|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: The Thread Where Everyone Argues If Man-Induced Climate Change Is Real
|
Hiro's Leap
Shipmate
# 12470
|
Posted
Hi Tukai,
I'm not a Christian and can't give you much in the way of theological answers. That said, it sounds like your answer is pretty good: it's not God who is digging up the coal and oil, and he's not the one burning it in such a hurry.
As Alan says, there's no particular reason to believe this will destroy everything, and so there is no contradiction with God's promise whatsoever. That said, the next hundred years are looking bleak for big chunks of the world unless we change soon. To me, that's a bad enough issue to take seriously, regardless of the worst-case scenarios.
[Btw to people in the UK: Channel 4 are hosting a climate change discussion tonight at 7.30pm. It's called "The Great Green Debate" and has scientists trying to explain to a skeptical lay audience why there's a problem. Sounds interesting, if you're into that kinda thang.]
Posts: 3418 | From: UK, OK | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hiro's Leap
Shipmate
# 12470
|
Posted
Relating to a Christian response to climate change:
quote:
From The Guardian:
Yesterday Christian, Shia, Sunni, Hindu, Shinto, Buddhist and Jewish religious leaders took a boat to the tongue of the glacier for a silent prayer for the planet. They were invited by Bartholomew I, the spiritual leader of 250 million Orthodox Christians worldwide.
I might not know much about this religious stuff, but Bartholomew I sounds like a great bloke. I'll definitely be voting for him as next Pope. Sadly, it was somewhat overshadowed by recent Greenland research showing the IPCC projections may be pretty conservative:
quote:
The Greenland ice cap is melting so quickly that it is triggering earthquakes as pieces of ice several cubic kilometres in size break off.
The glacier at Ilulissat, which supposedly spawned the iceberg that sank the Titantic, is now flowing three times faster into the sea than it was 10 years ago.
[...] the quakes were triggered because ice had broken away after being fused to the rock for hundreds of years. The quakes were not vast - on a magnitude of 1 to 3 - but had never happened before in north-west Greenland and showed potential for the entire ice sheet to collapse.
This makes the IPCC sea-level rise predictions look optimistic. Adios Amsterdam?
Posts: 3418 | From: UK, OK | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hiro's Leap:
it was somewhat overshadowed by recent Greenland research showing the IPCC projections may be pretty conservative
Which, is hardly surprising. The nature and role of the IPCC will naturally make it conservative. It's role is to inform policy makers by presenting the best supported scientific data. That would naturally mean that data that's not been well documented or where the uncertainties are very large won't feature prominantly.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hiro's Leap
Shipmate
# 12470
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
The nature and role of the IPCC will naturally make it conservative. It's role is to inform policy makers by presenting the best supported scientific data.
Absolutely. If it wasn't so conservative, it wouldn't carry the weight it does.
However, the IPCC's original mandate was to determine the most likely result of global warming, and there was some discussion at the time if this was the right aim. In many ways it'd be good to also know the worst case scenario (say, with a 5% chance of occuring). After all, military and business planning will look at serious negative outcomes that are much less than 50% likely.
While cautious language is good science, most people are unused to it. I think there's a widespread assumption that that the IPCC is promoting an extreme view, the carbon industries are presenting another, and the truth lies in between. This is untrue: because of the conservative nature of the IPCC, the reality is likely to be worse. We're used to hearing spin, and the idea of an organisation putting out honest and cautious claims is pretty alien to us now.
James Hansen wrote an interesting piece on this:
quote:
I suggest that a `scientific reticence' is inhibiting the communication of a threat of a potentially large sea level rise. Delay is dangerous because of system inertias that could create a situation with future sea level changes out of our control. I argue for calling together a panel of scientific leaders to hear evidence and issue a prompt plain-written report on current understanding of the sea level change issue.
There is, in my opinion, a huge gap between what is understood about human-made global warming and its consequences, and what is known by the people who most need to know, the public and policy makers. The IPCC is doing a commendable job, but we need something more. Given the reticence that the IPCC necessarily exhibits, there need to be supplementary mechanisms. The onus, it seems to me, falls on us scientists as a community.
Posts: 3418 | From: UK, OK | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
moron
Shipmate
# 206
|
Posted
Woman made global warming?
quote:
If you were asked to name the biggest global-warming villains of the past 30 years, here’s one name that probably wouldn’t spring to mind: Jane Fonda. But should it?
Posts: 4236 | From: Bentonville | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
JonahMan
Shipmate
# 12126
|
Posted
You can blame Jane Fonda for a lot of things - Barbarella for example - but it seems a bit harsh to pin global warming on her!
Jonah
--------------------
Thank God for the aged
And old age itself, and illness and the grave
For when you're old, or ill and particularly in the coffin
It's no trouble to behave
Posts: 914 | From: Planet Zog | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh on another thread:
Alan, to be precise, CO2 as a greenhouse gas has not been proved to have any significant effect on global warming.
Bullshit. The effect of CO2 on atmospheric temperatures has been known for 100 years or more.
quote:
If you really think that our piddling amount of extra CO2 has the capability of changing that pattern
I wouldn't call something over 30% increase in CO2 concentrations in the last 100 years a "piddling amount". That's a 30+% increase over the highest levels of CO2 in the last 450ky, 30% or more over what the natural cycle of recent times has produced.
quote:
... then we should be pumping more of it into the atmosphere
And the logic of that is? We're screwing massively with the climate, making it less hospitable for the species that have evolved over the last few million years (including humans), and so therefore we should screw it all up even more????
quote:
Sigh, not only have you decided to go with those whose express purpose was to flatten out our recent 2000 year high of the Medieval Warm to create data for this silly concept
You're referring, again, to the work of Mann et al I take it, and the so-called "hockey stick" that their data shows. I notice you haven't responded to my last reply to you. The one where I point out that the source you give supporting your claim of 'scientific fraud' on the part of Mann et al makes that claim based largely on a plot from a USGCRP report that, a plot that simply doesn't exist in the report he claims he took it from. Do you realise how unconvincing a claim of scientific fraud is from someone who fabricates figures? Do you really you want to try and convince me to accept people who fake data to prove other people have faked data?
quote:
you are still completely ignoring the fact that temperatures rise and fall dramatically over time with or without our imput and have nothing to say of the pattern of warming and cooling we are in which has been going on for the last 450,000 years without our last 50 years of industrial extra CO2.
If you read what I've said on this thread then you'll see that I'm perfectly happy to talk about the natural cycles of warming and cooling. In fact, the whole thing about those cycles is that they show how unusual the current changes in atmospheric chemistry and the associated warming are. Yes, the warming is small compared to the rise at the end of previous glaciations, but it's occuring in the middle of an interglacial rather than the start of one. Yes, the rise on CO2 concentrations is similar to that following the end of a glaciation, but it's happening in the middle of an interglacial. Basically, from the pattern of temperature and atmospheric chemistry over the last 450ky we can easily deduce that the current changes will take us out of that cycle completely. Which is distinctly unnatural.
quote:
in section IV Climate Models Are Unconvincing - "The burden of proof rests with those claiming anthropogenic warming. Because mitigating climate change would entail huge costs, and because past warming episodes have been natural, it is up to climate scientists to dispel all reasonable doubts---not to climate skeptics to prove them wrong."
Seems to be a disconnected set of concepts.
First, the title is wrong. Climate models are extremely convincing. In that, for example, they can reasonably well reproduce past climates. And, if you run the models with and without anthropogenic effects the ones without show a slow temperature decrease and those with show a rapid rise that almost exactly matches observations. You can't really do better with a model than have it reproduce direct observations.
Second, the burden of proof has shifted. The evidence is strongly in favour of anthropogenic warming. The burden of proof rests with those who would claim that the best scientists in the field are wrong. As climate scientists have dispeled all reasonable doubt, at least for people willing to put aside their prejudices and commitments to the views of the oil companies who pay them, I'm not sure what the skeptics want.
And, finally, I'm not sure mitigating climate change would entail huge costs. At least, not necessarily any bigger than the cost of living with a changing climate. Does it actually cost more to improve fuel efficiency, develop non-carbon energy sources, drive and fly a lot less, etc than it costs to build massive flood defenses and develop new crops and livestock that can thrive in different conditions? Let alone the costs of millions of people needlessly dieing from heat stroke, disease, starvation and storms, and the millions more displaced from their homes seeking refuge elsewhere ... and that the pressures in many parts of the world will result in increases tensions between nations and groups trying to secure the resources they need to cope, leading inevitably to more war and suffering.
Unfortunately, we've probably delayed too long and we're likely have to incur some of the costs of adapting anyway ... but I don't think we've gone too far, and that cutting our carbon footprints will reduce the amount we'll eventually have to pay.
quote:
As I have said to you many times before: a) you have not proved that there is such a thing as global warming (we're in a similar pattern of cooling as clearly shown in for the last 450ky), b) you have not proved that CO2 drives global warming, c) you have not proved either the amount of CO2 we have now is significantly different to the last century nor proved that the amount claimed for the last century is accurate and c) you still cannot show any correlation of man-made CO2 to rising temperatures
Well, taking your points ...
a) The evidence is clear. The earth is warming at about 0.2°C per decade, and that warming appears to be accelerating. That's from instruments around the world, not from any paleoclimate reconstructions.
b) CO2 is well known as a greenhouse gas, it has been known for a century or more. What is there to prove? That physics is physics?
c) we have instrumental measurements of CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere for the last 50 years or so. They have been increasing steadily. We have samples of atmospheric gases trapped in ice from the poles (and other glaciers) that take the record back further than that - not just the last few centuries but over the course of several glacial/interglacial cycles over the last 450ky. You either accept these records, or not. If you don't accept them then you can't appeal to data about the natural cycles.
d) the correlation is clear. Just take a plot of temperature over the last few centuries and one of atmospheric chemistry (CO2, NO2, methane etc concentrations). The correlation is blindingly obvious. Of course, one could argue that correlation doesn't imply causation. But a good correlation coupled with a well understood mechanism and supported by well founded models does make causation much more likely.
quote:
In other words you don't have a theory, you have fantasy masquerading as science.
No, I have a whole heap of extremely good scientific data, theory and models all telling the same story. And, you have a handful of cranks and oil-industry funded "think tanks" producing ill-informed, ignorant and down-right fraudelent claims. Where's the fantasy?
quote:
And that's all I have to say about it.
In which case, why don't you shut up?
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Clint Boggis
Shipmate
# 633
|
Posted
It's nice to see that the Nobel prize committee can recognise real science when they see it.
Al Gore and the IPCC share the prize.
Good.
Posts: 1505 | From: south coast | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hiro's Leap
Shipmate
# 12470
|
Posted
Excellent news, although I wonder if it'll make much difference to people's opinions. Last I saw, the denial blogs were saying "it just shows how little a Nobel Peace Prize means these days". ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Posts: 3418 | From: UK, OK | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
moron
Shipmate
# 206
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hiro's Leap:
Excellent news, although I wonder if it'll make much difference to people's opinions.
It won't change everyone's
quote:
In an interim decision, the British High Court ruled that such partisan works cannot be presented in schools without identifying them for what they are.
Teachers who mislead their pupils into thinking that Gore's film accurately represents the science of global warming are in violation of the "Political indoctrination" section of the country's Education Act of 1996, which explicitly requires that: "The local education authority, governing body and head teacher shall forbid ... the promotion of partisan political views in the teaching of any subject in the school."
Posts: 4236 | From: Bentonville | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Clint Boggis
Shipmate
# 633
|
Posted
I haven't seen the film but in what way is it political? I understood it to present the majority view of scientists qualified in the field of climate science. AIUI, it contained some relatively minor inaccuracies but the core message still presents what scientists say is true beyond any reasonable doubt.
Deniers claiming that it is political dogma are surely grasping at straws, just to try to get something they don't like banned.
But then as I said, I haven't seen it.
[ 12. October 2007, 11:19: Message edited by: Clint Boggis ]
Posts: 1505 | From: south coast | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hiro's Leap
Shipmate
# 12470
|
Posted
Clint Boggis,
An Inconvenient Truth is scientifically pretty accurate according to most climate scientists I've read. The judge in the case identified nine problems, e.g.:- Using Kilimanjaro as an example of global warming. [Bad choice. It's actually one of the few melting for other reasons.]
- Gore described a potential 20 feet rise in sea level. [20 feet is fair, but he didn't point out the mainstream consensus is it'd take 1000+ years. However, the melting could become irreversible very soon, even if it took longer to play out.]
- The ice-core link between CO2 and temperature was explained too simplistically. [CO2 causes interglacial warming by providing a feedback mechanism, not the initial trigger.]
- The film attributes specific events to global warming - e.g. hurricane Katrina and coral bleaching. [It's impossible to say if any one event is the result of climate change, but you can say it makes these types of event more likely.]
The judge didn't ban the film, but said it should be shown with advice pointing out these problems.
The Financial Post's reporting seems pretty skewed to me:
quote:
Should children become tools of propagandists, their schools able to serve as indoctrination centres that teach students to parrot the views of the powers-that-be rather than think for themselves?
On the other hand, I can understand why it's accused of being political. There are a few jabs at George Bush, and lots of time spent focusing on Al Gore's childhood. Personally, I didn't think the film was great, but it's been undeniably powerful and the core science is pretty sound.
Posts: 3418 | From: UK, OK | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pigwidgeon
Ship's Owl
# 10192
|
Posted
I've seen the film (and the DVD), I've read the book, and... I saw Al Gore give a live presentation of it. The live presentation had a few political asides (lighthearted ones -- he has a very dry sense of humor). But the film is not at all political. But the assumption is probably that because it was made by a (former) politician, it is political.
Congratulations, Al!
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
--------------------
"...that is generally a matter for Pigwidgeon, several other consenting adults, a bottle of cheap Gin and the odd giraffe."
~Tortuf
Posts: 9835 | From: Hogwarts | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
Is it true that Gore won for having invented global warming? ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
--Tom Clune
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
Al Gore's film is undeniably propoganda, which doesn't make it any more or less accurate as science. But, it's produced with two aims - one, non-political, is to present the findings of climate scientists to the general public. The other aim is much more political, Gore wants his film to make global climate change a political issue in the US; if that happens then Gore (and those politicians he publically endorses) are sitting in the green seat, which if the US public takes on board the science he presents will probably win votes.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hiro's Leap
Shipmate
# 12470
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Al Gore's film is undeniably propoganda, which doesn't make it any more or less accurate as science.
By the dictionary definition of propaganda you're quite right. However, I suspect for most people propaganda is synonymous with lying and distorting facts, and so makes it seem much less accurate as science.
quote:
But, it's produced with two aims - one, non-political, is to present the findings of climate scientists to the general public. The other aim is much more political, Gore wants his film to make global climate change a political issue in the US; if that happens then Gore (and those politicians he publically endorses) are sitting in the green seat, which if the US public takes on board the science he presents will probably win votes.
Surely any documentary film is political (and perhaps propaganda) in the broadest sense? They're produced intending to influence thought and discussion about human issues. And simply influencing the debate in one direction doesn't (IMO) make something party political. If a non-politician produced a documentary about (say) abortion, it might benefit one party more than the others - but that's a side-effect to the main issue.
Also, none of this makes An Inconvenient Truth political in the UK. I can see why it might be considered it in the US.
Posts: 3418 | From: UK, OK | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hiro's Leap
Shipmate
# 12470
|
Posted
New Scientist has a comprehensive piece about the ruling on Al Gore's film.
[ 12. October 2007, 16:17: Message edited by: Hiro's Leap ]
Posts: 3418 | From: UK, OK | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
New Yorker
Shipmate
# 9898
|
Posted
Al Gore refuses to debate anyone on global warming, claiming that the debate is over and there is no need to debate it. Yet here is one eminent meteorologist who says Gore's claims are ridiculous. Sounds like the debate has not begun, really, much less is it over.
Posts: 3193 | From: New York City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by New Yorker:
Al Gore refuses to debate anyone on global warming, claiming that the debate is over and there is no need to debate it.
In a sense, the debate is over. Well, the first part of the debate - there's no credible scientific basis to deny that human activity is affecting the global climate. The questions relating to how badly we're affecting the climate, to what extent particular parts of the climate system (eg: hurricane frequency) is attributable to the changes we've set in motion, how much worse it'll get and what we can do about it are still more open. That said, I think it's probably a mistake by Gore not to engage in debates on the subject (if, indeed, he has refused to do so) given the number of poorly informed people who aren't aware of the science and the importance of the question. It just makes him look scared of facing the questions, even if the questions themselves are based on poorly supported science.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hiro's Leap
Shipmate
# 12470
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I think it's probably a mistake by Gore not to engage in debates on the subject (if, indeed, he has refused to do so) given the number of poorly informed people who aren't aware of the science and the importance of the question.
I don't think it's a mistake. For one thing, "Gore Vs Joe Denier" proves nothing. If someone is inclined to ignore the mass of scientists, why should they take any notice of Gore? And Gore isn't a scientist: he'd doubtless get some of the science wrong, and then opponents would have rhetorical ammunition.
Also, Scientist versus Skeptic debates seem to go badly for the science side, as biologists have found this to their cost when debating YEC types. It's easy to throw up dozens of objections that sound plausible to a lay audience, and debunking each one can take hours - even if the audience has the necessary level of technical expertise. Science just doesn't seem to be suited for sound-bite debates, and scientists aren't good at it.
Lastly, these debates give an undue legitimacy to the opposing viewpoint, and make people think there's significant uncertainty to the basic science.
IMO Gore has no need to debate this - that's what the scientific process is for.
[ 14. October 2007, 20:36: Message edited by: Hiro's Leap ]
Posts: 3418 | From: UK, OK | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
New Yorker
Shipmate
# 9898
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
In a sense, the debate is over. Well, the first part of the debate - there's no credible scientific basis to deny that human activity is affecting the global climate.
That's just it. In my above post I linked to a well respected scientist who says that the question whether human activity is affecting the climate is still wide open.
Posts: 3193 | From: New York City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
Amazing parallels between what he says and what the Yeccies say, New Yorker:
1. In a few years we'll all look back and see we were wrong - similarly, YEC proponents have been predicting the downfall of evolutionary theory and mass conversion to creationism for decades.
2. His beliefs make him an outsider - YEC proponents frequently claim persecution, and often put a spin on events to try to demonstrate instances.
3. Scientists daren't take his line because they'd lose their funding. YECs also frequently claim that mainstream scientists know that evolutionary theory is badly flawed, but daren't say so because the Evil Atheist Conspiracy which runs the establishment will cut off their funding.
In other words, he's playing the classical game of the maverick. The fact he says what he does means bugger all, scientifically. Where are his research papers which show that the mainstream climate change model is flawed? His opinion, on its own, without the backing of the actual data and analysis, means nothing.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hiro's Leap
Shipmate
# 12470
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by New Yorker:
That's just it. In my above post I linked to a well respected scientist who says that the question whether human activity is affecting the climate is still wide open.
Hi New Yorker,
He's one of a handful who dispute it, while thousands don't. The phrase "overwhelming concensus" doesn't mean that every single climate scientist agrees, just that virtually all do.
Even Bjorn Lomborg, Danish statistician and poster-boy for the climate skeptics, doesn't disagree that climate change is real and is man made.
Sorry. I wish it wasn't true - nobody wants it.
Posts: 3418 | From: UK, OK | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
And, two more points to add to what Karl has said.
First, Dr Gray is a meteorologist rather than a climatologist. Though the two disciplines are related, there are still significant differences between them. Metereology is concerned with the relatively short term and local, climatology is more concerned with the medium to long term and regional. That means that although his area of technical expertise makes him better able to comprehend the science than the average layman, he's no more of an expert than I am. Of course, he may have read very widely and contributed to the scientific discussion about climate change, but there's no mention of that in the article.
Second, the example given that "Dr Gray also said those who had linked global warming to the increased number of hurricanes in recent years were in error" is a valid scientific position. Even the IPCC says that there isn't the evidence to categorically link global warming with observed number and intensity of hurricanes - the table they put in the summary for policy makers for the WG1 report (it's on p8) puts it as "likely in some regions since 1970" (likelihood of 66-90%), and that it's only "more likely than not" (likelihood of 50-66%) to have a human contribution. Though, by the scenarios they used to predict the range of possible future climates it's likely that there will be more frequent hurricanes this century. It hardly seems fair to criticise climate scientists for saying something they're not actually saying, or at least not saying as strongly as Dr Gray implied.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
New Yorker
Shipmate
# 9898
|
Posted
Karl -
Sorry to be uninformed, but what is YEC?
Posts: 3193 | From: New York City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hiro's Leap:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I think it's probably a mistake by Gore not to engage in debates on the subject (if, indeed, he has refused to do so) given the number of poorly informed people who aren't aware of the science and the importance of the question.
I don't think it's a mistake.
I'd tend to agree with your first two points. Such a debate wouldn't necessarily prove anything, and that such debates aren't conducive to sound-bite rhetoric. But,
quote:
Lastly, these debates give an undue legitimacy to the opposing viewpoint, and make people think there's significant uncertainty to the basic science.
Unfortunately, this cuts both ways. Such debates let the maverick view be heard, and could lend some people to doubt the certainty of the science. But also, not holding the debates lets the mavericks say "they can't answer these questions" which also gives them undue legitimacy. It's one of those situations where, whatever you do, you could lose. But, I think letting the mavericks be heard in the open, and refuted, is the better option.
quote:
IMO Gore has no need to debate this - that's what the scientific process is for.
The scientific process is something that happens in learned journals and academic conferences, with scientists beavering away at their little bits of the big picture in their labs and out in the field. But, especially in relation to something like global climate change, the scientific process runs in parallel with a public discussion. The IPCC exists to foster that discussion, principally with policy makers but the wider public as well. Al Gore launched himself into the public discussion with his Inconvenient Truth. We're involved here on this thread. You can't seperate the two areas neatly, both discussions need to be had and both discussions feed each other - the science informs the public discussion, the public discussion would also prioritise some areas of the scientific process.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hiro's Leap
Shipmate
# 12470
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Unfortunately, this cuts both ways. [...] But, I think letting the mavericks be heard in the open, and refuted, is the better option.
Yes - damned if you do, damned if you don't. Unfortunately, I doubt Gore could conclusively refute the arguments in the time available. The Great Global Warming Swindle was very persuasive to the lay public, even if the scientists knew it was crap.
quote:
[...] the scientific process runs in parallel with a public discussion. The IPCC exists to foster that discussion, principally with policy makers but the wider public as well. Al Gore launched himself into the public discussion with his Inconvenient Truth. We're involved here on this thread. You can't seperate the two areas neatly
OK, that's true. However, it's a not a public discussion that's well suited to brief adversarial debate. Michael Crichton, Richard S. Lindzen, and Philip Stott certainly got the upper hand over three mainstream climate scientists in a debate earlier this year. It was painful.
For me, the actual science isn't the persuasive thing. It sounds feasible, but how the hell should I know? I don't have the time or the training to assess it one way or another. It's the consensus that is much more persuasive for me. I'm happy to say "OK, these guys have been arguing about it for years. They're pretty bright, and the vast majority now think this is real. They might be wrong, but it's a horrible gamble if they're not."
In other words, there only has to be reasonable cause to make the issue worth acting on, and I'm happy to take a scientific consensus as enough.
[ETA: New Yorker, YEC = Young Earth Creation/Creationist]
[ 15. October 2007, 13:01: Message edited by: Hiro's Leap ]
Posts: 3418 | From: UK, OK | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
dj_ordinaire
Host
# 4643
|
Posted
Bellamy is at it again. All the familiar themes - little ice age, hockey stick invented, sunspot activity, volcanoes, political takeover at the IPCC, they-said-it-was-cooling-in-the-70s, mavericks-proved-right-eventually. Dispressing in its regularity.
Another entry in the Times' shoddy record on Global Warming.
--------------------
Flinging wide the gates...
Posts: 10335 | From: Hanging in the balance of the reality of man | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
His first full paragraph is interesting. quote:
the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction has come up against an “inconvenient truth”. Its research shows that since 1998 the average temperature of the planet has not risen, even though the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has continued to increase.
He's actually correct, depending on the data set used. The average near surface temperature has, indeed, levelled of (after a rapid increase). But, that reflects a slight cooling of the oceans, land temperatures continue to rise rapidly. Since the oceans cover 70% of the surface of the earth, they tend to dominate the global average. The usual explanation given is that the increased temperatures have increased evaporation - this cools the surface waters slightly bucking the global trend. But, with increasing radiative forcing inexorably driving the temperatures upwards the oceanic evaporation effect won't last long term.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Spears
Shipmate
# 11694
|
Posted
I just think that if this one turns out to be wrong in a few years time, the 'Scientists' perspective on things will be regarded as completely unreliable - which imo, will be a very bad thing. If wholesale changes are going to be made and billions of dollars spent fighting it, they better be damn sure.
What I don't understand however, is why many Scientists who clearly aren't funded by oil,coal etc are not yet convinced and why we should know something they don't?
Posts: 140 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hiro's Leap
Shipmate
# 12470
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by John Spears:
I just think that if this one turns out to be wrong in a few years time, the 'Scientists' perspective on things will be regarded as completely unreliable - which imo, will be a very bad thing.
Yes, that's true. On the other hand, if it turns out they're right and we didn't act, the consequences will be much worse than simply a loss of respect for scientists.
quote:
If wholesale changes are going to be made and billions of dollars spent fighting it, they better be damn sure.
Sure about what? By-and-large, they're sure that we're responsible for part of the late 20th century warming. They're also pretty certain if we keep increasing CO2 it's going to get a LOT hotter. The argument is how quickly that'll happen.
quote:
What I don't understand however, is why many Scientists who clearly aren't funded by oil,coal etc are not yet convinced and why we should know something they don't?
There are very few experts in the field who don't believe we're responsible for some of the warming, even amongst the remaining 'Skeptics'.
Posts: 3418 | From: UK, OK | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dumpling Jeff
Shipmate
# 12766
|
Posted
Hiro's Leap wrote, "In other words, there only has to be reasonable cause to make the issue worth acting on, and I'm happy to take a scientific consensus as enough."
That's my money your talking about spending (well a small amount of it is). I find it odd that the "haves" seem against the global warming thing while the "have nots" are for it. The plan for dealing with it seems to be to transfer wealth.
If we were serious about sinking CO2, we would fertilize the central Pacific. Huge amounts of bio-mass would form and fall to the bottom of the sea removing CO2 from the atmosphere. This would also be good for the world fishing economy.
There was a company which tried to do this using profits from offset trading. It was sued by the WWF because it would change the environment!
When the greens who support global warming start dealing with the problem rather than engaging in wealth transfer programs, I'll start believing them.
--------------------
"There merely seems to be something rather glib in defending the police without question one moment and calling the Crusades-- or war in general-- bad the next. The second may be an extension of the first." - Alogon
Posts: 2572 | From: Nomad | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
dj_ordinaire
Host
# 4643
|
Posted
What 'have nots' were you thinking of? All the representatives of the Developing World I've heard mention Global Warming are adamant that the Developed World has a duty to stop it.
--------------------
Flinging wide the gates...
Posts: 10335 | From: Hanging in the balance of the reality of man | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by dj_ordinaire:
What 'have nots' were you thinking of? All the representatives of the Developing World I've heard mention Global Warming are adamant that the Developed World has a duty to stop it.
I read the quote:
I find it odd that the "haves" seem against the global warming thing while the "have nots" are for it.
to mean that the "global warming thing" is "spend money trying to reduce our contribution to global climate change". ie: he's saying that those without money are saying those of us with money should be spending that money cutting carbon emissions, and those of us with money are saying we shouldn't. Any other way of reading the sentance that I can see makes no sense at all.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by DmplnJeff:
If we were serious about sinking CO2, we would fertilise the central Pacific. Huge amounts of bio-mass would form and fall to the bottom of the sea removing CO2 from the atmosphere. This would also be good for the world fishing economy.
Yeah, what a good idea. Combat one form of pollution by deliberately polluting another ecosystem You do know that the trials of ocean fertilisation (usually with iron which is the main nutrient missing in oceanic waters) have been disappointing? The increased algal growth has been minimal, the iron disperses very quickly in all but the stillest conditions, and when the algae do bloom they tend to produce toxic environments for other marine life - ie: they kill off the fish, which hardly seems to be good for fishing communities.
Add to that, the small amount of extra organic matter doesn't sink very quickly. It tends to come ashore and rot, releasing carbon back into the atmosphere.
The oceans are an enormous sink for carbon. But, that's largely a physical sink with the CO2 dissolved in the water rather than a biological one. And, the ability of oceans to absorb CO2 is temperature dependant, cold water can hold more than warm water. In the past, that cold carbon-rich water has circulated down to the deep oceans where it forms an enormous reservoir. Normally, those deep waters rise and retain their carbon (OK, the release some and absorb more to maintain an approximate equilibrium). If the surface temperatures are higher than when the water sank, they'll hold more CO2 than the present surface waters and will hence release more than they release. This is a well understood effect related to the end of glaciations resulting in a rise in CO2 lagging several centuries behind the initial warming. It also means that cold water rising from the depths now will add more CO2 to the atmosphere regardless of what we do, which means we have to cut back our own emissions more. It also follows that plans to pump CO2 into the deep oceans simply passes the problem onto our descendants in a few centuries.
Marine biology does take up a lot of carbon, but similar to terrestrial ecosystems, most of it recycles back through the atmosphere on relatively short time scales.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hiro's Leap
Shipmate
# 12470
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by DmplnJeff:
I find it odd that the "haves" seem against the global warming thing while the "have nots" are for it. The plan for dealing with it seems to be to transfer wealth.
So amongst the "have-nots" you're counting those noteable anti-capitalist lefties:- Rupert Murdock
- Richard Branson
- Shell Oil
- Wart-Mart
- Swiss Re, and virtually all insurance companies (who are investing countless millions in dealing with it)
- The CEOs and senior managers of Reckitt Benckiser, Johnson Matthey, Standard Chartered Bank, Vodafone Group, Unilever U.K., Tesco, Sun Microsystems, etc etc.
Sorry, it's really not a have/have-nots issue. But regardless, their opinions are irrelevant to the science - it's only the scientists who count.
quote:
Hiro's Leap wrote, "In other words, there only has to be reasonable cause to make the issue worth acting on, and I'm happy to take a scientific consensus as enough."
That's my money your talking about spending (well a small amount of it is).
My money too! Caution (and even suspicion) are understandable. However, look at it this way...
Suppose for simplicity there are three possible outcomes in 100 years for us continuing business as usual:
(a) The skeptics are right.- Climate change has little or no impact on humanity or most of the environment.
- If there are any problems, they can be easily dealt with by increased living standards.
(b) The mainstream scientists (e.g. IPCC) are right.- Vanishing glaciers affect the water supply in many countries.
- Multiple resource conflicts occur from famine and drought.
- Widespread extinctions.
- Sea levels only rise slightly, but the irreversible melting of Greenland and the Arctic has begun.
(c) The pessimistic scientists are right.- Many positive feedbacks are triggered long before we reach 100 years.
- Rapid collapse of Greenland and/or western parts of the Antartic cause unprecedented flooding, rendering hundreds of millions homeless.
- Major acidification of the oceans and loss of sea-life as CO2 is absorbed.
- Changing patterns to El Nino causes massive famine/drought throughout much of the world.
- Severe economic hardship makes dealing with the problem far harder than it would be in a relative time of peace and prosperity.
Rather than thinking in absolutes, what probabilities would you assign to (a), (b) and (c)?
My very rough guess is 10% / 60% / 40%. Personally, I think there is a chance the mainstream science is wrong, but it's insane to bet on it. The costs of dealing with CO2 may be high, but the costs of NOT dealing with it could easily be crippling.
(I share some of your skepticism about the environmental movement, but this really is a different issue.)
Posts: 3418 | From: UK, OK | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dumpling Jeff
Shipmate
# 12766
|
Posted
Alan wrote, quote:
Yeah, what a good idea. Combat one form of pollution by deliberately polluting another ecosystem You do know that the trials of ocean fertilisation (usually with iron which is the main nutrient missing in oceanic waters) have been disappointing? The increased algal growth has been minimal, the iron disperses very quickly in all but the stillest conditions, and when the algae do bloom they tend to produce toxic environments for other marine life - ie: they kill off the fish, which hardly seems to be good for fishing communities.
Perhaps this shows the basic problem. The global warming people have decried it a an unprecedented disaster. Yet when solutions are proposed they decline them because they affect the pristine environment.
If it really a disaster, we need to fix it and if some fish die, so what?
Now as for the proposed solution: I'm betting there's a middle ground between no fertilize and too much. I'm also betting we can find some floating, slow dissolving pellets for the dispersion. As for a small amount of biomass sinking, I'd be surprised if even one percent sank, but that would be more than enough.
I know, let's run some tests. For only a few million dollars we could fertilize strips of ocean with different methods and concentrations and monitor the results. But that would be too much like real science ... way too boring. Instead let's destroy our working industries (costing trillions of dollars) while letting the worlds second largest carbon emitter have a free pass.
Hiro's Leap wrote, quote:
[T]heir opinions are irrelevant to the science - it's only the scientists who count.
Between our being a democracy and a (more or less) free market, I don't think the scientist get much of a vote. Their track record is weak when it comes to complex issues where they've left the scientific method behind. (You know... the test the hypothesis step.)
Also I divide the possible outcomes a little differently:
A) The scientists are wrong
B) Moderate Warming leading to increased agricultural output.
C) More warming leading to moderate ocean level rises.
D) Positive feedback events leading to mass extinctions.
I give it 60, 25, 17, 3.
Of course any change will lead to "bad things". But only C and D are net losses, while B is a net gain.
D is the really scary one. Don't let that three percent fool you, low odds do happen and the costs would be staggering. I think it's time we, as a species, developed the ability to have some controls in place to both raise and lower the temperature of the planet.
But the current global warming people seem politically motivated to me.
--------------------
"There merely seems to be something rather glib in defending the police without question one moment and calling the Crusades-- or war in general-- bad the next. The second may be an extension of the first." - Alogon
Posts: 2572 | From: Nomad | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Clint Boggis
Shipmate
# 633
|
Posted
You can't just dismiss those who know more than anyone about a subject just because... actually on what basis is it that you feel no apparent compunction about ignoring the experts? They know about a million times more about the climate than you do.
Does ignorance and an ostrich mentality trump knowledge now?
Posts: 1505 | From: south coast | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dumpling Jeff
Shipmate
# 12766
|
Posted
There was a time when nearly all scientists thought that light was a wave. They were wrong. (Thank you Einstein.)
I remember being taught in college that weather control was impossible due to the butterfly effect. This was believed by the vast majority of my professors. It was the "in" thing at the time.
They taught this while standing in an air conditioned room! Yes air conditioning is a form of weather control. The point is that lots of really smart people can believe some really dumb things. The Universe doesn't care what the scientists think.
Science is a process:
1) Observe.
2) Formulate an hypothesis.
3) Test the hypothesis.
4) Start over unless your test proves the current hypothesis. (It almost never does the first time.)
We have no way to test the global warming hypothesis. We can test parts. We can use those parts to build models. One of the hundreds of models out there might even be correct. (odds are against any of them being right.) But until we run the test (which we can't do) we don't know and it's not science.
I'm an electrical engineer. I build large complex systems. They are not nearly as complex as the weather. Yet we never get it right the first time. Not even the tenth time. We go back again and again until it works.
I simply don't believe majority opinion counts for much in technical areas. Really smart people know when to sheath their arrogance and admit they may not know everything.
--------------------
"There merely seems to be something rather glib in defending the police without question one moment and calling the Crusades-- or war in general-- bad the next. The second may be an extension of the first." - Alogon
Posts: 2572 | From: Nomad | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by DmplnJeff:
There was a time when nearly all scientists thought that light was a wave. They were wrong. (Thank you Einstein.)
Well, not exactly. It would be more correct to say that there was a time when the wave theory of light accounted for all experimental observations. Then when the photoelectric effect was observed, and the wave theory was unable to account for it, Einstein suggested another theory. Now, we have wave-particle duality, which posits that all matter (and energy) may have characteristics associated with particles and waves. Does that make Einstein "wrong"?
OliviaG
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by DmplnJeff:
...I think it's time we, as a species, developed the ability to have some controls in place to both raise and lower the temperature of the planet.
quote:
I'm an electrical engineer. I build large complex systems. They are not nearly as complex as the weather. Yet we never get it right the first time. Not even the tenth time. We go back again and again until it works.
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif) So we shouldn't worry our pretty little heads about climate change, but instead, we should invest a kajillion dollars into a wather control system that will fuck up repeatedly on a planetary scale. Thanks, but no thanks. This kind of reasoning makes those hysterical propaganda-mongering scientists sound almost credible. OliviaG
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dumpling Jeff
Shipmate
# 12766
|
Posted
We do get it right eventually. ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif) (I'm glad Edison didn't give up after a few mistakes.) We also avoid putting people at risk until we're done and it works.
I don't disbelieve in climate change. I'm just skeptical to the point of not wanting to spend my money on it yet. And let's try the cheaper solutions first. A trillion dollars is more than I paid for my car for goodness sake.
--------------------
"There merely seems to be something rather glib in defending the police without question one moment and calling the Crusades-- or war in general-- bad the next. The second may be an extension of the first." - Alogon
Posts: 2572 | From: Nomad | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by DmplnJeff:
I know, let's run some tests. For only a few million dollars we could fertilize strips of ocean with different methods and concentrations and monitor the results. But that would be too much like real science ... way too boring.
You are aware that such experiments have been conducted since the early 1980s? It's hardly a novel idea to scientists to run experiments to test a hypothesis. And, in this case, the hypothesis has been proved partially right - yes, iron fertilises algal blooms, yes those blooms remove CO2 from the atmosphere (sometimes in measurable quantities as happened following fertilisation by the Pinatubo eruption which covered a vast area compared to the experiments), and the effect would certainly have been enough to help keep CO2 levels down in glacial periods (when dry conditions resulted in significantly greater dust and sand storms fertilising the oceans). But, the experiments also showed that the algal blooms had significant impacts on oceanic ecosystems (including deep ocean ecosystems beneath the blooms that became anoxic), that the vast majority of the carbon was eaten and never entered long term sequestration in the deep oceans, and that the amount of iron fertilisation needed to offset human CO2 production would be unfeasible (ie: it would totally wreck marine ecosystems on which we rely for some of our food, and cost billions of dollars per year).
quote:
[the scientists] track record is weak when it comes to complex issues where they've left the scientific method behind. (You know... the test the hypothesis step.)
And, you're clearly not only unaware of the extensive scientific investigations into iron fertilisation to sequester carbon, you're woefully ignorant how well tested the science behind our knowledge of global climate change is. There have been literally hundreds of computer models run with different parameters (because we don't know all the parameters precisely and they interact in complex ways) which show the same general result. There are loads of measurements reconstructing past climates stretching back 450000 years through glaciations and interglacials against which we can see that the current changes are unprecedented in that time. And, we can use that record of a large range of different climates to test models - and show them to reproduce the past reasonably accurately. About the only test left to do is the one that says "if we do this ('this' including the option to carry on as normal), then in 100 years the climate will be like that". Without a time machine we can't test that. But then, a lot of science works perfectly well without being able to test every little bit of theory against experimental results.
quote:
From a subsequent post
Science is a process:
1) Observe.
2) Formulate an hypothesis.
3) Test the hypothesis.
4) Start over unless your test proves the current hypothesis. (It almost never does the first time.)
I think you need to learn a wee bit more about the scientific process. Because your little 4 step summary has no comparison to how science has ever been done. Science is a far more complex process of incomplete and inconclusive data, educated guess work, intuition, getting by with the tools (including mathematical models and other scientific theories) that aren't quie perfect, and umpteen other complexities.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by DmplnJeff:
And let's try the cheaper solutions first.
Of course, that's only sensible. Next time you get a new car, buy one that's more fuel efficient and drive it very rarely. Put energy efficient light bulbs in. Turn your TV off rather than leave it on standby. Adjust your central heating (or AC). Walk to the store and buy stuff that hasn't been shipped across the world. Make sure your home is properly insulated. Recycle. Compost stuff that'll compost. These'll actually save you money.
Then, maybe spend a bit more. Make all new buildings satisfy minimal environmental criteria; build them so they need very little heating or AC, put in heat pumps to use geothermal energy, solar panels on the roof (including having the roof built at the right angle, facing the right way). Invest in building wind turbines, hydroelectric schemes, biomass power generation (but, not the idiocy of turning corn into ethanol for transport), nuclear plants. Look at carbon capture pumped into old oil and gas wells (the extra production from the fields will help offset the cost - though the capacity in oil fields is no where near enough to remove even a fraction of our current carbon dioxide pollution). Be serious about cutting down on air travel. Build decent long-distance train routes and local public transport. Reduce the amount of packaging everything comes in.
Then, maybe then, if we need to we can look at the stupid expensive options with high risks like seeding the oceans with iron or putting mirrors in space to shield the earth from sunlight.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dumpling Jeff
Shipmate
# 12766
|
Posted
Alan wrote, quote:
I think you need to learn a wee bit more about the scientific process. Because your little 4 step summary has no comparison to how science has ever been done. Science is a far more complex process of incomplete and inconclusive data, educated guess work, intuition, getting by with the tools (including mathematical models and other scientific theories) that aren't quie perfect, and umpteen other complexities.
Sorry, I knew I missed a step: First, get the funding.
All those things you list fall into the four steps. Finding data is part of observing, intuition is part of forming a hypothesis, etc. I didn't say it was easy, but that's what you get paid the big bucks for.
--------------------
"There merely seems to be something rather glib in defending the police without question one moment and calling the Crusades-- or war in general-- bad the next. The second may be an extension of the first." - Alogon
Posts: 2572 | From: Nomad | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Clint Boggis
Shipmate
# 633
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by DmplnJeff:
I don't disbelieve in climate change.
That's what your position comes down to. Stop pretending that you pay the slightest attention to science and what scientists say.
Your mind is made up. You believe what you want to believe, irrespective of the evidence.
You have no position at all.
Posts: 1505 | From: south coast | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dumpling Jeff
Shipmate
# 12766
|
Posted
Hey, I don't have to take that kind of abuse here. I can get abuse like that anywhere.
--------------------
"There merely seems to be something rather glib in defending the police without question one moment and calling the Crusades-- or war in general-- bad the next. The second may be an extension of the first." - Alogon
Posts: 2572 | From: Nomad | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Clint Boggis
Shipmate
# 633
|
Posted
Apologies Jeff:
I misread your comment to mean that you don't accept it, that you just don't believe it like some kind of faith that denies all the evidence and that's not what you wrote. Sorry.
The rest of what I said was based on what I wrongly thought was your anti-intellectual position. Sorry again.
.
Posts: 1505 | From: south coast | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
Equating air conditioning with weather control is, to my mind, as Douglas Adams would put it, like comparing the entire West Wing of the Sirius State Mental Hospital to a bag of mixed nuts.
And we can't even make aircon work properly all the time. When the aircon goes in the server room, we risk losing a server. When the Earth Aircon goes, what do we risk losing?
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Clint Boggis
Shipmate
# 633
|
Posted
Yes, the air conditioning was a fatuous comparison, unworthy of serious consideration.
I had a thought yesterday regarding the ACC "deniers" (nothing to do with hosiery) who sometimes claim that if weather forecasts are inaccurate just a few days ahead, then they have no confidence in climate forecasts much further into the future.
Personally, I'd much rather bet on the average of the next hundred throws of a dice than the next single throw.
.
[ 25. October 2007, 18:59: Message edited by: Clint Boggis ]
Posts: 1505 | From: south coast | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
