That’s great - I have always wanted to read more on this topic (although I suspect it will be addictive, just producing a need to read on, and on, and on…)

I think I’ll have to wait until the teaching term finishes to get through all of this (another two weeks or so). I want to give it my proper attention.

Thank you!

LE

Anyhow, there are more links/material I would like to send to you but am wary of posting them lest I become the subject of never ending ad hominem attacks. I have no desire to be quoted in another blog or to engage in an online shouting match. So if you will send me a temporary hotmail/gmail/yahoo address, I will send you the material I have.

Meanwhile, here is more:

http://www.fraserinstitute.ca/shared/readmore.asp?sNav=pb&id=886

The Fraser Institute is, I think it is fair to say, a relatively right wing Canadian think tank. Ordinarily I would avoid them along with those on the ardent left. However, I was persuaded to read this and was surprised at the absence of shouting in the document.

http://climatesci.colorado.edu/category/guest-editor-weblogs/

I have sent you this link before. Check out Hendrik Tennekes’s blog. As a fan of Karl Popper, you will appreciate Henk’s comments.

You may also appreciate the House of Lord’s report on Climate Change Economics

Some counterpoint:

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007/05/mcintyre_tries_moving_the_goal.php#more

and of course Real Climate and scores more…

Rgds

Thank you for your post. I used to be a lawyer myself - aeons ago it seems.

You will find, as you research the area, that there are important nuances and variations in the views of various scientists. As such the use of the term ‘consensus’ is deeply unfortunate, because what it shields is far more interesting than what it reveals. Happy reading!

Cheers,
Kay

Thank you - you’ve said exactly what I was thinking.

I am a lawyer, with a highly specialised knowledge of particular areas of the law. But I think it is entirely valid that laypersons want to try to understand the law. They may have a perspective on it which is different to mine, and indeed, they may be mistaken in some aspects of their understanding, but I don’t believe that they should just shut up and listen to the experts on the topic (ie, me). I don’t demand that people go off and get tertiary degrees in law in order to comment on it.

The IPCC, Al Gore, the Australian governments and different groups advocating response to climate change all want me to make decisions which may change my way of life radically on their “say-so”. Accordingly, I believe that I am entitled to have an opinion on the matter, despite the fact that I am not a scientist.

I concede that my opinion may be ill-informed or simplistic in some respects, and I am happy to try to understand any scientific papers or journals on the subject. As a reasonably intelligent and scientifically literate person, I believe that I could make a pretty good stab at it.

Tamino suggests the vast majority of climate change scientists may think climate change is occurring because of anthropogenic CO2 emissions, and that I should just accept that and shut up and do something about it. If such a large number of scientists are of this opinion, one must give credence to their views accordingly. But…I can’t help thinking that at one point in time, 99% of natural philosophers and astronomers probably thought Copernicus and Gallileo were totally wrong.

The need for “consensus” suggests that the decision is political not scientific. Plus, within a consensus that anthropogenic climate change is occurring, there may be significant variation of specific opinions.

But I will check out all those websites and see what I can learn.

Cheers, LE

These are:

http://www.climateaudit.org/
http://climatesci.colorado.edu/

The argument that as non-scientists, we should not attempt to understand the issues raised in the science, is simply unsustainable. We are not doctors, but when faced with a serious medical condition, will seek to understand the issues and perhaps seek alternative opinions - doctors will usually seek several opinions before issuing a diagnosis or prognosis. Perhaps medicine is not science.

Given that anthropogenic climate change has huge implications one way or the other, I think it is incumbent on all of us to understand all the issues beyond the superficial sound bite or catch phrase. This is not the time to surrender your mind - not to the state, not to the IPCC, not to Durkin, not to Al Gore, and not to a group of scientists.

I share your concerns about carbon credits and other schemes, which may be more effective at making people feel good than at doing anything to reduce CO2 emissions into the atmosphere. Frankly I don’t know the best way to go about it; I have my notions, but I’m not an economist, environmental scientist, or sociologist, and I don’t pretend to know better than they do.

But I caution you not to doubt the fundamental science unless you have real reason to do so. And that begins by at least understanding the fundamental science. I’m not talking about dengue fever outbreaks in Australia; that’s a scientific speculation, and as you rightly point out, the mass media has a very destructive habit of touting every newborn speculation as though it were Einstein’s theory of relativity. I wish they’d quit doing that!

The fundamental science, however, is quite robust (scientific terminology for “overwhelmingly likely to be dead-balls accurate”). And it is: global warming is really happening. It’s caused by human activity. It’s bad.

If you want to become a climate scientist, then you may discover some hitherto-unknown flaw in climate science. But up to this point, the few legitimate scientists who claim to have done so, just don’t have a leg to stand on. Their often-ridiculous proclamations have made their careers into a joke. The case being built by thousands of researchers worldwide, researcher who (contrary to what you may have heard) are actually trying to find its flaws, has simply gotten stronger and stronger for decades, until the evidence is overwhelming.

If you choose to learn climate science, I hope you can shed light on our understanding. But be prepared that it takes years of study just to become a beginner. Until then, rather than spend your time questioning the science, I suggest you turn your thoughts to what can be done about it.

I agree, Greenpeace doesn’t have a monopoly on schmucks. There are uninformed twits in the environmental camp, and uninformed twits in the skeptics camp. There are also people in each camp who are pushing their own weird political agendas (sometimes with good intentions, but other times, I suspect them of more Machiavellian intentions).

Personally, I think that both sides should be questioned throughly, because as you state, that’s what science is all about. I don’t take climate change skeptics for granted at all. From what I understand, there are some real whackos amongst them too. If someone suggested I should accept their hypothesis 100% and exclude the hypotheses of those who argue that anthropogenic climate change is occurring, I would refuse to do so. Each side should keep an open mind. It is vital that scientists keep researching, publishing findings and try to find out what is going on.

I guess part of my problem is the way in which the media presents these issues. I really hate scaremongering, and I think some of the predictions are far-fetched. How can it be said that dengue fever will increase in Australia? This is just a surmise, it’s not certain, but it’s presented as a fact. The problem is that the media doesn’t like reporting that the sky might fall on people’s heads. That’s just not a good by-line. How much better is it if it is reported that the sky will definitely fall on people’s heads at 10am tomorrow!

The other thing I don’t like about scaremongering is that it can lead to ill-thought out measures which don’t actually fix the problem. For example, there was a recent study in the Environmental Science and Technology Online Journal which said that, contrary to popular opinion, changing cars to ethanol-based fuels could be worse for people’s health, and make no appreciable difference to climate change. From what I understand, previous studies had only looked at tail-pipe emissions, and had failed to take into account the way in which those emissions then reacted with the atmosphere. (I’ve done a post on it here).

I also worry about the efficacy of carbon credits in addressing the problem. I am concerned that if such measures are not thoughtfully implemented, they may lead to a situation where third world countries and the poor are disadvantaged.

These are not criticisms of climate change science per se, but of the politics and hype surrounding it, and the way in which climate change is reported. I wish it weren’t so polarized and politicized. But that’s the way life is, I suppose.

Cheers,

LE

I think it is necessary and important for us to question climate change and the science on which it is based if we wish to make a thorough scientific analysis.

I’m a scientist. This is exactly what we do for a living. We train for years to learn what our predecessors learned, the techniques for collecting, analyzing, and interpreting data, how to use the tools. Perhaps most important, as Feynmann said, we must learn how to stop fooling ourselves.

Then along comes some concerned citizen who decides to investigate the issue of climate change. That’s good!

This particular concerned citizen reads Michael Crichton’s State of Fear, sees Martin Durkin’s documentary Great Global Warming Swindle, and finds all kinds of web sites denying the reality of global warming. He’s predisposed to dislike Al Gore and greenpeace. He comes to the conclusion that global warming is false. He’s entitled to his opinion.

But now he starts a personal campaign to discredit global warming science. Of course, he’s never studied thermodynamics or atmospheric physics or chemistry; he’s never even thought about the statistical analysis of time series or radiative transfer functions or infrared absorption spectroscopy. Hell, he doesn’t even know what they are. But he’ll start a blog on which he declares that the thousands of climate scientists who produced the IPCC reports are part of a worldwide conspiracy to swindle us out of research funds, and the temperature change we’ve observed in the last 100 years is all part of a natural cycle.

He’ll even come over to my blog and tell me that a volcanic eruption like Mt. St. Helens or Mt. Pinatubo puts more CO2 in the atmosphere than all human activity since the beginning of time. He’ll proclaim that some glaciers are shrinking but others are growing, and Al Gore is a big fat liar to put so many pictures of shrinking glaciers in his movie.

I can tell you’re unhappy with the greenpeace moron who said that global warming is causing tsunamis; he’s mistaken to believe it, and an idiot to state it as fact. But I can tell you, for every greenpeace imbecile who attributes tsunamis to global warming, there are a thousand (or more) so-called “skeptics” who make equally stupid proclamations about global warming science. I deal with them every day. Almost every time I do another blog post on the science of global warming, one of them shows up to comment about how idiotic, or downright evil, I am. They’re all over the net.

If you want to discuss global warming science, I encourage you. But don’t talk with idiots and call it a stimulating conversation. Don’t think for a moment that hours spent scouring the web will substitute for years studying physics, mathematics, and chemistry, or a lifetime spent studying climate science. And when thousands of genuine bona-fide climate scientists say that global warming is real, it’s caused by human activity, and it’s very very dangerous, pay attention. When the handful of scientists who dispute it call them liars, don’t believe it. When the morons show up at your blog disputing the science, turn your “doubt meter” to ultrahigh sensitivity. And if you’re really confused about a particular question, go toRealClimate (climate science blog by climate scientists), or come to my blog, and ask.