high tide or global warming?
Someone on the radio mentioned the great freeze of 1963 today. A bit of quick research on the net revealed that this was a bit of cold weather in the UK with record low temperatures which started at Christmas and lasted through to early March. I recall a hot summer we had in 1976 and, of course it’s a cliché, that people used to be able to skate on the Thames when it froze over.
These days all discussion of weather revolves around the subject of climate change. If we are sceptical and refer people to the winter of ’63 or the summer of ’76 to demonstrate that weather is variable then people will scoff and tell us that, of course, there will always be national variations but that the general trend will be warming.
It occurs to me that if we are supposed to accept that 1963 and 1976 are natural variations which have no baring on climate change then surely the effect of this climate change is minimal. Yes the average temperature may increase by a few degrees but if we’re saying that it’s still a lottery wether we get a cold winter or a hot summer then who cares?
I heard Nigel Lawson say that he had an estimate that handling climate change would take 1% of global GDP. This sounded a lot until he pointed out that 5% of global GDP had already been spent on handling the credit crunch. That puts it into perspective. Maybe his figures are wrong but the way the pro climate change lobby carry on you would think it would take 95% of GDP.
I guess I mean that all of the argument seems to revolve around whether there is global warming and whether the warming is man made. None of it seems to be concerned with the effect of the warming except for some vague assertions that “we will see more of this” every time we have a bit of extreme weather.
I am not denying climate change but I am aware that most people don’t understand it and most of the people that claim to have merely learned the scientific arguments in favour until they can recite them verbatim. And even these people seem to make no real effort to change their lifestyle other than insulating their loft or buying dodgy carbon offsets for their self indulgent international travel.
I recall that when Tony Blair was pontificating about the subject in 2007 he was asked whether he would refrain from taking holidays abroad and he scoffed at this. While he didn’t mind exhorting us to cut back he wouldn’t actually be doing anything that affected his own lifestyle.
We humans love a catastrophe. If it’s not nuclear Armageddon it global cooling and if it’s not global cooling it’s global warming. I wonder if anyone has considered that the earth might warm up a little bit but no real harm will be done?
One of the arguments made by climate change sceptics is that, as climate change becomes more of an issue, more funds are directed to the study of climate change and this produces more argument in favour of climate change.
Since the essence of the scientific method is to disprove an assertion, rather than to prove it, I would like to see a separate scientific body created with a mission to:
- Disprove the assertion that climate change will effect humanity in any significant way
- Disprove the assertion that climate change is man made
- Disprove that climate change exists
I am not arguing that climate change is a myth but that if a scientific body with such a remit failed then it would give more credibility to the climate change lobby than than a bunch of fanatics who regard climate change as an article of faith.
Oh, yes, and telecommuting. Instead of spending hours in our cars we should stay in bed an extra couple of hours a day and work from home. We’d be less tired, more able to think clearly and we’d cut down on the emission of an enormous amount of CO2.
Photography
