Lack of Environment

A blog on the politics and psychology underlying the denial of all our environmental problems

If global warming has stopped…

with 23 comments

N.B. I have not actually written this book (i.e. this is a joke)!

N.B. I have not actually written this book (i.e. this is a joke)!

Can someone please explain why…
Arctic ice is still disappearing.
Biodiversity is still reducing.
Coral reefs are still dying.
Deserts are still growing.
Experts are still worrying.
Fisheries are still shrinking.
Glaciers are still retreating.
Heatwaves are still coming.
Ice caps are still melting.
Jungles are still burning.
Koch Brothers are still lobbying.
Lindzen is still obfuscating.
Micheal Mann is still winning.
Non-experts are still losing.
Oceans are still expanding.
Positive feedbacks are still emerging.
Quackery is still appealing.
Risks are still increasing.
Sea levels are still rising.
Temperature records are still breaking.
Uncertainties are still reducing.
Vanuatu is still sinking.
W, X, Y and Z are still missing.

See here for more on spoof book cover.

Written by Martin Lack

20 August 2013 at 00:02

23 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Dunno Martin.

    Perhaps you ought to ask the Met Office, after all only a couple of weeks ago they published no less than three (3) papers making excuses for the “pause” (their description), and solemnly assuring us that the warming would continue sooner or later – honest!


    20 August 2013 at 02:23

    • Have you considered taking part in ultra-marathons, Catweazle? Your determination to keep running down the up escalator is truly impressive. Remember, sceptics question and review their conclusions; they do not cherry-pick data capable of supporting their beliefs and reject all the evidence that does not. That is something else entirely.

      Martin Lack

      20 August 2013 at 09:13

      • Nice bit of messenger-shooting there, Martin.

        That’s the Met Office there asserting that warming has paused for the last 15 years, not me, I’m only pointing out what they have published. Here’s the heading and first paragraph of that news bulletin

        The recent pause in warming

        Global mean surface temperatures rose rapidly from the 1970s, but have been relatively flat over the most recent 15 years to 2013. This has prompted speculation that human induced global warming is no longer happening, or at least will be much smaller than predicted. Others maintain that this is a temporary pause and that temperatures will again rise at rates seen previously.

        Do you think they’re “deniers” too?

        Or are YOU “denying” that warming has paused over the last 15 years?

        The Met Office are postulating that the science is by no means as settled as you would appear to believe, and is still subject to debate, which is my position exactly.

        From your reply to my post above: Remember, sceptics question and review their conclusions; they do not cherry-pick data capable of supporting their beliefs and reject all the evidence that does not. That is something else entirely.

        Do you consider yourself to be a sceptic? You show no evidence for it, very much the opposite, in fact.
        [I have allowed this ad hominem remark because – given my (A to V) list of all the things one must ignore – it is evidence of the intellectual incoherence displayed by anyone who insists that global warming has stopped. Thanks Catweazle: Far from shooting the messenger, I think you have shot yourself in the foot. – ML]


        20 August 2013 at 14:19

        • Oh, and by way, re your question about marathons, I was indeed a long distance runner in my youth – and rather good at it too, but I gave it up when I started racing motorcycles.


          20 August 2013 at 14:29

        • So was I, Catweazle (a runner that is)! What was your best time for a half marathon (mine was 91 minutes)?

          Martin Lack

          20 August 2013 at 15:51

        • Far from shooting the messenger, Catweazle, I was merely pointing out that you are cherry-picking the only data that supports policy inaction.

          The Met Office repeatedly explain their position. Unlike you, they do not ignore inconvenient data (and neither do they deny that ACD is a problem that urgently needs to be solved by reducing CO2 emissions).

          My assertion that you are running down the up escalator acknowledges two realities:
          1. The hiatus/plateau/pause since 1998; and
          2. The cause of the long term warming trend.

          In appearing to suggest that I do not value true scepticism, you merely demonstrate how little you understand me. In many ways, I would probably be far better off doubting the reality of anthropogenic climate disruption (ACD). However, I am not the one who is allowing my politics to determine which science I accept and which I do not accept; and I am not the one questioning the integrity of any scientists who tell me things I don’t want to hear. In essence, my position is that ideologically prejudiced people in either science (e.g. Richard Lindzen) or politics (e.g. Michael Fallon) are equally bad. What we need are politicians who are willing to grasp the nettle and make the long-term, strategic, decisions that Earth’s finite energy resources and carbon sinks make necessary – as indeed Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher was from 1988 onwards (although she was later forced to recant from her evidence-based position – a bit like Galileo was by the Catholic Church 380 years ago).

          Martin Lack

          20 August 2013 at 16:24

  2. Climate denial is business. Big business. With lots of money involved. For all too many party goers, climate truth is party pooping.

    Patrice Ayme

    20 August 2013 at 05:40

    • Thanks Patrice. This makes a refreshing change from the usual (contrarian) assertions that climate science is the big business and/or that scientists are in it for the money…

      Martin Lack

      20 August 2013 at 12:58

      • To drown in money, scientists have to embrace the fossils. It’s a mistake to focus on the climate, we should talk first about CO2 itself.
        More corruption detected in my latest essay, BTW…

        Patrice Ayme

        21 August 2013 at 21:56

    • “Climate denial is business. Big business.”

      Ever heard of Al Gore, Patrice? I hear he was the first AGW billionaire.


      20 August 2013 at 14:25

      • Even if he was not a billionaire before he made ‘An Inconvenient Truth’, I suspect there are many times more billionaires in the the Oil Industry than there are in the Green Economy.

        Martin Lack

        20 August 2013 at 16:29

        • Ain’t that the damn’ truth. And the worst part is, part of their money comes from us. Why are we continuing to subsidise fossoil, the most profitable industry in all of history? Answer: because we’re suckers, that’s why.


          20 August 2013 at 20:33

      • In order for that concept to actually work, folks on the Al Gore side would actually have to come up with the name of a single skeptic climate scientist who “denies” the existence of 100 or so years of global warming. Gore’s sycophants are enslaved to a simplistic and very old talking point about “denial” because they don’t want the otherwise disinterested public to take skeptic scientists seriously. Ideologies that employ such shell-game tactics ultimately risk going down in epic ponzi-scheme fashion.

        Turns out the ‘denial of plausible skeptics’ is so lucrative, the outgoing exec director of Greenpeace got paid over $134 grand for doing nothing:

        In case you haven’t noticed, Arctic ice is not reducing like it did last year: and all the other ‘nature’ things you point to do nothing to prove what little warming we’ve had is directly a result of human-induced greenhouse gases.

        “Quackery is still appealing”? If that’s what explains utterly contradictory news headlines that keep global warming alive among all the anti-science Gore followers, well, I’d have to agree: “Global Warming Causes Warm/Cold, Wet/Dry, Bigger/Smaller Lobsters”

        • Thanks Russell. Nothing you say changes the fact that your position presupposes that the consensus understanding of atmospheric physics (i.e. that the post-1850 warming cannot be explained unless 40% extra atmospheric CO2 is the main driver) is unreal, unreliable or unreasonable. Given the nature of this consensus, it is not now for science to falsify your beliefs: You need to have evidence that the majority of climate scientists are either stupid, mistaken or corrupt.

          To make matters worse, you seem perfectly prepared to overlook the fact that the handful of relevantly-qualified scientists who tell you what you want to hear (e.g. Richard Lindzen, Patrick Michaels, Roy Spencer) were prejudiced against accepting the reality of environmental problems before they became scientists and/or have been primarily funded by big business to downplay, deny, or dismiss such problems.

          Martin Lack

          21 August 2013 at 10:25

      • catweazle666: Right. Part of the general picture of Clinton White House talking the talk and walking away with the safe, as I detail a bit in my latest essay

        Patrice Ayme

        21 August 2013 at 21:43

  3. Nicely done, Martin.

    PS Happy Earth Overshoot Day.


    20 August 2013 at 07:12

    • Is it just me, or does this come earlier every year? After all, we are still weeks away from seeing Christmas gifts in the shops (i.e. not as many weeks as one might reasonably expect)…

      Martin Lack

      20 August 2013 at 13:00

      • It’s not just you. I read today that Earth Overshoot Day is advancing at a rate of three days per year. I wonder how long it will take before anyone sits up and takes notice. My guess is it will be ‘one minute to midnight’ (cf Dr Albert A Bartlett’s bacterial society in a glass jar).


        20 August 2013 at 20:21

        • I remember it well but how do we apply it to Earth Overshoot Day (EOD)? It is well understood that China – currently consuming 50% of the Earth’s resources – cannot continue to grow at 7% pa (doubling time 10 years). However, even so, I am inclined to think people would take notice, at very least, before EOD got anywhere near the end of June…!

          Martin Lack

          20 August 2013 at 20:26

        • Unlikely. The only person to whom I have wished a ‘happy EOD’ today who has had the slightest clue what I’m whittering on about is… your good self.

          As Spock said: “it is difficult to answer when one does not understand the question.” In our case it’s not just one, it’s a great many.


          20 August 2013 at 20:29

        • The point I was trying to make is that EOD on 1st July would imply we humans were need two Earths… Whereas I think the nature of our problem will be impossible to ignore long before we get to that point.

          Martin Lack

          20 August 2013 at 20:42

        • If you take a look at the first graphic on the page on the site announcing EOD as today you’ll see that the US is using 1.9 times its available land area; we in the UK are using an incredible 3.5 times what we have, and as for Japan, well, what can I say? We’re all in denial about what our comforts cost us.


          20 August 2013 at 20:48

Please join the discussion

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 350 other followers

%d bloggers like this: