US trounces UK in climate scepticism jibber-jabber A pair of UK researchers have surveyed international coverage of climate scepticism, both during the months following the IPCC's 2007 Fourth Assessment Report and during the late-2009 "Climategate" contretemps, and have discovered that among the six countries' publications they examined, the UK and US had by far the most " …
If you are on the side of the warming people. In other news, skeptics find climate reports by mainstream media biased. I'm firmly in the "not convinced yet, but willing to listen" camp. I'd probably go with the "humans are bad" group if 54 years on this planet hadn't made me cynical. Young people have too much respect for "scientists" who are all too willing to get their name in the paper. These "scientists" aren't any smarter than me, just have different disciplines. Politicians have actually gone to the well one time too many for me and I absolutely won't support any "carbon" plan that costs me more money - I don't have any more I can spare.
Carbon plans may or may not be neutral. That is not the point of most informed sceptics concern. Instead it is that completely unjustified, contrary to geological history, faith in catastrophism. It is as if Lyell never published "Principles of Geology" or delineated the principle of Uniformitarianism.
The catastrophic outcomes of climate modelling are contrary to empirical facts. The planet has at times had many times the present atmospheric CO2 level. No run-away greenhouse effect has ensued. Current atmospheric levels in fact are either the lowest or tied with the lowest levels in over 600,000,000 years. The fact is that for most of the course of time that life has been on earth, carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has been at levels that current climate models have forecast as triggering run away green house effects. We ought to be far more concerned about halving atmospheric CO2 than doubling. The latter we can survive, possibly even prosper from, The former might well lead to a biological productivity collapse.
No sane person "denies" climate change. Change is self evident and only an urbanite would doubt it. Nor do any of the better known sceptics doubts that the planet has warmed over the last two centuries. We were after all in a small ice age. There are three main issues that are challenged: 1) data reliability, 2) data adjustment methods and methodology, 3) actual rates of warming.
No. 1 is not even a true dispute. Both the "warmist" and sceptic camps assumne that at least some data sets are no as accurate as they might be. In fact BOTH camps accept that urban heat island effects need correction. The disputes lies in the degree of warming bias UHI has on land surface data.
No. 2 There might be no dispute at all _if_ the methods used to make adjustments to raw land surface data and the methodology behind those adjusments was public. While there are discussions, no actual methodolgy is available and little of the actual code, which implements the methods rationalized by the methodology is public. We ALL no how absolutely trustworthy computers and computer programs are.
No. 3 is simple. None of the better known sceptics (e.g. John Christie, Roy Spencer, Anthony Watts, Steve McIntyre, the Pielskes, Jeff Condon, etc.) questions warming over the last 200 years. What is questioned is the rate. If the data are "over adjusted" the data are just as misleading as unadjusted data. The public evidence of adjustments is that adjustments are strongly biased to make the data read warmer after 1950 and cooler before, and each iteration seems to do the same thing only more so. Despite this adjustment, which may very well be reasonable, IF the methodlogy were available, no climate model comes close to estimating a rate as low as that which has been measured, regardless of adjustments to the data, and the ensemble estimates are even farther off.
The short of it is that there is no threat to Homo sapiens from CO2. There ARE very serious threats from using anitbiotics in animal feed lots, from various kinds of truly toxic industrial pollution, politicians with agendas, plastic in the oceans. Why not worry about something real, if you want to feel virtuous worrying.
"There might be no dispute at all _if_ the methods used to make adjustments to raw land surface data and the methodology behind those adjusments was public. While there are discussions, no actual methodolgy is available and little of the actual code, which implements the methods rationalized by the methodology is public. We ALL no how absolutely trustworthy computers and computer programs are."
That's completely wrong. The methodology (algorithms) are published and public. The source code is available. In fact plenty of people have implemented the public algorithms themselves. One individual has even ported the NASA algorithm to python. See
http://clearclimatecode.org/gistemp/
It is always frustrating to see people perpetuating the myth that the scientists are hiding all the methods and code for the adjustments they make to the surface temperature data.
You also say: "The catastrophic outcomes of climate modelling are contrary to empirical facts. The planet has at times had many times the present atmospheric CO2 level. No run-away greenhouse effect has ensued."
A run-away greenhouse effect is not predicted.
"Current atmospheric levels in fact are either the lowest or tied with the lowest levels in over 600,000,000 years. The fact is that for most of the course of time that life has been on earth, carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has been at levels that current climate models have forecast as triggering run away green house effects."
Climate models DO NOT forecast triggering run away greenhouse effect. They forecast significant warming from the CO2 rise, not a runway warming. It is again frustrating to see you perpetuating a myth.
As for the "lowest levels in over 600,000,000 years. It's not the level that matters, it's the amount of increase and how fast that increase is. So I'll leave you with a graph of CO2 over the past 800,000 years with projections for the next 100:
http://ieet.org/images/CO2.png
"That's completely wrong. The methodology (algorithms) are published and public. The source code is available."
Nah. Surely "peer review" is done by assumptions and vague guesswork, rather than considering the merit of the paper based on the facts -- just like the sceptics' critical reviewing techniques. Facts are just an annoying distraction from the predetermined message.
http://ieet.org/images/CO2.png
Ah well, those are only teeny tiny concentrations anyway, so what could possibly go wrong?
Besides, we need to use up all of the available oil in order to fuel our military-industrial complex to ensure that we are able to secure the oil that we need to fuel our military-industrial complex... Then when there is a severe water shortage in India and China we can sell them beer and fizzy drinks and get out of debt. See?
Everything is fine and all going to plan, do not question your beloved leaders (and definitely don't take a peek behind the curtain at the string-pullers as that makes them very cross...)
"None of the better known sceptics (e.g. John Christie, Roy Spencer, Anthony Watts, Steve McIntyre, the Pielskes, Jeff Condon, etc.) questions warming over the last 200 years."
I call Orwellian bullshit on this. Even the top-tier skeptics regularly argue simultaneously that:
A) There's been no climate change whatsoever since the Industrial Revolution
B) Even if there is, there's nothing we can do about it
C) Even if there is something we can do about it, we can't afford it
Obviously they're putting more emphasis on C nowadays, since nobody takes flat denialism (A) seriously anymore, but that doesn't mean you get to toss it down the memory hole.
A) none of the skeptics mentioned deny climate changes. - Even Phil Jones denies any meaningful climate change in the last 15 years. oops. Will you lot stop telling us skeptics what we think - WE KNOW there is climate change; always has been and always will be. However we also know something that most warmistas fail to understand - the CURRENT climate changes (over the 20th century/start of the 21st) are NOT abnormal and all fall within NORMAL PLANETARY CLIMATE CHANGES. That is the main arguments the skeptics have with the doom merchants of CAGW.
B) Given the climate changes it is True that we can do nothing about it - its natural.
C) Even truer - the cost of trying to change something as chaotic and massive as the earth's climate is staggering. And definitely it will be cheaper (provided you lot don't trash the economy of the world so we all become feudal peasants again) to adapt - just like nature normally does to out of range changes.
Now please repeat after me - most (if not all) skeptics KNOW the climate changes; it matters not how many CAGW advocates tell us that we 'believe' otherwise; this remains a fact. Belief has nothing to do with the argument. And your lot telling us what we believe is also ridiculous - and just demonstrates you are not listening to what most skeptics say : Climate change is NATURAL and NORMAL (in both senses of the word Normal).
The calculations as to how much CO2 reduction Renewable Obligation policy leads to and what it costs are neither simple nor actually is the real data available. No study has ever been done to *measure* renewable energies efficacy at all. Although many studies have been done to *predict* it, but how many are flawed? Neither have real costs been measured. What price the loss of a habitat or the destruction of a landscape?
For a discussion of the problem see:
http://www.templar.co.uk/downloads/Renewable%20Energy%20Limitations.pdf
"Would you be willing to accept the demise of Homo Sapiens..."
I know of no assertion from any credible climate scientist that the species is at risk. The only people who make such assertions are activists trying to encourage adherence amongst followers. Making such an exaggeration loses you any credibility you might have had.
I suppose that there is a slight chance that you might actually believe this. If so, you have my sympathy. You must lead an awfully frightening life...
> Would you be willing to accept the demise of Homo Sapiens, your own species, simply because in your particular case the carbon balance was slighty against you?
If it adds 14% to your electricity bill, you have to work harder/longer to stay in the same place; using more resources; and fucking up the planet incrementally faster. How is this helping exactly?
"If it adds 14% to your electricity bill, you have to work harder/longer to stay in the same place; using more resources; and fucking up the planet incrementally faster. How is this helping exactly?"
i would have thought so, yet only yesterday i found out that petrol consumption in the uk dropped by 15% due to high prices.
This suggests that 15% less traveling is happening, which in turn suggests the 15% of the journeys that used to take place were in fact unnecessary. This, to me sounds enormously counter-intuitive - it's not like motoring has been a pleasant experience in the UK for many many years, but there it is.
making things more expensive _does_ encourage people not to use them so much.
maybe my logic is somewhat wonky, but the fact is, petrol got more expensive, and less of it was used.
> i would have thought so, yet only yesterday i found out that petrol
> consumption in the uk dropped by 15% due to high prices.
>
> This suggests that 15% less traveling is happening, which in turn
> suggests the 15% of the journeys that used to take place were in
> fact unnecessary. This, to me sounds enormously counter-intuitive -
> it's not like motoring has been a pleasant experience in the UK for
> many many years, but there it is.
You do have a point; but hasn't petrol gone up a good deal more than 15% of late? If it has, then it's still a net loss in a sense. I was talking about electricity anyway...anyone who gives a shit already turns off unnecessary lights etc. I think it would be fairly difficult (certainly in my case) to use 14% less electricity without spending the money on other things, like insulation and new, more efficient, white goods. Pretty well all of the power-monsters in my house are essentials...fridge, washing machine etc.
oh hell yes it's gone up way more than 15%, and i hear your point re putting lights off (and not leaving the telly on standby lol) but last week i would have made the same point about travel and petrol prices. no one burns petrol or electricity for fun. Not too sure what to make of it. still thinking about it really
>Climate change a ruse to introduce new taxes
Is a ruse by Governments to take what occurs naturally in nature and the way the earth evolves and changes to introduce new taxes.
So, the oil in the Earth is ours, not our governments, and their desire tax it is inherently unfair? Okay, how does that apply to the generations that come after ours? Won't they deserve a go with the petrochemical goodness to do with as they see fit? Or are you saying that it is our right to use these resources as we want, without thought for efficiency or for anyone else, on a first come first served basis?
How would you feel if you were born next century and didn't have the luxuries that abundant oil has afforded us? Would your argument remain the same?
Dave126,
The UK is about to start facing power cuts. The United Kingdom- home of the Industrial Revolution, home of commercial nuclear power and supersonic flight, home of a good number of the key bits of modern computing- and former conquerors of quarter of the globe. *waves flag* Our homespun technology base alone should be keeping us up-and-running for the next hundred years.
Unfortunately we have been prevented from this- hence the impending powercuts. The Environmentalists and Nimbys ("The Great Uninformed") prevented us from erecting wind turbines because it may kill birds or spoil the landscape. They prevented us from creating Nuclear power stations because the Soviets pretty much deliberately blew up a poorly designed reactor.
And so we face power cuts. And our Children face worse still; if they get their way there won't be imported foods to bolster (or at least vary) food supplies or pesticides (to help us keep our crops). There will be petrol to fuel our cars, but only because the Oil Industry is very, very good at lobbying and because they follow a sensible system of constant R&D to push themselves forwards so can get at more and more of their reserves.
This is the world that the Environmentalists want for your kids- one with insufficient food and energy to sustain even Modern Britain. And, given the leftist stance a lot of them take, most of the food and energy will be spent on the poor and unproductive, worsening the problem. So your kids will starve and they'll starve in the same small village that they've always starved in because it's not worth the cost to go anywhere else. This isn't an extreme scenario where a brutal hippy dictator takes over, it's a series of very small, very sensible- at the time and with the 'econut' mentality- changes for the Greater Good.
Compare that with the so-called 'Denier' camp. At least the non-extremist-nutter end of that. We want to push ahead with nuclear because that gives us cheap, clean energy. We have no problems with renewables- they're good in their place- but acknowledge that they're not a solution to the mass-energy needs of a country. The same lot generally don't care about Organic foods either, mainly due to the lack of any evidence showing it's any better for you (in most cases), so by the 'Denier' mentality your kids would have plentiful food.
The non-extremist 'Denier' camp has faith that Humanity has the qualities that we have demonstrated again and again- resourcefulness, inventiveness, the ability to overcome problems.
Already we have demonstrated the ability to make synthetic carbon-neutral jet fuel- which diesels (so vans, lorries, trains, etc) can run on- basically obsoleting Hydrogen overnight (it's a pain to store and use- petroleum products are a lot nicer and already have a userbase of over 1bn cars). And algae-grown hydrocarbons are in development as we speak.
Recently we saw a nuclear power plant hit by a Tsunami and no significant damage was done (the damage that occurred came from diesel backup generators being flooded and not turning on the coolant; this can be engineered out of newbuilds and retro-fitted to existing reactors). That counts as Safe in my book.
The Denier camp has been responsible for more innovation, more creation and more useful developments than the Climate 'Believer' camp will ever achieve. Ask yourself, who would you trust with your kids future? Someone who pushed for betterment (even if it is mostly just for profit) or someone who told your kids "you can't have that, a kid in Africa might need it someday".
Whilst I agree with quite a lot of what you say, there are a couple of minor problems.
Where Chernobyl was concerned, the act of moving the fuel rods into a pattern that the scientists thought would create the highest yield from the fuel (which it did), they were unaware that this pattern was also in the running book for the reactor, pretty much saying "don't do this, it'll blow up the reactor". However, it was deemed as classified by some internal bureacracy in the then USSR, so the scientists had never read that part of the safety manual.
It's a wonderful display of the dangers of compartmentalising information.
Where Fukushima is concerned, that was a 30 year old design, hit by a ~8 richter earthquake and a few hours later a tsunami - even the biggest doom-sayer would suggest that such happening wouldn't happen outside Hollywood. However it was shut down in < 72 hours with little collateral damage. A modern version of the same reactor would actually have been shut down before the tsunami hit, due to the changes in the shut-down process and fail-safes.
Basically, using both as examples, it shows that : don't hide important information from people running an explosive device and look at how safe nuclear power actually is.
Now, if you want to talk about Three Mile Island or Windscale, then we'd be having a different conversation . . .
It's easy to be ignorant and just refuse to be convinced.
Lets not forget that the people producing the science are vastly more educated and intelligent than your average climate sceptic.
If you really want to disprove what they are saying then you need to review their work and point out their failings. If you can't do that then you need to STFU.
Funny how science has brought us so many things and yet people are so willing to accept things that benefit their lives and rebuke things that mean they have to be more responsible and less wasteful. That my friend is called bias!
>Lets not forget that the people producing the science are vastly more educated and intelligent than your average climate sceptic.
Who the hell do you think you are? I am a climate sceptic and I'm just as intelligent and educated as your average climate "scientists" and more in fact as I studied REAL science that follows proper scientific principles and doesn't use unreliable computer models and falsified data!
I have been on the planet longer than you, and am, possibly, more cynical even than you. You wrote:-
"These "scientists" aren't any smarter than me, just have different disciplines"
Many scientists are aware of the motto of The Royal Society: "Nullius in verba " (Latin for "Take nobody's word for it"). The Royal Society chose this as its motto as this signified that they would establish facts via experiments and only disseminate objective science ignoring the influence of politics or religion.
One thing that us science types (who are trained to try and be always questioning) are made aware of is the Dunning-Kruger effect -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect
(The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which unskilled individuals suffer from illusory superiority, mistakenly rating their ability much higher than average. This bias is attributed to a metacognitive inability of the unskilled to recognize their mistakes....
Actual competence may weaken self-confidence, as competent individuals may falsely assume that others have an equivalent understanding. As Kruger and Dunning conclude, "the miscalibration of the incompetent stems from an error about the self, whereas the miscalibration of the highly competent stems from an error about others")
The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which unskilled individuals suffer from illusory superiority, mistakenly rating their ability much higher than average. This bias is attributed to a metacognitive inability of the unskilled to recognize their mistakes....
so dumb people are too stupid to understand how stupid they in fact are!
i love it!
and;
you use your tongue prettier than a 20 dollar whore :D
Yes, those scientists aren't any smarter than you, and just want their names in the papers. It's a sorry world in which our youngsters allow scientists to influence their views on science.
Far better we take guidance from right-wing radio show hosts instead, who are both smarter and definitely not attention seekers.
Option 3: Ban the sale of high CO2 emitting vehicles. The current crop will gradually phase themselves out as they reach their end-of-life.
Solves the problem of highly polluting vehicles. Stops people wasting more resources by buying new vehicles when their current one still has years of use left in it. Doesn't involve any new taxes.
>True, but science can be used as an excuse to justify almost anything, such as increasing taxation to levels far beyond reason - case in point being the tax escalator on UK fuel prices
Used to justify anything, but not by scientists... the people doing the justifying are politicians and corporations, whose motives are usually pretty clear: Achieve/hold on to power, make money, respectively.
Like Disraeli's 'Lies, damned lies and statistics'. But the issue isn't science, but the understanding of science by politicians (mostly arts, humanities and classics educated) and the general population. Every day we have public bodies spouting statistics which might influence the general population but wouldn't fool trained statisticians.
Statistics and the image of science are abused everywhere... pet hate is advertisements for women's cosmetics, (with psuedo-scientists in white coats in "our Swiss laboratories", and pseudo-scientific animations of the product in action, and claims of "87% of women agree that it makes them visibly younger*...... *[small print] of a study of 28 women") which only devalues science, and also gives the impression that women are easily swayed, irrational and scientifically illiterate.
Disclaimer: Statistics was my least favourite subject in school. I'm sure many others felt the same!
@Dave126
>Used to justify anything, but not by scientists...
Oh yeah? How about Dr Stephen Schnieder - IPCC lead author who said the following:
"we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest."
Or IPCC head Pachurai who has repeatedly advocated new taxes, and lifestyle curbs despite the IPCC's role as a supposedly unbiased, policy-neutral scientific organisation.
The climate 'scientists' have their snouts buried just as deep in the climate scaremongering trough as most corrupt politicians.
pet hate is advertisements for women's cosmetics, (with psuedo-scientists in white coats in "our Swiss laboratories", and pseudo-scientific animations of the product in action, and claims of "87% of women agree that it makes them visibly younger*...... *[small print] of a study of 28 women") which only devalues science
It's always interesting to read the small print on those adverts. The sample size is not only always small but usually an odd looking number ("87% of 103 women agreed," etc). I'm no statistician, perhaps their is a good reason for this. Personally though I've always suspect that they conduct the survey using a sample of 50 or 100 women, then repeatedly increment the sample size by 1 until they get a percentage of agreeing women that would look good on an advert.
Political beliefs may shape the form of batshittery people believe in but the left has its fair share of it too. For example the Huffington Post is filled with all kinds alt health drivel, especially anti vax pieces.
Climate change denial probably sits on the right because it pushes buttons with "big government" / libertarian types.
Actually, the right leaning masses (at least in the U.S.) are the poorest and have less overall resources than lefties.
If you're so proud of your financial contribution to your country (which I doubt is very much) you should run for public office. I'm sure you'd do a great job.
"What about bend-over leaning types who just take whatever higher fuel bills and taxes that Big Gov & Big Green want to impose on them. What do they believe?"
They believe that they should do whatever someone in authority tells them to do.
I had this discussion with my local Liberal councillor. I asked him why he maintained that dangerous warming was occurring when the data clearly showed that there had been no substantial rise for 14 years.
His answer was that his Liberal briefing document said that there was, and he would prefer to believe that rather than me.
"If it's true, why do you need to believe in it?"
Because it's not reasonably possible for a human being to scientifically test (and then re-test, etc.) every 'fact' that he is presented with. In the end it comes down to reading the opinions of people who are experts in their field, looking at the data they supply, and making a personal judgement as to whom makes the most convincing case.
'Nullius in verba' is a noble sentiment but not a practical way to live.
'Who' there, not 'whom'. In general, if you're not certain which to use, it's best to stick with 'who' throughout; while this will make you look as though, like nearly everyone, you lack the fluency to understand the distinction between subjective and objective cases, better that than to look pretentious and foolish.
To return to the subject at hand: For what reason is it necessary that you have an opinion of any sort on the question of climate change? What difference does it make? Further: were you pressed to construct in defense of said opinion an argument which could not be reduced to a naked appeal to authority, could you do so? Given that you acknowledge outright that you cannot, two questions follow: first, how then do you call it your opinion, and second, how then do you call yourself in any sense "objective"? You've simply chosen which set of priests you prefer, and, as with any religion, accepted their revealed wisdom to the extent that you're willing to promulgate it as your own.
This is true of any question of fact on which one holds an opinion despite being incompetent to evaluate the evidence in favor of each side of the question. In such cases, the one in question is almost never responsible for deciding the question, and the maintenance of any opinion is therefore an exercise in unnecessary cognitive overhead; moreover, in the rare case where one incompetent to decide the question is expected to do so, the only course available which is consistent with honorable behavior (to say nothing of simple common sense) is to recuse oneself; anything else is foolishness at best.
Thus we see that, far from the noble impossibility you imagine it to be, nullius in verba is the only sensible way to live, and not difficult in the slightest for someone who has a solid sense of his own limitations.
... of their three cherry-picked "types". Should be good for a laugh :-)
One category of "Deniers[1]" and several varieties of "or", "but", "or", "but", "or", "but", "or", "but" separated into all of two categories ... These idiots have no idea what the scientific process is.
My advice? Ignore them. They have no useful scientific input.
[1] Isn't denier a measure that my Wife uses to evaluate stockings?
Evolution != all science.
The public at large are not scientists. It's possible for them to be analytical, open minded and educated about one topic whilst being closed minded and guided by irrational belief about another.
Generally the countries with the best education systems have the highest science literacy amongst their populations. Religious and/or cultural indoctrination can override this science education when it comes to certain subjects though.
For example, scientific literacy in the UK is relatively high compared to most other nations and yet the public do have irrational fears about certain scientific disciplines because of social indoctrination (nuclear power, GM foods, etc).
[John Hawkins]
> "Sooner or later solar energy will be cheaper than the fossil stuff given the rapid advances being made (solar is part of the semiconductor industry these days) and we can all go back to waiting for the next ice age."
[itzman]
"No, it wont. Not ever."
You do understand what a finite resource is do you ? You can grasp the astronomical (pun partially intended) difference in magnitude between the finite size of the fossil fuel reserves on Earth and the expected lifetime of useful insolation on the same planet, finite even though that is ?
You do then realise, surely, you're talking absolute rubbish ?
One kilowatt per square meter, in perfect conditions and before considering conversion losses with 15-30% efficient solar panels, has to go some distance to be considered "useful" at all, unless you're someone with a lot of money who can afford a lot of panels and the large square footage that's needed to put up enough of them to be worth the effort. Meanwhile you act like you've never heard of nuclear, which is sort of necessary in order to present the question as a simple binary choice between "renewable" wind and hamsters, and the dinosaur-burning spawn of Satan, but which doesn't make you particularly credible when you claim that others are the ones talking rubbish..
"Meanwhile you act like you've never heard of nuclear"
Utter bollocks - the one and only thing I said was that the statement that solar will "never" - that's "never" - "ever" be cheaper than fossil fuels is rubbish... and it is.
I 'm proponent of nuclear, but that doesn't mean i've lost the ability to reason. Please read, and try to digest, what I said before spouting irrelevancies.
A couple of chaps at Duke University seem to think that solar is already on a par with nuclear:
http://www.ncwarn.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/NCW-SolarReport_final1.pdf
Quite a few interesting discoveries being made re solar and even if they're likely to be covered by patents, in the 15-25 years it takes to get a nuclear plant through the planning process and on line, solar will have moved on a few more generations (compare for example a bog standard PC of today with the flash graphics workstations the CAD people had 20 years ago).
Those of us living in the damp and foggy north might be a bit handicapped, but the majority of humankind are better off as far as sunshine is concerned.
I'd love to see a similar study done on the comments in articles of this type tracking levels of climate change denial versus the country of origin of the commenter.
I suspect that there's a strong correlation between the USA and strong climate change denial in comment trolls but that could just be my annoyance and selection bias as a cynical Brit. And the "moebius strip of endless douchebaggery" that such articles tend to generate.
In other news, reality apparently has a dystopian bias as well as a liberal one.
Skeptic - someone who doesn't blindly accept what they are told but examines all the evidence available at the time and makes a reasoned decision.
Deniers - someone who does blindly accept refuses to believe what they are told, and reads only the 'evidence' that supports their bias regardless of any evidence.
Your got the first one right; I was rather disappointed to see you get the second one so wrong.
Sorry, that's a myth started (allegedly) by the Victorians to make themselves feel more superior. There is absolutely no evidence of the assertion. Sailors would have had a lot of trouble getting anywhere if they'd genuinely believed the Earth was flat.
It's pretty bloody obvious that it isn't just from the existence of a horizon: you can see vessels coming over that horizon. If the Earth were indeed flat, that wouldn't be possible. And you only have to hold a particularly smooth pebble up to your eyes for the basic principle to click.
You may be confusing attitudes towards Heliocentrism vs. Geocentrism, which is a very different topic.
Actually that's a myth. Most people didn't bother themselves with whether the earth was round or flat at all. Who cared? The few that did - sailors who did navigation, were absolutely aware it was curved - we even have a term from the nautical heritage 'hull down' which means a ship that is 'behind' the curve of the earth such that only its masts and spars can be seen through a telescope. And of course the whole point of the crows nest up the main mast was a vantage point that allowed a greater range of vision.
This post has been deleted by its author
The Type 3s really make my skin crawl. They know that it's poor brown people that will ultimately pay the butcher's bill for our wanton plundering of the planet, and they couldn't give a shit. Heaven forbid they should suffer some discomfort or inconvenience for the sake of their fellow man.
It's time we took a long hard look at our lifestyles and ask who's really paying the price for all of this.
There's one problem that the "We must help the Developing World" argument falls down on: the body of human knowledge and understanding has increased dramatically since the early days of the Industrial Revolution. Factories and energy generation systems have improved in leaps and bounds, becoming far, far cleaner than they used to be—and improving efficiency (and profit margins) in the process.
Africa, India and (to some extent) China all have the benefit of that body of knowledge. Nobody is powering mine pumps with Newcomen Atmospheric Engines, for example. Not even the Chinese. All those developing nations are getting a jump-start over our Victorian ancestors by bypassing all those older, dirtier, inefficient systems.
So, no, I'm not going to cry over the rampant, idiotic tribalism in many (though not all) African nations that results in an endless series of thugs and crooks being placed into positions of power. That's their own damned problem. All your points would be addressed by local political actions in the affected nations. That Sudan has been mired in warfare for so long has bugger all to do with Europeans or Americans. (Yes, it's a conflict over resources, but that's true of all wars. If it wasn't oilfields, it'd be water, agricultural land, or some other resource. Modern industrialisation changes nothing.)
However, given the increasing desertification in many developing nations, a bit of global cooling wouldn't go amiss. Why should we attempt to freeze the Earth's climate in its present state, when we can cool things down a little and reverse some of the desertification, increasing agricultural land, and improving the lot of many developing nations?
Who's to say what is "normal" for the world's climate? Where's the evidence that stopping the climate now and keeping it in its present state is the "right" thing to do for the entire planet's population? How is it better to make climatic conditions more amenable for the developed nations than for developing ones? And who gets to decide how much change is "enough"?
I'm a Type 2 with a little of Type 3. The Earth's climate has been changing since the Earth formed. What many here seem to desire is Climate Stasis, which strikes me as incredibly dangerous. We still have no real idea how the entire Terran ecosystem works in all its spectacular detail. We still see a regular drip-drip-drip of papers pointing at some newly-discovered mechanism that nobody had considered before. As long as those papers continue to appear, NOBODY can say, with any conviction, that we "know" how it all works. And that's why I'm skeptical about all the political bullshit that's been flooding from the mainstream media and ignorant politicians, (though I admit "ignorant politician" is increasingly tautological).
Well that's a lovely straw man you've built there. No-one is denying that the earth's climate has been changing throughout its history. It's the potential rate of change of anthropogenic climate change that is the problem, and the fact that it is entirely avoidable highlights the callousness of denialists and apologists such as yourself.
There are many examples of the effects of rapid local environment changes on settled human populations. Some people have the capacity to adapt, some of those may even profit from new opportunities that arise, but the majority of those populations face suffering, hardship and even death. This is what we are inviting, but on a global scale.
The fact of the matter is that those living in the poorest parts of the world will be affected disproportionately. They are the ones that will ultimately pay the price for Western industrial development and consumer lifestyles while benefiting the least from it. I fail to see how politics in poorer nations has any bearing on the discourse whatsoever.
"They know that it's poor brown people that will ultimately pay the butcher's bill for our wanton plundering of the planet, and they couldn't give a shit. ";
Sorry but the racism here is yours. It's people like YOU who idealize 3rd world poverty, or ignore it completely when fighting economic growth. And if you think that the Western lifestyle is based on "plundering the planet" than stop living that lifestyle, instead of demanding that those "poor brown people" continue to live and die in poverty - so that YOU can maintain your lifestyle while mitigating its effects on the backs of those "poor brown people".
Showing purely verbal concern for "poor brown people" does not make you any less of a racist.
If you listen to these US "conservative republicans" it becomes immediately obvious that politics is irrelevant - it's simply used as a platform for corporate shills. Many would argue that a vote for either party is meaningless in the US financial oligarchy, but a vote for the "conservative" camp in the US is definitely nothing more than an approval of more corporate power at your personal expense as a citizen.
In other words - don't be a fucking idiot. It couldn't be more obvious that 95% of republicans are on the take and have absolutely no interest in social politics unless there's money in it. If you can't see this, there is something very wrong with you.
Rubbish - Republicans/Right-Wingers/Tories etc have little interest in THE STATE providing social solutions except as a last resort because the state uses coercion to obtain the resources to provide them. The state also has a terrible track record of inefficiencies, vested interests, unintended consequences and sometimes plain corruption in the provision of these services.
Alternatives are organisations such as charities, churches/mosques/temples, friends, families, local groups etc, all of which are closer to the intended recipient so less layers of bureaucracy taking their slice of the pie, better targeted to needs and perhaps more appreciation by the recipient of where this help has come from. There can still be inefficiencies and corruption but less layers of bureaucracy give less scope for these.
An even more hated (by the left) alternative is that leaving the money that would otherwise be taxed for social services in the pockets of people and business then perhaps they can even fund more JOBS for the poor!!! But that of course would mean the no-longer-so-poor are less dependant on the dear leaders of the state, more self-reliant and with more pride in themselves, so much so that they might even consider voting Tory/Republican...
Can't have that can we!?
""churches/mosques/temples""
Whole they use coercion, they are the masters of the art of coercion, whether it the threat of your soul going to hell if you do not pay the church or do something that goes against the church(Christianity, an most other religions) or the threat of burning you alive, or the deepest darkest secrets becoming public knowledge (Scientology) it coercion, an religion are such masters of the art that their own petitioners do not even know they are being coerce in the first the place, it genius really.
Charities and churches all have there own forms of bureaucracy that can be even worst that the state, An churches are known to spend enormous amounts of money relative to their incomes on new churches and on church bureaucracy and a few mansions for the clergyman, some have known to buy themselves a few private yachts, cruise ships, helicopters , once they climb the hierarchy or convince enough fools to hand money over to them. An churches and even charities have there own vested interests as well.
The state also has a terrible track record of inefficiencies, vested interests, unintended consequences and sometimes plain corruption in the provision of these services.
Alternatives are organisations such as charities, churches/mosques/temples, friends, families, local groups etc, all of which are closer to the intended recipient so less layers of bureaucracy taking their slice of the pie, better targeted to needs and perhaps more appreciation by the recipient of where this help has come from. There can still be inefficiencies and corruption but less layers of bureaucracy give less scope for these.
You don't need more than one layer of bureaucracy for corruption and/or inefficiency. Furthermore, I can cite examples of all of the types of organizations you mention which have incredibly poor track records. I think you'll find that there hasn't been a study truly comparing the efficiency and honesty of the above social services organizations, states included.
An even more hated (by the left) alternative is that leaving the money that would otherwise be taxed for social services in the pockets of people and business then perhaps they can even fund more JOBS for the poor!!!
That same old trickle-down line has been tried by Conservatives for the past three decades. It hasn't worked yet.
People are by nature corrupt. Those with the money and the power got there either a) by being more corrupt than their competition, or b) by inheriting their position from corrupt family/friends.
This is why pure socialism doesn't work: it doesn't account for corruption. Pure capitalism, on the other hand, rewards corruption. Any social, economic, and/or political system must be a blend of the two to survive.
The article diiscusses the amount of skeptical comment, not whether skepticism is right, wrong or neutral. What they seem to have measured is the degree of engagement with global warming as a proposition. Clealy the anglophone counties are engaged, perhaps the rest are just getting on with their lives?
It's about whatever mythology attracts the audiences. Also in relation to primarily advertising-supported and increasingly lobbyist- supported media, it's never been the audiences which pay the piper - it's about who is paying what to whom in order to get access to the audiences for opinions which meet sponsors' agendas. Follow the money and this all makes sense, but not based upon any inherent rationale within the stories themselves.
UK and US have an 'Anglo-Saxon' (as the French would put it) tendency towards individualism rather than conformity, so it's not too surprising that there are more sceptics in the UK and US. This goes for all sorts of other issues too, right down to the popularity of conspiracy theories, particularly in the US. That's not to say that climate sceptics are all conspiracy theorists - I am definitely a counter example! - but the same kind of questioning mindset, and not taking things at face value does give rise to both groups.
So the global temps are rising... causing the climate to change.. as it has done for the past 4 billion years
But is CO2 the cause of the rise or its effect? (I can already hear the cries of "burn the heratic" coming from certain sections)
However, lets assume that CO2 emission is the cause of the temperature going up with all the bad effects thats claimed to going to happen. Has anyone considered the effects of CO2 reduction on the climate? Of bringing CO2 production back down to pre-industrial levels.
But for me personally, the biggest kick in the bollocks for us is the same people who cry "CO2 bad , must reduce emissions" are the same people who cry " No nukes, nukes are evil" when nuclear can provide a power source that puts out very little CO2 in proportion to the power output.
Oh and to all those "but what about the energy used in building them" people.... you really think 10 000 wind turbines spring into existance at a wave of a magic wand?
Type 1: "those who deny the global warming trend"
I believe that it was cold in 1900, warmed until 1940, got colder until 1970, warmed until 2000 and has been dropping slightly ever since. That the overall trend has been up since 1850, but down since 1100. And that a lot of the ground station data is unreliable. I do not believe that there is an abnormal warming trend, considering the past several thousand years.
Type 2: "those who accept the trend, but either question the anthropogenic contribution saying it is overstated, negligent or non-existent compared to other factors like natural variation, or say it is not known with sufficient certainty what the main causes are"
Since the tropospheric hot-spot has not been found, I believe that the whole 'CO2-driven warming' hypothesis is unproven, and that we have very little understanding of how the forces behind global climate variation actually work in real life.
Type 3: "those who accept human causation, but claim impacts may be benign or beneficial, or that the models are not robust enough, and/or question the need for strong regulatory policies or interventions"
I believe that humans can cause local 'climate change' - Urban Heat Islands, for example. The effect of these will be positive and negative at the same time, depending on what you choose to be beneficial. In theory you could extrapolate these mathematically to claim a low global impact, but I doubt that this is measurable above the noise.
I also believe that it is obvious that current models are 'not robust enough' (or, indeed not accurate at all, since they have completely failed to predict current temperatures). And I also feel that it is obvious that current policy interventions are causing considerable damage to humanity for no net benefit.
Which type am I?
[lots of repetition of the phrase "I believe" snipped]
"Which type am I?"
Had there been a Type 4
Those who think that saying "I believe" lots and lots of times refutes any amount of evidence, from any side; those who seem incapable of reviewing the current literature but can contradict it all by saying "I believe" or those who apparently have absolutely no clue whatsoever what climate modelling is about (but can dismiss all findings by preceding the argument with "I believe").
...then i'd have said Type 4 - but there wasn't, so i'm unsure.
"Oh? What do you BELIEVE, then?"
I try and base my opinions on the available evidence - not on what I would like things to be like. It's not always a easy or comfortable, especially when it's something you've thought for a long time - or come up with yourself, but it's stupid (IMO) to do anything else... anyway, learning is fun even - or perhaps especially - when it's a surprise.
It's happened to me before, it'll happen again no doubt, but hey - that's fine. Reality is the final arbiter, and that's kind of the way it should I reckon.
No big surprise here, of the countries used the US & the UK have the biggest private oil companies and the most other industry pumping out the most CO2 for decades.
Its proven they have financed many studies to try to disprove the links between CO2 and global temperature change. The others are France which still thinks in terms of farmers more than industry and 3 countries that until more recent times had much smaller oil and industrial business in the private sector.
What I find interesting in the figures is that China accepts the link as can be seen by the lack of articles in its press which is mostly state controlled even though they are now one of the biggest polluters due to new factories and power stations.
Lastly I would like to know how many of these articles were posted here by Lweis
Not to mention the billions they get from the CDM (clean development mechanism) for building the hydro dams and power stations they were going to build anyway. Hell, they even have factories in China specifically set up to produce CFC's which they can then claim various credits for destroying. They even threatened to release tonnes of CFCs into the atmosphere when the UN suggested they might cut their credits.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/08/chinas-climate-cah-blackmail/
The chinese are more than happy to take momey from posturing green western politicians.
" and that the type of sceptics who question whether global temperatures are warming are almost exclusively found in the US and UK newspapers."
This is the whole problem succinctly put in one half-sentence. It is written to suggest that anyone who argues with the concept that the globe is warming is, horror of horrors, a right wing journalist or in denial.
Sadly, the language used is inaccurate and the whole title of this so called science of "Global Warming" is a misnomer. The Globe is not warming, per se. The effect of changes to the climate can be both warming, cooling or none at all (the most famous example of a lack of change being Vienna). When the title of your area of study is not justifiable, is it any wonder that people are sceptical of your whole body of work, whether it is valid or not?
Yes - I also remember that scare in the 1970s. It was quite clearly a push by scientific/environmental activists - much the same as the warming scare of today, though not half as successful - mainly because the climate started warming a year or so after it got into its swing.
But I can recall several other examples of it - one of my favourite SF short stories published at the time dealt with the return of the glaciers. And a think-tank (MITRE, I believe) came up with several proposals for mitigating an ice-age - they included flooding Africa to create a giant shallow lake, and diverting the Gulf Stream. I wonder why MITRE bothered to do this if there was not really a scare going on...?
to see that people arguing for the monolithic status quo, i.e. CO2 is the Devil and anyone who doesn't agree is a heretic, largely feel the need to hide behind the Guy Fawkes mask, while those who argue otherwise from whatever perspective generally don't mind a name by which they can be held responsible for their statements here on El Reg at the very least, if it's not the same actual name that's on their identification documents.
It's almost as though the people who are in the majority, and whose side of the argument has all the political power, nonetheless feel themselves just a short hop away from jackboots in the night, while those who are not in the majority, and whose point of view is fortunate even to be admitted to any sort of political debate as anything other than an object of ridicule, are much more level-headed about the whole matter, and don't feel the need to behave as though a single wrong word will find them shaved bald and banged up in a gulag. Why is that, do you think? What might this dichotomy of behavior indicate about the relative credibility of those who behave in one fashion or the other?
I find that the phrase "persecuted hegemon" just leaps to mind. Granted, that phrase is the invention of a Quaker and arch-progressive ideologue, who no doubt would be horrified at the use to which I'm putting it here, but it describes the situation with such elegant brevity that I find the temptation impossible to resist.
Look up how many deaths are anticipated from global warming over the next century, then the number of deaths each year from diarrhea or malaria.
Two of these are, in global terms, quite easy to fix. Certainly far easier than making a sustainable (as in not requiring massive financial inputs) clean energy.
So, that's not to say that you shouldn't fix global warming, but that you're better off spending money on research rather than implementation into energy savings, while fixing the other two problems.
Ah, but maybe that is intentional - diverting resources from health interventions to climate measures not only allows more money to go to the right people but will also reduce the nett birth rate. I'm sure the IPCC have a graph showing population vs CO2 levels, even if its not in their published docs.
We need corruption to survive? I really think not. In fact, if we don't collectively grow up and do something about the recent explosion in western corruption, climate problems and wars are going to very directly threaten our survival.
If we dont, our grandchildren are going to regard us as absolutely pathetic, servile little morons for allowing our former democracies to be completely usurped by the criminal element. "B b b b but it was different then..... you don't understand what it was like" is all we'll have to say for ourselves. Sound familiar?
I'm a conservative Republican who, from time to time, will vote Democrat if the other person is an insane freakshow (Palin, Akins, etc). I work my ass off on my own company as a consultant/designer//cablemonkey/etc just so I can one day pass it off to one of my sons, with enough money saved to retire without worrying about paying taxes and whatnot.
My goal is a hobbit house built into the side of a hill, surrounded by 50 acres or so for farming, cows, pigs, etc. Power and heat provided by geothermal pumps & generators to keep me off the grid and a HUGE pipe to the internet. Possibly a huge moat populated by piranha surrounding the place - call before coming out, please.
What type doe that make me? Or am I just living a pipe dream, i.e. crazy?
:)
Enjoy the rest of your weekend, folks.
I'm a Middleatarian who, from time to time, will vote Democrat or Republican if the other option is an insane freakshow (Palin, Akins, Feinstein, Pelosi, Perot, Nader, etc). I worked my ass off on my own company as a consultant/designer//cablemonkey/etc just so I could one day sell it to make enough money to retire without worrying about paying taxes and whatnot. Thankfully, it was a good decision, and I now work daily, for as long as it takes, maintaining my Bride's wedding present :-)
We own a house built on a hill, surrounded by 500+ acres used primarily for horses, but also for farming, cows, pigs, etc. I can go off the grid, and internal heating & cooling is provided by geothermal pumps. My generators don't keep me entirely off the grid (do you really think propane is off the grid?), but I do go completely[1] off the grid for a week about once a calendar quarter. It's part of our "at risk youth" camp.
I have a HUGE (if ancient) pipe to the internet (OC-96)[1].
I have a largish physical perimeter populated by either brood mares or dawgs, or both in some places, surrounding the place - call before coming out, please. We don't want blood all over the lawns again. Ta.
"What type doe that make me? Or am I just living a pipe dream, i.e. crazy?"
Makes you somebody who identifies with a group of people that vilifies everybody not marching in lock-step with their exact ideals. Sounds like you want out, though ...
[1] Ok, not completely completely. The data center stays online 24/7 ...
"the inclusion of both pro and con arguments in opinion pieces published by liberal US newspapers versus the lack of same in conservative newspapers is a reflection"
is merely a reflection of the mindset of the typical conservative. They don't need alternative viewpoints because they already know the absolute truth. They function on belief, and you don't argue with belief. Belief forms the commonality that conservatism has with religion. Both are based on it.
You go to realist sites which tend to be populated by engineers statisticians , physicists and others with quantitative hard science backgrounds , and the sites are full of comparisons and analyses of the latest observations of polar ice extents or historical temperature data , etc .
You go to alarmist sites and you this sort of psychobabble trying to explain how come all those quants aren't terrified by the impending catastrophes which our government "scientists" , who are some superior species of intellect , have now been predicting for decades .
Never have so many carbon units been turned into such useful idiots by as profound a stupidity as this fraud against the molecule out of which they are constructed . Stalin would be envious .
I have a simplistic working hypothesis. The AGW tale is a 1985 invention by a Bert Bolin, that was temprorarily useful to many, but soon became the cornerstone for the new German plans for commercial dominance though exports to supposedely compensate for competitive disadvantages it itself carefully cultivated, though the UN and German sponsored environmental groups. If one considers the number of local allies created in the Green Craze this appears plausible. The US Democrats have more euro-socilaist tendencies than Republicans, and there are enough Democrats that come from coal states. UK politics are a mystery to me, but Mrs Thatcher did use "Green" in the coal miner srikes. As for climate, weather is not clmate, and model simulations are not data. Climate has been changing for about 4.5 billion years, and with some luck it will keep doing so for another 4.5 billion. And then we will fry in the not all harmless Red Giant.
Skepticism is normal. In science. Scientists always test their theories, by this method modifying and improving them. What we appear to have here is a Madison Avenue type attempt at selling the AGW 'message' to the public.
If the mainstream scientists' climate models couldn't explain (by their own admission) the recent expansion in Antarctic ice cover, then its back to the drawing board. Until they get something working that explains new data (part of the definition of a theory: Something that can make useful predictions), their models don't stand up to scrutiny. And we shouldn't be making irreversible policy decisions based upon them.
The real climate scientists should be rejoicing. Here's another reason to get backing for more and better instruments, research funds and supercomputers. If they really think their job is finished and their work is ready for legislation, we should cut back funding and divert the money towards feeding the poor children in Africa. The scientists can all get jobs at Starbucks.
perhaps skeptics are created from an inability to envision alternative energy sources
given a viable option even skeptics would ere on the side of prevention.
The solution to climate change
The primary source of GHG is fossil fuel burning electrical generating facilities. http://dingo.care2.com/pictures/causes/uploads/2012/01/GHG-emitters-2010.jpg
7 Billion humans generate vast quantities of excrement. I believe this excrement is capable of providing all human electrical demands. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiolysis
Right now hydrogen is perceived as a negative by product, of Nuclear Energy, when it should be the product, as the Pentagon has considered. reference info Request for Information (RFI) on Deployable Reactor Technologies ... DARPA-SN-10-37@darpa.mil
https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=d0792af88a6a4484b3aa9d0dfeaaf553&...
Large scale conversions sites are intended to replace fossil fuel powered electrical facilities the Primary Source of Carbon Emissions.
http://www.populist.com/99.12.krebs.blob.html
In what officials now say was a mistaken strategy to reduce the waste's volume, organic chemicals were added years ago which were being bombarded by radiation fields, resulting in unwanted hydrogen. The hydrogen was then emitted in huge releases that official studies call burps, causing "waste-bergs," chunks of waste floating on the surface, to roll over.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
