Politics And AGW/GW

[Guest North Sea Snow Convection]

Tamara, just to quote the most simplistic and general case:

Your arguments offer a convincing case against the position, "AGW is serious, and the science is settled".

My position is, "AGW might be serious, but the science isn't settled, so there is room for argument either way".

You keep insisting that your arguments are addressing my position.

Can you not see what I'm getting at?

No, and I no longer want to either.

I have honestly had enough of this and am not going to continue these exchanges.

I'll stick to watching storms over the summer, within the context of time on this forum.

[Solar Cycles]

No, and I no longer want to either.

I have honestly had enough of this and am not going to continue these exchanges.

I'll stick to watching storms over the summer, within the context of time on this forum.

Tamara, don't let it get to you, I have yet to debate with anyone from the AGW camp, who doesn't try to put you down, with their vastly superior knowledge on all things climate! That last bit being tongue in cheek of course! TWS likes to be condascending when one doesn't agree with him. Best to avoid this forum and post on Two instead, most of them are far less condascending!

[Thundery wintry showers]

Shall I just say that there's a difference between being condescending when someone disagrees with you, and being condescending when someone disagrees with a view that you don't hold, and then keeps acting as if you hold that view.

[Devonian]

Tamara, don't let it get to you, I have yet to debate with anyone from the AGW camp, who doesn't try to put you down, with their vastly superior knowledge on all things climate! That last bit being tongue in cheek of course! TWS likes to be condascending when one doesn't agree with him. Best to avoid this forum and post on Two instead, most of them are far less condascending!

I don't see what TWS wrote that was condescending? So, please highlight an example.

Actually, I'd like to defend TWS. I find his posts today and in recent days to be well argued and intelligent. I'm not aware he's ever called anyone anything. Indeed, that he has tried to point out flaws in arguments (yes, in his view) seems to be a perfectly valid way to debate to me?

[Guest North Sea Snow Convection]

Your arguments are aimed against the position, "AGW is serious, and the science is settled" (and incidentally many of them offer quite a convincing case against it).

Final words from me.

Apparently yesterday according to you I had no convincing arguements !

I have no problem with you having a pov, and I respect that you provide evidence for your own pov, even if I don't always agree with it. What I can't hack and keep up with is this mantra and constant critical analysis about others 'arguments'/ opinions (such as my own), circular reasoning and attacking the 'weaker' arguement etc etc. Perhaps what I am saying is it is surely more constructive to stick to discussing the topics themselves rather than looking for flaws in people's arguments all the time to trip them up. And yes that applies the same for everyone.

Also, for the benefit of thread participation and smoothness, the fewer people who stick their oar in on this better IMO. Devonian, you may well relish what is going on here, but you do not always relish it when you are involved yourself. And that goes for everyone - we think we are wise unto the flaws of others, but not always unto the flaws of ourselves. And again that applies the same for everyone.

Solar Cycles - thank you for your 'don't let it get to me' comments. Being human, on occasions like now, it sometimes does!

That's that from me in this section.

[Solar Cycles]

Final words from me.

Apparently yesterday according to you I had no convincing arguements !

I have no problem with you having a pov, and I respect that you provide evidence for your own pov, even if I don't always agree with it. What I can't hack and keep up with is this mantra and constant critical analysis about others 'arguments'/ opinions (such as my own), circular reasoning and attacking the 'weaker' arguement etc etc. Perhaps what I am saying is it is surely more constructive to stick to discussing the topics themselves rather than looking for flaws in people's arguments all the time to trip them up. And yes that applies the same for everyone.

Also, for the benefit of thread participation and smoothness, the fewer people who stick their oar in on this better IMO. Devonian, you may well relish what is going on here, but you do not always relish it when you are involved yourself. And that goes for everyone - we think we are wise unto the flaws of others, but not always unto the flaws of ourselves. And again that applies the same for everyone.

Solar Cycles - thank you for your 'don't let it get to me' comments. Being human, on occasions like now, it sometimes does!

That's that from me in this section.

Take a break and re-charge your batteries Tamara, don't let the B******* get you down!!!!

[weather eater]

Tamara, don't let it get to you, I have yet to debate with anyone from the AGW camp, who doesn't try to put you down, with their vastly superior knowledge on all things climate! That last bit being tongue in cheek of course! TWS likes to be condascending when one doesn't agree with him. Best to avoid this forum and post on Two instead, most of them are far less condascending!

I think you miss the point TWS is not in the AGW camp at least not in the way you are in the anti AGW camp, all he is saying is he believes that climate is influenced by many factors one of which is CO2 and he like many climate scientist's think this is may be a crucial factor in our present climate, which it may or may not be true But at this point of time and with our depth of knowledge it is a reasonable argument and theory (note I say theory not fact because it is not an undisputed fact) It is not unreasonable to say that AGW is a valid theory any more than it would be unreasonable to suggest that CO2 is not as important as the IPCC would have us believe. He is also willing to say he could be profoundly wrong and that the tools and data we are using are not by any stretch good enough and maybe profoundly flawed . In fact I would suggest he borders on agnostic re climate change and his mind is open to the fact that the picture is incomplete

As far as I can see most of the members on these threads are decent people and deserve respect for their views Lets debate the issues and get away from black and white circular arguments and I'm right you're wrong.

Tamara and I hope she forgives me if I am wrong, is firmly in the camp of CO2 is not as important as the IPCC make out, that is a fair and valid opinion and she uses some good arguments to make her case and draws attention to other factors which may be far more important but its also fair to question those arguments.

Personally I think CO2 maybe influencing the climate in a major way, Why because CO2 is a greenhouse gas and we have released into the atmosphere over the last 150 years or so, billions of tons of CO2 that were laid down over a long period of time and stored under the earth for billons of years I find it doubtful that this is not effecting our climate the question is how much, I would be delighted to be wrong and say so.

It is also true to say that CO2 as Tamara has pointed out, has been in the atmosphere in higher concentrations than we see in today’s climate but it would also be true to say that the climate has also been estimated as substantially hotter maybe as much as 6 degrees, although that also may be open to debate and rather simplistic because other factors would come into play, ocean circulation comes to mind when dealing with say the cretaceous period and increased volcanism might also have a dimming effect, the difficulty of understanding past climate I think shows the difficulty of future climate modelling, if you are unsure how climate behaved in the past its difficult to model for the future.

Within the context of debate it is reasonable and indeed necessary to question the data and the way that data has been interpreted by the climate models, and its not unreasonable to question the motives of some of the scientist's involved, on all sides of the debate. What I think defiantly unreasonable is to label all the scientist's or members of this forum who believe either in CO2 being a major player in our climate or support the idea that it is a possibility that it might be, of having their snouts in the trough or being condescending as you do. Some may be condescending but I Don’t see TWS as one of those, just frustrated at being misinterpret.

And that’s the problem on any forum, being misread or interpreted and I think this is what frequently happens at times on the climate threads. If we were all face to face I’m sure that these problems would be rare indeed . For Tamara and TWS I don’t think their positions are as far apart as it might appear by the tone of their posts.

[Solar Cycles]

I think you miss the point TWS is not in the AGW camp at least not in the way you are in the anti AGW camp, all he is saying is he believes that climate is influenced by many factors one of which is CO2 and he like many climate scientist's think this is may be a crucial factor in our present climate, which it may or may not be true But at this point of time and with our depth of knowledge it is a reasonable argument and theory (note I say theory not fact because it is not an undisputed fact) It is not unreasonable to say that AGW is a valid theory any more than it would be unreasonable to suggest that CO2 is not as important as the IPCC would have us believe. He is also willing to say he could be profoundly wrong and that the tools and data we are using are not by any stretch good enough and maybe profoundly flawed . In fact I would suggest he borders on agnostic re climate change and his mind is open to the fact that the picture is incomplete

As far as I can see most of the members on these threads are decent people and deserve respect for their views Lets debate the issues and get away from black and white circular arguments and I'm right you're wrong.

Tamara and I hope she forgives me if I am wrong, is firmly in the camp of CO2 is not as important as the IPCC make out, that is a fair and valid opinion and she uses some good arguments to make her case and draws attention to other factors which may be far more important but its also fair to question those arguments.

Personally I think CO2 maybe influencing the climate in a major way, Why because CO2 is a greenhouse gas and we have released into the atmosphere over the last 150 years or so, billions of tons of CO2 that were laid down over a long period of time and stored under the earth for billons of years I find it doubtful that this is not effecting our climate the question is how much, I would be delighted to be wrong and say so.

It is also true to say that CO2 as Tamara has pointed out, has been in the atmosphere in higher concentrations than we see in today's climate but it would also be true to say that the climate has also been estimated as substantially hotter maybe as much as 6 degrees, although that also may be open to debate and rather simplistic because other factors would come into play, ocean circulation comes to mind when dealing with say the cretaceous period and increased volcanism might also have a dimming effect, the difficulty of understanding past climate I think shows the difficulty of future climate modelling, if you are unsure how climate behaved in the past its difficult to model for the future.

Within the context of debate it is reasonable and indeed necessary to question the data and the way that data has been interpreted by the climate models, and its not unreasonable to question the motives of some of the scientist's involved, on all sides of the debate. What I think defiantly unreasonable is to label all the scientist's or members of this forum who believe either in CO2 being a major player in our climate or support the idea that it is a possibility that it might be, of having their snouts in the trough or being condescending as you do. Some may be condescending but I Don't see TWS as one of those, just frustrated at being misinterpret.

And that's the problem on any forum, being misread or interpreted and I think this is what frequently happens at times on the climate threads. If we were all face to face I'm sure that these problems would be rare indeed . For Tamara and TWS I don't think their positions are as far apart as it might appear by the tone of their posts.

Firstly I don't see myself as anti anything, just that CO2 is way way over played as a contributer to warming. But the rest of your post I tend to agree with Weather eater, if we was discussing this face to face, then we would all be more civil with each other, that I agree!

Firstly I don't see myself as anti anything, just that CO2 is way way over played as a contributer to warming. But the rest of your post I tend to agree with Weather eater, if we was discussing this face to face, then we would all be more civil with each other, that I agree!

Maybe we should have a get together in a pub, then again think of the carnage, if we act like the way we do on these forums!!

[weather eater]

Firstly I don't see myself as anti anything, just that CO2 is way way over played as a contributer to warming. But the rest of your post I tend to agree with Weather eater, if we was discussing this face to face, then we would all be more civil with each other, that I agree!

Maybe we should have a get together in a pub, then again think of the carnage, if we act like the way we do on these forums!!

That did cross my mind, glasses and tables in all directions.

[Thundery wintry showers]

A close look at my posts #848 and #871 reveals that I provided a set of rebuttals to Tamara's arguments, and was hoping that she would, indeed, engage those rebuttals face to face, and if she had disagreements with any of them, come up with counter-arguments. But the way she responded was more the sign of someone with a very closed mind, who has a pre-concieved view, and when it's been challenged in a way she has no answer to, resorts to everything she can in order to defend it. How is it unreasonable, for instance, for me to point out that past climates are not derived purely from a part reconstruction which models various assumed feedbacks, or that uncertainty works both ways? Since I am not, in fact, dismissing her actual position ("AGW is being overestimated") it appears she's being defensive of the idea that she is right and everyone who thinks AGW might not be being underestimated is wrong. So much for letting people have their opinions.

As for the complaining about having arguments nitpicked for logical fallacies, what would the sceptics do if I mouthed off loads of nonsense like "AGW is serious because Al Gore says so, and he's right because AGW is serious", "all those who question the IPCC are a bunch of AGW deniers and the wheels will soon fall off their bandwagon", and "anyone who criticises AGW is wrong because they're rejecting the idea that humans could influence climate"? Shoot me down for employing logical fallacies like straw men and circular reasoning, that's what. In fact you get lumped together with spouters of that kind of nonsense merely for suggesting that AGW might not be a myth. which is what I've mainly been defending myself against.

As for politics and AGW, I really don't think the "portray to the public that the science is settled to remove doubt" policy is working. I think it makes people feel they are being lied to (which, basically, they are!) and in turn makes them less likely to accept AGW- and this thread is a perfect illustration.

Edited April 30, 2009 by Thundery wintry showers

[Methuselah]

Firstly I don't see myself as anti anything, just that CO2 is way way over played as a contributer to warming. But the rest of your post I tend to agree with Weather eater, if we was discussing this face to face, then we would all be more civil with each other, that I agree!

Maybe we should have a get together in a pub, then again think of the carnage, if we act like the way we do on these forums!! :lol:

That did cross my mind, glasses and tables in all directions. :lol:

The Wild West all over again? :lol:

What's that song? Don't Forsake Me Oh My Darlin'...

More seriously, the cloud feedback concerns me - the IPCC says it should be +ive, but (for whatever reason) I think it should be -tive...

Edited May 1, 2009 by Pete Tattum

[noggin]

http://www.climatesceptics.com.au/

Something for people to maul, if anyone feels so inclined.

A new political party in Australia.......The Climate Sceptics. Dedicated to expose the fallacy of AGW; opposing all forms of carbon tax/carbon trading schemes; resisting all climate-related government policies that are not based on independent and verifiable science.

[Methuselah]

Thanks for that, noggin. I actually found something in there that I agree with 100% - I'm 100% opposed to carbon trading...Other than that, it looks like the early arrivals at the strawmen's ball: AGW's a fallacy, a myth, a conspiracy, it'll take away my right to own things!

Sadly, none of those 'arguments' is persuasive.

[Devonian]

http://www.climatesceptics.com.au/

Something for people to maul, if anyone feels so inclined.

A new political party in Australia.......The Climate Sceptics. Dedicated to expose the fallacy of AGW; opposing all forms of carbon tax/carbon trading schemes; resisting all climate-related government policies that are not based on independent and verifiable science.

'...expose the fallacy of AGW...'.

Don't we all agree there is some AGW (in that we are adding ghg's to the atmosphere, so there is an anthropogenic effect) but that we don't agree whether the eventual anthropogenic effect will be tiny or several degrees?

[Thundery wintry showers]

Anthropogenic or man-made Global Warming (AGW) alarmism is the biggest con, fraud, hoax, swindle, deception and mass hysteria in the history of modern civilization, because climate changes naturally.

Now I don't like to be prejudiced, but to put it mildly, reading an opening paragraph like that never inspires confidence. It would be nice if, for once, we could find a sceptic site that looked objectively at the evidence and derived sceptical conclusions from it, instead of assuming from the outset that AGW is a myth and fitting "evidence" around it.

Let's just take a look at some of their arguments:

1. Climate change is natural.

* Climate change has been happening on this earth for millions of years

* The global warming of the last hundred years has in been entirely within the range of natural variability

* The warmer periods of history such as the Holocene Optimum, the Roman Warm Period, and the Medieval Warm Period, have all proved to be beneficial in terms of human prosperity and progress. The warming 20th century has been no exception.

1. True, but it proves nothing about AGW.

2. If you take the IPCC's report at face value, this can be true but only at a large stretch. If it's disputed, fine, as long as the reasons for disputing it are given.

3. This never inspires confidence. The third point is basically trying to say that a warmer planet would be a good thing (a common argument among the more extremist sceptics). How is that an argument against AGW? If anything it strikes me as more an argument for "If AGW exists it's a good thing, so either way, let's continue being Alright Jack".

And the usual fallacious argument of quoting lower troposphere temperatures as evidence for cooling of surface temperatures. I could go on, but all of these (CO2, solar activity) are the standard sets of arguments that I (and others) have addressed many, many times. There are plenty of good arguments out there that challenge AGW- can we start using some of the good ones?

It's a shame, because while the scientific arguments are dreadful, I think many of the political arguments raise some good points- I too have my doubts about carbon trading, and fear that politicians might be scared into bringing in a lot of draconian laws that could cause a lot of disruption for minimal return.

Edited May 1, 2009 by Thundery wintry showers

[noggin]

a sceptic site

A small, but also not small, point, TWS..........it is not just a website/blog-type thing, it is the website of a political party. It is the fact of it being an actual, real, live political party that caused me to post the link. I see it as quite a "big thing" that the AGW/not AGW "argument" has brought about a new political party.

OTOH, maybe it's just me that sees this as a "big thing".....

My apologies to you, noggin...I could have worded my post a whole lot better. :unsure:

Cheers, Pete.

[Guest North Sea Snow Convection]

As far as I can see most of the members on these threads are decent people and deserve respect for their views Lets debate the issues and get away from black and white circular arguments and I'm right you're wrong.

Tamara and I hope she forgives me if I am wrong, is firmly in the camp of CO2 is not as important as the IPCC make out, that is a fair and valid opinion and she uses some good arguments to make her case and draws attention to other factors which may be far more important but its also fair to question those arguments.

Personally I think CO2 maybe influencing the climate in a major way, Why because CO2 is a greenhouse gas and we have released into the atmosphere over the last 150 years or so, billions of tons of CO2 that were laid down over a long period of time and stored under the earth for billons of years I find it doubtful that this is not effecting our climate the question is how much, I would be delighted to be wrong and say so.

It is also true to say that CO2 as Tamara has pointed out, has been in the atmosphere in higher concentrations than we see in today's climate but it would also be true to say that the climate has also been estimated as substantially hotter maybe as much as 6 degrees, although that also may be open to debate and rather simplistic because other factors would come into play, ocean circulation comes to mind when dealing with say the cretaceous period and increased volcanism might also have a dimming effect, the difficulty of understanding past climate I think shows the difficulty of future climate modelling, if you are unsure how climate behaved in the past its difficult to model for the future.

Within the context of debate it is reasonable and indeed necessary to question the data and the way that data has been interpreted by the climate models, and its not unreasonable to question the motives of some of the scientist's involved, on all sides of the debate. What I think defiantly unreasonable is to label all the scientist's or members of this forum who believe either in CO2 being a major player in our climate or support the idea that it is a possibility that it might be, of having their snouts in the trough or being condescending as you do. Some may be condescending but I Don't see TWS as one of those, just frustrated at being misinterpret.

And that's the problem on any forum, being misread or interpreted and I think this is what frequently happens at times on the climate threads. If we were all face to face I'm sure that these problems would be rare indeed . For Tamara and TWS I don't think their positions are as far apart as it might appear by the tone of their posts.

Just wanted to thank you for that post - lots of good points made. Your reflection of my position is a good one, and nice to have something more accurate and fair reflected for a change from someone with a slightly differing view than my own - rather than the sort of unsubstantiated nonsense that continues on the following page I see most regrettably. Anyone who actually reads what I have said over a period of time without automatically looking to pick holes as a first priority, will know that I have previously said that the original intention of AGW is/was a good thing. We should be aware of how we affect our environment in many ways and climate is one important one. And we should take responsibility for our actions if harm in whatever area is discovered and where no dispute can arise that that has occured. I have also said more than once that should anything conclusive and unrefutable be found that confirms natural variation has been overriden and a new equilibrium/tipping point found within the engine of our climate then I will acknowledge that. However, until I am convinced otherwise I will continue to believe that nature sustains her own tipping points, manitains her own equilibrium, has mechanisms to deal with excess emissions etc, and that natural negative feedbacks are understated in climate research dedicated to human activity whilst assumed positive/ amplified one's are exaggerated.

But to suggest I post in defence because I have no answer to a point is simple trumped up untruth. If there is anything I don't know the answer to, my reply would be that I don't presently know the answer but that I do have the nouse to be able to try and find out, if I can. My defensiveness, actually, derives herein: I will answer any 'rebuttals' as I see fit , in my own way, in my own style and not at the beck and call of the questioner. I am, believe it or not, intelligent enough to know my own mind and don't need anyone else to tell me what I am/am not thinking nor what I should think or how I should reply to them. Hope that is clear??? (Not meant personally towards you WE!)

Enjoy your debate on these threads all

[Thundery wintry showers]

My impression, I'm afraid, is that if I provide a challenge to your views that you have an answer to, you answer it. If you don't have an answer to it, you either ignore it or answer a weakened version of it. As I say, I am not closed to the possibility that AGW may be being overestimated- it could easily turn out to be true. But it isn't lost on me that when I, for instance, pointed out that uncertainty can imply underestimation as a possibility as well as overestimation, and that reconstructions of past climate are not based just on flawed model outputs, you chose to ignore my points, and in the first case, simply repeated your previous assertion that uncertainty implies overestimation.

My defensiveness, actually, derives herein: I will answer any 'rebuttals' as I see fit , in my own way, in my own style and not at the beck and call of the questioner.

Of course you will. As in, you will answer them as long as they don't offer a challenge to a view of yours that you have no answer to; otherwise you will ignore them or resort to one of about two-dozen logical fallacies in order to avoid having to admit that some of your views might be wide of the mark. And that's where I may appear to be taking the moral high ground. I'm not perfect at it, but I am often prepared to admit when I am wrong.

As for the political party- fair point, it's a political organisation. But that doesn't say much about how good or bad it is- for instance it would be a bad idea to quote the BNP as an instrument of social upheval!

Edited May 1, 2009 by Thundery wintry showers

[Guest North Sea Snow Convection]

My impression, I'm afraid, is that if I provide a challenge to your views that you have an answer to, you answer it. If you don't have an answer to it, you either ignore it or answer a weakened version of it. As I say, I am not closed to the possibility that AGW may be being overestimated- it could easily turn out to be true. But it isn't lost on me that when I, for instance, pointed out that uncertainty can imply underestimation as a possibility as well as overestimation, and that reconstructions of past climate are not based just on flawed model outputs, you chose to ignore my points, and in the first case, simply repeated your previous assertion that uncertainty implies overestimation. In essence while you say you are prepared to listen to other views, in reality you only seem prepared to listen to them if they don't seriously challenge your views.

As for the political party- fair point, it's a political organisation. But that doesn't say much about how good or bad it is- for instance it would be a bad idea to quote the BNP as an instrument of social upheval!

Thundery Wintry Showers. One only has so much patience .

I have given the clearest starkest most honest answer I can give. Deal with it and get over it...

[Devonian]

Thundery Wintry Showers. One only has so much patience .

I have given the clearest starkest most honest answer I can give. Deal with it and get over it...

I suspect what is going on here is that since you feel TWS treated you condescendingly you feel at liberty to treat him condescendingly?

[Thundery wintry showers]

Thundery Wintry Showers. One only has so much patience .

I have given the clearest starkest most honest answer I can give. Deal with it and get over it...

If that's with respect to the overall point I made- in other words you expect me to just let you do exactly what I've just exposed in my response, knowing fine well that if I did one-tenth of it from the "pro-AGW" side I'd get shot down by the sceptics? No, I'm not just going to "deal with it"- there should not be one rule for the sceptics and another rule for me (note that some, particularly in the climate science communities, would actually consider me to be a sceptic- but clearly not enough of a sceptic to meet the Tamara-double-standard-criteria).

Thing is, I would not resort to that kind of defensive reasoning because I would consider the sceptics perfectly entitled to shoot me down if I used it. Make of that what you will.

And if it's with respect to the two points I made that you didn't address (uncertainty working both ways, reconstructions of past climate having various sources)- where's your answer?

Edited May 1, 2009 by Thundery wintry showers

[noggin]

D'ya know what, chaps and chapesses.............reading the following interview has almost made me weep with relief at the injection of sanity into the whole AGW/nonAGW/panic/what shall we do about it business.

It is an interview with Dr Mike Hulme, a former founding director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research.

Just to quote one thing he says (because it sums up the whole interview very succinctly)..........

"To hide behind the dubious precision of scientific numbers, and not actually expose one's own ideologies or beliefs or values and judgements is undermining in both politics and science"

He is referring to the use of only scientific numbers for "climate change" policymaking.

Wherever each of us may be situated re "climate change", on this side of the fence, that side of the fence, atop the fence, under the fence or boinging about all over and around the fence, I would hope that we could all see the sense in what he says.

Peace and love to all.

xxxxxxxx

PS forgot to post the link

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/05/06/mi...ulme_interview/

Edited May 6, 2009 by noggin

[jethro]

Thanks for that Noggin.

I particularly like this bit:

"It’s not hard to get labelled a climate change “denier”. You don’t even have to deny that climate change is real, man-made and a problem. As Bjørn Lomborg, climatologist Patrick Michaels and political scientist Professor Roger Pielke Jr have discovered, you merely have to challenge the orthodox political policy responses.Or, like Climate Audit’s Steve McIntyre, dare to scrutinise the statistical workings behind influential climate research papers. If you stray from agreeing with the political prescription, you're an immoral person."

His criticism of the IPCC is exactly what "denying sceptics" have been saying for a long time.

Hooray for a voice of reason!

[Thundery wintry showers]

After slating Noggin's previous links I have to give credit where it's due- that is a very interesting and largely non-biased link which raises a lot of good questions for discussion. Exactly the sort of "sceptical" article that I would be looking for to provide some counterarguments against the consensus.

I'm not sure about his statement about how climate change can't be solved but can only be lived with. The "it can't be solved" part is almost certainly correct, as regardless of any anthropogenic forcing we still have naturally-driven climate change that is beyond our control. But by moving towards more sustainable energy use we can certainly reduce any anthropogenic forcing- though eliminating it altogether would be unrealistic.

But I'd certainly go along with his assertions that we need more of a rounded debate on the issue instead of relying just upon number crunching. The premises behind AGW are scientific, but when it comes to what action we take, we open up a huge array of interlinked socio-economic-environmental issues, and focusing on just one or two angles results in us getting an incomplete picture. For example it's no good trying to "solve" AGW if we try to do it in a way that will wipe out human civilisation as we know it!

As for consensus, I think we do have to have some generally-agreed ideas on the best way forward, otherwise indecision will prevail. But I don't think consensus is a good thing when it comes to discussion on the subject, because it stifles opposing positions that might, in the long run, turn out to be nearer to the truth than the consensus. For this reason I think I'm with him re. cross-party consensus, because again, if different political parties take up different positions, it may be that in the long run they can learn from each other's positions.

[Devonian]

Thanks for that Noggin.

I particularly like this bit:

"It’s not hard to get labelled a climate change “denier”. You don’t even have to deny that climate change is real, man-made and a problem. As Bjørn Lomborg, climatologist Patrick Michaels and political scientist Professor Roger Pielke Jr have discovered, you merely have to challenge the orthodox political policy responses.Or, like Climate Audit’s Steve McIntyre, dare to scrutinise the statistical workings behind influential climate research papers. If you stray from agreeing with the political prescription, you're an immoral person."

His criticism of the IPCC is exactly what "denying sceptics" have been saying for a long time.

Hooray for a voice of reason!

To be clear, those are not Hulme's words but those of the author of the piece.

Edited May 7, 2009 by Devonian