Here’s how it could have gone, and where, possibly, we went wrong:
Earth, circa 1988:
It has been suggested that the world is warming - is this really happening to the world?
IF NO, let's sit back and enjoy the ride.
OR - IF YES, what is causing it? THEORY: Human produced carbon emissions?
IF NO - not caused by human produced carbon emissions - there is little we can do about it and we just have to respond as best we can to any further warming. Also, we should try to ensure that politicians do not hijack the science and pervert it over a period of, say, 10 to 15 years, embroiling scientists, their dependants, and large media organisations in a momentum gathering plot/swindle to convince the masses that global warming IS being caused by human produced carbon emissions.
This could lead to gullible members of the public and bandwagon jumping celebrities believing that they could stop the warming by paying people to plant trees for them or by only using their hair straighteners once a week. These gullible people may also be encouraged to believe that the lifetime of the planet is tiny and that they can infer from current changes in climate that the changes are caused by recent human behaviour, rather than more plausible reasons such as changes to the sun or long-term climate cycles, which cannot be perceived by humans because they have the unfortunate habit of dying within 80 odd years of their birth, which is far too short a time for them to get to know the rhythms of the planet that they briefly inhabit.
To the gullibles every extreme weather event will be ‘more evidence’ of AGW, merely because the people who experienced the extreme weather the last 20 times have all grown old and died and are therefore unable to tell us not to worry about it.
OR - IF YES, identify the best way to reduce the most human produced carbon emissions. Taking a sensible approach, the best way to do this would obviously be by stopping the emissions of the largest emitters, i.e. the USA, China and large industries and corporations. The efforts to do this must be strenuous and unlimited; as without these emitters being stopped, there is no way that global warming caused by carbon emissions will be stopped.
Do not waste time by targeting individual people and taxing them to try and reduce the unbelievably tiny amounts of carbon they are responsible for emitting. All you will achieve by doing this is to alienate many intelligent people, who will question why they should have to alter their lifestyle for emitting such tiny amounts, when the largest emitters, (who will carry on regardless of the politicians), are left to carry on regardless.
So - the above didn't happen - it all went wrong, and we are left in a situation where something which should be based in science is instead based in faith! There are people, (and scientists), who believe in anthropogenic global warming, and there are people, (and scientists), who do not believe in anthropogenic global warming.
At the moment the bulk of ‘The Masses’ are believers in AGW, because the major media organisations and politicians are preaching, preaching, preaching, sticking it down their throats, and they can do nothing but hear The Word. You may think that science should stand up for itself, and if it can prove that the warming is being caused by human produced carbon emissions, then as soon as it is placed in front of intelligent people there will no longer be any doubt and everyone will be believers.
Unfortunately the science is apparently very shy and will not come out of its shell, which sits in the debating chamber. And those who believe in the science appear content to hide behind the media organisations, whose make-up clad tools stand/sit in front of cameras and report dubious theory as fact.
It's not a matter of belief. It's a matter of accepting what the balance of the evidence clearly shows - Humans are responsible for the last 30 years of warming and much before that, mainly due to CO2 emissions.
Further debate about the reality of our position is futile because the ongoing physical process will answer the deniers in time. In the developed world most people are too involved with their comfortable energy intensive lifestyles, in the developing world most people want what the developed world have. Migration of populations to cities continues to be an increasing trend. So we're not going to do anything to substantially reduce emissions. Which means we have all the time in the world to watch the process unfold.
My working assumption now is that the rainfall event of 20/7/07 was arguably the first British climate change disaster. The impacts of Global Warming are happening right here, right now, and they don't just mean nice hot summers and mild winters.
Originally posted by CobblyWorlds: My working assumption now is that the rainfall event of 20/7/07 was arguably the first British climate change disaster.
Whereas the floods in the same places in 1947 and 1915 weren't?
Originally posted by CobblyWorlds: My working assumption now is that the rainfall event of 20/7/07 was arguably the first British climate change disaster.
Whereas the floods in the same places in 1947 and 1915 weren't?
1) I didn't say floods did I?
I said "rain-event". In any case was the rain that caused the floods in 1915 & 1947 as extensive (not just localised intensity). Floods are a poor comparator. A month of rain every day can easily cause a situation where a normal rainfall low pressure front dumps enough rain to cause flooding. That is not the same as saying over a month's worth of rain in less than 24 hours.
2) I wouldn't even claim to attribute Sheffield/Hull 21/6/07 to climate change - the main factor there seemed to be the structure of the front in relation to the North Sea and Northern England. But from what I've seen I interpret a role for the very warm temperatures in Southern Europe in 20/7/07's rain event. It's intensity was striking. Research shows an Anthropogenic role in recent Mediterranean drought/heatwave.
3) The El-Nino has likely caused the behaviour of the jets, that's what's given a poor summer, but that intensity of rain in that event seems exceptional. Without the El Nino we'd very likely not have had a summer like this. Without global warming we'd very likely not have had the amount of precipitation seen on 21/7/07.
4) Prof Richard Lindzen argues that models show a reduction in mid latitude storm frequency, models agree. But as we have just seen - when they do occur their intensity can be higher, as argued by Sir John Houghton. And as Houghton argues the Clausius Clapeyron relationship still suggests more intense rain from showers in a more typical Azores-High dominated summer.
When watching the tide come in it may be correct that the first wave to soak your feet cannot be attributed to the tide.
However observation tells you that the tide is coming in and one logical outcome of that is that if you don't move you'll get wet.
So whilst technically true, the Mantra "we cannot attribute specific events" can be annoying as you skip back and shake your sodden feet. Cursing yourself for heeding the fool who told you the tide was not coming in.
Originally posted by CobblyWorlds: It's not a matter of belief. It's a matter of accepting what the balance of the evidence clearly shows - Humans are responsible for the last 30 years of warming and much before that, mainly due to CO2 emissions.
Further debate about the reality of our position is futile because the ongoing physical process will answer the deniers in time.
Sorry, but it IS a matter of belief. It is a theory that global warming is anthropogenic. You either believe that the theory is correct or you do not believe that it is correct, and perhaps believe a different theory. No-one on the planet can truthfully say that they know what is causing global warming.
Further debate is not futile - it is urgently needed! Although with most journalists currently forgetting to be journalists in the area of global warming, it looks like we will be waiting a long time for it...
Also if further debate was futile, the posts to many of the threads in this forum would be pretty one-sided!
Originally posted by CobblyWorlds: You believe what you want, I'll continue to inform my opinion through reading the actual science.
Bye.
...and then believe what you want.
Ben, The impression I get is that the AGWers base their beliefs on emerging evidence and probabilities (from what I've read) whereas the BAUers believe what they want to believe.
I can't pretend to follow the science but I do recognise a reasoned argument and I failed miserably to provoke the AGW camp but find I get hours of fun with the BAUers because they seem to relish a good old "slanging match". What are they on this forum for I ask myself.
Cobbly, keep up the dialogue. Remember its only futile trying to change the minds of those who can't or won't question their beliefs. There is a wider audience out there who do take note of what you are saying.
Ben, The impression I get is that the AGWers base their beliefs on emerging evidence and probabilities (from what I've read) whereas the BAUers believe what they want to believe.
I have been following these threads for quite some months now, and that is not the impression I have been left with.
I have often perceived from the AGWers a desire for damage limitation on behalf of the public face of global warming. As if they can't bear the idea that Joe or Jo Public will come across these threads, possibly when trying to discover more about all the reports on TV news programmes and in newspapers about global warming not being as big a threat as it has been made out to be, (oops, sorry, I forgot for a second that there never are any such reports as journalists would actually have to question things that the IPCC told them and they apparently don't like to through embarrassment, or possibly because it's not in their contract and they are on a work to rule), anyway, then Joe or Jo Public read a post which may be sceptical about GW being A, and - horror of horrors - it has been left unchallenged! NO! We can't have that! We must write a reply such as...well, actually, such as the second paragraph of your response, copied below - congrats - an excellent example of breed!
Hopefully that will put them off the scent and they will then pop off and sit inside a big box for the next 50 years, so that they don't cause any nasty carbon to be emitted, and leave AGW scientists to keep leeching those grants to do that urgent research.
Here is that second paragraph to wonder at again:
quote:
Originally posted by Seskinreay:
I can't pretend to follow the science but I do recognise a reasoned argument and I failed miserably to provoke the AGW camp but find I get hours of fun with the BAUers because they seem to relish a good old "slanging match". What are they on this forum for I ask myself.
Ben, The impression I get is that the AGWers base their beliefs on emerging evidence and probabilities (from what I've read) whereas the BAUers believe what they want to believe.
I have been following these threads for quite some months now, and that is not the impression I have been left with.
I have often perceived from the AGWers a desire for damage limitation on behalf of the public face of global warming. As if they can't bear the idea that Joe or Jo Public will come across these threads, possibly when trying to discover more about all the reports on TV news programmes and in newspapers about global warming not being as big a threat as it has been made out to be, (oops, sorry, I forgot for a second that there never are any such reports as journalists would actually have to question things that the IPCC told them and they apparently don't like to through embarrassment, or possibly because it's not in their contract and they are on a work to rule), anyway, then Joe or Jo Public read a post which may be sceptical about GW being A, and - horror of horrors - it has been left unchallenged! NO! We can't have that! We must write a reply such as...well, actually, such as the second paragraph of your response, copied below - congrats - an excellent example of breed!
Hopefully that will put them off the scent and they will then pop off and sit inside a big box for the next 50 years, so that they don't cause any nasty carbon to be emitted, and leave AGW scientists to keep leeching those grants to do that urgent research.
Here is that second paragraph to wonder at again:
quote:
Originally posted by Seskinreay:
I can't pretend to follow the science but I do recognise a reasoned argument and I failed miserably to provoke the AGW camp but find I get hours of fun with the BAUers because they seem to relish a good old "slanging match". What are they on this forum for I ask myself.
Except Ben, that I am Joe Public, am certainly no scientist and do not represent the AGW camp.
I have sided with them because of the strength of argument and the lack of disparagement that the BAU side go in for !
Except Ben, that I am Joe Public, am certainly no scientist and do not represent the AGW camp.
I have sided with them because of the strength of argument and the lack of disparagement that the BAU side go in for !
Yes, but you have read enough to pick up the pattern of an AGW response and possibly feel useful fending off critical posts that do not include technobabble.
Ben, this is not new, apart from a few so called climate scientists, science is quite because they know there is a history of politics usurping science.
Also particularly where climate is concerned they know that too little is actually known for anyone to accurately predict future climate and that so far past climate predictions regarding global warming or cooling have been very wrong.
What we have today are computer models, what this provides the alarmists is the means to convincingly manipulate, present and hide information - it's a fantastic political tool but a poor scientific one if in the wrong hands.
This is why much of the pro-AGW arguments are:
1. Relying on presenting these computer models as fact. 2. Preventing investigation into the facts including stifling debate.
Originally posted by Seskinreay: Ben, The impression I get is that the AGWers base their beliefs on emerging evidence and probabilities (from what I've read) whereas the BAUers believe what they want to believe.
I can't pretend to follow the science but I do recognise a reasoned argument and I failed miserably to provoke the AGW camp but find I get hours of fun with the BAUers because they seem to relish a good old "slanging match". What are they on this forum for I ask myself.
This makes me think a word, and that word is hypocrisy.
Originally posted by Seskinreay: Ben, The impression I get is that the AGWers base their beliefs on emerging evidence and probabilities (from what I've read) whereas the BAUers believe what they want to believe.
I can't pretend to follow the science but I do recognise a reasoned argument and I failed miserably to provoke the AGW camp but find I get hours of fun with the BAUers because they seem to relish a good old "slanging match". What are they on this forum for I ask myself.
This makes me think a word, and that word is hypocrisy.
QED !! But as I say I do not represent the AGW camp but am more impressed by them than the BAUers. Steve_M and co do not go in for the sort of disparagement you guys display. They argue the science as far as I can see, whereas you guys post "AGW Science and AGW Religion" and "Is a Green Life worth Living?". Even the best of your bunch "Lost in Kate Winslet" can't help snearing remarks when under pressure.
In trying to widen the debate to cover eco-concern in its entirety your bunch resort to perjorative terms such a eco-fascist and try to associate expressions of concern about population growth with implicit advocation of the Khmer Rouge !!
Your comments re Durkins Aussie experience are also interesting. If ever a guy was to be seen pathetically trying to defend the indefensible it was Durkin. This appears to be typical of your side. You could bring yourself to admit that Durkin has let you down badly. If Al Gore puts out misinforamtion I am equally disgusted by him as I am by Durkin.
Also, I am not talking to you but hopefully a wider audience who, like me, are making up their mind where they stand. I use this site to demonstrate the desperate lack of quality debate coming from your side and it seems to carry some weight with the friends and collegues I discuss this with.
So why don't you cut the c@&p and start an reasoned, open minded debate with the eco-concerned lobby?
A strange idea that the "science" is hiding behind the "media"!
Scientists publish papers in scientific journals, and articles in scientific magazines. When they get the opportunity they make science programmes for TV or get themselves interviewed by journalists.
So in what way are they hiding?
Are you sure it is not the journalists who are content to remain at the forefront of the media while the people who make the stories are kept in the background. And the public who'd rather read mainstream newspapers and limit their science exposure to occasional viewings of the Discovery channel.
I would be all for a Richard Dawkins/Robert Winston type character to emerge from the climate science world who could bring an angle to climate science that would be of sufficient interest to media folk that they'd be allowed to tell the story. Perhaps (to paraphrase a Julian Barnes book) an 11-part series of programmes on Channel 4 (of course) called "History of the World's Climate in 10 and a half Chapters" (the half-chapter marking our incomplete march towards our ecological doom ). Anyone know any commissioning editors?
So, you mean the media just came up with global warming all by itself, without being told about it by scientists? I don’t think so.
Scientists who no doubt know that the bigger the threat global warming is made out to be, the more money will get thrown at them. Fortunately for the scientists the media loved the story so much that it is not interested in knowing if it is actually true or not, and for them the threat has to be as big and juicy as possible.
So, you mean the media just came up with global warming all by itself, without being told about it by scientists? I don’t think so.
Don't be silly. For example the other day we had a paper (written by people that I know I should say) offering a 10-year global temperature forecast.
The Guardian, said:
quote:
The study's findings raise the prospect of hotter summers and episodes of torrential rain in the UK
Neither the study nor the press release mention rain. But the media have an interest in conflating two stories to make a bigger story.
Occasionally scientists do go over the top, and tend to be criticised for it by other scientists. Eg. in the first climateprediction.net experiment, the publicity seeking head of the project over emphasised a tiny fraction of models that showed warming of 11C by 2100 and damaged his reputation by doing so.
As I know quite a lot of these scientists socially and through work (I'm not a climate scientist though - I just make the tea ), I know what you say about them is untrue. While I do have an "interest", whether you think that means I'm a liar doesn't matter to me.
So, can you give us the gossip on your climate scientist chums?
Does their mortgage depend on the continued believability of global warming as a threat to the planet?
If the whole AGW industry collapses could they sideline into another area of science? (Possibly by looking in the job pages for “Wanted, scientists to save the world from this new dreadful menace…”)
Do they appreciate all of the hysterical reporting of AGW by the media, as it helps to keep “their field” in the headlines, (and those grants flowing through the door)? Or are they embarrassed about it, hence why they don’t rush out and say, ‘well, actually, that is a bit of an exaggeration.’?
Originally posted by Ben Hams: So, can you give us the gossip on your climate scientist chums?
Does their mortgage depend on the continued believability of global warming as a threat to the planet?
If the whole AGW industry collapses could they sideline into another area of science? (Possibly by looking in the job pages for “Wanted, scientists to save the world from this new dreadful menace…”)
Do they appreciate all of the hysterical reporting of AGW by the media, as it helps to keep “their field” in the headlines, (and those grants flowing through the door)? Or are they embarrassed about it, hence why they don’t rush out and say, ‘well, actually, that is a bit of an exaggeration.’?
Ben, argue the science or have you already decided what you want to believe?
08/08/2007: I can't pretend to follow the science but I do recognise a reasoned argument and I failed miserably to provoke the AGW camp but find I get hours of fun with the BAUers because they seem to relish a good old "slanging match". What are they on this forum for I ask myself.
quote:
Originally posted by Seskinreay:
11/08/2007: Ben, argue the science or have you already decided what you want to believe?
Wow - that is quite a change of attitude in the space of just three days!
08/08/2007: I can't pretend to follow the science but I do recognise a reasoned argument and I failed miserably to provoke the AGW camp but find I get hours of fun with the BAUers because they seem to relish a good old "slanging match". What are they on this forum for I ask myself.
quote:
Originally posted by Seskinreay:
11/08/2007: Ben, argue the science or have you already decided what you want to believe?
Wow - that is quite a change of attitude in the space of just three days!
No argue the science with the scientists silly !!
If you argue convincingly I will support you. I changed over when the scientists pointed out that Durkin was guilty of misinforming me in the GGWS programme (which he (Durkin) later admitted by reinstating doctored graphs and in the now infamous interview with Tony Jones on ABC). Any vi
