I've tried to sustain this blog for a while, feeling that there is still room for some odd thinking here and there, but events have conspired to make it rather more difficult in future.
In short, I'm starting a new job next week which is likely to demand a fair bit of my 'spare' time and a whole chunk of energy.
Luckily for the climate science debate, this isn't a significant contributor, my viewers are eclectic, if high quality (thanks, chaps), and a lot of what I cover features elsewhere, with a slightly different slant.
Sometimes I pick up on things which seem to have gone under the radar, and I wish that a few more people had seen what I saw as significant, but readerships have a way of telling the story in their way, too.
I don't intend to abandon writing about climate and related issues, but it could be some weeks between messages (yes, real hiati) , but regulars have got used to that.
Its also highly likely that my regular appearances in the commentariat elsewhere will be curtailed.
Thank you for your support and patience. When it matters, I'll still be posting, especially after the General Election, where I have been supporting the Green Party and getting involved locally.
Fergus.
Friday, 17 April 2015
Tuesday, 7 April 2015
In defence of Tol, or not
This morning's exchange with Richard Tol at the Guardian allowed me the opportunity to raise a point which I think needs to be clear to people engaged in climate science discussions online: Tol is not a hardcore denialist.
Below is what has appeared so far. The point is Richard's central comment, divided into four parts:
off topic, and in the public record
- climate is changing
- greenhouse gas emissions are a major cause
- climate change is, in the long-term, net harmful
- polarization a la Nuccitelli hampers climate policy
No problem with points one and two, and all those who love or hate RSJT on the basis that he is a denial monkey should read and digest.
Point three is of course a key matter and IMO worth engaging in discussions about. Where Tol sometimes seems to miss the point is that climate change is, ipso facto, a long-term problem (it may also be a short-term problem, but this is open to discussion, too). The point is that his qualifier 'in the long term' is redundant. There is a tendency for people to extrapolate from this idea that it is not a 'problem' in the short term, therefore it is not necessary to create mitigation policy now. To reach this conclusion is to fundamentally misunderstand the nature of the risks and problems which science has highlighted.
Which brings us to point four. Richard accuses Dana of polarising the issues and thereby obstructing policy. Anyone familiar with his track record will find this a most peculiar claim, since Tol has allowed those who wish to obstruct policy, notably the GWPF, a number of Tory MPs and people such as Matt Ridley to persistently misrepresent his work without correction, whilst at the same time offering self as critic to those, such as Cook and Nuccitelli, who are clear advocates of policy action.
I believe that Richard Tol believes himself to be a rational, impartial observer, but you have to judge a person (insofar as judgment is required) on what they do, not just on what they say. By this parameter, Tol has by default placed himself in the 'denial' camp. if this sits uncomfortably with him he must respond to it. By distancing himself from the people who misrepresent him to obstruct climate policy he can undo some of the harm already caused by these people. Should he feel no obligation or responsibility to so do, one feels inclined to presume that he is satisfied with this state of affairs, and by implication supportive of it. In which case he should stop whinging about the whole thing and accept that to many people he is a 'bad guy' and his actions (or inactions) prove him so.
Come on Richard, show your capacity for decency. There is a very important discussion of policy to be had and it could benefit from your input, but before that you need to detach yourself from your current reputation. Will you do that?
Below is what has appeared so far. The point is Richard's central comment, divided into four parts:
off topic, and in the public record
- climate is changing
- greenhouse gas emissions are a major cause
- climate change is, in the long-term, net harmful
- polarization a la Nuccitelli hampers climate policy
No problem with points one and two, and all those who love or hate RSJT on the basis that he is a denial monkey should read and digest.
Point three is of course a key matter and IMO worth engaging in discussions about. Where Tol sometimes seems to miss the point is that climate change is, ipso facto, a long-term problem (it may also be a short-term problem, but this is open to discussion, too). The point is that his qualifier 'in the long term' is redundant. There is a tendency for people to extrapolate from this idea that it is not a 'problem' in the short term, therefore it is not necessary to create mitigation policy now. To reach this conclusion is to fundamentally misunderstand the nature of the risks and problems which science has highlighted.
Which brings us to point four. Richard accuses Dana of polarising the issues and thereby obstructing policy. Anyone familiar with his track record will find this a most peculiar claim, since Tol has allowed those who wish to obstruct policy, notably the GWPF, a number of Tory MPs and people such as Matt Ridley to persistently misrepresent his work without correction, whilst at the same time offering self as critic to those, such as Cook and Nuccitelli, who are clear advocates of policy action.
I believe that Richard Tol believes himself to be a rational, impartial observer, but you have to judge a person (insofar as judgment is required) on what they do, not just on what they say. By this parameter, Tol has by default placed himself in the 'denial' camp. if this sits uncomfortably with him he must respond to it. By distancing himself from the people who misrepresent him to obstruct climate policy he can undo some of the harm already caused by these people. Should he feel no obligation or responsibility to so do, one feels inclined to presume that he is satisfied with this state of affairs, and by implication supportive of it. In which case he should stop whinging about the whole thing and accept that to many people he is a 'bad guy' and his actions (or inactions) prove him so.
Come on Richard, show your capacity for decency. There is a very important discussion of policy to be had and it could benefit from your input, but before that you need to detach yourself from your current reputation. Will you do that?
12
I particularly like the bit where Mr Nuccitelli tells Dr Spencer what Dr Spencer really thinks.
Reply
Report
This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn't abide by our community standards. Replies may also be deleted. For more detail see our FAQs.
Kudos due for paying attention and bothering to respond. TY. I sort of know this anyway, really, because I've read your (available) papers. But people often misunderstand you - probably because you are as guilty as Dana of stirring things up, so I think the polarisation comment is a bit rich.
I know many 'denial' commenters such as Ridley etc depend heavily on your work, especially as distorted by Lomborg via Copenhagen, but you never seem to spend time correcting their misunderstandings or inaccuracies. As a result, there's a tendency to place you one one side of 'the divide'. This may be unfair in your eyes, but it is perfectly understandable in mine.
Polarization? Isn't that the bread and butter of journalism? I agree it can be frustrating, but via friends in the USA it is clear that there the discussions are not just polarised, they are politicised.
Wednesday, 1 April 2015
It's not us! New report casts doubt on Anthropogenic source of climate change!
Once the news gets out about the new paper published in the obscure but worthy Journal of Mythological Climate Studies there is going to be a lot of trouble.
The new report from academics in Iceland claims that humans are NOT the cause of climate change. After extensive research. they say, it has been established that Trolls are the principle source of the hot air - via CO2 and methane emissions.
Iceland has long included consideration for elves and trolls in its legislation, for example making sure that roads and other developments avoid certain stones and features in the local landscape which are said to be occupied by mythological beings: Guardian, 25/03/15 .
But the new research is truly unbelievable. "According to the data gathered," we were told by lead scientist Arne Illbebaackersson, "we have historically vastly underestimated the volume of emissions generated by Trolls and other quasi-human entities. Once these new estimates are incorporated into climate models the correlation becomes obvious."
Dr Illbebackerrsson's team has been collecting data from around elf-stones for more than a decade and their new paper shows the correlations in startling detail. Unfortunately, the article is paywalled so this blogger cannot provide a link.
Similar material published in nature and reported by well-known blogger Rabett (here) attributes the origins elsewhere, based on the same core evidence.
Similar material published in nature and reported by well-known blogger Rabett (here) attributes the origins elsewhere, based on the same core evidence.
Famed climate scientist Michael Mann was unavailable for comment.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)