Politics And AGW/GW

[Methuselah]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/mar/1...climate-change1

Al Gore says that "the solutions to the economic crisis are also the solutions to the climate crisis".

Why does he say that, I wonder? I couldn't really glean his reasoning, from the article.

I don't think he's trying to back off from his stance to-date, so what is he talking about?

Or am I just being a bit thick, today? :lol:

God knows! Sustainability maybe?

[weather eater]

The sceptic arguement doesn't know all the answers but then it isn't professing to be a huge active global pressure group presenting theory as fact and imposing change based on unproven selective science. Dealing with natural and cyclical factors is at least dealing with known history. Better the devil you know and all that surely?

Some very interesting comments in your post Tamara but this interested me because natural and cyclical factors while not unproven selective science, it is still very possible that we could be vastly under or over playing their significance in climate shifts, if you then factor in the idea that nobody on either side of the argument seems willing to deal with, which is that climate is being effected by both natural and man made factors. If that’s the case then we could be sitting on a time bomb that would take even the GW lobby by surprise. You say that the sceptics are not a huge global pressure group but that’s not really the case and in two ways, firstly the do nothing lobby had for a long while the ear of the worlds leaders especially in the US and also deeds not words often have the biggest impact, inactivity can in itself create pressure in a similar manner to a vocal pressure group, because its lack of words and inactivity sends a message to others that there is no need to worry, you only have to read some of the posts, on the climate threads, many of which repeat the mantra that scientists don’t know everything and its just natural cycles, where do they think that information about Natural cycles etc came from if not scientists, I rather suspect that many of the scientists who formulated theory’s about natural cycles are also convinced by and have worked on AGW theory. Better the devil you know is Ok until you find the devil is a ticking time bomb from which you can't escape. For me the jury’s is out but I still think we should be doing more just in case the jury finds the human race guilty as charged, look how slow we where in regards dealing with CFCs and we are still dealing with the impact of that, I bet there were plenty who wrongly doubted the link between CFCs and ozone depletion and many who understood but happily put profit before action. I rather suspect that regardless of the dangers and the pressure from any AGW theory lobbying, that there are many in big business that are doing the same now.

Edited March 15, 2009 by weather eater

[Thundery wintry showers]

The other side of the "do nothing" lobby is simply the defeatist "that's life" approach. Some people/groups use that as a defence mechanism to make themselves feel better- for there is no point in worrying about a problem you can't do anything about. And then when one suggests that we can do something about it, it can meet with quite a defensive response.

Sometimes inaction can also become recursive, since in order to take action, we need to get enough people to see past the "that's life" approach, but I've been in discussions where the attitude to social inertia itself has been "that's life", leading to multiple layers of "that's life" standing in the way of action... It is also self-fulfilling, as the more we accept that we can't (or shouldn't) do anything, the less likely it is that we will do anything, whether we can/should or not.

[LadyPakal]

And then there are those who have seen humans try to fix something only for it to end up being a lot worse - simply because the action was taken without thinking it through properly or done without all the facts.

I think the most recent example is probably be the Australian bush fires - where the fires were a lot worse than they could have been because old wood had been left where it fell (which is fine in damp places where the wood rots but not so good in a place that becomes a tinderbox every summer), controlled burns were banned and no fire breaks had been created.

Edited March 16, 2009 by LadyPakal

[noggin]

http://www.heartland.org/policybot/results...al_Warming.html

Article entitled "Dishonest Political Tampering with the Science on Global Warming".

Yes, I know it's an elderly (2007) article, but I'm posting it here to show that politics has been getting in the way of science for some time (always?).

[Thundery wintry showers]

Indeed, it's not enough to say "this is a problem that needs solving, therefore any action on it is a good thing". We have to be sure to not create bigger problems than we are solving, and even if we find a good solution, to take a popular phrase from chess, there's "if you find a good move, look for a better one".

[Guest North Sea Snow Convection]

Some very interesting comments in your post Tamara but this interested me because natural and cyclical factors while not unproven selective science, it is still very possible that we could be vastly under or over playing their significance in climate shifts, if you then factor in the idea that nobody on either side of the argument seems willing to deal with, which is that climate is being effected by both natural and man made factors. If that's the case then we could be sitting on a time bomb that would take even the GW lobby by surprise. You say that the sceptics are not a huge global pressure group but that's not really the case and in two ways, firstly the do nothing lobby had for a long while the ear of the worlds leaders especially in the US and also deeds not words often have the biggest impact, inactivity can in itself create pressure in a similar manner to a vocal pressure group, because its lack of words and inactivity sends a message to others that there is no need to worry, you only have to read some of the posts, on the climate threads, many of which repeat the mantra that scientists don't know everything and its just natural cycles, where do they think that information about Natural cycles etc came from if not scientists, I rather suspect that many of the scientists who formulated theory's about natural cycles are also convinced by and have worked on AGW theory. Better the devil you know is Ok until you find the devil is a ticking time bomb from which you can't escape. For me the jury's is out but I still think we should be doing more just in case the jury finds the human race guilty as charged, look how slow we where in regards dealing with CFCs and we are still dealing with the impact of that, I bet there were plenty who wrongly doubted the link between CFCs and ozone depletion and many who understood but happily put profit before action. I rather suspect that regardless of the dangers and the pressure from any AGW theory lobbying, that there are many in big business that are doing the same now.

Hi WE

Thanks for the reply :lol:

I certainly am not advocating inaction as a blanket response. The purpose of my post was illustrating the irony of 'do nothings' perhaps doing everyone a back-handed favour by preventing the potentially wrong action being taken. As I stated though, it wouldn't be being done for the most illuminating reasons.

Action, for actions sake, however can be as dangerous as doing nothing. There is a measured, and considered happy medium somewhere. It is a case of trying to figure out the right action that is required and not being pressed to take some action that is ridden with uncertainties. They say that a good team is made of a blend of people that comprises activists, theorists, passivists, and reflectivists (they may be more categories!?) but I think that the AGW agenda is loaded with far too many activists and theorists that do not allow other 'team members' to chew on these ideas before putting them instantly out for tender.

That type of thinking may well have also been true in your own illustration, but it never got as far as the AGW hysteria of today. Which is at the other extreme.

The urge to 'do something' can make things worse - much as LP has subsequently said. Act in haste, repent at leisure always come to mind......

Hence why I would prefer giving every chance of getting to the truth and ensuring that the right thing is done, however much might have to be done at all, we simply don't know.

Edited March 16, 2009 by North Sea Snow Convection

[Devonian]

Hi WE

Thanks for the reply

I certainly am not advocating inaction as a blanket response. The purpose of my post was illustrating the irony of 'do nothings' perhaps doing everyone a back-handed favour by preventing the potentially wrong action being taken. As I stated though, it wouldn't be being done for the most illuminating reasons.

Action, for actions sake, however can be as dangerous as doing nothing. There is a measured, and considered happy medium somewhere. It is a case of trying to figure out the right action that is required and not being pressed to take some action that is ridden with uncertainties. They say that a good team is made of a blend of people that comprises activists, theorists, passivists, and reflectivists (they may be more categories!?) but I think that the AGW agenda is loaded with far too many activists and theorists that do not allow other 'team members' to chew on these ideas before putting them instantly out for tender.

That type of thinking may well have also been true in your own illustration, but it never got as far as the AGW hysteria of today. Which is at the other extreme.

The urge to 'do something' can make things worse - much as LP has subsequently said. Act in haste, repent at leisure always come to mind......

Hence why I would prefer giving every chance of getting to the truth and ensuring that the right thing is done, however much might have to be done at all, we simply don't know.

How can using fossil fuels more efficiently possibly be 'wrong'? How can diversifying our electricity generation capacity possibly be 'wrong'? How can driving the most efficient car one can get possibly be 'wrong'? How can encouraging people to ride bikes more possibly be 'wrong'? What is there to 'repent at leisure' about any of those choices?

Indeed, what do you have in mind that we might do to solve AGW that would do harm? You've made several post criticising action but not said what actions you actually criticise :huh: . SO, what proposed/inacted policies do you think would do harm?

[LadyPakal]

How could dumping lots of stuff in the sea to encourage blooms (to remove CO2) be 'wrong' etc. We really don't know what effect it could have, beyond the expected/anticipated... There are lots of other things being touted that make my blood run cold.

By all means look for more efficient energy generation methods but make sure they aren't going to do more harm than good. Covering the country in windmills may work (sure won't look pretty) but chopping up anything that happens to fly too close doesn't sound good to me*. Turbines under the sea sound good but make sure it isn't going to destroy even more marine wildlife before covering the coastlines with them. Chopping down forests to grow 'green fuels' sounds really bad to me.

*An example here is a supermarket local to my parents. They have installed 2 small wind turbines in the car park. Locals & cars are being covered with gull parts as the birds are sliced 'n' diced overhead.

Edited March 16, 2009 by LadyPakal

[Guest North Sea Snow Convection]

How can using fossil fuels more efficiently possibly be 'wrong'? How can diversifying our electricity generation capacity possibly be 'wrong'? How can driving the most efficient car one can get possibly be 'wrong'? How can encouraging people to ride bikes more possibly be 'wrong'? What is there to 'repent at leisure' about any of those choices?

Indeed, what do you have in mind that we might do to solve AGW that would do harm? You've made several post criticising action but not said what actions you actually criticise :huh: . SO, what proposed/inacted policies do you think would do harm?

Simply read my posts back again over recent days. You are usually on these threads 24/7 so you should already know my suggestions regarding most of those questions. I don't propose to repeat myself again here as I have better things to do today than go on a circular debate

[Thundery wintry showers]

A strong overlap with the other thread here methinks!

I'm a big fan of the so-called "no regrets policies"- more efficient energy generation, more efficient homes, cutting out wasteful practices that are no good to anyone (e.g. leaving heaters, TVs etc. on unattended), improving public transport and cycle facilities, "park and ride" etc. And if we find that the less conservation-minded are abusing the system (as per the "Jevon's Paradox" thing that Magpie used to keep talking about) we can bring in "sticks" to discourage them from doing so.

But with the rise of authoritarianism, all too many environmentalists have a very closed mindset of "the ONLY WAY to achieve change is to be extremely draconian to force it", which means high environmental taxes and precious little development of alternatives. There's also the philosophy of pleasurable things being disposable, so instead of reducing the "need" to do pollutive things for work, e.g. driving to work, inefficient use of air conditioning etc, we demonise pleasurable stuff like going for a drive in the country, going to the cinema, taking a bath instead of a shower etc, even though cutting out would probably make a much smaller difference.

There are good ways and bad, or at least less good, ways of setting about doing something about the problem. It is no good doing something about it if it creates bigger problems than it is solving- and there's the old phrase from chess, "if you find a good move, look for an even better one". Of course, we have to make decisions at some point and can't go on analysing everything forever- but decisions should at least be considered.

[laserguy]

Indeed, what do you have in mind that we might do to solve AGW

A very minor point in the grand scheme of things maybe, but what AGW would that be,then?

[Devonian]

A very minor point in the grand scheme of things maybe, but what AGW would that be,then?

LG, I think there is less chance of me convincing you AGW exists than there is of Victoria Beckham training a pig to limbo dance...

But, hey, I never give up hope reality might, one day, dawn on you :huh: ...

[Thundery wintry showers]

The AGW that is suggested all around us and supported by various lines of evidence- not conclusive evidence, but certainly far from unfounded.

Personally I'm not interested in convincing people that AGW exists, but I am, at the very least, interested in opening some minds to the possibility that it might exist...

[laserguy]

But, hey, I never give up hope reality might, one day, dawn on you <_< ...

The feeling is mutual Dev,I assure you! Reality - not meaningless computer outputs and 'breathed upon' statistics- is at last catching up with the MSM,very significant as it was largely they who are responsible for the mess we're in now:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columni...ge-experts.html

I can't shake the nagging feeling that when the final nail is hammered home in AGW's coffin,they who shout loudest about this non-event are ging to be very disappointed and sorry.

[Devonian]

The feeling is mutual Dev,I assure you! Reality - not meaningless computer outputs and 'breathed upon' statistics- is at last catching up with the MSM,very significant as it was largely they who are responsible for the mess we're in now:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columni...ge-experts.html

I can't shake the nagging feeling that when the final nail is hammered home in AGW's coffin,they who shout loudest about this non-event are ging to be very disappointed and sorry.

It's quite simple, LG.

There is an atmospheric effect called 'the greenhouse effect'. It's a scientific known, a reality. It's caused by greenhouse gasses. If you increase the concentration of greenhouse gasses you...increase the greenhouse effect. So, since humanity has increase greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere, to deny there is a anthropogenic greenhouse effect is, well, to deny it and deny reality. There is AGW. Denying AGW wont make it go away.

What is open to debate is what the magnitude of AGW triggered warming will be. Doubting, denying, AGW is, I'm afraid, to deny science reality.

There is lots to debate about the magnitude of AGW. Lots. Lets stick to that, running with the idea there is no AGW is a nonsense. Remember, the prediction are for something like 1.5 to 6C, and 1.5C isn't end of the world warming, AGW might be fairly small...

[Admiral_Bobski]

It's quite simple, LG.

There is an atmospheric effect called 'the greenhouse effect'. It's a scientific known, a reality. It's caused by greenhouse gasses. If you increase the concentration of greenhouse gasses you...increase the greenhouse effect. So, since humanity has increase greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere, to deny there is a anthropogenic greenhouse effect is, well, to deny it and deny reality. There is AGW. Denying AGW wont make it go away.

What is open to debate is what the magnitude of AGW triggered warming will be. Doubting, denying, AGW is, I'm afraid, to deny science reality.

There is lots to debate about the magnitude of AGW. Lots. Lets stick to that, running with the idea there is no AGW is a nonsense. Remember, the prediction are for something like 1.5 to 6C, and 1.5C isn't end of the world warming, AGW might be fairly small...

And remember, also, that even the lower end of the prediction range may be an overestimate and that the "A" part of AGW may be less than 1.5C, and that it may even be negligible.

<_<

CB

I see that there's no response to my selection of IPCC quotes on the previous page...perhaps any comments should be made on the "General" thread...

[Devonian]

And remember, also, that even the lower end of the prediction range may be an overestimate and that the "A" part of AGW may be less than 1.5C, and that it may even be negligible.

<_<

Well, given that the effect of doubling CO2 alone is about a 1-1.5C warming effect I think that is unlikely and that we can agree less that 1C for a doubling is unlikely because it get into the realms of denying science reality about ghg's and the GH effect?

Of course we both know this is the warming effect of AGW alone. Is it possible we might see a 1-1.5C cooling effect from natural causes? Seems unlikely to me, hell of a lot of cooling in fifty years unless something cataclysmic happens (huge meteorite, huge volcano).

Right, enough from me for now.

[Guest North Sea Snow Convection]

The feeling is mutual Dev,I assure you! Reality - not meaningless computer outputs and 'breathed upon' statistics- is at last catching up with the MSM,very significant as it was largely they who are responsible for the mess we're in now:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columni...ge-experts.html

I can't shake the nagging feeling that when the final nail is hammered home in AGW's coffin,they who shout loudest about this non-event are ging to be very disappointed and sorry.

I think the proverbial coffin relates to the notion of runaway AGW myself.

It is true that we can change and spoil our landscape by chopping down trees and building concrete jungles, we can litter our streets and pollute our rivers, contaminate and eradicate wildlife establishments etc etc. These things are obviously destructive and not good at all and should be controlled and eradicated as much as possible to preserve the natural world and the natural resources we in turn depend upon.

But in the case of how we potentially effect our climate, then AGW is a righteous conscience gone mad. Whilst no doubt we will impact in some way - how the overwhelming forces of natural climate drivers, including the sheer size and power of the sun are somehow less than than human imputted factors does rather beggar belief. So it is rather an exception in terms of its extent under the human induced effect rule which covers the entire environmental umbrella of various factors - a few examples as I gave above.

There is no blanket human effect/response in equal measure under each factor in this tranch umbrella of environmental matters. Each factor has to be taken on its own merits. That includes climate. Even the kind and lovely Green friends I have accept this point that it isn't a level playing field in terms of effects and control responses. They would at least accept the existence of the blurred line that exists between uman induced and natural ability of mother nature to keep and restore equilibrium as well as potentially override our own contributions in this respect. From their own stated environmental belief standpoint I think it is is significant and creditworthy that they are more moderate and not as typically progressive as others might be viewed who hold similar views. I hate stereotypes of people, we are all individuals to be treated on our own merits in the same way but AGW'ism has turned from an initially well intentioned control response into a collective zealous and pernicious religion. A forceful pressure group of opinion that is trying to force change without a full passport to travel. Worrying indeed.

The frustration and dismay expressed at the refusal of the likes of you or I to 'convert' to joining in this level of frenzy tells all really. I have seen that frustration echoed again in the last 24 hrs on here as charateristic of the same. Even when you think you have stated your own position as fairly and equivocally as possible. Somehow it still isn't enough unless there is a full submission of view. <_<

Edited March 17, 2009 by North Sea Snow Convection

[Thundery wintry showers]

But in the case of how we potentially effect our climate, then AGW is a righteous conscience gone mad. Whilst no doubt we will impact in some way - how the overwhelming forces of natural climate drivers, including the sheer size and power of the sun are somehow less than than human imputted factors does rather beggar belief. So it is rather an exception in terms of its extent under the human induced effect rule which covers the entire environmental umbrella of various factors - a few examples as I gave above.

I think that's rather missing the point. Even the most outlandish claims about AGW are not suggesting that human contributions are higher than solar contributions. To take an extreme case, if the sun was to reduce in intensity by about 50%, chances are global temperatures would plunge by massively more than any amount of AGW could counteract. But the concern is that humans could well be adding a significant amount of warming on top of the already-existing natural causes of climate change, and that this warming could be very rapid as we head towards the mid 21st century. It doesn't matter if the sun could feasibly cause 50C of cooling, if humans are capable of producing, in the worse scenarios, 5C of warming in 100 years which would be enough to cause serious trouble.

[laserguy]

It's quite simple, LG.

What is open to debate is what the magnitude of AGW triggered warming will be. Doubting, denying, AGW is, I'm afraid, to deny science reality.

Ah,magnitude. Would an incredibly hirsute guy notice an extra hair on his head? Again in the grand scheme of things,our incredibly minute contribution to what is anyway a trace gas present in (by definition of 'trace') minute quantities is,much to the warmers' dismay having an apparent cooling effect these days.

Cap'n Bob - I ain't going to comment on anything the IPCC spouts forth since this is a family forum and as such my thoughts have no place within it.

Tamara - just seen your contribution which I won't take up space by quoting.It's getting very tiresome and boring having to keep on declaring my own 'green' credentials yet still be treated as some kind of enviro-thug simply because I happen to have an opposing conclusion with specific regard to CO2. Just what is it that 'these people' want??

Meanwhile ol' Sol gazes down blankly and is probably having a little chuckle as some of us down here get all in a lather whilst running thru' the trees in search of the wood <_< .

[Thundery wintry showers]

Because this opposing conclusion seems to be based on itself rather than based on independent evidence. The idea of a discussion is generally to discuss evidence and derive conclusions from it, or for people to discuss the reasoning behind their own views. Simply stating "I believe X" without providing evidence isn't a discussion, it is a series of statements.

[Solar Cycles]

The AGW that is suggested all around us and supported by various lines of evidence- not conclusive evidence, but certainly far from unfounded.

Personally I'm not interested in convincing people that AGW exists, but I am, at the very least, interested in opening some minds to the possibility that it might exist...

My my, if only there were more involved with this debate with the same mindset, I'm pretty sure all the petty arguments would cease TWS!

[Admiral_Bobski]

Cap'n Bob - I ain't going to comment on anything the IPCC spouts forth since this is a family forum and as such my thoughts have no place within it.

I was hoping for some comments from the Pros rather than the skeptics <_<

As for the IPCC, I'm willing to give some time to the scientific sections of the assessment reports. It's interesting to see the contradictions between their statements and their conclusions (such as, to paraphrase, "there is great uncertainty over solar effects" leading to the conclusion that "there is 90% certainty that man is responsible for warming"). As I say, science is science - an evaluation of a piece of science will determine its veracity.

IPCC science I have no problem with. IPCC conclusions, on the other hand...!

CB

Well, given that the effect of doubling CO2 alone is about a 1-1.5C warming effect I think that is unlikely and that we can agree less that 1C for a doubling is unlikely because it get into the realms of denying science reality about ghg's and the GH effect?

Of course we both know this is the warming effect of AGW alone. Is it possible we might see a 1-1.5C cooling effect from natural causes? Seems unlikely to me, hell of a lot of cooling in fifty years unless something cataclysmic happens (huge meteorite, huge volcano).

Right, enough from me for now.

The effect of doubling CO2 may be 1-1.5C in a laboratory environment! It says nothing of how a doubling of CO2 affects temperatures in the real world, don't you see?

But this is an argument for a different thread, so I shall leave this one for the politics!

CB

[laserguy]

Because this opposing conclusion....

...which inconveniently happens to be shared by far more real scientists than reside within the IPCC who for some bizzare reason is associated with being at the 'cutting edge'. Have they actually got anything right,yet? The current situation re 'climate change' has now gotten so absurd that I'm put in mind of two guys watching simulacre in the clouds - one guy sees one thing and the other sees nothing of the sort. The warmers' keep banging on about warming which simply is not there anymore. The politicians and those in their payroll would desperately have us believe otherwise. "Just wait 30 years and it'll be back,we're telling ya"! Whether a 'warmer' or a 'cooler' can't we all agree that it's all gotten a bit crazy? Yep,as in the thread's title it's all politics and nothing,but nothing as trivial as actual facts must be allowed to derail the AGW train.