Cold Water On "global Warming"

[VinnieK]

this article sums up some of the problems and credibility issues.

 

In my opinion the article actually does more to confuse the issue by allowing those who read it to confuse the environmentalist movement with the scientific establishment. As an example, consider the author's reference to the concerns about global cooling in the 70's. As has already been said on this very forum, the global cooling threory never gained widespead acceptance in the scientific world at the time - the scare was in fact entirely manufactured by the media first and foremost (and their role was in fact more prominant than that of the environmental groups of the time). The temptation now is to treat all environmentalist causes (and hence the science) with suspicion and caution, but the environmental movement and the scientific establishment are two different entities and in this case the general concensus amongst climate scientists is that global warming is real and a consequence of human behaviour.

 

So yes, the article you linked to may give a case for questioning, say, Greenpeace in a general sense, but it does nothing to justify or illuminate doubt regarding the opinion of the scientific world* on even this specific issue.

 

On another topic: Dr Dave, regarding the denial of scientific evidence you say:

 

"It's hard to counter this, because the denialist is not willing or usually able to consider the evidence in a rational manner, so the only retort is to dismiss, and this further reinforces the view that science is arrogant and elitist. Combined with the fact that scientists are often not the best communicators of ideas and, well, the outlook is bleak."

 

I think perhaps the outlook is too bleak in this case. What you say is true, but when has it ever been any different? People are ultimately conservative in nature, and virtually anything that has threatened to disturb the status quo has at first encountered considerable resistance. Where progress has been universally accepted this has usually only come when it has already become the new status quo through education and familiarity (having already been forced through by government or business) or when the old ways of doing things have resulted in consequences that are no longer tolerable.

 

I'd also say that the problem has less to do with scientists and their ability to communicate, and more to do with the fact that most modern science is so technical as to be near impossible to communicate to laymen in sufficient detail to render the denialist tactics of misinformation and exploiting abiguity or vagueness ineffective. As such, it's my belief that too much emphasis is placed upon trying to convince the public of the science, and not enough time is spent telling the public exactly how things will change if measures to combat global warming are taken, and the what effect these measures will have on their lifestyle. So far the campaign to convince the public of the reality of global warming has focused largely on trying to scare, hector and guilt trip, instead of trying to reassure the public of the potential benefits to their lives and how efforts are being made to minimise any disruption caused by any future legislation.

 

*here I'm talking about honest to gosh climate scientists. Botanists; engineers; mathematicians, physicists, chemists, and biologists working in fields barely related to the issue; or any other stalwart of uninformed opinion in a white coat that the media periodically dredges up every time they want to start a bit of controversy don't count.

[Albert Tatlock]

this article sums up some of the problems and credibility issues.

 

In my opinion the article actually does more to confuse the issue by allowing those who read it to confuse the environmentalist movement with the scientific establishment. As an example, consider the author's reference to the concerns about global cooling in the 70's. As has already been said on this very forum, the global cooling threory never gained widespead acceptance in the scientific world at the time - the scare was in fact entirely manufactured by the media first and foremost (and their role was in fact more prominant than that of the environmental groups of the time). The temptation now is to treat all environmentalist causes (and hence the science) with suspicion and caution, but the environmental movement and the scientific establishment are two different entities and in this case the general concensus amongst climate scientists is that global warming is real and a consequence of human behaviour.

 

So yes, the article you linked to may give a case for questioning, say, Greenpeace in a general sense, but it does nothing to justify or illuminate doubt regarding the opinion of the scientific world* on even this specific issue.

 

*here I'm talking about honest to gosh climate scientists. Botanists; engineers; mathematicians, physicists, chemists, and biologists working in fields barely related to the issue; or any other stalwart of uninformed opinion in a white coat that the media periodically dredges up every time they want to start a bit of controversy don't count.

I realise all that - but nevertheless, like it or not many people do tend see all of these organisations as 'one'.

 

It is not the scientists banging on about it that is the problem, rather their poor communication and not banging on about it all - leaving it to environmental and political groups, whose poor credibility from the past on numerous issues stays with them as far as most people are concerned I'm afraid. In a sense the 'crying wolf' analogy has come to fruition for many such groups. Get past that, and the number of sceptics will drop off. One example of that is plastic bags which represent sod all compared to what really could be at issue.

[mollag]

Your social conscience is laudable but like the old story of Peter and the Wolf, the guy that cried wolf was the baddie.

 

You are confusing your references to wolves. Nobody cries wolf in Peter & The Wolf which has nothing to do with the fable.

Cheeers Pongo, absolutly right, well spotted ! bit naughty of me putiing it in, thought it would raise a smile in a somewhat dour thread

Prokofiev is ironed into our generation and Peter and The Wolf will always be associated with Dr Desmond Morris.

 

Still though, let us not forget Magna Carta, dont let her death be in vain!

[triskelion]

It is not the scientists banging on about it that is the problem, rather their poor communication and not banging on about it all - leaving it to environmental and political groups, whose poor credibility from the past on numerous issues stays with them as far as most people are concerned I'm afraid. In a sense the 'crying wolf' analogy has come to fruition for many such groups. Get past that, and the number of sceptics will drop off. One example of that is plastic bags which represent sod all compared to what really could be at issue.

So far as plastic bags are concerned, yes they may not be a massive issue as regards carbon or in general, but they unslightly, dangerous to wildlife and do not rot away. In many ways they a useful gateway into further positive action, especially as regards food packaging and the like. Certainly since I stopped using plastic bags I've gone on to buy loose veggies rather than those wrapped in polythene.

 

I totally agree so far as their being a massive lack of credibility so far as environmental and political groups go, but I do not think we can simply 'get past this.'

 

I'd also say that the problem has less to do with scientists and their ability to communicate, and more to do with the fact that most modern science is so technical as to be near impossible to communicate to laymen in sufficient detail to render the denialist tactics of misinformation and exploiting abiguity or vagueness ineffective. As such, it's my belief that too much emphasis is placed upon trying to convince the public of the science, and not enough time is spent telling the public exactly how things will change if measures to combat global warming are taken, and the what effect these measures will have on their lifestyle. So far the campaign to convince the public of the reality of global warming has focused largely on trying to scare, hector and guilt trip, instead of trying to reassure the public of the potential benefits to their lives and how efforts are being made to minimise any disruption caused by any future legislation.

This is why I have so little time for environmental groups, who live in a complete fantasy world. The problem is that most of them like to pretend they are old-skool class warriors as well, and want to bring down capitalism as well as save the World. This is not only repugnantly self-righteous, but simply utterly moronic.

 

Most of these groups refuse to support schemes like carbon trading, which may not have been all that effective so far, but these things take time to implement, and will actually orientate the market towards carbon reduction. They also deride carbon offsets, but widely miss the actual point of them. No one thinks carbon offsetting is going to save the World, but it is essentially the equivalent of recycling. If you have to use a car, or fly, or use electricity or whatever, carbon offsetting finanaces a saving elsewhere. It may not balance it out, but it does create a revenue stream for renewable projects.

 

My point is, Friends of the Earth et al think they have a monopoly on the solutions, but they don't. All they can think of doing is legislating against people they have denounced as evil. How many members of Greenpeace do you think actually understand the science behind climate change? Very few I'd bet. Their ignorant acceptance thus appears as dogma, and the branding of sceptics, for whatever reason, as 'deniers' serves only to harm their cause and detract from their case. Neither these groups nor their political wing in the Green Party have done anything to raise the profile of climate change as a threat. The guys who actually put it on the political agenda are David Cameron and Al Gore, who none of the eco-facists like.

 

Instead they target, say, drivers and claim driving needs to be more expensive. Presumably these people live within the M25 for the most part, as driving a car is already hugely expensive, and very few people do it purely because they can afford to do so over alternatives.

 

With flying they maybe have a point to an extent, but half a million people in the UK alone are dependent on the aviation industry, and as such there would be a huge social cost to crushing it. The solution is more along the lines of high-speed trains between major urban centres, followed by an end to issuing flight permits for those routes. So instead of people flying Manchester to Heathrow, there would be a high-speed train to make the trip. Or whatever.

 

I obviously could go on and on, but basically the proponents of man-made climate change generally seem to want people to say they were right as much as they want genuine action. Rather than wasting huge amounts of time and money on making everything about carbon emissions and saying we can use 100% renewable energy (we simply CANNOT), they should be backing campaigns for insulation, and those raising awareness about pollution and congestion and traffic noise.

 

I often think these people who camp at Heathrow or go on marches would be much better off raising money for a charity that insulates the homes of the elderly. This would save energy, reduce carbon emissions, improve the financial situations of those they help and more. But that isn't as eye-catching and doesn't really appeal to their hero complex as much.

[manxiememe]

Ermmm...this 'cold water' on 'Global warming.'...... is it fluoridated?

 

LOL

[manshimajin]

Information from the National Oceanographic Centre at Southampton University:

 

http://www.noc.soton.ac.uk/nocs/news.php?a...ews&idx=303

 

"Could the Atlantic Current Switch Off? – 30-11-05

 

The Atlantic Ocean overturning that maintains Europe’s moderate climate has slowed by 30 per cent according to scientists from the National Oceanography Centre, Southampton in research published today in Nature

 

Professor Harry Bryden, Dr Stuart Cunningham and University of Southampton research student Hannah Longworth have been researching the flow of the Atlantic Ocean across latitude 25 degrees north – comparing measurements across the Atlantic taken in 2004 with records from 1957, 1981, 1992 and 1998. Ocean flow is measured in Sverdrups, equivalent to one million tonnes of water a second. The team estimate a decrease in the overturning from 20 Sv in earlier surveys to 14 Sv in 2004.

 

Professor Bryden said, ‘The Atlantic meridional overturning circulation, sometimes called the Conveyor Belt, carries warm upper waters into northern latitudes and returns cold deep waters southward across the equator. It is a massive system that includes the Gulf Stream and it carries heat northward out of the tropics into the northern Atlantic warming the atmosphere and helping to provide northern Europe with a moderate climate.

 

‘In previous studies over the last 50 years the overturning circulation and heat transport across 25°N were reasonably constant. We were surprised that the circulation in 2004 was so different from previous estimates..."

 

Climate models suggest that increased levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will result in a slowdown of the Atlantic overturning circulation. Scientists fear that disruption to this circulation could result in a several degree drop in temperatures in as little as 20 years. The Natural Environment Research Council, NERC, has funded a £20 million climate change research programme called RAPID, which is co-ordinated by scientists at the National Oceanography Centre, Southampton. A primary goal of RAPID is to continuously monitor the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation."

 

The RAPID programme has now got a line of moorings in place at 26 N to monitor flows - it will be interesting to see what the results of this work identify by way of flow trends for the Gulf Stream.

 

It is just possible that the insulation may be needed to keep the cold out in Europe.

 

As an aside...when it comes to Global warming the fundamental issue of population growth seems to be steered well clear of - if CO2 emission is a problem how do we slow down the exponential increase in population?

[Albert Tatlock]

As an aside...when it comes to Global warming the fundamental issue of population growth seems to be steered well clear of - if CO2 emission is a problem how do we slow down the exponential increase in population?

Until the overpopulation issue is addressed, we are pi**ing in the wind.

 

The chinese did it by limiting children to one child per family. We don't have to go that far, limiting to the right to self-replacement, and taxing the hell out of those that want more kids would be a good start, and achieve significant results over a single generation. People over 30 who have steralisations or vasectomies could also be awarded via the tax system with a one-off tax credit 'payment', or even via the benefit system (as the current UK benefit structure doesn't help matters either, encouraging people to sit on their arse breeding). Even if we all reduce our emissions by 50% and the population doubles in the future, we will be far worse off.

 

All this could easily be funded via a restructuring of the family-allowance budget, which currently goes to anyone with kids from the poorest to millionaires.

 

Even if people don't believe in global warming, an increasing population along with reduced resources e.g. oil, food etc. will make everyone's life a misery in the future.

[triskelion]

The Chinese very obviously didn't do it with their 'one-child' policy.

 

Population growth is expected to tail off anyway, and it is extremely dubious that it will continue to grow in a World of 'dwindling resources.'

 

Looking at this problem from a perspective of 'too many people' is absurd.

[VinnieK]

limiting to the right to self-replacement, and taxing the hell out of those that want more kids would be a good start, and achieve significant results over a single generation.

 

Triskelion's pretty much summed up my thoughts on this matter. Still, I'm curious why you're so insistant about limiting "self-replacement". A significant part of the "problem" is people living so long, so why not compulsory euthanasia at pension age instead? After all, babies don't have that much immediate impact on carbon levels (since their food and heating is an incremental addition to the family's) and grow into productive adults. By comparison, bumping old people off early would immediately take a a big chunk out of our consumption of resources (physical and financial), not to mention freeing up housing stock and numerous other "benefits" to the state. The demograph's blade cuts both ways you know.

[gazza]

limiting to the right to self-replacement, and taxing the hell out of those that want more kids would be a good start, and achieve significant results over a single generation.

 

Triskelion's pretty much summed up my thoughts on this matter. Still, I'm curious why you're so insistant about limiting "self-replacement". A significant part of the "problem" is people living so long, so why not compulsory euthanasia at pension age instead? After all, babies don't have that much immediate impact on carbon levels (since their food and heating is an incremental addition to the family's) and grow into productive adults. By comparison, bumping old people off early would immediately take a a big chunk out of our consumption of resources (physical and financial), not to mention freeing up housing stock and numerous other "benefits" to the state. The demograph's blade cuts both ways you know.

 

that gets my vote then,

what u think we should set the age to,

60-65, with an option if thay cant look after them selfs from the age of say 50 thay should be culled,

 

so everywhere eles gets hotter, and we go colder if the water stops, bloody great that, was hopeing for nice hot summers and mild winters with global warming, just our look

[Albert Tatlock]

limiting to the right to self-replacement, and taxing the hell out of those that want more kids would be a good start, and achieve significant results over a single generation.

 

Triskelion's pretty much summed up my thoughts on this matter. Still, I'm curious why you're so insistant about limiting "self-replacement". A significant part of the "problem" is people living so long, so why not compulsory euthanasia at pension age instead? After all, babies don't have that much immediate impact on carbon levels (since their food and heating is an incremental addition to the family's) and grow into productive adults. By comparison, bumping old people off early would immediately take a a big chunk out of our consumption of resources (physical and financial), not to mention freeing up housing stock and numerous other "benefits" to the state. The demograph's blade cuts both ways you know.

How many kids do you two have or intend to have, and how many brothers and sisters do you each have? I smell the smell of big family defence syndrome.

[VinnieK]

How many kids do you two have or intend to have, and how many brothers and sisters do you each have? I smell the smell of big family defence syndrome.

 

No kids, hoping to have one (two at a very maximum), and no siblings, o powerful mystic. Now try addressing the point. Why stop kids, when, if we're apparently desperate for a cull of humans, we need children a whole lot more than old people?

 

You have kids, don't you Albert?

[manshimajin]

Population growth is expected to tail off anyway, and it is extremely dubious that it will continue to grow in a World of 'dwindling resources.'

 

Looking at this problem from a perspective of 'too many people' is absurd.

 

Is it absurd to put this into the Global Warming equation? I would argue that it is absurd to ignore it.

 

The United Nations project that the world population will increase from 6.5 billion in 2005 to 9.2 billion in 2050 (UN Medium Variant: http://esa.un.org/unpp/p2k0data.asp) - and from 48 to 68 persons per square km in the same period. Equivalent numbers at 1950 were 2.5 billion and 19 per sq.km.

 

So in 100 years the population is projected to increase almost 4 times. It seems ostrich-like to ignore the impact on the environment of this factor, more than anything else population (consumer) demand is what is driving global warming.

 

Future generations around the world will expect the same or better lifestyles than today's - particularly in the so-called '2nd and 3rd worlds'. Increased knowledge, technological advances, consumerism and population growth are inter-linked. Are we to deny people in less well off countries the right to improve their living standards?

 

Driving a Prius, insulating the house or fitting low energy light-bulbs will not reverse this underlying trend. How can you have a quadrupling of population at a time of rapid technological progress without at least a quadrupling of energy, food and mineral extraction demands or extremely dramatic cutbacks in lifestyle?

 

A great challenge for our children and grand-children.

[Albert Tatlock]

So in 100 years the population is projected to increase almost 4 times. It seems ostrich-like to ignore the impact on the environment of this factor, more than anything else population (consumer) demand is what is driving global warming.

Well said.

You have kids, don't you Albert?

Yup - two - and the snip.

[Slim]

Aye, this has been demonstrated over and over that it's virtually impossible to influence in the timescales required, and every effort to artificially control population has failed and resulted in serious mistreatments of populations.

 

Albert also continually ignores the point that population control isn't simply about having children, it's about longevity. Are you, as a grumpy old shite, proposing we stop giving medical care to grumpy old shites?

 

Albert, some specifics: how do you propose to reduce the population over the timescales needed to significantly address global warming, ie the next 10 years?

 

Oh, and have a read of this:http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/books/non-fiction/article3938455.ece