tricky Big Al

- there’s bugger all ’science’ to refute…

As for the C02 is ‘heavier than air’ thing – salt is ‘heavier than water’ –

- some basic understanding of the physical properties of the gases shows that CO2 mixes very well in the atmosphere right up into the Troposphere – there is absolutely no controversy about this.

Indeed C0 2 levels have been measured at the top of a mountain in Hawaai since 1953 – which is how we know it’s increasing globally .

The tropospheric warming ‘problem’ has now been conclusively been shown to have an artefact of satellite measurement -and that has even been accepted in a scientific paper by one of the contributors to the prog -although he seems to have forgotten it for TV.

It’s a bit quiet here – I’d suggest you join Ben’s forum if you want to catch up with the ‘debate’:

http://badscience.net/forum/viewforum.php?f=3

I’m prepared to accept that the claim that volcanoes emit far more CO2 than human activities is false. However, another claim was based on the undeniable fact that CO2 is heavier than air, and that volcanoes have the energy to drive it high into the atmosphere, whereas human activities don’t, so human-generated CO2 sinks into the ground and the oceans. To a layman like me, this seems a persuasive argument: can someone please debunk it?

The tropospheric (non-) warming does seem a valid bone of contention. I’ve read a lot about the need to take into account orbital decay and problems with weather balloons, but I’ve also heard that the method of measuring ocean temperatures has changed and may give erroneously high results (this was not mentioned in the documentary). What’s the current state ofplay on delta T in the troposphere? Are the corrections applied to the old satellite and balloon data valid scientific adjustments or post hoc fiddle-factors designed to give the “right” answers?

Any chance of some scientific data rather than biographic background of Mr Durkin?

In “The Great Global Warming Swindle” Durkin shows a scientist rolling his eyes at how a scientist could make it on to the “top 2,500″ list through the IPCC. But, then a few minutes later (at the 1 hour mark) Durking is rattling off the positions held, awards, and books authored by Patrick Michaels as though _that_ was all of a sudden some soft of credibility.

This doco wreaks of “conspiracy theories”. There are legimate claims opposing man made global warming, but they aren’t as interesting as what Durkin has decided to highlight. Isn’t it then funny, that one of the scientists in Durkin’s doco suggests that you are more likely to get funded by producing dramatic results, than boring results.

My least favourite comment these days is the “four-legs-good-two-legs-bad” bleat about “scientific unanimity over AGW”. As far as I can see, that’s pretty damn’ peripheral. I want to hear the science, not the message. I want to see the error bars. I want to see how the sulphate emissions track the 40s – 70s cooling and how CO2 then takes over. I’m willing and ready to be convinced. I’m a big boy now: I can take it, Doc.

But all I get is “But the scientists all agree!”

Still, I live in hope.

I don’t think anyone’s answered Big Al yet? (post 57)

> I’ve seen a couple of “warmest winter / given month since…” entries recently in the papers. However, if I remember rightly, the “sinces” were 1873 and 1906. What made the winters or relevant months so mild then?

I’m no expert, but I think 1873 and 1906 were the years when records started to be kept – so they may not have been warm, it’s just there’s no accurate evidence about previous years (or does someone know different?!)

> > If an “ordinary” person sat down to watch this, they would see a decently constructed programme which pulled in lots of “academics” and “experts” from around the globe casting aspersions about global warming. Why wouldn’t they believe what they are told, or at least question the generally accepted view?

> Squander Two

> If that’s true, then wouldn’t an ordinary layperson tend to believe the thousands of claims that they’re exposed to every day that global warming is anthropogenic and not the handful of competing claims presented in just one program?

Hopefully they will choose the “right path”, but I sure some will (possibly a lot) will use it as an excuse not to do anything claiming the “controversy” as the reason not to – head in the sand thinking.

And cheers for the links Lurkinggherkin, most informative

One more thing though, I do feel rather sad that the stupid programme has generated such a long discussion. I see Prof Wunsch is complaining about being misrepresented and duped by durkin (capital letter withheld). Why couldn’t Channel 4 have acted with more responsibilty. Did you know they have there own microsite dedicated to it, including a poll and game!

On the contrary, it is poverty which causes much more environmental damage, and health-damaging pollution. Once an economy develops, people start to pay more consideration to their environment. That’s why we in the West enjoy far cleaner cities and towns, and rivers and beaches than people in the developing world. For us, nature is a pleasure. For people eeking out an existance, nature is a pain in the neck.

“Is most entertaining, given ST’s continued deliberate ignorance of global warming, the science behind it and the probable dangers.”

I’m not sure what this has to do with the discussion either. My argument has been that whatever risks are posed by climate change, what mediates damage from the environment – in terms of human cost – is development. I’ve never argued that climate change wont cause human problems – I’ve always argued that climate has always caused human problems… But if you compare problems that climate causes for people living in the third world, with people subject to the same forces in the first world, you can see directly how development saves thousands and thousands and thousands of lives. People are actually pretty good at coping with a wide range of conditions and adapting to circumstances – when they have the means. Without the means, an event which kills a handful of people has the potential to kill thousands.

As for environmentalism impeding development, surely that only occurs if you take a short term view and do not count the long term cost of the ecological damage that almost invariably accompanies development.

If it is ST, the quote:
” All it shows, though, is that you’re making your decisions about which science to trust based on your own political agenda, not the science.”
Is most entertaining, given ST’s continued deliberate ignorance of global warming, the science behind it and the probable dangers.

There are many people out there without scientific training or knowledge who will generally trust what is told to them by people who say “I’m a scientist, trust me”. That is pretty much the majority of the population right there. From medicine, to flying in a plane, to using a mobile, to, well, everything – none of us understands it all and relies on others who do.

So yes, it matters if someone has distorted or misrepresented in the past. That is not an ad hominem insult – that is relevant criticism. And yes, it matters if someone is funded by a body on one side or another or an argument – or rather, it matters if they are AND HAVEN’T SAID SO. If someone tells me their affiliations I can account for what may or may not be bias. If they haven’t, that is dishonest and leads me to doubt their bona fides.

I posted the information on it to let people know it was on and they made a few comments about it being rather refreshing and I agreed with some of its points, especially relating to Al Gore and his crass movie.
Then I got hate mail from people who seemed to be telling me that the world its definatly going to end and its all my fault becouse im promoting ideas that might change the debate a bit.

Im glad I read this page, It made me feel a whole lot better.

I wasn’t really disagreeing that to increase wealth countries need to industrialise, I was arguing that issues of stability are more important than getting hot under the collar about environmental/sustainable development policy.I think industrialisation will not be possible in countries that are unstable. Where Africa has industrialised it is relatively stable. So I think arguments regarding environmentalism are unnecessarily diverting the broader argument of Africa’s stability. Most of the famines are not simply about droughts, the droughts are major factors, but they’re also about how instability affects things, through bad governance, neglected or non existent infrastructure and geopolitics. So I think the emphasis that EssTee and others have placed on environmental and sustainable policy and their influence ignores the geopolitics and Africa’s internal politics that have led to the instability.

Wow. That’s bold.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/swindled/

Unless the third world is able to develop economically, and industrialise, then political progress is virtually impossible. It’s hard to engage with the political process when you’re eeking out a subsistence living. The environmental movement’s demands for “sustainable development” forces people to remain in this exhausting relationship with the land. But then, a politically alienated third world is exactly what the movement wants; if developing nations were in a better position to be able to argue for their own interests, the environmental movement wouldn’t have any victims to be claiming to speak on behalf of.

In a sense the science is unimportant as the politics are the dominant part of the debate. Nobody will give anything away unless it buys an advantage and all will cheat to some extent. The powerful will remain powerful at the expense of the weak.

My original view in the 1990’s was it did not matter if global warming was real or man made. The measures to counter it would generally improve the environment. At worst it was an “honourable lie”.

However some proposals such as biofuels will simply make the 3rd World starve so we can drive our cars on a little less oil. Global warming is being used as another means for the developed world to dominate the rest.

Long term problems will need long term solutions. Logically, global population reduction to a level the planet can sustain is required. But that is a very big can of worms, which more or less makes my point.

I don’t buy this. Every stable African country has eco-unfriendly power stations churning out gases and smog. There’s a great deal of industrialisation in the stable countries also, in fact growth. It seems to me that the only countries that don’t have power infrastructures/industry are the countries that are unstable. I don’t think people campaigning for or against industrialisation have much to do with the causes of instability in those countries (in fact many countries have declined since the 1950s, way before the green movement you’re focussed on). There’s often geopolitics at play but they don’t seem to have much to do with the pro or anti green movement or assuaging ‘first world guilt’, my understanding of the geopolitical situation in parts of Africa suggests it’s far more amoral than that. I’d be willing to bet that given enough stability the continent would be covered with power stations. Focusing on ‘development’ seems as monomaniacal as people that focus on any single issue with regards of Africa.