Climate Change issues

Edwina Lee · Joined: 06 Oct 2006 Posts: 1282 Location: High Wycombe, UK

Despite so much is at stake, our messageboard has been rather silent on this issue.

Climate Change adaptive measures will undoubtedly need to involve every human on the planet, and much of the levies, taxation, legal obligations, good practice guidelines, existing practice will all need to be subjected to scrutiny against their effectiveness & cost efficiency towards alleviating Climate Change.

Here is the BBC's reporting of the Copenhagen summit COP 15th :-

The Green Room
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/sci_tech/green_room/default.stm

Richard Black's reporting of COP15
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/

Edwina Lee · Joined: 06 Oct 2006 Posts: 1282 Location: High Wycombe, UK

Why there are so many Global Warming deniers?

This lady historian Naomi Oreskes presented the valuable research to unearth the history of the development of the CO2 warming theory, and the chief denialist group and their use of the tactic of doubt and media balance as a means to obsfuscate truth:-

Her lecture video for the university of California for science studies - "The American Denial of Global Warming" (Dec 2007)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2T4UF_Rmlio&feature=PlayList&p=81F7E400 B533B21D&playnext_from=PL&index=0

This is her book "Merchants of Doubt" (to be released 2010-06-20)
http://www.bloomsburypress.com/books/catalog/merchants_of_doubt_hc_104

666 · Joined: 08 Sep 2009 Posts: 25 Location: Dreamland

Isn't this because the current climate in science is extremely hostile to anyone who questions the othodoxy that "we are all going to die unless..."

It is significant that the recent change in policy by the Royal Society was brought about by elderly scientists and even retirees who said that they were now able to speak freely about their doubts without having their carears and posts threatened.

Edwina Lee · Joined: 06 Oct 2006 Posts: 1282 Location: High Wycombe, UK

666,

No sane scientist would say "we are all going to die".

So you are raising an issue which does not exist.

Nor is it true that the Royal Society changed its policy. So again that is a bogus issue. It is true however, that a few Fellows objected to some wording relating to those who refuse the mainstream concensus, not orthodoxy as you describe it.

However, consider this. If our generation burn all the oil that can be mined, what else can the world use to continue its business as usual economics?

Bearing in mind that the 4% of population in the world which is in the USA has been burning 25% of oil production for decades. Now they are drilling below 10,000ft of water in wells 25,000ft deep or more. To be that desperate for oil means the age of oil is near its end.

When the US burn up all the oil that can be mined in the world, do you think the rest of the world are going to sit back and do nothing?

Quarrels between nations can easily develop into wars and wars.

Coupled with over population, desertification, shortage of fresh water, and climate changes; these are extremely explosive situations.

A recent published calculation estimated that the earth can sustain only 500 million people living the average USA level of consumption, but 15 billion living at the level of Zimbabwe. The world is projected to have 9 billion people by 2050, and we are at 6.8 billion already.

Therefore, the denial of these consequences when the most reputable scientific institutions are telling us that is essentially wilful self destruction.

Edwina Lee · Joined: 06 Oct 2006 Posts: 1282 Location: High Wycombe, UK

Merchants of Doubt - By Naomi Oreskes and Erik M. Conway
How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming

The troubling story of how a cadre of influential scientists have clouded public understanding of scientific facts to advance a political and economic agenda.

The U.S. scientific community has long led the world in research on such areas as public health, environmental science, and issues affecting quality of life. Our scientists have produced landmark studies on the dangers of DDT, tobacco smoke, acid rain, and global warming. But at the same time, a small yet potent subset of this community leads the world in vehement denial of these dangers.

Merchants of Doubt tells the story of how a loose-knit group of high-level scientists and scientific advisers, with deep connections in politics and industry, ran effective campaigns to mislead the public and deny well-established scientific knowledge over four decades. Remarkably, the same individuals surface repeatedly—some of the same figures who have claimed that the science of global warming is "not settled" denied the truth of studies linking smoking to lung cancer, coal smoke to acid rain, and CFCs to the ozone hole. "Doubt is our product," wrote one tobacco executive. These "experts" supplied it.

Naomi Oreskes and Erik M. Conway, historians of science, roll back the rug on this dark corner of the American scientific community, showing how ideology and corporate interests, aided by a too-compliant media, have skewed public understanding of some of the most pressing issues of our era.

666 · Joined: 08 Sep 2009 Posts: 25 Location: Dreamland

You are claiming there is concensus on this topic when there is not. There is a hijacking of language to imply anyone who questions the "concensus" must be automatically wrong, even insane. Methods which have been freely used by the so-called Peace Movements of the 1980s and the "Pro-Life" (Anti-abortion) movements. Hijack the language first so any opposition looks negative. This is a dangerous path for so-called scientists to take. Such processes date back to the Nazis.

The scientific method is one of proving a theory and then inviting questions. On matters of climate change the reverse has been the case. The proposal has been stated as fact and anyone who questions the proposal is derided as a denier, a Flat-earther and equated with holocaust denial. These terms are now freely used in what is regarded as modern scientific research and debate (watching a five minute video on Youtube).

I feel you actually prove my point by stating that 90% of the world is going die unless we choose to live like Zimbabwe.

I agree on the USA using 25% of the oil but the drilling for oil is more to reduce dependence on overseas oil rather than it running out.

What you are putting forward looks more like an anti-American rant rather than a serious scientific point.

Edwina Lee · Joined: 06 Oct 2006 Posts: 1282 Location: High Wycombe, UK

666,

Do not think for a moment that I don't know your agenda here.

Your agenda has absolutely nothing to do with Dimsum.

Anyone else reading this message may be puzzled why I take such a strong stance. Well, have a look at 666's Profile and you can see there is something very fishy there.

Watch Prof. Naomi Oreskes's lecture video to understand how the denialists use doubt as a political tactic to avoid having to get real honest scientists on their side. Instead, use the loophole of 'balanced opinion' in media presentation to make it look as if there is an intense debate within the scientific community about key issues.

Notably, the 3 scientists who headed the George C Marshall Institute which was originally set up to defend Ronald Reagan's SDI (the Star Wars programme) from boycott by 6500 physicists, by producing the illusion in the media that the scientists were debating over it.

This institute did not disband following the collapse of communism in Russia, instead continued using the same tactic of placing doubt through media and avoid debate with fellow scientists in the halls of science.

666 · Joined: 08 Sep 2009 Posts: 25 Location: Dreamland

Oh dear what is up with you?

You started the thread so I presume you wanted comment and at the first comment anyone makes you are indulging in personal attack.

Is this your idea of "Balanced Opinion?"

Edwina Lee · Joined: 06 Oct 2006 Posts: 1282 Location: High Wycombe, UK

I did not attack your person.

I merely pointed out your agenda with self evident evidence.

666 · Joined: 08 Sep 2009 Posts: 25 Location: Dreamland

Yes you did:

"Anyone else reading this message may be puzzled why I take such a strong stance. Well, have a look at 666's Profile and you can see there is something very fishy there."

So what is my agenda? I am sure everyone would be thrilled to know?

Newsfeeds

Latest Posts

	Dimsum Forum Index -> Community	All times are GMT + 1 Hour
Page 1 of 1