Any good climate skeptics?

Tim Robbins

Hi,
I know the media have bent the word "skeptic" in terms of "climate skeptics".
However, I was wondering if any of them are actually any good?

If I was to read one book by a climate skeptic what would anyone recommend?

Note: I've Lomborg's books already think they are brilliant. I also fully accept the IPCC findings, I just wouldn't mind reading something a little bit controversial that wasn't ridiculously stupid.

robindch

Tim Robbins wrote: »

However, I was wondering if any of them are actually any good?

I've never heard of one that's any good.

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Note: I've Lomborg's books already think they are brilliant.

You're aware that Lomberg has changed his views and now believes that climate change is one of the greatest challenges currently facing the planet:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/aug/30/bjorn-lomborg-climate-change-u-turn

Tim Robbins wrote: »

I just wouldn't mind reading something a little bit controversial that wasn't ridiculously stupid.

If you find one, do let us know

Tim Robbins

robindch wrote: »

I've never heard of one that's any good.You're aware that Lomberg has changed his views and now believes that climate change is one of the greatest challenges currently facing the planet:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/aug/30/bjorn-lomborg-climate-change-u-turn

If you find one, do let us know

Lomborg hasn't changed his views. He has always recognised climate change as a serious problem and always accepted best scientific evidence.

He has always advocated researching in new technologies rather than waste money on carbon cutting agreements which achieve nothing. Because he points out the truth of the failure of these agreements, the tree huggers put in the same box as climate change deniers.

There's nothing he has changed his opinions on.

Turtwig

John Christy, would have to be my favourite skeptic that doesn't agree entirely with the consensus. That said Tim a lot of the folks who do accept and agree with the consensus are skeptics too.

robindch

Tim Robbins wrote: »

There's nothing he has changed his opinions on.

Well, the Wiki page on The Skeptical Environmentalist:

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

says that he used to claim that many of the concerns of the environmental movement (including climate change) were unsupported by evidence.

The Guardian article suggests that he now believes that climate change is sufficiently certain that $100 billion dollars should be spent on it.

If this isn't a change of mind, then I'm the pope

robindch

BTW, somebody else other than Malty and myself may have to help out here -- the length of time between a Klimate Skeptik showing up and me having a brain meltdown is shorter even than it is with creationists and flat-earthers, so I usually just avoid the topic.

Tim Robbins

robindch wrote:

BTW, somebody else other than Malty and myself may have to help out here -- the length of time between a Klimate Skeptik showing up and me having a brain meltdown is shorter even than it is with creationists and flat-earthers, so I usually just avoid the topic.

The IPCC have made mistakes and they don't tend to present the complexity of the case very well. For example, I was googling for ages there to see what mathematics were involved in climate change models and didn't have much luck.

There's a book by a fella called Howard Friel called the Lomborg Deception in which he makes similar claims to what you did i.e. Lomborg underrated climate change. He has rebutted these claims in details already.

I'm surprised you've misunderstood Lomborg Robin and I'd be surprised if you didn't find his arguments thought provoking.

As for decent climate skeptics - this bloke Freeman Dyson is pretty good...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTSxubKfTBU

robindch

Tim Robbins wrote: »

The IPCC have made mistakes and they don't tend to present the complexity of the case very well.

The basic reports are available here and the summary is available here. And the IPCC has corrected a number of minor mistakes (which do not influence the overall conclusion) and has openly published errata documents which are individually available for each of the major Working Group report.

The main reason why my brain melts and I don't bother debating Klimate Skeptics is because -- at the promptings of people like Lomberg and others -- they fixate upon the minor errors and ignore the 2,200 or so pages of other evidence (have they ever studied an entire planet's weather system and assembled two thousand pages of evidence without a single fault? I suspect not.)

In short, it's the climate equivalent of hearing about the Piltdown Man hoax over and over again and I really do have more fun things to do than debunk that

Tim Robbins wrote: »

As for decent climate skeptics - this bloke Freeman Dyson is pretty good

Last time I heard Freeman Dyson, I think he was on that infamous Channel 4 documentary. He should have stuck to designing spheres!

Tim Robbins

robindch wrote: »

The basic reports are available here and the summary is available here. And the IPCC has corrected a number of minor mistakes (which do not influence the overall conclusion) and has openly published errata documents which are individually available for each of the major Working Group report.

I've read through some of them alright.

The main reason why my brain melts and I don't bother debating Klimate Skeptics is because -- at the promptings of people like Lomberg and others -- they fixate upon the minor errors and ignore the 2,200 or so pages of other evidence (have they ever studied an entire planet's weather system and assembled two thousand pages of evidence without a single fault? I suspect not.)

But Lomborg fully accepts IPCC???????

In short, it's the climate equivalent of hearing about the Piltdown Man hoax over and over again and I really do have more fun things to do than debunk that :)Last time I heard Freeman Dyson, I think he was on that infamous Channel 4 documentary. He should have stuck to designing spheres!

I don't think the comparisions can't be made. The mathematics in evolution is simple. It's expodential sequences, random changes and non- random selection. The maths, modelling in climate change is far more complex.

Evolution is 99.99999999999999% probably. Even the IPCC say that anthropogenic climate change is 90% probably.

Most people either pro or against climate change haven't a clue of the maths or science behind it. They just hate people who drive SUVs even though they arrange 5 ryanair holidays per year.

I accept it but I'd like a deeper understanding of it.

robindch

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Even the IPCC say that anthropogenic climate change is 90% probably.

Not sure whether you were at the ISS talk in 2008/2009 with the John Sweeney, the Irish guy who was on the IPCC panel which won the Nobel Peace Prize a few years back.

He mentioned that the 90% figure was included so that India, China and the USA would sign the final documents. The level of agreement amongst the scientists, as opposed to the politicians, was much higher than 90%.

Tim Robbins

robindch wrote: »

Not sure whether you were at the ISS talk in 2008/2009 with the John Sweeney, the Irish guy who was on the IPCC panel which won the Nobel Peace Prize a few years back.

He mentioned that the 90% figure was included so that India, China and the USA would sign the final documents. The level of agreement amongst the scientists, as opposed to the politicians, was much higher than 90%.

That's incredible. But it shows the politics going on with the IPCC - surely? Sounds like a very interesting talk. I kinda stop paying attention to the ISS when I saw David McWilliams was giving a talk there.

robindch

Tim Robbins wrote: »

But it shows the politics going on with the IPCC - surely?

Yes, of course there's politics there -- this is an intergovernmental organization

The science and source data is fine, subject to a couple of minor issues which have been corrected, but once the editors are asked to express opinions, then they are subject to political pressure and everybody knows this and takes account of this. Frankly, I'm surprised that the big countries managed to agree to the 90% figure.

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Sounds like a very interesting talk. I kinda stop paying attention to the ISS when I saw David McWilliams was giving a talk there.

It was a very interesting talk indeed, though the Klimate Skeptic I brought along was completely unconvinced (of course) and to this day, still witters endlessly about CFL light bulbs and things called "green conspiracies" from the comfort of the large and desperately overheated house in which he lives alone.

BTW, there's an ISS talk on this evening:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056053461

My name is URL

Richard Lindzen's papers and talks are good.. I don't know if he'd be considered a climate change skeptic in the truest sense, but he's certainly critical of the politicisation and hysteria about the issue and contrarian towards the mainstream views in relation to the human impact on the climate

GetThatDownYa

Well I can tell you who not to read, Kevin Myers. In Ireland's Burning it appears that he doesn't care about how right the science might be, he's determined not to believe comparing belief in climate change to Catholicism in Ireland a few decades ago. He's fearful of such a belief leading to fundamentalism - that's hardly gives him a right to say it's all nonsense and ignore the science particularly in his high profile position