Arguments about climate change

Where to start.

Firstly, why is he credited as being a "scientist", as if he studies something of relevance to climatology? He studies marine geology, according to Wikipedia.

Secondly, why is it that these people always seem to be members of some rightish/libertarian think tank? When I watched the first few minutes of the video, I just assumed that he was a member of such a thing. I had a look around, and gee whizz - he's a member of Institute of Public Affairs and Science and Public Policy Institute - both right wing groups. Climate change represents a huge market failure, and people understandably react to deny that such a failure exists. (That's a poor tactic, I think, but that's another conversation.)

Thirdly, I don't have time to watch the whole video - but for those who have, am I right in guessing that he discusses the evidence of carbon in the atmosphere etc and doesn't even mention the basic hypothesis and mechanism behind the whole idea.

Auditor #9, you used this on p.ie already and it was conclusively rubbished.

Good spot Pidge on yer man's connections. I missed that on the original thread - where it was raised by Auditor #9.

The UK Indo today reckons that there is plenty of evidence to say that deforestation is responsible for releasing great quantities of CO2 into the atmosphere and that this is largely being ignored.

In the next 24 hours, deforestation will release as much CO2 into the atmosphere as 8 million people flying from London to New York. Stopping the loggers is the fastest and cheapest solution to climate change. So why are global leaders turning a blind eye to this crisis?

Quote :

The accelerating destruction of the rainforests that form a precious cooling band around the Earth's equator, is now being recognised as one of the main causes of climate change. Carbon emissions from deforestation far outstrip damage caused by planes and automobiles and factories.

The rampant slashing and burning of tropical forests is second only to the energy sector as a source of greenhouses gases according to report published today by the Oxford-based Global Canopy Programme, an alliance of leading rainforest scientists.

Deforestation: The hidden cause of global warming


Are we flogging the wrong horses?

Well Pidge, what's your reaction to this article?

It seems that the global warming problems were solved back in 1998, just like in the north!

Ard-Taoiseach wrote:

Well Pidge, what's your reaction to this article?

It seems that the global warming problems were solved back in 1998, just like in the north!

Well, Pidge believes that since Carter is from a right-wing think-tank then the information must not be true or is presented in a biased manner. According to Carter there have been four or five warm periods over the last 2000 years lasting a couple of dozen years each and that is factual knowledge independently verifiable from geological data (from where a lot of the arguments for climate change also come, namely the presence of atmospheric CO2 getting correlated to higher temperatures) And we are in one of those warmer periods now.

But Pidge, a geologist/marine geologist like Carter is not qualified enough to comment on climate change yet physicists who infer global chaotic systems effects from localised atomic heating phenomena (usually in a lab) are...?

Auditor #9 wrote:

Ard-Taoiseach wrote:

Well Pidge, what's your reaction to this article?

It seems that the global warming problems were solved back in 1998, just like in the north!

Well, Pidge believes that since Carter is from a right-wing think-tank then the information must not be true or is presented in a biased manner. According to Carter there have been four or five warm periods over the last 2000 years lasting a couple of dozen years each and that is factual knowledge independently verifiable from geological data (from where a lot of the arguments for climate change also come, namely the presence of atmospheric CO2 getting correlated to higher temperatures)

But that's nonsense, really. It should be next to irrelevant what political sympathies the scientist has. The methodology and conclusions of their research are what's important. As long as their research is rigorous and believable then we should be able to accept it.

Quote :

But Pidge, a geologist/marine geologist like Carter is not qualified enough to comment on climate change yet physicists who infer global chaotic systems effects from localised atomic heating phenomena (usually in a lab) are...

Indeed. I propose we consult with all the meteorologists of the world and see what they think.

It is 10C here and I need some of this elusive warming. The highest recorded temp for this area was 38 in 2000 and I see it was 37 in the year 1919. I am off for a drive.

Ard-Taoiseach wrote:

Auditor #9 wrote:

Ard-Taoiseach wrote:

Well Pidge, what's your reaction to this article?

It seems that the global warming problems were solved back in 1998, just like in the north!

Well, Pidge believes that since Carter is from a right-wing think-tank then the information must not be true or is presented in a biased manner. According to Carter there have been four or five warm periods over the last 2000 years lasting a couple of dozen years each and that is factual knowledge independently verifiable from geological data (from where a lot of the arguments for climate change also come, namely the presence of atmospheric CO2 getting correlated to higher temperatures)

But that's nonsense, really. It should be next to irrelevant what political sympathies the scientist has. The methodology and conclusions of their research are what's important. As long as their research is rigorous and believable then we should be able to accept it.

Quote :

But Pidge, a geologist/marine geologist like Carter is not qualified enough to comment on climate change yet physicists who infer global chaotic systems effects from localised atomic heating phenomena (usually in a lab) are...

Indeed. I propose we consult with all the meteorologists of the world and see what they think.

I think that is exactly what the IPCC tried to do.

Auditor #9 wrote:

Well, Pidge believes that since Carter is from a right-wing think-tank then the information must not be true or is presented in a biased manner.

No, that's not what I said at all. I think that large amounts of the science are inaccessible. I (as I imagine you do) have to do some degree of analysis, but also engage in some degree of trust (by unfortunate necessity).When looking at people who to trust, I examine the way in which they publish, and any biases which might shift their conclusions. I also look at their qualifications, and number. Looking at these criteria raises a few simple questions, without me wandering into an area I don't fully understand:

If his science is so solid, why not publish his work in a transparent and respected way - such as a peer-reviewed journal. Proper science is "done" (for want of a better word) by think tanks - it's done by scientific institutes, universities and (for specific ends) business. It's then published in a verifiable, transparent way in a peer-reviewed journal. Plenty of articles on climate change are published - why hasn't Bob Carter written one?

Auditor #9 wrote:

But Pidge, a geologist/marine geologist like Carter is not qualified enough to comment on climate change yet physicists who infer global chaotic systems effects from localised atomic heating phenomena (usually in a lab) are...?

I didn't, again, say that he wasn't qualified to comment. What I was alluding to was whether the unpublished opinion of one marine geologist like Carter is worth more than the opinion of thousands of experts in all the relevant fields. I don't, when examining the issue purely on the basis of trust, think it does.

Ard-Taoiseach wrote:

Well Pidge, what's your reaction to this article?

It seems that the global warming problems were solved back in 1998, just like in the north!

Well, it's wrong and based on outdated data. The warmest year on record is 2005. Here's the dataset.

Auditor. Have a read of Nature Magazine from today. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/05/02/a_tale_of_two_thermometers/
Nobody back here is falling for this conspiracy theory. Buy blankets because they will be as scarse as rice next winter.

youngdan wrote:

Auditor. Have a read of Nature Magazine from today. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/05/02/a_tale_of_two_thermometers/
Nobody back here is falling for this conspiracy theory. Buy blankets because they will be as scarse as rice next winter.

I read the article youngdan, and if you leave the Nasa graph that was questioned out of it, the Hadley Crut graph shows almost 1 degree increase from the 1880s. I can't see what the deal is - the long trend is broadly the same in both graphs. The on the ground patterns of drought, species change and so on confirm warming. Read the IPCC link in my previous post. One degree of warming has a very big impact. Three degrees would probably be enough to wipe us out.

Cactus do not worry. When Ireland was covered in ice it had to be about 30 degrees colder than it is today. All the planets are warming and it depends on the amount of energy the sun throws off. They know the sun is settling down and someone now wants us to believe that things have stabilised for 15 years and then we are doomed. This is the telegraph story today http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/646411/can-someone-pause-al-gore-for-the-next-decade.thtml It is just for deindustrialising the West. They would have you believe that a rise of 1 degree makes a difference when ice ages come and go throughout history.

youngdan wrote:

Cactus do not worry. When Ireland was covered in ice it had to be about 30 degrees colder than it is today. All the planets are warming and it depends on the amount of energy the sun throws off. They know the sun is settling down and someone now wants us to believe that things have stabilised for 15 years and then we are doomed. This is the telegraph story today http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/646411/can-someone-pause-al-gore-for-the-next-decade.thtml It is just for deindustrialising the West. They would have you believe that a rise of 1 degree makes a difference when ice ages come and go throughout history.

What absolutely amazes me about this kind of claim is that it doesn't contain any argument as to why "they" want to deindustrialise the West. What's the point, exactly? So that the Chinese and Russians can rule us?

That's without even going into the way governments have resisted the scientific information about climate change, have resisted, in turn, doing anything about it, have lied, spun, sacked people, changed reports, suppressed studies, etc etc etc. Why bother discussing it, when the best one can hope for is that some new form of insanity will replace the denialist one?

ibis wrote:

youngdan wrote:

Cactus do not worry. When Ireland was covered in ice it had to be about 30 degrees colder than it is today. All the planets are warming and it depends on the amount of energy the sun throws off. They know the sun is settling down and someone now wants us to believe that things have stabilised for 15 years and then we are doomed. This is the telegraph story today http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/646411/can-someone-pause-al-gore-for-the-next-decade.thtml It is just for deindustrialising the West. They would have you believe that a rise of 1 degree makes a difference when ice ages come and go throughout history.

What absolutely amazes me about this kind of claim is that it doesn't contain any argument as to why "they" want to deindustrialise the West. What's the point, exactly? So that the Chinese and Russians can rule us?

I'm equally perplexed by the claim that climate change is promoted by environmentalists for political reasons. I consider myself an environmentalist, and if the IPCC released a report tommorrow saying that it was all a big mistake and climate change isn't happening, I'd be over the moon.

The plot to make money theory won't wash. There was a UK study last year that showed that dirtier industry is more profitable. I would dig a link out, but after the A-T's weissbier am feeling feckless.

seinfeld wrote:

ibis wrote:

youngdan wrote:

Cactus do not worry. When Ireland was covered in ice it had to be about 30 degrees colder than it is today. All the planets are warming and it depends on the amount of energy the sun throws off. They know the sun is settling down and someone now wants us to believe that things have stabilised for 15 years and then we are doomed. This is the telegraph story today http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/646411/can-someone-pause-al-gore-for-the-next-decade.thtml It is just for deindustrialising the West. They would have you believe that a rise of 1 degree makes a difference when ice ages come and go throughout history.

What absolutely amazes me about this kind of claim is that it doesn't contain any argument as to why "they" want to deindustrialise the West. What's the point, exactly? So that the Chinese and Russians can rule us?

I'm equally perplexed by the claim that climate change is promoted by environmentalists for political reasons. I consider myself an environmentalist, and if the IPCC released a report tommorrow saying that it was all a big mistake and climate change isn't happening, I'd be over the moon.

I would be a good deal more delighted than a big bag of delighted things being delighted delightedly.

ibis wrote:

seinfeld wrote:

ibis wrote:

youngdan wrote:

Cactus do not worry. When Ireland was covered in ice it had to be about 30 degrees colder than it is today. All the planets are warming and it depends on the amount of energy the sun throws off. They know the sun is settling down and someone now wants us to believe that things have stabilised for 15 years and then we are doomed. This is the telegraph story today http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/646411/can-someone-pause-al-gore-for-the-next-decade.thtml It is just for deindustrialising the West. They would have you believe that a rise of 1 degree makes a difference when ice ages come and go throughout history.

What absolutely amazes me about this kind of claim is that it doesn't contain any argument as to why "they" want to deindustrialise the West. What's the point, exactly? So that the Chinese and Russians can rule us?

I'm equally perplexed by the claim that climate change is promoted by environmentalists for political reasons. I consider myself an environmentalist, and if the IPCC released a report tommorrow saying that it was all a big mistake and climate change isn't happening, I'd be over the moon.

I would be a good deal more delighted than a big bag of delighted things being delighted delightedly.

Ibis, was that the Weissbier or the cough mix talking?

Assuming it's a big bad fact, what about dealing with Climate Change in a very practical way then?

Quote :

Figures from the Oxford-based Global Canopy Programme, summarising the latest findings from the United Nations, and building on estimates contained in the Stern Report, show deforestation accounts for up to 25 per cent of global emissions of heat-trapping gases, while transport and industry account for 14 per cent each; and aviation makes up only 3 per cent of the total.

From that above you would imagine that at least 25% of our energies are going to re-forestation in order to rectify the problem? Somehow I don't think this is the case - not in Ireland anyway.

Auditor #9 wrote:

Assuming it's a big bad fact, what about dealing with Climate Change in a very practical way then?

Quote :

Figures from the Oxford-based Global Canopy Programme, summarising the latest findings from the United Nations, and building on estimates contained in the Stern Report, show deforestation accounts for up to 25 per cent of global emissions of heat-trapping gases, while transport and industry account for 14 per cent each; and aviation makes up only 3 per cent of the total.

From that above you would imagine that at least 25% of our energies are going to re-forestation in order to rectify the problem? Somehow I don't think this is the case - not in Ireland anyway.

Reforestation is a solution but its not as easy to stimulate as you seem to think.

Land is a high value economic input, but using it to store carbon doesn't produce a high value return.

Hence, reforestation is very expensive, because you have to sudisdise it to the n'th degree.

seinfeld wrote:

Auditor #9 wrote:

Assuming it's a big bad fact, what about dealing with Climate Change in a very practical way then?

Quote :

Figures from the Oxford-based Global Canopy Programme, summarising the latest findings from the United Nations, and building on estimates contained in the Stern Report, show deforestation accounts for up to 25 per cent of global emissions of heat-trapping gases, while transport and industry account for 14 per cent each; and aviation makes up only 3 per cent of the total.

From that above you would imagine that at least 25% of our energies are going to re-forestation in order to rectify the problem? Somehow I don't think this is the case - not in Ireland anyway.

Reforestation is a solution but its not as easy to stimulate as you seem to think.

Land is a high value economic input, but using it to store carbon doesn't produce a high value return.

Hence, reforestation is very expensive, because you have to sudisdise it to the n'th degree.

We should be planting hell for leather and protecting what we've got.
Unfortunately the pressure for more land to cultivate for food and energy crops is resulting in far more being cut down than is being planted - also the sort of forest being planted here is likely to be churned through the system as biomass and not likely to help too much. It seems that preventing cutting any more rainforest should be a world priority and its something that we should all be prepared to pay for.

But land for agricultural use is cheap enough. It would be interesting to cost the offsetting done by trees against other avenues of carbon emissions reduction...

According to Irish Timber and Forestry Monthly, forestry is also fairly lucrative ... Shouldn't the state try to get its hands on more land for forest as parks and forest as a source of renewable industry? It might not only offset carbon emissions but there might be health and industry benefits as well.

Cactus, some parts of Ireland are surely unsuitable for agriculture being bog - don't broadleaf trees grow in bog and what agriculture can bogs sustain?

Auditor #9 wrote:

But land for agricultural use is cheap enough. It would be interesting to cost the offsetting done by trees against other avenues of carbon emissions reduction...

According to Irish Timber and Forestry Monthly, forestry is also fairly lucrative ... Shouldn't the state try to get its hands on more land for forest as parks and forest as a source of renewable industry? It might not only offset carbon emissions but there might be health and industry benefits as well.

Cactus, some parts of Ireland are surely unsuitable for agriculture being bog - don't broadleaf trees grow in bog and what agriculture can bogs sustain?

I know the answer to that. Lets start a forestry thread. I'll come back to it tomorrow.