Max Carnage

SBS Insight: Climate Change Skeptics vs Stephen Schneider

60 posts in this topic

Anybody watch this? I was quite impressed. It's streaming at the link below.

Can one climate change scientist change the minds of a roomful of climate change sceptics?

An Insight special.

Can one climate change scientist change the minds of a roomful of climate change sceptics?

In late June Insight recorded this program with internationally renowned climate change scientist Stephen Schneider.

A few weeks after we recorded this program, Stephen Schneider died on a flight from Stockholm to London. He was 65 and had been battling a serious illness.

Stephen Schneider was a passionate believer that science should engage directly with the public on the issue of climate change.

It was in this spirit that he appeared on INSIGHT.

He faced a crowd of 52 climate sceptics and they were asking the questions.

Watch the debate and find out if anyone changed their mind.

http://news.sbs.com.au/insight/episode/index/id/302#webextra

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stastistical. Awesomeical!

Questions, and answers. With a Rivlin Slap-down.

Entertaining...bravo SBS. Much better than men in lycra.

Thanks for the link.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

6 global warming skeptics who changed their minds

1. Bjorn Lomborg, Danish academic

Lomborg made waves with his 2001 book, The Skeptical Environmentalist, which argued that global warming was no big deal, and fighting it would be a waste of money. This month, he's publishing Smart Solutions to Climate Change, which argues that a global carbon tax should be imposed to raise $150 billion a year to address global warming.

Before quote: "In 20 years' time, we’ll look back and wonder why we worried so much." (2002)

After quote: "We actually have only one option: we all need to start seriously focusing, right now, on the most effective ways to fix global warming." (2010)

2. Dmitri Medvedev, Russian president

Russian leaders are famously skeptical of global warming, with then–President Vladimir Putin quipping in 2003 that a warmer Russia "wouldn't be so bad" because "we could spend less on fur coats, and the grain harvest would go up." Then Russia caught fire this summer, choking Moscow with deadly smoke, devastating agricultural production, and convincing Medvedev and other leaders that perhaps global warming is a threat, after all.

Before quote: Climate change is "some kind of tricky campaign made up by some commercial structures to promote their business projects." (2009)

After quote: "Unfortunately, what is happening now in our central regions is evidence of this global climate change, because we have never in our history faced such weather conditions in the past." (2010)

3. Michael Hanlon, British science journalist

Hanlon, science editor for The Daily Mail, was a self-professed skeptic on climate change until a recent trip to Greenland, where he witnessed the accelerated disintegration of the country's massive ice sheet. A few days on the melting ice floes, he says, "is certainly enough to blow a few skeptical cobwebs away."

Before quote: "Global warming, indeed much of environmentalism, has become a new religion. Like the old religions, environmentalism preaches much good sense, is well meaning, but has a worrying lack of logic at its core." (2000)

After quote: "I have long been something of a climate-change sceptic, but my views in recent years have shifted. For me, the most convincing evidence that something worrying is going on lies right here in the Arctic." (2010)

4. Michael Shermer, publisher of Skeptic Magazine

In 2001, Shermer hosted a Skeptics Society debate on global warming, prompted by Lomborg's Skeptical Environmentalist. He sided, predictably, with the skeptics. Then he looked at the science, and in 2006 reached a "flipping point," acknowledging the "overwhelming evidence for anthropogenic global warming."

Before quote: "Scientists like Bjorn Lomborg in The Skeptical Environmentalist have, in my opinion, properly nailed environmental extremists for these exaggerated scenarios." (2008, referring to 2001)

After quote: "Because of the complexity of the problem, environmental skepticism was once tenable. No longer. It is time to flip from skepticism to activism." (2006)

5. Gregg Easterbrook, American journalist and author

Easterbrook was an early skeptic of global warming, writing an influential book, A Moment on the Earth, in 1995 that was dismissive of mankind's role in climate change. By 2006, he'd been swayed by the decade of climate research, and wrote an essay entitled "Case Closed: The Debate About Global Warming is Over."

Before quote: "Instant-doomsday hyperbole caused the world’s attention to focus on the hypothetical threat of global warming to the exclusion of environmental menaces that are real, palpable, and awful right now." (1995, PDF)

After quote: "The science has changed from ambiguous to near-unanimous... Based on the data I'm now switching sides regarding global warming, from skeptic to convert." (2006)

6. Stu Ostro, Weather Channel senior meteorologist

A recent survey found that many meteorologists and TV weathercasters are skeptical (or even "cynical") about anthropogenic global warming (AGW), and Ostro used to fit in that camp. Now he regularly explains the connection between man-made climate change and the extreme weather roiling the world.

Before quote: Large swings in temperature "happened long before humans had a chance to influence the environment, [and] typically occurred within a 10-year period, indicating that drastic climate change can occur through natural means, and quickly." (1999)

After quote: "When it comes to skepticism about AGW, you could say I have street cred," but "it could be said that I 'converted' and became a 'believer.'" (2010)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...an unconvinced kid who has done little if any reading on the subject arguing with a Stanford professor who has advised 7 Presidents on Climate. Sums up why I am so cynical about politics...pollies don't work with the Schneiders...they work the kid.

2nd viewing. Good stuff. Scary stuff, too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not too scary.

It has certainly given me a new perspective on science communication.

This television format - the 'public' (selectively chosen) engaging directly with the expert - was vastly more useful than the usual, which is:

break the issue into two competing sides

select one expert from each side

have them 'debate'

let the audience decide

The debate ends up with each debater playing to his/her own segment of the audience, a bit of mockery and banter. The fringe minority end up portrayed as holding a legitimate counter-view. Most people will go home with their pre-existing views reinforced. Some people will be swayed by the debaters' rhetoric rather than the facts, and a skilled anti-science campaigner will run a gish-gallop which the scientist hasn't a hope of addressing adequately.

This was much better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not too scary.

This was much better.

Agreed. The scary bit for me is the underlying issue of trust in civil debate which was alluded to in that discussion. If you don't understand the science, but don't trust scientists (or choose not to trust what you don't like to hear) then you are led to disbelief by default. The format of Q&A instead of debate is central though...without it you get two sides simply broadcasting over one another without benefit to the questioning listener.

I was watching a bit of Q&A this morning and caught a short bit where Bob Katter was rambling on about how farmers are severely disadvantaged by the lack of government subsidy and that tariff reduction policies of past governments had done a disservice to Australians citing a dramatic fall of "made in Australia" cars over a period of time ... to welcoming applause from the audience. Nick Minchin responded by citing higher food prices via Katter's solution but it did not have the same punch with the audience. To your point it wold have been interesting to have Katter in the SBS chair responding to questions!

Q&A link... Ugh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cheers for the heads up Max, was an interesting Q&A. I'd say a touch scary too although the audiance was pre selected.

Not sure if it was here that I saw this link or not, anyway some good info...

Climate Denial Crock of the Week - http://climatecrocks.com/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i believe in climate change just not man made. who the hell says there is a perfect climate for earht in the 1st place, like it got to apoint that is good for us, and this is how it is " meant " to stay forever more? gimme a f*cking break. the whole history of earth is change. now we decide this is how its meant to be.

bunch of self important knobs, i cant wait for the next asteroid strike and some real climate change. we'll hear some bleating then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

who the hell says there is a perfect climate for earht in the 1st place, like it got to apoint that is good for us, and this is how it is " meant " to stay forever more? gimme a f*cking break. the whole history of earth is change. now we decide this is how its meant to be.

The question isn't whether global climate changes naturally*, nor whether it should be made to stop changing^. The question is whether the actions of humans are changing the global climate and if so whether that's okay.
i believe in climate change just not man made.
May I ask what evidence persuaded you that there is no man-made climate change? Or is it sceptical non-belief, eg. "I have not been persuaded by the evidence presented"?

* It does, did, ever will.

^ It can't, we shouldn't try IMHO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep, and also the speed at which it is changing. Natural occurrence give ecosystems time to adjust. The rapid changes of late will put far to much stress on the biosphere.

As I think I mentioned here before, I am a tread lightly kind of guy. I think we're better off not engineering the environment to suit us* but work with the environment as man has done for 1000's of years and for the most part other species have lived pretty sustainably for millions of years.

"self important knobs" Bit of resentment there savagegoose, who gives you such an impression? I'd say there are far more self important knobs in industries primarily focused on profit or power and not on making a positive change to the welfare of life on the planet.

*Large scale engineering. It is complex, I'll admit. For example, measures to avoid landslides in already populated areas are probably worthwhile with minimal impact although our attempts to manage water since the industrial revolution has often had repercussions down the line.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep, and also the speed at which it is changing. Natural occurrence give ecosystems time to adjust. The rapid changes of late will put far to much stress on the biosphere.

As I think I mentioned here before, I am a tread lightly kind of guy. I think we're better off not engineering the environment to suit us* but work with the environment as man has done for 1000's of years and for the most part other species have lived pretty sustainably for millions of years.

"self important knobs" Bit of resentment there savagegoose, who gives you such an impression? I'd say there are far more self important knobs in industries primarily focused on profit or power and not on making a positive change to the welfare of life on the planet.

*Large scale engineering. It is complex, I'll admit. For example, measures to avoid landslides in already populated areas are probably worthwhile with minimal impact although our attempts to manage water since the industrial revolution has often had repercussions down the line.

The breadbowl of the world was trashed by humans wayyyyyy back if I remember correctly.

I doubt we can change humans to be another one of the lower forms of life because that means accepting starvation, disease and so on. As a race we want things generally to be better for all of us.

So I think engineering is our only likely way of continuing. For it to have any positive impact it has to be large scale.

The lower impact ideas almost invariably are either massively large scale and tech heavy or pick an "ideal" point in history and want us to all go back to that.

I don't buy going back as I can't find a time in history when I would prefer to live (unless I get to choose where and who I am, even then there are very few).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The breadbowl of the world was trashed by humans wayyyyyy back if I remember correctly.

I doubt we can change humans to be another one of the lower forms of life because that means accepting starvation, disease and so on. As a race we want things generally to be better for all of us.

So I think engineering is our only likely way of continuing. For it to have any positive impact it has to be large scale.

The lower impact ideas almost invariably are either massively large scale and tech heavy or pick an "ideal" point in history and want us to all go back to that.

I don't buy going back as I can't find a time in history when I would prefer to live (unless I get to choose where and who I am, even then there are very few).

Sure, I agree, the western world has never lived better and I don't particularly want to go back to the way life was even 100 years ago. Get rid of machine harvesters and we put 90% of the population back on the farm to feed ourselves. I'm definitely not against engineering and that includes large scale it just needs to be done with minimal impact and consideration for future generations.

My point regarding non human life being sustainable for millions of years was merely pointing out that other species haven't risen to the levels of greed that humans have and as we have evolved to be more mentally advanced shouldn't we now have the sense & moral obligation to improve for the good of all rather than destroy? All in all I think we have a good degree of knowledge and technology now to live comfortably and not mess with the planet too much. Like all things in life, it's a balance.

Therefore I believe we should try not to interfere with natural systems as much as possible. Sure, we've built cities and high density living may well be the way to go. New York is an amazing example of large scale engineering & complex systems for a massive population. However, moving forward I think we really need to live within our means environmentally, not over populate, let rivers flow where they may and we might have a better chance.

As an IT Guy Tor, you'd know adding improvements/functionality or simply making changes to a stable mission critical system invites risks. I'm not saying tweaking doesn't help but wide spread changes rarely come off without a glitch. Luckily redundancy can be employed through clustering. We don't have another Earth just yet.

I wouldn't want to go back either, life expectancy sucked. Much more interesting times and opportunities now. Perhaps Hugh Hefner is a candidate... That's going back some 90 years isn't it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure, I agree, the western world has never lived better and I don't particularly want to go back to the way life was even 100 years ago. Get rid of machine harvesters and we put 90% of the population back on the farm to feed ourselves. I'm definitely not against engineering and that includes large scale it just needs to be done with minimal impact and consideration for future generations.

My point regarding non human life being sustainable for millions of years was merely pointing out that other species haven't risen to the levels of greed that humans have and as we have evolved to be more mentally advanced shouldn't we now have the sense & moral obligation to improve for the good of all rather than destroy? All in all I think we have a good degree of knowledge and technology now to live comfortably and not mess with the planet too much. Like all things in life, it's a balance.

Therefore I believe we should try not to interfere with natural systems as much as possible. Sure, we've built cities and high density living may well be the way to go. New York is an amazing example of large scale engineering & complex systems for a massive population. However, moving forward I think we really need to live within our means environmentally, not over populate, let rivers flow where they may and we might have a better chance.

As an IT Guy Tor, you'd know adding improvements/functionality or simply making changes to a stable mission critical system invites risks. I'm not saying tweaking doesn't help but wide spread changes rarely come off without a glitch. Luckily redundancy can be employed through clustering. We don't have another Earth just yet.

I wouldn't want to go back either, life expectancy sucked. Much more interesting times and opportunities now. Perhaps Hugh Hefner is a candidate... That's going back some 90 years isn't it?

That is kind of my point. We can either go back to some time when we didn't cause extravagant damage (which I don't believe existed anyway) and suffer the tragic consequences or we can do massive engineering with the risks involved.

As you say, we don't have another planet so we can't actually test a lot of our stuff. Mr cockup will come visiting if we go engineering.

Given the alternative means a massive die off and would still screw the planet over I say let's go hardcore with engineering instead of the fairly shallow way we have in the past.

We might not have time to take it slow and cautious because of the idiots that wanted to jabber out the topic and stop any real work getting done.

The only way I see this happening is for geo forming technologies to pay better than digging up dirt or oil.

So it won't happen until it is really late in the peace. Then we will see some really good cockups.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is kind of my point. We can either go back to some time when we didn't cause extravagant damage (which I don't believe existed anyway) and suffer the tragic consequences or we can do massive engineering with the risks involved.

As you say, we don't have another planet so we can't actually test a lot of our stuff. Mr cockup will come visiting if we go engineering.

Given the alternative means a massive die off and would still screw the planet over I say let's go hardcore with engineering instead of the fairly shallow way we have in the past.

We might not have time to take it slow and cautious because of the idiots that wanted to jabber out the topic and stop any real work getting done.

The only way I see this happening is for geo forming technologies to pay better than digging up dirt or oil.

So it won't happen until it is really late in the peace. Then we will see some really good cockups.

Yeah I get your point about causing damage throughout the ages although it depends how you define damage. The minute man digs up the earth to plant a crop or cut down a tree to make a shelter? Whilst we may have altered landscapes to suit our lifestyle (and there's some horrible maps/data on how much of the land mass we've affected) I'm not sure we'd suffer tragic consequences with the amount of technical, medical & agricultural advances we have made. (not a supporter of GMO btw)

We can do things smarter now, clean tech, more recycling, less pollution the list goes on. As is often said in renewable energy debates, there is no one solution, we will need to employ all the technologies & strategies to get there. I think it needs to be the same with the way we live. I still believe we can coexist with all species & live sustainably. This includes the fact that for the most part we've taken ourselves out of the food chain, until you're buried that is wink.gif Cremation is a tad destructive imo, you still join the cycle although you deprive a lot of worms...

So again I think it's about balance and understanding an acceptable limit. If we can learn to live in harmony with the environment instead of always trying to tame it and bend it to our will, chose only to reproduce to replace and get off the whole growth is good cycle, the planet can support us and we can still have a comfortable life and retain/regenerate vast natural areas.

Agreed there has been too much stuffing around, lets hope there is still enough time. I believe most scientists say there is so fingers crossed. Geo Engineering is potentially a good backup plan and should be thoroughly investigated however I hope we can turn things around before being forced to implement such solutions.

To change, we need to change our thinking. I'd be happy to cut back on the office work and spend my extra time on the veggie patch for example. Perhaps a good proportion of the population would like to cut back on their 40+ hour job, be a little more involved with the community and have more variety of experiences.

That said, I'm not sure the entire population of the planet can live like Westerners have the past century. The age of extreme excess can not continue for ever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

in resposne to tor.

the way eco fascists, condemn anyone who questions their belief is the 1st trigger to my suspicions.

the way science is suddeny done by concensus, of opinions. ie more articles published supporting an argument, makes it a fact.

the degree of error in their predictions is beyond any other feild of science,

the whole way carbon nazi's seems to be the same people who got smoking banned, and their zeal is almost as crazed.

how about models being talked about as tho they are real, a model is only as good as the inputs, and the formula used in the model.

people cant model something simple like a stock market and make rpedictions, but somehow when something as complex as the earths climate they get it rights?

gimme a break. theyre pissing in our ears and calling it music.

yeah i am a big skeptic, i dont trust people, the more zeal i see or hear in someones argument i dont think, oh hes eager for his ideas it must be true. i think he's manic, i better watch out , he could be dangerous.

the fact earth has had ice ages and heat waves long before man came along messing with things. the sun is a bigger influence on earhts temerature, infacts its the biggest.

these are some of reasons im skeptical.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

in resposne to tor.

the way eco fascists, condemn anyone who questions their belief is the 1st trigger to my suspicions.

the way science is suddeny done by concensus, of opinions. ie more articles published supporting an argument, makes it a fact.

the degree of error in their predictions is beyond any other feild of science,

the whole way carbon nazi's seems to be the same people who got smoking banned, and their zeal is almost as crazed.

how about models being talked about as tho they are real, a model is only as good as the inputs, and the formula used in the model.

people cant model something simple like a stock market and make rpedictions, but somehow when something as complex as the earths climate they get it rights?

gimme a break. theyre pissing in our ears and calling it music.

yeah i am a big skeptic, i dont trust people, the more zeal i see or hear in someones argument i dont think, oh hes eager for his ideas it must be true. i think he's manic, i better watch out , he could be dangerous.

the fact earth has had ice ages and heat waves long before man came along messing with things. the sun is a bigger influence on earhts temerature, infacts its the biggest.

these are some of reasons im skeptical.

Well I cant hang around and discuss all those points however being skeptical is better than being a denier ;)

One thing though. Since the 1960's the energy from the sun has been decreasing and at the same time land & sea temperatures have been rising. So whilst the sun might have influenced climate in the past I don't think it can be blamed for the past few decades.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

its ok i dont want to argue on a forum, im just likely agree with who ever argues most strongly just so i can stop reading their posts.

i did watch the sbs show, and enjoyed it, the talking head didnt change my opinion, but im glad he fronted up to such a skeptical crowd.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

in resposne to tor.

the way eco fascists, condemn anyone who questions their belief is the 1st trigger to my suspicions.

the way science is suddeny done by concensus, of opinions. ie more articles published supporting an argument, makes it a fact.

the degree of error in their predictions is beyond any other feild of science,

the whole way carbon nazi's seems to be the same people who got smoking banned, and their zeal is almost as crazed.

how about models being talked about as tho they are real, a model is only as good as the inputs, and the formula used in the model.

people cant model something simple like a stock market and make rpedictions, but somehow when something as complex as the earths climate they get it rights?

gimme a break. theyre pissing in our ears and calling it music.

yeah i am a big skeptic, i dont trust people, the more zeal i see or hear in someones argument i dont think, oh hes eager for his ideas it must be true. i think he's manic, i better watch out , he could be dangerous.

the fact earth has had ice ages and heat waves long before man came along messing with things. the sun is a bigger influence on earhts temerature, infacts its the biggest.

these are some of reasons im skeptical.

This seems to be more of an explanation of your mindset than an argument against what they are doing.

Which is fine but obviously implies that you don't care too much about their argument and more about their delivery.

Personally I don't care too much if global warming is true or not. I figure if we try and fix it (which requires a much deeper understanding and also increases knowledge as we try to implement fixes) we get cool stuff either way.

If we don't try and fix it we don't get anything and there is a chance of the going to hell in a handbasket.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

in resposne to tor.

the way eco fascists, condemn anyone who questions their belief is the 1st trigger to my suspicions.

the way science is suddeny done by concensus, of opinions. ie more articles published supporting an argument, makes it a fact.

the degree of error in their predictions is beyond any other feild of science,

the whole way carbon nazi's seems to be the same people who got smoking banned, and their zeal is almost as crazed.

how about models being talked about as tho they are real, a model is only as good as the inputs, and the formula used in the model.

people cant model something simple like a stock market and make rpedictions, but somehow when something as complex as the earths climate they get it rights?

gimme a break. theyre pissing in our ears and calling it music.

yeah i am a big skeptic, i dont trust people, the more zeal i see or hear in someones argument i dont think, oh hes eager for his ideas it must be true. i think he's manic, i better watch out , he could be dangerous.

the fact earth has had ice ages and heat waves long before man came along messing with things. the sun is a bigger influence on earhts temerature, infacts its the biggest.

these are some of reasons im skeptical.

I must say this is pretty much my view too. You can't even predict the weather 7 days out. The models can only ever be theorems, they are not fact and they cannot be proven, models are verified against other models based on the same limitied data.

Add to this the fact that I don't believe the humans of the world can do anything to reduce burning CO2 producing stuff. I just don't think all the nations of the world can act in co-operation to their own detriment. That's the main reason I oppose Australia acting absent an impossible global co-operation. It WILL reduce our standard of living but it will achieve nothing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

in resposne to tor.

the way eco fascists, condemn anyone who questions their belief is the 1st trigger to my suspicions.

Fair enough. Down with the eco fascists! :)

the way science is suddeny done by concensus, of opinions. ie more articles published supporting an argument, makes it a fact.

I would class science as adversarial. Peer review can be brutal. It's a free market of ideas. A person with a better idea than yours will out eventually. It sometimes takes time as with all things.

the degree of error in their predictions is beyond any other feild of science,

No it's not. Error is measured perfectly correctly as per statistical methodology. They now measure effects of global warming (the degree of changes is still up for debate) at a confidence level of 90%. If I could get a 90% chance of a win on a horse then I would take it as a gift.

the whole way carbon nazi's seems to be the same people who got smoking banned, and their zeal is almost as crazed.

I smoke and I fully expect a 30% rise in durries to offset the carbon footprint of smokers. :P

how about models being talked about as tho they are real, a model is only as good as the inputs, and the formula used in the model.

This is very true, however the quality of the data increases with time. This issue was identified a long time back and we've been checking it out for a while. We have long term data.

people cant model something simple like a stock market and make rpedictions, but somehow when something as complex as the earths climate they get it rights?

gimme a break. theyre pissing in our ears and calling it music.

I would argue that there is nothing simple about the stock market. If it was simple we'd all be rich dude. It is influenced by nuance upon nuance. A truly chaotic system influenced by greed and fear. A global measure of sentiment that encompasses the every good and bad emotional intraday phase that affects the market each day. It is far, far more complex than the hard physics data that climate science ultimately relies so heavily upon. We are measuring climate here not weather. Weather is the chaotic bit. We're going with trend data so to speak.

yeah i am a big skeptic, i dont trust people, the more zeal i see or hear in someones argument i dont think, oh hes eager for his ideas it must be true. i think he's manic, i better watch out , he could be dangerous.

the fact earth has had ice ages and heat waves long before man came along messing with things. the sun is a bigger influence on earhts temerature, infacts its the biggest.

I'm a skeptic also. I don't like zealots either. I prefer to rely upon data.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well good to see some skeptics in here. i thought i maybe ostracized.

i did watch a show other day on how much people can earth support, with Attenborough hosting.

they said if we all live like Indians, 18 bill, and Americans 2 bill i think where number

not sure aspirations aim as high as india around here, but that seems like the plan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I must say this is pretty much my view too. You can't even predict the weather 7 days out. The models can only ever be theorems, they are not fact and they cannot be proven, models are verified against other models based on the same limitied data.

So....

a] Be doubtful of weather forecasts

b] Be careful with models

c] Gather more data

I think it pays to be clear what it is you're doubting. Climate science does not rely on models. AGW theory does not rely on models. Specific projections for specific scenarios do rely on models, and these are not (by any credible scientist) presented as predictions and the uncertainties should be considered to be part of the projection. Which is the way scientists look at them. And the way good climate scientists present - see the video that started this thread for an example.

But there are plenty of bits of climate science that are solid enough to be called 'facts'. Observable and measurable things, like global temperatures, long-wave radiation, GHG effects and atmospheric concentrations and many more.

On the topic of uncertainty, I'm not sure if I've put this graphic up before, but it's pretty neat:

radiativeforcingcompone.jpg

There's plenty of scope there for us to increase our understanding of this complex system!

well good to see some skeptics in here. i thought i maybe ostracized.

No way, I'm very skeptical and try every day to become more so!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now