Well provided he intends to “Combat climate “change alone I expect dishing out sloppy half truths and childish insults is just right . Had I realised he was such a loon I would have taken the Stern report less seriously and reading this one needs to go back and assume zealotry is warping every syllable

I am amazed he is such a fool

Newmania,

Would I be wrong in assuming that you are a climate change denialist yourself? It is becoming a bit wearing to have to give credence to that opinion when it has been so comprehensively debunked. There are people on this planet who will hold a contrary opinion on anything, anything at all, simply because that is their nature.

I am actually past caring what the loons think.

The mirror image of the climate change deniers are those on the Left who love the idea of climate change because they see it as an excuse to attack consumer capitalism.

Personally I don’t know enough about the science to form a firm view on the causes of global warming but I’m damn sure that I won’t be voting for the Greens or anybody else whose economic policies look likely to cripple our standard of living.

Erm, he’s an economist and a capitalist, so its unlikely he’s looking to bash market capitalism. If you actually read the interview, he’s pointing that it has lots of positive market impact.

But then I guess right-wingers such as yourself aren’t really interested in reading or evidence. Everything’s a leftwing conspiracy right?

Had I realised he was such a loon I would have taken the Stern report less seriously

I’m sure he’ll be crying into his cornflakes in the morning.

Richard,

I’m sorry, but your comment is just playing an equivalency game. This is not a zero sum debate. Inactivity, the option of Libertarians and similar, has a high likelyhood of making this planet a far worse place. Please at least try to educate yourself on the basics before commenting. As Sunny says in the post following yours, global warming is a problem that capitalism is entirely capable of solving and making a profit from!

One thing I often wonder when I read so many articles about how climate change deniers are stupid (which is obviously true) is whether by talking/writing about how stupid they are we are giving our energy/air time/column inches/brain space to their agenda and hence promoting the mere idea that it might be a legitimate argument. I don’t want to confuse this with ‘no platform’ policies, (partly because that’s a whole other ball game, but also) because I think the argument has been had, there is no longer a platform to stand on. The evidence has been presented by many people, not least the IPCC and Al Gore’s slide shows, and I think we should focus energy/air time/column inches/brain space on how we are going to get ourselves out of this mess it a serious, timely, cost-efficient and sustainable way.
One of my biggest concerns is that there is no clear ask. There is no clear demand by us the people to our governments of what specifically we would like them to do. It seems we have all been confused by the continual individualisation of the agenda by government, corporates and ngos alike, and are unable to express what we would like in return. I am reminded of a guardian article from 2002 written by a young girl.
“I’ll wash out the baked-bean tin and put it in the green box outside my flat, and next week you change the world’s mindset on how we tackle poverty, global warming and everything else. Surprise me. Don’t make a mockery of our future. Take a risk: change the world.”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2002/aug/22/worldsummit2002.earth16.
She knew then that there is only so much we can each do, and ultimately it is for us to call upon the governments to make a real difference.

It is impossible for anyone. layman or scientist, to be sure whether man made global warming is a serious problem for the future or not. A cursory examination of the science does throw some doubt on the accuracy and relevant worth of the data on which the more apocalyptic assumptions are based.

And further, there is a suspicion that some of those involved are prepared to talk up the issue for less than altruistic reasons but before I am burned at the stake, I repeat, I don’t know.

However you can be certain that the hundreds of thousands who have died of CJD and the millions dying from skin cancer caused by holes in the ozone layer deserve our sympathy.

Be there climate change or be there not climate change – the operative word is change.

I really don’t know who the pessimists are when it comes down to a green economy – other than those who cannot make a quick buck!

All that is needed is the means to produce the electricity that we need – that doesn’t mean that each and everyone of us become a hairy legged tree hugging hippy. We can still have the same, and I argue better, standard of living than it is at present – the benefit being there is a reduction in the pollution that we have.

How is that not a win-win situation?

Have you heard about those giant millepedes under the earth’s crust?

They’re enormous and hungry for human flesh.

Luckily I have developed a special anti-Giant Millepede spray which I’m selling for £99.99 (+P&P) per 100ml. You’d be an idiot not to stock up. It’s only a matter of time before they attack.

“Erm, he’s an economist and a capitalist, so its unlikely he’s looking to bash market capitalism.”

I wasn’t accusing the author of that, I was simply pointing out that there are villains on both sides of the debate.

“If you actually read the interview, he’s pointing that it has lots of positive market impact.”

Unfortunately the views of the author are not shared by many in the Green lobby who believe in a zero growth economy.

“Inactivity, the option of Libertarians and similar, has a high likelyhood of making this planet a far worse place.”

As do the plans of those who want a zero or negative growth economy. My argument isn’t aimed at the author of the article but the sort of people who compare holocaust deniers to climate change deniers.

“Please at least try to educate yourself on the basics before commenting.”

Try to adopt a less patronising tone sunshine.

Would I be wrong in assuming that you are a climate change denialist yourself?

You would be entirely wrong . I feel that climate change zealots have used lies in their cause on too many occasions ( and this post contains some ). I also feel that a problem has been elevated into an apocalypse by those who favour collectivist solution internationalism and a range of political choices I detest., Take for example Stern rehearsing the old song about the science being well understood . Irrelevant unless you can show this effect is also predominant amongst other equally provable effects . He is wrong to say carbon emissions have tracked temperature they have not .( Just as one example of the crapola on view) The real scientific argument is quite different this is just idiot fuel for the troops .
The truth is the picture is full of unknowns but this maketh not good propaganda an good careers . It maketh not a good excuse for Milliband to discard democracy and sell us to the European Empire and so on. None of this is climate change denial I think on balance there is a sufficient reason for considerable concern. I am not however going to accept any kind of “ State of emergency “ such as the authoritarian left want. I am not going to be lectured to by a man who treats his own supprters with such evident cintempt

I think it is helpful to put this debate in terms of the 1930s:

There are a bunch of mostly irrelevant nutters, but with links to the Daily Mail, who think increased atmospheric C02 can’t possibly be dangerous (or maybe is just the thing for dealing with all those foreigners).

There is another group, of similar size and influence, who think what’s necessary is for individuals to make a decision to leave their jobs and head off to Spain to personally fight atmospheric C02 (and while they are there, set up the ideal society and/or a slightly less capitalist form of bank).

And there is a mainstream view which is what is needed right now is to spend a lot more money on Spitfires and battleships while pursuing diplomacy and coalition building. If that works, anyone not tracking the line items in government budgets will hardly notice the difference.

If it doesn’t, if the governments of the world screw it up, we have a WWII-scale problem: not the end of the world, but a lot of people die, and pretty much everyone has their life changed for a decade or two.

I don’t mind the idea of zero economic growth much – but that’s because I live in the developed world and am – in global terms – well off.

Sorry, China, you missed the boat.

I really don’t like the way climate change naysayers are simply dismissed out of hand or smeared. It’s really a poor strategy if you’re trying to convince them.

Now some of them are beyond hope, but some are not and that is why saying the argument is done and dusted and they should just shut up and accept it is plain silly. You have to keep making the argument in terms they will understand, and won’t be switched off by.

I attended a talk by Proffessor David MacKay, from Cambridge University, where he totally ignored the climate change argument and instead started from the much more unarguable premise that we will run out of fossil fuels and need to find alternatives, before proceeding to set out the options in clear, rational and unarguable facts and figures. It was extremely persuasive. You can read his argument here: http://www.withouthotair.com/

As far as I’m concerned I tailor my arguments to the audience. If they’re hard-core deniers I stick to two arguments: Using less energy costs less, and oil is running out so what do we do. Their actual opinions on climate change matter much less than how they actually behave in my view, so if I can change how they behave that’s a win, even if I don’t change their minds.

Richard @ 11,

You requested the patronisation sunbeam. You said you knew nowt:

Personally I don’t know enough about the science to form a firm view on the causes of global warming…..

So, why the hell should I treat you seriously?

You are arguing from ignorance. Contrary to what you might think, that is not a strong position to be debating from.

Mark Heenan,

Do you really think you have to persuade the very last Flat Earthist, before we can move to a heliocetric viewpoint? If you do, then you are arguing that the consensus must move at the pace of the slowest in the herd. That might be too slow for the rest of us. Frankly, most of them are beyond convincing. They are the shit left over when the world has moved on.

Just a thought.

It seems to me at least, that climate change denialists have much in common with crystal healers, astrologers and other such charlatans. Y’know, the unprovable is true, and we should all just accept that.

Still, what do I know, reality is just a construct is it not:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ujUQn0HhGEk

It is worth a listen.

I think we should focus energy/air time/column inches/brain space on how we are going to get ourselves out of this mess it a serious, timely, cost-efficient and sustainable way.

Hi Elle – actually its not that much of a problem to get your head around. According to Lord Stern, we know the atmospheric levels of CO2 PPM that cause real damage. We know what the levels of Co2 per person the world needs to stabilise at, and what current levels are. We also know the policies needed to bring Co2 levels down to that necessary level.

We just need the willingness and leadership to invest in green technologies and make that transition. We won’t get that here but atleast Obama is taking the task seriously. I’m hopeful.

pagar: It is impossible for anyone. layman or scientist, to be sure whether man made global warming is a serious problem for the future or not.

Yes it is, because we know how specific geographical features react and are reacting to Co2 in the atmosphere. What we don’t know is what the cumulative effect will be – and how quickly things may deteriorate once we reach tipping point.

Will: We can still have the same, and I argue better, standard of living than it is at present – the benefit being there is a reduction in the pollution that we have

exactly.

Unfortunately the views of the author are not shared by many in the Green lobby who believe in a zero growth economy.

We’ve had a zero growth economy for the past decade or so anyway. the point is, we can only have growth by increasing consumption and destroying the environment.

You cannot have unlimited growth in an economy such as ours because its not self-sustaining. Sooner or later those resources run out. Stern is at least arguing that if we make the transition to self-sustaining economies, we can have growth. Greens can’t disagree with that.

Mark: I really don’t like the way climate change naysayers are simply dismissed out of hand or smeared. It’s really a poor strategy if you’re trying to convince them.

Most either wilfully ignore the arguments or data, or have financial motives to oppose these technologies/moves. Or they’re cranks like Melanie Phillips and Mark Steyn who think everything is a vast leftwing conspiracy. Take your pick. Why should they be engaged with? Would you try and engage with creationists or simply ignore their gobbledegook?

As an economist, Stern is, of course, well qualified to comment on climate science itself… hmm.

I think humans are causing environmental damage and that climate change might be one of those forms of damage (though I have yet to be convinced that it is). But I also think that government intervention is likely to be counter-productive in solving these issues and they are best handled through market mechanisms of strong private property rights and less restricted immigration.

I’m not entirely sure what the point of this post is, other than to insult a favourite Sunny bogeyman the eeeevil climate sceptic, but I remain willing to bet £1000 that in 10 years’ time (1) the climate won’t have changed and that therefore (2) we will be looking back at this kind of hysteria with some degree of embarrassment. Any takers?

Newmania @ 12,

Frankly, I don’t give a fuck what your internal brain cells are telling you. Your feelings are completely irrelevant. Bring some evidence to your discussion, why don’t you? The brain cells, such as they are, are yours, and thankfully yours alone. There is a reasonable case to be made for anthropgenic global warming and the fact that two synapses in you head explode at the mere thought, says more about you than it does about the world we live in. You are frankly a dangerous idiot. You think that your stupid politics are more important than life itself.

I’ve attempted to analyse your post in order to refute it. As it contains nothing of substance other than the usual climate change denialist, do nothing idiocy, there is nothing worth refuting. It is all unsubstantiated crap, as usual from a Flat Earthist.

Perhaps that is your ambition.

So, as you are the fool who is making broadly unsubstantiable statements, let’s turn the usual game on it’s head, shall we?

But before we do that can we just confirm that you are, in fact a climate chane denialist?

I asked you @ 2

Would I be wrong in assuming that you are a climate change denialist yourself?

To which you replied in the negative at 12,

You would be entirely wrong . I feel that climate change zealots have used lies in their cause on too many occasions ( and this post contains some ). I also feel that a problem has been elevated into an apocalypse by those who favour collectivist solution internationalism and a range of political choices I detest.

Are you completely and absolutely sure your not a climate change denialist?

Just asking.

Anyhow.

Do you think that pretending you aren’t, means you aren’t? Or that speading doubt is a clever move, or makes you look good?

Or perhaps you are just as unaware as Richard or you are just as blind.

I could provide you with quite good links to folk that think climate change is a real issue, like the Royal Society and places like that, but, och, your daft wee brain cells would probably just explode.

Would you like to take the risk?

Thought not.

It is idiots like you who are encapsulated in a political belief that are the planet busters.

I shall leave this paragraph deliberately blank.

Am I the only one whose attitute to the deniers is shaped by the memory of the Tobacco industry. There were always just enough vaguely credible deniers to allow the industry to continue in busines and carry on killing. Those in their late thirties and beyond will remember this and be more challenging of today’s deniers.

The other, and different, form of semi-denial is the expectation of a purely technological solution. The C02 absorbing car or whatever. Get real – Science has its limitations.

cjcjc,

As before, you are looking at the short term, and if you like you can have my one pound versus your £10,000. Though we’d need to substantiate definitions. I’m not risking my one pound on a silly exercise in polemics….

John H,

There are numerous potential technical solutions to APG. I looked out of the balcony of my son’s flat and all I could see were wind turbines. Dozens of them. That industry didn’t exist, what ,twenty years ago? There are more Hoover Dam solutions available too. The suggestion that the Severn and / or the Solway could be turned into generators of around 10% of UK electricity (each) ought to be a priority, quite apart from APG but also because energy independence ought to be a policy objective for any UK government. Then there is solar, and hydrogen production, etc, etc. These activities would create real jobs, some of them sustainable, in the UK. Most of which would at least let us minimise our carbon footprint and to our longer term benefit. I could see the UK in twenty years time having a zero, or minimal carbon footprint. And that is without overthrowing the government and becoming hippies.

@ douglas clark

The last thing I’m saying is that we should move at the rate of the slowest. The point I am making is not that we should wait before people are convinced before any action is taken. The action is a separate point altogether.

The point is that the attitude of talking to those who aren’t convinced in a pejorative way is totally and utterly counter-productive.

I attended a talk by Proffessor David MacKay, from Cambridge University, where he totally ignored the climate change argument and instead started from the much more unarguable premise that we will run out of fossil fuels and need to find alternatives,

Actually, the idea that oil will run out because we use it all is not any less arguable than the idea the climate will change if we change the composition of the atmosphere.

There is plenty of fringe science that would dispute that, claim that oil is actually a renewable resource (see link at end, and I think Gold is actually more plausible than the remaining denialists).

Anything can be argued, especially if there is money in it, or people you dislike to disagree with. There are on the order of several thousand fringe science theories, ranging from the could-be-true (panspermia, radiation hormesis) to the wishful thinking ( cold fusion, anti-gravity, zero point energy) to the cult (UFOs, energy fields, telepathy). All of them that are just a google search away, and all can present a case that sounds plausible to any non-specialist.

Amongst all those different versions of physics, it will always be possible to find one that satisfies your psychological and political needs. Want those nasty environmentalists to not just be wrong, but to be ironically doing the exact thing necessary to destroy the planet: fringe science can supply it.

Only problem is, the world only works by one version of physics, and while one or two of the fringe ideas will probably end up proven right (as plate tectonics was), that still leaves you with a 99.9% of being wrong if you pick one for psychological or political reasons.

Links:

http://www.amazon.com/Deep-Hot-Biosphere-Thomas-Gold/dp/0387985468

‘his perhaps even more controversial view that petroleum originates from deep within the earth, not from compressed biological matter. -’

‘Many of the pieces of evidence were quite unknown to the formulators of the “fossil fuel” dogma who emphasize the limited reserves available for extraction’

Mark Heenan @ 26,

Frankly there is little or no point in spending time nor effort on them. Been there, seen it, done it, bought the T shirt. You are dealing with a fixed mind set devoted to an internalised view of politics, largely constructed around a ridiculous view of self as omnipotent agent. Alternatively they hold a lot of shares in oil companies.

[The last time this happened on here some denialist came up with so-called anomolous weather data from some glacier in Central China. I came back with what I thought was a reasonable response and posted it on this very site. It took effort to get an answer and someone from Real Climate also took time out to help me. When the facts hit the shit Mr Denier didn't even bother to respond. He'd have been off polluting some other political site with his nonsense. Their message is frankly a lie and not worth anyone's time and effort. There is a distinction to be drawn between the ill informed, who are willing to read links and stuff, and the deliberately obtuse. That is not so fine a line that it need concern us here]

It is however, not entirely counter productive when they are given a taste of their own, whiny medicine. For it is not for their sake at all. It for the sake of others who might read a thread like this and assume that there really are two sides to the arguement when there isn’t. It would be like having a debate on the Beeb between Flat Earthists and Astronauts. With equal air time for the lunatics.

Some would see that as fair, but they are politicians.

The link to the Royal Society pages on this subject is here:

http://royalsociety.org/landing.asp?id=1278

although their documents are PDF links from that page. Heavens, the effort!

I’m baffled by this repeated insistence that “energy independence” is a good thing. We don’t demand that Britain be “food independent” or “clothes independent” or “plasma screen tv independent” because we’re mostly bright enough to realize that if someone else can make something for less than we can that it makes sense to buy it off them and spend the time we would have wasted making it on something that we’re better at to sell in exchange for said food, clothes and tellies.

I know what you’re saying but just because they behave like children doesn’t mean you have to…

As one of the few around here who has actually read Stern in full, plus the IPCC in at least part, can I point out that the intersting argument isn’t in fact about whether climate change is happening or not (I certainly accept the IPCC report for example).

It’s what we do about it. And at that point we’re not talking about what climate scientists say at all. We’re talking about what economists (like Stern) say. And we need to talk about what other economists say that disagrees with Stern. And why they do so. Why are Nordhaus, Dasgupta, Tol, saying very different things from Stern?

You might not want to go there but that is where the important debate should be going on.

‘spend the time we would have wasted making it on something that we’re better at to sell in exchange ‘

The argument is that:

1. a major competitive advantage of the UK in the world today is high levels of elite-level education and innovation.

2. the best way to deploy that advantage is not by, as people thought last year, doing clever sums with money, but making stuff people need.

3. one thing people need is cheaper and more renewable energy.

The counter-argument is that the above logic is so obvious that pretty much everyone will be trying it (at least the French, Germans, Americans, Japanese and South Koreans). On the other hand, given that noone will be trusting us to do clever sums with money for quite some while, and we can’t all live off JK Rowling’s royalties, no better plan comes to mind.

Soru, what you’re saying may be very true but it’s not really an argument in favour of “energy independence” per se, but a pragmatic set of reasons as to why we should be investing more in the renewable energy sector right now, which is quite different, I think (and I have absolutely no beef with growing the renewable energy sector!).

If by “energy independence” what we really mean is “stopping buying oil from horrible dictatorships” then let’s say that – after all, we import a ton of nuclear-powered energy from France every year and nobody seems to be too terribly worried about that.

I don’t see a lot of people arguing for UK energy independence – that is much more of a US meme. Probably some people copy the words without realising they don’t actually make much sense in a UK context.

Soru – sure, I was merely responding to Doug Clark at #25. You’re right, it is much more of a US meme.

Sunny @18.

maybe I wasn’t clear, I am not implying that the solutions are not out there, they almost always are, the problem is that there is little consensus around what we need to do, in what order, and in which fields. Stern has his priorities, Meyer has his priorities, Brown has his priorities. Unlike other campaigns where people, whether we agree with them or not, can call for 0.7% aid, or stop the war, or anti abortion or ban CFCs, or anti fox hunting or votes at 16 or no to ID cards, there is no clear action based message on climate change. ‘Stop climate change’ doesn’t actually tell me anything I, or the government should do.

A completely agree with you that:
“We just need the willingness and leadership to invest in green technologies and make that transition.”

But we need to be clear what are the ‘green technologies’? when do we want them? how much are we willing to spend in a recession? is technology going to solve everything or will we need lifestyle changes too?

These are not questions that even the environmental community seem to have a clear message on.

Personally I don’t know enough about the science to form a firm view on the causes of global warming

There are lots of areas of science where I don’t have much knowledge myself, so I tend to defer to those who are experts in that particular field. Where they are overwhelmingly of one opinion on a particular issue it seems sensible to me to give their opinion far more credence than that of dissenting, and largely non-expert, voices.

“You are arguing from ignorance. Contrary to what you might think, that is not a strong position to be debating from.”

My original comment was relatws to the agenda of some in the Green lobby, it was nothing to do with arguments re whether blogal warming is happening or not.

It does show how powerful a force capitalism and it’s cronies are, when even something that could well result in the destruction of the planet is not sufficient to stop polluting. The climate change deniers, are just greedy business man who want to the right to do what they like despite the cost to others.

It’s like the anti political correct lobby, who are really just bigoted, racist scum , who want the right to carry on being………….. Bigoted , racist scum.

I said above that noone could be certain about the impact of anthropogenic global warming- whether it was happening and, if so, the effect it will have.

However….

what can be said is that much of the data used by James Hanson to create his “hockey stick” graph that sparked the global warming hysteria has been questioned by other scientists and some of it has been entirely discredited. This includes both the reliability of the data from North American temperature measuring stations (for example they were sited in a desert in the fifties and are now surrounded by a small town) and the false premise that the size of tree rings were an accurate measure of temperature in previous years (and were, for example, not affected by rainful etc).

Hanson used this data as the basis for statistical modelling to come up with his apocalyptic predictions. Again there are questions regarding the assumptions he used in these models and even allegations that data was sometimes manipulated when it did not seem to fit. Having said that, there have since been other studies that have backed up his theory but also data from measuring the earths temperature over the last ten years that it is getting colder. Also worth noting that there is a natural and obvious disincentive for a climate change scientist to come to the conclusion that anthropogenic global warming is not happening!!!

And so, like everyone else, I don’t know.

What I do know is that it is not helpful to brand “global warming deniers” as flat-earthers, heretics etc and if Hanson used the same brand of statistical assumptions that were used by the scientists who happily predicted we would have hundreds of thousands of deaths in the UK from CJD I do not believe we should be making decisions based on them. Particularly when the main effect of such decisions will be to consign millions in the Third World to lives of continuing poverty.

‘over the last ten years that it is getting colder’

The advantage of a graph is they allow you to see exactly the pair of data points someone used to generate that kind of ‘statistic’.

If there was money in denying adults were, on average, taller than children, some people would go through a table of head height measurements until they found a pair where the child was jumping and the adult bending down…

I mean this graph:

[img src="http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/upload/2009/03/06.13.08.globalairtemp.png"][/img]

or this:

For Heaven’s sake, friends, think a moment. This is something you may well be betting your greatgrandchildrens’ lives on.

There is a hell of a lot of evidence that the percentage of ‘greenhouse gases’ in our atmosphere has risen and is rising. For the past few decades there has been a well documented rising trend in global temperatures. Well established, fairly simple science tells us that the rise in greenhouse gases can be expected to lead to rising temperatures.

So it is daft not to accept that global warming is very, very likely to be taking place; and stupid to bet any substantial amount against the idea that reducing the rise in greenhouse gases might check the rise.

The first reactions of the scientific community when faced with the trends was “tell us it ain’t so”. All the data since says it is so. The first reaction of the economists and the rest of us was ” a bit more warmth might be nice, and surely it can’t do much damage”. The data and analysis since shows more and more damage and fewer and fewer people and places which might gain from more warmth.

Certainty is not on offer. We are faced with making a bet. If we do nothing, we can expect severe damage to most of the world’s inhabitants, and there is a possibility of devastating damage. If we spend one or two percent of world GDP wisely, it is very likely we can stop the damage getting really bad. Two percent of world GDP would leave plenty of room for all our descendants to become substantially richer than this generation is; in every country.

If we do nothing, we will be acting as idiotically as the managers of Northern Rock, The Bradford and Bingley, The Halifax andd the Royal Bank of Scotland. They denied the risk of a catastrophe happening when it began to loom. They could have saved their banks by reining in growth in time. If we act like them, there is no one to bail out our planet.

“It’s like the anti political correct lobby, who are really just bigoted, racist scum , who want the right to carry on being………….. Bigoted , racist scum.”

You’re one of the most bigoted people I’ve ever come across.

It takes a few centuries for the flat earthers to come around. Why, only a few years ago the Catholic Church (belatedly) apologised to Galileo.

There is a degree of difference, and hypocrisy, between what a government mouths and what it does. Here, in Australia, vast shiploads of coking and steaming coal leave our shores for some of the greatest CO2 emitters. The Rudd government may be a huge improvement over the “little dessicated coconut” AKA John Howard, however, they haven’t deleted the huge fuel subsidies to the international coal companies. are they afraid of them? I fear so!