Politics And AGW/GW

[Guest North Sea Snow Convection]

I do think I'd probably disagree with your pov but that's not to call you a numpty. We surely debate here on the basis we do disagree? That said I have to say numpty is bland compared to what people like Al Gore or Dr James Hansen get called

Anyway, what would your response be to this FAQ 'Climate change: some basics' that I read in the mid nineties and I still think captures the essence of the science?

It captures the essence of science theory eschewed by proponents of AGW .

It is actually, genuinely, very interesting to read once again, but apart from all the uncertainties, which to be fair, are set out well to see, there is still no sign that even now a balanced costing of all feedbacks has happened (or is forthcoming) and putting aside the downplaying of negative feedbacks, the positive feedbacks and warmth 'amplifiers' remain very assumptive.

The clouds feedback in terms of warmth amplification remains the most tenuous area of all for me - ie the strong uncertainty about all cloud feedbacks. What about the tests of cirrus clouds which worryingly show more negative feedbacks than the assumed positive one's? I use the word 'worryingly' because a large proportion of IPCC amplification and feedback theory re C02 and warmth rides on the clouds conundrum. So AGW'ers are placing a lot of faith in these predictions being right. And there is a lot riding on that, and I 'm not sure it looks quite as promising for you all as it might seem.

For me it is still very much 'work in progress' that is being dressed up far too prematurely as fact. There is also scant regard for potential, and ever growing solar cycle impact (minumums) or also PDO cycles etc

I remain far more convinced of 'theory' relating to stratosphere/troposphere correlations in weather patterns than I do with AGW <_<

However, all this said, I do support a lot of the environmental measures that many AGW proponents advocate, but despite alleged climate change (whatever direction that maybe) not just because of it. A respect for one's environment shouldn't need a 'prompt' anyway. There are associated health, waste,financial and ethical reasons why that should be the case - not just the climate and what might be happening to it and also not necessarily in the direction that is being perpetually flag waved either. CO2 is not totally the enemy that warming people think. We could do rather badly without it - it might also just protect us from freezing out of existence.

I would like to think that I am one of a large number of AGW 'sceptics' who equally support and try to practice being environmentally responsible, so the 'wait and see' argument/criticism that is adopted by some AGW proponents towards people like me is a rather impotent one and in vain IMO

Oh and with regard to the METO, they haven't changed their stance at all on AGW. That would not be expected either. However it is welcome to see them trying to play down the excess media and public froth. That is a start before the sun starts to have its say......

Edited February 18, 2009 by North Sea Snow Convection

[osmposm]

......But that's my opinion Ossie, not a fact!

Truest thing you've ever written, SC. Not a fact. Or in other words, not true. <_<

Edited February 18, 2009 by osmposm

[Thundery wintry showers]

I have to say, one gets the feeling that a lot of AGW supporters seem to have a hidden agenda. Ever since the MetO released their last press statement, there seems to be quite a few on here who are not best pleased!

If you replaced that with "a minority of AGW supporters" I would agree. There are some with heavily socialist agendas who want to see the complete destruction of capitalism for instance. But the same applies at the other end of the spectrum- there are some who oppose AGW because it poses a threat to the view that unrestrained free market economics is the solution to everything, or that it threatens the philosophy of "maximum consumption, maximum profit at all cost" (some of the articles Laserguy et al. have linked to have conveyed this very clearly). The "governments use it to raise tax" is a fairly weak argument, if nothing else because if they didn't have AGW they would soon find something else- they could even start with sustainability and use it to argue for much the same set of tax increases.

Solar Cycles's insistence that some AGW proponents are unhappy about the MetO statement might be correct taking a global perspective- as there are all manner of fringe extremists. But there have been no "AGW believers" of any description on these threads who have suggested that. Here I'm not going to accept the "let me have my opinion" get out clause, unless evidence can be provided on the contrary. Most things are matters of opinion but sometimes there is a clearly defined right and wrong.

[Solar Cycles]

If you replaced that with "a minority of AGW supporters" I would agree. There are some with heavily socialist agendas who want to see the complete destruction of capitalism for instance. But the same applies at the other end of the spectrum- there are some who oppose AGW because it poses a threat to the view that unrestrained free market economics is the solution to everything, or that it threatens the philosophy of "maximum consumption, maximum profit at all cost" (some of the articles Laserguy et al. have linked to have conveyed this very clearly). The "governments use it to raise tax" is a fairly weak argument, if nothing else because if they didn't have AGW they would soon find something else- they could even start with sustainability and use it to argue for much the same set of tax increases.

Solar Cycles's insistence that some AGW proponents are unhappy about the MetO statement might be correct taking a global perspective- as there are all manner of fringe extremists. But there have been no "AGW believers" of any description on these threads who have suggested that. Here I'm not going to accept the "let me have my opinion" get out clause, unless evidence can be provided on the contrary. Most things are matters of opinion but sometimes there is a clearly defined right and wrong.

Your right TWS,I could have worded it far better. Also some very good points you brought up, at how both sides of the argument can have hidden agendas.

Truest thing you've ever written, SC. Not a fact. Or in other words, not true. <_<

Sometimes thinks that you might be one off them Ossie!

Edited February 18, 2009 by Solar Cycles

[PersianPaladin]

Its news-grabbing "green campaigners" like this that really anger me: -

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7884138.stm

Don't go around telling me how many kids I should have. I think its about time that campaigners of such ilk saw the true geopolitical picture of corporate greed. Its nothing to do with over-population.

[Devonian]

It captures the essence of science theory eschewed by proponents of AGW .

Oh, indeed, it's a theory, but your stress on the word theory is to wrongly, imo, draw attention to the word. Plenty of theories have lasted a long time and are no nearer being wrong when than when they were put forward. I like this definition from Wiki "Definitively speaking, a theory is a unifying principle that explains a body of facts and the laws based on them. In other words, it is an explanation to a set of observations." AGW theory does exactly that.

It is actually, genuinely, very interesting to read once again, but apart from all the uncertainties, which to be fair, are set out well to see, there is still no sign that even now a balanced costing of all feedbacks has happened (or is forthcoming) and putting aside the downplaying of negative feedbacks, the positive feedbacks and warmth 'amplifiers' remain very assumptive.

But, aren't you assuming there are indeed negative feedbacks as yet either discovered or accounted for? I see AGW as a picture with the gaps being filled in over time as scientists study the earth and it's atmosphere. We can see the picture, but not all the detail. I find it very hard to concieve that the picture can be wrong enough for the doubts about it to be significant.

The clouds feedback in terms of warmth amplification remains the most tenuous area of all for me - ie the strong uncertainty about all cloud feedbacks. What about the tests of cirrus clouds which worryingly show more negative feedbacks than the assumed positive one's? I use the word 'worryingly' because a large proportion of IPCC amplification and feedback theory re C02 and warmth rides on the clouds conundrum. So AGW'ers are placing a lot of faith in these predictions being right. And there is a lot riding on that, and I 'm not sure it looks quite as promising for you all as it might seem.

Well, there is a cloud expert on TWO who would disagree and I'm in no position to know better than he. As to 'a lot riding on..' well, yes, but this isn't a gamble. I think the science is right, just like I do with a lot of other science theories, and because of that, because ot me it makes sense, I can't see how I could changing my mind.

For me it is still very much 'work in progress' that is being dressed up far too prematurely as fact. There is also scant regard for potential, and ever growing solar cycle impact (minumums) or also PDO cycles etc

The PDO is, like ENSO, something that by definition is zero trended over time. But, we are indeed at solar minimum and we have the cool part of the ENSO cycle - but temperatures, globally, remain well above average...

I remain far more convinced of 'theory' relating to stratosphere/troposphere correlations in weather patterns than I do with AGW <_<

Fine, just like with AGW lets test the evidence.

However, all this said, I do support a lot of the environmental measures that many AGW proponents advocate, but despite alleged climate change (whatever direction that maybe) not just because of it. A respect for one's environment shouldn't need a 'prompt' anyway. There are associated health, waste,financial and ethical reasons why that should be the case - not just the climate and what might be happening to it and also not necessarily in the direction that is being perpetually flag waved either. CO2 is not totally the enemy that warming people think. We could do rather badly without it - it might also just protect us from freezing out of existence.

It is indeed a GHG and mucking about with it's concentration is a vast experiment.

I would like to think that I am one of a large number of AGW 'sceptics' who equally support and try to practice being environmentally responsible, so the 'wait and see' argument/criticism that is adopted by some AGW proponents towards people like me is a rather impotent one and in vain IMO

Oh and with regard to the METO, they haven't changed their stance at all on AGW. That would not be expected either. However it is welcome to see them trying to play down the excess media and public froth. That is a start before the sun starts to have its say......

As I say, it's a quiet Sun atm but it's still warm. Ok (before someone says it) there might be a lag (if only the 'solar people' could agree on how long, indeed, if only (for the sake of a better word) sceptics could agree, alternative ideas about global climate are two a penny the only thing they share in a ABCD 'anything but carbon dioxide' element) but, when ENSO goes El Nino and the Sun moves on in it's cycle I expect to see record global warmth as per the predictions of AGW - and that is the test.

Its news-grabbing "green campaigners" like this that really anger me: -

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7884138.stm

Don't go around telling me how many kids I should have. I think its about time that campaigners of such ilk saw the true geopolitical picture of corporate greed. Its nothing to do with over-population.

But it's a article that's a QUESTION! No one is telling you you can't have as many kids as you like but, surely we all ought to have the freedom to ask if an ever increasing population is sensible, or if very large families, in world of finite resources, aren't a little selfish?

[PersianPaladin]

But it's a article that's a QUESTION! No one is telling you you can't have as many kids as you like but, surely we all ought to have the freedom to ask if an ever increasing population is sensible, or if very large families, in world of finite resources, aren't a little selfish?

"Parents who have more than two children are "irresponsible" for placing an intolerable burden on resources and increasing damage to eco-systems, says a leading green campaigner."

I have a big problem with that. Perhaps such people need to do more research and read things like the following paper: -

http://www.sdnetwork.net/files/pdf/Too%20M...ople_%20web.pdf

Also...such "green campaigners" need to realise that the population control agenda has been pushed years ago by the big oligarchs and bankers such as this guy: -

Edited February 18, 2009 by PersianPaladin

[Admiral_Bobski]

As I say, it's a quiet Sun atm but it's still warm. Ok (before someone says it) there might be a lag (if only the 'solar people' could agree on how long, indeed, if only (for the sake of a better word) sceptics could agree, alternative ideas about global climate are two a penny the only thing they share in a ABCD 'anything but carbon dioxide' element) but, when ENSO goes El Nino and the Sun moves on in it's cycle I expect to see record global warmth as per the predictions of AGW - and that is the test.

If ENSO goes El Nino and the Sun gets active then I, too, would expect to see record global warmth...but that's nothing to do with CO2!

I'd welcome your input on the leaky integrator thread, Dev.

<_<

CB

[Devonian]

"Parents who have more than two children are "irresponsible" for placing an intolerable burden on resources and increasing damage to eco-systems, says a leading green campaigner."

I have a big problem with that. Perhaps such people need to do more research and read things like the following paper: -

http://www.sdnetwork.net/files/pdf/Too%20M...ople_%20web.pdf

Fine, PP, that's your opinion - you don't really anger me for holding it. I don't think you should be angered by me or refer to those like me as a 'green campaigners' for thinking two kids is enough (not a limit, enough). Put it this way, if everyone had four kids (or six) kids it would be standing room only fairly quickly <_<

[VillagePlank]

I've got five kids. Decided to invest in a TV and Sky Movies, now; I walk like a darn cowboy <_<

[Devonian]

If ENSO goes El Nino and the Sun gets active then I, too, would expect to see record global warmth...but that's nothing to do with CO2!

I'd welcome your input on the leaky integrator thread, Dev.

CB

Not a thread I've got involved in much. TBH I don't really understand it, I think because it doesn't make sense.

I'm sorry but to me it is another 'anything but Carbon dioxide' idea. We have David Dilley's idea on NW as well. On TWO there is a chap with his 'Hot water bottle' idea of climate, other people swear by the PDO, or the AMO, or various interactions of the Sun/planets (think Landshiedt spp?), or just 'it's the Sun', or cosmic rays, or the Moon, or that CO2 isn't rising at all (E.G. Beck's idea) or that the ice cores are wrong (Jaroworski (spp?)) or that CO2 isn't a GHG, or it's just a means to raises taxes etc etc etc.

But, I will try to understand what you/VP are saying.

I've got five kids. Decided to invest in a TV and Sky Movies, now; I walk like a darn cowboy

Five? Frightening...

That standard winky emoticon ( ) just isn't working right is it Oh, but another one is :winky:

Edited February 18, 2009 by Devonian

[Admiral_Bobski]

Not a thread I've got involved in much. TBH I don't really understand it, I think because it doesn't make sense.

I'm sorry but to me it is another 'anything but Carbon dioxide' idea. We have David Dilley's idea on NW as well. On TWO there is a chap with his 'Hot water bottle' idea of climate, other people swear by the PDO, or the AMO, or various interactions of the Sun/planets (think Landshiedt spp?), or just 'it's the Sun', or cosmic rays, or the Moon, or that CO2 isn't rising at all (E.G. Beck's idea) or that the ice cores are wrong (Jaroworski (spp?)) or that CO2 isn't a GHG, or it's just a means to raises taxes etc etc etc.

But, I will try to understand what you/VP are saying.

Five? Frightening...

The standard winky emoticon ( ) just isn't working right is it :winky:

Try not to think of it as an "anything but CO2" idea. Try to think of it as a "what if it's not CO2" idea.

I assure you, the principles discussed do make perfect sense - that's not to say that it isn't complicated

CB

[Devonian]

Try not to think of it as an "anything but CO2" idea. Try to think of it as a "what if it's not CO2" idea.

I assure you, the principles discussed do make perfect sense - that's not to say that it isn't complicated :winky:

CB

Then we have the coincidence that a ghg is increasing, temperatures also, and in line with a prediction that they should increase when that ghg increase, but that that isn't what is happening...I find that hard to accept. Anyway, I'm timed out

[VillagePlank]

Try not to think of it as an "anything but CO2" idea. Try to think of it as a "what if it's not CO2" idea.

I assure you, the principles discussed do make perfect sense - that's not to say that it isn't complicated :winky:

Yeah, that's about right

However, I would ask people to think about it in this manner. Let's start with the sun, and see where we go; OK, not great, let's add volcanoes in. OK better, and so on and so forth.

As we zoom into to more accurate stuff, it could well turn out that CO2 needs to be added to the mix in order for completion. I don't know, yet, I haven't got there, but I haven't ruled CO2 out - indeed GHG's ARE modelled in the system by the notion that we have a parameter controlling the size of the leak (so far I've just kept it constant, but it could easily vary in line with CO2 emmissions)

In fact for the next component part, I have chosen a human component - aerosols.

[Admiral_Bobski]

Then we have the coincidence that a ghg is increasing, temperatures also, and in line with a prediction that they should increase when that ghg increase, but that that isn't what is happening...I find that hard to accept. Anyway, I'm timed out

Since this is the politics thread I'll keep this brief, but please bring any reservations up in the LI thread and I'll see what I can address over there!

Cheers,

:winky:

CB

PS - thanks for showing us how to do the proper winky - it's absolutely invaluable to me!

[osmposm]

Antarctic ship to be evacuated : More than 100 people trapped on board a cruise ship which is stuck in the ice in Antarctica are to be evacuated. (BBC News)

17 Britons on ice-trapped liner

Last Updated: Wednesday, 18 February 2009: Seventeen Britons were among passengers on an Antarctic cruise ship which became trapped in ice, a tour operator confirmed. (AOL News)

17 Britons Stranded On Ice-Trapped Liner. (Sky News)

Spanish Defense Min: Cruise Ship Trapped In Antarctic Ice

MADRID (AFP)--A Bahamas-registered cruise liner is trapped in ice in Antarctica with 106 people on board and a Spanish oceanographic ship is on its way to lend assistance, the Spanish Defense Ministry said Tuesday......The Ocean Nova, which has 71 passengers and 35 crew on board, is stuck in the McClary Glacier and Argentine maritime rescue services received a call from a ship requesting assistance.

(Dow Jones Newswires: February 17, 2009 12:11 ET)

In fact, as the Daily Mail accurately reported, "A cruise ship carrying 64 passengers, 17 of them British, ran aground in Antarctica last night.....The Ocean Nova ran on to craggy rocks about a mile from the Argentine San Martin base, driven by extremely high winds.

It is not stuck in ice, and here are the pictures to prove it:

God, I am so fed up with the anti-GW bias shown by the BBC & other media, aren't you? Why do they say it's stuck in ice when it plainly isn't? It's nothing to do with Antarctic freezing! They clearly have a hidden agenda of everything being caused by Global Cooling.

Ossie :winky:

EDIT: in case my rather heavy-handed irony is not clear, can I just suggest that the modern media's take on any story is liable to be sensationalist: an ice-trapped liner sounds more exciting than one that's simply run aground, just as GW being to blame for heavy rain or hurricanes is more exciting-sounding than the event itself. They're both just inaccurate and/or dishonest journalism. And for once it is time to blame the messenger.

Edited February 18, 2009 by osmposm

[Solar Cycles]

Fine, PP, that's your opinion - you don't really anger me for holding it. I don't think you should be angered by me or refer to those like me as a 'green campaigners' for thinking two kids is enough (not a limit, enough). Put it this way, if everyone had four kids (or six) kids it would be standing room only fairly quickly :winky:

Dev I take it you don't have kids, otherwise you wouldn't make such comments, I'm pretty sure you didn't mean to offend, as that's not your style. You cannot tell someone how many children they can have ( not saying that you are ), though I can see were your coming from, with regards to over population!

[Thundery wintry showers]

Its news-grabbing "green campaigners" like this that really anger me: -

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7884138.stm

Don't go around telling me how many kids I should have. I think its about time that campaigners of such ilk saw the true geopolitical picture of corporate greed. Its nothing to do with over-population.

It asks a fair question but it misses the point that excessive population is a cumulative thing derived from the birth rate being much higher than the death rate, and labelling those who have more than two children "selfish" is somewhat OTT. If some people are having 4, 5 and 6 children, but the overall birth rate is still low, where's the problem? I'm not generally in favour of "one child policies" like China's except as a last resort at the best of times- and the UK has absolutely no need for it whatsoever.

I have to admit that in some ways it makes a nice change from seeing people branded "selfish" if they don't want to have children, usually because it shows an unwillingness to sacrifice a lot of time, money and sleep, or because it's seen as "selfish" to do your own thing instead of doing what social norms tell you to do. But combatting one crackpot idea with another, even crackpott-er idea is never going to work.

While I don't totally agree with PP's link, I do think overpopulation is only a small part of the problem, and that draconian one or even two-child policies are rarely the optimal solution.

[laserguy]

http://alg31blog.timberlakepublishing.com/...asp?Display=965

Looks like Hansen's gonna have to go head to head with one of his old NASA muckers.

[Devonian]

Dev I take it you don't have kids, otherwise you wouldn't make such comments, I'm pretty sure you didn't mean to offend, as that's not your style. You cannot tell someone how many children they can have ( not saying that you are ), though I can see were your coming from, with regards to over population!

What 'make such comments', what 'I'm pretty sure you didn't mean to offend'? I've made no offensive comments at all - though I find you implication that I'm not qualified to talk about children not exactly complimentary...

Can't we even think over population is a problem (no, it is a problem!) without being accused of being offensive? Let me be clear NO ONE that is NO ONE) can or should tell people how many kids to have but, otoh, global over population is a problem!

[Thundery wintry showers]

It annoys me as well when I get told that since I don't have children, I'm not qualified to talk about having children. It's a bit like saying "you aren't qualified to question road traffic laws, because you can't drive". Actually, you can argue either way on that one- those who haven't had children may be able to offer "outside" perspectives that those with children might miss, as well as the other way around.

My view still falls somewhere in between the "overpopulation is a major issue" and PP's link. It is not as big an issue as some make out, but still, I've seen nothing to displace the view that the more people we have, the less natural resources there are to go around per head, and the greater the net consumption. However the optimal solutions are more likely to involve sustainable planning and improving living conditions for the less well-off, rather than draconian limits on births.

[HighPressure]

Well I have 4 kids and really don't mind if someone with out any comment on population matters. I also do not think the world is over populated as there is more than enough food and water to go around, the issue is more about population dispersement. With regard to resources such as coal and oil again we have many alternatives which can more than adequately cover all our needs, this is just an issue of poor human management. Its very easy just to say there are too many people in the world.

[Solar Cycles]

I would be interested to hear from other members what their political views are, left of center, right of center, or just plain center. Would someone be able to set something up so we could vote ( sorry but computers and me are like a bad marriage ), thanks!

[jethro]

I would be interested to hear from other members what their political views are, left of center, right of center, or just plain center. Would someone be able to set something up so we could vote ( sorry but computers and me are like a bad marriage ), thanks!

Put me down for apathetic; they're all as bad as each other.

[Iceberg]

Very simply right of centre, but a host of thinks to be fair.