Tim Blair tells us:
Think on this awhile: if a vengeful Gaia were to smite both Canada AND Australia out of existence, that would reduce by only 3.4 per cent of these warming gases some believe are killing the planet.
We're talking about a combined total of 53 million people, millions of houses, millions of cars, millions of factories and dams and computers and televisions and everything else that makes for modern, affluent, civilised nations.Completely removing them would make next to no difference at all, global-warming wise.
Well yes, if just Canada and Australia made reductions it wouldn't make much difference. What possible solution could there be to this problem? Oh, I know! Have all the nations agree to reduce their emissions. We could call it Kyoto or something!
Blair continues with:
Here's another perspective-building figure: "recorded history" (the last 200 years or so) represents just 0.000004 per cent of the planet's entire 4.6 billion year existence. This joint's been around a long time. We'll barely make a dent in it.
What's that? Is Blair accepting the scientific consensus on the age of the Earth? But it's just a bunch of scientists and Answers in Genesis says the scientists got it wrong. Why is Blair afraid of the debate between creationists and scientists on this issue?
More like this
"Here's another perspective-building figure: "recorded history" (the last 200 years or so) represents just 0.000004 per cent of the planet's entire 4.6 billion year existence. This joint's been around a long time. We'll barely make a dent in it."
Well, yeah. The Earth will still be around, well populated with life that's evolved to thrive in the 80 C average surface temperatures and the methane/CO2 atmosphere that results from runaway greenhousing. Doubt there will be any living humans on it, but I guess Blair doesn't care about that ...
He did go along with the war in Iraq, after all. I'm guessing preservation of human life is not a high priority for him.
That war was a faith-based initiative let down only by failure to go in hard enough and the human failings of its prosecutors. You should similarly have faith that humanity will shortly transcend the smoking remains of this mere bluish globe and like totally make out in outer space, man.
frankis, run, do not walk, to join the We Are All Giant Nuclear Fireball Now Party. It beats marking papers on Saturday night (see comment 5).
Here is the comment that I left at Tim Blair column's website (since I doubt it will see the light-of-day there, I repeat it here):
"Tim: Well, I think you ought to take your logic a little further and urge your fellow conservative friends not to vote. After all, each vote in a country with millions of people represents a miniscule fraction of the total vote. Therefore, what harm is it if all the people of your political persuasion simply do not vote since each vote makes so little difference as to be completely negligible!"
You are fucking delusional Lambert.
You don't have a case. And you didn't score a point against Blairs argument. What the fuck is the matter with you? You didn't make a single valid argument against what Blair said. You have no evidence whatsoever for your policy prescriptions. You are a fucking idiot.
depp=true
notiz=[Graeme Bird makes more sense this way]
Carmel, there's no need to be a potty-mouth, now is there? You have a little lie-down.
Having said that, I'm following Blair as usual. From now on, I'm chucking all my rubbish out of my car window. After all, compared to the total amount of crap on the sides of highways, my chip packets are nothing. If I stopped doing it, would it matter? Anyway, the earth is old and it'll recover.
When I have kids, I'm teaching them the tiny-tim approach to individual responsibility.
Carmel, what data are you talking about? Can you give us specifics, please?
Here is the latest from the UK Met Office:
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2006/pr20061201.html
'Have all the nations agree to reduce their emissions. We could call it Kyoto or something!'
All nations? There's a few billion people left out of that agreement isn't there?
Being a non-Annex B signatory of th Kyoto Protocol doesn't mean you're "left out".
Tell me Tim w. do you know which country is th world's largest investor in renewable energy?
Five letters, starts with "Ch-", ends with "-a".
"If just Canada and Australia made reductions it wouldn't make much difference."
Tim L. is right, although he misunderstands and misrepresents my point, which is that the complete removal of Canada and Australia wouldn't make much difference. I'm not talking about mere reductions from both countries; I'm talking about getting rid of both countries all together, a solution far more aggressive than demanded by Kyoto.
And still no significant impact on human-generated greenhouse gases would be made.
Quite why Tim L. would offer such an obvious straw man is mystifying. More seriously, the cute pinata that usually illustrates Tim L.'s posts on me is missing. I demand its restoration.
tim,
Your hyperbolic point notwithstanding, the real message of your comparison is to say: "Look, y'all! We can't make any difference, so let's do nothing!" That's exactly the issue Tim L. addresses, so he is on point.
Did you know that if the U.S. cut emissions by a mere 19% it would be the equal to completely removing Canda and Australia? That's one country reducing its emission by a mere one fifth!
Generally people use a straw man when the opposition has a good argument. Just sayin'.
The complete removal of Canada would open new sea trade routes that would enable China to ship cheap stuff to the US east coast at lower cost. A very good thing.
"if a vengeful Gaia were to smite both Canada AND Australia out of existence, that would reduce by only 3.4 per cent of these warming gases some believe are killing the planet."
Wonder how much it would reduce greenhouse gas emissions if that was the US instead of Canada and Australia?
If the complete removal of Australia's emmissions wouldn't make much difference, then why bother having a debate about nuclear.
Oh, but if everyone went nuclear...
Peak uranium: 10 years ?
Tim B, the true genius. The way to handle a collective action problem, he says, is to give up.
If Timby is right it could be divine intervention since Canada and Australia are on track to supply most of the world's uranium for the next 50 years or so.
TimB, why do you bother to pay taxes? If you're as well paid as your excellent journalism clearly warrants, you'll be paying over $25,000 a year in taxes. The Australian tax take is something in the order of 250 billion dollars/year, so if you decided not to pay income taxes the difference to Australian government revenue would be 0.00001% if I have my decimal point right - to small to notice.
As you rightly point out tim, your complete removal wouldn't make much difference. Indeed the compete removal of say Tasmania wouldn't make much difference.
This applies to all of us reading this blog.
Why should any of us pay taxes?
Yo, have any idea who Bumpy111 is on YouTube? Has been rather prolific in a very short space of time. Their website domains were registered in July and are using GoDaddy's proxy service, so no real identifier.
Arguments that begin with conflating Gaia and liberals or scientists and robed priests or Gaia and nutjobs or Gaia and x should be rejected immediately.
It is a parrot of some talking point.
Best,
D
Here's another perspective-building figure: "recorded history" (the last 200 years or so) represents just 0.000004 per cent of the planet's entire 4.6 billion year existence. This joint's been around a long time. We'll barely make a dent in it.
Ah.
This is an elaborate essay explaining away his emasculation; IOW: 'my willy is only .0000078% of my body weight - that joint was around for a long time, but it's weight barely makes a dent in my total body mass'.
Best,
D
It was science fiction:
"We can just about restore the balance of the ecology, the biosphere, and so on - in other words we can live within our means instead of on an unrepayable overdraft, as we've been doing for the past half century - if we exterminate the two hundred million most extravagant and wasteful of our species." -- John Brunner, 1972
quoted here: http://www.derekjwilson.co.nz/WHERE%20II.pdf
Also relevant, found here: http://www.csc.liv.ac.uk/~greg/cookies.text
"The only thing we learn from history is that we learn nothing from history." -- Hegel
"I know guys can't learn from yesterday ... Hegel must be taking the long view." -- John Brunner, "Stand on Zanzibar"
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1857988361/fourmilabwwwfour
The complete removal of Canada would open new sea trade routes that would enable China to ship cheap stuff to the US east coast at lower cost. A very good thing.
Not to us Canadians. :(
OK, Geoff. How about a sealane along the border? That'll allow cheap shipping to both countries. And building the dozens of bridges spanning the CanaUsa Sea would stimulate the economy!
I ask myself that question on a daily basis. And then I remember that building full of cages in which they put people who refuse to pay taxes. I pay taxes because they persecute people who don't pay.
Why do they persecute people?
"Here's another perspective-building figure: "recorded history" (the last 200 years or so) represents just 0.000004 per cent of the planet's entire 4.6 billion year existence. This joint's been around a long time. We'll barely make a dent in it. "
And another one: Hitler, Stalin, and Mao all together made up less than .000001% of the world's living population, not to mention all the dead ones. How absurd to theorize that they could have caused the deaths of millions. Clearly, it was natural causes. Probably the Sun.
Re: "The complete removal of Canada would open new sea trade routes that would enable China to ship cheap stuff to the US east coast at lower cost. A very good thing."
Eli, I know you're kidding, yet why would you say this about wiping out us Canucks? :( *sniff*
How absurd to theorize that they could have caused the deaths of millions. Clearly, it was natural causes. Probably the Sun.
That, sir, is funny.
Best,
D
Terja, think of it as housing for free riders.
Personally I pay my taxes so we have roads, hospitals, an army, some form of pension, and general safety net for when things go wrong.
Now, you can argue if you like that taxes are not the best way to do this, but then that runsinto the point that nobody seems to have tried. Now, maybe in our ideal truly democratic country, we could give it a go. Let me knwo when you've found or made such a place.
What is all the above about?
We need to be deadly serious about this deadly issue.
Armaggedon is clearly where we're headed - although as the owner of a house 30 metres above sea level in Auckland I find myself excited by the prospect of being able to moor my 20 metre gin palace at the gate rather than having to go through the tiresome process of driving my Lamborghini down to Westhaven. Albeit only for a few years prior to my 10million dollar home being firstly destroyed by tropical cyclones and then being swamped by the rising sea - maybe an iceberg will finish the shebang off as my house is built of commercial grade concrete and steel.
But seriously - who actually can succintly articulate the pro AGW stance.
The "science" appears weak.
I am a 50 yo with degrees in medicine and biological sciences.
I have seen many debates re various scientific discoveries come and over the last 25 years.
In medicine the outcomes of - for example - the use of novel drugs are unknown for decades.
Any doctor who denies this does not live in the real world.
Drug therapies are always based upon the most up to date understanding of human biology and pharmacotherapy.
The economic stakes are enormous (for the drug companies) and the risk to human life is ever present.
Thus an extraordinary rigour is applied to medical science.
The "science" and debate surrounding global warming appears sloppy, characterised by numerous ad hominem attacks and is appears inconclusive.
It is clear that CO2 emissions have increased by 30% over the last 100 years (due to human activity) and that the earth has warmed up by less than 1 degree celsius.
What else is clear?
What other GHG increases are based upon anthropogenic cause
What is the putative relationship between increased CO2 and global warming?
Out of that which is an apparent cloud of uncertainty we are advised that we must invoke the "precautionary principle" - why? it may do more harm than good.
I am agnostic and want somebody out there to convince me wrt the science that underpins AGW.
It won't be hard if it exists.
I am capable of digesting a large amount of information very quickly
"How absurd to theorize that they could have caused the deaths of millions. Clearly, it was natural causes. Probably the Sun."
I have to agree with Dano. I don't know if Dr Lambert has ever considered the idea, but I would nominate z's contribution as "post of the year".
Stephen, I apologize, but think how exciting it would be if Vancouver and Quebec were the new Colon and Panama City....warmer too!
Andrew: [read this](http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/index.htm)
I second lurker's comment.
Tim's comments tend to attract folks who leave witty comments. There should be some acknowledgment of the good 'uns.
Best,
D
I am agnostic and want somebody out there to convince me wrt the science that underpins AGW. It won't be hard if it exists. I am capable of digesting a large amount of information very quickly
Andrew, try these three things:
If you're a fast learner, your gaining knowledge in this discipline to answer your questions shouldn't take long at all. Good luck sir.
HTH,
D
Actually, unless you're a property owner paying some kind of property taxes, (and for the sake of argument, let's ignore Social Security for a moment) you're not paying towards these things. Income taxes - most of them anyway - go to pay down interest owed on the national debt.
Depends, among other things, on whether you reprocess.
Actually - I'm thick as a plank - and a pathological liar.
My previous claims wrt to profession and assets were all false.
I need more than good luck - I need facts
So can someone help a dummy and tell me why so many intelligent people cannot agree as to whether GW is caused by belching factories, farting cows and vegetarians - who incidentally should be compelled to pay a carbon tax on fart producing diets- or is GW caused by natural forces.
I'll put my money on the latter.
I reckon that history will prove the AGW mob as a bunch of End of the World Catacysmic wannabes.
Why? - because they are clearly too emotionally involved in the issue.
The emotion derives from the fact that the balance of science favours neither position.
In fact the science is as embryonic as a morulla.
On the basis of this science we are invited to invoke the "precautionary principle" - a current buzz term in ecology which is the medical equivalent of "primum non nocere" but without the scientific backing to support its invocation.
The invocation of this principle may cause as much harm as good.
Now will someone out there in Cyberspace - preferably not a cadet - but a fully qualified spaceman please convince me that AGW is a reality.
It shouldn't take more than 500 words as the science is so compelling.
Must return to the cell now as I am on periodic detention.
J Daley- I've not heard that one before. Do you have any links to anything about it? Bear in mind that I pay VAT and a bunch of other taxes more than simply income tax. (I am in the UK)
Andrew, given that you claim to be a pathological liar, (What was that paradox involving lying cretans again?) yet claim to be interested in facts, but do not produce any in support of your hunch that AGW is a crock, is there any reason we should continue reading your screeds?
Andrew says "I'm thick as a plank - and a pathological liar."
Apply for a job at the Competitive Enterprise Institute.
Guthrie, J. Daley, of course, is avoiding the fact that a national debt is a tax on future generations (see M. Friedman anywhere). Besides that in the US, personal income tax brings in about 1 Trillion (2006 figures). Interest on the debt was ~400 million. To an extent this depends on how you treat the Social Security Debt. Anyone who wants more figures can go to www.census.gov or your government's statistics site.
Excuse me for the false claim. I am not a politician nor am I left wing greeny or for that matter a right wing fascist.
There must be someone out there who has studied the issue in depth who can present the position for and against briefly and succintly.
ps Guthrie
it's an ancient Greek thing. The lying paradox.
If someone states "I am lying" then how do you know whether that statement is true or false - (or something like that)
With regard to pathological lying - it has a meaning in medicine which effectively subverts the paradox.
That is to say that a pathological liar is defined as somebody who is actually unaware that they are lying.
These folk have more white matter than average in the frontal lobes - which are involved in executive function Therefore a pathological liar has no insight wrt to the veracity of his/her utterances and is therefore very unlikely to make the personal claim.
As to whether its worth reading my screeds I can't answer for anyone else.
Why do I suspect that AGW is a crock?
Because there is so much invective surrounding the issue. This almost always indicates that one or other side of a debate feels threatened.
When the science is cloudy - emotion takes over.
Currently most of the invective seems to arise from the pro AGW camp rather than the sceptics.
I want somebody to answer the CO2 paradox - as this appears core to the debate.
It is a miniscule GHG in its own right.
It has historically followed GW rather than risen concurrently.
It seems to me to be a red herring wrt the entire argument.
The question that needs to be asked is - if CO2 is dropped out of the scientific argument for AGW - then what are the putative mechanisms for AGW?
This almost always indicates that one or other side of a debate feels threatened. When the science is cloudy - emotion takes over.
No.
You'll recall that the same thing went on with Uniformitarianism and evolution.
Emotion is normal human reaction.
HTH,
D
No Andrew, that wont do. You cannot just hypothetically drop CO2 out of the argument like that, because of the solid scientific basis for regarding increases in CO2 as related to increased temperatures. Your hypothesising on the basis of no evidence.
"Emotion is normal human reaction."
Are you suggesting that the debate surrounding evolution is parallel to the debate surrounding GW in terms of quality of science and intensity of emotion?
If so - I disagree.
But I don't want to write another screed.
I guess since my Chevrolet Cavalier makes only a little teeny tiny contribution to the current atmospheric CO2 budget when I go on my summer roadtrips, I might as well not bother buying a flex-fuel hybrid a few years down the road to combine fuel efficiency and renewable fuels (just in case the worst of GW turns out to be true). After all, what difference do I, one of a billion Westerners, make???
Mike - you make no difference and we are all wasting our time unless AGW is true and every country including China agrees to limit GHG emmissions.
The chances that this will occur are absolutely remote for all the reasons above.
There is far too much discord.
If AGW is true then we are all stuffed - end of story.
Dear Guthrie
Why can't I drop out the CO2?
Isn't it generally accepted that it follows by hundreds of years rather than rises concurrntly with GW?
If it is true and we want to understand the whole shebang - why not have a go at explaining it on the basis of all the other anthropogenic data.
"There is far too much discord. If AGW is true then we are all stuffed - end of story."
Ah yes, the ostrich strategy.
"Why do I suspect that AGW is a crock? Because there is so much invective surrounding the issue."
Yea, you won't see the likes of Senator Imhofe, Michael Crichton or Lomborg engaging in personal invective against the irrational new age cultists who want to destroy modern civilisation and drag mankind back into the dark ages in order to implement their racist master plan to exterminate billions of people in the developing world.
Dear Ian
I don't know these people (ie Imhote et al) or their views.
I am not sure what you mean by the "Ostrich Strategy" in this context.
I think the best question to ask of you is - how do expect events to unfold given the current degree of discord?
I look forward to your response.
Thankyou in anticipation
Andrew Montgomery
The Ostrich strategy is the practice of sticking your head in the and and ignoring facts because you just don't like them.
Imhofe, Crichton et al are prominent "skeptics" whose invective is far more vicious and emotional than anything I've seen directed at skeptics by maisntream scientists.
As to what will happen - the skeptics will never go away completely, like the geocentrists and Flat-Earthers they will simply dwindle into an ever more insignficant, irrevlevant and loopy minority.
Exxon and the Bush adminsitration have now accpeted the overwhelming evidnece in favor or the AGW hypothesis. I encourage you to do soem reading and I suspect that youwill do likewise.
It may sound like an unlikely starting point but I suggest that the wikipedia article on climate change as a good nontechnical introduction to the science and the controversies.
Dear Ian
Thankyou for your explanation.
I will have to remain agnostic despite any previous comments I have made.
I simply don't have the time or interest to participate in a debate that is above my head.
It is clear that you believe that the logic is so compelling that countries such as China will fall into line and that the science that forms the base of the argument if "p" then "q" is secure.
The atmosphere is such a small reservoir of CO_2 that small changes have big effects. Don't expect from politicians to understand that.
"you believe that the logic is so compelling that countries such as China will fall into line"
What does that have to do with logic?
"Why can't I drop out the CO2? Isn't it generally accepted that it follows by hundreds of years rather than rises concurrntly with GW?"
No. It's not generally true. For example it's not true when some process injects CO2 into the atmosphere independently of the climate.
Repeat after me the denialist mantra:
Global warming is not happening.
Humans are not causing it.
And even if they are (which they can't be since it's not happening), there's nothing that can be done about it.
So take a long, relaxing drive in the Hummer and let's get back to business as usual, shall we?
"Global warming is not happening. Humans are not causing it. And even if they are (which they can't be since it's not happening), there's nothing that can be done about it"
There we are.
However my position is ..
Global warming is happening and regardless of cause there is nothing that can be done about it.
The true denialists in this debate are those who cannot see the world as it is.
Nor do they understand - from their positions of Western privilege - that 75% of the world's population probably have no awareness of the issue - many live in abject poverty and it is entirely unrealistic for them to give a rats arse about the future of the rest of us.
Whilst someone dying of Aids in Africa, or trying to find a way into a sweatshop in INdonesia might not be bothered about us in "the west", since the results of global warming are global in scale, things will happen to affect them. So they will eventually get a bit worried about it, since it will affect their future.
Actually Andrew the rwalist takes note of the fact that China is currently the largest investor in renewable energy in the entire world and will soon have strciter car emission regulationds than the US.
The realist takes note of the fact that investyment in the electricity grids in China and India would eliminate the need for millions of small inefficient private deisel generators, savings industry in those countries billions whiel also reducing their GHG emissions signficantly.
The realist knows that a major source of CO2 emissions (and other pollution) and a major cause of cancer and other diseases in the developing world is the use of dung as a fuel - and that giving people kerosene or butane stoves would not only reduce GHG emissions it would also liberate women from hours of labor every day allowing them to enage in other more productive activities.
The realist reads the recent New Scientist article saying eliminating the "Asian Brown Cloud" - the pall of pollution from industry and forest fires that stretches from India to Indonesia - would increase agricultural output in the region by over 10%.
Oh and the relasit takes note of the success of the international agreements on ozone depleting substances and acid rain.
Or you can just keep reading articles by right-wing nuts financed by oil companies and congratulate yourself on your "realism".
Ian - Thanks for the education re China.I am pleased that they are taking steps to improve their environment.
I can't comment on your final statement as I don't know whether it is true or not.
"I can't comment on your final statement as I don't know whether it is true or not."
Andrew, you've now indicated that you don't have the time or inclination to research thins for yourself and that you're unwilling to accept what others tell you.
This leaves us at something of an impasse.
Dear Ian
1. I do not believe that all those who are skeptical are right wingers in the pockets of the oil companies and nor do I believe that they are foolish naysayers
2. The C02 issue is one I find hard to understand for the reasons I have given above.
What is the explanation?
3. The following is a cut and paste from an internet site.
Please tell me point by point where it is in error
The average person who only gets his information from the mass media would never know that the GW concept is actually debatable, with many very heated (pun intended) debates going on at scientific meetings of CAMs. For example, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a U.N. sponsored group of more than 2,000 scientists from over 100 countries, has concluded that human activity is a major factor in elevated atmospheric CO2 levels (probably true), and this will result in rising temperatures and sea levels that could prove catastrophic for multi-millions of coastal dwelling folk all over the world (very debateable).
The IPCC panel concluded that in the last century, earth's average global surface temperature had risen between 0.4-0.8 ï¾°C. They also estimated (read "guessed") that by 2100 the global average would rise by 1.4 to 5.8 ï¾°C., depending on a, very wide range of scenarios for greenhouse gas emissions. This was widely reported in the mass media. On the other hand, the "Oregon Petition" of 2001, signed by some 18,000 scientists from all disciplines, said there was no convincing evidence that human activity is responsible, or will be responsible, for any catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. That was not widely reported
Andrew could refer to Wikipedia on that petition nonsense then go read the IPCC site that Tim linked for him way earlier on, or he could continue crapping on the way he's been. Tough call.
I guess I'll have to leave it all to the clever guys.
Try and be civil if you can "sleepy" - your vulgarity and veiled hostility do not help any cause.
Andrew: "I want somebody to answer the CO2 paradox - as this appears core to the debate. It is a miniscule GHG in its own right. It has historically followed GW rather than risen concurrently."
It's incorrect to say that carbon dioxide is a "miniscule" GHG - it's the second most improtant after water vapor in terms of total forcing.
More importantly, the Earth reradiates a more or less fixed percentage of the heat it absorbs from the sun at various frequencies.
The greenhouse effect happens because gases in the atmosphere absorb soem of that radiation.
But gases only absorb radiatrion atr specific frequencies.
There's already enough water vapor in the atmosphere that it effectively absorbs all the re-emitted radiation at the frequencies its sensitive to.
So further increases in water vapor won't result in increased warming but increases in methane and CO2 will.
As to the relative contributions - water vapor already produces a greenhouse effect on the order of 20 degrees Kelvin. The expected increase in forcing due to rising CO2 levels is around 3-4 degrees.
As to "CO2 increases lag global warming" this ignores the fact that both the warming and the CO2 increases last hundreds of years. There are psotive feedbacks which mean that warming leads to further GHG emissions - we're seeing this currently as permafrost melts in Siberia.
Tell you whta, why don't you explain the magical process by which carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will alter its absorption spectrum so that it no longer absorbs IR radiation.
But you are already know this don't you - you keep playing dumb then pulling out denailist debating points.
It's called trolling and I'm goign ot stop rewarding in.
"The senior author of the article was Dr. Arthur B. Robinson, a biochemist (not a climate scientist) and a Christian fundamentalist. The second and third authors were Drs. Sallie Baliunas and Willie Soon of Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. Both Baliunas and Soon have ties to the George C. Marshall Institute, which has taken a skeptical position on global warming since the 1980s and has also received financial support from the oil industry."
One final point though - the Oregon Petition is perfect expample of oil company funded misinformation, bringing us neatly full circle.
Thankyou Ian
You have given me something to work on
As a first " second time" blogger - I have learnt a new term "trolling"
"I have learnt a new term "trolling" "
I can teach you something else. There are things called "search engines" on the internet, for example www.google.com . They allow you to find out information far more quickly than asking questions on blogs. I notice you have come across the Oregon Petition somewhere which you were kind enough to inform us was written in 2001. Five years is a long time in any modern subject, even climate science. You could bring yourself up to date very quickly by using www.google.com to search for material containing "Oregon Petition". You will find out information far faster than asking questions here.
I reckon he ought to leave it to the clever folks because when Andrew says:
and a lot of other silly things, and ignores the link Tim gave him that would help to educate him as he claims to want, I feel he's not likely to get far. Laboring as he is with such an unhelpful degree of "vulgarity and veiled hostility".
The only person who has directly answered my question is Ian Gould.
I am aware of search engines - and now blogs.
Prior to entering this discussion group I thought that the function of blogs was to answer questions - rather than refer to search engines. That is to say that those who have a good understanding of a subject are often able to answer a question more concisely - ie help improve one's understanding of a topic and hopefully improve everybody elses. Ie provide shortcuts.
For this I thank Ian.
As to whether I agree or not is another matter - he has at least produced a framework from which a non climatologist can work.
The only person who has directly answered my question is Ian Gould.
I am aware of search engines - and now blogs.
Prior to entering this discussion group I thought that the function of blogs was to answer questions - rather than refer to search engines. That is to say that those who have a good understanding of a subject are often able to answer a question more concisely - ie help improve one's understanding of a topic and hopefully improve everybody elses. Ie provide shortcuts.
For this I thank Ian.
As to whether I agree or not is another matter - he has at least produced a framework from which a non climatologist can work.
I reckon he ought to leave it to the clever folks because when Andrew says:
I reckon that history will prove the AGW mob as a bunch of End of the World Catacysmic wannabes. Why? - because they are clearly too emotionally involved in the issue.
and a lot of other silly things, and ignores the link Tim gave him that would help to educate him as he claims to want, I feel he's not likely to get far. Laboring as he is with such an unhelpful degree of "vulgarity and veiled hostility".
Some fair comment here Sleepy.
Some of my remarks have been offensive.
That said I think that less emotion and more scientific detachment from all sides would help clarify the issue for the 99.99% of people who are not CAM folk.
If you want to learn about the problem
"I would nominate z's contribution as "post of the year"."
I must respectfully decline, as it would be impossible to come up with parodies if it were not for dead serious statements like this: "At least close to the new spot
and to the equator, nothing less than global warming is expected." As I posted elsewhere, it reminds me of a line from the Mel Brooks remake of "To be or not to be": "He's world famous, in Poland!".
Andrew, the primary purpose of blogs is for their owners to put up information, rants, and discussion points for them and interested parties to talk about. Not to educate people. Asking question is ok, but not if it involves having to educate someone up to university level from High school level.
Dear Guthrie
This "blog" started on December 2nd.
There have been many comments posted -some of them humourous - but most of them partisan.
I suspect that there are many parallel blogs out there which consist substantially of "denialist" or "skeptical" comment.
This blog has referred me to various sites - which I have in my spare time attempted to view - but unfortunately many of the sites simply contain references to other sites. It is therefore very difficult for a layperson to distil the current "definites" or "strong possible scenarios" from these referrals.
In my work as a medical practitioner I am (a) challenged daily wrt the extent of my knowledge and (b) by the need to present complex diagnostic scenarios in language that people can understand.
Patients frequently challenge the need for a whole range of therapies. If I am uncertain then I freely admit it and use the opportunity to educate myself.
I have also frequently found that patients have advised me of side effects of a particular drug (the latest being the potential for statins to cause cognitive impairment) before the side effect has been published in the literature.
I have also become mistrustful of the latest drugs released - and would not take them myself unless they had been around for at least 20 years.
Many doctors and drug companies might suggest that I am unduly cautious.
The human body is the most complex assembly of energy/matter known.
I am disturbed by the degree of confidence that many of those participating in this blog have wrt to climate change.
I hope that those on this blog who have the need for medical advice are treated with respect and skilled communication.
The point being that more heat than light has been generated from my attempts to gain expert information thus far.
Andrew, the situations you describe are not analogous - for starters your patients (or their insurers) are paying you.
A more apt analogy would be if you were writing pro bono articles on medical issues for a newspaper and the paper was constantly being bombarded by letters proclaiming the amazing medical benefits of urine-drinking and denouncing you as a tool of the international pharmaceutical industry's conspiracy to suppress the truth.
Andrew, the situations you describe are not analogous - for starters your patients (or their insurers) are paying you.
(As it happens I used to work as an environmental economist, if you were prepared to pay my standard consulting rate, I would happily expand in detail (with references) on my brief comments above on the economics of global warming.(
A more apt analogy would be if you were writing pro bono articles on medical issues for a newspaper and the paper was constantly being bombarded by letters proclaiming the amazing medical benefits of urine-drinking and denouncing you as a tool of the international pharmaceutical industry's conspiracy to suppress the truth.
Heres something you might like then Andrew:
http://www.physicsnow.org/history/climate/index.html
Its Spencer WEarts book on climate change. It covers the history and leads into the science rather well. If you want to distill the current state of the art, about the best thing you can do is read the IPPC website, but of course it will ultimately refer to peer reviewed journals which you will be unable to access yourself. It also usually assumes a certain level of knowledge, which can be obtained by reading Spencer Wearts book.
"For this I thank Ian."
Belated thanks is better than nothing and it would have been better still if the only previous specific thanks was not for being told what a troll is.
"Prior to entering this discussion group I thought that the function of blogs was to answer questions"
Sorry I must have missed them amongst all your denialist assertions but in case you have some genuineness about wanting to know the relationship between warming and CO2 (aka climate sensitivity), you could do worse than click on the index in realclimate.org and read the articles under the "Climate Sensitivity" heading. In particular the article referring to Annan and Hargreaves paper on the subject. They arrive at a maximum likelihood value of 2.9 degrees C, a 70% likely range of 2.2-3.9 degrees C and a 95% likely range of 1.7-4.9 degrees C. Since you are "capable of digesting a large amount of information very quickly", reading all realclimate's articles on climate sensitivity should give you no problem whatsoever.
Gee
Firstly thankyou Guthrie for your civilised response.
I find myself qualifying as the best big game fisher on this blog.
Look guys
(a) I am genuine in my attempt to secure understanding of the CO2 paradox
(b) over the last two days I have checked out the various sites to which I have been referred.
(c) I have established that Mr or Dr Lambert has more interest in establishing himself as the wise guy wrt a range of scientific matters which lie right outside of his field of expertise. And that he shoots from the hip.
(d) that he and nor do any respondents thus far understand the CO2 paradox. Specifically - in that which I can only describe as a smart alec blog site "bingo" - he set up a discussion group around the CO2 issue that he was patently incapable of participating in. It essentially layed open the arguments wrt CO2
None of you have been capable of doing anything other than referring me to other websites - with a single exception.
If I were to do this with my patients they would justifiably question my competence and intellect.
(e) I work as a waged employee as a primary care doctor in NZ - we are the lowest paid in the Western World and I work predominantly with the most disadvantaged sectors of th community. My remuneration is totally disconnected from the number of patients I see.
(f) we have NO refugees in NZ from the Pacific Islands as a consequence of rising sea levels.
If you are all determined to exact the truth re global warming or any other scientific issue then I suggest that you open your minds and listen.
You will learn far more from those who doubt you than those who agree. This is a paraphrase of an old homily "you learn more from your enemies."Think about it. Search the net more widely and then respond.
To repeat myself for those that clearly have not understood what I have said.
I don't dispute the reality of global warming.
I remain agnostic as to its cause.
You can call me what you like.
I am waiting for an intelligent, mature and non emotive response from those who are capable of presenting me with one.
I am not "trolling"
I am simply looking for someone who has the intellect to provide me with a synopsis.
To repeat myself - as a doctor it is my duty to do exactly that many times a day wrt a wide range of diseases.
If I don't know then I consult.
Sorry to spoil the party
Merry Xmas
And for those who live in Australia
Wear plenty of sunblock
"If I don't know then I consult."
Then consult the IPCC, not some blog written by someone you don't think has the expertise. It's really not hard to find good explanations of the science from climate scientists. It's their job, you know.
The best thing you all can do is admit that you haven't really got a clue and that you do not understand the science.
I am at least attempting to do so. I have been reading widely since the last posts.
I am slowly (yes slowly) understanding climate science.
I also understand that the models used by the IPCC give a wide range of projected anthropogenic temperature increase.
If there is one thing that is certain - within one month I will understand the issue better than any of those who have contributed to this discussion so far.
"If I don't know then I consult."
Then consult the IPCC, not some blog written by someone you don't think has the expertise. It's really not hard to find good explanations of the science from climate scientists. It's their job, you know.
In reference to this comment FDB I would like ask the following questions
1. What exactly is the function of a blog - is it for those who all believe the same thing - or is it for the purpose of debate?
2. What are the qualifications of those who have contributed ?- Tim L has disclosed his and Ian Gould his.
3. What are your qualifications?
And finally a statement
I attempted (naively) to obtain some straight forward answers from people who I believed had the "status" of consultants.
I won't bother again.
Andrew: Comments are for discussion of the issues and not for you to boast about how clever you are. Please go away. (And every one else: please ignore him.)
Dear Tim
I am not boasting about how clever I am - nor would I bother - that is for others to judge. And in my job - judge they do and mercilessly.
At age 50 - I am past that.
Those who know me would never make such an accusation.
In fact I live in a state of increasing ignorance.
Paradoxically - the more I know the less I understand.
Tim - it is you who set up these blogs - quite a number.
That is your choice.
Others can make up their own mind ( I would hope) without your instruction to ignore certain comment.
Andrew: "If there is one thing that is certain - within one month I will understand the issue better than any of those who have contributed to this discussion so far."
I doubt that very much.
More over, if you're going to storm out in high dudgeon - as you've pretended to do a couple of times - it's normal practice not to keep storming back in every day or so.
Dear Ian
I am pleased that you are still there and that you have chosen to ignore Tim's imperative.
It is true that I have suggested that "I won't bother again" - but Tim's comment was deserving of a response.
I am irritated by this circus - but that is what keeps me going - ie the opportunity for the right of reply.
As to whether I will "know" more than any of the others wrt to AGW within one month who have participated in this "blog" - time will tell.
Given the general quality of understanding displayed thus far I am reasonably confident.
I am open to the possibility that I might end up agreeing with the AGW hypothesis.
I am not seeking conflict - but understanding.
"I am not seeking conflict - but understanding"
and the way to do this is to say:
"I'm a pathological liar"
and to then demonstrate thus.
Dear anonymous
Please refer to the liar paradox above
No Andrew dear, you are displaying the typical arrogance of the ignorant. There are folks who post here who have studied the issue for many years, some of us as amateurs, some of us as specialists in particular areas. Amateurs are prone to a whole raft of enthusiams and mistakes such as those discussed here. You are not going to be very good at this stuff in a month, although you will (hopefully) be better.
People like you come visit all puffed up, get deflated by others pointing out that they really don't know very much at all, and most of what the visitors know is wrong, and either huff off, or stay and learn. Sadly too few of the latter.
Think of it as a challenge, Andrew, to go away and master the climatology behind our understanding of AGW, and the sceptics, enough so that you can debate it fully with us on here.
Speaking personally, its taken over a year to get to a reasonable understanding of it all.
Dear Guthrie and Eli
1.There has been little true debate on this forum - mostly assertion with reference to other sites - many of which I have now read.
2.The IPCC scientists have reached a consensus that AGW exists - but have given a range of projections for temperature increase which is very large. This indicates that there is no consensus upon degree of impact of AGW.
In the formulation of strategy to deal with the putative problem this is important because the problem is economic as well as ecological.
3.I have read many of the "skeptic/denialist" arguments.
I simply do not believe that they are all fools in the pockets of the oil companies or big business.
Likewise I don't believe that the majority of the IPCC scientists have ulterior motives.
4. Over the last 4 weeks I have developed a much greater understanding of the issues surrounding GW.
I am still agnostic.
Tim is probably right - the best thing to do is not respond to my responses.
Merry Christmas folks - it is a time for forgiveness.
"3.I have read many of the "skeptic/denialist" arguments. I simply do not believe that they are all fools in the pockets of the oil companies or big business. Likewise I don't believe that the majority of the IPCC scientists have ulterior motives."
Andrew, a friend of mine on another forum put forward about a dozen pieces of research by denaialists who he claimed were not funded by oil interests. From scratch, using only their wikipedia entries and the Sourcewatch website I was able to show that every single one of them WAS substantially funded by oil inudstry interests and specifically by the Koch family (look up Koch Industries on wikipedia for further details).
Frankly, I was surprised by the extent to which the denialists were funded by the oil industry.
I suggest you repeat the exercise.
"Frankly, I was surprised by the extent to which the denialists were funded by the oil industry"
As for me, I was surprised by how many of them had been previously funded by the tobacco industry.
Sometimes, you start to wonder if the conspiracy theorists might not have their finger on something.
I have no doubt that they (conspiracy theorists)often have their theories validated. Unfortunately in many instances governments are willing participants in that they are effectively bribed - this would appear to be the case with the tobacco industry. There are mechanisms which any Western govt could put in place to dramatically reduce new entrants into the addiction - but they fail to do so.
Some analyses have suggested that this is because tax revenue is too great. I think this is very likely.
Governments are effectively caught in a feedback loop wherein they need the votes to stay in power even though the policies they promote are toxic to the medium to long term economy.
This applies in different ways to the food industry which is probably killing more Westerner's now than cigarettes.
WRT to the topic in hand if the AGW lot are correct I think it will be exceedingly difficult to make a useful dent on the problem - given the fact that many unpopular measures would be required.