Forum

 
  Back to OzPolitic.com   Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register
  Forum Home Album HelpSearch Recent Rules LoginRegister  
 

Pages: 1 2 3 ... 6
Send Topic Print
Climate doubt acknowledged by Alarmists. (Read 11253 times)
Grendel
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 28080
Gender: male
Climate doubt acknowledged by Alarmists.
Apr 14th, 2010 at 3:11pm
 
Climate Alarmism Acknowledges Doubt
The global-warming crowd admits the science isn’t “settled.”

Climate alarmists conjured a world where nothing was certain but death, taxes, and catastrophic global warming. They used this presumed scientific certainty as a bludgeon against the skeptics they deemed “deniers,” a word meant to have the noxious whiff of Holocaust denial.

All in the cause of hustling the world into a grand carbon-rationing scheme. Any questions about the evidence for the cataclysmic projections, any concerns about the costs and benefits, were trumped by that fearsome scientific “consensus,” which had “settled” the important questions.

A funny thing happened to this “consensus” on the way to its inevitable triumph, though. Its propagators have been forced to admit fallibility.

For the cause of genuine science, this is a small step forward; for the cause of climate alarmism, it’s a giant leap backward. The rush to “save the planet” cannot accommodate any doubt, or it loses the panicked momentum necessary for a retooling of modern economic life.

Phil Jones is the director of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, a key “consensus” institution that has recently been caught up in an e-mail scandal revealing a mindset of global-warming advocacy rather than dispassionate inquiry. Asked by the BBC what it means when scientists say “the debate on climate change is over,” the keeper of the flame sounded chastened. “I don’t believe the vast majority of climate scientists think this,” Jones said. “This is not my view. There is still much that needs to be undertaken to reduce uncertainties, not just for the future, but for the . . . past as well.”

Jones discussed the highly contentious “medieval warming period.” If global temperatures were warmer than today back in 800–1300 A.D. — about a thousand years before Henry Ford’s assembly lines began spitting out automobiles — it suggests that natural factors have a large hand in climate change, a concession that climate alarmists are loath to make. Jones said we don’t know if the warming in this period was global in extent since paleoclimatic records are sketchy. If it was, and if temperatures were higher than now, “then obviously the late-20th-century warmth would not be unprecedented.”

Jones also noted that there hasn’t been statistically significant warming since 1995, although the cooling since 2002 hasn’t been statistically significant either.

All of this is like a cardinal of the Catholic Church saying the evidence for apostolic succession is still open to debate.

The other main organ of the climate “consensus” is the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. It won the Nobel Peace Prize for its 2007 report, which turns out to have been so riddled with errors it could have been researched on Wikipedia. It said Himalayan glaciers would melt by 2035, warned that global warming could reduce crop yields in Africa by 50 percent by 2020, and linked warming to the increased economic cost of natural disasters — all nonsense.

These aren’t random errors. A former head of the IPCC, the British scientist Robert Watson, notes, “The mistakes all appear to have gone in the direction of making it seem like climate change is more serious by overstating the impact.”

Too many of the creators and guardians of the “consensus” desperately wanted to believe in it. As self-proclaimed defenders of science, they should have brushed up on their Enlightenment. “Doubt is not a pleasant mental state,” said Voltaire, “but certainty is a ridiculous one.” The latest revelations don’t disprove the warming of the 20th century or mean that carbon emissions played no role. But by highlighting the uncertainty of the paleoclimatic data and the models on which alarmism has been built, they constitute a shattering blow to the case for radical, immediate action.

In the Boston Globe, MIT climate scientist Kerry Emanuel marshals what will have to be the fall-back argument for fighting warming: “We do not have the luxury of waiting for scientific certainty, which will never come.” Really? That’s not what we were told even a few months ago — before climate alarmism acknowledged doubt.

— Rich Lowry is editor of National Review.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Grendel
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 28080
Gender: male
Re: Climate doubt acknowledged by Alarmists.
Reply #1 - Apr 14th, 2010 at 8:50pm
 
Oh and YES it IS a recent article.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Grendel
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 28080
Gender: male
Re: Climate doubt acknowledged by Alarmists.
Reply #2 - Apr 15th, 2010 at 12:41pm
 
ROTFLMAO


Can't hack the truth eh guys...  Grin Grin Grin Grin Grin
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
muso
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male
Re: Climate doubt acknowledged by Alarmists.
Reply #3 - Apr 15th, 2010 at 2:54pm
 
Quote:
Scientific understanding of the causes of climate change has
progressed dramatically in the past few years. Natural internal
variability is an inherent feature of the climate system
, but it
cannot account for the net gain of energy that has been
detected within the climate system as a whole. Based on physical
principles, the modern increase in the heat content of the
global ocean demonstrates that positive external forcing of the
climate is underway.


That was written in 2008. Again. It has always been acknowledged that some uncertainty remains in certain key areas - the biggest of which relate to aerosols and effects on Polar regions.

There are whole sections of the IPCC Reports in 1995, 2001 and 2007 which discuss the areas of uncertainty, however these are peripheral areas only and they don't affect the overall conclusion.

I don't think anybody is stating that Climate Research can stop now because we know absolutely everything. Of course we don't. Nobody has ever said that.

Of course most of these quotes are taken out of context as usual.
Back to top
 

...
1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not 
 
IP Logged
 
Grendel
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 28080
Gender: male
Re: Climate doubt acknowledged by Alarmists.
Reply #4 - Apr 15th, 2010 at 7:02pm
 
No it was like I said Muso.... RECENT.

February 16, 2010 12:00 A.M.

Climate Alarmism Acknowledges Doubt
The global-warming crowd admits the science isn’t “settled.”

http://article.nationalreview.com/425098/climate-alarmism-acknowledges-doubt/rich-lowry

Oh dear...  wrong again.  Grin Grin Grin
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Paella
Senior Member
****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 290
Re: Climate doubt acknowledged by Alarmists.
Reply #5 - Apr 15th, 2010 at 8:15pm
 
Beo, which quote do you think Muso was referring to? Do you understand how pronouns work?

Pay more attention in future.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Grendel
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 28080
Gender: male
Re: Climate doubt acknowledged by Alarmists.
Reply #6 - Apr 15th, 2010 at 8:46pm
 
I always pay attention.

I think he was referring to my saying the article was recent.


Quote:
Oh and YES it IS a recent article.


otherwise I'd have to say he was avoiding the article yet again by cherry picking bits of it and making useless out of context comments as usual.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Paella
Senior Member
****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 290
Re: Climate doubt acknowledged by Alarmists.
Reply #7 - Apr 15th, 2010 at 9:17pm
 
I expect he was referring to the quote he posted immediately above, which addresses the denial stratgey, sadly still in use, two years later.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Grendel
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 28080
Gender: male
Re: Climate doubt acknowledged by Alarmists.
Reply #8 - Apr 15th, 2010 at 10:24pm
 
hard to say...
the first would be wrong (as i showed) and the second irrelevant.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Paella
Senior Member
****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 290
Re: Climate doubt acknowledged by Alarmists.
Reply #9 - Apr 16th, 2010 at 12:52am
 
Neither of which is the point. The point is that this is wrong:

Grendel wrote on Apr 15th, 2010 at 7:02pm:
Oh dear...  wrong again.  Grin Grin Grin


Grow up.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Grendel
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 28080
Gender: male
Re: Climate doubt acknowledged by Alarmists.
Reply #10 - Apr 16th, 2010 at 1:59am
 
"Grow up"   you mean like by not replying to something not addressed to me?   Roll Eyes Roll Eyes Roll Eyes

Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
muso
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male
Re: Climate doubt acknowledged by Alarmists.
Reply #11 - Apr 16th, 2010 at 7:05am
 
Grendel wrote on Apr 14th, 2010 at 3:11pm:
“We do not have the luxury of waiting for scientific certainty, which will never come.” Really? That’s not what we were told even a few months ago — before climate alarmism acknowledged doubt.

— Rich Lowry is editor of National Review.

I think it was things like that I was addressing. The quote I included was from a paper published in 2008.

I was making the point that nobody is claiming total certainty is all aspects of Climate science, and nobody is saying that we should stop doing climate research because we know everything.

However in something so basic as "have anthropogenic greenhouse gases been the main cause of Global Warming in the last 50 odd years?",  there is almost complete consensus among those qualified to comment.

Now do you understand?
Back to top
 

...
1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not 
 
IP Logged
 
muso
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male
Re: Climate doubt acknowledged by Alarmists.
Reply #12 - Apr 16th, 2010 at 7:09am
 
Paella - Not to be accused of bias - Your contributions are welcome, but let's try to concentrate on the arguments - not the person.

Let's all keep personal insults out of it and keep it civil. (I know it's difficult)
Back to top
 

...
1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not 
 
IP Logged
 
Grendel
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 28080
Gender: male
Re: Climate doubt acknowledged by Alarmists.
Reply #13 - Apr 16th, 2010 at 12:01pm
 
Lol

According to you Muso fallability lies on only one side of the argument...  that is hardly an unbiased or skeptical mindset.  Something I would have thought was important for a scientist to maintain.

Thanks for the clarification...   Smiley

But I think you will find that denial has been something your side of the debate has been cloaked in for many years and even though they understand that their theory is UNCERTAIN, that is not how they present it.  You certainly do not...
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
muso
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male
Re: Climate doubt acknowledged by Alarmists.
Reply #14 - Apr 16th, 2010 at 1:12pm
 
Grendel wrote on Apr 16th, 2010 at 12:01pm:
Lol

According to you Muso fallability lies on only one side of the argument...  that is hardly an unbiased or skeptical mindset.  Something I would have thought was important for a scientist to maintain.

Thanks for the clarification...   Smiley

But I think you will find that denial has been something your side of the debate has been cloaked in for many years and even though they understand that their theory is UNCERTAIN, that is not how they present it.  You certainly do not...



First of all, I acknowledge your thanks.

Do you think you should maintain an open mind about these people too?

http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/Flatearthsociety.htm

I always maintain a skeptical mindset, Grendel. One of the pre-requisites of skepticism means having a good working bullsh1t filter.   

Being unbiased is not necessarily a scientific requirement when it comes to being biased against that which can clearly be shown to be nonsense.

Yes, I'm biased. If somebody is obviously lying, I have a natural bias against that person. If somebody is obviously telling convincing lies to the gullible (who vote) then I take issue with it. 

I do have a sense of justice.
Back to top
 

...
1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not 
 
IP Logged
 
Pages: 1 2 3 ... 6
Send Topic Print