Wednesday, 8 August 2012

Climate Change Agnostic

I'm not a Climate Change sceptic, denier or enthusiast. I'm just an ordinary person with a science degree wondering what's meant to pass for "evidence" these days.

I'd like to quote to you the link I just had recommended to me, telling me that the last six years of miserable British summers are due to Climate Change. Guardian 2012.

And now, an article, which is from early 2007, which predicts that 2007 would be the latest in a run of hot summers due to Climate Change. Observer (on the Guardian Website) 2007. That is the summer of 2007 which, in the words of Guardian 2012, had " the devastating floods....when some areas received double their normal rainfall for June" 

It strikes me that pumping enormous amounts of Carbon Dioxide into the air is probably a very silly thing to do. As is burning all the oil, when we could usefully be making plastic out of it if we had cheaper and more sustainable sources of energy.

But it also strikes me that the way Science doesn't work is to start with a hypothesis, make a prediction based on it, then when the evidence is completely opposite claim that's consistent with the hypothesis. Exactly what weather in Britain over the last five years would the Guardian have claimed was not consistent with Anthropogenic Global Warming? It's hard to imagine.


  1. The trouble with the science of climate change is that is seems to ignore historic precedents.

    No mention of huge climate changes in the past, which caused mini-ice ages and other which caused floods etc. I don't deny that our actions are changing our world, just that no one has demonstrated to me, personally, that all the measures to preserve our climate will actually work?

    It seems according to the green party, that unless we return to a rural economy, based in the main on horse power (literally) and ships under sail, we are all doomed. Well, future generations are. We are all right Jack!!

    And of course, our governments pay lip service to the measures for climate preservation, because they are so costly and will impact on our prosperity and make them virtually unelectable.

    We need some honesty and transparency from all sides, and scientists need to be honest and publish their work, which is evidence based and not just their theoretical, blue sky thinking.

    The reality for the man or woman in the street in the UK is that climate change is something which effects those in the third world, so we can just allow them to suffer while we live in comfort.

    But it effects us as well - water shortages are just one symptom, crop failures in places like the USA will increase commodity prices next year and food prices will rise again. We will complain, but do very little about it.

    I'd love to live in a rural economy as the green party pushes, but I still want technology and access to modern medicine and the science which is improving and saving lives.

    Selfishness, yes, but I also want to help those in poverty, those in fuel poverty, those who are hungry and it becomes an impossible burden, with so many competing demands. Surely it's time that governments accepted their global responsibilities in all of this and put domestic politics to one side and got on with making the world and environment a better, safer place for all of its peoples.

  2. I'm more worried about global cooling and the potential for another ice age.

    I thought anthropogenic global warming would eliminate the boom and bust of ice ages....

  3. Weather and climate aren't the same thing, so using a "weather" event that spans months to conclude a "climate" event that spans centuries is the problem with a lot of science reporting in our mainstream media. It's the old "my granddad smoked 60 a day and lived until he was 90" fallacy repackaged for a new generation.

  4. Steve - you can't repackage ciggies anymore. They will shortly have to be in a plain wrapper.


Drop a thoughtful pebble in the comments bowl