Topic: Global Warming - Two More Reports

[GillE]

The BBC has published two reports today about global warming.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8299426.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8299079.stm

Two points immediately occur to me on glancing through these reports:

• The climate hasn't warmed in the last eleven years despite IPCC predictions.
  
  
• There is still no proven link between CO₂ levels and climate temperature, nor any confirmation that they are leading (not lagging) indicators.

How much are we spending on this unproductive research?  At a time when we are all being called on to make financial sacrifices (personally, I'd like to sacrifice a few bankers) I'm not happy to indulge this scientific gravy-train.

[sam]

why are people so interest in the cosmic rays: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/10/why-the-continued-interest/  another example of probably bad science.

Gill, its a dodgy step to start wondering about the financial sacrifices of research, the point with blue skies research is it is probably not productive... then again this stuff is supposed to be targeted... AND should be peer reviewed. Peer review should determine if the science needs to take place and the crap stuff get left behind without any funding.

[GillE]

I'm passionately in favour of scientific research, even research which doesn't have an obvious end, so long as it is academically rigorous and independent.  I'd happily see my taxes spent in that way and cut back on other national projects (let's have self-funding for 'artists' - blow up Tate Modern).  However, there appears to be a lot of pseudo-science attached to the IPCC and similar bodies for whom the notion of global warming is a cash cow.

Out of fairness to Arizona University, it is possible that the article which appears in Science (a reputable, peer-reviewed magazine, I believe) hasn't been accurately reported by the press.  However, I don't see how Prof Overpeck (former joint chair of the IPCC) can justifiably say, "This is yet another paper that makes the future look more scary than previously thought by many".  It is not responsible scientific commentary.  He then goes on to say, "If anyone still doubts the link between CO2 and climate, they should read this paper."   I wonder if the paper really does prove cause and effect as Prof Overpeck claims.  Somehow, I doubt it.  Previous IPCC claims have never been backed by convincing science and for that reason I am highly sceptical that this paper will actually prove what the IPCC claims it proves.

[sam]

Out of fairness to Arizona University, it is possible that the article which appears in Science (a reputable, peer-reviewed magazine, I believe) hasn't been accurately reported by the press.  However, I don't see how Prof Overpeck (former joint chair of the IPCC) can justifiably say, "This is yet another paper that makes the future look more scary than previously thought by many".  It is not responsible scientific commentary.  He then goes on to say, "If anyone still doubts the link between CO2 and climate, they should read this paper."   I wonder if the paper really does prove cause and effect as Prof Overpeck claims.  Somehow, I doubt it.  Previous IPCC claims have never been backed by convincing science and for that reason I am highly sceptical that this paper will actually prove what the IPCC claims it proves.

I glanced through the paper, the University here having a subscription... and its overly complicated but what I got from it was that it was interesting but I'm not entirely convinced. The problem is whenever you read CO2 and climate it immediately makes the public thing man made and not other. I do agree with you that the scientific commentary in the media over climate change is woeful and at worst fanciful. I read that statement - "makes the future look more scary" and it made me laugh, its the kind of scientific statement I'd tell off secondary school students over!

[GillE]

Thank you. Sam.  You have confirmed a suspicion that has been present in my mind for more than a decade.  However, since I don't have a science qualification beyond GCE level, the questions I ask seem to be dismissed by 'qualified' scientists because I would not understand.  How patronising!  It is heartening that you are not so dismissive.

The IPCC and associated bodies all claim that the production of CO₂ gases is generating global warming and they use papers such as this from Arizona to 'prove' their claims.  In reality, the paper proves no such thing.  It makes me wonder how many previous papers have been abused in this way to 'prove' IPCC claims.

What scares me is the danger that we might be doing something which actually is compromising the global environment, but unsound research into sacred cows such as CO₂ emissions is impeding sound research. For all we know, we might be living in days comparable to the time when men believed the sun was pulled across the sky by a god in a chariot and anyone who questioned this was a blasphemer, a heretic to be exterminated from society.

[Sandra]

Its ironic that Maggie funded the research into global warming by man made CO2 in order to smash the unions and to try and make us independant of foreign countries that were supplying us with oil and gas so that they couldnt hold us to ransom. I wonder if she realised that when she gave our energy companies away to her mates at great benefit to them and none to us, that they would eventually be sold off to foreign countries that now hold us to ransom with their over inflated prices and profits  

[GillE]

In his book, Nigel Lawson describes how the Tories decided to promote research which would support notions of global warming so they could switch to cleaner fuels and break the coal miners.

[David]

I have never subscribed to the global warming ,call me a synic but a lot of people are making a fortune from this.I am not very up on all this but I have not seen any great changes in the climate I have always thought it was a cycle thing.and I don't think we could do very much in reality to stop it....if it was actually happening 

[sam]

Scientists should be able to present their work to an 8 year old without dumbing it down... of course you might leave things out, e.g. "the statistical significance at a 5sigma level..." but you should be able to get over the key findings to anyone.... though saying that I tend to find the general public scared of talking science. Scared of graphs and swept by with jargon. Alas, some jargon is needed... but you should be able to explain this... especially to an educated audience. I like to think I can listen to any science and take stuff away, however, even with a PhD in Physics I still get completely bamboozled at times.

I like to sit on the fence on this issue but I personally feel that it is very important that we take action... if we are wrong and global warming isn't man made then all we have done is develop new and potentially economy saving technologies (we need a solution for when we run out of oil... and no that's not coal!).

I have to say I resent the media reporting of any science, its normally pretty ropey - I think the people they have working on this dont really understand the scientific endeavour and what scientists mean. Though some of the data presented at big conferences seems to be fairly s**te, but maybe that's the difference between the type of science we do. If I presented some s**te looking graph I'd get destroyed over any statistical inferences I made.

We had a guy from the IPCC talk at Birmingham to physicists... he got destroyed by the questions...

[GillE]

Yet there is an abundance of media friendly scientists to explain other scientific matters to the general public.  Jim Al Khalili and Brian Cox spring to mind immediately.  If they can explain Schrodingers Cat to the general public, why can't the IPCC find a media-friendly scientist to explain their case?  I suspect they fear that their evidence would not withstand public scrutiny, let alone rigorous scientific examination.

[Sandra]

I like to sit on the fence on this issue but I personally feel that it is very important that we take action... if we are wrong and global warming isn't man made then all we have done is develop new and potentially economy saving technologies (we need a solution for when we run out of oil... and no that's not coal!).

That would be fine if we werent in a recession Sam. We cant afford the luxury of developing new techniques or reducing CO2, whether its causing problems for the furture or not.
Once we are financially secure, if that ever happens, then we can start spending money on new projects that may or may not be of some benefit eventually.

[sam]

That would be fine if we werent in a recession Sam. We cant afford the luxury of developing new techniques or reducing CO2, whether its causing problems for the furture or not.
Once we are financially secure, if that ever happens, then we can start spending money on new projects that may or may not be of some benefit eventually.

I'm pretty sure that technological development drives the economy, especially such a high-tech industry as the UK and thus will help bring us out of the problems. We also should have a concious about the future. We need to make moral decisions not just financial ones, I want my children to live in the clean environment they deserve to. Oh, I believe the UK will never be financially secure as long as we stay out of being properly part of Europe.

[Sandra]

Oh, I believe the UK will never be financially secure as long as we stay out of being properly part of Europe.

Spending money that people didnt have is what brought the present recession upon us. If I couldnt afford something I didnt get it and saved up until I could afford it. Thats why apart from having a mortgage and when in business an overdraft, both of which I made certain I could manage and didnt overstretch myself, I have never been in debt. If everyone else had done the same, including our government we wouldnt be in the present mess that we are now in.
To spend money that we havent got that increases the costs of energy in order to either capture carbon or produce less CO2 is not financially viable at this time.

Being in the EU to the extent that we now are is a big part of our current financial problem too Sam. If we had stayed as the majority of the population of the UK wanted, a trading partenership, which is what the EEC was when we initially voted for it, we would be OK. Being part of the federal states of Europe is costing us too much and not benefitting us in any way at all.

[David]

That would be fine if we werent in a recession Sam. We cant afford the luxury of developing new techniques or reducing CO2, whether its causing problems for the furture or not.
Once we are financially secure, if that ever happens, then we can start spending money on new projects that may or may not be of some benefit eventually.
/quote]

Couldn't agree more than this Sandra

[GillE]

As I see it, the problem is not so much about Britain being a part of Europe - it's that Europe can't bring itself to be a part of Britain.



I don't see Blue Sky research as being an unaffordable luxury.  I do see subsidies to the arts as being an unaffordable luxury.  Whilst it's nice to think that by targeting research on a particular goal you will achieve a particular result which can be economically quantified and judged as being either good value or an extravagance, most scientific breakthroughs don't happen that way.  Often a practical scientist will be casually chatting with a theoretical colleague from another field and suddenly something will click.  That's what happened with DNA, it happened with heliobacter pylori, and I suspect there are lots of other instances.  It's when scientists cast their nets widely that the most exciting catches are made.

With all this research into CO₂ and global warming, you would have thought that someone would have come up with some persuasive science by now.  It's a bit like ghost hunting - although lots of people believe in ghosts and people have been investigating the paranormal for years, there's still no proof.