ScottSA Posted June 10, 2007 Report Posted June 10, 2007 Why is it suddenly important that a scientist be an expert in climate change. The god of all global warming gods is a geneticist. What precisley is wrong about being an expert in assessment? At least it's clearly related to the issue...assessing the possible causes of climate change. Anyway I think he is more important than a mere assessor. Like a property assessor. Or some other mundane assessment role. No! He is the assessor of all assessors! And his property is....THE EARTH! He is free to make an assessment. However, he is not an expert in the science of climate change as he himself admits. Most of the folks involved in this debate but nonetheless billed as "experts" are not. Quote
jdobbin Posted June 10, 2007 Report Posted June 10, 2007 Most of the folks involved in this debate but nonetheless billed as "experts" are not. Link? Quote
ScottSA Posted June 10, 2007 Report Posted June 10, 2007 Most of the folks involved in this debate but nonetheless billed as "experts" are not. Link? Check your IPPC links son. Quote
jdobbin Posted June 10, 2007 Report Posted June 10, 2007 Check your IPPC links son. Why do I have to look for something you assert is fact. Why don't you show me exactly what you mean from an actual source. Quote
ScottSA Posted June 10, 2007 Report Posted June 10, 2007 Check your IPPC links son. Why do I have to look for something you assert is fact. Why don't you show me exactly what you mean from an actual source. I'll leave it up to someone who's more interested in your education than I am. If you haven't seen a list of them yet, it's probably because you're just not reading posts. Quote
gc1765 Posted June 10, 2007 Report Posted June 10, 2007 Pinning all your trust on this so-called peer-reviewed...or any peer-reviewed journals, and accepting them without question, is not sensible.I am not denying there is climate change. What I'm questioning and challenging are those peer-reviewed journals. The Politics of Peer Review "In fact, "peer review" turns out to be highly susceptible to such subversion. For one thing, it's only as reliable as the individuals chosen to serve as "peers" and the formal process within which peer review takes place. Peer review doesn't automatically serve as a "guarantor of truth," note Rutgers University science policy scholars Stuart Shapiro and David Guston, and it also won't necessarily quench controversy in highly politicized scientific areas. So while "peer review" may be important as a direction or ideal, it's not a process that can be automatically and uncritically trusted to strengthen science. In closing, another telling example of the ambiguities inherent in peer review comes to mind. Last year the Stanford Law Review, a non-peer reviewed journal, published a devastating critique of economist John Lott's famed "More Guns, Less Crime" hypothesis, which had generally been supported by a series of peer reviewed studies that, in retrospect, seem severely flawed. Not surprisingly, Lott now criticizes the Stanford Law Review study for not being peer reviewed. But the substance of the argument is what actually counts, and economists seem increasingly convinced that Lott has lost on the merits--peer review notwithstanding. Perhaps there's a lesson there when it comes to the OMB/OIRA proposal. Before automatically embracing "peer review," we should be exceedingly careful to determine what the phrase actually means, who's using it--and why they care." http://www.csicop.org/doubtandabout/peerreview/ Got a better suggestion? Quote Almost three thousand people died needlessly and tragically at the World Trade Center on September 11; ten thousand Africans die needlessly and tragically every single day-and have died every single day since September 11-of AIDS, TB, and malaria. We need to keep September 11 in perspective, especially because the ten thousand daily deaths are preventable. - Jeffrey Sachs (from his book "The End of Poverty")
jdobbin Posted June 10, 2007 Report Posted June 10, 2007 I'll leave it up to someone who's more interested in your education than I am. If you haven't seen a list of them yet, it's probably because you're just not reading posts. You seem so educated on the subject. You should speak to Harper. You've totally convinced me. Quote
stignasty Posted June 10, 2007 Report Posted June 10, 2007 CC: The Honourable Rona Ambrose, Minister of the Environment, Huh??? Is this letter a bit dated? Open Kyoto to debate Sixty scientists call on Harper to revisit the science of global warming Special to the Financial Post Published: Thursday, April 06, 2006 Quote "It may not be true, but it's legendary that if you're like all Americans, you know almost nothing except for your own country. Which makes you probably knowledgeable about one more country than most Canadians." - Stephen Harper
betsy Posted June 11, 2007 Author Report Posted June 11, 2007 This climate arguement is getting like playing soldiers as a kid--" I shot you--No you didn't you missed--never did--etc,etc". It will happen no matter what we do and at it's own time and speed. The problem isn't how to stop it (we can't) or slow it down but what will we do during and after. Yes. That's why we shouldn't just throw away trillions of dollars to Kyoto! Instead we should be planning in a sensible manner...how we can adapt to climate change! Quote
betsy Posted June 11, 2007 Author Report Posted June 11, 2007 Why is it suddenly important that a scientist be an expert in climate change. The god of all global warming gods is a geneticist. What???? What precisley is wrong about being an expert in assessment? First, you got it backward, he's an expert in assessment, but not in global-warming. As for the importance thereof - maybe because it'll help in the assessment! You truly are a confused girl. I suggest you read the exchanges between me and Jdobbin. And that's Suzuki, btw! Quote
betsy Posted June 11, 2007 Author Report Posted June 11, 2007 Pinning all your trust on this so-called peer-reviewed...or any peer-reviewed journals, and accepting them without question, is not sensible. I am not denying there is climate change. What I'm questioning and challenging are those peer-reviewed journals. The Politics of Peer Review "In fact, "peer review" turns out to be highly susceptible to such subversion. For one thing, it's only as reliable as the individuals chosen to serve as "peers" and the formal process within which peer review takes place. Peer review doesn't automatically serve as a "guarantor of truth," note Rutgers University science policy scholars Stuart Shapiro and David Guston, and it also won't necessarily quench controversy in highly politicized scientific areas. So while "peer review" may be important as a direction or ideal, it's not a process that can be automatically and uncritically trusted to strengthen science. In closing, another telling example of the ambiguities inherent in peer review comes to mind. Last year the Stanford Law Review, a non-peer reviewed journal, published a devastating critique of economist John Lott's famed "More Guns, Less Crime" hypothesis, which had generally been supported by a series of peer reviewed studies that, in retrospect, seem severely flawed. Not surprisingly, Lott now criticizes the Stanford Law Review study for not being peer reviewed. But the substance of the argument is what actually counts, and economists seem increasingly convinced that Lott has lost on the merits--peer review notwithstanding. Perhaps there's a lesson there when it comes to the OMB/OIRA proposal. Before automatically embracing "peer review," we should be exceedingly careful to determine what the phrase actually means, who's using it--and why they care." http://www.csicop.org/doubtandabout/peerreview/ Got a better suggestion? Yep. Quote
betsy Posted June 11, 2007 Author Report Posted June 11, 2007 Why is it suddenly important that a scientist be an expert in climate change. The god of all global warming gods is a geneticist. What precisley is wrong about being an expert in assessment? At least it's clearly related to the issue...assessing the possible causes of climate change. Anyway I think he is more important than a mere assessor. Like a property assessor. Or some other mundane assessment role. No! He is the assessor of all assessors! And his property is....THE EARTH! He is free to make an assessment. However, he is not an expert in the science of climate change as he himself admits. Bingo! Finally you got it! Then why are you all listening to Suzuki? Presumably Everrett is making an assessment of the climate change debate. And where it's going. And if it's going in the right direction. He doesn't need to be an expert in climate change. He only needs to be an expert in assessing a debate. Now from the fact that he's not an "expert" in climate change, let's not conclude that he does not know what he's talking about - he's an expert in related fields. Our resident geneticist is, as far as I know, just a charlatan. Jdobbin, read your own post about Everett! My specialty is in impacts assessment (oceans, coasts, fisheries, polar regions), not the science of climate change. If the studies of oceans and polar regions don't give insight into climatic studies, then what's all the talk about the effects of climate change on the oceans and polar regions? Duh! Maybe he didn't noticed that the climate was affecting the regions of his major specialties! Quote
Who's Doing What? Posted June 11, 2007 Report Posted June 11, 2007 CC: The Honourable Rona Ambrose, Minister of the Environment, Huh??? Is this letter a bit dated? Open Kyoto to debate Sixty scientists call on Harper to revisit the science of global warming Special to the Financial Post Published: Thursday, April 06, 2006 And yet it mentions the Minister of the Environment, Rona Ambrose. She hasn't been minister for 6 months. Quote Harper differed with his party on some key policy issues; in 1995, for example, he was one of only two Reform MPs to vote in favour of federal legislation requiring owners to register their guns. http://www.mapleleafweb.com/election/bio/harper.html "You've got to remember that west of Winnipeg the ridings the Liberals hold are dominated by people who are either recent Asian immigrants or recent migrants from eastern Canada: people who live in ghettoes and who are not integrated into western Canadian society." (Stephen Harper, Report Newsmagazine, January 22, 2001)
BC_chick Posted June 11, 2007 Report Posted June 11, 2007 You truly are a confused girl. I suggest you read the exchanges between me and Jdobbin. That's three times on one thread alone you couldn't muster up an argument which did not include a personal attack within its content. I let it go the first couple of times but from now on it's: You have chosen to ignore all posts from: betsy.· View this post · Un-ignore betsy Congratulations, you're number three on the list. Quote It's kind of the worst thing that any humans could be doing at this time in human history. Other than that, it's fine." Bill Nye on Alberta Oil Sands
gc1765 Posted June 11, 2007 Report Posted June 11, 2007 Got a better suggestion? Yep. Want to share it? Quote Almost three thousand people died needlessly and tragically at the World Trade Center on September 11; ten thousand Africans die needlessly and tragically every single day-and have died every single day since September 11-of AIDS, TB, and malaria. We need to keep September 11 in perspective, especially because the ten thousand daily deaths are preventable. - Jeffrey Sachs (from his book "The End of Poverty")
betsy Posted June 11, 2007 Author Report Posted June 11, 2007 You truly are a confused girl. I suggest you read the exchanges between me and Jdobbin. That's three times on one thread alone you couldn't muster up an argument which did not include a personal attack within its content. I let it go the first couple of times but from now on it's: You have chosen to ignore all posts from: betsy.· View this post · Un-ignore betsy Congratulations, you're number three on the list. What's the insult? You're confused. You don't seem to have a clue what's going on. For example, what's all this gibberish? I must admit I'm confused too. I don't have a clue what YOU'RE talking about. So I guess we're even. Quote
jdobbin Posted June 11, 2007 Report Posted June 11, 2007 Bingo! Finally you got it!Then why are you all listening to Suzuki? Presumably Everrett is making an assessment of the climate change debate. And where it's going. And if it's going in the right direction. He doesn't need to be an expert in climate change. He only needs to be an expert in assessing a debate. Now from the fact that he's not an "expert" in climate change, let's not conclude that he does not know what he's talking about - he's an expert in related fields. Our resident geneticist is, as far as I know, just a charlatan. Jdobbin, read your own post about Everett! If the studies of oceans and polar regions don't give insight into climatic studies, then what's all the talk about the effects of climate change on the oceans and polar regions? Duh! Maybe he didn't noticed that the climate was affecting the regions of his major specialties! I don't consider Suzuki the final authority on climate change. I don't even think he is considered as climate expert. I consider him a science generalist and reporter. Dr. Everett says he is not an expert on climate science but in his own report makes assumptions about it. His assumption is that global warming will be good for the north. It is hard to reconcile that with what other oceanographers have said. In other words, his assessment is in a minority. I'll be interested to see further work from him in peer review journals. At the moment, his conclusion appears to be an opinion. Quote
madmax Posted June 11, 2007 Report Posted June 11, 2007 Everett, without his saying so, does seem to agree with the Harper approach. He considers the reduction of emissions a good thing. At no such time is any such nonsense implied or agreed with. He doesn't say he agrees with the "Harper" approach, nor would I gather he would have any idea what the "Harper" approach is to GHG. Harpers approach is one of intensity targets, which increases emmissions and does not reduce them. Quote
madmax Posted June 11, 2007 Report Posted June 11, 2007 Most of the folks involved in this debate but nonetheless billed as "experts" are not. Link? Check your IPPC links son. Link Quote
madmax Posted June 11, 2007 Report Posted June 11, 2007 CC: The Honourable Rona Ambrose, Minister of the Environment, Huh??? Is this letter a bit dated? Open Kyoto to debate Sixty scientists call on Harper to revisit the science of global warming Special to the Financial Post Published: Thursday, April 06, 2006 HOSED AGAIN!!! Dig up an old article and pretend that it is current and factual. What a waste. I am certain that this topic was probably well covered the first time around, long before I joined this board. Quote
betsy Posted June 11, 2007 Author Report Posted June 11, 2007 CC: The Honourable Rona Ambrose, Minister of the Environment, Huh??? Is this letter a bit dated? Open Kyoto to debate Sixty scientists call on Harper to revisit the science of global warming Special to the Financial Post Published: Thursday, April 06, 2006 And yet it mentions the Minister of the Environment, Rona Ambrose. She hasn't been minister for 6 months. But the subject is very much alive. It is very much relevant! Quote
betsy Posted June 11, 2007 Author Report Posted June 11, 2007 Everett, without his saying so, does seem to agree with the Harper approach. He considers the reduction of emissions a good thing. At no such time is any such nonsense implied or agreed with. He doesn't say he agrees with the "Harper" approach, nor would I gather he would have any idea what the "Harper" approach is to GHG. Harpers approach is one of intensity targets, which increases emmissions and does not reduce them. He did not say he agrees with Harper. I said, "without his saying so, does seem to agree with the Harper approach." Can you provide a link explaining Harper's intensity targets, increasing emissions? Quote
betsy Posted June 11, 2007 Author Report Posted June 11, 2007 Got a better suggestion? Yep. Want to share it? Listen to the other side. What they have to say, their own findings and opinion. Listen to those who sits independently, those who had chosen to ignore or criticize Kyoto, those who are not among the peers of this so-called peer-review. Quote
betsy Posted June 11, 2007 Author Report Posted June 11, 2007 CC: The Honourable Rona Ambrose, Minister of the Environment, Huh??? Is this letter a bit dated? Open Kyoto to debate Sixty scientists call on Harper to revisit the science of global warming Special to the Financial Post Published: Thursday, April 06, 2006 HOSED AGAIN!!! Dig up an old article and pretend that it is current and factual. What a waste. I am certain that this topic was probably well covered the first time around, long before I joined this board. There is no pretense. I happen to believe, like so many others, that it is factual! Anyway, what's wrong if this letter is a year old? Does the issue have a "best before date" that I'm not aware of? And why should it be ignored? Most especially on an issue of great importance such as this....when the impact on us will be so drastic, no matter what decision is made! You mean relevant documents do not come up, and are excluded as evidence in court just because they're old? Some documents are decades old....and yet I would bet a lot had won their cases! Quote
jbg Posted June 11, 2007 Report Posted June 11, 2007 OPEN KYOTO TO DEBATESixty scientists call on Harper to revisit the science of global warming Special to the Financial Post An open letter to Prime Minister Stephen Harper: Dear Prime Minister: We believe the Canadian public and government decision-makers need and deserve to hear the whole story concerning this very complex issue. It was only 30 years ago that many of today's global-warming alarmists were telling us that the world was in the midst of a global-cooling catastrophe. But the science continued to evolve, and still does, even though so many choose to ignore it when it does not fit with predetermined political agendas. We hope that you will examine our proposal carefully and we stand willing and able to furnish you with more information on this crucially important topic. CC: The Honourable Rona Ambrose, Minister of the Environment, and the Honourable Gary Lunn, Minister of Natural Resources - - - Sincerely, (Numerous signatories) © National Post 2006 http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financi...be-4db87559d605 -------- So, let's not wave that so-called "peer-review journal" as proof! I believe that not only Canadians, but people in other countries would benefit from such an open debate. The Internet broadens the reach of speech written in the English language, and the people of the US, Australia, NZ and UK woiuld benefit from learning that much of the propaganda being spoon-fed to them by fanatics is alarmist and inaccurate. All one has to do is remember the beginning scene from "An Inconvenient Truth", a little girl weeping over a melted ice cream cone, to know what level the "climate change" panic is pitched to. As if ice-based products didn't melt before the industrial age on warm days? Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.