Jump to content

CBC: Keeping Canadian Voters Confused by Paying Rex Murphy


Recommended Posts

I'm just wondering how many people actually listen to Rex Murphy... Doesn't everyone know that television is censored and controlled anyways?

I've been switching stations for years everytime he comes on, even commercials for detergent provide more relevant information...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 336
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I've been switching stations for years everytime he comes on, even commercials for detergent provide more relevant information...

hahahah OxiClean? I've always switches stations myself as well, wasn't so much what he said but how he said it.. I like the guy in a cultural sense kinda like the compulsive ramblings of Don Cherry

Link to comment
Share on other sites

hahahah OxiClean? I've always switches stations myself as well, wasn't so much what he said but how he said it.. I like the guy in a cultural sense kinda like the compulsive ramblings of Don Cherry

It's funny how many of you mentioned Don Cherry's nonsensical ramblings in comparison to Rex Murphy. When I first posted this thread, I immediately thought to myself of how similar the two were.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ask the lumber industry about the damage caused by insects that are normally killed by past colder winters ...ask the farmers of the prairies which is a near desert now if they could survive with less rain...ask the city of Calgary population 1,000,000 if could make due without the freshwater from the glaciers...

the arctic is never going to be farmland, what we lose now we cannot regain by moving north...

The praries were a desert in the 30s....melting glaciers might cause an iceage...problem fixed.

Geological evidence shows that the Big Freeze was brought about by a sudden influx of freshwater, when the glacial Lake Agassiz in North America burst its banks and poured into the North Atlantic and Arctic Oceans.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/11/091130112421.htm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess that means you don't care that the political will to enact policies isn't there ?

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

There is a way out folks. Its called tax revolt. Starve the bastards out, lay siege to the government through revenue stream manipulation. Contest all taxes as individuals, lay claim to equal treatment with business. Declare withholding taxes discriminatory.

We need to get the attention of government. They do work for us, and we can prove it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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'm talking about a way forward here. If you care, as you seem to, then I would think you could see the value in things moving forward. You appear to be seeing the parties involved as static, and incapable of discussion or engagement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm talking about a way forward here. If you care, as you seem to, then I would think you could see the value in things moving forward. You appear to be seeing the parties involved as static, and incapable of discussion or engagement.

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm talking about a way forward here. If you care, as you seem to, then I would think you could see the value in things moving forward. You appear to be seeing the parties involved as static, and incapable of discussion or engagement.
An excellent call to action by a well published climate scientist. As Rex said: we need to push the reset button on climate science and rediscover the basic scientific principals have been lost.
The damage has been done. The public trust in climate science has been eroded. At least a part of the IPCC 2007 report has been put in question. We cannot blame it on a few irresponsible individuals. The

entire esteemed climate research community has to take responsibility. Yes, there always will be a few deniers and obstructionists.

So what comes next? Let us stop making unjustified claims and exaggerated projections about the future even if the editors of some eminent journals are just waiting to publish them. Let us admit that our understanding of the climate is less perfect than we have tried to make the public believe. Let us drastically modify or temporarily discontinue the IPCC. Let us get back to work.

Let us encourage students to think their own thoughts instead of forcing them to parrot the IPCC conclusions. Let us open the doors of universities, of NCAR, NASA and other research institutions (and funding agencies) to faculty members and researchers who might disagree with the current paradigm of carbon dioxide. Only open discussion and intense searching of all possibilities will let us regain the publics trust and move forward.

Edited by Riverwind
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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, the IPCC could do it as part of their mandate to make their research known to the world, couldn't they ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, the IPCC could do it as part of their mandate to make their research known to the world, couldn't they ?

There are these things called scientific journals. If you wish to learn about the research, you go there. The IPCC is more a clearing house and advisory body than anything else.

As to the "Climategate" crapola that Riverwind and the likes are trying to push, well http://www.youtube.com/user/potholer54 pretty much answers it. In short, it's what those battling psuedo-science call "quote mining".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are these things called scientific journals. If you wish to learn about the research, you go there. The IPCC is more a clearing house and advisory body than anything else.

As to the "Climategate" crapola that Riverwind and the likes are trying to push, well http://www.youtube.com/user/potholer54 pretty much answers it. In short, it's what those battling psuedo-science call "quote mining".

I'm usually skeptical of YouTube-based arguments, and should be more so as one of those caused me to "step in it" recently with Riverwind, because it cherry-picked quotes that the skeptics are talking about, but left others out.

This isn't about research, it's about the USE and DISSEMINATION of information.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In short, it's what those battling psuedo-science call "quote mining".
The video you linked completely avoids the real issues regarding the manipulation of the peer review process and the refusal to comply with legitimate FOI requests. The fact is many climate scientists think the behavior revealed in the emails is appalling and that it undermines the credibility of the field and the IPCC and the field. The only people who insist that there is nothing to see are the guilty parties and their hangers on.

That said, the media is misreporting the story and make a big deal about the wrong things.

Edited by Riverwind
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The video you linked completely avoids the real issues regarding the manipulation of the peer review process and the refusal to comply with legitimate FOI requests. The fact is many climate scientists think the behavior revealed in the emails is appalling and that it undermines the credibility of the field and the IPCC and the field. The only people who insist that there is nothing to see are the guilty parties and their hangers on.

That said, the media is misreporting the story and make a big deal about the wrong things.

Not the video linked to - but the ones on the side are relevant.

The 'climategate' video was the one that misled me.

However, in video #4 he goes after Al Gore's film...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The video you linked completely avoids the real issues regarding the manipulation of the peer review process and the refusal to comply with legitimate FOI requests. The fact is many climate scientists think the behavior revealed in the emails is appalling and that it undermines the credibility of the field and the IPCC and the field. The only people who insist that there is nothing to see are the guilty parties and their hangers on.

That said, the media is misreporting the story and make a big deal about the wrong things.

In short, Climategate has nothing to do with the emails in question at all.

Thank you for admitting that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In short, Climategate has nothing to do with the emails in question at all.
The emails provide evidence that key climate scientists sought to evade legimate FOI requests, sought to suppress papers that they disagreed with, colluded with journal editors to circumvent IPCC rules and sought to present information in a misleading way.

As I said, the only people who argue that the emails mean nothing are the guilty parties and their hangers on. Many scientists who agree that CO2 is problem agree that the emails expose serious problems that need to be fixed.

Edited by Riverwind
Link to comment
Share on other sites

From the Wegman report:

From the North report (same link as above):

Translation: Mann's algorithm is junk that produces hockey stick shaped graphs even if it is provided random noise as in input. IOW, Mann fabricated the hockey stick with bogus statistics and the NAS report agrees.

The only defence of Mann you will find in the NAS report is the claim that 'other studies' produce the same result and therefore the claim is 'plausible' even if the Mann paper provides no supporting evidence. Anyone who understands science realizes that such a claim is still a damning criticism of Mann even if the average lay person is fooled by the wording.

again... and again... and again... you quote from your hero McIntyre's web site - talk about cut/paste fanaticism!

did you enjoy that Michael Mann Exoneration link? Here, once more for emphasis! A Review of Michael Mann's Exoneration

again, to dispense with your revisionism:

=> MBH 98 included expressed caveats and uncertainties... M&M ignored them in their fervor to "break the hockey stick". Look no further than the actual title of MBH 98 => "Northern Hemisphere temperatures during the past millennium: inferences, uncertainties, and limitations"... so... of course, the dynamic dolts, M&M, ignored the papers expressed caveats and uncertainties and the whole politicization took over to engage the U.S. Congress, Wegman and the NAS.

=> the issue of "centering on the first principal component" (the M&M "ta da") made no practical difference to the reconstruction... as was verified independently by other scientists.

=> MBH updated their original paper/study some years later adding in additional proxies (among other updates) and included adjustment in regards the raised issue of "centering on the first principal component". Within the paper MBH confirmed the issue made no practical difference to their original reconstruction within MBH 98

=> the NAS most certainly vindicated MBH... Michael Mann. Note the red bolded highlight... just for you in your zeal to presume on the NAS and attribute their decision to the other corroborating evidence/studies that confirmed the MBH reconstruction.... did you get that... "other corroborating evidence/studies that confirmed the MBH reconstruction"

.

The basic conclusion of Mann et al. (1998, 1999) was that the late 20th century warmth in the Northern Hemisphere was unprecedented during at least the last 1,000 years. This conclusion has subsequently been supported by an array of evidence that includes both additional large-scale surface temperature reconstructions and pronounced changes in a variety of local proxy indicators, such as melting on ice caps and the retreat of glaciers around the world, which in many cases appear to be unprecedented during at least the last 2,000 years. Not all individual proxy records indicate that the recent warmth is unprecedented, although a larger fraction of geographically diverse sites experienced exceptional warmth during the late 20th century than during any other extended period from A.D. 900 onward.

Based on the analysis presented in the original papers by Mann et al.
and this newer supporting evidence, the committee finds it plausible that the Northern Hemisphere was warmer during the last few decades of the 20th century than during any comparable period over the preceding millennium.

=> the NYT most certainly reported that the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) backed the MBH study: The New York Times stated:

Science Panel Backs Study on Warming Climate

A controversial paper asserting that recent warming in the Northern Hemisphere was probably unrivalled for 1,000 years was endorsed today, with a few reservations, by a panel convened by the nation's pre-eminent scientific body.

The panel said that a statistical method used in the 1999 study was not the best and that some uncertainties in the work "have been underestimated," and it particularly challenged the authors' conclusion that the decade of the 1990's was probably the warmest in a millennium.

But in a 155-page report, the 12-member panel convened by the National Academies said "an array of evidence" supported the main thrust of the paper. Disputes over details, it said, reflected the normal intellectual clash that takes place as science tests new approaches to old questions.

.

.

In an interview, Dr. Mann expressed muted satisfaction with the panel's findings. He said it clearly showed that the 1999 analysis has held up over time.

But he complained that the committee seemed to forget about the many caveats that were in the original paper. "Even the title of the paper on which all this has been based is as much about the caveats and uncertainties as it is about the findings," he said.

=> only a moronic rube keeps going back to "the hockey stick"... MBH 98... over a decade has passed and McIntyre, as vindictive as ever, won't let it go. Of course, his minions eat it up - like you. The hockey stick is irrelevant in today's discussion as the state/knowledge of climate science - climate change has progressed immensely in over a decade - go figure! That it was a decade ago is quite telling to the somewhat ground-breaking position presented... the original MBH reconstruction has withstood the test of time; presenting an accurate reflection of climate over the past millennia. Notwithstanding, its results have been replicated many time over by other scientists using other methods/proxies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Riverwind.....you are incredibly patient with Waldo (Mr. Cut & Paste) and Wyly (Waldo Mini-Me) - but I understand why you are doing it - it brings their attitudes out in the open for all to see. They simply are incapable of realizing that they represent everything that's wrong with the True Believer side of the discussion. As much as your knowledge has, the mindset of people like Waldo and Wyly has given pause to several of our posters. Thank you.

Simple... your continually coming to the rescue of your lil buddy Riverwind is a genuine heartfelt expression - well done, good on ya! Seeing you recently come running with your EPA link and challenge brought a real lump to my throat... you guys deserve each other!

If I read between the lines there Simple, I detect a possible hint of frustration on your part - really, if you just ask, we'll take it a little easier on ya... certainly it can't be a comfortable position for you to feign skepticism in the face of your real DD (denying your denier) status. Would you like us to take it a little easier on ya, Simple?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's essential to change the scope of Climate Science so that it acknowledges climate skeptics, however it will still have to be scientists talking to scientists.

so-called climate skeptic scientists are well served today... despite what a few guys on here would have others believe, many, many skeptical papers get published. That these skeptical papers can't affect the overwhelming weight of consensus in regards the current science, doesn't negate an acknowledgment to those climate skeptics... it simply means the skeptic scientists papers can't stand up to the resulting scrutiny that follows publication.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The video you linked completely avoids the real issues regarding the manipulation of the peer review process and the refusal to comply with legitimate FOI requests.

there is no there, there... no matter how many times you say so. Both those issues have been addressed a 'thousand fold' across the interweeb. Within MLW,you spoke to 2 specific examples of supposed peer review manipulation - each has been dealt with showing that no manipulation occurred in terms of the papers published, the editors/publishers or journals involved. Other than your FUD agenda, there is no reason to continue bringing this point forward. The false claims toward FOI refusal have not stood up against the interweeb onslaught that challenged the deniers false claims. Got anything else?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Based on the analysis presented in the original papers by Mann et al. and this newer supporting evidence, the committee finds it plausible that the Northern Hemisphere was warmer during the last few decades of the 20th century than during any comparable period over the preceding millennium.
This "exoneration" is BS. All it says that since "other studies" say the same thing that MBH "might" be correct. It does not say MBH was correct or meaningful or that criticisms were unfounded - just that it "might" be correct despite the fact that it was junk. If they wanted to say it was correct they would have used that word - the choice of the world "plausible" is a transparent attempt at whitewash.

This is my favorite lie:

the issue of "centering on the first principal component" (the M&M "ta da") made no practical difference to the reconstruction... as was verified independently by other scientists.
This statement is trivially true since the shape is the same but what you omitted was validation statistics for the reconstruction showed that the reconstruction was nothing more than noise if the PC procedure was applied correctly. Incidentally, the emails include one where Mann admits he has evidence that MBH was junk and told the receiver to keep the "dirty laundry" secret.

In any case, the Hockey Stick keeps coming up because the "team" keeps producing bogus reconstruction after bogus reconstruction in its desperate desire to show that the current warming is "unprecedented". The latest Mann paper with its upside down proxies is a good example that proves that Mann and his defenders are either incompetent or have the ethics of pond scum.

Edited by Riverwind
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Should Rex Murphy be allowed to "spout nonsense" or should he be held to higher standards of fact-checking?
Who is to determine whether Rex is "spouting nonsense" or "checked facts"? You? Me? A CBC fact checker?

Since we all pay for the CBC through our taxes, it seems to me that the CBC threshold for allowing someone to speak on air should be very low. IOW, if someone has a point to make - and they can do it succinctly and in an engaging way - then I'd say let them on.

In short politicslvr, I take issue with your terms "fact-checking" and "nonsense". I am fearful of allowing one person or even a committee of experts to decide what is "fact" and what is not. You have decided that Murphy spouts "nonsense".

What gives you the right to decide that?

...since when do we allow politcal shills a regular spot on public tv?
Wyly, define "shill". Do you mean somebody paid by someone else to speak on their behalf? To my knowledge, Rex Murphy depends on his CBC salary (and some meagre book royalties) for his livelihood.

Phil Jones and Michael Mann may receive money from Exxon but I think I am correct in saying that Murphy does not.

if murphy wants to spout politics he can have his own reich-wing program and see if anyone listens in...news programs are for objective journalists not spokesmen for the fraser institute, Andrew Coyne does a good job representing the right wing as a qualified journalist not as a mindless shill like murphy...
Coyne is part of a panel one evening per week. Anne-Marie Tremonti has every morning on the radio and Michael Enright has three hours every Sunday.

But here's what frightens me. The CBC could put two Maoists on and then Enright and claim that it is "balanced". IMV, when the CBC has someone like Mark Steyn on every morning for one hour, then I'll maybe agree to this "balanced" idea.

----

The comparison with Radio-Canada is interesting. While most R-C journalists favour Quebec sovereignty, it's not the case for all. Reports on R-C are more lively and they are closer to the truth. CBC has the wooden style of a high school English teacher.

Edited by August1991
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...