Global Warmists back off on prediction

[Griff]

Originally Posted by HLJ

...except that X, the consequential cost, is probably a lot higher than the cost of fixing the problem.

There are fixes and then there are pretend fixes. Kyoto was a pretend fix akin to changing the oil in that rear differential. A public relations stunt saying, "We care!" Fully implemented, it would have very slightly delayed our reaching whatever number we're saying is too warm. (I say this assuming that CO2 doesn't follow warming but is causing it.)

I want us off fossil fuels for political and environmental reasons. I do, however, come back to the motives of the fear-mongerers. Conveniently enough, the biggest supporters of the Global Warming theory also support command economies a proven threat to humanity.

[HungLikeJesus]

Originally Posted by Griff

There are fixes and then there are pretend fixes. Kyoto was a pretend fix akin to changing the oil in that rear differential. A public relations stunt saying, "We care!" Fully implemented, it would have very slightly delayed our reaching whatever number we're saying is too warm. (I say this assuming that CO2 doesn't follow warming but is causing it.)

I want us off fossil fuels for political and environmental reasons. I do, however, come back to the motives of the fear-mongerers. Conveniently enough, the biggest supporters of the Global Warming theory also support command economies a proven threat to humanity.

The only clear way to get off of fossil fuels is to use less - a lot less. For the forseeable future (a vague term that), there is no alternative fuel that can displace more than a small percentage of our current oil consumption. Nothing. Not ethanol nor biodiesel nor DME nor hydrogen nor electrons. We can achieve more through efficiency and conservation than we can through all the ethanol that we could produce from corn. This is briefly discussed in the 20 in 10 thread.

[xoxoxoBruce]

[Homer] Orrrrr, we could use more, to use it up quickly, then there wouldn't be any to fight over. [Homer]

[Aliantha]

I think our creator is just about ready to throw the ant farm of humanity into the garbage.

Haven't you noticed he hasn't been watering us with the same care as he once did?

[piercehawkeye45]

We can calculate the total global warming but we can't calculate why the Earth is warming. I pretty sure most people agree that the Earth is warming and that is backed by scientific fact.

What we don't know is why the Earth is warming. That is the point of the two variables and why I made the point that it is impossible to calculate X without Y and why it is impossible to calculate Y without X.

To get to the point, even though both variables do add to global warming, we can not say what is causing how much warming so it is a flawed argument to say that global warming is man-made or natural made. It just annoys me when people say "global warming is because of this" when they have no proof to back it up with.

[Aliantha]

Here's something possibly irrelevant to this conversation but I'm going to tell you anyway.

The Al Gore lecture is doing the rounds over here at the moment, and my husband and two sons went along on Monday night to listen to it and watch the pictures.

When question time came up, my 10yr old stood up and asked this question.

"If global warming is caused by holes in the ozone layer [in part] then why can't the warmth get back out of the holes?"

[Undertoad]

Inhofe finds 13 climatologists who have recently changed from global warming advocates to skeptics

I don't find Inhofe personally compelling but this list is interesting.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Lot of Canadians on the list, are you sure they aren't trying to fool us so Canada will thaw out?
I wonder if Bluesdave knows Dr David Evans?

[bluesdave]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

I wonder if Bluesdave knows Dr David Evans?

I know of him, but do not know him. He is a very smart guy, but not trained in climate research. You have to be careful when people with PhDs speak outside of their training. We have a tendency to think that because we have achieved a doctorate, that means we know everything. We don't.

David is quite correct when he says that the whole climate change debate has been hijacked by politicians. Several of us in my old project eventually came to the conclusion that we would never win the battle to convince the public. I always pushed the argument that it was better to sell the public on the benefits of cleaning up the environment, rather than throwing figures and graphs around, that were only going to confuse people. My point was that regardless whether man really is having an effect on the rate of climate change, it can only help the planet, and hence us, if we reduce pollution.

I am really worried about what is happening in China and India. It will be interesting to see how the Olympics go in 2008. The images of Beijing that I have seen, send chills down my spine.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Being hijacked not only by politicians, but charlatans and hucksters that prey on people who don't understand anything passed the headlines. Sure, people are subject to being scammed because they haven't delved into the story behind the headlines, but that doesn't excuse the scammers.

In fairness to the general public, we've dug into it pretty deeply here, in several threads, and still haven't been able to find definitive answers. There is a lot of opposing, subjective, conclusions, and conflicting data.

It's pretty well agreed that the Earth is warming up. I see no debate there, but why, how far it will warm, what the consequences will be and what we can do about it, are being debated.

Your position of, cleaning up can't hurt, is probably true. But I feel an organized effort, encompassing cost/benefit considerations, is the best way to attack the pollution problem. Unfortunately that requires government intervention, which scares most people because of the government's history of being inept and squandering resources.... not to mention full scale charges in the wrong direction.

China/India are indeed scary, just because of the scale and speed they are fouling the water, air and land. The long running, runaway, underground coal seam fires in northern China, probably spew out more pollution than most countries.

[bluesdave]

I have participated a few times in some of those threads, Bruce, if you remember. I tried to point out that it is impossible to design an experiment that will prove man's contribution to climate change. As you point out, there are conflicting "experts", and inconsistent data. I can only speak from my experience and the data we have collected. It becomes a pointless exercise repeating the same message over and over again, to the same audience. That is why I have not participated in every thread on the subject.

Climate change is like a religion. People believe what they want to believe, and others manipulate it for their own profit, or power.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

China/India are indeed scary, just because of the scale and speed they are fouling the water, air and land. The long running, runaway, underground coal seam fires in northern China, probably spew out more pollution than most countries.

And that is why we should never sign Kyoto.

[Aliantha]

Dave, I know I've asked you this before, but what Uni are you affiliated with?

[bluesdave]

Originally Posted by Aliantha

Dave, I know I've asked you this before, but what Uni are you affiliated with?

If you mean who do I work for, the answer is no one now. I am retired. I have not been attached to the academic staff of any university; I worked for a government body (prior to that, a few companies). The project's goal is to distill data coming from researchers all over the world, and try to make some sense out of it. We then gave recommendations to the government, and also advised land users (such as primary producers), of our estimates of where the climate is heading. We (not me), wrote several computer models that tried to predict future rainfall in various regions of Australia. Our early models failed, as did those of many other researchers around the world. We all worked closely with many other researchers, so in that sense I had contact with many universities and research organisations. We used NASA data quite a bit.

We were all forced to sign non disclosure agreements in order to join the project, and the penalties were potentially quite serious - not to mention that if we were caught leaking information to the media, that would be the end of the person's career. This is why I have been very reticent to divulge too much information. Even though I am retired I still have a loose connection to the project.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Hey Dave, you could write a tell-all book and sell the TV/Movie rights for a fortune. Maybe you could star in it, too. And have a fan club and groupies... don't forget the groupies. Kind of like Trading Places with weather futures instead of Orange Juice futures.

Did I mention the groupies?