Gransnet forums

Culture/Arts

"Kill the IPCC"

(44 Posts)
thatbags Thu 03-Oct-13 07:52:22

If you call some people deniers, you have no right to object to others using labels too, though I accept your point about labelling. I hadn't really thought that thinking of a standpoint as pessimistic or optimistic was labelling, but I suppose it is.

However, it is a labelling of viewpoints rather than people.

thatbags Thu 03-Oct-13 07:50:08

Look at it as retaliation towards those who keep spitting on about deniers.

Aka Thu 03-Oct-13 07:44:41

Stop labelling people it's not going to win you any respect.

thatbags Thu 03-Oct-13 07:05:36

I like this tweet

thatbags Thu 03-Oct-13 06:52:43

Excellent post, flick. Except that those in favour of humankind continuing to extend its use of science and technology to improve the human condition (expand affluence is your term) do not deny climate change. They are as aware of it as any catastrophist. They just have a different, and in my view better, approach to dealing with it in favour of adaptation – the same approach as evolution by natural selection. Well, not quite the same, but I find that a useful way of thinking about it.

Another way I think about it is that the catasptrophists are pessimists and the adaption-favourers are optimists. I'm on the optimistic side. The catastrophists are on the slippery slope side.

I'm not sure I agree that killing the useless megalith IPCC will cause a free for all. There is plenty of networking between groups of scientists on this as on any other subject of scientific research Though, of course, it's not one subject but many.

susieb755 Wed 02-Oct-13 20:44:53

...I wondered why you wanted to kill the Independent Police Complaints Committee..........

FlicketyB Wed 02-Oct-13 20:22:38

What a fascinating discussion this thread has engendered. I read the first Judith Curry column and the thing that worried me was, that although she put forward very cogent reasons for killing the IPCC, she did not put forward any suggestions for an alternative drawing together of investigations into changes in climate, just a free for all.

Opting for a free for all is a very good way of destroying a group saying uncomfortable truths when you have been unable to bring forward any arguments to refute their statements. With no central organisation acting as a spokesperson for the issue involved everyone can just ignore it and pretend it isn't there.

Nevertheless the climate change discussions do seem to have been reduced to a playground battle, like two teams of 8 year old boys all shouting that their daddies are bigger stronger than their opponents daddies. Not a good way of carrying out any argument, least of all one as important as this.

The real problem is that climate change has become almost entirely a political issue with Greens and other environmentalists seeing in climate change the bandwagon unifying issue and Doomsday scenario they had been lacking to hold the many fissiparous environmental groups together and to justify their desire to turn the world back to some mythical rural idyll where we all knitted our own bread and wove our own jerkins. On the other side those who believe in developing new technologies and expanding world affluence have found climate denying a good way of hitting back at all environmentalists on all fronts all at once.

This is where the new environmentalism as discussed in the article may take us forward. The acceptance that we now live in the anthropocine , an era where it is accepted that it is man that shapes the earth. A time when, as archaeologists and anthropologist have known for years, that most of the earth's surface is a human construct and that all the wild places 'untouched by human hand' are as much man-made as any cityscape, is commonly accepted. It means looking to technology to provide solutions to environmental problems and accepting that we must look for ways for sustainably growth for those countries still in relative poverty

Aka Wed 02-Oct-13 12:25:20

Bags I'm familiar with the blogs etc of Judith Curry and she lacks credibility for me since her Murry Selby attack a couple of years ago.

I can tell you feel very strongly about this but please do not accuse me of prejudice (an adverse judgment or opinion formed beforehand or without knowledge or examination of the facts) as you have no idea what knowledge I have in this area.

thatbags Wed 02-Oct-13 12:13:15

@curryja: The IPCC isn't doing science; its just saying its models are correct.

thatbags Wed 02-Oct-13 11:56:53

Please also define "deniers". The range of scepticism on issues of climate science is very large.

thatbags Wed 02-Oct-13 11:55:39

Or anyone else, for that matter.

thatbags Wed 02-Oct-13 11:55:13

Judith Curry, the balance.

Please explain what Curry denies, aka. I should have a look at her website first if I were you, and not believe prejudiced writing about her.

Aka Wed 02-Oct-13 07:43:30

Judith Curry. hmm

absent Wed 02-Oct-13 07:36:57

Bloody acronyms.

absent Wed 02-Oct-13 07:36:42

Whoops! Got the wrong IPCC. Completely confused

Aka Wed 02-Oct-13 07:21:16

why deniers are wrong

thatbags Wed 02-Oct-13 07:04:05

The New Environmentalism. "Battle of Ideas".

thatbags Wed 02-Oct-13 06:52:28

Well said, Judith Curry.

thatbags Wed 02-Oct-13 06:51:37

"The IPCC needs to get out of the way so that scientists and policy makers can better do their jobs." Discuss.