The Warming debate

Should not have been led by greens

But by business?

[yeah right]

Bonmot,

No, not cynical - sceptical. Cynicism is utterly useless, but scepticism is absolutely necessary, I would have thought, for any serious scientist.

That's an interesting form of 'appeal to authority' though, Bonmot: if you are not a scientist and/or can't do the science, shut your mouth and obey those who say they are and/or can.

I'm not a scientist, but I'm reasonably intelligent and can follow an argument if it is spelt out in simple enough terms. Two inches of sea-level rise and less than a degree temperature-rise over sixty years, in a world where many governments and firms are moving quickly to jump onto the green band-wagon (and good on them) - forgive me but I do not think that, in my non-scientist ignorance, I should be panicking, not just yet.

There is so much that can be done, and may well be done, over the next twenty, thirty, fifty years: massive tree-planting across the north (since the annual precipitation up there is supposed to be increasing) might go some way to taking up some of the excess CO2, for example. Fourth- and fifth-generation nuclear energy, as a second or third resort, or geothermal energy, or wave-energy, etc. - these are all options and combined with electric-vehicle technology, who knows ? Free, and more frequent and versatile, public transport may encourage far more people to leave their cars at home anyway.

I certainly support the precautionary principle, provided it is not used as some pretext to suspend democratic rights. So for all that, no, I'm not inclined to panic about the imminent swamping of coastal suburbs or drastic temperature rise frying us.

Joe

Loudmouth,
The conspiratorial tag seems to be more directed to those supporting the convential view more than toward the skeptics (Taxes, grants, world government).

Galileo was not the target of scientific skeptics and his peers as much as he was pilloried by the establishment (in this case the Church) because he threatened their security.

As per Rache's reference, in this case it is the self-interests of free-marketeers and certain industries that are trying to avoid further regulation that is under threat, and these are the very people who are financing the skeptic movement. As the reference shows, they've done it before and are employing the very same tactics.

You’re right Joe, scepticism is absolutely necessary for any serious scientist.

Allow me to put it this way: I trust my doctor, I won't trust him to do surgery on my heart. Similarly, I trust my electrician, but there is no way I will let him do my plumbing, or service my car, or teach my girl biology. I would not ask them to shut their mouth if they have an opinion about something they have not been trained in, but I would be foolish to give them more credence than those who have the specific expertise I need. In other words, I defer to the experts. Corollary: How many cancer specialists do you need to see before you take decisive action?

I agree, no one should panic (about global warming) – the world will not end anytime soon. However, adaptation and mitigation measures will take time. Unfortunately, the politicians and economists can’t see past the next election cycle or trade weighted index.

Nevertheless, sea levels, temperatures, extreme weather, and so on – are inexorably rising. Sure, maybe not as much as the “alarmists” would have us believe, but certainly enough to worry countries’ top military and policy strategists. Why? Because of the pressures global warming will place on countries’ resources – food, water, energy, population, transport, etc.

59 cm +/- a bit by 2100 might not seem like much to you Joe, but tell that to the Bangladeshes (for example) who just might want to jump onto a few boats to Xmas Island.

Another 3 degrees C +/- a bit by 2100 also might not seem like much, but the rate of change is extraordinarily high (by comparison) and to be sure, it takes time to move a ‘food bowl’.

Regardless of all this, and uncertainties which are acknowledged, who said time stopped in 2100?

Ps: for a ‘greenie’, I like your idea about 4-gen nuclear – that really is encouraging. I guess anyone can be an environmentalist – from any side of politics :)

Wobbles, about Galileo and the Church, yep.

Came across this in my morning reading. Would anyone trust a doctor with this sort of track record at diagnosis http://hauntingthelibrary.wordpress.com/2011/01/06/james-hansen-1986-within-15-years-temps-will-be-hotter-than-past-100000-years/?

Perhaps being a climate scientist doesn't actually give you much insight into climate at all.

BTW, the Galileo argument is trotted out all the time, but it doesn't hold up. Galileo was persecuted by the establishment, which at the time was the Catholic Church. The people being persecuted by the establishment are the global warming skeptics, not the proponents. Whether they will turn-out to be as correct as Galileo we'll never know, because we'll be dead by the time the answer is available.

Actually Graham, your addition to the analogy fails. Diagnosis is not the same as prediction. Doctors of all types make predictions that are quite often wrong and yet I would still trust them. For example if a doctor measures my blood pressure and cholesterol levels and finds out what sort of lifestyle I lead, then they will likely make a prediction of what sort of life expectancy I could have if I continued on the same path and made no changes. This prediction is likely to be wrong, but that would not change the level of trust in my doctor.

I am not certain whether being a climate scientist gives you much 'insight' into climate, but there is one thing I can be certain about:
NOT being a climate scientist certainly does not give you any special insight into climate.

Well, the Catholic Church often feels persecuted by scientists these days as well Graham.