Tell us we're all doomed, MPs beg climate scientists

"man made global warming's widely predicted effects are becoming more noticeable...."

Man made global warming's No.1 most "widely predicted effect" was supposed to be, er.. Global Warming.

#failharder

...man made global warming's widely predicted effects...

What was widely predicted was drought. That's why we were forced to save water.

The answer is nuclear power. What was the question again?

Actually, what the government did was funnel a *relatively* modest amount of money into green energy then conveniently fail to challenge those who chose to undermine it with ludicrous exaggerations and outright lies. (Wind farms are killing all our birds!! One wind farm won't power the whole of Birmingham so we shouldn't build any at all!!!)

At which point, surprise surprise, it turns out there's only one alternative - the insanity of more nuclear fission plants. A way of throwing billions of pounds at huge corporations who will over-charge and under-deliver, after which the public sector will have to pay the cost of cleaning up the waste. Again. As a nation we haven't even finished paying for the first wave of nuclear power yet.

Of course the government could put lots more investment into energy efficiency so we don't need so much of it in the first place. That would make both environmental and economic sense, which is why the government is raising the levies on power companies to... oh, wait. Hang on a minute.

When people start listing reasons as to why they cannot donate to one charity or another NGO, i think they are just making excuses. FOE has no anti nuclear campaign and hasn't for many years. If you are a bird lover as you say, you should still support the RSPB. You cannot expect to agree with everything that any one charity or NGO does or believes.

Re: Thing is, we *are* all doomed.

"When you're captaining a cruise liner, it's generally a better idea to steer away from the rocks in the first place, than to be the first one in the lifeboats. No matter how impressed your mates might be by you sailing so close to the shore."

You thinking emotionally and not rationally. This is a *very* bad analogy.

A better analogy is do you need to saw your leg off because you've picked up a bruise. Every policy response to climate change has a benefit and a cost. If the costs of a policy outweigh the benefits they are not worth pursuing. It so happens that the cost of adaptation and building up resilience capacity (go look up RCI) is much lower than mitigation. This is now what is happening: even the EU realises renewables are suicidal.

I suggest you start to read up on CO2 fertilization, because your idea that a CO2 enriched atmosphere mass famines is not remotely supportable. CO2 is plant food. Maybe you missed that particular science lesson at school.

Re: Thing is, we *are* all doomed.

There always was famine and disease, no need for global warming aka climate change to be blamed for that too.

As far as I can see, we need several generations to die en-masse (disease and hunger are good, less destructive than war and more Darwinesque) to keep our numbers down-something has to.

@Ken Hagan

I am afraid there seems to be a discontinuity in your argument. The quotation I cited mentioned science, but you then said something about an economist. Surely you don't believe that economists have anything to do with science? I thought they were more into telling rich and powerful people what those people want to hear. It certainly pays well, but so does astrology.

Re: A rule of thumb

> This is about how many squabbling there is:

That's a nice chart. It tells us that almost no-one refutes man-made climate change. And I believe it. However the squabbling is not about the fact, but what all those clever people say is:

a) the degree of any problem that MMCC brings

b) the seriousness of it

c) the probability that any given outcome will will come to pass - and when that will be

d) the degree to which I can affect the outcome

e) what lengths (and by lengths, I mean inconvenience) I should be prepared to go to, to affect that outcome

So merely for lots of PhDs to say "yes, mankind is warming the planet" is like people saying "yes, I believe in gravity". It's a recognition of a phenomenon, (possibly even: truth by acclamation) but it's unhelpful in making any judgments about the effect, it's affect, the implications of it and whether I, personally, need to do anything about it. That's what all of us, who don't make a living arguing about it, need to know. So far the range of "solutions" ranges from the sublime to the ridiculous and the rate at which new doom and forebodings, extreme suggestions and changes-of-opinion come along does nothing to increase the credibility of the field, as a whole.

Once that all comes to a consensus, then there will a reason to address the issue. Hopefully it won't take all the squabbling scientists so long to sort themselves out that it'll all be far too late to do anything.

Re: Climate Change is Currently More Theology Than Science

@ Roland6

"The evidence todate on scientific and statistical modelling is that the models are likely to never be that accurate. However that doesn't mean that what they tell us is worthless. The real question we need to ask is are the models reliable?"

And that has been answered too. When they say something completely different to what happens then they are wrong. It means they need more work, to be made reliable. But they are not reliable (as this article clearly addresses).

The climate models are useful just like the many failed attempts at making a light bulb. Because getting it wrong can lead to getting it right (if you have the will to get it right).

Re: Climate Change is Currently More Theology Than Science

"Data is manipulated"

Yes, it is. The thing about not publishing the raw results is that we have to take the subsequent processing without analysis. Many climate papers not only refuse to publish raw data, but don't publish the detailed methodology (source code, spreadsheets) used to correct it.

The "data" you see on the well-known climate data sites (NOAA, GISS) are being corrected - and these corrections are revised each year, even on past data. What you have to trust is that these revisions are founded on sound principles. Some enterprising souls have been capturing the historic versions of historic data, and observe that older temperatures are being revised downward, making recent temperatures look more extreme. Are these revisions valid? No-one can tell, as the revisors aren't telling, or sometimes even admitting that these revisions have taken place.

When the data is being mucked about with like this (never mind the ClimateGate shenanegans) is it not reasonable to be skeptical about some of the conclusions?

Re: Climate Change is Currently More Theology Than Science

"we are currently warming the planet at a geologically incredibly fast rate,"

Un, hello? 1999 called and it wants its thermometer back.

Re: Climate Change is Currently More Theology Than Science

Welcome to the 21st Century - it doesn't seem like you have quite caught up yet... There are various cycles that explain the current situation. The current lack of Sun Spot activity might for instance mean that we are heading for a mini ice age. This does not change the fact that versus other

variables, we are currently warming the planet at a geologically incredibly fast rate, and that even if we did experience such a cold snap - once the Sun returned to normal activity, global warming would also return wtih a vengance...

This is the worst kind of defense of the innaccuracy of cloimate models possible. You are essentially saying that, yes the models were wrong, but only because we didn't add some extra variable we didn't know about. Now we know about it you can trust us.

I could just as easily argue that, without the excess amounts of CO2, the current lack of sunspots would send us tumbling into a much more severe mini-ice age, like the one a few centuries back, therefore the added CO2 magic is actually a blessing. Let's keep belching it out until we escape the ice age!

You have completely failed to be honest and accept a model is wrong and has been discredited, by observation. The steady state theory of the universe was a viable contender with the big bang theory until observations proved it couldn't explain the universe as well. That's science.

AGW theory is a lame duck and is, thankfully, dying.

we are currently warming the planet at a geologically incredibly fast rate

No we are not. Prove it! There has been essentially no significant warming for over a decade. AGW Theory is a geologically incredibly falsified theory.

Sun returned to normal activity, global warming would also return wtih a vengance...

Based on what? Your model failed to account for this, so what good is your model in predicting different rates of Solar Activity. How does your model handle other unknown variables that can apparantly halt global warming at a "geologically incredibly fast rate"? It's nonesense. It's a failed theory. In any of the hard sciences this theory would have been eviscerated. It's only in the echo chamber of climate journals, the vulture green organizations that latch onto their every word, and a few absurd politicians that this is still doing the rounds.

Re: Climate Change is Currently More Theology Than Science

@AC

"No it isn't - there are a few whackos left that still deny it - and they get more than their fair share of airtime..."

Calling people wackos is a form of suppression. It is suppression through insult. Normally performed by those who can't actually create a valid case to argue.

"Hundreds of solutions have been proposed. Numerous scientific papers suggest potential solutions and mitigations."

All of which have one basic tenet.......reduce atmospheric CO2. So, ultimately, whilst the method of doing this is different, the same basic solution exists.

"Raw data is meaningless without context and analysis. Raw data is not 'suppressed' more than in any other scientific field."

Absolutely it is. There have been numerous cases where scientists and institutes have refused to release the raw data or give any clue on how they are 'correcting' the data. What possible harm could come of releasing this information, yet it is routinely not being done by scientists. Are we supposed to just trust that their oh so gargantuan brains have done the correcting right?

"Only by climate change deniers. Not scientists."

Absolute rubbish. Most of the time we never know how the data is being 'corrected' (this is manipulation anyway!!) and therefore cannot know why or if done correctly. The University of East Anglia especially has been found out doing some very dodgy things. How the same published data changes over the years is also most odd.

"How long is a piece of string? It varies. They are frequently tested - for instance against historical data."

Anybody can make the data fit historical data. The real way to test theories etc. is to predict something that comes true. Hindsight is a wonderful thing and predicting what has already happened is a remarkably simple thing.

"I think we are doing our best, but a few die hard climate change deniers hold on to their outdated views...The scientific concensus is already pretty much universal."

What's this got to do with finding more people who obey normal scientific process and don't adjust their data to fit the next paycheck?

"Welcome to the 21st Century - it doesn't seem like you have quite caught up yet... There are various cycles that explain the current situation. The current lack of Sun Spot activity might for instance mean that we are heading for a mini ice age. This does not change the fact that versus other variables, we are currently warming the planet at a geologically incredibly fast rate, and that even if we did experience such a cold snap - once the Sun returned to normal activity, global warming would also return wtih a vengance..."

Cycles that were not predicted or explained by any previous theory!! You've just undermined your own case. You've just identified an outside influence which could have a huge effect (as you've explained) that isn't even taken into account by most theories!! We are currently warming the planet as a geologically incredibly fast rate? Absolute rubbish. There have been many point in geological history where CO2 levels have been higher and lower. Also where the rate of change has been much more abrupt. The same applies to temperatures. You've obviously swallowed all the propaganda and not looked into geological history and how extreme and swift some changes have been.

"What has running out of money got to do with it? Or did you mean 'broken' but are poorly educated?"

If we don't work out what's "broken" and why it is, we will be "broke"!! Sending the UK to the bottom of the world poverty table all by itself isn't going to help save the planet. Individual action isn't good enough here, it must be concerted, global action if we're to have an effect (should we need to).

By the way, I'm neither an advocate or denier of global warming, whether manmade or not. I accept that things are changing, but that's the nature of things like geology and weather and climate.....it doesn't change. What I do know is at thinking everything should remain exactly as is and just nice and wonderful for us humans is stupid and won't ever happen. Whether mankind is doing it or some natural process is to a large extent irrelevant. Mankind has to learn that keeping everything the same is never going to happen and would be stupidly expensive to even attempt. What we need to do, is learn to move with it. In this respect even ancient man was far more intelligent. If the seas rise, move inland. If they drop, move out. If one part of the world gets too hotter, move somewhere else. It's only the stupidities of mankind with politics etc.etc. that makes this difficult.

Re: Sir

Your point being?

Models provide predictions, since you can't very well measure something that hasn't happened yet, but you can use measurements to increase accuracy of models and improve their predictive algorythms

Great. Let us know when the models aren't spitting out crap.

Re: Sir

"Some people aren't yet convinced that climate change is man-made."

Yes, it took al long time to persuade some people that the world wasn't flat too...

It hasn't been in any reasonable doubt for at least a decade that average global temperature is rising rapidly and continues to do so, and than mankind is at least partly responsible due to CO2 emissions.

The generally accepted position is that scientists are very sure (99%+ probability) that humans are the primary cause of global warming...

Re: Just wait

Apologies to both Clarke and Plank - I was so convinced it was a Clarke-ism I didn't check. Maybe the version I quoted was Clarke's succinct paraphrasing?

Re: quibble

"99.9% of climate scientists believe in agw"

99.9% of all scientists believe in AGW - not just climate ones.

Re: @Nom

But having all the skeptics on the panel agree that human CO2 emissions will significantly warm the planet is at least progress. There was not one of them that questioned the greenhouse effect, argued that volcanoes emit more CO2 than man or that the Sun is more important. Skeptics have upped their game.

Re: Garbage In Garbage Out

@ pierce

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-25743806

Just to contribute

Re: Garbage In Garbage Out

>>"the suns energy output is remarkably steady regardless of solar flares, sunspot cycles and such."

Oh for Pity's sake. Seriously? How can you just say something like "regardless of solar flares, sunspot cycles and such" with a straight face. The Sun's energy output is remarkably steady regardless of frequent and pseudo-random events that produce significant variation? Hanibal Lecter is a well socialised human being regardless of the occasional murder and eating people? Just because you identify the weaknesses in your own argument and name them, doesn't mean you get to dismiss them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_cycle

Look at variation in energy output over time. There are semi-predictable cycles but we still don't have the degree of that variation down to anything like predictability.

Things like your post are what push people away from agreeing with AGW, because they see themselves being told they're wrong by people who clearly don't have a good grasp of the science themselves and are just arguing from an a priori belief in AGW.

Everytime someone posts an obviously false counter-argument to a query or question by a skeptic, that skeptics distrust of AGW proponents increases.