The Climate Change Thread

[Scotty]

The issue I have with our political response is that it should revolve around an opportunity to increase our technology and efficiency into the future (making us market leaders), while also reducing GHG emissions, but instead it was seen by our politicians as a way to save their own skin (doing what the Greens wanted, while sending some cash to the lower income earners).

I am disgusted with their performance in this area as it is such a flawed and self serving policy with little to no real impact (either short or long term).

 

[Gnostic]

An article of interest.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=is-earth-nearing-environmental-tipping-point

 

[Gnostic]

I have argued, ineloquently and perhaps incoherently, that those questioning the science of climate change may not be wrong. Those with disputing ideas are in fact important to the debate and improve the science behind. There is a danger to science in too quickly acquiescing to a dominant view.

Throughout our history many scientific models have gained strong acceptance and the supporters of those models have vigorously defended that model to the exclsuion of all other thought. Nuclear Physics is a great example with the various Nuclear models in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. There is another recent example in the area of Male Sexual Morphology and the accepted reasons for behaviour and physical morphology in the animal world. What has been accepted as the basis for this for the last 60 years is now under question, and the fact is the premise of the model was accepted without thorough testing in the first place.

So for those who are interested in this debate on a scientific level I commend this article to you.

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2...d:+wiredscience+(Wired:+Blog+-+Wired+Science)

I believe fully that the debate has been done a huge dis-service by people like Tim Flannery who make startling predictions and statements aimed to cause alarm and fear and thereby garner support and publicity. The probelm is the science does not (yet) support the predictions in either the timelines he talks about or actuallity of the events. We just do not know, and a prudent scientist would not speak in these terms. What the Flannery types have done is turn the questioning minds who would've accepted the science into what I would term resistive minds who will deny all evidence and point to the failed predictions and warnings (which were never support by the actual science in any event). The debate has been hijacked and like the old story of the Boy who cried wolf the scientists will have to now produce a half eaten body with photos of the wolf at feast to re-capture the support of the now resistive minds.

 

[Schadenfreude]

The issue I have with our political response is that it should revolve around an opportunity to increase our technology and efficiency into the future (making us market leaders), while also reducing GHG emissions, but instead it was seen by our politicians as a way to save their own skin (doing what the Greens wanted, while sending some cash to the lower income earners).

I am disgusted with their performance in this area as it is such a flawed and self serving policy with little to no real impact (either short or long term).

I'm shocked.

 

[Bruwheresmycar]

You can't blame Tim Flannery for causing free-thinking individuals to deny the most basic of facts, and even worse, deliberately misrepresenting the claims of climate scientists.

For centuries it's been accepted that increasing the Greenhouse Effect will add more energy to the system and eventually warm the planet. Yet people still don't even accept that, and in defence of their stance will throw things like "climategate" at you. You can't even predict stupidity of this level. Is Flannery to blame for that?

Then there are people who don't even accept that there has been a significant change in climate/weather/temps/sea level over the last 200 years. How does your everyday citizen argue with raw data and mathematics? A: They don't, they just make up all sorts of conspiracies in defence of their stance. Is Flannery to blame for that level of ignorance and denial?

Then there are a tiny number of "skeptics" left who try to accept all the basic facts while wedging their own favorite fringe theory in to explain them all, and some even claim global warming has stopped according to their theory so it's OK. You'd think people like this who accept most of the facts will appreciate the hard work done by climate scientists, but No. If you asked them for their opinion they'd tell you climate science is "corrupt" and "socialist" or something. Is Flannery to blame for this kind of illogical reasoning and conspiracizing?

The thing is, it's not about the conclusion you reach, it's about how you reach your conclusion. If (as a non-scientist) you objectively (without emotion) review the science and come to a conclusion that is in line with the facts, good for you, you can probably have many intellectually stimulating discussions after that. If however, you start with a pre-conceived idea and cherry pick data that supports what you already thought, you're doing it wrong. And will most likely end up with an inconsistant view. Is Flannery to blame for these people not thinking critically?

In 40-50 years time these anti science mobs will almost be professionals. They will successfully be able to turn any scientific issue into a distorted political one, where it's encouraged for people not to review the facts at hand, but to choose a side and cherry pick information that supports the idea they started with. Then if one day we end up having some kind of virus outbreak or germ warfare, where everyone immediately needs to get vaccinated to save the bulk of Australia's population. Just watch as they use the same tactics as being used against climate science today.

The scientists will have all sorts of intense mathematics, equations and algorithms to prove their point, but what does that matter when "there are two sides to every scientific debate", "the science is never settled", ect...

Lastly, my point is that the reason there are so many members of the public who hold a view waaayyyy out of line with the interpretation of experts, is because they can't think critically. It's not because they lost trust in Tim Flannery. If you wiped him, and everything he ever did from existence it wouldn't change a damn thing.

 

[Joe Mac]

This is not a topic that I don't have a strong view on either way. I haven't done the research to have a strong opinion.

So to those who have; What percentage of the warming we have seen in the world is attributed to people and our emissions and what percentage is part of a natural warming process? How do they work this out?

 

[Gnostic]

Bru you have missed the point of my post and your ramblings indicate you didn't even read the article.

Scientific method never deals in absolutes. Even widely accepted hypothesis will eventually be questioned and in many cases proved wrong. Take Bateman's Principle dealing with Sexual Morphology and behaviour in the Fruit Fly. His work in this species led to the same conclusions being applied to many other species and went largely unquestioned for over 40 years. The principles and the conclusions Bateman came to have now been largely disproved.

Now my comments regarding Flannery are fairly simple psychology. The members of the public that he has set out to sway with his high profile statements know little about the science and may well have little capcity to understand the science. I did my basic Physics at Uni and I have limitted understanding of some of the theory being put forward. How then will those who have had no training or science exposure assimilate the information. Short answer is they do not, and do not even try to in most cases. They will look for a brief layman's explanantion and accept the explanantion of an "expert" they they know and trust. Flannery as Australian of the Year and awarded scientist filled those categories. He passionately believes in the Climate Change model and found some resistance and thought to convert more of the public to the idea quickly. Hence the pronoucements. It was an ill concieved tactic, exposed when his more radical predictions failed, that did little except lose him the trust of the audience he was seeking to convince. He stepped away from the science when he started to make the radical predictions (such as the dams of the major cities would never be full again), those predictions had only the slimest basis in the science available, but the net effect was to discredit the whole basis of the statements.

To draw a different scientific parallel, pick a drug treatment regimen, such as Paracetamol, a simple everyday drug. Do those taking it have any idea how it works. Do they understand the slightest aspect of it function? In the vast majority of cases no they do not. If Paracemtamol was new to the market and nobody had any experience of it at all who would they seek advice from, those they accept as being knowledgable and trustworthy in the field. If those trusted people made wildly inaccurate claims regarding the efficacy of the treatment would that person be able to promote the use of the next new drug or even further use of that same compound?

Flannery et. al. acted foolishly when making predictions and statements that were not supported by the weight of scientific evidence, he damaged not only his own profile and ability to educate the non-scienftic he gave ammunition to those who seek to actively oppose the very ideas of Climate Change. That many of those of acted in that ill-advised manner or who didn't and were tainted by their association (real or imagined) with those who did, then seek to demonzse the doubter and those I termed as resistive minds, drive the wedge in further.

The path to scientific elightenment has always been in the past not to be drawn into meaningless debate, but to go away and work on the science and work so that proof is found to either prove or disprove the theory. It does the scientists no good to dig their heels in and say "it is so!" without that proof. What we have now is not a full consensus, we have a "weight of sceintific opinion" that has been called into question because of the statements and actions of some spokespeople. To recover that ground, they need to do the work, which I have no doubt is being done.

 

[Gnostic]

http://www.scientificamerican.com/a...hange-increases-extreme-weather-events&page=2

But determining the role climate change has played in individual extreme weather events is tricky, researchers said.

"A lot of people want to know shortly after an extreme event, what were the causes of it? How are these things changing over time?" said Peterson. "But this is an evolving science."

While it's true that scientists can't say with certainty whether climate change caused a given weather event, that is the wrong question to ask, experts said.

Instead, they are examining whether climate change is changing the odds of natural disasters like floods, droughts, heat waves and hurricanes.
In the case of the 2011 heat wave in Texas, authors of the new U.S.-U.K. research find that adding climate change to La Niña makes scorching heat far more likely.

They reached similar conclusions about unusually warm conditions in central England last November, the second-hottest since record-keeping began in 1659. The scientists say that kind of warmth is 60 times more likely today than it was in the 1960s.

The extreme cold that blanketed the same area in December 2010 is now half as likely to occur now as it was 50 years ago.

But for some natural disasters, including catastrophic floods last year in Thailand, there is no clear connection to man-made climate change.

"We do not see evidence of a human role in all weather extremes," said Peter Stott, climate monitoring and attribution team leader at the U.K. Met Office. "Natural variability is still playing an important role."

In the case of the Thailand floods -- the worst in that country since 1942 -- examination of climate records showed the amount of rainfall that fell was not unusual.

The scientists believe other factors -- like changes in reservoir policies and increased construction in floodplains -- are to blame for the devastating deluge.

 

[Bruwheresmycar]

What is your point then? Nothing in the article supports what you are implying about with Flannery (et al...whoever they are)

I don't see why we should be making excuses for people who go out of their way to misrepresent climate science because they have a personal objection to it. You can't pin someone's willfull ignorance on another induvidual and not even go into detail. It's a complete nonsequitor.

Sure, scientific theories have been proved wrong many times. But that was done by a healthy scientific debate, the kind the anti-climate science mob are 100% against. Also, not to mention that disproving the entire "global warming" theory would overturn a shitload of established physics and would be the biggest scientific discovery of our time.

There is a debate going on constantly, not over established facts, but over aspects of the currently accepted theories. "How much will the climate react to extra energy" ect... Not "does increasing the GHG content in the atmosphere effect the climate". You can write about all the overturned theories you like, but people need to accept that scientists have moved on from questions like this.

I understand my opinion is not popular. But I firmly believe the way forward is to tell people from the outside who distrupt and completely distort the scientific debate for their own agenda that their uninformed opinion (and objection to simple facts) is (1) Wrong, (2) of no value to anyone, and (3) an extremely dangerous way of thinking.

Blaming their problems on external impacts just encourages them. I can't see why people don't just let scientists do their job FFS. If they are so passionate about the subject, no one is stopping them from enrolling in university to study atmospheric physics and overturn the entire theory.

This is not a topic that I don't have a strong view on either way. I haven't done the research to have a strong opinion.

So to those who have; What percentage of the warming we have seen in the world is attributed to people and our emissions and what percentage is part of a natural warming process? How do they work this out?

Just so you know, I'll post a reply to this in the next day or two. It's a good question that can probably be answered using entirely free material on the net.

 

[Gnostic]

I don't see why we should be making excuses for people who go out of their way to misrepresent climate science

My point. Flannery did this by making nonsupported predictions. (et al - is he the only authority who did this?)

Bru, I will direct your memory back to your High School Physics since my other analogies have not shown you that the Climate Debate is in no way any different to previous debates in Science. How did the supports of Plank's "Plum Pudding model of the atom react to the research and theories proposed by various other theorists? How was Einstein's work accepted initially? What about the physical demonstrations of Tesla? All were derided and attacked in some cases personally. What those individuals did however was go away and work on their theories and in the end the weight of proof was so great that the detractors were the ones discredited.

Back to my point, Flannery caused damage to the cause by "misrespresenting" the science and making sensational and highly publicised predictions which were not supported by the science. In the information age this has been siezed on and by the detractors and used to disprove the theories in another misrepresentation of of the facts. The second instance isn't excused by the former, and defence of the former and demonizing those who have lost faith because of those actions will not advance the science or win the day.

Quietly and thoroughly making the argument, both for and against, as done in the articles I posted at #828 and #822 and previously will do much much more good in educating the people and converting those now "resistive" minds but into "receptive" minds.

 

[Bruwheresmycar]

What predictions are you talking about? He might have made wrong predictions, but misrepresentations?

Assuming he did, I still wouldn't think it's healthy for people to hold others accountable for their own irrational thinking.

 

[Cutter]

Back to my point, Flannery caused damage to the cause by "misrespresenting" the science and making sensational and highly publicised predictions which were not supported by the science.

Bru's point is that what Flannery does and doesn't do has no effect on the science. People should carry out their own critical analysis of the science rather than believing what they are told.

Your point is that persuading the masses, who have no hope of understanding the science, is a public relations campaign and that, as a leading face of that campaign, Flannery brought discredit to the campaign by over stating the effects of climate change.

Both of you are right though, in your case, it is regrettable that it is so.

 

[Karl]

You can't blame Tim Flannery for causing free-thinking individuals to deny the most basic of facts, and even worse, deliberately misrepresenting the claims of climate scientists.

For centuries it's been accepted that increasing the Greenhouse Effect will add more energy to the system and eventually warm the planet. Yet people still don't even accept that, and in defence of their stance will throw things like "climategate" at you. You can't even predict stupidity of this level. Is Flannery to blame for that?

Then there are people who don't even accept that there has been a significant change in climate/weather/temps/sea level over the last 200 years. How does your everyday citizen argue with raw data and mathematics? A: They don't, they just make up all sorts of conspiracies in defence of their stance. Is Flannery to blame for that level of ignorance and denial?

Then there are a tiny number of "skeptics" left who try to accept all the basic facts while wedging their own favorite fringe theory in to explain them all, and some even claim global warming has stopped according to their theory so it's OK. You'd think people like this who accept most of the facts will appreciate the hard work done by climate scientists, but No. If you asked them for their opinion they'd tell you climate science is "corrupt" and "socialist" or something. Is Flannery to blame for this kind of illogical reasoning and conspiracizing?

The thing is, it's not about the conclusion you reach, it's about how you reach your conclusion. If (as a non-scientist) you objectively (without emotion) review the science and come to a conclusion that is in line with the facts, good for you, you can probably have many intellectually stimulating discussions after that. If however, you start with a pre-conceived idea and cherry pick data that supports what you already thought, you're doing it wrong. And will most likely end up with an inconsistant view. Is Flannery to blame for these people not thinking critically?

In 40-50 years time these anti science mobs will almost be professionals. They will successfully be able to turn any scientific issue into a distorted political one, where it's encouraged for people not to review the facts at hand, but to choose a side and cherry pick information that supports the idea they started with. Then if one day we end up having some kind of virus outbreak or germ warfare, where everyone immediately needs to get vaccinated to save the bulk of Australia's population. Just watch as they use the same tactics as being used against climate science today.

The scientists will have all sorts of intense mathematics, equations and algorithms to prove their point, but what does that matter when "there are two sides to every scientific debate", "the science is never settled", ect.

Lastly, my point is that the reason there are so many members of the public who hold a view waaayyyy out of line with the interpretation of experts, is because they can't think critically. It's not because they lost trust in Tim Flannery. If you wiped him, and everything he ever did from existence it wouldn't change a damn thing.

I find a lot of your assumptions about things like my ability to think critically quite offensive actually. And your claim that my position means I am stupid beyond prediction or measure is sadly typical of the arrogant and dismissive attitude those in your camp often take.

Quite a few of the assertions you slip into the above diatribe as fact have been extensively debated in this thread and elsewhere and don't align with the data and facts you claim others ignore.

Tim Flannery is an idiot, but he's an influential idiot and like it or not, he holds high and official government office on the Warmist side of the debate, which is awkward for you. I understand your embarrassment, but he is like many who preach the gospel of Anthropogenic Global Warming at the expense of truth and ethics. You guys just try to disown them or rationalize and excuse their actions.

Your fast forward 50 years is pointless speculation and probably most valuable as a humorous diversion from the real issues.

And just to further screw with your myopic stereotype of all ANTHROPOGENIC Global Warming skeptics, I started out from the position that we were experiencing dangerous and significant global warming and that man was the primary cause of it. I have journeyed to the point I am at now as a result of a wide range of considerations that have been well ventilated in this thread.

And there is nothing wrong with forming a view based on certain evidence and then seeking other evidence to corroborate that view. It's how they found the Higgs Bosun. Its exactly what your side has been doing for decades.

The problem is Climate has become so politicized and your side also buries, twists and attacks views and data that they don't like. They try to shut down debate and discussion, play seriously dirty pool (eg the Heartland Institute fraudulent emails) dance around ethics and unfortunately keep making predictions based on their precious (and deeply flawed) computer models that don't track with observable data or are just woefully wrong. I've given extensive examples of all of this in this thread.

And yet here you are again, ignoring reams of information in this thread, and making the same assertions, adding nothing of value.

 

[Scotty]

Bru's point is that what Flannery does and doesn't do has no effect on the science. People should carry out their own critical analysis of the science rather than believing what they are told.

Your point is that persuading the masses, who have no hope of understanding the science, is a public relations campaign and that, as a leading face of that campaign, Flannery brought discredit to the campaign by over stating the effects of climate change.

Both of you are right though, in your case, it is regrettable that it is so.

Unfortunately both sides of politics have reinforced Flannery's influence (or even extended it).

Libs for making him Australian of the year and Labor for giving him the highest public servant position in the country on climate change!

 

[Karl]

An article of interest.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=is-earth-nearing-environmental-tipping-point

See, I'm more concerned by habitat destruction and sustainable food production and pollution. That article is concerning.

And a carbon tax ain't gonna do squat.

 

[Bruwheresmycar]

LOL, there I am having a go at people that don't accept basic facts. Then Karl comes along and takes offence to it. Look, if you came to a conclusion by honestly reviewing the science at hand, then it wasn't aimed at you, simple. If you use any of the dishonest tactics I outlined above, tell me why I'm wrong.

The only possible objection to my post is to support irrationality, so go ahead if you want. But once again you just posted a long rant about nothing to give people here the illusion you have some kind of point. Flannery is an idiot? Why should I accept this without evidence? You know I don't blindly accept what people tell me so don't bother with stuff you can't back up. (by the way, I don't give a fuck what he says about anything, but I still don't jump on board witch hunts or bandwagons)

And once again you tell me that everything I'm saying is debunked by stuff you've posted "earlier in the thread". Well post it again FFS. No joke, the last time I was confronted with that tactic was against creationists.

 

[Gnostic]

For those who are actually interested in the science there is some nice information in here referencing Feedback Loops (which are extremely common in all natural systems for maintaining or re-establishing a balance (though that balance may not be the one that you know and love).

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/expeditions/2012/07/12/following-the-ice-is-this-global-warming/

My point Cutter was that many people do not have the capacity or training to critically review the information and science and hence they rely on influencial Official persons such as Flannery. Hence is comments may not have done anything to the science in actuallity, the net effect was a large segment of the community were alarmed by his comments and then this fear was shown to have no basis in the science. The anti-CC side of the argument then capitalised on that reactive anger that people felt at having been made to fear nothing. Hence they became what I termed in my earlier post as resistive minds, just as the villagers wouldn't believe the boy who cried wolf.

The fact that Flannery isn't a climatologist and has very little to do with the actaul scietific research, the peer reviews or anything of actual substance is meaningless because he was the Official Government spokesman.

Anyway back to the science, have a read about Feedback Loops, and for interests sake read up on some of the simpler mechanisims and you wil gain an understanding of why Climatologists and serious scientists in the field of Climate change, on both sides of the argument, do not make absolute statements. The systems are so conplex with so many inputs, many of which haven't been identified, and they interact in so many ways accurate mapping of the oiutcomes is neigh on impossible.

 

[Karl]

LOL, there I am having a go at people that don't accept basic facts. Then Karl comes along and takes offence to it. Look, if you came to a conclusion by honestly reviewing the science at hand, then it wasn't aimed at you, simple. If you use any of the dishonest tactics I outlined above, tell me why I'm wrong.

The only possible objection to my post is to support irrationality, so go ahead if you want. But once again you just posted a long rant about nothing to give people here the illusion you have some kind of point. Flannery is an idiot? Why should I accept this without evidence? You know I don't blindly accept what people tell me so don't bother with stuff you can't back up. (by the way, I don't give a fuck what he says about anything, but I still don't jump on board witch hunts or bandwagons)

And once again you tell me that everything I'm saying is debunked by stuff you've posted "earlier in the thread". Well post it again FFS. No joke, the last time I was confronted with that tactic was against creationists.

I'm not repeating myself because you've got Alzheimer's. Read what other people write the first time they write it instead of ignoring everything that contradicts your position because you deem it to be irrelevant.

 

[HarveyColon]

of course he has alzheimers, he can't remember where his car is

 

[Gagger]

Social media fuckup.

LET'S GO

http://arcticready.com/social/gallery