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 > Philosophy of climate change inaction > Comments

Philosophy of climate change inaction : Comments

By Kellie Tranter, published 21/1/2008

The self-interested attitudes of all of us make our governments afraid to make the tough decisions.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 7
  7. 8
  8. 9
  9. All
The trouble is that climate change is like a slow moving train from which we think we will be able to get out of the way. Warming of 0.2C per decade with wild weather and 2.8mm a year of sea level rise doesn't seem like much but it will be by the time today's children are adults. Reluctance to change now means that we are creating a more difficult world for those ahead compared to the recent past. I strongly suspect that PM Rudd will not do anything (besides tokenism) to reduce our dependence on coal the main greenhouse culprit. However several independent researchers conclude that even economically mineable coal will run out decades earlier than expected, with Australia's reserves providing a temporary cushion for other countries.

We need to immediately move to low carbon energy, efficient transport, resilient agriculture and appropriate population. Unfortunately the every-day-is-Christmas mentality means that as soon as a new oil well or gold vein is discovered it immediately proves the party can keep going forever. Just look at the children and ask what legacy they will inherit.
Posted by Taswegian, Monday, 21 January 2008 9:10:30 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
The media is also to blame for the unwillingness of politicians and governments to act. How often do you see an important decision taken for overall community benefit but the media unmercilessly focuses on the individual or tiny minority who are adversely affected?
Posted by Bernie Masters, Monday, 21 January 2008 10:15:01 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
The article is absolutely right. On climate change, Rudd is rudderless and will do something urgently sometime next year. Maybe. But why bother when China and India who have afforded themselves the luxury of large populations will do nothing about it because they claim they are developing nations. They are not developing nations. They are merely rapidly industrialising nations and are producing far more CO2 and other pollutants than Australia.

The only comfort I can offer is the long term view; when our wretched species has finally done away with itself, it will be replaced by something else, as happens with all species, and life will go on until the sun becomes a red giant and swallows this good earth.
Posted by HenryVIII, Monday, 21 January 2008 10:54:38 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
Fancy quoting George Monbiot (a 2 bit journalist)....sets the tone of the article.

"We all know the problems but individual selfishness means we are not prepared to become part of the solution."
No no no!, not the Final Solution.

"That is why governments still approve the opening of new mines and coal fired power stations"
OMG! not new mines...we're doomed.

"The trouble is that climate change is like a slow moving train..."
Look out, here come the cliches...

"Warming of 0.2C per decade with wild weather and 2.8mm a year of sea level rise doesn't seem like much..."
Its not. The warming has stopped in most parts of the world. Wild weather, whats new? 2.8mm per year big deal...what was the rate of sea level rise before global warming was "invented".

"The only comfort I can offer is the long term view; when our wretched species has finally done away with itself, it will be replaced by something else, as happens with all species, and life will go on until the sun becomes a red giant and swallows this good earth."
And in the scheme of such things it won't matter much either way as all life on the planet will be extinguished, why bother?
Posted by alzo, Monday, 21 January 2008 1:11:18 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
In recent months a number of distinguished scientists have questioned the hypothesis of anthropogenic induced global warming. These include over 400 signatures to a US senate report and over a hundred signatures to a letter to Ban Ki moon.

Kellie Tranter admits to being a non scientist. That in itself is no crime. I agree that there are many other areas of learning and scholarship other then science. However, Kellie makes the claim that any person scientist or non scientist alike who raises legitimate questions about the basis of global warming theory is just motivated by greed. That is a claim, that is so vast and sweeping as to be totally unsupportable.

The nearest analogy to the claim of greed is a preacher claiming that all non believers are sinners and will be punished by being cast into the fires of hell.
Why one could with even greater justification claim, (although I know it not to be absolutely true), that all lawyers are motivated by greed.

In fact one could even go as far as to claim that any body with an opinion different from mine is motivated by self interest
Posted by anti-green, Monday, 21 January 2008 1:48:03 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
“governments are controlled by the brothers of the men who control the corporate businesses, so governments are unlikely to decide optimally".

That is a theory unproven or tested.

Governments are there to represent the views of the electorate, that is whay we commonly name the parliament a “house of representatives”.

The notion that they are “brothers” to corporate business managers may or maynot be fact but it is irrelevant to the topic.

Whilst democracies, founded on principle of universal suffrage, are supposedly, a poor, imperfect system of government, it beats all the alternatives, where the government is not managed by representatives of the electorate but by some other rule of appointment, like bribery, the military or divine right of kings.

That some of the climate lobby believe they are, somehow entitled to exercise what amounts to the “Divine Right of Kings”, to impose their will over the rest of us, clearly displays the arrogance associated with narcissism and clearly recognisable as a mental disorder.

Even as a libertarian, I can see how we would all be better off locking up the meddlers, for their own safety and just getting on with the life without these delusional interventionists who seek the manipulation and control of us all by circumventing elected political representation
Posted by Col Rouge, Monday, 21 January 2008 3:33:48 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
You don't need to be a scientist to come to the conclusion that sooner, rather than later, the World is going to run out of non-renewable sources of energy and unless we have some way of limiting world population, we will also run very short of food.

David
Posted by VK3AUU, Monday, 21 January 2008 4:42:35 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 rather liked the dot points, although some would make life harder, most would be a welcome relief - such as making the polluters pay. However the premise on which they were proposed was incorrect - they would not be needed to save the planet, which will continue on its merry way once we have finished messing with it, but may be necessary to save humans from a pretty rough time, or at least prolong our tenure here.

What climate-change skeptics seem to overlook is that, regardless of climate change, our children and grandchildren face a world where fossil fuel shortages mean that crops will be in demand for both food and fuel - already showing as rising prices - and we are in the position now to try and manage this situation so that theirs lives will not be too dire. We may carry on quite comfortably in the developed world for a generation or two, but unless we address the issue of population things will get rapidly worse. Even if we halve our consumption across the globe, our numbers are expected to double in 50 years.

Twenty-one countries in the European Union are already in natural population decline - this could be a cause for celebration and re-evaluation, but politicians are in lock-step with global corporations, and see the reduction in consumers as something to be avoided at all costs. I don't know the Rudd Govt view on population, but Howard/Costello's baby bonus and mantra of one-for-mum-one-for-dad-and-one-to-hammer-the-nail-in-the-coffin-of-the-human-race is well known.
Posted by Candide, Monday, 21 January 2008 9:44:19 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
Kellie, the selfish fail to accept the facts, that the climate change agent is the sun, not us mere mortals. The greens and their cohorts may make good political fodder for use in gaining the numbers, but these additional costs bind and blind the community to the real needs for example: housing, family health, bread and butter "on the table"... Not make believe, end of the world, plaything environmental issues or some political science excursion at these families expense. I don't think this will sink in as the politics is now firmly out of touch with reality and the family unit. Superficially the family will agree to this political science spin but beware, you will have to live with the results as you will not be able to blame someone else for these unnecessary costs the community can't really afford...
Posted by Dallas, Tuesday, 22 January 2008 12:54:52 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
governments are in thrall to money. politicians are motivated to get elected, and stay elected. and the result is what we see.

if you don't like the result, you have to change the system. it's not hard to do, but it is hard to break habits of submission to the power holders you have grown up with.

here in oz, the lack of experience with democracy that is the heritage of the british class system means that even someone like the author of this article cannot make the step from seeing the problem, to seeing the answer. the average oz sheep can't even see the problem.

change won't come until ozzians are hungry and frightened, change then will be not to democracy, but to fascism. this story doesn't have a happy ending, sorry possums. but it's yer own damned fault.
Posted by DEMOS, Tuesday, 22 January 2008 6:29:31 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
What are the costs of a lower carbon society?
I think that society's mechanisms of population reduction have been revealed to us already?
I remember Japan being quoted many years ago as a "population out of control" and perhaps it was, but is no more, Australia's "populate or perish" too has been discounted.
My observation, not proven, is that as society advances security in life and wellbeing, populations fall. No longer is there need in a modern society for children's numbers to be counted as being a sort of superannuation for the old.
Advancement of the idea that a healthy community is one where wealth is shared, that communities devoid of greed are more successful at sustainability.
We have admirable organisations that herald societies leaders in excellence, we read of the wonderful discoveries/innovations made. So long as we admire and not let starve such people they are satisfied in the approbation and thanks society proffers them.
Wit and skills are rarely inheritable, only property and money is, why is that so.
If inheritance is the reason for accumulation, the answer is to regulate it, won't be popular though, and in democracy its likely outcome could be war, unless universally accepted.
I believe taxing pollution would be a great start, I don't mean trading it either, just tax it into extinction.
We have the time available to softly change our values, lets take it and brave wealth's dissension.
New industries and national wealth can be created, another "industrial revolution" to undo the the pollution of the last. There are opportunities to replace fears, we need promote them not cry about our past mistakes, they're done and gone, we need move on.
Infrastructure need be a priority, downgrading the motor car as a status symbol another. With television and computers we need no longer be the mobile society of the past. The tourist industry I can hear dissenting from here, on the flood plains of the Murray.
fluff4
Posted by fluff4, Tuesday, 22 January 2008 8:18:03 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
Distinguished scientists always question each other; its what science is all about. The fact that 400 distinguished scientists may have questioned anthropogenic global warming does not mean that they are right. The fact that Exxon has spent 16 million dollars buying opposition to the idea of global warming means that vested interests are buying "science", just like the the tobacco companies did. There are enough valid scientific measurements and models around, since Aarhenius' extremely disinterested and accurate first prediction made in 1895, that anthropogenic CO2 can indeed cause massive and rapid climate change when feedback systems come into play, as they doing right now in the Arctic tundra and the polar regions.

We indeed live in harmony with nature and nature is about to start harmonising us rather brutally because we are the most stupid species ever to populate this good earth.
Posted by HenryVIII, Tuesday, 22 January 2008 9:50:31 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
"We indeed live in harmony with nature and nature is about to start harmonising us rather brutally"

This has been foretold sooo many times. Sooner or later someone will be right.

"we are the most stupid species ever to populate this good earth"

Speak for yourself, unless you happen to be a slime mould.
Posted by alzo, Tuesday, 22 January 2008 10:36:59 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
“There are opportunities to replace fears, we need promote them not cry about our past mistakes, they're done and gone, we need move on.” (Fluff 4)
Those past mistakes are far from done and gone. They remain with us largely unchanged – and we dream up equally stupid new ones to replace those which have been expunged. It would take a good-sized book to catalogue a fair representation, but let us have a look at just two.

This planet’s environment supports 6.5 billion people. That is possible only because we are mining the environment. Perhaps it would find fairly stable cohabitation with no more than two billion, yet we are on track towards 9 in one human generation. In spite of this, the fundamentalists promoting growth of human numbers - in the Vatican, the bible-belt of the USA, etc. - are allowed to impose sadism upon women in the developing world:places like East Timor, the South Pacific, Africa, where women would limit their fertility had they capability to do so. No done-and-gone mistake, it continues.

Consumption is the only game in town for the world economy dictating that it grows – continuously, incessantly. Most environmental groups foster minimization of individual consumption as environmental necessity, yet largely haven't the guts to admit that, say 5%, individual minimization will be totally negated by 10% increase in the number of consumers. While this milling around on the periphery takes place, the world’s leading economy is on the edge of an economic precipice due to over-consumption on other than necessities. It is now trying to postpone the inevitable fall by promoting further growing consumption: Bone-headed desperation, driving on with the burden of a past mistaken economic paragdim.
“We indeed live in harmony with nature and nature is about to start harmonising us rather brutally because we are the most stupid species ever to populate this good earth.” (HenryVIII). We would have to be, seeing that we have the cerebral facilities to address our problems, but instead continue to foster them. Philosophy of climate change inaction is wrapped up in this parcel.
Posted by colinsett, Tuesday, 22 January 2008 11:35:29 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
Hi DEMOS, I agree, action is necessary to deal with the misinformation being propagated by these global warming advocates of doom and gloom, and their agenda to socialize everyones private assets. I once personally ran as an independent candidate, a campaign to be elected as a local councillor against the 2 major parties and their 4 candidates and succeeded. The current machine fosters division and feeds the fear factory for political gain at the expense of private enterprise and their communities assets. Those who feed this machine, when knowing the lies and corruption and continue to feed this fiction into the system are aiding and abetting and therefore complicit in the crime of theft by other means of community trust and their assets. This is why I consider Global Warming advocates the ultimate pseudo intellectual fraudster. Their loss of honesty, reason, trust, personal responsibility and faith in humanity among other reasons for this continued chorus, is now trying to develop a philosophy to institute their survival ! "Now the facts to the contrary are moving out of the shadows of fear". Most of the noise emanates from all level of governments and their ever expanding public funded coterie of servants public. Public funded agents of change have a vested interest in keeping the simple private enterprise "plebs" in their low position in society. Socialism and its missing mother communism never gave birth to their ideal child and there fore these agents of change are using fiction to achieve their desired outcomes... Global warming advocates should not be publicly funded as governments do not deliver value and now lack the values which made them attractive in the first place, kind reflections, Dallas.
Posted by Dallas, Tuesday, 22 January 2008 1:16:52 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
Well said Kellie.
Whichever way I look at it, Exciting, challenging and interesting times are predicted.

First off the rank is the world recession just about to kick in. Most in the financial world knew it was coming but refused responsibility for their collective actions. They worked for profits and ignored what they knew to be a certainty ahead. Only the date was uncertain.

Following on from that will be Peak Oil. (Its a pity that the cause and effect of Peak Oil will be muddied by the preceeding recession). We all know that oil is not being made anymore but we all continue to 'drive' towards a horrible oil shortage. Only the date is uncertain. (Though best estimates are 2010, plus or minus 2 years).

Finally will come the pain of climate change leading to a winding back of those 6.5 billion people. Only the date is uncertain. (For Australians anyway, some are in it already).
Posted by Michael Dwyer, Tuesday, 22 January 2008 8:55:02 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
Dallas, I hope you and your mate are young enough to still be around when the ordure hits the fan. The folly of your collective brains will then become apparent to you and your kind.

I fear that while the Earth will survive, mankind is doomed.

David
Posted by VK3AUU, Tuesday, 22 January 2008 10:04:22 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
Hi David VK3AUU, Thank you for your concerned thoughts on the future of our world, and your end of the world conclusions. I do know that when someone does not know something, they make up stories to suite. If you would like to know some australian generated facts you may wish to start with Indigo jones, a long range weather forecaster now deceased. It won't be an easy research exercise nor popular fiction. Then your individual observations and assumptions may be a pleasing product, instead of your current pack exaggerations. Kind reflections, I wish you well, Dallas.
Posted by Dallas, Wednesday, 23 January 2008 3:02:16 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
Thanks for the wishes. You may need them more than I, as I suspect I will be gone before you, and You will be left to ponder your own foolishness.

David
Posted by VK3AUU, Wednesday, 23 January 2008 3:58:09 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
In the early days of our planet, the atmosphere had 20% CO2 and trace amounts of oxygen. However life discovered this neat trick of turning CO2, energy, water and some trace elements into complex carbohydrates with a spare bit of oxygen, ..... would you believe? Well it wasn't long before atmospheric ratios reversed to 20% oxygen and trace amounts of CO2 that we see today. So the question arises ... are we capable of doubling CO2 no matter how much fossil fuel we burn?

Isn't it also feasible to say that as long as plants have those three basic things, water, energy and CO2, and enough of the nutrients they need, they will keep growing and pumping out oxygen? Isn't it also feasible to say that life, both in diversity and quantity, thrives in a warm, wet world with plenty of CO2?

ps
AGW is a furphy that deserves to be sequestrated and if we are concerned about climate then let's understand the solar/cosmic climate modulation. Of course solar climate may be a challenge for many but cosmic climate is at the cutting edge of discovery. i.e. our evolution and survival was a close run event.
Posted by Keiran, Wednesday, 23 January 2008 6:06:09 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
Ah, Indigo Jones – long range weather forecaster – now enters the debate. A man famous during my youth, at his zenith more than half a century ago.
He was a privateer, therefore more believable to the skeptics than the peer-reviewed mob from the scientific establishment.
After starting in metrological matters under scientifically-embedded Clement Wragge in Brisbane, he went out on his own - financed from donations mainly from the agricultural community. Matching sunspot-cycles with weather patterns was the backbone of his work at his Crohamhurst Observatory in southeast Queensland. Many in the agricultural community retained faith in his work in spite of two Government Ministerially commissioned investigations concluding that his forecasting methods had no scientific basis.
During his time, the community was divided as to the usefulness of his forecasts. From my memory, he had a good record. There were three possible outcomes from his forecasts – right, wrong, or something in between - and his forecasts never missed scoring thirty three per cent on each.
Half a century down the track, we have more data over sunspots and a great range of other impacts on climate. And we have better tools for investigating that. Personally, I believe we have advanced a bit since the 1950’s
Posted by colinsett, Wednesday, 23 January 2008 8:38:44 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
Hi Keiran, Thank you for your clarity. I am enjoying the flips in the weather cycles and the suns convenient gift at this time. Oh what effects these changes are having on earth and its inhabitants especially mankind. The he and she mood swings reflected in the minute weather temperature changes, the cause and effects are one interesting result ( where would this global warming, waring band be without air conditioning). The facts presented so far are much more interesting given the human ability to develop beyond photosynthesis. Solar weathers cause and effect sure advances the reverse position of the not in my backyard coterie and highlights the large hole some have dug themselves and now find it very difficult to move past their fail safe point. Presenting more facts will reason old truths and present positive changes for this and younger generations and then we will have support to develop the skills unrealizable by current and past generations of hunter gathers and their advanced collective farming practices. It is a pity that solar activity and its effect on our worlds enterprise has taken so much out of society's generated wealth but then trying to social engineer our communities and its failure,well... I'll put it down to european resources,control and their transitions and fashion. "Made dogs and englishman in the mid day sun" No pun intended but europeans are not especially suited to this pacific sunshine without some forethought and adaption does take thought. kind reflections Dallas.
Posted by Dallas, Wednesday, 23 January 2008 9:19:53 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
The ‘thinking’ behind climate change inaction – this is a contradiction in terms … some posters in this thread have clearly shown they can’t think with any semblance of raison d'être.

Do any of the ‘wanabe’ scientists on OLO want to comment on these issues raised by Professor Raymond Pierrehumbert?

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/01/the-debate-is-just-beginning-on-the-cretaceous/

Hey Dallas, maybe Keiran can ‘clear’ it up for all of us (even the stupid real scientists) so that we can all understand why countries and business the world over have got it so wrong
Posted by Q&A, Thursday, 24 January 2008 3:05:58 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
Q&A, I feel you should ask some questions like .....

If Dr. Pierrehumbert is a respected scientist what is he doing posting on this UNrealclimate website with the likes of Gavin Schmidt and Michael Mann? Also, why would he use moral high ground political argument to fend off debate with what he calls "skeptics " because, in his words, it would actually "give the appearance that these skeptics have something to say that's actually worth debating"?

AND you may get answers like ...

Oh dear, I feel Dr. Pierre's article indicates he is a supercilious lawyer. e.g. A decent scientist would certainly understand the albedo effect of clouds over Antarctica.
Posted by Keiran, Thursday, 24 January 2008 6:43:44 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
Hi Q&A Yes some countries and some scientists are working in this field and some are not working in your popular field of endeavor, some disagree with your group movement's assumptions and are scientists endeavoring elsewhere. May be you could tell me what climate we will endure in june 2008 will it be wet or dry, warming or cold and where will these events take place?
Posted by Dallas, Thursday, 24 January 2008 6:50:47 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
No one disputes the physics of how greenhouse gases work or that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has gone up by about a third since pre-industrial times. Very few people dispute that we are currently in a warming trend, although some do dispute whether humans have any responsibility for it,

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/10/25/181237/51

The problem is that the climate is incredibly complicated, with all sorts of positive and negative feedback mechanisms. Even the IPCC puts the chances that you skeptics are right at about 10%.

Nevertheless, given that there is some reason for concern, why do you skeptics think that it is a smart idea to do an uncontrolled experiment on our planet's atmosphere? Putting a large proportion of the carbon that has accumulated in fossil fuels over millions of years back in the atmosphere all at once certainly can't be considered anything else. If the environmentalists turn out to be wrong and we have taken their advice, the only downside is somewhat less economic growth. If they turn to have been right and we have proceeded with business as usual, it can mean all sorts of disasters.

Why on earth would "consensus" scientists enter into some vast conspiracy to delude the public? Exxon and the like have been funding the skeptic scientists, not them.
Posted by Divergence, Friday, 25 January 2008 9:08:11 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
So the ‘wanabes’ Tweedledumb and Tweedledee reply in seeming unison to the question.

Neither addressed the scientific issues raised and both want to ‘kill’ the messenger – as sceptics are wont to do.

Sheeesh …

Tweedledumb even casts dispersions on a real scientist.

And Tweedledee doesn’t know the difference between climate science and weather forecasts.

_________________

Divergence

I agree. It is not prudent to ‘play’ with the planet to its breaking point. I have been confronted by *deniers* who argue that we need 100% proof before any kind of mitigation should be considered. Without this proof, they claim that the 'problem does not exist, is not that bad, or we can’t do anything about it'. Clearly, they know nothing about Risk Management.

When it comes to climate science, I defer to the expertise of real scientists who have dedicated their lives and careers to its study, rather than wanabes like the two tweedles above.

The major driver of our current state of global warming comes from the combustion of fossil fuels and land misuse practices – we know this mainly from isotope and attribution studies as shown in the RealClimate link.

Take out CO2e and all the other ‘forcings’ just cannot explain the global warming we are seeing now. Put simply, humanity is pouring more carbon into the atmosphere than the oceans and terrestrial biosphere can absorb.

I know very few genuine scientists who take a different position, but the ones that do are outliers.

Kellie Tranter says “most humans seem to be incapable of giving things up or cutting back or living only with what they need.”

There is some truth in this. Unless we (humanity) start changing our attitude (or philosophy) towards what sustains us and how we use our resources, well … we’re stuffed.
Posted by Q&A, Friday, 25 January 2008 12:21:30 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
In Dr. Pierre's article he indicates that "a lot of low clouds over Antarctica" will have a cooling effect. I say, think again Dr Moral High Ground. What do you say Q and A?
Posted by Keiran, Friday, 25 January 2008 2:41:01 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
Keiran, you put the effort in to read the article – put a little more in to understand it. Seriously, read it again with an open mind, as scientists do.

Remember, we are talking about the *hothouse* climate of the Cretaceous period between 145 to 65 million years ago. Having understood this, it may suggest an insight into what could happen in the not too distant future.

You appear to take his words out of context: ‘In Dr. Pierre's article he indicates that "a lot of low clouds over Antarctica" will have a cooling effect.’

What he said was:

“Could it be that the glaciation is telling us that we are completely barking up the wrong tree with the CO2 theory of hothouse climates? Perhaps, but somebody will have to pony up a quantifiable alternative before that avenue can be pursued ...” If this is in your league Keiran, by all means go for it.

“One could probably get a climate something like the suggested one by combining moderately elevated CO2 with making a lot of low clouds over Antarctica while making the rest of the world essentially cloud free (or somehow making the high cloud greenhouse effect dominant in the rest of the world), but that's quite a stretch.”

How would you suggest this could occur Keiran?

Indeed,

“If somebody comes up with a way of doing that which can be expressed in a sound mathematical formulation, I'll be the first to want to have a look at it. Cosmic ray enthusiasts could have a field day with this, but I doubt they'd have much success.”

Keiran, this was evidently meant for you.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/01/the-debate-is-just-beginning-on-the-cretaceous/#comment-79743

Here is a bit more on Antarctic ice loss

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080123181952.htm

And the latest on ice cores

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080123110405.htm

Keiran, there are a few genuine scientists who remain sceptical about the details of climate change but for those that try, well … we can all hope they are on to something. If you have discovered something, please let us know.

Hey, you can even post your ideas to raypierre or for others to comment.
Posted by Q&A, Saturday, 26 January 2008 2:35:18 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
Q&A, are you saying I'm taking Dr Pierre out of context? Don't think so.

To be quite frank, this Dr. Pierre is arrogant and prefers the pulpit to proper debate. On a simple issue that he discusses in this article of how implausibly the rest of the world can be a hot house (i.e. by being cloud free) whilst Antarctica remains frozen, he assumes this can only be done with "a lot of low clouds over Antarctica" . What he doesn't understand is cloud cover over Antarctic will not cool but warm and any decent scientist would know this.

Then based on this very misunderstanding, he concludes that "Cosmic ray enthusiasts could have a field day with this, but I doubt they'd have much success."

Now, dear Q&A, you explain your position on this particular piece of science. I don't need website references but simply your own reasoning. My thoughts on this *hothouse* climate of the Cretaceous period is simply the cosmic-ray and cloud-forcing hypothesis that creates this anomaly. (i.e. in accordance with changes in the solar magnetic field that varies the cosmic-ray flux, and hence low level cloud cover.)

ps Do you get the feeling there is more cloud cover than we have had for a while? I wonder why?
Posted by Keiran, Saturday, 26 January 2008 7:54:50 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
My reasoning? Already given.

If: your thoughts are that,

And: ‘tout ça est une blague’,

Then: ‘cela n’est pas plus fin, que ça’.

So: Where will you be on 21/12/2012 'conehead'?

This is what cosmic-ray enthusiasts should be trying to prove.

If you can do this Keiran … wipe the dust from your cubby-hole and make way for a Fields or Nobel.
(Hint: remove your head from up your hind-quarters first, it should clear the way for any remaining neurones to function).

This is something that will blow AGW out of the water. Until you can do that, no other theory can come close.

For anyone still looking …

If we take anthropogenic CO2e out of the equations over the last 200 yrs as a driver of this current warming period, nothing else can explain it – not Solar, not cosmic-rays, not Milankovich cycles, not even Keiran’s flatulence.
Posted by Q&A, Sunday, 27 January 2008 1:28:24 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
"Cosmic ray enthusiasts" ...... what a joke Q&A. Well I'm probably an enthusiast to people with poor reasoning skills, faulty scientific understanding of cloud cover effects and one who arrogantly prefers the pulpit to proper debate.

Now it seems you are into weird astrology and nonsense prophecies so I'll leave you to that one. CO2 will be shown to be the weak GHG that it really is and cloud forcing by far the most economical explanation. Clouds do not just respond passively to climate changes but take an active part in the forcing, in accordance with changes in the solar plasma field that varies the cosmic-ray flux.
Posted by Keiran, Sunday, 27 January 2008 7:12:00 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
The article is about the philosophy of climate change inaction – we have gone off topic (not unusual on OLO) and I have obviously contributed to that.

Keiran (looks like just you and me), my last post takes a couple of quotable quotes out of Tolstoy’s philosophical classic “Anna Karenina” and is directed at your musings on cosmic-rays.

In context:

If: your thoughts are that,

And: that’s all there is in it,

Then: all that is humbug.

I don’t mean any harm by the use of the vernacular (Oz or French) as I trust you will understand. You know science and philosophy go back a long way Keiran, and I appreciate your interest in both. So let’s continue with an open mind, deal?

Climate change researchers are not claiming scientific proofs. They (even the ‘cosmic-ray enthusiasts’) present papers that have been extensively reviewed (and can be questioned) such as the thousands that make up the foundation of the WMO and UNEP reports of the IPCC.

You are correct; water vapour is a powerful GHG. Clouds are a very important component of the complex climate modeling algorithms and these models (about 12) are quite good at replicating climates when compared to observed events.

Clouds are involved in both positive and negative feedbacks as you know. The super-computers that researchers have access to today make ‘climate modeling’ a lot easier and have been instrumental in achieving the results that have been realised. Climate change isn't just about models though.

Notwithstanding, you would also be aware that water vapour has a comparative life of about 10 days in the atmosphere – precipitating out as rain and snow.

You should also be aware that CO2 has a comparative life span of 100 years.

I am sure you can see the problems if we spew carbon into the troposphere more than what the oceans and terrestrial biosphere can naturally absorb - a warmer world has more air moisture.

BTW, I am not into astrology, but astronomy interests me.

Would you like a link to consider your solar plasma field and cosmic-ray flux?
Posted by Q&A, Monday, 28 January 2008 6:49:49 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
Q&A, the shonky IPCC organisation in fact could use astrology and the position of the planets to probably provide more accurate climatic predictions. Seriously that's how bad it has become.

Your arrogant Dr. Pierre has no idea when he refers to solar/cosmic science as one for "enthusiasts" when in simple fact he has no understanding of how the albedo effect works with clouds. With such a misunderstanding what we have in effect today is AGW being just a new age wrapper for the revival of the pre-Copernican geocentric model of the universe where the sun and other objects circle the earth, are regular, constant and unchanging while the earth at the centre is stable and solid .... unless someone changes it.

Copernicus may have presented a model of a heliocentric system with the sun at the centre and NASA solar physicists may have a similar heliocentric focus that ignores cosmic events .... i.e. the importance of cosmic rays.

What's the betting that some advocacy/political group will develop a way to blame solar variability on human activity and want to tax us to fix it?
Posted by Keiran, Tuesday, 29 January 2008 4:06:38 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
There is a misunderstanding Keiran, the IPCC don’t do the scientific research as you imply. They correlate all the scientific papers published (even astronomical cosmic-ray ones), have independent scientists review the findings, and have other independent scientists prepare reports (e.g. AR4) for the commissioning bodies - the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP).

Anyway, for the sake of argument and to stay focussed, let’s leave the IPCC out of it.

Also, for the sake of argument, let’s not get bogged down with semantics – enthusiasts, alarmists, deniers, cretins, whatever – and most importantly, let’s not introduce personal attacks on people we don’t even know.

Albedo is very well understood in the scientific community.

Now,

Cosmic-ray ‘proponents?’ postulate that when cosmic rays interact with the Earth's atmosphere (especially the low level clouds), they create ions of varying strength and charge. These ions they then suggest contribute to the formation of dense clouds, blocking the Sun's rays and reducing the effect of heating. The connection between the Sun's 11-year cycle of sunspot and solar wind activity and the Earth's deflection of cosmic rays was offered up as a possible natural explanation for global warming.

In July last year, a paper titled “Cosmic Rays and Global Warming” was published at the International Cosmic Ray Conference held in Mexico.

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0706/0706.4294v1.pdf

According to this research, the above hypothesis completely avoids clouds at other altitudes (as Raypierre was alluding to). This is surprising because cosmic ray ionization should increase with altitude. Cosmic rays should be intercepted earlier by the atmosphere and turned into clouds, not down at the lowest altitudes. If cosmic rays were to blame for global warming, you would expect the exact opposite, with more high-altitude clouds.

It can't be ruled out, but it's pretty unlikely – again as Raypierre pointed out.

CR proponents also suggest cosmic rays will create ions that turn into water droplets. Researchers have found that the rate of ion production is too low to generate the number of water droplets required to create clouds.

Cont’d
Posted by Q&A, Wednesday, 30 January 2008 6:20:45 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
Cont’d

CR proponents also believe the cosmic ray/cloud cover/global warming natural cycle as the interaction between the Sun's 11-year cycle of solar activity and the magnitude of cosmic rays that reach the Earth's atmosphere. As the solar wind increases, it buffets away cosmic rays that would reach the Earth's magnetosphere.

Now, ionized particles are channelled towards the Earth's poles (which is why we see the beautiful auroras at the highest latitudes). If cosmic rays were causing additional cloud cover, you would expect the greatest variations around the poles. This just isn't the case; in fact, the opposite is true.

Furthermore, there's known to be a 6-14 month delay between the decrease of cosmic ray activity, and the increase in the number of sun spots. Based on these cycles, research has found almost no correlation between the rise and fall of sun spots, and levels of cloud cover.

Research has estimated that less than 15% of the 11-year cycle warming variations are due to cosmic rays and less than 2% of the warming over the last 35 years is due to this cause.

If scientists wanted to study the interaction between radiation and cloud cover they could always perform a highly unethical experiment: release a tremendous amount of radiation into the atmosphere and see what it does to clouds in the environment.

Unfortunately, that experiment has already been performed... accidentally: the Chernobyl disaster.

In April, 1986 the reactor released a huge, huge dose of radioactive particles into the atmosphere. If radiation increases cloud cover, there should have been clouds surrounding the facility for weeks.

Guess what, there was no evidence of unusual cloud cover surrounding the facility after the disaster.

Keiran, I really don’t want to believe that we (humanity) have been so stooopid and have caused this latest round of GW … that is why I am so interested, and have been so sceptical. But the more I research, the more convinced I am of AGW.

I want to believe in the link I suggested to you,

http://www.viewzone.com/milkyway.html

But, until the astronomers prove it, then it is for nowt.
Posted by Q&A, Wednesday, 30 January 2008 6:21:26 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
Q&A, I'm sure you observed how the blinded IPCC and AGW greenhousers led a chorus of approval when they embraced with a complete lack of critical evaluation M Mann's attempted revision of the last millennium's climatic history with his "hockey stick " chart and hypothesis , ..... and "for one reason and one reason only - it told them exactly what they wanted to hear."

The IPCC's eclipse of reason and total loss of all credibility on climate here is how anyone could get accurate temperatures from tree rings and rate this above peer reviewed evidence from solar scientists who demonstrate a clear relationship between solar change and climate change.

I've read that report published at the International Cosmic Ray Conference and needless to say I'm not impressed. I wonder when variation in low cloud cover caused by modulation from cosmic radiation will ever penetrate their closed mindset.

Whilst there is minimal correlation at high and middle altitudes there is an excellent match at low altitudes up to 3km. One feels that there are always plenty of cosmic rays high in the air, but they and the ions that they liberate are in short supply at low altitudes, so that increases or decreases due to changes in solar magnetism have more noticeable consequences lower down and I suspect at lower latitudes too. Further, as we approach what appears to be an extended solar minimum we are seeing this associated with a cloudy and cooler period across the tropics. This lack of warmth in the ocean will eventually transfer to the high latitudes north and south creating changes.
Posted by Keiran, Wednesday, 30 January 2008 9:19:22 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
Q&A, your link to information on the Sagittarius dwarf galaxy and other smaller, nearby galaxies is interesting and raises many questions of course. e.g. as found with this bloke's blog ..
http://curezone.com/blogs/fm.asp?i=985423

Just indicates how very little we seem to know about our place in the universe. I've long felt the universe to be an infinite environment .... always existed. Like if you see colliding galaxies how can anyone suggest the big bang hypothesis of an expanding universe? Anyway, as far as earth's climate is concerned we cannot rule out solar/cosmic events as the obvious driver of change. Now ignoring that would certainly qualify as climate inaction.

You may like to explore an astrophysicist like Nir Shaviv's ideas on the spiral arms and star formation histories within and about the milky way galaxy which seeks to clarify the climate connection over longer spans of time. It really is at the cutting edge of discovery and as a story it should become clearer as the data improves if it is to be a successful paradigm.
Posted by Keiran, Thursday, 31 January 2008 12:36:15 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
A double entente on ‘climate change’ Keiran? Yes, I thought you would like the link.

No scientist is “ruling out” GCR as a radiative forcing in GCM’s Keiran. On the contrary, cosmic-rays are given attribution as one of the drivers. BUT, solar/cosmic is not the “obvious” or main driver as you imply – particularly over the relatively small time scales of a few hundred years compared to the geological time since the planet’s birth.

IOW, over the millennia, galactic and solar perturbations must be a major driver of so called climate change, but over the short time scale since the industrial revolution, GHGs are shown to be the major forcing; by numerous proxy reconstructions, isotope and attribution studies.

This is particularly relevant, seeing that we are supposed to be on the tail of a 'little ice age' – IMO, the globe is warming, not cooling, as any serious scientist does not dispute.

I do respect Nir’s efforts in cosmic ray research (the reason for my link and the reason for our ‘improved’ dialogue no doubt). However, he has to convincingly show (he hasn't) that he can model clouds well enough to say what the cosmic-ray influence translates into in terms of W/m2. If Nir can do this with good accuracy, they would be included in the GCMs and he will become famous!

However, just because he (or yourself) thinks does not make it so - his postulates must be tested and validated, this has not been done yet to any peer satisfaction.

We do need a modern day Galileo, Newton or Einstein – maybe Nir is the ‘one’.
Posted by Q&A, Friday, 1 February 2008 8:06:59 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
As for the philosophy of climate change (in)action. I tend to agree with the following interpretation.

Some people are in DENIAL, the 1st stage. People that simply do not believe the science that the earth is warming, or that we are the cause. Despite seeing a 50 year record of global atmospheric CO2 rising every year since 1957, and global air temperatures of the last 12 years in a row being the warmest in a millennium, they dismiss these trends as natural variability. These people see no reason to disturb the status quo. Most people begin at this stage, until presented with evidence.

Many people jump directly from DENIAL to Stage 4, but for others, the next Stage 2, is ANGER, and is manifested by wild comments like “I refuse to live in a tree house in the dark and eat nuts and berries”. Some individuals are incensed at the thought of substantially altering their lifestyle – a load of ‘crock’.

Stage 3 is BARGAINING. When they reach this stage many people (such as self-righteous radio talk show hosts and journo’s who used to be very public deniers of global warming) begin making statements that warming won’t be all that bad, it might open the North Sea Passage for tourism and oil exploration. At this stage people grasp for the positive news about climate change, such as longer growing seasons, and scrupulously ignore the negative news; more intense droughts and floods, and greatly increased glacier melt. Most importantly, at this stage people are still not willing to change lifestyles. They seem willing to ride out this grand global experiment and cope with whatever happens.

Many people have now moved to Stage 4, DEPRESSION. They consider the acceleration of annual greenhouse gas emissions, the unprecedented speed of warming, and the necessity for international cooperation for a solution, and see the task ahead to be impossible.

Stage 5, ACCEPTANCE. People (leaders of countries, captains of business and individuals) acknowledge the scientific facts calmly, and are now exploring solutions to drive down greenhouse gas emissions dramatically, and find non-carbon intensive energy sources.
Posted by Q&A, Friday, 1 February 2008 8:11:40 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
Q and A

I am pleased to report that I remain firmly at your stage 1. I have seen no conclusive evidence that demonstrates any alleged warming is outside of the limits set by natural variation.

Should you care to glance at the submission and appendices of the Lavoisier Submission to the Garnaut Climate Change Review. You will note that I am not alone in recognising anthropogenic global warming as junk science.
Posted by anti-green, Friday, 1 February 2008 12:52:24 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
A-G, no-one that I'm aware of is arguing that currently observed warming is "outside the limits set by natural variation", merely that human influence is currently the best explanation we have for the warming observed over the last 100 years. The IPCC readily admits the uncertainities involved, and the difficulty of separating human causes from natural ones. But even if the IPCC was half as certain as it actually is regarding the danger of continued warming, there would be plenty of grounds for action, especially considering most of the best solutions are economically beneficial anyway.

That you can the word of an organisation such as the Lavoisier Institute, with a vested interest in protecting the profits of energy-intensive industries, over thousands of professional scientists who have committed their life's study and work to understand climate systems and the Earth's ecology is odd indeed.
Posted by wizofaus, Friday, 1 February 2008 1:28:30 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
Wizofaus writes:

“That you [sic trust] can the word of an organisation such as the Lavoisier Institute, with a vested interest in protecting the profits of energy-intensive industries, over thousands of professional scientists who have committed their life's study and work to understand climate systems and the Earth's ecology is odd indeed.”

Not odd at all. It is very reasonable to assume that industrial scientists are not only knowledgeable and well qualified in their field of expertise. Further it can be safely assumed that they have “current hands” on experience.

One other point industry has its reputation to consider and therefore will not put out misleading information. I am referring here especially to the “facts.”

The subject I know best is the field of nuclear energy and I can find little discrepancy between the referred scientific literature and industrial papers. I see no reason why this should not hold true in the area of anthropogenic climate change.

Do you know of any good reason why one should accept the political flavoured utterances of advocacy groups (such as Greenpeace, FOE, ACF etc) on trust?
Posted by anti-green, Friday, 1 February 2008 3:51:17 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 agree that industry papers on nuclear energy are largely scientifically sound. Realistically however, no industry ever publishes research demonstrating that there is a serious problem with the way it operates. For almost any manufactured pollutant that we now universally regard as dangerous, one can find a historical document published by various industries supposedly proving that the substance was not harmful.

I don't listen to Greenpeace or the ACF particularly, though I occasionally read their literature, and judge it as best as I can on its merit.
Posted by wizofaus, Friday, 1 February 2008 3:59:58 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
Anti-green, it’s good you ‘came out’ – recognition of your denial is the 1st step to recovery, only eleven steps to go … hang in there mate!

Now, let’s see … the Lavoisier Group.

Ahhh yes, the fossil fuel and mining lobbyists comprised of ‘AGW deniers’; past task lobbying JWH and Co. against signing Kyoto.

According to the Lavoisier Group, ‘it’s a lie that:

• The twentieth century has been the hottest in recorded history and the last decade the hottest ever.

• Anthropogenic CO2 emissions have already caused global warming and must be severely curtailed to prevent future climate problems.

• Because of anthropogenic emissions, ice sheets are melting and sea levels are rising.’

Lavoisier Group ideologues refer to ‘the global warming scam’ and conclude: ‘So many people, and institutions, have been caught up in the web of deceit … that the integrity of Western science is seriously at risk.’

Yep … the Lavoisier Group have done more than any other in Australia over the last decade to prevent any effective action to reduce Australia’s burgeoning greenhouse gas emissions – a classic case of Stage 1 ‘head-up-your-butt’.

Natural climate change has happened in the past and will happen in the future. This does not preclude AGW, exacerbated of course by our misuse of energy and our poor land management practices, perpetuated by the likes of the Lavoisier Group.

The Lavoisier Group ‘deniers’ are extremely suspicious of the motives and integrity of non-industry scientists, and suspect the WMO, the UN, numerous scientific academies, rational thinking Big Business, church leaders and even governments themselves, of a global ‘conspiracy in perpetuating this scam.’

IMHO, the real problem we have today is not about science; it is about ideologues in a ‘state of denial.’

Those with a vested interest e.g. Lavoisier Group, will say anything to maintain the status quo by a ‘philosophy of inaction’ to ensure power and control over the minds and wealth of the masses.

You bet I am aware of the Lavoisier Group’s submission. The ‘Greenhouse Mafia’ even say they have the support of the Pope … simply astounding!
Posted by Q&A, Saturday, 2 February 2008 8:45:46 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
Denying the deniers, is there no end to this nonsense.
Posted by anti-green, Sunday, 3 February 2008 6:22:46 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
Most individuals have fundamental concerns about organisations who deny science because of some ideological agenda.

Again, the real problem we have today is not about the science … it's about those with a vested interest saying and doing anything to maintain the status quo … to ensure (their) power and control over the minds and wealth of the masses.

Too many people think that ‘action on climate change’ is, or should be, determined by political or ideological allegiance, regardless of what the science is telling us – this is wrong.

Environmentalism does not belong to the domain of the ‘Left’ – just look at Malcolm Turnbull and the ‘Governator’ – both from the conservative side of politics.

The *dark* or radical greens should pull their head in, often doing more damage to their cause than they realise. And Gore, while he spread the message - in the eyes of many Americans, is the devil incarnate because of his liberal (democrat) politics.

No body is denying the deniers. On the contrary, the deniers want to gag the science ("is there no end to this nonsense?"

http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/editorial/story.html?id=d489ec1a-36d4-41fb-b692-6c90faa0dcaa

This is not nonsense. This is a typical case of ‘gagging’ the scientists and ‘dumbing’ down the masses, for political and ideological purposes.

So ... who is denying whom?
Posted by Q&A, Monday, 4 February 2008 10:24:25 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
Q and A,

I most sincerely hope that I am incorrectly interpreting your position. It appears that you regard, those that question the anthropogenic theory of climate change, as lacking in integrity and intellectual honesty.

The history of science shows that ideas and concepts are been continually questioned and subject to criticism. Some scientific ideas have lasted for centuries or incorporated into other paradigms. One example; special relativity reduces to Newtonian laws, if the velocity of a body is a small fraction of the velocity of light. Other historical theories have been superseded such as” phlogiston theory” by the concept of oxidation.

I draw your attention to ABC Counterpoint of 4 Feb. Professor Aynsley Kellow discusses the role of mathematical modelling in climate change. In talks of a concept that he called “virtuous corruption” formerly called rubbery figures. That is using computer generated data to deliberately over state a case. The process is analogous to the police convinced in their belief of a man's guilt, gilding the evidence.

The site http://climatedebatedaily.com presents two columns of references. One column in support and the other critical of anthropogenic climate change.
Clearly there is no universal consensus over climate.
Posted by anti-green, Tuesday, 5 February 2008 10:04:53 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
Yes anti-green, you are misinterpreting what I have been saying.

I sincerely apologise if I have not been clear in my OLO posts – I will try to do better. Notwithstanding, you may find we have more in common than you think – please, be patient.

Thanks for that link; I have not seen it before and was encouraged by its format.

Although I have not had the time to look at the site in detail, there are fundamental issues about the philosophy of science that don’t appear to be adequately addressed (yet) – some of which you have alluded to in your last post.

It is late and I would like to continue with this thread. However, given the nature of my work and the circumstances in which I live, I will be “off-line” for about 2 weeks.

In the mean time, all I ask is that you re-read my posts – in this thread and others. It will give you more insight, like it or not.

BTW, what were your thoughts on the Canadian government’s policy of ‘censorship’ – you did not comment?

To be continued.

PS, you also appear to misinterpret what scientific consensus is. Really - jargon, vernacular and the English language can be a bugger sometimes!
Posted by Q&A, Tuesday, 5 February 2008 10:58:19 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
Q and A

Thank you for your comment. I too have found the philosophy of science to be very interesting.
Posted by anti-green, Wednesday, 6 February 2008 10:36:13 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
Passed on by request:

Subject: FRIDAY FEBRUARY 22 DONT BUY PETROL DAY

IT HAS BEEN CALCULATED THAT IF EVERYONE IN AUSTRALIA DID NOT PURCHASE A DROP OF PETROL FOR ONE DAY AND ALL AT THE SAME TIME, THE OIL COMPANIES WOULD CHOKE ON THEIR STOCKPILES.

AT THE SAME TIME IT WOULD HIT THE ENTIRE INDUSTRY WITH A NET LOSS OVER 4.6 BILLION DOLLARS WHICH AFFECTS THE BOTTOM LINES OF THE OIL COMPANIES.

THEREFORE FRIDAY FEBRUARY 22nd HAS BEEN FORMALLY DECLARED STICK IT UP THEIR ASS' DAY

AND THE PEOPLE OF THIS NATION SHOULD NOT BUY A SINGLE DROP OF PETROL THAT DAY.

THE ONLY WAY THIS CAN BE DONE IS IF YOU FORWARD THIS E-MAIL TO AS MANY PEOPLE AS YOU CAN AND AS QUICKLY AS YOU CAN TO GET THE WORD OUT.

WAITING FOR THE GOVERNMENT TO STEP IN AND CONTROL THE PRICES? IT IS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN.

WHAT HAPPENED TO THE REDUCTION AND CONTROL IN PRICES THE ARAB NATIONS PROMISED LONG AGO?

THE PRICES JUST KEEP GOING UP AND WE NEED TO STOP IT

PETROL PRICES ARE CAUSING OTHER EFFECTS; AIRLINES ARE FORCED TO RAISE THEIR PRICES, AS ARE TRUCKING COMPANIES . THIS INCREASES PRICES On EVERYTHING THAT IS SHIPPED. THINGS LIKE FOOD, CLOTHING, BUILDING SUPPLIES MEDICAL SUPPLIES ETC. WHO PAYS IN THE END? WE DO!

WE CAN MAKE A DIFFERENCE. IF THEY DON'T GET THE MESSAGE AFTER ONE DAY,WE WILL DO IT AGAIN AND AGAIN. SO DO YOUR PART AND SPREAD THE WORD.

FORWARD THIS EMAIL TO EVERYONE YOU KNOW. MARK YOUR CALENDARS AND
MAKE FEBRUARY 22nd THE DAY CITIZENS OF AUSTRALIA SAY 'ENOUGH IS ENOUGH'
Posted by dickie, Saturday, 9 February 2008 10:59:23 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
Anti-green,

I am back after my sojourn again into the real world of climate change – but it is my vocation, such is life.

I can see OLO has moved on and threads seem to die a natural death – a shame really, it no doubt means that things get regurgitated – a waste of effort?

So, where to now?

We were delving into the philosophy of science and I raised the question of “scientific consensus.” Maybe we can start with this link – it is an address given by Naomi Oreske, Professor of History and Science Studies at the University of California, San Diego.

I guess there is no need to tell you that California is the 6th largest economy on the planet, led by Arnold the ‘governator’, the right-wing Republican conservative that also happens to care for the environment and the direction (western) society is heading.

Professor Oreske’s research focuses on the historical development of scientific knowledge, methods and practices in the earth and environmental sciences, and on understanding scientific consensus and dissent (very topical).

http://www.uctv.tv/search-details.asp?showID=13459

If you have the resources (and patience of course) I recommend you watch/listen to the whole address. If you are impatient – skip to about 25 minutes in.

I would appreciate your thoughts.
Posted by Q&A, Thursday, 21 February 2008 9:56:32 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
Q and A

I listened to Naomi Oreska. Clearly she sees the world as divided into “good and evil.”

30 minutes devoted to the good people. Quotes from reports conclusions stated with out evidence. No assessment of possible errors, biases, confounders. No error bars or confidence limits. No description of sampling errors at either weather stations or in atmospheric gas measurement.

To my mind global temperature is a statistical index, subject to great uncertainty. It is not a “physical entity.” It is a weighted average of numerous non random measurements.

No reference to the logarithmic curve between CO2 absorption and temperature increments. This implies that as CO2 levels increase the temperature effect gets smaller.

Is Naomi correct that current observations support greenhouse models, or is she just “cherry picking?”

By the way NASA has recently stated that 1934 and not 1998 was the warmest year on record in North America by a short whisker.
>>>>>>>>>

30 minutes devoted to the evil people. The defenders of tobacco (which I am not), opponents of CFC yes worthy of a Nobel Prize; but the ozone hole is still with us. Her next example is acid rain- I have no doubt she is correct here.

Try as she may her tactic is to smear dissenting experts. When her so-called dissenters, are at the very least, playing an important role in sharpening debate.

>>>>>>>>>>>

Scientific debate is settled by observation. Not by consensus, not by opinion polls, not by politicians or media celebrities etc.

According to Naomi those arguing against global warming are ideologically motivated by: ant-communism, by pro-market philosophy which she calls “market fundamentalism.”

Can I therefore conclude that global warmers are motivated by socialist philosophy plus a strong imperative to establish a command economy?

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

If you would like to discuss this further you can contact me at
isurveyor@vianet.net.au
Posted by anti-green, Friday, 22 February 2008 6:02:33 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
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 7
  7. 8
  8. 9
  9. All

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