Bloo Loo Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 Well, I don't think the rational arguments are done any favours by the irrational hyperbole Add to this that Global Warming is inevitable is POLICY at International level. Citing parts of Agenda 21 some time ago, the aims of the various committees were AT THE OUTSET designed to offer solutions to the problem...It wasnt a case of IF there was a problem, the Policy was to take action on Climate change and that was that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neverwhere Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 Add to this that Global Warming is inevitable is POLICY at International level. Citing parts of Agenda 21 some time ago, the aims of the various committees were AT THE OUTSET designed to offer solutions to the problem...It wasnt a case of IF there was a problem, the Policy was to take action on Climate change and that was that. Human CO2 emissions are still increasing so where is the enacted policy on climate change? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neverwhere Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 Quite an argument? Pah! Back in the days when I could be bothered to discuss global warming I could reduce Fluffy to a gibbering wreck within three posts. That doesn't sound particularly hard. But as I've said before: We all have a vested interest in climate change being wrong [For "climate change" the pedantic should read "contemporary climate change" or "anthropogenic climate change" or "contemporary anthropogenic climate change" or whatever refinement of the colloquial phrase they feel to be most politically correct] I genuinely would like the science on anthropogenic climate change to be wrong, I definitely have a vested interest in it being so. House prices aside all of us in the UK have it pretty cushy right now and that is largely down to the benefits of CO2 emitting (whether direct or indirect) industries. It would be great if this did not have to change at all. pity the empirical evidence isn't with us Unfortunately I've been unable to locate any convincing empirical evidence for this position in the peer reviewed literature, which seems to consist primarily of papers that either directly implicate an anthropogenic cause or are neutral as to the cause and focused solely on the consequences. As noone has been able to post any convincing countermanding data I can only assume that they have not found any either, which indicates that there probably isn't sufficient out there to convincingly challenge the current balance of evidence, but I would be very happy if that weren't the case so if you have convincing countermanding data sufficient to do so please do post it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bloo Loo Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 Human CO2 emissions are still increasing so where is the enacted policy on climate change? tons of it,,,,China seems to ignore most of it though, its just for us Guilty white westerners. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fluffy666 Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 My own angle is that fair, accurate description is worthwhile in principle, not because I expect any killer blows to be landed. Indeed. Now define 'catastrophic' in the terms of Anthropogenic Global Warming, in a fair and accurate way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fluffy666 Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 Quite an argument? Pah! Back in the days when I could be bothered to discuss global warming I could reduce Fluffy to a gibbering wreck within three posts. Don't recall ever having a global warming related argument with you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neverwhere Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 tons of it,,,,China seems to ignore most of it though, its just for us Guilty white westerners. Links please? Given that one of the governments policies for sustainable energy is an increase in the use of biodiesel I rather suspect they have simply moved a small percentage of emissions off book. For instance with bio-diesel the primary source of atmospheric CO2 is in the initial rainforest destruction prior to palm oil cultivation - do you trust the government to include this in UK emissions where the bio-diesel was destined for our use or do you think they would assign it to the emissions total of the country of cultivation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nuggets Mahoney Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 I think most of the scientific community are not comfortable with the preferred self-description of those opposed to the theory of anthropogenic global warming as "sceptics" simply because many of those who describe themselves as such are not what one would call sceptics in the scientific sense, that is, people who question belief on the basis of scientific understanding. Their opposition is more commonly based on personal conviction or feelings of suspicion or antipathy towards proponents of the theory. While I feel that "denier" would be a more accurate label on these grounds, I do acknowledge that offence may be taken by use of the term due to its negative connotations, and I generally try to avoid using it in discussion. I'd be less hung up with the word denier, as long as it is clear what it being denied. wrt offence being caused, I'd be pretty offended if I were sincerely convinced by the case for dangerous anthropogenic emissions and I was accused of being a knowing scam-artist participating in a global plot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scunnered Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 climate change isnt wrong. Attributing it to Humans is wrong...in the current models....no one has accounted for the pause, the acknowledged pause, in advance...they still cant account for it. They just say this is an unforeseen effect of CO2 emmisions...bit like GOD is real, but my version of him is the truth and for that reason...you must die as your version of GOD ( the SAME GOD) is wrong. Conveniently, the Guardian are reporting on this today: The contentious "pause" in global warming over the past decade is largely due to unusually strong trade winds in the Pacific ocean that have buried surface heat deep underwater, new research has found.A joint Australian and US study analysed why the rise in the Earth's global average surface temperature has slowed since 2001, after rapidly increasing from the 1970s. The research shows that sharply accelerating trade winds in central and eastern areas of the Pacific have driven warm surface water to the ocean's depths, reducing the amount of heat that flows into the atmosphere. In turn, the lowering of sea surface temperatures in the Pacific triggers further cooling in other regions. The study, which is published in the journal Nature Climate Change, calculated the net cooling effect on global average surface temperatures as between 0.1C and 0.2C, accounting for much of the hiatus in surface warming. The study's authors said there has been a 0.2C gap between models used to predict warming and actual observed warming since 2001. ... http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/feb/09/global-warming-pause-trade-winds-pacific-ocean-study I'm sure it won't be long before the sceptics have helpfully explained why this is completely wrong though, so it'll be back to business as usual. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neverwhere Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 I'd be less hung up with the word denier, as long as it is clear what it being denied. wrt offence being caused, I'd be pretty offended if I were sincerely convinced by the case for dangerous anthropogenic emissions and I was accused of being a knowing scam-artist participating in a global plot. What, you mean like this? I'm genuinely undecided on this issue and fwiw I have a relevant, though not entirely up to date, academic background. Repeated use of deceptive language, hyperbole and picking starting dates to fit a favoured narrative doesn't help settle the matter either way afaic and my gut reaction to people employing such devices, on either side, is that they're either an idiot or they're taking me for one. My understanding of the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming narrative is that human generated emissions are accelerating a pre-existing warming trend which, in turn, will accelerate pre-existing climate variability to a degree that will have a catastrophic impact on humanity. In which case use of the term 'climate change' in statements like 'We all have a vested interest in climate change being wrong, pity the empirical evidence isn't with us' is at best a half truth, at worst dishonest. It most definitely isn't scientific. As for the repeated use of 'conspiracy theory' as a pejorative term in this thread. It might carry a bit more of a sting if the people trying to play it weren't pushing their own Big Koch conspiracy theory in the same breath. Maybe we can clarify things a little by referring to 'Good' Conspiracy Theories and 'Bad' Conspiracy Theories? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fluffy666 Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 I have to say that I find lofi much more balanced and sober than fluffy Why thank you. Although I think you should now nominate someone to repeatedly crib talking points and graphs from a variety of sites like WUWT, ClimateAudit et al, post them as responses with a bit of snark and abuse attached, and refuse to discuss any of them in detail. See how balanced and sober lofi is after several sessions of that. For instance, do you think that NM will actually define 'Catastrophic' in clear an unambiguous terms..? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fluffy666 Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 Conveniently, the Guardian are reporting on this today: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/feb/09/global-warming-pause-trade-winds-pacific-ocean-study I'm sure it won't be long before the sceptics have helpfully explained why this is completely wrong though, so it'll be back to business as usual. To be fair, this IS getting a bit embarrassing. There are now 3 separate, if interlocking things going on behind 'The Pause' - Simple observation. Most observations are based around where people live. Much of the recent warming has been concentrated at the poles; when we use some sophisticated interpolation (kridging - determining the relationship between surface and satellite mesured temperatures where they overlap, then using that to extrapolate into areas where we only have satellite coverage) we see no real pause. - El Nino/Las Nina ENSO. We've seen a prolonged phase of neutral / La Nina conditions. This tends to drag down direct measurement of global temperature - but related to the first point, is it just making the warming pop up elsewhere? - Trade winds in the pacific.. which are going to interact with ENSO anyway. The interesting thing will be to see what happens if we get another big El Nino. Don't think anyone will be talking about 'pauses' if that happens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nuggets Mahoney Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 Indeed. Now define 'catastrophic' in the terms of Anthropogenic Global Warming, in a fair and accurate way. That might be tricky but the hypothesis and associated call to action is not my proposition. If you believe I've misrepresented what is being 'denied', which isn't my intention, how would you phrase it? And why the switch from Climate Change to Global Warming? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neverwhere Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 Why thank you. Although I think you should now nominate someone to repeatedly crib talking points and graphs from a variety of sites like WUWT, ClimateAudit et al, post them as responses with a bit of snark and abuse attached, and refuse to discuss any of them in detail. See how balanced and sober lofi is after several sessions of that. For instance, do you think that NM will actually define 'Catastrophic' in clear an unambiguous terms..? I'm well aware of the tactic which is why I don't consider it hard (or laudable) to be able to reduce any poster to a "gibbering wreck" (whether or not this has actually been achieved). Doing so does not constitute a rational or credible argument. In reference to the tactic itself I wonder how much google personalised search function has influenced the public discussion given this function ranks results according to their similarity with pages the browser has already accessed and thereby encourages a self-reinforcing bias and discourages balanced access to information? (don't be evil my ar*e) For anyone who's interested in turning this function off and receiving unbiased search results the instructions on how to do so are here: https://support.google.com/websearch/answer/54048?hl=en Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Si1 Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 Why thank you. Although I think you should now nominate someone to repeatedly crib talking points and graphs from a variety of sites like WUWT, ClimateAudit et al, post them as responses with a bit of snark and abuse attached, and refuse to discuss any of them in detail. See how balanced and sober lofi is after several sessions of that. For instance, do you think that NM will actually define 'Catastrophic' in clear an unambiguous terms..? Only pick worthy opponents then You're wasting your time if you go for the 90 percent of below par opinions, and drag yourself lower in the process Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neverwhere Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 That might be tricky but the hypothesis and associated call to action is not my proposition. If you believe I've misrepresented what is being 'denied', which isn't my intention, how would you phrase it? And why the switch from Climate Change to Global Warming? The current climate change is a warming trend (if you have any evidence to refute this please post), both terms are colloquially interchangeable in this context. As to the use of the term 'catastrophic' the argument being made is that the evidence available suggests that the climate is warming, that human actions are implicated in this process, and that the effects of this warming are likely to be harmful (indeed already seem to be harmful if you consider the current flooding such) and will probably involve some high profile and unpredicted consequences (black swan events). Whether or not they would eventually be catastrophic does depend on what you mean by this term, which as it was a term that you brought into the discussion is something that you should either define or accept as a seperate issue. As a matter of personal opinion, if we're too stupid as a species to eventually follow the evidence then we probably deserve catastrophic consequences. This is rather like saying sheeple who indulge in an exuberance of easy credit to ramp up house prices for the rest of us deserve to get their arses handed to them on a plate. It isn't necessarily going to happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fluffy666 Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 That might be tricky but the hypothesis and associated call to action is not my proposition. But here's the problem. If we say that 'Catastrophic' means massive sea level rise, hypercanes, Continental scale wildfires, etc in the next 20 years - then we could both agree that 'Catastrophic AGW' is very unlikely. However, if we decide that it means' A measurable increase in climatological disasters' (floods, droughts, etc - Hurricanes are extremely debatable) - then I could point out that it's already happened. And if it's not defined, then it becomes very much like the Micro/Macro evolution debate with Creationists - basically an exercise in goalpost-shifting. If you believe I've misrepresented what is being 'denied', which isn't my intention, how would you phrase it? An out and out denialist will completely reject the notion that there is a relationship between CO2 levels and temperature. Variants include those who deny that the rise in CO2 is down to humans, or that there is no such thing as global temperature. There is Wikipedia as well, for a general definition: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denialism As far as global warming goes, we also have the 'lukewarmer'; a person who does not specifically reject any aspect of the science, but who will always emphasize the best-case scenarios for climate and the worst case (most expensive) scenarios for doing anything about it. For instance 'The climate will just be a degree warmer everywhere and in any case it's all down to China burning coal' might class as a 'lukewarmer' statement. Vague and reasonable-sounding. And why the switch from Climate Change to Global Warming? Why not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bloo Loo Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 Links please? Given that one of the governments policies for sustainable energy is an increase in the use of biodiesel I rather suspect they have simply moved a small percentage of emissions off book. For instance with bio-diesel the primary source of atmospheric CO2 is in the initial rainforest destruction prior to palm oil cultivation - do you trust the government to include this in UK emissions where the bio-diesel was destined for our use or do you think they would assign it to the emissions total of the country of cultivation? I dunno, I looked up a part of Agenda 21 some months ago and that features what treaty Nations are going to have to do. I posted extracts here. China has unbearable pollution and even had a BillBoard up showing the sunsets as people couldnt see through the smog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bloo Loo Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 Conveniently, the Guardian are reporting on this today: http://www.theguardi...fic-ocean-study I'm sure it won't be long before the sceptics have helpfully explained why this is completely wrong though, so it'll be back to business as usual. Its EL NINO....it gets the blame for everything, including headaches. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neverwhere Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 I dunno, I looked up a part of Agenda 21 some months ago and that features what treaty Nations are going to have to do. I posted extracts here. China has unbearable pollution and even had a BillBoard up showing the sunsets as people couldnt see through the smog. I suspect this is a sop and an exercise in creative accounting rather than an actual concerted effort to reduce CO2 emissions which are still rising globally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nuggets Mahoney Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 But here's the problem. If we say that 'Catastrophic' means massive sea level rise, hypercanes, Continental scale wildfires, etc in the next 20 years - then we could both agree that 'Catastrophic AGW' is very unlikely. However, if we decide that it means' A measurable increase in climatological disasters' (floods, droughts, etc - Hurricanes are extremely debatable) - then I could point out that it's already happened. /snip I'm not hung up on the word catastrophic. If people who support the hypothesis at issue don't like it, fine, use another. Dangerous? For sure there are different grades of denier but that's no reason not to ask and state what is the proposition that they, to greater or lesser degree, are denying. It is not 'climate change' and if we are going to pretend that term is not potentially misleading to Average Janes and Joes who don't have the time to follow the nuances of this subject I'm not going to waste anyone's time discussing this any further. Why not? Because I was checking that some subtlety was not passing me by. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bloo Loo Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 The current climate change is a warming trend (if you have any evidence to refute this please post), both terms are colloquially interchangeable in this context. As to the use of the term 'catastrophic' the argument being made is that the evidence available suggests that the climate is warming, that human actions are implicated in this process, and that the effects of this warming are likely to be harmful (indeed already seem to be harmful if you consider the current flooding such) and will probably involve some high profile and unpredicted consequences (black swan events). Whether or not they would eventually be catastrophic does depend on what you mean by this term, which as it was a term that you brought into the discussion is something that you should either define or accept as a seperate issue. As a matter of personal opinion, if we're too stupid as a species to eventually follow the evidence then we probably deserve catastrophic consequences. This is rather like saying sheeple who indulge in an exuberance of easy credit to ramp up house prices for the rest of us deserve to get their arses handed to them on a plate. It isn't necessarily going to happen. I would contend that any change is going to lead to harm somewhere. some say the deeps of the ocean are warming up, so its either good or bad for the local fauna, I beleive it will be good for some and bad for others.. TBH, Im more alarmed by the die-offs in the Northern Pacific than global temp changes...we can do NOTHING about Fukushima....except maybe sack a minister or two. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neverwhere Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 I'm not hung up on the word catastrophic. If people who support the hypothesis at issue don't like it, fine, use another. Dangerous? For sure there are different grades of denier but that's no reason not to ask and state what is the proposition that they, to greater or lesser degree, are denying. It is not 'climate change' and if we are going to pretend that term is not potentially misleading to Average Janes and Jones who don't have the time to follow the nuances of this subject I'm not going to waste anyone's time discussing this any further Because I was checking that some subtlety was not passing me by. Most people are able to grasp the nuances of the colloquial, that rather being the definition of such, but would you prefer ''contemporary anthropogenic climate change'? You appear to feel that the semantics are more important than the data. I would refute this suggestion but as it is so important to you please define the linguistic terms you would prefer were employed and the argument can be restated in the context of such. Then perhaps we could have an actual discussion around the observed data rather than hiding in the refuge of linguistics? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neverwhere Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 I would contend that any change is going to lead to harm somewhere. some say the deeps of the ocean are warming up, so its either good or bad for the local fauna, I beleive it will be good for some and bad for others.. This does seem likely. I would tend to think that, given the broad spectrum of adaptations to extreme conditions already present, life on Earth will adjust in the long term. Whether or not we would do so well or be able to support such a large population in the same circumstances is another matter and will be dependent on how current trends play out. The whole thing seems rather like an argument against wearing car seat belts: I might never be involved in a crash in my entire life (already wrong in my case but I assume you take my point), but given the likely consequences if I was involved in one without a seatbelt why take the risk? Especially when, to extend the metaphor, there's quite a lot of evidence building up that suggests the risks of crashing are getting higher. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bloo Loo Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 This does seem likely. I would tend to think that, given the broad spectrum of adaptations to extreme conditions already present, life on Earth will adjust in the long term. Whether or not we would do so well or be able to support such a large population in the same circumstances is another matter and will be dependent on how current trends play out. The whole thing seems rather like an argument against wearing car seat belts: I might never be involved in a crash in my entire life (already wrong in my case but I assume you take my point), but given the likely consequences if I was involved in one without a seatbelt why take the risk? Especially when, to extend the metaphor, there's quite a lot of evidence building up that suggests the risks of crashing are getting higher. I always wear a seat built and was knocked down whilst filling up with petrol. This is how I see the Policy aspect of GLobal warming...they do a load of stuff to save the Earth but it just happens to be the wrong stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.