There is something poetic about comparing the head of a low-budget airline company to an ostrich.
The CEO of Ryan Air, Michael O'Leary, the cheap-flight kings of Europe, is grabbing headlines today and it is not for his company's cramped no-frills flights, but for his comments regarding the reality of climate change.
Despite the fact that 2010 is on track to being the hottest year in recorded human history and decades of scientific evidence to the contrary from the most prestigious scientific academies in the world, O'Leary is quoted in an interview with the Irish Independent that,
"Do I believe there is global warming? No, I believe it's all a load of bullshit. But it's amazing the way the whole fucking eco-warriors and the media have changed. It used to be global warming, but now, when global temperatures haven't risen in the past 12 years, they say 'climate change'."
In the article, O'Leary goes on categorize
"... the United Nations as "one of the world's most useless organisations", its Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) as "utter tosh", and US politician Al Gore as someone who "couldn't even get fucking re-elected" after a boom."
And on,
"The scientific community has nearly always been wrong in history anyway. In the Middle Ages, they were going to excommunicate Galileo because the entire scientific community said the Earth was flat... I mean, it is absolutely bizarre that the people who can't tell us what the fucking weather is next Tuesday can predict with absolute precision what the fucking global temperatures will be in 100 years' time. It's horseshit."
Given the fact that the airline industry is one of the largest emitters of greenhouse gas in the world, O'Leary's thinking shows that some people will always find it easier to bury their head in the sand than deal with a challenge. But it is also in tune with a lot of people these days.
Recent polling in the EU has shown a marked drop in the number of people who believe in the idea that greenhouse gas emissions from the burning of fossil fuels is the cause of climate change. An April 2010 poll found that only 38% of British respondents agreed that, "global warming is a fact and is mostly caused by emissions from vehicles and industrial facilities."
While people like O'Leary may seem crazy to most, there will be many who will read his comments and nod their head.
Since the failure of the international talks in Copenahgen and the climate bill in the US Senate there has been a lot of talk about the need to re-build the climate movement and I couldn't agree more. One thing that needs to be dealt with at the same time is the disconnect between the science and public opinion about the causes and consequences of climate change.
After all, it is hard to build a movement if you don't have a critical mass that believes in the cause.
Follow Kevin Grandia on Twitter: www.twitter.com/kgrandia
Masahiro Ohashi and H. L. Tanaka
Abstract:
..we investigate the mechanism of the arctic warming pattern in surface air temperature (SAT) and sea ice concentrations over the last two decades in comparison with global warming since the 1970s.According to the analysis result, it is found that the patterns of SAT and sea ice before 1989 are mostly determined by the Arctic Oscillation (AO) in winter. In contrast, arctic warming patterns after 1989 are characterized by the intensification of the Beaufort High and the reduced sea-ice concentrations in summer induced by the positive ice-albedo feedback..Since the decadal variation of the AO is recognized as the natural variability of the global atmosphere, it is shown that both of decadal variabilities before and after 1989 in the Arctic can be mostly explained by the natural variability of the AO not by the external response due to the human activity.
http://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/sola/6A/SpecialEdition/6A_1/_article
Authors' Commentary
“The important point is that the IPCC models have been tuned perfectly to fit the rapid warming during 1970-1990 by means of the ice-albedo feedback (anthropogenic forcing) which is not actually observed. IPCC models are justified with this wrong scientific basis and are applied to project the future global warming for 100 years in the future. Hence, we warn that the IPCC models overestimate the warming trend due to the mislead AO..”
Come one, this is the guy who wanted people to stand and fly, get rid of the copilot and rung in the concept of "Pay to Pee".
If adaptation to climate becomes the focus rather than religious attempts to control climate, it will be a welcome return of a whiff of common sense.
http://ktwop.wordpress.com/2010/09/14/a-whiff-of-common-sense/
But.
I do know that the scaremongering tactics of the pro-AGW lobby are the main reason that so many people no longer believe in it. You tried to scare us with predictions that didn't come to pass and now we don't believe you any more. So it'll be a real £$%%$ if you turn out to be right!
Also you treat anyone who disagrees like an Inquisitor treats a heretic, which is also counter-productive. You can't scream at people till they agree with you. Life isn't like that.
I agree that screaming at people doesn't help. I just get really tired of people flat ignoring the science and/or accusing the scientists of being part of some grand (evil) conspiracy.
I also don't buy all the scaremongering about the energy companies. They will make money either way, so why are they worried?.
They predicted that Earth's temperatures would on average go up and that's happening. They predicted more droughts. Australia had a severe drought that lasted for decade. They predicted heat waves: Russia, summer 2010. They predicted more floods: Pakistan, summer 2010. They predicted rising sea levels; sea levels are rising. They predicted melting: the Arctic, Antarctic, Greenland, and glaciers all over the world are melting.
I believe that the Antarctic isn't melting, in fact some studies show it getting bigger.. And I'm sure we were promised an ice age by now. Look let's agree to disagree, or why not put them on the line and make some predictions? And not just "There will be weather. Sometimes it will be cold, hot, dry, wet and sometimes it won't" What's a sensible timescale?
The way I see it, right now, climate change evangelists are a bunch of hand wavers and hacks(like Al gore). Bring up errors in IPCC reports or East Anglia e-mail scams, you are met with frantic hand waving - "oh thats just an aberration -but EVERYTHING else is bullet proof - check the scientific consensus."
This is followed by endless attributions to leading "scientific minds". Completely overlooking the fact the "Climate deniers" include scientists from small colleges like , oh, MIT and PRINCETON (Freeman Dyson) among others. Geez....
Maybe Freeman Dyson is not a climate specialist, but neither is Al Gore, or Pachauri(Head Honcho of IPCC), or any of the loudest voices screaming we are all gonna die.
I can tell you a thing or two about "clear consensus" - especially in science that is so politically charged. Maybe you haven't heard of the intimidation of researchers - denial of tenure, papers not accepted for publications, denial of research grants to "climate change deniers", but there are plenty out there. There are many ways to build consensus.
And finally, I didn' say Climate change is not happening or that we are not responsible.
What I did say was that this is sure as hell, not the way to do science or present it. And I stand by that.
"[o]ne of the main causes of warming is the increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere resulting from our burning of fossil fuels such as oil and coal and natural gas."
F.Dyson 2007
he has an objection to the idea of branding dissenters as "heretics."
SO lets check this again
the IPCC reports scientific section, you know the stuff with the data and the researchers work, was
correct but the policy section had some errors in it including typos, the e-mail 'scandal " has been shown by examination of both the participants and the data (separately and together) to have been nothing more than e-mails taken out of context and hyped up by a media. More and more studies have come out showing not only more warming (i.e. this year is the warmest on record so far globally) but more evidence of the ecosystems reacting to that warming. We have studies showing the depth of the consensus in the literature at around 97-98% of all top tier researchers and more and more data showing the predicted trends are accurate (including predictions of more extreme weather events).
And you have.... opinion.
Ya thats a real debate. Please read the literature (not blogs) and see why the real science supports AGW.
Foxes killed by park service on the beach!
Piping Plovers and road less areas over people!!!
http://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=593797982139
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2010/sep/10/michael-o-leary-ryanair-global-warming
The nations that stand to gain the most in this kooky carbon credit business are the nations that are not industrialized. I say they need other ways to get money. Like, their leaders should invest their money in its people instead of in their personal treasuries.
AND, I say that the U.S. follows the (2) countries that do far more damage than us. When China & India buy into this scam, then the U.S. can follow suit. We're already at a disadvantage when it comes to productivity against these two. So now, we're going to cripple ourselves further by adding bogus taxes that are sent to foreign countries? No way. I don't want my taxes sent to Americans. I sure don't want them sent to non-Americans.
I would be concerned if the untold policy of radical population reduction embedded in the environmental message generally created the mistrust of the public.
People being killed by Perpetual War, financial /economic policies and offensives, drug use and legalization promotions, etc. doesn't seem to register with environmentalists since the preservation and advancement of human life is not their priority.
Global Warmers have a science problem and a public relations problem; the hostility toward the debate and the population generally, has to go.
The world is facing the disintegration of the global financial system, millions of people will die as the standard of living goes down respectively in all parts of the world. The Environmentalists must become a part of the solution, not have policies that are justified by, or are concurrent with the economic and population contraction policies of the International Financiers.
I stopped reading there.
I'm an engineer. I'm tired of these jerks getting rich off our knowledge, and then denying it.