'Scepticism' over climate claims

[Iceberg]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6263690.stm

"The public believes the effects of global warming on the climate are not as bad as politicians and scientists claim, a poll has suggested.

The Ipsos Mori poll of 2,032 adults - interviewed between 14 and 20 June - found 56% believed scientists were still questioning climate change.

There was a feeling the problem was exaggerated to make money, it found.

The Royal Society said most climate scientists believed humans were having an "unprecedented" effect on climate.

"

My feelings arn't really a surprise in that being sceptical is all well and good, but the amount of disinformation doing the rounds in staggering, if you want to get into the head of a pro AGW theorist then this will help you to understand why patience is often short with those that we see are delibrately skewing the issues.

MP's don't help either.

Nobody has really been able to explain the make money bit to me. :o

[Admiral_Bobski]

Nobody has really been able to explain the make money bit to me.

When we talk about climate scientists being "in it for the money", we don't mean to say that they're going to get rich off it necessarily (unless they're one of the lucky few who signs a book or movie deal!). The point is that scientists in any relevant field are demonstrably more likely to receive funding if their work has some direct link with "climate change research". There are jobs that have been specifically created or assigned on the basis that climate change is a man-made problem and can be fixed - many of these jobs are non-scientific, to be sure (for example, every local council now has a "Green Consultant" - not a term I've coined but one I have read in the local council literature).

Scientists can presumably make a few more bucks by working on special assignments or giving television interviews which, had they been Cockroach Specialists, they probably wouldn't have been given the opportunity to get involved in.

From a governmental standpoint, an environmental problem is a great excuse to rake more taxes off people. This starts to get into Conspiracy Theory territory, and I'm not going to go there because I don't believe there's any conspiracy, but I do believe that the government is quite happy to make the best of the situation.

So, all in all, we're not talking about AGW being some kind of science-led Get Rich Quick scheme, but it is a great provider of jobs, even if those jobs aren't the best-paid in the world.

CB

[Devonian]

When we talk about climate scientists being "in it for the money", we don't mean to say that they're going to get rich off it necessarily (unless they're one of the lucky few who signs a book or movie deal!). The point is that scientists in any relevant field are demonstrably more likely to receive funding if their work has some direct link with "climate change research". There are jobs that have been specifically created or assigned on the basis that climate change is a man-made problem and can be fixed - many of these jobs are non-scientific, to be sure (for example, every local council now has a "Green Consultant" - not a term I've coined but one I have read in the local council literature).

Scientists can presumably make a few more bucks by working on special assignments or giving television interviews which, had they been Cockroach Specialists, they probably wouldn't have been given the opportunity to get involved in.

From a governmental standpoint, an environmental problem is a great excuse to rake more taxes off people. This starts to get into Conspiracy Theory territory, and I'm not going to go there because I don't believe there's any conspiracy, but I do believe that the government is quite happy to make the best of the situation.

So, all in all, we're not talking about AGW being some kind of science-led Get Rich Quick scheme, but it is a great provider of jobs, even if those jobs aren't the best-paid in the world.

CB

Quick thought, how many jobs are there in 'climate' and how many in 'fossil fuels'?

[Admiral_Bobski]

Quick thought, how many jobs are there in 'climate' and how many in 'fossil fuels'?

The disparity in the number of jobs is completely irrelevant - the fossil fuel industry grew out of necessity (or the perception thereof), whereas climate-related jobs were created specifically because of the new interest in climate change.

The simple fact is that those climate-related jobs wouldn't exist at all were it not for the recent sudden interest in our climate and how we may (or may not) be affecting it.

My previous post was an honest answer to an honest question, and was in no way intended to beat a drum or cast aspersions. Does everything has to come down to the "fossil fuels are evil" argument?

CB

[Roger J Smith]

More relevant question, how many jobs should there be?

The public will remain skeptical as long as the extremes continue to remind them of past extremes -- the same process applies in Canada.

Ironically, I think (as I've indicated before here) that we should be concerned about warming on a time scale of 20-50 years when sea levels could easily rise half a metre or more, and whether it's AGW or natural cycles or some combination, we should be trying prevention within reason, but also planning for changes that we can't prevent (possibly).

I would imagine that if warming does not accelerate in the next ten years but there is still a decrease in the arctic ice cover, governments may start to move from the environmentalist stance currently either favoured or loathed, to a planning and amelioration stance which will basically involve what to do for protection of the lowest elevations especially where vital infrastructure or heavily populated areas are concerned.

The question may be largely scientific in nature but it will always have a political side and this will drive the actual social response. You can't blame the public for the entirely understandable logic that they bring to this -- if these people can't predict next week's weather, why do they ask us to believe their ten-year or fifty-year forecast? And if you allow your ego to be divorced from the matter, it's a reasonable objection, and would be equally reasonable if a faction formed to warn of global cooling and a new ice age.

[Devonian]

The disparity in the number of jobs is completely irrelevant - the fossil fuel industry grew out of necessity (or the perception thereof), whereas climate-related jobs were created specifically because of the new interest in climate change.

The simple fact is that those climate-related jobs wouldn't exist at all were it not for the recent sudden interest in our climate and how we may (or may not) be affecting it.

My previous post was an honest answer to an honest question, and was in no way intended to beat a drum or cast aspersions. Does everything has to come down to the "fossil fuels are evil" argument?

CB

It was a question that came to mind. If those who study climate have a vested interest then so do those who extract fossil fuel. Jobs in fossil fuel wouldn't exist either if people hadn't found a use for the stuff it became a necessity.

As with many accusations in these debates they work both ways and it should be removed from the equation - that's my point.

Edited July 3, 2007 by Devonian

[Admiral_Bobski]

It was a question that came to mind. If those who study climate have a vested interest then so do those who extract fossil fuel. Jobs in fossil fuel wouldn't exist either if people hadn't found a use for the stuff

As with many accusations in these debates they work both ways and it should be removed from the equation - that's my point.

Okay, enough with the "doh" smiley - it's irritating, especially when bandied around as often as you use it.

Fossil fuels serve a purpose and have a practical use.

Many climate-related jobs (not all, I grant you) are nothing more than irrelevancies.

Once again I say that I was merely answering a question posed by Iceberg which was (if I may be so bold as to rephrase it slightly), "What do skeptics mean when they say that money can be made out of global warming?"

I was making no accusations, yet you somehow managed to take umbrage with my remarks.

CB

[Devonian]

Okay, enough with the "doh" smiley - it's irritating, especially when bandied around as often as you use it.

Fossil fuels serve a purpose and have a practical use.

Many climate-related jobs (not all, I grant you) are nothing more than irrelevancies.

Once again I say that I was merely answering a question posed by Iceberg which was (if I may be so bold as to rephrase it slightly), "What do skeptics mean when they say that money can be made out of global warming?"

I was making no accusations, yet you somehow managed to take umbrage with my remarks.

CB

CB, debate are about opinions. I put mine forward, and I ask questions. Fair enough, it's a neat tactic to state as right something debatable (and to dismiss other views), but sorry, I don't agree with you, I don't agree 'many' climate related jobs are irrelevances - that's my opinion.

Normally I'm asked to justify my views. I'll get in first. Show me why 'many' climate-related jobs are irrelevancies. Why. I don't think studying the world about us is irrelevant - at all. Nor do I think education about said is, or policy formulation/implementation irrelevant. But, that my opinion - surely what you said is just yours as well?

[HighPressure]

I don't believe that the vast majority of scientists on either side of this debate hold the view they do because of the money they are paid. I think there are a very few disingenuous on both sides that could be are argued are about even I would say. I think that the majority of evidence put forward is genuinely done so in an honest way whether believed by others to be flawed or not. I suggest that this argument is actually just a smoke screen thrown by factions of eitherside at each other to muddy the waters, but only by a minority.

The same cannot be said of Governments however, there are huge incentives for them to take particular stances. It is very easy to workout which side of the fence they are on by a quick look at the way in which their economies work. high taxing low production economies such as ours have one view yet low taxing high production economies funnily enough seem to have the opposite view. I would be interested in the probability of this being based on scientific evidence or perish the thought money?

One really big clue for me is to look at the actions of pro AGW governments, that's not what they say but what they are actually doing. The interesting aspect of this is that virtually nothing is being banned yet their evil is met with higher taxation? In the case of CFC's they were banned almost overnight and alternatives bought in. You have to question a captive audience being taxed more rather than being taxed less for efficiency and if you look deeper you find more anomalies which don't add up to what is being preached. Our government continues to subsidise foreign car plants in the UK, it does not care if its producing 4x4s as it creates jobs. Why tax air travellers a carbon tax then look to extend every single airport in the Country? Time and time again the policies do not add up to the rhetoric. If they wanted real action they would phase out large engined cars as they are not required, they would phase out standard lightbulbs and subsidise energy efficient ones.

The fact is that whether pro or Anti we will miss our 2010 targets on emissions as will we miss the next set and the one after that. You really do have to ask yourself just what is really going on?

[Admiral_Bobski]

CB, debate are about opinions. I put mine forward, and I ask questions. Fair enough, it's a neat tactic to state as right something debatable (and to dismiss other views), but sorry, I don't agree with you, I don't agree 'many' climate related jobs are irrelevances - that's my opinion.

Normally I'm asked to justify my views. I'll get in first. Show me why 'many' climate-related jobs are irrelevancies. Why. I don't think studying the world about us is irrelevant - at all. Nor do I think education about said is, or policy formulation/implementation irrelevant. But, that my opinion - surely what you said is just yours as well?

It is a neat tactic to state as right something debatable...there's some irony in that comment....

Nevertheless, why are many climate-related jobs irrelevancies? Does every single local council require their own "Green Consultant"? Would it not make more sense to have a single centralised "Environmental Consultancy Bureau" which could help local councils on an as-needed basis, rather than wasting taxpayers' money on a permanently-employed individual (or, worse yet, a whole department) at every local council?

You're quite right - studying the world around us is anything but irrelevant, but scientists have been quite happily studying the world around them for centuries (and made considerable progress in their studies) long before the notion of climate change came along.

Education is all very well when it's for educational purposes, but when it is rammed down the general population's throat in the manner it has been it's rather more like brainwashing than education.

Policy formulation and implementation is all well and good when it's measured, thought through and has practical benefits. Forcing policies through on the basis of incomplete information and speculative projections is not the way to go about it.

Yes, what I have stated is my opinion - the difference is that my opinion is demonstrably true.

CB

[Bobby]

What does the motives of those involved have to do with anything? Either the science is wrong or it's not, whoever did the science and whatever their motives are. If you can find faults with their science, fair enough, but attacking their character is cheap.

[Admiral_Bobski]

What does the motives of those involved have to do with anything? Either the science is wrong or it's not, whoever did the science and whatever their motives are. If you can find faults with their science, fair enough, but attacking their character is cheap.

I agree entirely, and I've always insisted that the debate should centre around the science. Inevitably, though, the debate degenerates into a "my source is more honest than your source" type of argument.

I am not on this thread trying to make a case for the "there's money to be made in AGW" argument - I posted on here to explain why people say that there's money to be made.

I shall slope off to another thread now.

CB

[HighPressure]

What does the motives of those involved have to do with anything? Either the science is wrong or it's not, whoever did the science and whatever their motives are. If you can find faults with their science, fair enough, but attacking their character is cheap.

I actually disagree here! Yes the science being wrong or right must be the holy grail whatever else is involved. But we do not have a black and white answer here, it is still an objective subject, science cannot deliver a certain answer therefore all positions remain available and some are more lucrative then others. If something can be used for financial gain you can bet your bottom dollar it will be.

It is also important to realise that it is not as simple (I use the term loosely) or proving or nearly proving the science. If you want real and meaningful action you have to flog it too and that is a whole different ball game and probable even more difficult.

[jethro]

I don't have time to add my two pennoth worth here, work beckons,(I can hear those sighs of relief you know...).

I have however, come across a couple of things which maybe demonstrate why there is so much scepticism.

http://www.madison.com/tct/news/index.php?ntid=197613

http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/2999/

[Michael Winston]

Here's something to ponder - hope it's in the right place!

Kind regards,

Mike.

http://liveearth.uk.msn.com/green/articles...px?imageindex=1

[jethro]

I really do have to get my a... in gear and go to work but before I do can I just say AAAAAAAAAAAAARGH!!! I'm sorry Winston, this is no reflection upon you and I'm glad you posted the link but this is precisely the kind of reporting which drives me insane. It's emotive, alarmist and inaccurate. The picture at the top implies a leafy, green artic is imminent-it isn't. There is no proof, zilch, nada which supports the claim that the THC is slowing. And when it comes to ice loss, check out the links in my last post on the sceptics debate thread. The Arctic and Antarctic are subject to ice changes completely outside the realms of AGW, the claims that we are warming the world and the ice is melting are, at the very least, misleading.

[jethro]

It's difficult to not be cynical and sceptical when you come across things like this:

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/loca...warming15m.html

[Duncan McAlister]

I can understand why people feel this way. For the government this just seems to be all about 'tax, tax, tax' without any incentives to live a greener lifestyle.

EDIT: I'm not a sceptic myself, but if I didn't know the science, I think the politicians would have turned me into a sceptic!

Edited July 4, 2007 by Duncan McAlister

[disco-barry]

I'd just like to point out that i'm sick to the back teeth with everything being blamed on Global Warming.

"Oh it's raining because of GW"

"Oh it's so hot becasue of GW"

"Oh it's windy because of GW"

That Scottish Weather Woman "Oh i have a fluorescent pink suit on because of GW"

I'm sick of it.

[PersianPaladin]

I'd just like to point out that i'm sick to the back teeth with everything being blamed on Global Warming.

"Oh it's raining because of GW"

"Oh it's so hot becasue of GW"

"Oh it's windy because of GW"

That Scottish Weather Woman "Oh i have a fluorescent pink suit on because of GW"

I'm sick of it.

Aye....it's also like that when every other crime committed is allocated to a mysterious global group called 'Al Qaeda'.

:o

[Duncan McAlister]

I should also add that the MetO/climate forecasters partly have themselves to blame over this too

For example: summers in Southern England will be much hotter and drier, "tropical" even.

Erm.....

Now of course I know that this a generalisation. Every year will be different under GW but I think in these scare stories there can be too much emphasis on particular types of weather that grab headlines, rather than looking at averages and pointing out we can still get cool, wet summers or cold winters.

[The Eagle]

I'd just like to point out that i'm sick to the back teeth with everything being blamed on Global Warming.

"Oh it's raining because of GW"

"Oh it's so hot becasue of GW"

"Oh it's windy because of GW"

That Scottish Weather Woman "Oh i have a fluorescent pink suit on because of GW"

I'm sick of it.

So am I. You would think there was never flooding before.

[noggin]

Now of course I know that this a generalisation. Every year will be different under GW

.....and every year was different before GW too!

GW is just a convenient peg upon which to hang the vagaries of Nature.

Gosh, I like that........

[noggin]

A poll currently running in the Daily Mail asks if people think our washout Summer is caused by GW.... currently the poll stands at 28% say "yes" and an overwhelming 72% say "no".

I really do think that an increasing number of people are no longer just swallowing what they are fed by the media.

I caught the tail-end of a discussion on Jeremy Vine's show (Radio 2) yesterday. The "sceptic" (for want of a better word) mentioned three major studies which are disproving the AGW stance and which get no media coverage at all. I didn't catch any more of the discussion.

The people are revolting, I tell you........... mind you, I've been revolting for quite a few years!

[jethro]

A poll currently running in the Daily Mail asks if people think our washout Summer is caused by GW.... currently the poll stands at 28% say "yes" and an overwhelming 72% say "no".

I really do think that an increasing number of people are no longer just swallowing what they are fed by the media.

I caught the tail-end of a discussion on Jeremy Vine's show (Radio 2) yesterday. The "sceptic" (for want of a better word) mentioned three major studies which are disproving the AGW stance and which get no media coverage at all. I didn't catch any more of the discussion.

The people are revolting, I tell you........... mind you, I've been revolting for quite a few years!

Did you also catch Al Gore's ad for the upcoming concert? He said emphatically, we know what's changing the climate and we can cure it, it's simple.