Who are we supposed to believe? Does anyone have a method we can follow to fight our way out of this pandora's box of utter confusion?
We suspected that this just might be the case - "this debate will still run and run and run."
First we had a counter AGW theory - climate change is not anthropogenic at all, its all to do with natural cycles in the sun's output - solar radiation levels, magnetic field changes, sunspots, solar flares etc.......
...... Then along comes research that supposedly proves that this is definitely not the case, and looking at the data graphs in the New Scientist (link below), the evidence appeared quite compelling ........
"measurements of solar activity show it has been declining since the mid-1980s and cannot account for recent rises in global temperatures" - New Scientist.
...... Well, further to previous posts on this subject on this very blog, it now looks as if it all comes down to "interpretation of the data". This opinion article from The Telegraph suggests that ....
"Last week's research is a simple piece of science and fundamentally flawed. Nobody looked beyond the hype; if they had, they would have reached a different conclusion."
And "Using the global temperature data endorsed by the Inter-national Panel on Climate Change, one can reach a completely different conclusion."
So what was conclusive last week is no longer so this week!
The argument (and debate) is over .... NOT!
Wake me up in twenty years time please.
4 comments:
If respected (well...) scientists still can't agree, along with those - hopefully well qualified - bods who make a living out of looking at what they say with a view to enabling a reasonable person-in-street assessement, then it is no wonder the poor public remains at best confused or, more likely, remote from the debate. And hence detached from engaging with anything like proactive issues, even on a personal level.
I honestly do not know what the answer is.
One thing is for sure, Google looking like it is now whacking ads in the text body (as seems to be happening), especially for carbon offset schemes of unsubstantiated/able provenance, sure ain't making my day any better either!
If you check the IPCC data (available on their website as powerpoint presentations where you can see the temperature points for individual years), you will see that global warming has not stalled since the late 1980's. I suspect the polemicist/scientist was using out of date info. Check the Nairobi February 2007 presentation, for example. 2006 looks similarly warm to other recent years, and warmer than the 1980's. When you have a trend, any one point may well not be statistically different from the others: it's the trend that's important. As an illustration: my stairs are only a few inches apart, but I find that I can get to the top of the house if I climb them one after the other!
This is not to say that the sun is unimportant. Modelling studies suggest that the global warming since up to the 1940's was largely natural. One might hope that journalists and editors could cope with the concept that climate change has natural and human-induced components, rather than seeing them as pure opposite and competing theories!!
The recent evidence of human-induced forcing of the climate may be inconvenient, but that does not stop it from being true.
I should add that as a scientist, I have come across plenty of occasions where statistics are misunderstood, as well as plenty of times when scientists 'go off on one' and lose track of where the evidence is taking them.......
Lawrence
First up, may I combine an apology with a grumble that at the top of my page at least is a Google ad for 'promotional plastic bags'.
Not what I want at all!!! Maybe they mistook my reckoning plastic bags were low on the priority totem for supporting the blooming things!
But until I can gain control of the media planning a sad compromise I am going to have to make. But it’s not one those in the major media who I take to task can be easily excused from.
Lawrence, you highlight where the problem lies.
As a scientist, you are able to cut through the clutter and arrive at a pretty well informed opinion.
Few others can, at least so easily, and the 'cause' is being badly served by this sad fact.
At risk of repeating myself, I have long banged on that 'green cannot only be viewed in black and white', yet time and again, 'we' get presented with whopping examples of 'either/or', usually surrounded by some poor sods trying to make sense of it all being accused, effectively, of not being 'with’ the programme, by not being 100% against the other one. And the ratings hounds lap it up.
As you look at this blog of late, you may sense that in pursuit of ratings the feral fiends of Fleet Street, SoHo and Shepherds Bush are actually looking at their ankles a bit and wondering why their trews are down there and their tushies not getting the usual protection from the tissues of (your favoured word here) that have sufficed to fob us off until now. Sweet. If it lasts.
I believe 'we' must find a way to move the 'debate' away from ‘is/isn't’ towards a less dogmatic 'well, if it is, maybe a bit of caution would dictate...'.
What are the odds?
Peter,
I spotted the google ad for carbon offsetting and thought it might get under your skin somewhat.
Lawrence,
I agree with you entirely - looking at all the evidence the warming trend appears indisputable.
Unfortunately, however, it does not prevent the 'antis' from picking up items like this and using them as ammunition, hence my comments on why the debate will still go on and on. If you read throught the comments on the Telegraph page and you will see that the great majority fall into the 'denier' category.
It's all too similar to the consequences of the showing of CH4's Great Global Warming Swindle, where Durkin used 'selective' statistics to make 'scientific' points that are actually invalid; yet thousands of people were totally convinced as a result of this program that global warming was a load of bull, simply because it said so on the telly!
As Peter has so rightly stated, it's no wonder that the public remains confused and/or remote from the debate.
Post a Comment