Climate change essay

[jont]

More fuel for the fire:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2 ... false-ipcc

Yes embarassing indeed for the IPCC and others here have made reference to it...it's had a lot of media attention...but so what?

Out of the thousands of word/statements/pages/reports digested and issued by the IPCC it would be surprising if some errors didn't crop up wouldn't it? I really don't see it as being significant in the overall scheme of things.

If you're going to present yourself as an unimpeachable committee presenting a document that should stand above all others for quality of methods and peer reviewing, then is it really acceptable to be caught out like that? Hyperbole has no place in scientific document - while you'd expect to find it all over the place in a political one. Me, cynical?

[TripleS]

....I rationalise driving an ST by paying loads more tax (road and petrol). I am a firm believer in giving people the option as long as they pay their way. I dread the day when all new cars are hyper-efficient, slow and no fun - the great god: Jeremy Clarkson did a stunning film on Top Gear last year which summed up my feelings...

Martin - in all seriousness I make no criticism of anybody's choice of car, and indeed I would defend to the bitter end their right to choose for themselves what they drive, and the fact that I'm content with a plain saloon car of low power but splendid fuel economy doesn't undermine that feeling in the slightest.

Having said that, I do think we ought to be fairly sparing in our use of big thirsty vehicles, by trying to reserve them for our fun times (yes, on public roads too) and driving more economical cars for everyday use. If we're worried about fossil fuel usage, and emissions, and saving the planet etc., paying large amounts of tax for our use of thirsty vehicles doesn't entirely answer those concerns, but our enjoyment of fun cars must not be completely denied us.

As far as I'm concerned the government can get stuffed if it seeks to prevent our enjoyment of motoring by confining all of us to cars that are hyper-efficient, slow and no fun. There is no need for such a policy, and it is not acceptable, and if they were to try it they should be defied totally.

I wrote the above before watching Jeremy's video, so I must add:

Although I'm not unreservedly a Clarkson supporter, I understand very well how he feels: that is a desperately sad piece. The right to buy and enjoy such wonderful machinery, for people who can afford it, must be preserved, and I think even those who are not particularly enthusiastic about motoring should support this as well.

Cars like that Aston Martin are a bright symbol of freedom - for all of us, if we have the wit to recognise it - and we must not allow that to be killed off and a dull greyness to descend over our lives, but it will if we don't stop it.

Best wishes all,
Dave - definitely not in clowning mode.

[martine]

If you're going to present yourself as an unimpeachable committee...

Who said that?

...presenting a document that should stand above all others for quality of methods and peer reviewing,

Doesn't mean it's perfect. So how many of the skeptics actually issue proper, pier-reveiwed reports at all then?

...then is it really acceptable to be caught out like that?

No indeed it isn't but I would argue the IPCC produce the best, pier-reviewed and 'most scientific' reports we have. So many of the skeptics 'reports' are just complete bunkum...a very few ask some pertinent questions and make some good points for further research. Time will tell to see if they become widely accepted but in the meantime...isn't it responsible to act now on expert advice?

Hyperbole has no place in scientific document - while you'd expect to find it all over the place in a political one. Me, cynical?

It's not hyperbole - it's a plain mistake surely?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Jean-Pascal van Ypersele, vice-chair of the IPCC, added that the mistake did nothing to undermine the large body of evidence that showed the climate was warming and that human activity was largely to blame. He told BBC News: "I don't see how one mistake in a 3,000-page report can damage the credibility of the overall report. "
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[Porker]

One might have hoped that the "thousands" of climate scientists, assisted by budgets in the hundreds of millions and an army of assistants would have been able to catch that mistake.

Similarly, it's all very well claiming it's only one mistake but, more accurately, it's one mistake which they've been called on. How many more "mistakes" are waiting to be discovered?

regards
P.

[martine]

One might have hoped that the "thousands" of climate scientists, assisted by budgets in the hundreds of millions and an army of assistants would have been able to catch that mistake.

So what are you saying exactly...thousands of the most respected scientists are idiots? They made a mistake - not sure how that affects the thrust of their science.

Similarly, it's all very well claiming it's only one mistake but, more accurately, it's one mistake which they've been called on. How many more "mistakes" are waiting to be discovered?

Agreed - almost unquestionably there are other mistakes in the report yet to be found...and I note your quotes around "mistakes"...are you claiming The Royal Society (for example) have been hoodwinked by scientists from across the world who are all motivated by political means and are quite willing to destroy their professional reputation? How about NASA? See below...

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The following scientific organisations endorse the consensus position that "most of the global warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities":

•National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
•Environmental Protection Agency
•NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies
•American Geophysical Union
•American Institute of Physics
•National Center for Atmospheric Research
•American Meteorological Society
•The Royal Society of the UK
•Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
•American Association for the Advancement of Science
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[Porker]

[quote="martine]So what are you saying exactly...thousands of the most respected scientists are idiots? They made a mistake - not sure how that affects the thrust of their science.[/quote]

Come on - the claim that the Himalayan Glaciers are going to be gone by 2035 is of enormous importance if it's true. It's not one little factoid of similar weight to every other factoid in the report. It's a headline-grabbing statement which is designed to be comprehensible to anyone. And they didn't even bother to do the most rudimentary checks on whether it was actually based on any real science or not. Moreover, it was not spotted by any of the thousands of scientists who are claimed to have had input into the report and who would have read it after its publication.

[quote="martine]Agreed - almost unquestionably there are other mistakes in the report yet to be found...and I note your quotes around "mistakes"...are you claiming The Royal Society (for example) have been hoodwinked by scientists from across the world who are all motivated by political means and are quite willing to destroy their professional reputation? How about NASA? See below...[/quote]

I don't know if they've been hoodwinked or are just succumbing to political pressure (which comes in a number of forms) to agree with the apparent consensus. Further, I think in the current environment, it's likely to be far more damaging to one's reputation as a scientist to be seen as a "denier" than it is to go along with the consensus.

I don't really go for the proposition that because some august bodies are stating that something is a fact, that it necessarily is. I've seen far too many experts in their fields be dragged along by consensus thinking in the past to be persuaded by an appeal to authority as proof of something which cannot reliably be tested.

regards
Nick

[Gareth]

I'm saddened but not surprised how the debate, such as it is, is portrayed as an argument between those who believe that mankind has had a significant effect on the degree to which the climate is changing and those who are labeled by the first group as "skeptics" or "deniers". That seems very much like character assassination to me, especially as many of those who do not fall into the first group merely think that the case isn't proven.

[martine]

Come on - the claim that the Himalayan Glaciers are going to be gone by 2035 is of enormous importance if it's true. It's not one little factoid of similar weight to every other factoid in the report. It's a headline-grabbing statement which is designed to be comprehensible to anyone. And they didn't even bother to do the most rudimentary checks on whether it was actually based on any real science or not. Moreover, it was not spotted by any of the thousands of scientists who are claimed to have had input into the report and who would have read it after its publication.

That's where we disagree I guess...I think it's an unfortunate error in a 3000 page report but insignificant.

This says it better than me...
http://www.skepticalscience.com/IPCC-2035-prediction-Himalayan-glaciers.html

I don't know if they've been hoodwinked or are just succumbing to political pressure (which comes in a number of forms) to agree with the apparent consensus. Further, I think in the current environment, it's likely to be far more damaging to one's reputation as a scientist to be seen as a "denier" than it is to go along with the consensus.

Some scientists will undoubtedly feel 'pressure' depending on where their funding comes from. However many scientists are based in Universities and commercial organisations and I would have thought as long as the science is 'good' they are free to publish what they want. In fact, isn't it tempting to make a name for yourself by publishing good science that goes against the grain? It works both ways.

I don't buy the conspiracy of all scientists going along with the consensus or being funded by government who are using it to raise taxes...it's not how science works...we have free speech (in most western countries)...we have experts coming at it from different angles and the vast majority agree.

I don't really go for the proposition that because some august bodies are stating that something is a fact, that it necessarily is.

So are you not influenced by an individual's credentials?

I've seen far too many experts in their fields be dragged along by consensus thinking in the past to be persuaded by an appeal to authority as proof of something which cannot reliably be tested.

Much of the science of what's happened in the past is pretty reliable I'd contest. We have good weather records for the last 100 years or so. We have a good idea of the climate from thousands of years ago by using well respected science (or do you dispute that as well?). We know CO2 is a greenhouse gas. We know it's rising. We know man has been developing huge areas of the world and having an effect on other things (like rainforest coverage, polution) and we are using more energy that ever by burning fossil fuels which we know generates CO2.

No it's not a 'done deal' but in court-speak...the balance of probabilities and all that...it's enough for me to support current efforts (and much more).

[martine]

That seems very much like character assassination to me, especially as many of those who do not fall into the first group merely think that the case isn't proven.

Agreed. The case is not 'proven'...but the IPCC now report about 'overwhelming evidence' (earlier reports had 'balance of probabilities' and 'very likely').

That's what I don't quite understand about people who criticise the science...I get the feeling they think it's all wrong and we shouldn't be 'wasting money' on something that's not water-tight. The problem is by the time it's water-tight (if anything in science ever really is) it could be too late.

That's not meant to be scare-mongering for the sake of it (I say again I am far from a 'green' individual - not convinced about wind-farms or much of what is re-cycled - but that's another thread) but just suppose the IPCC science is right...oh how we'll be kicking ourselves if we don't do anything now

[TripleS]

That seems very much like character assassination to me, especially as many of those who do not fall into the first group merely think that the case isn't proven.

Agreed. The case is not 'proven'...but the IPCC now report about 'overwhelming evidence' (earlier reports had 'balance of probabilities' and 'very likely').

That's what I don't quite understand about people who criticise the science...I get the feeling they think it's all wrong and we shouldn't be 'wasting money' on something that's not water-tight. The problem is by the time it's water-tight (if anything in science ever really is) it could be too late.

That's not meant to be scare-mongering for the sake of it (I say again I am far from a 'green' individual - not convinced about wind-farms or much of what is re-cycled - but that's another thread) but just suppose the IPCC science is right...oh how we'll be kicking ourselves if we don't do anything now

We won't be kicking ourselves, but others, in the future, might want to - with or without justification.

Quite apart from global warming, or climate change, or whatever you want to call it, mankind is in for some turmoil anyhow. It's only a question of what form it takes.

Best wishes all,
Dave - an advanced doom and gloom merchant.

[martine]

...We won't be kicking ourselves, but others, in the future, might want to....

...mankind is in for some turmoil anyhow. It's only a question of what form it takes.

...an advanced doom and gloom merchant.

It's being so happy that keeps you going...

[TripleS]

...We won't be kicking ourselves, but others, in the future, might want to....

...mankind is in for some turmoil anyhow. It's only a question of what form it takes.

...an advanced doom and gloom merchant.

It's being so happy that keeps you going...

Yes, I rely on it completely.

....and if you believe that......

Best wishes all,
Dave.

[MGF]

I don't really go for the proposition that because some august bodies are stating that something is a fact, that it necessarily is. I've seen far too many experts in their fields be dragged along by consensus thinking in the past to be persuaded by an appeal to authority as proof of something which cannot reliably be tested.

regards
Nick

Despite this you seem happy to quote Wikipedia in a somewhat unconvincing attempt to demonstrate as a fact your belief that investment in climate change 'destroys wealth'

I think it is naieve to believe that something as significant as climate change/adapting to the possibilies of it can be divorced from politics. As if, somewhere out there, is an undeniable truth that science will prove one way or the other. Most of us are wise enough to know that that experts can never agree on anything of importance. At the end of the day they express an opinion. An expert opinion. Whose opinion we listen to is a matter of choice.

As far as I am concerned it is not necessary to find this elusive scientific proof before embarking on a path to reduce CO2 emissions. Just as I don't need to see conclusive proof that smoking causes lung cancer (and there isn't any) to agree with most experts who say it does.

Arguing about the science is pointless. However some of those who intuitively oppose reducing CO2 emissions will quite happily demand absolute proof as a condition precedent of doing so as a means to prevent those who disagree with them going ahead with any policy to reduce emissions.

That seems to me an understandable course of action for the detractors to take.

[Gareth]

some of those who intuitively oppose reducing CO2 emissions will quite happily demand absolute proof as a condition precedent of doing so as a means to prevent those who disagree with them going ahead with any policy to reduce emissions.

There are many logical and sensible policies that could be implemented if there is a real concern about mankind's contribution to changing the climate ... although we should still need to consider how to respond to natural climate change as that may ultimately dictate our actions.

The reality isn't that reducing emissions would be required, but instead it would be a case of reducing the levels of energy consumption and resource usage. This means a combination of greater energy efficiency coupled with an overall reduction. The reason for improving energy efficiency is so that the pain of reduced energy and resource consumption isn't felt so keenly.

Some of the initiatives appear misguided - electric cars that are more tax efficient might not be either as energy or pollution efficient as their promoters claim. The same might be the case for wind farms, where the cost of connection, the lack of stability in the supply of electricity, and the limited lifespan of the equipment appears to make no economic sense, unless the power generation market is distorted and there are large subsidies to encourage such developments.

If man's contribution to climate change is a serious worry we should be aiming to reduce powered personal mobility and the transfer of goods over long distances. Air travel should be subjected to much higher taxes, there should be much heavier taxes for imported goods, and efforts should be made to reduce population size. In this context, at least, it would be a good idea to dismantle the international free trade agreements and encourage countries to apply protectionist tariffs to imported goods.

[martine]

Air travel should be subjected to much higher taxes...

Why air travel - it makes a very small contribution to CO2?