Academic argues climate change is happening

08 Aug 2011 04:29p.m.

Australis wrote:

Lord Monckton's view of "no regrets" is based on our experience to date, with very minor change in climate. Dr McGregor's view of "no regrets" is based on computer models. But those models say we can't make a difference unless we cut carbon by about 80% (back to the stone age) so just throwing money at an ETS etc is pointless.

07 Aug 2011 09:43p.m.

Rob Edward wrote:

TWE. Which, on the balance of probabilities, seems more likely. That we are being told this because a shadowy cabal of international conspirators want to downsize your car thereby unlocking for them the (until now) elusive means to achieve global domination.. Or that we are being told this because we've finally got the evidence that we are in trouble and we may be able to mitigate the worst of it if only we started acting like adults and not teenagers who've been asked to tidy their rooms.. To Your claim that the scientists don't know that AGW is the prime cause? That's just not true, the evidence is abundant and many different lines of evidence converge on the same conclusion. If you choose to ignore this then that's your choice, but not a failing of the Science of GW. I assume your accusation of not following scientific method is an allusion to the “climategate” beat up that GW denialists so love. Do yourself a favour and read the independent review that cleared the scientists involved. To pretend that there was anything more than informal slang, jargon and acronyms that had been quote mined out of context is to be disingenuous. How would you look if your informal work emails were put under the microscope and selectively quoted. I would suspect that there'd be nearly no-one who would come out of that looking squeaky clean. To your claim of the precautionary principle working both ways, the burden of proof does lie with those suspected of causing the problem in the first place proving that a continuation of “business as usual” is the lesser ill. As to your claim of the solution being presented as some sort of call to immediately stop the use of all coal and oil. This again is a misrepresentation of the stance. The reduction as we are able and as alternatives are forthcoming is probably more in line with the general sentiment. But how gradual this can be done is surely dependent on us getting started sooner rather than later.

07 Aug 2011 09:42p.m.

Rob Edward wrote:

It seems to me that Global Warming Denialists often use the gaps in the GW Science knowledge or the uncertainties of predicting based on that Science to create their “whiff of plausibility”, much in the way Creationists hide their God in the ever decreasing gaps in the fossil record.

07 Aug 2011 04:21p.m.

TWE wrote:

Rob, that works both ways. We are constantly being told that it is absolutely certain that the world is warming and we are wholly to blame. The fact is they don't know that. The so called 'experts' are themselves not following the scientific method. The precautionary principle works both ways also. I am of the opinion that doing nothing is extremely likely to be less damaging than doing everything they want us to do such as stop using coal and oil. We cannot go from using high energy-density fuel like coal, oil and gas to currently available renewables and still maintain quality of life. It is impossible. It cannot be done. Nobody has ever, or will ever, do an analysis to find out just how damaging to our lives a truly carbon (dioxide)-free existence would be compared with doing nothing and letting climate changes occur. It's too un-PC. That is assuming that it is even within our power to 'stop' the climate changing. Which I believe is a fantasy.

07 Aug 2011 12:59p.m.

Rob Edward wrote:

Wolfman. You seem to miss the point that taking a position of absolute certainty on an issue is contrary to science, statements will always be referred to in ways that attempt to honestly reveal where the uncertainties are. Take gravity for instance. It isn't really known how is works but the effects of it are well understood. Some scientists think there is a particle called a Graviton that is responsible, others disagree. If you were to try and interrogate a scientist over the fundamentals of gravitational physics you would not get a definitive description. Ask the same question of someone who knows very little about the field and has no grasp of scientific method and you may get a very different reply. Something like "Rubbish! There's no such thing as gravity.. The Earth sucks.." ;0) Anyway bad joke, sorry.. If you want expressions of certainty over the science of GW then you may find them in the areas concerning what is happening now with temperatures, Ocean acidification etc. But you will not find a lot of certainty over the predictions. Though one thing all the predictions share is that there will be change. A mature species would follow the "precautionary principle" and try and mitigate the potential consequences.

06 Aug 2011 09:59p.m.

Mike wrote:

I'd rather let science do the talking than put my full trust in in media that is often owned by special interest right wing groups.

06 Aug 2011 09:34p.m.

James wrote:

Prof. McGregor claimed there would be a one degree rise in temperature. A prediction such as this requires empirical evidence and I have not seen any to date. The public is waking up to what is a socio-political constuct. There is a survey running on stuff.co.nz titled "Do you believe scientists warnings over climate change related extremes". 12459 respondents have voted YES, and 12924 respondents have voted NO.

06 Aug 2011 07:02p.m.

Steve wrote:

What a truly pathetic rebuttal to Monckton.

06 Aug 2011 02:20p.m.

Wolfman wrote:

I listened to this guy this morning and all his speech was about, maybe, could, perhaps, nothing that was concrete about this Emmisson Trading Scam.