Ed Miliband declares war on climate change skeptics

[cal04]

Climate secretary Ed Miliband warns against listening to 'siren voices', in an interview with the Observer
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jan/31/ed-miliband-climate-change-scepticism

The climate secretary, Ed Miliband, last night warned of the danger of a public backlash against the science of global warming in the face of continuing claims that experts have manipulated data.

In an exclusive interview with the Observer, Miliband spoke out for the first time about last month's revelations that climate scientists had withheld and covered up information and the apology made by the influential UN climate body, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which admitted it had exaggerated claims about the melting of Himalayan glaciers.

The perceived failure of global talks on combating climate change in Copenhagen last month has also been blamed for undermining public support. But in the government's first high-level recognition of the growing pressure on public opinion, Miliband declared a "battle" against the "siren voices" who denied global warming was real or caused by humans, or that there was a need to cut carbon emissions to tackle it.

"It's right that there's rigour applied to all the reports about climate change, but I think it would be wrong that when a mistake is made it's somehow used to undermine the overwhelming picture that's there," he said.

"We know there's a physical effect of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere leading to higher temperatures, that's a question of physics; we know CO2 concentrations are at their highest for 6,000 years; we know there are observed increases in temperatures; and we know there are observed effects that point to the existence of human-made climate change. That's what the vast majority of scientists tell us."

[HBravo]

1. Sorry but

skeptics come out of the wood work when the scientists "withhold cover up or manipulate" the data.

[BeFree]

8. Nah

They are just denialists. True skeptics are those who really study a problem and can find good evidence that refutes a finding. In this case your 'skeptics' are just lazy, knee-jerk, denial freaks who are afraid... which is understandable. The science points to real bad problems coming before long.

[unabelladonna]

2. skeptics?

i am skeptical about human beings causing global warming. it is what it is. to think humans can take control of the heavens is absurd. we couldn't even predict or stop the earthquake. what happens 1000 years down the road is not my concern.

[Bobbieo]

3. Yup! And the world is only 6,000 years old, too. Earthquakes are related to tectonic plates -

which has nothing to do with climate change.

[stuntcat]

4. what happens down the road is not your concern?

This is why I'm ashamed of my species. I'm reminded over and over every day, ty

[Lorien]

6. Let's hope she doesn't breed. nt

[unabelladonna]

9. too late,

i have a wonderful daughter.

guess what, i believe the earth is round and i believe in evolution. i also believe that the earths is billions of years old and climate is cyclical. i do not believe man/woman is able to control climate.
why would anyone believe anything algore (you know the guy who was out there shilling for NAFTA)says.

i am just a progressive who believes the climate change nonsense is a feelgood cause for rich liberals (you know the ones who don't want windfarms blocking their views of the pacific)instead of working for healthcare and education and jobs. IOW, it's elitist snobbery.

[Nihil]

10. Shame.

> i am just a progressive who believes the climate change nonsense is a
> feelgood cause for rich liberals (you know the ones who don't want
> windfarms blocking their views of the pacific)instead of working for
> healthcare and education and jobs.

I hope you realise that you're not fooling anyone.

> it's elitist snobbery.

In the same way that using capital letters in the correct places
is "elitist snobbery"?

You are an ignorant right-wing eater of billygoats. GFY.

[bergie321]

14. Nobody

Cares about Al Gore. He is not a scientist. Look objectively at the science.

[marshall]

15. What has happened to Gore?

I haven't heard anything about him since he said the interior of the earth was millions of degrees. He certainly didn't take the spotlight very well.

[Lorien]

5. No, you're not a skeptic. You're just completely uninformed and have your head in the sand

Watch "an inconvenient truth", which the scientists at National Geographic )owned by Murdoch) called "optimistic". As for the absurd "humans can't take control of the heavens" hogwash; what do you think a nuclear bomb can do to the planet? We have enough of them to scorch the earth several times over. Think about that. Millions of vehicles, power plants, dead oceans and deforestation has had a devastating effect on the environment. In nature THERE IS NO WASTE-EVERYTHING IS RECYCLED. If you think that operating outside of the natural order of the world has no effect on it, then you need a remedial science course at the very least. Open your eyes.

[TxRider]

11. Hmm...

"Watch "an inconvenient truth", which the scientists at National Geographic )owned by Murdoch) called "optimistic"."

That film doesn't help. It's filled with factual errors that have been proven.




"As for the absurd "humans can't take control of the heavens" hogwash; what do you think a nuclear bomb can do to the planet? We have enough of them to scorch the earth several times over."

Actually we don't have enough to scorch the earth several times over.





"Think about that. Millions of vehicles, power plants, dead oceans and deforestation has had a devastating effect on the environment."


Umm, the oceans are not dead.


"In nature THERE IS NO WASTE-EVERYTHING IS RECYCLED."


Yes including this entire planet which will be recycled by the sun into gas eventually.


"If you think that operating outside of the natural order of the world has no effect on it, then you need a remedial science course at the very least. Open your eyes."

We are an expression of the natural order of the world, nature created us just like everything else on the planet. How can anything we do as a creation of nature and an expression of nature's order be outside the natural order?

[OnlinePoker]

17. Ad hominem attacks do nothing to change people's opinions

Most of you warmers seem to assume that just because people don't believe in man-made global warming that we have our head in the sand. The reality is, not all scientists believe in this either. It's like we're attacking your religion when we voice a dissenting opinion on the topic. Let's look in this thread alone. We skeptics are labeled "lazy, knee-jerk, denial freaks", automatically assumed to be creationists, hoped that the one poster wouldn't breed(thus wishing to deny a woman the right to do what she wants with her own body), and been called "an ignorant right-wing eater of billygoats" then told to GFY. I happen to believe that global warming is part of a natural cycle that has been occurring for millions of years. You may not like that belief, but using a little decorum in your arguments against that opinion might be more persuasive than what I have seen so far.

[Nihil]

20. Neither do fact-free "arguments" parroted from right-wing fossil fuel industry sites.

> "lazy, knee-jerk, denial freaks"
> and been called "an ignorant right-wing eater of billygoats"

Maybe the cap fits?

> Most of you warmers seem to assume that just because people don't believe
> in man-made global warming that we have our head in the sand.

That's a polite version but one that is proven with every post you make.

> The reality is, not all scientists believe in this either.

"Reality" has very little to do with your posts.

Seeing the same fact-free posts time & time again from the latest denier
sock-puppet gets frustrating. Keep posting the same crap and you'll keep
getting the same crap back.

:shrug:

[Strelnikov_]

22. Is carbon dioxide a greenhouse gas? n/t

[Strelnikov_]

7. Is carbon dioxide a greenhouse gas? n/t

[Nederland]

13. Yes

Will increasing CO2 levels result in catastrophically higher temperatures? Who knows.

[Nederland]

12. Some "Science" is settled, much is not

It bugs me when people like Ed Miliband paint with a broad brush about what "the vast majority of scientists tell us". In my mind, this is what is settled science:

1) CO2 levels are increasing due to human activity.
2) CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
3) Temperatures have increased during the 20th century.

What is NOT settled is this:

1) Warming from increased CO2 will be catastrophic.

Miliband's statement seems to imply that the vast majority of scientists believe warming will be catastrophic. In reality, there is a small percentage of scientists that believe it will be catastrophic, a small percentage that believe it won't be catastrophic, and a fairly sizable majority that say we don't understand climate nearly well enough to predict what things will look like 100 years into the future. One only has to read what the IPCC itself says about predicting climate to understand the problem:

In climate research and modeling, we should recognize that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.” (TAR, p.774.)

The reality of climate is that CO2 is not the only factor involved. There are over a dozen known variables that influence global temperatures, and we simply do not know enough about all of them to add up all the effects and produce a number that has any significant level of precision.

[BeFree]

16. Catastrophic

If the sea level continues to rise nearly every coastline will be effected and those who live directly on the coast will be catastrophically effected.

If the sea level rises by meters not only those on the coast but in some places a mile from the coastline will be catastrophically effected and many economic features as well.

It is rising and the sound predictions are that it will rise in the meters range.

[Nederland]

18. Sound predictions?

Says who? Climate is coupled non-linear chaotic system that defies prediction. Anybody who says they "know" that the sea level will rise by meters is lying.

[BeFree]

23. We know

That sea levels have been higher. And that sea levels have also been lower.

The science predicts that sea levels will rise again due to climatic linear progression. The already rising sea level confirms the correctness of the scientific predictions.

[Nederland]

24. We don't know

As I have noted twice already, and as the IPCC itself confesses, climate is a non-linear chaotic system that defies prediction. Sure, there are computer models that try to model at how much temperature will rise and how much sea levels will rise, but the task itself is mathematically impossible. That is the defining quality of chaotic systems--they defy prediction.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory

[BeFree]

25. So

You deny there is sea level rise?

[Nederland]

26. No

I deny that just because sea levels are rising now means they will continue to rise for the next 100 years. Saying that sea levels will rise for the next 100 years simply because they are rising now is about as idiotic as saying the stock market will continue to go up for the next 100 years because its going up right now.

[Viking12]

28. But nobody is saying that. Another one of your dumbass strawmen.

Where does anybody say this: sea levels will rise for the next 100 years simply because they are rising now?

[Nederland]

29. Post 23

The science predicts that sea levels will rise again due to climatic linear progression. The already rising sea level confirms the correctness of the scientific predictions.

What this implies is that the reason we know that sea levels will continue to rise is because they are rising now. If there is another reason that we "know" that sea levels will rise to frightening levels, I don't see it being discuss here.

[Viking12]

31. Are you deliberately obtuse?

or just a douchebag?

[Nederland]

32. Neither

In fact, I'd say I'm being quite clear. What I am asking is a very simple question. Do you agree with what the IPCC said regarding climate:

In climate research and modeling, we should recognize that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible. (TAR, p.774.)

Yes or No?

[kristopher]

33. Are YOU saying that the amount of uncertainty present in the IPCC report justifies inaction?

What is your purpose in making an issue of the fact that uncertainty exists in science? It always exists. The question is how much confidence do we have in the science based forecasts. What is the degree of confidence in the totality of the predictions that should we continue on a path of business as usual, there will be cascade effects that, though unpredictable in their specifics, are guaranteed to alter the biosphere radically outside the range of metrics that have persisted through the 200K years of modern man's development?

What is you point? Are you saying that the amount of uncertainty present in the IPCC report justifies inaction?

[Nederland]

34. I will answer that question

If you promise to answer a Yes or No question of mine immediately after I post my answer. Deal?

[kristopher]

35. No. People like Hannity (and I guess you) prefer forced yes or no questions for a reason

they are used to make points that are false because they remove important context.

[Nederland]

36. Well then

I guess that eliminations the possibility of discussion. Have a nice day.

[kristopher]

37. Yeah, I'd noticed

I'd noticed that your idea of "discussion" is replete with tactics like forced yes-or-no, out of context questions.

Seldom if ever do you actually explore an issue for truth.

[Nederland]

38. The only way to resolve differences...

is for two people to ask questions of each other and determine what facts they agree upon. By taking a set of facts that one person has admitted to accepting as "true", the other person can construct a logical argument explaining why one or more of those facts is inconsistent with the others, thereby demonstrating that fallacy of the position. It's called Socratic dialog, and a good example of it can be found here:

http://neurolearning.com/socraticdialogue.pdf

[kristopher]

39. Requiring a "yes or no" answer isn't Socratic dialog.

It is attempting to make a false point by excluding relevant information - it is a form of "cherry picking".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherry_picking

[kristopher]

40. Are YOU saying that the amount of uncertainty present in the IPCC report justifies inaction?

What is your purpose in making an issue of the fact that uncertainty exists in science? It always exists. The question is how much confidence do we have in the science based forecasts. What is the degree of confidence in the totality of the predictions that should we continue on a path of business as usual, there will be cascade effects that, though unpredictable in their specifics, are guaranteed to alter the biosphere radically outside the range of metrics that have persisted through the 200K years of modern man's development?

What is you point? Are you saying that the amount of uncertainty present in the IPCC report justifies inaction?

[Viking12]

41. So that leaves 'willfully ignorant'

Because an educated person would also recognize that line is for clarification of the next line that states, "The most we can expect to achieve is the prediction of the probability distribution of the system’s future possible states by the generation of ensembles of model solutions."

[kristopher]

42. You must be confused.

Omitting relevant information is Socratic Dialog; didn't you know?

[Nederland]

44. Error margins on Climate Models

I would agree that it is possible to create probability distributions of the system’s future possible states. However, if you look at what error margins those models produce, the range is so large it is next to useless and pushes invalidation of the model decades into the future. A good discussion of this is here: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/05/what-the-ipcc-models-really-say/

Can I assume you find Gavin Schmidt of NASA a suitably sympathic source?

[Viking12]

46. Really? You think Gavin Schmidt supports your claim that models are worthless?

You're so intellectually bankrupt you may qualify for a federal bailout.

[Nederland]

47. No

I'm asking that you actually read what Gavin says. I guess that was too much to ask.

[Viking12]

48. So then what is your point?

Other to to be an obfuscating douchebag?

[amborin]

19. +1

[muriel_volestrangler]

21. Please show where Miliband implies anything about 'catastrophic' warming

The quotes from him in that piece:

"It's right that there's rigour applied to all the reports about climate change, but I think it would be wrong that when a mistake is made it's somehow used to undermine the overwhelming picture that's there," he said.

"We know there's a physical effect of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere leading to higher temperatures, that's a question of physics; we know CO2 concentrations are at their highest for 6,000 years; we know there are observed increases in temperatures; and we know there are observed effects that point to the existence of human-made climate change. That's what the vast majority of scientists tell us."
...
However, Miliband was adamant that the IPCC was on the right track. "It's worth saying that no doubt when the next report comes out it will suggest there have been areas where things have been happening more dramatically than the 2007 report implied," he said.
...
If the UK did not invest in renewable, clean energy, it would lose jobs and investment to other countries, have less energy security because of the dependence on oil and gas imports and contribute to damaging temperature rises for future generations. "There are a whole variety of people who are sceptical, but who they are is less important than what they are saying, and what they are saying is profoundly dangerous," he said. "Everything we know about life is that we should obey the precautionary principle; to take what the sceptics say seriously would be a profound risk."

That 2nd paragraph of quotes is almost identical to what you yourself say. No mention of 'catastrophe'; the most extreme thing he says is "damaging temperature rises". What he's saying is that the deniers are saying there's no need to do anything at all, and that humans aren't causing warming at all.

[Nederland]

27. I see your point

"Damaging temperature rises" does not necessarily imply "catastrophic" temperature rises. However, I suspect if you told Miliband that action at this point in time was unwarranted because we don't under climate well enough, he would strongly disagree.

[wtmusic]

30. Warming from CO2 won't be catastrophic. It already is catastrophic.

Estimated 300,000 dead every year

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2009/05/29

1 in 10 species extinct by 2050.

http://www.nature.com/nature/links/040108/040108-1.html

But I'm sure things will be looking up after that.

[hatrack]

43. You know, I'm glad they're all flocking to this one thread . . .

Kind of like one-stop shopping.

[Nihil]

45. *cough*

:spank: