What defence do we have against politically-motivated scientists?

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Ned


KH, Apology?

If you'd understood what you'd posted you ould understand why not.

[Ned]

KH, you are an unmitigated a-hole, aren't you? First you blast me for stating a wild "new" theory on ice ages, and when I demonstrate that science has now all but confirmed the relationship between orbit and spin axis and the ice ages, you again blast me for not understanding it. You are a *****ng creep.

[Ned]

I found this bit from the Euro-Tribune article interesting as well. Something is going on with the Sun as well, as variations in Sun activity apparently correlate very well with the MWP, the Mini-Ice age and the recent warming. (Since historically, CO2 levels have followed temperature changes and not lead them, it is possible that a good portion of the CO2 increases observed since 1850 have to do with temperature increases caused by the Sun.)

"with your background in astrophysics, do you have some comments about the growing evidence that the sun's activity has constantly increased at least the past 100 years, and possibly longer?

This is more a field mixing astrophysics with nuclear science and geology (isotopes in ice cores). The last studies I am aware of (checking my record, the latest is Solanki et al 2004 and comments to it in the German GEO magazine) tracked solar activity back into the latter part of the first millennium in a detailed way and less detailed back to the last ice age, showed that last 70 years' activity is exceptional, and showed correlation with the temperature models (in particular the MWP), but the correlation broke down in the last 30 years. However, I may not be up to date. (After a first cursory search, I found that another team using another isotope found the recent activity less exceptional, i.e. similar levels were reached not thousands but hundreds of years ago, while Solanski et al. think that research was problematic.) "

http://www.eurotrib.com/story/2006/2/2/7340/85099

[Ned]

"However, this discussion relates back to that other big problem in climatology: to what degree is our climate changing under the influence of anthropogenic CO2 and to what degree to other forcings? It's another dispute, for another day, but the Hockey Stick ties in with it. The Hockey Stick by Mann, if true, is giving us an idea how much forcing humans already have added to the earth. If, however, as McIntyre and McKitrick argue, this is unreliable and we see large variations throughout our recent history, the answer becomes completely ambiguous. Humans are reduced back to ants, only able to tip the scale a little, until Mom and Dad return home. And when that happens, then we're in real trouble. But the above is a case for not overreacting and looking for different and better methods to reconstruct the CO2 and temperature history. I fully agree with that...."

http://www.eurotrib.com/story/2006/2/2/7340/85099

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Ned
KH, you are an unmitigated a-hole, aren't you?
...
You are a *****ng creep.

Ned, which I can understand your frustrated, there's no need to resort to blatant insults.

[KrazyHorse]

I don't mind. Seriously. It's why I took him off ignore. Please don't do anything silly like banning him.

[Drogue]

I'm not going to, someone would have to be a complete ass for that to happen.

[KrazyHorse]

When you say it like that I see it as a challenge...

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Drogue

Why penalise those who are just further behind on the road to development?

Their fault for being poor.

We had the benefit of little regulation when we developed, because we weren't contributing to the problem that much. A bit hypocritical to now say since we've developed and are the ones causing the problems that everyone developing has to cut emissions when we didn't have that burden while we were.

By the western world retaining the right to pollute, but for more dollars to the CO2 tonne, it means that the economy will improve at a rate faster than the rate CO2 pollution is causing problems. Overall, an economy that can pay for the effects of climate change is better than one that tanks and can't pay for anything in spite of climate change due to overpopulated countries like China and India.

Moreover it would stop them from developing, which seems vastly unfair - to slow the growth of the world's poorest economies the most.

If we stunt their growth, great, it will mean fewer emissions from developing nations in the future.

Lastly, it would have little effect. What purpose would low pollution caps on Botswana, or Malawi, or Sudan serve? It wouldn't lower global pollution.

Malawi, Botswana and Sudan are going to be uninhabitable due to global warming, so I don't see the problem.

[KrazyHorse]

[Ned]

I think, even from this thread, that there is a growing consensus that economics cannot be shoved off the table in deciding what to do about GHG and polution in general. The third world sees the tradeoff much more clearly than many in the first world.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
When you say it like that I see it as a challenge...

Try me.

*feels like a cowboy, hand hovering over holster*

Originally posted by Ned
I think, even from this thread, that there is a growing consensus that economics cannot be shoved off the table in deciding what to do about GHG and polution in general. The third world sees the tradeoff much more clearly than many in the first world.

But as the economics exam I'm going to take on Friday will ask me, how do you value a species? How do you take into account the unknowable preferences of future generations when deciding on best policy? And how do we take into account that while all economic models uses rational preferences, as you can't get very far without them, most people do not exhibit them? The core one here being time inconsistency: economics presumes that a difference of 1 day is 1 day, whenever that day occurs. For example, if I offer someone coffee today, or coffee and a biscuit tomorrow, you may decide you feel like coffee now. However if I ask you to choose between coffee in 30 days and coffee and a biscuit in 31 days, you may say that both are a long way away, so the difference between them is immaterial and go for the coffee and biscuit a day later. The problem is they're both the same issue - in 30 days you could regret waiting that extra day.

The same with global warming. While we may decide now that we're happy with cutrailing future generations, we may feel in 50 years that we wish we'd chosen differently.

[Ned]

Drogue, well as they say, hindsight is 20-20.

[Drogue]

Yes, but doesn't help formulate policy. Moreover, this isn't a system where they gain any knowledge along the way, just where their preference changes. That's the problem. It's like the person who eats a chocolate bar and regrets it when they're fat. They knew it would do that.

[Solly]

Originally posted by Ned
I think, even from this thread, that there is a growing consensus that economics cannot be shoved off the table in deciding what to do about GHG and polution in general. The third world sees the tradeoff much more clearly than many in the first world.

There aren't as many wannabe socialists in the third world - they realise their route to success is through free-markets, free-trade and capitalism.