Uncategorized

The UK Meteorology Bureau is running a training course on climate change, but not just any course. According to the flyer you don’t need any prior scientific training and you will learn how to “dispel sceptism”. 

Climate change — what you need to know

A seminar for professionals 2008

The scientific evidence is overwhelming — our climate is changing. These changes will affect all organisations – commercial and governmental, local and international.

To plan effectively for the future, influencers and decision-makers need to understand how the climate will change and how this may impact their organisation. This one-day seminar from the Met Office will equip you with the knowledge of climate change you need to:

Make the best decisions for your organisation, so that the plans you make today safeguard your future success in a changing climate.

Using the latest research from the world-leading Met Office Hadley Centre – the authoritative voice on climate change – this seminar builds an understanding of why and how our climate is changing and the likely impacts. Focusing on how we can plan for the future, this seminar also explores some of the options available for organisations to reduce (mitigate) and prepare for (adapt to) climate change.

What you’ll learn

By the end of the seminar, you will:

• understand why and how our climate is changing and the likely impacts;
• be equipped to dispel scepticism about climate change in your organisation and ensure your colleagues’ engagement;
• know the steps you need to take to factor climate change into the decisions you make for your organisation.

Who should attend

This seminar is designed for professionals in the public and private sectors. It’s particularly appropriate for those with responsibility for, or interest in, planning, projects and policies. No prior scientific training is required.

I find it extraordinary that an institution that purports to be about science, a bureau of meteorology, would seek to “dispel sceptism”. 

Science is the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experimentation.  Science is about inquiry and is best undertaken by those who are inquisitive, prepared to question, to doubt, to ruthlessly follow the evidence.  

That the UK Meteorology Bureau, a place of science, is concerned with “dispelling sceptism” is a worrying sign.  Indeed without scepticism, can education be more than propaganda?

Americans will go to the elections in November and the Republican Presidential nominee, John McCain, has chosen a woman who believes in hunting wildlife and drilling for oil in Alaska as his running mate.

Hunting and drilling in wilderness areas are issues that many politicians in the western world tend to shy away from or actively reject, but not Palin.

According to Larry Kudlow, writing for the National Review Online, Palin knows more about energy policy than McCain, Obama, or Biden and she knows that there is a lot of oil under Alaska and she believes that the expectation it can be exploited will bring the price of petrol down.

—————
Sarah Palin has the Energy Answer
By Larry Kudlow, National Review Online
September 3, 2008
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NzYyMmU0ODE1ZjFlMjZkODcwNTdiOTgzYjI4ODdlYWI

Hat tip to Benny Peiser for the link.

Some who adhere to the global warming theory use the Precautionary Principle (PP) as a reason to act. Their claims are that even if the science is not guaranteed as to the cause and effect of our emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) that the PP dictates that we act to reduce our emissions. That is, if Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) theory has a potential to be wrong, because we cannot have 100% certainty as to the effects of our emissions of CO2, then we must act anyway because the PP applies.

Surprisingly there is no specific definition of the Precautionary Principle.**

Wikipedia has this: “The precautionary principle is a moral and political principle which states that if an action or policy might cause severe or irreversible harm to the public, in the absence of a scientific consensus that harm would not ensue, the burden of proof falls on those who would advocate taking the action.”

According to Bill Durodie in ‘An Apology for Capitalism’, “One of the more authoritative [definitions] versions comes from the 1992 Rio ‘Earth’ Summit. It contains a rather cumbersome triple negative, to the effect that not having evidence is not a justification for not taking action. If we undo a couple of the knots, then as two negatives make a positive, we are left with ‘action without evidence is justified’. That’s it, in a nutshell. The precautionary principle is, above all else, an invitation to those without evidence, expertise or authority, to shape and influence political debates. It achieves that, by introducing supposedly ethical elements into the process of scientific, corporate and governmental decision making.”

Is the use of the PP as a reason for acting to change climate change justified? The Wikipedia definition has two important aspects: morals and politics. Both of these are highly abused and twisted depending upon the political bent of the people wheedling the PP sword.

Does the PP require us to act to stop climate change? I would argue no. There are two simple reasons for this.
First, does invoking action actually change the course of climate change? According to Wiki “burden of proof falls on those who would advocate taking the action.” Thus those who advocate taking action to curb climate change need to show us that taking action will actually achieve the desired goal. It’s not like some potential new drug coming to the market where the company needs to show that it is safe. There is no action on the part of the advocates of caution there as they just prevent the drug from coming on to market. What the advocates of PP on climate change want is for positive actions to take place. This includes spending billions on things like the carbon trade system and billions more on carbon sequestering. Thus the burden of proof falls on them to show that these actions they propose will actually work, and not do more harm than good.

Second, what is the cost of the proposed actions? Does the cost of action out trump the “costs” of inaction? This is a common sidestep by those who advocate action by saying the cost of inaction will be much more. But the economy is so complex, so interdependent, that there is no way that such evidence can be shown. Furthermore, economic models are notorious for being grossly wrong, worse than climate models.

In conclusion, we should forcefully challenge any claim that the PP be used as a reason to act against climate change. We must demand that they show that the use of the PP, and their actions, can be justified.

Richard Wakefield
London, Ontario, Canada

———–
** Gary Marchant and Kenneth Mossman explain in their book ‘Arbitrary and Capricious: The Precautionary Principle in the European Union Courts’, (International Policy Press, 2005) that the more than sixty European Union judicial opinions mentioning the PP, with perhaps a single exemption, do not attempt to define the PP and that the European Union Courts are well aware that the PP is not defined in European Union legislation, in specific regulatory enactments, or by the EU courts themselves (pg.31).

This blog is a gathering place for people with a common interest in politics and the environment. I strive for tolerance and respect. I don’t always agree with what I publish, but I believe in giving people an opportunity to be heard. I take no responsibility for comments and hyperlinks that follow each blog post and some content may be considered offensive by some people.

The Victorian Government has awarded a fiction writer, Richard Flanagan, their highest award for outstanding journalism.

The judges awarded the John Curtin Prize for Journalism to Richard Flanagan for an article on “the tragedy” of Tasmania’s forests, a piece that was described by Australia’s Minister for Forests, Eric Abetz, in June last year as including 70 deliberate or inexcusable errors of fact, selective citing of fact, or twisting of facts.

The award comes just a week after Guardian journalist Nick Davies described journalism as increasingly about falsehood, distortion and propaganda at the Melbourne Writers Festival. Mr Davies has written a book on the trajedy entitled Flat Earth News.

My advice, keep reading blogs!
————-

Out of Control: The Tragedy of Tasmania’s Forests
Richard Flanagan, Published in The Monthly, May 2007, No. 23
http://www.themonthly.com.au/tm/?q=node/512

Hat tip to Alan Ashbarry
http://www.tasmaniapulpmill.info/home