MICHAEL BUERK ON THE CLIMATE SUMMIT

So why no debate on the assumptions behind the more apocalyptic forecasts?

Example: the UN forecast 50 million climate refugees by 2010 – where are they?

 

[Image courtesy of 1_sparky via Flickr.com ©©]

Agitator/Climate summit

 

The latest so-called Climate Summit, that’s been taking place in Durban, hasn’t made many waves. It could be because global warming seems less daunting if you can no longer afford heating bills. It could also be that we’re getting fed up with the bogus certainties and quasi-religious tone of the great climate change non-debate.

Now, I don’t know for certain that man’s activities are causing the planet to heat up. Nobody does. We simply cannot construct a theoretical model that can cope with all the variables.

For what it’s worth, I think anthropogenic warming is taking place, and, anyway, it would be a good thing to stop chucking so much bad stuff into the atmosphere.

 

What gets up my nose is being infantilized by governments, by the BBC, by the Guardian that there is no argument, that all scientists who aren’t cranks and charlatans are agreed on all this, that the consequences are uniformly negative, the issues beyond doubt and the steps to be taken beyond dispute.

 

You’re not necessarily a crank to point out that global temperatures change a great deal anyway. A thousand years ago we had a Mediterranean climate in this country; 200 years ago we were skating every winter on the Thames.

And actually there has been no significant rise in global temperatures for more than a decade now.

We hear a lot about how the Arctic is shrinking, but scarcely anything about how the Antarctic is spreading, and the South Pole is getting colder.

Droughts aren’t increasing. There are fewer of them, and less severe, than a hundred years ago. The number of hurricanes hasn’t changed, the number of cyclones and typhoons has actually fallen over the last 30 years.

And so on.

There may be answers, I think there probably are - to all these quibbles – I would like to hear them.

I don’t want the media to make up my mind up for me.

I don’t need to be told things by officialdom in all its forms, that are not true, or not the whole truth, for my own good.

I resent the implication that the exercise of my reason is “inappropriate”, an act of generational selfishness, a heresy.

I want a genuine debate about the assumptions behind the more apocalyptic forecasts.

As recently as 2005, for instance, the UN said there would be 50 million climate refugees by 2010.

That was last year.

OK – so where are they?

I would like to hear a clash of informed opinion about what would actually be better if it got warmer as well as worse.

Where do you see reported the extraordinary greening of the Sahel, and shrinking of the Sahara that’s been going on for 30 years now – the regeneration of vegetation across a huge, formerly arid swathe of dirt poor Africa. More warming means more rainfall. More CO2 means plants grow bigger, stronger, faster.

 

I would like a real argument over climate change policy, if only to rid myself of the nagging feeling that sometimes it’s a really good excuse for banging up taxes and public-sector job creation.

 

It’s not happening. It’s a secular issue but skepticism is heresy.

 

They talk the language of science, but it is really a post-God religion that rejects relativist materialism.

Its imperative is moral.

It looks to a society where some choices are obviously, and universally held to be, better than others.

A life where having what we want is not a right and nature puts constraints on the free play of desires.

To reinvent, in short, a life where there is good and bad, right and wrong.

As with all religions, whether the underlying narrative is true, has become beside the point.

 

ends

Image courtesy of 1_sparky via Flickr.com ©©

Latest comments

Leave a comment

  • Alan (04.01.2012,

    Regarding the flat temperature trend for the last decade which you characterize as misinformation from cranks: We’re not misinformed by cranks; we’re informed (in this case) by the faithful. The data at NASA GISS (think James Hansen, climate martyr) trend flat since at least 2001. See http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.C.gif

  • Forget opinions consult the data and you will see very clearly that throughout history there is no evidence of any description that Co2 has or could wreak the degree of havoc predicted by the ipcc and its collective of muddle headed greed driven miscreants.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iMQk-q8SpBU&feature=related

    The above shortcut takes you to a Canadian Senate hearing where you can see clearly why the current impasse continues to merit a holocaust of irrelevant misguided emotive and noxious green gibberish, it seems very few people have the intellect to recognise the difference between fact and opinion, between data and propaganda, this is what you say what about what the other side says, irrelevant just look at the numbers and if you can manage this comparatively simple task then you will soon recognise that you are considerably higher up the scale of intellect than those who presume to know better. Good luck it is a redeeming experience.

  • It seems that we will sidestep the most destructive of the proposed “solutions” to AGW, which coincidentally sound like long-time liberal policy prescriptions of higher taxes, more governmental power over industry and the citizenry, and the redistribution of wealth.

    We’ll suffer through some of it of course, such as taxes on jets for the carbon footprint of air travel, and Europe has some cap and trade boondoggles going on, but the dream of sucking $100 billion a year out of guilt-ridden Western economies seems to be fading.

  • “And actually there has been no significant rise in global temperatures for more than a decade now.”

    This is the giveaway line which tells us clearly that you are allowing yourself to be misinformed by cranks. You are either too ignorant or too lazy to properly interpret “significance” in this context, and your statement is scientifically irrelevant.

  • I hope that Mr Buerk has no need of his BBC income because publishing subversive material could mean that his coat will soon be hanging on a shugglie nail.

    This will be a pity because the BBC badly needs journalists of Buerk’s calibre which he convincingly demonstrates in the insight he offers contained in the last 5 short sentences of this expertly crafted piece.

    Mr Buerk is not alone in seeing that catastrophic anthropogenic global warming is a belief system rather than science but unlike most he has got a reasonable grip on the underlying reason. I expect that comes from his years of mind wrestling training on the Moral Maze.

    Having said all that perhaps Mr Buerk has a fine sense of timing and thinks that expressing these views is no longer carreericide at the BBC. I really hope so.

  • [...] BBC journalist, Michael Buerk has a short podcast entitled Michael Buerk on the Climate Summit at a new blog that I have just come across called The Fifth Column. It has some thought-provoking [...]

  • Presumambly the author of this podcast is aware of the conflicts of interrest within the BBC’s environment team..

    ie the fact that the BBC’s Roger Harrabin was discovered (climategate 2 emails) to have been on the Advisory Board of the Tyndall Centre at UEA.

    At he same tme Tyndall centre were funding Roger Harrabin’s (and OU’s Dr Joe Smith) Cambridge Media and Environment Programmme to influence the media especially the BBC, with Tyndall agenda. Not least by running seminars at the BBC..

    An almost unbelievable conflict of interest..

    As reported at Watts Up With That:
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/27/climategate-2-impartiality-at-the-bbc/

    extract: Mike Hulme:

    “Did anyone hear Stott vs. Houghton on Today, radio 4 this morning? Woeful stuff really. This is one reason why Tyndall is sponsoring the Cambridge Media/Environment Programme to starve this type of reporting at source.” (email 2496)”

    so when Roger Harrabibn interviewed and reported on climategate, why did he interview the very people implicated (and had a relationship with)…. why did he NOT mention the attempts to avoid FOI, the deltetion of emails in the face of FOI, all common knowledge. just focused on the ‘trick’ to ‘hide the decline’ with the very people implicarted defending it..

    BBC has indeed been lost to a ‘culture of environmentalism’

  • [...]  Audio Podcast: MICHAEL BUERK ON THE CLIMATE SUMMIT  The latest so-called Climate Summit, that’s been taking place in Durban, hasn’t made many waves. It could be because global warming seems less daunting if you can no longer afford heating bills. It could also be that we’re getting fed up with the bogus certainties and quasi-religious tone of the great climate change non-debate. [...]

  • [...] Debate 29/12/2011FeaturedNo comments   thegwpf.org Wednesday, 28 December 2011  Audio Podcast: MICHAEL BUERK ON THE CLIMATE SUMMIT   The latest so-called Climate Summit, that’s been taking place in Durban, hasn’t made [...]

  • Well said Michael, I only hope your career at the BBC isn’t threatened by your temerity, it didn’t do David Bellamy any favours to be so truthful

    Regards A

Sorry, this post is closed for comments