[Niall C]

Tom/Mark

I happened to be living down in Carlisle when it and the rest of Cumbria was badly effected by flooding a few years ago, and I was living in Elgin when it flooded recently, and before you start calling me a jinx I was nowhere near Cockermouth but I do have good friends who live there.

All these places have one thing in common and it is this, in each of them the national media, and the scientists were talking about climate change as being part of the cause, while locally farmers and such like were pointing out the obvious, and that is that we no longer take care of our waterways while causing more water to flow into them as they continue to get clogged up. Add into the mix the fact that we have developed areas which previous generations would have stayed away from because of the flood risk and it is no wonder we have had the floods we have had.

On the waterways, we no longer dredge them and stop them from silting up. At the same time we develop more round about them which drains into the clogged waterways compounding the problem. Previous generations were more reliant on waterways for a livlihood and therefore looked after them, these days we only see them as being something nice to look at and who wants to pay for maintaining that ?

Niall

[Mark Pearce]

Mark, with all due respect, do Tom's scientific credentials really matter on here, a golf discussion site? If you are asking his, perhaps it would be in order to display yours as well.

Niall,

No, not at all.  Unless, of course, he sees fit to dismiss scientific theories as "arrogant" on the basis of some numbers.  In that case the scientific basis on which he relies on those numbers seems to matter, at least to me.  My scientific background is a degree in physics and a couple of years working in applied fluid mechanics research.  I am not, however, a climatologist and don't have a strong understanding of the science of climate change.  I just don't have much time for people with no real understanding dismissing theories glibly, which happens frustratingly often in relation to climate change. 

I'm also depressed at the frequency (particularly on this site) that scientific opinion is doubted on the basis of some perceived vested interest.  In my experience (and my professional work as an IP lawyer brings me into frequent contact with scientists of all colours, in addition to my previous career and my studies) the majority of scientists are motivated far more by understanding than by self interest.  After all, if they were motivated by self interest, why would such bright people ever become scientists?  Judging scientists by the standards of bankers, lawyers and stock brokers is deeply unfair.

Back to climate change.  I'm willing to go with the (vast) majority of scientists who see the hand of man in global warming.  I'm open to persuasion, though.  However, the arguments against which I have seen have been les about science and more about reactionary politics.

[Garland Bayley]

Well said Mark!

[George Pazin]

I'm also depressed at the frequency (particularly on this site) that scientific opinion is doubted on the basis of some perceived vested interest...However, the arguments against which I have seen have been les about science and more about reactionary politics.

Interesting post, indeed. I find these statements endlessly fascinating, but have neither the time nor the energy nor (especially) the will to dissect them. Suffice it to say, my experiences are at odds with yours.

I also find your stance on scientists to be quite interesting. My dad spent the vast majority of his career in academic medicine, and over a decade in AIDS research. I can tell you unequivocally from many years of discussions that there is a TREMENDOUS amount of politics within the scientific community, especially within the hot button issue fields, public policy issues in particular. Perhaps someday we can swap stories over a beer or three.

[Mark Pearce]

George,

That would be good, one day.

I didn't mean to say that scientists are not politically aware, or interested.  It is of course true that many have real political interests which relate directly to their work (climatologists and the climate change agenda is an example, as would be AIDS researchers and the third world patent law issue).  I meant to say that, on the whole (and far more than, in my experience, lawyers, for instance) scientists' work is motivated by a genuine desire to find the truth and understand the world, not to prove a point.  Of course, many have genuinely held beliefs and hope to have these confirmed and, from time to time, that leads to misjudgments.

[Jim Nugent]

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/01/97_of_active_climatologists_ag.php

Just because 97% of climatologists agree that anthropogenic global warming is occurring, doesn't mean it's true.  Actually, it does.

I guess it depends on whose opinion you trust.

How many of them would have a job if they were wrong?

Just about all of them.  There's some crap gets talked about global warming.  However, I think pretty much everyone agrees that the world is getting warmer (even the sceptics).  I believe 9 of the 10 hottest years on record in the UK were in the last decade and the 10th was 1998 (I think, certainly late 90s).  The question is whether this climate change is man-made or not.  Now there's plenty of debate over that (most of it fairly facile) but whether it's man made or not the fact is that studying it to form a view as to the likely consequences and whether there is anything we can do about it (and, if there is, whether we want to) seems fairly important to me, particularly if, as seems likely, warming brings with it a greater frequency of extreme weather events.

One irony of this post is that the last 15 years have seen no significant warming.  The BBC asked Phil Jones, one of the AGW's key scientists, and Director of the CRU, "Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming?"

He said, "Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level."

As for the robustness of the scientific method, one of Hansen's emails contained the following passage:

"[For] example, we extrapolate station measurements as much as 1200 km. This allows us to include results for the full Arctic. In 2005 this turned out to be important, as the Arctic had a large positive temperature anomaly. We thus found 2005 to be the warmest year in the record, while the British did not and initially NOAA also did not."

If you don't have the data, manufacture it.  Which is true of much of the so-called warming data.  The city bias alone may account for around 50% of any alleged warming.

Scienfitic consensus proves nothing.  Scientists have shown this over and over again, with theories accepted by the group think, that turn out false.  Semmelweis is one tragic example.     

[Sean_A]

George and Brent are right.  This entire issue is politically driven.  Unfortunately, American politics, particularly GOP politics, imo fall on completely wrong side of the isle on this issue.  Of course, time will tell, but the more time wasted, regardless if people are a significant cause in green house gases, the more overall damage is done.  I will never understand a wait and see approach in this matter when EVERYBODY knows we ALL could and should do better.  I hate partisan politics - its the single worst development in democratic governments these past 200 years. 

Ciao

[astavrides]

It would be useful if you could give the reference for your post. 
On what you have written though, I would say that 1) just because the trend from '95 to '09 is not significant at the 95% confidence level does not show that the long term trend is not real.  i.e., what about the trend since 1900 for example? 2) extrapolation is not the same as manufacturing.  3)The idea that the city bias may  account for 50% of any alleged warming comes from the Mckitrick and Michaels paper, which many analyses refute. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_heat_island, http://www.skepticalscience.com/urban-heat-island-effect.htm 4) you have picked a few quotes about the data that you purport to support your position.  There are mountains of quotes and data and analysis that do show the earth is warming.

One irony of this post is that the last 15 years have seen no significant warming.  The BBC asked Phil Jones, one of the AGW's key scientists, and Director of the CRU, "Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming?"

He said, "Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level."

As for the robustness of the scientific method, one of Hansen's emails contained the following passage:

"[For] example, we extrapolate station measurements as much as 1200 km. This allows us to include results for the full Arctic. In 2005 this turned out to be important, as the Arctic had a large positive temperature anomaly. We thus found 2005 to be the warmest year in the record, while the British did not and initially NOAA also did not."

If you don't have the data, manufacture it.  Which is true of much of the so-called warming data.  The city bias alone may account for around 50% of any alleged warming.

Scienfitic consensus proves nothing.  Scientists have shown this over and over again, with theories accepted by the group think, that turn out false.  Semmelweis is one tragic example.     

[John Kirk]

Scientific consensus proves nothing.  Scientists have shown this over and over again, with theories accepted by the group think, that turn out false.  Semmelweis is one tragic example.     

I think this is a bad example.  I had to look it up, by the way.  Semmelweis is the guy who discovered that doctors could reduce "childbed fever" mortality significantly by washing your hands with chlorine (a disinfectant).

In addition, I offer this definition from Wikipedia:

The Semmelweis reflex or "Semmelweis effect" is a metaphor for the reflex-like rejection of new knowledge because it contradicts entrenched norms, beliefs or paradigms.

What percentage of doctors today agree with Semmelweis and his decision to disinfect?  At some point, perhaps 20-40 years ago, some crazy climatologist looked at his data and said, "You know what...I think humans are contributing to global warming."  And his colleagues said nonsense, that can't be true.  But now 97% of his colleagues agree.

Name any scientific discovery, where the scientific community eventually reached a near consensus opinion, that did not turn out to be true.

The world is a sphere, evolution is real, and there's a direct link between cigarette smoking and lung cancer.  If the smoking-cancer link was discovered in today's world, I can imagine the exact same thing happening.  Tobacco companies pay to have contrarian opinions drafted by credentialed science types, then pay to have to the information disseminated widely, creating doubt and uncertainty among the people.  Politicians then use the wedge issue to outrage and polarize the people.

C'mon, can't you see Glenn Beck or Sean Hannity railing against the liberal media, and the freedom haters for attacking the tobacco companies?

Back to my original point.  I guess it's a matter of who you trust.  I trust the people who are trained and paid to study the subject.  I also trust the energy companies and the politicians they support to try and confuse the public.  Good grief this is such a no-brainer.  The world has gone mad.

Now I will follow Mr. Birkert into the kitchen.   Hey Garland, you want a sandwich or something? 

[George Pazin]

 

 

Alex, I owe you an apology for lumping you in with the fact-fearing crowd. Political threads always bring out my worst, other than maybe a good Matt fight.

Have fun everyone, today's so beautiful I wish I were getting out for a round.

[astavrides]

Alex, I owe you an apology for lumping you in with the fact-fearing crowd. Political threads always bring out my worst, other than maybe a good Matt fight.

Thanks for the apology George.  Political threads usually bring out my worst too.  I know you are a great guy when politics are put aside.

[John Kirk]

That's it.  I propose this issue be settled with a round of golf.  Stroke play - low number of strokes determines who is correct and righteous in their beliefs.

NO you can't have any strokes.  YES we play somewhere nice.

 

[Kalen Braley]

That's it.  I propose this issue be settled with a round of golf.  Stroke play - low number of strokes determines who is correct and righteous in their beliefs.

NO you can't have any strokes.  YES we play somewhere nice.

 

John,

Sadly thats how these things are usually proven.

Climate change has become so political, it usually surmounts to who has the loudest bull horn in terms of getting thier message out and swaying the masses.

With the piddly amount we contribute, its akin to blaming a car accident on the fly that landed on the window while driving 60 MPH down the freeway, therby throwing the cars balance completely out of whack and causing an "accident"

P.S  Mother Earth has been more than capable of wild tempature swings on her own.  The US was once half covered in ice sheets, the Sahara was once a lush jungle, even Greenland was once completly ice free....alll  looong before man ever doing thier thing.

[Ian Andrew]

Name any scientific discovery, where the scientific community eventually reached a near consensus opinion, that did not turn out to be true.

John,

Saccharin

In the 1970’s a publication of a study where rats were fed saccharin indicated an increase in the rate of bladder cancer. Countries including Canada banned the use of Saccharin based upon the findings. It was roundly considered that saccharin was a carcinogen.

It took 14 years before the decision was reversed. The problem with the study was the excessively high dosage given to the rats, which some felt was almost enough to kill them in the first place. Other questions began to be raised about whether the two digestive systems processed saccharin in the same manner which lead to the question of whether rats were the appropriate study animal. It turned out through a series of studies conducted over many years that there was no correlation between saccharin consumption and increased frequency of cancer. “This” decade saccharin was finally removed from the list of known or suspected human carcinogens.

I know this is not a perfect example – but it does show that science works best when it continues to question itself. I loved your question for the challenge it presented me. My (much older) brother was a research chemist at the time, and saccharin was an example he used many years ago to explain to me the politics of research.

[Willie_Dow]

Perhaps we should ask Al Gore to use his $250,000,000 take on his G/W project to pay for the people trapped by the Iceland volcano dust !

Is it affecting "A Season in Dornoch" ?

[Charlie Goerges]

At least both sides of this debate on here exhibit something like a reasonable argument. My dad, when asked why he thinks global warming is a myth, says it's because his third-grade teacher said we're going into a cooling period. No other explanation necessary as she was a smart woman.

[Mark Pearce]

I note that an enquiry into the UEA "scandal" by the Royal Society has exonerated the UEA academics of wrongdoing.

[Jason McNamara]

I note that an enquiry into the UEA "scandal" by the Royal Society has exonerated the UEA academics of wrongdoing.

Their hastily prepared pamphlet also trashed Mann's original hockey stick.

[Carl Nichols]

There is a fascinating chapter in Superfreakonomics on global warming, and in particular on efforts to develop ways to cool the earth by, for example, pumping sulfur dioxide into the upper atmosphere (thereby replicating the effects of the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo, which supposedly caused global temperatures to fall about 1 degree). 

[Jeff Taylor]

The official global temperature readings (for temperature anomalies) are recorded with some 1200 devices. This covers roughly 1% of the land mass of the earth. These devices are not evenly spaced for square miles or for altitude. There are plenty of studies about recording devices and their ability (or lack thereof) to secure accurate readings. Without an ironclad raw data temperature record, the proof that we are experiencing unprecedented warming at an unprecedented rate and that it is caused by man made emissions of C02 is simply not there; even if climate models predict it to be so.

[Tom Birkert]

I note that an enquiry into the UEA "scandal" by the Royal Society has exonerated the UEA academics of wrongdoing.

Their hastily prepared pamphlet also trashed Mann's original hockey stick.

Given that the chair of the enquiry is head of a renewable energy company and a carbon capture and storage company, I must doubt his impartiality, as he stands to gain financially from this outcome.

The enquiry itself is utterly laughable. 4-5 pages and took a couple of weeks. Righto. That should cover it (up).

[astavrides]

The official global temperature readings (for temperature anomalies) are recorded with some 1200 devices. This covers roughly 1% of the land mass of the earth. These devices are not evenly spaced for square miles or for altitude. There are plenty of studies about recording devices and their ability (or lack thereof) to secure accurate readings. Without an ironclad raw data temperature record, the proof that we are experiencing unprecedented warming at an unprecedented rate and that it is caused by man made emissions of C02 is simply not there; even if climate models predict it to be so.

Do you really think scientists thermometers are reading incorrectly?  and systematically reading too high? 
As for your other points, please look at this:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/surface-temperature-measurements.htm

[Jud_T]

if you don't buy the quacks on your side of the pond, check out ours:

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2009/roulette-0519.html

[Jeff Taylor]

Well if the MIT model says it is so, then it must be so.

[Jud_T]

Jeff,

90% chance of a 5 degree rise? OK, maybe they're off, still, do you suggest we simply bury our heads in the aforementioned sand?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()