Kennedy Graham, another Greens MP who distorts environmental facts despite his immaculate steel-grey coiffure, says in the NBR that Rodney Hide’s depiction of the Greens (‘Zombie Greens chant false science mantra’) makes selective use of facts and conclusions. He should know, he’s an expert at it—for 16 years he was one of our diplomats.
In making the allegation against Rodney he commits the identical transgression, in failing to describe what Rodney has done. We have to take his word for it. But I won’t take his word for it; if he will not even describe the crime he names, I cannot believe him.
Mr Dr Graham claims to have read the Working Group I report in the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report (AR5). We’ll have to take his word for that, too.
But here is the core of Rodney’s criticism of the Greens: their abject failure to connect with the content of this bare-faced political manuscript that itself “makes selective use of facts and conclusions.”
Read what it says; interpret for yourself what the words mean; comment. Kennedy Graham offers, perhaps in innocence, an achingly apposite example of obfuscation from the WGI report. He says:
The report states, for example, that “It is very likely that increases in Arctic, Northern European, North American and southern hemisphere winter precipitation by the end of the century (2081-2100) will result from more precipitation in extra-tropical cyclones associated with enhanced extremes of storm-related precipitation [Ch. 14, p.5].”
I checked. The WGI report does indeed say that, on page five, just as Dr Graham reports. But has he read it?
Because this passage is saying that, by the end of the century, winter storm rain will increase because of increased rain from storms.
Please tell me I’m wrong — this does not enlighten us. The meaning and intent of the passage must be seriously questioned.
- How will winter rain be increased by cyclones which occur during spring and summer?
- If winter rain will increase, what will be the cause?
- Is not “enhanced extremes of … precipitation” the same as “more precipitation”?
- In the context of the statement, more precipitation is significant, but not less. The plural “extremes” is just exaggeration.
- When explaining global warming, which apparently is supported by “mounting” and even “overwhelming” evidence, and should therefore be easy to explain, why obscure your message with these mysterious ambiguities?
- Is there really any evidence of dangerous man-made global warming?
Our smart wee diplomat gives up one grain of good sense:
Little is achieved when politicians collide over science.
We agree! Hurrah! But wait: Hide and Graham collide, not over science, but over environmental philosophy—even, if we were honest, political philosophy, since they hold very different views of preferred structures and aims of society.
Mr Dr Graham quickly abandons common ground, spoiling it again with:
best simply to acknowledge the primary findings in the report, which is available for anyone to read.
Best to acknowledge the findings, because it avoids thinking about them. Well done, Ken — that’s just what Rodney’s talking about! The primary findings were written by politicians, not scientists, and they are inconsistent with observations. Why should we accept them? Why do you accept them?
Finally, Dr Graham gives up trying to think about this difficult subject and simply regurgitates 250 words from the Summary for Policy-Makers (SPM). Boring as hell, and NOT from the scientific report, as he claims, but from the SPM, written by bureaucrats and others with agendas. Here’s the first one; I will describe how false it is.
It is extremely likely that human influence on climate caused more than half the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010. There is high confidence that this has warmed the ocean, melted snow and ice, raised global mean sea-level, and changed some climate extremes in the second half of the 20th century (SPM, p.10).
First sentence: This is someone’s opinion, not a scientific observation. It acknowledges that nearly half the increase was natural. It fails to acknowledge that almost all the increase occurred between about 1980 and 2000. It doesn’t mention the lack of warming in 40 years of the 60 years they cite, which means that natural influences stronger than our puny carbon dioxide dominated the climate, while our CO2 was rising relentlessly.
Second sentence: This claims (let’s not be fooled by the “high confidence”) that the air can heat underlying water by radiation. This is impossible (
try waving a heater at a cold bath) because hot air rises. How much is imparted from the air by radiation? Not much—forget it. It’s long been known that the temperature of the air is determined by the underlying land, water or ice. There is no mechanism whereby you can wave a heat source (other than the sun!) over a body of water to heat it (it’s why the element in your kettle sits beneath the water). There is no mechanism by which an atmospheric gas can warm the ocean significantly by radiation, especially considering the minuscule amounts of human emissions of CO2. This claim is non-science. It is anti-science. It is spreading ignorance under the guise of knowledge. It is returning our advanced, knowledgeable societies to their previous condition of superstition. This is the opposite of science. It is untruth.
In comments below, Huub Bakker kindly points out my mistake here. A new sentence is marked in bold. My apologies — my enthusiasm made me careless. You can of course heat water with a hot element held over it. That’s how solar heating works. Heating probably occurs when certain atmospheric gases release infra-red energy they’ve absorbed, but at a very small magnitude. I say ‘probably’ because I’ve heard contradictory descriptions of the GH gases — that they absorb and emit IR energy and that they don’t. Anyone know? I stand by my deprecation of significant oceanic warming by GHG. – RT
Dr Graham concludes piously: “The only thing that is important is that [we] work in the interests of our children’s generation,” as though the rest of us think it unimportant.
Mr Dr Graham appears to conclude that facts will not assist those interests. He reveals no facts about global warming and evinces no interest in discovering any. When he does, and discovers warming has been stopped for nearly 20 years (as long as it existed) and it was never at any stage unprecedented or unnatural, he will undoubtedly be best pleased.
Tell me I’m wrong.
h/t Barry Brill.
UPDATE: 4 Nov 2013 6:35 pm NZST
IPCC contradicts Dr Graham, who,
chillingly, cites IPCC material
yet to be published—
signs of a conspiracy
Here is the Hon Rodney Hide’s comment at the NBR, demolishing Dr Graham’s lacklustre criticism of him (lightly edited for readability). – RT
Rodney Hide at the NBR
Dr Graham proves my point.
- My reporting of the IPCC conclusions that there has been no discernible increase in storms or droughts is correct. The IPCC report directly contradicts Dr Graham’s claim that this year’s NZ drought and storms were because of increased greenhouse gas emissions.
- His quote from the IPCC forecast of increased rain after the year 2081 hardly backs his claims. A projection of more rain in 68 years’ time doesn’t explain the 2013 drought and storms in New Zealand.
- The quote he uses is from the Final Draft Report that was made public on 30 September, three days after Dr Graham’s press statement in which he made his claims. He could hardly have been relying on that quote when making his claims.
I rest my case.
The Green’s practise zombie science, untroubled by facts and reason, and Dr Graham illustrates my point perfectly while claiming to counter it.
We agree. – RT