...will be difficult for them to conceptualise. After all, they have always described their retreat back to socialism as "progressive". However, a great surprise over the last month has been the willingness of the UK Guardian (Moonbeam Monbiot excepted) to examine the scientific failings of the great warmist crusade. In this excellent Guardian article, Ian Katz says "The case for climate action must be remade from the ground upwards." Summarising the green/left disaster to date (without reading between the lines) he concludes with..."...So far, so grim, but what can be done? "
So grim ? As a commenter writes..."The basis for the predicted catastrophe has been shown to be flawed. Why shouldn't that be a cause for joy? Or is it grief for a lost cause? Don't fret, there'll be another one along in a minute..."
"...First, climate scientists must make a public commitment to greater openness. They should acknowledge that the huge implications and importance of what they do mean the public expect and are entitled to a greater degree of scrutiny of their work. They should repudiate the laager mentality and evasions of the East Anglia researchers. Instead of grudgingly yielding to Freedom of Information requests, they should publish their data and workings online wherever possible.
In the longer term more open ways of reviewing science should be explored. Royal Society president Martin Rees talks about an Amazon-style system where reviewers can openly rate papers online. It is in this spirit that the Guardian will today publish Pearce's full 28,000 word account of the East Anglia emails affair online and invite anyone involved to tell us if we've got it right.
Then, the case for action must be remade from the ground up. It's no good politicians and scientists going on TV and insisting that the overwhelming body of climate science has not been touched by the scandals. They need to go back to first principles and explain how we know that CO2 causes warming, how we know CO2 levels are rising, how we know it's our fault, and how we can predict what is likely to happen if we don't act.
Next, the credibility of the IPCC – or some form of scientific high court – must be restored. In the short term that means appointing independent experts to review any alleged errors in the panel's reports. At the same time the IPCC should renounce, or at least severely restrict the use of grey literature (eg, non-Governmental; greenpeace, WWF, Friends of the Earth etc.) "If that means you can't be comprehensive then don't be," says a senior scientist advocating this course. There is a strong case for more radical reforms: the panel should arguably be replaced by a body controlled by national scientific academies rather than governments.
Those who want action on climate change will meanwhile have to accept a more incremental approach... Even the head of an NGO who has argued passionately for a binding, comprehensive deal tells me: "Maybe you've got to unpick the uber-deal and work out which bits are possible to do now, and build confidence."
Finally, anyone who cares about this issue must fight to keep it alive. With Barack Obama embroiled in a domestic political battle, powerful advocates like Ed Miliband and Gordon Brown likely soon to exit the stage and European leaders notably reticent in Copenhagen, it is hard to see where the political leadership for a global deal will come from. So it may fall to civil society – to individuals, organisations and businesses – to pick up the baton. The choice remains the one described in that global editorial, only now the answer is likely to be decided by us"...more here...
In the longer term more open ways of reviewing science should be explored. Royal Society president Martin Rees talks about an Amazon-style system where reviewers can openly rate papers online. It is in this spirit that the Guardian will today publish Pearce's full 28,000 word account of the East Anglia emails affair online and invite anyone involved to tell us if we've got it right.
Then, the case for action must be remade from the ground up. It's no good politicians and scientists going on TV and insisting that the overwhelming body of climate science has not been touched by the scandals. They need to go back to first principles and explain how we know that CO2 causes warming, how we know CO2 levels are rising, how we know it's our fault, and how we can predict what is likely to happen if we don't act.
Next, the credibility of the IPCC – or some form of scientific high court – must be restored. In the short term that means appointing independent experts to review any alleged errors in the panel's reports. At the same time the IPCC should renounce, or at least severely restrict the use of grey literature (eg, non-Governmental; greenpeace, WWF, Friends of the Earth etc.) "If that means you can't be comprehensive then don't be," says a senior scientist advocating this course. There is a strong case for more radical reforms: the panel should arguably be replaced by a body controlled by national scientific academies rather than governments.
Those who want action on climate change will meanwhile have to accept a more incremental approach... Even the head of an NGO who has argued passionately for a binding, comprehensive deal tells me: "Maybe you've got to unpick the uber-deal and work out which bits are possible to do now, and build confidence."
Finally, anyone who cares about this issue must fight to keep it alive. With Barack Obama embroiled in a domestic political battle, powerful advocates like Ed Miliband and Gordon Brown likely soon to exit the stage and European leaders notably reticent in Copenhagen, it is hard to see where the political leadership for a global deal will come from. So it may fall to civil society – to individuals, organisations and businesses – to pick up the baton. The choice remains the one described in that global editorial, only now the answer is likely to be decided by us"...more here...
...and who among us could argue with that ? Maintain the freedom of communication within the blogosphere, give the global community full access to scientific data, and let the chips fall where they may, and hope that in falling they destroy green credibility for ever...
...and FYI an update on the the melting Himalyan glaciers... "...a new study by scientists at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, and NCAR, finds that human-emitted aerosols are the single major contributor to glacial melt in the Himalayas. In this case, increasing concentrations of carbon dioxide are not melting the mountain glaciers, say the authors. Particulate matter, particularly black carbon from cooking fires and coal-fired plants in India, is the real culprit...more from the CSM here...
7 comments:
If one is to understand the green movement, one must look for the explanation in Religion. Humans are religious, that means that they ask questions not only about existence, but also about moral conduct. A religion can be viewed as a set of beliefs about the universe and man's role in it, and a set of moral prescriptions following logically from that.
As Chesterton once said, there is not enough time for a person to think through everything for himself, and that's why we have churches.
Any man acts upon dogma and prejudices. Any reasoning always can be led back to these two things. The first thing you think cannot be based upon reason, because then it is not the first thing.
The greenies have a few dogmas which they rely heavily on - and we can of course agree in some of them. One of them though is that human being is not always acting in accordance with nature. We can agree, but to agree fully you have to define terms for instance, what is nature?
I am not going into a philosophical discussion here, I only wish to point out that if you are combatting ETS and unnecessary taxes and attacks on your freedom, you need to know where to begin. For the greenies, it is a moral obligation to use all their resources and anything else that can be used, in order to "save the world". They have no moral scruples in lying if it can further their cause, just like marxism, for instance.
If there were no consequences, we didn't have to care at all about some silly scientists fixing temperature records and producing graphs. The thing is that there are consequences in the form of restricted liberty and taxes, therefore we need to fight the socalled scientific basis for AGW.
We see that in order to strenghten their authority, IPCC ammassed everything from the tiniest company brochure via greenist propaganda to scientific reports for their own report. The importance wasn't in the content, it was in the authority following the content.
So we must question the authority, and not even that,we must bring it completely down. There must be no IPCC at all. We can just as well ridicule all this, but not without understanding. By all means, making fun out of things is the best way to enforce moral obligations that is.
I'll be back. I am still laughing at the want ad.
NJ is getting hammered again tonight. Up to 20 inches of more snow for me. I guess we are stealing it from the polar bears. I have been repeatedly told it is not "global warming" it is "climate change." I was always under the impression snow came in Winter. Silly me.
Dismal
If there were new scientific discoveries made tomorrow which the scientific community unanimously agreed meant, without doubt, that mankind was not responsible for global warming and, in any case, the earth was safe and likely to prosper, I guarantee there would be many thousands of alarmists who would be weeping bitter tears. Some people aren't happy unless they're unhappy.
Incidentally, your hotel is not exactly a stone's throw from the canal but you could hit it with a decent catapult, and there is a good pub right on the water.
Geir, excellent points. I see the IPCC is still under sustained criticism (see todays post)and I think and hope that its abyssmal performance will lead to significant changes within its structure. Not enough though as you say, to "bring it down."
Please keep in contact re the Nobel issue, and details of local (Aorwegian) anti-AGW issues.
Nessa, I'm glad you liked the want ad. The advertiser put it quite well don't you think ?
Butch, that is just great !
More funny stuff, less politics !
"let the chips fall where they may, and hope that in falling they destroy green credibility for ever..."
And what if the chips fall in such a way that the evidence for AGW becomes blindingly obvious - what will you do then?
Billy T,someone a lot cleverer than I said that when the facts prove me wrong, I apologise.
What do you do ?
Post a Comment