G20 - The Outcome

[Marmora Man]

What exactly is a climate change sceptic?

1. The climate never changes.

2. The climate will remain the same from now onwards.

3. The climate changes but has no effect on mankind.

I've covered my scepticism before but for the record and in brief:

I?m a climate change sceptic (and I note the relatively recent change from ?Global Warming? to ?Climate Change? necessary since the warming element hasn?t been too obvious over last few years) because there is a lack of properly researched hard evidence of abnormal changes. Much of the observed climate change is well within normal historical variations for temperature / climate across the world. A significant proportion of the evidence offered is suspect and / or tampered.

Too many Climate Change proponents are not qualified in the fields of meteorology, glaciology, oceanography or other related subjects. There are too many loose statements that don?t hold up to proper, ?Popperian? scientific analysis. The tendency to scream too loudly as, for example, calling the planned Kingsnorth Coal fired power station a ?killing machine? is detrimental to rational debate.

The hypothesis of global warming / climate change has some strengths and should be tested. It should be possible to construct experiments and tests that will test the hypothesis and thus demonstrate the case. I haven?t yet seen a clear exposition of the hypothesis and necessary associated experiments or tests.

I believe that real science and scientific research will ensure the survival of mankind and the planet; not some well meaning gesture politics allied with anti globalization and anti capitalism fashionable protests that seems to characterise so much of the Climate Change debate.

[mockney piers]

Of your first assertions, scientists are happy to continue to talk about global warming as that's exactly the phenomenon that is occurring as we speak. There is literally masses of hard evidence collected over the last 20+ years and continues to be collected supporting the theory, and there are almost no real sceptics left, of course the severity and rapidity of the danger facing us, and the degree to which man made factors are causal are still very much open to debate.

Explain 'significant' in how much evidence is suspect or tampered with.

Most of the predictions come from sophisticated simulations, if by tampered you mean by feeding data and algorithms into a computer then I supoooose so, and if by suspect you mean incredibly difficult to understand, then granted.

But I generally trust the peer reviewed scientific method, certainly enough to take medicines and undergo surgery from more knowledgeable people, so am willing to trust that if the vast majority of scientific experts in meteorology, oceanography and other related subjects believe this to be the case, then I'm game, no matter how depressing it may be.

I don't choose to find that suspect just because it's convenient to my thoughts on just one area of science, or because, say, I might like homeopathic remedies.

Your latter assertions are entirely irrelevant to the scientific debate, though I totally agree that I would welcome a less emotive nature to the wider debate.

ps I think 'climate change' has been latched on by both the scientific community and the media to as a way to aid accessibility to the wider public who may often think 'but it's colder'.

[Brendan]

As a cynic I just ask the question. Who stands to profit and who stands to lose?

The answer seems to be that big business and the people who run and profit from this world stand to lose if they have to admit to it and I can?t see how academic after concerned academic could possibly stand to profit from it being a real concern. They may get to be smug about it but cause for an agenda lies firmly with the other camp.

[????]

Wot Mockney said...

I was a bit sceptical as I have a natural mistrust of both journalists and the Zeitgeist but I have more faith in science and I think thet the vast majority of Scientists believe that global warming is happening (as do the sceptical scientists who at first denied this) and the majority believe it's mad made....I'm therefore converted on the wisdom of crowds (of scientists) principle - rather than the relentless shite printed in the Independent or my mates school kids bleating on about it

[????]

*man made

[????]

Brendan I think I'm with you, philosophy can get us there rather than arsing about with test tubes. Drinking and thinking is the way forward.

[SteveT]

There is certainly a change in the weather since My childhood, it is much drier now than I remember as a lad.

The barometric movement has changed in that it will go from 'very dry' to 'stormy' in a day, these swings are more extreme and happen frequently in recent years.

The possibility of a hurricane is much more likely, until that one in the late eighties they were something which happened in more exotic climates.

[macroban]

This is specifically for Marmora Man:

I too was taught about the shortage of oak for building and re-fitting Royal Navy ships.

However, this is not the full story. It seems that it was an artificial shortage created by a City of London cartel of timber merchants.

"Unfortunately for St Vincent there was a "timber cartel" in existence made up of some six of the major timber merchants in England, their leaders were John Larking and John Bowsher. These timber merchants held out against the machinations of St Vincent and were content to trade elsewhere and bide their time. The emerging shortage of timber for repair created a crisis of which Lord Nelson became aware. Indeed the shipwright officers at Portsmouth Dockyard reported that the last supplies of timber were inadequate for repairing the ships which they had to hand."

And a couple of references to follow up:

Reference 1

Reference 2

Nothing much changes in the City. Personal profit before country.

[louisiana]

Have you read the Stern Review?

Have you read any of the IPCC assessment reports?

Or are you just a follower of the highly-qualified-in-meteorology-oceanography-biophysics etc. Nigel Lawson?

Or are you indeed Nigel Lawson? If so, I claim my prize.

[Marmora Man]

I will continue to be a lone voice - and question the thesis. Particularly the Stern report - exactly what were his scientific qualifications to pontificate?

[HAL9000]

MM - Thank you for taking the time to explain your position.

I too am a sceptic ? I?m in no better position than you to know the truth of the matter. My reason for advocating proactive measures goes something like this:

1. The climate is a dynamic, chaotic, planet-encompassing system that we cannot presently model accurately even as a real-time snapshot let alone over several decades.

2. Uncontroversial geological evidence shows that rapid climate changes have occurred in the (geologically recent) past where global mean temperature has risen by 5 C (or more) in a decade.

3. The existence of a recent warming trend is not controversial.

4. The existence of a nearby Methane tipping-point is not controversial.

5. The principle of runaway reactions driven by positive feedback is well understood.

Therefore, it is possible that significant climate change may happen faster than our ability to investigate, model, predict and survive such an event.

The worst-case scenario is human extinction.

Like the proverbial frog on the stove, the time to jump is sooner rather than later.

[louisiana]

Stern: None. He was asked to review the economic consequences, which he did. He's an economist.

IPCC's Working Group I report (physical basis) is available online in html.

Here's the list of the authors of that report.

Here's the list of professional scientific bodies that either concur with or do not concur with the IPCC findings. As it's Wikipedia, you are of course free to add the details of any (other) non-concurring organisation, as long as you have the appropriate evidence (quote from their official report).

Have you read any of the IPCC reports? (technical, assessment, for-policy-makers-in-less-technical-language etc.)