Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 3

Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 3

TOPIC CLOSED
TOPIC CLOSED
Author
Discussion

rovermorris999

5,195 posts

188 months

Wednesday 25th November 2015
quotequote all
''My point was simply that it is not beyond the wit of man to understand complicated and chaotic things to the extent that we understand them enough to manage them.''

Good luck with managing the climate of a planet.

turbobloke

103,742 posts

259 months

Wednesday 25th November 2015
quotequote all
rovermorris999 said:
''My point was simply that it is not beyond the wit of man to understand complicated and chaotic things to the extent that we understand them enough to manage them.''

Good luck with managing the climate of a planet.
Yes, very best wishes on that score.

Managing means making inputs, another word for perturbations, and the long-term outcome from any perturbation to a chaotic system can't be predicted. Initial conditions, initial to each perturbation, will always be different.

Want A, do B, get C. Then next time do B and get D.

Where exactly did we come in on this nuts

LongQ

13,864 posts

232 months

Wednesday 25th November 2015
quotequote all
durbster said:
You can't say that climate is a very complex system that's difficult to predict and then also deride somebody who got a prediction wrong.
Seems fair to be suspicious if that same person (or others referring to them) are also claiming that the climate is "well understood", the "science is settled" and there is a "97% consensus among those who, apparently, all "understand" this complexity.

Yep it's difficult to predict but they push ahead with proposing controlling "solutions" as if it was relatively simple and then invoke the precautionary principle as justification.

No matter that many, perhaps nearly all scientifically based natural interventions in nature turn out to have some negative side effects die lack of complete understanding.

Those that might conceivably be thought of as subject to rigorous controls (GM? Nuclear?) then become the least trusted solutions available by the very people who push unprovable "natural" solutions for all things Gaia. To me that smacks of delusional cognitive dissonance.



durbster said:
I had a quick look at those videos from Edenhofer and will watch them again when I have time, but global economics is far too complex and chaotic for my liking. wink
They are quite short and not terribly complex presentations. Designed for the masses, mainly. Especially the advertorial one.

There's no need to understand the economics in what he is saying - just whether he is indicating the same sort of conclusion or directions that are contained in the gist of the quote posted earlier which you questioned.

You might denate whether he, personally, sees it as a natural result of the only logical policy that he thinks workable ... or whether he thinks the redistribution is a desirable outcome and therefore proposes a policy that would require such an outcome.

Either way the original quote would seem to be indicative of his expected outcome and therefore what the series of IPCC reports and COP meetings are seeking to deliver.


turbobloke

103,742 posts

259 months

Wednesday 25th November 2015
quotequote all
durbster said:
You can't say that climate is a very complex system that's difficult to predict and then also deride somebody who got a prediction wrong.
Yes you can. They can be derided twice: firstly for being unwise enough to do it, then again for getting it wrong. This is known as negative feedback, which naturally the people involved cannot see.

It's been that way for many years, with unwise people doing it repeatedly and repeatedly getting it wrong.

The financial rewards and status enhancements for doing it and getting the wrong answer scientifically, which is nevertheless the required answer politically, explain how it keeps happening.

nuts

gareth_r

5,712 posts

236 months

Wednesday 25th November 2015
quotequote all
Oh, BBC, you do surprise me!

COP 21: 2015 likely to be warmest on record, says UN weather body

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-3491...


robinessex

11,046 posts

180 months

Wednesday 25th November 2015
quotequote all
gareth_r said:
Oh, BBC, you do surprise me!

COP 21: 2015 likely to be warmest on record, says UN weather body

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-3491...
I like the very precise word LIKELY in that title !!!!

turbobloke

103,742 posts

259 months

Wednesday 25th November 2015
quotequote all
robinessex said:
gareth_r said:
Oh, BBC, you do surprise me!

COP 21: 2015 likely to be warmest on record, says UN weather body

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-3491...
I like the very precise word LIKELY in that title !!!!
When there are people metaphorically sitting with fingers over keyboard that can make it happen, it's likely! It depends only on how far they're prepared to take the piss, and as we saw from the ship intakes fiasco, they go a long way for a leak.

robinessex

11,046 posts

180 months

Wednesday 25th November 2015
quotequote all
You can add this from the Beeb as well:-

COP21: Why do two degrees matter?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-3492...

Incidently, BBC environment correspondent Matt McGrath is on twitter, which I can't be bothered with. Anyone here like to fire a few truthes at him. @mattmcgrathbbc

turbobloke

103,742 posts

259 months

Wednesday 25th November 2015
quotequote all
El Nino gets a mention but even so, after looking through the report twice, I can't see where the BBC point out whether 0.5 deg C, 0.6 deg C, 0.7 deg C or all of the claimed warming arose from adjustments to data.

It's not manmade as we know it Scotty, beam the UN up asap.

Beati Dogu

8,862 posts

138 months

Wednesday 25th November 2015
quotequote all
Another win for the misanthropic greenies & troughers:

"Winter deaths 'highest since 1999'"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-34919149


dudleybloke

19,717 posts

185 months

Wednesday 25th November 2015
quotequote all

http://youtu.be/lQqPQ0i_fl0fl0

Lies, Damned Lies, and Global Warming Statistics
Corbett report special.

turbobloke

103,742 posts

259 months

Wednesday 25th November 2015
quotequote all
Of all things, this comment leapt out.

"so why are all the glaciers around the world melting??"

Because they're not, that might explain it.

Mr GrimNasty

8,172 posts

169 months

Wednesday 25th November 2015
quotequote all
robinessex said:
You can add this from the Beeb as well:-

COP21: Why do two degrees matter?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-3492...

Incidently, BBC environment correspondent Matt McGrath is on twitter, which I can't be bothered with. Anyone here like to fire a few truthes at him. @mattmcgrathbbc
Pointless. It will just be deleted, 'we' tried to ask him why he was claiming a picture was showing 'flowers growing in Greenland as temperatures rise indicating that global warming is having real impacts' under a picture of Arctic Cotton Grass growing where it has 'always' grown. The article remains on the BBC site still with this misleading caption.

don4l

10,058 posts

175 months

Wednesday 25th November 2015
quotequote all
durbster said:
You can't say that climate is a very complex system that's difficult to predict and then also deride somebody who got a prediction wrong.
Twaddle.

If you know that it is a chaotic system, then you shouldn't be stupid enough to make silly predictions.

The fact that you cannot understand this is mildly worrying.


turbobloke

103,742 posts

259 months

Wednesday 25th November 2015
quotequote all
While the inevitable UK funding of climaboolix continues, there were a couple of minor positives in Osborne's statement. Maybe three.

Osborne said:
DECC’s day to day resource budget will fall by 22%.

We’re going to permanently exempt our Energy Intensive Industries like steel and chemicals from the cost of environmental tariffs, so we keep their bills down, keep them competitive and keep them here.

We’re also supporting the creation of the shale gas industry by ensuring that communities benefit from a Shale Wealth Fund, which could be worth up to £1bn.

durbster

10,223 posts

221 months

Wednesday 25th November 2015
quotequote all
LongQ said:
...Seems fair to be suspicious if that same person (or others referring to them) are also claiming that the climate is "well understood", the "science is settled" and there is a "97% consensus among those who, apparently, all "understand" this complexity.
I don't think anybody is claiming they understand the details and the nuances which is why research is constantly ongoing. When I hear things along the lines of "the science is settled", I simply take that as meaning the greenhouse effect is understood and proveable scientifically, and we are quite clearly releasing a lot of greenhouse gas.

I also think a lot of those popular phrases were the kind of things said by scientists who were/are not media or politically savvy, so take them with a pinch of salt.

LongQ said:
Yep it's difficult to predict but they push ahead with proposing controlling "solutions" as if it was relatively simple and then invoke the precautionary principle as justification.

No matter that many, perhaps nearly all scientifically based natural interventions in nature turn out to have some negative side effects die lack of complete understanding.
Yep, this is absolutely an area of concern. We have often ballsed things up catastrophically despite the best of intentions.

But I think the risks associated with tackling climate change are all economic rather than environmental, and I suspect that's the prime source of the well-funded campaign of misinformation that we have to endure.

LongQ said:
Those that might conceivably be thought of as subject to rigorous controls (GM? Nuclear?) then become the least trusted solutions available by the very people who push unprovable "natural" solutions for all things Gaia. To me that smacks of delusional cognitive dissonance.
Agree on that. Nuclear power should have been a no-brainer decades ago but political and public perception post-Chernobyl (presumably) became disastrously out of step with the reality. I guess this is another example of where better science reporting in the press could have regained public trust but nuclear apocalypse is a far more interesting story.

LongQ said:
durbster said:
I had a quick look at those videos from Edenhofer and will watch them again when I have time, but global economics is far too complex and chaotic for my liking. wink
They are quite short and not terribly complex presentations. Designed for the masses, mainly. Especially the advertorial one.
OK, I admit that line was just for the benefit of my little joke. smile

I will watch them when I get chance but I think I know their content and already disagree with you. hehe

Btw, I do appreciate that you're actually addressing my posts rather than the lazy sneers they usually get biggrinbeer

TheExcession

11,669 posts

249 months

Wednesday 25th November 2015
quotequote all
durbster said:
Btw, I do appreciate that you're actually addressing my posts rather than the lazy sneers they usually get biggrinbeer
OK, I'll jump in here and take the flack.

Because, basically you are a bit wrong.

What we, sorry WE, the people of PH that have been watching over and following all these debates over years and years are waiting for is a simple recognisable sign that humans affect climate.

Once this is established all bets are off.

PRTVR

7,073 posts

220 months

Wednesday 25th November 2015
quotequote all
durbster said:
LongQ said:
...Seems fair to be suspicious if that same person (or others referring to them) are also claiming that the climate is "well understood", the "science is settled" and there is a "97% consensus among those who, apparently, all "understand" this complexity.
I don't think anybody is claiming they understand the details and the nuances which is why research is constantly ongoing. When I hear things along the lines of "the science is settled", I simply take that as meaning the greenhouse effect is understood and proveable scientifically, and we are quite clearly releasing a lot of greenhouse gases
What is a lot? CO2 is a trace gas in the atmosphere, the man made part is a small part of this, CO2 at this percentage is practically irrelevant, perhaps I should remove all the insulation in my loft and replace it with 5 or 6 small polystyrene balls, do you think it will work better?

Beati Dogu

8,862 posts

138 months

Wednesday 25th November 2015
quotequote all
chris watton said:
Climate trougher Tim Yeo loses libel action against Sunday Times

http://order-order.com/2015/11/25/tim-yeo-loses-li...

'Yeo has to make a costs down payment to The Sunday Times of £411,000 within 28 days.'
laugh

That's worth a bump.



robinessex

11,046 posts

180 months

Wednesday 25th November 2015
quotequote all
To put it in a form most can understand, I liken EXCESSIVE CO2 contribution by humans, as half a dozen people trying to stop a locust swarm with fly swats !!!
TOPIC CLOSED
TOPIC CLOSED