Someone says "seem completely beyond dispute" this generally, in my experience, means the complete opposite.
People all around the world, responding to a survey by Ipsos MORI, have generally agreed with the ideas that scientists don't really know what they're talking about when it comes to the climate – and that governments are using environmental issues as an excuse to raise taxes. These not-so-green views were transmitted as part …
The authors position appears to be that governments have used environmental taxes only as a excuse to raise more income rather than their declared aim of reducing climate change. I can only assume the author is very annoyed that his car is in a high car tax bracket or something similar.
So you base your opinion about climate change on your experience rather than what the scientists have been saying for decades? Try to find a study or ONE respected scientific institution to support the deniers' opinion. You can't because there aren't any. Read up.
Google: NASA Climate Change Consensus
What is "the deniers' opinion" ?
To me the phrase looks like a combination of an ad hom attack and a straw man argument.
As an engineer, I've had lots of people (including scientists) tell me porkies about scientific things over the years, so I like to check out the data. When I look at the surface temperature records (freely available at CRU) I can easily see that a) "climate" (or certainly Global Warmth) changes over time and b) the claimed Catastrophic Warming isn't happening (in fact, contrary to predictions, it's not been "warming" for nearly 2 decades).
So count me in with the folks who are just a bit skeptical about anything that "Climate Scientists" say, especially when they aren't even scientists but Greenpeace, WWF, Prince Charles, the Beeb, etc. And I would be surprised if anyone except a politician wouldn't agree that politicians will use prety much anything as an excuse for more taxes ;-)
(but well done for correct use of apostrophe)
Also maybe someone who claims the governments are only using environmental concerns to raise more money can explain why they are giving money away to help people insulate homes, buy electric cars, install more fuel efficient boilers, etc? Surely if they are only interested in getting in more money why would they actually spend this way?
Tax and spend explains it. Think who's money it is that Government is spending.
Tax Joe & Jane Public (or hide the tax in fuel bills) and spend it on subsidies for your mates in Big Green. HMM and the EU both give bungs to "Environmentalist" lobby groups so they can lobby them for more Green regulation.
We are doomed !
I did look at your link but it appeared to be just a blog post. IMHO the CRU data is likely to be more reliable. Do go look :-)
Wrote :- "maybe someone who claims the governments are only using environmental concerns to raise more money can explain why they are giving money away to help people insulate homes"
OTOH I don't believe it is just about money. I think it has a lot to do with the sincerly held crazed obsessions of people who, having become politicians in power, get into a position where they can impose their crazed theories on everyone else. Remember, few of these people have a clue technically. The money, if any, is just a bonus. Actually they would spend the last penny they have (from us) feeding their pet craze.
An example is my local council's
rubbish recycling collection policy. They change the rules every time a new rubbish recycling officer is appointed, according to the individual's pet theories. Each tries to outdo his predecessor, and succeeds - they have even made it into international news with their barminess.
... explain why they are giving money away to help people insulate homes, buy electric cars, install more fuel efficient boilers, etc?
Too easy, buying votes is one of the oldest ploys in the politician handbook.
As to why some people believe that climate change is both natural and man-made is another easily solved paradox. When you walk outside in Beijing and the smog is so thick you nearly have to chew the air then it's obvious that "climate change" is man-made. The "change" resulting from the typhoon rains leaving a meter of water in the street is equally obvious that it is natural. Nobody knows or really cares about the butterfly flapping its wings in Belize.
And much of what warming was "observed" seems to come from adjustments to the historical record .... Some strange things happening there. According to Aust BOM weather database oodnatatta is no longer the record holder Albany is. This is areal outlier, most of the historical record was adjusted down.
People In Britain, the US and Australia are probably more aware that the mainstream press is entirely AGW-alarmist propaganda. AGW is a strawman argument concealing a NWO political agenda and global environmental bank, GEF, global nevironment fund, funded primarily by Edmund de Rothschild, and whose first director was IPCC co-founder Maurice Strong, long-time associate of David Rockefeller.
The null hypothesis that climate change or global warming is natural hasn't been disproven since the first IPCC report in 1990, and many IPCC scientists, cherry-picked environmental activists, have quit or conplained about the emphasis on the political goal of attempting to demonstrate AGW, rather than the use of valid science.
George W. Hunt followed the AGW movement beginning with the 4th World Wilderness Conference, and his videos include statements by Rothschild and Canadian banker David Lang at the conference also attended by David Rockefeller and Maurice Strong. The Club of Rome was formed in 1968 to develop a plan to market anthropogenic global warming as a means of instituting a NWO global government and global economy. Its report "The First Global Revolution" and "Limits to Growth" detail the Agenda 21 political and depopulation plan. Obama was a co-founder of the Chicago Carbon Exchange, and Al Gore co-founded Carbon Investment Management with former Goldman Sachs CEO David Blood. NASA and NOAA and GISS have been altering past climate data to create an illusion of recent warming for several years.
WUWT.com has links to climate sites and websites with overlays of past published NASA and NOAA graphed data and more recently published data showing alterations. Japan't GOSAT satellite showed in 2009 that CO2 emission from developed countries other than in eastern Asia and north Africa was neglible, and that CO2 emission was almost entirely from oceans, equatorial regions and sparsely populated areas.
AGW really is beyond dispute though - and has been for at least a decade.
The overwhelming evidence keeps mounting and average temperatures, atmospheric CO2 content and the sea levels keep on rising.
The combined average temperature across global land and ocean surfaces for June 2014 was record high for the month, at 0.72°C (1.30°F) above the 20th century average. This surpasses the previous record, set in June 1998, by 0.03°C (0.05°F). Nine of the ten warmest Junes on record have occurred during the 21st century, including each of the past five years. June 2014 also marks the second consecutive month with record high global temperatures. With the exception of February (21st warmest), every month to date in 2014 has ranked among the four warmest for its respective month. Additionally, June 2014 marked the 38th consecutive June and 352nd consecutive month with a global temperature above the 20th century average. The last below-average global temperature for June was June 1976 and the last below-average global temperature for any month was February 1985.
The problem comes from defining climate. What is the time frame? A year, decade, century, millennium? Talking about the warmest whatever in the past five years doesn't mean a whole bunch if it takes a century or more of data to show a trend. Have a look at the Vostok Petit data and you'll notice some trends tend to be longer than others and an odd recurring interval that seems to take about 115k years. Which are hiccoughs and which are real changes and the causes is certainly open to debate regardless of what you consider beyond dispute.
AceRimmer, the problem with your statement the taxes will not go to fund education. Politicians are notorious for their taxing to fund their pet projects most of which is designed to get themselves reelected.
I have heard and used this statement many times, "Follow the Money". If one follows the money it will tell who is supporting (in some cases opposing) something. Most politicians if they were assured it could not be traced back to them would continue to increase taxes until everybody had to depend upon the government for every aspect of their life.
Now as far as the warning of the climate. The scientist who study history says that the earth has warmed/cooled (not necessarily in that order) many times even to the extent that ice covered much of the northern hemisphere. Most of these cycles happened before humanity was high enough to have much effect either way. But today it is humanity that is the cause of climate change (global warming) weather humanity is or not because now the politicians can use this claim to increase the taxes (to help reduce the cause of the global warming). These taxes are not used to reduce the causes to global warming but fund their pet projects.
"Couldn't they have done something useful like polled people on what they believe the mass of the Higgs boson to be? Then we wouldn't have had to build the LHC"
In the case of climate change it's OK, because to spend billions on ... oh, whatever ... you just need to be better than 50% certain, or to have a good hunch. But for something important, like the Higgs boson mass, you need to be 99.99999% certain, so the pollsters can't help, unfortunately.
"Who, on average, have no education past grade school, believe in magical but invisible deities, and shit in a field every day? Yeah, I trust their opinion on scientific matters!"
No, I think you'll find that's just the US
(the term 'grade school' gave you away. People in glass houses etc......)
"much though they don't speak English in China, India, Poland or Russia "...
Almost a third of the Polish population speak English, 10% of the Indian population - around 125 million - and 7.5m and 10m from Russia and China http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_English-speaking_population
Indian English tends to. E good though the speed and accent need concentration. American on the other hand, xdepending upon sorce and education of the speaker, seems to be a mix of 18th century English / Irish plus lots of compromises from German, Yiddish and East European immigrants as well as Spanish, pidgin and advertising speak.
Scientists do know what they're talking about, but climate change will be used as an excuse for a series of new taxes which will not have any effect at all on climate change. At present, humanity is unable to act at all. It will have to go through real disaster first before anything meaningful will be done,
Unless you're a climatologist, the only honest answer you can give to those questions is "don't know".
People think their opinion is valid because it's an opinion. It's special to them.
No it isn't. The only people who DO know are the people who study it and work on it. No one else is qualified to give an opinion - literally. At least, an educated one.
"The only people who DO know are the people who study it and work on it. No one else is qualified to give an opinion - literally. At least, an educated one."
Well, as somebody who studied climate science to degree level, I'm unconvinced by the claimed scientific consensus, and note that the main scientific cheerleaders often have significant vested interest both reputational, research funding-wise, and in terms of their personal status and orgnisational seniority. In all forms of research, what is looked for will be found simply because the funding is withdrawn from projects that don't produce "promising" results, and because stepping out of line with the establishment will result in loss of funding even for non-related research in future. The East Anglia Climategate emails showed the reality of vanity, unscientific and unprofessional behaviours that those involved think are acceptable, I see no reason to believe that such cultural attitudes have changed.
Having said that, I think the public are wrong that "climate change" is about raising new taxes. Politicians and civil servants by and large have no real world experience, no science or technology background. They've had to choose whether to go with AGW or not, and they have. As a result I don't think that it is an exaggeration to say that Western European governments are on a war footing over climate change. Almost every single aspect of policy, be it food, energy, buildings, infrastructure, agriculture, trade, industry is being critically directed by people putting "climate change" beliefs ahead of all other interests. So we despoil the countryside and seascape with wind turbines that are near useless, we are covering nothern Europe with solar panels despite the fact that our biggest issue is power used after dark in winter, having destroyed the power market with renewables, another toxic kludge comes along to pay fossil fuel plant owners to keep it working. Government regulations interfere in every aspect of home building and maintenance, from making it illegal for me to replace a broken window myself on "environmental grounds", to instructing architects as to what the ratio of windows to floor space should be (a number that laughably goes up and down every few years according to poorly thought through ideas of how energy is used and lost). Government bureaucrats scheme to encourage district heating in the UK under the incorrect belief that these are somehow more efficient than large central generation of power, and gas fired heating, and ignore the exceptionally high cost of heat networks. Waste policy tries to encourage both energy from waste and recycling (you can't have both, but policy seems to ignore this). All aspects of regulated industries have a big chunk of capex devoted to overcoming climate change (great for the regulated asset base). We encourage China to do our manufacturing, and happily chalk up the loss of our industrial base as a "benefit" for emissions, and DECC delightedly publish charts showing the reducing "emissions intensity" of our economy. We close perfectly functional coal fired power plant because the EU tell us we should on climate change grounds, ignoring the cost and emissions of the expensive and unreliable renewables. Private landlords will be compelled in a few years time to start putting expensive solid wall insulation on older houses at their own expense, because again government is spending somebody else's money, and because nothing is more important than fighting climate change.
If this were just about raising taxes, then we'd see a fall in the budget deficit. In reality government continues to live beyond its means (in the UK to the tune of £100bn a year), and seeks a narrative for continuation on its previous scale. The War on Terror was a previous narrative that justified the need for lots of government, although it is ringing a bit hollow after ten years of failure, in large part because of the disgraceful failure of the baddies to live up to their part of the bargain. The War on Climate Change will be fought for a good few years yet, but I don't think the proles have a clue how much government is bravely doing to them and for them to prevent it.
The problem is that, climate "scientists", being human, will always fall into the trap of finding evidence to prove the first idea they had. Any counter evidence will be discounted as unreliable, premature and not complying with the theory. That's why the IPCC has only just admitted that the climate hasn't warmed - 15 years after it stopped.
An let's face it, there is just too much fraud in the climate field. Climategates 1 and 2 are only scratching the surface.
I'm not a climatologist but I am something of an expert on computer activity models, having worked with them for the last 20 years.
As such, I am qualified to give the opinion that every single climate model published to date has been horrendously half-baked junk and incapable of providing any basis for projection.
Hate to tell you this, as a former modeller of certain fish populations on computers: but it is possible to know everything about computer behaviour, short of artefacts caused by component failure, including the effects of different usage; biological and climate systems are a tad more complex with many unknows and probably unknowables. We've managed to build some fairly useful models nevertheless. But it is incredibly more difficult than a "computer activity modeller", whatever that is, may imagine.
"Riiiight, John Smith. I'm sure that's your real name."
Thing is you can look up all my posts and form an opinion of what my views are, as I can of you.
Climate stories attract lots of SEL's and what looks like various kinds of astro turfing.
So I'll normally stick a down vote on that wheather I agree with them or not.
Is that a little clearer for you?
As a former computer forest growth model coder, I can state with certainty that all such models contain "constants" which are basically pulled out of the air by the PhD of Forestry who heads the project to create the model. In addition, those models contains numerous "estimates" of rainfall, sunshine, seasonal variations, etc. etc. etc. that are all based on relatively recent historical averages that may or may not be stable over the long term.
What these models of complex systems usually boil down to is "your guess is as good as mine", so one man's opinion is probably just as good as another.
I won't go into the problem of 'tweaking' the constants to provide results that are favorable to whoever (government or industry) is paying the PhD to produce the model, because that too is just another "opinion" factor.
"modeller of certain fish populations "
So, how do you know your model is valid? You model fish populations and then check that the predictions are met in the real world. It's called validation.
But not one of the climate models has been validated. I know this because they all give the wrong result. Not one of them predicted the 15 years of steady temperature we have experienced so far. Many of the earlier models predicted forest in the Sahara Desert, that's how wrong they were.
If only it were that easy. There was a very effective model for Southern Bluefin Tuna in the Pacific for several years. Then climate threw a spanner in the works, something unidentified changed and the model stopped working.
Nevertheless, the basic hypothesis was useful for a while, much better than nothing.
Of course, we could just sit on our hands, waiting for the climate change to become so effective that it's too late to do anything, except continue sitting on our hands while blaming someone else for doing nothing. Then again, we could do our best now, perhaps even making some financial profit out of the new circumstances (if that is your driving motive in life) and hope it is effective. It it is, you will never be sure. If not, you will find out. I would prefer to take precautions either way.
Unless you're a climatologist, the only honest answer you can give to those questions is "don't know"."
Hang on a second.
What you're proposing is that people who spent a lot of money on fees to study one very specialised subject, and then embarked on a life long lucrative career within that specific field, should be trusted to give an honest answer if that honest answer turns out to be "We were wrong: it's nothing to do with humans"? Really?
If you do, I have a bridge you may like to buy....
So Mr Page, regarding that itchy mole that recently appeared on your back, will you;
a) Take the advice of your regular GP
b) Consult with a specialist dermatologist - who has specialised in this condition
c) Post a question on !yahoo !answers and go with the most popular opinion
yeah I thought so.
(damn gubbermint introducing a mole tax just to buy schools and roads and nucular (hehehe) summarines and stuff!)
a new low
There are lots of people who are scientists (but not climate scientists) who have plenty of relevant knowledge for assessing the work that climate scientists are doing. Many of them have extensive knowledge of data analysis, computer modelling, physics, chemistry, statistics and all manner of other subjects that are very relevant to climate study. Many also work in far stricter disciplines, where the scientific method and the burden of proof are adhered to far more closely than in climate science and where being a sceptic is seen as fulfilling a valuable scientific role.
Many people with these sorts of backgrounds look at what climate scientists are doing and feel they are letting science down, badly. They can see very little scientific rigour being applied and no scientific basis to the theories that predict future climate - principally because none has ever passed even the simplest of experimental tests. These details are important, because they are what distinguishes science from opinion.
So, to put it bluntly, there is every reason to think that the man-in-the-street's opinion will be just as accurate as that of the climate scientist, because neither is doing science.
Scientist: Extreme weather is caused by global warming.
Skeptic: There has been little/no warming for 15 years.
Scientist: Don't you see? That proves it. All the energy that should have gone to heating is being used up in making more energetic storms and weather.
Skeptic: But that's not what you said...
Scientist: I have adapted the model to allow for the data not matching my previous model.
Skeptic: And tomorrow you'll adapt it again when new data arrives?
Scientist: That's [climate] science.
That's exactly it!
I try and be a sceptic generally, and the key thing, I thought, about scientific theories was falsifiability - how you know you're wrong.
So, and this is an honest question, what would have to happen for the global warming theories to be wrong? There's a lot of murky science, a large part of that no doubt deliberate, but I still don't know the source - tame "denier" scientists, "warmist" zealots, some random politico lookig to cause panic and cash in. From my unexperienced viewpoint, makes it very hard indeed to work out what the actual debate is about or should be about.
Extreme weather? There are more extremes in terms of recent record setting perhaps. But no sign of increase of hurricanes, cyclones at the like worldwide since the start of the most recent global warming. Flooding, perhaps, but many of those are extreme in terms of impact because of human stupidity in failing to prepare for the inevitable.
What the actual conversation sounds more like: the energy went to the oceans where we can't exactly measure it yet because we don't have the equipment and a complete model to compensate for all factors at work at such depths.
Extreme weather? There are more extremes in terms of recent record setting perhaps. But no sign of increase of hurricanes, cyclones at the like worldwide since the start of the most recent global warming.
One of the predictions of change would be fewer but larger cyclones. This is coming true. For example, in Aus we're having fewer cyclones than at any time in the last 1000 or so years.
btw, there's no need to say hurricanes and cyclones. Hurricanes are cyclones.
Except that is scientific method isn't it?
Create model (as we can't do an experiment on the climate)
Compare model results with real world results
Rinse and repeat
I have no issue with climate science, I have an issue with the degree of politicalisation of climate science. Which took us from 'it's complex and needs lots of research' to 'people need a clear answer - it's all manmade and it will kill everyone'
Given the nature of government funding and control of science, only a fool would believe that ALL such science isn't politicized. My experience of government 'science' is that it can be lies and libel, based on "a feeling", peer-reviewed by someone with all the same biases... and be perfectly acceptable to the bureaucrats and politicians who funded it. Oh yes... the Canadian courts are okay with it too, because government scientists have a right to "freedom of expression" and can publish Defamatory drivel with impunity - no matter who they harm.
"but you can't deny that there's more *news stories* about extreme weather"
That might be because one of the largest news providers to us in the UK has openly committed itself to supporting the Global Warming/Cassandra/Chicken Little agenda. It is one of the few issues on which the BBC admits to a bias.
This has led to vastly more extensive coverage of recent flooding even though the amount of land or number of homes affected was significantly smaller than previous events.
15 years ago? 17 years ago? Before you were born?
When I was studying biology in the 1960's we learnt about the greenhouse effect. It was a cause of concern then. Unfortunately, I can not find the reference just now; but in the last week figures were published, that the average world temperature is at its highest on record and increasing consistently.
Nature can tell you more clearly, as various plants and insects from temperate latititudes increase their Northerly range and Arctic ice is decreasing enough to cause concern over the welfare of polar animals adapted to good ice coverage.
When I was studying biology in the 1960's we learnt about the greenhouse effect. It was a cause of concern then. Unfortunately, I can not find the reference just now; but in the last week figures were published, that the average world temperature is at its highest on record and increasing consistently.
And in the 1970s we were taught that the earth was cooling and that we were on the verge of entering another ice age - to the point that "global cooling" was the number one item on the agenda for the first Earth Day.
The problem with "records" is the time frame. Thermometers are a recent invention when you are looking at climate time scales. Is it hotter now or cooler now than it was 500 years ago? Quite honestly, science doesn't know. Models and "proxy" measurements are made, but they are wildly divergent.
>> The problem with "records" is the time frame
That's why I qualify the sentence with "on record". Clearly, other than inferring conditions from tree rings, fossils, soil profiles etc., we can not refer to man-made records before they existed. So, no trouble at all. However, biologists and archaeologists, as well as historians, are not bad at working out a lot fo things from the past even in the absence of written records.
So you didn't get the memo about not referring to polar bears any more, that far from being on the edge of extinction, their numbers are increasing?
In the 1960's, as I remember them, it was all about global cooling, and the forthcoming ice age. All caused by pollution emitted by man, of course.
You also seem to have missed the memo about the "pause" or "hiatus" -- which they are desperately trying to write off as just a random anomaly. They started off by denying it was happening. the it was just a short term fluke. Only if it persisted for 10 years did it mean anything, Then it was "Oh, did I say 10 years? I meant 15". Now its "Oh, it means nothing unless it persists for 30 years".
So if even the climate pause deniers actually admit that there actually is one (but it means nothing!) how can they consistently report "Highest temperatures ever!". Well, you mist have had your eyes closed for a while to miss the storm over the continuous process of temperature record adjustments, where older temperatures are ALWAYS reduced (so they must have lied when they proclaimed them to be "highest ever!") and newer measurements are adjusted upwards.
If you believe people like these, you either have your nose in the trough, or are some form of congenital idiot.
"But the warming paused 17 years ago. So, extreme weather is being caused by a change that isn't happening? What's up with that?"
Unintentionally or not, you're posing a strawman argument, Mikel. It's not temperature *change* that drives weather, it's the amount of heat available for weather. If the amount of heat energy has increased, then it is reasonable for weather to be more energetic.
Did the pause in global warming result in temperatures declining back to their long-term average, or are they staying at an elevated level compared to the past century?
...boffins were sure that global cooling was signalling a new ice age.
The scandal of the climate emails, and the destruction of the raw data used to construct the "hockey stick" left a bad taste in many mouths. Real scientists don't destroy raw data, don't urge associates to destroy emails, or to alter data. All of which happened in spades...
A damn shame all that politically driven junk science. Let's start fresh, real science, peer reviewed that can be tested using the Scientific Method, not "What gets me Grant Money."
So I imagined all those documentaries and text books that stated we were definitely, 100% headed for another ice age at some point in the near future?
They existed. Since that scientific opinion made it into UK text books it must have been held by a significant portion of the scientific community for a long time.
"Ahem, YES THEY WERE!!
There's more, I'll leave that for you to find..."
So why is that the only one that anyone ever mentions? A *magazine* article!
A minority of scientific papers were predicting an ice age in the 1970s. You could not be bothered even to cite one of those.
See here for a survey of 1970s papers: http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1
I remember the next ice age talk in the 70's.
And still talked about today. One of the predicted signs of warming is that the North Atlantic Current, the flow of warm sea water from the Caribbean that keeps north west Europe nice and snug, would move further south due to melting polar ice. This would then make land areas in the previous path much colder.
@Cipher "A damn shame all that politically driven junk science. Let's start fresh, real science, peer reviewed that can be tested using the Scientific Method"
The only problem is we'd have to have a clear out first. Nobody involved in any strata of climate science, nor anyone that have taught, nor documents published could be used in any way during the new scientific investigation.
The CRU hack proved beyond doubt that the current cotterie can't be trusted, will lie when their oh-so-comfortable positions are threatened, and haven't the slightest notion of what real science actually is.
We're going to be taxed and whether tax policy is based on measures nominally designed to tackle climate change, or any other measure doesn't really matter in terms of how much we actually pay.
How much we're taxed boils down to how much it costs to run the machinery of the state and I guess (this is where I could be shot down because I can't find figures) that the increase in the cost of energy generation due to current 'green policies' isn't going to be a significant part of the total costs to run the country.
On balance, given that there's no definative position one way or the other, on the size/impact of the climate change issue, I'm quite comfortable with tax policy being used to try to shape our behaviour vis-a-vis emissions etc.
From a survey massaging point of view, it's interesting they had the foresight to write the same question in two different ways.
It's also interesting the stance of Germany and Japan two nations that historically had high recycling and nuclear power use, so significantly lower pollution footprints than if they had been largely coal powered and not big on recycling. Though just because you don't think the scientists "know or fully understand" climate and the changes that are occurring doesn't mean you don't believe the general thrust of the argument.
"even the scientists don't really know what they're talking about on environmental issues" the statement is pretty open to interpretation for me when I think "don't really know" in that kind of structure it's like "they kind of know, but don't fully know" the general direction has merit but there's a lot missing. Which I personally think is true of the current situation.
When it comes to taxes, of course governments will use any excuse they can to push them up, whether as part of an honest opinion or a veiled attempt to cover holes in their budgets.
Me personally, it doesn't matter why it's happening (well it does, as you can't make a plan without it but you see my thrust yes?), it is happening and it will happen, the human race isn't going to go "well this modern living thing was nice, we'll give it up now and make all the other people in the world give it up too" so we need to find ourselves a feasible plan b, how do we up lift all of humanity to a reasonable sophisticated forward moving modern technologically advanced society and not all die due to some kind of horrible backlashes as a result of shrinking habitable regions of the planet.
> "even the scientists don't really know what they're talking about on environmental issues" the statement is pretty open to interpretation for me when I think "don't really know" in that kind of structure it's like "they kind of know, but don't fully know" the general direction has merit but there's a lot missing. Which I personally think is true of the current situation.
I wouldn't over-analyse the question: the polsters need a form of words that stands the test of time so, of necessity, it serves as a temperature check on the public's view of science and no more.
The broad nature of "environmental issues" (what if I think scientists know everything there is about fracking and nothing about global warming? How should I answer?) means that no two people's answers are comparable.
Think you've got that arse-about-face. The "deniers" seem to be political lobbyists, like Sir Nigel Lawson and other "Conservatives" with financial interests in the industries fighting the idea. Shame that Conservatives have become bad at conserving anything useful.
Also, in such matters, I would suggest that the precautionary principle is good as ignoring the risk until the evidence is beyond dispute means ignoring it until it is too late to do anything about it.
Still, it's much more important to stick with old technology than use some imagination to make loads of money from solutions that may reduce the risk.
"Gotta watch out for those watermelons"
That's one thing I've always found curious about the warmist lobby. ALL of their solutions are essentially communist/socialist in ideology. They never come up with sensible capitalist proposals to solve or mitigate what they perceive to be a problem.
An intelligent mind might wonder why that is.
@ chrspy: term socialist undefined and used mostly as a pejorative term. However, I note that green schemes seem to require subsidy, ie money transfers from individuals, industries and activities that do generate money. This is could be loosely defined as a socialist activity because the government is actively altering the economy for non-economic purposes. Worse, quite often for no effective purpose. As I have typed before, I will take greenies seriously when they begin to practice what they preach. Live in rural mud huts, use teleconferencing rather than flights to expensive remote resorts, adopt subsistence lifestyles or support nuclear energy, as a few of them do despite execration from the true believers. All things central urban greenies do not do. At least their desire for mass human die-offs is not hidden, but only as disguised racism. All those nations breeding should live as we tell them to and avoid industrialisation. Still talk of overpopulation, despite the worlds population going to drop overall by 2050 on current trends. In the developed world, some nations already have a problem with population decrease. I fear it is only a matter of time before health care for the over 70s will be reduced as an economic measure. Joe Haldermans Forever War described the start of this thinking well.
The above discontinuities between professed belief and practice perceived by those who bother to think are probably part of the survey's inconsistent findings. No actual knowledge on human effects on climate are required to see the inconsistent behaviour. Bit like Oz gov warbling about budget emergency but abolishing taxes on wealthy non-citizens while increasing costs on citizens. One does not need to be an economist to perceive the talk and action is contradictory.
"So proposals to develop new business models to create whole industries based on "cleaner energy" are still socialist?"
It's not an industry. It's a subsidy.
Windmills don't work. No amount of R&D will ever pay back what has already been lost to subsidy.
It's just tractor production numbers dressed up as something else.
...is that one of the MPs that voted out the carbon stuff did so because "it's cold in Canberra in mid-winter therefore global warming doesn't exist". Words almost fail me.
As for increased energy costs, the huge increases in power where I live over the last couple of years were because the suppliers spent a fortune on replacing infrastructure just as prices were falling. The carbon tax component was a fraction of this infrastructure cost.
@Mahatma true, because the federal government provided economically perverse incentives from taxpayer funds to do so. Why ? Lack of rational advice but lots of lobbying. About time to make all political parties self fund from citizen members only with a cap of say, $5000 per election cycle. And bring back the week or two news blackout for an election so the final days hysteria can be displaced from election day. Yes the bloggers will go nuts, but only the true believers will notice. Also, applying truth in advertising laws to all political groups, NGOs and charities will improve their trustworthiness, especially as deregistration and banning of officeholders might clean out the Stygian Stables of the current ruling elites.
No doubt a similar poll on "do you believe in evolution" or "do you believe in the Big bang" would show a similar disbelief amongst those who've never bothered (or been able) to actually look at the actual work behind the ideas.
So the result is vaguely interesting, but nothing to do with any reality of the ides behind the question. It really just shows that people will suspect governments of using any excuse to raise taxes.
I don't know if CO2 causes global warming but I don't think increasing the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere by 20% in 50 years is a very good idea; it's bound to do *something* to the balance of plants and animals on the planet. Nor is it a great idea to waste fossil fuels - although I accept it makes no real difference to the atmosphere whether we do it all next week or eke it out over 100 years - until we have a suitable, economic alternative for uses like transport and chemical feedstocks.
However, some people will always see an international Communist conspiracy behind anything that threatens to affect their high-polluting lifestyle, the like of which most people in the world copuld never dream of.
Science is based on fact, general opinion is not. This survey doesn't say anything about global warming, if anything it shows why democracy is pretty rubbish at dealing with reality or getting anything done.
I very much doubt whether carbon taxes are any use at combatting this but if anything they are a desperate attempt to hold back our increasing demands for power as we are about to go into a period of brownouts and astronomical electricity prices thanks to political heel dragging in commisioning new power plants.
Do you know what the safest, cheapest, most environmentally friendly source of power is? Nuclear. More scientific fact overruled by general populace idiocy and paranoia.
"If you are not a scientist: fuck off!"
See, now you're exhibiting all the religious fervour required of a true believer. Clearly you aren't a scientist of any type, so we can presume that will be your final post on scientific subjects, no?
Science does not require faith. It proves itself to work time and time again through the effectiveness of the technological miracles it wreaks in plain sight! Plus, its secrets are openly available to anyone who will take the trouble to learn calculus.
"Again...I prefer to get the opinion of scientists...Like the guys at Nasa:
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/ No internet troll can argue against them. If they say it is getting worse, it is getting worse. They collect the data."
I'll counter your NASA climate 'scientists' with some NASA employees who have a record of actually getting things done (astronauts and engineers)....
Do they have to fuck off too?
"I'll counter your NASA climate 'scientists' with some NASA employees who have a record of actually getting things done (astronauts and engineers)...."
Even NASA unfortunately has a few Republicans that believe the stuff on Faux News working for them. That AGW is happening and that CO2 emissions by man are the primary cause of the current climate change hasn't been in any scientific doubt in at least a decade now.
"Even NASA unfortunately has a few Republicans that believe the stuff on Faux News working for them."
Perhaps they do but what has that to do with 49 vastly experienced engineers and astronauts demainding that NASA takes a scientific approach to AGW?
As you obviously didn't read it here it is....
We, the undersigned, respectfully request that NASA and the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) refrain from including unproven remarks in public releases and websites. We believe the claims by NASA and GISS, that man-made carbon dioxide is having a catastrophic impact on global climate change are not substantiated, especially when considering thousands of years of empirical data. With hundreds of well-known climate scientists and tens of thousands of other scientists publicly declaring their disbelief in the catastrophic forecasts, coming particularly from the GISS leadership, it is clear that the science is NOT settled.
The unbridled advocacy of CO2 being the major cause of climate change is unbecoming of NASA’s history of making an objective assessment of all available scientific data prior to making decisions or public statements.
As former NASA employees, we feel that NASA’s advocacy of an extreme position, prior to a thorough study of the possible overwhelming impact of natural climate drivers is inappropriate. We request that NASA refrain from including unproven and unsupported remarks in its future releases and websites on this subject. At risk is damage to the exemplary reputation of NASA, NASA’s current or former scientists and employees, and even the reputation of science itself.
For additional information regarding the science behind our concern, we recommend that you contact Harrison Schmitt or Walter Cunningham, or others they can recommend to you.
Thank you for considering this request.
/s/ Jack Barneburg, Jack – JSC, Space Shuttle Structures, Engineering Directorate, 34 years
/s/ Larry Bell – JSC, Mgr. Crew Systems Div., Engineering Directorate, 32 years
/s/ Dr. Donald Bogard – JSC, Principal Investigator, Science Directorate, 41 years
/s/ Jerry C. Bostick – JSC, Principal Investigator, Science Directorate, 23 years
/s/ Dr. Phillip K. Chapman – JSC, Scientist – astronaut, 5 years
/s/ Michael F. Collins, JSC, Chief, Flight Design and Dynamics Division, MOD, 41 years
/s/ Dr. Kenneth Cox – JSC, Chief Flight Dynamics Div., Engr. Directorate, 40 years
/s/ Walter Cunningham – JSC, Astronaut, Apollo 7, 8 years
/s/ Dr. Donald M. Curry – JSC, Mgr. Shuttle Leading Edge, Thermal Protection Sys., Engr. Dir., 44 years
/s/ Leroy Day – Hdq. Deputy Director, Space Shuttle Program, 19 years
/s/ Dr. Henry P. Decell, Jr. – JSC, Chief, Theory & Analysis Office, 5 years
/s/Charles F. Deiterich – JSC, Mgr., Flight Operations Integration, MOD, 30 years
/s/ Dr. Harold Doiron – JSC, Chairman, Shuttle Pogo Prevention Panel, 16 years
/s/ Charles Duke – JSC, Astronaut, Apollo 16, 10 years
/s/ Anita Gale
/s/ Grace Germany – JSC, Program Analyst, 35 years
/s/ Ed Gibson – JSC, Astronaut Skylab 4, 14 years
/s/ Richard Gordon – JSC, Astronaut, Gemini Xi, Apollo 12, 9 years
/s/ Gerald C. Griffin – JSC, Apollo Flight Director, and Director of Johnson Space Center, 22 years
/s/ Thomas M. Grubbs – JSC, Chief, Aircraft Maintenance and Engineering Branch, 31 years
/s/ Thomas J. Harmon
/s/ David W. Heath – JSC, Reentry Specialist, MOD, 30 years
/s/ Miguel A. Hernandez, Jr. – JSC, Flight crew training and operations, 3 years
/s/ James R. Roundtree – JSC Branch Chief, 26 years
/s/ Enoch Jones – JSC, Mgr. SE&I, Shuttle Program Office, 26 years
/s/ Dr. Joseph Kerwin – JSC, Astronaut, Skylab 2, Director of Space and Life Sciences, 22 years
/s/ Jack Knight – JSC, Chief, Advanced Operations and Development Division, MOD, 40 years
/s/ Dr. Christopher C. Kraft – JSC, Apollo Flight Director and Director of Johnson Space Center, 24 years
/s/ Paul C. Kramer – JSC, Ass.t for Planning Aeroscience and Flight Mechanics Div., Egr. Dir., 34 years
/s/ Alex (Skip) Larsen
/s/ Dr. Lubert Leger – JSC, Ass’t. Chief Materials Division, Engr. Directorate, 30 years
/s/ Dr. Humbolt C. Mandell – JSC, Mgr. Shuttle Program Control and Advance Programs, 40 years
/s/ Donald K. McCutchen – JSC, Project Engineer – Space Shuttle and ISS Program Offices, 33 years
/s/ Thomas L. (Tom) Moser – Hdq. Dep. Assoc. Admin. & Director, Space Station Program, 28 years
/s/ Dr. George Mueller – Hdq., Assoc. Adm., Office of Space Flight, 6 years
/s/ Tom Ohesorge
/s/ James Peacock – JSC, Apollo and Shuttle Program Office, 21 years
/s/ Richard McFarland – JSC, Mgr. Motion Simulators, 28 years
/s/ Joseph E. Rogers – JSC, Chief, Structures and Dynamics Branch, Engr. Directorate,40 years
/s/ Bernard J. Rosenbaum – JSC, Chief Engineer, Propulsion and Power Division, Engr. Dir., 48 years
/s/ Dr. Harrison (Jack) Schmitt – JSC, Astronaut Apollo 17, 10 years
/s/ Gerard C. Shows – JSC, Asst. Manager, Quality Assurance, 30 years
/s/ Kenneth Suit – JSC, Ass’t Mgr., Systems Integration, Space Shuttle, 37 years
/s/ Robert F. Thompson – JSC, Program Manager, Space Shuttle, 44 years/s/ Frank Van Renesselaer – Hdq., Mgr. Shuttle Solid Rocket Boosters, 15 years
/s/ Dr. James Visentine – JSC Materials Branch, Engineering Directorate, 30 years
/s/ Manfred (Dutch) von Ehrenfried – JSC, Flight Controller; Mercury, Gemini & Apollo, MOD, 10 years
/s/ George Weisskopf – JSC, Avionics Systems Division, Engineering Dir., 40 years
/s/ Al Worden – JSC, Astronaut, Apollo 15, 9 years
/s/ Thomas (Tom) Wysmuller – JSC, Meteorologist, 5 years
Ability to not have a clue what they are talking about = tremendous
Wheeling out NASA astronauts and engineers is a classic example of the appeal to authority fallacy. Targeted at old white conservative guys who grew up in the days of the astronaut heroes of the space race.
"Of course astronauts understand climate, they went to the moon, they can do anything"
"Wheeling out NASA astronauts and engineers is a classic example of the appeal to authority fallacy"
Whereas saying that because they aren't climate 'scientists' they suddenly can't follow a logical train of reasoning, isn't?
When it came to discussing getting someone into space I think they'd have been a hell of a lot more honest than.....
“I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”
Due to local level bungling of zoning, building codes and roads, national governments see the need to bail out the existing owners of property that is literally below water of foreseeable storms. Transfer payments from all of us to the fools owning unbuildable lots will be mismanaged with high national-government overhead. If possible national plutoliticians will use disaster photo ops to cry on TV while they MANAGE to put people back in harms way.
I think the essence of Charles Darwin's work can be stated as "Adapt or die". Review the known climate changes over the past 500K years and it is clear that the earth is currently on an upward temperature slope. The multiple glaciation/heating periods make that clear. And that means that further warming is inevitable without regard to any actions taken or not taken by humans. And that warming will be followed - centuries from now - by cooling.
Why not spend money on learning how we can adapt to further warming rather than a futile attempt to stop global warming? King Knute, anyone? It is odd that "progressives" are advocates of preserving the climate status quo, a supposedly "conservative" domain.
When "climate scientists" begin to admit that there are natural causes to global warming AS WELL AS man-made causes, and begin to calculate the relative percentages of causality, THEN an intelligent discussion can begin. Until then, the arguments are futile and convince no one.
From the original:
When "climate scientists" begin to admit that there are natural causes to global warming AS WELL AS man-made causes, and begin to calculate the relative percentages of causality, THEN an intelligent discussion can begin.
Notice the phrase "AS WELL AS man-made causes, ..." There are many causes to the warming, INCLUDING but not limited to Greenhouse gases.
In my view, it's actually totally irrelevant whether climate change actually exists or not. The solutions proposed for climate change are a good idea anyway, as it is all about consuming less and consuming in more efficient ways which will save us money irrespective of whether we are saving the planet. And on a slightly different tack, it would be great to be less reliant on fossil fuels from dictatorial regimes like Saudi Arabia and Russia, and green tech would make us less reliant on those countries for our energy!
"The solutions proposed for climate change are a good idea anyway, as it is all about consuming less..."
And there it is again. The socialist mantra of less. Why can we not leave this bankrupt ideology in the last century where it belongs. Do people not think socialism has killed enough people already?
There's no real debate among the informed about the core issue despite what this article says. Humans are warming the planet and the consequences are not good. The vested fossil fuel interests work to inject public doubt where no reasonable scientific doubt exists. They're willing to put future generations at risk for profit. It's immoral.
Join the efforts to change course. Apathy/inaction effectively advocates for more of the same destructive behaviors.
Surely the point that all governments seem to agree can actually be argued the other way. For instance I could see that at the moment Mr Putin would want to make it uncomfortable for western governments. What better way to do that than to join the "denier" side to try and embarrass them. The fact that this has not happened yet - even the Chinese seem to agree that AGW IS happening (though they're not doing much about it!) - suggests to me that the scientific evidence IS there.
The Chinese that are in the process of damming and flooding the largest area known to man, filling in seas to make a seaport, burns coal with limited pollution abatement, puts toxic waste on soils and in pet and baby food? Hard to tell from their actions they are believers. Of course if talking it puts their competitors at a disadvantage, that's another matter.
Don't know about you lot, strikes me that the 'man made climate change denier' mob are either very selfish (bugger the future generations) or are very certain about things we only have 100 years worth of reliable evidence to make models with or draw any inference from. Personally I'd rather side with the environment lobby, at least there's no irreversible catastrophic harm in that view.
No one should be surprised by this. As an American with a degree in Environmental Sciences I can tell you that the skeptics out number the believers by a long shot. Then again, my country still does not believe in evolution, and has major problems with any scientific theory that the media cares to report. The U.S. is uneducated, un-informed and proudly boasts of its stupidity by electing people that continue to represent big oil and the corporate world by ignoring facts and spreading misinformation to cause the very denial that will take this country down.
The article says, "no other kind of scientist's opinion is much more valuable than a layman's, much though many marginal eggheads might disagree."
Not so. Go out and take a good sample of "laymen" - ask them to work out, without a calculator, what 80+10% is. How many will come up with the answer "90"? And then let them use the calculator and quite a few will come up with the answer "800" - or "8". And most will not be able to tell you what a percentage actually is. If you don't believe me, consult those who are desperate to get financial education into British schools, so that when the schoolchildren become adults a few more of them will understand what "Wonga's APR is over 1000%" really means.
Most people who have got through a science degree - or at any rate one with some amount of maths in it - will have an idea what percentages mean. They may also be able to tell the difference between a graph which shows you the seemingly huge rise and fall of your share values over the last month and the same data shown over 5 years where it looks minuscule. In other words they can, at least if they want to, make allowances for truncated scales.
Basic numeracy does not guarantee that the reader will apply other good critical skills or have requisite specialist knowledge, but it does mean that they will have the ability to look at an article with figures in it and try to make some sense of them. There are large numbers of our fellow citizens (at least in the UK and the US) who simply look at numbers as an irrelevance.
I am haunted by the picture of a woman in a documentary (which was not about smoking) who had, during her sixth pregnancy taken up smoking. Why had she done so, "Dunno," shrug, "Felt like it." "Don't you know that smoking is bad for the baby you're carrying?" She shrugged again, "Yeah, well, they say these things." She wasn't being defensive - she just didn't see the need to bother about what "they" said. Her other babies had been born healthy - this one miscarried. She didn't see any connection - it was just another one of the things that "they" said which had no impact on her.
I like to think that any professional scientist will have some idea of the difference between what might or might not be a fact and what you happen to feel this morning. I'm not making scientists out to be all paragons of logical appraisal - in their own field or out of it - but at least they have some conception of what a reasoning process actually is.
Not so. Go out and take a good sample of "laymen" - ask them to work out, without a calculator, what 80+10% is. How many will come up with the answer "90"?
I'm in strong agreement with the overall thrust of northumbrian's comments. But as a volunteer math tutor in a local elementary school who gets to watch kids struggle with what poorly worded questions, I have to ask "10% of what?" I'm assuming that the writer intended the "what" to be 80, and the correct answer to be 88. And, it may well be that the "language of math" in Northumbria conveys that meaning unambiguously. (This is NOT intended as a snide comment . . . that may be an entirely valid explanation.)
The climate change debate is similarly afflicted. Local data and short term trends can be scientifically "correct." but ultimately misleading. And having said that, herewith a couple of local short term observations I find significant, for what they are worth.
The size and intensity of local/regional weather patterns appear to be increasing. The winter storms that hammered the US this past winter are examples. The question is "How can warming produce record lows," seems logical, but reflects a lack of appreciation for term "global.".
I have family who spent the winter north of the arctic circle in a native community. They did not have a normal winter either. The pictures they sent show, instead, wholesale flooding. The ancestral memories of the native peoples record nothing remotely like this.
The climate is, in effect, a global heat engine. It is extremely complex. Additional energy into it (in the form of heat) is not going to be manifested in a uniform warning, but in changes In regional and local weather patterns. These excursions will be hidden in the "noise" of naturally occurring cycles.
Short term trends mean very little. Unfortunately they are what makes the news: "California is in the midst of a devastating drought. . . Oh wait, 8 inches of rain and mudslides. . . all good now."
As others have pointed out, governments are exploiting the situation to do lots of things. None of them actually affect the weather. Mark Twain said it best, "Everybody talks about the weather, but nobody does anything about it."
This post has been deleted by its author
Most of the surveys I've seen have "loaded questions" with simple yes/no answers. It's a way to get a desired answer. When people answer man has and has not caused climate change is a classic example. Man has done things that modified the immediate environs of people. If the effects of those changes such as filling in ocean backwaters is assigned to "climate change", then people will give conflicting answers. Science with an economic benefit to one group at the expense of another with no increase in productivity will always be looked at with a jaundiced eye.
ABC (Australia) Four Corners recently did a documentry broadly on the topic of climate change and solutions. The solutions are out there. It really is vested interests holding us back for their own profit self interest. Its clear that the conservative sociopaths in charge care about only greed and power for an aristocracy in the here and now. They hold democracy and the rule of law with contempt, you only have to look so far has how the conservatives are treating asylum seekers to see the depth they are prepared to go. Conservatives are parasites that must be exterminated for the good of the majority.
Its well worth the 45 minute watch.
From the above I get the following (and including my own prejudices);
As I understand it we are in an Inter-glacial period so sometime the Ice Age will return - how severe and when who knows, but it will happen if you believe the very-long term climate record. Can mankind affect the climate? Yes. Is it doing so? Maybe. what will the affect be? Well the ice caps appear to be melting and that suggests something, but its uncertian exaclty what.given that if the global temp increases some areas actually get colder. Is this short term or long term and will other effects mask mankinds actions? who knows and possibly
The only sure thing is that we will know for certain after the event, if there is one, and that will be too late to do anything if indeed we could have done anything.
Can we survive climate change? as a species I think Yes as a cililisation possibly not - ho hum no change there
So let's spend trillions of our great grandchildren's money to save the planet. They might get kinda pissed at us when they look up from their government provided shelters to witness the massive meteor that truly trashes the planet. All that work for nothing...
To think that humans are in total control is total arrogance.
Leaving aside what sounds like denier bias in the Mori questions cited here, we seem to have a lot of non-scientists assuming that scientists don't know what they're talking about. That is similar to an analogue-retentive like me proclaiming that, because I often don't understand what the tekkies on here are talking about, that the tekkies themselves don't understand it. My experience in talking to my tekkie acquaintances about things like how to operate my cell phone suggests that in fact they do know what they're talking about. Climate change is happening, and higher concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are the smoking gun, and that the basic principles of risk management need to be applied. It will cost a lot of money to mitigate, and it will cost even more the longer we put it off. I would be much happier if it weren't happening, but wishing won't make it so. Nor will surveys of people who don't know what they're talking about.
Sounds like the survey has found a lot of people who don't understand climate change at all and have projected their own confusion about it onto scientists. There has been a lot of propaganda from the climate denialists to confuse people. So what does that say about the survey.
It doesn't matter whether people like it or not, we can be fairly certain man-generated climate is happening. That is an inconvenient truth to many.
**Of course the confusion here may be worsened by the fact that we aren't "currently seeing" any climate change by the headline measure: there has been no global warming for perhaps 15 years.**
Oh dear, Lewis yet again betrays his profound ignorance of the issue. What he's trying to say is that there has been no surface air temperature warming for perhaps 15 years, completely neglecting the fact that only 2% of warming goes into the atmosphere with more than 90% going into the ocean.
Incidentally it's factually incorrect to say that there has been no surface air temperature warming for the last 15 years but it's a convenient fiction to maintain.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2020