Jump to content

Archived

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

noggin

Politics And AGW/GW

Recommended Posts

What magnitude of AGW do I have to think possible to qualify as an extremist? Just so I can see if I am one :huh:

I think you'd have to go much further Dev.. In all honesty I don't think we are a million miles apart.

I think the problem is all to do with the way things are presented. Throw in a politician and its an instant turn off.. If the powers that be explained stuff without the nice polar bear and explained the basics there is a better chance that the general public will listen. For school kids to be turned off, there must be something going wrong.. This is the exact audience that need to be pursuaded that the world is about to change.. How do you do that tho?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jethro, let me just quote Dr Pope with my emphasis: "Overplaying natural variations in the weather as climate change is just as much a distortion of the science as underplaying them to claim that climate change has stopped or is not happening. Both undermine the basic facts that the implications of climate change are profound and will be severe if greenhouse gas emissions are not cut drastically and swiftly over the coming decades."

In some ways I think those deeply sceptical about the possibility of more than very modest AGW could easily portray that quote as extreme, but instead the article has been spun (by the usual blog suspects) the other way, as an attack on the science and a triumph for said (which it clearly isn't). I'm fully with Dr Pope on this - I'm delighted you are as well :huh:

Dev, forgive me if I've taken this the wrong way but your post to me does come across as needlessly combative.

I am pleased to see a more moderate approach emanating from the METO, it's about time. My take on all this is, and has always been, that natural variation has been under-played and neglected in order to further the AGW argument. I've posted countless articles and papers to support my stance, many a time those articles and papers have said the same as this latest from the METO; sadly they've mostly been dismissed as "loony denier".

The climate has warmed, can't see how anyone can deny that. CO2 is a greenhouse gas, there's no denying that either. When it comes to attributing the percentage of warming to CO2, that's where I disagree with the AGW theory. Without a shadow of a doubt, some of the warming we have seen in recent decades is due to natural variation; it makes a refreshing change for an authority such as the METO to accept, admit and begin to address this issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Without a shadow of a doubt, some of the warming we have seen in recent decades is due to natural variation; it makes a refreshing change for an authority such as the METO to accept, admit and begin to address this issue.

Of course, Jethro...And I don't think we'll ever know precisely how much is manmade and how much is natural??? :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Pope article is not moderating the MetO's stance in any way, shape, means or form. To repost something I put in the other thread:

The general tone of the article is saying that AGW exists, and can be proven to exist, but that the message is not getting across because some scientists and the media are choosing to make excessive claims which turn off the public. The article is a plea by Dr Pope to not allow such claims to mask the real and present dangers. As she says, 'this diverts attention from the real, longer-term, issues.'

This article is not moderating the scientific consensus or changing the evidence: it is just trying to get the message across in another way.

As her conclusion states, 'the implications of climate change are profound and will be severe if greenhouse gas emissions are not cut drastically and swiftly over the coming decades'. Taken with her closing statement that 'the scientific evidence is overwhelming.', I really cannot see how anyone can view her article as coming from anything other than a firmly AGW position.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This article is not moderating the scientific consensus or changing the evidence: it is just trying to get the message across in another way.

And as you can see... it works!!

It is moderating the language used and comes accross much better and more realistic.. Lets see if the IPCC jump on board too. It can only be a good thing..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And as you can see... it works!!

It is moderating the language used and comes accross much better and more realistic.. Lets see if the IPCC jump on board too. It can only be a good thing..

But, what I really can't see is where the Met Office have been extreme in the past. I've had a really good look around their climate change archive and they have never made excessive claims that could not be supported. This is just another article from the same stable.

[The good thing is that it is giving people the chance to step down gracefully: if they need to believe that this article says something different to what the Met Office have always said then, great...whatever gets them to the party! :lol: ]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That's a good point, Ian...When something is well-argued, well-written, well-researched and rhetoric-free it is pretty-much undebunkable (pro or sceptical)...The sceptics do give themselves a bad name in the way you say; but some on the other side shoot themselves in the foot, if and when they blame every single incidence of 'freak weather' on AGW?

Yes- and I think that's the main reason why scepticism is so widespread among the general public. Events are regularly attributed to AGW despite the fact that few of the top scientists in the field would agree with such strong conclusions- and the science often seems to be presented to the public in an over-simplified way, making it out to be more certain than it is. Most of the public are able to see past it.

I have often stated a belief that more people would listen about AGW if it was presented in a more realistic way, like the Met Office have just done for instance. Most people aren't as dumb as the media thinks; they can understand concepts like "uncertainty" and "natural variability overlaying any AGW-related warming trend" if only they are exposed to them! I say this as someone who tends towards a "pro-AGW" position, but have often been turned off myself at some of the simplistic propoganda that circulates.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have often stated a belief that more people would listen about AGW if it was presented in a more realistic way, like the Met Office have just done for instance. Most people aren't as dumb as the media thinks; they can understand concepts like "uncertainty" and "natural variability overlaying any AGW-related warming trend" if only they are exposed to them! I say this as someone who tends towards a "pro-AGW" position, but have often been turned off myself at some of the simplistic propoganda that circulates.

I think it's more than that though Ian. Yes, there is a problem of media portrayal (the 'whatever makes a good story' factor), but there is also some pretty sloppy thinking going on and a wilful intention to misread the material that is widely available.

For example, the Met Office: if you look at their climate change web archive they acknowledge the role of the natural influences http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/...ture/fact4.html , they acknowledge that not everything is known and understood and they acknowledge that there is still a long way to go ('Climate change is a complex subject, with genuine areas of uncertainty and scientific controversy'): it's all there in the explanations of the science and why they believe AGW is the major threat.....and yet, until this recent article which just says again what they have always said, they still got branded as extremists who will listen to nothing and who are hell bent on proving AGW no matter the cost.

A lot of this is about people not bothering to look at what is being said first hand, preferring instead sound bites and second hand information.

Maybe now people will start to have a look at sites like that of the Met Office and realise that they are not the lunatics they are being made out to be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dev, forgive me if I've taken this the wrong way but your post to me does come across as needlessly combative.

Eh? It's was absolutely nothing of the sort. I can do without more character attacks thank you.

I am pleased to see a more moderate approach emanating from the METO, it's about time. My take on all this is, and has always been, that natural variation has been under-played and neglected in order to further the AGW argument. I've posted countless articles and papers to support my stance, many a time those articles and papers have said the same as this latest from the METO; sadly they've mostly been dismissed as "loony denier".

The climate has warmed, can't see how anyone can deny that. CO2 is a greenhouse gas, there's no denying that either. When it comes to attributing the percentage of warming to CO2, that's where I disagree with the AGW theory. Without a shadow of a doubt, some of the warming we have seen in recent decades is due to natural variation; it makes a refreshing change for an authority such as the METO to accept, admit and begin to address this issue.

Hang on (and at the risk of being accused of being combative rather than just posting my view) where does Dr Pope say that? erm, more what roo asks actually :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Without a shadow of a doubt, some of the warming we have seen in recent decades is due to natural variation; it makes a refreshing change for an authority such as the METO to accept, admit and begin to address this issue.

This is exactly what I mean: where have the Met Office ever said that there is not a natural component?....and where in Pope's piece does she suggest that climate change is down to natural variation?

What the Met Office does say is: 'As one of the world's leading centres on climate change we believe it is important to address all the issues. '

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think you'd have to go much further Dev.. In all honesty I don't think we are a million miles apart.

I think the problem is all to do with the way things are presented. Throw in a politician and its an instant turn off.. If the powers that be explained stuff without the nice polar bear and explained the basics there is a better chance that the general public will listen. For school kids to be turned off, there must be something going wrong.. This is the exact audience that need to be pursuaded that the world is about to change.. How do you do that tho?

Hey, I could post something from the IPPC but it would be instantly ridiculed. Perhaps something for the Met O like this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hey, I could post something from the IPPC but it would be instantly ridiculed ....

Ok then, I will ....

post-5986-1234797475_thumb.png

Ridicule away people :lol:

(just kidding - this is from Roger Pielke of whom I have no idea how reputable he might be or not be)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hey, I could post something from the IPPC but it would be instantly ridiculed. Perhaps something for the Met O like this.

Dev, one gets the impression that IF AGW was found NOT to be the main player, then you would be disappointed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ok then, I will ....

post-5986-1234797475_thumb.png

I've seen that before somewhere, what's the source of it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I've seen that before somewhere, what's the source of it?

I've edited my post to include the source (and a bit of humour to lighten things up) Roger Pielke, I believe is the creator.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Roger Pielke, I believe is the creator.

All hail the creator!

Ahem...anyways...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dev, one gets the impression that IF AGW was found NOT to be the main player, then you would be disappointed.

I'd be very surprised if AGW is less or more than the currently predicted range.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'd be very surprised if AGW is less or more than the currently predicted range.
Time will only tell Dev, I hope that AGW is playing a small part in warming, because the longer the sun stays quiet the cooler it will become.That's if you buy into that theory of course!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I give up.

At long last we get something from the METO which has every chance of uniting sceptics and believers, to a greater or lesser degree, depending upon your convictions, and still it causes controversy. If, from the very beginning, the METO had been as moderate as this latest offering, then why do they feel the need to produce this now?

It seems that if you criticise the METO, you're wrong and damned. If you applaud the METO, then ditto.

I guess some folk just enjoy arguing for the sake of it; strikes me that's a pointless, worthless exercise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'd be very surprised if AGW is less or more than the currently predicted range.

Why?

Honest question.

:)

CB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why?

Honest question.

:)

CB

Because the predicted range in temperature increases covers all bases. Scope for 0.5c up to 5 or 6c is included in the projections. The only base which isn't covered is cooling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I give up.

At long last we get something from the METO which has every chance of uniting sceptics and believers, to a greater or lesser degree, depending upon your convictions, and still it causes controversy. If, from the very beginning, the METO had been as moderate as this latest offering, then why do they feel the need to produce this now?

It seems that if you criticise the METO, you're wrong and damned. If you applaud the METO, then ditto.

I guess some folk just enjoy arguing for the sake of it; strikes me that's a pointless, worthless exercise.

I know exactly how you feel Jethro, I really was excited when the MetO released this. I also felt at long last we have some common ground, sadly it seems, a few are more concerned about their own agendas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Because the predicted range in temperature increases covers all bases. Scope for 0.5c up to 5 or 6c is included in the projections. The only base which isn't covered is cooling.

Well, yes, there is that - if I wander into a kitchen and find the oven on and warming then I can suggest a range of temperatures I could find if I were to check again in twenty minutes, based on the assumption that the oven doesn't get turned off in the meantime!

But I wondered why Dev would be "surprised" by any deviation outside the bounds of the IPCC's estimates (since I assume that's what he means by the "currently predicted range").

I'm not going to put words in his mouth, but I do question where the "surprise" would come from.

:)

CB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Because the predicted range in temperature increases covers all bases. Scope for 0.5c up to 5 or 6c is included in the projections. The only base which isn't covered is cooling.

Is that because (the whole IPCC argument being related only to increasing levels of CO2) that Anthroponenic Cooling is not an option..? There may be future cases where it will be though, perhaps. Who knows?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Is that because (the whole IPCC argument being related only to increasing levels of CO2) that Anthroponenic Cooling is not an option..? There may be future cases where it will be though, perhaps. Who knows?

When I mentioned the other day how what was originally 'global warming' had morphed into the one-size-fits-all 'climate change' in the face of non-rising temps,I was hastily reminded of what the 'CC' bit of the IPCC stood for. I countered that the key property of CO2 was it's ability to raise temps,and at no time has it ever been intimated that it could equally lower them. This being so,the 'climate change' bit of the IPCC has always been accepted as meaning warming,right? What foresight they must have had,knowing that when the tide turned they could retain that title yet still appear credible (to some,that is!). Sometimes I really feel like I've been well and truly 'Tango'd' - the Agw types will always come up with something or other to turn things around to making it look like they knew what they were doing all along - and whatever,really whatever happens then CO2 is still somehow at the root of it. Sure the original meaning of 'IPCC' wasn't 'Intergovernmental Panel on Carbon Control'?

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...