|
|
Post by ropoflu on Jun 6, 2008 20:43:44 GMT -5
You really got some nice friends there HA  Found that on Real Climate website:Frederick Seitz is a condensed matter physicist, and has never been a climate scientist. Seitz is a former Chair of the George C. Marshall Institute; is Chairman of the Science and Environmental Policy Project; is on the Board of Academic and Scientific Advisors of the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, and has been a Science Advisor to The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition. All four organisations actively lobby against any measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, all four are well known for publishing disinformation concerning science in order to achieve this objective; and all four are funded by sections of the fossil fuel industry. Seitz has also worked as a consultant to the tobacco industry, and was described in an internal memo by Phillip Morris Co. in 1989 as “quite elderly and not sufficiently rational to offer advice.”. Seitz was instrumental in organising the original “petition project” of the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine or OISM: a petition that led the National Academy of Sciences to take unprecedented step of issuing a statement disassociating itself from the project and from its former president. The petition, despite being frequently cited by global warming critics as showing that thousands of scientists disagree with the consensus on global warming, contains almost no people with relevant expertise; and its vetting was so lax that it included fictional signatories such as Star Wars characters and a member of the Spice Girls. Seitz is also known for a highly disingenuous article that he published in the Wall Street journal in 1996, purporting to criticise the IPCC review process, and implying he was privy to this process, without revealing that he has never had any involvement with the IPCC and has never been a climate scientist ( see also here). |
|
|
|
Post by ropoflu on Jun 6, 2008 21:20:25 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by franko on Jun 6, 2008 21:38:09 GMT -5
Ropo: do you contend that everyone who disagrees with the thesis of man-made global warming climate change (the term had to be changed to somewhat fit in with the facts) is a fraud, a charlatan, or a quack and that there is consensus because no one who disagrees with the idea of man-made clamate change should be listened to?
|
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Jun 6, 2008 22:26:03 GMT -5
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 difference, of course, being that I doubt you have any data (made up or otherwise) to back up your hypothesis. ;D 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. It is quite possible. I'm just saying that being peer-reviewed means little to nothing. It is perhaps the best system (short of letting everyone publish whatever they want) but it is not foolproof and being 'peer-reviewed' should not imply to the reader that the work is infalliable, not should lack of such status render an article immediately unworthy of consideration. As for your belief that the academic community is not biased and filled with all kinds fun corruption, I would disagree. The academic community has a long, long history of corruption, deceit, betrayal and other not so nice things. No less a genius than Isaac Newton used his power and prestige in the academic world to ruin others - notably Robert Hooke (over a disagreement regarding receiving credit on a paper about gravitation) and Gottfried Leibniz (over credit for Calculus, which Gottfried developed independent of Newton - and as a result saw all of his work in mathematics and physics forgotten until the 20th century). Guillaume, the Marquis de l'Hospital paid Johann Bernoulli 300 francs a year to allow him to claim his discoveries (which lead to the modern day l'Hôpital's Rule - created by Bernoulli and attributed to the Marquis until the early 1920's). And, more recently, a (ultimately very crazy) gentleman named Valery Fabrikant went on a shooting rampage at Concordia and killed several people over allegations of corruption within his faculty. He was absolutely dead wrong in what he did, but interestingly enough, several of his allegations regarding academic dishonesty were found to be true, and three members of the faculty at Concordia had their NSERC accounts frozen and were forced into early retirement. All of the above incidents involved fairly cut and dry topics - mathematics, optics, engineering. All things that can be tested, reproduced, reviewed. Tell me, is it possible to run tests on the planet? We can model data, but data modelling also suggested (according to TSN) that the Habs would play the Sharks in the final this year. Do you know what the hallmark of the scientific method is? Observable, reproducible, empirical results. It's all well and good to say you've discovered the secret of cold fusion. It's another to be able to do it. To repeat it in a lab. Sadly, we don't have a lab planet to test on, so we're forced to base all our work on what we observe as it happens. Which is great, except two-thousand years ago people observed that the a rock fell to the ground faster because it contained more of the element of earth than a feather, and that the sun revolved around the earth. And all the academic world accepted it. Except it was wrong. (This is all OT of course, but I feel like being on a soapbox. Ultimately, my point is don't trust peer reviewed just because its peer reviewed - especially in a science like climatology, where all work is extrapolation) |
|
|
|
Post by ropoflu on Jun 6, 2008 22:46:54 GMT -5
Ropo: do you contend that everyone who disagrees with the thesis of man-made global warming climate change (the term had to be changed to somewhat fit in with the facts) is a fraud, a charlatan, or a quack and that there is consensus because no one who disagrees with the idea of man-made clamate change should be listened to? I think you'll agree that your question is quite loaded and in line with the other rethoric that passes for discussion around here. Until this becomes a constructive debate, I'll mostly stay out of it if you please. But I won't refrain from yapping every once in a while, especially when I see grotesque demagogia quoted from closet corporate lobbyists and pseudo scientists. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Jun 6, 2008 23:06:14 GMT -5
Ropo: do you contend that everyone who disagrees with the thesis of man-made global warming climate change (the term had to be changed to somewhat fit in with the facts) is a fraud, a charlatan, or a quack and that there is consensus because no one who disagrees with the idea of man-made clamate change should be listened to? I think you'll agree that your question is quite loaded and in line with the other rethoric that passes for discussion around here. Until this becomes a constructive debate, I'll mostly stay out of it if you please. But I won't refrain from yapping every once in a while, especially when I see grotesque demagogia quoted from closet corporate lobbyists and pseudo scientists. I agree with you. That is why I get upset about reading the "independent" reviews and "scientific methods" by grossly biased institutions like the IPCC. BTW, are you still studying Environmental Science? |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Jun 7, 2008 0:17:00 GMT -5
I just saw the article when I was looking for a site that had ocean CO2 figures and I ran across that. I didn't know it even existed but thought that would have been a nice counter punch. Unfortunatly, Mr. Chicken CocoVin called before I did a little bit more homework on it. While a petition like that is prone to pranksters and liars, particularly the way it is set up, it does contain a LOT of people with scientific credentials and blows away the "unanimous consensus" claimed by the "human caused" fraternity. Bottom line..... Reality is that there are a hell of a lot very prominent scientist and who don't believe a single word of the "human cause". Scientist like Reid Bryson who blow away the credintials of Al, Naomi, David and 99.9% of their friends. I think that Bryson said that "man made" global warming was "absurd" theory. ~~~~~~~~~~ BTW...using Wiki in a debate can be dangerous to ones arguments...... www.nationalpost.com/todays_paper/story.html?id=440268&p=1www.nationalpost.com/related/links/story.html?id=456024uddebatt.wordpress.com/2008/04/29/wikipedia-wicked-pedia-bias-%E2%80%93-or-how-global-warming-hysterics-systematically-alters-everything-critically-of-global-warming/~~~~~~~~~~ I have some lines inserted in a few pages in Wiki like ... "and is currently unlikely to occur before 2014". I also had "or until lost capacity is replaced by nuclear plants". Of course, that is NOT what enviromentalist want to hear and it was edited even though it was CORRECT. There is an army of eco zealots ready to edit ANYTHING that is not to their liking so quoting Wiki shoud be taken with a few hundred tons of salt..... en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanticoke_Generating_Station~~~~~~~~~~ Last but not least..... I went through a couple of dozen articles of the link provided and I'm sure you know that the blog has enviromental activists and IPCC members. Hardly a "neutral" source. www.realclimate.org/index.php?cat=10One of the articles was mentioning that if the climate models don't fit what nature is doing, then the entire "movement" could be in jeopardy in the public eye. Why should scientist worry about their opinion being in jeopardy? Isn't the "unkown" what science is all about? Isn't accurate prediction no matter what the outcome more important then an outcome that suits a prediction? Regardless......I will go through that entire site with a fine tooth comb! Military strategy says....."study the enemy, find his weak points and exploit them". LOL! Stay tuned, I have an idea that might be VERY interesting. (P.S. It's 3:20 in the morning and I must of read 50 articles tonight. Forget global warming, I think my brain will explode and cause another mass extinction.  ) |
|
|
|
Post by ropoflu on Jun 7, 2008 5:47:34 GMT -5
BTW, are you still studying Environmental Science? Yes (small but significant detail...: it's Environmental science s.) But what's your point? That I must be a left-wing-eco-freak? I worked for a brand strategy firm for seven years before that did a Bachelor of Commerce in McGill before. Where does that put me? But if you're really interested in my studies, know that my field is environmental sociology. I work on the social and political dimensions of the blue-green algae problems. So it has absolutely nothing to do with Climate change. Subject on which I probably know just a bit more than the average joe but not by much. And despite my M.Sc., I would never want to be accounted as a "scientist - for or against - the man-made climate change theory". As for wikipedia, I know how it works thank you. Never said real climate was a neutral source. Just that Seitz and Milloy certainly aren't. (sigh) |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Jun 7, 2008 9:17:38 GMT -5
Ropo: do you contend that everyone who disagrees with the thesis of man-made global warming climate change (the term had to be changed to somewhat fit in with the facts) is a fraud, a charlatan, or a quack and that there is consensus because no one who disagrees with the idea of man-made clamate change should be listened to? I think you'll agree that your question is quite loaded and in line with the other rethoric that passes for discussion around here. Then I apologize. It can be a loaded question but it was not meant to be. I actually enjoy discussion, and though I admit (many don't) to have preconceived notions (a friend in university once said that he researched his papers by looking for anything that agreed with him . Me, I'd rather think and be challenged. All that to say that my question is legitimate, but I'll rephrase: do you think that there are qualified academics that disagree with climate change? If so, do you think that their ideas should be discussed and listened to? [I ask because it seems that in the "outside world" (that is, the world outside HabsRus, and there is one, you know ) that those outside the realm of "consensus" are maligned and ignored. I think my main problem lies with the term "consensus". Say "growing consensus", say "general consensus among many", even say "while there are some who disagree, many contend . . . " Consensus implies agreement by all. There isn't. Admit it -- even say "a minority disagree" . . . and it becomes/remains discussion. "I think your wrong" is more honest than "if you disagree you are in the camp of big business". That's all. I love debate -- moreso when it is constructive! I want to see each side of the story, think on it, and continue to learn. [how can it be constructive when knowledgeable people refrain from involvement?]. Let me know when HA's sources are in uncredible. Admit when they are credible. Let me know credible sources. Admit that not all are. |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Jun 7, 2008 9:22:02 GMT -5
BTW, are you still studying Environmental Science? Yes (small but significant detail...: it's Environmental science s.) But what's your point? That I must be a left-wing-eco-freak? Actually, I appreciate knowing that you have some background (and are not just an opinionated hack like me). So what do you think of the friendsofscience |
|
|
|
Post by ropoflu on Jun 7, 2008 10:32:38 GMT -5
I think you'll agree that your question is quite loaded and in line with the other rethoric that passes for discussion around here. Then I apologize. It can be a loaded question but it was not meant to be. I actually enjoy discussion, and though I admit (many don't) to have preconceived notions (a friend in university once said that he researched his papers by looking for anything that agreed with him . Me, I'd rather think and be challenged. All that to say that my question is legitimate, but I'll rephrase: do you think that there are qualified academics that disagree with climate change? If so, do you think that their ideas should be discussed and listened to? [I ask because it seems that in the "outside world" (that is, the world outside HabsRus, and there is one, you know ) that those outside the realm of "consensus" are maligned and ignored. I think my main problem lies with the term "consensus". Say "growing consensus", say "general consensus among many", even say "while there are some who disagree, many contend . . . " Consensus implies agreement by all. There isn't. Admit it -- even say "a minority disagree" . . . and it becomes/remains discussion. "I think your wrong" is more honest than "if you disagree you are in the camp of big business". That's all. I love debate -- moreso when it is constructive! I want to see each side of the story, think on it, and continue to learn. [how can it be constructive when knowledgeable people refrain from involvement?]. Let me know when HA's sources are in uncredible. Admit when they are credible. Let me know credible sources. Admit that not all are. Sorry, I don't have the proper temper to remain cool when a discussion/debate is getting polarized by rhetoric. That's probably why I constantly avoid the editorialist/opportunist stances (Milloy, Gore, etc.) that sells copies and/or or work for special interests' agendas. It's personal, but I find it sterile. I don't want to prove HA's wrong or anybody else for that matter. I wish we could build something out of our discussions other than division and or confusion. The medias are certainly not helping in that matter. I wish climate or CO2 or any environmental discussion wouldn't have to revolve around each participants suddenly polarized world views and values (right-left-wing-deniers-believers-capitalist-communism, etc.). It's important to regularly discuss and exchange on world views, but regarding climate change, I feel that the really important technical and scientific debate is clouded/buried under the politic and rhetoric discourse, and that's my ticket out. Since you rephrased you questions: I'll answer them in a very personal manner. Do you think that there are qualified academics that disagree with climate change? I know quite a few scientists (two of them are student researching different aspects of climate changes), who are quite uncomfortable taking either stances like "I agree or I disagree with anthropogenic (human-induced - I guess that's what you meant) climate changes". However, while most of them acknowledged the political side of IPCC recommendations, none explicitely tagged the science behind it as dishonest. They know it's uncertain, incomplete, but the two climate students thinks it's based on the best models we have now (their opinions, not mine). Personally, I'd say that I've read more credible stuff associating human activities with climate changes rather than dissociating it. But unfortunately, I've read and heard a whole lot more of demagogic alarmism AND skepticism especially in major news media / blog / tv, etc. If so, do you think that their ideas should be discussed and listened to?Yes. I think in fact that their ideas are discussed and listen to. Somewhere in scientific forums. Not just by us. Anyway, almost never before it gets redirected/manipulated by interests and politics. Science nowadays is a constant dynamic discussion. Science isn't about static consensus, it's about doubt and constant search of information and evidence refuting or reinforcing the dominant theories. It's the politician/leaders' responsibility, not the scientist, to evaluate risk and take decisions. In our modern days, these decisions have often been based on science. The best we have at a given time. Now one major problem our society have now concerns the diminishing (as I perceived it) independence of science (that's probably a whole debate in itself). That being said I think most scientific research (I exclude technological research) is done in a relatively independent manner and that the peer-reviewed publication system is still the best we have to acknowledge what is science and what is not. IMO, it's certainly better than waiting for the judgment of a Murdoch's minion calling out junkscience. That's not science, it's clearly a political strategy. |
|
|
|
Post by ropoflu on Jun 7, 2008 10:49:49 GMT -5
Yes (small but significant detail...: it's Environmental science s.) But what's your point? That I must be a left-wing-eco-freak? Actually, I appreciate knowing that you have some background (and are not just an opinionated hack like me). So what do you think of the friendsofscienceHonestly, working on blue-green algae doesn't make me less of a hack in terms of climate changes. As for Friends of Sciences, we don't really hear about them in Quebec. But judging from the serious lack of scientific articles and peer-reviwed publications available on their website and backing up their claims, I would class them as an Advocacy group just like the David Suzuki foundation. Some interesting infos (probably selected and incomplete, but I let your judgement filter out the crap) : www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Friends_of_Science |
|
|
|
Post by ropoflu on Jun 7, 2008 13:25:34 GMT -5
There is an army of eco zealots ready to edit ANYTHING that is not to their liking so quoting Wiki shoud be taken with a few hundred tons of salt..... Small detail about Sourcewatch.org : "Unlike some other wikis, SourceWatch has a policy of strict referencing, and is overseen by a paid editor" |
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Jun 7, 2008 21:35:35 GMT -5
Wjth a little luck, Obama may pick Gary Bettman to be his VP running mate. That would create an opening that anybody else could fill and be a 100% improvement. With some bad luck Hillary could become the President................(of the NHL) How does Title Nine for the NHL sound? Inconvenient Untruths. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Jun 7, 2008 22:23:45 GMT -5
I know quite a few scientists (two of them are student researching different aspects of climate changes), who are quite uncomfortable taking either stances like "I agree or I disagree with anthropogenic (human-induced - I guess that's what you meant) climate changes". However, while most of them acknowledged the political side of IPCC recommendations, none explicitely tagged the science behind it as dishonest. They know it's uncertain, incomplete, but the two climate students thinks it's based on the best models we have now (their opinions, not mine). At least we have something in common. To me, science was always neutral. It may have been polarizing afterwards (like nuclear power) but idealy, the science itself took no social stance. What we have with climate science is completely the opposite. It is used and manipulated for social engineeering rather then "just the facts please". All of this has to lay at the IPCC feet. Their heavy handed approach, their choice of partisan participants and their VERY political intentions polarized the discussion. HUGE problems..... Hypocrisy..... People like Gore have popularized the discussion but it also showed a very dishonest, manipulative side. Gore talks about the "changes" that you and I "must" make but at the same time, he is one of the worse polluters. Private planes and mansions that consume 30 times the average house make him and by association, the "do as I demand" climate change crowd as hypocrites. Changing messages..... We were clearly told that there was global warming and it was going to continuously rise until eventual disaster. Then when it appeared to stabilize, the mantra was changed to "climate change". Climate science simply can not look credible on changing the message to suit the outcome. Worse still, by claiming that humans are causing changes and waiting for every natural weather disaster to say "you see, we told you that YOU are causing it". It simply stupid to make climate science into the ambulance chasers of all sciences. Outright politicization of IPCC ..... IPCC was born to politicize the process in it's demand for immediate action. People expect politicians to be two faced and hide their political agendas in BS and spin, but when when to the IPCC declares straight out that they had an political agenda and made no effort to hide it, well, that was a bit too much for many to take, particularly when the IPCC clothed itself as a "scientific" institution. There were charges that some of the IPCC findings were questionable, at best, science is always seeking the truth so here are always "questionable" results, BUT for the IPCC demanded immidate action regrdless of questions. Then to outright demand that governments declare the IPCC results as "legitimate" well, that is WAY over the top. I have NEVER heard of a any of the sciences demanding from government to declare them "legitimate". I hate to say this, but the last time I can remember reading about a government telling people their science was legitimate was the German government of the 30's telling it's people that they were a superior race. Sheesh...... Opportunistic politicians..... Nobody is fooled by politicians trying to extract more taxes to furthertheir own politics by using the morality side of "global warming" as an excuse. Worse still, when people are told that they HAVE to pay because a catastrophic event is going to occur, and exactly the opposite happens, then their suspicions turn into disbelief and disbelief turns into anger. Left wing grabbed hold of it.... I am sure that the intent of the climate scientist was to warn of impending problems. But once the left started to see that it was a perfect opportunity for them to adopt it for their own message to further their agenda, well, it doesn't take rocket scientist to see right through that. Of course, by definition, where the left goes, the right goes the other way. More polarization. The debate is not over. For anyone to be so arrogant as to assume that they have answered the questions on something as complex on a planetary wide climate system that took 6 billion years to develop. There is too much at stake. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Jun 7, 2008 22:31:44 GMT -5
There is an army of eco zealots ready to edit ANYTHING that is not to their liking so quoting Wiki shoud be taken with a few hundred tons of salt..... Small detail about Sourcewatch.org : "Unlike some other wikis, SourceWatch has a policy of strict referencing, and is overseen by a paid editor" I didn't say otherwise. I am gong to try to find out some inforamtion about some things from some of the scientist. I certainly hope they don't display a "closed club" mentality. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Jun 7, 2008 23:16:06 GMT -5
BTW, are you still studying Environmental Science? Yes (small but significant detail...: it's Environmental science s.) But what's your point? That I must be a left-wing-eco-freak? Left wing? I don't know. Eco? By definition. Freak? Only if you are a Laffs supporter.  The question was leading into what you are studying, but you already answered that in full...and then some. I work on the social and political dimensions of the blue-green algae problems. To be honest, that caught me completely off guard. Ropoflu, I have a question for you. Where does hard science stop and social/political dimensions take over? Is there a dividing line or is the environmental science field about the interaction of science, society and politics? It's a critical question because it may answer a lot of things. |
|
|
|
Post by ropoflu on Jun 8, 2008 6:41:17 GMT -5
Ropoflu, I have a question for you. Where does hard science stop and social/political dimensions take over? Is there a dividing line or is the environmental science field about the interaction of science, society and politics? It's a critical question because it may answer a lot of things. There is a crucial disctinction to be done here. Sociologists, anthropologists, human geographs and the like, have nothing to do with the social/political "praticioners" (ie, the politicians, policymakers, etc.). We are researchers with ideals of objectivity/neutrality (no science is truly neutral/objective) and rigourous methodologies (yet different from the well-known hypothetico-deductive model) and we are much more closer to the "hard" scientists in that sense. Is there a dividing line or is the environmental science field about the interaction of science, society and politics? I wouldn't have had the same answer if you asked the question fifty years ago. Man, mostly conceptualized as a divine creation, has long been separated from nature by the churches, scientists and philosophers. This paradigm is not dominant anymore in science, and we tend to include man (and their needs, activities, impacts, etc.) in the general concept of nature and environment nowadays. For the past 30-40 years, the Environmental Science s tend to use a more interdisciplinary approach when studying phenomena and issues. I personally have two directors for my research project (a biologist and a sociologist). That gave me enough resources and knowledges to approach and study a society phenomenon all the while intregrating the biophysical realities of its environment. I'll try to illustrate. I study community responses to water problems (including blue-green algae). I can't do that if I don't understand how a lake ecosytem works and what are blue-green algae (I could but then I would be more akined to a journalist than to a scientist). In a broader perspective, I'm interested in understanding how is it that we still have lake problems and managing issues despite the fact that science has long understood how a lake ecosytem work and has already demonstrated the causes of blue-green algae, that solutions for preventing them have been known for years and that spectific laws policies have been in places for decades now. I think it is an interesting question, but I couldn't answer it using only one disciplinary science (biology or sociology). Hence at least from MY point of view, the environemental sciences are more and more about integration of nature and society. It's also about politics because to answer my question, I need to understands the laws and the processes behind the riparian community decisions. So there is a link between nature and society (and its politics) in Environemental sciences. But I think the "link" that worries you (and make you all red and cranky) is not coming from Environemental sciences. I think it is coming from the instrumentalization of environemental issues. I've a perfect example paralleling my research projet: Blue-green algae are nothing new. There are about 3 billions years old bacteria and are according to the dominant theory, at the origin of oxygenation of our atmosphere. There are thousands different types and only a handful are potentially toxic to human and animal. The fact is, in North America, only one person died from it in the past 50 years. I think you'll agree that we have far greater health challenge right now. In Quebec, the apparition of Blue green algae is usually a symptom of a lake receiving abnormal levels of nutrients (phosphates in particular, mostly due to agricultural and urbanization-related pratices). An increasingly nutrients rich lake, will eventually see the "quality" of water diminished (less light, less oxygen, changes in resident fish species, etc.). That could be a problem if the people living around the lake wanted to pursue some activities (fishing, swimming, pumping water from the lake for drinking, etc.), but it ain't an immediate health menace or crisis. Yet for the past three years, the mass media in Quebec insisted on (and most of the time exagerrated) the health hazard aspect of the problematic (the scarier, the merrier, I guess). In no time, politicians and advocacy group seized the opportunity to get under the spotlight, and miracles maker made big bucks selling fake remedies and magic potions to panicking riparian communities. Unfortunately, the scientists were barely involved in the beginning of that whole circus (they're coming out now and are straightening the facts to calm down people and trying redirect the debate were it should be, that is around water and land management practices). |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Jun 8, 2008 10:42:14 GMT -5
.....and make you all red and cranky I was born all pinkish and crying so all red and cranky is a socially driven refinement! Thank you for your response. I think I know what you mean by "instrumentalization" of environemental issues but I am not clear. Do you want to clarify that? Correct me if I am wrong, what you are saying is that Enviromental Sciences studies the political policies as an understanding of the process and effect. If that is the case, then bodies like IPCC have completely and utterly corrupted that process. They have used ES to further the UN agenda. |
|
|
|
Post by ropoflu on Jun 8, 2008 11:28:51 GMT -5
I was born all pinkish and crying so all red and cranky is a socially driven refinement! Thank you for your response. I think I know what you mean by "instrumentalization" of environemental issues but I am not clear. Do you want to clarify that? I realize the expression is more widely used in French than it is in English. Instrumentalization could be define as using someone or something (as an instrument) to reach one's own objectives/ends. I guess manipulation could used as a synonym. Correct me if I am wrong, what you are saying is that Enviromental Sciences studies the political policies as an understanding of the process and effect. In my case yes. The Environmental Sciences program aim at integrating different disciplines in the studies of environmental phenomena and issues. Some researches include a study of policies, others don't. It's not always feasible or relevant, but the program aim at integrating different perspectives on specific subjects, so you can have econonomists working with geologists, sociologists with epidemiologists, etc. If that is the case, then bodies like IPCC have completely and utterly corrupted that process. They have used ES to further the UN agenda. The IPCC and its recommendations are the products of worldwide politicians/experts negotiations. These negociations are based on scientific data and models develop by the scientists and climatologists. The process is certainly flawed and imperfect, but I see no better alternatives. Correction, the better alternative would have been to have large scale independently funded research on climates changes. But it seems that, science for science or for our collective interest is seldom seen these days (moreso in the environemental field). Supply and demand, I guess. Now, what it is about that UN hidden (or not) agenda? Not saying it doesn't exist, but I haven't heard all that much about that. Would you be kind enough, to detail it in a few points (no need to source anything, just the basic hypotheses/facts)? |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Jun 8, 2008 12:57:50 GMT -5
The IPCC and its recommendations are the products of worldwide politicians/experts negotiations. These negociations are based on scientific data and models develop by the scientists and climatologists. The process is certainly flawed and imperfect, but I see no better alternatives. Correction, the better alternative would have been to have large scale independently funded research on climates changes. But it seems that, science for science or for our collective interest is seldom seen these days (moreso in the environemental field). Supply and demand, I guess. Now, what it is about that UN hidden (or not) agenda? Not saying it doesn't exist, but I haven't heard all that much about that. Would you be kind enough, to detail it in a few points (no need to source anything, just the basic hypotheses/facts)? The ONLY way to give the process credibility is to, and I quote...... have large scale independently funded research on climates changes. Everything else breeds manipulation (instrumentalization). Read their page..... www.ipcc.ch/about/index.htmOkay, I am reapeating myself but here are the main problems... 1...... The people: as United Nations body, the IPCC work aims at the promotion of the United Nations human development goals It says in their page that they are a "open scientific body" but yet, the people that are appointed are known for their bias AND follow a pre determined agenda. 2... the IPCC is able to provide scientific technical and socio-economic information in a policy-relevant but policy neutral way to decision makersThey say their research is "policy-relevant but policy neutral way" yet they demand that governments follow THEIR policies. (Kyoto Accord is "binding" and founded on the input of IPCC). 3... When governments accept the IPCC reports and approve their Summary for Policymakers, they acknowledge the legitimacy of their scientific content.They say that it's "open science" and yet they DEMAND that the governments legitimize their science. Have you EVER heard of a any REAL scientific findings needing enforced legitimization by govenrments? 4..... 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 changeThat statement in itself is mind boggling. They are "comprehensive, objective, open and transparent" to a pre determided CONCLUSION. They are NOT interested in the question of "IF" humans are causing global warming, they already CONCLUDED that. I am not sure if there is a language problem here but the closest equivilant would be...an athiest having comprehensive, objective, open and transparent discussions on how useless religion is. You don't find anything wrong with any of that? |
|
|
|
Post by ropoflu on Jun 8, 2008 13:01:38 GMT -5
The IPCC and its recommendations are the products of worldwide politicians/experts negotiations. These negotiations are based on scientific data and models develop by the scientists and climatologists. The process is certainly flawed and imperfect, but I see no better alternatives. Correction, the better alternative would have been to have large scale independently funded research on climates changes. But it seems that, science for science or for our collective interest is seldom seen these days (moreso in the environmental field). Supply and demand, I guess. Now, what it is about that UN hidden (or not) agenda? Not saying it doesn't exist, but I haven't heard all that much about that. Would you be kind enough, to detail it in a few points (no need to source anything, just the basic hypotheses/facts)? The ONLY way to give the process credibility is to, and I quote...... have large scale independently funded research on climates changes. Everything else breeds manipulation (instrumentalization). As for the UN hidden agenda. Read their site. Read this words. The people: as United Nations body, the IPCC work aims at the promotion of the United Nations human development goals Is there anything there that tells you that they are furthering science or presenting an unbiased report? It's black and white in print and their actionas are balck and white in execution. Do you think that ANY climate report can be unbiased if the originators of said report are chosen with a specific view and agenda? Read this page..... www.ipcc.ch/about/index.htmOkay, I am reapeating myself but here are the main three problems.... It says that they are a "open scientific body" but yet, the people that are appointed are known for their bias AND follow a pre determined agenda. They say their research is "policy-relevant but policy neutral way" yet they demand that governments follow THEIR policies. (Kyoto Accord is "binding" and founded on the input of IPCC). They say that it's "open science" and yet they DEMAND that the governments legitimize their science. Have you EVER heard of a any REAL scientific findings needing enforced legitimization by govenrments? You don't find anything wrong with any of that? I get your points HA about IPCC. But I am unable to propose a realistic alternative to that process. Climate is global phenomenon calling for global coordinated research/reflexion (science) and decision/action/inaction (politics). We don't have too many places to discuss these things with a worldwide perspective/involvement. The UN appears to me to be the legitimate place (for lack of (better) alternatives). If you think the UN social development goals are not legitimate and/or not in line with our global collective interest, I'd like to know why. I'm not naive and I don't think the UN is perfect and without flaws (heck I acknowledge it is often dysfunctional in its present state) but I was wondering where your apparent distrust was coming from (conspiracy? hidden agenda? previous failures/actions? or maybe it comes from your personal world views? what the world is? what it should be?) |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Jun 9, 2008 1:09:09 GMT -5
I get your points HA about IPCC. But I am unable to propose a realistic alternative to that process. Climate is global phenomenon calling for global coordinated research/reflexion (science) and decision/action/inaction (politics). We don't have too many places to discuss these things with a worldwide perspective/involvement. The UN appears to me to be the legitimate place (for lack of (better) alternatives). If you think the UN social development goals are not legitimate and/or not in line with our global collective interest, I'd like to know why. I'm not naive and I don't think the UN is perfect and without flaws (heck I acknowledge it is often dysfunctional in its present state) but I was wondering where your apparent distrust was coming from (conspiracy? hidden agenda? previous failures/actions? or maybe it comes from your personal world views? what the world is? what it should be?) It isn't about my world views or as the world should or should not be, it's about something that resembles the truth. When a UN body like the IPCC touts that it's "scientific and open" but goes about it's business in a very closed, very manipulative and agenda driven way, it has no credibility. Create an independent body, finance it independently of government , give it five years and then let them come out with a semblance of a unified opinion, THEN I can have some confidence that we have a true discussion. This is too serious of a discussion because if it is wrong, it throws away hundred of billions, if not trillion of dollars that could of been put to better use. And those dollars are NOT coming off the backs of companies or "the rich", they are coming from ordinary people who need it to put food on the table and clothes on their children's backs. Has the 200 million "eco" dollars that the provincial government is taking from the people of Quebec been put to better use? |
|
|
|
Post by ropoflu on Jun 9, 2008 5:58:58 GMT -5
It isn't about my world views or as the world should or should not be, it's about something that resembles the truth. When a UN body like the IPCC touts that it's "scientific and open" but goes about it's business in a very closed, very manipulative and agenda driven way, it has no credibility. Create an independent body, finance it independently of government , give it five years and then let them come out with a semblance of a unified opinion, THEN I can have some confidence that we have a true discussion. This is too serious of a discussion because if it is wrong, it throws away hundred of billions, if not trillion of dollars that could of been put to better use. And those dollars are NOT coming off the backs of companies or "the rich", they are coming from ordinary people who need it to put food on the table and clothes on their children's backs. Has the 200 million "eco" dollars that the provincial government is taking from the people of Quebec been put to better use? HA, I really believe your concerns are valid. But my question was : What is that agenda you keep referring about? Has the 200 million "eco" dollars that the provincial government is taking from the people of Quebec been put to better use? The 200 millions "Fond vert" who finances the Quebec governement action plan to curb CO2 emmission is about 6 months old, so I'll reserve my judgement. It is/will be entirely funded via taxes to the CO2 emitting industries (who will then pass it to the consumer, I know, I know). Apparently, petroleum importers and refiners are/will be the biggest contributors. |
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Jun 9, 2008 8:53:04 GMT -5
Just to throw something interesting out there... Scientists Says Maybe Global Warming Not All That Bad wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/06/08/surprise-earths-biosphere-is-booming-co2-the-cause/Now I will allow that this smacks of the same junk science reporting that so-called journalists use to stir up panic about Global Warming to begin with, but it's an interesting idea. After all, many global-warming worriers advocate a game theory based approach, where you approach it from a minimizing loss standpoint - global warming it either true or false; if global warming is true and we do nothing we lose a bunch, if we do something then we lose a little; if global warming is false and we do nothing we lose nothing, and if we do something we lose a lot (but significantly less than if we had done nothing and global warming was true).; therefore to minimize risk we take choose the option of doing something, as the amount we lose is much less in that scenario. However this research suggests tampering with the biosphere may not be such a great idea as it may decrease biomass etc. (For those eco-worriers out there looking for things to attack this article on I would suggest mentioning that the article focuses only on biomass, not biodiversity, which is also essential for a healthy planet, and that the data only goes back 30 years) |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Jun 9, 2008 9:50:25 GMT -5
An agenda? NO WAY!!!
Agenda one: social manipulation. The world is in trouble; we know what’s best; do things our way.
Agenda two: corporate manipulation. The world is fine; leave well enough alone; do things our way.
Sigh . . .
The truth is out there . . . in the middle [the problem with being “middle of the road” is that you’ll get run over by the crazies on both sides of you]. But here it is, from someone who doesn’t pretend to have all the answers . . .
The bio-world is not what it once was. We are no longer in Eden (and thankfully we are not in Kansas). We – mankind – have not taken care of the planet as we should have. We have done our share of taking resources without thought of our impact . . . and even when it was suggested there was indeed and impact we have (for the most part) said “who cares?”. More and more people are (caring, that is – and not just those social-science credentials). So what to do?
[caveat: while I do not agree with the whole “it’s all a man-made problem” theory, I think we do have something to do with the problem and so can do something to alleviate it]
Suggestion 1: Tax tax tax. Tax the criminals culprits who are creating the problems through their mismanagement of carbon-factories . The more they are taxed, the more reason they’ll have to work on lowering their emissions.
Suggestion 1a: take this tax money and redistribute it to the masses, to encourage them to on purchase from non- or low-emitting companies.
Why it won’t work: 1. The tax will get passed on to the consumers and so in the end the consumer is penalized and so the producer loses nothing [except maybe a bit of corporate good-will and a few dollars, which eventually comes back to them anyway]; 2. Revenue-neutral isn’t – the good intention of government to redistribute fails . . . the money winds up staying in their hands to redistribute “better”; 3. Eventually the taxed corporation says “enough is enough”, closes shop, and moves to a new location – one with less taxes and less stringent standards.
Suggestion 2: Carbon credits. Allow manufacturers to work as they wish; if they fail to meet emissions targets set for them, allow them to purchase [clean air] credits from other companies or countries. Eventually they will see how much money they are losing and comply with the targets/
Why it won’t work: 1. It is cheaper to close a factory and move to a country that is exempt from targets.
In both these scenarios, the hope is that manufacturers will lower emissions. There is no guarantee that they will. Further, buying credits means that the emissions remain the same.
Suggestion 3: With manufacturers, set realistic targets to lower plant [that’s manufacturing plant] emissions. If agreed-upon targets are not met, close the plant. No fines, no second chances [or 1 year second-chance and hefty fines . . . whatever].
Why it won’t work: corporations/manufacturers will say “faugh on you”, close shop, and move to a new location – one with less taxes and less stringent standards.
My conclusion: the only way that emissions will be reduced is if there is a consumer revolt – we refuse to buy from companies that “emit”. And you know what? It ain’t gonna happen. Our convenience is more important to us than anything else. Which is why we drive a block and a half to a convenience store to pick something up . . . and complain when (for example) the government of Ontario says that we should be paying actual costs for our hydro rather than the massive subsidies that we get . . . and whine when it costs so much to fill up our vehicles then sit stuck in rush hour traffic.
Again . . . sigh . . .
|
|
|
|
Post by ropoflu on Jun 9, 2008 11:32:13 GMT -5
An agenda? NO WAY!!! Agenda one: social manipulation. The world is in trouble; we know what’s best; do things our way. Agenda two: corporate manipulation. The world is fine; leave well enough alone; do things our way. Thanks for the pep talk Franko By agenda, I was refering to all these (conspiracy) theories we often come across these days. Most of those concerning the "corporate agenda" will highlight their end goals : statu quo, making more money, control over resources, etc. I was just wondering what were the dominant/popular theories about the UN/IPCC? What goals would thet be trying to attain via their social manipulation agenda? I'm not trying to instill a new debate, or prove anybody wrong, I'm asking because I just don't know!!! |
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Jun 9, 2008 11:56:56 GMT -5
An agenda? NO WAY!!! Agenda one: social manipulation. The world is in trouble; we know what’s best; do things our way. Agenda two: corporate manipulation. The world is fine; leave well enough alone; do things our way. Thanks for the pep talk Franko By agenda, I was refering to all these (conspiracy) theories we often come across these days. Most of those concerning the "corporate agenda" will highlight their end goals : statu quo, making more money, control over resources, etc. I was just wondering what were the dominant/popular theories about the UN/IPCC? What goals would thet be trying to attain via their social manipulation agenda? I'm not trying to instill a new debate, or prove anybody wrong, I'm asking because I just don't know!!! Much the same. There are probably a number of people involved in the 'global warming crisis' group that sincerely believe what they say. Some are ignorant, some just spin the facts in their head whatever way they want. This is also often the loudest group - the group most willing to use any means necessary to make things 'right' (I want to point out that they are present on the other side too - this is not just a one way thing). There are some people who seek profit. The biggest example of this would be Al Gore (although Al fits in a couple other groups as well, being one of the highest profile supporters of the 'green agenda'). They see money to be made. Why? Because it is easy to sell people something that they are afraid of. How much plastic and duct tape was bought in the wake of 9/11 and the Anthrax scares? When SARS ran rampant how many people bought those little face masks? How many people today purchase, out of their own pocket, immunizations against the bird flu? (It goes back awhile too - how many 'doctors' made money in the Middle Ages during the Plague because they said they could cure the disease)? Fear sells. Fear means big money. Al makes millions these days lecturing about his junk science movie and selling 'carbon credits' to lack wits who think that he isn't making a fortune for doing nothing. There are some who seek power. Stand up Stephane Dion. Ok, so he's not doing a very good job of it. But he's using the climate to attack the Conservatives, hoping to make some (any, really) headway against big blue. There are those who seek prestige and fame, a legacy to leave behind. Back to Al. Of course, higher profile means more $$$. Just look at all the bands who showed up for the earth destroying event known as "Earth Aid" (which probably did more harm to the environment than it bought back) And finally there are those who see it as a piece in a greater game. Mr. Suzuki falls in here. Mr Suzuki is educated, knowledgable, and has been -since long before it was fashionable - been nattering on and on about the environment. And while Global Warming may be junk science, as noted above, fear means money and influence, which will let the good doctor focus on other areas. This is a political move really - perhaps the most valid reason to support global warming - give me money for this and I will spread it across other, more worthy causes. |
|
|
|
Post by ropoflu on Jun 9, 2008 12:13:13 GMT -5
Thanks for the pep talk Franko By agenda, I was refering to all these (conspiracy) theories we often come across these days. Most of those concerning the "corporate agenda" will highlight their end goals : statu quo, making more money, control over resources, etc. I was just wondering what were the dominant/popular theories about the UN/IPCC? What goals would thet be trying to attain via their social manipulation agenda? I'm not trying to instill a new debate, or prove anybody wrong, I'm asking because I just don't know!!! Much the same. There are probably a number of people involved in the 'global warming crisis' group that sincerely believe what they say. Some are ignorant, some just spin the facts in their head whatever way they want. This is also often the loudest group - the group most willing to use any means necessary to make things 'right' (I want to point out that they are present on the other side too - this is not just a one way thing). There are some people who seek profit. The biggest example of this would be Al Gore (although Al fits in a couple other groups as well, being one of the highest profile supporters of the 'green agenda'). They see money to be made. Why? Because it is easy to sell people something that they are afraid of. How much plastic and duct tape was bought in the wake of 9/11 and the Anthrax scares? When SARS ran rampant how many people bought those little face masks? How many people today purchase, out of their own pocket, immunizations against the bird flu? (It goes back awhile too - how many 'doctors' made money in the Middle Ages during the Plague because they said they could cure the disease)? Fear sells. Fear means big money. Al makes millions these days lecturing about his junk science movie and selling 'carbon credits' to lack wits who think that he isn't making a fortune for doing nothing. There are some who seek power. Stand up Stephane Dion. Ok, so he's not doing a very good job of it. But he's using the climate to attack the Conservatives, hoping to make some (any, really) headway against big blue. There are those who seek prestige and fame, a legacy to leave behind. Back to Al. Of course, higher profile means more $$$. Just look at all the bands who showed up for the earth destroying event known as "Earth Aid" (which probably did more harm to the environment than it bought back) And finally there are those who see it as a piece in a greater game. Mr. Suzuki falls in here. Mr Suzuki is educated, knowledgable, and has been -since long before it was fashionable - been nattering on and on about the environment. And while Global Warming may be junk science, as noted above, fear means money and influence, which will let the good doctor focus on other areas. This is a political move really - perhaps the most valid reason to support global warming - give me money for this and I will spread it across other, more worthy causes. Thanks TNG. But I think, correct me if I'm wrong, none of your examples are dominant figure/ or even part of the UN and/or IPCC. I know, there are profiteers and opportunists exploiting environemental issues everywhere, and their goals are quite clear/obvious to me. But I'll repeat, what are the theories regarding the (hidden) end goals/agenda of an organisation like the IPCC and/or the UN? What is HA referring to? EDIT: I'll try to be clearer. I'm open to distrust the UN and the IPCC, but my rationality dictates that I should at least based it on a plausible scenario about their (dishonest) intents. HA seemed to have a clearer picture than me about these intents/agenda, so I was just asking, what did he perceive they were. |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Jun 9, 2008 13:06:57 GMT -5
NOW you asked for it!
And i9t'll come, believe me!
|
|
)
