Climate change essay

[Porker]

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

That's a reasonable question from a personal perspective but not very reasonable from the perspective of the fact that it's not me making the assertion.

Anyone that makes an assertion needs to be able to demonstrate that it's fairly likely to be true in order to retain their credibility. If they suggest that as a result of their assertion we should change the way we do things in a massive way at enormous cost*, then they should be able to prove it beyond all reasonable doubt. That proof would come in the form of a testable hypothesis or series of hypotheses, with full access to the data, theory and any software used as part of the formulation or testing of the hypothesis. It would certainly not include an unwillingness to hear any other opinions, the unwarranted retention or destruction of data and the ridiculing of opposing views.

If there was little or no credible evidence to the contrary then I don't suppose I'd have any reason to disbelieve.

* And yes, it does cost real money which has to come from other budgets. Otherwise HMG could just spend money in any way it sees fit with no resulting problems. Clearly that's not the case.

regards
P.

[Gareth]

I'm not sure what would convince me - probably full disclosure of reasoning by those making the assertion that mankind in significantly changing the climate so that those who are not convinced can check the raw data, can follow the logical application of various 'fudge' factors that presumably are designed to handle the limitations of the raw data, the assumptions and details of the computer models that are predicting a dire future, along with tolerances for those predictions. Without transparency there is no science.

Finally if, as we're told, the science is settled, why is so much money being spent on new and continuing research?

[Mr Cholmondeley-Warner]

There are no "facts" in science, only theories, supported by evidence.

There is some evidence that the climate is changing. (I have some of my own. The buds appear earlier on the fruit trees every year, the lawn continues to grow for almost the entire year, and so on. More scientific people have more scientific evidence.)

However, there is no proof one way or the other concerning the cause of this change.

There are two bodies of opinion. The first claims that the change is caused by mankind's influence over the period since the industrial revolution, or shorter. The second claims this is nonsense, mainly because the first body can't prove their claim to the satisfaction of the second.

Because the whole argument is based on opinion, emotion enters the equation. Backers of one or other opinion become attached to their cause. Politics enters the scene, conscious of a body of opinion that may provide votes, and therefore power.

As with all such debates, the audience polarises into three groups (yes, I know )

Those supporting the "mankind influence" opinion - the evangelists.
Those not convinced by the "proofs" supporting that opinion - the sceptics.

and those who can't see any good reason to become embroiled in either camp, because they don't believe the evidence is strong enough either way. These people will no doubt be scorned by both the evangelists and the sceptics, for not having the balls to join in the argument on one side or the other

Who is right? That's a matter of opinion, like all political debates.

The fact that there are multiple possible explanations for a perceived change, provides the fuel for a political and emotional debate. Politics is based on opinion, just as science is based on evidence.

Just my opinion

Edited to improve consistency of meaning.

[martine]

...then they should be able to prove it beyond all reasonable doubt.

No I disagree...it's not a court of law. The IPCC makes recommendations but it's a balance of risk. The latest report states man-made global warming has a > 90% probability.

I agree the cost is huge of implementing low CO2 emmisions (or even stablising current levels) but that has to be compared to the cost both monetary and human of inaction if the IPCC (and others) are correct.[/quote]

[martine]

Without transparency there is no science.

Agreed. With a few exceptions coming to light, all of the data is available, the full 3000 page report describes the process, interpretation and reasoning...the IPCC is made up of professional scientists (and government representatives and that may be a problem, agreed). T

he national scientific bodies of many countries endorse the findings of the IPCC (inc. in the UK probably the most prestigious, respected and oldest: Royal Society). Are all these people and bodies naive, wrong and unscientific?

Finally if, as we're told, the science is settled, why is so much money being spent on new and continuing research?

Because the science is developing, needs refining and continues to pose questions...that's healthly and to be expected for any complicated area. It's also very topical and has large implications for the planet.

[martine]

There are two bodies of opinion. The first claims that the change is caused by mankind's influence over the period since the industrial revolution, or shorter. The second claims this is nonsense, mainly because the first body can't prove their claim to the satisfaction of the second.

But that makes it sound like it's a close run thing...it isn't. The sceptics (for want of a better word) are in a tiny minority - they do have a voice and should be heard - but they get a disproportionate amount of media coverage in my opinion. I believe this is due to the IPCC message being so unpalatable to many.

I remind people of the 'controversy' about the safety of child vaccines and the scare-stories of mobile phone masts...the 'science' behind these is dimissed by most independent experts as being utter tosh yet they still get much media coverage. It's news and fill papers.

Who is right? That's a matter of opinion, like all political debates.

No...it's meant to be science not opinion!

[Porker]

....The second claims this is nonsense, mainly because the first body can't prove their claim to the satisfaction of the second.

[snip]

Those disagreeing with that opinion - the sceptics.

and those who can't see any good reason to become embroiled in either camp, because they don't believe the evidence is strong enough either way. These people will no doubt be scorned by both the evangelists and the sceptics, for not having the balls to join in the argument on one side or the other

That's a mis-statement of the sceptic position. It's not a never-ending quest for more proof. It's a questioning of the "proofs" that are provided, in turn supported by evidence that the warming camp is not correct in certain of its assertions.

I see no scorn being poured on those in the "neutral" camp by those in the sceptic camp. Conversely, scorn is heaped upon sceptics by those in the warming camp.

regards
P.

[Porker]

I remind people of the 'controversy' about the safety of child vaccines and the scare-stories of mobile phone masts...the 'science' behind these is dimissed by most independent experts as being utter tosh yet they still get much media coverage. It's news and fill papers.

Things change as understanding increases - that's for sure.

25 years ago there was, it was thought, complete understanding of the mechanism of creep in metals. (Creep is the phenomenon of very gradual shape change of an item under a continuous load and can take years to manifest itself. It happens very quickly however with heavily loaded plastic bags on a warm day at the supermarket and manifests itself just as you arrive at your car.)

The science was "settled", even thought the accepted theory didn't align especially well with the behaviour of objects "in the field". Then along came a chap at the University of Wales who proposed a new theory, which corresponded extremely well indeed with field experiments and experience.

Turned out the old theory for the mechanism was utterly and completely wrong. Nonetheless it had been in vogue for at least 50 years and had been taught to and believed by thousands of metallurgists the world over.

I still await with interest any response to the paper posted a few days ago concerning the temperature measuring stations. Should be pretty easy to refute if it's not true.

P.

[Mr Cholmondeley-Warner]

....The second claims this is nonsense, mainly because the first body can't prove their claim to the satisfaction of the second.

[snip]

Those disagreeing with that opinion - the sceptics.

and those who can't see any good reason to become embroiled in either camp, because they don't believe the evidence is strong enough either way. These people will no doubt be scorned by both the evangelists and the sceptics, for not having the balls to join in the argument on one side or the other

That's a mis-statement of the sceptic position. It's not a never-ending quest for more proof. It's a questioning of the "proofs" that are provided, in turn supported by evidence that the warming camp is not correct in certain of its assertions.

You're right. My meaning changed from the fifth paragraph to the seventh. I will reword the original.

I see no scorn being poured on those in the "neutral" camp by those in the sceptic camp. Conversely, scorn is heaped upon sceptics by those in the warming camp.

regards
P.

That bit was tongue-in-cheek, as no doubt you guessed.

[Mr Cholmondeley-Warner]

There are two bodies of opinion. The first claims that the change is caused by mankind's influence over the period since the industrial revolution, or shorter. The second claims this is nonsense, mainly because the first body can't prove their claim to the satisfaction of the second.

But that makes it sound like it's a close run thing...it isn't. The sceptics (for want of a better word) are in a tiny minority - they do have a voice and should be heard - but they get a disproportionate amount of media coverage in my opinion. I believe this is due to the IPCC message being so unpalatable to many.

In this thread, at least, the sceptics seem to be holding their own What evidence do you have that they're a tiny minority?

You might argue, on the other hand, that the global warming lobby gets a disproportionate amount of the press given the allegedly shaky nature of the science their lobby is based on.

Who is right? That's a matter of opinion, like all political debates.

No...it's meant to be science not opinion!

Was "meant to be" a Freudian slip?

[Porker]

That bit was tongue-in-cheek, as no doubt you guessed.

Ah - missed that

P.

[MGF]

In this thread, at least, the sceptics seem to be holding their own What evidence do you have that they're a tiny minority?

I think Martin was referring to sceptical scientists rather than sceptical members of the ADUK forum.



As for the general public the sceptics appear to be a significant minority.

Interesting data on attitudes in various countries.

[Porker]

Those who think it's worth investing even a couple of hundred pounds in improving their driving are also in a "significant minority".

P.

[martine]

Those who think it's worth investing even a couple of hundred pounds in improving their driving are also in a "significant minority".

P.

Good point but I disagree! We are in a tiny minority who's significance is often overlooked.

[Porker]

Precisely.

P.