Climate Chaos ? Don't believe it

[Devonian]

So who gets to decide who's a maverick?

I've some ideas but, first, you asked the question, what say you?

[Essan]

In terms of climate research, I would describe someone like Piers Corbyn as a maverick - making predictions based on unconventional methods suppotrted by no-one but himself. But not, for example, Willie Soon who carries out sound scientific research on causes of climate change other than anthropogenic ones.

But the real question is what does Lord Rees mean by 'maverick' ?

"It used to be controversial whether smoking caused lung cancer, it used to be controversial wheter HIV caused Aids. Now, there are a few mavericks who deny those things.

"In the case of climate change, I think the debate is going the same way in that there is a strong consensus that it is a serious matter," he suggested.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6159371.stm

The danger is when we deem maverick to mean anyone whose research goes against the establishment view and attempt to suppress them ....... But I'm sure that all went out with the Spanish Inquistion

btw are those who beleive a meteorite impact wiped out the dinosaurs called mavericks?

[parmenides3]

Morning, all. Been enjoying the debate. Two things, for now:

The Falklands: By a previous international agreement, states which can legitimately lay claim to a 'piece' of Antarctica must have territorial possessions immediately adjacent to the Antarctic. They might also be required to maintain a semi-permanent presence on the continent as well. When Britain had an Empire, this was not a problem. Now, we have the Falkland Islands.

At the time of the Falklands conflict, it wasn't known (still isn't) what mineral or other resources might be extracted at a future date from the Antarctic, so when Argentina (who, I believe, don't have a 'piece' of the continent) tried to claim 'Las Malvinas', we stepped in, to preserve our international rights to potential future exploitation. As things stand, I believe the majority of oil deposits found is in the form of shales, which are hideously expensive to process into useable oil. Add to the limited value of the deposits the difficulty of the conditions, and there is an easy explanation why, as of yet, this potential source of black gold has not yet been developed.

The current 'scientific opinion' on climate change: A big talking point on the CC websites is a court case in the USA, in which the plaintiffs are suing the defendants for not doing anything about emissions. Although the case is phrased in terms of pollution, one critical piece of evidence has been presented by an 'expert group' of climate scientists. This testimony, which, if accepted, has legal force in the USA, comments on the current state of knowledge, the degree of agreement, and various other issues discussed on this forum. The relevant statement is contained in the appendix to the [dull, legalistic] main statement. Links are provided, direct to the document, on Prometheus and RealClimate.

Can I ask the people who have doubts about the issues we so often discuss, (and this is trying to help, not be contentious), whether this would hold any force for you? If you wish, I'll copy and paste the PDF for you to read. The statement does not claim certainty, absolute authority, or even answer the legitimate concerns expressed over the uncertainties involved, but it does provide a starting point to understand what might be considered a 'baseline' on many of the issues.

:)P

[Devonian]

In terms of climate research, I would describe someone like Piers Corbyn as a maverick - making predictions based on unconventional methods suppotrted by no-one but himself. But not, for example, Willie Soon who carries out sound scientific research on causes of climate change other than anthropogenic ones.

But the real question is what does Lord Rees mean by 'maverick' ?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6159371.stm

The danger is when we deem maverick to mean anyone whose research goes against the establishment view and attempt to suppress them ....... But I'm sure that all went out with the Spanish Inquistion

btw are those who beleive a meteorite impact wiped out the dinosaurs called mavericks?

< esoteric > Suppression like calling people 'stuppid'tm or what people say 'claptrap', or calling anyone you oppose 'extremist' or branding 'warmers' as 'liars' you mean < / esoteric >

[Essan]

< esoteric > Suppression like calling people 'stuppid'tm or what people say 'claptrap', or calling anyone you oppose 'extremist' or branding 'warmers' as 'liars' you mean < / esoteric >

No-one expects the Essex Inquistion!

[Devonian]

No-one expects the Essex Inquistion!

Indeed

Of course sceptic websites like some I can think of aren't trying to re write accepted climate science using residuals, statisitical gobbledegook and character assination. Of course they're not...

Edited December 1, 2006 by Devonian

[The Penguin]

I've some ideas but, first, you asked the question, what say you?

Ha. The problem, obviously, is that the Maverick Detective will have to come from one body of opinion or the other in relation to the debate in question. Their judgement will be influenced by their beliefs. He or she may turn out to be a maverick themselves.

Far better then to go for a noted maverick in the first place – it takes one to know one, after all. I therefore confidently propose David Bellamy (sp?). Now who could object to that?

[Stratos Ferric]

There are coal reserves as well as large gas and oil reserves that spread into the Antarctic peninsula so very 'convenient' to have an onshore base to run operations from (I'm just being cynical, no one would fight a war over gas or oil now would they?)

It's off topic, but it's a well documented fact that reason the argentinians invaded the Falklands was because they used to belonb to Argentina and the UK were, in any case, holding talks about possible joint sovereignty at the time. Galtieri jumped the gun, made a miscalculation, and paid for it. Twentyyears on we would no longer be able to wage a campaign successfully if the Argentinians were to repeat their invasion.

So who gets to decide who's a maverick?

I think Ken Wrong was a maverick.

[The Penguin]

Possibly. James Garner was certainly a Maverick.