PDA

View Full Version : The Problem with AGW: the boy who Cried "Wolf"


Pages : [1] 2

Skeptic
8th December 2009, 08:40 AM
AGW is often claimed to be like evolution -- that skeptics are merely ignorant deniers. But the reason there are skeptics has little to do with science -- but with sociology and psychology. You see, there had been similar panics in the past -- acid rain; global cooling; the population bomb; the anti-nukes campaign; and so on and so forth.

In all those cases, the proponents claimed that what they are saying is scientifically proven; that immediate, extremely expensive and coercive, action is required to avoid disaster; that those who disagree are just willfully blind and/or stupid; and that those within the scientific camp who disagree are practically traitors.

So, why should we believe the latest scare any more than all the previous ones?

Can it be true this time? Sure! But, frankly, if it is true, if mankind is facing doom due to AGW and only urgent action can save it, and if nobody believes them and considers them annoying Cassandras, these folks have themselves to blame for crying wolf so often and so wrongly over various other end-of-the-world catastrophes that never happened.

casebro
8th December 2009, 08:57 AM
Your problem is with "these folks". There are a bunch of different "those folks" for each disasterbation.

The only "these folks" are the media. Catastrophe sells. So the media pushes the snowball down the hill. It's the nature of the media.

Hey, you left out all the diseaseturbations. Don't viruses count as environmental disasters? Ebola, hetero aids, Flesh Eating Bacteria, Swine Flu.....

patrick767
8th December 2009, 09:02 AM
1) Acid rain - Are you saying this was not and is not an environmental problem? You would be wrong. The harm is well-documented, but fortunately there have been successful efforts to address it (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acid_rain#History_of_acid_rain_in_the_United_State s).

"Overall, the Program's cap and trade program has been successful in achieving its goals. Since the 1990s, SO2 emissions have dropped 40%, and according to the Pacific Research Institute, acid rain levels have dropped 65% since 1976.[15][16]"

2) Global cooling - Really? You're going to trot out this old canard? The 1970s global cooling hypothesis never had strong scientific support. The popular press is largely responsible for that one.

3) Population bomb - Do you have evidence that this book that got popular in the last '60s was the generally accepted scientific view by those in the relevant fields? Not seeing it.

4) Anti-nukes campaign - Huh? I don't even know what your argument is here. Nukes are bad, mm'kay?

In general, your argument is that scientists have been wrong before, therefore how can we believe them about anything? That's your argument? I guess since the experts haven't been right 100% of the time -- even though they've been wrong far less than you claim -- we should stick our heads in the sand.

Guybrush Threepwood
8th December 2009, 09:04 AM
AGW is often claimed to be like evolution -- that skeptics are merely ignorant deniers. But the reason there are skeptics has little to do with science -- but with sociology and psychology.

Great post, I don't think anyone on the site will disagree with this.
You see, there had been similar panics in the past -- acid rain; global cooling; the population bomb; the anti-nukes campaign; and so on and so forth.

In all those cases, the proponents claimed that what they are saying is scientifically proven; that immediate, extremely expensive and coercive, action is required to avoid disaster; that those who disagree are just willfully blind and/or stupid; and that those within the scientific camp who disagree are practically traitors.Oh dear, you couldn't quite keep up the standard. Although this is a winning strategy, you need to play the full set at once for it to be effective and you missed Y2K and the hole in the ozone layer. Also why doesn't lead in petrol count? I never see that included in these lists.

I do admire the chutzpah of a poster who spends a lot of his time on threads warning of the dire consequnces of Iran obtaining nuclear capabilites claiming that the 'anti-nukes campaign' is crying wolf.

So, why should we believe the latest scare any more than all the previous ones? How about we believe it as much as the ozone layer hole, Y2K, acid rain, coal fires in cities etc. etc. and take effective action to stop it?

Pardalis
8th December 2009, 09:10 AM
So, why should we believe the latest scare any more than all the previous ones?

It doesn't really matter IMO, the benefits of reducing the world's carbon emissions and pollution are still there, either way.

Skeptic
8th December 2009, 09:21 AM
That's certainly true. But at what cost?

Francesca R
8th December 2009, 09:24 AM
Best to find that out by having the market price-up carbon emissions isn't it?

Pardalis
8th December 2009, 09:25 AM
The planet is only going to get more populated, and inevitably more polluted, the benefits will outweight the costs in the long run if we start to change now.

Skeptic
8th December 2009, 09:31 AM
True. But forcing by law everybody to exercise and lose weight on the pain of prison or death would surely go a long way to help general health, too, especially in the long run. But for obvious reasons nobody is doing this.

I am deeply suspicious of plans which will "benefit us all in the long run". History shows that such plans -- communism, for instance, or eugenics -- tend to become corrupt, merely benefiting the plan's originators in the short run.

Pardalis
8th December 2009, 09:38 AM
True. But forcing by law everybody to exercise and lose weight on the pain of prison or death would surely go a long way to help general health, too, especially in the long run. But for obvious reasons nobody is doing this.

But diabetes and other health problems due to obesity exist, just like the possibility that the Earth will no longer be able to support life exists too, and to prevent it from happening we need to be aware of it, and a good scare is a sometimes a good thing,. an extra incentive to actually get off our butts and do something about it.

If there wasn't this fear, like the legitimate fear of getting diabetes or lung cancer, we would become complacent and change will never happen, until we find ourselves 20, 30 years from now where we will have massive problems, irreversible ones, death and famine on unimaginable scale.

I am deeply suspicious of plans which will "benefit us all in the long run". History shows that such plans -- communism, for instance, or eugenics -- tend to become corrupt, merely benefiting the plan's originators in the short run.But didn't you just agree that there are definately benefits to stopping pollution and reducing our carbon production?

epeos76
8th December 2009, 09:40 AM
Acid Rain is an interesting example. I've been hearing about the success of the cap and trade program for sulfur dioxide (http://www.epa.gov/airmarkt/cap-trade/docs/ctresults.pdf) quite a bit recently. It was apparently more successful and less costly (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acid_Rain_Program) than anticipated.

Micromegas
8th December 2009, 10:19 AM
It doesn't really matter IMO, the benefits of reducing the world's carbon emissions and pollution are still there, either way.^^^ This.

The well-funded attack on greens and the AGW hypothesis couldn't be more irrelevant. Society has to change its habits whether or not the polar ice caps are melting rapidly.

-Mike

PogoPedant
8th December 2009, 10:41 AM
... so essentially, successfully warding off wolf-attacks by alerting the village to actual wolves will cause the villagers to stop listening to the shepherds, since no wolf-attack was ever successful.

... and it is the shepherds fault for being so good at avoiding wolves?

GreyICE
8th December 2009, 10:53 AM
That's certainly true. But at what cost?

Would you like to be a part of that debate?

Then be a part of it. Lets discuss it. There's definitely good proposals and bad proposals out there. There's definitely tradeoffs on everything we do. These are important issues worth discussing.

But Global Warming is different. Y'see, many of the people who don't like the current proposals have decided to go a different route. They've decided to declare its not happening.

It's like the dictators in Africa. Faced with hard choices about what to do with the AIDS crisis, they've decided to deny HIV causes it, and blame western conspiracies.

Faced with hard choices about what to do to handle the problem of Global Warming, a subset of people have decided it's not happening.

That's just stupid. And these people have doomed themselves to being utterly irrelevant in the debate, because like the dictators in Africa denying that HIV causes AIDS, there's no good way to use their 'suggestions' as inputs into reality.

Skeptic
8th December 2009, 12:16 PM
But didn't you just agree that there are definately benefits to stopping pollution and reducing our carbon production?

Yes. The problem comes from creation of a multinational bureaucracy to force countries into doing that, with no regard to their current well-being. The greater the sense of dire emergency and needed immediate action, the more coercive power will be given to such institutions.

Ryokan
8th December 2009, 12:30 PM
I am deeply suspicious of plans which will "benefit us all in the long run". History shows that such plans -- communism, for instance, or eugenics -- tend to become corrupt, merely benefiting the plan's originators in the short run.

Capitalism was introduced to benefit us in the long run...

Darth Rotor
8th December 2009, 12:35 PM
Capitalism was introduced to benefit us in the long run...
make a buck or fifty.

Piggy
8th December 2009, 12:41 PM
I am deeply suspicious of plans which will "benefit us all in the long run".

But it makes no sense to stop at being suspicious.

What we're looking at with global warming is a classic "tragedy of the commons" scenario.

It's clearly in everyone's interest in the long run to stop global warming, because if we don't we're looking at coastal flooding, the collapse of food fish populations, the melting of the Tibetan glaciers which supply water to nearly half the people on earth, increasingly violent weather events, and other really nasty and expensive stuff.

On the other hand, it's not in any of our individual interests in the short run, because it's going to cost money and we don't get immediate payback for it.

Free markets are inherently bad at handling those kinds of situations. So you end up with the Easter Island effect.

The dynamics of the unregulated free market inevitably lead to using up all the fossil fuel we can while it's cheap, and taking little if any action to forestall truly horrific consequences long term.

Therefore, planning must be involved. And at the moment, national governments, in cooperation through international organizations such as the UN, are the only agencies which have the capacity to provide such planning.

In short, there is no free-market solution to this, and some sort of government-enforced regulatory solution is required.

That being the case, we need for leaders in the areas of science, politics, and business to devise and implement the best plans they can. And of course to alter course as needed, because it's too much to hope that we'll hit on the right solutions right off the bat.

Skeptic
8th December 2009, 12:43 PM
Then be a part of it. Lets discuss it. There's definitely good proposals and bad proposals out there. There's definitely tradeoffs on everything we do. These are important issues worth discussing.

Absolutely.What you said is true for the usual right-wing pundits who deny AGW because they dislike the proposals. But certainly this is not true in general. I think that many, perhaps most, scientists believe, reasonably I think, that AGW is real and has real effects, but that dire predictions of impending catastrophe unless YOU DO WHAT I TELL YOU RIGHT NOW are silly and counterproductive. The opposition is not to science, but to hysterical WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE! predictions, to quasi-religious "The end is nigh" suggestions.

Piggy
8th December 2009, 12:44 PM
The problem comes from creation of a multinational bureaucracy to force countries into doing that, with no regard to their current well-being.

Interesting problem, but not one we're facing.

That's what all the negotiation is about -- how to balance the costs (which are real) against expected benefits, and how to distribute both.

Ryokan
8th December 2009, 12:49 PM
make a buck or fifty.

No, it was actually designed to be a tool to spread the wealth better than mercantilism did. And it did.

Piggy
8th December 2009, 12:56 PM
dire predictions of impending catastrophe unless YOU DO WHAT I TELL YOU RIGHT NOW are silly and counterproductive

I think you're confusing this cartoon scenario with the reality we're facing right now, which is overwhelming evidence of actual catastrophic events unless we figure out how to stop them and begin implementing those steps very soon.

Merely calling the predictions "dire" and "catastrophic" says nothing about their accuracy.

Yes, the volcano can erupt and bury the town in ash and lava.

Yes, huge space rocks can hit the earth and kill billions of living things.

Yes, the earthquake can destroy the metropolis and kill millions of innocent people.

Yes, the tsunami can wipe out the coast and drown babies and grandmothers.

The earth does not care about us. Physics does not care about us.

There is nothing special about us -- our species or our planet. There is no Deep Magic protecting us.

If the planet continues to warm at the present rate, our coastal cities will flood, the glaciers will melt, species will go extinct, the oceans will acidify which will kill the coral reefs and spark the collapse of many food fish populations, and so on and so forth.

In fact, if things are pushed too far, we'll go into a period shift, marking the end of one millenia-long period of climate configuration, and the beginning of another. Such shifts are violent and involve quite a bit of extinction.

That's just physics and biology, plain and simple.

Dire? Catastrophic? Absolutely.

But that's what the evidence shows.

No one knows at what point the more disastrous events become inevitable. Heck, we might already be beyond the tipping point.

But what's clear is that some of the scariest predictions are already starting to occur, including sea level rise and de-glaciation. If present trends continue, the Tibetan glaciers could disappear in my lifetime.

If that doesn't scare the hell out of you, I don't know what will.

So it's best to resist the temptation to lapse into denial simply because the predictions are dire.

We have to have the guts, and the sense, to face them and do our best to turn things around.

Pardalis
8th December 2009, 01:35 PM
The opposition is not to science, but to hysterical WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE! predictions, to quasi-religious "The end is nigh" suggestions.

Surely there is alot of woo and hysteria out there, but it is based on genuine concerns about the planet, and if we keep wasting our planet away at the rate we're doing it, those hysterical predictions will come true (a few decades down the line, even a century). Why wait until those predictions become real and inevitable?

I understand your skepticism about the hysteria, I think sometimes it's too politically motivated, and sometimes they're flat wrong about alot of things (like Greenpeace about GMOs, IMO) but the end goal is justified in my opinion. I don't think anyone is suggesting to change our way of life completely over night, at gun point, but we do have to start changing it.

Like your example of obesity, one doesn't need to get paranoid about saturated fats and cholesterol, but if one doesn't start changing one's lifestyle and food habits, one will get health problems.

Pardalis
8th December 2009, 01:43 PM
The earth does not care about us. Physics does not care about us.

There is nothing special about us -- our species or our planet. There is no Deep Magic protecting us.



But we care about ourselves, and our future, and there is something special about us, our moral consciousness. :)

Some people can say we will go extinct eventually, that there's nothing we can do about it, that nature is stronger than our will, and it will kill us eventually. They're right, of course, in a way, but as a moral and sentient species we can't sit there and let it happen. We have the moral obligation to do whatever we can to avoid it, we have the moral obligation towards the generations of humans of the future to avoid them the suffering of famine and unimaginable destruction.

We know we could go extinct, but we will not go without a fight.

The Greatest Generation sacrificed itself for us when they fought fascism in Europe and Japan, we have something to learn from them.

Newtons Bit
8th December 2009, 01:54 PM
In all those cases, the proponents claimed that what they are saying is scientifically proven; that immediate, extremely expensive and coercive, action is required to avoid disaster;

This is why a large number of people are so extremely skeptical of climate research. This is why so many people should be skeptical of climate research.

Pardalis
8th December 2009, 01:58 PM
When you're going towards a precipice, do you really need to press on the brakes at the very last second?

We all agree there is a precipice out there in our path, and we all agree we will need to press on the brakes at some point, don't we? The sooner, the safer we'll be, IMO. In other words, to press on the brakes sooner than later is a win-win decision.

Piggy
8th December 2009, 02:39 PM
This is why a large number of people are so extremely skeptical of climate research. This is why so many people should be skeptical of climate research.

This is no argument at all.

The fact that it was dangerous and expensive to fight fascist expansion in the early 20th century, for example, did not make it unneccesary to do so.

And the fact that the current predictions are indeed dire, and that it will require significant expenditures to mitigate climate change, is not any sort of argument against the necessity of doing it.

The glaciers are indeed melting. The seas are indeed rising. Species are indeed moving toward the poles. These things are happening. The warming is real, and the mechanism is known.

And in the past couple of years, the truly alarming fact is that these processes are occuring at the high end of the predicted range.

Which means we do, in fact, need to act quickly and decisively.

To cite the call to action itself -- and the predictions and the near timeframes -- as evidence that there is some reason to doubt the reality of the situation is utterly nonsensical.

We now have decades of data and analysis of that data, from all over the globe, and from the oceans to the atmosphere. It all points in one direction.

There is no reason to doubt the science.

Bob Blaylock
9th December 2009, 01:30 AM
Not just “The Boy who Cried ‘Wolf!’”.

This whole scam also borrows heavily from “Chicken Little” and “The Emperor's New Clothes”.

Roll these three classic fairy tales together, and you have the current “Global Warming” scare.

Megalodon
9th December 2009, 01:39 AM
I wonder who read it to the Arctic :rolleyes:

Upchurch
9th December 2009, 05:01 AM
Wow. Really? We can't trust the science? "Newton was wrong so we can't trust Einstein"?

Is there a single reputable scientific organization that doesn't agree with the conclusion of global warming?

Piggy
9th December 2009, 05:29 PM
Is there a single reputable scientific organization that doesn't agree with the conclusion of global warming?

Nope.

Not only that, there's not a single reputable scientific organization that doesn't agree with the conclusion of anthropogenic global warming.

Which is why Bob Blaylock provided no citations to support his (erroneous) statements.

Piggy
9th December 2009, 05:30 PM
I wonder who read it to the Arctic :rolleyes:

And the Tibetan glaciers. And the coral reefs. And the sea level. And the subtropical species. And the atmosphere.

Newtons Bit
9th December 2009, 05:43 PM
This is no argument at all.

The fact that it was dangerous and expensive to fight fascist expansion in the early 20th century, for example, did not make it unneccesary to do so.

And the fact that the current predictions are indeed dire, and that it will require significant expenditures to mitigate climate change, is not any sort of argument against the necessity of doing it.

The glaciers are indeed melting. The seas are indeed rising. Species are indeed moving toward the poles. These things are happening. The warming is real, and the mechanism is known.

And in the past couple of years, the truly alarming fact is that these processes are occuring at the high end of the predicted range.

Which means we do, in fact, need to act quickly and decisively.

To cite the call to action itself -- and the predictions and the near timeframes -- as evidence that there is some reason to doubt the reality of the situation is utterly nonsensical.

We now have decades of data and analysis of that data, from all over the globe, and from the oceans to the atmosphere. It all points in one direction.

There is no reason to doubt the science.

I think you missed my point. Or maybe the definition. "Skeptical" does not always mean "always disagree".

If you take your car into the shop to get the oil changed and the mechanic says, "you've got a huge problem with your transmission, it'll blow up if you don't pay $1,000 to fix it right now!" Will you believe him, or will you go get a second opinion? Now, if the second opinion agrees with the first, you should definitely get it fixed.

This is just normal human behavior. Most people are wary of a scam when a stranger comes up to them and tells them there's this big horrible problem that has to be fixed right now and it can be done if they just fork over a bit of cash. That doesn't mean the stranger is wrong, just that people are wary.

Now with climate science, the fix is going to cost thousands if not millions of lives. The ethanol debacle has already proved that we are going that way. We must always reserve at least a sliver of doubt for any science which will result in this happening. If we don't, then we're just creating a new religion which sacrifices the most impoverished and hungry people to its' imaginary god.

casebro
9th December 2009, 05:59 PM
...the fix is going to cost thousands if not millions of lives.

No it is not. Man will adapt. It may cost thousands of polar bears their lives, but I doubt that too. They also can adapt. (Interbreeding with brown bears is the first thing that enters my mind.)

I'd rather go on driving my gas guzzler than preserve polar bears. Except that they probably taste good, greasier than pork?

Newtons Bit
9th December 2009, 06:07 PM
...the fix is going to cost thousands if not millions of lives.

No it is not. Man will adapt. It may cost thousands of polar bears their lives, but I doubt that too. They also can adapt. (Interbreeding with brown bears is the first thing that enters my mind.)

I'd rather go on driving my gas guzzler than preserve polar bears. Except that they probably taste good, greasier than pork?

Two cases that I can see:

1. Man does nothing. The sea-levels rise. People in low-lying countries flee their cities and move inland. These refugees will cause problems. It will start wars.

2. Man fixes the problem by outlawing carbon-heavy energy sources. Sea-levels don't rise, however, the cost of living everywhere goes up significantly. The people on the lowest end of poverty no longer have access to food. They starve to death.

Either option is bad.

Piggy
9th December 2009, 06:20 PM
I think you missed my point. Or maybe the definition. "Skeptical" does not always mean "always disagree".

If you take your car into the shop to get the oil changed and the mechanic says, "you've got a huge problem with your transmission, it'll blow up if you don't pay $1,000 to fix it right now!" Will you believe him, or will you go get a second opinion? Now, if the second opinion agrees with the first, you should definitely get it fixed.

This is just normal human behavior. Most people are wary of a scam when a stranger comes up to them and tells them there's this big horrible problem that has to be fixed right now and it can be done if they just fork over a bit of cash. That doesn't mean the stranger is wrong, just that people are wary.

Now with climate science, the fix is going to cost thousands if not millions of lives. The ethanol debacle has already proved that we are going that way. We must always reserve at least a sliver of doubt for any science which will result in this happening. If we don't, then we're just creating a new religion which sacrifices the most impoverished and hungry people to its' imaginary god.

I'm a dyed-in-the-wool skeptic. I don't misunderstand what that means, btw.

My point was that your argument is simply without merit.

The science is conclusive at this point. A skeptic, like me, who bases his beliefs squarely on evidence will have no choice, once informed, but to accept it.

My problem with your arguments is that they are fact-free.

Here's the challenge I lay down to all those who mistakenly believe that there's still some debate about the basics of AGW: Go to the Science Daily climate page and browse around.

You will find that there simply is no scientific dissent about the basics of AGW. Just as there is no longer any scientific dissent about the basics of evolution.

If there were actually any scientific controversy, it would take five minutes to find and document.

But you won't find it.

It is not enough to merely speculate that a mechanic may have a motive to cheat you, when you are asking a question about a particular mechanic.

You can't just stop there with some generic assertion.

Yes, it's correct to be wary when someone says there's a big horrible problem looming. But it is irresponsible to simply stop there and not get the facts.

Please, take my challenge, and see for yourself if there's any legitimate controversy about AGW anymore.

You'll find there is not.

Piggy
9th December 2009, 06:23 PM
Two cases that I can see:

1. Man does nothing. The sea-levels rise. People in low-lying countries flee their cities and move inland. These refugees will cause problems. It will start wars.

2. Man fixes the problem by outlawing carbon-heavy energy sources. Sea-levels don't rise, however, the cost of living everywhere goes up significantly. The people on the lowest end of poverty no longer have access to food. They starve to death.

Either option is bad.

What about the melting of the Tibetan glaciers?

What about the acidification of the seas and the death of coral reefs, leading to the collapse of food fish populations?

You underestimate the consequences of doing nothing.

Newtons Bit
9th December 2009, 06:25 PM
What about the melting of the Tibetan glaciers?

What about the acidification of the seas and the death of coral reefs, leading to the collapse of food fish populations?

You underestimate the consequences of doing nothing.

:boggled::boggled:

I was responding to a post about how man was going to be fine.

Man ain't.

WildCat
9th December 2009, 06:50 PM
What about the melting of the Tibetan glaciers?

What about the acidification of the seas and the death of coral reefs, leading to the collapse of food fish populations?

You underestimate the consequences of doing nothing.
And what will the costs be of not doing enough? If China and India are given a pass on emissions (and China already produces more carbon than the US) then what?

It appears that the island nation of Tuvalu is being thrown under the bus (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8405051.stm).

So apparently reaching an agreement is more important than actually stopping the temperature rise?

Piggy
9th December 2009, 06:53 PM
:boggled::boggled:

I was responding to a post about how man was going to be fine.

Man ain't.

Sorry. My apologies, then. I need some sleep.

Piggy
9th December 2009, 06:57 PM
And what will the costs be of not doing enough? If China and India are given a pass on emissions (and China already produces more carbon than the US) then what?

It appears that the island nation of Tuvalu is being thrown under the bus (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8405051.stm).

So apparently reaching an agreement is more important than actually stopping the temperature rise?

There's no doubt in my mind that nations which are poor, less populated, and less industrialized will suffer disproportionately. The weak always do, don't they?

We'll see what happens with negotiations, but it does seem that important business and political factions within China and India understand the economic risks of GW.

The reality is, we can't stop the temperature rise without some sort of agreement framework.

Personally, I'm not optimistic that very large groups of humans from differing tribes will be able to pull it off. But we have to try. Sometimes, we surprise ourselves.

gumboot
9th December 2009, 07:32 PM
I think global warming is a good thing. Quite frankly there's too many people. We need a very large chunk of the global population to die. That's the real inconvenient truth.

Piggy
9th December 2009, 07:38 PM
I think global warming is a good thing. Quite frankly there's too many people. We need a very large chunk of the global population to die. That's the real inconvenient truth.

We could do with a good 75% reduction.

The problem w/ GW is that it wrecks the place for the survivors.

gumboot
9th December 2009, 07:53 PM
We could do with a good 75% reduction.

The problem w/ GW is that it wrecks the place for the survivors.


My theory is that global warming will cause catastrophic collapse of human societies long before it causes substantial long-term ecological damage to all of the planet. By definition, the survivors will live in the parts of the earth that are still in good shape.

Consider, if you will, what will happen to large cities when the rural areas providing their resources start holding onto those resources for themselves. I don't think there's a single city in the world that's even remotely self sufficient. They'll disintegrate very, very rapidly, and as the cities collapse, so will society - long before the earth is transformed into a wasteland.

WildCat
9th December 2009, 08:01 PM
Consider, if you will, what will happen to large cities when the rural areas providing their resources start holding onto those resources for themselves. I don't think there's a single city in the world that's even remotely self sufficient. They'll disintegrate very, very rapidly, and as the cities collapse, so will society - long before the earth is transformed into a wasteland.
Good luck to a rural area of a few hundred fending off a few million starving city dwellers.

Newtons Bit
9th December 2009, 08:13 PM
I'm a dyed-in-the-wool skeptic. I don't misunderstand what that means, btw.

My point was that your argument is simply without merit.

The science is conclusive at this point. A skeptic, like me, who bases his beliefs squarely on evidence will have no choice, once informed, but to accept it.

My problem with your arguments is that they are fact-free.

Here's the challenge I lay down to all those who mistakenly believe that there's still some debate about the basics of AGW: Go to the Science Daily climate page and browse around.

You will find that there simply is no scientific dissent about the basics of AGW. Just as there is no longer any scientific dissent about the basics of evolution.

If there were actually any scientific controversy, it would take five minutes to find and document.

But you won't find it.

It is not enough to merely speculate that a mechanic may have a motive to cheat you, when you are asking a question about a particular mechanic.

You can't just stop there with some generic assertion.

Yes, it's correct to be wary when someone says there's a big horrible problem looming. But it is irresponsible to simply stop there and not get the facts.

Please, take my challenge, and see for yourself if there's any legitimate controversy about AGW anymore.

You'll find there is not.

I never said I disagreed with the science. I don't have a problem with it.

gumboot
9th December 2009, 08:32 PM
Good luck to a rural area of a few hundred fending off a few million starving city dwellers.

Er, what?

shadron
9th December 2009, 08:47 PM
And what will the costs be of not doing enough?

http://www.smartplanet.com/business/...e-change/3391/ (http://www.smartplanet.com/business/blog/business-brains/wwf-allianze-estimate-what-it-could-cost-not-to-take-action-on-climate-change/3391/)

Captain.Sassy
9th December 2009, 09:00 PM
If you take your car into the shop to get the oil changed and the mechanic says, "you've got a huge problem with your transmission, it'll blow up if you don't pay $1,000 to fix it right now!" Will you believe him, or will you go get a second opinion? Now, if the second opinion agrees with the first, you should definitely get it fixed.

Good analogy.

Now, you've gone to the first mechanic, who said 'get it fixed', and to the mechanic down the street, who also said 'get it fixed'. Then you went to the mechanics out of town, and they all said 'get it fixed'. Then you drove to the next province and toured around from town to town visiting mechanics who all said 'get it fixed'. Then the professional association of auto mechanics released an official statement that said 'get it fixed', and then every single association of professionals associated with mechanical repairs read the auto mechanics association's official position, looked a the facts and decided the reasoning was so sound that they also made it their official line that yes, indeed, you need to get your transmission fixed and it'll cost you 1,000$ and if you don't fix it then you're gonna need to buy a new transmission.

But that wasn't enough.

So you drove out of town to Al's Transmission Sales and asked the salesman there what he thought and he was like 'nah it'll be fine just drive around in circles here in the parking lot for a day or two'.

And the junk was debunked.

Newtons Bit
9th December 2009, 09:31 PM
Good analogy.

Now, you've gone to the first mechanic, who said 'get it fixed', and to the mechanic down the street, who also said 'get it fixed'. Then you went to the mechanics out of town, and they all said 'get it fixed'. Then you drove to the next province and toured around from town to town visiting mechanics who all said 'get it fixed'. Then the professional association of auto mechanics released an official statement that said 'get it fixed', and then every single association of professionals associated with mechanical repairs read the auto mechanics association's official position, looked a the facts and decided the reasoning was so sound that they also made it their official line that yes, indeed, you need to get your transmission fixed and it'll cost you 1,000$ and if you don't fix it then you're gonna need to buy a new transmission.

But that wasn't enough.

So you drove out of town to Al's Transmission Sales and asked the salesman there what he thought and he was like 'nah it'll be fine just drive around in circles here in the parking lot for a day or two'.

And the junk was debunked.

That was a really long-winded post for something that was explained in the proceeding and following paragraph of the quoted post.

gumboot
9th December 2009, 10:02 PM
Good analogy.

Now, you've gone to the first mechanic, who said 'get it fixed', and to the mechanic down the street, who also said 'get it fixed'. Then you went to the mechanics out of town, and they all said 'get it fixed'. Then you drove to the next province and toured around from town to town visiting mechanics who all said 'get it fixed'. Then the professional association of auto mechanics released an official statement that said 'get it fixed', and then every single association of professionals associated with mechanical repairs read the auto mechanics association's official position, looked a the facts and decided the reasoning was so sound that they also made it their official line that yes, indeed, you need to get your transmission fixed and it'll cost you 1,000$ and if you don't fix it then you're gonna need to buy a new transmission.

But that wasn't enough.

So you drove out of town to Al's Transmission Sales and asked the salesman there what he thought and he was like 'nah it'll be fine just drive around in circles here in the parking lot for a day or two'.

And the junk was debunked.



Although I'm personally firmly in support of measures to reduce our emissions, the above narrative suggests at one of the issues I have with the AGW topic.

I have seen instances of apparently reputable scientists who question aspects of the AGW theory, and I have seen how the scientific community often responds to these detractors. In my opinion such silencing of dissent is inappropriate, and worrying.

I don't think it's actually evidence that GW doesn't exist. Nor do I think it's evidence that humans aren't causing it. Rather it has less direct but far more broadly worrying implications - science is turning into a religion.

AGW isn't the only place I have seen it happening either.

In science, criticism is not only valid, but essential. Scientists who disagree with the consensus should be encouraged to speak out. Their science should be made readily available so that it can be assessed and dismissed or used to amend the existing theory. That's what science is.

Instead it appears to me that scientists are too often these days approaching their work as if they're battling with other scientists for support of the populace (the cynic in me thinks perhaps they're actually battling for research grants) - as priests of old used to battle each other for control of our eternal souls.

daenku32
9th December 2009, 10:14 PM
I have seen instances of apparently reputable scientists who question aspects of the AGW theory, and I have seen how the scientific community often responds to these detractors. In my opinion such silencing of dissent is inappropriate, and worrying.

Do you happen to have an example of this?

gumboot
9th December 2009, 10:53 PM
Do you happen to have an example of this?

I don't really know any more about the topic than your average person - I freely admit to not being well versed in it. But I would point to the example of a local scientist - Chris de Freitas. There's been ongoing conflict between him and another notable NZ Scientist - Jim Salinger - for years, but it has come to the fore again with the recent leaked emails.

As an example, de Freitas published an article which questioned whether CO2 was driving global warming. Salinger began to coordinate a joint rebuttal of de Freitas' paper before he had actually read it. (These communications form part of the "climate-gate scandal)

Now to my way of thinking, if Salinger was a genuine scientist, his first natural response to hearing of a new paper that questioned aspects of his own research would be to read the paper. Upon reading the paper one of two responses seem logical:

1. I can spot obvious flaws in this research, I should rebut it.
2. Hrm, this seems robust on the surface, I must look into it further.

Option 2. would lead to additional research and similar options:

A. I have uncovered flaws in this research, I should rebut it.
B. The research is sound, I should assess its impact on my own work.

It appears, from what I can glean, that Salinger has skipped the entire process. He's not a scientist, he's a priest, protecting dogma.

I think of it in 9/11 Conspiracy Theory terms - because it's a topic I'm familiar with.

If I hear of an "amazing new theory" I'll be skeptical, because I feel I've thoroughly researched the topic, and think I'm right. But I won't dismiss the new theory until I've actually had a look at what it is. Dismissing it might be easy, if the theory is obviously flawed. But if it's better thought out I might have to do some further research to determine its flaws. Alternatively I might find that actually there's some truth to this new theory, and I'll amend my own understanding accordingly. I've gone through that process countless times during my look at those conspiracy theories.

Isn't that what a scientist should do?

Megalodon
9th December 2009, 11:12 PM
I think of it in 9/11 Conspiracy Theory terms - because it's a topic I'm familiar with.

If I hear of an "amazing new theory" I'll be skeptical, because I feel I've thoroughly researched the topic, and think I'm right. But I won't dismiss the new theory until I've actually had a look at what it is. Dismissing it might be easy, if the theory is obviously flawed. But if it's better thought out I might have to do some further research to determine its flaws. Alternatively I might find that actually there's some truth to this new theory, and I'll amend my own understanding accordingly. I've gone through that process countless times during my look at those conspiracy theories.

Isn't that what a scientist should do?

I can imagine that when you heard of the "nano-thermite" article, the first thing in your mind was 'Let's see if I was wrong all along and Atta et al are innocent' :rolleyes:

I didn't read the emails you speak of, since I try to keep some kind of personal standards, but you are talking about private emails between friends who have been slandered left and right for the last years. Their research, as well as personal ethics, has been impugned by idiots all over the world.

So I can understand if they got defensive.

Now the question is, where they wrong? Did the paper somehow disprove CO2 as a climate forcing?

Of course it didn't, and I don't need to read it to know that. Because it is a very well established scientific fact. It has been since way before AGW was even an issue.

Now, should they read it before writing a rebuttal? Of course! Should they wait to read it before knowing it needs a rebuttal? Not really, no...

'I saw the planes flying into the buildings on live television, but maybe it was a hologram and there was nanothermite all over the building'

Yeah, right :rolleyes:

a_unique_person
9th December 2009, 11:23 PM
If I hear of an "amazing new theory" I'll be skeptical, because I feel I've thoroughly researched the topic, and think I'm right. But I won't dismiss the new theory until I've actually had a look at what it is. Dismissing it might be easy, if the theory is obviously flawed. But if it's better thought out I might have to do some further research to determine its flaws. Alternatively I might find that actually there's some truth to this new theory, and I'll amend my own understanding accordingly. I've gone through that process countless times during my look at those conspiracy theories.

Isn't that what a scientist should do?

It's not new, it's been developed gradually over the course of a century.

An excellent review of the history. The prime instigator of the modern phase of research was the USAF. Must be a bunch of commie greenies.

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/

Megalodon
9th December 2009, 11:28 PM
Now to my way of thinking, if Salinger was a genuine scientist, his first natural response to hearing of a new paper that questioned aspects of his own research would be to read the paper.

Your idea of what a "genuine scientist" is or would do is in disagreement with reality.

Scientists are humans, with emotional attachment to their work and accomplishments, not some cold robots. If you say you disproved my work, my first reaction is that you're wrong, even before I read the paper. I might be convinced afterward, but it will not be easy.

In the case of Climate science it gets even trickier, since a scientist knows that independently of hirs hard work, any bozo can get published in the contrarian fish wrappers -as Energy and Environment- and the media will run with it. Add to it that it's a phenomenon of global importance, and there has been a huge investment in disinformation and production of dubious science by the delayer camp.

You get that yes, there is a need to organize rebuttals, since the debunking of this trash has to be as close to the initial media impact as possible, and even then will not avoid the damage...

a_unique_person
9th December 2009, 11:31 PM
I don't really know any more about the topic than your average person - I freely admit to not being well versed in it. But I would point to the example of a local scientist - Chris de Freitas. There's been ongoing conflict between him and another notable NZ Scientist - Jim Salinger - for years, but it has come to the fore again with the recent leaked emails.

As an example, de Freitas published an article which questioned whether CO2 was driving global warming. Salinger began to coordinate a joint rebuttal of de Freitas' paper before he had actually read it.

It's like asking a biologist if he had read the latest creationst piece of toilet paper.

gumboot
9th December 2009, 11:37 PM
Thank you for so eloquently illustrating my point.

I can imagine that when you heard of the "nano-thermite" article, the first thing in your mind was 'Let's see if I was wrong all along and Atta et al are innocent' :rolleyes:


You're attributing to me the kind of logic used by conspiracy theorists. (Ironic, actually). Just because there's conflicting data doesn't mean the entire theory needs to be rejected. But it might mean the theory needs amending.


I didn't read the emails you speak of, since I try to keep some kind of personal standards

Oh look, a personal attack. How mature. :rolleyes:


but you are talking about private emails between friends who have been slandered left and right for the last years. Their research, as well as personal ethics, has been impugned by idiots all over the world.

Did people, perhaps, imply they don't have any kind of personal standards? :rolleyes:


So I can understand if they got defensive.

I'm not talking about them being defensive. I'm talking about them behaving unscientifically.


Now the question is, where they wrong?

No, that's not the question. I made it pretty damn clear that my concern was over method, not result. Science is upheld precisely because of the integrity of its method. If that is abandoned, it becomes no better than any other religion. Even religion gets some things right. Even if scientists are 100% absolutely on the nail about AGW, we should still be loudly criticising even the tiniest example of unscientific behaviour by those that support it. Because if we allow it now, we're in trouble next time the consensus happens to be wrong about some future scientific theory, and we can be sure that will happen.


Did the paper somehow disprove CO2 as a climate forcing?

I don't think that's actually what it was trying to do. I don't really know, and I haven't read the paper (nor do I expect I'd understand it) De Freitas considers himself a climate change agnostic (he agrees the earth is warming but doesn't think we've conclusively determined the cause).


Of course it didn't, and I don't need to read it to know that. Because it is a very well established scientific fact. It has been since way before AGW was even an issue.

This sounds dangerously dogmatic to me... and rather unscientific.


Now, should they read it before writing a rebuttal? Of course! Should they wait to read it before knowing it needs a rebuttal? Not really, no...

'I saw the planes flying into the buildings on live television, but maybe it was a hologram and there was nanothermite all over the building'

Yeah, right :rolleyes:



If someone managed to get published a peer-reviewed paper in a reputable science journal that concluded the WTC towers were demolished by controlled demolition, or that no planes hit the towers, you can bet your ass I would be reading it very carefully.

Your comparison doesn't work, because there's a magnitude of difference between the fantasy-theories of a teenager on the internet and a peer-reviewed scientific article. By making such a comparison you're committing a rather clumsy and obvious logical fallacy.

In my opinion any scientist who rejects research out of hand simply because it disagrees with their own research is not a scientist at all.

(By the way I haven't read the emails either - the topic doesn't interest me that much - my understanding is based on local news articles that have covered the topic and have talked to both parties).

gumboot
9th December 2009, 11:40 PM
It's not new, it's been developed gradually over the course of a century.

An excellent review of the history. The prime instigator of the modern phase of research was the USAF. Must be a bunch of commie greenies.

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/


Huh?

gumboot
10th December 2009, 12:16 AM
Your idea of what a "genuine scientist" is or would do is in disagreement with reality.

Scientists are humans, with emotional attachment to their work and accomplishments, not some cold robots. If you say you disproved my work, my first reaction is that you're wrong, even before I read the paper. I might be convinced afterward, but it will not be easy.

That's fine. But we're not talking about a person's personal "first reaction", we're talking about their professional response.


In the case of Climate science it gets even trickier, since a scientist knows that independently of hirs hard work, any bozo can get published in the contrarian fish wrappers -as Energy and Environment- and the media will run with it.


Okay, but what about the Journal of Geophysical Research, published by the American Geophysical Union? (Who, by the way, support AGW).

And what about Dr Chris de Freitas? He might be completely wrong, but nonetheless he's not "any bozo". He's a climate scientist, with hundreds of publications to his credit.

Can't you see the issue here? Were this how Salinger responded to "some bozo" in a "fish wrapper" magazine (or on an internet blog, or whatever) I couldn't fault him. He believes that wrong science should be countered, otherwise there's a risk it will become accepted. I agree with him wholeheartedly on that.

But a good skeptic (and I think above all else, scientists need to be skeptics) should be able to distinguish between input from an obviously unreliable source and input from a potentially reliable source.




Add to it that it's a phenomenon of global importance, and there has been a huge investment in disinformation and production of dubious science by the delayer camp.

I'm sorry, but that just doesn't justify it. Just because a lot of crap is being thrown about doesn't mean it's sensible to assume anything you don't like is crap. If your ability to assess the reliability of a source is that bad, you really have no place being involved.

Skeptic
10th December 2009, 12:26 AM
"Climategate" etc. does the most damage to honest scientists who actually follow the data. The consensus seems to be that the earth is, in fact, warming and people do have an effect; the dispute is HOW MUCH of an effect and what to do about it. Of course they might be wrong but so can any theory. "Might be wrong" is no argument.

But the problem is that it long became, not so much a scientific issue, but a political and religious one. AGW is one thing. YOU ARE RUINING THE PLANET, YOU EVIL CAPITALISTS, AND WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE UNLESS YOU GIVE US TONS OF MONEY RIGHT NOW is something else altogether.

People are denying global warming altogether not because the science, but because of the absurd claims and demands made about it. Darwin never manipulated data for political purposes, like some climate scientists did, and never demanded that evolution proves biologists must be given billions and billions of dollars RIGHT NOW or else it will be the end of the world, like all kinds of people are.

If he had, it would have been quite a natural reaction to say, "you're just making this up, aren't you, for the money?". They would in fact be wrong -- even if Darwin had done that it would not show evolution were false -- but understandable.

A great cartoon about the subject:

http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/sbr120809dAPR20091209112131.jpg

Megalodon
10th December 2009, 01:26 AM
You're attributing to me the kind of logic used by conspiracy theorists. (Ironic, actually).

The smilie is there for a reason. It means I actually don't expect you to react The way I said, the same way that climate scientists might not react the way you think they should to the suggestion du jour on why accepted physics is wrong.

Just because there's conflicting data doesn't mean the entire theory needs to be rejected. But it might mean the theory needs amending.

But first you would need to start at the beginning, namely disproving the well accepted physical properties of CO2, or why they should magically stop working when it hurts someone's political ideology. Until then, it's just hand-waving.

Oh look, a personal attack. How mature. :rolleyes:

Not necessarily.Some of the emails have been publicly discussed by the victims of this whole mess. You might have gotten your information from that kind of source.

Otherwise, please consider it a statement of fact. I have very little respect for people who go around searching through other peoples correspondence, even if under the umbrella of "it was in the Internet".

Did people, perhaps, imply they don't have any kind of personal standards? :rolleyes:

Good try, but I implied nothing. See above for clarification.

I'm not talking about them being defensive. I'm talking about them behaving unscientifically.

That is an assertion you would need to prove. It's easy,actually... did they write their rebuttal before they read the article? It must show...

If not, you're just projecting. And in doing so, carrying out the main purpose of the criminals that started this, spread the disinformation wide and loud.

No, that's not the question. I made it pretty damn clear that my concern was over method, not result. Science is upheld precisely because of the integrity of its method.

It is exactly the question. The personal remarks that one makes casually to friends in a private conversation are irrelevant.Do you have any evidence that the rebuttal was written un-scientifically?

I can (and have) illustrated other scientists with less than favourable adjectives. It's bloody irrelevant if any rebuttal I do of their work is less than meticulous.

If that is abandoned, it becomes no better than any other religion. Even religion gets some things right. Even if scientists are 100% absolutely on the nail about AGW, we should still be loudly criticising even the tiniest example of unscientific behaviour by those that support it. Because if we allow it now, we're in trouble next time the consensus happens to be wrong about some future scientific theory, and we can be sure that will happen.

Sure... now explain to me why the private communications of scientists should be more scrutinized than that of any other profession? Why should I be held to the standards that people derive from seeing caricatures of scientists on tv shows?

I am not permanently talking in scientific jargon, even with colleagues. I've been known to swear like a sailor, and engage in hyperbole and sarcasm. It means nothing when it comes to my professional integrity. Want to know about that? The papers are out there, refute them if you can.


I don't think that's actually what it was trying to do. I don't really know, and I haven't read the paper (nor do I expect I'd understand it) De Freitas considers himself a climate change agnostic (he agrees the earth is warming but doesn't think we've conclusively determined the cause).

We have. If he disagrees he can (and did) write an article about it. He can expect it to be shredded by his peers if it's not sound.


This sounds dangerously dogmatic to me... and rather unscientific.

Specially if you isolate it from the next sentence... But even then, I don't need to read a paper on creationism to know it's tripe. But if I'm writing a rebuttal to it, then I have to read it, understand the argument and rebut it point by point.


If someone managed to get published a peer-reviewed paper in a reputable science journal that concluded the WTC towers were demolished by controlled demolition, or that no planes hit the towers, you can bet your ass I would be reading it very carefully.

Of course you would. But I bet you would be more suspicious of a breach in peer-review than plane holograms. Do you have any evidence that this scientist didn't read the paper before writing the rebuttal?

Your comparison doesn't work, because there's a magnitude of difference between the fantasy-theories of a teenager on the internet and a peer-reviewed scientific article. By making such a comparison you're committing a rather clumsy and obvious logical fallacy.

There are tenured professors trying to prove an inside job.

In my opinion any scientist who rejects research out of hand simply because it disagrees with their own research is not a scientist at all.

Life is not simple. Agw is one of the best supported theories out there. Not only it's theoretical basis are rock solid, it's predictions have come to pass, one after the other. Anyone that is aware of the science would be suspicious of an article trying to disprove the known causes of AGW. This just means scientists are humans, not unprofessional. That is shown on the quality of their own research and the soundness of their rebuttal of such article.

(By the way I haven't read the emails either - the topic doesn't interest me that much - my understanding is based on local news articles that have covered the topic and have talked to both parties).

I didn't think you did. Believe it or not, I have you in very high regard. It doesn't mean that I will not argue with you when I think you're wrong.

Cheers

Megalodon
10th December 2009, 01:29 AM
Darwin never manipulated data for political purposes, like some climate scientists did...

I'm getting tired of this lie. Show us the evidence or retract it.

MikeMangum
10th December 2009, 01:35 AM
^^^ This.

The well-funded attack on greens and the AGW hypothesis couldn't be more irrelevant. Society has to change its habits whether or not the polar ice caps are melting rapidly.

-Mike

Why?

Megalodon
10th December 2009, 01:44 AM
That's fine. But we're not talking about a person's personal "first reaction", we're talking about their professional response.

But a good skeptic (and I think above all else, scientists need to be skeptics) should be able to distinguish between input from an obviously unreliable source and input from a potentially reliable source.

You still didn't show any evidence of wrong-doing here. Coordinating a rebuttal before reading a paper is not a problem, unless they also write it up before reading it.

But that would be too silly, easily spotted and nothing shown until now points to it.

If your ability to assess the reliability of a source is that bad, you really have no place being involved.

Again, please show that the work was not read before being rebutted. Because otherwise I have no clue what you are complaining about.

a_unique_person
10th December 2009, 01:48 AM
Huh?

Read the history of research into CO2 and global warming. People didn't believe that CO2 could be that important, till research by the USAF into infra red radiation in the atmosphere showed otherwise.

Skeptic
10th December 2009, 01:53 AM
I'm getting tired of this lie. Show us the evidence or retract it.

Oh, please. here (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/6619796/Climate-scientists-accused-of-manipulating-global-warming-data.html) and here (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/08/the-smoking-gun-at-darwin-zero/) and here (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936328.ece) and...

As for hysteria, here is a short list (http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm) of things the press, "green" organizations, and so on have blamed on global warming.

a_unique_person
10th December 2009, 01:56 AM
I don't think it's actually evidence that GW doesn't exist. Nor do I think it's evidence that humans aren't causing it. Rather it has less direct but far more broadly worrying implications - science is turning into a religion.

AGW isn't the only place I have seen it happening either.

In science, criticism is not only valid, but essential. Scientists who disagree with the consensus should be encouraged to speak out. Their science should be made readily available so that it can be assessed and dismissed or used to amend the existing theory. That's what science is.

Instead it appears to me that scientists are too often these days approaching their work as if they're battling with other scientists for support of the populace (the cynic in me thinks perhaps they're actually battling for research grants) - as priests of old used to battle each other for control of our eternal souls.

Completely wrong. There is always a big debate going on in science, including AGW. You just have to look around and see it is so, not just take peoples word for it. The range of estimates for CO2 sensitivity is just one example. The criticism is for the rise of non-science out there, which is very much along the lines of the support for creationism. Beck, Gerlich and Teuschner, Miskolczi are just three examples of utter nonsense that are taken seriously by the majority of the 'sceptics'.

Bob Blaylock
10th December 2009, 02:10 AM
I have seen instances of apparently reputable scientists who question aspects of the AGW theory, and I have seen how the scientific community often responds to these detractors. In my opinion such silencing of dissent is inappropriate, and worrying.

Do you happen to have an example of this?


http://www.petitionproject.org/

a_unique_person
10th December 2009, 02:49 AM
http://www.petitionproject.org/

Science is not decided by petition. If a petition is all it takes, we can just stop doing research.

a_unique_person
10th December 2009, 03:17 AM
Oh, please. here (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/6619796/Climate-scientists-accused-of-manipulating-global-warming-data.html) and here (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/08/the-smoking-gun-at-darwin-zero/) and here (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936328.ece) and...

As for hysteria, here is a short list (http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm) of things the press, "green" organizations, and so on have blamed on global warming.

Watts will print anything, as long as it is anti AGW. That particular story shows what you get when an amateur takes a blind guess at something.

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/willis_eschenbach_caught_lying.php

Global warming will affect the whole globe. There will be a lot more to talk about besides what's in that list.

Megalodon
10th December 2009, 03:20 AM
Oh, please. here (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/6619796/Climate-scientists-accused-of-manipulating-global-warming-data.html) and here (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/08/the-smoking-gun-at-darwin-zero/) and here (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936328.ece) and...

Unsuprisingly, none of your links is evidence for your claim. The closest thing is the blog post by someone who thinks that raw data is somehow better than treated data.

So, I ask again, do you have any evidence that scientists manipulated data for political purposes? And no, accusations in newspapers and an ignorant making a fool of himself on the internet don't count as evidence.

As for hysteria, here is a short list (http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm) of things the press, "green" organizations, and so on have blamed on global warming.

Who would have known... some idiot collected a lot of assertions from the media that had "global warming" in it and others use it as evidence of... something.

Skeptic
10th December 2009, 03:46 AM
Unsuprisingly, none of your links is evidence for your claim. The closest thing is the blog post by someone who thinks that raw data is somehow better than treated data.

Well, you won't get that sort of ignorant criticism thing from the East Anglia Climate Research Center -- they "accidentally" destroyed the raw data, no doubt so as not to mislead the ignorant masses.

a_unique_person
10th December 2009, 03:56 AM
Well, you won't get that sort of ignorant criticism thing from the East Anglia Climate Research Center -- they "accidentally" destroyed the raw data, no doubt so as not to mislead the ignorant masses.

:hb:

Piggy
10th December 2009, 04:20 AM
My theory is that global warming will cause catastrophic collapse of human societies long before it causes substantial long-term ecological damage to all of the planet. By definition, the survivors will live in the parts of the earth that are still in good shape.

Consider, if you will, what will happen to large cities when the rural areas providing their resources start holding onto those resources for themselves. I don't think there's a single city in the world that's even remotely self sufficient. They'll disintegrate very, very rapidly, and as the cities collapse, so will society - long before the earth is transformed into a wasteland.

I don't think the warming can turn the earth into a wasteland. The worst it can do is induce a period shift, which will introduce a new dynamic. No one can predict what that would be, but I don't see how it would turn our planet in Venus.

It's just the critters that are screwed.

Piggy
10th December 2009, 04:21 AM
I never said I disagreed with the science. I don't have a problem with it.

Ok, I'm really confused.

So you accept AGW, then.

Megalodon
10th December 2009, 04:22 AM
Well, you won't get that sort of ignorant criticism thing from the East Anglia Climate Research Center -- they "accidentally" destroyed the raw data, no doubt so as not to mislead the ignorant masses.

Another lie that you think it's worth spreading... Any evidence?

Scratch that... for any lurkers who might be interested, the data that was destroyed consisted of copies provided by several other national weather services. It still exists, in the archives of those services.

The good thing of this email debacle is that it's now easy to find those who get all their info from the usual suspects. Whatever lie the gurus spout gets mindlessly repeated.

Piggy
10th December 2009, 04:24 AM
A great cartoon about the subject

No data was fudged.

Piggy
10th December 2009, 04:26 AM
they "accidentally" destroyed the raw data

No, they didn't. They dumped their copies of the data which they use for their analysis. The original data is still archived where it was all along.

quixotecoyote
10th December 2009, 04:34 AM
I don't think the warming can turn the earth into a wasteland. The worst it can do is induce a period shift, which will introduce a new dynamic. No one can predict what that would be, but I don't see how it would turn our planet in Venus.

It's just the critters that are screwed.


As one of the critters involved, I'm note sure the lack of Venus-transformation is all that comforting.

Hallo Alfie
10th December 2009, 04:50 AM
Back to the OP.
Here's a recent study on just that - we have had scares before, and they were untrue or massively overstated.

http://kestencgreen.com/green%26armstrong-agw-analogies.pdf

We summarize evidence showing that the global warming alarm movement has more of the character of a political movement than that of a scientific controversy. We then make forecasts of the effects and outcomes of this movement using a structured analysis of analogous situations—a method that has been shown to produce accurate forecasts for conflict situations…

We searched the literature and asked diverse experts to identify phenomena that could be characterized as alarms warning of future disasters that were endorsed by scientists, politicians, and the media, and that were accompanied by calls for strong action. The search yielded 71 possible analogies. We examined objective accounts to screen the possible analogies and found that 26 met all criteria. We coded each for forecasting procedures used, the accuracy of the forecasts, the types of actions called for, and the effects of actions implemented.

Our preliminary findings are that analogous alarms were presented as “scientific,” but none were based on scientific forecasting procedures. Every alarming forecast proved to be false; the predicted adverse effects either did not occur or were minor. Costly government policies remained in place long after the predicted disasters failed to materialize. The government policies failed to prevent ill effects… The structured analogies approach suggests that the current global warming alarm is simply the latest example of a common social phenomenon: an alarm based on unscientific forecasts of a calamity.

We conclude that the global warming alarm will fade, but not before much additional harm is done by governments and individuals making inferior decisions on the basis of unscientific forecasts…

Introduction

To date, no scientific forecasts support the alarm over dangerous manmade global warming. Improper procedures were used to forecast dangerous warming, and there has been no validation to support their use (Green and Armstrong 2007a; Green, Armstrong and Soon 2009). The basic claim by those who promote alarming predictions of dangerous manmade global warming is that nearly all scientists agree that it will occur. However, voting by scientists on what will happen in the future is not a proper approach to science. Moreover, the claim that nearly all scientists agree has been shown to be false by surveys and by petitions signed by identified scientists with relevant qualifications (e.g., Bray and von Storch 2007; Robinson, Robinson and Soon 2007). Despite published and verifiable evidence that the claim of scientific consensus is false, global warming alarmists continue to repeat this claim…

Exhibit 1: Analogies to the alarm over dangerous manmade global warming

Analogy Year

1 Population growth and famine (Malthus) 1798
2 Timber famine economic threat 1865
3 Uncontrolled reproduction and degeneration (Eugenics) 1883
4 Lead in petrol and brain and organ damage 1928
5 Soil erosion agricultural production threat 1934
6 Asbestos and lung disease 1939
7 Fluoride in drinking water health effects 1945
8 DDT and cancer 1962
9 Population growth and famine (Ehrlich) 1968
10 Global cooling; through to 1975 1970
11 Supersonic airliners, the ozone hole, and skin cancer, etc. 1970
12 Environmental tobacco smoke health effects 1971
13 Population growth and famine (Meadows) 1972
14 Industrial production and acid rain 1974
15 Organophosphate pesticide poisoning 1976
16 Electrical wiring and cancer, etc. 1979
17 CFCs, the ozone hole, and skin cancer, etc. 1985
18 Listeria in cheese 1985
19 Radon in homes and lung cancer 1985
20 Salmonella in eggs 1988
21 Environmental toxins and breast cancer 1990
22 Mad cow disease (BSE) 1996
23 Dioxin in Belgian poultry 1999
24 Mercury in fish effect on nervous system development 2004
25 Mercury in childhood inoculations and autism 2005
26 Cell phone towers and cancer, etc. 2008

None of the 26 alarming forecasts that we examined was accurate. Based on analyses to date, 19 of the forecasts were categorically wrong (the direction of the effect was opposite to the alarming forecast), and the remaining 7 of the forecast effects were wrong in degree (no effect or only minor effects actually occurred).

Our impression from analyzing the analogies is that global warming alarm is just another example in a long history of calamity forecasts similar to those described in Extraordinary Popular Delusions And The Madness Of Crowds (MacKay 1841)…

The media give much attention to alarmists, but little to those who are skeptical of their claims. Alarms tend to fade out of the media as alarming forecasts fail to come true. The global warming movement has persisted despite failed forecasts that dangerous warming will happen quickly. In fact, temperatures have been flat to declining for more than a decade....

My bolds

GreyICE
10th December 2009, 05:44 AM
Wait a second, really? That's your list? Ignoring the poisoning the well fallacy, you do realize that many of those 'warnings' came to pass.

For instance:

Lead in petrol actually did have negative effects - it was banned for good reason. The agricultural practices in the United States caused unprecedented disaster (see: Dust Bowl). Asbestos does cause lung disease and lung cancer - well documented. The Ozone hole does exist, although our efforts have resulted in it shrinking (I guess fixing a problem means it was never a problem in the first place). Acid Rain is still a huge issue today. Radon wasn't a panic, people got their homes tested and installed relatively cheap mitigation devices that solved the problem. Salmonella has killed many people.

Then there's the ones that don't make any sense (i.e. don't exist and can't find documentation of them). And the ones that never hit published literature (anti-vax has almost never gotten published, except for studies showing its all bunk).

What the hell. What a group of retards.

Megalodon
10th December 2009, 06:03 AM
Back to the OP.
Here's a recent study on just that - we have had scares before, and they were untrue or massively overstated.

http://kestencgreen.com/green%26armstrong-agw-analogies.pdf

My bolds

That is one of the most idiotic lists I've seen. From time to time some of the usual suspects here try to pass exactly the same argument. It always gets shot down, just to wait for the next... ...to use it.

I guess you're it...

Newtons Bit
10th December 2009, 06:23 AM
delete me. I broke.

Megalodon
10th December 2009, 06:41 AM
1 Population growth and famine (Malthus) 1798

Old malthus cannot be denied. The variables changed since his time, and that has given us breathing space, but in the end he's right. The space and resources are finite, the population is increasing, do the math.

2 Timber famine economic threat 1865

Never heard of it.

3 Uncontrolled reproduction and degeneration (Eugenics) 1883

Hardly a very scientific scare to begin with, but we're used to have the anti-science types dig up 19th century quotes, as if science then was comparable to science now...

4 Lead in petrol and brain and organ damage 1928

This would be the lead that was banned due to the extensive environmental damaged that it caused, right?

5 Soil erosion agricultural production threat 1934

Dust Bowl... 'nuff said...

6 Asbestos and lung disease 1939

This is the same asbestos that needs hazmat teams to remove it from old buildings, due to the severe lung problems that it causes?

7 Fluoride in drinking water health effects 1945

Except for General Jack D. Ripper's musings, never heard of it.

8 DDT and cancer 1962

People were afraid that a carcinogen caused cancer? The horror!

9 Population growth and famine (Ehrlich) 1968

A sure bet. You can only have so many agricultural revolutions.

10 Global cooling; through to 1975 1970

A favorite lie of the deniers... There is no real evidence of a widespread fear of global cooling, and even at that time the vast majority of scientific papers were predicting global warming.

11 Supersonic airliners, the ozone hole, and skin cancer, etc. 1970

huh?

12 Environmental tobacco smoke health effects 1971

People thought that smoking had health effects? Even in passive smokers? Inconceivable...

13 Population growth and famine (Meadows) 1972

See above...

14 Industrial production and acid rain 1974

Are you really that ignorant?

15 Organophosphate pesticide poisoning 1976

Apparently yes...

16 Electrical wiring and cancer, etc. 1979

was there such a scare?

17 CFCs, the ozone hole, and skin cancer, etc. 1985

You don't think that CFCs cause a depletion in the ozone layer, that ozone shields us from uv, or that uv causes skin cancer?

18 Listeria in cheese 1985

Yes, those busybodies and their regulations... cutting profits so that people don't die from eating...

19 Radon in homes and lung cancer 1985

Radon causes lung cancer... people found a way to deal with radon. No real scare.

20 Salmonella in eggs 1988

Yes, the busybodies again...

21 Environmental toxins and breast cancer 1990

:confused:

22 Mad cow disease (BSE) 1996

The busybodies strike again, slashing profits just because of diseases..

23 Dioxin in Belgian poultry 1999

Who would want their belgian poultry without dioxins anyhow? But you probably believe it's harmless, given the other items.

24 Mercury in fish effect on nervous system development 2004

Was this a scare?

25 Mercury in childhood inoculations and autism 2005

No, this is your kind of scare, anti-science smearing scientists and their research.

26 Cell phone towers and cancer, etc. 2008

Such a big scare that nobody I know uses a cellphone. I hear it's a dying industry...

So, to summarize: Science identifies a problem, measures are taken to address it, the problem is averted or remedied, and in the eyes of some idiots that means there was no problem to begin with.

As I said, we've seen this here before, and it was just this stupid in those occasions.

Newtons Bit
10th December 2009, 07:41 AM
Ok, I'm really confused.

So you accept AGW, then.

Why? I've never written a single thing against the science itself.

I have issues with some of the scientists and their behavior. This isn't some sort of back-door ad hom attack against the science itself, though my posts are consistently mis characterized as such by people who do too much assuming and not enough reading.

If we want to save the planet, as it were, the vast majority of the citizens of the world are going to have to agree that it's necessary. That will never happen so long as the scientists doing the research demonstrate a standard of care that is not commensurate with the importance and impact of the research.

It all comes down to trust. And that battle is being lost.

WildCat
10th December 2009, 09:05 AM
Er, what?
How do you think rural dwellers will "hold onto those resources for themselves"?

WildCat
10th December 2009, 09:09 AM
http://www.smartplanet.com/business/...e-change/3391/ (http://www.smartplanet.com/business/blog/business-brains/wwf-allianze-estimate-what-it-could-cost-not-to-take-action-on-climate-change/3391/)
Exactly. So why are developing nations being allowed a free pass to take the place of developed nations in pumping CO2 into the atmosphere?

If the goal is to stop AGW, this exception won't accomplish that.

Newtons Bit
10th December 2009, 09:20 AM
How do you think rural dwellers will "hold onto those resources for themselves"?

Probably with the guns they've been clinging to all these years. ;)

Francesca R
10th December 2009, 09:49 AM
Quite frankly there's too many people. We need a very large chunk of the global population to die. That's the real inconvenient truth.

We could do with a good 75% reduction.Off topic really, but complete rubbish nonetheless.

varwoche
10th December 2009, 10:00 AM
Oh, please. here (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/6619796/Climate-scientists-accused-of-manipulating-global-warming-data.html) and here (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/08/the-smoking-gun-at-darwin-zero/) and here (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936328.ece) and...

As for hysteria, here is a short list (http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm) of things the press, "green" organizations, and so on have blamed on global warming. Link #1 fell so far short that I didn't bother with the others.

Also, it's quite misleading to hang the press and "green organizations" around the necks of climate scientists.

INRM
10th December 2009, 10:55 AM
Skeptic,

In all those cases, the proponents claimed that what they are saying is scientifically proven; that immediate, extremely expensive and coercive, action is required to avoid disaster; that those who disagree are just willfully blind and/or stupid; and that those within the scientific camp who disagree are practically traitors.

While completely unrelated, it kind of sounds like what Hermann Goering said. To get everybody to support you, you claim you're being attacked, denounce the pacifists as exposing the country to greater danger. Except in this case pacifism is replaced with skepticism, and attacked is substituted with a disaster of environmental origin. World is replaced with country.

No, I'm not saying global warming doesn't exist, I'm not saying I don't believe humans have some role in it, I'm just saying that the temperature of earth has reached it's peak in 2000, and basically the guys at East Anglia and other Climate Research centers essentially fudged data to make it seem cooler in the past and make it seem as if global warming is getting worse and worse.

INRM

shadron
10th December 2009, 10:56 AM
I have seen instances of apparently reputable scientists who question aspects of the AGW theory, and I have seen how the scientific community often responds to these detractors. In my opinion such silencing of dissent is inappropriate, and worrying.

Come on, Gumboot. The scientists are reacting to criticism from laymen in exactly the same way they react to that from their fellows. Science is a dog eat dog world where big egos and sharply pointed arguments are the norm. They don't worry about hurt feelings or lost loves. I suppose it could be handled like a badminton match, but if that ever was the case, its gone far beyond it in the present day; it was even down and dirty in Darwin's day.

I don't think it's actually evidence that GW doesn't exist. Nor do I think it's evidence that humans aren't causing it. Rather it has less direct but far more broadly worrying implications - science is turning into a religion.

AGW isn't the only place I have seen it happening either.

In science, criticism is not only valid, but essential. Scientists who disagree with the consensus should be encouraged to speak out. Their science should be made readily available so that it can be assessed and dismissed or used to amend the existing theory. That's what science is.

Instead it appears to me that scientists are too often these days approaching their work as if they're battling with other scientists for support of the populace (the cynic in me thinks perhaps they're actually battling for research grants) - as priests of old used to battle each other for control of our eternal souls.Yeah, that's true. What do you want them to do? Money doesn't grow on trees, as they say, and an unemployed scientist is just as poor as an unemployed laborer. You don't need to be a cynic to believe that is exactly what is going on. It is fortunate for science that the results are pretty much the same as research being done at leisure by rich dilettantes, it's just faster.

Had Darwin boarded the Beagle today, he'd better have had the manuscript of the Origin of Species in hand when he debarked, or he'd been drowned in the manuscripts seeking endorsements. Careful followup and painstaking proof be damned.

lomiller
10th December 2009, 10:58 AM
Was this a scare?



More like a well documented problem hence the extensive list of rivers and lakes where fish consumption is not recommended or only recommended for very limited quantities.

http://www.ec.gc.ca/MERCURY/EN/efca.cfm

lomiller
10th December 2009, 11:01 AM
Exactly. So why are developing nations being allowed a free pass to take the place of developed nations in pumping CO2 into the atmosphere?

Ummm because their per person CO2 emissions are only a small faction of what industrialized nations emit per person…

WildCat
10th December 2009, 12:59 PM
Ummm because their per person CO2 emissions are only a small faction of what industrialized nations emit per person…
What difference does that make? China already surpasses the US in CO2 emissions, and every week another coal power plant goes online there. India isn't far behind and they are also adding new plants.

So atmospheric CO2 levels will still increase much as they were before China and India became major emitters, regardless of what the US and Europe does.

The chemistry and physics doesn't care who is putting the CO2 into the atmosphere, nor the amount per capita of any one country. All that matters is the total CO2 being added, per capita means absolutely nothing as far as AGW is concerned.

So explain to me how this is supposed to arrest AGW, let alone reverse it?

lomiller
10th December 2009, 02:14 PM
What difference does that make? China already surpasses the US in CO2 emissions, and every week another coal power plant goes online there. India isn't far behind and they are also adding new plants.


So you are suggesting all nations should receive the same cap? Say no matter what your population you are limited to, say, the current CO2 production of France?

Megalodon
10th December 2009, 03:14 PM
No, it only works with the strange people from far away...

WildCat
10th December 2009, 03:16 PM
So you are suggesting all nations should receive the same cap? Say no matter what your population you are limited to, say, the current CO2 production of France?
No, I'm saying that the goal should be to reduce atmospheric CO2 levels.

Isn't that what the problem is?

lomiller
10th December 2009, 04:37 PM
No, I'm saying that the goal should be to reduce atmospheric CO2 levels.



Do you disagree that global emissions would go down significantly if everyone capped their per person emissions to where France is right now?

WildCat
10th December 2009, 05:34 PM
Do you disagree that global emissions would go down significantly if everyone capped their per person emissions to where France is right now?
What are your assumptions? Are you assuming industrial output stays the same in both the developed and developing countries? That population growth is neutral?

You also ignore facts like France has a mild climate. If the US did everything France does we'd still put out more CO2 per capita because the US has colder winters and hotter summers, and a lot of energy goes towards heating and cooling.

It's 5 degrees Fahrenheit in Minneapolis as I type this, it's 49 in Paris. How often does any place in France below 10,000 feet hit 5? A good 30% of the US is experiencing that right now. It's 12 here in Chicago.

France also generates most of its electricity with carbon-free nuclear power, while Americans refuse to even consider expanding nuclear capacity. In fact, the Obama administration just ended all hope of a nuclear expansion when it killed Yucca Mtn. as a waste site for purely political reasons.

So no, you can't do a one-size-fits-all solution. Countries in milder climates, all other things being equal, can use less energy than countries with more extreme weather. How does Copenhagen account for differences in climate?

If we are to reduce CO2 emissions globally, rather than reduce them here while increasing them there which very likely will lead to increased CO2 in the atmosphere, everyone has to be involved. If we except developing countries we defeat the entire purpose, and it becomes an excercise in wealth redistribution rather than an attempt to prevent AGW from reaching catastrophic levels.

So what, really, is the goal of the delegates at Copenhagen?

lomiller
10th December 2009, 05:40 PM
as I type this, it's 49 in Paris.

it's 79 in miami

lomiller
10th December 2009, 05:43 PM
What are your assumptions?

I'm not making any assumptions. You said you wanted CO2 emissions to go down, so if everybody currently emitting more CO2 then France reduced their CO2 emissions to the same level as France emissions would go down. If everyone emitting more CO2 per person then France, then CO2 emissions would go down.

WildCat
10th December 2009, 06:05 PM
it's 79 in miami
Want to compare July in Miami to July in Paris? And compare percentages of Americans living in Miami-type climates to French living in a Paris-type climate?

It's 63 in Cannes btw.

Any way you slice it, there is a far smaller percentage of Americans living in mild climates than in France or anywhere in western Europe for that matter. Moving everyone to the coast isn't an option. In a perfect world every place would have San Diego's weather, but alas few places do.

I'm not making any assumptions. You said you wanted CO2 emissions to go down, so if everybody currently emitting more CO2 then France reduced their CO2 emissions to the same level as France emissions would go down. If everyone emitting more CO2 per person then France, then CO2 emissions would go down.
Oh, but you must make assumptions. You asked if atmospheric CO2 would go down if per capita CO2 emissions was capped at what France is now. This cannot be answered without taking those factors into account.

So what are your assumptions? Do you see the developing world becoming more developed? (stupid question I know)

Do you think the earth's human population will increase, decrease, or stay about the same? Will the percentage of earth's population living in mild climates shift, or stay about the same?

The answers to these questions will determine whether or not France's per capita CO2 emissions will be enough. I strongly suspect it won't.

Captain.Sassy
10th December 2009, 06:41 PM
I'm not making any assumptions. You said you wanted CO2 emissions to go down, so if everybody currently emitting more CO2 then France reduced their CO2 emissions to the same level as France emissions would go down. If everyone emitting more CO2 per person then France, then CO2 emissions would go down.

I dig what you're saying, but what would happen if everyone in China and India had per-capita emissions as high as France's? Wouldn't that still be an issue? (I just checked and China's pretty close to France, but India's way below.)

Any way you slice it, there is a far smaller percentage of Americans living in mild climates than in France or anywhere in western Europe for that matter. Moving everyone to the coast isn't an option. In a perfect world every place would have San Diego's weather, but alas few places do.

Finland Sweden and Norway have much lower per capita emissions than Canada or the US.

WildCat
10th December 2009, 06:50 PM
Finland Sweden and Norway have much lower per capita emissions than Canada or the US.
They don't need to use A/C in the summer, and their winters are mild for their latitudes because of their proximity to warm ocean currents.

Today it was 33 in Helsinki, 37 in Stockholm, and 33 in Oslo.

Captain.Sassy
10th December 2009, 06:59 PM
They don't need to use A/C in the summer, and their winters are mild for their latitudes because of their proximity to warm ocean currents.




"District heating is far more efficient than traditional individual household heating and thus releases much less carbon dioxide. From 1990, Swedish carbon dioxide emissions from district heating have been reduced by 60% or three times the EU targets for 2020. The use of fossil oil in district heating has gone down from 80% to 3% and the total Swedish carbon dioxide emissions have been reduced by 25% since the 70’s thanks to district heating."

http://www.symbiocity.org/?pageId=17

WildCat
10th December 2009, 07:09 PM
"District heating is far more efficient than traditional individual household heating and thus releases much less carbon dioxide. From 1990, Swedish carbon dioxide emissions from district heating have been reduced by 60% or three times the EU targets for 2020. The use of fossil oil in district heating has gone down from 80% to 3% and the total Swedish carbon dioxide emissions have been reduced by 25% since the 70’s thanks to district heating."

http://www.symbiocity.org/?pageId=17
That's great, but impractical for the US.

lomiller
10th December 2009, 07:23 PM
Want to compare July in Miami to July in Paris? And compare percentages of Americans living in Miami-type climates to French living in a Paris-type climate?.

So you can read a map and see the US covers more climate zones then France, good for you!
:dl:

In any case it’s a red herring local climate isn’t a large driver of CO2 emissions and there are good options right now for heating/cooling with minimal CO2 emissions.




Oh, but you must make assumptions.

If so many countries develop that this level of per country/per captia emissions is to high, simply reduce it. No need to make assumptions when you can work with the fact at hand. Personally I prefer the idea of a limit based on land area precisely because it forces the decision between population growth and per person CO2.

GreyICE
10th December 2009, 07:26 PM
It was record highs last week (mid 60s).

It had a 14" snowfall yesterday.

I love the northeast.

lomiller
10th December 2009, 07:29 PM
I dig what you're saying, but what would happen if everyone in China and India had per-capita emissions as high as France's? Wouldn't that still be an issue? (I just checked and China's pretty close to France, but India's way below.)

Obviously I picked France because it's already comparable to China. Growth in India would cut into the reduction but not reverse it and if need be you lower the cap further. It's not like anyone is suggesting lowering CO2 emissions will occur instantly. Since there is a gradual reduction going on anyway lowering the limit further down the road if need be isn't a problem.

As I said though I prefer the notion of tieing emissions to land mass to give an incentive to reduce population densities.

DogB
10th December 2009, 07:42 PM
As I said though I prefer the notion of tieing emissions to land mass to give an incentive to reduce population densities.

Great idea! (says the guy from a country with less than a tenth of the population density of the US)

WildCat
10th December 2009, 07:51 PM
So you can read a map and see the US covers more climate zones then France, good for you!
:dl:
And you think that doesn't affect energy use? :rolleyes:

In any case it’s a red herring local climate isn’t a large driver of CO2 emissions and there are good options right now for heating/cooling with minimal CO2 emissions.
It absolutely is! Heating and cooling uses gobs of energy, and in the US that means coal for the most part.

Do you know what another large factor is? Agriculture. Guess which country has more cultivated land than any other?

Worldwide, agriculture accounts for 13.5% of all CO2 emissions.

If so many countries develop that this level of per country/per captia emissions is to high, simply reduce it. No need to make assumptions when you can work with the fact at hand. Personally I prefer the idea of a limit based on land area precisely because it forces the decision between population growth and per person CO2.
It's much easier to build carbon-free power plants in the first place than to start over later. China's coal plants have a 75 year life expectancy, and they're putting one online every week. Those won't go away overnight if it's decided to reduce it later.

Captain.Sassy
10th December 2009, 08:05 PM
As I said though I prefer the notion of tieing emissions to land mass to give an incentive to reduce population densities.

I thought urban density was good for CO2 efficiency?

GreyICE
10th December 2009, 08:09 PM
It absolutely is! Heating and cooling uses gobs of energy, and in the US that means coal for the most part.
As a former building HVAC engineer, let me assure you that you'd cry if you knew the sort of energy they were wasting doing that. Possibly literally. Cry.

Reduce, Reuse, Recycle. So many people forget number 1 in that. And frequently, it's so very easy (spend $8,000 today, make $4,000 per year for 20 years... but that's $8,000 in today's budget, and $4,000 in O&M budget...).

The Fallen Serpent
10th December 2009, 08:46 PM
I thought China was independently setting up plans for reducing their emissions?

http://greenleapforward.com/2009/11/26/china-to-adopt-binding-goal-to-reduce-co2-emissions-per-unit-gdp-by-40-to-45-of-2005-levels-by-2020/

Which does not mean they will necessarily follow their own rules. It will definitely take time. I doubt it will be on schedule.

Getting China and India to reduce carbon emissions is in the long run necessary to stop Global Warming. In a perfect treaty that would be binding in the Copenhagen Treaty. In the end I think it is better for the industrialized countries to agree to some form of Treaty (it isn't finalized yet as far as I understood) then to not agree to anything. It is not as optimal as getting all countries on board at the moment. Walking away from the Treaty entirely even if it is unfair would be not helping to achieve a sustainable solution. Obviously this is just my opinion.

Bob Blaylock
10th December 2009, 11:20 PM
http://www.petitionproject.org/

Science is not decided by petition. If a petition is all it takes, we can just stop doing research.


Nor is it decided by one group of scientists declaring that the debate is over, while many other equally qualified scientists disagree with their conclusion.

The point to that petition is to demonstrate that there are still plenty of qualified, reputable scientists who are not afraid to point out that the emperor is walking around naked, in spite of being told that the only people who cannot see the spectacular new clothes that he is wearing are those who are stupid or unfit for their posts.

a_unique_person
11th December 2009, 12:24 AM
Nor is it decided by one group of scientists declaring that the debate is over, while many other equally qualified scientists disagree with their conclusion.

The point to that petition is to demonstrate that there are still plenty of qualified, reputable scientists who are not afraid to point out that the emperor is walking around naked, in spite of being told that the only people who cannot see the spectacular new clothes that he is wearing are those who are stupid or unfit for their posts.

It is not one group of scientists, it is those who have been trained and researched climate. That is the nature of science these days. People only have a limited ability to understand increasingly complex science. Climate science is no different. I can also find you petitions for scientists who believe in creationism. The oism petition is a well known joke, all they did was send out requests to anyone who wanted to sign and did. There was no quality control. Read this.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/10/oregon-institute-of-science-and-malarkey/

Hallo Alfie
11th December 2009, 12:47 AM
It is not one group of scientists, it is those who have been trained and researched climate. That is the nature of science these days. People only have a limited ability to understand increasingly complex science. Climate science is no different.

Hang on..

Only Climate Change scientists can understand the science?
No one else has a valid opinion on the science, or the way they go about it?
Now I'm no scientist so I'd like some assistance with this next thought..
It seems to me that climate scientists need a number of disciplines. So to fully understand climate science and all its implications a number of disciplines will be required - a quick google search reveals some of them as follows:

Atmospheric and Physical Sciences:
Climatology,
Meteorology,
Atmospheric dynamics,
Atmospheric physics,
Atmospheric chemistry,
Solar physics,
Historical climatology

Earth Sciences:
Geophysics,
Geochemistry,
Geology,
Soil Science,
Oceanography,
Glaciology,
Palaeoclimatology,
Palaeoenvironmental reconstruction

Biological Sciences:
Ecology,
Synthetic biology,
Biochemistry,
Global change biology,
Biogeography,
Ecophysiology,
Ecological genetics

Mathematics,
Statistics and Computational analysis:
Applied mathematics,
Mathematical modelling,
Computer science,
Numerical modelling,
Bayesian inference,
Mathematical statistics,
Time series analysis

So, our climate scientists hold all the necessary qualifications and expertise to be at the top of ALL of these fields?
Wow!
Honestly, they sound like generalists in many things, rather than specialists in anything.

A bit like going to a General Practicioner to get specialised treatment. Odd.

Additionally, are you saying that the scientists holding even more specialised qualifications in the above fields are not qualified to comment on climate science?

Seriously?

The Fallen Serpent
11th December 2009, 01:22 AM
All relevent fields A.A.A.Alfie. I accept your submission of the Global Warming Petition Project and submit something else implying consensus.

Feel free to post links to relevant organizations that disagree with AGW and produce peer reviewed articles.

Notable section with my bolding. Yes it speculates the very real though distant possibility of being incorrect-

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686 (BEYOND THE IVORY TOWER:
The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change)

Others agree (With the IPCC). The American Meteorological Society (6), the American Geophysical Union (7), and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) all have issued statements in recent years concluding that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling (8).

The drafting of such reports and statements involves many opportunities for comment, criticism, and revision, and it is not likely that they would diverge greatly from the opinions of the societies' members. Nevertheless, they might downplay legitimate dissenting opinions. That hypothesis was tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords "climate change" (9).

The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.

Admittedly, authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point.

Hallo Alfie
11th December 2009, 02:05 AM
All relevent fields A.A.A.Alfie. I accept your submission of the Global Warming Petition Project and submit something else implying consensus.

Feel free to post links to relevant organizations that disagree with AGW and produce peer reviewed articles.

Notable section with my bolding. Yes it speculates the very real though distant possibility of being incorrect-

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686 (BEYOND THE IVORY TOWER:
The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change)

Others agree (With the IPCC). The American Meteorological Society (6), the American Geophysical Union (7), and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) all have issued statements in recent years concluding that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling (8).

The drafting of such reports and statements involves many opportunities for comment, criticism, and revision, and it is not likely that they would diverge greatly from the opinions of the societies' members. Nevertheless, they might downplay legitimate dissenting opinions. That hypothesis was tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords "climate change" (9).

The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.

Admittedly, authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point.

Cheers.
It's nice not to be yelled down for a change.

I am no scientist and am little more than Joe Sixpack's drinking buddy. That said, I do follow this topic with lay interest. It is (only) my view that there is not "consensus" and there is debate from the science, to politics to the water cooler. I am not trying to disprove the science - never could nor would.

The person I represent in this debate is Joe and his mates. We have an opinion and are entitled to it despite what others might think and say.

quixotecoyote
11th December 2009, 02:14 AM
opinion and are entitled to it despite what others might think and say.

What is wrong with the following picture?

Scientist: You realize you're completely wrong, no?
Creationist/psychic/anti-AGW/racist/tax-denier/truther/etc: I have a RIGHT to my opinion!

Hallo Alfie
11th December 2009, 02:28 AM
What is wrong with the following picture?

Scientist: You realize you're completely wrong, no?
Creationist/psychic/anti-AGW/racist/tax-denier/truther/etc: I have a RIGHT to my opinion!

Apart from the fact you have shown me no "picture" the statement is incorrect when relating to my comments anyway..

Clearly you either choose to misunderstand me deliberately or you have difficulty with comprehension.

All I have said is there is debate. I have also shown where scientists do not agree with the consensus. Ergo: debate, differences of opinion, argument.

Understand?

I choose not to bleat with the sheep nor follow like a lemming. You may, that is your perogative.

The Fool
11th December 2009, 02:34 AM
Folks.....creating a new lie about deliberate data fudging adds hundreds of thousands of tonnes of CO2 to the atmosphere...I am happy to see that many know about this so have agreed to recycle old lies to reduce the CO2 load.

a_unique_person
11th December 2009, 03:19 AM
Apart from the fact you have shown me no "picture" the statement is incorrect when relating to my comments anyway..

Clearly you either choose to misunderstand me deliberately or you have difficulty with comprehension.

All I have said is there is debate. I have also shown where scientists do not agree with the consensus. Ergo: debate, differences of opinion, argument.

Understand?

I choose not to bleat with the sheep nor follow like a lemming. You may, that is your perogative.

You have a debate, but it turns out be about nothing.

teMlv3ripSM

The Fallen Serpent
11th December 2009, 03:22 AM
Cheers.
It's nice not to be yelled down for a change.

I am no scientist and am little more than Joe Sixpack's drinking buddy. That said, I do follow this topic with lay interest. It is (only) my view that there is not "consensus" and there is debate from the science, to politics to the water cooler. I am not trying to disprove the science - never could nor would.

The person I represent in this debate is Joe and his mates. We have an opinion and are entitled to it despite what others might think and say.

Those who deny AGW do not necessarily have invalid opinions. I confess I have not researched into it. Do they have peer reviewed articles that support AGW being false? Is there something suggesting they do not hold a minority opinion? Scientific consensus can be a fairly broad term and refers to the general opinion of the relevant scientific fields. It could be argued that scientific consensus is irrelevant to determining falsifiable claims about AGW.

Oh, the petition does have reference to peer review articles.

Okay, so I have read more into the article and its history.

The Petition Project is a join venture between the Oregon Institute of Science and Frederick Seitz. The Peer-Review work distributed with the Petition Project was published in the Medical Sentinal now known as the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons and was not peer reviewed. The JPandS is the publication of the Association of Amercian Physicians and Surgeons. The OMSI is a six member faculty that is closely interlinked with the AAPS in terms of cross membership including the Executive Director of the AAPS as one of the six sole members of the OSMI. They are both largely political organizations supporting libertarian free market ideologies mostly as it applies to medicine but not exclusively so.

I become highly skeptical of largely political organisations presenting a Summary of Peer Reviewed Research that was not peer reviewed as a strong scientific claim. This does not entirely discount the article but there are numerous scientists who have felt they have successfully done so. I am curious if there is more actual peer reviewed work that discredits AGW that I can look into? Obviously I am still in the crowd of trusting what the consensus is, but I am open to distrusting it if I can be presented with stronger evidence that AGW is incorrect despite looking correct when presented by most relevant scientists.

a_unique_person
11th December 2009, 03:49 AM
Additionally, are you saying that the scientists holding even more specialised qualifications in the above fields are not qualified to comment on climate science?

Seriously?

They can comment all they like, but don't expect a comment to have any more weight than your comments. But don't don't even know if the petition is even valid. The list of scientists included names like daffy duck, till it was pointed out to them. They sent out a petition, you have no idea who even signed it, or why.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/10/oregon-institute-of-science-and-malarkey/

Hallo Alfie
11th December 2009, 04:00 AM
They can comment all they like, but don't expect a comment to have any more weight than your comments.

OK, so you maintain that no other scientists apart from climate scientists have an opinion worth squat?

How do you reconcile the qualifications requirements I outlined.
Would you see your GP for a problem with cancer, or a specialist oncologist?

a_unique_person
11th December 2009, 05:20 AM
OK, so you maintain that no other scientists apart from climate scientists have an opinion worth squat?

How do you reconcile the qualifications requirements I outlined.
Would you see your GP for a problem with cancer, or a specialist oncologist?

I didn't say that. What I said was that just having anonymous people signing a petition that is poorly worded and parading that around as evidence of anything is pointless. You will find the NAS puts out a statement why it supports AGW, in which it goes into a reasonable amount of detail.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Petition


The text of the petition (which was on a reply card) reads, in its entirety:[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Petition#cite_note-petition-2)
“ We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind. There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.
” The text of the petition often is misrepresented. For example, until recently the petition's website stated that the petition's signatories "declare that global warming is a lie with no scientific basis whatsoever"[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Petition#cite_note-3) and the British newspaper Daily Telegraph (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daily_Telegraph) reported that the petition "denies that man is responsible for global warming."[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Petition#cite_note-4) As seen above, the petition uses the terms catastrophic heating and disruption rather than "global warming."
The original article associated with the petition (see below) defined "global warming" as "severe increases in Earth's atmospheric and surface temperatures, with disastrous environmental consequences".[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Petition#cite_note-envirco2-5) This differs from both scientific usage and dictionary definitions, in which "global warming" is an increase in the global mean atmospheric temperature[7] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Petition#cite_note-6)[8] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Petition#cite_note-7) without implying that the increase is "severe" or will have "disastrous environmental consequences."



This NAS document http://dels.nas.edu/dels/rpt_briefs/climate_change_2008_final.pdf on the other hand gives a reasoned assesment of the argument for AGW, starting with the physical basis.


Also, scientists who are publishing in an area of research are considered to be the experts. It is a demonstration of their level of knowledge, and of the state of the knowledge. Just having an opinion by a scientist is not enough, as is quite apparent.

Newtons Bit
11th December 2009, 07:11 AM
A petition of "scientists", without scientific literature backing up their signature, is nothing more than an appeal to authority.

lomiller
11th December 2009, 08:05 AM
Do you know what another large factor is? Agriculture. Guess which country has more cultivated land than any other?

So you are suggesting that because the US doesn’t choose to keep land in it’s natural state where it could be a productive CO2 sink it should be allowed to emit more CO2? That really doesn’t make much sense.

lomiller
11th December 2009, 08:22 AM
How do you reconcile the qualifications requirements I outlined.

Fortunately there is a very good test of what these opinions are worth, that being the peer reviewed literature. If someone has an opinion that can’t be supported with peer reviewed literature then no amount of “qualification” will make that opinion worthwhile. In most cases however, the expertise of the “experts” you like to present doesn’t hold up to scrutiny.

WildCat
11th December 2009, 08:31 AM
So you are suggesting that because the US doesn’t choose to keep land in it’s natural state where it could be a productive CO2 sink it should be allowed to emit more CO2? That really doesn’t make much sense.
I guess it doesn't make sense, if your goal is to solve the problem by starving to death half the world's population.

Maybe this is what gumboot and piggy were envisoning with the population reduction (75% in piggy's case) they came up with as a solution?

a_unique_person
11th December 2009, 02:28 PM
I guess it doesn't make sense, if your goal is to solve the problem by starving to death half the world's population.

I have seen that logic before somewhere. If the current lifestyle is unsustainable, that means that something is going to give, no matter what we do.

The Painter
11th December 2009, 03:48 PM
The fact that it was dangerous and expensive to fight fascist expansion in the early 20th century, for example, did not make it unneccesary to do so.


WOW, Goodwined in 27 posts. You lose.

Hallo Alfie
11th December 2009, 05:03 PM
Fortunately there is a very good test of what these opinions are worth, that being the peer reviewed literature. If someone has an opinion that can’t be supported with peer reviewed literature then no amount of “qualification” will make that opinion worthwhile. In most cases however, the expertise of the “experts” you like to present doesn’t hold up to scrutiny.

I understand the point of view that when we are discussing the petition. I am asking about my generalist v expert query I put up in post 119.

Piggy
11th December 2009, 08:17 PM
Why? I've never written a single thing against the science itself.

I have issues with some of the scientists and their behavior. This isn't some sort of back-door ad hom attack against the science itself, though my posts are consistently mis characterized as such by people who do too much assuming and not enough reading.

If we want to save the planet, as it were, the vast majority of the citizens of the world are going to have to agree that it's necessary. That will never happen so long as the scientists doing the research demonstrate a standard of care that is not commensurate with the importance and impact of the research.

It all comes down to trust. And that battle is being lost.

I'm afraid you have me totally confused.

Are you saying that the scientists pseudo-implicated in "climategate" should have been more cautious against their emails being stolen, posted on the Web, and spun by right-wing demagogues?

Piggy
11th December 2009, 08:19 PM
Except for General Jack D. Ripper's musings, never heard of it.

Fluoride is a big deal in quack CT circuits.

I personally know of copywriters working for quack health charlatans who incorporate it into their staple bag o' tricks.

Piggy
11th December 2009, 08:21 PM
Off topic really, but complete rubbish nonetheless.

I think not.

Our primary problem is that there are way too many of us.

That, and our idiotic adherence to a growth paradigm, which is inherently doomed to failure.

A human population about one-quarter of what we have now would be most beneficial.

Piggy
11th December 2009, 08:25 PM
I'm just saying that the temperature of earth has reached it's peak in 2000

Do you not understand why this is a ridiculous assertion?

Any rise in mean global temperature is not going to be a smooth curve.

It's going to look more like a mountain range, ascending by peaks and valleys.

Just because you happen to be going downhill for a small stretch doesn't mean you've passed the gap.

There is no way, even theoretically, that you can conclude that temperatures have peaked just because we're on an extremely small downhill dip.

Piggy
11th December 2009, 08:33 PM
A petition of "scientists", without scientific literature backing up their signature, is nothing more than an appeal to authority.

Oh, please, do not trot that out.

If you want scientific literature backing up the position, that is to be had, in spades.

Context, man, context!

Piggy
11th December 2009, 08:35 PM
WOW, Goodwined in 27 posts. You lose.

You misunderstand Godwin.

That was not a comparison of deniers to Nazis.

There must be some law which predicts the rapidity with which someone will invoke Godwin at any mention of Nazis even when it is relevant.

gumboot
11th December 2009, 08:44 PM
On mention of temperatures, I noticed in the news this morning that the Met Office in the UK has predicted 2010 will be the hottest year ever recorded. They are apparently very accurate with their global temperature forecasts.

Of course, it's the "recorded" bit that I have issues with, and pretty much summarises why I choose to remain a AGW agnostic (soft agnostic, not a hard agnostic) although I pretty much fully support AGW measures since I figure we should be more eco friendly regardless.

Apparently global temperature records go back less than 200 years. Earth is believed to be approximately 4.5 billion years old, meaning that our precise temperature record represents a rather phenomenally small percentage of the total record. Outside of this we are required to rely on records such as ice cores which certainly give us a degree of accuracy, but nothing remotely on the level of years (and even these only extend back a tiny fraction of total global history). I believe the dating accuracy of the Vostok Ice Core is about 2,000 years - a margin of error ten times the size of our entire precise temperature record.

I think it's sensible to retain a little skepticism when scientists start to make absolute claims of certainty based on such low resolution data.

gumboot
11th December 2009, 08:48 PM
There is no way, even theoretically, that you can conclude that temperatures have peaked just because we're on an extremely small downhill dip.


I agree with you, but there's also no way, even theoretically, that you can conclude temperatures are in perpetual rise just because we're on an extremely small uphill spike.

It's quite possible (though granted unlikely) that a century from now the earth could plunge into another ice age.

The timelines we're fixating on are so absurdly small in context of the total timeline that it seems insane to think we can make any sort of prediction at all.

In the big scheme of things is predicting the future temperature based on the last 200 years really much less absurd than predicting the future temperature based on the last 20 years?

Piggy
11th December 2009, 08:52 PM
I think it's sensible to retain a little skepticism when scientists start to make absolute claims of certainty based on such low resolution data.

When you see something depicted in the media as a scientific "prediction", you can bet it's based on a statement of probability that the popular media has glossed over.

If you want to assert that some "absolute claim of certainty" has been made by a scientific organization, then you will need to cite that organization directly.

Piggy
11th December 2009, 08:54 PM
I agree with you, but there's also no way, even theoretically, that you can conclude temperatures are in perpetual rise just because we're on an extremely small uphill spike.

Well, sure, that's true.

But it also happens to be irrelevant, since no scientific organization is making any such claim.

Piggy
11th December 2009, 08:56 PM
It's quite possible (though granted unlikely) that a century from now the earth could plunge into another ice age.

If it's unlikely, then by definition it is not "quite possible".

If you want to claim that it is "quite possible", then you will need to cite evidence.

From what I can see, no such evidence exists.

Piggy
11th December 2009, 08:57 PM
The timelines we're fixating on are so absurdly small in context of the total timeline that it seems insane to think we can make any sort of prediction at all.

I don't know who you mean by "we".

Certainly, those who have cherry-picked the past 10 years are fixating on a ridiculously small time frame.

But of course, global climate science is not in any way based on anything as naive as looking at a small-scale trend and extrapolating it into the future. Never has been.

Minadin
11th December 2009, 08:57 PM
I love the environment and I try to do my best to be 'green' because I think it's good policy in general. I am not so much an environmentalist as a conservationalist - I think it's a good idea to use the resources, better if you can do it in a sustainable way, and best if you can leave the ecosystem as good or better when you leave it compared to when you find it.

However, I'm still probably best labeled as a global warming 'skeptic' for a number of reasons. I'm not convinced that it's mostly man-made as opposed to natural fluctuations, and more recently, I'm not convinced that it's getting warmer. I do think that we have an impact on our environment and upon our climate and that it's best practice to minimize the negatives. I'm just not sure how great it is compared to all the other factors.

I would rather clean things up because it is a good idea, more efficient, and less harmful to us and to other species, instead of reacting to 'scare tactics' and 'science' that seems to have an agenda. Science shouldn't have any agenda besides gaining a better understanding of how things exist and how they function. It would appear that in this case at least a few scientists had other agenda beyond those, and that's bad.

It's bad whether the AGW phenomenon is real or not. It's bad if it is real because it may set us back with regard to acting upon the data because there is some legitimate doubt now, publicly. It's bad if it's not real because we've been tilting at windmills that people seemingly knew were windmills.

Piggy
11th December 2009, 09:05 PM
In the big scheme of things is predicting the future temperature based on the last 200 years really much less absurd than predicting the future temperature based on the last 20 years?

Oh, yeah. It's one helluva lot less absurd.

Especially when you consider that when you say "based on the last 200 years" you're including not just observations of mean temperature, but also isotope analysis, an understanding of the irrefutable physics of heat-trapping gasses, and measurements of every imaginable parameter from the oceans to earth surface to the atmosphere.

No one should imagine that climate science consists of simply looking at some thermometer readings and projecting them into the future.

If you think it's that simple, then you don't understand what climate science is, or how it's done.

Climate scientists have examined the evidence in ice cores, deep oceans, ocean surface, tree rings, glacial behavior, atmospheric samples, and much more. It all points in one direction, unequivocally.

Right now, we're already seeing sea level rise, alarming glacial melts, and species habitats moving toward the poles, among other key indicators.

It's not just a matter of looking at temperatures. Not by a long shot.

a_unique_person
11th December 2009, 10:12 PM
I agree with you, but there's also no way, even theoretically, that you can conclude temperatures are in perpetual rise just because we're on an extremely small uphill spike.

It's quite possible (though granted unlikely) that a century from now the earth could plunge into another ice age.

The timelines we're fixating on are so absurdly small in context of the total timeline that it seems insane to think we can make any sort of prediction at all.

In the big scheme of things is predicting the future temperature based on the last 200 years really much less absurd than predicting the future temperature based on the last 20 years?

That's why they use the knowledge of physics to work out the coming climate. They can model the current state, and model the past, based mostly on physical properties of the components, with some observations of other important properties such as clouds. We can estimate quite well what the future components of the climate will be, as well. Hence, they can tell you what the climate will be in the future. They have no way of knowing what the weather will be like on any day that far in the future, now the longer term cycles like El Nino. But that doesn't matter. It's like putting together the reciper for a cake, put this much forcing of CO2, that much solar, this much albedo, these climate dynamics, what do you get?

Newtons Bit
11th December 2009, 10:22 PM
Oh, please, do not trot that out.

If you want scientific literature backing up the position, that is to be had, in spades.

Context, man, context!

Piggy, you need to take a step back and relax.

I was referring to the "Global Warming Petition Project" (http://www.oism.org/pproject/) which rejects AGW. It was brought up by A.A.Alfie. It is an appeal to authority similar to AE911Truth.

Context indeed.

Newtons Bit
11th December 2009, 10:26 PM
I'm afraid you have me totally confused.

Why? My position is simple, it's just not stereotypical.

Are you saying that the scientists pseudo-implicated in "climategate" should have been more cautious against their emails being stolen, posted on the Web, and spun by right-wing demagogues?

I'm saying that considering the severity of the issue, the people leading the research teams need to be more professional. Acting like spoiled schoolchildren irrevocably damages the public opinion, which is made up of people who are unable to understand the research themselves and must rely upon unimpeachable experts.

That is a position on the politics not the science.

Piggy
11th December 2009, 10:33 PM
Piggy, you need to take a step back and relax.

I was referring to the "Global Warming Petition Project" (http://www.oism.org/pproject/) which rejects AGW. It was brought up by A.A.Alfie. It is an appeal to authority similar to AE911Truth.

Context indeed.

I'm sorry, but I cannot follow you at all.

I have no idea what your position is.

Oh well.

Piggy
11th December 2009, 10:37 PM
I'm saying that considering the severity of the issue, the people leading the research teams need to be more professional. Acting like spoiled schoolchildren irrevocably damages the public opinion, which is made up of people who are unable to understand the research themselves and must rely upon unimpeachable experts.

That is a position on the politics not the science.

It doesn't appear to be a position on either, actually.

None of these folks could (or should) have imagined that their conversations would become fodder for the evening news.

All we can demand is that professional people behave professionally in professional circumstances.

It makes no sense to retroactively demand that they act publicly in what they had every reason to believe was not a public venue.

And fwiw, I don't agree that they were acting like spoiled schoolchildren. They were acting like adults expressing their honest opinions to one another.

a_unique_person
11th December 2009, 11:20 PM
Why? My position is simple, it's just not stereotypical.



I'm saying that considering the severity of the issue, the people leading the research teams need to be more professional. Acting like spoiled schoolchildren irrevocably damages the public opinion, which is made up of people who are unable to understand the research themselves and must rely upon unimpeachable experts.

That is a position on the politics not the science.

They are being publicly, and continually, attacked, as individuals, by people such as McIntyre. This, by someone who claims to be upholding the science, breaks one of the crucial basis of modern science, you don't attack individuals and personalise science.

In one of the emails, Jones complains that if only McIntyre would publish, he would know how to deal with him.

sure, they aren't good at politics. If they were, I guess they wouldn't be doing climate science.

Hallo Alfie
12th December 2009, 12:55 AM
They are being publicly, and continually, attacked, as individuals, by people such as McIntyre. This, by someone who claims to be upholding the science, breaks one of the crucial basis of modern science, you don't attack individuals and personalise science.

It seems to me they are both guilty of attacking individual.
Are you applying a double standard?

a_unique_person
12th December 2009, 12:58 AM
It seems to me they are both guilty of attacking individual.
Are you applying a double standard?

Not publicly. You will notice the published literature has standards, because scientists are human.

a_unique_person
12th December 2009, 01:23 AM
What people **** about in private is their problem.

Hallo Alfie
12th December 2009, 01:28 AM
What people **** about in private is their problem.

emails aren't private tho'.

a_unique_person
12th December 2009, 01:30 AM
emails aren't private tho'.

LOL.

Hallo Alfie
12th December 2009, 01:36 AM
LOL.

Not sure why you think that's funny?

When I was in the corporate world we were constantly warned/reminded that our emails were not private, they could be recalled and/or viewed by our employer at any time, sequestered by the courts and were never 100% secure.

What makes you think otherwise?

Safe-Keeper
12th December 2009, 04:58 AM
dire predictions of impending catastrophe unless YOU DO WHAT I TELL YOU RIGHT NOW are silly and counterproductive This line of reasoning served Europe very well when considering the Hitler Problem in 1939...

Hallo Alfie
12th December 2009, 05:01 AM
This line of reasoning served Europe very well when considering the Hitler Problem in 1939...

I don't understand this point at all. Could you please explain a bit further?
Ta

Francesca R
12th December 2009, 05:38 AM
Our primary problem is that there are way too many of us.No, that's our primary solution/achievement/victory or whatever.
A human population about one-quarter of what we have now would be most beneficial.The only evidence there is about this is statement is that one quarter of today's population prevailed sometime between 1850 and 1900 (sources (http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/worldhis.html)). That was not a more beneficial era.

Safe-Keeper
12th December 2009, 06:37 AM
emails aren't private tho'. Sure they aren't, in the sense that anyone with the required hacking skills can read them. Same way your shower isn't private, because anyone can install a spycam in there.

I think you know what aup meant, though.

Newtons Bit
12th December 2009, 10:57 AM
I'm sorry, but I cannot follow you at all.

I have no idea what your position is.

Oh well.

Then stop inventing one that you would like to pigeon-hole me in to and actually address the content of my posts.

lomiller
12th December 2009, 11:55 AM
I guess it doesn't make sense, if your goal is to solve the problem by starving to death half the world's population.

:rolleyes:

Yeah the world needs US agriculture to feed itself. That's why the US has the has to have the largest agricultural export subsidies in the world. Where local agriculture can't supply the local needs it's usually because local agriculture has been destroyed by such export subsidies.

lomiller
12th December 2009, 11:57 AM
emails aren't private tho'.


I don’t know what gives you that idea, but it’s not true.

lomiller
12th December 2009, 12:02 PM
When I was in the corporate world we were constantly warned/reminded that our emails were not private, they could be recalled and/or viewed by our employer at any time, sequestered by the courts and were never 100% secure.

Yes, they can be viewed by your *employer* and if you fail to destroy them a court can subpoena them if an only if reasonable cause it provided for a warrant.

This doesn’t mean your employer is required to give them out to anyone short of a court order, and breaking into your employers computer system would be both illegal and a violation of their privacy.

Newtons Bit
12th December 2009, 12:10 PM
Yes, they can be viewed by your *employer* and if you fail to destroy them a court can subpoena them if an only if reasonable cause it provided for a warrant.

This doesn’t mean your employer is required to give them out to anyone short of a court order, and breaking into your employers computer system would be both illegal and a violation of their privacy.

And destroying them to avoid them being discovered by investigators is also illegal.

WildCat
12th December 2009, 01:25 PM
:rolleyes:

Yeah the world needs US agriculture to feed itself. That's why the US has the has to have the largest agricultural export subsidies in the world. Where local agriculture can't supply the local needs it's usually because local agriculture has been destroyed by such export subsidies.
I agree with you on agricultural subsidies, however we still need most of our agricultural land, as do the other countries who will need to decrease emissions.

a_unique_person
12th December 2009, 03:12 PM
And destroying them to avoid them being discovered by investigators is also illegal.

Which they don't appear to have done, do they. Have you ever read up on he denier sites, because they are what started all this.

Hallo Alfie
12th December 2009, 04:15 PM
Sure they aren't, in the sense that anyone with the required hacking skills can read them. Same way your shower isn't private, because anyone can install a spycam in there.

I think you know what aup meant, though.

I know aup and you think they are private in that you have not put them in the public domain. But the emails do not belong to you - you may have written them and in that sense alone they are yours; but they are not private for the reasons I have already outlined.

Hallo Alfie
12th December 2009, 04:23 PM
I don’t know what gives you that idea, but it’s not true.

Is, isnt, is, isnt is.
I have explained why they are not private. The reasons are valid and you give us, well ... nothing.

Yes, they can be viewed by your *employer* and if you fail to destroy them a court can subpoena them if an only if reasonable cause it provided for a warrant.

This doesn’t mean your employer is required to give them out to anyone short of a court order, and breaking into your employers computer system would be both illegal and a violation of their privacy.

True. But they are not private.
The employer can view them anytime, and they are accessible via FOI laws, criminal law etc.
ie. Not private

And destroying them to avoid them being discovered by investigators is also illegal.

Rats, beat me to it.
Goes to FOI etc laws again.

Which they don't appear to have done, do they. Have you ever read up on he denier sites, because they are what started all this.

Started all what?
Some of the emails are explicit in their statements regarding their destruction.
Other scientists and commentators are aghast at their temerity in this regard.

a_unique_person
12th December 2009, 05:07 PM
Started all what?
Some of the emails are explicit in their statements regarding their destruction.
Other scientists and commentators are aghast at their temerity in this regard.

Other scientists haven't had to deal with the public pillory of the denialists web sites. I would like to see how they respond to a blowtorch to the belly.

They know who the denialists abuse science and help they are given. They ask for assistance, then publicly accuse scientists of fraud and incompetence with that assistance they are given.

The public and targetted abuse started back in the 1990's, when Santer published his 'fingerprint' paper. It has just grown since then. Santer was taken aback at the vitriol directed at him for just publishing a piece of science. Then then denailists complain about the distrust and anomisty they are directly responsible for. If you read the letters, they scienctists are always helpful to people they think are genuinely interested in the science.

a_unique_person
12th December 2009, 05:09 PM
And destroying them to avoid them being discovered by investigators is also illegal.

This wasn't about investigators, it was about denialists who are digging for anything to misrepresent the science, who have been abusing them publicly for years now. It only took the FOI people half an hour browing climateaudit to be convinced the bona-fides of the FOI requests were bogus.

Hallo Alfie
12th December 2009, 05:29 PM
Other scientists haven't had to deal with the public pillory of the denialists web sites. I would like to see how they respond to a blowtorch to the belly...

So anything they do is justifiable in the face of skepticism?

They know who the denialists abuse science and help they are given. They ask for assistance, then publicly accuse scientists of fraud and incompetence with that assistance they are given..

You suggesting there are mitigating circumstances for (possibly) criminal behaviour?

The public and targetted abuse started back in the 1990's, when Santer published his 'fingerprint' paper. It has just grown since then. Santer was taken aback at the vitriol directed at him for just publishing a piece of science. Then then denailists complain about the distrust and anomisty they are directly responsible for. If you read the letters, they scienctists are always helpful to people they think are genuinely interested in the science.

Science should be able to stand or fall on its own merits.

This wasn't about investigators, it was about denialists who are digging for anything to misrepresent the science, who have been abusing them publicly for years now. It only took the FOI people half an hour browing climateaudit to be convinced the bona-fides of the FOI requests were bogus.

So you accept that (even if illegal) their actions are totally justified.
Sounds like objective thinking to me.:boggled:

So. Gullible or ideologicical?

Piggy
12th December 2009, 08:04 PM
Then stop inventing one that you would like to pigeon-hole me in to and actually address the content of my posts.

What I'm saying is that I can't follow your posts.

I'm asking you what it is you believe about the science, that's all.

I'm not trying to pigeon-hole you. I thought I was responding to what you were saying, but then you say no, that's not right. I've got it wrong.

So what's your position here, in a nutshell?

Piggy
12th December 2009, 08:06 PM
And destroying them to avoid them being discovered by investigators is also illegal.

There doesn't seem to be any accusations of any such illegal activity regarding any of these emails.

Where are you getting the notion that any illegal deletion of emails occurred?

Newtons Bit
12th December 2009, 09:05 PM
What I'm saying is that I can't follow your posts.

I'm asking you what it is you believe about the science, that's all.

I'm not trying to pigeon-hole you. I thought I was responding to what you were saying, but then you say no, that's not right. I've got it wrong.

So what's your position here, in a nutshell?

You've already asked me if I accept the science behind AGW. I've already answered yes. I then laid exactly what my position is multiple times. What is your problem?

Are you unable to distinguish the difference between the positions of "rejecting the science" and "the behavior of the scientists is jeopardizing the worlds ability to act"?

Piggy
12th December 2009, 09:13 PM
You've already asked me if I accept the science behind AGW. I've already answered yes. I then laid exactly what my position is multiple times. What is your problem?

Are you unable to distinguish the difference between the positions of "rejecting the science" and "the behavior of the scientists is jeopardizing the worlds ability to act"?

Ok, I think I'm getting it.

Sorry, but I'm on multiple threads on this topic. I get mixed up sometimes. So my apologies there.

But I disagree with you.

The behavior of these scientists is not to blame. I don't see anything in their behavior which should jeopardize anything.

What's jeopardizing the world's ability to act is the blatant distortion of the content of these emails to create the false appearance of bad actions.

You can't seriously be blaming the scientists for having lies spread about them, can you?

Newtons Bit
12th December 2009, 09:21 PM
Which they don't appear to have done, do they. Have you ever read up on he denier sites, because they are what started all this.

:confused:

I was making a general comment about what is and isn't legal with regards to emails. Please don't read more into my posts than what is really there.

To respond to YOUR post, the CRU-team did intentionally delete emails on specific subjects (but they didn't delete the email that told people to delete emails). This is damaging to public perception. It is a PR nightmare.

Newtons Bit
12th December 2009, 09:25 PM
Ok, I think I'm getting it.

Sorry, but I'm on multiple threads on this topic. I get mixed up sometimes. So my apologies there.

But I disagree with you.

The behavior of these scientists is not to blame. I don't see anything in their behavior which should jeopardize anything.

What's jeopardizing the world's ability to act is the blatant distortion of the content of these emails to create the false appearance of bad actions.

You can't seriously be blaming the scientists for having lies spread about them, can you?

...

Have you even read the emails that people are taking issue with? At all? They're embarrassing. I would link you to them, but the mods would suspend me for doing so.

Go find some place that has ALL of them posted up. Search for "FOI" to start and see what their behavior is to complying with the UK freedom of information act is. It's disgusting.

a_unique_person
13th December 2009, 05:30 AM
...

Have you even read the emails that people are taking issue with? At all? They're embarrassing. I would link you to them, but the mods would suspend me for doing so.

Go find some place that has ALL of them posted up. Search for "FOI" to start and see what their behavior is to complying with the UK freedom of information act is. It's disgusting.

As I said earlier, their problem was not FOI, but vexatious abuse of FOI by such groups as climateaudit, who are not interested in advancing science, but debasing it by any means for political reason, including character assasination. I wouldn't have complied with those FOI requests either. As it is, they showed the FOI people what sites like climateaudit are like, and the FOI people agreed they did not have to comply with the requests. The deniers even used a law that is to do with credit checks to demand copies of emails. If that isn't abuse of law and process, and an example of the bad faith the CRU scientists were dealing with, I don't know what is.

If you want, I can give you a guided tour of some sites.

Newtons Bit
13th December 2009, 06:56 AM
As I said earlier, their problem was not FOI, but vexatious abuse of FOI by such groups as climateaudit, who are not interested in advancing science, but debasing it by any means for political reason, including character assasination. I wouldn't have complied with those FOI requests either. As it is, they showed the FOI people what sites like climateaudit are like, and the FOI people agreed they did not have to comply with the requests. The deniers even used a law that is to do with credit checks to demand copies of emails. If that isn't abuse of law and process, and an example of the bad faith the CRU scientists were dealing with, I don't know what is.

If you want, I can give you a guided tour of some sites.

I'll take it that your response was, "no".

It doesn't matter how asinine the groups coming after the scientists are. The scientists acted in an unprofessional manner. That's all the public is going to see.

Piggy
13th December 2009, 08:39 AM
...

Have you even read the emails that people are taking issue with? At all? They're embarrassing. I would link you to them, but the mods would suspend me for doing so.

Go find some place that has ALL of them posted up. Search for "FOI" to start and see what their behavior is to complying with the UK freedom of information act is. It's disgusting.

Yeah, I've read them.

So far, I haven't found any evidence of chicanery, and as far as I know neither has anyone else.

I mean, look, there are a lot of things that folks might find objectionable if all my emails from work were made public. Why do we have to work with that a**h***, doesn't everyone know he screwed up the last project and got overpaid for it? If we do it that way, so-and-so is going to want to see all the data and analysis before we can do anything and he'll probably come to the wrong conclusion and make everything fail, so let's do it this way instead so there's nothing for him to see.

Stuff like that.

Climate scientists are people, too. So I'm not surprised at any of the back-and-forth in the emails.

But as for anything that indicates any sort of misfeasance or malfeasance, I'm not seeing it.

ImaginalDisc
13th December 2009, 08:43 AM
AGW is often claimed to be like evolution -- that skeptics are merely ignorant deniers. But the reason there are skeptics has little to do with science -- but with sociology and psychology. You see, there had been similar panics in the past -- acid rain; global cooling; the population bomb; the anti-nukes campaign; and so on and so forth.

In all those cases, the proponents claimed that what they are saying is scientifically proven; that immediate, extremely expensive and coercive, action is required to avoid disaster; that those who disagree are just willfully blind and/or stupid; and that those within the scientific camp who disagree are practically traitors.

So, why should we believe the latest scare any more than all the previous ones?

Can it be true this time? Sure! But, frankly, if it is true, if mankind is facing doom due to AGW and only urgent action can save it, and if nobody believes them and considers them annoying Cassandras, these folks have themselves to blame for crying wolf so often and so wrongly over various other end-of-the-world catastrophes that never happened.

Have you been asleep for decades? Acid rain was caused by NOx and SOx compounds released primarily from coal plants, and it was stopped due to regulatory intervention. The population bomb was averted because of the green revolution. The hole in the ozone layer was addressed, successfully, by limiting and ultimately banning CFC's.

These serious problems did not go away because they were ignored but because we stared them down and solved them.

Piggy
13th December 2009, 08:43 AM
The scientists acted in an unprofessional manner.

I just think you're being unrealistic and blaming the wrong people.

These folks had no reason to expect that their emails would be stolen and posted on the Web.

Live and learn, sure, but I think you'd be hard pressed to find any group of professionals, in any field, who don't have conversations (written or spoken) which, if made public, would be embarrassing.

Let's put the blame where it really lies -- with the hackers/thieves and the professional deniers who are turning these emails into a trumped up scandal.

Trakar
13th December 2009, 08:45 AM
And destroying them to avoid them being discovered by investigators is also illegal.

Only if they contained evidence of a crime, and the "destruction" was done to thwart official investigation of that crime. There is no evidence that either such situation is the case with the CRU emails.

Trakar
13th December 2009, 08:54 AM
:confused:

I was making a general comment about what is and isn't legal with regards to emails. Please don't read more into my posts than what is really there.

To respond to YOUR post, the CRU-team did intentionally delete emails on specific subjects (but they didn't delete the email that told people to delete emails). This is damaging to public perception. It is a PR nightmare.

Actually, as we only have a select few emails to examine, we have little idea of the full context or extent of the conversation, yet alone what was actually done, but there is no evidence that any emails were actually deleted other than what is normally done in the routine course of business and habit. What has damaged the public perception is the careful selection of bits of personal information and exchanges illegally obtained and illegally released in an attempt to make people look bad and by perverse extension to cast a shadow on their professional work and reputation. Its only a PR nightmare because there is a well funded negative PR campaign at play distorting and promoting the cherry-picked fruits of this crime. and even at its worst, it is a tempest in a teapot, a kerfluffle more than a true "nightmare."

Trakar
13th December 2009, 09:07 AM
I'll take it that your response was, "no".

It doesn't matter how asinine the groups coming after the scientists are. The scientists acted in an unprofessional manner. That's all the public is going to see.

If they had went out of their way to publically denounce and attack every twerp who was slow to accept the brilliance of their findings, then I could see the call of "unprofessional," but to have private correspondance stolen and cherry-picked for bits that might sound salacious and then having the juicy bits further publically distorted and thrashed about doesn't sound "unprofessional" on the part of the scientists, to me. Unprofessional and unethical on the part of those doing the distorting and thrashing about, perhaps, but then most of them aren't professionals or ethically inclined in the first place.

Newtons Bit
13th December 2009, 09:30 AM
If they had went out of their way to publically denounce and attack every twerp who was slow to accept the brilliance of their findings, then I could see the call of "unprofessional," but to have private correspondance stolen and cherry-picked for bits that might sound salacious and then having the juicy bits further publically distorted and thrashed about doesn't sound "unprofessional" on the part of the scientists, to me. Unprofessional and unethical on the part of those doing the distorting and thrashing about, perhaps, but then most of them aren't professionals or ethically inclined in the first place.

You can argue as much as you want about whether or not their behavior was in fact ethical or professional (read the emails, it's neither ethical nor professional). It doesn't matter, though. The public is perceiving their behavior as embarrassing at the least.

In my years working in the corporate world, I've never seen anyone tell others to intentionally delete emails on specific subjects. I've never seen anyone tell others to obfuscate requests for information. Most people haven't. Most people on this planet also know that people doing this are trying to hide something. That's bad. I don't understand why this is so hard to understand.

Maybe it's because the mods have threatened the ban hammer on people who post the emails here and those on the other side are unwilling to actually go and read the emails and instead are relying upon their own biased and cherry-picking sources to read through and make judgements for them.

cornsail
13th December 2009, 09:50 AM
.

Oh, the petition does have reference to peer review articles.

Okay, so I have read more into the article and its history.

The Petition Project is a join venture between the Oregon Institute of Science and Frederick Seitz. The Peer-Review work distributed with the Petition Project was published in the Medical Sentinal now known as the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons and was not peer reviewed.

The petition is seriously associated with that egregious journal?

I mean, I wouldn't expect something stellar, but a journal who's publications have argued that HIV doesn't lead to AIDS and that the humanists are conspiring to replace the religion of Jehova with evolution along with various crap about homosexuality being unhealthy... These were also the guys who published the bogus claim about illegal immigrants spreading 7,000 new cases of leprosy that Lou Dobs cited on the air.

It's sad the sources some people will resort to push an agenda/belief.

Newtons Bit
13th December 2009, 10:39 AM
The petition is seriously associated with that egregious journal?

I mean, I wouldn't expect something stellar, but a journal who's publications have argued that HIV doesn't lead to AIDS and that the humanists are conspiring to replace the religion of Jehova with evolution along with various crap about homosexuality being unhealthy... These were also the guys who published the bogus claim about illegal immigrants spreading 7,000 new cases of leprosy that Lou Dobs cited on the air.

It's sad the sources some people will resort to push an agenda/belief.

One wonders why they didn't create a new journal that at least has the word "climate" in its name. Using a medical journal, and a bad one at that, is really rather silly. I have to wonder if they even believe what they're writing.

lomiller
13th December 2009, 10:45 AM
The employer can view them anytime,

It’s their e-mail to begin with, of course employers have access to it.


they are accessible via FOI laws.


FOI laws do not apply to private businesses.


criminal law


The courts have the power to invade you privacy if a warrant is issued.

lomiller
13th December 2009, 10:51 AM
In my years working in the corporate world, I've never seen anyone tell others to intentionally delete emails on specific subjects. I've never seen anyone tell others to obfuscate requests for information.

Seriously? You must have worked for some pretty sloppy corporations. Delegating working documents once they are no longer needed is a standard record keeping practice, and e-mail is no exception.


I've never seen anyone tell others to obfuscate requests for information.

You would never see an FOI request in the corporate world because FOI laws do not apply. In this case the FOI request wasn’t “obfuscated” it was *rejected* in accordance with FOI laws.

Trakar
13th December 2009, 12:34 PM
You can argue as much as you want about whether or not their behavior was in fact ethical or professional (read the emails, it's neither ethical nor professional). It doesn't matter, though. The public is perceiving their behavior as embarrassing at the least.


Some of the public, perhaps, but in general it is limited to those who were il-informed or politically dis-inclined to accept the facts and underlying science in the first place. For the most part the US general public is simply disinterested at this time due to more focussed concerns about jobs and the economy, combined with both a general lessening of US public interest in the topic of global warming in the winter and especially after a year where US weather has been rather mild (regardless of the fact that globally this has been one of the hottest years on record 5th-2nd depending upon how December shakes out)


Maybe it's because the mods have threatened the ban hammer on people who post the emails here and those on the other side are unwilling to actually go and read the emails and instead are relying upon their own biased and cherry-picking sources to read through and make judgements for them.

I have read all of the emails available, and have characterized them precisely as I perceive them. You don't have to post the emails to identify what you are talking about, but you do have to be open-minded about the discussion of such, or there is no sense in discussing the issue.

shadron
13th December 2009, 12:48 PM
Seriously? You must have worked for some pretty sloppy corporations. Delegating working documents once they are no longer needed is a standard record keeping practice, and e-mail is no exception.

Presumably you mean deleting.

Captain.Sassy
13th December 2009, 02:45 PM
The only evidence there is about this is statement is that one quarter of today's population prevailed sometime between 1850 and 1900 (sources (http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/worldhis.html)). That was not a more beneficial era.

This is a very silly way to argue against Piggy's position.

Piggy
13th December 2009, 03:23 PM
read the emails, it's neither ethical nor professional

It would help if you would quote some selections which you find unethical and unprofessional and explain why, please.

Hallo Alfie
13th December 2009, 03:23 PM
As I said earlier, their problem was not FOI, but vexatious abuse of FOI by such groups as climateaudit, who are not interested in advancing science, but debasing it by any means for political reason, including character assasination. I wouldn't have complied with those FOI requests either. As it is, they showed the FOI people what sites like climateaudit are like, and the FOI people agreed they did not have to comply with the requests. The deniers even used a law that is to do with credit checks to demand copies of emails. If that isn't abuse of law and process, and an example of the bad faith the CRU scientists were dealing with, I don't know what is.

Correct or not, it is irrlevant. They acted in an inappropriate manner and this has been echoed by climate scientists and 'deniers' alike.

Only if they contained evidence of a crime, and the "destruction" was done to thwart official investigation of that crime. There is no evidence that either such situation is the case with the CRU emails.

That is not my understanding of the law - not in this country anyway. You will need to show us where that is outlined.

... but there is no evidence that any emails were actually deleted other than what is normally done in the routine course of business and habit.

Only the directive to delete emails and the statement stating that is what was being/to be done.

What has damaged the public perception is the careful selection of bits of personal information and exchanges illegally obtained and illegally released in an attempt to make people look bad and by perverse extension to cast a shadow on their professional work and reputation. Its only a PR nightmare because there is a well funded negative PR campaign at play distorting and promoting the cherry-picked fruits of this crime. and even at its worst, it is a tempest in a teapot, a kerfluffle more than a true "nightmare."

What has damaged their reputation and public perception is the emails themselves. Many of them are rubbish - I agree. But some are quite damning.
And I repeat, there are other climate scientists too that have called for an inquiry.

You can argue as much as you want about whether or not their behavior was in fact ethical or professional (read the emails, it's neither ethical nor professional). It doesn't matter, though. The public is perceiving their behavior as embarrassing at the least.

The very least, pending inquiry.

In my years working in the corporate world, I've never seen anyone tell others to intentionally delete emails on specific subjects. I've never seen anyone tell others to obfuscate requests for information. Most people haven't. Most people on this planet also know that people doing this are trying to hide something. That's bad. I don't understand why this is so hard to understand.

Blind faith is the reason.....

Maybe it's because the mods have threatened the ban hammer on people who post the emails here and those on the other side are unwilling to actually go and read the emails and instead are relying upon their own biased and cherry-picking sources to read through and make judgements for them.

Or confirmation bias

It’s their e-mail to begin with, of course employers have access to it.

Incorrect. It belongs to the employer. It is theirs only in as much as they wrote it, beyond that they have no claim to ownership.

FOI laws do not apply to private businesses.

Depends on the business.

The courts have the power to invade you privacy if a warrant is issued.

Correct.
However, it is hardly an "invasion of privacy" if you have acted in a criminal manner is it?

Seriously? You must have worked for some pretty sloppy corporations. Delegating working documents once they are no longer needed is a standard record keeping practice, and e-mail is no exception.

Correct, but only after statute periods have elapsed. In the meantime, they are stored in case of need.
This statement of yours relates to the valid deletion or archiving of documents within that period. That is not the case here where they are clearly "deleting" for the purpose of avoiding scrutiny.

You would never see an FOI request in the corporate world because FOI laws do not apply. In this case the FOI request wasn’t “obfuscated” it was *rejected* in accordance with FOI laws.[/QUOTE]

Incorrect.
You will need to prove this claim.

Piggy
13th December 2009, 03:28 PM
In my years working in the corporate world, I've never seen anyone tell others to intentionally delete emails on specific subjects.

Are you in the habit of browsing through everyone's email?

I've certainly asked people to delete emails. Not because they indicated anything illegal or unethical, but because they contained personal information, sometimes including candid opinions of other employees and contractors involved in a project -- discussions I felt were necessary in order to produce the best work with the least hassle.

I've never seen anyone tell others to obfuscate requests for information. Most people haven't.

That's because most people aren't in a field which is beset by detractors with the express intent of harrassing them with unnecessary requests for information.


those on the other side are unwilling to actually go and read the emails and instead are relying upon their own biased and cherry-picking sources to read through and make judgements for them.

You're wrong about that. In fact, when you do read the emails and get information about context, the allegations fall apart very quickly.

That's why it's so frustrating to hear the allegations parrotted in the press, even by non-deniers.

a_unique_person
13th December 2009, 05:42 PM
I'll take it that your response was, "no".

It doesn't matter how asinine the groups coming after the scientists are. The scientists acted in an unprofessional manner. That's all the public is going to see.

It does matter. Would your professional calm be upset if you recieved repeated threats?

Hallo Alfie
13th December 2009, 05:52 PM
It does matter. Would your professional calm be upset if you recieved repeated threats?

It still doesn't mitigate a thing.
If they acted unprofessionally or illegally there can be no excuse.

In the meantime, the millions of people around the world who do their jobs professionally and legally in the face of everyday stresses (internal and external) cannot help but see these scientists as lacking professionalism, backbone and/or a certain level of honesty.

Crying "foul" because they were "upset" (as you say) sounds like kindergarten tantrums, not mature and honest professionalism.

The science should stand or fall on its merits. Behaviour such as this draws their personal integrity and credibility into question, if not the science itself.

mythstifieD
13th December 2009, 06:55 PM
We could do with a good 75% reduction.

The problem w/ GW is that it wrecks the place for the survivors.

Wow, you think the world would be better off if 4.3 Billion people died eh? And the only unfortunate thing is that it wrecks the land for the survivors?

I was starting to trust you.

Hallo Alfie
13th December 2009, 07:22 PM
Piggy
We could do with a good 75% reduction.
The problem w/ GW is that it wrecks the place for the survivors..

Wow, you think the world would be better off if 4.3 Billion people died eh? And the only unfortunate thing is that it wrecks the land for the survivors?

I was starting to trust you.

Is that what he said?:eek::jaw-dropp
I have Piggy on ignore - wonder why?:rolleyes:

How do we rid the world of four and a half billion people?:jaw-dropp

Who do we start with?
Do we do it alpahabetically?
By colour?
By religious convictions or lack thereof?
Scientific viewpoint?
Political viewpoint?
Country of origin or ethnicity?
IQ?
Body mass index?
Sports team affiliations?
Financial situation?

Who gets to decide?
Scientists?
Politicians?
Piggy?

It would be the biggest logistics enterprise since, well... ever.

More hate-filled alarmist claptrap from the usual suspect!

Piggy
13th December 2009, 08:42 PM
Wow, you think the world would be better off if 4.3 Billion people died eh? And the only unfortunate thing is that it wrecks the land for the survivors?

I was starting to trust you.

Yeah, I do think the world would be better off if 4.3 billion people died.

Except that it would wreck our global economy, which is based on growth.

But I don't see how anyone can deny that overpopulation is a serious problem for our species. Probably the most serious, because all our other major problems are a direct result of it.

And anyway, our growth-based economics is doomed to failure anyway, and not in the distant future. It's unsustainable, and will fail, one way or the other.

As a species, we'd be better off if three-fourths of us weren't here.

I suppose that's brutal and nasty to say.

But it happens to be the reality. Brutal and nasty or not.

Piggy
13th December 2009, 08:46 PM
I have Piggy on ignore - wonder why?

No need to wonder.

It's the same reason you have AGW on ignore.

It's the same reason you have science on ignore.

It's the same reason you have reality on ignore.

I was simply unrelenting in exposing the fact that your world-view is based on nothing but unfounded notions with no basis in fact.

And no fantasy world can stand that for very long.

GreyICE
13th December 2009, 08:59 PM
Yeah, I do think the world would be better off if 4.3 billion people died.

Except that it would wreck our global economy, which is based on growth.

But I don't see how anyone can deny that overpopulation is a serious problem for our species. Probably the most serious, because all our other major problems are a direct result of it.

And anyway, our growth-based economics is doomed to failure anyway, and not in the distant future. It's unsustainable, and will fail, one way or the other.

As a species, we'd be better off if three-fourths of us weren't here.

I suppose that's brutal and nasty to say.

But it happens to be the reality. Brutal and nasty or not.

Unsustainable? Really? It's all energy. Everything is energy.

How much energy per day do you think it takes to sustain a human right now? 10kWh? 100kWh? Answer that and you'll realize how much we can sustain.

Sensible growth need never be contained. The trend is upwards, not downwards, throughout human history. Hypothesizing that a mysterious force makes it go downwards suddenly is a whole lot of woo.

lomiller
13th December 2009, 09:31 PM
Incorrect. It belongs to the employer. It is theirs only in as much as they wrote it, beyond that they have no claim to ownership.



Um yes that’s what I said. You were the one claiming it wasn’t an invasion of the employees privacy to which I responded the employee doesn’t own the e-mail

There can be no doubt you are doing this deliberately as it’s far from the first time you have been caught on this type of dishonesty. In fact given your short time in this forum you have established a fairly consistent track record of deliberately misquoting people in order to misrepresent their statements. If you think people are to stupid to notice you should rally think again.


However, it is hardly an "invasion of privacy" if you have acted in a criminal manner is it?

It’s not an “invasion of privacy” even if you were not behaving in a criminal manor. Courts simply have the rights to view a wide range of private documents if they decide they have reason. Of course the only criminal activity involved in this case is the computer hack itself.


You will need to prove this claim.
On the contrary you are the one claiming there were successful FOI claims for which the information was never provided. You need to back up your claim.

Hallo Alfie
13th December 2009, 09:42 PM
Um yes that’s what I said. You were the one claiming it wasn’t an invasion of the employees privacy to which I responded the employee doesn’t own the e-mail.

There can be no doubt you are doing this deliberately as it’s far from the first time you have been caught on this type of dishonesty. In fact given your short time in this forum you have established a fairly consistent track record of deliberately misquoting people in order to misrepresent their statements. If you think people are to stupid to notice you should rally think again..

Then my mistake, I misunderstood your meaning.
As far as deliberate dishonesty goes, nothing could be further from the truth.

It’s not an “invasion of privacy” even if you were not behaving in a criminal manor. Courts simply have the rights to view a wide range of private documents if they decide they have reason. Of course the only criminal activity involved in this case is the computer hack itself. ..

I don't understand.
Are you saying it isn't an invasion of privacy now. I understood you to mean it was in your earlier post.

On the contrary you are the one claiming there were successful FOI claims for which the information was never provided. You need to back up your claim.

Now who's misrepresenting? I have claimed no such thing.
All I am saying is that the corporate world can be subject to FOI (where I live at any rate). You say they can't.
Now I am not from England - I have no idea where you are from but your assertion that corporate businesses are exempt from FOI seems a stretch.
I have asked you to support this statement.

cornsail
13th December 2009, 11:41 PM
Alf,

Your position is that casual comments and personal feelings should never be included in emails to co-workers? Or what?

Hallo Alfie
13th December 2009, 11:46 PM
Alf,

Your position is that casual comments and personal feelings should never be included in emails to co-workers? Or what?

You can put them in, but know they are not private.

In my days in the corporate world (read private corporation) we were constantly being advised by senior management of this fact and cascaded it down to our own staff.

Deathshead
14th December 2009, 06:27 AM
Yeah, I do think the world would be better off if 4.3 billion people died.

Except that it would wreck our global economy, which is based on growth.

But I don't see how anyone can deny that overpopulation is a serious problem for our species. Probably the most serious, because all our other major problems are a direct result of it.

And anyway, our growth-based economics is doomed to failure anyway, and not in the distant future. It's unsustainable, and will fail, one way or the other.

As a species, we'd be better off if three-fourths of us weren't here.

I suppose that's brutal and nasty to say.

But it happens to be the reality. Brutal and nasty or not.

Why don't you start the ball rolling.?

Or do you have a list of those that need eliminating already prepared? Your name, and others like you, (Warm Mongers) not surprisingly, would be absent from this list.

Just kidding. I wish no physical harm to any member here.

It's funny you have no solution for this perceived problem.

Typical of an alarmist. (Not kidding)

Wouldn't the dreaded warming you claim is happening cleanse the Earth of the overpopulation you say is the problem which has no solution?

Another guess would be you think socialism is the way to go. Typical of left wing, mouth breathing, nut jobs. Try something different, your solutions have been tried. They fail.

cornsail
14th December 2009, 06:29 AM
You can put them in, but know they are not private.

Then why did you say "If they acted unprofessionally or illegally there can be no excuse"? I interpreted your term "unprofessionally" with the occasional emotional or colorful remarks in the emails. I might have misunderstood you, though.

Upchurch
14th December 2009, 07:02 AM
This is just an aside, but there is another way to reduce the population other than killing people off. (Although convincing people to only have one child has its own problems.)

Trakar
14th December 2009, 07:50 AM
That is not my understanding of the law - not in this country anyway. You will need to show us where that is outlined.


Well, actually the laws in neither Australia nor the US have much bearing on the CRU hacking crime. But, without evidence of a crime or the intent to coverup a crime, exactly what offense do you expect individuals deleting their own emails would be committing?


Only the directive to delete emails and the statement stating that is what was being/to be done.


I recall reading that one of the principals saying that he had asked some individuals to delete their emails, but I don't recall anyone responding that they had and were doing so.


What has damaged their reputation and public perception is the emails themselves. Many of them are rubbish - I agree. But some are quite damning.


....in your opinion

Trakar
14th December 2009, 08:00 AM
This is just an aside, but there is another way to reduce the population other than killing people off. (Although convincing people to only have one child has its own problems.)

By advocating inaction and promoting delays of action it is the actions of the deniers that will ultimately lead to the deaths of much of the Earth's population.

What you propose, can be largely achieved through economic and educational and social equality reforms, and generally doesn't require any "convincing."

Francesca R
14th December 2009, 09:10 AM
Yeah, I do think the world would be better off if 4.3 billion people died.

Except that it would wreck our global economy, which is based on growth.So it won't be better off according to you.

And anyway, our growth-based economics is doomed to failure anyway, and not in the distant future. It's unsustainable, and will fail, one way or the other.Do you think non-growth-based "economics" (or just say "life") will succeed? It can theoretically survive I suppose--if you have a static population that never gets more productive but which can nonetheless provide enough income to nourish, clothe, shelter and reproduce itself. It's just that, I suspect, the value preference of a few people would be that they would like to reject that "paradigm" with a big hefty kick to its arse.


As a species, we'd be better off if three-fourths of us weren't here.

I suppose that's brutal and nasty to say.
Not particularly. Plenty of people say it. I think it's bananas though.

Piggy
14th December 2009, 04:53 PM
How much energy per day do you think it takes to sustain a human right now? 10kWh? 100kWh? Answer that and you'll realize how much we can sustain.

Oh, come on now.

You can't really believe it can be flattened to that single aspect.

You don't consider logistics, politics, biology, or any of those other realities.

But besides that, in a finite world -- which is what we live in -- no system can grow infinitely. It's simply impossible.

Economies which depend on growth are doomed to eventual failure because growth cannot be sustained forever. Sooner or later, they will fail.

We will eventually have to figure out how to make the transition to a paradigm of sustainability. There is no other choice.

Hallo Alfie
14th December 2009, 04:56 PM
Then why did you say "If they acted unprofessionally or illegally there can be no excuse"? I interpreted your term "unprofessionally" with the occasional emotional or colorful remarks in the emails. I might have misunderstood you, though.

Correct in part. Some are unprofessional, some are callous and some are possibly illegal.
But this is not just my opinion, it is the opinion of many

Well, actually the laws in neither Australia nor the US have much bearing on the CRU hacking crime. But, without evidence of a crime or the intent to coverup a crime, exactly what offense do you expect individuals deleting their own emails would be committing?


Don't know exactly, I am not a lawyer. Hence the use of the words "possible", "potential" etc.
Others will decide these issue, in the meantime it is public perception we are talking about isn't it?

I recall reading that one of the principals saying that he had asked some individuals to delete their emails, but I don't recall anyone responding that they had and were doing so.

If I recall correctly, he also said x and/or y were doing so as was (had) he.

....in your opinion

Yes, and the opinion of much public perception.


By advocating inaction and promoting delays of action it is the actions of the deniers that will ultimately lead to the deaths of much of the Earth's population.

What you propose, can be largely achieved through economic and educational and social equality reforms, and generally doesn't require any "convincing."

What reforms would these be?
How would 'we' not need to be "convinced"? Or is this a euphemism for "being coerced"? Just asking.

Piggy
14th December 2009, 04:58 PM
Why don't you start the ball rolling.?

Or do you have a list of those that need eliminating already prepared? Your name, and others like you, (Warm Mongers) not surprisingly, would be absent from this list.

Just kidding. I wish no physical harm to any member here.

It's funny you have no solution for this perceived problem.

Typical of an alarmist. (Not kidding)

Wouldn't the dreaded warming you claim is happening cleanse the Earth of the overpopulation you say is the problem which has no solution?

Another guess would be you think socialism is the way to go. Typical of left wing, mouth breathing, nut jobs. Try something different, your solutions have been tried. They fail.

Please don't misunderstand me.

My comments on population reduction were in response to gumboot, and are utter fantasy.

It's true that we'd likely be better off if we had not allowed our population to explode quite so rapidly.

And it's true that overpopulation is a serious problem that has to be dealt with.

But regardless, there is no way we can actually reduce our population by 75% (or even 25%) without throwing our economies into chaos. Or, for that matter, without empowering some sort of global tyrrany.

My comments on that aren't meant to be taken seriously.

On the other hand, it's true that we're going to have to do something about the human infestation of the planet, and figure out ways in which we can transition from the growth paradigm to a sustainability paradigm.

Piggy
14th December 2009, 05:00 PM
So it won't be better off according to you.

What, in real terms? No. Actually reducing our numbers by 75% would be disastrous. The global economic system would collapse.

Piggy
14th December 2009, 05:02 PM
Do you think non-growth-based "economics" (or just say "life") will succeed? It can theoretically survive I suppose--if you have a static population that never gets more productive but which can nonetheless provide enough income to nourish, clothe, shelter and reproduce itself. It's just that, I suspect, the value preference of a few people would be that they would like to reject that "paradigm" with a big hefty kick to its arse.

Non-growth-based economies survived for millenia. Growth-based economies are relatively new.

There's absolutely no reason that we cannot again have sustainable economies which are not based on growth.

cornsail
14th December 2009, 05:54 PM
Correct in part. Some are unprofessional, some are callous and some are possibly illegal.

You said: "If they acted unprofessionally or illegally there can be no excuse."

I said: "Your position is that casual comments and personal feelings should never be included in emails to co-workers? Or what?"

You said: "You can put them in, but know they are not private."

This appears to be a contradiction. Is it "you can put them in" or "there can be no excuse"? I'm talking about "unprofessional" emails, not illegal activity in case there's any confusion.

Hallo Alfie
14th December 2009, 06:07 PM
You said: "If they acted unprofessionally or illegally there can be no excuse."

Correct. There is a big "IF" in there.

I said: "Your position is that casual comments and personal feelings should never be included in emails to co-workers? Or what?"

Is that what I said?

You said: "You can put them in, but know they are not private.".

Yep.

This appears to be a contradiction. Is it "you can put them in" or "there can be no excuse"? I'm talking about "unprofessional" emails, not illegal activity in case there's any confusion.

Why make the distinction? I didn't.

No contradiction unless you try really really hard to find it.

You can put anything you like into an email. If you do however, one needs to be aware that they can and may be read by others.

"There can be no excuse" refers to the "IF" of behaving unprofessionally or illegally - not about what they put in the email specifically.
If there was unprofessional or illegal activity undertaken, you would consider it ok I suppose?

My bold this time.

cornsail
14th December 2009, 06:40 PM
Correct. There is a big "IF" in there.

Ah.. So you aren't saying that the colorful comments in the emails = acting unprofessionally (or at least not necessarily). That's all I wanted to know.

I thought otherwise because to confirm my interpretation was correct I said "I interpreted your term "unprofessionally" with the occasional emotional or colorful remarks in the emails. I might have misunderstood you, though." To which you responded "Correct in part." and did not object.

Cheers

Hallo Alfie
14th December 2009, 06:42 PM
Ah.. So you aren't saying that the colorful comments in the emails = acting unprofessionally (or at least not necessarily). That's all I wanted to know.

I thought otherwise because to confirm my interpretation was correct I said "I interpreted your term "unprofessionally" with the occasional emotional or colorful remarks in the emails. I might have misunderstood you, though." To which you responded "Correct in part." and did not object.

Cheers

We're cool then.
:cool:

Trakar
15th December 2009, 01:22 AM
Correct in part. Some are unprofessional, some are callous and some are possibly illegal.
But this is not just my opinion, it is the opinion of many

Many also believe in ghosts, alien abductions, and bigfoot, this doesn't mean that their positions are substantial, or determinative in issues of science or law.


Don't know exactly, I am not a lawyer....

then perhaps you should leave such issues to the people who are better informed on such matters.


If I recall correctly,...


then perhaps you should leave issues dependent upon memory to those with a demonstrated proficiency for that task.

Jones requested Mann to delete emails between him and another researcher, and said that he was going to contact the other researcher and request he do the same thing, but couldn't at the time because he was unavailable. He asked Mann if he would contact a third researcher and ask him to do the same as Jones didn't have his new e-mail address, and finally, jones said that he would contact a fourth researcher and ask him to do the same.

I am not aware of any mention in any of the emails I've read, where Jones said that he actually had deleted any emails, nor did I read any where anyone else responded that they had deleted any emails. If you are aware of any that do, I would be interested in reading them, otherwise its all so much gossip and hearsay.


Yes, and the opinion of much public perception.


Perhaps you should refine the quality of the "public" you pay heed to.



What reforms would these be?
How would 'we' not need to be "convinced"? Or is this a euphemism for "being coerced"? Just asking.

With education, basic freedoms, broad social equalities and a bit of economic equity, most peoplle convince themselves. It generally only takes a few generations of such and birthrates usually tend to stabilize and decline.There are exceptions, but in general they are minor.

Hallo Alfie
15th December 2009, 01:47 AM
Many also believe in ghosts, alien abductions, and bigfoot, this doesn't mean that their positions are substantial, or determinative in issues of science or law.

then perhaps you should leave such issues to the people who are better informed on such matters.

then perhaps you should leave issues dependent upon memory to those with a demonstrated proficiency for that task..

Congratulations, all out of context and pretty much irrelevant to the rest of the discussion.:boggled:
But thanks for your input, most valuable.:rolleyes:

Jones requested Mann to delete emails between him and another researcher, and said that he was going to contact the other researcher and request he do the same thing, but couldn't at the time because he was unavailable. He asked Mann if he would contact a third researcher and ask him to do the same as Jones didn't have his new e-mail address, and finally, jones said that he would contact a fourth researcher and ask him to do the same. ..

Fair enough. it's not too far away from what I said tho is it?

I am not aware of any mention in any of the emails I've read, where Jones said that he actually had deleted any emails, nor did I read any where anyone else responded that they had deleted any emails. If you are aware of any that do, I would be interested in reading them, otherwise its all so much gossip and hearsay...

It took me less than a minute to find an email from Jones confirming he deleted emails.:p
So much for gossip and heresay.

Perhaps you should refine the quality of the "public" you pay heed to.

Right back atcha!:p

With education, basic freedoms, broad social equalities and a bit of economic equity, most peoplle convince themselves. It generally only takes a few generations of such and birthrates usually tend to stabilize and decline.There are exceptions, but in general they are minor.

Oh, I thought the problem was immediate.
But I'm still unconvinced (in fact confused) as to how this would work in the real world. Could you explain this to me with a few additional specifics or examples please?

lionking
15th December 2009, 01:53 AM
But besides that, in a finite world -- which is what we live in -- no system can grow infinitely. It's simply impossible.



But is anyone saying that continued growth is inevitable (in the absense of a disaster)? All projections I have seen point to a peak of world population around 2050 and a gradual reduction from there on.

a_unique_person
15th December 2009, 03:46 AM
Correct or not, it is irrlevant. They acted in an inappropriate manner and this has been echoed by climate scientists and 'deniers' alike.

I agree it was innapropriate, burn him, he's a witch.

Francesca R
15th December 2009, 04:02 AM
Non-growth-based economies survived for millenia. Growth-based economies are relatively new.Yeah, I said it is possible to survive. Hobbes had the skinny on how much fun it wasn't. Thus, it has to go some to leave us better off.

There's absolutely no reason that we cannot again have sustainable economies which are not based on growth.I think you would have to kill off "animal spirits (http://www.economist.com/research/Economics/alphabetic.cfm?letter=A#animalspirits)". Well, a good amount of population culling and book-burning might achieve it I suppose.

Hallo Alfie
15th December 2009, 04:05 AM
I agree it was innapropriate, burn him, he's a witch.

That's better.:p

Piggy
15th December 2009, 06:20 AM
But is anyone saying that continued growth is inevitable (in the absense of a disaster)? All projections I have seen point to a peak of world population around 2050 and a gradual reduction from there on.

I'm not talking about just population, but rather economic systems. Right now, everyone's talking about growth. Metro areas, states, nations, it's all about growing their economies. Because that's our current paradigm.

But if your economic plan is based on growth, it's doomed to failure eventually.

In some areas of the globe, of course, growth is more easily attained.

But it seems to me that in the developed world we have to start facing the end of growth and figure out how we're going to shift to a non-growth-based economic paradigm.

Piggy
15th December 2009, 06:22 AM
Yeah, I said it is possible to survive. Hobbes had the skinny on how much fun it wasn't. Thus, it has to go some to leave us better off.

I think you would have to kill off "animal spirits (http://www.economist.com/research/Economics/alphabetic.cfm?letter=A#animalspirits)". Well, a good amount of population culling and book-burning might achieve it I suppose.

Well this is exactly what I'm saying, really.

Currently, the prospect of a non-growing economy scares the bejeezus out of everybody, because we've built our systems to rely on growth.

It's going to take some doing for us to transition into an economy based on sustainability, rather than growth, which doesn't kill of the animal spirits, and which keeps us comfortable.

But we're going to have to do it one way or another.

Captain.Sassy
15th December 2009, 07:41 AM
Ot
nts

Piggy
15th December 2009, 08:06 AM
Ot
nts

Sorry. Somehow or another, a suggestion to kill 3 out of every 4 persons on Earth tends to trigger a tangent. Not sure why, but I've noticed that it does.

And now, back to the OP....

GreyICE
15th December 2009, 10:10 AM
Oh, come on now.

You can't really believe it can be flattened to that single aspect.

You don't consider logistics, politics, biology, or any of those other realities.

But besides that, in a finite world -- which is what we live in -- no system can grow infinitely. It's simply impossible.

Economies which depend on growth are doomed to eventual failure because growth cannot be sustained forever. Sooner or later, they will fail.

We will eventually have to figure out how to make the transition to a paradigm of sustainability. There is no other choice. I'll tell you what. We get down to capturing a noticeable percentage of the sun's energy, say, 5%, and I'll agree with you. It's probably time to start slowing down at that point. (after all, only 95% left to capture!)

Giving up while sitting there at like 0.01% of the ENERGY HITTING EARTH (itself a laughable fraction) and declaring we should scale things back seems like the worst sort of stupidity to me.

Piggy
15th December 2009, 03:09 PM
I'll tell you what. We get down to capturing a noticeable percentage of the sun's energy, say, 5%, and I'll agree with you. It's probably time to start slowing down at that point. (after all, only 95% left to capture!)

Giving up while sitting there at like 0.01% of the ENERGY HITTING EARTH (itself a laughable fraction) and declaring we should scale things back seems like the worst sort of stupidity to me.

We're talking about different things.

GreyICE
16th December 2009, 11:11 AM
We're talking about different things.

Yeah. I'm talking about the human race as a whole continuing to grow and expand, in ideas, in technology, in products and abilities. I'm talking about humanity continuing.

You're talking about stopping our growth and scaling back what we already have.

The thing about our different things is, yours is not compatible with mine.

Trakar
16th December 2009, 12:57 PM
Fair enough. it's not too far away from what I said tho is it?

Night and day with respect to context, definition and implication.



It took me less than a minute to find an email from Jones confirming he deleted emails.:p

There is no such email that I've seen or can find. Feel to reproduce or accurately paraphrase.

Piggy
16th December 2009, 03:42 PM
Yeah. I'm talking about the human race as a whole continuing to grow and expand, in ideas, in technology, in products and abilities. I'm talking about humanity continuing.

You're talking about stopping our growth and scaling back what we already have.

The thing about our different things is, yours is not compatible with mine.

They are not compatible or incompatible, since they're not related. (And no, that wasn't what I was talking about. But it's a tangent so I'm not going to pursue it.)

DogB
16th December 2009, 06:38 PM
There is no such email that I've seen or can find. Feel to reproduce or accurately paraphrase.

I've read them all at least once and AFAIK there's no such animal. There's a couple that strongly infer such activities but nothing definitive.

GreyICE
16th December 2009, 08:54 PM
They are not compatible or incompatible, since they're not related. (And no, that wasn't what I was talking about. But it's a tangent so I'm not going to pursue it.)If you say so. I think we're both talking about the sustainability of economic growth. But I get why you don't want to discuss it after making a statement like that.

Hallo Alfie
16th December 2009, 09:02 PM
There is no such email that I've seen or can find. Feel to reproduce or accurately paraphrase.

Actually on review it appears to be a statement he made in 2008: Phil Jones, Dec 3, 2008: 'About 2 months ago I deleted loads of emails, so have very little – if anything at all'

I've read them all at least once and AFAIK there's no such animal. There's a couple that strongly infer such activities but nothing definitive.

As above, it appears a statement which was then shown to be a lie when he then stated: Phil Jones, Nov 24, 2009: 'We've not deleted any emails or data here at CRU'

Apologies - mea culpa.

If you say so. I think we're both talking about the sustainability of economic growth. But I get why you don't want to discuss it after making a statement like that.

He does that sort of thing when he's wrong. Luckily I have him on ignore.
It's these sorts that the term warm mongers was created for; they like to eat their own.

Hallo Alfie
16th December 2009, 11:59 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dqZRmsYszn4&feature=player_embedded

Speaking of warm mongers....

In all seriousness, is this the message the warmers should be sending?
Attack anyone you don't agree with?

Nice.

a_unique_person
17th December 2009, 12:48 AM
Correct or not, it is irrlevant. They acted in an inappropriate manner and this has been echoed by climate scientists and 'deniers' alike.

It is not at all irrelevant. They were subject to a 'dirty tricks' campaign, designed to destabilise their focus and research. It has succeeded admirably.

a_unique_person
17th December 2009, 12:53 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dqZRmsYszn4&feature=player_embedded

Speaking of warm mongers....

In all seriousness, is this the message the warmers should be sending?
Attack anyone you don't agree with?

Nice.

Childish and uncalled for? The irony, it burns.