Lord Lawson - An Appeal To Reason

[Injin]

Are you suggesting that in order to have a 'non-state' scientific opinion I should be educated privately and only work in a non-regulated environment. Do you think that if I espouse anti-GW views that any drug I work on will be hammered by the UK regulator. (Please don't tell me you do believe that...)

An accumulation of opinion doesn't make a fact, but certainly gives you some tips about likely 'truths'. With no other available knowledge, I don't usually back 100-1 shots in horse-races, I find the favourites are usually thereabouts.

With only the Loch Ness monster to hit me over the head with, perhaps it's you who should 'behave'.

No.

The information about global warming comes from the state. Find me some that doesn't if you think not.

I can give you the following information -

2+2

and you will come up with the correct solution

4

All by yourself. This you will then defend because you know that it is logical, well reasoned and you came to your own conclusions.

Like yourself, I agree that following the odds is the way to go. Every government scare story has been bogus, there is no reason this one is any different. The 100 -1 shot here is that they are telling the truth.

[Gurgle]

In the last ten years I have only ever met one colleague who did not believe in Global warming.

So out of all your colleagues only 1 doesn't believe in global warming. Presumably, working in a drugs company, your colleagues are all experts in pharmaceuticals. Thats interesting, out of all my software developer colleagues I don't think any have admitted to not believing in global warming. Shame none of our combined colleagues are climate scientists.

There may be a 1% chance the science is wrong, but the downside of being over-conservative is just that we husband resources and are more sensible with energy use. If we're right and we do nothing - well the consequences could be unthinkable, and by the time you see a tangible impact on you it could be too late. That's why, Injin, so many believe waiting for your 'proof' is just too dangerous a strategy.

Which isn't proof in any way shape or form. An accumulation of opinion doesn't make a fact.

I have an analogy for you:

In the last 10 years I have only ever met one colleague who didn't believe house prices would go up forever. Every other colleage an "expert" in the field thought prices could just carry on going up forever. There was maybe a 1% chance that the "science" was wrong and in fact prices might actually fall. If they were right and I did nothing - well the consequences could be unthinkable, and by the time I realised it and saw a tangible impact on me (i.e I was priced out) it would probably be too late. Most believed waiting for 'proof' of my contrarian view was a dangerous strategy.

Is any of this sounding familiar yet?

Now, where did my contrarian view come from. Well I looked at the long term trends and I saw a cycle. A cycle which is not a perfectly repeating system, but a clear and obvious cycle and I could see that long term trends pointed towards a fall in prices. Anyone who looked at the bigger picture saw exactly that it wasn't different this time, and strangely a lot of those people who managed to think for themselves are posting on this site.

I find it interesting that all of the long-term data for climate change that I've seen suggests that the global temperature cycle is no different from the house price cycle.

In actual fact I wasn't a first time buyer in the never ending cycle I had a house. I had a vested interest. I sold that house in summer 2007 and am no longer in the housing market. I benefited from the mass hysteria surrounding house price inflation.

Now, lets say I'm a government. I can see that my stamp duty tax revenues are about to start declining because the property bubble I've been ramping to fill my coffers is just about to burst. I have however realised that short-term data suggests that the global temperature is on the rise. I've seen the long term data for global warming and I can see that in fact this rise is just part of the upward phase of the 1500 year cycle. However, I decide to benefit from this and get some extra tax revenue (because I'm a government and therefore permanently bankrupt). So I start to gradually leak reports into the media about the ever increasing global temperature and how it can only ever go up and how we're all in danger. When the global temperature cycle reaches the peak and the temperature starts to drop I then announce that there is nothing to worry about. "Oops, sorry, It was all just a big scare. The global temperature works on a cycle just like house prices"

World governments have a vested interest in global warming whether it is man-made or not. THEY are the main VI's of global warming, along with the pathetic climate change consultants etc. who are the equivalent of Krusty and Phil.

We can't even predict the weather to more than about 10% accuracy so how the hell can we prove that global warming is man-made to 99% accuracy as quoted here? Think about it.

The above isn't necessarily 100% my personal view. Its designed to make you think. Feel free to debunk it, but don't do so without thinking about the irony of the situation whereby those contrarians (members of HPC.co.uk) who realised that HPI couldn't continue forever COULDN'T see the parallels between HPI hysteria and the current global warming hysteria.

(I think thats my longest post ever)

[Methinkshe]

Good post, Gurgle.

I think some people under-estimate the snowball effect evident in the climate change industry.

In the early stages, a snowball needs a lot of pushing and shoving to keep it rolling. As it gathers volume and momentum it become self-propelling and gathers more and more volume and speed. There comes a point where it is more or less impossible to stop the snowball from rolling, never mind put it into reverse. The impetus that provided the initial pushing and shoving becomes irrelevant. That's where the climate change industry is now.

[fluffy666]

I have however realised that short-term data suggests that the global temperature is on the rise. I've seen the long term data for global warming and I can see that in fact this rise is just part of the upward phase of the 1500 year cycle.

You wouldn't mind sharing it with the world's climate scientists, then? It would help out a lot. Ta.

World governments have a vested interest in global warming whether it is man-made or not. THEY are the main VI's of global warming, along with the pathetic climate change consultants etc. who are the equivalent of Krusty and Phil.

I really don't see this VI stuff. As far as I can tell it's just the standard tactic of acusing your opponent of what you are guilty of - the oil and coal companies that fund anti-GW propaganda (such as started this thread) have an extreme VI against AGW and a track record of funding disinformation on the issue. Accusing the worlds scientists of being the same (with zero evidence, of course) is just rhetorical tactic. And since no evidence is provided, it cannot be refuted.

We can't even predict the weather to more than about 10% accuracy so how the hell can we prove that global warming is man-made to 99% accuracy as quoted here? Think about it.

Yes, indeed. Weather is a divergent chaotic system, where small changes in initial parameters quickly lead to highly divergent outcomes. Hence it is very hard to forecast. Climate is a convergent, non-chaotic system tending to converge on an average and is hence far easier to predict into the future. Very hard, yes, but possible.

The above isn't necessarily 100% my personal view. Its designed to make you think.

All it makes me think is that absent any substantial argument against global warming, the propaganda has to focus on personalities (ie the attacks on Al Gore), ad hom attacks like the one starting this thread, constant repitition of skeptic talking points (the weather climate confusion abvove being a classic), and an outright refusal to objectively discuss the science.

Feel free to debunk it, but don't do so without thinking about the irony of the situation whereby those contrarians (members of HPC.co.uk) who realised that HPI couldn't continue forever COULDN'T see the parallels between HPI hysteria and the current global warming hysteria.

HPI had no foundation in physics. Global warming is very strongly grounded in physics.

(You could of course talk about why many of the mitigation strategies discussed are bound to end in failure, or how in some hands environmentalism becomes anti-progress.. but in order to do that you'd have to allow a debate grounded in reality. Are you brave enough to do that?)

[Justice]

We all need something to rally against, otherwise we all turn against each other.

The politicians understand this.

VMR.

Yeah it will be little green men in green suites next.

i don't buy this global warming, seas will rise theory as you only need to look around to see many major developments are going on around the world and few seem to take into account that the sea will rise a few meters in the next 25 years.

Goverment loves the excuse for taxing us to death and in a matter of 3 years we got war on terror, global warming and peak oil.

it's simple ! Bush controls the oil and wants the price to go up to maximize profit and China/Russia are a threat to that and this is why the propaganda machine has kicked in 24/7 to make them look worse than they are.

[corevalue]

Yes, indeed. Our model for Weather is a divergent chaotic system, where small changes in initial parameters quickly lead to highly divergent outcomes. Hence it is very hard to forecast. Our model for Climate is a convergent, non-chaotic system tending to converge on an average and is hence far easier to predict into the future. Very hard, yes, but possible.

You have a couple of small but important errors in the above statement fluffy. I've added the missing words in italics.

[fluffy666]

You have a couple of small but important errors in the above statement fluffy. I've added the missing words in italics.

Now I'd like you to justify them.

You do realise that my post was a simple statement of observed fact and nothing to do with computer models, don't you?

And you also realise that putting incorrect words into someone's mouth is an extremely unpleasant thing to do?

And you'd better reply.

[Cinnamon]

Global warming is very strongly grounded in physics.

No it's not. It's strongly grounded on research grants and a lot of hand waving, and it's used to bamboozle people in paying more taxes. It also is riddled with scientific fraud, questionable methods and dodgy data.

In general: models can only aid our understanding of a complex process but do not forecast anything.

So, unfortunately the entire premise you are basing your arguments on is broken in a fundamental way -- the above statement is the very first thing you learn if you take a course on Simulation and/or Modelling. There is no mechanical Mystic Meg, and there never will be one.

No-one is saying: Do not discuss this, do not believe this -- but what you need to do is bring better arguments that are solidly grounded in proven scientific methods, your current offering is not fit for purpose, we don't want to discuss your believes, we need to discuss reality instead.

[corevalue]

Now I'd like you to justify them.

You do realise that my post was a simple statement of observed fact and nothing to do with computer models, don't you?

And you also realise that putting incorrect words into someone's mouth is an extremely unpleasant thing to do?

And you'd better reply.

Ouch. No offense meant fluffy, but I would challenge you in return, to show that the words I added are incorrect.

You state the "observed fact" that the climate is a convergent chaotic system, I would assert that is only an opinion - there is no certainty that all the feedback effects and drivers of the climate are recognised and understood, and until they are (possibly never) you cannot make any such statement. Just because the climate can be observed to be presently in a limited trajectory space, does not mean you understand it fully, nor that it couldn't violently move to another mode. That is what runaway greenhouse effects are.

Climate science is all about computer modelling: trying to correlate simulation results with past observations, and then using the models developed to predict future climate trends. Is this not so? I've just spent two days staring at a feedback system which lapsed into chaotic behaviour (period doubling) which the simulation model, with very good and known inputs, didn't predict. Just that teensy little parasitic feedback we didn't notice ( and still can't pin down) .

However, for the original thread and the doubters, I would say that the magnitude of the bias introduced by anthropogenic warming is a very serious concern - in fact, it introduces more feedback effects which are not fully understood, and as such should be avoided, just as I'd rather not test Kepler's theory on the orbital mechanics of the earths rotation by slamming a large asteroid into it.

[Guest X-QUORK]

I see the Tin Foil Hat Brigade and the Flat Earth Society have formed a new alliance.

"Shoot! Them emvirometlists just wanna raise taxes agin Pappy! It done been snowing this week and they be tryin' to tell us it be gettin' warmer?! Aah think they be stoopider than your half cuzin Billy Bob, an he be real stooopid."

"That's riiiight son. Go git the Hummvee an mah gun, aah think am gonna go git me one of thim enviro guys an teach him what we folks think bout his phys-eye-cal theo-rees."

"Can we huuurt im Pappy?! Can we huuurt im real bad? Jess laak thit guy who dun said there wuz no God!"

"Sure son, sure."

[Guest Skint Academic]

While I'm here, you might be interested in an article in the Herald about living "off-grid" in Scotland a few days ago: link.

Fantastic! Thanks for that!

[Methinkshe]

Has anyone noticed a general trend?

Those who agree with manmade climate change frequently resort to impugning the intelligence of those who disagree.

Those who disagree with manmade climate change by and large offer their reasons why and accept that others may have a different opinion.

[Guest Skint Academic]

Those who disagree with manmade climate change by and large offer their reasons why and accept that others may have a different opinion.

You're having a laugh aren't you??

[Guest X-QUORK]

Has anyone noticed a general trend?

Those who agree with manmade climate change frequently resort to impugning the intelligence of those who disagree.

Those who disagree with manmade climate change by and large offer their reasons why and accept that others may have a different opinion.

No, can't say I have noticed those trends.

I've noticed a trend that points to the Flat Earth Society believing a conspiracy theory whereby national governments around the world dupe their citizens and scientific communities in order just to raise taxes.

Pardon me for satirising such an eminently sensible idea.

[fluffy666]

No it's not. It's strongly grounded on research grants and a lot of hand waving, and it's used to bamboozle people in paying more taxes. It also is riddled with scientific fraud, questionable methods and dodgy data.

Really? Is the IR absorbtion spectra of the CO2 molecule 'scientific fraud'?

Is the Mauna Loa atmospheric record faked, perhaps?

Perhaps the measurements of the surface temperature of Venus are just all made up, yes?

I'm sorry, but if you think that increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere (Which is something humans are doing and which is proven beyond unreasonable doubt) - and therefore increasing the heat opacity of trhe atmosphere - will NOT increase temperatures, you have a lot of explaning to do.

Furthermore, I'd like to see your evidence for the widespread scientific fraud you propose is taking place.

In general: models can only aid our understanding of a complex process but do not forecast anything.

.

Of course the models forecast things, (and correctly hindcast things too). In the case of climate models, forecasts have generally turned out accurate, surprisingly enough.

So, unfortunately the entire premise you are basing your arguments on is broken in a fundamental way -- the above statement is the very first thing you learn if you take a course on Simulation and/or Modelling. There is no mechanical Mystic Meg, and there never will be one.

You want to lecture me on computer modelling.. that's quite funny.

No-one is saying: Do not discuss this, do not believe this -- but what you need to do is bring better arguments that are solidly grounded in proven scientific methods, your current offering is not fit for purpose, we don't want to discuss your believes, we need to discuss reality instead.

Come back when you have read this, as an intro:

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/

(I know you won't, you can lead a 'skeptic' to knowledge but you can't make them think and all that.. but I feel duty bound to try)

[Methinkshe]

You're having a laugh aren't you??

I did say by and large - and obviously I exclude your good self and others such as Steve Cook - you are both unfailingly courteous in your posts.! But there have been a lot of ad homs thrown about and it seems to me that they have come more from the pros than the antis. But perhaps I'm just being biased......

[cells]

need i say more

no

dam hippies

[fluffy666]

I did say by and large - and obviously I exclude your good self and others such as Steve Cook - you are both unfailingly courteous in your posts.! But there have been a lot of ad homs thrown about and it seems to me that they have come more from the pros than the antis. But perhaps I'm just being biased......

Depends on your definition of 'ad hom'.

I count blanket accusations of alarmism and hysteria as ad-homs. I count posts accusing practically the entire scientific comminity of fraud (without any evidence) as ad-homs. I count people inserting words into my mouth and then refusing to defend their actions as ad-homs.

Posting a thread subject and then refusing to debate with someone who disagrees with you is pretty discourteous, in my opinion. Especially when you are going on about the need for reason.

If some repeats a half-remembered skeptic talking point incorrectly without bothering to check if they even have the propaganda right.. (cf 'CO2 causing global cooling in the 1970s'), how am I meant to respond? 'Hey, good point, I see you put a lot of thought and effort into this?'.

Now, a question for you - do you accept that increasing the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere will increase the temperature of the planet? And if not, why not? No diversions, no evasions, no changing the subject, just answer the damm question in a straight manner.

[Authoritarian]

No, can't say I have noticed those trends.

I've noticed a trend that points to the Flat Earth Society believing a conspiracy theory whereby national governments around the world dupe their citizens and scientific communities in order just to raise taxes.

Pardon me for satirising such an eminently sensible idea.

No of course, I mean the government, for example wouldn't dupe their citizens into believing house prices only go up to help boost their coffers via stamp duty would they?

By and large the Green movement just lacks credibility.

Problem (according to the Greens);

Global temperatures are rising, icecaps are melting, sea levels are rising, unprecedent levels of CO2 being released into the the atmosphere which are going to cause a global catastrophe of the like never experienced on earth before.

Solution (according to the Greens) Ban the plastic bag. WTF???? How is that going to help in the slightest bit,a other than make life that one little but more difficult for the average person.

The greens are trying to control the very thing that may actually help matters, i.e the free market. When low energy light-bulbs first appeared in homebase they were very expensive and not worth it, now they're very affordable and are useful in reducing bills and any negligeable impact on the environment.

Edited April 8, 2008 by chefdave

[Injin]

Has anyone noticed a general trend?

Those who agree with manmade climate change frequently resort to impugning the intelligence of those who disagree.

Those who disagree with manmade climate change by and large offer their reasons why and accept that others may have a different opinion.

Certainly have.

A simple request for some evidence, or a real world problem faced by anyone in the UK that might be caused by global warming and it's toys out of the pram time.

Also the same sort of "logic" that religious fundies use - "lots of people believe", "consequences of not believing" "priests scientists say" "no one doubts the evidence who has seen it. No I don't have any to show you but that's not the point" etc etc

[corevalue]

Depends on your definition of 'ad hom'.

I count blanket accusations of alarmism and hysteria as ad-homs. I count posts accusing practically the entire scientific comminity of fraud (without any evidence) as ad-homs. I count people inserting words into my mouth and then refusing to defend their actions as ad-homs.

Posting a thread subject and then refusing to debate with someone who disagrees with you is pretty discourteous, in my opinion. Especially when you are going on about the need for reason.

If some repeats a half-remembered skeptic talking point incorrectly without bothering to check if they even have the propaganda right.. (cf 'CO2 causing global cooling in the 1970s'), how am I meant to respond? 'Hey, good point, I see you put a lot of thought and effort into this?'.

Now, a question for you - do you accept that increasing the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere will increase the temperature of the planet? And if not, why not? No diversions, no evasions, no changing the subject, just answer the damm question in a straight manner.

I came back to defend my actions (adding conditionals to your words), but you haven't replied to my answer directly. It certainly wasn't meant to be an ad-hom: I'd find different ground if I wanted to slur somebody.

One reason I like to come to these forums (fora?)) is that I get a chance to talk about the important things affecting us. I don't find this in my normal social circles - argumentative discussion about these things is considered "boring". Anyway, it's difficult: on the net I frequently have to go and look stuff up, when things are pointed out to me that I didn't know. It's just not possible to do in the bar of the Crown. The library's useless.

A final plea to Steve. Please come back, your contributions are missed.

[Methinkshe]

Now, a question for you - do you accept that increasing the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere will increase the temperature of the planet? And if not, why not? No diversions, no evasions, no changing the subject, just answer the damm question in a straight manner.

Global Warming not caused by carbon dioxide

[corevalue]

Global Warming not caused by carbon dioxide

Oh come on. He's a biologist, who no-one wants to publish! If you must have a refutation, make it a decent one!

[Bloo Loo]

Global Warming not caused by carbon dioxide

Yeah but, not but- must be Methane causing it then- silly of you not to realise it.

[Renny]

No of course, I mean the government, for example wouldn't dupe their citizens into believing house prices only go up to help boost their coffers via stamp duty would they?

By and large the Green movement just lacks credibility.

Problem (according to the Greens);

Global temperatures are rising, icecaps are melting, sea levels are rising, unprecedent levels of CO2 being released into the the atmosphere which are going to cause a global catastrophe of the like never experienced on earth before.

Solution (according to the Greens) Ban the plastic bag. WTF???? How is that going to help in the slightest bit,a other than make life that one little but more difficult for the average person.

The greens are trying to control the very thing that may actually help matters, i.e the free market. When low energy light-bulbs first appeared in homebase they were very expensive and not worth it, now they're very affordable and are useful in reducing bills and any negligeable impact on the environment.

Eer are you quite sure that the green solution to global warming is banning plastic bags? When ever I read global warming solutions they seem to be based on reducing co2 emissions. I think the plastic bag issue is promoted by G. Brown as a way of appearing to do something when infact he is doing nothing, distracting us from the real issues with politically expedient headline grabbing stunts and meaningless sound bites (no more boom and bust, edjerkayshun, edjerkayshum edjerkayshum, tough on crime tough on the causes of crime etc etc etc)