September 10th, 2009 | Climate Change, Locals Taking Action
Man in Pub Does it Again
Local Strettonians will have seen in last month’s Focus an article headed “Good News Everyone - It’s all a Load of Rubbish!” (read it here) in which we made a thinly veiled joke at the expense of ‘Man in the Pub’ - that person who has a great deal to say about everything but who is basing his opinion on nothing very much.
September’s Focus has a reply from ‘Man in the Pub’ - at least we think it’s MIP - he didn’t appear to want to be identified - and sure enough he’s done it again. We can’t put the whole thing in because (a) there are issues of copyright and (b) it’s rubbish, really. At least some of it is.
For example, he suggests that “global temperatures have been stable for eight years and are now, if anything, falling.” Let’s have a look, shall we?
Source: Climatic Research Unit 2009
What do you know, he’s right! That black line showing the trend has flattened off in the top right corner! However, thirteen of the fourteen warmest years on record have now occurred in the past fourteen years (1995-2008). The only year in the last fourteen not among the warmest fourteen is 1996 (pushed out by 1990). The period 2001-2008 (which was 0.43°C above the 1961-90 mean average) was 0.19°C warmer than the 1991-2000 decade (which was 0.24°C above the 1961-90 mean). So the fact that 2008 was only the tenth warmest year on record is not exactly reassuring.
Moreover, analyses of over 400 proxy climate series (from trees, corals, ice cores and historical records) show that the 1990s was the warmest decade of the millennium - and the 20th century the warmest century. The warmest year of the millennium was likely 1998, and the coldest was probably (but with much greater uncertainty) 1601. There’s more, but you’ll have to click here to read it because - well - we’ve made our point, and thanks to the Climatic Research Unit for giving us the information.
MIP then throws in “the Manhattan Declaration, which states among other things, that there is no convincing evidence that CO2 emissions from modern industrial activity has in the past, is now or will in the future cause catastrophic climate change”. Well, he’s right again, the Manhattan Declaration really does say that. But it’s proved very difficult to find out who is actually saying it; it doesn’t, for example, have a list of signatories. The declaration came from a conference of businessmen and scientists sponsored by the Heartland Institute, an American libertarian/conservative free market-oriented public policy think tank based in Chicago, Illinois. It was founded in 1984 and is funded by, amongst others, the tobacco and oil industries. The Independent blew the gaff on it at the time (click here for their article) - and the New York times were less than complimentary (see here). Sorry, but there is convincing evidence, and David Attenborough and Professor Peter Cox put it as well as anyone in this two minute clip.
The Heartland Institute caused something of a stir a month later by publishing the names of dozens of academics who it said were sceptical about climate change only for them to complain that they weren’t (details here). The Heartland Institute also argued against a smoking ban in public places in Chicago in 2002, suggesting that the threat of passive smoking had been greatly exaggerated, as had the hazards of smoking itself: ‘The odds of a life-long smoker dying prematurely (before the age of 75) of a smoking-related disease are about 12 to 1 (not the “3 to 1” odds claimed on anti-smoking billboards)’. Once again, there were no sources quoted, but exaggeration is an easy claim to make about anything, and it generates a bit of doubt.
But we digress; MIP’s next target is the Met office, who are pretty sure about global warming, and points out that they famously predicted this year would see ‘a sizzling barbecue summer’ (!) Except, of course, they didn’t. They said that 2009’s summer would be hotter than the previous two years and that temperatures would reach 30C (86F). They were right on both counts: June, July and August were, on average, 0.7C above normal at 14.8C. In the west and north of Scotland temperatures were 1C above normal.
The great British public (or perhaps just the media) chose to read those predictions as meaning dry as well as warm, but of course it was wet (and warm). The reality is that whilst we can predict long-term changes in climate with some certainty, we cannot predict short-term changes in the weather very well at all - and what is likely is that our weather will become even more unpredictable in future. It won’t happen all at once - we hope - although there is some evidence that so-called ‘tipping points’ have occurred in the fairly distant past (12 - 14,000 years ago), when catastrophic climate changes took place over a one or two year period (details here). If we get one of those, we’ve all probably had it. But it seems more likely that our climate will - unless we can do something about it - get progressively warmer over the next fifty to one hundred years, and as it does so it will become increasingly difficult for Humanity to survive.
Note that it’s Humankind we’re talking about. There is no doubt that the world will survive, as will many species now living on and in it. Some species have survived for millions of years already; others, like the dinosaurs, lived for millions of years before dying out. Homo Sapiens has only been around for about 30,000 years.
Will we be able to make it for another 30,000 years? We think we’re in grave danger as a species. Again, we won’t all die out overnight. Parts of the world are already uninhabitable for humanity, and the uninhabitable bits will just grow, and the bits above water shrink.
Man in Pub thinks we’re talking rubbish. But then, he wouldn’t be MIP if he didn’t, would he?
And by the way, don’t put money on the hop harvest in Kent going on for much longer..
Loading ...
Why do intelligent folk like man in the pub deny there is a problem? Conflicting media stories (who are often behind the denial stories); selfishness in not wanting their comfort zone invaded; human nature in ignoring a looming disaster or fear that it is too large a problem for Joe Bloggs to do anything about? Over 250 households in our community have already taken advantage of the service offered by Stretton Climate Care and many made substantial carbon reductions and we have an ever growing waiting list.
New community climate care groups are setting up across the world, Churches Together in Britain and Ireland are organising a Day of Prayer on October 4th to highlight the growing concerns and all major political parties are united in supporting the race to agree urgent world wide action at the Copenhagen Conference. They can’t all be wrong……!
A recent survey (sorry cannot remember where) reported that 80% of those interviewed acknowledged that climate change was happening but when pressed only 4% could really say they were taking significant action. We have to do more than feel virtuous and recycle our bottles, paper and cans. Real action is ever more urgent. Over 250 folk in the Strettons have discovered their carbon footprint with the help of Stretton Climate Care and begun a serious carbon reduction journey. There are many more who are taking action we don’t know about. Some already have a footprint of under 5 tonnes and well done to them. I wonder if man in the pub knows his footprint. It will be a shock to him to be told we ALL need to aim for 2 tonnes each - it can be done without eating lettuce and wearing sandals. If the world wants to go on flying today’s news says it needs to be even lower.
Even China and India recognise the problem but we can hardly blame them in their reluctance to make cuts when it was the industrialised west who began the problem and morally should help them towards a solution.
Here in the U.K. the effects are small at present, but there are many parts of the world where every day millions of people are struggling with the effects of rising sea levels, prolonged droughts and because of failed harvests do to changes in weather patterns, rising food prices.
I challenge man in the pub to get in touch and let us measure his carbon emissions. Promise we will keep the results confidential - we might even be able to help him reduce his energy bills!!!
Concerning the Manhattan Declaration on Climate Change, it is stated in the main article above:
“But it’s proved very difficult to find out who is actually saying it; it doesn’t, for example, have a list of signatories. The declaration came from a conference of businessmen and scientists sponsored by the Heartland Institute, …”
This is entirely incorrect.
1 - We, the International Climate Science Coalition, originated and own the Manhattan Declaration - you can see it on our Web site at http://tinyurl.com/6znkpn .
2 - The 1400 or so signatories is listed at http://tinyurl.com/5wynyc and will soon include another hundred of so people who’s endorsements we have yet to upload (my apologies for the delay to those on the waiting list who may be reading this).
3 - The executive of the ICSC created the declaration after hours while we were at Heartland’s conference in 2008 since it was a good opportunity to work together as we come from several countries (Canada, NZ, Australia, UK and the US). Heartland graciously allowed us to announce the declaration and invite endorsement the next morning at the conference but were careful to clarify that it is ICSC’s initiative entirely, not Heartland’s. When asked by media and others, Heartland continue to explain the fact that it is an ICSC project, pure and simple.
Now, if you disagree with anything that is actually said in the Manhattan Declaration, we are all ears. But making completely nonsensical statements about the origin and endorsers of the declaration is simply fabrication. An apology is in order, please.
Sincerely,
Tom Harris, B. Eng., M. Eng. (Mech. - thermo-fluids)
Executive Director
International Climate Science Coalition (ICSC)
P.O. Box 23013
Ottawa, Ontario
K2A 4E2
Canada
http://www.climatescienceinternational.org
[we're grateful to ICSC for their clarification]
No apology, or even response from Stretton Climate Care (I sent them the above in e-mail format as well) but at least they did allow my posting to appear on the site which may help some people to understand that the article’s reference to the Manhattan Declaration is nonsense.
The problem is, of course, when one knows part of a piece is easily proven to be wrong, one is left not feeling particularly confident in the content of the rest of the piece either. I think a better option, for the credibility of the piece and therefore Stretton Climate Care, is that the piece be edited to remove the wrong information entirely. Comments?
Tom Harris, B. Eng., M. Eng. (Mech. - thermo-fluids)
Executive Director
International Climate Science Coalition (ICSC)
P.O. Box 23013
Ottawa, Ontario
K2A 4E2
Canada
http://www.climatescienceinternational.org
I am delighted that the ICSC have joined in the debate with us. We knew we had an ever widening following in the U.K. but for our website to be monitored by folk in the States - does that mean we’ve really made it?
Of course there will be those who disagree with the majority of the leading scientists of the world, and all the major governments who will be meeting at Copenhagen at the end othe year and debate is healthy.
It’s sometimes useful to look deeply into the background of the disbelievers and discover who funds them. When George Bush was in power the oil and coal lobby were very active. I leave readers to draw their own conclusions.
Concerning my posting above, the anonymous Eco Warrior writes:
“We knew we had an ever widening following in the U.K. but for our website to be monitored by folk in the States - does that mean we’ve really made it?”
This is incorrect.
The ICSC is not based in the United States but is a worldwide organization with its executives working out of Canada (two executives, me and Professor Patterson) and New Zealand (two executives). We also have one director based in the UK and one based in the US.
As detailed on http://tinyurl.com/552ve6 , the ICSC draws experts from ten countries (South Africa, United Kingdom, United States (just one, aside from our US based director), Germany, Canada, New Zealand, Netherlands, Australia, France and Sweden); the ICSC executive and advisory boards consist of 25 highly qualified scientists, 14 policy and/or economics advisors and two energy consultants. For more information on ICSC you can visit http://www.climatescienceinternational.org
Undeterred, the Eco Warrior continues, “Of course there will be those who disagree with the majority of the leading scientists of the world, and all the major governments who will be meeting at Copenhagen at the end othe year and debate is healthy.”
It makes no difference what the governments are saying about the science as they will simply say what is easiest from a political perspective. If those who believe climate change is primarily natural start to gain the lead from a public perception point of view, more and more political leaders will start to say what we are saying, not knowing whether what we say is correct or not, of course.
The statement about “majority of the leading scientists of the world” has no basis in fact for one simple reason - THERE HAS NEVER BEEN A COMPREHENSIVE WORLDWIDE POLL OF THE TENS OF THOUSANDS OF SCIENTISTS WHO RESEARCH THE CAUSES OF GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE.
Sorry for yelling but one cannot make any statement about what “the majority of the leading scientists of the world” think since no one knows (or could know, without a suitable poll)
Eco Warrior continues: “It’s sometimes useful to look deeply into the background of the disbelievers [note from Tom - what is a disbeliever? This is supposed to be science, not religion, and skepticism is what science is all about, not 'belief'] and discover who funds them.”
Yes, at times is is somewhat interesting to look into the funding sources of people active on both sides, when such information is available. The David Suzuki Foundation (classified as a tax except organization and so which must release its funders’ identities) is funded by some of Canada’s largest corporations, including oil and gas companies (check their annual reports). Al Gore has made many, may millions with his books, videos and personal appearances and stands to make an even more massive fortune since he sells carbon credits. Exxon, among others, is now funding the Standford University research program looking for low carbon dioxide energy sources to the tune of about ten times what we are told they gave in total to helping fund communications activities against Gore, Suzuki, et al’s point of view.
Most non-profits that do not have tax except status keep the identities of their funders confidential to protect their privacy. Greenpeace, the Sierra Club, and our group, the ICSC, fall into that category. But attacking those groups based on assumed funding sources is just guesswork and an ad hominem that does not further the debate. Debating what the various groups are saying is all that matters.
So, I ask again, what in the Manhattan Declaration on Climate Change, or anything else the ICSC asserts, do you disagree with? That is all that is worth discussing since nature cares not at all about who says what, who funds whom, who is left and who is right; it just does what it does and it is the job of all good scientists to ‘believe’ nothing, if we truly want to protect the environment, and to do our best to uncover how nature actually works.
Sincerely,
Tom Harris
Executive Director
International Climate Science Coalition (ICSC)
Canada
http://www.climatescienceinternational.org
Actually, it doesn’t really matter who you believe. I commend everyone to the risk assessment approach outlined in http://www.youtube.com/user/wonderingmind42
It’s quite fun to look at, too.