Chapter 11
Introduction | Discussion of Chapter 1 | Chapter 2 | Chapter 3 | Chapter 4 | Chapter 5 | Chapter 6 | Chapter 7 | Chapter 8 | Chapter 9 | Chapter 10 | Chapter 11 | Chapter 12 | Conclusion | Appendix
Chapter 11: Climate change and Kyoto – is it all necessary? Etherington’s arguments in this chapter are threefold. (1) He reiterates his opinion that wind turbines (he here calls them ‘windmills’*) abate negligible amounts of carbon emissions. (2) In any case, UK wind-abated carbon emissions are always trivial compared with world carbon emissions and therefore not worth pursuing. (3) The evidence for carbon and other emissions causing anthropological climate change is unproven. Point (1) has been considered previously in my comments on chapter 5; point (2) denies the ethical validity of individuals taking responsibility for per capita emissions and is a recommendation for no one to do anything: point (3) is discussed below.
Etherington explains clearly the ‘natural’ mechanisms for regulation of the Earth’s temperatures by the greenhouse effect of atmospheric gases and water vapour, and states that the extreme temperature changes in the long past (e.g. the ice ages) can be expected to occur again and that ‘we need to conserve resources to adapt to these changes as they develop’’**. Having said this, he fails to state the obvious that using significant proportions of renewable energy does indeed abate the use of finite resources, as he recommends. He agrees that atmospheric CO2 concentration is ‘rising fast’*** and ‘global average temperature rose with it’****.
Etherington summarises the role and work to the UN IPCC regarding research in Climate Change and concentrates on the understanding of past climates, including correlations of atmospheric CO2 concentrations and temperature. Since the publication of his book, there can be no doubt that the publication of emails***** arising from the Climate Research Unit****** of the University of East Anglia (UK), the unprofessional tone of some of those emails and the malpractice of seeking to avoid releasing information demanded under the UK Freedom of Information legislation, has brought attention to such critiques as Etherington’s. His initial scepticism of anthropological climate change therefore arises from analysis of past climate change, especially the relative timing of CO2 and temperature. His account of global temperature change since about 1800 is factual and reasonable, but he is sceptical about the calculations of temperature from atmospheric science by computer simulation of the physical, chemical, biological and ecological processes, stating ‘It is not credible that the virtual-world output of the models can reliably be used to make policy decision’*******, ‘the computer generated futures are a virtual reality and….cannot be relied upon to be more accurate than tomorrow’s weather forecast’********[which is a giveaway statement, since next-day weather forecasts are in fact very reliable].
To his credit, Etherington gives detail about many uncertainties in the study of climate science. He oscillates between agreeing that global temperatures are increasing************, yet the cause is not known he says***********, and disputing any anthropogenic increase************. However, he does not put error-bars on his uncertainties, as the IPCC does and he makes no calculations of his own. Until there is such overlap in methodology, there can be no meeting of minds.
Etherington doubts that ‘huge financial commitments should be gambled on their [the models’] output’*************. In saying this, he forgets the role of computer modelling in so many aspects of modern life, for instance bridge construction and airplane safety. Would he himself go against an expert’s warning of danger and commit his own grandchildren to cross a bridge or fly in a plane that had failed computer simulation safety checks, especially when the cost of overcoming the perceived danger is only about 2% of his annual cash flow?**************. Moreover, for wind energy and other renewables, their installation has many definite additional (no regrets) benefits, including: reductions in local pollution, increased local and national energy security, increased safeguarding of finite resources, increased local cash flow and increased stimulation for advanced systems development and control.
*****See unbiased report on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_hacking_incident
********Page 178, end paragraph 2
*********Page 173, 2nd paragraph
**********E.g page 173, top paragraph (increasing), page 174, end top paragraph (decreasing),
***********Page 174, last paragraph
************Page 174 2nd , 3rd , 4th paragraphs, page 175, 3rd paragraph, page 179 2nd paragraph
*************Page 175, end 2nd paragraph.
**************Comparison with the conclusions of the Stern Report (2009) on the costs of climate change mitigation scenarios.