Who here is a global warming skeptic?

[iNow]

So, just out of curiosity, what would it take to convince you that the overwhelming majority of climate scientists that study this deeply every single day and as a result of their deep study accept the impact human behaviors have on our climate are, in fact, correct?

[Shelagh]

So, just out of curiosity, what would it take to convince you that the overwhelming majority of climate scientists that study this deeply every single day and as a result of their deep study accept the impact human behaviors have on our climate are, in fact, correct?

Humans have been polluting the environment since 1815 (Industrial Revolution). In the Yorkshire town of Haworth, home of the Brontës, the mortality rate was extremely high:

 

The findings of Babbage's report are shocking. Haworth was a small industrial mill town, and the view onto the moors was broken by tall smoking chimneys. Excrement ran down the street; for want of sewers, fenced in areas held human waste, offal from the slaughterhouse and pigsty waste for up to months at a time. Housing was poorly ventilated and overcrowded, with several dwellings in cellars. The average life expectancy was 25.8 years; 41.6% died before the age of six. Perhaps most appallingly, Babbage's investigation confirmed that the graveyard, situated on the hill at the top of the town and in front of the Brontës home, was so overcrowded and poorly oxygenated that decomposing, putrid matter filtered into the water supply. - See more at: http://www.bl.uk/collection-items/sanitary-report-on-haworth-home-to-the-bronts#sthash.gXwPkTdj.dpuf

Today, the town is a tourist attraction and life expectancy is within normal limits. Put into context, climatologists using climate change as a political football seems slightly obscene. China and other developing countries should be looking at ways to clean up their environment for the well-being of those forced to live and work in unhealthy environments. Climatologists should stick to science and stay out of the political debate.

[swansont]

Is it OK to do that with no discussion or explanation for why the link/quote is there?

No, not really Context is important. If all you do is post links, it looks like soapboxing.

 

Further inquiry along these lines really should be in Support

[iNow]

Humans have been polluting the environment since 1815

Thanks for sharing, but will you now please answer the actual question put to you?

 

Put into context, climatologists using climate change as a political football seems slightly obscene.

Realistically, the ones politicizing climate change are those who deny it's occurring.

 

Now, please cite a few specific actual examples of climate scientists "using climate change as a political football." Bonus points if you put any individual examples in context of the total number of climatologists working in the field to ensure we're all clear on the scale of the issue.

 

Please note also in advance that your claim will be dismissed as rubbish if you ignore this request.

 

China and other developing countries should be looking at ways to clean up their environment for the well-being of those forced to live and work in unhealthy environments.

Like this??

 

http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/07/11/china-climate-change-greenhouse-united-states-policy/

China has made a number moves in the past year to reduce emissions and clean up its environment. Most recently, on June 30, Chinese Premier Li Keqiang said China would reduce its carbon intensity, the amount of carbon dioxide emitted per unit of GDP, by 60 to 65 percent of 2005 levels by 2030. The pledge comes ahead of the U.N. climate change summit to be held in Paris later this year. Li also reiterated that renewable energy should make up 20 percent of Chinas primary energy supply by the same date.

(snip)

China plans to install 200 GW of wind and 100 GW of solar by 2020. The country is now worlds leading investor in renewables, and these industries can expect continued support in the 13th Five Year Plan (2016-2020).

(snip)

It is now widely believed that China will overachieve on its climate targets and that its emissions, for example, are on track to peak by 2025. The balance of evidence suggests Chinas transition is underway, and we would be unwise to ignore it.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/oct/02/india-pledges-40-percent-electricity-renewables-2030

India, the worlds third biggest greenhouse gas emitter, has pledged to source 40% of its electricity from renewable and other low-carbon sources by 2030.

(snip)

The country has previously pledged an emissions intensity cut of up to 25% by 2020.

(snip)

Prakash Javadekar, Indias environment minister, said: Though India is not part of the problem, it wants to be part of the solution. Our historical cumulative emission as of today is below 3%.

On another note, do you realize that attempting to deflect the conversation to China and India does not in any way explain your refusal to accept as valid the extremely robust and consistent science of climate change?

 

Now, returning to the question you evaded... What would convince you the science of climate change is valid? If you're a true skeptic and not just a denier, this should be a rather easy question for you to answer.

Edited December 29, 2015 by iNow

[ajb]

- See more at: http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?id=3#.dpuf

Friends of Science is not really a very credible source of information on climate science.

 

And besides that, you generally like to try to throw lots of (dis)information at us in a hope of bamboozling people. Please take the time to at least read the pdf I linked to on climate modelling. It will help you understand uncertainty in the models.

 

Climatologists should stick to science and stay out of the political debate.

Wow, you are advocating that political policy, both at national and international levels not be guided by or at least take into account science?

 

While it is true that science alone cannot dictate policy, I would hate to see the day that rational though, logic and evidence was completely removed from the political sphere!

Edited December 29, 2015 by ajb

[Prometheus]

Climatologists should stick to science and stay out of the political debate.

 

The myopia displayed here is breathtaking. Do you further suggest that biologists and doctors shouldn't advise government on such issues as antibiotic resistance or the increase of type 2 diabetes?

 

Nevermind, i shan't expect a direct answer - the best i can hope for is obfuscation. Perhaps you should replace the scientists advising government, you certainly have the knack for dodging questions.

[Shelagh]

Now, returning to the question you evaded... What would convince you the science of climate change is valid? If you're a true skeptic and not just a denier, this should be a rather easy question for you to answer.

I read through the history of climate science on the skeptical science website. I followed the explanation to the end. The conclusions reached in no way matched the explanation:

 

By the start of the twenty-first century, the serious risks associated with the continued tinkering with the planet's thermostat had become all too apparent. They included a wide range of problems: severe and unprecedented droughts affecting agriculture in some areas and severely inflating global food prices and also making conditions more favourable for wildfires; in other areas, increases in extreme rainfall events leading to widespread inundation, destruction of crops, casualties and property loss/damage. Sea level rise over the decades would again affect agriculture due to loss of fertile low-lying lands and would also lead to population displacement and mass-migration. Mankind was, in essence, busily engaged with making areas of the planet's surface uninhabitable for future generations. http://www.skepticalscience.com/history-climate-science.html

I would be more willing to accept the link between human activity and climate change if scientists desisted from making outrageous predictions. Edited December 29, 2015 by Shelagh

[Prometheus]

While I also understand your position and support free speech, I think you will concede that there are some situations where it may justifiably (or at least arguably) be excluded. The standard example given is that of crying "Fire" in a crowded theatre.

 

I ask you to consider that the maximum number who might perish in such a case would be a few thousands. The number who will die as a consequence of the delays in taking appropriate action to minimise climate change will number in the tens, possibly hundreds, of millions. Stubbornly refusing to acknowledge the facts, refusing to study the evidence, insisting upon misinterpretation of evidence gleaned from sound sources and reveling in biased propaganda, pushes the boundaries of free speech well into the area headlined "abuse". But, I will concede there were elements of hyperbole in my statement and I also, foolishly, think stupidity should be outlawed.

 

Yes, i see your point. I am somewhat naive though and would rather have complete freedom of speech and accept the potentially catastrophic outcomes as part of the bargain. But this is going off-topic and i'm not sure i can really say more on it as my own opinions on the matter are not quite formed.

[Strange]

Humans have been polluting the environment since 1815 (Industrial Revolution). In the Yorkshire town of Haworth, home of the Brontës, the mortality rate was extremely high:

 

Today, the town is a tourist attraction and life expectancy is within normal limits. Put into context, climatologists using climate change as a political football seems slightly obscene. China and other developing countries should be looking at ways to clean up their environment for the well-being of those forced to live and work in unhealthy environments. Climatologists should stick to science and stay out of the political debate.

 

That is another stunningly incoherent argument.

 

You think it is OK for someone to investigate human effects of pollution and get improvements made as a result.

But you think it is wrong to study the human effects of CO2 release because that might lead to action to make things better.

 

And you still haven't addressed any questions about the science. Just gone off on increasingly bizarre tangents.

I would be more willing to accept the link between human activity and climate change if scientists desisted from making outrageous predictions.

 

Do you have any examples of these "outrageous predictions"? Or is this yet another grossly dishonest and offensive strategy to avoid the discussing the science and your irrational beliefs?

[Shelagh]

Do you have any examples of these "outrageous predictions"? Or is this yet another grossly dishonest and offensive strategy to avoid the discussing the science and your irrational beliefs?

"By the start of the twenty-first century, the serious risks associated with the continued tinkering with the planet's thermostat had become all too apparent. They included a wide range of problems:"

 

severe and unprecedented droughts affecting agriculture in some areas.

 

Droughts are a relatively common feature of the weather in the United Kingdom, with one around every 5-10 years on average. These droughts are usually confined to summer, when a blocking high causes hot, dry weather for an extended period. However droughts can vary in their characteristics. All types of drought cause issues across all sectors, with impacts extending to the ecosystem, agriculture and the economy of the whole country in severe cases of drought. The south east of the country usually suffers most, as it has the highest population (and therefore demand) and the lowest average precipitation per year, which is even lower in a drought. Even in these areas in severe droughts, the definition, impacts, effects and management are all minimal in comparison to drought prone areas such as Australia and parts of the United States. In recent years however, the summers of 2007, 2008, 2009 and August 2010 were wetter than normal, 2007 being wettest on record.https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drought_in_the_United_Kingdom

 

Droughts, short or prolonged, are not uncommon occurences. They can be meteorological droughts:

 

A drought is usually defined as an extended period of weather (usually around 3 weeks) where less than a third of the usual precipitation falls.

 

In the United Kingdom an absolute drought currently defined as a period of at least 15 consecutive days or more where there is less than 0.2 mm (0.008 inches) of rainfall., although before the 1990s a drought was defined as 15 consecutive days with less than 0.25mm (0.01 inches) rain on any one day. This previous definition sometimes led to confusion, as many argued that if less than 0.25mm of rain fell in 30 days, is that 2 droughts and if 0.26mm fell after 25 days, is the drought over? This led to the new definition but many believe hindsight is the best way to judge if a drought has occurred.

 

In the longer term, drought in the United Kingdom can also be defined as a 50 per cent deficit over three months, or a 15 per cent shortfall over two years.

 

Compared to other countries, the United Kingdom definition of a drought is much less severe. In Libya in the Sahel region, a drought is usually only recognized after two years without any measurable rainfall. If this were to happen in the United Kingdom, the consequences would be disastrous.https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drought_in_the_United_Kingdom

or hydrological drought:

 

A different type of drought is the hydrological or agricultural drought whereby moisture is in the soil but little is getting to vegetation, either because it is frozen (which can occur in severely cold winters in the United Kingdom) or because of very high temperatures which means that the rate of evapotranspiration is exceeding the rate of uptake of water from the plant (which can be seen in the United Kingdom, on hot days, when plants wilt as their stores of water are depleted).

 

A hydrological drought can occur, after a relatively dry winter whereby the soil moisture storage, reservoirs and water table have not risen sufficiently to counteract the warm summer weather. These sort of conditions can go over several years, even with above average rainfall at the time as the rainfall only slowly percolates through the water stores and replenishes them.https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drought_in_the_United_Kingdom

severely inflating global food prices

 

Last month saw a 5.2% fall in global food prices, the biggest drop in seven years, according to the UN. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34211715

making conditions more favourable for wildfires in other areas:

 

As drought conditions continue, groundwater levels drop and this provides excellent conditions for fires to develop. With hot, dry weather and no moisture underground, trees lose moisture and become very flammable in dry conditions. This leads to wildfires which usually is the main impact of drought in the United Kingdom, with moorland vegetation such as heather badly affected as the peat bogs dry out. Also, these fires can continue, even when seemingly put out, as the smoldering peat re-ignites the dry vegetation. However, during severe droughts, many trees can burn, and people's lives can be at risk, as in the 1976 drought when a fire encroached on a hospital, and only a wind direction change saved the patients' lives. As embers can be transported easily, and if drought is severe enough, fires can start miles away from their original position as they are transported by wind and even dust devils. With these situations, roads are often closed to prevent loss of life and further damage. These fires also can destroy wildlife habitats, and this can also threaten wildlife.https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drought_in_the_United_Kingdom

Summer fires in the UK are most often started by teenagers. The problem is exacerbated in drought years.

 

increases in extreme rainfall events leading to widespread inundation, destruction of crops, casualties and property loss/damage.

 

The number of UK flood barriers is increasing as more towns and cities find they are at risk of a higher incidence or are facing their first occurrences of flooding.

The UK is now the seventh most vulnerable nation in the world to flooding and the likelihood of the need to evacuate the home is rising year on year.

The main reasons for this are a combination of properties which are built close to each other, the use of floodplains for new development and the concreting over of green areas such as gardens.https://www.floodblockbarrier.com/flood-protection-news/vulnerability-of-the-uk-to-flooding/

Sea level rise over the decades would again affect agriculture due to loss of fertile low-lying lands and would also lead to population displacement and mass-migration. Mankind was, in essence, busily engaged with making areas of the planet's surface uninhabitable for future generations.

This is mere speculation and exaggeration.

Edited December 29, 2015 by Shelagh

[Phi for All]

Climatologists should stick to science and stay out of the political debate.

 

This seems like punditry. This is the kind of statement made by a talking head that gets other heads nodding. Somehow, the nodding stops a LOT of those heads from thinking about the statement, to see how utterly silly it really is. Can you imagine politics not being influenced by science?! It's bad enough that the ignorance runs this deep. Without some voice of reason, the voice of profit is the only one heard.

 

The prior attempts to deflect from pertinent questions are also media tactics. We're talking about an objective consilience about a global dilemma, while you're trying to make everything anecdotal and subjective. That's not science.

[Shelagh]

We're talking about an objective consilience about a global dilemma, while you're trying to make everything anecdotal and subjective. That's not science.

In other words, scientific simulations are more important than the natural world. I don't agree.

[Strange]

"By the start of the twenty-first century, the serious risks associated with the continued tinkering with the planet's thermostat had become all too apparent. They included a wide range of problems:"

 

Just pointing out that droughts, for example, already occur is as inane as saying "the climate changes naturally". The point (which you oh-so-cleverly avoided) is that there is a risk that droughts will become more severe. Do you have any evidence that these risks are impossible?

 

By this sort of logic, one could say there is no point in medical treatment because people die, sooner or later, anyway.

 

 

Summer fires in the UK are most often started by teenagers.

 

You have evidence for that, presumably? (And, I hope, better evidence than that used for climate change. Or is this "mere speculation and exaggeration"?)

 

 

The problem is exacerbated in drought years.

 

You mean there is a correlation between the behaviour of teenagers and drought?

But climate change may increase the number and severity of drought years. And, therefore, increase the risk of fires.

 

But once again, you are totally ignoring the science in favour of soundbites. Pathetic.

In other words, scientific simulations are more important than the natural world. I don't agree.

 

Of course not. You clearly think that the uninformed opinions of miscellaneous liars, fiction writers and right-wing politicians are more important than objective data about the natural world.

[iNow]

Am I the only one reminded of the Gish Gallop / shotgun argumentative fallacy?

[Phi for All]

In other words,

 

I find it incredibly intellectually dishonest that you have to change my words to refute them. That you think this is acceptable is unacceptable. If you continue to strawman and redefine and obfuscate, what do you hope to learn?

[dimreepr]

 

I find it incredibly intellectually dishonest that you have to change my words to refute them. That you think this is acceptable is unacceptable. If you continue to strawman and redefine and obfuscate, what do you hope to learn?

 

 

Given this statement:

 

I am sceptic about AGW, and nothing on this thread has persuaded me to think differently.

 

 

I don't think she has any intent to learn.

Edited December 29, 2015 by dimreepr

[Shelagh]

You have evidence for that, presumably? (And, I hope, better evidence than that used for climate change. Or is this "mere speculation and exaggeration"?)

Did you know that In the UK, 79,000 fires are started on grass and heathland every year. This is an average of 216 every day! Fire can spread faster than you think and can destroy a tent in less than 60 seconds. http://www.manchesterfire.gov.uk/safe4summer/Personal-Safety.html

 

The combination of scorching temperatures and the start of the school holidays on Friday will make this weekend a peak for brush fires, many of which are started deliberately by children. The hot, dry weather has turned large areas of countryside into a tinder box, with 21 grass fires a day recorded in the London area this month.

 

This weekend could be a bit of a peak for grass fires, as the holidays start and the continuing dry weather increases the risks of fires spreading rapidly, said John Ballard, a spokesman for Cumbria Fire and Rescue Service. We would urge parents to keep an eye on their kids.

 

Chobham Common in Surrey, the largest nature reserve in the South-east, caught fire on Monday night and destroyed five acres of ancient lowland heath that is home to hundreds of species, such as the rare Dartford warbler.

 

Emergency crews also tackled three separate blazes on common land around nearby Godalming, as well as in Carlisle and elsewhere in Cumbria, and another in Bolton.

 

All have been blamed on arson and the concern is that, with high temperatures and low rainfall forecast to continue for at least another month, unsupervised children will inflict increasingly severe damage on the countryside by setting fires that accelerate rapidly. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/wildfire-warning-as-britain-enjoys-best-summer-in-years-8711604.html

 

Over the last week firefighters across the South Wales Valleys have fought more than 500 fires which were started deliberately. http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/valleys-burning-shocking-pictures-show-9078587

You clearly think that the uninformed opinions of miscellaneous liars, fiction writers and right-wing politicians are more important than objective data about the natural world.

The natural world is unpredictable. Scientists are learning a great deal, but climatology is in its infancy; the world has been around for a very long time.

[Strange]

<miscellaneous random quotes with no apparent relevance deleted>

 

So no evidence to support your claim then. And yet you feel able to criticise the mountains of evidence available in climate science.

 

 

The natural world is unpredictable.

 

Really? And yet you think that politically-biased journalists and fiction writers can predict it better than scientists.

 

On the other had, science does seem to do a pretty good job of predicting most of it. The motions of planets, the behaviour of electric and magnetic fields, the behaviour of fundamental particles, the function of genes, the weather, ...

 

You just think one specific area of science is unpredictable because it offends your political ideology.

 

Scientists are learning a great deal, but climatology is in its infancy; the world has been around for a very long time.

 

The basic physics has been known for well over 100 years. The science that makes your computer work is significantly younger. So presumably you don't believe in computers, either.

 

And why is the age of the Earth relevant? Well, apart from the fact that it gives us millennia of data to use in understanding climate and how it changes.

I don't think she has any intent to learn.

 

She seems to have done a good job of picking up the dishonest rhetorical tricks used by "journalists" writing for the Daily Mail.

Edited December 29, 2015 by Strange

[dimreepr]

The natural world is unpredictable. Scientists are learning a great deal, but climatology is in its infancy; the world has been around for a very long time.

 

 

 

Yet we can predict tomorrow’s weather with a great deal of accuracy.

 

One could suggest medicine is in its infancy, given the time scales, but what Dr, now, uses trepanning as a form of brain surgery?

She seems to have done a good job of picking up the dishonest rhetorical tricks used by "journalists" writing for the Daily Mail.

 

 

You may have a point she is an author.

[swansont]

severe and unprecedented droughts affecting agriculture in some areas.

If all you have is "we haven't seen this in Great Britain" then surely you can see you haven't refuted anything. There's been a severe drought in the western part of the US, for example.

The natural world is unpredictable. Scientists are learning a great deal, but climatology is in its infancy; the world has been around for a very long time.

That sounds like re-hashed "if we don't know everything we know nothing" nonsense.

[geordief]

To be fair , there have been scientists who have advocated climatic engineering as a method of combating global warming. (well the ideas have been researched and put forward whether or not they have been actually promoted as being sensible to do)

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_engineering - a few arguments against the concept are listed in that link.

 

Without being versed in these ideas I have always been terrified at the thought that they could be used as a technical substitute for a sensible transition to a sustainable economy.

 

I think that apprehension may be widespread (and probably also throughout the scientific community - to which I do not belong) .

 

The reason I bring it up is because I think it would be reasonable to doubt the ability of our present technological ability to successfully undertake such an endeavour ( to simply try to provide a technological "fix" to the enormous problem we seem to have)

 

That is not to say I don't have confidence is the climatologist's diagnosis of the problem -just that the actual solution is as much political as technological.(I also think action needs to be taken at a decentralised level rather than projects which seem a little megalomaniac)

 

I was greatly encouraged by the recent Paris conference as it seemed to represent a step forward and gathered every country into the same tent for a while.

Edited December 30, 2015 by geordief

[ajb]

I would be more willing to accept the link between human activity and climate change if scientists desisted from making outrageous predictions.

Are these actual claims made in scientific papers or are they rather an attempt to sensationalise science?

 

I suspect they are a bit of both and highlight the extreme possibilities. However, the extreme claims should not distract you from the science of climate change. You seem to be focusing in on the wrong things.

[geordief]

Am I the only one reminded of the Gish Gallop / shotgun argumentative fallacy?

I never heard of that brazen technique before. I am starting to feel though that this may be a version of the way politicians are coached to not answer the question but reply to an imaginary one.

I don't blame them for doing that always as interviews are not always designed to get at the truth but to put the interviewee in a bad light or a tricky corner.

 

It is a bit much (and quite pathetic) to encounter this kind of humourless and blatant filibustering on this kind of a discussion forum though. Maybe it is a sign of things to come.

[Shelagh]

Are these actual claims made in scientific papers or are they rather an attempt to sensationalise science? I suspect they are a bit of both and highlight the extreme possibilities. However, the extreme claims should not distract you from the science of climate change. You seem to be focusing in on the wrong things.

Maybe the way that climate change is presented focuses attention on the extremes too much. This graph shows that extremes are normal and not unprecedented:

 

 

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v439/n7079/full/nature04575.html

[dimreepr]

Maybe the way that climate change is presented focuses attention on the extremes too much. This graph shows that extremes are normal and not unprecedented:

 

 

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v439/n7079/full/nature04575.html

 

 

 

Let’s try a different approach, since you don’t see the benefits of creating a better world.

 

Think of humanity as jay walking with a blind fold, when the only things on the road was horse and carts it was relatively safe; now we’re playing the same game but continually adding more and faster cars; at some point in the future our luck will run out if we don’t take the blind fold off and use the crossing properly.

Edited December 30, 2015 by dimreepr