Reply With Quote
How to talk to a climate skeptic intorduction to denial arguments
The IPCC - heavy going report to the UN
Stern Review - heavy going report to UK govt on economics of Climate change.
Hello there.
Can anyone point me in the direction of some good resources so I can learn more about climate change?
I am ashamed to say I know very little about it and unfortunately the political furore surrounding it has put me off. But I really think I should learn more.
Thanks.
How to talk to a climate skeptic intorduction to denial arguments
The IPCC - heavy going report to the UN
Stern Review - heavy going report to UK govt on economics of Climate change.
Some other useful links:
The New Scientist's "guide for the perplexed" (highly recommended): http://environment.newscientist.com/.../earth/dn11462
The Royal Society's "facts and fictions about climate change": http://royalsociety.org/page.asp?id=4761
The official guide produced by the US National Academy of Sciences: http://dels.nas.edu/dels/rpt_briefs/...2008_final.pdf
Plus the official statement from the American Association for the Advancement of Science: http://www.aaas.org/news/press_room/..._statement.pdf
It's always a good idea to quote US sources when arguing with climate change sceptics, since in my experience most of them are American and believe that climate change is a giant international conspiracy set up to attack the American Way of Life
Anthony G Williams
Home page
*tips hat* thanks gents
This trailer from the documentary "The Great Global Warming Swindle" is valuable to understand the scientific basis for rejecting the theory that CO2 produced by human activity and climate change are connected.Originally Posted by dorisbonkers
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sVLBn...layer_embedded
Don't tase me, Bro!
How did I guess SIS would be a denier? People with wacky ideas seem to collect a complete set.
Be skeptical of the things you believe are false, but be very skeptical of the things you believe are true.
You made a typo, but I've corrected it for you.
Anthony G Williams
Home page
Stop censoring my words - I said "scientific" because that is precisely the basis on which these scientists reject the theory that human activity/CO2 production is causing global warming.You made a typo, but I've corrected it for you.
Have you even bothered to listen to what these scientists are saying in the video?
Don't tase me, Bro!
Why waste my time on the lunatic fringe? There's a Wiki summary here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Gre...arming_Swindle
In other words, the programme didn't mislead anyone because everyone interested would have realised that it was a load of BS anyway...Although the documentary was welcomed by global warming sceptics, it was criticised heavily by many scientific organisations and individual scientists (including two of the film's contributors[7][8]). The film's critics argued that it had misused and fabricated data, relied on out-of-date research, employed misleading arguments, and misrepresented the position of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.[9][10][11][12] Channel 4 and Wag TV (the production company) accepted some of the criticism, correcting a few errors in subsequent releases.[13] However according to Bob Ward (former spokesman for the Royal Society), this still left five out of seven of the errors and misleading arguments which had been previously attacked by him and 36 other scientists in an open letter.[11]
The British broadcasting regulator, the Office of Communications (Ofcom), received 265 complaints about the programme, one of which was a 176-page detailed complaint co-authored by a group of scientists.[14][15] Ofcom used this complaint in its deliberation,[2] and delivered its ruling on 21 July 2008. It ruled that the programme had unfairly treated Sir David King, the IPCC and Professor Carl Wunsch. Ofcom also found that part 5 of the programme (the 'political' part) had breached several parts of the Broadcasting Code regarding impartiality. Ofcom said that the rules on impartiality did not apply to the scientific arguments in parts 1-4, because global warming caused by human activity was a settled fact: "In this respect it could be said that the discussion about the causes of global warming was to a very great extent settled by the date of broadcast ( 8 March 2007 ). [...] In Ofcom’s view the link between human activity and global warming also became similarly settled before March 2007. [...] Having reached this view, it follows that the rules relating to the preservation of due impartiality did not apply to these parts."[2].
Anthony G Williams
Home page
I have. I remain unconvinced by it and by any other argument whether for or against human driven global warming. I am simply unable to evaluate the different pieces of evidence to make up my mind one way or the other. Is anyone who says 100% that they are convinced about this really a skeptic?
The issue is never about 100%. it is about the balance of probability. Given the actions that must be taken now if it is agreed that there is a high probability of a substantial human contribution to global warming (or any other irrevocable destructive effects on the earth) then it is unhelpful to provide 'democracies' with excuses for inaction.
It is ironic to see SiP and big global corporations on the same side of an argument for continued exploitation!
The art of medicine consists in amusing the patient while nature cures the disease. Voltaire
I am 100% convinced that the overwhelming majority of climate scientists believe that global warming is happening and that human activities are making the major contribution to this. Like you, I am not a climate scientist and cannot run my own models to test their work, but given the vast amount of work going on in this field, the degree of unanimity is astonishing.
It is always possible that they are wrong, but it is also possible that I could win the National Lottery if I were to buy a ticket.
Anthony G Williams
Home page
One thing that struck me as ironic in the video was that it kept stressing how much money was to be made out of global warming as if that was one motive for promoting it.
Re: Climate change resources
I have and much more. I suggest that you do as well.
It is also about consistency. Isn't it strange that those claiming to be sceptical of anthropogenic global warming fail to apply the same level of scepticism to other fields of science.
The climate models are chaotic therefore not to be trusted. Well, classical rigid body mechanics is also chaotic. No one can reliably predict the exact position and velocities of the parts that make up this double pendulum 10 seconds from time of release. If you cannot trust chaotic climate models, then perhaps you should not trust anything humans have engineered with three or more moving parts. (Cars, buildings, etc.)
Climate scientists get paid to do research so their conclusions cannot be trusted. A lot of medicines are a result of research done by people paid a salary. Don't trust modern medicine?
The AGW result has a degree of uncertainty so best not invest any resources until they are rock solid certain. However, when faced with uncertainty about a potentially damaging outcome, we tend to hedge our bets by buying insurance. When we are uncertain as to what sicknesses we face in the future we buy health insurance. When we don't know exactly how long we'll live in order to properly ration our savings, we buy an annuity. When bankers cannot face up to bonds defaulting they buy a credit default swap. For AGW we don't seem to be buying anything as insurance.
That is the strategy the denialists have adopted towards Al Gore and his Carbon Credit Trading Company as their scientific arguments have all failed.
Last edited by wagdog; 20th August 2009 at 12:03 PM.
The IPCC does appear to have dug a hole for itself. The emails were a bit of a side issue, but incorporating unvalidated data is high handed - they will now have to work much harder at insisting on independent validation before including any data in their final models.
The IPCC author who planted that false Himalayan meltdown said the other day “we” did it because “we thought ... it will impact policy makers and politicians and encourage them to take some concrete action.”
The art of medicine consists in amusing the patient while nature cures the disease. Voltaire
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks