• Welcome to the Green and Gold Rugby forums. As you can see we've upgraded the forums to new software. Your old logon details should work, just click the 'Login' button in the top right.

The Climate Change Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.

Scotty

David Codey (61)
I have found it difficult to straight out accept the IPCC conclusions for various reasons (although I do accept that these reasons do not necessarily make their conclusions incorrect):

1. Evidence of some scientists fiddling the data.

2. The sheer number of scientists that don't seem to agree with the conclusions (if it was set in stone, then why is there so many 'skeptics').

3. Politicians being involved. The process has been politicised, and a lot of politicians seem to be using climate change as an excuse to forward agendas. We have gone from global warming to climate change (so that politicians could start explaining why things like Britain's recent cold winter occurred). We are all talking about 'carbon' when we should really be talking about 'carbon dioxide', something that is crucial to life on this earth. We even hear politicians refer to it as 'carbon pollution' - you and I both know that carbon dioxide isn't a pollutant like carbon monoxide.

4. Exaggeration of the affects of climate change by some 'respected' scientists (Tim Flannery has made ridiculous predictions, none of which have come true and he is meant to be one our top experts).

5. Self interest. Climate scientists have a self interest to progress climate change theory. Skeptical scientists don't have this same conflict of interest in most cases.

6. Hypocritical behaviour. This is mostly politicians - if you truly believe in something, then you live every bit of your life (or as much as possible) in line with that belief (just like you and Scarfy with no tvs in the house). People like Kevin Rudd travel to climate summits with 20 odd staff in tow, and end up emitting more C02 than my whole family will do for a decade.

Worse still are guys like Al Gore, sitting in their ivory towers that pump out about 10 families worth of carbon dioxide per year, and then jump on planes twice a week. It is very hard to believe what someone is saying when they aren't themselves living by that mantra.

Ross Garnaut is probably our highest ranking political consultant on the policy response to climate change, yet he was chairperson of a mining company that could be considered to be environmental terrorists by dumping heavy metals into the sea of PNG.



It is so difficult for me to ignore a lot of these issues, and blindly follow what some scientists and politicians are saying. And I don't prescribe to the theory of the end justifying the means.
 

sevenpointdropgoal

Larry Dwyer (12)
I have found it difficult to straight out accept the IPCC conclusions for various reasons (although I do accept that these reasons do not necessarily make their conclusions incorrect)

1. It's happened a few times. It happens in every field. But the key data has been consistently vindicated, even by scientists who have previously labeled themselves skeptics (see Muller for an example).

2. In reviewing it's position on the issue in 2010, the American National Academy of Science commissioned a report to determine whether consensus existed, and so whether to finalise a position. In a survey of 1,300 randomly selected research scientists they recorded that 97% accepted that climate change was occurring and was human influenced. These kind of surveys have returned results of anything from 80%-99% in favor, for virtually every scientific professional agency in the world. That's a consensus. There is, however, a significant industry in pseudo scientific skeptics, and there are plenty of outlets for them to speak publicly, which makes them seem like they occupy a larger part of the scientific community than they actually do.

3. Of course they are involved, the situation requires a political response.

4. Outcome prediction and pattern modeling are two completely different things. You cannot use specific failures in outcome prediction to negate the modeling. There is also a tendency to emphasize the most serious possible outcomes, as, if they were realised, they would be catastrophically costly to our current way of life; the argument Flannery uses is that people should be aware that, depending on the progress of warming, these are real possibilities.

It's also worth pointing out that while some predictions have been wrong, we are also seeing effects that no-one predicted. (A few examples below)

*In three out of the past 5 years the Amazon Rainforest has actually released more carbon dioxide than it's absorbed, due to changing rainfall patterns.

*Large parts of the remaining arctic sea ice now seem to be sitting on a large "lake" of unusually fresh melt water - rather than being absorbed slowly it now seems that it will all invert in one great big blob, with potentially serious consequences for the earth's thermohaline circulation (the engine for the global climate).

*Desertification in China, Africa, and Central Asia is progressing faster than expected. It was thought a small rise in temperature might possibly increase the net moisture carrying capacity of the air and, with it, rainfall, but, for whatever reason, the opposite appears to be happening.

5. Exactly the opposite. Major polluters have poured hundreds of millions, if not billions, into spurious scientific stalling. This might explain the prevalence of pseudo scientific skeptics.

6. True. That's not an argument against it though. People in positions of power are always hypocrites.
 

Scotty

David Codey (61)
5. Do you have any evidence to suggest that these scientists that I have linked articles to have been paid by 'major polluters'. (I assume you mean major CO2 emitters?). Do you have any evidence to suggest that climate change scientist don't benefit from there being a climate change to talk about?
 

sevenpointdropgoal

Larry Dwyer (12)
5. Do you have any evidence to suggest that these scientists that I have linked articles to have been paid by 'major polluters'. (I assume you mean major CO2 emitters?). Do you have any evidence to suggest that climate change scientist don't benefit from there being a climate change to talk about?

I wasn't accusing anyone you've mentioned of anything, but Roy Spencer does, in fact, have such links. I noted and accepted his membership of two Koch funded climate denying think tanks in my response to your original post on him, and then treated only his science, which is positive in some respects, but been shown to have delivered incorrect findings (his original critique of the measurement system of IR satellite measurement of cloud forcing is correct, but his tests of the new system delivered results that could not be reproduced, and used a flawed method of statistical analysis). I even took the time to attempt to break down why David Evans is wrong, even though he isn't a researcher at all (nor, since the completion of his PhD, has he ever been), but rather an engineer and statistical programmer/adviser who was contracted to advise on systems for the Governments climate change analysis programs, and he now runs a science lecturing and research communication company that gets paid specifically to speak against the science of climate change.

Widespread, targeted funding of anti-climate research with the specific aim of stalling policy action is occurring, and it is often difficult to assess who is the benefactors. In 2008 Exxon Mobil was forced by a powerful shareholding block to take climate change more seriously by cutting funding (similar to the tobacco industry's funding of pro tobacco scientific groups) to nine largely anti-climate change think tanks and research groups. Exxon's own financial records show that it provided between $700,000, and $7 million per year over five years to each of these nine groups alone. The Rockefeller family's trust holdings in Exxon (one of the original shareholders group that forced the funding change) has continued to complain that funding of other such groups is ongoing in Exxon (though, predictably, have declined to actually sell their stake), and that other major polluters were doing the same kind of thing, and that the technical and shadowy nature of these funding arrangements made it very difficult to assess where funding was ultimately directed. In 2007, on receiving reports of the ructions amongst Exxon shareholders concerned about funding arrangements, the then chairman of the US House of Representatives Oversight Committee on Science and Technology, Brad Miller, examined the situation and said that Exxon's support for skeptics "appears to be an effort to distort public discussion", and has subsequently noted that this was being pursued with a scientific upset campaign, as with big tobacco's fight against health based cigarette legislation.

As for Climate Change research scientists, well, they certainly get funding for looking into climate change issues, but there are a number of rigorous systems in place to attempt to limit, or account for the effects this might have on their findings. And that's largely irrelevant anyway, as most of the people you might identify as climate scientists are not the ones doing the bulk of the research. The researchers are a disparate group of mathematicians, physicists, oceanographers, meteorologists, chemists, environmental scientists, geographers, statistical systems specialists, biologists and geologists. And they aren't getting their funding to find climate change, they get funding to test a certain hypothesis, and indeed the tenure system exists to as protection for those who never find anything, or only find results that invalidate their initial hypothesis.

There are a lot of collateral jobs associated with climate change action. That is undeniable, but these jobs are not research positions. These jobs have appeared because the results are unambiguous. It's real, and we are causing it. The data is publicly available, and the methods used to collect it are clearly examinable and falsifiable. The only argument is now coming from people who are scared that their wallets might be affected. And they aren't arguing because there is something wrong with the research, they are arguing with the science because if they accept the data, they cannot possibly justify doing nothing. If only they'd shut up and help, instead of agitating against the science to delay a policy response, the cost would be substantially lessened.
 

sevenpointdropgoal

Larry Dwyer (12)
Interesting story on a couple of climate change sceptics from the US who happen to be oil baron billionaires

http://hungrybeast.abc.net.au/stories/beast-file-koch-brothers

That's an interesting article to turn up in the Australian news cycle. The Koch Brothers have a long history of using their wealth for right wing, libertarian political action, sort of like right wing versions of George Soros or William Buffett, though slightly more secretive. It is often touted, not entirely correctly, that they are the force behind the Tea Party movement. The New Yorker did an interesting profile on their agitating against the Obama administration in mid 2010; I'll see if I can dig it up.

Edit: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/08/30/100830fa_fact_mayer
 

Scotty

David Codey (61)
Sevenpoint,

You know that I can't satisfactorily debate these points with you, however I will still find it difficult to ignore all the opinions, studies and articles that have been written in opposition to some of the points of climate change scientists and the IPCC. Something is still not right in kansas, and I doubt if this issue was so clear cut as you seem to indicate there would be so much opposition, particularly from some of the respected scientists that we have discussed.

However, I do thank you for the time you have put in to increase me knowledge in this area.
 

Cutter

Nicholas Shehadie (39)
Sevenpoint,

You know that I can't satisfactorily debate these points with you, however I will still find it difficult to ignore all the opinions, studies and articles that have been written in opposition to some of the points of climate change scientists and the IPCC. Something is still not right in kansas, and I doubt if this issue was so clear cut as you seem to indicate there would be so much opposition, particularly from some of the respected scientists that we have discussed.

However, I do thank you for the time you have put in to increase me knowledge in this area.

Who are the respected, peer reviewed scientists to which you refer?
 

Scotty

David Codey (61)
Oh, sorry, I forgot people couldn't be respected or have an opinion until they are peer reviewed.

I also forgot that peer reviewing makes all studies and findings perfect and without flaw.

Next time I design a structure I'd better submit it to the peer review system, otherwise it will obviously fall down.
 

Cutter

Nicholas Shehadie (39)
Oh, sorry, I forgot people couldn't be respected or have an opinion until they are peer reviewed.

I also forgot that peer reviewing makes all studies and findings perfect and without flaw.

Next time I design a structure I'd better submit it to the peer review system, otherwise it will obviously fall down.

Scotty you're comparing two different things. It is beyond doubt that, within scientific research fields, some form of verification is essential. Peer review is the best model we have for examining the scientific merits of studies papers etc. It is not without its faults or its critics, but there aren't many things which are considered faultless and there are no realistic alternatives (read here for more http://www.nature.com/nature/peerreview/debate/nature05031.html).

Uncle Wiki will give you a very general warts and all: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_review

This is taken from Wiki:

Scholarly peer review (also known as refereeing) is the process of subjecting an author's scholarly work, research, or ideas to the scrutiny of others who are experts in the same field, before a paper describing this work is published in a journal. The work may be accepted, considered acceptable with revisions, or rejected. Peer review requires a community of experts in a given (and often narrowly defined) field, who are qualified and able to perform impartial review. Impartial review, especially of work in less narrowly defined or inter-disciplinary fields, may be difficult to accomplish; and the significance (good or bad) of an idea may never be widely appreciated among its contemporaries. Although generally considered essential to academic quality, and used in most important scientific publications, peer review has been criticized as ineffective, slow, and misunderstood[by whom?] (see anonymous peer review and open peer review). Recently there have been some experiments with wiki-style, signed, peer reviews, for example in an issue of the Shakespeare Quarterly.[15]
Pragmatically, peer review refers to the work done during the screening of submitted manuscripts and funding applications. This process encourages authors to meet the accepted standards of their discipline and prevents the dissemination of irrelevant findings, unwarranted claims, unacceptable interpretations, and personal views. Publications that have not undergone peer review are likely to be regarded with suspicion by scholars and professionals.

You're right that there are plenty of voices against climate change, just as there were plenty suggesting there were no harmful effects associated with smoking. Its the cliched comparison but its right. And, a little bit of digging shows that some of the voices are the same. Its important we all reach our own conclusions on these things, but its equally important we're critical of the information people feed us.

I know that peer reviewed studies have already been through a verification process. That is why I can rely on them. Without testing the data and conclusions myself (which I'm not qualified to do), I can place no reliance on papers and studies which aren't peer reviewed. If they are meritorious, they will go through the peer review process at some point anyway and then I can rely on them. In the meantime, it is a fact that there are no peer reviewed conclusions supporting the theories that:

1. Increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere does not lead to atmospheric warming; and
2. Human activity is not increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere to an extent that it is leading to atmospheric warming.

Until there is solid science supporting the counter theories, what have we to go on? The "vibe" might be good enough for Dennis Denuto, but its not good enough for me.
 

Ruggo

Mark Ella (57)
Oh, sorry, I forgot people couldn't be respected or have an opinion until they are peer reviewed.

I also forgot that peer reviewing makes all studies and findings perfect and without flaw.

Next time I design a structure I'd better submit it to the peer review system, otherwise it will obviously fall down.

I think you are right but at the same time not. In matters of science peer reviewing is essential.
 

Scotty

David Codey (61)
You're right that there are plenty of voices against climate change, just as there were plenty suggesting there were no harmful effects associated with smoking. Its the cliched comparison but its right. And, a little bit of digging shows that some of the voices are the same. Its important we all reach our own conclusions on these things, but its equally important we're critical of the information people feed us.

So I'm not allowed to make comparisons and talk about two different things, but you can talk about smoking and climate change in the same sentence?

Do you truly think that nothing coming from the other side of this debate deserves consideration?
 

Cutter

Nicholas Shehadie (39)
Do you truly think that nothing coming from the other side of this debate deserves consideration?

Counter arguments have been raised for over 20 years and I am not aware of any which dispute the two key points (being that increased carbon dioxide warms the planet and that humans are responsible for increased carbon dioxide emissions which are causing a warming of the planet) and which have withstood rigorous examination.

What is it that you are relying upon which is so compelling that it makes you disregard a global scientific consensus and which parts of it do you dispute?
 

Scotty

David Codey (61)
Why do you think I'm disregarding it?

Just looking all the opinions. It seems it is you that is disregarding some of the information that is out there.
 

Cutter

Nicholas Shehadie (39)
Oil giants play loose with facts on gas
Fiona Harvey
April 23, 2011
SENIOR executives in the fossil fuel industry have launched an all-out assault on renewable energy, lobbying governments and business groups to reject wind and solar power in favour of gas, in a move that could choke the green energy industry.

Multinational companies including Shell, GDF Suez and Statoil are promoting gas as an alternative green fuel. These firms are among dozens worldwide investing in new technologies to exploit shale gas, a controversial form of the fuel that has rejuvenated the gas industry because it is in plentiful supply and newly accessible because of technical advances in gas extraction that are known as fracking.

Burning gas in power stations releases about half the carbon emissions of coal, allowing gas companies to claim it is a green source of fuel.

For the past two months company lobbyists have been besieging governments in Europe, the US and elsewhere.

Central to the lobbying effort is a report saying that the European Union could meet its 2050 carbon targets more cheaply, avoiding costs of €990 billion ($1.3 trillion), by using gas rather than investing in renewables.

However, The Guardian has established that the analysis is based on a previous report that came to the opposite conclusion: that renewables should play a much larger role. The report being pushed by the fossil fuel industry has been disowned by its original authors, who referred to it as biased in favour of gas.

The new report relies on questionable assumptions about the future price of technology to capture and store carbon. The team at the European Climate Foundation that produced the original report described the new version, commissioned by the European Gas Advocacy Forum, as ''biased to one preferential outcome in support of gas advocacy''. It warn that adopting its conclusions would expose the European economy to volatile gas prices.

Further doubt has been thrown on the industry's claims by an academic study from Cornell University which found that generating electricity from shale gas produced at least as much carbon dioxide as coal-fired power, and perhaps more, because of the difficulty in extracting the gas.

James Smith, outgoing British chairman of Royal Dutch Shell, one of the leaders in the lobbying effort, said switching to gas would offer the world a ''breathing space'' in the battle against climate change.

This view was challenged by David Mackay, chief scientific adviser to Britain's Department of Energy and Climate Change. He said: ''You can't reach the [climate] targets like this. There is no way that switching to gas would solve the problem. I don't think it's really credible that gas is the only future.''

Nobuo Tanaka, executive director of the International Energy Agency, said gas was ''complementary to renewables, as it could be turned on and off quickly, could be baseload power and [avoid use of] coal''.

Guardian News & Media



Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/environment/e...acts-on-gas-20110422-1drcu.html#ixzz1KHgegwHd
 

Scotty

David Codey (61)
I'll see you that article and raise you one (from a generally left slanted source):

http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/113676.html

Combet boasts that “Every dollar raised by the carbon price will be dedicated to supporting households with any price impacts, and supporting businesses through the transition to a clean energy economy.”

This is impossible. Under the “Fast Start Finance” commitment from Cancun, which Combet announced, $599 million will be given to the IPCC under Australia’s combating AGW obligations. This $599 million is on top of the commitment made by Australia at Cancun to give 10% of revenue raised from a carbon tax to the IPCC. Then there will be the bureaucratic expansion to run the tax, checking compliance and eligibility criteria; these administration costs apparently run at 50% for the Australian government. All this probably explains why Combet’s boss, PM Gillard, is saying “more than 50 per cent of money raised [from the carbon pricing scheme] will go to assisting households.”

How much of this tax is going to be wasted?
 

Scotty

David Codey (61)
James Smith, outgoing British chairman of Royal Dutch Shell, one of the leaders in the lobbying effort, said switching to gas would offer the world a ''breathing space'' in the battle against climate change.

This view was challenged by David Mackay, chief scientific adviser to Britain's Department of Energy and Climate Change. He said: ''You can't reach the [climate] targets like this. There is no way that switching to gas would solve the problem. I don't think it's really credible that gas is the only future.''

So the gas guy says 'breathing space' indicating a shorter to medium term solution, but the climate guy talks in terms of gas being the only future. These two aren't even talking about the same thing, or have been asked different questions.
 

matty_k

Peter Johnson (47)
Staff member
It isn't perfect but it still is the best way at the moment.

It needs to conducted by people that understand what is being studied.
It needs to be rigorous and take some time to try and catch any flaw that might exist in the study.

Come up with a better process the scientific world will be thankful.
 

Scotty

David Codey (61)
Yes, but in this case the peers that reviewed it either don't have common sense, or they are complicit in the deception of this study.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top