LOL Leigh

I've been called many things in my life. Phillip Adams, the quintessential Australian Leftie, called me a "silly little s hit!"

But I don't think anyone before now has called me "left inclined." "Right-wing free-market fundamentalist" is the more usual appellation.

The question is not which set of scientists to believe. Climatology is an uncertain discipline and wide ranges of informed opinion are to be expected. I am not able to decide who is right and who is wrong in this debate.

Are you?

I venture to say the answer is "No." You are no more able to decide which set of scientists is right than me. If I am mistaken in my assessment of your scientific capabilities I'm sure you'll put me right.

But the REAL question is this.

Is there a real risk that continuing to pump CO2 and other greenhouses gases into the atmosphere could lead to calamitous outcomes?

From the perspective of a dispassionate lay-person the only rational answer has to be "yes."

That is to say:

"Yes, there is a real RISK of calamity."

NOT:

"Yes the greenies are certainly right and we're all going to die."

By "real risk" I mean a risk that the probability of unfavourable outcomes is appreciably greater than zero. How much greater is uncertain.

Why is acknowledging the existence of risk the only rational response? There are many reasons of which the two most important are BASIC PHYSICS and the WEIGHT OF SCIENTIFIC OPINION.

Unless you can give me some certain method of deciding which set of scientists is right, Leigh, you are tacitly admitting that the risk exists.

This is not about ideology or "Left" vs "Right." It's about RISK ASSESSMENT and RISK MANAGEMENT.

Leigh

Most posters, unlike you and Mr Bolt, are not debating natural cyclic climate change.

We are debating on the man-made active volcano we have created which is mimicking and competing against natural climatic events.

You may do well to investigate past natural catastrophes and species extinctions where long-term volcanic activity spewed out excessive amounts of CO2 creating a greenhouse effect. Many paleontologists believe that the thermal limits for species, for their survival, were exceeded with a warmer planet which also created major environmental fluctuations and many species, therefore, perished.

The global, human volcano is spewing out carbon based chemicals 24/7 and has done so for a couple of centuries and the pollution is drastically increasing.

The current greenhouse with its human contributions, promises to be the daddy of all major catastrophes - and many of the players appear to be re-incarnations of Nero who just fiddled and fiddled and........!

Dickie

I asked Leigh how he knows which set of scientists to believe.

I am now asking you the same question,

You wrote:

>>The current greenhouse with its human contributions, promises to be the daddy of all major catastrophes >>

Are you TRULY able to assess the evidence for this statement and weigh it up against the counter-claims of dissenting scientists?

I don't see how you can claim certainty where certainty is IMPOSSIBLE. That's why I have as much difficulty with people who make emotional claims about impending catastrophe as I do with those who, like Leigh, dismiss the dangers of climate change as Left wing scaremongering.

The only certainty we have is that an appreciable risk exists. Those who demand anymore certainty before they will act are asking the impossible. They're in effect saying "I'll pay my insurance premiums if my house burns down."

Those who, like yourself, claim to know with absolute certainty that we are headed for catastrophe are actually doing more harm than good because your claims of omniscience are so easy to ridicule. I effect you're a godsend to those who want an excuse to refrain from acting.

Dealing with climate change is so difficult precisely because we have to make decisions that involve huge sums of money and will affect the lives and livelihoods of millions of people in the face of great uncertainty and many unknowns. And we have to do it knowing that at any time new data may show it was all a waste of time and money. We need to acknowledge that upfront and cease pretending we can be certain.

Steven

"Which set of scientists to believe?"

One scientist praised by Andrew Bolt was Ian Plimer who, in my view, lacks sufficient credibility to speak on climate change. For instance Mr Plimer has a vested interest in the continuing endeavours by his mining colleagues to reduce our states to vast tracks of wasteland, pock-marked by open pits and waste dumps, with scant regard for future generations.

Mr Plimer was the eccentric gentleman who spent some $400,000 on disproving some silly bugger's claim that he'd found a piece of Noah's ark! Mr Plimer was ordered to pay all legal costs!

The human race is the most irresponsible animal on this planet. For thousands of years we have burned, destroyed, killed, looted and defiled vast tracts of wonderful forests, pristine waterways and magnificent landscapes. Why? Because it suited us to do so.

My interest has been sparked by a paper I read by Dewey McLean, Professor Emeritus of Geology at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute, who obtained his PhD at Stanford University. His main fields have been in paleontology and cretaceous research. And no, he has not entered the debate about A/climate change but writes on previous impacts of excessive CO2 on all living species and the environment and of the thermal limits for embryonic survival.

As mentioned in previous threads, I am particularly interesed in Rosalie Bertell's (PhD) writings "Planet Earth - The Latest Weapon of War" and "No Immediate Danger - Prognosis for a Radioactive Earth." Rosalie Bertell has a doctorate in biometrics and mathematics and has worked in the field of environmental health since 1969. She writes at length on human interference with the troposphere, stratosphere, ionosphere and weather manipulation. Her academic achievements and awards are too numerous to mention.

Your suggestion that I am pretending to be certain of man-made catastrophes is not a concern for me.

Man-made catastrophic events have already occurred and are on the increase - some obvious, some insidious. We have already destabilised Earth's ecosystems, causing widespread devastation in economic, social and environmental terms. And that devastation happens to be scientific. Any challenges?

Leigh I seriously challenge your statement about lefties scaring people, the conservatives have a long history of scaremongering, from Menzies with "THE YELLOW PERIL" and REDS UNDER THE BED" to Howard's scarmongering about refugees and terrorists.
Scientists are by nature a conservative bunch, so when 2500 of them say global warming is man made I am not going to dispute that.
Its a pity the rabid right ring ratbags hadn't got on to global warming first, then we might be doing something about it.
Unfortunetely the rabbits (and the rabbits in OLO) that run things can only see things in terms of left and right, political debate won't solve this problem, it doesn't matter 2 monkeys f@rts who wins the debate, actions not words will solve this problem.
Besides what is smart about waste, we could be creating clean energy, from solar, wind, geothermal, and wave, yet we are burning valuable non renewables.
Doesn't Bolt and his supporters ever think "what if we are wrong" I find their arrogance and certainity staggering.

Alanpoi "what if we are wrong" is the right question to ask.

Call those of us who want to take action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions the "pro-actives." I count myself among them.

Call those who profess to see no need for action the "in-actives."

If we pro-actives are wrong we will have wasted a lot of money. I mean really gargantuan sums. Sums that could IN RETROSPECT have been used to provide (say):

--clean drinking water to children all over the world saving literally millions of lives

--mosquito netting to everyone who needs it – Malaria still the world's biggest killer. Even those who do not die may be afflicted for life.

--Anti-retrovirals for people afflicted with HIV

And much more.

In addition we will have needlessly destroyed the livelihoods of millions of people who depend on the oil and coal industries. Many of them, especially those located in third world countries, will not be able to find other work.

The consequences of pro-actives being wrong are huge and, the name calling of people like yourself and dickie notwithstanding, THERE IS NO CERTAINTY.

Against this must be weighed the consequences of the in-actives being wrong. In that case we could have a global catastrophe.

The debate has become sterile. The in-actives like Leigh maintain, either that there is no evidence or that there is no certainty, and refuse to contemplate action. They accuse the pro-actives of bad faith and resort to name calling.

The pro-actives assert there is certainty and also resort to name calling. They are equally certain the in-actives are acting in bad faith.

The reality is simply this. We face a risk and we have to take action. The decision is hard precisely because the sums involved are huge, people's livelihoods are at stake and there is no certainty.