Politics And AGW/GW

[noggin]

Oi, you lot. I started this thread to be about the politics (in the widest meaning of the word) ofAGW/GW.

There are other threads for other aspects.

If this thread continues to deteriorate like the "general" thread, then I shall ask for it to be closed.

[noggin]

http://www.nasa.gov/recovery/

NASA gets $400,000,000 under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act 2009 for climate reasearch.

So many noughts these days..........

I've got another one coming in a mo...(I can only do one link at a time :lol: )

================================================================================

==================================

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2009/2...ecoveryact.html

NOAA gets $170,000,000 for climate modelling activities.

================================================================================

===============================

Could be dangerous posting this, but hey ho. I know it's not politics, it's religion, and the last thing I want is to cause arguments, but I felt that it deserved an outing! So, here goes......

I accept that there are loony fringes everywhere. I wish to make it absolutely clear that I am not knocking any religion, I am happy to disclose that I am a Christian and that I respect peoples' rights to believe in whatever they want. However, I do find this http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/6290/ a tad alarming....almost as if the Church is jumping on to the bandwagon, albeit that the wheels are coming off, IMHO, that is!

Edited March 4, 2009 by noggin

[Dartmoor_Matt]

No doubt this will be shot down in flames, but it seems that critizing Gore is now deemed as 'palpaly evil' and 'morally comparable to killing 1000 people' :lol:

Prometheus Weblog of the Center for Science and Technology Policy Research

[Guest North Sea Snow Convection]

Yet another case of moral crusading gone mad. And I have a christian background as well.

Although the science is questionable behind the theory, the original intentions behind AGW are good and honourable. However, they get into the hands of sanctimoneous crusaders who seek to impose their message/methods/interpretations on others so it becomes doctrinal and exaggerated. In this obsessive narrow quest it is no wonder that the bigger picture and natural factors themselves become overlooked at the expense of preaching gobblydegook.

Whilst people wouldn't necessarily be 'converted' to AGW'ism by more moderate methods, the type of imposition attempted by AGW extremists is the biggest factor that turns so many people further deeply sceptical.

That Al Gore link is another (worse!) example of the same. Total claptrap.

Edited March 4, 2009 by North Sea Snow Convection

[Devonian]

No doubt this will be shot down in flames, but it seems that critizing Gore is now deemed as 'palpaly evil' and 'morally comparable to killing 1000 people' :lol:

Prometheus Weblog of the Center for Science and Technology Policy Research

That is just the case for the 'prosecution', I think we really ought to listen to what the man being convicted by so many has to say - no?

Yet another case of moral crusading gone mad. And I have a christian background as well.

Although the science is questionable behind the theory, the original intentions behind AGW are good and honourable. However, they get into the hands of sanctimoneous crusaders who seek to impose their message/methods/interpretations on others so it becomes doctrinal and exaggerated. In this obsessive narrow quest it is no wonder that the bigger picture and natural factors themselves become overlooked at the expense of preaching gobblydegook.

I never understand this kind of argument. Lets look at the 'Greens'. I think they might, just possibly, get 5% at the next General Election. Ok, lets double that, say they get 10%. How on earth can 10% of the population 'impose' anything on the 90% rest?

As to your descriptions: 'sanctimonious' , 'crusaders', 'imposed', doctrinal', 'obsessive', 'preaching', 'gobblydegook' am I to take it you have an objective view of people like me

Whilst people wouldn't necessarily be 'converted' to AGW'ism by more moderate methods, the type of imposition attempted by AGW extremists is the biggest factor that turns so many people further deeply sceptical.

That Al Gore link is another (worse!) example of the same. Total claptrap.

I think this business is about the truth. The truth isn't about me thinking how I do because people try to 'impose' scepticism on me, It's because the science is right not because I'm turned of by the arguments of others.

[Methuselah]

Yet another case of moral crusading gone mad. And I have a christian background as well.

Although the science is questionable behind the theory, the original intentions behind AGW are good and honourable. However, they get into the hands of sanctimoneous crusaders who seek to impose their message/methods/interpretations on others so it becomes doctrinal and exaggerated. In this obsessive narrow quest it is no wonder that the bigger picture and natural factors themselves become overlooked at the expense of preaching gobblydegook.

Whilst people wouldn't necessarily be 'converted' to AGW'ism by more moderate methods, the type of imposition attempted by AGW extremists is the biggest factor that turns so many people further deeply sceptical.

That Al Gore link is another (worse!) example of the same. Total claptrap.

100% agree with your sentiments, NSSC...Hallowed be the Ori! :lol:

[Guest North Sea Snow Convection]

I never understand this kind of argument. Lets look at the 'Greens'. I think they might, just possibly, get 5% at the next General Election. Ok, lets double that, say they get 10%. How on earth can 10% of the population 'impose' anything on the 90% rest?

As to your descriptions: 'sanctimonious' , 'crusaders', 'imposed', doctrinal', 'obsessive', 'preaching', 'gobblydegook' am I to take it you have an objective view of people like me :lol:

I think this business is about the truth. The truth isn't about me thinking how I do because people try to 'impose' scepticism on me, It's because the science is right not because I'm turned of by the arguments of others.

I have a couple of very 'Green' friends. I have spoken to them with my opinions and they know that I support the basics of environmental practices, but crucially also understand the unhealthiness of attaching the whole issue inextricably to climate change. They also understand and acknowledge the existence of the sort of 'sanctimonious', 'crusading', 'imposing', 'doctrinal', 'preaching', 'gobbledegook' types that I refer to. So they don't turn everything round and make it personal Dev like you habitually do on here.

I agree this buisness is about the truth. As I stated above, it is not indeed about imposing a message. People never come around that way, if they are going to come round at all.

The truth will be reached when there is some conciliatory back track from many AGW'ers that the science isn't settled and the sort of costing and auditing of feedbacks regarding climate ( whether warmer, colder, wetter, drier..whatever) are done without selectivity, and more importantly the areas that are under the most uncertainty as admitted for eg by IPCC, receive particular attention with an honest and open mind and without any political prejudices and financial ruminating undertones.

Finally, be careful not to confuse the using of suggestion with impostion. Many sceptics such as myself would try and follow the former rather than the latter.

Edited March 4, 2009 by North Sea Snow Convection

[Solar Cycles]

I have a couple of very 'Green' friends. I have spoken to them with my opinions and they know that I support the basics of environmental practices, but crucially also understand the unhealthiness of attaching the whole issue inextricably to climate change. They also understand and acknowledge the existence of the sort of 'sanctimonious', 'crusading', 'imposing', 'doctrinal', 'preaching', 'gobbledegook' types that I refer to. So they don't turn everything round and make it personal Dev like you habitually do on here.

I agree this buisness is about the truth. As I stated above, it is not indeed about imposing a message. People never come around that way, if they are going to come round at all.

The truth will be reached when there is some conciliatory back track from many AGW'ers that the science isn't settled and the sort of costing and auditing of feedbacks regarding climate ( whether warmer, colder, wetter, drier..whatever) are done without selectivity, and more importantly the areas that are under the most uncertainty as admitted for eg by IPCC, receive particular attention with an honest and open mind and without any political prejudices and financial ruminating undertones.

Finally, be careful not to confuse the using of suggestion with impostion. Many sceptics such as myself would try and follow the former rather than the latter.

Very good post NSSC, I feel that climate science is in it's infancy, and for scientist to make bold claims, about the science being settled is absurd really, when we are still learning about what makes our climate tick.

[Gray-Wolf]

All that said one of the largest world economies now looks set to engage (more fully) with the climate issue.

I heard one of the Obama aids saying he would push through the legislation even if it didn't make it through both houses using E.P.A. special powers.

[Iceberg]

yep 400m is really a drop in the ocean all things considered, if it's used to advance climate science then all to the good.

The 170m for climate modelling has to be good news as well, some of it might even be spent on verification of the climate models.

(I can never read the words EPA without thinking about the Simpsons.)

[Solar Cycles]

yep 400m is really a drop in the ocean all things considered, if it's used to advance climate science then all to the good.

The 170m for climate modelling has to be good news as well, some of it might even be spent on verification of the climate models.

(I can never read the words EPA without thinking about the Simpsons.)

£400 million a drop in the ocean? I can think of far more pressing issues to spend that amount on, than a theory! £170 million for climate modelling, dear dear I would laugh if it didn't make my blood boil so much!!

[Methuselah]

£400 million a drop in the ocean? I can think of far more pressing issues to spend that amount on, than a theory! £170 million for climate modelling, dear dear I would laugh if it didn't make my blood boil so much!!

Oh why! Oh Why! Oh why!

£170 million could be better spent on science education?

[Solar Cycles]

Oh why! Oh Why! Oh why!

£170 million could be better spent on science education?

Yes we could start with educating climate scientist to begin with!

[Iceberg]

But when you consider that more is spent researching the ability to make gas more easily transferable it's a drop in the ocean.

A few people might complain but if only 0.1p of every litre of fuel you buy were to be taken away from MR Brown and spent directly on climate research (Not just in support of AGW, but all climate research) then we could cover that.

Or we could spend the money on big billboards saying that the artic ice will all melt by 2020

[Solar Cycles]

But when you consider that more is spent researching the ability to make gas more easily transferable it's a drop in the ocean.

A few people might complain but if only 0.1p of every litre of fuel you buy were to be taken away from MR Brown and spent directly on climate research (Not just in support of AGW, but all climate research) then we could cover that.

Or we could spend the money on big billboards saying that the artic ice will all melt by 2020

Your first point whilst agreeing in principle, I still feel the money could be put to better uses. Failing that we could put Sammy Wilson in charge off advertising!

[Iceberg]

I'll quickly double check to ensure it's the AGW politics thread. Yep it is.

I have to admit I have my doubts about the best use of the money. On the one hand you could spend it to prevent many thousands of yound children from dying, or help educate them to ensure that they help their country to prosper.

On the other there is a need to improve our knowledge, it's a difficult one. Same as spending money on Space exploration, is that a really useful way to spend the money.?. I am unsure tbh.

I would say that If RBS can still pay it's staff 400M of bonuses then the western world can probably afford both.

[Guest North Sea Snow Convection]

Rather like politics and inefficient councils who act like licensed bandits and take money and waste it to no good other than their own vested interests, the same is true in many ways with climate research. It isn't the money available to fund the research that is necessarily just the issue, it is how it is used. If targetting is improved to provide the balanced climate audit that I bang on about of all forcing mechanisms, human and natural, positive/amplified feedbacks (warming) but also negative feedbacks (cooling),then better results will be realised to get to the truth using the level of money already invested rather than throwing yet more money at the 'problem' and potentially continuing to throw it in the wrong direction.

Leaner, fitter, fairer is the way to go.

If more money had to be raised for reseaerch though, I would be much less fussy if it came from that greedy fat cat bank executives bonus!

Edited March 4, 2009 by North Sea Snow Convection

[Iceberg]

I think you would find every serious climate scientist agreeing with you Tamara, ALL forcing needs to be looked at equally, positive and negative. But I think this is the case already.

[Guest North Sea Snow Convection]

But I think this is the case already.

That is where disagreements start I think

An inactive sun is probably the most underestimated negative feedback (it can and has been been positive too in the active cycle which is the readily acknowledged part) along with clouds feedbacks ...amongst others

Edited March 4, 2009 by North Sea Snow Convection

[LadyPakal]

A few people might complain but if only 0.1p of every litre of fuel you buy were to be taken away from MR Brown and spent directly on climate research (Not just in support of AGW, but all climate research) then we could cover that.

Wasn't one of the reasons for yet more tax hikes on fuel in recent budgets partly for Green purposes?

Edited March 4, 2009 by LadyPakal

[Iceberg]

Yes, but unsurprisingly I think he's a little toad... I don't think any of it goes to environment research, and so I fully understand the publics skeptical attitude.

[Solar Cycles]

That is where disagreements start I think

An inactive sun is probably the most underestimated negative feedback (it can and has been been positive too in the active cycle which is the readily acknowledged part) along with clouds feedbacks ...amongst others

In a way though, this is the perfect time to observe if or not an inactive sun is the main driver in our climate. Global temperatures have been stable for around 10 years, now we have very low solar activity,and a negative PDO ( which might be attributed to solar activity ? ). One way or another, a theory is going to fall by the wayside!

[Iceberg]

Completely agree SC, the next few years will be critical for the effects of AGW cooling or warming.

The PDO was largely negative for a few years at the start of this decade, then went positive, now it's negative again. But has stayed neutral on the whole. Solar activity is very low and I will be watching solar activity and global temps very closely over the next 12 to 24 months to see if any trends occur.

[Guest North Sea Snow Convection]

In a way though, this is the perfect time to observe if or not an inactive sun is the main driver in our climate. Global temperatures have been stable for around 10 years, now we have very low solar activity,and a negative PDO ( which might be attributed to solar activity ? ). One way or another, a theory is going to fall by the wayside!

I think everyone is so eager to see the truth that I think there is a danger that premature timefames are going to be set that will only increase the 'action' cries which much first be presaged by the balanced costings and research. Walk before one can run - otherwise the froth and hype will dominate by trying to 'rush' to get answers.

It will take more than the next couple of years or so to get answers. Try beyond 5 and perhaps 10 years or more before any theory falls by the wayside. In the meantime..settle the science better.

Edited March 4, 2009 by North Sea Snow Convection

[pottyprof]

Completely agree SC, the next few years will be critical for the effects of AGW cooling or warming.

That sums everything up from across the AGW camp.. Whatever happens its AGW..

I suppose I should have kept my gob shut..