An overview of the political process from Climategate to present. To quote myself: “even if you kick the political system between the legs, because like the proverbial dinosaur, the nerve impulse takes time to travel all that way up to the small brain at the top, it will still take many years for them to respond.”
Janice Atkinson of UKIP explaining the finer points of UKIP immigration policy to a one of the loud mouthed #racist #bigots
Back in January I began realising that society was going through a massive social change as a result of social media. It started with the realisation that the mainstream on climate was no longer the “mainstream” media, but in reality the “mainstream” was the blogosphere. (Climate bloggers: is CNM killing the Mainstream Media?)
Slowly, I began to realise that the change in power I was seeing between blogs and social media and the old “dinosaur press” as I began calling them (as they seemed doomed), was also being mirrored in other aspects of life. One was academia, (The end of the UK university?), but by far the bigger and faster changes (as it now appears) has been the political landscape of Britain which was reflected in my move to a bew blog: Scottish Independent People. I foresaw a massive change in politics in the UK. Continue reading
This post was left by Cedric Katesby.
I thought it was quite charming and even amusing in an odd sort of way, and as Cedric had clearly put some effort into it, I wanted to show my appreciate of his efforts everything from here on his his:
It occurred to me this evening listening to Donna, that some may wonder why I’ve stopped blogging. I think the answer is fairly simple: I tend to blog when I’m trying to work out something or thinking through an issue.
But except for the Donna lecture, there’s now little left for me to mull over on climate. Now I understand skeptics & those academics opposing them, I’m no longer curious about either side.
But even more odd, now I know skeptics will win, instead of being all the keener to see change, I’ve lost interest. I can only liken it to sneakily finishing the film when my wife goes to bed and then trying to pretend I’m interested the next evening.
How do I know skeptics will win?
This is why I’ve stopped blogging. The subject is no longer a question, but is more like a timetable.
Addendum
In light of some comments, I should just mention, that this is in no way an end for me as I operate a number of other sites:
In addition, I’ve got a few odd sites:
I was recently pointed in the direction of a paper by Dr Stephen Schneider, perhaps the most media-exposed Greenhouse expert, having developed a charismatic speaking style, complemented by his 1970s good looks, and penchant for extravagant claims about impending environmental disaster. For example, in a TV interview in 1990 to Britain’s Channel 4, he remarked
“The rate of change is so fast that I don’t hesitate to call it potentially catastrophic for ecosystems.”
The quote that caught my eye was this:
… estimates were made of the effects on global temperature of large increases in the amount of CO2 and dust in the atmosphere. It is found that even an increase by a factor of 8 in the amount of CO2, which is highly unlikely in the next several thousand years, will produce an increase in the surface temperature of less than 2 deg. K.
However, the effect on surface temperature of an increase in the aerosol content of the atmosphere is found to be quite significant. An increase by a factor of 4 in the equilibrium dust concentration in the global atmosphere, which cannot be ruled out as a possibility within the next century, could decrease the mean surface temperature by as much as 3.5 deg. K.
The Denier
Original: Pietro Perugino’s depiction of Mary at the Cross, 1482. (Now in National Gallery, Washington)
In The Scotsman
A recent survey of those participating in online forums showed that most of the 5,000 respondents were experienced engineers, scientists and IT professionals, most degree-qualified and around a third with post-graduate qualifications.
The survey, carried out by the Scottish Climate and Energy Forum, asked respondents for their views on CO² and the effect it might have on global temperatures.
The results were surprising: 96 per cent of respondents said that atmospheric CO² levels are increasing, with 79 per cent attributing the increase to man-made sources. Eighty-one per cent agreed global temperatures had increased over the 20th century and 81 per cent also agreed that CO² is a warming gas. But only 2 per cent believed that increases in CO² would cause catastrophic global warming.
So what’s going on? Above all, these highly qualified people – experts in their own spheres – look at the published data and trust their own analysis, so their views match the available data.
They agree that the climate warmed over the 20th century (this has been measured), that CO² levels are increasing (this too has been measured) and that CO² is a warming gas (it helps trap heat in the atmosphere and the effects can be measured).
Beyond this, the survey found that 98 per cent of respondents believe that the climate varies naturally and that increasing CO² levels won’t cause catastrophic warming.
Overwhelmingly, participants in this large-scale survey support the science. However, this is not how they have been portrayed in the media, with what are now shown to be false allegations of “denial”.
Climate and energy are important issues, not just for us today but for our children, so now we know the facts about so called “sceptics”, please let’s see an end to this name-calling.
Instead please start listening to those which this survey shows have the qualifications, experience and background to understand the real impacts of changing energy use on our economy: the basic science is right, but the models were not, and the very best “jury” I can imagine says we are unlikely to be heading toward a climate catastrophe.
Whilst waiting for the survey to finish, I’ve been doing some work on maximum length sequences.
First what is a maximal length sequence? In practice they are an apparently random set of numbers all with an equal number of bits, n, such that the length of the sequence is 2^n or often 2^n – 1 (as sometimes one number such as all zeros might never change.)
So, let’s use a simple example where n is 2 so we get a two bit sequence with numbers 0 to 3 .The simplest sequence is that created by the rule that when we get to the maximum number we return to zero as in 0,1,2,3,0,1,2,3,0,1,2,3, etc. . But in general, we can specify any sequence by stating the rules underlying the sequence. If for example we have the following transformations:
00->10, 01 -> 11, 10 -> 01, and 11 ->00
we get the sequence:
00, 10, 01, 11, 00, 10, etc. Continue reading
The Scottish Climate & Energy Forum has been conducting a survey on the background and attitudes of participants to online climate discussions. The survey had a massive response which will take time and resource to process. However initial analysis already shows that the actual views and backgrounds of participants are in sharp contrast with some high-profile statements being made about the participants. Therefore I felt we should make these initial results known as soon as practical to avoid further damage, both to the reputation of those involved in the online debate, as well as those making the unfounded and presumably mistaken accusations of “denial”.
As such, I am releasing the following statement regarding the survey.
A sceptical consensus: the science is right but catastrophic global warming is not going to happen
A recent survey of those participating in on-line forums showed that most of the 5,000 respondents were experienced engineers, scientists and IT professionals most degree qualified and around a third with post graduate qualifications. The survey, carried out by the Scottish Climate and Energy Forum, asked respondents for their views on CO2 and the effect it might have on global temperatures. The results were surprising. 96% of respondents said that atmospheric CO2 levels are increasing with 79% attributing the increase to man-made sources. 81% agreed that global temperatures had increased over the 20th century and 81% also agreed that CO2 is a warming gas. But only 2% believed that increases in CO2 would cause catastrophic global warming.
So what’s going on?
Above all, these highly qualified people – experts in their own spheres – look at the published data and trust their own analysis, so their views match the available data. They agree that the climate warmed over the 20th century (this has been measured), that CO2 levels are increasing (this too has been measured) and that CO2 is a warming gas (it helps trap heat in the atmosphere and the effects can be measured). Beyond this, the survey found that 98% of respondents believe that the climate varies naturally and that increasing CO2 levels won’t cause catastrophic warming.
What next?
Overwhelmingly participants in this large scale survey support the science, however this is not how they have been portrayed in the media and this has led to deep and bitter divides between those who hold different viewpoints. This debate should be based on the evidence and that not only includes the scientific evidence on the climate, but also the evidence of the real participants involved in the debate. Given the huge number of responses and detail of questions a full assessment will take up to one year to complete. This is a huge commitment from an organisation that has no outside funding and is reliant on one full-time volunteer (Mike Haseler). We will therefore be approaching the Scottish and UK government with a view to obtaining funding to complete the analysis.
Up early I went to uClimate: “Why’s everyone stopped blogging?” Turned out when I added google it stopped updating other sites. Now fixed!
