Well it seems that scientists themselves have managed to score an own goal in the CO2 wars. The publication of emails stolen from a server at East Anglia Climactic Research Unit has allowed climate change sceptics to hope that they will undermine the Copenhagen talks.
It is alleged that CRU were doing their best to avoid FOI/ERI requests for raw data, but using the usual razor one suspects that stupidity (or avoidance of what is seen as unnecessary work) is more likely than conspiracy.
Reading the various postings on the internet the usual mud-flinging has begun which does nothing but cloud the waters. The sceptics (and disbelievers) of course see it all as another example of the great conspiracy theory managed by Al Gore. Well the truth, as always, is probably stranger and more unexpected then even science suggests, but the fact is this:
If the sceptics are wrong and humans are causing climate change, and if the climate change advocates predictions are accurate, then we are all screwed. Of course the poor will be more screwed than the rich, but that's nothing new.
Let's just hope the delegates at Copenhagen have a little more social responsibility and are bright enough to put their avarice aside on the grounds that spending a penny today may save millions of lives tomorrow.
Tuesday, 1 December 2009
Tuesday, 15 January 2008
...more rocks...
I would suggest [this title should be] "according to a number of studies" because there is more than one, referenced here -
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/paleolast.html .
I also think that the so-called "error bars" are not actually error bars but are 95% confidence intervals for a normal distribution curve. This makes a hell of a difference to their interpretation (and would explain why no one complains about them).
I think it all really boils down to risk management. What is the worst that will happen if CO2 emissions by humans are not having a negative effect (on the continued survival of the species) and we reduce Co2 emissions? We spend some more money than is necessary? One company with a lack of foresight (the most likely conspiracy here by a long chalk) makes less profit whilst other companies make more? Where is the science to say that decreasing CO2 in the atmosphere will have a detrimental effect? Even if CO2 naturally declines as after the Medieval Warm Epoch, last time there was no significant human influence apparently so we have no idea that it will happen this time. Even if decreasing CO2 in the atmosphere does have a detrimental effect, can't we just cut the price of fuel and give everyone SUVs to resolve the problem?
So, it boils down to (at least) the destruction of civilisation as we know it vs spending some money that we really don't have to vs an unproven detrimental lowering effect. Pass me my cheque book...
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/paleolast.html .
I also think that the so-called "error bars" are not actually error bars but are 95% confidence intervals for a normal distribution curve. This makes a hell of a difference to their interpretation (and would explain why no one complains about them).
I think it all really boils down to risk management. What is the worst that will happen if CO2 emissions by humans are not having a negative effect (on the continued survival of the species) and we reduce Co2 emissions? We spend some more money than is necessary? One company with a lack of foresight (the most likely conspiracy here by a long chalk) makes less profit whilst other companies make more? Where is the science to say that decreasing CO2 in the atmosphere will have a detrimental effect? Even if CO2 naturally declines as after the Medieval Warm Epoch, last time there was no significant human influence apparently so we have no idea that it will happen this time. Even if decreasing CO2 in the atmosphere does have a detrimental effect, can't we just cut the price of fuel and give everyone SUVs to resolve the problem?
So, it boils down to (at least) the destruction of civilisation as we know it vs spending some money that we really don't have to vs an unproven detrimental lowering effect. Pass me my cheque book...
Thursday, 10 January 2008
...and finally..
Actually, ICI would be a lot more credible than Exxon Mobil.
Try entering any of the following into Google - BP, Shell, BASF, ICI and the phrase climate change. You will find very little that is anti the organisation with regards to climate change. However, try Exxon Mobil and
climate change and the story is entirely different. Of special interest is an article in the Guardian which relates to the Royal Society actually taking the unprecedented step of sending a letter to the head of Esso UK asking his company to desist from attempting to undermine the scientific consensus on climate change, the article includes a PDF version of the letter which says more than I ever could.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2006/sep/20/oilandpetrol.business
Two other links of interest are -
Union of Concerned Scientists - Scientist's report Documents ExxonMobil's Tobacco-like Disinformation campaign on Global Warming Science (3/1/2007)
http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/ExxonMobil-GlobalWarming-tobacco.html
List of organisations sponsored by ExxonMobil in the global climate change debate -
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/listorganizations.php
A very interesting Wikipedia piece exists on the hockey stick controversy which unsurprisingly doesn't favour either results -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy
I understand your position on the error bars. I don't in any way understand the maths behind it, even after adding McIntyre and McKitrick's documents. They don't complain about the 95% error bars at all though.
Suffice to say that Mann et al are not the only ones to achieve the hockey stick and that McIntyre & McKitrick contains plenty of disputed elements (and is not actually peer reviewed although it is claimed that the peer
review process is effectively made up of Mann's cronies anyway).
Here are some alternative studies also showing hockey stick graphs -
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/paleolast.html
In response to the NERC addition, here is what NERC have to say - http://www.nerc.ac.uk/about/consult/debate/climatechange/summary.asp
There is also an interesting article by a US senator which you might like who has resorted to the Godwin's Rule of Nazi analogies on at least one occasion. Guess where most of his funding comes from? -
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport
I admit that there are scientists that are sceptics and good luck to them. Still, what is the worst that could happen? No one that I have read is suggesting that reducing CO2 emissions will have a detrimental effect. Not
burning hydrocarbons is a good idea due to their potential for use elsewhere.
Try entering any of the following into Google - BP, Shell, BASF, ICI and the phrase climate change. You will find very little that is anti the organisation with regards to climate change. However, try Exxon Mobil and
climate change and the story is entirely different. Of special interest is an article in the Guardian which relates to the Royal Society actually taking the unprecedented step of sending a letter to the head of Esso UK asking his company to desist from attempting to undermine the scientific consensus on climate change, the article includes a PDF version of the letter which says more than I ever could.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2006/sep/20/oilandpetrol.business
Two other links of interest are -
Union of Concerned Scientists - Scientist's report Documents ExxonMobil's Tobacco-like Disinformation campaign on Global Warming Science (3/1/2007)
http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/ExxonMobil-GlobalWarming-tobacco.html
List of organisations sponsored by ExxonMobil in the global climate change debate -
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/listorganizations.php
A very interesting Wikipedia piece exists on the hockey stick controversy which unsurprisingly doesn't favour either results -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy
I understand your position on the error bars. I don't in any way understand the maths behind it, even after adding McIntyre and McKitrick's documents. They don't complain about the 95% error bars at all though.
Suffice to say that Mann et al are not the only ones to achieve the hockey stick and that McIntyre & McKitrick contains plenty of disputed elements (and is not actually peer reviewed although it is claimed that the peer
review process is effectively made up of Mann's cronies anyway).
Here are some alternative studies also showing hockey stick graphs -
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/paleolast.html
In response to the NERC addition, here is what NERC have to say - http://www.nerc.ac.uk/about/consult/debate/climatechange/summary.asp
There is also an interesting article by a US senator which you might like who has resorted to the Godwin's Rule of Nazi analogies on at least one occasion. Guess where most of his funding comes from? -
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport
I admit that there are scientists that are sceptics and good luck to them. Still, what is the worst that could happen? No one that I have read is suggesting that reducing CO2 emissions will have a detrimental effect. Not
burning hydrocarbons is a good idea due to their potential for use elsewhere.
...and finally..
Actually, ICI would be a lot more credible than Exxon Mobil.
Try entering any of the following into Google - BP, Shell, BASF, ICI and the phrase climate change. You will find very little that is anti the organisation with regards to climate change. However, try Exxon Mobil and
climate change and the story is entirely different. Of special interest is an article in the Guardian which relates to the Royal Society actually taking the unprecedented step of sending a letter to the head of Esso UK asking his company to desist from attempting to undermine the scientific consensus on climate change, the article includes a PDF version of the letter which says more than I ever could.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2006/sep/20/oilandpetrol.business
Two other links of interest are -
Union of Concerned Scientists - Scientist's report Documents ExxonMobil's Tobacco-like Disinformation campaign on Global Warming Science (3/1/2007)
http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/ExxonMobil-GlobalWarming-tobacco.ht
ml
List of organisations sponsored by ExxonMobil in the global climate change debate -
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/listorganizations.php
A very interesting Wikipedia piece exists on the hockey stick controversy which unsurprisingly doesn't favour either results -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy
I understand your position on the error bars. I don't in any way understand the maths behind it, even after adding McIntyre and McKitrick's documents. They don't complain about the 95% error bars at all though.
Suffice to say that Mann et al are not the only ones to achieve the hockey stick and that McIntyre & McKitrick contains plenty of disputed elements (and is not actually peer reviewed although it is claimed that the peer
review process is effectively made up of Mann's cronies anyway).
Here are some alternative studies also showing hockey stick graphs -
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/paleolast.html
In response to the NERC addition, here is what NERC have to say - http://www.nerc.ac.uk/about/consult/debate/climatechange/summary.asp
There is also an interesting article by a US senator which you might like who has resorted to the Godwin's Rule of Nazi analogies on at least one occasion. Guess where most of his funding comes from? -
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport
I admit that there are scientists that are sceptics and good luck to them. Still, what is the worst that could happen? No one that I have read is suggesting that reducing CO2 emissions will have a detrimental effect. Not
burning hydrocarbons is a good idea due to their potential for use elsewhere.
Try entering any of the following into Google - BP, Shell, BASF, ICI and the phrase climate change. You will find very little that is anti the organisation with regards to climate change. However, try Exxon Mobil and
climate change and the story is entirely different. Of special interest is an article in the Guardian which relates to the Royal Society actually taking the unprecedented step of sending a letter to the head of Esso UK asking his company to desist from attempting to undermine the scientific consensus on climate change, the article includes a PDF version of the letter which says more than I ever could.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2006/sep/20/oilandpetrol.business
Two other links of interest are -
Union of Concerned Scientists - Scientist's report Documents ExxonMobil's Tobacco-like Disinformation campaign on Global Warming Science (3/1/2007)
http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/ExxonMobil-GlobalWarming-tobacco.ht
ml
List of organisations sponsored by ExxonMobil in the global climate change debate -
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/listorganizations.php
A very interesting Wikipedia piece exists on the hockey stick controversy which unsurprisingly doesn't favour either results -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy
I understand your position on the error bars. I don't in any way understand the maths behind it, even after adding McIntyre and McKitrick's documents. They don't complain about the 95% error bars at all though.
Suffice to say that Mann et al are not the only ones to achieve the hockey stick and that McIntyre & McKitrick contains plenty of disputed elements (and is not actually peer reviewed although it is claimed that the peer
review process is effectively made up of Mann's cronies anyway).
Here are some alternative studies also showing hockey stick graphs -
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/paleolast.html
In response to the NERC addition, here is what NERC have to say - http://www.nerc.ac.uk/about/consult/debate/climatechange/summary.asp
There is also an interesting article by a US senator which you might like who has resorted to the Godwin's Rule of Nazi analogies on at least one occasion. Guess where most of his funding comes from? -
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport
I admit that there are scientists that are sceptics and good luck to them. Still, what is the worst that could happen? No one that I have read is suggesting that reducing CO2 emissions will have a detrimental effect. Not
burning hydrocarbons is a good idea due to their potential for use elsewhere.
..then again..
Maybe so, but like I said, we're looking for statements of truth, not just at a single argument from one side. Even if this was published by ICI, so long as the data presented is correct, then it is still valid. My big objection to the hockey stick graph is that it's datasets aren't rational and in most depictions the 95% uncertainty bands are removed, note that when you see a chart with the 95% bands on (that's 95% likely to be within those bands, not outside) it's a bit scary how inaccurate the first dataset is compared to the last 50 years of measured data, a small shift (quite possible) and the mean jumps huge amounts.
Personally I'd like to ignore any data from anyone so clearly biased, but unfortunately we can't. Both individuals referrence the same study of 900+ papers and both draw different conclusions manipulating the facts to their own ends.
Personally I'd like to ignore any data from anyone so clearly biased, but unfortunately we can't. Both individuals referrence the same study of 900+ papers and both draw different conclusions manipulating the facts to their own ends.
...well...
Here's tuppence - my go!
After all of that I think I'm still pretty much at the unconvinced and confused state (both sceptical AND cynical!), but like most people I'm willing to do what I can to reduce energy usage and use cleaner energy when possible. I use energy saving (mercury vapour containing) low energy bulbs where possible, turn things off when I can, don't make unnecessary journeys and use public transport if possible (ie if it's going where I need to go, doesn't take forever and is cheaper and more practical than going by car - sadly not as frequently as I'd like).
I don't do any of this because I believe it will help reduce global warming (as a natural pessimist I think we're screwed on that) I do it for the same reason most others do it - because it saves me money (I don't however feel smug about it - I know that the 55,000 people dying everyday from poverty war and stupidity will die regardless of how much energy I save). I'd love to do a Dick Strawbridge ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/It's_Not_Easy_Being_Green) and build an hyper energy efficient home from recycled or renewable sources and generate my own electricity with a wind turbine and make my own bio-fuel to run my hardly ever used car, but until I win the lottery I don't have the capital required to do it. It's just a shame that more of those that could, won't.
Whilst education and awareness are necessary, alone they won't do an awful lot (and will cause harm if done badly - look at the AIDS tombstone from the 80s).
So, the quickest way to reduce the use of 5% efficient filament bulbs? Tax them to death. Want people to drive hybrid cars? Make them tax free and cheaper than the alternative. Want people to drive less - make fuel more expensive and subsidise public transport. Of course any government that did that would be out of office at the next general election. Sadly feeling guilty enough to change a few bulbs isn't too burdening for us westerners. The real change, the painful change, won't happen so willingly and sadly I find myself agreeing with George Dubya - technology will have to save us Westerners 'cos we're too comfortable and lazy to do it ourselves. Sadly I doubt that George is suggesting we share any such technology with the rest of the world.
And what stories would the media present for us if global warming went away? Wouldn't it be nice if they were about reducing World poverty and child mortality - I don't think they will be though.
After all of that I think I'm still pretty much at the unconvinced and confused state (both sceptical AND cynical!), but like most people I'm willing to do what I can to reduce energy usage and use cleaner energy when possible. I use energy saving (mercury vapour containing) low energy bulbs where possible, turn things off when I can, don't make unnecessary journeys and use public transport if possible (ie if it's going where I need to go, doesn't take forever and is cheaper and more practical than going by car - sadly not as frequently as I'd like).
I don't do any of this because I believe it will help reduce global warming (as a natural pessimist I think we're screwed on that) I do it for the same reason most others do it - because it saves me money (I don't however feel smug about it - I know that the 55,000 people dying everyday from poverty war and stupidity will die regardless of how much energy I save). I'd love to do a Dick Strawbridge ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/It's_Not_Easy_Being_Green) and build an hyper energy efficient home from recycled or renewable sources and generate my own electricity with a wind turbine and make my own bio-fuel to run my hardly ever used car, but until I win the lottery I don't have the capital required to do it. It's just a shame that more of those that could, won't.
Whilst education and awareness are necessary, alone they won't do an awful lot (and will cause harm if done badly - look at the AIDS tombstone from the 80s).
So, the quickest way to reduce the use of 5% efficient filament bulbs? Tax them to death. Want people to drive hybrid cars? Make them tax free and cheaper than the alternative. Want people to drive less - make fuel more expensive and subsidise public transport. Of course any government that did that would be out of office at the next general election. Sadly feeling guilty enough to change a few bulbs isn't too burdening for us westerners. The real change, the painful change, won't happen so willingly and sadly I find myself agreeing with George Dubya - technology will have to save us Westerners 'cos we're too comfortable and lazy to do it ourselves. Sadly I doubt that George is suggesting we share any such technology with the rest of the world.
And what stories would the media present for us if global warming went away? Wouldn't it be nice if they were about reducing World poverty and child mortality - I don't think they will be though.
..and yet...
So now to summarise the ramblings, links and quotations..
No-one has any idea what's going on because lots of scientist dispute things. Thousands of scientists have signed petitions on both sides regarding the hockey stick graph and the IPCC conclusions.
Government bodies have been set up to analyse the statistics rather than the facts, nice one. things cited as evidence are later debunked and ridiculed. I don't think we're in a position to find the truth, it feels like we're
trying to get to the bottom of some international scandal and that alone makes me highly suspicious about the veracity of the advertised doctrine.
So, looking at the data I have to conclude we don't understand the system happening around us and we are knee jerking in reaction to it. the fact that ice cores suggest warm periods linked to high CO2 levels for thousands of years in the past gives me a strong gut feeling that CO2 and Temperature are linked, but not in the way most people believe.
The controversy around solar activity is on one hand reminiscent of the dendrochronology debate where an equal vested interest is shared by an entire community trying to justify their slice of the research dollar. But then on the other hand you can't deny that the sun is the single most influential factor on our planets climate, so maybe there is some truth in it.
What I am confident of is that decision makers in government are being told what policies to take by people with vested interests. Be those interests re-election, self popularisation or misguided nationalism trying to cripple the development of power hungry china/India. And also that we the public will never get to the truth so long as the only voices which we get to hear are those sanctioned by government bodies such as the NSA or IPCC.
Is CO2 causing global warming? We honestly don't know.
Is CO2 being used as a beating stick and global distractor? Almost certainly.
Ask yourself one question before you go to bed. If all the global warming news disappeared overnight, what world events would you be reading about instead?
No-one has any idea what's going on because lots of scientist dispute things. Thousands of scientists have signed petitions on both sides regarding the hockey stick graph and the IPCC conclusions.
Government bodies have been set up to analyse the statistics rather than the facts, nice one. things cited as evidence are later debunked and ridiculed. I don't think we're in a position to find the truth, it feels like we're
trying to get to the bottom of some international scandal and that alone makes me highly suspicious about the veracity of the advertised doctrine.
So, looking at the data I have to conclude we don't understand the system happening around us and we are knee jerking in reaction to it. the fact that ice cores suggest warm periods linked to high CO2 levels for thousands of years in the past gives me a strong gut feeling that CO2 and Temperature are linked, but not in the way most people believe.
The controversy around solar activity is on one hand reminiscent of the dendrochronology debate where an equal vested interest is shared by an entire community trying to justify their slice of the research dollar. But then on the other hand you can't deny that the sun is the single most influential factor on our planets climate, so maybe there is some truth in it.
What I am confident of is that decision makers in government are being told what policies to take by people with vested interests. Be those interests re-election, self popularisation or misguided nationalism trying to cripple the development of power hungry china/India. And also that we the public will never get to the truth so long as the only voices which we get to hear are those sanctioned by government bodies such as the NSA or IPCC.
Is CO2 causing global warming? We honestly don't know.
Is CO2 being used as a beating stick and global distractor? Almost certainly.
Ask yourself one question before you go to bed. If all the global warming news disappeared overnight, what world events would you be reading about instead?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
