Meet John Holdren

[Kanonier Reichmann]

What I don't get is how, what was it... something like over 2,000 scientists signed off on that large study that proved global warming was a problem for the planet and action needed to be taken quickly to reverse the potentially devastating effects of the warming, yet this is simply dismissed as being some sort of giant conspiracy? That's a hell of a lot of scientists involved in the "conspiracy" and yet they're so stupid as to put their name to it!

The other thing. Scientists being scientists, they need to back up their theories with empirical evidence, observations, testing of hypotheses, recording of experiments etc, etc. They then prepare papers based on their testing and back it up with analyses of their findings, statistical data, lists of sources of information and so on. The final crunch is that any written theory is then subject to peer review to determine whether the conclusions within the paper stack up based on the experience of the people reviewing the information, the basis of the analysis, whether conclusions make sense when compared with the data presented etc, etc.

Compare this process with what journalists, politicians, current affairs presenters, media commentators etc. have to do when they come up with their various statements, opinions and articles on a range of subjects.

So....... who is more believable?

Regards

KR

[Stalins Organ]

The journo's of course - you can read what they have to say every day........how many Scientists write for the Sun (or your local sensationalist equivalent)?

[costard]

The problem (now) isn't one of determining the fact of global warming - it's about determination of relative threat. I contend that the threat of a stagnating world economy with self limiting processes (the human population will continue to grow until it no longer can, for example) is somewhat less than the introduction of a world-wide bureaucracy intent on introducing untested political and taxation systems. When you take a look at the talent available to develop the systems and implement them, you'd have to argue that they've either been completely out of the loop for the last decade or have been so much a part of it that they are entirely incompetent and not trustworthy to walk your dog. In either case, there is no justification for confidence.

Given the unlikelihood of a world economy able to return a rising (or even stable) standard of living to the majority of the world populace for the next ten years or so, I really don't think there is the hope of the political will - or ability - to deliver the required structural changes. Most developed economies have passed their manufacturing base off to slave economies and have quite deliberately ignored the plight of their own citizens: I cannot see that this voting citizenry is likely to support further economic pain in support of a solution that might, just might, work. Instead, I foresee that the continuing devolution of political and economic systems will lead us to a sharper correction, one where no concern whatsoever will be paid to the generation of greenhouse gases.

[Stalins Organ]

Wow - worldwide starvation, war, disease etc from overpopulation is less of athreat than high interst rates and depression?

Boy you got me there.....

[costard]

Wow - worldwide starvation, war, disease etc from overpopulation is less of athreat than high interst rates and depression?

Boy you got me there.....

Pah, you disingenuous southerner. I hope your hole closes up.

Worldwide starvation, war, disease etc from overpopulation is just as much of a threat as from high interest rates and depression. Better?

[Kanonier Reichmann]

The other thing I don't get is why all the indignation and wailing from well established 1st world countries about the cost involved to try and fix the global warming problem. Ummmmm... haven't these countries been the ones that have benefited the most from polluting the oceans and atmosphere with thriving manufacturing and energy industries that have substantially contributed to the current situation we're in?

With the U.S. being the worlds largest polluter by far, followed by a bunch of western economies why shouldn't we be paying the lions share for what we have reaped from exploitation of the worlds resources?

Regards

KR

[Michael Emrys]

KR, I am totally with you on that last one. But since when has basic logic had much of a foothold in politics? Especially international politics. International politics has always been about grabbing all you can and screw the other guy. That's no longer a viable strategy in a world where everything everybody does effects everybody else to a greater or lesser degree, but it's taking a while for the lesson to sink in. It's a line I've been preaching for 40 years and more, but we've scarcely taken even the first step.

Michael

[Stalins Organ]

Err...they shouldn't because that would infringe upon their rights to exploit the rest of the world for their own comfortable lifestyle (and by "their" I mean "our").....

Sheesh...

[costard]

The other thing I don't get is why all the indignation and wailing from well established 1st world countries about the cost involved to try and fix the global warming problem. Ummmmm... haven't these countries been the ones that have benefited the most from polluting the oceans and atmosphere with thriving manufacturing and energy industries that have substantially contributed to the current situation we're in?

With the U.S. being the worlds largest polluter by far, followed by a bunch of western economies why shouldn't we be paying the lions share for what we have reaped from exploitation of the worlds resources?

Regards

KR

Well, yes and no. "To each according to his ability" might well be the creed of the capitalist, and you might expect that to apply to funding a climate repair system too, but if the people doing the paying are being asked to give up their access to opportunity and wealth, you can expect the wailing and gnashing of teeth to be loud. A student of human nature would point out that no-one except the gulled are going to do any such thing as pour money into the coffers of a new religious movement - the basic idea of the environmental movement is that once the third world reaches parity with the first in terms of wealth and opportunity, it will choose to remain there. Of course the easiest way to achieve that parity is to redistribute the wealth of the world in a fair and equitable fashion.

Ok - let's move away from speculative fantasy to some analysis: who's google-fu is up to this request ? -

I need to see a set of graphs showing average global temperatures over several time scales - past to present: a million years, one hundred thousand, ten thousand, one thousand and one hundred. The longer time scale might well be too short for the purists, but if I can't establish that the current movement in average temperature is unprecedented over the last million years I'm prepared to lend some credence to the idea that the current movement in temperature is due to the burning of fossil fuels and the waste heat generated by inefficient energy conversion.

[costard]

Ok. This from Proceedings of the National Institute for Science 2006. Quite fuzzy, an indicated increase in average global temperature of 1 degree Celsius over the past 120 years and within about 1 degree Celsius of the maximum reached in the past million years.

Global surface temperature has increased ≈0.2°C per decade in the past 30 years, similar to the warming rate predicted in the 1980s in initial global climate model simulations with transient greenhouse gas changes. Warming is larger in the Western Equatorial Pacific than in the Eastern Equatorial Pacific over the past century, and we suggest that the increased West–East temperature gradient may have increased the likelihood of strong El Niños, such as those of 1983 and 1998. Comparison of measured sea surface temperatures in the Western Pacific with paleoclimate data suggests that this critical ocean region, and probably the planet as a whole, is approximately as warm now as at the Holocene maximum and within ≈1°C of the maximum temperature of the past million years. We conclude that global warming of more than ≈1°C, relative to 2000, will constitute “dangerous” climate change as judged from likely effects on sea level and extermination of species.

Further in the article links data from the University of East Anglia so maybe I shouldn't be using this... anyway.

Ok, here is the graph of surface temperatures for the Western Equatorial Pacific Ocean for the past 1.35 million years. It is noted that there is some doubt as to the relative positioning of the modern data and the core sample data - let's take it as read that the graph is "accurate" (if it isn't I don't see how the counter-argument is helped at all). Note the spike at about the 450 thousand years ago mark. According to this graph, for a period of about 2000 years, the temperature of the Western Pacific Ocean was higher than it is now. My understanding is that there was no human industry extant at this time.

We are being asked to back an innovative approach to economic management around the globe - or to at least step aside and let it happen. The ***** ******* political ****-******* that would have me believe that they are capable of putting it into practice haven't even come close to repairing the damage done to the model we have. No ****ing way is this going to work. No hope at all.