Mod+ 234. GLOBAL WARMING, CLIMATE CHANGE AND OUR ILLUSION OF CONTROL

wow, that is a sweeping generalization! How many of these people do you know, how many have you heard interviewed? How many of these peoples books have you read?
A lot more than you, I suspect. I've spent 4 years researching it and have seen countless interviews and read not a few books pro and con.
I suspect climate science is such a massive area (psi science is absolutely tiny in comparison). If you only look at the debunking it will seem huge, and that there can be nothing else, that it must all be bunk, but because climate science is so huge I personally suspect that the majority of the science is valid. Obviously, I have nothing to back this up because I have not studied this area in detail. If someone were to prove me wrong I will change my mind. But to just make sweeping generalizations based on a few scandals doesn't fill me with confidence in your arguments.
It ain't a sweeping generalisation if you've done the research. I don't only look at the one side: I've looked at both. As I've said, I started out as a believer.
 
The circus going on at the south pole is typical. Off goes the ship on a poorly planned and provisioned mission to show how the ice is melting down there. It is a Russian vessel, but its an Australian venture and on board are researchers and a BBC crew. The idea was to create great publicity for antarctic sea-ice melting, and one can be sure if that had been found, the airwaves would be being bombarded by it. However, it gets stuck in ice and isn't equipped to plough its way out of it. Lo and behold, it's being reported as a tourist venture and the aim of the mission is being glossed over: can't have anything that challenges the global warming narrative, right?

Other vessels are having to get involved in a rescue mission, endangering other lives. The bill is going to be enormous, and the Australian tax-payer may have to foot a lot of it. The expedition leader is in denial about the fact that antarctic sea ice isn't in retreat: quite the reverse. But you won't hear much about the whole boondoggle in the MSM because it contradicts the dogma they've been peddling for years.

Jo Nova has a good article about it:

http://joannenova.com.au/2014/01/sh...asks-skeptics-coleman-watts-for-weather-info/
 
Michael, I'm sorry for not being scientifically savvy enough to argument my point as well as you do, my expertise in not in this area, however, as a thinking person, capable of some level of analysis, I came to certain conclusions, analyzing the issue from "cui bono?" point of view. I don't think it's illegitimate, the ideological implications of GW policies do exist and can't be denied. I don't think I'm a "right-wng nut", I'm a libertarian concerned about the State and the politicians of all colors gradually depriving us of our liberties.

I hope you don't think I implied you are are a right-wing nutjob, Enrique? I used the term because that's how we are characterised by people who are incapable of crediting the fact that it's possible to hold the views we do because we've looked at the science and find it unconvincing. :)
 
Breaking news:

Unnoticed, the IPCC has slashed its global-warming predictions, implicitly rejecting the models on which it once so heavily and imprudently relied. In the second draft of the Fifth Assessment Report it had broadly agreed with the models that the world will warm by 0.4 to 1.0 Cº from 2016-2035 against 1986-2005. But in the final draft it quietly cut the 30-year projection to 0.3-0.7 Cº, saying the warming is more likely to be at the lower end of the range [equivalent to about 0.4 Cº over 30 years]. If that rate continued till 2100, global warming this century could be as little as 1.3 Cº.

Official projections of global warming have plummeted since Dr. James Hansen of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies told the U.S. Congress in June 1988 the world would warm by 1 Cº every 20 years till 2050 (Fig. 1), implying 6 Cº to 2100.

clip_image022_thumb.jpg


Multiple lines of evidence now confirm that the models and consequently the IPCC have overestimated global warming. Yet neither that misconceived organization nor any of its host of unthinking devotees has displayed any remorse. Instead, they persist in maintaining that the warming is temporarily paused, though they cannot really explain why; or they blame particulate aerosols, their get-out-of-jail-free fudge-factor; or they pretend warming is really continuing unabated, saying it has gone into hiding deep in the oceans where, conveniently, we cannot measure it, or that the Earth-atmosphere system has a fever driven by four atom-bombs’-worth of heat content increase every second...

Do not underestimate the importance of the IPCC’s climbdown, albeit that it is furtive and that there is not a hint of it in the Summary for Policymakers – the only part of the latest assessment that lazy politicians and incurious journalists may ever get around to reading.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/...edictions-in-the-ar5-final-draft/#more-100268
 
Last edited:
The issue is not whether or not there is climate change. It is how intense is it and to what degree is that change driven and/or exacerbated by modern societies. My take is that it isn't that intense and that the societal factor is there but minor.

Interestingly enough, steps to silence those who don't parrot the official line are becoming more overt.
 
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!! I posted it a couple of hours ago, they didn't even bother to look, my friend. :D

Sorry, missed your link, Enrique. I posted it as soon as I saw it on making my daily round of several climate blogs. Maybe they will take more notice because I posted the key graph, though. ;)
 
I think you have it wrong. Few climate scientists will openly stand up and challenge the so-called consensus, but that's because they're spineless cowards and want to ensure the continuation of funding. It's a situation that applies in other fields, too. If you read AR5, it is full of caveats and surprisingly tentative. What happens is that the report for policymakers is crafted and controlled by the politicos and, not to put too fine a point on it, lies through its teeth, often saying the reverse of what the scientists are claiming.

People like you, quite possibly sincere but deluded, are just the kind of folks the politicos want to manipulate. Sooner or later, you'll wake up and find out that you have been conned. It's all been down hill since Climategate. It's even beginning to break up in the mainstream media:

http://joannenova.com.au/2013/12/sk...tion-lies-and-exploition-says-maurice-newman/

So over 95% of the world's climate scientists are part of a conspiracy? Sorry but I'm not convinced.
 
I'm actually kind of scared to post anything in this thread. This kind of emotional exchange keeps us from looking at the data with clear heads. And the emotions that surround this topic keep scientists from working on finding the answers to important questions. There are good people studying climate from various perspectives. This video is about cosmic ray effects on climate. The scientists in the video are looking for answers. They aren't "denying" anything. Shouldn't their voice be allowed along with those of other researchers?


I think both POVs should be allowed a voice. Just like I believe that scientists who study Psi should be allowed a voice.
 
I'm actually kind of scared to post anything in this thread. This kind of emotional exchange keeps us from looking at the data with clear heads. And the emotions that surround this topic keep scientists from working on finding the answers to important questions. There are good people studying climate from various perspectives. This video is about cosmic ray effects on climate. The scientists in the video are looking for answers. They aren't "denying" anything. Shouldn't their voice be allowed along with those of other researchers?


I think both POVs should be allowed a voice. Just like I believe that scientists who study Psi should be allowed a voice.

I agree. Svensmark's work recently got a fillip:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/...uds-and-global-warming-looks-to-be-confirmed/

but there's still work to be done:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/07/svensmarks-cosmic-ray-theory-two-steps-forward-one-step-back/
 
The reason I used that video was because at the end, after showing the process of doing careful research, designing experiments, and collecting and analyzing data, it goes on to demonstrate the difficulty those researchers had in getting the work published. The reviewers didn't dispute the data... they complained that the paper was "too long" or "uninteresting", essentially giving non-answers as to why they wouldn't accept the paper for publication. Here is a case of legitimate research being suppressed because it supported a non-mainstream POV. We know that happens in the case of parapsychology, and here we see it happening in others areas of study as well.
 
The reason I used that video was because at the end, after showing the process of doing careful research, designing experiments, and collecting and analyzing data, it goes on to demonstrate the difficulty those researchers had in getting the work published. The reviewers didn't dispute the data... they complained that the paper was "too long" or "uninteresting", essentially giving non-answers as to why they wouldn't accept the paper for publication. Here is a case of legitimate research being suppressed because it supported a non-mainstream POV. We know that happens in the case of parapsychology, and here we see it happening in others areas of study as well.
Yup. That kind of thing's been happening for years and was exposed in the Climategate emails. It's the same in many areas of science when the ruling paradigm is challenged: you'd think psi proponents would be open to the possibility in climate science, but apparently some are not. :(
 
Yup. That kind of thing's been happening for years and was exposed in the Climategate emails. It's the same in many areas of science when the ruling paradigm is challenged: you'd think psi proponents would be open to the possibility in climate science, but apparently some are not. :(
I suspect that is why Alex likes delving into the issue of climate change. Instead of skeptics vs believers, the sides are suddenly different and less predictable. That person who understands your mystical experience may not have a clue as to why you can't agree with his POV on CGW! It makes us re-evaluate who is "on our side" and how we treat people with a different perspective.
 
Last edited:
You don't need a scientific argument to believe global warming. Glaciers are melting all around the world. The Arctic ice cap shrinks year by year. Just visit Alaska or Glacier National Park (in the U.S.) and view the old photographs from around the 1950s and 60s. The evidence is clear before our eyes that the Earth is warming. I think many people do not understand or do not want to understand that there will be statistical and environmental fluctuations about a warming trend and that in some years and some places it might actually become colder. But the overall warming trend is clear for all to see.

Even from physics, it should be understood that some degree of anthropogenic global warming MUST be happening. Gases like carbon dioxide are greenhouse gases which trap heat in the atmosphere. Humans are burning fossil fuels, which release greenhouse gases. Ergo, humans are causing global warming. Now I can see people arguing about the degree of anthropogenic global warming but that it exists in some amount can not be disputed on scientific grounds. With billions of humans driving cars every day and using electricity from the burning of coal and oil every day, even small effects from an individual perspective add up a lot.

I think quite a few people have a distorted view of how mainstream science works or how scientists think based on the travesty of the parapsychology debate but consider this: surveys have shown that a majority of scientists believe psi is proven or is likely true (one survey showed 56% and the other, 67%). As for climate change, ~95% of climate scientists believe humans are causing global warming. Consider this too: if you're greedy for money and/or power, you don't go into science. The vast majority of scientists do what they do because they want to learn about the world and expand knowledge. Would you rather trust a scientist who does hard work for low pay or an oil company (most funding for global warming opponents comes from Big Oil) whose first loyalty is, by law, to their investors?

Indeed, I would ascribe psi-denialism and global warming denialism to the same phenomenon of denying empirical scientific results because they conflict with deeply held ideological beliefs. In the case of global warming denialism, this is usually libertarianism. Of course, you have heard the accusation that the Left supports action to fight global warming because they believe in controlling other people's lives. But this is a complete misunderstanding of how left-wingers, and people in general, think. What if they support action to prevent global warming because they are concerned about the effects of global warming? What if they are concerned about their children, their grandchildren, and the future of the human race? Is this not much easier to believe than believing that millions of your countrymen are making their and your lives more miserable just because they can?

As for the so-called "Climategate" scandal, what if I followed you around every day for a year, recording everything you said or did during the year and then took the absolutely worst-sounding thing you said, put it out of context, and then claimed that represented you and everyone like you. You would claim this as a libelous attack on character. So too, is the fake "Climategate" scandal.

Video of global temperature increase
Unlike the other Stephen in this thread, you've consistently made a strong but respectful case for climate change.

I'm rather shocked when I see parapsychology enthusiasts get caught up in climate change denial; I would think that they would have sympathy for climate activists. Here in the States, climate change has become a needlessly politicised issue muddled by all manner of distractions, and worldwide, the calls for meaningful action haven't yielded many changes that scientists say are necessary.
 
Sorry to be blunt, but I can only hope that if Skeptiko continues to post on global warming Alex will invite some of the vast majority of professional climate scientists who believe that global warming is real and serious rather than cherry-picking from the very small minority who disagree (and who often receive their funding from political and economic interests hostile to the implications of global warming). Otherwise, Skeptiko will have jumped the shark into pseudoscience by denying vast amounts of inconvenient scientific evidence.
If Alex can't or won't get a climate scientist in here, then I'd like to see him discuss this with the one recurring Skeptiko guest in a decent position to comment: biologist Rupert Sheldrake, who feels strongly enough about climate change that he raised the issue several times in The Science Delusion, and cited fear of being associated with climate change denialism as a factor (notice I didn't claim it was the only factor) in changing the title of that book in America.
 
If Alex can't or won't get a climate scientist in here, then I'd like to see him discuss this with the one recurring Skeptiko guest in a decent position to comment: biologist Rupert Sheldrake, who feels strongly enough about climate change that he raised the issue several times in The Science Delusion, and cited fear of being associated with climate change denialism as a factor (notice I didn't claim it was the only factor) in changing the title of that book in America.

Hey, that's a great idea! I'd love to hear a dialog between Alex and Dr. Sheldrake about this topic. I don't think he'll do it though, because Sheldrake is definitely wrong if he believes AGW is real and Alex probably doesn't want to embarrass him with the facts. Their rapport is too important to gunk up with contentious issues.
 
Unlike the other Stephen in this thread, you've consistently made a strong but respectful case for climate change.

I'm rather shocked when I see parapsychology enthusiasts get caught up in climate change denial; I would think that they would have sympathy for climate activists. Here in the States, climate change has become a needlessly politicised issue muddled by all manner of distractions, and worldwide, the calls for meaningful action haven't yielded many changes that scientists say are necessary.
I tackled Rupert Sheldrake a while back about his stance on climate change in a private email exchange. His main concern was with methane clathrates. However, even Nature in 2011 scotched the idea they were a problem:

http://www.nature.com/scitable/know...ates-and-contemporary-climate-change-24314790

Catastrophic, widespread dissociation of methane gas hydrates will not be triggered by continued climate warming at contemporary rates (0.2ºC per decade; IPCC 2007) over timescales of a few hundred years. Most of Earth's gas hydrates occur at low saturations and in sediments at such great depths below the seafloor or onshore permafrost that they will barely be affected by warming over even 10^3 yr.

I haven't had the heart to get back to Rupert: I like and respect him a great deal and anyone can have blind spots. Including you, Will, who have such a touching confidence in the clowns promoting global warming. There will be no "meaningful action" because there can be no meaningful action, any more than buying indulgences in the middle ages constituted meaningful action. You mean well, but you've been duped.

And on another point, Will, why should psi proponents be more gullible than anyone else?
 
Last edited:
In 2013 the International Climate Change Working Group met in Stockholm Sweden in September (IPCC) - this represents a worldwide scientific collaboration of 259 authors from 39 countries. Their conclusion on examination of the scientific evidence is that "The warming in the climate system is unequivocal. That is based on the observations based on the multiple lines of independent evidence" and "human influence on the climate system is clear."


Given that these people are climate change scientists I will hedge my bets with them. On the other hand if someone here is a climate change scientist please raise your hand.
 
If I understood Alex's position correctly, he isn't denying global warming or that man has played a role in that warming. Rather Alex is merely pointing out that the models that were being used to predict catastrophe were obviously flawed and at the present time we can't be sure exactly what the long term effects will be to make a proper cost-benefit analysis when it comes to large scale public policy.

I also think that Alex is having a knee-jerk negative reaction to the "scientific consensus" talk, branding people with differing views "deniers" (making them sound like holocaust deniers), apocalyptic proclamations, large-scale legislative proposals that stand to make some people a lot of money, etc. None of this means that global warming is not real or not significant, but it is reason to be suspicious of some of the more grandiose claims.
 
Back
Top