Bloomberg news: People Don’t Fear Climate Change Enough
With respect to the science of climate change, many experts regard the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change as the world’s authoritative institution. A draft summary of its forthcoming report was leaked last week. It describes the panel’s growing confidence that climate change is real, that it is a result of human action, and that if the world continues on its current course, it will face exceedingly serious losses and threats (including a significant rise in sea levels by century’s end).
Climate change lacks other characteristics that spur public concern about risks. It is gradual rather than sudden. The idea of warmer climates doesn’t produce anger, revulsion or disgust. Depletion of the ozone layer was probably the most closely analogous environmental concern; public attention to that problem was easier to mobilize because of fears of a huge rise in skin cancer.
In this light, it should not be surprising if people don’t get much exercised by the IPCC’s forthcoming report. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-08-27/people-don-t-fear-climate-change-enough.html (h/t to milodonharlani)
WUWT reader Jimbo says:
Richard Tol is onto John Cook.He has written to the University of Queensland demanding all the data from Cook in an open letter.
I found that the consensus rate in the data differs from that reported in the paper. Further research showed that, contrary to what is said in the paper, the main validity test in fact invalidates the data. And the sample of papers does not represent the literature. That is, the main finding of the paper is incorrect, invalid and unrepresentative.Furthermore, the data showed patterns that cannot be explained by either the data gathering process as described in the paper or by chance. This is documented. I asked Mr Cook again for the data so as to find a coherent explanation of what is wrong with the paper. As that was unsuccessful, also after a plea to Professor Ove Hoegh-Guldberg, the director of Mr Cook’s work place,…
WUWT reader Gareth Phillips says:
How environmental news works.
A) http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/jul/19/puffin-numbers-recovery-farne-islands Headline, Puffin numbers show good recovery 19 July 2013
B) http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/aug/23/fears-seabirds-global-warming-affects-coastline Puffin number in serious decline. 23 August 2013
The drifting “North pole” cam is back to its frozen state, not a hint of water:
Meanwhile, after the coldest summer on record for the DMI dataset, 80N and above temperatures are below the freezing point of seawater and headed down at a normal pace now.
Time for the BBC to ban the ‘D’ word?
It was at it again this morning on one of its regular Scientists: Aren’t They Marvellous?!!! programmes, this one presented by a particularly fulsome and slobbering Jim Al Khallili. [The audio is here but for God’s sake keep a towel handy to wipe off all the drool. Oh, and a sick bag too.] Khallili was giving the O Mighty Genius, How Shall We Praise Thee? treatment to a dreary-sounding woman named Joanna Haigh who is apparently head of physics at Imperial College London. Presumably Freeman Dyson and Richard Lindzen weren’t available.
Anyway, when she’s not swanning around her department radiating goodness, light, truth and beauty (so various recorded tributes told us), Haigh is a fervent believer in the IPCC, in man-made global warming, sections on “climate change” in Geography GCSEs and so on. She also has no time for climate sceptics who, she said, she prefers to call “deniers”.
Once might have been forgivable. But Al Khallili used in his intro too, for all the world as if the very nature of climate scepticism is so outre and unacceptable that it is perfectly acceptable to dismiss such miscreants with whatever insults one will.
At Bishop Hill in comments, apparently a number of people complained, and one of them got some results from Joanna Haigh.