How to Grow Perennial Vegetables

Low-maintenance, low-impact vegetable gardening

by Martin Crawford

Forward by Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall

Green Books 2012

ppbck 224pp

Martin Crawford is the director of the invaluable Agroforestry Research Trust in Dartington, Devon, and this is his second book, the previous one being the more general and comprehensive Creating a Forest Garden.

This more compact (and portable) manual provides a comprehensive guide to growing perennial vegetables in cool temperate climates.

The first chapter runs through the advantages of growing perennials rather than annual veg- they are less work, since once established they do not need to be started from seed again each year in prepared beds, but simply emerge in the spring when they are ready; they are better for the soil which is left undisturbed; and they are healthier- Crawford includes some useful and interesting tables on comparative nutritinal content of different vegetables, for example Good King Henry Chenapodium bonus-henricus has twice the potassium of carrots and twice the protein content of spinach- a benefit of the perennial’s larger and more established root-systems.

Chapter 2 gives instructions on growing perennials, including establishment, use as ground-covers and in the forest garden and under existing trees, and excellent examples with line drawings of suggested perennial polycultures. Also covered is aquatic perennials, such as Arrowheads Sagittaria spp. and even Water Lotus (Nelumbo nucifera) -for its edible rhizomes.

There next follows a chapter on maintenance, including feeding, soil conditions, pest and disease management, harvesting and propogation. Tables of nitrogen fixing plants, shade-tolerance and mineral accumulators and included, also a box section on Mycorrhizal fungi.

The bulk of the book consists of a catalogue of vegetables A-Z: you will find here the commonly grown perennials such as Rhubarb, Globe Artichokes and Jerusalem Artichokes; well-known herbs such as salad burnet and chives; wild plants like nettles and ramsons; as well as plenty of suprises in lesser known plants such as Giant butterbur or Fuki- (Petasites japonicus) and Quamash (Indian Lilly- Camassia quamash). There is even a perennial wheat.

Giant butterbur on Orcas Island WA

With over a hundred listed in total this book is a delight and packed with information. Maybe Crawford’s enthusiasm might be slightly over-stated- his comment in the first chapter that “in basing our whole civilisation on short-lived plants [annuals] we may have been down a productive but nevertheless destructive cul-de-sac” seems a little over the top and an unnecessary selling point, since we are unlikely to ever substantially replace the world’s major crops with perennials; nonetheless, no-one has done more than Martin to demonstrate the viability of edible forest gardens in this part of the world and there is plenty enough inspiration in this volume to convince the most conventional four-part rotation vegetable gardener that perennials have great potential and should be taken more seriously.

In 2012, my partner April and I are actually building a new straw bale & timber frame home, and we’re hosting two natural building workshops to get people involved with the construction and to educate folks about alternative means of building. (No reciprocal roof this time, unfortunately!) In June of 2012, we are hosting a two week Timber Framing workshop with a pro timber framer, and will build and raise the entire timber frame of our home using hand tools during that course. Shortly afterwards, we’re putting on a 10 day Straw Bale Building workshop, which will hopefully result in a fully baled building with a rough coat of lovely earthen plaster.

The Year of Mud is hosting two natural building workshops in 2012 at Dancing Rabbit Ecovillage — check out their Timber Framing Workshop and Straw Bale Workshops!

7 Billion Minds, 7 Billion Hearts

I am moving more in-depth discussions on peak oil, climate change, the fate of civilisation etc over to Skepteco. Zone 5 will continue as a permaculture/gardening blog. To begin with I’ll flag any new Skepteco posts here as well, so please do join me over there when you get a chance!

Skepteco still has a couple of great podcasts that I recorded with Christina, Michael and Eoin last year, one on Can Organic Farming Feed the World? and one of Genetic Engineering, so if you missed them when they first came out, please go and have a listen!

Also known as the groundnut or potato bean this curious vegetable is a legume and shade- tolerant climber that produces strings of edible tubers up to about 2″ long:

I bought my original pea-sized tubers from the ART in Devon two years ago and grew them up a support made of reinforcing iron bar threaded through alcethene pipe and pushed into the ground; you can then easily tie wire mesh onto the hoops which stand about 2m high. The apios had been sorely neglected and were competing for both root space and space on the wire with a vigorous climbing berry. I didn’t harvest any last year, it is recommended to give them 2-3 years to get established- the tubers grow away and you can harvest at any time of the year, which is quite an advantage.

Oikos Tree Crops in the States supply larger varieties- but the cost of a plant passport to import them is expensive (which is why I havn’t done so yet.)

I saved most of the little tubers and ate about half a dozen of the larger ones- cooked for 15 minutes, tastes like potatoes with a nice nutty flavour. Quite exciting to finally get a small harvest of this promising crop- apparently with 15% protein content. Will definitely grow more next year and take more care of them! This might also be something that you could establish on the forest garden edge to climb into trees.

I had only written couple of posts for ToS, which John had invited me be a guest author for on the basis of my having blogged about climate change and the urgent need to do something about it here on zone5.

Clearly as I investigated the issue more- particularly Al Gore’s film- my own views had changed considerably. I was well aware of the backlash I was likely to get were I to begin expressing doubts about the “party line” on climate change, and was in fact rather surprised John agreed to post it- that he did I felt was very much to his credit as an open-minded person -although his contribution to the comments showed him as anything but, as I have commented here.

Fortunately I had kept a copy of all but the last couple of comments which we will have to live without. I re-post them here in full for reference and as one of many examples that may be found of warmists trying to close down debate, resorting to ad hominem, and, most remarkably, claiming that science is on their side in cases when it clearly is not!

Incidentally, a short while after John had closed the debate down, he emailed me in an apparent attempt to persuade me that we should really be on the same side as “we both dislike dogma and ideology” and in support of this sent me, not science at all but a paper by Clive Hamilton, author of Requiem for a Species which I wrote a review of here:

Hamilton seems ambivalent himself about the relationship to of environmentalism and science, on the one hand promoting science as the only way we can know about our predicament, on the other hand arguing that the scientific-industrial revolution has lead to a disconnection from Nature which “led inexorably to a stronger orientation toward a personal self”. While this may be partly true, it seems that it is only same science that can lead us back. Instead, he hints that he would see a return to some kind of spirituality as for our salvation, seeing Gaia as fulfilling this need. Confusingly he asks “If our scientific understanding and technological control over the world allowed us to discard the gods, will the reassertion of Nature’s power see us turn again to the sacred for protection? Will the late surge of militant atheism come to be seen as a Homeric burst of pride before the fall?” Surely reverting to religion or superstition is the last thing to protect us!

Like many others in the environmental movement, Hamilton- and perhaps Gibbons- feel that it is not science that counts here, but rather the need to return to some kind of Gaia-worshiping- and Gaia-fearing- religion: as carbon emitters we are all sinners and unless we undergo the penance of relinquishing much if not all of the benefits of the modern world then the Great Mother will wreak climate chaos on us in recompense.

Finally, I should say however that Gibbons does an admirable job of promoting nuclear power and as such puts himself very much at odds with the majority of Greens. This much at least we do indeed share in common.

Here are the missing comments from that SinkorSwim post:

1.  Julian says: 

2. February 15, 2011 at 12:31 (Edit) 3. “Someone in [Delingpole's] position should certainly have been used to debating such points; Nurse gave him the perfect opportunity to argue that there is no consensus, but he flumped it.” 4. All this showed was that Delingpole was not able to think on his feet. That it was presented as “haha, he has no answer!”, shows how weak the programme was in its attempt to get to the truth. Why not suspend the interview and ask the question again? i.e. Have a real debate and let the arguments be explored and developed rather than base the whole programme on catching Delingpole out.

1. melk says:
2. February 15, 2011 at 14:08 (Edit)

3. I’m astonished that Delingpole could not have responded to Nurse with at least one of the recent shatterings of scientific consensuses in the medical field, namely the discovery that peptic ulcers are largely a consequence of infection by the helicobacter pylori bacteria.
The pre-existing consensus on this topic was destroyed in dramatic fashion by Nobelist Barry Marshall at a meeting about 30 years ago. He had actually ingested a cup of these bacteria and had developed ulcers, just to prove his point. Prior to this, Marshall might have been characterized as a “denialist.” Everybody “knew” what caused peptic ulcers. Maybe even Al Gore.

   John Gibbons says: February 15, 2011 at 14:59 (Edit) @Melk you’ve just explained how scientific knowledge advances. Theories are postulated, tested, challenged and, as new information or detection methods become available via the peer review process, science (in this case, medical science) absorbs the new information (the h. pylori case is a good example) and medical practice adjusts in the light of the new information. Others in turn seek to challenge this new information, again via peer reviewed studies. If their challenges hold water, the new thesis is rejected. If not, and if sufficient other studies independently confirm the ‘breakthrough’ finding, then this new knowledge become medical/scientific theory. This in turn is not set in stone. If in five years, it turns out thanks to more advances in medical imaging, for example, that h. pylori has been falsely implicated, and some as yet unknown pathogen is the culprit, this too will be tested, challenged and tested again until the most robust theory to explain duodenal ulcers emerges. For the ‘consensus’ scientific position on climate change to be challenged, this has to happen via the peer review process. Your opinion, my opinion or James Delingpole’s opinion are of no value. If the hard scientific evidence refuting anthropogenic climate change exists, it would be published in the major specialist journals, having been first reviewed by a panel of expert scientists to ensure that the maths, referencing, citations and underlying assumptions were legitimate. Scientists don’t have to “agree” with a paper to peer review it. The peer review process is to weed out false, incomplete or simply dishonest scholarship. It’s not perfect, but it’s a hell of a lot better than the Op Ed pages of the Wall Street Journal, where anyone can say anything about any topic, with no pre-publication process to actually confirm that this stuff makes any sense. How do you think Bjorn Lomborg keeps getting published everywhere EXCEPT in the peer-reviewed journals? Fame, glory and a Nobel Prize awaits the scientists who can publish the ‘silver bullet’ paper disproving AGW in the peer-reviewed journals. Where are they? You mention Barry Marshall, an eminent medical researcher with a glittering CV and a roll-call of peer-reviewed papers to his name in his specialist subject. Where are the Barry Marshalls of climate science? Fred Singer, perhaps (don’t make me laugh). There are of course a handful of actual scientists who ‘reject’ AGW. That’s their personal opinion. Concentrate instead on work they have published in the peer-review process in a relevant field, and suddenly the list dries up almost completely. Al Gore is a favourite red herring of the denialist camp. Forget about him too. Look at the peer-reviewed evidence. Think of how strong the lobbies are who desperately want to disprove AGW (just like the Tobacco-not-linked-to-cancer lobby). They can fund as many scientific studies as they want. Why are these studies not appearing? (and puhleazzze spare me the “peer-review is broken” line trotted out by guys like Delingpole who are too inert and dogmatic to even understand the process, never mind actually read a paper or two and, shock, horror, form their own opinion). @Julian
Delingpole is a self-appointed climate science “slayer”. It’s not unresonable for him to be expected to come up with something slightly better than “I’m the interpreter of interpretations”. This is Mystic Meg territory. Delingpole may be a great guy, he may be a babe magnet, he may even be a talented writer. He is NOT however sufficiently knowledgable to comment on climate science and expect to be taken seriously. I myself am not much of an expert in quantum mechanics, for that matter, but I wouldn’t go public deriding the physics underpinning it. Why? Because I don’t understand it enough to have an opinion worth inflicting on anyone else. Sometimes we all have to be humble enough to just shut up about things we are basically clueless about and listen instead to what the actual experts have to say, rather than the hollow echo chamber of third hand opinion re-heated and served up as fact.

   Sundance says: February 15, 2011 at 15:40 (Edit) Graham, statistics and economic analysis is preferable to appeals to emotion and fear. Take for example the ethanol disaster, originally intended as a solution to reduce dependence on foreign oil (fear), governments subsidized ethanol without much thought which has now led to many negative impacts on the environment and food availability. Such is the result of unintended consequences when emotion and fear prevail in decision making. Even James Hansen in a recent interview with Andy Revkin commented on how fear tactics used by those opposed to nuclear energy development starting with the Carter Administration has exacerbated our use of fossil fuels that contributed to excessive GHG emissions in the present. One can certainly reflect on how much different the US GHG emissions profile would have been over the last 30 years had pebble bed and thorium reactors been developed and 80% of US energy was being produced by these reactors. Hansen certainly provides a fine example of the unintended consequences of using fear rather than scientific discipline in decision making. Unfortunately as was also uncovered in the Hansen interview, was that the Obama administration has completely ignored Hansen and his rational approach to lowering GHG emissions. Hansen sees Obama, just like Carter, caving politically to the anti-nuclear fear mongers. At least with Lomborg there is an attempt to incorporate the disciplines of statistics and economics to quantify all risk and potential damage in decision making as opposed to using fear tactics which often lead to very poor decisions. However as Hansen points out it won’t matter unless you have a strong leader who will consider the stats and economics rather than cave to those using fear to push a political agenda.

   MarkB says: February 15, 2011 at 18:07 (Edit) Ah yes, Al Gore and his indulgences. As Fitzgerald said, the rich are different from us. Gore’s behavior actually follows an old American tradition. During the Civil War, wealthy Americans would pay another man to take their place in the military. Al is all for a war against global warming – he just doesn’t want to be cannon fodder. “I’m right behind you, boys!”

   peter2108 says: February 15, 2011 at 18:11 (Edit) “Theories are postulated, tested, challenged”. Sure, but when I ask myself what tests CO2 driven global warming has been subject to I find no answer. There is indeed the physics of the “Greenhouse” effect which, at least for simple models, I can understand and which is uncontroversial. There is the output of the GCM computer models which predict warming consistent with the warming seen in the last century. OK. But is there is nothing startling like the heliobacter/ulcer experiment. It may be enormously consequential – but to this onlooker and occasional student the received paradigm has no triumphs to show, there is no “wow” factor. Scepticism is in therefore perfectly understandable.

   EWI says: February 15, 2011 at 20:51 (Edit) This is a poor article to see on Thinkorswim, with many flaws. Not the least of which is the lack of basic research; the supposed ‘concerned parent’ in the UK case was an associate of and backed by Mad Monckton: “This weekend, however, the campaigners behind the High Court case said they planned to send copies [of the Swindle] to 3,400 secondary schools “to counter Gore’s flagrant propaganda”. … The distribution of The Great Global Warming Swindle is being funded by Viscount Monckton, who is part of a counter-campaign to undermine the scientific consensus on climate change. Monckton was one of the backers of Stewart Dimmock, the Kent lorry driver and school governor who took the government to court for sending copies of Gore’s film to schools. The two are connected through the New party, a right-wing group whose manifesto was written by Monckton and of which Dimmock is a member. … Dimmock was awarded only two-thirds of his costs and is understood to have a bill of more than £60,000. Monckton confirmed that he was among his “backers” but refused to confirm if he had financed the case.” http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007/10/monckton_was_behind_dimmocks_l.php I find it interesting that some swallow the precedent of Tory troglodytes subjecting a popular (in the broad sense) film on an issue of science to judicial levels of proof. Monckton has, of course, also falsely claimed that he sued the BBC and ‘won’ a great victory over the Meet The Skeptics documentary, a claim that is clearly untrue (see the comments by members of the production team here): http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/02/monckton_myths.php#comments Still, any piece that detours to such beloved standbys of the denialists as “Al Gore is fat!” and “GM food!” clearly wasn’t fit to be published in the first place, least of all here. Poor show, guys?

   John Gibbons says: February 15, 2011 at 22:50 (Edit) @EWI The above article is Graham’s in its entirety. It first appeared on Graham’s Zone 5 website, and he asked if it would be ok to run it here as well. As Graham has previously contributed (at my invitation) it seemed churlish to say ‘well, I liked your last couple, but this one doesn’t pass my personal sniff test’. So I let it run. I’ve enjoyed much of what Graham has written, especially his debunking of quacks, including green-flavoured anti-science irrationality. I was therefore more than a little puzzled as to why such a generally shrewd observer (and decent writer) like him should produce such a poorly argued crypto-denialist piece. As you correctly say, Graham’s attack on ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ swallows the counter-propaganda smear in one gulp. That film was a thoroughly researched, balanced and objective guide for the lay-person on climate change. Just ask the actual climate specialists over at RealClimate.org and they’ll confirm as much. Graham also recycles denialist guff about exaggerated threats of sea level rise. These are anything but. Quoting a solitary “recent study” is a pretty thin basis for his premise that concerns about accelerating ice melt are “doom-mongering pure and simple”. A little knowledge here is indeed dangerous. “Doom-mongering” is a serious charge. Graham may not be aware that according to GRACE gravity satellite readings, Greenland is currently losing 104-138gt per annum. That’s 104–138 BILLION TONS of ice lost per annum. Some doom-mongering (this figure is somewhat ahead of the 2007 IPCC estimate of 100gt/annum). Jumping on isolated headlines in search of a “gotcha” moment is Denialist 101, and certainly not what I’d have expected from Graham. However, when Graham is citing the duplicious Dane, Bjorn Lomborg as a somehow basically credible guy, an honest political scientist just trying to come up with workable solutions to climate change, he is swallowing another phoney, even bigger and fatter than the homeopaths he so enjoys deriding. Lomborg is a libertarian propagandist, the Dr Strangelove of climate science (read ‘The Lomborg Deception’ by Howard Friel of Yale for a thorough debunking). He commissions and recycles “data” from fellow right-wingers like the economists Tol and Nordhaus, ignores the entire canon of actual climate science and then concocts bizarre happy-clappy “We’ll all be millionaires in 2100, so why worry” scenarios that anyone whose nose is not completely blocked will know reeks to the heavens of bullshit. This crap is then pushed out via the op-ed pages of 101 “business-friendly” media outlets (many owned by billionaires like Murdoch – he of the borderline fascist Fox News network). The supposed ‘contest’ here between the credibility of Gore on the one hand and Lomborg/Monckton/Delingpole, etc. etc. on the other is a classic straw man argument. Jabbing a finger at Gore’s alleged failings as a human being tells us nothing about the science, and on the science, he’s pretty much on the money. How do we know? Just ask the published scientists. We can at least agree that the 400-year old UK Royal Society is a pretty serious bastion of sober science; yet this Society, studded with Nobel laureates and by definition a pretty conservative bunch, has last month published a set of proceedings entitled “Four degree and beyond: the potential for a global temperature increase of 4C and its implications”. The time scale they envisage for this ecological Armageddon? 2060 – or just under 50 years hence. Graham seems to have stumbled down one of the many intellectual rabbit-holes the (well funded and very well organised) denialist lobby have been digging. That someone as genuinely skeptical as he can be so utterly wrong on such a massively important topic as the looming collapse of the global ecosystem is far more worrying to me than the bleatings of assorted wingnuts and their Ayn Rand-fuelled Panglossian fantasies about some capitalist Big Rock Candy Mountain which will continue to spew out an infinity of resources as we sail into a glorious future of cornucopian bliss. To regular ToS readers who’ve been both shocked and disappointed at the appearance of the above article (and yes, a number have been in touch today) I apologise. ToS is here to facilitate a serious debate on the substantive issues and that’s what we’ll be getting back to asap.

   Graham says: February 16, 2011 at 00:18 (Edit) Hi John
Firstly, thanks for allowing me to post this here- sounds like you may be regretting it though!
That’s a shame. And i am very sorry for regular readers who, by the sounds of it, may be in need of counseling as a result 
I am wondering though if you have read it- most of the points you make have already been answered in the original post! “Jumping on isolated headlines in search of a “gotcha” moment is Denialist 101, and certainly not what I’d have expected from Graham.” err- but it’s ok when Nurse does it to Delingpole, yes? “As you correctly say, Graham’s attack on ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ swallows the counter-propaganda smear in one gulp. That film was a thoroughly researched, balanced and objective guide for the lay-person on climate change. Just ask the actual climate specialists over at RealClimate.org and they’ll confirm as much.” But I have already shown that this is not the case, irrespective of what Steig et al say about it. The section on sea-level rise is quite clearly exaggerated doom-mongering, deliberately omitting the essential piece of information that according to the peer-reviewed science you are so keen on John, the melting of Greenland will take thousands of years even in a worst case scenario. I have made this clear in the original post, which you seem to have ignored. (I would encourage anyone who doubts this to watch that section in the film again, closely, and consider how it is stage-managed for maximum effect.) So you are quite wrong to say Gore’s film is “a thoroughly researched, balanced and objective guide for the lay-person on climate change” – personally, I can only understand this comment on the basis that you are ideologically motivated yourself. Actually, it simply beggars belief that you can call it objective. John, you go to great lengths to show that what you are promoting here is based on science, but your defence of Gore just shows that you will defend ANYTHING that supports your ideology. “The supposed ‘contest’ here between the credibility of Gore on the one hand and Lomborg/Monckton/Delingpole, etc. etc. on the other is a classic straw man argument. Jabbing a finger at Gore’s alleged failings as a human being tells us nothing about the science, and on the science, he’s pretty much on the money. How do we know? Just ask the published scientists.” John this is simply rubbish- and you claim my post is “poorly argued”! Obviously, it is Pigluicci who sets up this ‘contest’ as you put it and it is to him you should put your point. Maybe you could show a single example of something Lomborg has stated in such an exaggerated way as Gore’s film does with sea-level rise. The published science is quite clear on this John: sea-level is not expected to rise more than a couple of feet max by the end of the century. Manhattan will not disappear beneath the waves any time soon. And maybe you could explain exactly how “jabbing a finger” at Lomborg as you are fond of doing tells us anything about the science? Seriously though, I love the bit about “Gore’s failings as a human being” !! As nearly the next president of the USA he was actually one of the most powerful man in the world, immensely wealthy (far more so Ill bet than Monkton). His film won an Oscar. He shared the Nobel Peace Prize with the IPCC. His film was hugely influential and sent to thousands of schools. That is why Pigluicci writes about him, because he is still one of the most important figures in the climate change debate. And you feel the need to defend him (from me!) as if he is some sort of wayward alcoholic miscreant or something. Your comment actually reinforces all the issues that I tried to raise in the article: anyone can claim to be “skeptical” and use the word to promote their ideology; if you want to be taken seriously, I fail to see why you would want to defend Gore in this way. The study on Greenland came up as I was writing the article- I am not claiming it “proves” Gore was doom-mongering, because there is no need. We know he was misrepresenting the science; there are many activists who believe this is indeed necessary to achieve their aims, science be damned. It does however show that within science there are serious debates, new information is emerging and in some areas there remains plenty of uncertainty. You seem acutely concerned at who is funding the skeptics, and how evil-funded they are, apparently blissfully unaware at the power and finances available to Gore and his propaganda. Or maybe you are fine with that for the simple reason that it accords with your own point of view? Nor have you in any way convinced me that Lomborg is a fraud as you seem so certain. You ignore my point in the post that TSE was in fact peer-reviewed. IMHO Fog has clearly not refuted Lomborg in any fundamental way, and his (and yours) constant refrain of “fraud” and apparent refusal to give him any credit AT ALL makes me smell an ideological rat: things are rarely that black or white. This was actually a good point I thought that Nurse made about most skeptics blogs: read through them and you will find absolutely nothing good at all about those who are concerned about AGW or give the theory the slightest degree of credit. This is a good BS indicator. It works both ways John.) “He commissions and recycles “data” from fellow right-wingers like the economists Tol and Nordhaus, ignores the entire canon of actual climate science and then concocts bizarre happy-clappy “We’ll all be millionaires in 2100, so why worry” scenarios that anyone whose nose is not completely blocked will know reeks to the heavens of bullshit. ” Again, maybe for clarity it would be helpful if you relate this to what I have written in the post: To say that Lomborg “ignores the entire canon of actual climate science” is really quite extraordinary. Lomborg basis all his analysis on the IPCC which is quoted and referred to at length throughout as you surely must be aware John!
And, again as I have made clear in the post, the assumption of growth and increased prosperity in 2100 is also straight from the IPCC. You are basically saying “The IPCC is bullshit”. So, from the layman’s point of view, if the IPCC’s views on economics is bullshit, why should they believe anything else they say? It also suggests that you don’t understand Lomborg at all. Is this part of some kind of misinformation campaign? Lomborg accepts the science of AGW, and he thinks we should do something about it. You disagree with such fraudulent concerns I take it? But my main point is also sadly wasted on you John: it is your ideological defence of Gore and unsubstantiated accusations against Lomborg that are doing far more harm to the cause of addressing AGW than more extreme skeptics like Monkton.

   HaroldW says: February 16, 2011 at 02:52 (Edit) A little knowledge here is indeed dangerous. “Doom-mongering” is a serious charge. Graham may not be aware that according to GRACE gravity satellite readings, Greenland is currently losing 104-138gt per annum. That’s 104–138 BILLION TONS of ice lost per annum. 100 billion tons is indeed a large figure. But let’s see what that means in terms of sea level rise. The earth’s radius is about 6400 km. Earth’s surface area, use 4 pi times the radius squared; and 70% of that area is water — it comes to about 3.6 x 10^14 sq. meters. Ocean isn’t all of that, though, and I cheated a bit and looked online to get a figure of 3.35 x 10^14 sq. meters of ocean area. Let’s get back to those 100 Gtonne, or 10^17 g, of melting ice per year. As water has a density of (approx.) 1 g/cc, that comes to 10^17 cc of water, or 10^11 cubic meters. Spread that evenly over the above ocean area, and it comes to a depth of 0.3 mm. A rate of 0.3 mm per year is about 1 inch per century. Doesn’t seem to merit capital letters to me.

   melk says: February 16, 2011 at 02:58 (Edit) @ John. No major disagreements with you but it does seem, and this was my point, that the pro-AGW school and, particularly, their non-scientist adherents, seem to feel that a current consensus should end all further speculation about the correctness of that position. That was certainly not Barry Marshall’s attitude. And I doubt that there will ever be a Eureka-type Nobel-winning discovery that destroys the AGW position. Instead, there may be a steady erosion of the basic tenets, especially if the plateau of current warm years seen since around 1998 continues to remain a plateau, without further dramatic increases in temperatures. This would be just one chink in the armor. The post-hoc exposition about the current very cold winters now also being explainable by AGW is really not terribly convincing, given that we had been given to believe just quite recently that winters would be getting much milder. Obviously a future period of much colder weather for an extended period of time would end the AGW story, without the award of any Nobel prizes. I am not predicting anything. But scientific certainty is a precarious thing. I rather think that Sir Paul would be totally astonished were he able to look at cancer science one hundred years from now. One final point. If AGW is indeed a consequence, overwhelmingly, of ever-increasing atmospheric CO2, would it not seem technologically possible to eliminate or even reverse this increase, currently only 0.25%-0.5% per year?

   Graham says: February 16, 2011 at 08:19 (Edit) @EWI
Just to be clear, so I dont mis-understand your train of thought: Monckton backed Dimmock
therefore (you conclude) the court findings were wrong and
everything Gore says is beyond reproach and “objective”; therefore:
Greenland really could melt in the foreseeable future and raise sea levels several meters, despite what the science actually says. IF this is your reasoning, then may I humbly suggest that your comment is not worthy of publication, not even here?

   Graham Strouts says: February 16, 2011 at 08:56 (Edit) Let’s just have a closer look at the sea-level rise issue.
Lambert seems to agree more with me than with John on this and accepts, following the IPCC, that Gore’s scenario is very unlikely: http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007/10/an_error_is_not_the_same_thing.php “The IPCC says that by “very unlikely”, they mean a 5-10% chance of it happening. Since the consequences would be very bad, I think Gore is justified in saying that it is worrying, though it would have been better if he had said that it was a possible rather probable result of continued warming.” The IPCC say:
“Therefore, no quantitative information is available from the current generation of ice sheet models as to the likelihood or timing of such an event.” I linked to a much more recent study that suggests it is even more unlikely than then thought; John dismisses this- even though it appears to be good science, not funded by Monkton- because it does not support his ideology of doom. So how worried should we be about something that is “very unlikely” ? I think it is pretty obvious that this forms one of the key scenes in the film, playing on the heart strings of the American audience especially with reference to the WTC site. In defending Gore. Clearly, the film is for public consumption and not aimed primarily at those who scrutinize the blogs and read the actual IPCC reports. There is only one impression that cinema goers (or school children) are going to leave the film with unless they are extremely well informed and skeptical: unless we change our lightbulbs and cycle to school we are all going to drown (or our children and grandchildren will). I return to my may point, because this is really what i would like you guys to respond to: you gain nothing by defending Gore in this way, and bolster the more extreme skeptics’ view that environmentalism is a religion, and suspicions that the whole climate change thing is an attempt to regulate people’e lifestyles. Yes, it is Monckton et al who capitalise on this and play on it for their own agendas, but it is the stance taken by John and others here (along with things like the 10:10 campaign) that give that point of view credibility.

   John Gibbons says: February 16, 2011 at 09:11 (Edit) @HaroldW I can neither confirm nor refute your pocket calculations on Greenland ice melt. I’ll be guided by what the experts say, and they are increasingly trending towards sea level rises of upwards of one metre this century – and much, much more in the event of climatic ‘tipping point’ threshholds being crossed (Greenland is of course just one source for rising sea levels). @ Graham Let me try to be clear: I don’t give a fiddler’s elbow about Al Gore. Period. I’m interested in what mainstream climate scientists are telling us, and how society needs to be guided by their expert advice. Your repeated misunderstanding of risk threshholds regarding the Greenland ice sheet (and Western Antarctica as well) I’ll put down to a lack of knowledge, rather than any more malign interpretation. To repeat your “doom-mongering” line Graham is shoddy. Either you simply don’t understand that the biosphere is hanging by a thread, or you do, but you enjoy argument so much that you set this “inconvenient” fact to one side and wade into a scrap, like Delingpole, for the sheer joy of being a contrarian. Your repeated defence of Lomborg I’ll again choose to chalk up to naivete rather than malice. Lomborg systematically mis-represents IPCC findings. His “analysis” makes a mockery of climate science. If you don’t know that, you are on the wrong website. Let me give you a flavour of Lomborg at work: “…We have no idea how much good we could do for the world if we made more free trade; we could do ten times more good for the world if we got a little more free trade than will happen if bad things (sic) because of global warming…”
– Bjorn Lomborg, Fox News – Business, May 28, 2010. Perhaps Graham you agree with this analysis. Perhaps you don’t, but let’s both agree that only a pure ideologue could produce such a parody of logic. You keep repeating how Lomborg “accepts the science of AGW”. You’ve been had again, I’m afraid. Lomborg mouths that line to sound reasonable, while his arguments are classic “do nothing”, “it’ll be fine” – the very lines of logic that are steering humanity (and our fellow species) towards the climatic abyss that I referred to in the Royal Society estimate of 4C heating within 50 years. Graham, what exactly do you think 4C heating in the next five decades might mean? (or maybe this is more “doom-mongering”, funny how all those experts are doom-mongerers). Just in case you’re not familiar with the basic science (and I really am now beginning to wonder), the current global average surface temp. is c.14.5C. Add 4C to that in half a century and you have increased the average surface temp by over 25%. That means, briefly: zero Arctic ice, Greenland committed to collapse (the idea of this taking thousands of years in a 1000ppm+ CO2 world is fanciful in the extreme), ditto for Western Antarctica, coastal innundation displacing hundreds of millions, disappearance of the world’s remaining glaciers – including the Himalayan system which provides much of the fresh water for south-east Asia. And let’s not forget, that 4C is an average. It’ll be lower at sea, of course, but higher, much higher on land, and especially towards the poles. That means temp. increases in the range of 8-15C over Northern Canada and Siberia. That in turn means the mass melting of the tundra, and the consequent release of tens of billions of tons of CH4, which as you no doubt know, is more than 20 times more potent a GHG than CO2. Oh, and did I mention that the entire Amazon rainforest would have long since disappeared as we neared 4C. So 4C in reality trips the switch to completing the Sixth Extinction. This’ll be on the scale of the end-Permian event 240m years ago (it was a 6C climate shock on that occasion that wiped out 95% of everything alive at that time, and took the planet over 100 million years to recover biodiversity. But hey, Graham, that’s just some boring factual “doom mongering” for you. And anyhow, Al Gore is a tosser, so climate science is probably just made-up stuff like homeopathy. And your failure to understand the MO of arch-propagandist Monckton (per your posting to EWI above) deepens the impression that you are bringing some formidable ideological baggage of your own to this discussion. I’ve set out my position as a journalist in attempting to communicate climate change, sustainability, etc. to a non-scientific audience pretty plainly and publicly over the last several years and am prepared to let readers judge which of us they feel labours under the greater ideological burden. Have to head off to work now, so sadly won’t be able to play tag on this for the forseeable future. I suspect we are not going to move towards agreement, and as there is in my view nothing whatever new or especially interesting in the crypto-denialism on offer here, the value of a lengthy debate is questionable.

   Brian O’Brien says: February 16, 2011 at 10:21 (Edit) Mr Strouts states above that Lomborg’s book, ‘The Skeptical Environmentalist’ is peer-reviewed: “Nor have you in any way convinced me that Lomborg is a fraud as you seem so certain. You ignore my point in the post that TSE was in fact peer-reviewed”. Does Mr Strouts know anything at all? TSE was not peer-reviewed. It was derided by the Danish Committee on Scientific Dishonesty for its blatant lack of truthfulness, but in the final analysis, they failed to rule firmly against it precisely because it is NOT a science book! It’s simply the very pointed opinions of a political scientist wrapped in scienc-y jargon. Mr Strouts, in not knowing even what peer-review is puts himself on the same plane as James Delingpole – bombastic argument, sweeping assertions riddled with howling factual errors (like thinking TSE to be a peer-reviewed publication, for goodness sake, how stupid can you get?). I don’t know anything about Mr Strouts, other than what I’ve learned from his article and these comments, but one thing is certain: he is either very very gullible or very very cynical.

   Simon Maller says: February 16, 2011 at 11:20 (Edit) John, you write: “We can at least agree that the 400-year old UK Royal Society is a pretty serious bastion of sober science; yet this Society, studded with Nobel laureates and by definition a pretty conservative bunch, has last month published a set of proceedings entitled “Four degree and beyond: the potential for a global temperature increase of 4C and its implications”. The time scale they envisage for this ecological Armageddon? 2060 – or just under 50 years hence.” So we look at the Royal Society publication and find the following quotes (all from the abstract found at http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/369/1934/67.full) “The highest emissions scenario considered in the AR4 [was] scenario A1FI” “While it is still too early to say whether any particular scenario is being tracked by current emissions, A1FI is considered to be as plausible as other non-mitigation scenarios and cannot be ruled out.” “If carbon-cycle feedbacks are stronger, which appears less likely but still credible, then 4°C warming could be reached by the early 2060s” (this last quote using the A1FI scenario, but with stronger feedback). So to get to 4 degC by 1960 we have to use the highest emissions scenario, which is “plausible” and “cannot be ruled out” in combination with “less likely” stronger feedback. I don’t known about anyone else, but this would indicate that the 50 years to “Armageddon” is an academic exercise looking at low probability events rather than an attempt to provide a high probability prediction. This is NOT the conclusion the uninformed would come to from reading your post. You say that “ToS is here to facilitate a serious debate on the substantive issues”, and yet how can you call your own brazen mis-characterization “serious”. The old chicles using pots, kettles and a sooty colour (or alternatively motes, logs and eyes) spring readily to mind.

   Simon Maller says: February 16, 2011 at 11:21 (Edit) and yes, I typo’d cliché. woops.

   John Gibbons says: February 16, 2011 at 13:23 (Edit) @Simon Current emissions trajectory is worse than the IPCC’s “worst case” A1F1 scenario. It will continue to worsen, barring disasters, as China, India, etc. continue to grow at breakneck speed and US/EU dither and dally on pricing CO2. Getting to 4C may well in fact be a piece of cake. We’re going to overshoot A1F1 comfortably; this in turn increases the likelihood of strengthening carbon-cycle feedbacks (the Amazon, for instance, suffered its second “once in a century” drouught in six years in 2010, and may have been a net carbon emitter last year. How’s that for carbon-cycle feedbacks kicking us in the teeth. A carbon sink becomes a carbon source). To describe the above as ‘low probability events’ depends on your attitude to risk. Would you regard, say, a 20% chance of 4C (and global ecosystem failure) as an “acceptable” risk? How about 30, or 40%? Still acceptable? This is species-level Russian Roulette you’re engaging in here. If that’s “brazen mischaracterisation”, well so be it. Around 0.5% of homes burn down in a given year, yet almost everyone who can afford it insures against fire risk. Why bother? Because the likelihood may be small but the downside is huge (losing your house) and most rational people insure against such catastrophic downsides. Societies must similarly insure against ‘black swan’ events by taking strong steps to reduce the likelihood of their occurring. To not do so may leave more cash in your pocket today, but you’re gambling with penury in the future (and for future generations, ie. our kids) – just like the guy who treats himself to a nice a new flat screen TV with the money he meant to put aside to pay the home insurance…

   DR says: February 16, 2011 at 19:51 (Edit)

   John Gibbons says:
February 16, 2011 at 09:11 Just in case you’re not familiar with the basic science (and I really am now beginning to wonder), the current global average surface temp. is c.14.5C. Add 4C to that in half a century and you have increased the average surface temp by over 25%. What’s the percentage increase in Farenheit?! Seriously, that is not how temperature works. Zero centigrade is a completely arbitrary starting point. You have to start at zero Kelvin to use percentages.

   EWI says: February 16, 2011 at 20:29 (Edit) IF this is your reasoning, then may I humbly suggest that your comment is not worthy of publication, not even here? Look, buddy: you’re the one who is seeking to make this about the personal life of a mild-mannered centrist Democrat, not me. You’ve a choice between reputable scientists on one hand, and a freak-show of right-wing nutters on the other. Which is it to be?

   John Gibbons says: February 16, 2011 at 21:09 (Edit) @DR
Strange that on the one hand you are unable to perform the simple conversion of 14.5C to 58.1F, or to work out that a 4C increase to 18.5C is equivalent to 65.3F, but on the other hand, you are bemoaning the arbitrariness of 0C and suggesting we calculate in Kelvin. Is this another wind-up, perhaps? @Brian
Thanks for reminding me that Graham was of course talking through his hat when referring to Lomborg’s dire populist ‘Skeptical Environmentalist’ as a peer-reviewed publication. Kinda gave the game away there. The phrase “not even wrong” comes to mind. Still, isn’t Al Gore a right bastard! That’s about the only coherent thread I can draw from this entire sorry exchange. People mistakenly think that it’s only the Tea Party/Creationist/fundamentalist school of right wingers that routinely rubbish climate science. Among certain lefties, it’s an equally trendy pursuit. Martin Durkin, producer of the mockumentary ‘Great Global Warming Swindle’ is a hard leftie, who was convinced Maggie Thatcher dreamed up global warming as an excuse to shut the coal mines and break the unions (seriously). These same lefties think the real issue is ‘class war’ and that environmentalism is some wimpy middle class guilt trip that’s distracting from progress towards the glorious brotherhood of world socialism. @EWI
Pithy and to the point, once again. Repeat after me: Gore…baaaaad. Gore….baaaaad. Gore….baaaad. There, hope everyone feels better.

   Delio says: February 16, 2011 at 21:34 (Edit) Ladies, please! Enough already. John, any chance of some coverage of what our prospective new gov’t might have in mind by way of a climate bill, or how about an examination of what’s going on with world food and/or the energy crisis. I know I speak for quite a few of your regular followers in saying I’m sick and sore of this na na na na na stuff about climate skeptics. It’s a bottomless pit of pointlessness, please stop flinging yourself down it… your regular output is pretty much the best systematic environmental coverage in Ireland today. Please, please stick with it and leave the septic skeptics to fester elsewhere. D.

   DR says: February 16, 2011 at 22:38 (Edit) John, I think you are making my point for me. You said “Add 4C to [14.5C] in half a century and you have increased the average surface temp by over 25%.” Using Farenheit, the same temperature change (58.1F to 65.3F) is a 12% increase, using Kelvin it’s about 287.6K to 291.6K, or a 1.4% increase. It really does matter where the zero is, if you are talking about percentage changes. That’s why one uses simple temperature differences when talking about climate, and not percentages.

   John Gibbons says: February 17, 2011 at 09:31 (Edit) @DR
Brilliant. What scale would you generally recommend for counting angels on the head of a pin? It’s important we get agreement on all our measurement tools, however bizarre or irrelevant.

   Graham Strouts says: February 17, 2011 at 11:38 (Edit) @EWI “Look, buddy:” Hey buddy! “you’re the one who is seeking to make this about the personal life of a mild-mannered centrist Democrat, not me.” Am I ? How so?
You’ve a choice between reputable scientists on one hand, and a freak-show of right-wing nutters on the other. Which is it to be?” Err…ummm… dont I get any more choices? Maybe some middle ground, like Lomborg perhaps? How about a freak-show of left-wing nutters? Just kidding! Please dont blow me up! Hahahaha. Love the “mild-mannered centrist Democrat”- priceless! seriously though- is the reason you ignore my question because it makes you feel a little uncomfortable? Cheers buddy! @Bien O’Brien
“Mr Strouts, in not knowing even what peer-review is puts himself on the same plane as James Delingpole – bombastic argument, sweeping assertions riddled with howling factual errors (like thinking TSE to be a peer-reviewed publication, for goodness sake, how stupid can you get?).” Maybe you dont have access to Wikipedia on your computer so I will quote from the article I linked in the original post. (On the internet, if you see a word or phrase highlighted you can click on it and it takes you to a link which often is a reference to the point being made. Quite useful to know.) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Skeptical_Environmentalist “Dr. Chris Harrison (Publishing Director of social science publishing for Cambridge University Press), anticipating the level of controversy a book like this would likely provoke, took extra care with the book’s peer-review process. For example, instead of choosing candidates from the usual list of social science referees, Cambridge University Press chose from a list provided by their environmental science publishing program. Four were chosen: a climate scientist, an expert in biodiversity and sustainable development, a specialist on the economics of climate change (whose credentials include reviewing publications for the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)) and a “pure” economist. All four members of Cambridge’s initial review panel agreed that the book should be published.” Definitely worth reading the whole article though, and the links provided there for further info..
Now, me being stupid and you being clever an’ all, you clearly have convincing and unequivocal proof that the CUP, Wikipedia and everyone else who does not think Lomborg is a fraud, are in on the conspiracy he is controlling and that it is all lies. Thing is Mr. O’Brien you need to actually provide that proof, show us what it is and how we can verify it, otherwise some people (not me obviously! I’ll just naively take your word for it!) may think you are just making it up.
(Go on, tell me Gore’s book and film WERE peer-reviewed- I dare you!) @John Gibbons: Your readers and supporters will not believe that you dont care about Gore- you’re having a joke! You do care John, that’s why you are so concerned about defending him in your earlier comments. You care very much about people seeing him and his film as being objective representation of the science. You have posted three comments here defending him, and attacking my personal credentials, but without supporting argument. I want to re-visit this incredible comment about Lomborg you made earlier: “[he] ignores the entire canon of actual climate science” Do you stand by this statement? Dont you think you might be opening yourself up to the charge of ideological bias by this sort of thing? I mean, surely you are aware that anyone can pick up Lomborg’s book, or check the internet, and verify for themselves that Lomborg deals very thoroughly with the mainstream science? How about this one:
“You keep repeating how Lomborg “accepts the science of AGW”. You’ve been had again, I’m afraid. Lomborg mouths that line to sound reasonable, while his arguments are classic “do nothing”, “it’ll be fine” ” Again, it is easy to verify that Lomborg accepts AGW science; and it is quite untrue that he says “do nothing”- his entire book is about what to do- and what not to do. It is a book about cost-benefit analysis, and he argues that the approach of simply cutting carbon omissions is flawed. You really should read the book John then you will see what I mean. Now, it is perfectly valid to question his conclusions; but to repeat the mantra of “Lomborg……….baaaaaaaaad Lomborg………….baaaaaaaaaad” as you continue to do really does sound hollow (at best, just lazy). So once you have read Lomborg, you may well revise your opinion (I’m sure you will- I have great confidence in you!) but otherwise it really does sound that you (like Pigliucci) are deliberately misrepresenting him in the hope that noone else will read him either. You say: ” Lomborg systematically mis-represents IPCC findings. His “analysis” makes a mockery of climate science. If you don’t know that, you are on the wrong website. ” But you dont give an example of this that we could discuss, instead giving a quote about economics, which I cannot assess without context and more information: “Let me give you a flavour of Lomborg at work: “…We have no idea how much good we could do for the world if we made more free trade; we could do ten times more good for the world if we got a little more free trade than will happen if bad things (sic) because of global warming…”
– Bjorn Lomborg, Fox News – Business, May 28, 2010. Perhaps Graham you agree with this analysis. Perhaps you don’t, but let’s both agree that only a pure ideologue could produce such a parody of logic.” Yes I am very stupid, but I cannot see why it is a “parody of logic”; surely this is in principle at least a testable hypothesis: to assess it we need to look at the evidence. So I’m going to ask you one more time to respond to this point: without people like you John, the Moncktons and Delingpoles of this world would have little traction. But IF I wanted to conspire that environmentalists are ideologically motivated, and that climate change alarmism is essentially a religion, or has a hidden agenda aimed at destroying the modern world (“climate change will destroy civilisation! To prevent it we must destroy civiliisation!”) all I would need do is to refer people here. So for people like me who really do care about making the smart decisions, and a rational approach to climate change, you are really rather problematic;
by which mean, with activists such as your good self, we really dont need Moncktons etc.. (BTW I dont think you understand DR’s point about temperature and percentages: your point was that if you add 4 degrees to 14.5 degrees you are increasing temperature by 25%. This is not correct, the example DR gives being that the percentage would be quite different if you used Fahrenheit (58-65 degrees is about 12% increase). If I was a conspiracy theorist I would point to this as a good example of how climate alarmists misuse statistics to give a false impression and mislead people! 
I am however a generous person and will assume that you dont have a clue what you are talking about. ) Oh yes one more thing: you forgot to reply to the point about the IPCC and their projections of future growth- which you regard as “bullshit”. Can you explain this? Are climate scientists talking bullshit? Or do the substantial majority of scientists such as Steig and Schmidt etc all agree that PO and die-off is impending and we are all doomed anyway, even without AGW?
And when you say things like “Current emissions trajectory is worse than the IPCC’s “worst case” A1F1 scenario. It will continue to worsen, barring disasters, as China, India, etc. continue to grow at breakneck speed ” are you not actually contradicting yourself? I know you are busy John and I appreciate your dropping back into the discussion, but if you avoid all the extraneous stuff about how stupid/gullible/corrupt/deluded etc I must be and just stick to the points I am putting to you, it shoudnt take you too long. “Lomborg…………baaaaaaaaaaaaad! Lomborg……………..baaaaaaaaaaaad!!”

   John Gibbons says: February 17, 2011 at 11:59 (Edit) Graham Glad you got that lot off your chest. Think we’ll have to agree to disagree. Throwing mud pies may be fun, but it don’t make no flowers grow. You’ve made your mind up; I’m equally clear about my position, and the two are not converging, so let’s leave it at that. I’ve met you 2-3 times, and enjoyed your company on each occasion. I don’t intend abandoning my good opinion of you on the basis of this exchange, and hopefully this is reciprocal. There’s a new posting on the site, and I have two other contributors queued up to have their postings published, so let’s move on. JG

   Brian O’Brien says: February 17, 2011 at 16:19 (Edit) “Anyone who ever thought that Lomborg had anything useful to contribute to the debate about the state of the planet must read ‘The Lomborg Deception’ “Its author provides a detailed page-by-page account of how Lomborg studiously overlooks all the key facts that do not fit his preconceptions, falsifies what the peer-review literature states, and fabricates material to his ends. No wonder the Danish Committee of Scientific Misconduct called him “dishonest.” This is the book to show how Lomorg did it. Yes, it’s an account of a sordid few years, but in detailing how Lomborg and his ilk produce this nonsense, there is no better guide. As a journalist who specializes in investigations — and not a scientist with an axe to grind — Howard Friel is the very best person to write this debunking” – Prof Stuart Pimm, Columbia University. Graham, your one and only source for claiming TSE to be “peer-reviewed” is a Wiki entry which has been clearly generously edited either by Lomborg or members of his fan club (sorry, Wikipedia isn’t actually peer-reviewed, at least not in the academic or scientific sense of the phrase). Lomborg’s litany of attacks on climate science and scientists (all of whom were out of step but Bjorn, of course) was most definitely NOT subject to review by a structured panel of scientific peers prior to publication. It has, since publication, been torn apart limb from limb, lie by lie, by the very scientists you infer approved its publication. The Union of Concerned Scientists wrote as follows:
“UCS invited several of the world’s leading experts on water resources, biodiversity, and climate change to carefully review the sections in Lomborg’s book that address their areas of expertise. We asked them to evaluate whether Lomborg’s skepticism is coupled with the other hallmarks of good science – namely, objectivity, understanding of the underlying concepts, appropriate statistical methods and careful peer review” The conclusions? “These separately written expert reviews unequivocally demonstrate that on closer inspection, Lomborg’s book is seriously flawed and fails to meet basic standards of credible scientific analysis….” “Time and again, these experts find that Lomborg’s assertions and analyses are marred by flawed logic, inappropriate use of statistics and hidden value judgments. He uncritically and selectively cites literature — often not peer-reviewed — that supports his assertions, while ignoring or misinterpreting scientific evidence that does not. His consistently flawed use of scientific data is, in Peter Gleick’s words “unexpected and disturbing in a statistician”.
The entire UCS article is below:
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/global_warming_contrarians/ucs-examines-the-skeptical.html So there, in a nutshell, and from the mouths of some of the world’s top (peer-reviewed) climate scientists is the great Bjorn Lomborg laid bare. Your increasing desperation to back up your “doom-mongering” thesis about the malign intent of climate scientists and environmental campaigners, activists (and writers, like John) leads you to instead cosy up with a rag-bag of cornucopianists, energy industry hacks and assorted straight-up crazies like Monckton and Delingpole. I don’t know you, but hear you’re some kind of off-the-grid environmentalist/survivalist? Well, with friends like you, the movement to build public awareness of the coming ecological collapse is well and truly fecked. Don’t know what your own pet ideology or grudge is, friend, but it’s pretty messed up. You must have a pretty thick neck to be happy to make a wally of yourself over and over again in a public forum like this, so – Respect! Where I do agree with John is in seeing that you have nothing to add to an adult discussion on climate change; you’re a Troll who’s simply not worth engaging with, even if John found a politer way of phrasing it.

   Jonathan says: February 17, 2011 at 18:08 (Edit) @John Gibbons, I’m afraid DR (and Graham in his add on comment) have you bang to rights. Your original comment about temperatures increasing by 25% was scientific nonsense. Fair enough to try to move the conversation on, but it is customary to admit that you were mistaken before doing so.

   Graham Strouts says: February 17, 2011 at 18:59 (Edit) @John Gibbons
Thanks John for agreeing to stop throwing mud at me; I appreciate it. Maybe you could have a quiet word with Brian called Brian and suggest he do the same.
However, you put me in a difficult position: you have generated through your contradictory confused comments several interesting questions which I have repeatedly asked you but you are dodging through the device of calling enough to the (your) mud-slinging.
For example, the issue of assumptions of continual growth you use as justification for rubbishing Lomborg, apparently not realising that it is the IPCC who assume this, Lomborg is merely using their own models;
but you then contradict this by referring to the inevitable growth of India and China which is the basis of your alarmism: so the question is, if growth of these projections is not possible (the peak oil thesis which I of course have also been promoting until recently but which appears to have little support in scientific circles) where does that leave future projections of greenhouse emissions and consequent temperature increases and sea-level rise?
These seem to me to be genuinely interesting issues which i have been puzzling over for a while, and I would genuinely be interested in your opinions on them; you must surely have considered them yourself. So it does seem a pity after all this that you refuse to engage with them. I dont think we would necessarily disagree. Moreover re the mudslinging, I know what “stupid” means (Brian’s formulation which you appear to endorse) and I understand “gullible” and so on, but please could you explain what “crypto-denialism” is? It appears to be a new category, leastwise I’ve not come across it before. @Brian called Brian “Graham, your one and only source for claiming TSE to be “peer-reviewed” is a Wiki entry which has been clearly generously edited either by Lomborg or members of his fan club (sorry, Wikipedia isn’t actually peer-reviewed, at least not in the academic or scientific sense of the phrase). Lomborg’s litany of attacks on climate science and scientists (all of whom were out of step but Bjorn, of course) was most definitely NOT subject to review by a structured panel of scientific peers prior to publication” No, Wikepedia is not my only source. Here is the paper mentioned in Wikipedia by Dr. Chris Harrison (Publishing Director of social science publishing for Cambridge University Press) in which he clearly confirms that TSE was indeed peer-reviewed, just as are all CUS publications: http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/publications/special/harrison_peer_review_politics_and_pluralism.pdf “As a University Press, we insist on a peer review process
for every book we publish. It has become part of the
anti-Lomborg folklore that his book bypassed the usual
Cambridge peer review process and was cynically spirited
through the system by an ignorant social science editor.5
This is a charge that has been repeated in many of the public
and private attacks on the press, and it is unfounded. Indeed,
The Skeptical Environmentalist would never have been
published by Cambridge had it not been for peer review” Now, in principle nothing can be proved “most definitely” and you cant really prove a negative, but Occam’s Razor will tell us that there is no more likelihood of CUP (or Wikipedia) being a part of a Lomborgian conspiracy than there is of the 9-11 Truthers being correct or for that matter the “denialists” regarding climate change science being a conspiracy. In fact I would say far less of a chance, because whether or not TSE was peer-reviewed or not is an important but (relatively) minor issue that doesnt prove anything one way or another: as John correctly surmises in an earlier comment, the fact that sthg has been peer reviewed does not mean you have to agree with it. It would actually strengthen your position IMO for you to concede this issue, since I there is indeed good evidence it was peer-reviewed while you have provided none that these claims are false. (I actually think you could easily concede my case for Gore’s doom-mongering as well, it wouldnt cost you much.) How about we settle it with a bet: I will bet you 1000 euros that it was peer-reviewed; we would of course have to find a referee and agree terms etc.. What do you think? That you and John seem so absolutely certain that it was not peer-reviewed I find extraordinary, and a fascinating insight into your mentalities. You are clearly both deeply committed ideologues- Respect indeed! You quote the UCS, which are of course one of the groups Lomborg criticsies in EoS.One of the reviewers, Dr. Jerry Mahlmann, writes: “I found some aspects of this chapter to be interesting, challenging, and logical. For example, the author’s characterizations of the degree of difficulty in actually doing something meaningful about climate change through mitigation and coping/adaptation are perceptive and valuable. In principle, such characterizations could provide a foundation for more meaningful policy planning on this difficult problem. Unfortunately, the author’s lack of rigor and consistency on these larger issues is likely to negate any real respect for his insights”. Now, the last sentence is critical to be sure, but a very far cry from yours and John’s repeated assertions that Lomborg is a fraud and engaged in conspiracy (even nobbling Wikipedia!). So you are quite wrong to claim there is a scientific consensus on this. There are other reasons to question the freedom from ideological bias within the UCS, especially on the question of GE crops which they are opposed to. This puts them in a minority amongst the science world on this issue, since all major science academies in the world have written reports that GE is basically safe and should be promoted. Just sayin’, that’s all. And the report you link to is a caricature of what Lomborg actually says. As for your ad hominems: Use of Troll is an interesting formulation, I’m not quite sure that works since I wrote the original post! Surely it should be I calling you a Troll! My lifestyle has of course nothing to do with these issues, but if you wish for more ammunition on this you have only to follow the link to my blog at the bottom of the post. I dont think Ive ever been called a survivalist before either! I know you think Im gullible but I have never been able to trust anyone called Brian ever since I saw that documentary on Brian of Nazareth, who was clearly a fraud and an imposter- try telling me the science doesnt agree with THAT!!. Not only that, but you have got a very big nose. Nothing personal, just telling the truth. Friend.

   Adam Smith says: February 17, 2011 at 19:40 (Edit) Note to self: Buy shares in Koch industries.

   John Gibbons says: February 17, 2011 at 21:05 (Edit) Graham I’ll try for the second time to wrap this one up. We’re not going to agree. You believe you have all the answers; good luck with that. Going 15 rounds with a clever slugger like R. Tol may be intensely frustrating and fraught, but it’s not entirely pointless, given his role in shaping policy. This, on the other hand is frustrating, fraught – and pointless. Ciao, Graham (and please don’t try to start this one up again or I’ll have to – reluctantly – exercise my prerogative as the founder and Moderator of this site).

   John Gibbons says: February 18, 2011 at 09:09 (Edit) @Johathan
Guilty as charged. I’m not a scientist, and am occasionally likely to make a technical gaffe, like the one pointed out by DR. I regret the lack of precision in my language. For clarity, let me briefly re-phrase: Current global average surface temp: c.14.5C. The 4C projected increase this century per the Royal Society’s estimates (based on but not restricted to the IPCC’s A1F1 trajectory) is, if allowed to come to pass, a cataclysm for this planet and all who live here. These are the basic facts. My stab at translating this into percentages that most people could understand was clumsy and unscientific. Sadly, this in no way alters the fact that 4C is curtains for civilisation as it’s currently organised, and will lead to human misery on an unimaginable scale. Is this not the actual point here? You and DR have set me straight on my baselines, yet neither of you has bothered to comment on the reality of 4C. How very curiously detached of you both. Don’t you think this will affect you as well (or your kids for certain, if you have them)? Quite a few posters on this thread appear to think climate change is some fantasy foisted on the world by Al Gore and friends to limit your freedom, put up your taxes, etc. As a father of young children, no one would be happier than me if this were so. However, 25 years working as a journalist and publisher has taught me a healthy respect for facts, and an equally healthy suspicion of ideology, in all its subtle forms. And yes, that includes stepping back from time to time to make sure to the best of my ability that I haven’t morphed from ‘specialist commentator’ to ‘unreasoning zealot’. Apologies to anyone who finds the passion with which I argue the case for climate science offputting. If it weren’t so damn serious I’d probably be able to have a laugh at the Plimers, Moncktons, Lomborgs, Tols and Delingpoles of this world. Hell, the way things are playing out, laughter may yet be all we have left.

   EWI says: February 18, 2011 at 12:24 (Edit) Err…ummm… dont I get any more choices? Maybe some middle ground, like Lomborg perhaps? Lomborg – repeatedly proven to be spreading disinformation time and time again, mysteriously one of the ready go-to guys (along with Tol) for red herrings by the do-nothing right-wing crowd – is your “middle ground”? I would say that you show your real bias here. I suggest that John Gibbons and the others here look up the definition of Concern Troll, because you’re clearly one. I certainly won’t be wasting any more time in taking you at face value.

After two weeks of driving it was a relief to bring the car back and get onto the train to Seattle. Amtrak’s Coastal Starlight is considered one of the great scenic train journey’s in the world. Leaving in the evening, it was stunning to wake up and see the early morning light across the plains of southern Oregon.

Volcanoes seen from the train

No shortage of forests in these parts:

Portland had been on the list but in the end I couldn’t spare the time to stop over. This was all I got to see of the city as the train passed through:

A grey and blustery Seattle awaits:

A “P-Patch” community garden brightening up Seattle:

Oregon grape Mahonia Aquifolium in the sculpture park

Jimi:

and the Tango!

After a day looking round the very modern city of Seattle I took a trip into a more primitive lifestyle at Feral Farm, about an hour and a half east from Mount Vernon. Here Matt VanBoven and his friends combine perennial gardens with…roadkill deer. The roadkill- not only deer but that what the fare while I was there- is collected and processed by the residents of Feral farm, the skins tanned, the meat made into jerky or served up in delicious stews. There is a great commentary on Matt from a previous visitor here, with a great photo of Matt and the deer.

There was much discussion of the imminent collapse of the modern world and survival strategies that would be needed thereafter. Matt admitted one of the great drawbacks would be the likely decline of the availability of roadkill post-collapse, and mentioned something about getting a bow-and-arrow (though he didn’t mention how he would manage without the neighbors’ freezer).

Matt was a mine of information about local plants and ecology, and his garden full of fruit. This part of Washington seemed to be berry heaven and new discoveries for me included the Thimbleberry rubus parviflorus:

These are a exquisite- melt in your mouth!

Salmonberries rubus spectabilis are also good- another new one for me:

Matt counting the rings of a giant Douglas Fir

Beneath a giant Western Red Cedar:

In the Forest Garden at Feral Farm

Common Milkweed Asclepias syriaca-something I haven’t yet managed to propagate myself

Pokeweed phytolacca americana- something I am growing successfully, often considered just a weed in the US.

Mat had built some really col mini-cabins, this one with cordwood masonry:

In the Northern Cascades:

As in Yosemite unprecedented late snow- we met folks who were skiing here:

Primeval forest:

Oyster mushrooms:

From Feral Farm I traveled to Anacortes with my guide and local permaculture networker Kelda who had arranged for me to visit the famous Bullock Brothers on Orcas Island. We arrived just at the start of the three week Permaculture Design course. Here Sam Bullock gives the students a tour of the farm:

The Bullock’s extensive permaculture nursery:

The Bullocks became famous some 30 years ago after an appearance on the Cool Temperate episode of Mollison’s Global Gardener series, where they demonstrate the results of grafting apple cultivars onto the wild apples growing in their area. Here is Sam Bullock showing something similar:

Although there was no end of fascinating things to see at the Bullocks’ the most impressive to me was their veggie gardens- one beautiful well-kept and productive garden after another serving the three Bullock families and interns.

Elecampane planted as companion mineral accumulator with apple trees:

Amazing chinampas: a “chinampa” is a mini peninsular or “tongue” extending into a lake or pond providing more edge for growing plants which may thereby need little or no irrigation. A Mexican word, chinampas are used there for growing crops. The Bullocks have constructed lakes and wetlands and dredged up mud to make islands and chinampas on which they have planted willows and fruit trees:

Lots of bamboos:

Giant perennial vegetable called “Fhuki” from Japan:

I was asked to give a presentation on forest gardens in Ireland, which I was pleased to do to the new permaculture students, but was rather embarrassed as one slide after another showed plants that, while fairly unknown outside permaculture circles at home, are commonly found in the forests in the Pacific North West, including Salal Gaultheria Shallon

japanese wineberries, siberian purslane, pokeweed phytolacca americana…

Doug Bullock giving a talk on permaculture history:

View from Orcas twards Vancouver Island:

After a short stay on Orcas I travel back to Seattle and catch another Washington State Ferry to Vashon Island. Puget Sound is eery and atmospheric in the fog:

On Vashon I stayed with friends and past Permaculture students Bob and Jen who live on a wonderful farm run by the local Montessori school.

Bob inspects the tomatillos:

Bob and Jen pick Basil:

Jen, Jamie and Whitney harvest garlic:

Scorzonera and salsify:

Bob takes me around the forests on the island

Our English Ivy is considered a real invasive exotic here- quite a pest in the woods!

There are quite a few smallholdings and farms within a few miles on this idyllic rural island- which has all the peace of west Cork but is just a short ferry ride away from the huge market of Seattle. This is a farm we visited nearby where they were growing wheat on a small scale:

A previous owner had planted hundreds of fruit and nut trees on Bob and Jen’s farm some thirty years ago, including Turkish Hazel:

I spent most of my time picking cherries

which were sold to Molly Moos’ Ice-cream Parlor in Seattle:

Taking the water taxi back to town:

Mount Rainier dominates the landscape from the train heading back to San Francisco:

Panoramic views of San Francisco from Bernal Heights:

The Madrone Tree Arbutus menziesii, native to the Pacific NW and related to our own Strawberry Tree Arbutus Unedo but with much larger fruits:

Leaving the west coast behind the final stop on the American Odyssey was Upstate New York where I visited Christina and Michael near Warwick. Seems there could always be a job for me there pulling pints of Guiness!

A short hike along part of the Appalachian Trail. This is actually in New Jersey:

Very different forest ecology compared to the west coast, mainly deciduous with maples and oaks. Another permaculture plant eleagnis umbellata is common here.

American Balddernut Staphylea trifolia growing in the hedgerow. Inside the bladder-like sacs are small but tasty nuts:

A visit to Sister’s Hill Farm where owner Dave shows us his rotating root-crop washer:

Solar powered tomatoes!

Sister’s Hill is run with the help of interns and volunteers and runs as a CSA- Community Supported Agriculture- shareholders take a share of whatever is in season each week:

Drying onions:

Wine tasting and tour of vineyard nearby:

Details of vine-pruning on a display board:

Last stop: Manhattan. The Empire State Building:

View from the top with the Statue of Liberty a speck in the top right-hand corner:

Haven in the urban jungle- Central Park:

Times Square:

GMOrganic: A Botanical Love Story from News21 Berkeley 2011 on Vimeo.

First stop San Francisco, which is known for its cool foggy climate in the summer. After walking both ways across the iconic Golden Gate Bridge I felt right at home, as cold and damp as if I had just done a hike up Knoch Bui in West Cork!

Quintessential San Francisco: the flamboyant Gay Pride march took place in the city a couple of days after I arrived.

Even the cops joined in

Funky Graffiti in The Haight

City Lights Bookshop, Jack Kerouac Alley, home of the Beat Generation poets:

The City from Telegraph Hill:

Moving on from San Francisco I hire a car and drive to Davis where I meet Raoul Adamchuk and Pamela Ronald, authors of Tomorrow’s Table, who kindly hosted me at their home and showed me their farm and laboratory.

The day I left San Francisco there was unseasonal rain. I imagined Raoul would be delighted for his organic farm, but actually seemed dismayed: he said they were not generally short of water and an the inch of rain they had that day- exceptional for the time of year- would make the ground much harder to work of course, but more than that cause massive increase in weed growth.

Above: Raoul Adamchuk on his organic farm in Davis University, CA.

Above: Professor of plant pathology at Davis, Pamela Ronald, showing me transgenic rice seeds developed in her lab on campus.

Pamela is involved in basic research on transgenic (genetically engineered) crops the results of which will be available to benefit farmers wherever needed. Contrary to popular belief most of such basic research conducted in American universities is entirely independent from corporations such as Monsanto.

One of Raoul’s main concerns as a farmer is plant diseases, and developing disease-resistant varieties is where he sees some of the main benefits that can come from GE technology.

Next stop Yosemite National Park.

Above: View of the high Sierra and Half Dome from Glacier Point, Yosemite National Park

Spot the Bear:

On first arriving in the main car park in the unfeasibly crowded Yosemite Valley, I was surprised to see this young bear-cub hop out from in front of my car as I got out, and scurry away with a very human look of “I know I shouldn’t really be here but don’t tell anyone” look on its face. He had a conspicuous large yellow tag on his ear: the Ranger told me this shows he has been caught near cars before and would probably have to be destroyed as he clearly has a taste for human’s food. This unfortunate situation arises because despite constant pleas and warnings, some of the 5million annual visitors still end up leaving food in their vehicles. The most common cause of bear death in Yosemite is however being hit by cars.

Navarra Falls. A week after I hiked up here it was reported three tourists had been swept to their deaths after ignoring the warning signs, climbing over the barrier and standing on slippery rocks amongst the racing water for a photo opportunity.

Sequoiadendron giganteum My shadow provides a scale: the rings go back 2000 years.

Roots of giant fallen tree, Mariposa Grove.

Below: The Grizzly Giant, Mariposa Grove, one of the largest trees by mass in the world:

Ok, so it’s hard to photgraoh huge trees with a tiny camera. Here is the top of Grizzly:

Setting off on a hike in Tuolumne Meadows in the higher elevations in the north of the park:

Due to exceptionally late snow – almost unprecedented apparently in July- the campsites were still closed; I was prepared to hike on snow-pack but unprepared to negotiate the multiple channels of fast-flowing icy melt-water, and had to abandon my treck after the firstnight. Stil beautiful to be up there though.

Leaving Yosemite I headed west again crossing California’s Central Valley. Amazing experience to drive all day through vineyards and orchards of peaches, apricots, almonds. California produces most of America’s horticultural produce of fruit and vegetables.

I called into the Solar Living Institute in Hopland, which has some cool renewable energy installations, organic gardens, natural buildings and a huge bookshop.

I was told that the US could easily provide all its electricity needs from solar, the only reason it does not is on account of political lobbying from the fossil fuel lobby- I am skeptical!

Wine tasting in Monteverdi vineyards, Hopland:

Heading over to the Redwood Coast- the Redwood Tree Service Station, Ukiah:

Sequoia Sempervirens Coastal redwoods in the Montgomery Grove between Ukiah and Mendocino:

“Wurt” (woden yurt) at the Orr Springs Resort, great place to stay near the Montgomery Grove, where you have full use of hot springs and natural spring-fed swimming pools. Lovely!

Had to be done: driving through the “Chandelier Tree”:

Avenue of the Giants

At over 350ft Coastal Redwoods are the tallest trees in the world. They only grow on the California coast, and a few into southern Oregon. They are so tall they need to be able to absorb moisture to the higher branches straight from the frequent mist and fog found here.

An absolute must-read if you are interested in the redwoods is The tall Trees by Richard Preston. Incredible story of the maverick characters and scientists who go in search of the world’s tallest trees and climb them, exploring one of the last hidden eco-systems on earth.

The very tallest trees may be over 370ft but are in unknown locations inaccessible to tourists.

The Famous One-Log House!

The photo is dated November 14th 1949:

California coast, heading back to San Francisco:

Botanic Gardens, Fort Bragg:

Near a town called Elk:

Back in SF, living mushrooms for sale in the Ferry Terminal Building:

Part 2: Permaculture in the Pacific North West to Follow soon.