Select to expand quote
Paradox said..
Chris 249 said..
I appreciate the way you're discussing this in a reasonable and fact-based manner.
As someone who is critically interested in scientific funding - my wife is a scientist in another area - I've spent years listening to scientists talk about their research funding. I'm also interested in the history of science and was doing a PhD in another area. Going from that experience, I don't agree that scientists have to follow the popular opinion if they want funding. In fact, boosting your career in science is often best achieved by showing that the popular opinion is wrong. Although I've used it before, the example of Brian Schmidt is a good one - he went against the popular opinion and instead of "career suicide" he got a Nobel Prize.
Sure, some people like Ridd claim that they have lost out because of their position, but such claims are hard to prove.
Secondly, many of the people who are against the consensus are specifically funded by "denialist" bodies. Ridd is a perfect example since he is proudly supported by the IPA, which is heavily supported by Gina RInehart. There is therefore arguably much more financial incentive for people to be "denialists" than to support the consensus, even leaving aside those who are directly funded by the enormous fossil fuel industry.
We are numbering our paragraphs in different ways, which is causing some cross-talking. I wasn't disputing the vox article. I was disputing your claim that "there is no strong or conclusive evidence that any level of climate change currently being observed is predominately anthropological. The best scientists can say is we are
probably contributing to some level. ie 1% or more, and there are big variations in scientific opinions on the level. However irrespective of that lets assume everyone agrees its possible that we are contributing to some level and moving away from fossil fuels is good, provided it's economically logical."
The IPCC has said "
It is extremely likely that human activities caused more than half of the observed increase in GMST [global mean surface temperature] from 1951 to 2010. This assessment is supported by robust evidence from multiple studies using different methods." The Royal Society and other bodies say that humans are "largely" responsible for global warming. Even "skeptics" like Judith Curry agree that humans are contributing.
I'm also unsure about the "economically logical" part. Australia at the moment is one of the richest countries ever seen in human history. Many of us could take a major financial hit and the effect would be to cause us to only have a lower standard of home theatre, to run a three year old SUV instead of a new one, or to not buy a new sail or two. People like coal miners are not "trying to make ends meet"; it's the highest paying sector in the country and sparkies and fitters are pulling in $170 p.a. packages. Sure, there are flow on financial effects but manufacturers, farm managers and even outboard motor mechanics will tell you that many of those flow-ons are adverse to other sectors and to their local communities.
Basically, it's hard to feel greatly concerned about causing some belt tightening in one of the richest sectors of one of the richest civilisations ever known, especially when other sectors have been hit much harder.
I agree that nuclear is an option worth exploring. My grandfather was actually the guy in charge of building some of NSW's power stations and he pretty much assumed that by now we'd be using nuclear power and electric vehicles.
There is a lot there so I will just touch a few.
1) regarding my statement and your following quote from IPCC (also addresses Guac's poor attempt at paraphrasing)
ME: "there is no strong or conclusive evidence that any level of climate change currently being observed is predominately anthropological. The best scientists can say is we are probably contributing to some level. ie 1% or more, and there are big variations in scientific opinions on the level."
IPCC: "It is extremely likely that human activities caused more than half of the observed increase in GMST [global mean surface temperature] from 1951 to 2010. This assessment is supported by robust evidence from multiple studies using different methods."
I see no conflict in the two statements. Strong and conclusive evidence does not attract words like extremely likely. That's projection, not certainty. My comment also clearly states that scientific opinions range from 1% contribution to more, ie up close to 100%. It wasn't meant to suggest consensus was 1%, but only that is where some start. Others are obviously more. IPCC's comment is postulating that we are causing more than 50% and refer to "robust studies" without reference. Given that the IPCC's charter is to report
only on Anthropological Global Warming, they are not unbiased in their postulations either, so I would consider there is positive bias there. I have concerns over the woeful track record of IPCC's climate modelling accuracy too, but I will leave that elsewhere.
Irrespective, the point is, we have Co2 levels, we have global warming. They are both going up so there appears to be a correlation, (although it is far from perfect correlation). But correlation is not strong conclusive evidence. If it was, the Pastafarians claim that the decline of pirates also correlates with global warming would have to have equal weight. The facts are that we THINK Co2 contributes to global warming. Greenhouse theory gives that line of thought weight (but there is also theory that indicates it is self regulating ie dampens effects). But....there are so many variables that we just don't know. There is no hard evidence, just conjecture and theory and lots and lots of promotion of rubbish as fact by some areas of society. I will say that again.
There is no observable evidence that proves the increases in CO2 accounts for the steady increase in Global temp we are also seeing. There is also no strong evidence that are facing runaway temperature increases. It is all postulation and theory. I am not trying to be contrarian here, I just want to point out that fact. It all could be wrong.
To summarise that,
in my view on what I have read, most experts believe we are contributing to global warming, not just CO2, but land use practices etc. too. Thing is, in the surveys and comments I have seen it seems to be around 50% possible contribution is the median view. The rest of the warming is considered natural cycles we can't change. It's a small point but key when you look at the effect of action on
just CO2. It may actually not do much.... that matters if we are talking about huge investments that could otherwise be spent on better things.
2) on Ridd, he was employed by a university. He spoke out about some of their methods going against sound scientific process and was sacked. It went to court and he won. I have no idea on his relationship with IPA (before or after the fact? maybe they helped his case?) and I don't think it matters. I am a scientific skeptic at heart I don't ignore any scientific evidence unless it's obviously biased or unscientific. IPA may be funded in part by by resources money, but I can't find too much wrong with their works, but have not looked too deeply.
3) regarding economics. I think you might be surprised at how easily an economy can collapse due to shocks. Stuff with our power supply reliability (price as well, but reliability mostly) and you will find our economy in tatters very quickly. Mainly from a business and industry perspective. Irrespective of that, it doesn't matter what you or I think, votes are what decides policy. Votes move quickly for surprisingly small amounts of "perceived or real" loss of income or services.
However, all that said, I am not opposed to tightening up to work toward a significant reduction in CO2 emissions. What I am opposed to is the significant push by extremists that we need to move to renewable energy within a short period, pushing far ahead of whats achievable with current technology and without nuclear. ...and if we don't then we have a catastrophe.... I see no evidence to back that up.
Ian K
> 9 months ago, 19 Nov 2019
