Jump to content

Riverwind

Member
  • Posts

    8,693
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Riverwind

  1. They are guilty of interfering in the peer review process in order to suppress views they don't like. They are guilty of unreasonably withholding data and methods in order to prevent critics from replicating their work. They are guilty of putting their desire for a politically convenient message ahead of scientific accuracy. Whether the technically violated the terms of the FOI laws is not the most important issue. The biggest problem is their actions demonstrate that their scientific judgement cannot be trusted and our scientific institutions were not able to root out this intellectual corruption on their own.
  2. It shields them from the consequences of their drug use and gives them an excuse to keep using. You don't need insight to provide people with rehab. The only question should be is whether insight delievers a net increase in the number of people seeking treatment compared to a city with an equivalent facility that provides access to counsellers without enabling drug use. More importantly, the number of people seeking rehab should be the only criteria used to judge the success of insight - i.e. if it fails to increase the number of addicts seeking treatment then it should be shut down.
  3. Great, this is first the time I have seen any positive statistics on that point and I will look more into the why they make that claim (it is impossible to take scientific results a face value when they are used to justify politically contentious policies).
  4. Insight is NOT a drug rehab center. It is a harm reduction center. The difference is important because a drub rehab center helps people get off drugs. A harm reduction center is designed to help people keep using drugs. AFAIK, The CPC does not oppose funding for rehab centers. Your post title is completely misleading and you should change it.I not believe that drug use should be criminalized but I am very much opposed to facilities like insight that seek to encourage addicts by enabling their drug use. I could tolerate it if the emphasis was placed on getting people into rehab (e.g. after a few months clients should be required to go into a residential treatment facility - if they refuse they would no longer be welcome at insight). However, this is not how it is structured today according to the advocates I have heard - the entire emphasis is on giving addicts a safe place to use and any efforts to get addicts into rehab are a secondary issue.
  5. Yada yada yada. I guess in your world scientists can't possibly be vain humans who put career and funding ahead of the truth and the public interest. If they are not acting the way the should then it must be a "conspiracy". It is nonsense and you know it.I see this scenario a lot like the situation we had with the RCMP tasering at YVR. When it first happened I was willing to give the RCMP the benefit of the doubt but as the inquiry progressed I was appalled at how the RCMP brass seemed to go out of their way to help the cops involved whitewash the incident. If fact, we would probably never have the information we have today if there was not a bystander with a camera. Because of this I no longer trust the RCMP to investigate themselves if someone dies at their hands. I really don't care if 99% of RCMP officiers are upstanding individuals - it is the system that is supposed to catch the wrong doers which is broken and that means none of them can be trusted. That is the problem we have in climate science. The wrong doers were exposed by citizens and now all of the 'climate science brass' are lining up to help the guilty whitewash events. My position is I am not going to accept a whitewash and until I see serious changes in the scientific institutions that have failed us I will suspect all results that cannot be independently replicited by people who are not part of the old boys network.
  6. The best place for a sceptical analyses of the temperature sets is here. Here is what he has to say on the great thermometer dying (it sounds like they had some psuedo-scientific rational).
  7. There is enough evidence out the to demonstrate that these people are not worthy of trust. That is the opinion of many people and if these so called scientists wish to change that the opinion they are going have to stop acting like arrogant prima donnas that have something to hide. Re-doing the datasets using algorithms that can be replicated by people who are not part of the old boys club is a good start. The entire incident over the diurnal drift is one of the reasons why I think Christy and Spencer have a lot of credibility as scientists. In this case they missed something in their analysis and when someone pointed it out they accepted the criticism and fixed the data. IOW - they acted like scientists are supposed to act. Compare that to Jones, Mann and the rest of the climategate yahoos who refuse to accept any criticism and engage in all sorts of unethical and unprofessional behavior in order to cover up their mistakes and smear their critics. If the climate science community really believes that climate change is a serious problem that needs people to act then then there should a long line of prominent climate scientists denouncing Mann and Jones for their behavior and calling for changes that would help ensure other scientists don't get away with that kind of crap in the future. The fact that they are mostly silent tells me that they are 1) concerned more about protecting their old boys network than AGW or 2) are just as slimy as Jones and Mann. Neither option gives me any reason to trust their scientific judgement. In fact, here is the latest example of unprofessional behavior from climate scientists and the journal editors that they collude with:
  8. Why? We have already covered this. I have provided the links in the past and you demonstrated that you have no interest in facts or data when it comes to this point. They are all managed by custodians that cannot be trusted. I am surprised that someone who relies so much on 'appeal to authority' cannot understand that your entire argument falls apart if the 'authorities' are found to be acting in ways that calls their scientific judgment into question.The bottom line is there is nothing to lose by re-doing these analyses in a open forum where temperature reconstructions can be replicated and analyzed by others - vague descriptions in peer reviewed journals do not provide enough information to replicate the work which means the work is automatically suspect. I am not wrong. The diurnal correction is old news and has no relevance today. The alarmists don't like UAH because its 30 year trend is lower than the others. Incidentally, since 2003 UAH and RSS use different satellites. UAH uses a satellite that does not need diurnal correction that caused problems in the past and actually shows less cooling than RSS over the period.
  9. The 'nation' debates are nothing but silly word games that depend on the fact that the word 'nation' in the english language has multiple meanings can be used to describe a cultural or political grouping of people. The people who insist on using the word nation for cultural groups are people to seek to create the illusion that these cultural groups are somehow equivalent to a political state.
  10. I have many times. You simply pretend they don't exist. The UAH satellite record shows a warming trend over the last 30 years that is about 20% less than the trend shown by the RSS record. That is why I said I would be surpised if the error in the records exceeds 20%. The custodians of the surface records are simply not trustworthy scientists in the opinion of of many people so the surface records have no credibility until then have been redone. The MetOffice in the UK has acknowledged this and has agreed to rebuild the records but it will take 3 years. It is possible to take rational precautions without resorting to panic. IMO, the H1N1 response by officials was not that out of line but the media played it up too much. The response of officials to the underpants bomber was way out of line.
  11. People on both sides of the debate are not capable of understanding the nuance of the scientific issues. For example, an alarmist that to points to melting glaciers as 'evidence' of catatrophic AGW is just as wrong since evidence of warming is not evidence that the warming was caused mainly by CO2 and nor is it evidence that the warming is likely to cause a catastrophe in the future. There are scientists which specialize in the analysis of chaotic systems that reject the claim that climate is predictable. They argue that climate is chaotic like weather and that means it is not possible to predict the future path of climate. The climate science industry only insists that climate is predictable because if they didn't they would not have jobs.Here is a post by one of those scientists that makes the case that climate cannot be predicted any more reliably than weather.
  12. I would give it 5-7 years to wait and see. If current trends continue we would have 15 years of non-warming and even the alarmists agree that period is long enough to demonstrate that the models are crap. 8 years of non-warming is more than enough to raise reasonable doubt about the model reliability and to justify a delay before implementing an expensive CO2 mitigation policies.It will also take about 3 years to rebuild the temperature indicies from scratch since the indicies we have now cannot be trusted since the current custodians have been exposed as untrustworthy zealots on a crusade. That said, I don't expect to find huge discrepencies in the datasets but I would not be surprised to find the the warming has been overstated by as much as 20% through the use of biased algorithms and careful selection of the stations included in the index. Does not make it any less absurd. The attitude that all possible risks much be prevented without any thought to the costs of prevention is a cancer in our society today. My recent trip to the US was a nightmare of pointless security checks that would not have actually stopped underpants bomber.
  13. The head of state in Canada is the "Queen of Canada". The current holder of that office happens to also be the "Queen of England", however, her duties as the "Queen of Canada" are completely separate from her other duties. If necessary, the Canadian government has the power to fire the "Queen of Canada" and replace her with a monarch acceptable to Canadians. The current "Queen of Canada" is legally compelled to sign any amendment to the constitution that relieves her of her duties.IOW - You don't have a clue what the term 'crown land' means in Canada.
  14. Americans or going to have serious gas shortages in the next 10 years or so because of years of brain dead environmental regulation have turned oil refining into a money losing business. This, in turn, will enourage the import of gasoline rather than crude oil which will make the US even more dependent on foreign energy suppliers. Of course, this suits the evironmentalists fine cause they think a a society with more unemployement and poverty is a wonderful thing because poor people use less energy.
  15. BS. That is crap AGW hacks just made up to sell their half baked religion. There is not one shred of evidence to support that claim. BTW - IPCC climate models do NOT have the resolution required to produce weather systems. For example, storms and hurricanes do not show up in the simulations so you can't use them to say that warming will cause more severe weather.
  16. The poll asked whether people agreed with the decision. The answers say absolutely nothing about whether people believed the decision was democratic or not.I have noticed that political partisans of all stripes are quick to label the use of constitutionally legimate parlimentary procedures as 'undemocratic' when these procedures are inconvenient for them. I am fairly certain that none of the people complaining today had a problem with the 'undemocratic' formation of a coalition government a year ago.
  17. Take any issue. Give it some coverage and you will find some people 'expressing themselves'. In this case, the people complaining are political partisans who would have never voted CPC in the first place. The coverage in the media is mystifying. I suspect the media is whipping it up because controversy sells.
  18. You would be wrong. I fall firmly in the not sure category (i.e. i don't care) and I have not been following the issue in the news. I only responded on this thread because a poll was quoted and I thought the poll results did not make sense because I do not think this issue is going to change anyone's vote.
  19. A poll which left out the most important question: do you actually care about this issue? I suspect you would find that most Canadians don't care about it.
  20. So your 'solution' to the recharge problem is to require that everyone consume even more resources by buying and maintaining two cars?
  21. Sorry to break it to you but people do NOT choose cars based on whether they meet their daily needs. They choose cars based on whether they will meet most of their needs. e.g. someone who drives less than 40km per day would not buy an electric car if they expected to go on a weekend road trip a couple times per year. Electric cars without gas engine backups will be nothing but niche players until the recharge time problem is solved economically.
  22. There are just as many situations where nothing is done and no tragedy occurs and people forget there ever was an issue. People only remember the times when hindsight tells us that we should have done things differently.
  23. It is just as stupid to insist that we know that the risk is real. Uncertainty denial is a real problem in politics. Politicians like certainty and tend to make it up when it does not exist.
  24. I did not try to. Our information at the time was incomplete. We had no way to know that the entire soviet economy was a Potemkin village sustained by oil exports. The lesson we should be taking from this is that just because all of our information says something is a threat that does not necessarily mean it is a threat - especially when many people benefit from creating the illusion of the threat.
  25. Yet hindsight tells us there was nothing to be afraid of since the soviet machine was economically unsustainable.
×
×
  • Create New...