Re: [OT] : Great Global Warming Swindle

[David Greaves <david@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Mal
I'd really like to respond but I need to check a few things first:
* would you mind popping round for a cuppa so you can see I'm not a raving
nutter?
* can you accept that typed responses may not have the nuances of a
conversation
and forgive any misunderstandings?
* err, humour: what's white and turns red at the flick of a switch? An
iPhone in
a Blender :) (Note: for those unfamiliar with e-mail the :) symbols
indicate humour)
* Finally: if we end up not agreeing will you promise not to tell me that
global
warming smells?


OK, assuming we're OK with that...

Mal Lansell wrote:
> It may not be HA but I'm not letting that lot go by unchallenged.
Cool - or rather "warm" [again, despite missing smiley, this is
humour for those
that need flags]

> The problem with the Global Warming campaign is that it is overhyped.
Yep
> It would be ludicrous to claim that we make no difference, but to
assign
> every woe to Global Warming as is happenning at the moment is
hysterical
> nonsense, and is already starting to cause people to question it.
Yes. The media are twonks - what's new.

> There have been many Julys with more rain and worse floods in past
> centuries, so it is not necessarily the case that global warming is
the
> cause.  In fact, most climate predictions expect our summers to be
drier.
Yes. Almost no current weather extremes are really attributable to Global
Warming as it needs to be understood in order to deal with it socially and
economically.

> And yes, I would prefer to have a qualified surgeon operate on me than
> some bloke off the street, but climatolagists are hardly in the same
> league as surgeons when it comes to predicting outcomes.
True. But would you agree they are in the same comparative league (surgeon
vs
Fred == climatoligist vs Fred) when it comes to understanding the problem
space.

>  Surgeons ahve
> experience with hundreds of patients, with climate we have one patient
> and no knowledge of how things will turn out - it's just a guess.
When a surgeon looks at a fuzzy mass and says "that's a tumour"
and then goes
digging for bits of it she's just 'guessing' when she says "got it
all".
Well educated guess though.
Climatologists have the luxury of using historic data to predict the past.
That
actually works if you are honourable. And you can fiddle your predictions
(also
known as fine-tuning or 'working out' [gentle humour flag]) until you get
the
right answer. This is actually allowed because it's not a test or an exam
(I'm
not being sarcastic - people "on the street" *really* think that
they are
'cheating' buy doing it again and again until they get it 'right'!!!! There
is
so little understanding of scientific methodology it's frightening.)

>  Only
> thirty years ago, the bulk of scientific opinion held that we were
> headed for an ice age - back then you would no doubt also unthinkingly
> follow the mob and argue that we should heat the world up less we all
> freeze.  Just imagine how you'd feel now if we'd done that!  The point
> is that a majority opinion, even an "expert" one, is not
necessarily
> correct.
Yes. But even further back we thought the world was flat. And we thought
that
cutting you open to let the 'humnours' out [note, different 'humour' -
don't
worry about it] really worked.

We need to use our current best understanding of the situation. We also
need the
balls to admit to possible errors and change our minds (a common problem
for
faith-based systems whether religious or not). Would you like 20th century
medicine or 19th. Actually: would you like 21st century medicine or late
20th
century?

> Even if you could do the impossible and cut emissions by, say, 50%,
all
> you would achieve would be the burning of all the oil in 200 years
> instead of 100.  That's not going to make any difference.
Ah. So says "Fred" :)
Here I have to side with the climatologists. Hopefully I can find a source
that
I trust (eg New Scientist/Nature etc etc)
I have zero faith in the daily papers and the TV news/entertainment shows -
I
don't read them or watch them.
Even I (as a simple once-upon-a-time physicist) can see that rate of change
matters.
If the earth loses heat into space at 10units per decade and we insert 10
units
per decade then we're touch and go.
If we halve it to 5 units per decade then we are *much* better off.
It appears that the climate *could* be that finely balanced.
Yes there are those who claim that feedback effects will cancel it out...
AFAIK
they are currently Freds. Maybe in 10 years the work of those Freds will
have
been examined rigorously and they will be respected climatologists. Then
I'll
listen to them. Until then I'll trust the scientific community (which
commercial
interests and insane US presidents are trying to kill because they are
greedy or
religious (or both)).


>  There is also
> a huge lag between cause and effect.  If global warming is really
> occurring, then all we can do is deal with the consequences.  The
> current obsession with trying to prevent it is futile.
Ah. So says "Fred" :) Again.
I can understand that you feel that way. But it isn't futile. It *is* hard.
No, it's not hard. It's absolutely totally f*cking insanely hard. *REALLY*
*REALLY* hard. Thank tux I don't have kids...


> Finally, why would anyone be so arrogant as to claim that the current
> climate the optimum one?
As I said *this* is not the same argument.
It's a *great* argument but it's not the same one!

The first argument was "do we affect the climate?" followed by
"and can we stop
ourselves?"
This is "and should we care?".

Personally I don't care :) I have no kids. I think the human race will
survive.
I won't be around to miss the polar bears. (Anyway penguins will eventually
rule
the world!!! Oh, wrong thread!)

The Earth has had a wide variety of climates
> over the millenia, why should this one be correct, and the others
> wrong?  Maybe a warmer world will have more rain and be more lush,
> supporting a wider diversity of life?  Certainly it was warmer during
> the time of the dinosaurs (and there was much more CO2 in the air),
and
> if the land could support such huge creatures, there must have been
> something right with the climate back then.
Indeed.

I think the global risk assessment goes:

GW Bush the 12th: "Hey. North America just became a dried up desert
wasteland.
God must have intended us to take over South America and the middle east
now
that they're nice lush wetlands. Lets nuke the bastards! JIHAD! JIHAD!
JIHAD!"
<Many Nuclear Booms!>

THE END.
(or similar global unrest caused by massive and rapid economical upheaval)

I think the justification for preventing change is also due to an
prevailing
western 'moral' attitude towards "the environment" that says
"do no harm".

We have seen the negative impact of human society on other species and many
civilised people think that pumping noxious gasses into the air is akin to
pissing in the bath. You may feel that there's nothing wrong with it - it
is
after all 'natural' and many species do indeed use urine as perfume.
Society as
a whole doesn't agree (today).

Tired now. See you tomorrow if I haven't been banned ;)

David