talkmagic.co.uk

It was quite good. It just came as a bit of a shock going from light hearted frippery to a Daily Mail inspired rant in a matter of seconds.

Dara OBrian who was on later on in the evening actually commented on how both the audience and all the acts back stage were all kind of put on the back foot by such a change of tone

I believe water vapour is a significantly more effective greenhouse gas than CO2 as well.

I used to be firmly in the "it's nothing to do with us" camp based on the fact that the media so love a disaster. I've read a dew (very few) papers from both sides and have decided that the best bet is to wait an see; it is quite true that the vast majority of people (i.e. everyone except the few thousand real climate scientists) are arguing from a position of ignorance so there is little point listening to them.

As for "fixing" things, if we take the scenario that any recent global climate change is anthropogenic, then the way to fix it is not to reduce the rate at which we are adding CO2 to the atmosphere but to stop adding it altogether. Obviously, if we want to live in heated homes and get anywhere more than a few miles away from them, this is not possible. If, on the other hand, we are not responsible then it is also not possible to "fix" the environment.

So we may as well do whatever we can to reduce the cost to ourselves without making our lives too uncomfortable.

Either way, I could do with a bit of feckin' Global Warming now. Forget future generations, a bit less snow please.

Grimshaw wrote:
I've read the same thing. Methane is considerably more damaging to the atmosphere than CO2, yet no-one seems concerned with methane.

Yes people are concerned about methane. When carbon foot-printing or carrying out life cycle analysis there are standard conversions for methane emissions to 'CO2 equivalent'. Having said this and having had some peripheral experience of the methods, I'm not 100% convinced of the value of carbon foot-printing.

Regarding the broader debate - I'm a scientist, as such, I fully accept that I have limits to my knowledge in my own field let alone someone else's field. When 2000 eminent climate change scientists conclude (through the IPPC) that "“reducing emissions of greenhouse gases to stabilize their atmospheric concentrations would delay and reduce damages caused by climate change”. I listen. Call me a sheep, call me feeble minded but I do not presume to understand climate change better than experts in their field.

Here endeth the rant

Craig.

Didn't 30,000 scientists all link up to sue Al Gore for his ' documentary ' An Inconvenient Truth, since most of it was complete balderdash?

I think if the climate change scientists were communicating through the IPCC, they wouldn't dare say anything against the man made global warming theory.

That's the problem though isn't it? Money is a motivation, and science is a curious beast.

You are rather implying that no climate change scientists have any sense of ethical conduct and that they are purely motivated by funding. As someone that applies for research grants I can say on a personal level that this is not the way that I would behave but then I perhaps have a higher opinion of the majority of scientists than some

The IPPC does include climate change scientists that do not subscribe to mainsteam thinking on the topic. The royal society of chemistry published a good crib-sheet on climate change available here http://royalsociety.org/uploadedFiles/Royal_Society_Content/News_and_Issues/Science_Issues/Climate_change/climate_facts_and_fictions.pdf

As for the 30,000 scientists sueing Al Gore, I've never heard of this. Could be true, could be mis-information. The link above also refers to some of the dodgy lobbying that undoubtedly goes on. What's the source and what is the background of the scientists? Are they climate change scientists?

Don't get me wrong, the IPPC could all end up being wrong, it's happened before, but as someone with no hope of EVER TRULY understanding the underlying science - I'll trust the experts.

Craig.

cragglecat wrote:You are rather implying that no climate change scientists have any sense of ethical conduct and that they are purely motivated by funding.

I'm saying if it were me, and I'm an alright kind of chap, i certainly wouldn't present any evidence to the contrary if it meant i would be put out of a job because of that evidence. Or rather, i'd find a way to discredit the evidence.

The 30,000 scientists were headed by John Coleman who founded the weather channel. They wanted to have a debate about global warming but Gore and the IPCC said that the debate was over so refused. Coleman and the rest hoped that by mounting a legal challenge they would gain publicity and Gore would relent.

The reason you haven't heard of it is because in America Coleman and his bunch couldn't even get on the air about it. Fox News were the only ones that ran the story, none of the others wanted to know.
Journalism eh? Who needs a rounded argument?

Grimshaw wrote:The reason you haven't heard of it is because in America Coleman and his bunch couldn't even get on the air about it. Fox News were the only ones that ran the story, none of the others wanted to know.
Journalism eh? Who needs a rounded argument?

The reason you've not heard about it is because it did not happen. Coleman suggested suing Gore and achieved some headlines for his viewpoint. He did not actually sue Gore, which demonstrates a lack of commitment that somewhat detracts from his argument.

Grimshaw wrote:I'm saying if it were me, and I'm an alright kind of chap, i certainly wouldn't present any evidence to the contrary if it meant i would be put out of a job because of that evidence. Or rather, i'd find a way to discredit the evidence.

Thank God you are not a scientist, then. It is not a matter of being an "alright kind of chap" or protecting your career. It is about conducting science professionally.

Scientists are supposed to hypothesise and then try to disprove their theory. If they cannot disprove it then they present their work as a theory worthy of consideration. Check out the Introduction to scientific method on Wikipedia, and pay particular attention to the fourth point. I won't quote it here because it won't make any sense in isolation from the other three points.

I am quite shocked by how many people think that scientists will only publish results which will guarantee funding. It might be the case that some partisan bodies will only fund research which will get the "right" results but I'm pretty sure that most universities have a higher standards than this as can be seen from the fact that there are papers out there which seem to show another side to this complex system.

The problem actually comes with the media and public perception; the governments have an agenda which is helped by climate change, the media get good response from doom-mongering with the occasional bit of light relief and the public assume the worst of everyone. This means that the hardcore deniers say that the evidence against climate change is not published because of money whilst the hardcore eco evangelists say it doesn't exist at all.

In fact, I would be surprised if there were than a hundred or so people in the entire world who have read and understood the majority of evidence from both sides; they are the only ones qualified to sum up the situation, but I would expect them to be far to busy! Even those conscientious scientists out there working in the field will only know the details that relate to their small part of the story and so will have a biased view of the whole.

I know I haven't got the time or inclination to wade through the whole lot so I rely on the news and take what I hear with a pinch of salt whilst acknowledging that, somewhere in the tales of impending death and destruction, there was probably a core of good science.

Couldn't agree more with the last two posts.

Craig.

nickj wrote:I know I haven't got the time or inclination to wade through the whole lot so I rely on the news and take what I hear with a pinch of salt whilst acknowledging that, somewhere in the tales of impending death and destruction, there was probably a core of good science.

I completely agree with much of the above posts, in particular that the experts are the experts for a reason. That said however I also like to make sure that my opinion is based on more than just the opinion of others/the majority, so do try to get at least an understanding of both sides of any given arguement. As Einstein said - Never stop questioning.

It's what makes us unique as a species.

The particular bone of contention that I have with this issue is that I find this very difficult to achieve. I may have just been looking in the wrong places but it is rare to come across studies that are "in response to" pieces from the anti-co2 group. It seems we are largely told to shut up, pay more tax and believe that the world is being destroyed by pollution.

As I said I love the scientific method, I think it is exceptionally important that this is properly applied. I will happily change my opinion on the matter once it is clarified and it is probably this lack of clarification that causes many people to not "buy in" to the idea that co2 emissions have a quantifiable impact on the climate, especially as politicians seem far from convinced themselves as can be seen in their policy to levy tax for "green reasons" and then spend it on something completely different, while at the same time continuing to burn fossil fuels jetting around the world to conferences. Skype anyone?

If any layperson should be in a position to assess the real dangers of global warming it should be the world leaders who are directly advised by the scientists in the know. Their reaction implies either they do not care about it or they do not believe it is as big a threat as we are led to believe.

Either way it's hard to take the matter as a serious threat if they don't...

Regarding global warming, in Athens we've had during December and until now an average of 18-20 degrees (Celcius) ! Yes Greece is a rather warm country but it's never been like that. the typical for this period is 7-10 degrees.

It's been a fascinating thread. Can I ask a key question here? Regardless of what you believe about climate change, how did you arrive at that belief?

There's no punchline. It's a serious question.

Tomo wrote:It's been a fascinating thread. Can I ask a key question here? Regardless of what you believe about climate change, how did you arrive at that belief?

There's no punchline. It's a serious question.

I think my posts make this reasonably clear for me but I am happy to try and clarify further if you would like?