: A new climate sceptic -

Jump to content

  • 4 Pages +
  • « First
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

A new climate sceptic

#46 User is offline   Rupert Wood 

  • Group: Frouks
  • Posts: 929
  • Joined: 17-October 06
  • LocationWellington , New Zealand

Posted 11 February 2012 - 19:50

View Postandre, on 08 February 2012 - 15:01, said:

I'm afraid the appeal to authority is worn down nowadays, John, Judith Curry explains why. Joanne Nova is a bit more radical.


A few years on after I last bothered looking here, nothing has changed! I invite any "antis" to try their luck at NZ's "Hot Topic" - dismemberment of sceptic lies a speciality!
0

#47 Guest_Chris Lloyd_*

  • Group: Guests

Posted 12 February 2012 - 09:55

View PostRupert Wood, on 11 February 2012 - 19:50, said:

A few years on after I last bothered looking here, nothing has changed! I invite any "antis" to try their luck at NZ's "Hot Topic" - dismemberment of sceptic lies a speciality!


And one example that can be extracted from all of this was this paragraph

"Thus there is a huge gap between rhetoric about reducing emissions and reality. Governments assure that they are working to reduce emissions, but few nations have made substantial progress. Reality exposes massive efforts to expand fossil fuel extraction, including oil drilling to increasing ocean depths, into the Arctic, and onto environmentally fragile public lands; squeezing of oil from tar sands and tar shale; hydro-fracking to expand extraction of natural gas; and increased mining of coal via mechanized longwall mining and mountain-top removal.
How could a specter of large human-driven climate change have unfolded virtually unimpeded, despite scientific understanding of the consequences? Would not governments – presumably instituted to protect all citizens – have stepped in to safeguard the future of young people?
A facile explanation is that our politicians, in effect, are bribed by the fossil fuel industry. However, our politicians are pretty much boxed in. The public, by and large, supports expanded fossil fuel production, an indication of the success of the industry's public relations campaigns."

I think I will start another thread about the real issue. And it has nothing to do with global warming; that much I do know.

#48 User is offline   John Mason 

  • Group: Warnings Team Managers
  • Posts: 20844
  • Joined: 04-March 03
  • LocationMachynlleth, Mid-Wales

Posted 14 February 2012 - 07:51

An investigation into Vahrenholt and the claims made within his new book and an interview with him at Der Spiegel:

http://www.skeptical...ate-change.html

Cheers - John
0

#49 Guest_Village_*

  • Group: Guests

Posted 04 March 2012 - 20:51

View PostJohn Mason, on 08 February 2012 - 13:11, said:

So two non-climate scientists decide that they know better? That has a familiar ring to it.....

Cheers - John


This is egg on face fallout time John, get used to it.

The world has changed and moved on. The IPCC will have to change too or die. They cannot keep on taking hit after hit and survive. What you are witnessing is absolutely no surprise to me and was predictable of course. It's now a simple process of watching the IPCC metamorphasise to become what they should have been in the first place.

This post has been edited by Village: 04 March 2012 - 21:01


#50 User is offline   John Mason 

  • Group: Warnings Team Managers
  • Posts: 20844
  • Joined: 04-March 03
  • LocationMachynlleth, Mid-Wales

Posted 05 March 2012 - 09:35

It has indeed changed Vill, yet you are making exactly the same statements as you were in the distant past. The evidence continues to build up and the denial gets shriller and ever-more desperate. The organised political opposition - and I use 'political' advisedly, because it does not involve a shred of credible science - in the meantime has changed course significantly, no longer denying that the greenhouse effect is real and Mankind can cause the climate to warm by emitting greenhouse gases in large quantities: the official line is now twisting things one way and another to argue the amount of climate sensitivity for 2 pCO2. Of course there are the diehards who stick with the old conspiracy-theories, but the herd has moved on.

Meanwhile, the one thing every schoolboy knows - that you only poke a wasps nest with a stick so many times before they come out and start stinging - has been ignored by those activists who also ignored the good advice to play the ball, not the player. Scientists have finally woken up to the reality that politics is a streetfight where dirty tricks are par for the course. But this isn't the backlash that those who peddle the same messages of doubt as those used in the pro-tobacco and pro-asbestos campaigns of the past should really fear. I figure they know this, and they're betting on being long-since departed from Earth by the time the proverbial really starts hitting the fan, with only history remaining to judge their careers and morals (or more correctly lack of). But that outcome depends on what happens next up in the Arctic.....

Cheers - John
0

#51 Guest_Village_*

  • Group: Guests

Posted 05 March 2012 - 11:52

Very sorry John, but I dont follow your thinking. Can you explain;

You are saying that the IPCC is not a political organisation?

The IPCC changing their headline promotion from "global warming" to "climate change" had nothing to do with politics?

Was this change not driven by the grounswell of sceptical scientists with counter arguments just like the thread subject anounces?

#52 User is offline   John Mason 

  • Group: Warnings Team Managers
  • Posts: 20844
  • Joined: 04-March 03
  • LocationMachynlleth, Mid-Wales

Posted 05 March 2012 - 12:11

View PostVillage, on 05 March 2012 - 11:52, said:

Very sorry John, but I dont follow your thinking. Can you explain;

You are saying that the IPCC is not a political organisation?

The IPCC changing their headline promotion from "global warming" to "climate change" had nothing to do with politics?


Was this change not driven by the grounswell of sceptical scientists with counter arguments just like the thread subject anounces?


Bit in bold, folks.

I think Vill wins the award of Funniest Post on UKww 2012.

The IPCC was founded in 1988, Vill. If you don't know what the CC bit stands for you'd better go look it up.

In fact, increased usage of "climate change" elsewhere came in during the Bush era. Here's Republican political strategist Frank Luntz in a controversial memo to the Bush administration in 2002, advising conservative politicians on communicating about the environment: "It’s time for us to start talking about “climate change” instead of global warming and “conservation” instead of preservation. “Climate change” is less frightening than “global warming”. As one focus group participant noted, climate change “sounds like you’re going from Pittsburgh to Fort Lauderdale.” While global warming has catastrophic connotations attached to it, climate change suggests a more controllable and less emotional challenge."

So it was nothing to do with the science - it was Conservative communication-strategising. In science, global warming and climate change have both been used for a long time and still are. Global warming simply refers to the increased average global temperature: climate change refers to its effects, whether benevolent or malignant. It is the effects that the IPCC exist to advise upon, though it is still down to governments and generally inept politicians to do anything about it.

Cheers - John
0

#53 Guest_Chris Lloyd_*

  • Group: Guests

Posted 05 March 2012 - 12:12

View PostJohn Mason, on 05 March 2012 - 09:35, said:

It has indeed changed Vill, yet you are making exactly the same statements as you were in the distant past. The evidence continues to build up and the denial gets shriller and ever-more desperate. The organised political opposition - and I use 'political' advisedly, because it does not involve a shred of credible science - in the meantime has changed course significantly, no longer denying that the greenhouse effect is real and Mankind can cause the climate to warm by emitting greenhouse gases in large quantities: the official line is now twisting things one way and another to argue the amount of climate sensitivity for 2 pCO2. Of course there are the diehards who stick with the old conspiracy-theories, but the herd has moved on.

Meanwhile, the one thing every schoolboy knows - that you only poke a wasps nest with a stick so many times before they come out and start stinging - has been ignored by those activists who also ignored the good advice to play the ball, not the player. Scientists have finally woken up to the reality that politics is a streetfight where dirty tricks are par for the course. But this isn't the backlash that those who peddle the same messages of doubt as those used in the pro-tobacco and pro-asbestos campaigns of the past should really fear. I figure they know this, and they're betting on being long-since departed from Earth by the time the proverbial really starts hitting the fan, with only history remaining to judge their careers and morals (or more correctly lack of). But that outcome depends on what happens next up in the Arctic.....

Cheers - John


You are saying quite a lot there John without saying very much at all. It's very emotive and based purely on your personal view.

This line is interesting of yours

The organised political opposition - and I use 'political' advisedly, because it does not involve a shred of credible science

I will bash out my old favourite here because it is also an intangible notion that canot be proved either.

Person a) says that there is life on other planets. Person B) says prove it. Person a) then says you are a denialist and then asks you to provide evidence to the contrary when person a) can't actually provide evidence that life exists in the first place.

John, how can you provide science that something doesn't exist when it it can't be proved in the first place?

It is a silly POV to have because there is no more credibility in the original science than there is in the opinions of those that question it.

#54 User is offline   John Mason 

  • Group: Warnings Team Managers
  • Posts: 20844
  • Joined: 04-March 03
  • LocationMachynlleth, Mid-Wales

Posted 05 March 2012 - 12:20

Chris, the following graphic from Skeptical Science should counter "John, how can you provide science that something doesn't exist when it it can't be proved in the first place?":

Posted Image

Now show me a similar graphic that tells us how much we know about the likelihood of life on other planets!

Cheers - John
0

#55 Guest_Chris Lloyd_*

  • Group: Guests

Posted 05 March 2012 - 12:57

John, there are many feedbacks, positive and negative. There is no proof that Anthro CO2 is causing the planet to warm.

I am not attempting to counter anything - you make it sound like a war. It is just rather presumptuous to ask someone to provide counter evidence when the original evidence is not well founded in the first place. That's all.

Not trying to be clever or smart, just using other analogies that can be applied in the same way.

Perhaps I should substitute your graph with Drake's equation in that case?

We can all provide nice little graphs that say should or could, the likelihood is, and so on and so on, but in the absence of absolute proof, the burden of proof shall remain upon the person / body that makes the claim in the first place. Until that evidence is provided it is not for me to provide evidence that it does not exist at all. Nor is it wrong for me to question - and all that without even a mention of politics.

If you wish to continue your debate about contrarians, denialists, extremists, counter argument, attacks, and all those other words that have been used 'ONLY' by those that believe AGW exists, then carry on. For a scientist this is an etremely emotive stand to take and has nothing to do with the good science that you always speak of. I am afraid I think you fall victim of your own extreme views on the subject. There are people at every end of the spectrum and I do not believe it is fair to simply highlight those at the other end of your spectrum. What about those at the other end of mine?

I think there are a hardcore of scientists who are not interested at all in AGW not existing. All they are interested in now is backing up what has been claimed 30 years ago, no matter what and at any cost. It goes against human nature to admit you are wrong. NASA did it, the IPCC do it, politicians do it and so on and so on (only mention to politics in this post). In fact, the only honest people are the likes of me and others who don't have a vested interest in the subject matter and question things like this hen they are forced down our throat.

#56 User is offline   John Mason 

  • Group: Warnings Team Managers
  • Posts: 20844
  • Joined: 04-March 03
  • LocationMachynlleth, Mid-Wales

Posted 05 March 2012 - 13:15

Chris, if you start with Arrhenius about a hundred years ago and work towards the present day there is a VAST body of evidence that burning fossil fuels, thereby changing the equilibrium of the carbon cycle, is causing the planet to warm. I'm only academically interested in certain aspects of climate science yet I accumulate hundreds of PDFs of peer-reviewed papers a year. To state otherwise - "there is no proof" - is to wilfully ignore that VAST body of science. Furthermore, the last paragraph of your post is conspiracy-theory stuff. The arguments have moved on - and yes it is a war in a sense - but the idea that the scientists are in it for the money, trying to save face and so on is the stuff of the Truthers and Birthers. If these guys wanted to rake in the dosh, they'd have gone over and worked for Heartland, who were paying one such guy $11,000 a month for spreading his nonsense. Now THAT'S what I call serious money!

Edit: the Drake equation has been criticised as being at least partly based upon conjecture. The graphic above is all stuff that has been empirically observed and measured. That's one heck of a difference.

Cheers - John
1

#57 Guest_Village_*

  • Group: Guests

Posted 05 March 2012 - 13:40

John,

You initially confused me by maintaining that the CO2 theory that you ape had nothing to do with politics, only alternative viewpoints according to you. Now it sounds you are confused by posting that the Global warming headline was dropped by the IPCC for non-scientific reasons.

Do you accept that the IPCC is a political organisation?

This post has been edited by Village: 05 March 2012 - 13:58


#58 User is offline   John Mason 

  • Group: Warnings Team Managers
  • Posts: 20844
  • Joined: 04-March 03
  • LocationMachynlleth, Mid-Wales

Posted 05 March 2012 - 13:59

Sorry to confuse you Vill!

The "CO2 theory you ape" is over 100 years old although I do not know Arrhenius' political affiliations and have not got time to go and look them up. It is science, not politics, though political activists from Greenpeace to the Tea-Party have having a right old ding-dong over it.

The IPCC is multi-governmental and though advised by scientists a lot of its output has political overtones and furthermore has been increasingly criticised in recent years for being over-conservative - an example of many being Arctic sea-ice which is reducing both in terms of extent and volume way faster than the last IPCC report (AR4) suggested it would do. Indeed, I'd say that this is rather a lot more serious than e.g. a typo on Himalayan glaciers that in a sub-sub section of a sub-report that nobody even spotted for over 2 years!

I suppose you were going to lead on to say that the IPCC wants to install a socialist world government, but as I said earlier, in the opposition movement such conspiracy-theories have long been abandoned because even they have realised that they have to come up with something better than that to even sound semi-plausible!

Cheers - John
0

#59 User is offline   John Mason 

  • Group: Warnings Team Managers
  • Posts: 20844
  • Joined: 04-March 03
  • LocationMachynlleth, Mid-Wales

Posted 05 March 2012 - 14:11

Someone on Skeptical Science has just reminded me of this useful link to a page on the NASA website WRT the usage of the terms "Climate Change" and "Global Warming":

http://www.nasa.gov/...other_name.html

Cheers - John
0

#60 Guest_Village_*

  • Group: Guests

Posted 05 March 2012 - 14:13

John,
Thankyou for confirming that your initial statement maintaining that there was no politics involved in pro AGW, however the alternative viewpoint was politically motivated was incorrect.

Now we have cleared that up we can continue discussing the fact that another prominent Professor; Fritz Vahrenholt, a former environment minister and well-known green activist. has found so much wrong with the unanswered questions that CO2 based manmade climate change theory poses that he has now also become a sceptic.

The professor says: He found hundreds of errors. When he pointed them out, IPCC officials simply brushed them aside. Stunned, he asked himself, “Is this the way they approached the climate assessment reports?”

Not only does he say it John, but he has teemed up with a Paleontologist and a Geologist (thats your forte) who also stand by his statement that the theory is not to be trusted.

This post has been edited by Village: 05 March 2012 - 14:28


#61 User is offline   ldavidcooke 

  • Group: Moderators
  • Posts: 5160
  • Joined: 18-July 06
  • LocationGraham, NC USA

Posted 05 March 2012 - 15:08

Hey Vil,

The change in opinion of several scientists are generally due to the way controversial ideas were addressed by the IPCC, not by the science, exactly... Many ideas have been brought up only to be dismissed out of hand that should have gotten more scruntiny. That the ideas that were passed over described the weather/synoptics of a warmer world with a lesser difference in temperature across latitudes, was not the focus of the IPCC at the time.

There comes a time in any document you have to decide the intent or plot. Though the theme was not different between the ideas being examined, the plot was different. One was to suggest the result of a given action by tbe dominat magafauna species, the other was to define the conditions that would exist in the resulting world. The two idea sets were not necessarily wrong, they only had different intents. That anyone who had as much education could not see the reason for the decisions made, begins to suggest that there may be a bit of "sour grapes" in play, not that, that is true; but could be construed so. If the individuals in question did not explore both points of view, when they made their declariation, it may suggest that they were not considering all aspects of the issue.
0

#62 Guest_Village_*

  • Group: Guests

Posted 05 March 2012 - 15:14

Possibly, or it could simply be that the IPCC are bias in favour of the AGW CO2 theory.

They would have good reason to be....they are paid for out of the same coffers which collect the new climate taxes. In effect, they benefit from the promotion of the theory.

#63 User is offline   John Mason 

  • Group: Warnings Team Managers
  • Posts: 20844
  • Joined: 04-March 03
  • LocationMachynlleth, Mid-Wales

Posted 05 March 2012 - 15:23

Back to the conspiracy-theorising again, Vill.

I'll just post this summary of the IPCC from Realclimate with my points in bold, as it's hardly worth wasting time typing something much the same:

Let’s start with a few basic facts about the IPCC. The IPCC is not, as many people seem to think, a large organization. In fact, it has only 10 full-time staff in its secretariat at the World Meteorological Organization in Geneva, plus a few staff in four technical support units that help the chairs of the three IPCC working groups and the national greenhouse gas inventories group. The actual work of the IPCC is done by unpaid volunteers – thousands of scientists at universities and research institutes around the world who contribute as authors or reviewers to the completion of the IPCC reports. A large fraction of the relevant scientific community is thus involved in the effort. The three working groups are:




Working Group 1 (WG1), which deals with the physical climate science basis, as assessed by the climatologists, including several of the Realclimate authors.

Working Group 2 (WG2), which deals with impacts of climate change on society and ecosystems, as assessed by social scientists, ecologists, etc.

Working Group 3 (WG3) , which deals with mitigation options for limiting global warming, as assessed by energy experts, economists, etc.




Assessment reports are published every six or seven years and writing them takes about three years. Each working group publishes one of the three volumes of each assessment. The focus of the recent allegations is the Fourth Assessment Report (AR4), which was published in 2007. Its three volumes are almost a thousand pages each, in small print. They were written by over 450 lead authors and 800 contributing authors; most were not previous IPCC authors. There are three stages of review involving more than 2,500 expert reviewers who collectively submitted 90,000 review comments on the drafts. These, together with the authors’ responses to them, are all in the public record (see here and here for WG1 and WG2 respectively).

That should clear that one up.

Cheers - John
0

#64 Guest_Village_*

  • Group: Guests

Posted 05 March 2012 - 16:07

Thanks John,

However, you have left out the most important point which backs up my statement. Which is:

The IPCC statements are not unencumbered statements made by independent scientists. Each statement is carefully proof read and subject to line-by-line approval by politicians.

The panel who review the reports are also hand picked representatives of governments.

So hardly independent as you maintain.

This post has been edited by Village: 05 March 2012 - 16:15


#65 User is offline   ldavidcooke 

  • Group: Moderators
  • Posts: 5160
  • Joined: 18-July 06
  • LocationGraham, NC USA

Posted 05 March 2012 - 16:22

Hey Vil,

So what, would you have the IPCC scientists elected... Or maybe you can choose them by qualifications, whoops, great minds on narrow subjects may not be great organizers. Hmmm..., it seems you would be required to create some form of examination then. Who creates the questions or scenarios? Do you simply create a unwieldly panel of each nations top scientists... Hmmm..., how are each nations top weather, climate and physics scientists choosen anyway...?
0

Share this topic:


  • 4 Pages +
  • « First
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users