains and sewers blocked - drowning is the humane solution to the torture of these fools.
Posted by on Aug 18, 2008 @ 01:41 PMOne swallow doesn’t make a summer; neither does one flash flood make much evidence either for or against global warming.
I can understand Sammy Wilson’s scepticism; I think that most people outside the green movement and the chattering classes take global warming with a big pinch of salt. I am old enough to remember the first climate change scare of the 1970s, when the particulate matter from fossil fuels was going to cause a new ice age. The hysteria with which a lot of the global warming agenda is pursued is also an instiller of scepticism, remember William Crawley’s silly programmes with the ice and the scarey music. Even the worst case scenarios don’t justify any reasonable risk of the shutting off of the Gulf stream as his programme theorised.
I don’t do any scientific research, but a bit of common sense should tell anyone that if we can’t predict the weather next month we should be fairly sceptical of trying to predict it in 100 years. Is this contrary to the scientific consensus? Ignaz Semmelweis was also widely criticised for not going with the scientific consensus of his age, he went mad and committed suicide. What was his theory? That hand washing reduces infections. The scientific consensus doesn’t equal fact and it never will unless science has discovered everything. I doubt that that day will ever come.
Posted by on Aug 18, 2008 @ 01:41 PMDavid,
What exactly is your point about the “new ice age” theories of the 1970s? I remember them too, and I also recall that they weren’t backed by any sort of scientific evidence anything like as comprehensive as that supporting global warming.
If you are old enough to recall the 1970s then you’ll also recognise that the climate has changed since then - spring is coming earlier, winters are wetter and warmer.
Your point about hand washing suggests to me you ought to think a bit more clearly about your own position - you are the one denying all the evidence. You cannot cite any serious evidence to back up your position except a couple of anecdotes.
More generally on S Wilson - how long are the unionist population going to accept being represented by these charlatans? Pig ignorant boors who do nothing for their community except boast of how they’ve kept the fenians down…I am not a unionist but that doesn’t stop me from seeing how these numpties are damaging the unionist position: how about a bit more confidence and a willingness to engage with the modern world?
Posted by on Aug 18, 2008 @ 01:51 PMWhat a shower.
Presumably the DUP will be looking for explanations for the floods in the bible as that advises their social policy of being anti-gay and their education policy of being anti-evolution.
Posted by on Aug 18, 2008 @ 02:26 PMCS Parnell, I have cautioned scepticism over the alleged scientific consensus, rather than putting out an alternative position. Anyone with any knowledge of the operation of science should know that it is not in the business of producing truths, but merely of testing hypotheses. It is a long and slow process and quite often large parts of the scientific community have been entirely wrong about things. Presumably you do not really think that everything on which there is a scientific consensus is actually true?
Climatology is a science which is very much in its infancy when it comes to long term predictions. Here is the 1972 Time Magazine story on the subject:
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,944914,00.html
Sounds a bit like lots of the scare mongering today, unusual weather events being connected to a grand theory.
Posted by on Aug 18, 2008 @ 02:32 PMPeter
“Interested, we see what we want to see…”Apparently we agree on something! I was simply making the point that you linked to a Newsletter article where you state that Sammy Wilson is quoted - he is quoted, but not apparently on climate change.
He may or may not have made the comments you go on to suggest he made but you haven’t actually provided any documentary evidence.
But, we see what we want to see apparently…..
I suppose all the environmentalists have got over the grief of losing out on nice cushy, and co-incidentally probably well paid positions on an independent EPA. That probably clouds vision too….
Posted by on Aug 18, 2008 @ 02:44 PMDavid
The global cooling myth of the 1970s has been decisively undermined by, among others, the scientist who first predicted that the cooling effect of aerosols would outweigh the warming impact of carbon dioxide on the atmosphere.
The New Scientist dealt with the cooling myth in a special edition (http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11643)
Environmentalists are well aware of the role of uncertainty in the scientific endeavour. That’s why we have the ‘precautionary principle’...we never get away from a balance of risk and probability….
Posted by on Aug 18, 2008 @ 02:45 PMIWSMNWDI,
‘Presumably the DUP will be looking for explanations for the floods in the bible ‘
There are and always have been any number of charlatans out there who blame the problems of the world on ‘God ’ getting ‘angry’ with his chosen people who either have not obeyed his commandments by not exterminating the Moabites poperly and allowing some of the ‘male ’ children to survive etc etc . US Presidential candidate Pat Robertson being one of the more famous ‘charlatans’ of the ‘angry ’ God stage act .Anybody who is now denying ‘global warming ’ is not looking at the numbers . But then anybody who believes that the Earth has been around just 6,000 years and that ‘evolution’ just ain’t true cos it can’t be cos well cos why then have we still got monkeys ’ should keep away from numbers in the first place .
What the longer effect of global warming will be on North Western Europe is open to ‘debate ‘. Whether it is a 200 ft increase in sea levels thus drowning the Netherlands and all coastal and low lying cities cities -bye bye Belfast , London , Dublin - hello Munich or whether it’s a new ice age with mile high ice sheets sending Spanish riviera property prices through the roof who knows .
The Earth has not always been as ‘quiescent ’ as it has been for the past 11,000 years . We may think we can change CO2 levels and I believe we can -Whether this will ever seriously dent the Earth from ‘wobbling ’ it’s way to another Ice Age or prevent major worldwide vulcan eruptions set off by a Yellowstone uprising is another story .
However just because we look down the road before we cross and see no oncoming traffic is no excuse for putting on a blindfold before stepping out on the road . It would seem that Mr Wilson in a vain attempt tp cover his ‘nakedness’ has done just that re ‘global warming ’ . Someone ought to tell him that blindfolds while useful for playing childrens ‘blind man’s buff’ are not a sufficient cover for ‘nakedness’ either of the physical or political kind .
But then some might add what use a ‘blindfold’ in a country where the blind lead the blind anyway and the onl;y political choice is between the parties of the blind alley on the one hand and the parties of the cul de sac on the other :(
Posted by on Aug 18, 2008 @ 02:54 PM‘Interested’,
The Newsletter story carries the following quote, to which I refer:
“But Mr Wilson said that his well-known scepticism about increased carbon dioxide being responsible for damaging climate change was unshaken by the deluge.
“Those people (who believe we are responsible for climate change) would say from their models that this should be happening less often because this part of the northern hemisphere should be getting dryer,” he insisted.”
The Minister is attempting to suggest that the flooding is not consistent with climate change science. He is wrong. While drier summers are predicted for the Northern hemisphere overall, warming can also amplify precipitation, causing flash floods.
Posted by on Aug 18, 2008 @ 02:54 PMDavid – You claim to know how science works and that is isn’t about producing ‘truths’.
I agree with you – but aren’t you asking here for just such impossible ‘truths’ before you will be forced to act?
I don’t know if you’ve given it some thought – but isn’t it obvious to you that your position is completely contradictory?
You are like someone standing in a tunnel looking at a light and weighing up the evidence for and against the likelihood of it being an on-coming train. In real life you hedge your bets and stand to one side. ‘Truth’ is often too late or impossible.
The mass of evidence for serious global climate change (with effects that will make last weekend look like a fun day out) is now overwhelming. Thousands of scientists working for more that 30 years have amassed huge realms of data that point only one way.
To deny this is in 2008 is now becoming ethically unacceptable – in the same league as those who still claim that there is still no conclusive evidence to link cancer with smoking.
There never will be ‘conclusive proof’ (ie, truth with a capital T) of the link between lung cancer and smoking. But only a fool would argue otherwise.
Posted by on Aug 18, 2008 @ 02:56 PMPeter
Thanks for providing that - it just wasn’t in the online version.Posted by on Aug 18, 2008 @ 03:36 PMSammy Wilson has a very insular view of global warming. If it’s not happening in Northern Ireland then it can’t be true! Someone should tell him it is called GLOBAL warming for a reason!
Posted by on Aug 18, 2008 @ 03:53 PMinteresting article over on the register regarding north poles melting see http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/08/15/goddard_arctic_ice_mystery/ . If you are going to start saying “look at the numbers”, post the link so we can examine it.
Posted by on Aug 18, 2008 @ 04:07 PMJean, your analogies don’t hold water. Moving out of the way of a train or giving up smoking are both options that cost nothing and which avoid a high risk.
This is where scepticism should come into play. The policies proposed to fight global warming are expensive and need to be carried out at a time of economic downturn.
Let’s think of another analogy. It is virtually a statistical certainty that a big asteroid will hit the earth at some stage in the future. Should we be developing a great planetary wide asteroid interception rocket system? Well, despite the virtual certainty nobody has. Why? Well they carry out a cost/benefit analysis, looking at the likely costs and looking at the likely benefits and decide it isn’t worth it. A big asteroid strike could kill millions of people, but statistically the risk is too low to justify the massive expense.
Unfortunately when we read anything about global warming in the popular press it tends to be quasi sci-fi stuff about sea level rises of hundreds of feet and the stopping of the Gulf Stream. Neither of those are part of the “scientific consensus”.
The consequences of global warming are simply not catastrophic. The only hypothesis that suggests they are is where it is proposed that there will be a “tipping point” after which things will suddenly get a lot worse. That is pure speculation.
If the costs are high and the benefits uncertain the policy is probably a bad one.
Posted by on Aug 18, 2008 @ 04:10 PMDavid - agreed - and my analogy is a bit leaky.
However, the odds for your asteroid comparison can be measured reasonably accurately - I think it’s once in every 100,000 years tha the earth will be visited by a ‘dinosaur-killer’.
Even with those log odds the US government are planning a Near Earth Object programme to monitor the orbits of such bodies.
The point you are missing is that that odds for a Tipping Point towards runaway climate change are approaching one - ie, it will almost certainly happen over the next generation unless something is done. I don’t know if you’re spending any time reading the evidence but even Stern’s previous extreme 10% chance of a 5 degree increase in temperature is now starting to look optimistic.
The costs? Yes, they are large - but not impossibly so - less than the conflict in Iraq to date.
Posted by on Aug 18, 2008 @ 04:47 PM“There never will be ‘conclusive proof’ (ie, truth with a capital T) of the link between lung cancer and smoking. “
Tripe. There is clear evidence that components of tobacco smoke are carcinogenic in animal and human tissue. There is also evidence that those who smoke have higher rates of cancer and other smoking related illnesses and die younger. Then there is evidence that even passive smoking correlates strongly with higher cancer risk. All of that comes from peer reviewed repeated studies and the underlying molecular and biological processes that lead to the mutations are reasonably well explained. That is real science.
The problem is that a lot of the climate change guff that is produced just isn’t supported by evidence in the same way and is blown out of proportion of extrapolated to infinity by zealots and interest groups whose careers or existence depend upon scaring us.
There is also an orthodoxy that anyone who challenges the climate change thesis is a heretic who must be destroyed professionally and personally. A few researchers have been vilified and hounded out of post for seeking basic corroboration of claims of suggesting different hypothesis. Some lobbying groups specifically monitor media output and have email lobby groups to shower broadcasters with complaints if any other views are expressed.
This means that different views don’t get heard. This is reminiscent of witch burnings in the 13th century.
The zealots also are keen to conflate a number of different problems into one. What happened to the hole in the ozone layer? Its been subsumed into Global Warming theology when its a distinctly different problem with different causes. Where did all the tree huggers protesting against new motorways go to? They now are part of the Global Warming Bandwagon.
Is global warming real? Possibly it is…we simply haven’t watched the earth for long enough to gather enough information to know if this is a real phenomenon or a short term blip in the figures. Its a bit like trying to call the FTSE 100 index for the next 5 years from the last weeks figures. If we had lived in the 1870s for example we would have been panicking about the little ice age when Britain went through a super cold period when the Thames froze in winter. “Ah ha, it’s all that soot from chimneys blocking out the sun”, they said!
And what a shock they got when Government seized the opportunity and said, OK, global warming is real so the medium term future has to be a massive expansion of nuclear power. Oh the joy of seeing environmentalists trying to face two ways at once.
So the truth is, noone really knows if Global Warming is a real phenomenon or not. But I wouldn’t lose much sleep on it.
Oh yes, and heavy rain in Ballymena in August is, well, pretty normal.
Posted by on Aug 18, 2008 @ 05:14 PM“The point you are missing is that that odds for a Tipping Point towards runaway climate change are approaching one “
Where’s the evidence for that statement? Its nonsense and rests on a pile of extreme assumptions 10 ft (or if you prefer, 3 metres) tallPosted by on Aug 18, 2008 @ 05:19 PMPeter Dorian,
Although I am a fundamentalist and a bit sceptical on climate change I do accept that we should take this all seriously and try to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. If you like I would do what you want but just not believe that it is true. That has, however, the same beneficial environmental effect.
My concern, however, is the plight of people in places like Africa. If they are to avoid dying and their children dying now they need things like transport, refrigeration and other things which consume energy. Now I am sure you will suggest that the solution is new technologies. I am sure you are correct. Again, however, those technologies are expensive and not instantly available. As such, helping people now requires additional carbon expenditure.
This is one of my worries about the Green lobby: they will say that in the present and future Africans will be hurt by climate change. However, Africans now need to do things which might in the future be bad for the environment. I am very supportive of their right to do that. I am not willing to tell them to let their children now die or remain in poverty to protect the environment. The environment is a pretty abstract concept if your under 5 year old children are going to die of diarrhoea and vomiting because you do not have a fridge.
Posted by on Aug 18, 2008 @ 07:17 PMAnyone who dismisses, the entire scientific community in their assertion that Global Warming is happening, should not hold a position of public officialdom. They are obviously too irretrievably stupid to be trusted with making any decisions about the lives of anyone else.
How much evidence do these cretins need? The DUP should be made aware that there is probably infinitely more evidence of global warming being real than there is of a God being in existence. I gather we all trust science when it suits us, e.g. to find cures for killer diseases, to send rockets into space, to build an atomic bomb, even to create the internet so saddos like me can post their views on blogs like this. Yet when it comes to global warming, or anything else which might warn us about our impending doom, we bury our heads in the sand! So oil isn’t running out, global warming isn’t happening and smoking doesn’t cause cancer
If global warming isn’t happening then why have the warmest 10 years on record on Earth over the past 100,000 years occurred in the past 15 years? It may be uncomfortable for people to want to fathom out but the facts are clear:
There are 6.5 billion people on this planet - that is more people than have ever existed, cumulatively, throughout the entire previous history of man-kind. Earth is seriously over-populated. We are plundering the world’s resources at an unprecedented rate to feed, clothe, shelter and fuel all these people.
The ice-caps are melting at a faster rate than ever. Scientists reckon next summer that for the first time in history there may be no ice at the North Pole! More and more cases of drowned polar bears are occurring because they have had to swim ever increasing distances to find ice. The inhabitants of some Papuan New Guinean islands have been evacuated permanently due to rising sea levels flooding their homeland. How can anyone could deny the cold, hard facts that we are slowly killing the planet, is beyond me.
Posted by on Aug 18, 2008 @ 07:37 PMThere are 6.5 billion people on this planet - that is more people than have ever existed, cumulatively, throughout the entire previous history of man-kind.
That, sir is bollocks. In fact about 100 billion humans have died before we got to today.
Posted by on Aug 18, 2008 @ 07:50 PMThat, sir is bollocks. In fact about 100 billion humans have died before we got to today.
Apologies, I am wrong in retrospect. My other points still stand however.
Posted by on Aug 18, 2008 @ 08:17 PMthe problem with global warming is that it isnt happening, the earth has been cooling for the last decade, then again never let the facts get in the way of crap
Posted by on Aug 18, 2008 @ 08:52 PM
