A United Nations document on "climate change" that will be distributed to a major environmental meeting next week envisions a huge reordering of the world economy, likely involving trillions of dollars in wealth transfer, millions of job losses and gains, new taxes, industrial relocations, new tariffs and subsidies, and complicated payments for greenhouse gas abatement schemes and carbon taxes — all under the supervision of the world body.
But just what does the UN document suggest? This is the list:
Carbon Taxes coupled with Cap and Trade - intended to price fossil fuels highly to reduce consumption
Additional Subsidies for green energy technology - intended to develop industries which otherwise would not be viable (strongly supported by grant farmers and rent seekers)
Regulatory and procurement requirements for green energy ensuring demand at guaranteed prices for commodities which otherwise wouldn't be there like biofuels, wind power and solar
Protective tariffs to protect green emerging industries - going against free trade, these tariffs would inhibit the export of fossil energy
International offsets which have to be purchased at borders to offset carbon footprint (imagine that!)
Carbon impact labeling for all goods - showing what the carbon footprint looks like, which will be very difficult to do since there are no agreed rubrics for doing this..local meat has a higher carbon footprint than imported lamb from New Zealand, for example, since we have to divide CO2 costs by volumes..
Wealth transfer from rich to poor countries to help that adjust, catch up and develop - this is the equity component..pure socialism
Technology cooperation but focused on agreed technology strategies - already in place, but needs additional investment
What all this looks like – and I encourage you to read the document – is the most radical agenda since the Communist Manifesto.
. While using the cloak of science, this document makes clear that you cannot just look at climate change mitigation without rethinking the social and economic order of the world. Quite.
Sunday, March 29, 2009
Saturday, March 28, 2009
The Nature of Science and Climate Change
Developments in science rarely proceed quickly. They go in stages. It varies by discipline, but the underlying process is basically the same. Someone, using their knowledge of a phenomena, suggests a theory and a number of hypothesis that would enable the theory to be tested. Experiments are then conducted which advance the theory – not necessarily “proving” or disproving it, but requiring refinements. As evidence accumulates, the theory either advances or is discarded. Sometimes, a plethora of direct observation (evidence from measurement) suggest a hypothesis which is a part of a theory and this can also lead to advancement.
We refer to this view of science as empiricism (after the Vienna circle) which also requires falsification (after Karl Popper). When Michael Apter, Ken Smith, Sven Svebak and several others (including myself) developed the theory of psychological reversals we had a grand theory of psychology and psychobiology which could be tested empirically by means of a number of different experiments. As each experiment was completed it either confirmed the theory or provided a basis for us having to rethink the theoretical framework, which we did constantly for some twenty five years. We also asked others, especially those who found our theory problematic, to look at the data and to challenge our interpretations both at the level of the data itself (do you get the same result when you analyze these data) and at the level of theory (given this result, can you offer a more comprehensive interpretation than we can?).
Most theorists hope to achieve a paradigm shift (after Khun) as a result of their work. For example, when the proponents of the germ theory of disease finally won widespread acceptance in the early years of the twentieth century, they achieved a paradigm shift in our understanding of disease and changed medical practice. We now know that the germ theory of disease is only partial – new developments in genomics and in the understanding of psychosomatics suggest that there are other basis for “disease”. Equally, the breakthrough in the acceptance of tectonic plates as an explanation of a variety of geological events was also a paradigm shift.
Science, it must be said, is not a democratic pursuit but rather a pursuit for truth. The term “scientific consensus” is generally a red flag to a scientist - a sign that someone is seeking to control the debate or to close an argument. For example, when Einstein proposed his E = MC2 few accepted it as anything more than a hypothesis. When told that some 200 eminint physicists objected to this formulation, Einstein suggested that it took only one “with proof” to make clear that he was wrong. Science, unlike politics, is not a numbers game. Over time, some basic ideas become accepted as cornerstones of science, such as the Laws of Thermodynamics. Such things are rare. Even then, we do not talk of “consensus”, but of generally accepted principles (meaning that there are exceptions and some still wish to argue the Laws themselves).
Recently, following Paul Feyerabend, there has emerged an approach to science which suggest that the boundary between science as a form of logical reasoning based on evidence and polemics needs to be blurred, since what matters in scientific understanding in the service of social aims. Using a variety of examples, he suggests that they have in common the fact that all common prescriptive rules of science are violated in these cases and that the progress of science itself would have been impeded had it not been for the anarchistic view of science promoted. One of his examples is the Copernican revolution. Feyerabend is a radical and he sanction the introduction of theories that are inconsistent with well-established facts if it leads to an advancement of understanding. Feyerabend also advocated that science should also be subjected to democratic control: not only should the subjects that are investigated by scientists be determined by popular election, scientific assumptions and conclusions should also be supervised by committees of lay people.
I have rehearsed these different view of science for a reason. We are challenged to make sense of the science of climate change, which is in fact a collection of different sciences. We have no theory of climate, just a set of hypothesis with a very strong focus on the following:
1. There is such a thing as the greenhouse effect in which the presence of certain volumes of gasses and water vapour have a forcing impact on the earth’s temperature.
2. CO2 is a primary cause of the greenhouse effect, despite it being a small presence in the atmosphere. This warming will have major implications for life-systems.
3. Even though humans emit only a fraction of the CO2 present in the atmosphere, humans are the primary cause of greenhouse gasses and warming.
4. Anthropomorphic CO2 emissions, being a cause of warming, will have an impact on the ice sheets which in turn will affect sea levels significantly over time.
5. By lowering anthropomorphic CO2 emissions we can impact climate over time, despite the role of other factors such as the sun, water vapour, oceans etc.
More recently, it has been suggested that CO2 emitted into the atmosphere may be present for thousands of years.
All of these are hypothesis. Each of them has been subject to a variety of evidence reviews and the jury is out, despite the political desire to call “consensus” and "time". There is evidence to suggest that the climate is a more complex phenomenon than these basic hypothesis suggest and that there is no rush to judgment needed.
Further, a collection of related hypothesis do not represent a theory. A theory offers a comprehensive understanding of a phenomenon, in this case climate. We do not have a theory of the climate which would pass the basic tests of a theory – logical consistency, consistent with observations, having a grounding in empirical evidence, be economical in the number of assumptions, explain the phenomena, provide a basis for making predictions which can be verified by evidence, be falsifiable and testable, be correctable and be refinable. Several hundred experienced and qualified scientists dispute all or some or some aspects of the hypotheses outlined here.
We do have a set of proxies for such a theory in the form of computer climate change models, but these are generally accepted as incomplete and emerging (accept by those who built them). Climate is clearly complex, dynamic and somewhat chaotic and difficult to model. Extrapolating consequences from such models – models which do not include variables for human adaptability, technological innovation and ingenuity – seems a strange thing to be doing.
Rather than develop a theory, what some climate change scientists have done (and this is the basis of the work of the political UN organization the IPCC) is to develop scenarios. Scenarios are different views of a possible future based upon a combination of facts, opinions, ideas and speculation. They are very helpful to get one thinking about options, but only if all the scenarios are viewed as equally possible.
What we have with climate change “science” is anarchy masked by democracy – a Feyerabend's delight. The IPCC alarmists have, in their own minds, a comprehensive scenario for the future which they seek to use to influence public policy. They use evidence is it appears to them to show that they are right and they seek to deny access to policy makers and public opinion those who take a different view – the “deniers” who, in the words of some, are “traitors” who should have no access to public media. On the other side, there are those who see themselves as climate realists who, looking at the evidence as they see it, see something very different from the alarmists. In Popperian terms, they can readily falsify some of the thinking (especially the idea of a linear equation between man made CO2 emissions and the earth’s temperature) and provide alternative hypothesis.
What we have is a clash of methodology (observations versus models) and ideology (Karl Popper and the Vienna School versus Feyerabend). There will be no reconciliation since the two fundamental different views of science and its purpose appear irreconcilable. But the debate is important, not least in terms of the philosophy of science and the nature of the scientific endeavor.
It is a sad fact that there will be no debate between these differing views of climate change and climate science, since one side has closed the door on science seeing all of the issues as settled or only settle-able by members of their own "team". Even Feyerabend would have loved a debate.
We refer to this view of science as empiricism (after the Vienna circle) which also requires falsification (after Karl Popper). When Michael Apter, Ken Smith, Sven Svebak and several others (including myself) developed the theory of psychological reversals we had a grand theory of psychology and psychobiology which could be tested empirically by means of a number of different experiments. As each experiment was completed it either confirmed the theory or provided a basis for us having to rethink the theoretical framework, which we did constantly for some twenty five years. We also asked others, especially those who found our theory problematic, to look at the data and to challenge our interpretations both at the level of the data itself (do you get the same result when you analyze these data) and at the level of theory (given this result, can you offer a more comprehensive interpretation than we can?).
Most theorists hope to achieve a paradigm shift (after Khun) as a result of their work. For example, when the proponents of the germ theory of disease finally won widespread acceptance in the early years of the twentieth century, they achieved a paradigm shift in our understanding of disease and changed medical practice. We now know that the germ theory of disease is only partial – new developments in genomics and in the understanding of psychosomatics suggest that there are other basis for “disease”. Equally, the breakthrough in the acceptance of tectonic plates as an explanation of a variety of geological events was also a paradigm shift.
Science, it must be said, is not a democratic pursuit but rather a pursuit for truth. The term “scientific consensus” is generally a red flag to a scientist - a sign that someone is seeking to control the debate or to close an argument. For example, when Einstein proposed his E = MC2 few accepted it as anything more than a hypothesis. When told that some 200 eminint physicists objected to this formulation, Einstein suggested that it took only one “with proof” to make clear that he was wrong. Science, unlike politics, is not a numbers game. Over time, some basic ideas become accepted as cornerstones of science, such as the Laws of Thermodynamics. Such things are rare. Even then, we do not talk of “consensus”, but of generally accepted principles (meaning that there are exceptions and some still wish to argue the Laws themselves).
Recently, following Paul Feyerabend, there has emerged an approach to science which suggest that the boundary between science as a form of logical reasoning based on evidence and polemics needs to be blurred, since what matters in scientific understanding in the service of social aims. Using a variety of examples, he suggests that they have in common the fact that all common prescriptive rules of science are violated in these cases and that the progress of science itself would have been impeded had it not been for the anarchistic view of science promoted. One of his examples is the Copernican revolution. Feyerabend is a radical and he sanction the introduction of theories that are inconsistent with well-established facts if it leads to an advancement of understanding. Feyerabend also advocated that science should also be subjected to democratic control: not only should the subjects that are investigated by scientists be determined by popular election, scientific assumptions and conclusions should also be supervised by committees of lay people.
I have rehearsed these different view of science for a reason. We are challenged to make sense of the science of climate change, which is in fact a collection of different sciences. We have no theory of climate, just a set of hypothesis with a very strong focus on the following:
1. There is such a thing as the greenhouse effect in which the presence of certain volumes of gasses and water vapour have a forcing impact on the earth’s temperature.
2. CO2 is a primary cause of the greenhouse effect, despite it being a small presence in the atmosphere. This warming will have major implications for life-systems.
3. Even though humans emit only a fraction of the CO2 present in the atmosphere, humans are the primary cause of greenhouse gasses and warming.
4. Anthropomorphic CO2 emissions, being a cause of warming, will have an impact on the ice sheets which in turn will affect sea levels significantly over time.
5. By lowering anthropomorphic CO2 emissions we can impact climate over time, despite the role of other factors such as the sun, water vapour, oceans etc.
More recently, it has been suggested that CO2 emitted into the atmosphere may be present for thousands of years.
All of these are hypothesis. Each of them has been subject to a variety of evidence reviews and the jury is out, despite the political desire to call “consensus” and "time". There is evidence to suggest that the climate is a more complex phenomenon than these basic hypothesis suggest and that there is no rush to judgment needed.
Further, a collection of related hypothesis do not represent a theory. A theory offers a comprehensive understanding of a phenomenon, in this case climate. We do not have a theory of the climate which would pass the basic tests of a theory – logical consistency, consistent with observations, having a grounding in empirical evidence, be economical in the number of assumptions, explain the phenomena, provide a basis for making predictions which can be verified by evidence, be falsifiable and testable, be correctable and be refinable. Several hundred experienced and qualified scientists dispute all or some or some aspects of the hypotheses outlined here.
We do have a set of proxies for such a theory in the form of computer climate change models, but these are generally accepted as incomplete and emerging (accept by those who built them). Climate is clearly complex, dynamic and somewhat chaotic and difficult to model. Extrapolating consequences from such models – models which do not include variables for human adaptability, technological innovation and ingenuity – seems a strange thing to be doing.
Rather than develop a theory, what some climate change scientists have done (and this is the basis of the work of the political UN organization the IPCC) is to develop scenarios. Scenarios are different views of a possible future based upon a combination of facts, opinions, ideas and speculation. They are very helpful to get one thinking about options, but only if all the scenarios are viewed as equally possible.
What we have with climate change “science” is anarchy masked by democracy – a Feyerabend's delight. The IPCC alarmists have, in their own minds, a comprehensive scenario for the future which they seek to use to influence public policy. They use evidence is it appears to them to show that they are right and they seek to deny access to policy makers and public opinion those who take a different view – the “deniers” who, in the words of some, are “traitors” who should have no access to public media. On the other side, there are those who see themselves as climate realists who, looking at the evidence as they see it, see something very different from the alarmists. In Popperian terms, they can readily falsify some of the thinking (especially the idea of a linear equation between man made CO2 emissions and the earth’s temperature) and provide alternative hypothesis.
What we have is a clash of methodology (observations versus models) and ideology (Karl Popper and the Vienna School versus Feyerabend). There will be no reconciliation since the two fundamental different views of science and its purpose appear irreconcilable. But the debate is important, not least in terms of the philosophy of science and the nature of the scientific endeavor.
It is a sad fact that there will be no debate between these differing views of climate change and climate science, since one side has closed the door on science seeing all of the issues as settled or only settle-able by members of their own "team". Even Feyerabend would have loved a debate.
Wednesday, September 03, 2008
The Cooling Earth
The earth did get warmer between 1850 and 2007 by around 0.7 degrees. Most of this warming occurred before 1940, with the more recent period contributing just 0.2 degrees to warming. Global earth temperatures have not risen significantly since 1995. In fact, several prominent climate scientists are now confidently predicting that the earth is entering a significant cooling period and that we should be more concerned with a coming mini ice age than with the dire predictions of global warming.
In August 2008, the sun failed to produce a single sun spot – a key factor in the warming of the earth. The last time this occurred was in June 1913. Some scientists now suggest that the pattern of sun spot behaviour since 1749 is showing clear signs of change in line with the same patterns seen in the three previous periods of significant earth cooling since records began. Known as the Dalton, Maunder and Spörer Minimums, each was associated with a period of rapid earth cooling, one of which was cold enough to be known as a mini ice age (1450 to 1820). The dominant prediction amongst those scientists that take the view that we are entering a cooling period is that the earth will cool for a period of two decades. Even the Old Farmers Almanac takes this view of the future.
Meanwhile, carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions continue to grow. The fact that this is occurring at the same time that the earth is cooling suggest that we should be careful in assuming that the “cause” of global warming is CO2. It appears not to be the case. There have been many occasions in the history of the planet when CO2 in the atmosphere has been much more concentrated than it is today. During the Cambrian Period of the earth’s history they were eighteen times more CO2 and in the Late Ordovician Period CO2 concentrations were almost twelve times as much as today. CO2 is not a primary cause of warming or of cooling – it is just one of eighteen factors and possibly the least important. Much more important are: the effects of the sun; the orbit, tilt and movement of the earth; water vapour; methane; ocean currents; plate tectonics; vegetation; volcanoes and cosmic rays. When looked at in a comprehensive way, these key factors all point to a period of cooling.
It has also been warmer than it is now or is likely to be in the future. There have in fact been six global warming periods over the last half million years. These include the medieval warm period, where reports of temperatures showed them to be much higher than has been the case since 1850 – it is still cooler than it was then. A preliminary study of some 6,000 ships logbooks from around the world shows that, during the 1730’s, Europe and North America underwent a period of significant warming not that dissimilar to that which has occurred between 1976 and 1998. These warming periods were all before the industrial emissions of CO2 and the rapid growth of “personally produced” CO2 from cars, heating and human activity.
Dr Richard Gee, Chairman of the International Geological Congress’s scientific committee, challenged the international community to answer a simple question at a recent meeting of the congress in Oslo. The question: “how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand – we politicians and scientists - that the planet is not warming?”. Using a detailed and peer reviewed analysis of climate change data, he observed the current cooling period. He reminded us of Lord John Maynard Keynes observation that “When the facts change, I change my mind”. It is time for us to do the same.
It may seem odd that the planet is cooling when we see ice formations breaking off from the Artic and floating in the Atlantic. For example, the Ayles ice shelf, which is more than 11,000 football fields in size and is located just south of the North Pole, broke free earlier this month. In recent days, the buoys used to track temperature have indicated sub-freezing temperatures with surface melt coming to an end; however, bottom melt will continue for at least two to three more weeks and the ice extent decline, while slowing, will also continue. A number of polar scientists have concluded that Arctic warming and cooling in Greenland during the last half of the last century is due almost entirely to natural changes, perhaps to multi-decadal oscillations like the Arctic Oscillation, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, and the El Niño. We need to remember that for only about 5% of known climate history could the North and South Poles support masses of permanent ice.
Some suggest that the UN’s Climate Change Panel has made clear, firm and precise predictions about global warming and that the majority of scientists agree with these predictions. This is not the case. First, the IPCC is not a scientific body it is a political body charged with promoting change in social and industrial practices that will benefit the planet. While it takes advice from a small group of scientists (almost all from the US and Europe), its key reports and recommendations are political documents drafted by diplomats and politicians, not scientists. Second, the climate change models it uses to base its suggestions on are not predictive models but “scenarios” or “story boards” of possible futures. They are based on simulations which give emphasis to certain variables and not others – the impact of sun spots or volcanic eruptions or changes in ocean currents are not sufficiently accounted for, for example. Third, a growing number of qualified scientists disagree with the direction and conclusions the IPCC has reached. As of the beginning of September 2008, some five hundred scientists from over twenty countries expressed their dissent from the IPCC findings to the US Senate Environment and Public Works Committee and this number grows weekly. Some of these scientists were scientific advisors to the IPCC who now distance themselves from its reports. The so called “consensus” is in fact weakening all the time as new evidence suggests competing theories of climate change are gaining ground.
Global cooling is much more difficult to deal with than warming, though both have their challenges. Agriculture is especially affected, as are energy demands for heat and power. Water supplies can also be adversely affected. We need to begin planning now for the possibility of abrupt cooling and balance our preparedness against continually changing data. Being seduced into thinking that reducing CO2 emissions (not a bad thing to be doing) will have an impact in climate change is misguided. We need really good strategic thinking that is open to adaptation and we do not need to be wedded to a single and growingly problematic view of climate change.
In August 2008, the sun failed to produce a single sun spot – a key factor in the warming of the earth. The last time this occurred was in June 1913. Some scientists now suggest that the pattern of sun spot behaviour since 1749 is showing clear signs of change in line with the same patterns seen in the three previous periods of significant earth cooling since records began. Known as the Dalton, Maunder and Spörer Minimums, each was associated with a period of rapid earth cooling, one of which was cold enough to be known as a mini ice age (1450 to 1820). The dominant prediction amongst those scientists that take the view that we are entering a cooling period is that the earth will cool for a period of two decades. Even the Old Farmers Almanac takes this view of the future.
Meanwhile, carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions continue to grow. The fact that this is occurring at the same time that the earth is cooling suggest that we should be careful in assuming that the “cause” of global warming is CO2. It appears not to be the case. There have been many occasions in the history of the planet when CO2 in the atmosphere has been much more concentrated than it is today. During the Cambrian Period of the earth’s history they were eighteen times more CO2 and in the Late Ordovician Period CO2 concentrations were almost twelve times as much as today. CO2 is not a primary cause of warming or of cooling – it is just one of eighteen factors and possibly the least important. Much more important are: the effects of the sun; the orbit, tilt and movement of the earth; water vapour; methane; ocean currents; plate tectonics; vegetation; volcanoes and cosmic rays. When looked at in a comprehensive way, these key factors all point to a period of cooling.
It has also been warmer than it is now or is likely to be in the future. There have in fact been six global warming periods over the last half million years. These include the medieval warm period, where reports of temperatures showed them to be much higher than has been the case since 1850 – it is still cooler than it was then. A preliminary study of some 6,000 ships logbooks from around the world shows that, during the 1730’s, Europe and North America underwent a period of significant warming not that dissimilar to that which has occurred between 1976 and 1998. These warming periods were all before the industrial emissions of CO2 and the rapid growth of “personally produced” CO2 from cars, heating and human activity.
Dr Richard Gee, Chairman of the International Geological Congress’s scientific committee, challenged the international community to answer a simple question at a recent meeting of the congress in Oslo. The question: “how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand – we politicians and scientists - that the planet is not warming?”. Using a detailed and peer reviewed analysis of climate change data, he observed the current cooling period. He reminded us of Lord John Maynard Keynes observation that “When the facts change, I change my mind”. It is time for us to do the same.
It may seem odd that the planet is cooling when we see ice formations breaking off from the Artic and floating in the Atlantic. For example, the Ayles ice shelf, which is more than 11,000 football fields in size and is located just south of the North Pole, broke free earlier this month. In recent days, the buoys used to track temperature have indicated sub-freezing temperatures with surface melt coming to an end; however, bottom melt will continue for at least two to three more weeks and the ice extent decline, while slowing, will also continue. A number of polar scientists have concluded that Arctic warming and cooling in Greenland during the last half of the last century is due almost entirely to natural changes, perhaps to multi-decadal oscillations like the Arctic Oscillation, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, and the El Niño. We need to remember that for only about 5% of known climate history could the North and South Poles support masses of permanent ice.
Some suggest that the UN’s Climate Change Panel has made clear, firm and precise predictions about global warming and that the majority of scientists agree with these predictions. This is not the case. First, the IPCC is not a scientific body it is a political body charged with promoting change in social and industrial practices that will benefit the planet. While it takes advice from a small group of scientists (almost all from the US and Europe), its key reports and recommendations are political documents drafted by diplomats and politicians, not scientists. Second, the climate change models it uses to base its suggestions on are not predictive models but “scenarios” or “story boards” of possible futures. They are based on simulations which give emphasis to certain variables and not others – the impact of sun spots or volcanic eruptions or changes in ocean currents are not sufficiently accounted for, for example. Third, a growing number of qualified scientists disagree with the direction and conclusions the IPCC has reached. As of the beginning of September 2008, some five hundred scientists from over twenty countries expressed their dissent from the IPCC findings to the US Senate Environment and Public Works Committee and this number grows weekly. Some of these scientists were scientific advisors to the IPCC who now distance themselves from its reports. The so called “consensus” is in fact weakening all the time as new evidence suggests competing theories of climate change are gaining ground.
Global cooling is much more difficult to deal with than warming, though both have their challenges. Agriculture is especially affected, as are energy demands for heat and power. Water supplies can also be adversely affected. We need to begin planning now for the possibility of abrupt cooling and balance our preparedness against continually changing data. Being seduced into thinking that reducing CO2 emissions (not a bad thing to be doing) will have an impact in climate change is misguided. We need really good strategic thinking that is open to adaptation and we do not need to be wedded to a single and growingly problematic view of climate change.
Saturday, August 30, 2008
Beware: GUSTAV IS COMING
New Orleans is now being evacuated. As George Bush prepares to address the Republican Party convention on Monday, just when Gustav is due to hit the Gulf States, people are reminded of Katrina and the lack of preparedness of the US Government and its failure, over time, to reinforce the defences (known as levies). New Orleans will be tested again over the next few days.
You will hear that this severe hurricane is the result of global warming. It is not. As readers of the New Scientist will know (also see also The Murgatroyd Blog's entry on wind and climate change), there is no strong and comopelling scientific evidence linking hurricanes and tornadoes to climate change. It will not stop many from claiming that it is.
You will hear that this severe hurricane is the result of global warming. It is not. As readers of the New Scientist will know (also see also The Murgatroyd Blog's entry on wind and climate change), there is no strong and comopelling scientific evidence linking hurricanes and tornadoes to climate change. It will not stop many from claiming that it is.
SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS
Those of us who are skeptical about CO2 and global warming - the idea that global warming is man-made and, if we act boldly and spend trillions we can slow it or halt it - are often accused of ignoring scientific consensus. Not true. Largely because there is no such consensus.
For some time now, the IPCC has been coming under fire for chaining that there is. Yet for many years there have been serious and substantive critiques of the IPCC claims both in terms of the science and in terms of their claims of consensus. The IPCC "conclusions", drafted by those with a political intent not by the scientists, are largely based on computer simulations of climate change which fail to account for the activity of the sun. The sun is a major contributor to earth's temperature and has followed a pattern of activity in which it heats up and cools down the earth. The climate change models do not take this into account.
Víctor Manuel Velasco Herrera, a climate change scientist based in Mexico, has offered this critique for some time as have many others. At present, the world is going through a transition phase where solar activity diminishes considerably, "so that in two years or so, there will be a small ice age that lasts from 60 to 80 years," and the immediate consequence of this, he added, will be drought.
He is not a lone voice. A second problem with the dominant paradigm is that it does not take into full account other key factors that affects the earths climate. Stephen Wilde, writing on the CO2 Skeptics Blog,suggests that we also need to account for evaporation and condensation since they are a key part of a global heat energy removal system. When combined with planetary weather systems that involve convection, winds, clouds and precipitation, our understanding of climate change becomes more comprehensive. Those combined processes constitute the hole in the heart of all climate theory because thus far it has not been possible to collate the actual real world numbers for all those processes in order to make meaningful use of all of them in any models. Therefore, the IPCC models are partial and biased.
The way science is supposed to work is that a group or individual proposes a theory, which is what the IPCC framework and claim is. Others then seek to verify or dispute this using evidence and analysis. This is being done. Usually there is a dominant paradigm for a period of time which then, over time, gets replaced. This is what is happening now. The dominant paradigm of man made global warming linked to CO2 is being replaced by a more complex understanding of the dynamics of our climate, strongly linked to observations rather than partial predictive models.
To label those who disagree with the dominant paradigm as "deniers" is insulting and, frankly, indicative of the fact that it is not science we are pursuing here but ideology. Its good news if CO2 is not the primary culprit (which is not to say that we should not try to reduce emissions). Its bad news that, if it is the sun, there is little we can do about it other than accelerate adaptive processes.
What worries me most about the debate is that "science" has now been so politicized and corrupted that it becomes difficult to engage in any serious conversation about climate change as a scientific area of debate.
Science rarely finds consensus. When it does, it is often open to debate later. Let's get back to a scientific understanding of climate!
For some time now, the IPCC has been coming under fire for chaining that there is. Yet for many years there have been serious and substantive critiques of the IPCC claims both in terms of the science and in terms of their claims of consensus. The IPCC "conclusions", drafted by those with a political intent not by the scientists, are largely based on computer simulations of climate change which fail to account for the activity of the sun. The sun is a major contributor to earth's temperature and has followed a pattern of activity in which it heats up and cools down the earth. The climate change models do not take this into account.
Víctor Manuel Velasco Herrera, a climate change scientist based in Mexico, has offered this critique for some time as have many others. At present, the world is going through a transition phase where solar activity diminishes considerably, "so that in two years or so, there will be a small ice age that lasts from 60 to 80 years," and the immediate consequence of this, he added, will be drought.
He is not a lone voice. A second problem with the dominant paradigm is that it does not take into full account other key factors that affects the earths climate. Stephen Wilde, writing on the CO2 Skeptics Blog,suggests that we also need to account for evaporation and condensation since they are a key part of a global heat energy removal system. When combined with planetary weather systems that involve convection, winds, clouds and precipitation, our understanding of climate change becomes more comprehensive. Those combined processes constitute the hole in the heart of all climate theory because thus far it has not been possible to collate the actual real world numbers for all those processes in order to make meaningful use of all of them in any models. Therefore, the IPCC models are partial and biased.
The way science is supposed to work is that a group or individual proposes a theory, which is what the IPCC framework and claim is. Others then seek to verify or dispute this using evidence and analysis. This is being done. Usually there is a dominant paradigm for a period of time which then, over time, gets replaced. This is what is happening now. The dominant paradigm of man made global warming linked to CO2 is being replaced by a more complex understanding of the dynamics of our climate, strongly linked to observations rather than partial predictive models.
To label those who disagree with the dominant paradigm as "deniers" is insulting and, frankly, indicative of the fact that it is not science we are pursuing here but ideology. Its good news if CO2 is not the primary culprit (which is not to say that we should not try to reduce emissions). Its bad news that, if it is the sun, there is little we can do about it other than accelerate adaptive processes.
What worries me most about the debate is that "science" has now been so politicized and corrupted that it becomes difficult to engage in any serious conversation about climate change as a scientific area of debate.
Science rarely finds consensus. When it does, it is often open to debate later. Let's get back to a scientific understanding of climate!
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
Worry About Global Cooling!
The New Scientist magazine for August 16th-22nd, which just arrived at my location, suggests that we should commit to serious and substantive action on global warming even though we are entering a cooling period, which could last for a decade or more.
Another way of putting it is this: (a) all global warming models predicting continuous warming in the 21st century; (b) they were wrong – it’s cooling; so (c) ignore the data and stick with the ideology, since all our models predict warming later.
Some science: An analysis of climate data by two Chinese researchers (see Zhen-Shan, L. and S. Xian. 2007. Multi-scale analysis of global temperature changes and trend of a drop in temperature in the next 20 years. Meteorology and Atmospheric Physics, 95, 115–121) suggest that the earth’s temperature will cool for the next twenty years and that this trend started in many locations in 2000. This is an outlier – most others, suggest that it will cool for at least ten. Coupled with this, we see that Antarctica has an unusually high snow fall over the last several years (see Thomas, E. R., G. J. Marshall, and J. R. McConnell, 2008. A doubling in snow accumulation in the western Antarctic Peninsula since 1850. Geophysical Research Leters, 35, L01706, doi:10.1029/2007GL032529) and that it is getting more ice.
Solar scientists predict that, by 2020, the sun will be starting into its weakest Schwabe solar cycle of the past two centuries, likely leading to unusually cool conditions on earth. Beginning to plan for adaptation to such a cool period, one which may continue well beyond one 11-year cycle, as did the little ice age, should be a priority for governments. It is global cooling, not warming, that is the major climate threat to the world, especially Canada.”
Astrophysicist Nir Shariv, a prolific researcher and one of Israel's top young scientists, no longer accepts the logic of man-made global warming. "Like many others, I was personally sure that CO2 is the bad culprit in the story of global warming,” Shariv wrote. "But after carefully digging into the evidence, I realized that things are far more complicated than the story sold to us by many climate scientists or the stories regurgitated by the media." According to Dr. Shariv there is no concrete evidence — only speculation — that manmade greenhouse gases cause global warming. Even research from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is bereft of anything here inspiring confidence.
"Solar activity can explain a large part of the 20th-century global warming," he states, adding that the sun's strong role indicates that greenhouse gases can't have much of an influence on the climate — nor will cutbacks in future C02 emissions will matter much in terms of the climate. Even doubling the amount of CO2 by 2100, "will not dramatically increase the global temperature," Shaviv states.
Finally, an article formally located at www.climatecentral.org and now found at www.iceagenow.com , states that should solar activity take a dive tomorrow, the temperatures would cool significantly. "Solar activity has overpowered any effect that CO2 has had before, and it most likely will again,” the article avers. "In fact, we should be more afraid of a cooling trend because of a solar minimum that will peak in 2030 that could be fairly large. As we saw from a minor solar minimum in the mid 1900s, the earth suddenly started to cool. If we were to have even a medium sized solar minimum, we could be looking at a lot more bad effects than 'global warming' would have had.”
In a 2003 poll conducted by German environmental Researchers Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch, two-thirds of more than 530 climate scientists from 27 countries surveyed did not believe that "the current state of scientific knowledge is developed well enough to allow for a reasonable assessment of the effects of greenhouse gases." About half of those polled stated that the science of climate change was not sufficiently settled to pass the issue over to policymakers at all. Nothing much has changed.
Another way of putting it is this: (a) all global warming models predicting continuous warming in the 21st century; (b) they were wrong – it’s cooling; so (c) ignore the data and stick with the ideology, since all our models predict warming later.
Some science: An analysis of climate data by two Chinese researchers (see Zhen-Shan, L. and S. Xian. 2007. Multi-scale analysis of global temperature changes and trend of a drop in temperature in the next 20 years. Meteorology and Atmospheric Physics, 95, 115–121) suggest that the earth’s temperature will cool for the next twenty years and that this trend started in many locations in 2000. This is an outlier – most others, suggest that it will cool for at least ten. Coupled with this, we see that Antarctica has an unusually high snow fall over the last several years (see Thomas, E. R., G. J. Marshall, and J. R. McConnell, 2008. A doubling in snow accumulation in the western Antarctic Peninsula since 1850. Geophysical Research Leters, 35, L01706, doi:10.1029/2007GL032529) and that it is getting more ice.
Solar scientists predict that, by 2020, the sun will be starting into its weakest Schwabe solar cycle of the past two centuries, likely leading to unusually cool conditions on earth. Beginning to plan for adaptation to such a cool period, one which may continue well beyond one 11-year cycle, as did the little ice age, should be a priority for governments. It is global cooling, not warming, that is the major climate threat to the world, especially Canada.”
Astrophysicist Nir Shariv, a prolific researcher and one of Israel's top young scientists, no longer accepts the logic of man-made global warming. "Like many others, I was personally sure that CO2 is the bad culprit in the story of global warming,” Shariv wrote. "But after carefully digging into the evidence, I realized that things are far more complicated than the story sold to us by many climate scientists or the stories regurgitated by the media." According to Dr. Shariv there is no concrete evidence — only speculation — that manmade greenhouse gases cause global warming. Even research from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is bereft of anything here inspiring confidence.
"Solar activity can explain a large part of the 20th-century global warming," he states, adding that the sun's strong role indicates that greenhouse gases can't have much of an influence on the climate — nor will cutbacks in future C02 emissions will matter much in terms of the climate. Even doubling the amount of CO2 by 2100, "will not dramatically increase the global temperature," Shaviv states.
Finally, an article formally located at www.climatecentral.org and now found at www.iceagenow.com , states that should solar activity take a dive tomorrow, the temperatures would cool significantly. "Solar activity has overpowered any effect that CO2 has had before, and it most likely will again,” the article avers. "In fact, we should be more afraid of a cooling trend because of a solar minimum that will peak in 2030 that could be fairly large. As we saw from a minor solar minimum in the mid 1900s, the earth suddenly started to cool. If we were to have even a medium sized solar minimum, we could be looking at a lot more bad effects than 'global warming' would have had.”
In a 2003 poll conducted by German environmental Researchers Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch, two-thirds of more than 530 climate scientists from 27 countries surveyed did not believe that "the current state of scientific knowledge is developed well enough to allow for a reasonable assessment of the effects of greenhouse gases." About half of those polled stated that the science of climate change was not sufficiently settled to pass the issue over to policymakers at all. Nothing much has changed.
Sunday, August 24, 2008
Wind in the Willows?
Wind-generated energy is presented as one of most environmentally beneficial sources of renewable energy. Germany remains the world leader in wind power capacity, with almost 24 percent of the global total (22,247 megawatts), but it experienced a lackluster year in 2007. Still, renewable energy resources now generate more than 14 percent of Germany’s electricity needs, with about half of this coming from wind.
Spain led Europe in new installations in 2007, now ranking third worldwide in total wind capacity (15,145 megawatts). France, Italy, Portugal, and the United Kingdom all experienced significant growth last year as well. In all, EU wind power capacity rose 18 percent in 2007, and the region is home to 60 percent of global installed capacity.
China was the biggest surprise in 2007. Barely in the wind business three years ago, China trailed only the United States and Spain in new wind installations in 2007, and ranked fifth in total installed capacity (6,050 megawatts). However, an estimated one-fourth of this capacity remains unconnected to the grid due to planning problems.
The global wind market was worth an estimated $36 billion in 2007, accounting for almost half of all investment in new renewable electric and heating capacity. Such strong demand is creating these industry trends:
Competition among wind turbine OEMs is rapidly intensifying as growth extends to new regions, encouraging start-ups of new manufacturers while pushing leading suppliers to expand their sales and production globally.
Turbine prices, and the costs of installation, have trended upward over the last four years after nearly a decade of cost reductions per megawatt of nameplate capacity. The global market’s boom in demand has clearly shifted the industry from a buyer’s to a seller’s market in the past three years, with corresponding price increases.
Multiple players moving on 2 MW and above segment: Vestas and Enercon— pioneers in 2 MW and larger turbines—are aiming to protect their share of this market. However, multiple proven machines from Gamesa, Siemens, Suzlon/REpower, Alstom/Ecotecnia and others are providing buyers more options.
Component suppliers face new challenges to keep pace with turbine demand, calling for major production capacity investments in the multi-megawatt segment, as well as a focus on local supply in booming new markets while keeping costs competitive.
Installed capacity in Canada (as of January 2008) was app. 1.856 megawatts, with at least another 700 MW of capacity expected to come online by the end of the year. Wind energy currently accounts for 0.8% of Canada's domestic electricity supply. Alberta currently has the largest installed capacity of any Province in Canada with 523 MW (28% of Canada’s installed capacity).
The development of renewable capacity is strongly supported by the Canadian public. In an Angus Reid Strategies report in October 2007, 89 per cent of respondents said that using renewable energy sources like wind or solar power was positive for Canada, because these sources were better for the environment. Only 4 per cent considered using renewable sources as negative since they can be unreliable and expensive.
However, according to the Heartland Institute, the costs of wind-powered energy far outweigh the benefits.
* At the risk of stating the obvious, wind power is only available when the wind is blowing; when it stops, so does the power. So as to compensate for unreliability, stand by conventional power has to be available to “kick in” when the wind drops. This results in CO2 emissions without balancing energy outputs and a more unreliable grid – as both Germany and Denmark report.
* Installed capacity is one measure. The more important one is energy utilization. The average output of a wind turbine is app. One quarter of its capacity. In Denmark, where wind power represents 20% of installed capacity, wind turbines generate just 6% of the power Denmark consumed in 2004. What is more, not all of this power could be used in Denmark – it had to export it to Norway at a loss. Also, since the wind blew at times different from peak demand, Denmark also found itself importing electricity from other jurisdictions at premium prices.
* The trick, yet to be found, is storing power from wind turbines so that it can be available when needed and we can reduce the need for “firming” wind based systems with conventional power production. We do not yet have effective storage systems for the kind of capacity wind turbines can produce when they are functioning well – when this storage technology arrives, much more economies of scale may be possible. However, this will require additional investments to upgrade currently installed capacity and new investment models for all new wind farm construction.
* To produce the same amount of energy as a conventional power plant, wind farms need 85 times more land area.
* Wind farms produce both noise pollution and sight pollution, emitting blinding strobe-light sensations at dawn and dusk, and nearly constant noise pollution.
* Wind power costs twice as much as electricity produced by traditional fossil fuels. A 2004 study in the UK showed that wind power (including the cost of stand by generation) cost 5.4 pence (10 cents Canadian app.) per kw hour versus 2.2 (4 cents) from natural gas, 2.5p from coal and 2.3p from nuclear. Offshore wind power cost 7.2pp. A lot of these real costs are masked by deep Government subsidies. This translates into significant costs - £90 per MW hour versus £45 for “normal” power sources.
* Government subsidies for wind power are the only mechanism to ensure viability . In the UK, each turbine earns its owners £400,000 (app $800,000 Canadian) of which £200,000 comes from power sold to the grid and £200,000 from subsidies. In some jurisdictions, subsidies are worth more to the owner than the revenue from power sold to the grid.
* Also, critics ask, where is the environmentalist lobby's well-known concern for animal life? The US Department of Energy plans to build 132,000 new wind turbines by 2020. By conservative estimates, the new turbines would kill between 12 million and 15 million birds.
Environmentalists ignore the clear and certain costs of wind-powered energy: higher cost and lost efficiency, increased land development, noise and light pollution and bird deaths. They are also not keen to systematically look at the economics of wind power or the CO2 output from stand-by firming power generators which use gas or coal.
Spain led Europe in new installations in 2007, now ranking third worldwide in total wind capacity (15,145 megawatts). France, Italy, Portugal, and the United Kingdom all experienced significant growth last year as well. In all, EU wind power capacity rose 18 percent in 2007, and the region is home to 60 percent of global installed capacity.
China was the biggest surprise in 2007. Barely in the wind business three years ago, China trailed only the United States and Spain in new wind installations in 2007, and ranked fifth in total installed capacity (6,050 megawatts). However, an estimated one-fourth of this capacity remains unconnected to the grid due to planning problems.
The global wind market was worth an estimated $36 billion in 2007, accounting for almost half of all investment in new renewable electric and heating capacity. Such strong demand is creating these industry trends:
Competition among wind turbine OEMs is rapidly intensifying as growth extends to new regions, encouraging start-ups of new manufacturers while pushing leading suppliers to expand their sales and production globally.
Turbine prices, and the costs of installation, have trended upward over the last four years after nearly a decade of cost reductions per megawatt of nameplate capacity. The global market’s boom in demand has clearly shifted the industry from a buyer’s to a seller’s market in the past three years, with corresponding price increases.
Multiple players moving on 2 MW and above segment: Vestas and Enercon— pioneers in 2 MW and larger turbines—are aiming to protect their share of this market. However, multiple proven machines from Gamesa, Siemens, Suzlon/REpower, Alstom/Ecotecnia and others are providing buyers more options.
Component suppliers face new challenges to keep pace with turbine demand, calling for major production capacity investments in the multi-megawatt segment, as well as a focus on local supply in booming new markets while keeping costs competitive.
Installed capacity in Canada (as of January 2008) was app. 1.856 megawatts, with at least another 700 MW of capacity expected to come online by the end of the year. Wind energy currently accounts for 0.8% of Canada's domestic electricity supply. Alberta currently has the largest installed capacity of any Province in Canada with 523 MW (28% of Canada’s installed capacity).
The development of renewable capacity is strongly supported by the Canadian public. In an Angus Reid Strategies report in October 2007, 89 per cent of respondents said that using renewable energy sources like wind or solar power was positive for Canada, because these sources were better for the environment. Only 4 per cent considered using renewable sources as negative since they can be unreliable and expensive.
However, according to the Heartland Institute, the costs of wind-powered energy far outweigh the benefits.
* At the risk of stating the obvious, wind power is only available when the wind is blowing; when it stops, so does the power. So as to compensate for unreliability, stand by conventional power has to be available to “kick in” when the wind drops. This results in CO2 emissions without balancing energy outputs and a more unreliable grid – as both Germany and Denmark report.
* Installed capacity is one measure. The more important one is energy utilization. The average output of a wind turbine is app. One quarter of its capacity. In Denmark, where wind power represents 20% of installed capacity, wind turbines generate just 6% of the power Denmark consumed in 2004. What is more, not all of this power could be used in Denmark – it had to export it to Norway at a loss. Also, since the wind blew at times different from peak demand, Denmark also found itself importing electricity from other jurisdictions at premium prices.
* The trick, yet to be found, is storing power from wind turbines so that it can be available when needed and we can reduce the need for “firming” wind based systems with conventional power production. We do not yet have effective storage systems for the kind of capacity wind turbines can produce when they are functioning well – when this storage technology arrives, much more economies of scale may be possible. However, this will require additional investments to upgrade currently installed capacity and new investment models for all new wind farm construction.
* To produce the same amount of energy as a conventional power plant, wind farms need 85 times more land area.
* Wind farms produce both noise pollution and sight pollution, emitting blinding strobe-light sensations at dawn and dusk, and nearly constant noise pollution.
* Wind power costs twice as much as electricity produced by traditional fossil fuels. A 2004 study in the UK showed that wind power (including the cost of stand by generation) cost 5.4 pence (10 cents Canadian app.) per kw hour versus 2.2 (4 cents) from natural gas, 2.5p from coal and 2.3p from nuclear. Offshore wind power cost 7.2pp. A lot of these real costs are masked by deep Government subsidies. This translates into significant costs - £90 per MW hour versus £45 for “normal” power sources.
* Government subsidies for wind power are the only mechanism to ensure viability . In the UK, each turbine earns its owners £400,000 (app $800,000 Canadian) of which £200,000 comes from power sold to the grid and £200,000 from subsidies. In some jurisdictions, subsidies are worth more to the owner than the revenue from power sold to the grid.
* Also, critics ask, where is the environmentalist lobby's well-known concern for animal life? The US Department of Energy plans to build 132,000 new wind turbines by 2020. By conservative estimates, the new turbines would kill between 12 million and 15 million birds.
Environmentalists ignore the clear and certain costs of wind-powered energy: higher cost and lost efficiency, increased land development, noise and light pollution and bird deaths. They are also not keen to systematically look at the economics of wind power or the CO2 output from stand-by firming power generators which use gas or coal.
Thursday, August 21, 2008
Patio Heaters and Climate Change
In January, the European Parliament voted to ban patio heaters in the name of climate change. Apparently, there are some1.2 million such heaters in use in the UK and this usage is expected to double. Their popularity has risen significantly in the wake of the smoking ban, which has led to many organizations like pubs, clubs, eating places installing them for customers so that they can stay warm and smoke outdoors.
This is what the Energy Savings Trust (UK) says about them, using the UK as the country of measurement:
• A propane patio heater with a heat output of 12.5kW will produce around 34.9kg of CO2 before the fuel runs out (after approximately 13 hours). This is equivalent to the energy required to produce approximately 5,200 cups of tea (or 400 cups for every hour of operation).
• 2.3 million domestic patio heaters would emit the same amount of CO2 in a year as driving from Lands End to John O' Groats 200,000 times.
• The average patio heater uses the same amount of energy as a gas hob uses in six months and emits around 50 kg of CO2 per year. But while a hob is an essential item used every day in most kitchens patio heaters are typically only used for two months of the year, mostly in July and August.
• A modeling exercise by MTP on the energy use of the 630,000 UK domestic patio heaters calculated that they could produce a total of 140,000 tones of carbon dioxide per annum. This is roughly equivalent to the CO2 emissions from all the homes in Bath.
• Unlike cars, patio heaters are not fitted with filters to reduce the gases they produce. A standard 13kg canister of gas will warm an area outside of up to 25 sq m for 12 hours, whereas the same canister used in a gas fire could heat the same area indoors for 10 times longer.
One response to this, by doctors writing in the British Medical Journal (John Guillebaud, Emeritus Professor of Family Planning at UCL, and Pip Hayes, a GP), is that the logic of this ban should apply to families considering having a third child. The doctors comment that “choosing to have a third child is the same as buying a patio heater or driving a gas-guzzling car, and that GPs should advise their patients against it”.
Dr Hayes is certainly more than willing to advise her patients on matters that many would say are outside the remit of a GP. Her practice exhorts its patients not to fly on holiday, "but if you are flying this year, please consider offsetting your carbon emissions". Dr Hayes also requests that her patients "will walk or cycle whenever possible", so as not to damage the environment as well as for their own health. She herself is off on sabbatical to Madagascar and Australia - no doubt having offset the carbon from her flights.
Rod Liddle in his regular column in The Spectator (9th August) suggests that this all getting a bit silly – fashionista politics. He wonders “what’s next?” – so do I.
This is what the Energy Savings Trust (UK) says about them, using the UK as the country of measurement:
• A propane patio heater with a heat output of 12.5kW will produce around 34.9kg of CO2 before the fuel runs out (after approximately 13 hours). This is equivalent to the energy required to produce approximately 5,200 cups of tea (or 400 cups for every hour of operation).
• 2.3 million domestic patio heaters would emit the same amount of CO2 in a year as driving from Lands End to John O' Groats 200,000 times.
• The average patio heater uses the same amount of energy as a gas hob uses in six months and emits around 50 kg of CO2 per year. But while a hob is an essential item used every day in most kitchens patio heaters are typically only used for two months of the year, mostly in July and August.
• A modeling exercise by MTP on the energy use of the 630,000 UK domestic patio heaters calculated that they could produce a total of 140,000 tones of carbon dioxide per annum. This is roughly equivalent to the CO2 emissions from all the homes in Bath.
• Unlike cars, patio heaters are not fitted with filters to reduce the gases they produce. A standard 13kg canister of gas will warm an area outside of up to 25 sq m for 12 hours, whereas the same canister used in a gas fire could heat the same area indoors for 10 times longer.
One response to this, by doctors writing in the British Medical Journal (John Guillebaud, Emeritus Professor of Family Planning at UCL, and Pip Hayes, a GP), is that the logic of this ban should apply to families considering having a third child. The doctors comment that “choosing to have a third child is the same as buying a patio heater or driving a gas-guzzling car, and that GPs should advise their patients against it”.
Dr Hayes is certainly more than willing to advise her patients on matters that many would say are outside the remit of a GP. Her practice exhorts its patients not to fly on holiday, "but if you are flying this year, please consider offsetting your carbon emissions". Dr Hayes also requests that her patients "will walk or cycle whenever possible", so as not to damage the environment as well as for their own health. She herself is off on sabbatical to Madagascar and Australia - no doubt having offset the carbon from her flights.
Rod Liddle in his regular column in The Spectator (9th August) suggests that this all getting a bit silly – fashionista politics. He wonders “what’s next?” – so do I.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
