The IPCC consensus is phoney: According to Mike Hulme

[Hack&Lube]

Originally Posted by Thor

Now to others here who've stated that its both sides to blame, I'll surely agree both have blame on handling this, but to still suggest that its 50/50 on the science side on the debate is silly. Alot of scientists are probably trying to duck away from this mess now as its become so volatile and those that do support the AGW might hold off enthusiasm as often one should when dealing with our best guesses based off the data.

The problem is again, non science folks on either side trying to tell the scientists what they are right and wrong about. Damn internet!

I don't care what the proportion of blame is. Both sides have failings and need to find common ground because it's human nature not to change. Telling people they are right or wrong isn't going to help. You need to give people incentive to change, economic incentives, etc. Something like in Germany where the population has incentive to put up solar panels on every single roof because it saves them on their electricity bill and they can make money by selling off unused energy back to the power grid.

That said, I still believe extraterrestrial forces, especially solar activity plays a very big role in climate change that is often understated but that isn't something we can do anything about so by all means, reduce carbon emissions if it is feasible because ultimately it should provide a net good in the long run...unless we get hit by an asteroid or suffer a nuclear winter and then we are all screwed

People are very shortsighted, it will be interesting to see where we are in 10 years if we are truely entering into a period of reduced solar activity like during the little ice age during the 16th to the 19th centuries and mean temperature actually goes down as some have predicted. It doesn't mean AGW isn't happening...it will just change people and government's perceptions and priorities of things significantly.

[Hack&Lube]

Originally Posted by Pastiche

So I ask you again, in light of all of the physical evidence: Greenland rising, sea level rising (it is happening we are recording it), Greenland melting, Antartica melting, permafrost melting, coral reefs dying, species migrating closer to the poles, average temperatures increasing, how shoudl we engage in a debate about compromise?

Politics is the science of compromise. We are all government by politics. Society cannot function without compromise. People will not change without compromise. There always needs to be a balance between measures taken to address emissions and the social and economic burden it has on the current day and our quality of life.

[Pastiche]

Ok so we should compromise that the effects of climate change will only be somewhat serious and we should only do enough to abate those effects. Good to know, that's what we've been doing so far.

I sure hope we don't bet wrong.

[Hack&Lube]

Originally Posted by Pastiche

Ok so we should compromise that the effects of climate change will only be somewhat serious and we should only do enough to abate those effects. Good to know, that's what we've been doing so far.

I sure hope we don't bet wrong.

Don't worry you won't live long enough to suffer the consequences and should they be dire, I'm sure humanity will be able to adapt. We are pesky survivors.

Maybe I am not as altruistic or concerned about my progeny as you are but I honestly think we will all be fine and I simply have higher priorities for things that need to change in this world right now than reducing AGW such as the economic growth and liberalisation and democratization of 2nd and 3rd world countries that currently are one of the biggest sources of emissions and pollution and other environmental damage.

[Pastiche]

Don't worry you won't live long enough to suffer the consequences and should they be dire, I'm sure humanity will be able to adapt. We are pesky survivors.

Not my problem now so I'll just download the consequences of my actions to someone else. An apropot reaction from a person in this society.

Maybe I am not as altruistic or concerned about my progeny as you are but I honestly think we will all be fine and

I could care less what you want for your own kids, what about the children of other people like say people born in developing countries at risk to submersion? Are you as cavalier to their concerns?

I simply have higher priorities for things that need to change in this world right now than reducing AGW.

What should we be focusing on?

[Hack&Lube]

Originally Posted by Pastiche

Not my problem now so I'll just download the consequences of my actions to someone else. An apropot reaction from a person in this society.

I could care less what you want for your own kids, what about the children of other people like say people born in developing countries at risk to submersion? Are you as cavalier to their concerns?

At risk to submersion? That's the real threat of global warming for you? That people can't walk to higher ground and will just stand there and drown? Climate change will have little direct threat to humanity but a great effect on global ecology and the flora and fauna that humans depend upon.

What should we be focusing on?

Economic development of 2nd and 3rd world countries which are among the greatest sources of emissions.

Economic recovery of the western world as people are always more open to social change and social sacrifices regarding the environment, conservation, etc. and focusing on the long run and bigger picture when they themselves are doing well economically and are not worried about their own current well being. This also increases expenditure and investment on green technologies in times of economic boom.

[Pastiche]

Economic development of 2nd and 3rd world countries which are among the greatest sources of emissions.

So you would not have a problem with the proposed global cap and trade systems which would see money transfered from western countries to developing countries to build clean energy and support adaptation efforts?

Economic recovery of the western world as people are always more open to social change and social sacrifices regarding the environment, conservation, etc. and focusing on the long run and bigger picture when they themselves are doing well economically and are not worried about their own current well being. This also increases expenditure and investment on green technologies in times of economic boom.

Already doing this.

Because we're already doing this we can assume that you actually don't favour additional action to mitigate climate change considering that you said we should be focusing instead on more important things. Which we are already focusing on.

[Hack&Lube]

Originally Posted by Pastiche

So you would not have a problem with the proposed global cap and trade systems which would see money transfered from western countries to developing countries to build clean energy and support adaptation efforts?

Already doing this.

Because we're already doing this we can assume that you actually don't favour additional action to mitigate climate change considering that you said we should be focusing instead on more important things. Which we are already focusing on.

I would simply not favor policies that favor environmental policies over economic recovery at this time. If there is a good compromise, that's fine.

I don't think cap and (emissions) trade is generally the ideal answer as pollution trading creates tons of problems of its own which I don't want to get into in this thread. Emissions trading as currently employed is probably unfair, offers unjust advantages to major pollutors resulting from government issued permits, it's ineffective due to cheating, and distracts people from looking for real solutions as they simply trade their emissions for offsets. If transferring money from western countries to developing ones is purely for developing clean energy where it could be better spent on liberalizing those countries and improving the quality of life for those people, then I would disagree with that as well.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Pastiche

Common ground? Either we consider that our actions which are warming the planet are serious or they are not.

Well, start with establishing basic facts that both sides can agree on. Then build your argument from there.

e.g. CO2 emissions should logically lead to greater temperatures... i.e. the mechanism makes sense.

e.g. Just because some other factor could be having a bigger effect doesn't mean that we shouldn't do anything about the factor we control.

e.g. Earth is getting warmer.

Etc.

[HOZ]

Originally Posted by octothorp

Very interesting read, HOZ, thanks for posting this link. However, I would argue that you're misrepresenting what the paper actually says: it's more about the problem of a consensus-building mandate than about whether the science here is actually wrong. As the paper says, the consensus-building mandate has actually resulted in the IPCC communicating at times too aggressive and at times too conservative estimates of the effects of man-made climate change:

"But consensus- making can also lead to criticism for being too conservative, as Hansen (2007) has most visibly argued. Was the IPCC AR4 too conservative in reaching its consensus about future sea-level rise? Many glaciologists and oceanographers think they were (Kerr, 2007; Rahmstorf, 2010), leading to what Hansen attacks as ‘scientific reticence’."

Of course, the paper also contains the part that you reference, about work that's done by a single, expert working group is presented as being done by the entire membership of the IPCC. But it's not suggesting that there's a dissenting opinion in the IPCC, nor is it suggesting that all 2700 members need to approve the work; simply that it should be communicated as being from the working group, not the entire membership.

Anyway, I can understand, HOZ, why you would want to use this paper to support your position that the science done by the IPCC is wrong, or is silencing dissenting voices, but that's not what this paper is saying at all.

I said NOTHING about the science one way or the other right in my first post. I did say the so called scientific consensus on AGW trumpeted by many is bogus and the credibility of the IPCC is in tatters.

So.....where have I said the science is wrong in this thread?

[Pastiche]

Originally Posted by SebC

Well, start with establishing basic facts that both sides can agree on. Then build your argument from there.

e.g. CO2 emissions should logically lead to greater temperatures... i.e. the mechanism makes sense.

e.g. Just because some other factor could be having a bigger effect doesn't mean that we shouldn't do anything about the factor we control.

e.g. Earth is getting warmer.

Etc.

Yep all those facts are out there. People are choosing to ignore them, downplay them or attempt to completely falsify them.

I do love the attitudes of many out there, that unless its a direct problem to me I'm not going to do anything. Pretty much spells out what the problems are and why the debate is so acrimonious. Call it me be condescending, sure. I reiterate that the facts have been laid bare, we are seeing the obvious effects of climate change happening right now. We don't know what the impacts will be. They range from mild effects to catastrophic. Even with that we still do not see much impetus to do anything about it, chiefly because it will cost us more leaving less money to use on other crap. So as a result we decide to argue about 'consensus' and 'not my problem' and 'there are other things to worry about' and the like.

Sadly, if there is a day of reckoning all the laggards, deniers, obfuscators, and self-centered wont have to answer the bell any more than anyone else. And the real hurt will be born by those who really have had very little to do with the problem (most developing world people) or those who have had nothing to do with the problem (every other species that will be impacted). As an animal lover, the last point is particularly stinging because we are talking about, in the range of bad situations, mass extinctions. Somehow that doesn't warrant an extra $10 at the pump.

That's probably proof enough that there is no righteous God because if there was we would have been well smote by now.

[octothorp]

Originally Posted by HOZ

I said NOTHING about the science one way or the other right in my first post. I did say the so called scientific consensus on AGW trumpeted by many is bogus and the credibility of the IPCC is in tatters.

So.....where have I said the science is wrong in this thread?

Does the credibility of an organization like the IPCC not depend on it's science? If you think that the science here is fine (which the paper supports), but you say that the reputation of the IPCC is in tatters, I'm puzzled as to what you see in this paper as the smoking gun.

[GGG]

My problem with the Anthropogenic global warming group is the solutions that are being proposed out of it. This whole concept of cap and trade will make a whole bunch of people rich, increase the cost of energy but in the end will likely do very little to solve the problem.

I think the most pressing issues in the world are individual access to safe water and access to food. Cheap plentiful energy is one of the best ways to improve peoples lives. Any Carbon trading or tax increases the cost of energy thoughout the world. Would we be better off just increasing aide budgets and forgiving debt with the money that would be spent enriching traders in carbon trading?

I also thing that terafroming solutions should be at the forefront rather then just cutting emmissions. In order for every citizen in the world to have equal access to carbon emissions and global temp not to rise more than 2 degrees we have to cut emmissions by 95%. This is not possible with the lifestyle I want to live.

Then just recently I read Super Freakanomics and they some up my views on global warming almost perfectly and it doesn't really matter if you believe the science behind it or not.

http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.co...ing-fact-quiz/

[Rathji]

Does this thread make anyone else's head hurt?

Fact:

Sun makes things warm

Fact:

Global warming is caused by things being warm.

Fact:

If the Sun was to explode, it would eventually be less warm than it is now

Therefore: We should cause the sun to explode.

QED

[Hack&Lube]

Originally Posted by GGG

I also thing that terafroming solutions should be at the forefront rather then just cutting emmissions.

When did we colonize the moon and how are we growing forests on it?

[Frank MetaMusil]

Originally Posted by Hack&Lube

When did we colonize the moon and how are we growing forests on it?

Why is there AGW on Jupiter?

[photon]

Originally Posted by Frank MetaMusil

Why is there AGW on Jupiter?

http://www.skepticalscience.com/glob...on-jupiter.htm

[Thor]

Originally Posted by GGG

My problem with the Anthropogenic global warming group is the solutions that are being proposed out of it. This whole concept of cap and trade will make a whole bunch of people rich, increase the cost of energy but in the end will likely do very little to solve the problem.

I think the most pressing issues in the world are individual access to safe water and access to food. Cheap plentiful energy is one of the best ways to improve peoples lives. Any Carbon trading or tax increases the cost of energy thoughout the world. Would we be better off just increasing aide budgets and forgiving debt with the money that would be spent enriching traders in carbon trading?

I also thing that terafroming solutions should be at the forefront rather then just cutting emmissions. In order for every citizen in the world to have equal access to carbon emissions and global temp not to rise more than 2 degrees we have to cut emmissions by 95%. This is not possible with the lifestyle I want to live.

Then just recently I read Super Freakanomics and they some up my views on global warming almost perfectly and it doesn't really matter if you believe the science behind it or not.

http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.co...ing-fact-quiz/

There was a great documentary on just this subject of how to engineer the planet to cool it down some, seeding clouds in the oceans, spiking massive plumes of algae in the south pacific, mirrors into space, artificial trees that absorb co2, etc.. Was really fascinating stuff.

As much as I hate to rely on it, I think we'll have to science our way out of this planetary issue of temperature control, if we can become confident in our outcomes, keeping the planet at a certain temperature could stave off future climate shifts hot/cold and allow us to make the planet as ideal for the large population and increase our usable farmland.

Obviously we need to start decreasing our impact on the environment now, but yes hasty and profit driven (for a few) things like carbon trading really worry me, especially cause the republicans liked it first

Engineering the planet at such levels will require a great deal of cost and more science on our affects by doing such a thing, but I do think that if we go down this patch we can eventually create a optimal planet that uses most of its land, less deserts more bio-diverse areas like rain-forest and reefs.

I'm sure there will be opposition from some people thinking we shouldn't toy with some God's plan, but I think its inevitable as is our attempt to colonize the moon as a precursor to doing the same on Mars .

edit, found the Discovery thing:

Top 5 Bio-engineering ideas to cool down any warming:

http://news.discovery.com/tech/geoen...mes-top-5.html

#1: Air Scrubbers
#2: Charcoal
#3: Reflectors In Space (this one in my humble opinion is ridiculous)
#4: Stratospheric Aerosols
#5: Marine Stratiform Clouds

[Thor]

Oh and a great article on wired about 'hacking the planet'

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/20...ktheplanet-qa/

While humans have unintentionally been altering Earth’s climate for centuries, some scientists have begun to study how to intentionally hack the globe to cool the overheated planet.

Eli Kintisch’s new book, Hack the Planet provides a thorough and nuanced portrait of the development of geoengineering. Through long acquaintance with the field’s biggest names, Kintisch, a staff writer for Science, paints a deep sociological portrait of a radical new scientific discipline bursting messily into the world.
He reminds us that even though the techniques may be wild and global, many of the people dreaming them up are regular scientists trying to deal rationally with a carbon problem that they don’t see society solving. Faced with a warming world, they are torn between watching nature die or trying to surgically kill it themselves.

[Pastiche]

Geo-engineering is definitely on the table for remediation measures but it is not a panacea and is rife with many dangers. But as your article said and how I've pointed to. We are likely incapable of making the tough decisions to actually reduce GHG emissions. The cheapest options is probably mass charcoalification growing high yield grasses at the equator, turning it in charcoal and burying it. Repeat, repeat, repeat.

There are very large problems with geo-engineering. First, once it becomes so readily obvious that we need to stop warming, it will probably be too late. We've all heard of positive feedback loops. Only extremely aggressive geo-engineering would likely help once the permafrost starts exponentially melting. That brings up the second point, playing mother nature at a mass scale is beyond our comprehensive and is likely to produce many unseen and possibly disastrous consequences. We don't know what lining our clouds with sulphates will do in the medium-long term. We don't know how we will alter our ecosystems if we geo-engineer. Once again we really on our panache and hubris which are exactly the traits that have got us into this mess.

To me, waiting to do nothing until it is a really bad problem and then engage in geo-engineering, something we've never done, is reckless and conceited.

The solutions to me right now are obvious, stop burning so many fossil fuels. Cap and trade or carbon tax (essentially the same policy) are not as riven with rent seeking opportunities and many people want to believe. It's funny how we rely on markets for the provision of almost all of our goods and services (some here even advocate for markets in health care delivery) but the idea of using markets for environmental protection is a non-starter. To me that's just another method to deflect, obfuscate and pass-the-buck. We have no problems with people enriching themselves in other types of markets why the aversion to the environment? Oh yeah because that's actually not the issue, the issue is that we don't want to do anything and use that as another excuse to not face up to the problem.