myata

Somebody has proven that evolution exists, i.e it can actually be observed in an experiments with thousands generations of livings things (Wikipedia: e-coli experiment, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment). That in no way prevents ideology driven ignorants from arguing tooth and nail that life was created by God. There's no way to prove or explain to somebody who refuses to see. In the end, it's a matter of vision. There can be a society that lives based on irrational traditions and beliefs, and one where decisions are made based on considerations of reason and knowledge. Eventually it's up to us to make that choice, and it has to be made over and again, at each major crosspoint and generation, as future is never assured or given, but earned with choice and act.

Harper's idea that we here will move only if/when China and India show the way. All about searching for moral obligations of others as a way to avoid acting ourselves. OK, if they took it in their mandate, point taken. They aren't doing great job publicising and promoting the results of leading research on climate change. I only want to stress that in this conundrum society has as much obligation to learn, understand and act on the specialists advice, as the scientists are obligated to deliver sound research. OK, we really need to understand who is convincing who. Parties, organisations, popular movements (only the Greens and maybe NDP are solidly onboard - the main begemoths want to tread very softly, if at all) can promote policy change. Scientific community must deliver solid, high quality research and can help by explaining and popularising it. But the ultimate choice will be eventually left to society itself, the average citizen. If the citizens, the majority of them do not show active interest to event, will to act and change, I'm afraid that all the hard work of convincing would be for naught or very close to it.

Now we are talking about moral obligations of others, and all before we even had a chance to think about ones of our own. Why would it sound so familiar to moral obligation of India and Cayman Islands to show us the way to a greener future? No, the moral obligation to think or not, the choice of being smart or the opposite, active or lazy, etc is ours and ours only. And as is with choices, it'll eventually determine who (and where) we'll end up. in this you may be mistaken. Many scientists do their work because it's of interest to them, and they take no greater obligation "for betterment", any more than any other member of society. Nice of them, and as a matter of goodwill, but no professional obligation or expectation that they'll take greater responsibility for our health than us ourselves. No, they only "need" to comply with the professional standard and come up with the best research possible. Some will be compelled or interested in sharing their knowledge with general public, but nobody and in way is obligated to do so. If we want to decide the fate of our society, we are also ultimately responsible to obtain information to make a good decision. Nobody else.

The scandal will always be with us till the archaic electoral system persists. There's no transparency, no serious checks and balances on the majority government in this system and eventually it's bound to start feeling allmighty and roll off the rails. At which time (the only possible) opposition takes their turn and has their run with the power.

I certainly agree that it could do more to keep the public informed about the current state of the research and its implications for our future. However I'll qualify that by saying that such actions are desired (by me; maybe some other folks concerned about where these developments will take us), but by no means required of IPCC. The responsibility of an expert is to judge the expert matter, to the best of their ability and in good faith; it cannot be demanded of them to educate and convince others, no, it's up to us, the rest of population to heed the advice of specialists or ignore it (as we were given to in our earlier, less prosperous ages). Just like a doctor will determine a diagnosis and propose a treatment, but in no way required to convince the patient to take it.

I'd certainly see Harper's government as static, heavy ballast on the issue. They won't do a milligram more than they absolutely, unavoidably have to, and that's probably coming from the depths of theirs collective psych and ideology. Engaging public in general? I've no idea how it can be done, the moment you mention that there's even a minuscule cost to the program, and Harper says we could do without it until India or Comorres Islands show the way.

Well, moneys for economic assistance and military cooperation flow to Israels regardless of what and how it does in the occupied territories, I really fail to see any conditions in that sense. If you know something that I don't I'll certainly be thankful for update. Of course we all know that talk is cheap. OK, just to make sure I got it right. Israel maintains massive military presence in the territories, annexes East Jerusalem, keeps building illegal settlements like there's no tomorrow, we happily pump moneys and arms into it, and then all of a sudden, in the next generation or one after it, it gives it all up and withdraws. Sounds believable, just like this whole friendly mediation business No, God forbit. It's getting them for something else, so it could invest other money in the construction of settlements. Makes all the difference! It may be so, but we could start by making sure that our own role does not contribute to prolongation and escalalation of conflict, by giving massive practical support to any one side that is involved in acts of aggression (of which construction of settlements in occupied territories is as fine example as can be). Oh really? What about sense of anger created by any one illegal housing unit that's being constructed on occupied land? Is it not "new", or it does not create "anger" as you know it, or that kind of anger doesn't matter? I'd feel compelled to qualify that that as "some Palestinian militant factions", unless you can point to evidence of government of Palestine being involved in acts of aggression against Israel. As the government of Israel clearly is, by authorising construction of illegal settlements. No, you got me wrong, I'm not calling for appeasement of any aggressor, only that no aggressor should be aided by foreign powers, while just and fair principles of settlement of the conflict should be stated clearly, just as it's expected to be done by EU ministers. I happen to truly believe that too. As I truly understand that helping one side in the conflict in maintaining its massive superiority and dominance is hardly a way to promote desire for peace, very likely, quite the opposite.

Rather that my caring or not wouldn't change the reality of things in all likelihood. At this time and in this place there's the worst possible lineup for real progress on the issue: apathetic, aversive to change population, and reluctant (in my view, for ideological reasons) government. Active population could drive reluctant government to change; an activist government could attempt to educate and energise apathetic population. But in the context we have here, the best we could hope for is to catch the tail of the train, when pretty much everybody else has moved on.

I fail to see the point though. Genuine questions about science can always be addressed in the professinal forum. Uninformed though, would make their opinions based on any number of factors influencing which is a treacherous and unpredictable business (like e.g. presidential elections). And there're obviously parties with vested interests (political, ideological, etc) looking to sway the opinions of the uninformed. If one attempts to make an election campaign out of a serious scientific issue, it may just end up being a pendulum of public's beliefs and feelings that could have little or nothing to do with the science of things.

Except if there're political, ideological or commercial interests to avoid and resist moving forward at all cost and by any means available, bringing up "doubts" and "conspiracies" at any convenient moment. That politico/idelogical movement exists there should be no doubt by now, just look at our PM.

Ha, that's funny. And when would an occupier and annexer, enjoying full and unconditional support of a major political and military power on the planet "be ready" to let go of some of their most prised acquisitions? I mean, what would make them do so? Natural goodness? The moral power of peaceful democracy? Well, we've seen very well where the policy of "not angering Israel" (BTW - what about "angering" Palestinians in the process, that consideration shouldn't count in our policies? No?) has been going (in case we forgot: from less than hundred thousand to over half million of illegal settlers and counting, daily). No, given that stellar track record of "success" it's definitely the time to try new approaches and strategies (if we really want to see resolution of the conflict - which is a no small qualification). There's no harm, after all, it can't be any worse than what we have now with that "friendly mediation" game, that assures eternal frindship to a perpetrator of aggression, but also somehow supposed to work for peace (or is it "peace", really, i.e. give our bud what they want and shut up?).

No, you're wrong, obviously. The emails are only just private communications, no more and no less, and anybody could say pretty much anything in a private conversation with a collegue or friend. But the actual product of scientist's work is published research. If you could point to example(s) of actual research being compromised, you'll have a point, till then though all this is meaningless for anything related to science hoopla raised by clueless but strongly opinionated diletants or ideologues. Not unlike "evolution" gate, "creationism", and such, but only just happens to fall into the focus of public and media attention at this time.

But of course I do. For once it'll show Israels' government that their little expropriation tricks, that are no less than an ongoing policy of aggression will no longer be ignored by international community. This is like lightyears ahead of the current policy "heed what I do" (give you billions in aid no matter what you do in the occupied territories) and forget what I say (the warnings and calls that somehow never transform into act). I doubt it'll happen suddenly, especially given massive unconditional US aid that certainly sends a confusing signal, but it'd definitely be a start in the right direction. Recall South Africa. When international community comes united on board of the right solution, things just may move, eventually.

First of all there needs to be an evidence that any meaningful research is not being acknowledged, ie quality critically analysed and peer reviewed original scientific research being rejected or stalled. Till such evidence is presented and verified, all this skeptical hoopla can be safely discarded as at best, intellectual junk and possibly, deliberate political manipulations for ideological reasons.

I'm not sure how far should we go into lexical analysis, and it could hardly be reasonable to hold a poster on a general board to a standard more rigorous than that applied to professional journalists. In any case, if this happens, I'll applaud it as the first real positive development in the history of this conflict for a long while. The kind of reality check act that I long expected (but now doubt would ever come forth) from US administration, the chief and massive supporter of Israel's government. It's obvious as can be that just words won't cut it any longer, and double faces diplomacy, without actual result will lead nowhere.

At which point in the discussion, the actual science, i.e. research, published and peer reviewed becomes truly irrelevant. It's out there, as it's been for decades, in the score of magasins and publications open for every "skeptic" to poke obvious holes in, and yet - surprise! nobody's interested?! It much more rewarding to discuss emails and conspiracies and "problems", editorials and media analyses, than the actual essense of the matter, what it all supposed to be about. Any why does it have to be this way, how could one explain that puzzling phenomenon? Let me attempt. Could it be because there's lot more "skeptics" who know how to read and understand emails and media regorgitations of media analyses written in plain English, than those who could read, understand, and even, god helps, meaningfully respond to openly published and freely available scientific research?

The folk, neighbourhood Joe wants to decide the matters of high science by a popular vote. No, they don't want to go to school, take time to figure it out for themselves, to have a clue what it means and what's at stake. They want to push the button here and now, between a bite of hamburger and a gulp of beer watching a favorite TV show. He wants it, why not? Life always moves in circles and cycles, we've been to times when matters of life were decided by clueless but versed in scriptures and rituals chamans, priests, lords and so on, and this more recent and not so long yet age of reason, science and technology. I can understand the nostalgia. Godspeed.

Ditto. And being unable to analyse facts and arguments rationally and objectively, one is almost by necessity reduced to irrational accusations of all and everything, i.e paranoia.

One has to know at least the basics of arithmetics to tell that 2 x 2 is 4 not 5 or 3. Short of that essential knowledge, they could fill pages and megapages of Web forums disputing global scientific conspiracy to skim the answer to the equation to skinny and ugly 4 as opposed to cute, shapely and lovely 3. No such specialist knowledge is required though to tell that attempt to impose one's will on others by force will be resisted. One doesnt' have to be a scientist to know that violent aggression is always bad and very often counter productive no matter justifications.

What you seem to be failing to understand is that a scientists' opinion (unlike that of e.g. unqualified, clueless onlooker) is not a matter of preference, choice, or liking. Yes, some (most) qualified specialists can actually go, read the paper, document, research and believe me or not, see whether it's correct or not. Something like 2+2=. And if they see a problem, flaw with any particular piece of research, they can discuss it with fellow specialists, and those with their fellows and so on. So, see, barring a global, all encompassing conspriracy, there's absolutely no way that a serious flaw would remain unnoticed or undisclosed for any significant length of time. And so, anybody with a slightest clue about scientific process would know that it does not claim nor guarantee that every single piece of research that sees the light of the day would be absolutely and irrevocably correct. Only that the test of open critical examination by a community of qualified peers is the best that we can have, and it is open, yes, to anybody who's taken time and effort to learn the subject. Yes, there can be problem with that particular piece of research. No, it doesn't bring in question the entire foundations of science. Of course, through lack of understanding, a clueless onlooker would have no way of knowing a good research from compromised one, not to mention obvious gibberish. They'd have to base their opinions on something else, but qualified analysis. What? Personal or ideological preferences? Hearsay? Mood of the day? There's any number of possibilities, pick one. Just like that? Would you happen to have a reference, by any chance, or such triffles shouldn't really matter in that about scientific process? I'd like to see that, but again, an editorial isn't a research per se, it gets complicated, I know. Oh I see, only one particular ideological view should be able to publish books, don't we already know it? Of course, one could present their findings to open consideration of qualified peers. But lacking that possibility, "global conspiracy" would be the next best, I understand. I really want to believe you! I mean it's the only choice I have, short of seeing your list of publications in peer reviewed professional media.

Not really; I took pain to check some of the references, and at least this article: http://www.thejerusalemgiftshop.com/israelnews/israel-news/83-israeli-news/2168-eu-to-recognize-east-jerusalem-as-capital-of-palestinian-state.html which is #3 in the list of the posted links states very close to the OP's claims (i.e. that EU is indeed expected to recognise unilateral declaration of Palestine with East Jerusalem as its capital). The problem with the OP is that a wrong link has been referenced. Now that it's been corrected, there should be no issues with the subject of the OP.

That's one way of looking at the problem. The entire branch of the science, globally is completely and utterly corrupt. Really, if there were any significant population of not yet corrupt climate scientists anywhere on this planet, they would be bound to approach the matter professionally, supporting and accepting merit research even if it goes against "corrupt" mainstream. As this doesn't appear to be happening, it could only mean one of two things, 1) "scepticism" (overall and not toward any particular piece of research with which there may very well be legitimate problems or concerns) has no serious following in the scientific community - as opposed to e.g. pseudo scientific one; or 2) a global, complete and over-reaching conspiracy. I've no comments on global conspiracies, but why does it sound so familiar to a deep conservative way of looking at any problem (investing in communities rather than jails = communist, questioning military engagements in foreign lands = terrorist lover)? In other words, anything that would not agree with my views must be corrupt, complicit and/or immoral? As heard from our very own MLW expert on "climate science". We should discuss my muonic waves next, maybe I'll find some traction here, what I've been lacking with the traditional science.

This is wrong. If broadcasters want to be compensated for their content, they cannot insist on imposing it on consumers. That muddles up the affair to the point where it is not clear what is the product - it has to be "the package" then, not individual channels in it, and how would the owners of the package go about settling individual compensations? It would be a regulator's nightmare there should be no need for that. Consumers are free to choose any channels in their package and cost per station is regulated to ensure fairness to content provider, network owner and the consumer.

But of course it does not. You simply do not understand the idea, even being demonstrated a great body of work that goes into creating even one piece of research. Under standard, unconfirmed and even fradulent cases did, do and probably will always happen. Exposing such cases only improves the quality of science as a whole, a large body of work that is good solid science, by sorting out bad, unreliable pieces, or just plain junk. Only because you have no clue, no confidence in being able to see for yourself a quality research from under par/fradulent/junk one, would you need to jump to generalising conclusions like that "untrustworthy lot" (like all, thousands of them who study and work around the globe years upon years?), conclusions based if not on understanding the essence of the issue, then what? your inner hunches? beliefs? friendships and affiliations? ideology?

There're many ways to achieve that (schools, popular media, programs in schools, museums, books, lectures, etc). However, given general public's distance from the forefront of science, there's always a room for a willing polititian / ideologue to play a game of "confusion / inconviction / conspiracy" around it. In the end, it always comes down to what kind of society we are / want to be. Of course it does not. Any willing individual can learn foundations of science and determine for themselves validity (or not) of any claim. The conclusions of science are always open to a (qualified) critical test, unlike postulates of religion that must be taken without questioning. "Qualified" is important to sort out meaningless noise. The process is there, and it is being followed. It stretches credibility quite far to claim that a meaningful research could be deliberately and wilfully ignored by a community of highly educated, qualified professionals. If the research is published, verified and confirmed by other professionals, it'll be accepted. The problem with "skeptics" is that they'd like to bypass that scientific process altogether, calling upon unqualified general public to judge on purely scientific argument. The unqualified then indeed would have a tough choice between trusting the process (that ultimately led to technological advances in this age - compare with medieval times when all was decided by the opinion of a lord or a priest) and perhaps and in certain times, hearing something that public wants to hear, that would not line up with the recommendations of science. As it is with choices, it's ours to make, but it will also affect our lives (in the broad sense).