Comments on: Sceptique? Moi? The big climate change question

By: anthony

anthony — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 21:23:34 +0000

Phil_style: No. I was referring to this:

“This is particularly important because “global” solutions could easily be seen to fit into a pattern of trying to maintain Western economic superiority by suppressing competition from the lesser-developed countries.” – clayboy
November 25th, 2009 at 12:11

By: phil_style

phil_style — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 09:46:25 +0000

“am delighted to see that this thread is not without its conspiracy theory”

You’re not suggesting that I’m proposing conspiracy theory are you?

By: anthony

anthony — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 08:14:28 +0000

Clayboy, I am delighted to see that this thread is not without its conspiracy theory. How about if we do nothing about global warming? THAT will certainly put a quick end to “the pattern of trying to maintain Western economic superiority by suppressing competition from the lesser-developed countries.”

It doesn’t really matter. Nothing is exactly what we are going to do. Whatever the value of the climate science, pragmatically it will be ignored. So do not fear: global competition will not be suppressed by the fat cats’ implementing Kyoto. It will be suppressed by other means.

By: anthony

anthony — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 07:54:30 +0000

For a brief and simplified overview of current theory, which does include paleoclimate data see NOAA:

http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html#q8

The entire FAQ at this site notes the caveats which are many but still supports a prediction of significant short-term global warming even when the barely adequate paleodata is considered.

By: phil_style

phil_style — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 20:59:34 +0000

rate of change.. It’s all about rate of change. IF AGW is real, we should see rates of change that vary from recorded (or deduced) natural rates of change. That’s the question that needs to be asked.

By: clayboy

clayboy — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 12:11:11 +0000

I think I have quite a frugal carbon footprint – and a very small car!

I think the science is inadequate, precisely because it doesn’t account for natural change. The case for measuring human impact would be a lot stronger if we could be clearer exactly what change is down to human impact. This is particularly important because “global” solutions could easily be seen to fit into a pattern of trying to maintain Western economic superiority by suppressing competition from the lesser-developed countries.

@David – I’m all for being sceptical about every claim to objectivity, including yours

By: Erika Baker

Erika Baker — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 10:00:50 +0000

But does it matter? If the lives of millions are in danger because of climate change, is it not a good idea to reduce the human impact element, whether it’s the sole culprit or only a contributor?

By: David Keen

David Keen — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 09:43:00 +0000

Face it Doug, you just don’t want to sell your 4×4 and start cycling. Come to think of it, neither do I. There is an overarching narrative to climate change scepticism which seems, by strange coincidence, to slot right in to our modern patterns of consumption and self-indulgence. Scepticism and objectivity aren’t the same thing.

By: clayboy

clayboy — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 08:52:20 +0000

Oh yes, Gareth. I quite agree that irrespective of the detailed stuff, there’s an imperative to steward finite resources and minimise or counter damaging human impacts on the planetary ecosystem.

I still want to see a better theory that accounts for long term climate change and then shows how and why our current patterns fit into it.

By: Gary Simmons

Gary Simmons — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 04:33:48 +0000

Well said, Doug and Gareth both.