Thanks for your comments. I have been an Intensive Care Specialist for the past 30 years. That has necessitated a strong background in science as well as a practical problem orientated approach to my daily work. I am well versed in analyzing research papers and applying that knowledge to patient care. I have also had a strong interest in climate change for the past 20 years and have read most of the important relevant literature.
It struck me early on that the climate change debate was not a debate at all. The science is clear cut and indisputable. All of the issues raised by Bigmac have now been clearly disproved and yet climate change skeptics continue to raise these red herrings.
Peeteys query about the calibre of the scientists involved in this research should be clearly understood. 98% of CLIMATE CHANGE SCIENTISTS (ie scientists who specifically study the subject) agree with my position. Surely that should make even the most ardent skeptic sit up and take notice. These scientists have no political axes to grind and if anything are upsetting their various patrons and paymasters. Bigmacs comments regarding Scientists vs Engineers are disingenuous and should not be taken seriously.
Bigmac states that Engineers are in the business of making things and building wealth and prosperity. Surely that smacks of self interest. Mining companies and their employees hate carbon tax proposals and rising energy costs.
It must be very confusing for the laymen who have not had the benefit of a scientific education. There is so much propaganda out there and most of the folk I speak to think it is a little like religion. One can pick and choose ones beliefs from the smorgasbord of available religious traditions. Science is not like that. Scientists take a ruthlessly honest approach to problem solving as per the scientific method. A true scientist is a true skeptic. A hypothesis is developed and evidence is painstakingly examined and sifted. If it does not fit the hypothesis, it is discarded. Science is not a matter of opinion - it deals in fact.
Religion, politics and economics are not like that. All these activities involve matters of opinion. The poor old layman is in an invidious position when presented with the facts and lies relating to climate change. The real conspiracy that Bigmac refers to involves big business and politicians. They have a strong vested interest in thrashing the findings of the IPCC.
But something interesting is now happening. The Politicians have been told by their advisors in no uncertain terms about the seriousness of climate change. Do you really think Julia G and Co want to introduce a carbon tax. Of course they dont but they realize they have no choice. Governments around the world have taken an irresponsible attitude to climate change and it is gratifying that they are rather belatedly taking redemptive action.
As I said in a previous post - the debate is over. Climate change is real and the potential consequences are frightening. To pass it off as another Ozone hole or Y2K issue would be a grave error of judgment.
Bigmac raised the issue of the Ozone Hole and the CFC's. Surely he accepts the causative role of the CFC's and Ozone depletion. Humanities response to that potential catastrophe was a truly remarkable achievement and gives us hope that perhaps we will summon the same energy to tackle the causes of climate change.
I dont wish to go into a tit for tat argument with Bigmac about the issues he raises. The answers to all his statements and questions can be found on the following website http://www.skepticalscience.com
However I should clear up a few of his misconceptions:
Satellite atmospheric temperature measurements are not particularly accurate. The latest satellite data however confirms exactly the scientific model regarding the heating of the troposphere and stratosphere. Ground station temperature measurements and high altitude balloon thermometry all give data consistent with the model. The urban heating effect is clearly understood as is the day/night temperature variation.
Bigmac makes a fundamental mistake when referring to the hail storms of last century. Of course extreme climatic and weather events have occurred in the past but the difference now is in the frequency and extremes of these events. He uses isolated anecdotal incidents to make a generalized comment. This is quite unscientific and absurd. Britain has had its harshest winter in 50 years. I suppose that means that global warming is not happening!!
Bigmac quite rightly points to the role of the Sun in heating our atmosphere. The problem is that satellite sensors indicate that the radiant energy of the sun has been much reduced during the past 30 years. This satellite data is absolutely reliable (cf to satellite measurements of the earths atmosphere). That really disposed of that thesis.
Bigmac asks where we are to get our energy from. I accept that is a huge problem. It is a given that we will soon be forced to drastically reduce our consumption of fossil fuels. Forget about peak oil ,peak gas or peak anything. We simply have no choice but to leave it in the ground. The public will become aware of the dangers of fossil fuel usage within a decade as the climate change issues become obvious to all. They will put extreme pressure on governments to take action and you can be sure that the pols will listen. This is starting to happen right now.
It will be a very painful shift away from fossil fuels but it will happen - and soon. What are the alternatives? Renewables will help but wont do the job. Australia is blessed with a wonderful solar resource but it will be expensive to develop. Forget about hydro. Wind Power will provide about 10% at most and it is too early to accurately assess the role of geothermal, wave and tidal.
The future world will run on electricity. The heavy machinery and aircraft will probably continue to use fossil fuel but all cars will be electric within 20 years. Once an electric car can be rapidly charged (ie 5 mins) and have a range of 400 km between charges, the day of the internal combustion car will be done.
My guess is the solution will be nuclear powered electricity generation. What else can provide the necessary base load to complement the renewable sources of energy. Nuclear is incredibly clean and safe if managed with appropriate safeguards. James Lovelock, the elder statesman of the Green movement has said that the GREENS must embrace nuclear rather than rejecting it. The ultimate solution will be nuclear fusion and at the rate of current technological progress we will probably harness this energy source on earth within 20 - 30 years.
I have gone on at great length and Hot Copper is probably not the appropriate forum for such comments. My guess is that most people reading this are dyed in the wool climate change skeptics. After all investors have a vested interest in exploiting resources and the spectre of climate change threatens their investment prospects. However it may be useful for these readers to at least consider my views and be stimulated into "DYOR".
VMS Price at posting:
34.0¢ Sentiment: Hold Disclosure: Held
(20min delay)