Intelligent Life On Planet Rock
Chicken Licken
Heard something on the Today programme this morning which took me aback somewhat. I didn’t catch the whole piece but one line in particular leapt out at me. John Humphrys was talking to a reporter about a new international climate change agreement which would ensure that ‘we would not allow the climate to rise by more than 2 Celsius’.
Am I alone in finding this a touch delusional? I don’t buy this idea that humans have their hands on some giant thermostat that can be ‘turned down a touch’. Even if (in that disturbing Orwellian phrase) ‘the science’ says that human activity is at least partly responsible for increasing temperatures in certain parts of the world (an important point to remember, when we see emotive images of stranded ‘cuddly’ polar bears, is that ice in the Antartic is growing), the subsequent actions required are, to me at least, far from settled.
The line is always trotted out that ‘of course poor countries will suffer the most from climate change’ (note the not-often-remarked-upon change from ‘global warming’ to ensure all possible future weather events can still be covered!). Bangladesh is the example most often given. Is the idea that if ‘anthropomorphic climate change’ hadn’t happened, this and other countries like it would be fine and dandy and not at all vulnerable to disasters on a massive scale? I’m sure The Independent will try to shoehorn it in somehow, but as far as I know no-one has yet tried to claim the 2004 tsunami was caused by human activity.
How about practical measures like installing Netherlands standard sea defences? That would have an immediate, unarguable effect rather than turning down some notional thermostat in the sky. I’m all in favour of environmental measures such as conservation of habitat and reduction in local pollution, and there are myriad reasons why we need to change course in any case (running out of oil and global security, to name but two rather pressing ones). I just don’t see global warming (I’ll continue calling it that if you don’t mind as that’s what is meant) as top of that list.
I’m aware this post may be seen as trolling but I’d argue it’s clearly the number one issue of concern for your average wealthy globe trotting pop star and therefore directly relevant.
I’ll finish this over long post with one statistic to put against the seemingly widespread belief (much as ancient cultures believed their actions caused the sun to rise and set) that ‘it’s all our fault’. The Pacific ocean covers over one third of the earth’s surface. Yours in scepticism.
- More from DougieJ.
- Login or register to post comments
-
Not sure
I understand your point. Are you saying nothing we do will have any effect, or that we shouldn't try to help poorer countries? As to building flood defences if only it was that simple.
As to your point about the pacific I'm frankly just baffled.
Pacific
Not a lot of industrial activity in that area is there?
"Not allow"
So what are they going to do if the climate wilfully and with malice aforethought breaches that stipulation and rises by three degrees - sue the clouds?
My thoughts...
...exactly
What have the Three Degrees
got to do with it? Unless, they were singing to a polar bear in "When will I see you again?"
Or as they were affectionately known...
The Greedy Threes.
My brother used to ask
which one was Freda Grease.
Not the place for a fight
If you are a troll/denier, then there is no point rising to the bait. If you are genuinely interested in the issue then you will eventually discover on your own that there really is no debate around the causes.
However, I will just point out that if the North Atlantic 'Conveyor Belt' shuts down (and it is slowing) then the UK faces Siberian-style winters. Hence the change from 'global warming' to 'climate change'.
Godwin's Law
Wondered how long it would be before the D word was raised.
'Denier' - thereby drawing a parallel between healthy scepticism on climate and the mass murder orchestrated by Adolf Hitler. Is this a record?
"there really is no debate around the causes."
er, no. There is. Isn't debate what is happening right here on this page?
I'm sure you didn't say that because you want the debate to stop.
I just think all this Global gainsaying
is p*ssing in the wind it all seems a lot of saloon bar science and "ah butting". I don't believe in testing to destruction the only place we have to live. Most environmental postive actitivies involve reducing the amount of energy we use which is good thing in any case. Double glazing once an avant garde idea hardly raises an eye brow now so why not simlar measures.
All the counter arguments and jokes about Bill Oddy in the world won't change the science built up by countless scientists.
Very small changes in our behaviour can have great effect.
Oh and I still don't get your point about the pacific most the earth is "empty" it's the bits we use that's causing the problem.
Just out of interest
You presumably believe there is some kind of Goldilocks global temperature. What, in your opinion, should this be, given that the Earth has certainly been both much colder and hotter than the present day, long before our incredibly narrow frame of reference?
The agriculutral systems that keep the world
alive have developed in narrow band of tmepratures and conditions (there's an oxfam report on this out today)if we move out of this band people will starve most likely.
But fine the effects of global climate change probably won't effect you or I in our lifetimes (apart from the odd hotter summer) so you're right not to be bothered.
If there's one thing that's been constant on this planet
since before anything crawled out of the oceans, it's climate change.
Therefore the effects of global climate change HAVE affected you and I, and always will.
...
Which I'm sure will be of great comfort to those selfsame polar bears as they tread water in the Arctic.
The Polar Bears
are not the point. I'm pointing out that it is in fact only one of the polar ice caps that is shrinking, contrary to popular (and wilfully induced) misconception. The other one is growing.
With respect...
...the polar bears are the point.
If the Arctic is shrinking then, regardless of whether the ice in the Antarctic is growing or not, something is wrong.
er, no.
One does not follow from the other.
I'm no expert
But isn't the growing Antarctic ice generally considered to be confirmation of increased global temperatures, just as the melting Arctic ice is? Usually it's too cold for snow to form in the Antarctic, but higher temperatures = more moisture = more snowfall = more water added to ice sheet = more ice.
I'm no expert either
but if that is the case, then what exactly is the problem? As I understand it, one perceived problem with shrinking ice is that heat is not reflected back into the atmosphere. So, if the Antarctic is growing while the Arctic is shrinking...
No doubt some well-meaning if slightly patronising people will reply suggesting I should 'look into the issue' a bit further!
To be fair
it is a lot more complicated than that. If you really want to follow it up, look for some of the systems based Ecology texts, not the ones based on population studies of specific species. Eugene Odum's 'Fundamentals Of Ecology' from the early 1950s is a good reader to start with.
The main point is that there may be a simple 'more ice/more reflection' equation as far as one dimension of the Earth's albedo is concerned, but once you factor in changes to the land surface reflectivity, the changing thermal capacity of the atmosphere and the oceans, and a hundred other things, the complex web of interactions becomes something far too difficult to predict.
The Met Office have a computer the size of Wiltshire just to work out the next five day's weather. They can't do more than that, however much computing power they have, as the computations are too complex, laced with probabilities and effectively unreliable beyond that horizon.
Given that fact, it's just utterly astonishing that anyone can be stupid enough to think they can in any way "ensure" that X happens to the global climate.
Exactly
What is commonly referred to as 'The Science' is actually a politicised 'executive summary' by the IPCC of data so ridiculously varied as to be utterly meaningless.
I find it interesting that people who would otherwise break into a rash at the word 'science' in other contexts, believe unquestioningly in it (whatever 'it' is) when it comes to climate change.
Do they?
Climate Change Denial (and it is the correct word) is analogous to the way the tobacco companies or Intelligent Design movements have exploited "Show the controversy" policies to scuccesfully muddy the waters.
There is a near unanimous consensus that anthropogenic global warming is a reality. Like any scientific discipline, there are debates about the minutae, very little about the broad brush stuff. However, one doesn't get this impression from the press, which through a mixture of incompetence (see Ben Goldacre's Bad Science site for extensive evidence of the basic ineptitude of mainstream science journalists) or the misguided policy of providing 'balance' even when there is no significant dissent gives a very different impression. The trouble is Jezza Clarkson being all mouthy about how it's all rubbish and designed to make you pay more tax comes across as far more compelling than a scientist who wants to talk about methodology.
I presume you accept that more CO2 in the atmosphere means the average temperature will rise (this is pretty basic chemistry), so the only debate is where the C02 is coming from.
Far from the IPCC data being 'ridiculously varied as to be utterly meaningless', we can see from multiple cross-referencable and independent sources such as ice cores, corals and tree rings that they not only show the proportion of CO2 in the atmosphere at different points in the past, but also whether it derived from natural or man-made sources because the carbon isotopes are different for each.
Bad Science
Interesting that you cite Ben Goldacre in support of your point. I could use him equally to support mine. I read his excellent book and have followed some of these issues on his blog (although, to be fair, he makes the point that he doesn’t want that to turn into a climate change discussion as that is not his primary area of focus). To me, climate change orthodoxy (at least in terms of the ‘duty’ to worry about it) is foursquare in the same simplistic cause and effect territory as ‘homeopathy works because I took a sugar pill and I felt better after a few days’ or ‘MMR causes autism’.
If ever you wanted examples of ‘bad science’ you need look no further than the almost daily torrent of stories in the media about this issue. I would point out that the overwhelming majority of these are written from the standpoint that ‘the end is nigh’. You imply that it’s only in minor details that climate scientists differ. I disagree – the data (and the conclusions therefore drawn on actions required) can range from ‘just cut back a bit and we’ll be ok’ (as in the ‘ashtray on a motorbike’ Kyoto protocol) to ‘run for the hills’ (as in the ‘day after tomorrow’ apocalyptic global meltdown scenario). I think you’ll agree that dramatically affects what we should do about the situation. To reiterate, I agree we cannot go on as we are in any case, as fossil fuels are running out and we need to reduce dependence on unstable regions of the world.
I must admit I found Channel 4’s ‘Great Global Warming Swindle’ frustrating, because it contained some flaws which undermined what could have been a very significant programme. It was certainly polemical in tone rather than dryly factual. However, for climate change ‘true believers’, ‘fundamentalists’ or Mullahs (if you insist on using the D word I’ll respond in kind!) to complain about sensationalism on this subject beggars belief.
Confirmation bias has played a huge role in the creation of the present orthodox view, to the extent that influential people like George Monbiot can get away with comparing long-haul travel with child abuse. Of course, he’s travelled widely and can confidently report that ‘abroad’ is not all it’s cracked up to be, which saves us a lot of bother – cheers George! The ‘vested interests’ accusation is always thrown at traditional energy companies, but it’s surely naïve to think that this does not apply equally on the deep green side. The very idea of someone raising a small note of scepticism is shot down with a ruthlessness of which Mahmoud Ahmedinijad would be proud.
Nicely put, Dougie.
My only additional comment on the post to which you so eloquently replied was as follows:
I would agree that "There is a near unanimous consensus that anthropogenic global warming is a reality.".
However, what is at issue is the vexed question of the degree (heh) of that warming.
Anthropogenic oceanic pH change is a reality every time I pee in my wetsuit, but in the overall scheme of things, I'm not worried about my environmental impact. I'm not saying this to be flippant, just to make the point that the anthropogenic factor is not anywhere near the scale of other variable factors, particularly geological activity, but including such things as phytoplankton population dynamics, which may of course be heavily influenced by the former.
Typo
I did of course mean 'anthropogenic', not 'anthropomorphic' as I believe I may have typed earlier!
..
We have solid, repeatable, testable evidence from multiple independent sources that shows anthropogenic climate change is a reality. Your opening post cast aspersions on the very existance of climate change, let alone who or what might be responsible and without even considering what an appropriate response should be. The existance and cause are not really disputed much in scientific circles. There is a very broad consensus that the conslusions are correct.
If you're clued up on how science works, you'll be aware that the person who can conclusively disprove anthropogenic climate change would be an instant Nobel shoe in and would make a fortune, just like anyone able to disprove evolution by means of natural selection would be. Like the people trying to disprove evolution, there's nothing convincing coming from the denial side. They've postulated a few suggestions, and they've all failed to stand up to any decent amount of scrutiny.
Thanks for reiterating my point that mainstream science journalism is (generally) deplorably poor. So we agree on its value and presumably therefore accept that hard science should form the basis for any discussion rather than hackery.
I was referring specifically to the reality of anthropogenic climate change.
And? In your OP you stated that it was delusional to believe we could make any adjustment to the temperature. Now you seem to be accepting we can, but exactly what is required is still under debate. However, given we do know the cause, it's hardly difficult to work out that reducing the level of CO2 in the atmosphere is a sensible thing to attempt. Building sea defences might be effective in the short term, but only in the short term.
All of which will be massively impacted by global climate change.
I found it frustrating that after OFCOM completed its investigation into GGWS in the light of complaints from the public, people discussed in the film and people in the film, it concluded that although the programme wasn't impartial, it couldn't be said to have mislead audiences ‘so as to cause harm or offence' on the basis that ‘the link between human activity and global warming... became settled before March 2007' it couldn't be considered controversial! A frankly bizarre ruling, given even some contributors were spitting over how they'd been misrepresented and that many of the assertions, conclusions and facts cited in the film were known to be false at the time of broadcast and given it's still so frequently cited as having some degree of authority. It falls into the same category of poor journalism discussed previously.
You seem to be awfully upset about a word that merely describes someone who denies something, which, er, you do. I don't think it's half as perjorative as you seem to.
Only if they subscribe to sensationalist positions. Did I mention how we should be looking to the science not the spin?
That rather assumes that it's impossible to agree that global climate change is real and man made yet also think Monbiot can be up his own hole.
That's a wee bit hysterical. In fact, it's about a ridiculous as the Monbiot claim you mocked a couple of sentences ago. Some people on an internet forum calling someone on their views is not analogous to a dictator ruthlessly and violently surpressing dissent. As far as I'm aware, you're free to respond, aren't you?
As before, there have been some attempts to determine other mechanisms for global climate change. None to date has stood up to scrutiny.
In the little world we inhabit here, the posting guidelines
are as important as climate change. (http://www.wordmagazine.co.uk/faq)
I'm sure that you made some valid points but I can't be doing with slogging through 'em all.
Brevity is all :-)
I like prog
I don't do brevity.
Question
To try to be more concise - do you think that confirmation bias has played *no* part in the present 'consensus' on this issue?
Also, I think you're being a bit sly about the word 'denier'. It's well known that this is a term that has been very cleverly used, quite deliberately, to draw moral equivalence between a sceptical stance on future weather patterns and revisionist history which denies the holocaust. To pretend that it's not a pejorative term is quite disingenuous.
On that we agree
See also "conspiracy theory". Merely by uttering it, you consign any s argument - no matter how sound and worthy of further investigation they may be, into the same camp as the Moon-landing hoaxers and David Icke's reptilian Buckingham Palace.
I can't disprove
there's no comfirmation bias any more than I can definitely know God doesn't exist, it being impossible to disprove a universal negative, but it seems unlikely to be significant.
Does it seem likely that the majority of the world's scientists could fool themselves into believing something if there were actually credible evidence to the contrary? That no one would break ranks? No one would shout, "There's an elephant in the room"? That no one would notice this other data?
Can I just skip back to the first sentence of your essay?
You state "we have ... testable evidence from multiple independent sources that shows anthropogenic climate change is a reality."
This is IRRELEVANT. The fact that cows fart, cars belch, and power stations pump gunge into the atmosphere and make the sky more full of CO2 is NOT disputed.
What IS disputed is how much difference this makes in the grand scheme of things, and that, my friend, is NOT testable, and therefore neither is it irrefutably determined no matter who you consult.
Actually, it wasn't irrelevant to the
point I was making, hence I made it.
I don't believe I have anywhere suggested the effects of CO2 were irrefutably determined, nor do I know of a credble source that would suggest that was the case.
Vulpes, by this falsifiability argument
evolution should be dismissed as an unprovable theory. Correct me if I am wrong but your argument seems to be "well no one can prove the absolute extent of temperature changes so let's forget about planning for any contingencies to ameliorate the consequences of climate change totally." To me at least, this seems a bit like saying; "well no one can prove that I will die in a car crash next time I drive, so let's get rid of all safety belts."
Evolution
IS an unprovable theory. There is no other form of theory. That's all.
Vulpes
exactly, but even Popper wouldn't say; "ergo one throws it away."
nor, I suspect,
would he jump out of a high window to test the law of gravity-whereas we started the CO2 experiment quite a while ago now.
But no one is saying we throw anything away,
simply that the "expert research scientists" have a bunch of ideas about a bunch of evidence about some aspects of the ongoing churn of climate change, somethng so complex even Deep Thought would need a few extra millenia to consider it, and YET, we are faced with delusional behaviour from politicians and pundits pontificating and spouting piffle about "ensuring" that this, that or the other factor behaves itself.
Which is cobblers.
why put the quotes
around the expert research scientist bit? Don't you believe the evidence they have accrued?
er, because I'm quoting?
From you. Down the page a bit!
okay
you can have the last word!!
As I understand it
It's not doing enough. The growing Antarctic ice is slowing down glacial melt in the Southern hemisphere, but that's all - and every other landmass is contributing to the problem. It's not like what's happening in one place is automatically balanced out by what's taking place in another - it's the imbalance that's the problem.
I don't understand
How does a climate rise by a number of degrees? I thought that the prevailing temperatures were only one part of the description of a climate. I'm willing to be put right if this is a new 21st century useage.
I think "climate"...
might be used by politicians to mean "global mean annual temperature" because it sounds punchier in soundbites.
Of course, only a cynic would wonder whether there might be some connection between the reappearance of "Doomed! We're all doomed!" and the government's quiet admission that the recession is getting worse and the only option is take a sweeping scythe to public spending.
But archie
you live country were arguments over access to water are an ongoing problem with the wetter north unwilling to share water with drier sout. These aren't examples of spin or media manipulation but early examples of problems to come. Even if we can't ameliorate the effects a great deal we need to plan for the effects of climate change to prevent a great deal of turmoil and suffering.
I suppose I'm bothered
by your assertion that you were not really listening to the whole discussion but one line caught your attention. I do think this kind of over simplification of the debate by focusing on one aspect of the debate (lets call it the Clarkson Approach) is the main reason that people endeavour to develop simple rules and measures for an undeniably complex issue. To help simplify it for people who don't/can't/won't seek out more varied views
There are some very interesting vies on climate change - not all sat at either end of the spectrum but some sitting in the mid ground - Professor David Ogelthorpe is one that springs to mind. As Merv says, if you are genuinely interested in the issues, look into them some more.
Sorry to be pedantic
but I said 'I didn't catch' the whole piece (ok, to be clear, switched it on near the end of the discussion). That is not the same as 'wasn't really listening'.
So did you listen to the whole piece?
Eh?
Not sure what part of 'I switched it on near the end of the discussion' I haven't explained properly.
My question was sort of rhetorical
My point is mainly that whilst this is a spectacularly big subject which no one individual or organisation will ever have the answer to, organisations will legitimately look to try and reduce it to a fathomable measure.
By taking issue with the absolute science (or lack of) of one of these measures will win debating points but misses the context of the whole issue (hence my comment re. hearing the whole report rather than part of it).
Whilst we can do very little to change the global weather patterns that are going to happen, we can reduce the impact of what we do so that (in an ideal world that will probably never happen but what the hell we should try kind of way) any climate change is due to natural circumstances and not unduly influenced by humankind.
I just don't subscribe to the pick holes in the science and disprove the whole issue on this one.
For a scientific/policy paper on why > 2 degrees is bad
I thought this:
http://www.pnas.org/content/105/38/14245.abstract?ijkey=2ab008aa95b1f480...
was pretty good, especially the figure 1
at http://www.pnas.org/content/105/38/14245.figures-only
and the little "plain words" box on second page of the pdf version.
The crux of the core of the hub of the argument
Can we discuss the carbon footprint of U2 hawking their Claw all over the globe, please? Or doesn't Bono "do" climate change?
If U2 really cared about the environment...
they'd have split up so that the millions of people who would have driven / taken the train / flown to their gigs ended up staying at home instead.
Oh who cares...
we had a lovely June.
The more George Monbiot tells me
what *I* *must* do now to stop climate change, the less likely I am to take any notice of him.
*I'll* decide how and when I want to change my lifestyle, what cars I drive, what journies are important to me, and when I should fly long-haul, not Mr Monbiot.
It's the attitude of "It's ok for ME to fly around the world because I'm doing to convince people to save the planet but you can't possibly be doing anything as important as that so just stay at home".
He's worse than Bonio.
(and yes, I do write TWAT on his byline picture in the Grauniad - almost every week!)
What does he suggest we do about Yellowstone?
I just hope he's standing in it when it blows.
I really don't want to get involved in a troll war
But instead of relying on what a lot of uniformed people with loud voices are saying, read what expert research scientists in the area think about it at:
http://www.realclimate.org/
Also I'd like to point out the IPCC are not some sort of political panel voicing an opinion. As its website outlines the reports are produced by expert researchers:
http://www.ipcc.ch/about/index.htm
who are reviewing peer reviewed papers published in leading primary research publications like Science, Nature, etc.
The panel's reports also gets peer reviewing itself, and if anything, the politicians bland out the final reports through this mechanism:
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/index.htm
What uniformed people are saying things in loud voices?
The Police? the Salvation Army? the collected staff of Waitrose? :-)
I wondered about that as well...
...because the people with the loudest voices on this subject, by a country mile, are the Al Gore tendency.
Yes, I am talking about ANY uniformed person
and not here, but on the tinternet generally. The quality of debate is not good. I too find Monbiot, Goldsmith, and the rest of the neo-squirarchy very annoying, but unfortunately it is not as easy as saying; "don't like this guy, therefore he must be wrong"
I love a man
in uniform
uninformed
blush
And unformed ones
Little humunculi. Too cute.
Uniformed people with loud voices
I once shouted at some mad woman and her dog when I was delivering the post.
Expert researchers
gave Thalidomide the go ahead too.
Moneymaking, profit orientated
expert researchers I think tells a more complete story.
No surely not!
You're confusing the scientists with their evil employers, surely?
oh dear
one mistake on a single drug and the WHOLE of science is wrong...that must mean the science driving the interweb is wr..puff
Not really.
But I do know a number of "expert research scientists", and some of them, quite frankly, though they are good friends of mine, I wouldn't trust to park my car.
Troll coda: at least, not the 3 litre twin turbo one; they might get the keys to the 4x4 briefly.
oh the other hand
would they trust you to carry out and interpret their research?
Some of them might.
If it meant they got to spend more time flying in aeroplanes for fun, running vast banks of computers 24/7 at home, driving their sports cars and so on. Nothing better than some extra time off to spend being even less ecologically sustainable than usual.
Stop trolling
i really can't be bothered :-). However, since you are obviously a diver, I can't resist giving you another story to dismiss:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6652866.ece
Not that it'll change any opinions I know, but in my view, when The Royal Society (and the US National Academy of Science come to that) puts its chips on the table, I think anyone with a modicum of interest in science should be listening.
I don't want to trivialise the debate
but I have to agree about George Monbiot. The man looks as smug as the stuff he writes and that takes some doing.
One of the joys of the Word blog...
...is that it doesn't have endless threads in which global warming contrarians (as they like to call themselves, deniers being so last year) rant at the sky-is-falling fraternity, and vice versa. Oh wait. It does. Thanks, pal...
You're very welcome
!
My 18 year old son, who knows everything...
..tells me that we are still technically in the last Ice Age at the moment.
he's right - Ice Age 3
is in cinemas now
In the sense that there is ice in Antarctica etc
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quaternary_glaciation
"Quaternary glaciation, also known as the Pleistocene glaciation, the current ice age or simply the ice age, refers to the period of the last few million years (2.58 Ma to present) in which permanent ice sheets were established in Antarctica and perhaps Greenland, and fluctuating ice sheets have occurred elsewhere (for example, the Laurentide ice sheet)."
would perhaps be good to keep it that way ;-)
"would perhaps be good to keep it that way"
Sadly, we have little choice one way or t'other, I suspect. The forces of nature do humble the lives of man, whether he likes it or not. That's what this debate is about, as much as anything; it's between those who think we're so bloody important we have a choice in the matter, and those who realise we're here temporarily at the planet's convenience. Ask a passing plesiosaur, he'll tell you.
to anthropomorphise though
or maybe I mean personalise. Suppose my doctor says I have a 5% chance of a heart attack in the next 10 years, and with a perfect diet, lost weight and exercise I can halve that. Would it be sensible to say "what the hell, I'm going to die one day anyway", or should I take some notice ...
Reason this seems a relevant analogy to me is that nowadays I actually see very few talks/papers along the lines of "is it happening ?". I see talks like these though, loosely paraphrased as "it's quite likely to be so serious we may have to try geoengineering":
http://online.itp.ucsb.edu/online/climate_c08/keith1/
and, in vehement opposition, "it's likely to be so bad that we'd better not make it any worse by trying geoengineering":
http://online.itp.ucsb.edu/online/climate_c08/pierrehumbert1/
I'd love these guys to be making a fuss over nothing-I strongly doubt that they are.
I also think that the old Whole Earth Catalog slogan, "we are as gods and might as well get used to it", is a more reasonable viewpoint than it sounds. Not that we are infallible, or will inhabit the earth forever, etc, more that our actions matter and must henceforth be done mindfully because of all the changes we have already made.
Nick, agreed
I am not a huge fan of the precautionary principal usually, but in the this case the stakes are pretty high to bet on a lot of people being wrong.
Humans are but a transient race anyway
We'll die off before too long - if not due to the climate then it'll be something else - and the Earth will still be here, quietly turning.
She's seen species come and go too many times to remember. In the great scheme of things, we're no different to any other.
The dinosaurs thought they 'owned' the Earth as well, once :-)
I know
and then Punk came along
And then the Geldof god came along with Live Aid...
and miraculously brought them all back to life.
the pace of change is frightening
my 6 year old just said "S Club 7? Who are they?"
I hope you pointed him or her in the direction of...
the Where Are They Now? file.
i've felt the same here
lately with all the blur nostalgia.... I didn't know they'd been gone long enough for anyone to miss them.
Ah, Stimpers,
I see we have the same stoic fatalism vis-a-vis the likelihood of our DNA making it past the next cataclysmic planetary upheaval.
As a wise lady once said...
"We are stardust..."
there's a little
Alvin in all of us.
That sounds like a stage announcement by Ten Years After...
"Has anyone got a little Alvin in them?"
Being thick as a whale omelette,
I dunno if the ice age is coming or the sun's zooming in. I do believe that when people say 'save the world' they really mean save mankind. The planet was here for 1 billion years or 5 days without animal life on it. It'll probably be around awhile or a weekend when we've gone.
this whole the earth has been around along
time argument is the sort of thing if offered by teenager as to why they haven't tidyied up their room would I bet get the shortest of shrift. It's almost as annoying as the chinese aren't tidying their room so why should I environmental line of reasoning. But as I said earlier the worst effects won't affect us (in UK) so we should all fill our boots and fiddle away while Gordon Burns.
Blame
To go back to my admittedly slightly rambling original post, one of the points I was trying to make was that there is a strong case for measures to protect vulnerable areas like Bangladesh, irrespective of anyone's views on 'human-induced global warming'. Therefore, I feel it's unfair to represent my views as 'I'm All Right Jack'.
I'm not a 'disgusted of Tunbridge Wells' nimby who comes out in a cold sweat at the very sight of a wind turbine. As I've tried to point out, reducing our dependence on fossil fuels is unavoidable in any case.
on that point you'd
be quite in sympathy with a talk I saw a while ago by Mike Hulme of UEA. He argued that energy autonomy and reducing human exposure to extreme climate would be good, unifying, topics to cohere around for the long haul.
concentrates the mind though ...
http://www.worldwithoutus.com/did_you_know.html
It would be sad indeed
if global warming hastened the demise of Polar Bears - but less so Arctic Monkeys
Best tribute band name?
"The Antarctic Monkeys" must be a strong contender
Not to mention the Antarctic Minkes
http://musicconnection.com/2009/06/antarctic-musicians-go-out-to-play-–-for-musequality/
I have quite a lot of experience with research scientists
Not least because I'm married to one.
They tend to publish only the results that are going to assure next year's funding. The results that won't, they tend to stay in the desk drawer.
Does she have a theory called
"Bipolar blog transforms in a dual time space continuum, with respect to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle"?
Oy!
Kindly refrain from rifling Mrs V's drawers.
I have quite a lot of experience with research scientists
Not least because I'm married to one.
They tend to publish only the results that are going to secure next year's funding. The results that don't meet that requirement, for whatever reason, stay in the desk drawer.
Does she have a theory called
"Bipolar blog transforms in a dual time space continuum, with respect to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle"?
My own is called
"I used to be uncertain, but now I'm not so sure ..."
(on looking I am delighted to see this phrase in use applied to trains-
http://www.southwesttrains.co.uk/SWTrains/Customerservice/PassengersPane...
confirming my own long standing view that trains operate according to an uncertainty principle uniquely their own).
I suspect that of all academic papers.
I am sure that there used to be a more noble reason for them.
(I know a few film-makers and artists whose vocations would be better described as 'fulfils criteria in return for grants'.)
I have attended a few talks about environmental issues over the past two decades. I felt especially jaded after the latest one. "Look and Learn" wrote about wave power, solar power and wind power in the 1970s. Will we ever see a major sustainable energy project in the UK?
How can environmental studies claim to be a vibrant, healthy, academic discipline? Everyone agrees with everyone else! It must be one of the cushiest numbers in the faculty.
Tens of thousands of UK voters have been flooded out of their homes since 2007: how did the Green Party fail to make any political capital from this?
Anyone? Thanks.
They didn't...
...blame the flooding on immigrants.
Doesn't it
just make sense to live a little more frugrally, a little less profligately than perhaps we have been doing?
I think actually that's the key message. Do sensible, little things - use the car a bit less, turn lights off, use less water brushing teeth. These tiny increments aggregrated would make a difference.
But then when where would Geldof or Al Gore be? I mean that's not sexy is it - "be a bit less wasteful with stuff please."
And what would the bin snoopers do? Governments and councils and quangos?
No, we need moral panic. So I worry about everything - swine-flu, bird-flu,inflation, deflation, energy security, Jo Whiley, geopolitics - everything.
And then I get pissed off - because I can do the biggest part of fuck all about any of those things
So I fume, go slightly mad inside my head - and go around the house switching lights off - grumpily.
When Jo Whiley is on the radio
turn it off. Reduces both local fuming and global fuming. Times 10 if you have a DAB radio.
Maybe ... maybe it needs more than that ...
http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/withouthotair/c19/page_114.shtml
Jaco Pastorius says what?
What's all this got to do with Weather Report? I thought the thread was about fusion, must have scan read Dougie's original missive too quickly
Proof
that I didn't dream the original report:
"Today's draft statement agreed that global temperatures should not be permitted to rise more than 2C above pre-industrial levels. If this is adopted by the G8 it would represent a small breakthrough. The four EU nations have been trying to persuade the US, Japan, Russia and Canada to set a threshold of 2C beyond which climate change reaches danger levels."
From http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article6666576.ece
But the context is interesting
The 2C target is a political expedience to try to get accord across many diverse countries and to encourage additional countries to sign up to the Kyoto protocol. The Kyoto protocol is designed to get the worlds greenhouse gas emissions back to a level that is half the level of 1990 and to me the aim seems sensible (despite our inability to prove that this will save the humankind as we know it (or at least our coastlines)). And if the 2C target helps get people to sign up the more measurable 2050 target, then it is a good thing I reckon.
And thanks for the post and thread - it's a worthy subject and a nice change from the Supertramp and RT threads. I have leaned an awful lot of new, long words as well.
Just remember that all this climate change panic
is merely rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic. It won't save us in the long-term.
Somewhere out there is an asteroid on a pre-destined collision course with us; we just haven't found it yet.
Or maybe a (relatively) nearby star has just gone supernova - of course we won't know about it until the light - and the radiation and the blast - reaches us.
Or maybe it'll be a bacterium or virus which is evolving as we speak.
We're doomed...
Have a nice day :-)
If that's all there is...
...my friend...
Whoa! Good call Dougie
You've inspired me to play the Cristina version
http://open.spotify.com/track/78JeGNN5hup0RCXJox5cP1
Got to focus on the positives though Stimpy.
The destruction of all known Oasis material.
No more Sharon Stone charitable interventions.
Politicians expenses no longer an issue.
We all get to see MJ in heaven (except for tyrants and dictators who won't go to heaven. Also assumes MJ got there).
The list is nearly endless.......
Wonder if Bonio believes his stupid sunglasses
will protect him from any of those?
It's not the evolving bugs that we need to fear,
they've been doing that since we all sloshed around in the ooze.
It's more likely the big bad one will creep out of a lab somewhere, having been engineered.
It'd probably already multiplying in a petri dish, deep in rural Dorset perhaps, or somewhere in Nevada.
Hot Zone
Is it more likely ? I'm genuinely curious as to how one makes that call in view of things like this:
http://www.richardpreston.net/books/hz.html
I'm thinking of working up a "treatment"
based upon ice-core climate change researchers drilling into the Antarctic ice sheets looking to find evidence of primaeval atmospheric conditions who inadvertently uncover and bring to the surface a virulent viral pathogen that has lain dormant for aeons.
more likely to be found under Vostok I'd have thought ;-)
but seriously though, why are *we* more likely to invent one than
suffer from another Ebola. He isn't saying they were dormant, just separated from us geographically.
I am curious because of, for example, the way the Plague helped to shape the 14th Century-actually you are reminding me I need to go and read this:
http://www.amazon.com/Distant-Mirror-Calamitous-14th-Century/dp/03453495...
(edit: I realise my title seems odd, as cores were indeed drilled under the station at Vostok, am thinking about the contamination issues surrounding any future drilling after the discovery of Lake Vostok etc,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vostok_Station )
It's just that the long term survival strategy of a
naturally evolving viral lifeform is probably not going to allow it to cause 100% mortality, whereas something engineered by 'expert research scientists' as a weapon system is going to go for 100% mortality by design.
In a nutshell
http://www.ted.com/talks/martin_rees_asks_is_this_our_final_century.html
wow
what a literally mind-blowing talk. I can't cope with all its potentialities and conjectures. I am awed not just by the size of the cosmos but the sheer scale of Sir Martin's brain.
I'm going to have a coffee and read the Sports section of the Sunday Times. Which represents the upper limits of my ability to multi-task.
Great post Nick - and that TED site is now stored in my favourites.
Those who drill into ice sheets run a risk.
Lying there dormant for millions of years.. waiting to take those giant footsteps..
Beware downtown Tokyo..
Holy shit.. it's Godzillaaaaaaaaaaaagghhhhh!!!
This one made me laugh
http://cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/weblog/587.html
Reflections
In my local library today, saw a 'kids newspaper' called First News, with the headline 'Paint the World White, to Save the Planet'. Extract:
"THE world’s roofs should be painted white, to help save the planet, says a leading scientist.
Professor Steven Chu has won a Nobel prize and is President’s Obama’s Energy Secretary. He thinks that by lightening the colour of roofs, roads and pavements it would be possible to cut carbon emissions by the same amount as taking all the cars in the world off the road for 11 years. Carbon dioxide (CO2) and other gases trap the sun’s heat in the atmosphere and warm up the planet. That’s why they’re called greenhouse gases.
Lightening the colour will reflect more sunlight back into space rather than absorb it."
It's a crazy idea, but it just might work...
This probably sums it up best
Nice one!
That's pretty much how I feel about it :-)
Unless, of course, the LHC
sucks the whole mess of rock into a black hole.
In which case, BOTH are fucked.