Climate Change Politics

@kennethamy,

But does this episode undermine all of the vast amount of other data about human-induced climate change? At worst, it damages the credibility of three or four scientists and raises questions about the integrity of one or perhaps two out of several hundred lines of evidence.

0 Replies

@kennethamy,

CBC News - World - Hackers skewed climate-change emails: scientists

Ken - If you actually bothered to read that news story, you'd see that it didn't back up your general jist - as it claims the hackers skewed the results. Pointing to the skeptics, rather than proponents, of human influenced climate change as the ones interpreting the data to their own ends regardless of the actual scientific veracity of the findings.

Quote:

Rajendra Pachauri, the chair of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, told Reuters the communications posted online "in no way damages the credibility" of the panel's working group's 2007 findings that global warming is "very likely" caused by man-made greenhouse gas emissions.

Demonstrates your research standards I suppose.

Pathetic.

0 Replies

@kennethamy,

Actually what this does illustrate is that there is a general backlash against the politics of climate change worldwide. I don't think the advocates for change have done a very good job explaining the issue to the public. Meanwhile there are large vested interests pouring money into spreading fear, uncertainty and doubt about the science. There are a large number of books on against 'climate change orthodoxy' coming out. But the mainstream majority of climate scientists overwhelmingly support human causes of climate change.

What is especially dissappointing in the Australian situation is that the political consensus on an issue which is far bigger than national politics, has been shattered. We could go into several years more debate about what to do, and do nothing. Nobody thought that the proposed legislation would actually have much effect in reducing the world's greenhouse gas emissions, but at least it signified the nation's willingness to act and to put partisan differences aside to tackle the issue. Now the conservative alarmists have labelled the problem a sham and the proposed solution a tax grab.

2 Replies

@jeeprs,

jeeprs;107638 wrote:

Actually what this does illustrate is that there is a general backlash against the politics of climate change worldwide. I don't think the advocates for change have done a very good job explaining the issue to the public.

Agreed, but it's a tough one to explain - especially when greedy people who don't want to consider making sacrifices keep raising objections to picayune points without understanding the whole.

But that's always the problem with science - it isn't strictly intuitive or necessarily logical.

This vid is the best I've seen on explaining the basics - and it's not hugely partizan - it acknoweldges the objections of skeptics (proper skeptics who understand the science - not knee-jerk deniers who don't).

It's part of a series of 5 and I strongly suggest anyone who's interested watches the lot - should take under an hour.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52KLGqDSAjo&feature=related

0 Replies

@jeeprs,

I dont think telling everyone that the world is on the verge of major catastrophe is ever going to be easy. Its easier to believe those who deny it. I wish I could believe its all a big hoax, life would be so much simpler.

0 Replies

@kennethamy,

I agree with you Xris. It is one case where I wish the deniers were right. 'The Western lifestyle' itself actually has to change - we all have to adapt to ways of consuming less energy and sharing resources among ever-growing populations. It is another reason why climate change response is important - it is the first of a cascading series of huge global issues involving environment, energy, food security, and social equity.

Incidentally since my last post I have become a signed up member of the Australian Greens. I think many like me will be doing this in response to the Australian Conservatives lurch to the right.

0 Replies

@xris,

xris;107630 wrote:

There is nothing conclusive in this report as it has been taken out of context and deliberately manipulated. Why are you so blinkered in your attention? are you afraid of the real truth? The report, in a paper desperate for news even admits its been a selective in the emails chosen and the claims are not to be trusted. Are you honestly telling me you dont believe world temperatures have not been rising?

Rising, yes. But not for the last decade. And not like a "hockey stick", and there is little evidence that the cause is man-made. And the fact is that we now know the data are contaminated. So how can we say anything with any confidence?

0 Replies

@kennethamy,

Copenhagen climate change talks must fail, says top scientist | Environment | The Guardian

And not because the science is wrong. Because the politics of the response is inadequate.

---------- Post added 12-03-2009 at 11:51 AM ----------

kennethamy;107663 wrote:

there is little evidence that the cause is man-made.

There is plenty of evidence, whether you wish to ignore it is another matter.

Do you think the Intergovenmental Committee on Climate Change is composed of conspiracy theorists or amateurs? Do you think the Chinese Government would agree to emissions targets if they thought the whole thing was a scam? Where are you getting your data, or are you just improvising?

1 Reply

@jeeprs,

jeeprs;107675 wrote:

Copenhagen climate change talks must fail, says top scientist | Environment | The Guardian

And not because the science is wrong. Because the politics of the response is inadequate.

---------- Post added 12-03-2009 at 11:51 AM ----------

There is plenty of evidence, whether you wish to ignore it is another matter.

Do you think the Intergovenmental Committee on Climate Change is composed of conspiracy theorists or amateurs? Do you think the Chinese Government would agree to emissions targets if they thought the whole thing was a scam? Where are you getting your data, or are you just improvising?

I didn't say that the whole thing is a scam (I have told you a billion times not to exaggerate). And it isn't junk science. But to have enough confidence in the models and the data so that we should impose the kinds of restrictions that have been talked about and proposed would just be foolish. And the recent scandal has, of course, diminished the confidence greatly. And, even without that, there is a question of cost/benefit. The costs may be too great for the amount of benefit that could be gained as a result of the proposals.

0 Replies

@kennethamy,

yes but we are dithering while Rome burns. The story I linked to in the Guardian is an interview with one of the scientists who first identified the issue. In his view, Emissions Trading Schemes are useless...and so on. There are thousands of things that might be done, or could be done, or perhaps maybe should not be done.....and so on and on. Do we have to wait until the barrier reef dies or bangladesh is underwater?

So what is it...back to the drawing board? The Australian Libs are now discussing nuclear energy. Leaving aside whether one is for it, or against it, if we said today, OK let's build a nuclear plant (or 5) - it would take until 2025 until any of them started working - we have no expertise, no engineers, no industry....meanwhile...

So this is what is so aggravating about this conservative move. They have wrecked whatever consensus we did have in one or two weeks of crude scare campaigning.

Meanwhile, we have just had the hottest November week ever, and 2009 is shaping up as the hottest year ever. The Murray Darling River is drying up.

1 Reply

@jeeprs,

jeeprs;107684 wrote:

yes but we are dithering while Rome burns. The story I linked to in the Guardian is an interview with one of the scientists who first identified the issue. In his view, Emissions Trading Schemes are useless...and so on. There are thousands of things that might be done, or could be done, or perhaps maybe should not be done.....and so on and on. Do we have to wait until the barrier reef dies or bangladesh is underwater?

So what is it...back to the drawing board? The Australian Libs are now discussing nuclear energy. Leaving aside whether one is for it, or against it, if we said today, OK let's build a nuclear plant (or 5) - it would take until 2025 until any of them started working - we have no expertise, no engineers, no industry....meanwhile...

So this is what is so aggravating about this conservative move. They have wrecked whatever consensus we did have in one or two weeks of crude scare campaigning.

Meanwhile, we have just had the hottest November week ever, and 2009 is shaping up as the hottest year ever. The Murray Darling River is drying up.

You know that having the hottest November on record is weather, not climate. That is silly stuff. We had the coolest summer on record. So what?

We are "dithering" because the costs would be very great and devastating economically. And the matter is still not clear, and people just refuse to be stampeded. There are eminent scientists who think what the science does not justify what we are expected to do. What you call "dithering" others call "deliberating" and "waiting for more information". And now, these e-mails are lowering confidence in the science there is. And if the Murray Darling river is drying up, people are beginning to grow crops where they never could do so before. Change isn't all for the bad. Change has to be adjusted to.

0 Replies

@kennethamy,

Nicholas Stern said, in his report to the UK government, that the cost of taking no action would far outstrip the cost of acting.

I think in this matter, we shall continue to have a fundamental disagreement, so I will pursue it no further at this point.

1 Reply

@jeeprs,

jeeprs;107722 wrote:

Nicholas Stern said, in his report to the UK government, that the cost of taking no action would far outstrip the cost of acting.

I think in this matter, we shall continue to have a fundamental disagreement, so I will pursue it no further at this point.

He may have said that. But that is exactly what is at issue. And now, with the skewed data, and the attempt to ban all opposing views, everything is in the air. You make it sound like a religious dispute instead of a scientific-political dispute. Climate-changers have become True Believers.

2 Replies

@kennethamy,

What exactly are you denying? the ice caps melting? the north west passage open and longer than any other time? The ice core records that show temperatures have never ever risen as fast as they have over the last two decades? World temperatures are rising, it only needs it to rise by an average of 2% and we are doomed, 2%, not your imagined amount, 2% that's all that is required.

This is more important than religion,religion is a side show, an academic theological exercise. I am more concerned about global warming deniers than i ever am about dogmatic driven faiths. You are a danger to humanity, your blinkered selective attentions are damaging the essential changes we need to make.

1 Reply

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;107760 wrote:

He may have said that. But that is exactly what is at issue. And now, with the skewed data, and the attempt to ban all opposing views, everything is in the air.

What exactly is your grasp of the data and how it was skewed?

Do you even know why we should worry about more CO2, H2O and CH4 in the atmosphere?

You know, the actual mechanics of the science?

Ban all opposing veiws? In what forum? Is that simply misinformation on your behalf?

Quote:

You make it sound like a religious dispute instead of a scientific-political dispute. Climate-changers have become True Believers.

Religious disputes are not contingent on reality.

Scientific disputes are.

Those who are ignorant of reality, and simply choose sides on a knee-jerk basis in order to protect their selfish interests have no place in the scientific dispute.

But democracy insists even the ignoramous has his say in the political dispute.

Political disputes are contingent on charisma - not reality.

0 Replies

@xris,

xris;107781 wrote:

What exactly are you denying? the ice caps melting? the north west passage open and longer than any other time? The ice core records that show temperatures have never ever risen as fast as they have over the last two decades? World temperatures are rising, it only needs it to rise by an average of 2% and we are doomed, 2%, not your imagined amount, 2% that's all that is required.

This is more important than religion,religion is a side show, an academic theological exercise. I am more concerned about global warming deniers than i ever am about dogmatic driven faiths. You are a danger to humanity, your blinkered selective attentions are damaging the essential changes we need to make.

Yes, religion. You sound as if you would like to burn me and my kind at the stake. And if anyone sounds dogmatic....

1 Reply

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;107799 wrote:

Yes, religion. You sound as if you would like to burn me and my kind at the stake. And if anyone sounds dogmatic....

His dogmatism is, in this instant, contingent on reality.

Yours - less so.

I mean, do you understand what it is about the properties of the CO2 molecule that can lead to global warming?

1 Reply

@Dave Allen,

Dave Allen;107806 wrote:

His dogmatism is, in this instant, contingent on reality.

Yours - less so.

I mean, do you understand what it is about the properties of the CO2 molecule that can lead to global warming?

Yes. Somewhat. But is that the point?

0 Replies

@kennethamy,

Point is are you blethering on about something you've the barest grasp of or not.

Understanding contingent on reality - science.

Understanding not contingent on reality - not science.

Someone without a basic grasp of why carbon gasses (not greenhouse gasses) cause these problems, and what the carbon cycle is and how we are upsetting it, is not going to provide anything other than prejudiced misinformation on the subject.

1 Reply

@Dave Allen,

Dave Allen;107810 wrote:

Point is are you blethering on about something you've the barest grasp of or not.

Understanding contingent on reality - science.

Understanding not contingent on reality - not science.

Someone without a basic grasp of why carbon gasses (not greenhouse gasses) cause these problems, and what the carbon cycle is and how we are upsetting it, is not going to provide anything other than prejudiced misinformation on the subject.

The question is not whether Co2 causes global warming (I thought the OK word, nowadays, is "climate change" so you have less to commit yourself to, and anything that happens is evidence). The question is how much global warming is occurring, how dangerous it is, and to what extent it is man-made. So, the chemistry is irrelevant. And, now there is an additional issue. Can we even trust the for how much global warming there is, and how dangerous it is. You do realize that there is also danger in the measures being advocated against Co2 emissions. The danger of joblessness (and at this point) and a return to pre-1900 standards of living. And, for the undeveloped countries, back to the stone age for them. Have you considered that?

1 Reply

Climate Change Politics

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know