Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Climate Change: The Megathread - Read Post #1 before posting

1356718

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    paddy147 wrote: »
    World leaders and their scientists...
    The idea that "world leaders" have any kind of grasp of science, let alone actually control it, never ceases to amuse.
    paddy147 wrote: »
    Dr Benny Peiser...
    ...is a scientist, is he not? One of the non-government controlled good guys though, right, because you happen to agree with what he says?


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 15,858 ✭✭✭✭paddy147


    djpbarry wrote: »
    The idea that "world leaders" have any kind of grasp of science, let alone actually control it, never ceases to amuse.
    ...is a scientist, is he not? One of the non-government controlled good guys though, right, because you happen to agree with what he says?

    I pointed out in that link you "googled" that the report was rushed and so was the decision/findings rushed too.......

    I mean it would be very bad for world leaders and all their claimte change boffins if their findings were/are indeed just a pack of lies and falsified findings/reports.
    It would make a holy show of all of them.





    I wonder if man was and is to blame for climate change and all the weather patterns,storms,floods,droughts and fires back in the early 1900s and even back in the 1800s that brought devastation to many parts of the world and populations.


    Again I will ask you to quote my entire posts and not just parts to suit yourself.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,625 ✭✭✭AngryHippie


    This thread is starting to suck a$$ like all the rest of them due to some kind of personal dispute.
    Can we try and get it back on track ?
    :rolleyes:
    Instead of getting into a semantic argument about what scientist said what and which model predicts whatever change, can we make the following statements and agree to them on some level or otherwise:
    1. Weather conditions over recorded history are pointing towards a climatic change
    2. There is a reasonable chance that human activity is responsible(Absolute proof not required)
    3. The changes indicated are not unprecedented (ice cores etc, mass extinctions etc)
    4. Changes on the scale indicated have led to massive changes to eco-systems(as above)
    5. It is possible for humans to change their behavior (free will, international treatys, policys etc)
    6. A change in human behavior may alter the rates of change noted if they are responsible
    7. The changes made (if sustainability is a vital requirement for changes made) would regardless be of benefit to mankind & environment

    Do you agree to any of the statements above, if so which and to what extent...
    If you dispute any of the statements above, please provide some sort of reviewable evidence.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 97 ✭✭SiegfriedsMum


    This thread is starting to suck a$$ like all the rest of them due to some kind of personal dispute.
    Can we try and get it back on track ?
    :rolleyes:

    I think it unlikely as the level of aggression and intolerance we can all see means few will want to try to engage. Having read these threads from time to time, they do seem to inevitably descend into the same individuals being aggressive and intolerant which I imagine puts many off contributing, or continuing to contribute, and going elsewhere.


  • Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    paddy147 wrote: »
    I pointed out in that link you "googled" that the report was rushed and so was the decision/findings rushed too...
    In the opinion of one particular individual.

    What about all the other inquiries? All rushed?
    paddy147 wrote: »
    I mean it would be very bad for world leaders and all their claimte change boffins if their findings were/are indeed just a pack of lies and falsified findings/reports.
    It would make a holy show of all of them.
    Once again, the idea that "world leaders" hold any sway over "boffins" is absolutely laughable.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 804 ✭✭✭Chloe Pink


    djpbarry wrote: »
    Ok, let's see what I can find:

    'No malpractice' by climate unit

    All the same, the report is not short on polite criticism;

    "The panel noted that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was one of the organisations that had "oversimplified" the CRU data it used in its publications.
    They said the IPCC and others had neglected to highlight the discrepancy between direct and "proxy" measurements, such as the tree ring data often used to reconstruct past temperature changes.
    Professor Hand added that CRU had been "a little naïve" in not working more closely with statisticians.
    The report stated: "There would be mutual benefit if there were closer collaboration and interaction between CRU and a much wider scientific group outside the relatively small international circle of temperature specialists."

    Not exactly glowing praise.


  • Registered Users Posts: 804 ✭✭✭Chloe Pink


    djpbarry wrote: »
    Once again, the idea that "world leaders" hold any sway over "boffins" is absolutely laughable.
    http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_integrity/
    "But science can only thrive when it’s independent. When commercial or ideological interests pressure scientists to distort or suppress their findings, science is weakened, and we all lose.
    Our scientific integrity work began in 2004 in response to a growing problem of political interference in government science."


  • Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    Chloe Pink wrote: »
    http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_integrity/
    "But science can only thrive when it’s independent. When commercial or ideological interests pressure scientists to distort or suppress their findings, science is weakened, and we all lose.
    Our scientific integrity work began in 2004 in response to a growing problem of political interference in government science."
    I dare say you’ve rather misinterpreted the aims of the UCS. For starters, you’re conflating government science with basic science – two very different things. Probably also worth pointing out that the UCS supports global action to combat climate change, including deep reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.


  • Registered Users Posts: 804 ✭✭✭Chloe Pink


    djpbarry wrote: »
    I dare say you’ve rather misinterpreted the aims of the UCS. For starters, you’re conflating government science with basic science – two very different things. Probably also worth pointing out that the UCS supports global action to combat climate change, including deep reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.
    Science is science, or it should be. The point is that science is not beyond the influence of outside factors; a concept ridiculed in your earlier post.


  • Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    Chloe Pink wrote: »
    Science is science, or it should be.
    Well, no, in this case there is a distinction: government science, as referred to above in your post, generally refers to the (US) government’s (mis)interpretation and/or (mis)use of science.

    The UCS was founded to give scientists a greater voice in government circles. This is an excerpt from their founding statement:

    We therefore call on scientists and engineers at MIT, and throughout the country, to unite for concerted action and leadership: Action against dangers already unleashed and leadership toward a more responsible exploitation of scientific knowledge.
    Chloe Pink wrote: »
    The point is that science is not beyond the influence of outside factors; a concept ridiculed in your earlier post.
    I was not ridiculing the idea that science is immune to influence – scientists are only human, after all.

    I am ridiculing the idea that governments essentially tell scientists what to do and what not to do, that research agendas are set by governments and not research institutes.

    The idea that science shows climate change exists because governments want it to is the stuff of conspiracy theories.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 804 ✭✭✭Chloe Pink


    djpbarry wrote: »
    I am ridiculing the idea that governments essentially tell scientists what to do and what not to do, that research agendas are set by governments and not research institutes.
    What like this example:

    ETSU-R97 was written for the DTI in 1997 and is to be used for setting limits for noise from wind turbine.
    It has long been criticised for being old and outdated and for failing to protect the public and requests have been made by many bodies, that ETSU be reviewed, for example,
    http://noiseabatementsociety.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/DECC-NPS-Consultation-240111.pdf
    "Controversies over ETSU-R-97 continue to cause delay and uncertainty among applicants, decision makers and communities. Planning Inspectors have refused applications where ETSU-R-97 has been followed as they are not confident about protection."
    "ETSU-R-97 itself contained a recommendation that it be reviewed within a period that has long expired."
    "DECC should, as a matter of urgency, commission a full review of ETSU-R-97."

    DECC approached Hayes MacKenzie, a consultancy who worked extensively representing wind developers at planning appeals and subsequently commissioned a review of the application of ETSU rather than a review of ETSU itself.
    http://tools.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/meeting_energy/wind/onshore/questions/onshorewind_q4/onshorewind_q4.aspx#
    "To ensure that the ETSU-R-97 guidance is still fit for purpose, DECC commissioned acoustic experts Hayes McKenzie in 2011 to publish a report looking at consideration of noise impacts when determining planning applications in England.
    The report found good practice guidance is required to ensure consistency of approach and to clarify how the guidance should be implemented in practice."

    Subsequently DECC commissioned the IoA to look at ETSU's application not at ETSU itself
    http://www.ioa.org.uk/about-us/news-article.asp?id=260
    "The Institute of Acoustics has launched a consultation on “Good Practice Guidance to the application of ETSU-R-97 for wind turbine noise assessment”.
    From the IoA's discussion document:
    http://www.ioa.org.uk/pdf/ioa-discussion-document-july-2012.pdf
    1.2.3 "It should be noted that any consideration of the suitability of the ETSU-R-97 target noise levels (noise limits) is excluded from the Terms of Reference on the grounds that the setting of noise limits are a matter of policy for the Government. The absence of any discussion on the appropriateness of the noise limits does not necessarily imply that all members of the IOA NWG accept that the ETSU-R-97 limits are appropriate in all circumstances."


  • Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    Chloe Pink wrote: »
    What like this example...
    I cannot make head nor tail of what you've just posted.


  • Registered Users Posts: 804 ✭✭✭Chloe Pink


    djpbarry wrote: »
    I cannot make head nor tail of what you've just posted.

    The government was asked to review the method of aassessing wind turbine noise, a method called ETSU-R97.
    Instead of commissioning a review of ETSU-R97, they commissioned a review of how ETSU-R97 should be applied.

    You posted, "I am ridiculing the idea that governments essentially tell scientists what to do and what not to do, that research agendas are set by governments and not research institutes"

    My post cites an example where this has infact occurred.
    Included in my post is an excerpt from the Institute of Acoustics discussion report on their research where they state it's limitations because of government policy.


  • Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    Chloe Pink wrote: »
    The government was asked to review the method of aassessing wind turbine noise, a method called ETSU-R97.
    Instead of commissioning a review of ETSU-R97, they commissioned a review of how ETSU-R97 should be applied.

    You posted, "I am ridiculing the idea that governments essentially tell scientists what to do and what not to do, that research agendas are set by governments and not research institutes"

    My post cites an example where this has infact occurred.
    No, your post cites an example of the British government commissioning a review of a working group report.

    This is somehow supposed to demonstrate that climate scientists are being pressured by governments into manipulating data?


  • Registered Users Posts: 804 ✭✭✭Chloe Pink


    djpbarry wrote: »
    No, your post cites an example of the British government commissioning a review of a working group report.
    No it doesn't:
    http://tools.decc.gov.uk/en/content/...ewind_q4.aspx#
    "As such DECC has asked the Institute of Acoustics (IOA) to take forward this work"


  • Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    Chloe Pink wrote: »
    No it doesn't:
    http://tools.decc.gov.uk/en/content/...ewind_q4.aspx#
    "As such DECC has asked the Institute of Acoustics (IOA) to take forward this work"
    I have no idea what point you think you're making? A UK government department has requested an institute to produce a report? So what? What has this got to do with governments purportedly influencing climate science?


  • Registered Users Posts: 804 ✭✭✭Chloe Pink


    djpbarry wrote: »
    I have no idea what point you think you're making? A UK government department has requested an institute to produce a report? So what? What has this got to do with governments purportedly influencing climate science?

    The government was asked by a number of bodies and members of the public to review the method of aassessing wind turbine noise, a method called ETSU-R97.
    Instead of commissioning a review of ETSU-R97, they commissioned a review of how ETSU-R97 should be applied.

    You posted, "I am ridiculing the idea that governments essentially tell scientists what to do and what not to do, that research agendas are set by governments and not research institutes"

    My post cites an example where this has infact occurred.
    Included in my post is an excerpt from the Institute of Acoustics discussion report on their research where they state it's limitations because of government policy.

    My point - get real - it happens


  • Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    Chloe Pink wrote: »
    Included in my post is an excerpt from the Institute of Acoustics discussion report on their research where they state it's limitations because of government policy.
    The excerpt you refer to is basically a disclaimer. The institute is stating that just because they’ve agreed to draw up best practice guidelines on applying a certain standard, it doesn’t mean all of their members necessarily agree that said standard could not be improved.

    Furthermore, we’re not talking about a research institute here. We’re talking about a professional organisation that specialises in supporting the development of legislation.

    If this is the best evidence you can produce of governments influencing climate science, then your case is an extremely weak one.


  • Registered Users Posts: 804 ✭✭✭Chloe Pink


    djpbarry wrote: »
    The excerpt you refer to is basically a disclaimer. The institute is stating that just because they’ve agreed to draw up best practice guidelines on applying a certain standard, it doesn’t mean all of their members necessarily agree that said standard could not be improved.

    No, it's not under a disclaimer section; it's a statement under the 'Project Aims and Objective' section and it clarifies the scope of the project according to the Terms of Reference they were given by the government.
    "It should be noted that any consideration of the suitability of the ETSU-R-97 target noise levels (noise limits) is excluded from the
    Terms of Reference on the grounds that the setting of noise limits are a matter of policy for the Government."
    djpbarry wrote: »
    Furthermore, we’re not talking about a research institute here. We’re talking about a professional organisation that specialises in supporting the development of legislation.
    Oh no lets forget it's 3000 members, some 900 employed in industry, commerce and consultancies, 400 in education and research, and nearly 500 in public authorities.

    Now any other excuses for not getting real and heaven forbid, allowing a bit of discussion on climate change on this specially dedicated Climate Change thread...


  • Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    Chloe Pink wrote: »
    No, it's not under a disclaimer section...
    I didn’t say that it was.
    Chloe Pink wrote: »
    ...it's a statement under the 'Project Aims and Objective' section and it clarifies the scope of the project according to the Terms of Reference they were given by the government.
    Sure is.
    Chloe Pink wrote: »
    Oh no lets forget it's 3000 members, some 900 employed in industry, commerce and consultancies, 400 in education and research, and nearly 500 in public authorities.
    Doesn’t change the nature of the organisation.
    Chloe Pink wrote: »
    Now any other excuses for not getting real and heaven forbid, allowing a bit of discussion on climate change on this specially dedicated Climate Change thread...
    Eh, you’re the one who brought this up? I’ve asked you several times how it relates to climate science?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 804 ✭✭✭Chloe Pink


    djpbarry wrote: »
    Eh, you’re the one who brought this up? I’ve asked you several times how it relates to climate science?
    Keep up with discussion - you brought it up with your niave defence of climate studies.
    Like any other studies, climate studies are not impervious to outside vested and/or zealous influence, and regardless, should, like all studies, be open to question and scrutiny and even a healthy degree of sceptism.
    Indeed from your link, "There would be mutual benefit if there were closer collaboration and interaction between CRU and a much wider scientific group outside the relatively small international circle of temperature specialists." - that's a pretty damning comment.


  • Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    Chloe Pink wrote: »
    Keep up with discussion - you brought it up with your niave defence of climate studies.
    The UCS? No, that was you.
    Chloe Pink wrote: »
    "There would be mutual benefit if there were closer collaboration and interaction between CRU and a much wider scientific group outside the relatively small international circle of temperature specialists." - that's a pretty damning comment.
    If you say so.

    Anyways, let's move the discussion forward, shall we? Perhaps you would like to put forward your reasons for branding those who defend the integrity of climate science as "naive", maybe with reference to AngryHippie's post:
    ...can we make the following statements and agree to them on some level or otherwise:
    1. Weather conditions over recorded history are pointing towards a climatic change
    2. There is a reasonable chance that human activity is responsible(Absolute proof not required)
    3. The changes indicated are not unprecedented (ice cores etc, mass extinctions etc)
    4. Changes on the scale indicated have led to massive changes to eco-systems(as above)
    5. It is possible for humans to change their behavior (free will, international treatys, policys etc)
    6. A change in human behavior may alter the rates of change noted if they are responsible
    7. The changes made (if sustainability is a vital requirement for changes made) would regardless be of benefit to mankind & environment

    Do you agree to any of the statements above, if so which and to what extent...
    If you dispute any of the statements above, please provide some sort of reviewable evidence.


  • Registered Users Posts: 804 ✭✭✭Chloe Pink


    djpbarry wrote: »
    Anyways, let's move the discussion forward, shall we? Perhaps you would like to put forward your reasons for branding those who defend the integrity of climate science as "naive", maybe with reference to AngryHippie's post:
    Well I can't move the discussion forwards with my reasons for branding those who defend the integrity of climate science as "naive" because I haven't branded those who defend the integrity of climate of science as "niave".


  • Registered Users Posts: 21,886 ✭✭✭✭Roger_007


    Does anyone know how much CO2 there is supposed to be in the atmosphere. We are told that is now 380pps and rising. We also know that if there was no CO2 life could not exist on earth. How much do we need without causing global warming.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,625 ✭✭✭AngryHippie


    How long is a piece of string ?

    That's one of the key issues, CO2 levels can be established over time through ice cores etc. but there are limits to the accuracy of these, and no way to verify many of the other climatic, atmospheric and plant growth conditions/rates etc. for those time periods without extrapolating from limited source data, in which case the normal conditions for accepted scientific method get pushed to and past their accuracy limitations.

    This leads to the current situation where scientists can make a statement about what the evidence suggests, but cannot definitively say what the c02 levels were, what they are what they need to be etc.

    What seems to have happened is that many scientists have gone out on a limb, on both sides on this issue. Many of the statements made can be backed up, the science is good....up to a point, but many of the conclusions drawn are disputable.

    This has caused everyone involved to lose credibility.

    What makes it worse is that people have pointless arguments for and against the science involved, even though the science is relatively solid, its the conclusions drawn from it that are being influenced by personalities, organizations and sentiment.

    That was why I put those 6 points out there. The science behind it cannot give you conclusions, but it does give evidence of trends.
    Statistical modelling on the data has two problems:
    1. A huge and varied data set requiring complex modelling to interpret
    2. A very specific and complex output requirement on which to draw conclusions
    For the reasons above, the topic will probably never be put to bed using scientific methods, and instead a logic process is required.

    That was the basis for the 6 points I put out there yesterday.

    It gives a clear basis for approaching the problem instead of pretending that we are all climatologists, scientists, statisticians or historians.

    As far as I can see it is the only way to approach a problem on the scale we are dealing with.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 97 ✭✭SiegfriedsMum



    What seems to have happened is that many scientists have gone out on a limb, on both sides on this issue. Many of the statements made can be backed up, the science is good....up to a point, but many of the conclusions drawn are disputable.

    This has caused everyone involved to lose credibility.

    I think where we differ is that some scientists have made and are making predictions about the future, and we have to wonder about how they, or anyone, can make such predictions.

    In the example given earlier where it was predicted by one of the leading climate scientists that snow would become a very rare thing, we can see how foolish that prediction now looks when we get winter after winter with snow and ice, and which well illustrates the point.

    It further causes concern when one reads things like the so called "climategate" emails, or when the IPCC is caught out making claims based on a pamphlet produced by a climate activist, as two more examples, and the result is that poll after poll shows that these sorts of examples have made many people distrust any claims made by individuals and organisations which have been exposed in these ways.


  • Registered Users Posts: 804 ✭✭✭Chloe Pink


    I think where we differ ...
    I think this is a point on which you and Angry Hippie agree - AH: "What seems to have happened is that many scientists have gone out on a limb, on both sides on this issue. Many of the statements made can be backed up, the science is good....up to a point, but many of the conclusions drawn are disputable." - my apologies if I've misunderstood.

    This piece, echoes some of the discussion points Angry Hippie raises e.g. data limitations, changes not unprecedented, the current method of mitigation, http://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2013/01/Ridley-Lukewarmer-Ten-Tests.pdf
    For example, "We now know there is nothing unprecedented about the level and rate of change of temperature today compared with Medieval, Roman, Holocene Optimum and other post-glacial periods, when carbon dioxide levels did not change significantly, but temperatures did."

    The limitations of future predictions are acknowledged by MetOffice (CRU's partner) when they describe their decadel predictions as "experimental" http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/news/releases/archive/2013/decadal-forecasts
    "8 January 2013 - There has been media coverage today about our experimental decadal global temperature prediction"

    Re mitigation (AH point 7 "if sustainability is a vital requirement for changes made" (sustainability now being the buzz word for renewables)), I am unsure of how the mitigation aim to 'reduce CO2 emissions' led to 'targets for building renewables'.

    Going back to the roots of CRU, for a little background, here's a potted view of the writings of its founder, Hubert Lamb, https://sites.google.com/site/medievalwarmperiod/Home


  • Registered Users Posts: 21,886 ✭✭✭✭Roger_007


    I have only recently become interested in this subject mainly because of the alarming predictions that are being made. The only thing I know for certain is that any long term predictions based on computer modeling will almost always be inaccurate. The predictions are just as likely to be wrong in one direction as another. Computer models, to be accurate, depend on flawless programming, complete and accurate data and proven theories. If so-called predictions were expressed as possibilities or probabilities rather than certainties they would be more acceptable. When future events are predicted as certain we depart from science and enter the realms of religion.


  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 6,376 Mod ✭✭✭✭Macha


    Roger_007 wrote: »
    When future events are predicted as certain we depart from science and enter the realms of religion.

    Are you certain the sun will rise tomorrow? Are you certain the law of gravity will still hold tomorrow? Do you feel the need to refute those who argue that there is a high probability of both happening?

    Let's try and remove the hyperbole from this discussion.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 21,886 ✭✭✭✭Roger_007


    Macha wrote: »
    Are you certain the sun will rise tomorrow? Are you certain the law of gravity will still hold tomorrow? Do you feel the need to refute those who argue that there is a high probability of both happening?

    Let's try and remove the hyperbole from this discussion.

    That's what I'm trying to do. Nothing in the future is certain, so let us deal with probability rather than certainty.


Advertisement