World most high profile climate change sceptic 'changes mind'?

Toko Black

Not really, the low traffic is the acceptance by the other 75% of the population that 1/4 of the population will believe in conspiracy theories, and that arguing with them is usally pointless, as they will just spout more Fox News broadcasted rubbish and ignore the majority that disagree.

DPinBucks

I refer m'learned friend to my post #48 above, although here there is at least some attempt at discussion.

Wild Weasel

That doesn't even make any sense. Plus, why do you keep wittering on about Fox News? This is Britain; You can't even get Fox News here unless you pay Sky for their crappy News & Events Pack, and who in their right mind would do that??

Toko Black

Why ?

Because a considerable amount of the media spin and punditry is the origins of the ideas and notions you seem to be forming opinions from.

The most focal point of climate skepticism is the US, and within the US it is trumpeted by Fox.

Those opinions and ideas filter out onto the net and you read 1st,2nd or 3rd hand comments that support your way of thinking.

It shows in your use of phrases and nick names, as they all originate from those sources.

CAS FAN

All very valid points John.  I do agree that we certainly need to press on (as we are doing) with developing new ways of harnessing energy, climate change or not.  There is certainly no future in fossil fuels that's for sure.

sidicks

Where is the definitive evidence that Man is responsible for the slight warming seen in the last 100 years?

Evidence for:
-        ?

Evidence against:
-        Historically CO2 has lagged temperature rather than been the driver of temperature increases
-        Man made CO2 is minimal compared to other sources of CO2  and (more importantly) other greenhouse gasses
-        CO2  levels have been much higher in the past
-        Global temperatures have been higher in the past
-        The climate has changed significantly in the past without Man being around to impact it (previous ice age etc)
-        Recently global temperatures have stabilised / fallen despite continued increase in CO2 output
-        Continued debate about the impact of cloud cover and whether this introduces positive or negative feedback loops
-        Climate change model predictions continually fail to match actual experience – ‘garbage in, garbage out'

If the science really was settled then there would be some definitive evidence that could be shown to justify the claims.  In practice there is still considerable disagreement between scientists and a great deal of secrecy and manipulation to prevent alternative views from being shared.

Advocates of MMGW have resorted to cherry picking of numbers and data manipulation to present their desired results, which would be unncessary if the science was conclusive.


Sidicks

DPinBucks

Evidence for:
- ? The Greenhouse Effect. Period.

Evidence against:
- Historically CO2 has lagged temperature rather than been the driver of temperature increases
True, but that's how climatic warming gets started. It's a predicted outcome, and strengthens, not weakens, the case for exponential Greenhouse Warming. A slight rise in temperature, statistically insignificant in climate terms, causes the oceans to warm and release CO2. This extra CO2 in turns fuels a climatic warming cycle.

- Man made CO2 is minimal compared to other sources of CO2 and (more importantly) other greenhouse gasses
That is completely missing the point. See "Tipping Point"; "Metastability"; "Exponential Rise"; "Venus".

- CO2 levels have been much higher in the past
So what?

- Global temperatures have been higher in the past
So what?

- The climate has changed significantly in the past without Man being around to impact it (previous ice age etc)
So what?

- Recently global temperatures have stabilised / fallen despite continued increase in CO2 output
Over what scales compared with Greenhouse Climate Effects?
What, if any, counter effects are being masked?
Given all known factors, what would be the climatic effect without the contribution of man-made CO2?
In other words, such a statement is meaningless unless it can be shown that there are no other counter or reinforcing factors at work. In other other words, a current temperature stability does not in itself run counter to theory.

- Continued debate about the impact of cloud cover and whether this introduces positive or negative feedback loops
See above

- Climate change model predictions continually fail to match actual experience – ‘garbage in, garbage out’
Evidence? Significance of the evidence? Known margin of error in the models? Accuracy trends?

If the science really was settled then there would be some definitive evidence that could be shown to justify the claims.
There's plenty of evidence. See "Greenhouse Effect"; "Venus"

In practice there is still considerable disagreement between scientists and a great deal of secrecy and manipulation to prevent alternative views from being shared.
There's always disagreement over such matters. However, take away the rants, vested interest, wishful thinking and conspiracy theories and you're still left with the hard core of irrefutable scientific research which says:
- The greenhouse effect is real;
- CO2 and other greenhouse gases contribute to a planet's climatic stability;
- A planet's climate is metastable;
- Increase a planet's CO2 and it will warm;
- Mankind has increased the Earth's CO2 levels;
- The Earth is thereby being warmed;
- How it handles that extra heat is still very much a matter for debate, in particular what the new temperature stability will be.
- In other words, the Earth is warming through manmade CO2, although we still don't know how it will end up. All in all, it seems safest to try and mitigate it as much as possible.

Advocates of MMGW have resorted to cherry picking of numbers and data manipulation to present their desired results, which would be unncessary if the science was conclusive.
Oh yeah?? And the anti brigade haven't? Pull the other one.  The science is conclusive.