As ever, from Tilak Doshi, an excellent overview of the state of the debate on climate change. There are those, such as in The Guardian who cling to the oxymoron of "settled science" and the disproved "97% consensus", along with the equally disproven "hockey stick graph", and those against, such as the experts scientists mentioned and other expert scientists, such as the Prof. Richard Lindzen, Dr David Deming, Peter Ridd, Dr Susan Crockford, and the list goes on for many, many more scientists.
There are also the so-called "Lukewarmer" scientists who think that there is human influence on the climate but not that this is a certain path to Armageddon.
The science is divided, and plays only second fiddle in fact to the politics and geo-politics that has fuelled the debate, and seen most starkly in the Republican v Democrat sides of the debate in the US.
I keep using the word "debate", but this rarely happens, as each camp cannot engage with the other, largely because the science cannot be tested by scientific method - i.e. by creating a hypothesis that can be empirically, objectively tested and falsified.
One of the very worrying directions, however, that The Guardian and, by definition, the UK's Minister for Energy, Ed Miliband's political and ideological espousal of the Anthropogenic Global Warming thesis is in Geo-engineering - i.e. using human scientific intervention to change the climate in an attempt to "save the world" from their idea - not a cogent scientific hypothesis - of what they see as the destructively harmful effects of human activity on the climate.
Geo-engineering also comes under the acronym SRM - Solar Radiation Management.
There seems to be an inherent irony in the two sides to human intervention on the climate, whereby one is "obviously" bad and the other is "obviously" good.
The UK Government, despite all its financial limitations is nonetheless sending some £57 million to a variety of universities around the world to fund 21 projects researching ways to scientifically mitigate the disaster of Anthropogenic Global Warming; climate change. This is all done through ARIA, the UK government’s Advanced Research and Invention Agency.
Of these 21 projects, some projects are receiving between £1m - £9m and have nearly half of the funding researching: e.g.
- Marine cloud brightening
- Arctic re-freezing - i.e. re-thickening Arctic Ice
- Stratospheric aerosol injection
- Upper Troposphere: Advancing Cirrus Control and Experimental Science Strength
- De-risking Cirrus Modification
And there will, of course, be the usual reliance on computer modelling with their in-built limitations of who chooses what data to put in and whether there might possibly be a "desired result" beforehand.
Another problem with this area is that the "results" from one model can become the default data for the following computer model scenario.
All scientific research can be interesting, useful and justified, as we may well learn "accidentally" about other areas that were unplanned and, so, unexpected. These projects are all research, and experimental, at this stage.
The other side scientifically, however, is that of "unintended consequences" and with politicians, political decision-making, political ideologies and ethics involved, if such experiments are moved into "production" then there will be a reckoning, whether or not there is "scientific consensus" or "settled science"; Galileo might have a point of view on that. What could possibly go wrong with Solar Radiation Management then, I wonder? We humans don't have much of a record so far of correctly predicting the future, nor for knowing the future we actually would like, since different parts of the world want, hope for, or require different outcomes.
Thanks Roger for the well reasoned commentary
Thank you Christian!
As ever, from Tilak Doshi, an excellent overview of the state of the debate on climate change. There are those, such as in The Guardian who cling to the oxymoron of "settled science" and the disproved "97% consensus", along with the equally disproven "hockey stick graph", and those against, such as the experts scientists mentioned and other expert scientists, such as the Prof. Richard Lindzen, Dr David Deming, Peter Ridd, Dr Susan Crockford, and the list goes on for many, many more scientists.
There are also the so-called "Lukewarmer" scientists who think that there is human influence on the climate but not that this is a certain path to Armageddon.
The science is divided, and plays only second fiddle in fact to the politics and geo-politics that has fuelled the debate, and seen most starkly in the Republican v Democrat sides of the debate in the US.
I keep using the word "debate", but this rarely happens, as each camp cannot engage with the other, largely because the science cannot be tested by scientific method - i.e. by creating a hypothesis that can be empirically, objectively tested and falsified.
One of the very worrying directions, however, that The Guardian and, by definition, the UK's Minister for Energy, Ed Miliband's political and ideological espousal of the Anthropogenic Global Warming thesis is in Geo-engineering - i.e. using human scientific intervention to change the climate in an attempt to "save the world" from their idea - not a cogent scientific hypothesis - of what they see as the destructively harmful effects of human activity on the climate.
Geo-engineering also comes under the acronym SRM - Solar Radiation Management.
There seems to be an inherent irony in the two sides to human intervention on the climate, whereby one is "obviously" bad and the other is "obviously" good.
The UK Government, despite all its financial limitations is nonetheless sending some £57 million to a variety of universities around the world to fund 21 projects researching ways to scientifically mitigate the disaster of Anthropogenic Global Warming; climate change. This is all done through ARIA, the UK government’s Advanced Research and Invention Agency.
Of these 21 projects, some projects are receiving between £1m - £9m and have nearly half of the funding researching: e.g.
- Marine cloud brightening
- Arctic re-freezing - i.e. re-thickening Arctic Ice
- Stratospheric aerosol injection
- Upper Troposphere: Advancing Cirrus Control and Experimental Science Strength
- De-risking Cirrus Modification
And there will, of course, be the usual reliance on computer modelling with their in-built limitations of who chooses what data to put in and whether there might possibly be a "desired result" beforehand.
Another problem with this area is that the "results" from one model can become the default data for the following computer model scenario.
All scientific research can be interesting, useful and justified, as we may well learn "accidentally" about other areas that were unplanned and, so, unexpected. These projects are all research, and experimental, at this stage.
The other side scientifically, however, is that of "unintended consequences" and with politicians, political decision-making, political ideologies and ethics involved, if such experiments are moved into "production" then there will be a reckoning, whether or not there is "scientific consensus" or "settled science"; Galileo might have a point of view on that. What could possibly go wrong with Solar Radiation Management then, I wonder? We humans don't have much of a record so far of correctly predicting the future, nor for knowing the future we actually would like, since different parts of the world want, hope for, or require different outcomes.
For more on Aria's projects: https://www.aria.org.uk/opportunity-spaces/future-proofing-our-climate-and-weather/exploring-climate-cooling
Thank you Roger for your comments. A lot of issues to consider.
Excellent analysis, Tilak! Keep in touch please! Hugh
Glad you liked the article.
Great article !