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 over-blown science of global warming > Comments

The over-blown science of global warming : Comments

By Garth Paltridge, published 17/8/2009

Why is it that scientists have become so one-eyed in their public support for the disaster theory of climate change?

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. Page 7
  9. 8
  10. 9
  11. All
Yes Ian, I visit some of those sites too - among others.

I agree, a few of the websites aren’t ‘denialist-blogs’, but many on that list have been referred to as such. Of course, this is no different to the ‘denialosphere’ tarring other sites as ‘alarmist’.

There is no point to the challenge, Ian. For a very long time I have attempted to explain that the overwhelming, vast majority of scientists don’t deny that “the world may be warming and that humans may be (part of) the cause” - although Vince Gray and Tim Ball push the bounds.

Likewise, no scientist has said our current global warming is entirely due to anthropogenic causes. Nevertheless, this hasn’t stopped popular columnists and media shock-jocks (and ‘denialist’ blog sites) from saying this, or distorting or misrepresenting what the vast majority of scientists do say.

Speaking of the WFS in Sicily; I think you agree with me (and Antonino Zichichi) that the SRES is problematic insofar as ‘climate modelling’ is concerned (hopefully we will get better econometric and statistical input by the time AR5 comes out). I also note that the WFS are re-assessing their response to the increased frequency and severity of so called ‘floods and extreme weather events’, not just droughts ... this is encouraging.

Most people agree that AGW, by definition, is a symptom of human endeavour; the severity of which we won’t know unless we conduct the experiment, and we are.

However, given the potential risks to humanity (and all that relies on it) of a warmer and wetter world, it would be prudent to tread very carefully. The United Nations understand this and through its various divisions (not least the Security Council and Environment Programme) are using ‘climate change’ issues to try and steer member states to growing and developing in a more sustainable way (environmentally, ecologically and economically).

This is ongoing within the UNFCCC and will be 'played-out' in Copenhagen again in December. They won’t be re-inventing the science like some on some obscure forum like OLO are wont to do – but you know this.
Posted by Q&A, Tuesday, 18 August 2009 5:17:22 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
You didn't read my post, Curmudgeon. Try again
Posted by Sancho, Tuesday, 18 August 2009 7:25:58 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
You didn't read my post, Curmudgeon. Try again.
Posted by Sancho, Tuesday, 18 August 2009 7:26:28 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
Q&A you appear to be having a foot in each camp and attempting to sound rational and conciliatory at the same time being derogatory to "Denialists" from your lofty scientology AGW stance - it doesn't fit.

Leaving yourself some wiggle room are you? Setting up a position that all along you have been reasonable and objective, please it's vapor thin.

Scientists may not have said exactly what you say in exactly that way - but many responsible science journalists and some scientists have not held back from inflating the alarm. E.G Prof Barry Brooks, putting in little asides at a conference "and the seas will rise", Robin Williams, national treasure and ABC science fellow, who calls himself a scientist said seas would rise 100metres by the end of the century and under questioning by a JJJ compere admitted that "you have to exagerate to get people's attention"

Your claim that scientists are innocent victims of shock jocks and "denialist blogs" is pure fantasy, nice try to deflect thuogh.
Posted by odo, Wednesday, 19 August 2009 8:38:52 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
Like I've said time and time again: Extremists on both sides should pull their collective heads in, odo.

You can't understand that - not my problem, odo.
Posted by Q&A, Wednesday, 19 August 2009 8:56:23 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&A
I think you are on the money.
There is a propensity in the media to deal with issues in the extremes.
I have often pointed out that many of the POVs are myopically conceived and any challenge is then assumed to be the the opposite extreme. i.e you are either a chicken little doomsayer or a head in the sand denier.

Media is presented with two basic criteria around selling ads and presented in the simplest to appeal to the lowest common denominator.
Hence we get the either or poles.

In reality issues like weather aren't black or white nor are they a single point in some continuoum. Rather like people they are a mixture of non linear bits from the entire length of that continuoum. numerically any five issues may range independent from 1-100 in intensity. The real thought is not the reliance on a single point failure. i.e. CO2 isn't THE issue but is clearly one of several.

Therefore disproving that CO2 is the solitary cause to our apparent malaise is overly simplistic (unrealistic) assessment of the true situation.

To my knowledge no single denialist's scenario credibly accounts for the vast majority(certainly not all) of the scientifically arrived at observations.Likewise no climate scientist worth their degrees claim that CO2 is the only cause. What is at stake is the mechanics (is it red or blue or some shade in between.)

Therefore If in cleaning up CO2 it also resolves other issues then "where is the Problem?".
Logically simply doing nothing because of perceived and unprovable economic catastrophic consequences is relying on soft 'science' versus hard science provable observations isn't a plausible issue.

Let's get real here economists predictive skills are some what "soft" if they were as tangible as ice melting at both poles then GFC wouldn't have happened and the recovery would have been 'decades' long as was touted at its height.

Let's stop with this misinterpretation of Occam's razor it in context says 'if there are two COMPARABLE(both explain all the observations equally) THEN the simpler is PROBABLY true.' Not the simpler is true regardless.
Posted by examinator, Wednesday, 19 August 2009 9:48:08 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
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. Page 7
  9. 8
  10. 9
  11. All

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