Re: Copenhagen to make Mick Ayers new Climate Tsar

In article <hffnop$djk$1@xxxxxxxx>,
Duncan Heenan <duncanheenan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


"bobjanes" <bobjanes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:ffab7bd2-34d2-41a9-9d8f-28b137a59ddf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
snip<

So in whom do we trust? Politicians led by a Prime Minister who
fiddled his expenses whilst presiding over and protecting a bunch of
crooked moat-cleaners and duck-house buyers? Or the scientists only
too willing to provide the data that the crooks need? And they do like
the pretence of independent verification. Whether it's the war in
Iraq, Afghanistan, the general was on "terror", or global warming.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

I too am sceptical of all politicians, but you need to ask what would be the
motives for so many people to 'make up'' Global warming. Why would they lie
about it? No one gains from it (except a few carbon traders and
advertisers). I can see why politicians lie about their expenses and the
reasons for invading an oil rich country, but Global Warming? Also nearly
all elected politicians are 'lying' in the same direction, if they are
lying, which I think is unlikely.
We need to look at the facts on this one and keep the emotiions in check.

Agreed.

We really do "need to look at the facts on this one and keep the emotiions
in check" on this. However, there are two main problems with that AISI:
1. Most of us would not be able to reliably interpret the raw data.
2. It seems that significant amounts of the raw data are either "private"
ie cannot be revealed without betraying the confidences of other countries
who have given it to scientists such as the UK Met Office, or (or even
"and") missing or overwritten by the statistical methods used to analyse
it.

As a result, we punters are dependent on expert opinion to tell us what is
happening. There are plenty of experts on both sides of the
"man-made-warming" issue. I note a statement by a meteorologist, now
retired from NASA, who is quoted as saying:
"Now that I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receive any
funding, I can speak quite frankly.".
I am speaking of Dr. Joanne Simpson
www.desmogblog.com/joanne-simpson-jo
and click on "recent letter".
She talks of the fact that the predictions are heavily based on computer
models with their inherent faults and, in particular, speaks of the
mistrust of people on both sides of the argument resulting in their
"hurling personal epithets at each other". However, she expresses the view
that in the absence of complete information we should reduce carbon
emissions just in case the climate models <are> correct.

What are we punters to believe? We cannot get the facts and most of us do
not have the expertise to fully understand them of we could. Scientific
experts are split and there is reason to believe that we are not being
given a balanced summary of the position due to entrenched interests. Do we
go along with the view expressed by Dr Simpson and many others that we'd
better cut carbon emissions just in case the predictions are right
<regardless of whatever social/political/personal consequences that gives>?

My personal opinion? That we, as a species, particularly the "developed
world" are irresponsibly wasting the resources of the spaceship we are
dependent on and recklessly polluting it to such an extent that there is
serious doubt that it will be available for our descendents ( the earth
will continue to exist if we don't blow it apart, and we don't seem to be
heading for Dr Strangelove ATM, but it may not support human life). That is
an entirely sufficient reason for changing our ways - we don't need "global
warming" or "climate change" or whatever they will be calling it next. If
we want a planet for our children, and I imagine those of you who have
children <do> want that, then that is enough reason for changing the way we
do things. And if we look at it coolly instead of with this "last minute"
approach we may actually achieve a better way of living without actually
causing too much misery in the process. We will need to change the way
things are financed at the very least. However, it is possible that this
"backs against the wall" is the only way nations can be made to work
together.

Anyway, if food gets scarce world human population will be drastically
reduced by both starvation (which may happen as a byproduct of the
Copenhagen decisions) and the resulting violence so the problem may solve
itself without completely eliminating the human species although I doubt
that's the way most of us would like to see it go.

I wonder how many of the participants at Copenhagen travelled by air and
with how large an entourage.

Cheers
Jane

--

Peter & Jane : Totnes : South Devon

Please do not reply by mail.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Globaloney elsewhere
    ... any way similar to the present scientific standing for global warming is ... "science" is politically motivated junk science IMO and I refuse to ... Another poor game of the whipped by the facts crowd is to try to play ... we invoke the aid of the scientists and Al Gore instead. ...
    (soc.men)
  • Re: OT: Re: Global warming meltdown
    ... My problem is that you don't seem to me to be expressing skepticism. ... when all the facts are considered. ... variable results of climate change as evidence against global warming - ... the way science works and the way scientists conduct themselves. ...
    (rec.arts.theatre.musicals)
  • Re: OT: Re: Global warming meltdown
    ... when all the facts are considered. ... variable results of climate change as evidence against global warming - ... the way science works and the way scientists conduct themselves. ... how it fits in global warming theory in a limited but very useful way. ...
    (rec.arts.theatre.musicals)
  • Re: Relevant for anti-relativists
    ... "Some debates are so entwined with people's...identity that one might ... proves they are impervious to reason. ... When scientific facts ... Real scientists don't think like that. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Global Warming
    ... I did what I did for a reason. ... The reason is that the truth needs to ... HAS CONCLUDED THAT GLOBAL WARMING IS REAL AND CAUSED BY US....HUMANS. ... facts of climate change. ...
    (alt.politics)