Open letter to UN Secretary General from 125+ Scientists

[blueblood]

So how well does this argument work when you got suspended last time?

WWWTT

I don't know I haven't been suspended. Discretion and respect go a long way.

[TimG]

what still no one refutes my points

Your own source already does that:

There is **low** confidence in any observed long-term (i.e., 40 years or more) increases in tropical cyclone activity (i.e.intensity, frequency, duration), after accounting for past changes in observing capabilities. It is likely that there has been

a poleward shift in the main Northern and Southern Hemisphere extratropical storm tracks.

There is medium confidence that some regions of the world have experienced more intense and longer droughts, in

particular in southern Europe and West Africa, but in some regions droughts have become less frequent, less intense,

or shorter, for example, in central North America and northwestern Australia. [3.5.1]

The only 'extreme' that has any supporting evidence are heat waves but that is in conjunction with fewer cold snaps which means people are generally better off because cold kills more than heat.

Edited December 1, 2012 by TimG

[Pliny]

The question is not whether it's possible that something is wrong, but whether it is likely and the attendant risks to each response, or to no response.

Well, as the report says we should prepare for climate change as an inevitability not attempt to reverse it when we have only models of projection regarding the anthropogenic factor.

Now we're in baby-talk land. If you think the UN is a world-wide conspiracy then we don't have a basis to start a conversation. The idea that the UN being associated with something alone makes you suspicious means that you regard authority with suspicion anyway.

We are actually in adult land. Give me authority I can trust. When Susan Rice, US Ambassador to the UN can lie to the American people straight faced and be first in line for a promotion I have to question the authority. When the Son of the Secretary General of the UN is involved with a Food for Oil scam let alone the scam exists, When it can appoint a man like Moamar Ghadaffi as head of a Human Rights Council, and I could go on and on then I have to question that Authority.

It's no secret that the UN is looking for more teeth but its history does not warrant it.

And the rest of your post is just more bogeyman politics. I advise you to find a 9/11 trooth believer and engage with them.

I am not a conspiracy theorist thank you but your suggestion to not be vigilant in any respect regarding the objectives and goals of political organizations or to not question authority about the reasoning of their policies is a bit sophomoric and dangerous.

A conspiracy theorist generally attempts to find and assign responsibility to some evil agents or agency as an explanation for things they don't understand. I don't believe George Bush was evil - inept perhaps. Obama is not evil but totally a socialist ideologue and I consider socialism an already proven failure only those that believe they have a mission to save us all would forward it.

[wyly]

cold causes more deaths than heat

in 2003 heat wave in europe 35,000 deaths were attributed to the heat wave, when was the last time 35,000 deaths were attributed to a cold snap...and that's not eve taking into account how many people are killed by drought/heat/crop failure...

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn4259-european-heatwave-caused-35000-deaths.html

[wyly]

toronto and montreal alone experience something like 90 heat related deaths every year how many people freeze to death in canada every year? very very few...

[WWWTT]

Discretion and respect go a long way.

Then stick with it!

WWWTT

[Sleipnir]

The only 'extreme' that has any supporting evidence are heat waves but that is in conjunction with fewer cold snaps which means people are generally better off because cold kills more than heat.

Disagree

http://geosciences.m...ts/2005bams.pdf

Also see figure 3 on the bottom left of page 941.

Edited December 2, 2012 by Sleipnir

[wyly]

Disagree

http://geosciences.m...ts/2005bams.pdf

Also see figure 3 on the bottom left of page 941.

living in Saskatchewan for many years with brutally cold winters it was always possible to dress for the cold but there was only so many clothes you can take off for the heat,luckily it's dry heat...and I've experienced european heat waves combined with extreme humidity I'd prefer Saskatchewan winters, there is no escaping that kind of heat without air conditioning...

[Guest]

living in Saskatchewan for many years with brutally cold winters it was always possible to dress for the cold but there was only so many clothes you can take off for the heat,luckily it's dry heat...and I've experienced european heat waves combined with extreme humidity I'd prefer Saskatchewan winters, there is no escaping that kind of heat without air conditioning...

Not wanting to get into the AGW argument, but I have to say I hate the bloody winter here in Alberta. Give me heat anyday. At least my lips and fingertips don't bleed.

[TimG]

Also see figure 3 on the bottom left of page 941.

Did you actually read the paper? It does not claim that heat is worse than cold. It simply says that the data is so bad that no reliable conclusions can be made (a fact that is true of many things in climate science but scientists are only willing to admit this when the apparent conclusion goes against the IPCC agenda - this is more evidence of the groupthink that infests the field).

But the thing that really made me laugh: the paper makes the claim that since winter deaths always exceed summer deaths that the data overestimates the number of deaths due to extreme cold! ROTFL. Seems to me the fact that deaths increase during the winter with or without extreme cold events is pretty compelling evidence that cold days with less sunshine are worse for humans.

Edited December 2, 2012 by TimG

[dre]

I would love to see a debate based on scientific merits. The trouble is the climate science community is filled with alarmist ideologues and group-think that it is impossible to have such a discussion.

Climate science has no credibility as a scientific field until the climate science community cleans up their act and demonstrates a willingness to speak out against the misrepresentation of science in the name of promoting the IPCC political agenda.

Sorry your conspiracy theories do not even warrant consideration.

[TimG]

Sorry your conspiracy theories do not even warrant consideration.

Ad hom attacks simply illustrate he weakness of your argument. If you want to have a discussion about the evidence for and against a systematic bias in the climate science field then we can do so. But that seems rather pointless since you appear to be a mindless zealot that refuses to attempt the possibility that their could be systematic bias in the field.

[dre]

Ad hom attacks simply illustrate he weakness of your argument. If you want to have a discussion about the evidence for and against a systematic bias in the climate science field then we can do so. But that seems rather pointless since you appear to be a mindless zealot that refuses to attempt the possibility that their could be systematic bias in the field.

Mindless Zealot? Do you even know what that word means? I barely even have a passing interest in the climate change debate, and Im basically a fence sitter. And its not an ad-hom attack either. Its a sober and accurate description of your never ending unsubstantiated conspiracy theory.

[TimG]

Its a sober and accurate description of your never ending unsubstantiated conspiracy theory.

How can you possibly say it is unsubstantiated when you also claim that you 'barely even have a passing interest in the climate change'? It appears that you simply *assume* that there no evidence to support my claims when by your own admission you are ignorant of the topic. It seems to me that is a textbook example of a zealot using ideology to make decisions rather than someone who assesses the evidence and makes a decision based on that.

Obviously, there is no reason for you to learn about a topic you have no interest in but if you are not willing to learn then you really have no business rejecting the claims of people who have spent the time it takes to learn about the topic. If you insist on dismissing claims on a topic you are ignorant of then mindless zealot is a pretty apt description for you.

Edited December 2, 2012 by TimG

[dre]

How can you possibly say it is unsubstantiated when you also claim that you 'barely even have a passing interest in the climate change'? It appears that you simply *assume* that there no evidence to support my claims when by your own admission you are ignorant of the topic. It seems to me that is a textbook example of a zealot using ideology to make decisions rather than someone who assesses the evidence and makes a decision based on that.

Obviously, there is no reason for you to learn about a topic you have no interest in but if you are not willing to learn then you really have no business rejecting the claims of people who have spent the time it takes to learn about the topic. If you insist on dismissing claims on a topic you are ignorant of then mindless zealot is a pretty apt description for you.

Gotcha. So you dont know what the word zealot means...

[Pliny]

Disagree

http://geosciences.m...ts/2005bams.pdf

Also see figure 3 on the bottom left of page 941.

I don't think you read the paper at all. I believe you just looked at the graphs. It's a study of conflicting databases on heat and cold related deaths and states in the beginning that results you find depend upon whose database you are looking at.

Edited December 2, 2012 by Pliny

[Pliny]

Mindless Zealot? Do you even know what that word means? I barely even have a passing interest in the climate change debate, and Im basically a fence sitter. And its not an ad-hom attack either. Its a sober and accurate description of your never ending unsubstantiated conspiracy theory.

A fence sitter? So you believe TimG might be right?

There is no conspiracy in questioning conclusions with conflicting data and odd "political" solutions to problems that may be entirely resolved at some point in the future by technological advances anyway. It seems far more damage would be done by suggested political actions than if we just continued along improving our living standards which might include less pollution meaning cleaner air and water.

[TimG]

Gotcha. So you dont know what the word zealot means...

No. I think you don't:

: a zealous person; especially: a fanatical partisan

You admitted that you are ignorant of the details of climate science because you don't really care. Yet instead of admitting your ignorance that you took the position that my opinions must be unsubstantiated. The only rational explanation for such a position is because you are 'partisan' who mindlessly assumes that the side that you align yourself with must be right. However, you did not simply claim that you did not believe me because I express views that disagree with your partisan outlook - you suggested that my views were 'unsubstantiated' even though you have no evidence - a view that would only be expressed by a 'fanatical partisan' which *is* the definition of a zealot.

I realize that you don't like to see yourself as a a 'zealot' because that would undermine your self-image. But the facts show your are one no matter what your self opinion is.

Edited December 2, 2012 by TimG

[dre]

No. I think you don't:

You admitted that you are ignorant of the details of climate science because you don't really care. Yet instead of admitting your ignorance that you took the position that my opinions must be unsubstantiated. The only rational explanation for such a position is because you are 'partisan' who mindlessly assumes that the side that you align yourself with must be right. However, you did not simply claim that you did not believe me because I express views that disagree with your partisan outlook - you suggested that my views were 'unsubstantiated' even though you have no evidence - a view that would only be expressed by a 'fanatical partisan' which *is* the definition of a zealot.

I realize that you don't like to see yourself as a a 'zealot' because that would undermine your self-image. But the facts show your are one no matter what your self opinion is.

Right. Me laughing at your conspiracy theories makes me a climate change fanatic

But you know what MIGHT make a person qualify to be a zealot/fanatic? A person thats spends many hundreds of hours of his time writing 4 thousand posts about the same topic even when threads are not about it, and alledging all kinds of wild conspiracy theories.

Not THAT is actually a pretty good fit for the literal definition of that word!

[dre]

A fence sitter? So you believe TimG might be right?

I believe that some of the catastrophic predictions might be overstated, and I think the science is still evolving and I believe there are smart and honest people that fall on both sides of the issue, and a lot of people trying their best to figure it out.

[TimG]

Right. Me laughing at your conspiracy theories makes me a climate change fanatic

Except you have no basis for your assertion that my opinions are conspiracy theories. This is an unsubstantiated opinion that you express because you ARE the mindless zealot. I happen to look at the evidence and understand the complex and conflicting nature of the problem and I acknowledge that in conversations with people who have an open mind. You are a close minded zealot so it a waste of time to to have such conversation with you. Edited December 2, 2012 by TimG

[cybercoma]

Scientists care about staying employed first.

Tenured scientists have academic freedom. It's pretty close to impossible to get fired, unless you flip the dean's car over in the parking lot and set it on fire.

[Pliny]

I believe that some of the catastrophic predictions might be overstated, and I think the science is still evolving and I believe there are smart and honest people that fall on both sides of the issue, and a lot of people trying their best to figure it out.

I believe that some of the catastrophic predictions might be overstated, and I think the science is still evolving and I believe there are smart and honest people that fall on both sides of the issue, and a lot of people trying their best to figure it out.

It seems part of your modus operandi is to bait people with some general statement that could only be interpreted as or assumed to be originating from a very partisan view or some "mindless zealot" and then spend countless posts refuting the assumption and outlining your centrist, pragmatic, open-minded, fence-sitting, wishy-washy position making your antagonist appear an extremist because he holds an opinion with which you have some disagreement.

[wyly]

Tenured scientists have academic freedom. It's pretty close to impossible to get fired, unless you flip the dean's car over in the parking lot and set it on fire.

yup...I have two prof friends who complained about another prof that rarely showed up for lectures maybe two per term at most she would just hand it off to grad students to do, she had tenure there was nothing the uni could do...

[TimG]

Tenured scientists have academic freedom. It's pretty close to impossible to get fired, unless you flip the dean's car over in the parking lot and set it on fire.

And how much of the research is done by tenured scientists and how much is done by grad students hoping to eventually find a job at a university? Plus professors may have tenure but their ability to run a lab, hire post docs and do research is governed entirely by their ability to deliver the science that the funding agencies want to see.

One part of the problem is not the obvious bias introduced by the funding sources but the unwillingness of people to acknowledge that government funding bodies have a bias that is driven by political considerations.

The second part of the problem is the human mind's ability to rationalize things that happen to be in their self interest. This means is a researcher may honestly believe that they are a diligent truth seeker but produce biased work because they subconsciously do not undermine their self interest. The same goes for funding bodies - they likely convince themselves that their funding choices are based on objective science but believing they are does not make it true.

Edited December 2, 2012 by TimG