Jump to content

H1N1 and Climate Change


Recommended Posts

does your clownish response presume to allow you a semblance of back-tracking? Ya see, Pliny, when trending is being discussed, aspects of that trending will be discussed - aspects that have nothing to do with your presumptions towards weather vs. climate. In this particular case the discussion centered upon Spencer manipulating his UAH presentation (via scale) to purposely de-emphasize trend incline and to, effectively, eliminate 2009 entirely... you know, Pliny - the endpoints of that trend line. I'm surprised you would want to continue any focus on Spencer "hiding the incline" :lol:

The end line is weather. The trend is cooling.

excellent Pliny! Let's see that IPCC confirmation that upholds Riverwind's claim touting a global cooling trend... you really are an idiot.

You look it up. It's on the other thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 418
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Michael, your attempts to point out the extremism on either side of the debate is recognized... your attempts to steer the discussion towards the actual science are most appreciated. Certainly, myata also tried to bring forward a less personalized and more targeted approach/methodology to the discussions, suggesting a proposal that would allow skeptics to bring forward their favoured challenges to the existing consensus on AGW global warming - unfortunately, MLW skeptic/deniers would have no part of it... apparently, an inability to quote-mine from the denier blog scientists threatened the comfort zone of MLW skeptic/deniers and, of course, being focused toward the actual science equally threatened the MLW skeptic/deniers - go figure!
Myata's 'offer' was joke because he insisted on unilaterally setting the terms of the discussion. If he was really interested in having a reasoned debate he would have been open to negotiating the terms of debate. By refusing he demonstrated that he was acting in bad faith and was not really interested in a reasoned debate.

As far as debating AGW goes all you seem to do is cut and paste. You don't understand the issues and when the issues are explained to you flail around and then cut and paste more stuff that has nothing to do with the point being made. You are the classic example of the Dunning-Kruger effect. I have much more interesting discussions with alarmists on other boards who understand the material enough to actually have a debate.

I don't seem to recall you offering alternatives - more pointedly, you didn't explicitly state what part of myata's 'terms' were unacceptable... what was wrong with them, other than you would be forced to actually deal with the science itself? I'm surprised you stopped short in only accusing myata of bad faith... I'm surprised you didn't include him within your conspiracy framework.

about that cooling trend you spoke to... how are you coming along with presenting your support/citations to substantiate your cooling trend claim? Actually, you're the classic example of Dunning-Kruger - all noise while offering up little reference, if any, to any actual published science. As for cut/paste, buddy... after the number of times you've linked directly to and quoted from your hero McIntyre's site - yeesh!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The end line is weather. The trend is cooling.

You look it up. It's on the other thread.

then you should have no problem showing/linking to something... anything... to support your generic stated global cooling trend claim.

in regards your specific reference to the IPCC offering confirmation of a global cooling trend, it's actually bloody amazing that the constant drumbeat around here has been about the IPCC exaggerating AGW global warming... yet, somehow Pliny, in the face of those accusation towards the IPCC exaggeration, you come up with this gem that the IPCC actually confirms a global cooling trend. Are you accusing the IPCC of exaggerating the cooling trend? :lol:

(of course, notwithstanding, IPCC AR4 is now somewhat dated and is actually being described as "conservative" in relation to the observed temperature/warming.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So what's your interest in this, Waldo?

Did you write a book about how to survive the upcoming climate change?

You write for an environmental magazine?

You are a weatherman?

You own a piece of ice in the Arctic?

You are atoning for sins committed against the environment?

You are doing a class project?

You want to be Minister of the Environment when you run for office in the Green party?

Quite frankly, you haven't really stated why you believe AGW other than the scientific consensus holds the THEORY true. The "A" part of AGW is still a bit contentious in my view and it is after all a "theory".

If what you want to do is point out the scientific literature and peer reviewed studies while denigrating any adversarial viewpoint then you are doing a fine job.

Speaking for myself, I am well aware of the political/media concensus on AGW theory, and the political/media consensus is based upon political/media advantage, both cater to alarmism to their advantage. This is the human element in the argument that you totally deny could ever have any possible existence in the realm of scientific study. I understand your necessity for mechanical logic absent of human emotional bias but scientists being human cannot entirely eliminate it. Science could never be void of it anyway because machines don't ask questions and have no purpose to understand, neither do they have ambition, or emotional needs.

I understand you personally will have a lot to lose if this anthropogenic global warming thing proves to have it's base solely in furthering political/environmental interests. It isn't a conspiracy though it is called "gaining market advantage". It is a capitalistic thing to want to gain advantage and hopping on the bandwagon in your own personal interest or interests early is part of that. It may look like a claim for conspiracy but that would be a rather paranoid concept to entertain.

So how are you gaining from AGW? You own a bottle recycling depot?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

then you should have no problem showing/linking to something... anything... to support your generic stated global cooling trend claim.

Nope. No problem at all.

in regards your specific reference to the IPCC offering confirmation of a global cooling trend, it's actually bloody amazing that the constant drumbeat around here has been about the IPCC exaggerating AGW global warming... yet, somehow Pliny, in the face of those accusation towards the IPCC exaggeration, you come up with this gem that the IPCC actually confirms a global cooling trend. Are you accusing the IPCC of exaggerating the cooling trend? :lol:

The statement was they didn't know why the models were not making correct predictions.

The predictions were indeed exaggerated in favour of warming. Didn't pan out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michael... your point is well taken; however, on this board, that ship sailed long ago. As I recall, in that early period when all the global warming related threads started to appear, there was an initial degree of decorum that passed rather quickly. I fully acknowledge two-sided contributions to that loss of decorum, although I also appreciate different boards have varying degrees of limp-wristed, thin skinned individuals who take offense to most anything.

To unfurl the sails on your metaphor a little further: the ship never reaches port ! Steady the wheel !

The problem isn't GW, or AGW, it's that we have lost our way to hammer out a way forward. Not that we were ever good at facing such problems, but it seems to me to be getting worse.

If you went to other conservative boards, you would soon start to appreciate the level of debate your opponents here are exhibiting, I think.

I'm sorry to be the granny nitpicker on this, and everybody loves a good fistfight but... if I'm not active on threads, then I'm sitting there with my popcorn reading them. I've always been a fan of the relative decorum on MLW and I always learn more when the discussion is fact versus fact.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So what's your interest in this, Waldo?

If what you want to do is point out the scientific literature and peer reviewed studies while denigrating any adversarial viewpoint then you are doing a fine job.

thanks – not everyone gets a Pliny endorsement!

Speaking for myself, I am well aware of the political/media concensus on AGW theory, and the political/media consensus is based upon political/media advantage, both cater to alarmism to their advantage. This is the human element in the argument that you totally deny could ever have any possible existence in the realm of scientific study. I understand your necessity for mechanical logic absent of human emotional bias but scientists being human cannot entirely eliminate it. Science could never be void of it anyway because machines don't ask questions and have no purpose to understand, neither do they have ambition, or emotional needs.

political consensus that accepts the AGW global warming theory? – possibly… in our own little North American sphere, Harper Conservatives are hardly embracing that scientific consensus. Yes, certainly, Obama has been instrumental in realizing commitments that speak to accepting that scientific consensus (eg. G8 statement and the Copenhagen ‘framework’); however, does a year of the Obama admin override 2 terms of the denying Bush administration?

media consensus that accepts the AGW global warming theory? – hardly… mainstream media simply reports while barely investigating; hence, loud denier noise proliferates. Non-traditional media, to me, seems to have a disproportionate number of outlets that simply report on the mainstream offerings. Certainly, you will find more in-depth analysis being undertaken within non-traditional media; however, I don’t see a significant imbalance that favours an acceptance of the scientific consensus by the media.

you’ve certainly not made your case to suggest political/media consensus that accepts the AGW global warming theory… and most certainly, the media responds to both sides of the debate, with the loud noise denier side frequently reported on. If you’re trying to suggest an, as you say, “human element” imbalance by scientists of one side of the debate over scientists of the other side of the debate… an imbalance intended to influence the political/media acceptance (or not) of the scientific consensus… then you’ve not provided a foundation to support that suggestion. It certainly doesn't even flow from the fact there are many... many... many more scientists (i.e. the overwhelming majority) that accept the AGW theory. In actuality, there’s been a consistent strong past criticism laid against that overwhelming majority of scientists that support the AGW theory… criticism that suggests they’ve been too focused on the science to the detriment of properly conveying the message – the science, to the media, to politicians, to the ‘layman’. That criticism certainly doesn’t play to your suggestion about an over-reaching, influence peddling, human emotional bias from the overwhelming majority of scientists at work… certainly not one that’s been effective/successful.

I understand you personally will have a lot to lose if this anthropogenic global warming thing proves to have it's base solely in furthering political/environmental interests. It isn't a conspiracy though it is called "gaining market advantage". It is a capitalistic thing to want to gain advantage and hopping on the bandwagon in your own personal interest or interests early is part of that. It may look like a claim for conspiracy but that would be a rather paranoid concept to entertain.

you’re deep Pliny – very deep! In any case, how do you deny socio-economic interests in your reduced ‘solely furthering’ scenario, or technological advance/advantage, or…

So how are you gaining from AGW? You own a bottle recycling depot?

you’ve already claimed I will have a "lot to lose"; accordingly, you should be able to answer your own question about how, as you say, I’m “gaining” from AGW.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

then you should have no problem showing/linking to something... anything... to support your generic stated global cooling trend claim.
Nope. No problem at all.

excellent Pliny - I look forward to you actually presenting citation that presents factual data evidence to support your generic statement towards a legitimate global cooling trend.

in regards your specific reference to the IPCC offering confirmation of a global cooling trend, it's actually bloody amazing that the constant drumbeat around here has been about the IPCC exaggerating AGW global warming... yet, somehow Pliny, in the face of those accusation towards the IPCC exaggeration, you come up with this gem that the IPCC actually confirms a global cooling trend. Are you accusing the IPCC of exaggerating the cooling trend? :lol:

(of course, notwithstanding, IPCC AR4 is now somewhat dated and is actually being described as "conservative" in relation to the observed temperature/warming.)

The statement was they didn't know why the models were not making correct predictions. The predictions were indeed exaggerated in favour of warming. Didn't pan out.

very interesting Pliny - you'll need to present that statement for actual comment; however, even if it was 'accurate' (which it isn't), you would presume to use model prediction as the basis to actually present factual data evidence of a legitimate global cooling trend? You would presume to do that Pliny?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

excellent Pliny - I look forward to you actually presenting citation that presents factual data evidence to support your generic statement towards a legitimate global cooling trend.

very interesting Pliny - you'll need to present that statement for actual comment; however, even if it was 'accurate' (which it isn't), you would presume to use model prediction as the basis to actually present factual data evidence of a legitimate global cooling trend? You would presume to do that Pliny?

Of course, Waldo. Everything is ok.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We've been over that particular ditty many times now - "hiding in plain sight"! When the basis for the presentation is soundly understood within dendroclimatology... when the authors definitively and absolutely define what they're doing, nothing is being hidden.
It basically crap that Briffa pulled out of a** in order to salvage what would otherwise be a useless reconstruction. He needed to hide the decline in the public graphs because showing it would make it painfully clear that his tree rings were garbage. It was dishonest.
normally you don't fall to your complete and absolute obtuse side that often... divergence within dendroclimatology is not, obviously, as you say, "Briffa's claim". Of course, it's a recognized research path within the science itself. Again, in your clouded pomposity, "hiding in plain sight". Why continue your nonsense - since it's been shown for it's idiocy, where even few within the denialsphere bother to parrot it anymore. Of course, you'll continue to ignore the Briffa paper that definitively showed that the small selection of trees, within a small isolated area within Russia, those that exhibited divergence, when either included - or excluded - had no significant impact on the reconstruction... of course, you'll ignore that. And of course, you'll ignore the question/challenge that sees McIntyre completely befuddled and unable to refute the latest Briffa update... of course, you'll ignore that - won't you? How convenient, for you!
You linked a paper from 2007. Such as paper CANNOT be used to justify Briffa and co's actions in 2000.
you're losing it... that's right, I linked to a paper that refutes McKitrick/Michaels (2004/7) and am also presuming to use it to, as you say, "justify Briffa in 2000". You can't even keep this discussion clear in your head. You're losing it man!
normally you don't fall to your complete and absolute obtuse side that often... divergence within dendroclimatology is not, obviously, as you say, "Briffa's claim". Of course, it's a recognized research path within the science itself. Again, in your clouded pomposity, "hiding in plain sight". Why continue your nonsense - since it's been shown for it's idiocy, where even few within the denialsphere bother to parrot it anymore. Of course, you'll continue to ignore the Briffa paper that definitively showed that the small selection of trees, within a small isolated area within Russia, those that exhibited divergence, when either included - or excluded - had no significant impact on the reconstruction... of course, you'll ignore that. And of course, you'll ignore the question/challenge that sees McIntyre completely befuddled and unable to refute the latest Briffa update... of course, you'll ignore that - won't you? How convenient, for you!

not to belabor your befuddled confusion, I took the liberty of highlighting the post you claimed to be responding to... and I've added it in-stream within the thread flow (indented/coloured for highlight purposes). If nothing else I trust this will dispense with your continued stated nonsense concerning Briffa... and the parroted denialsphere "hide the decline" bleat.

piecing your befuddled confusion together, you presume to suggest that Briffa had no foundation to not present post-1960 data... something about, as you say, "crap & pulling it out of his a**". Despite your personal challenge to the study of divergence within dendroclimatology... it's a recognized issue undergoing significant research; given the issue, accepted practice is to exclude post-1960 data from reconstructions involving trees that exhibit divergence. You claim dishonesty... crap... fabrication... and yet, here we have Briffa et al, in 1998, authoring a paper that specifically speaks to the issue of divergence --- Reduced sensitivity of recent tree-growth to temperature at high northern latitudes. Again... "hiding in plain sight":

abstract: Tree-ring chronologies that represent annual changes in the density of wood formed during the late summer can provide a proxy for local summertime air temperature. Here we undertake an examination of large-regional-scale wood-density/air-temperature relationships using measurements from hundreds of sites at high latitudes in the Northern Hemisphere. When averaged over large areas of northern America and Eurasia, tree-ring density series display a strong coherence with summer temperature measurements averaged over the same areas, demonstrating the ability of this proxy to portray mean temperature changes over sub-continents and even the whole Northern Hemisphere.
During the second half of the twentieth century, the decadal-scale trends in wood density and summer temperatures have increasingly diverged as wood density has progressively fallen. The cause of this increasing insensitivity of wood density to temperature changes is not known, but if it is not taken into account in dendroclimatic reconstructions, past temperatures could be overestimated. Moreover, the recent reduction in the response of trees to air-temperature changes would mean that estimates of future atmospheric CO2 concentrations, based on carbon-cycle models that are uniformly sensitive to high-latitude warming, could be too low.

and, as I stated, divergence is a significant area of study/research by dendroclimatologists... On the ‘Divergence Problem’ in Northern Forests: A review of the tree-ring evidence and possible causes

abstract: An anomalous reduction in forest growth indices and temperature sensitivity has been detected in tree-ring width and density records from many circumpolar northern latitude sites since around the middle 20th century. This phenomenon, also known as the “divergence problem”, is expressed as an offset between warmer instrumental temperatures and their underestimation in reconstruction models based on tree rings. The divergence problem has potentially significant implications for large-scale patterns of forest growth, the development of paleoclimatic reconstructions based on tree-ring records from northern forests, and the global carbon cycle. Herein we review the current literature published on the divergence problem to date, and assess its possible causes and implications. The causes, however, are not well understood and are difficult to test due to the existence of a number of covarying environmental factors that may potentially impact recent tree growth. These possible causes include temperature-induced drought stress, nonlinear thresholds or time-dependent responses to recent warming, delayed snowmelt and related changes in seasonality, and differential growth/climate relationships inferred for maximum, minimum and mean temperatures. Another possible cause of the divergence described briefly herein is ‘global dimming’, a phenomenon that has appeared, in recent decades, to decrease the amount of solar radiation available for photosynthesis and plant growth on a large scale. It is theorized that the dimming phenomenon should have a relatively greater impact on tree growth at higher northern latitudes, consistent with what has been observed from the tree-ring record. Additional potential causes include “end effects” and other methodological issues that can emerge in standardization and chronology development, and biases in instrumental target data and its modeling. Although limited evidence suggests that the divergence may be anthropogenic in nature and restricted to the recent decades of the 20th century, more research is needed to confirm these observations.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The cause of this increasing insensitivity of wood density to temperature changes is not known, but if it is not taken into account in dendroclimatic reconstructions, past temperatures could be overestimated.
If the cause is not known they cannot possibly claim that it was unique to the 20th century. If it is not unique the 20th century then any reconstruction produced with those tree rings is garbage.

IOW, your own references prove that Briffa's is pulling crap out of his a** when he claims that the divergance was unique to the 20th century and it is impossible to justify hiding the decline. The only ethical way to deal with this issue is to include the divergance in any graph with a footnote so the reader is informed of the issue and understands that the reconstruction could be complete junk.

BTW - Here is a peer reviewed paper that looks at some obvious explainations for the divergance that Briffa and co ignored because they were inconvenient.

Divergence results either because of some unique environmental factor in recent decades, because trees reach an asymptotic maximum growth rate at some temperature, or because higher temperatures reduce tree growth. If trees show a nonlinear growth response, the result is to potentially truncate any historical temperatures higher than those in the calibration period, as well as to reduce the mean and range of reconstructed values compared to actual. This produces the divergence effect. This creates a cold bias in the reconstructed record and makes it impossible to make any statements about how warm recent decades are compared to historical periods. Some suggestions are made to overcome these problems.
Edited by Riverwind
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the cause is not known they cannot possibly claim that it was unique to the 20th century. If it is not unique the 20th century then any reconstruction produced with those tree rings is garbage.

IOW, your own references prove that Briffa's is pulling crap out of his a** when he claims that the divergance was unique to the 20th century and it is impossible to justify hiding the decline. The only ethical way to deal with this issue is to include the divergance in any graph with a footnote so the reader is informed of the issue and understands that the reconstruction could be complete junk.

nice! Up to this point the discussion wasn't about the robustness of the proxy... it was about your parroting of the "hide the decline" meme... inferring, as you stated, "dishonesty" in the presentation… that there was no foundation – no rationale – no accountability to support it.

did my preceding post reinforcing the emphasis dendroclimatology places on the study of divergence make an impression on you? – apparently not! Did my preceding post reinforcing Briffa’s acknowledgment/understanding of divergence – his published paper on it – make an impression on you? – apparently not! Will my following point reinforcing what the IPCC report actually showed/presented, finally… finally… dispatch this latest persisting Riverwind noise? – we shall see!

a footnote? Oh… you want an explanatory footnote! Well skippy, there was much more than your called for “footnote”. The actual IPCC report graphic itself presents 12 reconstructions and the available instrumental temperature record, all colour-code labelled and all superimposed overtop of each other – the Briffa2001 reconstruction being one of the 12. The graphic, Figure 6.10 as referenced in the following quote, clearly shows the post-1960 period point where the Briffa reconstruction ended… while also showing all 11 of the other various scientist’s reconstructions continuing uninterrupted – continuing to show increased warming. The actual accompanying IPCC AR4 report text itself reads:

Several analyses of ring width and ring density chronologies, with otherwise well-established sensitivity to temperature, have shown that they do not emulate the general warming trend evident in instrumental temperature records over recent decades, although they do track the warming that occurred during the early part of the 20th century and they continue to maintain a good correlation with observed temperatures over the full instrumental period at the interannual time scale (Briffa et al., 2004; D’Arrigo, 2006). This ‘divergence’ is apparently restricted to some northern, high-latitude regions, but it is certainly not ubiquitous even there. In their large-scale reconstructions based on tree ring density data, Briffa et al. (2001) specifically excluded the post-1960 data in their calibration against instrumental records, to avoid biasing the estimation of the earlier reconstructions (hence they are not shown in Figure 6.10), implicitly assuming that the ‘divergence’ was a uniquely recent phenomenon, as has also been argued by Cook et al. (2004a). Others, however, argue for a breakdown in the assumed linear tree growth response to continued warming, invoking a possible threshold exceedance beyond which moisture stress now limits further growth (D’Arrigo et al., 2004). If true, this would imply a similar limit on the potential to reconstruct possible warm periods in earlier times at such sites. At this time there is no consensus on these issues (for further references see NRC, 2006) and the possibility of investigating them further is restricted by the lack of recent tree ring data at most of the sites from which tree ring data discussed in this chapter were acquired.

so… again… most emphatically, “hiding in plain sight”. I trust this will (finally) end another one of the baseless Riverwind parroted Hackergate denier talking points.

Edited by waldo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Up to this point the discussion wasn't about the robustness of the proxy... it was about your parroting of the "hide the decline" meme.
They are one in the same. Hiding the decline was unethnical since it hid information that a reader needed to understand the nature of what is being presented.
Did my preceding post reinforcing Briffas acknowledgment/understanding of divergence his published paper on it make an impression on you?
You cut and paste without reading or understanding what you reference. All of Briffa's papers acknowledge that the reason for the divergance is unknown and that any claim that it is unique to the 20th century is speculative at best. The bottom line is Briffa deperately needs the divergance to be a 20th century only thing because if it is not all of his papers become junk. This fact makes him and most other dendros unreliable sources on the topic.
was much more than your called for footnote. The actual IPCC report graphic itself presents 12 reconstructions and the available instrumental temperature record, all colour-code labelled and all superimposed overtop of each other
The issue is the decline was removed the graph as part of a deliberate attempt to mislead the reader. If their intent was to inform the reader they would have left it in.
I trust the latter part of the above IPCC AR4 report quote dispenses with your reference in that regard… as the quote speaks directly to, "... a similar limit on the potential to reconstruct possible warm periods in earlier times at such sites. At this time there is no consensus on these issues".
Sure - even more evidence that removing the decline from the graphs was a deliberate attempt to deceive. Edited by Riverwind
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The issue is the decline was removed the graph as part of a deliberate attempt to mislead the reader. If their intent was to inform the reader they would have left it in.

apparently... the Riverwind definition of deliberate misleading deceit is not to actually 'fudge' the graphic. Apparently... the Riverwind definition of deliberate misleading deceit is to pointedly leave a graphic line indicator visibly hanging/ending, while providing a full/complete accompanying description explaining divergence, while making an equally pointed textual reference that states and acknowledges the nature of the visibly hanging/ending graphic line indicator. No deceit - everything stated - everything shown - everything explained... in plain sight... unless you're a deliberate misleading deceitful denier, hell bent on making noise and spreading bull-shit.

all you asked for was a footnote... you actually got much more than that :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find it remarkable that there is a vestige of intentionally ignorant who cling to old propaganda surrounding climate change. It is beyond any doubt that it is a current phenomenon. It remains to be seen what effects there will be, but anybody who outright denies the existence of a scientifically verified concept is immune to reason and logic.

Blows my mind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Apparently... the Riverwind definition of deliberate misleading deceit is to pointedly leave a graphic line indicator visibly hanging/ending
My definition is the definition that most honest people have. It is only in climate science where alarmists believe they have a right to deceive people because they are 'saving the planet'.

Here are some illustrations that clearly indicate how odious the deception is.

Edited by Riverwind
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To unfurl the sails on your metaphor a little further: the ship never reaches port ! Steady the wheel !

The problem isn't GW, or AGW, it's that we have lost our way to hammer out a way forward. Not that we were ever good at facing such problems, but it seems to me to be getting worse.

Notice how this problem you point out resonates with just about every other lingering unresolved issue we grapple with - there appears to be no way forward? What do you think it is that's constantly standing in our way or holding us back?

Besides fear and loathing, the only other constants I can think of that always seem to come up in the hardest issues are the public's inability to trust what our governments and most important institutions say, due to their lack and avoidance of transparency. Needless to say I remained convinced that the only way forward is to eliminate their ability to do that to the greatest extent possible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My definition is the definition that most honest people have. It is only in climate science where alarmists believe they have a right to deceive people because they are 'saving the planet'.

Here are some illustrations that clearly indicate how odious the deception is.

An excellent demonstration of why we should be wary.....of why we should act like scientists and question things when they're not clear - or don't make sense. This has nothing to do with denial - or ultra-sketicism. It has to do with human failings and integrity. I'm afraid that Waldo will never understand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seems there is more than one example of sloppy science going on at the IPCC.
Here is another example where the IPCC misrepresented the science on hurricanes.
So not only did the IPCC AR4 WGII egregiously misrepresent the science of disasters and climate change, but when questions were raised about that section by at least one expert reviewer, it simply made up a misleading and false response about my views. Not good.
The IPCC report is extremely misleading in many ways because the people who prepared it viewed it as a partisan document intended to promote a single political point of view. Edited by Riverwind
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find it remarkable that there is a vestige of intentionally ignorant who cling to old propaganda surrounding climate change.
Who decides what is old propoganda and what are facts? The IPCC? Real Climate? Al Gore? If you looked at the issue objectively you would realize that most of the 'old propoganda' is coming from the alarmists who regularily exagerrate the problem.
It remains to be seen what effects there will be
Well that is the entire problem. We don't know what the effects will be and there is a good chance that negative effects will be too small to justify the huge expense of reducing CO2 emissions. Too many alarmists seem to believe in magic technology fairies that will deliver us to a CO2 free existance that requires no sacrifices. That is not true. We don't have the technology today and no amount of political will is going to change that. This means the only way to reduce emissions to the levels demanded is to reduce our standard of living to the level if the average Haitian before the quake.
but anybody who outright denies the existence of a scientifically verified concept is immune to reason and logic.
What exactly are you claiming is 'scientifically verified'? The idea that adding CO2 to the air causes the planet to warm? If so you will find that no one on this forum disputes that. What is being disputed is how much warming is caused by CO2 and the reality is no one is able to provide experimental evidence that allows us to determine how much warming will likely occur and recent temperature trends suggest that the effect of CO2 is likely less than claimed by the IPCC. Edited by Riverwind
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Notice how this problem you point out resonates with just about every other lingering unresolved issue we grapple with - there appears to be no way forward? What do you think it is that's constantly standing in our way or holding us back?

What's holding us back is that there's no way for me to reach through the computer and punch you in the face, then have a beer with you afterwards.

Politics is supposed to be confrontational, and our current media doesn't serve as an arena for argument but rather a sort-of-show - except MLW of course.

Besides fear and loathing, the only other constants I can think of that always seem to come up in the hardest issues are the public's inability to trust what our governments and most important institutions say, due to their lack and avoidance of transparency. Needless to say I remained convinced that the only way forward is to eliminate their ability to do that to the greatest extent possible.

We're on the same page with regards to transparency, we're just not on the same page with how to make it happen.

I think the best hope is for some online entity to start challenging government to be accountable. Something like that has happened a few times on facebook recently, but only via their groups - which is sort of like signing a petition.

Anyway, I'm not interested in debating big questions, policy and so forth. I think those things are more or less adequately covered by our current processes. And television coverage in Canada has stopped its slide into info hell, which is great.

No, I'm interested in delivery of services, and measuring how effective we are at doing what we say we do. This is what good businesses do, and we should do it too.

As an example, nobody has a clue what hospital wait times are in Ontario. They publish some statistics from time to time, but they're incomplete. McGuinty has been promising something on this since before he was premier and we're nowhere. And nobody cares. We got close to caring last year, when a consultant tried to charge the province for her tea and muffin, but the furor ended up setting us back - and nobody seems to know or care.

I can understand that kind of behavior with Bell or Rogers, as we don't have much choice, but with governments, we can vote in a new one. Why don't we ? Somebody needs to get on a soapbox and get people riled up, I guess.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,712
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    nyralucas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
    • babetteteets earned a badge
      One Year In
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...