Climate change essay

[Porker]

Sure. The critique you refer to is dated 2004. The paper I referenced is dated 2010.

P.

[martine]

Sure. The critique you refer to is dated 2004. The paper I referenced is dated 2010.

Yes it wasn't meant to be a direct reply to your post...just trying to show errors in his thinking...and also to point out he's actually an economist by trade.

I suppose we are coming at this from different angles...there are some that believe any errors (mistake or on purpose) damage the credibility so much that you should disregard the whole report (your and Gareth's view I believe). Others like myself, are more concerned with the main conclusions and are perhaps too forgiving of errors .

I'm sure we won't agree...but time will tell who's right...my guess would be within 10 years - so lets make a diary entry to come here again where one of us can gloat (or perhaps not if the end of the world is nigh ).

I wonder how many pages on the internet are taken up with pro/anti/sceptic/supporter reports and crtiques of climate change...servers groaning under the 'weight' of terabytes of documents...small power stations supplying said server-farms...emiting CO2...self-fulfilling prophecy?

[Porker]

Martin

Sincerely, I do think we approach it from different perspectives. I also believe that we'll see the debate's resolution within the next decade (and I hope the next couple of years).

What I most object to though is being patronised and being called names ("denier" and so on) because I don't happen to buy the current vogue. This is a reference to what the AGW lobby do rather than anything that's happened on this thread.

I would still like to see a well-reasoned rebuttal of the temperature measurement analysis which was published a few posts back - I think that's fairly critical to the debate.

P.

[Gareth]

I suppose we are coming at this from different angles...there are some that believe any errors (mistake or on purpose) damage the credibility so much that you should disregard the whole report (your and Gareth's view I believe). Others like myself, are more concerned with the main conclusions and are perhaps too forgiving of errors .

My view is not quite that.

I think that the climate is changing, has always changed, but it's extremely difficult to separate out the contribution made by mankind from other causes. I'm not best impressed by the lack of transparency shown by those who suggest AGW is proven since neither the data nor the models are provided for independent scrutiny, and in almost every way whether mankind is significantly affecting the climate is irrelevant; since the climate is changing we should be considering whether it is actually a problem and, if it is, how best to deal with or respond to it.

I'm sceptical when people say 'trust me' - and I'm sceptical when people claim their models, (which at best abstract reality in a useful way), prove something. The models are a hypotheses that can only be tested against future temperature measurements.

I think that recent events have damaged the reputation and credibility of some of those who have claimed that AGW is proven.

[arboressence]

walking is good for you

[martine]

I can understand your position - as you know I sway much more towards AGW than anti.

I think that recent events have damaged the reputation and credibility of some of those who have claimed that AGW is proven.

This begs the question: what makes something 'proven' anyway? Or more specifically, what would convince you?

[zadocbrown]

The only thing we know for sure is that we don't know. And clearly some of us don't even know that!

We don't know exactly what effect our presence is having on the climate, although we may reasonably assume there is some impact. Nor do we know for sure what the consequences of global warming could be, or even what would be happening with no man made global warming.

The climate is always changing whether we like it or not. Ice ages, pole reversals, mass extinctions have been happening since long before humans even existed. Actually, statistically another ice age may be due right now. We don't know whether man made climate change might prevent this, delay it or hasten it, or make no difference at all...

We are all groping in the dark.

[crr003]

Actually, statistically another ice age may be due right now.

Well, that would explain why it's been so cold recently.
I would put more faith in the "Global Warming" bandwagon if I wasn't experiencing local cooling.

[Porker]

I don't know about you folks, but judging by recent reports in the media I would say the wheels are coming off the bandwagon at a pretty rapid rate.

I'll bet one G Brown is mightily regretting labelling those in the sceptic camp as "flat-earthers".

regards
P.

[martine]

I don't know about you folks, but judging by recent reports in the media I would say the wheels are coming off the bandwagon at a pretty rapid rate.

I'll bet one G Brown is mightily regretting labelling those in the sceptic camp as "flat-earthers".

regards
P.

What! No the IPCC has too many good scientists (and good science) for that. Remember there are many, many scientists outside the IPCC as well who support the main findings. Dismiss the IPCC if you wish...just listen and look at the evidence from a variety of other sources.

Ol' wiki has a good summary...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

[Porker]

Ol' wiki was cited by me (purely for qotational purposes) a few posts back to much disdain.

Ultimateley it doesn't much matter what Wikipedia says today. The truth of the matter will come out soon enough and Wikipedia will doubtless reflect that in due course.

Anyway, if we're not under threat from climate change, shouldn't that be a cause for celebration? Surely climate change has no value in isolation, does it?

regards
P.

[MGF]

...Actually, statistically another ice age may be due right now....

I thought you didn't believe in 'statistics'?

Ol' wiki was cited by me (purely for qotational purposes) a few posts back to much disdain.

Not 'disdain' for using Wikipedia. Your use of emotive terms (the other example being 'destroys wealth') doesn't support your alleged desire to engage in useful debate. You come across as a bit of a fanatic.

My point was simply that you disbelieve that climate change might be man-made due to the lack of conclusive scientific evidence. You then state - apparently as fact - that changing the way we produce and consume 'destroys wealth'. To support - what you later clarified was merely an asserton- you quote a slightly related but wholly inconclusive article from Wikipedia.

This seems to me, at least to be very inconsistent. To be convinced in the 'destroys wealth' assertion on wholly unconvincing evidence but quite happy to be sceptical about man-made climate change because the science isn't conclusive.

It seems to me that you don't want a debate but rather you want to be accepted as a dispassionate observer who is unconvinced by the current science rather than someone of a very clear political persuasion who, because of this, doesn't want to believe in man-made climate change in any event.

I have no problem with that but it appears your concern comes having a particular economic perspective in which our current policy on climate change doesn't fit.

At the heart of the matter is an argument about economic policy rather than climate change per se.

[Porker]

Climate change is political - it's been made so by its proponents but, that said, something of that magnitude is going to involve governments anyway so that was more or less inevitable. Both sides of the House seem to be pretty evenly matched in their "belief", so it's certainly not a straight "blue on red" argument either.

You may assert that I'm driven by political belief all you like but you'd be wrong. I'm driven by a desire to:

i) Understand what the reality of the situation is;
ii) Not be messed about or worse by those with an agenda;
iii) Not waste your and my tax money and what was formerly discretionary income on a range of measures designed to combat what increasingly looks like a non-problem.

Rather than questioning my motivation, you would perhaps do better to question that of the chairman of the IPCC in the light of recent news concerning grants gained for research into glacier melting.

I detect an interesting shift in recent "pro-warming" postings from quoting the position of the IPCC and its supporters to having a go at my motives and the credibility of people who've written on the subject. How about having a crack at the discussion concerning the number of temperature measuring stations and the bias introduced by their reduction in numbers? That, to me at least, seems like a pretty interesting piece of evidence.

regards
P.

[zadocbrown]

...Actually, statistically another ice age may be due right now....

I thought you didn't believe in 'statistics'?

I'm pleased you noticed

Actually I have no problem with statistics, only with the unintelligent use of them. You will observe I insert the word 'may' where others might use 'is'.

[martine]

How about having a crack at the discussion concerning the number of temperature measuring stations and the bias introduced by their reduction in numbers? That, to me at least, seems like a pretty interesting piece of evidence.

I would but I don't understand enough about it...I had a look around for considered opinion on the assertions in the report you quoted but haven't found any yet...I guess because it's too new (or completely correct and no one can find anything to criticise!)

The problem with climate is it's very complicated and quickly gets beyond my understanding (not unsusual )...hence me 'accepting' the majority view. Just to repeat however, I am not 'convinced' just swaying towards the need to take action now on the basis it may be correct...more like insurance I guess.

It's a problem with many current science debates (GM food, Green energy etc) - it quickly leaves the public behind and can come down to 'belief' and 'trust'.

I'd still like to know what would convince you of man-made climate change.