Back to the discussion on whether climate warming is for real, the effect it may have on our future and what we might be able to do about it.
I notice that 2020 hindsight has simply referred readers to his previous explanations and the New Scientist which addresses the global warming myths. In theory New Scientists represents some of the best analysis of current scientific knowledge but I would be interested to hear Wayne et als views on their authenticity.( But we now know the New Scientist just disseminates "junk science". That is a real laugh.)
But the discussion on this forum and across the world has not been about the science. I suppose it couldn't be because on any objective measure the overwhelming majority of scientists who study climate related issues agree that climate change is real and caused by us.
The argument has become one of cherry picking of evidence, attacks on the presenters, appeals to false logic and the introduction of red herrings. The whole intention has been
not to win the argument (because the overwhelming evidence to the contrary quickly kills that possibility) but to create sufficient misunderstanding, fear and confusion
to ensure no action is taken that might harm the interest of those who would be affected by tackling the problem.
A few posts back I brought up the comparison between the disgraceful campaigns run by the tobacco industry to protect their profits and the campaigns against global warming, again to protect the interests of fossil fuel companies. Both very clever, very effective campaigns. And not by accident, orchestrated by many of the same players.
Wayne response was to simply attack George Monbiot as a lefty radical. The evidence is documented and available for public viewing. But it is easier and quicker to dismiss uncomfortable truths by just attacking the person rather than examining the facts.
Another troubling attack is labeling "global warmers" as "god botherers" "a new global warming religion" and so on. Another neat, nasty, trick.
This ad hominem attack is saying that all the science behind understanding our climate and in particular the effect on the planet is just some blind religious zealotry. In effect those people who argue there is something to be worried about are the equivalent of your sunday morning Seventh Day Adventists (and apologies to those people). Again nothing to do with the science just attack the person.
It gets even better (or worse) when the role of traditional religions is wilfully misrepresented as some of the recent posts have done. I suggest almost all religions would have a respect for the earth either as part of Creation or simply because it's a wonderful place. With that mindset how could you countenance a course of action that,
on clear evidence, you believed was going to radically hurt the earth? In fact you don't have to be religious to be seriously concerned about the impact of global warming on the only place we have to live.
This is not an example of blind religiosity just simple respect for our home and healthy self interest
In the past few years we even saw some really creative stories pointing out the climate changes on Mars ect and attempting to use these to debase what is happening on earth. (I suggest these were so
obviously dumb even the proponents had to make a strategic withdrawal)
The cleverest and probably most dishonest part of the discussion about the uncertainty of global warming has been the cherry picking of evidence. Going back to the examples of the tobacco industry, all the research undertaken by the industry was systematically culled to weaken the connection between smoking and cancer. Disappear a few results, disappear a few studies, alter a couple of givens and what is left can be made to sing your tune. In fact the basis of good science is replicability. A scientist has to outline all the details of his/hers research so that it can be replicated and proven (or disproven).
For example Wayne recently highlighted out some research that suggested
1. The cooling of Europe because of Gulf Stream interruption is something that is postulated for sometime in the future. There is no current effect
2. The Gulf Stream effect has a much smaller effect on European weather than is portrayed in the media by warming alarmists.
Ref:
http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/res/div/ocp/gs/
But if you go to the paper you'll find that in his conclusion the author is extremely concerned about global warming. To quote
The climate system is so rich, complex and still not well understood that the current emphasis on the limited impacts of the Gulf Stream and North Atlantic ocean circulation is a serious distraction of effort and resources when many regions of the world face a truly worrying future, even in the near term.
Priorities should shift to :
Subtropical droughts
Summer heat waves
Loss of glacial ice forcing sea levle rise
Severe storms and extreme weather
Water, water, water (and not so much temperature)
Is it honest to accept one element of the research and then totally ignore the entire conclusion?
The last 20 years of scientific research has given us reams of understanding about the changes in climate over the millions of years on earth. Certainly there are many factors that have affected and are affecting our climate and there is much more to learn. But there is overwhelming evidence that we rapidly heating the earth through CO2 emissions and we have a very short time to work out how we are going survive the consequences. We are all in the same boat.
References
http://www.ajph.org/cgi/reprint/95/S1/S39
Manufacturing Uncertainty: Contested Science and
the Protection of the Public’s Health and Environment
Overviews the effective efforts of industry to create sufficient doubt about products to keep them in the market place
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686
This paper analyzed the overwhelming support of the scientific community on the causes of Global Warming