Kevin Vranes’ take on the American Geophysical Union;
To sum the state of climsci world in one word, as I see it right now, it is this: tension.
What I am starting to hear is internal backlash. Sure, science is messy and always full of tension between holders of competing positions, opinions and analyses. That has always been the nature of science, and of course extends to climate science. Tensions come out at meetings, on listservs, on letters pages, and in the press. But these tensions normally surround a particular paper, or a particular question. While much more broadly-based tensions have existed for years on the state of understanding on global warming, they haven’t really been tensions internal to the climsci community, but tensions between the climsci community and interested outsiders.
What I am sensing now is something much broader and more diffuse, something that has less to do with particular components of the science in the field and is much more about how the field is composing itself.
What I see is something that I am having a hard time labeling, but that I might call either a “hangover” or a “sophomore slump” or “buyers remorse.” None fit perfectly, but perhaps the combination does. I speak for (my interpretation) of the collective: {We tried for years – decades – to get them to listen to us about climate change. To do that we had to ramp up our rhetoric. We had to figure out ways to tone down our natural skepticism (we are scientists, after all) in order to put on a united face. We knew it would mean pushing the science harder than it should be. We knew it would mean allowing the boundary-pushers on the “it’s happening” side free reign while stifling the boundary-pushers on the other side. But knowing the science, we knew the stakes to humanity were high and that the opposition to the truth would be fierce, so we knew we had to dig in. But now they are listening. Now they do believe us. Now they say they’re ready to take action. And now we’re wondering if we didn’t create a monster. We’re wondering if they realize how uncertain our projections of future climate are. We wonder if we’ve oversold the science. We’re wondering what happened to our community, that individuals caveat even the most minor questionings of barely-proven climate change evidence, lest they be tagged as “skeptics.” We’re wondering if we’ve let our alarm at the problem trickle to the public sphere, missing all the caveats in translation that we have internalized. And we’re wondering if we’ve let some of our scientists take the science too far, promise too much knowledge, and promote more certainty in ourselves than is warranted.}
Read it all. Via Iain Murray, who also points to this BBC viewpoint by Mike Hulme, director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research;
What has pushed the debate between climate change scientists and climate sceptics to now being between climate change scientists and climate alarmists?
I believe there are three factors now at work.
First, the discourse of catastrophe is a campaigning device being mobilised in the context of failing UK and Kyoto Protocol targets to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide.
The signatories to this UN protocol will not deliver on their obligations. This bursting of the campaigning bubble requires a determined reaction to raise the stakes – the language of climate catastrophe nicely fits the bill.
Hence we now have the militancy of the Stop Climate Chaos activists and the megaphone journalism of the Independent newspaper, with supporting rhetoric from the prime minister and senior government scientists.
Others suggest that the sleeping giants of the Gaian Earth system are being roused from their millennia of slumber to wreck havoc on humanity.
Second, the discourse of catastrophe is a political and rhetorical device to change the frame of reference for the emerging negotiations around what happens when the Kyoto Protocol runs out after 2012.
The Exeter conference of February 2005 on “Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change” served the government’s purposes of softening-up the G8 Gleneagles summit through a frenzied week of “climate change is worse than we thought” news reporting and group-think.
[…]
Third, the discourse of catastrophe allows some space for the retrenchment of science budgets.
It is a short step from claiming these catastrophic risks have physical reality, saliency and are imminent, to implying that one more “big push” of funding will allow science to quantify them objectively.
We need to take a deep breath and pause.
More – The media’s lust for “climate porn”.
while every other responsible individual worries about the impact of climate change on the future of the next generation, you people use junk science as the duct tape to keep the exhaust pipe stuck to your bullshit machine.
An intersting line from ‘http://www.museum.state.il.us/exhibits/ice_ages/when_ice_ages.html’
“If “ice age” is used to refer to long, generally cool, intervals during which glaciers advance and retreat, we are still in one today. Our modern climate represents a very short, warm period between glacial advances.”
Interesting. I mean, the tree huggers talk about glacial decline. If I remember correctly, those things have been melting since they were discovered.
“Polar Bears are drowning!” OK, let’s think about that for a few seconds. PB’s swim like fish. They have an incredbily thick, oily coat that prevents them from freezing while in waters that would kill the average human in a very short time.
So, what happens? They’re in the middle of 50 square miles of ice and ‘POOF!’ – it all melts? That’s some seriously localized ‘Global Warming’.
As Rachel Marsden said the other day in the TO Sun; cow farts are the real problem.
Jeff – would you like me to send a volunteer down there to teach you how to click links?
I am very much a doubter of the climate change hypothesis. I have worked with the climate change modellers, and they admit their models do not fit past, let alone future trends of climate change.
However, I am acutaely aware that large economies in Europe, Asian and North America currently do not produce enough energy to sruvive, let alone thrive. Today our economimies and societies are critically vulnerable to energy supplies from unstable states or states that activitly promote hostilility towards western nations.
With or without climate change, I firmly believe we need to move towards greater energy secutiry in western nations.
If this movement also contributes to the reduction of greenhousew gas emissions, great!
I am very much a doubter of the climate change hypothesis. I have worked with the climate change modellers, and they admit their models do not fit past, let alone future trends of climate change.
However, I am acutaely aware that large economies in Europe, Asian and North America currently do not produce enough energy to sruvive, let alone thrive. Today our economimies and societies are critically vulnerable to energy supplies from unstable states or states that activitly promote hostilility towards western nations.
With or without climate change, I firmly believe we need to move towards greater energy secutiry in western nations.
If this movement also contributes to the reduction of greenhousew gas emissions, great!
As I’ve said before…
As more of the truth about climate change comes out …the screaming from the liars, gets louder and louder…!
kate: if i needed such help, i wouldn’t hesitate to ask you. you are, afterall, the undisputed queen.
i figured your peeps could figure out what responsible meant w/o a link though. i’m pretty good with the whole html thang actually. jeff davidson photography.ca
So jeff, tell us all about how you, a photographer, developed your strongly held and obviously expert opinion on climate change, was it Al Gore’s movie?
Also let us know how you think the politicians you favour intend to alter global weather patterns to change your anticipated “impact of climate change on the future of the next generation”.
dear anon, i figure my opinions on climate change are as valid as kate’s. why trust a dog trainer/goalie mask painter over a photographer?
The media loves to publish the most disastrous scenarios predicted and scare the shit out of the masses. Maybe if they were a little more responsible with their reporting, we wouldn’t be in this mess of exaggerating the threats of climate change. I guess some people just think that distorting the truth is okay if it scares people into action. Oh well, that’s their opinion.
“while every other responsible individual worries about the impact of climate change on the future of the next generation, you people use junk science as the duct tape to keep the exhaust pipe stuck to your bullshit machine.”
Jeff: is that supposed to be debate? Kate presents some serious sober second thought … not her own ideas, but those of well placed people, and the best you can do is come up with verbal vomit… you lost your case after your first post… personal attacks on “you people” places you in the “bigot” class … Merry Christams!
William: Nice call. It apparently took less than a minute for the frantic screaming from Toronto to happen.
I visited the Tyrell Musuem in Drumheller this summer, and at the end of the last exhibit there is a sign on the wall that reads “Species come and species go. The only constant in life on earth is change”. Deal with it.
Overall, the scientific endevor might be wearing a huge black eye if researchers do not tone down the “climate change” hysteria and come clean with the doubts in the science. The AGW proposers can not continue to ignore the data that doesn’t fit their hypothesis, and declare the matter closed “due to scientific consensus”. Science has never been about consensus. In God we trust, all others bring data. And, no…you do not get to ignore the bits that undermine your pet theory.
More worrysome, we are living in a highly technological age when few people understand how science actually works.
If the public starts viewing all scientists as whores for research money, we will all be in deep trouble when a real threat happens.
I truly wish that co2 was even 1/10th as much of a driver of climate warming as the hysterics claimed. I would really appreciate a Miocene climate right about now.
Al Gore, heh, he invented the internet, ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha! I nominate him for the tool of the decade award, although there are so many on the left that are just as deserving.
Ultimately this is about the credibility of science. As many have pointed out environmentalism has become the new dominant religion of the west complete with apocalyptic visions for the future. Many of this religion’s biggest adherents are scientists such as David Suzuki and friends.
If like Y2K the predictions of significant global warming and rising sea levels do not happen then the credibility of all science will suffer. I think many scientists are starting to realize this and becoming concerned.
Well it’s good to see the differences.On this thread I’ve heard from dipshits to debutaunts.
Let it snow!!! Somebody is gonna have some “splainin” to do.
Syncro
I’m still waiting for the MSM to write about the effects that the current El Niño is having world-wide. We see the effects in Vancouver with the high winds and in eastern Canada with the balmy weather. This is not climate change. This is a climate phase that we have known about for centuries.
“If you repeat a lie long enough then it becomes a truth” was a PROPOGANDA ploy used by the NAZIS. Seems like the doomsayers have adopted it as their strategy.
From climate cooling in the 80’s to climate warming in the 90’s and into the 2000’s with climate change. Their only constant is climate and the last variable – change – is a given since the only thing constant in nature is change. At least they got that right.
Have all the research moneys been allotted yet? Follow the money to get to the truth.
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary. – H L Mencken
“Sophomore slump” my a$$ …
A few scientists did about 1/10 of a real science experiment, got bored with all of the long, tedious measurements, calculations, publishing, criticism, re-testing, etc. that they’re allegedly trained to do, so they wrote a computer program in such a way to very quickly “confirm” their hypothesis, and ran out of their labs and straight down to the local newspaper screaming, “Eureka!”
You wouldn’t believe the bullcrap that the idiot teachers at my kids’ school are dishing out. Every single day, it’s another hysterical warning about global warming. “In a few years, Great Britain is going to disappear under the sea.” My favorite, “Everyone in North America is going to have to move to the center of the continent”. Before the Christmas Break: “You better save all your wrapping paper and use it for wrapping presents next year!” And the corker: “But if we go to Hawaii what about all the tsunamis that will happen there!!!”
So I’m showing my oldest one the real science, the physics of the greenhouse effect and the various real-world calculations (as opposed to the speculative and probably non-existent positive feedback mechanisms with which non-scientists like Al Gore and David “Experimented with Fruit Flies 25 Years Ago” Suzuki are so infatuated). And I can’t make any impression, because they teach so little real science in school, presumably because it cuts into the time they need in order to show “An Inconvenient Truth” and tell them how great it is to drive a Smart Car or a hybrid car (which none of the teachers drives, of course).
while every other responsible individual worries about the impact of climate change on the future of the next generation, you people use junk science as the duct tape to keep the exhaust pipe stuck to your bullshit machine.
As a responsible individual and a parent, I’m mildly interested in what the weather might be like tomorrow, next week, or next year. But I’m not too worried. If it’s a couple of degrees warmer or cooler I know we’ll get by no problemo. I’ll either add or subtract a few inches of mulch on my plants, and the outdoor skating season will be longer or shorter by a couple of weeks. And so on for everyone else in the world. Some will move to a different location to take advantage of new opportunities, and some will invent new ways to make do with what they’ve got. That is, if their governments allow them. What really worries me is what will happen if we give even more money and more power to would-be commie central planners who think that no one could ever build a house or plant a crop unless a gigantic, multi-tiered bureaucracy is in place to tell them how to do it, and a huge and invasive police force makes sure that they “do it right”. In that case, the forecast is terror, repression, famine, war and genocide.
When first discovered by the Norse, Newfoundland was named Vineland because of the flora and fauna they found there. It is thought that they sailed to Greenland, where they grew crops and raised cattle, in Feburary when they had prevailing winds. Try that today!
The global warming and climate change story is the paradigm of the Chicken Little fable. Very useful in a political campaign. THEY don’t care that the world is going to explode and we’re all going to die. RUN for that SAFE Liberal cave in the hills!
Global warming caused by humans is – in short bullshit. It’s all about the money.
It all comes down to what a previous poster said here is that when something real does come down the pipe and “scientists” are jumping up and down to get our attention – will we listen?
I found this the other day. It sure helped me put this whole global warming thing into perspective.
http://epw.senate.gov/repwhitepapers/6345050%20Hot%20&%20Cold%20Media.pdf
Courtesy of http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/185656.php
I found this the other day. It sure helped me put this whole global warming thing into perspective.
http://epw.senate.gov/repwhitepapers/6345050%20Hot%20&%20Cold%20Media.pdf
Courtesy of http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/185656.php
Catastrophic global warming caused by man-made greenhouse gasses brought to you by the same folks that brought you Y2K. I could use a little here in “Winterpeg”.
Justzumgai, thank you for injecting a little common sense into the debate.
If you google “mass of the solar system,” you will learn that something like 98.8% of the mass of everything within it ( small planets, gas giants, asteroid belt, gasses and comets and meteorites and clouds ) is contained within…
…the Sun.
Venus is getting warmer, and the Martian ice caps are melting.
What does that tell you?
The Sun is the master controller of weather, here, and elsewhere.
And unless you can find the thermostat on the Sun and turn it down, there’s not a dam thing anyone on Earth can do about it.
And then there’s Maude, I mean jeff, trolling for attention for his blog.
Here’s a science question for him. If a blog exists on the internet totally unread, does it make an impact?
Arrrrgggghhhh! JEFFIE! You underestimate Ms McMillan, big time. As I am a biologist for some 36 years (and something of a real photographer), climate change science is charlatan science, mostly snake oil, some science, mostly politics. You’re not even a very good photographer, mostly just a snapshooter. Mostly, you’re just ignorant.
Strange how everyone just skips over the last atmospheric crisis the hole in the Ozone layer that we averted from growing too much larger with the CFC ban when talking about past crisises. Pretty odd considering how people will bring up everything from DDT to Y2K but dance around the most relevant example because it doesn’t support their thinking.
As has been observed and reported may times here and elsewhere, climate science is new, inprecise and nebulous and hardly a science where firm communal agreements take place. There is much argument and diversity of thesis in new sciences, this one is no different.
Climate change is a fact of life on this planet. The geologic record attests to this fact of heating and cooling cycles…what is dubious are therories that man can change the natural climate cycles either for worse or better in any significant way.
One thing that got science in credibility trouble was a small faction of alarmists selling their credibility to a crass political cabal who wish to place a common inert, heat reflecting gas (CO2) as a doomsday pollutant and allow bureaucrats to tax it and profiteers to tade it for cash credits.
This in retrospect was the greatest fraud of the past century and it will take science a long time to recover the credibility lost to the tiny materialist/alarmist faction who fear mongered peak oil, ozone doom, global cooling and CO2 doomsdays so their corporate sponsors could reap short term windfall profits throug trading credit and investments in CO2 regulatory exempt nations.
To science: Please don’t come running to me telling me the sky is falling and expect me to become concerned unless you have a piece of it in your hand to prove it….and no fair painting meteorites blue and passing them off as sky chunks. 🙂 The public has been scammed by the best politics gave to offer, a little reason and fact from science is welcome.
Science is factual, methodical and seeks the truth. Politics is the art of attaining credibility where none is due and twisting the truth…the two disciplines are mutually exclusive…let’s not mix them in the climate change debate.
The biggists amout of climate change comes from AL GORE and his insane ranting i mean the whole idea of global warming is rediculous and gore should be sent to the nut house he is truly out of his mind
Jose: Perhaps the reason that not many people are not bringing up the CFC / ozone hole link is that not many people here disbelieve the science supporting it? We’re not necessarily idiots, Jose, just because we don’t believe the psuedo-science being foisted on us regarding climate change.
In your philosophy, is the populace supposed to believe everything and anything that “concerned scientists” or “the government” tells them? Shouldn’t the populace be permitted to think for themselves, or is this not permitted in your philosophy?
We are asking some basic questions of the claims of the climate alarmists and they are not being answered. The alarmists simply yell louder that we’re paid off by the oil companies…well, if that’s true, maybe they can help find my cheque, it must be missing.
People who don’t answer questions usually don’t have the answers…therefore we are justified in doubting their claims.
You can go back to previous threads on climate change and find the posting about valid questions on climate change that we’d like to have answered. If you are so certain of the science, find someone that can answer them for us…or perhaps, someone could be so kind as to re-post them here for you.
Of course, this is a rhetorical question, because I don’t think that you’ll answer the questions for us.
Yo Brian! Have you ever noticed that most (make that 99%) of the messages on this site only appear ONCE? That’s because after they hit “post”, they wait till their screen resets and, voila, their message is “posted”. You have to be patient!
Jeff said:”while every other responsible individual worries about the impact of climate change on the future of the next generation, you people use junk science as the duct tape to keep the exhaust pipe stuck to your bullshit machine.”
I’ll bet:
A) You don’t walk to work
B) Your home is comfy warm
C) You tend to jump when you hear a loud noise
D) You confuse “worry” with responsibility
Don’t be to hard on the leftovers, they do serve a purpose, mostly as useful idiots leading the way to the wrong door in life. They have served me well by always pointing out the wrong way. The louder they yell and indignantly scream displeasure the more you can be assured you are right by taking an opposing tack. I treat their views like most of the successful farmers on the prairies treated government advice on which crops to plant, do exactly the opposite and you will be just fine. It has served me well.
One must remember that most of the leftovers are government employees of form or another. They are followers not leaders so you really can’t expect useful and/or realistic advice from them.
They survive in the womb of mother government all their lives so put anything they say in it’s proper perspective, protect what I have at all costs and create whatever you must, untruthful or not, to protect my way of life. Be it government, unionist or “climate change” they are but one.
Jose,
I agree with you that it is a good example. And as the other poster indicated it was backed by strong science, which generated some alternatives and people took action…no movies, no former VP’s preaching (his lost calling)and it appears to have done the trick.
Oh sorry one problem this year, the hole got bigger….why? because the upper atmosphere was significantly COOLER. But long term predictions are that we should be back to normal in about 25 years.
Jeff, I havent seen any proof offered up of AGW…some proof of warming, but it has been warmer, the medieval warm period…which oddly corresponded to the Maunder minimum, i.e. no sun spots for a full cycle.
And the as for it getting warmer, well the sunspot cycle has been abnormally high for the past 30 years, hmmm looks like there might be a correlation, maybe a better correlation than C02 and temperature….now correlation doesnt mean causality so you better go back to more theory and then test that theory in other circumstances to see if the causality holds true in other crcumstances….Not syaing C02 has nothing to do with anything just that I really question it as the primary driver.
Now if your concern is pollution, then I am with you 100% and so would lots of others including our athsmatic Prime Minister.
It’s so frustrating to see the USA being bashed by those liberal-pinkos. Here’s a country that knows how to get things done! It knows how to solve problems even if it means getting a little bit of blood on your hands.
So what if a few innocent folks get tortured … boo hoo … the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few bleeding hearts. You can’t stand up to terror without hurting a few feelings. If you are arrested then you have obviously done something to put you under suspicion. A little torture will get the info out of you and clear you if you’ve done nothing wrong.
And that’s what the USA has done to protect the free world. It has stood up to terror. Supporting friendly dictators sometimes needs to be done in order to protect the big picture. Saddam Hussein was the right guy in the right place at the right time. He should have known his place. Same with Noriega.
Ignoring the Geneva Conventions needs to be done – who follows rules in war?! And that takes guts because you know you put your own soldiers at risk when you do that. But again, the needs of the many. The bleeding heart Red Cross volunteers shouldn’t be there in the first place. Those women and kids they are there to help would likely die anyway so stop wasting money.
Invading countries needs to be done too if it means protecting the big picture. Invading Iraq and Afghanistan has solved problems. The threat of terrorism is diminished significantly. Those who say that Saddam and al-Qaeda were not connected don’t know what they are talking about. That’s like saying Hitler and Stalin were not connected and working together.
Protecting democracy is not easy and it needs to be done. Some will criticize as found at http://www.neravt.com/left/invade.htm but they shouldn’t let the facts get in the way of appreciating that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of a few banana republics.
Strange how everyone just skips over the last atmospheric crisis the hole in the Ozone layer that we averted from growing too much larger with the CFC ban when talking about past crisises. Pretty odd considering how people will bring up everything from DDT to Y2K but dance around the most relevant example because it doesn’t support their thinking.
Whatever happened to acid rain?
Jeff and Jose:
Do you guys cover yer badass selves in leetches when you get a cold? Probably not being how that bit of “science” has evolved.
If you bother to educate yourselves rather than spew dogma from the church of climate change you might discover that some competing theories include solar cycles and even one that suggests the current warming cycle goes beyond our solar system and has more to do with a bombardment of neutrinos throughout this galaxy.
Mind you I’ve yet to see these theories postulated on the Nature of Things…. so I guess if the high priest of bullshit isn’t preachin it it must not be valid.
I suggest you two put your panties back on, go to the nearest Starbucks and have a double de-caf, soy,low sodium, latee, frappe seven dollar cup of piss.
Me… I’m gonna have another coffee a smoke and go to work.
Syncro
Er.. Dieter
Not to be offensive or anything, but what the heck does that have to do with the subject at hand?
Questions that the Proponents of the Kyoto Accord do not like to answer, or cannot give rational answers to..
Is the world’s climate continually evolving? Answer- YES
What brought about the end of every ice age to date? Answer- Global warming.
Is it true that if global warming had not occurred in the past that our lands would be covered with a thousand + feet of ice? A- Yes, absolutely.
Did humans cause the global warming that brought about the end of the previous ice ages? A- NO, as for the most part there were no humans inhabiting the planet at the time.
To what extent are we able to effect the world’s climate? A- we do not know with any degree of certainty We have no prior experience in attempting, let alone succeeding in making changes to global climatic conditions.
Would compliance by all of the signature countries to the Kyoto Agreement reduce global warming? A- YES it would, however it is most doubtful that it could reverse global warming, only slow down the rate of increase to some small and unknown amount. In any case to stop global warming would most likely be to advance the next ice age.
Is it true that recent discoveries by some British scientific researchers regarding the changes which may be occurring in the ocean currents, in the Atlantic Ocean in particular, are caused by water temperature changes occurring? A-Yes it is true. These scientific researchers installed temperature and ocean current measurement devices across the Atlantic, from early data, they believe that it may be, that such ocean current changes, EG ‘the Gulf Stream’, may in time cause and may have in past history, been the cause of Europe’s ice ages. This suggests that it may just be too early for the world to be jumping on the Kyoto band wagon and that we as a world society should do more due-diligence (scientific study) before renegotiating then implementing this extremely out of balanced agreement on world action against climate change.
Is it true that the Liberals plan for Canada to comply with the Kyoto targets involved the purchase of perhaps several billion dollars worth of “carbon credits” from some under developed Asian and European countries?- Yes it is true, EG Russia.
If Canada were to purchase “carbon credits”, would it result in lower emissions of green house gases or pollutants in Canada? Absolutely NOT.
Would it result in a reduction of global green house gas or pollution? Absolutely NOT
Would the purchase of “carbon credits” have an impact on Canada’s economy? YES, the effects would be very negative.
Is it true that many third world countries will profit financially from the Kyoto agreement whether or not there are any positive effects on climate change? A- YES it is true.
Has the IPCC considered the suggestion (hypothesis) that an accelerated melting of the Greenland ice cap could put a cover of fresh low density water over the adjacent northern ocean thereby shutting down the gulf stream, as the present salty dense cold water would not be able to drop down to bottom of the ocean, which presently allows the warm gulf to extend to the north? A- it appears not as if it is true, then global warming could shut down the N. Atlantic circulation and precipitate the next ice age. Of course then Europe might just be wanting global warming. But this is only one of many hypotheses out there.
Has the IPCC considered the evidence that there is some correlation of global temperatures to sun spot activity? No they have not, in fact they, including the likes of CBC’s Fifth Estate and Dr. Andrew Weaver from U Vic, have gone out of their way in attempting to discredit those who have studied the sun spots or every other possible rational for climate change. ”If the “science is sound” as they attempt to claim, then they should be happy to put it up to all scrutiny.
As an example some of them charged that Dr. Ball and others from the “Friends of Science,” have been funded by oil companies. Dr. Ball categorically refutes this charge as being a blatant lie.
Is it true that the only scientific group to study and track climate change for more than recent history is the geological community? A-YES
Do geologists agree with the Kyoto protocol? A-NO, most say that it is premature to take such action when the start of another ice age may be just around the corner
The vast majority of so called “climatologists’, do they have a BSc in “climatology”? No they do not, they are a mish-mash of mostly well meaning engineers, mathematicians, geneticists (like D. Suzuki), horticulturists, biologists, environmentalists, meteorologists and countless other ‘ists’. Very few are truly qualified to the extent that they should be considered experts on climate change, including David Suzuki, Al Gore, Arnold Shwartzeneger, David Anderson, Jean Cretien, Paul Martin, Jack Layton, Stephan Dion, Garth Turner and many others who talk a lot about it.
Is there a university in the world that has a graduate program leading to a BSc in “Climatology”?- Yes The first, and I believe still the only university in the world to offer a degree in climatology is the University of South Queensland in Australia.
Is Australia a member of the Kyoto Agreement? A- NO
How many of the Kyoto fear mongers were also in panic mode with the Y2K bug? Likely most of them.
How many Kyoto advocates can truly answer these questions, and how many can refute them with plausible , rational answers?
A fine question Gerry regarding relevance of the post. It’s all big picture. Democracy and the free market need to be protected from outside threats. Things need to be done to protect them. The exploitation of resources and the growth of industry also need to be protected and unrestricted. The environment is part of that big picture of course. What else is the earth here for if not for us to do what we want?
I alternate between periods of bemused fatalism and manic fanaticism. No, no…not about climate catastrophism, but about the general unwillingness of people to think! As a social factor, the ability to reason logically is near-extinct. This, combined with increasing specialization – very few today are broadly educated – means that even many scientists do not understand the limits to, and the context of, their work. To this, add consumerism and politics (Mencken saw it clearly), ego, etc. and we get our current fiasco without recourse to conspiracy theories.
I’ve spent 20 years doing eng/sci as “hard” as it gets, often in areas of complex systems (a specific field of study that looks at how systems become richer in behaviour when you combine subsystems). I am appalled by the work produced by the bulk of the climate modelling community.
A broad stream of science (NOT!), particularly the environmental, has been infected with a new paradigm – the precautionary principle. Simply put, if a negative effect can be conceived, it must be accorded equal weight with all other factors. This sounds reasonable – even scientific – when put this way, but the problem is in the application. There is an utter disregard for how uncertainties (“risk” for the economists) are treated.
The treatment of uncertainty lies at the heart of the scientific approach. Simplified, all data have two values – an upperbound and a lowerbound (best “guess” is the average). The argument in the climate change community is about the data. Many climate researchers bias the dataset by cherry-picking quantities that support their beliefs, thus undercutting the very foundations of scientific analysis. This is immoral. Many frankly agree with this assessment, but argue that their behaviour is necessary in light of the seriousness of the situation. There you have it: the end justifies the means.
Apologies for the length of the post. I’m avoiding marking exams…
No one has yet told me what is wrong with warmer weather? I notice all the golf courses are still closed til April or May.
Erwin – some people do pay attention and think. Nicely said.
“i figure my opinions on climate change are as valid as kate’s. why trust a dog trainer/goalie mask painter over a photographer?” – Jeff, the photographer?
I have work in the permanent collection of the Royal Ontario Museum, in the Canadian Graphic Design History Project, in University textbooks throughout North America, have judged major awards shows throughout the world and have garnered a lot of press and awards.
Jeff,
Qualified to speak as an expert – and having visited your site – what you call photography would not earn you a passing grade in high school. In fact, the only thing that sucks worse than your ‘photography’ is your continued failure to access what could be loosely referred to as your brain. Obviously one effects the other.
Given the general level of intelligent dialogue that goes on here, you should be grateful that Kate allows you to speak at all. You might show your thanks by attempting to be rational, if not respectful.
Jeff and Jose think they can defeat global warming by wearing fuschia ribbons.
Thanks for that, Erwin!
Jose, I think others have said it well…yes, the climate is changing, as it always changing. The question is…is it the result of man’s actions completely, mostly, in part or not at all? Not having reviewed the science in depth, I would guess “in part” or “not at all”.
Pollution? Absolutely, we should strive to reduce it as quickly as is economically feasible.
Kyoto Accord and buying carbon credits…utterly foolish and non-sensical.
Reducing CO2…only if someone can prove that it is “pollution”. To me, it’s as much pollution as nitrogen is.
Kyoto is over in 2012. Are all the envirowackos aware of that fact. As nothing has been done by the liberals to implement it, how could 4 years solve any problems. When this farce was written, what did the authors plan for 2013. Everything would be solved, the treasury would be depleted buying credits from china etc,(thru Strong and friends) and Canadas economy would be reduced to that of Afganistan. Dion better come up with a better plan, for the next election as global warming will not work. With the death of the only unelected US president, (sorry, it isn’t Bush) lots is being written about his term in office. How many are aware that Pres. Ford is the main reason Canada is a member of the G8. He fought for us long and hard, against great opposition to our being a member from France. Why is dions country always against Canada. Does that mean dion is also against Canada. Very happy to see the results of the Angus Reid poll showing the majority of cdns do not think dion will be our next PM. Wonder why the cbc isn’t mentioning that over and over.
Whether global warming is happening or its just a convenient excuse to justify funding for research is a debate that can rage on for years.
However, the one debate that needs to come front and center is whether the UN plan for creating a global currency and regulating it has a great many pitfalls and dangers.
Most notably is that of who is deciding how many “credits” get issued. What prevents the issuer from using insider info to falsely inflate or deflate the value of the “so-called” credits to manipulate the profits?
Lets say the issuer is the same one that complies and releases the reports that indicate if the so-called emitters knows in advance that they won’t meet their targets, won’t that increase the “market” demand? We saw what happens with companies like Worldcom and Nortel when insider info does not benefit the shareholders.
Thats the problem with an emmission trading market. It doesn’t actually encourage the reduction (hence the devaluation of the credits) it encourages the trading.
Without the value (unreachable targets) the so-called credits have no value.
Would that be the real reason everyone of the Kyoto boosters was po’d at Ambrose? Her statements basically created a depression in the carbon trading market.
Follow the money.
isnt this cycle hauntingly familiar.
http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/virtualmuseum/climatechange2/03_3.shtml
a little “dryas” and the likes of suzuki and gore would be tarred and feathered. crop failures are mitigated by cheap transportation in the short term, the 20th century being the first time mass cheap transportation was capable of sustaining a population anywhere. a 10 or 20 year dryas and the whole structure breaks down. you would have a 21century much worse than the “calamitous 14th century” described in “A distant mirror” almost all based on poor agricultural performance and cooler , not cold weather.