tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9192922.post118829656247764876..comments2024-03-29T11:22:18.208+00:00Comments on Mabinogogiblog: Climate change skepticism, science, logic and ideologyDocRichardhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08903964792092284406noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9192922.post-10192734745764526502009-12-07T09:48:59.650+00:002009-12-07T09:48:59.650+00:00We can agree that the models are not perfect - not...We can agree that the models are not perfect - nothing is perfect - but it is not necessary or wise to insist on perfection in a matter as important as this. The Precautionary Principle kicks in here - we must make the safest choice, and that choice is decarbonisation.<br /><br />See here:<br />http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=9192922&postID=4842304093530269701DocRichardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08903964792092284406noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9192922.post-23319780303450201592009-12-06T12:44:32.027+00:002009-12-06T12:44:32.027+00:00Yes, in your post you do say “Or maybe they mean i...Yes, in your post you do say “Or maybe they mean it makes a negligible contribution”.<br />But my point is that the IPCC scientists as well as what I would call mainstream “sceptics” say that CO2 by itself has a small effect on global temperature. But IPCC scientists then claim that the water vapour feedback mechanism enhances the warming to a much higher level. They then write computer programs that attempt to model the various influences on the global climate. The mainstream “sceptical” view (as I understand it- and I may be wrong) is that the models are not adequately representing the various feedbacks (including for example increasing cloud cover) and that the models do not in fact exhibit “skill”. I know that this is a matter of dispute between the scientists and that the majority of scientist do not accept these criticisms and the criticisms come from quite a small minority.<br /> But I would not say that mainstream “sceptics” reject the use of models out of hand, nor would I say that they have the attitude that nothing would convince them that they are wrong. I don’t deny that there are some people with that attitude, but part of the problem I have with your post is the first sentence where “sceptics” are all tarred with the same brush. Even in countering Daily-Mailism do you feel that you are justified in doing that.<br />JMacAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9192922.post-37953489087982758982009-12-05T22:30:46.074+00:002009-12-05T22:30:46.074+00:00JMac
Read again. I said "Or maybe they mean i...JMac<br />Read again. I said "Or maybe they mean it makes a negligible contribution".<br /><br />I reject your "disingenuous" claim.<br /><br />I am sincerely trying to construct the sceptics' case. As you say, there is a range. Maybe my approach is affected by the fact that I am dealing with Daily Mail readers, which is a project that have taken on to find out what the problems are in communicating with non-scientific people.<br /><br />More importantly, is we both agree that CO2 has a forcing effect, but that you think it is smaller, and the majority think it is larger, then the debate switches to the operational one of what we should do about it.<br /> <br />Do you agree that we should start decarbonising now, or do you think we should wait until all the sceptics are on board with the science?DocRichardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08903964792092284406noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9192922.post-71691636166829631652009-12-05T10:30:59.032+00:002009-12-05T10:30:59.032+00:00This is not correct.Most "sceptics" do n...This is not correct.Most "sceptics" do not think that CO2 has no effect.The IPCC documents themselves explain that the effect of CO2 in directly warming the atmosphere is quite small and limited to certain parts of the spectrum, but that a warmer atmosphere can hold more water vapour which has a more potent greenhouse effect so acts as a feedback mechanism.Prof. Lindzen (a climate scientist) and most other "sceptics" accept the first part (its basic science) but dispute that the feedback mechanisms are at all well understood and argue that their are counteracting feedbacks.<br />You have to go pretty far out to find "sceptics" who say that CO2 is a greenhouse gas but has no effect on global climate.Your post is disingenuous (or you need to be better informed).<br />JMacAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com