CBC: Keeping Canadian Voters Confused by Paying Rex Murphy

[Riverwind]

c'mon, you can show the real value of your posse of altruistic crusading skeptic volunteer “blog scientists

I have given you many examples but you seem to be incapable of understanding the technical issues involved and invariably cut and paste material that has nothing to do with the point being made.

[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

... the technical issues involved! Buddy, you squirrel away and hide behind anything and everything whenever you're challenged to actually produce the goods... or when you're confronted with real science, with real studies... not the recycled glad-handing and sock-puppetry from the likes of your posse of altruistic crusading skeptic volunteer “blog scientists”.

[waldo]

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.

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.

another Riverwind whinefest! The Douglass/Christy (DC) paper was published... before the Santer et al paper. You simply can't stand the fact the skeptical DC paper was garbage and shown as such by Santer et al. Does it really make a lick of difference if the Santer paper was a comment to the original DC paper... or as the standalone paper it is? Really? In either case, DC had/have the option of responding... not understandable given the pasting DC took over the faulty science they presented. But it gives you another chance to further your fake and trumped up conspiracy rant. Too bad you can't actually respond to the science... but... that's typical of any denier.

[Michael Hardner]

Then why do warming fanatics do that all the time?

I haven't seen warming fanatics state that here as often as I've read, say, that the 1970s there was a scientific consensus about the coming ice age.

Actually, come to think of it I don't remember ever reading someone post that recent warm weather is relevant. The Drudgereport loves to post articles about cold weather right beside articles about Global Warming. They think it's clever.

Edited December 21, 2009 by Michael Hardner

[Riverwind]

I haven't seen warming fanatics state that here as often as I've read, say, that the 1970s there was a scientific consensus about the coming ice age.

A "scientific consensus" is a political statement rather than a matter of science. There was no "scientific consensus" on the ice age in the 70s because there was no strong push for policy changes that needed a artificial consensus to justify it. That said, the public was still inundated with scary stories in the news about the coming ice age which means the same scary stories about the planet burning up are just more of the same as far as the public is concerned.

Actually, come to think of it I don't remember ever reading someone post that recent warm weather is relevant. The Drudgereport loves to post articles about cold weather right beside articles about Global Warming. They think it's clever.

The weather in the last few years has been sceptic friendly. Before that with heat waves in europe, katrina and such. The media and alarmists scientists never failed to report those as evidence of the coming doom. Edited December 21, 2009 by Riverwind

[Michael Hardner]

A "scientific consensus" is a political statement rather than a matter of science. There was no "scientific consensus" on the ice age in the 70s because there was no strong push for policy changes that needed a artificial consensus to justify it. That said, the public was still inundated with scary stories in the news about the coming ice age which means the same scary stories about the planet burning up are just more of the same as far as the public is concerned.

What was discussed in the popular press isn't relevant to a discussion as to how real the problem is, though. That's the context that the 'ice age' question is used in - time and time again.

The weather in the last few years has been sceptic friendly. Before that with heat waves in europe, katrina and such. The media and alarmists scientists never failed to report those as evidence of the coming doom.

Any scientist that reports recent weather as evidence either way is indeed an alarmist. With regards to the media, MapleLeafWeb is our media here and we have the intelligence and ability to bypass inferior media such as CNN and Fox, and discuss things that they can only scratch the surface of.

[myata]

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.

Few of which (if any) though would stand the simple common sense convetions of meaningful, disciplined and productive scientific debate. No, as has been already pointed out, in the matters scientific quantity not necessarily equals quality. This is because anybody with sufficient determination can produce volumes of erroneous, flawed or plain meaningless pseudo scientific gibberish which would take unrealistically high measures of time and effort to examine.

The process that has ensured progress of science so far exists and it'll take much more than publicity campaigns by a few "sceptics" to undermine it. The problem is much more serious, it's about our society's ability to make rational decisions and execute them. Showing little aptitude for either can be another sign (along with general laziness, apathy, lack of interest to anything that does not result in my entertainment or gratification) that our societies are on the downward end of their lifecycle, where preservation of status quo becomes paramount over all other aspects of life. As obvious as it is, we seem to starting to forget (or wilfully ignore) the truth that nothing in this life is granted automatically and forever, and once we stop making conscious choices of being informed, open minded and willing to act when necessary, there'd be only one road left to us, down.

[wyly]

A "scientific consensus" is a political statement rather than a matter of science. There was no "scientific consensus" on the ice age in the 70s because there was no strong push for policy changes that needed a artificial consensus to justify it. That said, the public was still inundated with scary stories in the news about the coming ice age which means the same scary stories about the planet burning up are just more of the same as far as the public is concerned.

The weather in the last few years has been sceptic friendly. Before that with heat waves in europe, katrina and such. The media and alarmists scientists never failed to report those as evidence of the coming doom.

INUNDATED? please list these articles/papers...you can't because it was your own imagination running wild, it was all based on a couple of articles in magazines, it was all how you percieved it...I've linked to a study previously on the few papers published on global cooling and they were never a consensus, even at that time the thought was the earth was warming...

as usual your posts rely little on fact or science but mostly blogger myths...

[Riverwind]

The problem is much more serious, it's about our society's ability to make rational decisions and execute them.

The fact is the science ia EXTREMELY uncertain. We really have no idea how much warming will occur nor what the consequences are likely to be. There are many different policy choices we could make including "do nothing - adapt". Unfortunately, a segment of the population who happens to like particular policy choices has tried to use "science" as a ramrod to force people to agree with their choices. This has resulted in a endless debate over the science in the political arena. This is wrong. The science has told us all it can and the remaining decisions are up to us and cannot be dictated by science. Edited December 21, 2009 by Riverwind

[Michael Hardner]

The science has told us all it can and the remaining decisions are up to us and cannot be determined by science.

When you post that we need to discuss whether adaptation is a better course than prevention, you sometimes seem to concede that global warming appears to be man-made.

If that's the case, then we're spending too much time arguing that and not your other - and perhaps more interesting - question.

[eyeball]

The science has told us all it can and the remaining decisions are up to us and cannot be determined by science.

So why can't we make the last few remaining decisions? If Copenhagen is anything to go by it doesn't look like world leaders are prepared or able to make it. Some people think that referendums should be rare and special things that are reserved for the really major decisions that face our society. If this doesn't qualify as a rare and special occasion what does?

Edited December 21, 2009 by eyeball

[Riverwind]

When you post that we need to discuss whether adaptation is a better course than prevention, you sometimes seem to concede that global warming appears to be man-made.

I have always agreed that CO2 is a GHG that will cause warming. The question is how much. The IPCC tries to infer the effect of CO2 from the historical record which they assume was driven almost entirely by CO2 emissions. If natural or other man made causes were more significant than assumed in the IPCC assessments then it would follow that the IPCC is overestimating the effect of CO2 and the benefit of CO2 regulation would be lower. Edited December 21, 2009 by Riverwind

[Riverwind]

So why can't we make the last few remaining decisions?

Because loud mouth activists and carbon control rent seekers push politicians towards their preferred policy choices. There can be no meaningful political discussion on this topic until we start by accepting that doing nothing is a valid option and working to find some middle ground that includes some sensible mitigation policies. Policies discussions that start with 'the science says CO2 must be below X or temperatures must be below Y' are non-starters because they seek to exclude legitmate policy choices by exagerrating the certainty of the science.

As for referendums: I am all for them as long as I get to write the question.

Edited December 21, 2009 by Riverwind

[wyly]

When you post that we need to discuss whether adaptation is a better course than prevention, you sometimes seem to concede that global warming appears to be man-made.

If that's the case, then we're spending too much time arguing that and not your other - and perhaps more interesting - question.

and he always refers to "we" as in "We really have no idea"...since when does he speak for us or science, does CC/AGW and it's dangers only become real when "we"(he) and the denier bloggoshere world /are convinced... since 20% of americans still believe the sun revolves around the earth this could take several hundred/thousand years...scientists have do have an idea what lies in the future, there is no legitimate scientific body that denies mans effect on the climate and no government denies it, but yet he claims "we" have no idea...

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Because loud mouth activists and carbon control rent seekers push politicians towards their preferred policy choices. There can be no meaningful political discussion on this topic until we starts by accepting that do nothing is a valid option and working to find some middle ground that includes some mitigation policies. Policies discussions that start with 'the science says CO2 must be below X or temperatures must be below Y' are non-starters.

Doing nothing would be even more stupid than what we are now doing. In my view we should be doing a lot more, but not what the extremists from both sides of the issue want, that is for sure. I don't give a damn what is going on with the climate, unless we can reverse the effects it makes no difference who has done what or what cycle is up or down. The only thing relevant to me is how we can adapt to the situation. Anything that detracts from that adaptation is cause for REAL concern, not the finger pointing or partisan posturing.

[eyeball]

As for referendums: I am all for them as long as I get to write the question.

Okay, assume you do get to write the question. What would it be?

[Riverwind]

Doing nothing would be even more stupid than what we are now doing.

Doing nothing [about CO2 emissions] implies we adapt.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Doing nothing [about CO2 emissions] implies we adapt.

Everything is implied in politics! The devil is in the details. I don't know how to break this news to folks but every summer more of the permafrost thaws out, it isn't so permanent anymore. When it does that it releases more of these evil greenhouse gases, the amount of those gases is a big percentage of increased greenhouse effect. Guess what, it can't be stopped or reversed by any known means. What I am getting at is that things are indeed changing and we are not able to "change" that little fact.

The governments of the world would need to take real steps forward, and it isn't going to happen.

[Keepitsimple]

I have always agreed that CO2 is a GHG that will cause warming. The question is how much. The IPCC tries to infer the effect of CO2 from the historical record which they assume was driven almost entirely by CO2 emissions. If natural or other man made causes were more significant than assumed in the IPCC assessments then it would follow that the IPCC is overestimating the effect of CO2 and the benefit of CO2 regulation would be lower.

I know we end up going around in circles but that's why the proper re-construction of climate history is so critically important. If in fact, the Midievel Warming Period occurred for an extended period and was just as warm as today, then the theory of CO2 being the major driver of Global Warming becomes largely suspect, if not rejected outright. Terrence Corcoran's follow-up article today sheds more light on the proxy infighting that went on inside the IPCC and the tenuous paleoclimatology "foundation" that IPCC theories rest on.

Mr. Briffa sent Mr. Mann a copy of his Science article on April 12, advising Mr. Mann that he had "decided to mention uncertainties in tree-ring data while pushing the need for more work." Earlier emails also show Mr. Briffa struggling with Russian tree-ring results and the reports of Russian scientists on their difficulties. Their findings often contradicted the idea that the world is warmer today than hundreds or even thousands of years ago. "Relatively high number of trees has been noted during 750-1450 AD. There is no evidence of moving polar timberline in the north during the last century," wrote Rashit Hanntemirov from Russia in October 1998 -- implying that warming has been common in the past and nothing unusual was happening today.

The reference to 750-1450 would appear to support the long-held scientific view on the existence of a Medieval Warm Period (MWP) that might have been hotter than the 20th century. A couple of weeks later, another Russian, Eugene Vaganov, wrote in a paper that "the warming in the middle of the 20th century is not extraordinary. The warming at the border of the 1st and 2nd millennia was more long in time and similar in amplitude."

Link: http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=2365992

Edited December 21, 2009 by Keepitsimple

[Riverwind]

I don't know how to break this news to folks but every summer more of the permafrost thaws out, it isn't so permanent anymore.

I strong recommend you take a look at these greenland temperatures over the last 10,000 years. Those numbers should make it clear that the arctic has warmed a lot more in the recent past and the ice sheets did not melt nor did the melting permafrost trigger run away warming by releasing methane. Edited December 21, 2009 by Riverwind

[wyly]

I know we end up going around in circles but that's why the proper re-construction of climate history is so critically important. If in fact, the Midievel Warming Period occurred for an extended period and was just as warm as today, then the theory of CO2 being the major driver of Global Warming becomes largely suspect, if not rejected outright. Terrence Corcoran's follow-up article today sheds more light on the proxy infighting that went on inside the IPCC and the tenuous paleoclimatology "foundation" that IPCC theories rest on.

falling back on the common denier myth that all causes of warming or cooling are the same...

C02 is a GHG, CO2 can both follow or drive temp...deniers are the only people who make the claim that it is not, go find one scientist who claims otherwise, find us one link that claims CO2 in not a GHG...there has been no other driver found that can explain this warming NONE!...

[Keepitsimple]

falling back on the common denier myth that all causes of warming or cooling are the same...

C02 is a GHG, CO2 can both follow or drive temp...deniers are the only people who make the claim that it is not, go find one scientist who claims otherwise, find us one link that claims CO2 in not a GHG...there has been no other driver found that can explain this warming NONE!...

....and there it is in a nutshell. The alarmists really can't explain this cycle of warming (and now cooling).....so it must be CO2.....can't really prove it, but it just must be CO2 - and mostly CO2.....not just a contributer, but a driver. And around and around we go.

[wyly]

....and there it is in a nutshell. The alarmists really can't explain this cycle of warming (and now cooling).....so it must be CO2.....can't really prove it, but it just must be CO2 - and mostly CO2.....not just a contributer, but a driver. And around and around we go.

as usual no attempt to back your posts with science, because you have none...Simple is as Simple does...

Edited December 21, 2009 by wyly

[Shady]

there has been no other driver found that can explain this warming NONE!...

That's completely false. The earth hasn't been warming in several years. And there have been several factors which have been found to affect temperatures. For instance, the sun. It's common knowledge.

[Riverwind]

as usual no attempt to back your posts with science, because you have none...Simple is as Simple does...

There are many other factors which can explain the warming at least as well as CO2. The problem the science establishment has taken the position that any alternative to CO2 must be proven beyond all reasonable doubt before they accept it. It is a rediculous onus of proof. If we could go back and look at all of the evidence without preconceptions about what is important and what is not we would likely find that CO2 is not as important as currently thought. Edited December 21, 2009 by Riverwind