Blog Tools
Edit your Blog
Build a Blog
RSS Feed
View Profile
« February 2007 »
S M T W T F S
1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28
You are not logged in. Log in
Entries by Topic
All topics  «
Misc.
Poker
Politics
Religion
Television
Sleepless in Fulham: Rambling and gambling by David Young
Monday, 5 February 2007
Sceptical about 'climate change'.
Topic: Politics

Here's an open letter to the Canadian prime minister that appeared in the National Post newspaper last year:

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/story.html?id=3711460e-bd5a-475d-a6be-4db87559d605&rfp=dta 

Highlights:

"Observational evidence does not support today's computer climate models, so there is little reason to trust model predictions of the future. Yet this is precisely what the United Nations did in creating and promoting Kyoto and still does in the alarmist forecasts on which Canada's climate policies are based. Even if the climate models were realistic, the environmental impact of Canada delaying implementation of Kyoto or other greenhouse-gas reduction schemes, pending completion of consultations, would be insignificant."

"...significant advances have been made since the protocol was created, many of which are taking us away from a concern about increasing greenhouse gases. If, back in the mid-1990s, we knew what we know today about climate, Kyoto would almost certainly not exist, because we would have concluded it was not necessary."

 "'Climate change is real' is a meaningless phrase used repeatedly by activists to convince the public that a climate catastrophe is looming and humanity is the cause. Neither of these fears is justified. Global climate changes all the time due to natural causes and the human impact still remains impossible to distinguish from this natural "noise." The new Canadian government's commitment to reducing air, land and water pollution is commendable, but allocating funds to "stopping climate change" would be irrational. We need to continue intensive research into the real causes of climate change and help our most vulnerable citizens adapt to whatever nature throws at us next."

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It's signed by sixty scientists from relevant fields. Of course there will be others who believe that there is human responsibility behind the 'climate change'. I'm with the sceptics. The sun is over a million times larger than the Earth and I can't help thinking that small changes in its activity have far greater consequences than anything that man does. I suppose I'm biased because the global warming story reminds me of that nonsense I was taught in R.E. at school about a great flood being sent down to punish man for his transgressions. It makes people feel important to think that they are the cause of what goes wrong around them. Accepting that things change for reasons over which you have no control is harder. Far better to con yourself into thinking you can change them.

In any case, I'm pleased that this winter has been so mild. Most years we are told stories about old people dying from cold conditions, even when given extra money to handle heating payments. I've not read any stories like that this year. It ought to be a cause for celebration, but fear sells newspapers so it's forgotten.


Tuesday, 6 February 2007 - 1:48 AM GMT

Name: "Hal"
Home Page: http://www.halvorsen.org


"Observational evidence does not support today's computer climate models, so there is little reason to trust model predictions of the future."

Codswallop. If anything the IPCC's computer models have proved accurate (I think The Times had the numbers this week, but didn't keep that article), so the quote under will have to do. These models will improve even more, just like models for short term weather reports have done. Give it to the next IPCC report (better models, faster and larger computers) and they will be even more accurate.

http://www.dailyindia.com/show/109979.php/Sea-level-rise-on-very-edge-of-worst-case-predictions

"They said satellite data also showed that, since the early 1990s, sea levels were rising by an average of 3.3 millimetres per year.

The IPCC's Third Assessment Report, published in 2001, predicted that the annual rise was likely to be around 2 millimetres, researchers said.

Global average temperatures have risen by 0.33 °C since 1990, which is towards the upper limit of the IPCC's predictions of the rate of global warming. The rise in carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere has almost exactly followed its predicted trajectory, said Rahmstorf."

"Of course there will be others who believe that there is human responsibility behind the 'climate change'."

Hmm - yes like most of the top scientists in the field.

"I suppose I'm biased because the global warming story reminds me of that nonsense I was taught in R.E. at school about a great flood being sent down to punish man for his transgressions."

One is science (but not of the kind found in thriller appendices read by Jeremy Clarkson and the like), the second is a matter of religious belief.

"It makes people feel important to think that they are the cause of what goes wrong around them. Accepting that things change for reasons over which you have no control is harder. Far better to con yourself into thinking you can change them."

Really? It is actually much more convenient to say you cannot do anything, more comfy to not change your behaviour - ie to continue to eat burgers or smoke or drive a  4x4 even if the evidence shows that you shouldn't.

"In any case, I'm pleased that this winter has been so mild."

Good for you Dave.

Tuesday, 6 February 2007 - 2:37 AM GMT

Name: "David Young"

How selfish of me to rejoice that old people aren't dying of cold. What can I say? Looking at the source you quote I see:

For their research, Rahmstorf and his colleagues calculated that the sea-level rise over the past 20 years had been 25 percent faster than for any other 20-year period for more than a century. [a very small sample - DY]

They however, add that this could be simply due to natural variations over decadal timescales. [a point I've made already - DY]

"Sea-level rise has been tracking along the uppermost limit for 16 years now, but it could still be decadal variability, so we don't predict that this will continue," Rahmstorf said. [so it's still good news that the old folk aren't dying this winter? - DY]

Anyway, here's a thought? When I was young I was told that plants and trees absorb carbon dioxide. So why don't we reforest Europe then and let them inhale the CO2 emissions? This doesn't contradict my desire to see more homebuilding in the south of England, as so much of the unused land is just flat fields. We pay farmers to grow nothing! Why not pay them to grow trees?

Tuesday, 6 February 2007 - 7:03 PM GMT

Name: "anonymous"

Dave - you want a larger sample size? Here it is - the ice core data from last year - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/5314592.stm. 

"The "scary thing", he added, was the rate of change now occurring in CO2 concentrations. In the core, the fastest increase seen was of the order of 30 parts per million (ppm) by volume over a period of roughly 1,000 years.

"The last 30 ppm of increase has occurred in just 17 years. We really are in the situation where we don't have an analogue in our records," he said."

 

 

Wednesday, 7 February 2007 - 12:08 AM GMT

Name: "Juliette"

Come on David, do you really believe something just because it's been signed by 60 scientists? You know as well as I do that plenty of scientists have absolute zero grasp of statistics. 

I dunno if global warming is true or not - even if I went away and looked at the evidence myself I could probably only give you a certain probability of its being true. But it seems to me that it's better to assume that it's true, because of the consequences if it is. It's like gambling - you're looking at your expected gain and what variance you're happy with, rather than just the probability of the event happening. 

The interesting questions is what to do about it. Deforestration is much more of an issue than fuel consumption from what I've read, but fuel consumption is something that it's relatively easy for your average person to do something tiny about.  

 

 

Wednesday, 7 February 2007 - 3:42 AM GMT

Name: "David Young"

Juliette, perhaps I'm wrong, but I'm under the impression that in the mind of the public at least, the global warming believers get most of the press, while the existence of sceptics with relevant scientific backgrounds is not well known. That's why I posted the letter. I don't think it's something that most of you will have seen before. 

It's certainly possible that there are scientists with a poor grasp of stats, but I'm not in a position to know whether they are more likely to be found in the believer or non-believer camp.

I very much agree with your point about expected gain / loss being the key. And I think that most people totally underestimate the costs of making the sort of changes that the 'Kyoto protocol' would have involved. I think they also totally overestimate the benefits. From my perspective the protocol looks like the cure that's more deadly than the disease. I've bought Lomberg's 'The Sceptical Environmentalist' and have tried reading it, but it's hard work for the layman. But he does point out the serious possibility that the costs of accepting global warming (if it exists) may be less than the costs of taking the avertive action.

DY

Sunday, 18 February 2007 - 12:18 AM GMT

Name: "anonymous"

I must admit I do think there should be better coverage of the details of the science/statistics in the press rather than just rhetoric - I find it frustrating trying to figure out what the 'truth' is. I've seen press bias in both directions certainly. If this was a letter from scientists about intelligent design though (as there have been), I'm sure you'd have been a little bit more careful about quoting it :-)
I'm more scared about giving people the ammunition to say 'these scientists said that global warming isn't happening so I can do whatever I like' than the other way round. I'd prefer to take global warming as the default hypothesis with the pressure on people to come up with clear evidence that it's not happening than the other way round in the same way that you presume someone is innocent in court until proven guilty, but that's my personal opinion.
 

Sunday, 18 February 2007 - 12:19 AM GMT

Name: "Juliette"

Sorry - that was from me!

View Latest Entries