The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Global warming is happening right now > Comments

Global warming is happening right now : Comments

By Des Griffin, published 31/1/2005

Des Griffin argues the evidence pointing to global warming is being ignored for political and economic expediency.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. All
Michael Crichton is writing fiction and therefore may be only half correct in his thesis.
As they say one fights fire with fire and therefore by extension fiction with fiction.
Posted by anti-green, Tuesday, 1 February 2005 12:18:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Percy,

I was making 2 points. The first that presumably global warming data is subject to interpretation. Therefore there will alwalys be differing points of view. Secondly, that each interpretation will gravitate to the political party most encouraging to that view.

Unfortunately, the technology to monitor in real time multiple spots on the planet as well as ocean currents is relatively new and therefore has no historical points of reference.

However, surely if it can be shown that mean temperatures across a geographical spread have risen sharply over the monitoring period and that rate is increasing, then we "might" agree that something is happening! We can only view fossil records across the millenia and make assumptions about previous cycles.

There may be any number of causes for such indications and they may be entirely natural but it would be "reasonable" to infer that it could be related to human activity.

We should insist that our government dissociates political and economic considerations from an analysis of the available data. I agree that modeling is an inexact science and that weather predictions even for tomorrow can be vastly wrong. But we have to have a starting point where reasonable conclusions can be drawn as to the existence or non existence of a problem before we can even begin to determine the cause.

It seems to me that we are still arguing about Global Climate Change as a fact
Posted by Peter King, Tuesday, 1 February 2005 6:13:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Peter,

I think we are on the same side but it doesn't mean we can't disagree on detail. ;-)

I don't agree with your statement "Secondly, that each interpretation will gravitate to the political party most encouraging to that view." Most political parties fail abysmally when it comes to rational and impartial debate and decisions. Right, Left and Centre have all chased votes from those people who believe the story of anthropogenic global warming albeit some of those leanings slightly less than others, but they are all in there. (I note particularly Tony Blair's insistence that carbon dioxide is to blame and his implication that it is just a matter of setting CO2 limits and all will be wonderful.)

You say "There may be any number of causes for such indications and they may be entirely natural but it would be 'reasonable' to infer that it could be related to human activity." but I ask you, is it reasonable to spend $15 trillion (latest estimate I've seen) in implementing Kyoto when the proof of significant CO2-induced warming is non-existent?

I have to agree with Lomborg when he says that there are other global problems that are better understood and where the benefits of spebnding the money are more certain.

Unfortunately those political and economic factors will not be disassociated from the global warming debate. Governments have funded the IPCC and it is the IPCC that is dragging those factors into the discussion. (They are doing so very badly according to Ian Henderson in another Opinion piece !)

cheers

John
Posted by Snowman, Tuesday, 1 February 2005 7:06:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I think Snowman works for a pressure group, Maybe it's the same one that says 5 cent deposits on drink containers doesn't improve recycling!

two points.

1).Life on Earth is only possible because of greenhouse type heating, without the green houses gass's in the air it would be to cold.
2). The that the world is heating is a fact that only the mad would not agree.

So my take is who cares who/what is causing it what can we do to stop it. Just think all those baby boomers houses under water in Qld.
Posted by Kenny, Wednesday, 2 February 2005 9:21:19 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I will try to address the main points in responses to my article up to the present (2 February).

First, to summarize the argument.

As I understand it Oxley (and the Lavoisier Group and conservative think tanks in the US and Britain) variously argue (going beyond the outcomes of the Buenos Aires conference) that warming is not occurring to any greater extent than in the last several hundred or thousand or several thousand years, and/or that CO2 levels are not significantly related to any warming that is occurring, and/or that if warming is occurring it is not anthropogenic, that whatever is happening Kyoto won’t fix it and indeed limits on emissions will require significant reductions in use of fossil fuels and therefore will be economically disadvantageous. It is further contended that the science underlying the proposition that global warming is happening does not stand up to scrutiny. There is also an economic argument which I don’t need to go into further because a distinguished proponent of the view has an article in the same issue of On Line Opinion. However, I do mention that John Quiggin reviewed this argument in August last year pointing out that it did not have the significance claimed for it.

My argument is that, contrary to these assertions, various businesses, US States, European countries are pursuing measures to address CO2 emissions, including through carbon trading. Second, the very large number of scientists involved in work under the umbrella of the IPCC and the numerous articles and argument and the conclusions which are being drawn are to the effect that rapid global warming is occurring and it is related in a causal way to levels of CO2 which are generated by human activity.

In reaching these conclusions I have read many of the articles on the RealClimate and Wikipedia sites, which are linked by hypertext. If one carefully read the article then one would know that! But I have also taken the issue as significantly a political argument driven largely by some resource business interests. And further that when one looks at the content of these people’s arguments one has to ask how much is driven by economic interests and political alliances rather than careful scientific analysis.

I used as evidence that political views determine attitudes and policies the record of the Bush administration internationally and nationally and the close match between Australia’s actions and US policy. That is why the reference to therapeutic cloning is there. And that is why the reference to population control is there. Surely no one would sustain the proposition that Australia is supporting a ban on therapeutic cloning because it has carefully considered the scientific and medical evidence and that this has special significance to Australian people or the region. Likewise, surely population control policies are important in a world of scarce resources.

By the way, if we think the developed west has plenty of resources contemplate the causes and effects of the fires which have severely damaged two of the New York subways lines. An editorial in the January 29 issue of the New York Times said, “Years of underfinancing and borrowing have left the system on the threshold of a crisis bigger than anything since its nadir in the late 70's and early 80's.” And consider the present argument in Australia that exports are hampered by a failure to invest in transport infrastructure.

It seems there is a need to clarify the meaning of consensus. It means both general agreement, as in government by consensus, and an opinion reached by a group as a whole. The former meaning is the one objected to by Crichton who implies that scientists go along with the proposition of global warming because other scientists whom they respect have that view, not because they have independently considered the evidence. When I said that scientists were like other people in being prepared to adopt a consensus view on issues I did not mean that the main feature of decision-making by scientists was consensus. When I say that very large numbers of scientists consider that warming is global and rapid etc I mean that individual scientists, specialists in climatology, have considered the evidence and come to that view. Have a look at the comments by former Meteorology Chief John Zillman’s comments at the launch of a book by a former colleague which is on the Lavoisier site.

It is of little benefit to take a few scientific comments by Manne or McIntyre in isolation as if they are the last word, or not. The criticised RealClimate site comments on the latest von Storch paper by saying it “has appeared too recently for responses to have made their way through the appropriate peer-review process. While we are already aware of some recent work arriving at very different conclusions from von Storch et al, it is premature at this time to comment on that work.” This hardly accords with the description of the site that you make John, does it?

I will not dignify the writings of Bjorn Lomborg by commenting on them. As far as I am concerned his stuff is discredited. Refer to the Quiggin responses, which I reference, and to the host of criticisms. And consider the people who are supporting his views. Before someone jumps down my throat I am not by that endorsing the attempt to kick Cambridge Uni Press for publishing his book. Nor am I saying that because global warming is occurring then Kyoto is the answer. I make this clear in my article!

Assertions that www.RealClimate.com is in essence a PR exercise seem to me to ignore the considerable effort which has been made to deal with very many propositions and to ignore even the detail of the arguments. Are the comments on Crichton simply PR?

Assertions that the scientists at the Hadley Centre are prepared to vary their scientific opinions because of possible personal gain and that this is shown by the statement of David Rogers that government will be able to make decisions based on the information from the Centre ignores the way in which government agencies have increasingly been brought to the service of government in western countries in the last 20 years. Mostly this has been done by neoliberal governments. But to conclude that thereby scientists are prepared to serve up whatever view their political masters want ignores the conduct of science. What is being suggested is that climate scientists are being pressed into service in the same way as Lysenko’s ideas were supported by the Soviet government. What was the furore over David Kelly about?

You ask, John, that we consider the sceptical views of retired scientists. Is this an illusion to Fred Singer and the Science and Environment Policy Project? If so, it is not an advance in our understanding. Singer’s material is not published in peer-reviewed journals and there have been many criticisms of his conferences and petitions.

There seems to be less than adequate understanding of the difference between climate and weather as shown, for instance, in the assertion that because meteorologists make poor forecasts of weather then we can’t trust them on climate. People who say this should go and do some more reading. We can see this on sites like that of Warwick Hughes. I really cannot see any point whosoever in pursuing this. It is in the same league as suggesting that economists and meteorologists change places because they are both equally unreliable.

No John I did not comment on the (few) mismatches between CO2 levels and temperature rises because I was concerned with overall evidence. And media interest is not scientific evidence.

And I have looked at your site John. I like the pictures. I do not mean to be gratuitous in saying this. However, the statements you make are a mix of broad generalisations and selective items to support your generalisations.
Posted by Des Griffin, Wednesday, 2 February 2005 10:48:21 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Snowman,

It's good to be on the same side with someone ;-)

What can we conclude on a figure of $15 trillion for Kyoto?

Are the participatory countries wanting to drop some spare cash or do they know more than is publicised? Have they been victims of a giant hoax?

Cynically we can assume the US is protecting its own business interests and without starting a pro/con Howard debate we may well be adopting a syncophantic stance in not ratifying Kyoto. Who knows!! I believe Des illustrates that possibility in alluding to cloning.

We know from the Ozone layer issue that firstly, most scientists (I am sure there were many dissenters) agreed on the damage being the result of CFC emissions and secondly, there would also appear to be an improvement in the disruption of the Ozone layer after reduction in CFC usage. I think this "reasonably" demonstrates that human activity does have a negative effect on the environment and that it may be reversible or at worst, mitigated by reduction in our outputs.

Irrespective of NGO agencies bureaucracy and their subsequent politicization they must surely be privy to sufficient irrefutable opinions to have scared the daylights ( and $15 trillion) out of the treaty countries.

I believe there is sufficient data and reputable commentary from distinguished scientists for most of us to be both alert and VERY alarmed!

Whether Kyoto is the best mechanism is debatable but I can't imagine any other way to encourage, cajole or influence a disparate group of nations to take effective action in reducing CO2 emissions.
Posted by Peter King, Wednesday, 2 February 2005 11:37:13 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy