Some Interesting Articles On Global Warming

[Grabthaw the Hammerslayer 4]

Ah Andres. You've fallen into the mindset - if they say it, it must be right. Piotr has done a good job of explaining the problem with this ^^^ The thing is, there is this illusion that science is fact, science is true. It is not. It is coloured by the prejudices, flavours of the month and personal ambitions. Humans are involved ergo it will never be objective. Seen it happen. And the CRU issue is a classic example - a cluster of people for whatever reason collaborating, suppressing information, making things fit, ganging up. Its tribal. Its human. Its crap.

To the "if they say it, it must be right" debate I will say three things: Gallileo, Darwin, Einstein. They challenged the convention. If you went with the "consensus is right" angle we'd still believe the world is 6000 years old, was flat, etc

What if I told you that there is no agreed definition of global temperature? And that most of the official stations are land-based (on a planet that is two thirds water), many in cities, a large number not meeting the basic criteria (in terms of minimum distance from buildings and heat sources)? That many of the temperatures used for modelling are based upon either interpolation (guessing) or from tree core samples, which recently have also been shot to bits as the scientists who did this were selective with their results.

The other disturbing thing is the media manipulation. BBC had a semi-secret meeting where they deliberately took a policy stance that GW was fact and have actively since promoted pro-GW stories and ignored anti. Hell if the theory is so good why can't we have balance? Criticism? BBC have even been challenged on this and refused to budge.

The fact is Andres. The theory is not 100% proven. The earth's climate is very complex and there are many factors: cloud cover, CO2, methane, cosmic rays, solar cycles, el Nino, turbulence. No-one really knows how our climate works yet, its too complex. No-one also knows what the impacts might be - you are assuming thermogeddon.

Andres its not all about taxes. Its about crap science. Manipulation. Media hype. And major policy decisions with far reaching effects.

And its just plain wrong.

[maure 1]

Good summary, Piotr.

And meanioni, although this might hurt (you), we seem to agree on the basics here... hell, we could go on agreeing for hours on end, it seems.

Anyway, I think we should all thank Oh Quiet One for playing devil's advocate so that we could ramble on. Thanks, old sport.

[Grabthaw the Hammerslayer 4]

Good summary, Piotr.

And meanioni, although this might hurt (you), we seem to agree on the basics here... hell, we could go on agreeing for hours on end, it seems.

Anyway, I think we should all thank Oh Quiet One for playing devil's advocate so that we could ramble on. Thanks, old sport.

Maure. We may differ on other things. But hell that's what life is about. Doesn't hurt me at all. Good to see intelligent, reasoned discussion.

[Quiet One 15]

DouitashimaSh#te, Maure-san (and no, Steve, that is not pronounced like "do we touch in my Sh#te"!)

@Piotr: sorry for making you type all that, but, frankly, it didn't add much to the argument.

@Chris & Maure: Ditto. I can see some of your points but still they are not too relevant to my point.

You guys are trying to prove that GW is wrong. I said I wouldn't bother to prove it right and, as you can see, I didn't (I love to keep my word when my word was "I won't do anything"...it's so easy!)

To explain why I still support GW, but I don't support other "bad sciences" like astrology, UFOlogy, homeopathy and I even have my serious doubts about psychology, we should dwelve into definitions of pathological sciences (Martin Gardner has wrote many interesting articles on that) and such. We would have to discuss why "having faith" on some scientific theories is not the same as "having faith" that touching that stain on my wall that looks like St.Homobono will cure my baldness. We are veering towards plain epistemology (spelling?) here. Is GW bad science or not? Is it closer to the 2012 end of the world theory or closer to the wormholes theory? I am not aptly qualified to discuss that.

And none of those were my point. My point was as simple as this: do you think that the truth or falsehood of GW theory implies that the world's variables (like temperature) should not be treated with utmost respect before happily messing with them with pollution?

[Grabthaw the Hammerslayer 4]

Let me give another example of "bent" thinking GW wise. For this example it does not matter whether you believe in GW or not.

Wind power. UK is windiest country in Europe, largely as it sits on the jet-stream. The UK Government is actively promoting wind-power - pushing large investment. It has supported this by guaranteeing income levels from wind energy... so much so that it became a very good business model.

Now there is a problem. Wind turbines are not efficient. The maximum efficiency a wind turbine can ever hope to reach is 59% scientifically proven - and by efficiency I mean how much of the wind energy it converts. Most average a lot less than that and are designed with a "design point" in mind where the maximum efficiency can be reached - this will be an optimal wind speed. Problem is wind is not consistent, so they rarely average more than 20% efficiency.

Next problem - for a wind turbine to work, they need the wind to be blowing for most of the time. It doesn't. It is not unusual for periods of up to 10 days with no wind. Originally the thinking was that if there was a large wind-farm network across Europe, the wind in one country would offset quiet periods in others. Only that doesn't work either as if the wind stops blowing it usually affects most of Europe.

Given that all the energy consumers' demands do not stop when the wind stops, there needs to be an alternate source of power to fill in the gaps. So, energy companies have to build more gas-fired power stations which can respond quickly to troughs in demand and can be fired up fast. Problem here - 1) creates CO2 and 2) Creates more CO2 than a gas station running constantly (as they have to heat it up quick). Oh not forgetting all the CO2 that has to be created to make the turbines...

So an apparently CO2-friendly energy source actually means having to build more fossil fuel stations to support it. Wasted investment. More CO2...

Like I said - just one example of "wonky" thinking where actually what we have is a lack of a well-thought-through energy strategy from most western Governments...

[Grabthaw the Hammerslayer 4]

And none of those were my point. My point was as simple as this: do you think that the truth or falsehood of GW theory implies that the world's variables (like temperature) should not be treated with utmost respect before happily messing with them with pollution?

...and my point was that you are assuming that we can and do have an impact on temperatures. OK, if I'm wrong we're all gonna die! Actually, no but I will get a nice beachside property and looking forward to harvesting coconuts Seriously thermogeddon may not happen; there are actual benefits from global warming. There was a medieval warm period where it was warmer than it is now and the world did not end. In fact, whenever there have been warmer periods, historically humankind has blossomed.

If I am right, however we have committed a terrible sin in wasting billions chasing the dragon's tail when it could have been better invested in preventing disease, famine, saving endangered species, reducing pollution.

I am not anti-treating our planet with respect. I am anti picking on this GW issue specifically - is this really the worst thing affecting the world???

So, if true less people die from cold-related illnesses, we get more crops (as C02 is higher) and people will have to move to avoid the rising floods. Which has happened before and will take place over an extended period of time - you are not going to wake up with the sea lapping at your doorstep!!!

There are 5 million new cases of AIDS each year globally - avoidable.

Every 2 seconds, someone dies of starvation - avoidable.

Each year 1.8 million children die from diarrhoea that could be prevented with access to clean water and a toilet.

Now given the choice of investing billions - would I chose fixing those ^^^ or worrying about people having to relocate over several generations?

[Quiet One 15]

...and my point was that you are assuming that we can and do have an impact on temperatures. OK, if I'm wrong we're all gonna die! Actually, no but I will get a nice beachside property and looking forward to harvesting coconuts Seriously thermogeddon may not happen; there are actual benefits from global warming. There was a medieval warm period where it was warmer than it is now and the world did not end. In fact, whenever there have been warmer periods, historically humankind has blossomed.

Really? Are you sure? Was it proven beyond doubt better than GW? Then how come "consensus" is closer to GW than towards "pollution is your friend"?

If I am right, however we have committed a terrible sin in wasting billions chasing the dragon's tail when it could have been better invested in preventing disease, famine, saving endangered species, reducing pollution.

I am not anti-treating our planet with respect. I am anti picking on this GW issue specifically - is this really the worst thing affecting the world???

So, if true less people die from cold-related illnesses, we get more crops (as C02 is higher) and people will have to move to avoid the rising floods. Which has happened before and will take place over an extended period of time - you are not going to wake up with the sea lapping at your doorstep!!!

There are 5 million new cases of AIDS each year globally - avoidable.

Every 2 seconds, someone dies of starvation - avoidable.

Each year 1.8 million children die from diarrhoea that could be prevented with access to clean water and a toilet.

Now given the choice of investing billions - would I chose fixing those ^^^ or worrying about people having to relocate over several generations?

Again, a perfect reasoning, but your premises still fail to convince me. You guys are fascinated with debunking GW, and I am not going to stop you (I know the thrill).

But the starting premises you have for it are...not that impressive(and hence my weak defense of GW and my strong accent on "ok, Gw is wrong...so?")

Ok. Once again. GW is wrong. It's like astrology funded by governments. You convinced me for the next five minutes. Hand me a sign that says "DOWN WITH GW!". Point me to the place where the global anti GW demonstration will take place...but wait...why are we SO DAMN WORKED UP AGAINST THIS???? Waste of millions? Sounds good, except that there are a billion other activities that waste even more money, raise your taxes yet are not even remotely related to giving you a better future (GW might be wrong, but at least it sounds as if being for humankinds benefit)

Why aren't you making threads about "Some interesting articles on Afghanistan"? They waste everyday there what GW must waste in a whole month (would have said a year but some idiot will look up the Wikkipedia and discuss how much Aghanistan war and GW actually cost...no matter how much, defense costs are way higher I thinke we agree). Why nobody is outraged at the awful distribution of wealth that causes those diseases, those famines? Why I see no threads about injustice, about greed, about war, about cigarettes for George's sake? Pollution...YOU GUYS THINK POLLUTION IS GOOD YES OR NO??? If not? Why never started a thread about it? What about ravaging of natural resources? Illegal fishing? Drug and politics?

But no, apparently GW is the mother of all that is bad in the world. Mmmh...sorry, I give you back your "DOWN WITH GW" sign. I still have 2 more minutes not to believe in it. It still does not seem to be worth fo so many efforts from your side to impress me with your debunking superiority. I amo not impressed.

Somebody up to debunk UFOs?

[Max Mosley 2]

Not to be mean to anyone, even Maure (who's probably allergic to common sense), but this thread does little other than convince me to blindly trust experts. They make a lot more sense than everyone else. Thank goodness governments only pay lip service to public opinion.

I agree that we should prioritise helping the most desperate people in the world far more than we do. But as Andres says, no one ever really, genuinely wants to. We'd all just complain about paying higher taxes. And if the situation were reversed, the Africans would feel the same way about helping us. Such is human nature.

[Grabthaw the Hammerslayer 4]

I amo not impressed.

Andres don't ask you to be. Nor is this a competition for world ills.

Interesting you call CO2 "pollution" Its natural and only 3% - 4% of the atmosphere is composed of man-made CO2. Its contribution to greenhouse effect is about 0.28% http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

All I ask that people are not blinded by the hype.

I'm not acting superior I just believe in good, objective science: Freely published data so that anyone can take and work with. A peer review system that is not a private members club. A philosophy of encouraging positive criticism. A measuring network that is accurate. Results based on facts not guesswork or cherry-picked data. And a culture where pro and anti can work together.

I don't think that is unreasonable.

How can anyone believe the claims when none of the above applies. The GW house of cards is based on foundations of custard.

[Grabthaw the Hammerslayer 4]

Not to be mean to anyone, even Maure (who's probably allergic to common sense), but this thread does little other than convince me to blindly trust experts. They make a lot more sense than everyone else. Thank goodness governments only pay lip service to public opinion.

I agree that we should prioritise helping the most desperate people in the world far more than we do. But as Andres says, no one ever really, genuinely wants to. We'd all just complain about paying higher taxes. And if the situation were reversed, the Africans would feel the same way about helping us. Such is human nature.

You of all people should be able to see that the data and processes behind some of the models are flawed.

Can you really condone a peer-review process that is a closed shop? Where information has been discarded or suppressed? Where data has been selectively picked to illustrate a point and where supposedly top scientists in their field are colluding to prevent other counter information from being published?

You may back that type of "science" I sure as hell won't.

[Quiet One 15]

Andres don't ask you to be. Nor is this a competition for world ills.

Interesting you call CO2 "pollution" Its natural and only 3% - 4% of the atmosphere is composed of man-made CO2. Its contribution to greenhouse effect is about 0.28% http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

All I ask that people are not blinded by the hype.

I'm not acting superior I just believe in good, objective science: Freely published data so that anyone can take and work with. A peer review system that is not a private members club. A philosophy of encouraging positive criticism. A measuring network that is accurate. Results based on facts not guesswork or cherry-picked data. And a culture where pro and anti can work together.

I don't think that is unreasonable.

How can anyone believe the claims when none of the above applies. The GW house of cards is based on foundations of custard.

B-b-but...I don't give a crap about CO2 in what I am argumenting right now! I already said I don't want to be dragged into a data combat or, even worse, a "consensus" argument. I posed some questions up there...that's all I wanted to know! Yet, somehow, you guys fail to see all this and keep throwing at me lots of meaningless statistics and links as if I was somehow doubting about your data and sources (which I do, but that's entirely out of my focus right now and thus, didn't argue about CRU, or CO2 levels)

Ok, so we are all blinded by the GW hype. And...? (hint: war against terror, Nuclear waste, Drugs, the Economic crisis, toxic bonds, Standard & Poors manipulating numbers to select governemnts in third world countries that comply with their view...all of those don't worry you? If they do...why everybody's hate is so centered on GW which, at worst would be one of many fruitless search for global solutions?)

[Piotr 0]

OK, what I was trying to explain in my post is that:

1) CRU represents probably 40% of all studies supporting AGW (not just GW - we are warming as we should - we are in the iterglacial epoch). People who are 90% in charge of CRU studies are the ones caught in climategate (31,000,000 hits on google, one program on MSNBC, 2 on CNN, 0 on ABC or NBC). So, it's not just "a few bad apples in one of many institutions" - these are people absolutely central and essential to the whole AGW debacle.

2) It's not a vast conspiracy, it's probably less than 50 people worldwide - scary, isn't it?

3) the data used by CRU came partially (probably about half of it) from NOAA and NASA with NASA (mr. Hansen) doing the same criminal (I believe it's felony) thing by refusing FOIA request RIGHT NOW.

4) "Peer reviewed" nowadays has become a joke - peer review by me would probably be more valuable.

3) The oil companies (and the research institutions and the governments) did and will profit immensely (billions $$$) from perpetrating AGW myth - that's an answer to YOUR points.

So, although I did not managed to add anything to discussion, I just managed to refute all of your previous arguments. After which you changed your arguments.

This is NOT about curbing pollution, this is about trillions of OUR money that are at stake here, and it is based on faulty and refutable theory of few.

Finally, you continue to use the word "consensus." As I showed you it DOES NOT EXIST!!! "Consensus" is a lie coined by Al Gore based on faulty and already refuted study (ONE study 6 years ago). The consensus argument lives on only because people who push AGW agenda were able to squash ANY dissenting studies and scientific publications WORLD WIDE - as demonstrated by climategate.

Now do you get it?

[Grabthaw the Hammerslayer 4]

OK Andres, your questions:

1) "Do you think that the truth or falsehood of GW theory implies that the world's variables (like temperature) should not be treated with utmost respect before happily messing with them with pollution?"

The premise of that question is that we humans have the capacity to change temperatures. Fundamental to my argument is that I do not share that view.

You also state the CO2 is pollution again I challenge this.

Anyway to answer your question - we do not know enough to be able to say; I would like to see a more open sharing of data so that we can take a proper decision and based upon the evidence I have seen so far it is inconclusive.

2) "Ok, so we are all blinded by the GW hype. And...?"

And shouldn't we as intelligent beings be spending our time more productively?

3) "all of those don't worry you?" Yes they do. And actually I think we agree I, too wonder why its such a big deal - that was my earlier point. I can't understand why it is a big deal but it is. Look at the news - covered in GW stories, climate summits, targets on nations, taxes, scandals. Personally I'd like it to all go away. Which it will eventually when people realise it was a big con.

4) "Was it proven beyond doubt better than GW? Then how come "consensus" is closer to GW than towards "pollution is your friend"? "

See Piotr's posts on consensus. Again you are saying "pollution" - 97% of atmospheric CO2 is natural. CO2 levels have been much much higher historically. By labelling CO2 as pollution you are making a value judgment on the discussion. Not balanced.

And in terms of GW being not being that bad, Read Nigel Lawson's book - he outlines the positive aspects of GW, very interesting.

5) "why are we SO DAMN WORKED UP AGAINST THIS????"

I don't know, why is everyone worked up? And why GW rather than anything else. i) its a start ii) there are few other fields where so many lies are being peddled iii) the economic implications are serious globally.

6) "YOU GUYS THINK POLLUTION IS GOOD YES OR NO???"

Dumb question. Who would say yes to that. My question back - what makes you think CO2 is pollution?

7) "What about ravaging of natural resources? Illegal fishing? Drug and politics?"

Yes all worthy of attention. That's my point. If we stopped people chasing dragon's tails we could do more about these things.

[Max Mosley 2]

You of all people should be able to see that the data and processes behind some of the models are flawed.

Can you really condone a peer-review process that is a closed shop? Where information has been discarded or suppressed? Where data has been selectively picked to illustrate a point and where supposedly top scientists in their field are colluding to prevent other counter information from being published?

You may back that type of "science" I sure as hell won't.

Sorry if my previous post was a little rude. As we all know, I get that way sometimes.

Yes, I agree with you that the science world is deeply flawed as a whole, and controversial areas like climate change especially so. Another good example would be medicine: as Maure will no doubt explain, there are enormous vested interests almost certainly influencing research in order to convince people expensive drugs both work and don't have dangerous side-effects. Nevertheless, most people still go to their doctor when they get ill and trust that he knows what he's talking about.

Ultimately I agree with Andres, unpalatable as some of his lefty views might be, that there is at least a significant chance that the AGW theory is correct and that the consequences of messing with our planet might well be dire. Therefore I think the responsible course of action is to try to reduce the amount we pollute the planet. If the theory is wrong, we won't really have wasted that much money. But if the theory is right and we don't take action, we might cause terrible problems.

To give another medical example, suppose someone goes to the doctor with a headache. The doctor discovers that it's a rare disease for which you have two options: to put up with the mild discomfort of the otherwise harmless condition, or to take a new drug that has a, for sake of argument, 10% chance of giving you really disastrous side-effects. Most people would say the best course of action is not to take even a modest risk of disaster, even if it means giving up a tiny amount of comfort in the here and now.

[Grabthaw the Hammerslayer 4]

Sorry if my previous post was a little rude. As we all know, I get that way sometimes.

S'alright Graham no offence taken lol Think I know you well enough by now - now if you had gone on about single spec series....

I understand where you are coming from, but again your thinking is predicated on one belief: That CO2 is a pollutant. I don't argue with taking positive action towards the planet and reducing pollution, nor do I disagree with the concept of acting responsibly. I understand that there are many issues that need tackling.

Back to GW. If you accept CO2 is a pollutant then your course of action makes sense. Yes I agree especially if it does have such far-reaching effects. But there are two issues for me:

1) Is CO2 really the cause? and 2) Are the effects as dramatic (or as bad) as it being made out?

With 1) won't go through the boring science but this is where most GW activity is taking place. Much of it is around proving using evidence. The problem is the lack of records. Temperature records only go back 150 years and have gaps; before that it is based upon tree rings and ice cores. The problem is currently that key members of the scientific fraternity are either accidently using data which has been proven to be wrong or are tweaking data by selectively harvesting records or fixing data to fit theories. Why they are doing this is beyond me and not going into conspiracy theories. It has just happened.

We have the capacity, now to establish once and for all what the situation is so we can definitively say if CO2 is the cause of global warming. We don't have to wait and keep our fingers crossed just in case. My biggest concern/beef with the whole situation is that the data exists, but is being manipulated, lost or messed around with. When third parties have tried to request data under FOI requests they are denied. This is plain bad science. Unethical. Criminal. As I have said all along - if the theory is so strong and true why are they circling the wagons? Already the hockey stick graph has been shot to bits. They cannot explain why the earth is currently cooling and much of the data on which the theory is based is now under question because of the CRU nobbling and issues with core data such as Yamal tree ring samples.

So until the bad science is evicted I will stick with my conviction that the model is wrong. It is important as Governments are making policy decisions now that have very far-reaching consequences economically.

2) Thermogeddon - OK let's say GW is true. What's the worst that can happen? (I can provide more on this)

- Increase of heat-related deaths - true but the net death rate will fall as more people die from cold than heat even with GW. So actually we will be better off

- Failure of crops - yes in some zones, but increased heat and dramatically increase CO2 will increase plant and food yields and made some areas of land which are currently unfarmable useable. Overall there will be a positive effect.

- Increase in disease - usually depicted in the media by malarial mosquitos - malaria is not heat dependent. It was first discovered in Lake Malaren in Sweden (hence its name) and used to be endemic across Europe. There is no evidence to suggest that increased temperatures will have any effect on malaria. People are confusing the fact that it tends to be prevalent in hot countries with the real cause: lack of infrastructure/investment to tackle it. There are no indications that any other diseases would increase as a result of heat.

- Increase in desertification - true, but then areas of tundra would also become more habitable

- More dramatic weather - already one theory has been blown to bits when pro-GW camp claimed hurricanes were on increase. Wrong. Anyway so we are predicted to get more wind/wild weather. Wrong. Wrongity Wrong. Our global weather system is driven by the difference in temperatures between the equator and poles. In a scenario where the earth is warmer, the difference would be less. So therefore less wind and less extreme weather.

- Melting of ice-caps - OK first of all Arctic is sea-ice anyway so even if it all melted there would be no major impact on sea levels. Issues are with Antarctica and glaciers which is "new" water. Anyhoo, so ice caps melt. Current predictions are from 20cm to 20m rises in sea level. Yes, that's right a margin of error of 10,000%!!! And admittedly to bangladeshis, inhabitants of islands this is a problem, BUT these rises are predicted to happen over 100 years so in the best case scenario, this is 2mm a year, worst 20cm per year. We are not currently seeing anything like the worst case scenario. Anyway at that rate of increase it would take several generations before things got serious. People would have time to move. Its happened before.

So looking at all this ^^^ the worst that could happen is a moderate sea level rise over several generations. Otherwise we'd be better off.

Therefore whilst I understand the sentiment - shouldn't we be careful. Yes, but why are we wasting so much effort on something that is not proven to be taking place (and indeed much science is pointing in the other direction) and even if it does will not have that great an impact????

[mikathegreat2 2]

blah, blah C02 blah!

[Grabthaw the Hammerslayer 4]

blah, blah C02 blah!

Hey! That's my line!!! lol

Alright I'll shut up

Goes off in corner, sulking, mumbling to himself, trips over Adam's "Optimus Prime"

[maure 1]

Maure. We may differ on other things. But hell that's what life is about. Doesn't hurt me at all. Good to see intelligent, reasoned discussion.

( Grabthaw the Hammerslayer == meanioni )?

I was just joking. You rock.

DouitashimaSh#te, Maure-san (and no, Steve, that is not pronounced like "do we touch in my Sh#te"!)

@Piotr: sorry for making you type all that, but, frankly, it didn't add much to the argument.

@Chris & Maure: Ditto. I can see some of your points but still they are not too relevant to my point.

You guys are trying to prove that GW is wrong. I said I wouldn't bother to prove it right and, as you can see, I didn't (I love to keep my word when my word was "I won't do anything"...it's so easy!)

To explain why I still support GW, but I don't support other "bad sciences" like astrology, UFOlogy, homeopathy and I even have my serious doubts about psychology, we should dwelve into definitions of pathological sciences (Martin Gardner has wrote many interesting articles on that) and such. We would have to discuss why "having faith" on some scientific theories is not the same as "having faith" that touching that stain on my wall that looks like St.Homobono will cure my baldness. We are veering towards plain epistemology (spelling?) here. Is GW bad science or not? Is it closer to the 2012 end of the world theory or closer to the wormholes theory? I am not aptly qualified to discuss that.

And none of those were my point. My point was as simple as this: do you think that the truth or falsehood of GW theory implies that the world's variables (like temperature) should not be treated with utmost respect before happily messing with them with pollution?

You know, I appreciate it when you drop a word or two in Japanese. By the way, ain't it amusing to see that some of the polite form of verbs "Sh#te", "Sh#ta", etc are being censored in English? Ok, you might not be laughing but, believe me, linguist dig this short of stuff.

Anyways.

Your point is mistaken. The planet might be warming up or cooling down. The argument posed by the GW crowd is that _people_ are to blame for this (warming, in particular). It turns out, when looked at closely, that it isn't clear if the planet is warming up after all and even less clear that people are to be blamed for it. That's about it.

None of the guys around here talking against the GW alarmists say it's ok to pollute. Rather the opposite, we have all explained very clearly that we think the world should be treated better by us... and this includes moving on from political hysteria based on bad science.

Most non-academic people do not understand the implications of what Piotr said:

As to the famous IPCC "the science is settled" reports, the CRU e-mails suggest that the Team actively removed any reviewers disagreeing with their findings. Moreover, if you heard argument that AGW studies were "peer reviewed", well apparently peer reviewers of the studies completed by the Team came from... the Team members! so, essentially the Team "peer reviewed" their own studies.

This fact alone requires that all GW papers published in this manner to be reviewed once again before any of their "findings" can be accepted in the academia.

... this thread does little other than convince me to blindly trust experts.

Your admission is naive and paradoxical.

I wonder how you determine who the experts are... by "blind faith" too, of course.

blah, blah C02 blah!

Babbling produces CO2, you planet hater.

[Quiet One 15]

OK Andres, your questions:

1) "Do you think that the truth or falsehood of GW theory implies that the world's variables (like temperature) should not be treated with utmost respect before happily messing with them with pollution?"

The premise of that question is that we humans have the capacity to change temperatures. Fundamental to my argument is that I do not share that view.

You also state the CO2 is pollution again I challenge this.

Anyway to answer your question - we do not know enough to be able to say; I would like to see a more open sharing of data so that we can take a proper decision and based upon the evidence I have seen so far it is inconclusive.

2) "Ok, so we are all blinded by the GW hype. And...?"

And shouldn't we as intelligent beings be spending our time more productively?

3) "all of those don't worry you?" Yes they do. And actually I think we agree I, too wonder why its such a big deal - that was my earlier point. I can't understand why it is a big deal but it is. Look at the news - covered in GW stories, climate summits, targets on nations, taxes, scandals. Personally I'd like it to all go away. Which it will eventually when people realise it was a big con.

4) "Was it proven beyond doubt better than GW? Then how come "consensus" is closer to GW than towards "pollution is your friend"? "

See Piotr's posts on consensus. Again you are saying "pollution" - 97% of atmospheric CO2 is natural. CO2 levels have been much much higher historically. By labelling CO2 as pollution you are making a value judgment on the discussion. Not balanced.

And in terms of GW being not being that bad, Read Nigel Lawson's book - he outlines the positive aspects of GW, very interesting.

5) "why are we SO DAMN WORKED UP AGAINST THIS????"

I don't know, why is everyone worked up? And why GW rather than anything else. i) its a start ii) there are few other fields where so many lies are being peddled iii) the economic implications are serious globally.

6) "YOU GUYS THINK POLLUTION IS GOOD YES OR NO???"

Dumb question. Who would say yes to that. My question back - what makes you think CO2 is pollution?

7) "What about ravaging of natural resources? Illegal fishing? Drug and politics?"

Yes all worthy of attention. That's my point. If we stopped people chasing dragon's tails we could do more about these things.

Ok, Grab...Grub..Goth...whatever! (If that's your real name) that's enough with CO2! I agree with Danny and his blah blah, CO2, blah!

NO matter what I say you seem fixated with CO2. Like I said, it was just used as an example, and CO2 is important of the GW theory which I already said a billion times I was not trying to defend, anyways. So amassing hundreds of facts , links or quotes against CO2 do not change my starting premise.

That said, you finally gave me the answers I was looking for! Yay!

Regretfully, the answers convince me that the anti GW people, right or wrong as they might be, is just being manipulated as bad as the GW was if the GW theory ends up being wrong. And what is worse, and the morals of this story for me, is that we are rather defenseless against certain types of manipulation.

Chris (and Maure, and Piotr): you are an above average smart person, with a vast broad culture and such, yet you somehow fail completely to see that things like AIDS, famine and such are probably more realted to other activities that are directly related to these (Graham made a good point when he mentioned pharmaceutical industries...me working on one of them should know! ), wars, corruption, etc. I am not saying you didn't pay attention to any of these. I am just saying that somehow you got focused on GW which even in the worst case is hardly an explanation on why the world's wealth is not invested in improving the lives of billions of people.

To convince you of this, though, would require from my part many long and boring posts (like those I wrote so far) and I am not sure about the result. So I gracefully bow on my way out of this thread and just hope that, should GW be proven wrong, that does not convince you guys that we should be merrilly messing with variables we don't know of as if there is no tomorrow.

As the old saying goes: we did not inherit this land from our ancestors, we are borrowing it from our descendants.

[Max Mosley 2]

OK I understand what Chris means a little more now.

your thinking is predicated on one belief: That CO2 is a pollutant.

Well, in fact I'm NOT assuming that! What I'm saying is that there's a chance that CO2 might be doing damage. Maybe the chance is 50%, maybe it's 10%, but there must be some chance that it is, given that so many decent scientists are warning us about it. I don't believe that you, Piotr and Maure know for sure that AGW is wrong.

We don't have to know for sure that something terrible is going to happen in order to take precautions. For example, I lock my front door at night just in case someone tries to rob me. I don't wait until I know for sure that he will strike tonight. In fact, I live in quite a safe area and it's pretty unlikely to ever happen, and even if it did, everything's insured anyway. But still, I take responsible precautions.

We have the capacity, now to establish once and for all what the situation is so we can definitively say if CO2 is the cause of global warming. We don't have to wait and keep our fingers crossed just in case. My biggest concern/beef with the whole situation is that the data exists, but is being manipulated, lost or messed around with. [...] So until the bad science is evicted I will stick with my conviction that the model is wrong. It is important as Governments are making policy decisions now that have very far-reaching consequences economically.

OK so I agree with you here to some extent. If it's possible to make the scientists more open, transparent and accountable in the next few months, then sure, let's do it! But I still have lots of reservations and common sense tells me not to expect much in this regard.

What exactly is going to satisfy you? Science will never be perfect - especially in an area like this with enormous vested interests. You know how long it took for cigarette companies to accept that smoking isn't healthy! There will always be dissenting scientists because that's how academics are - they question everything, and rightly so. And not to be patronising but you (or me) will never be able to fully understand and check the arguments. People always expect scientists to give a simple, definitive answer to everything but sometimes it's just not possible. (In fact most of the time it's not possible but most people are so daft that they don't understand that they don't understand!)

Ultimately, the public simply has to make a decision who to trust. This is why we have representative democracy, why people generally take their doctor's advice without understanding how a drug works at all and why people have blind faith that their car brakes will work when required if the car passes its MOT.

Further, to adapt Andres's line of reasoning, why are we especially fussed about accountability regards the science of GW? I mean, it sounds a bit like saying "why should I pay for grandma's anti-cancer drugs when I'm not sure the drugs company published all the data on the side-effects?" And thinking about it, why should I pay taxes while the public sector is so inefficient? Or why should I vote when all politicians are lying to us? Or why should I obey the law when other people get away with breaking it? If climatology needs cleaning up, then so does practically every area of human endeavour. And it's just not practical.

So looking at all this ^^^ the worst that could happen is a moderate sea level rise over several generations. Otherwise we'd be better off.

You might be right. But you also might be wrong. There must be a chance that you are wrong. Let's say it's 10%, given that so many supposed experts disagree. I'd rather not take a 10% chance of causing catastrophic misery for billions of the poorest people in the world. It just seems safer to me for the rich world to stop taking chances with the planet, at relatively little cost to ourselves!

[Quiet One 15]

Ouff...thanks, Muzza, that saved me a lot of typing

[Grabthaw the Hammerslayer 4]

Well Graham/Andres,

All I will say is two things:

1) You may be happy to trust information from sources known to be questionable. That's your prerogative. However I am not happy to do so. Nor do I feel we should sit back and let people misinform us. Democracy is born on people challenging and questioning. All I am asking for is real, proper information so we can make an informed decision.

2) Your approach - hmmm. So you are saying because there is a chance something might happen we should act. How far do you go with this? There is a miniscule chance a tsunami might strike UK - should we invest in building sea defences up at vast expense? And what if the actions we take could cause more problems? e.g. the suggested curbs on greenhouse emissions will hurt developing nations. Is it right to keep people in poverty/starvation now to feed the dream of something that might happen and even if it does might not be that bad, actually? i.e. do we kill people now or later?

Should you stop crossing the road because you might get run over?

No, of course not. You weigh it up based upon information you have. And that's my point.

The media and politicians are peddling climate porn. Society loves a good apocalypse threat. In the 70s it was the forthcoming ice age, in the 80s it was nuclear annihilation as a result of World War III. 90s it was rogue asteroids. In the noughties it was rampant terrorists and GW....

Its time we all grew up a bit and started questioning things.

[Quiet One 15]

Well Graham/Andres,

All I will say is two things:

1) You may be happy to trust information from sources known to be questionable. That's your prerogative. However I am not happy to do so. Nor do I feel we should sit back and let people misinform us. Democracy is born on people challenging and questioning. All I am asking for is real, proper information so we can make an informed decision.

2) Your approach - hmmm. So you are saying because there is a chance something might happen we should act. How far do you go with this? There is a miniscule chance a tsunami might strike UK - should we invest in building sea defences up at vast expense? And what if the actions we take could cause more problems? e.g. the suggested curbs on greenhouse emissions will hurt developing nations. Is it right to keep people in poverty/starvation now to feed the dream of something that might happen and even if it does might not be that bad, actually? i.e. do we kill people now or later?

Should you stop crossing the road because you might get run over?

No, of course not. You weigh it up based upon information you have. And that's my point.

The media and politicians are peddling climate porn. Society loves a good apocalypse threat. In the 70s it was the forthcoming ice age, in the 80s it was nuclear annihilation as a result of World War III. 90s it was rogue asteroids. In the noughties it was rampant terrorists and GW....

Its time we all grew up a bit and started questioning things.

The funny thing is that the same arguments can be used to support Muzza's/mine views, mutatis mutandis.

That is why I think we are caught in an endless loop and thus my reticence to dwelve too deep into this matter.

Other than that, I think you are a disgusting little rat which I would spit on if you were worthy of my spit. So...friends?

[Grabthaw the Hammerslayer 4]

The funny thing is that the same arguments can be used to support Muzza's/mine views, mutatis mutandis.

That is why I think we are caught in an endless loop and thus my reticence to dwelve too deep into this matter.

Other than that, I think you are a disgusting little rat which I would spit on if you were worthy of my spit. So...friends?

I wouldn't wee on you if you were on fire either lol

Yeah friends

p.s. I'm right, you're wrong so there :P lol

[Max Mosley 2]

1) You may be happy to trust information from sources known to be questionable. That's your prerogative. However I am not happy to do so. Nor do I feel we should sit back and let people misinform us. Democracy is born on people challenging and questioning. All I am asking for is real, proper information so we can make an informed decision.

2) Your approach - hmmm. So you are saying because there is a chance something might happen we should act. How far do you go with this? There is a miniscule chance a tsunami might strike UK - should we invest in building sea defences up at vast expense? And what if the actions we take could cause more problems? e.g. the suggested curbs on greenhouse emissions will hurt developing nations. Is it right to keep people in poverty/starvation now to feed the dream of something that might happen and even if it does might not be that bad, actually? i.e. do we kill people now or later?

Should you stop crossing the road because you might get run over?

Well isn't this wonderful. All getting along amicably. *Throws up*

Anyway, I'm not that fussed about arguing it either. But fwiw here are my views.

1) All sources of information are questionable. When we vote for politicians, we are heavily influenced by the media. Even the BBC has its biases, never mind the infamous British press! Few posters on this forum would pass a macro-economics 101 exam but that doesn't stop them having opinions on how to get out of the recession. When we go to the doctor, we trust the peer-review process with our lives! There are ways in which drugs companies manipulate that process as much as anyone does in climatology I'd imagine.

2) You have to weigh up the probabilities of bad things happening. That's why I keep emphasising the number of scientists and scientific organisations who warn us about climate change. The number of apparent experts who warn us about these particular dangers is so high that the chance of AGW being true and dangerous must surely be non-negligible, even if you think on balance the odds are less than even.