While all you say very well Nick is true and reasonable. Nevertheless
the basic issue is not addressed. The basic issue is that burning
fossil fuels is harmful for several important reasons, only one of
which is global warming. Therefore, we should make every effort to
phase out this source of energy. This will not be done unless the
public can understand the reason. The most easily understood reason is
the effect on the climate. Therefore, what is the point of fighting
this argument no matter how distorted its presentation might be?
Besides, the debunkers might be wrong, a fact that would not become
obvious until it is too late. Is it not wise and prudent to use every
argument that can be found to get people to support alternate energy,
including climate change? In contrast, I would expect people who get
financial benefit from the fossil fuel industry to fight any argument
for eliminating the use of oil and coal. Consequently, it is easy to
see where the self-interest lies by the argument each person uses.
Ed
On Sep 7, 2008, at 9:31 AM, Nick Palmer wrote:
Just to try to "level" the field wherein all the argument takes
place over AGW.
Richard Lindzen is probably the most respected of the atmospheric
scientists who are sceptical about catastrophic climate change. He
has been the AGW sceptical scientist-of-choice on many TV programmes
and writes leading articles for newspapers such as the Wall St
journal.
From the Wall St Journal that Terry Blanton linked to http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008220
Lindzen said a variation of the position he has held for many years
(early 90's). BTW, this is not cherry picked - it represents his
frequently expressed opinion.
"To understand the misconceptions perpetuated about climate science
and the climate of intimidation, one needs to grasp some of the
complex underlying scientific issues. First, let's start where there
is agreement. The public, press and policy makers have been
repeatedly told that three claims have widespread scientific
support: Global temperature has risen about a degree since the late
19th century; levels of CO2 in the atmosphere have increased by
about 30% over the same period; and CO2 should contribute to future
warming. These claims are true. However, what the public fails to
grasp is that the claims neither constitute support for alarm nor
establish man's responsibility for the small amount of warming that
has occurred." I hope that Vorts are sufficiently literate to
understand exactly what he is saying here...
The most serious sceptic is admitting that 1) there has been warming
2) that CO2 has increased in parallel with that warming 3) that CO2
should contribute to future warming. Virtually all of the "AGW
denier" propaganda and deliberately deceptive claims can therefore
be thrown in the bin - their main sceptical scientist does not back
them up. Throw in the bin the urban heat islands, the increased
solar irradiance, the so called debunked hockey stick (the debunking
has since been debunked), the "warming" on other planets and all of
the other, often mutually contradictory, theories and logical
falsehoods that the denier industry propagates ad nauseam, despite
them having been answered time and time again - they just keep on
endlessly resurrecting them, like the killer in a Freddy/Jason
slasher movie, as long as there are new gullible people to swallow it.
Lindzen's argument is that he does not agree with the IPCC
projections because he comes up with a different, lower, figure for
the "sensitivity" of the climate to greenhouse gas "forcing" and
feedbacks. He tacitly admits that there has been warming, that there
will be further warming and that we are responsible for some of it.
Where he differs from the majority is that his lower "sensitivity"
figure leads to predictions of lower temperature rise and much lower
probability of excess positive feedbacks adding to the problem. He
states that there will be further warming and we will be
responsible for it but it won't be a problem. He is effectively
claiming that, according to his research, assumptions, projections
and logic that in a similar situation, Dirty Harry usually has shot
6 bullets, or the last bullet always misfires, so challenging him
won't be dangerous. The IPCC models say that their "sensitivity"
figure, projections, assumptions and logic etc show that Dirty Harry
will almost certainly have bullets left and that it will be at least
risky to definitely dangerous to challenge him.
A fundamental problem is that the actual "sensitivity" figure to
various inputs CANNOT be known with certainty without a lot of
experimental climate science, which I have pointed out, over the
years, would need a time machine, as we only have one "test tube"
to do the experiment in.
It comes down to this - both the sceptical scientists and the far
greater number of pro AGW scientists are advising us that they're
assessments and assumptions about reality are better and more
accurate than the opposition's. Neither has got sufficient
experimental climate science behind them to fully validate their
positions. Who do we trust? Answer - neither. What we should do is
use the techniques of risk assessment to decide what to do.
