I am a Dragon. I emerge from my Egg. There is a r4 prog on Running the rule over Stern's numbers tonigh (8 pm). Apparently I get my 5 mins of fame at some point during it, we shall have to see.
Update:
Well, I was indeed there, for rather longer than I expected. I particularly liked the bit where I say "the A2 scenario, this, err red line here...". If you listen carefully you can hear me laughing gently as I say it. Roll on my TV appearence.
Apart from that, I think this is a good prog: it airs the arguments against Stern I've given here and others have elsewhere, but within the context of the IPCC position rather than the insane-septic position. Stern gets a chance to talk back, but didn't sound very convincing to me: it just amounted to "I'm right". And of course he isn't, ha ha.
I forgot to mention the best part of all this: that my so-called rival James Annan got snipped out of the report. I bet he tried to talk about complicated things like climate sensitivity.
Email this entry to a friend
View the Technorati Link Cosmos for this entry
Comments
Note that the beeb has a link to this fine blog (and Eli's). Fame beckons......
Speaking of which, I believe that my arse was featured on BBC Look East last Friday as part of an exciting feature on mammoths. I'm so proud.
Posted by: SteveF | January 25, 2007 11:59 AM
Oh dear William. I've just listened to "The Investigation" on BBC Radio 4. It dealt with the Stern Review and I fear you've been suckered into contributing to a programme designed to sow doubt about the dangers of global warming.
Simon Cox, I thought, exhibited a very strong bias in his commentary, choice of contributors and the manner in which he framed the content of the programme. He asserted Stern was biased and had chosen worst case scenarios but Cox was shameless in his use of economics assumptions, for instance, with regard to discounting. And, where Stern can be criticised, did Cox deal with Stern's argument that global warming clearly shows a "market failure"? I didn't hear it.
Further did Cox deal with the CO2e ppm debate in which Mark Lynas and others have argued that Stern is seriously complacent about the dangers we face if we get to 550 ppm CO2e? Again no mention.
And then Cox did not challenge Hulme when he said FAR (4AR) will not deal with tipping pints. I find it difficult to believe that none of these sections (from the IPPC website) http://www.ipcc.ch/activity/wg2outlines.pdf will mention tipping points. OK maybe some other scientific term will be used but is Hulme being disingenuous here? And is Cox colluding in this?
Hulme was unchallenged when he claimed IPPC FAR will disagree with Stern. Will there be a follow up to systematically assess this prediction or will the assertion be left floating in the ether for denialists to pick over?
I could go on but I think this Radio 4 programme was really poor. Cox seemed to have an agenda, cherry picked his way through the information available, framed it all to suit his purposes, failed to question those he agreed with and overall did us a disservice. And you know I'm not surprised. Here is information about a previous programme Cox put together;
-----------------------------------------------------------
Overselling Climate Change
Thursday 20 April 2006 20:00-20:30 (Radio 4 FM)
Simon Cox reports on how scientists are becoming worried by the quality of research used to back up the most extreme climate predictions.
Every week we are assailed by scare stories about the climate. Malaria in Africa, hurricanes in Florida, even the death of frogs in Latin America - all are being linked to global warming. But does the science behind these claims really stand up, or are the risks of climate change being oversold to win the battle for influence?
-----------------------------------------------------------
I think it would be useful for you to reflect on all this and be a bit more media savvy next time the BBC call you ... unless, that is, you agree with Cox's bias!!!
Douglas Coker
[As I've said in the update, I thought it was a good programme. I can't think of anything in it I disagreed with (other than Stern saying "oh course I'm right"). You talk about cherry picking but I'm not sure which points you mean. "but Cox was shameless in his use of economics assumptions, for instance, with regard to discounting" - that wasn't the main point of the programme, though it is the main error in Stern (the science errors are smaller). Pretty well everyone agrees that Sterns discount rates are wrong. And Stern was given the chance to say he was right.
If GW is "market failure" thats *not the point of this prog* which was about Sterns erring-on-the-bad-side.
All indications are that we *will* get to 550e ppmv. There is currently no good evidence that this will be a disaster. If ML things otherwise, he is welcome to his opinion, but hasn't convinced me. But even if we accept this, you are arguing for a revision of the cost models for a given T rise - not for believing in higher T or higher CO2 scenarios.
As to tipping pints, I really do hope the AR4 will deal with this, but I fear it won't. As for tipping points, I'm with RC -W]
Posted by: Douglas Coker | January 25, 2007 5:22 PM
Douglas
You might be interested in Mark Lynas' review of the overselling climate change programme.
"I had a few emails today telling me to listen to a programme broadcast on BBC Radio 4 this evening asking whether climate change is now being over-hyped by the media, so when 8pm came around I duly poured myself a stiff drink and prepared for the worst. Read the news story on the BBC website and you'll quickly see why I was so worried (you can also listen again to the audio). "We are bombarded by stories warning us that global warming is out of control," the presenter, Simon Cox, writes. "Why do the stories that reach the public focus only on the most frightening climate change scenarios?" On it goes, making liberal use of the familiar terms - 'alarmist', 'hyped' and so on.
Imagine my surprise, therefore, when I found myself agreeing with some of the programme, rather than flying into a rage as I had expected. I think it is true that media coverage exaggerates the worst-case outcomes of scientific research, and that scientists and others now routinely ascribe disasters to climate change when any causal link is far from proven. So what? you might ask. Well, crying wolf undermines public confidence in science and the expertise scientists claim (justifiably, in the main) to represent."
Posted by: rv | January 25, 2007 5:36 PM
Is an elephant's not hairy enough?
:-)
Posted by: James Annan | January 25, 2007 7:59 PM
Re RV's comment. I guess you are the RV who produced both programmes. Good to see you participating in the debate. I've re-read ALL of Mark's comments on the previous programme and my contribution to that debate. It's here http://www.marklynas.org/2006/4/20/is-the-media-overselling-climate-change for all to see.
Much hinges on how serious 3 degrees C and the attendant ppm turn out to be. I'm of the view that it is quite appropriate to use the term "emergency". I think I'm right in saying William does not agree with this (see below somewhere).
I'm detecting some saying ... what's all the fuss about. Global warming is not going to be so bad. Maybe these folk are tired, or have adopted a kind of world weary cynicism. Maybe they just don't see things very politically and have a rather narrow perspective on science and it's place in the wider scheme of things.
I'd remind all that they are citizens and therefore have responsibilities.
Douglas Coker
[What you are saying is orthogonal to the points I was trying to make. Whether or not 3 oC is an emergency is not for me to judge: and whether it is or not *doesn't* justify Stern exaggerating the likely temperature response, or picking high-end CO2 scenarios.
Unless you are arguing that (a) T changes will be about IPCC mid-range (b) nonetheless the *effects* of these T changes will be worse than expected (c) you can't convince people of "b", so (d) you need to exaggereate the likely T changes in order to make people pay attention? I don't think thats a good idea at all. -W]
Posted by: Douglas Coker | January 26, 2007 4:55 AM
It must be annoying for an alarmist like William to see an exaggerated caricature of himself. A mirror that shows him how pathetic his thinking really is. Do you see the texts of Douglas Coker above, William? This is you, just a little bit more focused version of you.
Deeply held religious beliefs based on scientifically absurd notions such as 3C rise in our lifetime or 3C being an "emergency" and all these incredibly dumb things. You're doing all the same errors in thinking as Douglas Coker does, you only do them by 40% less frequently.
Posted by: Luboš Motl | January 27, 2007 4:55 PM
I really feel comfortable with Lubos' perspective. He is clearly very intelligent and educated, has no ties to "evil oil" or eco religion, nor is he trolling for GW grants.
Please keep it up Lubos. I have a physics undergraduate degree so I can appreciate much of what you say regarding climate science. However, when it comes to particle physics or string theory you are way over my head.
thx, again.
PS I also enjoy reading William's blog. At least he is not as crazy as many in the eco religion. I admire him for drawing a line beyond which he will not go.
Posted by: charlesH | January 27, 2007 7:53 PM