Global warming another farce?

[Jay.Jay]

By the way, you might be interested in an OpEd written by a climate change scientist in Australia after The Great Global Warming Swindle was broadcast here. It was published on July 14, 2007.

The Gobal Warming Paradox

Ben McNeil

As a climate change scientist, I must thank Martin Durkin for making The Great Global Warming Swindle. Thanks, also, to the ABC for screening it last night. Both actions unwittingly make it far more likely that my colleagues and I will be better funded.

Let me explain, because I'm pretty sure the film was intended to have the opposite effect. It's all about one of the film's central assertions, that scientists have conspired en masse to say global warming is occurring and the principal cause is human activity - to selfishly garner more research funding.

In all the great scientific challenges of our time, funding is allocated towards diagnosis or cure. The two are strongly independent of one another. Propagating scientific uncertainty leads to more funding towards diagnosing a problem rather than developing cures - such as clean energy technologies or a carbon emissions trading schemes. This is not a hypothetical argument. All over the world, climate science funding is correlated to how sceptical governments are.

When the notable climate change sceptic George Bush took office in the US, he quickly formed the Climate Change Research Initiative. This new initiative specifically aimed to "reduce the uncertainties of climate change science". The Bush Administration has spent nearly $US1billion on this initiative, which instead could have gone towards funding greenhouse solutions.

In Europe, where governments have more readily accepted the scientific diagnosis, developing clean energy is the priority.

The lesson climate scientists could take from this if they wanted to act in their interests is that exaggerating uncertainties will be far more fruitful for their careers - and yet they are urging that funding be found for climate solutions.

Remember the debate about the ozone hole? Scientists in the 1980s crystallised world attention by measuring a widening hole in the ozone layer. Through more diagnostic research it was found that chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) used in refrigerators were the cause.

At the peak of that debate, sceptics rallied around the conspiracy flag, suggesting ozone scientists were out to boost their research coffers. Yet those same scientists were urging support for the Montreal Protocol banning the use of CFCs as refrigerants. As a result, CFCs were phased out. The refrigerant industry evolved with little economic effect by using an alternative compound. Those hurt the most were the ozone scientists - no more government funding for them because the problem was solved.

For me, the real swindle of the documentary screened last night was Durkin's resort to playing the man, not the ball, by demonising scientists themselves.

Just as cancer researchers want government programs to lower the smoking rate, climate scientists want strong solutions on greenhouse emissions. This may not be acting in our immediate professional self-interest, but it does make it more likely that our livelihood - and that of documentary makers - will have a future.

 

[RationalLunacy]

October 5, 2007. Today's predicted high in Amish-land: 88º F.

No global warming. *sigh*

 

[Kyanimal]

Now you're splitting hairs - anthropogenic carbon emissions as a cause of global temperature rises is a theory; global temperature rises themselves are a fact. Just because you want the term 'global warming' to refer only to the theory and not to the underlying observation doesn't make it so. Theories and facts are distinct. Theories undergo development and change over time. New evidence is discovered that supports them, or falisifies them, and this evidence is incorporated into the body of scientific knowledge. 'Water boils at 100 °C 1t 101.3 kPa of pressure' is a fact, and it will not change. I did not assert that it is impossible for global warming to be caused by something other than anthropogenic carbon emissions. However, this theory as to the cause of global warming is well supported with evidence, and there is no competing theory with anything like the same evidence base.

Granted ... we do not KNOW! Until a Theory is proven as Fact, it's still just a Theory! (Eventhough it may be a very educated one!) But ... is the Only "Home" that we have worth "guessing" about? Or ... should we go with the "educated", "obvious", "best guesses" we have so far?

We have the ability to completely obliterate all of LIFE, on Our Planet, at the drop of a "wrong guess"! (Cuban missle crisis ... what? Just one of many ...)

So ... are you willing to bet the entire "pot" on highly financed, private interests, that in their self-fulfilling goals, are willing to blindly influence our own perceptions of what may be against OUR Own self-interests?

Think, for Yourself, about it! ...

Just sayin' ...

Keep smilin'!!
Chaz

 

[Kyanimal]

By the way, you might be interested in an OpEd written by a climate change scientist in Australia after The Great Global Warming Swindle was broadcast here. It was published on July 14, 2007.

The Gobal Warming Paradox

Ben McNeil

Ben's prime argument is that ALL Scientists are mainly focused on Funding? Money is their entire, central, motivation?

I would wonder ... who is funding Him???

Check the Source of your sources!

And, just as an aside ... hmmm ... Money vs. Life?! Well ...

Keep smilin'!!
Chaz

 

[Finn]

Theories and facts are distinct. Theories undergo development and change over time. New evidence is discovered that supports them, or falisifies them, and this evidence is incorporated into the body of scientific knowledge. 'Water boils at 100 °C 1t 101.3 kPa of pressure' is a fact

Yeah right,
And we still have 9 planets in our solar system, right?

 

[Jay.Jay]

Kyanimal, I don't know why you're trying to persuade me that something should be done about our carbon emissions. I think the evidence that they are causing global warming is strong. As a consequence, I believe (as a matter of policy) that we should act.

However, I have to disagree with the start of your post. Theories are not proven, nor do they ever become fact - on that point, I have to agree with Finn. The evidence in support of a theory may be overwhelming, but that doesn't make it a fact, because to say it is a fact is to deny that it could be falsified. Scientists must always recognise and acknowledge that some future discovery may disprove a theory. To reject the possibility that a theory can be falsified requires elevating belief over evidence - at which point it ceases to be science and becomes faith.

 

[star-warrior]

Coal, oil and gas are hydrocarbon rich sources of energy. They derive from fossilisation and transformation of plant matter millions of years ago. In burning any of these materials, energy is released.

They are stores of energy rich materials which is steadily depleting over time as we use it up. In the process of using it up, we release heat into the surroundings. And in the burning, waste gases are given off, depending on the efficiency of the burning, for example carbon dioxide (CO2), carbon monoxide (CO), water vapour in the form of steam (H20) and possibly other by products of burning complex hydrocarbons.

If man burns fuels, he releases these gases and by products, thereby adding to the overall background emissions by breathing and animal and plant waste decomposition. It would be silly to say otherwise. If man didn't use fossil fuels at all, then there wouldn't be that addition of the ancient hydrocarbons into the modern atmosphere.

 

[Jay.Jay]

Yeah right,
And we still have 9 planets in our solar system, right?

Pluto's existence is a fact. The IAU's definitions of what constitutes a planet are not facts.

 

[RationalLunacy]

Global warming opens up Northwest Passage

The Northwest Passage was for centuries the Holy Grail of seaborne exploration, with navigators such as Cabot, Bering and Vancouver trying to open up an Arctic sea lane from Europe to Asia.
Now with global warming, melting sea ice has opened that sea lane, and it has started a round of international wrangling over new trading routes.
The European Space Agency says Arctic sea ice melted to a record low this summer - making the Northwest Passage fully navigable for the first time since monitoring began 30 years ago.
The director of the Swedish Space Agency, Per Tergen, says this will halve the distance of shipping routes between Europe and Asia.
"It's clear that Europe and east Asia will be closer to each other this way," he said.
The European Space Agency says sea ice is down to three million square kilometres - less than the previous record low of four million square kilometres in 2005.
The National Ice and Snow Data Centre in the US has also been monitoring the shrinking of summer sea ice in the Arctic.
The centre's Dr Walt Meier says this summer has seen record low ice coverage.
"This year there's a whole pretty substantial region about the size of the state of California that had been covered by sea ice every single day that we've been monitoring it since the late 1970s until this year. That now has disappeared," he said.
Maritime law expert from the Australian National University, Professor Donald Rothwell, says ships may be travelling through the Northwest Passage as early as next year.
"The evidence seems to suggest that the melting of the Arctic sea ice is occurring so rapidly, that it's inevitable, I think, that commercial interests will begin to look at navigation through the Northwest Passage very soon," he said.
"It will be possible to do so with ice-strengthened vessels, so you don't necessarily need to have an ice-breaker class vessel to do so.
"There are many vessels which are certainly ice-strengthened, and that would suggest that commercially this will be explored, perhaps in the coming season."
But the melting sea-ice is already causing international disputes.
The US and the European Union say the Northwest Passage falls within international waters, but as it winds through the Canadian Arctic archipelago, Canada is claiming sovereignty over the route.
In July, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper announced a plan to patrol the Passage with ships.
Professor Rothwell says a resolution will need to be found.
"There's nothing which would suggest that the Canadians would send out their warships to actually prohibit passage through those waters, but rather I think they would say, well yes, you can pass through our waters, but under very, very strict environmental conditions," he said.
"And those environmental conditions are ones that not all vessels may be able to meet.
"That would ultimately perhaps be the significant bone of contention between the Canadians and its neighbours, who might be seeking to transit though these waters."
And the diplomatic wrangling doesn't just extend to new shipping routes. The melting ice opens the potential for undersea gas and oil explorations in the Arctic.
Russia last month caused a stir when it sent two submarines to plant its national flag on the seabed under the North Pole.
"I think it's inevitable that there's going to be a number of competing claims being made to the seabed in the Arctic Ocean over the coming years," Professor Rothwell said.
"This is a matter, however, that eventually will get partially resolved by the International Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf - that's a UN organisation, which meets in New York.
"And so there's more than likely going to be a diplomatic process which will result in something of a carving up of the seabed of the Arctic Ocean, which could probably take as long as 10 years, until such time as the various claims have been asserted, and the credibility of those claims verified by the UN."


[source]

 

[Jay.Jay]

Ben's prime argument is that ALL Scientists are mainly focused on Funding? Money is their entire, central, motivation?

No. Ben's prime argument is that whilst there is a dispute about cause, funding will continue to be spent on investigating causes. He is arguing that scientists are NOT motivated by funding, because if they were, they would try to ensure that the debate continues. They are doing the opposite, arguing that we have very good evidence concerning cause, and that we should move our efforts to amelioration of the problem.

 

[Finn]

Pluto's existence is a fact. The IAU's definitions of what constitutes a planet are not facts.

In your view of things, five years ago, if I had challenged the then widely held belief that we have 9 planets in our solar system, you would have attacked me exactly in the same way.

 

[RationalLunacy]

^ Yeah, I don't which is worse, the religious or scientific communities; all doom, gloom and woe.

Personally, I blame it on the Maya.

Their calendar ends in 2012 -- it's their fault.

 

[Jay.Jay]

In your view of things, five years ago, if I had challenged the then widely held belief that we have 9 planets in our solar system, you would have attacked me exactly in the same way.

If you had argued that Pluto might cease to be considered a planet because the term 'planet' might be re-defined, I wouldn't have had a problem. If you'd argued that Pluto didn't exist, I would have had a problem. As I said before, the former is a matter of definition; the latter is not.

Challenge beliefs or question theories all you like. I'd prefer you did it with evidence, but that is your choice. But it is not reasonable to treat facts as though they are up for debate, because they aren't.

Returning to your original topic:

FACT (not open to debate): Global temperatures are rising.

FACT: Atmospheric carbon dioxide levels are rising.

HYPOTHESIS (amenable to scientific investigation): The rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide are the principal cause of global temperature rises.

THEORY (open to debate): Increased atmospheric carbon dioxide levels produce a Greenhouse Effect by trapping heat that would otherwise have been radiated into space, thereby causing the temperature to rise.

If we accept this theory, we can move on to investigate other questions, such as:
Is the amount of additional heat trapped sufficient to explain the observed temperature change?
To what extent can the changes in temperature be attributed to other known causes of warming, such as increased solar activity?

My evaluation of the existing evidence is that this theory is supported by considerable evidence, that the hypothesis is reasonable, and that no competing explanation has yet produced convincing evidence in favour of an alternative capable of explaining the observed facts. Yes, there are natural variations in heating and cooling cycles, but the present changes are well beyond any such variations that have been previously established. Yes, solar activity influences temperature, but the activity required for the size and speed of the present changes is unprecedented, and no decent evidence for such changes in solar activity has been presented. Unless these situations change by the presentation of new evidence or by the falsification of theory, there seems little reason to doubt that human activity is the cause of global warming.

As for the potetial impacts of global warming - the extent of ice melt, sea level rises due to changes in average oceanic temperatures, variations in climate due to changes in currents, occurences of extreme weather events, changes in rainfall patterns, etc - here we are into an area of modelling fraught with imprecision and complexity. Our ability to predict changes in such complex and chaotic systems is limited, and for this reason we should be very careful in making claims as to likely effects. In this regard, the most recent IPCC report was deliberately restrained, and did not present the sort of doomsayer scenarios so loved by the media.

 

[Finn]

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

 

[Finn]

My evaluation of the existing evidence is that this theory is supported by considerable evidence, that the hypothesis is reasonable, and that no competing explanation has yet produced convincing evidence in favour of an alternative capable of explaining the observed facts.

Just because no competing evidence has produced an alternative explanation doesn't mean there isn't one.

 

[Orlandude]

I don't claim to know a single thing about this subject, however, just the other day The Weather Channel did a feature on this whole matter as part of a discussion about hurricane activity and its relation to any global warming in the Atlantic basin. Even though I live in a hurricane-prone area of the country, the feature made me realize how little I knew about hurricanes. According to the National Hurricane Center, "global warming" plays a very small role, if any, in hurricane formation, intensity and/or frequency. In order for a hurricane to form, warm water is only a very small part of the equation. A host of conditions must be "just right", such as wind shear conditions, the amount of dust in the air, the location of winds blowing off the coast of Africa, high and low pressure areas within the vicinity of a tropical disturbance, the El Nino/La Nina phenomenon, etc...Back in 2004, Florida was hit with one hurricane after another because all the conditions at the time were considered "perfect". That condition had not ocurred for many years but HAD occurred in the past. Here in Orlando, we had 3 hurricanes in a row. It had been nearly 45 years since a hurricane came anywhere near Orlando. This hurricane season, that is now coming to an end, has been uneventful. We've had no hurricanes since 2004. There is an assumption that hurricane activity is "cyclical" and the U.S. is within a cycle of more activity, as it was back in the 1960's.

The point that the Weather Channel was making was that there was no correlation between "global warming" and the incidents of hurricanes. In fact, this year the Pacific Ocean has been extremely hurricane-active and the Pacific is much cooler water than the Atlantic. Go figure. Just thought I would mention all this as part of the discussion.

 

[star-warrior]

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

I see George W. Bush put all the fear of terrorism into good use.


Science is science. What people decide to do with the science and ratchet it up to pad their own speculations is not science. It is a fact tha over the last four hundred years, world temperature as found through ice surveys and tree ring surveys point to a steadily warming climate. Maybe we're in the peak of a a cycle, I don't know, and won't know in my lifetime, maybe. But even if it all falls flat on its face, and you are right, there still is some good sense in reducing our emissions. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean you have to carry on outputting CO2 via the burning of fossil fuels either at home, or by proxy through a power station. You can reduce energy use and buy cleaner more energy efficient cars. If you do, at least you'll notice some saving in your household out goings.

 

[gerrit]

Global warming = Bull shit.

The earth is a living thing and as all living things goes through cycles... with or without outside influence.

The fact that we should conserve (not waste) fossil fuels = true.

I mean sooner or later they will be depleted.



Global warming in my mind is just another farce as the Y2K scare was.


You know what really makes the world go 'round..... $$$$$$$

Please keep in mind that I am not contradicting the warming of the earth...it IS happening. However I am not in agreement with the causes that are put forward by the experts and the way the masses are being mislead.

 

[Jay.Jay]

Just because no competing evidence has produced an alternative explanation doesn't mean there isn't one.

I agree - perhaps you didn't notice that earlier in this thread I wrote that

Scientists must always recognise and acknowledge that some future discovery may disprove a theory. To reject the possibility that a theory can be falsified requires elevating belief over evidence - at which point it ceases to be science and becomes faith.

You also conveniently dropped the end of my evaluation of the evidence - an evaluation I will readily change if presented with convincing evidence.

Unless these situations change by the presentation of new evidence or by the falsification of theory, there seems little reason to doubt that human activity is the cause of global warming.

Now, perhaps you'd like to comment on why you reject the only explanation that has, thus far, been able to account for the available evidence?

As for the Mencken quote, it is way more applicable to Bush and Iraq - where there was no threat and no decent evidence for a threat - than it is to global warming

 

[Finn]

I

Now, perhaps you'd like to comment on why you reject the only explanation that has, thus far, been able to account for the available evidence?

I reject the explanation as fact because since the beginning of time the planet has experienced many huge climatic changes. Our machines weren't even here for most of them.