Climate Change

[fred]

There have been three pieces of news relating to climate change recently.

The first is the release of the report (http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/phil%20jones%20house%20of%20commons%20report.pdf) from the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee into the Climategate scandal, the publishing of hacked emails from the University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit. The committee found there was no case to answer, the much publicised claims that words like "trick" and "hide the decline" proved a cover up were false, the words had been taken out of context. They found that the unit's methods followed normal scientific practice and their results had been independently verified.

The second is a piece in the Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/mar/30/us-oil-donated-millions-climate-sceptics) on Tuesday about a little known oil company Koch Industries, owned by the ninth richest men in America and nineteenth in the world, which has been providing a lot of the finance for the groups which are opposing the global warming theory.

The third is the report last week from the World Meteorological Organisation that the decade from 2000 to 2009 was the warmest on record. This corroborates the report by NASA who had already published their findings.

[bekisman]

And another - a chap to take notice of:

The boffin who came up with the idea that the Earth was a living being has said it is too late to save the planet so you might as well just enjoy yourself. Professor James Lovelock, who developed Gaia theory, said the only thing that anyone can hope for is that the earth will take care of itself in the face of completely unpredictable climate change. He does not think that renewable energy technology was based on “good practical engineering" either.


http://www.techeye.net/science/gaia-bloke-says-it-is-too-late-to-save-the-planet

[George Brims]

Bringing this one back to the fore again, since no-one else has taken any notice:

http://www.newsweek.com/blogs/the-gaggle/2010/06/25/newspapers-retract-climategate-claims-but-damage-still-done.html

[ywindythesecond]

There have been three pieces of news relating to climate change recently.

The first is the release of the report (http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/phil%20jones%20house%20of%20commons%20report.pdf) from the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee into the Climategate scandal, the publishing of hacked emails from the University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit. The committee found there was no case to answer, the much publicised claims that words like "trick" and "hide the decline" proved a cover up were false, the words had been taken out of context. They found that the unit's methods followed normal scientific practice and their results had been independently verified.

.

You need to look at the terms of reference and the time and effort put into the Science and Technology Committee report. Announced 22nd January, all evidence in by 10th February, published 31st March. Conducted by non-scientific MPs in a hurry to report before Parliament was dissolved for an election. And they didn't investigate climate change.

[Neil Howie]

Yup James Lovelock, bit of a maverick even for me..!

I don't share his pessimism that it's too late, but the next 20 years will be crucial.

[Rheghead]

Bringing this one back to the fore again, since no-one else has taken any notice:

http://www.newsweek.com/blogs/the-gaggle/2010/06/25/newspapers-retract-climategate-claims-but-damage-still-done.html

Thanks for that George, interesting reading. It looks like the truth has caught up with the lies.

[Neil Howie]

Oh yeah, and while I'm here.... (pulls pin and throws)...


Scientific Expertise Lacking Among 'Doubters' of Climate Change, Says New Analysis




ScienceDaily (June 27, 2010) — The small number of scientists who are unconvinced that human beings have contributed significantly to climate change have far less expertise and prominence in climate research compared with scientists who are convinced, according to a study led by Stanford researchers.


link (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/06/100625185428.htm)

[Rheghead]

Oh yeah, and while I'm here.... (pulls pin and throws)...


Scientific Expertise Lacking Among 'Doubters' of Climate Change, Says New Analysis






link (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/06/100625185428.htm)

I think where the trouble lies is how we understand how debates are carried out. 99% of people are very much used to hearing political/arguementative debates, they have a style all of their own.

But Climate Change, in itself is a scientific debate but how we tackle it it is a largely a political debate. But the detractors of Climate Change itself are using political debating techniques to denounce the science of Climate Change and because most us relate to that method then it can be very convincing.

[onecalledk]

And another - a chap to take notice of:

The boffin who came up with the idea that the Earth was a living being has said it is too late to save the planet so you might as well just enjoy yourself. Professor James Lovelock, who developed Gaia theory, said the only thing that anyone can hope for is that the earth will take care of itself in the face of completely unpredictable climate change. He does not think that renewable energy technology was based on “good practical engineering" either.


http://www.techeye.net/science/gaia-bloke-says-it-is-too-late-to-save-the-planet

I would completely disagree that it is too late to save the earth but would completely agree that the earth is a living being.....

The planet is changing and we would do well to adapt and consider the changes that are happening and about to happen rather than just trudge on the way we have the last few hundred years.

Perhaps the key to reversing climate change is to actually agree a change is happening ? If not we run the risk of arguing about whether climate change is real or not whilst the planet continues its struggle to breathe......

K