"For the last 11 years we have not observed any increase in global temperatures." Reported by the BBC 9/10/2009
I came across that quote while researching for this year's Blog Action Day post on 'Climate Change'. So much for the evidence of global warming.
Global warming?
For me, clean air, clean rivers, and abundant wildlife are the signs we are getting it right. Pollution and decay, signs we are getting it wrong. The climate will change (it always has) and it will get warmer (and colder). It always has. There will be catastrophic weather events, crops will fail (and there will be years of bumper harvests). Drought will follow flood. These are as near to certainties as we can get. The science will lead to change (even if not 'climate change'); and more efficient use of resources (read: reduce CO2 emissions) is certainly a worthwhile goal. So while I remain cynical about the headline claims, I do support moves to reduce carbon emissions, to reduce unnecessary exploitation of finite resources, to use clean and renewable energy. These things make sense whatever the weather happens to be doing outside.
So me? I'll continue to wrap up warm (or wear a sun hat), take out a camera, observe the richness and beauty of nature, and follow the changing seasons.
And wherever I go I will leave a small carbon footprint to mark my passage. But it won't be as small as her footprint.
Camera note: snow scene taken in February this year with the Canon 40D and EF17-40mm f/4L USM lens. The vixen was photographed tonight with the 40D and EF70-300mm 4.5-5.6 DO IS lens.
gdare
15 Oct 2009And she is adorable 🙂
RobinL
15 Oct 2009I agree with you whole heartedly. And another great shot of Bold
anonymous
15 Oct 2009TBR writes:
Best not be so controversial on another "wildlife site" Words.
The lunatic scaremongers will be terribly, terribly upset and start quoting "peer reviews" at you. (Not that they have the foggiest what that ACTUALLY means). Ho hum.
By the way – very VERY good (succinct) post.
TBR
daneru
15 Oct 2009I agree. :yes:
Words
15 Oct 2009Thanks Daneru!
Words
15 Oct 2009Thanks Robin. Have you noticed how 'global warming' has been replaced by 'climate change' as the phrase to use? It's a bit like saying 'weather variable'. Of course it is!
Words
15 Oct 2009Darko, not only that, but she'll keep warm in winter 😉
Words
15 Oct 2009Thanks Tab!
Tabmartel
15 Oct 2009Nice post!
🙂
Tabmartel
15 Oct 2009Welcome!
The photo's you post always make me wanna grab my camera and head outside, but I seldom have the time anymore.
Words
15 Oct 2009Doug, if you mean WAB I just took a look. I think the real problem is that science (when properly understood as a 'method' of understanding) deals in quite extreme abstractions. No model can ever deal with everything, so they atomize the problems into constituent parts but without knowing which part really does what. So you get useful models and less useful models, simple models and grandiose models. But what is clear is that no scientist has ever got the answer 'right'. Ever. If they did, we wouldn't need scientists and we wouldn't have scientific advancement.
That's not to say that we shouldn't support science (I work alongside many brilliant scientists, some whom are leading figures in parts of this debate, and all of whom are under-funded). The work is invaluable. And tough. The problems arise when political ambition coincides with current levels of knowledge and elevate theory into political fact. What happens then is a kind of symbiosis whereby political need drives funding, which drives research focus, which tends to reinforce the preferred model because that's where the funding goes. Those outside the loop, don't get funded. It's not a conspiracy as such, but can – if unchecked – lead to massive over-complication as the fragile theoretical models are subjected to demands of proof they simply can't attain. So I see the failure as one of politics not of science. Much the same goes on in wildlife conservation where money goes to grand headline projects, and more practical solutions are ignored.
Whoops… I didn't mean to go on for so long. At least the original post was brief 😉
Words
16 Oct 2009I have a whole theory about time.. but maybe for another day.
Tabmartel
16 Oct 2009I look forward to your theory.
anonymous
16 Oct 2009TBR writes:
"political need drives funding, which drives research focus, which tends to reinforce the preferred model because that's where the funding goes. Those outside the loop, don't get funded. It's not a conspiracy as such, but can – if unchecked – lead to massive over-complication as the fragile theoretical models are subjected to demands of proof they simply can't attain." (quote you).
Absolutely.
"That's not to say that we shouldn't support science" (quote you again).
Absolutely! Again!
What we musn't do though (and scientists per se are certainly not guilty of this, it's the pseudo-scientists who are and the headline-only readers) is be arrogant about science.
Science (and scientists in general) is /are wonderfully, refreshingly humble (like you – I should know also). It's the politics (*and the lunatics and scaremongerers) that wallow in the arrogant drivel re this hot potato…
I've not been on WAB for a long, long time by the way – too busy with chickens, cats, foxes etc!
TBR
SittingFox
16 Oct 2009She is beautiful…
As for the climate change debate, I have my own theories about why the coverage is the way that it is, but without solid evidence, I'd rather not publically speculate. The media is its own monster, and I would rather read journals than newspapers, although I fully recognise their limitations.
To TBR: for what it's worth, I'm not a fan of WAB either, for different reasons. But humble scientists are not…very common 😉 Whatever the ideals, a fair number of them have pet theories, and a few can be downright nasty at times. I know which professors on my old university campus I chose to avoid, and it wasn't because they were bad at their subject!
Words
16 Oct 2009Adele, you've got me wondering about your theories on the media coverage. It's certainly always better to read the journal sources rather than the quite absurd media coverage that science (and indeed social science) breakthroughs all too often garner.
Dibay
17 Oct 2009How do we diffrenciate between global warming and climatic change. Ooh! science of our time. Before we will realize, the world will become the DOOMS day. Let us join hands on this topic to redress issue at stake. Kudos to every contributor to this millenium age of change.
Words
17 Oct 2009Well I think the experts have already differentiated and have stopped using 'global warming' to describe what may happen. They are right that the climate changes; what is less clear is the evidence that it is irreversible and in one direction, or even that carbon emissions are the primary cause. Yes there are connections, but the time-line we operate in is far too short for the evidence to develop in a way we can yet understand. So most of the science is based on modelling via computers, and that's where all the major assumptions and abstractions occur. Science limits what we look at, And that's why the science is so uncertain and always a stage in a longer development of knowledge. At the moment we do not know what factors are important or how they relate to each other and in what proportion.