The Sceptics' Thread

Sorry bagitha, I must have the attention span of a gnat. I have had several attempts at reading your post, but my eyes glaze over and I can't be bothered to take it all in! How shallow I am!

Oh - well I read it and had to follow your last link to find out what hockey stick was and then was amazed at how scathing and, at times, rude the people posting on that site were. However, that did not detract from the main point - or what I took to be the main point - that the data and conclusions drawn from hockey stick graph were flawed yet, that these flaws were not challenged as the work was not made openly public and that the resulting frenzy about climate change, if I understood it correctly, was a waste of money and effort. As a complete ignoramous about things scientific - have I got anywhere near the point?

Phew. No punches pulled there then.

Climate change or no climate change, what sense does it make to use up all the fossil fuels in the wasteful way that we do?
And then have to resort to things like trashing the Alaskan wilderness to keep the feeding frenzy going.
We have already tapped into the easily accessible fossil fuels. The places and geologies that remain are all more difficult to mine/drill and therefore will deliver more expensive fuels.
Energy prices are rising and are going to continue to rise for the rest of our lives, and it makes sense to be personally frugal with energy whether or not you believe in climate change.

My DH has been going on about the fallacy of the Hockey Stick for a couple of years now, so it is interesting to read this post. He (DH) says belief in climate change has become a sort of pseudo-religion, with deniers being treated like heretics.
Nevertheless I agree with JessM that it is still vital to look after the finite resources of our planet!!!

There are clear-sighted scientists working on climate warming, and I don't believe that everyone is influenced by the "big pharma" syndrome into reaching predetermined conclusions, but there seems to be conflicting evidence appearing. My own bias is toward hoping for the best while being prepared for the worst. The more data is accumulated, the better the diagnosis and prognosis, so perhaps it will become clearer.

Regardless of the effect on climate change, there is no ignoring the fact that we are being wasteful with resources, and even if we in West cut down our dependence on cheap power, there are developing nations who have not had "their turn".

Earth would continue to exist whatever we did, and would eventually recover, but if we were to succeed in wrecking the climate, a lot of species could become extinct - including man.

If the human race were to be wiped out and we had to start again with a new Adam and Eve, their descendants would presumably follow the same path as our ancestors and discover how to use fire and stone tools, but when they needed more fuel to start smelting iron and then to go on to make more complicated machines and gadgets (like computers) they would be stymied.

The easily obtained fossil fuel is mostly used up, and the really difficult deposits need the technology that can only be developed once they have the medium difficulty deposits - which are getting used up too.

So we only have this one chance at this kind of civilisation. We must be careful not to blow it.

I am neither a sceptic nor a believer - isn't it interesting this evangelical language!
I am not a scientist, so my ability to comment on this is very limited - and I am sure that goes for many of us. We are in the hands of the scientists and are not in a position to prove or disprove what they say. We cannot all be experts in everything.
I am also slightly concerned by the "original sin" (to continue the religious analogy) of all of this. The assumption is that we have all done something wrong and are to "blame" for climate change.
We have no idea what the plan for the world is/was - or indeed whether there was/is one - it may be that this is just another evolutionary happening and has no good/bad connotations.
Since the world began species have come and gone - it seems to be the way of it - and the change in climate will have profound effects on some species (including us) just as other natural phenomena have had that effect in the past.
I share the desire to husband scarce resources and to support the advance of science to widen our fuel base, but I do not want to enter into a guilt trip every time I switch on a light. I fear that any care we might take as individuals is so miniscule in comparison to the use of resources by America, India etc. - as soemone has said, the developing nations want their turn, and who can blame them.
I am slightly on the fence on this issue as you can see - I am sure that I am not alone. But being born into the "waste not, want not" generation I am unable to stop myself being careful with resources, and I am sure this is a good principle.

Title of paper by a geologist: "Influential people are getting the message". Note that her published article was censored.

joannenova.com.au/2011/12/influential-people-are-getting-the-message-gina-rinehart-explains-the-science-of-climate-change/

I find it has a lovely balancing effect on my thoughts when I know both extremes of a political or philosophical position. We get one side in the media all the time.
Below is Christopher Monckton's précis of the document that is supposed to come out of Durban. This is what the media won't tell you, he says.

"The contents of this document, turgidly drafted with all the UN’s skill at what the former head of its documentation center used to call “transparent impenetrability”, are not just off the wall – they are lunatic.

Main points:

Ø A new International Climate Court will have the power to compel Western nations to pay ever-larger sums to third-world countries in the name of making reparation for supposed “climate debt”. The Court will have no power over third-world countries. Here and throughout the draft, the West is the sole target. “The process” is now irredeemably anti-Western.
Ø “Rights of Mother Earth”: The draft, which seems to have been written by feeble-minded green activists and environmental extremists, talks of “The recognition and defence of the rights of Mother Earth to ensure harmony between humanity and nature”. Also, “there will be no commodification [whatever that may be: it is not in the dictionary and does not deserve to be] of the functions of nature, therefore no carbon market will be developed with that purpose”.
Ø “Right to survive”: The draft childishly asserts that “The rights of some Parties to survive are threatened by the adverse impacts of climate change, including sea level rise.” At 2 inches per century, according to eight years’ data from the Envisat satellite? Oh, come off it! The Jason 2 satellite, the new kid on the block, shows that sea-level has actually dropped over the past three years.
 

Ø War and the maintenance of defence forces and equipment are to cease – just like that – because they contribute to climate change. There are other reasons why war ought to cease, but the draft does not mention them.
Ø A new global temperature target will aim, Canute-like, to limit “global warming” to as little as 1 C° above pre-industrial levels. Since temperature is already 3 C° above those levels, what is in effect being proposed is a 2 C° cut in today’s temperatures. This would take us halfway back towards the last Ice Age, and would kill hundreds of millions. Colder is far more dangerous than warmer.
Ø The new CO2 emissions target, for Western countries only, will be a reduction of up to 50% in emissions over the next eight years and of “more than 100%” [these words actually appear in the text] by 2050. So, no motor cars, no coal-fired or gas-fired power stations, no aircraft, no trains. Back to the Stone Age, but without even the right to light a carbon-emitting fire in your caves. Windmills, solar panels and other “renewables” are the only alternatives suggested in the draft. There is no mention of the immediate and rapid expansion of nuclear power worldwide to prevent near-total economic destruction.
Ø The new CO2 concentration target could be as low as 300 ppmv CO2 equivalent (i.e., including all other greenhouse gases as well as CO2 itself). That is a cut of almost half compared with the 560 ppmv CO2 equivalent today. It implies just 210 ppmv of CO2 itself, with 90 ppmv CO2 equivalent from other greenhouse gases. But at 210 ppmv, plants and trees begin to die. CO2 is plant food. They need a lot more of it than 210 ppmv.
Ø The peak-greenhouse-gas target year – for the West only – will be this year. We will be obliged to cut our emissions from now on, regardless of the effect on our economies (and the lack of effect on the climate).
Ø The West will pay for everything, because of its “historical responsibility” for causing “global warming”. Third-world countries will not be obliged to pay anything. But it is the UN, not the third-world countries, that will get the money from the West, taking nearly all of it for itself as usual. There is no provision anywhere in the draft for the UN to publish accounts of how it has spent the $100 billion a year the draft demands that the West should stump up from now on."

I am enjoying becoming more informed around this whole issue, and having my lazy grey matter nudged.

I can't face reading all the literature so somebody Bagitha? please put me out of my misery with a summary. Am I to understand that there is a growing body of scientists who are challenging the accepted wisdom on climate change? If so, I am very pleased. I've always had my doubts.

I don't think the body of scientists is growing. The BBC and other media are supposed to be "balanced" so they end up giving air time to extreme minorities. Once you know this is happening you can spot it. e.g. ASH / Hockney - pro smoking will get a mention for no good reason other than "balance".
How could it be possible that we could suck up all those hydrocarbons out of the ground over the last 100 years, burn them and release their carbon back into the atmosphere and not start to cause a major upheaval to the environment?
I think scientists argue about the timescale. None of them, if backed into a corner by a stroppy grandmother would deny that if all the oil, gas and coal carbon is released back into the atmosphere it will inevitably be a much warmer planet. Like it was last time all this carbon was free - when there were warm jungles at the south pole.
And scientists argue. That is what they do.

petallus I agree. I've just got home, tried to read all this intelligently, failed and decided I'm a dimwitted failure. Or is old bag puss trying to do a jungl on us and trying to get our poor old feeble brains knotted?

petallus and jeni, various papers are coming out all the time which bring into question the so-called "settled" science of climate change. Basic tenets, such as how greenhouse gases act in the atmosphere, are not being questioned, though we don't know the half of it yet, but the politicking of the "warmistas" is being noticed and questioned. See, for a good summary of that, Donna Laframboise's book The Delinquent Teenager about the notsogood practices of the IPCC. Various sceptical blogs are also very interesting. You don't have to understand all of it (I certainly don't) to see that all is not hunkydory in the climate science world. That's my only reason for flagging these things up.

For good science blogs which question, question, question (isn't that what science is about?), try WattsUpWithThat (over 100million hits so it's quite popular) and JoNova in Australia, to name but two.

Let's face it folks nobody knows, but we should sheppherd our resources and turn to " green energy" but the trouble of ge is the amount of resources used to generate and distribute it. Why don't they build the Severn barrage? The French one works well.
Cor luv a duc, my brain is definitely overheating! Perhaps we utilise some of the hot air I'm generating to generate power. I've lost the plot. Must have worked too hard today. Oh well tomorrow Friday I don't work Fridays. [joyous emoticon]

There are people that question evolution, there are people that question whether vaccines work and there are even folks out there that question the germ theory of disease. There is a difference between informed debate and campaigning.
I think that backing out of the severn barrage was a pity. I'm sure they could have played around to provide feeding grounds for birds.
I will put a freudian slip story here, just for your scientifically minded ones.
My DH was in a meeting once about Cardiff Bay. One of the city councillors asked whether the water would be contaminated with Chlamydia. (he meant Cryptosporidium, at least that was what they assumed) Much muffled giggling by scientists.

Oops!

I lost all trust in this extremely agressive campaign of protecting the world against Climate Warming when the evidence was the opposite of the claims and the name was changed (oops! amended) to Climate Change. Far too much is being hidden. On a day to day level 'most people' will judge the secrecy we have seen as being someone wishing to hide something and being 'most people' will question why. My own view is that we are being very carefully shielded from any information that will allow us to make an informed decision. The majority are not aware that all of the costs, including high energy costs for today's users are being charged to the developed world, seen as The West, while the rest of the world's nations are given free reign to pollute our world as much as they see fit.

This does not take away from the fact that the world's resources are finite. Those of us in the world at present are thinking of the future of the planet and how what we do today could affect future generations.

Those who favour wind power have recently seen it is not nearly as cost effective as was claimed. Those who favour solar power know that the sun is not reliable. I know water power can generate electricity on a small scale but have not seen anything like the promotion of it as we have seen for wind and solar power which are both at best unreliable and certainly not cheap. They, whoever they may be, have yet to come up with a system that does what is needed without users paying extra after having heard all the hype about renewable, cheaper energy. Wouldn't it be good if we could channel some of the billions being spent on investigating climate change into producing the cheap energy we have been promised since the sixties?

I have no answers, only questions.

Cyril good thinking! My feelings exactly!

cyril, the sun may not be reliable in Britain but there are many parts of the world were it would be cost effective: although the initial investment would be high, the power produced thereafter would be cheap and inexhaustible. It puzzled me, for example, that Iran claimed that it wanted nuclear investment for peaceful purposes - this in a country that could afford to invest in its plentiful solar energy. Peaceful purposes, my a..e.

I agree Annobel. It is also a very clear indication of their opinion of Global Warming and/or Climate Change.

Don't quite get your reasoning there, Cyril.

My reasoning Annobel is that their priority, so they say, is to have nuclear power in preference to solar power. It only adds to your comment on peaceful purposes.

Well said, cyril. I also have only questions. I'm not convinced about anything to do with climate change yet, except that it happens, always has, and always will.

Re the Severn Barrage: I thought that idea was scuppered because of the damage it would have done to the environment. If I remember correctly, environmental groups such as the RSPB and the Wildlife and Wetlands Trust were among the most vociferous against it.