The Taboo Of Not Subscribing To Anthropological Global Warming

[Methuselah]

Thing is, though, the existence of AGW as a mechanism is pretty much "proven"- take the logrithmic relationship with CO2 for example, or the nature of "greenhouse gases" allowing shortwave radiation in and absorbing/reflecting longwave radiation.

But the extent to which human activity is contributing to climate change, the magnitude of global climate sensitivity etc. are unproven, thus meaning that for instance when groups make claims of "we have committed ourselves to a 3 degree rise by 2100" (as opposed to just "human activity is capable of warming the global climate") the burden of proof should then be on the groups' claims.

Yes Ian, you are quite right.

[rob48]

I suppose it's easier to "prove" your point of view when the state broadcaster joins in the propaganda war and you're threatened with jail for refusing to fund it:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2066706/BBC-sought-advice-global-warming-scientists-economy-drama-music--game-shows.html

[Village]

It should be clear by now I think that nobody, and I mean nobody really subscribes to the AGW story. Some people just say they do because of the taboo associated with saying that they dont care enough to really make any changes.

If people really, really believed in it they would actually make real changes to their lives and give up modern comforts. But nobody believes in the theory enough.

[laserguy]

It should be clear by now I think that nobody, and I mean nobody really subscribes to the AGW story. Some people just say they do because of the taboo associated with saying that they dont care enough to really make any changes.

If people really, really believed in it they would actually make real changes to their lives and give up modern comforts. But nobody believes in the theory enough.

Blimey V,that's 1 of the 3 posts from you in as many days that I so profoundly concur with that I fear my doppelganger may have materialised. There's also the ones who so easily and quickly fell under the AGW spell that there's no way they can back out now. Like those 2012 nuts who,come Jan 1st 2013 will be walking around with a cheesy grin sayin' they never really believed in all that rubbish really. Trouble with AGW/Climate Change/Climate Weirding or whatever term is in vogue,is that it has no expiry date and can,as long as there is enough of those open to such nonsense,be prolonged indefinitely. There is,as they say,one born every minute.

[Methuselah]

It should be clear by now I think that nobody, and I mean nobody really subscribes to the AGW story. Some people just say they do because of the taboo associated with saying that they dont care enough to really make any changes.

If people really, really believed in it they would actually make real changes to their lives and give up modern comforts. But nobody believes in the theory enough.

Really? IMO, politicians are, despite what they say, hell-bent on pandering to the world of money. Science hardly ever comes into it???

[Thundery wintry showers]

It should be clear by now I think that nobody, and I mean nobody really subscribes to the AGW story. Some people just say they do because of the taboo associated with saying that they dont care enough to really make any changes.

If people really, really believed in it they would actually make real changes to their lives and give up modern comforts. But nobody believes in the theory enough.

The last sentence is wildly inaccurate. Many of us believe in AGW to at least some extent but are waiting for technology to advance enough to allow us to make changes without having to give up most modern comforts.

There's also considerations like, "why should I give up computer gaming, getting driven out in people's cars, having the occasional bath instead of taking a quick shower and eating processed foods instead of cooking everything from scratch, when most people in the USA are still driving around in big gas guzzlers and any energy that I save by sacrificing modern comforts may well be exploited by some profiteering company anyway, meaning no environmental gain?".

And when it comes to politicians, like Pete said, they're generally more interested in money than science, and in addition, tend to focus on 4-5 year timescales (the time that it takes until the next general election) rather than the decadal spans necessary for implementing solutions to non-sustainable consumption of fossil fuels.

[osmposm]

It should be clear by now I think that nobody, and I mean nobody really subscribes to the AGW story. Some people just say they do because of the taboo associated with saying that they dont care enough to really make any changes.

If people really, really believed in it they would actually make real changes to their lives and give up modern comforts. But nobody believes in the theory enough.

What strange and ignorant statements. Some - many - of us do, and some - many - of us have. And the commonest taboo, in my experience, is from people who think I am being ridiculous for making the changes I have.

It is, of course, impossible to separate out the different motives for making changes. I have a lower income these days (not that it was ever high), so wearing more jumpers and keeping my house a full 2C cooler than I used to, at least when I am alone, makes financial sense. The law has assisted the process, by ensuring that my new (three years ago) boiler is vastly more efficient than its predecessor - ditto the recent fridge-freezer, and lightbulbs. The low-energy bulbs I have happily embraced, too - unlike several friends who swear they give out an awful light (not noticed, strangely, when in my house), and have stockpiled old incandescent ones accordingly. I seldom light or heat more of the house than I am actively using. I try not to boil more water than will make the frequent cup(s) of tea I'm actually making - more mockery from friends who say I'm being absurdly anal about it all....I like to mention the calculation someone once did that suggested that the UK's entire Kyoto commitment could be achieved if we all stopped boiling more water than we need (is that really true?).

Recycling has many benefits - I am as concerned about relatively local environment issues as I am about the macro picture - but I now recycle four or more times as much (by volume) as I chuck as 'rubbish'....which can get a bit smelly, as my large kitchen waste bin doesn't need emptying every week, unless I've been entertaining. This would not be possible if my local authority had not made it so, under strong government encouragement - they've recently started accepting all plastic containers and trays, not just bottles. I do not know for certain that this helps my level of carbon emmissions, but I hope so - it certainly helps address local landfill issues.

I used to drive pretty much everywhere when I could, even in London - now I cycle or use public transport for most journeys, though that has been partly driven by parking/congestion charge costs, and a desire to get a bit fitter (even at 60!). I still own a car, but it's seldom used, and is fourteen years old - its lower efficiency on occasional outings is more than outweighed, I feel, by the "green" sense of using it for as long as possible, rather than getting a replacement (which I could afford) that has had to be manufactured. And fortunately I have a friendly garage who are happy to keep it going at minimal cost. I am again often ribbed for this when I roll up at friends in the country in my 'rust bucket'. I also fly less frequently than I did - once a year, now, on average, and within Europe: not so long ago it was Brazil, USA, India...and often two or three times a year. Oh, and I seldom buy new clothes, bar socks and underwear - or indeed anything else until it really needs to replacing. I still spend money, but it tends to be on art rather than the more usual retail consumables.

I did NONE of this fifteen years ago, and part of my motivation is indeed worries about human effects on the environment in general, and the climate in particular. It is true that my domestic situation has changed - most of the time I'm now the only person here - and I'm also through age and income less inclined to spend/waste and go out/away/abroad than I was. But a simple fact I can give you is that - in exactly the same house - ten years ago I was consuming annual averages of 36,000 KwH in gas, and 4,000 KWh of electricity. Now it is around 22,000 kWh gas, and 2,200 kWh elec. Total reduction in domestic energy needs is nearly 16,000 kWh, or 40% per annum.

So I, for one have made real changes, and I have moderated my attachment to modern comforts and high-energy pleasures. But I must in all honesty confess that if I were forty, not sixty, it would have been a lot tougher, and probably not as successful.

[laserguy]

I did NONE of this fifteen years ago, and part of my motivation is indeed worries about human effects on the environment in general, and the climate in particular.

Eyup Ossie, y'alright? Y'know,I could have written that post of yours what with all the recycling stuff,low energy bulbs and generally being a tight git to make ends meet. Except in my case concerns about climate change don't get a look-in. My car is twelve years old and has seen much better days but unfortunately it gets a lot of use - the family dictate that. Don't know how long it'll hold out and what I'm gonna do when it expires,hey ho. Recycling stuff and mending and making-do - been a way of life for as long as I can recall. I've got a motorbike that's older than your car (23 years old to be precise) and it's now in bits. A million bits. It awaits my attention but one week follows another and nothing gets done 'because I haven't got any money left at the end of the month to buy any replacement parts. Maybe I'll get around to it when I retire but I won't part with it as I guess it holds too many memories of Good Times and represents an increasingly tenuous link to my fast-departing youth.

I got so fed up of having huge,unmanagable energy bills (despite my frugality) landing on my doormat that I called the supplier and had them fit a pre-payment meter. It actually turned out to be a good move and it's amazing how they encourage one to reduce consumption even further. I'm glad you can manage to fly off once or twice a year. No,really. It's not a cheap LG jibe that you've often accused me of. One's gotta weaken now and again and have something to look forward to or melancholy will prevail. But abroad doesn't interest me for some reason so I've never flown and don't think I will. And the missus still looks at me funny when I only put enough water in the kettle to cover the 'minimum' mark,and dives for cover when I see her filling it up to 'max'. She's alright really but for some reason can't understand that such a little device can gobble so much power,even though it clearly states 2200W on the base. Some type of blind spot.

Ye life goes on and most of us muddle by and I'll save and recycle as always. But I won't be thinking of carbon emissions and climate change an' all that - I still maintain that it's all cobblers as much today a when "they" first dreamed it up. Cheers.

[Methuselah]

And, whether we like it or not (and whether or not we indulge in anti-AGW rhetoric) fossil fuels are running out...The way I see it is simple: the only infinite sources of energy are renewables...

[laserguy]

And, whether we like it or not (and whether or not we indulge in anti-AGW rhetoric) fossil fuels are running out...The way I see it is simple: the only infinite sources of energy are renewables...

Ye I know,Pete.... Which makes me wonder if I'm doing the right thing in hanging on to my currently defunct mobike. By the time I can afford to fix it petrol will be no more. Still,might just make it as a museum piece. Why oh why do all AGW types keep saying that even if it's a bust we've got to move away from fossil fuels because blah blah...? We KNOW that and so far as I can tell no AGW denier (yeah) says otherwise. So why not cut all the climate crap out and get on with it regardless? I'm sure we'd all get along much better.

[Village]

The AGW claptrap is simply pure politics and has absolutely nothing to do with science.

The only reason that science seems to be a part of it is because the huge finances involved have skewed the efforts of all scientific persuations by encouraging reports on the subject. Basically if you want funding on any thesis all you do is link your work to Global Warming and hey presto! you have your funding. This is the reason why over the past decade or so, virtually every new report all comes back to Mankind warming the planet via CO2 release. Without that vital link then there wont be the funding.

Ever wondered why every concievable change in the environment is our fault? Well now you have your answer.

Its also the reason why it's taboo to suggest that the theory of AGW might actually be a theory. There are too many people out there who are now bankrolled by the theory being sold as a fact. If too many people out there ask too many questions and cause a problem to the whole gravy train then livelyhoods and reputations will come crashing down like a pack of cards.

But unfortunately that is precisely what will happen. The theory has already been promoted too far and it is in decline. The Climategate incident was an example of that. The IPCC being caught red handed promoting a blatant lie about the Himalayan glacier retreat was another. Heck....even the name Global Warming had to be changed because somebody pointed out the unfortunate fact that some places in the world are getting colder. That really damaged the IPCC and so they renamed it Climate Change. Trouble is ...the climate has always changed so nothing new there.

[jethro]

I was going to reply but then I thought, what's the point, can't be bothered.

One thing I will say though, personally, as a sceptic, it's posts like the one above and the attitude it conveys which has done so much harm to the logical, scientific, sceptical viewpoint. It's stuff such as this which prevents the debate and the science from moving forward.

[cyclonic happiness]

I was going to reply but then I thought, what's the point, can't be bothered.

One thing I will say though, personally, as a sceptic, it's posts like the one above and the attitude it conveys which has done so much harm to the logical, scientific, sceptical viewpoint. It's stuff such as this which prevents the debate and the science from moving forward.

True, there's no point in argument whilst both side are so entrenched in their beliefs that neither will budge.

You may as well leave it until nature proves which side was right.

The fact that there is such a stalemate also goes to show that there is alot more scientific research and alot more monitoring to go before we can say either argument is right.

Why do you think that there has been such a backlash over the last couple of years Jethro?

I used to be a real backer of the global warming brigade with all the 'proof' and stuff we learnt at school and now I'm lost in which way to think.

I'd say atm that I'm a believer in global warming but not man made, but all the cuts of pollution and fossil fuels has only got to be a good thing for everyone in the long run.

They just need to get their fingers out with the alternatives, although I do believe we are on the brink of the new wave of alternative energies that will revolutionise the world and be readily available which is rather exciting .

I think that people now just have to forget the argument and get on with whichever side their beliefs are focused towards, we can only win either way with a better world?

[johnholmes]

The AGW claptrap is simply pure politics and has absolutely nothing to do with science.

The only reason that science seems to be a part of it is because the huge finances involved have skewed the efforts of all scientific persuations by encouraging reports on the subject. Basically if you want funding on any thesis all you do is link your work to Global Warming and hey presto! you have your funding. This is the reason why over the past decade or so, virtually every new report all comes back to Mankind warming the planet via CO2 release. Without that vital link then there wont be the funding.

Ever wondered why every concievable change in the environment is our fault? Well now you have your answer.

Its also the reason why it's taboo to suggest that the theory of AGW might actually be a theory. There are too many people out there who are now bankrolled by the theory being sold as a fact. If too many people out there ask too many questions and cause a problem to the whole gravy train then livelyhoods and reputations will come crashing down like a pack of cards.

But unfortunately that is precisely what will happen. The theory has already been promoted too far and it is in decline. The Climategate incident was an example of that. The IPCC being caught red handed promoting a blatant lie about the Himalayan glacier retreat was another. Heck....even the name Global Warming had to be changed because somebody pointed out the unfortunate fact that some places in the world are getting colder. That really damaged the IPCC and so they renamed it Climate Change. Trouble is ...the climate has always changed so nothing new there.

I rarely enter this arena, which seems to sum up the gladatorial aspect it gives out at times.

At this moment nobody on Net Weather just as nobody on earth can be 100% sure of why the earth has warmed over the past 150 years or so. I was in the Met Office when it, surprisingly to me, got the funding from Maggie to set up the Hadley Centre. That was a clue at the beginning, I am sure she saw it as a chance to be a world leader in that aspect. Mind you it had taken the very considerable meteorological and climatological skills of the then CE of the Met O to convince her that global warming was a fact. Also that, at that time, the almost totally accepted view of pretty much all main stream climatologists was that it was AGW. The most outspoken critic of that was no longer around to give his version of the northern hemisphere teetering instead on the arrival of an Ice Age (Prof H Lamb).

Those are the facts as far and as objectively as I can suggest them for when this debate actually hiked up several gears. Of course before then there had been those (chiefly in the H Lamb camp) who proposed the opposite but several things suggested that humans were having an effect. Perhaps one of the most telling was the discovery by 2 British Antarctic Survey scientists that, depsite NASA trying to prove otherwise, that man had/was creating the highly dangerours CFC problem over Antarctica, leading to the ozone hole, which subsequently was noted over populated areas in the southern hemisphere. So there was a reasonable element along with the idea that pumping CO2 into the atmosphere was not really doing the planet any good that tended to lead off the AGW argument.

I hope this is seen as an attempt to make a sensible non argumentative input into this area.

As to my view about AGW or GW and, I do not believe much of the hype about so called tampering with e mails to give wrong ideas, then I am a fence sitter. I can see some things that support AGW but others that point more to GW is occurring but is it man made or what % of it is man made.

re the comment about the e mails, most of the climatologists that I knew in the Hadley centre were too into their own little world to even contemplate fiddling things and I suspect that is the same now. Sadly politicians are even more involved now-hence much of the problems.

It is fact that on BBC 2 some years ago one old islander in the Pacific I think it was pointed to the sea and said that was where I lived as a boy. It was and is under water-so what caused that, no not tides something else-rising sea levels-so what is causing that?

argue nicely folk

Edited January 9, 2012 by johnholmes

[Devonian]

I rarely enter this arena, which seems to sum up the gladatorial aspect it gives out at times.

At this moment nobody on Net Weather just as nobody on earth can be 100% sure of why the earth has warmed over the past 150 years or so. I was in the Met Office when it, surprisingly to me, got the funding from Maggie to set up the Hadley Centre. That was a clue at the beginning, I am sure she saw it as a chance to be a world leader in that aspect. Mind you it had taken the very considerable meteorological and climatological skills of the then CE of the Met O to convince her that global warming was a fact. Also that, at that time, the almost totally accepted view of pretty much all main stream climatologists was that it was AGW. The most outspoken critic of that was no longer around to give his version of the northern hemisphere teetering instead on the arrival of an Ice Age (Prof H Lamb).

John, I have a copy of 'Weather, Climate and Human Affairs' by the great man. In his concluding remarks this is his second forecast of future climate "...(ii) a rather strong warming, lasting some centuries, due to increase of carbon dioxide and other pollution from human activities...". I'm sure he accepted CO2 is a ghg and I'd be very surprised to read he didn't think doubling atmospheric CO2 from pre industrial levels would not, of itself, cause about a 1C warming. Lamb did, though, like all of us realise that a less active sun would cause cooling as well (and presumably vica versa), that volcaones have an effect and he did think an ice age was due in 3000-7000 yrs.

[johnholmes]

John, I have a copy of 'Weather, Climate and Human Affairs' by the great man. In his concluding remarks this is his second forecast of future climate "...(ii) a rather strong warming, lasting some centuries, due to increase of carbon dioxide and other pollution from human activities...". I'm sure he accepted CO2 is a ghg and I'd be very surprised to read he didn't think doubling atmospheric CO2 from pre industrial levels would not, of itself, cause about a 1C warming. Lamb did, though, like all of us realise that a less active sun would cause cooling as well (and presumably vica versa), that volcaones have an effect and he did think an ice age was due in 3000-7000 yrs.

thanks for that D-I have to admit I really did not follow him very closely after seeing his lecture about the Ice Age cometh, unfair to him, I still have some of his original work on CET data.

What was the date that was published D please?

I might see if I could get hold of a copy if its not too expensive-I did admire him much of the time and felt very priveleged to have met him and been part of about half a dozen meteorologists/clomatologists, some professional some amateurmany many years ago-just forget even the approximate year. Manchester probably.

Edited January 9, 2012 by johnholmes

[Devonian]

thanks for that D-I have to admit I really did not follow him very closely after seeing his lecture about the Ice Age cometh, unfair to him, I still have some of his original work on CET data.

What was the date that was published D please?

I might see if I could get hold of a copy if its not too expensive-I did admire him much of the time and felt very priveleged to have met him and been part of about half a dozen meteorologists/clomatologists, some professional some amateurmany many years ago-just forget even the approximate year. Manchester probably.

It says first published in 1988.

[Methuselah]

I was going to reply but then I thought, what's the point, can't be bothered.

One thing I will say though, personally, as a sceptic, it's posts like the one above and the attitude it conveys which has done so much harm to the logical, scientific, sceptical viewpoint. It's stuff such as this which prevents the debate and the science from moving forward.

Quite agree, Dawn. The non-arguments you cite (being, in themselves, utterly scienceless) really make no useful contribution whatsoever! And, as you say, they could do as much damage to the sceptical viewpoint as do frivolous FOI requests...

[Village]

For the few who do believe the theory that we are changing global climate;

Sea levels have been rising at the rate of 3mm per year every year for hundreds of years. The rate of change is not accelerating. The Capital of East Anglia, a product from the Roman occupation 2,000 years ago and the largest port in the UK one thousand years ago became submerged 800 years ago. It is now two miles out under the North Sea. The annual 3mm rise in sea level continues.

What does this 'barometer' of climate change tell us about Man made climate change?

Edited January 10, 2012 by Village

[Methuselah]

Since when did 'isostacy' (as and of itself) teach us anything about climate?

[Village]

You can ignore the question or muddy the waters if you like. Its a simple enough question.

The 3mm figure is relative to sea level change only. The figure would be 6mm currently with techtonic play and rates of isostatic rebound taken into acount.

[BornFromTheVoid]

For the few who do believe the theory that we are changing global climate;

Sea levels have been rising at the rate of 3mm per year every year for hundreds of years. The rate of change is not accelerating. The Capital of East Anglia, a product from the Roman occupation 2,000 years ago and the largest port in the UK one thousand years ago became submerged 800 years ago. It is now two miles out under the North Sea. The annual 3mm rise in sea level continues.

What does this 'barometer' of climate change tell us about Man made climate change?

Have you anything to back that stuff up? Starting off your question with made up data to try and prove a point is logically absurd.

Where did you get the 3mm/year from? In this paper ...

Although mean sea level remained nearly stable

since the end of the last deglaciation [~3000 years

ago; e.g., (9)], tide gauge measurements available

since the late 19th century indicate that sea level

has risen by an average of 1.7 ± 0.3 mm/year

since 1950 (10). Since the early 1990s, SLR has

been routinely measured by high-precision altimeter satellites. From 1993 to 2009, the mean

rate of SLR amounts to 3.3 ± 0.4 mm/year (Fig. 1)

(11), suggesting that SLR is accelerating.

From a quick search, I presume you're referring to Dunwich? Which was affected by a large storm in 1287 that did a lot of damage around the Netherlands, Germany and south eastern England, the event was called St Lucia's Flood.

http://www.informati...tes.php?id=1205

http://www.villagene...287-storms.html

It has also suffered a lot from coastal erosion through the years, right up to present day, further reducing its size. Can't find anything about it ending up 2 miles out at sea, just a few hundred meters at most? Though there was another port town that ended up being a mile inland from the sea do to chocking of the harbour with silt and a general large sediment build up.

[jethro]

For the few who do believe the theory that we are changing global climate;

Sea levels have been rising at the rate of 3mm per year every year for hundreds of years. The rate of change is not accelerating. The Capital of East Anglia, a product from the Roman occupation 2,000 years ago and the largest port in the UK one thousand years ago became submerged 800 years ago. It is now two miles out under the North Sea. The annual 3mm rise in sea level continues.

What does this 'barometer' of climate change tell us about Man made climate change?

I know I said I wasn't going to bother but this area of the forum has had some ups and downs over the years, both members and forum team alike have worked hard over that time to ensure this area progresses so that intelligent, polite, informative debate can be had by all. With the greatest of respect Village, to date, the vast majority of your posts have come across as someone who really just wants to rant. You don't come across as someone who is interested in discussion, nor do you appear to be interested in the science of this subject, or credit other people with having knowledge equal or greater than your own. The key to never learning anything is to assume you know everything already; given the moving and developing nature of this topic, it is impossible to know all there is to know. Perhaps sometimes it is better to bite your tongue, or as the famous saying goes 'Better to be silent and thought a fool than open your mouth and remove all doubt'.

Moving on to more specifics....your post about sea level rise. Yes the theory of AGW says we can expect levels to rise, I accept there have been lots of media headlines proclaiming just such an occurrence is already happening. If you move beyond the headlines and hype and venture into the actual science papers it is clear that the potential for it to happen is there, what is also clear is that this idea has been hyped in the media. What the science actually says is that if we lose a lot of Antarctic ice or the Greenland ice cap, then we can expect sea levels to rise. Your stance of sea level rise is not accelerating and therefore the theory is baloney just doesn't stack up. What you're doing is responding to media headlines with more 'Red Top' style sound bites - you're not helping yourself and you're certainly not helping further either the debate or other people's understanding. The scientific approach requires a little more effort than that. What you have to study (or read other people's studies) are details such as how much ice has been lost from Antarctica and Greenland, has this been balanced by greater precipitation in the interior, has the global hydrological cycle changed, if so by how much etc etc etc. Looking at the East Anglian coastline and deciding simply from that that sea level aint rising is ludicrous.

Everyone here has a common interest, I assume by your presence that you too share those interests. There's not a lot of point in posting anything unless you are looking for conversation and interaction with other people; from what I can see at the moment you're not getting a lot of interaction because most members here have been around these parts long enough to have reached the point of 'can't be bothered with ranters'. I think you're doing yourself, this area and the science a dis-service with the style of posting you have made to date. Clearly we're all entitled to our opinions but I can't help but wonder if really you just want a bit of a moan and climate change is just the latest on your hit list of things which cheese you off, I'm all for a good moan, it's good for the soul but really rants are best done in private or risk looking a little daft - perhaps a blog would be the answer?

[Village]

The whole flavour of your post has nothing to do with the subject.

the subject of this thread is ....The Taboo Of Not Subscribing To Anthropological Global Warming

It clearly is Taboo here if one cant ask difficult questions without personal attacks

My post was not a rant. It was a simple question......Bearing in mind that the sea level rate of change is not changing; (please note that you have not read my post correctly I did not state that the sea level is not rising) What does this 'barometer' of climate change tell us about Man made climate change?

Its a sensible question. Its not rude, its not a rant.

Edited January 10, 2012 by Village

[knocker]

thanks for that D-I have to admit I really did not follow him very closely after seeing his lecture about the Ice Age cometh, unfair to him, I still have some of his original work on CET data.

What was the date that was published D please?

I might see if I could get hold of a copy if its not too expensive-I did admire him much of the time and felt very priveleged to have met him and been part of about half a dozen meteorologists/clomatologists, some professional some amateurmany many years ago-just forget even the approximate year. Manchester probably.

Another of his later books worth reading John (If you haven't already) is Climate, History and the Modern World. First published in 1982 and reprinted in 1985, 1995. 1997.