Some parts of the UK are having a white Easter. The last time I remember significant snow at Easter was in 1981, which was followed by the hardest winter of my lifetime in 1981/82.
See more pictures sent in by members of the public to the BBC website here.
The picture above is of Mr Alan Clark’s son Murray and friend, in Alford, Aberdeenshire.
More Easter snow stories from the BBC:
Motorists warned as snow arrives
Weather shuts Easter attractions
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Enjoy Paul I know I wouldn’t I consider anything less that 20C freezing enough. I cna tolerate it down to about 16C then I start looking longingly at Cooktown.
Whether or not the article in the Weekend Australian (Christopher Pearson, Inquirer March 22-23 2008) is a “nice piece” (ref. related blog entry, this site) is a question of perspective, I guess. No side, and I happen to think there are more than two, in the climate change debate is innocent of emphasising ‘facts’ or ‘evidence’ that suit their preferred case while downplaying claims by the other side(s).
Not only that, no side is innocent also of using emotive language to frighten, bully or shame the other into capitulating on their stand. The article by Pearson does both of these.
Or rather, on the first point, fails to provide the evidence, or explicitly cite the reference, needed to assess the argument. Jennifer Marohasy claims that newly acquired data shows the global climate has been cooling since around 1998, not warming as most global warming and/or climate change proponents claim. This is such a strong statement, and such a large departure from the views of around 95% of researchers focused on climate matters, it demands to be supported by evidence.
In my view it behooves Pearson to at least provide a graph showing these data, identify the source of data, and allow readers to form our own opinion. Doing this would be consistent with Marohasy’s own stated wish to have the evidence openly presented for scrutiny. I would also have liked to see an explanation of how these temperatures have been measured, although it probably requires a different article to do this adequately.
On the second point, Pearson writes: “The delusion that by recycling and catching public transport we can help save the planet will quickly come to be seen for the childish nonsense it was all along.”
This is, in my view, unnecessarily inflammatory text. For one thing, it is not necessarily childish to hope to make a change in the state of the environment by changing one’s own behaviour. In fact, the greatest obstacle (again, my view) holding back change is individuals thinking: ‘I’m only one person, and one person’s actions can’t really make a difference.’
At face value this is probably true; you or I choosing to take the bus instead of driving a car today probably doesn’t measurably change the global CO2 level or mean sea surface temperature. But this view is NOT valid if we’re prepared to make the conceptual shift to relate our behaviour to that of our neighbours. If you AND I and 10,000 other people who do not usually take public transport (or ride a bike or walk) were to do so once or twice a week, this quite likely would make a measurable difference over the medium term, possibly even in the short term. Especially if similar scales of behavioural change were made in other large towns and cities. (Granted this would place a huge strain on public transport if it were to happen overnight, but this is where there needs to be a partnership between the general public and municipal authorities with the means to facilitate change; see below.)
So the point I wish to make, is that changing behaviour with a goal or hope in mind may be optimistic, but is not necessarily unrealistic and is childish only in the view of those who are unwilling to make that change.
Leaving aside CO2 emissions, global warming and climate change, there are many other reasons why we might want to change our daily behaviours. Among them the quality of air we breathe, the quality of daily life we experience (pollution, overcrowding, traffic congestion), general health of the population (obesity, diabetes, etc.), cost to future generations of dealing with waste in land fills, or nuclear waste … the list goes on. In these respects, surely it cannot be childish to want to live in cleaner, less stressful, more healthful, and more pleasant surroundings?
Countries such as Switzerland, Germany, Sweden and Denmark are often cited as among the most desirable places in the world to live (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/europe/zurich-is-the-most-desirable-place-to-live-in-the-world-survey-says-473540.html). Not coincidentally these countries have strong policies on transport and environmental management. And not only do they legislate to make it less attractive for people to use private motor vehicles, for example, many individuals understand and accept the need to adopt measures that reduce their impact on the natural environment, they recognise the contribution they can personally make and they take pride in this. In the end Pearson’s “childish nonsense” is seen for the social maturity it really is.
Stephen White – the official warmest intrumentally measured year on record globally remains 1998. Even the head of the IPCC admits to a ‘temperature plateau’ so far this century.
The state of the environment and quality of life in the developed world has been dramatically improved by technology and efficiency – not by Marxism dressed up as being ‘green.’
Since when has public transport been ‘green’ – certainly not diesel buses or trains? People choose the most appropriate form of transport that suits them, not someone else’s agenda.
Mr White sounds like another of the army of town plannes, just back from their public funded trip to europe. Of course, he could just be a misguided fool, who thinks we should all like living in an inner city environment. What ever it is, they all seem to bleat the same rubbish.
They can’t see that what works in countries, & cities, that developed before the car, can not be translated to cities which have developed since. I’m not sure if this is because of their lack of intelligence, or that they were all trained in an incestuous system, with only one textbook.
Just what makes them think they have some devine right to tell everyone else how to live is a mystery to me.
I do not know a single person who could use public transport to get to work. I could have done, at one stage, but it would have meant a 5Km walk, with just over 3 hours on a bus, each way.
Why won’t the fairies stay in the fairy tales?
‘”The delusion that by recycling and catching public transport we can help save the planet will quickly come to be seen for the childish nonsense it was all along.”
This is, in my view, unnecessarily inflammatory text.’
This is pointlessly PC, Mr. White. That there are valid enviornmental concerns is not an argument in play. The question is whether a world of limited resources ought to devote the GNP of the third world (I’m lumping China, India and the EU into the second) to a completely wasted, counter-productive effort to the detriment of that world is nihilism in practice.
There is no middle ground between you and I.