[Archived] Climate Change

[Al]

There is nothing new in this report at all. Yes climate changes. It has done for millions of years but nobody has proved that man has any influence on it and as it has happened throughout history chances are that it is entirely natural. In the past scientists have nearly always had things wrong before they got them right. Why should this be any different. We honestly don't know why climate changes and continues to change. We can do little about it.

[dave birch]

Does this give you a clue Dave?

It is frequently said of the global warming debate that it comes down to who you believe rather than what you know. Many climate scientists say they “believe in man-made global warming” even though their own research contradicts key points in the arguments advanced in support of that hypothesis. They say this because they believe the IPCC is telling the truth about findings outside their areas of expertise. Ditto influential science journals such as Nature and Science, which claim to speak on behalf of “climate science.”

How credible are the NIPCC reports? Endorsements by prominent scientists, reviews, and citations in peer-reviewed journals appear at the Web site mentioned above. NIPCC reports are produced by scores of scientists from around the world (some 20 countries so far), cite thousands of peer-reviewed studies, and are themselves peer-reviewed. In June 2013, a division of the Chinese Academy of Sciences published a Chinese translation and condensed edition of the 2009 and 2011 volumes.

Paul's post goes some way to answering your question.

Whilst Im not totally convinced (climate change is a natural phenomenom, part of the natural order), but believe it can be and is,influenced by our presence. Of one thing I'm certain, scientists do have a much better idea of what is going on, and scientists who are NOT funded by private scources are more than likely less influenced by the funds that pay their wages.

What was that saying ...."he who pays the piper calls the tune".

Finally, the fisrt para you quoted applies equally to the counter argument about climate change, so who to believe?

[otto man]

Whoa! Hold on a minute. Lets just ask a question here. We know who the UN are, we can establish the individual member countries and their representatives, we can establish their political ideology, we know these people are indirectly answerable to an electorate, we can establish the members of the IPCC.

Alternatively we can believe an alternative total denial view from:

We know the authors of the IPCC’s reports have financial conflicts of interest, since the government bureaucracies that select them and the UN that oversees and edits the final reports stand to profit from public alarm over the possibility that global warming will be harmful. The authors of the NIPCC series have no such conflicts. The series is funded by three private family foundations without any financial interest in the outcome of the global warming debate.

So there is the choice take note of the UN, leading elected political figures and known scientists or believe the alternate view of three PRIVATE FAMILY foundations who out of the goodness of their collective hearts fund the alternate view.

Who are they and what is their motivation?

The current Nicaraguan coffee harvest is reduced by 50%:

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/mar/30/latin-america-climate-change-coffee-crops-rust-fungus-threat-hemileaia-vastatrix

Whoa! Hold on a minute. Here's your answer.

NIPCC reports are produced by scores of scientists from around the world (some 20 countries so far), cite thousands of peer-reviewed studies, and are themselves peer-reviewed.

[dave birch]

Otto, you should have a look at www.skepticalscience.com

It tells you who in the NIPCC recieves money and where from.

[otto man]

Otto, you should have a look at www.skepticalscience.com

It tells you who in the NIPCC recieves money and where from.

But Dave isn't the whole point that the ipcc's "evidence" is equally questionable? I'm not qualified to give an informed opinion one way or another and as such remain open minded on the subject, but having said that some of the "man made climate change" theories just don't seem to stack up to me. As you quite rightly state climate change is a natural phenomena and what were once lush verdant plains and forests are now bare deserts and seas and vice verse which indicates climate change on an catastrophic scale and man contributed to none of those changes as most predate our very existence, let alone influence.

[Paul]

Just at the moment I don't have time to research Heartland but a quick Google reveals the institute has 1600 private funders but will not reveal who they are.

A quick glimpse at the Wikipedia page on Heartland shows this on an unrelated issue:

"In the 1990s, the Heartland Institute worked with Philip Morris to question the link between secondhand smoke and health risks.^[13][36] Philip Morris used Heartland to distribute tobacco-industry material, and arranged for the Heartland Institute to publish "policy studies" which summarized Philip Morris reports.^[36][37] The Heartland Institute also undertook a variety of other activities on behalf of Philip Morris, including meeting with legislators, holding "off-the-record" briefings, and producing op-eds, radio interviews, and letters.^[36][38] In 1994, at the request of Philip Morris, the Heartland Institute met with Republican Congressmen to encourage them to oppose increases in the federal excise tax. Heartland reported back to Philip Morris that the Congressmen were "strongly in our camp", and planned further meetings with other legislators.^[39"

^{If this is not a prime example of commercial interest using the Heartland Institute to influence political outcomes in an area which is undeniably true I don't know what is.}

^{I fully accept the IPCC will have outside influences but ultimately I chose to believe a body which is directly or indirectly answerable to the electorate rather than an institute funded by the makers of cigarettes. Of course Philip Morris may have a perfectly acceptable reason and entirely arguable case for the benefits of secondhand smoke.}

^{Believe it if you wish to.}

^{Skeptical Science on Heartland;}

^{http://www.skepticalscience.com/denialgate-highlights-heartlands-selective-nipcc-science.html}

[Baz]

Heartland’s funding over the past decade has included thousands of dollars directly from ExxonMobil and the American Petroleum Institute, but a large portion of their funding ($25.6 million) comes from the shadowy Donor’s Capital Fund, created expressly to conceal the identity of large donors to free-market causes. The Koch brothers appear to be funneling money into Donor’s Capital via their Knowledge and Progress Fund.

Heartland’s credibility has been so damaged that mainstream funders have been abandoning the organization, and it has been forced to discontinue its annual climate conference.

The IPCC is supported by hundreds of scientists, think tanks, and organizations around the world that assess and synthesize the most recent climate change-related science. The IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report (AR4), published in 2007, involved more than 500 Lead Authors and 2000 Expert Reviewers from more than one hundred participating nations. These authors and reviewers were all unpaid volunteers, and are required to identify and show consideration to theories that differ from conventional wisdom.

Unlike the IPCC, the NIPCC examines literature published exclusively by climate contrarians who are paid to contribute their findings to NIPCC reports, according to leaked internal documents of the Heartland Institute. The 2009 NIPCC report Climate Change Reconsidered had two lead authors, Fred Singer and Craig Idso, and 35 contributors. Similarly, the 2011 Interim NIPCC report had three lead authors, Fred Singer, Craig Idso, and Robert Carter, and only eight contributors. The NIPCC does not employ the same rigorous standards and approval process used by the IPCC to ensure its assessment reports are accurate and inclusive.

[dave birch]

But Dave isn't the whole point that the ipcc's "evidence" is equally questionable? I'm not qualified to give an informed opinion one way or another and as such remain open minded on the subject, but having said that some of the "man made climate change" theories just don't seem to stack up to me. As you quite rightly state climate change is a natural phenomena and what were once lush verdant plains and forests are now bare deserts and seas and vice verse which indicates climate change on an catastrophic scale and man contributed to none of those changes as most predate our very existence, let alone influence.

Otto, I would suggest that the IPCC acknowledge that there is an aspect of the natural climate change. What they say is that mans presence is causing it to proceed at a quicker rate.

Would you like to:

1. go on as we are, and later find out that we should have done something. or,

2. Do something now, and find out later that it wasn't entirely necessary.

I'll admit, I'm in the second bracket. I'd hate to leave my grandkids a legacy that imposes severe constraints on their ability to live meaningful lives.

[Steve Moss]

Are those who are blindly supporting the IPCC's report seriously contending that the scientists in opposition are paid hacks?

Do you have the same belief as to Freeman Dyson? For those who don't know, Dyson is the best scientist never to win the Nobel Prize. Summing up Dyson's view:

Climate has changed;

Mankind has had some effect on the climate;

Whether mankind's impact has been significant (or not) or beneficial (or not) can't be known as the climate scientists don't know enough about their subject and the models they use are seriously flawed and/or limited;

Any scientist worth his or her salt is a skeptic, always and forever- the demand for consensus is not science.

[dave birch]

Quite right Steve.

Climate has changed/is changing.

Mankind has had some effect.

Given that you've agreed on that, how do you respond to my reply to Ottoman:

"Would you like to:

1. go on as we are, and later find out that we should have done something. or,

2. Do something now, and find out later that it wasn't entirely necessary."

For me, The IPCC has been saying that something must be done; granted, they may have used more forceful language, but only to get some action.

[Steve Moss]

Dave Birch-

I stated Freeman Dyson's view, not my own. My own view is that climate change is happening, its not as bad as some make out, and whether its man-made or not, or beneficial or not, is still up in the air. As I'm not a scientist, my view is subject to change.

My point was that Freeman Dyson is a world renowned scientist, with a resume and reputation which is beyond reproach (and seems a very nice guy), who has stated a very common sense position but even he is attacked as a climate change denier.

As to the calls for action, it is my opinion that:

1. Any actors should first remember the mantra "First Do No Harm." Those trying to reverse or stall climate change may well be harming the earth as it may be part of the natural cycle. We don't know enough to say, as of yet.

2. I don't trust any group of scientists claiming an issue is settled, pointing to alleged consensus while at the same time trying to stifle dissent, using flawed models. So no, I don't trust the IPCC.

[Al]

I'm 72 and have no grandchildren. It doesn't concern me a lot. It's a selfish attitude I know but it's difficult to be tremendously concerned. Certainly won't stop me from flying where I want or having a petrol engine in my car.

[jim mk2]

I'm 72 and have no grandchildren. It doesn't concern me a lot. It's a selfish attitude I know but it's difficult to be tremendously concerned. Certainly won't stop me from flying where I want or having a petrol engine in my car.

[ABBEY]

I'm 72 and have no grandchildren. It doesn't concern me a lot. It's a selfish attitude I know but it's difficult to be tremendously concerned. Certainly won't stop me from flying where I want or having a petrol engine in my car.

Good lad ha

[yoda]

I'm 72 and have no grandchildren. It doesn't concern me a lot. It's a selfish attitude I know but it's difficult to be tremendously concerned. Certainly won't stop me from flying where I want or having a petrol engine in my car.

It won't stop the politicians flying all over the world and having meetings about it and being ferried from the airports in gas guzzlers

[Al]

Expected that sort of reaction for a bit of honesty and it is no surprise that it comes from a comparative newbie who is already making a bit of a pain of himself on here.

[jim mk2]

I'm sorry if views are different to yours but that does not mean they are a "pain". I thought the idea on here was for people to express opinions ? Your statement was provactive so you have to expect a reaction.

[Al]

I'm sorry if views are different to yours but that does not mean they are a "pain". I thought the idea on here was for people to express opinions ? Your statement was provactive so you have to expect a reaction.

No problem with the reaction. I expected it. The pain comes from other posts. Not the views but the way of expressing them. Not making a thing of it I just don't usually reply to them unless directly aimed at me.

[otto man]

The man is 72 years old! Just what the hell do you expect him to do now that will significantly change things for future generations? You really are embarrassing your self time after time with your ill considered, opinionated, self indulgent and frankly childish responses to the contributions of others on this board. Please do us all a favour and keep your asinine opinions to yourself, as I for one have run out of patience with them.

Rant over.

[jim mk2]

His age is irrelevant - his views (as he readily admits) are selfish and unfortunately are typical of some people who have an "I'm Alright Jack" attitude and fail to see the bigger picture.

I was under the impression this was a forum where people could express opinions? Your personal attack is unwarranted.

[thenodrog]

His age is irrelevant - his views (as he readily admits) are selfish and unfortunately are typical of some people who have an "I'm Alright Jack" attitude and fail to see the bigger picture.

I was under the impression this was a forum where people could express opinions? Your personal attack is unwarranted.

By your own comment....... Not if it's his opinion.

Get over yourself. You are constantly playing that particular card.

[jim mk2]

Al has stated his opinion and I stated mine. The problem is ottoman, who seems to think I am not entitled to an opinion. Talking of cards, to judge from your comments in most threads, you will play the race card sooner or later.

[thenodrog]

Al has stated his opinion and I stated mine. The problem is ottoman, who seems to think I am not entitled to an opinion. Talking of cards, to judge from your comments in most threads, you will play the race card sooner or later.

'play the race card'? How passe. Dont you know the 20th century has ended?

Btw You appear intent to make plenty of enemies on here WB. Mind if I Ask why?

[otto man]

His age is irrelevant - his views (as he readily admits) are selfish and unfortunately are typical of some people who have an "I'm Alright Jack" attitude and fail to see the bigger picture.

I was under the impression this was a forum where people could express opinions? Your personal attack is unwarranted.

His age (72) is more than relevant. Now please answer the question; "What do you expect him to do now that will significantly change things for future generations"?

As to a "personal attack" if you consider my view of your responses to others is, in someway demeaning you, then that is your prerogative, but also rather ironic considering your sneering high handed replies to both AL and Steve Moss amongst others.

[Al]

Don't get upset lads I can take the stick. As I said I expected it. As for Wilpshire Blue. He's one of those newbies that we get from time to time who come on annoying everyone and then usually disappear after a while. Don't let him get to you.