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 > Getting warmer ... > Comments

Getting warmer ... : Comments

By Stephanie Long, published 9/2/2007

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change provides irrefutable evidence that we are changing the climate.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. 8
  10. 9
  11. All
julowi

The only reason why the models correlate so well with the observed temperatures is because they are made to do so. Because the models themselves are only approxiamations of what is happening in reality, as evidenced by the many variables they cant and dont represent, then to make alarmist and politically motivated calls on the basis of something like this is irresponsible.

It is the fundamental dishonesty of this position that makes people dislike/distrust the green movement and elements of the scientifc community. The greeny/alarmists dont bother to explain the subtlety of the difference between projections and a predictions, and dont bother to elaborate upon the limitations of their work, including the fact that models help one better understand the processes involved.That is about as far as anyone could take it,thats if they were being truthful.

But the greenies and their scientific bed mates have never let facts get in the way of good beat up.

If you have any doubt why not read the editorial in todays Australian

Also your time might better served by attempting to make intelligent answers to all the points raised by anti green above.
Posted by bigmal, Friday, 9 February 2007 7:16:37 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 numbere of folk have argued that there is no scientific consensus on global warning, or alternately (in Bigmal's words) that "greenies and their scientific bed mates have never let facts get in the way of good beat up".

So I thought I would find out what Australia's preeminent scientific bodies have to say on the matter.

CSIRO: "The concept of global warming is becoming more of a reality every day." http://www.dar.csiro.au/information/observedchange.html

Australian Academy of Science: "‘This intensive review ... was undertaken by hundreds of scientists worldwide and confirms what we already know. We have now lost five years that could have been used in implementing remedial actions." http://www.science.org.au/media/2february07.htm

Bureau of Meteorology "I expect climate change to affect all Australians." Dr. Geoff Love, Director of Meteorology http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/

Anybody see a pattern there?

Bigmal, perhaps you might like to point me in the direction of any serious Australian science that contradicts this stuff. Preferably not from a site run by former mining engineers.
Posted by Johnj, Friday, 9 February 2007 11:50:30 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
I would be very impressed if the sceptics could point to evidence for the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age being globally synchronous events.
Posted by Fester, Saturday, 10 February 2007 6:47:06 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
I have a specific question for julowi and billie. Do you advocate the position taken by the famous American biologist the late Stephen J Goud? That is, there is the magisteria of science and the magisteria of religion. The two magistera do not overlap.

If Global warming belongs to the magisteria of science then it is legitimate to ask questions about methodology, the confidence that should be placed on the data fed into the computer model. It is in order to request the authors of the models to explain in simple terms how they work? List the assumptions implicit in the model etc.

On the other hand if Green environmentalism is, as many claim, a quasi religion. Then greenhouse theory and global warming are to be regarded as doctrine handed down by the high priests. It is characteristic of a doctrinal belief that it is accepted on authority and anybody asking questions runs the risk of being labelled as a heretic.

This suggests a test for Stephanie Long and her colleagues at FOE. Provide a succinct critic of Climate models that a lay person can understand, and which satisfies the traditional requirements of scientific peer review. This should help as decide if we are in the field of science and/or technology or dealing with the belief system of a quasi-religion?

I feel compelled to draw your attention to a potential heresy put to air by Michael Duffy in an ABC counterpoint program of 5th Feb. The program seriously questions the findings of the Stern Review and the Global Warming doctrine as advanced by IPCC.

Billie you ask about my great grandchildren, well I can not answer that one. But I do look forward to my grand children electing to follow useful and profitable careers in the nuclear industry.

I thank bigmal for his interesting comments and support.
Posted by anti-green, Saturday, 10 February 2007 10:24:31 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
bennie,

There is a fallacy in your logic that Richard Lindzen has already addressed: "Picking holes in the IPCC is crucial. The notion that if you’re ignorant of something and somebody comes up with a wrong answer, and you have to accept that because you don’t have another wrong answer to offer is like faith healing, it’s like quackery in medicine – if somebody says you should take jelly beans for cancer and you say that’s stupid, and he says, well can you suggest something else and you say, no, does that mean you have to go with jelly beans?"

As for your implication that global warming skeptics are "novices toying at the edges" who are just "niggling about the minutiae", I must disagree. Many of the skeptics are questioning the fundamental causal relationship between CO2 concentrations and temperature. Henrik Svensmark of the Danish Space Centre has researched the possbility of variations of solar irradiation and its effect upon cosmic rays entering te Earth's atmosphere causing the vast majority of the observed change in temperature. NASA scientist William Feldman has observed significant temperature changes on Mars notwithstanding the fact it has no "greenhouse" or industry to contribute to one. Astrophysicist Nir Shariv is of the opinion that the intense solar activity of the last half of the 20th Century accounts for all the increase in temperature and man's emissions may have actually had a cooling effect.

One final point I would like to make is the "value" of the environment. We cannot judge any of our interactions with the environment as good or bad in a vacuum. We cut down trees to make building for shelter and clear land food. We mine for materials that enable us to have telephones, computers and cars. We "take" from the environment to substantially improve our quality of life. We must weigh this considerations against adverse effect on the environment.
Posted by MonashLibertarian, Saturday, 10 February 2007 12:28:11 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
Stephen Gould? A great intellect. Glad you brought this up, anti-green.

“I appreciate that we cannot win this battle to save species and environments without forging an emotional bond between ourselves and nature as well—for we will not fight to save what we do not love So let them all continue—the films, the books, the television programs, the zoos, the little half acre of ecological preserve in any community, the primary school lessons, the museum demonstrations…Let them continue and expand because we must have visceral contact in order to love. We really must make room for nature in our hearts.”
Stephen J Gould, 1993.

So what’s your gut feeling, anti-green? That all science is bunkum, or only the bits to do with the climate? If someone did manage to provide you with a “succinct critic of Climate models that a lay person can understand” would that change your view? If I fail to provide a full schematic for the Apollo 11 rocket would you claim man never landed on the moon? And if I did would it make a difference? Get real.

There’s no doubt you won’t care losing what you don’t care having. Are you committed to your environment? Is the current debate a result of genuine concern for our future, or more an opportunity to score a point over those who believe in something other than what you do? The vigour with which ‘greenies’ embrace the latest prognosis on the climate is as much out of relief that this issue has finally made the front page, as it is out of frustration that so many people have been - and still are - willing to ignore what to them is bleeding obvious.

Environmental science or science in any field has a definite edge over the ethereal. “Quasi-religion” might actually be an apt description - you can be both rational and spiritual about the environment, without having your head in the clouds.
Posted by bennie, Saturday, 10 February 2007 1:43:28 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
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. 8
  10. 9
  11. All

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