Climate change essay

[Porker]

Not AD-related, except in as much as fuel prices and road tax seem to be based on this consideration latterly, but I thought this might be of interest to our community.

http://www.middlebury.net/op-ed/global-warming-01.html

regards
P.

[martine]

Or for an alternative view...

http://mind.ofdan.ca/?p=1547

[kfae8959]

I seem to remember that this link has been posted in other threads, but it's undoubtedly worth repeating: http://www.withouthotair.com/

David

[Porker]

..the debate continues (fortunately). I certainly wouldn't want to think that it was all cut and dried to the extent that anyone questioning it is labelled a "denier" or somehow unscientific.

Anyway, another article from the Sunday Times today. I'd like to think that the evidence on which decisions to spend billions and possibly trillions of pounds weren't based on this sort of thing:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6991177.ece

regards
P.

[martine]

..the debate continues (fortunately). I certainly wouldn't want to think that it was all cut and dried to the extent that anyone questioning it is labelled a "denier" or somehow unscientific.

Anyway, another article from the Sunday Times today. I'd like to think that the evidence on which decisions to spend billions and possibly trillions of pounds weren't based on this sort of thing:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6991177.ece

regards
P.

Yes I agree it sounds like a shoddy bit of science but the Times article seems to be questioning the 2035 date not the principle the glaciers are retreating.

Clearly the IPCC need to be very careful and for the most part I'm sure they are. Without getting into detailed arguments and science for which I'm not qualified, the whole issue for me comes down to 2 points:

* the majority of experts in the field consider climate is real and humans make a major contribution
* even if it turns out they are wrong, is it not prudent to react now as the consequences of inaction are so very serious?

[Porker]

Martin

Concerning point 1, I'm sceptical. The majority of people that we get to hear agree. We don't seem to get to hear as much in the mainstream media about the opposing, or rather questioning, viewpoint. Given the costs involved and our current economic situation, you would think that if there was a chance, even a slim to middling one, that we could avoid having to cough up a few trillion, it would be seriously considered. But that doesn't seem to be the case. That in its own right is enough to make me wonder whether there is an alternative agenda at work here.

As an aside, I believe much of what we see is heavily politicised and, as such, untrustworthy to a greater or lesser degree. WMD in Iraq?

Regarding point 2, if the cost were negligible or low, I would perhaps agree. However, the cost is astonishingly high and diverts funds from other activities which are beneficial to a level beyond reasonable doubt such as healthcare, defence and so on.

Concerning the Times article, the thrust of it absolutely is not "well they're melting, just a bit more slowly than we thought". It's "the claim that they'll all be melted by 2035 is absolutely ridiculous". Yet bear in mind that that claim was cited as further proof by the AGW protagonists at the very highest level. They even went so far as to have the chairman of the IPCC claim that dissenting opinions were "voodoo science". Doesn't that scare you just a little bit? Do they really have so little rigour in their work that this managed to slip through as fact? Have they - shock horror - managed to publish something that wasn't peer-reviewed (and if so, why do the cite lack of peer-review as being something which "automatically" disqualifies anything anti-AGW from being of merit?).

If they're asking for another few £Bn to keep the research (and those lovely conferences in far-away places) going, then I think we deserve a few answers here.

Interestingly, we'll know within a generation which side was right. All I would ask is that you keep an open mind and, if in doubt, follow the money and see who benefits from it.

regards
P.

[MGF]

Given the costs involved and our current economic situation, you would think that if there was a chance, even a slim to middling one, that we could avoid having to cough up a few trillion, it would be seriously considered. But that doesn't seem to be the case. That in its own right is enough to make me wonder whether there is an alternative agenda at work here.

I am not convinved climate change is man-made either however I cannot deny it is a strong possibility and the consequences of it being so are potentially catastrophic for human life (not necessarily the planet - i'm sure that will survive and so will plenty of other species).

The level of risk needed for action to be taken is generally inversely proportional to the potential harm done. I don't think the 'cost' will be wasted as the investment will create different jobs, wealth creation and technology. Bearing in mind the huge sums we spend on pointless consumer goods I am not too fussed by such a change in direction.

There is also a huge political benefit in that this forces States to work together. In my view this undermines nationalism which in turn helps to promote political stability.

However the way in which Climate Change is discussed is similar to Political Correctness. Those with more conservative political inclinations feel like they're being told how to live by the more politically progressive. And without good reason. That creates tension and seems to result in attacks on substance rather than delivery. Which I don't think helps anyone. That's why the opposition are labelled as 'deniers'.

The article in first link posted in this thread likened us to Germans under the Nazis. I couldn't help thinking perhaps the analogy for the detractors should be Neville Chamberlain's 'Peace for our time'.

[GJD]

I am not convinved climate change is man-made either however I cannot deny it is a strong possibility and the consequences of it being so are potentially catastrophic for human life

Interesting. I'm fairly comfortable with the idea that human activity can affect climate to some extent. I'm less convinced about how catastrophic the consequences will be.

However the way in which Climate Change is discussed is similar to Political Correctness. Those with more conservative political inclinations feel like they're being told how to live by the more politically progressive.

Which, unfortunately, they are - and that's probably the biggest obstacle to an objective discussion. If you think you have genuine evidence of a problem and the solution is quite radical, how do you distinguish yourself from all those people who just like telling other people what to do and have unhelpfully made a bandwagon and leapt on it to follow you? It must be very difficult and frustrating.

Gavin

[TripleS]

GJD - I share your concerns. IMHO there is far too much 'bandwagon' feel to all this, and the politicians are using it for their own (largely disreputable) purposes, so until things shake out into what look to me like a sensible appraisal of the situation the climate change fanatics can get stuffed.

Best wishes all,
Dave.

[martine]

Porker: I do have an open mind in as much as I'm not totally convinced. I used to be very sceptical but the more I hear/read/understand, the more I sway to believing we have a serious problem here. It's the range of effects we are seeing that makes me convinced we are suffering the effects of warming: ice melting to early flowering/migration patterns to unusual weather.

Also intuitively (dangerous I know) wouldn't it be really surprising if human activity WEREN'T effecting the climate?

Climate change is a very complex subject but why do you choose to disbelieve a whole bunch (1000s) of experts who's job it is to understand what's going on in favour of a minority mix of crackpots and some respectable scientists? There are enough ways to get ideas/research published that I don't believe it's possible to silence a well-researched view...too much like an internet conspiracy for me.

The 'politics/tax revenue' argument doesn't wash with me...if my understanding of the early IPCC reports is correct the IPCC scientists were all for strong wording on the causes/effects of global warming but the IPCC politicians wanted it toned down so it could be sold to their respective electorate.

As summed up in the link above...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
So this leaves us with a choice, do I trust Peden <<and a few others>>, or do I trust:

the IPCC,

the National Academies of Science from Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, the Caribbean, China, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Russia, South Africa, Sweden, the United Kingdom and the USA,

the American Meteorological Society,
the American Geophysical Union,
the American Association for the Advancement of Science,
the Geological Society of London,
the Geological Society of America,
the Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society,

thousands of peer-reviewed journals,

and even the American Association of Petroleum Geologists.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[Laconic]

Well said, Martine. The thing is that most of the the sceptical side of the climate change debate seems to be long on hot air and very short on evidence.

I think that there is one fundamental mistake that keeps being made with respect to explaining climate change to politicians and people. It should go: Saving Humans from the Planet Earth.

The Earth is going to be just fine. Life on Earth is going to be just fine, no matter what happens (short of the Sun expanding into a red giant, but that's not scheduled for a couple of billion years yet). It's an environment hospitable to the thriving and even survival of human beings that's in question. There have been rapid warming periods in the Earth's past (aha, goes the sceptic). Trouble is, they tend to be associated with mass extinction events... (ah).

The way I look at it, Homo sapiens is only about 70,000 old and spent most of its existence living in small hunter-gatherer groups. It's only since the ending of the last ice age, 15,000 years ago, that conditions became good enough to support large concentrations of people. And we're busy mucking it up like it doesn't actually matter. True, we have wide geographical distribution, adaptability and very high replacement rates (for an ape) on our side, but we're also apex critters who need a lot of resource to be happy. It'd be nice for us if we could collectively keep the junket going for a few more millennia.

Still, what do I care? I have no kids, don't plan on living long and the worst of it won't really start to matter for another 50 years or so. I *can* go 'après moi, la deluge'

[Porker]

It's a complex problem and I can't claim to have all of the answers. All I can do is look with my sceptical (and I mean neutrally sceptical) eye at what is presented.

I'm not much impressed by the call to believe because a lot of authorities believe. This approach would also have led me to believe in the value of tulip bulbs in the early-middle of the 17th century, the fact that heavier than air flight was an impossibility, that iron ships would sink, that atoms resembled a plum pudding (in the broadest sense), the inevitable and ongoing rise of house prices in the western world, and the dot-com boom being a sustainable proposition. Don't ever forget that the people who believed in these phenomena were also allegedly experts. Even if some of those things (and many others like them) happened a while ago, people weren't less clever than we are now, they just had less information and fewer explanations for the way things work. However, they were, in many cases, dealing with simpler things. Where they weren't, they flattered themselves that they understood all of the influencing factors. Sadly, they clearly did not.

Climate change is a massively complex thing, and we're flattering ourselves that we understand the miriad mechanisms by which the earth's climate adjusts itself and all of factors that influence it. Further we're saying that we can detect a manmade influence on that climate as distinct from any non-human-influenced changes which are undoubtedly occurring. Layer onto that the fact that climate change is now an industry in its own right (albeit one that destroys wealth) and there are plenty of reasons to be extremely cautious of what we're told is "settled".

Frankly, I'm not buying it. I may be wrong and I may be right. With a bit of luck I'll be around to see the results of that debate. I think 5 to 10 years should see a pretty definitive answer. Remember that there's been no warming since 1998 and the climate folks didn't, on the whole, manage to foresee that either.

regards
P.

[MGF]

Layer onto that the fact that climate change is now an industry in its own right (albeit one that destroys wealth) and there are plenty of reasons to be extremely cautious of what we're told is "settled".

How does it 'destroy wealth'? Surely it just creates wealth in a different way? If not can you convince us that this is so. If not we will have to cross that off the list of realistic concerns.

[GJD]

...non-human-influenced changes which are undoubtedly occurring.

That fact is often noticeable by its absence. I'm sure its understood by those doing the science, but I don't have much of an idea from the mainstream discussion about what the climate should be, and I think that's rather important. It's one thing to try and stop having an effect we might be actively having at the moment, quite another to try and manage the climate beyond that.

Gavin

[fungus]

I agree with Porker. A few years ago it was said that the Medieval Warm Period was a few degrees hotter than today. Now they are saying that todays temperatues are the same as the Medieval Warm Period. Given that there has been no warming since 1998, why the change. Political or media alarmism?

The Romans had vinyards in Yorkshire. The Danes collonised Greenland, abandoning it in the 16th/17th century IIAC as the climate cooled and we went towards the mini ice age. Localy, here in Dorset, the shore line of Poole Harbour was higher in Roman times than it is today. A report in the local Daily Echo three or four years ago, reported that local man has been carrying out research on the habitat around Poole Harbour. His finding were that the Roman shore line was higher than it is today, and that the climate was warmer. This was born out by the fact that he had found snail shells, of a species that lived in a warmer climate than is present today.

We hear a lot of alarmist reporting in the media. Ice caps melting in the South Pole in January. I suppose they hope that we dont realise that it's summer in the Southern Hemisphere in January, and that things tend to warm up in summer. Recently they have been making a big thing of the recent cold snap. Some of you on this forum will remember the winter of 1963 which was far worse than this winter, indeed some of you might remember the winter of 1947. I wasn't born in 1947, but I remember 1963. Here in Dorset the landscape was virtualy flattened by the depth of snow, and the hedgerows were no longer visible.