We're wedded to fossil fuels, the energy they give underpins our entire civilisation.
We were given the Hydrogen economy trash in the press sometime ago, until people who had their brains in gear pointed out the flaw: Where do you get the energy to make the Hydrogen? Biofuels, solar etc etc none of them add up when you consider our demands for energy and their likely future trends.
Think Hubbert's Curve will help? Think again. Coal is still plentiful and emits more CO2 per joule than oil or gas.
Our best bet, nuclear fusion. But when I was a kid I had a book describing a torroidal containment vessel, and that was the 70s. It might come through, but it's far from certain.
So if we're not going to stop it, then what does it matter what people think?
If it makes you happy, you can believe that AGW isn't really happening, you can persuade your friends. Show them a video of GW Scandal, go on, get out there persuade, persuade, persuade, be known for it, be proud of it. The idea amuses me.
Because as the Late Great Douglas Adams once wrote "it doesn't matter a pair of fetid dingoes kidneys what you do". The real physical process of Anthropogenic Global Warming will proceed.
For me the time has come to leave the physical process to answer the concerns of the doubters.
Tatty bye!
Best regards to the others arguing for the science and in defence of the consensus (you know who you are - I'm not naming anyone because I know I'd miss someone out). I've waste over a week on this, that's time enough.
On one hand you have AGW theory, that says carbon is causing global warming. Now the science can claim no where near the certainty that the AGW theorists claim-this is not being anti or pro, but being a good student of science. So the science of AGW has a fair bit of uncertainty but even if we take the science at face value, what do we do? Raise taxes in developed nations and impose punitive tariffs on developing nations? Does this guarantee that carbon emission can be controlled at the desired level? No. Infact there is no mention anywhere what is the desired level of carbon emission and how this level can be achieved and controlled.
So how can logically anyone expect the general public to accept such harsh measures based on inconclusive science, no mechanism to control carbon at desired level but rather on hollow promises of politicians that if we accept these measures somehow we are going to be alright.
On the other hand if we say that it is rational to be a AGW sceptic and do not take the science at face value and especially do not take the policy cures of likes of IPCC report at face value. We can then focus on eradicating poverty in developing nations and at the same time divert our energy and resources for preventing disasters like rising sea level. Humans are remarkable in adaption and coming up with solutions of problems in hand.
Seen from my perspective, it is the scepticism of anti AGW view that looks irrational, as the view of the AGW lobby boils down to this- The humans are to be blamed for global warming (and cooling). We feel that carbons produced by humans are to be blamed for global warming (sometime in the past it was sulphate aerosole that humans produced that caused the cooling). We cannot control the emission of carbon in the air except punishing some local folks as the vast majority of the world populace lies beyond our control. As we cannot control the level of global emission of carbon, any policy recommendation we make are pointless. Yet we will go ahead with punishing the local folks and try to push for a mechanism to punish the distant folks as well.
A pointless exercise somehow becomes more rational than a view point that embodies rationality. Baudrillard coined a term 'hyper reality' and this truly is hyper reality
Originally posted by CobblyWorlds: We're wedded to fossil fuels, the energy they give underpins our entire civilisation.
We were given the Hydrogen economy trash in the press sometime ago, until people who had their brains in gear pointed out the flaw: Where do you get the energy to make the Hydrogen? Biofuels, solar etc etc none of them add up when you consider our demands for energy and their likely future trends.
Think Hubbert's Curve will help? Think again. Coal is still plentiful and emits more CO2 per joule than oil or gas.
Our best bet, nuclear fusion. But when I was a kid I had a book describing a torroidal containment vessel, and that was the 70s. It might come through, but it's far from certain.
So if we're not going to stop it, then what does it matter what people think?
If it makes you happy, you can believe that AGW isn't really happening, you can persuade your friends. Show them a video of GW Scandal, go on, get out there persuade, persuade, persuade, be known for it, be proud of it. The idea amuses me.
Because as the Late Great Douglas Adams once wrote "it doesn't matter a pair of fetid dingoes kidneys what you do". The real physical process of Anthropogenic Global Warming will proceed.
For me the time has come to leave the physical process to answer the concerns of the doubters.
Tatty bye!
Best regards to the others arguing for the science and in defence of the consensus (you know who you are - I'm not naming anyone because I know I'd miss someone out). I've waste over a week on this, that's time enough.
Well done! I too am only willing to spend a certain amount of time on this. But I keep pushing myself on for the sake of my kids and potential grand-kids...
Originally posted by What's in your mind: Let's put this is in perspective-
On one hand you have AGW theory, that says carbon is causing global warming. Now the science can claim no where near the certainty that the AGW theorists claim-this is not being anti or pro, but being a good student of science. So the science of AGW has a fair bit of uncertainty but even if we take the science at face value, what do we do? Raise taxes in developed nations and impose punitive tariffs on developing nations? Does this guarantee that carbon emission can be controlled at the desired level? No. In fact there is no mention anywhere what is the desired level of carbon emission and how this level can be achieved and controlled.
The science is certain enough for action. The IPCC say "Very likely" and define that as "90-95%". You'll have to wait till later this year for more documents from the IPCC to address how. The SPM does however suggest what will happen with different scenarios.
quote:
Originally posted by What's in your mind: So how can logically anyone expect the general public to accept such harsh measures based on inconclusive science, no mechanism to control carbon at desired level but rather on hollow promises of politicians that if we accept these measures somehow we are going to be alright.
The science is conclusive enough. The mechanisms are being developed. But we are all going to have to play a part. That does mean that we are all going to have to buy into it. And that means that we are all going to have to either study ourselves (seriously using peer-reviewed papers) or trust the main-stream scientists, as represented by the IPCC. I favour a mix. I can understand enough to be able to trust the IPCC enough.
quote:
Originally posted by What's in your mind: On the other hand if we say that it is rational to be a AGW sceptic and do not take the science at face value and especially do not take the policy cures of likes of IPCC report at face value. We can then focus on eradicating poverty in developing nations and at the same time divert our energy and resources for preventing disasters like rising sea level. Humans are remarkable in adaption and coming up with solutions of problems in hand.
A skeptic would want to find out why so many main-stream experts were saying such similar things. A denier wouldn't. How about something to stop ocean acidification and it's effects? We are remarkable at science generally.
quote:
Originally posted by What's in your mind: Seen from my perspective, it is the scepticism of anti AGW view that looks irrational, as the view of the AGW lobby boils down to this- The humans are to be blamed for global warming (and cooling). We feel that carbons produced by humans are to be blamed for global warming (sometime in the past it was sulphate aerosole that humans produced that caused the cooling). We cannot control the emission of carbon in the air except punishing some local folks as the vast majority of the world populace lies beyond our control. As we cannot control the level of global emission of carbon, any policy recommendation we make are pointless. Yet we will go ahead with punishing the local folks and try to push for a mechanism to punish the distant folks as well.
AGW = Anthropomorphic Global Warming, ie. human caused. Why does it have to be punishment? True it is a change and no one likes change. We can control the level through global policies. The local folks include the EU, and very large trading block. The distant folks include many US states and cities, and Bush hasn't long to go... China and India do recognise the problem, and yes we need to work together. The UK, EU and an increasing amount of the US are settig an example...
quote:
Originally posted by What's in your mind: A pointless exercise somehow becomes more rational than a view point that embodies rationality. Baudrillard coined a term 'hyper reality' and this truly is hyper reality
"Specifically, when a consciousness loses its ability to distinguish reality from fantasy, and begins to engage with the latter without understanding what it is doing, it has shifted into the world of the hyperreal." It's not pointless or hopeless, but there is no time to loose. The sooner we start the better the future.
It will help if you want a point to point discussion (as evidently you want as you quote specific parts of my post) to argue the point I am making in the specific part of the post.
You say this The science is certain enough for action. The IPCC say "Very likely" and define that as "90-95%". You'll have to wait till later this year for more documents from the IPCC to address how. The SPM does however suggest what will happen with different scenarios
But the point was that to act for what? What is desired level of CO2 in the atmosphere, at which level it will the tippling point? How we can achieve such a level? how can we control the global emission at such a level?
You answer none of these but just make some empty promise, much like our politicians do, that it is coming in the next IPCC report and in this report the mysterious mechanism will be revealed.
You quote The science is conclusive enough. The mechanisms are being developed. But we are all going to have to play a part. That does mean that we are all going to have to buy into it. And that means that we are all going to have to either study ourselves (seriously using peer-reviewed papers) or trust the main-stream scientists, as represented by the IPCC. I favour a mix. I can understand enough to be able to trust the IPCC enough.
Your point is exactly the same that of our politicians. BUY into the theory of Global warming without questioning it. Just take your word that it is conclusiong ENOUGH. Again the hollow promise of mechanism being developed just wait for it. Wordysmith, are you a politician?
You quote A skeptic would want to find out why so many main-stream experts were saying such similar things. A denier wouldn't. How about something to stop ocean acidification and it's effects? We are remarkable at science generally.
There is the shade here of the argument that sceptics of AGW theories are like creationists- irrational bunch of people verging on madness. You got to do better than that WordySmith. The IPCC report is not a scientific research report. IPCC do not do any research of its own. It says that specifically in its website. It is a UN committee much like the security council dominated by members of IPCC and scientists from developed nations making policy recommendation that will affect mainly the developing nations.
You quote AGW = Anthropomorphic Global Warming, ie. human caused. Why does it have to be punishment? True it is a change and no one likes change. We can control the level through global policies. The local folks include the EU, and very large trading block. The distant folks include many US states and cities, and Bush hasn't long to go... China and India do recognise the problem, and yes we need to work together. The UK, EU and an increasing amount of the US are settig an example...
Again you do not answer how this grand global coalition will happen especially when there are diametrically opposite needs are involved- you saving your back garden while people in developing nations getting their folks out of poverty
you quote
"Specifically, when a consciousness loses its ability to distinguish reality from fantasy, and begins to engage with the latter without understanding what it is doing, it has shifted into the world of the hyperreal." It's not pointless or hopeless, but there is no time to loose. The sooner we start the better the future.
The old alarmist call. Don't think act now and by all signs repent later (not at leisure)
Originally posted by What's in your mind: It will help if you want a point to point discussion (as evidently you want as you quote specific parts of my post) to argue the point I am making in the specific part of the post.
I hope you don't mind me dividing your post so I can respond to it. And sorry if I missed your point. There was such alot. I trust it's still OK for me to answer different parts at different times in my post?
quote:
Originally posted by What's in your mind: You say this The science is certain enough for action. The IPCC say "Very likely" and define that as "90-95%". You'll have to wait till later this year for more documents from the IPCC to address how. The SPM does however suggest what will happen with different scenarios
True. It would help if you made my statements more obvious too.
quote:
Originally posted by What's in your mind: But the point was that to act for what? What is desired level of CO2 in the atmosphere, at which level it will the tippling point? How we can achieve such a level? how can we control the global emission at such a level?
The desired level of CO2 was originally much lower than we are now expecting. Figures like 450ppm and 550ppm were the aim. And at those levels we were hoping to keep the temperature below a rise of 2 deg C. However now the expected rise is more like 3 deg C. The tipping point may have passed, and then again... Unfortunately plant life starts to suffer at those levels. Hence by delaying we will have made it worse for the hungry in the world. It does annoy me when people complain that those trying to do something about greenhouse gases are trying to make the developing world suffer. The droughts and sea-level rises will affect the developing world badly. Scientists are already putting out ideas on reducing CO2, their favourite seems to be sucking it out of the atmosphere and pushing it under the ocean, but would it work?. The most obvious ideas are reducing emissions in the first place, eg. as recommended by the Stern Review. A summary of the latest recommendations on how we can achieve certain levels are being published by the IPCC later this year.
quote:
Originally posted by What's in your mind: You answer none of these but just make some empty promise, much like our politicians do, that it is coming in the next IPCC report and in this report the mysterious mechanism will be revealed.
I'm not making any promises. I'm just trying to help the debate. The IPCC will not reveal anything new since they are summarising the position based on existing science. They are actually trying to get us that balanced position that we can all believe in. We should expect them to disregard old science.
Originally posted by What's in your mind: You quote The science is conclusive enough. The mechanisms are being developed. But we are all going to have to play a part. That does mean that we are all going to have to buy into it. And that means that we are all going to have to either study ourselves (seriously using peer-reviewed papers) or trust the main-stream scientists, as represented by the IPCC. I favour a mix. I can understand enough to be able to trust the IPCC enough.
:-)
quote:
Originally posted by What's in your mind: Your point is exactly the same that of our politicians. BUY into the theory of Global warming without questioning it. Just take your word that it is conclusiong ENOUGH. Again the hollow promise of mechanism being developed just wait for it. Wordysmith, are you a politician?
I have emailed my local politician and also David Miliband to say that they must not assume people understand/believe the situation before ploughing ahead with green initiatives. Many people do understand, but many are also questioning. We all need to get on board, and the politicians need to recognise that. I'm a Software Developer specialising in databases. I've been reading up since about 2000. I only care about this as much as I do since I have 2 kids. I didn't promise anything from those 'mechanisms' but just pointed out their existance. You had said "no mechanism to control carbon at desired level" - there is no silver bullet. We will have to try on many fronts. George Monbiot's book 'Heat' makes it quite clear that we have quite a challenge on our hands, and the longer we delay the worse it will get.
Originally posted by What's in your mind: You quote A skeptic would want to find out why so many main-stream experts were saying such similar things. A denier wouldn't. How about something to stop ocean acidification and it's effects? We are remarkable at science generally.
:-)
quote:
Originally posted by What's in your mind: There is the shade here of the argument that sceptics of AGW theories are like creationists- irrational bunch of people verging on madness. You got to do better than that WordySmith. The IPCC report is not a scientific research report. IPCC do not do any research of its own. It says that specifically in its website. It is a UN committee much like the security council dominated by members of IPCC and scientists from developed nations making policy recommendation that will affect mainly the developing nations.
I didn't say the IPCC report is a scientific research report. It is called the 'Summary for Policy Makers'. Consider that the developed nations would like 'business-as-usual' and dealing with emissions is going to require change. Also that it is the developing/under-developed nations who are expected to suffer most, even though they have not been responsible for the problem.
Originally posted by What's in your mind: You quote AGW = Anthropomorphic Global Warming, ie. human caused. Why does it have to be punishment? True it is a change and no one likes change. We can control the level through global policies. The local folks include the EU, and very large trading block. The distant folks include many US states and cities, and Bush hasn't long to go... China and India do recognise the problem, and yes we need to work together. The UK, EU and an increasing amount of the US are setting an example...
:-)
quote:
Originally posted by What's in your mind: Again you do not answer how this grand global coalition will happen especially when there are diametrically opposite needs are involved- you saving your back garden while people in developing nations getting their folks out of poverty
The legislators were from the G8 countries - the U.S., Britain, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan and Russia -- plus five emerging developing countries -- Brazil, China, India, Mexico and South Africa.
Originally posted by What's in your mind: cont) (finally!): you quote It's not pointless or hopeless, but there is no time to loose. The sooner we start the better the future.
The old alarmist call. Don't think act now and by all signs repent later (not at leisure)
I believe that as people actually realise out real situation they will be very angry saying "why weren't we told?". Labeling as "alarmist" is accurate. An alarm is what is needed here. The scientists have realised that we have not been taking them seriously enough. Hopefully Martin Durkin has really triggered a public debate, and things will really get moving now. There will always be skeptics and deniers. The scientific debate has been the IPCC, and that continues, but fundamentally they are agreed and the politicians are acting.
I must say it is refreshing having an actual discussion. Thanks, WordSmithy
1. You acknowledge that currently there is no mechanism to control CO2.
2. You say global consensus on cutting back CO2 is emerging and give me this link to make your point CNS News
The full name of CNS News is Cybercast News Service (this is incase anyone confuse this CNN or CBS). I will quote a line from this article
'While China, India and others are expected to take voluntary steps to limit emissions, Kyoto exempts them from mandatory reductions because they are considered "developing" nations.'
So there is no legislation yet to prevent India and China to produce as much CO2 they want. I will also give you another data. Per Capita income of India is around US$500, whereas per capital income of USA (that is roughly indicative of the per capital income of developed nations) is US$25,000. Now how much carbon do you think India needs to produce to get to the level of per capita income of developed countries. Or are you saying India do not have any right to expect such per capita income?
There is a mention in the article about a meeting by legislators from developed and developing nations attending a meeting at Washington organized by an organization called GLOBE. I have been to their website and there is no information about who these legislators are and at what level of hierarchy they are at. If I invite some legilators from India to come to an all expense paid trip to UK (maybe with their families in tow?) I doubt many are there that would refuse such a trip.
This article frankly is a little bit of propaganda much like the other stuff we have to endure day in and day out.
2. You say the scientists have fudamentally agreed on the cause of global warming and the basis of this claim is IPCC report. Now if IPCC report is not a research report, how this can be? The lead authors of IPCC that are dominated by contributors from developed nations, have reviewed the existing peer reviewed science and concluded that the politicians should act. They are of course assembled by UN to come precisely with such recommendations- not to do scientific research but suggest policies for policy makers. IPCC report is an agenda for human action, written by contributors from developed nations to affect primarily the growth policies of developing nations. These policy influence is of course going to indirect as India and China are not subject to mandatory reduction of CO2 emissions under Kyoto treaty, but the developed nations making reduction of CO2 makes them 'better' global citizens than these developing countries who are only interested in development and not doing their part to save our earth. IPCC is much like the security council, designed to look after primarily interests of developed nations (or more precisely the interest of their politicians)
I have some more points to make but I will give it a rest. Maybe I can raise when I receive your response
It is possible that the 30 year rise in tempearture since the 1970's which is considered so highly significant by the IPCC is only a short term trend with some link to solar activity over the past 50 years or even some decrease in the albedo effect combined with a change in the make up of clouds which is yet to be discovered.
If you take this line and add in a touch of conspiracy theory it seems very easy to conclude that the wholw GW argument is hype.
The science is not caste iron and there are areas such as atmospheric water vapour and the role of the sun and the clouds which are not fully understood. What is clear is that over the paste centuaries of human existance at no time have we been producing levels of CO2 at todays rate. CO2 concentrations in our atmosphere do have a significant correlation to tempearture levels. The climate has changed rapidly in the past once certain tipping points are reached. We are now in unchartered terrtory with CO2 levels - common sense would suggest that we should try to do something about it.
Whatever that something is it is paramount that the developing nations not only do not shoulder an unfair share of the brden but that they are actively helpd by the wealth of the developed nations to realise there right to development. If we cant make this happen then we deserve to fry.
I don't think there is a conspiracy in the sense people are getting together in darkened room and plotting against poor nations. I think rather this is a case of politicians trying to show that they are somehow in control.
So they try to use their influence in UN and in local governments to build a story around the inconclusive science of global warming that humans have been found, and this is incontroversial, to be responsible for global warming. Now as this problem is 'man-made' politicans are the natural choice of agents to solve the problem and not scientists.
So we see a social reality (Searle) or you may say hyper reality (Baudrillard) being constructed around a physical object (carbon) imputing certain function on it (carbon is bad for you) and constructing a set of institutions (how to lead a green life).
Thanks CobblyWorld for all your useful links, will try to follow up some of them.
Seems we can argue for ever about the process of the science being right or wrong. Shall we put that to the side for a moment (there are plenty of threads discussing the science).
What's in your mind: you appear to be arguing that since the science is not certain, and since the measures to solve the problem (if it exists) are impossible to implement, that therefore believing the problem is irrational. I don't think that is logical at all.
It appears that your post is a good example of how the tooing and froing about the science is distracting from getting to any solution (if there is a problem).
Governments accepted that it was impossible to progress with the uncertainty, and set up the IPCC to provide them with the consensus view (as obtained from a review of the science), with the aim that the consensus view would help to formulate policies. By devolving the assessment of the science to the people who know the science, this gets around the political problem.
Now should these governments, who now have huge political risk to take in addressing the problems identified, shirk their duty because they don't like the answer they've been given?
CobblyWorlds used Douglas Adams to good effect. I will remind you of the importance of wrapping your towel round your head if you meet the Ravenous Bugblatter beast of Traal, because thankfully it is so stupid that it thinks that if you can't see it, then it can't see you.
Steve_M, I see you have followed your hero Hulme in offering obscure arguments (perhaps as the case with Hulme, you really don't have anything to say?)
I will wait for you to respond the issues I raise in my post
So they try to use their influence in UN and in local governments to build a story around the inconclusive science of global warming that humans have been found, and this is incontroversial, to be responsible for global warming. Now as this problem is 'man-made' politicans are the natural choice of agents to solve the problem and not scientists.
).
WIYM - not sure i follow this. Whilst the science isnt 100% it isnt a mere theory either. IPCC has reveiwed all the science and come to its conclusions. Whilst you hear a lot about the scientists who think that the conclusions are too dramatic and not basd on certainty, there are also a large number who feel that the 4th report has understated the degree of danger that this problem poses.
The political element of the IPCC may well have forced them to limit the top end of their conclusions and give a more conservative view. We cant know but the next few generations will.
You say that politicians like to think they are in control - isnt that why we vote for them? Cant see the point of a politician who is out of control cf TB.
I really do not believe that all the European governments have concluded to deprive the developing world of their right to electricity and future prosperirty. I can believe this of the USA but then they have until very recently been vehemently anti GW - how does that work?
So let me get this right. Suppose you and me have been appointed by the UN to come up with policy recommendations for global warming. When we review the science around global warming, we see some literature that talks about man made global and we also see other literature that contests this view and offer alternate explanation. At the end of it we decide that one side is right the other wrong (in probabilistic terms) So does that make that we are right? Who has reviewed us? Has our report been peer reviewed blindly by the scientific community? What makes you and me the final arbitrator?
Just because we elect politician to be in control of some activities, of course does not mean that they CAN be in control of all the activities. There may be certain phenemenons that politicians (powerful as they may be) cannot do anything about- Like the fact earth goes the sun for example. So it is difficult to understand what role of politicians you are arguing for here
I am happy to be corrected but I thought that the IPCC reviewed the science which had already been peer reviewed. your argument seesm to call for a permanent upward spirral of peer reviews - resulting presumably in a decisionless outcome.
You make out that there is as much evidence against man made GW as for it? The theory of global warming through inceased atmospheric CO2 has been discussed openly since the link was first explored by Arrhenius 1890's - but then you will know all this. The point is, it is not some crackpot theory that all the worlds governments are following like sheep.
You will get a chance to elect the politicians who support your theory in due course. The current politicians across the globe are trying to work on solutions to a man made problem - an increase in atmospheric co2 levels not seen on this planet since ????? can you tell me?
The channel 4 programme certainly helped me to understand where the debate has gone off the rails. It seems that stretching graphs, misquoting and omitting information is at least as much part of the AGW amoury as it is perceived to be part of the GW one.
