Keepitsimple Posted December 10, 2009 Report Posted December 10, 2009 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? No frustration Waldo.....as I said, I think it's important for you to demonstrate your blind allegiance to the IPCC and your unalterable view of catastrophic AGW. It's precisely such tunnel vision, close-mindedness and arrogance that has many scientists so upset with the CRU emails and all they represent......your attitude validates all that is said about alarmists and True Believers. Keep up the good work! Quote Back to Basics
wyly Posted December 10, 2009 Report Posted December 10, 2009 I think that it is hilarious that those that do not beleive in a religion are so easily able to worship at the goricals alter. I'm not laughing with you I'm laughing at you :lol: Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
wyly Posted December 10, 2009 Report Posted December 10, 2009 No frustration Waldo.....as I said, I think it's important for you to demonstrate your blind allegiance to the IPCC and your unalterable view of catastrophic AGW. It's precisely such tunnel vision, close-mindedness and arrogance that has many scientists so upset with the CRU emails and all they represent......your attitude validates all that is said about alarmists and True Believers. Keep up the good work! have you ever posted anything other than to parrot riverwind?... seriously have you ever posted anything of sound scientific relevance in regards to the issue and been able to back it up??? Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
myata Posted December 10, 2009 Report Posted December 10, 2009 Well, the IPCC could do it as part of their mandate to make their research known to the world, couldn't they ? I certainly agree that it could do more to keep the public informed about the current state of the research and its implications for our future. However I'll qualify that by saying that such actions are desired (by me; maybe some other folks concerned about where these developments will take us), but by no means required of IPCC. The responsibility of an expert is to judge the expert matter, to the best of their ability and in good faith; it cannot be demanded of them to educate and convince others, no, it's up to us, the rest of population to heed the advice of specialists or ignore it (as we were given to in our earlier, less prosperous ages). Just like a doctor will determine a diagnosis and propose a treatment, but in no way required to convince the patient to take it. Quote If it's you or them, the truth is equidistant
Michael Hardner Posted December 10, 2009 Report Posted December 10, 2009 I certainly agree that it could do more to keep the public informed about the current state of the research and its implications for our future. However I'll qualify that by saying that such actions are desired (by me; maybe some other folks concerned about where these developments will take us), but by no means required of IPCC. The responsibility of an expert is to judge the expert matter, to the best of their ability and in good faith; it cannot be demanded of them to educate and convince others, no, it's up to us, the rest of population to heed the advice of specialists or ignore it (as we were given to in our earlier, less prosperous ages). Just like a doctor will determine a diagnosis and propose a treatment, but in no way required to convince the patient to take it. What does that mean 'required of IPCC' ? They have a moral obligation as scientists to see that their work is applied to the betterment of the human race and this is part of that. The doctor is required to explain to the patient that he needs to take it, and indeed you'll see that medical associations will express concern about societal health problems such as obesity all the time. Democracy + internet is a reality and they need to adjust to it if they care at all. Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
Argus Posted December 10, 2009 Report Posted December 10, 2009 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. You don't think the possibility that key scientific bodies are altering data to suit their own preconceived theories is a "science problem"? Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted December 10, 2009 Report Posted December 10, 2009 ask the lumber industry about the damage caused by insects that are normally killed by past colder winters ... Isn't Brazil one of our key competitors in forestry.Is it really cold in Brazil? ask the farmers of the prairies which is a near desert now if they could survive with less rain... Who says there'll be less rain on the prairies? ask the city of Calgary population 1,000,000 if could make due without the freshwater from the glaciers... I don't think they'll all melt, and if they do then the water has to go somewhere - freshwater lake perhaps. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
myata Posted December 10, 2009 Report Posted December 10, 2009 (edited) They have a moral obligation as scientists... Now we are talking about moral obligations of others, and all before we even had a chance to think about ones of our own. Why would it sound so familiar to moral obligation of India and Cayman Islands to show us the way to a greener future? No, the moral obligation to think or not, the choice of being smart or the opposite, active or lazy, etc is ours and ours only. And as is with choices, it'll eventually determine who (and where) we'll end up. ...to see that their work is applied to the betterment of the human race and this is part of that. in this you may be mistaken. Many scientists do their work because it's of interest to them, and they take no greater obligation "for betterment", any more than any other member of society. The doctor is required to explain to the patient that he needs to take it, and indeed you'll see that medical associations will express concern about societal health problems such as obesity all the time. Nice of them, and as a matter of goodwill, but no professional obligation or expectation that they'll take greater responsibility for our health than us ourselves. Democracy + internet is a reality and they need to adjust to it if they care at all. No, they only "need" to comply with the professional standard and come up with the best research possible. Some will be compelled or interested in sharing their knowledge with general public, but nobody and in way is obligated to do so. If we want to decide the fate of our society, we are also ultimately responsible to obtain information to make a good decision. Nobody else. Edited December 10, 2009 by myata Quote If it's you or them, the truth is equidistant
Michael Hardner Posted December 10, 2009 Report Posted December 10, 2009 You don't think the possibility that key scientific bodies are altering data to suit their own preconceived theories is a "science problem"? It's primarily a PR problem, I think - but maybe the investigation will turn up some widespread conspiracy theory. I highly doubt it, though. Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
Argus Posted December 10, 2009 Report Posted December 10, 2009 I've been switching stations for years everytime he comes on, even commercials for detergent provide more relevant information... I assure you it's not news to any of us that your mind is closed and that you can't stand opinions which differ from your own. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted December 10, 2009 Report Posted December 10, 2009 The praries were a desert in the 30s....melting glaciers might cause an iceage...problem fixed. [\quote] ask a question then dodge the answer, nothing new here... You didn't actually provide an answer,just an ill-thought out opinion. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Michael Hardner Posted December 10, 2009 Report Posted December 10, 2009 Now we are talking about moral obligations of others, and all before we even had a chance to think about ones of our own. Why would it sound so familiar to moral obligation of India and Cayman Islands to show us the way to a greener future? No, the moral obligation to think or not, the choice of being smart or the opposite, active or lazy, etc is ours and ours only. And as is with choices, it'll eventually determine who (and where) we'll end up. Every individual needs to make their own moral choices, obviously. I don't understand your question about India and Cayman Islands. in this you may be mistaken. Many scientists do their work because it's of interest to them, and they take no greater obligation "for betterment", any more than any other member of society. The Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change is the leading body for the assessment of climate change, established by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) to provide the world with a clear scientific view on the current state of climate change and its potential environmental and socio-economic consequences. Nice of them, and as a matter of goodwill, but no professional obligation or expectation that they'll take greater responsibility for our health than us ourselves. You keep saying "ourselves" but why do I think you're talking about other people other than yourself. Why are you here if not to discuss and convince others ? No, they only "need" to comply with the professional standard and come up with the best research possible. Some will be compelled or interested in sharing their knowledge with general public, but nobody and in way is obligated to do so. If we want to decide the fate of our society, we are also ultimately responsible to obtain information to make a good decision. Nobody else. Unfortunately, information flows through society in an illogical and haphazard way and that fact needs to be taken into account when we're talking about convincing citizens of the need for policy change. Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
Argus Posted December 10, 2009 Report Posted December 10, 2009 It's primarily a PR problem, I think - but maybe the investigation will turn up some widespread conspiracy theory. I highly doubt it, though. Why is it so many people insantly accept that research funded by oil companies and the like should be invalidated due the belief those firms would only put out biased research, yet few seem to consider the bias inherent in the research provided by bodies and individuals whose entire reason d'etre, whose livelihoods depend on reaffirming the dire danger of man-made climate change? Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Michael Hardner Posted December 10, 2009 Report Posted December 10, 2009 Why is it so many people insantly accept that research funded by oil companies and the like should be invalidated due the belief those firms would only put out biased research, yet few seem to consider the bias inherent in the research provided by bodies and individuals whose entire reason d'etre, whose livelihoods depend on reaffirming the dire danger of man-made climate change? I would contend that the livlihood of a scientist is tied to discovering knowledge, and that people go into science in order to pursue that. The goal of an oil company is to make money. Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
Riverwind Posted December 10, 2009 Report Posted December 10, 2009 (edited) I would contend that the livlihood of a scientist is tied to discovering knowledge, and that people go into science in order to pursue that. The goal of an oil company is to make money.One cannot 'discover knowledge' without funding and no scientist can avoid being influenced by the needs of the source of funding. Edited December 10, 2009 by Riverwind Quote To fly a plane, you need both a left wing and a right wing.
Michael Hardner Posted December 10, 2009 Report Posted December 10, 2009 One cannot 'discover knowledge' without funding and no scientist can avoid being influenced by the needs of the source of funding. Since we're all human, we're all influenced by such things - but the question is whether that influence changes the results of the research. In the case of CO2's impact on the atmosphere, there is a broad consensus that the changes we're seeing is caused by humans. As such, there would have to be a broad conspiracy, not just influence, in order for this consensus to have taken place. Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
Alta4ever Posted December 10, 2009 Report Posted December 10, 2009 I'm not laughing with you I'm laughing at you :lol: Dont worry I've been laughing at your infantile posts since the start. Quote "What about the legitimacy of the democratic process, yeah, what about it?" Jack Layton and his coup against the people of Canada “The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help.’” President Ronald Reagan
myata Posted December 10, 2009 Report Posted December 10, 2009 I don't understand your question about India and Cayman Islands. Harper's idea that we here will move only if/when China and India show the way. All about searching for moral obligations of others as a way to avoid acting ourselves. ... to provide the world with a clear scientific view on the current state of climate change and its potential environmental and socio-economic consequences. OK, if they took it in their mandate, point taken. They aren't doing great job publicising and promoting the results of leading research on climate change. You keep saying "ourselves" but why do I think you're talking about other people other than yourself. Why are you here if not to discuss and convince others ? I only want to stress that in this conundrum society has as much obligation to learn, understand and act on the specialists advice, as the scientists are obligated to deliver sound research. Unfortunately, information flows through society in an illogical and haphazard way and that fact needs to be taken into account when we're talking about convincing citizens of the need for policy change. OK, we really need to understand who is convincing who. Parties, organisations, popular movements (only the Greens and maybe NDP are solidly onboard - the main begemoths want to tread very softly, if at all) can promote policy change. Scientific community must deliver solid, high quality research and can help by explaining and popularising it. But the ultimate choice will be eventually left to society itself, the average citizen. If the citizens, the majority of them do not show active interest to event, will to act and change, I'm afraid that all the hard work of convincing would be for naught or very close to it. Quote If it's you or them, the truth is equidistant
Argus Posted December 10, 2009 Report Posted December 10, 2009 I would contend that the livlihood of a scientist is tied to discovering knowledge, and that people go into science in order to pursue that. The goal of an oil company is to make money. If someone came out tomorrow and proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that climate change had nothing to do with CO2 emissions Phil Jones would be a laughingstock and his reputation in ruins, as would his organization, as would all the other dedicated and zealous sheep who hae staked reputations on it. Who would fund Jones to investigate anything after that? Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted December 10, 2009 Report Posted December 10, 2009 Since we're all human, we're all influenced by such things - but the question is whether that influence changes the results of the research. In the case of CO2's impact on the atmosphere, there is a broad consensus that the changes we're seeing is caused by humans. As such, there would have to be a broad conspiracy, not just influence, in order for this consensus to have taken place. I disagree. A few cliques of climate scientists put out charts based on evidence they don't release. Everyone looks at the charts and thinks they're real. Alarmists like Gore start shouting about the world coming to an end, the media starts scurrying and the enviro groups start scrambling, and in the midst of all that it's kind of lost that only a very, very, very few people have ever actually seen the key evidence, or have the scientific credentials to attempt to duplicate the computer models based upon that evidence. And if you're one of thoe key scientists, are you going to suddenly admit - whoops, uhm, I think maybe we made a mistake... ? Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
myata Posted December 10, 2009 Report Posted December 10, 2009 Somebody has proven that evolution exists, i.e it can actually be observed in an experiments with thousands generations of livings things (Wikipedia: e-coli experiment, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment). That in no way prevents ideology driven ignorants from arguing tooth and nail that life was created by God. There's no way to prove or explain to somebody who refuses to see. In the end, it's a matter of vision. There can be a society that lives based on irrational traditions and beliefs, and one where decisions are made based on considerations of reason and knowledge. Eventually it's up to us to make that choice, and it has to be made over and again, at each major crosspoint and generation, as future is never assured or given, but earned with choice and act. Quote If it's you or them, the truth is equidistant
Riverwind Posted December 10, 2009 Report Posted December 10, 2009 (edited) Somebody has proven that evolution existsEugenics was a political movement based on a the 'science' of evolution. AGW is a political movement based on the 'science' of climate. Both movements seek to use science as instrument of social control and both are equally vile.If you believe that people should be forced to comply with punative anti-CO2 regulations because the science says the human race my be put at risk in 100 years then you must also believe that people should be forced to comply with punative anti-procreation regulations because the science of evolution says that human race may be put at risk 100 years from now. Edited December 10, 2009 by Riverwind Quote To fly a plane, you need both a left wing and a right wing.
Michael Hardner Posted December 10, 2009 Report Posted December 10, 2009 Harper's idea that we here will move only if/when China and India show the way. All about searching for moral obligations of others as a way to avoid acting ourselves. Harper is a politician, so he will move if there's a popular will to action. I only want to stress that in this conundrum society has as much obligation to learn, understand and act on the specialists advice, as the scientists are obligated to deliver sound research. But, just as you can't expect everyone to take care of themselves in all situations, you can't expect everyone to inform themselves properly. We have welfare and social safety net for people who fail to even take care of themselves, so we can't assume that the general public will seek out scientific literature to make an opinion can we ? OK, we really need to understand who is convincing who. Parties, organisations, popular movements (only the Greens and maybe NDP are solidly onboard - the main begemoths want to tread very softly, if at all) can promote policy change. Scientific community must deliver solid, high quality research and can help by explaining and popularising it. But the ultimate choice will be eventually left to society itself, the average citizen. If the citizens, the majority of them do not show active interest to event, will to act and change, I'm afraid that all the hard work of convincing would be for naught or very close to it. Agreed. Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
Michael Hardner Posted December 10, 2009 Report Posted December 10, 2009 If someone came out tomorrow and proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that climate change had nothing to do with CO2 emissions Phil Jones would be a laughingstock and his reputation in ruins, as would his organization, as would all the other dedicated and zealous sheep who hae staked reputations on it. Who would fund Jones to investigate anything after that? No one. Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
Michael Hardner Posted December 10, 2009 Report Posted December 10, 2009 I disagree. A few cliques of climate scientists put out charts based on evidence they don't release. Everyone looks at the charts and thinks they're real. Alarmists like Gore start shouting about the world coming to an end, the media starts scurrying and the enviro groups start scrambling, and in the midst of all that it's kind of lost that only a very, very, very few people have ever actually seen the key evidence, or have the scientific credentials to attempt to duplicate the computer models based upon that evidence. And if you're one of thoe key scientists, are you going to suddenly admit - whoops, uhm, I think maybe we made a mistake... ? These events happened over the early 1990s, and yes - scientists made mistakes, disputed data, and eventually arrived at consensus. It isn't a few scientists here, it's many of them - likely most of them, I would think. I mean, what else has climate science been concerned with other than Global Warming, for the past 20 years. "Scurrying and scrambling" imply that things happened in a hurry, but we have had over 20 years of discussion on this. Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
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.