Global warming 'irreversible' for next 1000 years

[antipodean]

*Note: I just made this organisation up. Please do not try to donate money to 'Save the Kanagaroos', as they don't really exist.

Kangaroos don't exist? Man, that's one elaborate scam.....

[jingle_jangle]

*Note: I just made this organisation up. Please do not try to donate money to 'Save the Kanagaroos', as they don't really exist.

The REAL one is called "Roo Rescue"...or is that a Fox Channel show?

STK does exist, and none other than Macca is on their homepage:

http://www.savethekangaroo.com

[bails]

The genuine organisation noted above is called "Save the Kangaroo" (not to be confused with the fictitious "Save the Kangaroos"), but it's a London based animal welfare organisation, run by vegetarians rather than zoologists. Judging by the name, they only intend to save one...

Now back to the environment and discussing the implications of funding environmental research...

[brammy]

Aside from someone giving me an Amberglo 360/12 CW (if such a thing even exists) for my birthday (only 8.5 months away!)......
my one RickResource wish would be for everyone here to read this book:

The Deniers: The World Renowned Scientists Who Stood Up Against Global Warming Hysteria, Political Persecution, and Fraud*
*And those who are too fearful to do so

http://www.amazon.com/Deniers-Renowned- ... bb_product

[bails]

I'm interested to know why you believe climate change promoters are less reliable than climate change refuters. You've mentioned money grabbing in a few posts, but the petroleum, fossil fuel, and manufacturing industries have magnitudes more moulah than the enviromental science industry. I believe there's far more cash to be had by refuting climate change, because changing habits to cater for climate change will actually cost every industry trillions and trillions, rather than make money. If someone were to be 'paid for positive comments' as you've suggested, wouldn't they be more likely paid by the highest bidder, rather than by the side who is saying you'll lose money if you listen to us, but please listen anyway?

How do you personally decide which side is correct?

How long is the book, and have you read it yourself?
If I were to read only one skeptic book is this the right one?
Will reading this book make me a better person?

[antipodean]

Now back to the environment and discussing the implications of funding environmental research...

Ok Bails, serious mode engaged:

The funding arrangements of any research are likely to draw someone's ire. Whether it's big business or mad environmentalists that are perceived to be behind the scenes, or evil tobacco interests or interfering government busy-bodies, the wonderful diversity of human culture guarantees that at least one of us will find such funding objectionable, no matter how philanthropic and ethical the donor. I don't doubt that there are some shady things happening out there, but I'd like to evaluate the research at least a little rather than tossing it straight in the bin because I object to the ideology or structure of the funding.

The funding accusations and name-calling games that are played can become distractions from the main argument. When criticism is levelled at the messenger or their backers rather than the merit of the message, it has very little intellectual value, if any. The important questions, like "is the data sound?", "does the data support the findings?", "is the methodology appropriate?" and "are the basic assumptions valid?" get lost as fingers are pointed and insults are traded.

Mind you, keeping and eye out for bias is an important part of critical reading. I just don't believe it should predominate our analysis and prejudice our conclusions.

[brammy]

How long is the book,

240 pages

and have you read it yourself?

yes. I wont claim to have read every single word on every page (as one does when reading a mystery novel), but I have it and yes, I've read it. Actually, please dont be put off... it's not a hard read. Very interesting stuff.

If I were to read only one skeptic book is this the right one?

hmmmm.... it's certainly one of the ones I'd recommend. Climate Confusion: How Global Warming Hysteria Leads to Bad Science, Pandering Politicians and Misguided Policies that Hurt the Poor is another one ... (and it's only 184 pages long!)

Will reading this book make me a better person?

No, just a better informed one.

[antipodean]

STK does exist, and none other than Macca is on their homepage:

http://www.savethekangaroo.com

Now, this is an example of people making assertions without having any idea of the reality. There is a very large population of wild kangaroos out there - but they are "extinct" in major city centres. Sorry if that last statement disillusions anyone about Australia...

I like the image they portray of kangaroos being cute and cuddly. They've obviously never come across a large Red or Great Grey buck in the bush protecting its territory.

There is a great counter-depiction of kangaroos as man-killing beasts in episode 1 of the first series of the surrealist BBC TV show "The Mighty Boosh".... I've not included a link as the language can be rather offensive, and this is a family forum... Google it if you're a responsible adult and are interested...

[dr_bob]

Kent, I'll read the book you suggest (and discuss its claims with the faculty in my school's Earth and Atmospheric Sciences Department) if you answer me just two questions. What would it mean for our behaviors as citizens of the world and our governments' policies if you are correct and there is no global warming? What would you have us do in regard to the environment if global warming is all a hoax?

[bails]

Evan: I couldn't agree more, but I think Kent feels differently on the bias of research. I brought this up as a counter argument to the suggestion that promoters of climate change are in it for the money, but somehow refuters are not. If I can show the argument is in fact stronger for the exact opposite, then I can at least remove it from my side, though in actuality it should be removed from both sides. This was a halfassed attempt at a proof by contradiction - 'suppose it's true, then show that if it were, it would produce the opposite outcome'

P.S. As I highlighted earlier, 'Save the Kangaroo' motives are for animal rights, not environmental (though they sometimes overlap). As someone who had a nice juicy roo steak two nights ago, I unfortunately can't side with Macca and stand up for the rights of the kangaroo I just ate! I wish I'd never brought the whole 'kangaroo' thing up. It was simply to show that funding research may cause perceived bias on both sides of the climate change argument, not just on the side of the promoters.

[antipodean]

Evan: I couldn't agree more, but I think Kent feels differently on the bias of research. I brought this up as a counter argument to the suggestion that promoters of climate change are in it for the money, but somehow refuters are not. If I can show the argument is in fact stronger for the exact opposite, then I can at least remove it from my side, though in actuality it should be removed from both sides. This was a halfassed attempt at a proof by contradiction - 'suppose it's true, then show that if it were, it would produce the opposite outcome'

P.S. As I highlighted earlier, 'Save the Kangaroo' motives are for animal rights, not environmental (though they sometimes overlap). As someone who had a nice juicy roo steak two nights ago, I unfortunately can't side with Macca and stand up for the rights of the kangaroo I just ate! I wish I'd never brought the whole 'kangaroo' thing up. It was simply to show that funding research may cause perceived bias on both sides of the climate change argument, not just on the side of the promoters.

With you all the way on both counts.

BTW, my diatribe on 'roos was directed against STK, not you or Paul W. I should have included a quote from their site - it's actually quite (unintentionally) funny. Apologies if I offended you or Paul (sorry Paul!). I first ran into these PETA-types about 10 years ago, when PETA itself was running a campaign to stop us eating pigs, with the catch phrase "pigs are friends, not food". They had obviously never been in a pig pen..... Their militant lunacy is one of those refreshingly surreal things you expect to see on TV. The scary thing is that these kinds of groups seem to have gained some traction with the general public...

[brammy]

What would it mean for our behaviors as citizens of the world and our governments' policies if you are correct and there is no global warming?

I never claimed there was not global warming (there has always been periods of warming and there has always been periods of cooling). MAN MADE (anthropromorphic) is another story altogether. As to behaviors, it would mean that we dont cripple our economies with silly cap'n'trade or other such carbon trading schemes. I'm all for being generally environmentally sensitive and further reducing pollution output. That only makes sense.

What would you have us do in regard to the environment if global warming is all a hoax?

Stop voting for the politicians who push it.

Enjoy the book.

[dr_bob]

My mistake. I should have used the phrase "man made global warming" in both of my questions.

Thanks for your responses. I'm still not clear on what you would have us do other than don't vote for certain people, but I am glad that you are "all for being generally environmentally sensitive" whatever that means. I have to admit though that I'm confused by the statement "don't cripple our economies with silly cap'n'trade or other such carbon trading schemes." I would have sworn that our economies are already crippled . . . and without the help of those silly schemes.

I'll let you know what I glean from the book and what my colleagues think about the science behind the book's claims. I suspect, however, that your passion for this topic is grounded more in politics than science.

[wayang]

Memo Exposes Bush's New Green Strategy
Oliver Burkeman in The Guardian, March 4, 2003

US Republican party is changing tactics on the environment, avoiding "frightening" phrases such as global warming, after a confidential party memo warned that it is the domestic issue on which George Bush is most vulnerable. The memo, by the leading Republican consultant Frank Luntz, concedes the party has "lost the environmental communications battle" and urges its politicians to encourage the public in the view that there is no scientific consensus on the dangers of greenhouse gases.

"The scientific debate is closing [against us] but not yet closed. There is still a window of opportunity to challenge the science," Mr Luntz writes in the memo, obtained by the Environmental Working Group, a Washington-based campaigning organisation. "Voters believe that there is no consensus about global warming within the scientific community. Should the public come to believe that the scientific issues are settled, their views about global warming will change accordingly.

"Therefore, you need to continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue in the debate."

The phrase "global warming" should be abandoned in favour of "climate change", Mr Luntz says, and the party should describe its policies as "conservationist" instead of "environmentalist", because "most people" think environmentalists are "extremists" who indulge in "some pretty bizarre behaviour... that turns off many voters". Words such as "common sense" should be used, with pro-business arguments avoided wherever possible. The environment, the memo says, "is probably the single issue on which Republicans in general - and President Bush in particular - are most vulnerable".

A Republican source, speaking on condition of anonymity, said party strategists agreed with Mr Luntz's conclusion that "many Americans believe Republicans do not care about the environment". The popular image is that they are "in the pockets of corporate fat cats who rub their hands together and chuckle manically [sic] as they plot to pollute America for fun and profit", Mr Luntz adds.

The phrase "global warming" appeared frequently in President Bush's speeches in 2001, but decreased to almost nothing during 2002, when the memo was produced.

Environmentalists have accused the party and oil companies of helping to promulgate the view that serious doubt remains about the effects of global warming. Last week, a panel of experts appointed at the Bush administration's request to analyse the president's climate change strategy found that it lacked "vision, executable goals, clear timetables and criteria for measuring progress". "Rather than focusing on the things we don't know, it's almost as if parts of the plan were written by people who are totally unfamiliar with where ecosystems science is coming from," panel member William Schlesinger told the Guardian.

Mr Luntz urges Republicans to "emphasise the importance of 'acting only with all the facts in hand'", in line with the White House position that mandatory restrictions on emissions, as required by the Kyoto protocol, should not be countenanced until further research is undertaken.

The memo singles out as a major strategic failure the incoming Bush administration's response to Bill Clinton's last-minute executive order reducing the permitted level of arsenic in drinking water from 50 parts per billion to 10 parts per billion. The new administration put the plan on hold, prompting "the biggest public relations misfire of President Bush's first year in office", Mr Luntz writes. The perception was that Mr Bush "was actively putting in more arsenic in the water".

"A compelling story, even if factually inaccurate, can be more emotionally compelling than a dry recitation of the truth," Mr Luntz notes in the memo.

[brammy]

2003? Whew. Dane, your focus of all hatred, George W. Bush, is gone now. Let it go, buddy. For your own peace of mind, let it go.
Haven't you heard?.... all will be well now that the Messaiah has arrived.