Trumpled (Alternative Leading)

[Mav]

Intriguing that you'd let a climate change skeptic interpret the figures for you.  At least it wasn't written by Loony Lord Monckton, I guess.

At page 1035, the writers of the study noted that:

Our findings regarding the degree of consensus about human-caused climate change among the most expert meteorologists are similar to those of Doran and Zimmerman (2009): 93% of actively publishing climate scientists indicated they are convinced that humans have contributed to global warming. Our findings also revealed that majorities of experts view human activity as the primary cause of recent climate change: 78% of climate experts actively publishing on climate change, 73% of all people actively publishing on climate change, and 62% of active publishers who mostly do not publish on climate change. These results, together with those of other similar studies, suggest high levels of expert consensus about human-caused climate change (Farnsworth and Lichter 2012; Bray 2010).

You can choose not to believe climate scientists as being self-interested bandwagonners if you wish but I reckon I'll stick to the experts thank you very much.  And the very study that you rely upon shows that 93% of them are convinced that humans have contributed to global warming. 

Remember that even fewer than 7% of climate scientists actually disputed that there is global warming.  Much of the study was directed to determining how much humans contributed to it.  Just because some climate scientists do not think humans are the primary cause doesn't mean that those scientists regard attempts to limit human contributions as futile.  Your friendly sceptic tried to suck everyone in by painting everyone who didn't say humans were the primary cause of GW as climate change skeptics, as well as trying to disregard the actual scientists who are working in the field.  Naughty, naughty.

Also remember that the survey was of the members of the American Meteorological Society which is only a subset of the relevant fields comprehended by climate science, and only 26.3% of the professional members of the society responded to the survey.

I'm not seeing any serious challenge to the predominance of the climate change model but maybe you can find something better elsewhere ...

[cookie2]

Hundreds of Australian scientist's jobs are being made redundant at the moment because they don't believe we need to invest anymore money in proving climate change because it's already proven.

Saw an interview last week of the head of the CSIRO, forget his name, who stated that the focus would be changed from proving that climate change is actually happening to researching into what can be done to slow it down to manageable/safe levels and with a definite commercial bent. He went on to state that there would not be an overall reduction in staff, but I guess the actual skills required will change.

[flyboy77]

Saw an interview last week of the head of the CSIRO, forget his name, who stated that the focus would be changed from proving that climate change is actually happening to researching into what can be done to slow it down to manageable/safe levels and with a definite commercial bent. He went on to state that there would not be an overall reduction in staff, but I guess the actual skills required will change.

I'd be far more worried about global cooling if I were him. Far more people will suffer/die in the event of cooling rather than warming.

[flyboy77]

ps Mav, I'll take it as a given that your last lengthy rant was your cute way of now saying that you agree the 97% claim is unaldulterated BS.

QED

[Mav]

By the way, why is it even relevant to argue that some or all of Climate Change is natural?  Or that there are other sources of carbon dioxide?

If climate change will radically affect the lives of the world's population, shouldn't we be trying to do all we can to put a break on it?  If that means scaling back emissions and that will have a beneficial effect, then we should do it, shouldn't we?

It's not as though we have made a habit of accepting Nature's interventions with a shrug of the shoulders.  How would the Netherlands have fared if it didn't erect dykes to keep out seawater?  What the hell are those dams doing throughout the world and how did Lake Burley Griffin and Albert Park Lake get there?  Heard of the desalination plant?  Heard of the saying, "If God wanted us to fly, he'd have given us wings"?

Sure as hell, if Lindsay Fox finds that his beachside property is being eroded by rising sea levels, he'll be the first to reinforce his boundaries. 

Should we bother about trying to stop asteroids landing and kicking up dust which will accelerate the greenhouse effect?  Hell no, that's a natural event.  If it happens, then God wanted it that way.

Love the cute intervention of CSIRO management.  Pardon me if I think that the Liberal Government has something to do with that.  First we had the attempt to set up a Climate Change denier in a government-funded school in a WA Uni.  Now we're expected to believe that we can all assume that Climate Change is real and it's now time to do something about it.  Hmmmm.  Shut down enough research into climate change and the Government can start putting money into "clean coal" research as its lame contribution to taking action.  No doubt much money can be shovelled into the amazing little black rock ...

[Mav]

ps Mav, I'll take it as a given that your last lengthy rant was your cute way of now saying that you agree the 97% claim is unaldulterated BS.

QED

If you want to interpret black as white, then be my guest.  But you'd be better off joining the Magpies as then you won't be too disconcerted by the results!

[Thryleon]

That escalated quickly.

[Mav]

Not from my perspective.  Obviously, climate change and abortion can be quite heated issues but it's possible to have a reasonably calm debate.  I'd imagine, though, that this would be much harder in the US.

That's what intrigues me about the Zika virus issue as it could well open up both issues.  For now, the Republican candidates can get away with sucking up to the right wing extremists while they are battling away in the primaries and appearing before right-wing debate moderators.  What happens when the successful Republican candidate is forced to debate issues such as reproductive rights, gun control and climate change?

As the fundamentalist Christians and Evangilists are an important part of the right-wing base, it's interesting to note that they have a strange basis for climate denial.  Genesis 1:26–28 tells us:

Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. Then God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”

This "dominion mandate" tells Biblical literalists that climate change scientists are doing the work of Satan.  If God gave man dominion over all of the earth, then surely he didn't seed it with materials which could bring the existence of man into question.  Extracting the oil and coal from the earth is therefore part of God's plan.  Climate science is an affront to God.  The Pope's declaration that mankind had an obligation to address climate change must have annoyed them intensely.

Wacky as this might seem, it isn't the wackiest thing these guys believe.  Young Earth Creationists believe that the earth is only 6,000 or so years old.  They dismiss fossils and other features which are scientifically proven to date from well before that period.  They say they are either frauds perpetrated by Satan or tests of faith created by God.  Hell, at the recent WA by-election, the Liberals under Abbott put up a Young Earth Creationist and he's now in our Parliament. 

And let's not even mention evolution or gay marriage ...

[Mav]

Wow, as if on cue - http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/pregna...ms8b4.html.

This is horrible.  As I understand it, microcephaly is difficult to detect in the womb save in extreme cases.  The mother-to-be must be devastated.  Let's hope Flyboy is right and the virus doesn't cause the condition.  The other thing is that one map I saw indicated that countries in South and Central America had reported an increase in microcephaly concomitant with the spread of the virus but the same thing hasn't necessarily been reported in the Asian countries to our north which suffer from the virus.  Could there be 2 strains?  If so, let's hope this is the less problematic one.

If Australia has recorded a number of Zika infections, it's only a matter of time until the US does too and pregnant women there contract it.

PS: Here's an update which details a new study and also suggests that mutations of the virus are feared by scientists:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/entry/z...=australia

2. Autopsy found Zika virus in fetal brain tissue
While the link between Zika virus and the birth defect microcephaly is still unproven, a new study provides some clues to understanding the virus, The Associated Press reports. An autopsy a fetus aborted from a woman who contracted Zika virus in Brazil during her first trimester revealed that the fetus's brain was only a fraction of the size that would be expected at that stage of development. Scientists found Zika virus in the fetus's brain tissue, but not in any other organs. Scientists sequenced the virus's genetic material for future research that investigates the probable link between the virus and microcephaly.

New details are emerging about the infants born with microcephaly. According to a very small study, published in JAMA Ophthalmology, a third of the study subjects, all of whom had microcephaly, were also born with eye damage, including lesions or scars in the retina and optic nerve. It's unknown if the eye damage is unique to microcephaly or if it occurs in the general population. 
...

4. How Zika virus may threaten Africa
Zika virus was discovered in Uganda in 1947, but it hasn’t erupted in an epidemic with possible birth defects in African countries the way that it has in Latin America. But now, in 2016, experts are worried that the virus may return to the African mainland in mutated form, potentially triggering a new wave of infections among a population that had previously been immune to the disease, reports Reuters.

[Mav]

Here's the study referred to above, published in the New England Journal of Medicine:  Zika Virus Associated with Microcephaly