Jump to content

H1N1 and Climate Change


Recommended Posts

... nonsense appeal to the authority of the 'consensus'

you keep on... keeping on! Buddy, if you're going to presume to reference logical fallacies, you should understand them. Of course, no fallacy is committed when the authorities in question are, in fact, legitimate authorities on the subject matter at hand - which they are, most certainly. You've thrown this "appeal to authority" fallacy out several times lately... I expect we shouldn't see it again, right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 418
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Of course, no fallacy is committed when the authorities in question are, in fact, legitimate authorities on the subject matter at hand
Actually - I asked you to provide evidence that the so-called 1000s of scientists supporting AGW had actually taken then time to understand the issues instead of blindly accepting the claims of a small number of scientists doing the actual research. You failed to provide any such evidence which means you have failed to show that they are 'legimate authorities'.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course, this WG2 subgroup report focus is not the actual physical science basis... that associates to the WG1 subgroup/report.
First, it is the WG2 report that that is being used to justify the AGW scaremongering so from a political perspective it is much more important that the WG1 report. Second, the inclusion of these references violates the IPCCs own policies on non-peer reviewed literature and the fact that it discards its own policies when convenient destroys any credibility that it might have had.

OTOH, there would be no issue with these references if the IPCC stated in its policies that its allows the inclusion of non-peer reviewed literature when (and only when) the literature supports the AGW scaremongering agenda. Of course, doing that would destroy its credibility in a different way but it would at least be honest.

Edited by Riverwind
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And Issac Newton was an alchemist and a evangelical christian. Are you going to argue that he was not right about gravity because of his odd ball beliefs?

I will most certainly take all manner of liberty in continuing to point out the creationist position of, uhhh... "skeptic/denier scientist" Roy Spencer! I particularly like this statement of his:

It would be worthwhile for everyone to think seriously about what they believe mankind’s role on Earth is, and how much influence over nature humans should assert. Since this is ultimately and inevitably a religious question, I fear that science will be misused in the effort to disguise it as a scientific one
... Roy Spencer, fighting the skeptic/denier fight on religious grounds :lol:
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually - I asked you to provide evidence that the so-called 1000s of scientists supporting AGW had actually taken then time to understand the issues instead of blindly accepting the claims of a small number of scientists doing the actual research. You failed to provide any such evidence which means you have failed to show that they are 'legimate authorities'.

sorry buddy, it flies in the face of your comment where you state you won't accept the stated AGW climate change positions of, for example, any/all the following organizations... and by association... the (tens/hundreds of) thousands of member scientists within these organizations. Per your previously stated conspiracy position, all the leaders/directors/mgmt/etc, are all misrepresenting their membership by putting out statements that accept the AGW climate change theory. Of course, one could ask you to appeal to your authority... the apparently silent authority of the (tens/hundreds of) thousands of member scientists within these example organizations who blindly go along with their organizations stated positions accepting the AGW climate change theory.

* American Association for the Advancement of Science

* American Astronomical Society

* American Chemical Society

* American Geophysical Union

* American Institute of Physics

* American Meteorological Society

* American Physical Society

* Australian Coral Reef Society

* British Antarctic Survey

* Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences

* Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society

* Environmental Protection Agency

* Federation of American Scientists

* Geological Society of America

* International Union for Quaternary Research (INQUA)

* National Center for Atmospheric Research

* National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

* The Royal Society of the UK

* Academia Brasiliera de Ciencias (Brazil)

* Royal Society of Canada

* Chinese Academy of Sciences

* Academie des Sciences (France)

* Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)

* Indian National Science Academy

* Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)

* Science Council of Japan

* Russian Academy of Sciences

* National Academy of Sciences

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will most certainly take all manner of liberty...
ROTFL. Go ahead. I don't know which is funnier. The fact that you think that it is relevant in a debate about science or that you think that bringing up such irrelevant issues actually helps your case.

The reality is history is full of brilliant minds with some decidedly odd opinions on subjects outside of their main area if research. These odd opinions are forgotten once time proves them correct. In the end, all I can about is who has gotten the science right.

Edited by Riverwind
Link to comment
Share on other sites

you state you won't accept the stated AGW climate change positions of, for example, any/all the following organizations
Boy are you are dense. I asked for evidence that these scientists have done more than blindly accept the claims of a small circle of scientists doing the actual research. You come back with a completely meaningless list of organizations that made public statements which may or may not reflect the opinion of their members. What is so hard about a the question. Maybe if I make it simple:

1) A scientist that presumes that the AGW claims are correct because they have appeared in the peer reviewed literature is a blind sheep whose opinion is irrelevant.

2) A scientist that successfully replicates the work done AGW alarmists and verifies that their claims are actually supported by the data has an informed opinion.

How many scientists fall into category 2). Show your evidence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First, it is the WG2 report that that is being used to justify the AGW scaremongering so from a political perspective it is much more important that the WG1 report. Second, the inclusion of these references violates the IPCCs own policies on non-peer reviewed literature and the fact that it discards its own policies when convenient destroys any credibility that it might have had.

OTOH, there would be no issue with these references if the IPCC stated in its policies that its allows the inclusion of non-peer reviewed literature when (and only when) the literature supports the AGW scaremongering agenda. Of course, doing that would destroy its credibility in a different way but it would at least be honest.

more Riverwind bullshit! At least understand the principles behind the report before presuming to beak off about it...

the introduction/use of non-peer review sources was brought about principally due to the nature of WG2 (re: mitigation and adaptation activities):

PROCEDURE FOR USING NON-PUBLISHED/NON-PEER-REVIEWED SOURCES IN IPCC REPORTS

Because it is increasingly apparent that materials relevant to IPCC Reports, in particular, information about the experience and practice of the private sector in mitigation and adaptation activities, are found in sources that have not been published or peer-reviewed (e.g., industry journals, internal organisational publications, non-peer reviewed reports or working papers of research institutions, proceedings of workshops etc) the following additional procedures are provided. These have been designed to make all references used in IPCC Reports easily accessible and to ensure that the IPCC process remains open and transparent.

.

.

Non-peer-reviewed sources will be listed in the reference sections of IPCC Reports. These will be integrated with references for the peer-reviewed sources. These will be integrated with references to the peer reviewed sources stating how the material can be accessed, but will be followed by a statement that they are not published.

note: bold emphasis added
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because it is increasingly apparent that materials relevant to IPCC Reports, in particular, information about the experience and practice of the private sector in mitigation and adaptation activities
ROTFL. This is too good to be true. More concrete evidence that the IPCC is hopelessly biased and that it has been dishonestly representing itself to the public and government.

You see - there is a lot of 'non-peer reviewed' material out there that is 'relevant' to the IPCC reports. Yet the IPCC authors only bother to include the non-peer reviewed material that happens to support the alarmist political agenda. This bias was barely defensible when if they had restricted themselves to peer reviewed literature but by opening the doors to non-peer reviewed stuff they cannot possibly defend the bias.

Oh BTW: here is the stuff you left out of your quote:

1. Responsibilities of Coordinating, Lead and Contributing Authors

a. Critically assess any source that they wish to include. This option may be used for instance to obtain case study materials from private sector sources for assessment of adaptation and mitigation options. Each chapter team should review the quality and validity of each source before incorporating results from the source into an IPCC Report.

I guess they dropped the ball on glaciers, hurricaines and amazon rainfall. Edited by Riverwind
Link to comment
Share on other sites

ROTFL. Go ahead. I don't know which is funnier. The fact that you think that it is relevant in a debate about science or that you think that bringing up such irrelevant issues actually helps your case.

The reality is history is full of brilliant minds with some decidedly odd opinions on subjects outside of their main area if research. These odd opinions are forgotten once time proves them correct. In the end, all I can about is who has gotten the science right.

only a blinded agenda driven denier would accept creationists within the brotherhood :lol:

certainly, far be it from me to suggest a creationist's faith might cloud his scientific judgment!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ROTFL. This is too good to be true. More concrete evidence that the IPCC is hopelessly biased. You see - there is a lot of 'non-peer reviewed' material out there that is 'relevent' to the IPCC reports. Yet the IPCC authors only bother to include the non-peer reviewed material that happens to support the alarmist political adgenda.

Oh BTW: here is the stuff you left out of your quote:

what's too good to be true... that you didn't even know there was a relevant section within the principles appendix, one covering the use of non-peer review support? But don't let your ignorance hold you back from casting misplaced and unsubstantiated aspersions... you're a typing charade on display.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

that you didn't even know there was a relevant section within the principles appendix, one covering the use of non-peer review support?
Yes I was wrong. I made the mistake of taking alarmists at their word when they said that the IPCC only allowed peer reviewed material. They would have more credibility today if they had made that point clear 3 years ago instead of waiting until they were caught with their pants down.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes I was wrong. I made the mistake of taking alarmists at their word when they said that the IPCC only allowed peer reviewed material. They would have more credibility today if they had made that point clear 3 years ago instead of waiting until they were caught with their pants down.

perhaps you've been reading one too many denier blogs in presuming to state what the IPCC accepts for support material. That principles statement isn't anything new - it's been a part of the report since inception. The reports governing principles are quite clear - particularly in relation to the nature of accepting non-peer review support in relation to WG2. Since you can't actually make any inroads via scientific challenge, you can certainly presume to make hay with the trivial and inconsequential ditty's that add to your cast doubt/uncertainty agenda. Btw, your hero McIntyre was an AR4 reviewer... a self-proclaimed big cheese reviewer - why didn't he stop all those trivial, inconsequential items you, Simple ton and Pliny hang your hats on? C'mon... your boy had a hand in it all. :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That principles statement isn't anything new - it's been a part of the report since inception.
Of course it has been there - but alarmists have ignored that detail for years when they wanted provide excuses for why the IPCC report was so biased.

BTW - my source for the peer review policies of the IPCC was an alarmist blog like RC (can't remember which one). I never questioned it because it never occurred to me that they would argue that point if it was not true.

But more importantly, this revelation proves that Myata was barking nonsense by insisting that discussions be restricted to "peer reviewed" material. If non-peer reviewed is good enough for the IPCC it should be good enough for him. Come to think of it you were also quite supportive of Myata's nonsense position which is pretty good evidence that you had no clue that the IPCC allowed non-peer reviewed material which means you were deceived by the alarmists too.

Edited by Riverwind
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course it has been there - but alarmists have ignored that detail for years when they wanted provide excuses for why the IPCC report was so biased. Of course that is typical of alarmists. Lie until they get caught and insist that 'it was always like that and they never lied'.

BTW - my source for the peer review policies of the IPCC was an alarmist blog like RC (can't remember which one). I never questioned it because it never occurred to me that they would argue that point if it was not true.

But more importantly, this revelation proves that Myata was barking nonsense by insisting that discussions be restricted to "peer reviewed" material. If non-peer reviewed is good enough for the IPCC it should be good enough for him. Come to think of it you were also quite supportive of Myata's nonsense position which is pretty good evidence that you had no clue that the IPCC allowed non-peer reviewed material which means you were deceived by the alarmists too.

I really don't care if you feel a need to backtrack/cover your ignorance of the IPCC report principles... or feel a need to push it off to reading "some blog". Why not just state you didn't know what you were talking about and be done with it? What bias do you speak of? Are there particular skeptic/denier papers that stand out prior to the 2006 AR4 report deadline for acceptance/submission... papers that hadn't been refuted and weren't referenced within the report? Or skeptic/denier papers that were refuted and were accordingly referenced as such within the AR4 report... to your obvious displeasure :lol: C'mon, pony up with something other than manufactured doubt and uncertainty!

as for the myata debate challenge you would have nothing to do with... I interpreted that particular reference to exclude your favoured go-to denier blogs - you know, your lifeblood! I suggest you reign in your exuberance as that report principle, as stated, applies particularly to WG2 - mitigation and adaptation activities, where, by it's nature, many related sources are not published or peer-reviewed... rather, those particular sources (as stated) appear within things like industry journals, workshop proceedings, internal organizational publications, etc. Certainly, scientific papers are subject to peer-review publication... sorry, make that, "legitimate scientific papers" are subject to peer-review publication. Certainly, myata's proposed debate options... the one's you refused to accept, were founded around an expectation, per norm, of relying upon "legitimate scientific papers"... you know... the one's peer reviewed. The one's you were afraid of.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really don't care if you feel a need to backtrack/cover your ignorance of the IPCC report principles.
You were just as ignorant. This was a well kept secret until the alarmist crowd needed to pull it out to defend themselves.
I suggest you reign in your exuberance as that report principle, as stated, applies particularly to WG2
There is absolutely nothing in the policies that restricts the use of non-peer reviewed material. They may have used the WG2-style examples as a justification but the policies themselves do not restrict it. Nor to the policies restrict the type of source - a hobby magazine for mountain climbers was considered a legitimate source. The policies gave complete discretion to the lead authors and they used it to promote their political agenda. Edited by Riverwind
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You were just as ignorant. This was a well kept secret until the alarmist crowd needed to pull it out to defend themselves.

There is absolutely nothing in the policies that restricts the use of non-peer reviewed material. They may have used the WG2-style examples as a justification but the policies themselves do not restrict it. Nor to the policies restrict the type of source - a hobby magazine for mountain climbers was considered a legitimate source. The policies gave complete discretion to the lead authors and they used to promote their political agenda.

no - I knew full well about the principles appendix... pointing it out to you was particularly rewarding given your penchant to beak-off about the trivial & inconsequential aspects of WG2. The, as you say, "well kept secret" was so secret, it's actually highlighted by the IPCC and published accordingly. Go figure - a denier would feign ignorance and presume to label others for his ignorance.

perhaps you should read it again... I suggested you reign in your exuberance... it doesn't apply to support materials that are peer-reviewed - you know, actual scientific papers - the bane of a skeptic/denier scientists existence :lol: Interesting... I would think that if a trivial/inconsequential WG2 reference were to be made to an observed change of lost climbing days brought about by an environmental factor of reduced mountain ice, I would seek out comment from mountain climbers. But that's just me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

no - I knew full well about the principles appendix
Which would mean your refusal to consider non-peer reviewed sources is even more rediculous.

In any case it appears that Pachauri did not know about the appendix:

Here’s Dr. Pachauri’s statement defending the climate panel’s procedures:

IPCC relies entirely on peer reviewed literature in carrying out its assessment and follows a process that renders it unlikely that any peer reviewed piece of literature, however contrary to the views of any individual author, would be left out.

As I said, alarmists have been selling the myth that the IPCC report relied entirely on peer reviewed literature for years. They are now being exposed as liars. Edited by Riverwind
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Which would mean your refusal to consider non-peer reviewed sources is even more rediculous.

In any case it appears that Pachauri did not know about the appendix:

As I said, alarmists have been selling the myth that the IPCC report relied entirely on peer reviewed literature for years. They are now being exposed as liars.

nonsense - there's no contradiction... when you negate your want to associate the special case provisions to actual scientific papers. Again, much to your personal chagrin, all scientific papers are subject to peer-review. Of course, that Pachauri statement also highlights the point I just made to you... the one you're apparently going to ignore... you know, actually show your favoured examples of skeptic/denier peer-reviewed papers that weren't included in AR4. We know what happened last time you tried to make that assertion... where it turned out the skeptic/denier paper was actually referenced - just not in the way you would have preferred - right? :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

nonsense - there's no contradiction.
It most certainly is. There is no way to reconcile the policies in the appendix with pachauri's statements.
We know what happened last time you tried to make that assertion... where it turned out the skeptic/denier paper was actually referenced - just not in the way you would have preferred - right?
As usual you missed the point. Jones did in fact carry out his threat to keep the the paper out and it only appear after strenuous objections by reviewers. The fact that he carried out the threat is what proves he was willing and able to corrupt the IPPC process in order to push his particular view of science.

It will interesting to see if he is forced to face the conspiracy charges that he so richly deserves. Unfortunately, there are too many scumbags in the UK government that will justify any abuse or crime as long as it promotes the AGW cause.

Edited by Riverwind
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It most certainly is. There is no way to reconcile the policies in the appendix with pachauri's statements.

As usual you missed the point. Jones did in fact carry out his threat to keep the the paper out and it only appear after strenuous objections by reviewers. The fact that he carried out the threat is what proves he was willing and able to corrupt the IPPC process in order to push his particular view of science.

It will interesting to see if he is forced to faces the conspiracy charges that he so richly deserves. Unfortunately, there are too many scumbags in the UK government that will justify any abuse or crime as long as it promotes the AGW cause.

only a contradiction in your denier eyes

the paper was referenced - end of your fabricated story. Conspiracy charges? What conspiracy charges... other than those emanating from denialtown?

noted: Riverwind conspiracy (circa xxxx - xxxx, vol xxx): add UK government

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the paper was referenced - end of your fabricated story. Conspiracy charges? What conspiracy charges... other than those emanating from denialtown?
Here is what the UK freedom of information commissioner has to say:
The emails which are now public reveal that Mr Holland's requests under the Freedom of Information Act were not dealt with as they should have been under the legislation. Section 77 of the Freedom of Information Act makes it an offence for public authorities to act so as to prevent intentionally the disclosure of requested information. Mr Holland's FOI requests were submitted in 2007/8, but it has only recently come to light that they were not dealt with in accordance with the Act.

The legislation requires action within six months of the offence taking place, so by the time the action taken came to light the opportunity to consider a prosecution was long gone. The ICO is gathering evidence from this and other time-barred cases to support the case for a change in the law. It is important to note that the ICO enforces the law as it stands - we do not make it.

So it appears your 'there is nothing in the emails that shows wronging' meme is clearly false in the opinion of the UK authorities.

Interestingly the UEA is trying to blame the ICO:

The Vice-Chancellor of the University of East Anglia, Sir Edward Acton, has issued a statement in response to the annoucement by the ICO that the university was in breach of FoI legislation.

The ICO's opinion that we had breached the terms of Section 77 is a source of grave concern to the university as we would always seek to comply with the terms of the Act. During this case we have sought the advice of the ICO and responded fully to any requests for information.
Edited by Riverwind
Link to comment
Share on other sites

as I said... what charges? It's been well documented that UEA sought advice/guidance from ICO all throughout the receipt of FOI requests... in any case, you should be quite proud of your cohorts actions in flooding CRU with, quite literally, 'hundreds' of malicious intended FOI requests. Of course, this gets us closer to highlighting a significant aspect... the personal two-way animosity developed over the years between McIntyre/Jones.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

as I said... what charges?
The ICO said it felt an offence has been committed but it could not lay charges because of a 6 month limitation in the law. However, it is possible to lay charges for a conspirasy to break the law and that is apparently done in the UK quite often. Bottom line is there is no debate: an offense was committed in the view of the ICO and denying is pointless.
You so ignorant of the facts it is frightening. Why don't take the time to learn when the requests were sent and why. If you did you will find that sceptics did absolutely nothing unreasonable and the batch requests was only sent was because UEA kept offering bogus excuses for refusing to release the data and the requests were necessary to prove that the excuses were bogus. If UAE has released the material as it was legally obligied to there would have been no flood.
Edited by Riverwind
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...