One would need to find reason or empericism in your contributions to give your position substance.So be more kind to those of use who use reason as well as empiricism, and do not denigrate those who question your science.
After all science depends on philosophy as much as it does on empiricism.
Wayne, I'm currently reading a Flannery book called The Weathermakers that is HIGHLY recommended by Intrepid Travel who are big supporters of GW dogmatists. Intrepid are leading the travel industry in carbon offsetting etc etc.
I've found some of his stuff has some foundation based on some seemingly facts but then at other times leaps to hard conclusions not based on anything other than his own preamble. Sometimes those conclusions are the most significant in a chapter. Troubling. However, overall, so far, seems to have some merit.
I'm a major skeptic of GW, probably because I find it my purpose to always take the opposing opinion of the masses. That's probably an ego thing, so I'm a bit lost trying to find the truth in regard to this issue.
So, opinion on Flannery?
Hair brained nutter?
Is his stuff really bunk in your opinion? Where does he lose it?
wayneL said:When he thought filling the upper atmosphere with so2 was a good idea.
on the question of "optimists" vs "pessimists"
sure I'm optimistic.
Especially when I read reports like this (from a CSIRO publication by Paul Holper and Simon Torok)
It can seem that way.I feel that this thread is an exercise in futility.
What do you think is going to happen when they start driving?But they have an inbuilt much more powerful universal truth;
They were put on this earth to enjoy themselves
Two incompatible truths. Which one should they follow?
I'd love a reasoned debate but emotion seems to dominate this subject to an incredible extent and both sides rely almost exclusively on it in the mainstream public debate.And a reasoned debate here is not likely.
I just ask for evidence that man has no impact on the measured temperature increases over the past 100 years. Or that the the skeptics can prove the science has no merit.
Regarding the role of the oceans in the process what do you see as the main difference between the artic and the antarctic and how they are different with the effects of GW, CC from man?The problem we have is that CO2 emissions continue to rise, along with many other greenhouse gases, and we are at levels which represent "bluesky" for climatologists.
Although we understand the science of "forcing", the pace of climate change in the Arctic shows that global models may be severely underestimating regional impacts.
Thus, you would logically conclude that "evidence" proves nothing?I think the expectation of evidence that man is directly, or not, linked to GW or CC is absurd.
Mandelbrot and Taleb present the paradigm worth pursuing to start new studies on the topic.
I may lack talent and epistemic arrogance to discuss this topic.
Peace
In simple terms the difference is self evident when looking at a globe of the earth: Antarctica is totally surrounded by three great oceans. The Artic is almost landlocked - surrounded by Europe, Asia and North America.Regarding the role of the oceans in the process what do you see as the main difference between the artic and the antarctic and how they are different with the effects of GW, CC from man?
Furthermore, I regard the majority of your contributions to this thread as having little value, to the point of being meaningless.One would need to find reason or empericism in your contributions to give your position substance.
By all means question the science.
But don't proclaim to empericist principles lest you have some evidence that tells us that the earth is on a cooling trend for the foreseeable future.
SmurfI maintain my view that we won't see emissions rise anywhere near as high as the worst case scenarios simply because we're not going to be able to extract enough fuel to burn.
So, how about a rational debate where the reasonable limits to emissions growth due to fuel availability are included? Even Garnaut glossed over that one, choosing to accept an unverified political claim as a key fact which forms a substantial part of the basis of this rather lengthy report. That ain't good science, but it does speak volumes about the problem of even attempting a truly objective debate on this issue.
Well if that's what we're relying on to save us, heaven help us.I maintain my view that we won't see emissions rise anywhere near as high as the worst case scenarios simply because we're not going to be able to extract enough fuel to burn. ..
This is what I just can't agree with as far as those calling for action are concerned.Well if that's what we're relying on to save us, heaven help us.
Remember Sarah Palin's only contribution to this debate? "Drill Baby Drill?
smurf if you're saying that we will not have a problem purely because we can't extract coal etc fast enough, then I would say you're smoking something pretty damned strong.If I am right about an inability to increase the fossil fuel extraction rate, and there is mounting evidence that this is indeed the case, then that is a 100% effective solution to the CO2 problem ...
Researchers at Hadley Centre talk of a “physical commitment to climate change”
This refers to the fact that the full impact of the GHGs already in the atmosphere will not be felt until 2050 etc .
factors :-
a) the CO2 that has already been released
b) the positive feedback loops that amplify climate change
c) global dimming (whereby dust reduces the heat reaching the earth
d) and the speed at which human economies can decarbonise themselves.
Of these
a) is known and gives us our existing commitment
b) and
c) are being explored / analysed
d) the rate at which humans can change their emissions , is being argued over right now in parliaments and boardrooms around the world. It is also the only impact over which we have any control.
Scientists say a 70% reduction in CO2 emissions from 1990 levels by the middle of the century is required to stabilise Earth’s climate. This would result in CO2 at 450 ppm, and global climate stabilising at at least 1.1 degC higher than at present , with some regions warming by as much as 5 degC.
The European nations are talking of emission cuts to this scale, but given the intransigence of the coal industry and the policies of the current US administration, this may be unachievable as a global target. ... More realistic might be stabilisation of atmospheric CO2 at 550 ppm - double the pre-industrial level.
In other words it's too late to avoid changing our world, but we still have time, if good policy is implemented, to avoid disaster.
Unfortunately with this one current science is lacking in creativity. It is good as a tool for wielding power though.Thus, you would logically conclude that "evidence" proves nothing?
Then there is no debate worth having.
some of these posts .. seriously ...snake said:And we surely do not know that man is causing GW, CC.
I'd love a reasoned debate but emotion seems to dominate this subject to an incredible extent and both sides rely almost exclusively on it in the mainstream public debate.
Polar bears drowning etc - that's an emotional argument unless there's a real prospect of extinction and we're also addressing the non-climate related causes of their demise.
Job losses etc - also an emotional argument as long as we maintain an economic system where having a "job" is a social and economic must.
It's been this way ever since we started having mainstream environmental debates. It was known and understood very well back then by environmentalists that no matter what the maths and engineering of the other side said, a simple photograph could sway public opinion in the opposite direction. That works even with a generic nature photograph unrelated to the subject of the debate (this was actually done during one high profile environmental debate).
That point was not at all understood by developers at the time, convinced that their calculations were right and that the public would vote accordingly. The public did grasp the numbers but as is generally the case the heart wins over the head when its decision time.
And so emotion has become the standard tactic. Engineering, science and hard facts are no match for photos and all sorts of other emotional things. Emotion almost always wins.
The trouble with this debate from a political perspective is that the situation is now reversed. It's largely environmentalists armed with calculators proposing massive engineering works to fix the CO2 problem whilst the other side is essentially an emotional argument about economic wellbeing. That's a reversal of the traditional position of environmentalists and one they apparently struggle with in much the same way as developers once struggled with "fuzzy" concepts about scenery and wilderness. They may be close, but they don't quite get it and that makes life rather difficult.
As the history of environmental debates has shown, it's rather hard to win when your argument relies on numbers and even moreso when it relies upon some sort of forecast. The climate change debate relies absolutely on both for its very existence and that's the problem.
some of these posts .. seriously ...
As Menzies used to say when the hecklers piped up in the back of the audience ...
"shame we didn't spend more on education"
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?