Comments
And now, in another fit of denial, we have the 1 in 1,000 year drought.
Usually droughts end and I hope this one does soon.
However, to continue to dress this up as a cyclical phenomenon when greenhouse gas levels have not been this high for at least 400,000 years, given their known warming impact, beggars belief.
Any excuse to refute their error and continue in denial.
Except for our inexperience with the outcomes of the continuation of the business as usual policy of global heating and resultant loss of a liveable earth through climate change the predictions for a continuation would cause a reaction in all countries.
Leaderships that fail to act would be replaced immediately.
Unfortunatel that lack of experience draws us toward an abyss, one turning point of irreversible change following another on a rave to the bottom.
Posted by phill Parsons on 08/11/06 at 06:37 AMAhh…I can just picture it now….John Howard doing an impersonation of Gollum:
“I’m not list’nin’!...I’m not list’nin’!...”.
What a sadly wasted decade we’ve had under this poor excuse for a man!
Posted by Tassie Smurf on 08/11/06 at 07:56 AMThis certainly feeds the catastrophists amongst us. Climate is cyclical - there have been long periods of warming and cooling throughout the earth’s history. Climate research is also an imprecise science in terms of global history so this presents a range on unknowns. It seems clear that in the last 100 years we have had warmer periods (eg medieval period) and cooler periods (eg 17th century). There has been debate about whether the historical record shows that greenhouse gas increase precedes or follows warmer temperatures. There is also debate about the degree to which solar activity is responsible for deviations in climate activity over long periods of time. The critical question now facing us is whether the increase in greenhouse gases in particular layers of the atmosphere is associated with warming, and whether the warming will be sustained and is linked with any weather abnormalities.
These are questions for cool headed science. The problem is that the science is rapidly being corrupted by vested interests on both sides of the debate. It would seem that many scientists and related orgnaisation are uncomfortable with the beautifully uncertain side of science. This is the classical aspect of science which should admit that there are unknowns that an evidence base shoudl be developed for, which might provide hypotheses and theories that can be tested. This elegant baby seems to have gone out of the bathwater. Notwithstanding, it is clearly sensible to reduce greenhouse gases as much as possible. The reality is, however, that it is unknown whether this will have any effect on climate in any direction. What pisses me off is the parasites on either side that will use the science to justify their values-laden propaganda, or perhaps to sell a few more newspapers etc.
Jon Sunby, in case anyone didn’t know, is not an actual scientist. He is an advocate for a certain position who clearly has no grasp of the golden thread that should run through all scientific investigations - dispassionate research and a capacity to deal with uncertainty. He is trying to sell you something.
Posted by Tomas on 08/11/06 at 09:48 AMWow, Tomas!
Last of a dying breed.
Which two sides of scientists in the global warming debate do you refer to?
Maybe, when you last checked in the early 90’s, (the last time I heard the arguments you are using) there was a scientific divide over global warming.
The majority of the scientists, at least those publishing in leading journals, agree on the role anthropogenic emissions in global warming.
Your attack on Jon Sumby, who references leading research seems unfounded. If you want to attack the article, attack the Stern report.
But not, you take the intellectually barren choice of focusing on the messenger.
Tomas, really, what are you trying to sell?
Posted by Isobelle on 09/11/06 at 12:42 PMIsobelle - I wilt under the power of your argument. Unlike you I suspect, I read journals such as Nature and Science on a regular basis, and publish scientific papers in international journals. I have been a scientist for many, many years. I understand the scientific method from the classical through to the modern approaches. What you and any other propagandist (from either side) don’t seem to accept is that a lot of science is about dealing honestly with uncertainty. The climate debate is so mired with self-interest (again, from the range of ‘sides’) that crap views such as Sunbys and yours represent a significant corruption of my values as an actual scientist. Here’s a clue to the correct approach - keep an open mind, examine your own prejudices.
Posted by Tomas on 09/11/06 at 09:55 PMTomas, your comments on climate research and the conclusions drawn therefrom were a refreshing change to the shrieking alarmist comments that seem to dominate the media on the subject of global warming (although the term “climate change” is now being used to allow for the recent cold snaps).
Sadly, unless you are prepared to adopt the green mantra that man is totally responsible for all weather fluctations you’ll be condemned as a heretic and burnt at the stake. Or cast in the same mold as a Holocaust denier. Or be labelled a fascist.
Governments are now jumping on the bandwagon as it gives an opportunity to attract votes and, more importantly, levy “green” taxes.
Posted by barking toad on 10/11/06 at 09:42 AMTomas,
Still no facts provided, now you have tried to label me as a propagandist.
You are coming across as the propagandist.
No arguments provided to discredit any of the referenced articles. Instead continued attacks on the messenger and now self glorification.
Show some back bone, if you are published in international journals as you claim, provide a reference.
If you have referenced arguments, beyond ‘I’m commenting anonymously, but I’m a scientist and your not so there’ then please provide them.
Face up to the challenge, prove your life of science has left you with something more than the ability to stereotype and generalise.
I am keeping an open mind Tomas give us some actual information to contemplate rather than rhetoric.
RIP SuperAnnoyed, the new ilk are struggling!
Posted by Isobelle on 10/11/06 at 12:47 PM““Unlike you I suspect, I read journals such as Nature and Science on a regular basis ...
Here’s a clue to the correct approach - keep an open mind, examine your own prejudices.”
Ahhhhh, condescension.
So I thought I would look for a paper published by Ignoli, T on Google.
“and publish scientific papers in international journals. I have been a scientist for many, many years. I understand the scientific method from the classical through to the modern approaches.”
So now I must ask Tomas to support his asertion on publication with some evidence.
A search of the site will show where I stand on cooking the planet, so that does not need to be attacked although all are welcome to attack my assertions about causes and outcomes.
As I understand it debate is also part of that method refered to.
Posted by phill Parsons on 10/11/06 at 02:26 PM“Climate is cyclical - there have been long periods of warming and cooling throughout the earth’s history..” - Tomas (#3).
In essence, Tomas, you are correct (see the following):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_radiation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_variationHowever, there is one more factor that seems not to get the same level of attention. In the following link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun)it states: “Theoretical models of the sun’s development suggest that 3.8 to 2.5 billion years ago, during the Archean period, the Sun was only about 75% as bright as it is today. Such a weak star would not have been able to sustain liquid water on the Earth’s surface, and thus life should not have been able to develop. However, the geological record demonstrates that the Earth has remained at a fairly constant temperature throughout its history, and in fact that the young Earth was somewhat warmer than it is today. The general consensus among scientists is that the young Earth’s atmosphere contained much larger quantities of greenhouse gases (such as carbon dioxide and/or ammonia) than are present today, which trapped enough heat to compensate for the lesser amount of solar energy reaching the planet.”
Basically, in a nutshell, the sun has gotten warmer as it has aged. This is most probably as a result of the increase in the volume, and hence surface area, of its Helium core, at the surface of which nuclear fusion (conversion of Hydrogen to Helium) takes place. In other words, there has been a slight but noticeable increase in the rate of nuclear fusion with time (or age), with a corresponding increase in energy output (radiation).
Interestingly, the Earth appears to have “compensated” for this increase in solar radiation by gradually, over time, “geo-sequestering” the “excess” carbon dioxide in the ground as coal, oil and/or gas. Result - climate regulation, albeit with some variability. This is James Lovelocks “Gaia Hypothesis” at a grand scale!!
Presently, we are squandering our fossil fuel resources and releasing this carbon dioxide back into the atmosphere. Alarmingly, we are doing this at a time in history when the Sun is much “hotter” than it has been in the ancient past. The result, I’m sorry to say, will be nothing short of An Inconvenient Truth!!!
Posted by Tassie Smurf on 10/11/06 at 07:52 PMQuiet everyone show some respect. We have an internationally published scientist amongst us.
Really, where is the respect!
I apologise on behalf of the intellectual slobs around here Tomas. I,m sure there’s no reason to doubt you , but so as to silence the unseemly murmurings amongst the philistines, you should deal ‘honestly with the uncertainty’ around your impressive scientific achievements and list for us your published works and the international journals which were priveleged enough to host them. In the meantime I for one will be ingesting gallons of sedation, because I am almost overcome with salivation and excitement at the prospect of reading a real scientists work.
Yours Sincerely
RicardoPosted by Rick Pilkington on 10/11/06 at 08:06 PMErosion is now called climate change. A drought is called climate change. Shifting ice is called climate change. Never trust a losing American presidential candidate with the truth or anything else. It seems to all the doomsday zealots that the only thing that is inconvenient is someone who disagree with their opinion. Don’t fart people!
Posted by John Herbert on 11/11/06 at 07:30 AMsince when is Howard a fascist? You have lost all credibility. Your language can only be considered bunk Jon.
Posted by John Herbert on 11/11/06 at 08:05 AMWhich specific casess of erosion, drought and shifting ice were called climate change John and who by? Please cite the specific cases you were referring to and explain why they should or should not be atributed in part/whole to climate change.
John, so far you and Tomas have used labels like catastrophists, parasites, propagandist, crap views, doomsday zealots and bunk and the thread is only 12posts old! Add to that the fact that neither of you have substantially addressed (Tomas’s post 3 made an attempt) the 6 reports which make up the substance of John’s thread, and the fact that Tomas has made some grand claims about his scientific achievements which thus far we have not a scintilla of evidence for and it is clear that it is not John Sumby who is in danger of lacking credibility. John, do you believe that climate change is a just a conspiracy theory concocted by the left to further their political and personal interests?Posted by Rick Pilkington on 11/11/06 at 11:43 AMWhilst it may be inconvienient to admit some of your verities are falsely based, to continue to deny the evidence and the ignorte the predicted outcome imperils those of us with sufficient lifespan left to pass into the period of dangerous climate change if we cannot act to prevent it.
The results of human activity lauded as civilization will be as nought with no action.
I await with interest Herbert’s refutation of the premise that the climate is changing and especially that it is human induced.
I especially look forward to the data supporting the arguement.
Otherwise we can only assume Herbert is a victimn of fools games or malicious intent by vested interests.
Posted by phill Parsons on 12/11/06 at 07:12 AMFoolish mortals! I dont think that there can be any doubt that the last decade has been warmer on average (around 0.3-0.5 variation above ‘normal’, and what normal is another debate again). The scientific question is whether trending towards warming (or cooling) is anomolous in climate history - it isn’t. The second question is whether the warming we are seeing now is caused by human behaviour (as opposed to something else like solar activity), and this is where I’ll introduce you to a simple lesson in science - ‘association does not prove causation’ - We can certainly frame hypotheses around possible links, but climate history, like any other discipline that derived data from the past, thus making experimentation in the classic sense very difficult.
Saying all this, it is quite reasonable to suggest that the small amount of warming may have been caused by human activity, and so it would be reasonable to advance measures to decrease possible human impacts. Anything that helps remove us from primiive sources of energy, for example, would be a good thing. Science and technologists will be involved in providing these solutions. The political and/or commercial will to support them is another matter again.
What is not reasonable, from a scientific point of view (and I will be quite clear that Jon Sunby is no scientist - he is doing a PhD on politics and sociology of science, hardly to be a balanced treatise based on his contributions to TT) is the range of catastrophist opinions and alarmist scenarios that are played out to an uneducated audience, in order to whip up a frenzy to political ends.
My suggestion is that the evidence should be left up to the experts, rather than the amateur armchair speculators with other axes to grind. The problem is that the ‘climate movement’ is so infiltrated by propagandists from industry as well as from the left, it will be difficult to get traction on solid and real evidence to better inform future action. In this, I know that the climate scientist fraternity, in general, is also whipping up alarm, as this then feeds into larger grant programs, promotions, jobs etc. In this field, we are seeing the ascension of the ‘modellers’ whereas the garden-variety climate scientist, that actually relies on actual weather indicators, is on the side-lines. It is not well known, for example, that there has been a decrease in the number of high-quality weather stations around the world in recent years - an extraordinary tragedy given the need for real data.
My opinions are based on reading and balancing the scientific literature (Nature, Science, PNAS etc) rather than the Greens Monthly or whatever. I have no vested issue in climate research per se - my academic area is in another field.
Posted by Tomas on 12/11/06 at 10:16 AMTomas is out-of-date. Here is an article from a journal he reads:
Nature 443, 161-166 (14 September 2006).
Variations in solar luminosity and their effect on the Earth’s climate.
P. Foukal1, C. Fröhlich, H. Spruit and T. M. L. Wigley‘Variations in the Sun’s total energy output (luminosity) are caused by changing dark (sunspot) and bright structures on the solar disk during the 11-year sunspot cycle. The variations measured from spacecraft since 1978 are too small to have contributed appreciably to accelerated global warming over the past 30 years. In this Review, we show that detailed analysis of these small output variations has greatly advanced our understanding of solar luminosity change, and this new understanding indicates that brightening of the Sun is unlikely to have had a significant influence on global warming since the seventeenth century…’
Similarly the other questions he raises have been resolved over the past few years. If you want to see how tightly temperature and greenhouse gases are matched have a look at this graph from the EPICA data that goes back 650,000 years:
http://www.realclimate.org/epica.jpg
The black line represents temperature.Note how over the entire period CO2 never went higher than about 300 ppmv - and that was 350,000 years ago. Current CO2 levels are almost 30% higher than that level, which makes them the highest levels in 650,000 years. Makes you think about what has changed in the natural rythm or cycle.
Following on from phil Parsons, a Google search on “Tomas Rignoli” shows only hits from Tasmanian Times, which suggests that the name is as ephemerous and non-existent as “Adele Sainte-Marie” is reported to be.
Posted by Jon Sumby on 12/11/06 at 11:56 AMThis week’s news on global climate change:
“Global carbon emissions are now growing by 3.2% a year, according to results presented at an Earth science conference in Beijing on 9 November. That’s four times higher than the average annual growth of 0.8% from 1990-99.
“We are not on any of the stabilization paths,” says Michael Raupach, a carbon-cycle scientist with Australia’s Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO) in
Canberra, who presented the Global Carbon Project results. . .”
Title: Carbon tally shows growing global problem
World summary of emissions reveals continuing gains.
Source: Copyright 2006, Nature
Date: November 10, 2006
Byline: Nicola Jones
+ “At Nairobi, governments are debating the future of the Kyoto Protocol and action to prevent the most serious impacts of climate change. So far, they appear to have ignored pleas to address one of the greatest single sources of carbon emissions: the destruction of South-east Asia’s peatlands and forests. The annual emissions from annual peat and forest fires are about five times as great as the total annual emission cuts which the Kyoto Protocol aims to make by 2012, from 1990 levels.Indonesia alone holds 60% of all tropical peat, containing some 50 billion tonnes of carbon. This is equivalent to 7-8 years of global fossil fuel emissions. Timber and oil palm plantations are draining the peatlands and also pushing local communities and small-holders into peat areas and rainforests. Once this peat is drained, all this carbon will eventually be released into the atmosphere, unless the peat is subsequently re-flooded and restored. Annual fires, many of them set deliberately by plantation owners, speed up the process. This year’s fire season has been one of the worst on record. Wetlands International
warned earlier this week that the boom in biofuels is speeding up the destruction, and further that one tonne of palm oil grown on peat is linked to the release of around 20 tonnes of carbon dioxide released from that peat…”
For more info go to:
http://www.biofuelwatch.org.uk/peatfiresbackground.pdfPosted by Brenda Rosser on 12/11/06 at 01:37 PM“I have no vested issue in climate research per se - my academic area is in another field.” - Tomas (#15).
We are still waiting on your publications list, matey. You show me yours and I’ll show you mine!
Posted by Tassie Smurf on 12/11/06 at 04:42 PMOn Jon Sunby’s ref to the EPICA data, then you can see that CO2 changes track temperature variations. You will see two things - one that temperature variations are cyclical anyway, the second is that the CO2 changes follow the temperature changes, not the other way around. For the scientific imbeciles, that means that the increasing temperatures lead to increases in greenhouse gases, for which there would be a variety of reasons.
I haven’t got the energy to lecture Sunby on the cyclical nature of solar radition - but would point out that it is difficult to say much due to the lack of authentic (not modelled) historical data. Most of the cyclical nature of temperature changes identified in the linked jpg are likely (not definitively) linked to cyclical changes in solar activity. The medieval warm period has been linked to an unusually prolonged increase in solar activity.
Sunby quotes one study in isolation - I doubt he understands it anyway. But Sunby doesnt tackle my main point - that activists such as he are as unlikely to be as balanced on this issue as the various industry groups. Politics has deeply polluted this area of scientifc investigation.
Brenda Rosser’s hand-picked examples of whatever are just silly. I suggest that if she is really interested in the pertinent issues, then she should undertake some scientific training.
As a practising scientist, I delight in the many values of the internet. However, as a consequence, we have the uneducated cherry-picking reports they don’t really understand.
Tomas Rignoli is a slight reworking of my name. I lament the passing of Super Annoyed but I would agree with him that there is little value in exposing your professional life to the denizens of the internet.
Posted by Tomas on 12/11/06 at 05:17 PMWords of wisdom from Tomas Rignoli:
“Foolish mortals!...” (we prostrate ourselves at your feet, oh great one of eternal wisdom)
“My suggestion is that the evidence should be left up to the experts..” (we hear and obey, oh great one of learning).
“My opinions are based on reading and balancing the scientific literature..” (we shall do likewise, and not comment unless able to read and comprehend the holy scriptures of scientific literature, your eminence).
“I have no vested issue in climate research per se - my academic area is in another field..” (oh bugger! we all thought you were THE expert on climate change…damn! Now we are forced to think for ourselves again!).
Posted by Tassie Smurf on 12/11/06 at 05:23 PMChrist almight Tomas you say science and scientist a lot. Me thinks that you protesteth too much!
Two things are clear about you Tomas and one is still unclear. What is clear is that you clearly resent the fact that anybody else has anything to say on climate change.
This is evidenced by your persistent rudeness and constant labelling of others with an opinion. From this it is also clear that you of all people have the biggest axe to grind.
What is unclear is whether you are actually published. You were the one who introduced this information to the thread, and although you have been challenged by several contributors to provide references, you have ignored these requests.
Because of this you must understand now that any information you introduce to the discussion will be regarded with a degree of suspicion. Tomas, unlike others you do not even provide references for the so called scientific data you introduce in your posts. When other people do provide references you dismiss them as ‘uneduacted’, ‘cherry-picked’,‘handpicked’, ‘silly’ and ‘choosing studies in isolation that they probably dont understand’.
Tomas your credibility is shrinking by the minute.
Posted by Rick Pilkington on 12/11/06 at 11:21 PM“...one that temperature variations are cyclical anyway, the second is that the CO2 changes follow the temperature changes, not the other way around…” - Tomas (#19).
At the scale of this graph it is difficult to make this assumption. So, do you have any specific reference/s which can back up this hypothesis? Or is it your own personal bias creeping in?
“I haven’t got the energy to lecture Sunby on the cyclical nature of solar radition” - Tomas (#19).
You don’t have to. I just provided four links to sites explaining this phenomenon (see post #9). I don’t think that anyone here denies the fact that astronomical events (variations in sunspot cycles, variations in the Solar Constant, the Milancovitch cycles, etc..) has an impact on climate variability. However, historically, the CO2 levels have never much fluctuated between 180 & 290 ppmv (except in the Archean period, when the Sun was some 75% as bright and hot as is now, as pointed out above (#9) - when higher concentrations of CO2 and NH4 helped to create a stronger greenhouse effect, and thus kept temperatures in the “habitable” range).
We now have the double whammy of a hotter sun AND CO2 levels increasing above 290 ppmv (now 350 ppmv, predicted to be 500 ppmv in 50+ years).
Knowing that it was the combination of a cooler sun AND increased greenhouse gases which kept the early Earth from freezing, what do you think the consequences of a hotter sun AND increased levels of greenhouse gases are, Tomas?
Posted by Tassie Smurf on 13/11/06 at 09:16 AMRick and TS - thanks for not actually addressing the science. I am not as worried about my credibility as you are. Suffice it to say that I have the actual expertise to comment on what is scientific and what is not. There are areas for which i do not have expertise, and would not feel qualified to comment on. The misappropriation of the scientific method is something I do feel strongly about.
Posted by Tomas on 13/11/06 at 09:25 AMTomas, unlike you I do not claim to be a ‘scientist’ and therefore some sort of expert by proxy on the subject of climate change. I am happy to read the information here, but at this stage I am unlikely to bother discussing climate change with you. Why, because Tomas you disqualify yourself from any expectation that others thread contributors must ‘address the science’ because you have once again initiated the attacks, nastiness and name calling against others who express an opinion.
Why should people ‘throw their pearls to the swines, only for them to be trampled on’. I have read the entire thread and but I would not waste my time discussing climate change with you except to say that your position on climate changed as evidenced by you contribution thus far is difficult to comment on because 1. You speak with such authority (arrogance even!)on the subject yet unusually for a scientist, you do not provide any references. 2. It is difficult to take your contributions at face value because you, as I said you seem to have a real axe to grind.
3. I do not know whether i can trust anything you say because you have made grand claims about your scientific achievements that you seem unable to provide any evidence for.
Tomas you will not have earned the right to tell me, or anyone else that I need to address the science until you address these 3 things!
p.s Thanks to John Sumby for the thread. The info you have introduced is compelling and interesting info.Posted by Rick Pilkington on 13/11/06 at 09:57 AMHi Rick, Jon, Brenda, Phil, Isobelle, et.al.,
I think it time we ignored Tomas. He is showing the classic symptoms of a failed undergrad, and now appears self-delusional.
I have, as have several of you, given Tomas the chance to prove his academic credentials, which were not forthcoming. I have also requested Tomas’ publications list to back up his claims, again this has not been forthcoming.
I am now of the opinion that Tomas is hiding behind false pretences, something that any honest, genuine academic would not do. He is, by doing so, bringing the scientific community into disrepute.
I will leave it up to you as to the appropriate action. I myself have decided to end any direct communications with Tomas from this post on.
Posted by Tassie Smurf on 13/11/06 at 10:40 AMTassie SMurf - you should know better than to cite Wikipedia as a scientific reference, But anyway…
There has been a lot of discussion on the relationship between solar radiance and the greenhouse gases in the historic record. The linked jpg is demonstrative of the current controversey. You can still work it out with a ruler, but the various blown up versions show it better.
Point on greenhouse gas (defintely up) and probable increased solar radiance (note ‘probable’) is precisely why I raised all of this in the first place. What % of the recent temperature variation is due to either or some combination of both - it is simply not known. My emphasis is on the fact that the science is uncertain.
There are an enormous number of caveats and methological considerations to be taken into account in this regard. One of my areas of interest is the difference between conclusions drawn from actual data as opposed, for example, from modeling. It may surprise TT people that nearly all the actual data we have on these issues (particularly solar radiation) is derived from the Northern Hemisphere, with most of the Southern Hemisphere data coming largely from Antarctica.
Also, on warming data - it doesnt happen evenly everywhere (eg see http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/climon/data/tgrid/2004/7.gif) - some areas around antarctica show cooling trends. Other continentalo areas also show cooling trends. Climate is obviously a complex beast!
Posted by Tomas on 13/11/06 at 10:48 AMTomas,
The main tenor of your castigation of us ‘foolish mortals’ seems to be ‘The misappropriation of the scientific method…’. As part of that you bring out the idea that, ‘association does not prove causation’. I recognise that and will restate it in the more usual way; ‘Correlation does not imply causation’.
As a scientist, you will also know that this statement is wrong. Correlation can, and often does, prove causation. It is dependent on the manner in which the data is collected.
As a scientist, knowledgeable in the scientific method, you would also know that the core of experimental manipulation is, in many ways, simply controlled correlation that is then used in principled argument about causality.
Although you do not say it, you seem to strongly imply that you believe current climate change is not ‘proven’ to be caused by anthropogenic CO2 releases, as the data is nearly wholy comprised of correlated observational data and ‘association does not prove causation’.
You also go on to insult climate scientists with the conspiracy theory that, ‘In this, I know that the climate scientist fraternity, in general, is also whipping up alarm, as this then feeds into larger grant programs, promotions, jobs etc.’
This is not only a nasty allegation, it is untrue.
As a scientist, you do well to hide your identity as comments like that will lose you all respect from your peers.Posted by Jon Sumby on 13/11/06 at 03:27 PMThe climate IS changing and HAS always changed. To insist that this change is precipitated by human activity alone is then obviously disingenuous. It may be it may not be. There is no definitive proof of a direct causal link. With this send me you links….... (not porkies either)
For a detailed refutation Phil, go no further than the following post by Tomas. Those are words I may or may not have been able to pencil myslef, but what the hey I agree with Tomas’ post 15 whole heartedly.
Dream sequence….......
‘Help me I am being bullied by academics, themslevs bullied by consensous doctrine of its own self serving manufacture. Think I will change my name to Pete Bog and hide in an action group for well meaning middle class do gooders with no real life experience and slowly manufacture a dislike for the true machinations of capitalism until I foster a deep suspicion for the motives of any consuming enterprise while shading under and endlessly flowering tree of tax.’
Will they love me then?Posted by John Herbert on 13/11/06 at 08:09 PMYour lack of an answer to Tassie’s question could be considered telling, Tomas. Who is avoiding the science here, exactly?
And I wouldn’t question your credibility—you’re equally as qualified to be a smartarse as anyone.
Posted by Cameron on 13/11/06 at 08:49 PM“It takes 30 or 40 years to realize the change in carbon dioxide emissions. It highlights how important it is to take quick and effective action now.” Dr Peter Falloon, a climate impact scientist at the UK Meteorological Office’s Hadley Centre.
Therefore, in the case being argued, global heating, we have a scientific opinion, from the area of speciality, that the temperature rise we are discussing follows the rise CO2.
I have taken a position that evidence could sway me from, but until that time I will continue to act, using the available evidence as I understand it.
If you, the ‘Tomas’ person, do not have the time to communicate with us mere mortals, you should at least be cogitating on how so many scientists have got it so wrong and how so much ‘green’ influence has impacted on other national governments.
After all, Howard’s arguements about protecting an economy also define the actions of other economies, their interests are similar.
The French, German, Dutch and British governments, to list a few, are not majority governments of Greens and are advised by able scientists and bureacracies, their experts have reviewed the evidence.
Even Australian experts draw the same conlusions from our modelled outcomes. [CSIRO]. Australain Governments, and especially as the evidence has grown over the last decade, have not listened clearly, only claimed to have acted.
It is up to public opinion, as it sometimes is, to let those representing vested interests, to wit the exisitng fossil fuel energy suppliers, know that they are concerned and do not wish to join the fossils and the detritus of the foolocene that followed on the end of the antropocene.
That is if such classification work continues.
It is not up to me to decide if you can stay and play ‘Tomas’. I will even be big and read you when you I read a post. However, for you to move from the outadated denier combined with the ditherer category into the realm of credibility you will have to provide the evidence, your word has failed you.
I may respond to further outrages if you continue your unevidenced criticisms of other bloggers. They may fail moderation.
Posted by phill Parsons on 14/11/06 at 06:38 AMNew report predicts higher temperatures
‘Will Steffen, Director of the Centre for Resource and Environmental Studies (CRES) at the Australian National University has recently published a review of the latest climate science - from 2001 to 2005.
This review can be found at:
http://cres.anu.edu.au/news/science2001-05.pdfThe review concludes that the IPCC Third Assessment Report (2001) projection that temperatures could rise by between 1.4-5.8ºC by 2100 is now being challenged. The new understanding is pushing the likely temperature increase torwards the upper end of the temperature range.
Also the Steffen paper reports on a paper by van Vliet and Leemans (2006, from the book “Avoiding dangerous climate change”) that indicates that actual affects on biodiversity now observable are larger than predicted by climate change impact models. And so the authors have recommended that greenhouse emissions should be managed to prevent a total warming of more than 1.5ºC over the preindustrial level and a rate of warming of no more that 0.5ºC per century - in order to prevent ‘significant’ biodiversity loss.
The “Avoiding dangerous climate change” book can be downloaded in full ( at no cost) from:
defra.gov.uk/environment/Given that the world has already warmed 0.8ºC and it is anticipated that there is a further 0.5ºC committed due to the CO2 already in the air (source, James Hanson, NASA), this means that for practical purposes there should be no further additions of greenhouse gases to the air.’
- more at:
ClimateIMC
http://www.climateimc.org/Posted by Jon Sumby on 14/11/06 at 10:55 AMJon - your last post proves the point there is no consensus on this issue other than that recent years show a small degree of temperature variance that equals ‘warming’. Where the warming leads, nobody knows. The report you quote is evidence of this - the modellers can’t agree where the beast will go. I am not a denier that climate change is happening - I want to inject scientific rigour into understanding what may be causing it and what the probable outcomes may be. I object to the issue being used by folk with hidden agendas, be they overt or sub-conscious, as they represent a corruption of the beautiful discipline known as the scientific method.
Jon - I would suggest you actually read the intergovernmental report you have linked to, and you would see that it also highlights the great unknowns in this debate. The language used largely reflects the uncertainty. It correctly quotes a number of the modelling studies that have been conducted and concludes that the temperature rise by the end of this century may be at the higher end of previous predictions. This may or may not happen - the report correctly inidcates that there is no way of knowing this with great certainty.
Your link to Climate Indymedia betrays your bias. This is an activist site with the usual selective socialist treatment of the actual science. Viva le revolution!
Posted by Tomas on 14/11/06 at 03:04 PMInteresting, I expected you to scream and leap at causality.
However, what part of the report are you refering to? The part that says, ‘The atmospheric concentration of CO2 continues to increase, and several lines of evidence, most notably isotopic analysis, attribute most of this increase to the combustion of fossil fuels… A growing number of reconstructions of surface temperature over the past 1000 to 2000 years shows that the sharp temperature rise over the past century is now beyond the bounds of natural variability… The imprint of greenhouse gases as the primary cause of the observed warming has also become clearer.’
Or,‘Climate change due to greenhouse gas forcing, as opposed to natural variability due to other causes, should produce discernible patterns of change – characteristic “fingerprints”. Again in this regard, the evidence for significant human influence in the warming is stronger than it was a few years ago… Perhaps the most thorough of the surface temperature-based attribution studies used five indices that should show spatial fingerprints of climate change – global-mean surface temperature, the land-ocean temperature contrast, the magnitude of the annual cycle in surface temperature over land, the Northern Hemisphere meridional temperature gradient and the hemispheric temperature contrast; four of these five indices showed patterns that could not be explained by natural variability alone and are consistent with anthropogenic (greenhouse gas and sulphate aerosols) forcing (Braganza et al. 2004).’
You seem to be pushing the line that the current changes may be natural variation and there is a lot of uncertainty in projected temperature change. Climate naturally varies but the changes observed now are not natural. There is uncertainty but that is clearly understood and accepted and it is no longer ‘is there climate change?’ but ‘how much will that change be?
As information accrues and the science gets better, that variation (‘uncertainty’) is refined and if you have been watching, the estimates keep rising, 11 degC was considered way out at the upper bounds in 2001 but is now not considered such an unlikely upper limit. Anything above 2 degC is considered very dangerous but it is looking very likely that the lower estimates will be above that.
I don’t understand where you’re coming from. You claim climate scientists are manipulating the situation for financial and professional gain and people like me (and presumably Nicolas Stern) and the climateIMC are part of a socialist political conspiracy to take over the World. You say that the science has been subverted and isn’t following the scientific method, yet you don’t deny climate change is changing; however, that conclusion must be based on the science, observations, and modelling that you condemn.
Posted by Jon Sumby on 14/11/06 at 08:17 PMJon - we are going around and around on this so let me finish by saying that science teaches you clearly about the limits of knowledge. I dont think that you could, with a cool head, disagree that the data and modelling is manipulated by all sides with a particular axe to grind. I dont deny that there has been some warming on average in recent years but this needs to be understood on the background of a paucity of actual data as opposed to modelling. You may recall, the slightly cool period leading up to the last decade or so was predicted to lead to another ice age, due to the accumulation of aerosols in the atmosphere and ‘global dimming’. I am keeping my mind open on the scale of the warming until we have more actual data - this may take 5, 10 or 50 years. Whether we are seeing a correction from a cooling period, a phase of normal climate cycles or an effect of man-made pollutants is just not clear from extant records. I just dont believe the modellers as there have been such widely varying predictions and false correlations.
Meanwhile, if you want to believe that the increase will be 11oC, then go ahead.
Posted by Tomas on 14/11/06 at 10:27 PMAs you have declared we are circular, I refer you back to Isobelle’s excellent post (No. 4).
Posted by Jon Sumby on 15/11/06 at 11:28 AMMy final post on this matter:
By the Gods I hope the scientists, and the climate change predictions, are wrong. However, in case they are right…..........!!!
Posted by Tassie Smurf on 15/11/06 at 07:37 PM“A few diehard sceptics continue to deny that global warming is taking place and continue to sew doubt.
“They should be seen for what they are - out of step, out of arguments and out of time.”
K Annan opines at the end of his term.
“This is not science fiction,” he said.
“These are plausible scenarios based on clear, rigorous, scientific modelling.
And finally from me
“It is increasingly clear that it will cost far less to cut emissions now than to deal with the consequences later.”
Posted by phill Parsons on 16/11/06 at 06:46 AMI am writing to apologize to Tomas.
The main thrust of his arguments about climate change is that they are based on models and are thus mainly speculative in nature and uncertain.He was right, I was wrong.
Last night, during an interview on ‘Lateline’ the director of the British Antarctic Survey said that the current climate change models are wrong. He went on to explain that results released in the last fortnight show that the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets are disappearing at a volume and speed that is far greater than anyone had anticipated.
This means that the climate models currently used greatly underestimate ice loss and mean sea level rise. He went on to say that the ice at risk is an amount that would give a 1.5 metre rise in sea level. Current climate models then greatly underestimate sea level rise.
Tomas is also critical of climate science because it is largely correlative and, as he says, ‘association does not prove causation’.
In the interview the Director of the British Antarctic Survey mentioned that they had recently published a paper that for the first time directly attributes collapse of ice sheets to human activity. This should be good news for Tomas and remove any lingering doubts.
The paper is:
The Impact of a Changing Southern Hemisphere Annular Mode on Antarctic Peninsula Summer Temperatures.Marshall, G.J., Orr, A., van Lipzig, N.P.M. and King, J.C.
The abstract is here:
http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/Publications/Sci_Papers/The general language press release says:
‘16 October 2006 PR No. 17/2006The first direct evidence linking human activity to the collapse of Antarctic ice shelves is published this week in the Journal of Climate. Scientists from the British Antarctic Survey (BAS), the Centre for Polar Observation and Modelling, University College London, and the Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, (Belgium) reveal that stronger westerly winds in the northern Antarctic Peninsula, driven principally by human-induced climate change, are responsible for the marked regional summer warming that led to the retreat and collapse of the northern Larsen Ice Shelf.
Global warming and the ozone hole have changed Antarctic weather patterns such that strengthened westerly winds force warm air eastward over the natural barrier created by the Antarctic Peninsula’s 2 km-high mountain chain. On days when this happens in summer temperatures in the north-east Peninsula warm by around 5 degrees C, creating the conditions that allowed the drainage of melt-water into crevasses on the Larsen Ice Shelf, a key process that led to its break-up in 2002.
Lead author Dr Gareth Marshall from the British Antarctic Survey said,
“This is the first time that anyone has been able to demonstrate a physical process directly linking the break-up of the Larsen Ice Shelf to human activity. Climate change does not impact our planet evenly - it changes weather patterns in a complex way that takes detailed research and computer modelling techniques to unravel. What we’ve observed at one of the planet’s more remote regions is a regional amplifying mechanism that led to the dramatic climate change we see over the Antarctic Peninsula.”
ENDSIssued by the British Antarctic Survey Press Office’
Posted by Jon Sumby on 30/11/06 at 07:14 AMTomas,
You are a prate of the highest order. Should, and let’s all pretend very diligently, it turn out that you’re actually what you claim to be, yours is the type of ‘scientific’ attitude that would lead all, with any hope of Science being a positive leading force for future change, to lament.
You have about you the air of arrogance oft displayed by those wonderfully ‘rational’ disciplines, referred to as The God Complex (engineers and architects are famous for it).
Dr Kevin Bonham, himself not short on Imageo Dei, has at least the intestinal fortitude to put his scientific credentials where his mouth is. You on the other hand, Sir, are a charlatan, a conjuror of cheap parlour tricks, all smoke and mirrors, a purveyour of trinkets and baubles.
Pack up your travelling sideshow, and move on!
Posted by Tigdh Glesain on 22/12/06 at 10:09 AMNew Year Climate Change Wrap
Oil Company Spent Nearly $16 Million to Fund Skeptic Groups and Create Confusion
The Union of Concerned Scientists, 3/1/07.
A new report from the Union of Concerned Scientists offers the most comprehensive documentation to date of how ExxonMobil has adopted the tobacco industry’s disinformation tactics, as well as some of the same organizations and personnel, to cloud the scientific understanding of climate change and delay action on the issue. According to the report, ExxonMobil has funneled nearly $16 million between 1998 and 2005 to a network of 43 advocacy organizations that seek to confuse the public on global warming science.
“ExxonMobil has manufactured uncertainty about the human causes of global warming just as tobacco companies denied their product caused lung cancer,” said Alden Meyer, the Union of Concerned Scientists’ Director of Strategy & Policy. “A modest but effective investment has allowed the oil giant to fuel doubt about global warming to delay government action just as Big Tobacco did for over 40 years.”
For the complete article click the link below:
http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/ExxonMobil-GlobalWarming-tobacco.html?wt.rss=rssGlobe is Warming Faster Than Scientist’s Worst Predictions
By Steve Connor - Science Editor, UK Independent, 29 December 2006.It has been a hot year. The average temperature in Britain for 2006 was higher than at any time since records began in 1659. Globally, it looks set to be the sixth hottest year on record. The signs during the past 12 months have been all around us. Little winter snow in the Alpine ski resorts, continuing droughts in Africa, mountain glaciers melting faster than at any time in the past 5,000 years, disappearing Arctic sea ice, Greenland’s ice sheet sliding into the sea. Oh, and a hosepipe ban in southern England.
You could be forgiven for thinking that you’ve heard it all before. You may think it’s time to turn the page and read something else. But you’d be wrong. 2006 will be remembered by climatologists as the year in which the potential scale of global warming came into focus. And the problem can be summarised in one word: feedback.
During the past year, scientific findings emerged that made even the most doom-laden predictions about climate change seem a little on the optimistic side. And at the heart of the issue is the idea of climate feedbacks - when the effects of global warming begin to feed into the causes of global warming. Feedbacks can either make things better, or they can make things worse. The trouble is, everywhere scientists looked in 2006, they encountered feedbacks that will make things worse - a lot worse.
For the complete article click the link below:
http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article2110651.eceReduce CO2 in Ten Years, or Climate Will be Out-of-Control
By Steve Connor, Science Editor, UK Independent, 01 January 2007.One of the world’s leading experts on climate change has warned that the Earth is being turned into a “different planet” because of the continuing increase in man-made emissions of greenhouse gases.
In an interview with The Independent, Jim Hansen, who was one of the first scientists to warn of climate change in scientific testimony to the US Congress in 1988, claimed that we have less than 10 years to begin to curb carbon dioxide emissions before global warming runs out of control and changes the landscape forever.
Last year, Dr Hansen, director of the Nasa Goddard Institute for Space Studies, part of Columbia University in New York, complained that Nasa public relations officials appointed by the Bush administration had tried to gag him by limiting his access to the media. But in talking to this newspaper he was outspoken, warning that there are already worrying signs that global warming is beginning to trigger dangerous “positive feedbacks” within the climate, which can accelerate the rate of climate change.
Dr Hansen said: “We just cannot burn all the fossil fuels in the ground. If we do, we will end up with a different planet. I mean a planet with no ice in the Arctic, and a planet where warming is so large that it’s going to have a large effect in terms of sea level rises and the extinction of species.”
For the complete article click the link below:
http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article2116874.ecePosted by Jon Sumby on 08/01/07 at 12:13 AMCan we act as if global warming is not human-caused?
‘In a thought-provoking statistical analysis, Dr. Peter Tsigaris of Thompson Rivers University, Canada, concludes that whether or not climate change can be wholly attributed to human factors, it makes strong economic and environmental sense to treat it as human-caused and take action now.
- He arrived at this conclusion as a result of creating the solution for a question he posed to his statistics students.Tsigaris asked, “A claim is made that global warming is caused by humans. Set up the null and alternative hypothesis for this claim. As a scientist, you want to test that the above claim is true beyond a reasonable doubt. Discuss in terms of the type I and type II errors that are associated with the claim, and discuss the implications of the errors in terms of their associated costs.”
The null hypothesis, considered true unless the evidence brought forward throws serious doubt on it, is that global warming is not caused by human activities; the alternative hypothesis is the claim that it is.
- Now for the interesting part: “As a scientist, in order to reject the null and thus accept the alternative, there has to be evidence that goes beyond a reasonable doubt. In statistical terms, the observed test statistics from the evidence pass beyond a reasonable doubt,” explains Tsigaris.If the scientist rejects the null, based on strong evidence in favour of the rejection, there is still a small chance of making a type I error. In the same way, acceptance of the null might be the wrong decision. The latter decision would be associated with a type II error.
“A Type I error implies that you have accepted that global warming is caused by humans when in fact it is not, while a Type II error implies the opposite,” he says.
- “It is obvious that a type II error, being unaware that global warming is caused by humans and maintaining our current living styles, is much more serious than a type I error which argues that humans are the cause when they are not, in terms of the costs,” he says.
From: newswise website 8th MarchIn Other News:
UK to miss carbon reduction targets‘The government is to fall well short of its target of a 30 percent reduction in carbon dioxide emissions by 2020 due to its reliance on voluntary rather than mandatory environmental regulations, according to a new scientific report published today.
The independent audit argues the government’s claims that it is on track to deliver a 30 percent reduction in emissions were “very optimistic” and that a reduction of 12 to 17 percent was more realistic.
Reducing emissions at this rate means it would take until 2050 to cut emissions by 30 percent on 1990 levels, meaning the government would miss its target of slashing emissions by 60 percent by mid-century’. The report is at University College London environment institute website
Carbon offsets a cheat
‘The carbon offset industry came in for fresh criticism last week with the publication of a major new report that argues offsets are a dangerous form of “greenwash” that has negligible environmental and social benefits and makes people complacent about the seriousness of the threat posed by global warming.The study from Carbon Trade Watch, entitled The Carbon Neutral Myth, argues that carbon offsets are “modern day indulgences, sold to an increasingly carbon conscious public to absolve their climate sins”’. The Carbon Trade Watch Report is at their website.
Finally: Last week a TV show, ‘The great climate change swindle’, aired in the U.K. It is enough to note that the writer/director of the show has also made docos about: How breast implants are safe and reduce the risk of cancer: That genetically modified foods are a blessing for the world’s poor: Compared the environmental movement with Nazis. That last show forced the TV station airing it to run prime time apologies for the programs bias, selective edits and distortions. More info at the Climate Denial website
As well: A book by an Australian global warming sceptic, Ray Evans (influential in right-wing political groups like the HR Nicholls Society), was launched at Parliament House, enjoying the patronage of the Liberal Party and corporate moguls like Hugh Morgan. The book was launched by Sir Arvi Parbo and preached to a converted minority of wealthy, influential, industrialists and bankers with vested interests. This group includes Morgan, who has privileged access to the Prime Minister and believes Kyoto is an economic plot by the EU. Visit sourcewatch and search on: Lavoisier Group
Posted by Jon Sumby on 13/03/07 at 01:36 PMI wonder whether John understands really what a null hypothesis is as well as type I and II errors are? The correct null hypothesis is that global warming is caused by human activity. Null hypotheses are very infrequently used in the negative as they become almost untestable. A null hypothesis usually is associated with a proposed effect. What the anthropogenic hypothesis is better characterised is as a gambit. Then you could frame ideas such as ‘what would be the consequence of not assuming a majority human cause of global warming’ and then you can analyse, correctly, the consequences of supporting or not supporting the gambit.
Posted by Tomas on 13/03/07 at 06:59 PMTomas,
Are you trying to confuse people and sow seeds of doubt or trying to blind us with the brilliance of your ignorance?‘The correct null hypothesis is that global warming is caused by human activity. A null hypothesis usually is associated with a proposed effect.’ -Tomas, #42
The null hypothesis is an hypothesis of no effect. The philosophical basis for the statistical null hypothesis at least in part relates back to Popperian falsificationism, whereby science makes progress by severely testing and falsifying hypotheses. The implication is that that rejection of the null hypothesis is equivalent to falsifying it and therefore provides support (‘corroboration’) for the research hypothesis as the only alternative.
The null hypothesis is then nearly always not the research hypothesis. Viagra has no effect on erectile function. Soil salinity has no effect on wheat growth. And, ‘The null hypothesis… is that global warming is not caused by human activities’ - from story in post #41 (emphasis added).
While the story quoted above relates to a thought experiment that is not designed to statistically prove global warming, it is designed to examine the consequences that may occur if it were possible to do a statistical test of the null hypothesis; ‘global warming is not caused by human activities’.
It is a risk management exercise. Type I errors occur when we mistakenly reject the null hypothesis when that hypothesis is true. In this case, if the null hypothesis ‘global warming is not caused by human activities’, is true. The costs and changes incurred by human society in attempting to mitigate global warming would be enormous.
But what if we made a type II error? This is mistakenly accepting the null hypothesis, ‘global warming is not caused by human activities’, when that hypothesis is wrong. In that situation what would be the costs and changes to human society? Would these costs and changes be less than, or smaller than, the costs and changes caused by us making a type I error? Or more?
Posted by Jon Sumby on 14/03/07 at 07:36 AMThomas argues that anthropogenic climate change isn’t real because “I am a scientist”. Well that is a very subjective statement :-) Maybe Thomas is a propagandist working for the coal industry? Nah; if that was the case surely his arguments would be less specious.
The irony here is that he appeals to his understanding of “scientific method” (see #5) to justify his political stance whilst simultaneously attempting to discredit the credentials of others by claiming that their sources are of the likes of “Greens Monthly” (see #15) despite it being clearly not the case.
I’ll end with a quote from the pseudonymous Thomas:
“Here’s a clue to the correct approach - keep an open mind, examine your own prejudices.” (see #5)Indeed.
Posted by Michael Sharman on 14/03/07 at 11:30 AMI suggest that Jon and his gullible cohorts watch ‘the great global warming swindle’ which was on BBC 4 the other night. Although our dogmatic society may not be up to this type of heresy yet.
Anyway you can go to theie website and view what is actual science unlike the pablum of Jon Sumby and the likes.
With fools like AL Gore telling people what to do who needs armageddon. The world will go on, these types of reports will add to nothing and a bunch of government endorsed scientests are going to make a lot money for doing bugger all. So much for helping the less fortunate, the amount of man hours and resources going into this swindle give inefficiency a new meaning.
Posted by John Herbert on 14/03/07 at 11:38 AMJon - seldom in science do we make null hypotheses about null effects as this is often ridiculous. You could, for example, make all sorts of null hypotheses about lack of effects that would be difficult, if not impossible, to prove. When you write a grant proposal, no-one is going to give you money based on a negative hypothesis - it just doesn’t happen, noone is interested in it. What the climatologists have been dining out on recently with the Aus Research Council and various granting schemes is the positive hypothesis - that global warming is caused by human activity. The reverse hypothesis is just silly and would get laughed at by serious scientists as ridiculously constructed.
On your favourite area of climate science and relative to type I/II effects, most scientific statistical work is based on, typically, a a margin less than 5% that the observed effect happens by chance ie making a type I or II error. It is interesting that the IPCC sets their ‘consensus’ view that a majority anthropogenic cause of GW is 10% - this plus the consensus part makes this bad science.
I would emphasis again that I have no opposition to the null hypothesis that GW has a majority cause from human activity - I suspect though that it will be some years or decades before we have reliable answer. In the meantime, sure it might be sensible to think of ways to ameliorate putative effects but dont make the mistake of confusing propaganda with science. My main concern with the GW debate is its contamination by vested hyperbolic interests, as it debases and corrupts science. If GW is oversold by the environmental movement, then the purity of the scientific method will take a substantial hit.
Posted by Tomas on 14/03/07 at 11:47 AMThe recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, concluded the probability that “human activities were driving the warming of the planet’ was 90% certain.
The 750 climate scientists that agonised over the report were very cautious in their conclusions from all available data in the last 650,000 years.
The secretary -general of the World Meteorological Orginisation said it was"the most rigorous and comprehensive assessment of climate change ever produced”.
Climate change is here and what are we going to do about it?Posted by Laurene Kelly on 14/03/07 at 03:03 PMThere are other medications you can try other than viagra Jon.
Posted by John Herbert on 14/03/07 at 06:23 PMAu contraire Michael Sharman - I have an open mind and that is why I am open to the ambiguity in the data. Unlike propagandists from both extreme sides of the debate who want to sell you something.
Laurene - apparently the IPCC report wasn’t sufficiently scary enough for some Green quarters. Witness recent stunt by Bob Brown on sea levels in Salamanca Place.
Jon Sumby - and if you new any real scientists you would know that most don’t employ Popper falsification principles to their daily work (I often wish they did). Often it is a case of scientist trying to prove hypotheses they hold dear, usually under the umbrella of whatever is the dominant idea of the time, or what they can get funding for.
A good scientist is usually one who is expert at defining the most elegant question and then going after an answer using the best techniques, and who is prepared to be wrong about whatever preconceived ideas they might have. In most fields, scientists don’t sit around framing null hypotheses - it just doesn’t happen.
Posted by tomas on 14/03/07 at 08:25 PMThere is nothing you can do Laurene. There is a very old saying, “you can’t change the weather.”
Politicians prattling on about whether we can afford two or three degrees in change or not is actually hilarious in its absolute absurdity.
I mean lets plant banana trees on mars, the computer models say its possible. Perhaps the boys from little Britain got it spot on. Is it possible you are incorrect o’ mighty seretary general of the world meteorological society? “Computer says No.”
Posted by John Herbert on 14/03/07 at 08:35 PMThere’s none so blind as those that cannot see goes the old refrain.
The deniers sit in a scientific minority globally and in Australia may sit in an opinion minority beleiving they are eithe correct or that the cas is unproven.
Putting the science before them fails to convince and they are not going to join a majority opinion unless they are convinced by a personal experience, and even then they may explain it away as the alter ego of Herbert’s Johnson attempts.
The weather, a short time frame exression of the prevailing climate, does change or vary.
The best climate scientist have put a common, and thus conservative position, that humans there is a 90% chnace humans are responsible for changing the climate and thus the weather.
When the evidence is 100% will all the deniers be convinced or will it ake actual changes and will it then be tto late tpo act or is it indeed too late now.
Further climate change will occur, it is unavoidable if you accept CO2 is a warming agent in the atmosphere.
When we reach the turning point of 450ppm and the following temperature changes, provided you accept the majpority view of the cause, each of us will be older or dead.
The ignorance shown in taking risk with what we supposedly hold dear as individuals, the continuation of our genetic inhertabce [children] and as a group [civilization] is more than breathtaking irresponsible, its pathological.
Still, humans have never experienced runaway climate change and our successes are built upon our many failures and it is easy to convince ourselves that we can build sea walls, storm or drought proof ourselves etc etc.
For my part I can understand but not condone this individual blindness to the best advice available and have to now see deniers as pitiable if without power and extremely dangerous if they have any.
Posted by phill Parsons on 15/03/07 at 05:50 AM“Laurene - apparently the IPCC report wasn’t sufficiently scary enough for some Green quarters. Witness recent stunt by Bob Brown on sea levels in Salamanca Place.” [Tomas, #49]
What exactly is wrong with linking predicted sea-level rise with the inundation of much-loved community structures that happen to be built at (or about) sea-level?
Its called realism Tomas - you ought to try it sometime.
regards,
Jason LovellPosted by Jason Lovell on 15/03/07 at 07:54 AMPhil and Jason - I am not sure that your comments add much - Does being honest about the state of the science make me a ‘denier’ - well, I’m sorry, you have demonstrated that you simply don’t understand the area.
Jason - the stunt I refer to was Bob Brown’s use of a measuring stick to inidcate how far he thought the sea level was going to rise (alarmingly high as it turns out), as opposed to what the best models indicate. I think this fits perfectly the definition of a stunt.
The current climate debate has revealed a lot of armchair science and shallow views. Would that this reflected the current state of quality science education amongst the masses, but it does not based on the sorts of comments we get here. Like many areas that require expert opnion, the science of the climate should not be left up to amateurs and spruikers of various ilk.
Posted by Tomas on 15/03/07 at 08:10 AMPhil, if can’t see from purely a mathematical point of view that 90 percent certain demostrates reasonable doubt even amongst those chained to the wheel of this paranoia, then you my friend cannot see much I’m afraid.
When it comes to the global warming debate, the head nodders are blind being lead by the blind.What really pisses me off about all this shrill proganda being thrown about is its ability to disenchant the young and bring about a cycle of depressive and inward looking societies. I give it five years before it is all declared bollocks and what do you know all the cry babies will disappear back into their warrens, just as they have when every other point of view they have cried over has ended in failure: see, just about the entire decolonised continent of Africa.
Posted by John Herbert on 15/03/07 at 09:32 AM“The current climate debate has revealed a lot of armchair science and shallow views.” [Tomas, #53]
No shit Sherlock ... although as far as I can see there is no “debate” amongst actual working climate scientists as to what is happening.
The “debate” amongst those who actually do the work is over - the current “debate” is coming from people such as the same scientists who formerly denied links between cigarettes and cancer, scientists who haven’t published any work on the denialist theories they are now promulgating, scientists whose 30 pieces of silver comes directly from the worst greenhouse gas emitters, the world’s richest companies who have the most to lose from changing the way they do business.
Oh, and of course the “debate” is also being maintained by those who have a blind faith in conservative politics, people who hate “greenies” and just want to oppose them, no matter what they’re actually saying.
Finally, the media has not helped by continually presenting a “balanced” view of climate change; if 1000 qualified people say “black” and one somewhat qualified person says “white”, is reporting boh views equally really providing “balance”?
This is what is happening with the reporting of climate change science and it stinks. Its all about introducing an(y) element of doubt into people’s minds in order to delay the inevitable profit-margin shrinking remedial actions that climate change requires of us all.
I repeat Tomas, there is no “debate” about climate change between working climate scientists.
It IS happening and we are all going to experience it, whether we’re going down screaming “its all a greenie plot” or preparing calmly for what we know is already upon us.
regards,
Jason LovellPosted by Jason Lovell on 15/03/07 at 09:44 AMBy any yardstick Bob Brown is a bad joke. Never have I heard such unqualified bleating as I have from the one they call Brown.
Posted by John Herbert on 15/03/07 at 10:14 AMTomas,
You write: ‘On your favourite area of climate science and relative to type I/II effects, most scientific statistical work is based on, typically, a a margin less than 5% that the observed effect happens by chance ie making a type I or II error. It is interesting that the IPCC sets their ‘consensus’ view that a majority anthropogenic cause of GW is 10% - this plus the consensus part makes this bad science.’You are so far off the mark you are not even wrong. The IPCC is not making any statistical tests, so they are not setting any significance levels (be it 5 or 10%). What they are doing is setting a confidence level, as in they are 90% confident that global warming is caused by human activities. They are two seperate things and you are confusing the two; either through ignorance or you are being deliberately deceptive and misleading in order to cast doubt and smear the science.
You write, ‘seldom in science do we make null hypotheses about null effects as this is often ridiculous.’ This is strange coming from someone who professes to be a research scientist as basic statistical teaching does the opposite.
For example, in this text:
‘The hypothesis is what gets tested in any research study. As discussed in chapter one, every experiment has two hypotheses. The null hypothesis states that there is no change or difference as a result of the independent variable. In other words, [for example] work experience does not result in a difference in grades among college students. The alternative hypothesis states that there is a change or difference. When we perform statistics, we are always testing for the null and therefore results of any statistical procedures are always stated in regard to the null hypothesis. If we find that students with work experience perform at the same level as those without work experience, for example, our results show that there is no difference. We would therefore accept our null hypothesis. If we find that one group performs significantly different than the other, we would then reject the null hypothesis, and by definition, accept the alternative.’ - allpsychThus, when researchers are reporting their work they are working from a null hypothesis of no effect. That is what statistic tests do, what statistics programs do and what every research scientist does with the exception, I suspect, of yourself.
Posted by Jon Sumby on 15/03/07 at 01:05 PMBut Tom, Dick Harry Kevin and John what do you think of the Stern Report, the ICCP Report and what they are saying CAN BE DONE ABOUT IT!
Posted by Laurene Kelly on 15/03/07 at 03:45 PMWell said #58 this is precisely what the message is all about. Inaction is the equivalent to not seeing the forest because of the trees. As these supposedly scientists and researchers should be aware that even what we learn as we tackle some of these problems will be of indirect use elsewhere. I suppose some people say because whales have probably been beaching themselves since creation that there is no need to assist them as it is all part of natural variability and we should not interfere.
Posted by Plantagenet on 15/03/07 at 06:39 PMThat there is no debate among climate scientest is incorrect Jason, do your research son. And before you answere that they are under some petroleum umbrella I would hesitate to guess that they weren’t. Although maybe they will state this on prisonplanet.com or some other such radical crud.
Posted by John Herbert on 15/03/07 at 07:22 PMFrom Jason - “although as far as I can see there is no “debate” amongst actual working climate scientists as to what is happening” - that you cant see it says it all. Check out or get an education. At least try Google Scholar as a base level if you can’t get your head around the concepts.
Jon - dur! that was my point - The IPCC set a consensus probability that there was </=10% chance that their anthropogenic hypothesis of GW was wrong. Most scientific work works on a probability level of 5% that an observed effect is due to chance.
On null hypotheses - you are being intentionally obstreperous. Hardly any science starts off with a null hypothesis - usually it is about exploring or asking good questions. No scientist I know sets out thinking that they have a gret new idea and now they will commit their life to proving it is wrong (the Popper model). Statistical analysis is more often than not a post-hoc exercise after the data starts to come in. A bad sicentist (and there are many) will manipulate the statistical approach to support their prejudice.
On working through a Popperian falsification model - the lack of such rigor is precisely the emerging problem with climate science. Many of its adherents cling lovingly to the dominant hypothesis of anthropogenic cause of GW, they are not about proving it wrong. Which gets back to your original postulate that the appropriate null hypothesis should be framed to conform to the dominant (and political) hypothesis - that is just so much bullshit. What Tsigari should be talking about is the philosophical concept of the gambit - and then analyse what would be the consequences of believing or disbelieving that GW has a human cause.
Posted by Tomas on 15/03/07 at 08:01 PMTomas (#61),
You are wrong.Posted by Jon Sumby on 16/03/07 at 06:48 AMNay Jon, you are out of your depth. Stop using science to further your political agenda. I will be vigilant for your misuse of science on TT. I have been told that you are doing a PhD on the sociology of science - I am sure that will be an impartial dissertation based on your obvious agenda. In any case, I have always thought that the sociology of science is a parasitic and vain activity by and large. Your approach doesn’t disavow me of that view.
Posted by Tomas on 16/03/07 at 07:21 AMTomas seeks the conclusive surety of 95% agreement that the changes in the climate and the physical effects of that are induced by human activity.
We don’t know if the IPCC’s 4th Assessment expressed their belief in the causative factors in those terms if he would then agree or remain sceptical.
It would be interesting for ‘Tomas’ to give his opinions on why the physical effects, such as islands being submerged, ice caps and glaciers melting or the changes in distribution and the behavior of temperature determined plants are occuring.
Of course he will have to cite the papers for the evidence, otherwise remain in the same boat as the rest, uncomfortable as it may be, that of the writer’s opinion.
Further, an assurance that Tomas has a point at which he is satisfied and accepts the evidence of the scientific community on this matter, given that a new discovery can change past conclusions.
I hope that John Herbert and I are here for the 5 years. Indeed I will take it out to the end of the sixth assessment process due in 2017 and provided that the latest peer reviewed data is accepted at that time, I will bow when the great retreat Herbert of the science supporting the conclusion he predicts comes to pass.
It has to betaken into acount that new data post the shutoff date for the 4th Assessment has been published and it supports a trend toward a rate of impact faster than that modelled.
In the meantime I will go with the best advice we have from the experts in the fields associated with a study of the causes and impacts of changes in the climate to avoid further dangerous global heating.
And what is being asked of us to adapt and mitigate. That Australia spend $6.5B or so each year until CO2 in the atmosphere is stabilized at 450ppmv or below to avoid further dangerous global heating.
Howard is below the benchmark with about $1.5B in the Murray Darling Water package and funding research into geosequestration and the limited MRET targets. The level of spending may rise if geosequestration is proved up and takes a path of installation.
Labor under Rudd undertakes to leverage $1B into $3B to hasten geosequestration research, a new power train for motor vehicles and also to retain the Murray Darling Water package and expand the MRET, putting the expenditure, if industry takes up the offer, nearer the recommended level.
Brown has the Greens phasing out dependency on a high carbon economy through a plan completed in 2050.
Measuring the value of this will be left to the voters, whether they are aware of the risks or not.
At the periphery of the debate is to risk, by not acting according to the best advice, the future of the 2 things supposedly dear to society, its descendants and its achievements, as it is not believed by many that the danger we face from global heating, if it passes a turning point to runway heating, is catastrophe.
Humans have never experienced such an event and I don’t want them to. Relatively low cost action now seems the most appropriate to avoid the disaster we are advised by a majority of the world’s experts is the outcome for inaction.
Choosing between affordable now and the potentially unaffordable later may be an acceptable position for those who will not have to face the forecast impacts. It is, in my opinion, immoral to knowingly steal the future.
Posted by phill Parsons on 17/03/07 at 06:43 AMMore feelgood middleclassism Phil. When this is disproved the amount of money and time wasted could have rebuilt sub saharan Africa.
Posted by John Herbert on 17/03/07 at 10:43 AMLots of comments on climate change, but there’s another side to the story.
Based on current technology and exploration results over the past 45 years, we’ve got a massive problem looming with crude oil supply.
Discovery continues to trend down and consumption continues to rise. For more than two decades we’ve been using more than we’ve been finding on a global basis.
We know that Cantarell (No 2 oilfield in the world) is crashing faster than even the worst predictions. Even the Mexican government freely acknowledges that.
We know that the North Sea, Bass Strait, US lower 48 states onshore, Alaska etc are all massively down from peak production and seriously depleted.
We know that Burgan (Kuwait’s main field) has peaked. A point reluctantly admitted by Kuwait, normally quite secretive about such matters.
We know that Iran’s production is down 40% from peak. We know also that Indonesia’s production has fallen to the point that it is no longer a net oil exporter.
We know also that emerging major consumers (eg China and India) are rapidly moving to lock in supply from major producers. Both sides being willing parties to such arrangements which reduce volumes traded on world markets (even without declining production) thus locking out those not party to these contracts (that is, Australia, US etc) the moment supply becomes inadequate.
I don’t doubt that global warming is PROBABLY a real problem. There does seem to be reasonable evidence especially once the effects of global dimming are considered in view of temperature observations to date.
That said, one potentially serious distortion in the debate thus far is the known flawed practice of using temperature data collected near major heat sources (eg cities). It’s well known that cities are far warmer than rural areas due to local heat generation so it isn’t valid to compare temperatures in cities with those in the past and conclude the planet as a whole is warming.
Measurements in the middle of nowhere, the oceans far away from the coast, Antarctica etc are far more credible sources of data on global temperature.
But odds are it’s oil that’s going to bash us in the face before climate change. Unless we’re expecting a climate catastrophy in the next 5 to 10 years which even the most serious doomers generally aren’t claiming is likely.
So what, exactly, are we going to do about it when we’re so heavily locked into a system which requires constant growth in energy consumption? We’re nowhere near ready for a mass rollout of alternative transport fuels even if we knew what fuel to switch to.
Gas has much the same problem as oil and already we see moves to form OGEC, the gas equivalent of OPEC. Goodbye cheap gas. Hello Russian global dominance (twice as important to global gas as Saudi Arabia is to oil).
Biofuels? Given that a human eats in a year what they use as oil in a week, that’s hardly likely to do anything more than fill a niche market or two. Already we’re seeing rapidly increasing amounts of food diverted into ethanol production with virtually no impact on the overall oil supply situation. And of course growing those crops consumes most of the energy the ethanol contains through petrolum derived fertilisers, chemicals and fuel for machinery.
Shale, tar sands, coal liquefaction etc? The supply is there but only if we’re going to start pumping out CO2 on a scale that makes present global emissions trivial in comparison. (Though admittedly with China building a new coal-fired power station every few DAYS there isn’t much hope of containing emissions even without shale etc).
So what are we going to do in Tasmania? What’s our economic replacement for tourism? What are we going to do about the 36% or so of our energy that comes from oil? Gas in the short term probably (virtually all gas use in Tasmania to date has been switching from oil fuels). But then what?
Convert woodchips into alcohol? Literally double or triple power generation and switch to a combination of battery and hydrogen fuels for transport? Abandon the geodesic economy in preference for centralisation of business (that is, a return to the industrial model) thus making public transport far more viable (though cars are only one sixth of total Tasmanian energy consumption)? Outright economic collapse?
Climate change is an issue but it’s not the only massive problem we face and odds are it won’t be the first to seriously bite us. We could well end up without enough fuel to actually produce much CO2 locally anyway…
Posted by Shaun Caris on 17/03/07 at 09:02 PMDebate about whether humans have caused global warming is largely a waste of time. On the other hand I would be interested to hear from Tomas or John H as to who, other than humans, they think can do something to slow down the process.
Let me know, fellows, when you see the carbon fairies flying in with their magic wands. Or should we all be praying to Allah? Or urging Clark Kent to get into that phonebox real quick? Or just crossing our fingers?
Perhaps while we wait for one of the above, we can take a holiday on an idyllic Tuvalu atoll.
Tim Thorne
Posted by Justa Bloke on 18/03/07 at 07:12 PMExcellent, Tomas (#63), you have responded in just the way I intended.
Posted by Jon Sumby on 19/03/07 at 08:45 AMJon, your psychic capacity for mental manipulation astounds me. I am like putty in your hands…
Posted by Tomas on 19/03/07 at 01:10 PMYour frivolity hardly elicites a response JB. But I got one, watch out for the methane though mate.
Posted by John Herbert on 19/03/07 at 08:20 PMTomas,
You use a false name, not a real name or a nickname.
The unwary reader could assume that you’re making honest statements that you stand by. You claim that you’re a ‘scientist’ who works as a ‘consultant’ in ‘biomedical research’. These claims can as easily be as false as your name.In the last few posts you have shown ignorance of basic statistical concepts and a weak grasp of scientific methods. You have also distorted and misrepresented these concepts to support your belief that climate science is ‘bad science’.
By doing this you have destroyed your credibility and validity as a ‘scientist’. You can never again try to claim expertise or authority as a ‘scientist’ when you make comments on TT.
When pressed, you revert to insult, innuendo, threat, and ad hominen abuse. These are all you have to offer, nothing more, to TT. You no longer have any credibility and I doubt if readers of your posts will believe or trust anything you write any longer.
Posted by Jon Sumby on 20/03/07 at 09:02 AMI have always been loathe to cite web sites as evidence for anything, mainly because they are usually not very rigorous - and really, the web being as it is today, you can cherrypick to your heart’s content to find stuff that conforms to your beliefs and prejudices.
However, there is a good web site run by the charity ‘Sense about Science” that presents science in a palatable and balanced way for the general public. Sense about Science is all about presenting the views of contemporary science, rather than the loaded versions you get from various lobby/political groups as well as celebrities.
Here is their link to a summary on climate science that visits the same themes about what science does and doesn’t know about climate change that I have tried to emphasize. Again, it is about delivering the current general views on the science of climate change for an interested, public audience, and does not represent a thoroughly citation-based journal-style report.
http://www.senseaboutscience.org.uk/pdf/Weather&Climate;.pdf
Posted by Tomas on 20/03/07 at 11:54 AMtomas
If individuals like you stopped to smell the goddamn flowers instead of basking in your own self glorification you would know that global warming is a fact ! and the reason for this one being serious is because it is derived from human activity ! activities such as the industrial revolution ,the advent of the automobile,burning of fuels for industry and power generation etc,etc, over the past 100 or so years ! but you, being a so called scientist should know this ,so how come a mere bogan like myself can understand pure common bloody sense, it appears to me your so called scientific calling has been well and truly a waste of time and someones money.
d.d.Posted by Don Davey on 20/03/07 at 07:48 PMJon - you could join the Fed liberal campaign with your sad attempt at mud slinging. I would only add that you have waged a consistent campaign to misuse science for your own particular ends. You have not attempted balance at any turn. I have tried to inject into these debates the sense of how science works and the limits of knowledge as far as predicting future climate change. I note that there are a range of climate scientists now uneasy about the alarmist and unsupportable projections by people unencumbered with scientific responsibility in this area.
One of my chief objections to the Greens and others in the contemporary activist environmental movement is that they misuse science and mislead the public in order to further their activist ends. As you continue to do this, I will continue to challenge you.
Posted by Tomas on 20/03/07 at 08:11 PMso tomas and john (don’t tell me you don’t know each other) tell us, what is happening - and what can or should we do about it?
Posted by super cynic on 20/03/07 at 08:56 PMAfter reading this entire thread, I find there is one person who wishes to make it his own. Decries everyone, without supplying a single reference of his own, claims superior knowledge without quoting a credential and generally taking pot shots at anyone who criticises. He has to be the BOSS!
Here is a cautionary tale.
One day all the parts of the body were having a discussion and the subject arose about who should be Boss.
‘There’s no doubt that I should be Boss’, said the brain, ‘after all, I am the intelligent one and it is my responsibility to see that everything happens’
‘No ways’ said the eyes. ‘Without me you could see nothing and could do nothing. You’d just be stumbling around in the dark. I think I should be the Boss.’
Then the legs piped up. ‘You wouldn’t be stumbling anywhere without me. In fact you would all be useless if you couldn’t get to where you wanted to go. I think I should be Boss.’
And so it went on, all of the body parts believing hat they were the best and most fitted to be Boss.
In the midst of all this arguing, a small voice was heard from behind. ‘You’re all wrong, I am the best and I want to be Boss.’
There was a stunned silence for a moment then all the body parts burst out laughing. ‘You?’ they cried. ‘Why, you are the anus. How could you possibly be Boss? What do you know about anything?’ And they carried on laughing thinking it was a HUGE joke.
But the anus took umbrage at this and started to sulk, and he shut up tight and refused to work, and no matter what anyone said, he just stayed clamped shut.
After a week, the knees began to get a bit wobbly. Two weeks down the line and the eyes became crossed, and shortly after this, the brain started to go foggy, but still the anus stubbornly refused to listen. No manner of pleading would work, so eventually all the body parts that were still functioning had a meeting and they decided they had no option but to make the anus the BOSS.
And the same principle applies wherever you go in the world and whatever walk of life you’re in, you will generally find an asshole in charge.Barnaby Drake
Posted by Barnaby Drake on 20/03/07 at 09:48 PMOh Tomas! I never knew you are aligned to the Revolutionary Communist Party!
As soon as I saw the name, ‘Sense About Science’, my ears pricked up. I have heard of them before, albeit in a sideways comment about another group whose activities I was interested in, but nevertheless it is a tangled but interesting web.
‘Sense About Science’ is a pro-genetically modified organism group and has funded research for pro-GM campaigns. They are linked through common personnel and structure to ‘Global Futures’, the ‘Institute of Ideas’ and the ‘LM Group’. All of these organisations are right-wing libertarian groups, although the ‘LM’ stands for ‘Living Marxism’.
All four groups have a pro-biotech, anti-environmentalism stance, among other positions. They practise what is called ‘entryism’ in that they cultivate links with reputable organisations, such as the Royal Society and promote their ideas within these groups and among industry figures and politicians.
Sense About Science shared a common phone number with Global Futures. Sense About Science’s Director Tracey Brown and her assistant, Ellen Raphael, were former employees of the PR company, Regester Larkin, where Brown was a ‘senior analyst’. This company also employed the former PR manager for Monsanto. The domain name for the Sense About Science website was registered by the web-master of the right-wing magazine ‘Spiked Online’, which is edited by prominent LM Group member, Mick Hume.
Ellen Raphael was also the listed contact for ‘Global Futures’, which has published work produced by leading members of the LM group. One ‘Global Futures’ paper was written by Frank Furedi, the chief ideologue in the LM, and listed in that publication was the Director of ‘Sense About Science’, Tracey Brown, who was named as the contact person for ‘Global Futures’.
The Trustees of Global Futures are three people who have had long involvement with LM and have written for the magazine, Living Marxism. One of these trustees registered the ‘Spiked Online’ website (which in turn registered the Sense About Science website). Global Futures is a libertarian group that is a platform for the LM Group.
Living Marxism was the magazine printed by the Revolutionary Communist Party, which folded after a libel suit but gave its name to a grouping of RCP and LM members, now called the ‘LM Group’. This group is not an officially constituted organisation but rather a political network of like-minded individuals in positions of influence in media, political and academic circles.
LM has moved away from its political origins to become what has been described as ‘media-friendly Tory extremists’. That is, a right-wing libertarian group. In the past the LM group (through LM Magazine) opposed sanctions against South Africa over apartheid, supported GM industry, downplayed the risk of HIV, opposed moves to ban anti-personnel landmines, denied the Rwanda massacre, condemned environmental campaigns, and published articles questioning if ethnic cleansing occurred in Bosnia.
So who is the LM Group? Apart from the fact that it is an unofficial political network of like-minded right-wing libertarians and is deeply involved with all the groups mentioned above (e.g. Sense About Science), the LM Group opposes restraint on business and science (especially biotech), it attacks the ‘precautionary principle’ and supports massive industrial development while opposing sustainable development, environmentalism and industrial regulation.
Associates of the LM Group produced the infamous ‘Against Nature’, written and directed by Martin Durkin, who is associated with the LM Group. This documentary attacked the environmental movement for being liars and anti-human.
Environmentalism was portrayed as nature worship that opposes human progress. The program denied global warming was a problem, while promoting biotech (specifically GM organisms) and unfettered industrial development. In ‘Against Nature’, Durkin featured Frank Furedi, who is the main ideologue behind LM, as well as featuring other LM members. His staff has close LM connections.
The program was so biased and misrepresentative that the broadcaster, Channel 4, was forced to air public apologies during prime time. Durkin has, as you may know, just released a program, ‘The Great Global Warming Swindle’, that denies human-caused climate change and attacks climate change science.
So there you go; from Tomas and his ‘good web site run by the charity ‘Sense about Science” that presents science in a palatable and balanced way for the general public. Sense about Science is all about presenting the views of contemporary science, rather than the loaded versions you get from various lobby/political groups as well as celebrities’, to Living Marxism, to global warming denial and biotech in one swoop!
Posted by Jon Sumby on 20/03/07 at 10:16 PM#77. Checkmate Tomas, lie down!
Posted by Gerry Mander on 21/03/07 at 08:18 AMJeez, another person who’s been in the news a lot recently also defines ‘charity’ as ‘right-wing lobby group’.
Tell us Tomas, sold any shares lately? Become the laughing stock of the nation in the last few days? Or is it just this website?
Regards,
Jason LovellPS Interestingly, ‘Tomas’ is almost an anagram of ‘Santo’ ... not quite, but so close its eerie, particularly when combined with that weird definition of right-wing lobby groups.
Posted by Jason Lovell on 21/03/07 at 08:42 AMWhat a long and tangled piece from Joh on Sense about Science (SAS) in an attempt to portray the group as some sort of front for evil multinational pharmaceuticals. ‘Share some structure and personnel” as other groups interested in presenting science to the public? Some of which are branded as right-wing? What a lot of absolute bull-shit. It is almost humorous how you draw a tangled set of interconnections to Durkin - how desperate are you??
Jon fails to mention that the Board of Trustees includes eminent scientists (incl the famous Australian- born scientist Dame Bridget Olgivie, John Maddox (former editor of Nature). The Advisory Council includes a number of science luminaries and Nobel laureates. SAS is also strongly supported by the Royal Society. All part of Jon Sumby’s conspiracy of right-wing neocons out to destroy the planet? What a goose! This gets back to one of my earlier points that Jon doesn’t actually understand science or how it works, or chooses to ignore it in the interests of a political agenda.
As for “Environmentalism was portrayed as nature worship that opposes human progress” I agree with this statement wholeheartedly and gets to why I am a critic of this movement as it seeks to abuse science for its own ends. As an example, rabid environmentalism is happy to agree with the majority science view on GW (although not so happy now given recent IPCC report) but unhappy to agree with the majority science view on GM.
Issues related to science such as global warming, stem cells, energy, genetic modification, cloning etc etc are of significant and growing importance. SAS was established to present a BALANCED (are you reading this Jon) view of some of these issues in a form that the general public can understand. Of course it is pro-science, and if you are pro-science you would have view on these above issues. SAS is about getting the science back into public policy, rather than leaving journalists, politicians, environmentalists and celebrities to mangle and misrepresent it.
Jon also seems to rely on good web sites such as SourceWatch in an unattributed fashion. I would encourage TTers to visit this site for themselves and perhaps to plug Jon’s other baby - the Sea Shepherd folk - into it - now talk about front groups and criminal activity. I invite readers to explore the dodgy property developers who fund the group as well as the myriad of human-haters who have bombed research labs and threatened death to their opponents. Nice chaps and ladies.
Jon has also fallen into the trap of labelling anyone who opposes his gaia views of the world as right-wing. Not all libertarians are right-wing neocons Jon. Not everyone who opposes a post-modern view of the world (as Spiked Online) are right-wing either. Some of the people and web sites you mention are opposed to totalitarian and close-minded thought, however it may arise. I invite readers to visit Spiked Online - I hadn’t heard of it until Jon raised it - quite a good site!
And this gets to the nub of it. Jon is deeply, deeply imbued with the environmental activists philosophy of manipulating and closing down debates that don’t agree with their beliefs and goals. This approach is the enemy of rationalism and is more in line with Stalinism than Marxism (if we are going to quote commies Jon).
Posted by Tomas on 21/03/07 at 09:18 AMAt least Jon sticks to the argument.
We have Jason making some sort of spurious link with the Senator from Queensland, and Barnaby Drake calling me an asshole. Nice people you ain’t. I would rather be an honest asshole than a constant dick. Why don’t you try contributing to the debate? I suppose you must think your contributions are amusing in some way? Par for the anti-intellectual course I am afraid. Sad people label anyone opposing them as right-wing, whereas I havent offered my political view of teh world which is far from the right.
Jason - I didnt say that SAS was a charity - it is more like a think tank or science lobby group. Sold any shares lateley? Well, yes I have thanks very much, luckily before the latest constriction - how is your bank balance going Jason? How do you earn a crust, if you want to know my financial details, please share yours.
Posted by Tomas on 21/03/07 at 09:46 AMChinese whispers Jon, your arguments are swiss cheese and you are toasted. Barnabys righteous pap fits the sandwich. Don Davey is all friendly fire and proves anypoint I may wish to make. You bunch of shrill apoogists should get a job in the soon to built pulp mill.
The biggest relative rise of Co2 emmissions was after the second world war. Global temperatures continued to decline untill the mid 70’s. The correlation between temperature rise and co2 is debunked.
You clowns can continue your own collective form of self forfulling prophecy. If we keep saying it it might come true, ‘look AL Gore is a genius its unquestionable’ Any critical thinker I know is concerned by the fatness of the greenhouse effect arguments.
Anyone I know who is finacially dependant on the greenhouse argument has an AL Gore buddha sitting on their wall. Give it a rest or go and buy some beans and stick them in yer bunker because there is nothing you can do about it.
Posted by John Herbert on 21/03/07 at 09:53 AM“However, there is a good web site run by the charity ‘Sense about Science’” [Tomas #72]
“Jason - I didnt say that SAS was a charity - it is more like a think tank or science lobby group.” [Tomas, #81]
“WTF?!?” [Jason, just now]
Regards,
Jason LovellPosted by Jason Lovell on 21/03/07 at 10:21 AMIn the time it took me to read (or at least scan) all the posts on this thread, the planet warmed a little, and the sea level crept up an infinitesimal amount (up, not down).
The effects will be felt by all, even the head-in-sanders.
All the claptrap and argument about the verity of ‘science’ emanating mostly from Tomas is tantamount to fiddling while Rome burns.Posted by Anne Johnston on 21/03/07 at 10:48 AM#83 - so I miswrote - SAS is clearly not a charity. It is interested in policy not helping the downtrodden.
Posted by Tomas on 21/03/07 at 04:10 PMMiswrote? More like claimed something that wasn’t true in what looked suspiciously like an attempt to over-sauce a biased reference.
While we’re on Comment#81, I’m also wondering where exactly does Barnaby Drake call you an arsehole? Having read his words carefully, I reckon you’re rushing headlong into the arsehole all by yourself.
Regards,
Jason LovellPosted by Jason Lovell on 22/03/07 at 09:10 AMJason - I am not obviously familair about why you have waged a relentless personal campaign about me. From time to time I wish that you would for once address the substance of the debate rather than indulging in nasty sniping. I live in hope. Likewise, I am not sure why Barnaby Drake sees it fit to call me an arsehole - I think that this kind of nasty personal attack says more about the poster than me. If being stringent on issues of science makes me an arsehole, then so be it, I’ll wear the abuse proudly.
I think my post #85 elucidates further why rational debate is a good thing - I made a mistake in calling SAS a charity, which it is not. I have always maintained that I have an open mind about the causes and consequences of GW. I am still waiting for my opponents to give the slightest ground, but I know they wont, which confirms that their views are driven more by ideology than by the facts at hand.
Posted by Tomas on 22/03/07 at 09:32 AMYou can make money if you have osme pencils and a plaque aroudn your neck ‘the end is nigh’ Jason, especially if you wander around the wilderness society shop and other such establishments.
Posted by John Herbert on 22/03/07 at 09:54 AMUunartoq Qeqertoq: The Warming Island
‘The map of Greenland will have to be redrawn. A new island has appeared off its coast, suddenly separated from the mainland by the melting of Greenland’s enormous ice sheet, a development that is being seen as the most alarming sign of global warming.
Several miles long, the island was once thought to be the tip of a peninsula halfway up Greenland’s remote east coast but a glacier joining it to the mainland has melted away completely, leaving it surrounded by sea. But it is only one more example of the disintegration of the Greenland Ice Sheet, that scientists have begun to realise, only very recently, is proceeding far more rapidly than anyone thought.
The second-largest ice sheet in the world (after Antarctica), if its entire 2.5 million cubic kilometres of ice were to melt, it would lead to a global sea level rise of 7.2 metres, or more than 23 feet. Until two or three years ago, it was thought that the break-up of the ice sheet might take 1,000 years or more but a series of studies and alarming observations since 2004 have shown the disintegration is accelerating and, as a consequence, sea level rise may be much quicker than anticipated. Scientists estimate that, in 1996, glaciers deposited about 50 cubic km of ice into the sea. In 2005, it had risen to 150 cubic km of ice.’ -Excerpted from: The Independent Online, 24 April 2007
‘The sudden appearance of the islands is a symptom of an ice sheet going into retreat, scientists say. Carl Egede Boggild, a professor of snow-and-ice physics at the University Center of Svalbard, said Greenland could be losing more than 80 cubic miles of ice per year.
He discovered an island himself a year ago while flying over northwestern Greenland. “Suddenly I saw an island with glacial ice on it,” he said. “I looked at the map and it should have been a nunatak, but the present ice margin was about 10 kilometers away. So I can say that within the last five years the ice margin had retreated at least 10 kilometers.”’
‘Maps of the region show a mountainous peninsula covered with glaciers. The island’s distinct shape — like a hand with three bony fingers pointing north — looks like the end of the peninsula. Now, where the maps showed only ice, a band of fast-flowing seawater ran between a newly exposed shoreline and the aquamarine-blue walls of a retreating ice shelf. The water was littered with dozens of icebergs, some as large as half an acre; every hour or so, several more tons of ice fractured off the shelf with a thunderous crack and an earth-shaking rumble.’- Excerpted from: International Herald-Tribune
See a short video of the island on YouTube
Posted by Jon Sumby on 28/04/07 at 12:34 PMThe Earth’s natural defences against global warming ‘beginning to fail’
‘The earth’s ability to soak up the gases causing global warming is beginning to fail because of rising temperatures, in a long-feared sign of “positive feedback,” new research reveals today.
Climate change itself is weakening one of the principal “sinks” absorbing carbon dioxide - the Southern Ocean around Antarctica - a new study has found.
As a result, atmospheric CO2 levels may rise faster and bring about rising temperatures more quickly than previously anticipated.
Stabilising the CO2 level, which must be done to bring the warming under control, is likely to become much more difficult, even if the world community agrees to do it.’ - 18 May: The Independent
___________‘The first evidence that recent climate change has weakened one the Earth’s natural carbon ‘sinks’ is published this week in the journal Science.
A four-year study by scientists from the University of East Anglia (UEA), British Antarctic Survey (BAS) and the Max-Planck Institute for Biogeochemistry reveals that an increase in winds over the Southern Ocean, caused by greenhouse gases and ozone depletion, has led to a release of stored CO2 into the atmosphere and is preventing further [ocean] absorption of the greenhouse gas.
Lead author Dr Corinne Le Quéré of UEA and the BAS said, “This is the first time that we’ve been able to say that climate change itself is responsible for the saturation of the Southern Ocean sink. This is serious.”’ - 17 May: Physorg
Posted by Jon Sumby on 18/05/07 at 12:07 PMMany thanks are due to Jon Sumby for his persistent presentation of the factual concerns world wide on global warming. Now what is really needed is proper presentation by the respective editorial staff and reporters in the popular daily newspapers to give the generally uninformed public continual detail. We also might just see an end to that popular “devils advocate”, namely Tomas who delights in his role, which at times has surreal logic but lacks the required credible reality in relation to this subject.
Posted by plantagenet on 19/05/07 at 02:39 PMMr plantagenet - sorry for the inconvenient facts, you can feel free to tune into radio free climate disaster if you like. See you at the end of the world.
Posted by tomas on 19/05/07 at 08:41 PMIt simply is a real shame that Tomas cannot put his obvious mental faculties to work to overcome some of the environment and climate problems instead of promoting the negative. Unfortunately he won’t see us at the end of the world because ther are too many who disagree with him to let it happen without attempting to rectify the human situation. Ther is probably a very big position available for him with Robert Mugabe and the Zimbabwe UN delegation who are now the chair of the Commission on Sustainable Development. This even though the population is starving and inflation is running at 2000%. Get going Tomas.
Posted by Plantagenet on 20/05/07 at 03:06 PMGlobal warming ‘is three times faster than worst predictions’.
‘Global warming is accelerating three times more quickly than feared, a series of startling, authoritative studies has revealed.
They have found that emissions of carbon dioxide have been rising at thrice the rate in the 1990s. The Arctic ice cap is melting three times as fast - and the seas are rising twice as rapidly - as had been predicted.
News of the studies - which are bound to lead to calls for even tougher anti-pollution measures than have yet been contemplated - comes as the leaders of the world’s most powerful nations prepare for the most crucial meeting yet on tackling climate change.
...
The study, published by the US National Academy of Sciences, shows that carbon dioxide emissions have been increasing by about 3 per cent a year during this decade, compared with 1.1 per cent a year in the 1990s.The significance is that this is much faster than even the highest scenario outlined in this year’s massive reports by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) - and suggests that their dire forecasts of devastating harvests, dwindling water supplies, melting ice and loss of species are likely to be understating the threat facing the world.’ - From The Independent June 3rd, 2007
‘In order to gain acceptance, and avoid alarm, the publically quoted timescales for Global Warming have probably been extended. Many of the major predicted effects of Global Warming could visibly start within the next 5 years, instead of the usually quoted “by 2100”.
The resulting political destabilisation doesn’t bear thinking about’. (climate activist blog comment)
Posted by Jon Sumby on 08/06/07 at 12:26 AMGlobal warming results in domestic cat explosion
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2007-06/08/content_6215513.htm
we’re doomed.Posted by Tomas on 08/06/07 at 10:23 PMYes Tomas, we are doomed.
The Hirsch Report advised that the US should rapidly move to replace the domestic vehicle fleet with hybrid or low consumption vehicles within the next decade. However, according to this news item:‘It is no secret that American drivers are fond of their gas guzzlers. But it may prove tougher than anyone thought to persuade them to switch to greener vehicles.
Jeroen Struben and John Sterman of MIT developed a computer model to study the impact of government policy, economics and consumer behaviour on the adoption of hydrogen-powered and hybrid cars in the US. They found that even with new laws and funding to help educate the public on the merits of alternative fuels and build fuel stations it could still take 20 years before half of the US fleet is converted.
“Even the current hybrid cars will take a while, maybe 15 to 20 years, before they make any significant impact on fuel consumption,” says Struben.’ - New Scientist, 9th June.
Posted by Jon Sumby on 10/06/07 at 11:57 AMA disaster to take everyone’s breath away
MANAUS - Deep in the heart of the world’s greatest rainforest, a nine-day journey by boat from the sea, Otavio Luz Castello is anxiously watching the soft waters of the Amazon drain away.Every day they recede further, like water running slowly out of an immense bathtub, threatening a worldwide catastrophe.
Standing on an island in a quiet channel of the giant river, he points out what is happening. A month ago, the island was under water. Now, it juts 5m above it.
It is a sign that severe drought is returning to the Amazon for a second successive year. And that would be ominous. New research suggests that one further dry year beyond that could tip the whole vast forest into a cycle of destruction.
The day before, top scientists delivered much the same message at a remarkable floating symposium on the Rio Negro, on the strange black waters beside which Manaus, the capital city of the Amazon, stands.
They told the meeting - convened on a flotilla of boats by Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew of the Greek Orthodox Church, dubbed the “green Pope” for his environmental activism - that global warming and deforestation were pushing the entire enormous area towards a “tipping point”, where it would start to die.
The consequences would be awesome. The wet Amazon Basin would turn to dry savannah at best, desert at worst. This would cause much of the world to become hotter and drier.
...
Studies by the blue-chip Woods Hole Research Centre, carried out in Amazonia, have concluded that the forest cannot withstand more than two consecutive years of drought without breaking down.Scientists say that this would spread drought into the northern hemisphere and could massively accelerate global warming with incalculable consequences.
The research - carried out by the Massachusetts-based centre in Santarem on the Amazon River - has taken even the scientists conducting it by surprise.
When Dr Dan Nepstead started the experiment in 2002 - by covering a chunk of rainforest the size of a football pitch with plastic panels to see how it would cope without rain - he surrounded it with sophisticated sensors, expecting to record only minor changes.
The trees managed the first year of drought without difficulty. In the second year, they sunk their roots deeper to find moisture, but survived. But in year three, they started dying. Beginning with the tallest the trees started to come crashing down, exposing the forest floor to the drying sun.
By the end of the year the trees had released more than two-thirds of the carbon dioxide they have stored during their lives, helping to act as a break on global warming. Instead they began accelerating the climate change.
The Amazon now appears to be entering its second successive year of drought, raising the possibility it could start dying next year. The immense forest contains 90 billion tons of carbon, enough in itself to increase the rate of global warming by 50 per cent.
Nepstead expects “mega-fires” rapidly to sweep across the drying jungle. With the trees gone, the soil will bake in the sun and the rainforest could become desert.
Deborah Clark from the University of Missouri, one of the world’s top forest ecologists, says research shows “the lock has broken” on the Amazon ecosystem and the Amazon is “headed in a terrible direction”. From: Independent, 25th July
___________________________________Tibet is warming at twice global average
The Tibetan plateau is heating up by 0.3°C each decade, more than twice the worldwide average, according to a new study from the Tibet Meteorological Bureau.The findings, reported by the official Chinese news agency Xinhua, underscore a growing understanding that high elevations in tropical regions are experiencing dramatic temperature increases similar to those seen at the poles.
“Whether you are in the Himalayas, the Andes, or Africa, the temperature is rising highest at the highest elevations,” says Lonnie Thompson, a glaciologist at the Ohio State University. “They are seeing an acceleration in temperature rise that is very consistent with the high-elevation glacial retreat we are seeing.”
...
A study published in 2006 in Science found similar increases in air temperature at high-elevation weather stations in the Andes.Previous studies have found that all glaciers in the central and eastern Himalayas could disappear by 2035 at their present rate of decline. The melting glaciers threaten to unleash massive flooding followed by severe droughts across South Asia. From: New Scientist, 24th July
————Posted by Jon Sumby on 26/07/07 at 12:38 PMInfluence of global warming seen in changing rains
The pattern of rainfall around the world is being changed by greenhouse-gas emissions from human activities, researchers have shown for the first time.Tropical regions north of the equator, including such areas as the Sahel in Africa which borders the Sahara desert, have already begun to get even drier and will continue to do so, the data show. Regions in the far north, including Canada, Northern Europe and Russia, will get wetter, as will the southern tropics.
Detecting the effects of climate change on rainfall patterns has proved much more elusive than temperature changes because of the much greater natural variability of precipitation.
The key was to take results from 92 computer simulations, using 14 different global circulation models, and to compare the average of these with actual rainfall data over wide bands of latitude around the world.
The results show a clear agreement with the observed trends in global rainfall data over the past century. In fact, although they agree in direction, the observed changes were much stronger than the predictions.
“Over the 20th century, we now detect the signal [in rainfall changes] that is predicted by climate models,” says Francis Zwiers, one of the research team. “If you’re able to reproduce the past, you also have greater confidence for predictions of the future.”
But aside from the overall trends, Zwiers says an important message from the combined models is that they consistently show that, for all regions, there will be a significant increase in extremes of precipitation – both floods and droughts. Thus, even desert areas that will undergo serious drying could simultaneously suffer greater risks of flash flooding.
...
“More or less uniformly across all the models, these extreme events will become more intense just about everywhere,” he says.Journal reference: Nature (DOI: 10.1038/nature06025)
From: New Scientist, 23rd JulyPosted by Jon Sumby on 26/07/07 at 12:48 PMEurope’s recent heatwaves aren’t a mirage
The heatwave that has already killed hundreds across Eastern Europe is no aberration. Since 1880, the frequency of extremely hot days has nearly tripled and the length of heatwaves across the continent has doubled.
Previous studies have shown that climate change is likely to make heatwaves more common across Europe. The latest study suggests that these effects are already being felt.
Paul Della-Marta of the University of Bern in Switzerland and his colleagues studied data collected between 1880 and 2005 by 54 temperature stations across Western Europe.
Extremely hot days are also three times as common now as they were 127 years ago, the researchers found. This greater frequency of very hot days is also what is driving the longer heatwaves, says Della-Marta. On average heatwaves lasted 1.5 days in 1880, but now last about 3 days. Some drag on for up to 13 days. New Scientist, August 2007
Atlantic hurricane frequency doubled last century
Here’s a conundrum. If global warming is indeed responsible for the increase in hurricane frequency in the North Atlantic, then how come we’ve had only one tropical storm and one sub-tropical storm so far this year?
Don’t be fooled. It’s not unusual for this time of year to be quiet, and most years July passes without a single tropical storm, says Greg Holland of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado.
Holland and colleague Peter Webster at the Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, see more busy seasons in the offing. From an analysis of North Atlantic records dating back to 1850, they conclude that climate change triggered three major shifts in the number of tropical storms during the 20th century.
The first came in 1905, heralding a 25-year period with a seasonal average of six tropical storms or hurricanes. From 1931, that number jumped to 9.4 per year, and hovered at that level until 1994. The last big shift came in 1995, starting a 10-year period with an annual average of 14.8 storms. Last season was comparatively quiet, with only nine storms, but it would have been an average season a few decades ago (Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A, DOI: 10.1098/rsta.2007.2083).
The two hikes are clear, say Holland and Webster - there is almost no variation between 1931 and 1994, then a rapid increase. The pair conclude that greenhouse warming is largely to blame, and point out that sea-surface temperatures in the North Atlantic increased around the same times that the storm frequency jumped.
This runs counter to some earlier studies, which found that storm counts rose and fell periodically, with 30 to 40 quiet years followed by 30 to 40 busy years, but no long-term change. “That was always a very, very weak case,” says Kerry Emanuel, a meteorologist at MIT.
New Scientist, August 2007Climate change is here now, says major report
Climate change is not a future problem but a present one that must be tackled now, concludes the latest chapter of a major climate report.
Real observations“The latest IPCC chapter is the first to use observations of the Earth’s climate rather than predictions of possible future scenarios to conclude that climate change is real,” says Saleem Huq, of the International Institute for Environment and Development and one of the chapter’s lead authors.
“Ten years ago, we said there was a detectable effect of climate change,” said Martin Parry of the UK’s MetOffice.
“Five years ago, we said we could detect a regional impact of climate change,” he continued. “Now, we have reviewed 29,000 data sets, and 90% of them show that changes happening worldwide are due to climate change.”
Huq says it is impossible to say with certainty that climate change is the cause of any single hurricane, heat wave, flood or drought. “But, taken together, the increase in frequency and intensity of such events during the last decade of the 20th century provides strong evidence that climate change is already occurring and is no longer a problem of the future.”
The report predicts:
• A 2°C rise from today’s temperatures will cause the extinction of 30% of species
• Water availability in the moist tropics and in the high latitudes will increase, but will drop in the semi-arid low latitudes
• Between 2°C and 3°C warming will increase agricultural yields in the high latitudes, but yields will then decrease with higher global temperatures
• A 1°C warming will decrease agricultural yields in the low-latitudes
New Scientist, April 2007Posted by Jon Sumby on 06/08/07 at 12:17 PMtime to get a new 40 watt globe Jon.
Posted by John Herbert on 06/08/07 at 09:08 PM#100. Time to get a 5 Watt brain, John!
Posted by Gerry Mander on 07/08/07 at 06:57 AM-
P.s. does anyone know Barry Brannan ?
Posted by don davey on 02/05/08 at 05:30 PM Erosion is now called climate change. A drought is called climate change. Shifting ice is called climate change. Never trust a losing American presidential candidate with the truth or anything else. It seems to all the doomsday zealots that the only thing that is inconvenient is someone who disagree with their opinion. Don’t fart people!
Posted by iva on 13/11/08 at 08:36 PM
