Ship of Fools: Alarmist Global Warming Report

Thread: Alarmist Global Warming Report Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=027039

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

[ETA: Note the date this was posted! Don't take the views stated here as representing what I actually think]

Yesterday saw the publication of the latest report of the IPCC.

This alarmist report predicts considerable global warming, with devastating reductions in agricultural output and increased frequency and severity of natural disasters such as storms, flooding volcanic eruptions and earthquakes. With increasing competition for food, clean water, mineral resources and availability of the latest mobile phones billions of people will migrate to Britain, totally obliterating our way of life.

But, just who are these doom-sayers? The IPCC is a cabal of only 300 people, some scientists but mostly political appointments bent on destroying the oil industry and impoverishing honest, hard working British people to line the pockets of the wind turbine moguls.

But, even this group of self appointed experts, with pockets stuffed with payments from Danish wind-turbine producers, wasn't going to be so alarmist. It was forced into exaggerating the impact of global warning by British politicians. David Cameron wants to outdo with illustrious predecessor and destroy North Sea Oil in the way she smashed the coal industry. Large numbers of respectable and honest scientists, wanting no truck with this pretence of doing science behind closed doors to serve political agendas, have deserted the IPCC and refused to have their names associated with the report.

With the political leadership poised to spend trillions of pounds on trying to avert the worst of the predictions of the convenient “truth” of this stitch up of a report, what can ordinary people do? What, on this day of all days, are you going to do to stand up to this travesty of pseudo-science ruining our nation with endless windfarms slaughtering our birds, turning land from growing food to biofuels to replace oil that just flows from the ground just because some egg-heads in their ivory towers claim oil is polluting and unsustainable etc.

Are we going to fall for this foolishness?

[ 02. April 2014, 07:18: Message edited by: Alan Cresswell ]

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
What, on this day of all days, are you going to do to stand up to this travesty of pseudo-science ruining our nation

The thing that all right-thinking non-PC common sense, men*-in-the-street who have failed to bow to the left-leaning liberal hegemony of the world's media will do, and have always done, to bravely stem the tide of nonsensical left-wing claptrap. We will post in the comments section of the Daily Mail.

*(no need for PC nonsense like "or women" here)

Posted by W Hyatt (# 14250) on :

We should circulate a petition to have an oil-producing country like Russia freeze the assets of the politicians behind it all. And we should all boycott the Danish wind-turbine producers.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

You win again Alan.

Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :

Maybe we should all get into the biggest vehicle we can find in order to drive to a pub that is farther away than one's "usual" and order a big meal involving beef from tropical once-forested land.

Oh, and have a drink or three to help in blocking out the sounds of doom.

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

Does the report attempt to deny the well-established scientific facts that carbon dioxide is heavier than air, forms a three metre layer above the ground, and that if it didn't plants would all suffocate and die?

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Does the report attempt to deny the well-established scientific facts that carbon dioxide is heavier than air, forms a three metre layer above the ground, and that if it didn't plants would all suffocate and die?

Ai! Dafyd is channeling Myrrh! Even on this day of days, that's too scary by half.

Posted by moron (# 206) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Large numbers of respectable and honest scientists, wanting no truck with this pretence of doing science behind closed doors to serve political agendas, have deserted the IPCC and refused to have their names associated with the report.

Amen, brother Alan: about damn time.

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

@OP

Oh great, a cabal of crazed scientists conspire to impoverish bjillionaire CEOs and corporations by falsely fabricating nonsense such that governments will stop spending bjillions on tax breaks, exploration subsidies, bailing out auto manufacturers and killing people in oil company wars.

Posted by deano (# 12063) on :

Hee...

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

Helpful background link amid the FUD.

quote:
...assemble hundreds of climate scientists to dig through 12,000 scientific papers concerning the current impacts of climate change and its causes....would ultimately produce a 2,000-page report as part of a massive... Fifth Assessment Report, which details a consensus view on the current state and fate of the world's climate.
The job would take nearly five years...

...it's a process designed to not let any nonsense through, so that policymakers get only the best of what science can say...."That takes a lot of checking, rechecking and outside review, which is not always the most exciting, but you do it realizing that it's part of the process."

So tell us how this is 'alarmist'. It is specifically not merely a small group of scientists. That is misrepresentation of what it actually is. A smaller group reviewed all of the studies. The real sample is not the group of reviewers, it is the 12,000 studies and papers.

Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :

Alan, is it significant that you made a point of posting this comfortably before lunch time? (My first thought was that you had left a computer logged in to the ship, and some passing prankster (who knows you well) had posted on your behalf.) [Big Grin]

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

In the several Coursera courses I've taken about sustainable agriculture or climate, the profs are alarmed. Very alarmed. Although climate has always fluctuated, this chart says we've significantly broken out of the 400,000 year cycle.

What political response is appropriate is a whole different question. I haven't read the IPCC report, one of the newsletter emails this morning said it calls for the UN to rule, I don't have any more confidence in the UN than in any other level of government. But what should we do and what can reasonably be done? Those two questions probably get wholly different answers.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

Of course it started as an April Fools joke, but there's no problem in using the thread for further serious discussion on climate change, given the report Alan C linked in the OP.

B62, Purg Host

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

I love stories like this where the David of the poor oil companies, with no money to spend to influence legislation and whose CEOs make a pittance, is pitted against the Goliath of the renewable-energy sector, which everyone knows owns Parliament lock, stock, and barrel.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Of course it started as an April Fools joke, but there's no problem in using the thread for further serious discussion on climate change, given the report Alan C linked in the OP.

B62, Purg Host

Well, of course the link I gave would be the first indication that I was pulling a prank. The Daily Mail isn't I publication I would normally cite in serious discussion (except perhaps to point out how far they'd got things wrong). I would recommend the more serious news media, for example the BBC Environment pages.

I'll leave it to others to see what else in the OP was a load of tosh.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I'll leave it to others to see what else in the OP was a load of tosh.

Pretty much all of it? A masterly send-up.

You can read all you want here. Just press a button to select the reports. The latest approved report comes from Working Group 2.

I'm still wading my way through it.

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

The best pranks are those that fool people. I am such a fool. I should have twigged with the mention of the Danish. Well done. Takes off his hat, and hands his sword over.

(Edit: Typo killer qu'est que c'est?)

[ 01. April 2014, 19:03: Message edited by: no prophet ]

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

Bazinga!

You thought the Danish comment was obvious. Not the "volcanism and earthquakes" due to climate change, the billions of people migrating to the UK in search of the latest mobile phone, or the "Are we going to fall for this foolishness?" final line?

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

I read too quickly. Of course I did. Saw the general thrust, and was fully taken in. If I was a fish, you would have slit open my belly to retrieve the hook. I have given you my sword and now I hand over my hat as well.

(edit: also type and hit post too quickly. Dishevelled and requiring to be regruntled!)

[ 01. April 2014, 19:48: Message edited by: no prophet ]

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

/tangent

There have been some neat April foolings on Facebook today. Mike Pilavaci, the leader of the Soul Survivor youth event which takes place annually in Shepton Mallet, Somerset, announced this morning that because of the exceptionally rainy winter, the show ground was badly damaged. Therefore the event would be moving to the South of France ...

Two hours later, after a bit of a bombardment from those who took him at his word, he issued a "fooled you" retraction.

Mind you, given current climate change trends ....

/ end tangent

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

Ah, the 'Alarmist Global Warming Report' OP is an April Fools prank --- I see .

That is probably why the actual news of an alarmist Global Warming report was aired yesterday and not this morning . Not that it will make that much difference to the notice we take of it.

The runaway train continues on it's course . Most of us would rather not be troubled with reports describing what lies at the end of the track.

Posted by Wilfried (# 12277) on :

And here I thought only we Americans produced young earth creation believing, anti-vaccination, climate change denying conspiracy theorist nutters. Glad to you all across the pond have your share of the same.

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

LOL, I thought April 1 was yesterday. Really should look at a calendar sometimes!

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

Everyone produces tree hugging sandal wearing granola eaters too.

Posted by Luigi (# 4031) on :

Here is the Telegraph's take - a very blatant and cynical article. The IPCC so obviously exaggerates the risks doesn't it?

Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :

And here is NPR's Facebook jape
A Reminder That Not Everyone Reads Before Commenting

Posted by deano (# 12063) on :

I don't have a problem with climate change sceptics, because it keeps the scientists and politicians on the straight and narrow, so when they do say there is a problem, it becomes harder to dispute.

It's checks and balances. No side should be given unchallenged freedoms to claim they have The Truth™. They should be watched and challenged. It's the only safe way to get the truth. That is in fact, the scientific method in which disproof is just as important as proof.

To me there is a genuine issue at stake here, in that the scientists who'se research findings support the IPCC position are generally found in university and academic institutions and usually funded from taxes, and therefore have a strong interest in seeing increased taxes and that means - in the main - more left-wing government.

The climate change sceptics are generally found in corporations or other private sector institutions, and usually funded privately and have an equally strong interest in seeing private enterprise and capitalism remain strong, which means - in the main - more right-wing government.

There is therefore a healthy tension between the two. That is good. It is always good when politics and money meet.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

It reminds me of the controversies over vaccinations, where the anti-vaxxers tend to be non-scientific and populist. So, in the UK the campaign against MMR was led by hysterical rags like the Daily Mail, and had no scientific basis. Why should this stuff be given publicity?

It was farcical that the BBC trotted out Johnny Ball as a climate sceptic!

It's like putting an astrologer against an astronomer.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by deano:
To me there is a genuine issue at stake here, in that the scientists who'se research findings support the IPCC position are generally found in university and academic institutions and usually funded from taxes, and therefore have a strong interest in seeing increased taxes and that means - in the main - more left-wing government.

The climate change sceptics are generally found in corporations or other private sector institutions, and usually funded privately and have an equally strong interest in seeing private enterprise and capitalism remain strong, which means - in the main - more right-wing government.

Whether climate change is happening is not a right-wing or left-wing issue - it's a scientific one.

What our response to it should be is far more political. But anyone who blindly denies the science just because they don't like the proposed response is a total tit. As, for that matter, is anyone who blindly promotes the science just because they do like the proposed response. Someone latching onto climate change because it serves their anti-capitalist purpose is no better than someone latching onto climate change denial because it keeps their profits up.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

Of course there are, or at least have been, competant scientists in relevant fields of research who critiqued the findings of those saying human activity is having a significant impact on the global climate. That is, as noted, a fundamental part of the scientific process and peer review.

Of course, all scientists by nature are sceptics. Especially when presented with data that are surprising, contrary to received wisdom ... the good scientists are also sceptical when the data is too good a match to expectations.

Of course, we are all concerned about funding. But the "universities paid by taxes therefore university academics are left wing" and "private institutes are funded by industry and therefore scientists employed there are right wing" is so wrong I'm not sure where to begin. But, let's start ...

University research in the UK is funded from a wide variety of source. Research councils, directly from UK government agencies, EU research funds, charitable trusts and industry. Of course, many academics have their salaries covered by income from teaching, at least in part. In the UK, university research would not exist without industrial funding (including some indirect funding such as fees paid by industry to send staff on professional development courses, or providing project work for students). Funding ultimately dependent on tax income has always been inadequate and hard work to obtain, whether under a Conservative or Labour government.

The majority of large laboratories in the UK are either directly linked to government departments, or are research facilities run by, or on behalf of, research councils. The government labs have very specific remits that relate directly to development and enforcement of legislation. In climate science, the laboratories associated with the Met Office would be the obvious examples - and they earn their bread and butter making weather forecasts (aome funded by end users - I remember when the best way to get a weather forecast for hill walking was to phone the Met Office on a premium rate number, and of course a lot of industries dependent on the weather will pay for forecasts to plan their work) and improving forecast capability.

Many industries, especially large companies, will have their own in-house laboratory facilities. In a small number of cases (pharmaceutical companies, for example) these will do world class work. Mostly they make small steps on top of the work done in universities and public sector labs to apply knowledge to their particular needs to remain competative. Most companies will outsource much of their research to universities and public sector labs, because that's where the scientists who can do the work are.

Then you have a small number of lone scientists. Often people who have taken an early retirement package and run a consultancy business from their home.

"Climate change sceptics", which is a loose term covering a range of different critiques of the scientific consensus (from fundamental science, to accepting the science but advocating out-there solutions), are found in all sectors of the scientific community - universities, public sector labs, private industrial labs and the consultants. Those who agree with the scientific consensus are also found in the same sectors.

Posted by Gildas (# 525) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Of course it started as an April Fools joke, but there's no problem in using the thread for further serious discussion on climate change, given the report Alan C linked in the OP.

B62, Purg Host
Well, of course the link I gave would be the first indication that I was pulling a prank. The Daily Mail isn't I publication I would normally cite in serious discussion (except perhaps to point out how far they'd got things wrong). I would recommend the more serious news media, for example the BBC Environment pages.

I'll leave it to others to see what else in the OP was a load of tosh.

It made me think of the 'Mirror, Mirror' episode of Star Trek. Kirk and the rest of the away team are able to plausibly impersonate their opposite numbers in the Mirror universe but the Mirror away team give themselves away fairly quickly. In much the same way Alan can do a fairly good impression of a deranged right winger (the only lapse was when he blamed Mrs Thatcher for the decline of manufacturing when any fule kno that it was all the Trade Unions fault) whereas I don't see Mad Mel or Delingpole trolling their constituencies by basing their posts on actual scientific data any time soon.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

Well, I needed one lapse otherwise there'd be no hint that it was a wind-up.

Posted by Laura (# 10) on :

I thought all we needed to do was get 100000 people to jump up and down on several volcanoes simultaneously, thereby setting off a chain reaction of ash-spewing which would bring down global temperatures (possibly dramatically). What? There are problems with my plan? You guys lack imagination.

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gildas:
Alan can do a fairly good impression of a deranged right winger (the only lapse was when he blamed Mrs Thatcher for the decline of manufacturing when any fule kno that it was all the Trade Unions fault)

I am informed that Maggie Thatcher invented the global warming conspiracy specifically for the purpose of smashing the coal miners. What use is it to be deranged if you can't be inconsistent when it suits your argument?

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Laura:
I thought all we needed to do was get 100000 people to jump up and down on several volcanoes simultaneously, thereby setting off a chain reaction of ash-spewing which would bring down global temperatures (possibly dramatically). What? There are problems with my plan? You guys lack imagination.

It's a great idea. Something to get all those welfare scroungers and job-stealing immigrants to do that's productive. And, all that ash is great for restoring fertility to eroded soils, and seeding algal growth in oceans so the remaining cod stocks have something to feed on and grow so we can continue to get fish suppers. Solve lots of problems in one go. Perfect.

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
and seeding algal growth in oceans so the remaining cod stocks have something to feed on and grow so we can continue to get fish suppers.

There is no problem with remaining cod stocks. Fishing levels are sustainable. The fishing industry lobby says so - who are you going to believe? the industry lobby? or unbiased environmental scientists? It's just a plot by Brussels to let the Spanish steal our North Sea Oil(*).
(*) Which won't run out unless Scotland becomes independent in which case, because it's pro-union North Sea oil, it will run out specially to wreck Alex Salmond's financial calculations.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

Cod are carnivores. They don't eat algae.

Posted by Hairy Biker (# 12086) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Cod are carnivores. They don't eat algae.

But they still eat it second hand. That's like saying we don't need to grow grass because we can just eat beef.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

True, but I hadn't yet noticed that this thread was the place to make helpful explanations of topics related to one's own area of scientific speciality [Biased]

Posted by Laura (# 10) on :

ken: what the hell were you thinking?

Posted by Mad Geo (# 2939) on :

I thought for a moment that Alan had lost his marbles. Whew.

Posted by moron (# 206) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
there's no problem in using the thread for further serious discussion on climate change

OK.

Why do farmers irrigating crops generally avoid criticism? If anthropogenic activity affects things much surely that lot are villains?

Posted by Hairy Biker (# 12086) on :

quote:
Originally posted by moron:
OK.

Why do farmers irrigating crops generally avoid criticism? If anthropogenic activity affects things much surely that lot are villains?

Because spraying large amounts of water into the air has been suggested as a way to combat warming. It was, of course, dismissed by the experts, because it's not the solution they had in mind. It would not usher in a new era of statism. If it could work, it would let capitalism off the hook.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

I think you've probably missed the critics of farmers' irrigation practices.

In arid and semi arid regions, extraction of water for agriculture can be a very significant proportion of the available water. This can cause lowering of water tables, and in coastal regions increased salinity of ground water, and reduction of river flow to the detriment of farmers and others down stream. Add in practices that result in increased soil erosion or fertiliser use (organic or otherwise) then you can get a deterioration of river water quality - increased sediment load and chemical pollution.

The environmental impact of extensive irrigated agriculture are usually local rather than the global impact of pumping pollutants into the atmosphere. That doesn't make them any less real.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

[There had been a reply to my post there a moment ago ....]

Because, when a farmer extracts water from a river to irrigate fields and/or eroded soil and fertiliser effluent enters that river the impact is on that river, and on people living and working downstream. That is, by definition, local (or, at worst, regional). There may be secondary effects that interact with the atmosphere (eg: if water flow down stream is so significantly reduced that drought conditions prevail, with increased wild fire risk). But the primary impact is on the river systems and water tables, not the atmosphere.

Of course, if that same farmer clears forestry to create the fields the reduction in photosynthesis has atmospheric impact in reducing CO2 capture, and that would be a global effect - but is different from the question of irrigation per se.

[ 12. April 2014, 21:23: Message edited by: Alan Cresswell ]

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0