UK environment secretary Paterson: Climate change isn’t real

In a bizarre comment during a BBC Radio panel discussion, the conservative British Secretary of State for the Environment, Owen Paterson, suggested that climate change is neither real, nor significantly affected by man.

UK minister for the environment Own Paterson via BBC interview.

UK minister for the environment Own Paterson via BBC interview.

What’s worse, Paterson seemed not to understand the crucial difference between “weather” and “climate,” which is a common mistake made by climate-change denialists.  And in so doing, he suggested that the average temperature hasn’t changed in 17 years, and thus, apparently, this is proof that climate change is neither real, nor significantly influenced by man:

[The] Cabinet Minister for the Environment – not Welfare, Education or Defence – clearly stated “The real question is: is climate change influenced by man made climate change? The climate, the temperature has not changed in the last 17 years.”

Here’s the fuller transcript:

Q: Are those concerned about climate change talking anti-scientific green ideological nonsense? What is your answer to that question?

Environment Minster Paterson: I have to take practical decisions. The climate’s always been changing. Peter mentioned the Arctic. I think in the [unintelligible] you can see there were beaches there. [Audience begins to murmur]  When Greenland was occupied, you had people growing crops. We then had a little ice age, then we have middle age warming. The climate’s been going up and down.

The real question, which I think everyone’s trying to address, is ‘is this influenced by man-made activity in recent years.’ And James is actually correct, the climate has not changed, the temperature hasn’t changed in the last 17 years. What I think we ought to be careful of is that there is almost certainly, bound to be, some influence by man-made activity, but I think we just got to be rational [laughter from audience] and make sure the measures that we take to counter it don’t actually cause more damage.

Other panelist: This man is our Secretary of State for the Environment, for goodness sake.

Did you catch all of that? The climate’s always been changing.  The climate’s been going up and down.  The temperature hasn’t changed in the last 17  years.

This is the face of climate change denialism, and it’s occupying the most important seat in Britain on the matter.

(First, a quick correction to Paterson: 97% of studies looking at whether science change is man-made say “yes.”)

To fully appreciate Paterson’s folly, here’s a quick primer on the difference between weather and climate, and why that difference matters.

Weather is what happens each day, or perhaps even each year.  Climate is the overall trend over a long period of time.  For example, here’s a photo of the path taken by a man walking his dog.

Climate vs Weather

Climate vs Weather

If you look at the dog (he’s “weather”), at any one time, he’s traveling north, then south, then north, then south.  The dog is all over the place.  If you just look at the dog at any one time, or even over a short period of time, you’d say “he’s moving south” or “he’s moving north.”  But if you look at the man – and if you look at the long-distance path of the man and the dog (i.e., the “climate”) – you’d say “aha, regardless of the dog’s erratic movements, they’re both clearly heading northeast.”

That’s the difference between weather and climate.

To take a more “real” example, check out the graph below, showing average temperatures over the past 40 years. You can say with perfect honesty that over the past eight years the weather has cooled off, and it may have.  But that’s just a momentary blip – over the past 100 years it’s gotten decidedly warmer, and the long-term chart proves it.  Note how at any one smaller period of time (shown in blue) the trend might be up or down, but over 40 years (in red) it’s clear that the long-term trend is always towards warmer and warmer weather, regardless of the circuitous path the weather “dog” takes.

Scientists look at the actual trend over the long-term.  Denialists look at only a portion of the trend in order to fool you.

skeptscience-realistclimateXX

So the UK Minister for the Environment, Owen Paterson, just confused weather and climate. Lovely.


Follow me on Twitter: @aravosis | @americablog | @americabloggay | Facebook | Instagram | Google+ | LinkedIn. John Aravosis is the Executive Editor of AMERICAblog, which he founded in 2004. He has a joint law degree (JD) and masters in Foreign Service from Georgetown; and has worked in the US Senate, World Bank, Children's Defense Fund, the United Nations Development Programme, and as a stringer for the Economist. He is a frequent TV pundit, having appeared on the O'Reilly Factor, Hardball, World News Tonight, Nightline, AM Joy & Reliable Sources, among others. John lives in Washington, DC. .

Share This Post

65 Responses to “UK environment secretary Paterson: Climate change isn’t real”

  1. Eric Stacy says:

    In 1987 National Geographic published a study about climate change stating global cooling would destroy most of the inhabited land by 2010. I think they miscalculated. Now we have “scientists” claiming we are experiencing global warming. Science shows that climate change is nothing but a myth used to push political agendas on the uninformed.

  2. klem says:

    Oops, you called me a name. I win.

  3. Wilf Tarquin says:

    Good lord you’re dumb. My condoleances to your parents.

  4. klem says:

    “Personally I think the effects will be far smaller than frequently
    claimed, precisely because we know it’s been warmer in the past and
    nothing much seems to have happened as a result then.”

    Wow, that comment places you squarely in the climate skeptic camp. You must be a paid shill of Koch Corp, yes?

  5. Wilf Tarquin says:

    Shifting the goalposts.

    You could just look at the graphs on your own source, and watch it rise sharply on the right hand side. The argument isn’t that it’s warmer today than it’s ever been in the past (it isn’t). The argument is that there’s never been such a rapid rise in global temperature as there is right now, and it’s caused by the CO2 and methane humans produce.

    Denying the existence of anthropogenic global warming is just silly. That discussion was settled in the 80’s. It’s proven. Done. The things which are still open to debate is how big it will be, and how big the effects will be. Personally I think the effects will be far smaller than frequently claimed, precisely because we know it’s been warmer in the past and nothing much seems to have happened as a result then.

  6. klem says:

    Well there’s some benefit to the carbonophobes, it reduces the excess world population. Should make them happy.

  7. klem says:

    1. I like that link to NASA you provided. It shows an even longer graph this time, all the way back to ..wow all the way back to 1880. Unbelievable. I didn’t know earth history actually went back that far.

    I also didn’t know that they had global temperature satellites back then either, but hey, at least they aren’t cherry picking. That’s the main thing.

    2. How about the following graph, it shows that the planet has been getting colder for the last 8000 years. Of course we can’t rely on that graph, the deniers use it all the time because they cherry pick so much.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png

    3. See 2.

    cheers

  8. mousebat says:

    The cost of doing nothing being decreased poverty and disease because of affordable fossil energy and increasing crop yields with less water use.
    The policies put in place at the behest of carbonophobes are killing people now with no detectable benefit, please stop it all now.

  9. Wilf Tarquin says:

    1) No, it is not: http://climate.nasa.gov/key_indicators

    2) The case that no legislation or taxation should be enacted to reduce CO2 emissions. Most of the lobbying is funded by oil companies, US and foreign.

    3) See 1)

    Have a nice day.

  10. klem says:

    Um, so that lower animated graph with a range from 1973 to 2013, is not considered cherry picking. Holy smokes are you kidding me, really? Lol!

    And what case do denialists build exactly?

    Remember, it’s the alarmists who are making all of the claims for CO2 based climate apocalypse, its up to the alarmists to support those claims (without cherry picking the data, something that alarmists don’t need to do apparently). All the denialists need to do is pick them apart, which is relatively easy and rather fun to do.

    cheers

  11. Wilf Tarquin says:

    I don’t know if any realists cherry-pick, it would be a strange thing to do considering that we DON’T NEED TO. Unlike denialists we don’t build our case on cherry-picking, and continue to repeat proven falsehoods. Because WE DON’T NEED TO.

  12. klem says:

    Ah those darned climate skeptics, they always cherry pick data. I hate those guys.

    We all know alarmists never cherry pick.

  13. klem says:

    ” You can go ahead and ignore climate, but you can’t ignore the overall impact on society.The cost of doing nothing is always exponentially higher than trying to address it before bad things happen.”

    True, it will be very costly when the ice sheets return to the UK.

  14. klem says:

    Let me guess, members of those scientific cirlces are known as climate scientists.

  15. klem says:

    And I am pleased to know that Americans recognize that.

  16. klem says:

    And let me guess, there is a subsidy available to help them move.

  17. klem says:

    Climate castrophe hjas been a lie from the beginning, its hard to continually maintain a lie.

  18. doubting_rich says:

    Your headline is simply a lie, as is everything you said in the first two paragraphs, which set the tone for the article. Simply reading the passage you quote later in the post shows that these things are lies.

    If you have to lie, then you have lost the argument. Why is it that so often the alarmists are caught our lying?

  19. karmanot says:

    “What’s the problem?” The development of a frontal lobe.

  20. karmanot says:

    Yep, Tocqueville nailed it fairly early on.

  21. Graphic_Conception says:

    Only a question of time before China knocks the US of the top spot. Senate and Congress are already up to speed. Has Guam actually tipped over yet. How is Hank?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bs23CjIWMgA

  22. Graphic_Conception says:

    Humans did not exist but other primates did. They work pretty much like we do. What’s the problem?

  23. Wilf Tarquin says:

    The lower graph isn’t a joke – that’s actually a common argument from “climate skeptics”. Whenever you hear them talking about there being a “pause” in global warming between two dates, that graph is what they’re talking about.
    Grownups. Who are not joking.

  24. karmanot says:

    Or an elevator in the Empire State building. It is reassuring that a male version of Joan Rivers actually has exquisite taste.

  25. karmanot says:

    True, aristocrat thugs always have a plan.

  26. karmanot says:

    Long range planning for vineyards in CA—-moving up to the Sierra foothills. The cracked pot ignoramuses may be ignoring climate change, but business is taking the science quite seriously.

  27. Ninong says:

    Whatever he’s searching for, he should give his face a rest. It’s had more lifts than Heavenly.

  28. JamesR says:

    I now have the image of someone basically spherical slowly rolling out a window. Thank you!

  29. JamesR says:

    The North Pole called: it wants it’s ice back.

    And the new vineyards in Scotland are happy to hear an obvious customer.

  30. JamesR says:

    Yet notice the two current generations of breeding
    back into that line – they may appear stupid but they have a plan, a
    very long term one LOL.

  31. karmanot says:

    :-)

  32. karmanot says:

    They say that Twinkies can survive a nuclear war. Maybe Calvin is searching for immortality.

  33. BeccaM says:

    Well, considering that Paterson is obviously a waste of skin, I suppose that means there’s an excess involved. Perhaps we should congratulate him on his frugality.

  34. karmanot says:

    I never discuss my hobbies in public.

  35. lynchie says:

    did you mean foreskin?

  36. Ninong says:

    Nice try but not the same.

  37. Ninong says:

    Definitely not a double negative but something 70-year-old Calvin Klein should read. I heard he’s back with his 20-something blond boytoy, the ex-porn star who threatened to write a tell-all book about their relationship.

  38. dcinsider says:

    I am always pleased to know that America has not cornered the market on stupidity.

  39. karmanot says:

    I’m staying inside today.

  40. karmanot says:

    True, the basic matrix of the Easter Island civilization collapse still stands.

  41. karmanot says:

    rothfl!

  42. karmanot says:

    Bravo!

  43. karmanot says:

    How about: “and he that is more than a youth is not for me, and
    he that is less than a man, I am not for him.” Beatrice from Much Ado—-

  44. Monoceros Forth says:

    That’s a triple negative! Two wrongs don’t make a right but three do.

  45. karmanot says:

    Yep: Windsors 0, scandals ongoing

  46. karmanot says:

    —–Indeed, those inbred second sons of Germany/Sax/Colberg mutated by the Hapsburg limited gene pool. They aren’t even English as are the Spencers, an ancient family, with centuries of breeding predating these cretin Windsors.

  47. Googled it – Twelfth Night:

    By innocence I swear, and by my youth
    I have one heart, one bosom, and one truth,
    And that no woman has, nor never none
    Shall mistress be of it, save I alone.

  48. karmanot says:

    “to stick his head out the window.” To put it politely. I (gag) envision his window in the nether regions where the sun don’t shine. How could he tell?

  49. Got it, thanks

  50. Ninong says:

    Can you give me an example of a Shakespearean double negative? I’m curious. I don’t remember any offhand.

  51. FLL says:

    His situation reminds me very much of Margaret’s. She did take advantage of the fact that she could be self-centered, self-serving, arrogant and scandalous (by the standards of the time) and get away with it because she had no national responsibility. You’re right in that the situation of the two are the same. On the face of things, Harry seems kinder than Margaret although only time will show that.

  52. Naja pallida says:

    I don’t know, I think everyone should have at least some inkling of concern in their mind that the last time the planet’s climate had these levels of greenhouse gases, the human race did not exist. We’re quite literally experimenting with our ecosystem every day now, and just crossing our fingers that it works out.

    Even if you want to ignore climate change entirely, everyone should want to improve infrastructure to keep up with our population growth, and reduce costs associated with weather events. Which means generating more reliable electricity. Making sure we have an adequate fresh water supply. Reducing traffic congestion, making sturdier homes that can withstand storms, etc, etc. You can go ahead and ignore climate, but you can’t ignore the overall impact on society. The cost of doing nothing is always exponentially higher than trying to address it before bad things happen.

  53. Indigo says:

    From your keyboard to God’s monitor!

  54. Indigo says:

    It’s a Shakespearean usage. :-)

  55. Indigo says:

    He’s cute but he’s a player like his great aunt Margaret. It’ll become obvious as time goes on.

  56. FLL says:

    Most of the Royal Family are inbreed morons who’ve deliberately avoided a real education. How did Prince Harry slip through the cracks? He must get most of his brains from his mother. In the news:

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2337882/Harry-saved-gay-hate-attack-Prince-extraordinary-showdown-troops-threatened-gunner.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

  57. FLL says:

    According to some circles in politics, there’s only one scientifically valid way to determine if the long-term climate trend has changed: Ask Rush Limbaugh to stick his head out the window.

  58. karmanot says:

    Then there are millions who believe Mrs. God, the Virgin Mary, will intercede, have mercy and all….especially if that little stream dries up at Lourdes.

  59. karmanot says:

    Snork, snork Majored in dead skin! That’s funny.

  60. karmanot says:

    This is part of the reason Great Britain no longer has an empire and is a second rate world power—- a parliament of cretins.

  61. Ninong says:

    Remember “Brownie”? I’m talking about Michael Brown, the Arabian Horse Association manager that George W. Bush appointed to run FEMA during Hurricane Katrina.

    “Brownie” was probably more qualified to run FEMA than Owen Paterson is to be the UK’s minister for the environment. His bio says he “began” his studies at Cambridge, where he “read History at Corpus Christi College” before moving on to “the National Leathersellers College.” He then joined the British Leather Company, eventually becoming Sales Director and then Managing Director. Finally he was President of COTANCE (The Confederation of National Associations of Tanners and Dressers of the European Community).

    Owen Paterson, a History major who became a leather salesman, is David Cameron’s “Brownie.”

  62. Ninong says:

    John,

    You have a typo in your first sentence: “…suggested that climate change isn’t neither real, nor significantly affected by man.” Change “isn’t” to “is.”

  63. Ninong says:

    John,

    You have a typo in your first sentence: “…suggested that climate change isn’t neither real, nor significantly affected by man.” Change “isn’t” to “is.”

  64. Monoceros Forth says:

    I’m pretty sure I’ve said some version of this in the past but I’ll say it again because sometimes I just like to hear myself talk (or see myself type.)

    I can sort of understand people who might grudgingly accept that, yes, the Earth is warming, but it’s not anything we should worry about. There are a number of variations on this idea–the notion that it’s a natural phenomenon not caused by mankind, or that maybe we are contributing but it’s OK because the consequences won’t be as dire as the doomsayers say, or that even if there are negative consequences the social cost of attempting to combat global warming will be even worse for us. I can even sort of understand the people who just don’t care, either because they’ve got some breezy notion that Life Will Find A Way or because they honestly think it won’t matter cos Jesus is going to come and take them away.

    What I don’t understand are the folks who assert that it’s not happening at all, that it’s all just some lie put about by pinko scientists. Why exactly are they all supposedly lying to us? What are they getting out of it? The more you really examine this idea that climate change is all made up the more bizarre the implications of the idea look: either you have to believe that almost every environmental scientist in the world is so stupid that they don’t know how to interpret their own data, or you have to believe that almost every environmental scientist in the world is party to some vast conspiracy to foist this titanic falsehood upon us because…well, I dunno. The nearest thing I’ve seen to the reason for this ostensible conspiracy is that it’s a way for unscrupulous academics to scam grant money.

© 2020 AMERICAblog Media, LLC. All rights reserved. · Entries RSS