Big global warming meeting in Canada

[DodgyAgent]

Let us assume that PJ Clarke is right. Then what? Will changing our habits make any difference? Should we return to living in caves and eating food from the land without any discharge of CO2? If we do that what guarantee is there that the climate will improve?

I rather think that most of PJ Clarke and his ilk have not given these matters much thought (what do we pay them for?). Even if they have they have little clue as to what objectives to reach or plans to make to achieve them. It could after all be that the case that we are changing the climate for the better. Have they bothered to investigate this?

Scientists involved in the Climate change debate should be getting on with the job of finding solutions just as any worker does in in any other job job. All they are doing is talking up the problem, and browbeating the people of the world aided by stooges like PJ Clarke (I am still not convinced he is an IT person)
No these people are committed to gaining attention for and enriching themselves. They want to and control the behaviour of the rest of us. Why should the rest of us be paying them to do this?

[pjclarke]

Apart from a few green-minded folk, who were probably already knitting their own yoghurt anyway, we, as individuals will not change a damn thing about our livestyles because of the threat of climate change, even if we're convinced that it is real; we're too attached to our cars, cheap flights and Californian strawberries, and to be honest there is not a lot, as individuals that we can do.

But if Government policy on energy, trade, transport and industry were genuinely informed by the science, then we could make a difference and with a marginal impact on what we perceive as the quality of our lives, for example a revenue-neutral carbon tax. Trouble is, that would require international co-operation and reduced profits for some of the richest corporations in the world, and it would require developing nations, notably China, not to follow the same development path that we did. It would require us to leave some of the fossil fuel unburnt, profits unrealised. It is the classic example of a market failure and the Tragedy of the Commons. Politicians tend not to be scientists and rarely think beyond the next electoral cycle, never mind the next generation, and GW always comes out near the bottom of the list of voters' concerns. Denial of the science is not helpful, but most people ignore the nutters.

There are some grounds for optimism, 17% of China's power comes from renewables, and growing, but now, the chances of holding the rise in temperatures below 2C, regarded by many scientists as the threshold for 'dangerous' change are very slim.

Scientists involved in the Climate change debate should be getting on with the job of finding solutions just as any worker does in in any other job job

Hmmmm. The IPCC has three Working Groups. Only WG1 is about the Physical Science, WG2 and WG3 cover Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability and Mitigation, respectively. We have solutions coming out of our ears, political will is lacking.

I DO spend too much time on CUK, but here's part of my cover as an IT contractor, http://forums.contractoruk.com/techn...erts-here.html

[DodgyAgent]

Apart from a few green-minded folk, who were probably already knitting their own yoghurt anyway, we, as individuals will not change a damn thing about our livestyles because of the threat of climate change, even if we're convinced that it is real; we're too attached to our cars, cheap flights and Californian strawberries, and to be honest there is not a lot, as individuals that we can do.

But if Government policy on energy, trade, transport and industry were genuinely informed by the science, then we could make a difference and with a marginal impact on what we perceive as the quality of our lives, for example a revenue-neutral carbon tax. Trouble is, that would require international co-operation and reduced profits for some of the richest corporations in the world, and it would require developing nations, notably China, not to follow the same development path that we did. It would require us to leave some of the fossil fuel unburnt, profits unrealised. It is the classic example of a market failure and the Tragedy of the Commons. Politicians tend not to be scientists and rarely think beyond the next electoral cycle, never mind the next generation, and GW always comes out near the bottom of the list of voters' concerns. Denial of the science is not helpful, but most people ignore the nutters.

There are some grounds for optimism, 17% of China's power comes from renewables, and growing, but now, the chances of holding the rise in temperatures below 2C, regarded by many scientists as the threshold for 'dangerous' change are very slim.



Hmmmm. The IPCC has three Working Groups. Only WG1 is about the Physical Science, WG2 and WG3 cover Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability and Mitigation, respectively. We have solutions coming out of our ears, political will is lacking.

I DO spend too much time on CUK, but here's part of my cover as an IT contractor, http://forums.contractoruk.com/techn...erts-here.html

And so if the world adopts your policies what then?

Let me put this to you.

OK you are a contractor. You make a lot of money thanks to the success of the free markets (freeish). You are uncomfortable about being one of the highest paid people on the planet. You drive a car, you consume directly or indirectly hydrocarbon products.
In order to overcome your guilt and give yourself some moral integrity against your "rich bastard lifestyle" you jump on the climate change bandwagon and lecture the rest of us about being irresponsible.
Clearly you have access to a rich vein of scources to support your sanctimonious posturing but you have little idea of where all this should go should the rest of us accede to your views.

[Mich the Tester]

Apart from a few green-minded folk, who were probably already knitting their own yoghurt anyway, ...

Seeing as you seem to know about this, is global warming only going to be a bad thing or will it have positive effects in some places? Does anyone know what the balance of positive and negative effects will be?

[EternalOptimist]

selective memory can be a blessing, blotting out bad stuff.

PJ is probably confused about why many people dont bother with the graphs or follow his links. It's because we learned in climategate that many of his heroes were fiddling the data, cherry picking and lying.
They were sending each other emails on how to keep the opposing views out of the peer reviewed literature and they were active in getting non compliant editors sacked from journals

[pjclarke]

And so if the world adopts your policies what then?

You assume a lot about me. I'm not the slightest bit uncomfortable or guilt-ridden. I've advocated no policies, far as I know. Sorry if I come across as sanctimonious, but I do not remember ever telling anybody to behave in a particular way, or to 'accede to my views' that would be hypocritical given my carbon footprint. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but facts are facts. Most of my posts are responses to disinformation, I rarely start a thread. I've reduced my carbon footprint but only where doing so was relatively painless.

[pjclarke]

Seeing as you seem to know about this, is global warming only going to be a bad thing or will it have positive effects in some places? Does anyone know what the balance of positive and negative effects will be?

Covered in the IPCC reports, the Stern report and elsewhere. There are some positives, crop yields increase on average under mild warming, but decline again under further rises with food production under severe stress if we reach 4C. For people of my generation (middle age, to put it kindly), living in a rich country the effects are likely to be mild, possibly even beneficial in our lifetime.

But the climate to which civilisation has adapted, for example 8 out of 10 of the largest global cities are on the coast, vulnerable to higher storm surges and seawater intrusion into aquifers, is likely to end over the course of this century with overwhelmingly negative consequences.

Positives and negatives of global warming

[DodgyAgent]

You assume a lot about me. I'm not the slightest bit uncomfortable or guilt-ridden. I've advocated no policies, far as I know. Sorry if I come across as sanctimonious, but I do not remember ever telling anybody to behave in a particular way, or to 'accede to my views' that would be hypocritical given my carbon footprint. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but facts are facts. Most of my posts are responses to disinformation, I rarely start a thread. I've reduced my carbon footprint but only where doing so was relatively painless.

The facts are your facts that you interpret to make your point. Likewise others make different conclusions often from the same facts. You cede virtually nothing. You have no idea of or interest in any solution and nor do you care about what would happen if we all stopped consuming hydrocarbons.
So what are you about? what is your point other than to show us what a caring person you are (even though you make no personal sacrifices)?

[pjclarke]

It's because we learned in climategate that many of his heroes were fiddling the data, cherry picking and lying.
They were sending each other emails on how to keep the opposing views out of the peer reviewed literature and they were active in getting non compliant editors sacked from journals

'If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him.' - Cardinal Richleiu.

Stealing and publishing private correspondence is always unethical. That aside, in thousands of mails you are bound to find something that can be picked apart for any possible wrongdoing, sentences lifted out of context, twisted and spun to fit an agenda. The affair was investigated five times and the scientists exonerated. For example the US Environmental Protection Agency found:

Myth: The University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit (CRU) emails prove that temperature data and trends were manipulated.

Fact: Not true. Petitioners say that emails disclosed from CRU provide evidence of a conspiracy to manipulate data. The media coverage after the emails were released was based on email statements quoted out of context and on unsubstantiated theories of conspiracy. The CRU emails do not show either that the science is flawed or that the scientific process has been compromised. EPA carefully reviewed the CRU emails and found no indication of improper data manipulation or misrepresentation of results.

An allegation of data manipulation in science is serious: equivalent to fraud in the finance world. You are link-free as ever. Perhaps you could indicate which of the mails provides unequivocal evidence of malfeasance?

[pjclarke]

Dodgy,

I am not a caring person.

HTH