350

[skier-hughes]

Probably like me, is global warming a natural phenomena like the ice age, is it totally human created, is it any use doing my little bit when my next door neighbour undoes everything I do?
I see it happening, I try my best to help, but..........................

 

[Lime]

There is no evidence to support the idea that stopping man-made production of CO2 today - completely - worldwide - would make any difference to the future climate whatsoever.
It is total speculation.

 

[worms]

At the risk of sticking my nose into someone else's argument, the weblink posted above actually says:

Below we list the agreements that we still hold. We know that there were others, but cannot locate them...

While it is always risky to interpret someone else's intentions, in the absence of a clear definition of the term "others" within the sentence, one would surely look to the nearest previous objective clause and read this as other agreements that cannot be located, not other data.

The scientist in me would rather be criticised for sloppy English than sloppy science, although the pedant in me might disagree!

 

[FamilyWiggs]

Not my argument either - I just posted the weblink, worms.

I think the critical paragraph is the 5th one - where they explain why some of their original data is no longer available. Not to have maintained access to your original data strikes me as a bit of sloppy science, but I have no reference point for how significant this is. I suspect is is more toward the "inconvenient" rather than "catastrophic" end of the scale.

Interesting prog on Beeb2 just now - George Alagiya and food sustainability.

 

[worms]

Yes, I've been enjoying the George Alagiya programme on iPlayer, so didn't know which day it was actually shown and will need to catch this week's one later.

 

[biffvernon]

is global warming a natural phenomena like the ice age, is it totally human created,

As far as I'm concerned, this question was settled by the mid 1970s (or maybe in the late 19th century even before climate observations verified the theoretical physics). Going over the arguements is getting tedious. If you still have doubts then study climate science, with [urlhttp://www.realclimate.org/]RealClimate[/url] being the best on-line source to start with.

 

[biffvernon]

There is no evidence to support the idea that stopping man-made production of CO2 today - completely - worldwide - would make any difference to the future climate whatsoever

...is in fact not a true statement.

 

[Flyfisher]

Now, what about the real issue - i.e. the CRU quote admitting

Hang on, that was Pford75 quoting Pielke saying that CRU said that... Too many steps through unreliable sources to lend any credence.

So, when it's convenient to avoid the question it's OK to rubbish the 'unreliable sources' but when the original quote reference is provided it's suddenly 'no problem'. This is precisely the point that was being made about the CRU and you've shown the same behaviour; you dismissed the issue because you couldn't access the original quote (aka 'data'), yet you see no problem that the CRU has lost it's underlying data, allowing people to question its conclusions because they can't access its original data.

It's precisely this sort of partisan approach and casual dismissal of opposing views that gives the green movement a bad name and is counter-productive when trying to convince people to change behaviours. And, like it or not, the green lobby can't change the world all by itself; it needs to change people's minds and hearts and simply rubbishing opponents and saying 'trust me' is pretty much a guaranteed way to fail.

 

[skier-hughes]

is global warming a natural phenomena like the ice age, is it totally human created,

As far as I'm concerned, this question was settled by the mid 1970s

But not for the majority of us, most of whom get lost or bamboozled by the science.

 

[biffvernon]

If you get bamboozled by science and don't want to put the hard work in to get unbamboozled then you're just going to have to take scientists' word for stuff. Do you understand how your phone works or how a plane stays up in the sky? Of course not - you just trust the scientists and engineers.

As for this silly business with CRU and the data - it's just such old news. The whole issue has been poured over ad nauseam. At the end of the day it is absolutely clear that the CRU are an honest and trustworthy organization and that Pielke et al are charlatans best ignored. End of. (And if you don't accepct that it's end of then trawl through the archives of RealClimate - the whole business is in the public domain.)

Look out for 10:10 launch at Tate Modern this afternoon.

 

[Flyfisher]

Biff, I'm not entirely sure if you're deliberately avoiding the issue or just misunderstanding it.

People may not understand how a telephones work, but it doesn't matter because nobody tries to tell them that they must or must not use them.

But when someone tries to change the way I live my life I'd like the reasons explained to me in ways I can understand. You may understand all the underlying scientific research whereas I may not. So, if you wish to influence me then you have to persuade me. Others will provide me with views that are contrary to your own and back those views up with their own sources of data and research. So, against this background of conflicting views and information, how do I decide what or who to believe if I don't understand the underlying science?

Someone who simply says "trust me because XYZ is a dangerous idiot" is not, in my view, doing a very good job to promote their cause. Indeed, they are being counter-productive because, in my experience, resorting to abuse is usually an indication that their own arguments are not defensible, hence the need to rubbish the opposing camp instead.

It's a big problem, perhaps the biggest one we face.

 

[bower1]

Do you understand how your phone works or how a plane stays up in the sky? Of course not - you just trust the scientists and engineers.

I'm afraid that's just not a very good analogy. If no-one had flown a plane before, and a scientist explained all the theory and an engineer assured me it would work, I certainly wouldn't be the first to fly in it. Planes are proved by testing and by previous proof of their ability to fly (or not!) so that you can make the judgement of risk as to whether to do so.

And as for phones, they can be proved to work or not.

I'm not saying this disproves anything (and I wouldn't want to). Just that I don't inherently trust scientists or engineers.

P.S. I am an engineer.

 

[Flyfisher]

If no-one had flown a plane before, and a scientist explained all the theory and an engineer assured me it would work, I certainly wouldn't be the first to fly in it.

What, not even if the scientists and engineers told you they were right and the nay-sayers were all dangerous idiots? :wink:
(DeHavilland Comet anyone?).

Joking aside though, that's precisely the point and it's a big challenge for the green lobby.

 

[bower1]

What, not even if the scientists and engineers told you they were right and the nay-sayers were all dangerous idiots?

Exactly.

 

[Lime]

Science has changed over the years.
Once it was based on tangible fact, experiment and reproducible results albeit always been accompanied by vested interest, one way or the other.
Now what is called science is based on belief, a show of hands and data that has been lost.
I expect Indiana Jones to come swinging into view any time now.

 

[Penners]

Do you understand how your phone works or how a plane stays up in the sky?

Yes and yes.

I also make a real effort to understand the climate change arguments that appear in my field of view - with a modest degree of intermittent success.

As a result, I tend towards giving them credence. Consequently, I am probably somewhere in the middle of the field when it comes to trying to adjust my lifestyle so as to reduce my personal carbon footprint.

But I confess that my commitment is not absolute. No matter how learned the arguments may be, there's still a part of me that is a little sceptical about the anthropogenic factor in all this. So my attempts to moderate my carbon emissions are made with an element of "just in case" about them.

What I do know is that I, and (I suggest) the great majority of those like me, will not be further persuaded by being browbeaten or ridiculed. If the evangelists find it tedious to present the arguments repeatedly, then they're going to lose those arguments.

 

[biffvernon]

Someone who simply says "trust me because XYZ is a dangerous idiot" is not, in my view, doing a very good job to promote their cause.

Of course I've never said any such thing. I have often referred you to the sources of information and the people that can be trusted. Indeed, this thread started with a statement from the chairman of the IPCC. Sources on climate change just don't come any more reliable than that.

What would it actually take, Flyfisher?

 

[biffvernon]

Science has changed over the years.
Once it was based on tangible fact, experiment and reproducible results albeit always been accompanied by vested interest, one way or the other.
Now what is called science is based on belief, a show of hands and data that has been lost.

Again, that is not a true statement.

 

[Flyfisher]

Someone who simply says "trust me because XYZ is a dangerous idiot" is not, in my view, doing a very good job to promote their cause.

Of course I've never said any such thing.

Er,

At the end of the day it is absolutely clear that the CRU are an honest and trustworthy organization and that Pielke et al are charlatans best ignored. End of.

Not verbatim, but pretty damn close.

I have often referred you to the sources of information and the people that can be trusted. Indeed, this thread started with a statement from the chairman of the IPCC. Sources on climate change just don't come any more reliable than that.

True, and I appreciate the sources, even though they can be pretty heavy reading. But you're still missing the point. Your opponents can also furnish similar sources of equally difficult-to-wade-through references and, at the end of the day, I (and, I suggest, the vast majority of people) don't have the time to become a full-time climate science expert, so what am I to do? Oh yes, trust you because the opponents are charlatans. Hmm.

What would it actually take, Flyfisher?

That is the $64k question. And I don't know the answer. But do know that browbeating and ridicule is, as Penners rightly points out, doomed to failure.

 

[biffvernon]

True, and I appreciate the sources, even though they can be pretty heavy reading. But you're still missing the point. Your opponents can also furnish similar sources of equally difficult-to-wade-through references and, at the end of the day, I (and, I suggest, the vast majority of people) don't have the time to become a full-time climate science expert, so what am I to do? Oh yes, trust you because the opponents are charlatans. Hmm.

Heavy reading? Yes, that's true, but if you want to understand climate science rather than just taking the scientist's word for it, then that's what you have to do.
Opponents furnishing similar sources? No, they can't. If you want to judge science stick to the peer reviewed journals and the scientists who have a reputation earned through their work. Like I pointed out, this thread is about what Pachauri, the topmost man in the game, said.
What to do? Don't trust me, but do trust the IPCC and the CRU and the rest of the real climate scientists.