“POLITICIANS seem to think that the science is a done deal,” says Tim Palmer. “I don’t want to undermine the IPCC, but the forecasts, especially for regional climate change, are immensely uncertain.”
Palmer is a leading climate modeller at the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts in Reading, UK, and he does not doubt that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has done a good job alerting the world to the problem of global climate change. But he and his fellow climate scientists are acutely aware that the IPCC’s predictions of how the global change will affect local climates are little more than guesswork. They fear that if the IPCC’s predictions turn out to be wrong, it will provoke a crisis in confidence that undermines the whole climate change debate.
On top of this, some climate scientists believe that even the IPCC’s global forecasts leave much to be desired. …
A subscription is required to read the full New Scientist article: Poor forecasting undermines climate debate
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
I agree with Tim Palmer on a potential credibility crisis for ‘science’ and ‘scientists’. They have become too closely allied with politics, the news media, and competition for funding. Given that the word ‘science’ is not, itself, very old, perhaps we need to coin a new word for the respectable pursuit of truth about nature and society. Back to ‘philosophy’?
Agreed, Davey Gam.
The regional forecasts are uncertain for a very good reason, the finer the detail, the less it can be modelled. Nevertheless, the current climate change in the southern region of the continent of Australia is behaving just as predicted. Prolonged drought.
As the article says, IPCC global and local forecasts leave a lot to be desired. Looking at the Holocene (the past 12,000 years), how often have there been prolonged droughts in Southern Australia?
No consensus among the modellers? Well, now, that is news! Tim must have young children and just thinkin’ ahead for their sakes. Wise move.
Frankly, Palmer has the tense wrong. The IPCC has already seriously undermined the climate debate. Shonks and spivs usually do that the moment they open their mouth.
“Nevertheless, the current climate change in the southern region of the continent of Australia is behaving just as predicted. Prolonged drought.”
Hard data from geological drilling across the continent has shown this is nothing new. Some of the drought periods lasted for several thousands of years.
The key phrase for this topic is, “Could Undermine Climate Debate”.
The ‘Climate Debate’ is worth billions annually. If the ‘debate’ turns out to be a fraud, as over thirty thousand scientists claim, the ‘debate” will fail. The result will be massive unemployment among the few hundred who gobble at the trough of the IPCC.
There will also be massive unemployment among the politicians who rode to fame by championing the cause of anthro catastophic GW.
There will also be massive unemployment within the corporations standing to profit from ACGW, like the windmill profiteers, the tidal-wave profiteers, the ethanol profiteers, jatropha profiteers, etc.
There will also be unemployment amongst the greenies, who will be pan-handling until they find another thing over which benighted consumers will gush tears, and cash.
Oops, that’s redundant. The greenies are all pan-handlers, all the time.
Sound science won’t persuade politicians and money-artists. Not even if over 30,000 scientists rise up to protest stupidity.
If the money and the politics want a neo-Marxist global control of the world’s energy supply, that’s what we’ll get. The only science that will make a difference is ‘political science’ which, as Mao Tse-Tung famously asserted, comes out of the barrel of a rifle.
In the kinder, gentler future envisioned by the global warmists, ‘political science’ will not come out of the barrel of a rifle. It will come out of the mouths of bureaucrats, who will gently tax you down to a poverty level which has been decreed to be “beneficial”.
tax you down to a poverty level which has been decreed to be “beneficial”.
….or just barely “sustainable” LOL
“The result will be massive unemployment among the few hundred who gobble at the trough of the IPCC.”
I don’t know where you get that idea. Climate research, with or without AGW, will always be an important part of scientific research.
No SJT, for every real climate scientist there is another hundred or so monosyllabic bush bunnies who, after finally discovering that there were no real job prospects to be had from a PhD in the volume and composition of lizard farts, discovered that there was a very comfortable living to made out of examining the climatic impact of lizard farts. It is also the career change of choice for second rate paleontologists.
Ian,
I don’t know if the lizard fart PhD is an actual case, or a rhetorical device. Either way it made me laugh.
I do know of an actual PhD in which the investigator measured the chemical composition of tears dripping from the eyes of rare native tortoises as they were slowly heated (to death) in an oven. This might be good material for a paper on likely effects of global warming.
The same investigator glued radio transmitters to the backs of female tortoises, so preventing the males mounting them. I am sure this helped the population decline still further, but of course such a decline might be blamed on global warming.
Presumably to ‘conserve biodiversity’, fire has long been excluded from the reserve where these very rare tortoises live, so it is only a matter of time before a big fire takes them all out. Such a fire would, I am sure, be due to global warming.
As I suggested at the start of this thread, it’s time we gave mechanistic ‘science’ the flick, and got back to a sound basis of philosophy – the love of wisdom.
Neurath’s Boat, or Popper’s Piles? I don’t mind, as long as academics actually start thinking about the current sad state of our epistemology, especially with regard to the climate circus.
I get the impression that Aynsley Kellow is one of the few who are doing that.
Earth’s climate is truly massive and extremely complex. There are so many variables, it would take lifetimes to create accurate predictive computer models. So, each researcher involved in modelling puts in all the factors that they think appropriate (and some are quite questionable!) and then they have to jig things a bit (as staticians do) to produce “suitable” answers. Wherever there is a computer, the output is only as accurate as the data fed in – it is not a gold stadard result, it is not totally reliable. If we accept that as a basic statement of fact, it is easier to understand all the different arguments.
Geologically, the Earth probably has a greater history of being a rather cool planet, with much shorter periods of warming. If we had another ice age, within the present genration of human life – we would be in really big trouble! Not only because of immensely expanded ice caps (with ice around 8,000 feet or more deep) but huge wastelands around the perimeter that would hardly sustain human life – if at all. Given the paucity of land available to live on now, against the rapidly risen huge World population, where would all us humans go?? What would we eat? (Probably each other?!)
So in that sense, the present warm period is good for human life, and positively encouraging! Should we not be getting on and enjoying it and adjusting to positively forecast changes, as they approach? The whole planet is balanced in a “Goldilocks” zone, just the right distance from the Sun to allow our life to thrive and our planet’s behaviour balanced by our nearby Moon. But! The Earth and the Sun are shifting positions minutely all the time and we now detect the Moon is moving away from us. We exist because of a miraculous set of physical circumstances which could all end tomorrow if the fine balance were upset. That could be caused by a larger number of potential catastrophic events than man’s consumption of carbon fuels. Why aren’t we worrying about these effects and planning to anchor the Moon’s orbit, eh?
It’s just as stupid a proposition to that of introducing a “green” tax to marginally reduce (but not to completely eradicate) our man made CO2 emissions! If the whole planet gave up carbon fuels tomorrow, the effect on the hugely complex Earth atmosphere is likely to be hardly noticeable.
The really big issue is not so called “Man made global warming” but the sustainability of global capital economies based on never ending growth. It has also been ventured that the population of the planet is already unsustainable in terms of all resources being used and as it is increasing rapidly – that is the real threat to human life, not releasing our little carbon dioxide contribution!
So I suggest we get things in perspective. Yes, we should try to cut our reliance on large amounts of energy by new science and engineering means. Yes we try to reduce all harmful atmospheric pollutents, not just a single gas, one of the smallest but still essential constituents of our atmosphere. We must all try to live more in harmony with our planet, husband its none renewable resources carefully by reducing our demands and by being a bit more personally self supporting and innovative. We must also enjoy the life we humans have now and try and live in peace with each other, before the next ice age, or catostrophic event comes along and wipes most of us out!
Salamat tigga hari friends!