Liberal Vision

Sexed up documents, personal attacks on their critics.. no it’s not Iraq.. it’s Global Warming

A cause for celebration! Reports that the the Himalayan glaciers will have melted by 2035 have been greatly exagerated. Well totally made up in actual fact. 

I thought hard before deciding to post on this. I have posted on this subject  before (”I am trying very hard not to be a climate change denier “). My concerns have surrounded the over-reliance on “computer models” to predict apocalyptic circumstances; the lack of clarity on what assumptions have been input into these models, based on what ground research and with what level of confidence ? These questions have not been answered. And not only have they not been answered - but those asking these and other questions have been accused of  being “flat earthers”, ”climate change deniers” and worse. We have been told that there is a total scientific concensus on global warming and those that speak out are mad, malicious or on the payroll of some multinational.

But in reality I did not have to think about it very long. Indignation got the better of me. Because I do actually care about this planet and think the way to getting to the right course of action on the issue of climate change is with hard science, reasoned debate and honesty. Not by governments or its institutions thinking that they can short cut this because they know the problem and the answer and the rest is just media management.  

So it was with fury and frustration, not satisfaction, that I learned that the scientist behind the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) report in 2007 has finally publicly admitted that the line about disappearing glaciers was nothing more than a bit of “sexing up” to put political pressure on world leaders. No evidence at all to support the notion. Nada.

This makes old Alistair Campbell’s attempts during the Iraq affair look positively amateurish by comparison. If you missed the coverage over past few days, it went something like this… Two magazine articles appeared in 1999 stating that glaciers were set to disappear by 2035. This information was then recycled by WWF in 2005 without any fact checking. The IPCC then used the WWF report as the sole basis for its assertions in 2007 because they thought it would “impact policy makers and politicians to take some concrete action“. Never mind the truth.

This was a report from the revered IPCC (”the leading body for the assessment of climate change, established by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) to provide the world with a clear scientific view on the current state of climate change and its potential environmental and socio-economic consequences”), involving an esteemed working group and reviewed by 500+ external reviewers. So what went wrong?

Well the Global Warming Policy Foundation (Nigel Lawson’s new group) will publish an analysis of those 500 or so formal review comments tomorrow. But in essense a good number of highly regarded indidivuals and institutions did raise questions, ask for clarification, query the level of confidence and indeed urge the IPCC group to withdraw the assertion of glacier melting as patently untrue. As far as one can tell from the information available to date, they were simply ignored. 

Worse than that. And here’s another bit of  indignation… A report published by the Indian Government just last November written by geologist Vijay Kumar Raina, stating that “Himalyan glaciers have not in anyway exhibited, especially in recent years, an abnormal annual retreat” was dismissed as “voodoo science” by the chairman of the IPCC  who said “With the greatest of respect this guy retired years ago and I find it totally baffling that he comes out and throws out everything that has been established years ago.”

Last week the IPCC was forced to withdraw its claim over the melting glaciers as it has no scientific foundation. The WWF has likewise issued a retraction.  

Heads should roll over how these claims of glacier melting ever found their way into the IPCC report. But what is almost worse is the assertion by the IPCC when questioned that “everything has been established years ago”.

Yet again it calls into question the whole issue. Who should we trust? How do we even know who we should trust? How much more of the “scientific concensus” on global warming and its causes is built on so-called science “established years ago”. As I post this I learn that another IPCC claim linking global warming to natural disasters has now also come under question. Oh dear…….

Tags: climate change, glaciers melting, global warming, Global Warming Policy Foundation, IPCC, WWF

I am trying very hard not to be a “climate change denier”

…..a “climate change sceptic” or as Mr Miliband dubbed those of a different opinion to himself last week  - a “climate change saboteur”  …… but boy they are not making it easy for me.

For I find myself increasingly wondering - just how much money is there in this for those who are leading the climate change vanguard? How much kudos, fame and bandwaggoning is tied up in this particular cause? The scientists taking their research funds; the energy companies taking their subsidies; the politicians taking centre stage with their great moral crusade on which they pontificate, and use to terrify us into submission.

Only today The Sunday Telegraph reports that professor Phil Jones - who until recently led the Climate research Unit (CRU) at University of East Anglia -has so far received £13million+ in climate research funding no less. That’s 13million good reasons to big-up any issue.

It has not helped the climate change cause that the very same unit in receipt of the £13million is also at the centre of the investigation into doctored figures. Emails (obtained by hackers it seems) from Prof Jones say, amongst other things, “I’ve just completed Mike’s NATURE trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline”. Well…if you will incentivise people to go down a particular path, don’t be surprised if they overstep the mark.

And let’s not forget the holier-than-thou, great-and-the-good descending on Copenhagen. 15000 delegates are seemingly required to discuss pie-in-the-sky “targets” that everyone seems to agree already will not result in any binding deal. And even if they do agree binding targets - these dont appear to be modest, sensible ones, over, say, the life of most parliaments (e.g. 3 or 4 years) that today’s politicians will be answerable to. Why not cancel the thing and save the many thousands of tonnes of carbon the conference seems set to cost. Because it will have a BIG carbon footprint. Last heard, some 1200 limo’s will be used to ferry these hand-wringers around and some 140 extra private jets will use Copenhagen’s airport.  That’s a lot of hot air, in every sense of the word.

Back in boggy Britain, we, the little people, are berated over OUR energy use. We are bombarded with sinister Government adverts telling us to use our cars 5 miles less per week, use public transport wherever we can - no matter how difficult/poor/filthy/cramped etc that is- switch off our lights, fly less, recycle more, obey or be doomed. Politcians on the other hand swish about in gaz guzzlers, attended by dozens of “advisors” along for the jolly, making big speeches feeling very self important . What bit of irony don’t they get?

We do irony well in the UK. We also do dissent rather well too. Echoing the results of  The Times survey a couple of weeks ago, an ICM survey for The Sunday Telegraph published today, shows that  nearly 50% of voters think there is no proof that mankind is causing global warming. Gordon Brown described such people as “flat earthers” . There’s clearly an awful lot of them about. And his response to the ICM survey was to say that he’s  convinced by the scientific evidence (well thats ok then) and that his government will be making the case that the threat of climate change is real. Hmmmm…..We have seen the effects of dodgy dossiers from this Government before. Let’s hope that the Government has not got another one in its briefcase this time.

All I really want for Christmas is an open honest debate on this issue - preferably amongst scientists - butI will take what I can get. No doubt inspired by the Daily Politics show last week, just such a debate appeared on BBC’s Politics Show lunchtime today between Lord Lawson and Ed Miliband. Government may be reduced to name-calling. Research units may manipulate the data and seek to prevent FOI requests for the raw data. But it seems to me that a healthy debate concerning the science and the economics of climate change is coming out at last. That has to be good news for all sides of the debate because it’s good for democracy.And because its more likely to result in the right policies being implemented.

And no Ed Miliband I do not think it “irresponsible” to query the science of climate change. As Lord Lawson put it so magnificently…” What I think is profoundly irresponsible is to say that dissent should not be tolerated. That honest, rational, reasoned debate is unacceptable. That is wrong on any issue”

You can catch the Nigel Lawson v Ed Miliband debate at the top of the post - or catch the full Politics Show programme on BBC iplayer by clicking here.

Tags: climate change, Copenhagen, Ed Miliband, Lord Lawson, Politics Show

GUEST POST: at Copenhagen, beware “green” protectionism

With all eyes on the UN summit at Copenhagen this month, keen observers are wondering whether collaborations are possible to mitigate climate change. Yet some proposals would do more harm than good, with “green” protectionism the most dangerous of all.

These are proposals to permit trade restrictions on the grounds that they will help to prevent climate change–a sadly misleading theory, which has predictably gained support already from uncompetitive industries and other vested interests have jumped on the bandwagon.

In our petition against these measures, the Freedom to Trade campaign explains:

“Trade enables specialisation, which results in the development of new technologies and leads to the creation of wealth. In the past two decades, trade has enabled over a billion people to escape poverty. Trade is the most powerful weapon in humanity’s armoury to fight poverty and environmental ills, including climate change. Trade restrictions are not desirable, nor are they an effective means of addressing climate change.”

Ongoing health disasters that some fear will be accentuated by climate change are already a reality today for millions of people–as a result of poverty, imbedded by oppression and trade restrictions.  Every thirty seconds a child dies of malaria, an entirely preventable and curable disease.  Seventeen thousand people in poor countries die every day from respiratory or diarrhoeal illnesses.

To instil today’s disasters by encouraging barriers to trade that are already preventing people in poor countries from lifting themselves out of poverty is madness. Please sign our petition against this phoney cure, and send a message to the politicians in Copenhagen that trade and wealth are our best weapons to adapt to a changing climate.

SIGN THE PETITION HERE: http://bit.ly/1mu46P

Alec van Gelder is Project Director of the Freedom to Trade campaign and writes on trade for publications such as the Wall Street Journal and Sydney Morning Herald.

Tags: climate change, free trade, freedom to trade, global warming, protectionism

Finally….a proper debate on climate change

Congratulations to the BBC . I dont say that often, so I will say it again. Congratulations to the BBC. Today on The Daily Politics show I finally got to see a proper discussion on climate change - and between two scientists no less! Prof Fred Singer ( Founder and President of the Science and Environmental Policy Project and Professor Emeritus of Environmental Science at the University of Virginia) and Prof Bob Watson (the chief scientific advisor at the department of the environment) met with Andrew Neil for a rattlingly good discussion.

I will put up the highlights of the programme up here later today or you can go to BBCiplayer to see the full programme.

This debate comes shortly ahead of the Copenhagen summit and, I am told, a debate being held tonight entitled ”The Copenhagen Summit: Do Science and Economics Support Government Action on Climate Change” . Judging by the discussion on air today it promises to be a must see event. Full marks IEA and can we have more of this on the BBC please, so that more of us can listen to the arguments from all sides, not just the spin.

UPDATE: Apologies for the delay. You can now see the climate change part of the programme here… or you can go to BBCiplayer to see the full programme.

Tags: climate change, Copenhagen, Defra, IEA, Prof Bob Watson, Prof Fred Singer

The Government that cried “WOLF”.

Ok, back from the USA - and just a tad jet-lagged so apologies for the delay in this post.

But only back 24 hours and I notice that according to The Times yesterday only 41% accept as an established scientific fact that global warming is taking place and is largely man made. Look at it another way only 1/3 (32%) agree that climate change is happening but believe it has not yet been proven to be largely man-made.

Should we really be that surprised? Afterall we have become not just sceptical of politicians, but actually assume that if politicians say it, it’s most likely untrue, twisted, manipulated, or at best a half-truth - which still counts as a lie in my book.

We have also had “scientists say” thrust down our throats just one time too many (rather like the “if it saves just one child” mantra). Those words have become meaningless. Worse , they begin to grate. If I hear the words “scientists say” these days, my immediate response is “which scientists?”, “who funded their research?”, “what motivated them to do this research in the first place?” “Where can I see the FULL study, not just the edited highlights”. These questions, are rarely, if ever, answered. The media doesn’t look beyond the startling headline grabber it will give them, and politicians are more swayed by where they perceive public opinion to be than what the facts of the matter are. Explain why else the Liberal Democrats have taken such a pathetic stand on the smoking ban or drugs classification - neither of which enjoyed  rigorous scientific research  to justify the legislation introduced.

But let’s not get distracted with lifestyle freedoms, lets consider more “serious” scientific studies of late.  Because , to be clear, scientists are not omnipotent gods incapable of error. They get stuff wrong.

 In 1999 Government scientists were telling us that “hundreds of thousands” could die from CJD, a year later the projections had been down-scaled to just a few thousand at most.

In 2001 the Chief Scientific Adviser to the Government, David King, insisted upon a massive cull to stop an outbreak of foot and mouth. Most farmers and vets said that the epidemic could be contained by vaccine, or isolation methods. But hell no, literally millions of sheep and cows were killed, farms put out of business, the tourist trade decimated.  

In April 2006 Government reports suggested that as many as 700,000 of us might die from bird flu. Even scientists most modest estimates stated that around 50,000 in the UK would die. To date about 500 people around the world have been infected with H5N1 and around 260 of them have died.

And only this year Government told us that 65,000 would be wiped out by swine flu. The current projections stand at 20,000 - and even those look widely pessimistic at this stage.

 Of course all of the above are to some extent “UK only”  issues and with climate change we are talking about a world problem - with scientists and governments from many countries involved in the debate. But even with climate change problems exist with what “the scientists say”….. In the 1980s scientists talked of  “global cooling” or a new Ice Age. In the 1990s this became “global warming”, now it is “climate change”.  And , let’s be clear, almost every country has a significant number of scientists that question their government’s analysis - we are not the only ones who are asking questions about “the science”.

Nor has it helped that we have been beaten - with almost religious zeal - by the environmental stick, witnessing increasing levels of legislation introduced under the name of climate change, that have raided our wallets and invaded our privacy.  And frankly even those that really do accept the worst case scenario on climate change are frustrated by the cynicism with which this potential crisis has been exploited.

So it is not very surprising therefore that when we are told by scientists  and politicians that we are all going to hell in a hand cart, we will, after a while, start to question it.

If all this sounds like I am a “climate-denier” - a term I particularly dislike - then I am sorry. I am probably in the one third that believe that there is some form of climate change but am not convinced that we have correctly identified the cause (or causes) of the problem. I am also pretty sure that we are far from finding the right solutions.

So, in my view, it is an inevitable consequence of Government action to date that we have responded the way we have in The Times survey (US citizens are equally sceptical). This Government - and others - have used science to cry wolf once too often. When faced with more pressing economic issues that are much more immediate, and if we add on top of that our scepticism of what Governments say - and increasingly what “science says” - why would we do anything other than start to doubt the information we are given.

If we are to move forward on this issue it must start with a consensus on the science - and the population buying into what the scientists have to say. That’s going to be tough given the respective track records of politicians and scientists.

It’s time for Governments to make a fresh start. Fewer, better researched, scientific studies would help. So would a  more consistent approach from Government on when they will and wont take heed of their own science. Finally a more rounded view of the problem must surely now be implemented - one that embraces geo-technological solutions with as much vigour as modification of population behaviour. If politicians can actually discard their natural instincts to micro-manage every aspect of our lives with scant regard to our intelligence - oh and start being honest with us about “green taxes”, then maybe we can actually solve this issue. But I doubt we can do it before then.

Tags: climate change, The Times

Climate Campaign Summer Party - have fun with Dave’s Nu Tories

Dave’s über-green Nu Tories are to campaign on climate by having jolly good knees-up on a roof later this month.

Hurrah!

Pimms O’Clock!

Tickets are a snip at just, erm, £75 a head, and for this you will be able to mingle with “leading green entrepreneurs and investors, eco philanthropists, and a variety of high profile business, celebrity and media opinion formers with a passion for the environment.”

Eco philanthropists? Woo!

Check out the Facebook page, kids. And the flier:

Tags: climate change, Conservatives, David Cameron