Post by unkleE on Aug 8, 2008 8:55:07 GMT
James,
No, you have not remembered my last post where I said "Prudence therefore indicates we should start to move, with a plan that will not be too costly, and keep monitoring, moving to a stronger plan if the models prove to be accurate." I don't think I have ever advocated a particular course of action, let alone a prohibitively expensive one. I have just argued that you sceptics are in a sense like the Jesus-mythers - ignoring the vast bulk of good science and good scientists that say it is established that human-induced warming is occurring and will likely have very adverse outcomes, and latching onto the smaller amount of evidence and the smaller number of scientists that don't think the models are accurate.
I believe if the world can accept the science is almost certainly broadly correct (see here for some of the graphs) but may be inaccurate or wrong in detail, then we can start to do some decent planning and economic modelling to see how to proceed. It would be more responsible if thoughtful sceptics phrased their doubts in a fairer and less misleading manner. For example:
This is very poor arguing - guilt by association! How would you like me to provide links to a few fundamentalist christian total sceptic sites I have come across, and suggest they somehow invalidate your views?
There are a range of opinions. Zealots, who see this as an opportunity to create a totally green world, cautious believers (like me) who trust the science and believe we should move ahead cautiously, cautious sceptics who say we should wait until we have greater certainty, and total sceptics who think it is all a communist plot. I hope you are a cautious sceptic, but sometimes your comments seem to drift into the total sceptic camp. And quoting zealots is hardly the way to go - that is just as much a scare tactic!
A small personal observation. I have met one or two of the Aussie climate change scientists in the course of my work, and discussed the issues with them. I also worked closely with a wide range of environmental scientists over twenty years, and as an environmental manager, my frustration with most of them was their extreme caution, their unwillingness to express a conclusion until the scientific evidence warranted it. I find it extremely implausible that they have suddenly all got religion and begun prostituting their science for a muddle-headed cause! And I doubt scientists around the world are very different, except where government or grubby money put pressure on them.
Not much of a problem? This NewScientist article reports on a study of almost 30,000 natural world data sets and found that 90% of them revealed changes in recent years in the directions predicted by global warming novels. Adverse effects included increased forest fires in Canada, a possible increase in the strength of hurricanes, changes in fish migration patterns, animal extinctions, loss of Arctic ice and glaciers and threats to polar bear habitat, changed river flows and temperatures, increased water temperatures in lakes which is beginning to change their ecology, changes in the length of seasons with impacts on biota in the US and even in England, and increased coastal erosion. Even lichens, coral reefs, frogs & penguins, and whales are affected.
In Australia, we have changed weather patterns with higher temperatures and record low river flows in the major agricultural areas in southeast Australia, and a significant increase in pressure on farmers resulting in increased suicide rates.
Yes, of course there is still disagreement about how much all this is climate change and how much just statistical variation (although increased variation is one of the climate change predictions), and how much is human induced, but still the consensus of the best scientists supports the climate change explanation. We can express doubts if we choose, but your statement appears quite unreasonable.
Again depends on whether you use "know" in the absolute sense of proven knowledge, or in the normal scientific sense of having estimates within certain accuracy ranges. We have an estimation of the range, and an estimation of the most likely values within that range. Your statement is misleading. We "know" as well as we know most things in natural science. As I said to Humphrey, I worked as a hydrologist, and most urban water supplies in Australia have been designed on grossly inadequate data, but it is the best we have so we use it, and build in appropriate factors of safety. It is the same with global warming, only the problem is less the lack of data, and more the complexity of models.
Even what we have so far is very damaging as noted above, certainly in Australia, and in parts of Africa. The review by Freeman Dyson you quoted said the cost of doing nothing would be a trillion dollars, which is a bad effect. Sure, addressing it might be more costly, but that doesn't change the base. And most expert estimates are worse than that. Again, you are interpreting uncertainty as ignorance, a most unscientific and misleading thing to do.
If global warning is a hoax as you seem to be claiming, there is no "it" to do something about. But if it is true as the majority of scientists estimate, then uncertainty about the solutions is no reason to deny the conclusions of scientists. But in fact there are many things we can do, the problem is deciding which ones are cost effective, as the economic report makes clear.
Quoting the occasional report which suggests the models are not accurate gives a false impression if you don't continue to mention that the majority of reports support the models. I accept that there are still inaccuracies, as do all the scientists I have read, so quoting another report, and then another report, proves nothing. Scientific understanding is developed by peer review and consensus, not by latching on to the evidence you want and ignoring the rest! Surely this discussion doesn't have to become a quotefest, where for every adverse report your quote, I list 5 times as many reports supporting the consensus?
I think it would be more constructive to accept the scientific consensus, accept that it might change as anomalies are addressed and resolved, and could conceivably (though not very likely) change in major ways. Then we could all stay cautious and consider the much more constructive matter of what is the economics and what are the options for a cautious, risk-managed strategy to manage both the apparent risk and the clear uncertainty.
You, if I understand you, believe that the consensus of climate scientists, through their computer models, provide sufficient evidence to expect global warming on a scale that we cannot cope with and hence we should seriously impoverish ourselves now trying to prevent it.
No, you have not remembered my last post where I said "Prudence therefore indicates we should start to move, with a plan that will not be too costly, and keep monitoring, moving to a stronger plan if the models prove to be accurate." I don't think I have ever advocated a particular course of action, let alone a prohibitively expensive one. I have just argued that you sceptics are in a sense like the Jesus-mythers - ignoring the vast bulk of good science and good scientists that say it is established that human-induced warming is occurring and will likely have very adverse outcomes, and latching onto the smaller amount of evidence and the smaller number of scientists that don't think the models are accurate.
I believe if the world can accept the science is almost certainly broadly correct (see here for some of the graphs) but may be inaccurate or wrong in detail, then we can start to do some decent planning and economic modelling to see how to proceed. It would be more responsible if thoughtful sceptics phrased their doubts in a fairer and less misleading manner. For example:
Here's a good example of what is wrong with global warming propaganda:
This is very poor arguing - guilt by association! How would you like me to provide links to a few fundamentalist christian total sceptic sites I have come across, and suggest they somehow invalidate your views?
There are a range of opinions. Zealots, who see this as an opportunity to create a totally green world, cautious believers (like me) who trust the science and believe we should move ahead cautiously, cautious sceptics who say we should wait until we have greater certainty, and total sceptics who think it is all a communist plot. I hope you are a cautious sceptic, but sometimes your comments seem to drift into the total sceptic camp. And quoting zealots is hardly the way to go - that is just as much a scare tactic!
A small personal observation. I have met one or two of the Aussie climate change scientists in the course of my work, and discussed the issues with them. I also worked closely with a wide range of environmental scientists over twenty years, and as an environmental manager, my frustration with most of them was their extreme caution, their unwillingness to express a conclusion until the scientific evidence warranted it. I find it extremely implausible that they have suddenly all got religion and begun prostituting their science for a muddle-headed cause! And I doubt scientists around the world are very different, except where government or grubby money put pressure on them.
According to the Hadley Centre, average temperatures have increased by 1 degree in the 20th century (see here: hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/nh+sh/). So far, this has not caused much of a problem and the advantages have been considerable.
Not much of a problem? This NewScientist article reports on a study of almost 30,000 natural world data sets and found that 90% of them revealed changes in recent years in the directions predicted by global warming novels. Adverse effects included increased forest fires in Canada, a possible increase in the strength of hurricanes, changes in fish migration patterns, animal extinctions, loss of Arctic ice and glaciers and threats to polar bear habitat, changed river flows and temperatures, increased water temperatures in lakes which is beginning to change their ecology, changes in the length of seasons with impacts on biota in the US and even in England, and increased coastal erosion. Even lichens, coral reefs, frogs & penguins, and whales are affected.
In Australia, we have changed weather patterns with higher temperatures and record low river flows in the major agricultural areas in southeast Australia, and a significant increase in pressure on farmers resulting in increased suicide rates.
Yes, of course there is still disagreement about how much all this is climate change and how much just statistical variation (although increased variation is one of the climate change predictions), and how much is human induced, but still the consensus of the best scientists supports the climate change explanation. We can express doubts if we choose, but your statement appears quite unreasonable.
1) How great will global warming be?
Answer: we don't know.
Answer: we don't know.
Again depends on whether you use "know" in the absolute sense of proven knowledge, or in the normal scientific sense of having estimates within certain accuracy ranges. We have an estimation of the range, and an estimation of the most likely values within that range. Your statement is misleading. We "know" as well as we know most things in natural science. As I said to Humphrey, I worked as a hydrologist, and most urban water supplies in Australia have been designed on grossly inadequate data, but it is the best we have so we use it, and build in appropriate factors of safety. It is the same with global warming, only the problem is less the lack of data, and more the complexity of models.
2) Will the effects be good or bad?
Answer: A small amount of warming is good on balance. After that we don't know.
Answer: A small amount of warming is good on balance. After that we don't know.
Even what we have so far is very damaging as noted above, certainly in Australia, and in parts of Africa. The review by Freeman Dyson you quoted said the cost of doing nothing would be a trillion dollars, which is a bad effect. Sure, addressing it might be more costly, but that doesn't change the base. And most expert estimates are worse than that. Again, you are interpreting uncertainty as ignorance, a most unscientific and misleading thing to do.
3) What can we actually do to change it rather than adapt to it?
Answer: In practical terms, nothing.
Answer: In practical terms, nothing.
If global warning is a hoax as you seem to be claiming, there is no "it" to do something about. But if it is true as the majority of scientists estimate, then uncertainty about the solutions is no reason to deny the conclusions of scientists. But in fact there are many things we can do, the problem is deciding which ones are cost effective, as the economic report makes clear.
Quoting the occasional report which suggests the models are not accurate gives a false impression if you don't continue to mention that the majority of reports support the models. I accept that there are still inaccuracies, as do all the scientists I have read, so quoting another report, and then another report, proves nothing. Scientific understanding is developed by peer review and consensus, not by latching on to the evidence you want and ignoring the rest! Surely this discussion doesn't have to become a quotefest, where for every adverse report your quote, I list 5 times as many reports supporting the consensus?
I think it would be more constructive to accept the scientific consensus, accept that it might change as anomalies are addressed and resolved, and could conceivably (though not very likely) change in major ways. Then we could all stay cautious and consider the much more constructive matter of what is the economics and what are the options for a cautious, risk-managed strategy to manage both the apparent risk and the clear uncertainty.