It is interesting to hear the views and fears of Canadians and to compare what your government is saying about climatic change. There is a distinct similarity between the connection which your politicians are making between climate change and its potential use as a tax raising source of revenue with what is being done here in the UK. As a result of the publication of the Stern Report, from February 2007 internal air travellers from UK airports will have to pay a £10 tax on all internal and European air fares and a £20 tax on long haul journeys. Air travellers having to make an internal connection from a regional airport to a hub airport like Heathrow are caught twice by this taxation system. We also have the present Labour government trying to justify road pricing and congestion charges on the basis of the impact on climate change of the exhaust emissions from vehicle engines. Unless the populations of both our countries start to question the dogmatic and increasingly suspect assertions of the 'green lobby', the economies of both our countries are going to be deprived of $billions of investment in the coming years as money is diverted to trying to find a solution to an imagined rather than a real problem. The importance of greenhouse gases as the major cause of the 20th century warm period has been and still is being grossly exaggerated. Politicians, however, are only too keen to capitalise on the unjustified guilt feelings they have created in some people about the damage that they are doing to the environment of the planet. They have realised, that so long as such people can be persuaded to ease their feelings of guilt by paying environmental taxes (fines), they have the biggest revenue creator of all time.
[quote][cite] Woody:[/cite]Unless the populations of both our countries start to question the dogmatic and increasingly suspect assertions of the 'green lobby', the economies of both our countries are going to be deprived of $billions of investment in the coming years as money is diverted to trying to find a solution to an imagined rather than a real problem.[/quote]
One major flaw in your argument though. You're stating that it is an imagined problem, which flies in the face of virtually all the scientific evidence.
[quote]The importance of greenhouse gases as the major cause of the 20th century warm period has been and still is being grossly exaggerated.[/quote]
Your opinion, and one not backed up by scientific evidence. If anything, the evidence I've seen suggests the complete opposite. Human influence on the climate is not a theory - it's a fact. We are having an impact on our climate and it is largely due to our emissions of GHG's.
[quote]Politicians, however, are only too keen to capitalise on the unjustified guilt feelings they have created in some people about the damage that they are doing to the environment of the planet. They have realised, that so long as such people can be persuaded to ease their feelings of guilt by paying environmental taxes (fines), they have the biggest revenue creator of all time.[/quote]
Actually, consumption taxes are an excellent way to reduce GHG emissions and deal with other environmental problems. And on the whole are much fairer than taxes on income or property.
Zander: Your opinion and not one backed up by scientific evidence.
Your comment forces me to ask you the following question: Would you accept a 90% probability level as concrete evidence for accepting the validity of a hypothesis? Is it not the case that a level of 97% to 99% are the significant levels? The ICCP Report of February 2007 is only quoting a 90% level for the greenhouse gas hypothesis .
Zander: Human influence on the climate is not a theory - it's a fact.
You are right Zander it is not a theory. It is a hypothesis. It can only become a theory once it can be shown it can take account of all the evidence. The GHG hypothesis is unable to sustain all the available evidence, so it is overstating the case to say it is - fact.
Zander: .... the evidence I've seen suggests the complete opposite.
To say that all the scientific publications point to the pre-eminence of the GHG hypothesis as an explanation for climatic change, is a little naive. This ignores the obstructions put in the way of scientists who have been prepared to look beyond the politically acceptable GHG explanation. It is a recorded fact that funding for research and even academic advancement have been denied to such scientists. It is hardly surprising, therefore that the bulk of the published materials should favour the GHG explanation for climatic change. That does not make it the correct explanation. A partial truth does not become "the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth" through repeating it often enough.
Scare tactics are being employed by the green lobby, who are also being ably assisted by the media. Droughts,floods,tornadoes, heat waves, early flowering of plants and the early arrival of birds at their nesting sites, are all good copy and support the politically acceptable view of global warming. How many headlines have you seen this year about:
1. $billion losses to the Californian fruit growing industry due to unusually severe frosts ? 2. Are winter temperatures of -42 degrees the norm in Winnipeg? 3. An 8% increase in the ice in the Southern Ocean? 4. An increase in ice mass on the Greenland icecap? 5. The arrival of Cape petrels and Adelie penguins at their nesting sites 9 days later now than was the case 50 years ago?
Sorry Zander, whether or not you want to admit it, there is selective reporting of the evidence for global warming.
A piece of 'alternative' evidence which might widen your horizons about global warming comes from the Danish National Space Centre. This was published in The Proceedings of the Royal Society late in 2006. After great difficulties in gaining funding for their research, a team led by Henrik Svensmark managed to prove that clouds could be formed due to the actions of cosmic rays on liquid droplets in the atmosphere, something which meteorologists said was impossible. In 2005 this team managed to 'stitch together droplets of sulphuric acid and water'. This process is the building blocks of cloud condensation.
Svenmark has shown that variations in cloud cover are related to the number of atomic particles from exploding stars penetrating our atmosphere. The more active is the sun, the stronger is its magnetic field and so fewer cosmic rays enter the atmosphere. This results in reduced cloud cover and so greater heating at the Earth's surface, resulting in higher temperatures. The higher temperatures recorded between 1970 and 1998 coincided with a time of greatly increased activity on the sun.
All I am saying is that this is just another piece which has to be fitted into a very complex jigsaw puzzle. Perhaps there is now, more than ever, a need for a more balanced approach to the funding and publication of research results, so that the real mechanisms of climate change can be identified.
[quote][cite] Woody:[/cite]Thank you for your contribution Zander. [/quote]
Always happy to oblige. Please note though that this issue has been discussed at length in a separate thread. I would prefer if you take further discussion of the specifics to this other thread.
[quote]Your comment forces me to ask you the following question: Would you accept a 90% probability level as concrete evidence for accepting the validity of a hypothesis? Is it not the case that a level of 97% to 99% are the significant levels? The ICCP Report of February 2007 is only quoting a 90% level for the greenhouse gas hypothesis . [/quote]
So the IPCC's (note the correct acronym) 90% level of certainty is insufficient for you? I may want to point out that the IPCC report is somewhat neutered by having to be vetted through various governments (including those resident in Riyadh and Washington). If anything, I suspect that many IPCC contributors would hew to a much higher level of certainty - one that was watered down through the need to reach consensus.
One could also consider the number of scientists and national science organizations that have stated anthropomorphic climate change as a fact. This number is in the range of the 97-99% level that you seem to require.
[quote]You are right Zander it is not a theory. It is a hypothesis. It can only become a theory once it can be shown it can take account of all the evidence. The GHG hypothesis is unable to sustain all the available evidence, so it is overstating the case to say it is - fact.[/quote]
And gravity is just a hypothesis as well. So is evolution. So - for that matter - is the heliocentric model of the universe (satellite photos can be faked, can they not?)
While new evidence is still coming to light, the consensus among scientists is that humans are causing climate change. There will always be those who disagree, but your model would have virtually all scientific knowledge be considered as a "hypothesis". I'm afraid
[quote]To say that all the scientific publications point to the pre-eminence of the GHG hypothesis as an explanation for climatic change, is a little naive.[/quote]
Naive? Funny, because the evidence would seem to suggest that anthropomorphic climate change is indeed the explanation. Credible scientific publications (i.e. those independant of vested interests) have indeed pointed to this.
[quote]This ignores the obstructions put in the way of scientists who have been prepared to look beyond the politically acceptable GHG explanation. It is a recorded fact that funding for research and even academic advancement have been denied to such scientists.[/quote]
Please cite your sources here. Claiming that a consipiracy exists does nothing to further arguments against climate change. All scientists - skeptical or not - have the opportunity to add to the discussion through an accepted peer-review process. Failure to do so does not mean that there is a conspiracy. It most likely means that the methodology is flawed or otherwise unsuitable for publication - and therefore will likely not change the body of knowledge that has been gathered to date.
[quote]It is hardly surprising, therefore that the bulk of the published materials should favour the GHG explanation for climatic change. That does not make it the correct explanation. A partial truth does not become "the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth" through repeating it often enough.[/quote]
And it is hardly surprising that skeptics - having failed to convice their peers through valid scientific research - are now claiming that there is a conspiracy against them.
[quote]Scare tactics are being employed by the green lobby, who are also being ably assisted by the media. Droughts,floods,tornadoes, heat waves, early flowering of plants and the early arrival of birds at their nesting sites, are all good copy and support the politically acceptable view of global warming. [/quote]
I do agree that sensationalism obscures the issue, and allows skeptics greater latitude to push their views. However, as I said in the other thread - the climate can be considered a "forest", while individual weather events are the trees. Citing examples of individual trees does change the issue of the forest itself.
In the same vein, citing individual examples outside the context of the larger issue does not prove your point. Consider the whole issue and how these events fit into it.
[quote]Sorry Zander, whether or not you want to admit it, there is selective reporting of the evidence for global warming.[/quote]
Sorry Woody, whether or not you want to admit it, the evidence of climate change is all around us, and the vast majority of climate scientists are in agreement of this.
[quote]A piece of 'alternative' evidence which might widen your horizons about global warming comes from the Danish National Space Centre. This was published in The Proceedings of the Royal Society late in 2006.[/quote]
Indeed. I've followed the discussion of Svensmark's experiment and it certainly has the potential to add to the body of knowledge around climate change. However, to suggest that it disproves climate change theory is a little premature. There are some flaws to the work, and Svensmark might have done better had he waited for peer review before putting out a press release making all sorts of implications about the understanding of climate change.
And reviewing this discussion of Svensmark's work (especially the five key steps his experiment seems to might widen your horizons regarding the scientific process and the validity of his experiment.
[quote]All I am saying is that this is just another piece which has to be fitted into a very complex jigsaw puzzle. Perhaps there is now, more than ever, a need for a more balanced approach to the funding and publication of research results, so that the real mechanisms of climate change can be identified.[/quote]
It is an extremely complex jigsaw puzzle, which is why the scientific debate went on for so long. Increasingly, as the pieces fell into place - the final picture became clear.
And the concept of "balance" is somewhat misleading. As always, those who hold opposing views should be encouraged to debate their peers in the scientific process, instead of avoiding this and writing op-ed pieces instead.
[quote]Perhaps there is now, more than ever, a need for a more balanced approach to the funding and publication of research results, so that the real mechanisms of climate change can be identified. [/quote]
I agree. This current debate appears to be anything but scientific in its coverage.
[quote][cite] Jimmytufish:[/cite]I agree. This current debate appears to be anything but scientific in its coverage.[/quote]
That's a curious statement - how is it so? The scientific debate continues, but it has moved on to studying and debating the effects and scale of climate change, not its cause.
Wait - are you referring to the actions of those (like Brodbeck) who are unable to debate the science and therefore resort to attacking the messenger?
If so, I certainly agree. I'd prefer to see the debate focused on the science - namely what we can do about this issue, both in terms of mitigation and (unfortunately) in terms of how to adapt. We've wasted enough time already.
[quote][cite] zander:[/cite][quote][cite] Jimmytufish:[/cite]I agree. This current debate appears to be anything but scientific in its coverage.[/quote]
That's a curious statement - how is it so? The scientific debate continues, but it has moved on to studying and debating the effects and scale of climate change, not its cause.
Wait - are you referring to the actions of those (like Brodbeck) who are unable to debate the science and therefore resort to attacking the messenger?
If so, I certainly agree. I'd prefer to see the debate focused on the science - namely what we can do about this issue, both in terms of mitigation and (unfortunately) in terms of how to adapt. We've wasted enough time already.[/quote]
You figure there's anyway all the people who want something done can like all gather in Iceland or somewhere and do all the suffering there and leave everybody who doesn't believe alone?
Like I said based on George Reisman's understanding of economics, it doesn't matter if the Earth is warming or cooling or both warming and cooling at the same time.
The Lenin Question; What are we to do?
Force everybody to adopt the ideology of the Enviromentalist thus creating a the new social man in a new and improved image; "Ecologyman."
Changing the Nature of Human Beings, which nature endows to look out for their own self-interst into one who care more for the community has been tried a million times and every one of those attempts turned into a failure that made things worse.
What makes you so sure that the nature of Man can be changed by law this time?
[quote]Wait - are you referring to the actions of those (like Brodbeck) who are unable to debate the science and therefore resort to attacking the messenger? [/quote] Ya. Also the ones that attack the dissenters and denounce their positions because they are funded by oil companies.
IMO the entire debate has become political...it's all about Al Gore trying to get re-elected and having his scheme become out of control.*wink*
I have noted your comments and found the link useful. This will be my final contribution to the present discussion, because you have covered a number of the points in the debate on climate change elsewhere. I should, however, like to take issue with you on 3 of your last statements.
Zander: .... anthropomorphic climate change as a fact
At this stage in the research programmme when all potential avenues have not been explored makes this is a very exclusive line of scientific thought. It is also worrying that you may not be alone in adhering to this dogma. Will this not make you less reliable as a totally unbiased member of the peer group review body of other lines of research and their results ?
Zander: .... skeptics have failed to convince their peers through valid scientific research.
Well, we know what happened to Copernicus in a similar situation, but his research eventually proved to be valid in spite of the negative review by his peers.
Zander: Credible scientific publications ( i.e. those independent of vested interests.)
Is there any source of money in the world to-day which can meet this criteria? It is not only the Oil and Coal corporations which influence scientific research and reports. You have already stated that the IPCC report has been 'doctored' by governmental intervention. Do you honestly believe that organisations such as Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace are also acting without a vested interest in the outcome of the present research programmes into the causes of climate change?
As I stated in my original contribution to this discussion, my aim was not to peddle any one explanation for climatic change. My plea was that the scientific community should act responsibly and consider all of the many mechanisms involved in climatic change, before racing into print with what may, or may not be, the most reliable explanation.
Climatic change is a relatively new area of scientific research and as such there must be scope for all shades of opinion to receive a fair hearing before being accepted or discarded. There is no place in this debate for over inflated egos and blind adherence to one line of thought. The natural world has the ability to constantly provide surprises. Just because one line of research is not the 'flavour of the month', does not mean that it should not be given the same attention as its more politically acceptable counterparts. Wegener was marginalised by the scientific 'peer group' of his time, yet his derided scientific ideas have provided a clearer understanding to-day, of the part played by continental drift in the global distribution of our land and sea areas. Also, dare I suggest it, his findings have also played a significant part in the study of palaeoclimates which cannot be ignored in any debate about climate change.
I am not denying the contribution that GHG make to global warming. My worry is that it may prove not to be the whole answer. The publicity being given to the adherents of the anthropomorphic hypothesis for climatic change and the actions being taken by national governments on the basis of their public pronouncements, places on them, much responsibility for the economic costs which millions of ordinary individuals will have to pay in the coming years. Please get it right, because there will be no way to get back the $billions if they have been spent needlessly. Politicians are only there until the next election. The scientific community will feel the backlash, should they get it wrong, for a much longer period.
Enjoyed the discussion with you zander, but must now sign out.
[quote][cite] Woody:[/cite]I should, however, like to take issue with you on 3 of your last statements.[/quote]
Fair enough - I'll respond below each one.
[quote]At this stage in the research programmme when all potential avenues have not been explored makes this is a very exclusive line of scientific thought. [/quote]
If you look carefully at the research going on right now, it's clear that scientists (aside from a very small handful) have moved away from researching the causes of climate change to researching the scale and scope. Combined with the strong statements from scientists and scientific organizations, it's pretty clear that the accepted scientific view is that this is indeed a fact.
Obviously, work such as Svensmark's could cause a shift in thinking. But scientists will determine this themselves, and op-ed articles are obviously not meant to appeal to the scientific community - but rather to weaken their position by sowing public dount.
[quote]It is also worrying that you may not be alone in adhering to this dogma. Will this not make you less reliable as a totally unbiased member of the peer group review body of other lines of research and their results ?[/quote]
I find it a little troubling that you refer to this as 'dogma'. I could say the same about your skepticism. However, I'm not a climate scientist. I recognize that there are people who know more than I do. But I also make up my own mind.
After looking at the evidence presented, it's clear (even to someone with no background in this field), what the scientific explanation is. I've looked at the opposing arguments, and they seem to focus on very small parts of the puzzle or odd statistical outliers with no context of the larger issue. To me, the weight of evidence is clear.
That's not 'dogma'. It's accepting an argument presented by an overwhelming number of experts in the field. I also believe that the earth is not hollow for the same reason. And I understand that the moon is not made of green cheese - again, thanks to the evidence.
[quote]Well, we know what happened to Copernicus in a similar situation, but his research eventually proved to be valid in spite of the negative review by his peers.[/quote]
Good example - and those scientists who started the discussion of anthropomorphic climate change certainly faced the same negative reviews that Copernicus did. But like Copernicus, they have managed (through hard work and credible research) to bring the scientific community onside.
[quote]Is there any source of money in the world to-day which can meet this criteria?[/quote]
Indeed - I'd say that credible scientific publications are those academic journals which exist to encourage and promote the peer-review process. I'm not talking about Time, Newsweek or even National Geographic.
[quote]It is not only the Oil and Coal corporations which influence scientific research and reports. You have already stated that the IPCC report has been 'doctored' by governmental intervention. Do you honestly believe that organisations such as Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace are also acting without a vested interest in the outcome of the present research programmes into the causes of climate change?[/quote]
If anything, the IPCC report was softened. I suspect the truth is a little harsher than we might like. Certainly, the effects of climate change have generally been at the extreme end of the scales predicted in various models, and it worries me that political expediency might mean that we're not getting the whole picture.
As for FoE and Greenpeace, I recognize their biases as well, and worry that their tendancy towards sensationalism muddies the waters just as much as Exxon does.
[quote]As I stated in my original contribution to this discussion, my aim was not to peddle any one explanation for climatic change. My plea was that the scientific community should act responsibly and consider all of the many mechanisms involved in climatic change, before racing into print with what may, or may not be, the most reliable explanation. [/quote]
It's ironic that you should then cite Svensmark's work, as he rushed into print before fully examining the scope and effects of his work. I worry that his desire for publicity may harm the credibility of what could be an interesting area of resarch.
[quote]Climatic change is a relatively new area of scientific research and as such there must be scope for all shades of opinion to receive a fair hearing before being accepted or discarded.[/quote]
Agreed - and I think that the ongoing debate within the scientific community has covered the bases. (continued)
[quote]I am not denying the contribution that GHG make to global warming. My worry is that it may prove not to be the whole answer. [/quote]
It isn't the whole answer. Natural cycles are a part of this as well. However, it's clear (with considerable scientific evidence) that human activity is influencing these cycles and speeding them up. That's the issue.
[quote]The publicity being given to the adherents of the anthropomorphic hypothesis for climatic change and the actions being taken by national governments on the basis of their public pronouncements, places on them, much responsibility for the economic costs which millions of ordinary individuals will have to pay in the coming years. [/quote]
I do question whether spending is directed in the right places. There are many ways in which GHG emissions can be reduced while creating economic opportunities or reducing ongoing costs (i.e. basic energy and fuel efficiency). There are also many ways in which money can be wasted.
[quote]Please get it right, because there will be no way to get back the $billions if they have been spent needlessly. Politicians are only there until the next election. The scientific community will feel the backlash, should they get it wrong, for a much longer period.[/quote]
Again, we're in agreement on this. You're making good sense here.
What I do not understand is why anyone prints anything regarding global warming in a scare tactic way? The Earth has been warmer than it is today in the past, and that was before we were putting these greenhouse gases into the air, so common sense might tell us that the Earth has been heating up for thousands of years, is not as hot as it has been, and therefore the Earth heats and cools on a natural basis! That is my read on it! The doomesday prophets will allways be there, looking for their government handouts to do further research! In the 1970's the theory of the day was that the Earth was cooling, and we had better get our long underwear ready! I still have mine ready to put on as soon as it is needed! I also have my air conditioning ready to install in the long underware , in case there is a rapid heating! There is so much B.S. out there , just pick your favorite and go with it!
this idea of yours has already been covered a zillion times on here rsncrtz-- that idea you and others keep putting forth about the 70's and global cooling is total bunk. a few scientists were talking about it, it got a few publications in newsweek and elsewhere, but there was nothing even close to consensus on the issue.
global cooling was a theory put forth by a tiny handful of scientists, while most of the rest of the scientific community either dismissed the idea with their own work, or had no opinion one way or the other.
so, for one final time-- *global cooling was an idea at the fringe of the scientific debate--it was never taken seriously as a theory or possibility by most serious scientists!*
p.s. a great letter ran on this in the FP the other day.
its point was that the earth, like any organic/living body, can only sustain so much damage without all parts being affected. if you poison your own blood, for e.g., it will affect yr overall health. if you cut your arm off, you will be weakened.
to think the earth is any different, rsncrtz, or to think that our centuries of plundering and polluting the natural environment won't have some serious, long-term consequences, is both naive and dangerous.
[quote][cite] rosencrentz:[/cite]What I do not understand is why anyone prints anything regarding global warming in a scare tactic way? The Earth has been warmer than it is today in the past, and that was before we were putting these greenhouse gases into the air, so common sense might tell us that the Earth has been heating up for thousands of years, is not as hot as it has been, and therefore the Earth heats and cools on a natural basis! That is my read on it! The doomesday prophets will allways be there, looking for their government handouts to do further research! In the 1970's the theory of the day was that the Earth was cooling, and we had better get our long underwear ready! I still have mine ready to put on as soon as it is needed! I also have my air conditioning ready to install in the long underware , in case there is a rapid heating! There is so much B.S. out there , just pick your favorite and go with it![/quote]
Fear is the emotion all political causes play on.
"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed -- and hence clamourous to be led to safety -- by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." H.L Mencken