Chill!

Andy Hunt · Post by **Andy Hunt** » 17 Dec 2010, 23:37

Keela wrote:
Hogfish wrote:Climate scientist lurker here............<snip>....
Thank you Hogfish for that very sane and sensible explanation of what science can and cannot tell us.

I may even print it out for some of my students - with your permission of course.

+1, thankyou hogfish.

snow hope · Post by **snow hope** » 18 Dec 2010, 00:14

Agreed Keela, good post Hogfish.

Nice to see a real scientist laying out the facts and also mentioning the levels of uncertainty.

It has not been nice to see the wolves baying for blood in this thread, but I suppose we are all humans and thats what some of us do......

I hope MacG has not really left as he made some good contributions regarding Peak Oil and human nature. It would be rather sad to see that he had been driven away by the pack.

I understand how he might feel, as I have also dared to express my scepticism of the climate prediction models, the level of impact of our CO2 contribution to the global hydrological and carbon cycle. Along with the suggestion that we might be under-estimating the significance of our local star and its cycles that we are still learning about.

The "concensus" can be very hard to argue against and at the same time very easy for the pack to pounce upon, even in here where folks obviously have a high degree of intelligence and perception of events occuring on our planet.

I suppose what gets me the most, is the absolute certainty displayed by some members that AGW is the cause of imminent disaster and 6-10 degrees of warming over the next 100 years...... whereas the likely expectation is probably very different, especially when we take on board the fact that we are likely past Peak Oil and the implications that has for civilisation.

Ho Hum.

Andy Hunt · Post by **Andy Hunt** » 18 Dec 2010, 00:26

But snow, MacG was absolutely explicit in his assertion that the science behind AGW is wrong, and you yourself have expressed absolute certainty that all 'proponents' of AGW are totally close-minded, which has been shown to be blatantly untrue.

So are you really surprised that people react badly to your own and MacG's absolute assertions which are blatantly wrong?

Like all groupthinkers, you fail to apply the same standards of scrutiny to your own arguments that you do to others.

snow hope · Post by **snow hope** » 18 Dec 2010, 00:31

Well it is obvious you know the "rules" of group thinkers better that I do Andy.

Andy Hunt · Post by **Andy Hunt** » 18 Dec 2010, 00:36

snow hope wrote:Well it is obvious you know the "rules" of group thinkers better that I do Andy.

Thank Stumuz, it was he who prompted me to look into it.

JohnB · Post by **JohnB** » 18 Dec 2010, 00:42

snow hope wrote:I suppose what gets me the most, is the absolute certainty displayed by some members that AGW is the cause of imminent disaster and 6-10 degrees of warming over the next 100 years...... whereas the likely expectation is probably very different, especially when we take on board the fact that we are likely past Pak Oil and the implications that has for civilisation.

Ho Hum.

With many things in life you can take a risk, and if the worst happens some people may suffer badly, while many others may suffer, but get over it and carry on with life. This is potentially disastrous for all humans, maybe in our lifetime, or maybe for the next generation or two. With such high stakes, it seems sensible to prepare as best we can for the worst, even though it may not happen. Maybe the scientists have over estimated the risks and the possible outcome. Maybe it's natural and not man made.

My feeling is the scientists are right. There are things going on in the world that seem to fit with the predications, and if during the preparations it's discovered there's no problem, we can can revert to BAU. But if we don't start preparing and the scientists are proved right, it may be too late, and there won't be a second chance.

It's not as though the solution needs to be unpleasant, and it can be the same as dealing with PO and the collapsing financial system. We could end up with a fairer, happier world.

2 As and a B · Post by **2 As and a B** » 18 Dec 2010, 08:20

Thanks Chris.

2 As and a B · Post by **2 As and a B** » 18 Dec 2010, 09:02

I've returned to this thread after the bun fight has finished, which is just as well!

Blue Peter wrote:To bring things slightly back on topic, in this respect, climate science is no different than any other science. As Chris has said, why is climate science singled out as being bogus because of these factors while no other science is?

Was this answered? Climate science has not been singled out. There is a common theme running through this and the ravages caused by pesticides, cancer related to smoking and asbestos, and the opening of ozone holes at the poles. The theme is that the science challenges the business models of large and powerful corporations - corporations which are rich and influential enough to buy their own anti-science, complete with 'expert' spokesmen, and to try to promulgate it through the media.

UndercoverElephant · Post by **UndercoverElephant** » 18 Dec 2010, 09:16

snow hope wrote:Agreed Keela, good post Hogfish.

Nice to see a real scientist laying out the facts and also mentioning the levels of uncertainty.

It has not been nice to see the wolves baying for blood in this thread, but I suppose we are all humans and thats what some of us do......

I hope MacG has not really left as he made some good contributions regarding Peak Oil and human nature. It would be rather sad to see that he had been driven away by the pack.

I understand how he might feel, as I have also dared to express my scepticism of the climate prediction models, the level of impact of our CO2 contribution to the global hydrological and carbon cycle. Along with the suggestion that we might be under-estimating the significance of our local star and its cycles that we are still learning about.

The "concensus" can be very hard to argue against and at the same time very easy for the pack to pounce upon, even in here where folks obviously have a high degree of intelligence and perception of events occuring on our planet.

I suppose what gets me the most, is the absolute certainty displayed by some members that AGW is the cause of imminent disaster and 6-10 degrees of warming over the next 100 years...... whereas the likely expectation is probably very different, especially when we take on board the fact that we are likely past Peak Oil and the implications that has for civilisation.

Ho Hum.

snow hope,

I'm not sure why you feel so sorry for him. He was attacked for pedalling dangerous pseudoscientific nonsense. This is not opinion. It is fact. "Venus is very bright because it REFLECTS a lot of light. This is not in accordance with greenhouse effect theories." are the words of a person who really does not have any idea what he is talking about, and MacG was presenting himself here as some sort of climate scientist who is skeptical of climate change. This is being done for no other reason than to deliberately mislead people about what is happening, and will not be tolerated. If he comes here and posts similar nonsense in future then I will come down on him like a ton of bricks, and I suspect I will not be the only one. This is not "wolfpack" behaviour. Think of it more like strong disinfectant being used to eradicate a nasty virus.

Geoff

JohnB · Post by **JohnB** » 18 Dec 2010, 09:25

foodimista wrote:Was this answered? Climate science has not been singled out. There is a common theme running through this and the ravages caused by pesticides, cancer related to smoking and asbestos, and the opening of ozone holes at the poles. The theme is that the science challenges the business models of large and powerful corporations - corporations which are rich and influential enough to buy their own anti-science, complete with 'expert' spokesmen, and to try to promulgate it through the media.

With my non scientist hat on, I agree with that. I think that climate change is the biggest of all these issues, and gets the highest profile international attention, even if nowhere near enough action comes from it. It's easier to ignore the other issues.

caspian · Post by **caspian** » 18 Dec 2010, 16:58

clv101 wrote:Not as many newspapers in Greenland though.

But surely more newspapers --> higher temperatures, what with all the hot air they keep emitting?

JohnB · Post by **JohnB** » 18 Dec 2010, 17:05

caspian wrote:But surely more newspapers --> higher temperatures, what with all the hot air they keep emitting?

Newspapers are full of bullshit, so more methane too

.

caspian · Post by **caspian** » 18 Dec 2010, 17:12

Hogfish wrote:Are there any tipping points and when will we get to them?

For me, this is the big question, and it's a great shame that we don't understand these tipping points better. It might not even be possible to model these events in any case, since by their nature these events are chaotic and unpredictable. There was a very good (although somewhat depressing) documentary on the subject, called High Anxieties: The Mathematics of Chaos. It was made by David Malone, who in another guise is Golem XIV in his excellent blog about our economic mess. You can watch High Anxieties on David's YouTube channel.

Anyway, nice post there Hogfish. Welcome to PowerSwitch.

emordnilap · Post by **emordnilap** » 19 Dec 2010, 14:06

Welcome Hogfish.

Is it worthwhile you dealing with MacG's doubts? Or do you think you've addressed them? (I suspect MacG would think not).

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 19 Dec 2010, 17:48

Tipping points? Too late, the handcart has tipped up and we're sliding into Hell.