Global Warming

[AngryAnt]

And Antman, I am not seizing on a crappy article...these are quotes from Flannery in various journals, articles, and press conferences over the last 10 years.

In this case it's not all about you mate, more to do with L2R2R, my apologies for naming and shaming you in that sentence. On the other hand, you've seized on many crappy articles in other contexts so rule still applies.

 

[LeeToRainesToRoach]

That's a pretty simplistic way of looking at things, most of the forecasts are based on historical data taken from ice samples dating back thousands of years.

Simplistic, yes. But the models are highly volatile - tweak a variable by some tiny amount and you get a significantly different predicted outcome.

In this case it's not all about you mate, more to do with L2R2R, my apologies for naming and shaming you in that sentence. On the other hand, you've seized on many crappy articles in other contexts so rule still applies.

Leave me alone, I'm happy in my denial.

 

[AngryAnt]

Leave me alone, I'm happy in my denial.

Fair point, carry on

:hihi

 

[tigergollywog]

The science isn't unquestionable then, is it?

Maybe the global-warming/climate-change scientists should have a crack at baking pies instead as they may find themselves better at that than making doomsday predictions about cities being without water and turning into a ghost-metropolis

1. You are right Livs, nothing is unquestionable, except perhaps The Chimp.

2. Pleased you dropped the "" around scientists - credit to you. The IPCC having a crack at baking pies for a crust isnt a bad suggestion, except we would have to legitimately call them "pastry chefs"

3. like i said, I dont really rate tim flannery and i wouldnt be holding up placards if Tony made him redundant. I am concerned about Tony and others implying they know better than 500 really really smart blokes and ladies in their area of expertise. Im sure the IPCC wouldnt try 2nd guess Tony on matters of theology and sporting beach wear.

Simplistic, yes. But the models are highly volatile - tweak a variable by some tiny amount and you get a significantly different predicted outcome.

Leave me alone, I'm happy in my denial.

I agree modelling is fraught and im happy if you are happy R2D2 :hihi

Irresponsible alarmism!!

sorry snake, i didnt mean to worry you about the pies.

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

The science isn't unquestionable then, is it?
It isn't done and dusted...it can be debated, questioned, ridiculed, and put under the microscope.

Agreed (although I wouldn't choose to ridicule it myself).

You see, here in lies the whole problem with your position. You are arguing about the scientific merits of a particular theory, when you are plainly ignorant of the very basics of the scientific process. The opening of the quoted post above and the one previous to that says it all.

Science is always questionable, never done and dusted, always open for debate, ridicule (if that floats your boat) and close examination. Scientific theories represent our best approximation of the nature of things. In the case of AGW that is the best approximation of the climate and our impact on it. The important thing is that this is based on empirical data, it isn't some crackpot's flight of fancy, but based on our current body of knowledge. If evidence comes up that alters that view, the theory changes to accommodate it. AGW is still the accepted scientific consensus, despite the campaign of doubt raised against it.

If you want to challenge a scientific consensus, you need to act like a scientist. Point out the flaws in the current model (using data), provide a better model that fits the data and put your views up for scrutiny under scientific peer review. You don't publish editorials or blogs if you want to be convincing from a scientific perspective.

Science. You're doing it wrong.

 

[tigergollywog]

Agreed (although I wouldn't choose to ridicule it myself).

You see, here in lies the whole problem with your position. You are arguing about the scientific merits of a particular theory, when you are plainly ignorant of the very basics of the scientific process. The opening of the quoted post above and the one previous to that says it all.

Science is always questionable, never done and dusted, always open for debate, ridicule (if that floats your boat) and close examination. Scientific theories represent our best approximation of the nature of things. In the case of AGW that is the best approximation of the climate and our impact on it. The important thing is that this is based on empirical data, it isn't some crackpot's flight of fancy, but based on our current body of knowledge. If evidence comes up that alters that view, the theory changes to accommodate it. AGW is still the accepted scientific consensus, despite the campaign of doubt raised against it.

If you want to challenge a scientific consensus, you need to act like a scientist. Point out the flaws in the current model (using data), provide a better model that fits the data and put your views up for scrutiny under scientific peer review. You don't publish editorials or blogs if you want to be convincing from a scientific perspective.

Science. You're doing it wrong.

well put black and yellow panther. In one sense, PRE is like reality peer review. Livs "publishes" something, and all his peers go 'nuh' (I intend that to read funny and not nasty Livs)

 

[bullus_hit]

Simplistic, yes. But the models are highly volatile - tweak a variable by some tiny amount and you get a significantly different predicted outcome.

Leave me alone, I'm happy in my denial.

So you're making predictions that everything will be fine and dandy using little more than emotion and cynicism yet scientists using sophisticated models are to be dismissed out of hand?

 

[Liverpool]

Science is always questionable, never done and dusted, always open for debate, ridicule (if that floats your boat) and close examination.

Well, you see, that's different to what some other members of your 'global warming team' are advocating:

The debate over the science is done and dusted. There is zero point engaging with any barfly, blogster, footy forum deniers on the internet on it. Waste of time and the main game has already been decided. Its now like engaging with a Carlton supporter saying 'I was behind the goals Yarrans kick went through Carlton really won the game'. Pointless.

As for this:

Scientific theories represent our best approximation of the nature of things. In the case of AGW that is the best approximation of the climate and our impact on it. The important thing is that this is based on empirical data, it isn't some crackpot's flight of fancy, but based on our current body of knowledge. If evidence comes up that alters that view, the theory changes to accommodate it. AGW is still the accepted scientific consensus, despite the campaign of doubt raised against it.

Well, if Tim Flannery and other scientists who believe in this have come up with their best approximations, and this led to theories in 2007 such as Adelaide, Sydney, and Brisbane running out of water within 18 months and needing desalination plants to survive....then either the current body of knowledge isn't much or we are indeed dealing with a crackpot's flight of fancy.
You take your pick.

I will challenge scientific consensus without actually being a scientist, by simply saying that the dams in those 3 cities average over 70% full, with 2 of them being over 90% full.
Perth isn't a ghost metropolis and has actually grown since Flannery's prediction.
Four years after Adelaide was supposedly going to run out of water...guess what? They still have water!

The predictions were so far wrong and therefore the science so far wrong, that not only is it an embarassment but really does question the validity of Flannery and the science that he and others are preaching to our Governments.

 

[Brodders17]

Agreed (although I wouldn't choose to ridicule it myself).

You see, here in lies the whole problem with your position. You are arguing about the scientific merits of a particular theory, when you are plainly ignorant of the very basics of the scientific process. The opening of the quoted post above and the one previous to that says it all.

Science is always questionable, never done and dusted, always open for debate, ridicule (if that floats your boat) and close examination. Scientific theories represent our best approximation of the nature of things. In the case of AGW that is the best approximation of the climate and our impact on it. The important thing is that this is based on empirical data, it isn't some crackpot's flight of fancy, but based on our current body of knowledge. If evidence comes up that alters that view, the theory changes to accommodate it. AGW is still the accepted scientific consensus, despite the campaign of doubt raised against it.

If you want to challenge a scientific consensus, you need to act like a scientist. Point out the flaws in the current model (using data), provide a better model that fits the data and put your views up for scrutiny under scientific peer review. You don't publish editorials or blogs if you want to be convincing from a scientific perspective.

Science. You're doing it wrong.

well said. science is not 100% irrefutable, not to be argued with. however at this point the best evidence we have points to human influence on climate change. until the best evidence says something different, or in fact any real evidence, we have to act on this.

 

[LeeToRainesToRoach]

So you're making predictions that everything will be fine and dandy using little more than emotion and cynicism yet scientists using sophisticated models are to be dismissed out of hand?

I don't have the expertise or time to conduct a personal analysis, like I don't have the expertise or time to assess the probability of being hit by a civilisation-ending meteor. This is why we elect governments, to sort the wheat from the chaff and act according to evidence. Greg Combet probably doesn't have the expertise or time either; it all depends who has his ear.

 

[Azza]

This is why we elect governments, to sort the wheat from the chaff and...

then do whatever will get them re-elected.

 

[bullus_hit]

I don't have the expertise or time to conduct a personal analysis, like I don't have the expertise or time to assess the probability of being hit by a civilisation-ending meteor. This is why we elect governments, to sort the wheat from the chaff and act according to evidence. Greg Combet probably doesn't have the expertise or time either; it all depends who has his ear.

And herein lies the problem, governments can't see beyond their 3-4 year term, they're joined at the hip with big multi-national mining companies, they are often planted in politics by companies seeking favourable outcomes and they can easily be bought off with promises of donations and other kick-backs.

Just take Tony 'Climate Change is Crap' Abbott, a guy who is irrefutably in bed with Gina Rinehart and Rupert Murdoch, a guy who regularly treats climate scientists with contempt, a guy who would do anything apart from sell his own arse to get a shot at the top job.

If you are entrusting such compromised individuals over and above climate scientists and other related professionals, then I would suggest you need to recalibrate your compass.

 

[MurrayValleyTiger]

You could walk across the Murray at Echuca in the 30's. Was that climate change influenced by mankind?

 

[Azza]

You could walk across the Murray at Echuca in the 30's. Was that climate change influenced by mankind?

Probably a combination of a drought dominated regime (natural cycle) and catchment clearing and erosion (human impact). Perhaps irrigation as well?

http://iahs.info/redbooks/a168/iahs_168_0327.pdf

 

[tigergollywog]

You could walk across the Murray at Echuca in the 30's. Was that climate change influenced by mankind?

I think grandad was drinking way too much grapa MVT. I once ate a few mushies and crossed the Murray on the back of a giant Cod

 

[lamb22]

To be fair the science of C02's effect on temperature is a fairly recent phenomenom . First discussed only 117 years ago.

http://www.rsc.org/images/Arrhenius1896_tcm18-173546.pdf

 

[bullus_hit]

And for those clinging onto the idea that climate change is some left wing conspiracy, here's some words of wisdom from the Iron Lady herself.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aSrBO4_qPzo

 

[LeeToRainesToRoach]

If you are entrusting such compromised individuals over and above climate scientists and other related professionals, then I would suggest you need to recalibrate your compass.

Perhaps the scientists should run for political office.

 

[tigerdave]

Thing's might get a little warmer if North Korea start pressing buttons.

 

[bullus_hit]

Perhaps the scientists should run for political office.

Now that's something I'd like to see, it would sure as hell be a refreshing change to crusty accountants, tricky lawyers and egotistical entrepreneurs that dot the political landscape.

Would it work in practice? Highly unlikely I suspect, one thing science has going for it is objectibility, entering politics doesn't seem the ideal platform for such pursuits. And besides, I doubt a scientist who is drilling through the Antarctic ice core would have the slightest interest in juvenile name calling and summary character assassinations.

It's also no surprise that the one scientist who has gone onto a successful political career also happens to be strong proponent of addressing climate change. She also happens to be the leader of the strongest European economy and has lobbied hard for reform in the energy sector.

No prizes for guessing who she is.