35 replies to this topic

[noggin]

I thought I'd start a new thread, all nice and fresh, for posting stuff which reflects growing doubts about the formerly generally "accepted" (I use the word loosely, as there have always been doubters/sceptics) cause of GW/CC and the effect that mankind is having on the climate.

Here http://papers.ssrn.c...ct_id=1612851## is an interesting piece. Yes, it is an abstract and no, I will not be providing the whole paper as I am unable to do that. It compares what the IPCC and similar VI bodies have said with what non-VI scientific papers have actually found.

It is entitled "Global Advocacy Science: A Cross Examination." and the author is a legal bod, who would, I imagine, have carried out his comparisons with meticulous detail.

I hope people will find it interesting.

Love and peace to all.

[Harry]

Interesting Abstract

Being honest, my view on Climate Change and Global Warming and the factors contributing to such supposed effects, changes all the time. One minute I think we should be doing more and that the consequences of failing to act will cost millions of lives in the near future, yet on the other hand I am a strong believer in, to quote Jeff Goldblum in Jurassic Park, "Nature will find a way"...far greater catastrophes have affected the planet including asteroid hits, supervolcanic eruptions, ice ages etc, and each time the Earth has recovered back into a beautiful place abundant with millions of different species of different kinds of life. The global temperature rising a few degrees surely could not compare to the effects of any of the aforementioned events which the Earth has endured.

The whole debate revolves around so many unknowns and assumptions, that it is impossible for people to form a sound opinion. The debate on Climate Change and Global Warming is often entangled with emotive language which IMO leads us away from sound thinking and reasoned argument. Even the abstract referred to in this thread contains assumptions and emotive inferences - "is that it is too conservative in not paying enough attention to possible catastrophic harm from potentially very high temperature increases. "

"Not paying enough attention" to me seems like panic is running down the spine of the person who wrote this abstract...I am sure enough attention is being paid to the possible consequences (that's all we seem to hear about) however in reality you cannot begin to mitigate against the effects of something which you simply don't know will actually happen, and certainly to what extent it will happen (if at all).

"catastrophic harm" - this is a totally emotive and unreasoned term - catastrophic? Compared to the effects of an asteroid catastrophic? Yellowstone erupting catastrophic? Worse than the two? The harm caused by thousands of years of icy conditions catastrophic? And what is meant by "harm"? To humans, fauna, flora, the 'planet' as a whole, that the planet may not be able to sustain life at all if the warming continues?

And what are "very high temperature increases" - 0.1C? 1C? 3C? 10C? Are these very high changes historically or are these very high in relation to present?

For me, until there is research carried out which is neither socially, economically, environmentally or politically motivated (and subsequently biased), the Climate Change and Global Warming issue will always be a massive bone of contention, besides the fact science is trying to predict the future (which is impossible really). The problem I have with nearly all articles on the subject is that they are often biased in some form (favouring a particular outcome to suit a particular body of people) and quite often full of hyperboles and fallacies (like the above extract), and think that they are self sufficient to make statements on measures which should be taken etc.

I think we need to all remember in these discussions that global warming/climate change (again, if it exists) is human's problem...not the planets, not the animals, just humans. Animals will relocate and adapt to new surroundings quite easily, the planet has 'recovered' after far bigger events than a bit of a temperature rise of a few degrees, the ones who suffer are us. Please let's stop the "the planet is doomed", "we're killing the planet"...no, the only people we are really harming (again, if this phenomena is even happening, and if so if it's our fault) are ourselves.

[Devonian]

Harry, on 09 June 2010 - 13:23 , said:

...
I think we need to all remember in these discussions that global warming/climate change (again, if it exists) is human's problem...not the planets, not the animals, just humans. Animals will relocate and adapt to new surroundings quite easily, the planet has 'recovered' after far bigger events than a bit of a temperature rise of a few degrees, the ones who suffer are us. Please let's stop the "the planet is doomed", "we're killing the planet"...no, the only people we are really harming (again, if this phenomena is even happening, and if so if it's our fault) are ourselves.

I have to question this.

Yes, we could, for example, have a nuclear war and life would continue, indeed life would survive most possible catastrophies, but to wave away a human caused change as you do ('animal will relocate and adpat to new surrounding quite easily') is, IMO, wrong.

If we cause significant warming (say ~2C) that is a change, and a rate of change, quite dramatic and life will not simply adapt - trees can't up and move if the land dries out or gets too hot, cold Arctic soil don't suddenly become temperate soils overnight, cold adapted animals can't simply move if the ecosystem is markedly disrupted. I do think that if we change the planet significantly nature will adapt but it's will be a markedly changed nature. Is that really what we want to do because we can't be bothered to give nature a break?

[Devonian]

North Sea Snow Convection, on 09 June 2010 - 14:22 , said:

That is not what he suggested. As per the debate to find a way forward on the other thread, issues of suggested 'complacency' don't have a place here

I wasn't suggesting that! I said 'we change the planet', 'we want to do'- we, humanity and I did not use the word complacency either. I dunno...

Edited by Devonian, 09 June 2010 - 14:45 .

[Gray-Wolf]

NSSC , you cannot just opt out of society......they tried it in the 60's and look what became of that! We ,as a society, are impacting the planet in a way that is destructive. I don't think there is a debate in that statement (if this was the Life of Brian I'm sure a little voice would be crying "I'm not" but this is real).

We are locked into our destructive ways however 'careful' we try and be in our living. Never mind 'think global, act local' just live like your great granny did!

I do not find this type of thing 'constructive' or supportive of humanity as a whole (the abstract and that which is now on the web about it).

It appears to be another load of nitpicking at areas that can be 'nitpicked' and nothing more.

Ah well, back to the drudge......

[noggin]

http://motherjones.c...e-denial-plunge

Self-explanatory link. A big turnaround by an American senator who was an ardent believer in man-made GW and all for doing things to reduce/tax carbon emissions in the name of AGW now wants to reduce them for reasons of a cleaner and healthier environment, denouncing AGW as a "religion" and saying that the science has changed and that it was oversold and alarmist.

As I said elsewhere, surely we all want the same thing? A cleaner environment, more sustainable and clean fuel sources?

I have to say I am glad to see that support for the theory of AGW is crumbling somewhat......lets all work together and clean things up, instead of continuing with the old arguments about whether or not any global warming is manmade. That argument has been done to death and it it is by no means certain that we will ever get the absolute proof that either "side" was right. So let's use our efforts/energy in a constructive way, rather than a destructive way.

Edited by noggin, 11 June 2010 - 08:20 .

[Solar Sausage]

Come on peeps? Let's not see another well-intentioned thread closed due to petty bickerings, eh?

Anyhoo. Re. doubts...They've always been there IMO. One only has to peruse all the 'margins for error' (due to feedback uncertainty) in the IPPC reports???

As Nog says: Peace...

[4wd]

When I was younger I was quite keen on most green ideas in particular preservation of threatened environments and avoiding water and air pollution.
About 1998 (a now obviously freakish warm year!) the green groups and media started hyping up global warming with endless stories trying to show every imaginable problem being made worse by global warming.

Most if not all of this seemed to me at the time little more than exaggeration, spin, and sometimes downright lies and the fact these groups I had previously felt respect for had become so manipulative over this one issue has rather turned me against the entire green movement.
I still like my young trees and wildflower meadows though.
But I wouldn't give greenpeace or the 'friends' of the earth the steam of my off my ...

They have become fund gathering obsessed and greedy - this is why they exaggerate every possible peril.
They've become dominated by activist types with a hunger to manipulate evidence to suit their position, and I increasingly don't believe a word they say - in fact I tend to believe the opposite of what they say is far more likely to be near the reality.

[Devonian]

4wd, on 11 June 2010 - 10:09 , said:

When I was younger I was quite keen on most green ideas in particular preservation of threatened environments and avoiding water and air pollution.
About 1998 (a now obviously freakish warm year!) the green groups and media started hyping up global warming with endless stories trying to show every imaginable problem being made worse by global warming.

Most if not all of this seemed to me at the time little more than exaggeration, spin, and sometimes downright lies and the fact these groups I had previously felt respect for had become so manipulative over this one issue has rather turned me against the entire green movement.
I still like my young trees and wildflower meadows though.
But I wouldn't give greenpeace or the 'friends' of the earth the steam of my off my ...

They have become fund gathering obsessed and greedy - this is why they exaggerate every possible peril.
They've become dominated by activist types with a hunger to manipulate evidence to suit their position, and I increasingly don't believe a word they say - in fact I tend to believe the opposite of what they say is far more likely to be near the reality.

I'm a member of both organistations. I DO NOT fit your offensive stereotype.

Edited by Devonian, 11 June 2010 - 11:23 .

[pottyprof]

I have to be honest and say that our experiences with political movements and pressure groups are all different and vary from person to person and I'm sure 4wd is just talking in his opinion Dev....

[Devonian]

pottyprof, on 11 June 2010 - 11:30 , said:

I have to be honest and say that our experiences with political movements and pressure groups are all different and vary from person to person and I'm sure 4wd is just talking in his opinion Dev....

Well, I'm offended by it - for the reason I gave.

I can see I'm going to have to start calling AGW sceptic groups liars - but I'd probably get banned for that...

Edited by Devonian, 11 June 2010 - 11:57 .

[4wd]

The daft thing is that what they are wanting to happen is a common sense long term strategy.
But by trying to force policy changes earlier, with remarkably little indisputable evidence [of warming] is highly dangerous for economic stability.
Most of the current worldwide problems were initiated by energy price hikes of a couple of years back, to encourage making energy costs artificially higher still is very damaging.

[Devonian]

4wd, on 11 June 2010 - 12:15 , said:

The daft thing is that what they are wanting to happen is a common sense long term strategy.
But by trying to force policy changes earlier, with remarkably little indisputable evidence [of warming] is highly dangerous for economic stability.
Most of the current worldwide problems were initiated by energy price hikes of a couple of years back, to encourage making energy costs artificially higher still is very damaging.

Well, the trouble is the public have been mislead by the downright lies eminating from places like WUWT, Climate Audit, The Heartland Institute and several others that are dominated by right wing political activists who'll happily manipulate the evidence to suit their spin. I don't believe a word they say, I'd rather go by the evidence, data and observations.

And, no, I don't offer any evidence for that allegation just like you didn't for yours of Greenpeace and FoE - I'm just slinging some mud back because that's how this thread seems to be...

[pottyprof]

Devonian, on 11 June 2010 - 11:42 , said:

Well, I'm offended by it - for the reason I gave.

I can see I'm going to have to start calling AGW sceptic groups liars - but I'd probably get banned for that...

Considering there have been worse comments that people say in this area with no action being taken........... what makes you so special Dev? When were you last banned for a comment??

[Thundery wintry showers]

North Sea Snow Convection, on 11 June 2010 - 10:18 , said:

I agree with those who say that we should concentrate on looking after the environment and our resources, encouraging sustainability and efficient and non polluting forms of energy...for its own need and sake and not slow down this urgently needed work due to procrastinating over AGW. The irony is that over obsesssion globally with governments arguing and unable to agree any policy on this very uncertain matter is actually getting in the way ofthe very action needed for other much more certain and obvious reasons than climate change.

No wonder doubts are creeping in.

4wd, on 11 June 2010 - 12:15 , said:

The daft thing is that what they are wanting to happen is a common sense long term strategy.
But by trying to force policy changes earlier, with remarkably little indisputable evidence [of warming] is highly dangerous for economic stability.
Most of the current worldwide problems were initiated by energy price hikes of a couple of years back, to encourage making energy costs artificially higher still is very damaging.

Two very opposing posts from the "sceptic" camp here- NSSC arguing for more urgent action and 4WD for less! I agree more with NSSC's points there, as it happens. A long term policy needs to be implemented as soon as possible, in view of the fact that it will take a lot of time to slowly phase in the long term changes. Postponing action will increase the likelihood of more drastic and damaging measures being necessary in the future. Btw, the current worldwide economic problems were not initiated by energy price hikes, it was more issues like spending beyond our means through false booms. Energy prices went up largely because of reduced availability of oil and it was mainly the oil companies, not AGW proponents, who seized the opportunity to increase prices to increase profit.

However I think if the main agenda behind moving towards more sustainable practices was issues like pollution and peak oil, the governments would still most likely be arguing over how to combat those issues, just as they are with AGW. The major advantage of bringing those to the fore alongside AGW is that a multi-faceted set of arguments would be more likely to make more people take notice.

[noggin]

I don't know if the Bilderberg lot have any influence , but it is interesting to see that they have "global cooling" as an item on their agenda.

http://www.bilderber...eeting2010.html

[Gray-Wolf]

noggin, on 11 June 2010 - 16:35 , said:

I don't know if the Bilderberg lot have any influence , but it is interesting to see that they have "global cooling" as an item on their agenda.

http://www.bilderber...eeting2010.html

It's too late Nog's......David Ikes got yer E-Mail address by now!!!!