Andrew Simms: Twit

So, the head of the new economics foundations Climate Change Programme wants to scare the spots off us by telling us that we\’ve only got 8.33 years to deal with climate change.

Hmm.

He starts off with this:

The concentration of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere today, the most prevalent greenhouse gas,

No, it\’s water vapour. So, can we believe anything else he says?

9 thoughts on “Andrew Simms: Twit”

  1. The use of a nice round number, 100 months, flags the piece as a political rather than a scientific tract.

    Definitely one to keep and dust off in 100.1 months and see how things stand then.

  2. I saw this. The Guardian has been rather misleading describing this lot as a ‘group of global warming experts’.

    As far as I can see there’s only one person there who could reasonably be described as a climatologist, and she sounds hardly likely to be the objective type by the description.

    NEF is a leftist think-tank, not a scientific body!

  3. He’s possibly a twit who knows little or nothing about climatology and factually wrong here but, in fairness, water vapour is routinely disregarded as a greenhouse gas because it doesn’t have a forcing effect on the climate.

    The fact that he’s said this shouldn’t really cause you to disregard everything else he’s saying. Doing so would be a bit like disregarding everything said about the nutritional benefits of fruit by someone who called a tomato a vegetable, and it’s rather reminiscient of the tendency of creationists to shriek “AAAAAAAAH GOT YOU THERE!” when someone like Richard Dawkins uses shorthand phrases which imply creation (“we were put here”, for instance). The error Simms has made is little more than to use a shorthand commonly used by plenty of people who do know what they’re talking about. That’s not to say Simms does know what he’s talking about, though, as I’ve already said. The fact that – as QT points out – there’s probably not a great deal of climate expertise around the NEF should legitimately cause you to question what he says. I hate to get into whataboutism but fuck it, I’m doing it anyway: the NEF is hardly the most egregious or dangerous example of a thinktank or climate ignoramus spouting nonsense.

  4. How did I know that the link would take me to the Grauniad? I must be prescient.

    From the article:
    “In climate change, a number of feedback loops amplify warming through physical processes that are either triggered by the initial warming itself, or the increase in greenhouse gases. One example is……the decreasing ability of oceans to absorb CO2 due to higher wind strengths linked to climate change.”

    Is this true? If you want to get a gas to dissolve in a liquid usually you agitate it to assist the process. You certainly do to oxygenate fresh water as anyone who has tried to prevent fish dying knows. I can’t imagine a better agitating process than wind blown spray. Is CO2 different?

  5. “in fairness, water vapour is routinely disregarded as a greenhouse gas because it doesn’t have a forcing effect on the climate.”

    Oh. I assumed it was disregarded because even the environmentalists think they would have trouble selling water as a pollutant.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *