CBC: Keeping Canadian Voters Confused by Paying Rex Murphy

[wyly]

I think you'll agree, Wyly, that we need is productive discussion and since KeepItSimple has provided data and rationale, I don't think he deserves sarcasm or rolled eyes here.

hmmm, maybe...but I find his rationale insulting...

I'll leave out the rolling eyes next time....

[myata]

As more facts come out it is becoming more clear that climate science is a field infested with group think and that we must assume that all of the claims are biased towards exagerrating the effect of CO2 and the risks associated with AGW.

The truth (facts, etc) is in the eye of the beholder (once removed all rational, critical obstacles to such).

[waldo]

I have a little more faith in Environment Canada's teperature readings than I do the CRU. Although one could say that Canada only presents a localized reading on a Global stage - Canada's temperatures do cover a huge area and can be viewed in a relative fashion - going up each year or down - at least establishing an accurate trend for our part of the world.

yabut... where's your trend, in anything you've just presented... or said? - and since you seem to trust Environment Canada

[wyly]

yabut... where's your trend, in anything you've just presented... or said? - and since you seem to trust Environment Canada

oh oh!...you're going to be reprimanded by Michael for the ....

it's hard not to gloat...

[myata]

I have another belief however, which is that we, as citizens, should be told ever single aspect of the arguement so that we'll be able to make our own, informed decisions. When one side of the arguement has a total monopoly on the discussion and research it's borderline propoganda; getting constantly blasted with one side of the arguement is not a good thing imo.

No, you don't have to be told everything! You, one, everybody always has a choice to study, read, find out, make up your own mind and convince the others. All this research is published in magasines, papers, books, and so on, that are freely available in your library.

The only thing that doesn't work, i.e. it doesn't make any rational sense, is to deny validity of a research without having sufficient knowledge and skill, time or caring to understand it.

This is really the main point of the debate. If "critics" have serious, meaningful arguments against any particular aspect, research or conclusion of that science, they only have to present them to the critical consideration of scientists, researchers, professionals like themselves, who have necessary knowledge and skills to fully understand it. That they mostly decide to put it to general public's discussion instead makes no sense from the point of view of establishing their validity and greatly diminishes the likelihood of any serious scientific merit in them.

[Michael Hardner]

oh oh!...you're going to be reprimanded by Michael for the ....

it's hard not to gloat...

My finger is wagging.... :angry:

[Keepitsimple]

yabut... where's your trend, in anything you've just presented... or said? - and since you seem to trust Environment Canada

I didn't imply a long term trend - only that here in Canada, on average, the temperature has been level if not cooling for the past decade and the last three years have been Canada's 13th, 16th and 26th warmest years. If the cool weather keeps up - and indications are that it will, it will begin to offset some of the hotter anomolies we had in 1998, 2001 and 2006 and the trend line will start to weaken. There's no sense in arguing about the weather - only time and observation will give us the answers.

[wyly]

I didn't imply a long term trend - only that here in Canada, on average, the temperature has been level if not cooling for the past decade and the last three years have been Canada's 13th, 16th and 26th warmest years. If the cool weather keeps up - and indications are that it will, it will begin to offset some of the hotter anomolies we had in 1998, 2001 and 2006 and the trend line will start to weaken. There's no sense in arguing about the weather - only time and observation will give us the answers.

you cherry pick data from Environment Canada claiming that the temp is level if not cooling...Waldo supplies Environment Canada's long term trend showing continued warming, completely the opposite of what you claim...how are you able to look at data and completely ignore what does not suit you, self hypnosis???

and forget about any offsetting warming temps as you claimed, exactly the opposite is occuring, we are leaving the masking effect of a cool la Nina period as well as period of minimum solar activity...temps will be heading up once again...expect new records to be set in the next 10 yrs...

[waldo]

Meanwhile, it's getting colder. Mother Nature has indeed joined the ranks of the skeptics:

Reporting recent weather as being relevant to the warming debate is one of the easiest ways to get yourself discredited as a serious debater in this discussion, IMO.

That might be true except for the fact that in spite of increasing carbon emissions, the world IS starting to cool, regardless of what the gas-bags in Copenhagen would have you believe. I have a little more faith in Environment Canada's teperature readings than I do the CRU. Although one could say that Canada only presents a localized reading on a Global stage - Canada's temperatures do cover a huge area and can be viewed in a relative fashion - going up each year or down - at least establishing an accurate trend for our part of the world. It should at least be food for sober thought.

yabut... where's your trend, in anything you've just presented... or said? - and since you seem to trust Environment Canada

I didn't imply a long term trend - only that here in Canada, on average, the temperature has been level if not cooling for the past decade and the last three years have been Canada's 13th, 16th and 26th warmest years. If the cool weather keeps up - and indications are that it will, it will begin to offset some of the hotter anomolies we had in 1998, 2001 and 2006 and the trend line will start to weaken. There's no sense in arguing about the weather - only time and observation will give us the answers.

no, your misguided attempt was clear... your misunderstandings simply don't support you well. Canada's temperature has not been leveling... has not been cooling (would you like that trend graphic link again?).

no, the world is NOT starting to cool, as you state.. Per this graphic (NASA GISS data), the past ten 10-year trends have all been between 0.17 and 0.34 ºC per decade... the most recent trend (1999-2008) is equal to 0.19 ºC per decade. If you won't accept it from the, as you state, "gas-bags in Copenhagen", then perhaps you might be willing to accept it from 4 of the more prolific skeptics (Spencer, Michaels, Singer & Christy) - from a crock video I posted earlier...

, and you can hear it directly from them all.

the only one talking about weather... is you. The only one not talking about trends (either short-term or long-term)... is you. The only one making inaccurate statements... is you. And yes, as wyly highlights, watch for the effects of EL NIÑO!

[Halfempty]

No, you don't have to be told everything! You, one, everybody always has a choice to study, read, find out, make up your own mind and convince the others. All this research is published in magasines, papers, books, and so on, that are freely available in your library.

The only thing that doesn't work, i.e. it doesn't make any rational sense, is to deny validity of a research without having sufficient knowledge and skill, time or caring to understand it.

This is really the main point of the debate. If "critics" have serious, meaningful arguments against any particular aspect, research or conclusion of that science, they only have to present them to the critical consideration of scientists, researchers, professionals like themselves, who have necessary knowledge and skills to fully understand it. That they mostly decide to put it to general public's discussion instead makes no sense from the point of view of establishing their validity and greatly diminishes the likelihood of any serious scientific merit in them.

By "told everything" I ment that there should be a more or less equal distribution of airtime, research, and so on devoted to each side of the arguement to ensure fairness. Nowadays you only really see global warming believers on the air, scientists are paid large amounts to do research which indicates that man-produced global warming is happening, and so on. Likewise, skeptics of man-produced global warming are being discouraged whether their findings are valid or not. There is enough of a divide in the scientific community over this issue to raise the possibility that maybe global warming is not caused by us, yet this voice is not really heard because the other side of the arguement has a monopoly over the discussion. Once again, I believe in man-produced global warming, but I dislike the means which my side is using to get the population "sold" on this theory.

Yes, some people do their own research when making up their minds, but your mindset is overly optimistic if you believe that the marjority of the population would do this. Most people just turn on their TVs or maybe read newspapers for their facts, and if those happen to be bias (which most are), then those people will be sold on a theory without even hearing the other point of view. If you control the mob (population) you control all lol. To get back to the topic, that's why I support CBC for putting on Rex Murhy; I don't agree with him, but at least he represents another viewpoint.

Edited December 19, 2009 by Halfempty

[Riverwind]

This is really the main point of the debate. If "critics" have serious, meaningful arguments against any particular aspect, research or conclusion of that science, they only have to present them to the critical consideration of scientists, researchers, professionals like themselves, who have necessary knowledge and skills to fully understand it. That they mostly decide to put it to general public's discussion instead makes no sense from the point of view of establishing their validity and greatly diminishes the likelihood of any serious scientific merit in them.

Although volunteer bloggers are doing some good work the general rule is only science that gets done is the science that someone is willing to pay for. Over the last 20 years science that promoted climate alarmism was what got funded with a few exceptions. It should come as no surprise that the majority of the "professional" (meaning people who have to find someone to pay them) scientists think CO2 is a immediate threat requiring government intervention. The appalling bias revealled in the Climategate emails is the tip of the iceberg.

Fortunately, the latest polls show people are waking up and realizing that the professional science establishment is not an unbiased source of information. My only hope is this will lead to a reform of the system.

Edited December 19, 2009 by Riverwind

[waldo]

Although volunteer bloggers are doing some good work the general rule is only science that gets done is the science that someone is willing to pay for. Over the last 20 years science that promoted climate alarmism was what got funded with a few exceptions. It should come as no surprise that the majority of the "professional" (meaning people who have to find someone to pay them) scientists think CO2 is a immediate threat requiring government intervention. The appalling bias revealled in the Climategate emails is the tip of the iceberg.

Fortunately, the latest polls show people are waking up and realizing that the professional science establishment is not an unbiased source of information. My only hope is this will lead to a reform of the system.

just what "good work" has your crew of altruistic crusading skeptic volunteer “blog scientists” done? What have they accomplished - exactly? Just what marvels of scientific progress are they responsible for... exactly? Just what has your boy McIntyre accomplished... exactly… how has he, how have your sceptical “blog scientists” beaten back the overwhelming consensus of scientific opinion that mankind is responsible for global warming… exactly? Just what scientific papers has your crew of sceptical “blog scientists” written? Ya, ya… blog science rules!

For what any single poll is worth you conveniently bypass the most significant part of that poll reference you link to… the part that shows the overwhelming majority of those polled favour government regulation of the release of greenhouse gases in an effort to reduce global warming. You don’t get to cherry pick from the poll if you presume to give it any credence… the latest Hackergate related clownish shit-throwing attempts by sceptics… somehow… didn’t seem to put a dent in the view of those polled that government action was required in regulating greenhouse gases… to reduce global warming. How convenient of you to bypass that little ditty in your self-serving poll analysis… indeed!

[Riverwind]

just what "good work" has your crew of altruistic crusading skeptic volunteer “blog scientists” done? What have they accomplished - exactly?

Exposed key pieces of climate science for the junk they are - something that is recognized by many even if the IPCC mafia insist on living in denial.

For what any single poll is worth you conveniently bypass the most significant part of that poll reference you link to… the part that shows the overwhelming majority of those polled favour government regulation of the release of greenhouse gases in an effort to reduce global warming.

But when people are asked if they would pay a mere $25/month support drops by 10%! IOW - support for regulation is a mile wide and millimeter deep. Politicians know that and that is why they try to hide the cost with cap and trade schemes that have no chance of actually reducing emissions. Show me a poll that says people would support regulation even if costs them $200/month and I might take your claims seriously.

In any case, the most important result in the poll is how the trust of scientists is dropping. I feared this would happen if the public ever caught on to how dishonest the "scientists" like the ones that run RC really are. That has now happened so the question should is now how can the cancer of political activists posing as scientists be removed.

Edited December 20, 2009 by Riverwind

[Alta4ever]

If you have such a problem with co2 you better hold your breath, with every breath you are causing the temperature of the earth to increase and destroying it. So now is the time the time to help the earth, stop breathing, i know you can.

Edited December 20, 2009 by Alta4ever

[jbg]

Reporting recent weather as being relevant to the warming debate is one of the easiest ways to get yourself discredited as a serious debater in this discussion, IMO.

Then why do warming fanatics do that all the time?

[Argus]

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

There are at least half a dozen climate science threads, and I'm sure that if you check them out, particularly riverrwind's contributions, you'll find numerous well-stated examples of weakness or falsification of data from climate scientists.

[Riverwind]

There are at least half a dozen climate science threads, and I'm sure that if you check them out, particularly riverrwind's contributions, you'll find numerous well-stated examples of weakness or falsification of data from climate scientists.

You are missing the game that Myata is playing. One hand he challenges people to a reasoned debate but on the other hand he thinks he has the exclusive right to decide what material can be used in support of arguments used. When people point out the absurdity of his position he tries to justify it by saying that he does not have the ability to analyze material that comes up so he has no choice to limit sources to those which he chooses.

[waldo]

just what "good work" has your crew of altruistic crusading skeptic volunteer “blog scientists” done? What have they accomplished - exactly? Just what marvels of scientific progress are they responsible for... exactly? Just what has your boy McIntyre accomplished... exactly… how has he, how have your sceptical “blog scientists” beaten back the overwhelming consensus of scientific opinion that mankind is responsible for global warming… exactly? Just what scientific papers has your crew of sceptical “blog scientists” written? Ya, ya… blog science rules!

Exposed key pieces of climate science for the junk they are - something that is recognized by many even if the IPCC mafia insist on living in denial.

why... how exacting of you! C'mon, you can do better than that - c'mon, you can show the real value of your posse of altruistic crusading skeptic volunteer “blog scientists”... you can be very precise and state, exactly, what, as you say, "good work" has been realized... you know, showcase their contribution. Why so shy, Riverwind... why so shy? I mean, after all, this is the crew you hold up as the epitome of resolute forthrightness working for the truth - crusaders, one and all! C'mon, Riverwind... show us their real worth, the real value of these modern day Galieleos

For what any single poll is worth you conveniently bypass the most significant part of that poll reference you link to… the part that shows the overwhelming majority of those polled favour government regulation of the release of greenhouse gases in an effort to reduce global warming. You don’t get to cherry pick from the poll if you presume to give it any credence… the latest Hackergate related clownish shit-throwing attempts by sceptics… somehow… didn’t seem to put a dent in the view of those polled that government action was required in regulating greenhouse gases… to reduce global warming. How convenient of you to bypass that little ditty in your self-serving poll analysis… indeed!

But when people are asked if they would pay a mere $25/month support drops by 10%! IOW - support for regulation is a mile wide and millimeter deep. Politicians know that and that is why they try to hide the cost with cap and trade schemes that have no chance of actually reducing emissions. Show me a poll that says people would support regulation even if costs them $200/month and I might take your claims seriously.

As I said, you cherry picked from your own referenced poll and chose to ignore the more salient point... that in the face of a momentary media blitz, those polled came down heavily and solidly in favour of the need to deal with emission reduction... the rest is just nuance.

In any case, the most important result in the poll is how the trust of scientists is dropping. I feared this would happen if the public ever caught on to how dishonest the "scientists" like the ones that run RC really are. That has now happened so the question should is now how can the cancer of political activists posing as scientists be removed.

you feared? Make that you revelled! You discount every and any piece of concrete science that heightens the case for AGW global warming... because you fear for the trust of scientists. Notwithstanding your personal vendetta against RC, they/it, is a minuscule piece of the overall that you can't help but make your target... since they/it continually present the science and show the skeptic clowns for what they truly are.

[waldo]

You are missing the game that Myata is playing. One hand he challenges people to a reasoned debate but on the other hand he thinks he has the exclusive right to decide what material can be used in support of arguments used. When people point out the absurdity of his position he tries to justify it by saying that he does not have the ability to analyze material that comes up so he has no choice to limit sources to those which he chooses.

it seems myata set very reasonable grounds for a debate... it would seem you have difficulty with them since it wouldn't allow you to deal in meaningless generalizations, it wouldn't allow you to quote mine from irrelevant "blog scientists" and it wouldn't allow you to deal in unscientific dialogue. Clearly, in that regard, you have reservations... strong reservations! Clearly, you have difficulty with anything where you would be limited to "making statements that are formulated as either scientifically correct original deductions, or references to peer reviewed publications in the professional media of the applicable discipline."

[Riverwind]

peer reviewed publications in the professional media of the applicable discipline

Here is a concrete illustration of how the peer review process has been corrupted by a pack a pro-AGW zealots. In climate science, peer review is code word for 'approved by the alarmist club' and has absolutely no relationship with truth or accuracy.

Here is another example.

A group of us noted that the snowpack in the Cascades was not rapidly melting away, in contrast to publications by some local climate scientists and publicized by Mayor Nickels.

The reaction was intense. One of my colleagues, Mark Albright, who was the first to notice the lack of snowpack loss, was fired as associate State Climatologist. The media went wild – we called it “Snowpackgate”, and it got national attention.

I was told in the hallways to keep quiet about it – the denier types would take advantage of it.

The are many others which alarmists insist on ignoring. Edited December 20, 2009 by Riverwind

[waldo]

Here is a concrete illustration of how the peer review process has been corrupted by a pack a pro-AGW zealots. In climate science, peer review is code word for 'approved by the alarmist club' and has absolutely no relationship with truth or accuracy.

since your self-expressed heightened target for complicity is RC, how better than to show this "American Thinker" clap-trap for what it really is... but really, c'mon... we've previously shown "American Thinker" for exactly the rag it is - mediamatters profiles a recent gem

in any case, back to that RC response:

DCPS contains a statistical test that is absolutely and fundamentally in error. It is the equivalent of comparing the uncertainty in the average of a finite number of die throws (3.5 +/- some small number) with the range of valid throws of a die (1-6). Their test (as shown in Fig. 5b in Santer et al) would reject perfectly valid realisations more than 60% of the time, when the claimed rejection rate is 5%. That Douglass and Christy still fail to acknowledge this mistake is very telling. The original RC piece is here (and follow-ups here and here). These were not 'unsigned', they were group pieces implying input and support from the whole RC team. There is no 'conspiracy' when multiple authors with interests in the issue discuss how best to proceed in rebutting a bad paper, and indeed going forward in exploring how best to look at the problem. The Santer et al paper was significantly more than a rebuttal to DCPS, even though that is how it was originally conceived. If Douglass and Christy think that there are mistakes in Santer et al, they are at liberty to submit a comment or new paper pointing this out. To date they have not done so (AFAIK). - gavin

... apparently, Douglass and Christy don't believe there are mistakes in the Santer et al paper,... certainly... no rebuttal has come forth from Douglass/Christy! As I said earlier, it's clear why your target is on RC - it's continually a beeatch to have your skeptical ass handed to you... with firm positions founded in the actual science. Is it any wonder you're afraid of myata's debate ground rules

[Riverwind]

since your self-expressed heightened target for complicity is RC, how better than to show this "American Thinker" clap-trap

The first thing that comes out is an ad hom against the website that did nothing but publish the views of working climate scientists? Says more about you than the people you criticize.

You also missed the entire point of the piece. The issue is how pro-IPCC scientists colluded with journal editors in order to delay the publication of a sceptical piece and used information that they were not supposed to have access to to publish a rebuttal as a separate paper instead of providing a comment on the original paper after it is published.

Edited December 20, 2009 by Riverwind

[waldo]

since your self-expressed heightened target for complicity is RC, how better than to show this "American Thinker" clap-trap for what it really is... but really, c'mon... we've previously shown "American Thinker" for exactly the rag it is - mediamatters profiles a recent gem

in any case, back to that RC response:

DCPS contains a statistical test that is absolutely and fundamentally in error. It is the equivalent of comparing the uncertainty in the average of a finite number of die throws (3.5 +/- some small number) with the range of valid throws of a die (1-6). Their test (as shown in Fig. 5b in Santer et al) would reject perfectly valid realisations more than 60% of the time, when the claimed rejection rate is 5%. That Douglass and Christy still fail to acknowledge this mistake is very telling. The original RC piece is here (and follow-ups here and here). These were not 'unsigned', they were group pieces implying input and support from the whole RC team. There is no 'conspiracy' when multiple authors with interests in the issue discuss how best to proceed in rebutting a bad paper, and indeed going forward in exploring how best to look at the problem. The Santer et al paper was significantly more than a rebuttal to DCPS, even though that is how it was originally conceived. If Douglass and Christy think that there are mistakes in Santer et al, they are at liberty to submit a comment or new paper pointing this out. To date they have not done so (AFAIK). - gavin

... apparently, Douglass and Christy don't believe there are mistakes in the Santer et al paper,... certainly... no rebuttal has come forth from Douglass/Christy! As I said earlier, it's clear why your target is on RC - it's continually a beeatch to have your skeptical ass handed to you... with firm positions founded in the actual science. Is it any wonder you're afraid of myata's debate ground rules

The first thing that comes out is an ad hom against the website that did nothing but publish the views of working climate scientists? Says more about you than the people you criticize.

You also missed the entire point of the piece. The issue is how pro-IPCC scientists colluded with journal editors in order to delay the publication of a sceptical piece and used information that they were not supposed to have access to to publish a rebuttal as a separate paper instead of providing a comment on the original paper after it is published.

no - you missed the point that there was no conspiracy other than the one you continue to see in your dreams, under your bed, in your closets... as stated in the quote, "There is no 'conspiracy' when multiple authors with interests in the issue discuss how best to proceed in rebutting a bad paper, and indeed going forward in exploring how best to look at the problem."

of course, you favour your (only) fallback consistency in shouting "CONSPIRACY", since you can't argue on the basis of science... you can't argue against those using science to challenge the faulty/bad work of Douglas/Christy. Your claim that the Santer et al paper is a rebuttal is false - it's a paper that stands on it's own... the link to that paper is provided and it offers barely token acknowledgment to the Douglas/Christy (DC) paper and only including it's (DC) test premise within the larger grouping of tests performed within (section 4) of the paper. But really, two papers exist. Among several aspects presented within the latter paper, the Santer et al paper, the Douglas/Christy paper is soundly refuted... soundly refuted to the point that Douglas/Christy have not offered, in turn, any response. And through all of this you shout "CONSPIRACY"!

as for the "American Stinker" rag, you should be so proud of it... I gave you one sampling of the trash it prints - one piece of crap amongst many.

[waldo]

just what "good work" has your crew of altruistic crusading skeptic volunteer “blog scientists” done? What have they accomplished - exactly? Just what marvels of scientific progress are they responsible for... exactly? Just what has your boy McIntyre accomplished... exactly… how has he, how have your sceptical “blog scientists” beaten back the overwhelming consensus of scientific opinion that mankind is responsible for global warming… exactly? Just what scientific papers has your crew of sceptical “blog scientists” written? Ya, ya… blog science rules!

Exposed key pieces of climate science for the junk they are - something that is recognized by many even if the IPCC mafia insist on living in denial.

why... how exacting of you! C'mon, you can do better than that - c'mon, you can show the real value of your posse of altruistic crusading skeptic volunteer “blog scientists”... you can be very precise and state, exactly, what, as you say, "good work" has been realized... you know, showcase their contribution. Why so shy, Riverwind... why so shy? I mean, after all, this is the crew you hold up as the epitome of resolute forthrightness working for the truth - crusaders, one and all! C'mon, Riverwind... show us their real worth, the real value of these modern day Galieleos

[Riverwind]

no - you missed the point that there was no conspiracy other than the one you continue to see in your dreams

None are so blind as those that refuse to see.

Here is a shorter explaination of why the Christy and Douglass story demonstrates how corrupt the peer review process is.

The whole thing is really frustrating. One side is denied information, while the others are spoon fed their opposition’s work in progress nearly every week. One side’s publication is rushed, while the other’s is delayed. One side gets to essentially pick its own reviewers, and in an incredible breach, have a prickly reviewer simply removed from the process (again for no good reason than he wasn’t giving the answer they want). This is like watching the inside mechanics of an election in North Korea.

No reasonable person can defend the actions of the 'team' and the colluding editor in this case. It is also not the only example - other scientists have complained of the same kind of bias. The CRU emails prove that these complaints have merit. Edited December 21, 2009 by Riverwind