Climate Change IPCC Must Use Science

The recent IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) failures which includes admitting that they got the figures wrong on the Himalayan glaciers proves how important it is to use science. If you don't have science to back up your claim then don't make the claim, commission more research instead.

These recent failures of the IPCC to get the figures right on climate change has increased the scepticism in the public see the figures on Letters from a Tory blog Bye bye climate change consensus?. See the poll below says it all really;

People think there is some massive Left conspiracy to tax us all. I still believe that is just a crazy idea, as they will be found out if it was true.

There is also talk amongst Greens of going back the old mantra of reducing fossil fuels and fuel security and power. This would really just fuel the fire of the conspiracy believers as it would simply be viewed as a change of tack and then IPCC reports would appear to be some kind of dodgy dossier. If you have the proof of climate change and believe it then stick with it unless proven otherwise.

Andrew Neil is fast becoming a good source on climate change as he is covering both sides of the story with a skeptical eye. Andrew is being fair in this developing story and reporting on both the sceptical debate and the details of recent rising temperatures in January accross the world see here and the dam is cracking here.

So because Andrew Neil is being fair to both opinions, im going to read with interest on what he reports. The problem with climate change is there are too many people on both sides who appear to have agenda's personally im only interesting in find out the truth of the matter.

So please in future IPCC when you say its based on science, make sure it is otherwise you will lose all credibility and the stats will move further away from a public consensus on climate change.

A Call to the World On Climate Change

Dear Fellow Citizens of Bracknell and the World,

What on earth is my granddaughter and her children and their children, and all of our descendants like them all over the world, going to use in the future for energy instead of fossil fuels - oil, gas & coal?

We take these currently absolutely essential energy sources so much for granted. Energy that we need to enjoy everything, watch everything, drive everything, dig up everything, cut down everything, move everything, grow everything, catch everything, make everything, cook everything, heat everything, etc etc etc. ad infinitum!

PLEASE WAKE UP AND SMELL THE COFFEE!

EVEN IF CLIMATE CHANGE, MAN MADE OR OTHERWISE, HAD NEVER EVER BEEN MENTIONED, EVEN IF IT IS A HUGE CON. TRICK - QUITE POSSIBLY (IF NOT PROBABLY!) BECAUSE IT IS THE ONLY WAY OUR POLITICIANS AND WORLD LEADERS NOW THINK THEY CAN GAIN PEACEFULL GLOBAL COOPERATION FOR ACTION WITHOUT STARTING WWIII OVER ENERGY - AND ALL OTHER RAPIDLY DWINDLING NATURAL RESOURCES.................

WE STILL HAVE A HUGE INDIVIDUAL, NATIONAL AND GLOBAL ENERGY SUPPLY PROBLEM TO SOLVE!!!!

POSTPONING ACTION TO REPLACE FOSSIL FUELS AS THE UNIVERSAL GLOBAL ENERGY SOURCE FOR USE BY THE REMAINING AND POSSIBLY IF NOT PROBABLY VERY LIMITED NUMBER OF FUTURE HUMANS THIS PLANET CAN SUPPORT WILL ONLY MAKE IT HARDER AND HARDER TO SOLVE IT, EVERY DAY THAT WE DELAY!!

IF WE ARE NOT VERY CAREFUL. THERE SIMPLY WONT BE ENOUGH OF THESE REMAINING FOSSIL FUEL ENERGY SOURCES LEFT TO BUILD ALL THE REPLACEMENT GREEN ENERGY INFRASTRUCTURE THAT WE NEED BEFORE WE RUN OUT OF THEM!

WE WILL HAVE SQUANDERED THEM ALL. ENJOYING THE CURRENT PLEASURES AND LIFESTYLES THAT WE ONLY HAVE BECAUSE OF FOSSIL FUELS.
.
And - I AM SHOUTING!!!

Now, will you all please listen?

It is my firm belief that a great many politicians and world leaders, and their citizens too, are at last waking up to the fact that we humans who are alive right now quite justifiably blame them and their predecessors for not acting in our best interests in the past and the present.

Clearly strong action to replace fossil fuels should have started decades ago.

Blaming man-made climate change as the need for action now just lets them off the hook considerably!

Remember, they were/are our leaders. They were/are supposed to be looking after their citizens best interests at all times!

It is all fine and dandy having a growing economy for a while.........
But, after a boom comes a bust, always.
Being rich for a while only to end up poor on a dying planet without enough energy to live decent lives later on in the future is hardly leadership or an intelligent solution - is it?

All of these politicians and world leaders must have known that the OIL, GAS & COAL would not last forever. I mean, we all know that - don’t we?

Surely they must have worked this out for themselves at some time - mustn’t they?

If they didn’t know that much, they were/are either just plain stupid and therefore, they were never ever properly qualified enough to be a politician or a world leader, either that or they must think that some supernatural being replenishes the supplies every night while we are asleep, perhaps?

Same difference?

It seems to me that this has been a case of the blind leading the blind for far too long!!! But some of us blind people can see things quite clearly – NOW! No longer can we let these blind politicians and so-called leaders lead us citizens into future disaster.

Please believe me!

Please will you at least listen to those politicians and leaders who now call for firm action against Man-Made Climate Change?

Maybe this is the wrong label for the right action.

So what??????

If we can get the right internationally agreed global agreement at Copenhagen, it will have the same effect as rationing Oil, Gas and Coal consumption all over the world - without starting WWIII over energy!
At least I do sincerely hope that it will..........!
Sadly, with a mere whisper of hope left now (unless you and they at the conference all wake up to reality too!) - I rest my case for "man-made climate change action"!

Yours most sincerely,

Billbloggs

Post on behalf o Billbloggs by Dazmando

Does The Tory Party Have Its Own Green House Effect

I think the recent Climate Gate email debacle and the prominence of columnist in a number of papers who have written about their climate change scepticism as well as the growing belief that 'this is a left wing' conspiracy about control and taxation could be building problems for the Tory party. This problem I believe could become as big for them as say the EU issue.

As I read a while ago Mark Reckons blog 'Are Tory bloggers out of step with membership on the environment?' I think this scepticism is shown up in the bloggers and indeed top Tory blogger Iain Dale while not claiming to be a sceptic has posted a number of articles 'Trust Us' Say Climate Change Scientists and Is the Climate Change Consensus Fracturing? And Indy Tries to Split Tories Over Climate Change as he believes the debate is not over. It certainly does not appear to be.

Also some Tories(Oliver Letwin and Iain Duncan Smith, sit on the advisory body) appear to be supporting the dossier issued by the European Foundation which can be viewed on the Thoughts Of A Conservative Christian blog here which gives 100 reasons why climate change is not man made. This was raised today by Jackie Smith and was not answered by William Hague (I have to add that this was a low jab at the Tories and after all its supposed to be Prime Ministers Questions).

On BBC Five Live today David Cameron said, "The way I would argue with the climate change sceptics is say look. If someone said to you that there is a 75 percent chance of your house burning down, even though 25 percent is quite a big number wouldn’t you take out some insurance, wouldn’t you take steps to try and stop it from happening? So even if your sceptical, even if you don’t think there a 100 percent certainty, isn’t it right to take some steps to protect against what could be calamitous for our planet for our children and as its moving quite fast for us as well”. So it’s very clear where David Cameron is on this subject.

I’m not discussing the merits of climate change here. I just wondered if these discussions have caused more Conservative members to become more sceptical. If so then given the Tory Party leadership are firmly behind they’re being man made climate change. Does this mean that this issue could also become a dividing line with in the Party?

Just by way of a note I noticed this 50 reasons why global warming isn't natural on the Short Sharp Science (New Scientist Blog), thanks to a Tweet from AdrianWindisch of the Green Party.

Can A Non Expert Comment?

To this post ‘Climate Gate’ I had a recent comment that really made me think about something else other than the subject matter too hand for which the comment was replying too. I also think that my reply is to long for a comment in this case.

Leonard Weinstein said...
"dazmando, I am a scientist (Physics and Aerospace Engineering) and have read much of the literature. I started out accepting the AGW position until I had gone into the issue in depth. I am qualified to give an opinion on the subject, and have been a skeptic for many years.

I find it offensive that you admit having little technical understanding on the subject, yet give a strong opinion. The large number of news media and politicians are also in that camp. If only highly qualified people that have INDEPENDENTLY reviewed the literature are counted, the skeptics are a large minority or even majority. However, nose counting is not science.

The evidence, especially in light of climategate info seems to support that skeptics have been correct. We all agree that coming out of the little ice age resulted in some warming, and humans cause pollution (dust, smog, dirty water, etc.) but calling CO2 and methane as major causes of the warming is not supported , and thus no major problem will result. It is clear the issue is not AGW, but an attempt to form a world controlling group that uses these excuses to tax and control the successful countries.”


Now as it happens I agree with Leonard’s last point that methane should be counted towards global warming. I also agree that nose counting is not science. I also agree that humans do cause pollution.

If it turns out that there is a conspiracy to “control successful countries” then fair dues. I think that if there is a conspiracy then those involved will be found out given time (i.e. 1. If the world does not get warmer. 2. This would be a massive cover up operation, one that could not be hidden). I also intend to read more on the subject from all sides of the argument.

However I’m not really replying to this point here. What I what to is explore this line here “I find it offensive that you admit having little technical understanding on the subject, yet give a strong opinion.”

Can a layman on a subject have a strong opinion? He is correct that I do admit that I'm not an expert. However I have read articles on both sides of the climate debate, therefore I am defiantly not an expert but I do have a considered opinion. I understand what the green house effect is and I also understand that there are a lot of variables too it, many more than the variables used in the most complicated computer modelling. Many people who believe in or indeed don’t believe in man made climate change do have strong opinion on it.

As an avid listener too the http://www.theskepticsguide.org/ podcast, I do also understand what to be skeptic means. I am a generally sceptical person on matters that do not have scientific evidence and I also admit that I am sometimes let down by my own human nature.

Newspapers columnist and Bloggers and Politicians for that matter also have strong opinions on subjects that they may or may not be expert in. We all do. Of course it is there job to find out all they can about the facts. But they are still not experts. Also if they didn’t have strong opinions then I’m sure none of these people would be writing or standing for councils/parliament.

I have diplomas in Computer Science and Economics and am currently doing my finals in Accountancy. Does this mean that my opinion on the bank bailout is more strong (or valid) then the average member of the public? Should only people who have studied politics be allowed to vote? Are only people who work within the church allowed to have strong opinions on god?

Or is some knowledge on a given subject (like we all have on most subjects) a dangerous thing? After all I have an opinion on Tiger Woods recent revelations in his personal life, but I don’t know him. I have an opinion on who should win the Xfactor, but I will never buy the records, I’ve not even watched the last 4 or 5 episodes. I have strong opinions on my football team (Reading FC) but I'm not a coach, so should I not express these opinions when I watch them play or go to the pub? Do I tell my fellow football fans that they don’t know anything about it? Their not professional players or coaches after all?

I know that if all the bloggers just blogged on subjects that they are experts in then I think we would not have such a range in bloggers and commentators. If this was the case then those experts that do blog should only let experts reply to their comments and the rest of us laymen can just read the postings.

Discussion is important for democracy and human nature and expression. So I think that non experts should still have opinions. Of course this is just an opinion feel free to comment (expert or not).

I also think that we all have a right to comment on subjects if you are influenced by its effects. For example I pay my taxes and use the resources of the planet and have to live within whatever climate we have. I watch my football team and have an emotional attachment too them, I pay money for football tickets and use my spare time to watch them; I hope that also gives me the right to have a strong opinion.

I would like to thank Leonard Weinstein. I think his post is very considered and I didn’t want to cause him any offence as he believes I have. I apologies for this, it is never my intention to offend. Unfortunately this does happen from time to time when you have strong opinions. The comment did really get me thinking about who can comment. I really do appreciate the comments I get on this blog as I think the debate here is much more important that what I write in the articles. I also get some very high quality comments which I find very helpful.

Climate Gate

More fuel was recently added to the ClimateGate scandal by the emails, from scientists at the University of East Anglia which is a top centre for climate research (one of many). These were seized upon by deniers and sceptics as evidence that the scientists have after all this time twisted data in order to convince the public that global warming exists.

The leaked emails expressed frustration that scientists have had an inability to explain a temporary slowdown in warming and they did discussed ways to counter the campaigns of climate change deniers. You see they did this because it is very hard to explain global warming as temperatures move up and down every year. The climate is affected by many variables. Of course these scientists should be upfront and honest but they are not the only ones recording and looking at this data, then telling the world about it.

Based on 140 years of recorded data, 1998 remains the "warmest year on record". This is the problem for the scientist who are try to explain the trend and not the weather. However since 1998 the temperatures as a trend have gone down and then risen again as a trend (not year on year). This can be very hard to explain. However the last 10 years still contain the 8 highest temperatures on record. See the graph below.

Yes there have been variances in the past in global temperature before it was recorded. But these changes have been put down to other short term events like volcanoes (for example eruption of Tambora in 1815 or Mount Pinatubo in 1991) or meteorite hits like the Tunguska Event. Picture below is of the Tunguska Event.

If there was a conspiracy this would be the most amazing world wide conspiracy in history and to what end. How does this help the governments of the world? What, they can tax us more? How does this help the scientists? Why would so many put their name and careers at risk. Err so the government’s wants to get rid of oil and coal use on which so many industries depend and pay huge taxes into western governments also depend, why on earth would they do that?

Some how this ClimateGate conspiracy really doesn’t add up. I just can’t see it being a conspiracy myself. With 7 billion people on this planet and increase of 4 Million in just 50 years, how on earth can that not have an effect? Mass industrialisation, global pollution, lakes drying up, glaciers melting and less ice in the north pole.

It is happening now people, I don’t like it myself, I don’t want to change my life style too but I can’t deny it to me it just seem so obvious that there is man made global warming.

World population graph here

See Bracknell Blog Can the Climate Change Debate Wait?

See Bracknell Blog Do We Need a Population Policy?