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 > The UN climate change numbers hoax > Comments

The UN climate change numbers hoax : Comments

By Tom Harris and John McLean, published 30/6/2008

The IPCC needs to come clean on the real numbers of scientist supporters.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. Page 8
  10. 9
  11. 10
  12. 11
  13. ...
  14. 14
  15. 15
  16. 16
  17. All
DA: "In an earlier part of the paper the IPCC sets out the level of scientific knowledge of components of climate, many of which are said to be low"

"said to be low" ... by who and on what basis.

DA: "The use of percentages here seems to me disingenuous"

I don't think so. If they quoted 92.12% then I would be worried.

DA: "If you Google up Michael Mann and global warming you'll encounter the McKitrick demolition." ... "There is not yet good argument and evidence to support the view that human activity is responsible for all or most of it."

I'm not a climate scientist (particle physics was my area before I got into IT) and nor is he and nor are you I presume. While I'd like to study the technical research, I have other projects n the boil that I hope will help with policy making. Thus like everybody else, I rely on scientific consensus in this area. Maybe Mann had faults in his original research that have been highlighted .. maybe he didn't .. mabye they have been corrected or taken into account. Mann is just one of thousands: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy] .. Wikipedia is by no means definitive, but there are plenty of references there:

"The majority of climate scientists agree that global warming is primarily caused by human activities such as fossil fuel burning and deforestation.[18][19][20] The conclusion that global warming is mainly caused by human activity and will continue if greenhouse gas emissions are not reduced has been endorsed by at least 30 scientific societies and academies of science, including all of the national academies of science of the major industrialized countries. The U.S. National Academy of Sciences,[21] the American Association for the Advancement of Science,[22] and the Joint Science Academies of the major industrialized and developing nations[23] explicitly use the word "consensus" when referring to this conclusion."

Short of becoming climate scientists ourselves, I suggest, for humanities sake, we accept that.
Posted by Sams, Thursday, 3 July 2008 10:36:35 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
to Sams: The IPCC said so itself in the Third Assessment Report in 2001. To quote from John McLean's submission to Garnaut (which I recommend, because it is well written and clear): 'Models and simulations are critical to the IPCC's case for man-made warming but in its Third Assessment Report (TAR) the IPCC admitted that the level of scientific understanding (LSU) of 7 of 11 climate factors was "very low" and that for another the LSU was "low" (see figure). A similar table was absent from the Fourth Assessment Report - would it be an admission that science had advanced very little? - but a table of various radiative forcings did appear and again many factors were poorly understood.' You can find the original table in the TAR.

About 'disingenuous': In my view to use any percentage suggests that there is some kind of mathematical base to the statement. But there isn't. I could live with a statement that the authors of of the report were 'pretty sure', but when they call that '95%' it is without any measurement foundation at all.

I know what the IPCC says, and I know what Wikipedia says. What is at stake is measurement. Your background and mine enable us to look at the data and ask questions. The issues seem important enough for me to continue to do so, in the interests of myself, my children and my grandchildren — "for humanities' sake", if you like.

What is proposed seems to me without sufficient foundation, expensive and likely to be futile, and not much help to humanity at all. Yes, it might be right, but I want some of my criticisms answered. No one does.

I wanted to see evidence and argument about WMD, too, and feel that there are similarities in these two cases.
Posted by Don Aitkin, Thursday, 3 July 2008 11:04:59 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
DA: "What is proposed seems to me without sufficient foundation, expensive and likely to be futile, and not much help to humanity at all."

As to whether the proposed solutions are effective .. well, that's for a different debate. Unless you mean the general solution of reducing CO2 levels in the atmosphere, in which case I say "endorsed by at least 30 scientific societies and academies of science" is more than sufficient foundation. Expensive - yes, of course. Futile - the only reason it would be futile is if politics slowed it down.
Posted by Sams, Friday, 4 July 2008 8:30:51 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
to Sams: (final comment for this thread)

I would be happier about the endorsement of 30 scientific societies if I were not aware that some of these bodies have asked strongly that others join them in that endorsement, and I believe this to have been true in Australia from what I have been told by members of these societies.

In any case, what the executive of a body says does not mean that its members support that stand. In my view learned academies are best advised not to take political stands, but of course that is just my opinion.
Posted by Don Aitkin, Friday, 4 July 2008 9:58:25 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
Don Aitken and Sams

Well it does not matter anyway.
If China and India do not adopt the same standards as we do then is
there any point in our doing anything at all ?

Could we just ignore it all and save all that money and it would make
not one jot of difference ?

If China and India are still maintaining their existing stance what
can we with our tiddly CO2 levels do anyway.

Anyway, it looks like the whole thing will be overwhelmed by the
effects of peak oil and no one will have the money to pay the CO2 tax.

The big advantage of standards is that there are plenty from which to choose.
Posted by Bazz, Friday, 4 July 2008 11:05:56 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
Bazz: "Well it does not matter anyway. If China and India do not adopt the same standards as we do then is there any point in our doing anything at all?"

You would prefer no hope over some hope!? I think you by "standards" you mean 'measures' (ie. not like ISO standards), or am I mistaken? China and India may do their part without too much pressure from the West - they don't want climate change either. There are encouraging signs from China. If push comes to shove though, and this is seen as a matter of survival (as it should be), other countries could apply escalating levels of pressure to encourage them change. However, if we haven't cleaned up our own acts, we won't be taken seriously.

"Anyway, it looks like the whole thing will be overwhelmed by the
effects of peak oil and no one will have the money to pay the CO2 tax."

Hmm .. or perhaps instead people will simply stop wasting so much energy. Commodities change price all the time and the market adjusts to it. In this case, transport and manufacturing techniques are changing accordingly, as are people's consumption patterns. On the other hand, the cost of world-wide failures of food crops due to high levels of climate change will be much worse.
Posted by Sams, Friday, 4 July 2008 1:06:29 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. ...
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. Page 8
  10. 9
  11. 10
  12. 11
  13. ...
  14. 14
  15. 15
  16. 16
  17. All

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