Editha

Basically, you have a choice between believing 97% of the world's climate scientists or a number of fraudsters, opportunists and charlatans paid by the fossil fuel industry.

Really difficult decision.

Bali2010

weather patterns are variable which allows the uncertainty to be exploited

but what I do know, by my own experience, is that voluntary limits do not result in environmental protection, so is there an incentive to rubbish anything that would put limits on business - of course.

professional debate on conclusions is to to be welcomed but treating it as an information war only serves the sceptics / big business need and it is on that basis that I consider the sceptic side to be bollocks

Editha

I mentioned fraudsters, charlatans and opportunists. I forgot the nut-jobs.

Alan2005

I'm not a climate scientist, so I can't make any real informed input here as to what the truth actually is, however I know a little bit about risk, so in that vein:-

1, Can the sceptics guarantee that it's not man-made?
2, Would they care to put a probability on it one way or the other?
3, What are the consequences of doing nothing if they are wrong?

I will say that being a sceptic is easy as we are all conditioned to think tomorrow will essentially be the same as today. This is why I don't think anything will be done about climate change (whether it's true or not) until resource limitations or impending disaster force it upon us.

Almost Canadian

Where are you getting the 97% from? It was my understanding, but I accept I may be wrong, that the vast majority of the members of the IPCC had no such qualifications.

I also believe but, again may be wrong, that a large number of sceptic (or in your words fraudster, opportunist, charlatan) scientists at respected universities around the world believe that the current doom and gloom scenarios are way off base.

As you profess to be a former lawyer, I would expect you to be able to produce evidence to back up what you have said. As I have said all along, I hold no real position in this debate but would like to read more about it. Absent the IPCC reports, are you aware of any peer reviewed documents that support your position?

Almost Canadian

Any documents you can point me to that support this? As you are aware, the article I posted refers to data. Are these references wrong and, if so, why?

Novocastrian

That remark just shows your determination to ignore reality.

Why absent the IPCC report (and a half dozen other such reports) all of which collate and interpret the vast store of peer reviewed documents cited in their respective bibliographies. Do you think they made them all up?

iaink

That's the basic starting point for the sceptics isnt it?

Almost Canadian

I don't think anything but, it was my understanding that the IPCC report, shall we say, picked its data very selectively. Again, I appreciate that this position may be wrong but the article and the book that I referred you to, pick huge holes in the findings of the report. Holes that, if they were as baseless as some would have us believe, would be easy to plug. I haven't seen any plugs so, if they exist, I would be happy to read them.

For example, there is a poster on here that remarks that it is possible to live comfortably in Canada on $20,000. Most on here think this is nuts and believe an income many multiples of that is required. If I were conducting a review of opinion, I could refer to this chap's opinion in support of a position that an income of $20,000 is all that is required to live comfortably in Canada. If I did, lots on here would dispute it and point to other opinions that differed.

In the above scenario, it is my understanding that the IPCC are relying upon BristolUK and ignoring the opinions of the others. Once again, I fully accept that I may be wrong which is why I am asking for those that have such knowledge to point me to the Alan2005 of the climate change society that can blow BristolUK's position out of the water.

The article is littered with such disputes and, yet it would appear, no one on here can oppose any of them while, at the same time, calling names to those that object to BristolUK's opinion. It seems simple to me.

Novocastrian

I in turn ask you to provide a link or reference to a single peer reviewed scientific study since say 1997 which provides objective evidence that anthropogenic climate change isn't happening and will not happen.

And before you answer, "well the closed shop wouldn't allow anyone to publish", I call hogwash.

I think I've made clear that I'm not prepared to waste my time reading unreviewed meanderings of a Texan Professor of Architecture on the conspiracy behind the IPCC, especially one with very close ties to the Tea Party and the Koch brothers.

I suggest you'd be better off to decide the same.

Almost Canadian

And that's the problem, where would one go to obtain such a document? I am sure that someone with knowledge of such a topic would know where to look. I have no clue. Just as I could find the answer to an obscure point of law that would take someone like you much longer.

Novocastrian

http://www.agu.org/journals/jgr/

http://www.nature.com/

http://www.agu.org/journals/gl/

http://scholar.google.ca/scholar?q=j...=1&oi=scholart

Just to scratch the surface.

gryphea

I'm with MikeUK and also Alan2005. I echo all those comments about grant funding etc.

I am a geologist. We learn about natural cycles, past climates etc. its intergral to our training. Often sceptics throw those natural cycles back at us to support a do nothing approach. Geologists don't do this; they understand that the existence of past natural cycles are not an indicator that we are not causing climate change.

In my last job, in the UK my HoD was one of the world's leading paleoclimatologists. Amongst the entire 5* department there were no anthropogenic climate change sceptics.

There will always be nutters and crackpots in science ; sometimes its because of funding issues, sometimes its because of political issues, sometimes its because of religious issues. Only very rarely is it revolutionary. Like the rest of the human race scientists aren't immune to human traits that happen across all professions. Think of the (in my view) crackpots who believe that humans lived on earth at the sametime as dinosaurs, and there are a few like this. They come at their stance through their creationist beliefs, despite overwheleming evidence against this. Should we believe them because they manage to post up a few websites that present their arguments whilst ignoring others?

I'm with Alan2005. Look at the bare risk assessment. If the sceptics are wrong and we adopt their position its pretty bleak. If the supporters are wrong and we adopt their position, well we've spent a bit of money, cut down on obsessive materialism and left a cleaner planet.

As a lawyer AC you often stand by things that 'government was right' ' the guy was convicted therefore the judicial system was right'. What about plenty of governments who have, for years, redefined their flood defences due to increased sea levels etc Are they all wrong?

gryphea

course I've only just looked at his article and see he is a rich geologist with clear oil money. Hardly unbiased.

Lord Vader

Or I could tell you that giving the fastest developing part of the world (about half the population or more) a free pass while punishing young nations also under construction like Canada and Australia is not something that is in those younger nations (or the planets) best interest. Why would they sacrifice their economies and future for the sake of someone elses? Surely when the Western European countries set the targets that they could meet with the help of their small geographic size and comparable large compact population they knew they would have the edge? No, they wouldn't try and purposefully give themselves an advantage would they?

You want me to get onboard? How about we all start setting aside an equal percentage of GDP and we figure out a way to get the free energy from the sun to the Earth. This is not likely to happen if we only try to collect the energy from the sun by using solar collectors based on the surface of the earth. We need something up in space outside of the atmosphere and then a way to send the energy back to earth. I beleive that NASA has a space program that is exploring this option by sending microwave energy back to the earth from collectors in space.

If the Earth and humanity are headed for catastrophe, then what the world needs is a Churchill (we will never surrender) or a JFK (we will go to the moon). That said, how many people who believe we are headed for disaster are truly altering their lifestyle? How many people shop locally and avoid air travel or travelling to another town or country to shop? I see a lot of people whinging about Cradles driving large vehicles while at the same time buying anything from cheese and crackers to clothes and deodorant shipped halfway round the world. This doesn't even include Walmart or stuff bought locally that came from another continent or country such as China where many of their imports are made in coal fired shops. Some maintain more than one home in two different countries and routinely travel back and forth between them. It is too easy to be a hypocrite.