Climate Change - The Scientific Debate

[Toaster]

Moonhawk said:

Toaster said:

The point being made is the rate of change of the ice fields and how the are not returning.

But there is a fundamental assumption in there that is unfounded.....i.e. that they should return. This planet has been without permanent icecaps and permanent glaciers for much of it's history - who is to say we aren't simply entering one of those periods (perhaps aided in some part by man's contribution)?

Toaster said:

You later statement "The planet is in a constant state of change, always has been and always will" is incorrect as nothing is forever and once our plant ceases to change we are all doomed but that is not what the documentary is about or states.

It isn't. Our planet will never cease to change. It may cease to exist as a planet due to some catastrophic event or when the sun goes red giant and consumes it - but it will never cease changing for as long as it exists. Nothing in the universe is unchanging or static (unless of course you assume the universe will end up in a "heat death" scenario - but something tells me that is somewhat beyond the remit of this discussion).

Edited by Moonhawk on Sunday 3rd May 13:38

I think you misunderstand as far as our environment is concerned it is far from stable which is a good thing should it reach a stable state then life won't exist. Of course I do understand that the plant has gone through periods of icecaps disappearing and re-apearing and there has been during those times that Humans have not been in existence.

My comment regarding the current receding of the ice caps is that a) this is happening in a much faster time line and b) it has concequences

Entire nation of Kiribati to be relocated over rising sea level threat
The low-lying Pacific nation of Kiribati is negotiating to buy land in Fiji so it can relocate islanders under threat from rising sea levels.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/australi...

It doesn't effect me or you yet and our landscape is always changing but lets see in another 20-30 years this thread may have a different view both in terms of scientific research and the climate impact.

[Toaster]

PRTVR said:

But is coralation causation? When we are talking about a chaotic system that we do not fully understand.

Possibly, possibly not, and I agree it is dealing with uncertainty and therefore as you say we do not fully understand it but I think there is a good guess going on based on some solid evidence of the speed of change so what if................just what if Human activity is causing climate change and we could do something about it by using alternatives.....taking care of what we do and how we do it. it would be so careless of us as a Human race not to.

[PRTVR]

Toaster said:

PRTVR said:

But is coralation causation? When we are talking about a chaotic system that we do not fully understand.

Possibly, possibly not, and I agree it is dealing with uncertainty and therefore as you say we do not fully understand it but I think there is a good guess going on based on some solid evidence of the speed of change so what if................just what if Human activity is causing climate change and we could do something about it by using alternatives.....taking care of what we do and how we do it. it would be so careless of us as a Human race not to.

The precautionary principle, it sounds good in theory but in practice its never going to work, in the UK we are shutting down our coal power stations, the few we have, at the same time the Chinese are building one a week, the switch gear from our last coal power station to be shut down was shipped to Germany to be fitted into one of their new coal power stations being built, the new satellite that shows the CO2 in the atmosphere shows its located not over the developed nations but over the developing nations, its all about politics, nothing to do with saving the planet and we have another thread for that.

[plunker]

Toaster said:

The lukewarmers don’t deny climate change. But they say the outlook’s fine

There are climate change sceptics, mainstream scientists – and a significant group in the middle. Whose voice is being heeded

Prof Brian Cox recommended - so it must be good!

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/may/03/cli...

Good article.

"But by far the most common kind of non-mainstream, contrarian view I see in the UK – particularly in politicians, journalists and bloggers – is the self-described “lukewarmer”."

hmmm doesn't look like she reads pistonheads

[hidetheelephants]

plunker said:

Toaster said:

The lukewarmers don’t deny climate change. But they say the outlook’s fine

There are climate change sceptics, mainstream scientists – and a significant group in the middle. Whose voice is being heeded

Prof Brian Cox recommended - so it must be good!

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/may/03/cli...

Good article.

"But by far the most common kind of non-mainstream, contrarian view I see in the UK – particularly in politicians, journalists and bloggers – is the self-described “lukewarmer”."

hmmm doesn't look like she reads pistonheads

On a related thread;

hidetheelephants said:

I am sceptical about AGW, but tbh it doesn't matter; the engineering aspects of combatting(or not) AGW are the only bits which really interest me, and no-one is actually doing very much to combat CO2 emissions. What we have instead is a bizarre cargo cult involving snake oil salemen flogging windmills and solar panels to mugs. I have to conclude that it's a scam, or our political leaders are also mugs(or in on the scam). Physics is a cruel mistress and is not susceptible to bullst.

[plunker]

hidetheelephants said:

plunker said:

Toaster said:

The lukewarmers don’t deny climate change. But they say the outlook’s fine

There are climate change sceptics, mainstream scientists – and a significant group in the middle. Whose voice is being heeded

Prof Brian Cox recommended - so it must be good!

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/may/03/cli...

Good article.

"But by far the most common kind of non-mainstream, contrarian view I see in the UK – particularly in politicians, journalists and bloggers – is the self-described “lukewarmer”."

hmmm doesn't look like she reads pistonheads

On a related thread;

hidetheelephants said:

I am sceptical about AGW, but tbh it doesn't matter; the engineering aspects of combatting(or not) AGW are the only bits which really interest me, and no-one is actually doing very much to combat CO2 emissions. What we have instead is a bizarre cargo cult involving snake oil salemen flogging windmills and solar panels to mugs. I have to conclude that it's a scam, or our political leaders are also mugs(or in on the scam). Physics is a cruel mistress and is not susceptible to bullst.

You basically just said your views on the science are based on policy responses that you dissapprove of - bit of a duff post for a science thread (but entirely consistent).

[hidetheelephants]

plunker said:

You basically just said your views on the science are based on policy responses that you dissapprove of - bit of a duff post for a science thread (but entirely consistent).

Not really, I did not elaborate on why I'm a sceptic. I am responding to a sequence of posts concerning politics, one of which is yours.

Approval or otherwise is of no import, the policy is ineffectual in terms of the stated objective; the efficacy of solar and wind farms in replacing coal and gas generation and reducing CO2 output per kWh is negligible relative to the cost. When the objective and the outcome of the policy supposed to achieve it are so far apart it seems reasonable to question why.

[tight fart]

The planet only has one problem, Man.
Man has one problem, there's to many of us.
Once we leave, the planet will be fine. Simples

[Mr2Mike]

Toaster said:

Yes it is its called empirical evidence it is observational data

If I go around taking only pictures of inner city slums and avoiding pictures of the nice areas, does that provide scientific evidence that the entire world is doomed to become an inner city slum?

[plunker]

hidetheelephants said:

plunker said:

You basically just said your views on the science are based on policy responses that you dissapprove of - bit of a duff post for a science thread (but entirely consistent).

Not really, I did not elaborate on why I'm a sceptic. I am responding to a sequence of posts concerning politics, one of which is yours.

Approval or otherwise is of no import, the policy is ineffectual in terms of the stated objective; the efficacy of solar and wind farms in replacing coal and gas generation and reducing CO2 output per kWh is negligible relative to the cost. When the objective and the outcome of the policy supposed to achieve it are so far apart it seems reasonable to question why.

Where was the politics in my post? It was about views on the science and climate sensitivity. I generally swerve getting into policy response discussion on this thread.

[maxxy5]

Matt Ridley on being a 'lukewarmer', it was in the Times but you can read it here - http://www.rationaloptimist.com/blog/my-life-as-a-...

Edited by maxxy5 on Monday 4th May 14:39

[hidetheelephants]

plunker said:

Where was the politics in my post? It was about views on the science and climate sensitivity. I generally swerve getting into policy response discussion on this thread.

You opined about a newspaper article on climate politics and opinions; that may not be your definition of politics but it's definitely not science. I think we ought to leave it there.

[Toaster]

Mr2Mike said:

If I go around taking only pictures of inner city slums and avoiding pictures of the nice areas, does that provide scientific evidence that the entire world is doomed to become an inner city slum?

You need to understand what research is and what empirical evidence is, if your research was about slums in Bangalor over a set period of time then yes it is relevant,

I suggest you go and look up what research design is and you may, just may understand what research is.

Edited by Toaster on Monday 4th May 20:40

[Toaster]

Mr2Mike said:

If I go around taking only pictures of inner city slums and avoiding pictures of the nice areas, does that provide scientific evidence that the entire world is doomed to become an inner city slum?

You need to understand what research is and what empirical evidence is, if your research was about slums in Bangalor over a set period of time then yes it is relevant,

I suggest you go and look up what research design is and you may, just may understand what research is.

Edited by Toaster on Monday 4th May 20:46

[PRTVR]

Toaster said:

Mr2Mike said:

If I go around taking only pictures of inner city slums and avoiding pictures of the nice areas, does that provide scientific evidence that the entire world is doomed to become an inner city slum?

You need to understand what research is and what empirical evidence is, if your research was about slums in Bangalor over a set period of time then yes it is relevant,

I suggest you go and look up research design is and you may, just may understand what research is.

One of the problems I have is the people who go into climate research, my belief is that it will attract people who have a green bias, with all their concepts of how things work all pre defined, will this have an effect on the research, I think it must, leading to a biased outcome, this problem is not unique to climate research, imagine two pieces of research on housing requirements for a town, one with a socialist view point, another with a capitalist view, the two pieces of research will be totally different.

[Toaster]

PRTVR said:

One of the problems I have is the people who go into climate research, my belief is that it will attract people who have a green bias, with all their concepts of how things work all pre defined, will this have an effect on the research, I think it must, leading to a biased outcome, this problem is not unique to climate research, imagine two pieces of research on housing requirements for a town, one with a socialist view point, another with a capitalist view, the two pieces of research will be totally different.

I can't disagree that a researcher may have an expected outcome or as per this link the researcher was totally disgraced http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/12/19/us-japan-...

However if a good research frame work is applied and biases acknowledged the work can be peer reviewed and agreement can be gained, I think your concern whilst partially true good research is what a scientist is after.

So here is some criteria Qaulatitive research should pass according to Miles and Guberman

Miles and Huberman's Evaluative Criteria http://www.qualres.org/HomeMile-3675.html

Objectivity/Confirmability - relative neutrality, freedom from unacknowledged researcher bias, explicitness about inevitable bias

Reliability/Dependability/Auditability is the process of the study consistent and reasonably stable over time and across researchers and methods? (Miles and Huberman, 1994, p. 278):

Internal Validity/Credibility/Authenticity - Truth value. Do the findings of the study make sense? Are they credible to the people studied, members of the research community, and others?

External Validity/Transferability/Fittingness - Do the conclusions of a study have any larger import? Are they transferable to other contexts? Do they fit with what we already know? How far can findings be generalized?

Utilization/Application/Action Orientation - What does the study do for participants? What is the pragmatic value of the research?

Just one last point

There are many truth's in this world therefore both the socialist and capitalist one is valid. Particularly for a qualitative approach as long as the bias perspective/paradigm ontology or epistemology (e.g. positivist, post positivist, critical theorist, constructionist) approach is clear then Society has to decide which path to tread

Edited by Toaster on Tuesday 5th May 10:28

[durbster]

PRTVR said:

One of the problems I have is the people who go into climate research, my belief is that it will attract people who have a green bias, with all their concepts of how things work all pre defined, will this have an effect on the research, I think it must, leading to a biased outcome, this problem is not unique to climate research, imagine two pieces of research on housing requirements for a town, one with a socialist view point, another with a capitalist view, the two pieces of research will be totally different.

What you're basically saying here is that you don't believe in the scientific method - is that correct?

The fact that humans are fallible and have bias is exactly why we have the scientific method. The whole point of using it is to remove as much bias or assumption as possible.

[PRTVR]

durbster said:

PRTVR said:

One of the problems I have is the people who go into climate research, my belief is that it will attract people who have a green bias, with all their concepts of how things work all pre defined, will this have an effect on the research, I think it must, leading to a biased outcome, this problem is not unique to climate research, imagine two pieces of research on housing requirements for a town, one with a socialist view point, another with a capitalist view, the two pieces of research will be totally different.

What you're basically saying here is that you don't believe in the scientific method - is that correct?

The fact that humans are fallible and have bias is exactly why we have the scientific method. The whole point of using it is to remove as much bias or assumption as possible.

But it is not science in the normal understanding of the word, a lot of it is opinions and theory's, measurements are taken, but it can be only over a short timescale, take the scientists on the BBC this morning, talking about polar ice, and how things are changing rapidly, they were talking as if it was a danger, but turbobloke posted a news article that was from a ships captain in the 1800s reporting the lack of ice in the artic along with talk of a Northwest passage, these things have happened in the past, collecting the data is not the problem its when the cause and effect theory's are produced that the bias comes in,
it could even be a problem before the data is collected, the expedition was probably to study the effects of climate change on the artic, setting out expectations even before any data is collected.

[London424]

PRTVR said:

durbster said:

PRTVR said:

One of the problems I have is the people who go into climate research, my belief is that it will attract people who have a green bias, with all their concepts of how things work all pre defined, will this have an effect on the research, I think it must, leading to a biased outcome, this problem is not unique to climate research, imagine two pieces of research on housing requirements for a town, one with a socialist view point, another with a capitalist view, the two pieces of research will be totally different.

What you're basically saying here is that you don't believe in the scientific method - is that correct?

The fact that humans are fallible and have bias is exactly why we have the scientific method. The whole point of using it is to remove as much bias or assumption as possible.

But it is not science in the normal understanding of the word, a lot of it is opinions and theory's, measurements are taken, but it can be only over a short timescale, take the scientists on the BBC this morning, talking about polar ice, and how things are changing rapidly, they were talking as if it was a danger, but turbobloke posted a news article that was from a ships captain in the 1800s reporting the lack of ice in the artic along with talk of a Northwest passage, these things have happened in the past, collecting the data is not the problem its when the cause and effect theory's are produced that the bias comes in,
it could even be a problem before the data is collected, the expedition was probably to study the effects of climate change on the artic, setting out expectations even before any data is collected.

Sort of like this?

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-325536...

[PRTVR]

London424 said:

PRTVR said:

durbster said:

PRTVR said:

One of the problems I have is the people who go into climate research, my belief is that it will attract people who have a green bias, with all their concepts of how things work all pre defined, will this have an effect on the research, I think it must, leading to a biased outcome, this problem is not unique to climate research, imagine two pieces of research on housing requirements for a town, one with a socialist view point, another with a capitalist view, the two pieces of research will be totally different.

What you're basically saying here is that you don't believe in the scientific method - is that correct?

The fact that humans are fallible and have bias is exactly why we have the scientific method. The whole point of using it is to remove as much bias or assumption as possible.

But it is not science in the normal understanding of the word, a lot of it is opinions and theory's, measurements are taken, but it can be only over a short timescale, take the scientists on the BBC this morning, talking about polar ice, and how things are changing rapidly, they were talking as if it was a danger, but turbobloke posted a news article that was from a ships captain in the 1800s reporting the lack of ice in the artic along with talk of a Northwest passage, these things have happened in the past, collecting the data is not the problem its when the cause and effect theory's are produced that the bias comes in,
it could even be a problem before the data is collected, the expedition was probably to study the effects of climate change on the artic, setting out expectations even before any data is collected.

Sort of like this?

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-325536...

That's the one, it was on the morning news with a BBC reporter.

TB if your reading this could you post up the old news article, I tried the PH search to find it but have had no luck.
TIA