I think he might – he spends his professional life playing devil’s advocate, and I notice that he follows the recommendations with the words: “None of them will save the planet. But they might save the BBC from looking like corporate hypocrites.”

I also like his remark: “The problem is that no one has yet worked out how to generate electricity by hand-wringing.” Sounds pretty detached to me.

K.F. Yu et al 2008 Microatoll record for large century-scale sea-level fluctuations in the mid-Holocene

So basically, around 7050 to 6600 years ago, the world’s oceans were about 2 meters higher than they are today (171 to 219 cm is the range given in the paper). What is interesting were the fairly rapid step changes that occurred. They found “step changes” of 20 to 40 cm on century time scales. Meaning a 40cm sea level rise or drop in a hundred years. One of the most dramatic step changes is the reduction in sea level, say, 6760 years or so ago. Sea level dropped about 35cm over roughly 50 years time and has never recovered to its former height.

So when you hear Al Gore talking about “unprecedented” sea level rise, know that it is pure bunk. Sea levels are lower now than they were at about the time agriculture was spreading through human civilization. There were two significant periods of rise during the time span referenced in the first paragraph above. The first was about a 25cm rise over a little less than 50 years time. Levels dropped back about 10cm over the next 50 years and then rose again about 30cm over the following 50 years and then dropped the 35cm mentioned above. So those were some rather dramatic swings over a 50 year period. At about 6675 ya the sea started “slowly” rising again until the end of the study period when it was about 200cm (2 meters) higher than it is now at around 6550 ya.

The peak was at 219cm higher than current sea level a little more than 6750 ya and according to the coral formations, the highest reached in the Holocene.

The bottom line is that climate has been much warmer in this interglacial than it is now. There is no reason to doubt that it could get just as warm again due to natural causes. There is no reason to doubt that sea level change can not be dramatic and fast due to natural causes. It has happened before … several times … and there is no reason to believe it won’t happen again.

I wonder if Gore’s head would explode if the sea level dropped half a meter over the next 50 years.

The most dangerous weasel words are “is consistent with”. It sounds scientific to the general public, but it is really weak. “Is consistent with” is not proof.

It helps a bit. Having written quite a few simulation models of various kinds, and learned in the process how sensitive they can be to initial conditions, I’m not inclined to believe the output of Global Climate Models. Particularly when some processes – e.g. cloud formation – are apparently not well understood.

But really it’s when people start saying “the debate is over” that I smell BS. And that’s got nothing to do with science.

James P said: he may just be balancing a privately-held opinion with keeping his job!

I don’t see where the ‘balance’ is. The piece of his writing in question was about how the BBC wasn’t very good at practising the environmentalism it preached. He ended up making five recommendations for steps the BBC could take to be more environmentally responsible. Would he write something like that if he was a closet sceptic?

I’m sure he does, but characterising all of WUWT as ‘endless drivel’ does rather undermine them! Or does he mean everything except what he writes..? :-)

Or he’s just being pragmatic. Given the attititude of his employer towards anything even mildly critical of AGW, and its aversion to newsreaders getting themselves in the news, he may just be balancing a privately-held opinion with keeping his job! I note that Drs Bellamy and Whitehouse are no longer in that position.

It’s easy for us on WUWT to sniff at those who have swallowed the AGW line, but not everyone has seen or heard the contrary view, and I suspect that the even the majority here have had to be converted. I include myself.

idlex said: Perhaps the answer is that, while he is a highly articulate and literate man, he may not have much of a science education.
Sorry, but I’m not buying it. Paxman clearly is showing both moral and intellectual cowardice on this issue. A scientific background really isn’t necessary to be able to see through the bovine manure. Some cojones are, on the other hand, somewhat necessary to do something about it.

Well-said – (& not just the part I’ve quoted).
It’s not just the arts-science split, it is also the splits within each. I’ve been around 7 branches of science — the good folks speak different languages. The knowledge I bring from other disciplines doesn’t always get the respect it deserves – and non-math/stats folks tend to overestimate what goes on in math/stats camps (which tends to be abstract, since you don’t (generally) get as much respect in those fields if you go “applied” instead of “pure”). I could go on in detail…
You’ve made the point that the climate issue is multi-disciplinary – that’s it in a nutshell — (everyone has a say).

- – -
Adolfo Giurfa (10:20:16) “[...] “fast food professionals” but “hamburgers or hot dogs specialists”. Nobody seems to think that information is material, it is a quantity, and when distributed carelessly it loses content.”

Nice. This gets complicated. How do I even comment without being labeled a socialist? (even though such attacks are laughable leftovers of cold war propaganda programming – capitalism is _so_ firmly entrenched – what’s the point in trying to obfuscate that reality?…) Since people won’t talk sense, we are stuck with a mess (for now…)

- – -
dhogaza (16:10:39) “The same endless drivel that typifies WUWT [...]”
James P (10:55:52) “So why contribute to it? :-)”

dhogaza makes some good points (not saying this was a tasteful one of them tho)

http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/S_timeseries.png

2009 has done its “May Day” crash in to 2008. It now looks to be surpassing 2008.

It looks like the Wilkens ice shelf hasn’t has any effect on this rapid growth. And it looks like that fact isn’t having any effect on the alarmists. They still will be alarmists anyway.

Re your comment about the scare cycle, I heartily recommend Christopher Booker & Richard North’s “Scared to Death.” The book charts a number of major scares, including the current AGW nonsense. By their thesis, we’re in the penultimate phase, though with difficult to undo legislation coming up fast, the denouement may not come quickly enough.

“the BBC’s coverage of the issue [climate change] abandoned the pretence of impartiality long ago. But it strikes me as very odd indeed that an organisation which affects such a high moral tone cannot be more environmentally responsible. “

To be fair to Mr Paxman, I think the emphasis should be on the first sentence. His suggestion about responsibility is the consequence of the moral tone that he has already criticised – he’s not agreeing with it.

He may not be a scientist, but he demonstrates an aptitude for critical thinking that many scientists should emulate. I’m pretty sure George Monbiot wouldn’t go near an interview with him…

The same endless drivel that typifies WUWT…

So why contribute to it? :-)