myata

No, they are only logical, common sense conventions that do nothing more than ensure a meaningful, finite in time, and fruitful (in the sense that it'll produce a definite, verifiable result, rather than infinite loops around blogosphere) discussion (of course, it's already been said that it's not "where" it was published, but who it was read and reviewed by, and I'm not going to waste any more time repeating that obvious necessity to not take any junk from where it's found and put it in the foundation of a critical construction, whether your home, or the science of climate) By all indications, "skeptic" participants for that kind of discussion are yet to be found, but I'm still hopeful.

True, looks like "honesty" and "transparency" aren't entirely unrelated things - you learn to hide things better, and "dislike" and keep away those nosy media, and all of a sudden, you start looking very "honest". Again, it's more the matter with the citizens, us. If we care nothing about keeping our government clean and open, we're going to get it near 100% honest simply for the fact that no cases of dishonesty would come to public knowledge, and few would care what happened/s behind the closed doors.

Still no "sceptical" takers (for a serious, detailed and disciplined discussion of alleged issues with the climate science). I'm surprised and confounded. Where did all the sceptics leave, once the discussion took disciplined and responsible direction??

Of course, that presumably long list of "corrupt" pre Harper ministers is a common, obvious knowledge, and that's why it needed no further description, nor reference.

Of course, a souvereign power can decide what it wants. It can decide, for a change, to limit the extent of application of its military power to its proper borders (and those of close allies).

True, only a different flavour of it. Power to defend self, rather than dominate and change other.

We all know what it's all about though. "GOing" there and doing things (to "them"). Legalities can be defined, given genuine desire and will. Does it exist though? I don't believe even our newest Nobel Peace winner is certain about that.

Without ever or necessarily establishing veracity of the arguments, so that the fallacy circle could go on and on forever, satisfaction guaranteed? Indeed, if and when formulating opinions is taking priority over their verification, no limits to (imagined) results are possible, and neither is an end to any discussion (and therefore any meaning to it). No such "rejection" is made though, only the responsibility of the author of a result to prove its validity within a community of qualified peers so that it could be used in confidence as a building block of science. Without such verification, no meaningful construction is possible (including e.g. your house). OK, one sceptic out (of meaningful, verifiable and finite in time discussion of "sceptical" issues). Any other takers? The offer will be open till EOB Friday, after which time, the obvious conclusion - that sceptics aren't really interested in a detailed and professional examination of issues, but meaningless irresponsible noise, shall be made public.

Really? And how would we know a blog with a ton of valuable insight from that (those, in their gazzi-billions) that have nothing but loads of meaningless cra.. that only the author would ever care to read? Anyways, your innovative suggestions for the future of scientific process should be a subject for another discussion. True. The review only filters out immesurable volumes of meaningless junk and under par research that end up in the blogosphere where no such controls exist. The restriction is only there to assure the verasity of claims. A statement can be addressed on its own merit, or deferred to consideration of others. If it is deferred (ie, referred to), we need a mechanism to ensure its correctness. It's only natural to expect that a review by professional experts ensures at least some confidence (no, not 100% and absolute correctness), while that by a part time poster of unknown education and/or qualification - not as much. In any case, it can be easily bypassed by anybody really interested in having a meaningful discussion, by championing any claim they'd like to refer to, i.e. presenting and defending it as an original deduction. What can't be done, logically, is to use a statement without any responsibility for its correctness (could it be one of the reasons of "skeptics" great attraction to the blogoshpere?) Not if it's presented as one of either 1) original deduction that can be examined on its own merits; or 2) a reference that can be taken in confidence because it's been critically analysed by qualified experts in the field. This is just plain logic, isn't it? And if we consider normal, rational logic as "rigged", then there will be no (rational) limits to conclusions we could reach. Would that be the idea, by any chance? But of course, it's not about the source, but and again, the veracity of the argument that I did not use as an original deduction that can be analysed on its merits. The statement I refer to can be correct; or it could be wrong. Because not all possible statements in this world are correct (more like the other way around), I need a way, process that would assure me that it's more likely to be correct, than the opposite. The source, publications of professionally reviewed studies, helps me in that task, but I'm not sure what option you are proposing? Just to take the reference upon author's word, without any verification? Would it be wise though, given general probability of any random statement of being correct? Or maybe, analyse and discuss every single statement in every possible blog that could be referred to? Wouldn it be wise, given the finite nature of discussion, while near infinite volumes of junk on this Web? Or have I missed something?

But you have a better option, no doubt? Like e.g. a consensus of unqualified part time posters on some obscure blogsite? If rigorous and disciplined process is not followed, the discussion will instantly drown in a melee of "who said what" junk, just as we see it so aptly illustrated right here, in this very thread. Wrong, I'm not attempting to impose my "beliefs" but offer a rational, verifiable way to establish the truth of the matter. If that's not the reason for some of sceptics to raise their objections, well, it becomes clear and quickly, to anybody who cares to look (for themselves), and see. Speaking from the vantage point of knowing the future? You aren't the first poster to use this infallible (but also, unverifiable in any rational way) position.

No reasonable discussion is possible without basic common sense discipline which includes correctness and provability. Not at all, as long as their findings were also published in peer reviewed professional media. Without such qualification validity of statements simply cannot be assured and the discussion looses all practical meaning. I'm not at all surprised that some "skeptics" wouldn't be thrilled to present their claims to a responsible and rigorous critical analysis, preferring free of any standards and/or responsibility "about sciense" blogosphere instead. However I'll keep my mind open and am leaving my offer open for a while longer.

I see no takers at this time, so the question appears to be pointless. I'm prepared to wait a (short) while longer, before having to to submit to the only logical possibility that "sceptics" interest here lies somewhere else but in establishing the true situation to the best of our present knowledge.

The only way to avoid these "just" wars (justification being in the eye of the beholder) is to make organisation, participation and complicity in all aggressive military actions abroad a criminal offense prosecuted in the country under our law. War is by far a too lucrative undertaking (and business), to leave it to politicians judgement.

Yet with no comparison with the amounts of aid Israel gets from US: "Since the 1970s, Israel has been one of the top recipients of U.S. foreign aid.[23] While it is mostly military aid, in the past a portion was dedicated to economic assistance. In 2004, the second-largest recipient of economic foreign aid from the United States was Israel, second to post-war Iraq. In terms of per capita value Israel ranks first..." "President Obama's Fiscal Year 2010 budget proposes $53.8 billion for appropriated international affairs' programs. From that budget proposes $5.7 billion for foreign military financing, military education, and peacekeeping operations. From $5.7 billion, $2.8 billion, almost 50% is appropriated for Israel." (from Wikipedia: US military and economic aid", http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_%E2%80%93_United_States_relations) US has been and remains the one major sponsor of Israel, regardless the latter's acts in the occupied territories. Let's say, since the latest round of persuasion to restart peace process has started. Indeed by all objective indications, the official government in West Bank has very limited means to "reign in" Hamas in Gasa. That's quite a distance away from Israel's government conscious and deliberate approval of expansion of settlements. No, I'm not giving anybody a pass. Only wondering why a deliberate, blatant and persisting acts of aggression from Isreal never cause the same kind of strong and unmistakable (and could it be at all, practical) response, as militant attacks from terrorist factions? I'm glad we understand that. And if do (really?), we'd have no problem assessing Israel's persistent and ongoing policy of settlement of occupied territories, as well as its hugely disproportionate military operations, like the one in Lebanon. But do we (understand and accept it), really? You live in the same house with a violent relative, are you to be "held accountable" for their actions? Looks like your standards of justice stretch (and shrink) on demand, here, they are so precise and incompromising, and there - barely see. Would accomplish clear and unmistakable position that acts of hostility and aggression by any one side are unwelcome and won't be tolerated. We already addressed the question of who gets the most assistence. Agreed, agressor and occuier wouldn't necessarily see abandoning occupied possessions as fair. As e.g. Saddam in Kuwait. Why you want to treat the two cases so differently is a question only could answer. Guess there're good aggressions and bad ones, I can't get another logical explanation for that position. Oh no, we shouldn't have ever "angered" Saddam when he came into possession of Kuwait, should we have? Or it does depend on who's doing what? Peaceful democracies - full democratic rights to grab bits and pieces of their neighbours. Bad and ugly dictators - no-no!

I'm going to propose a practical way out of the sceptical stalemate to anybody genuinely interested in finding a scientific answer to their concerns. Participating sceptic raises an issue with a particular piece of research, model, etc. The issue is addressed in a discussion on this board. There's a short list of common sense and intuitive conventions to make the discussion meaningful: 1) No flooding: one issue per sceptic poster, everybody's time here being finite; 2) Specifics and details: issue can be raised about specific, particular research, result, conclusion, set of input data and so on. No meaningless generalisations like "models...", "data sets...", "scientists...", "science" are allowed. 3) Correctness: issues, questions and arguments are formulated in the correct language (in the context of applicable discipline). Discussion is terminated if it becomes clear that scientifically meaningful dialogue could not be maintaned (setting a hard maximum of, say, 7 meaningless statements per discussion). 4) Proofability: all statements are formulated as either scientifically correct (as above) original deductions, or references to peer reviewed publications in the professional media of the applicable discipline. No general web "quote mining". Does it make sense & any takers (on either side of the debate)?

On the positive side, good things may still happen. In another generation or two, and probably with great stress and effort to humanity, that at this time can be described as pretty minor, in the global scale of things. If we (collectively) dodge this bullet, we'll probably learn something and do better next time.

That's just too bad. Because the process is fully reversible, as illustrated in Wells' Time Machine. If one stops thinking, acting, i.e. evolving their knowledge and intelligence, they'll be sliding all the way back to great apes, dolphins, and potatoes (eventually). There's neither guarantees nor charms against such turn of affairs, and it happens all the time, even in historical, not to mention, evolutionary time scales.

I.e. to summarize, "I won't act until I'm convinced, and I won't be convinced because I have no desire or will to act". How do you help, educate, nourish such cases? Well, the nature has come up with the best i.e most efficient solution, and it's called "the natural selection".

It's OK that it's conscious, as long as it's neither of the above mentioned. And I'm not counting on any help anyways. The solution has been offered though. Everybody, willingly, take their part to fix the global problem. If some wouldn't see or listen, or unwilling to act, I seriously and honestly wouldn't know how to help them, and leaving it to natural selection may be the only remedy.

A brilliant deduction! Climate change and eugenics are the same thing because... my apple happens to be green. It always pays to have a great hindsight. We're here and now though, lacking the benefit of sharing advice of an all knowing board poster from like two hundred years into the future. And so, on one side we have a consensus of great majority of experts and researchers in the field, while on the other - a ton of hot air gibberish, and a thoughtful observation that science was wrong before. Take a pick. A wealth of priceless revelations! Wait, haven't we already moved on to attempting to narrow down the meaning of "questioning"? Does it need to have any meaning, if/when published and critically reviewed by the community of qualified peers? Or any clueless gook would do, as long as it "questions" in the right direction? Did it mean to say, "it's perfectly reasonable to question them intelligently"? The moment we have an evidence of qualified, peer reviewed counter argument to that theory, you can count me onboard of the right to "questioning", which is, as a matter of fact, a cornerstone of scientific process and both right and duty of any professional researcher. With an obvious, but highly important in the context of this discussion qualification that questions need to be meaningful and sound. Great. So being not an expert, and not knowing enough, one can still reasonably "belive" that they (aforementioned) made a grave mistake? Why couldn't one also believe in Father Christmas and fairies?

Saying may not be enough though, if the aggressor doesn't change their behavior and we're still providing massive amounts of support to them. Wouldn't it be like, mixed signal? Which one is our true self, when we say "don't build" or when we turn around and shell out money for military contracts? Being very specific here, we'd need to qualify that statement also. First, it appears to be doing at least something, as there hasn't been many reports of attacs from West bank on Isreal proper of late; secondly, is the alleged inaction deliberate or willing, or perhaps, unavoidable? The government of Israel has been running the program of illegal construction deliberately and willingly, there can't be any doubts about that. Yet it's not the official government, according to our own decision to not recognise it as such, so we can't now credibly claim that its acts represent the official position of Palestine, can we? Aided in slightly different ways. I'll be OK if all aid to Israel is limited to humanitarian and development assistence, just like that to Palestine, do we agree on that? No financial loans and military contracts, while either one of the sides is involved in acts of aggression. Makes sense? I do not speak "for" or "against" any one side, because I've no personal involvement and it makes no sense as in the approach of seeking peace. I do believe that to advance toward it, in reality more than in words, one has to do two things, 1) call, and act for all parties to stop all acts of aggression, in any form; and 2) state clearly and unambiguously, the fair principles of settlement of the conflict. I applaud the EU's initiative because it is advancing the possibility of peace, nothing to do this "appeasement". However if fair approach to resolution causes dramatic innacceptance by one side, it may give us good indication as to where the main obstacle to peace may be found.

I guess there's always two (at least) ways of looking at things. You want to see it as a challenge for the scientists and environmentalists, me - for the society itself. I think mine is more general and democratic, it does not presume that one part of society somehow carries greater responsibility for its development than others.

Only statistically, based on the known previous record of evolution of life on this planet For a while. No, I said nothing about "lower", it just doesn't work that way. Some species survive, other perish, it's the way of life, there isn't really anything shameful about it. I'll draw the line at the notion of "conscious choice". If one chooses to be stupid and lazy, consciously and in full knowledge of the alternatives, I wouldn't want to be in the business of "helping", as it'd be very much useless waste of time and effort.

What if nothing needs to be done? There's a wide selection of societies on this planet. Those with more intelligent, thinking and active populations would make more rational decisions and survive. The rest - go the way of, we know who, perhaps happily infotained on the way. Everybody gets what they desire and deserve, life progresses, in full agreement with the science of Darwin. Not like it'll be the first time, either.

No, everyone may not be able to always inform themselves, although that's what they should attempt as often as possible, if they want to be thinking and responsible citizens. And our society has sophisticated system of finding, processing and delivering information to citizens. Overall, I do not believe there's a lack of information on climate change around us, but of course it is not at the level of near unavoidable propaganda (should it be where?). If the regular average citizen isn't interested enough to find material for themselves (on a website, in a book, library, lecture, etc); or isn't willing to act if at all possible, or both; then I do not know what can be done for them, short of a serious brainwasing session. A number of signs point to citizens' apathy at the core of the issue (polls, reaction to "green shift", lukewarm attitude from both main parties. It may change with time, but I simply don't see either practical possibility, nor a viable vehicle for a quick turnaround.