My global warmist plant

Not that today is all that warm: 10C when I got up this morning and 14C now.

Now this plant is meant to die back this time of year so that in spring it can come to life again like this:


And in summer like this:


But this year it seems confused. Summer stayed too long perhaps.


That was taken just now, and yes I am the first to admit it may well prove nothing.

It’s really just an excuse to refer you to —

shapeimage_1 It’s very good.

4 thoughts on “My global warmist plant

  1. ‘UN’s IPCC misled the press and public into believing that thousands of scientists backed its claims on manmade global warming, according to Mike Hulme, a prominent climate scientist and IPCC insider. The actual number of scientists who backed that claim was ‘only a few dozen experts’

  2. PS – great job on making blockquote work. When you make your next blog change, see if you can add a ‘preview’ button. They’re very helpful for loquacious goombahs like myself.

  3. Read the actual words of that insider, Mike Hulme

    During its 20-year history, the IPCC has been examined critically from a number of different standpoints: dissecting its 1980s origins; revealing its norms, practices and modes of self-governance; debating the role of consensus in its assessments; policing characterizations of uncertainty; and tracing the relationship of its institutional function and knowledge claims to emerging ideas of global environmental governance. But other questions about the status of climate change knowledge synthesized by the IPCC remain less widely investigated, questions which emerge from the agendas raised by the new geographers of science (e.g. Powell, 2007; Finnegan, 2008). As Sheila Jasanoff has shown in many of her writings (e.g. Jasanoff, 2004a,b; 2010), knowledge that is claimed by its producers to have universal authority is received and interpreted very differently in different political and cultural settings. Revealing the local and situated characteristics of climate change knowledge thus becomes central for understanding both the acceptance and resistance that is shown towards the knowledge claims of the IPCC. It is a task for physical and human geographers to take seriously, and to do together.

    — Climate Change: what do we know about the IPCC? “This review article – Hulme & Mahony, 2010 – is to be published later in the summer in the journal Progress in Physical Geography. The article surveys all of the significant published research from the early 1990s onwards about how the IPCC works and what impacts its knowledge assessments have had. ”

    See also his The Five Lessons of Climate Change PDF.

    He is a critic, but not a skeptic.

    4. Our current energy portfolio is not sustainable

    Climate change teaches us – in case we preferred to ignore it – that our existing energy technology portfolio with high dependencies on gaseous and liquid carbon-based fuels derived from fossil sources will not
    survive two more generations. A significant energy gap is just over the horizon and this will demand a very
    substantial transition in the world’s energy technology: finding substitutes for oil and then gas. Climate
    change teaches us – in case we were complacent – that we should do what we can to conserve carbon-based fuels and that we should accelerate the search for new, non-carbon based energy sources.

  4. Yes, he is one of the few dozen believers in AGW who consider themselves ‘experts’. It made me very happy to see a true believer admit that there is no consensus.

    I agree with the first line of point number four. But he’s wrong about the rest of it. Climate change doesn’t teach us, economics does. supply and demand will change us, not global warmering.

Comments are closed.