 |
|
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
HAL
Please don't shout at me - I can't help it.
Joined: 17 Mar 2003
|
| Post subject: |  |
|
| Oops. Too much data. |
|
|
|
 |
Mugwump
Joined: 28 Jul 2007
Location: Between London and Melbourne
|
| Post subject: | |
|
^ quite, Hal !
Pa, the science is probably not settled, and the ACC hypothesis could indeed be wrong.... However, CC is consistent with experimental physics, the ppm concentrations of CO2 and CH4 are rising by verifiable amounts, around us we see evidence of warming, and the majority of reputable scientists are supportive of the theory. Finally, we have alternative technologies and it's an existential issue for life on earth. I think there's enougn there to say that it's well worth moving our energy technologies away from fossil fuels.
_________________
Two more flags before I die! |
|
|
|
|
HAL
Please don't shout at me - I can't help it.
Joined: 17 Mar 2003
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Who is settled and the ACC hypothesis could? |
|
|
|
|
thebaldfacts
Joined: 02 Aug 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Pa Marmo wrote: | Interesting little read:
Projections of possible future scenarios from unproven computer models of climate are not acceptable substitutes for real world data obtained through unbiased and rigorous scientific investigation.
Open Letter to Secretary-General of United Nations
His Excellency Ban Ki Moon
Secretary-General, United Nations
New York, NY
United States of America
Dear Secretary-General,
Climate change science is in a period of ‘negative discovery’ - the more we learn about this exceptionally complex and rapidly evolving field the more we realize how little we know. Truly, the science is NOT settled.
Therefore, there is no sound reason to impose expensive and restrictive public policy decisions on the peoples of the Earth without first providing convincing evidence that human activities are causing dangerous climate change beyond that resulting from natural causes. Before any precipitate action is taken, we must have solid observational data demonstrating that recent changes in climate differ substantially from changes observed in the past and are well in excess of normal variations caused by solar cycles, ocean currents, changes in the Earth's orbital parameters and other natural phenomena.
We the undersigned, being qualified in climate-related scientific disciplines, challenge the UNFCCC and supporters of the United Nations Climate Change Conference to produce convincing OBSERVATIONAL EVIDENCE for their claims of dangerous human-caused global warming and other changes in climate. Projections of possible future scenarios from unproven computer models of climate are not acceptable substitutes for real world data obtained through unbiased and rigorous scientific investigation.
Specifically, we challenge supporters of the hypothesis of dangerous human-caused climate change to demonstrate that:
Variations in global climate in the last hundred years are significantly outside the natural range experienced in previous centuries;
Humanity’s emissions of carbon dioxide and other ‘greenhouse gases’ (GHG) are having a dangerous impact on global climate;
Computer-based models can meaningfully replicate the impact of all of the natural factors that may significantly influence climate;
Sea levels are rising dangerously at a rate that has accelerated with increasing human GHG emissions, thereby threatening small islands and coastal communities;
The incidence of malaria is increasing due to recent climate changes;
Human society and natural ecosystems cannot adapt to foreseeable climate change as they have done in the past;
Worldwide glacier retreat, and sea ice melting in Polar Regions , is unusual and related to increases in human GHG emissions;
Polar bears and other Arctic and Antarctic wildlife are unable to adapt to anticipated local climate change effects, independent of the causes of those changes;
Hurricanes, other tropical cyclones and associated extreme weather events are increasing in severity and frequency;
Data recorded by ground-based stations are a reliable indicator of surface temperature trends.
It is not the responsibility of ‘climate realist’ scientists to prove that dangerous human-caused climate change is not happening. Rather, it is those who propose that it is, and promote the allocation of massive investments to solve the supposed ‘problem’, who have the obligation to convincingly demonstrate that recent climate change is not of mostly natural origin and, if we do nothing, catastrophic change will ensue. To date, this they have utterly failed to do so.
|
A very interesting read indeed and really highlights that the science is no where near settled.
The last paragraph lays it on the line. The onus lies on those who want to allocate massive investment to solve this supposed problem.
I am sure the usual suspects will accuse the signatories to this letter of not being real scientists, being pawns of the big oil/ coal companies, or worse still being part of the global Murdoch conspiracy.
Still those who are open minded will find this interesting and refreshing to read that maybe we just do not know enough at this stage to make such rash judgements. |
|
|
|
|
Pies4shaw 
pies4shaw
Joined: 08 Oct 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| No, the onus your mates posit is quite wrong. Read up on the "precautionary principle" in international environmental law and get back to us. |
|
|
|
|
Pies4shaw
pies4shaw
Joined: 08 Oct 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| What I don't quite understand is why you are so invested in this. Do you own an open-cut coal-mine or is it purely ideological? It's almost as frightening as fervent religious beliefs. |
|
|
|
|
HAL
Please don't shout at me - I can't help it.
Joined: 17 Mar 2003
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Pies4shaw wrote: | | No, the onus your mates posit is quite wrong. Read up on the "precautionary principle" in international environmental law and get back to us. |
Sorry I don't have access to that document. |
|
|
|
|
pietillidie
Joined: 07 Jan 2005
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Pies4shaw wrote: | | What I don't quite understand is why you are so invested in this. Do you own an open-cut coal-mine or is it purely ideological? It's almost as frightening as fervent religious beliefs. |
Right, that's the most disturbing pyschological aspect. Weirdo cult in the hills watching endless re-runs of Mad Max, anyone?
Hang on, I think I have the ideal leader for them:
Whoops, sorry. I've just been reliably informed that leadership positions have already been filled:
_________________
In the end the rain comes down, washes clean the streets of a blue sky town.
Help Nick's: http://www.magpies.net/nick/bb/fundraising.htm |
|
|
|
|
think positive 
Side By Side
Joined: 30 Jun 2005
Location: somewhere
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Mugwump wrote: | | swoop42 wrote: | All I know is that whatever Australia does will make diddly squat difference to the overall climate of the world.
We produce what, about 1 to 3% of the worlds total pollution?
China, India, US, Russia and Japan amongst a few others are the only nations who can make any significant difference. |
The problem is that what almost any individual nation (barring perhaps China) does will make little difference. That's why it's important for Australia to take a lead in building an intenational consensus on the issue, rather than dismissing it as "crap". As the world's fourth largest coal producer (albeit still small by Chinese standards) we are also a significant participant in the earth's equivalent of the tobacco industry, and it'd be a signal step if we started to progressively scale down our involvement in it. Acting alone won't change anything. But acting together with as few as 20 others could. |
And just like smoking, why don't the people of the earth want to stop doing harm? What's wrong with saving the environment, just because you can. We can't just keep ripping up the ground and taking what we want, it's selfish and stupid, especially when there is better alternatives. Good place to start, with trying for a kinder, gentler, place to live.
_________________
You cant fix stupid, turns out you cant quarantine it either! |
|
|
|
|
Mugwump
Joined: 28 Jul 2007
Location: Between London and Melbourne
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| think positive wrote: |
And just like smoking, why don't the people of the earth want to stop doing harm? What's wrong with saving the environment, just because you can. We can't just keep ripping up the ground and taking what we want, it's selfish and stupid, especially when there is better alternatives. Good place to start, with trying for a kinder, gentler, place to live. |
In defence of Pa Marmo and TBF, there is a valid public policy debate to be had here, and it is important that people question the scientific orthodoxy. Saving the environment is of course a good thing, by definition - but let's imagine that global warming is not anthropogenic (ie man-made). If it is solar fluctuation, then investing funds into energy systems which are less efficient than fossil fuels will mean not investing it in hospitals, medical research, education, or tax cuts, or what have you. It might even mean not investing in systems that adequately mitigate the effects - sea walls, cooling systems, electricity generation, etc.
In the end, for those, like myself, who have not had time to review all of the literature and research and form an independent view (not to mention those who try not to react to every issue as matter of left vs right orthodoxy !), then it comes down to a sense of whom one can trust, and what the consequences might be of getting it wrong. Not much of a basis, perhaps, but it's the rule of thumb we all use in most areas of politics and society.
On balance, I think the more credentialled scientists are proponents of the anthropogenic global warming theory, and the theory itself makes sense to me. I also think we should buy an insurance policy by reducing Fossil fuel dependence, while the dataset grows. That does not mean that contrary views should not be taken seriously, to the extent they merit it.
_________________
Two more flags before I die! |
|
|
|
|
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: | |
|
^ For me the core issue is less whether climate change is anthropogenic and more whether we can meaningfully reduce its negative effects. While that's dependent on pretty much the same scientific understanding, that's the emphasis I'd prefer to see.
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
Mugwump
Joined: 28 Jul 2007
Location: Between London and Melbourne
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| David wrote: | | ^ For me the core issue is less whether climate change is anthropogenic and more whether we can meaningfully reduce its negative effects. While that's dependent on pretty much the same scientific understanding, that's the emphasis I'd prefer to see. |
To meaningfully reduce its negative effects you have to invest money, and what you invest in depends on whether you need to change humanity's fuel source or not. If you thought it was sun spots (and I doubt that, but some do), then you'd invest in sea walls, stilt housing, etc.
So I think the question of anthropogenesis is central to your concern about how to reduce its effects...? Perhaps I am not understanding you.
_________________
Two more flags before I die! |
|
|
|
|
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: | |
|
No worries, I think I was making a rather circular point. Even as I typed it I was thinking "does this actually make sense?". Lol.
As you say, the cause and the solution are always going to be related. I guess what I was trying to say was that even anthropogenic climate change sceptics should still be endorsing any possible solution to the problem, but most of them (our government, for instance) would seem to prefer to ignore it altogether.
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
thebaldfacts
Joined: 02 Aug 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Mugwump wrote: | | think positive wrote: |
And just like smoking, why don't the people of the earth want to stop doing harm? What's wrong with saving the environment, just because you can. We can't just keep ripping up the ground and taking what we want, it's selfish and stupid, especially when there is better alternatives. Good place to start, with trying for a kinder, gentler, place to live. |
In defence of Pa Marmo and TBF, there is a valid public policy debate to be had here, and it is important that people question the scientific orthodoxy. Saving the environment is of course a good thing, by definition - but let's imagine that global warming is not anthropogenic (ie man-made). If it is solar fluctuation, then investing funds into energy systems which are less efficient than fossil fuels will mean not investing it in hospitals, medical research, education, or tax cuts, or what have you. It might even mean not investing in systems that adequately mitigate the effects - sea walls, cooling systems, electricity generation, etc.
In the end, for those, like myself, who have not had time to review all of the literature and research and form an independent view (not to mention those who try not to react to every issue as matter of left vs right orthodoxy !), then it comes down to a sense of whom one can trust, and what the consequences might be of getting it wrong. Not much of a basis, perhaps, but it's the rule of thumb we all use in most areas of politics and society.
On balance, I think the more credentialled scientists are proponents of the anthropogenic global warming theory, and the theory itself makes sense to me. I also think we should buy an insurance policy by reducing Fossil fuel dependence, while the dataset grows. That does not mean that contrary views should not be taken seriously, to the extent they merit it. |
Excellent post Mugwump.
Obviously I look at it from the other side. To spend so much funds which could be spent elsewhere when the scientific data is inconclusive is poor policy especially when the costs fall disproportionately on the less well off in our society irrespective of any compenstaion that tries to mitigate the effects. |
|
|
|
|
Bruce Gonsalves 
Joined: 05 Jul 2012
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Climate change debate, in another forum I participate in, a side issue is the climate debate, so far over 12,000 replies and getting towards 500,000 views. It gets pretty ugly after a few years.
Good luck. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum
|
|
The Rules
FAQ
Usergroups
Calendar
Search
Log in
Register
