UPDATE 15.01.09: Decision at last but no surprises. “The Secretary of State confirms policy support for adding a third runway at Heathrow with additional passenger terminal facilities and a slightly longer runway”. Go here for full statement, get ready for battle to begin in earnest – or perhaps have a cup of tea instead…
There are two things about the Heathrow ‘monster‘ and its expansion – as veteran anti airport and roads campaigner John Stewart sees it, that all commentators agree on. PM Gordon Brown will this week formally give the go-ahead for the hugely controversial plan to expand the airport with a 3rd runway plus 6th terminal – and that such a decision is set to escalate fighting over the controversial plan. But although all commentators from the Guardian to the Telegraph fully agree about these aspects of what’s next, politicians’ opinions are significantly more divided – and in ways that a reveal critical splits inside Brown’s Labour government and rapid growth in cross-party opposition. Fuelled with reports of ‘bullying‘ and ‘bluffing‘ by aviation chiefs – the forces opposed to expansion are gathering an extraordinary range of political supporters. The expanding range of allies amassing to oppose Gordon Brown and fellow ‘yes’ men includes current cabinet members and former Labour minister Nick Raynsford, Conservative mayor Boris Johnson and former glamour model and The Sun Page 3 girl Marina Pepper (Ne Baker). An equally diverse group has mustered in support of the plan as the Future Heathrow group. This includes; Baroness Jo Valentine, chief executive of business group London First, CBI director-general Richard Lambert and TUC deputy general secretary Frances O’Grady. TC notes that many including Mayor Johnson have grave doubts that the 3rd runway would ever be built, regardless of the forthcoming decision by PM Brown. But TC also notes that support for a brand new airport on the mud flats of the Thames Estuary may currently unite the Conservative Mayor and former Labour minister for London Nick Raynsford – but that the chances of that ever happening could be even less likely than Heathrow expansion or the prospect of building a manufacturing plant in the Thames for the production of chocolate teapots.
January 12th, 2009 at 1:27 pm
Although Heathrow is probably the worst place to build this extra runaway, we do need to add airport capacity in the London area.
It just seems odd to me that we make such a fuss about these things when other countries just get on with it. Paris already has two main airports and has just expanded CDG in a big way to deal with future capacity requirements.
Most other countries seem to recognise the need for progress whilst here we are actively planning for stagnation. We constantly argue and worry about adding capacity to our infrastructure with self interest pressure groups defacing power stations in protest to clean coal and hippies living in trees to prevent much needed roads being built.
As a result, we have pretty much stopped building our much needed infrastructure and are ignoring the needs of a growing population. Politicians’ line up to object even when the economic case is overwhelming and the benefit to people generally would be immense.
Where would we be today if we had the same mentality in the late 19th century? We would be considered a third world country today without airports, motorways or proper power stations.
It is time we weaned ourselves off this enviroguilt complex we’ve developed and rediscovered the benefits of building for the future. At the same time, we must invest heavily in research towards solving the technical solutions to our environmental problems. We are a nation of invention and problem solving.
Instead of wasting the £billions identified by the TaxPayers’ Alliance, money should go towards real and genuine research projects, not non-jobs like Worcestershire County Council’s Food Champions.
We will never succeed if we keep giving our very competitive European neighbours every opportunity to take our economic prosperity.
January 16th, 2009 at 5:12 am
The ‘modus operandi’ of green marxism is to target specific aspects of modern life with myths, half-truths and direct action. Cars in general, 4x4s, plastic bags and now aviation – all linked to the unjustified demonisation of the naturally occurring trace gas CO2. I see that there are more complex issues with Heathrow, but in the big global picture a 3rd runway does not mean the end of the world and it’s not like there isn’t a major airport there already.
The statement by the shadow transport secretary beggars belief:
The Shadow Transport Secretary, Theresa Villiers, slammed Labour for approving plans for a third runway at Heathrow.
She warned it would inflict devastating damage to the environment and to the quality of life of millions of people – and described it as a “a bleak day for our environment and for those of us that care about safeguarding it”.
Really?
January 25th, 2009 at 8:35 pm
Perhaps Theresa Villiers is lucid enough to realise that
a) what Peter Roberts calls ‘enviroguilt’ others might call ‘accepting hard facts’
b) these institutions are right about climate change:
the IPCC, the science academies of Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, Italy, India, Japan, Mexico, Russia, South Africa, the UK and the USA, as well as the International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences; European Academy of Sciences and Arts; Network of African Science Academies; the International Council for Science; the European Science Foundation; the American Association for the Advancement of Science; the Federation of American Scientists; the World Meteorological Organization; the American Meteorological Society; the Royal Meteorological Society (UK); the Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society; the Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society; the Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences; the American Geophysical Union; the American Institute of Physics; American Astronomical Society; the American Physical Society; the American Chemical Society; the National Research Council (US); the Federal Climate Change Science Program (US), the American Quaternary Association; the Geological Society of America; Engineers Australia (The Institution of Engineers Australia); the Stratigraphy Commission of the Geological Society of London; the European Geosciences Union; the International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics; and the International Union of Geological Sciences.
c) the ABD, Drivers’ Alliance, Safe Speed are front groups working for the climate change denial industry
January 26th, 2009 at 5:41 pm
Hello Huw,
If the Drivers’ Alliance is a front for what you call the ‘climate change denial industry’ then I would love to know where the cheque is.
You seem to have this fixation that anyone looking at the economic circumstances surrounding an environmental discussion is in denial.
As I said, Heathrow is probably the worst place to build this runway but, and this is important, other countries are extending capacity without the frantic campaigning and almost hysterical activities of people opposed to these projects.
I know you will say climate change overrides all other considerations, but we cannot isolate the UK in a global world where CO2 emissions are irrelevant to their policies.
We do need additional airport capacity and we do need new power stations, or do you deny this?
Huw, you live locally to me. Why not meet over a pint and see what common ground we may have? You can easily get my phone number from the DA website.
January 27th, 2009 at 3:52 am
Huw,
You’ve got things the wrong way round – the global warming industry is funded to the tune of tens of billions of dollars from government – something in excess of $50 billion to date in the USA alone. I receive no money for my views, which are based on peer reviewed science. The institutions you mention have thousands of members, none of which have been surveyed for their views. Indeed, the IPCC ‘consensus’ consists of about 60 people and there were some interesting presentations at the recent 18th December AGU Fall Meeting from the likes of Don Easterbrook and Chip Knappenberger.
The greenhouse effect has been thoroughly tested during the Earth’s 4.5 billion year history, at no point did the world end or was there runaway warming despite atmospheric concentrations reaching many thousands of ppmv compared to todays low level of about ppmv. The global warming scare, or climate change since the advent of non-warming or global cooling, is a computer modelled fantasy used to justify taxes and restrictions.
More on my website:
http://climateresearchnews.com/
CO2 emissions from Heathrow airport are irrelevant in a global context no matter how many runways it has.
February 13th, 2009 at 4:50 pm
Peter, last time we spoke, you ran away from the conversation after I pointed out that you had cut-and-pasted 5 paragraphs of opinion from someone called Scott on a Daily Telegraph discussion thread and attempted to pass it off as your own ( http://www.shropshirestar.com/2007/08/30/climate-change-to-blame/ #53 ).
I have nothing to discuss over a pint, with people like you, who refuse to even accept that carbon dioxide is a heat trapping gas: ie basic meteorology.
I would prefer to expose the lies and cut-and-paste tactics of the denial industry in a PUBLIC forum (see a current debate on Heathrow http://www.shropshirestar.com/2009/01/20/everyone-will-pay-for-airport/).
That is why I joined this debate about the launch of your very own Drivers’ Alliance to expose your distortions, and show Shropshire readers what you truly stood for.
http://www.shropshirestar.com/2008/06/13/group-to-air-views-of-drivers/
The most important point that I made in the above discussion is that a driver’s VOICE will only be listened to and treated as representative by the British public when it is attached to EARS, EYES and a BRAIN.
This is unlikely to happen while you dispute the scientific consensus on climate change.
February 13th, 2009 at 5:16 pm
Peter, you said that I was asserting that ‘anyone looking at the economic circumstances surrounding an environmental discussion is in denial.’
I did NOT say that.
I would say, however, that most people accept Stern’s analysis that climate change is ‘the biggest market failure in history’.
Why don’t you?
February 13th, 2009 at 5:26 pm
Paul, you, too, ran away from the last discussion we had.
( http://www.shropshirestar.com/2007/08/30/climate-change-to-blame/ ).
Was that because your distortions started to catch up with you?
Above, you cited the AGU Fall meeting.
Could you let me know why you are citing the American Geophysical Union when their line on climate change backs the scientific consensus and completely contradicts your position?
‘The Earth’s climate is now clearly out of balance and is warming. Many components of the climate system–including the temperatures of the atmosphere, land and ocean, the extent of sea ice and mountain glaciers, the sea level, the distribution of precipitation, and the length of seasons–are now changing at rates and in patterns that are not natural and are best explained by the increased atmospheric abundances of greenhouse gases and aerosols generated by human activity during the 20th century.’
February 13th, 2009 at 7:11 pm
Huw,
You are a coward and afraid of meeting.
You have no idea about me or my aims and objectives. You have not taken the time to meet me; you just resort to attacking on websites.
You are what is known as a keyboard warrior.
I am afraid a sensible discussion with you is impossible as you are clearly obsessed and not prepared to question your own self belief.
You will not listen to alternative ideas presented by myself, Paul Biggs or anyone else for that matter.
Paul is a professional scientist and is not one to accept arguments without evidence.
What about yourself?
I am still willing to meet you and listen to your arguments. However, I doubt you have the courage to contact me directly.
February 14th, 2009 at 1:10 pm
Huw,
I don’t run away from anything – there is only so much time I have to waste on people with closed minds who are following a Marxist agenda.
I make no distortions. I cited talks at the recent AGU meeting which demonstrate a variety of scientific opinion not reflected in the AGU ‘consensus’ statement that was written by 9 AGU Board members out of a total of 50,000 AGU members.
If you have signed statements from each of the 50,000 AGU members giving their scientific opinion, then let’s see them. Science doesn’t work on the basis of ‘consensus,’ which is a political term.
The Earth has never been in ‘climate stasis’ – the climate constantly changes – there is no ‘set’ temperature, sea level, glaciers, precipitation etc – nor does man have any hope of controlling the weather or climate.
Very interesting new follow up ‘paper in press’ from Tsonis et al in the AGU journal GRL:
The Abstract of the new paper states:
Models and data suggest that the interplay of major climate modes may result in climate shifts [Tsonis et al., 2007]. More specifically it has been shown that when the network of North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO), Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO), El Nino/Southern Oscillation (ENSO) and North Pacific Index (NPI) synchronizes, an increase in the coupling between these oscillations destroys the synchronous state and leads the climate system to a new state. These shifts are associated with significant changes in global temperature trend and in ENSO variability. Here we probe the details of this network’s dynamics to investigate if a certain oscillation is the culprit in these shifts. From a total of 12 synchronization events observed in three climate simulations and in observations we find that the instigator of these shifts is NAO. Without exception only when NAO’s coupling with the Pacific increases a shift will occur. Our results suggest a dynamical sequence of events in the evolution of climate shifts which is consistent with recent independent empirical and modeling studies.
The paper concludes:
Many studies have in the past dealt with the origin and mechanisms of climate oscillations as well as with the consequences of their interactions. Our study with the help of a novel approach identifies for the first time which may be the most significant of these oscillations. In a dynamical scenario where the major modes of variability in the northern hemisphere are synchronized, an increase in the coupling strength destroys the synchronous state and causes climate to shift to a new state. Here we were able to identify that the major participant in this coupling strength increase is NAO, which we found to be behind all climate shifts observed in observations as well as in three climate simulations. Understanding variability of our extremely complex climate system is far from complete as new and often contradicting views are proposed. In this realm we hope that our results will provide some direction and focus to this perpetual quest for understanding climate variability.
February 15th, 2009 at 5:43 pm
Hi Peter and Paul.
One of the many reasons that I am not prepared to question my own self belief is that I understand that you are both trying to do something, which I believe is exceptionally irresponsible (an age-old tactic of the PR industry): confuse the public and create doubt about science.
You go on about natural variability and cite scientific studies out of context in order to confuse, not to enlighten the British public.
When I first came across you, I was new to this and relatively unprepared because I am not a professional politician but someone who has a passion, which I devote my free time to.
I utterly reject what you are trying to do, and have, since coming across you, been galvanised into much more activism than previously.
I don’t trust you because in the course of a short ‘debate’ ( http://www.shropshirestar.com/2007/08/30/climate-change-to-blame/ ) I understood that you were not making arguments in good faith, and felt that your arguments did not stand up to closer analysis.
Copying and pasting Scott and then not owning up to it -as any honest person would have had to do- is not a great way of building up trust, Peter.
Nor is avoiding questions and disappearing.
The positive part of that debate was that you actually gave your own names (which I respect), whereas the vast majority of members of the denial industry spread their misinformation from behind pseudonyms.
At the end of this ‘debate’ ( http://www.shropshirestar.com/2007/09/06/warming-what-the-cynics-say/ #65, #66 ) I asked Paul Biggs some important questions after pointing out distortions and contradictions in his argument.
Why did you disappear, Paul?
I apologise if you felt you weren’t running away, and that I mis-represented what happened.
By the way, Paul, in http://www.shropshirestar.com/2007/08/30/climate-change-to-blame/ #58, you mentioned a contact that you had in the US Senate Committee of Environment and Public works.
Is your contact MARC MORANO?
February 16th, 2009 at 5:46 am
Huw,
There are 2 areas of debate: climate science and CO2 emissions reduction policy. I’ll come back to the science – first we’ll consider CO2 policy.
If we all agree that it is a good idea to reduce global man-made CO2 emissions, regardless of our adequate or inadequate understanding of the role of CO2 in the climate system, then the problems are: how much reduction, how, and how fast.
Few people will object to greater efficiency and the implementation of viable, affordable alternatives to fossil fuels, when we have them, but problems arise when the likes of high taxation and restrictions/social engineering are demanded.
So far CO2 policy has revolved around setting targets. Objective science policy experts agree that Kyoto type policies have failed and will continue to fail, so an alternative strategy is proposed by the likes of Prins, Rayner and Pielke Jr. Even the BBC have now picked up on this:
‘CO2 reduction treaties useless’
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7888994.stm
UK’s CO2 plan ‘certain to fail’
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7881868.stm
As for climate science – it is not me that is misrepresenting it – I seek to provide much needed balance. Indeed, only this week Vicky Pope of the Met Office complained:
‘Apocalyptic climate predictions’ mislead the public, say experts
Experts at Britain’s top climate research centre have launched a blistering attack on scientific colleagues and journalists who exaggerate the effects of global warming.
In an article published on the Guardian website, Dr Vicky Pope, head of climate change advice at the Met Office, calls on scientists and journalists to stop misleading the public with “claim and counter-claim.”
She writes: “Having to rein in extraordinary claims that the latest extreme [event] is all due to climate change is at best hugely frustrating and at worse enormously distracting. Overplaying natural variations in the weather as climate change is just as much a distortion of science as underplaying them to claim that climate change has stopped or is not happening.”
She adds: “Both undermine the basic facts that the implications of climate change are profound and will be severe if greenhouse gas emissions are not cut drastically.”
Dr Peter Stott, a climate researcher at the Met Office, said a common misrepresentation was to take a few years data and extrapolate to what would happen if it continues. “You just can’t do that. You have to look at the long-term trend and then at the natural variability on top.” Dramatic predictions of accelerating temperature rise and sea ice decline, based on a few readings, could backfire when natural variability swings the other way and the trends seem to reverse, he says. “It just confuses people.”
Pope says there is little evidence to support claims that Arctic ice has reached a tipping point and could disappear within a decade or so, as some reports have suggested. Summer ice extent in the Arctic, formed by frozen sea water, has collapsed in recent years, with ice extent in September last year 34% lower than the average since satellite measurements began in 1979.
“Recent headlines have proclaimed that Arctic summer sea ice has decreased so much in the past few years that it has reached a tipping point and will disappear very quickly. The truth is that there is little evidence to support this. Indeed, the record-breaking losses in the past couple of years could easily be due to natural fluctuations in the weather, with summer sea ice increasing again over the next few years. This diverts attention from the real, longer-term issues. For example, recent results from the Met Office do show that there is a detectable human impact in the long-term decline in sea ice over the past 30 years, and all the evidence points to a complete loss of summer sea ice much later this century.”
So, whilst Pope doesn’t like short-term alarmism that can be disproved, she goes for long-term computer modeled projections that can’t be verified.
Another example is Al Gore from the AAAS meeting this week:
In his speech Gore attributed a wide range of recent weather events to human-caused climate change including floods in Iowa, Hurricane Ike, and the Australian bush fires. Gore sought to sum up all of these weather anecdotes by citing data from the CRED in Belgium showing that the total number of disasters has increased in recent decades (at about minute 38:00 of the video).
What does CRED say about its own dataset?
“. . . the linking of past trends in the EM-DAT figures and to climate change needs to remain guarded.”
“Indeed, justifying the upward trend in hydro-meteorological disaster occurrence and impacts essentially through climate change would be misleading. Climate change is probably an actor in this increase but not the major one- even if it impact on the figures will likely become more evident in the future. The task of identifying the possible impact of the climate change on the EM-DAT figures is complicated by the existence of several concomitant factors. For instance, one major contributor to the increase in disasters occurrence over the last decades is the constantly improving diffusion and accuracy of disaster related information.”
“Furthermore, disaster occurrence and impacts do not only depend on exposure to extreme natural phenomena but also depend on anthropogenic factors such as government policy, population growth, urbanisation, community-level resilience to natural disaster, etc. All of these contribute to the degree of vulnerability people experience.”
How did AAAS and the many scientists in attendance respond to being blatantly misled with scientific untruths in a speech calling for political action?
Why, by issuing a press release repeating the misrepresentation:
“With charts and images, Gore described the immediate nature of the threat . . . A 500-year flood that has wrecked Cedar Rapids, Iowa. Wildfires in Greece that nearly toppled a government, and wildfires this month in Australia that have left scores of people dead and sparked a new national debate about climate change.”
And of all of those scientists in attendance, here is a list of those who sought to set the record straight on blogs and in the media: ZERO.
So, we can see who is misleading the public – it isn’t me or Peter Roberts.
You can ask me questions here Huw – I’m not going to trawl through the Shropshire Star. I am on both Marc Morano’s and Bob Carter’s email lists – useful for sharing news, views, new papers etc and for my blog.
February 16th, 2009 at 6:34 am
And some fresh climate alarmism I missed out:
The BBC saw fit to publicise one of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) talks by IPCC author Professor Chris Field, on the BBC News website in an article entitled, Global warming ‘underestimated,’ and on BBC 24 TV News. Chris Field is reported to have said future temperatures “will be beyond anything” predicted and “we are basically looking now at a future climate that is beyond anything that we’ve considered seriously in climate policy.”
Professor Field was referring to the fact that CO2 emissions rose by 0.9% per year in the 1990s, and by 3.5% a year between 2000 and 2007, as mentioned in the BBC news report, compared with the 2.7% projected by the IPCC – yet there has been a slight global cooling since 2002 and no increase in ocean heat content, which should actually make him wonder about the power of CO2. But no, he makes even more unverifiable alarmist projections to 2100 – hardly newsworthy.
Rare credit to the BBC though – they did point out that some scientists point to natural factors.
Clearly the IPCC report Field helped author isn’t alarmist enough!
Global warming ‘underestimated’
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7890988.stm
February 16th, 2009 at 6:18 pm
Huw Peach Says:
Paul, once again you are extremely selective with what you quote from the first BBC link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7888994.stm ).
For those who are unfamiliar with the highly orchestrated, corporate-funded climate denial campaign, this sort of de-contextualised quotation is straight out of the ‘confuse-the-public’ manual.
For evidence of this, just read through http://www.shropshirestar.com/2007/08/30/climate-change-to-blame/ and http://www.shropshirestar.com/2007/09/06/warming-what-the-cynics-say/ , both of which feature lots of Peter and Paul’s mis-representations.
Anyone thinking they might be a source of credible information will rapidly ascertain that they are unable to sustain these distortions under questioning, and had to leave the thread.
Paul Biggs says, ‘So, we can see who is misleading the public – it isn’t me or Peter Roberts.’
Then why did you both leave those two threads, and why has Peter still not owned up to blatant plagiarism as any honest person would have to do, no matter how reluctantly?
Going back to your points, Paul, unlike you, the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, which you cited, is NOT in denial about the scientific consensus on climate change.
In fact, anyone reading the article you cited(http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7888994.stm ) will quickly establish that –unlike you- the Institution of Mechanical Engineers has a strong belief that we need “to reduce CO2 to secure long-term human survival”.
The article speaks about sea level rises seven metres in the UK by 2250, which, unchecked, could inundate much of London, East Anglia and other coastal areas.
So once again –as with the American Geophysical Union – you are citing a scientific institution, whose view is diametrically opposed to yours – out of context.
You also mention the AAAS out of context.
This is the American Association for the Advancement of Science’s 2006 statement on climate change:
‘The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society. Accumulating data from across the globe reveal a wide array of effects: rapidly melting glaciers, destabilization of major ice sheets, increases in extreme weather, rising sea level, shifts in species ranges, and more. The pace of change and the evidence of harm have increased markedly over the last five years. The time to control greenhouse gas emissions is now.’
I regard your highly selective, out-of?—?context citations as dishonest, and urge readers of this link to go to websites like the excellent Canadian ‘DeSmog blog’ or a blog, written by Australian scientist, Tim Lambert, to get more of an insight into the denial movement and the front groups it supports.
Sourcewatch also carries a lot of information about people like MORANO.
February 17th, 2009 at 7:18 am
Huw
You’re mising the point and getting confused over my separate discussions over ‘science’ and ‘science policy’ – I refer to supporters of the ‘consensus’ i.e. Prins, Rayner, Pielke Jr and I of M E, who are criticising CO2 policy, not the science!
Tim Lambert is an obnoxious computer scientist from Australia – you scraping the barrel by quoting him.
My point about the AGU and the AAAS is that their consensus statements are written by a few of board members – rather like the IPCC consensus that is explicity supported by about 60 IPCC participants.
I also demonstrated that the recent AAAS press release misrepresented the Belgian CRED data.
February 18th, 2009 at 7:57 pm
Huw,
Maybe you can help me here. I am looking for a valid scientific experiment which shows the heating potential of CO2.
If you could point me in the right direction, I would appreciate it.
BTW. Will you stop using this ridiculous term ‘denier’ to describe people or a person who does not share your views. In my experience, most people would fall into this category. Would you term yourself as a ‘believer’?
When are you going to sum up the courage to meet me? It is all very well you sitting at your keyboard being obnoxious and accusational, how about saying to me in person?
And Huw, what do you do for a living?
February 19th, 2009 at 4:07 am
My comment seems to have been lost – so I’ll try again. Huw has confused the 2 issues I was talking about: ‘Climate science’ and ‘CO2 policy.’
Prins/Rayner, Pileke Jr and the I of M E are NOT sceptical about the science, but they correcty point out that the current policy of CO2 targets doesn’t work and an alternative policy is required.
My point about the AGU and AAAS consensus statements is that they were written by just a few board members, not the the many thousands of members.
I have demnostrated that the AAAS misrepresented the Belgian CRED data in a PR.
Huw is scraping the barrel by linking to sites like Desmogblog and obnoxious Australian computer scientist Tim Lambert.
Your ad hom attacks on Marc Morano and links to left-wing sites like ‘sourcewatch’ demonstrate that you can’t substantiate your arguments about the science.
The science isn’t settled – many papers are published each week. The current unresolved issues include:
1)A warm bias in the near surface temperature data.
2) The missing ‘fingerprint’ of greenhouse warming in the troposphere.
3) The erroneous data and methodology that created the ‘hockey stick’ graph claiming the current warm period is unprecedented.
4) Climate sensitivity to CO2 remains unknown. The IPCC computer modelled scenarios range from 1.1C to 6.4C for a doubling of atmospheric CO2 to 560ppmv – 3C being merely the mid-point.
5) The IPCC LOSU (level of scientific understanding) of solar factors is ‘low’ and ‘very low.’
Meanwhile, the claimed definitive link between climate and hurricanes by Holland and Webster (2007), has now been demonstrated to be statistically erroneous in the current issue of BAMS:
http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=get-abstract&doi=10.1175%2F2008BAMS2549.1
The science goes on, and there has been no increase in ocean heat content or global atmpospheric warming since 2002, despite rising CO2 emissions. Given the potential for a significant fall in solar activity and a negative Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) – I expect at least another 20 years of non-warming or cooling.
February 19th, 2009 at 1:54 pm
Huw,
I divided my arguments into two – ‘climate science’ and ‘CO2 policy’ – I haven’t claimed that Prins/Rayner, Pielke Jr or the I. of M. E. dispute the science, they do however correctly point out that ‘CO2 targets’ have failed and a new approach is required.
My point about the AGU and AAAS is that their ‘consensus statements’ are written by a few board members, without reference to the many thousands of members.
I have also demonstrated that the recent AAAS press release misrepresented the Belgian CRED data.
Huw is scraping the barrel by quoting Demsmogblog and obnoxious Australian computer scientist Tim Lambert. ‘Sourcewatch’ is a left-wing organisation that is very short on info’ regarding climate alarmists. Ad hom attacks on Marc Morano don’t do you any favours either.
The science is ongoing and uncertain. The I of ME claim for a 7m sea level rise by 2050 is barking mad:
Kinematic Constraints on Glacier Contributions to 21st-Century Sea-Level Rise
W. T. Pfeffer, J. T. Harper, S. O’Neel
Science 5 September 2008:
Vol. 321. no. 5894, pp. 1340 – 1343
DOI: 10.1126/science.1159099
On the basis of climate modeling and analogies with past conditions, the potential for multimeter increases in sea level by the end of the 21st century has been proposed. We consider glaciological conditions required for large sea-level rise to occur by 2100 and conclude that increases in excess of 2 meters are physically untenable. We find that a total sea-level rise of about 2 meters by 2100 could occur under physically possible glaciological conditions but only if all variables are quickly accelerated to extremely high limits. More plausible but still accelerated conditions lead to total sea-level rise by 2100 of about 0.8 meter. These roughly constrained scenarios provide a “most likely” starting point for refinements in sea-level forecasts that include ice flow dynamics.
February 19th, 2009 at 9:23 pm
Paul.
I am not going to be caught in your game of quoting little bits of science papers OUT OF CONTEXT.
I played it quite patiently here http://www.shropshirestar.com/2007/08/30/climate-change-to-blame/ and her http://www.shropshirestar.com/2007/09/06/warming-what-the-cynics-say/ and was not impressed with the way your arguments fell apart under sustained analysis.
I would like you to
a) comment on the scientific institutions I quoted in #4, which say that climate change has anthropogenic causes
b) say where I have made ad hominem attacks on Morano
c) indicate whether you think Peter Roberts, calling me a ‘coward’ is an ad hominem attack
February 20th, 2009 at 4:34 am
Huw,
I haven’t quoted anything out of context. The ‘Abstract’ of a paper summarises its findings/conclusions – surely you can’t expect me to post a whole paper! I have demonstrated, for example, that silly, alarmist sea level rise claims are impossible.
You attack Marc Morano using a biased site ‘sourcewatch’ is irrelevant to the science.
As for climate change having a human component or influence– yes – but that is different from claiming that CO2 is the major or only human factor – it isn’t – that honour goes to land use/land cover change, but there isn’t any ‘proof.’
My arguments are based on peer reviewed science. Some current disputes in the literature include:
1) The unresolved issues in the near surface temperature data which cause a warm bias (up to 50%).
2) The missing ‘fingerprint’ of greenhouse warming in the troposphere.
3) The flawed data and methodology which created the ‘Hockey Stick’ graph claiming that current warming is unprecedented.
4) The sensitivity of climate to CO2 – the IPCC modelled scenarios range from 1.1C to 6.4C for a doubling of CO2 to 560ppmv, 3C representing the mid point. All models assume a large positive feedback via water vapour.
February 20th, 2009 at 6:17 am
According to Sourcewatch Morano is a former journalist with Cybercast News Service (owned by the conservative Media Research Center).
CNS and Morano were the first source in May 2004 of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth claims against John Kerry in the 2004 presidential election.
CNS and Morano were the first source in January 2006 of similar smears against Vietnam war veteran John Murtha.
I believe that the above are what most thinking people would refer to as ad hominem attacks.
Would you not agree, Paul?
February 20th, 2009 at 9:18 am
There are two sides to every story and an objective resource is needed to get both of them. I ‘sourcewatched’ Sourcewatch:
John Stauber (1953 – ) is an American writer and political activist who has co-authored five books about propaganda by governments, private interests and the PR industry. They include one book about how industry manipulates science (Trust Us, We’re Experts), one about the history and current scope of the public relations industry (Toxic Sludge is Good for You), and one about mad cow disease (Mad Cow USA), which predicted the surfacing of the disease within the United States.
In July 2003 Stauber and Sheldon Rampton wrote Weapons of Mass Deception: The Uses of Propaganda in Bush’s War on Iraq, which argued that the Bush administration deceived the American public into supporting the war. In 2004, the two co-authored Banana Republicans, which argued that the Republican Party is turning the U.S. into a one-party state. The book argues that the far-right and its functionaries in the media, lobbying establishment and electoral system are undermining dissent and squelching pluralistic politics in the United States. In 2006 the two wrote The Best War Ever: Lies, Damned Lies, and the Mess in Iraq, which builds upon the arguments they posited in Weapons of Mass Deception.
Stauber is the founder and executive director of the Center for Media and Democracy, which sponsors PR Watch and SourceWatch. Since the 1960s, he has worked with public interest, consumer, family farm, environmental and community organizations at the local, state and national level. He edits and writes for the Center’s quarterly newsmagazine, PR Watch. He is also a member of the Liberty Tree Board of Advisers.
Stauber grew up in a conservative Republican household in Marshfield, Wisconsin, but the war in Vietnam turned him into an anti-war and environmental activist while still in high school.
February 26th, 2009 at 4:42 am
It is great that the Heathrow blog has sparked a vigorous debate and string of thought provoking comments to date. However, it seems that recent comments have drifted somewhat from the transport debate that TC.com is most focused on stimulating. So, TC has suggested that this string ends here in the hope that this will trigger growth in new ones.