Article by on climate change by James Lovelock

[gunslinger]

Temperatures in Britain are not a good proxy for global temperatures.

If anybody wants to know about the scientific background, do a search for posts mentioning "climate change" or "AGW" by me - I've been over this ground about a million times before, and frankly I'm sick to death of arguing about it. If you really want to understand the matter, you'll need an undergraduate degree in climate science, followed by a suitable Masters degree. If you want to revise the science, you'd probably best have a relevant PhD. Oh dear, there I go being all elitist again...

I'm curious as to which other sciences people think they understand better than the specialists? Perhaps some of the "skeptics" would care to devote their obviously remarkable scientific insight to some of the other great questions of science... A proof of the Reiman Hypothesis, perhaps? Maybe the Unified Field Theory that physicists have been searching for for the last six decades?

The arguement is not whether the climate is changing but rather what is the cause.
Prof Bob Carter is highly qualified and respected scientist and his claims and evidence make sense.
The human carbon production cause may well have some effect but in comparison to the natural cycle,which seems to be provable,its effect is minimal.
Ie. It will happen with or without fossil fuels etc.
Just my opinion.

GS

 

[BigShot]

Temperatures in Britain are not a good proxy for global temperatures.

If anybody wants to know about the scientific background, do a search for posts mentioning "climate change" or "AGW" by me - I've been over this ground about a million times before, and frankly I'm sick to death of arguing about it. If you really want to understand the matter, you'll need an undergraduate degree in climate science, followed by a suitable Masters degree. If you want to revise the science, you'd probably best have a relevant PhD. Oh dear, there I go being all elitist again...

I'm curious as to which other sciences people think they understand better than the specialists? Perhaps some of the "skeptics" would care to devote their obviously remarkable scientific insight to some of the other great questions of science... A proof of the Reiman Hypothesis, perhaps? Maybe the Unified Field Theory that physicists have been searching for for the last six decades?

You would be quite right if this was a matter of an actual consensus where the entire scientific community was in agreement that climate change was anthropogenic and the skeptics were all lay people who thought they knew better... but of course that's not even remotely the case.

The reality is that there is no consensus in the scientific community, and that many relevantly qualified scientists do not agree that climate change is anthropogenic.

This kind of thread is not lay people pretending they know better than relevantly qualified scientists, but lay people discussing the work of relevantly qualified scientists in lay terms - two drastically different things and to make the sarcastic questions about Reiman and UFT is somewhat unfriendly and unproductive.

As lay people we look at things in another way.
We (or at very least, I, but I don't believe I'm the only one by a long shot) listen to the arguments presented by both sides, do some reading around that, and then see which side has more internal consistency and consistency with the facts we see around us.
I am quite firm in my opinion that the sceptic argument (when coming from relevantly qualified scientists) holds far more logic and consistency than the anthropogenic argument.

No, I don't hold relevant degrees or doctorates, but that does not render me incapable of following the debate with a reasonably high level of understanding and forming my own opinion about it. It doesn't render me incapable of having a discussion with other lay people about it either, no matter what their level of understanding may be.

I've yet to see anyone in this thread claim an incredibly deep knowledge of the situation, but there have been some very sensible and reasonable comments.

I don't believe the tone of your comment was even vaguely reasonable or justified.

Good day.

 

[gregorach]

Prof Bob Carter is a highly qualified and respected geologist. Would you ask a plumber to fix your car?His claims and "evidence" may appear to make sense to a layman, but that doesn't mean they actually do. However, I'm not watching some YouTube vid at work, and frankly I have better things to do with my spare time at home than debunk some crank for your benefit.

 

[gregorach]

The reality is that there is no consensus in the scientific community, and that many relevantly qualified scientists do not agree that climate change is anthropogenic.

Name some. Not geologists, meteorologists, physicists, botanists, or lawyers - climateologists.

 

[gregorach]

Oh, and Bob Carter has a history of plotting the wrong data and outrageous cherry picking.

 

[locum76]

if anyone is interested in being present at an actual live discussion on food security and preparing for the COMBINED effects of climate change and peak oil, the soil association are hosting a few events in scotland.

10 Feb 09 - Aberdeen - Scottish Agricultural College
11 Feb 09 - Inverness - Culduthel Hall
17 Feb 09 - Dumfries & Galloway - Dumfries Rugby Club
18 Feb 09 - Borders - Selkirk Rugby Club
24 Feb 09 - Falkland - Falkland Centre for Stewardship
25 Feb 09 - Glasgow - Glasgow Quaker Meeting House
26 Feb 09 - Edinburgh - Friends' Meeting House


each event starts at 7.45 and you get a cup of tea and a biscuit. check the soil association website for details and bookings.

 

[BigShot]

I'm making this post but refusing to be drawn into debate - I don't have the time or inclination.


Climateologists - many of whom have an income which relies on the continuation of the anthropogenic argument right?

"No, it's not caused by man."
"Oh great, we can stop spending so much money on it now."
"But, that means I'll lose my job."
"Yes, there's nothing left for you to do now. Sorry."
"Oh bugger."

I'm most certainly not saying that is the case - but of course, it most certainly consitiutes a conflict of interest - or do climateologists not have families to feed, mortgages and bills to pay?


That said.
Reid Bryson - deceased, former emeritus professor of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences. (made a statement to say our current warming trend is a result of exiting the little ice age and so a pre-inductrial revolution phenomenon)

George Kukla, retired Professor of Climatology at Columbia University (he believed man played some part but it was mainly natural)

Marcel Leroux, former Professor of Climatology, Université Jean Moulin (believes the anthropogenic factor is the least credible of all possibilities for causes of climate change)

Tim Patterson, paleoclimatologist and Professor of Geology at Carleton University in Canada (believes there is no corrolation between CO2 levels and temperature)

Fred Singer, Professor emeritus of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia (greenhouse effect exists but has minute effect and warming is not a bad thing)


There are others who claim the cause is still unknown. I've also for the most part stuck to your stipulation that I only list climateologists, I've left out other related fields which would have made the list considerably longer.

 

[BigShot]

locum - looks like fun. A bit far to travel though.

 

[locum76]

for the record - Timothy Ball (PhD), climatologist - denies anthropogenic influence on climate change.

look him up on wiki.

hey dunc, i just thought i'd give you something to chat about.

 

[Oblio13]

Bob Carter volunteers a lot of opinions to the media, but climate change isn't his field, and he's not known for doing any actual research.

The overwhelming scientific consensus is that we are experiencing an unprecedented rise in greenhouse gases, and that human activity is the cause. I think it takes willful ignorance to dispute either of those assertions.

I've been a professional pilot flying all over the world for several decades, and I've long been struck by two observations:

1. At night, there are very few places on earth without a remarkable number of lights.

2. I've always had a thing for Glacier National Park. I've personally watched it go from lots of glaciers to almost no glaciers.

 

[BigShot]

Oblio...
Point 1> It's a shame, I'd love darker skies for stargazing.
Point 2> While it's a shame the glaciers are melting, it could be (at least) just as easilly be a result of natural warming as anthropogenic warming (and possibly more so).

Of course, some glaciers aren't retreating, and some are gaining mass. Makes you wonder.

 

[Oblio13]

for the record - Timothy Ball (PhD), climatologist - denies anthropogenic influence on climate change.

look him up on wiki...

Have you looked him up on Wiki?

It says he's "viewed as a paid promoter of the agenda of the oil and gas industry rather than as a practicing scientist”, and describes how he's blatantly lied about his qualifications and credentials on several occasions.

 

[gregorach]

Climateologists - many of whom have an income which relies on the continuation of the anthropogenic argument right?

Whereas no-one has any fiducuary interest is the opposite point of view, right? And none of those guys could earn more money elsewhere...

That said.
Reid Bryson - deceased, former emeritus professor of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences. (made a statement to say our current warming trend is a result of exiting the little ice age and so a pre-inductrial revolution phenomenon)

George Kukla, retired Professor of Climatology at Columbia University (he believed man played some part but it was mainly natural)

Marcel Leroux, former Professor of Climatology, Université Jean Moulin (believes the anthropogenic factor is the least credible of all possibilities for causes of climate change)

Tim Patterson, paleoclimatologist and Professor of Geology at Carleton University in Canada (believes there is no corrolation between CO2 levels and temperature)

Fred Singer, Professor emeritus of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia (greenhouse effect exists but has minute effect and warming is not a bad thing)


There are others who claim the cause is still unknown. I've also for the most part stuck to your stipulation that I only list climateologists, I've left out other related fields which would have made the list considerably longer.

Actually, only two of those are climatologists (and they're both retired). Reid Bryson, Tim Patterson, and Fred Singer are not climatologists. Fred Singer in particular is a notorious crank-for-hire, whose previous hits included denying that smoking causes cancer, that CFC deplete ozone, that UV exposure causes skin cancer, and that asbestos is bad for you. He hasn't done any real science since the early 1970s.

 

[BigShot]

Of course, both sides have people who's income relies on the debate.
It's just a point that's important to keep in mind.

However, while those arguing to deny would lose their job too, it might be said to say something about them that they are arguing in spite of their potential loss of income if they succeed as opposed to arguing in order to keep it.

We're still in a situation where the only data we have begins just after a minimum and so any directly observed data, no matter how valid and non-cherry-picked is going to be problematic.

I remain open minded but utterly unconvinced.

 

[gregorach]

The greatest possible result in science is to overturn an existing body of knowledge. That's every scientist's dream. It's the stuff Nobel prizes are made of.

Funnily enough, Skeptico has just posted a pretty good meta-post on the subject: Global Warming Denial.

OK BigShot, let me ask you one thing: what sort of evidence would it take to convince you?

 

[gregorach]

And for a reasonable overview of the state of the science, with particular regard to the most common "sceptical" arguments, the New Scientist has a pretty good run-down.

 

[British Red]

I think there are several levels to this

A)
There is a level of acceptance that says "I acknowledge or dispute that the climate is changing"

If A is seen as true there is another debate that says

B)
I acknowledge that the climtae is changing but do / do not believe that this is a man made occurence

if it is believed to be man made there is then an argument that says

C)
I believe that it is / is not possible to change the manmade cause of global warming sufficiently to make a siginifcant difference

Even if C is held to be true there is them a further debate that says

D)
I believe that not only is it possible but that there is sufficient consensus in all countries in the globe to bring about the possible reduction

If D is true there is then a discussion to be had that says

E)
I believe that climate change is a bad thing and the net effect of halting emissions is less damaging than continuing them


It is important to acknowledge that if one holds A to be true that it does not follow that B through E are true (or are held to be true by the person that you are discussing the issue with)

It equally follows that even if all these things are held to be true, they may not be deemed to be the largest crisis facing the planet and therefore not of the utmost priority to resolve (this indeed is my own view)

Red

 

[Husky]

"No, it's not caused by man."
"Oh great, we can stop spending so much money on it now."

I believe that this is may be a large part of the resent rise in scepticism.
Faced with the prospect of a terrible future and a need to take some very uncomfortable action it is a known trait of the human psyche to grab the easiest way out that is offered.
Somebody telling you it may not be true is a great exit.
Think about it. When did you stop worrying and become a convinced sceptic?
Very few were true sceptics one year ago...


And with that statement I go from member to Tenderfoot.
Time for some cake!

 

[Oblio13]

... Global Warming Denial ...

Good article, thanks for posting it.

I try to be open-minded on all subjects, and to follow the facts wherever they lead. When someone quotes an "authority", I habitually do a little internet research to see who's paying him and if he as a personal or political agenda. What I notice over and over on this particular subject is that the skeptics keep quoting the same old discredited claims by the same fake experts.

 

[locum76]

Have you looked him up on Wiki?

It says he's "viewed as a paid promoter of the agenda of the oil and gas industry rather than as a practicing scientist”, and describes how he's blatantly lied about his qualifications and credentials on several occasions.

totally, i did read the wiki. I completely believe that global warming is happening and it is partly anthrpogenic. I just posted about T.B. for balance, and frankly to see if anyone noticed what you did. also i was just winding gregorach up who is a close friend, so thats okay. i think.