Thank God. 

By Anonymous Coward Posted Thursday 14th February 2008 12:02 GMT

John Atkinson - although a respected IT professional - is still only one voice and his speciality is IT not climate.

Here Here 

By Chris Morrison Posted Thursday 14th February 2008 12:03 GMT

That's the best climate change report I have ever read. This global hysteria has to stop. The science is the ropiest stuff I have ever hear.

As for the economy - carbon trading is the biggest joke ever.

Denying climate change makes you more of a vilain now than evolution.

This world is crazy!

Gotta have optimism 

By zedee Posted Thursday 14th February 2008 12:12 GMT

Wishing problems away a bit, assuming we'll always be able to 'fix' things that don't suit us, but I agree with your points about vested interests amongst the greens.

The question I've never had answered is - what is the total non-anthropogenic carbon dioxide output for all systems on the planet, and what is the total anthropogenic output?

Miniscule, I suspect.

PH because it's far far too much to think about for her pretty little head

Assume they are wrong. 

By Paul Smith Posted Thursday 14th February 2008 12:15 GMT

Lets assume for a minute that all the theories linking man's activites to climate change are wrong, and therefore their advice to reduce the CO2 we put into the atmosphere is also wrong. So what? Where is the harm? Mankind is encouraged to use less fossil fuel, and to use it more efficiently. And also to 'think' about energy use in all activities. This is all good. In fact, the only people who would appear to suffer are the shareholders of industries that would have to spend money in the short-term cleaning up their act, which of course reduces their profit.

Climate science is not new 

By Anonymous Coward Posted Thursday 14th February 2008 12:16 GMT

"Climate science is a very, very new field. So new, in fact, that it has had little chance for its assertions to be tested."

Nah, it's field in meteorology, and it's an old science. The temperature is going up in correlation to our atmospheric CO2, (which is a pisser since our atmospheric CO2 continues to rise). The greenhouse mechanism is well understood and explained, and you have not suggested it is in anyway wrong.

"For the Earth to have survived as long as it has with a stable climate, through major events like ice-ages or volcanic eruptions, there is little doubt that a degree of negative climate feedback is essential."

Nah, it can flip to extremes, nothing says it has to tend towards a balance that happens to suit us. Surely an ice age *is* an extreme. Why do you assume it tends to balance, when history suggests it flips from extreme to extreme causing mass extinctions along the way.

"Of course, astrophysicists and astronomers will happily tell us about global warming on other planets in the solar system, a period of extensive solar activity and the like. But they get poo-pooed just like all the other "real scientists" who have a view."

Yet they do not find a correlation between that activity and the warming, and you do not suggest that there is.

"At the moment, I don't see that the evidence for anthropogenic climate change is strong enough to wreck our economies to try to change it."

False dichotomy, we're planning on building nuclear power stations, renewable technologies, etc. Who said we were shutting up shop and going to live on a Kibbutz? We're not going to wreck our economies, we're going to switch away from expensive depleting, co2 producing, fossil fuels to something different. UK is now a net importer of oil so it makes sense economically too.

Add your own comment 

By Ferry Boat Posted Thursday 14th February 2008 12:20 GMT

Not sure that the dinosaurs are a notable exception. There have been at least 5 major extinction events in the last 500 million years or so. Agreed, life does carry on, often with previous bit-players getting to take centre stage. We do need more data to be able to make predictions. However, that does not stop the media making predictions almost every day. Earlier this week, the BBC had 'climate change to save lives', the Guardian has 'climate change to kill lots more'. That speaks volumes about both the media and what we know about climate change.

Shouldn't we all be worrying about replacing fossil fuels anyway? After all they'll run out soon enough.

Phew, that's set my mind at rest. 

By Paul Fleetwood Posted Thursday 14th February 2008 12:20 GMT

It's OK everyone, we can continue to pollute the air and the seas as much as we like, it won't have any effect on the climate at all.

I know because a man on the internet with impeccable scientific credentials told me

Natural fix and Technichal correction possible 

By 1fortheroad Posted Thursday 14th February 2008 12:27 GMT

I agree that Global Warming is less scary than lots of other things.

The production of dust, and CO2, will probably decline with the increase in the price of oil. And there is a quick-fix possible - using a space-based "something" to reduce the sunlight reaching earth by a smidgen... I just home that its not Bush in control of which country does or doesn't get the light!

Why is the reg letting people who have not had their opinions peer reviewed spout **** 

By Anonymous Coward Posted Thursday 14th February 2008 12:30 GMT

Really, what are this guy's credentials? Where are his numbers, his maths, his falsifiable testable hypothesis? His published papers? Who does he work for? Who funded his research? Or is he just another opinionated Muppet spouting about things of which he know little?

I don't trust this article 

By Anonymous Coward Posted Thursday 14th February 2008 12:34 GMT

This article is heavy on assertion and remarkably light on evidence.

People who write mathematical models of complex systems for a living tend to find the climate models very unconvincing - name them.

Geologists find the arguments very unconvincing - name them.

Engineers find the arguments unconvincing - name them.

And astrophysicists find the arguments unconvincing - name them.

and while we're naming them blokes you met down the pub don't count. I'd like to see people publishing peer reviewed criticism and putting their reputations on the line; which is what is supposed to happen every time a scientist puts forward a theory.

After all, when a climate model is put up for peer review the reviews include mathematicians, physicists, geologists, engineers and astrophysicists as applicable. If you want to advance a conspiracy that peer review forces out science that people find uncomfortable then that should be easy enough to prove and evidence of it should be plentiful.

Incidentally David Whitehouse is not as far as I can see an Astrophysicist. He has a doctorate in Astrophysics, but has been a practicing full time journalist for 20 years. I'd say that makes him - a journalist.

The real question seems to be not would you trust a software engineer to build a bridge, but would you trust an IT professional to review science?

Nice to see someone whose specialism is climate science covering the topic. 

By breakfast Posted Thursday 14th February 2008 12:34 GMT

I was anxious about the effects of our actions on the climate, but hearing from an IT Professional that there is no imaginable way there could be any possible problem and that things will work out because they usually do has set my mind at ease.

If you want articles on climate science how about getting some climate scientists to write them? And if you can't find any climate scientists who want to support your growing denial-industry agenda ( I liked the Reg better when it took a sceptical but balanced approach ) how about not posting any articles on the matter?

Nice article 

By Chris Posted Thursday 14th February 2008 12:34 GMT

Global warming is inevitable, whether or not we are speeding it up, it will happen, maybe just sooner than later.

Every one always talks about there having been multiple ice ages, but at the same time seem to forget that it is global warming that brings the planet out of its ice age!!!! WE ARE COMING OUT OF AN ICE AGE.

Great to see a bit of sense written about this topic for a change.

I wuz a climate modeller 

By Anonymous Coward Posted Thursday 14th February 2008 12:34 GMT

I can only say that I agree with the overall concept of limited data, limited prediction.

My experience has been writing a number of computer models of climate. In my experience at least we used relatively small data sets and the metric for the model quality was how well it matched observations.

The problem of course was that most observations were 'now' and relatively recent earlier observations. If my model didn't match now (and my source data set) it was rejected. My models worked well for now (and then), but as every day passed, not so good for future.

The applies to present day global climate models. If a model matches what happens right now it is good. If not it is obviously deficient. The problem is that many models are developed and all are tweaked to produce results that match 'now'. The effect is that we have a very large set of models that appear good but only today (or in past time if they are working hard). We have no metric as to how well they work in the future.

As an analogy, I could produce a model of financial market and economic behavior (in fact I have done just that for a range of governments - it seems computer modeling of climates is a good way to get into financial/economic modeling. Or at least it pays more.) The effect is the same. I can hindcast just about any financial or economic data. What I can't do is forecast what will happen in any reasonable time scale. This is not through want of data. It is through total lack of ability to determine what are the true underlying factors in a seemingly random progression.

In both cases, financial and climate, there are a lot of first principles models. In all cases these are

1. Wrong on any future time scale.

2. Continuously revised to match ground truth.

3. Effectively useless.

Jerry

This is from a physicist ? bull. 

By Alastair McKinstry Posted Thursday 14th February 2008 12:35 GMT

"Somehow we survive".

Nope. we've been around 10,000 -- 1 million years or so. _Life_ survives.

In some of the climate catastrophies you've mentioned 3/4 of all species were

wiped out.

Models have their weaknesses - they always have, and they are well known. But Global warming does not depend on the models, but observations.

We know how greenhouse gases work, you can do it in the lab. We know they're rising, and we see the temperature rising.

We've millions of years of climate data, of differing quality, in lots of proxies: isotopic analysis, gas histories in ice, etc.

New science? 

By Mark Posted Thursday 14th February 2008 12:35 GMT

Arrhenius first postulated Greenhouse Gasses affecting temperature.

That's 19th century.

And Chris, the reason is that denying evolution isn't really believed (else why would people worry about Bird Flu? We're not birds!) and in any case rarely affects other people.

If AGW is correct, is still possible to stop or reverse and people don't do it because of numbnuts going "ecofacist!!!" then that DOES affect people.

Also, most of the explicable reasons for denying AGW are basically selfish: some don't want to have to risk being "poorer". Especially if it's

a) not them

b) not their family

c) someone else's family

d) in the future

Which isn't really thinking like a human. It's more thinking like an animal. Our range of perception into possible futures and our strong abilities to empathise and place ourselves in the position of another is why this skinny, weak and unarmed ape has managed to become the dominant species on the planet.

And throw that away because you like your air fare to Mallorca to be cheap???

Timescale 

By PhilF Posted Thursday 14th February 2008 12:37 GMT

The geologists are right -there are negative feedback elements to the climate cycle. In a few million years carbon released now will be trapped and stored again. The oceans may be highly acidic and the surface temperature may have raised/lowered markedly, but so what? Life will go on as it has for millions of years.

This is only an issue if you have an interest in the future of the human race and more specifically the maintenance and improvement of the western way of life.

"A new science"?? 

By Andrew Simmons Posted Thursday 14th February 2008 12:38 GMT

"Climate science is a very, very new field."

That'd be news to Arrhenius (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrhenius), who first predicted that fossil fuel-induced CO2 would cause a warming of the climate in 1896.

As the author has made such an enormous blunder in the first couple of lines, I decline to waste my time reading more of this nonsense. Please, please, dear Register, stick to subjects you know something about rather than making fools of yourselves peddling this third-rate tripe.

"Finally, why can't we trust human ingenuity?" 

By Mark Posted Thursday 14th February 2008 12:39 GMT

Human ingenuity will only be placed where it is thought to be needed.

If AGW is denied generally, there will be no ingenuity placed in combating it.

And the IPCC reports depend on human ingenuity. The major assumption is that we can do something to reverse it. It may be too late and all we can do is slow the rate at which we will be kicked back by resource limitations into the stone age, but we assume that if we start now, we will be able to avoid that.

Or was that just a euphemism for "let's not do anything about it because we're always going to be able to be smart enough to change it"?

Would you trust a software engineer to build a bridge? 

By Anonymous Coward Posted Thursday 14th February 2008 12:40 GMT

Yep...

My grandfather was a civil engineer/draftsman, I'm a software engineer, although confident enough to build a bridge after his excellent tuition...

Here's a question though, would you trust a civil engineer from london to build a bridge on time that doesn't make people feel sick, being a geordie I'm quite proud of the fact we've not built failures of bridges :)

Feedback systems, and stability. 

By Anonymous Coward Posted Thursday 14th February 2008 12:41 GMT

Anyone who considers there might possibly be any worthwhile content in the feedback-related sections of this article might want to go read about Daisyworld, either in James Lovelock's books, or some of the subsequent analyses (some of which are on t'Internerd).

Unlike pseudo-science like economics (and IT?), climate change has sound maths and physics behind it. Economics is the one which tries to justify itself based on correlation without actual evidence of causation. (Economist-class example of correlation without causation: AIDS has increased since satellite TV was introduced, therefore satellite TV causes AIDS).

The answer to life the universe and carbon footprints 

By Chris Whiteley Posted Thursday 14th February 2008 12:41 GMT

John Anderson may have unwittingly highlighted the answer.

He mentioned the proportion of carbon in limestones dwarfing that in the atmospher and locke up in fossil fuels. Well does he understand how the carbon got into the limestone? The answer in the most part is as the remains of some form of life. In the case of one of the better known limestone, chalk, the responosible organism is a coccolith, a single celled algae with calcite shell.

All we have to do is go down to Beach Head, scrape out a bit DNA from our mineral clad seaweed from the Cretaceous period, and grow them in the worlds warm shallow seas.

If it works in Jurassic Park it could work here!

extinctions 

By Richard Gadsden Posted Thursday 14th February 2008 12:44 GMT

"Ice ages and volcanic eruptions are all things that will unarguably change the climate. Yet, with the notable exception of the extinction of the dinosaurs, it seems life has happily trundled along through it all. We're the living proof."

Um, no. Permian extinctions?

Climate change is a myth 

By Jonathan McCulloch Posted Thursday 14th February 2008 12:44 GMT

Climate change is a big money-spinner for the vested interests... and it's balls.

All the evidence is against global warming - not least because I ran out of heating oil in January and the house got really cold before the man arrived with the tanker.

-- Jon

The problem 

By Francis Fish Posted Thursday 14th February 2008 12:44 GMT

If John and others are right, the climate change folks look like tools, if they are wrong we might be in deep trouble.

That's the problem.

That said, I agree that we can overcome difficulties with technology and ingenuity, and the Green fascist types (who want at least 60% of the human race dead and the rest living on cardboard) tend to see the world as static and unchanging don't get this. But then the whole racist Malthusian project always becomes fashionable when the economy's in trouble. It's quite likely that global warming will become another one of their arguments for sterilising people who happen to have a skin colour they don't like.

I was sent a "reasons to go veggie" leaflet by someone who seemed to think that forcing subsistence farmers to grow and eat what vegetarians think is a good idea is ok. Another complacent fat westerner telling people what to do and what they can and can't eat. It was sickening, and the author of the pamphlet didn't even realise how racist it was. I think the global warming thing is going the same way - there's a lot of anti-Chinese and Indian sub currents when you read the articles. Interesting, eh?

Nice critique of scientific analysis... 

By Anonymous Coward Posted Thursday 14th February 2008 12:44 GMT

from an IT professional

No climate change scientists dispute that geology has an influence on climate change or that the earth has been through cycles of climate before. The Issue we are facing is that the cycle we are in at the moment is completly out of the norm.

Even if you can't stand Al Gore (or All Bored as my dad calls him) there are plenty of other commentators out there making very compelling arguements about the very interesting correlations between development and expansion of human activities and CC.

BTW science is built upon the premise of guessing and then looking at how to prove it, that scientists are guessing 50 years into the future is not a fundamental issue; it's whether or not we get the info in years to come to prove if the guess was a good one or not

Oscillations are dangerous 

By Keith Oborn Posted Thursday 14th February 2008 12:48 GMT

The only difference between the oscillations of the climate and those of climate change debate is that the latter occur much faster. What is needed is negative feedback to damp the latter.

Here's a small attempt:

There are indeed feedback mechanisms, positive and negative, some known, some to be discovered. An obvious positive one is the effect of temparature on albedo. Anyone who's seen the effect of exposed dark rocks on melting snow will know this. The reverse effect (cold = more snow = more reflection = more snow) is also a simple one.

However, there are also "destabilising events" that push the system. It is strongly speculated that the rise of the Himalyan plateau, with attendant jetsream disturbance and limestone weathering (which sequesters CO2) may be at least partially responsible for the Ice Ages. The Chixulub meterorite (or the Deccan Traps eruptions) may well have disturbed the climate sufficiently to do the dinosaurs in.

Eventually a new equilibrium is acheived.

But notice the timescales. If faced with storm, flood, and heatwave I, for one, am not inclined to say "oh well. it'll settle down in a couple of million years".

The Ephesus harbour was no doubt isolated from the sea by a long (centuries?) reduction in sea level. But what happened to the people who relied on the harbour? Did they wait??

In reverse, a rise in sea levels of a metre or two would have little effect on us over a period of centuries, but over a shorter period the human and economic cost of readjusting (IE moving and rebuilding all those shoreline cities) would be immense. Our civilisation is not equipped to plan over multi-century timescales.

It is undeniable that there has been recent warming (IE iover the last few decades). I can see it and feel it myself. It is likely, but not 100% proven, that this is due to human activity. But the effects over the coming decades are likely to be so severe (and expensive) that we have no alternative but to act on the partial information we have, and change what we can. When faced with a huge and immediate threat, you cannot afford to wait until you know exactly what the cause is, because by the time you do know, it'll be too late. "Oh shit, that's an angry grizzly heading for me. Now, what exactly is the current state of Ursine behavioural research, and should I call for further investigations?"

To paraphrase... 

By Anonymous Coward Posted Thursday 14th February 2008 12:49 GMT

At the moment, I don't see that the evidence for [the bloke I picked up in the bar having a lethal sexually transmitted infection] is strong enough to wreck [my night out]. But if, over the next 10 or 20 years, [if I show the symptoms of a lethal sexually transmitted disease], then I have faith in our ability to solve the problem. Just like we have successfully dealt with smog in London, rivers flooding, or acid rain. We always have.

Thus spake Freddie Mercury.

We don't have to speculate 

By Ken Hagan Posted Thursday 14th February 2008 12:49 GMT

There used to be a standard retort against anyone doing computer modelling along the lines of "I'll consider your predictions for the next century once you've shown me your predictions for the last one."

To be specific, you feed in the available data for global climate in 1900. If this isn't known terribly accurately, that doesn't matter because you just get larger error bars on the final predictions. You add in your assumptions about solar behaviour. As the model evolves, you add in your data on the actual growth of industrial activity, but you *don't* add in any new climate data. (That would be cheating.) After your model has run, you review the envelope of predictions that it produced. Does what actually happened lie within the envelope?

If it does, then we look at the size of the envelope. If it is so large as to be useless, then we just can't tell what will happen in the next century. We need to keep working on the model. Other research activity is, frankly, pointless.

If the envelope is small, you can use the model as a tool, and see which of the data you added in later (solar model and industrial activity) really mattered. If it's mainly down to the solar model, there's nothing we can do in the next century. If it's mainly down to industrial activity, then we're in the land of anthropogenic warming.

This test is simple enough that you don't need a PhD in climate science to evaluate whether it has been passed or not. Indeed, questions of the form "does my model fit my data" are the stock in trade of experimental science and there are widely practised and understood mathematical tests for quantifying the level of agreement.

Twenty years ago, the models failed the test. That means that twenty years ago, talk of global warming *was* just unsupportable scare-mongering, whether it was true or not. (That's perhaps too subtle for many, but a sensible government *shouldn't* commit trillions of dollars to your pet project if you can't prove there is anything happening.)

In the last few years, I've heard claims that the models now pass the test, so their predictions are worth the paper they're printed on. This being science, presumably the evidence for those claims has been peer-reviewed and is in the public domain somewhere. Unless you know otherwise, I think the default position of the lay audience should be that there *has* been significant progress in climate science in recent years, and that the sceptics in other disciplines simply haven't paid attention to recent improvements in modelling.

> We always have 

By JimC Posted Thursday 14th February 2008 12:49 GMT

mmm, but sometimes a lot of people die or have very unpleasant lives whilst its being sorted...

There does seem to be an awful lot of very speculative bad science about this whole issue, but at the same time if there is a problem something needs to happen... But one needs to know what the problem is! Maybe [flippant joke] the right solution would be to paint every roof and road between the tropics of capricorn and cancer white in order to reflect more solar radiation.

On the other hand reducing the amount of coal and oil being burnt - especially oil - burning such a useful chemical feedstock is just stupidity - and increasing efficiency can surely only be a good thing. Things like that, switching to Nuclear power and also researching fusion are good things to do whether or not they affect global warming, so lets do them...

As far alternative energy - most forms of it seem to me to be gross ecological vandalism - tidal barrages, wind turbines - arrrghhhh. A tidal barrage in the Severn would destroy more ecology than sinking a fully ladn supertanker off Avonmouth... And biofuel doesn't seem much better. The world needs less land used for agriculture rather than more...

Flat-out wrong, as usual 

By Anonymous Coward Posted Thursday 14th February 2008 12:52 GMT

Someone seems to be on Inhofe's mailing list. "Ignoring the biggest effect on global warming - water vapour" - utterly untrue. "The small sample set - at most 30 years of accurate data" - is going to surprise a lot of people who are separately inferring prehistoric data which correlate with each other just fine. "Positive feedback in engineering invariably results in unstable systems" - there are positive feedbacks in the climate system - would you rather they were ignored? "But they get poo-pooed just like all the other "real scientists" who have a view" - again nonsense. Nobody's disputing temperature changes on other planets. Just the ludicrous argument that other planets warming (and other planets are also cooling) proves that our warming can't porribly be anthropic. "Climate scientists have to disagree with real scientists or they would lose their funding" - another classic lie that completely misrepresents the funding process. Climate scientists have to produce original research with data that anyone can pick over and disprove, or they don't get funding. As for "wreck our economies" - clearly the Stern Report is the misguided scribblings of unqualified hippies. Thank goodness the experienced scientists and economists of El Reg are here to set us straight.

Ephesus 

By JonB Posted Thursday 14th February 2008 12:53 GMT

"The importance of the city as a commercial centre declined as the harbour slowly filled with silt from the river (today, Küçük Menderes) despite repeated dredges during the city's history.[16] (Today, the harbor is 5 kilometers inland)."

I am quoting wikipedia here, as I'm not directly familiar with ephesus.

Silting up isn't a sea level change.

Dumb Animals ..... and SMARTer Virtual Machines. 

By amanfromMars Posted Thursday 14th February 2008 12:54 GMT

If we looked after and Nurtured Natural Resources rather than Exploiting them for Gain, I wonder what sort of a World we would then being Living In/Creating.

This seems a Real Weird Idea ..... http://cryptome.org/weather-war.pdf ... http://cryptome.org/weather-war2.htm ..... and for all the Wrong Reasons?

"This world is crazy!" ...as In Sane, Chris. Managed Full Psychosis though Permits Perceptions Mentoring in a Novel Innovative Therapy/Treatment/Regimen/Role Play.

AIdDeadhead WhiteGum Tangent for those who would Dare 42 Win Win..

I luv climate change... 

By Anonymous Coward Posted Thursday 14th February 2008 12:55 GMT

....why? Because it is the only thing I can see that will see the western world weened off the oil addiciton it has.

The most unstable thing that is happening on the planet today is this massive pouring of money into some of the most vile, unstable regimes in the world.

Climate change will ensure that in 20 years we will not need a drop of oil ever again (if we do we can get it from our own reserves) and so the nasty dicators can all go hang!

Thanks,

B

Of course you're right... 

By Anonymous Coward Posted Thursday 14th February 2008 12:56 GMT

...But the door swings both ways. The arguments against anthropogenic climate change are based on the same narrow view of a climate system we barely understand and in place of rising seas and melting ice caps the shock imagery the opposition employ are crumbling societies and impoverished millions strangled by privileged political correctness. Then theres the whole plummet to oblivion versus "if it breaks we'll just fix it".

Both sides are terrifying in their capability to evoke a whirlwind of invective and polarise any debate into paralysis.

As an IT professional I will entertain the idea that I dont know all there is to know about climate change and avoid pontificating, but straw men and stalking horses arent going to do anyone any good. Somewhere between the alarmists and the deniers is the place where risks are mitigated - not overreacted to, and not completely ignored. The place where we start thinking about the TCO of some of our current behaviours. "Cheap" and "Convenient" have not-so-hidden costs that we should stop ignoring, and addressing some of our more frivolous behaviours may well reveal benefits beyond the climate.

Alternatively we could just do what we usually do - line up, either side of the schoolyard, and cuss the air blue trying to shout each other down and rail and recoil at any idea or opinion that isnt already ours, and a privileged few will scribble their mental meanderings, weakly justified by "the reliable people wot fink like wot I do" and "the ludicrous freaks wot fink different" and those barely thought thoughts will find themselves on the appropriate pile - yay or nay, armageddon or apathy and the battle will go on to no-ones benefit except, maybe, the IT Professionals - whose opinions on climate change have, up until now, been noticeably underrepresented...

There have been other mass extinctions 

By Michael H.F. Wilkinson Posted Thursday 14th February 2008 12:57 GMT

Though I agree that climate science has some shaky foundations, and astronomers have rightly suggested that solar variability has a strong influence, but the extinction at the end of the Cretaceous is not the only one (the Permian mass extinction was evidently no picnic for life on earth). I doubt that anyone blames that on CO2 though. CLimate may well be changing (it is never stable in a mathematical sense). Reducing our use of fossil fuels does however make economic sense, oil has so many uses beyond burning it. However, we must do the science right before declaring anything the perfect solution to our problems.

Umm, life doesn't go on "happily" 

By Sean Aaron Posted Thursday 14th February 2008 12:59 GMT

I mean unless you consider 95%+ of life on earth getting wiped out during the Permian extinction as a happy thing. Life barely made it; odds are good that we would be a casualty of such an event, so there may be a vested interest in getting to the bottom of things and trying to minimise our own impact. I mean the biggest issue here seems to be money and convenience. I don't see what the problem is with erring on the side of caution until we can confirm the sums...

People only listen to Armageddon 

By Stephen Bradley Posted Thursday 14th February 2008 13:00 GMT

John Atkinson is perhaps right to point to faults in the science of the longer term predictions in climate science. But the shorter term observed trends (not predictions reliant on some energy intensive super-computer) should make us worried because they will have an effect on the lives of the poorest and least powerful in our world, as coastlines and eco-systems change.

There is also the never to be forgotten fact that we cannot rely on fossil fuels because they are running out and all over the world extractive industries are finding it more and more difficult to retrieve the reserves there are.

The problem is that these very real dangers do not make the public sit up and listen to messianic politicians as much as images of boiling seas. We are all programmed by millenia of religions to listen to shouts of Armageddon and not to listen to predictions of increasing economic crisis and resulting conflict and suffering.

We should act as more responsible environmental citizens not because of predictions coming out of computers but because of observable environmental effects and the human suffering it causes.

AKA 

By IndianaJ Posted Thursday 14th February 2008 13:00 GMT

Climate science? Could this possibly be the same as meteorology? Which, judging by Bill Giles, has been around for a while. The climate models used in this field have been developed over a a number of decades. The reason for their inaccuracies are mainly down to the sheer amount of data needed and those ruddy butterflies in the Brazilian rain forest.

Either way, I agree with your point that climate change bandwagoning is simply a self interest situation and the statistics being produced are merely fear oriented. Fingers crossed someone will try and silence the idiots at the helm... oh, did someone already try that?

Drink someone else's medicine. 

By Marvin the Martian Posted Thursday 14th February 2008 13:01 GMT

The first 90% of the article is common sense, so good to hear though hardly fresh. The valid point that the researchers financial survival depends on *interest* in the topic (not as the article claims on *one type of results* --- the more contradictory results, the more funding for "further research is needed" type clarification) holds for all research --- you cannot get a grant if it's not sufficiently sexy as a topic, regardless of the outcome.

Actually, there are far more incestuous funder/researcher relationships; the cigarette-safety researcher you mentioned is one, and clinical trials companies are another (basically, if your company, hired for "independent testing", shows that the new pharmaceutical hope doesn't really work, you will not be rehired). Note that most climate research is funded by governments, who prefer a "we're innocent and can't do anything anyways" answer, as that's cheaper. And doesn't force them to interfere with the lives of the whining public. [Actually, being too clear on the man-made factor has been a bad career choice, as Bush has insisted on crushing a few for just doing that.]

The first few commenters take the suggested suspicious motives as a "phew, I nearly had to think about how I spend my life, but here I have a blanket excuse to do f*ck all! I just think what I want to think!", not as what it is --- a factor to be taken into the account. I think a weak factor, an always-present-in-any-science factor, but nonetheless a factor.

But then, at the last paragraph why would I take the opinion of an IT specialist on the relation between economics, ingenuity, science and climate change? Because you're NOT paid for the results? Also your career will not suffer from stupid conclusions like a scientist's would?

Weak!

*Life* will continue 

By Phil Bennett Posted Thursday 14th February 2008 13:03 GMT

...but not necessarily humanity. While I agree that the solution to global warming can only come from improved technology and not from somehow persuading everyone to huddle in caves eating locally-grown lentils, I'm a bit wary over the author's optimism.

Its a classic game theory square - Global Warming Catastrophe True / False versus Prepared True / False. The four cases are True / True, in which case we've got a chance of fixing the problems before they become too severe, False / True, in which case we've wasted a good amount of money, True / False, in which case we have to do panic research and implementation in a very short time (which is usually ruinously expensive and not very good) and False / False, in which case most people are happy. For me, the risk of massive numbers of lives lost in the True / False situation (eg coastal cities flooding) outweighs the concern about money possibly spent needlessly.

Of course, the long term solution of getting into space via elevator / active structures like fountains / bolas) and performing most of the really nasty industries (metal refining and smelting, energy generation, some forms of manufacturing) helpfully above the atmosphere would be nice. A man can dream!

let's look at the four possibilites. 

By Chad H. Posted Thursday 14th February 2008 13:08 GMT

there are four logical possibilites here: man made climate change is real, and we do something; man made climate change is not real, but we do something; man made climate change is real, and we do nothing, and man made climate change is not real, and we do nothing:

Possibility 1: the world is saved

Possibility 2: there is a boom in the tech sector as new energy sources are developed, hardly a wrecked economy.

Possibility 3: not just a wrecked economy, a wrecked planet

Possibility 4: we run out of oil.

Seems pretty clear which way to up.

this is in the Reg? 

By cphi Posted Thursday 14th February 2008 13:11 GMT

This article is just wrong on so many levels that it's disappointing to find it in the Reg.

You seem to start from the belief that we shouldn't control carbon emmissions then work back from that to find any argument no matter how tenuous that could conceivably fit this.

To address just a few

- given the tectonic activity of Turkey I'd be surprised if the movement of the coastline near Ephesus (orTroy for that matter) isn't due to local geological uplift - in much the same way as Alexandria has sunk and south-east england is slowly dipping. This is utterly different to a general sea level change.

- I really struggle to think of an engineering profession other than CFD remotely similar to climate modelling - certainly control systems engineering is nothing like it (I'm not a CFD engineer but interestingly those I've worked with are quite 'comfortable' with the climate change predictions).

- there have been many mass extinctions, of which the K-T event was only the most recent (and not the worst).

- the idea of a global conspiracy of climate changes scientists to defraud us by manipulating their models is frankly stupid. There will always be those who're willing to be unethical but by and large scientists work for the satisfaction of extending human (and their own) knowledge. To put it bluntly, they don't do it for the money...

You're right that climate change is a new field and that given the importance of its results it needs to be subject to extreme close review. But this isn't achieved by deluding ourselves that the whole field is fabricated simply because we don't like the alternative.

@zeedee 

By Mark Posted Thursday 14th February 2008 13:12 GMT

The answer to your question is loaded by that question.

Total CO2 production is HUGE. Mostly natural. Like, say, rotting leaves in autumn.

But you never asked what NET contribution there is, and the answer to that is very different.

You see, each leaf that falls in autumn and decays releasing CO2 is countered by another leaf growing in the summer, taking CO2 out of the atmosphere.

Net difference: nil

Human production: ~19Gt a year.

Volcanoes: ~0.6Gt a year.

and so on.

It's mostly in the IPCC (where there's missing, we don't know whether the item is a net contributor, e.g. permafrost melt).

Big Denial 

By The Badger Posted Thursday 14th February 2008 13:16 GMT

"Yet, with the notable exception of the extinction of the dinosaurs, it seems life has happily trundled along through it all. We're the living proof."

The chimpanzees would probably be telling each other exactly the same thing if humankind had already taken the opportunity to do away with itself. They'd probably have their own neo-creationist movements, too, but that's a different part of the anti-science peanut gallery.

"At the moment, I don't see that the evidence for anthropogenic climate change is strong enough to wreck our economies to try to change it. But if, over the next 10 or 20 years, the evidence really does come out in favour of these theories, then I have faith in our ability to solve the problem."

Ah yes, we must have "faith" in someone or something - this would presumably be the Bush administration's response to climate change if it were allowed to continue in power for another 10 or 20 years - and while we're procrastinating, let's not stand in the way of that time-honoured City tradition of vibrant trading with ourselves and everyone looking really busy (and making money!), regarding the whole climate vs. economy thing like the zero-sum game it isn't.

"Just like we have successfully dealt with smog in London, rivers flooding, or acid rain."

Yes, we're dealing really well with rivers flooding: consider the relatively minor (on a global scale) mess in various parts of England last summer and the infrastructure issues that brought up. Still, everyone gets their insurance claims in, the floorboards get dried out, and the new kitchens get put in. Problem solved!

And that's only the developed world, but I imagine that Sky News was too busy beaming you live pictures of nothing happening in some flooded housing estate in small town Britain for you to notice that whether or not human activity causes climate change (I'd take the scientific consensus over your conspiracy theories any day), there's plenty of scope for minimising its impact.

Re: Nice article 

By Mark Posted Thursday 14th February 2008 13:16 GMT

So how long does it take to get out of an ice age? 100.000 years?

Since the average time before a flip is less than the time since the end of the last ice age (though there's a large variability, IIRC, 50,000 - 200,000 years), aren't we about to go back in to one?

Oh, and if someone says "see! we should be grateful!" please tell Chris he's dead wrong too first.

climate change is natural, and there ain't shit you can do. 

By Teh_Vermicious_Knid Posted Thursday 14th February 2008 13:16 GMT

As someone else said, we are just coming to the end of an ice age *right now*.

Yes, a lot of people/animals/other are likely to die, and much upheaval/chaos shall ensue. may I be permitted to introduce..Mother Nature- the gnarliest old bitch you ever had the misfortune to tangle with. Deal with it.

risk of extrodinary danger = zero? 

By Pat Ar Posted Thursday 14th February 2008 13:18 GMT

A good rational article, thank you. But i do question the evaluation of down side risk. There are no guarantees that the downside will be manageable. The system which may be most sensitive to any climate change is the human economy, the impact on which will be complex with many possible scary scenarios and with the population predicted to be over 10 thousand million by mid century, economic impact could be devastating and beyond control. In other words, the possibility of sever damage to large numbers of people (e.g., wars of dwindling resources) is, even if a low probability, worrisome enough to make us attend to climate change risk now.

One more word, it is in some ways irrelevant whether climate change is anthropogenic. Even if global heating is actually caused by nature, the risk of negative consequences still remains and the question becomes, can humans initiate any planet cooling technology?

In 1798 the dismal economist, Thomas Malthus, ask how long humankind could keep expanding. The answer he arrived at was proved wrong by developing technology. The question remains, will he be wrong forever?

This article is nonsense 

By Michael Posted Thursday 14th February 2008 13:19 GMT

The basic physics underlying the creation of the climate we enjoy on Earth is actually fairly well understood. Making predictions based on that understanding is very very hard, and climate models that attempt to do this are of necessity imperfect. But imperfect as they are they represent our best guess at what is going to happen. And they represent our best guess at the likely effects of various actions we might choose to take. What alternative method do you suggest for evaluiating alternative strategies?

It is true that there has been climate change in the past and that life and humans have survived. I also have no doubt that humans will survive any climate change even in a worst conceivable scenario. But that doesn't mean that we should just continue to act as we have. The consequences of Climate change >could< be genuinely catastrophic.

Incidentally, David Whitehouse's recent statements about there being no rising trend in Global Temperature are just balderdash, plain and simple. And I cannot imagine what kind of impairment woul dlead him to make such statements.

The science is irrelevant 

By tegan Posted Thursday 14th February 2008 13:19 GMT

I remain unconvinced by the science but I also think it is irrelevant.

So what if the climate changes? The climate has always changed and always will. How do the climate change zealots know what the 'right' temperature of the earth is? How do you know climate change would be bad and not good? During human history it has been both hotter and colder than now and we managed because we did what human beings always do - adapt.

The climate change advocates are proposing something that is utterly crazy - to wage an unwinnable war against nature and somehow stabilize the temperature of the earth itself. Al Gore and his lot are insane. Whether it is man made or not, the earth's climate will change and there's only one thing we can do about it - adapt.

And that means making life better for poor people around the world who are forced to live in environmentally hazardous locations. The one true fact in this whole debate is that climate change will not effect rich people. This is a story of poverty and exploitation not science. And the climate change aristocracy have a lot to answer for on that.

@Paul Fleetwood 

By oxo Posted Thursday 14th February 2008 13:21 GMT

CO2 is not a pollutant. In fact, life on this planet depends on it.

@anon cow (jerry) "I wuz a climate modeller" 

By Paul Kinsler Posted Thursday 14th February 2008 13:29 GMT

OK then -- cite where, when, publications, qualifications, etc. Otherwise, how can I judge your claims?

@Paul Smith et al 

By Graham Dawson Posted Thursday 14th February 2008 13:30 GMT

What's the harm in telling a lie to get people to change their ways?

That's the essence of what a few people have said here, asking what the harm would be if the AGW hypothesis is false, if it gets people to be more efficient. It's an issue of trust; if or when AGW is falsified, all these people who you convinced to tighten their belts in its name will decide that you were lying to their faces, and will in future be much less likely to listen when the call goes out. You do not, not ever, try to convince people with lies because they will cease to trust you.

Let me put it another way. So what if the dodgy dossier was a load of bollocks? It got Saddam out of the way, didn't it?

See the point now? You can't tell people lies to get them to do the right thing; when the lie is exposed they will assume that your right thing is wrong because they no longer trust you.

The world-wide agreements on AGW might well cause the west to take a hit in its standard of living but the biggest losers are, as always, the third world nations. They will be forced to stay in a state of poverty in order to preserve the current level of atmospheric CO2 whilst the big green proponents are still swanning around in their private jets. This position has been stated repeatedly and is proven by the reaction of various environmental groups to Indian's new teeny tiny and highly efficient car - which, incidentally, woud be winning all sorts of plaudits and awards if it had been manufactured in California. This whole scam ultimately results in making poor people poorer and preventing them from improving their lives. In the case of India it actually endangers lives; the car is aimed at people who would otherwise be teetering around on mopeds and getting squished. That's people who *will* die if Greenpeace get their way, as opposed to people who *might* die if they don't.

Ah? 

By Drunken Posted Thursday 14th February 2008 13:31 GMT

OK,

the article is someone having a rant but there are so many things wrong with it I can't help but respond.

First is the common non sequitur that as climate scientists are paid to study the climate then somehow they can't be trusted. When you need a plumber do you find an electrician? I mean surely the plumber is going to lie and get as much money as they can!

Is climatology really that new, it seems to be older than electronics but I guess Mr Atkinson would buy his computer (made from wood) from a carpenter as those sold state physicists must be liars.

Then rambling on about feedback systems and the extinction of the dinosaurs, but there are five known big extinction events all related to huge changes in climate. The Cretaceous–Tertiary event is the only known extinction caused by an impact and probably having the least to do with climate. So don't these show that climate is not always stable as do ice ages? 99% of species that have ever lived are extinct not just the dinosaurs, many of these were caused by wild climatic swings in Earth’s oh so stable climate. A climate that in the last 10,000 years has been unusually stable, till now.

This is a gem, "Ignoring the biggest effect on global warming - water vapour". So is Mr Atkinson truly saying that the scientists just totally forgot about water vapour? Ok ok I realise now that the article is a joke or some troll so I won't continue further.

A guide told me... 

By Anonymous Coward Posted Thursday 14th February 2008 13:33 GMT

"Sea levels go up and down for many reasons - carbon dioxide not being one of them. "

Where is your evidence that CO2 doesn't affect sea levels? That the presumably low CO2 emissions of the Romans didn't stop sea level change doesn't logically lead to the conclusion that high CO2 emissions won't change sea level variation patterns (for good or bad). Especially when, as you make such an important point of it, you don't know the function of sea level variation and the place of CO2 within it.

BTW anybody who is saying "if our emissions only raise the total a small percentage then where's the harm" have maybe never heard of discontinuities in maths?

<Rant>How do people with such little grounding in maths and logic get into IT in the first place?</Rant><AwaitFlames>...

@Paul Smith 

By Andy Posted Thursday 14th February 2008 13:34 GMT

"Lets assume for a minute that all the theories linking man's activites to climate change are wrong, and therefore their advice to reduce the CO2 we put into the atmosphere is also wrong. So what? Where is the harm?"

Wheres the harm? I'll tell you were the harm is: its the fact that this latest panic attack by the self loathing green masses (before GW it was the Ozone layer, before that Acid Rain - remember those?), is causing us to seriously consider ruining our coastine and country side with wind turbines; it is causing us to consider crazy and potentially dangeourous 'climate engineering' schemes to remove vast quantities of the evil 'pollutant' (sic) CO2 from the air when we don't really understand what effect interferance like this will have; it is causing us all to pay more 'green' taxes; and most insideously of all it is being used as a justification for holding back the development of the third world and telling them that they can not now enjoy the things that we have had for decades like cars, unlimited energy use etc. and the economic,social and quality of life benefits that come with it. All because of some dodgy computer models! (and yes they are dodgy because there is no way that they can take into account all the variables involved to the the degree of accuracy needed - apart from anything else we don't even know all the variables involved!).

Can someone tell me if these models even take into account that that more CO2 = more plant/tree growth = excess CO2 converted into plant matter = plant matter becomes oil again (in millions of years time)? I'm sure they do but I've never heard it mentioned.

Not a geologist are you John? 

By Mike Richards Posted Thursday 14th February 2008 13:42 GMT

So many errors, such a short article:

Firstly Ephesus lost its access to the sea because of the silting up of the Menderes River. Nothing to do with sea level change. It's actually one of the few places in the Eastern Med and Aegean where sea levels *aren't* a major factor - over much of Greece, recent massive changes in observed sea level are down to tectonic movements. Yet remove the tectonic movements and sea levels still change, so there is a climatic effect

You wrote: 'Yet, with the notable exception of the extinction of the dinosaurs, it seems life has happily trundled along through it all.'

You mean it's trundled happily along - APART from the repeated mass extinctions observed in the geological record; the biggest of which are: end Ordovician, late Devonian, end Permian, end Triassic, and end Cretaceous, some of which were much more serious than the one which killed off T-Rex and friends. There are also the PreCambrian Snowball Earth in the Proterozoic and the Oxygen Catastrophe in the PalaeoProterozoic.

Increased greenhouse gases the best explanation for the Palaeocene - Eocene Maximum; a relatively minor, recent mass extinction which did huge damage to oceanic diversity. It has also been proposed as the driver for the end Triassic extinction which saw something like 20 - 25% of species go to the wall.

Finally, you'll be glad to know, climate models DO include factors such as water vapour and they include climatic information from deep ocean oozes, O16/18 isotope ratios in shells, ice cores, lake sediments, tree rings... to help establish climate records going back hundreds of thousands of years.

It's also worth noting that climate scientists have been desperately trying to tighten up their models. Last year the Open University released a PC client to let everyday users help resolve some issues with the parameters in existing climate models. Users could download a model then their computer would change some of the parameters, run the model and transmit information back to the central server where it could be compared against historical records to see if the model became more accurate or less accurate. More information and download links here:

http://www.climateprediction.net/science/strategy.php

With so many mistakes, it kind of makes me wonder why you wrote the article?

Typical "bad science" view 

By Anonymous Coward Posted Thursday 14th February 2008 13:46 GMT

This is the view taken by the same chaps in the USA who doubt the human influence in climate change. The name they have for any studies which purport to show that the global climate is being affected by man, is "bad science". They call it "bad science" not because they're wrong, but because the extent of these effects is not known.

You've been conned by this point of view. Very, very few real scientists doubt man-made climate change, it's just that no accurate models exist to determine how bad or good it is! In reality, things *could* turn out to be much worse than the models predict, or maybe not nearly as bad. But the global scientific consensus is that the change is definitely occurring and that man has an undeniable impact on this.

Just because hard facts and figures have not been shown, tested, and proved, should not be an excuse to doubt the problem or ignore it entirely. Scientists only ever truly begin to understand any phenomenon *after* it has happened. What you are suggesting is that people ignore the problem until this understanding has been achieved. Do you not see the idiocy of this view?

limestone ?! 

By Britt Johnston Posted Thursday 14th February 2008 13:47 GMT

The extinction events are presumed to be caused by major volcanic activity or comets, with climate as intermediary.

The aside about limestone is interesting, in that it appears to have been precipitated intermittently at the end of a period of warming climate, and as you point out, the binding effect is huge - which would be useful in our situation.

Has anyone an explanation for what triggers limestone precipitation, more plausible than Gaia or a quicklime comet?

"To put it bluntly, they don't do it for the money" 

By Mark Posted Thursday 14th February 2008 13:48 GMT

Or more generally, if they were doing it for the money, they'd be doing something else.

Like IT.

:-)

Climate change advocates hate facts 

By Wade Burchette Posted Thursday 14th February 2008 13:53 GMT

Have you noticed that as people get better informed and more skeptical that climate change advocates are getting more alarmists? There is a reason for that. In fact, $40 Billion reasons. And who would watch a news program if they said "there is nothing dramatic today"? And who would vote for a politician if he said "the whole system is fine the way it is now"?

Facts are Al Gore's worst nightmare. Why is that the Antarctic had more sea ice last year than it ever did on record? Why is that Johannesburg, South Africa had 50+ days of below normal temperature last year? Why did it snow in Baghdad for the first time since people can recall? And why did it snow with some accumulation in Jerusalem too? Why is that parts of the western US have had their coldest January on record?

And why does no one look at history? If you look at the history of the weather since we have accurate records, you can clearly see that our weather now is neither unusual nor unique. It happened before.

When you stop looking at hockey-stick charts which were proven to always produce a hockey stick no matter what numbers you put in, when you stop listening to people with a vested interest in getting money, ratings, or votes, when you stop being blind sheep, then you will see that climate change is the biggest money pit there is. Ask yourself this question: why do meteorologists, whose income is not dependent on finding or solving a problem, not believe in climate change?

Mass Extinctions are common 

By SPiT Posted Thursday 14th February 2008 13:58 GMT

"Geologists will quite happily explain how major climate changes in the Earth are a result of geological changes. Remember that more carbon is trapped in limestone than in either plant life or fossil fuels (or both put together for that matter). Ice ages and volcanic eruptions are all things that will unarguably change the climate. Yet, with the notable exception of the extinction of the dinosaurs, it seems life has happily trundled along through it all. We're the living proof."

There have been numerous mass extinctions and currently the favoured view is that the dinosaurs may be the only one that wasn't due to catastrophic sudden climate change.

Personally I don't walk across the road with my eyes shut because nobody can quantify the risk. I take safety measures because I can tell it isn't minimal. Climate change deserves the same approach.

I agree. 

By Saint Ignatius Posted Thursday 14th February 2008 13:59 GMT

Yes anonymous coward is bang on the nail with his most learned comments. Having just read this report and the cause of exactly why this creature is now missing presumed extinct we should all be worried, very worried.

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/2008/02/13/veteran-loch-ness-monster-hunter-gives-up-86908-20317853/

I used to be a man-made global warming denier but by seeing this article I have seen the error of my ways, Lord forgive me. To all those natural-global warming deniers out there I say repent, repent.

Oh sod that! It's all nonsense. Come on anonymous coward you drone on and on sucking up on the drip feed of media scare stories and pseudo scientific data like the first year schoolboy who does what the big boys tell him to do. You yourself are not a climatologist (the media studies of weather forecasting) but insist that what those scientists are saying is true. Then you pontificate from the luxury of a stale air room in front of your computer probably doing nothing to "save the world" anyway. Such hypocrisy.

Take five minutes out of your busy gaming schedule and find out some real facts. In fact I'll help you on your way.

http://nzclimatescience.net/

http://www.climate-skeptic.com/

http://bruderheim-rea.ca/warming10.htm

Extremely wrong. 

By Michael LaBonte Posted Thursday 14th February 2008 14:01 GMT

This entire article makes me chuckle.

It is full of assumptions, misconceptions and ignorance. I sincerely hope it was written as a sarcastic jest.

Most major climate events in the earth's history have caused mass extinctions. Sometimes over 80% of all life died out due to a change as small as 5 degrees (Celsius). The average temperature of earth has risen 0.5 degrees (Celsius) since 1961.

In past climate-related extinctions the dominant forms of life are the first to go. Humans might survive a global climate event, but society as we know it will be destroyed.

Please don't post ill-informed misinformation. Mass media influences how people react to world issues. One "optimistic" story such as this can cause thousands of people to believe that there is no issue, without even researching the issue further.

The Priesthood is getting nervous 

By Dr Stephen Jones Posted Thursday 14th February 2008 14:03 GMT

Predictably, the comments here are divided into two categories: people who want to debate the subject, and people who want to attack the commenter (and/or El Reg) for airing a point of view they don't like. Eg,

"Really, what are this guy's credentials?"

"Nice to see someone whose specialism is climate science"

"Please, please, dear Register, stick to subjects you know something about"

"it's disappointing to find it in the Reg."

"the article is a joke or some troll so I won't continue further."

All of these avoid the subject discussed, and seek to close down discussion. To sum up the writer's conclusion: we have endured and survived climate change before (including one major ice age) and flourished – we are in a better position now to deal with change than ever before.

All of which is plain to anyone. No qualifications whatsoever are needed to reach such a conclusion, just a modicum of rationality.

I conclude that the Climate Priesthood is getting nervous, because their shock tactics don't work any more.

Would you trust a software engineer to build a bridge? 

By Ian Michael Gumby Posted Thursday 14th February 2008 14:04 GMT

The answer is emphatically yes! Of course I just happen to be a software engineer and I just happened to have built a bridge that could hold the weight if a tractor or more as it crossed an irrigation ditch line.

If you would have asked the question about "designing" of a bridge, maybe, maybe not. All Software Engineers should have taken a strengths and materials class as part of their core engineering curriculum. So they should know the basics.

And to another point... You trust non-software engineers to develop software, so why start complaining now about computer models made by engineers? ;-)

As to the article, the author does have a basic point. Why we can see that there is a climate change, how do we know that its man made? Monitoring has shown that there are shifts in the magnetic poles of the earth and that this has occurred before. This too could have a major influence on the weather patterns and global warming.

But that's not going to grab headlines and there's not a whole lot we could do to slow it or stop it from happening. (Unless you can pitch a theory that its man's fault that there is a shift....)

I think we all agree that spewing CO2 in to the air is not a good thing and if it takes a computer stimulated panic to force change, its not a bad thing.

We already trust software engineers... 

By Joel Posted Thursday 14th February 2008 14:07 GMT

to build much more than bridges. Think about that the next time you climb aboard a plane.

Just goes to show that an "IT Professional" is an oxymoron.

Some facts 

By Chris Cartledge Posted Thursday 14th February 2008 14:07 GMT

Carbon dioxide levels are higher than they have been for 500,000 years or so, since when there has been a succession of human extinctions in Britain.

The highest highest value of about 300 parts per million by volume (ppmv) dates from about 323,000 year ago, with around 280 ppmv being found during all interglacial periods.

Measurements at Mauna Loa show a 19.4% increase in the mean annual concentration, from 315.98ppmv of dry air in 1959 to 377.38 ppmv in 2004.

See:

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/vostok.htm

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/sio-mlo.htm

Chad H, you forgot: 

By Nano nano Posted Thursday 14th February 2008 14:11 GMT

Bush's Possibility 5: Jesus teleports believers to paradise.

Otherwise, hear hear !!

Bulls**t 

By Matt Caldwell Posted Thursday 14th February 2008 14:27 GMT

This kind of thing really drives me nuts. There are about 10 guys worldwide who are [i]scientists[/i] that don't accept man-induced climate change. There is an overwhelming body of evidence to show that there is. Current climate change is nothing like previous cycles of warming and cooling, it is off the charts.

People here are (mostly) smart, you guys can look up the info yourselves, but the scariest thing about climate change is that it is so complex that it is hard to model, and it is definitely non-linear. Like every other non-linear system known to science (there are a lot of them, and they are not new), climate change has a critical point on the curve. Once we cross that point there is no going back. At least not by simply reversing the mechanism that took us that far. Thats right, what I'm saying is that once the atmosphere warms enough, enough ice melts, etcetera than if we could sequester every molecule of CO2 it won't make a damn bit of difference, we couldn't get things to go backward.

Screw the coat, I'm headed for the bunker anyway....

5 extinction events 

By Anonymous Coward Posted Thursday 14th February 2008 14:33 GMT

I would like to point out a simple fact to those who talk about the "5 extinction events". They all occurred without human involvement. Fact. Even if those events involved a large change in the climate, actually over geological time the climate has shown a stable, mean reverting nature, as would be expected by negative feedback systems. Just because the climate spiked over a period of say a few thousand or 10s of thousands of years doesn't mean the climate overall hasn't been stable. If positive feedback genuinely existed in the climate system, any of those major events would probably have been enough to turn the earth into a Venus. They didn't.

@ Chad H. 

By David Beeston Posted Thursday 14th February 2008 14:37 GMT

Finally someone who gets it. You are spot on. Regardless of whether climate change is actually happening or not (or somewhere in between here and doomsday), it doesn't matter.

The thought of climate change is starting to result in actions which are positive for mankind, such as investment into renewable energy sources etc. If doomsday does or doesn't happen, at least we are doing something positive about it.

That said, I remember reading somewhere that every time mankind tries to keep a complex and volatile system static, they end up messing things up*. My worry is that our actions now trying to prevent climate change may knock it into the alternative direction that could ultimately lead to our demise (ice age anyone?).

For me, if out of all this we can create a safe renewable energy source, then I don't care about the media, the government, scientists or whoever profiting from the hysteria.

*I think it was to do with trees in an area of the states that native americans used to manage where "management" ended up doing more harm than good, but I can't for the life of me remember the whole story in enough detail to make it meaningful.

Linux Penguin - what are the odds of them being the dominant species on earth?

@Assume they are wrong/Paul Smith 

By Anonymous Coward Posted Thursday 14th February 2008 14:48 GMT

Total/anthropo co2 I don't know but from memory and approximately (how you measure co2 & how you reckon its effect can give different figures) but just before the industrial revolution started CO2 was at 280 ppm (parts per million), it now stands around 380 ppm. It was commonly reported at 360 ppm when I first heard the figure, about 10 years ago roughly.

CO2 levels are rising but the #rate# of co2 rise is increasing.

I work in IT but I tend to keep my opinions to things I know about, like databases and development.

Dead Wrong 

By Stuart Posted Thursday 14th February 2008 14:53 GMT

One major extinction event? Ephesus harbour marooned by drop in water level in last 1800 years?

Is this guy crazy? Did he bother to check out these two assertions with anybody qualified in the field? Or just read a primer or even google?

There have been many extinctions. Water levels may rise and fall - but so does land in one of the most gelogical active areas (Google Ephesus & earthquake). Or was the usual explanation of silting by the local river also totally discounted.

Come on Reg you can do better than this. Modelling future climatic effects is at the limits (or maybe just beyond) our capabilities with current data. All the more reason to address the problem based on facts rather than fantasy.

@ S Jones et al 

By Rob Sutherland Posted Thursday 14th February 2008 14:57 GMT

take a few minutes and check this out: http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/02/oreskes_on_the_american_denial.php#more

two points 

By Maurice Shakeshaft Posted Thursday 14th February 2008 15:01 GMT

I'd suggest that politicians are a more self-interested bunch that climate scientists. Witness the desire for yet more dosh from the taxpayer to fund the self serving election process.

That climate change is occurring is indisputable. It has been changing for the last 4.5 Billion years. What we need to consider is: Do we want (or need?) to do anything about it to "protect" our "civilisations"? We don't know what will happen if the postulated rates of climate change continue in th near term but interpretations of historical data point to a range of, potentially, catastrophic consequences for our planet and thus "civilisations". If we - our politicians (Oh dear!) - want to "protect" prioritised aspects then we'd better start a bit of real root cause analysis and plan for brutal economic change. I could say "blx to that, I'll have another beer" - like a drunk in a bar - but that would be irresponsible. I'm not saying climateers are right or wrong but they would be a component of the analysis - if we want to execute it.

@ Wade Burchette 

By Steve Posted Thursday 14th February 2008 15:03 GMT

"Why is that the Antarctic had more sea ice last year than it ever did on record? Why is that Johannesburg, South Africa had 50+ days of below normal temperature last year? Why did it snow in Baghdad for the first time since people can recall? And why did it snow with some accumulation in Jerusalem too? Why is that parts of the western US have had their coldest January on record?

And why does no one look at history? If you look at the history of the weather since we have accurate records, you can clearly see that our weather now is neither unusual nor unique. It happened before."

You realise that those two paragraphs directly contradict each other, right?

Can I write rubbish for your magazine too? 

By Steve Posted Thursday 14th February 2008 15:05 GMT

The guy knows absolutely nothing so I'll stick to three points that demonstrate why he is ill-informed.

The author is aware of "positive feedbacks" but thinks water vapour is ignored. In fact, half to two-thirds of projected warming is related to positive feedbacks associated with water vapour.

If he is worried about the stability of systems with positive feedbacks he should note there is also a huge "negative feedback" in the system called black body radiation. The rate of energy loss by the earth is proportional to the 4th power of the temperature which keeps the climate relatively stable. This is basic physics.

No models predict "doomsday" scenarios - ie. runaway venus-like climate change, at least for the next half billion years. In the long run, life will survive and thrive with even the direst predictions of 6 degrees warming. Human civilisation and many current species will not cope so well.

Finally, many geologists, astrophysicists and engineers work in climate science.

Climate change model 

By WhatWasThat? Posted Thursday 14th February 2008 15:52 GMT

In case anyone was wondering what the IT angle might be...

There are several (sic) climate change models around, but what does it take to create one? Is it just a mathematical approximation of environmental conditions of the globe, or attempts to have a subjective "quality" of weather?

In the case of any digital representation of an analog system (ie. computer model of the earth), you will need to determine the "resolution" of the digital representation. In the case of the earth, it has 510,072,000 km² surface area (wiki). If we wanted to take our resolution as "nodes" of triangles (sorry - graphics oriented here), we end up with 144270148.279 areas of triangles 3535.5339 m² in size. This was based off of the arbitrary decision of having equilatoral triangles 50m per side as a "node".

IMHO, each node would be a separate software "class", with properties for environmental conditions, and each side having an interface of methods for environmental effects of surrounding nodes (one for each "side") affecting the environment of the node. There would then be an interface for "energy pumping", which would be from the sun. While this could get complex very quickly, but focusing on the node itself and creating a generalized class that correctly conforms to meteorological data and effects, it should be fairly straightforward to create this software class "node".

Notice, I said "straightforward", I did not say "simple". I would expect that it could take several talented people a few months to design and develop such a piece of software, and then spend a like amount of time creating the surrounding framework that would erect and create the nodes for individual representations of the sections of the globe (initial values, etc). This framework would then throw in the energy constantly being applied to the system (sunlight) and let it run for a set simulated amount of time.

Again, this is a huge oversimplification, but should give everyone an idea of what is involved in simulating this. And, for those you playing at home thinking this is easy, you may have noticed that even this is only two dimensional.... :)

Spot On 

By Antony Riley Posted Thursday 14th February 2008 15:55 GMT

Everything in this letter is spot on.

Of course just because everything the climate scientists are saying is not very accurate doesn't mean we should burn through the earth's resources at an astounding rate (and nearly all of the astrophysists and geologists who have spoken out against climate science do add this addendum to what they are saying) ;)

@limestone ?! 

By Anonymous Coward Posted Thursday 14th February 2008 16:19 GMT

Limestone comes in a variety of forms. The finest grained stuff is micrite which precipitates directly out as a mud which then gets solidified, although micrite is usually a cement in other rocks.

Then there’s oolitic limestone – ooids are little round bits that normally precipitate out onto grains and grow.

Chalk is technically bioclast – the remains of loads for bits from dead animals, but the plates are _really_ small, and chank is rather uniform so it gets a name to itself.

And then there’s general bioclast limestone which is made up of bigger bits of animals.

So some comes from corpses, and some from dissolved CO2 in the water.

The skull and crossbones, as they count as bioclasts.

Anonymous as big brother is now watching us here at "messy beast".

[Citation Needed] 

By Anonymous Coward Posted Thursday 14th February 2008 16:45 GMT

If that applies to any 'facts' you're going to spout, please shut up. No exceptions.

@ Jonathan McCulloch 

By RW Posted Thursday 14th February 2008 16:48 GMT

"Climate change is a big money-spinner for the vested interests... and it's balls."

Uh . . . no. The big money involved is in areas like automobile manufacturing, the oil industry, and such. The climate change folks are very small minnows in a lake containing some very large—and voracious—fish.

Yes, absolutely right about vested interests, but just follow the money and you'll see which vested interests have theirs knickers in knots about climate change: those self-satisfied ones perfectly happy to assume life will always be just as it is now and damn the consequences of believing so. George Bush and his buddies in the oil industry exemplify this outlook.

Paris because...well, because it's nearly spring and I'm thinking of Paris in the springtime.

Dr Stephen Jones 

By Anonymous Coward Posted Thursday 14th February 2008 16:57 GMT

Since you don't want me to attack the author of the aritcle, I'll attack your views.

Your selective quoting might impress the simpletons who believe in conspiracy theories amongst climate scientists, but it won't stand up to actual reading comprehension. The targets of your oh-so-clever out of context quotes all posted up facts which tend to refute the article's relevance and accuracy, and then pointed out that generally, in a *scientific* discussion, there's some requirement to actually deal with facts based on evidence rather than assertion of selected half-truths and fallacies.

So your refusal to address those facts as presented acts more surely to "close down discussion" than anyone who has presented arguments lethal to the case presented by Atkinson.

Your summing up is also facile beyond words and seeks to "close down discussion" on your own terms.

"...we have endured and survived climate change before (including one major ice age) and flourished – we are in a better position now to deal with change than ever before.

All of which is plain to anyone. No qualifications whatsoever are needed to reach such a conclusion, just a modicum of rationality."

We may have more technical capacity, but we (or at least our "civilisations") are orders of magnitude more vulnerable, perched as they are in at-risk areas and tied to resources, yet divorced from subsistence in a way that paleolithic hunter-gatherers were not... And you seem to forget that one species of human did die out in the last ice age maximum: Neanderthals.

Your conclusion:

"I conclude that the Climate Priesthood is getting nervous, because their shock tactics don't work any more."

shows your irrational underwear.

Anthropogenic CO2 19GT/yr

Volcanoes belch 0.6 GT/yr.

Most of the rest of the earth's production of CO2 is part of a cycle, so doesn't contribute to increasing levels in the atmosphere. Deep ice cores and mud cores seem to show that there has never been the rate of increase in CO2 we curerntly see in recent figures. This is a new thing.

Get your head out of the sand and stop magnifying the places where errors have been made (and later largely corrected) inot more significant slips on the road of knowledge than they are.

Oh and... 

By Anonymous Coward Posted Thursday 14th February 2008 16:59 GMT

...will you please give over using 10 year old cavails about the science of golbal warming that have since been considered and included as factors in the models?

No, you won't.

Dont get it twisted 

By andy Posted Thursday 14th February 2008 17:00 GMT

What I and many others object to is paying through the nose to be carbon neutral purely because of this hype from 'eco-fascists' (to quote an eco-fascist above)

I am all for saving the earths resources and being economical but I refuse to be ripped-off and told to change my lifestyle due to some crappy junk science.

@AC 

By Anonymous Coward Posted Thursday 14th February 2008 17:02 GMT

Seems to be alot of Anonymous Cowards out there trying to poke holes, so I'll post anonymously to patch them up.

Alot of folks seem to be missing the point RE previous climate change... The point John Atkinson was making is that life still goes on during these events, perhaps not human, dinosaur or wearwolf, but life still goes on. Aside from this, the previous climate changes happened - and we weren't even there to blame! Damn those dinosaurs and their 4x4s!!!

Looking at the small data set is on par with climate chance since 9am... Its got steadily hotter since then - we're doomed!! But if you look at yesterdays results, it goes back down again. Much like Ice Ages.

The romans grew vinyards in the south of England.

@ Dr Stephen Jones 

By Anonymous Coward Posted Thursday 14th February 2008 17:07 GMT

<<To sum up the writer's conclusion: we have endured and survived climate change before (including one major ice age) and flourished – we are in a better position now to deal with change than ever before.

All of which is plain to anyone. No qualifications whatsoever are needed to reach such a conclusion, just a modicum of rationality.

I conclude that the Climate Priesthood is getting nervous, because their shock tactics don't work any more.>>

It’s not about human “survival” stupid, it’s about human suffering. There weren’t 5 or 6 billion human souls on the planet during the last ice age. Now, any significant sea level change means mass displacement of huge populations. Any significant temperature change means famine on a scale that couldn’t have even been contemplated in biblical times.

The “deniers” are so effing smug. The people who will suffer least are those that are best able to buy their way out of the sh*t. Most readers of the Reg will still be immune to the effects of climate change when 100s of millions are already suffering.

Sure, the science is not ironclad. Anyone who knows anything about Chaos knows how difficult it is to predict the specific behaviour of complex systems. We’re talking about the balance of probabilities on the best available evidence.

I’ll tell you what should be plain to anyone: a socio-economic model predicated on infinite economic growth in a closed system with limited resources is doomed to fail, eventually. That is, of course, unless, we go forth and find new worlds to burn down. In which case, pray to the deity of your choice that you aren’t one of the ones left behind.

New Mexico 

By Jeremiah Steidl Posted Thursday 14th February 2008 17:29 GMT

John Atkinson, next time you're in New Mexico, let me buy ya a beer!

Climate modelling vs. economy modelling 

By S Posted Thursday 14th February 2008 17:29 GMT

``At the moment, I don't see that the evidence for anthropogenic climate change is strong enough to wreck our economies to try to change it.''

I am far from being a specialist in either area, but my impression is that economic models have a worse track record than climate models (a quick web search turns up http://ssrn.com/abstract=1030607, with the summarizing sentence ``Economic models are much less advanced [than climate models]''). It seems that one should take the uncertainty on both sides into account when weighting the possible outcomes.

Sebastian

Blatant Bias 

By Anonymous Coward Posted Thursday 14th February 2008 17:45 GMT

Take a look a this graph: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/climateexperiment/theresult/abouttheresults.shtml. Anyone can see that the model is exaggerating its predictions relative to the recent recorded temperatures. Yet, its results are taken at face value and we are expected to take scientists' fatwas with a knee-jerk... It's a sorry decade for science.

Man-Made Global Warming is BAD Science 

By Anonymous Coward Posted Thursday 14th February 2008 17:50 GMT

Last year the resolution of the analysis of ice cores increased and it proved that the atmospheric concentration of CO2 LAGS warmer climates by 800 years (see http://www.mises.org/story/2571)!!! Yet, scientists, the media and politicos are merrily hush-hush about it while with much less evidence they quickly hopped in the gravy train of grants, hysteria and posing.

Agree to a point. 

By Anonymous Coward Posted Thursday 14th February 2008 18:01 GMT

I agree with the writer that the Global Warming(i am not using climate change because that is pure counter-spin word made to further confuse the issue)

Is one of the few things that is sensationalized and hyped to the ignorant masses way too much and with obvious and not so obvious agendas.

The only other topic that had so much BS published around it would be terrorism.

BUT:

The climate is changing and you have to only look at the number of Hurricanes and tropical storms hitting different areas and their impact.

We should not use the climate change as a driving factor to further research into renewable and sustainable energy sources. This should be done for long term benefits of cutting down fossil fuel use. If you live in a large city and have to spend half your summer wearing a face mask to prevent smog you understand the benefit of this.

Nuclear and solar being my favorites and the ones with the most promises i would hope get a good look as alternatives to fossil fuels.

If all the unused rooftops had solar panels even if they generated 1W per day it would be 1W less that we needed from the power plants. There should be more research done in energy storage this would help make many different renewable sources viable.

Governments should invest more into public transportation, Better infrastructure and road planing for big cities would cut down traffic congestion and it turn increase everyone fuel efficiency.

There is no magic button that is going to solve the energy problem pretty much every industrial country faces. There need to be lots of small changes targeting different areas to make an impact on the whole.

If this doesn't work we can always strap all the people going to gym's to dynamos and the problem should be solved. I mean they are working out anyway who would complain if they made some energy while doing it...

I'll crawl back under my rock now.

When does a skeptic become a denier? 

By An Inquirer Posted Thursday 14th February 2008 18:02 GMT

After studying global climate issues for hundreds of hours, I have come to two major conclusions:

1. The issue is treated by most as a lot more like religion than like science. People are very reluctant to look at evidence and instead cling to faith.

2. Even in matters of faith, there are few people who make the switch, and I am one of the few -- from accepter of AGW to skeptic.

I do not equate skeptic with denier. I am skeptical that CO2 increases will lead to catastrophic consequences. In some regards, Climate Science is over 100 years old, and I understand that in laboratory settings a doubling of CO2 leads to about a one degree increase in temperature. What is relatively new in Climate Science is the attempt to model positive feedbacks. Because CO2 impact is logarithmic, there is little impact of CO2 after doubling from pre-industrial areas. Our computer power now allows us to ATTEMPT to model feedbacks. In one regard, Climate Science is very new – the model results do not match observations. Those of faith conclude that the observations are wrong. Generous skeptics would give the modelers more time to improve their models.

Contrary to some pro-AGW beliefs, there is harm to constructing regulations based on what is not true. Yes, it is generally a good idea to do conservation and less polluting alternatives even if AGW is wrong. (By the way, this is what George Bush the First proposed in the early 1990s, and the liberals blasted him for it.) However, to call CO2 a pollutant or to be singled-minded on it is a mistake. Perhaps the most noticeable impact of Kyoto so far has been to shift industry to countries where there is less pollution control and then using more energy to transport products to developed countries. Also, there have been more than a few cases of threats, deceit and bribe in Europe on handling Kyoto numbers – it is hard to imagine that it would get better if the concept goes worldwide. Economies and the environment can / will be hurt by AGW proposals.

As far as naming scientists who do not accept AGW arguments, there are hundreds if not thousands of them. They are not getting quoted often in the media, and they are not getting much funding to study AGW, but if someone does not know who they are and what issues they raise, I wonder how much study that person has done on AGW.

"The romans grew vinyards in the south of England." 

By Mark Posted Thursday 14th February 2008 18:15 GMT

And we're beginning to see vinyards in teeside.

PS England != World.

Google and anonymous coward 

By Saint Ignatius Posted Thursday 14th February 2008 19:04 GMT

Christ the poor tech guys at Google must be breaking a sweat right now as we speak. "Oh no not another man-made global warming question/affirmation from this guy".

Same ol same ol rebuttal tecnique often used by school children who leave their coursework till the last minute.

Listen here. There is not one, and I mean one, piece of evidence that man is making any significant change to the global climate. Sure, as anyone who lives in a city knows, the local climate is affected by his doing in terms of pollution and heat but it is utter arogance to suggest that man is having any real impact on the wider planet.

Google these if you dare.

The real reason mount Kilamanjaro is losing its icecap.

The hockey stick graph disproved.

The flat-lining of global temperatures since the year 2000.

Variations in tree ring data.

Where land based monitoring stations are sited (eg next to air conditioning exhausts)

The lead time of heat followed by carbon dioxide rather than the other way round which Saint Al Gore duped many of the gullible to follow his mental loony ideas.

Biofuels (you all probably know this by now it was in the news only last week)

That's only for starters and is merely a newbies guide to the path to enlightenment and the cure for self delusion in this aspect.

Just before the outbreak of world war 2 the recieved wisdom amongst scientists was that the practice of eugenics might be a very good thing (Google that too).

This belief was later dropped following the observations of what really happens when this idea was put into practice.

Wahey! Climate twaddle! 

By Peter Posted Thursday 14th February 2008 19:33 GMT

So an "IT professional" is able to spout some twaddle about a field he doesn't understand? Bimey, the Reg is going downhill. OK: As others have pointed out, climate science didn't suddenly appear fully formed, it's based on solid science. It's not just about the climate models, those are based on the real data. It's a pity that someone calling themselves an IT professional clearly has no idea of real science. Obviously no-one has told the Royal Society that all these scientists don't believe it - but then why listen to an old-fashioned body of people who've actually achieved something, or read actual research papers?

Interesting also that the "It's all a green conspiracy" theorists are out in force - obviously articles like this written by a hack after a liquid lunch don't help, but neither do White House aides editing scientific reports to make it appear as if there's genuine consensus, or pseudo-independent think tanks funded by the oil industry duplicating the tobacco industry tactics to make it appear as if there's still a debate. Anyone out there really think the green lobby has more power than the oil companies? Anyone who believes that who isn't wearing a tinfoil hat? No, thought not.

Over 400 World Wide Prominent Scientists Dispute Man-Made Global Warming 

By Dr Coles Posted Thursday 14th February 2008 19:57 GMT

Over 400 World Wide Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007. See http://tinyurl.com/2dv6nz

Astronomers have Studied the Climate For Centuries 

By Scott Manley Posted Thursday 14th February 2008 20:37 GMT

In fact, one of the longest records of weather conditions was started at the end of the 18th century at Armagh Observatory

You can download the scans from their site if you like

http://climate.arm.ac.uk/main.html

But I'll tell you that much of my astronomical research focussed on climate change and developing theories of how cosmic events (like killer asteroids) could be responsible for many rapid changes and associated mass extinctions.

So, it's not like a computer scientist designing a bridge, it's more like a computer scientist designing a computer. John, you should follow your own advice and leave climate science to people who actually have real experience.

Hooray Oil! 

By Anonymous Coward Posted Thursday 14th February 2008 20:42 GMT

So oil companies are bad, bad, bad, huh? As anyone can see at http://tinyurl.com/2gwh4k, while the price of crude has more than quadrupled in the last 5 years, the retail gas prices have merely doubled. All the while with oil companies posting profits for the first time in about a decade.

Say what you want, but while there aren't cost-efficient alternative fuels, anything other than oil is asinine.

Well said 

By Robinson Posted Thursday 14th February 2008 20:50 GMT

Well said. Consider also that if Climate Scientists were actually trained in statistics most of the current catastophism would never have happened. It is high time climate papers were peer reviewed by people with the correct real-world expertise.

Coming out of an ice age? 

By ian Posted Thursday 14th February 2008 20:58 GMT

Actually, there is some evidence that we should be at the beginning stages of entering an ice age, but that GW is putting a stop to it. This is good, however it is only the start of what is likely to be a major nightmare, in particular for northern Europe.

This denial of GW is interesting as it seems to being follow the stages of the Kubler-Ross grief cycle:

1. Denial - it ain't so!

2. Anger - dammed scientists/hippies/liberals!

3. Bargaining - I'll do X if it will make it go away!

4. Depression - oh god, were fscked!

5. Acceptance - ok, where do we go from here?

John Atkinson (and many of his commenting fanboiz) seem to be in stage 1, while many others are in stage 2. My hope is that we can quickly move to stage 5 and sort out GW.

The dead bird, because we are all likely dead ducks.

Mathematical models 

By ratfox Posted Thursday 14th February 2008 21:02 GMT

As a mathematician, I wholly agree on the doubts about climate models... We have very little data, and it is certainly next to impossible making any kind of accurate precision. Yet, we constantly see predictions of how many degrees the temperature will rise in the next 100 years... Last year was exceptionally hot - way more than predicted - and nobody knows why!

The problem is, when you ask a scientist (and I am one), he will never admit he doesn't know. After all, his bread depends on having results and publishing papers. He'll make up a complicated model, and give an estimation. And since nobody exactly knows what's happening, it will be trusted.

Governments are in constant need of predictions to take decisions. 2'000 years ago, they would have read the entrails of a goat. Today, they call scientists.

good points