Comments | drbunsen: "... it's an essentially political debate, not a scientific one."

drbunsen

"... it's an essentially political debate, not a scientific one."

Jun 06, 2006 08:04

The time has come for bold, sweeping statements, like "right", "wrong, "true", and "satanic horseshit"

"... there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change. Climate scientists have repeatedly tried to make this clear. It is time for the rest of us to listen."

"... First, the consensus of the scientific community has ( Read more... )

energy, rant, economics, aus, greenhouse, fail, bullshit, wtf, politics, green, sci

Comments 30

It aint over till the fat leady sings anonymous July 8 2006, 14:54:07 UTC

Hi Clae ( ... )

Re: It aint over till the fat leady sings drbunsen July 9 2006, 05:01:14 UTC

Have you read many of the links off those pages?

don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows anonymous July 9 2006, 16:22:12 UTC

Nah, not really interested in people talking about the weather ;-)

Re: don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows drbunsen July 9 2006, 21:22:28 UTC

Then why did you bother posting it? Is the fact that it has a whole load of links in it (that you havent read) supposed to prove something?

And dude, this is not "talking about the weather". Don't be an ass.

Thread 5

drbunsen July 11 2006, 15:39:54 UTC

Of course it isn't. I've been reading further since I posted this and since we last spoke. I have followed up some of the links you posted, as well as checking out the more recent history of the topic and the names and backgrounds of the people invloved. I can't as yet claim to have done so in any complete and thorough way, but so far it seems that those links relate to outdated data, debunked argument, and/or persons with close financial ties to fuel and coal industry front groups ( ... )

it is indeed an essentially political debate drbunsen July 12 2006, 00:48:27 UTC

I am taking your advice to read the Wikipedia pages, as that is usually good advice, but as stated clearly and explicitly already I am not looking for a meaningful discussion on this topic but merely pointing you towards information that you might find interesting.

I happen to basically agree with each of these points in your initial post:

"... there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change. Climate scientists have repeatedly tried to make this clear. It is time for the rest of us to listen."

"... First, the consensus of the scientific community has shifted from skepticism to near-unanimous acceptance of the evidence of an artificial greenhouse effect. Second, while artificial climate change may have some beneficial effects, the odds are we're not going to like it. Third, reducing emissions of greenhouse gases may turn out to be much more practical and affordable than currently assumed.What I (flippantly and derisively) dismiss is your conclusion "Case Closed ( ... )

Re: it is indeed an essentially political debate drbunsen July 13 2006, 16:24:06 UTC

What I (flippantly and derisively) dismiss is your conclusion "Case Closed".

That was the title of the article off that link, not my words.

your misconception that an (authoritative) description of the consensus view on scientific issues is an argument for demanding an end to debate on EITHER those issues or the public policy issues that relate to them

This is not my argument.

is a sad reflection on the EXTREME conservative dogmatism that results from widespread ignorance of the basic fundamentals of both science, politics and debate itself.

I've asked you before not to make me a spokesperson for any group or demographic you feel like opposing or critiquing. I don't answer for anyone else, and I am far more wary of self-congratulary groupthink than you give me credit for. Indeed, that is one of the reasons I have thus far avoided being active on lastsuperpower.

drbunsen July 12 2006, 18:58:12 UTC

For those playing at home ... there's been discussion, which may be blogged here at a later date, or as a new entry.

To sum up though, we agree that AGW is a reality, we were to some extent talking at cross purposes, and we are now at the "(Why) Does it constitute an emergency?" stage. The one that comes after that is the "What do we do about it? stage, which I agree we're not up to yet for the purposes of this thread.

Meanwhile, I'd like to link for Mr Gently's benefit a few specific threads from the "how to talk to a GW skeptic" site, which hopefully are more interesting to you.

Action on Global Warming is suicide
The Kyoto Treaty will achieve little and cost too much
Modelling chaotic systems is inherently futile
The level of uncertainty in the models is ignored
Position statements hide debate

Action on Global Warming is suicide drbunsen July 13 2006, 02:57:34 UTC

I read carefully through the link with this (blatantly silly) title ( ... )

drbunsen July 12 2006, 19:24:26 UTC

A warmer climate sounds like a good thing (or not such a bad thing)
What about the "New Ice Age" scare of the 70s? This is just more of the same

... projected to increase by 1.4 to 5.8°C over the period 1990 to 2100. These results are for the full range of 35 SRES scenarios, based on a number of climate models. ... most likely value is 2.9oC with a 95% probability of falling between 1.7oC and 4.9oC. ...

... The rate* at which the global temperature is rising today is very likely unique in the history of our species. It is also very rare in geological history ... once you look at the impact similar changes had on biodiversity at the time, the existence of some historical precedent or another becomes anything but reassuring. ... such dramatic changes ... are a tremendous shock to the biosphere and cause mass extinction events. And that, all in all, is not likely to be a good thing.

*my emphasis

debate aint over drbunsen July 19 2006, 06:15:09 UTC

Just to confirm that the debate not only aint over but is hotting up on the extent and urgency of climate change here is an opinion piece from "The Australian" today (Wednesday 2006-07-19) by economics editor Alan Wood Debate on climate change far from over(Note that he is discussing climate change rather than economics ( ... )

drbunsen July 12 2006, 19:43:27 UTC

The figures quoted above are from the IPCC report.

While I agree that there is debate about the extent of change, even the lower figure represents a shift equivalent to that which triggered the current interglacial, ie large enough to shift the chaord from one steady state to the next.

There is a significant and growing body of opinion that the IPCC report may have dramatically underestimated the extent of change, which, if you are interested - and it does touch on the "why does this constitute an emergency?" discussion - you can find under "Meanwhile, file this one under 'We are so f___ed'" near the top of this thread.

Nation is so predictable it is not a dynamic system at all drbunsen July 13 2006, 04:22:38 UTC

I did read the Nation article "Melting Away". Of course it can be filed under "We are so fucked". Pick a topic, any topic. If there is an article about it in Nation the chances of it not having that theme are quite small. That is what that journal is ABOUT. There is no dynamism to it at all, let alone the sort of non-linear dynamics that are capable of throwing up anything new and unpredictable ( ... )

Re: Nation is so predictable it is not a dynamic system at all drbunsen July 13 2006, 16:45:59 UTC

Enough with the "people like you" stuff ( ... )

Re: Nation is so predictable it is not a dynamic system at all drbunsen July 14 2006, 14:03:29 UTC

Yes, I'm willing to engage.

Yes, I won't treat you as spokesperson for anybody and will avoid causing further offence.

No, I can't respond to your recent posts without seriously sarcastic flaming and am therefore waiting at least my standard 24 hours before doing so (assisted in this resolve by both computer freezes and other priorities).

Mixing verbal and written discussions may be part of our "failure to communicate" but I'd like to go through your posts with you before replying in writing if possible to clarify what I see as either absurdities, misunderstandings or both.

Will be in your neighbourhood Saturday pm/Sunday (today/tomorrow) and will phone to see if you have a time available for chat.

Thread 6