I am sure that many readers will share my view that the Butterflies which frequent our British countryside are an attractive adornment and we should do what we can to ensure that they flourish. However the population of UK butterflies fell last year as a result of a wet summer. It happens and of course it is regrettable but the one thing that we can ALL be clear about is that the wet summer of 2007 had NOTHING to do with AGW. And so, I read the BBC’s report on this and sure enough – the “Biodiversity Minister” (Turn in your grave, George Orwell) Joan Ruddock gets to assert that “Butterfly populations also indicate the speed and extent of climate change.” It’s remarkable the way in which the AGW agenda is promoted at every opportunity and no rebuttal is permitted. We may seek biodiversity but assuredly when to comes to the topic of “climate change” diversity of opinion is not required.
THE VANISHING BUTTERLIES.
Bookmark the permalink.
For Jack to claim that I am insane because I disagree with him, proves one thing and one thing only: he is a dumb little twat.
Can I just thank everyone for an illuminating and mature debate on… the meaning of the word “demagogue”? Do we really think we advance our agenda or our understanding when we cannot disagree without calling each other commies, losers, demagogues, etc? I stopped commenting here when I and others were called “apologists for murder” by a John Reith, but I don’t admire demonising and dismissive language any more from those with positions that coincide with my own.
Re AGW: my questions would be: what is the evidence that a “vast majority” of scientists ascribe to the notion? This could be answered in the following ways:
a)how many scientists are there?
b) how many of them are competent (ie sufficiently specialized) to form a valid opinion on this issue? (By which I mean, if an expert on insect-borne diseases is asked by the IPCC to write a report on what might happen under certain climatic circumstances to the incidence of malaria in certain parts of the world, and that report is then included in the IPCC report, can we assume that this scientist is a supporter of the AGW theory?)
c)What, exactly, are you sure that the “vast majority” of scientists ascribe to? Global warming? Anthropocentric Global Warming? Anthropocentric Global Warming with mildish consequences? Anthropocentric Global Warming with catastrophic consequences?
There are more questions that need to be asked about this so-called “Vast Majority” who all believe the same thing. I do not claim that anyone is a liar or a loser or a communist, and if proof of this consensus is there, I’ll happily accept it. I just don’t see any so far.
Additionally, science does not, and never has, held that facts can be arrived at by democratic means. In scientific terms “consensus” is a meaningless word, and it’s rather alarming to see people on the one hand insisting on others using real scientific thinking, and on the other, insisting that the consensus counts for something. It could theoretically take the work of one scientist to disprove (or prove conclusively) AGW, at which point the consensus would count for nothing, as it does now.
This is such a young science, with so many unknowns, it seems silly for either side to be taking extreme positions, claiming absolute assurance either way. A lot of AGW sceptics here seem to be relying heavily on the antigreen website, which is indeed full of thought-provoking peer-reviewed science, but which undoubtedly omits whatever other peer-reviewed science it sees fit to omit.
As a layman I’ve seen enough of the science to believe that we actually know far less about the cycles of the climate than we might like to think, and that the science is not as settled as some would like us to think. I am also slightly sceptical regarding the “vast” consensus that supposedly exists, even if consensus were indeed how science operates.
I read an article by George Monbiot on some bad science published by David Bellamy – Bellamy had evidently relied on unscientific data from dodgy sources in claiming that icebergs are largely increasing in size. But for me the most interesting thing is that Monbiot said “it began to worry me. What if Bellamy was right?” He was not worried that the figures on iceberg growth might be wrong, he was worried that they might be right! He was worried that things might not be as bad as he desperately wants them to be! That was telling, to say the least.
Whatever the science eventually proves, clearly it is no coincidence that anti-runway environmental protestors at Heathrow target nearby McDonalds outlets, or sing Hamas songs while trashing Israeli warehouses, and it is no coincidence that those with an antipathy to the successes of the western world are intent on pushing the issue way ahead of what the science would more cautiously warrant; but that should not lead anyone to ignore science, and claim that the issue is decided one way or another. So far I would guess that it’s the end of the first leg, and the sceptics are 2-1 down but with the benefit of an away goal, as the rate of warming seems to be stalling in time for the home leg.
apologies – I meant anthropogenic rather than anthropocentric, obviously. I’ve just been writing an esay on anthropocentrism in western art.
Nearly Oxfordian,
“those posters who reject out of hand the possibility”????
What we reject is being told what to believe!
What we reject are half baked theories wrapped in psuedo scientific mumbo jumbo!
What we reject is being told that our voices are not worth listening to!
What we reject is a state propaganda arm that denies us a fair hearing of BOTH sides of the issue!
What we reject is being smeared and derided and insulted because we dont believe in the religious hysterical propaganda that is being forced down our necks regardless of the facts!
What we reject is two faced lying conmen like Al Gore who are getting rich on the backs of ordinary people!
“Those posters who reject out of hand the possibility that an effect is happening”.
That is the point,what is happening? It is cold,sleet and hail today,it isn’t getting any warmer.Sun spot activity is virtually nil,there is a possibility that the cold period could last for an extended period..
All we get is a mantra of Climate Change,a euphemism for AGW.Governments are about to embark on colossal schemes to prevent AGW when it appears to be getting colder.
There is a food shortage upon us,a fuel price hike and a famine of liquidity.All the political elites want to do is juggle with carbon emissions.
“I read an article by George Monbiot on some bad science published by David Bellamy -”
Interestingly Bellamy is a scientist and Monbiot isn’t.
Nearly Oxfordian: I am not sure whether you are genuinely interested in an answer, or just trying to provoke a fight. For the moment, I’ll assume the first is true and give you my answer.
In the debate, there are “warmists” like Al Gore and, if you will, “coldists” who deny anthropogenic global warming. I am a “lukewarmist”, skeptical of the extreme claims on both sides. When I write about global warming, I have, for the last five years, been adding this disclaimer to my posts.
First, I am skeptical of warmist claims because I worked, for many years, with computer simulations and have some understanding of the limits of computer models. We do not know whether the current models give us accurate predictions of future climates. If that seems surprising, consider this point: To the best of my knowledge, none of the models predicted this recent ten year period. Temperatures have not risen since 1998. If you want to impress me, find a prediction from, for instance, James Hansen, in 1998, saying that his model showed that the climate would stop getting warmer for a while.
Second, there is the behavior of prominent warmists, such as Al Gore, which is often inconsistent with what they say they believe. To my knowledge, Gore has yet to favor switching to nuclear power in order to reduce the effects of global warming. (In contrast President Bush has explicitly argued that we should move toward nuclear power in order to avoid the worst effects of global warming.) If Gore is unwilling to do something as obvious as that, why should I believe the rest of what he says?
Third, warmists almost always give just one side, the costs of warming, and neglect the other side, the benefits. Every serious person agrees that there would be positive effects of global warming as well as negative effects. (An example: Many believe that both Canada and Russia would be net gainers from a degree or two of warming.) But warmists seldom try even to estimate the positive effects.
Fourth, few warmists consider the alternatives. They want us to spend enormous sums, trillions of dollars, without having shown that that is the best use of our money. Bjorn Lomborg — who is not a skeptic about global warming — argues that there are far better places to put our resources, for example, clean water for the world’s poor.
But that’s just my answer, the answer of a “cross country skiing conservative”. Others may have different views.
(And I can’t help putting in a plug for my site. There are some pictures there now showing the snow pack on Mt. Rainier, which is well above average this year — contrary to the predictions of the warmists.)
Peter – Bellamy may be a scientist, but in this instance he was clearly wrong on the facts. I’m not saying he’s wrong on AGW, but on the icebergs he was in error. Scientists do, after all, make mistakes. Those who believe in AGW, and those who do not. So what exactly is your point?
Jack and Cassandra…I usually agree with most of your posts but I’m afraid the power of n.ox’s argument has won me over to his side, much to my surprise…his browbeating and scientificaly trained mind are too much to resist.The fact that he has also fought against communism and socialism during his life just makes me bow in abject awe…you two need to submit…we need such figures to lead us from the darkness of our ignorance into the hemp wearing, nut cutlet eating uplands of our eco future..long live etc etc.
Nearly Oxfordian,
The whole issue has been polarised by the AGW believers with their intolerant attitude and their claims that the debate is over and their refusal to consider that climate change could well be natural and cyclic.
The AGW believers have made it impossible for dissenting voices to be heard and that leads to intolerence on both sides. All we want is for real science to take its course and all sides to have their say and that enlightenment not propaganda is the centre of dialogue! At the moment we have a monologue of AGW believers who will not listen to reason!
If the media give us no platform then what are we to do? Stay quiet? Lie to ouselves? Give in to the mob mentality? Many have taken to belief over reason now and that always leads to disaster.
Remember the Y2k fiasco? lots of conmen got rich by conning us into believing that the worlds computers would turn against us and all we had to do was spend countless millions on software to fix this non existent problem?
Global warming is making a lot of people very rich and making others very powerful! Guess who is grubbing the money and who is grubbing for power?
Thud,
Ooooh you are right! I must obey my superiors, there is no other truth than what I an told to believe!
I must live in a mud hut and live on berries or we all die in the flames of hellfire and damnation.
I believe, I believe, I believe I…..nope no good, I cant hypnotise myself into the cult of obedience and poverty no matter how hard I try!
“Those who believe in AGW, and those who do not. So what exactly is your point?.”
That it was interesting.
Peter, fair enough. It is interesting that the scientist was wrong, and the non-scientist was right. It’s also interesting that, to the proponents of AGW, scientific credentials matter greatly when the holder of those credentials proposes something favourable to the theory, but when the credentials belong to a sceptic we see credentials undercut with smears about oil company funding or simple assertions that the person is now a fringe lunatic who has “lost it”.
But both sides are guilty of these inconsistencies – one hot summer proves AGW, one cooler summer disproves it. There is on both sides a near stampede to embrace conclusions that the science simply doesn’t merit yet, conclusions that have far more to do with personal beliefs about the world.
But we’re off topic slightly: the fact that concerns us here is that the BBC are allowing the AGW advocates to do this with little or no rebuttal or serious questioning, and we are paying them to do it.
“But both sides are guilty of these inconsistencies – one hot summer proves AGW, one cooler summer disproves it. There is on both sides a near stampede to embrace conclusions that the science simply doesn’t merit yet, conclusions that have far more to do with personal beliefs about the world.”
One slight difference,one side is demanding draconian regulation and taxation,involving astronomical amounts be spent on solving a problem that is not proven to exist.
We are looking at mass starvation because crops that could be eaten are being converted into bio-fuel.
All that the opponents of the Warmeristas ask is verification rather than semi-religious belief.
Frankly Ox I could care less what you think about the fraud of MMGWing.
I have no idea who you are except that now you’re picking an argument with the Oxford English Dictionary because you say I’m a demagogue, when I am clearly not…
Now that IS funny. I’ll leave it to others to decide who is the nutjob here. But here’s a few of the rational, reasoned points from your posts.
Utter nonsense
ignorant and/or demagogic.
I see that you (and others) are trotting out once again the idiotic crap
scientifically illiterate idiots
Utter, drivel
I used to be a physics teacher and examiner, so I could probably teach you a lot more about it than you could teach me.
what drivel you do talk.
Some idiots draw
Nonsense, Cassandra.
Red pepper, shall I explain to you how to read and analyse an argument?
Your argument is fallacious and ignorant
Cassandra is one of those lunatics who are incapable of grasping
he is a dumb little twat.
I’m glad I wasn’t a pupil in YOUR class. You don’t take well to anyone challenging you do you?
I’ve yet to read your defence of Rachel Carson, who was responsible for starting the DDT scare that led directly to the deaths of millions of poor black, brown and yellow people.
In fact I haven’t seen you address any of the points mentioned by a number of posters. I for one have no doubt that the climate changes. It has changed massively over the billions of years — it’s just that we have nothing to do with it.
As to your musings about Popper and his papers on the faslification and refutation of theories and hypothoses, please, don’t embarrass yourself any further.
You must know that the when so-called serious “scientists” start talking about consensus, and the debate is over, that they are the antithesis of Popper’s take on the true scientific method.
You’re not a scientist are you? You are an ex-teacher I believe. You know what they say about those who teach.
Here’s a great example of the “infallibility” of scientists and computer models
From the London Sunday Times
April 8, 2007
Big Bang at the atomic lab after scientists get their maths wrong
Jonathan Leake, Science Editor
A £2 billion project to answer some of the biggest mysteries of the universe has been delayed by months after scientists building it made basic errors in their mathematical calculations.
The mistakes led to an explosion deep in the tunnel at the Cern particle accelerator complex near Geneva in Switzerland. It lifted a 20-ton magnet off its mountings, filling a tunnel with helium gas and forcing an evacuation.
Last week an apparently furious and embarrassed Pier Oddone, director of Fermilab, said: “We are dumb-founded that we missed some very simple balance of forces. Not only was it missed in the engineering design but also in the four engineering reviews carried out between 1998 and 2002 before launching the construction of the magnets.”
Dumb-founded you missed something? No crap Copernicus!
My God, if you can’t trust world famous scientists to get basic maths right, what can you trust them to do.
Don’t see this on BBC – 7.30pm – and if it is it’s hidden away
http://news.sky.com/skynews/politics
Peter: “All that the opponents of the Warmeristas ask is verification rather than semi-religious belief.”
I agree 100% in that this is what I demand. Where I disagree is that there are anti-warmenists on this very thread who state that they intend to continue “pumping out as much CO2 as humanly possible, confident in the knowledge that it will have zero affect on the climate of a whole bleepin’ PLANET”. There is a true-believer with no scientific backing. Indeed, stating that 95% of the CO2 in the atmosphere is “natural” is to embrace a fact and to ignore science. My body is mostly water, but water can still drown me. CO2 may form a small percentage of our atmosphere and yet have an enormous impact. Oxygen too, though not a pollutant, can kill human beings if too much of it gets into the wrong place. The arguments of some commenters here are as much pseudo-science as anything the BBC has put out. CO2 may be natural and non-polluting, but many reputable scientists do claim that it is saturating to a point where it is becoming climatically dangerous. And saying that it makes up only a tiny proportion of the atmosphere is meaningless. Do we really suppose that analogies about lino on the floor of a 100-storey skyscraper outweigh the work of scientists? We can think up any number of clever images of how little CO2 there is in the atmosphere, none of which will alter the fact that some scientists say it is reaching levels dangerous to our environment. Do we really suppose that those scientists have simply neglected to familiarize themselves with something as basic as the proportions of CO2 in the atmosphere?
I’m convinced that the issue isn’t settled, but to see pseudo-science embraced so eagerly by anti-AGW advocates rather gives the lie to your claim that all the sceptics want is proof before acting. I suspect that many of us (I am one too) might have so much invested in the argument that, like Monbiot, we would be worried simply by the possibility of being wrong, even if being wrong turned out to be good news for the planet – especially when we’ve spent our time dismissing proponents of AGW as losers, demagogues, commies, hippies, etc etc. What was it the loathsome Cromwell said? – I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think that you may be wrong.
Shock horror! Snow in Snowdonia
“I suspect that many of us (I am one too) might have so much invested in the argument that, like Monbiot, we would be worried simply by the possibility of being wrong, even if being wrong turned out to be good news for the planet – especially when we’ve spent our time dismissing proponents of AGW”
Sorry,we are being dragooned into on of the greatest human and economic disasters in recent history by those who demand we do something now!
People like Miliband are salivating at the though of issuing us all with carbon credit swipe cards which restrict our use.The Bio-fuel disaster is already overtaking us.The government intends to construct some 7000 giant wind turbines around the coast.Thses are only some 30% efficient,power stations will have to be kept running as back up.The grid will not stand the surge of power when the turbines are operating.The “green taxes on cars is producing more than £500 million profit for the government,for less than one percent carbon reduction.
The sceptics are not the ones who are embarking on these mad grandiose schemes,which make no mistake are going to be a didsaster.
There are ample links above check them out
Peter: I can’t quite figure out why you think any of that answers anything I said.
Unless you can point out where I said that I was in favour of insanely inefficient over-reactions to a hypothesis in order to claim millions for the Treasury and curtail our freedoms.
All I said was that it was pointless for us sceptics to make weak unscientific analogies based on piles of Smarties or tall buildings, analogies which pay no heed to the levels of expertise and detail underpinning research on both sides of the debate. The only way we can shape the debate is to be part of it, not to alienate ourselves from sane people by claiming that it’s all been disproved already.
I also think that we are all at risk of falling into the Monbiot trap – and some on this site clearly already have – the trap of declaring as an article of faith that we *know* we are right, despite the lack of scientific proof in either direction, and of using language about those who disagree with us that makes it highly unlikely that we can ever approach the evidence with anything like an open mind. I get the impression that if Monbiot were proved wrong, he would sooner slink off into the woods and shoot himself than admit the world isn’t caving in after all. He has too much invested in being right, rather than in finding the truth. We should not make the same mistake.
Governments and media and the UN have the power and impose their opinions and policies, while sceptics do not. Agreed. But what I’m saying – and it has nothing to do with that – is that sceptics who talk as though the case for AGW has been disproved and is obviously baloney, and who coincidentally have a right-of-centre viewpoint, are no more credible and no more scientific than those left-of-centre folks who wish to shut down the debate before the science is settled.
If you believe that the debate is best served by acting as though any scientist who proposes AGW is a communist loser human-hating tree-licking suicide bomber, then I have to say that is where we part company. But you sound too reasonable to really think that. My point was this: the response of certain folks here to comments which defended the hypothesis of AGW was beyond what might be called reasonable, and entered into something that lies beyond debate. If we want a debate (and we do – it is the greens who often do not) then let’s debate, let’s not simply demonise those who may be reasonable people with different understandings of the science. Within a few comments of the start of this thread we saw a scientific theory held my many rational and sane scientists dismissed as a virtual communist plot, and the words “ludicrous” and “murderous” thrown in for good measure. Is this the way to engage with the public on this issue? Is this what we want neutral visitors to this site to see?
We are not answerable for the manipulations of the media or the government, and we are right to expose them, but it detracts from our credibility if we dismiss a rational though unproved scientific theory with which we disagree as a giant leftist conspiracy. We are responsible for how we sound as people engaged in public debate, and to read comment after comment arguing over which commenter is the bigger demagogue, what the dictionary definition of the word is, etc etc, …. come on!
I believe my opponent to be wrong. But I also know that there is a possibility that it will turn out to be my side that is wrong.
I’ve taken up enough space here, for which I apologise. That’s my last word on this. Clearly, the BBC story was misleading. There we absolutely agree.
gharqad tree
You are attributing a great deal to me which I have not stated.
If the AGW proponents wish to close down the debate it is right for us to challenge them.
Most of the AGW is based on very suspect computer modeling not fact.Politicians are acting on this as if it were gospel,now!
Yes Peter, I KNOW THAT!! And I agree with you. As I said in my last comment, you seem too reasonable to subscribe to some of the extreme and hostile positions which I was attacking.
It is indeed right for us to “challenge” the AGW proponents. Agreed.
The urgency that you clearly feel, I share; we need to attack the reliance placed on computer models – exactly as you say; we need to point out that they are at best abstract climate sensitivity tests, not predictive in any genuine way, and indeed not really *intended* to be. That message would hit home. If it comes in a package which includes a hatred for anything left-of-centre, we stand more chance of being ignored and of failing. I don’t even think we necessarily disagree on that.
Oh Dear, you stay away from the site for 24 hrs and you get another furious argument about AGW where the majority of people appear to completely miss the point and fail to understand the scientific method.
I don’t remember a post for Jim Miller before but as far as I, a humble scientist, can see he gets closest to the reality of the situation.
Firstly the politics, the people who appear to be acting in a thoroughly unscientific manner are the advocates of ‘the science is settled’ approach. That is not to say that they are wrong scientifically, but intllectually they are incorrect, especially on the theory of AGW for which there is very little experimental or observational evidence. Attempting to censor, silence or close down a scientific debate is the mark of an intolerant fundamentalist priesthood not a scientific community. Not all the advocates of AGW fall into this category but many do as do most environmental NGOs.
The science is unlikely ever to be ‘settled’ on such a complex phenomenon of the earths climate. As oceanographers we have been studying a much simpler system, the global oceans for well over a hundred years and are only scratching the surface of a comprehensive understanding.
What do we actually know: we know that the earth is currently within one of its regular interglacial periods, one of the longest that has been recorded, and is probably going to shortly enter its next ice age. By shortly I mean in the next 2-3000 years.
As a consequence the earth has warmed from the last ice age, through the Mediaeval Warm period which may (or may not) have been a regional (or global) phenomenon and through the little Ice Age (ditto). We know this via a variety of historical records and proxy temperature observations. However instrumental records only began about 100 years ago, have gone through many instrumentation and observational changes, and consequently we have difficulty in interpretation due to calibration problems etc. The proxy record from tree rings and ice cores is even more open to interpretation and errors due confounding factors. In recent years better ground level observations have been compromised by the Urban Heat Island Effect and further changes in procedures. Satellite measurements are almost certainly more accurate but are also prone to error for a whole range of reasons.
It appears that the earths average temperature may have increased by a few tenths of a degree in the period from 1900 to 2000 with some very large downward perturbations that may or may not be explicable by reference to particulates and there is near universal, albeit rekuctant, agreement that this temperature rise ceased about 10 years ago.
We also know that the cabon dioxide content of the atmosphere has been steadily increasing from the time we bagan to measure it consistentaly at Mauna Loa in Hawaii. We do not know for certain what historic levels of Carbon Dioxide in the atmospher were nor their relationship to temperature.
The Global Climate Computer Models are NOT predictive models and they are known to omit many of the key fundamental forcing factors (both positive and negative) because we simply do not understand them well enough to include them in the code. The models cannot be used to predict a future state from the existing. What they do is to look at the uncertainities and sensitivities of the factors we do understand and attempt to study those that we don’t. In essence the models allow you to say ‘If this model is correct and you change this parameter then this is what may happen.’ In other words the models are tools to help our understading of the climate systems not predictors of the future.
As Gavin Schmidt has said ‘all models are wrong but some are useful’ I fully agree.
It is probable that human carbon dioxide emissions are making a contribution to the overall temperature rise, but we do nt know how much, nor do we know the acual impact of other issues such as the cosmic ray in=maoct on cloud formation. (Note clouds are currently in the too difficult to model box despite broad agreement that they represent a key component of the system.
Its now late and I’m tired and can’t escape the conclusion that it doesn’t matter what I say the comments from both sides of the argument will continue (Don’t bother me about the facts because my mind is already made up) So I’ll stop. I’ll post more if there is any interest, but one last comment. It is really exceedingly unlikely that the atmosphere of the earth is in any way unstable, it’s complex for sure but an unstable atmosphere would have adjusted to a different equilibrium long ago.
Arthur Dent – a fair summary which shows the limitations of the science. Which is why none of it will appear on the Beeb, since it doesn’t fit in with the Algorean agenda.
Apropos the possible link between cosmic rays & cloud formation… 3 papers were published recently, 2 saying (in very simple terms) “yes, there may be a link” & 1 saying “no link”. Guess which one the Beeb publicised?
Personally I’m sick of their green alarmist propaganda.
Arthur Dent – thank you for a concise summary. I think that you hit upon something that we should be stressing, which is that the models upon which the current hysteria is based are not even properly *intended* to be predictive of actual near-future conditions, but are rather used as hypothetical sensitivity tests.
It’s difficult to get this point across, however, when we have a state media happy to provide a platform for third-rate politicians to tell us that a fall in butterfly numbers during one year is proof of impending catastrophic Anthropogenic carbon-driven Global Warming, without challenging or questioning that unscientific claptrap in any way.
The mind-numbing sets in with the realisation that under different circumstances higher butterfly numbers would probably also have been presented as proof of CO2-driven AGW…. with equally cheerful compliance from the BBC.
Arthur Dent – Thanks for the compliment. I don’t usually comment on AGW here, or elsewhere, because I don’t have any short answers.
(That’s why I developed that disclaimer, which is in great need of revision. It lets me do a short post on a global warming story, and then add a link to a disclaimer so readers can see that I have some sense of just how complex the issues are.)
I’ll have to find that Gavin Schmidt quote that you cite, since it makes a terribly important point
Wow – some great arguments on all sides. Its even better when people can disagree politely instead of name-calling.
So what do we want the BBC to do ?
1) Have climate correspondents with some kind of science background who will ask the right questions and not make stupid mistakes like the “see-zero-two” debacle we had recently. Or thinking that science is like politics where we can have a show-of-hands to decide what is true.
2) Just report the facts. All the facts. No spin. If things are getting hotter then tell us. If they are not then tell us.
3) Don’t make the “disaster cascade” mistake. In this fallacy you see every bit of bad news as being terrible and adding on top of all the other bits of bad news. This butterfly story is a good example of the disaster cascade effect.
My own field is civil engineering. Engineers make very good use of computer models for designing aeroplanes, bridges, skyscrapers, cars, in fact any structure.
The basis of this success is:
1) We fully understand the behaviour of steel and concrete under all conditions. Based on extensive lab and field tests.
2) The underlying theories can all be proved mathematically and are well understood. Most have been used for several generations of slide-rule engineers.
So we have some great results. At any time we could check the results of the computer model by working out the answer on a blackboard in front of the class.
Now I do not think that climate people have any of these building bricks in their models. As I understand it, climatology is an infant science – a bit like when astronomy and astrology parted ways 300 years ago.
Jim, the quote about modle utility was originally attributed to George Box, but Gavin has used it regularly on RealClimate to try to clarify the degree of confidence that can be applied.
This is another area where the scientists are well aware of the limitations of the models but by the time the information gets into the hands of the media the caveats have disappeared. It is now almost impossible to debate the science of climate change because of the polarisation and politicisisation of the issue.
Computers cannot predict.
All they can do is present the result of a scenario.
However if the basic info/process within the scenario is wrong, the resulst are wrong too.
GIGO – garbage in, garbage out.
the IPCC have 19 different computer models whose results vary by over 700% – hardly settled science.
The average of 19 wrong answers is a wrong answer. Not one of these models (despite $BILLIONS) pumped into the AGW/MMCC “predicted” the quiet hurricane seasons, our wet summer, the end of the “drought” in Australia or the savage winter that we in Western Europe missed.
Not very Global at all.
The more times scientific concensus has been proven wrong in the past the more certain Scientists are that they have got it right this time.
With reduced sunspot activity I wonder if many of these eminent scientists might be looking pretty stupid in 5-10 years time if the global climate cools rapidly, (like when many were predicting a new ice age as recently as 1970). No worries, just switch concensus and hoover up those new research grants..
Jack Hughes,
I agree with you – some very well informed comments on all sides of the issue – and they benefit without the ad hominems! Thanks to all for wading in on the butterflies!
The most important thing to recognise in this debate is that governments,particularly the EU are using AGW to set economically unsustainable target. Carbon emission levels which will decimate industry,renewable energy sources which cannot not be achieved within the timescale nor with the funds available at this time.Perhaps Jack Hughes could comment on the feasibility of building 7,000 giant off shore wind turbines by 2020.
We already have the debacle of bio-fuels depleting food sources,rationing is upon us.
As it stands what politicians intend will have much greater immediate impact than the social fabric than Global Warming.
This why the BBC is utterly derelict in its duty to report the issue fairly.
But for me the most interesting thing is that Monbiot said “it began to worry me. What if Bellamy was right?” He was not worried that the figures on iceberg growth might be wrong, he was worried that they might be right! He was worried that things might not be as bad as he desperately wants them to be! That was telling, to say the least.
gharqad tree | 24.04.08 – 5:40 pm
Telling indeed. Good to see you back here, gharqad tree. We have been spared the venom of John Reith for a few weeks now, for some reason.
Bryan thank you. Nice to hear from you. Reith’s venom was not half so irritating as his inability to argue reasonably and logically, and his habit of simply disappearing like a coward whenever he lost an argument. It’s better that he is not here to constantly polarise things and distract from the job at hand with his spurious diversions.
Agreed.