|
|
Post by CrocRob on Jun 4, 2008 8:19:23 GMT -5
edit: Not that there isn't real evidence one way or another available, I've just yet to see any here. Do you have any or have access to any "real" evidence? If by "real" you mean "untainted" as the brilliant article above qualifies, then no, of course not. None exists. If by "real" you mean articles accepted by peers in published journals, then I've read plenty detailing both sides of the argument. I remain fairly neutral (though I admit I lean toward "climate change" when pressed into taking sides) in whether the world is going to boil, or ice over because it's not terribly relevant. I do, however, know that for one planet, 7 billion human beings with a history of reaping short gains over long-term sustainability can't be a good thing. For me, for my children (should I be so blessed), and their children. It doesn't take "real" or "untainted" evidence to figure that out. Whether global warming is an issue isn't important to me, but being a responsible human being is. Whether or not our affect is adverse or not doesn't matter, we should still be striving for minimal effect. |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Jun 4, 2008 9:18:12 GMT -5
Whether global warming is an issue isn't important to me, but being a responsible human being is. Whether or not our affect is adverse or not doesn't matter, we should still be striving for minimal effect. On this we agree.... but the question is "How to be a responsible human being?". Recycle, yes, .... use less energy, yes .... conserve water, sure ..... but the "causes" of climate change need to be analyzed in depth (I leave the arguemnt aside as to weather it has been or not). Why? Because we can't afford to be wrong. People say they'd rather err on the side of the planet, spend gazillions of dollars on a theory that may be right. But that money can be spent on a whole host of other issues more pressing than climate change if in fact it is a result of solar flares (which are not as active now), or ocean currents, or whatever ..... run the debt, and thereby the economies of the world into the ground on a false hypothesis? I think not ... That biologist friend I told you about said one thing that I haven't been able to verify .... but I'll say what he said (maybe someone can prove him wrong, cause I think he may be) ... but it kinda stuck with me.... ... he said the species of the world were at their peak during the time of the dinosaurs. They were bigger, stronger, the world was greener, and CO2 was (in his opinion) very high. It wasn't global warming that killed off the top of the food chain, it was an ice-age. (one meteor, or one volcanic event puts more CO2 into the air than man ever could was how he put it)..... ... so does CO2 cause global warming? Our winter are worse now than anytime in the last century. I'd like definitive proof it is CO2 before spending all that money. Cause if we are wrong, we may not be able to fix the real problem. If CO2 is the problem (and I have my doubts) than I'd be more than happy to spend the money ... in the meantime small measures can be done by everyone, but I'm not sure we can stop/penalize our industries and effect our ecomonies and at the same time let other nations continue on at worse rates than we ever contributed. Two wrongs dont make a right .... the solution is to get everybody on side, a global solution ... good luck with that though. This is why we need to be right, cause it will be easier to convince China, India, USA, etc with proof instead of speculation. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Jun 4, 2008 9:29:05 GMT -5
If by "real" you mean "untainted" as the brilliant article above qualifies, then no, of course not. None exists.. And THAT is my problem. I hear screaming and an endless parade of apocalyptic "information" that on closer inspection qualifies as junk science. Normally, I would just step aside and go into "live and let live" mode as I do with religion. BUT when the screamers and sky fallers DEMAND control of peoples lives to suit their agenda, it annoys me. I could live with annoyance too but now the left wing politicians are hell bent on tearing us a new one with pseudo morality of "save the planet, bend over". As for the article, it is as neutral as David Suzuki is. What I enjoy is the hard slam on the left wingers hijacking earth sciences to spew their version of 1984. P.S. If you want to go blind, try this site. www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/cat_climate_part_3_from_march_2008.html |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Jun 4, 2008 9:49:51 GMT -5
Whether global warming is an issue isn't important to me, but being a responsible human being is. Whether or not our affect is adverse or not doesn't matter, we should still be striving for minimal effect. On this we agree.... but the question is "How to be a responsible human being?". Recycle, yes, .... use less energy, yes .... conserve water, sure ..... but the "causes" of climate change need to be analyzed in depth (I leave the arguemnt aside as to weather it has been or not). Why? Because we can't afford to be wrong. People say they'd rather err on the side of the planet, spend gazillions of dollars on a theory that may be right. But that money can be spent on a whole host of other issues more pressing than climate change if in fact it is a result of solar flares (which are not as active now), or ocean currents, or whatever ..... run the debt, and thereby the economies of the world into the ground on a false hypothesis? I think not ... Bingo. I can't think of a single person who has ever said "pollution is great". As for the "world" economies. You are wrong. The expectation is that ONLY the Western economies should be run into the ground and everybody else should benefit from that. Read the Kyoto Accord. Read paragraph 10 and 11. Now be a good socialist and give your "carbon credit" money to someone you never met or cared to meet in some remote corner of the world that humans should not even bother to live on. Don't ask questions, just obay. |
|
|
|
Post by CrocRob on Jun 4, 2008 12:31:22 GMT -5
If by "real" you mean "untainted" as the brilliant article above qualifies, then no, of course not. None exists.. And THAT is my problem. I hear screaming and an endless parade of apocalyptic "information" that on closer inspection qualifies as junk science. Normally, I would just step aside and go into "live and let live" mode as I do with religion. BUT when the screamers and sky fallers DEMAND control of peoples lives to suit their agenda, it annoys me. I could live with annoyance too but now the left wing politicians are hell bent on tearing us a new one with pseudo morality of "save the planet, bend over". As for the article, it is as neutral as David Suzuki is. What I enjoy is the hard slam on the left wingers hijacking earth sciences to spew their version of 1984. P.S. If you want to go blind, try this site. www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/cat_climate_part_3_from_march_2008.htmlAt the same time, there's no unbiased evidence on the other side, either. So disregard all biased information, and we have none at all. And a lack of evidence doesn't discount something, it only means we're in the dark about it. Which is the whole problem with human civilization in the first place. We need proof before we're willing to do anything, and by the time we have proof it's too late or costs hundreds or millions of times more than it would had we taken ANY reasonable early measure. Science needs to be funded differently. Governments need to allocate funds to be spent on research that are distributed in a way somehow independent from bias, instead of relying on private industry to fund research where the scientists know a desired outcome before they conduct a study. |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Jun 4, 2008 12:49:26 GMT -5
And THAT is my problem. I hear screaming and an endless parade of apocalyptic "information" that on closer inspection qualifies as junk science. Normally, I would just step aside and go into "live and let live" mode as I do with religion. BUT when the screamers and sky fallers DEMAND control of peoples lives to suit their agenda, it annoys me. I could live with annoyance too but now the left wing politicians are hell bent on tearing us a new one with pseudo morality of "save the planet, bend over". As for the article, it is as neutral as David Suzuki is. What I enjoy is the hard slam on the left wingers hijacking earth sciences to spew their version of 1984. P.S. If you want to go blind, try this site. www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/cat_climate_part_3_from_march_2008.htmlAt the same time, there's no unbiased evidence on the other side, either. So disregard all biased information, and we have none at all. And a lack of evidence doesn't discount something, it only means we're in the dark about it. Which is the whole problem with human civilization in the first place. We need proof before we're willing to do anything, and by the time we have proof it's too late or costs hundreds or millions of times more than it would had we taken ANY reasonable early measure. Science needs to be funded differently. Governments need to allocate funds to be spent on research that are distributed in a way somehow independent from bias, instead of relying on private industry to fund research where the scientists know a desired outcome before they conduct a study. However, let's say we spend trillions of dollars in an attempt to lower or increase CO2 levels (depending on if you believe the warming or cooling hypothesis) and we are wrong. What happens? Nothing you say, we try again? Lets go further and say that time has not run out on us wating time with CO2 levels .... and some scientist says "oh wait, it is actually methane (just as an example)" Who is going to believe him? Everyone is going to say "you were wrong about CO2, and it will take ten maybe a hundred times longer to get anyone to do anything. It will be the classic "scientist who cried wolf".... ... let's get it right. |
|
|
|
Post by CrocRob on Jun 4, 2008 13:10:46 GMT -5
At the same time, there's no unbiased evidence on the other side, either. So disregard all biased information, and we have none at all. And a lack of evidence doesn't discount something, it only means we're in the dark about it. Which is the whole problem with human civilization in the first place. We need proof before we're willing to do anything, and by the time we have proof it's too late or costs hundreds or millions of times more than it would had we taken ANY reasonable early measure. Science needs to be funded differently. Governments need to allocate funds to be spent on research that are distributed in a way somehow independent from bias, instead of relying on private industry to fund research where the scientists know a desired outcome before they conduct a study. However, let's say we spend trillions of dollars in an attempt to lower or increase CO2 levels (depending on if you believe the warming or cooling hypothesis) and we are wrong. What happens? Nothing you say, we try again? Lets go further and say that time has not run out on us wating time with CO2 levels .... and some scientist says "oh wait, it is actually methane (just as an example)" Who is going to believe him? Everyone is going to say "you were wrong about CO2, and it will take ten maybe a hundred times longer to get anyone to do anything. It will be the classic "scientist who cried wolf".... ... let's get it right. Obviously you didn't read that I wrote reasonable early measure. Spending trillions of dollars isn't reasonable, but legislating lower pollution and reusable plastics (for a couple of things) isn't going to cost trillions of dollars to implement. I think it's too convenient to wait, do nothing, and profit (in this case with a higher standard of living) from it. There are countless examples where waiting has cost humanity more than it ought to have. Ask the Jews how they feel about the U.S. waiting around and profiting from the situation. Or when many Asian countries wanted to expand tsunami detection 10 years ago from only the Pacific into the Indian Ocean, how'd that end up? The technology was proprietary! We can't share it with you! I'm not saying that "climate change" (is that the appropriate term?) is going to cost hundreds of thousands of lives, or that we should spend into oblivion to save ourselves. I'm saying we should take measures to help save ourselves from.. ourselves. I agree with the "scientist who cried wolf" analogy, but that possibility doesn't discount our responsibility to take reasonable measures to, at least, decrease our national gluttony. As an aside, you know what plastics recycling does? It depresses oil prices and creates a plastics export market for the government, which is a good thing for consumers. So you tax companies a few cents for unrecyclable packaging, which they will in turn save portions of on fuel, and save a bit because the government has additional revenue. I'll stop rationalizing my proposal now. |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Jun 4, 2008 20:21:52 GMT -5
Obviously you didn't read that I wrote reasonable early measure. Spending trillions of dollars isn't reasonable, but legislating lower pollution and reusable plastics (for a couple of things) isn't going to cost trillions of dollars to implement. You'd be surprised at how much it is going to cost companies to reduce their CO2 emmisions. If it was only going to cost them "reasonable" money it would be done and forgot about now ... pure speculation, but I am willing to bet that humanity has already spent trillions of dollars on research and global warming measures. And there are countless examples of where humanity rushed into something and turned out to be wrong..... Iraq, ...many drugs rushed to market that end up as class action suits ... etc. No one here has disagreed with the last statement. HA, and myself (the two guys arguing the most that the science is flawed) both recycle, both take measures to limit our impact on the environment..... but that's not what the "pro climate change scientists" are after us to do (those measures are common sense measures of community minded people). They want us to pump trillions upon trillions into their hypothetical .... think about that last word, it is only a hypothesis. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Jun 4, 2008 22:38:29 GMT -5
No one here has disagreed with the last statement. HA, and myself (the two guys arguing the most that the science is flawed) both recycle, both take measures to limit our impact on the environment..... Absolutely. When I drive my Hummer, I make sure to park it at the closest handicap zone so I don't have to walk too far....and exhale CO2. When I shop and the lineup is too long, I throw some money to the side and watch the poor people fight for it. It not only let's me get to the front of the line, it entertains me enough so I don't have to take my private jet down to some exotic location to get my jollies. Not only do I save the planet, I help the poor people too. You think I stop there with my well honed social consiousness? No sir. When I go polar bear hunting, I always kill the mother AND the cubs. That way I save the fish AND dead bears don't exhale climate changing CO2. Pffft......and they say rich people don't care about our planet.  |
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Jun 5, 2008 8:27:03 GMT -5
No one here has disagreed with the last statement. HA, and myself (the two guys arguing the most that the science is flawed) both recycle, both take measures to limit our impact on the environment..... Absolutely. When I drive my Hummer, I make sure to park it at the closest handicap zone so I don't have to walk too far....and exhale CO2. When I shop and the lineup is too long, I throw some money to the side and watch the poor people fight for it. It not only let's me get to the front of the line, it entertains me enough so I don't have to take my private jet down to some exotic location to get my jollies. Not only do I save the planet, I help the poor people too. You think I stop there with my well honed social consiousness? No sir. When I go polar bear hunting, I always kill the mother AND the cubs. That way I save the fish AND dead bears don't exhale climate changing CO2. Pffft......and they say rich people don't care about our planet. Well said and very entertaining; but; it's the successful people that make the world successful, not the people on welfare. We are quick to chastize the people who drive Hummers and can afford $20 a gallon gas. They are the ones that risk capital to open a small business that employs small wage earners. The risk takers and visionaries make millions with a McDonalds franchise. They select a location study traffic, train employees and promptly address impediments to success. The employee that fills out an application and settles for $6.50 an hour to flip burgers and ask if you want fries with that is getting exactly what he deserves.  |
|
|
|
Post by CrocRob on Jun 5, 2008 8:58:24 GMT -5
Obviously you didn't read that I wrote reasonable early measure. Spending trillions of dollars isn't reasonable, but legislating lower pollution and reusable plastics (for a couple of things) isn't going to cost trillions of dollars to implement. You'd be surprised at how much it is going to cost companies to reduce their CO2 emmisions. If it was only going to cost them "reasonable" money it would be done and forgot about now ... pure speculation, but I am willing to bet that humanity has already spent trillions of dollars on research and global warming measures. Well, since we can only control what's done in Canada, I was more referring to spending our entire GDP (about $1.1 trillion) on global warming measures. And there are countless examples of where humanity rushed into something and turned out to be wrong..... Iraq, ...many drugs rushed to market that end up as class action suits ... etc. And now we have a drug system that doesn't allow drugs to make it to market if there are side effects in small cases. I can't imagine that someone with a fatal illness would be unwilling to take a particular drug to increase their chances of prolonging life at the risk of shortening it. I read about a drug that the FDA denied, which treated small-celled lung cancer. According to the article it stagnated the cancer development in like 30% of cases, and actually reduced it in another 10%. It was denied because in 10% of cases the cancer advanced more rapidly and death was much quicker. These kinds of medicines should be available to people who are willing to throw the hail mary, at the risk of getting sacked from the blind side. If it were me, I wouldn't be satisfied snapping the ball and running away from the pass rush as long as possible, without trying to advance the ball. It's so frustrating to me that we jump from one extreme to another with stuff like that, but really that's a topic for another thread. You're perfectly correct that there are instances of the other side as well. No one here has disagreed with the last statement. HA, and myself (the two guys arguing the most that the science is flawed) both recycle, both take measures to limit our impact on the environment..... but that's not what the "pro climate change scientists" are after us to do (those measures are common sense measures of community minded people). They want us to pump trillions upon trillions into their hypothetical .... think about that last word, it is only a hypothesis. I guess it's a matter of what people see as a reasonable impact. I find that in 90% (to be kind, but really it's 100%) of cases people are willing to do something to limit their impact so long as it's convenient or they have incentive. If not, it doesn't happen. We should be legislating convenience and incentives for common-sense things. It baffles me that we still don't have a trash quota in Canada. Not sure if that's a regional/provincial or national-level failing, but I see people put out 4, 5, 6 bags of trash every week around here. I live in a household of 7, and combined we accumulate 2 bags of refuse each week. It's easier for me to say/do stuff, because I was brought up in a household where waste awareness was there. My father does research on water conservation and waste management, but how do we teach everyone what I learned? |
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Jun 5, 2008 9:36:07 GMT -5
And now we have a drug system that doesn't allow drugs to make it to market if there are side effects in small cases. I can't imagine that someone with a fatal illness would be unwilling to take a particular drug to increase their chances of prolonging life at the risk of shortening it. I read about a drug that the FDA denied, which treated small-celled lung cancer. According to the article it stagnated the cancer development in like 30% of cases, and actually reduced it in another 10%. It was denied because in 10% of cases the cancer advanced more rapidly and death was much quicker. These kinds of medicines should be available to people who are willing to throw the hail mary, at the risk of getting sacked from the blind side. If it were me, I wouldn't be satisfied snapping the ball and running away from the pass rush as long as possible, without trying to advance the ball. It's so frustrating to me that we jump from one extreme to another with stuff like that, but really that's a topic for another thread. You're perfectly correct that there are instances of the other side as well. Without knowing the specifics of that case (and thus I'm talking out of my ear) is it possible that the drug was refused because; A) While the statistics used meet scientific standards, they were nonetheless manipulated (again, in accordance and within acceptable scientific standards) so that the actual numbers themselves are somewhat misleading. B) The sample sizes were simply too small. C) By allowing the drug to hit the market as is, there is no more financial incentive for the research company to continuing improving its product, as they are already making their money. If everybody is okay with a 10% casualty rate, and is willing to spend billions of dollars to buy this drug, why should the company continue to spend billions of dollars conducting further research, when they've already got the market cornered? |
|
|
|
Post by HABsurd on Jun 5, 2008 12:54:04 GMT -5
Absolutely. When I drive my Hummer, I make sure to park it at the closest handicap zone so I don't have to walk too far....and exhale CO2. When I shop and the lineup is too long, I throw some money to the side and watch the poor people fight for it. It not only let's me get to the front of the line, it entertains me enough so I don't have to take my private jet down to some exotic location to get my jollies. Not only do I save the planet, I help the poor people too. You think I stop there with my well honed social consiousness? No sir. When I go polar bear hunting, I always kill the mother AND the cubs. That way I save the fish AND dead bears don't exhale climate changing CO2. Pffft......and they say rich people don't care about our planet. Well said and very entertaining; but; it's the successful people that make the world successful, not the people on welfare. We are quick to chastize the people who drive Hummers and can afford $20 a gallon gas. They are the ones that risk capital to open a small business that employs small wage earners. The risk takers and visionaries make millions with a McDonalds franchise. They select a location study traffic, train employees and promptly address impediments to success. The employee that fills out an application and settles for $6.50 an hour to flip burgers and ask if you want fries with that is getting exactly what he deserves. Love the sarcasm. You almost had me going until you called McDonalds' franchise owners, "visionaries". |
|
|
|
Post by HABsurd on Jun 5, 2008 13:04:44 GMT -5
At the same time, there's no unbiased evidence on the other side, either. So disregard all biased information, and we have none at all. And a lack of evidence doesn't discount something, it only means we're in the dark about it. Which is the whole problem with human civilization in the first place. We need proof before we're willing to do anything, and by the time we have proof it's too late or costs hundreds or millions of times more than it would had we taken ANY reasonable early measure. Science needs to be funded differently. Governments need to allocate funds to be spent on research that are distributed in a way somehow independent from bias, instead of relying on private industry to fund research where the scientists know a desired outcome before they conduct a study. However, let's say we spend trillions of dollars in an attempt to lower or increase CO2 levels (depending on if you believe the warming or cooling hypothesis) and we are wrong. What happens? Nothing you say, we try again? Lets go further and say that time has not run out on us wating time with CO2 levels .... and some scientist says "oh wait, it is actually methane (just as an example)" Who is going to believe him? Everyone is going to say "you were wrong about CO2, and it will take ten maybe a hundred times longer to get anyone to do anything. It will be the classic "scientist who cried wolf".... ... let's get it right. Let's see, we rely upon the like of Krauthammer, Lorne Gunter of the NP, or Greenpeace etc. for scientific analysis and then complain that our sources are biased? Maybe you should look to other sources. As an aside, a fascinating article about polictical bias in NASA can be found here, www.nytimes.com/2008/06/03/science/earth/03nasa.html?_r=1&scp=2&sq=NASA&st=nyt&oref=sloginWhere NASA's own watchdog concluded that, "Our investigation," the report said, "found that during the fall of 2004 through early 2006, the NASA Headquarters Office of Public Affairs managed the topic of climate change in a manner that reduced, marginalized or mischaracterized climate change science made available to the general public." The report said most evidence supported contentions that politics was "inextricably interwoven" into operations at the public affairs office in that period and that the pattern was inconsistent with the statutory responsibility to communicate findings widely, "especially on a topic that has worldwide scientific interest." Back on point, while I realize that it is easier to talk about the size of Gore's house here is an useful article about the scientific consensus on climate change. (and guess what - it even comes with references!) BEYOND THE IVORY TOWER: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686 |
|
|
|
Post by HABsurd on Jun 5, 2008 13:16:10 GMT -5
However, let's say we spend trillions of dollars in an attempt to lower or increase CO2 levels (depending on if you believe the warming or cooling hypothesis) and we are wrong. What happens? Nothing you say, we try again? Lets go further and say that time has not run out on us wating time with CO2 levels .... and some scientist says "oh wait, it is actually methane (just as an example)" Who is going to believe him? Everyone is going to say "you were wrong about CO2, and it will take ten maybe a hundred times longer to get anyone to do anything. It will be the classic "scientist who cried wolf".... ... let's get it right. Is your argument that we should do nothing because we shouldn't spend trillions? I agree that this is not going to happen, but .... Perhaps we could change enact policies that do not use the existing tax base to subsidize urban sprawl. Perhaps we could not send tax dollars to subsidize GM under the guise of an environmental policy. |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Jun 5, 2008 13:56:15 GMT -5
An agnostic replies . . . The = only . . . and it isn't consensus . . . and there isn't . . . even the article admits it . . . and then talks of "likelihood" . . . and says Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position. I think that's what the Catholic church said to Galileo as well. The question of what to do about climate change is also still open. Agreed. No one here doubts that we have a responsibility to this planet and that the consumeristic rape of the Earth must end . . . it is the how that is in question. Giving billions of dollars to other world areas to buy their non-polluting credits merely allows us to continue as we are. Hmmm . . . I think I'm heading toward self-regulation. And a carbon tax on everyone else but me. It is time for the rest of us to listen. Ms. Naomi Oreskes -- you almost had me. But then you came out with the old "I/we know what's best" and lost me, so I'm still floating around the middle of the discussion. |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Jun 5, 2008 21:38:35 GMT -5
Is your argument that we should do nothing because we shouldn't spend trillions? No ... my arguement is that we can spend that trillion of dollars better elsewhere if CO2 ends up being an incorrect hypothesis. That's a luxury we can't afford. Also, if we spend trillions of dollars and are wrong ... well try convincing everyone that your next hypothesis is right. You wont get the next trillions of dollars, if we have time. If we are going to spend that kind of money, the very least we can do, is make sure we are right. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Jun 6, 2008 0:31:55 GMT -5
Naomi Chosky agrees with David Suzuki who agrees with Al Gore so everything MUST be true because they are the true litmus test of truth and honesty. Let's get a clue with what is happening..... Who is the IPCC.....straight from their site. Mandate
The IPCC was established to provide the decision-makers and others interested in climate change with an objective source of information about climate change. The IPCC does not conduct any research nor does it monitor climate related data or parameters. Its role is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the latest scientific, technical and socio-economic literature produced worldwide relevant to the understanding of the risk of human-induced climate change, its observed and projected impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation. IPCC reports should be neutral with respect to policy, although they need to deal objectively with policy relevant scientific, technical and socio economic factors. They should be of high scientific and technical standards, and aim to reflect a range of views, expertise and wide geographical coverage.So we have a group whose mandate is to "asses" the assumption that we have human induced climate change. On top of that, those who doing the "assessment" are from pro to hard core environmentalist with an AGENDA. They pick the articles and the scientist they want to CONFIRM their pre-existing bias and SUPRISE...they come out "scientific consensus". Let's not forget they attack any scientist who dares to challenge their view or their process. This is as scientifically derived unbiased results as asking a crack addict if he likes crack....... The scientists: hundreds of scientists all over the world contribute to the work of the IPCC as authors, contributors and reviewers. Note from their OWN SITE that it's from a selected "hundreds" of scientist. Not thousands, not millions, but rather "hundreds". World wide scientific consensus.....yeah, and I have a bridge to sell. The people: as United Nations body, the IPCC work aims at the promotion of the United Nations human development goals Is there even the slightest doubt that this tells us that it's a UN left wing agenda? Their selection of people is to PROMOTE the UN "human development goals". NOT to further science or be true to scientific accuracy, but rather to PROMOTE HUMAN DEVELOPMENT GOALS. Again, can anyone possibly argue that the "global warming" hysterics does not have an lefitist agenda behind it? Read Kyoto Accord. Read Paragraphs 10 and 11. When governments accept the IPCC reports and approve their Summary for Policymakers, they acknowledge the legitimacy of their scientific content.ENTIRE PURPOSE OF THIS BODY is to influence government policies that are consistent with the UN's HUMAN DEVELOPMENT. Not science or a semblance to scientific "truth", but HUMAN DEVELOPMENT. Also note that they are saying that the governments must acknowledge their scientific legitimacy. Repeat, "scientific legitimacy". Since when does real science need governments to acknowledge their scientific legitimacy? This is why I keep saying it's a "derived" science. Pick and chose the research and derive at a pre determined conclusion and the governments have to promote it as "legitimate" science. With all dues respect, does anyone actually READ what the intent of this "global warming" malarkey is all about? It's right there in black and white...... www.ipcc.ch/about/index.htm |
|
|
|
Post by CrocRob on Jun 6, 2008 0:44:00 GMT -5
Speaking of consensus, when is that 10th dentist finally going to recommend my toothpaste? It's killing me! Why does he think it's bad?
|
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Jun 6, 2008 0:49:37 GMT -5
Speaking of consensus, when is that 10th dentist finally going to recommend my toothpaste? It's killing me! Why does he think it's bad? LOL! That's actually funny. |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Jun 6, 2008 7:20:46 GMT -5
Skilly, HA . . . time to give it up: The debate is over, the science is conclusive:Climate change is real, it is man-made and unless something is done, it will damage the planet and our way of life. Stephane Dion So I guess that's that. Climate change is undeniably all man-made, everybody agrees, and so let's get on with cleaning things up. First thing we do: quickly put a price on carbon -- because that -- I'm sure also undeniably -- we end the damage that we are doing to the planet. The buzz-word: tax-shifting. Also revenue-neutral taxes. Yup, I believe it. My government is going to create a new tax and then give it back to me somehow. [Now where's that sarcastic smilie when you need it?] At least he isn't suggesting -- today at least -- that we buy carbon credits from third world countries, because that will have even less effect on ending the problem than taxation. "But Franko," you say, "if producers of carbon have to pay for it won't they immediately take action to end the production of same?". Ummm . . . their main action will be to immediately raise the price of their commodities so that they continue to make their profits. I just wish Mr. Dion would indeed dowhat he says he wants to: engage Canadians in an honest debate. But when he says "discussion is over", debate is . . . to say the least . . . difficult. |
|
|
|
Post by HABsurd on Jun 6, 2008 11:26:20 GMT -5
An agnostic replies . . . The = only . . . and it isn't consensus . . . and there isn't . . . even the article admits it . . . and then talks of "likelihood" . . . and says Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position. I think that's what the Catholic church said to Galileo as well. Note that she only looked at peer reviewed journals, and only the most highly esteemed ones at that. Hence retired oil company geologists like Sorokhtin who don't publish in major peer reviewed journals would not get included. |
|
|
|
Post by CrocRob on Jun 6, 2008 11:43:28 GMT -5
An agnostic replies . . . The = only . . . and it isn't consensus . . . and there isn't . . . even the article admits it . . . and then talks of "likelihood" . . . and says Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position. I think that's what the Catholic church said to Galileo as well. Note that she only looked at peer reviewed journals, and only the most highly esteemed ones at that. Hence retired oil company geologists like Sorokhtin who don't publish in major peer reviewed journals would not get included. I'm not sure why someone who doesn't submit his work for peer review deserves to have it considered in any substantial debate. |
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Jun 6, 2008 12:27:44 GMT -5
The biggest obstacle to a green world is the population explosion. There are too many people by several billion than the earth can support with high quality of life for all. If Etheopia keeps producing babies, Skilly's neighbors can't catch enough fish to feed them for a day, let alone teach them to fish on the drought stricken plains of Africa. Dropping rice out of airplanes will keep them alive but not stop them from resenting the wealthy in the world.
It is not the fault of the US that there are no jobs or opportunities in Mexico for their exploding population. People are fleeing the Phillipines for citizenship in America, etc, etc, etc.
Europe is absorbing Muslims from Africa and Asia. They are not thankful for the help and opportunities. They are resentful we don't do more. (not a rant singling out Muslims)
Much of the billions of assistance we hand out is viewed as too little too late.
Time to put the blame for their situation where it belongs, on them, not on us.
|
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Jun 6, 2008 14:03:06 GMT -5
Note that she only looked at peer reviewed journals, and only the most highly esteemed ones at that. Hence retired oil company geologists like Sorokhtin who don't publish in major peer reviewed journals would not get included. I'm not sure why someone who doesn't submit his work for peer review deserves to have it considered in any substantial debate. Because peer review, especially on contentious issues, means nothing. Or rather, it means that the people selected to review your worked tended to want to see what you were saying. Consider, how favorably would you review a document that would ruin your chance of securing more large, multi-million dollar grants? What about one that supported your chances? Or, think about it this way. It wasn't just the Catholic Church that condemned the work of Galileo and Copernicus - it was the entire academic community (the two were heavily intertwined at the time). What makes it so different now? Being peer reviewed just means that someone else has read your work and agreed with you conclusion. Nothing more. Point in case. Last year an amateur meteorologist and astute statistician went over some of the much vaunted IPCC's data, and found big gaping flaws. The IPCC contended that the nineties were the hottest decade on record, but after the calculations were corrected, it was proven that the 1930's were. Further to that, although the IPCC contended that there had been a warming trend starting in the 90's continuing on until today, the revised numbers showed that it the warming trend ended in 2002, and that the planets temperature has been stable (or cooling) ever since. The IPCC subsequently removed the data in question from their site, and proceeded to ignore all the findings. But yeah - it was all 'peer reviewed' |
|
|
|
Post by CrocRob on Jun 6, 2008 15:34:23 GMT -5
I'm not sure why someone who doesn't submit his work for peer review deserves to have it considered in any substantial debate. Because peer review, especially on contentious issues, means nothing. Or rather, it means that the people selected to review your worked tended to want to see what you were saying. Consider, how favorably would you review a document that would ruin your chance of securing more large, multi-million dollar grants? What about one that supported your chances? Or, think about it this way. It wasn't just the Catholic Church that condemned the work of Galileo and Copernicus - it was the entire academic community (the two were heavily intertwined at the time). What makes it so different now? Being peer reviewed just means that someone else has read your work and agreed with you conclusion. Nothing more. Point in case. Last year an amateur meteorologist and astute statistician went over some of the much vaunted IPCC's data, and found big gaping flaws. The IPCC contended that the nineties were the hottest decade on record, but after the calculations were corrected, it was proven that the 1930's were. Further to that, although the IPCC contended that there had been a warming trend starting in the 90's continuing on until today, the revised numbers showed that it the warming trend ended in 2002, and that the planets temperature has been stable (or cooling) ever since. The IPCC subsequently removed the data in question from their site, and proceeded to ignore all the findings. But yeah - it was all 'peer reviewed' In that case, I contend that the world is going to blow up, and I will not submit my findings for peer review, and expect it to be discussed with equal measure to the findings of Sorokhtin. After all, I'm the modern Galileo. QUIT CENSORING ME! (Where's that sarcasm smilie?) The whole point of peer review is to demonstrate that at least the thought process was there. The findings are a reasonable conclusion based on the underlying data. Data manipulation is another story entirely. I, for one, don't believe that the entire scientific community is so biased that no respected journal would publish his findings. More so, it's not possible that perhaps there might be flaws in his research that lended journals not to publish it? It's held on to with such strength as the counterpoint of other findings, that I think it's ridiculous. edit: This is one of those posts that, after reflection, I wish I had written differently (or not at all) because parts of it are a straw man's argument, but in the interest of integrity I'm not going to delete it since by now I'm sure at least one person's read it. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Jun 6, 2008 18:58:38 GMT -5
Skilly, HA . . . time to give it up: The debate is over, the science is conclusive:Climate change is real, it is man-made and unless something is done, it will damage the planet and our way of life. Stephane Dion So I guess that's that. Climate change is undeniably all man-made, everybody agrees, and so let's get on with cleaning things up. First thing we do: quickly put a price on carbon -- because that -- I'm sure also undeniably -- we end the damage that we are doing to the planet. The buzz-word: tax-shifting. Also revenue-neutral taxes. Yup, I believe it. My government is going to create a new tax and then give it back to me somehow. [Now where's that sarcastic smilie when you need it?] At least he isn't suggesting -- today at least -- that we buy carbon credits from third world countries, because that will have even less effect on ending the problem than taxation. "But Franko," you say, "if producers of carbon have to pay for it won't they immediately take action to end the production of same?". Ummm . . . their main action will be to immediately raise the price of their commodities so that they continue to make their profits. I just wish Mr. Dion would indeed dowhat he says he wants to: engage Canadians in an honest debate. But when he says "discussion is over", debate is . . . to say the least . . . difficult. I just want something that resembles the truth before I am asked to bend over. As for Dion, he is another failed politicians who will do and say ANYTHING to get into power. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Jun 6, 2008 19:23:35 GMT -5
I'm not sure why someone who doesn't submit his work for peer review deserves to have it considered in any substantial debate. Because peer review, especially on contentious issues, means nothing. Or rather, it means that the people selected to review your worked tended to want to see what you were saying. Consider, how favorably would you review a document that would ruin your chance of securing more large, multi-million dollar grants? What about one that supported your chances? Or, think about it this way. It wasn't just the Catholic Church that condemned the work of Galileo and Copernicus - it was the entire academic community (the two were heavily intertwined at the time). What makes it so different now? Being peer reviewed just means that someone else has read your work and agreed with you conclusion. Nothing more. Point in case. Last year an amateur meteorologist and astute statistician went over some of the much vaunted IPCC's data, and found big gaping flaws. The IPCC contended that the nineties were the hottest decade on record, but after the calculations were corrected, it was proven that the 1930's were. Further to that, although the IPCC contended that there had been a warming trend starting in the 90's continuing on until today, the revised numbers showed that it the warming trend ended in 2002, and that the planets temperature has been stable (or cooling) ever since. The IPCC subsequently removed the data in question from their site, and proceeded to ignore all the findings. But yeah - it was all 'peer reviewed' You know what I find hilarious? Some people jumped up and down in absolute fits when one of the oil companies said they would put in a few million dollars to finance some scientist....yet there are hundreds of million in grants for "approved research" in man made global warming. As for the IPCC, they have burried a lot more then "some" data. World renown scientist have been shunned because they are not considered the "right type". They are as "neutral" and credible as a crack addict in a crack house. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Jun 6, 2008 19:32:40 GMT -5
Oh wait, Skilly, TNG and I have a few friends to back us up...... ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ by Steven Milloy June 2, 2008 Washington, DC (June 2, 2008) � As the Senate prepares for floor debate on global warming legislation, the list of scientist signatories to the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine�s petition against global warming alarmism is growing by about 35 signatures every day, announced OISM�s Art Robinson. On May 19, 2008, OISM announced that over 31,000 scientists, including more than 9,000 with PhDs, signed a petition that states, �� There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane or other greenhouse gases is causing, or will cause in the future, catastrophic heating of the Earth�s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth�s climate...� Signatories include such luminaries as theoretical physicist Freeman Dyson, MIT�s atmospheric physicist Richard Lindzen and first National Academy of Sciences president Frederick Seitz. More than 40 signatories are members of the prestigious national Academy of Sciences. (But are they as smart and as sexy a Naomi, Al and David?)The purpose of the Petition Project is to demonstrate that the claim of �settled science� and an overwhelming �consensus� in favor of the hypothesis of human-caused global warming and consequent climatological damage is wrong. No such consensus or settled science exists. As indicated by the petition text and signatory list, a very large number of American scientists reject this hypothesis. junkscience.com/jun08/pprelease060208.htm(While there is probably tens of thousands of scientist on that list, I bet that there are a some fake ID's by the alarmist in order to claim that the petition is a "hoax".) |
|
|
|
Post by ropoflu on Jun 6, 2008 19:56:44 GMT -5
Oh wait, Skilly, TNG and I have a few friends to back us up...... ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ by Steven Milloy June 2, 2008 Washington, DC (June 2, 2008) � As the Senate prepares for floor debate on global warming legislation, the list of scientist signatories to the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine�s petition against global warming alarmism is growing by about 35 signatures every day, announced OISM�s Art Robinson. On May 19, 2008, OISM announced that over 31,000 scientists, including more than 9,000 with PhDs, signed a petition that states, �� There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane or other greenhouse gases is causing, or will cause in the future, catastrophic heating of the Earth�s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth�s climate...� Signatories include such luminaries as theoretical physicist Freeman Dyson, MIT�s atmospheric physicist Richard Lindzen and first National Academy of Sciences president Frederick Seitz. More than 40 signatories are members of the prestigious national Academy of Sciences. (But are they as smart and as sexy a Naomi, Al and David?)The purpose of the Petition Project is to demonstrate that the claim of �settled science� and an overwhelming �consensus� in favor of the hypothesis of human-caused global warming and consequent climatological damage is wrong. No such consensus or settled science exists. As indicated by the petition text and signatory list, a very large number of American scientists reject this hypothesis. junkscience.com/jun08/pprelease060208.htm(While there is probably tens of thousands of scientist on that list, I bet that there are a some fake ID's by the alarmist in order to claim that the petition is a "hoax".) (Cough, cough) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_petition |
|
