13 November 2006
Queuing up to jump on catastrophe bandwagon
Predictions of catastrophe are always good value: if you prove to be right, you can remind survivors that you said it would happen. If you’re wrong, no-one will remember.
I’m sure one University of East Anglia professor didn’t have that in mind the other week when he repeated the familiar warning that where freak weather events “might have occurred once in a generation, they may now happen every decade, and in the not-too-distant future that could be every two or three years”.
But he is part of a growing band of people willing, if not eager, to make such remarks. Some are climatologists, but many are not.
Sir David King, chief scientific adviser to the Government, is a chemist, but he is to the forefront of politically correct climate alarmists. John Prescott is a politician: his association of increased hurricane activity with global warming (possibly not his own idea) fell rather flat this year when no hurricanes at all made landfall during the season.
Sir Nicholas Stern is an economist, but he had no trouble impressing politicians with his forecasts of catastrophic climate change. Of course politicians are easy to impress, particularly when doom scenarios give them the excuse to increase taxes and restrict freedom. Other economists were not so enthused by his report.
Richard Tol, senior research officer at Ireland's Economic and Social Research Institute, commented drily: "It assumes that society will never get used to higher temperatures, changed rainfall patterns, or higher sea levels. This is a rather dim view of human ingenuity.
"The Stern Review can therefore be dismissed as alarmist and incompetent."
More significant locally, however, is the fact that Mike Hulme, director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research at the UEA, is concerned by the bandying about of catastrophe scenarios.
While sticking to the view that human activities are heavily involved in climate change, he says: “The language of catastrophe is not the language of science. To state that climate change will be ‘catastrophic’ hides a cascade of value-laden assumptions that do not emerge from empirical or theoretical science.
“Is any amount of climate change catastrophic? Catastrophic for whom, for where, and by when? What index is being used to measure the catastrophe?”
A welcome burst of sanity from an unimpeachable source, but he would certainly not go as far as Dr Patrick Moore, a founder of Greenpeace, who with many others feels there is still “no scientific proof of causation between the anthropogenic increase in atmospheric CO2 and the recent global warming trend” – a hypothesis, he says, that “has not yet been elevated to the level of a proven theory”.
Is there still room for an alternative explanation? A little-reported but significant new Danish study published by the Royal Society has recently provided definite experimental evidence that cosmic rays may be a major factor in climate change.
The figures fit, and the implication is that humans may have had little or no impact. Now that’s what I call a catastrophic theory – for politicians.
Driving hazards in Cape Town
The two Norfolk enthusiasts who are planning to drive to Cape Town to raise money for the East Anglian Air Ambulance may find that one of the most dangerous parts of the journey is Cape Town itself.
During a recent stay there I was driving along a mountain road when I was faced with a car proceeding merrily towards me round a corner on my side of the road. Fortunately I was able to swerve to avoid it, largely because I wasn’t watching my speedometer at the time.
But that was only one hazard: people wandering across motorways was another, and then there were the taxis.
Cape Town “Kombi” minibus taxis have their own highway code. While I was in line for traffic lights – or robots, as they are excitingly called over there – I was a little disturbed to note a series of Kombis shooting past on my inside, mounting the kerb and swerving round trees to beat the queues. Tourists are advised not to challenge these innovative drivers, as many of them carry guns.
Maybe bus lanes aren’t so bad after all.
Whales in unlikely places
Just south of Cape Town there is a stunning surfers’ bay called Llandudno. While walking among the huge boulders there we caught sight of a couple of whales only a hundred yards or so offshore. Yes, Llandudno. Yes, whales. What can I say?
Death off the roads and out of churches
My Scilly correspondent informs me that the Isles of Scilly Council has been criticised for not doing more to implement the Government’s proposals for keeping death off the roads.
The inaction of the council may have something to do with the fact that no-one has ever been killed in a road accident in the Scilly Isles. I wonder what their target is.
In Norfolk we are much more compliant. At Ranworth Church a safety bar was installed so that people could continue to climb the church tower. In 600 years no- one had ever fallen from the tower.
Speed up the paths and bridges
When I wrote about the need for paths and footbridges to bring city people easily to the recreational areas at Whitlingham, just outside the city, I was unaware of the persistent work done by the Norwich Rivers Heritage Group to open up much of the area involved.
They tell me that a big consultation is in progress to clarify the situation and to expedite the necessary amenities. I just hope it’s not too big: asking everyone is often an excuse for not doing anything, and in this case there seem to be simple things that could be done very quickly – or at least before I die.
The NRHG website is at www.norwichrivers.co.uk. It’s worth a look.