Login to Change.org
Create an Account
Roger Grice
Recent Activity
-
Roger commented on the article |Climate refugees - who would have thought. It's easy to make a comment like this... "a fifth of Tuvalu's citizens has already fled to surrounding countries like New Zealand, fearing that they would lose their homes and have no place to go." .. .Is that really the reason? Look; it's really because they are very poor and need to live somewhere else. Tuvalu is getting bigger, but not any richer. Fortunately NZ and Australia give these countries a lot of support and aide, keep an eye on their environment, and have immigration policies friendly to the islands.
-
Roger commented on the article |Just another interesting aside to toss into this interesting debate.
http://www.baltimoresun.com/features/green/bal-md.gr.trees02feb02,0,5447717.story
An interesting proposition arose when I read this. It states that the trees are growing faster due to increase carbon dioxide. There could be all sorts of arguements about the whys and wherefores of what's happening. We could even start a debate saying that higher CO2 is good for the fauna of the planet. these trees would have an interesting opinion if they could talk. But my intrigung proposition is this: "What does this mean to proxy data gathered from tree rings from the last 2,000 years, used to track temperature. Is it flawed? Should tree ring proxy data now be treated with suspicion in analysis?"
-
Roger commented on the article |
Craig you challenged me on the statement about climate models being complete. But isn't that what you and many other protagonists are saying. For example Erik Vance wrote in another blog in this site "It's true that there are many thing things that scientists do not understand about feedbacks and trace gasses like VOCs. But overall, our understanding of gross processes is phenomenal. Go to an international conference on climate and you will be boggled by the detail to which we can study the sky." Now that statement doesn't seem truely credible in the light of the recent discussion about water vapour. Your own opinion is that the science is settled; is it not?. There is a puzzling lack of logic going on here. I am not positioning myself as a scientist, but a questioner that looks at the logic in much of this. This gives me the luxury of selective quoting. You'll note I usually quote and then ask the questions - "why did they say that? What does that mean?" You also accuse me of using a typical deniers stance that its too difficult for common people to understand. But that's not what I'm saying. I'm simply showing the conflict of logic within the protagonists arguement. You deny that water vapour is a key factor, but that statement also lacks logic. It's significant enough to explain why the model isn't working. It's significant enough to change climate patterns. Right now we don't know enough about it to determine how significant it is, what drives it and how long-term it is. This is what Rosenlof is saying. This discussion on water vapour is truely weird and deserves quite detailed analysis. Every school science student will tell you that warming up an ecosystem that contains water will generate more water vapour. Why not here?
-
Roger commented on the article |
Craig. If I understand your arguement, the rate of warming has not reduced. But hold on; is has... or has it?. Just a minute, here's a good reason for the rate reduction.., but it isn't really happening. What the hell says Rosenlof "we don't really understand what's going on." But then again Rosenlof may not have very good credentials. Another line from this article is also somewhat disturbing. "Andrew Dessler, an atmospheric scientist at Texas A&M University in College Station says he thinks the team has identified a new source of short-term variability in climate,.." Now that is not a comment that is compatible with the arguement that the models are well considered and complete. How can you model when you miss key factors. The AGCC argument seems to be unravelling like the thred in an old sweater.
-
Roger commented on the article |
Craig. To be honest I'm only trying to convince you that there is indeed a folly going on, not the casual reader. and that the cracks are starting to appear. It's not important to change the minds of casual observers. It appears the man in the stree already suspects this folly is happening; as public polls will show. My views and those of Dan Johnson represent these people in the street, not scientists. My own position is not that we do nothing; it's that a series of flawed processes are being managed by the wrong people, who have agendas that aren't conistent with a good solution. We may indeed need to do something, but it may be less drastic, longer term and better planned than what is currently going on. The massive budgets, are not with 'dirty' energy as you describe it. They are in fact within this system that is fueled by positive feedback and funded by government spending. Do you ever sit down and think for a moment just how much money will be involved in carbon trading? Think about how much taxation money was spent on Copenhagen alone! (And how much carbon that generated :-) Any individual who has a role in creating a system that will suck trillions of dollars from the economy, has to be absolutely above reproach. You challenge Chip's integity, but in fact it's more vital to challenge the integrity of those that tell us we need this new taxation system, especially when they are effectively employed by it. Yes Craig - greed is a powerful motivator.
-
Roger commented on the article |
Craig, The reason I pulled those quotes is becuase they were so extraordinary. Firstly an admission from a Climate Scientist of deliberately witholding data, on the basis it would be challenged. Secondly and admissiomn that ego was at play in climate science. And thirdly a statement that the appointment of IPCC's head is a political decision. In attempting to salvage credibilty by establishing a more moderate position on AGCC, he should be commended, but he still has a job to do - hence your quote. We all have a job to do, just like our friend Chip, who's honesty you have challenged. Seems like you are saying that funding for research to support AGCC is admirable, but challenging the numbers makes you dirty. We don't know either Beddington or Chip, but know they are funded by their respective camps, other wise they would starve. Without further personal information we can only assume they are both doing the same job, but in different camps. The letters in your link between TokyoTom show a very reasoned approach by Chip, who is getting seriously dumped on by TokyoTom.
-
Roger commented on the article |
And another one. I don't know who the writer is, and Craig will predictably say he has no credentials. I just like the way he presents this, and it agrees with my point that the current debate is full cherry picked data, which is much less reliable than you should hope for.
-
Roger commented on the article |
Here's an interesting article.
It's full off very intersting quotes, but here are a couple that are eye opening.
In response to one request for data Professor Jones wrote: "We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?" He said what?!!
Mike Hulme, Professor of Climate Change at the University of East Anglia, said: "Climate scientists get kudos from working on an issue in the public eye..." Does that mean what I think it means.
Professor Hulme said: "Pachauri's choice of words has not been good. The question of whether he is the right person to lead the IPCC is for the 193 countries who make up its governing body. It's a political decision." - Are you sure the IPCC isn't a polically driven organisation with an agenda?
One thing is for sure. When this whole thing plays out over the next few decades Climate Science is going to give academics the most amazing material to study the interplay between science, media, politics, money, academia and society. There has never been anything like this.
-
Roger commented on the article |
Is clean coal a myth or a challenge to technology? Coal is primarily made from Carbon and has traces of a number of high risk pollutants. You proposition is that the primary constituent of the coal is a dangerous pollutant. This is where we differ, and this is a world of difference. A tax on nitrates and sulphates and a tax credit for capture of them? - yes no question. Recognition that some coals are cleaner than others - yes. A tax on carbon? A very different proposition.
-
Roger commented on the article |
Craig, I am absolutely in agreement with all your reasons for reducing our dependance on fossil fuels, on managing this resource better and in establishing new long term sustainable enery resources. We need to spend a large amount of money researching new energy opportunities. The science in depletion of natural resources and the effect of polutants is well settled. We are all in serious trouble from depletion of oil. Conversion to electricity, in it's various forms, will load up our existing infrastructure. This may include ramping up coal use; but there is only about 200 years (unsubstantiated comment) of coal available. I saw a very interesting TED video that made the statment that we don't even have enough available uranium to power the globe's need for energy. We need very focussed and deliberate action to create a new energy infrastucture. As well as issues with energy depletion, we are also polluting the environment, which affects every system on the planet. This also has to be addressed urgently. You won't find too many people who will argue with you on this one Craig.
Impact
0 Actions
0 Recruits