I've said before that I am no expert on climate change. I'm happy to rely on the wisdom (taking something for granted there I admit!) of thousands of climate scientists who contribute to the rather staid IPCC assessments. They say it's happening, our fault and going to be pretty bad. Much as I'd rather they were wrong - I guess they are probably right, an inconvenient truth though it is.
It's fair for everyone to have a view on climate change and what we should do about it - if it's happening then it's a big deal, if it's our fault then it's a big deal, and if we are going to do something to prevent it happening in too awful a way then it's a big deal. And if, like me and like most of us, one is not a climate expert then it is sometimes unsettling to hear disagreements between those who sound as though they know what they are talking about. However, I really love the pasting that David Mackay gives to Dominic Lawson in Mackay's excellent book (mentioned here before) Sustainable energy without the hot air. Have a look and see whether you believe the journalist or the physicist - and then think whether you would have believed the journalist if you hadn't seen the physicist's reply - tricky isn't it? And, to be absolutely fair, I don't know if Mr Lawson has come back and rebutted Professor Mackay's arguments - I'd like to see it if he has!
But I do know as a scientist by training, that things are rarely so clear and so beyond doubt that there is no room for quibbling. There are always some facts which don't fit - that make one a bit worried about whether one has the 'right' answer.
For example, over a decade ago when the reasons for the declines in farmland birds were still being worked out by RSPB researchers and others the yellowhammer seemed a problem species. It wasn't declining enough! Now, good though that was for the yellowhammer it seemed to cast some doubt over our understanding of the declines in birds such as tree sparrow, corn bunting and reed bunting - if they were declining because of lack of insects in summer and seeds in winter then why wasn't the yellowhammer?
I can't tell you the answer to that because the yellowhammer now seems to fit - unfortunately it is on the red list because of its rate of decline. So now it doesn't look like the exception that was proving the rule.
So why did the yellowhammer mislead us? It might be that our monitoring was awry in some way (maybe it was declining when we thought it wasn't!), it might be that there is a significant difference about the ecology of the yellowhammer that we still don't appreciate or it might be something that I can't think of. But at the time we worried about why the yellowhammer wasn't declining. If a farmland-bird-decline sceptic had a alighted on the yellowhammer he or she could have given us a hard time about whether we really knew what the causes of decline of the other species were. And we could have looked uncertain and exposed.
And that's not so unusual. There is usually some bit of evidence that doesn't fit, that jars and that is the grit in our smooth understanding. Sometimes that lack of fit leads us to better understanding - sometimes, in retrospect, it just looks a bit odd and unimportant. So it's worth bearing that in mind that when you hear someone picking away at a bit of evidence that doesn't seem to fit the climate change consensus - it might just be one of those things that spoils the beauty of the overall picture. Or they might be right! Maybe we should have a vote of scientists on the issue? But that's what the IPCC consensus-building process does for us - it gives us the agreement without us having to sift through the evidence ourselves.
What a great blog Mark,a crying shame more people don't read it or comment.Whether people agree or disagree it would at least make them think,obviously some people even experts will find ways to prove no global warming or say it has always happened through history.Surely the difference now is the rate of change because in time terms 50 years is miniscule and the rate of change in this period is colossal.The telegraph had a article that it is even worse in the oceans than on land,it seemed a bit complicated to remember but was very convincing and your scientific knowledge would surely be able to explain it more simply.The fact that strikes me more than anything is that as a dairy farmer in the Peak District I think they would all say that during the 60s they would have to take the milk to the nearest main road perhaps for period of as an example say 3 weeks during every winter because the snow would not allow any lorry anywhere near the farm.Now I don't think for many years there has been a problem.Think it is a waste of time offering money to the nations to be affected worst as one of them put it wouldn't even pay for the coffins.What they desperately need is for us all somehow to cut the emissions and I am sure that those that will be worst affected are in no doubt about global warming.Here is a extreme view,lets send the sceptic scientists to the first island where the sea will cover it and see if they change there mind.
Sooty - thanks as always for your comments!
Excellent blog Mark.
Of course there will always be anomalies in science and any data is only as good as the people recording it.
Mark appreciate your remarks, been accused of having extreme views,probably quite true but I promise anyone, compared to lots of people where I live I am a moderate but even so quite funny anyway.Think the theory was that people with extreme views should not be allowed on site.Find it a little worrying as on that site I felt sure they were very tame views whereas on your blog I do sometimes push the boundaries a bit.Hopefully as long as I don't put anyone off of commenting you and I can manage and I don't think I ever get rude and am always like yourself happy for others to have a different opinion.
What a colossal output of blogs you have and seems very strange at the moment we are going through a phase of agreeing(seems really funny).Over 200 seems fantastic.Sorry Mark I have a bit of a phobia about this extreme view lark but bound to pass,probably a case of trying bullying tactics which people who know me would think extremely humorous.Funnily enough although I don't visit many sites only come across a type of bullying on one site where one group always back each other up,all the other sites seem happy to embrace anyone and no cliques which is obviously how it should be.
Well Mark nice from Honey buzzard makes me feel a bit guilty,says a lot with a few words.Afraid I almost put he but best not to jump to conclusions but find myself wondering whether comments by he/she.
A superb explanation: no, we are never going to be absolutely certain and trying to understand what the experts are saying about ocean currents - and their disagreements - is a good example. But undelying all this, and what can get forgotten is that (1) fossil fuels really are finite and there seems little disagreement we've passed 'peak oil' and (2) the way we use resources - and the climate change linked to it - is already creating hell on earth for many millions of people who have little or no voice at the summit table. Much of what is done to combat climate change increases the resilience of the planet against the many unexpected disasters that have hit it in the past. Husbanding resources and paying attention to ecological messages has to make sense. We've had a century long 'holiday' from the forces that shaped the lives of previous generations and we need to start listening again & turning our new techological knowledge towards conservation, not exploitation.
Sooty - I am a she!
Honey Buzzard,nice to see someone can reply without seeing anything other than interest in guessing,there were a few Honey Buzzards about in autumn on the south coast and we did think we saw one but was to far away to be sure and we are only average bird watchers so don't like to jump to conclusions.
Nightjar hope most people would agree and support you there.