CBC: Keeping Canadian Voters Confused by Paying Rex Murphy

[wyly]

"Scurrying and scrambling" imply that things happened in a hurry, but we have had over 20 years of discussion on this.

the greenhouse effect was known well over a hundred years ago...while the deniers claim that the Ice age was the consensus in the 70s it was in fact warming that was the dominant position back then not cooling, so nearly 40yrs of discussion...the public/media has just chosen to ignore it until this decade as warming sounded nice and fuzzy, unlike ICE AGE!

[wyly]

Isn't Brazil one of our key competitors in forestry.Is it really cold in Brazil?

"You didn't actually provide an answer,just an ill-thought out opinion. "...well talk about ill thought out opinions...do you ever think about anything of relevance before you post? Brazils forests are being stripped, the glaciers that supply the water to the rainforests are disappearing, when the glaciers are gone and the microclimate effect of the rainforest itself disappears so will the forests...and let me know the next time you se a home framed with ebony, teak, mahogany, Brazilian cherry etc, brazilian wood does not replace Canadian wood...the Amazon is headed toward grassland at best more likely desert...

I don't think they'll all melt, and if they do then the water has to go somewhere - freshwater lake perhaps.

why is some magical sky pixie going to designate which glaciers melt and which don't, they're all receding ...and what do you suppose feeds those lakes with water, do they magically replenish themselves?...the glacier that supply's Calgary with it's primary water supply will be gone in 30yrs...after that we rely on whatever snow pack accumulates during the winters ..

Who says there'll be less rain on the prairies?

not a 100% that it will(that's why it's called Climate Change) but it the most likely scenario...look to the south and see what the american states have and it's very likely what's coming our way...

[waldo]

Eugenics 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.

oh my! Your sinking to the likes of McIntyre is one thing... but really... c'mon, Glenn Beck? Really? Eugenics = AGW Climate Change... Really? Oh my!

"Al Gore's not going to be rounding up Jews and exterminating them. It is the same tactic, however. The goal is different. The goal is globalization. The goal is global carbon tax. The goal is the United Nations running the world. That is the goal. Back in the 1930s, the goal was get rid of all of the Jews and have one global government." He continued: "You got to have an enemy to fight. And when you have an enemy to fight, then you can unite the entire world behind you, and you seize power. That was Hitler's plan. His enemy: the Jew. Al Gore's enemy, the U.N.'s enemy: global warming." Beck added: "Then you get the scientists -- eugenics. You get the scientists -- global warming. Then you have to discredit the scientists who say, 'That's not right.' And you must silence all dissenting voices. That's what Hitler did."

[Riverwind]

Eugenics = AGW Climate Change... Really?

Really. Care to offer a counter argument? The parallels are obvious.

When we first started to understand the nature of genetics and evolution there was a group of people who felt that allowing bad genes to propogate would eventually undermine the health of the human race. They then sought to justify policies that took away individual freedoms based on the premise that they were protecting the future human race from harm.

Fast forward to today.

We have a group of people who felt that allowing CO2 to build up in the atmosphere would eventually undermine the climate that the human race needs to survive. They now seek to justify justify policies that take away individual freedoms basedd on the premise that they were protecting the future human race from harm.

I see no difference. In both cases science is used as excuse to justify social control.

If this debate was really about economics then there we would talking about adaptation because taht is the only economic option available.

[fellowtraveller]

To get back to your question... yes Rex Murphy should be allowed to present his views on climate change. His is commentary based on opinion and I do not see how it is represented by anything more. If he admits that his experts are not climate scientists, but investment bankers or oil lobbyists or whatever, only the very stupid would confuse his opinion with fact.

The CBC employs Don Cherry. Do they fact-check everything he tees off on? No. Rex Murphy is more entertainer than real news guy. Kind of like Rick Mercer, but much uglier and less funny.

Murphy did not present any views on climate change, his comments were on the topic of science vs politics.

Perhaps you could be more rigorous when viewing. You could not be less rigorous

[wyly]

Really. Care to offer a counter argument? The parallels are obvious.

When we first started to understand the nature of genetics and evolution there was a group of people who felt that allowing bad genes to propogate would eventually undermine the health of the human race. They then sought to justify policies that took away individual freedoms based on the premise that they were protecting the future human race from harm.

Fast forward to today.

We have a group of people who felt that allowing CO2 to build up in the atmosphere would eventually undermine the climate that the human race needs to survive. They now seek to justify justify policies that take away individual freedoms basedd on the premise that they were protecting the future human race from harm.

I see no difference. In both cases science is used as excuse to justify social control.

If this debate was really about economics then there we would talking about adaptation because taht is the only economic option available.

ahh now we're back to the global conspiracy and alien anal probes from area 51 used to control our brains...and then the socialists will steal our money, ...all true I heard it from PM Harper and riverwind...

[myata]

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 ?

No, everyone may not be able to always inform themselves, although that's what they should attempt as often as possible, if they want to be thinking and responsible citizens. And our society has sophisticated system of finding, processing and delivering information to citizens. Overall, I do not believe there's a lack of information on climate change around us, but of course it is not at the level of near unavoidable propaganda (should it be where?). If the regular average citizen isn't interested enough to find material for themselves (on a website, in a book, library, lecture, etc); or isn't willing to act if at all possible, or both; then I do not know what can be done for them, short of a serious brainwasing session.

A number of signs point to citizens' apathy at the core of the issue (polls, reaction to "green shift", lukewarm attitude from both main parties. It may change with time, but I simply don't see either practical possibility, nor a viable vehicle for a quick turnaround.

[Michael Hardner]

No, everyone may not be able to always inform themselves, although that's what they should attempt as often as possible, if they want to be thinking and responsible citizens. And our society has sophisticated system of finding, processing and delivering information to citizens. Overall, I do not believe there's a lack of information on climate change around us, but of course it is not at the level of near unavoidable propaganda (should it be where?). If the regular average citizen isn't interested enough to find material for themselves (on a website, in a book, library, lecture, etc); or isn't willing to act if at all possible, or both; then I do not know what can be done for them, short of a serious brainwasing session.

But the thing is - they WILL seek out information, even passively, by hearing others speak about it. This is the nature of mass society.

The Ontario government regularly polls the electorate to see if they're "aware" of government programs. That is a low bar, but an attainable bar - to be "aware" of things. Kind of like being 1/2 asleep.

And yet, these are the same people who vote so they must be taken seriously.

A number of signs point to citizens' apathy at the core of the issue (polls, reaction to "green shift", lukewarm attitude from both main parties. It may change with time, but I simply don't see either practical possibility, nor a viable vehicle for a quick turnaround.

I think efforts need to be taken to engage the public, and opinion makers directly. The environmentalists have to venture out of the bear's cage - maybe even try to go on Rush's show... what a depressing thought that is...

[myata]

But the thing is - they WILL seek out information, even passively, by hearing others speak about it. I think efforts need to be taken to engage the public, and opinion makers directly. The environmentalists have to venture out of the bear's cage - maybe even try to go on Rush's show... what a depressing thought that is...

I guess there's always two (at least) ways of looking at things. You want to see it as a challenge for the scientists and environmentalists, me - for the society itself. I think mine is more general and democratic, it does not presume that one part of society somehow carries greater responsibility for its development than others.

[Michael Hardner]

I guess there's always two (at least) ways of looking at things. You want to see it as a challenge for the scientists and environmentalists, me - for the society itself. I think mine is more general and democratic, it does not presume that one part of society somehow carries greater responsibility for its development than others.

I also see it as a challenge for society itself, which includes scientists and our institutions. Rather than parse out responsibilities, we could look at ways that our current configuration is failing and adapt and evolve.

[M.Dancer]

The Ontario government regularly polls the electorate to see if they're "aware" of government programs. That is a low bar, but an attainable bar - to be "aware" of things.

I wasn't aware of that.

[August1991]

Well, this thread has certainly been hijacked. I thought it was about Rex Murphy and the CBC.

ahh now we're back to the global conspiracy and alien anal probes from area 51 used to control our brains...and then the socialists will steal our money, ...all true I heard it from PM Harper and riverwind...

Riverwind's comparison of climate change theory and eugenics is not at all misplaced. Just a few decades ago, even such "progressive" people as Tommy Douglas believed taht homosexuality was a disease to be treated.

The past offers ample cases where scientists or various experts were wrong. Kepler was convinced that the Sun revolved around the Earth. Einstein refused to accept quantum mechanics. In 1870, most physicists were convinced that light was a wave transmitted through ether. More recently, many experts were convinced that the year 2000 would cause all manner of computer failures. Do you remember the fad of super-conducting at room temperature? The common medical practice into the 19th century was to bleed ill people.

This is not to say that scientists or experts are always wrong. If they were, buildings would always fall down. It is obvious now that tobacco is dangerous to health and that having the Earth revolve around the Sun is a better representation of reality. Newton's idea of gravity is not perfect but it's good enough.

Which is to say also that wyly, you arewrong to claim that anyone who questions AGW (or even basic climate models) is somehow equivalent to someone who questions the holocaust, or question the official version of 9/11.

IMV, the purpose of a modern education should be to make citizens into not sceptics but intelligent sceptics. That to me is the heart of western civilization and the scientific method. No intelligent sceptic would question 9/11. It is perfectly reasonable to question climate models.

So, I happen to think that Phil Jones, Michael Mann et al made a grave mistake when they claimed that their theories were "settled science". That was pure hubris. They may well prove right but at this stage (and I'm no expert), we just don't know enough.

Edited December 11, 2009 by August1991

[Michael Hardner]

I wasn't aware of that.

Interesting story... one night in the pub I met a guy who did just this for the Ontario government... once he explained it, I quietly explained to him that I didn't agree with what he did... that I was against it... for awhile he thought I didn't understand what he did but I understood very well...

By the end of the night he was yelling at me, because I had accused him of everything that's wrong with politics. I still think I was right. He really wasn't expecting to meet someone like me, I guess.

[Michael Hardner]

Well, this thread has certainly been hijacked. I thought it was about Rex Murphy and the CBC.

Guilty as charged.

[Keepitsimple]

Well, this thread has certainly been hijacked. I thought it was about Rex Murphy and the CBC.

Riverwind's comparison of climate change theory and eugenics is not at all misplaced. Just a few decades ago, even such "progressive" people as Tommy Douglas believed taht homosexuality was a disease to be treated.

The past offers ample cases where scientists or various experts were wrong. Kepler was convinced that the Sun revolved around the Earth. Einstein refused to accept quantum mechanics. In 1870, most physicists were convinced that light was a wave transmitted through ether. More recently, many experts were convinced that the year 2000 would cause all manner of computer failures. Do you remember the fad of super-conducting at room temperature? The common medical practice into the 19th century was to bleed ill people.

This is not to say that scientists or experts are always wrong. If they were, buildings would always fall down. It is obvious now that tobacco is dangerous to health and that having the Earth revolve around the Sun is a better representation of reality. Newton's idea of gravity is not perfect but it's good enough.

Which is to say also that wyly, you arewrong to claim that anyone who questions AGW (or even basic climate models) is somehow equivalent to someone who questions the holocaust, or question the official version of 9/11.

IMV, the purpose of a modern education should be to make citizens into not sceptics but intelligent sceptics. That to me is the heart of western civilization and the scientific method. No intelligent sceptic would question 9/11. It is perfectly reasonable to question climate models.

So, I happen to think that Phil Jones, Michael Mann et al made a grave mistake when they claimed that their theories were "settled science". That was pure hubris. They may well prove right but at this stage (and I'm no expert), we just don't know enough.

Well said.

[myata]

Riverwind's comparison of climate change theory and eugenics is not at all misplaced. Just a few decades ago, even such "progressive" people as Tommy Douglas believed taht homosexuality was a disease to be treated.

A brilliant deduction! Climate change and eugenics are the same thing because... my apple happens to be green.

The past offers ample cases where scientists or various experts were wrong. Kepler was convinced that the Sun revolved around the Earth. Einstein refused to accept quantum mechanics. In 1870, most physicists were convinced that light was a wave transmitted through ether. More recently, many experts were convinced that the year 2000 would cause all manner of computer failures. Do you remember the fad of super-conducting at room temperature? The common medical practice into the 19th century was to bleed ill people.

It always pays to have a great hindsight. We're here and now though, lacking the benefit of sharing advice of an all knowing board poster from like two hundred years into the future. And so, on one side we have a consensus of great majority of experts and researchers in the field, while on the other - a ton of hot air gibberish, and a thoughtful observation that science was wrong before. Take a pick.

This is not to say that scientists or experts are always wrong. If they were, buildings would always fall down. It is obvious now that tobacco is dangerous to health and that having the Earth revolve around the Sun is a better representation of reality. Newton's idea of gravity is not perfect but it's good enough.

A wealth of priceless revelations!

Which is to say also that wyly, you arewrong to claim that anyone who questions AGW (or even basic climate models) is somehow equivalent to someone who questions the holocaust, or question the official version of 9/11.

Wait, haven't we already moved on to attempting to narrow down the meaning of "questioning"? Does it need to have any meaning, if/when published and critically reviewed by the community of qualified peers? Or any clueless gook would do, as long as it "questions" in the right direction?

IMV, the purpose of a modern education should be to make citizens into not sceptics but intelligent sceptics. That to me is the heart of western civilization and the scientific method. No intelligent sceptic would question 9/11. It is perfectly reasonable to question climate models.

Did it mean to say, "it's perfectly reasonable to question them intelligently"? The moment we have an evidence of qualified, peer reviewed counter argument to that theory, you can count me onboard of the right to "questioning", which is, as a matter of fact, a cornerstone of scientific process and both right and duty of any professional researcher. With an obvious, but highly important in the context of this discussion qualification that questions need to be meaningful and sound.

So, I happen to think that Phil Jones, Michael Mann et al made a grave mistake when they claimed that their theories were "settled science". That was pure hubris. They may well prove right but at this stage (and I'm no expert), we just don't know enough.

Great. So being not an expert, and not knowing enough, one can still reasonably "belive" that they (aforementioned) made a grave mistake? Why couldn't one also believe in Father Christmas and fairies?

Edited December 11, 2009 by myata

[noahbody]

Did it mean to say, "it's perfectly reasonable to question them intelligently"?

You really don't need a lot of intelligence to question the models at this point. Their predictions have shown to be false. So either the models are faulty (due to unknown variables), the data is faulty or both are faulty.

[Michael Hardner]

You really don't need a lot of intelligence to question the models at this point. Their predictions have shown to be false. So either the models are faulty (due to unknown variables), the data is faulty or both are faulty.

The predictions have not shown to be false. There are problems with their model, but keep in mind that the entire body of climate science has been looking into this, and is in consensus.

[waldo]

You really don't need a lot of intelligence to question the models at this point. Their predictions have shown to be false. So either the models are faulty (due to unknown variables), the data is faulty or both are faulty.

citation request:

- what models - from who/what?

- what "predictions" have shown to be false?

[Riverwind]

The predictions have not shown to be false. There are problems with their model, but keep in mind that the entire body of climate science has been looking into this, and is in consensus.

My personal weather model predicts that the temperature in Toronto tomorrow will be somewhere between -40degC and +40degC. Care to bet against it? Do you think you could prove it false? Should we invest $1 trillion based on the proven accuracy of my model?

You may think my example is absurd but the uncertainty in the climate models predictions is so large that virtually any plausible outcome can be declared to have been 'predicted' by the models. That is one can never argue that we should believe the climate models until they have been proven wrong. What we should be looking for is evidence that the models likely have errors or biases and the recent cooling/lack of warming is certainly evidence of that.

[Oleg Bach]

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.

There is no spector of doom regarding the weather. There really can not be any specultation that attempts to lead us out of a decade of hard work - climate distruction is much like a sink full of dirty dishes - You better do them before the mold and disease set in _it's work cleaning the earthly house...and people don't like working these days, even if their survival depends on it - You are delluded if you think you can skirt around the real issue - the issue called clean up ..we are like kids that want our allowance but do not want to actually do the chore.

[wyly]

Which is to say also that wyly, you arewrong to claim that anyone who questions AGW (or even basic climate models) is somehow equivalent to someone who questions the holocaust, or question the official version of 9/11.

claiming international conspiracies, "AGW is a socialist plot to steal our money"-PM Harper, is not intelligent questioning of science it's the confused paranoid ramblings of the scientifically ignorant..

IMV, the purpose of a modern education should be to make citizens into not sceptics but intelligent sceptics. That to me is the heart of western civilization and the scientific method. No intelligent sceptic would question 9/11. It is perfectly reasonable to question climate models.

20% of adult americans still believe the sun orbits the earth, 47% of adult americans don't know how long how it takes the earth to orbit the sun, combined that an scientific illiteracy of nearly 70%; many of the Canadians on this forum from the evidence of their posts here would fit right in that number as well...when you don't have the educational tools, asking intelligent questions and understanding the answers is impossible...

So, I happen to think that Phil Jones, Michael Mann et al made a grave mistake when they claimed that their theories were "settled science". That was pure hubris. They may well prove right but at this stage (and I'm no expert), we just don't know enough.

when someone who is not qualified such as yourself to pass scientific judgement on a field of study (Climatology) where 97% of the scientists say the issue is settled, but you claim otherwise...now that's pure hubris...

[waldo]

Eugenics 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.

oh my! Your sinking to the likes of McIntyre is one thing... but really... c'mon, Glenn Beck? Really? Eugenics = AGW Climate Change... Really? Oh my!

"Al Gore's not going to be rounding up Jews and exterminating them. It is the same tactic, however. The goal is different. The goal is globalization. The goal is global carbon tax. The goal is the United Nations running the world. That is the goal. Back in the 1930s, the goal was get rid of all of the Jews and have one global government." He continued: "You got to have an enemy to fight. And when you have an enemy to fight, then you can unite the entire world behind you, and you seize power. That was Hitler's plan. His enemy: the Jew. Al Gore's enemy, the U.N.'s enemy: global warming." Beck added: "

Then you get the scientists -- eugenics. You get the scientists -- global warming

. Then you have to discredit the scientists who say, 'That's not right.' And you must silence all dissenting voices. That's what Hitler did."

Really. Care to offer a counter argument? The parallels are obvious.

When we first started to understand the nature of genetics and evolution there was a group of people who felt that allowing bad genes to propogate would eventually undermine the health of the human race. They then sought to justify policies that took away individual freedoms based on the premise that they were protecting the future human race from harm.

Fast forward to today.

We have a group of people who felt that allowing CO2 to build up in the atmosphere would eventually undermine the climate that the human race needs to survive. They now seek to justify justify policies that take away individual freedoms basedd on the premise that they were protecting the future human race from harm.

I see no difference. In both cases science is used as excuse to justify social control.

If this debate was really about economics then there we would talking about adaptation because taht is the only economic option available.

What’s to counter? Your’s is a non sequitur position. Notwithstanding the racist pseudo-science eugenics did not have that overwhelming scientific consensus that AGW has…to argue that a theory is wrong because there is consensus… is absurd.

Eugenics was never entrenched within science, proper… spare me any tangent on down the genetics inheritance path. If you’re really so enamoured with the, uhhh… “science” of eugenics, I suggest you take up with the society that still, to this day, attempts to make a case for it – The Society for the Study of Social Biology… you’ll note, though, you won’t find the word eugenics anywhere… it is verboten!

There was also no overwhelming body of scientific evidence that had to be “countered” to dispel eugenics. Eugenics fell out of favour simply because it was recognized as an affront to fundamental human rights principles.

Perhaps you could elaborate on the, as you state, “policies that will take away individual freedoms”… what individual freedoms do you envision being lost by “whatever” policies, decision makers agree upon?

[Michael Hardner]

My personal weather model predicts that the temperature in Toronto tomorrow will be somewhere between -40degC and +40degC. Care to bet against it? Do you think you could prove it false? Should we invest $1 trillion based on the proven accuracy of my model?

You may think my example is absurd but the uncertainty in the climate models predictions is so large that virtually any plausible outcome can be declared to have been 'predicted' by the models. That is one can never argue that we should believe the climate models until they have been proven wrong. What we should be looking for is evidence that the models likely have errors or biases and the recent cooling/lack of warming is certainly evidence of that.

I don't think it's likely that an 80C variation is considered an accurate model. Is that really true ?

I also don't think that there's a lack of warming either. This last decade was the warmest on record, wasn't it ?

[noahbody]

The predictions have not shown to be false

.

Of course they have. Has temperature increased at the predicted rate? No. That makes the predictions of the model false.

There are problems with their model,

Yeah, it doesn't work. As I said, either variables are missing or the data is incorrect or both.

but keep in mind that the entire body of climate science has been looking into this, and is in consensus.

In consensus of what? That the models are accurate? Are you kidding me? The consensus at this time would have to be that the models have been wrong.