"A while ago I read "Guns, germs and Steel. This analysed why some cultures arose and prospered at the expense of others."

I'll bet that was interesting, it wouldn't be because the cultures that prospered were better at using the most modern methods of food production and making war than the other cultures would it?

I don't know if you understand it EM, but this whole debate is about mitigation v. adaptation, the science is irrelevant and the alarmist scientists are political pawns, some willingly, some unwittingly, in an attempt to get control over every facet of our lives by the environmentalists.

I'm not a conspiracy theorist, our would be tormentors have written it all down in the writings of Maurice Strong, Agenda 21 and the Club of Rome's aims and objectives. They want to stop economic growth. Mitigation is the tool because it will control the energy we will use, once control has gotten into the wrong political hands the victory will be theirs. That would never work in a democracy, hence the calls for the environment to be put in the hands of a global government. unelected of course.

Adaptation means we continue with economic growth and adapt to climate change. The Stern report scuppered this by saying the percentage of GDP necessary to adapt would be too high and it would be cheaper to take action now. We have taken action and it should be clear to anyone that there is actually no action we can take that would mitigate CO2 emissions short of stopping China, India, Brazil, South Africa and Mexico short in their march out of poverty. To me that's not realistic, and the forecasts of plague, drought, floods, wars, and deaths are so stupidly extreme that I doubt they have a scintilla of scientific veracity in them anyway. To help you understand why it's not realistic try to think why you as an Indian in the slums of Bombay would want you're life and that of your children and grandchildren to continue as it is so we in the West could continue with our comfortable lifestyles. It's the equivalent of asking the steerage passengers on the Titanic to lock themselves in the hold..

Tol and others are saying that in their view the cost of adaptation will be between 10 and 100 times less than Stern put in his report. If you want a clear and intellectual critique of Stern I suggest you read Peter Lilley's paper. I don't believe Tol necessarily, but others too have questioned his report, among them Biorn Lomberg. All believe he's overegged the pudding, but he does work for Jeremy Grantham at the Grantham Institute, which is currently the Institute trying to smear Richard Tol through there PR man Bob Ward.

If there are disasters we will adapt, ocean rises that will cause any real change are likely of centennial and millennial time scales hopefully in countries that have gotten themselves in the same financial position as the western industrial societies with enough money to adapt. For sure mitigation by the West alone won't stop anything and the most realistic solution is to grow wealth and prosperity where there is currently none.

I must re-read it and see if it says anything about the medieval church soaking up most of the surplus production of those days.

Apr 6, 2014 at 2:07 PM | Registered CommenterMartin A

Look in "Collapse". The Greenland Norse wasted a lot of time and effort hunting walrus. The tusks were traded to Norway by the Bishop for church decorations and vestments, when what the colonists really needed was iron.

In the context of climate wars, "robust" means "good enough to be used as a club".

Geronimo

> but this whole debate is about mitigation v.
> adaptation, the science is irrelevant

That is odd, as I remember people here used to say their argument was all about the science. I have never believed that. Saying that science is irrelevant is odd too in that we don't know what we might have to adapt to without understanding the science. But if adaption is the only game in town, maybe all countries should do an Abbot and close down all research into climate.

Adaption is ok if you can. As I said elsewhere, the people of Somerset want 'adaption' to flooding but they want the rest of us to pay for it. That works in a rich country but in a poor country there is noone to pay. Do you believe that rich countries will or should pay for adaption in poor countries?

Chandra, you are being disingenuous there with the Somerset flooding as the primary cause was an EU mandated "benign neglect" of both the flood plain and drainage waterways (especially the latter).

Please don't do that.

Andy

Jones

Actually the Somerset Levels flooded because heavy rain draining down the rivers met storm surges coming up. Even without any "benign neglect" the flood defences would have been overwhelmed.

That's a hard one to answer I guess since the "benign neglect" rendered the normal defences less than they would have been.

Was the level of rain beyond the norm?

I suppose the question I'm asking is has there ever been similar or even higher levels of rainfall that did NOT result in the flooding seen?

Is there any robust evidence to contradict the narrative that an anthropogenic climate change effect was the cause?

I hope you can see what I'm driving at EM?

I would also hope you won't contradict the assertion that "benign neglect" was a factor? At the very least in the severity of the flooding.

Is there any robust evidence to contradict the narrative that an anthropogenic climate change effect was the cause?
Apr 7, 2014 at 1:35 AM | Unregistered Commenterjones

Yes. There have been notable recorded floods going back to 1607 at least, and others since. Not surprising for an area which is below the sea at high tides. Meantime, with a bit of engineering, the Dutch have stolen half a country from the North Sea.

What should be done with the levels, and at what cost, is a valid debate. But it's got nothing to do with carbon dioxide and global warming.

Indeed Michael.Thank you very much for that.

I'm quite sure too that EM has already worked out that I have a very leading and Socratic way with words. If I'm just plain wrong however I'm very good at saying fair enough.

He was just being contrary I suspect but that's OK because it gets one thinking. I know he will read this and I've already worked out that he has the greatest difficulty in conceding a point. A good strategy (usually) when one is correct of course but can be very "dangerous" if one is basing a stance on an opinion or attitude.

I always retain a streak of doubt with most things I'm told and believe. I don't think that's a bad thing personally.

Cheers again.

A

I would like to add that EM HAS fundamentally altered my former perception that scientists as a group were utilising the insane concept of "settled science". They clearly aren't. That was very much an unknown unknown on my part.

I also thank him for that. It certainly seems to be a political term and subsequently leaked into a mainstream consciousness (on BOTH sides of the debate).

Ta EM.

A

The silence is agreement, they do believe the science is settled to the extent that they believe in AGW and that it will be catastrophic, and they do believe the science is telling them that. Why they don't say the science is settled is self-evident, to make such a statement will give rise to questions when increased funding is demanded for climate science. Hence the realclimate article saying the "science is unsettled".

Their silence not only at the use of phrases but at the misrepresentation of the science in the AR5 SPMs is reprehensible, but don't be fooled into thinking they're not saying the science is settled, they are but using different words They're saying the evidence of AGW is "robust" when they know, or should know it's anything but robust. Or how about "hundreds of independent lines of evidence", another "the science is settled" substitute?

Or how about climategate and Dr. Slingo's round robin garnering 1700 signatures in support of the charlatans at the UEA, before she'd read the emails to boot. And then the silence, and overt support, for those who openly tried to conceal the uncertainties in the science to the general public.

I'm left with the impression that senior members of the climate science community would say anything, true of false, if they thought it would bolster their political "cause". But not "the science is settled" that's fund-threatening language.

Two asides:

Where's Richard Betts? I can understand why he doesn't come here all the time because, frankly, some on this blog are rude to him and he has every right to expect courtesy from us. On the other hand he does want to "communicate the science" and it would be interesting to see what he thinks of WGII, particularly the SPM.

Am I the only one who's noticed that when you make a point that disproves EM's position he never concedes, but simply stops talking about that particular subject and pulls another faux rabbit out of the hat?

Martin

No I haven't ever heard a rebuttal by the worthy..."All that evil needs to succeed is for good men to do nothing" (I'm quite sure they all consider themselves to be good men all....)

geronimo.

Yes, EM simply sidesteps unfortunately. That's OK though....Still be polite.Always.

Cheers

A

geronimo, I think it's partly the school teacher in him: if there is any disagreement with a pupil, he must always have the last word before the end of class. I guess it's a human trait we all share to a certain extent.

To some extent I can admire EM, it's pretty seamless if you're not looking for it. First he claimed that "the science is settled" was a phrase used by sceptics, when corrected by someone he said that he'd only seen it used by sceptics. When corrected again with the source of the statement he said he'd never heard climate scientists use the phrase. A piece of information I'd given him!

So we got from "the science is settled" being a phrase used by sceptics to one never being used by climate scientists pretty seamlessly, by-passing the need to admit that he'd been wrong in asserting it was a phrase only used by sceptics.

Geronimo and others

When you drift into conspiracy theory or other absurdities I disengage until you come back on topic. It is preferable to telling you that you are an idiot spouting complete bullshit, as that would be likely to offend.
Also, I am not surgically attached to my computer. I am sometimes away from it for minutes at a time. :-)

On "the science is settled", most of the Google links are to sceptics repeating variations on "The scientists say that the science of climate change is settled. It is not settled, therefore it is wrong."

I trust that you understand both the factual inaccuracy and the logical fallacy.

Jones

The problem with events such as the 2013/14 Winter flooding is statistical. One event cannot be assigned to climate change.You need to build up enough years of data to spot a trend of changing frequency and/or changing intensity. One "100 year" event means very little. If you get several in a few years, you start to wonder.
Theory would predict that a warmer, more energetic atmosphere carrying more water would produce more frequent and more intense storms. Until more data accumulates the best a meteorologist could say about the topic is that the storms might still have occurred without climate change, but it probably made them worse.

The storms had an unusual pattern of very low pressure, heavy rain, high frequency and unfortunate coincidence with spring tides. This meant that on the Somerset levels the water from the previous storm was still draining off the moors when the next storm arrived. The very low pressure produced very high peak sea levels. One sceptic here mentioned 15 foot storm surges along the Welsh coast.
The combination of high river levels and storm surge pushed the water levels above the top of the levees.
Dredging would have not have helped. Indeed it might have increased river flow at the wrong times and made the flooding worse!

Martin A

You complain that climate scientists do not engage in the political debate. Other sceptics complain when they do.

Make your collective mind up!

Jones

> you are being disingenuous there with the Somerset
> flooding as the primary cause was an EU mandated
> "benign neglect" of both the flood plain and
> drainage waterways (especially the latter).

> Please don't do that.

Did Ridley not say in his Spectator article the other day:

Ask yourself, if you were a resident of the Somerset Levels, whether you would prefer a government policy of adapting to anything the weather might throw at you, whether it was exacerbated by climate change or not, ...

Was he also being 'disingenuous'?

Whether you accept Somerset as an example or not, it is clear that someone must pay for adaption. And whether it is the levels or flood defences or whatever else, the amounts needed are beyond the means of individuals or even towns. So while people may want 'adaption' they also want the rest of us to pay for it. Explain to me who will pay in poor countries.

While you are complaining of EM or me dodging issues that you think you have 'proven' (ha!) answer me my question from above, do you believe that rich countries will or should pay for adaption in poor countries?

The body of the WGII report apparently contains an annual figure of $100bn. Are we going to dip deeply into our pockets?

EM "On "the science is settled", most of the Google links are to sceptics repeating variations on "The scientists say that the science of climate change is settled. It is not settled, therefore it is wrong."

I trust that you understand both the factual inaccuracy and the logical fallacy."

I googled the climate is settled and most web sites were not sceptics saying the climate is not settled therefore it is wrong. This would presumably be because most sceptics accept the "science" i.e that CO2 reflects some heat into the atmosphere. Beyond that there isn't much science. The rest, how hot it will get, how this will affect climate is largely best guesses.that's the theory the vast majority of people accept it

As for conspiracy theories, I don't believe that all sceptics are in the hands of "big oil", or that large corporations are behind scepticism that's for you chaps.

You have always reminded me of BBD with the pretence that you're widely read in the climate science literature and I've noticed a second characteristic of his emerging, abuse. I don't tell you your bullshitting, I simply try to correct you. You said that "the science is settled" was a phrase used by sceptics. I proved it wasn't nor was it used by scientists. So you moved effortlessly into saying it wasn't a phrase used by climate scientists, apparently "forgetting" you'd said it was used by sceptics, now you come up with fake web sites where sceptics say "The scientists say that the science of climate change is settled. It is not settled, therefore it is wrong."

There are plenty of sceptic web sites where aspects of the second tier science (how hot will it get? Is climate change causing extreme events? What will happen to the Labradorian parrot population? and the other junk science touted by warmists are challenged. But there are none, to my knowledge saying "Scientists say the science isn't settled. So the science is wrong. How about citing some for us?

If you want to have discussions where you make the arguments for the other side and then shoot them down could I suggest you get an invisible friend. It'd be easier for you.

"Other sceptics complain when they do."

Another effing strawman, when do climate scientists engage in public debate with other scientists? They won't, and with good reason, because once you get beyond CO2 is a greenhouse gas, your left with no scientific evidence as to how much the temperature has risen because of CO2, or how much it will rise because of CO2 and what the likely outcomes will be if the temperatures do rise. That's all speculation, or the output from models the software for which has been written by scientists who have hung their reputations CAGW. Unless you started out as one of the faithful it would soon become apparent how weak the science is and there's not a scientific activist on the planet who'd risk having this exposed to the public by debating another scientist.

From my perspective the climate science community prefers to hand down unchallengeable edicts to the hoi polloi. What's more they're hurt when a goodly portion of the non-faithful who are paying attention to what they say, question them, and cast doubts on their ability to foretell the future. I don't think they're ready to debate with anyone.

However I would be interested in who these climate scientists were who debated in public with other scientists.