Think of it as a vaporous miasma that seems to permeate the very essence of the forum like a dank, warmening fog. Sure, there’s not much substance or volume to it, but it seems to be everywhere at all times.
Um… then why exactly do you keep reviving it? You bumped it in mid Oct after it had been quiet for a month, and then recently Andrew T bumped it again, it was left alone for a couple of days, and then you bumped it again with an unrelated link that started off more discussion!
If you don’t like the fog, stop pumping out the dank, hot air.
As to why it hasn’t been dead horsed, it has certainly teetered on the brink (and is now), but given it’s a topical issue with a variety of opinion I don’t see the harm in having a thread to contain discussion so long it remains productive, which I realise is rather borderline at the moment. If you want it to go away though, it’s probably a good idea to leave it alone :P
Think of it as a vaporous miasma that seems to permeate the very essence of the forum like a dank, warmening fog. Sure, there’s not much substance or volume to it, but it seems to be everywhere at all times.
Um… then why exactly do you keep reviving it?
Fair point.
Luke Stevens - 18 November 2008 12:14 PM
Gordon Cheng - 18 November 2008 10:17 AM
Think of it as a vaporous miasma that seems to permeate the very essence of the forum like a dank, warmening fog. Sure, there’s not much substance or volume to it, but it seems to be everywhere at all times.
If you want it to go away though, it’s probably a good idea to leave it alone
I hope you don’t mean this Luke, for that would amount to censorship!
I see this thread as fairly friendly skirmishing that will go on for at least the next 3-5 years when I expect global warmongerering will be in tatters, bit like, as you would say, Bush’s legacy in the Middle East.
Think of it as a vaporous miasma that seems to permeate the very essence of the forum like a dank, warmening fog. Sure, there’s not much substance or volume to it, but it seems to be everywhere at all times.
Um… then why exactly do you keep reviving it?
I would keep contributing to it if it was in Dead Horses.
The problem is not its existence, the problem is its location.
Nonetheless, thank you for the answer, it took a while but we got there eventually.
@ David P, heh, I agree on the time frame and nature of the debate, if not the outcome ;)
I’m happy for people to contribute as they please, I just think it’s silly to say “Oh I’m so sick of this discussion, I wish it would go away” when you’ve been the one restarting it! If you’re sick of it, leave it alone, that’s what I meant.
I just think it’s silly to say “Oh I’m so sick of this discussion, I wish it would go away”.
That wasn’t what I was saying, although others may have. The issue is its location within ‘general discussion’.
It seems sensible for the discussion to continue in some forum, however. You know my views on where that should be. And now, we’ve got your response. Thanks again.
Hi David P,
I didn’t say they weren’t “real scientists” but just highlighted that they were speaking outside their area of expertise and so may have missed some basic climate facts, like La Nina. But hey, if you want to have a dentist service your car or read a toaster manual to program your PC, that’s your business, just don’t ask me to as well OK? ;-)
Andrew T, Andrew C has written about global warming in many, many places as you well know. Such as the classic that I KEEP referring to and you keep ignoring vital points from, “how sceptical is too sceptical?
David P, Kevin, Andrew and Gordo,
All I’m saying is that until the peer reviewed science discovers some heretofore mysterious ‘circuit breaker’ that stops human induced global warming, there seems to be a consensus amongst the scientists that count. This is no different to taking lead, cyanide, or asbestos seriously. Until the scientists that matter raise considerable doubt, then I’m convinced Christians should take the Andrew Cameron approach to this threat, and not go embarrassing themselves (and the gospel) by hunting after members of ‘The Denial Machine’..
In the meantime, I hope we’ll all read the difference between skepticism and denial… and the rest of that wiki is pretty explicit in spelling out how duped many “skeptics” are by the counter-scientific claims of big business.
Denial vs. skepticism
See main article: Global warming controversy
“Modern skepticism,” according to Michael Shermer, editor of the scientific skepticism quarterly Skeptic, “is embodied in the scientific method, that involves gathering data to formulate and test naturalistic explanations for natural phenomena. A claim becomes factual when it is confirmed to such an extent it would be reasonable to offer temporary agreement."[10] Terms such as “deny global warming” and “climate change denial” have been used since 2000 to describe business opposition to the current scientific consensus.[11] Organizations such as the Global Climate Coalition, according to a leaked 1991 “strategy memo,” set out not to gather data and test explanations, but to influence public perception of climate change science and “reposition global warming as theory rather than fact."[12] The strategy was criticized as misrepresenting science in a 2006 Royal Society letter to ExxonMobil expressing disappointment that a recent industry publication “leaves readers with such an inaccurate and misleading impression of the evidence on the causes of climate change ... documented in the scientific literature."[13]
The August 2007 Newsweek cover story “The Truth About Denial” reported that “this well-coordinated, well-funded campaign by contrarian scientists, free-market think tanks, and industry has created a paralyzing fog of doubt around climate change."[4] Newsweek published a rebuttal piece by contributing editor Robert J. Samuelson calling it “a vast oversimplification of a messy story” and “fundamentally misleading”. He argues that “journalists should resist the temptation to portray global warming as a morality tale… in which anyone who questions its gravity or proposed solutions may be ridiculed”.[14]
Several commentators have compared climate change denial with Holocaust denial,[7][15][16][17] whereas others have decried those comparisons as inappropriate.[18][19][20][21][22]
I don’t know Dave, when people believe in right-wing newspaper columnists over, say, peer-reviewed science by climate scientists, they may be a lost cause. What evidence could be presented that could persuade them? Not published, peer-reviewed evidence, apparently. I think that’s the difference in this debate - personally I’m prepared to believe the science if, by some freak occurrence, AGW is disproved by the science. However at this stage that looks as likely as John McCain winning the US election - if it was going to happen, it would have happened some time ago! The point is it’s the science that matters, not right-wing nutbars. Others seem to be wedded to a baseless ideological position, who’s main supporters seem to be people in need of a controversial cause to fill their column inches and drum up some interest in their oh-so-important opinion.
In any case, there was an interesting segment with Ross Garnaut and David Karoly on Lateline last week:
TONY JONES: Professor, can I just get this straight, can I just get this absolutely straight.
You don’t actually expect, according to your report, we’re going to do better than 550 parts per million. That’s how it appears. If that is the
case looking at the other parts of your report, we will have these CO2 rises to 550: that will destroy the Great Barrier Reef, most of it, the
northern part of it, correct?
ROSS GARNAUT: On a balance of possibilities, as discussed at length in my report.
TONY JONES: And we will just go through it, and the Kakadu wetlands, it would destroy that as well?
ROSS GARNAUT: On a balance of possibilities, yes, and I say that in my report.
TONY JONES: And Australia’s alpine regions?
ROSS GARNAUT: Yes. Probably with higher probabilities and I say that in the report.
TONY JONES: And it would do immense damage to the Murray-Darling Basin by restricting inflows even further.
ROSS GARNAUT: As I discuss at great length in the report.
TONY JONES: Okay, so that means, presumably, that if the Government does not attempt to move the world to go for a much lower
stabilisation target than 550, which you expect will be the world’s stabilisation target at best, if the Government does not push for that, we
will lose all these assets, is that correct?
ROSS GARNAUT: Well, Australia is not the only player in this game but if we don’t get such an outcome, on a balance of possibilities we will lose substantial parts of those assets.
But let’s keep in mind, Tony, that in the current state of the international discussion, prior to my report which is helping to change the international discussion now, but in the current state of international discussion we’re not heading for 550, we’re heading for something much further, much higher.
The international discussion is premised on developing countries accepted no constraints. No binding constraints on emissions growth. Now that condemns you not to 550 but to something very much higher than that.
Hi David P,
I didn’t say they weren’t “real scientists” but just highlighted that they were speaking outside their area of expertise and so may have missed some basic climate facts, like La Nina. But hey, if you want to have a dentist service your car or read a toaster manual to program your PC, that’s your business, just don’t ask me to as well OK? ;-)
Steady on Dave,
The man is a geologist
A geologist is a scientist trained in the scientific method.
Now your example of a dentist and a mechanic falls apart because what do they have in common apart from being persons and both (possibly) living in houses with partner (possibly) and the usual catastrophe that goes with these things.
In other words you have committed one of the most common fallacies that of false analogy.
I would think a lot of the scientists responsiible for the IPCC report were not climate scientists, possible one or two were geologists, though not sure about dentists and mechanics.
Andrew T, Andrew C has written about global warming in many, many places as you well know. Such as the classic that I KEEP referring to and you keep ignoring vital points from, “how sceptical is too sceptical?
And I believe I have told you through these forums “many, many” times (well at least once or twice) that Andrew C and I have some disagreement on this subject documented in email exchanges several years ago.
David P, Kevin, Andrew and Gordo,
All I’m saying is that until the peer reviewed science discovers some heretofore mysterious ‘circuit breaker’ that stops human induced global warming, there seems to be a consensus amongst the scientists that count.
Again, I do not share your sanguine views on peer reviewed science.
The core chapter in the IPCC Report is the 9th chapter in working group one contribution. The entire IPCC thesis therefore stands or falls on the claims of just this one chapter.
John McLean has had a close look at the authors of this chapter and writes as follows:
As is the normal IPCC practice, chapter nine has co-ordinating lead authors, who are responsible for the chapter as a whole; lead authors, who are responsible for sections of the chapter; and contributing authors, who provide their thoughts to the lead authors but take no active part in the writing.
The IPCC procedures state that the authors at each level should reflect a wide range of views, but this is not true of chapter nine.
The expansion of the full list of authors of each paper cited by this chapter reveals that 37 of 53 chapter authors form a network of people who have previously co-authored scientific papers with each other: or make that 38 if we include a review editor.
The two co-ordinating lead authors are members of this network. So are five of the seven lead authors. Thirty of 44 contributing authors are in the network and two other pairs of contributing authors have likewise co-authored scientific papers.
In other words, the supposedly 53 independent voices are in fact one dominant voice with 37 people behind it, two voices each with two people behind them, and perhaps 12 single voices. A closer check reveals that many of those 12 were academic or work colleagues of members of that larger network. One lead author was from the University of Michigan, as were three contributing authors, two of whom were not members of the network. Another lead author was associated with Britain’s Hadley Centre, along with eight contributing authors, one of whom was not included in that network of co-authors.
All up, the 53 authors of this chapter came from just 31 establishments and there are worrying indications that certain lead authors were the superiors of contributing authors from the same organisation. The very few viewpoints in this chapter might be alleviated if it drew on a wide range of references, but among the co-authors of 40 per cent of the cited material are at least one chapter author.
Scientists associated with the development and use of climate models dominate the clique of chapter nine authors and by extension the views expressed in that chapter.
I think John’s analysis should cause us all, as I said before, just a little flicker of doubt.
Dave, you and the global warmongerers may be right and as I said in an earlier exchange with Luke, I’m prepared to take a two eyed stance on this issue. I just wish you would crack open that left eyelid of yours. If the global warming trend of 1975-2000 doesn’t resume in the next few years you and Luke and a whole lot of others will be eating lashings of humble pie, and won’t I let you know it!! (And yes the reverse is true as well!)
I’m happy for people to contribute as they please, I just think it’s silly to say “Oh I’m so sick of this discussion, I wish it would go away” when you’ve been the one restarting it! If you’re sick of it, leave it alone, that’s what I meant.
The core chapter in the IPCC Report is the 9th chapter in working group one contribution. The entire IPCC thesis therefore stands or falls on the claims of just this one chapter.
Contents [hide]
1 Statements by concurring organizations
1.1 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2007
1.2 InterAcademy Council
1.3 Joint science academies’ statement 2008
1.4 Joint science academies’ statement 2007
1.5 Joint science academies’ statement 2005
1.6 Joint science academies’ statement 2001
1.7 International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences
1.8 European Academy of Sciences and Arts
1.9 Network of African Science Academies
1.10 National Research Council (US)
1.11 European Science Foundation
1.12 American Association for the Advancement of Science
1.13 Federation of American Scientists
1.14 World Meteorological Organization
1.15 American Meteorological Society
1.16 Royal Meteorological Society (UK)
1.17 Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
1.18 Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
1.19 Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
1.20 International Union for Quaternary Research
1.21 American Quaternary Association
1.22 Stratigraphy Commission of the Geological Society of London
1.23 International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
1.24 International Union of Geological Sciences
1.25 European Geosciences Union
1.26 Canadian Federation of Earth Sciences
1.27 Geological Society of America
1.28 American Geophysical Union
1.29 American Astronomical Society
1.30 American Institute of Physics
1.31 American Physical Society
1.32 American Chemical Society
1.33 American Society for Microbiology
1.34 American Public Health Association
1.35 American Statistical Association
1.36 Engineers Australia (The Institution of Engineers Australia)
1.37 Federal Climate Change Science Program (US)
2 Noncommittal statements
2.1 American Association of State Climatologists
2.2 American Association of Petroleum Geologists
3 Statements by dissenting organizations
4 Scientific consensus
5 Surveys of scientists and scientific literature
5.1 Oreskes, 2004
5.2 Bray and von Storch, 2003
5.3 Survey of U.S. state climatologists 1997
5.4 Bray and von Storch, 1996
5.5 Other older surveys of scientists
6 See also
7 References
8 External links
The organisations you list are “concurring” organisations.
Every man and his dog, save a few disreputable sceptics, are “concurring”. The fact that these organisations are concurring doesn’t mean they have done the work, just that they express confidence in the 53 authors of chapter 9.
I’m not just that gullible.
Back in 1830 the German philosopher, Arthur Schopenhauer wrote in Die Kunst Recht zu Behalten (The Art of Controversy) these words
“There is no opinion so absurd, which men will not readily embrace as soon as they can be brought to the conviction that it is generally adopted”
I suggest you read, learn and inwardly digest what old Schopenhauer has to say, quite wise, even for an atheist.
Once upon a time there was a computer called “Oz” that measured climate models. The IPCC wizards gathered around the computer called Oz, entered their data, but the chief “Wizard of Oz” James Hansen made some error in his calculations, pushed the button, and behold! The wizards did bow down to Oz and the Wizard of Oz, and in error made embarrassing press announcements that they were forever bound to. The lie spread, and universities and scientific institutions across the planet were forced to concur. To not concur would forever place the institutions out of favour with “Oz” and the university would crumble into dust at the wrath of the Wizards of Oz. And so the world was duped, by one data entry problem on one keyboard on one computer in the land of Oz.
Nice story? Can we please get back to the real world, where any scientist that actually published a peer reviewed paper that completely, empirically, verifiably disproved global warming would have his or her name entered into the history books for all time? Remember that world David P, where science is incredibly cut- throat and hot young skeptical scientists would love nothing better than to disprove the establishment, except they can’t, because it’s the same world where dozens and dozens of independent scientific bodies have tested the theory all on their own-some — with their own spectrometers and physicists able to run their own Radiative Forcing Equations all wearing their own white science coats — ALL peer reviewed climatologists concur because it’s simply true.
But if you like the land of Oz story there’s no way I can stop you tapping your heels together 3 times and going there, but just don’t ask me to go with you. I don’t look good in ruby slippers anyway.
Some might say blind trust is a beautiful thing, not me, certainly not with computer models that didn’t even predict the current 2000-2008 hiatus in the relentless CO2 fueled global warming march.
What chance they will be right in 2025, 2050, 2100?
