I found the C4 'Great Global Warming Swindle' very interesting regardless of its bias towards skepticism. It has generated a huge and emotional debate on this forum around the fact or fiction of Global Warming and the emerging conclusions that Man is responsible. There is much use and abuse of argument and lots of hot air is being generated that undoubtedly will have a proven link to further Global Warming !
However, if the debate over right/wrong, fact/fiction were to be set aside I still think that there are certain principles that could be agreed upon and that a set of actions, or mitigations - based on common sense, could be developed.
On the debate:
The DATA - facts
On this subject there are a great many facts that could be gathered - an overwhelming amount of measurements and samples that could form the basis of analysis. They can be selectively gathered. They can be incomplete. They may not be relevant but gathered anyway.
The ANALYSIS - modelling, etc.
If analysis is done on the gathered facts, and if they are as above, then the analysis will never be rigorous enough or perfect. Models used to aid analysis can be built incorrectly. They can have incorrect attributes. They can be flawed and manipulated incorrectly.
The CONCLUSIONS
If the Conclusions formed have an audit trail, via incomplete or flawed ANALYSIS to suspect DATA, then they will almost certainly be incapable of providing a complete and compelling link to root causes. In addition, Politics/Money/Beliefs/Experience - can all corrupt our Conclusions.
The RECOMMENDATIONS ... What's The Plan?
So, can the scientific community ever recommend anything to our Governments, our Citizens, Businesses, etc., on the whole complex, but wobbly subject of Global Warming and the association with CO2 emissions? In particular, is it possible, at this stage of our knowledge, to make recommendations based on the assumed (or if you prefer 'proven') contribution to Global Warming by human activity that generates CO2?
Can anything at all be recommended ?
Possible Answer 1). No, if the whole pyramid of logic is shaky we should avoid forming our opinions until the science becomes solid and largely unanimous. In other words, do-nothing - gather more data, keep analysing/modelling/extrapolating, keep debating the conclusions.
Possible Answer 2). Yes. Regardless of the outcome of analysis, I think we do know from our experience - economic, business, cultural and personal - that it makes sense, and it is right (discuss), to do certain things.
Namely to follow certain Principles: all of which should have a clear Rationale and an understanding of their Implications
* That the management and conservation of finite resources is a good thing to do. * That sustainable harvesting of the Earth's resources is a good thing to do - efficient agriculture and production. * That polluting the Earth is a bad thing to do (with CO2 in this context). * That having a wide array of alternatives, such as: energy, materials, technologies, skills, etc. is good. * ... etc.
So ... is it possible to agree some behaviors, practices or policies - regardless of the state of the political and pseudo science soup ?
Perhaps, by having a strong focus on action we could agree to support the above (or similar) Principles and on those things that make plain common sense for the human race.
OK so I'm an optimist. No doubt an equally emotional debate could now emerge about governmental and political motivation for driving an action plan for change. However, I just don't like the idea that any current proposed actions are entirely justified because they are based on fully-baked, scientific analysis. But I do like the idea of action.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Robbie Writer: The vast majority of scientists are agreed. Therefore we can act on their science.
My point is that we can act both on our Principles and on Science. I think we would both agree that we don't have to wait.
As long as there is money in oil you will never have 100% of scientists agreeing.
Perhaps I'd prefer, ' ... so long as there is money ... !'
There is a short timeframe before climate-change will be beyond our control so we must act now.
It is not a given that our actions can control climate change, nor is it a given that we caused it (hence the debate), but we should act in any case.[/QUOTE]
This statement is the one I take most issue with. Science is a broad subject and encompasses a huge number of disciplines. I doubt that scholars of neuroscience, computing, knot theory and a good many others have much data from their own work that bears any relation to global warming.
Such a statement is glib, and is exactly the type of thing that gets one into trouble. It's so easy to say "the vast majority of scientists" say this or that, but we need cold, hard evidence of that. Unless you have canvassed every scientist personally, or have something that we can reference to show that this statement is true, then the validity of the statement is immediately questionable.
Giving you the benefit of the doubt, I'll asssume that you are referring to scientists who deal with climatic, environmental and meteorological effects. Again, where's the evidence to say "the vast majority" since surely there are "scientists" dealing with these issues who are not sufficiently advanced in their field by reputation/experience/published papers to have their views and opinions recorded? I hold a qualification in Computer Science, but no-one asked me.
This argument is similar to those stories used by tabloid newspapers which refer to "experts" but never reveal who those experts are, what qualifications they hold or indeed, even which positions they hold. It's exactly the position which the GGWS sought to explode; that is to say that there is a blanket assertion to which there simply cannot be any dissent because there is (supposedly) a faceless, nameless body of opinion that agrees on a point of view.
Clearly, that is untrue. If you can provide evidence of this "vast majority of scientists" who are agreed and show that it is indeed the "vast majority" (i.e. well over 50% of all the world's scientists- in all disciplines; tell you what: I'll let you take 60% even, as the "vast majority") then I'll rethink my position.
You might think this is nit-picking, but if you believe so strongly in the scientific principle, then surely you will see that a sweeping statement like "the vast majority" without evidence that includes figures and identification is an extremely unscientific approach.
And therein lies the nub of the issue. Remember those adverts that said "You can help prevent climate change by doing x and y?"
That's a load of old pony. Even the most rabid scientific supporter of the theory that GW is caused by human interaction would agree that we CANNOT prevent climate change as a phenomena, since climate change happens with or without us. "Global warming caused by man" would at least be more valid.
The language used is of VITAL importance. It's unqualified statements of fact that cloud the issue in the first place.
In all honesty, I don't know whether human activity causes faster climate change than normal (specific use of "faster" intentional). I have strong feelings that it probably does, but probably by a miniscule amount that isn't worth getting uptight about, since I believe the tiny amount we contribute to CO2 doesn't make a whole deal of difference.
What offends me most is that the kind of blase sweeping statement presented here is taken as being fact by opportunistic interested parties as a reason to introduce taxes and charges that inevitably hit the poorest and most disadvantaged sectors of society first. For instance, if you earn a hundred grand a year, swapping your bulbs for five quid ones doesn't hurt much. If you earn less than three grand a year (as a single unemployed person does), it might. If you're in the position to afford a new, hybrid car or low-emissions car or any of those gimmicks (that aren't actually all that good) then you get a tax break. If you happen to be poor and can only scrape up enough for a knackered 30-year-old Datsun, then you'll receive none of that benefit (despite the fact that, of course, you're probably being greener since you're not actually contributing to the environmental cost of producing a new car, an energy-sucking enterprise that's considerable).
Whatever its flaws, the scientific process is remarkably successful in the few hundred years it has been practiced.
Governments are elected to govern, but where science is the best place to get certain advice, governments should govern based on this advice, because otherwise all bets are off.
Some anecdotal evidence. Foot and mouth outbreak was a disaster because government had skimped on the science for 30 years. Mad cow disease was ignored because of the food lobby.
Clearly the demands of the science have to be balanced against the rights of individuals, and other areas of research (economic and social).
While I do think that your points about saving resource are good principles that are justified for economic and strategic needs, as well as related to climate change, each has to be justified on its merits.
Governments should also take a long term view, which is always tricky with a darn pesky electorate around
As I understand it, scientific examination of any phenomena is approached by a series of measurements, then followed by 'stimuli' to observe the cause & effect behaviour of the subject topic. This is how researchers have progressed our understanding of how, eg the human brain works.
In the situation of studying GW, there is no way that reducing the CO2 emissions in the UK alone can possibly affect the global case. The stimulus is simply too small. Think about it!
[As long as there is money in oil you will never have 100% of scientists agreeing.
oh, and as long as there's money from the governments, we should believe 'the vast majority' of scientists on the payroll of said governments. And why is that? Is government money different? How?
There is a short timeframe before climate-change will be beyond our control so we must act now.[/QUOTE]
Glaring gaps of logic here in that:
* you don't weigh the positive vs. negative consequences of GW. To enviros all the change will be bad.
* you don't offer any cost/benefit analysis establishing that anything that we do would be measurable against "natural" global warming (which I hope you have the good sense to recognize is a fact of nature).
* you seemingly assume that everything we do to counteract GW will have a positive effect. Ever heard of the "law of unintended consequences"? IIRC Egypt screwed up its millenia-old agricultural economy by building the HIgh Aswan Dam. Russia created an ocean of saline sand by diverting rivers away from the Sea of Azov, causing the Caspian Sea to shrink. Consider the drive for a "hydrogen economy": the largest greenhouse gas component is water vapor. Do you think that tens of millions of cars emitting nothing but water vapor might result in unbearable humidity in cities?. I'm not saying they will, but the cost of misguided action are every bit as real is inaction.
