CBC: Keeping Canadian Voters Confused by Paying Rex Murphy

[waldo]

A conclusion that one can only make if one ignores the perspective of SteveMc and RossMc. It is the reaction to the criticisms they raised about the hockey stick that has convinced me that these scientists are not honest brokers. We can leave aside the speculation on why they reacted the did but the reaction should be a concern to everyone who cares about the science and the CRU emails simply provide more evidence.

would you like the complete MLW thread history repeated/quoted... we can certainly revisit it every time your revisionist bull creeps back in. Just let me know if you'd like to eat a bit more crow over MBH vs. M&M... if you'd like to eat a bit more humble pie over that, as you say, "perspective of SteveMc and RossMc".

[waldo]

There are other examples but the difference with these two I have the background that allows me to look at the technical details and make my own assessment of who has the valid scientific argument. And it is painfully clear that the climate science community is offside and that they have abused the peer review system in order to create a smoke screen designed to hide their malfeasance/incompentence. The CRU emails provide evidence supporting many of the complaints that SteveMc has been making and demonstrate that it was malfeasance rather than incompentence.

For example, SteveMc has long complained that the journal editor handling his paper on the hockey stick was mysteriously removed and replaced with an editor that was clearly biased and willing to break journal policies in order to get junk papers into the journals and the IPCC reports. These papers were then used to tell public/politicians that McIntyre's claims had been debunked when nothing of the sort was true. In the emails we find evidence that the removal of the editor was the direct result of pressure by 'the team' and that they backdated papers to get around IPCC requirements.

How many times to I have to tell you that the emails corroborate the claims of dishonest and unethical behavoir being made by others? If lower your ethical standards and insist on only looking at the emails themselves then you might be able convince yourself that there is nothing there but you would be fooling yourself. You have to look at all of evidence.

Since McIntyre has... count it... one single solitary published paper - ever (co-authored with McKitrick) we can assume that's the paper you speak of. It was published - is there a problem? Put that paper up (link to it) - we can have some real fun! If you have something to say - say it... why the pussy footing around? What McIntyre claims... supposedly debunked... by junk papers (which papers?) pushed through which journal(s)?... by which editor(s)? Which papers were backdated?... in regards what IPCC requirements?

[Riverwind]

Just let me know if you'd like to eat a bit more crow over MBH vs. M&M

All you know about the topic is the propoganda that you cut and paste from RealClimate. If you could actually could under the issues you would know that MBH is crap and tells us nothing about past temperatures. Even the NAS report agrees. Edited December 9, 2009 by Riverwind

[waldo]

All you know about the topic is the propoganda that you cut and paste from RealClimate. If you could actually could under the issues you would know that MBH is crap and tells us nothing about past temperatures. Even the NAS report agrees.

no - you are propogating... falsehoods! No RC cut and paste necessary - none previously provided. Our lengthy MLW back and forth over your baseless assertions, tied to the Wegman Report, with the discussion then moving on to encompass the NAS Report, are on display/on record

but take heart... no RC cut and paste with the following little ditty - read it and scurry away now A Review of Michael Mann's Exoneration

but just in case you'd like to reminiscence:

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=15167&view=findpost&p=474049

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=15167&view=findpost&p=474055

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=15167&view=findpost&p=474195

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=15167&view=findpost&p=474255

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=15167&view=findpost&p=474384

[noahbody]

I recently came across an article a friend of mine wrote on the CBC's Rex Murphy and his views on climate change. You can read it here. It's a short article and to the point, so a lot of the details of the story are missing but you can easily pick up on them with a simple Google search. What are you thoughts on the whole "climategate" speculations? Should Rex Murphy be allowed to "spout nonsense" or should he be held to higher standards of fact-checking? I'd be interested to get all of your opinions on this.

According to your friend's Facebook page, he was a presenter for Al Gore's Climate Project. Go figure.

You can tell him this is one 'climate warrior' who won't be making a donation on his website.

Thanks

[wyly]

CBC is non-stop political shilling for lefty causes. Did you realize that David Suzuki has been allowed to host the CBC radio national morning show at least twice? Did you know that in addition to that he and al gore were granted hour long segment on Q? Rex is the exception rather than the rule.

this is a real difficult concept for you to grasp he's not a JOURNALIST! the National is a news program, Suzuki and Gore don't have regular commentary spots on a national news program, maybe Rick Mercer should have a segment too, his commentaries are far more intelligent and relevant then murphys...

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...

[Riverwind]

Suzuki and Gore don't have regular commentary spots on a national news program

OTOH, Anne Marie Tremonti does host a daily national radio show and she is nothing but a shill for the latest left wing cause-du-jour. Many other so called 'journalists' at the CBC have the same grotesque bias. You really have no business complaining about Rex unless if you say nothing about Anne Marie Tremonti and others. Edited December 9, 2009 by Riverwind

[Riverwind]

No RC cut and paste necessary - none previously provided.

From the Wegman report:

While the work of Michael Mann and colleagues presents what appears to be compelling evidence of global temperature change, the criticisms of McIntyre and McKitrick, as well as those of other authors mentioned are indeed valid.

Where we have commonality, I believe our report and the [NAS] panel essentially agree. We believe that our discussion together with the discussion from the NRC report should take the centering issue off the table. [Mann's] decentred methodology is simply incorrect mathematics …. I am baffled by the claim that the incorrect method doesnt matter because the answer is correct anyway. Method Wrong + Answer Correct = Bad Science.

From the North report (same link as above):

Spurious Principal Components: McIntyre and McKitrick (2003) [actually McIntyre and McKitrick 2005a] demonstrated that under some conditions, the leading principal component can exhibit a spurious trendlike appearance, which could then lead to a spurious trend in the proxy-based reconstruction. To see how this can happen, suppose that instead of proxy climate data, one simply used a random sample of autocorrelated time series that did not contain a coherent signal.

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.

Edited December 9, 2009 by Riverwind

[Keepitsimple]

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.

Edited December 9, 2009 by Keepitsimple

[Shwa]

...it brings their attitudes out in the open for all to see.

How so? I am part of "all" and I don't see how their attitudes are any more or less 'out in the open.'

They present their case with the weight of their side of the argument, as imperfect as it is. The counterpoint side also has imperfections, but much, much less weight. And considering how widespread the notion of Global Warming is, the weight of the argument has gathered a sweeping momentum within our society.

At this point whether Global Warming is a reality or not is entirely beside the point, in the minds of the decision makers, it already is. There is no way anyone spouting off obscure or minor details is going to derail the momentum. That debate is over. It has been for quite some time. If you really want to make your case, hang a couple of banners on the West Block of the Parliament Buildings in Ottawa. That will get you some attention.

The only thing left is to debate the cost. And is it worth the money to clean up our environment, our air, our lands, etc.? What are the cost-benefits of changing over our energy systems, etc. It would seem to me that plenty of energy has been wasted on a long dead debate when the real consequences of that 'weight' is starting to bear on the economics of our society. Perhaps that is the point Rex Murphy was trying to get at?

[Argus]

Uh.... right. Ok. I didn't see these. Give me a link, but in the meantime I recant.

The key problems, as I see it, are two.

1 Climate scientists have become so politicized that they have not merely stepped over the line between advocacy and neutral, unbiased study, they have completely erased it. As such, it's clear that they will only tell you what they think will support their cause, and will twist facts and supress others in order to convince you they're right. This is the type of behaviour we expect from politicians and used car salesmen, and how much reliability to we attach to what they tell us?

2 No one has yet established an "If/then" cause and effect to the proposed "solutions". There is only so far we can reduce CO2 emissions without going back to horses and buggies, so just what actual, known, certain affect will the current plans have? All i've seen so far is "well, it might help a bit". That's not, to my mind, reason to spend trillions of dollars and throw millions out of work.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

The key problems, as I see it, are two.

1 Climate scientists have become so politicized that they have not merely stepped over the line between advocacy and neutral, unbiased study, they have completely erased it. As such, it's clear that they will only tell you what they think will support their cause, and will twist facts and supress others in order to convince you they're right. This is the type of behaviour we expect from politicians and used car salesmen, and how much reliability to we attach to what they tell us?

2 No one has yet established an "If/then" cause and effect to the proposed "solutions". There is only so far we can reduce CO2 emissions without going back to horses and buggies, so just what actual, known, certain affect will the current plans have? All i've seen so far is "well, it might help a bit". That's not, to my mind, reason to spend trillions of dollars and throw millions out of work.

Politicians are fools. They have the opportunity to put people to work in a fight to increase alternative energy production. The government could setup a nice little crown corporations to build wind turbines, solar panels and tidal productions systems. The provinces could set up provincial crown corporations to buy these things and install them to reduce their own and the municipal costs of our existing infrastructure. All that without stepping on the toes of existing business or existing markets.

Public transportation can cut into carbon foot prints in a large way, so the government can make a big difference just by switching over to some degree. Eliminate some downtown corridors to anything but public transportation for instance. Build LRT's to join bedroom communities to the major cities. There are many ways to do these things.

[noahbody]

this is a real difficult concept for you to grasp he's not a JOURNALIST!

Suzuki writes a weekly column in The Toronto Star and is a social activist for environmental causes.

http://www.backyardnature.com/cgi-bin/gt/tpl.h,content=423

the National is a news program,

There is a difference between a news story and commentary. A reporter should never give commentary within a news story. A news story should only be about fact; not speculation or opinion. Rex Murphy is a journalist, but he isn't a reporter. His segment is commentary.

[Michael Hardner]

The key problems, as I see it, are two.

1 Climate scientists have become so politicized that they have not merely stepped over the line between advocacy and neutral, unbiased study, they have completely erased it. As such, it's clear that they will only tell you what they think will support their cause, and will twist facts and supress others in order to convince you they're right. This is the type of behaviour we expect from politicians and used car salesmen, and how much reliability to we attach to what they tell us?

2 No one has yet established an "If/then" cause and effect to the proposed "solutions". There is only so far we can reduce CO2 emissions without going back to horses and buggies, so just what actual, known, certain affect will the current plans have? All i've seen so far is "well, it might help a bit". That's not, to my mind, reason to spend trillions of dollars and throw millions out of work.

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.

[myata]

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.

First of all there needs to be an evidence that any meaningful research is not being acknowledged, ie quality critically analysed and peer reviewed original scientific research being rejected or stalled. Till such evidence is presented and verified, all this skeptical hoopla can be safely discarded as at best, intellectual junk and possibly, deliberate political manipulations for ideological reasons.

[Michael Hardner]

First of all there needs to be an evidence that any meaningful research is not being acknowledged, ie quality critically analysed and peer reviewed original scientific research being rejected or stalled. Till such evidence is presented and verified, all this skeptical hoopla can be safely discarded as at best, intellectual junk and possibly, deliberate political manipulations for ideological reasons.

No there doesn't. This is a PR problem first and foremost, not a science problem. As such, it's no longer a useful tactic to point to ideology. It's time to get rid of divisive language and find a way forward.

[myata]

Except if there're political, ideological or commercial interests to avoid and resist moving forward at all cost and by any means available, bringing up "doubts" and "conspiracies" at any convenient moment.

That politico/idelogical movement exists there should be no doubt by now, just look at our PM.

[Michael Hardner]

Except if there're political, ideological or commercial interests to avoid and resist moving forward at all cost and by any means available, bringing up "doubts" and "conspiracies" at any convenient moment.

That politico/idelogical movement exists there should be no doubt by now, just look at our PM.

And there is the exact same type of mistrust on the other side, which is why we need a way forward. If we don't have a significant number of people behaving in an honest and positive way, we're screwed anyway so ...

[myata]

I fail to see the point though. Genuine questions about science can always be addressed in the professinal forum. Uninformed though, would make their opinions based on any number of factors influencing which is a treacherous and unpredictable business (like e.g. presidential elections). And there're obviously parties with vested interests (political, ideological, etc) looking to sway the opinions of the uninformed.

If one attempts to make an election campaign out of a serious scientific issue, it may just end up being a pendulum of public's beliefs and feelings that could have little or nothing to do with the science of things.

[Michael Hardner]

I fail to see the point though. Genuine questions about science can always be addressed in the professinal forum. Uninformed though, would make their opinions based on any number of factors influencing which is a treacherous and unpredictable business (like e.g. presidential elections). And there're obviously parties with vested interests (political, ideological, etc) looking to sway the opinions of the uninformed.

If one attempts to make an election campaign out of a serious scientific issue, it may just end up being a pendulum of public's beliefs and feelings that could have little or nothing to do with the science of things.

And so here we are. That last paragraph describes the current situation, and it seems that you're happy enough with how things unfold today.

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

[wyly]

http://www.backyardnature.com/cgi-bin/gt/tpl.h,content=423

There is a difference between a news story and commentary. A reporter should never give commentary within a news story. A news story should only be about fact; not speculation or opinion. Rex Murphy is a journalist, but he isn't a reporter. His segment is commentary.

disagree, he isn't a journalist he's pushing his own political opinion on a National news program that should be unbiased as possible, if he wants to be a shill then find another program to do it on not associated with the official news program...the National News already has a segment the "At Issue Panel" where real journalists can offer their own political biases...the only way he should be allowed on the National News is if he being interviewed by staff(real journalists)of the news program...next thing that will happen is we'll have Peter Mansbridge and Wendy Mesly giving their personal take on the news pushing their own political agenda, that's called PROPAGANDA not news...

Edited December 9, 2009 by wyly

[wyly]

Politicians are fools. They have the opportunity to put people to work in a fight to increase alternative energy production. The government could setup a nice little crown corporations to build wind turbines, solar panels and tidal productions systems. The provinces could set up provincial crown corporations to buy these things and install them to reduce their own and the municipal costs of our existing infrastructure. All that without stepping on the toes of existing business or existing markets.

Public transportation can cut into carbon foot prints in a large way, so the government can make a big difference just by switching over to some degree. Eliminate some downtown corridors to anything but public transportation for instance. Build LRT's to join bedroom communities to the major cities. There are many ways to do these things.

yes, green technology should be looked at as benefit/oppotunity, a change that will create millions of jobs...I'd love to have hydro thermal or solar heating but I can't afford it...some low cost loans backed by the government would entice me to make the switch, put money into the economy and create jobs...

[M.Dancer]

Beach front resorts on Frobisher Bay could be "looked at as benefit/oppotunity, a change that will create millions of jobs..." but nooooo.....

Has anyone clearly articulate why Climate Change is bad for Canada?

[wyly]

Has anyone clearly articulate why Climate Change is bad for Canada?

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...

[BrassTax]

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