India's unsustainable lesson
It comes from an unexpected source: but Nasa's just-released finding that water tables in the northwest of India are falling by about 4cm (1.6in) per year is a striking microcosm of the unsustainable strain that modern societies are putting on the Earth's natural resources.
This is a region that is home to more than 100 million people.
And they're not using the water for long, languid baths or spraying it on manicured lawns; more than 90% is used simply to grow the staple crops that feed Delhi and the regions around.
More mouths to feed means a demand for higher yields, which implies irrigation - mining the water at a rate faster than nature replaces it - a process that is, by definition, unsustainable.
The Indian government's latest assessment of the environment nationwide [pdf link] - also released this week - shows that water is just one of the resources being depleted as the population expands (tripling in 50 years, according to government statistics) and the economy gathers pace.
Nearly half of the land surface is degraded in some way, air pollution in increasing, some unique species and ecosystems are threatened by development, waste from uncontrolled urbanisation is emerging as a health issue - so the litany goes on.
And climate change now threatens to exacerbate many of the existing problems - progressively eroding the Himalayan glaciers that provide water for so much of the country (for more than a billion people across South and East Asia), reducing crop yields, salinating aquifers around the coast, increasing the need for energy.
Water, energy and food security are a triple whammy of major issues for the years ahead, the government concludes.
Can technology help? In principle the storage function of disappearing glaciers could be replaced by reservoirs; agriculture's need for water could be curtailed through such approaches as laser precision ground levelling and direct dry seeding; switching to cleaner fuels (which has already happened to some extent) could purge city air of its pollutants.
But coming up in the rear - as the government report acknowledges - is the juggernaut of a growing human population.
It now stands at just over one billion and is forecast to increase to 1.6 billion by 2050, which the report describes as "hinting towards an alarming situation".
India's looming multi-faceted environmental crisis is not unique. Globally, relentlessly, too many people are chasing too few resources; and now comes research showing that after decades of decline, fertility rates in many developed countries are rising.
For the first time in 40 years, for example, French couples are having on average two children each; what this all means for the much-cherished "demographic transition" can only be guessed at.
Next week, another major report will show that India's water problems are increasingly replicated in other parts of the world - a growing global thirst, and a dwindling supply.
Nearly 40 years ago, governments, through the UN's first environment summit, acknowledged that the world was on a path of unsustainable development and vowed to do something about it.
What marks would you give them - and, indeed, the whole human species - for success?
I'm Richard Black, environment correspondent for the BBC News website. This is my take on what's happening to our shared environment as the human population grows and our use of nature's resources increases.
© MMIX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~41~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
No need to panic. I'm sure Ed Miliband's plans to tax us, criminalise climate change denial and make a pig's ear of domestic refuse collections will save the planet. Caledonian Comment
Complain about this comment
Richard Black:
"And climate change now threatens to exacerbate many of the existing problems - progressively eroding the Himalayan glaciers that provide water for so much of the country (for more than a billion people across South and East Asia), reducing crop yields, salinating aquifers around the coast, increasing the need for energy."
Complete and total rubbish. Codswallop.
This is from The Hindu, 9 August 2009
http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/holnus/008200908090931.htm
"New Delhi (PTI): Himalayan glaciers, including the world's highest battlefield Siachen, are melting due to variations in weather and not because of global warming, Jammu University scientists have claimed.
"The field studies from other glaciers in India also corroborate the fact that inter and intra-annual variations in weather parameters have more impact on the glaciers of northwest Himalayas, rather than any impact due to global warming," they said.
Geologists R K Ganjoo and M N Koul of Jammu University's Regional Centre for Field Operations and Research of Himalayan Glaciology visited the Siachen glacier to record changes in its snout last summer.
"To our surprise, the Siachen glacier valley does not preserve evidences of glaciation older than mid-Holocene, suggesting that the glacier must have advanced and retreated simultaneously several times in the geological past, resulting in complete obliteration and modification of older evidences," they said reporting their findings in 'Current Science'.
Ganjoo and Koul dubbed as "hype" some earlier studies which suggested that the Himalayan glaciers were melting fast and caused serious damage to the Himalayan ecosystem."
and from the actual peer-reviewed journal in which their study was published:
"Overwhelming field geomorphological evidences suggest poor response of the Siachen glacier to global warming. The snout of the Siachen glacier of 2008 has retreated by about 8-10 m since 1995, making an average retreat of 0.6 m/yr. The east part of the Siachen glacier shows faster withdrawal of the snout that is essentially due to ice-calving. This phenomenon holds true for almost all major glaciers (e.g. Gangotri, Durung Drung, etc.) in the Himalayas and occurs irrespective of global warming. The Siachen glacier shows hardly any retreat in its middle part and thus defies the hype."
So actual scientists actually on the ground measuring those Himalayan glaciers call the global warming threat "hype".
And yet you persistently repeat the same alarmist rubbish from London as if these reports did not exist.
India has made it abundently clear that it will not sign any treaty which limits its economic growth by controlling carbon dioxide. Furthermore a large number of mainstream scientists in India have openly challenged the global warming hysteria over carbon dioxide.
But when will you ever report it?
Complain about this comment
Am grateful for your tackling demographic issue. When people blame China for all possible ills, few admit how grateful the humankind should be to the late leader, Deng Xiaoping, for his family planning policy. India, the Muslim world, Africa and Latin America should follow this lead. This is the most essential way of resolving world crisis.
Complain about this comment
India really will be hit hard by climate change. The floods in Bangladesh will force thousands of refugee's India's way. Although this year there has been little flooding, because the rainy season has not been rainy, causing furthur drought in the reigon. India will become overcrouded, and even further demand will cause chaos for their already depleating water and power recources.
Complain about this comment
Climate change, no climate change...
Who cares??
We are 7 Billion strong and counting.
We are a cake in the oven.
The timer is sounding.
The chef is outside watering the lawn...
Complain about this comment
The NASA information shows that the excessive water use is in Punjab, Haryana and the area around Delhi where i was a volunteer forty years ago. At that time little rice was grown or consumed in this area. Now it is one of the biggest producers of basmati rice - and much of that for export, I think. And rice requires far more water than wheat.
Complain about this comment
ArthurReader, I admire your confidence that observations on a single glacier can define what's happening and will happen across such a huge region as the Himalayas - you'll be aware, of course, having read the scientific correspondence [272Kb PDF] from Drs Ganjoo and Koul, and the paper which they're criticising [419Kb PDF], from Rajeev Upadhyay, that their interpretation is contested - which makes your confidence even more impressive.
As the IPCC noted in its 2007 report [8.38Mb PDF], the picture across the Himalayas is variable, with some glaciers seen to be shrinking and others advancing. If you picked individual glaciers from every major mountain range you could construct the hypothesis that they were expanding everywhere. Perhaps it's already been done - or is that too mischievous a suggestion?
Perpetvolunteer, switching crops to something that demands less water, such as wheat, is something Dr Raj Gupta (who I quoted in the news article) discussed on the BBC World Service programme Science in Action. One of the things he mentioned was that rice is much more tolerant than wheat when fields become waterlogged, which is one of the reasons why the government has encouraged its adoption.
Complain about this comment
This was in an email I had from Nature today :
Hydrology: India running on empty - Groundwater in northwestern India is being depleted at an unsustainable rate, which could lead to severe water shortages and reduced agricultural productivity. The reduction in groundwater cannot be attributed to natural climate variability, but is probably caused by excessive consumption from irrigation and other human uses. Satellite-based estimates of groundwater depletion in India - http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature08238.html
For the first time in 40 years, for example, French couples are having on average two children each
Interesting. I wonder how the UK compares? Any more detail on the data that this figure was derived from? If so, it may help understand how, over the next decades, the French population may be stabilised at a manageable level and the country may achieve food security. Unless anything changes, of course.
Complain about this comment
7. At 6:17pm on 13 Aug 2009, Richard Black (BBC) wrote:
This comment has been referred to the moderators. Explain.
oh richard what did you say?
Complain about this comment
When a comment of mine is "referred to the Moderators" I'd like the courtesy of at least knowing why. When one of the Blog Author's comments also gets referred I'd like to know about that too. Caledonian Comment
Complain about this comment
I'm NOT a new member !
Complain about this comment
It is obvious that the next confrontation will be over water and probably in South Asia with China and India fighting over water. Of course the nay-sayers see no human hand in the creation of such crisis. Captialism, when left unregulated, only thinks about short term profit and does not concern itself with long-term impacts or social responsibility. The fact is that private business is not private. It operates in a social context and through the abdication of personal and social responsbilities profits can be increased. The general public allows private sector ventures, they are not allowed by divine right as the captialist would want people to think. Democratic institutions do not exist because of captialism, captialism exist because of democratic institutions. There is nothing wrong with the accumalation of wealth, but there is something wrong with the accumalation of wealth as a result of enviornmental destruction and creating health issues and suppression of workers to benefit industries. The wealthly West and defenders of the existing system have no personal knowledge or expereince with the majority of the world and the conditions that they support, directly or indirectly, as the pontificate on their models and economics. They never understand the hatred by others as they cover their guilt with consumption as if a newer car is just compensation for starving children drinking poisioned water as they profess freemarket nonsense that really means their right to bribe local and national officials to increase their profits on the backs of the poor. The Christian nations are anything but Christ-like and the rot of their hypocrisy is smelled by everyone but themselves. As the bankers stold retirement accounts from trusting investors, other captialist, so the present Darwin based model of captialism will continue to eat its own.
Complain about this comment
The issue of overpopulation worldwide needs to be addressed first and foremost. It's not just about having enough natural resources. We are all depleting the earth's resources by overconsumption. As these countries develop (and they have every right to do so), they are going to increase in their consumption as well. In addition, there are more bodies than jobs. How can anyone stand a chance at this rate? And how can the earth support all these people?
Complain about this comment
To IMAProgressive #13; you wrote:
"And how can the earth support all these people?"
--------------
I think it cannot, nor has it been able to for some time now. Some historians view the first truly global war as being the "Seven Years War," called the "French and Indian War" here in North America, in the mid 1700's.
While it is hard to separate out the long catalogue of human conflict into discrete cause and effect categories, it is still useful to view the time from this conflict, the Seven Years War, as the start down the path which led to the "Limits to Growth" report in the early 1970's, and which has proven substantially accurate for our purposes here.
The Peace of Westphalia in 1648 established the nation-state as the highest level of international governance. That the nation-state is still in charge is evident I think, to this day.
But there are hopeful signs in the United Nations, in the European Union, in the creation of the first permanent International Criminal Court in The Hague, in the establishment of scientific academies in many countries of the world, in developments in South America, where Evo Morales is trying to manage an 'indigenous' government, and other spheres, perhaps in space exploration, where the view in the rear-view mirror is truly of "One Earth."
We are confronting the limits of our own human nature now. While I don't expect our DNA to mutate any time soon, I have some hope that one of our inventions, "culture," is flexible enough, and capable of change quickly enough, that a new way of living may soon become in everyone's, or almost everyone's self-interest, and therefore we will adopt this new culture for the very best of reasons - necessity.
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
"Nearly 40 years ago, governments, through the UN's first environment summit, acknowledged that the world was on a path of unsustainable development and vowed to do something about it.
What marks would you give them - and, indeed, the whole human species - for success?"
10 out of 10 for talking the talk and 0 out of 10 for walking the walk !!
One of the biggest culprits of the depleting ground water are the large companies and their industrial processes that are highly water intensive !! And since Northern India is a semi-arid area, siting industries up there is supreme folly on the part of the Indian government but since when have government decisions *NOT* been based more on political expediency and less on real science ??
"He who does not learn from history is doomed to repeat its failures!!" The Harappan Civilisation, in the similar area, died out almost 4,000 years ago when the climate became drier and the area's water could not support the needed agriculture. Any bets on how long North India will survive the depletion of its ground water ??
Complain about this comment
NASA talking about water problems in India? whose the one to blame for that according to them?
why don´t they tell the Humanity the real cause of all that, and the real cause the global warming, instead of carrying on spreading lies about CO2 and human contamination?
why don´t they tell the people about the railway infrastructure they are building underground all along the United States ( iam not talking of the subway or underground or metro), and the underground bunkers, they are building, just to secure them and the primer ministers and important people, from the real problem is about to come to us related to the discovery of our other sun coming to our path, and all the problems the orbit of this sun is going to cause us for coming in the way of the Earth orbit?
why don´t they tell people the truth instead of talking more nonsenses about CO2 causing the global warming?
[Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]
if you use the google translator spanish into english, well, you will see what i try to say
thanks and dont let them carrying on with their lies
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
well, am not surprise you wont edit links, well, inconvenient liks i meant; thats okay, i understand you don´t want to let people see the truth about NASA, and permit people carrying on thinking what NASA wants us to believe... well..... you just covering up "official Lies"
starviewer in g o o g l e searching, all you need to know about the truth
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
to ArthurReader:
I think you need to be more careful in trusting anything any scientist says. Have you read the scientific paper in question or are you relying solely on the what one scientific correspondent at the HinduTimes is selectively taking out of it? In my experience what is written in a scientific journal paper and what ends up getting reported are often quite different. Beyond this, scientists say many things, and just as in any other field, there is good science and there is bad science. A PhD alone is no assurance of the former, and this is what the media often forgets. They're chasing controversial headlines, that's their business. The media will always be inclined to look for someone who says the complete opposite just to stir and stimulate readership. There are many scientists who dispute anthropogenic global warming altogether, regardless of specific cause (CO2 emssions, rerouting water to drier areas enhancing evaporation etc), but there are more that acknowledge it. I happen to agree with the latter, but that's neither here nor there in this discussion.
If you're really interested in weighing up whether a scientist/journal paper/journal is well-regarded by the scientific community, you can go to the ISI Web of Knowledge and check their impact factors, essentially a gauge of how much they've been cited by others who agree not just with their opinion, but more importantly the methodology they used in coming to a given conclusion.
I can highly recommend reading the book 'Bad Science', it talks very much about these issues with regard to other controversial and media-hyped issues such as the MMR vaccination drama in the UK, nutritionists and (my favourite) homeopaths.
I'm not saying these guys in India are wrong, but don't jump on their band wagon too easily while chastising others for doing the same with regard to global warming.
Complain about this comment
"Pine Island glacier has been the subject of an intense research effort in recent years amid fears that its collapse could lead to a rapid disintegration of the West Antarctic ice sheet."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8200680.stm
---------------
Many blogs ago, in a land far far away, we used to talk about the melting of glaciers, and the "GRACE" satellites, which have measured the loss of ice mass in both the Greenland Ice Sheet and in our last remaining maritime Ice Sheet - the West Antarctic.
The news, as typified by this latest article, is of the same genre that I have come to recognize and dread - the pace of change is habitually faster and worse than initial predictions. This is a pattern, and pattern recognition of the highest calibre is a defining attribute of homo sapiens sapiens.
There is news from my country, Canada, and it is not good.
The Sockeye salmon run in the Fraser River of British Columbia, Canada, has collapsed. The 2005 smolts were both numerous and healthy. They were expected to return this year in large numbers - approximately 11 million. Instead, less than two million. A collapse, a catastrophe, pick your adjective.
The smolts picked up sea lice, and perhaps other pathogens, from the fish farms in the vicinity of their exit route from the spawning grounds. At present, the science is problematic. But anecdotal evidence suggests fish farms are involved in this collapse. Why eat wild salmon, among the healthiest food in the world, when you can ingest artificially colored and packaged farmed fare - an industrial product.
Acid rain is affecting Saskatchewan's forest soils and lakes downwind of the big upgraders in the oil sands region of Alberta - Fort McMurray and environs, and downriver of these same oil sands projects, in the Northwest Territories region, other environmental effects are under investigation.
California is experiencing the mining of water every bit as severe as the present article's depiction of part of India. California is a desert in its natural state, and it is presently in an unnatural state, and feeds untold millions. California's food will get more expensive at first, and is doing so now, and then it too may collapse.
The current round of climate talks appear to be just that - all talk. The denial crowd will be dancing, like the crowd that watched the burning of witches in Salem, Massachusetts, not so very long ago.
I suggest we all start thinking about that new world culture I mentioned in a previous post. Less is more, poorer is richer, and try climbing a mountain, preferably solo, at least a few times.
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
Richard Black:
We can see why your comment was held back, as its very nearly unreadable. But be that as it may, let's have a look at what you were trying to say.
"I admire your confidence that observations on a single glacier can define what's happening and will happen across such a huge region as the Himalayas... you'll be aware, of course, having read the [Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]scientific correspondence from Drs Ganjoo and Koul, and the [Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]paper which they're criticising, from Rajeev Upadhyay, that their interpretation is contested - which makes your confidence even more impressive."
Really? Of course there is back and forth over the issue of Himalayan glaciers - that's the nature of science.
But the nature of your reporting is solidly with reporting alarmism as fact WITHOUT mentioning that the issue is contested and that many scientists in the field actually measuring the Himalayan glaciers report that the variation is localized and nothing to do with "global warming".
Your reporting gave no hint at all that the issue was contentious and furthermore you gave NO citation at all for your claim.
"As [Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]the IPCC noted in its 2007 report, the picture across the Himalayas is variable, with some glaciers seen to be shrinking and others advancing. If you picked individual glaciers from every major mountain range you could construct the hypothesis that they were expanding everywhere. Perhaps it's already been done - or is that too mischievous a suggestion?"
Ah now you're accusing me of cherrypicking when it is you found redhanded making sweeping statements that you cannot back up. The report wasn't about a single glacier in particular but a whole section of them where actual on-the-ground observations showed wide variability in glacier length over the last few thousand years.
I do not accept that the IPCC 2007 is authoritative on the subject. There were precisely no experts on the subject of Himalayan glaciers who wrote that report.
Here's another scientific report from an Indian scientist reporting on Himalayan glaciers: http://www.ias.ac.in/currsci/mar102009/703.pdf
"Glaciers and small ice caps in temperate environments
are sensitive indicators of the change in climate.
Mountain glaciers provide a valuable tool for reconstruction
of Holocene climate changes. The present
work, thus, deals mainly with climatic change and its
impact on the Himalayan glaciers based on the dating
of lichens, developed on loops of moraines formed due
to various stages of advance and retreat of the glacier.
Here it has been shown that the date of the largest
lichen on the loop of moraine that indicates the position
of maximum advance of the glacier is 258 years. It
shows the period when the Chorabari glacier started
receding from the point of its maximum advancement
in this part of the Himalaya. Earlier work in the Dokriani
Bamak (glacier) has shown that the period of retreat
in the respective part of the Himalaya is around
314 years. Research on various glaciers of the northern
and southern hemisphere has shown that most of
them started their retreat in the mid-eighteenth century,
thereby indicating the end of the Little Ice Age
maximum."
So another study shows the evidence of the glaciers beginning their long and variable retreat more than 150 years before carbon dioxide levels began to rise, right at the end of the solar Maunder Minimum. Coincidence? There's a lot of it about.
Of course this accusation of cherrypicking single reports doesn't stop you from cherrypicking Michael Mann's latest Hockey Stick of hurricane frequency despite nobody being able to see the data, the method being entirely undescribed and relying on other papers written by Mann that haven't been published. Yet you report the study as fact without any qualification at all.
Your confidence in making dramatic sweeping statements about Himalayan glaciers and climate change is misplaced. Perhaps you or someone from the BBC should re-edit your article to make clear how much of the science is simply not settled at all, but remains clearly in dispute by the very scientists who know most about them.
Or is that "too mischievous a suggestion"?
Complain about this comment
Richard Black
There's an article by your colleague David Shukman today examining the melting of a single glacier in Antarctica. I'm sure you are going to extend your criticism of drawing conclusions from isolated datasets to your colleague too.
Complain about this comment
Thanks for mentioning the 'elephant in the room' - population.
Even if climate remained utterly stable (and it never has done that) then exponential growth in population will eventually deplete the water resource. People do need to mention this issue.
China has demonstrated that the issue can be addressed, though there is always a price to be paid in freedom - right to a private and family life.
Birth rates rising in some 'western' countries? Again people need to mention the sensitive issues. It is not indigenous populations who are doing this. The UK has several million new residents (no one knows how many) and usurprisingly the new residents have brought their social and family customs with them - including high birth rates. In some areas midwifery services are at near collapse due to workloads and ten minutes in any of the services would leave you in no doubt as to who the new mothers are, it is highly visible.
(This is not an attempt to open the imigration debate. Just lets acknowledge the issues)
Complain about this comment
Good article highlighting an other threat to food security -- essentially what most future wars will probably be about. One slight correction: Punjabis actually consume very little rice and eat more chappatis (made from wheat) There is simply more profit to be made from rice as most of the rest of India eats it as well as a lucrative export market for the basmati variety.
Complain about this comment
To #23, BishopHill:
I would think the quality of both the dataset and the interpretation were of the utmost impotance.
Perhaps you are ignorant of the volume and quality of work which has and is being done on the West Antarctic Ice Sheet and its tributary glaciers?
It's only a wikipedia away, and then there are the scientific journals. You can profitably go back about forty years with those. Then there's paleoclimatology - you can go back several glacial/interglacial cycles in the Antarctic with ice-cores and other means of investigating paleoclimate.
How much easier it is to lob a little obfuscation and innuendo.
You don't live close to sea level by chance? But then, even if you did, before the water rises around your ankles you'll be dead and gone, so who really cares anyway?
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
Sometimes this page is a group of individuals, inside a burning house, arguing about what caused the fire.
Complain about this comment
Many summits
I'm not sure what you are getting at. I pointed out to Richard that his criticism of one of his commenters should be extended to his colleague David Shukman. What's sauce for the goose and so on. If Richard chooses not to criticise David Shukman too we can conclude that his criticism of his commenter was partisan rather than scientific. That's all.
Complain about this comment
No, on both counts. The 'commenter' deserved to be criticised, and David Shukman deserves to be praised for an insightful article of high quality. Why in the world do you conclude that a high quality article deserves the same treatment as a low quality comment? Your argument is internally inconsistent and illogical.
If I am a little short on patience and good will just now, it's because I believe our house is burning down, but there's nowhere to run. We are going to have to put out the fire from the inside.
Don't despair. Committment and necessity are wonderfully effective.
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
BishopHill #23: "the melting of a single glacier in Antarctica ... isolated datasets..." and #28...
You criticise...
Antarctic glacier 'thinning fast'
...on the basis that it is an isolated dataset.
I'd hardly call...
"One of the largest glaciers in Antarctica..."
...an isolated data set. Would you?
/davblo2
Complain about this comment
#30 cont'd
Here it is...
"Pine Island Glacier (PIG) is a large ice stream flowing west-northwest along the south side of the Hudson Mountains into Pine Island Bay, Amundsen Sea, Antarctica. ... The area drained by Pine Island Glacier comprises about 10% of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet."
"The Pine Island and Thwaites Glaciers are two of Antarctica's five largest ice streams."
Just an isolated data set...??
/davblo2
Complain about this comment
How fascinating that a comment which clearly cited its scientific sources is a "low quality comment" whereas a sweeping statement from Richard Black that is demonstrably false is not.
And with regard to the Pine Island Glacier :
"'The signature from those [satellite] observations is pretty clear: that the changes are largest at the perimeter of the ice sheet and decrease in magnitude as you go inland,' he explained. 'That says to us that the trigger, the driver of these changes, is the ocean.'"
Still its probably a "low quality comment" to point out that the scientists actually observing changes to the glacier do not ascribe them to greenhouse gases.
Or maybe it's "another isolated datapoint"
Or maybe you ignore any and all evidence that does not feed your alarmist view of the world, like the rest of my comment because it must be wrong.
Complain about this comment
ArthurReader #32: "And with regard to the Pine Island Glacier ..."
The report you refer to is dated November 22, 2007.
The BBC report referred to "The work by British scientists appears in Geophysical Research Letters.T he team was led by Professor Duncan Wingham of University College London (UCL)."
Did you check whether that was a more recent report? I expect it was.
New reports generally supersede old ones.
/davblo2
Complain about this comment
Some news; as usual, some good, some bad...
"This week we have created a granite shield against bottom trawling in a fragile and ecologically important marine area in Sweden."
"A key lobbying group will bankroll and organise 20 ''energy citizen'' rallies in 20 states. In an email obtained by Greenpeace, Jack Gerard, the president of the American Petroleum Institute (API), outlined what he called a 'sensitive' plan to stage events during the August congressional recess to put a 'human face' on opposition to climate and energy reform"
/davblo2
Complain about this comment
To ArthurReader #32:
I've lost patience with the denial crowd, for a variety of reasons.
If you are at all interested in understanding what is going on with global warming, and you do some serious looking, you will find that the oceans are the great repository of both CO2 and especially of 'heat' from a forcing mechanism, such as an increase in insolation or an increase from increased CO2. It follows one to two that rising sea levels and a warmer ocean will increasingly affect the margins of glaciers emptying into the sea.
Unfortunately the subject of global warming and its positive and negative feedback loops is a difficult one, which is why we have specialists studying these matters.
As the consequences of global warming are so severe, and we have known this in a big way now (the scientific community) for some thirty years, some of the finest and most dedicated scientists in the world are locked on to this subject through their various disciplines.
What I find truly incredible amongst the 'lay' public is the stupefying arrogance of what I refer to as the denial crowd.
Do you really have cause to believe that something you read in your local tabloid, or on some dedicated denialist website, or some cock and bull theory you devise over a few beers with the boys is in any way a match for the world scientific community, which has reached concensus, and whose concensus has regularly proved to be on the conservative side, on an issue of such consequence to everyone on the planet?
Get real ArthurReader, so that you can be a part of the solution.
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
To davblo2, et al:
I am reading the timeless classic "Don Quixote," finding the need at present for inspiration in the dark and troubled times which have always afflicted mankind.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_quixote
-----------
Consider the beginning of this story:
At ~ fifty years of age, a man goes 'mad' and sallies forth as a self-proclaimed 'knight errant,' disdaining 'courtier knights,' and impelled to this quest after a lifetime of living and reading. Having tasted of the fruit of knowledge, he boldly sets forth to right the wrongs of the world.
In short, the heroes' quest.
Curiously, very curiously, one of the books which has helped drive him mad is "The Exploits of Esplandian," legitimate son of the prototypical knight Amadis.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garci_Rodr%C3%ADguez_de_Montalvo
In my adventures in Baja California, I came across the the "Exploits of Esplandian" as a consequence of investigations into the origin of the name California. But I was unaware of this connection with Don Quixote.
My first night in Baja California, which is the original California, was at the "Padre Kino" campsite, high in the mountains of northern Baja. This campsite was named after the famed and revered 'knight errant' Padre Kino, of the Jesuit persuasion of knights, whose story and connection to the Apaches, after whom I am raising our son, continues to fascinate. And so it goes... To Loyola, founder of the Jesuits, an actual knight before a revelation... to 'baptized pagans' on the present day streets of my home province Quebec, to two ten year old boys sleeping by a garbage can in Iqualuit, in Nunavut, where the suicide rate amongst boys aged fifteen to nineteen is some forty times higher than in the rest of Canada. [front page of "The Globe and Mail" today].
- Manysummits, on a Saturday morning in Calgary -
Complain about this comment
Addendum to post #36:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/life-on-the-mean-streets-of-iqaluit/article1253119/
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
Yes...
El Ingenioso Hidalgo Don Quijote de la Mancha
The "Conclusion"...
"The cruel practical jokes eventually lead Don Quixote to a great melancholy. The novel ends with Don Quixote regaining his full sanity, and renouncing all chivalry. But, the melancholy remains, and grows worse. Sancho tries to restore his quixotic faith, but his attempt to resurrect Alonso's quixotic alter-ego fails, and Alonso Quixano dies: sane and broken."
The problem with "Sanity".
On which note...Sanity
A theory of sanity
"...proposed by Alfred Korzybski in his general semantics. He believed that sanity was tied to the structural fit or lack of it between our reactions to the world and what is actually going on in the world."
...and...
The Sane Society
"...psychologist Erich Fromm proposed that, not just individuals, but entire societies 'may be lacking in sanity'"
"The fact that millions of people share the same vices does not make these vices virtues, the fact that they share so many errors does not make the errors to be truths, and the fact that millions of people share the same form of mental pathology does not make these people sane".
Just as I thought...
/davblo2
Complain about this comment
Mark Twain wrote about his travels to the left coast:
"In California, whiskey is for drinking and water is for waring."
Complain about this comment
To davblo2:
I am trying to avoid the fate of the Man from La Mancha, and closer to home, of Tenzing of Everest. Truly one must come to grips with reality, but as the psychologists have pointed out, reality is not a simple thing to define.
I think I am succeeding, my son and wife see to that.
As I age, the pace of learning accelerates, but the conclusions narrow.
As of this writing, Antoine de Saint-Exupery comes close to this mark in his "Wind, Sand and Stars":
"To be a man is, presisely, to be responsible."
Since being simply a man is my highest aspiration, I seek to be responsible. Responsible is another term that lacks precision, as one would expect in the complexity that is the human being.
The Vedic and Greek "duties towards self", and the Yurok qualification that this often entails giving your best to someone in need comes close to what I believe. How true this is for others is necessarily a speculative venture, but I rather think that we are at heart all more or less very similar, with caveats of course.
I agree entirely that whole societies, which are cultural inventions, may be in some sense defective, or pathological, or insane. I think we live in such a culture, and have been conditioned to it for a very very long time. Hence the problem. The overturning of such a culture would itself be expected to be cataclysmic, without even considering the reasons for the overturn.
I blog because it feels good, it's no more complicated than that. I enjoy the kindred spirits I have met here in the blogosphere, and put up with the rest.
Cloudrunner wants me to join him for some fresh pineapple, so I shall sign off for now, wishing you and yours a fine weekend.
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
Davblo2!
It would seem that returning to sanity is unhealthy, if that is indeed the lesson? Perhaps I should return to the mountains, before I become too sane??
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
manysummits #40: "my son and wife see to that" & "wishing you and yours a fine weekend."
Likewise...
All the best; davblo2
Complain about this comment
Just got a few mins between "honey-dues".
davblo2:
Thanks for explaining the meaning.
rpm1960: #39 quotes Mark Twain and reminded me of another quote that seems to fit in with the current thread.
“When we remember that we are all mad, the mysteries disappear and life stands explained.” Mark Twain
Honey is cracking the whip. Dues are due.
Have agreat weekend.
Complain about this comment
Manysummits #35
I can understand your frustration when you say:
“I've lost patience with the denial crowd, for a variety of reasons”.
However, I think you’re losing the plot when you say:
"What I find truly incredible amongst the 'lay' public is the stupefying arrogance of what I refer to as the denial crowd".
With what authority do you make such a statement?
Where do you place yourself if anybody who disagrees with you is “lay”?
I do not like your inferences.
I do respect your opinions’ and enjoy reading your comments but not this one. It's a bit off.
Tim
Complain about this comment
timjenvey #44: "Where do you place yourself if anybody who disagrees with you is 'lay'".
We are all "laymen" in the field of climate science.
"To put something in layman’s terms is to describe a complex or technical issue using words and terms that the average individual (someone without professional training in the subject area) can understand, so that they may comprehend the issue to some degree."
The "stupefying arrogance" comes from those lay people who not only fail to "comprehend the issue to some degree", but obstinately ridicule those experts who make the effort to "describe a complex or technical issue using words and terms that the average individual ... can understand".
All the best; davblo2
Complain about this comment
I expect timjenvey knows this one well; but since it's the weekend...
At the Management Consultant's Finance Committee
All the best; davblo2
Complain about this comment
To timjenvey #44:
'Davblo2' has summarized the 'lay' part in a most excellent manner. We are all 'laymen' in climate science, save the professionals.
I do therefore place myself a 'lay' person, minus the 'stupefying arrogance' of the denial crowd. The authority I claim is an ancient one - that of the responsible man.
You, and others, dismiss the considered findings of the largest group of specialists in climate science on the planet, convened under the auspices of the United Nations, in defiance of the self-serving nation-state politicians who want nothing more than to burn yet more coal, and search for oil and gas in yet more remote and pristine locals, and all because you lack the courage to adapt to change and to place your faith in your fellow man.
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
Davblo2 and Manysummits #45,47
I agree, but what do you call these folks:
"More Than 700 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims". See here:
http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=10fe77b0-802a-23ad-4df1-fc38ed4f85e3
If you left out the word 'lay' it would have made sense.
Complain about this comment
To timjenvey:
I think your side is well-funded and is gathering strength.
I think the battle lines are being drawn.
I think empirical evidence will win the day, for example the latest report on the Pine Island Glacier in West Antarctica.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8200680.stm
-------------
You, a long time dissenter, will no doubt recall the in depth discussions many blogs ago on the West Antarctic Glacier. I believe I characterized this Maritime Glacier at that time as our "Achilles Heel."
And now, only one season has advanced, and here is this report:
------------
"A study of satellite measurements of Pine Island glacier in west Antarctica reveals the surface of the ice is now dropping at a rate of up to 16m a year.
Since 1994, the glacier has lowered by as much as 90m, which has serious implications for sea-level rise.
The work by British scientists appears in Geophysical Research Letters.
The team was led by Professor Duncan Wingham of University College London (UCL).
( "We've known that it's been out of balance for some time, but nothing in the natural world is lost at an accelerating exponential rate like this glacier.")
Andrew Shepherd, Leeds University)
Calculations based on the rate of melting 15 years ago had suggested the glacier would last for 600 years. But the new data points to a lifespan for the vast ice stream of only another 100 years."
----------------
So the public will be confronted with a choice. Luckily, we are well used to this confrontational way of deciding elections and legal verdicts.
Unluckily, by the time we decide who is right and who is wrong, it may be too late for effective action.
I think you are firmly entrenched on your side of the line, and I on the other.
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
davblo2 #46
Thanks for the link on Financial Consultants (aka Hitch Hikers Guide to the Galaxy). I'm always in awe of this book as it's always fresh and so perceptive. Quite humbling really. The last sentence:
--"You're all mad," explained Ford Prefect.--
Links with my previous post:
“When we remember that we are all mad, the mysteries disappear and life stands explained.” Mark Twain
Thanks again and enjoy the rest of your weekend.
Complain about this comment
To timjenvey et al:
I withdraw my remark on "stupefying arrogance."
This might apply in individual circumstance, but is too blanket a statement, and obviously there are many scientists against the concept of AGW.
I should have remembered the debates on 'continental drift' in the sixties and the debate on the 'impact hypothesis' for the terminal event at the end of the Cretaceous in the eighties. In both cases reputable scientists were vehemently aligned on both sides of the argument.
In those two cases it was not a matter of life and death for extant lifeforms, whereas the current argument is literally such a matter.
My apologies to those I may have offended.
I shall try and restrain my impulsive nature.
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
Manysummits #51
You’re a gentlemen sir.
OT you mention "continental drift". I took a deep (a relative term you understand) dive into this many years ago. There were one or two labeled crack pots at the time that were arguing that "drift" was not how it happened. It was more like a cataclysmic breakup of the earth’s crust and happened over the time scale of days and weeks. The whole earth was restructured and our atmosphere/climate totally changed. It appealed to me and now you have reawakened my interest.
Keep on blogging.
Tim
Complain about this comment
@manysummits #49
Hi! Long time, no speak!
I think empirical evidence will win the day, for example the latest report on the Pine Island Glacier in West Antarctica.
I'm sorry to keep repeating this comment, but this is not evidence of AGW. It is evidence that a glacier is melting, but ascribing the melt to AGW is merely conjecture.
Complain about this comment
To "Many Summits"
"I've lost patience with the denial crowd, for a variety of reasons.
If you are at all interested in understanding what is going on with global warming, and you do some serious looking, you will find that the oceans are the great repository of both CO2 and especially of 'heat' from a forcing mechanism, such as an increase in insolation or an increase from increased CO2. It follows one to two that rising sea levels and a warmer ocean will increasingly affect the margins of glaciers emptying into the sea."
I've lost patience with the alamrist crowd, since they accept reports published without even a scintilla of checking or replication and then blame us for not being so gullible. CO2 is not a driver of climate and never has been - the ice cores are unmabiguous on that point. The current level of CO2 is very low in comparison with most of the history of planet Earth, during which the Earth has been both cooler and warmer.
You ignore any and all facts which demolish your prior belief in catastrophe. You deny all reports of perfectly qualified scientists on the basis of any accusation of collusion with a supposed conspiracy underpinned by fossil fuel companies ignoring the fact that all of those fossil fuel companies have been boosting the environmental alarm button for quite some time including Exxon Mobil.
You deny basic science and basic mathematics glibly accepting impossible "positive feedbacks" and "tipping points" that don't exist except in the fantasy world of climate modelling.
You deny multiple and overwhelming lines of evidence showing that the natural climate varies enormously on all timescales and then claim that others are "climate change deniers" when it is you that has swallowed the lie of a natural stable climate.
There are many, many scientists who are beginning to make their voice heard on the global warming panic and their number is growing faster even that Al Gore's girth.
Complain about this comment
IMAProgressive [sic]:
"The issue of overpopulation worldwide needs to be addressed first and foremost. It's not just about having enough natural resources. We are all depleting the earth's resources by overconsumption. As these countries develop (and they have every right to do so), they are going to increase in their consumption as well. In addition, there are more bodies than jobs. How can anyone stand a chance at this rate? And how can the earth support all these people?"
Quite. So when are you going to follow the conclusion of your beliefs and actually top yourself for the good of the planet? Why should other people have to suffer your pollution?
This Malthusian (after Thomas Malthus) baying that the Earth's resources are being outstripped and that more and more people are going hungry is at complete variance with the facts of history, that more people are being fed than ever before despite the growth of population (which is slowing down any way). The wretched Paul Erlich has been pulling this stunt for years predicting mass famine, pandemic, war and everything else since the 1960s that never happened.
But never mind - we'll have another poster mentioning the "Elephant in the Room" without the guts to take personal responsibility for it. You first.
Complain about this comment
ArthurReader #55: "Quite. So when are you going to follow the conclusion of your beliefs and actually top yourself for the good of the planet? Why should other people have to suffer your pollution?"
Just to say that you will not be taken seriously (by me at least) if you write comments like that.
/davblo2
Complain about this comment
"Just to say that you will not be taken seriously (by me at least) if you write comments like that."
You didn't need an excuse for your beliefs before that statement and I have no interest in changing what is fixed in your mind. You're not interested in facts which call into question your distorted worldview.
People have been talking about the "problem" of overpopulation ever since Malthus and as far as I can tell its the pretext to inhuman policies controlling reproduction and the right to life. As far as I can tell every time someone talks about "the elephant in the room" they are completely ready to exclude themselves, their immediate families and their friends from this dire circumstance. So its other people who must suffer for their beliefs which bear no resemblance to the real world. Maybe its just black and brown people, who knows?
You doubt this? Have a look at the belief system of Paul Erlich and Obama's current "climate czar" John Holdren at this link and we'll who remains impressed about reports of "the Elephant in the Room" and the motivations of people who wax eloquent about such things without ever realizing where it takes us all.
Complain about this comment
ArthurReader #57: "You're not interested in facts"
That is rather presumptuous of you. My life is full of facts. What make you think I am not interested in them?
Re: "Have a look at the belief system of Paul Erlich and Obama's current 'climate czar' John Holdren"
I had a quick look at the article you linked to, and it seems to be taking things well out of context. The report they take extracts from appears to be discussing all sorts of possibilities in order to classify them and rate their effectiveness, desirability, acceptability etc in the event that such measures should be come necessary. How else would you expect to make decisions if you don't discuss all possibilities openly?
Re: "...completely ready to exclude themselves, their immediate families and their friends from this dire circumstance"
What is so dire about having a population growth at or around zero by having on average of about two children per family? That has already been the case in parts of Europe of late. We have already accepted this. What do you think we are excluding ourselves from?
What is you solution to exponential growth on a finite planet?
/davblo2
Complain about this comment
#58 continued (Re:ArthurReader #57)
I think this explanation from the Ehrlichs sums up the facts better than the ridiculous headline on the link you posted...
"The White House also passed along a statement from the Ehrlichs that said, in part, 'anybody who actually wants to know what we and/or Professor Holdren believe and recommend about these matters would presumably read some of the dozens of publications that we and he separately have produced in more recent times, rather than going back a third of a century to find some formulations in an encyclopedic textbook where description can be misrepresented as endorsement'."
The fact that you rated that headline as relevant makes me wonder how much you actually look into and think about these things.
/davblo2
Complain about this comment
ArthurReader at #57, wrote: Have a look at the belief system of Paul Erlich and Obama's current "climate czar" John Holdren.
Okay, I did. And I found that John Holdren expresses a complex, coherent and nuanced view clearly in his address to the AAAS on "Science and Technology for Sustainable Well-Being" (see, Science 25 January 2008, Vol. 319. no. 5862, pp. 424 - 434).
Here he said, for example:
"Human well-being rests on a foundation of three pillars, the preservation and enhancement of all three of which constitute the core responsibilities of society:
•Economic conditions and processes, such as production, employment, income, wealth, markets, trade, and the technologies that facilitate all of these;
•Sociopolitical conditions and processes, such as national and personal security, liberty, justice, the rule of law, education, health care, the pursuit of science and the arts, and other aspects of civil society and culture; and
•Environmental conditions and processes, including our planet's air, water, soils, mineral resources, biota, and climate, and all of the natural and anthropogenic processes that affect them.
Arguments about which of the three pillars is "most important" are pointless, in part because each of the three is indispensable: Just as a three-legged stool falls down if any leg fails, so is human well-being dependent on the integrity of all three pillars."
He went on to say:
"Persistent shortfalls in the pursuit of sustainable well-being are evident across a range of dimensions of the human condition, including:
•Poverty, afflicting not only the 2.5 billion people in the poorest countries who live on less than the equivalent of $2 per day, but also hundreds of millions in addition who have much more but still cannot afford many of the ingredients of a decent existence in the more prosperous settings in which they live;
•Preventable disease, which keeps infant and child mortality high and life expectancy low, especially in Africa but among the very poor everywhere;
•Impoverishment of the environment, meaning progressive erosion of the environmental underpinnings of well-being in the qualities of air, water, soil, biota, and climate;
•Pervasiveness of organized violence, manifested in the well over 100 instances of armed conflict since World War II (nearly all of them in the South, with a total loss of life in the tens of millions), as well as in the global rise of terrorism;
•Oppression of human rights in other ways (for the preceding items are also forms of such oppression), denying human beings their dignity, their liberty, their personal security, and their possibilities for shaping their own destinies; and
•Wastage of human potential, resulting from all of the foregoing and the despair and apathy that accompany them, from shortfalls in education, and from the loss of cultural diversity."
He went on to list an "array of driving forces and aggravating factors", the fourth (out of five) of which was "Continuing population growth, which, while not the sole cause of any of the shortfalls listed, makes the remedy of all of them more difficult".
I would consider his thoughts as useful 'food for thought', rather than something to be dismissed out of hand.
Complain about this comment
That's what I like to see. Real denialism in action. What value is evidence when your opponent can screw his eyes up tight, stuff fingers into ears and shout "Walla Walla Walla, I can't hear you!"
"I had a quick look at the article you linked to, and it seems to be taking things well out of context. The report they take extracts from appears to be discussing all sorts of possibilities in order to classify them and rate their effectiveness, desirability, acceptability etc in the event that such measures should be come necessary. How else would you expect to make decisions if you don't discuss all possibilities openly?"
Yes, you had a "quick" look. About 5 seconds. Finding entire pages of the book in its context, you decide that the best form of argument is to appeal to ignorance, to the parts of the book you can't see.
"What is so dire about having a population growth at or around zero by having on average of about two children per family? That has already been the case in parts of Europe of late. We have already accepted this. What do you think we are excluding ourselves from?"
And that rate has been falling without the coercion and loss of human rights that Erlich and Holdren were advocating. So which population growth could people be referring to as "the elephant in the room". Could it involve people with non-white skin in the 3rd World? You betcha.
"What is you solution to exponential growth on a finite planet?"
The answer is that exponential growth is not happening. If it did then it could only last a short while before barriers to nutrition and growth stopped. But this isn't about the exponential growth of bacteria. This is about human beings and the question of who gets to live and who gets to die. Playing God, in other words.
The latest estimates from the UN show that the world population may peak at 9 billion before declining towards the end of the century and that despite population growth, more people are being fed than ever before.
So the exponential growth myth is just that, a persistent alarmist myth taken from a simplistic model of bacterial growth and applied to human beings.
"The White House also passed along a statement from the Ehrlichs that said, in part, 'anybody who actually wants to know what we and/or Professor Holdren believe and recommend about these matters would presumably read some of the dozens of publications that we and he separately have produced in more recent times, rather than going back a third of a century to find some formulations in an encyclopedic textbook where description can be misrepresented as endorsement'."
No of course not. In point of fact neither Elrich nor Holdren have ever retracted what they said, because its transparently obvious that a) they did say it b) they meant it and c) none of their dire predictions for future growth or famine or pestilence ever came to pass.
Does Erlich still predict the end of the world? Yes, he still does.
"Q In The Population Bomb, you describe a rather stark future for the planet – with too many people, dwindling resources, massive starvation, and environmental calamity. You wrote that hundreds of millions might die from starvation by the mid-1970s. Looking back on that prediction and others, how to you think the book holds up after 40 years?
A Frankly, the book was too optimistic. In many ways, the situation is far worse today than I could have imagined when I wrote The Population Bomb. We did not predict the massive loss of tropical rainforests. We thought climate change would affect us much later in the century. We had not yet dumped massive amounts of hormone disrupting toxins into the environment. The seas have been exhausted much earlier than anyone had thought. Some ten million people die from hunger and hunger-related disease every year."
....
"Q You have a new book out, The Dominant Animal. In it, you revisit a number of the issues you raised in The Population Bomb. What is the central message of The Dominant Animal?
A It means that we, as the dominant animal, have so altered the environment and so damaged our life-support systems, that the stresses on the living world are similar to those produced by a meteor strike in many ways. We may be facing the same kind of massive extinctions and changes in climate that the Earth saw when dinosaurs were wiped out by an extra-terrestrial body."
Not exactly apologising for being flat out wrong is he? Not exactly holding back on claiming the world is about to end. The same Erlich forty years on.
Does John Holdren repudiate his previous strong support for the eugenicist Harrison Brown? We don't know because he hasn't been challenged about it. But these inconvenient truths will, I guarantee, pass you by.
So you "quickly" scanned clear damning evidence that Erlich and Holdren have supported the most draconian totalitarian measures to control what they saw as unstoppable (3rd world) population growth - and its my fault for pointing it out.
By the way, the 1960's called. They want their idiotic scares back.
Complain about this comment
To CuckooToo #53:
Hello! Yes, a while. Disregarding the ultimate cause for a moment, that Pine Island glacier and the Peterson in Greenland are worrisome, don't you think? I don't know if you have watched the video on the link to the aforementioned, but it is quite impressive. The author of the article was apparently up there four or five years ago (Antarctica), and it's good to see that continuity and long term interest.
-------------
To timjenvey #52: 'No Problemo,' as your Governor would say.
-------------
To ArthurReader: It's hard to restrain myself in your case. Virtually every point you make I disagree with, and you are presumptive to the point of arrogance.
But this is the blogosphere, Hyde Park Twenty-First Century - so fire away!
Here's one of your gems:
"The wretched Paul Erlich has been pulling this stunt for years predicting mass famine, pandemic, war and everything else since the 1960s that never happened." (ArthurReader #55)
A personal Attack on Paul Ehrlich, as well as your ability to deny what is already taking place. There is already mass starvation. pandemic, war, and a lot besides. Do you not read the papers? Or did you forget the casualty rate from war since the end of World War Two?
I have before me as I write this, the hardcover first edition of:
"The Cold and the Dark", 1984, (The World After Nuclear War), coauthored by Paul Ehrlich, Carl Sagan, Donald Kennedy and Walter Orr Roberts, with forward by Lewis Thomas, from which I quote, verbatim:
"The scientific discoveries described in this book may turn out, in a world lucky enough to continue its history, to have been the most important research findings in the long history of science."
--------------
Posted below is a link to the man you have defamed publicly:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_R._Ehrlich
I would point out the 'Award' list in particular, to those unfamiliar with the work of this man.
Here is a link to Lewis Thomas, whose 'Foreward' remarks I quoted verbatim:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewis_Thomas
Presumably you are familiar with Carl Sagan, also a proponent of AGW.
We are all awaiting, with bated breath, your next defamatory remarks.
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
simon-swede #60: "I would consider his thoughts as useful 'food for thought', rather than something to be dismissed out of hand."
Thank you simon-swede; I second that.
/davblo2
Complain about this comment
ArthurReader #61: "That's what I like to see. Real denialism in action. What value is evidence when your opponent can screw his eyes up tight, stuff fingers into ears and shout 'Walla Walla Walla, I can't hear you!'."
That's enough. As manysummits said in #62: "Virtually every point you make I disagree with, and you are presumptive to the point of arrogance"
You could have replied simply, as to whether you agreed with what the Ehrlichs said (as per my #59), that the book was "an encyclopedic textbook where description can be misrepresented as endorsement". It seemed reasonable to me and certainly applies to the copies of pages shown on the link you posted.
If you know otherwise then you may elaborate in a civil manner.
/davblo2
Complain about this comment
@manysummits #62
I'm sorry manysummits, but you can't make a atatement like:
I think empirical evidence will win the day, for example the latest report on the Pine Island Glacier in West Antarctica.
and then say disregard the cause so you can move on
if you have evidence that this glacier is melting due to AGW then please present it or withdraw the comment
Complain about this comment
"It [population] now stands at just over one billion and is forecast to increase to 1.6 billion by 2050."
God help the tigers then.
Complain about this comment
manysummits:
You seem to be arguing with those who hold their beliefs out of "faith." Maybe they are regular listeners to radio culture of the right, a group of individuals who spew nonsence in the hopes that individuals will buy certain products and vote against corporate or high income individual taxes, neither of which will benefit the listeners. It appears that there is an international conspiracy to promote climate change. It must be a hoax as they have found some scientist to sign papers saying they don't believe. Seems that all these countries are spending all this money just because Al Gore says so. Of course the scientist in Japan and Korea or in Europe are not nearly as smart as the talk radio hosts....how can they be they're not even American. I'm always surprised that the denial crowd is never willing to assess any responsbility on the private industrial world for the pollution and degradation of the environment that they have caused and is well documented. Love Canal, mean anything, Kepone in the James River, the death of the Great Lakes, rivers once used as drinking water are not unable to support any tpe of fish....don't worry it is all in the name of profit and making our lives more comfortable. You might as well be trying to get a Taliban to accompany you to Victoria's Secret to buy something for his wife.
Complain about this comment
timjenvey #48: "...but what do you call these folks: 'More Than 700 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims'."
I've been meaning to try and understand the implications of this. The actual [Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]document is here.
The big claim seems to be...
"The over 700 dissenting scientists are more than 13 times the number of UN scientists (52) who authored the media-hyped IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers."
I haven't yet checked the 52 UN scientists concerned, but on page 10 of [Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]this document begins a list of dissenting scientists with background detail and comments from each of them.
The first thing that stikes me is that they are generally not scientists working in the field of climate science. At the start there are many working in meteorology, but further down the list we find a paleontologist, an economist, a "teacher of water resources planning", a geophysicist, a physicist, and many more.
So really many of those listed appear to be actually no more than laymen when it comes to climate science. One of them even says "I am a global-warming skeptic - not of the science of climate change (for I have no expertise to judge it),..."
So when they say "More Than 700 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims" they are using the title "Scientist" very loosely. They ar enot making it clear that many scientists are laymen the field of climate science.
I find it really worrying that they can use "scientists" in that way. You have experts you choose not to believe, then you find non-experts who dissent, and believe them.
I, and I'm sure others on this blog, have sufficient academic qualifications and experience to rate alongside those dissenters.
Is seems we could just as easily create an equivalent list "More than NNNN International Scientists support Man-Made Global Warming Claims".
Worried; davblo2
Complain about this comment
In response to ArthurReader #55:
"So when are you going to follow the conclusion of your beliefs and actually top yourself for the good of the planet? Why should other people have to suffer your pollution?"
Quite right. Personally, I have curbed many of my own consumption and behaviors for the sake of the environment. As for my government, which is a puppet for big business, I cannot defend. I deplore the fact that the USA, Inc. goes around polluting (and depleting other people's natural resources) everyone else's environment and creates living conditions elsewhere that N Americans would find hazardous to their own health. I'm saddened to see so many indigenous populations of the world suffer at the hands of these corporations who have no environmental restrictions placed upon them by their governments. I do applaud Bolivia wanting to take charge of their own lithium supply and not allow outsiders to come and exploit their resources and their people. I will put definitely put my money where my mouth is as soon as I get back to the mainland USA, Inc. (I'm a Navy spouse.)
Complain about this comment
To CuckooToo #65:
Actually I only said: "Disregarding the ultimate cause for a moment", and that was a courtesy to you, so that I could ask you what you thought of the video and article by David Shukman of the BBC, without arguing over cause.
I have presented many links and citations to empirical evidence in the past with regard to the West Antarctic Glacier, the ice-shelves off of the West Antarctic Penninsula, and East Antarctica, as well as mountain glaciers around the world, both tropical and temperate, as well as links to the data base for the monitoring of world glaciers.
I am quite sure that you remember this, if not in detail, them in general terms.
I see that you have not changed. I thought perhaps your long absence might have given you a new perspective.
I shall refrain from the courtesy's in the future when replying to you - we'll just talk turkey. I am considering drawing up a list of article citations to the world of glaciers, but I will do this when I am good and ready.
I see you have not responded to the information contained in the 'Shukman' link. I'll post it again, it's really breathtaking, the speed with which this glacier is disgorging into the sea. A ninety meter drop in height in its central section, well above sea level, is like a cannon going off in my ear. But then I am a geologist and a mountaineer, with a lifetime of first hand experience of both mountain glaciers and of geology, and a lifetime interest in the periglacial world, in archaeology, particulary of the course of human evolution throughout the last few glacial-interglacial cycles. So naturally digesting this information, with perspective, is difficult for those whose interests may lie outside my confined world. That would probably be why the BBC sees fit to have excellent science and environment reporters on their payroll - to provide this perspective.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8200680.stm
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
To ghostofsichuan #67:
Re: "You seem to be arguing with those who hold their beliefs out of "faith.""
-----------------
You know, I've never been able to figure the denialists out. And that includes the dissenting scientists.
I remember like yesterday my introductory Geology course at McGill University, Montreal, in 1967. The head of the department was a 'dissenter' on the then 'theory' of continental drift, soon to be categorized as plate tectonics. The young professor of Petrology was an 'alarmist', moving continents here and there, despite the absolute certainty of many geophysicists that you just couldn't do this. But the empirical evidence presented to me was so strong, it was easy to make a choice. Continental Drift was real, and the geophysicists would just have to work harder to figure out how it was done.
Similarly with the Alvarez hypothesis (father and son), when the terminal event of the Cretaceous was broadcast around the world (I have the paper), that a bolide some ten kilometers in diameter must have struck the Earth. The ensuing debate and argument is legend amongst geologists. Suffice it to say that yours truly again looked at the empirical evidence, and concluded that we on Earth are in fact a bulls-eye at times for Earth-crossing objects, and that the evidence manifestly demonstrated that we had been struck by a huge bolide at the same time as the Deccan Traps in India were being extruded.
Now the stakes are considerably higher. Our fate, literally, may hinge upon getting on the "right" side of this CO2 debate. As you point out, this is only one aspect of the environmental catastrophe which is the early twenty-first and late twentieth centuries.
My hope is that there are many reasonable people who read these blogs, and that they will, in their own way, make up their mind in part because of the information and arguments which are presented here on Richard Black's blog.
I do not expect that those in denial will change in any numbers - it is a curiosity of human nature which I do not understand. I don't particularly enjoy debate, and never have.
It is one reason I love climbing. Decisions are immediate and decisive.
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
To davblo2 #68: (Worried; davblo2)
Indeed! Me too.
How if we airlift the entire United States Congress onto the Pine Island Glacier this Antarctic summer, and any other countries' politicians who have access to warm clothing?
If the Chinese are right, and "a picture is worth more than ten thousand words," how much more effective would a week on this glacier be? Considering the money spent on Afghanistan, Iraq, bank and financial bailouts, cost should be no deterrent.
As for pinning global warming on something other than greenhouse gases, deforestation, cement manufacture, etc..., well, I'm all ears. Perhaps a one-time "International Court of the Environment," like Nuremburg, could weigh the evidence for and against, and come up with a verdict?
For some reason the IPCC does not seem to be enough, or it's findings are not being communicated effectively enough to the world community and citizenry. I talk around work about this. I query the public at every opportunity. It's just not on the radar screen. I'm not sure there even is a radar screen.
- Manysummits - perplexed -
PS: Don Quixote is magic!
Complain about this comment
To davblo2 - addendum to #72:
Maybe it's the name? The 'International Panel on Climate Change.'
No strength or authority there - a panel - a committee.
National Academies of Science - nerds to many people.
An International Court, or Tribunal, Judges in wigs, at The Hague - now that's swat.
Maybe it's that simple?
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
More on the Pine Island Glacier
"Shepherd said: "This is perhaps the greatest signal of change in the cryosphere today, and without a continuous record of satellite observations we wouldn't even know it was happening.""
http://www.clickgreen.org.uk/news/international-news/12545-antarctic-glacier-could-disappear-in-100-years.html
---------------------
"Satellite measurements have shown that the Pine Island Glacier Basin has a greater net contribution of ice to the sea than any other ice drainage basin in the world and this has increased due to recent acceleration of the ice stream.[5][6]"
"Also, although the surface of the glacier is above sea level, the base lies below sea level and slopes downward inland, this suggests that there is no geological barrier to stop a retreat of the ice once it has
started.[9]"
Note: There is apparently a sub-glacial volcano in the vicinity, which erupted some 2200 years ago. It is at present unclear what effect this has had, or is having, on the Pine Island Glacier. (Manysummits)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pine_Island_Glacier
---------------
On the 'Petermann Galcier,' Greenland, mentioned in Mr. Shukman's article on Antarctica
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petermann_glacier
-------------
Welcome to the cryosphere;
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
Davblo2 #68. You say:
"So when they say "More Than 700 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims" they are using the title "Scientist" very loosely".
Climate science calls on many disciplines as a look at an IPCC "scientist" list supports. A qualified scientist is a professional in the discipline of science and should be taken seriously when they professionally pronounce on any scientific subject as to its robustness (yuck; horrible word but works).
We have had this debate a few times before and I do not intend a repeat. Let’s just let it stand on its disputed merits.
Best
Tim
Complain about this comment
To the AGW believers who cannot figure denialists:
Personally I just cannot get on your wavelength. I ask you to just spend a few mins in the real world:
• Global temperatures are falling
• Sea temperatures are flat to declining
• Hurricanes have pretty much stopped
• Sea levels have slowed to flat
• Population growth is declining
• Prosporous countries are improving their environments
• Climate continues changing (business as usual thank goodness)
• Glaciers, on average, continue to decline since last ice age (business as usual thank goodness)
• More folks are being fed than ever in history
• Folks are living longer on average
• It’s warmer than the last ice age (keep hoping it stays that way)
I could go on but will open the list to additions from my fellow deniers whom I generally find as actively environmentally conscious as the next man. We just don't believe in AGW.
Best
Tim
PS. The planets will generously reward us with anything we can do to increase CO2 levels.
Complain about this comment
Edit to my post #76.
In my PS. of course I meant "plants" not "planets"!! I do not think even AGW believers would think our influence could stretch that far.
Night, night.
Complain about this comment
@manysummits #70
I have presented many links and citations to empirical evidence in the past with regard to the West Antarctic Glacier, the ice-shelves off of the West Antarctic Penninsula, and East Antarctica, as well as mountain glaciers around the world, both tropical and temperate, as well as links to the data base for the monitoring of world glaciers.
With respect, manysummits, you have not presented any empirical evidence to support these claims. As far as I can recall, your "evidence" consists unsupported claims and links, but no real evidence whatsoever. "We can't think what else caused this, therefore it must be AGW" is not evidence.
See here for alternative explanations of what may be happening:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/02/070222160443.htm
http://climateresearchnews.com/2008/10/winds-are-dominant-cause-of-greenland-and-west-antarctic-ice-sheet-losses/
I see that you have not changed. I thought perhaps your long absence might have given you a new perspective.
How very condescending of you. Do you know what would change my perspective on all this nonsense? Evidence. Please present evidence, real evidence not conjecture and i will change my perspective.
What evidence will suffice I hear you say? How about the fabled "hotspot" predicted by the computers, but never found, except in the imagining of Santer et al. Here's a prediction, the next IPCC report will either quietly drop the "hotspot" claim or somebody will "find" it, the IPCC will accept the "evidence", but ignore all the evidence that shows it wasn't found.
As far as Shukman is concerned, this is only evidence that something is happening, not what has caused it. I find it surprising that an intelligent person, trained as a geologist and with a geologists perspective of time, cannot see that an event proves nothing without supporting evidence. Look at the links above and you will there are alternative explanations.
I am even beginning to doubt the temperature record! Work by surfacestations show poorly sited weather stations (check for yourself how bad) and recent work by Pielke (do you read Pielke or just alarmists nonsense?) shows a definite warming bias of the temperature record, because of incorrect manipulation (perhaps the wrong word) of the data
So naturally digesting this information, with perspective, is difficult for those whose interests may lie outside my confined world.
Is this an appeal to authority or a personal attack or both? The easiest way to lose an argument and the respect of your peers is to base your arguments on authority or attacks. Present evidence not attacks, please
Complain about this comment
timjenvey #75: "We have had this debate a few times before and I do not intend a repeat"
Fair enough; I must have missed that one.
But there is absolutely no debate.
It seems that you and possible many others, do not understand the scientific profession.
Science is so broad and studies go so deep, that it is common these days that one scientist will not even understand the terminology that another uses in his work.
It is true that one scientist will have the ability to "work his way in" to another's field of work, but that takes time and effort which most don't have. So there are "chasms" even between scientists in related fields of work.
Those outside a field such as climate science will surely feel the urge to comment on results, but their comments should be taken lightly. There will generally be those 'for' and 'against' but only the actual experts working in the field can be taken seriously.
You say "A qualified scientist is a professional in the discipline of science and should be taken seriously when they professionally pronounce on any scientific subject..."
When did you ever consider my scientific qualifications when you judge my comments? As I said, I'm equally as qualified as some on that list of 700; but you don't trust me.
So I'm not sure who you want to trust. Maybe it's just those who say what you want to hear.
All the best; davblo2
Complain about this comment
To davblo2 #79:
Heartily concur!
The paleontologist Peter Ward pointed to the gulf which existed between scientists, as you describe. He was referring to the deep-past scientists in geology, such as himself, and the scientists studying the present.
I look at the list timjenvey presented in #76, or the manner of debate as adopted by CuckooToo, and I realize how very right was one of our
former bloggers, who suggested that countering the denialists point by point was exactly what they wanted. To use up our time in the endless pursuit of these foolish allegations and statements.
I really like that idea of an International Court davblo, for it is a tried and true, and a formal way of debunking false and misleading allegations, at least most of the time.
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
Manner adopted?
Since when has asking for the empirical evidence that the IPCC tell us will prove CO2's role in global warming been a bad thing?
OK, get this International Court set up with real judges etc (not IPCC panel members or AGW proponents) and present the evidence that man is the cause of global warming. The defence team for CO2, would simply point to the IPCC's claim, show it hasn't been proved (not even beyond reasonable doubt) and the case against CO2 would be dismissed.
I realize how very right was one of our former bloggers, who suggested that countering the denialists point by point was exactly what they wanted
All i want is empirical proof that CO2 is the cause of AGW. The IPCC tells us it will be there and pro-AGW climate scientists have been searching for the signal for decades, but it still hasn't been found. Does this tell you the IPCC is wrong or the calculations are wrong?
Not much to ask for, is it?
Complain about this comment
@manysummits
look at this press release from the University of Rochester:
http://www.rochester.edu/news/show.php?id=3420
What do you think?
Complain about this comment
@davblo2
#68
I haven't yet checked the 52 UN scientists concerned, but on page 10 of [Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]this document begins a list of dissenting scientists with background detail and comments from each of them.
The number (which i think is wrong) came from an off the cuff remark by an IPCC author (Schneider) who was forced in an interview to admit only 20% of the IPCC's 2500 (around 500) had "some" dealings with climate science.
I think further investigation reduced this number further, but i'm not sure where the 52 came from.
Wherever it came from 700 dissenting scientists is still 40% more than used by the IPCC to produce it's claims
Complain about this comment
Re #83
I think this numbers' game is absurd. But if you are going to play it, since when does "700" 'dissenters' become more than "2500" IPCC contributors?
Complain about this comment
CuckooToo #83:
Thanks for the information.
But do you get the point?
The 700 are not at all the right kind of scientist.
I, and others here, are equally qualified; do you trust us?
If not, why do you trust the 700?
All the best; davblo2
Complain about this comment
Davblo $79. You say:
"When did you ever consider my scientific qualifications when you judge my comments? As I said, I'm equally as qualified as some on that list of 700; but you don't trust me".
Trust is not what we are talking about. I made the point that there are qualified scientists who are deniers and those who are believers. That's the only point here. You are a believer scientist, that's all. I trust your sincerity but I do not share your conclusions on AGW. That's life.
Best
Tim
Complain about this comment
CuckooToo in #81 suggests, perhaps somewhat tounge in cheek (?) to set up an International Court "with real judges etc (not IPCC panel members or AGW proponents) and present the evidence that man is the cause of global warming."
I've commented before that I am unconvinced about the arguments for a environemntal court. But I think that the suggestion that a court could be used to determine the quality of the science poses additional questions as to how the judges are to determine which expert scientific presentations provide the strongest basis for law and policy.
This is not a new issue. In one land-mark case, Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., the US Supreme Court instructed judges evaluating the trustworthiness of scientific testimony to consider several different factors, including whether the scientific claims a party seeks to introduce (1) can be and have been tested, (2) have undergone peer review and publication, and (3) are generally accepted in the scientific community. Judges also are to consider whether the techniques by which those claims were established have a known or potential error rate and are subject to professional standards.
In practice, for cases involving complex scientific materials, for example some product liability cases, federal judges have asked independent scientist experts to provide guidance on the admissibility of scientific evidence so that they need not rely solely on experts presented by the adversarial parties.
But here’s the rub. Typically they do this by establishing an independent expert scientific panel. As we have seen with the IPCC, independent scientific panels can themselves become a focus for contention! Courts must turn to the scientific community to locate experts who are well informed, neutral, and objective – but if the community itself is divided, will any panel established be perceived as sufficiently expert, independent and objective?
Unless the science is at the heart of an actual legal dispute, I would think that the debate about the quality of the science and its use in policy-making should best take place outside of the court room.
Complain about this comment
To Manysummits and Davblo recent posts. You say:
"I really like that idea of an International Court davblo, for it is a tried and true, and a formal way of debunking false and misleading allegations, at least most of the time"
You seem to agree on courts presiding on these matters. They are doing this successfully already, as with this case in protecting our kids recently:
"Al Gore’s award-winning climate change documentary was littered with nine inconvenient untruths, a judge ruled yesterday".
Read it here:
http://www.ajarnforum.net/vb/the-soap-box/25531-english-judge-says-gore-film-littered-with-untruths.html
or here if you prefer BBC commentary on it:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/7037671.stm
That will be it for today.
Best
Tim
Complain about this comment
@simon-swede
#84
I think this numbers' game is absurd. But if you are going to play it, since when does "700" 'dissenters' become more than "2500" IPCC contributors?
The IPCC figure of 2500, includes a considerable number of web designers, administration staff and who do not work in fields related to climate science. The IPCC failed to make this clear when they claimed a consensus of 2500 scientists. When Steven Schneider was pushed into a corner by a sceptic, he admitted that only 20% of the IPCC had “some” dealings with climate science.
By my simple reckoning, that makes 500 who do have “some” dealings with climate, not 2500 as originally claimed by the IPCC
@davblo2
#79
I would second tim's statement and add regardless of the number of "real" climate scientists on either side, shouldn't the dissenters be allowed equal access to the popular media as the alarmists? (Please don't say the dissenters are allowed equal access, because, as we all know, BBC policy is to present only one side of this argument)
Complain about this comment
@simon-swede
#87
My comment was in response to manysummits, who wants some kind of environmental court, presumably for the Nuremberg trials suggested by other alarmists (or perhaps sceptics should be just hung, drawn and quartered without trial?)
I disagree when you say the IPCC is independant. The IPCC exists for one purpose, which is clearly stated in their mission statement and that is to prove AGW. They are therefore not independant. Also, they clearly ignore papers that do not fit their preconceived ideas and include papers that have not undergone proper scrutiny (I'm sure you know what i am talking about here, but think Amman and Wahl for example)
Complain about this comment
CuckooToo at #90
You write: "The IPCC exists for one purpose, which is clearly stated in their mission statement and that is to prove AGW."
I have never seen the IPCC state that its purpose is "to prove AGW" and I doubt that you can find anything like that in any so-called mission statement.
The following passages come from the IPCC's home page (under "organisation"). You will note that they even address the issue of dissenting views.
"The Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change is the leading body for the assessment of climate change, established by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) to provide the world with a clear scientific view on the current state of climate change and its potential environmental and socio-economic consequences.
The IPCC is a scientific body. It reviews and assesses the most recent scientific, technical and socio-economic information produced worldwide relevant to the understanding of climate change. It does not conduct any research nor does it monitor climate related data or parameters. Thousands of scientists from all over the world contribute to the work of the IPCC on a voluntary basis. Review is an essential part of the IPCC process, to ensure an objective and complete assessment of current information. Differing viewpoints existing within the scientific community are reflected in the IPCC reports.
The IPCC is an intergovernmental body, and it is open to all member countries of UN and WMO. Governments are involved in the IPCC work as they can participate in the review process and in the IPCC plenary sessions, where main decisions about the IPCC workprogramme are taken and reports are accepted, adopted and approved. The IPCC Bureau and Chairperson are also elected in the plenary sessions."
Complain about this comment
hmmmm, that's interesting, because until very recently the IPCC's mission statement was:
"the scientific, technical and socioeconomic information relevant for the understanding of the risk of human-induced climate change. It does not carry out new research nor does it monitor climate-related data. It bases its assessment mainly on published and peer reviewed scientific technical literature."
If you go here to the wayback machine, you will see the original statement:
http://web.archive.org/web/20080210163919/www.ipcc.ch/about/index.htm
The IPCC was established to provide the decision-makers and others interested in climate change with an objective source of information about climate change. The IPCC does not conduct any research nor does it monitor climate related data or parameters. Its role is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the latest scientific, technical and socio-economic literature produced worldwide relevant to the understanding of the risk of human-induced climate change, its observed and projected impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation. IPCC reports should be neutral with respect to policy, although they need to deal objectively with policy relevant scientific, technical and socio economic factors. They should be of high scientific and technical standards, and aim to reflect a range of views, expertise and wide geographical coverage.
However, the new statement is as you say, why did they change it, i wonder?
The other thing is the IPCC is not a scientific body, merely stating that they are, does not make them a scientific body, but then again they seem to think that repeating the mantra global warming is caused by man, seems to work for them.
And regardless of their new and improved mission statement, the IPCC still accepted and used data from a paper that had not been published and even worse, refered to papers by the same author that were not even submitted for publication, thereby breaking their own rules (again)
Complain about this comment
Science and politics do not mix well, nor should they. Anyone who thinks that spewing great amounts of coal and oil residue into the environment is a good idea, lacks basic common sense. Polluting the air and water systems and creating health hardships on innocent families and children seems to be an accepted part of industrialization. Defenders of the Lord of Profit find no moral rationale to impede progress. The next plastic phone, the chemicals in construction, throw away everything, is the mantra of the followers. The simple truth is that a better off world is the best marketplace but selfish instant gratification tends to always over-rule the needs of others. The West is now truly competing with the rest of the world and the history of abuse will come home to roost. The other side of "look at all that we have done for you" is "look at all you have done to me." The defenders of the status quo never understand why the revolution starts. The Russian bureaucrats sat in their offices and said everything was fine as the empire fell apart and insisted that nothing would change because they had the reports to say that everything was working and eveyone was happy. I sure at least 700 had signed the reports.
Complain about this comment
timjenvey #86: "Trust is not what we are talking about. I made the point that there are qualified scientists who are deniers and those who are believers. That's the only point here. You are a believer scientist, that's all. I trust your sincerity but I do not share your conclusions on AGW. That's life."
Just trying to understand this. You do not share my conclusions. You have your own conclusions. You agree there are experts in the field of climate science and the expert assessment of the IPCC is that AGW is true. You agree there is a mish-mash of 700 assorted experts and non-experts whose say no. You agree with them.
So "expertise in the science in question" is clearly not the factor which directly influences you decision. You must be making your own judgement on some other basis. What basis could that be? Is it simply "gut feeling"?
Gut feeling certainly has merit, but it generally needs to be based on some appropriate experience. Do you have such?
Do you personally have enough information and experience to warrant overriding the claims of experts?
All the best; davblo2
Complain about this comment
My #94 continued; re: timjenvey #86...
Maybe I should add. If you are going to cite your observations listed in #76 as being your "information and experience to warrant overriding the claims of experts", then you'd have to explain how you arrived at them and why they are more valid than the observation and studies of experts in the field.
All the best; davblo2
Complain about this comment
More "evidence" from those "scientists".
Geophysical Research Letters.
"Escape of methane gas from the seabed along the West Spitsbergen continental margin"
At the BBC.
"Scientists say they have evidence that the powerful greenhouse gas methane is escaping from the Arctic sea bed"
New scientist.
"As Arctic Ocean warms, megatonnes of methane bubble up"
/davblo2
Complain about this comment
This is downright interesting!
Simon-swede, I read you loud and clear re the courts, but you have put your finger on the heart of the matter I think:
"I've commented before that I am unconvinced about the arguments for a environemntal court. But I think that the suggestion that a court could be used to determine the quality of the science poses additional questions as to how the judges are to determine which expert scientific presentations provide the strongest basis for law and policy [my emphasis]...
Unless the science is at the heart of an actual legal dispute, [my emphasis] I would think that the debate about the quality of the science and its use in policy-making should best take place outside of the court room."
- simon-swede #87
----------------------
First paragraph quoted, ("which expert scientific presentations provide the strongest basis for law and policy"). This is exactly what we need! In my legal imagination, I would see the Court deciding, say, that the IPCC is the preeminent body on which to base law and policy. The difference would be the high court affirmation that the IPCC is:
1) A scientific body
2) Carrying the most weight and relevant scientific expertise
3) That despite the reservations, noted legally, of other scientists, the decision is that the clear weight of evidence is on the side of the IPCC
4) And that dismissal of these IPCC claims would amount to negligence on the part of governments and organizations whose actions significantly affect the public at large.
Second paragraph ("at the heart of an actual legal dispute")
Bolivia's indigenous people are considering just such a class-action lawsuit. Many will follow their lead. An International Court of the Environment, with Part One established in law (IPCC rules), would adjudicate the lawsuits.
Do you think I have a future in environmental law? (tongue in cheek?)
------------------
Ghostofsichuan #93:
Your reference to "Russian beaurocrats" is timely. I was thinking just this morning of the Roman Empire's communication to Brittania in the fifth century, I believe, to look to their own defences, as the Empire was withdrawing. After a brief rally by a war leader named Arthur, and some years of holding off the enemy, Britain and Europe fell into the Dark Ages for near a thousand years.
---------------
To davblo2:
Your restraint and ability to argue logically and well is something I greatly admire. Have you considered switching careers and becoming an environmental advocate? This may also be tongue in cheek, but there is a grain there perhaps.
It is the manner of our denialists which I find most objectionable, even abhorrent. Not one single word from them on the Pine Island Glacier in Antarctica, or the Petermann in Greenland. All that matters is that AGW be tarnished, doubt created. And in this they are effective, if public opinion is a judge. I watched these tactics in the attempt to impeach Bill Clinton. I have never felt the same about the Republican Party since. And it appears wider spread than just the United States Republican Party. It is the modus operandi of the neoconservative, wherever and whenever they are, or were.
I think it is good we have a group such as ours on this blogsite. There is already a diversity of talent and of approach, perhaps enough to prevail.
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
Davblo2 #94. You say:
"So "expertise in the science in question" is clearly not the factor which directly influences you decision".
Totally correct. I guess we agree. Science for me lost its way with the demise of the Natural Philosopher. IMO it’s too arrogant and over sold for me to put too much of my confidence in it. Particularly now it’s been taken over by politicians, business, media and the like.
You also say in #96:
"More "evidence" from those "scientists".
Evidence of what? I only see observation and speculation. Methane is a natural product of a planets internal dynamics. Read up on recent reports on Mars and Titan. Nothing new here.
Manysummits #97:
I'm speechless!! You say:
"It is the modus operandi of the neoconservative, wherever and whenever they are, or were".
So everybody who disagrees with you is a Clinton bashing, neocon republican. Hold on there Manysummits, I think you are approaching a dangerous tipping point of reason with that statement.
You also seem very hung up on receding glaciers. Have you ever considered that where you currently live was under a glacier only a few thousand years ago? I'm sure you would not wish for that to happen again too soon.
Also guys, you have not commented on that legal case I mentioned in #88. Interested to know if this supports your recent posts as a practical example to support your case.
And finally; I do think you should answer Cuckootoo’s question that he continues to so patiently ask:
"Where is this empirical proof of AGW?".
Then we can all rest in piece or not as the case may be.
Night, night.
Complain about this comment
Timjenvey at # 98 wrote: "Also guys, you have not commented on that legal case I mentioned in #88. Interested to know if this supports your recent posts as a practical example to support your case."
If I look at the BBC link you provided I note the following:
"Mr Justice Burton said he had no complaint about Gore's central thesis that climate change was happening and was being driven by emissions from humans. However, the judge said nine statements in the film were not supported by mainstream scientific consensus."
Complain about this comment
@ghostofsichuan
#93
Anyone who thinks that spewing great amounts of coal and oil residue into the environment is a good idea, lacks basic common sense.
Absolutely, but why tar all sceptics with the same brush? Of course there are sceptics who think we should continue to burn oil as quickly as possible until it runs out, but there are alarmists who think all oil executives should be tried for crimes against man. I'm sure you will agree, not all alarmists think the same way?
Most sceptics that appear on the BBC's boards seem to think spewing out anything that does damage to the environment is generally a bad idea, so please stop perpetuating the ridiculous idea that sceptics want to see the end of the world.
@davblo2
#94
I've read a lot over the last 10 years or so about this subject, both for and against AGW, and I have come to the conclusion that without empirical evidence that CO2 is actually the culprit, we should not be trying to mitigate against climate change. To reiterate my previous comments (seems I ask this question all the time), where is the evidence that the IPCC tells us will be found?
@davblo2
#96
Geophysical Research Letters.
"Escape of methane gas from the seabed along the West Spitsbergen continental margin"
At the BBC.
"Scientists say they have evidence that the powerful greenhouse gas methane is escaping from the Arctic sea bed"
New scientist.
"As Arctic Ocean warms, megatonnes of methane bubble up"
please explain how this is evidence of AGW? I agree it is evidence of methane leaking from the depths of the ocean, but where is the evidence to show this is caused by AGW? Also, if leaking methane turns to CO2 which then turns to carbolic acid, there can be no effect on the atmosphere, since the CO2 is absorbed. (yes, the ocean will be slightly less alkali)
@manysummits
#97
Bolivia's indigenous people are considering just such a class-action lawsuit
Only a partisan court would agree they have a case, since there is no compelling evidence to suggest AGW is real. Defence lawyers would just point to surfacestations, pielke's, landsea, christy, spencer, douglas, mcintyre etc etc etc and show there is reasonable doubt.
It is the manner of our denialists which I find most objectionable, even abhorrent. Not one single word from them on the Pine Island Glacier in Antarctica, or the Petermann in Greenland. All that matters is that AGW be tarnished, doubt created.
I've posted more than a single word, manysummits, where is the evidence that melting glaciers is caused by man-made co2 induced warming?
@timjenvey
#98
And finally; I do think you should answer Cuckootoo’s question that he continues to so patiently ask:
"Where is this empirical proof of AGW?".
I've been waiting a very long time for this answer, don't hold your breath.
Complain about this comment
CuckooToo #100: Re: my #96: "please explain how this is evidence of AGW"
Did you see the word AGW in my post? I think not.
It is evidence, as it says in the title of the BBC article...
"Scientists say they have evidence that the powerful greenhouse gas methane is escaping from the Arctic sea bed"
...that the powerful greenhouse gas methane is escaping from the Arctic sea bed.
But it begs the question as to why this is happening.
Something has been warming up the sea bed. Maybe you can work out a theory as to the cause.
All the best; davblo2
Complain about this comment
Now that you're back CuckooToo, I see you repeat the same mantra over and over again:
"Where is this empirical proof of AGW?". Many of us non-expert bloggers have attempted to provide this, often by citing expert testimony in the form of the most highly respected science journals in the world.
The details of empirical proof would include both relatively simple and very complex physics, paleoclimate data, etc...
By requesting that this be discussed here on this blogsite, what manner of blogger do you assume to be present? No, we need to bring this to the light in an International Tribunal, once and for all. The most respected science bodies in the world are for you not enough - you will have to remain with your views. But the world needs a platform from which negligent behavior in the environment can be ascertained. The study on 'Asian Water Shortages' the other day on the BBC for example specifically noted that 'climate change' had not been taken into account. This is not only unacceptable in my opinion, it must be decided if this is not negligent as well, and only a high court can do this.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8206230.stm
"The scenarios presented in the report do not factor in climate change which is likely to make rainfall more erratic."
-------------
For the IPCC and forty-five National Academies of Science, including Russia's, to declare that AGW is real, do you suppose that they neglected "empirical proof."
That's a direct question, and since your fundamental objection is to do with empirical proof - I'd appreciate a direct answer. Yes or no will suffice if you are pressed for time or patience.
I point out that an International Court or Tribunal of judges in The Hague would ask for the proof that you do, and that it would be answered by the relevant experts, taking into account the objections and caveats of the more sceptical scienctists.
The Court or Tribunal would weigh the evidence, and perhaps decide that the evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of AGW, or perhaps that the balance of evidence favors AGW but is more akin to a civil action, where 'beyond reasonable doubt is not necessary,' with consequent changes to negligence provisions for responsible government, institutional and corporate action in the public's world. Or, they might decide the case is uncertain, and until further evidence is amassed, the matter will have to remain 'in legal limbo.'
We need a new forum for climate change, not a new scientific body. We need to support and increase the role and standing of our institutions, which alone stand between us and vested, powerful and pathological self-interest.
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
On 5th August a bipartisan panel of top US scientific and regulatory experts released recommendations calling on the White House and federal agencies to make specific changes in the regulatory process to clearly distinguish scientific questions from policy disputes.
The report comes from the Science for Policy Project (SPP). A project of the Bipartisan Policy Center, SPP is co-chaired by former Rep. Sherwood Boehlert (R-NY), past chair of the House Science Committee, and Donald Kennedy, former editor of Science; and eleven other ideologically diverse members from business, academia, government and non-profit organisations.
The document can be found at: [Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]
Complain about this comment
Okay, if you want to have a look at the “Science for Policy” report referred to in my previous post, you'll have to look for it on the home page: http://www.bipartisanpolicy.org (currently it's the second item listed there).
In the meantime, here are some passages from the Executive Summary of which mat be particularly germane to the debate which has evolved here.
“The use of science in the formulation of regulatory policy… has been a political flashpoint in recent decades. Policy makers often claim that particular regulatory decisions have been driven by, or even required by science; their critics, in turn, have attacked the quality or the interpretation of that science. Such conflict has left the U.S. with a system that is plagued by charges that science is being “politicized” and that regulation lacks a solid scientific basis. As a result, needed regulation may be stymied, dubious regulations may be adopted, issues can drag on without conclusion and policy debate is degraded [emphasis added]. Moreover, the morale of scientists is weakened, and public faith in both government and science is undermined.”
“The question is not whether scientific results should be used in developing regulatory policy, but how they should be used.”
“[Q]uestions that are at the heart of the debate over the use of science in regulatory policy [include]: What kinds of activities or decision-making amount to “politicizing” science? How and to what extent can one differentiate between the aspects of regulatory policy that involve scientific judgments and those that involve making policy recommendations (which are inherently political)?...”
“The primary focus of this report is the systemic problems affecting the role of science in regulatory policymaking, such as conflating science questions and policy questions, as they are fundamental, longstanding and often overlooked. Other forms of misuse or abuse of science in government are also unacceptable, as reflected by this panel's clear admonition… that ‘political decision-makers should never dictate what scientific studies should conclude.’ … [Implementing our proposals] … would result, we believe, in a more candid, transparent, and rigorous use of science in regulatory policy making and a more honest and thoughtful debate about regulatory proposals.”
“The Administration needs to … ensure that when federal agencies are developing regulatory policies, they explicitly differentiate, to the extent possible, between questions that involve scientific judgments and questions that involve judgments about economics, ethics and other matters of policy. … Political decision-makers should never dictate what scientific studies should conclude, and they should base policy on a thorough review of all relevant research and the provisions of the relevant statutes. But some disputes over the “politicization” of science actually arise over differences about policy choices that science can inform, but not determine” [emphasis added].
“The first impulse of those concerned with regulatory policy should not be to claim ‘the science made me do it’ or to dismiss or discount scientific results, but rather to publicly discuss the policies and values that legitimately affect how science gets applied in decision making” [emphasis added].
Complain about this comment
@davblo2
#101.
Did you see the word AGW in my post? I think not.
I stand corrected, clearly you did not say there was a link. The BBC article, however, states "Researchers say this could be evidence of a predicted positive feedback effect of climate change.", which makes the connection in readers minds that it's AGW causing the methane to seep.
But it begs the question as to why this is happening. Something has been warming up the sea bed.
Agreed, but let's not jump to conclusions, just because we can't think what the cause is, doesn't mean it has to be AGW, perhaps methane just seeps through the ocean floor every now and then in exactly the same way that hydrogen sulphide does? In fact, if you look at this link, you will see hydrogen sulphide and methane seeping through the ocean floor completely naturally:
http://www.morning-earth.org/Graphic-E/Biosphere/Bios-PL-BenthicBiomes2.htm
(look for cold seeps)
@manysummits
#102.
Now that you're back CuckooToo
Not back, I haven't really been away, I've just been very busy and will "disappear" again soon
Many of us non-expert bloggers have attempted to provide this, often by citing expert testimony in the form of the most highly respected science journals in the world.
The details of empirical proof would include both relatively simple and very complex physics, paleoclimate data, etc...
I disagree, the IPCC tell us the computer models predict there will be a "hotspot" which will show the warming is anthropogenic. It's quite clear in their AR4 - please read chapter 9 if you want to see what they are talking about. So, despite decades of searching for this "hotspot", it hasn't been found in any records. I know Santer "found" the hotspot, by manipulating the error bars, but his work has been shown to be incorrect. I know Sherwood claims to have found the hotspot, but his work involved wind shear, which is totally the wrong method, so the question remains: Where is the missing hotspot, predicted by the IPCC and the climate models and proves beyond reasonable doubt that mans CO2 emissions are responsible for global warming?
It's a simple question and, if the hotspot were to be found, would destroy all the sceptics arguments.
By requesting that this be discussed here on this blogsite, what manner of blogger do you assume to be present?
I thought we were all reasonably intelligent people at Richards blog and i know that some actually have some scientific training.
For the IPCC and forty-five National Academies of Science, including Russia's, to declare that AGW is real, do you suppose that they neglected "empirical proof."
So show me where it is, because i can't find it and, somehow, i think if it had been found the alarmists would be shouting from the rooftops, don't you?
so my question to all believers in AGW is, can you point to the evidence that clearly shows the predicted hotspot as predicted by the IPCC and not found for the last 2 decades? If the answer is no, why are you not sceptical of the science?
Complain about this comment
Simon_swede #99: So I guess you agree that there are successful precedence’s in place to build on.
To Davblo2: You ask me how I make decisions. These sorts of shenanigans play a part.
-----------
For background on the case: a CD of Inconvenient Truth had been sent to every school in England and as result of the judges ruling the following list had to be read out before every showing:
The inaccuracies are:
- The film claims that melting snows on Mount Kilimanjaro evidence global warming. The Government’s expert was forced to concede that this is not correct.
- The film suggests that evidence from ice cores proves that rising CO2 causes temperature increases over 650,000 years. The Court found that the film was misleading: over that period the rises in CO2 lagged behind the temperature rises by 800-2000 years.
- The film uses emotive images of Hurricane Katrina and suggests that this has been caused by global warming. The Government’s expert had to accept that it was “not possible” to attribute one-off events to global warming.
- The film shows the drying up of Lake Chad and claims that this was caused by global warming. The Government’s expert had to accept that this was not the case.
- The film claims that a study showed that polar bears had drowned due to disappearing arctic ice. It turned out that Mr Gore had misread the study: in fact four polar bears drowned and this was because of a particularly violent storm.
- The film threatens that global warming could stop the Gulf Stream throwing Europe into an ice age: the Claimant’s evidence was that this was a scientific impossibility.
- The film blames global warming for species losses including coral reef bleaching. The Government could not find any evidence to support this claim.
- The film suggests that sea levels could rise by 7m causing the displacement of millions of people. In fact the evidence is that sea levels are expected to rise by about 40cm over the next hundred years and that there is no such threat of massive migration.
- The film claims that rising sea levels has caused the evacuation of certain Pacific islands to New Zealand. The Government are unable to substantiate this and the Court observed that this appears to be a false claim.
Complain about this comment
Whoops. Quick correction to #106.
I was going to add the guidance notes for schools but when I looked for it was gone so I included the 9 inaccuracies from another list. If I find the guidance notes I'll post them.
Complain about this comment
CuckooToo #105: "Agreed (Something has been warming up the sea bed), but let's not jump to conclusions, just because we can't think what the cause is, doesn't mean it has to be AGW, perhaps methane just seeps through the ocean floor every now and then in exactly the same way that hydrogen sulphide does? In fact, if you look at this link, you will see hydrogen sulphide and methane seeping through the ocean floor completely naturally"
Firstly; how would the existence of natural seepage explain a rise in sea bed temperature?
Secondly your link referred to Cold seep.
"Cold seeps were discovered in 1984 by Dr. Charles Paull in the Gulf of Mexico at a depth of 3,200 meters (10,499 ft). Since then, seeps have been discovered in other parts of the world's oceans"
So that was 1984.
Now we have some new research and new findings.
Don't you think they new about the earlier findings?
I would give them credit for knowing about natural seepage.
In fact the new report (BBC version) says...
"As temperatures rise, the hydrate breaks down. So this new evidence shows that methane is stable at water depths greater than 400m off Spitsbergen. However, data collected over 30 years shows it was then stable at water depths as shallow as 360m."
Just think about that. Is that explained by your "natural seeps"?
So the actual cause may not be AGW. They say "There's been an idea for a long time that if the oceans warm, methane might be released from hydrate beneath the sea floor and generate a positive greenhouse effect."
So it could at least contribute to "GW". Doesn't that sound like a cause for concern rather than continuing the "head in the sand" claims that it could easily be natural?
As to the mention of AGW; the BBC appear to have spoken directly to one of the authors...
"Professor Tim Minshull of the National Oceanography Centre at Southampton told BBC News: 'We already knew there was some methane hydrate in the ocean off Spitsbergen and that's an area where climate change is happening rather faster than just about anywhere else in the world'."
So there you have an expert opinion. It wasn't just the BBC embellishing the report. Do you not believe that expert?
All the best; davblo2
Complain about this comment
timjenvey #106: ...
Just to say I'm not ignoring you.
Responding to CT has taken all my time.
I'll be back.
/davblo2
Complain about this comment
Came across this and thinking of our recent interest in US Cap and Trade that some would be interested:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601070&sid=aUxE2A2VDU0s#%27
Complain about this comment
Complain about this comment
Timjenvey at #106
Actually, I would highlight that the Judge in the case, Mr Justice Burton, said that "he had no complaint about Gore's central thesis that climate change was happening and was being driven by emissions from humans."
About the role of courts in environmental cases, obviously they are central to resolving disputes of law. However, in general, I do not think they are the right place to seek resolution of disagreements on what policies to adopt or disputes about the implications of scientific research for particular aspects of policy-making.
Complain about this comment
timjenvey #110: "Came across this and thinking of our recent interest in US Cap and Trade that some would be interested:"
Yes it's incredible. For me the report is hard to read. I find it extremely poorly organised and structured; not much logic to it. It hops from this to that, throws in background information on people and companies in mid flow of explaining something else; and to cap it all (sic) they are deeply entrenched in politics and finance. Where is the concern for effectively reducing CO2 emissions?
Nowhere.
They are all mad!
All the best; davlob2
Complain about this comment
timjenvey #106: "These sorts of shenanigans play a part"
I can't make any specific comments about the Gore film. I've not seen it.
But I could express an opinion.
We are all familiar with the standard cliches and inaccuracies in modern films. They are there because the producers are convinced that the film will lack appeal if they just stick strictly to reality. So you get sound in space, people reel backwards when hit by bullets, cars explode when they crash etc.
So making a factual documentary must be a real strain on the creative talents of the film makers. They have a duty to portray facts, but need to make the result watchable, interesting and to convey the appropriate message.
Whether the 9 errors you mention were intentional, accidental or "artistic license" I can't say; but compared to many modern films and documentaries, I'd say that 9 inaccuracies was actually good going.
All the best; davblo2
Complain about this comment
simon-swede #104: "Okay, if you want to have a look at the 'Science for Policy' report referred to in my previous post, you'll have to look for it on the home page..."
Thanks for the link simon-swede; that's very interesting.
I'm glad they've been thinking about such things.
Unfortunately the report is rather too long for me to be able to digest the full extent of their pronouncements and understand possible implications. I see lots of well meaning paragraphs, but for me the "trees get lost in the forest". I get that feeling again of politicians making a simple matter infinitely complicated and unmanageable. (Yes: "They are all mad", again)
Hopefully something good will come of it despite my reservations.
All the best; davblo2
Complain about this comment
To simon-swede:
I have a great deal of respect for your opinions, and I was wondering if you could elaborate on your wariness over an appeal to a court for AGW?
Are you possibly concerned that too much power would be placed in the hands of the court, or that the lobbyists would turn from politics to law in their profession of influence peddling?
For myself, the debate is effectively over on AGW. I have the information that I need, and every new piece of data that comes forward only reinforces my personal conclusions. But it appears insufficient to generate effective mitigation, which is understandable as required mitigation is truly breathtaking - a paradigm shift in effect.
Wouldn't a high court provide some balance, at the least?
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
To davblo2:
You've got me thinking about your comments concerning your own scientific qualifications, and mine.
In all honesty, some of the comments from our denialists sound very child-like to me in their simplicity and lack of depth. It is difficult to know whether to laugh or cry.
You simply cannot, in a few lines in a blog, communicate what a lifetime of study has created in one's own mind. You would think there would be faith in the IPCC, or in the national science academies. But if there is, it has not translated into action.
To digress slightly. It reminds me of a line in Reinhold Messner's "The Crystal Horizon", which describes his solo ascent, during the monsoon, and without oxygen, and alone, of Mount Everest from the north side.
He mentions just once, something to the effect, that he himself sometimes forgets how much he personally knows about climbing Himalayan mountains, and how much judgement goes into each and every small decision. And he is right! It occurred to me as I read these lines, that without my own seven full years as a mountaineer, I wouldn't have been able to appreciate what he was talking about, or the genius in his decisions.
---------------
End of digression:
Our Mayday declaration is looking better and better. Jr's reform of the UN might eventually evolve into something like an International Court of the Environment.
I quote from a current BBC article on water, by Brian Richter:
"More than one billion people lack access to safe, clean drinking water and more than half of the hospital beds in the world are occupied by people afflicted with water-borne diseases.
More than 800 million are malnourished, primarily because there isn't enough water to grow their food.
Fish and other freshwater species are among the most imperiled on the planet, in large part because of the ways that we have polluted and exploited their habitats."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8205132.stm
----------------
Why are these assertions not to be considered as, at the least, civil misdemeanors against the public at large?
And I think they are more than that. I would imagine that it could be shown that many and sundry corporate and institutional and governmental organizations have acted in their own interests with enough prior knowledge to constitute some form of negligence, possibly even criminal behavior.
I'll drop my advocacy for "ICE" as soon as I see a better suggestion, and some results.
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
Now here is an interesting debate: (Monbiot/Kingsworth)
"The writing is on the wall for industrial society, and no amount of ethical shopping or determined protesting is going to change that now."
http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2009/08/18/should-we-seek-to-save-industrial-civilisation/
------------------
This back and forth dialogue neatly sums up the situation, or at least provides a fresh look over some of our options.
-----------------
My opinion:
"If something isn't working, try something else." (manysummits)
And that of Jacques Cousteau and Saint-Exupery:
"The impossible missions are the only ones which succeed." (Cousteau)
"To be a man is, precisely, to be responsible." (Saint-Exupery)
----------
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
Simon-swede #112.
You say:
"Actually, I would highlight that the Judge in the case, Mr Justice Burton, said that "he had no complaint about Gore's central thesis that climate change was happening and was being driven by emissions from humans."
What has judges personal opinion got to do with the evidence? Why you pick this out and why the judge felt he had to make this statement one can only guess. He was never requested to pronounce on this and I think the fact he did raises some legal objections.
There were 20 pieces of evidence submitted. All were accepted. The government, who were defending, was not able to support any. The judge did a "partial" (the courts words) pronouncement and ruled on 9 (I published these in an earlier post)
My point was that a judge successfully ruled on evidence that was purported to be supported by science and was able to give a clear and unambiguous judgment. That's all. I hope it's useful in forming your ideas on the subject.
Best
Tim
Complain about this comment
To Manysummits #117
You say:
"It is difficult to know whether to laugh or cry".
How about stopping all your pontificating and coming up with an answer to CuckooToo's question?:
"Where's the empirical evidence". Then we can all stop behaving like a bunch of kids!!
"Child-like". You really have an unfortunate way of expressing yourself at times. It just brings the mischief out in me.
Night, night and sleep tight.....
Complain about this comment
Davblo2 following up on your #113.
More on Cap and Trade. This time on your side of the pond:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/markets/6057263/Seven-arrests-in-suspected-38m-carbon-credit-fraud.html
And regular folks saw it coming a mile off. But our leaders, who know best, seem not to have taken notice. Such is life.......
Complain about this comment
Timjenvey at #119
I believe that you are mistaken Timjenvey. Those views on climate change and the overall nature of the film did form part of the court's final judgement on the case. So, they are relevant.
Complain about this comment
@davblo2
#108
what i am trying to say (perhaps badly) is we should stop saying everything is caused by man made emissions as a first guess, without having the evidence to back up the claim
@timjenvey
#120
from my previous posts on this forum, i too have noticed manysummits always shies away from answering that one simple question. It's far easier to wail and gnash one's teeth, attack people as being simple minded or receiving oil money, than to answer that simple question. In fairness, he's not the only one
in my humble opinion, evidence of the hotspot, other than a climate model, would destroy sceptics arguments, but until it is found (if ever), there will never be proof, except in the imaginings of the alarmists
Complain about this comment
Further to my post at #122 and to the comments by Timjenvey on the same subject, here's a little bit more about what the actual decision in the Gore case.
I have no idea why Timjenvey thinks that the judge's comments are somehow unusual or questionable - in such a case, this is the standard procedure. And contrary to what Timjenvey says, the judgement needs to be read and understood as a whole. The judgement comemnts on the overall character of the film and its use of science, the claim that dissenting views need to be given equal treatment, as well as ruling that 9 statements were incorrect.
So, about the judgement itself...
Early in the judgement, Justice Michael Burton acknowledges that Gore uses science " to make a political statement and to support a political programme." He goes on to say, however, that the film, "is substantially founded upon scientific research and fact."
This is reflected by several other statements early on in the judgement, for example:
- Justice Burton says, “I have no doubt that Dr. Stott, the Defendant’s expert, is right when he says that: ‘Al Gore’s presentation of the causes and likely effects of climate change in the film was broadly accurate.’”
- Justice Burton quotes Martin Chamberlain, the lawyer for the defendant (The UK Secretary of State for Education and Skills), who says, “The position is that the central scientific theme of Al Gore’s Film is now accepted by the overwhelming majority of the world’s scientific community."
- Justice Burton also notes that even the lawyer for the plaintiff – i.e. the party challenging Gore’s film - “For the purposes of this hearing, was prepared to accept that the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report represented the present scientific consensus."
Another issue that was raised in the case was that of balance or equality of space given to dissenting views. In the case, it was argued that, in order to be allowed to be shown in schools, the film should either be altered or, in the judge's words, "that, if the political issues, as per the content of An Inconvenient Truth, are to be brought to the attention of pupils, then there must be an equivalent and equal presentation of counter-balancing views." The judge disagreed stating: “The balanced approach does not involve equality. In my judgment, the word "balanced" in s407 (in the relevant U.K. legislation) means nothing more than fair and dispassionate."
Justice Burton treatment of the specific “errors” in the film, begins in Paragraph 23 of the judgement. He says Gore was "distinctly alarmist" in predicting the collapse of the Greenland glacier: "the Armageddon scenario he predicts, insofar as it suggests that sea level rises of 7 metres might occur in the immediate future, is not in line with the scientific consensus," Justice Burton concludes. Other "errors," such as Gore's contention that Hurricane Katrina was whipped up by climate change, elicit this kind of a response: "It is common ground that there is insufficient evidence to show that." Overall the judge concluded that on nine occasions the film makes claims that are not supported by the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Hence the judge has recommended a revision to the Guidance Note that U.K. teachers had already received with the film.
However, even here the judgement is nuanced – it is not just that a revision to the notes must state that the specific 9 claims is wrong, but it is also appropriate to clarify what is actually said by the IPCC. For example:
"Note: Pupils might get the impression that sea-level rises of up to 7m (caused by the complete melting of Greenland or half of Greenland and half of the West Antarctic shelf) could happen in the next decades. The IPCC predicts that it would take millennia for rises of that magnitude to occur. However, pupils should be aware that even small rises in sea level are predicted to have very serious effects. The IPCC says that "many millions more people are projected to be flooded every year due to sea-level rise by the 2080s" (i.e. within pupils' own lifetimes)."
Complain about this comment
Timjenvey, at #119, writes: “There were 20 pieces of evidence submitted. All were accepted. The government, who were defending, was not able to support any. The judge did a "partial" (the courts words) pronouncement and ruled on 9 (I published these in an earlier post). My point was that a judge successfully ruled on evidence that was purported to be supported by science and was able to give a clear and unambiguous judgment. That's all.”
The description Timjenvey gives does not accurately reflect the judgement made. The court did not "accept" all the claims of error but decided that only 9 were sufficiently persuasive that they warranted specific consideration. Furthermore, in considering these 9 'errors', the judge stressed in no uncertain terms that the hearing did not relate to an analysis of the scientific questions, but to an assessment of whether the 'errors' in question were relevant to the legal issues concerning the circulation of a political film.
----------
In detail:
In the court case, the counsel for the plaintiff argued that “There are errors and omissions in the film …. and respects in which the film, while purporting to set out the mainstream view (and to belittle opposing views), does in fact itself depart from that mainstream, in the sense of the "consensus" expressed in the IPCC reports.”
Justice Burton notes that the two provisions of the law at the centre of the case “are not concerned with scientific disputes or with the approach of teachers to them. However, … some of the errors, or departures from the mainstream, by Mr Gore in AIT … do arise in the context of alarmism and exaggeration in support of his political thesis.” (paragraph 19) The judge goes on to note that teachers must at least be put into a position to appreciate when there are or may be material errors of fact. (paragraph 21)
Justice Burton notes that there was a divergence of views between the primary experts testifying for the parties: “…the views of the Claimant's expert, Professor Carter, do not accord with those of Dr Stott, and indeed are said by Dr Stott in certain respects not to accord with the IPCC report.” However the counsel for the plaintiff “sensibly limited his submissions to concentrate on those areas where, as he submitted, even on Dr Stott's case there are errors or deviations from the mainstream by Mr Gore…. and … produced a long schedule of such alleged errors or exaggerations…”. (paragraph 22)
The judge concludes: “In the event I was persuaded that only some of them were sufficiently persuasive to be relevant for the purposes of his argument, … 9 in all - upon which I invited Mr Chamberlain to concentrate. It was essential to appreciate that the hearing before me did not relate to an analysis of the scientific questions, but to an assessment of whether the 'errors' in question, set out in the context of a political film, informed the argument on ss406 and 407. All these 9 'errors' that I now address are not put in the context of the evidence of Professor Carter and the Claimant's case, but by reference to the IPCC report and the evidence of Dr Stott.” (paragraph 23)
The judgement then proceeds to consider each of the 9 instances in detail (paragraphs 24 to 33) before turning specifically to the text of the Guidance note given to teachers (paragraphs 34 to 40).
Complain about this comment
CuckooToo #108: "what i am trying to say (perhaps badly) is we should stop saying everything is caused by man made emissions as a first guess, without having the evidence to back up the claim"
So your "Natural causes" link was a "red herring" which cost me rather a lot of time.
It seems you jump to the "Natural causes" explanation even more hastily than the actual reports jumped to the AGW explanation.
I wonder whether I should suggest an alternative to your statement. We could say that in light of growing evidence of AGW "we should stop saying everything is 'Natural' as a first guess, without having the evidence to back up the claim". Because in this case, you had none.
All the best; davblo2
Complain about this comment
Davblo at #126 - well said!
Complain about this comment
To Timenvey:
That was the intention! You are not alone in liking a little mischief.
I'll say this - I recognize where you come from. Rough and tumble you once said, if memory serves. I like it there too.
You know, since the discussion seems to be revolving around Al Gore's film, I'd like to point out that although the judge takes pains to point out that he is not judging science - the ruling, to me anyway, clearly indicates he was able to arrive at a view that the IPCC view is accurate, in order to pronounce that Al Gore's film is substantially in line with it.
That means, implicitly, he has formed a decision in his head that mainstream science is valid.
But the implicit must become the explicit. I want a high court to rule, to render an opinion, on the science behind AGW, or lack of it, and carve it in stone. The 'empirical evidence' will be trotted out, one painful formula and piece of evidence at a time, and duly recorded. The recording of this evidence should be well protected, so that in the rough and tumble days to come, when everything is breaking down, a few may be able to point to this carved in stone ruling and say:
"They tried, didn't they?"
----------------------------
My question to you and CuckooToo this morning is this, wouldn't you agree that this is a good idea? Then we can move on, one way or the other.
- Manysummits -
PS: My opinion is that 'ghostofsichuan' is probably right - only a revolution is going to change things.
Complain about this comment
@davblo2
#126.
It seems you jump to the "Natural causes" explanation even more hastily than the actual reports jumped to the AGW explanation.
Guilty as charged m'lord, and re-reading the report, it doesn't actually say the warming is caused by AGW - it just says climate change.
We could say that in light of growing evidence of AGW.
What growing evidence?
Complain about this comment
@manysummits
#128
I want a high court to rule, to render an opinion, on the science behind AGW, or lack of it, and carve it in stone
Whilst I like the idea, the problem with this approach is finding a court with sufficient knowledge and no bias. We've seen several occasions in the UK recently where the government have effectively been on trial and they have simply wheeled in trusted judges to rule in their favour.
OK, manysummits, i have answered your question, now please answer mine
Complain about this comment
Richard,
Inspite of some denials on the depletion of The Himalayan glacier due to Global warming I strongly think there is a good reason for the Indian politicians, the policy makers and industry experts to think more greener ways of tackling the increasing warming in India . Last month during my visit in East India I visited couple of cities where I was shocked to know the lowering of water level , increase in the number of lung diseases (asthma ) and severe other diseases growing of highly polluted industrial machineries .
I think a time a come for all Indians to wake up and think green .
Complain about this comment
On my Inconvenient Truth film comment I was just making the point that the judge was able to make a ruling on purported “scientific evidence” and I gave the list of 9 which he gave a ruling on. They were, and I quote:
- Incorrect
- Misleading
- Not possible
- Not true
- Scientifically impossible
- No evidence found
- No such threat
- Appears a false claim
And there were 11 more accepted which were not specifically ruled on.
That's as far as I wanted to make my point. The denier community would love to have more opportunities like this (debates as well) but the believers just don’t want to go there. The times when they have they have been routed. We have had the odd examples previously on this blog.
My personal reaction on the whole debacle was of outrage. To think that government authorizes feed this alarmist propaganda to our kids just gives me the shivers. This is not why I sent my kids to school.
Best
Tim
Complain about this comment
timjenvey #132: "I gave the list of 9 which he gave a ruling on...And there were 11 more accepted which were not specifically ruled on. ...My personal reaction on the whole debacle was of outrage".
Did anyone bother to count up how many correct and agreed points were made by the film? Probably not, and there were probably a lot more than the 20 which caught the lime-light.
As I tried to say in my #114; where is the standard you are expecting? Have you ever heard of a documentary film being scrutinized in fine detail before and being found 100% correct and verifiable?
Why are you suddenly expecting 100% correctness in a man-made film? Because of it's importance maybe? But if you have no standard to judge it against, how can you say 9 errors is significant?
It seems you are taking the few invalid points as an indication that the rest of the film is rubbish. That is certainly not the result of the court decision. Do you really think that is the best attitude for you to take? If so on what grounds?
Wouldn't it be better to concentrate on the numerous (uncounted) correct points made by the film and see what you make of them.
All the best; davblo2
Complain about this comment
CuckooToo #129: "What growing evidence?"
That's easy.
All the cases where you haven't been able to prove "Natural causes".
If it wasn't proven to be natural, (and it wasn't the mice), then it must have been us. QED.
All the best; davblo2
Complain about this comment
timjenvey "132: "This is not why I sent my kids to school."
Just a little more then...
One could ask therefore, whether you have personally verified every other piece of information which your children are taught at school? Is everything 100% perfect apart from those 9 (or 20) point in one film?
History, Geology, Economics; there must be the occasional areas of controversy in those subjects. Are you so happy with how they are presented at school? And lets hope there is no religion, because that would fail miserably in a court of law. Absolutely nothing pertaining to a deity could be verified.
All the best; davblo2
Complain about this comment
Davblo2 #135
Up until my kids left school we were taught the 3R's and general basic subjects. Religion was taught as a subject and you would be encouraged and supported to take deep dives into anywhere that took your fancy. Science was the same. I remember a master giving his highest marks ever to a lad that did some work questioning the theory of evolution. That science master must be turning in his grave as showing this film in his class would have been anathema to him as it's what he taught us to be aware of to avoid. The only propaganda hyped type stuff was when we sang Rule Britannia and the like.
The process went something like: here are the basics (3R's), here's where you go to generate ideas/interests, here's where you go to research and now go forth.
Times they are a changing.......
Complain about this comment
timjenvey #136: "????"
Now you've lost me; (and you avoided answering most of my points).
You seem to think a school which teaches religion (which is completely non-verifiable), and has a master who favours anti-evolutionism is ok; but you were "outraged" at a documentary film which had as little as 9 proven errors but many more truths.
You'll have to work hard to justify that to a court.
All the best; davblo2
Complain about this comment
Empirical Evidence
This might be fun, or it might be painful - but since you asked, lets see where this takes us!
Before we start, a remark or two.
'Timjenvey & CuckooToo et al':
I think your science is out to lunch, and up the river without the proverbial paddle, but this is not meant personally, I feel the same way about the 700 scientists who have signed the denial manifesto. And I've seen it before, and I've never understood how it could happen - not really. But that need not concern us here.
I have a grudging admiration for both of you, sticking to your guns type of thing.
----------------
"Among scientific researchers, empirical evidence (as distinct from empirical research) refers to objective evidence that appears the same regardless of the observer. For example, a thermometer will not display different temperatures for each individual who observes it. Temperature, as measured by an accurate, well calibrated thermometer, is empirical evidence. By contrast, non-empirical evidence is subjective, depending on the observer. Following the previous example, observer A might truthfully report that a room is warm, while observer B might truthfully report that the same room is cool, though both observe the same reading on the thermometer. The use of empirical evidence negates this effect of personal (i.e., subjective) experience.
Ideally, empirical research yields empirical evidence, which can then be analyzed for statistical significance or reported in its raw form."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical_evidence
-----------------
Let's digest this, the beginning, and I'll move on once I've selected an article with which to begin.
- Manysummits -
PS: Maybe we've all been taking this too seriously. I remember you welcoming my friend 'wunarik,' Timjenvey. For your information, wunarik means 'father of Arik.'
Complain about this comment
manysummits #138: "wunarik means 'father of Arik'."
Sorry, but I have to ask; "Father of..."?
"Son of..." (as was common hereabouts) I can understand.
But to be named "Father of..." sounds too complicated. Just think about it...
Confused; davblo2
Complain about this comment
manysummits #138: "PS: Maybe we've all been taking this too seriously..."
Don't forget. This is serious.
It would be difficult to take it serioulsy enough.
All the best; davblo2
Complain about this comment
To davblo2:
Wunarik is the father of Arik, the name of his son.
------------
We are all on this ship together, and sailing into an uncertain future. We may as well be friends. Who is right and who is wrong will resolve itself. You and I cannot stop what's coming.
- Manysummits
Complain about this comment
Davblo2 #137. I guess we are on different planets on this one.
There is a world of difference between brain washing with alarmist propaganda and being taught the tools of science and the ability to open one’s mind to study. Whether it be religion or geography.
BTW. One of our science master’s favorite projects for us was to critique theories and come up with alternatives. Our approach to this was what gave us the marks. Absolutely nothing to do with believing in one theory or another. You completely miss the point. Probably my fault for not explaining. Hard on blogs to do this at times.
Manysummits #138
So when empirical evidence shows temperature going down and it was forecast to escalate and go over tipping points to catastrophic warming what does that say about the forecast and the method used to make that forecast?
I remember Wanurik. Have you been in touch with him? Say a big hi and hope is English is coming along.
Best
Tim
Complain about this comment
Timjenvey at #132, as you say, "the judge was able to make a ruling on purported “scientific evidence”.
Indeed, and in his judgement overall he found that the film, "is substantially founded upon scientific research and fact."
Complain about this comment
Manysummits at #116
Sorry, I missed a question directed to me when you wrote "I was wondering if you could elaborate on your wariness over an appeal to a court for AGW?"
I am NOT concerned that "too much power would be placed in the hands of the court, or that the lobbyists would turn from politics to law in their profession of influence peddling."
My concern stems from two different concerns. Firstly, what should be the appropriate role of a court; secondly, about mechanisms by which science should inform policy making.
On the first, I have written several times about my concern for a mandate of an "environmental court". I don't think that all "environmental issues" fit neatly into one box labelled "environmental law", which means that one court could be given an effective mandate for exclusive competence for treating all cases on matters environmental. Moreover, I get the impression that you envisage a court dealing with "cases" that go beyond settling disputes about matters of law. The difference been, that I can see that as a part of a dispute a court might need to reach a view on evidence dealing with, for example, climate change; but I do not see that a court being called simply to consider the issue "is climate change happening". The former is a legal issue, and courts do have a long-established role in assessing the validity of scientific evidence relevant to a case at hand; the latter is asking a court to engage in something else entirely.
You seem to be wanting to have a court as an ultimate arbiter of what is the science and for the science to then determine what comes next. However, I think it is a mistake to expect science on its own to determine the policy. Other factors are involved - values, judgements, perspectives.... Science can help inform those viewpoints and choices, but I do not think it provides all the answers or substitutes for these other considerations. The way forward as I see it, and as messy as it can be, is to have processes that ensure the science informs policy-making and to publicly discuss the policies and values that legitimately affect how science gets applied.
Complain about this comment
Simon-swede good morning.
Based on manysummits definitions in #138. Would I be right to say that the 9 (or 20) points were "empirical evidence" and that his general opinion was "empirical research" as folks are interpreting all of this data together in different ways?
What “empirical evidence” did he submit to make such a claim?
If you folks don’t believe
Night, night.
Complain about this comment
Timjenvey at #132 (and elsewhere)
As I read more of your comments about the court case, I find that some of what you say about the judgement is misleading or in error. I increasingly wonder if you have actually read the judgement or whether you are simply repeating what someone else’s comments.
For example, in addition to the 9 specific 'errors', you say (in #132) "And there were 11 more accepted which were not specifically ruled on." And in an earlier post you said (at #119) "There were 20 pieces of evidence submitted. All were accepted." Apart from appearing to contradict yourself somewhat, what you claim is not borne out by the actual judgement. There, the judge decided that the arguments about only 9 of the claimed "errors" were "sufficiently persuasive" that they warranted specific consideration (see paragraph 23).
Then when you describe the individual 'errors' (your claims made in #106), you tend not to describe what is stated in the ruling but what was contended by the plaintiff (or interpretations of what the judgement implies). For example, you often say that the “the Government’s expert was forced to” concede or accept certain things – but in its treatment of the 9 specific instances of the ‘errors’, found in paragraphs 24 to 33 of the judgement, this type of phrase never appears. Rather the judge refers to the “scientific consensus” or “general scientific agreement” being contrary to a specific suggestion made in the film or there being “insufficient evidence” to support a claim it makes. These are important failings to be sure, but the overall impression one gets from reading your description is an exaggeration of what the court actually decided – in effect, you are doing exactly the same sort of thing that you are complaining the film did!
You say (also in #106), that the judge ruled that list of the 9 ‘errors’ “had to be read out before every showing" of the film. This is absolute nonsense – it says no such thing! The court simply addressed the content of the Guidance Note which accompanies the film when it is sent to schools. This note is intended for schools screening the film, to inform teachers on how they might present the film to their pupils and to guide subsequent discussion. As noted in paragraph 37 of the judgement, “a new Guidance Note has now been produced which the Defendant proposes to include in the pack, and which, to my satisfaction, addresses all of the above 9 'errors', both by drawing specific attention to where Mr Gore may be in error and/or in any event where he deviates from the consensus view as set out in the IPCC report, and by, where appropriate, raising specific questions for discussions.”
You seem to be under the impression that the main focus of the court case was about the accuracy of the science – and so the only significant part of the ruling is the judgement that the film contained ‘errors’. But, as explained in paragraph 2 of the judgement, “The context and nub of the dispute are the statutory provisions described in their side headings as respectively relating to "political indoctrination" and to the "duty to secure balanced treatment of political issues" in schools, now contained in ss406 and 407 of the Education Act 1996.” Indeed, the judgement makes it explicit that the heart of the case is not whether the science is correct or not, but the implications of what any ‘errors’ might have for how the film can be used in schools. This is the limit to which consideration is given to the science. As noted in paragraph 23 of the judgement: “It was essential to appreciate that the hearing before me did not relate to an analysis of the scientific questions, but to an assessment of whether the 'errors' in question, set out in the context of a political film, informed the argument on ss406 and 407.”
In paragraph 44 of the judgement, the judge states: “I am satisfied that, with the Guidance Note, as amended, the Defendant is setting the film into a context in which it can be shown by teachers, and not so that the Defendant itself or the schools are promoting partisan views contained in the film, and is putting it into a context in which a balanced presentation of opposing views can and will be offered. There is no call for the Defendant to support the more extreme views of Mr Gore – indeed the Government's adherence is to the IPCC views - but the present package in my judgment does enough to make it clear both what the mainstream view is, insofar as Mr Gore departs from it, and that there are views of "sceptics" who do not accept even the consensus views of the IPCC. The Defendant will not be promoting partisan political views by enabling the showing of AIT in the context of the discussions facilitated by the Guidance Note”.
My apologies for the length of this posting.
Complain about this comment
Timjenvey at #145
Good evening (in my morning)!
Insofar as I understand the question, I would say that the 9 (or 20) points were arguments about how to interpret what was the general understanding of the state of the science and what it reasonably could be claimed that this shows. To me, this is not "empirical evidence" per se.
Complain about this comment
@davblo2
#134.
CuckooToo #129: "What growing evidence?"
That's easy.
All the cases where you haven't been able to prove "Natural causes".
I'm sorry, davblo2, thst is not the way science works. The onus is not on sceptics to prove anything is natural. The onus as i am sure you know is for alarmists to prove their hypothesis, which they have most definitely not proved.
We're not the ones asking for $trillions, are we?
Complain about this comment
On Al Gore's documentary:
From wiki:
An Inconvenient Truth focuses on Al Gore and his travels in support of his efforts to educate the public about the severity of the climate crisis. Gore says, "I've been trying to tell this story for a long time and I feel as if I've failed to get the message across." The film closely follows a Keynote presentation (dubbed "the slide show") that Gore presented throughout the world. It intersperses Gore's exploration of data and predictions regarding climate change and its potential for disaster with his own life story.
It weaves in events that changed his world view, including his college education with early climate expert Roger Revelle at Harvard University, his sister's death from lung cancer and his young son's near-fatal car accident. For comic effect, Gore also uses a clip from the Futurama episode "Crimes of the Hot" to explain global warming. Gore refers to his loss to George W. Bush in the 2000 United States presidential election as a "hard blow" yet subsequently "brought into clear focus, the mission [he] had been pursuing for all these years."
I've watched the film and I would guess around 50% (probably more) was about Gore, his life and his family. The film was 90 minutes, so 45 minutes was about the actual "science". How much science can be discussed in 45 minutes? If each point of science took 3 minutes, then 15 points of science were discussed, of these 9 were factually incorrect.
I'm not going to argue the figures, but clearly with so much of the film talking about Gore, there had to be a minimum of actual science.
Just my humble opinion.
For a film to produce 9 agreed errors in 30 minutes of actual
Complain about this comment
@manysummits:
#138
With due respect, manysummits, we don't need a lesson on what empirical evidence is. What we need is emprical evidence.
I think your science is out to lunch
then show the evidence that supports your thinking or are you simply a believer?
the IPCC, pro-AGW scientists tell us the hot spot should be there or is there, but hidden, so pleases produce the evidence.
I have a grudging admiration for both of you, sticking to your guns type of thing.
i'm not interested in your "grudging admiration", i want the evidence
PS: Maybe we've all been taking this too seriously.
As Davblo2 rightly points out - this is serious. If AGW is real, then we need to mitigate against it's effects. If global warming is natural, there is nothing we can do, so no point in wasting $trillions. Let's get the pro-AGW crowd and the sceptics in the same room and get them to investigate global warming properly to produce real evidence one way ot the other
Complain about this comment
manysummits #141 "Wunarik is the father of Arik, the name of his son."
Again, my curiosity gets the better of me.
Feel free to ignore this.
If people are called "father of...", then...
first they have no children: what are they called?
then they have 1 son: ok; name="father of 1st son" works
then they have a 2nd son: what are they called?
what if they have a daughter?
Is it accepted that people must change their names during their life?
As I said; it all sounds too complicated.
/davblo2
Complain about this comment
CuckooToo #149: "On Al Gore's documentary:... I'm not going to argue the figures"
Nor me. But your estimate of 15 must be wrong because there has been mention of another 11 besides the 9 so called errors.
You'd think that if someone was going to get this film assessed by a court they'd have at least gone to the trouble of making a detailed summary or list of points of science covered and in what way. It would be good (essential in my opinion) to get the overall quality of the film in the right perspective.
/davblo2
Complain about this comment
CuckooToo #148: "...that is not the way science works. The onus is not on sceptics to prove anything is natural. The onus as i am sure you know is for alarmists to prove their hypothesis...."
My comment in #134 was written in the light of your "attempts" to claim that events are natural. If the onus is not on you, you don't have to put forward a theory. But if you do; if you try to prove that it's natural, and then fail, then you have added a piece of evidence in favour of anthropogenic causes.
So in short, if you have no proof that something it natural, it would be best not to say that "it's natural".
All the best; davblo2
Complain about this comment
simon-swede #146: "My apologies for the length of this posting."
I'm very impressed at your dedication in following this through to the "bitter end".
I'm struggling to keep up.
From what you say the court did attempt to consider the film as a whole.
All the best; davblo2
Complain about this comment
timjenvey #142: "There is a world of difference between brain washing with alarmist propaganda and being taught the tools of science and the ability to open one’s mind to study. Whether it be religion or geography."
I've seen comments recently that belief in AGW is becoming like a religion; presumably hinting at the so-say lack of evidence.
So now I see the solution; (to be taken with a slice of humour).
We officially declare AGW as a new religion.
We don't have to prove a single thing (CT will be happy).
It will be happily accepted by timjenvey and all in schools.
We can mount crusades and suppress non-believers by force.
It will be able to raise enormous amounts of money.
etc etc...
Oh well, maybe not. That would be too easy.
All the best; davblo2
Complain about this comment
To simon-swede: Thank you for your reply on the courts.
To davblo2: "Wunarik' is not the father's name. I'm afraid I'm out of my depth in discussing the nuances of the Dinka language, but as it was explained to me, in Dinka 'wunarik' means 'father of Arik.' I'll ask my friend for clarification.
To timjenvey: I'll say hi to 'wunarik' for you, as I shall see him today.
-----------
To CuckooToo and Timjenvey:
You asked for empirical evidence, and I shall do my best to furnish it. This will not be the subject of one blog, and the opening statement in my post #138 is just that, a setting of the court rules if you will.
As you said CuckooToo:
"As Davblo2 rightly points out - this is serious. If AGW is real, then we need to mitigate against it's effects. If global warming is natural, there is nothing we can do, so no point in wasting $trillions. Let's get the pro-AGW crowd and the sceptics in the same room and get them to investigate global warming properly to produce real evidence one way ot the other."
At last we agree on something, except I disagree that if the cause is natural, there is nothing we can do. But despite the serious nature of the subject, a sense of humor is always welcome in my books.
Please see my next post for the next stage of the empirical evidence for global warming. I warned you that this might be fun, or painful.
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
Mysterium Tremendum and Parrallel Universes
My first piece of empirical evidence is strangely prefigured by davblo2's lighthearted post #155. And that is that most of the present population, and much of the past population of homo sapiens sapiens is and was religious. It is unwise to ignore this, however secular one may be. Modern science is very powerful in some respects, but lacking in others. It has enabled our Industrial Civilization, for better or for worse. But it leaves many people cold, in the sense that they are aloof from both science and possibly Industrial Civilization.
I will attempt, in my own way, to address both in this second blog of a series presenting empirical evidence for global warming.
-----------------------
"God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. God saw that the light was good. God separated the light from the darkness, calling the light Day and the darkness Night. And there was evening and morning, the first day."
- Genesis I:3-5
--------------------
Formation and evolution of the Solar System; Wikipedia
"The formation and evolution of the Solar System is estimated to have begun 4.6 billion years ago with the gravitational collapse of a small part of a giant molecular cloud. Most of the collapsing mass collected in the centre, forming the Sun, while the rest flattened into a protoplanetary disc out of which the planets, moons, asteroids, and other small Solar System bodies formed...
Pre-solar nebula
The nebular hypothesis maintains that the Solar System formed from the gravitational collapse of a fragment of a giant molecular cloud which likely was several light-years across.[8] Until a few decades ago, the conventional view was that the Sun formed in relative isolation, but studies of ancient meteorites reveal traces of short-lived isotopes such as iron-60 which only form in exploding, short-lived stars. This indicates that a number of supernovae occurred near the Sun while it was forming. A shock wave from one of these supernovae may have triggered the formation of the Sun by creating regions of over-density within the cloud, causing these regions to collapse. Because only massive, short-lived stars produce supernovae, the Sun must have formed in a large star-forming region which produced massive stars, possibly similar to the Orion nebula.[9][10]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_nebula#Formation_of_planets
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Manysummits:
If we are to carry this discussion further, we will have to know if the tenets of modern science are to be the basis of our discussion, and my presentation of empirical evidence of global warming?
I find the words of the Bible presented above majestic, in keeping with my status - homo sapiens sapiens (see below)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_sapiens_sapiens
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
hi manysummits,
pleased to see you still have the energy for the debate with the usual suspects. at the moment i'm too busy to read your fascinating posts in detail but i'll come back to them :o)
keep up the good work (but try not to let them give the impression there's a real scientific debate about their prejudices!!).
cheers
Complain about this comment
@davblo2
#152
I think the other errors referred to are things like AL Gore shows a picture of “Earth Rise,” aqnd then claims that 18 months after this picture was taken, the modern environmental movement began. Greenpeace began in 1971,but in “1892 - Sierra Club founded on May 28. To me this is irrelevant to the debate over AGW, but others think it is an error in the film that is worth pointing out.
Like I say, i won't argue the numbers, because the only relevant point half the film was about Gore and his family, so in 45 minutes he made 9 recognised errors, plus, it would seem, other errors.
Complain about this comment
@davblo2
#153
So in short, if you have no proof that something it natural, it would be best not to say that "it's natural".
I think i would agree and I will try to refrain form doing so. Let's hope the alarmists do the same thing and not claim some event is caused by AGW, when they have no evidence.
Complain about this comment
@davblo2
#155
So now I see the solution; (to be taken with a slice of humour).
We officially declare AGW as a new religion.
We don't have to prove a single thing (CT will be happy).
It will be happily accepted by timjenvey and all in schools.
We can mount crusades and suppress non-believers by force.
It will be able to raise enormous amounts of money.
Sorry, davblo2, it will never happen, the forces of good will never call for Nuremberg style trials for dissenters ;)
Complain about this comment
@manysummits:
#157
Cut to the chase and present empirical evidence that supports CO2 induced global warming, please
Complain about this comment
@rossglory
#158
(but try not to let them give the impression there's a real scientific debate about their prejudices!!).
trying to stiffle debate, ross? instead of trying to do that, why don't you present the evidence that is supposed to support the alarmist claims. Just point to where the missing hot spot is, please
Complain about this comment
@rossglory
perhaps in the alarmists world stiffling the debate is the best way of getting the message across.
Even the Washington Post gets in on the act.
First of all Steve Tracton lies about alarmists not being invited to a sceptics event, then when found out, he changes his complaint to: if alarmists were allowed to speak, they would meet hostile audiences, and then refused to apologise, when the organisers listed the number of alarmists who had been invited
http://www.heartland.org/publications/environment%20climate/article/25788/Blogger_for_Washington_Post_Admits_Skewing_Conference_Facts.html
Complain about this comment
cuckootoo - ho ho, these discussions don;t seem to change at all.
i think it is admirable that there's a debate on the bbc website.....but what i'm saying is that it is not a valid part of the scientific process, just a talking shop with some good and not so good comments (and did you really think i'd follow a link to the heartland institute??).
the scientific process is going on elsewhere and bears no resemblance at all to what is or isn;t said here and i just try to make that point as often as i can.
so debate away....but it ain't science :o)
good to cross swords again though!
Complain about this comment
cuckutoo - a good try mentioning the hotspot again...if i recall i did try to explain what a red herring that was but of course i'd fallen into your trap very nicely.....it made it appear that the hotspot was a real issue when it isn;t. you won't get me again though :o)
or did i fall in the trap again allowing that old chestnut back onto the agenda??
Complain about this comment
To manysummits: Did you see these northern lights last night?
http://www.spaceweather.com/
Absolutley awesome.
No time this morning. Maybe later......
Complain about this comment
Simon-swede #146.
Sorry to give you so much work.
This all started with me answering a comment by Manysummits. I commented that a judge was able to look at scientific evidence and ruled on nine instances in the case of Inconvenient Truth.
For some reason you threw in the judge’s opinion which I stated at the time was not where I was going. I think you are playing a bit of mischief with me here as I see you think from your comments in #87 and you’re summing where you say:
"I would think that the debate about the quality of the science and its use in policy-making should best take place outside of the court room".
So why do you push this argument as part of your defenses of the case.
So let’s agree:
1/. The judge was able to establish the facts on specific pieces of scientific evidence (the only point I was trying to make).
2/. A judge/court is not a good place for public policy on science (we both agree)
3/. I think the film was a very well presented piece of brainwashing, alarmist propaganda (my opinion)
Totally out of time but thought I owed you on this one.
Thanks
Tim
Complain about this comment
@rossglory
#165
did you really think i'd follow a link to the heartland institute
So you're not prepared to listen to any views that don't reinforce your own beliefs? I may not agree with the likes of Hansen, Mann etc, but i am still a reader of their websites, just in case they have a valid point to make
#166
it made it appear that the hotspot was a real issue when it isn;t
I disagree - I think to prove AGW, you have to find the evidence. The IPCC tell us the computer models show there should be a hotspot, but the data tells us it doesn't exist (except in the fevered imaginings of the alarmists). Either the models must be wrong or CO2 is not the culprit
Which is it to be?
Complain about this comment
@cuckootoo
i've been trying to get the alarmists to answer simple questions, like where is the empirical evidence to support the IPCC claims on CO2 too, but they refuse or can't answer, so good luck with that one - you won't get a proper answer
Complain about this comment
Rossglory #165. You say:
"the scientific process is going on elsewhere and bears no resemblance at all to what is or isn;t said here and i just try to make that point as often as i can".
I would agree with you. What it does do is help shape public opinion outside of political agendas and biased media so when the revolution comes we will have a better idea of which side to join.
I think this is an important aspect of blogs and has proved helpful to the folks living under suppressive regimes.
Best
Tim
Complain about this comment
Davblo #155. Thanks for the humour.
Here's my addition with inserted comments(also a slice of humour). You say:
"So now I see the solution; (to be taken with a slice of humour)".
We officially declare AGW as a new religion.
- It already is.
We don't have to prove a single thing (CT will be happy).
- You are already doing that.
It will be happily accepted by timjenvey and all in schools.
- That AGW is a religion? I do anyway and no need to brainwash school kids with scary, alarmist proaganda. They will be allowed to make their own opinions along side any other religious study.
We can mount crusades and suppress non-believers by force.
- Why declare a religion as you are doing a great job at that anyway.
It will be able to raise enormous amounts of money.
- As long as Al Gore and his henchmen leave some for you.
etc etc...
- etc. etc……
Have a great weekend
Complain about this comment
cuckutoo and chutney,
personally i refuse to respond to those because it is a waste of my time as well as the reasons i mentioned earlier. others have totally destroyed your arguments over and over again but terminator-like you guys keep coming back.
and i would not insult you guys by suggesting you go read anything from "www dot rabid_leftwing_lobby_motivated_antiscience_proagw_site dot com" so would appreciate the same
so carry on trying to make out that we 'alarmists' (personally i think anyone that understands the challenges we face knows what a nonsense that term is) have no answers to your loaded and ill-informed comments but i hope that others with a more open or sceptical (in its proper sense) mind will see how un-scientific this debate has become on these comment boards.
[Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]
Complain about this comment
@timjenvey - you have a valid point. actually i find richard black's pieces pretty good and balanced, but it must be soul-destroying to see the same old debate after every one!!
cheers
Complain about this comment
Hello Rossglory!
Good to see you are back. I'm embarking on a presentation of empirical evidence for AGW as I think about it, which involves a lot of deep past information. And I'm sure I'll learn a lot on the way, just assembling a coherent train of thought. I don't really expect CuckooToo or Timjenvey et al to buy in, their logic circuits don't seem to fire like mine, but others read these blogs, and it will help me make a sort of legal argument.
I'm wondering truly if I might not try politics in some way related to our global environmental predicament. Politics is a messy business, I am told, but on the rigs as a consulting wellsite geologist I always did get my hands dirty - it was necessary then, and it may be necessary now.
I'm reading a very frightening book just now by one of Canada's premier war studies authors, Gwynne Dyer. The title is:
"Climate Wars", 2008
He is very up to date on the science, quoting James Hansen's 2008 paper, "Target CO2", and he has given me an unusual perspective - a military one, very chilling and believable.
"The situation, for much of the Cold War, was stable...
Climate change is exactly the opposite. We have a catastrophic event that appears to be inevitable..."
- General Gordon R. Sullivan, USA (Ret),
former chief of staff, US Army,
National Security and Climate Change, April 2007.
There's more, much more. I haven't finished the book, but it would appear to me that much is going on behind the scenes - in the military scenario and response business, and that this might explain the lack of public policy statement on climate change from the Barack administration.
Now that I think about it, that makes perfect sense, one of those how dumb not to have thought of this myself a long time ago!
- Manysummits -
PS: I'll continue to post here on "Empirical Evidence for AGW."
Complain about this comment
To Simon-swede. Addition to my comment at #168.
I see now how I slipped up and you are quite correct.
In my comment #107 I said:
"Whoops. Quick correction to #106.
I was going to add the guidance notes for schools but when I looked for it was gone so I included the 9 inaccuracies from another list. If I find the guidance notes I'll post them".
I should have checked more diligently but as you can see from my comments at the time I was in a hurry and did not fully check. At a first read they looked pretty close to what I remembered but as you point out, not verbatim.
I found that all of what I might call "official" links I'd saved had been removed. Must say I found this not to be an isolated case. I will make sure to check that when I think I've got backup that it's still there.
Again my apology.
Tim
Complain about this comment
I admire your fortitude manysummits. I've been away visiting family in China and trying to sound out their perspective on the environment (not just climate change). In some ways it mirrors the west, the older generation seem to get it and are willing to do their bit....the younger generation are interested in shopping (those that have money anyway).
I think the olduns are still aware that your environment can kill you very easily (there are plenty of instances in china's history....including the very recent milk scare and lead poisoning). And the chinese govt is ploughing a lot of money in because they see it as a growth opportunity which of course it is. The sums far outweigh Obama's pledge and they've made the money available. I think a big difference between the chinese govt and western govts is that they're afraid of their people. For example I was reading about a proposed privitisation of a state factory that the staff decided to resolve by kidnapping and murdering the CEO....not an isolated case either. So a mass movement based on environmental fears is something the govt wants to avoid!!! But it has to keep the economy growing as well of course :o(
I was interested to hear your comments about Dyer's novel. A friend of mine asked me to read 'Ultimatum' (by Michael Glass) to see how realistic I thought it was. Haven't finished but it seems a similar take, lots of political manouvering in private....especially regarding China funnily enough. The postulated climate threat is imho fairly realistic but seems to focus on sea-level rise whereas I think pollution, famine, drought and subsequent wars will be just as much a threat. All sounds so Old Testament!! You might be interested in the latest post on George Monbiot's blog.
I recall a pentagon document from a few years back that talked of a USA 'no regrets' policy. A worrying concept.
The thing that has really struck me on my travels is that the concept of 'national' govt is totally inadequate (I would say irrelevant but that's not correct) for the 21st century. In 20 years time the real problems will be shared by us all, but of course nowhere near equally. Take away national identities and we're much more likely to work this thing out....what a pan-national political structure would look like i don't know. Do you have any ideas in that direction? Personally i'm a bit of a europhile, the EU constitution is based around the concept of basic human rights and it's slogan is 'Unity Through Diversity', catchy i thought (of course the EU has its problems too!!!).
Look forward to your compendium of AGW evidence.
Complain about this comment
@rossglory & manysummits
#173
well, pardon me for asking for evidence before going off on a probable wild goose chase
others have totally destroyed your arguments over and over again but terminator-like you guys keep coming back.
so why can't you, manysummits or anybody else simply provide a link or the name of a published paper that shows the IPCC's prediction of a hotspot or fingerprint, like that on page 675 of chapter 9, has actually been found? How hard can it be?
your loaded and ill-informed comments
What is loaded or ill-informed about requesting the evidence to prove mans role in global warming that the IPCC clearly states should be there?
For those who don't know what i am talking about, the IPCC tells us the first signs of warming will happen ten kilometers above the tropics. The computer models tell us other causes of global warming will warm the planet in different patterns (the figures show different signatures for different causes of warming). Weather balloons have searched for years and can’t find any sign that this patch of air, called the ‘hot spot’ is getting warmer.
I expect the IPCC will quietly drop the images on page 675 of chapter 9 and change the wording to hide the fact that the 2 decade search for the hotspot has failed. The IPCC will probably produce another spagetti diagram to try to deflect from the fact they they have failed, in the same way they tried using spagetti to prove the MWP didn't exist.
@manysummits
#175
I don't really expect CuckooToo or Timjenvey et al to buy in, their logic circuits don't seem to fire like mine
agreed
looking forward to your empirical evidence - no need to comment just link to the evidence, i'll do my best to understand
Complain about this comment
i think i have found information on the AGW detection that i may have overlooked previously. It's from the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory's Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison (PCMDI) established in 1989.
Mission statement:
PCMDI's mission demands that we work on both scientific projects and infrastructural tasks. Our current scientific projects focus on supporting model intercomparison, on developing a model parameterization testbed, and on devising robust statistical methods for climate-change detection/attribution.
This is the link to detection and attribution of global warming:
http://www-pcmdi.llnl.gov/projects/detection_attribution.php
sorry, couldn't resist ;)
Complain about this comment
@cucutoo
"so why can't you, manysummits or anybody else simply provide a link or the name of a published paper that shows the IPCC's prediction of a hotspot or fingerprint, like that on page 675 of chapter 9, has actually been found? How hard can it be?"
you wascal, not going to get embroiled in that old nonsense again. i explained why it was irrelevant. 9/10 for perseverance though.
when you get hold of some decent peer reviewed science that mainstream climate scientists show an interest in then i'll take a look - oh! but i would have already spotted it in the scientific press so of course you won't have to bother!
do you see what i mean yet?
Complain about this comment
@rossglory
awww, woss, you wascal, twying to avoid the giving a weal answer
no problem, mate, it's what i expect from alarmists - hot air
Complain about this comment
To rossglory #177:
Re: George Monbiot: I have already posted his latest blog here on this website, and yes, very interesting and thorough. Gwynne Dyer's "Climate Wars," which I am halfway through now, specifically gives a fair amount of positive ink to George Monbiot and his book "Heat," which I own, and which I found quite excellent.
Interestingly, another Canadian author, originally a British citizen, Ronald Wright, provides striking commemtary on the United States' history and psychology in his book "What is America," and on the human race in his previous "A Short History of Progress." I consider it a privilege to share the same planet with men like this. That would be one of those 'from the heart' without thinking comments that I do not understand, but say anyway.
National Identities and the nation-state:
I just found out recently that it was apparently the "Peace of Westphalia" that established the principle of the nation-state being the highest authority in the world. Perhaps new institutions like the European Union or the United Nations have partially overcome this. Interestingly, Ronald Wright, in the conclusion of his book "What is America," states that in his opinion the European Union offers, at the present time, the world's most progressive and hopeful political road to the future.
For myself, I have been influenced very much lately by Antoine de Saint-Exupery, whose acquaintance I made at the suggestion of 'simon-swede'.
The "responsible man," and a world focused on the integrity of the individual, is very much in my thoughts.
AGW: My next topic will probably be our "Sun." Not as humdrum a star as it is often depicted, and monitored 'by the second' by the same mainstream science that our denial lobby seems to either believe or not, as is their whim.
Good to hear from you,
Manysummits
Complain about this comment
To timjenvey et al:
(Thu Aug 20, 7:25 PM; by Seth Borenstein, The Associated Press)
Swimming is good in more places as oceans everywhere smash heat records
"July was the hottest month for the world's oceans in almost 130 years of record-keeping."
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/090820/science/science_us_sci_warm_oceans
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
@manysummits - i recall from studying political philosphy that one of the key definitions of a 'nation state' (which as an identity is actually pretty hard to pin down) was 'a nation state has the ability to wage war' or something like that. Another key reason for the growth of the nation state was to protect personal property thereby enabling free commerce.
Seems both of these are becoming the main threats to the planet.
@cucootoo - aw thuffering thuckertash you weally don;t get it. does it matter whether i give you a straight answer or not? the real answers are debated in the scientific community and if you want to understand whether agw exists or not or is a threat or not you'll either have to join that community (lots of hard work) or find an institution you trust (i suggest something like the national academies of all the main nations rather than the heartland institute).
the chances that you or the few scientists that you tout as the real authorities will find anything significant is infinitesimally small so i don't see it as efficient use of my time to follow up. if it appears in the scientific press (sorry that doesn't include the heartland institute website) then i'll concede.....but i see nothing at the moment.
carry on with the unscientific debate though.
Complain about this comment
Manysummits #183
Thanks for the good news. They’ve been creeping upwards for a few thousand years. I think it would be a bad omen if they started to go down. You know that there are some alarmists who think that the current drop in land temperatures indicates we are slipping into catastrophic global cooling! I suppose by now we have come to expect this sort of reaction from alarmist.
Hopefully the two will balance each other out. Would not be good for you to be buried under those glaciers again. I will rest more peacefully this weekend.
Did you see the Northern Lights display up your way that I posted you on a few days ago.
Thanks again and have a great weekend.
Complain about this comment
#185 contd.
Just remembered I did not add an explanation of my joy at your news. Sea temperatures had been declining for 3-4 years (which encouraged those cooling alarmists) and recently (about 18mths ago) started to rise again. It now looks back on track thank goodness.
Complain about this comment
"Empirical Evidence for AGW - Part 3"
"Then God said, "Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters to divide the waters." And so it was. God made the firmament, dividing the waters that were below the firmament from those that were above it. God called the firmament Heaven. And there was evening and morning, the second day."
- Genesis I:6-8
Astronomy & The Sun
"Astronomy is one of the oldest sciences...
Astronomy (from the Greek words astron (ἄστρον), "star" and -nomy from nomos (νόμος), "law") is the scientific study of celestial objects (such as stars, planets, comets, and galaxies) and phenomena that originate outside the Earth's atmosphere (such as the cosmic background radiation). It is concerned with the evolution, physics, chemistry, meteorology, and motion of celestial objects, as well as the formation and development of the universe."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astronomy
-----------
"The Sun"
"The Sun is the star at the center of the Solar System...
Energy from the Sun, in the form of sunlight, supports almost all life on Earth via photosynthesis,[12] and drives the Earth's climate and weather...
The Sun has a spectral class of G2V. G2 means that it has a surface temperature of approximately 5,780 K (5,510 °C) giving it a white color, which often appears as yellow when seen from the surface of the Earth because of atmospheric scattering. It is this scattering of light at the blue end of the spectrum that gives the surrounding sky its color.[14] The Sun's spectrum contains lines of ionized and neutral metals as well as very weak hydrogen lines. The V (Roman five) in the spectral class indicates that the Sun, like most stars, is a main sequence star. This means that it generates its energy by nuclear fusion of hydrogen nuclei into helium. There are more than 100 million G2 class stars in our galaxy. Once regarded as a small and relatively insignificant star, the Sun is now believed to be brighter than 85% of the stars in the galaxy, most of which are red dwarfs...[15][16]
The Sun's orbit around the Galaxy is expected to be roughly elliptical with the addition of perturbations due to the galactic spiral arms and non-uniform mass distributions. In addition the Sun oscillates up and down relative to the galactic plane approximately 2.7 times per orbit. This is very similar to how a simple harmonic oscillator works with no drag force (damping) term. It has been argued that the Sun's passage through the higher density spiral arms often coincides with mass extinctions on Earth, perhaps due to increased impact events.[32] It takes the Solar System about 225–250 million years to complete one orbit of the galaxy (a galactic year),[33] so it is thought to have completed 20–25 orbits during the lifetime of the Sun and 1/1250th of a revolution since the origin of humans...
The Sun was formed about 4.57 billion years ago when a hydrogen molecular cloud collapsed.[95] Solar formation is dated in two ways: the Sun's current main sequence age, determined using computer models of stellar evolution and nucleocosmochronology, is thought to be about 4.57 billion years.[96] This is in close accord with the radiometric date of the oldest solar system material, at 4.567 billion years ago.[97][98]
A recent theory claims that there are magnetic instabilities in the core of the Sun that cause fluctuations with periods of either 41,000 or 100,000 years. These could provide a better explanation of the ice ages than the Milankovitch cycles.[93][94]
Faint young Sun problem (Main article: Faint young Sun paradox)
Theoretical models of the Sun's development suggest that 3.8 to 2.5 billion years ago, during the Archean period, the Sun was only about 75% as bright as it is today. Such a weak star would not have been able to sustain liquid water on the Earth's surface, and thus life should not have been able to develop. However, the geological record demonstrates that the Earth has remained at a fairly constant temperature throughout its history, and in fact that the young Earth was somewhat warmer than it is today. The consensus among scientists is that the young Earth's atmosphere contained much larger quantities of greenhouse gases (such as carbon dioxide, methane and/or ammonia) than are present today, which trapped enough heat to compensate for the lesser amount of solar energy reaching the planet.[114]
Present anomalies
The Sun is presently behaving unexpectedly in a number of ways.[115]
It is in the midst of an unusual sunspot minimum, lasting far longer and with a higher percentage of spotless days than normal; since May 2008, predictions of an imminent rise in activity have been regularly made and as regularly confuted.
It is measurably dimmer than is usual during a sunspot minimum.
Over the last two decades, the solar wind's speed has dropped 3%, its temperature 13%, and its density 20%.
Its magnetic field is at less than half strength compared to the minimum of 22 years ago. The entire heliosphere, which fills the solar system, has shrunk as a result, resulting in an increase in the level of cosmic radiation striking the Earth and its atmosphere.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_sun
http://www.spaceweather.com/ (for current status of the sun, and more)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Manysummits:
I have tried to keep this as short as possible, but every line that I have selected for this blog I consider important for the topic, and I urge a complete reading.
- Manysummits -
PS: To 'timjenvey' re: northern lights.
No, I didn't see them as I was asleep. But your sighting gives me a chance to ask you - What causes the auroral displays?
Hint: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aurora_(astronomy)
Complain about this comment
Manysummits: I did not sight the Northern Lights. I saw a picture on spaceweather.com. Try this link from a day or two ago:
http://www.spaceweather.com/archive.php?view=1&day=21&month=08&year=2009
I mentioned it to you because the picture was taken just north of you in Edmonton.
As for what causes them I’m no expert. I go as far as saying a bust of solar wind that crashes into the earth’s magnetic field and gets scattered about. That's about it.
As for your excellent piece of work on the sun I confirm that I have read it and absorbed it. I'm interested that you include historical ideas. I often think we miss gems of understandings by dismissing ancient understandings because we think we have advanced and know better. What we might know better is that we don’t know dilly squat about much at all.
Awaiting the next installment.
Thanks for taking the time.
PS. What news have you of waunarik?
Complain about this comment
@rossglory
#184
so essentially your saying this subject is far too complex for ordinary people to understand and it's best to leave the difficult thinking to the elite band of pro-AGW scientists who really understand these things, and not bother my pretty little head with such thoughts. I'll just go back to my cross-stitch, shall i?
the chances that you or the few scientists that you tout as the real authorities will find anything significant is infinitesimally small .... if it appears in the scientific press ... then i'll concede
again, the onus of proof is on the alarmists to provide real empirical evidence that CO2 causes global warming and the hotspot predicted by the expert climate scientists and shown in the IPCC AR4
do you not think, if the the predicted hotspot had been found, it would have been trumpeted across the world?
Some have tried and failed to prove the existence of the hotspot and guess who it was that showed the errors of their ways? Yes, it was the rag bag mix of sceptics, the amateurs, dissenters and the retired scientists.
If you can't or won't answer my question on the hotspot, perhaps you will answer this one:
If the Heartland Institute publishes a paper by a leading climate scientist, which has stood up to peer review, does that invalidate the science and if so, why?
Complain about this comment
To timjenvey # 188:
Thanks for the compliment - it is my pleasure.
I checked your link to the northern lights, and viewed the pics. Very nice indeed! I remember my own best experience with our aurora, it was the summer of 1977, and I was hundreds of miles north of La Ronge, Saskatchewan, on a summer's field work by Wollaston Lake. I awoke in the middle of the night, and emerged from my tent to the most spectacular display of northern lights I have ever seen, to this day. The sky had gone crazy, like a mad Van Gogh with a universal paint brush, changing by the second so as to defy the imagination.
I woke my compadres, and we all stood in our underwear, puny creatures before the light in the sky, struck dumb, at least momentarily.
A great memory.
PS: It was following immediately on this summer's work that I led a group, among them some of the 'light watchers' that evening, to Mount Rainier in Washington, for a geological field trip and an attempt, unsuccessful, upon the great peak itself.
PS #2:
I have just caught a glimpse of the future, I think. From the book I am reading, "Climate Wars", by Gwynne Dyer:
"Climate change is unique. It raises enormous numbers of hard-security problems, and it has no hard-security solutions. In fact, the only real solution is cooperation."
- Nick Mabey, director, E3G,
in an interview with the author, March, 2008.
- Manysummits - setting out for a bicycle-fest downtown with Underacanoe and Cloudrunner -
Complain about this comment
To timjenvey:
I have forwarded your regards and question to 'wunarik.'
All the best,
Manysummits
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Re: post #192:
There is apparently a HTML glitch in there. It was a long post, with extensive copy and paste from wikipedia.
Discouraging, a lot of work. Will try and work up some enthusiasm for later.
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
#189 Cuckootoo
How is your cross-stitch going?? I gave up a long time ago.
I think we amateurs can certainly follow the science and comment on it, but my point is these comment boards are not science per se. Because I can't/won't answer some of the questions means nothing to the actual science. If the science community can't/won;t then thats a different matter.
And imho there is a very, very good reason why the elite (few 000s) of environmental scientists are pro-AGW.
And is the onus really on us to prove everything before we do something?
Say I was giving you daily injections of a new drug which most (but not all) of your doctors said was very dangerous and you've already started to feel a bit rough. However, the drug manufacturer's website said 'don't worry we have a few of our own scientists that say it hasn't been proven to be dangerous'. What would you do?
I am genuinely interested in your views on this (I can't imagine many others are still reading these comments, probably just you and me!!). You're clearly an intelligent guy/gal and I really can't fathom your take on AGW.
Complain about this comment
@manysummits
#193
Under house rules you are not allowed to post whole pages from other web sites. You can link to the website, providing it's not a pdf, but you can't copy / paste too much.
Complain about this comment
@rossglory
#194
I think we amateurs can certainly follow the science and comment on it, but my point is these comment boards are not science per se.
Agreed
And imho there is a very, very good reason why the elite (few 000s) of environmental scientists are pro-AGW.
And, imho there is a very, very good reason why the elite (few 000s) of environmental scientists are sceptical that global warming is man made. My reason being the lack of empirical evidence (and i don't mean "the ice is melting, therefore it is warmer, therefore it must be mans emissions, because we can't think what else it could be" type of evidence)
And is the onus really on us to prove everything before we do something?
Yes it is. Just imagine the UK in 100 years time. A land knee deep in wind turbines along the coast, harnessing the wind to create clean energy for all. But hang on, what's happened to the the farms inland? Why is nothing growing?
Sounds stupid, I know, but I also know Manchester United had their stadium fully enclosed. The full enclosure prevented air circulating around the pitch area, which affected grass growth resulting in a season of appalling playing surface. The solution was to knock holes below the seating to channel air onto the pitch.
Who knows what damage we may cause to the environment by changing wind patterns and strength?
Remember last years Australian fires that were initially blamed on global warming, until locals pointed out that they have always had fires, which weren't a problem, but the government had refused to allow them to create fire breaks. The lack of fire breaks were the reason the fires were so devastating, not global warming.
Say I was giving you daily injections of a new drug which most (but not all) of your doctors said was very dangerous and you've already started to feel a bit rough.
It would depend on what was ailing me and what my life expectancy was.
If I was dying, I would probably take the drug in the hope that i would be cured. If the drug killed me, then I haven't really lost anything and hopefully, I would have done my bit to further research into whatever illness it was that killed me.
If it was a cure for the common cold, I would listen to the doctors.
Either way, that would be an individual choice on my part, which would not effect anybody else.
The guys telling us to stop burning fossil fuels are not doctors dealing with life and death and drawing on a long tradition of medicine, they are at the leading edge of what is effectively a new science with insufficient data or modelling capability to make a diagnosis. There is not even a PhD in climate science as yet is there? Not all climate scientists agree with the claims of the AGW crowd, so let's not jump the gun. Let's wait until the science is actually in.
I am a strong believer that we need to protect our environment. I drive an economical car and plant buddleia etc to encourage the butterflies and other insects. In my professional life, I have tried several times to convince clients to let me install sedum roofs and other types of roof gardens (only to be pulled back by either the planners or builders) and I am currently providing mitigation for the Great Crested Newt including building new hibernaculums. I have several awards for my buildings including eco-housing, timber frame etc and I am working on disabled accessible housing etc.
I have read as much literature as i can find on global warming, both pro and sceptic and I am simply not convinced. I used to be convinced, but disparaging remarks at realclimate made me look further into the sceptics case and the more i thought about it, the less convinced i became, which is why i continue to ask for empirical evidence that global warming is man made
(sorry for the long post)
Complain about this comment
ok, fair enough cuckootoo. i must say that my approach to most of life is a least sceptical and usually cynical. i first came across the concept of agw in the 1980s when i saw a presentation by bryn jones, the chairman of greenpeace. at the time the science was still preliminary and the trend was still just within natural variation so scientists were not sticking their necks out.
but the numbers (i.e. exponential co2 growth) did ring alarm (not alrmist) bells and i did spend a lot of time following links to what seemed at first reading to be quite plausible refutations of the agw evidence. however over the years i never really did find any evidence i thought, after investigation, convincing and i did find a lot of what i would call deliberate obfuscation (doesn't apply to all the sceptical stuff but quite a lot).
in the end i wanted to better understand what was going on so started a degree in environmental studies with the open university. and from my reading and meeting and discussing this with so many people far better qualified and knowledgable than me who are working on projects that just accept agw (not because of group think or fraud or anything like that, just a mass of evidence) that it just seems to me a rational stance to accept it. of course they could all be wrong.
re the analogy, maybe a better anology would be an additive to the water supply. anyway my approach would be precautionary. and since i quite like the climate as it is (or was, maybe) i think the onus is on those that wish to keep adding co2 to prove it's safe.
i agree that windfarms can be a problem (there's the wind turbine syndrome as well to think about now) and i don;t want to see every hillside covered in them (not least because i'm a glider pilot who likes ridge soaring). however at the moment i know of only two major turbines in a very large part of the south east where i live (and one of those was set up as an educational tool) so i think there is ample scope before we hit issues of wind shadow (plus we do know the effects pretty well, e.g. the climate east of the pennines).
anyway, i'm sure we could go back ond forth forever. good luck with the projects and i'm sure we'll be crossing swords again hopefully without too much animosity :o)
Complain about this comment
@rossglory
I do find it interesting that 2 people can read pretty much the same stuff and one find the argument convincing and the other not convincing
Perhaps if realclimate weren't so dismissive or the sceptics and people like schneider were so off hand about offering up scary scenarios to cover scientists doubts, I would probably still think global warming was something to worry about.
My readings since have convinced me that there is nothing unusual going on - of course i could be wrong.
I'd love to know if any of the people you refer to can tell me where the missing AGW fingerprint is though.
All the best, and, despite some of my comments in these forums, i would never hold it against somebody for having misguided views ;)
Complain about this comment
@CuckooToo
I told you, you wouldn't get a proper answer from the alarmists. I have yet to see on any forum, as alarmists give an answer to these simple questions
manysummits pontificates without answering, even trying to divert attention by saying he will eventually answer the question, but instead talks about the sun!
rossglory just argues from authority or the complexity approach, which is completely unacceptable
perhaps Richard Black could tell sceptics where the empirical evidence is? He just needs to call one of his alarmist friends who feed him this rubbish and ask the question. Ok, that may be a little unfair, but sometimes it's very frustrating not getting a straight answer.
i'd just like some evidence too please
Complain about this comment
Evidence, evidence, everybody wants evidence.
Empirical Evidence for AGW - Part 3 (revised)
"Then God said, "Let the waters below the heavens be gathered into one place and let the dry land appear." And so it was. God called the dry land Earth and the assembled waters Seas. And God saw that it was good."
- Genesis I:9&10
--------------------
The Age of the Earth (Wikipedia)
"Modern geologists and geophysicists accept that the age of the Earth is around 4.54 billion years (4.54 × 109 years ± 1%).[1][2][3] This age has been determined by radiometric age dating of meteorite material and is consistent with the ages of the oldest-known terrestrial and lunar samples."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_earth
-----------------------------------------------
Radiometric Dating (Wikipedia)
"Radiometric dating (often called radioactive dating) is a technique used to date materials, usually based on a comparison between the observed abundance of a naturally occurring radioactive isotope and its decay products, using known decay rates.[1] It is the principal source of information about the absolute age of rocks and other geological features, including the age of the Earth itself, and can be used to date a wide range of natural and man-made materials."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_datinghttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating
-----------------------
Manysummits:
I'll keep it short from now on.
I would like to know if anyone has a problem so far?
And I would like to point out that all of the information presented so far is very mainstream science. Caveats, where necessary, are abundantly supplied in the Wikipedia articles. Most of the articles and the information contained in them is a combination of empirical evidence and theoretical work, including modeling. No-one that I have heard of has ever visited the Sun, for example, but mainstream science is reasonably sure it is a star, and evidence from primitive telescopes and the most sophisticated satellite, above the atmosphere information gathering systems is constantly being collated and thought about.
So far we are tracing the scientific understanding of the formation of our solar system, our star, now our planet. Naturally we will end with our atmosphere and oceans ..., and evidence for AGW.
But one must precede the other. There is a chicken and egg.
Radiometric dating is such a chicken. For those unfamiliar with this topic, a thorough read of the link will prove invaluable.
We are talking pretty sophisticated everything in these Wikipedia links. No one person that I am aware of has ever mastered more than a small fraction of the techniques and nuances involved in any of the myriad disciplines so far touched on.
How do we know they are true?
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
Manysummits #200
You seem to have come to a position that requires a belief in radiometric dating to be able to move forward. I did a bit of research as you suggested and can only find theoretical assumptions on the results. It’s a best effort with what little we know.
As you appear to be looking for empirical evidence this is not a path I can follow any further unless you can explain your belief that radiometric dating is empirical evidence. This will re-engage me.
Thanks
Tim
Complain about this comment
@manysummits
#200
I'm sorry, manysummits, copy/pasting passages from wiki or wherever is not evidence that man made CO2 emissions are causing global warming. I don't need a lesson on cycles of the sun.
The alarmists claim mans CO2 emissions are causing global warming, but without a shred of proof. They ask us to hand over $trillions, because they believe it is so - that's religion, not science.
Please stick to the salient facts to show how man made CO2 causes global warming. Please show evidence of the IPCC's man made CO2 fingerprint.
Complain about this comment
@manysummits
be careful what you wish for
American businesses want to put the notion of AGW on trial
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-climate-trial25-2009aug25,0,901567.story
the EPA has predicably said this is nonsense
should be a good story to follow
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Timjenvey at #201
Hi Tim!
This time I'm honestly confused! Which aspect of radiometric dating do you think is NOT based on empirical data? It seems to me that the technique has at its foundation empirical measurements, and using this data to enable comparisons and calculations to be made.
Simon
Complain about this comment
For Rossglory and CuckooTwo, attitudes amongst the US public and scientists concerning climate change.
The Pew Research Center for the People & the Press reported again in July 2009 about public and scientific attitudes in the USA concerning climate change. Their research showed that a large majority (85%) of Americans says that the earth is warming, but they are more divided on the cause of climate change than are scientists. The majority of scientists (84%) believe that the earth is warming and that this is due to human activity. The study also asked the public the extent to which they thought the scientific community agreed or disagreed about climate change. Despite the agreement among the majority of scientists about climate change, substantial minorities of Americans think there is no scientific consensus on this issue.
According to the study: About half of the general public (49%) says the earth is getting warmer “mostly because of human activity, such as burning fossil fuels,” while 36% say warming is occurring “mostly because of natural changes in the atmosphere.” About one-in-ten (11%) say “there is no solid evidence that the earth is getting warmer.” By contrast, 84% of scientists say the earth is warming because of human activity. Scientists also are far more likely than the public to regard global warming as a very serious problem: 70% express this view, compared with 47% of the public.
When it comes to what the public believe the scientists think, a small majority of the public (56%) says that scientists generally agree that the earth is warming because of human activity. However, more than a third (35%) says that scientists do not generally agree. Here however, it is clear that people’s perceptions of a scientific consensus are strongly correlated with their own views on the issue: those who do not think climate change is happening, or that warming is not a result of human activities, believe there is greater disagreement among scientists on the issue than there actually is.
Source: The Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, 9th July 2009
Complain about this comment
at the risk of repeating myself, what difference does consensus make?
There used to be a consensus amongst scientists and politicians that eugenics was a good thing, but how many would agree with that statement?
Where is the evidence that CO2 induced warming is happening?
Complain about this comment
Simon-swede #205
Hi Simon. We are talking "evidence" not data is my understanding. I just did a Google search on radiometric dating and all sites gave lists of limitations. I did a search specifically on limitations and everyone and his dog listed them from Wikipedia to USGS. Generally only to be used as comparison data with other methods as you also state.
That was my overall take. If you find it as ‘evidence’ please let me know.
Thanks
Tim
Complain about this comment
CuckooToo #103
Have you taken a look at the US Business Chambers site. They have a whole section on the subject:
http://www.uschamber.com/co2/default
The EPA pronouncement on CO2 being a pollutant was part of the Obama master plan for pushing through Cap and Trade. I did not think much would seriously stand in his way. Looks like this might be getting some traction.
Thanks for bring to attention.
Best
Tim
Complain about this comment
@cuckootoo
#203
i wonder if the BBC will cover that story - i guess it depends which way the wind is blowing and how strong
;)
Complain about this comment
Manysummits (and Simon-swede):
I'll go as far as “circumstantial” evidence but as I picked up from your comment, radiometric reporting cannot be something that can be called evidence by itself without a lot of assumptions. Moving from where you left off in 200 is going to require some extensive explanation to be any more than an educated guess based on our latest understandings.
Is that fair?
Complain about this comment
@mangochutney
of course i'm mortified that you've had to repeat yourself. but at risk of repeating myself, there's a huge amount of evidence just go and look (but you'll need to take your blinkers off first). also, to definitely repeat myself, whether i give you an answer or not on this comment board is pretty irrelevant. i'm convinced there is nothing i can say to convince you. but i do think a claim to authority is much more convincing than a claim to crank science.
and i'm a little confused about what relevance eugenics in the 20th century has to this debate on agw.......but confusion is the objective for many in the denialist camp. good job.
Complain about this comment
#206 - thanks simon
i've seen some of these stats before and i think the way to pitch these findings is that there is a statistically significant positive correlation between knowledge of climate and acceptance of agw. that avoids the specious argument about consensus!
Complain about this comment
To timjenvey et al:
Radiometric dating is crucial to empirical evidence for AGW, as are many other equally arcane and sophisticated scientific techniques.
I will tell you quite honestly that I expected some such point in this presentation. I have had the devil of a time understanding you, a management consultant, and CuckooToo, who appears to be an architect?? MangoChutney I have no idea, but would like to know.
I get the feeling sometimes that it is not empirical evidence of AGW that you suspect is not there, but rather you suspect science and its methods and probabalistic conclusions.
I remember your exhortation about your school science master - you learned to question everything - as many Nobel Laureates have advised. But your take appears to be that it is science itself which is in question, not individual ideas, such as AGW.
I have been quoting from Genesis for a reason. I'm not sure what that reason is, it's an intuitive thing with me, but I will ask you - are you a Creationist, or an intelligent design supporter?
------------------
In my field, which is geology, hammer and haversack, quill and ink - these were the tools of the early geologists. There was no radiometric dating method, radiation from radioactive sources such as radium had not been discovered.
Yet these geologists, crystal hunters at times, were able to piece together the broad outines of the geologic timetable, by the detailed and persisitent observation of the rocks, and comparative work with like minded individuals from many countries, although long distance communication was slow. Ther were no air-planes, no telegraphs, no phones - no internet or microchips, such as the ones that are enabling this conversation. Thrust faults were still to be discovered, and plate tectonics, yet one could still see by detailed empirical comparisons of fossil assemblages that younger rocks did not always overlie older rocks, that rocks containing marine organisms and graded bedding were to be found on the tops of mountains.
A daunting situation to work with, yet work they did - thousands and thousands of patient, persisitent fellows, and a few gals, with what we would consider rudimentary tools.
Radiometric dating, electron microscopy, the electromagnetic spectrum, its absorption bands and myriad other chacteristics, and literally hundreds of other equally sophisticated tools are fundamental to empirical evidence for AGW, as they are fundamental to believing the Sun is a star, or that the Moon is receding from the Earth at a measurable rate.
I thought perhaps I would first present the empirical evidence for global warming, without attribution to cause, and then later make the causative link to humankind.
But it increasingly clear to me that is not the problem, for you, and perhaps others, will not even accept empirical evidence withour a cause - because it is science itself which you doubt.
Truly that would be something you should honestly admit or deny - because I have better things to do with my blogging time than try and present evidence, when you will not believe it, no matter the source.
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
Manysummits
Just to be clear so if you decide on a follow on piece. I am basing my reply on your initial definition of “empirical evidence” in #138 you say:
“Temperature, as measured by an accurate, well calibrated thermometer, is empirical evidence. By contrast, non-empirical evidence is subjective, depending on the observer”
In my read up on radiometrics it is very clear that this data can not give results like your thermometer above (e.g. there were many examples of known recent volcanic rock that dated as ancient rocks). As I understand it one has to apply subjective judgement based on a whole range of other knowledge, experience and beliefs.
In keeping with your example above this is “non-empirical evidence”. i.e. The results have to be subjectively interpreted. There is no direct link between data and age.
Have I got this right?
Complain about this comment
Manysummits #214.
Hi again. Just looked in and I see I wrote my post without refreshing my browser so did not see your latest.
To answer your specific questions:
I am neither a creationist nor intelligent design. I'm not that sold on evolution either (the question just keep coming) but as that's the best we can come up with at the present I'll go along with it.
On science I think it lost it's way with the demise of the natural philosopher. Far too arrogant and oversold IMO. We know so little and yet we profess so much.
So that's where I stand. Ready for anything and try not to get bogged down anywhere. It's probably why I'm good at my job in helping to bring about business change.
You can blame my science teacher if you like......
Best
Tim
Complain about this comment
To timjenvey #'s 215 and 216:
I thought as much.
No, there is no point in continuuing. It is science you distrust, and all the evidence I would put forward is scientific.
Why do you use spaceweather dot com. SOHO is an intricate piece of scientific hardware. By rights you should dismiss its readings and interpretations as just so much data to mistrust?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_and_Heliospheric_Observatory
- Manysummits -
PS: Now we really can move on.
Complain about this comment
Hey Manysummit’s. Don't just stop because of my whacky beliefs. I'm sure there are those that will follow with interest. I will carry on as I have already shown interest.
One of my passions is soaking up all the adventures that science is embarking upon. I follow Spaceweather.com awesome images of our world and most of the NASA missions to name but two.
I don't distrust science per-say, I just believe that folks take it beyond what it’s capable of delivering and try to build a facade that we know what we are about.
Keep it coming Manysummits. I will soak it up. Just don't count on my interpretation being in sync.
Night, night……...
Complain about this comment
@rossglory #212
where?
i've looked and can't find anything to support the notion that mans CO2 emissions are causing the earths temperature to rise beyond an insignificant amount
you're doing environmental studies aren't you? ask your teacher, please, and tell him his answer mustn't include references to candles
Complain about this comment
To timjenvey #218:
I never thanked you for answering my questions, so I will rectify that now - Thank You, very good of you to do that.
It really is like speaking two languages. Science is the discovery of new knowledge, done in a certain way. The findings may or may not become part of the conventional wisdom, as time passes. Most people, I think, are familiar with the hypothesis that an impact ended the reign of the dinosaurs.
But if you think about it, there is implicit in this the 'conventional wisdom' that there were dinosaurs. Yet if the hypothesis is correct, no dinosaurs have graced the planet for sixty-five million years. Hence Jurassic Park. Where is the empirical evidence for dinosaurs Tim? The name means 'thunder-lizard', I believe. Some scientists claim that birds are modern dinosaurs, but one would be hard put to see a sparrow as a thunder-lizard. If you followed the 'argument' that 1) there were dinosaurs, and 2), birds are their descendants, you would find yourself in the heart of science as I know it, and out of your familiar world. You would encounter the Alvarez Hypothesis, and radiometric dating, for example, and detailed comparative paleo-anatomy studies. You would find yourself discussing the Oxygen concentration in the Triassic, Jurassic and Cretaceous, and how that has affected the physiognomy of both mammals and dinosaurs and birds. But you could hardly discuss this unless you first believed that there was a Triassic, Jurassic and Cretaceous. And on and on.
There is no escape if you wish to talk the language of science - you must devote enough time and effort to learning the language, and the methodology, to decide if it is your cup of tea.
But our AGW empirical adventure has done this - it has given me an understanding which was not really present before, as regards empirical data, and the hypotheses which may arise out of consideration of the data.
How if I present empirical data in the future, taking care to 'make the argument' that this data supports an hypothesis - say AGW?
Here is a link to:
"Empirical Evidence for Anthropogenic Global Warming.
One may dispute the hypothesis, but I would now expect both yourself and MangoChutneyUKOK to acknowledge that there is such a thing as empirical evidence for AGW, and to add your comment on it. I would expect that you will find the empirical dataset inadequate, but that is not the same as saying it doesn't exist.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?a=105
- Manysummits, moving on to the next blog - from Calgary -
Complain about this comment
@manysummits #220
I will answer your link in the same order as them:
CO2 is rising
Agreed, but to then make the link that man made CO2 is causing warming is mere conjecture without evidence.
The author of the website then fails to mention the work by Ernst Beck, which re-examines historical CO2 data and finds higher levels of CO2 in the recent past are not uncommon. Becks work is currently unrefuted, , except in the blogosphere, but as far ass i am aware, no scientists has a published paper to refute Beck.
CO2 causes warming
Climate sensitivity is commonly defined as how much global temperature increase if we doubled CO2. So what is our planet's climate sensitivity?
CO2 does cause some warming, but has been demonstrated and agreed by both sides of the argument, the amount of warming is logarithmic. Any additional CO2 adds less and less warming, until it becomes insignificant. So the first 20ppm add a great deal of warming (around 2C I think without looking it up), the next 20ppm adds say 1.5C, next adds say 1C and so on until we get to present levels of CO2, where if you add another 20ppm, we add very little warming. What matters is sensitivity.
Website author fails to mention more recent (and older) work by Shaviv and others, which finds climate sensitivity, taking into account cloud feedback etc, being very low. The IPCC ignores previous work that shows climate sensitivity to be low and uses the sensitivity issue to make it's scenarios seem scary.
Expected warming
The website author then gives a long list of "evidence" to support man made emission driven global warming. The list is evidence of something, but not evidence of what caused the warming, therefore the list is mere conjecture.
Conclusion
1.What is causing the warming if not CO2?
2.Why isn't rising CO2 causing the warming?
The website author leaps into the trap of "We can't think what else is causing the warming, therefore it must be CO2". Conjecture, M'lud.
Complain about this comment
MangoChutneyUKOK
You only seem to 'accept' evidence that reinforces your own view. So Beck is evidence, IPCC is not.
And as has been said before, "facts all come with points of view".
(a line from 'crosseyed and painless', by David Byrne and Brian Eno, Talking Heads)
Complain about this comment
To MangoChutnetUKOK #221:
In a rush this morning - more later, but:
A list doesn't prove or disprove anything - it's the interpretation by sentient human beings that occurs which is of interest. You build a case, one piece at a time. It is the sum of all the pieces, and probabalistic calculations (in science) which allows you to state something with a level of certainty.
But that's fancy words for what we hunter/gatherers have always done. You weigh the evidence with the intelligence you posess and act on imperfect information and imperfect logic and intuitive circuits, and hope that though imperfect, they are sufficient.
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
@simon-swede # 222
You only seem to 'accept' evidence that reinforces your own view. So Beck is evidence, IPCC is not.
The IPCC presented their evidence that CO2 is levels had risen from 280ppm to 380ppm in 2007. After their evidence was presented, Beck produced his paper in 2008, which showed the assumption that CO2 levels are fairly constant are false. As far as I know, and please correct me if I am wrong, Becks paper has never been refuted in published work.
Does this mean, I am right or wrong to cite Becks paper over the IPCC's?
The IPCC presented their evidence that man made CO2 is the driver of global warming in 2007 and showed diagrams based on computer models indicating exactly how the CO2 fingerprint would look. This fingerprint has been looked for for over 20 years and has not been found.
Does this indicate that CO2 is not the driver of climate change or the computer models are wrong? It can't be both.
If somebody can point me in the direction of a published paper that shows empirical evidence that CO2 is causing global warming or the fingerprint has been found (note: Santer or Sherwood is not proof - changing the goal posts to suit, is not proof), then i will change my mind and pop into the AGW believer camp.
Complain about this comment
@manysummits #223
You weigh the evidence with the intelligence you posess and act on imperfect information and imperfect logic and intuitive circuits, and hope that though imperfect, they are sufficient.
So we base trying to change our climate with geo-engineering exercises on a hunch?
Which of these constitutes evidence to you?
1 A bird flying south for winter a week later than normal
2 Temperature measurements in the troposphere
Complain about this comment
should the EPA be put on trial?
The US Chamber of commerce wants to put the EPA on trial:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/08/24/us-chamber-of-commerce-wants-trial-on-global-warming-issue/
Anthony Watts ran a readers poll to see if those sceptical of the notion that CO2 is a driver of global warming gave the following results, when asked the question Do you support the idea of putting “global warming” on trial with the EPA?:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/08/26/reader-poll-results-chamber-of-commerce-vs-epa-on-co2/#more-10290
94% said yes
4% said no
2% were undecided
So, manysummits, how about running a poll amongst alarmists and then lets get this thing into the courts
Complain about this comment
Manysummits #223. You say:
"But that's fancy words for what we hunter/gatherers have always done. You weigh the evidence with the intelligence you posess and act on imperfect information and imperfect logic and intuitive circuits, and hope that though imperfect, they are sufficient"
We agree on this definition!!
BTW. I'm really ok with temperature as “empirical evidence”. We use the freezing and boiling points of water to use as a yard stick which everybody agrees we will use. It's then the same for everybody. Just like length, time etc. Very scientific in my thinking.
It's the house of cards I get cautious about. I believe sciences role is to continually try to make fall down. Consenus is bad science IMO. Add to that the high-jacking of science by governments, media and business and we should be very worried about where we are being led in the name of science.
Complain about this comment
Maybe we should worry more about the actual hijackers?
And no, it's not that simple Tim - boiling and freezing points.
Ready to bring AGW to court anytime.
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
#228 - manysummits, i have a feeling it would be a kangaroo court :o)
#222 - simon, to take another david byrne quote to describe the denialist agenda 'same as it ever was'.
mangochutney, i know you disagree with my deferral to authority, but when i see the alternative that is touted it is the only rational approach. in addition i've worked pretty hard to be able to spot the obvious nonsense but i still rely on authorative sources to spot the flaw's in the more convincing literature. and since you do the same by quoting the research of others it really does come down to choosing which science you think is good and bad. here i prefer ipcc, nasa, royal academy etc to climate audit and heartland institute.
btw, there is no consensus in science along the lines of "that's all settled then", the consensus just comes from a mass of evidence that career scientists accept but i know you don;t. it's nothing like the eugenics argument at all, the science behind eugenics was always fairly sound (but not perfect) it's just the application that was flawed.
Complain about this comment
@rossglory #229
it really does come down to choosing which science you think is good and bad. here i prefer ipcc, nasa, royal academy etc to climate audit and heartland institute
here you go again, trying to use the poor argument, that my authoritative bodies are better than your vested interests.
The amateurs over at climate audit and the like are the only people who are properly checking the work of the IPCC, NASA etc and guess what? The findings don't make good reading. Sloppy science, poor statistical analysis, poor record keeping, no quality assurance, dog ate my homework, etc etc etc. If it wasn't for the amateurs exposing the ridiculous attempts by these "authorities" on global warming to hide their failings, we wouldn't even have the chance to question if global warming was anthropogenic in source or not.
btw, there is no consensus in science along the lines of "that's all settled then",
so why does Gore etc keep telling us that the science is settled?
the consensus just comes from a mass of evidence that career scientists accept but i know you don;t
Again, what mass of evidence? Come on, Ross, you're doing environmental studies, surely you, your peers or your lecturers can point to the evidence I ask for and the IPCC tells us will be there, somewhere, because the models predict it.
I will accept the evidence when it is found. I'm not really asking for much and surely after 20 years of searching for the evidence, AGW proponents must have some empirical evidence they would like to share with us lesser human beings?
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS