Disagreements over the Science Behind Global Climate Change

[Keith R]

Originally Posted by Chip

As an engineer and someone who actually is required by law to protect the environment and who spends many hours every year designing stormwater management systems that keep our water clean I think I am qualified enough to say that I care about our environment and this topic interests me. As a scientist familiar with the scientific process I don't feel that the global warming agenda has passed sufficiently the peer review process given a variety of factors to include that periods of relatively high and low surface temperatures of the earth have occurred without the influence of man.

I furthermore would love to continue in this thread and discuss what can be done in the DR with regard to environmental issues. However, being a person of principal I find it disconcerting that real discourse is so vehemently discouraged not to mention undignified to have to put up with such heavy handedness. This, imo, limits the potential of threads like this to actually make a difference.

Perhaps the answer is to split this thread in two -- one just on scientific questions regarding man's role in global climate change, the other on what I think the OP intended -- what the DR should consider doing in relation to climate change. It would not be easy to perform the surgery, but I am willing to try.

However, before I even attempt it, I want it plainly understood by all DR1ers -- no exceptions -- that the put-downs and type of hype about religion, international conspiracies to control the world, etc. would be deleted. What I am saying is that if you truly want to have an in-depth conversation on DR1 about the scientific uncertainties involved with climate science, fine. All could do it in that thread to their heart's content, if sans the diatribes, name-calling, etc. Those who could not follow those simple rules would be edited, deleted and ultimately banned if they persist despite warnings.

Likewise, if anyone tries to bring the debate from the other thread into the one on what the DR should do, they would be edited, deleted, and if necessary, banned. No exceptions.

As moderator, I would retain the option to close the threads if either or both gets out of hand.

That's my offer, and BTW, far, far more than management has advised me to do. Take it or leave it.

[Chip]

A whole bunch of supposed "evidence" was posted, and in many qualified people's opinion, including myself, this evidence is far from being based in science. Therefore, it is only naturally that some would opine that this whole movement is mostly political, which I still believe it is.

[Chris]

I'll leave the Mod to figure out how he wants the threads arranged. I'm in agreement on two threads - one to discuss possibilities and probabilities for the DR, and one to discuss the hard science.

I'll try to summarize where I stand and then I'll repost the two summaries of possible / probable changes expected for the DR.

For those that do not understand how this material is presented .. I did not post the scientific report, I posted the synthesis report .. the summary of three reports. There is no science in the report that I posted and no supporting information. The science and other supporting information is in the other three detail reports. In addition screeds of other underlying information is public. In fact, in my first post, I asked people to read, digest and understand the material. I also gave a little summary for those who did not want to read.

Again, here is where I stand in relation to the issues. This is my opinion. Yours may be different. Nevertheless, this issue is getting serious.

The IPCC Reports - over a mas o menos 20 year period
I think there are many flaws, perhaps ones that we know about now, or perhaps ones that will only come clear in future. What I do know, is that that this is the only multi disciplinary longitudinal study that we have. There is no other. And yes, I am sure there are flaws.

In my mind, if people with the stature of Professor Parry consider the 4th IPCC report as " ... traditional science-based observation and measurement, not "arm-waving" with computer models." and he says: "However, a new development in the Fourth Assessment is that it concludes, from an examination of 29,000 data sets, that the impacts of climate change occurring now can be observed everywhere on our planet. It is evident in its impacts on animals, plants, water and ice."

Well, with such a statement from a credible scientist, I start paying attention without wondering who paid him to make that statement. A scientist of this stature surely has some scientific credibility.

Understanding vs Acceptance
In my first post, I asked for people to understand the material. Not to accept it, but understand it as a basis for a discussion. "read, digest and understand this material".
I like Keith's 'hurricane theory'. If you know one is coming along, better make preparations. Just a few posts ago, a poster rejected the synthesis report on the basis of too many word such as likely, very likely, a little likely and so on. The poster did not understand the language of the measurements (not getting at the poster, saying this to underscore the need to understand the material).

Chip just said that he is not accepting man made (anthropogenic) global warming/climate change, because he is not happy with the peer review process. I have no problem with this. I think the peer review process was good, but surely it had flaws. We've never done this before people. Despite the difference in opinion, we still need to discuss the probabilities and possible effects. Climate change is happening. The 'is it man or is it not' argument has been answered definitively in my mind. If it has not in your mind, climate change is still happening and the IPCC reports is all we have to hang our hats on ... flawed or not.

It is quite a task to figure out what is happening in the IPCC reports if one did not follow it from the beginning.

On Governments, Gore, Clinton, Kyoto etc etc ...
I do not think Governments are our solutions to this. I said this on a number of occasions on this thread. I think Governments and governmental interference obscure the issues and I wish they and Al Gore will poof disappear as they're giving me a belly ache. I hope that the new Bali negotiations around Kyoto will have a positive impact somewhere along the line (this hope is a little forlorn but nevertheless). I don't care about Clinton. I care very much about the outcome of the Bali conference.

I have seen as many 'pro' comments as 'con' comments. There is no way that I'm going to analyze all of these to figure out who pays who. So, I stick to people that I feel are trustworthy.

On Economics
There was this economist that said quite recently that "Global warming is the economic opportunity of a lifetime". I forget who he was and I don't care much who figures out how to make money out of what. I care more about solid alternative energy generation, a healthy planet and food security.

[Chip]

As far as my understanding goes about greenhouse gases, the purported culprit of gw is carbon dioxide. Which is released during combustion of petroleum/alcohol fuesl. Therefore, using ethanol or natural gas will have no effect, as they release carbon dioxide. They are good substitutes, which is great for two main reasons - less dependence on the Middle East and their troubled politics and cleaner air - but they will not reduce greenhouse gases.

Greenhouse gas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Natural gas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Ethanol - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Keith R]

There are several GHG, CO2 is just one and not the one with the greatest greenhouse potential. Methane (CH4) is another, as are CFCs, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) and perfluorocarbons (PFCs).

[Keith R]

Okay, surgery done, and as predicted it was quite difficult to split the original thread given the tools available to the moderator. I am sure that there will be complaints about how it was done -- always are from somebody, such is the life of a moderator -- but here is the thread that can focus on the debate over the science behind global climate change.

As has been stated before, and I will re-state one last time: rants, diatribes, name-calling, p!ssing matches, etc. will be edited/deleted or if that does not work, the poster banned altogether. In going over the original thread again, I can see how out-of-hand it got on both sides of the argument.

At least one poster has told me in a PM that he does not care about civility. Tough! I do, and I am the moderator of this forum until Robert says otherwise, so live with it. If you can't, don't bother posting in this forum.

[Chris]

Amazing Keith, not even one poster takes you up on it? really makes one wonder eh. Anyway, after catching up with some work, I'll be back to this thread and the other one.

[Chip]

Originally Posted by Chris

Amazing Keith, not even one poster takes you up on it? really makes one wonder eh. Anyway, after catching up with some work, I'll be back to this thread and the other one.

I already have put my two cents in and cobraboy has been banned from my understanding. Don't worry, I'm sure some fish will bite though. BTW, what does this thread, interesting that it is, have to do with the DR?

[Keith R]

Originally Posted by Chip

BTW, what does this thread, interesting that it is, have to do with the DR?

This being asked by one of the very people asking that debate on this issue be kept open???

You're being sarcastic, perhaps? If so, perhaps this is the best response: by definition the phenomenon in question is global, and last I looked, the DR is still part of the globe.

[Chris]

Originally Posted by Chip

I already have put my two cents in and cobraboy has been banned from my understanding.

I don't think so. The boss told him to butt out of one thread. But banned, no, I don't think so. He still has 'gold' under his name, so, I think he is fine to post.