Jump to content

Copenhagen


Recommended Posts

you attempt to fear-monger with ridiculous over-the-top reference to the need to eliminate/reduce social programs to allow Canada to align with other countries in helping to fund mitigation of mankind's contribution to global climate change.
The fact is social programs *will* have to be cut if Copehagen is signed. The only question is how much. So my question to you is which programs are you willing to sacrifice for this CO2 obsession? Do you want to screw young, the old, the unemployed? Take your pick but you got to pick something because the money to pay for this crap does not come from no where.

If you are not willing to sacrifice anything then why should any one else?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 506
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

The fact is social programs *will* have to be cut if Copehagen is signed. The only question is how much. So my question to you is which programs are you willing to sacrifice for this CO2 obsession? Do you want to screw young, the old, the unemployed? Take your pick but you got to pick something because the money to pay for this crap does not come from no where.

If you are not willing to sacrifice anything then why should any one else?

I'm simply reserved in commenting until I see the framework... it's highly unlikely a final agreement will result from the Copenhagen meetings - a 'working framework' to support an eventual agreement is being anticipated as the best expected result. We'll have an opportunity to see how creative the negotiations may prove... and ultimately... we'll see how resolved the Harper Conservatives are to meeting the framework commitment(s). We'll be able to listen to the Harper Conservatives on how they plan to fund that commitment... whether through increased taxation (oh my!), spending reductions elsewhere, public-private arrangement, etc., etc., etc. In terms of my willingness for personal sacrifice, I'm not clear (yet) that there will be much involved... in any case, suffice to say, my tolerance level will probably be quite high

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not clear (yet) that there will be much involved... in any case, suffice to say, my tolerance level will probably be quite high
Quite high, but not infinite - e.g. there would be some price which you would not accept even if you claim that AGW is the greatest threat that faces mankind.

The fact is everyone has a price and that price depends on their perception of how certain the IPCC science and economics is. That price drops to zero for people who see the IPCC claims as very uncertain. That is why alarmists have spent so much energy creating a fake consensus - they want to make people think the science is more certain than it is. That is also why the CRU emails are significant because show that scientists often agree with sceptics behind the scenes but try to keep that from the public in order to maintain the illusion of certainty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quite high, but not infinite - e.g. there would be some price which you would not accept even if you claim that AGW is the greatest threat that faces mankind.

The fact is everyone has a price and that price depends on their perception of how certain the IPCC science and economics is. That price drops to zero for people who see the IPCC claims as very uncertain. That is why alarmists have spent so much energy creating a fake consensus - they want to make people think the science is more certain than it is. That is also why the CRU emails are significant because show that scientists often agree with sceptics behind the scenes but try to keep that from the public in order to maintain the illusion of certainty.

bloody hell!... creating a fake consensus!

... one of many links out there - a handy one I just grabbed:

The Consensus on Global Warming: From Science to Industry & Religion ... pay particular attention to those references to the National Academy of Sciences and the Royal Society.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

bloody hell!... creating a fake consensus!
The emails make it clear that scientists were pressured to keep doubts quiet and ensure that all public statements were 'on message'. It is safe to assume that all of those professional bodies were pressured to do the same.

In fact, the rather unified message coming from all of those professional bodies makes it highly unlikely that the consensus is anything other than the result of deliberate pressure from alarmists wishing to promote their cause and willing to threaten, blackball or even blackmail those that disagreed

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The emails make it clear that scientists were pressured to keep doubts quiet and ensure that all public statements were 'on message'. It is safe to assume that all of those professional bodies were pressured to do the same.

In fact, the rather unified message coming from all of those professional bodies makes it highly unlikely that the consensus is anything other than the result of deliberate pressure from alarmists wishing to promote their cause and willing to threaten, blackball or even blackmail those that disagreed

You are completely deluded. You are now well beyond anything to do with the IPCC and those directly working within and around climate science - you are attacking the very integrity of Science and it's most imminent scientists/institutions/foundations/professional bodies. And you claim you are not a denier! Bloody amazing!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

you are attacking the very integrity of Science and it's most imminent scientists/institutions/foundations/professional bodies.
I just follow the evidence:

160 members of the APS recently protested the society's position on climate change. It was rejected.

The American Physical Society (APS) has “overwhelmingly rejected” a proposal from a group of 160 physicists to alter its official position on climate change. The physicists, who include the Nobel laureate Ivar Giaver, wanted the APS to modify its stance to reflect their own doubts about the human contribution to global warming. The APS turned down the request on the recommendations of a six-person committee chaired by atomic physicist Daniel Kleppner from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Note that the 47,000 members of the APS where never asked what their opinion was. The decision to ignore the protest of 160 members was ignored based on the decision of 6 people that were hand picked by the APS president.

The official APS position is nothing but the opinion of the small group of people that actually run the organization. It is dishonest to claim that it represents more than that. And given the evidence in the emails which shows scientists collaborating to ensure that a consistent message is presented to the public it is not a stretch to assume the same conversations happened with the heads of the various scientific institutions.

Edited by Riverwind
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just follow the evidence:

160 members of the APS recently protested the society's position on climate change. It was rejected.

Note that the 47,000 members of the APS where never asked what their opinion was. The decision to ignore the protest of 160 members was ignored based on the decision of 6 people that were hand picked by the APS president.

The official APS position is nothing but the opinion of the small group of people that actually run the organization. It is dishonest to claim that it represents more than that. And given the evidence in the emails which shows scientists collaborating to ensure that a consistent message is presented to the public it is not a stretch to assume the same conversations happened with the heads of the various scientific institutions.

you are certainly comic relief... 160 members of a 46,000 wide organization come forward with a request to alter the policy statement... and to you, that's following the evidence :lol: These 160 members weren't calling into question that climate change is occurring... they simply subscribe to the belief that it is occurring through "natural variations"... they simply claim that mankind has not impacted, nor is currently impacting climate change. In the face of the overwhelming evidence, is it any wonder APS sent them packing!

the actual APS National Policy on Climate Change:

Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate. Greenhouse gases include carbon dioxide as well as methane, nitrous oxide and other gases. They are emitted from fossil fuel combustion and a range of industrial and agricultural processes.

The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.

Because the complexity of the climate makes accurate prediction difficult, the APS urges an enhanced effort to understand the effects of human activity on the Earth’s climate, and to provide the technological options for meeting the climate challenge in the near and longer terms. The APS also urges governments, universities, national laboratories and its membership to support policies and actions that will reduce the emission of greenhouse gases

you can continue to attempt to make mountains out molehills with the hacked email anal line-by-line parsing pursuit of the denialsphere... again, there is no there, there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

160 members of a 46,000 wide organization come forward with a request to alter the policy statement
You might have a point if the original statement was actually approved by the 47,000 members. It was not. The original statement is simply the opinion of the people sitting on the APS council. The most your can say is the statement did not piss the off enough to motivate them to protest the statement but that is just as likely the result of apathy and ambivilance as the result of any real support for the statement.

In any case, you are the one that rolled out the 'statements' of the various societies as some how proof of a consensus. The APS example illustrates the statements by such bodies are not voted often on by the broad membership and so one cannot assume that overwhelming majority of the membership supports the statements.

IOW - it is a manufactured consensus.

Edited by Riverwind
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In any case, you are the one that rolled out the 'statements' of the various societies as some how proof of a consensus. The APS example illustrates the statements by such bodies are not voted often on by the broad membership and so one cannot assume that overwhelming majority of the membership supports the statements.

IOW - it is a manufactured consensus.

the consensus for AGW Climate Change is real... and overwhelming. You would have that consensus challenged based on your premise that the leadership of APS and those separate members within APS tasked to evaluate the worthiness of the so-called "proposal from the 160 - of 46000", would conspire to perpetuate a false policy statement confirming their society's position on AGW Climate Change, risking the integrity of their society - of themselves. That somehow... they're determined to be on the right side... this time - they're still miffed about losing the flatearth debate, and there's no way they're going to lose this one!!! :lol: (interestingly, I didn't hear anything about the other 45,840, rallying to support the fallen/dispatched 160... damn, the conspiracy and related intimidation is all powerful - fer sure!)

what I, as you say, rolled out to you, was but one of many summations readily available... summations that present that overwhelming consensus... that is real, that is not manufactured, that is overwhelming.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the consensus for AGW Climate Change is real... and overwhelming.
Only if you cook the books. There is no evidence that the APS policy is supported by the overwhelming majority of its 46000 members because they were never asked. Trying to claim the authority of 46000 based on a resolution passed by a small committee is dishonest. At most, you can assume that the 46000 members are mixture of people who support it, people who oppose it but don't care enough to argue, people who oppose but cannot afford to publicly declare their opposition and people who openly oppose it. I would not be surprised if the 2nd and 3rd groups exceed 50% of the membership based on a sampling of the physicists I know.
that is real, that is not manufactured, that is overwhelming.
At least until someone leaks the emails where the leadership bullied dissenters into supporting the policies because policy makers need a 'consistent message' in order to act. That is what we see in the leaked CRU emails. It is naive to assume that it has not gone on everywhere else. Edited by Riverwind
Link to comment
Share on other sites

bloody hell!... creating a fake consensus!

... one of many links out there - a handy one I just grabbed:

The Consensus on Global Warming: From Science to Industry & Religion ... pay particular attention to those references to the National Academy of Sciences and the Royal Society.

it's a conspiracy I tell ya, a conspiracy! those hundreds of thousands of normal scientists have been exposed to some sort of alien technology to brainwash them from Area 51... probably delivered with an anal probe!...PM Harper had it right along it's all a plan by the socialist to steal our money !!!...I saw it all in Invasion of the Body Snatchers so I know it's true!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Only if you cook the books.

At least until someone leaks the emails where the leadership bullied dissenters into supporting the policies because policy makers need a 'consistent message' in order to act. That is what we see in the leaked CRU emails. It is naive to assume that it has not gone on everywhere else.

unless you're fresh from another round of anal line-by-line parsing of the hacked emails... unless you have something new to offer... your "blackmail, intimidation, conspiracy, corruption" nonsense has been easily dispatched... as unadulterated BS. Anything fresh... anything new?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

it's a conspiracy I tell ya, a conspiracy! those hundreds of thousands of normal scientists have been exposed to some sort of alien technology to brainwash them from Area 51... probably delivered with an anal probe!...PM Harper had it right along it's all a plan by the socialist to steal our money !!!...I saw it all in Invasion of the Body Snatchers so I know it's true!!!

:lol:with recent updates... a round-up - courtesy of the usual suspects (click on graphic to enlarge)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

your "blackmail, intimidation, conspiracy, corruption" nonsense has been easily dispatched
On in your mind. The more people investigate for themselves the more people come to the same conclusion I have.
In my previous post on Climategate I blithely said that nothing in the climate science email dump surprised me much. Having waded more deeply over the weekend I take that back.

The closed-mindedness of these supposed men of science, their willingness to go to any lengths to defend a preconceived message, is surprising even to me. The stink of intellectual corruption is overpowering.

Edited by Riverwind
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In any case, you are the one that rolled out the 'statements' of the various societies as some how proof of a consensus.

... it is a manufactured consensus.

the consensus for AGW Climate Change is real... and overwhelming.

what I, as you say, rolled out to you, was but one of many summations readily available... summations that present that overwhelming consensus... that is real, that is not manufactured, that is overwhelming.

Only if you cook the books.

Ah, yes... "cooking the books"... like this widely used/cited little ditty that keeps circulating in various flavours - because it can. The so-called "Oregon Petition" - claimed to be signed by over 30,000+ scientists, by over 9000 PhDs!!! Because the deniers know "no bounds"... and, after all... it is on the internet... it must be true!

Certainly no "manufactured consensus" here:

Purpose of Petition

The purpose of the Petition Project is to demonstrate that the claim of “settled science” and an overwhelming “consensus” in favor of the hypothesis of human-caused global warming and consequent climatological damage is wrong. No such consensus or settled science exists. As indicated by the petition text and signatory list, a very large number of American scientists reject this hypothesis.

Publicists at the United Nations, Mr. Al Gore, and their supporters frequently claim that only a few “skeptics” remain – skeptics who are still unconvinced about the existence of a catastrophic human-caused global warming emergency.

It is evident that 31,486 Americans with university degrees in science – including 9,029 PhDs, are not "a few." Moreover, from the clear and strong petition statement that they have signed, it is evident that these 31,486 American scientists are not “skeptics.”

These scientists are instead convinced that the human-caused global warming hypothesis is without scientific validity and that government action on the basis of this hypothesis would unnecessarily and counterproductively damage both human prosperity and the natural environment of the Earth.

:

...the Oregon Petition managed to garner 15,000 signatures within a month's time.
called the petition "the latest and largest effort by rank-and-file scientists to express their opposition to schemes that subvert science for the sake of a political agenda."

Nebraska senator Chuck Hagel called it an "extraordinary response" and cited it as his basis for continuing to oppose a global warming treaty. "Nearly all of these 15,000 scientists have technical training suitable for evaluating climate research data," Hagel said. Columns citing the Seitz petition and the Robinson paper as credible sources of scientific expertise on the global warming issue have appeared in publications ranging from Newsday', the Los Angeles Times and Washington Post to the Austin-American Statesman, Denver Post, and Wyoming Tribune-Eagle.

.

.

In addition to the bulk mailing, OISM's website enables people to add their names to the petition over the Internet, and by June 2000 it claimed to have recruited more than 19,000 scientists. The institute is so lax about screening names, however, that virtually anyone can sign, including for example Al Caruba, a pesticide-industry PR man and conservative ideologue who runs his own website called the "National Anxiety Center." Caruba has no scientific credentials whatsoever, but in addition to signing the Oregon Petition he has editorialized on his own website against the science of global warming, calling it the "biggest hoax of the decade," a "genocidal" campaign by environmentalists who believe that "humanity must be destroyed to 'Save the Earth.' . . . There is no global warming, but there is a global political agenda, comparable to the failed Soviet Union experiment with Communism, being orchestrated by the United Nations, supported by its many Green NGOs, to impose international treaties of every description that would turn the institution into a global government, superceding the sovereignty of every nation in the world."

When questioned in 1998, OISM's Arthur Robinson admitted that only 2,100 signers of the Oregon Petition had identified themselves as physicists, geophysicists, climatologists, or meteorologists, "and of those the greatest number are physicists." This grouping of fields concealed the fact that only a few dozen, at most, of the signatories were drawn from the core disciplines of climate science - such as meteorology, oceanography, and glaciology - and almost none were climate specialists. The names of the signers are available on the OISM's website, but without listing any institutional affiliations or even city of residence, making it very difficult to determine their credentials or even whether they exist at all. When the Oregon Petition first circulated, in fact, environmental activists successfully added the names of several fictional characters and celebrities to the list, including John Grisham, Michael J. Fox, Drs. Frank Burns, B. J. Honeycutt, and Benjamin Pierce (from the TV show M*A*S*H), an individual by the name of "Dr. Red Wine," and Geraldine Halliwell, formerly known as pop singer Ginger Spice of the Spice Girls. Halliwell's field of scientific specialization was listed as "biology." Even in 2003, the list was loaded with misspellings, duplications, name and title fragments, and names of non-persons, such as company names. The current web page of the petition itself states "31,478 American scientists have signed this petition, including 9,029 with PhDs."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On in your mind. The more people investigate for themselves the more people come to the same conclusion I have.

oh really ... it was the MIA jdobbin who nailed it some weeks back with his offered analogy between the climate change denier campaign and the (failed) tobacco industry campaign to discredit another scientific community consensus against smoking... and... with participation between several key denial persons in both campaigns.

CRUde hack, meme and the “smoking” gun

Edited by waldo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The so-called "Oregon Petition" - claimed to be signed by over 30,000+ scientists, by over 9000 PhDs
I find the so called "debunking" of this list to be among the most bizarre claims of alarmists because their arguments make no sense. I don't know if the reaction is because they are afraid of having their world view challengded with facts or but the see themselves as warriors in the battle to manufacture the consensus.

In any case you should read the FAQ.

Note this explanation:

Opponents of the petition project sometimes submit forged signatures in efforts to discredit the project. Usually, these efforts are eliminated by our verification procedures. On one occasion, a forged signature appeared briefly on the signatory list. It was removed as soon as discovered.

In a group of more than 30,000 people, there are many individuals with names similar or identical to other signatories, or to non-signatories – real or fictional. Opponents of the petition project sometimes use this statistical fact in efforts to discredit the project. For examples, Perry Mason and Michael Fox are scientists who have signed the petition – who happen also to have names identical to fictional or real non-scientists.

Most rational people would accept this explanation and would recognize that finding a problem with a few names does not, in any way, invalidate the entire list. That said, I realize that alarmists are not rational.

Personally, I ignore this list because counting up numbers of scientists is meanlingless. It only takes one scientist to prove that 10,000 are wrong. However, this list does demonstrate that the opinion of the leadership of professional societies does not necessarily represent the opinion of their members.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find the so called "debunking" of this list to be among the most bizarre claims of alarmists because their arguments make no sense. I don't know if the reaction is because they are afraid of having their world view challengded with facts or but the see themselves as warriors in the battle to manufacture the consensus.

Most rational people would accept this explanation and would recognize that finding a problem with a few names does not, in any way, invalidate the entire list. That said, I realize that alarmists are not rational.

Personally, I ignore this list because counting up numbers of scientists is meanlingless. It only takes one scientist to prove that 10,000 are wrong. However, this list does demonstrate that the opinion of the leadership of professional societies does not necessarily represent the opinion of their members.

stop it - you're too much! ... you actually attach validity to that petition - oh my!

are you particularly heartened that they used a repackaged version of the infamous Soon/Baliunas paper as the foundation argument to support "the Oregon Petition"... you know... that much politicized (and completely/thoroughly debunked) paper that was associated to your much touted claims of "blackmail, intimidation, conspiracy and corruption", in regards the Climate Research journal. How many of your cabal of skeptic/denier "scientists" support(ed) that paper... c'mon... how many signed that petition? It would only take one to be right... you know! :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CRUde hack, meme and the “smoking” gun
ROTFL. Are on drugs? Do you really take this crap seriously?

I suppose it makes sense to pretend that there is some organized conspiracy so you can play the sympathy card - everyone loves a martyr after all.

Here is a good story that follows the money trail behind the alarmists

Consider the case of Phil Jones, the director of the CRU and the man at the heart of climategate. According to one of the documents hacked from his center, between 2000 and 2006 Mr. Jones was the recipient (or co-recipient) of some $19 million worth of research grants, a sixfold increase over what he'd been awarded in the 1990s.
Methinks Jones would be quite upset if the IPCC sponsered gravy train shut down. Edited by Riverwind
Link to comment
Share on other sites

stop it - you're too much! ... you actually attach validity to that petition - oh my!
Sorry. I don't assume that it is fake just because some alarmist zealots say so. In fact, if an alarmist zealot says something I start by assuming it is a lie because statistically that is a more likely scenario. Do you actually have anything that can be called real evidence which shows the majority of signatures are faked?

As for the Soon paper - I have no opinion because I have never looked at it. But I doubt it is any worse than the BS produced by Mann.

Edited by Riverwind
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Despite all of this there is no proof that tobacco causes cancer because some smokers never develop it. All that can be stated is tobacco increases the risk of the developing cancer.

Trying to equate the state of AGW science with the state of tobacco-cancer science is a pathetic attempt at propoganda that is only taken seriously by buffoons and AGW fanatics.

the equate offered... the equate made... was in regards to the commonality between denier campaigns - the strategies/the deployments therein. Secondarily offered in regards your wide-sweeping claims of "others" coming to the same consensus as you.

keep on burying yourself - deeper and deeper. You speak in terms of proof and risk, yet can't (won't) apply it to your own selective denial concerning AGW climate change.

yes, Riverwind says... keep smoking - there's no proof smoking causes cancer.

yes, Riverwind says... keep to the status quo - (as you've stated - as I paraphrase) "global warming is a good thing, particularly for Canada... there has been no evidence to show any harmful results of global warming to date" - there's no proof mankind caused/causes global warming climate change.

on edit: waaahhhh! Your editing out your true sentiments regarding smoking/proof-risk won't stand up to the quick-fingered quote grabber who actually caught you... are you sure you (also) don't want any do-overs in regards your sentiments regarding AGW Climate Change/proof-risk? :lol:

oh the irony! ... that your own edit now speaks to an "organized conspiracy" suggestion towards those advocates who support the theory of AGW Climate Change. Oh the irony!

Edited by waldo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

was in regards to the commonality between denier campaigns
There are none so blind as he who will not see.

The environmental movement has engaged in a 2 decade long campaign to push governments into spending billions on this issue. Along the way they managed to enlist scientists who loved the funding that came with panic and various businesses who see government subsidies for 'green energy' as an easy way to profit.

To hide all of this they make up stories about the nefarious plot by 'big oil' to prevent them from saving the world.

It is all nonsense. Sceptics are a mismash of people. Some are scientists that are sceptical of the IPCC concensus. Others are hobbiests that figure dissecting climate papers is more interesting that building model trains. Others are political activists. There is no organization. People call them as they see them. If some whistleblower realizes emails that expose leading climate scientists of data manipulation, blackmail and FOI obstruction then people talk about it.

Edited by Riverwind
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In any case, you are the one that rolled out the 'statements' of the various societies as some how proof of a consensus.

... it is a manufactured consensus.

the consensus for AGW Climate Change is real... and overwhelming.

what I, as you say, rolled out to you, was but one of many summations readily available... summations that present that overwhelming consensus... that is real, that is not manufactured, that is overwhelming.

Only if you cook the books.

more of that "cooked manufactured consensus" you speak of...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,712
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    nyralucas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
    • babetteteets earned a badge
      One Year In
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...