Climate Conversation Group

Taking the heat out of global warming

For the first time in history, people shouting “the end is nigh” are somehow
the sane ones, while those of us who say it is not are now the lunatics.

  • rss
  • Home
  • Open threads
    • Climate – how to use open threads
      • Meteorology
      • Global warming
      • Climate science
        • Climate Models
        • Papers
        • Atmosphere
        • Temperature records
        • Energy and fuel
        • Solar
        • Ocean heat content
        • Radiation, radiative imbalance
        • Sea levels
        • Ocean acidification
        • Polar regions, glaciers and ice
      • Regions
        • Europe
        • Asia
        • South America
        • Africa
        • Australia
        • UK
        • USA
        • Pacific
        • New Zealand
      • News
      • Controversy and scandal
        • Skeptical Science
      • Disproving AGW
      • Economics
    • Politics
      • ETS and carbon taxes
    • UN
      • IPCC organisation
      • IPCC politics
      • IPCC science
      • NIPCC
  • Opinion polls
    • SckSckSck
    • Your view of CO2
    • Collective noun for icebergs
    • Stop the ETS
  • Climate of Freedom Tour
  • Files
    • Climate Realists
      • Newsletter #17 6 May 2010
      • Newsletter #16 28 Apr 2010
      • Newsletter #6 11 Feb 2010
      • Newsletter #4 2011
    • News releases
      • February 8, 2010
      • December 20, 2010
    • Wind turbine failures
  • About

Reflections on a changing climate

Guest author | May 6, 2012

Was Villach the start of global warming?

– by Dr John Maunder

Among the many climate science meetings I have attended, the most significant, at least as far as climate change is concerned, was my involvement in the UN-sponsored international conference held in the beautiful Austrian town of Villach in October 1985.

One hundred experts from 30 countries attended the meeting (in contrast to ten to twenty thousand who now attend such meetings), and I was privileged to be the only New Zealander invited. We were all there as experts – not representing our respective organisations – in various fields of science, endeavouring to do the best we could in looking at the complexities of climate science.

One of the principal findings of this conference was that

“while other factors, such as aerosol concentration, changes in solar energy input, and changes in vegetation, may also influence climate, the greenhouse gases are likely to be the most important cause of climate change over the next century.”

At that time, even though I was partly responsible for the writing of the above paragraph, I, along with a few of my colleagues, had some misgivings about it, and were somewhat surprised that within a year ‘human-induced global warming’ caught the imagination of much of the world. Indeed, not a day now goes by without some mention of global warming, climate change, emission trading schemes, etc. – terms which were the preserve of academic text books until recently.

Despite this concern, a colleague of mine from Australia, Bill Kininmonth, who in 2004 wrote a book called Climate Change – A Natural Hazard, has mentioned to me on several occasions that I have changed from being the ‘gamekeeper’ to being the ‘poacher’. Whether that is true is a matter of opinion. However, irrespective of my personal views on the matter, it is clear that there are two main views held by climate scientists and others on the subject of global warming and climate change.

First, there are those involved in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, many or most government scientists, plus others, such as Al Gore and many politicians and most journalists, who consider that man, with domestic animals, is the prime cause of recent changes in the climate.

Second, there are some university scientists, many retired climatologists, and a minority of politicians and journalists who consider that nature is the main cause of changes in the climate.

Twenty years ago, it was inconceivable that the New Zealand Government would have a Minister of Climate Change; indeed, back then, as weather forecasters and climatologists we just got on with our job of making the best possible weather forecast and providing the best climate advice to all those who requested information, without guidance or interference from the Government of the day.

How things have changed!


EDITORIAL NOTE

The web site of the World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) includes this statement:

In 1985 a joint UNEP/WMO/ICSU Conference was convened in Villach (Austria) on the “Assessment of the Role of Carbon Dioxide and of Other Greenhouse Gases in Climate Variations and Associated Impacts”. The conference concluded, that “as a result of the increasing greenhouse gases it is now believed that in the first half of the next century (21st century) a rise of global mean temperature could occur which is greater than any in man’s history.”

They were already using the language of alarm – no wonder politicians figured this could produce a jolly good scare; and terror has always been the best means to move serious amounts of money into the treasury. So the politicians were the first targets of the activists and the first to take the bait. Because they held the purse strings, they soon gave scientists the subtle but unmistakable message: if you don’t investigate this (whatever your topic), funding could prove difficult.

Yet only six years earlier the language at the first World Climate Conference had been much more reserved and cautious:

In 1979 the first “World Climate Conference” organized by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) expressed concern that “continued expansion of man’s activities on Earth may cause significant extended regional and even global changes of climate.” It called for “global cooperation to explore the possible future course of global climate and to take this new understanding into account in planning for the future development of human society.”

Though it will no doubt provide interesting material one day for historians curious about a period of mass lunacy, this is all water under the bridge. Our task now is to stop the spread of the nonsense.

My thanks to John for his snapshot of the start of the madness.

Categories
General
Tags
IPCC, John Maunder, Scientists, United Nations
Comments rss
Comments rss
Trackback
Trackback

« The real climate deniers State of the science »

4 Responses to “Reflections on a changing climate”

  1. Mike Jowsey says:
    May 7, 2012 at 12:44 am

    For the first time in history, people shouting “the end is nigh” are somehow the sane ones, while those of us who say it is not are now the lunatics.

    John, when you say “I, along with a few of my colleagues, had some misgivings about it”, could you elaborate?

    Reply
  2. Flipper says:
    May 8, 2012 at 9:51 am

    I know it is ad hominem, and for that I apologise. But I distrust “Phuds” who persist in describing themselves as “Dr” rather than “John Doe, PhD.”. (Self aggrandizement?)
    Well, perhaps I am being too harsh. Afterall “Doctor Jim Salinger” (aka J. Salinger, PhD) has provided us with much entertainment and, I guess Richard’s Climate Conversation would not be what it is were it not for him.

    NB: I do not liken Maunder J to Salinger J.

    Reply
    • Andy says:
      May 8, 2012 at 10:09 am

      actually I couldn’t agree more, as one of those “Phuds” myself.

      Reply
  3. Richard Treadgold says:
    May 8, 2012 at 12:44 pm

    Sorry, lads, I missed these comments when they came in. You’re being unduly harsh on John Maunder.

    I applied the “Dr” to his name, out of editorial respect for his doctorate. I had to look him up first to find out he had the PhD — he didn’t tell me.

    Cheers.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Click here to cancel reply.

buy FastProof now

          • Climate Conversation Group •
   • more than 1,400,000 visits a year
   • over 7,600,000 hits a year
               — join the Conversation —

Hot off the press

  • GWPF, RS talk climate change
  • Painting wanting rebuttal
  • Emotional knowledge
  • Global warming less than we thought
  • Climate porkies from TV One
  • Renwick doesn’t blame AGW for drought
  • Renowden a scaring warmist
  • Hide sticks it to Renwick
  • The incredibly elusive absolute surface air temperature
  • Faults, fallacies and failures of wind power
  • For real striving, give up the driving
  • Cost to ‘restore climate’ a game-changer
  • Signs of strain in justifying climate predictions
  • Is the game nearly over
  • IPCC created and controlled by activists
  • Policy: politicians write it but scientists incite it
  • The industry of denial
  • Lord Monckton complains to VUW
  • Climate forecasts fulfilled or what?
  • Snip-it

Latest comments

  • Richard C (NZ) on Painting wanting rebuttal
  • Thomas on Painting wanting rebuttal
  • Richard C (NZ) on Painting wanting rebuttal
  • Richard C (NZ) on Painting wanting rebuttal
  • Richard C (NZ) on Painting wanting rebuttal
  • Thomas on Painting wanting rebuttal
  • Thomas on Painting wanting rebuttal
  • Thomas on Painting wanting rebuttal
  • Richard C (NZ) on Painting wanting rebuttal
  • Richard C (NZ) on Painting wanting rebuttal
  • Richard C (NZ) on Painting wanting rebuttal
  • Richard C (NZ) on Painting wanting rebuttal
  • Richard C (NZ) on Painting wanting rebuttal
  • Richard C (NZ) on Painting wanting rebuttal
  • Andy on Skeptical Science
  • Richard Treadgold on Painting wanting rebuttal
  • Richard Treadgold on Renwick doesn’t blame AGW for drought
  • Andy on Renwick doesn’t blame AGW for drought
  • Bob D on Painting wanting rebuttal
  • David on Renwick doesn’t blame AGW for drought

PayPal Tip Jar
Even a couple of dollars helps us
(if you're in the mood). Thanks!


Click to get your own widget

Tags

Activists AGW Air temperature Air temperature Alarmists Alternative energy Australia Carbon dioxide Carbon Sense Carbon trading CCG blog Christopher Monckton Climate Conversation Group Climate research Climate Science Court action Data quality Disproving AGW Economics Energy supply Environmentalism ETS General Global temperature Global warming Hot Topic IPCC Journalism New Zealand NIWA NIWAgate NZCSC NZ Herald NZ temperature records Oceans Politics Royal Society Sceptics Science bias Scientists Sea levels United Nations USA Watts Up With That What is the evidence

Admin

  • Log in
  • Entries RSS
  • Comments RSS
  • WordPress.org

Climate change links

  • Bishop Hill
  • Carbon Sense Coalition
  • Climate Audit—a science blog
  • Climate Debate Daily
  • Climate Depot
  • Climate Etc. (Judith Curry)
  • Climate Realists
  • Global warming at a glance
  • Jo Nova
  • Kiwi Thinker
  • NZ Climate Science Coalition
  • Science of Doom
  • Watts Up With That

 

May 2012
M T W T F S S
« Apr   Jun »
 123456
78910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
28293031  

Previous posts

Oil prices

models v. reality
Latest climate models v. reality

As the models continue to leave actual temperature readings in their dust, sizeable warming halted about 1995 — although it might resume at any time. It must hasten to have any hope of catching up with the predictions.

If you claim warming continues, we want evidence of continued warming — eminently reasonable. Making us wait for 17 years for that evidence invites us to doubt you.

Claiming that warming hasn't stopped is the same as claiming it has — and both are ridiculous, for nobody knows the future. The best you can do is describe the past.

Click graph for larger version.

 

rss Comments rss valid xhtml 1.1 design by jide powered by Wordpress get firefox