Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 4
Discussion
Convert said:
I quite agree that Computer models have their place, I'm not rejecting them; I'm rejecting the citing them as evidence.
Please explain. Surely the entire point of a computer model is to provide evidence. What else are they for?Convert said:
We use some very good CFD models, however we don't adjust the inputs to give a desired output, unlike the GIGO CC models.
Speculation. Despite its prevalance in this thread, the term "GIGO CC models" is a meaningless soundbite.durbster said:
PRTVR said:
Science has changed, we now have instant communication across the world, this in my opinion is good but can be bad as it reduces the chance for as you say controversial discoveries, the weight of information available at the click of a button you would have to be extremely brave to publish something that contradicted all that and possibly never work again is not a good outlook for any scientist.
The fossil fuel industry working against climate change is a red herring, once over it might have happened but they are private companies with what they do scrutinized by shareholders, most oil companies have a renewables component in their makeup,
But let's just say they paid for a controversial research paper, how would it stand up to in the avalanche of opposing viewpoints? you yourself often use the idea of overwhelming scientific evidence, how long would an idea last in that environment, we are well past the point were alternative views are allowed or considered .
I can't see any reason why a new idea would not be accepted as it always has historically. If you have scientific proof that can be tested and reproduced, opposing viewpoints are worth nothing.The fossil fuel industry working against climate change is a red herring, once over it might have happened but they are private companies with what they do scrutinized by shareholders, most oil companies have a renewables component in their makeup,
But let's just say they paid for a controversial research paper, how would it stand up to in the avalanche of opposing viewpoints? you yourself often use the idea of overwhelming scientific evidence, how long would an idea last in that environment, we are well past the point were alternative views are allowed or considered .
The thing is, the scientific proof of AGW is not one basic experiment that could be disproved to disrupt the whole thing. At its core is fundamental physics and chemistry, so a change to that would affect almost everything we understand about chemistry and physics.
On top of that, the evidence is so broad and wide-ranging that I can't see any opportunity for doubt. As research has become more intense, AGW has been reinforced rather than put into dispute. The data supports it and the observable evidence supports it.
So I'm really struggling to see where you think there is an opportunity for our understanding to change?
By contrast, despite the endurance of this thread, the case raised against AGW is weak. It's persistently vague and confused, it's wildly inconsistent and regularly hypocritical. It hangs on conspiracy theories (specifically the deliberate corruption of data), but has no scientific basis.
A few on here insist on repeatedly telling us there is a mass of scientific evidence to disprove AGW, but whenever they've been asked to show us, they either post something irrelevant (see: turbobloke's list of papers earlier in the thread that he seems unable to explain) or go silent.
And look at the sources. When your scientific case is based on websites like No Tricks Zone that shemelessly misrepresents the science they list, surely you must question the validity of that scientific argument?
I'll remind you.
It's about politics.
It's about the shift of power away from anything to do with science, whether the science was good, bad or indifferent, into the realm of politics, impure and unsimple.
Worse it's rather a lot about the influence of the unelected NGOs, many allowed to register as "charities" though they seem to be charitable only in so far as tax breaks are concerned, who have no need to be concerned about any kind of answerability to anyone.
Do you really believe that the Science community still has any influence over the matters of policy that will shape the economics of the next few decades and lives of almost everyone living on the planet? If so, how will they wield that influence to keep the politicians under control? Will they really be in a position to stand up and tell the politicians what to do and still expect to see funding sloshed their way? Why should the public keep paying them for anything when, with the science apparently settled, the ever more expensive research can do nothing but add minor details to what they have already published?
How will politicians sell that to their electorates as they continue to ramp up the cost of "fighting" climate change without a clue about how to do anything seriously effective that might be useful? Even the scientist acknowledge that "not enough is being done" but cannot offer any obvious way to identify what "enough" would be without total and wholesale change to the lives of billions of people in a very short period of history. Even if there was a clear path to a guaranteed and verifiable success (which there is not and never can be) the chances of such a project being delivered "on time and within budget" by any organised group of politicians (let alone the worldwide mishmash that gathers at the COP tables every year for an expenses paid gossip fest) is zero. Absolute zero.
Are you happy with that?
Do you think all the posturing will actually lead to anything positively beneficial happening?
If so, what?
For example, do you think it was a good thing that Ed Miliband, as the UK's first ever Climate Change Secretary, handed the entire task of creating the UK's Climate Change Act, a grand Vanity Project if ever there was one, to a then young Climate Activist called Bryony Worthington?
Worthington dreampt up a document that all agree will cost UK residents a huge about of their alleged wealth for decades to come. Something that for any other government sponsored proposal would have been subject to line by line forensic discussion. Yet the whole thing pretty much went through parliament on the nod.
Why was that?
HS2 is trivially cheap by comparison and a good UK showpiece in the traditional White Elephant mode. It attracts a lot of discussion.
But not the Climate Change Bill. Hardly any discussion at all. Perhaps just enough for a few people to be mentioned in Hansard to make sure thier time in parliament is recorded for posterity.
Is it a positive result, in your view, that 30 something English Literature Graduate and, at the time, active climate change lobbyist for Friends of the Earth should be given the freedom to create a parliamentary act that politicians we pay to represent our interests barely discuss?
Should we consider scrapping the political system and asking NGOs to govern our lives?
That's just one example of major public interest matters for which politicians seem to have little knowledge or interest. Why would that be?
More to the point - it demonstrates how science is just not important to the project any more - other than ensuring that no one emerges from a scientific background with a counter argument that might find favour with voter's logic.
When Government controls academia and the scale of funding that would be required for a private organisation to undertake meaningful research it should not be too difficult for even an incompetent government to retain control of the message.
Baroness Worthington has demonstrated just how the game is played out.
Here are links to a couple of Essays that happened to appear consecutively on a blog about a year ago. They neatly gather and summarize what I (and others it seems) had come to understand about the way the entire CAGW concern (which of course has little interest from anyone unless it can be linked to catastrophe at some future point) has developed.
durbster, I don't expect you will read them but would predict that if you do you will find some excuses around the web to denigrate the content so if you choose to respond to this particular post feel free to skip the reading and just make the adverse comments. People will, I am sure, be understanding.
The Origins of the UK 2008 Climate Change Act
Global warming and the irrelevance of science
The Don of Croy said:
johnfm said:
A quick query - what do you guys think is a realistic timetable for the 'great wake up', when the music finally stops on this unscientific 'climate science' merry go round?
I still reckon another 10-15 years before it is consigned to a chapter that will be remembered for the politicising of science.
I fear that in 15 - 20 years' time we will have another - more scary - scenario to worry about, promoted by vested interests and backed by credulous politicians. All the shouty people will have moved on to the new game and AGW will be a quiet backwater of debate. Like us discussing Tulipmania.I still reckon another 10-15 years before it is consigned to a chapter that will be remembered for the politicising of science.
Somebody said on the radio recently that in 100 years' time historians will look back at Brexit and comment it was just a re-alignment of the UK customs policies with the EU. Nothing more.
now if they could point to which parts, currently inhabitable, we might end up with a metric which could put this nonsense to bed but I suspect I won't be alive to see it.
durbster said:
Convert said:
I quite agree that Computer models have their place, I'm not rejecting them; I'm rejecting the citing them as evidence.
Please explain. Surely the entire point of a computer model is to provide evidence. What else are they for?Convert said:
We use some very good CFD models, however we don't adjust the inputs to give a desired output, unlike the GIGO CC models.
Speculation. Despite its prevalance in this thread, the term "GIGO CC models" is a meaningless soundbite.LongQ said:
durbster, you still seem to be blind to the point of this thread.
I'll remind you.
It's about politics.
I'm responding to the discussion as it is. It's not as if I'm dragging the conversation reluctantly away from politics is it.I'll remind you.
It's about politics.
It's impossible to talk about how we tackle AGW while there's a backdrop of anti-science.
LongQ said:
Do you really believe that the Science community still has any influence over the matters of policy that will shape the economics of the next few decades and lives of almost everyone living on the planet?
In Europe, certainly. Why not? Just because you reject the science doesn't mean everyone does.In America post-Trump, the future is far less certain. He and his team are scientifically illiterate, so who knows what'll happen over there.
That's why the climate scientists in the US are desperately backing up all their data to public servers before inauguration, for fear Trump's team could come calling to make the evidence disappear.
LongQ said:
Why should the public keep paying them for anything when, with the science apparently settled, the ever more expensive research can do nothing but add minor details to what they have already published?
Because more information usually leads to better decision-making.LongQ said:
How will politicians sell that to their electorates as they continue to ramp up the cost of "fighting" climate change without a clue about how to do anything seriously effective that might be useful?
I've no idea. It's extremely difficult and any solution is going to be expensive. We've built our entire infrastructure on fossil fuels but never thought about a plan B.I think we'll figure it out though. People now generally accept it's something that needs dealing with, and that dictates political will more than anything.
LongQ said:
HS2 is trivially cheap by comparison and a good UK showpiece in the traditional White Elephant mode. It attracts a lot of discussion.
But not the Climate Change Bill. Hardly any discussion at all.
People understand trains. But not the Climate Change Bill. Hardly any discussion at all.
That happens all the time. Parliament and the media spent far time banging on about fox hunting - which affects about six people in the UK - than the surveillance bill, which affects all 65 million of us.
LongQ said:
Here are links to a couple of Essays that happened to appear consecutively on a blog about a year ago.
The Origins of the UK 2008 Climate Change Act
OK. That's politics. What do you want me to say about it? Setting a target makes sense, and unfeasible targets can get better results. FOTE don't sound like the best people to be involved but then who would be? Economists would set the targets at -100%, scientists would set them at 200%. The Origins of the UK 2008 Climate Change Act
What's your solution? You seem to be advocating doing nothing at all.
The fact is: there is no easy solution. Whatever we do will be messy, expensive, and piss somebody off.
durbster said:
Convert said:
The clue is in the name, computer MODEL
I see, we're dragging this one out are we.You mentioned CFD.
We can improve airflow by adding a winglet *here*.
Prove it.
Here it is on the computer MODEL.
That's not evidence?
Jacobyte said:
durbster said:
Convert said:
The clue is in the name, computer MODEL
I see, we're dragging this one out are we.You mentioned CFD.
We can improve airflow by adding a winglet *here*.
Prove it.
Here it is on the computer MODEL.
That's not evidence?
ks. But it sure as hell ain't evidencedurbster said:
Convert said:
The clue is in the name, computer MODEL
I see, we're dragging this one out are we.You mentioned CFD.
We can improve airflow by adding a winglet *here*.
Prove it.
Here it is on the computer MODEL.
That's not evidence?
It's a testable model, which we can PROVE by actually adding the winglet, and recording the results.
Please tell me how CC models are tested?
Or are they just adjusted to fit the
durbster said:
wc98 said:
durbster said:
I just feel sad that I've helped drag this nonsense out to a fourth volume. 
re your last reply on the old thread. the pdo was discovered by a fisheries researcher ,it is known to be the driver of fish movements as a result.Yes, but the PDO is a short-medium term effect, whereas AGW is long term. I doubt we have enough data to have a lot of confidence in this yet but what we do have certainly doesn't suggest the waters are not warming. Do you agree?
wc98 said:
if the current lot of marine biologists can take their eye off the co2 grant train...
Dismissing evidence with this silliness doesn't actually stop it being true. wc98 said:
the pdo and amo can easily be responsible for just about every change on land and sea you claim to be evidence of agw occurring as predicted.
In the short - medium term, absolutely. Weather patterns obviously have a far more dramatic effect than the drip-drip effects of AGW. AGW is about a long-term warming trend, not seasonal variations.another factor to take into consideration in the northern hemisphere is the north atlantic oscillation ,yet another major distribution mechanism of atmospheric energy.
the trouble is at the level knowledge is being claimed currently ,like ocean heat content to the zettajoule we really do not have the required information.
settled science ? i think not.
regarding warming oceans , i would suggest you have a look at ocean temperature trends on a regional basis. i don't think the answer you get will be what you expect, bearing in mind even today with argo (and all its faults) actual coverage measurement wise is pitiful . do you know how many square miles each float represents in ocean coverage resulting in massive extrapolation of the readings from each float ?
i can show you areas where there will be several degrees difference in water temp in a few hundred metres laterally , how do you think argo copes with that ? not to mention most of the volume of the worlds oceans exists below the coverage depth of 2000m the floats operate to (luckily for hiding the heat in the deep ocean according to some
)durbster said:
Yep, but that's true of all science and it hasn't stopped controversial discoveries being made historically, so why would it now?
Let's not kid ourselves, there is quite a lot of money in fossil fuels and their associated industries and infrastructure, and I daresay there would be an enormous chunk of it willingly handed over to anybody that could scientifically disprove AGW. It would take far more than the egos of politicians to prevent that.
Also, the fundamental science behind AGW was established long before it entered the public consciousness, so there would have been no motivation from Governments to support it. Kyoto was the first sign that there was any political will (and they cocked that up pretty well, which is why we're having this silly debate).
the funding for pro agw climate science per annum is roughly 1000 x that for sceptical agw funding .Let's not kid ourselves, there is quite a lot of money in fossil fuels and their associated industries and infrastructure, and I daresay there would be an enormous chunk of it willingly handed over to anybody that could scientifically disprove AGW. It would take far more than the egos of politicians to prevent that.
Also, the fundamental science behind AGW was established long before it entered the public consciousness, so there would have been no motivation from Governments to support it. Kyoto was the first sign that there was any political will (and they cocked that up pretty well, which is why we're having this silly debate).
edited to change 100 to 1000x , though as this is a climate change thread what is a few orders of magnitude between friends
Edited by wc98 on Wednesday 11th January 15:49
The Don of Croy said:
johnfm said:
A quick query - what do you guys think is a realistic timetable for the 'great wake up', when the music finally stops on this unscientific 'climate science' merry go round?
I still reckon another 10-15 years before it is consigned to a chapter that will be remembered for the politicising of science.
I fear that in 15 - 20 years' time we will have another - more scary - scenario to worry about, promoted by vested interests and backed by credulous politicians. All the shouty people will have moved on to the new game and AGW will be a quiet backwater of debate. Like us discussing Tulipmania.I still reckon another 10-15 years before it is consigned to a chapter that will be remembered for the politicising of science.
If we do enter a cooling phase or mini ice age caused by a Dalton or Maunder type event - I reckon it'll be put down to AGW somehow.
The line will be that the planet's climate is rebounding and overshooting into a cooling phase as a direct consequence of our impact on the atmosphere (a 'mother nature bites back' type argument).
mybrainhurts said:
Sums up 99% of the politicians the world over !Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff