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. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. Page 6
  8. 7
  9. All
Usual Suspect, I did not disagree with Don when he said “the electorate there (UK) is not prepared to forego heat and mobility in the interests of abating greenhouse gas emissions, and my guess is that the Australian electorate would be pretty similar, if pushed to the test.

In my reply I said “this would require a paradigm shift and my guess, like yours, is that dealing with the issues of climate change will take some people (and treasuries and finance departments) out of their comfort zones.

I’ll try and make it clearer. ‘Climate change’ is going to impact every one of us … somehow, sometime, somewhere – whether you believe in AGW or not. It is better to work together in dealing with the issues of adaptation and mitigation. Political, economic and social ideology has, is and will muddy the waters more so than the science. No one is saying it will be easy. There are many alarmists on both sides in the public arena but there are considerably less in the scientific arena.

You said “Anyway I cant believe you think we shouldn't encourage contending views in public policy discourse.” Where did I ‘think’ or say this, Usual Suspect?

Of course there can be discussion, but it would help everybody if that discussion was based on fact, not alarmist claims by either side of the camp or shock-jocks and media outlets trying to raise their ratings with sensational and distorted science – intentional or otherwise.

Of course public policy should not be based on “swift unilateral reaction to the current scientific opinion” (where have you been these last 20 years, in the US?) – that really is a no brainer and it shows the intellectual ineptitude in those that think or even imply that it is.

You obviously have not read the full discourse between Don Aitken and myself, it may help our discussion if you extended yourself to the end of that thread.

I thought you wanted to be open minded so was hoping you would respond to the Nature article released today. US, you contradict yourself.
Posted by Q&A, Thursday, 15 May 2008 1:33:36 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
We try again....The role of science and public policy is that sound public policy is based on a conservative view of the science. In other words it errs on the side of caution. For example the use by date on food products. Will eating food that is past the use by date kill you? Probably not but given the small chance that it will prudent public policy dictates that we err on the conservative side. Climate change in this context is no different. It is about assessing the risk of doing nothing and taking action. In the scientific community there is a robust debate not, as some mistakingly believe, about whether or not AGW is real or not but more about how serious a problem it may be. Prudent policy demands that we err on the side of caution. Or are we suggesting that for some reason this particular issue is exempt from such prudent action? It is a little bit like arguing for the removal of lifeboats on the grounds that the likelihood that your ship will sink is very small.
Posted by BAYGON, Thursday, 15 May 2008 1:51:12 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
Geomagnetic flux changes at the core-mantle boundary may be driving climate change. If merely linked and not the driver, they still let fossil fuels off the hook - you cannot rev up old Holdens down there. The mag anomaly maps, both deep and surface, match the curious temperature anomalies around the Antarctic Peninsula, in eastern Siberia, and now south of Mocambique. The IPCC anthropogenic greenhouse warming model cannot cope with those. At all. See http://www.freewebs.com/psravenscroft for the prelims.
Posted by Dingodog, Friday, 16 May 2008 12:25:34 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
Pbrosnan “This is the main problem with the "sceptics" position. They sit back, fold their arms and say "Prove it to me beyond all doubt".

What those of the “anthropogenic global warming” church fail to recognise is this

If they were the only stakeholders it would be reasonable for them to speculate on outcomes and consequences.
After all, it would be their risk and they would be the one to either reap the benefit or pay the consequences of their errors.

However, the world is not their toy.

They are not the only “stakeholders” or those who have a “vested interest”.

The “forensic evidence” is not there.
Whilst a lot of folk can come forward with anecdotal witness accounts, their individual interpretation is no substitute for “objective science”.

The statistical sampling is poor and haphazard, the significance or relevance of samples is undetermined.

The predictive models are error prone, due to
a) the poor quality sampling
b) uncertainty to the relative significance or influence or relationship between independent variables
c) uncertainty to what are all the variables.

All in all, an immature and underdeveloped set of scenarios which do not hold up. AGW has not been “proven” to any standard approaching “without a reasonable doubt”.

Before we are all condemned to suffer carbon taxes and have our personal rights curtailed, to atone for some notion of anthropogenic global warming, it is appropriate to expect the jury find us guilt “beyond a reasonable doubt” if not “beyond all doubt”.
Posted by Col Rouge, Friday, 16 May 2008 11:26:21 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 did not disagree with Don when he said ..'
I know, I just thought it was a good point.

'You said “Anyway I cant believe you think we shouldn't encourage contending views in public policy discourse.” Where did I ‘think’ or say this, Usual Suspect?
'

I was actually replying to CJ Morgans affirmation of BAYGON's
'We need and indeed should encourage contending views in the scientific discourse with respect to global warming. On the other hand in the domain of public policy the prudent course of action is to shape policy on the basis of the dominant scientific position.'

By that I read 'encourage contending views ' in scientific discource, but not in the domain of pubilc policy.

Sorry I was too stingy to pay for the Nature article. I don't generally have the time or inclination to keep up to date with every topic that interests me either. Doesn't mean I don't have an open mind when I do read stuff.

BAYGON,

'public policy dictates that we err on the conservative side. '
You're one of these people who decided to put 'Caution: Contains Nuts' on the packets of peanuts aren't you.

'It is a little bit like arguing for the removal of lifeboats on the grounds that the likelihood that your ship will sink is very small.'
That's a dumb analogy. What if the lifeboats were so expensive that we would never be able to make any new ships, and had to sell most of the ones we had?

All,

It seems to me the debate revolves around how much 'faith' you have in the scientist's ability to model the earth. I don't have much, I think Col agrees. As I said, I look at the complexity of the earth that the scientists are examining, the accuracy of all predictive models, and the consequences of the actions they propose, and I'm just not sold on it yet.
Posted by Usual Suspect, Friday, 16 May 2008 2:18:54 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 greenhouse hypothesis - which asserts that carbon dioxide increases of human origin will cause dangerous global warming - is clearly invalidated by these data."

With respect Graham. Pigs bum!

In that one paragraph you have shown that you do not understand the complex interactions of various forcings relating to global temperatures.
I don't need to go into any of the most obvious, they are readily available. Please avail yourself of them.
Posted by T.Sett, Friday, 16 May 2008 5:21:11 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. 4
  6. 5
  7. Page 6
  8. 7
  9. All

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