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 > Community resilience and the hazards of climate > Comments

Community resilience and the hazards of climate : Comments

By William Kininmonth, published 5/5/2011

The failure of global climate models means we should design our societies to be prepared for anything.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. ...
  8. 10
  9. 11
  10. 12
  11. All
Tombee - fair enough.. I wasn't saying you made facts fit theories.. I was referring to climate scientists in general, with honourable exceptions..
Posted by Curmudgeon, Thursday, 5 May 2011 1:43:56 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 models on which climate change is based are only as good as the assumptions that are made about what will happen to emissions. Problem is that the IPCC has relied on data from the energy industries about how much oil and coal is left - we are already at peak oil and peak coal is predicted to his us some time before 2050 (http://rutledge.caltech.edu/)whilst the focus on reducing CO2 emissions is all well and good there does not seem to be any coherent attempt anywhere to develop an economy that is not dependent on fossil fuels. So regardless of the climate models we will need to make the transition to an economy based on renewable energy. This is particularly important for us here in Australia - we continue to sell off our natural resources and congratulate ourselves but all we are doing is drawing down on our inheritance without ensuring that we have a future.
Posted by BAYGON, Thursday, 5 May 2011 2:44:02 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
When reading this article it is important to remember that it expresses an extrememe minority scientific view. It is easy to demonstrate that the vast majority of scientists (97 to 98%) support the theory of AGW and thus would strongly disagree with the key points made by the author (eg: "The future climate directions are not predictable and the evidence for CO2 having a dangerous impact is wanting, especially as rudimentary GCMs are the only acknowledged predictive tool.")

There are numerous reputable national and international scientific bodies supporting AGW and research surveys demonstrating that the vast majority of peer reviewed research papers support AGW. On the other hand we have not one reputable scientific body disagreeing with AGW. We have sites dedicated to scientifically dismantling arguments contrary to the majority scientific view (www.skepticalscience.com) based on peer reviewed papers. And yet another site that comprehensively dismantles the work of such noted sceptics such as Christopher Monckton (let me know if you would like the link).

If you are not prepared to accept the majority scientific view then your rationale is likely to be along the lines of "it is all a big conspiracy". Conspiracy theories seem to be on the rise recently ..... but that doesn't make them any more likely to be valid.
Posted by Rich2, Thursday, 5 May 2011 4:24:49 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
It is not easy to demonstrate that vast majority of scientists support AGW. This 97% figure comes from a study by two academics at the University of Illinois. It refers to 75 out of 77 so called 'climate scientists' who replied to their 2 question survey. The 97% figure was picked up by the media and used to represent the opinions of all scientists rather than of this tiny sample.

If one was interested in putting the cat among the pigeons, one might refer to UAH satellite data which indicates that in fact the whole planet did not warm in the late 20th century. Warming was mostly confined to the northern hemisphere above the 20th parallel. The greatest warming was in the Arctic. Warming in the southern hemisphere was not statistically significant and the Antarctic cooled slightly.
Posted by Senior Victorian, Thursday, 5 May 2011 4:37:09 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
Others have made the same observation, so I can't claim originality, but it remains a curious phenomenon: the Dad's Army of retired meteorologists and geologists who remain so passionately opposed to the theory of human influenced climate change, even though most of them (like Kininmonth) have not published a scientific paper for decades. And - by their associations shall ye know them - one has to be a bit careful of anyone associated with the Lavoisier Group or the IPA, because these are overtly political bodies, with no scientific credibility whatsoever. As for Curmudgeon, taking the lazy option, a shame that a rational journalist so completely misses the point about probability. Most scientists say that the theory (of human influenced climate) is probably true. That means that we should take some account of the theory unless we can categorically refute it. If you can categorically refute it, then do so, in the scientific literature, with sound evidence and rational hypothesis. You will probably win a Nobel Prize, and everyone will be very grateful.
Posted by nicco, Thursday, 5 May 2011 4:47:11 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
Senior Victorian.

That is not the study I was referencing. A recent study in The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences used a data set of 1,372 published climate researchers and their publication and citation history, finding that 97 to 98 per cent of those climate researchers publishing most actively on the topic agreed with the tenets of climate change as identified by the IPCC. They also found the expertise and prominence of the scientists who agreed with the IPCC findings to be substantially higher than that of the scientists who did not. The link is below:
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107.full.pdf+html

I note that you did not name a single reputable scientific body (national or international that has been around for a while) that has come out to say they disagree with the AGW theory.

I restate that it is easy to validate the view that the vast majority of scientists support AGW.

As a non scientist I am comfortable to side with the overwhelming majority of scientists especially as it accords with common sense. I find no reason at all to go in the other direction especially when the arguments put forward relate to matters that have been extensively researched and considered by scientists before they reached their conclusions.

I suggest you research www.skepticalscience.com where you are likely to find that the point you raise re satellite data is on their list of over 100 arguments that are routinely raised and that they have addressed and refuted based on peer reviewed science.
Posted by Rich2, Thursday, 5 May 2011 4:59:23 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
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. ...
  8. 10
  9. 11
  10. 12
  11. All

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