I was invited to be on the Murnaghan programme on Sky News this morning – which I always find a great deal more intelligent than the Andrew Marr alternative on the BBC. I declined because I did not want to get up and get a 7.30am train from Ramsgate on a Sunday morning. I had a meeting until 11.30pm last night planning a conference on human rights in Balochistan [I still tend to say Baluchistan], and I have a newly crowned tooth that seems not to want to settle down. But I am still worried by my own lack of energy, which is uncharacteristic. Is this old age?
I also have some serious work to do on my Burnes book, and next week I shall be staying in London to be in the British Library reading room for every second of its opening hours. So there may be a bit of a posting hiatus. I have in mind a short post on an important subject on which I suspect that 99% of my readership – including the regular dissident commenters – will strongly disagree with me.
This is a peculiarly introspective post, perhaps because my tooth is hurting, but I seem to have this curmudgeonly spirit which wishes to react to the huge popularity of this blog by posting something genuinely held but unpopular; a genuine view but one I don’t normally trumpet. The base thought seems to be “You wouldn’t like me if you really knew me”.
Similarly when I wrote Murder in Samarkand I was being hailed as a hero by quite a lot of people for my refusal to go along with the whole neo-con disaster of illegal wars, extraordinary rendition and severe attacks on civil liberties, sacrificing my fast track diplomatic career as a result. My reaction to putative hero worship was to publish in Murder in Samarkand not just the political facts, but an exposure of my own worst and most unpleasant behaviour in my private life.
I am in a very poor position to judge, but I believe the result rather by accident turned out artistically compelling, if you don’t want to read the book you can get a good idea of that by clicking on David Tennant in the top right of this blog and listening to him playing me in David Hare’s radio adaptation.
Anyway, that’s enough musing. You won’t like my next post, whenever it comes. Promise.
Anon, how would you suggest I prove that I’m a zoologist?
Maybe I’m not really a zoologist, I’m just a bit clairvoyant. I chose the handle months ago in anticipation of this conversation, just to confound you.
I actually stopped being a paid zoologist in 1989 as I could not stand the clique mentality in academia.
Hey Chris: You seem to be very suspicious of the change in the term “global warming” to “climate change”. Allow me to help you out.
Global warming – averaged over the entire planet, of course – will produce some marked irregularities. It may become warmer overall, on average, but some regions will experience cooling at any given time. An example of this would be the Gulf stream drift – if that were knocked off course by climate change, or eliminated altogether, then we would experience very marked cooling in the UK (where we benefit from the heating of the GSD in Winter).
This temporary cooling would allow climate change “sceptics” to jump up and down and say, “What? What? Global warming? Pah! Seems pretty cold to me mate! “.
The term “Climate change” is used to counter precisely this sort of frankly low-level argument.
*
But I wonder why you “sceptics” put so much weight into denying the conclusions of the vast consensus of the world’s qualified scientists on such matters, and throw your lot in with the fossil fuel industry, the auto/air and pollution multinationals, and join the paid shills on the far right?
We’ve seen all this before – deny, deny, deny, demand ever more “definitive proof”, and insist on anything except the precautionary principle. And 1998, don’t forget – always (and I mean always – refer to 1998. You know what I mean.
Glenn, how about evidence rather than baseless invective and politicisation of science.
Who do you think funded the CRU (Climate ResearchUnit) at UEA (University (sic) of East Anglia)?
BP and Shell a matter of public record.
Yeh, some concentrate (for some strange reason) on a shitey graph as opposed to the actual data. You can reference the discussion at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy
I never said I was going to bed. Said I was pushed for time.
The long term data shows global warming is real. People can be convinced otherwise – I’d be good at doing that it seems.
I am not defending everything ever published that purports to support Global Warming.
Vronsky, thanks for writing to me. I shall get your e-mail address from Suhayl. Yes, I remember now. Thanks for the Zetetic Scholar material.
I’ll tear up my shit-list. Technicolour apparently had a shit-list, too, but private communication suggests that it might be about to be torn up.
If you mean that literally, as an invitation, I may very well accept. I need a worthwhile project, and I’m sick of southern England. But I’m at, or maybe recovering from, the lowest ebb of my life so far, and I have little confidence in myself.
Zooloogist,
Wonderful. You are clairvoyant. I’m sorry I doubted you.
Clark,
Even though I’m anon it is good to see you back!
Scouse Billy: My good fellow, I was careful to avoid “baseless invective”, as you really should have noticed.
I’m genuinely curious why this should be such an enormously important thing to you, to abandon the precautionary principle, and promote this “sceptic” approach like a newly found religion. As to BP/ SHELL et al funding climate research, the answer is a very simple “so what?” – the filthy Coche brothers funded research hoping to prove there was no climate change. The researcher started off as a “sceptic” and concluded that GW is very real indeed. Here’s an easily found link:
http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/2011/1021/Climate-study-funded-in-part-by-conservative-group-confirms-global-warming
That you think because some research has been funded by BP/SHELL is a “gotcha” says vastly more about you, than it says about BP/SHELL, the research team and especially climate change.
There are many problems in the world. We hear so much about CO2, banging on, day in day out.
What about Fukishima and the toxic crap that has been pouring into our oceans and atmosphere from that?
What about the radioactive fish turning up in our food chain?
What happens if USRael bomb the crap out of Iran. How many Chernobyls will that equate to?
No, it’s carbon dioxide, that’s the real enemy.
Yeah
@Vronsky – bravo, well said.
@glenn – yes, your second bit nails it. There is a tendency in some sections of the political spectrum to distrust everyone, even though society has become so specialised that we each can’t possibly be expert in everything that we need to survive. People are now persuaded that because the government has lied to them, and institutions like the police don’t much keep their noses clean either, ergo the climate scientists are lying, the doctors are lying, the anti-smoking lobby is lying…
… which rather lets off the forces on the other side, such as the energy industry, the pharmaceutical industry, the tobacco industry. How opinion that defines itself as radical winds up agreeing with these benign anti-capitalist revolutionaries is quite a mystery, in my view.
Zoologist: Why should Fukishima etc. mean that problems caused by CO2/ GCC are any less or not at all significant, to the point where we shouldn’t be concerned about them? Do you know anybody advancing that argument? Are red herrings popular at this stage of a discussion?
Fukushima is a catastrphe. I have posted in this thread about the disaster Israel may be about to unleash. There are no contradictions.
Anon – But you do defend the work behind it – quite strongly in fact.You also accuse people who bring it up as ‘sound bite denialists’. You’re still putting out mixes messages i’m afraid.
Regarding consensus, i think you’re looking it at a far too simplistic ‘them and us and either or’ way – people can still believe there is or isnt warming but may have different beliefs as to its causes or not, or whether it merits the mass environmental hysteria and eco tyranny we are seeing. These people are obviously a mix of qualified and non qualified people.
I would guess that around 30% of qualified scientists are paid by government in way one or another and go along with what is deemed the consensus on man made global warming and the direct link to C02. Out of this 30% i would say 20% are sceptical of this hypotheseis, but he who pays the piper…
The other 70% i would say are a big mixed bag of qualified and non qualified people who want to keep an open mind but have serious doubts and questions to ask about this international IPCC consensus peddled by mainstram media
You can find the actual data behind (and sometimes ommitted from) the shitey graph here http://camirror.wordpress.com/2009/11/26/new-the-deleted-data/
Aside to all – do carry on, but the GW debate will not be proven one way or t’other in this thread.
Folks here on UK time should, at any rate, consider going to bed. Where’s my snooze emoticon? Zzzz 🙂
Whoosh, mind those goalposts flying by there Scouse Billy..
Glenn, aren’t BP and Shell representatives of “the fossil fuel industry, the auto/air and pollution multinationals” ??
hey, my shit list includes violent and/or bullying lying authoritarian cheating hating propagandists, of spirit nature or form. it isn’t personal, and i will never tear it up. indeed, surely it would be too soggy?
clark, vronsky, hugs, people.
Chris: Can’t you find something better than a blog from a climate change denier for reference?
No insult mate, but I seriously wonder if you have a very good grasp of what science actually is. You keep using the word “Belief” over and over, but “belief” has nothing whatsoever to do with the scientific method. Failure to understand this incredibly basic principle will not allow you to understand what science actually has to say on these matters.
No disrespect at all intended. I’ve seen many of your posts in the past and enjoy them, and appreciate your intelligence and perspectives (on the whole).
Zoologist spake thusly: “Glenn, aren’t BP and Shell representatives of “the fossil fuel industry, the auto/air and pollution multinationals” ??
Indeed they are! And what the hell has that got to do with anything? (Read my post above for clarification on this point – I fear you failed to do so.)
What am I saying? I don’t even have a ‘shit list’. Have never had one; have never heard the expression before, until today. Getting carried away with board rhetoric: time for bed. Good night, all.
Glenn,
You wrote:
“But I wonder why you “sceptics” put so much weight into denying the conclusions of the vast consensus of the world’s qualified scientists on such matters, and throw your lot in with the fossil fuel industry, the auto/air and pollution multinationals, and join the paid shills on the far right?
We’ve seen all this before – deny, deny, deny, demand ever more “definitive proof”, and insist on anything except the precautionary principle.”
1. Consensus hss no weight in science – as Einstein said it only takes one person’s evidence to prove him wrong.
2. “qualified scientists”: argument from “specious” authority – climate science is a generalised discipline drawing on many specialisations but ultimately physics.
3. Fossil fuel industry – who says we have thrown our lot in with them when we are disputing that CO2 causes global warming and “they” are funding the very climate scientists that say it does. btw its the Koch brothers and I couldn’t give a flying f*ck as to who they are and their position on this or anything else – it’s irrelevent to rational empiricist inquiry.
4. Joining right wing shills: Science is politically neutral – either something is empirically demonstrable or it is not. You are polticising science here for no reason that I can see.
5. The precautionary principle – what has this to do with science? I cannot abandon something that is palpable nonsense, an alarmist straw man.
Anon, power to you, calmly explaining the case.
Yes, the governments lie, but as always they do it subtly. They tell the people “reduce your carbon emissions”; as always, it’s all our fault. But they still pump their subsidies into the fossil fuel industry, and never will they tell them “you must leave that stuff in the ground”.
Glenn, I agree. Science is a disbelief system; in fact, the only one possible. No primary principle is ever proven in science. You just set up your theoretical system, and everyone else tries to knock it down. It stands ’til it falls.
Hugs, Tech. Goodnight.
@Glenn “Chris: Can’t you find something better than a blog from a climate change denier for reference?”
…Yes i can,lots and lots of them. Do you always call people who disagree with your views deniers? If thats the case,shouldnt people who strongly believe in man made global warming be called ‘Natural fluctuating temperature deniers’?
“No insult mate, but I seriously wonder if you have a very good grasp of what science actually is. You keep using the word “Belief” over and over, but “belief” has nothing whatsoever to do with the scientific method. Failure to understand this incredibly basic principle will not allow you to understand what science actually has to say on these matters”
…I agree that emiprical scientific evidence should be the basis of all scientific beliefs. If only the people at the IPCC followed this incredibly basic principle you outline.For the rest of us non scientists, all we have is our beliefs based on what evidence we have to hand,mixed in with common sense and an open mind.
“I wonder why you “sceptics” put so much weight into denying the conclusions of the vast consensus of the world’s qualified scientists on such matters, and throw your lot in with the fossil fuel industry, the auto/air and pollution multinationals, and join the paid shills on the far right?”
…What on earth are you talking about man!? Because people question the IPCC consensus they are suddenly fossil fuel loving far right filth??? Jeese, eco tyranny is here…
I want to make plain that there are a lot of sceptical people everywhere whose scepticism on global warming, or for that matter ANY subject, is not predicated on a political position. If that were not so it wouldn’t be scepticism. It would be massaging facts to fit a philosophy or belief. I am tired of the left/right posturing regarding whether warming is man made or not.
I’m just interested in the truth.
Indeed Clark, you do not start out saying “I believe X to be the case, and will set out to prove it” if you’re a scientist, or believe in discovering any truth for that matter. Scientists do not take a bag of money from Big, Bad Government and those eeee-vil environmentalists/ liberal dupes/ Hollywood elites, and then go and make proclamations on the planetary climate. No matter how earnestly GCC “sceptics” wish to believe (and I use that word advisedly) that were the case.
There’s also this tricky little devil called “peer review”. That means that not only have you got to follow the scientific method, but show that you are doing so, and have others review your work. There are serious reputations waiting to be trashed all round, if climate scientists – and ALL their reviewers – were found to be paid off liars and hoaxers.
It astonishes me that “sceptics” are willing to accept so many products of the scientific method (medical science, aerospace engineering, technology generally, the “Internets” etc. etc.), but are stubbornly opposed to all of it when it comes to climate change.
Sceptics – just tell me that God wouldn’t allow it. I can understand that argument. But claiming there is a scientific basis for being a “sceptic” simply doesn’t pass the “Oh good grief” test.
Tony Blair’s ‘disastrous’ wars to blame for secret courts, says Ken Clarke:
“The government’s justice and security bill, which will usher in secret courts was drawn up after the court of appeal agreed to disclose CIA information which showed that MI5 and MI6 knew Binyam Mohamed, a British resident was abused and subjected to inhuman treatment while held as a terror suspect. It was also prompted by UK citizens suing the government for compensation after being held in Guantanamo Bay.”
Lib Dem traitors back the bill – with Lord Marks proposing a weak, gossamer and feeble amendment to include a ‘last resort’ string attached.
deplorable, pitiful and useless!!
http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2012/sep/19/secret-courts-tony-blair-wars?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter
Chris: If you really can find plenty of proper references to genuine science that can disprove the notion of climate change, you really would be better served producing them. Rather than repeatedly dissing the IPCC, please produce some real evidence of why they are not to be trusted. Not innuendo, not smears, and not trivialities or tittle-tattle – just actual evidence.
Sorry if I was unclear in my reference (19 Sep, 2012 – 11:47 pm) concerning my puzzlement. Climate change deniers are indeed in bed with the far right – or at least, have got huge shared interests. Not one freshman in the intake of 2010 to a senate or congressional position in the US accepted that GCC was happening, less still man-made. Not one teabagger believes it to be anything but a hoax, described repeatedly by Senator Inhofe, as a hoax created by Al Gore, Hollywood elites and the UN.
Monied interests and their shills are the far right are the only real “sceptics”, apart from useful idiots where they may be found. Such people doubt anything that government proposes (very wisely on the whole). Not calling you an idiot, btw.
And I will use the term “denier”. That term fits for anyone not accepting evidence that is slapping them in the face, preferring instead to believe what they would prefer from _very_ carefully selected sources.
Chris: Hate to say this to you, because I do think your heart is in the right place. But when you make a sentence like this:
“…I agree that emiprical scientific evidence should be the basis of all scientific beliefs.”
it shows that we have to revisit a few basic principles here, principally that of “belief”. There is not a “belief” system in science. It just simply does not work that way. Empirical evidence is not subject to a belief system, it is – in fact – the precise opposite of anything to do with belief. Empirical evidence is observable, recordable, repeatedly establishable fact. It is simply a record of what is. There can be no debate about empirical evidence, unless you want to philosophise about whether anything is actually real in the first place.
A theory is that which describes all the existing evidence – and I mean all the evidence. Not leaving out bits that you don’t like, and emphasising things that you do like, as one would in (say) economics or politics.
A theory gains strength from being attacked as hard and as often as possible. If the theory no longer fits the evidence, it is no longer valid. As simple as that.
There is no place for any form of a belief system in science.
Glenn is correct. Huge vested interests lobby governments to prevent effective action that would otherwise reduce emissions.
ALEC – The American Legislative Exchange Council
http://www.alecexposed.org/w/images/c/c9/ALEC_on_the_Environment_Final_PDF.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Legislative_Exchange_Council