Why we should think....Part 2

[alice]

Of course the data must be collected to the best of the scientist's ability. And I think we need to trust that the vast majority of scientists are honest in their reporting.

But in articles I've read that dispute the data and the methods used to gather it (and those generally been in the anti-warming/anti-manmade camp) then if they think the data is incorrect and conclusions drawn are wrong , then they should go out and remeasure themselves, and I don't see that happening.

Here's an interesting article on how propaganda has been used by one oil company, Exxon, to dispute global warming and the man-made connection by simply saying, loudly and consistantly, that the data gathered by scientists is wrong. If Exxon truly believes that it's not happening and that the basic science is incorrect, then they should spend some of those millions they put into publicity on funding some research teams to go out and remeasure. But they don't.

alice
[/url]

 

[NT]

To understand where all the propaganda (claimed evidence) comes from you merely need to follow the money. By claiming all sorts of climate disaster ahead, scientists, pseudoscientists and the large body of unscientific promoters are reaping research grants, starting up tree planting businesses, running consultancies, getting jobs working for local councils and so on. Even companies that use recycled plastics benefit from having consumers do all the sorting for them at no cost, and other companies can claim green credentials and pull off a price hike of such goods, bringing in yet more of people's money. Its a money game.

Like any money game it has a mass of so-called 'evidence' to support it, none or little of which genuinely holds water. If you think it does, ask these greenies one simple question:

Q: What is your plan of action to save the climate from this oncoming disaster?

And the truth is quickly revealed. No-one even has a workable plan! Theyre actually promoting a plan they know is a failure. What is put forth in their answer is either
a) a plan that clearly wont happen
b) a plan that if it were ever implemented would cause loss of life around the world on a genocidal scale, due to poverty
c) or assorted excuses for the absence of any workable plan

The duck isnt just dead, it whiffs pretty bad.


NT

 

[NT]

Research
--------

Of course the data must be collected to the best of the scientist's ability. And I think we need to trust that the vast majority of scientists are honest in their reporting.

I think that shows a lack of awareness of the nature of the research game. Some research is to find out the truth, with either outcome being regarded as acceptable, but most is to see if a case can be made for some profitable business plan. This is unsurprising when you consider that any investment in research has to be justified by a good chance of payback & profit. And of course most real world business plans ride on one possible research outcome, rather than working with either outcome.

There is a veritable array of plausibly deniable means that can help the chances of achieving a given desired outcome. And there is a clear financial motive for doing so. It should thus come as no surprise that the great majority of early medical trials fail to be repeated with the same results later. Of course the later trials can only be done a siginficant time after the early ones have given the thumbs up to potential profit.


However, none of the above need ever occur to debunk the green POV, which has much larger issues than any questions over research data. Consequently the question of past climate data is somewhat moot.


NT

 

[NT]

'Should'
--------

> if they think the data is incorrect and conclusions drawn are wrong [/b], then they should go out and remeasure themselves,

If you can make a case to support this point of view I'd be curious to hear it. I cant think how you will. Your answer would need to address questions like:

* Who will pay for all this work? Who is motivated to invest heavily in solving a non-problem?

* Why 'should' people invest years in investigating one scientifically invalid hypothesis when the world is populated with 1000s of other scientifically invalid hypotheses, none of which you say people 'should' invest their life / work / money in.

* Why is there any need for the nay-sayers to invest anything, when the green supporters are putting so much time, money and work into trying to prove their case, and despite all this have still never succeeded.

* And lastly, why is there a need to sink more time and money into the climate history question when there are far bigger holes in the hypothesis?


NT

 

[NT]

Propaganda & PR
---------------

> Here's an interesting article on how propaganda has been used by one oil company

That some people and organisations on both sides resort to propaganda tells us absolutely nothing about whether the green POV is true or false, so I dont really see the relevance.



> If Exxon truly believes that it's not happening and that the basic science is incorrect, then they should spend some of those millions they put into publicity on funding some research teams to go out and remeasure. But they don't.

Firstly that would be like sticking a plaster on a scratch when your arm has been severed. Remeasuring can only tell us about past and recent past climate change, and the biggest problems with the green case lies not with data on past climate, but with other aspects of the hypothesis.

Secondly large companies do have PR experts, and when the public has found you guilty, the best thing you can do is shut up. As that article illustrates, publicly disagreeing with what the majority has already decided is never going to win support, quite the opposite.

For PR reasons, if data is going to come from anywhere it needs to be from organisations well removed from oil companies. But the past climate data is moot anyway.

And finally the last thing oil co's want to do is encourage more discussion of the perceived problem with their business.


NT

 

[DaveBrigg]

- "Now the global-warming-is-not-manmade group can yell all they want, but until they come up with hard data that can compete with the wide variety of experiments, etc that show otherwise, then I will continue to listen to the side that can produce the best objective evidence."

Alice, I've just read through the four posts above, and it looks like you're going to have to wait a little longer before any of that hard data you're looking for turns up. Even a single fact from NT would have been nice on which to hang all those opinions.

 

[biffvernon]

In this part of the US there are a lot of born-again Christians who rail against public schools teaching the theory of evolution. There seems to be a line of thought that if something is labeled a theory, it must just be opinion and wrong opinion, at that.
The science teachers I work with are fond of pointing out that gravity is a theory, too, but if you want to argue the point, try jumping off a cliff first.

Absolutely right. Newtonian gravity was demonstrated to be wrong, following Einstein's work, but only a little wrong so we can still navigate the solar system on Newton's laws. Einstein only gave a partial account of gravity - there's more to learn. I'd put creationists and AGW deniers in the same boat.

The curious thing is why otherwise rational people refuse to accept the climate science. Now I would gladly take NT's advice in matters of elecrical wiring but he refuses to accept what we say about climate science.

 

[biffvernon]

Tom will doubtless be excited to read this paper.

For those of us mere mortals whose eyes glaze over at the sight of Greek letters, just read the last two paragraphs.

 

[Nemesis]

Yup.

A response to the paper, raising these (and other) issues, has already been submitted to the Journal of Geophysical Research, and another response (by a team in Switzerland) is in the works. It's important to note that this is the way science works. An idea is proposed and explored, the results are reported, the methodology is probed and critiqued by others, and their results are reported; in the process, we hope to learn more about how the world really works.

That Schwartz's result is heralded as the death-knell of global warming by denialist blogs and Sen. Inhofe, even before it has been officially published (let alone before the scientific community has responded) says more about the denialist movement than about the sensitivity of earth's climate system. But, that's how politics works.

I read a huge article in today's Observer about Bath by Stephen Bayley.

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/review/story/0,,2169978,00.html


We are invited to respond, but any letter would have to be a paragaraph or two long, if it has any chance of publication.

The article is one of the silliest I have read in a long time, with vast amounts of selected quotes, misinterpretation, being a bit economical with the truth, leaving out a great deal of important stuff about planning regulations, things like that.


But that's the way the media works.

And in the case of much about climate change, some of the denial (see previous thread...) is about some in the media making a living.

 

[Flyfisher]

The curious thing is why otherwise rational people refuse to accept the climate science.

Let's say AGW is true. What then? What's the plan to prevent the doomsayer's forecasts from actually happening? I really doubt that low-energy lightbulbs, recycling our drinks cans and banning 4x4s is going to make a big impact on a global basis.

What does the world, yes the world, have to do to halt/reverse the alleged impending disaster and how can it be achieved in practice?

 

[Nemesis]

Well, it seems to me that the way to manage any sort of difficulty starts :

1 Identify the problem.

 

[Flyfisher]

I thought that had already been done and dusted, apart from a few contrarians. So, ignoring them, what's the solution?

 

[Nemesis]

Well, we could not expand Stansted and stop flying as much... 8)

http://www.davidsuzuki.org/Climate_Change/

Dunno.

 

[Flyfisher]

I agree we can all do things that 'help', but what's the point in prolonging the end of the world a little bit? OK, overly dramatic, I know, but the point, surely, is to solve the problem, not reduce it.

 

[Nemesis]

Well, as far as I'm concerned, a bit of prolonging is fine.

As for the rest of you... as ye sow so shall ye reap?

Dunno.

1 Identify the problem...


http://globalwarming.wikidot.com/

 

[biffvernon]

Good question Flyfisher. You're right, changing a few lightbulbs won't save the planet, though every bit helps. Of course it's no good spending the money you save by using an energy efficient lightbulb on something that uses energy. Likewise it's no good stopping air travel if the fuel saved is then used elsewhere in the global economy.

Oil is in limited supply and very useful so it is very unlikely that we will beat the oil depletion curve - we won't use oil any slower than we can suck it out of the ground. The good news is that our ability to find oil might be slow enough to avoid sending the climate over the edge. Perhaps. But that makes it all the more important to use the oil wisely in a way that buys us the time to create a really sustainable future.

Burning the environmentally worse, and less useful because it's solid, coal, has to be a no-no. Most coal is used in electricity generation so a big priority has to be to avoid using electricity and to build all the renewable generating capacity we can as fast as we can, even if it means wind turbines go in Nemesis's back yard. Twenty are being built in sight of my house and I'm welcoming them.

Of course there is not nearly as much coal as a lot of people imagine and it can't substitute for many oil uses. The tar sands and shales and the very deep water sources of oil will also not be able to fill the gap opening by the decline of conventional oil. The lack of oil will hit the world economy before climate change really makes its effects felt.

Fortunately the strategies required to meet the imminent threat of energy security and the long term threat of climate change are rather similar. We need to move quickly to reliance on only renewable energy sources, and also begin the work of carbon sequestration, removing CO2 from the atmosphere and locking the carbon up forever.

There is already too much CO2 in the air. We have to stop adding more and then start removing the damage. It's no good saying it can't be done. It has to be done. And the sooner we set about it the less painful it will be.

An appreciation and understanding of Period Properties, built before the oil age, and the way people used those houses, before the oil age, may contain lessons for the future. It is here that this forum may be able to make it's small contribution.

 

[Flyfisher]

But what is the impact going to be on the people who will have to adapt their current lifestyle and, more importantly, will they accept it?

The alleged solutions have more potential for catastrophe than the putative problem. The conclusion of the late climate scientist Roger Revelle—Al Gore's supposed mentor—is worth pondering: the evidence for global warming thus far doesn't warrant any action unless it is justifiable on grounds that have nothing to do with climate.

Richard Lindzen
Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17997788/site/newsweek/

 

[Nemesis]

I wouldn't care if it was in my backyard.

It's not though. We are only high landscape value, the proposals are in magnificent places.

It's really about landownership and making cash.

However, I hate waste, and the profligate use of the earth's resources.

Tread lightly om the earth...

 

[Nemesis]

Hey though - this could make a difference when saving water:

http://www.waterbutts.com/Butt/index.html

 

[NT]

Now I would gladly take NT's advice in matters of elecrical wiring but he refuses to accept what we say about climate science.

If anyone ever comes up with genuine valid scientific evidence for all 4 tenets of the green belief set, I'll be happy to sign up. As things stand today, no-one even _has_ a workable plan for a solution to the unestablished projected problem.


NT

PS since I'm very much in favour of energy efficiency, you have little converting work to do anyway