|
U-Know! Forum » Another Climate-Gate Leak... |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
landells 680 posts |
Nov 25, 2011, 17:03
|
||
|
So... an organisation that has been peddling crap has now said something you agree with and therefore it is correct |
|||
|
jshell 333 posts |
Nov 27, 2011, 08:12
|
||
|
Annexus Quam wrote: Isn't this latest reveal-one-IPCC-email-out-of-5000-emails-means-global-scandal-in-climate-science in timing with the next upcoming conference on climate change (once more a few weeks before)? Seems like some of those emails were also kept in store (from the last batch) for this next round of attacks... A Sceptic of the Sceptics Well, someone was taking them seriously, the Carbon Trading markets collapsed 20% on the back of them...
|
|||
|
jshell 333 posts |
Nov 27, 2011, 08:15
|
||
|
landells wrote: So... an organisation that has been peddling crap has now said something you agree with and therefore it is correct Ha, nice take, but no. Both sides are coming into line and if that continues perhaps we'll get some real, non-broken-peer-reviewed, common sense, real climate model, consensus going. That's all the sceptics want, is to be included in the process aas a balance to the zealots and delusional nut-cases. The e-mails have helped, there's at least one internal e-mail describing some foundation data for global temp series as, quote: 'crap'. Crap.
|
|||
|
tingltangl 17 posts |
Nov 27, 2011, 15:44
|
||
|
I have some sympathy with your views here jshell. There are so many compelling reasons why it would be a good idea to transition away from fossil fuels, perhaps the no 1 reason being that its a finite resource. The obsessive media focus on climate change does seem to drown out all these other issues. Trying to motivate people to change on the basis of a single issue, using fear, guilt and the doomsday scenario as "inspiration" has clearly failed to create a sea change in public opinion. Its a wholly disempowering message that causes many to resond by simply sticking thier heads further into the sand. The simple message that sustainability and clean energy are positive, evolutionary steps that offer a more intelligent, creative way of living might motivate people more than "you have to change or you and your children and grandchildren will die!" Personally, when i have ever tried to use fear and guilt to win someone over, its been spectacularly unsuccessful.
|
|||
Merrick 2148 posts |
Nov 27, 2011, 18:35
|
||
|
jshell wrote: No, I’ve been repeatedly fed the same crap that is peddled by the IPCC No, you've been repeatedly and patiently walked through why picking a couple of years of one indicator does not debunk the whole theory. Cf: your point about polar ice caps 'growing' in recent years, your point about 'cooling' since 1998, etc. And then you ignore it and come back and do it all over again. And appear to expect to be taken seriously.
|
|||
|
Merrick 2148 posts |
Nov 27, 2011, 19:18
|
||
|
tingltangl wrote: The simple message that sustainability and clean energy are positive, evolutionary steps that offer a more intelligent, creative way of living might motivate people more than "you have to change or you and your children and grandchildren will die!" there's a big truth there. And the positives about reducing consumption need to be put front and centre. They are, as you say, far more persuasive than fear and guilt. The fact that, above a certain level of wealth, more money does not make people more happy, in fact there is a correlation with increased wealth and increased mental health problems. also, relocalisation is beneficial to us all. Safer communities, less commuting. Cutting energy consumption means cutting energy bills too. However, there are some things that we cannot get around. If you want to have a sustainable level of carbon emissions, it means no aviation. It means seasonal food crops and goodbye to lots of the stuff that we enjoy eating year-round. Even if we get beyond our culture's deeply held belief that consumption is a mark of virtue and success, the fact is that we all love access to mangoes and strawberries in winter, we all love tropical beaches. There is no honest and positive way to sell that one to folks as far as I can see.
|
|||
|
tingltangl 17 posts |
Nov 27, 2011, 20:59
|
||
|
Indeed merrick, what seems to be required is a fundamental shift in values and even more profoundly, a transformation of our desires and a redefinition of what brings us happiness and pleasure. Yes we love foreign holidays and strawbwerries in december, but as you pointed out these things almost certainly don`t make us happier. By the way I have no idea how to make this shift happen! I only know that I perceive a growing minority of people who have repossessed their once manipulated desires and values. The optimist in me, and history backs this up, says that the minority view can become the majority view in as little as a generation.
|
|||
riverman 845 posts |
Nov 29, 2011, 17:34
|
||
|
jshell wrote: But, strangely, the IPCC said 2 weeks ago: "Projected changes in climate extremes under different emissions scenarios generally do not strongly diverge in the coming two to three decades, but these signals are relatively small compared to natural climate variability over this time frame. Even the sign of projected changes in some climate extremes over this time frame is uncertain" That admission that there is practically no discernable human influence in climate, and is unlikely to be any for 30 years is a far, far cry from: We’re all doomed and going to boil alive in our own juices of the AR4. I'm sorry but you've totally misunderstood that statement. It does not say that there is no discernable human influence on climate!! What it says is the signal of climate extremes (that is floods and droughts - not average global temperature) are likely to be less than natural climate variability over a 20 to 30 year period (short time-span - do they go on to talk about 50-100 years? We don't know from that snippet). Anyway, I would certainly expect that conclusion to be the case for some regions but the statement you've given us there does not refer to a region so I can't comment on that. The statement will refer to a region because climate models are sufficiently sophisticated to focus on regional scales and it would be entirely non-sensical to make a comment like that purely about extremes at the global scale. Anyway, what that statement also DOES confirm to me is that they are investigating BOTH human impact and natural variability on climate response which is surely what you're arguing for is it not?
|
| Pages: 3 – [ Previous | 1 2 3 ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| U-Know! Forum Index | |
