This Man's guilt for global warming clear seems pretty, er, clear.
Though I would wish that headlines and facts tallied more closely, to avoid Achilles Heels that others can exploit:
Scientists are now overwhelmingly confident...
The exact phrasing of the report... was still being negotiated by scientists.
The best estimate is that...
This is expected to mean...
If it is as alarming as experts predicted...
'Scientists' or 'experts' are pretty catch-all terms, and I think need to be put in context much more clearly and up-front to establish credibility.
And those disclaimer terms seem to be the work of a person trying to steal a march. Wait until you know, and then state it loud... and clear
Finally, without sounding like a denier, I am not sure if Man's guilt for causing GW in totality is proven, but there seems a clear case for us making it lots worse and hence needing to do something about making it better. Again, I hope creating an opening for such semantics will not in turn lead to more pointless debate.
4 comments:
Peter,
I feel I must comment on this as I think you are being somewhat harsh. The IPCC is literally taking on the impossible here - there are so many inter-related variables in attempting to predict the planet's future climate that it would be perverse for them to do anything than come up with a best guess prediction. Let's face it, our own Met. office can't even get the weather forecast correct for the next 48 hours most of the time! Let's give them some credit for even daring to attempt some predictions.
Just look at the FACTS that ARE included in this piece:-
'global average temperature rise of 1.26°F (0.7°C) had been observed since the start of the industrial era'
'Mountain glaciers and snow cover have declined in both hemispheres'
'Ocean temperatures have increased at least two miles below the surface'
sea levels have risen 'by 1.8 mm a year ... from 1961 to 2003'
'Changes have been found in wind patterns, prolonged droughts or floods, the thickness of the Arctic icecap and the salinity of the ocean'
'Significantly increased rainfall has been recorded in eastern parts of North and South America, northern Europe and northern and central Asia'
'More intense and longer droughts have been recorded over wider areas since the 1970s'
These are empirically measured observations, NOT predictions; but they are just a few of the data sources being used by the leading scientists at the IPCC to project future consequential climate changes.
They have as much chance of being accurate as the proverbial snowball in hell. But, given the immense amount of historical data, the total lack of future data [as far as I know they don't have access to the TARDIS], and the imponderable number of inter-relationships between the tens of thousands of individual causal factors, then I find it hard to pick fault when their conclusions are couched in terms of 'likely' and 'probabilities'.
Being told that we are all going to fry - that much of southern europe will become uninhabitable - that parts of the world will suffer massive droughts - that many low lying parts of the planet will disappear under water. These are the messages that need to be broadcast to the population at large to make mankind get its act together rapidly.
I don't think that a subsistence fisherman from the Maldives is going to worry about whether the island he used to live on is under 2 metres or 20 metres of water.
Likewise, your Kalhari bushman is not going to worry about whether the monsoon doesn't arrive 4 years out of ten or 7 years out of ten, the fact is that his, and his family's, hold on life becomes more tenuous, if not desperate, as GW advances.
All that the great and the good at the IPCC are saying is that it WILL advance, and that it WILL have a major impact on us all and our planet.
Perhaps they should have concluded with something along the lines of:-
"We are all going to be in deep sh*t - we just can't tell you how deep the sh*t is going to be".
Dave Goodwin.
The dust is still settling. Later today I will post all the reports that have come in here. Already I'm seeing a spread of interpretations of facts.
There are a few issues here. What the IPPC says, and how it is conveyed.
My point is that, to move on, it is critical that no distracting red herrings or openings are created to get us embroiled in what exactly is killing us softly whilst allowing it to do so. Which I guess is what we are doing here, ironically.
I'm still working through the various press versions, and some blog replies to them (which is a chore but can produce a nugget), and already in one I see the IPPC's credentials being attacked by the way its official (and hence level of independent) status is described in the media. Does it matter? I don't know, but now there is a 'way to get us all green taxed' sidebar already.
Other commentary has highlighted that messing about with % figures is not helped when you end up with a 'very likely' derriere cover at the end. In all my ad years I know how effective that would be on a consumer. "90% - how certain is that - you decide! But in case we're wrong, at least we didn't actually say..."
It's how it gets reported in the headline. And as I will point out later, unless the others are waiting, only the Indy led with a climate story, and not the BIG one. Let's see what the red tops make of it all.
The facts you cite are a frightening given. But again there are chinks in the armour if we are not honest about what is by nature, made worse by man or caused by man.
I just don't think they are coming across as well as they might.
And that is... was my point. If I did not make it well enough I apologise. But if we can be divided on this, think how it could project to the rest of the public.
Maybe your suggested conclusion would be better. I'd just add - 'We don't when or how bad, but do you really think it's worth ignoring as much as 'we' are any more?
I'll await the weekend's front pages to see how this plays out.
Peter,
You make very valid points - I don't think that we are violently disagreeing here, I think we differ only in how we percieve that the media percieves the IPCC's output.
Given the pre-pre-release release information from the IPCC I have to confess that I'm surprised that only the Indy led with the climate change hat on this morning - though as we have said before - there are major Pol. stories that will always take precedence with the majority of the 'meejah'. With most of the rabid journo pack all desperately looking for a bit of uncle Tone's flesh (or one of his supportive minions)into which to sink their saliva dripping fangs this morning, perhaps it really is not that surprising.
'there are chinks in the armour if we are not honest about what is by nature, made worse by man or caused by man' - true, but even as the deniers are shouting "It's GW, NOT AGW!" [Anthropogenic], the undeniable fact still remains that CO2 levels have been totally stable between 270 & 280 ppm for almost 700 millennia on our little lump of planetary rock - they have only started to rise over the last 150 years or so - are now rapidly approaching 400 ppm - and the rate of increase is accelerating.
You are also correct that the facts are not coming across as well as they might - I think I would personally add 'and should' too.
You used that horrid three letter word - TAX. Of course, any government led initiative that forces the consumer to contribute towards ameliorating his CO2 emissions is going to be viewed as an additional Tax, because that is just what it is. We really ought to have expected that the 'way to get us all green taxed' sidebar would have appeared quite a way back.
As you say, it will be interesting to see just what the output of the entire gamut of the weekend papers is - my bet is that some may ignore it altogether, others will lead with it - but across the spread there will be standard bearers from both pro and anti AGW sides proselytising, questioning, arguing and nit-picking. As ever, the facts will probably get smothered under a cheesecake of journalistic couscous. At least it might not smell as bad as the 'deep sh*t'.
Dave.
I am still collating this (Saturday) morning's reviews. Not encouraging.
Usual suspects on board. Guardian, Indy. Even the Times and Telegraph.
Have to pop out to see the rest, but online the tabloids don't seem to be interested.
BBC has covered it a bit, and you will notice I am in discussion, blog-wise, with Newsnight. I thought their IPPC piece could have been a lot more thorough, the interview with David Miliband was as expected, and the Ethical Man piece on cow farts in complement about as flip a piece of 'oh, well, back to the burgers' as it could be.
So.. sorry, we may still differ on the media's reporting, but I still find it shambolic.
As to tax, well, before we die that's our next priority. And it may be we get taxed to death before it happens naturally.
I don't have a problem with being taxed if that is what it takes, but I do with who is doing it and to meet what agendas, especially if they are not fair or effective on stated ROI.
With the new carbon tax kicking in, I watched and read a lot of coverage about air travel. The overwhelming impression I got was that it wasn't making a whit of difference to behaviour... AND that no one thought the extra money was going to help the environment.
I am not even sure myself. But I will check and report back.
Information. Trust. Motivation. In short supply. Who is resposnible?
Post a Comment