Climate Change

[midfielder]

Watched a BBC doco maybe a year ago that IMO was pretty well spot on. It concluded that the media had taken control over the reporting and had turned the debate into a political issue. When you listen to those that deny Climate Change you shake your head in disbelief and feel like screaming,,,,, well I do because how the hell would they understand what they are reading. Also some who believe make foolish claims they do more harm than good as they give the Andrew Bolts of this world folder to work with.

The Doco was critical of the science community in not being able to explain their finding in simple terms thus allowing many media folk on both sides to make foolish claims and take control of the debate.

The Doco concluded taking politics out of the debate and trying to find out details of certain issues was critical in developing community understanding... however finding a group who could write what the science community was saying and explaining what that meant did not get ratings, listeners, net hits etc... nor was finding people capable of doing so the doco almost recommend that the science community learn how to communicate better.

Given MT is now at the helm, with Baird in NSW I think the Libs have a capacity to listen, and act in some way.

The next meeting of world leaders has both China and the US talking about carbon trading... I am not convinced this is the best method however I also acknowledge it is a workable system..

My hope is that the politics can be kept of of the discussions other than politicians listening and acting to put in measures to help fix...

I guess I am saying to both the hard line left and right folk.... on this issue its about the science not about politics and to those that deny it is happening ... well I strongly suggest you look beyond who you are listening to.

 

[dibo]

Science tells us carbon emissions cause global warming.

Economics tells us that creating a price signal is a way to ensure that the market will find the lowest cost abatement (rather than picking winners, e.g. 'direct action') and economics also tells us that you can limit supply or you can set a price but you can't do both.

Therefore, if we want to reduce emissions, we can either set a price (and the market will choose how much to emit) or we can set a cap (and the market will determine the price).

The political history here is pretty simple:

In the leadup to the 2007 election it was political orthodoxy here to support an emissions cap and a market-set price.

In 2009 Abbott chose to break that consensus.

In 2011, Gillard proposed a scheme with a fixed price that would transition to a fixed cap.

In 2013, Rudd proposed to bring the fixed cap period forward (for really pragmatic reasons - the market-set price was going to be really low, saving people money!).

In 2014, Abbott abolished the carbon pricing scheme entirely and replaced it with a system of picking winners and hoping for the best.

I'm optimistic that Turnbull is going to get us back on a better path soon.

 

[midfielder]

D

The last part of your posts does not help in any way… You look at it as a left right ALP V LIB thing which is sorta what I was saying … You support the ALP you make that quite clear and your response is all about the good ALP and the bad LIBs..

The issue is why can the people like TA receive huge support for his policy? That is the real question and it’s because the media play politics with it and folk like you fall into line behind your party, rather than question the reporting.

Further you dismiss or seem to dismiss other alternatives approaches to carbon trading.

The aim should be to take politics out of the debate posts like last tends to inflame political debate and divide people into two camps. You are clever at writing turn your talents into how to bring folks together and make people like Andrew Bolt and Alan Jones either change their minds or look so wrong its obvious.

Because it’s the right wing media like Fox in the US, many fossil AM talk back hosts in Australia who SCREAM lies, falsehoods etc… they have a huge influence and as someone sneakily tweeted a couple of weeks ago in a Trump look like media release … it read … China is behind Climate Change reports so US factories will close and move to China…. [or close to that]

The nexus behind the right wing media and right wing politics is apparent as it is with the left. The challenge is take the Climate Debate away from both left & right wings of the media who are both very effective.

This needs to become a science debate not a political debate and then you win.

 

[dibo]

I dont give a flying about debate on this. There's no debate left to be had.

The science is done.

The economics is frankly done as well.

We need to reduce emissions and emissions trading (either under a fixed price or fixed cap) is the way to go - internationally, all major new schemes are going to be operating under one or other.

John Howard was on board. Malcolm Turnbull was on board. The Environment Minister, Greg Hunt, wrote his masters thesis on it.

This isn't a left vs right issue. This isn't even a particularly partisan issue. There is a hard right flank of Liberals who borrow their lines and ideas from the Tea Party and still argue against the science and obstruct any action. That's about it.

Basically all of the left, and most of the sensible people on the right, understand what needs to be done. The time for debating it is over. The time for debating it was over years ago. Time to do something.

The Government is going to send a delegation to Paris for the next big conference.

They'll commit us to targets, and likely come home and "level with the Australian population", explaining that Direct Action is inadequate to meet our commitments (it costs too much and spends money on things that simply don't work).

They will tell us that we really need an emissions trading scheme and they'll promise to take it to the next election, but they'll have bipartisan support. And then we won't have a phony debate anymore, we'll just get shit done.

 

[midfielder]

Fruitbat

I think you have nailed in a sense the key issue you have identified some folk from the science community who argue against the mainstream thoughts and it is difficult.

The problem is many journalist especially the climate sceptics take the few and the complexity and then scream the world is about to fall apart. The very same journalist often would struggle with basic maths.. Herein lies an almost undeliverable problem ... many folks will listen to Andrew Bolt and take his word for something he has no idea which is right and which is wrong he and media folk like him have taken a science debate and turned it into a political debate and throw confusion into the mix and we don't trust politicians anyway..

The debate should be over and its not

With China on board now it helps but the republicans in the US are saying they will not pass anything on Climate Change...

Just getting back to the doco I watched they kinda said that science community need to win back the role of being the broadcaster rather than media organisations however that is easier done that said.

 

[Ancient Mariner]

Climate scientists do provide their data to peer review it is the only way these things get published in reputable scientific journals.

What scientists do not do is make raw data available to the public. Peer review is where the science is questioned and evaluated. Data is not made available unless it is of significance. Surely anyone could see any climate sceptic pulling out one bit of data that supported their argument, while ignoring the rest, no matter whether it was significant or not. This is a common tactic of the sceptics and deniers.

Science, as practised by scientists is about getting an idea, developing a theory and then testing that theory. When the results come in then they are submitted for publication. Whether they support the initial theory or totally disprove it. Peer review takes place before publication in order to say whether the science is sound, whether the results are significant and whether the work is of value.
Failing any of these criteria either results in the paper being dumped or revisions being asked for.

Work is not rejected because it does not agree with currently held views.

A common misconception is that scientists only present data to support their theories. This is not true. All significant results are presented. Indeed one of my own best pieces of work was a paper I published presenting results to show that my initial theory was totally disproven.

Any new, controversial or groundbreaking publications are very quickly tested by repeat experiments in other labs.

On the current controversy, if I could find data to support the theory that their is not anthropomorphic greenhouse warming happening I would be presenting these results at conferences and for publication very quickly.

And then waiting patiently for my Nobel Prize.

Unfortunately for all of us no one has been able to show this, while every other piece of work indicates a grim future.

Scientists by nature are usually conservative when drawing conclusions. This is a further reason to be even more worried.

Why do people want to listen to climate sceptics. Apart for the obvious ones of the money being given to them to make a noise by the carbon industries, it is probably the same reason why some people will say immunisation is more dangerous than the disease being protected against, why people think they can win money on poker machines, why people are more scared of getting killed by a shark than drowning in a rip or dying on the road on the way to the beach. It is why some people think we should be setting up cities on Mars for when Earth becomes uninhabitable.

If you can explain human nature you are better than many shrinks.

As for global warming, having worked in science all my life and knowing hundreds of scientists, I know no scientist who is a climate sceptic.

I would rather trust NASA, CSIRO, the Royal Society and my own knowledge of how science works and readings of the whole issue, rather than Alan Jones, Rupert Murdoch, the Tea Party or Lord Moncton (who is neither a lord nor a scientist, he has a degree in classics and a diploma of journalism).

 

[true believer]

Hi Ancient,
I think it was the raw data that the Uni of East Anglia wouldn't release.

no, the data has been freely available . steve McIntyre has lied repeatedly about this . even though he had the data set
when he claim this myth.

I believe , there have been 4 inquires into the UEA since and "unknown group" hacked the UEA and published sentences out of context . all inquires exonerated the scientists of any legality

If it could take the wind out of the sceptics sails then I think the data should be made available. Yes, sceptics could cherry pick the data that supports their position,(a very unscientific thing to do) but until that data is made available to all scientists (including those who are sceptics), then they can cast a cloud over the work. A sceptic scientist who cherry picks any of that data will quickly be found out and lose his scientific credibility-something a scientist does not risk lightly.
Yep, peers review the work before publication and this is an important self regulating mechanism for science. Thankfully papers are also subject to scrutiny after publication and retractions do occur.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/06/04/us-japan-stemcells-researcher-idUSKBN0EF0SO20140604

this data set
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/data

Finding data that human induced warming is not occurring certainly would be a breakthrough, but there are scientists who question that any warming IS occurring, if it is then what is the cause, and if it is occurring what implications will be. Part of the problem is the number of factors (including human ones), understanding how these factors interact and the validity of historic data used to support climate change.
I don't doubt that some noisy sceptics are funded by fossil fuel interests.
Unlike you I have met scientists (Earth Science lecturers at a NSW university) who proudly claimed to be sceptics. I was stunned at the time, still think they are barking up the wrong tree, but am happy to hear alternative views. Wikipaedia isn't much of a reference but there are plenty of scientists if you go looking for them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_...ning_the_accuracy_of_IPCC_climate_projections
Good luck with your research and I would like to think that you would provide your findings for the betterment of humanity, not the kudos, or a grant ,not just that Nobel Prize : )

it's interesting the key scientist that says there's no AGW is roy spencer.
because jesus wouldn't allow it .

this is not a topic for the light hearted . cheers