Am I still allowed to question climate change?

[Lockjaw]

Jack having looked at the video a few times I think it is possible to see the crack that the plane flew down it is above the centre of the shot and part of the main ice sheet not unlike the shape of the baja peninsula but note that the overall shape is curved

 

Hi again Banzai.

 

I've looked again and can't see what you're getting at. At 8 seconds and 12 seconds are perfect right angles which, in my understanding are very rare in nature.

 

Having said that, it's a great pleasure to be taking part in a genuinely skeptical discussion rather than responding to an endless stream of quasi-religious zealotry.

 

Cheers!

[Wildcat]

Sorry old chum, but you still don't get it. It wasn't about experts or non-experts; it wasn't about charlatans or non-charlatans. It was pointing out that, to a "non believer" the postulation that:

 

"Look at it this way, report after report has shown that it is much cheaper to act on the issue and it turn out to be a duff, than to not act on the issue and it turn out to be real"

 

was as effective as the threat from the lucky heather salesperson. Your inability to empathise with opposing points of view prevents you from understanding this.

 

It seems to me that the key argument in the statement is a legitimate appeal to authority. The fact that the sceptics discount what the majority of experts say, does not detract from the validity and power of the argument. It may well be that it will fall on deaf ears, but then I am not sure how it is possible to convince someone that thinks they know better than experts, especially not when the level of sceptical debate extends not much further than highlighting minor errors and posting links to sceptical articles. Articles that have so far all been refuted fairly simply, with little more investigation required than a few minutes. The Times article for example from a couple of pages ago, I noticed about 4 glaring errors and obvious selective quoting and misleading placement of context on my first read of it.

 

I am not sure how empathising with someone with their head firmly stuck in the sand would be effective or even what form such an argument would take. It is not like the debate has even got to the point of discussing impacts in any detail, which is where the real debate lies. It seems to me that where empathy is lacking is on the side of the denialists, that don't seem to care or want to know about the impact that their lifestyles and the pollution caused to support it is having on people less fortunate elsewhere in the world. People like the half a million Bhola Islanders flooded out from their homes because of rising sea levels. These people are the tip of an impending iceberg of environmental refugees. It is not like I am saying anything particularly radical, or that we should accept full responsibilty for what is happening, just that we should listen to the scientists and make a judgment on what we reasonably can do to mitigate suffering, if we don't then long term we are going to be creating avoidable long term political and environmental problems that we will come to regret.

 

Some more on the impact of global warming on Bangladesh:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/26/AR2007092602582.html

Edited January 28, 2010 by Wildcat

[retep]

It seems to me that the key argument in the statement is a legitimate appeal to authority. The fact that the sceptics discount what the majority of experts say, does not detract from the validity and power of the argument. It may well be that it will fall on deaf ears, but then I am not sure how it is possible to convince someone that thinks they know better than experts, especially not when the level of sceptical debate extends not much further than highlighting minor errors and posting links to sceptical articles. Articles that have so far all been refuted fairly simply, with little more investigation required than a few minutes. The Times article for example from a couple of pages ago, I noticed about 4 glaring errors and obvious selective quoting and misleading placement of context on my first read of it.

 

I am not sure how empathising with someone with their head firmly stuck in the sand would be effective or even what form such an argument would take. It is not like the debate has even got to the point of discussing impacts in any detail, which is where the real debate lies. It seems to me that where empathy is lacking is on the side of the denialists, that don't seem to care or want to know about the impact that their lifestyles and the pollution caused to support it is having on people less fortunate elsewhere in the world. People like the half a million Bhola Islanders flooded out from their homes because of rising sea levels. These people are the tip of an impending iceberg of environmental refugees. It is not like I am saying anything particularly radical, or that we should accept full responsibilty for what is happening, just that we should listen to the scientists and make a judgment on what we reasonably can do to mitigate suffering, if we don't then long term we are going to be creating avoidable long term political and environmental problems that we will come to regret.

 

Some more on the impact of global warming on Bangladesh:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/26/AR2007092602582.html

 

According to the sea level chart on your favourite Wiki the sea has risen a full 20cm in the last century, to put this in context, if you were stood on a dry beach for the past century the sea would be just covering your boots, this of course providing we believe the chart in the first place.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_sea_level_rise

[Wildcat]

According to the sea level chart on your favourite Wiki the sea has risen a full 20cm in the last century, to put this in context, if you were stood on a dry beach for the past century the sea would be just covering your boots, this of course providing we believe the chart in the first place.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_sea_level_rise

 

And accelerating because of climate change.

 

Would you be happy having to put your wellies on to get out of bed?

[convert]

Looks like the MSM are getting their teeth into the CRU again

 

Scientists in stolen e-mail scandal hid climate data

 

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7004936.ece

[retep]

And accelerating because of climate change.

 

Would you be happy having to put your wellies on to get out of bed?

 

I never take them off, just in case:rolleyes:

[truman]

No one apart from you has ever claimed the science is settled.

 

l.

 

Errrr

 

"...'We are not going to take the easy way out. It would be profoundly irresponsible thing to do. The science is clear and settled and we will push on, as will other countries, to get an agreement that is consistent with the science....'

 

my bold...Ed Milliband at Copenhagen

 

http://centralcontent.fco.gov.uk/central-content/campaigns/act-on-copenhagen/central-content-website/010-ambition/achievements/december/ed-miliband-world-is-watching

 

And he's not the only one....

[Stormy]

I also seem to remember Gordon Brown calling non-belivers "flat earthers"

 

Looks like Andrew Niel at the BBC is wading in on the fun now on his daily politics blog

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/dailypolitics/andrewneil/

Finally its good to see someone at the BBC reporting properly. The start of things to come?

[Lockjaw]

The sceptics may be about to get their first scalp. Rajendra Pachauri, the IPCC chairman often wrongly described in the media as the world's leading climate scientist (he's actually a railway engineer), at first attacked those who questioned the IPCC's alarming glacier prediction as "arrogant" and believers in "voodoo science".

He's since had to retract the prediction but can't quite manage an apology -- and is now under mounting pressure in his Indian homeland to resign.

 

Do we know if this quote is correctly attributed? That is, was he referring specifically to questioners of the glacier prediction?

 

Wildcat ... you tend to have thoroughly researched such things ... do you know?

[truman]

Do we know if this quote is correctly attributed? That is, was he referring specifically to questioners of the glacier prediction?

 

Wildcat ... you tend to have thoroughly researched such things ... do you know?

 

I think he was referring to an Indian government report which was criticising him.

 

http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/health/pachauri-calls-indian-govt-report-on-melting-himalayan-glaciers-as-voodoo-science_100301232.html