Jump to content

Riverwind

Members
  • Posts

    8,693
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Riverwind

  1. The Kyoto deal would have never gone into force if it did not provide Russia with such a huge money making opportunity. I really despair for the future of the country when such a large segment of the population can't seem to figure out that kyoto-style agreements are a scam that will simply transfer wealth and jobs from Canada to countries that are not dumb enough to commit to emission reductions.
  2. Emissions targets are political posturing designed to appeal hypocritical and naive idiots that fill the environmental movement. They will only result in one of 3 things:1) They will be ignored. 2) They will be met by buying bogus carbon credits which do nothing to reduce *global* emissions. 3) They will be met by driving the economy into another great depression. Meaningful CO2 emissions on a global scale is a technically impossible to today. All of the politicians making the promises expect 1) to occur. Many of the environmentalists who are really 'social justice advocates' hope for 2) because they carbon credits as a great way to steal money from the evil middle class in rich countries and redistribute it to the 3rd world.
  3. The ICO said it felt an offence has been committed but it could not lay charges because of a 6 month limitation in the law. However, it is possible to lay charges for a conspirasy to break the law and that is apparently done in the UK quite often. Bottom line is there is no debate: an offense was committed in the view of the ICO and denying is pointless.
  4. Here is what the UK freedom of information commissioner has to say: So it appears your 'there is nothing in the emails that shows wronging' meme is clearly false in the opinion of the UK authorities.Interestingly the UEA is trying to blame the ICO: The Vice-Chancellor of the University of East Anglia, Sir Edward Acton, has issued a statement in response to the annoucement by the ICO that the university was in breach of FoI legislation.
  5. It most certainly is. There is no way to reconcile the policies in the appendix with pachauri's statements. As usual you missed the point. Jones did in fact carry out his threat to keep the the paper out and it only appear after strenuous objections by reviewers. The fact that he carried out the threat is what proves he was willing and able to corrupt the IPPC process in order to push his particular view of science. It will interesting to see if he is forced to face the conspiracy charges that he so richly deserves. Unfortunately, there are too many scumbags in the UK government that will justify any abuse or crime as long as it promotes the AGW cause.
  6. Which would mean your refusal to consider non-peer reviewed sources is even more rediculous.In any case it appears that Pachauri did not know about the appendix: As I said, alarmists have been selling the myth that the IPCC report relied entirely on peer reviewed literature for years. They are now being exposed as liars.
  7. You were just as ignorant. This was a well kept secret until the alarmist crowd needed to pull it out to defend themselves. There is absolutely nothing in the policies that restricts the use of non-peer reviewed material. They may have used the WG2-style examples as a justification but the policies themselves do not restrict it. Nor to the policies restrict the type of source - a hobby magazine for mountain climbers was considered a legitimate source. The policies gave complete discretion to the lead authors and they used it to promote their political agenda.
  8. Of course it has been there - but alarmists have ignored that detail for years when they wanted provide excuses for why the IPCC report was so biased. BTW - my source for the peer review policies of the IPCC was an alarmist blog like RC (can't remember which one). I never questioned it because it never occurred to me that they would argue that point if it was not true. But more importantly, this revelation proves that Myata was barking nonsense by insisting that discussions be restricted to "peer reviewed" material. If non-peer reviewed is good enough for the IPCC it should be good enough for him. Come to think of it you were also quite supportive of Myata's nonsense position which is pretty good evidence that you had no clue that the IPCC allowed non-peer reviewed material which means you were deceived by the alarmists too.
  9. Yes I was wrong. I made the mistake of taking alarmists at their word when they said that the IPCC only allowed peer reviewed material. They would have more credibility today if they had made that point clear 3 years ago instead of waiting until they were caught with their pants down.
  10. ROTFL. This is too good to be true. More concrete evidence that the IPCC is hopelessly biased and that it has been dishonestly representing itself to the public and government. You see - there is a lot of 'non-peer reviewed' material out there that is 'relevant' to the IPCC reports. Yet the IPCC authors only bother to include the non-peer reviewed material that happens to support the alarmist political agenda. This bias was barely defensible when if they had restricted themselves to peer reviewed literature but by opening the doors to non-peer reviewed stuff they cannot possibly defend the bias. Oh BTW: here is the stuff you left out of your quote: I guess they dropped the ball on glaciers, hurricaines and amazon rainfall.
  11. Boy are you are dense. I asked for evidence that these scientists have done more than blindly accept the claims of a small circle of scientists doing the actual research. You come back with a completely meaningless list of organizations that made public statements which may or may not reflect the opinion of their members. What is so hard about a the question. Maybe if I make it simple:1) A scientist that presumes that the AGW claims are correct because they have appeared in the peer reviewed literature is a blind sheep whose opinion is irrelevant. 2) A scientist that successfully replicates the work done AGW alarmists and verifies that their claims are actually supported by the data has an informed opinion. How many scientists fall into category 2). Show your evidence.
  12. ROTFL. Go ahead. I don't know which is funnier. The fact that you think that it is relevant in a debate about science or that you think that bringing up such irrelevant issues actually helps your case. The reality is history is full of brilliant minds with some decidedly odd opinions on subjects outside of their main area if research. These odd opinions are forgotten once time proves them correct. In the end, all I can about is who has gotten the science right.
  13. First, it is the WG2 report that that is being used to justify the AGW scaremongering so from a political perspective it is much more important that the WG1 report. Second, the inclusion of these references violates the IPCCs own policies on non-peer reviewed literature and the fact that it discards its own policies when convenient destroys any credibility that it might have had. OTOH, there would be no issue with these references if the IPCC stated in its policies that its allows the inclusion of non-peer reviewed literature when (and only when) the literature supports the AGW scaremongering agenda. Of course, doing that would destroy its credibility in a different way but it would at least be honest.
  14. Actually - I asked you to provide evidence that the so-called 1000s of scientists supporting AGW had actually taken then time to understand the issues instead of blindly accepting the claims of a small number of scientists doing the actual research. You failed to provide any such evidence which means you have failed to show that they are 'legimate authorities'.
  15. And Issac Newton was an alchemist and a evangelical christian. Are you going to argue that he was not right about gravity because of his odd ball beliefs? I have a very simply standard for evaluating science: show me that your theory can conclusively predict future outcomes and I will take it seriously. Spencer has not met that standard either but he has shown that it is possible to reproduce recent climate changes without assuming a string CO2 effect. We will know in 10-20 years if he is right.
  16. $1 billion plus spent on security alone! That amount of money could have used in many ways that had a more lasting impact on the country.
  17. Creationism, by definition, is not science because it seeks to use unproveable 'god' to explain any gaps in the theory. Doing this has the effect of ending scientific enquiry because if one assumes that 'god did it' then there is no need for further investigation. That is why I don't need to know a thing about evolutionary theory before dismissing creationism. What grounds? The fact that I called waldo on his nonsense appeal to the authority of the 'consensus'? People don't need to defend evolution by appealing to the consensus. If that was all of that evolution had to support it then I would think it is nonsense too. Science is about developing explanatory hypotheses that can validated by correctly predicting future outcomes. The scientists with the theories that best predict future outcomes are the ones that are right and it does not make a diffence if the majority believes they are wrong. No it is not. Anyone who thinks it is has more in commmon with a creationist than a scientist.
  18. Your response illustrates the problem. By equating the legitimate scientific concerns of sceptics to 'creationism' the alarmists have been able to impose a huge social cost on any colleagues that might have reservations. The net result is scientists blindly sign up to the AGW agenda because it is safer and easier.
  19. Your link provides zero evidence to support the assertion that the consensus is result of anything other than scientists blindly accepting the conclusions of a small minority of scientists. In fact, anyone who has any knowledge if human nature would agree that my view is most plausible and because people are lazy and it is easier to simply agree with a collegue than to argue with them.
  20. Two questions. 1) Where is your evidence that 1000s of scientists really participated in the writing of the IPCC report? You will need to provide more than a list of reviewers because most of the reviewers did not contribute much and the ones that did often found their concerns were ignoired by the gatekeepers like Jones and Briffa. 2) Where is your evidence that all of the scientists that supposedly agree with the consensus actually investigated the science themselves and come to a conclusion based on the evidence? The statements by professional bodies and other such organizations does not count as evidence since those statement are not voted on by the membership nor is there any evidence that the people supporting such motions actually looked at the evidence themselves. I think you will find that the core cliams of the IPCC are result of the work of nor more than 100 people and that almost none of the supporting 'cast of thousands' has actually read any of the papers they produced - they simply accept their conclusions like blind sheep because it would unprofessional to dis their brothers in arms.
  21. In other word, your original claim that the iPad 'copied' the Chinese product is nonsense. They are different products built using a form factor that has been in use for years. Maybe the Chinese tablet maker understands the market better than Apple but I certainly would not bet on it.
  22. I just posted information about how you misrepresented the debate over DDT as well. I admit I am not that interested in digging around to see if every one of them misrepresents the debate, however, I think it safe to assume that you have not done much research of your own and it is unlikely that you understand the subtleties of the debate in each case. Here is another example of you misrepresenting the debate. When talking about the tobacco industry there are two different debates: one over direct harms to smokers and one over second hand smoke. In first debate the tobacco industry was facing lawsuits and it was entitled to defend itself - even if that meant paying scientists to present a more favourable view of the science. You may dislike such tactics but they are perfectly legitimate in our adversarial court system. Even the likes of Paul Bernardo is entitled to present a defence - even if it is pure fabrication. In the debate over second hand smoke there was little evidence that second hand smoke was at risk at the time it was being debated (there may be more now - I have not looked). The smoking bans could not be justified on the basis of science. A few brave souls tried to point that out and got pilloried for it by people that wanted the policy change and did not really care about the science. BTW: I am favour of the smoking bans but see no need to abuse science in order to justify it. There are many so called experts hired by Greenpeace, WWF, the insurance companies and wannabe carbon traders. These experts grossly exaggerate the potential harms of global warming in order to line their own pockets. In fact, one of these carpetbaggers masquerading as a climate expert was the source of the false melting Himalayan glaciers claim that made it in to the IPCC report. That false claim brought a lot of money into the organization that he worked for.So my question becomes: why are you ranting about mythical oil company funded experts when there is a real evidence of harmful deceit coming from pro-AGW experts?
  23. I see nothing new in the link your gave. Tablet computers have been around since Microsoft released XP tablet in 2005.
  24. I find it quite implausible that the daily mail would run quotes that it did not have a good reason to believe to be accurate because they know that they would get challenged if not sued. The most plausible explanation Lal is trying to cover his tracks.
×
×
  • Create New...