# Climate change (Why do PFK bother with blogs?)



## Dave Spencer (12 Nov 2010)

They start a blog about the Amazon drying up, but then delete any posts that try to give an alternative view to their beliefs for the reasons. The same goes with an "ocean acidification" blog I tried to post on. 

Here is the Amazon blog:

http://www.practicalfishkeeping.co.uk/c ... p?sid=3329

They like to think they are cutting edge, but they lack the minerals for that. Personally, I think they should just stick to their title; keeping fish, as they lack the broadness of mind for anything else. 

Dave.


----------



## ghostsword (12 Nov 2010)

*Re: Why do PFK bother with blogs?*

PFK may be good for fish keeping people, but they are still a long way from planted tanks and plants in general.


----------



## George Farmer (12 Nov 2010)

*Re: Why do PFK bother with blogs?*

Hi Dave

I read your comments before they were removed.  

I thought they were very interesting, well written, and brought a balance to the discussion.  Pity they were removed in my opinion.


----------



## Dave Spencer (12 Nov 2010)

*Re: Why do PFK bother with blogs?*

Thanks for that, George. I like to think we tell people on UKAPS why posts are removed.

Reading up on climate change is a bit of an obsession for me.  Especially since I have changed over to being an AGW sceptic.

Dave.


----------



## sanj (12 Nov 2010)

*Re: Why do PFK bother with blogs?*



			
				Dave Spencer said:
			
		

> They start a blog about the Amazon drying up, but then delete any posts that try to give an alternative view to their beliefs for the reasons. The same goes with an "ocean acidification" blog I tried to post on.
> 
> Here is the Amazon blog:
> 
> ...



Didnt Mr Heiko Bleher write that article?

He may not have requested its removal, but he has done similar on various rainbowfish forums.
I have a lot of respect for him, but he has often not taken well to alternative opinons. He has done so much for the hobby, but I have noticed this kind of attitude amongst some experts in their various fields, its a shame, it stiffles discussion and advancing ideas.


----------



## ghostsword (12 Nov 2010)

*Re: Why do PFK bother with blogs?*



			
				Dave Spencer said:
			
		

> Thanks for that, George. I like to think we tell people on UKAPS why posts are removed.
> 
> Reading up on climate change is a bit of an obsession for me.  Especially since I have changed over to being an AGW sceptic.
> 
> Dave.



Why not discuss that issue here? I would like to know about other positions.

UKAPS does not have any agreement with PFK, so I am sure that the posts would not be removed.


----------



## Dave Spencer (13 Nov 2010)

*Re: Why do PFK bother with blogs?*

Luis, I believe climate change is far and away the most important subject on man`s agenda at the moment, barring getting our economies moving upwards again (which climate change policies could well negate anyway).

When we speculate on the trillions and trillions of pounds due to be spent worldwide on renewables, and the cost of Ed Milliband`s Climate Change Bill for us in the UK, we are looking at being financially crippled, and being unable to keep the lights on.

There are a million and one topics that could be discussed but, alas, I spend far too much time discussing the climate elsewhere, already.

Dave.


----------



## Tom (13 Nov 2010)

*Re: Why do PFK bother with blogs?*

And yet each winter I'm sure it gets colder...


----------



## John Starkey (13 Nov 2010)

*Re: Why do PFK bother with blogs?*

I think its just a money making angle,i personally think the worlds weather goes in cycles,the climate may be getting warmer overall,but if the last couple of winters in this country are anything to go by then i don,t really believe it,by the same token if our weather became like spain,s or or any other country in the med i could handle that,but alas i will be dead and gone before that happens,

regards,
john.


----------



## ghostsword (13 Nov 2010)

*Re: Why do PFK bother with blogs?*

I also think that the weather goes in cycles. 

But we do pump a lot of nasties into the atmosphere, and we pollute the world soils and seas. 

Also we do not recycle, we buy more than what we need, we always looking into the new shinny thing, the fancy clothes, and we want it cheap. How many think about the impact of buying a new TV? 

For the past few years I have been recycling more, and trying to reuse what I have, but it is hard when consumerism is coming at us all the time with adverts, articles on magazines and TV shows, but I believe that we can fight it off.

Global warming is real, but it may just be a natural cycle, we have not been around the world long enough to know how it really works.

The amazon rivers dried out, exposing some old paintings. It had to be that dry before, otherwise they couldn't have been painted, right?


----------



## Dave Spencer (16 Nov 2010)

*Re: Why do PFK bother with blogs?*

With Cancun just around the corner, ocean acidification will be the next battle ground chosen by the CAGW crowd.

"Between 1751 and 1994 surface ocean pH is estimated to have decreased from approximately 8.179 to 8.104, a change of âˆ’0.075 on the logarithmic pH scale which corresponds to an increase of 18.9% in H+ (acid) concentration."

In layman`s terms, I could put it that in the last 250 years the pH of the oceans has dropped from 8.2 to 8.1. The statement raises a few questions:

a) What were they using in 1751 that could measure pH to three decimal places?

b) What was causing the drop in pH (probably called a "pH crash" in CAGW terms) prior to the period when they start to blame man burning fossil fuels?

c) Are there any reefers on this site that know of any creature that can`t cope with this kind of pH change over a 250 year period? 

d) Doesn`t the pH vary from place to place? 

A company called POGO (Partnership for the Observation of Global Oceans) has requested funding to the tune of $15 billion for an ocean acidification monitoring system. 

The World Health Organisation estimate that $42 billion is required to supply half of the people on this planet that have no or limited access, to an uninterrupted supply of clean water. 

Ed Milliband has passed a climate Change Act that will cost the UK tax payers Â£734 billion between now and 2050 in an attempt to cut UK CO2 emissions by 80% by the use of wind power. Pure fantasy, and a crime.

How come this kind of money isn`t available to tackle the real problems of this world? The World Health Organisation estimate that $42 billion is required to supply half of the people on this planet that otherwise have no or limited access, to an uninterrupted supply of clean water. 

Dave. :?


----------



## ghostsword (17 Nov 2010)

*Re: Why do PFK bother with blogs?*

Shocking but then again, why the surprise? Someone has to buy the wind farms, pay the scientists and technical people that work for those orgs, and people need something to worry about.

Clean water for everyone? Nonsense, rather sell them purification units. And sick people are poor people, poor people cannot defend their rights, and are ripped off. Either by war (weapon sales), their resources (oil, minerals, fish, wood) or loaned money.

Climate change is real and here, but there are a lot of companies milking the system.

Ed Miliband wants to spend money on the wind farms. Great. Who owns the wind farms? Wasn't there a piece of news recently about the queen getting money from the wind farms?
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/uk-wo ... -22657254/

So the Queen gets up to 38m a year, time that by 40 years, a fair wack.. 

Just an example..


----------



## Tom (17 Nov 2010)

*Re: Why do PFK bother with blogs?*



			
				Dave Spencer said:
			
		

> a) What were they using in 1751 that could measure pH to three decimal places?



That was gonna be my first question!    

And not only does the pH vary from place to place, it probably varies that much between day and night some places.


----------



## Brenmuk (17 Nov 2010)

*Re: Why do PFK bother with blogs?*



			
				Dave Spencer said:
			
		

> With Cancun just around the corner, ocean acidification will be the next battle ground chosen by the CAGW crowd.
> 
> "Between 1751 and 1994 surface ocean pH is estimated to have decreased from approximately 8.179 to 8.104, a change of âˆ’0.075 on the logarithmic pH scale which corresponds to an increase of 18.9% in H+ (acid) concentration."
> 
> ...



Good question! I had a go at googling this for 2 mins so now I'm an expert (  ). From what I can gather the stated ph change is an estimate based on recent 'good' data that has been extrapolated back to the start of the industrial revolution.  There might be some real experts who could clarify this, it would be interesting to know. 



			
				Dave Spencer said:
			
		

> c) Are there any reefers on this site that know of any creature that can`t cope with this kind of pH change over a 250 year period?
> 
> d) Doesn`t the pH vary from place to place?



Yes I believe ph varies from place to place and over time periods by larger amounts as do many other ocean parameters. Although the ph changes seem small you have to bear in mind that the scientists are talking about global averages. Also the global buffering potential of the ocean is huge so to change the ph by even a tiny fraction requires huge changes in CO2 levels.


----------



## Dave Spencer (1 Dec 2010)

*Re: Why do PFK bother with blogs?*

The Met "BBQ Summer" Office are in fine form.  

http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/vie ... Met-Office

For those interested, Phil Jones at the CRU has so far adjusted temperature anomalies for the UK twice this year...upwards of course. I wonder if this has anything to do with Cancun?   In the US GISS are doing the same via James Hansen.






The Hadley Centre are currently readjusting further so that they can declare 2010 to be the hottest year on record for the UK. The current cold snap will make it very difficult for them to sound plausible.

Dave.


----------



## Toulouse (2 Dec 2010)

*Re: Why do PFK bother with blogs?*

Lol. One of those subjects to be taken with a pinch of salt 

It is purely (IMO) a method of trying to slow down the emerging economies who are using high carbon methods in their infrasturcture.  In essence the 'rich' (maybe we should say the formerly rich at present) western countries trying to slow down the newer emerging powerhouses.

In most cases it is the western world's fault for selling the 'old tech' gear to those countries in the first place.  Think India and UK for instance.  UK spent the past 5+ years selling low efficiency engines and such product.  Now what should they do? Stop and buy newer tech product?

THE UK/Europe/USA spent decades flogging off this poor technology and making vast sums from it.  Very happy back then.  Not so happy now it is on the other foot and we are buying more product from them than we sell to them.

As for the topic argument.  Is global warming a reality?...Yes of course it is.
Is it due to man?.Maybe.

However people seem to have forgotten the ice age and............

........maybe in a century or 2 all the dinosaurs will suddenly become extinct.  Deja-vu et al.

TC


----------



## dw1305 (2 Dec 2010)

*Re: Why do PFK bother with blogs?*

Hi all,
I agree they shouldn't have deleted the posts, I have no idea what is happening, or how it will end. But, I work with a couple of climate scientists, one who is a micro-fossil palaeontologist and the other is a remote sensor/meteorologist. They would tell you unequivocally that *global warming is happening and that it is caused by the emission of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere*. Despite what was written about "climate-gate", there is virtually no dissent from this view amongst scientists, no global conspiracy or any "smoking gun" from the UEA emails. Have a look here: <http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/>

What the scientists can't tell you is what will happen next to the climate or the oceans, or how exactly the climatic cycles interact with one another over geological time. This is because no-one knows, all they can do is extrapolate from the data they have collected, and then build probability models.  It is not that scientists lie or are dishonest about their research, it is quite the opposite, because they deal in probability they are very reluctant to make definite statements. This reluctance to commit is often seized upon by those who have a vested interest in obscuring the facts as "they don't know", "it is only a theory" etc..

I look at it this way, if you are ill, who do you want to see? a qualified medical  Doctor, or someone who has read about medicine in the Daily Express/Mail etc? You might be really unlucky and get a Doctor who isn't very good, or a lay person who makes you feel better, but *the probability* is that you won't. 

cheers Darrel


----------



## Dave Spencer (2 Dec 2010)

*Re: Why do PFK bother with blogs?*

Darrel, you have linked to the very people who were under investigation. Is it not surprising they write a page with their own vindication?
Could you tell me how your friends can be so unequivocally sure? There is zero unequivocal  evidence of man`s finger print on the climate. How can your friends blame global warming on GHG when the system is vastly more complex to be driven by just this one forcing. Water vapour is by far the greatest GHG by volume out their, yet noone has proved whether the feed back is positive or negative.

Hang slack Darrel, as I will compile some information for you on the lying by Phil Jones, Michael Mann _et al _to the IPCC, WMO and Government policy makers, and the blatant deleting of information rather than adhere to the FOI Act.

I used to believe all the alarming predictions from the likes of James Hansen _et al_, but once I started to read on the subject, I couldn`t believe how ridiculous mother nature was making them look.

Dave.


----------



## dw1305 (2 Dec 2010)

*Re: Why do PFK bother with blogs?*

Hi all,
Dave you are not obliged to believe what the majority of scientists who work in any field are saying, it is entirely a matter of probabilities, it is just a "best guess" based upon the data they have. 


> There is zero unequivocal evidence of man`s finger print on the climate. How can your friends blame global warming on GHG when the system is vastly more complex to be driven by just this one forcing. Water vapour is by far the greatest GHG by volume out their, yet noone has proved whether the feed back is positive or negative. Hang slack Darrel, as I will compile some information for you on the lying by Phil Jones, Michael Mann et al to the IPCC, WMO and Government policy makers, and the blatant deleting of information rather than adhere to the FOI Act.


 If you sincerely belief that these people have devoted their working careers and professional credibility to a huge conspiracy theory and have been willing to lie and cheat to support this, that is your choice. Personally I don't and  I'll post this graph (note from the CRU, and based upon the data they have collected) and people can draw their own conclusions.





cheers Darrel


----------



## Dave Spencer (2 Dec 2010)

*Re: Why do PFK bother with blogs?*

I have had to make three posts because I kept getting some message about how many quotes I could embed.



			
				dw1305 said:
			
		

> Hi all,
> Dave you are not obliged to believe what the majority of scientists who work in any field are saying,



Darryl, this is _argumentum ad populum_. Science is not a concensus, which someone as clearly scientifically minded as yourself will know. Besides, this majority of scientists, of which I have seen many painstakingly compiled lists, conveniently ignores those from Russia, China, India, Japan, etc.

How many people on here know that there is a meeting in Cancun, or what it is about? The news is about the severe weather, the World Cup bid   and student riots. Even David cameron chose Zurich and the World Cup over Cancun. It seems these scientists hold little sway. Recently, the Royal Society withdrew its publication "Climate Change, a Summary of the Science".

The Minister for Climate Change admits that 95% of the greenhouse effect is caused by water vapour, only 4% by natural carbon dioxide and only 0.117% by man-made carbon dioxide.


----------



## Dave Spencer (2 Dec 2010)

*Re: Why do PFK bother with blogs?*



			
				dw1305 said:
			
		

> ....it is entirely a matter of probabilities, it is just a "best guess" based upon the data they have.



To which the UK tax payer is expected to pay Â£768 billion by 2050. Surely we need something a little more substantial.



			
				dw1305 said:
			
		

> If you sincerely belief that these people have devoted their working careers and professional credibility to a huge conspiracy theory and have been willing to lie and cheat to support this, that is your choice.



Nobody is calling "huge conspiracy theories", but certain individuals bring the integrity of the discipline of climatology in to question. Are you familiar with the Climategate emails? They are worth a read. Michael Mann`s "hockey stick graph", with which he tried to eliminate the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age, is widely implicated within them.


----------



## Dave Spencer (2 Dec 2010)

*Re: Why do PFK bother with blogs?*

Sorry to get you bogged down in something that may not be in the forefront of your interests, but I think Phil Jones comes across somewhat disingenuous in the link below.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/p ... /38711.htm



			
				dw1305 said:
			
		

> Personally I don't and  I'll post this graph (note from the CRU, and based upon the data they have collected) and people can draw their own conclusions.


----------



## Dave Spencer (3 Dec 2010)

*Re: Why do PFK bother with blogs?*

Come to think of it, I`ll get off my soap box now. :silent: 

Dave.


----------



## dw1305 (3 Dec 2010)

*Re: Why do PFK bother with blogs?*

Hi all,
Dave you are entitled to your opinion, to question whether the money spent on climate research is value for money and to question the integrity of the scientists involved. 

From my personal perspective I would be spending relatively small amounts of money on any "big science" projects, for example step forward CERN and the "Large Hadron Collider". I won't even start on the fact that the UK is the worlds 4th largest spender on the military (I should say my wife works for the MOD, so I appreciate there is a certain amount of hypocrisy here).  



> Are you familiar with the Climategate emails? They are worth a read. Michael Mann`s "hockey stick graph", with which he tried to eliminate the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age, is widely implicated within them.


 I have followed the whole "Climategate" debate fairly closely and I would recommend that any-one who is interested reads the information on http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/CRUstatements and then on http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/. 

cheers Darrel


----------



## dw1305 (3 Dec 2010)

*Re: Why do PFK bother with blogs?*

Hi all,
Really my last post, but the premier international science Journal "_Nature_", actually has a "climate-gate" issue on-line since yesterday. It is free content but you may have to register to read it.

<http://www.nature.com/news/specials/climategate/index.html>

cheers Darrel


----------



## Dave Spencer (3 Dec 2010)

*Re: Why do PFK bother with blogs?*



			
				dw1305 said:
			
		

> Hi all,
> ....I would recommend that any-one who is interested reads the information on http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/CRUstatements
> 
> cheers Darrel



I shall hold this one with the same regard I would hold the one on the FIFA web site declaring their honesty.  

This site gives info on many aspects of climate change for those interested.

http://www.climatedebatedaily.com/

As a little aside Darrel, what do you make of the EPA decision to declare CO2 a pollutant? Personally, I am a little mystified.

Dave.


----------



## Dave Spencer (3 Dec 2010)

*Re: Why do PFK bother with blogs?*

My apologies Darrel, I did say I would get off my soap box, but I am a bit like a dog with a bone on the subject of climate change. I did have some questions regarding this graph, but I hadn`t noticed that they disappeared when I had to split my post up. Plus, you did invite comment on the graph.  

I shall be honest from the outset, this graph is very familiar to me.  



			
				dw1305 said:
			
		

> Hi all,
> .......I'll post this graph (note from the CRU, and based upon the data they have collected) and people can draw their own conclusions.
> 
> 
> ...



The warming from circa 1980 - 1998 (attributed to AGW) is similar to the warming of 1910 - 1940 (not attributed to AGW). If natural causes have resulted in the 1910 - 1940 temperature rise, isn`t it reasonable to suggest the 1980 - 1998 rise is a result of the same natural forcings, and nothing to do with AGW?

What caused the decline in temperature between 1940 - 1950 whilst man made CO2 concentrations were increasing?

Why have temperatures stagnated since 1998  whilst man made CO2 concentrations were increasing?

If the Mauna Loa CO2 measurements were to be superimposed on to your graph, the relationship between temperature increase and CO2 increase would be tenuous at best.

Here is my graph of the Central England Temperature dataset, which is the oldest in the world â€“ with 351 years of temperature records drawn from â€œmultiple weather stations located both in urban and rural areas of England, which is considered a decent proxy for Northern Hemisphere temperatures. This shows quite graphically the lack of correlation between the rise in atmospheric CO2 and temperature, I hope.





Regards, Dave.


----------



## dw1305 (4 Dec 2010)

Hi all,
Dave I don't think the  "Climate Debate Daily" <http://www.climatedebatedaily.com/> is an unbiased commentator on the climate debate. I'd never seen the web site before, but even the most cursory reading dispels any notion of balance.  

The "anti" web sites/blogs I've seen all do the same thing, with differing degrees of sophistication, they say 

"_look this data/graph/correlation, it doesn't agree with the theory of anthropogenic climate change, therefore it doesn't exist_". 

I'd say look at the "noise" in the graphs and think of the geological time scale over which planetary change happens, and then tell me if a simple correlation is going to tell the whole story? All you can do is build a model based on the data and derived probabilities, the glory of this is that data is accumulating all the time and that the model is being refined so that it more closely fits the data. 

I think of it like a football season, during the last 6 weeks Hereford United (my team, I'm from Kington) won 4-3 away at Northampton, after  having been 3-0 down, and 5 - 0 away at Stockport. Based on these results it is obvious we must be a good team? Well no, actually we are 92nd in the league with 15 points and these are 2 of our 3 wins. <http://www.statto.com/football/teams/hereford-united/2010-2011/results> but do I know whether we will be relegated into the Conference? I may hope not, but I won't actually *know* until we are mathematically relegated or safe, although I may have a pretty good idea (one or other outcome will become more "probable" as games run out). 

We will know the answer about anthropogenic climate change eventually, for the same reason that an actuary will know how accurate his predictions of life expectancy were, in the actuaries case it will be only when that whole cohort of people have died, and from the point of view of climate change it will be looking back from some point far in the future.

cheers Darrel


----------



## Dave Spencer (4 Dec 2010)

Cheers Darrel,

I do wonder if your friends that believe unequivocally in man made global warming could answer my questions regarding your graph.

Dave.


----------



## dw1305 (5 Dec 2010)

Hi all,


> I do wonder if your friends that believe unequivocally in man made global warming could answer my questions regarding your graph.


Dave, I will ask  Andy Skellern & Tom Hill on monday. <http://www.ssmbathspa.com/our-staff/dr-andrew-skellern> & <http://www.ssmbathspa.com/our-staff/dr-thomas-hill>.

cheers Darrel


----------



## Brenmuk (6 Dec 2010)

*Re: Why do PFK bother with blogs?*



			
				Dave Spencer said:
			
		

> Here is my graph of the Central England Temperature dataset, which is the oldest in the world â€“ with 351 years of temperature records drawn from â€œmultiple weather stations located both in urban and rural areas of England, which is considered a decent proxy for Northern Hemisphere temperatures. This shows quite graphically the lack of correlation between the rise in atmospheric CO2 and temperature, I hope.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I find the above graph highly misleading because it is comparing a regional temperature record with changes in emissions and not global CO2 concentrations. Emissions are important but the temperature changes need to be correlated to total global CO2 concentration change over the same time period. The above graph shows emissions rising from just over 0 to 35,000 MMT, a huge increase yet over about 1000 years total CO2 has only increased by about 38% from about 280ppm to 380ppm.

Here's another graph showing the correlation  i mean ..






You then need to account for the change in CO2, the consensus is that the increase is due to the burning in fossil fuels.
(See http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/science/controversy/ unless you believe the met office is also part of the global scientific conspiracy   ).


----------



## Dave Spencer (6 Dec 2010)

*Re: Why do PFK bother with blogs?*



			
				Brenmuk said:
			
		

> I find the above graph highly misleading because it is comparing a regional temperature record with changes in emissions and not global CO2 concentrations.



CAGW is based on man`s emissions, which were starting to become detectable in 1820ish. CAGW is nothing to do with what Mother Nature put there herself. Global temperatures have been rising since the LIA, and modern times are not "unprecedented". The graph I supplied is localised to central England, but the physical properties of CO2 is universal, so there should still be a correlation. 




			
				Brenmuk said:
			
		

> Here's another graph showing the correlation  i mean ..



There are many graphs doing the rounds that conveniently end circa 2000, even though there is data up to the present month. Can you guess why it ends where it does? Where is the correlation from 1998 to the present?



			
				Brenmuk said:
			
		

> You then need to account for the change in CO2, the consensus is that the increase is due to the burning in fossil fuels.
> (See http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/science/controversy/ unless you believe the met office is also part of the global scientific conspiracy   ).



I don`t think anyone is disputing man`s contribution to CO2 levels, it is just a question of their effect on the warming trend that has been going on for centuries. And remember, science is not a concensus.  

Dave.


----------



## Brenmuk (6 Dec 2010)

*Re: Why do PFK bother with blogs?*



			
				Dave Spencer said:
			
		

> Brenmuk said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Looking at the graph you posted the take home message is that CO2 emissions have increased by a factor of over 30,000 since about 1840 yet there is only a change of less than 1deg C in that time hence anthropogenic global warming is rubbish. But that is misleading because the theory of global warming relates increasing global average temperatures to increasing global CO2 concentrations not directly to the rate of change of emissions. 
If you were to show emissions against global CO2 concentrations it would show that despite massive increases in emissions there is only a small change in CO2 ie by a factor of 1.38, in other words it takes a huge effort for man to change levels of CO2. But CO2 is increasing slowly but surely and perhaps more importantly CO2 levels have risen to levels not seen since the fossil age.

The physical effects of CO2 may be universal in that according to global warming the earth's atmosphere  will retain more of the suns energy but the effect on climate is far from universal.  There is likely to be places that experience more floods, others that experience more droughts. If currents in the atlantic ocean change then the UK and western Europe could experience weather more like Russia etc so for some there would be a large temperature decrease. A global average is just that, an average it doesn't mean everywhere in the world will experience the same local weather change.

Yes there are plenty of graphs doing the rounds, the debate being held in the public forum is not a scientific debate but more of a propaganda campaign by both sides of the argument. That is why I think it will be interesting to hear from experts such as those that Darrel knows. These are people whose job it is to analyse the quality, consistency and source of the information and try to discern trends and meaning out of complex data - not copy a graph from climatechangeisaloadofguff.com and say this single graph and this months cold weather disproves global warming. However my understanding is that climate scientists on the whole take the view that global average temperature is correlated to global CO2 concentrations.

Yes science is not a consensus there is always a healthy debate and plenty of disagreement in any field of science but that does not mean that that field of science is a load of tosh.


----------



## LondonDragon (6 Dec 2010)

Just watch "The Day After Tomorrow" to see what could happen


----------



## Dave Spencer (7 Dec 2010)

*Re: Why do PFK bother with blogs?*



			
				Brenmuk said:
			
		

> Yes there are plenty of graphs doing the rounds, the debate being held in the public forum is not a scientific debate but more of a propaganda campaign by both sides of the argument.



You have that right. it is more like religion than science. I have had some pretty shocking personal remarks aimed at me, at times. Godwin`s Law rules supreme. Still, I can take it.That said, there are some pretty high calibre scientists out there blogging. 



			
				Brenmuk said:
			
		

> However my understanding is that climate scientists on the whole take the view that global average temperature is correlated to global CO2 concentrations.



This is not the case in Russia, China, India, Japan plus a few others. Even Freeman Dyson has come out recently, denouncing the quality of the science in climatology.


----------



## Toulouse (7 Dec 2010)

I think DAve is saying quite rightly that Yes he agrees that Global warming is an issue however most of that global warming is natural (or not attributable to man's influence.)

He isn't disputing the figures given, just the way that the quantity non attributable to man is being used to massively 'weight' the argument in favour of stopping the emerging economies from pushing those 'developed countries'  down the pecking order.

If such a small amount is attributable to man then reducing carbon emissions is going to account for a virtual unseeable reduction in the overall figures, however it will create jobs, make some countries look good and if world opinion ever holds sway will grind production to a halt in those countries who out-compete the 'establishment' in terms of export and production with prices etc.

If they grind to a halt while they sort out their carbon emissions then we  can get back to being the big guns and making loads of money again. lol

So he isn't disputing the overall figures.  He is disputing the use of the 'whole' to represent what man has/is doing.


----------



## plantbrain (9 Dec 2010)

A biased group to be certain, but our class was asked what are the 5 most pressing environmental issues today.

There was a surprising agreement.

Over population (the biggy)
Global climatic change
Pollution
Habitat loss
Disease

Then we drew feedback arrows between each of these and their relationships, negative or positive.
They where mostly all positive against humans.

Not good.

Overpopulation is the biggest issue, but the white elephant no one wants to address. 
Mostly stems from cultural issues and women's rights, ability to control their lives and reproductive status.
Where this occurs, the birth rates are stable and low. Where it's not, birth rates are very high.

This needs addressed or none of the other stuff will matter. 

Regards, 
Tom Barr


----------



## dw1305 (9 Dec 2010)

Hi all,
I'm still waiting for a reply from my colleagues but I have to agree with Tom. 


> Overpopulation is the biggest issue, but the white elephant no one wants to address.


 It is a world of finite resources, and you can't get away from that.

cheers Darrel


----------



## dw1305 (3 Nov 2020)

Hi all,
I just thought I'd update this thread (<"originally from 2010">), now we are ten years on. This is from the World Economic Forum:

<"*2020 is on course to be the warmest year on record*">.

The whole thread is quite an interesting read, but some things have changed. My wife is no longer a civil servant, Tom Hill is <"at the NHM"> but I still work with Andy Skellern, who actually sent me the WEF link.

cheers Darrel


----------



## Tim Harrison (3 Nov 2020)

Sorry, but I have to admit to still being something of a sceptic. That is in terms of our contribution to global warming. However, there is no doubt that the planet is warming, and that we need to clean up our act.

Folk often put far too much faith in science, it's been described as more of an ideology than an appropriate way to describe the universe in which we live.

Over population and its continued rapid growth is the single biggest factor contributing to all environmental problems and the biggest existential threat we face. But like Tom Barr said above, it's the elephant in the room that no one wants to address, Population Matters. To quote David Attenborough...
“All of our environmental problems become easier to solve with fewer people, and harder – and ultimately impossible – to solve with ever more people.”

If the trillions of dollars spent on inventing new and interesting ways of combating global warming, were spent on environmental and social justice, education, health, and freeing people from the yolk of oppression, poverty, war, famine etc then the population would stabilise and start to decline within a few generations. And in turn all our environmental problems, including global warming, would gradually become far easier to solve.

Randal Carson is not a conventionally trained scientist but he appears to have a better grasp of the mechanics of global warming and associated scientific, ideological and political mumbo jumbo than most.


----------



## dw1305 (3 Nov 2020)

Hi all,


Tim Harrison said:


> Further, I increasingly see science used more as an ideological weapon than an appropriate way to describe the universe. It's been hijacked by politics, and used dogmatically to censor and prevent further discussion and as a form of social regulation and control.


I don't think you can blame scientists for this, they are trying to retain some form of objectivity in a <"post-truth environment of alternative "facts"">.


Tim Harrison said:


> Over population and its continued rapid growth is the single biggest factor contributing to all environmental problems and the biggest existential threat we face.....If the trillions of dollars spent on inventing new and interesting ways of combating global warming, were spent on environmental and social justice, education, health, and freeing people from the yolk of oppression, poverty, war, famine etc then the population would stabilise and start to decline within a few generations. And in turn all our environmental problems, including global warming, would gradually become far easier to solve.


I certainly agree with that.


Tim Harrison said:


> Randal Carson is not a conventionally trained scientist but he appears to have a better grasp of the mechanics of global warming and associated scientific, ideological and political mumbo jumbo than most.


I'm not sure that he has any scientific validity. It is back to Karl Popper, "...........t_he criterion of the scientific status of a theory is its falsifiability, or refutability, or testability._”

cheers Darrel


----------



## Tim Harrison (3 Nov 2020)

dw1305 said:


> I don't think you can blame scientists for this, they are trying to retain some form of objectivity in a <"post-truth environment of alternative "facts"">.


Nice article, and I agree with much of it, although I think there is more than enough hubris on both sides to go around. But, I guess for me it’s not really that simple. The demarkation problem, or where to draw the line between science and pseudoscience, is a philosophical debate that has gone on for millennia and still continues despite Karl Pooper’s contribution. 

I’m of the view that science doesn’t exist in a vacuum, it’s a political, economic and cultural artefact. As such I don’t really blame science or scientists per se. And, I think that on the whole current scientific method still serves us well but it’s often exploited for political gain or other vested interests, sometimes by scientists themselves. 

Scientist, particularly those eminent in their field of endeavour, can exhibit dogmatic devotion to paradigms, often those they have invested heavily in throughout their careers. They act as gate keepers and tellingly well overdue paradigm shifts sometimes don’t occur until after they have died. 

In that sense, at least, current scientific method doesn’t necessarily follow Popper’s philosophy. In that successful attempts to falsify an existing paradigm can be and are swept under the carpet, or are often brutally attacked.


----------



## PARAGUAY (5 Nov 2020)

I never seen the blog and it's not available on Dave's link. But what l would say Science sometimes gets a raw deal because it's always evolving . If  a scientist or more likely team of come to something what challenges the general thinking it's easy to build up a case to discredit the research. But as regards climate change many of the sceptics have changed their views in the recent couple of years. Whether it's the bulldozer of evidence by such as Sir David Attenborough or the fact that we live in a time were anywhere in the world can be accessed within hours . Evidence can be produced pretty quick.


----------

