Comments on: Sigh.

By: chrislintott

chrislintott — Tue, 07 Aug 2007 21:47:57 +0000

Hi Hashim

You might want to read my post more carefully; I am convinced that mankind is causing climate change, the CO2 increases temperature rather than the other way round, and that we should be doing something about it.

Sorry to disappoint.

By: Hashim Razzaq

Hashim Razzaq — Mon, 06 Aug 2007 01:28:52 +0000

I agree with you totally and I find the present hystreria about climate change rediculous and even kids are being taught that climate change is all down to man kind, THIS IS MADNESS!!!!! scientists aren’t even sure if co2 does increase temperature or if it is the case that temperature increase causes co2 increase.

By: Gill Colling

Gill Colling — Tue, 05 Jun 2007 22:00:11 +0000

The problem is if we aren’t wrong about climate change, by the time we reach even the 95% certainty it will be too late!!!
As has been said the public doesn’t understand probability and the way science works.
I suspect reporters only misunderstand it if there’s a saleable story in it though.
Also the press are very good at the ‘it must be global warming’ statement for any and every bit of unusual or severe weather, i had this discussion with Alice [Sheppard] early, about how careful we have to be not to attribute climate change as the cause of events without evidence. Nothing gives weight to the ‘oh it’s just scientists scaring us’ brigade more.

90% seems to me a tolerable probability in this case, we can’t afford to ignore . And yes Mike I’d plump for the operation too!!

By: Mike Foster

Mike Foster — Wed, 07 Mar 2007 20:05:25 +0000

I should add to my last post that, scientists are just explaining it straight. There migth not be such a massive eco problem, or it might be even worse.

Ultimately, if 20 scientists tell me my chest pain requires an operation while only one suggests that it may instead be caused by ‘gas’, I’ll go with the majority and plan the operation!

By: Mike Foster

Mike Foster — Wed, 07 Mar 2007 19:55:15 +0000

Great post, Chris. I heard a funny quip, I think on the Skeptics Guide To The Universe podcast (which I love and which, despite the name, isn’t an astronomical report!). They said that anyone who still grumbles that climate change is ‘just a theory’ should also doubt gravity, which remains a bit theoretical too, and stick their own head in a guillotine to illustrate their faith in their own grumbles!

Keep up the good work. Always a pleasure to see both you and Patrick on The Sky At Night – surely the most noble-feeling and outright informative TV programme in the UK.

By: Ian Musgrave

Ian Musgrave — Tue, 06 Mar 2007 11:59:46 +0000

We have the same thing happening in Australia, "only 90% certain, that's not ver certain at all" and similar blather. I wrote a blogpost on this. There seems to be something fundamental about science that people just don't get, I find it frustrating too.

By: Alice Sheppard

Alice Sheppard — Thu, 01 Mar 2007 13:37:44 +0000

Hi Chris, I took up the dare and I think I need coffee too. And to buy a copy of the Independent.
Oh, how terrible, we can’t experiment so we have to . . . yes . . . experiment, by using mathematical models, since we haven’t got a spare Earth sitting in the lab to experiment with. And whatever the consequences of decarbonising our economy – which I thought had to happen when the oil runs out anyway? – are those going to be as bad as what’s ALREADY happening due to climate change? The ice caps melting, desertification . . . ?
Is it just me or is being nice and balanced supposed to be more important than trying to get things right? I read Environmental Science at the University of East Anglia a few years ago, where a lot of students thought that to be sceptical of climate change – “oh, it would be happening anyway” – was the clever thing to do! We had a lecture by Bjorn Lomborg, the “Skeptical Environmentalist” man – some of us had great fun picking apart his data and seeing what factors he’d left out of the models HE was using, such as positive feedback mechanisms, release of methane bubbles from the oceans etc – but a lot more tried to turn it into a moralistic/philosophical debate about his intentions. Is that easier to deal with than finding out HOW to live sustainably? I think so.