Resisting The Consensus: A Climate Change Thread

[SEP]

Yes, I'm sure they're using that money for Ferraris and mansions, instead of putting it back into research.

You know, not everyone who asks for money is evil.

[False]

>UK agency supports UK government in international conference
>shock and awe

[Grumpy David]

I suppose I could put this here. Just a quick comment from Dan Hannan about shale gas being a great stimulus for the whole of Europe.

[andretmzt]

That article you linked doesn't show that the Met Office has a stance on anthropogenic climate change that is politically motivated. It merely states that the Met Office will provide its expertise when needed and where it is appropriate in negotiations at COP17, something I would personally expect considering that the Met Office is perhaps the leading institution in the UK for climate research, due in part to the funding is does indeed receive from the government.

I fail to see the issue with the government giving the Hadley Centre a further £60 million in funding. The Hadley Centre is there to conduct climate-related research make sure this research is some of the best in the world. Such money is required to make sure this happens. None of the scientists get paid huge amounts of money as far as I am aware. I think the Head of the Hadley Centre, who recently was working full time in my department at Reading, only receives between £60-70 thousand a year? So the vast proportion of the money will indeed go purely into the research. I am also pretty sure that it would be £60 million over a few years, rather than just one big lump sum. Well I'd hope anyway.

And once again this:

So if carbon dioxide is able to effectively raise the surface temperature of Venus by ~350 degrees above what it should be, would it be reasonable to assume that any increase in carbon dioxide on Earth could produce a similar effect?

[Alvin Flummux]

I suppose I could put this here. Just a quick comment from Dan Hannan about shale gas being a great stimulus for the whole of Europe.

*Shudders*

What a nasty piece of work...

[Rik]

Earths atmosphere is 0.039% carbon dioxide, for Venus it is 96.5%, we have a fair way to go yet

Also Venus obviously has no life, CO2 is a natural fertilizer so an increase leads to more rapid plant growth that consumes more CO2 and produces more oxygen, this is a natural balancing system that Venus didn't have.

[andretmzt]

In incredibly simple terms yes but if you accept that carbon dioxide does indeed have an effect then that paves the way for discussion concerning the effect it has on the Earth.

And you're right, there is a big difference in the carbon dioxide levels, but then again there's a big difference in the level of global warming, ~30 degrees for Earth compared to ~300 degrees for Venus.

[Rik]

I'm totally open to discussing what effect CO2 has on Earth and what an increase does. Point is though that without it the Earth would be some 25-30 degrees cooler, that wouldn't be very nice for anyone.

Also trying to keep the Earth as it is now is probably a waste of time, the climate has changed many times over billions of years, it's natural. What isn't natural is for humans to try and keep it exactly as it is now forever.

Now if the Earth is warming then life will evolve to adjust, like it always has.

[Tineash]

oh god it's spreading

[andretmzt]

Well I don't know what to talk to you about Rik as I have no idea what your thoughts on the whole climate change thing are

I think I agree with the keeping the Earth the same in one sense. I don't really agree with most the geoengineering ideas I have seen so in that respect we should certainly not mess around. But if we start talking about the possibility that our emissions of greenhouse gases will cause fairly serious changes in the future then I think we should try and do something about it.

edit: which doesn't involve something silly like spraying chemicals into the atmosphere of course.

[Cal]

That article you linked doesn't show that the Met Office has a stance on anthropogenic climate change that is politically motivated.

Come, come. He who pays the piper calls the tune. If it's okay to level such a claim at sceptical scientists who (allegedly) receive 'big oil' money in return for publishing favourable research, am I to understand you seriously don't believe it works the other way? I don't buy it, nor do an ever-growing number of climate sceptics. Human nature will out, my friend. I also can't make it any clearer than that link showing the Met Office's clear and unambiguous influence on UK government policy. Still, I suppose a man sees what he wants to see and disregards the rest...

And once again this:

So if carbon dioxide is able to effectively raise the surface temperature of Venus by ~350 degrees above what it should be, would it be reasonable to assume that any increase in carbon dioxide on Earth could produce a similar effect?

Yes, you keep posting that. I thought I'd gone into some detail to explain to you that I don't have a scientific background. You know I can't offer you an informed answer on that question. By all means keep asking it, but I have, again, explained to you that you won't get an answer from me.

[False]

Still, I suppose a man sees what he wants to see and disregards the rest...

Now if only you could tell that to yourself.

[Igor]

I'm totally open to discussing what effect CO2 has on Earth and what an increase does. Point is though that without it the Earth would be some 25-30 degrees cooler, that wouldn't be very nice for anyone.

Now if the Earth is warming then life will evolve to adjust, like it always has.

No one is saying CO2 is bad. You're point is about as perceptive as, during a debate on overeating, announcing that without food we'd all die.

Life isn't as adaptable as you think it is. If the warming occurs at a rate that's orders of magnitude faster than has occurred in the past then it won't evolve to adjust as it always has.

And once again this:

So if carbon dioxide is able to effectively raise the surface temperature of Venus by ~350 degrees above what it should be, would it be reasonable to assume that any increase in carbon dioxide on Earth could produce a similar effect?

Yes, you keep posting that. I thought I'd gone into some detail to explain to you that I don't have a scientific background. You know I can't offer you an informed answer on that question. By all means keep asking it, but I have, again, explained to you that you won't get an answer from me.

I've never seen someone so interested in the politics of science who's so uninterested in the science itself.

[Rik]

Yes, you keep posting that. I thought I'd gone into some detail to explain to you that I don't have a scientific background. You know I can't offer you an informed answer on that question. By all means keep asking it, but I have, again, explained to you that you won't get an answer from me.

The answer is that if the Earths atmosphere was 96.5% CO2 then the heat and pressure would kill us all. Also not much sunlight would get to the surface as CO2 reflects light, that is why Venus is so bright in the night sky.

The question of humans even being able to raise the CO2 in Earths atmosphere to even 0.05% though is that we probably couldn't even if we wanted to.

[Cal]

I suppose I could put this here. Just a quick comment from Dan Hannan about shale gas being a great stimulus for the whole of Europe.

It's always a pleasure to see Mr Hannan plain-speaking to the EU Kuomintang. He's absolutely right about shale gas, too - and this Coalition knows it, which is why they have given the go-ahead for more exploratory drilling in the UK. The potential rewards are huge.

[Rik]

No one is saying CO2 is bad. You're point is about as perceptive as, during a debate on overeating, announcing that without food we'd all die.

Life isn't as adaptable as you think it is. If the warming occurs at a rate that's orders of magnitude faster than has occurred in the past then it won't evolve to adjust as it always has

You'd be surprised how many people have no idea what CO2 is or does, I was just pointing out that it has many benefits.

I totally agree that really fast large temperature rises would be a problem to certain areas of the world. The planet has natural cycles of getting hotter and colder though, has the actual percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere increased? That I don't know.

I'm on the fence about the whole thing to be honest, I don't know if humans have the power to change the atmosphere even if we were trying to, also if we are in a natural period of a warming climate then we may be wasting millions trying to stop it when we should be spending that money adjusting for the inevitable.

[andretmzt]

Come, come. He who pays the piper calls the tune. If it's okay to level such a claim at sceptical scientists who (allegedly) receive 'big oil' money in return for publishing favourable research, am I to understand you seriously don't believe it works the other way? I don't buy it, nor do an ever-growing number of climate sceptics. Human nature will out, my friend. I also can't make it any clearer than that link showing the Met Office's clear and unambiguous influence on UK government policy. Still, I suppose a man sees what he wants to see and disregards the rest...

And once again this:

So if carbon dioxide is able to effectively raise the surface temperature of Venus by ~350 degrees above what it should be, would it be reasonable to assume that any increase in carbon dioxide on Earth could produce a similar effect?

Yes, you keep posting that. I thought I'd gone into some detail to explain to you that I don't have a scientific background. You know I can't offer you an informed answer on that question. By all means keep asking it, but I have, again, explained to you that you won't get an answer from me.

I think there probably is a chance that receiving funding from certain sources may mean that the research is questionable but I prefer to actually look at the results and methods instead of just dismissing research out of hand because an oil company funded it. I personally don't have a problem with that. I do take issue with research that aims for a predetermined result though which is often an accusation levelled at research that is funded by oil companies, but I don't know if that's the case or not.

I expect the Met Office to influence government policy. That is why they get funding from the government, to get results that will help the government make the right choices. As someone who has been taught quite a bit about the climate, I'm definitely inclined to accept most of what the Met Office comes out with as it is based upon the same physical concepts I've been taught so in my eyes the stuff I read makes sense.

I am also not asking that question to get an informed answer. If you don't the science then fine but I thought I phrased it in such a way that you could either give a yes, carbon dioxide clearly has an effect on Earth to, or a no, I've seen this or this that suggests that something else might be the cause on Earth. I also keep repeating it as I'd prefer every major point I make to be at least acknowledged as I think I always try and do the same in return.

[Rik]

Does anyone really deny that increased CO2 increases temperature?

I would have thought that's pretty undisputable.

[Alvin Flummux]

Does anyone really deny that increased CO2 increases temperature?

I would have thought that's pretty undisputable.

Some people just seem to think that the Earth's atmosphere is a bottomless well for us to pump all our gooseberry fool into for eternity without consequence.

[Cal]

Does anyone really deny that increased CO2 increases temperature?

I don't know any climate sceptics who think like that. It is a scientific fact that CO2 raises overall global temperatures (although local differences have also been recorded). It is also, as the Earth's own geological record shows beyond all doubt, the case that runaway CO2 can lead to calamitous results. Again, I have never read or heard a sceptical voice that takes issue with any of that. Nobody I consider a sceptic has ever doubted that mankind's activities on this planet contribute to overall CO2 emissions. That's also an unavoidable known fact.

So the issue is never about 'climate change', as media has it. Climate change happens. It always has, always will. It's happening right now.

The issue sceptics have is the with the notion of 'Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming'. That's not the same as 'climate change', but the media insist on reporting CAGW as 'climate change' perhaps because they're lazy, or perhaps because they're deliberately misinforming. Sadly, many respected scientists and academics, eager to promote their alarmist agendas, also play this game of semantics, in the full knowledge that they will never be called-out on their falsehood.

Doubting 'climate change' is a redundant gesture. Likewise, the fact mankind contributes a very negligible amount of CO2 into the Earth's atmosphere. We know these things. What we don't know - and the IPCC would be first to admit this (and have, often) - is where the incontrovertible evidence is for 'catastrophic' man-made climate change actually is, if anywhere at all. Some think it's in the clouds, some think it's in the oceans, some think it's in the sun and some think it's in the cosmic rays. And some really don't think it's anything to worry about at all.

So far, nobody - anywhere, ever - has come up with the smoking gun on that one. But the way the CAGW bandwagon's rolling you'd be forgiven for thinking otherwise. It's a common enough misconception.