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 hysteria: how the pendulum has swung > Comments

Global warming hysteria: how the pendulum has swung : Comments

By Terry Dunleavy, published 14/5/2008

The fierce discussion about the pros and cons of human-caused climate change has finally started to spread to the mainstream press.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All
Why is it worth responding on or discussing an article where the first paragraph is wrong? An extremely simple use of statistics, graphs and averages can discredit it.

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/05/04/weather_vs_climate.png
zzz.
Posted by Chade, Wednesday, 14 May 2008 12:52:47 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
Not quite so, Baldpaul.

Problem is the sceptics can be divided into three groups.

1. Those that are in the pay of those that have a vested interest in not responding to climate change.

2. Those who, through their own ignorance, are dumb enough to do the very same lobbying, though unpaid. Victims of ignorance.

3. An assortment of folk who genuinely want to explore all of the ins and outs of climate science. Devil's advocates.

The sceptics brigade is mostly made up of category 1 and category 2, but lack of disclosure means it is virtually impossible to differentiate between them.

Category 3 is very welcome in the debate. We should listen to them closely, once we certify that they are genuinely motivated. But we also have to acknowledge that they are vastly over-represented in the media debate.

The science backing human-induced climate change is very solid, overwhelmingly so. But for many lay citizens, their natural sense of denial overcomes their critical facilities. We have to accept this as a short-term phenomenon and not disrespect those caught in a state of denial.

Once the tipping point has arrived, social change tends to happen despite the efforts of those (vested or not) those who try to resist the change. I remember vividly the huge attempts within South Africa to prevent Apartheid being broken down, not least the Dutch Reform Church. In time, common sense prevails.

So let's come back to this site in 2018 and see where the climate debate has gone.

In the meantime, and in the interests of democratic values, those in denial have a value should be accepted, if for no other reason than as a wall to bounce, test and verify climate science and our responses to it.
Posted by gecko, Wednesday, 14 May 2008 1:16:23 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
Chad,

The leveling off of temperature is NOT a myth. It is a fact.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Short_Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png
Posted by Paul.L, Wednesday, 14 May 2008 1:16:27 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
Paul, that image proved my point, rather than yours.

See that red line? That's the one you pay attention to. It hasn't gone down yet.
Posted by Chade, Wednesday, 14 May 2008 1:55:28 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
So, if the decade since 1998 is the coolest, how do you explain THIS:

http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&q=2007+2nd+warmest+%22on+record%22&btnG=Google+Search&meta=

Top 11 Warmest Years On Record Have All Been In Last 13 Years
13 Dec 2007 ... 13, 2007) — The decade of 1998-2007 is the warmest on record, according to data .... 2007 Was Tied As Earth's Second Warmest Year (Jan. ...
www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/071213101419.htm - 60k - Cached - Similar pages
BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | 2007 to be 'warmest on record'
Last year was the warmest on record in the UK, Met Office figures show. The world is likely to experience the warmest year on record in 2007, ...
news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6228765.stm - 51k - Cached - Similar pages
2007 was the warmest on record for Earth's land areas - USATODAY.com
In a separate study, NASA scientists announced that 2007 tied with 1998 as the Earth's second-warmest on record. NASA researchers analyze global temperature ...
www.usatoday.com/weather/climate/2008-01-15-global-temperatures_N.htm

Mike Stasse
Energy Efficiency Consultant -
Posted by Coorangreeny, Wednesday, 14 May 2008 2:57:37 PM
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
For those who want it to have cooled since 1998, I have an article in which I explain why global warming doesn't mean it gets hotter every year: http://opinion-nation.blogspot.com/2008/04/why-doesnt-it-get-hotter-every-year.html

Short summary: natural variability (i.e., what happens if you don't have some external cause of warming or cooling) is relatively large -- you can see swings of over 0.5C over a few years. The warming trend we are seeing is heading upwards towards 3C per CENTURY, i.e., 0.03C per year.

You can only expect to see a trend like this over and above natural variability if you keep looking long enough.

As for Bob Carter: his position is "science", the opposition are "zealots" or "devotees". Funny he can't get a paper published on the subject. I guess in the areas where HAS published, he's a "zealot" and unpublished critics are the real scientists? He quotes a minority report from parliament as saying most global warming scares are from unqualified people. This is rubbish. Most opinions about ANYTHING reported in mass media are from unqualified people because the media likes to quote people the public identify with. You have to look at the science to see what most SCIENTISTS are saying. Carter of course does not do so.

His assertions that rapid climate change is nothing new so we have nothing to worry about neglect possibilities that mass extinction events have been related to rapid climate change (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_extinction). The examples he cites of fast temperature rises are generally exits from glaciation, which (while raising sea levels) increase livable areas of the planet and so are not comparable to today's conditions. He also conveniently fails to mention the difficulty of accurately dating and measuring the paleoclimate. If his graphs included error ranges they would look a lot fuzzier.

Here's something else interesting to read on this: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/paleo.html

I find it ironic that for someone who attacks others for not being scientific enough Carter relies so much on innuendo and half-truths. I would certainly take him a lot more seriously if he didn't sneer at the other side.
Posted by PhilipM, Wednesday, 14 May 2008 3:39:46 PM
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
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All

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