Appleyard: dare to make the climate change case

Bryan Appleyard

British writer Bryan Appleyard – just as almost every popular British science writer – is somehow extra-convinced about anthropogenic global warming.

It does seem that when science popularizers from Britain commit to ‘warmism’ (Appleyard’s term), there is no ‘going back’—they simply seem more self-assured, and completely self-unaware, in their ‘global warmism’.

In Appleyard’s world, it is as though everyone and their next-door neighbour is a ‘warmer’ (my term), possibly by birth.

But, even then, for Appleyard, to say something like this:

The last few months have seen a series of spectacular weather events — floods in Pakistan, Brazil and Australia, cyclones hitting Australia, huge snowfalls on the eastern coast of America, and two very cold winters in Britain. Such extreme events were, in fact, predicted by global warming models. But nobody has dared to claim them for the climate change case.

I mean, how much more clueless and greedy can you get?

Think about this for a moment: in the world Appleyard lives in – all the events that he lists – the Russian heat wave, the Australian and the Brazilian floods and the cold winters in Britain were all caused by global warming, and they were all inadequately exploited for the climate change ‘case’.

In the real world, with which Appleyard seems to have little contact, it is not at all clear, whether ‘attribution’ is possible to global warming/climate change with any of these events, and yet, all these events nonetheless were admirably exploited for the climate change case.

The noted evolution blogger PZ Myers seems to have read enough Bryan Appleyard to reach some fairly definitive conclusions about him.

No one has mastered the art form of turning abysmal ignorance into a stream of money-earning words on a newspaper page better than Bryan Appleyard, who writes for the London Times.

In my experience, read anything in the Appleyard ouvre and that’s what you can expect to find: the smug blatherings of a truly stupid person.

It so happens that PZ Myers is not the only person to experience violent reactions to the “smug blatherings”.

Appleyard says that he recently converted to ‘warmism’ from being a ‘iron-jawed bone-head climate change denier’, just around the time of the Copenhagen conference. This clearly demonstrates his finely-honed instincts.

To the followers of ‘warmism’, one can only say: he is all yours, guys. You can keep him.

Advertisements

8 comments

  1. Edward

    Has he a degenerative problem?

    Saw the light before Copenhagen, Lord above! How much are they paying him?

  2. Pingback: Global Warming Hoax Weekly Round-Up, Mar. 24th 2011 « The Daily Bayonet
  3. Ben Cromwell

    I am not aware of Appleyard, but as for destructive weather events, whether or not there is sufficient evidence to tie them to climate change, they are alarming and merit serious consideration. If weather events are becoming more extreme, we not only need to figure out why, but also to live in such a way as to minimize the damage and improve our ability to recover. Look at Japan. If they were on solar and wind, there wouldn’t be any radioactive gas leeking into the environment. Green practices tend to minimize risk. that’s the long and short of it.

  4. Shub Niggurath

    But Ben, if ‘wind and solar’ are not practical means of generating electricity, how would Japan be what it is today, and have ability to recover at all?

  5. Pingback: Andrew Revkin and the human beings on the planet « Shub Niggurath Climate
  6. Martin Walsh

    Read Roger Pielke Jr – he has actually conducted proper research in the frequency of ‘extreme weather’ events and has demonstrated that there is no clear attribution to Global Warming. Also, that these events are not more frequent than occurred historically. Another case of the hysterics of CAGW spouting alarmist nonsense.

  7. Ben Cromwell

    Sorry it’s taken a while to get back to you, but wind and solar are viable energy producing options. In the very long term, nuclear is not a “practical” means of producing energy. Where do you put the high grade nuclear waste that is a byproduct of the process? It’s not just an environmental issue either. It’s a national security one. High grade nuclear material is a terrorist target. You have to calculate the storage and security costs into the economics of nuclear energy for the next 10,000 years which is how long nuclear waste lasts. It bankrupts future generations to use nuclear energy.