tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6382255864661846735.post1269970554588388804..comments2024-02-24T08:45:36.112+00:00Comments on TheFatBigot Opines: A wise old sayingTheFatBigothttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17255526385076528633noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6382255864661846735.post-915461600621279602008-07-27T06:26:00.000+01:002008-07-27T06:26:00.000+01:00Thank you Mr Ziz. I wasn't aware good sense had s...Thank you Mr Ziz. I wasn't aware good sense had started to prevail and that this question was being addressed. It makes one wonder why it was thought sensible to commit £100 billion for windfarms a few weeks ago when the new committee must already have been planned. <BR/><BR/>As to your observations about the uncertainty of the science, one reason I opine on this subject is that I have looked into much of it myself. I am no scientist but I know nonsense when I hear it and I know that a chain is only as strong as its weakest link. <BR/><BR/>We see massive areas of (apparently) genuine scientific dispute whether we look at: <BR/>- temperature measurements (urban heat effect, accuracy of satellite readings, accuracy of adjustments of old data, range of data points and more)<BR/>- CO2 measurements (reliability of ice core data, relevance and accuracy of historic physical measurements, effect of oceans out-gassing and absorbing, effect of population growth regardless of industrialisation and more)<BR/>- the sun (correlation v causation of sunspot activity, effect of increased solar activity on clouds, effect of water vapour compared to CO2, effect of solar activity on oceans and more)<BR/>- the oceans (ability to absorb man made CO2, cause and effect of oscillations, cause and effect of acidity, cause and effect of marine plantlife and more)<BR/>- longevity of CO2 in the atmosphere (is it 5 years, 12 years, 20, 100, 200, 500; what causes it to disappear over time, is longevity always the same and more) <BR/>- effect of CO2 in the atmosphere (logarithmic v linear, comparison to water vapour, why no frying when levels high in the past, why no increase in temperatures 1940ish-1960ish, why no increase in temperature since 1998 and more) <BR/>- what effect will reduction in human CO2 emissions have? <BR/><BR/>Then there are the disputes about the IPCC models with their built-in positive feedbacks for CO2, absence of positive feedbacks for other factors and weightings in favour of data which support the IPCC's desired conclusion. <BR/><BR/>All of that comes before the most important question: is the cost of reducing emissions in proportion to the resulting benefit? The reason the science comes first is, of course, that it is necessary to prove a benefit from reducing emissions before we need give one second of thought to doing so. <BR/><BR/>Let's hope the new committee will approach the issues objectively. Support for the IPCC position does not necessarily mean the committee has failed, but it will have failed if it examines the evidence with a presumption that the IPCC is correct. It must start with a blank canvass.TheFatBigothttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17255526385076528633noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6382255864661846735.post-62685737199263213572008-07-26T11:50:00.000+01:002008-07-26T11:50:00.000+01:00If you go to DeFRAhttp://tinyurl.com/6qgtajand loo...If you go to DeFRA<BR/>http://tinyurl.com/6qgtaj<BR/>and look at the pafe on the formationof the Climate Change Committee.<BR/><BR/>Formed and running in advance of the legisaltion to set it up. You will find a link to a very interesting document.PDF <BR/>http://tinyurl.com/6dkwcn<BR/><BR/>Committee on Climate Change<BR/>Workplan May 2008<BR/><BR/>This 28 page document in theory outlines what you raise- a need to examine the evidence and make recommendations . The Committee is of course stacked.<BR/><BR/>Sir Brian Hoskins and Lord Robert May, Professor Jim Skea and economists Dr Sam Fankhauser and Professor Michael Grubb will make up the new Committee, headed by the newly-appointed Chair designate Lord Adair Turner.<BR/><BR/>This week they addedd professor King a lady from Birmiongham who has been bangin g on abourt global warming for a long time.<BR/><BR/>YOu need to read it but a Para on Page 4 is worth listing here ..<BR/><BR/>"Understand the key uncertainties in climate science, and in particular the complexity of potential feedback loops, amplifying and dampening mechanisms, and uncertainties about their power."<BR/><BR/>This is under the sub heading <BR/><BR/>Scientific estimates of likely future temperature effects. The key measures we will focus on are probability estimates of how likely different levels of GHG concentration (e.g. 450, 500, 550) are to produce global average temperature increases of more than 2° centigrade, 3° centigrade, 4° centigrade etc. To understand the range and the uncertainty of these distributions we will:<BR/><BR/>Now if you want to understand the key uncertainties in climate science you will need a very long time because there is no single unifying concept.<BR/><BR/>It is rather like the old saw, 4 ecomomist will give you 7 opinions why ...<BR/><BR/>I have spent a lot of time trying to unravel the science base and find it gets rather like mediaeval bishops arguing how many seraphims will fit neatly on a pin head.<BR/><BR/>e.g The tropical troposphere has not heated up as expected by all models.<BR/><BR/>Data must be wrong.<BR/><BR/>Ah! the records arw rong because the temperature sensor on the satellite is fooled by darkness .... No. No. the temperature sensors are OK. ... well we haven't taken account of the recession correctly. (All satellites fall prey to Mr Newton's gravity and fall down to earth so their path varies over time) etec,., etc.,<BR/><BR/>This post gives a small flavour<BR/>http://tinyurl.com/68grmr<BR/>"Friday, August 12, 2005<BR/>Hot Air ALERT..Climate Mongerers at Work "<BR/><BR/>"Research led by the Met Office's Hadley Centre makes the entirely unsurprising conclusion, that; choices made by each research group in constructing climate datasets can have a significant impact. Initially satellite and balloon-based systems used were designed to provide the best possible snapshot of the global weather at any time, rather than to long term monitoring. The new research shows clearly that the choices made in homogenising the data have a particularly strong effect on estimates of climate change – or in simpler terms, if you use different methods…you obtain different results."<BR/><BR/>Search the site at the link "satellite+temperature" <BR/><BR/>I declare my interest to being a sceptical scientist. The climate is changing , it has done frequently, anthropogenic effects are negligible and local.zizhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15249645812407323273noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6382255864661846735.post-43208976424308168052008-07-23T20:44:00.000+01:002008-07-23T20:44:00.000+01:00Greetings Mr NeilHow nice of you to call me David....Greetings Mr Neil<BR/><BR/>How nice of you to call me David. It's such a nice name. Not my name, but a nice name nonetheless. <BR/><BR/>I agree that the points you make are important. Much of the presentation of the AGW theory on television and in the press is affected by editorial decisions that the theory is correct, there has certainly been a BBC edict to that effect. No doubt such decisions are a direct result of the doommongers getting in first and it is hardly surprising that many people accept a proposition when everything they see and read tells them it is correct. <BR/><BR/>Interestingly, a recent opinion poll found that a majority of those questioned did not accept the doommongers case in its entirety despite only one side of the debate receiving regular coverage. <BR/><BR/>The first and third of your points are essentially presentational. Because the alarmists have the ear of the broadcasters they determine how the debate is conducted. This will probably remain the case until editorial positions are changed. It might happen, it might not, time will tell; but the more extreme the presentation by the alarmists the less likely any reputable broadcaster is to continue supporting them. In this respect Dr Hansen's call for oil executives to be charged with crimes against humanity might prove significant. His approach cannot withstand rational scrutiny and, frankly, makes him sound obsessional and perhaps even unhinged. The more such outbursts we hear, the more likely the mainstream broadcasters are to look on him and his merry men in a less favourable way. <BR/><BR/>The precautionary principle raises a slightly different issue (albeit that there is some overlap). The more painful the remedy, the less likely people are to be prepared to accept it even if they are convinced by the scientific evidence. <BR/><BR/>By analogy, we might be prepared to pay money to a homelessness charity, but ask us to take a homeless person into our homes to live and we say "I'm not prepared to do that". No matter that it would solve the problem of homelessness at a stroke, it is not a price worth paying to solve the problem. <BR/><BR/>There has been a good example of this recently in the reaction to the government's announcement of a plan to spend £100billion on windfarms. Our taxes go up and up, prices are rising, wages are kept down, the government tells us money is tight and then says it wants to spend £100billion, a sum equivalent to one sixth of its total annual tax revenues. People asked whether it is worthwhile and this had a knock-on effect by raising questions about not only the effectiveness of the cure but also the strength of evidence in support of the alleged problem. <BR/><BR/>I do not pretend to understand the science except in the very broadest terms. But I do know that the AGW theory strikes me as fanciful and the cost of doing what the alarmists say we must do to "solve" the problem is a price people will not be prepared to pay. The precautionary principle is all very well but it necessarily involves a balance between the weight we give the problem and the weight we give the cost of the solution. <BR/><BR/>In my view the precautionary principle does not shift the burden of proof because, by definition, it requires the problem to be defined with precision; and the more precisely it is defined the better we can see the pain the solution would cause. <BR/><BR/>FatBigot.TheFatBigothttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17255526385076528633noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6382255864661846735.post-68733201090210312732008-07-23T10:56:00.000+01:002008-07-23T10:56:00.000+01:00Dear David,Nice post. At last someone (other than ...Dear David,<BR/><BR/>Nice post. At last someone (other than me of course) is asking the No. 1 key question in this debate - which side bears the burden of proof?<BR/><BR/>If I can suggest three further key questions:<BR/><BR/>(1) Are we actually in the jury box as you say, or are we in the dock?<BR/><BR/>(2) Is the use of the precautionary principle in the arguments of one side, with the implied attempt to shift the burden of proof, valid or not?<BR/><BR/>(3) How well has each side in the debate allowed the other side the opportunity to present its case?<BR/><BR/>Cheers,<BR/>NeilAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com