Links
I expect over time to add pieces, make changes and correct errors.
Before we go further, I have to explain why there is no "comment" option any longer. One word. Spam. As on most sites with an open facility, we seem to have attracted rather a lot of these odd folk and have, sadly, had to make this change to protect our sanity.
I must say to the spammers, though, that we appear to have attracted a better class! None of your cheap erection corrections or porn. No, we get people marketing cheap handbags and shoes using such proud names as Louis Vuitton, Chanel, Gucci, Christian Louboutin and Prada! Occasionally someone offered a comment about compatibility but then ruined their discourse by layering in links to these cut-price clothing brands.
I have now linked this site to my Facebook page, so maybe you can leave comments there if you wish. But please keep it civil, stick to facts, correct my errors. Most of all, let's have an open discussion.
Now on to the point of this blog.
Am I a climate change “believer” or “sceptic”?
Perhaps the question should more accurately be framed as a discussion of whether the data we are asked to absorb and the various positions put to us are accurate and the conclusions reasonable.
Discussions about climate and climate change should be about science. So being a believer or a sceptic seems absurd. It is as if we are being asked whether we “believe” in science. Belief has nothing to do with it. Science involves crafts, skills and knowledge. Do I believe in a carpenter?
Perhaps I should state my thoughts on the subject at the outset because it may have skewed the discussion below and readers ought to be aware of that potential. I have tried not to skew, but we all carry our prejudices into any discussion.
First, I was motivated to set down my thoughts by the increasingly vitriolic nature of the debate. I am offended by people who attack others when the discussion should be about the science, not about people. Note, I have not used the word “fact”. Science is not necessarily “fact”. More often than not, it is theory, postulation, methods of proof. My father was a scientist, so I know something of that profession. One of the oddities of scientists is that it is difficult to get them to commit to a position. They always qualify what they say. Einstein did not, for example, hand down the laws of relativity. He offered a theory. Darwin offered a theory about evolution.
When we read or hear that scientists on any side of the debate receive death threats – or any kind of threat - it hurts the chances that good sense will prevail. It was only a few hundred years ago that some scientists were jailed – or worse – for discussing certain propositions. The famed astronomer and mathematician Galileo was thrown into house arrest in 1633 after he published a book promoting the idea of heliocentrism – that the Earth and other planets rotate around the Sun. Charles Darwin delayed the publication of his seminal work “On the origin of species” for fear of a church-led backlash. He formed his theory in 1838 but the book was only released 21 years later. The backlash occurred nevertheless.
Let us leave the scientists to provide information and analysis and interpretation and assume they all mean well. We can also assume they will not all agree. But it helps if we respect their endeavours.
Second, I carry a general belief about positions in a debate in which there is no absolute proof. Let me use an analogy. I go to my general practitioner for a check-up for no other reason that one should do so on occasion, just to make sure all is working as it should. My doctor does all the normal tests, sends samples off to laboratories and then calls me to say there appears to be something wrong. Not life threatening, but worth checking. I go to another doctor who generally agrees and tells me I should consider some lifestyle changes. Nothing drastic. But I will need to cut out some of the foods I really like and buy some medication. If I choose to do nothing, the opinion of both doctors is that my condition will probably get worse and the cost of remedy will be higher.
Not fully satisfied with this generalist result, I consult another doctor, and then another. I find one who looks at the same test results that the others have seen and he says they are wrong and there is absolutely nothing to worry about. It’s just a stage of life. After a bit more doctor shopping I find myself with the following general position. I have eight who tell me there is something wrong, that changes in lifestyle are needed. I’m not going to die but, if I don’t make a few adjustments now, it will simply get worse and then I might not like the changes I would need to make. It could get expensive. Two doctors, on the other hand, tell me I need to do nothing. What do I do?
My tendency is to go with the weight of scientific evidence, countered by a curious mind and a knowledge that scientists have been proven wrong by time and increasing understanding. Science is in a constant state of flux, as is just about everything on our planet.
So the discussion below is an attempt to draw together some of the arguments, counter-positions and to dispassionately set down what I have learned.
What follows is the result of my reading and listening and a bit of viewing. Mainly reading.
[ view entry ] ( 1052 views ) | print article
Our understanding of the world changes and develops all the time. Until relatively recent times in human history, the vast majority of people believed that the world was flat and that the Sun, Moon and stars oscillated above us. Basic individual observation even today would suggest that might be the case. We can’t easily see the curvature of the Earth. A couple of the ancient Greeks theorised that the world might not be flat but their theories did not last. Even as late as 1600 the idea that Earth was not the centre of the universe was controversial. Galileo’s fate is mentioned above. By the way, his predecessor, Copernicus, was first to publish a book theorising that the Sun was the centre of the Universe and not Earth. His book was initially accepted even by the church. Fortunately for him perhaps, he died before the priests decided such ideas were against holy scripture and set out to “correct” his work.
Today, it is generally accepted in scientific circles and in much of the wider community that, not only do the Earth and other planets in our solar system rotate around the Sun, our solar system is a small part of a massive galaxy which is just one of many galaxies across the universe. No doubt our understanding will expand even further over time. That is the nature of science. So let us not suggest putting scientists under house arrest or worse!
Any discussion of climate change must surely be undertaken in an environment of general acceptance of the advancement of science. Those who hold to the Biblical view would, I assume, also hold that the world climate is controlled by God. After all, he created it in seven days and He is not about to let humans mess it up. And let us not think he built it and then stood back and let man/woman go to it. His interventionism is demonstrated in the first Book of the Bible, Genesis. First He cast Adam and Eve out of the Garden of Eden for disobeying an instruction. Then He cast out Cain for knocking off his brother. After watching many generations grow and develop, God became so frustrated by the “wickedness” of man that he decided to wipe all living things off the face of the Earth and start again with one carefully selected family – Noah, his wife and children and their wives. And all the animals and plants they would carry in the Ark. If He wants to, it seems, God has no issue with intervention.
Certainly there are a few scientists who hold to a Creationist belief. I prefer my scientists to be agnostic on most things: seeking proof – without prejudice. If one holds that Darwinian evolution is the ONLY possibility, then all subsequent work is likely to be bent toward supporting that held belief. Equally so with Creationism or any other entrenched belief.
[ view entry ] ( 1092 views ) | print article
I have a feeling that much of the struggle we have with the discussion about climate change is in the difference between weather and climate.
So let’s have a go at clarifying. Weather is what happens every day, the fluctuations in temperature, cloud cover, rain or sunshine. Billy Connolly made a wonderful comment about weather on one of his “World Tour” documentaries: “There is neither good nor bad weather, but our attitude towards it”.
Climate is what happens in a region or across the planet over a long period of time – years.
Our general focus is on weather. What will I wear tomorrow based upon what the weather man predicted on the TV? How accurate can I expect that prediction to be? These days, quite accurate. On the other hand, what do I expect the weather to be like in six months when I want to take a holiday? Should I go to Cairns or Jindabyne in August? That depends on whether you enjoy swimming or snow skiing. The former decision is based on weather, the latter on climate.
It seems that we are being told that, unless we take drastic action to reduce the amount of carbon dioxide – and other “greenhouse” gases - we are pumping into the atmosphere, temperatures will rise by at least two degrees Celsius! For us mere mortals, the idea of an increase of two or even four degrees is nothing to get excited about. We see fluctuations in temperature of 10 degrees in a single day and similar fluctuation even between daily maximums every year. So what is the problem? People in Tasmania might welcome the average increasing by two or even four degrees.
Equally, the predictions of sea level rise are hard to fathom. Each day we see the tide rise and fall and it can vary between about a metre and five or six metres. So why should anyone fuss about a rise of a metre or two. If you live on Tuvalu, a nation of reef islands and atolls in the southern Pacific, it is probably vitally important.
The numbers are so strange that they are difficult to grasp and scientists are generally abysmally poor at explaining what they mean. So we have a debate between eminent people taking opposing sides and we can barely relate to any of it - except to be afraid of some of the more extreme predictions. Movies such as The Day After Tomorrow, in which climate change is seen wreaking havoc on an unsuspecting populace, play on our fears. Equally, when the logical side of our brain fathoms that these dire predictions are the stuff of Hollywood, we tend to reject the entire proposition as false.
[ view entry ] ( 542 views ) | print article
<Back | 1 |