![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
For anyone who watched the recent Channel 4 programme about climate change...
"the programme - and the channel - is facing a serious challenge to its own credibility after one of the most distinguished scientists that it featured said his views had been "grossly distorted" by the film, and made it clear that he believed human pollution did warm the climate."
http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/climate_change/article2347526.ece
"is the sun responsible now?
Some sceptics say so and probably it played the major role until quite recently. But over the past three decades, solar activity has scarcely risen, while temperatures have shot up - a fact disguised in the film. What has gone up is CO2 and even top sceptic Nigel Lawson admits it is "highly likely" that the gas has "played a significant part" in global warming this century."
http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/climate_change/article2347526.ece
"is the sun responsible now?
Some sceptics say so and probably it played the major role until quite recently. But over the past three decades, solar activity has scarcely risen, while temperatures have shot up - a fact disguised in the film. What has gone up is CO2 and even top sceptic Nigel Lawson admits it is "highly likely" that the gas has "played a significant part" in global warming this century."
no subject
no subject
no subject
But you know how to make these, right?
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
If they didn't mention the models that he was happy with, then people will assume that he believed all climate models to be flawed.
no subject
But in fairness to Channel 4 here, they did not suggest in any way that he was against the CO2 causes global warming theory. The scientists who were against the theory were very obvious because they argued against it. He didn't at any point argue against it.
I suspect that this is the pros looking for ways to discredit the programme rather that tackling the real issues that it raised.
no subject
no subject
no subject
If anyone has the time to research a full talk on the *actual* relationship between solar cycles and climate, then all power to their elbow, but they'd need to produce decent graphs and really know their stuff and be capable of answering questions from people who watch programmes that only exist in order to sell advertising space.
If it was that easy to debunk man-caused global warming in real life, there'd be a lot of very happy scientists.
no subject
no subject
Ten years ago, it was a totally different story - then there was meaningful dissent that had some validity. THE dissenters are now in a small minority - they only get airtime because TV channels like to present controversy and know that most of their audience don't have sufficient knowledge to know where the balance really lies.
The scientific consensus worldwide is in the IPCC report - and you could put up a good case for conspiricy theory in the data that was kept out of that becasue only 90% rather than 95% of scientists agree on it. THe potential methane and and CO2 feedback loops if permafrost starts to melt are horrendous.
no subject
OK, it makes sense to turn things off, just because it saves you money. But I am against extra tax on flights, for example, because that will start to price some people out of flying. It will start to become again something just for the rich, which I oppose on principle, especially when it is only based on a theory.
Also, some politicians are using this as an excuse to slow down development in the third world, where many countries and areas need development urgently. To leave them in poverty just based on a theory is extremely wrong in my view.
no subject
The logic is clear. If we don't act, there's a 5-10% chance we'll all come out fine.
On the other hand, if we don't act, there's a 90-95% chance of massive drought in Africa, advancing deserts in China, the loss of much of America's grain belt, the loss of the Amazon rain forest, massive water shortages in Australia, etc.
We cannot wait until we are 100% certain because by that point it will be too late for us to be able to do anything. When we hit the point of millions dead, it will be too late to say "I wish we'd cut CO2 emissions 50 years ago.".
THe rich will survive, the poor will die. Go and read the Stern report. You're very keen to quote anything that debunks global warming, but you haven't made the effort to read the data that supports it.
Go on - read it and THEN tell me it's 'just a theory'.
If it's a choice between me being able to afford to fly to Japan or children dying in Africa, then I find it an easy choice to make. Taxing flights may cut out the lower income groups, starvation affects the poorest of all.
I can never figure why you aren't out there, shouting that the vulnerable should be protected.
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
Go and read the Stern Report, THEN and ONLY then do you have the right to call it a dubious theory.
no subject
no subject
I've been waiting for some "debunking" and "context" for the Channel 4 programme, because if 90% of the world's scientists believe one thing, then the C4 programme pretty much only talked to the other 10% so it was skewed entirely to the sunspot etc. theory.
Not that necessarily makes it wrong, breakthroughs in science are often against the flow of what "everyone" knows to be true.
I'd certainly like to see a more reasoned analysis (I don't need a debate, it shouldn't be about points scoring, it should be about good science and remaining sceptical of both sides)
and as Judith says, it will probably take someone far longer and more time than available before Contemplation to present the minority report, so I'm looking forward to the Orbital version!
no subject
no subject
eg. One person may arrive with all the ocean temperature data only to discover that the other person is arguing about ice cores.
no subject
no subject
eg. The obvious data is the temperature graph plotted against CO levels in the atmosphere and that would appear to prove the case outright without any further argument. However, you then have to add in data for sunspots, Chandler wobble, levels of atmospheric dust, the effect of urban heat islands and several other factors beside.
Then you have to account for where the temperature/CO data comes from. Is it based on ice cores, chemical changes in sediments? What chemical processes give rise to the knowledge that a particular reading accurately reflects the temp/CO2 levels at the time?
Are we using human historical records? Are they accurate? eg. I saw one detailed study that looked at the use of old ships logs from sailing ships - they gave weather readings in areas where there were no other records. the data had to be evaluated to see if it was consistent between ship's captains and with other meterological data from the period. (turns out it was very accurate, probably due to ships officers getting good training)
I know enough to realise how complex the data is and how many things affect it. All a non-believer has to do is to select one random piece of data, eg ice cores and say "how can you claim that ice cores taken from the Arctic are in any way related to to the climate in the rest of the world. How can you prove the date correctly when ice sometimes melts and how canyou show that the gas hasn't diffused between samples?"
Now, that is not data I would have to hand and it would take a week's research to get it all and the entire session to answer the question in full detail to show that the data stands up.
YOu're up against the classic 'creationism' tactics. If you bring along the ice core data, then all they have to do to appear to catch you out is to shift tactics and say "How can you possibly claim that global warming is responsible for events like Hurricane Katrina when hurricane frequence hasn't increased?"
That would need a week's research on a totally separate topic. (the short answer is that ocean surface temperatures affect the strength of a hurricane)
All a sceptic has to do is to challenge any random fact. The defender has to have an enormous quantity of data and knowledge of several specialities.
I'm an environmental scientist - at least I know where to start looking for the proof. I certainly don't have it all memorised.
If one reverses the situation, I need to know what data the other person is depending on. Unless I can check up on that data beforehand, I can't tell if they're using current data (like Durkin and his 16-year old reseach that missed all the most recent warming).
Unless you narrow the topic down and give both sides advance warning of what is going to be used by the other, then all you'll get is meaningless mud-slinging.
Go and read the Stern Report and select a suitable topic from that. I particularly recommend the section on ethics where it asks what our ethical duty is to the countries that will be most affected (and they're not the ones that are causing the problem.)
no subject
Given that I picked up expecting news, quite possibly bad, about my hospitalised grandfather, I wasn't exactly what one might call receptive. I think I might not be visiting the Norfolk end of the family for a while. :-/