For anyone who watched the recent Channel 4 programme about climate change...

[watervole]

"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."

Comments

[the-magician.livejournal.com]

It's going to be a good debate at Contemplation :-) watervole and I are on it :-)

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!

[steverogerson.livejournal.com]

The difficulty will be in finding someone willing to argue the case against, not because there are not people out there but because some of the people who support the humans cause global warming side are almost religious in their belief, and it thus takes a little courage to stand up when potentially faced with that. That means it would also need a strong chair to let both sides of the argument be put forward evenly.

[watervole.livejournal.com]

It would also need careful selection of topics in advance. You have to agree what you're discussing, other wise you may not have the correct data.

eg. One person may arrive with all the ocean temperature data only to discover that the other person is arguing about ice cores.

[steverogerson.livejournal.com]

I thin something straightforward, such as "Are humans causing global warming?"

[watervole.livejournal.com]

Er, that's not in the least straighforward.

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.)