The death rattle of the climate campaign will be deafening. It has too much political momentum and fanatical devotion to go quietly. The climate campaigners have been fond of warning of catastrophic “tipping points” for years. Well, a tipping point has indeed arrived?–just not the one the climate campaigners expected.
The lingering question is whether the collapse of the climate campaign is also a sign of a broader collapse in public enthusiasm for environmentalism in general. Ted Nordhaus and Michael Shellenberger, two of the more thoughtful and independent-minded figures in the environmental movement, have been warning their green friends that the public has reached the point of “apocalypse fatigue.” They’ve been met with denunciations from the climate campaign enforcers for their heresy. The climate campaign has no idea that it is on the cusp of becoming as ludicrous and forlorn as the World -Esperanto Association.
Read it all here.
Let’s not dance on the grave just yet. I’m reminded of the quote from Mark Twain:
“Reports of my death have been greatly exaggerated.”
daddy dave
18 Mar 10 at 10:08 am
He claims to have read papers on tropical cyclones.
I think not
both Knutson etal in 2010 and Elsner etal in 2008 found that although tropical cyclones are not getting more numerous yet there are far more high intensity cyclones than before.
for example on p11 Knutson etal say ‘Despite this lack of of an increase in total storm count, we project that a future increase in the globally averaged frequency of the strongest tropical cyclones is more likely that not- a higher confidence level than at our previous assessment’ ( which was in 2006).
Elsner says on on p1 in the summary ‘we find significant upward trends for wind speeds quartiles above the 70th percentile….. Our results are qualitatively consistent with the hypothesis that as the seas warm, the ocean has more energy to convert to tropical wind’.
this bloke is the pot calling the kettle black.
oh and no few people doubt that glaciers are receding rapidly for example see the study by the USGS in 2009 on Antarctic glaciers
Butterfield, Bloomfield & Bishop
18 Mar 10 at 10:17 am
‘Despite this lack of of an increase in total storm count, we project that a future increase in the globally averaged frequency of the strongest tropical cyclones is more likely that not- a higher confidence level than at our previous assessment’ .
No trend to date, but we project….The problem with climate science writ large.
dover_beach
18 Mar 10 at 11:19 am
If we abandon addressing climate change it will indeed be a requiem, but not for the environmental movement but for the species as a whole. That moment at which we faced the world with open eyes, and decided it was all too hard.
Nietzsche’s last man is indeed here, and he is us.
Andrew Carr
18 Mar 10 at 11:30 am
Get a grip Andrew. You’ve obviously been reading Clive Hamilton.
There is nothing ‘we’ as in Australia can do alone notwithstanding Rudd’s grandiosity.
We will muddle through and adapt.
jtfsoon
18 Mar 10 at 11:34 am
FTR
I do actually think there could be some early mover advantage if we get to zero carbon before other countries do when they finally decide to get moving. Plus anything which depletes the revenue base of the jihad-financiers is a good thing. But that’s quite separate from whether we would be doomed if we held off doing anything before anyone else.
jtfsoon
18 Mar 10 at 11:39 am
Andy:
Which Byron bay seminary are you attending to further your religious studies?
JC
18 Mar 10 at 11:43 am
If we abandon addressing climate change it will indeed be a requiem, but not for the environmental movement but for the species as a whole. That moment at which we faced the world with open eyes, and decided it was all too hard.
Nietzsche’s last man is indeed here, and he is us.
This has a ‘Sorrows of the Young Werther’ ring to it.
dover_beach
18 Mar 10 at 12:06 pm
Snoopy you cannot differentiate between TOTAL storm count and storm counts involving Hurricanes and cyclones of intensity.
not surprised at that.
Butterfield, Bloomfield & Bishop
18 Mar 10 at 12:06 pm
Snoopy you cannot differentiate between TOTAL storm count and storm counts involving Hurricanes and cyclones of intensity.
not surprised at that.
Homer, let me quote the abstract for you:
Let me quote the quotation you provided:
In other words, there has been no observed trend to date, certainly none that can be attributed to AGW, but they project via their models the emergence of a trend this century.
Homer, you beclown yourself again.
dover_beach
18 Mar 10 at 12:16 pm
Breaking:
Power bills to rise by up to 64pc in NSW.
Looks like the Homer’s accountant, Possum, did the numbers for this dopey scheme.
C.L.
18 Mar 10 at 12:51 pm
If we abandon addressing climate change it will indeed be a requiem, but not for the environmental movement but for the species as a whole. That moment at which we faced the world with open eyes, and decided it was all too hard.
Nietzsche’s last man is indeed here, and he is us.
HAHAHAHAHAHA!
Yes folks, it’s a religious cult.
C.L.
18 Mar 10 at 12:52 pm
Homer’s buddy, Possum suggested that we should insulate our homes every year… in order to eliminate risk of fires.
According to this statistical genius the more Lurch style insulation the less fires there are.
the dark side of public ed.
JC
18 Mar 10 at 12:55 pm
CL:
Congratulate Andy, as he’s been admitted to the Byron Bay Hot Rock Therapy and new Age Center for Religious Teaching.
JC
18 Mar 10 at 12:58 pm
Snoopy you clown how in the hell do you get projections? go to page 7
Butterfield, Bloomfield & Bishop
18 Mar 10 at 1:00 pm
Andrew,
There isn’t a single scientist that claims that humans won’t survive global warming, even in the worst case scenario.
daddy dave
18 Mar 10 at 1:06 pm
Snoopy you clown how in the hell do you get projections? go to page 7
page 7 of Knutson? That would be the reference page, but I’ll be kind and assume you meant page 6 which I shall quote in full:
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v3/n3/abs/ngeo779.html
In other words, again, there is no discernible trend, or AGW fingerprint in tropical storm activity, but they project via theoretical modelling that these will emerge this century.
You beclown yourself again and again, Homer.
dover_beach
18 Mar 10 at 1:53 pm
Homer,
post hoc propter hoc
Ever heard of that?
Rococo Liberal
18 Mar 10 at 2:06 pm
The only way we “get to zero carbon” is if we are all dead.
I guess a Green really would think that was “a first mover advantage”.
Bill
18 Mar 10 at 2:29 pm
Bill – you’ve got to be dead and finished decomposing.
Sinclair Davidson
18 Mar 10 at 2:36 pm
actually Snoopy I was thinking of page 7 where it says
‘ Analyses of globally consistent satellite-based intensity estimates since 1981 indicate the trends in the best track data are indeed inflated ,but do support an increase in globally in the intensities of the strongest tropical cyclones.’
you read this like you read Tooze and understand it about as well.
Butterfield, Bloomfield & Bishop
18 Mar 10 at 2:43 pm
actually Snoopy I was thinking of page 7 where it says
‘ Analyses of globally consistent satellite-based intensity estimates since 1981 indicate the trends in the best track data are indeed inflated ,but do support an increase in globally in the intensities of the strongest tropical cyclones.’
you read this like you read Tooze and understand it about as well.
That quotation appears on p. 4 (p 160 of the journal) not p. 7, Homer, and it is a reference to Elsner et al (2008).
And lets quote the two paragraphs that follow that statement because they include the caveats:
You’ve beclowned yourself again, Homer.
dover_beach
18 Mar 10 at 3:02 pm
you are an idiot.
I have only argued that that it says we are getting more tropical cyclones of greater intensity not why we are.
I do note 3.8.3 of the IPCC report says. pretty much the same thing EXCEPT it was written pre-Knutson and Elsner. ( Noting of course one is a general paper and one is more specific.)
you would have noted that in the linked piece of Junk from the AEI he said it contradicted the IPCC.
you have Rtischled yourself AGAIN.
Butterfield, Bloomfield & Bishop
18 Mar 10 at 3:24 pm
Homer
Post hoc propter hoc seems to be a logical fallacy reserved just for you.
Rococo Liberal
18 Mar 10 at 3:32 pm
Homes puts the final nail in the coffin of the IPCC buy citing it. That’s all it needs after the Doc Pach antics.
JC
18 Mar 10 at 3:35 pm
Oh dear RL what does that say about people who claim a report says something when it says something else.
Butterfield, Bloomfield & Bishop
18 Mar 10 at 4:14 pm
I have only argued that that it says we are getting more tropical cyclones of greater intensity not why we are.
and this is what you said initially
both Knutson etal in 2010 and Elsner etal in 2008 found that although tropical cyclones are not getting more numerous yet there are far more high intensity cyclones than before.
If there were “far more” they would have detected a AGW signal, that the trend detected by Elsner et al (2008) cannot be distinguished from internal natural variability means it fails to defeat the null hypothesis.
Slippery little eel aren’t you, Homer, but yet again, you’ve beclowned yourself.
dover_beach
18 Mar 10 at 4:20 pm
Y’know just because a projection on glaciers turns out to be wrong doesn’t actually discredit AGW entirely. It’s a little too early to conduct a requiem.
.
But I’d recommend Mozart’s if you must.
Adrien
18 Mar 10 at 5:56 pm
Trouble is, Adrien, he didn’t compose all of it.
Verdi would do the job better.
Ken Nielsen
18 Mar 10 at 9:30 pm
Sarah Brightman??? anyone?
Sinclair Davidson
18 Mar 10 at 9:32 pm