There have been calls for the sacking of the chancellor of British Columbia’s Thompson Rivers University, Nancy Green Raine, after she suggested on a Canadian breakfast show last week that:
“In science, there’s almost never black and white. We don’t know what next week’s weather is going to be. To say in 50 or 100 years, the temperature is going to do this, is a bit of a stretch for me.”*
A Canadian government meteorologist joined the public attack, questioned why Greene Raine would offer comment about something on which she is not versed. He noted that no one comes to him for advice on skiing.
Chancellor Nancy Green Raine was once an Olympic skiing champion.
We are expected to be concerned about climate change, and to do so something about climate change, but not expected to make up our own minds on the issue!
Now here’s something worth worrying about at youtube.com:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TNzWfguDjZU
—————
* from The Wall Street Journal, 13 December 2006
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
That must be how one develops a consensus on climate change, you threaten anyone who lacks the required zeal with the sack.
It reminds me of a movie I saw recently (didn’t catch the name) on SBS. It was set in Mao’s China where wayward students were sent to the countryside for re-education.
One of them took his violin but was only allowed to continue enchanting the local villagers by suggesting to the local Commissar that their particular favourite piece of music was called, “Mozart thinks of Mao all the time”.
Suitably reassured, the Commissar went about his business while the rest ensured that “Mozart thinks of Mao” was being played whenever he came within earshot.
Got to go now, it is time to practce, “Mozart thinks of Climate Change”.
I like these association games:
Accept AGW = Mao-loving Communist
Vaguely Green = Nazi (Bolta loves that one)
So thought provoking.
What do you have to do to be compared to a Caligula-loving Roman? That’s where I want to be at.
A modern day success story, started in 2005 on $3.8M YouTube was sold in 2006 to Google for $1.65B.
Was Green Raine speaking based on a considered review of the evidence or was “is a bit of a stretch for me” voicing a personal outlook? I don’t have the WSJ & there’s nothing material in this post to justify any ‘the greenies are out to get us all’ alarmism.
Either way Pinxi , I’m sure you’d agree that calls for her to be sacked are pretty extreme?
Even given the view of some true believers that dissenters have to be silenced because we run the risk that poor dummies such as I might actually begin to question the Way Forward if we hear scepticism voiced publicly , isn’t losing your job overkill?
Surely a robust public rebuttal is sufficient?
That Southpark sketch was pretty funny – maybe I should watch the programme sometime.
Proper spelling Nancy Greene Raine, from the Kamloops Daily News, Dec. 9, 2006
“…University professors outraged by comments from TRU chancellor Nancy Greene Raine, who expressed doubt on climate change in a national media broadcast, met with her in a hastily called session Friday afternoon.
The meeting was arranged by senior administration at Thompson Rivers University following a cascade of e-mails among faculty concerned that her opinion reflects poorly on the university.
Penny Powers, a professor in the school of nursing confirmed earlier Friday she had been called to the meeting with Raine.
‘One of the most important goals of a university is to instill in the students an ability to assess the evidence for and against claims of any kind,’ she wrote in an e-mail to faculty.
‘What kind of role model do we put in place when the chancellor herself gives poorly-considered credence to widely discredited extremist opinions such as these?’…”
It just doesnt pay to buck the ‘hood
” In science, there’s almost never black and white. We don’t know what next week’s weather is going to be. To say in 50 or 100 years, the temperature is going to do this, is a bit of a stretch for me.”
THAT’s a “…widely discredited extremist opinion(s)…” ????
And a Star Chamber to boot!
Jim uni’s should engage in open debate, in appropriate forums. Some academics decry budget cuts and their effect of shrinking platforms for thoughtful exchange & exploration. On the surface, yes resignation/sacking seems unnecessary. The issue here seems to be not which camp she lies with but that someone in her position would represent her institution in such a manner & voice opinions without evidence. She might just need a stern reminder of that – I’d give her the benefit of the doubt knowing that women tend to be hormonal, unstable, irrational creatures. Clearly she can’t even distinguish weather from climate, the pitiful soul.
More to the point though, I was wondering how this story could lead another hormonal, unstable, irrational creature to follow with:
“We are expected to be concerned about climate change, and to do so something about climate change, but not expected to make up our own minds on the issue!”
Applying similar reasoning as regularly confronts us on this blog I’d conclude on this basis that women are incapable of logical, independent, evidence-based thoughts. No wonder they need 3rd party womb control.
My limited understanding, limited mostly by not being that interested, is that there is a lot of background, this was not an isolated statment. Much of the reaction may well be to this missing context more so than to her ignorance of the difference between weather and climate.
Unbelievable but not surprising to see such reactions to the climate debate. The reality is that we cannot model climate or any thing else so far into the future with any degree of reliability. I have always assumed that climate models are offering us an insight into how climate works rather than climate predictions. It is one the principal reasons that the IPCC/UNFCCC has developed the large number of scenario’s that they have… to better understand the interactions that are affecting climate.
The IPCC/UNFCCC models are scenario’s based on deterministic models that require all assumptions to be met for them to eventuate. I look forward to seeing how they have performed at 5 yearly intervals.
And the Professor of the school of nursing is a climate expert?!
Is it little wonder that scientists are reluctant to question some of the science that underpins climate science if this is the response that they receive.
my own reading has led me to the conclusion that climate science is NOT black and white but many shades of grey. I can only infer that the IPCC reports and recommendations are due to their interpretation that the on the balance of probability AGW is real and CO2 is the primary culprit. My own interpretationis that CO2 is a contributing agent (probably not the primary one) to climate change and that there is an awful lot yet to learn and understand.
That lack of knowledge does not mean that we should abandon exploring alternatives to energy nor that we should reduce the amount that we consume and recycle. It is good business that we continue to do so as well as being environmentally responsible.
Where did she confuse climate and weather?
In essence she said that;
1. Science (presumably scientific debate ) is never as simple as black and white / right and wrong ; self evidently correct ?
2. Predictions ( climate or weather ) 50 or 100 years into the future, even those based on computer simulations and borne out by current observations , are still predictions,
3.”We are expected to be concerned about climate change, and to do so something about climate change, but not expected to make up our own minds on the issue!” – this is the context that validates or mitigates the reaction to these incredibly mild comments?
Universities are supposed to encourage debate and dissent – though in my day ( mid-80’s ) there was precious little of either.
Despite what you say Pinxi , I do get the strong impression it was PRECISELY what she said rather than the voicing of her own opinions which is the problem for the silencers.
climate change (50-100) yrs = climate
We don’t know what next week’s weather is going to be = weather
Greene Raine is a high achiever, 2 honorary law degrees, a world champion athlete on numerous occasions, numerous public accolades incl woman of the year, mother of two and business woman and public speaker…
…blog meat..
All this stuff about unfair debates, star chambers, silencing people is bolsh. Hasn’t stopped the 100s of contrarian sites or rampant columnists such as Andrew Bolt or vigorous opponents like Bob Carter.
This debate is far from nice/fair/even.
Watching the CEI supposedly “squirm” for getting a bit of correctional biffo is hardly believable. Perhaps they’re after an Oscar?
What has changed though is zero tolerance for b/s and nonsense from shills, shonks and misc ning nongs. So it’s open season on contrarians, denialists and goobers who want to indulge in a bit of old fashioned sophistry. And about time – they’ve been getting a disproportionate amount of airplay given their parlous content and lack of peer reviewed scientific publications.
Nobody is suppressing your stupid, illiterate, bigoted opinion that you have pulled from your bum. Just don’t expect to be treated gently verbally if you’re trying one on.
Who cares if Raine is a nice lady and very capable in many areas – her opinion on climate is worth diddly squat. (I’m sure she can look after herself too).
P.S. I busted a gut on the YouTube video – classic – but be careful – SouthPark is totally irreverant !
Pinxii say she thinx she knows the whether the climate is weather or not.
Experts disagree;
“This year is set to be the sixth warmest worldwide since records began, stoked by global warming linked to human activities, the British Meteorological Office and the University of East Anglia said yesterday.”
http://english.people.com.cn/200612/15/eng20061215_332839.html
I’m impressed by Raines cv Luke, and unimpressed by yours.
Rog she’s a climate nong nong like you.
rog, what’s yr point, based on the experts quote? Can you kindly clarify yr point?
Loved the SP sketch … 😉
as usual, Jennifer only told half the cock n bull story. See the rest:
And as usual, Pinxi cherry picked her data .. ;op
Here´s the real McCoy ;op
“SouthPark is totally irreverant”. Did Lukie-wookie mean that..or did he mean irrelevant?
I am waiting on the relevant numbers but my strong suspicion is that the warming effect of an extra 200ppmv of an invisible gas called atmospheric CO2 could be more than adequately off-set by a modest investment in highly reflective material placed over the cloudless regions of tropical oceans.
These oceans currently absorb 96.5% of insolation so the emplacement of a highly reflective material during day time is likely to be far more effective than piddling about with adjustments to the composition of clouds (which are not present in the high pressure belt anyway).
This would shift the ocean albedo level from 3.5% up to that of snow (60 – 90%) but put it in the latitudes of maximum insolation and thereby maximise the cooling effect.
The question is one of basic economics. If a carbon tax is $36US/tonne then it works out at $10US/tonne of CO2. The question then becomes one of how much cooling one can get from $10US worth of annual interest on reflective membrane and its infrastructure.
Clearly, there has not been enough thought on engineered solutions, especially when the engineered solution can off-set the impact of a number of years CO2 emissions.
But of course, Luke wont find any of this on his officially sanctioned list of sites and would be too busy sneering to even look at the numbers.
I’ll assume this is an attempt at humour.
No, Luke, I just wanted you to be on record as poo pooing the idea without giving it any thought. You came in right on schedule.
OK – so how are you going to deploy “the shield” during “the day” over the ocean with what technology. No worries about stopping the food chain or disrupting the atmospheric circulation systems? Ian creates a super-tornado.
So let me get this right – you can fly a kite on a bizzare techno fix and demand respect yet if we discuss albedo from the literature and you don’t like it.. .. .. . You you you agrarian supremacist you. Fiddle sticks.
Here we go again, as Luke extrapolates to extremes to find any excuse to avoid considering any solution that has not already been sanctioned by Village Idiot League HQ.
And what a classic propagandista. You have ducked for cover on every attempt by myself to discuss the lack of measurement of changes in albedo and now have the gall to claim that it was me that was avoiding the issue. What a shonk.
So lets talk about it, Luke. If it is OK to measure the amount of carbon induced warming that is likely from land clearing, how come we don’t measure the amount of induced cooling from increased albedo from the same clearing?
Ian you great tosser – stop raving and tell us your plans for covering the Pacific with kitchen foil! Reveal yourself.
I agree – we should measure the albedo – but I don’t make the rules the AGO do – and I’ve told you my opinion on them ! Don’t think that because I’ve previously explained their processes to you is also an endorsement of same.
OK – you want to talk albedo – forestry is BAD for albedo.
Are trees bad for greenhouse?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6184577.stm
Next time try prefacing your marks with “hello”.
What a classic bit of oversimplification to the point of stupidity, Luke. To say that forestry is bad for albedo begs the question, which forestry?
Planting a new forest in an existing paddock reduces albedo but the regular partial harvesting of an existing native forest will increase albedo, put the harvested wood in carbon storage, and allow the retained forest to re-absorb the same volume of removed carbon in less time than it takes the harvested carbon to be emitted.
Perhaps someone should have told that to Keto and Beattie before they shut down 850,000 hectares of native forest and replaced it with plantations that are performing at only a sad fraction of their inflated expectations.
And your link to the UK study only highlights the poverty of current scientific research on the whole issue.
On one hand we have a high profile report into the net gains and losses of a land use change that involves a switch from a 12% albedo to a 17% albedo in a zone of lower insolation. And on the other hand we have the guy who provided that link dumping scorn on the very idea that measures that could shift albedo from 3.5% to 90% in the high insolation zone should be investigated.
And if you agree that the IPCC and the AGO should be measuring the impact of albedo as primary input to climate models, but do not, then surely you must also agree that the existing models are wrong?
And it would also seem appropriate to reflect on the fact that a shift in albedo from 3.5% to 90% in a high insolation zone would need only a fraction of the area to deliver the same cooling outcome as a 5% shift in a low insolation zone.
Jeez you’re a numb nuts Ian.
Mr “oversimplification alfoil-the Pacific Ocean ” himself. Give me a break !
Albedo is an interesting beast – we would have undertake what are called “field measurements” to see impact forest thinning would have overall – perhaps overflight with what’s called a “spectrometer”.
Of course given greenies are in charge of the forests and are stuffing the management causing bushfires – perhaps it will be worse as all our forests will be black bodies (charred sticks). But then if all the soil washes away afterwards maybe they will become very bright.
Yes climate models have albedo as an input – WHERE HAVE YOU BEEN ! Hello. Duh ! Land surface schemas etc. There’s also surface roughness and stomatal conductance to worry about too.
Areas of high insolation have what we call more “cloud”.
Gee Ian – we seem to have more than one variable at once to contend with – maybe there are interactions too – this why scientists use what are called “MODELS”. Say “modul”. Gee who would have thought that !
Here’s some envelope fuel for you:
Climate Effects of Global Land Cover Change
Gibbard, S G ; Caldeira, K ; Bala, G ; Phillips, T ; Wickett, M
Publication Date 2005 Aug 24
Resource Relation Journal: Geophysical Research Letters; Journal Volume: 32
There are two competing effects of global land cover change on climate: an albedo effect which leads to heating when changing from grass/croplands to forest, and an evapotranspiration effect which tends to produce cooling. It is not clear which effect would dominate in a global land cover change scenario. We have performed coupled land/ocean/atmosphere simulations of global land cover change using the NCAR CAM3 atmospheric general circulation model. We find that replacement of current vegetation by trees on a global basis would lead to a global annual mean warming of 1.6 C, nearly 75% of the warming produced under a doubled CO2 concentration, while global replacement by grasslands would result in a cooling of 0.4 C. These results suggest that more research is necessary before forest carbon storage should be deployed as a mitigation strategy for global warming. In particular, high latitude forests probably have a net warming effect on the Earth’s climate.