Independent scientific perspective on AGW

[Observer]

Further to the discussion here, some of you will find the Independent Summary for Policymakers refreshingly non-alarmist. It appears to me to be a balanced appraisal of the 'science' of AGW. In a nutshell, the Independent Summary concludes that anthropogenic AGW resulting from increased CO2 emissions (or 'greenhouse gases' generally) is a credible hypothesis but very far from a certainty.

 

[sarabande]

my thoughts, entirely /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif

 

[Andrew_Fanner]

Credibly hypothesis I could accept. There again, look at all those people who thought that Blair and NuLabour were a credible hypothesis, or that the world was cooling in the 1970s and the next Ice Age was on its way, or even that Communisim was the answer to Mankind's social problems. Credible hypotheses have issues with fashionability.

 

[HoratioHB]

Chanell 4 did a documentary last week pointing out that Global warming is happening - over the last 30 years but Global cooling from 1940 to 1980 (when CO2 emmisions were rising fastest). These rises in temperature are quite normal in a historical perspective (and previously we did not have cars aeroplanes etc!!). Ice core samples show a direct correlation between temperature and CO2, BUT that the CO2 levels LAG the temperature by 200-800years, ie CO2 is effect not cause. However Sunspot activity directly correlates with temperature profiles and when the sea warms up it releases CO2 at an order of magnitude more than man ever will. Lots more stuff and I've yet to hear a reasoned counter to the arguments - quite a lot of hysteria for daring to challenge 'accepted science' or religion as I call it. And any way we all know what really causes it - lack of Pirates - if you don't believe try http://www.venganza.org/

 

[boatmike]

Interesting summary. Seems to at least attempt to describe the compexity and uncertainty of the whole subject which has undoubtedly been politicised by over simplification and media hype. Thanks for the link. I will read the detail later!

 

[whipper_snapper]

I really do not think there is any point in yet another climate change slanging match on here.

I've yet to hear a reasoned counter to the arguments

I made a major effort to have a serious dialogue on this, it petered-out against a background noise of people on both sides hurling abuse at each other.

So I can only suggest you go and search out the reasoned arguments for yourself. They are not hard to find.

 

[bedouin]

Unfortunately that is the scientific process - and I think the article makes the point well that it is virtually impossible to go beyond the "credible hypothesis" stage when talking about climate change.

After all Newton's Laws were only a credible hypothesis - which we happen to know to be wrong - but good enough for most purposes