Nations walk out on Canada

[myata]

It's not just obscure. It's totally hypothetical and interpretive research. Drawing and confirming 'conclusions' in this field of research without understanding the natural effects of things like air and ocean currents is idiotic. That's a pretty tall claim haha. It's meaningless blabber to question 'scientists' who have no control over their research environment? This is really highlighting your critical thinking skills Myata.

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.

by over-polluting? Their population and birth rates alone are threats to the environment. Their rate of pollution is lower than ours because half the country is still medieval. The part that isn't pollutes far worse than us. Know anybody who's ever been to Shanghai? Maybe you should look into it.

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.

Emissions per capita is a pretty useless measurement when comparing Canada to China, for reasons stated above. If we had 30 million Inuits living up north in Igloos, would that mean that our environmental record was better?

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 of your statement I think is escaping you.

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.

[Moonbox]

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.

It must be 100% true then. I mean, declaring speculative theories that cannot be proven as inarguable fact is totally intelligent. It's not like the Earth hasn't shown us thousands of years worth of temperature cycles right?

"You're not a scientist therefore you're wrong to not believe what they're telling you." is about the dumbest statement you can make Myata, and that's exactly what you're doing. The 'concensus' that you and others talk about is not as strong as you think either. There are thousands and thousands of dissenting scientific views. They're just not popular on TV because of mainstream media.

I'm not flat out denying global warming. I'm questioning the hysteria behind unproven theories and the clamour to spend trillions on questionable environmental initiatives. The blind are leading the blind here, and like sheep everyone is following what they say without question.

[myata]

I'm not flat out denying global warming. I'm questioning the hysteria behind unproven theories and the clamour to spend trillions on questionable environmental initiatives. The blind are leading the blind here, and like sheep everyone is following what they say without question.

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.

[Shady]

What can be discussed here, is not the validity of the science of climate of change

Why not?

[Riverwind]

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"

Who pays these professionals? Who decides whether the get promoted? Who determines whether they get funding?

The answer, of course, is their peers and peers don't react kindly to work that undermines their work and/or source of funding. This dynamic puts a lot of pressure on scientists to work within the prevailing paradigm. In climate science this tendency toward tunnel vision and group think is re-enforced by the legions of activists who publically denigrate any scientist who dares to challenge the AGW orthodoxy.

Obviously, this pressure has not completely eliminated sceptical research but it does ensure that majority of papers will tend to support the AGW orthodoxy.

If the only argument you have is an appeal to authorities that are known to be biased then you don't have much of an argument.

[myata]

Why not?

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.

[noahbody]

Because you don't know if I graduated from hi school

Apparently not.

[Riverwind]

Because this is not a scientific forum.

Climate change policy is a matter that affects everyone and we cannot have a discussion on climate change policy without looking at the science. If you are not capable of arguing the science then that is fine but you should be willing to accept that there are many people on this forum and others which do have the technical background that allows them to have a meaningful discussion of the scientific basis.

You also should be willing to accept that the scientific authorities are not infalliable nor are they unbiased. You should never dismiss minority opinion from outsiders because history is full of examples of outsiders who turned out to be right.

[noahbody]

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.

You really don't need much of a scientific background to point out that no model predicted the Earth was going to cool. Still certain scientists want you to have faith that warming will resume. Should science be about faith?

[myata]

Climate change policy is a matter that affects everyone and we cannot have a discussion on climate change policy without looking at the science. If you are not capable of arguing the science then that is fine but you should be willing to accept that there are many people on this forum and others which do have the technical background that allows them to have a meaningful discussion of the scientific basis.

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.

You also should be willing to accept that the scientific authorities are not infalliable nor are they unbiased. You should never dismiss minority opinion from outsiders because history is full of examples of outsiders who turned out to be right.

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.

[Riverwind]

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?

If you don't have the a background that would allow to understand the scientific arguments then you can't seperate the clueless from the informed. But there are plenty of people who can.

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.

What makes you think those kinds of fora are capable of objectively assessing science based on its merits and not on the basis of how it might affect the research grants of the anonymous reviewers?

The reality is blogs are changing the way science is done and they are accepted forum of scientific communitication in some disciplines. For example, in a recent case in mathematics a researcher submitted a paper to a journal. Another researcher with a blog found a problem with the paper and reported it on his blog. The original researcher acknowledged the error and withdrew his paper. There was no silly demands that an idea has no merit unless it is submitted for anonymous peer review. The only question was whether the blogger had a valid point.

In climate science, group think has infested the professional community and this has created a vaccuum which is being filled by bloggers who have the technical expertise required but are not part of the community. But this does not mean they wrong nor does it mean their ideas should be ignored completely unless they spend the thousands of dollars that is required to submit a paper to a journal.

[Moonbox]

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).

I don't have a science background, but I have a lot of education and we're talking basic logic here. You don't need a PhD to understand that ALL current climate models are based largely on assumptions. Major and overwhelmingly important variables are being excluded from the possible causes of climate change. These are things that no scientist can account for and most of the ones declaring global warming is caused by man for certain are either lying or aren't worth the paper their degrees are printed on.

How do they explain regular and cyclical climate shifts over the last thousand years? How do they decide whether global warming isn't caused by air and ocean currents? How do they explain that while ice is melting in the arctic, it's actually growing in large areas of the Antarctic? The point is that this is not really a science like chemistry or physics.

Just like behavioural science, there are too many variables to be certain. Like I said before, bad mothers may turn men gay, but is that all that's happening? Could it be genetics? Personal experience? How can you say for sure?

Seriously. For scientific debate, there're peer reviewed scientific fora. 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.

Peer-reviewed means nothing if the logic behind the science is questionable. I'm not saying that we shouldn't be making efforts to improve the environment. I'm questioning the mass-hysteria and the bangwagon that everyone has jumped on. I can't say global warming isn't man-made, but I do know the dangers of mob-logic and can go over a good number of examples if you like.

This has become a religion all in itself and it makes me sick to see how eager people are to believe everything they see on the news and read without thinking about it for a second.

[Moonbox]

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.

It's already happened. That's the problem with climate science. It's become conventional wisdom and not science anymore for the majority of people.

[myata]

If you don't have the a background that would allow to understand the scientific arguments then you can't seperate the clueless from the informed. But there are plenty of people who can.

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?)

What makes you think those kinds of fora are capable of objectively assessing science based on its merits and not on the basis of how it might affect the research grants of the anonymous reviewers?

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.

In climate science, group think has infested the professional community and this has created a vaccuum which is being filled by bloggers who have the technical expertise required but are not part of the community. But this does not mean they wrong nor does it mean their ideas should be ignored completely unless they spend the thousands of dollars that is required to submit a paper to a journal.

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.

[Argus]

But is that not part of the problem that was being addressed in Kyoto, the idea behind carbon credits? Yes it was- in Kyoto, so called developed countries have the opportunity to gain carbon credits (to offset the penalty of not meeting their carbon reduction target) if they develop carbon reducing technologies and provide them to developing nations such as India and China.

No, the idea was to limit carbon emissions from the West. There has never been any plan for limiting carbon emissiosn of the third world, nor is there one now. China, as has already been posted, is set to build hundreds of coal fired plants - probably with little in the way of pollution control - and no one seems to give a damn about that.

Imagine if the US announced a plan to buid 800 coal fired power plants in the near future in order to ween itself off foreign energu! The Europeans would be in an upoar!

[Moonbox]

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?).

Myata listen man. We're not flat out denying global warming. We're questioning the logic, motives and conclusions of a group of people involved in a VERY inexact science. They're presenting conclusions as fact when they have not accounted for VERY important natural variables that have as much or probably even more impact on the climate than any man-made factor.

Do you not think that it's possible that the Earth's climate changes naturally and temperatures cycle over the years? That's been proven by fact and research that nobody is denying it. If this is true then any conclusion based on relatively short term data is shakey at best.

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.

No. Not at all. You seem to think that critically questioning what you read and hear in the news equates to bible-thumping and conspiracy theorizing. Wake up. It's called skepticism and some people use their brains and actually try and decide whether or not what they're being told makes sense before they believe it. Try it some day.

[Riverwind]

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?

Not quite. I am saying that amateur bloggers with expertise in the scientific tools used by these professional scientists have put together a pretty damning critique if many key climates papers. Anyone with a scientific background who takes the time to read these critiques and the inadequate rebuttles offered by the climate science community can only conclude that the climate science community is either hopelessly biased or incompetent because it could not figure these problems out on their own.

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?).

Would you trust the opinion of your dentist if he/she recommended that you pull some teeth that you later found could have been saved with a filling? Do you trust the RCMP professionals to invest complaints against them after the YVR tasering? I doubt it.

The climate science community has been caught repeatly producing and defending claims that are not supported by the evidence. The onus is now on them to prove that there are worthy of the trust they demand from the public.

The question is why are you so unwilling to accept the possibility that the scientistic establishment has failed us and that there needs to be reform to the processes used to publish and verify scientific claims?

Edited October 16, 2009 by Riverwind

[myata]

No. Not at all. You seem to think that critically questioning what you read and hear in the news equates to bible-thumping and conspiracy theorizing. Wake up. It's called skepticism and some people use their brains and actually try and decide whether or not what they're being told makes sense before they believe it. Try it some day.

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.

[Riverwind]

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.

Climate science is largely an exercise in statistical analyses of unreliable datasets but climate scientists are not experts in statistics and nor are experts in statistics asked to review climate science papers. This means that, by your benchmarks, climate scientists are not qualified to the research they do and cannot be treated as an authority on the subject. Edited October 16, 2009 by Riverwind

[myata]

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

[Moonbox]

One can only critically question something that they actually know and understand.

Dude are you even thinking before you're writing???? You're not allowed to critically question something you don't understand? Thinking that comment over again a couple of times. I sincerely hope you'll realize how brainless it is.

If someone at NASA told me that the best rocket fuel is ethanol I wouldn't need to be an aerospace engineer or rocket scientist to question that.

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.

Absolutely false. Idiots can get PhD's. It's a matter of hard work. To say that we shouldn't at least 'question' the experts is so foolish I won't even get into it any further. Those PhD's may help people get into the nitty gritty on how to research and write articles, but they really don't help if the writer's fundamentals are totally out of whack, which appears to be the case in many global warming articles.

[Riverwind]

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

This is getting rediculous.

Here is a report on the quality of statistics used by climate scientists by one of world's leading experts in statistics:

http://www.climateaudit.org/pdf/others/071...gman_Report.pdf

However, the reasons for setting 1902-1995 as the calibration point presented in the

narrative of MBH98 sounds reasonable, and the error may be easily overlooked by

someone not trained in statistical methodology. We note that there is no evidence that Dr.

Mann or any of the other authors in paleoclimatology studies have had significant

interactions with mainstream statisticians.

...

Additionally, we judge that the sharing of research materials, data and results

was haphazardly and grudgingly done. In this case we judge that there was too much

reliance on peer review, which was not necessarily independent. Moreover, the work has

been sufficiently politicized that this community can hardly reassess their public

positions without losing credibility. Overall, our committee believes that Mann’s

assessments that the decade of the 1990s was the hottest decade of the millennium and

that 1998 was the hottest year of the millennium cannot be supported by his analysis.

So what are going to do now? Come with some ad hom attack on Dr Wegman so you can continue to live in a fantasy worlds were climate scientists are trustworthy professionals?

[myata]

Dude are you even thinking before you're writing???? You're not allowed to critically question something you don't understand? Thinking that comment over again a couple of times. I sincerely hope you'll realize how brainless it is.

No, passionate epithets wouldn't usually amount to a meaningful argument in a scientific forum.

If someone at NASA told me that the best rocket fuel is ethanol I wouldn't need to be an aerospace engineer or rocket scientist to question that.

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).

Absolutely false. Idiots can get PhD's. It's a matter of hard work. To say that we shouldn't at least 'question' the experts is so foolish I won't even get into it any further. Those PhD's may help people get into the nitty gritty on how to research and write articles, but they really don't help if the writer's fundamentals are totally out of whack, which appears to be the case in many global warming articles.

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?

[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.

Well that is the problem. Mann has learned nothing and he continues to publish papers using bogus statistical methods that are lauded by the climate science community. The debunking has been done on the blog ClimateAudit by the same person (Steve Mc) who found the statistical problems with MBH98.

So the question you should ask yourself is why you would ignore the new analyses of Steve Mc given the fact that his previous criticisms turned out to be valid in the opinion of a recognized expert in statistics despite the fact that he was slandered ruthlessly by the so called 'climate science professionals'.

If you follow you own logic of listening to appropriate experts then you should feel compelled to listen to what the Steve Mc has to say on the statistics used in the continuing series of papers being produced by climate scientists like Mann. Why do you refuse to discuss what he is saying and its relevance to discussions on climate policy?

Edited October 16, 2009 by Riverwind

[myata]

So the question you should ask yourself is why you would ignore the new analyses of Steve Mc given the fact that his previous criticisms turned out to be valid in the opinion of a recognized expert in statistics despite the fact that he was slandered ruthlessly by the so called 'climate science professionals'.

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.