*** The Official Climate Change Debate ***

[Machiavelli]

So, to answer the questions, yes I think we are altering our planet's climate, no I don't think it's a conspiriacy but I do feel it is in the Green Lobby's interest to focus on the intellectual argument rather than to get something done about it.

Me no understand. Are you saying that all that matters is to win the argument? Or that the 'Green Lobby' should solely focus on that, and abandon policy implementation (and adaptation)? Because that leaves the question of whether and who is going to deal with policy which, ultimately, is what matters, in my view.

 

[Machiavelli]

We're human. We're flawed. All of us. Exactly why I believe that we ARE affecting the climate but also why I believe we're not very good at saying with certainty by how much or what to do about it. The second we address the latter two points our judgement becomes clouded by our personal politics and interests.

With this post, I do understand and agree with most of it, especially about us being flawed. The bit I disagree with has already been addressed on this thread by [MENTION=16159]Bold Seagull[/MENTION], and that is that the predictive modelling is always going to be precisely what it says on the tin. There are so many variables involved in terms of measuring, and there is uncertainty about what effects will emanate from the changes, with no end of tipping points thrown in to the equation.

 

[Guinness Boy]

Me no understand. Are you saying that all that matters is to win the argument? Or that the 'Green Lobby' should solely focus on that, and abandon policy implementation (and adaptation)? Because that leaves the question of whether and who is going to deal with policy which, ultimately, is what matters, in my view.

Well, to get stuff done you have to have a reason for doing it, But it seems to me that if you are successful at tackling climate change then you risk falling in to the deniers hands. So, you start to reduce the amount of carbon / planet surface temperature and those skeptics suddenly say "AHA, there's no climate change at all, look at this data." The only way to successfully convince people that climate change is a thing is to let it still go on. Conversely if you can't convince anyone then you can't begin to do stuff about it. So the point is that we have two diametrically opposed lobby groups with vested interests in keeping the argument going.

 

[beorhthelm]

The problem isn't the data, it is the predictive models and how these are interrupted by the main stream media. Most in the science community accept the predicative nature of the models, however the media use any deviation from current measurements compared to previous forecasts of models as some kind of hole in the data.

as i see it, the problem is many of those deviations aren't counted or are "normalised" away. the original predictive models failed (we are not as hot as predicted; water levels haven't risen as predicted) and they've been fudged ever since. its not that i dont believe the greenhouse effect, i just dont trust the predictions on its output or effect. every few years they add another previously unknown parameter into the model or make a correction but dont redraw the rest of the picture. i recall originally they didn't account for variation in sun output, i mean that is the sole source of energy into the system, and was a constant in the model! early sea level rises apparently based on measurements from areas affected by post-glacial rebound (oops). i have never seen an adequate explanation for why the CO2 rises linearly while the temp graph hops around, while accepting the trend line indicates a correlation there seems to me scope for flawed conclusion on causation. I'm happy to apply a Pascal wager on the matter over the long term, but dont want to be told certainties that keep changing. it leads me to a conclusion that vested interests are overplaying the scale of the problem.

 

[Bold Seagull]

as i see it, the problem is many of those deviations aren't counted or are "normalised" away. the original predictive models failed (we are not as hot as predicted; water levels haven't risen as predicted) and they've been fudged ever since. its not that i dont believe the greenhouse effect, i just dont trust the predictions on its output or effect. every few years they add another previously unknown parameter into the model or make a correction but dont redraw the rest of the picture. i recall originally they didn't account for variation in sun output, i mean that is the sole source of energy into the system, and was a constant in the model! early sea level rises apparently based on measurements from areas affected by post-glacial rebound (oops). i have never seen an adequate explanation for why the CO2 rises linearly while the temp graph hops around, while accepting the trend line indicates a correlation there seems to me scope for flawed conclusion on causation. I'm happy to apply a Pascal wager on the matter over the long term, but dont want to be told certainties that keep changing. it leads me to a conclusion that vested interests are overplaying the scale of the problem.

This is just a simplification of the science into believing there is just a single model, or that the IPCC is just a single body. The science around climate change is far reaching and varied to numerous branches of study. Who are you talking about when you say 'they' didn't account for the sun output? This would have been one model out of hundreds. There is no one line of thought on climate change other than man is contributing toward it. The accuracy of by how much, the current effects and future impact are of course is scientific hypothesis and conjecture - that is what science is. The IPCC just try's to draw together all these things together.

The only vested interests overplaying in the world today are those on the side of skepticism. The world's economies are deeply rooted in the foundations laid at the end of the 19th Century when oil, coal and fossil fuels suddenly powered the industrial revolution. The world's markets are still defined by the price of a barrel of oil, the price of gas.

Regardless if the scale of climate change, we have the know how to eradicate our dependency on fossil fuels, and the emitting of gases that effect our health and environment. To believe there are vested interests in climate change that outweigh the vested interests in the status quo is just unbelievable and unrealistic.

Pascal's wager actually applied here would indicate you are better off in believing in climate change. If you believe in it, but it turns out man had limited impact, all that it has cost you is the improvement of your own environment, and a move toward sustainable renewable sources of power and materials. If however you refuse to believe in it being man made, and it turns out to be the case, then you've basically ruined your planet. It is a no brainer, and exactly what Pascal posited in the belief of God.

 

[Seagull27]

as i see it, the problem is many of those deviations aren't counted or are "normalised" away. the original predictive models failed (we are not as hot as predicted; water levels haven't risen as predicted) and they've been fudged ever since. its not that i dont believe the greenhouse effect, i just dont trust the predictions on its output or effect. every few years they add another previously unknown parameter into the model or make a correction but dont redraw the rest of the picture. i recall originally they didn't account for variation in sun output, i mean that is the sole source of energy into the system, and was a constant in the model! early sea level rises apparently based on measurements from areas affected by post-glacial rebound (oops). i have never seen an adequate explanation for why the CO2 rises linearly while the temp graph hops around, while accepting the trend line indicates a correlation there seems to me scope for flawed conclusion on causation. I'm happy to apply a Pascal wager on the matter over the long term, but dont want to be told certainties that keep changing. it leads me to a conclusion that vested interests are overplaying the scale of the problem.

I assume that's because the amount of CO2 we put into the atmosphere is more constant, whereas temperature is affected by many short term things that happen in cycles. You'll notice, however, that none of these deviations in temperature are anywhere near as large as the general trend, which correlates with the rise in CO2. So if there was no extra CO2 going into the atmosphere, the temperature graph would look very similar with all the hopping around, but without the overall general increase.

 

[Machiavelli]

Well, to get stuff done you have to have a reason for doing it, But it seems to me that if you are successful at tackling climate change then you risk falling in to the deniers hands. So, you start to reduce the amount of carbon / planet surface temperature and those skeptics suddenly say "AHA, there's no climate change at all, look at this data." The only way to successfully convince people that climate change is a thing is to let it still go on. Conversely if you can't convince anyone then you can't begin to do stuff about it. So the point is that we have two diametrically opposed lobby groups with vested interests in keeping the argument going.

1 I don't like operating in binaries (you've been writing too much code, which I suspect, but don't know, operates off binaries, i.e. 0s and 1s ), and actually think it's outdated
2 if your argument is that climate change needs to rip in order to prove the sceptics wrong, I think this is an incredibly dangerous argument just to get one over them. I suspect I've misinterpreted you though

 

[larus]

I assume that's because the amount of CO2 we put into the atmosphere is more constant, whereas temperature is affected by many short term things that happen in cycles. You'll notice, however, that none of these deviations in temperature are anywhere near as large as the general trend, which correlates with the rise in CO2. So if there was no extra CO2 going into the atmosphere, the temperature graph would look very similar with all the hopping around, but without the overall general increase.

When you say the general trend in temperatures, are you going with the raw temperatures as they were published historically, or the ones which get adjusted to make the past look colder, thereby fitting in with the mantra of CO2 --> Evil --> Global Warming? Because if you was to take take the raw, unadulterated figures, the graphs diverge even more.

Anyway, IMO in a few years time this will be debunked as being proven to be wrong. The adjustments they will have to make and the greater divergence of reality from the models will be indefensible.

 

[beorhthelm]

The only vested interests overplaying in the world today are those on the side of skepticism.

lets not kid ourselves, every scientist with a paper or research grant based on climate change has a vested interest. this is not dismissing the interests of the oil side, which i would consider beyond skeptical, just acceptance of reality of academia. peoples careers depend on it.

Pascal's wager actually applied here would indicate you are better off in believing in climate change. ....

this is what i mean, the benefits of improving our environment justify action in their own right. however, we should question the pace and some of the details, as i said it has already lead to a lot of misguided policy making.

So if there was no extra CO2 going into the atmosphere, the temperature graph would look very similar with all the hopping around, but without the overall general increase.

unless there are other factors involved that are not being recorded/reported. correlation alone does not mean causation (see the pirate/CO2 joke). its actually the climate changers (not necessarily the scientists, the followers) with their insistence that the evidence is all there and irrefutable, is what has made me skeptical over the years. i recall there is an acknowledged theory that very long term (i.e. millions of years) the output of CO2 could follow temperature changes (i may be wrong but sure i read this many many years ago.). what other systems and cycles are at work that may not be included or are under-counted? healthy science challenges assumptions.

 

[Machiavelli]

This is just a simplification of the science into believing there is just a single model, or that the IPCC is just a single body. The science around climate change is far reaching and varied to numerous branches of study. Who are you talking about when you say 'they' didn't account for the sun output? This would have been one model out of hundreds. There is no one line of thought on climate change other than man is contributing toward it. The accuracy of by how much, the current effects and future impact are of course is scientific hypothesis and conjecture - that is what science is. The IPCC just try's to draw together all these things together.

The only vested interests overplaying in the world today are those on the side of skepticism. The world's economies are deeply rooted in the foundations laid at the end of the 19th Century when oil, coal and fossil fuels suddenly powered the industrial revolution. The world's markets are still defined by the price of a barrel of oil, the price of gas.

Regardless if the scale of climate change, we have the know how to eradicate our dependency on fossil fuels, and the emitting of gases that effect our health and environment. To believe there are vested interests in climate change that outweigh the vested interests in the status quo is just unbelievable and unrealistic.

Pascal's wager actually applied here would indicate you are better off in believing in climate change. If you believe in it, but it turns out man had limited impact, all that it has cost you is the improvement of your own environment, and a move toward sustainable renewable sources of power and materials. If however you refuse to believe in it being man made, and it turns out to be the case, then you've basically ruined your planet. It is a no brainer, and exactly what Pascal posited in the belief of God.

This. That said:
-- the pedant in me has pointed out a couple of errors, one spelling the other punctuational
-- I don't see this as being about the planet, which has been here for 4.6billion years (according to science when I last looked, ps sceptics, you can always claim that they're wrong on this and that the bible clearly indicates that it's only 6,000 years old). It's about what the conditions humans have on their life support machine, how humans will react, and what humans are doing to the ecosystems on that life support machine.

 

[Machiavelli]

I assume that's because the amount of CO2 we put into the atmosphere is more constant, whereas temperature is affected by many short term things that happen in cycles. You'll notice, however, that none of these deviations in temperature are anywhere near as large as the general trend, which correlates with the rise in CO2. So if there was no extra CO2 going into the atmosphere, the temperature graph would look very similar with all the hopping around, but without the overall general increase.

Thanks for this. I'll try and lodge it in my memory and use it in future.

 

[Machiavelli]

lets not kid ourselves, every scientist with a paper or research grant based on climate change has a vested interest. this is not dismissing the interests of the oil side, which i would consider beyond skeptical, just acceptance of reality of academia. peoples careers depend on it.

Academics' careers depend on writing papers, among other things. What goes in to those papers has to fall in line with those academics' understanding. In other words, take away climate change, and they'll write about something else, from whatever position they think is appropriate.

 

[Seagull27]

unless there are other factors involved that are not being recorded/reported. correlation alone does not mean causation (see the pirate/CO2 joke). its actually the climate changers (not necessarily the scientists, the followers) with their insistence that the evidence is all there and irrefutable, is what has made me skeptical over the years.

So what you're saying is that despite the evidence that a huge number of scientists have found that supports climate change, you're skeptical because some non-scientists throw it in your face too much?

That's a good reason to find those people irritating, particularly if they're politicians, I understand that. But it's not a reason to be skeptical of the science.

On the point of scientists too: You're quite right, they have a vested interest. But I'm also pretty sure that if any scientist managed to prove that climate change wasn't actually happening, they'd be set for their entire career.

And again, you're correct that correlation doesn't equal causation. However, where there is clear physics behind the reason why CO2 increases the temperature of the planet then surely there must be a correlation?

It's this graph that does it for me. For thousands of years the levels of CO2 have been changing due to various natural reasons, and the temperature has changed pretty much alongside it. But the level of CO2 in the last few hundred thousand years has not been anywhere near the levels it is now, and that increase has come purely from man-made sources.

 

[Guinness Boy]

1 I don't like operating in binaries (you've been writing too much code, which I suspect, but don't know, operates off binaries, i.e. 0s and 1s ), and actually think it's outdated
2 if your argument is that climate change needs to rip in order to prove the sceptics wrong, I think this is an incredibly dangerous argument just to get one over them. I suspect I've misinterpreted you though

1) Yes I have been known to dabble in IT. But this is about science and data. Camp 1 says it points to global climate change (I tend to agree with camp 1) and camp 2 says it doesn't or that the model or query is flawed. Scientifically you need to reach a conclusion based on your data and empirical evidence and literally no one is coming to the conclusion that this stuff MIGHT be happening.

2) No my argument stems from 1. That it is impossible to have a serious voice in this debate without taking an extreme position. That's wrong.

 

[beorhthelm]

It's this graph that does it for me.

you might like to examine which line appears to lead, especially the downward leg of the cycles. another observation is that according to that graph alone we can expect +14-16F change sometime soon, which is about 8C? no one is saying that's likely.

 

[Machiavelli]

1) Yes I have been known to dabble in IT. But this is about science and data. Camp 1 says it points to global climate change (I tend to agree with camp 1) and camp 2 says it doesn't or that the model or query is flawed. Scientifically you need to reach a conclusion based on your data and empirical evidence and literally no one is coming to the conclusion that this stuff MIGHT be happening.

2) No my argument stems from 1. That it is impossible to have a serious voice in this debate without taking an extreme position. That's wrong.

RE 1, science deals with empirical evidence that it can extrapolate into theories, which are then used to make predictions. Predictions are far easier to make when the issue is a simple one, which this patently isn't. Those two should be carefully differentiated in my view. To use an example that might work on here:
Brighton are playing Leeds on Saturday. Leeds haven't won at home for ten games, and Brighton are playing well, including away from home (this season!), are top of the league and are unbeaten in the ten games they've played this season. On this evidence, my prediction would be that Brighton don't lose. We all know that football doesn't work that way. Hopefully, most can recognise that this analogy is made for illustrative purposes and CATEGORICALLY NOT to make some equivalence between climate change modelling and tomorrow's game of football.

Also on this, check out one of [MENTION=16159]Bold Seagull[/MENTION]'s prior posts in this thread, indicating the range of scientific positions within the anthropocentric/carbon-caused climate change group.

RE 2, I'm not so sure that it's right to characterise the 'positions' in this issue as extreme (I used the scare quotes, because one of them is a load of tosh UNLESS those that hold that view is a thoroughgoing sceptic, and not merely a climate change sceptic). That said, it flows from a thesis that we're flawed, vulnerable and prejudiced that we do have to take positions on things.

 

[Seagull27]

you might like to examine which line appears to lead, especially the downward leg of the cycles. another observation is that according to that graph alone we can expect +14-16F change sometime soon, which is about 8C? no one is saying that's likely.

The scale of the graph is measured in tens of thousands of years, we've suddenly thrown a lot more CO2 into the atmosphere over the course of a couple of hundred years. The planet won't heat up quite that quickly in the space of another hundred years or so, which is what we're concerned about.

We're also, obviously, more bothered about the upward leg of the cycles. And whilst I think it's too simple to analyse these things in such a manner; if you look even closer, you'll notice that at the top of each peak, the levels of CO2 began to stop increasing and start decreasing before the temperature - it's just that once the downward legs started happening, the decrease in temperature accelerated. Though as I say, the reasons for each of these is probably far too complex for us to be able to draw solid conclusions.

Either way, we have good scientific understanding of how an increase in CO2 might increase the global temperature - and yet (as far as I know) no scientific reason for why an increase in temperature would cause an increase in the level of CO2 in the atmosphere.

And anyway (as I think you have pointed out already), there are plenty of other issues with having a huge increase in CO2 and other pollutants - not least ocean acidification.

 

[pb21]

If the human contribution to climate change is a myth and the science is false, why are we being lied to?

 

[lasvegan]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...orm-over-book-questioning-climate-change.html

I would put this guy in the "something more sinister camp", and there are plenty more voices like his.

 

[pb21]

Here's another question for the climate change deniers/skeptics:

Why do you choose to not believe the theory and instead choose to belive it's rubbish?

For the sake of argument let's just say that there are two equal groups, one says human behaviour is having an effect on the climate and one who says we don't. Both provide scientific evidence to back up what they say. Why would you choose the group who say we don't have an impact?