The 10:10 Climate Change Pledge. Will you be signing up?

bert&ernie

Cardew wrote: »

Did you read my post? I was at pains to make no criticism of the Indian peasant or the aspirations of his offspring! Viz



I don't pretend to know the answers to the problem of overpopulation, but a problem it most certainly is!

Starvation, disease and war are not(thankfully) taking the toll they did yesteryear. China's compulsory abortion/sterilisation policy has gone some way to limiting the growth their population, a policy that presumably you find draconian?

It is easy to define the problem! Solutions are more difficult.

I did read your post thanks, and I did notice the glib remarks you tacked onto the end.

By framing the problem as one of overpopulation, you are are saying that there are simply too many people. It strongly implies that people are the problem and that less of them is the only solution.

Starvation, disease and war are not inevitable. The reason that they don't take the toll they once did is not simply down to luck - human beings are able to avoid these problems and mitigate their impact.

And yes I do find forced sterilisation and abortion to be draconian. The fact that you could imply that this is in any way progressive rather beggars belief.

Volcano

Terrible journalism, (with the usual climate/weather differentiation confusion) he appears to be an even righter-wing version of Jeremy Clarkson?

McIntyre's stuff looks to be interesting, though it could be the usual case of him getting the wrong end of the stick and having to re-edit his site based on the advice of climate scientists, as he has done many times in the past, we'll have to wait and see.

Even then, it's very unlikely that one data set being wrong will suddenly mean that all other climate data sets, regardless of their origin or who collected them, are similarly wrong.

Cardew

bert&ernie wrote: »

I did read your post thanks, and I did notice the glib remarks you tacked onto the end.

By framing the problem as one of overpopulation, you are are saying that there are simply too many people. It strongly implies that people are the problem and that less of them is the only solution.

Starvation, disease and war are not inevitable. The reason that they don't take the toll they once did is not simply down to luck - human beings are able to avoid these problems and mitigate their impact.

And yes I do find forced sterilisation and abortion to be draconian. The fact that you could imply that this is in any way progressive rather beggars belief.

China certainly thinks that overpopulation is a problem and their forced sterilisation and abortion policy was their way of addressing the issue; and preferable to that of Pol Pot!!!

Let us get down to first principles.

For the sake of this discussion let us assume Homo sapiens is responsible for Global Warming.

You seem to be arguing!

1. More of the species(Homo sapiens) ain't a problem!

2. The 'Have Nots' of China, India and the Third World having the 'toys' the Western world enjoy, ain't a problem.

Have to go, just realised I have left my TV on standby!

bert&ernie

Cardew wrote: »

China certainly thinks that overpopulation is a problem and their forced sterilisation and abortion policy was their way of addressing the issue; and preferable to that of Pol Pot!!!

Let us get down to first principles.

For the sake of this discussion let us assume Homo sapiens is responsible for Global Warming.

You seem to be arguing!

1. More of the species(Homo sapiens) ain't a problem!

2. The 'Have Nots' of China, India and the Third World having the 'toys' the Western world enjoy, ain't a problem.

Have to go, just realised I have left my TV on standby!

Well then theres no debate is there? We should take it on the authority of the Chinese government. Forced birth control is OK because its a better than whatever might be dreamt up by a genocidal maniac.

First principles eh? More likely you are attempting to construct a straw man.

The mere existence of our species is not responsible for "Global Warming", as you put it. At the very most, we could make an assumption that certain human behaviour contributes to climate change. Some may choose to go further and assume that this behaviour will soon cause irreversible and catastrophic i.e. "runaway" climate change.

Either way, it is not people that are the problem - it is the behaviour of a relatively small minority of them that is likely to be contributing the most to the outcome that you wish to avoid.

The fact that the poorest people in the world aspire to the higher living standards and other benefits that we enjoy in the developed world is only a problem if you fear the competition for resources. Perhaps this would be a better assumption upon which we could continue the debate?

thescouselander

Volcano wrote: »

Terrible journalism, (with the usual climate/weather differentiation confusion) he appears to be an even righter-wing version of Jeremy Clarkson?

McIntyre's stuff looks to be interesting, though it could be the usual case of him getting the wrong end of the stick and having to re-edit his site based on the advice of climate scientists, as he has done many times in the past, we'll have to wait and see.

Even then, it's very unlikely that one data set being wrong will suddenly mean that all other climate data sets, regardless of their origin or who collected them, are similarly wrong.

As I said, the main story (for me at least) is that the Hadley Data Centre and the CRU were very reluctant to release data and when that data was released it raised some fairly serious questions.

They have history here and they appear to prevent access to their data at every turn. Here is a link to a similar story about them purging data that was also of interest: http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=6673

Now, you can't believe everything you read on the internet but it does appear something odd might be going on. If the science is solid the analysis and related data should stand up to scrutiny. The fact that data seems only to be released to one group of scientists that are already subscribed to the Manmade Climate Change theory seems decidedly dodgy to me. Sceptics may try and misrepresent the data to forward their cause but I'm sure if this happened it could be countered robustly - personally I'd rather see this debate happen as it will test the robustness of the pro-AGW claims.

Cardew

bert&ernie wrote: »

The fact that the poorest people in the world aspire to the higher living standards and other benefits that we enjoy in the developed world is only a problem if you fear the competition for resources. Perhaps this would be a better assumption upon which we could continue the debate?

China in the last 30 years have taken steps to curtail their population growth, without those controls the population would have increased by an additional 400 million.

To provide the 'higher living standards' their polution has increased dramatically and they have now overtaken the USA as the world's top producer of carbon emissions, and it going to get worse.

http://www.thedailygreen.com/environmental-news/latest/china-carbon-emissions-47061602

India are just getting into their stride!!!

Much of the Third world will follow.

So I really fail to understand the logic that states that an increased population all striving for 'higher living standards' will not produce huge increases in carbon emissions.* and is not a problem.

NOTE.
* I did say that previously that for the sake of argument let us assume that global warming is down to man made carbon emissions.

bert&ernie

Cardew wrote: »

China in the last 30 years have taken steps to curtail their population growth, without those controls the population would have increased by an additional 400 million.

To provide the 'higher living standards' their polution has increased dramatically and they have now overtaken the USA as the world's top producer of carbon emissions, and it going to get worse.

http://www.thedailygreen.com/environmental-news/latest/china-carbon-emissions-47061602

India are just getting into their stride!!!

Much of the Third world will follow.

So I really fail to understand the logic that states that increased population all striving for 'higher living standards' will not produce huge increases in carbon emissions.*

NOTE.
* I did say that previously that for the sake of argument let us assume that global warming is down to man made carbon emissions.

Keeping the poor, poor and constraining their number is not a panacea for climate change.

I did have a look at the stat-!!!!!!, but what struck me is that much of the emissions made by developing nations are a result of manufacturing products that are consumed in the developed world. In this sense, the rich are simply outsourcing their emissions to poor countries.

Oh, and you said "For the sake of this discussion let us assume Homo sapiens is responsible for Global Warming". The difference between the amount of CO2 emissions attributable to the poorest and the richest is so stark as to make it quite offensive for you to lump all of the human race together as being responsible for "Global Warming". Incidentally, why do you persist in using that term - its seems remarkably "off-message" for an alarmist, or am I behind the curve of current green thinking?

Volcano

thescouselander wrote: »

Here is a link to a similar story about them purging data that was also of interest: http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=6673

The assumption being made is of some nefarious cover-up, though the reality is far more likely to be the simple re-shuffling of file storage as has been mentioned in the comments, even by McIntyre's supporters.

If the science is solid the analysis and related data should stand up to scrutiny. The fact that data seems only to be released to one group of scientists that are already subscribed to the Manmade Climate Change theory seems decidedly dodgy to me.

I'm not sure there's a group of scientists opposed to AGW is there? Or even neutral about it?

Sceptics may try and misrepresent the data to forward their cause but I'm sure if this happened it could be countered robustly - personally I'd rather see this debate happen as it will test the robustness of the pro-AGW claims.

I'm quite happy to see greater availability being made for the data and certainly think it should be available to anyone. I'm not sure how there's going to be a debate though; just about anyone who understands the data agrees with it. McIntyre is a bit of an anomalous Lone Ranger, his 'revelations' are consistently wrong, (though seemingly lapped up by poor quality journos nonetheless). I think all science should be questioned, though there doesn't seem to be anyone willing to do this with climate change and it could be that this guy is right:

"Somehow, we are to believe that the mountainous scientific corpus that overwhelmingly demonstrates the existence of global warming and its anthropogenic genesis is a vast conspiracy, one involving thousands of scientists and other professionals. And we must further believe this conspiracy has been exposed by the scattergun technical analysis of a mining consultant turned blogger."

http://deepclimate.org/2009/10/04/climate-auditor-steve-mcintyre-yamal/

Cardew

bert&ernie wrote: »

Keeping the poor, poor and constraining their number is not a panacea for climate change.

Who said it was?

I did have a look at the stat-!!!!!!, but what struck me is that much of the emissions made by developing nations are a result of manufacturing products that are consumed in the developed world. In this sense, the rich are simply outsourcing their emissions to poor countries.

To some extent true. If we take China, in order to fund the higher living standards for their 1.25billion people they need to manufacture and export goods. They have for instance over 50 million cars on the road now - and numbers set to rise dramatically.
No criticism implied - see above!!

Oh, and you said "For the sake of this discussion let us assume Homo sapiens is responsible for Global Warming". The difference between the amount of CO2 emissions attributable to the poorest and the richest is so stark as to make it quite offensive for you to lump all of the human race together as being responsible for "Global Warming".

Absolutely true about our(The West) emissions per head being way in excess of China, India etc. In striving to achieve 'higher living standards' they will inevitably close the gap.

Personally I have no idea how much man made carbon emissions contribute to global warming, and even less idea how we tackle the problem if Doomsday is fast approaching.

However I really cannot understand the thrust of your argument in this thread.

To repeat(for the third time) IF carbon emissions are the time bomb that many would have us believe, to argue that huge increases in population all striving for(well deserved) higher living standards isn't a problem, doesn't seem to be very logical.

Obviously we in the West are by far the biggest culprits, nobody has said otherwise!

So just what are you saying?

Global Warming ain't a problem?

ditto Population increase?

thescouselander

Volcano wrote: »

The assumption being made is of some nefarious cover-up, though the reality is far more likely to be the simple re-shuffling of file storage as has been mentioned in the comments, even by McIntyre's supporters.



I'm not sure there's a group of scientists opposed to AGW is there? Or even neutral about it?



I'm quite happy to see greater availability being made for the data and certainly think it should be available to anyone. I'm not sure how there's going to be a debate though; just about anyone who understands the data agrees with it. McIntyre is a bit of an anomalous Lone Ranger, his 'revelations' are consistently wrong, (though seemingly lapped up by poor quality journos nonetheless). I think all science should be questioned, though there doesn't seem to be anyone willing to do this with climate change and it could be that this guy is right:

"Somehow, we are to believe that the mountainous scientific corpus that overwhelmingly demonstrates the existence of global warming and its anthropogenic genesis is a vast conspiracy, one involving thousands of scientists and other professionals. And we must further believe this conspiracy has been exposed by the scattergun technical analysis of a mining consultant turned blogger."

http://deepclimate.org/2009/10/04/climate-auditor-steve-mcintyre-yamal/

No, I dont think there is an organised group of scientists opposed to the global warming theory - but there are many who have their doubts. There is however significant disagreement about the sensitivity of the climate to man made CO2 emissions and the degree to which these emissions have contributed to warming over and above the natural variation.

You might not like the journalism in the Telegraph but the artical I linked to was factual. Steve McIntyre seems to have proved the Hadley Data Centre and CRU have massaged data to create a graph that was used as a major piece of evidence to support their point of view. They subsiquently made it very difficult to get at the data which exposed this point. To date Steve McIntyre's alligations have yet to be proved wrong.

The only conclusion I am drawing from this is that there seems to be evidence that suggests biases within those two organisations are affecting the scientific rigour which they apply to their work.

I feel questions should be asked as the output from these organisations is being used to drive policy that will have major impact on every one of us. It is essential we get a balanced view based the robust application of scientific process so the correct response can be taken.