I am not the world’s most enthusiastic air traveller. In fact, that overstates my love of airports many thousandfold. But the time came last week when my sons needed to go abroad for the first time — to Ireland, from where both my wife’s family and my own come (her parents being Gaelic speakers by origin).
Ryanair is not a great introduction to air travel, and they did not seem to enjoy the experience. As a result a trip back by boat and train suited them well, and has now been completed — twenty four hours later than scheduled and all very smoothly except for the exceptionally unhelpful Virgin staff at Crewe (to be contrasted with all other train staff who have been brilliant).
It’s staggering to note how something like a volcano erupting can have such an impact on life. And in microcosm it shows how much a part of nature we humans are, and how mush we must respect that fact.
I confidently predict a serious decline in air travel after this incident, and a significant rise in teleconferencing. I would welcome that. Of course meeting face to face is useful sometimes. But maybe not as often as we think.
I also note something else related to the environment. All of which leads me to also note that the right wing have not been grovelling in their apologies when after months of controversy, the University of East Anglia climate unit was exonerated last week over the leaked emails affair. The Royal Society found the work undertaken at the unit was robust. The climate change deniers — almost to a person the same people it seems who promote tax abuse — have been silent in response. Facts don’t appeal to them.
Of course a volcanic eruption has, almost certainly, nothing to do with climate change. But it does emphatically demonstrate our dependence upon nature and the risk we take if altering the environment in a way that might make irrevocable change threatening our life much more seriously than simply being denied the opportunity to travel by air.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
I think that you may have missed the point on the leaked emails, Richard. I have no doubt over the robustness of the scientific methods that are used by the scientists at the UEA. The issue is over the comments they made in their emails. To put it politely, they were foolish and naive to write what they did in the emails. They should have realised that any outside scrutiny of their work or peer review would have focused on their comments and lead people to question their dat and scientific methods. To have had three separate enquiries into their work (I believe the third is due to report this week – volcano permitting of course) has set back the aims of the man made climate change movement massively.
The large issue is not man made climate change in itself. It is the degree of man made change that is the issue. Geophysics and climatology tell us that the earth warms and cools on its own without our help. If you haven’t already, I urge you to look at the data that is available on this. The piece that everyone can’t figure out is how much of the increase is natural (and unavoidable) and how much is man made or whether man’s activity is “turbo charging” the earth cooling and warming on its own. Whilst we should embrace green technology where there is an obvious advantage to do so (fewer emissions, greater efficiency and, ultimately, lower cost) we should not kid ourselves that this is a panacea. Volcanos have been with us since before the dinosaurs. They will erupt according to geophysical laws.
@Richard
They were private emails
The movement has only been set back amongst those who want to rape the earth for their own short term gain
That’s the be all and end all of it
“The climate change deniers — almost to a person the same people it seems who promote tax abuse — have been silent in response. Facts don’t appeal to them.”
I happen to be the most green of all the people I know. I recycle everything, compost like mad and grow a large proportion of my own food. I do this out of respect for nature.
The problem with “climate change” as it is presented in the media is that – like everything else these days – it is totally dumbed down. I simply do not believe that humans understand enough about the ultra-complex system of the environment to know what causes climate change. I think to believe we do is hubristic – like Gordo saying he had abolished boom and bust. And also, a theory is only scientific if it is testable. So while I am quite happy to accept the evidence on global dimming – which is a very serious and unreported problem – it seems to me the only rational response to global warming is to say that there are some things that may be too complex to be predicted with any accuracy.
The environment is like the stock market – full of professionals that would like to persuade you it is a one way bet. Well, I don’t buy it. But that doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t be green. We should be sustainable because it is obviously right to be sustainable.
If you dig up all the fossil fuels and burn them needlessly, you don’t need to be a scientist to know its a bad idea. Nor do you need to believe the scientists to justify acting sensibly. After all, many of these scientists were equally confidently predicting an ice age 30 years ago.
MF
For once I’ll say “fair comment” and that I respect the position – which is tenable
R
“For once I’ll say “fair comment” and that I respect the position – which is tenable” I won’t because no it isn’t.
“I simply do not believe that humans understand enough about the ultra-complex system of the environment to know what causes climate change.”
That statement is pure tripe. It is not necessary to know everything about every tree to be able to comprehend the wood. At the overall global level, not only is it not ultra-complex, it is ultra-simple: higher CO2 concentration = more energy absorbed = higher average global temperature.
“The only rational response to global warming is to say that there are some things that may be too complex to be predicted with any accuracy.”
And therefore also tripe.
But I must point out hw the Green New Deal is a ‘fact denier’, or is at least extremely underhand, in its supposed aim to create a million new jobs but failing to acknowledge or take account of the fact that 92% of created jobs have gone to foreign workers, and what then a million newly created jobs means, including environmental impact.
I think you are also very selective.
@Strategist
If MF is saying in the uncertainty that exists he is opting to be green and so respect the risk that there is human impact on global warming but the scale is not yet proven then his behaviour is appropriate in the face of uncertainty – which we all have to acknowledge does exist with regard to what might happen. There are unknown unknowns out there after all. In the face of them caution is required – and he is exercising it
I think that is tenable
“At the overall global level, not only is it not ultra-complex, it is ultra-simple: higher CO2 concentration = more energy absorbed = higher average global temperature”
Yes, but my point, which you illustrate, is that the earth is not a simple system. More CO2 also means more photosynthesis, and thus a greater rate of conversion of CO2. Higher temperatures mean increased clouds, thus reducing the amount of energy absorbed. Any increase in temperature may or may not lead to changes in ocean flows, glacial melt etc, any of which could either dampen or magnify any changes.
My point is simple: live sustainably because, to be trite, we have only borrowed the world from our children. All the arguments about global warming are detractions from that simple truth.
Or to put it another way, the reason I don’t beat my wife is because I love her, not because I have carried out an analysis on whether I will suffer if I beat her and have decided that on balance it is in my self interest not to.
And just to get back on point, I can think of no more sensible use of public money in these times than paying anyone with practical skills to insulate homes to high standards.
I also hope that if planes continue to be grounded people come to realise that life can still be enjoyable even without air-freighted flowers and fruit.
MF, you have come to right conclusion about what to do about greenhouse gas emissions, so well done, I have no argument there.
However, you remain entirely wrong that the earth-atmosphere system is so complex we are unable to understand it. Your attempts to argue about photosynthesis and clouds are not convincing. All these factors are well known by climate scientists and have been factored in to calculations of the overall net position.
Yes in the micro detail the system is complex – that’s why we can’t predict next week’s weather, and why we see all kinds of movements around the trend. But at the highest macro level it is simple: one sun, one planet, one atmosphere. And we have known enough basic physics for many many years to be able to say unequivocally, that over 30 years, 50 years, 100 years, however you want to average out climate, greater CO2 concentration = hotter.