there are many instances of things being accepted without there being 100% proof. Take MMR as just one. Infact nearly all medicines are accepted to have an allowable 'failure rate' but this does make the science behind them wrong for the other 95% of the time.

If you chose to take the 10-5% chance that this is all wrong then that is a choice. All be it an odd one in my opinion. If you say that it is likely in the 90 to 95% range to rain tomorrow you would need some very good evidence to back that up -otherwise if it doesnt rain you would be wrong to have mage the claim.

Argue with what the IPCC have presented to make there 90-95% claim.

quote:

The problem is that you see doing a pointless exercise (and you have given me no reason to believe that you do not believe this to be a pointless exercise)as 'doing' something and also claim that this is an exercise of rationality beyond question. I have to believe that you are rational just because you have told me so

Yes we can do something. A lot of us could use less energy than we do. Green taxes are politically difficult, but not impossible. What may be politically difficult today maybe less difficult in a few years time particularly if warming continues or if there is another notable climate incident (even if not GW-related).

I think when we realise that a new Thames barrier needs to be built, and that transport infrastructure needs to be upgraded to cope with hotter heat waves (at huge tax cost of course), we might understand potential pros of green taxes and energy efficiency.

Education is important given that this will be one of the key challenges for the next 50 years.

What is the mechanism, which will stop global warming according the AGW lobby?

So me and you become more green and pay more tax. Will that ensure that CO2 level is controlled? No. No one knows what is desirable level of CO2 in the atmosphere and how this level can be achieved and controlled at.

Now you have conveniently left the science behind, as the politicians and some scientists like Hulme does and say that we should live by the new 'green' value of using less energy without questioning how that leads to prevention of global warming?

What is left implicit is of course any reasonable way of developing the mechanism would entail imposing tremendous penalties on the developing countries (as they are going to be the major producer of carbon in the coming years due to the need for development).

Now what pressure points are there beside appealing to the generous nature of people in developing nation to forsake development for some promise of controlling climate temperature based on inconclusive science?

Any ideas Steve_M ? Economic sanctions? War?

What do the silver stars signify. Do you with many silver stars not converse with new members??

Apologies Robmb if you felt that I am not having a conversation with you. I did not respond as I frankly do not understand the points you are making. You like many other pro AGW advocates here are trying to make IPCC report something that it is clearly not. Saying that it is a scientific report will not wash as IPCC does not do any science

What's in your mind:

Erm...no I'm not a politician - that should have been pretty clear. Climate models can give us an estimate of temperature scenarios based on CO2 emissions. That's just one qualitative measure. Other measures include impacts on ocean biogeochemistry from acidification, sea level rises from thermal expansion, sea level rises from ice-sheet melt, movements in weather patterns...all which have different impacts on different people, and lead to an overall assessment of the target level - I'm sure Hulme can tell you.

Saying that we can't do anything about it is a self-defeating argument. 10-15 years down the line the strategic risks of our current task will become more and more apparent, and we may not have the resources to deal with our own problems, let alone those of the developing world.

As your arguments become denser, less it seems that there are any real ideas behind these arguments. I will leave it at that for the time being as I think we are going round in circle here.

quote:

If you chose to take the 10-5% chance that this is all wrong then that is a choice. All be it an odd one in my opinion. If you say that it is likely in the 90 to 95% range to rain tomorrow you would need some very good evidence to back that up -otherwise if it doesnt rain you would be wrong to have mage the claim.

Hi Robmb, do keep posting. I tend to talk more to people I disagree with! I had "New member" next to me 6 days ago.

WIYM is being a bit pedantic in his comments about the IPCC report. It is a review of the science written by scientists with an audience of politicians in mind. I'm also curious where they got their 90% assessment from - it is clearly a judgement call. There are two possibilities:

1. That the uncertainties in the "global cooling" component of climate change (which caused the cooling after the war) are such that it is actually balancing the warming from greenhouse gases (GHG), and that therefore man's influence is null (at the moment).

2. It is purely a result of the consensus.

The scientific argument is not over as the details need to be refined. The political argument should be though.

quote:

As your arguments become denser, less it seems that there are any real ideas behind these arguments. I will leave it at that for the time being as I think we are going round in circle here.

Lack of action will result in economic hardship, war and large scale death.

Action may result in economic hardship, war and large scale death.

Clear enough now.

What is becoming incrreasingly clear is the lack of substance in your argument. Care to expand on this brilliant hypothesis?

How about this null hypothesis -Lack of action will NOT result in economic hardship, war and large scale death?

Good. Now i can see that you are wrong. I have checked the IPCC website which assuming it isnt all lies confirms 2 things.

I. They do carry out scientific research
2. There are a good number of members from developing countries.

Where do you get your information from? They have people working for them in

National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA

University Corporation for Atmospheric Research (UCAR)


UK Met Office

National Environmental Assessment Agency Netherlands

Institute for Global Environmental Strategies IGES Japan

Are these not Scientific organisations full of scientists. Since when did you get a political wather forecast from the Met?

This is from the IPCC website

The IPCC does not carry out research nor does it monitor climate related data or other relevant parameters. It bases its assessment mainly on peer reviewed and published scientific/technical literature. Its role, organisation, participation and general procedures are laid down in the "Principles Governing IPCC Work"

I am sorry to see a new addition to pro AGW lobby here who share the common attribute of poor research skills

You make a valid point - my mistake. However you ignore the other valid issue raised namely that the IPCC is made up of scientists from a wide range of fields and many of them from developing nations. So i dont think it can be dismissed as easily as you think. I have yet to seea more convincing argument based some way in fact.

I saw the list of authors of the 2001 report. Amongst 18 lead authors 2 were from developing nations, actually both from China and both member of IPCC (and not scientists belonging to independent universities). The ratio is even worse for contributary authors where I think only one was from Asia.


So it is not a scientific report and the authors are mainly from developed nations

Q. Are the drafting authors of the IPCC 4th summary report for policy makers active senior researchers in climate or climate-related science.

A. Yes.

Can we leave it there?

should we? shouln't we ask for more equitable distribution of authors especially as this no research but a political agenda?