| Inside Scoop | Breaking News | Video | Blog Index | Humor | ||
| Politics | Economics | New Media | Travel and Lifestyle | Technology | Education | Green Living |
I'm not a terrible worrier, but I must admit that I've been a little concerned over this climate change issue. The fact that our industrial emissions continue to increase, coupled with the fairly well-understood theory regarding the "greenhouse effect" and the fact that we, as a civilization, are kind of dependent on the weather patterns of this particular planet remaining fairly unchanged, leads me to hope that our governments will actually make some serious efforts to ameliorate the obvious risk. In the case of the biggest emitters in the region, that means hoping that they will genuinely reduce their increasing outputs. In the case of smaller emitters like Australia, that nonetheless rank high in the scale on a per-capita basis, I'd hope we can practise what we preach. It will be difficult, sure, and if we want to protect ourselves from the risks we're going to have to act before the potential disaster hits - but it's not like we have a backup planet to flee to if we stubbornly refuse to do anything and the predictions come true. We'd be fairly silly not to err on the side of caution, wouldn't we?
Unless, of course, our entire scientific understanding of the planet's climate turns out to be wrong and we have a magically-impervious atmosphere that can absorb anything we throw at it with no consequences whatsoever. Which is why I've certainly been THRILLED to hear all about a whole lot of emails stolen from some climate scientists this week. Apparently the scientists made some remarks back in 1999 that could be interpreted as their having exaggerated some data. Also, one seemed to be a bit ghoulishly glad that an opponent had died. So, that's that then! Problem solved. Because some of the people arguing that it seems fairly absurd to assume that the atmosphere can continue indefinitely to absorb whatever our industries belch into it with no effect whatsoever have been embarrassed. Therefore, by the transitive property of agreement, everyone on their side of the argument has been embarrassed. And if their side has suffered a loss of face, then that must mean that the side that says we should do nothing and it'll sort itself out must have won. Ergo, we are now entirely safe. The Earth's atmosphere wouldn't dare gradually warm as CO2 levels rise just because that's what we know happens on every scale we've been able to measure. It certainly wouldn't dare start altering weather patterns such that we'd start having unprecedented extremes - extreme winters, or extreme summers. I mean, how could it, when some climate scientist can be made to look a bit dodgy? I'm warning you, complex atmospheric systems on which our civilizations depend - if you pull any of that funny stuff with us, I'm going to show these emails to... um. The other planets. I'm not bluffing. The Earth wouldn't dare piss us off now. Problem solved. Human civilization saved. You can cancel Copenhagen. ELSEWHERE: This style of scientific debate is really knocking down the pins! Newton's private correspondence proves gravity a hoax, too.
Related StoriesOn the money trail with Tony Jones (story by The ShadowLands) Bilateral agreements key to Copenhagen climate deal (story by Asian in America) Copenhagen conference not so important after all (story by RWDB - JF Beck) Clinton rules out binding climate deal at Copenhagen (story by Breaking News) Climate change legislation hangs in balance (story by A View from Australia) Global warming: More on those hacked emails (story by RWDB - JF Beck) Comments
Oh dear. The crux of this argument is what? Surely not " Err on the side of caution because if what some people say turns out to be right we could all be extras in " Blade Runner" " . Jeremy please advise when you manage to come up with something even more lame to excuse stupidity. With that wisdom ringing in their ears the Wright Brothers stayed put on terra firma and saved themselves , electricity was not something to meddle with and the danger averted , surgery was not performed ...et al. (multiplied by a thousand better examples). The (current) big scam of the Left is unravelling and the altar you have for so long worshipped at is on the nose and needs a makeover big time. Now it has been subjected to some serious scrutiny we can see that your High Priests were little more than opportunists with letters after their names - sadly not accurate letters like B.o.B.S. (Masters). Dismiss the truth as it is obviously not that convenient and be smarmy as you like, but the reality is you and so many other warm mongers are squirming big time. Those that are not are dare I say it are the real denialists .....
Here is an interesting take on things from the inside.
Keri - that link didn't work. You might just need to post it as text. I've asked the AC powers-that-be to enable html links in comments, but in the meantime, just leave as a link people can cut and paste into their browser. SKF (good pseudonym!): "Oh dear. The crux of this argument is what? Surely not " Err on the side of caution because if what some people say turns out to be right we could all be extras in " Blade Runner" " ." No, it's if there's an 80% chance of the planet becoming unliveable, then surely it's worth allocating some resources to minimise the risk. Do you have house insurance? Same sort of thing. "Now it has been subjected to some serious scrutiny we can see that your High Priests were little more than opportunists with letters after their names" Uh, what? "High Priests"? A couple of scientists in the UK? This is a classic ad-hominem. This is your argument: 1. Some UK scientists who argue that the Earth is warming wrote some dodgy emails ten years ago that seem to indicate they were fudging figures. 2. Therefore, everyone who argues that the Earth is warming is dishonest. 3. Therefore, the Earth is not warming. But 2 doesn't follow from 1, and 3 doesn't follow from 2. "the reality is you and so many other warm mongers are squirming big time. " Not in the slightest. (Although "warm mongers" is fairly witty, I like that.)
Oops. Here it is:http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/2009/11/arbitration.html
Hand is up Jeremy. The witticism re warm monger caught my eye too. It is "ow you say" borrowed, ok , stolen from a site/bloke who wrote in 2007 about the untold wealth accumulation of Al Gore which I Googled a few days back. To attribute: Noel Sheppard is his name . Can't link 'cos I don't understand html The following gives a hint,( but this link won't work here) : http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/10/03/al-gore-getting-rich-spreading-global-warming-hysteria-media-s-help
Hopefully they'll get that working soon.
George Monbiot has shown how an intellectual (as opposed to an idealogue) deals with this sort of thing: The response of the greens and most of the scientists I know is profoundly ironic, as we spend so much of our time confronting other people's denial. Pretending that this isn't a real crisis isn't going to make it go away. Nor is an attempt to justify the emails with technicalities. We'll be able to get past this only by grasping reality, apologising where appropriate and demonstrating that it cannot happen again. Who's the denialist now? C'mon take the blinkers off, turn the brain on and start thinking. We all know you can do it!
The people who cocked up can apologise, sure. For their conduct ten years ago. The rest of us can deal with the issue as it exists NOW.
Monbiot explains: But the deniers' campaign of lies, grotesque as it is, does not justify secrecy and suppression on the part of climate scientists. Far from it: it means that they must distinguish themselves from their opponents in every way. No one has been as badly let down by the revelations in these emails as those of us who have championed the science. We should be the first to demand that it is unimpeachable, not the last. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2009/nov/25/monbiot-climate-leak-crisis-response Obviously you haven't thought about the leaked docs, or even read them, if you think this is all about what happened 10 years ago. I didn't expect you to change your views. I did expect that you would do something other than to stick your fingers in your ears and go "La-la-la-la-la".
The leaked documents show prima facie evidence of impropriety - colluding to prevent opposing views being put to the IPCC, manipulation of data, ensuring the peer review process aligns with their own views, and seeking and obtaining the sacking of journal editors with opposing views. This cabal included leas authors of various IPCC reports. The prudent approach is to defer important policy decisions based on the work of these 'scientists'until an inquiry has been held and their work re-assessed. Remember this is the group that refuses to make the data available to allow their work to be checked.
Um, are you suggesting that if you exclude their work there's nothing left? Seriously?
I am suggesting that their work, especially the hockey stick, and its subsequent iterations in the spaghetti graphs, is the most prominent reason for believing that increases in temperature has been caused by humans. Before the hockey stick, it was logical to argue that, as the Mediaval Warm Period was 1-2 degrees hotter than now, recent increases are the result of natural variation. The MWP was in early IPCC reports, but has been supplanted by the hocky stick. The importance of the hockey Stick is that it eliminates the MWP. This leads to the conclusion that recent warming is unprecedented, and therefore more likely to be due to human activity post the industrial revolution. I am further suggesting that if they have used their influence to prevent other papers from being considered by the IPCC then a re-assessment is called for, not only of their contributions, but the overall conclusions in the sections that they had influence on as authors. I also believe until CRU releases the data underlying their global temperature series we can't even rely on that as we need to understand the adjustments they have made to it. This is as fundamental as it gets, and the emails have made the examination of this all the more important. Phil Jones has said that he would rather destroy this data than release it so that his work can be checked.
Just out of interest, SB, do you think the atmosphere can take anything we throw at it? Is it magically impervious to emissions, or is there a limit?
CO2 is a separate argument to the general rule that we should care for the environment, minimise pollution and not waste resources. Of course we need to be less wasteful and destructive of the environment. As to CO2, if it is not a major driver of warming, and is otherwise a nutrient rather than a pollutant, then there are a lot of more pressing problems that should receive priority before we expend all of resources on this one. |
  Cannons fired as 'Whale Wars' rage on  TV show fined for animal cruelty  Japan Airlines rejects Delta and stays with AA  Nintendo pirate to pay huge damages  Cooperate and adapt to solve Asian water woes?  Pastor Rony Tan offended Buddists in videos and questioned by Singapore's ISD  Siemens blows hot on India's wind business  What is happening in red shirt land? Part II |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
