I found your article both reasonable and thought-provoking. As such, I forwarded on the article link to my MP and asked her to consider the argument and whether it would be worth raising a discussion in Parliament re science and public policy in the UK.

http://www.leoprize.org
http://www.gu.se/ViewPage.action?siteNodeId=101152&languageId=100000&contentId=-1&refresh=true&eventId=9461

Yup. Marginalizing science certainly is the new wish, isn’t it.

Some hide it better than others.

Best,

D

overrated.

Although, the point is certainly made, as long as one includes the sheep bleating and the donkeys braying from the bandwagon on the other side…

I’m very dogmatic about pointing out how the current scientific understanding and community is mischaracterized, cherry-picked and mendacicized by rubes, ideologues and shills for their agenda, yes.

Thanks for allowing me to point that out.

Best,

D

Your point about scientists proposing alternative policy options should be digested well. The science and the policy makers sorely needs this. I have been hearing about this abstract thing called a warming globe for a very long time. I have also been hearing about the carbon dioxide monster till my eardrums are about to go numb. Then I have heard the laments about not unshackling the Kyota superman who will solve everything. All of this has gone beyond paradigm to dogma and every new scientific paper somehow supports it even when it doesn’t

Its amazing, absolutelly amazing that such an overwhelmingly complex field, which the most authoritatuve sources say is loaded with uncertainties, somehow has its central problem reduced to one simple cause and that cause has a self evident solution!

Are there not other causes of climate change? Black carbon, methane, ozone, other green house gases and other aerosols. I am sorry, they are significant, very significant. How about land use change? In addition to the forcings, might not feedback mechanisms be addressed? How about feedback loops?

Go after these forcings instead of CO2 and you have the advantage of going after a true pollutant instead of a gas essential to life that has been distorted into a widespread belief that it too is a pollutant. Going after these other forcings would have the double-barreled effect of getting rid of a pollutant, probably be cheaper, and have a more immediate effect.

The lagged effects of CO2, the impossibility of asking an underdeveloped world to give up aspiring to a modern standard of living, means to me that chasing Kyota-like ideals will not have an effect for decades, if ever. Dealing with other forcings are alternatives that must be discussed.

Throwing away that abstract globe and looking at the real world also needs attention. Jim Hansen goes to Greenland and is amazed that melting is going on that his models never told him about. Ha! His models did so tell him as did papers he co-authored. Darn right that the abstract models fixated on CO2 did not tell him. But NASA papers on carbon black and ozone say that over half of that Arctic warming may be due to these causes and also that the polar winds are contributing. Looks to me like the effects of CO2 up there may be fairly minor.

Of course everythng in print uses the goings on in the arctic as testament to the ravages of CO2. Doesn’t that figure? Instead of looking at the Arctic as a problem that may have a solution, we use it instead as further proof that CO2 is heating up the world. Other forcings are not even mentioned. You can bet that those Inuits and polar bears will continue to be inconvienced. But that ancient Inuit culture looks pretty adaptable to me as they drive about in their snowmobiles. They are probably savvy enough to charge tolls when the Nortwest Passage opens up. In such an event, they might join midwestern farmers, with their increased crop yields, in praising “global warming”.

That leads to another set of options… regions in the real world. Look at them. Some will affect climate change and some will be affected by it. Does anyone expect that midwest farmer to give up his best interests so that the Maldives won’t flood? Maybe if we had a set of options we could address both. Regions are where the climate changes not in a model!

I am a pragmatist whose profession is advisory. To me the world of climate science reeks of political correctness not progress.

This is my last shot guys so fire away. I bet that the first nasty shot comes from Dano, high priest of the dogma!

Best,

D

My question was based on the fact that the science you quoted isn’t really science.

I assume that, if the IPCC TAR had a conclusion that, “The number of Category 5 hurricanes landfalling in the United States between 2020 and 2050 will be between one and six”…you wouldn’t have used that as your illustration of an example of “science.”

For one thing, you’d know that there is a huge difference between 1 and 6 Category 5 landfalling hurricanes in 30 years. So simply saying, “between 1 and 6″ wouldn’t be sufficient science.

But perhaps more important, you’d know that six landfalling Category 5 hurricanes in the U.S. in 30 years is simply not credible. One, definitely; two, possibly; three, pretty unlikely; four, amazing…and six in 30 years is simply not credible.

When you reference the IPCC TAR’s “1.4 to 5.8 degrees Celsius,” you’re doing the same thing. The “science” you are using for your example simply isn’t defensible as science.

I have one more question, that I think does relate to your article, even though it’s an extension of what Chris and I were discussing:

Suppose the IPCC TAR’s central conclusion had been, “The number of Category 5 hurricanes landfalling in the United States between 2020 and 2050 will be between one and six.”

Based on your knowledge of hurricanes, would you have mentioned that conclusion in your paper?

If not, why not?

Best wishes,
Mark