What Happened To Global Warming

[Thundery wintry showers]

There's quite a lot of truth in the above, and "tunnel vision" is a risk that specialised academics often run the risk of falling into if they aren't careful.

However the "credentials" of an internet blogger depends on how knowledgeable he or she is about the subject. I don't think a large degree of knowledge is necessarily required in order to make potentially good judgements, but internet blogs are also full of people who don't have much knowledge of a subject yet have very strong opinions on it, which generally doesn't work- those people are often likely to become defensive and entrenched in a view when it is challenged and desperate to silence anyone who casts doubt upon its viability.

On the other side of the coin, it's easy to forget that the likes RealClimate for example are blogs...

In general, though, those who are more knowledgeable about a subject are more likely to be right more of the time than those who are not, provided that they do not fall into the "tunnel vision" trap above.

[OldGreggsTundraBoy]

Global warming must be fighted and solved.

Any extra time given by any tempory cooling over the next few years or decades [which is possible] should be our chance to prevent a climate catastrope when warming takes hold i think by 2050 we will have a climate catastrophe if we don't solve it.

This time i fear will be used badly and many people will see it as an opportunity to burn fossil fuels like hell, but they are wrong.

As the met office clearly points out, the underlying trend is clearly UP. They're right.

yes indeed your right there goes to show though the two sides to everything,

and in a world full of coruption its hard to know who to trust.

but my choice would be the none funded none oil type people if you know what i mean.

like joe b says look at it all yourself and make your own mind up and if they have extra science ability then even better but humans are good at making errors.

but nature has no agenda.

Never trust oil companies or big brand companies when it comes to talking about GW okay,

nor mcdonalds with your children or health while were on the matter

[MR EXTREMES]

Question......"What Happened To Global Warming?"

Answer.......Nothing. It's alive and kicking and we are doomed, doomed, I tell you. Well Gordon Brown thinks so, anyway. Is it just me,or does the quoted type of doom-laden pontificating sound somewhat out-of-date?

I'm all for cleaner, sustainable life on Earth, but hasn't the "ranting" had it's day? Rather than bring people "on board" to their way of thinking, it is surely now alienating people instead. (Like Dr Pope said a while back.....she hasn't got through to Gordo, yet!)

Crikey, it would help if I linked to the article . http://www.dailymail...ate-change.html

its also great to see the adverts on tv showing a dad reading the book of climate change to his little girl showing how we will all drown.

now this is a disgrace and al gores video the inconvenient truth was taken to the uk high court,

and although was allowed to be shown in schools it had to be edited 9 times because there where things that could be distubing and also false for children to see.

now a tv advert that is more than distubing for a child,

its as good as telling them,

if you dont do as your told by political figures then we will die and the little girl is laying in bed read that to her then sweet dreams.

this child is very young its not exceptable maybe if it where a older teen then maybe they could make there own mind up.

it aswell should be edit or even banned im all for making earth cleaner it makes sense but climate change has reached a point where its becoming to pushy,

and to top it of climate could be changing in the oposite direction.

Edited October 19, 2009 by badboy657

[jethro]

That ad's generated a phenomenal level of complaints, looks likely it will be pulled (if it hasn't already been) breaches political guidelines for advertising.

[MR EXTREMES]

Global warming must be fighted and solved.

Any extra time given by any tempory cooling over the next few years or decades [which is possible] should be our chance to prevent a climate catastrope when warming takes hold i think by 2050 we will have a climate catastrophe if we don't solve it.

This time i fear will be used badly and many people will see it as an opportunity to burn fossil fuels like hell, but they are wrong.

As the met office clearly points out, the underlying trend is clearly UP. They're right.

Never trust oil companies or big brand companies when it comes to talking about GW okay,

nor mcdonalds with your children or health while were on the matter

well all i can say if things cool alot then we need not worry about fosil fuels ice is just as dangerous as warming.

still we could get the russains to spray some magic fairy dust if cooling get to out of control:rofl:

thanks jethro so it should be sorry i brought this into this post aswell i hope you can forgive me:

Edited October 19, 2009 by badboy657

[Pennine Ten Foot Drifts]

It is possible for people who have dedicated their working life to one specific field to be so blinkered as to not see the bigger picture; so focussed are they on that one particular thing. When challenged about it, they still cannot see and it just makes them even more entrenched as they then feel the need to convince you, which in turn reinforces it in their own mind......as the saying goes "there are none so blind as those who will not see".

So if you were after medical advice who would you trust, a doctor with 20 years of experience or media and internet articles ? If you were after legal advice would you consult a solicitor or ask your mates ? If your car had broken down would you take it to a garage or park it in Tescos and ask passers by what they thought might be wrong ? This kind of 'don't believe what the experts tell you' attitude seems skewed to me, since it only seems to apply when the expert view does not match personal opinion........

An internet blogger may well have a more open mind and less tunnel vision. Also, less of a vested interest.

And vastly less knowledge, expertise and understanding of the field in question..................

[Thundery wintry showers]

Global warming must be fighted and solved.

Any extra time given by any tempory cooling over the next few years or decades [which is possible] should be our chance to prevent a climate catastrope when warming takes hold i think by 2050 we will have a climate catastrophe if we don't solve it.

This time i fear will be used badly and many people will see it as an opportunity to burn fossil fuels like hell, but they are wrong.

As the met office clearly points out, the underlying trend is clearly UP. They're right.

It's quite unfortunate that the masses are likely to assume that any temporary cooling signifies a reversal of the warming trend and not acknowledge the possibility that it could be a blip and a means of buying us time to avert potential climate catastrophe.

I wish the authorities would tell the masses that even if we don't get a climate catastrophe (a situation that may arise if it transpires that AGW is being overestimated) we will most likely get an economic catastrophe somewhere along the line unless we start moving towards more sustainable means of energy use and generation- and quickly. I think people would be a lot more prepared to listen in that case, and we might get a rather better set of policies out of it instead of a set of knee-jerk tokenism.

[pottyprof]

And vastly less knowledge, expertise and understanding of the field in question..................

I really think that this depends on which blogs you read. People forget that there are some very qualified bloggers out there. I think Dev was trying to make the point of opinion v's fact. Not all blogs are junk.

[laserguy]

I wish the authorities would tell the masses that even if we don't get a climate catastrophe (a situation that may arise if it transpires that AGW is being overestimated) we will most likely get an economic catastrophe somewhere along the line unless we start moving towards more sustainable means of energy use and generation- and quickly. I think people would be a lot more prepared to listen in that case, and we might get a rather better set of policies out of it instead of a set of knee-jerk tokenism.

Very true. But it's alright for GB saying do this and do that on one hand,then effectively giving folk two grand to buy one of those nasty polluting cars,for example! Well y'know me TWS,I think 'they' should leave climate out of it altogether as I really believe most folk aren't buying it anymore. The sooner they tell it like it is,the better. I do think most folk have sussed it actually,and like me are going about their daily lives with a growing sense of unease. I also think that the vast,vast majority of folk live within their means and wonder what the hell he's talking about when we're told to 'act'. Whether by choice or circumstance I feel most people aren't in a position to reduce their 'carbon footprint' (jeez I hate that phrase!) much further. As for 'acting' it's not me,you,or anyone on NW who can authorise construction of nuclear plants. C'mon Gordon - 'act'!

[MR EXTREMES]

Very true. But it's alright for GB saying do this and do that on one hand,then effectively giving folk two grand to buy one of those nasty polluting cars,for example! Well y'know me TWS,I think 'they' should leave climate out of it altogether as I really believe most folk aren't buying it anymore. The sooner they tell it like it is,the better. I do think most folk have sussed it actually,and like me are going about their daily lives with a growing sense of unease. I also think that the vast,vast majority of folk live within their means and wonder what the hell he's talking about when we're told to 'act'. Whether by choice or circumstance I feel most people aren't in a position to reduce their 'carbon footprint' (jeez I hate that phrase!) much further. As for 'acting' it's not me,you,or anyone on NW who can authorise construction of nuclear plants. C'mon Gordon - 'act'!

absolutely bang on i like this post makes huge amount of sense,

we need to clean up our planet absolutely but what is real and whats false.

each person has there own theories each person has the own opion,

like in anything this causes conficts in one way or another.

its all about how complex our climate is,

but the theories and scientific data confict each other so middle ground needs to be met,

but this would make no difference because the world wont stop,

the war in countries,

bin laden not going to stop blowing up oil fields ect ect.

every major country has a agenda on climate change.

until some stop trying to push extremes onto each other the middle ground might be reached,

but what if it does turn out that our sun,

or that it is just natural cycle,

then trillions of pounds would have been spent on a false argument,

although as ive said its important we clean our planet for what ever reason.

but its the reasons why we clean our planet that is the problem the pushy catastrophic talk that makes this whole climate thing complex.

when reports have said hurricaines would be more frequent and powerfull,

theres not much to back this right now,

the arctic will be gone in 10years or 20 or 60 years this is all so messy.

or that co2 causing temps to rise,

but no co2 follows temps.

it would help if we see more of a dramatic effect maybe then people would listen more,

but theres not alot of difference between the weather now and back 100 years.

[SteveB]

So if you were after medical advice who would you trust, a doctor with 20 years of experience or media and internet articles ? If you were after legal advice would you consult a solicitor or ask your mates ? If your car had broken down would you take it to a garage or park it in Tescos and ask passers by what they thought might be wrong ? This kind of 'don't believe what the experts tell you' attitude seems skewed to me, since it only seems to apply when the expert view does not match personal opinion........

And vastly less knowledge, expertise and understanding of the field in question..................

You can't compare the two analogies, All the above professionals are dealing with stuff that is a given tried and tested.

Climate change is dealing with the now and what happens in the future. No expert and no internet blogger can see into the future.

It's all guess work, who's to say who's right?.

[Thundery wintry showers]

There is a difference between educated guesswork and blind guesswork. For example, Michael Fish doesn't know what the weather will be like in 5 days' time, and neither does your average person on the street- so does it follow that Michael Fish has no more of an idea than the average person on the street? The reality is that with decades of forecasting experience Michael Fish, while sometimes getting it wrong as we all do, will tend to be right in a larger percentage of cases due to that experience.

This kind of 'don't believe what the experts tell you' attitude seems skewed to me, since it only seems to apply when the expert view does not match personal opinion........

Exactly. If the consensus view was that AGW was being overestimated, how many sceptics would be saying "don't believe what the experts say" or "it's only guesswork so the experts' guesses are as good as mine"? The answer of "not many" suggests itself.

The world is not black and white, it's not a case of "either we know for definite or we haven't got a clue", there are positions in between as well.

[SteveB]

There is a difference between educated guesswork and blind guesswork. For example, Michael Fish doesn't know what the weather will be like in 5 days' time, and neither does your average person on the street- so does it follow that Michael Fish has no more of an idea than the average person on the street? The reality is that with decades of forecasting experience Michael Fish, while sometimes getting it wrong as we all do, will tend to be right in a larger percentage of cases due to that experience.

Exactly. If the consensus view was that AGW was being overestimated, how many sceptics would be saying "don't believe what the experts say" or "it's only guesswork so the experts' guesses are as good as mine"? The answer of "not many" suggests itself.

The world is not black and white, it's not a case of "either we know for definite or we haven't got a clue", there are positions in between as well.

While I agree that the average person on the street has less knowledge than your experts in the field. But we are not talking about the average person.

Whilst you have professionals in their fields who have a fast amount of resources at their finger tips, you also have amateurs who study just as hard, and while not having the resources can come up with just as good conclusions. You only have to look at our very own website to see examples of that.

[Thundery wintry showers]

Thing is though, said "amateurs" are generally people that I would call reasonably knowledgeable about the subject. If someone studies the resources then it strongly implies that he or she becomes more knowledgeable as a result.

I'm not a big fan of arguments like "X doesn't have qualifications Y and Z and is therefore not qualified to have a valid stance on the subject", as for example sometimes a relative "outsider" can offer fresh perspectives that "insiders" don't consider due to preconceptions that they pick up as a result of being grounded thoroughly in the subject. But some people bother to scrutinise the available evidence without being clouded by prejudices, while others often do not.

One way of testing how knowledgeable people are in a subject is, when they preach a viewpoint, to challenge them for evidence. Those who have studied the evidence are likely to give some independent supporting evidence (it may or may not be good, but at least it will be there). Those who haven't are likely to reel off arguments like "A is true because B is true because A is true" or "I know I'm right because I say so", or desperately latch onto anything that can be interpreted as supporting their views (e.g. the tactic of rejecting alternative views because they aren't flawless). This becomes apparent across many blogs on climate change.

Regarding amateurs vs pros there is an interesting example developing in the area of observational meteorology. Most of the official sites are going automated meaning that amateur observers are playing a more important role in documenting qualitative observations of past and present weather.

[noggin]

So if you were after medical advice who would you trust, a doctor with 20 years of experience or media and internet articles ? If you were after legal advice would you consult a solicitor or ask your mates ? If your car had broken down would you take it to a garage or park it in Tescos and ask passers by what they thought might be wrong ? This kind of 'don't believe what the experts tell you' attitude seems skewed to me, since it only seems to apply when the expert view does not match personal opinion........

And vastly less knowledge, expertise and understanding of the field in question..................

We are not talking about medical advice, nor legal advice, nor broken down cars. Nor am I expousing a "don't believe what the experts tell you" attitude. I have merely put a point across in response to the question raised by Dev. Furthermore, my point is based on an experience I have had with a particular professional/professor. That person was so blinkered by her particular "area of expertise" that she failed to see the damage that she was doing to several other vital "areas".

I, quite frankly, get totally peed off when people put words into my mouth. It happens all too frequently around here,as does mis-interpretation of my posts, despite the fact that I take great care to ensure that my posts are unambiguous. It is particularly galling when my posts are responded to with tired old cliches.

[Methuselah]

What I find quite amazing is that, just because someone has the gall to put their 'wisdom' on a blog for everyone to admire, their comments are taken as being scientifically valid, without question...If only true scientists were give such blind adoration!

Those who can, do. Those who can't, blog???

[SteveB]

There is a difference between educated guesswork and blind guesswork. For example, Michael Fish doesn't know what the weather will be like in 5 days' time, and neither does your average person on the street- so does it follow that Michael Fish has no more of an idea than the average person on the street? The reality is that with decades of forecasting experience Michael Fish, while sometimes getting it wrong as we all do, will tend to be right in a larger percentage of cases due to that experience.

Exactly. If the consensus view was that AGW was being overestimated, how many sceptics would be saying "don't believe what the experts say" or "it's only guesswork so the experts' guesses are as good as mine"? The answer of "not many" suggests itself.

The world is not black and white, it's not a case of "either we know for definite or we haven't got a clue", there are positions in between as well.

So I guess what you are saying is that you do believe everything the experts tell us then. If not then there is not point in making that point.

[The PIT]

Interesting because Paul H puts one or two questions about warming may not be as straight forward as some say his blog is therefore rubbish and he doesn't know what he's talking about. Well that's the under current I'm getting here which always seems to come up when someone questions global warming. Remember he joined the met office and also does talks with the likes of Micheal fish and Ian McCaskill. The last time I saw him he was definatley a pro warmer.

Anyway the latest update shows a well balanced presentation.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/2009/10/#jump_more

Edited October 19, 2009 by The PIT

[Thundery wintry showers]

So I guess what you are saying is that you do believe everything the experts tell us then. If not then there is not point in making that point.

Ah, the old chestnut of everything being black or white with nothing in between!

What I am saying is that what the experts tell us is, on average, more likely to be right more of the time than what those of lesser expertise tell us. That means that I generally trust experts further on a subject matter than non-experts. But at the same time, I stay on the lookout for the cases when the experts may be wrong, and cases when non-experts may be right- for as long as the real truth remains uncertain, such cases will exist.

[DAVID SNOW]

That ad's generated a phenomenal level of complaints, looks likely it will be pulled (if it hasn't already been) breaches political guidelines for advertising.

Very one sided... What power they have to control and corrupt

[DAVID SNOW]

Very true. But it's alright for GB saying do this and do that on one hand,then effectively giving folk two grand to buy one of those nasty polluting cars,for example! Well y'know me TWS,I think 'they' should leave climate out of it altogether as I really believe most folk aren't buying it anymore. The sooner they tell it like it is,the better. I do think most folk have sussed it actually,and like me are going about their daily lives with a growing sense of unease. I also think that the vast,vast majority of folk live within their means and wonder what the hell he's talking about when we're told to 'act'. Whether by choice or circumstance I feel most people aren't in a position to reduce their 'carbon footprint' (jeez I hate that phrase!) much further. As for 'acting' it's not me,you,or anyone on NW who can authorise construction of nuclear plants. C'mon Gordon - 'act'!

Indeed, when im waiting at the bus stop,its dark, bloody cold, its hissing down,im thinking am i going to be late for work, the mortgage is due in 5 days... Oh yes my carbon yeti print, nothing else matters

[MR EXTREMES]

Indeed, when im waiting at the bus stop,its dark, bloody cold, its hissing down,im thinking am i going to be late for work, the mortgage is due in 5 days... Oh yes my carbon yeti print, nothing else matters

:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

[Devonian]

It is possible for people who have dedicated their working life to one specific field to be so blinkered as to not see the bigger picture; so focussed are they on that one particular thing.

Oh, indeed, I can think of two example, Anthony Watts and Steve McIntyre.

....

An internet blogger may well have a more open mind and less tunnel vision. Also, less of a vested interest.

What??? How do you know??? Seriously, how on earth can anyone know that an anonymous blogger has less tunnel vision and less vested interest? You simply can't.

[Thundery wintry showers]

Some have less tunnel vision and vested interests, others don't. Concentrating on one specific field can work either way, depending on the individual and the type of study- it may well be that intense study of something doesn't make much of a difference to the likelihood of tunnel vision developing- only to degree of knowledge. Hence my assertion that the more knowledgeable are, on average, more likely to be right more of the time.

The issue of blinkeredness and tunnel vision is a genuine one- the problem arises when any implication that "random bloggers disagree with AGW and the mainstream scientists agree with AGW so therefore the mainstream scientists must be wrong, and since they're wrong, that casts doubt upon AGW" comes out.