Scientists hit by climate doubt fallout

RenewableCandy · Post by **RenewableCandy** » 01 Mar 2010, 12:04

The IoP are a bunch of nuclear groupies. Well, it's physics innit, with bits of atoms being smashed. Erm, not really, it's just a big boiler like any other thermal power station, and no more efficient. I'm tempted to tear up my card. Fusion will be along shortly

The IET (Engineering and Technology), on the other hand, are quite fond of wind energy and various other renewables because, well, it's proper engineering, with big rotating bits on (mind you they like Solar too).

Quintus · Post by **Quintus** » 01 Mar 2010, 15:52

RenewableCandy wrote:The IoP are a bunch of nuclear groupies.

But if that's the case don't they have everything to gain from the world accepting AGW? Fossil fuels out, nuclear industry in?

MacG · Post by **MacG** » 01 Mar 2010, 16:48

Quintus wrote:
RenewableCandy wrote:The IoP are a bunch of nuclear groupies.
But if that's the case don't they have everything to gain from the world accepting AGW? Fossil fuels out, nuclear industry in?

You provide a PERFECT illustration to the problem. Most people did not ask themselves: "Is this AGW theory correct?" Instead they asked: "What can I gain/lose by accepting/rejecting the theory". That is how we ended up with this mess.

Quintus · Post by **Quintus** » 01 Mar 2010, 17:06

MacG wrote:You provide a PERFECT illustration to the problem. Most people did not ask themselves: "Is this AGW theory correct?" Instead they asked: "What can I gain/lose by accepting/rejecting the theory". That is how we ended up with this mess.

Isn’t that one of IoP’s main points? That scientific research should be objective, not politicised? They haven't rejected AGW and - as mentioned - they seem to have something to gain from it being widely accepted. But they are worried about what the emails may have revealed about the integrity of the scientific process.

The Institute is concerned that, unless the disclosed e-mails are proved to be forgeries or adaptations, worrying implications arise for the integrity of scientific research in this field and for the credibility of the scientific method as practised in this context.

February 2010
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/p ... uc3902.htm

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 01 Mar 2010, 20:30

The e-mails?

There's a molehill on my lawn - clear evidence of plate tectonics and an emerging mountain chain.

jcw · Post by **jcw** » 01 Mar 2010, 20:51

biffvernon wrote:Damaging to the Institute of Physics?

Damaging to the public trust of scientists. Isn't that what the OP was about?

snow hope · Post by **snow hope** » 01 Mar 2010, 22:26

biffvernon wrote:The e-mails?

There's a molehill on my lawn - clear evidence of plate tectonics and an emerging mountain chain.

The GAT has risen by 0.6c over the last century, clear evidence that we will have a 6c rise over the current century, runaway global warming and the earth is going to hell in a handcart.....

Post by **kenneal - lagger** » 01 Mar 2010, 22:42

Humans tend to think linearly, i.e a 1,2,3,4,5 progression, but natural systems tend to work on an exponential progression, i.e. 2,4,8,16,32 so a 0.6 deg rise in one century wouldn't be a 1.2 deg rise the next but could give rise to a 6 deg rise the next.

There are also tipping points in the system where, once a certain temperature is reached, the system runs away and quickly reaches another tipping point causing an even faster reaction. One such tipping point which may have been reached is the percentage of ice lost in the Arctic. Once this point occurs the warming of the ocean by the sun in one summer may lead to a slowing of ice formation in the winter, leading to an even greater ice loss the next summer. This would then lead to an even faster loss of ice from the Greenland Ice pack.

Another tipping point is the point at which Arctic warming leads to ice melt, leads to methane loss from the permafrost, which causes even more warming, leading to more methane loss.... . This may have been passed already.

Post by **kenneal - lagger** » 02 Mar 2010, 00:32

MacG wrote:
Quintus wrote:
RenewableCandy wrote:The IoP are a bunch of nuclear groupies.
But if that's the case don't they have everything to gain from the world accepting AGW? Fossil fuels out, nuclear industry in?
You provide a PERFECT illustration to the problem. Most people did not ask themselves: "Is this AGW theory correct?" Instead they asked: "What can I gain/lose by accepting/rejecting the theory". That is how we ended up with this mess.

I, and my children and grandchildren, might gain a little more wealth for a while before Limits to Growth arrive if we reject GW/CC and do nothing about it and it's not true. On the other hand, if we reject GG/CC and it is true, the earth's climate could warm so drastically that sea levels would rise catastrophically leading to large scale flooding worldwide and massive refugee movements in Europe. Food production could be badly affected leading to worldwide starvation and refugee movements...

If we accept GW/CC and we do something about it we may not be quite as wealthy as we once might have been but there is a fair chance that the world will stay roughly as we know it now. If we accept GW/CC but do nothing we get the same result as doing nothing above.

So the worst choice we face is between a little less wealth and probable catastrophe on a large scale. If I was told that the plane I was about to board had a 50% chance of crashing, I would not get on board. If I was told that the plane I was on board had a 50% chance of crashing, I would demand immediate measures to mitigate the chances of crashing.

MacG would get on the plane or tell the pilot to get a move on and stop messing about, would he?

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 02 Mar 2010, 11:15

And risk probability has to be combined with consequences. I would not get on a plane with a 1% probability of crashing, but I live in a house that the Environment Agency says has a 1% per year probability of getting flooded.

If it floods I will lose my carpets but not my life.

Another significant factor is the situation where the risk affects somebody else. With global warming the risk is for my descendants yet unborn. The consequences of the risk event occurring are the worst possible - the end of life on Earth. But the risk falls on others so my reaction to it becomes a matter of morals and ethics, not personal survival.

To my way of thinking, the climate denialists are either ignorant, stupid, or evil.

nexus · Post by **nexus** » 02 Mar 2010, 11:25

the climate denialists are either ignorant, stupid, or evil.

Unfortunately those three aren't mutually exclusive.

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 02 Mar 2010, 17:03

Indeed. I guess Inhofe is all three.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2 ... ccarthyite

Aurora · Post by **Aurora** » 02 Mar 2010, 19:05

The Guardian - 02/03/10

The Institute of Physics has been forced to clarify its strongly worded submission to a parliamentary inquiry into climate change emails released onto the internet.

The institute's submission, to the science and technology select committee, said the emails from scientists at the University of East Anglia (UEA) contained "worrying implications for the integrity of scientific research in this field".

The submission has been used by climate sceptics to bolster claims that the email affair, dubbed "climategate", shows the scientists did not behave properly and that the problem of global warming is exaggerated.

The committee held its only evidence session yesterday and interviewed witnesses including Phil Jones, the climate scientist at the centre of the media storm.

In a statement issued today the institute said its written submission to the committee "has been interpreted by some individuals to imply that it does not support the scientific evidence that the rising concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is contributing to global warming."

It says: "That is not the case. The institute's position on climate change is clear: the basic science is well enough understood to be sure that our climate is changing, and that we need to take action now to mitigate that change."

The institute said its critical comments were focused on the scientific process, and "should not be interpreted to mean that the institute believes that the science itself is flawed."

Article continues ...

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 02 Mar 2010, 19:13

Nice one, Aurora.

And second thoughts on Inhofe, giving him the benefit of the possibility of ignorance and stupidity was a mistake.

Quintus · Post by **Quintus** » 02 Mar 2010, 20:31

That is what I was trying to say above, perhaps clumsily, that the IoP were not rejecting AGW, they were expressing possible concerns over an aspect of the scientific process. Not at all the same thing.

It’s a problem that the whole topic has become so politicised that reasoned debate of any kind seems almost impossible. A shame as there is rather a lot at stake.