myata

By enforcing our own, rightful moral standards upon anybody who appears to be falling below, regardless of whether they want, ready to accept them, or not? After all, our way of life is obviously superior, and it should be forced on everybody else, for their own good, of course. We can't seem to recall that only a few generations back we were burning witches and used fragrances to remedy blackpox, and we can't really wait till others catch up, of their own will and timing.

But having one does not yet guarantee having a clue. And clueless discussion of science is as good as believing a priest (or whoever or whatever else), for all practical means.

All would be immigrants are responsible to prove that they don't pose risk to the country they apply to stay in. If it was the other way around, and we would have to prove a court case against an unwanted immigrant, we would be demanding of our police and other services to prosecuty individuals, by strict standards of justice, from anywhere in the world. That's sheer lunacy. It would (and could) never happen, simply because Canada has no jurisdiction outside its borders. It cannot collect evidence, interview witnesses, etc. So, demanding Canada to present court quality evidence against unwanted immigrants would be equivalent, by all practical means, to the right of free, unrestricted admission, for anybody and from anywhere in the world. I'm not necessarily in favour of this security sertificate thing created out of 9/11 mess, but it's clear that every country would need a process to deal with unwanted immigrants, inlcuding those who wouldn't leave of their own will.

Of course it's not. We have real experts, right here.

Indeed, if the professional members of academy are "political activists", then general forums would be the place where all the newest achievements and breakthroughs will be found. Let's see who'd want to live in the world where all matters are ruled by popular vote with general access and zero qualification threshold. No, I'm only saying that beliefs should be assigned to things spiritual. In science, engineering, and generally, rational world, there's no need to "believe" because points and postions are proven. So, one either proves their point among those who are also qualified in the matter, or refrains from addressing something they don't understand. Of course there would be exceptions. In which case, general Web forum would be the perfect outlet to vent frustration. Not that it it would have anything to do with the science per se.

Right, it almost invariably comes down to "you don't have to understand to make your invaluable comment". US Academy of Science not professionals, but "political activists"? Say who, new Einstein? Statistics is a tool, rather than a science per se. Qualified professionals use it to process data and undestand processes in the nature. Correctness (or not) of their analysis can only be confirmed by other qualified peers, who are also trained in, and undestand statistics. Laymen can only be limited to picking what they need / like to hear, without any relevance to the actual state of beings. It's a random and pointless process, i.e. obvious and guaranteed waste of time.

Here's why: because, being no expert in statistics, I'd have no clue which one of the two (or neither) is right. My choice, like that of, I'm sure, at least 95% of posters in this forum, would be as random as flipping a two (three way coin). And so, I (and, in my opinion, every rationally thinking individual) would only have the meaningful choices of 1) deferring to the prevailing opinion of qualified professional in the subject; OR 2) themselves becoming experts, analysing existing research and presenting their findings to the attention of qualified professionals in the subject. The third choice, endless preudo scientific discussions of preudo science gibberish in the audience of unknown qualifications, would be as obvious and guaranteed waste of time, as any activity could be. Even if a glimpse of truth did happen to come about, once in a very rare while, in this sort of discussions, nobody would be able to see it for such, and it'll be all for nothing. I.e., an obvious and guaranteed waste of time.

Let's remember that jail has been entirely of his own choosing, and these individuals were free to move on, anytime. It'd absolutely bizzare to imagine that security services in Canada could assure faultless check and if necessary, prosecution, of every single individual in this world who'd want to show in. Certainly a country has a right to a discretion as to who is allowed in it. The only reason the case could warrant a compensation, would be a severe violation of due process. Canada has a right to protect itself against foreigners it deems to be a risk, but it should do so in accordance with its declared principles, and the process. The process of security certificates does allow for incarceration of those deemed to be of risk, so per se it should not be grounds for compensation, only if a violation of process that resulted in it is proven. This situation is very different from wrongful conviction, because the suspect here cannot have a presumption of innocence (enforcement of it would be unrealistic and impractical) and has a choice to leave Canada's jurisdiction at any time.

No, passionate epithets wouldn't usually amount to a meaningful argument in a scientific forum. Working anywhere or having anything doesn't make one a professional, or expert per se. However a group of qualified professionals is much more likely to distinguish a merited research from clueless b.s. than a bunch of amatures, and would be most likely much more efficient at that two (usually, only a sentence or two would suffice, like in the earlier examples, so graciously provided) So, if NASA engineer is an idiot and our friend - clueless, they could have a long and productive (between themselves) conversation. If the engineer is an expert, and the friend still clueless, there cannot be much of a professional conversation (other than in the popular mechanics format). Finally, if our friend is themselves an expert, they would probably discuss peculiarities of rocket fuel chemistry somewhere outside of public and political Web forums. Which brings me to a conclusion that perhaps, in the provided example, our friend wouldn't have much of a clue after all, and therefore their contributions to the rocket fuel chemistry can be safely discarded as no doubt well meant, but still intellectual junk (barring some random and mysterious flash of foresight, which are extremely rare though, to be counted on as a strategy to advance science). That deep knowledge of nitty gritty of scientific work only confirms my earlier conclusions. Of course anybody can question anything (have you tried questioning quantum physics e.g.? or molecular genetics? etc). It's making those questions have any meaningful sense, where the difficulty lies. To Riverwind: I'm sure Dr Mann has invested much effort in his research that he now will be able to present to the review of peers, published and accepted to improve the quality of statistical analysis in the future. The question is, what & how much we can do here, in this not exactly specialized in statistics Web forum, to advance his merited research?

Like e.g that example above so graciously provided ...

One can only critically question something that they actually know and understand. Understanding professional research in science usually requires years of study, and continuous professional involvement thereafter. Anything less would very likely result in bs questioning, having nothing to do with the science in question, and very little - with critical thinking.

Their choice of venue to present and review their groundbreaking ideas casts serious doubts on their qualifications and quality of their research. Perhaps it's just not good enough, to be shown anywhere else (where all or most participants can instantly see the obvious bs?) Maybe the quality of discussion? Nobody with strong professional interests wants to wade through miles and cubic meters of intellectual garbage, and the level of bs in professional fora is reduced to the minimun by careful and prompt elimination of anybody displaying propensity to groundless blabber and obvious bs. Plus, unlike these general Web forums, many participants would be familiar with each other's research through other events also. Are you implying that of thousands of professionally trained scientists, virtually nobody would have the skills, knowledge and/or courage to accept and support the ideas that are just so plainly obvious to the merited veterans of general Web forums like us here? If so, we can't really trust anybody and anything anymore (how would you know that e.g. your dentist isnt' complicit in some long reaching professional dentistry plot?). In that situation the best choice would be to retire deep in the woods, where possibility to encounter conspiracies of all kinds will be greatly reduced, and publish our valuable thoughts in our own private blogs (keeping interactions with hostile conspiracy prone environment to the minimum), that perhaps somebody somewhere and sometime would care to read.

Why would these highly qualified individuals want to go to unrelated political Web forums, over professional ones? Who and how would be able to know of their supposed qualifications, to not waste time on pseudo-scientific clueless abracadara talk? How many of esteemed and accomplished scientists in the subject area regularly read Mapleleafweb to brush up on the latest developments in their area of research? Beats me (or... let me guess... perhaps they couldn't find much interest in those, professional ones?). But, I'm no longer surprised of anything. It could be a valuable pastime for those who find it so, and they should certainly be free to dispose of their time in the way they find pleasant and rewarding. Thanks, but I never really said that. Only that ideas, research, hypothesis, etc should be presented in the appropriate qualified fora, where qualified peers would be able to review and examine them. So far, science remains one of a few domains where clueless pop has not been able to decide matters by popular vote (or, only to some extenet, and indirectly), and when it does (things seem to be moving in that direction, gradually), it'll probably mark the end to our short (in historical terms) period of relative prosperity.

Also, Riverwind, Moonbox: Because this is not a scientific forum. Because you don't know if I graduated from hi school to discuss matters like "carbon dating", "gaseous composition of atmosphere and its effects on climate" (seriously), and I won't ever know the same about you. Because here, anybody can say virtually anything, with no effect on their professional standing or reputation. Because anything said here may have little or no relevance to actual fact or research, and still keep being said, unlike in any serious professional forum, where it would be discarded instantly and forever. That's why talking science in Web forums would be a complete and uttermost waste of time. My last two cents.

We'll now, you either need to present something, anything, to make us believe that all the qualified professionals in the US academy of Science (and all the other academies around the world that support that view), who went through years of studies, training and peer examined research to be "blind", while Harper, yourself, and other selected few granted with (Godly?) gift of sight (without any need for costly and time consuming education). Or expose your position in this argument as entirely ridiculous (unqualified individual making statements about matters they hardly capable of understanding. All too common these days though, no surprise). Seriously. For scientific debate, there're peer reviewed scientific fora. But what kind of science can be debated with somebody who just happens to "believe"? Or "know"? E.g. that cute dinosaurs played with Abraham's kids 6000 year back in Paradise? What kind of logical discussion can happen on that premise? There you go. Correct, a total and absolute waste of time. What can be discussed here, is not the validity of the science of climate of change, but willingness and committment of people of this country (first of all), and its current government (to follow) to effect any meaningful, non trivial act to improve our own record. For our own sake as much as posterity. That will is nowhere to be seen. When it comes to a hard choice between another SUV and reducing carbon footprint, we simply know that it's somebody else who should take the bite.

Iggy's Liberals don't yet know who and what they are. With no hope for a more progressive representation any time soon, perhaps Canada should take the bitter pill of Harpers' Conservatives in the majority, to give Libs the chance to ponder and examine their raison d'etre and come up with something more inspiring (and different) than just a new face.

Well it's certainly that to dispute the matters of sceince in these forums. I'm not going to waste any further time on that. What has been posted in the earlier thread, is a report by the US Academy of Science in which human caused climate change was stated to be a theory confirmed by multiple research and observations. You, Harper, or whoever else can certainly come up with research, arguments and theories of your own, have them examined by peers, published in scientific media and possibly even earn a Nobel prize. But short of that, statements like above reflect on the author far more than on any matter of science. Never been to Shanghai, but certainly agree with possibility that China's record on pollution is far from stellar. That's why it's quite strange and even illogical to look up to them for leadership in the matters environmental. Maybe, if we compare on the basis of the same technology. Which we seem to be quite happy with, so far. Consume our riches, and keep firing coal and oil, like them in their "medieval" society. Then go up the lofty podium and profess about the need to change. Utterly believable. The irony is of course an idelogue politician, who'd seriously believe that dinosaurs walked the Earth 6000 years ago, making statements about validity of the science. That's real irony. And if we continue up (i.e down) that path, we may yet find ourselves in those glorious times, 6 millenia or even further back, depending on luck and God's will of course.

Obscure, but based on scientific research, isn't as convincing as unconfirmed blabber of somebody who has no clue about the subject? And of course, the records of melting ice and retracting glaciers are recorded over at least several hundred years. And the levels of CO in atmoshere and their correlation with temperature and water levels have been researched. Anyways. Human caused global warming is the dominant conclusion of scientific community at this time (links have been posted in another thread earlier), and of course, anybody, yourself or even Harper, are free to enter the debate at any time, with scientific argument and data to confirm their position. Short of such scientific breakthrough though, the statements like "no credible evidence" have to be disregarded as pretty much meaningless blabber, very common here on the Web, in case you haven't noticed. Nobody's said "higher". We are still talking "lower", or maybe, (one of the) "lowest" (as related to ability to have such standards). But, a very good comment on that dilemma. Indeed one can lead, or follow in the back of the pack, claiming that, but it's hardly possible to accomplish both, at the same time. No, you can't hold me to the same standard, no. Them, standards only good when applied to others. They 1) still have much lower standard of living, and it's understandable that much of their resources will be dedicatd to improving it; and, 2) had much less contribution to creating the problem (again, references to stats on GHG emissions has been posted, and if I recall them correctly, even now as we speak emission per capita are multiple times higher in countries like US or Canada). Unlike real "savants", like us. It only takes saying it, and it becomes true. Who cares about going to school, taking exams, doing research, defending degree, publishing peer reviewed research, and things such? Anybody can say anything, it's free and doesn't cost (and mean) anything. Like that UFO that just flew over your head. Remember, the dinosaurs.

It has been found and reported that the last time in history similar levels of CO concentration in the atmosphere were observed, ocean levels were 30-45 m higher, and there were no ice caps in Arctics and Antarctics: New CO levels research (also reported by BBC) Melting of glaciers and polar ice is an established fact confirmed by numerous research. Of course there's always a question as to what "science" one should find "credible", e.g. some (not excluding high level government politician) find it "credible" that dinosaurs walked this Earth alongside modern humans, regardless of what established (debated, fact based and peer reviewed) science would say on the matter. Indeed, we should. And unlike many others, we can actually afford doing it. And yet, we don't. It is also a fact (posted earlier) that this country is among highest (if not highest) per capita GHG emitters on the planet. Despite already pointed fact that unlike many others, we here actually have the resources to work on the problem, that we though collectively decided to "consume" instead. It certainly makes us responsible for global warming as much as anybody else, especially the industrialized nations of planet, and our pathetic finger pointing and absolute void of any action, only shows how well, really pathetic we are on this agenda, no matter Harpers government noble efforts (mostly invested in hot air polemics).

I'm starting to feel mild levels of annoyance with these unasked for, but certainly highly thoughtful comments - they happen to obstruct my view of the thread, and the next time I see them, I'll have to let the mod to weigh in on the reason they had to be here.

Harper's bringing this agenda to fun out fear and given reason to exist to his idelogical, neo concervative policies. It's just too bad that nobody's there, at all (flip-flop Iggy? cooperative Jack? anybody?) to expose it as such.

Of course. And it has to be the job of ideology driven partisan politicians (helped by clueless posters on internet discussion boards) to differentiate "lunatics science" from "real challenges". And with God's wind behind them, they'll sure rise to any challenges, just like e.g. that crime wave (slow to manifest itself in real stats, but "sane" people of the world don't usually have worry about such triffles) we need an urgent salvation from under the protective fold of ultra conservative tough justice.

"Sanity" (in this definition) meaning paying no heed to science, refusing to act in any meaningful way, obstructing others' efforts to act, and pressing with more of the same, while praying that mighty God would deliver us from all self made and imposed evils (i.e ultimately, from ourselves). Good stuff!

Harper has accomplished the annihilation of Canada's credibility on environmental and climate change agendas, started by Chretien's Liberals, and no matter his recent publicity gimmicks, it'll take a long time (and serious, real work) to restore. Canada has nothing to offer neither to developed countries seriously working on GHG reductions, nor to the developing nations seeking to accommodate their need for growth with more environmentally friendly economies. So it's position has to be reduced to, plain and simply: tons of empty worded hot air.

And why not? Terrorists, warmongers are fully worthy of each other (perhaps the difference being only in the name.. and attire), so why should they receive such a drastically different treatment?