@gstringermp Why there is confusion on Scientific support for climate change

I was prompted to this blog piece by G. Stringer, MP, trying to get a clarification, from a witterer, about the justification for Climatologists proclamations, during a select committee inquiry.

You and I KNOW that if we drop an egg on rocky ground, it will smash. we KNOW that it will not re-assemble and jump back in your hand.

Scientists are taught that, in theory it could do just that.

This causes a problem amongst Scientists, who want to maintain the rigour of the Scientific approach and those, who want to “get real”. I.e. reject that rigour, where it is in conflict with Human experience and the utility of Science.

All Scientists have some sympathy with the “get real” approach but a group of American Scientists have wanted to push this lack of rigour further, where there is a presumption of serious danger.

This is where the discussion of risk comes in.

Consider the case of the extinction of the dinosaurs.

Scientists can analyse and predict both the probability of such an incident occuring again and a likely time interval, in which it will happen (but with the rider that there’s no guarantee of it ever happening).

The probability of such an asteroid of the same, or greater, mass hitting the Earth, in the near future, is extremely low but, if it did happen, it would mean the possible extinction of mankind.

This has prompted some Scientists to propose that such risks must be given more emphasis than less important ones. Consider; micro-meteorites are entering the Earth’s atmosphere everyday and are harmless. Brick size meteorites quite frequently impact and could pose a danger to individuals but, in terms of human existence, these are not important enough to take action on.

In this respect there seems to be a case for claiming that the risk factor is more important than the verifiability of the odds of it happening and that we should plan, as if they were a clear and imminent danger.

The situation with the island of Las Palmas De Gran Canaria is even more critical, as the likelihood of half the island slipping into the Atlantic is virtually certain and the predicted time range, includes the present.

The USA is already taking some measures to cope with the anticipated Tsunami but politically any effective action is virtually impossible. Millions will die, along the Eastern Seaboard of the America’s. Here in the UK, the Tsunami will kill many (possibly 10,000’s) but no preparation will be afforded.

The lack of any effective action in the above situation has been exacerbated by the problem of Global Warming, which has been picked up by politicians and assumed the mantle of a Gospel with Climatologists as high priests.

Climatologists have career’s dependent on perpetuating the fear’s associated with Global Warming and placing the blame on the burning of fossil fuels. (my own view, based on the associated political pantomime, is that the Oil companies and politician’s funded the hysteria to push the plebs into a reduction of fossil fuel usage but are now back-pedalling as Shale-gas has reduced the likelihood of an Energy Crisis).

Putting aside the truth about that “presumptive danger”, it is obvious that the more valid presumptive danger’s, such as Las Palmas have been lost sight of and thus nullified the initial, quite reasonable proposition of rating such events based on their probability, combined with probable impact on Human Life.

For me the climate change industry has done Humanity a disservice.  Climate change may come, regardless of whether, or not, we stop burning fossil fuels.

There is no imminent danger to life.

There is a case, however for adapting and planning to cope with the change, by, for instance, pushing for Civilisation to be removed to higher ground and away from potential flooding.

We, in the uk, could plan for new towns, with transport access, to be built above 100 feet, as and when needed. This would be especially relevant near the River Severn, where the Las Palmas tsunami would hit.

Instead of concentrating more people into London, where the Thames Barrier is barely enough to prevent flooding, at present, we should think about moving administration to a more central position, north of the M6/M1 junction. H.o.P. can stay in London for ceremonial functions.

Forget Carbon footprints and analyse the greater potential calamities.

Decide to what extent we could minimise the dangers, without sacrificing elsewhere.


Tags: , , , , , ,

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: