Prince Charles denounces climate skeptics

[ORH_wxman]

And, I'd assume that "winters would become noticeably warmer and less snowy....." is the type of testable hypotheses that Rusty touts, but wants to avoid, because of the EXACT reason why many skeptics are skeptical....our inability to standardize the parameters in the VERY complex climate engine as we test one (CO2).

Predictions are hypotheses.....whether they are weather forecasts, climate forcasts, or forecasts of ANY expected response from an experimentally idealized interaction of 2 or more parameters....testablility allows for those "expected results" to acquire increased confidence level in understanding such interactions.

Yes.

I think part of the problem is the disconnect between what skeptics are versus what they are treated as such for those who adamantly defend the IPCC position. Most of us do not question the physical process of CO2 being a greenhouse gas. But there seems to be a failed understanding sometimes that what skeptics are looking for are more pieces of the puzzle to the climate system which we obviously do not have yet.

[BethesdaWX]

Yes.

I think part of the problem is the disconnect between what skeptics are versus what they are treated as such for those who adamantly defend the IPCC position. Most of us do not question the physical process of CO2 being a greenhouse gas. But there seems to be a failed understanding sometimes that what skeptics are looking for are more pieces of the puzzle to the climate system which we obviously do not have yet.

Why has the debate gotten so heated lately? I can see scientists have differing opinions, but whats with the horrible treatement of scientists with "other" opinions? Over hypothesis too?

Who declared the IPCC as being "mainstream"? They declared themselves "mainstream", so hard presed to show "consensus", shutting down the other side of the debate because it disagrees with their Hypothesis?

Just doesn't make sense unless there is an ulterior motive of some sort, or maybe I'm paranoid? I don't think I am.

[WeatherRusty]

It was in the 2001 IPCC report that winters would become noticeably warmer and less snowy. It took less than 10 years to change that idea.

Do you honestly believe that over a ten year period winters were meant to become noticeably warmer and less snowy? At best, the globally averaged temp would have been expected to have increased by approximately 0.2C. Will snow be as likely in my home town of Lowell, MA if and when the globe is 1C - 2C warmer than today?

[BethesdaWX]

Do you honestly believe that over a ten year period winters were meant to become noticeably warmer and less snowy? At best, the globally averaged temp would have been expected to have increased by approximately 0.2C. Will snow be as likely in my home town of Lowell, MA if and when the globe is 1C - 2C warmer than today?

Can you not see the "big picture" issue here? I don't think you do.

I never knew Hypothesis = inevidable outcome...

[WeatherRusty]

Why has the debate gotten so heated lately? I can see scientists have differing opinions, but whats with the horrible treatement of scientists with "other" opinions? Over hypothesis too?

Who declared the IPCC as being "mainstream"? They declared themselves "mainstream", so hard presed to show "consensus", shutting down the other side of the debate because it disagrees with their Hypothesis?

Just doesn't make sense unless there is an ulterior motive of some sort, or maybe I'm paranoid? I don't think I am.

I think most of us are just wired differently. If we are all honest, and I would hope at this level we are, then all we are arguing for is a good life for our kids and grand kids and a continuation of a biologically diverse world. From my point of view this is not where we are headed and I feel obliged to impart what little I may have to correct the situation. You guys make me feel like an abject failure...

[ORH_wxman]

Do you honestly believe that over a ten year period winters were meant to become noticeably warmer and less snowy? At best, the globally averaged temp would have been expected to have increased by approximately 0.2C. Will snow be as likely in my home town of Lowell, MA if and when the globe is 1C - 2C warmer than today?

No, ten years itself doesn't matter for verification, but why is the tune now being changed to say that we'll see increased snow? If they they had the handle on things 10 years ago, then they might have mentioned this. We are seeing all kinds of "studies" now that bigger snows will become more frequent until the earth finally gets so hot that it won't snow much anymore. But that is clearly a change in tune from the earlier thinking. The Met office was using the warm and snowless winters in the 2000s before the last few seasons to bolster the headlines with silly statements on the side such as "our kids won't know what snowy winters were like and read about them only in books": to paraphrase. Why would they use the those 2000s winters as proof if they don't matter?

Its just another example of "moving the goal posts" as LEK likes to frequently say as an analogy.

[BethesdaWX]

I think most of us are just wired differently. If we are all honest, and I would hope at this level we are, then all we are arguing for is a good life for our kids and grand kids and a continuation of a biologically diverse world. From my point of view this is not where we are headed and I feel obliged to impart what little I may have to correct the situation. You guys make me feel like an abject failure...

You just made me feel like a complete ass...congrats

[BethesdaWX]

You just made me feel like a complete ass...congrats

To add on, I'm all for clean energy and reducing emissions, but that won't change my views on the science at hand in this regard. Pollution, resource depletion, overpopulation, etc, are all issues that Are indeed real imho.

The Big Scare AGW may be a motivator to change...hence its implementation....who knows.

I think you may find more comfort in looking at the larger picture, that could perhaps calm your fears about the future of society and/or your families future...its a concern we all have..our future. Predicting the future, however, cannot be done. But we can guard ourselves.

[WeatherRusty]

No, ten years itself doesn't matter for verification, but why is the tune now being changed to say that we'll see increased snow? If they they had the handle on things 10 years ago, then they might have mentioned this. We are seeing all kinds of "studies" now that bigger snows will become more frequent until the earth finally gets so hot that it won't snow much anymore. But that is clearly a change in tune from the earlier thinking. The Met office was using the warm and snowless winters in the 2000s before the last few seasons to bolster the headlines with silly statements on the side such as "our kids won't know what snowy winters were like and read about them only in books": to paraphrase. Why would they use the those 2000s winters as proof if they don't matter?

Its just another example of "moving the goal posts" as LEK likes to frequently say as an analogy.

I hear and understand what you are saying. Venturing out beyond the general concept that the world is warming and will continue to warm to making specific predictions is dangerous and probably should be avoided. What makes logical sense may not play out exactly as expected. Knowing that the globe is likely to warm 2C - 4.5C sometime following a doubling of CO2 is one thing, supposing to understand how that will affect the overall climate is another.

[WeatherRusty]

To add on, I'm all for clean energy and reducing emissions, but that won't change my views on the science at hand in this regard. Pollution, resource depletion, overpopulation, etc, are all issues that Are indeed real imho.

The Big Scare AGW may be a motivator to change...hence its implementation....who knows.

I think you may find more comfort in looking at the larger picture, that could perhaps calm your fears about the future of society and/or your families future...its a concern we all have..our future. Predicting the future, however, cannot be done. But we can guard ourselves.

Well we can confidently predict some things, even if not to an absolute certainty. I mean, the Sun should rise tomorrow, but who knows, maybe we could be swallowed by a black hole tonight....but I doubt it. Anyway have yourself a good night.

[WeatherRusty]

And, I'd assume that "winters would become noticeably warmer and less snowy....." is the type of testable hypotheses that Rusty touts, but wants to avoid, because of the EXACT reason why many skeptics are skeptical....our inability to standardize the parameters in the VERY complex climate engine as we test one (CO2).

Our atmosphere is in constant flux, and the forcings that go into our climate system not only change over time, but change as other countless parameters change or are added or subtracted. (Fly in a spider web analogy comes to mind).

Predictions are hypotheses.....whether they are weather forecasts, climate forcasts, or forecasts of ANY expected response from an experimentally idealized interaction of 2 or more parameters....testablility allows for those "expected results" to acquire increased confidence level in understanding such interactions.

This same argument can and has been effectively used to delay action on many environmental issues, or indeed when applied to any science that deals with complex systems so as to raise doubt. It is very convincing to state that knowledge is insufficient in an area of science where an outcome is not derived from a clear 1 to 1 cause and effect relationship. When we rely partially on statistical relationships to deduce the likelihood of an occurrence there will always be doubt, however that doubt my in reality be small in the eyes of those close to the research. That doubt can however be utilized by others to present an inflated version as to the significance of that doubt. The most obvious case in point was the denial of the relationship between cigarette smoking and cancer rates in the population. Many of the same "scientists" and conservative think tanks have been involved in creating "disinformation campaigns" surrounding both issues dispite the obvious disconnect between the two issues from a scientific point of view.