The real climate change catastrophe

[Alceste]

Let's take this statement of yours, "There is a broad consensus among scientists that this is what is happening." Do you know about this because you have read the consensus reports or because you have heard about them in the media?

I know it because I looked it up.

Have you studied the peer reviews of any of those reports?

Yes.

Have you compared them against any contrasting reports?

Yes.

Just curious.

Hope your curiosity is satisfied. Feel free to pop over to the Real Climate Q and A to take a dose of your own medicine.

 

[Luminous]

The Point i will make is that the earth will end anyway. and if the human species is unable to replicate and survive than it didnt deserve to. climate change is not a "hoax". its very real. it happens all the time(ice ages and such). however, some wish to slow that process by reducing pollution. that will only delay the inevitable. climate change might even be good. however pollution isnt. those who say the earth can fix the pollution we creat are mistaken, the pollution we creat can fix us(negative feedback). in anycase, we should move to recyclables, and less polution, and less destruction, etc. why there is any fight about this is beyond me.

BTW - what you are doing by questioning everything and denying the 100% truth is, though very agnostic, quite annoying. you cant prove someone else's argument is void by simple assalting them with possibilities and questions. you seam like one of those screamers that are very stubborn and confuse their lack of understanding for prove of fault. we all make up our own minds though, i guess.

 

[Falvlun]

Yet those are not political situations that have far reaching consequenses. For example, if it turned out that the sun worked differently there is no plan to change how it does work.

This basically backs up what I said in the previous post. You only distrust science when it conflicts with some personal or political belief. You trust it when it does not.

The scientific method doesn't somehow change because the data has "far reaching consequences." It's the exact same method that is used to study genetics or to develop new drugs.

Let's take this statement of yours, "There is a broad consensus among scientists that this is what is happening." Do you know about this because you have read the consensus reports or because you have heard about them in the media? Have you studied the peer reviews of any of those reports? Have you compared them against any contrasting reports?

Just curious.

Actually, it all started with report in 9th grade. The title of my paper was something along the lines of "Global Warming is a Hoax". My encounters with the subject had been mainly through the media, and because of the way the media presented the subject, it made it sound like the scientists were split 50/50, and that it was really only the tree-hugging nut-jobs that were for it. As I began researching, I found study after study supporting the idea of global warming. It was like trying to find a needle in the haystack to find a dissenting opinion. I was flabbergasted; I had thought my position to be the stronger of the two, and I found that I was hard-pressed to find a scientist on my side.

Flash-forward to college. Intro to Bio and Ecology only reinforced what I began to accept in 9th grade. I got into a couple of debates with people, and looked up the info again. Statistically, it was something overwhelming, like 90%, of studies on climate change that either implicitly or explicitly support the idea that global warming is occuring, and humans are contributing to it.

It seems the answer is pretty clear. I would say that the media, and politics, are muddling it, and making it appear a lot more controversal than it actually is.

 

[Falvlun]

Yes, but the raw original data is pretty important in relationship with the value-added data. It makes it extremely difficult, if not impossible to evaluate theoretical error deviations. There's just no raw data vs. value-added data possible.

As for the weather stations having the data, there is apparently a big issue.

"Climategate" -- Forget the Emails: What Will the Hacked Documents Tell Us? - Hit & Run : Reason Magazine

The link has some pretty damning information in reference to a man whose job it was to fix modeling programs from weather station data. The above has a link as well to the entire script of this mans struggle with fixing the program. It's actually kind of scary...

I agree, this whole thing is a cluster... Well, you know. There was a quote by Dr. Wegman that sums up my worst fears:

As analyzed in our social network," Mr. Wegman writes, "there is a tightly knit group of individuals who passionately believe in their thesis." He continues: "However, our perception is that this group has a self-reinforcing feedback mechanism and, moreover, the work has been sufficiently politicized that they can hardly reassess their public positions without losing credibility."

It's not just about global warming. This really hurts science's credibility in general.

At least the comment section was rather entertaining.

Yeah, but there is a wee difference between quality control and climate change. I wouldn't want quality control to be relying on old raw data, whereas climate change requires a much larger spectrum of information that is unchanging. More simply, if your theory requires the ability to look back thousands of years, it's best to hold on to that kind of data. Or am I wrong?

Yeah, there's certainly a difference between my lab and caliber of research being performed on climate change. I mostly wanted to point out that not every lab functions exactly alike; some raw data might be considered more pertinent to save than others. I really can't say whether it was a faux pas to throw away the raw data or not. It might have been standard operating procedure for that lab, and many labs in general.

 

[kai]

Well, for starters, it's a tabloid. Science reporting in your daily newspaper - regardless of which one, and which country - is appallingly bad. Reporters are (usually) not scientists - they're overworked hacks trying to churn out a fixed word count every day. Much of the time they simply rework propaganda pieces provided for them by free market think tanks and / or PR agencies for whatever corporation stands to profit.

For decent science coverage (for laymen) you need to look at something like New Scientist, or look at any one of the dozens of reports, studies and papers published on the web by various universities and professional organizations. (Google scholar is useful). Or look at an information website maintained by climatologists.

Anyway, I don't know where to begin, honestly. To be honest, I didn't even read Ian Pilmer's article. When you mouse over a link, the url appears in the bottom left corner. Nothing in the mainstream papers is worth reading, especially if it relates to science. And I say this after pretty extensive perusing of mainstream papers.

Anyway, Real Climate is currently the best resource on the web for laymen trying to get a decent grasp on climate change, IMO. Go to "Start Here" - there are a lot of links to other resources and a lengthy Q and A.

Great stuff i will take your advice. just in case you are curious heres a wiki article on Pilmer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Plimer .

The thing is though with mainstream papers, is a heck of a lot of people read them.

 

[Alceste]

Great stuff i will take your advice. just in case you are curious heres a wiki article on Pilmer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Plimer .

The thing is though with mainstream papers, is a heck of a lot of people read them.

Yeh - as I suspected. Free market think tank affiliations, no qualifications in climate study, and a conflict of interest in the form of owning 3 mining companies (I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest at least one of them is probably involved in coal markets).

It is a shame so many people read the papers. * sigh *. I expect that one day the intertubes will democratize the top-heavy information market under which we struggle to understand the world.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

CBC's Rex Murphy on Climategate (4 minute You Tube)

 

[Tiapan]

In a startling new book, Christopher Booker reveals how a handful of scientists, who have pushed flawed theories on global warming for decades, now threaten to take us back to the Dark Ages



The real climate change catastrophe - Telegraph

Have we ever emerged from the Dark ages? I mean we still have religion being practiced by 50%+ so I would say we are still there. As far as global warming is concerned yep I am pretty sure its substantially more uncomfortable than I remember as a kid. Is it man made - who cares. Point is do we want to do something about it?

Cheers

 

[kai]

Have we ever emerged from the Dark ages? I mean we still have religion being practiced by 50%+ so I would say we are still there. As far as global warming is concerned yep I am pretty sure its substantially more uncomfortable than I remember as a kid. Is it man made - who cares. Point is do we want to do something about it?

Cheers

I dont really feel theres a change much since i was a kid but the reason i posted the thread was:

the climate has changed over and over and over again since the dawn of time can we alter that? are we doing something that has made it change sooner can we stop the change or is it coming anyway.


and thers all this tax revenue and carbon offsetting can i pay to off set my abuse and save the world, surely it would be better for Americans to change lifestyles than not bother and just pay for changes in China ( just an example)

 

[Alceste]

I dont really feel theres a change much since i was a kid but the reason i posted the thread was:

the climate has changed over and over and over again since the dawn of time can we alter that? are we doing something that has made it change sooner can we stop the change or is it coming anyway.


and thers all this tax revenue and carbon offsetting can i pay to off set my abuse and save the world, surely it would be better for Americans to change lifestyles than not bother and just pay for changes in China ( just an example)

I actually agree that it's probably too late to have any impact on climate change by attempting to control our emissions. We are at the point (IMO) where the rapid changes to precipitation patterns will interrupt the food supply and famine will result. We SHOULD be implementing secure local food production in every geographic region and secure access to fresh water to mitigate the impact of the coming famine and possible deterioration of public services. But in order to get such initiatives rolling people need to take the threat seriously. The fact that governments are dithering over establishing a carbon trade economy and setting "targets" in this single contributing arena (CO2 emissions) that are based entirely on their re-election prospects rather than good science demonstrates nobody is taking it seriously at all.

 

[Daemon Sophic]

I actually agree that it's probably too late to have any impact on climate change by attempting to control our emissions. We are at the point (IMO) where the rapid changes to precipitation patterns will interrupt the food supply and famine will result. We SHOULD be implementing secure local food production in every geographic region and secure access to fresh water to mitigate the impact of the coming famine and possible deterioration of public services. But in order to get such initiatives rolling people need to take the threat seriously. The fact that governments are dithering over establishing a carbon trade economy and setting "targets" in this single contributing arena (CO2 emissions) that are based entirely on their re-election prospects rather than good science demonstrates nobody is taking it seriously at all.

:yes: Agreed. Some of the more recent reports indicate that the edge of the cliff may already be behind us.
Actually, on a minor scale, I have been looking where we would like to settle down in 5 - 10 years; and I take into account maps of predicted precipitation across the nation. When my little children are becoming adults, I don't want them to have to struggle in drought ridden areas, or have a handicap while competing for jobs in more water-rich areas of the country 20-30 years from now, when people really start to scramble around with water loss, interrupted food supplies, refugee movements, etc...(i.e. the plain states and southwest U.S.).
Furthermore, we intend on building an independent house, with power and water collection abilities.

P.S. - We're not gun-toting, bunker-dwelling survival nuts. Just informed professionals with children; looking 20-50 years down the road.

 

[Alceste]

:yes: Agreed. Some of the more recent reports indicate that the edge of the cliff may already be behind us.
Actually, on a minor scale, I have been looking where we would like to settle down in 5 - 10 years; and I take into account maps of predicted precipitation across the nation. When my little children are becoming adults, I don't want them to have to struggle in drought ridden areas, or have a handicap while competing for jobs in more water-rich areas of the country 20-30 years from now, when people really start to scramble around with water loss, interrupted food supplies, refugee movements, etc...(i.e. the plain states and southwest U.S.).
Furthermore, we intend on building an independent house, with power and water collection abilities.

P.S. - We're not gun-toting, bunker-dwelling survival nuts. Just informed professionals with children; looking 20-50 years down the road.

Yeah, us too. No children to think about at the moment, but we're moving to a more sparsely populated, warmer coastal area with lots of hunting / fishing / foraging opportunities, lots of fresh water and precipitation, and a fairly well established off-grid / permaculture community (and a large indigenous community) to learn a few skills from. We're both diversifying our skill sets to take advantage of any opportunities in an increasingly chaotic and competitive job market.

"Survivalism" is not just for gun-toting bunker nuts any more. Give it ten to twenty years and it's going to become very hip, IMO.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

The issue of climate change is likely to propogate armed conflict in future as a result of failure to act now.

I really would like to see some sort of data/explanation of this.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

More denial. "From what": simpleton.

Have you done any research beyond what is represented in the media on the warming issue?

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Sandy, I thought that Falvlun's point was very well made. Your pattern of response to people has been to ask rhetorical questions to imply that the scientific consensus either doesn't exist or is mistaken. But the same technique could be applied to you. Have you studied all of the climate reports that affirm global warming? Have you verified that the coral reefs remain healthy? Of course not. But that has little bearing on whether scientists are right or wrong in their consensus that global warming is real and is largely caused by human pollution of the environment.

Again, this is a hypocritical response, because you haven't done so either. You do not deny the broad consensus, but you imply it might not be there. Why would you think that? From reading articles in the British right wing tabloid press? I would rather take the US National Academy of Sciences or the IPCC as a better indication of what the consensus is. I think that they represent much more reliable sources on that subject.

And yet I have not made any determinations or charted a course of action. Unknown to you I have made more of an attempt to understand what is actually happening. My curiosity is whether anyone else here has. Have you?

Have you made any studies into the track record of man's attempts to control nature?

 

[sandy whitelinger]

I know it because I looked it up.

Ok, lets take this from your link:
"InterAcademy Council: "Current patterns of energy resources and energy usage are proving detrimental to the long-term welfare of humanity."

Where are the studies that show that, "current patterns of energy resources and energy usage are proving detrimental to the long-term welfare of humanity."

 

[sandy whitelinger]

I know it because I looked it up.

I was hoping for something a little more educational than this.

Hope your curiosity is satisfied. Feel free to pop over to the Real Climate Q and A to take a dose of your own medicine.

Ok, since you are so well versed, help me with a few questions. Take this from here:
"There is no single thermometer measuring the global temperature. Instead, individual thermometer measurements taken every day at several thousand stations over the land areas of the world are combined with thousands more measurements of sea surface temperature taken from ships moving over the oceans to produce an estimate of global average temperature every month. To obtain consistent changes over time, the main analysis is actually of anomalies (departures from the climatological mean at each site) as these are more robust to changes in data availability"

Where were these measurements taken, by whom, how, and on what kind of thermometer? Also from the beginning of the record taking to the present how many times were the measurement devices changed?

 

[Mr Spinkles]

I'm looking forward to the reporting of it from more credible news sources. But the short answer to your question of what is there to be gained: power, fame, and funding.

Which are exactly the things to be gained by disproving global warming. Einstein disproved all of classical physics. What did he get?

 

[Copernicus]

And yet I have not made any determinations or charted a course of action. Unknown to you I have made more of an attempt to understand what is actually happening. My curiosity is whether anyone else here has. Have you?

Of course I have. And I have no preconceptions about your level of ignorance. Sometimes intelligent, well-informed people hold opinions that were not arrived at intelligently, and I do not exclude myself from that generalization. You seem to have a condescending attitude that you are the only one who has really bothered to investigate these issues, but I think that everyone participating here has been concerned enough to try to educate themselves. Engaging in debate with others is part of the educational process.

Have you made any studies into the track record of man's attempts to control nature?

Like you, I read studies and reports from the perspective of a non-specialist. I don't "make studies" in climatology, because I am not a climatologist. I think it really stunning that otherwise intelligent people go to great lengths to ignore a consensus of dire warnings coming out of the professional community that does devote itself to such studies. This kind of mass myopia is hardly unprecedented in human history. The ongoing environmental debacle could form a sister volume to Barbara Tuchman's celebrated book The March of Folly, which was devoted to the incredibly willful blindness that we, as a species, bring to impending social disasters.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

I wonder what the recently hacked files - 20 years worth of e-mail exchanges and other data - of University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit (CRU) (one of the world's leading research bodies on natural and human-induced climate change, played a key role in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report), will reveal.

It will be interesting to see what happens and the files have already revealed at least one instance of dubious practice. However, mistakes, "tricks" in data reporting, and even outright fraud do happen in science. It would not be terribly surprising to find one instance of this, at one time, in 20 years of emails. It happens sometimes. What is rare is for the entire scientific consensus to fall for it and for the same conclusions to be reached by many independent lines of evidence. Not impossible, but rare.

We now know for example that a certain experiment in the early 20th century using the photoelectric effect did not, in fact, prove the wave-particle duality of light as was believed at the time.

We also know that certain experiments which were thought to prove Einstein's theory of relativity were inconclusive within the experimental error.

We know that even the testimony of Holocaust survivors can be very unreliable and the soap-making is actually a myth.

We know that certain fossil finds, like Piltdown Man, were a hoax.

Does this disprove evolution? The Holocaust? Relativity? Quantum mechanics? No. Significant, yes, and definitely worth examining and worth raising doubts and questions. But not necessarily a slum-dunk for the skeptics.
If we were to apply such a standard, by the way, then the global warming skeptics would have been completely discredited a LONG time ago due to the pattern of misrepresentation and distortion.