Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

noggin

Politics And AGW/GW

Recommended Posts

Guest North Sea Snow Convection
To be clear, those are not Hulme's words but those of the author of the piece.

Good tho innit!? :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Good tho innit!? :rolleyes:

Oh, no doubt it is if it's what you want to hear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest North Sea Snow Convection
Oh, no doubt it is if it's what you want to hear.

I'm all ears :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes some very good statments if you ignore theregisters spin.

"He stresses that he has little problem with the basic scientific understanding of climate change. It’s just that, if progress is to be made in debates on how to respond to that knowledge, they need to be opened up to other disciplines, from the arts and humanities, for example - and to good old-fashioned politics and ideologies."

Lets get the attacks in first shall we, attack is the best form of defense.

"In pushing to open up climate change debates to non-scientific disciplines, Hulme runs the risk perhaps of attracting accusations of not only “denier”, but also of “relativist”, which is almost as dirty a word in scientific circles. Hulme’s Christian beliefs might be a further invitation to ad hominem responses."

If we strip this away hulme talks good sense, as sumed up by O'Riordan who I also have alot of respect for.

'In a crowded and noisy world of climate change publications, this will stand tall. Mike Hulme speaks with the calm yet authoritative voice of the integrationist. He sees climate change as both a scientific and a moral issue, challenging our presumed right to be 'human' to our offspring and to the pulsating web of life that sustains habitability for all living beings. As a peculiar species we have the power do create intolerable conditions for the majority of our descendents. Yet we also have the scientific knowledge, the economic strength, and the political capacity to change direction and put a stop to avoidable calamity. This readable book provides us with the necessary argument and strategy to follow the latter course.’ Tim O’Riordan, Emeritus Professor of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia"

Further he doesn't attach the IPCC nor the consensus, but says that questioning of both of these should be encouraged and embraced again something I agree with. I think the AGW thoery has gained in strength over the last 15 years simply becuase of the constant skeptic questioning. This isn't to say it should be bashed but that it should be carmly and sensibly discussed.

I think it's a shame that Hulme chose this particular interview, but it's certainly good for his book and maybe he was trying to prove a point that both sides should talk, it's a shame the spin was put on what should have been and still was some very good piece.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reading it over again, it does seem that the article spins it somewhat- the usual petty point scoring (which both sides of the debate are equally as bad at, IMHO). From the sources I've seen, maybe it was just genuinely hard to arrange an interview with a source that wasn't going to provide spin one way or the other, as such sources seem few and far between.

O'Riordan's statement in conjunction with Hulme's statements in that interview sound very promising indeed as far as I'm concerned. I think Mike Hulme's views will carry a tremendous amount of weight here, as not only is he a long-standing climate scientist but he has shown a willingness to adopt a healthy scepticism towards the mainstream consensus- so his views should be well-rounded.

I like his bit about "put a stop to avoidable calamity" which is at odds with the quote I took issue with from the article (again perhaps a case of spin?) There are some things that we can't help, but there are certainly other things that we can. But I do think we definitely need a well-rounded debate, because for instance one obvious disadvantage of focusing purely on science to derive conclusions on policymaking is that we might end up taking action that creates more trouble than it solves because we didn't think of the political/social/economic consequences.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest North Sea Snow Convection
Yes some very good statments if you ignore theregisters spin.

"He stresses that he has little problem with the basic scientific understanding of climate change. It's just that, if progress is to be made in debates on how to respond to that knowledge, they need to be opened up to other disciplines, from the arts and humanities, for example - and to good old-fashioned politics and ideologies."

Lets get the attacks in first shall we, attack is the best form of defense.

"In pushing to open up climate change debates to non-scientific disciplines, Hulme runs the risk perhaps of attracting accusations of not only "denier", but also of "relativist", which is almost as dirty a word in scientific circles. Hulme's Christian beliefs might be a further invitation to ad hominem responses."

If we strip this away hulme talks good sense, as sumed up by O'Riordan who I also have alot of respect for.

'In a crowded and noisy world of climate change publications, this will stand tall. Mike Hulme speaks with the calm yet authoritative voice of the integrationist. He sees climate change as both a scientific and a moral issue, challenging our presumed right to be 'human' to our offspring and to the pulsating web of life that sustains habitability for all living beings. As a peculiar species we have the power do create intolerable conditions for the majority of our descendents. Yet we also have the scientific knowledge, the economic strength, and the political capacity to change direction and put a stop to avoidable calamity. This readable book provides us with the necessary argument and strategy to follow the latter course.' Tim O'Riordan, Emeritus Professor of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia"

Further he doesn't attach the IPCC nor the consensus, but says that questioning of both of these should be encouraged and embraced again something I agree with. I think the AGW thoery has gained in strength over the last 15 years simply becuase of the constant skeptic questioning. This isn't to say it should be bashed but that it should be carmly and sensibly discussed.

I think it's a shame that Hulme chose this particular interview, but it's certainly good for his book and maybe he was trying to prove a point that both sides should talk, it's a shame the spin was put on what should have been and still was some very good piece.

That opinion of yours could argued as being your own spin on things.

Everyone should of course desire that climate change is calmly and sensibly discussed - but perhaps your own wish for such a continuation of questioning is because you believe it will prove AGW. A means towards your desired ends

I would differ that it has not, nor will not enhance AGW beyond the probability that we have an impact on our climate which is very small in relation to natural variability.

So perhaps it could also be argued by myself as well as others that sceptic questioning is merely uncovering that instead?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I would differ that it has not, nor will not enhance AGW beyond the probability that we have an impact on our climate which is very small in relation to natural variability.

But that's guilty of exactly the same thing but from a pro-natural variability perspective rather than a pro-AGW perspective- you've put your own spin on that.

Regardless of what it has or hasn't shown, though, a healthy dose of scepticism is certainly a good thing. In cases where proponents of the consensus view have good rebuttals ready, it reinforces the understanding of AGW. In cases where they don't have good rebuttals, it exposes holes in the consensus view- and there have been good examples of both in recent years. The result is that our understanding of the subject advances at a faster rate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest North Sea Snow Convection

It was meant to be my own spin - to illustrate the point :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Been reading-up on Solar cycles again, fascinating stuff!

One thing I've learned (I think) is that there are two consenses out there:

One (among NC devotees) says that AGW cannot possibly account for all of the recent warming; and,

two (among AGW devotees) says that Natural Cycles cannot possibly account for all of the recent warming.

Well I never! Could it be that both camps are right? :blush:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oh, no doubt it is if it's what you want to hear.

Confirmation bias is, I agree, a seeping devil, isn't it Dev?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Confirmation bias is, I agree, a seeping devil, isn't it Dev?

No need to expect me to disagree, I don't. So, your follow up is? Need I guess :bomb:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Been reading-up on Solar cycles again, fascinating stuff!

One thing I've learned (I think) is that there are two consenses out there:

One (among NC devotees) says that AGW cannot possibly account for all of the recent warming; and,

two (among AGW devotees) says that Natural Cycles cannot possibly account for all of the recent warming.

Well I never! Could it be that both camps are right? :bomb:

Good point Pete :wub:

My view is that NV / Cycles will override ANY signal that AGW MAY give. My only thoughts are that IF AGW is indeed correct it may interfere with the timings of the effects of cycles. However, I think that in the grand scheme of things that the AGW signal is minor and to such an extent that over large scale timings it won't be obviously noticeable. I think that we were due to be warm now and we are due to be cool soon [couple of decades] and that course won't be or hasn't been changed. I will compile a list as this year goes on on why I think we are in for a rough ride, I think that evidence is mounting contrary to political AGW direction, we see it with massive crop failings for example due to 'unusual' cold rearing its ugly head.

This may be a defining year re the direction the globe is going re temps.

BFTP

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It may well be a defining year for temperatures, especially as we are heading towards an El Nino event, which has potential to be of comparable severity to that of 1998 (though is more likely to be less intense). Global temperatures are currently still a little below the average for the past decade, though still very high relative to any earlier decade.

With it being a possible additional forcing, AGW might well interfere with the timing of various natural cycles- which could set up feedbacks (which can be positive or negative)- that's one of the big problems with understanding such a complex interlinked system! Only time will tell as to whether its impacts are being overestimated- as you'll probably know I have less confidence in this being true than many others on here, but it remains a possibility which is indeed supported by an increasing amount of evidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No need to expect me to disagree, I don't. So, your follow up is? Need I guess :bomb:

Well, without the presupposition ( - the rolleyes - ) it's just that confirmation bias is an afflication that affects all human beings. It doesn't matter what your persuasion, belief, or knowledge. It's there for all of us.

Just pointing it out. Nothing more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We will never know, with certainty, until after the event... :wub:

By which time - I might know FIVE guitar chords! :bomb:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is indeed true that confirmation bias affects all human beings- but it affects them to varying extents, which in themselves vary with time. While it would be unrealistic to eliminate confirmation bias (nobody's perfect etc) it is possible to spot it and reduce its extent.

Often I get a sense of people (on both sides of the debate) using confirmation bias because they can't see past the notion that they're right and everyone else is wrong? Just a thought...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Often I get a sense of people (on both sides of the debate) using confirmation bias because they can't see past the notion that they're right and everyone else is wrong? Just a thought...

You're right! :bomb:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest North Sea Snow Convection
We will never know, with certainty, until after the event... B)

By which time - I might know FIVE guitar chords! :lol:

Yay - progression! :bomb: Not still searching for the fourth chord then Pete? 1973 is well behind you now of course :D .

Oh, and what about climate trends over those years....striketh a sixth ? :wub: :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yay - progression! :bomb: Not still searching for the fourth chord then Pete? 1973 is well behind you now of course :D .

Oh, and what about climate trends over those years....striketh a sixth ? B) :D

I'm just like Duane Eddy, but with even less talent! :D I like Duane Eddy! :D

My new song is called Solar Cycles. It's simple, keeps repeating the same tune - and takes 11.3 years to write! :wub: :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm just like Duane Eddy, but with even less talent! :D I like Duane Eddy! :D

My new song is called Solar Cycles. It's simple, keeps repeating the same tune - and takes 11.3 years to write! :D:D

lol!

If you're a fan of the blues then you only need three chords - A, E and D.

:)

CB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/climate-c...ter-of-national

Can anyone explain (in words of less than three syllables) how?

The only threat I can see is that they're running out of cheaply obtainable oil, other countries are a tad more organised when it comes to not bowing down to the USA, and the "let's oust Saddam and get his oil" fiasco cost a lot more and is taking longer than anticipated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, pretty meaningless waffle-and-blabber, jethro, I agree - I thought the first comment below the report was spot on.

I think, though, I'd slightly change your later comment to 'the "let's oust Saddam and install a more reliable, compliant and pro-Western regime to buy the oil from" fiasco'. Still a fiasco, to put it generously: but I think there was a lunatic logic there that didn't quite encompass outright theft. Merely mass-slaughter. Sorry, I mean collateral damage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have broken my right wrist. Just thought I'd mention it. Am typing with my left index finger. Am mentioning it here as it is my favourite thread. Won't be posting much for the next few weeks.

Sorry for the off-topic-ness. :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have broken my right wrist. Just thought I'd mention it. Am typing with my left index finger. Am mentioning it here as it is my favourite thread. Won't be posting much for the next few weeks.

Sorry for the off-topic-ness. :(

Wondered where you'd gone. Get well soon,Nog ;) .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...