Global Cooling

cp251 · 29-02-2008 1:55pm

Very well, Let's see. We can both play this game. To answer your original reply:

bonkey wrote: »

This still begs the question : how was a consensus reached??? Its convenient that you don't want to aruge the science because thats what was used to reach consensus.

Science was used to reach the consensus. It's not that I don't want to argue the science. I simply question the conclusions reached based on the science.

So basically, after saying there isn't a conspiracy, you more-or-less say that what has happened is that subconsciously, enough scientists decided to go and "prove" this by cooking the books.

I didn't say that. I pointed out the possibility that you cannot always divorce the human factor from the science.

Many scientists dispute the alarmist predictions. Comparatively few scientsts dispute the consensus, because that - by definition - is what a consensus is.

A consensus is merely that. a consensus. They might be wrong. They might be right.

Who is classifying them as deniers? I doubt its the other scientists.

Perhaps:

The situation is so bad that the front page of the Wall Street Journal printed an article in which one distinguished scientist said another distinguished scientist has a fossilized brain. He, in turn, refers to his critics as “the Gang of Five”.

Perhaps not.

From what I can tell, the origins of this myth were one student who said that he believed he would not have gotten funding had he not included a reference to climate. He didn't omit it, get rejected, then add it in and get accepted. There isn't any widespread study. There is (to my knowledge) one anecdote, and a hell of a lot of people making the claim as though it were fact.

That wasn't my point. Climate change is the current cause celebre. Why wouldn't a student or a scientist use this to help his or her work? I would be most surprised if it never happened.

Today, we are warmer than Canada currently is. If the Fulf shifts north, we will become as cold as Canada currently is. Canada will become warmer. Canada could end up warmer than Europe. There is no contradiction there....only the mistaken belief that the comparison with Canada was based on a potential future climate rather than the current, known one.

Maybe wherever you read didn't make their point properly, or maybe they made the error, but either which way, there's no contradiction. I'd also be pretty certain that whereever you read this is at best a lay-man's science source (like SciAm, or one of those) rather than a peer-reviewed publication of real science.

Ok, but surely the shift north will be as a result of the melting ice pack caused by warmer conditions in the arctic? If it's warmer in the arctic, won't it be warmer in Canada and in Europe? Or is warming a strictly regional phenomenon limited to the arctic?

You are indeed correct, I didn't read it in a peer-reviewed publication of real science. :rolleyes: I let my subcription lapse. There were several sources including a ridiculous TV programme. But I will bet money the sourse was indeed a peer-reviewed publication.

I find it amazing that you can distinguish who is making the cries of doom (i.e. predominantly not the scientists), but when it comes to the pillorying, you fail to make that distinction.

If you look at the scientific handling of those who dispute the consensus, you'll find that it only descends into scorn when you have the same scientist repeatedly trying to "prove" the same point, repeatedly with flawed methodology to the point where it is clear the person is either iredeemably incompetent or simply dishonest.

Whenever anyone here links to an actual scientific paper (as opposed to some opinion piece) questioning the established consesnsus, the first thing I do is search to see what the response has been from the scientific community. I see little - if any - pillorying or scornful rejection, other than for the grounds I've already mentioned. Where I do see it (from both sides) is where laypeople start discussing the science, but still put their faith in their abilities to "win the argument" rather than simply letting the science speak for itself.

You seem to believe that scientists are immune from human failings. Scientists are not robots. They suffer all the same failings as mere 'laymen' like me. They have egos, fears and insecurities. You also forget that science is not simply practised in glorious isolation. It is for the benefit of the layman. I would also point out that my main problem is not with scientists and their conclusions but the use it is put by those laymen you despise so much.

For someone who alleges to have read up on the issue, this shows a massive failing in what you've been reading. What is new is the rate of change, absent any clearly-identifiable trigger.

Isn't this crux of the whole argument? The absence of a clearly identifiable trigger? Or at least an agreed trigger.

Once the Gods kept us from falling into the sky. Now apparently its gravity.

Are you saying we should be equally skeptical of that finding (and all others) of modern science, or is it ok as long as we don't hold ourselves to be the cause?

Clearly I'm not saying that. You are just making a ridiculous and implausible extrapolation

So are asteroid impacts, such as the one believed to have impacted Chicxulub.

It had a bigger impact than us. The next one, (due 2012 apparently according to the other doomsayers) might very well have a similar impact. The dinosaurs might argue they were no mere blip.

Then your conclusion should be that you cannot decide whether or not humans are responsible, because you cannot understand how we could possibly come to such conclusions. This, however, isn't your conclusion...you are arguing that the process you cannot understand is wrong.

No read it again. I said: I cannot really understand how we can come to such momentous conclusions based on the observations of a few years. Simple as that. The rest is you going off on a tangent

This belief is based - at best on the scientific research that you admit to not understanding.

You're entitled to your beliefs. At least you admit that yours is based on a lack of understanding.

Yawn, I already made it clear in my emotionally overwrought way that I am not in fact a scientist. That belief is based on the actions and intentions of people, not scientists for the most part, who have made it quite clear where they want this society and culture to go. I see a danger in that even if you don't.

The only people making the "roll back" claim are those who are trying to resist change. Those who embrace it see it as moving forward, to a cleaner, more sustainable form of living, with a better quality of life than we've ever had before.

No would object to that. We would all like a better quality of life. I could be the poster boy for recycling, reducing pollution etc. The problem as I see it is this. The only real way to zero emissions is a reversion to a pre industrial age. This is quite seriously put forward as a possibility in some circles. The fact of the matter is the our quality of life right now largely depends on an emission rich culture. The risk is throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Worse still is the possibility that this happens based on faulty data. What if C02 is not the villain of the piece? What then?

Surely you mean the scariest thing is when the mob have an idea that you don't share.

Everyone needs to scared of a mob.

After all, here you are on a public bulletin board, trying to convince people that your idea is what they should listen to and believe in.

In fact no, my main intention is to tell people to question what they hear and read. You don't have to agree with me. I only ask you to think for yourself. I'm open to be convinced about human caused climate change. I believed in it wholeheartedly at one stage. Now I don't.

Perhaps you see no flaws or inconsistencies in the science and perhaps you believe the unpleasant social changes we must undergo to reduce carbon emissions are a neccessary evil. Indeed like some, you may believe that it's not really important whether or not the science is correct but the social changes are the real driving force in this issue.

You said

Those who embrace it see it as moving forward, to a cleaner, more sustainable form of living, with a better quality of life than we've ever had before.

That strikes me as an emotional and aspirational comment divorced from the science. Hmmm

cp251 · 29-02-2008 3:10pm

More emotive appeals? I thought you didn't approve of that stuff.

You have complained that people are being led astray by emotive arguments, hyperbole, and the like. If you don't want people to be led astray, then encourage them to look at the science. Encourage them to discuss the science. Encourage them to base their standpoint on their understanding of the science, and be willing to defend it in terms of the science.

But we don't see that encouragement from you. We see a refusal to engage in the science, accompanied by one appeal to emotion after the next.

That is aspirational in world where 'The inconvenient truth' wins an Oscar and Al Gore gets a Nobel prize. Emotionalism moi?

Your opinion was challenged, based on the material you presented. Rather than defend it, you've chosen this approach of making yourself to be some picked-on victim. More emotive appeals.

I don't consider myself picked on. Are you picking on me? Merely I was commenting on your apparent attitude to me (worthless) opinion.

What do you base this fear on? Science? Gut feeling?

Based on the knowledge of the appaling gaffes humans have made over the centuries. Communism, Nazism, environmentalism. Sorry that's emotional tsk tsk!

You've told us why you're skeptical - you don't accept the science because you see inconsistencies.

At the same time, you admitted to not understanding the science and also made claims about the untrustworthiness of science or scientists (with your claims about fitting data to conclusions).

I know why you're skeptical, and I know why the grounds you gave for your skepticism are largely misplaced. You have additionally stated that you've neither time nor inclination to discuss those topics.

You saying I wouldn't be skeptical if I understood the science. How do you explain skeptical scientists?

Again you extrapolate, in fact I trust science per se. But scientists are people. Are you saying trust me I'm a scientist?

If I'm wrong convince me why!

More emotive appeals.

You accuse me of excessive emotionalism, fine. But you don't assuage my fears. You merely dismiss them.

It does indeed....

Here's my take on it.

People are being swayed by the emotive arguments. But I ask you...who is making the emotive appeal here? You're refusing to discuss the science. You're refusing to discuss the responses to the points you've already made. Meanwhile, you're basically trying to make yourself out to be some sort of unfairly picked-on victim because you happen to disagree on topics you refuse to discuss.

When this stuff is pointed out for what it is...the very type of emotive side-issues that you complain are being used to sway people...you launch into what I can only describe as a cry for pity about about how you're a smart guy, well qualified in other fields, and so forth.

If you have a problem with emotive appeals, then stop using them and encourage people to limit themselves to discussing the science. Better yet, stop using them yourself, and discuss either the science, or at least the responses to the points you've already made about why you distrust the science.

That's all I'm doing here...pointing out that you are engaging in the very tactics that you are trying to decry and refusing point-blank to engage in the type of discussion which should be what is used instead.

[/QUOTE]

You are right, maybe my tactics are wrong here on this forum. I'm guilty as charged. The problem is that whole subject is emotionally charged and people actually become angry when you try to discuss the subject with any kind of objectivity. Have you read the papers or watched TV lately? It's full of stories of meltdowns, tipping points and extinguishing polar bears.

Plenty of emotion there.

bonkey · 29-02-2008 3:17pm

Very well, Let's see. We can both play this game.

What game? The game where I gave you a hard time for refusing to do anything except engage in the tactics you were decrying?

Science was used to reach the consensus. It's not that I don't want to argue the science. I simply question the conclusions reached based on the science.

There is only one meaningful way to question the conclusions, and thats to show the flaws in teh science used to reach them. You haven't done this. You've given one case (the reference to Canadian temperatures) where a simple difference of understanding what was being said led to your confusion. Other than that, though, every reason you've offered is removed from the science and is effectively nothing more but an appeal to emotion - the type of thing you also complain about being used.

I didn't say that. I pointed out the possibility that you cannot always divorce the human factor from the science.

You didn't provide evidence that they are doing this...you just raised the possibility that scientists could cook data to meet conclusions, and then made a flat statement that the conclusion is global warming, and a lot of money is being spent to prove it.

Let me take your tactic for a moment, and show you what I can do with it....

We know that people aren't immune to lying to support things they care about. One thing that cp251 cares about is opposition to global warming. A lot of money has been spent in opposition to global warming.

Now...is that a reasonable thing for me to say? I've neither accused you of lying, nor of being a paid shill...I have - as you said - pointed out teh possibility that you could be either. I have no evidence, but because I'm not saying you are a liar or a shill, I presumably don't need any.

Now...given that you were so quick to decry sophistry and subtle word-play earlier...would you feel perfectly OK with me making claims like that?

I know I wouldn't....which is why I've also taken exception to your using this tactic with regard to scientists. Either you can show that there is reasonable evidence to suggest that fitting data to a pre-formed conclusion is a widespread occurrence in the scientific field, or you should at least have the honesty to admit that you don't have any evidence to support the possibilities that you're putting forward.

Perhaps:
Quote:
The situation is so bad that the front page of the Wall Street Journal printed an article in which one distinguished scientist said another distinguished scientist has a fossilized brain. He, in turn, refers to his critics as “the Gang of Five”.

So we have some scientists on both sides of the debate calling each other names. Surprisingly, you didn't start by complaining that both sides are calling each other names...you complained that one side called the other names. Bit of a difference, don't you think?

[quote
]
That wasn't my point. Climate change is the current cause celebre. Why wouldn't a student or a scientist use this to help his or her work? I would be most surprised if it never happened. [/quote]
Why wouldn't some anonymous posters accept money to oppose global warming on an internet forum. I would be most surprised if it never happened.

See? I've done it again...I've taken your type of argument and used it to make a suggestion that could be referring to you, with the same amount of evidence as you supply (i.e. what I claim to be my belief). Still a reasonable way to form an argument....or would you not agree that both of us should limit ourselves to making claims about what we can show happens, as opposed to what we want people to believe could be happening?

You are indeed correct, I didn't read it in a peer-reviewed publication of real science. There were several sources including a ridiculous TV programme. But I will bet money the sourse was indeed a peer-reviewed publication.

I'm not asking you to bet money. I'm pointing out that you've received what is - at best - a second-hand account, made more accessible to the public, and based on omissions or flaws in that second-hand account which led to confusion, you have concluded that the underlying study is flawed. Don't you think that a reasonable step before reaching that conclusion would have been to search out the original work that the material you saw was based on, see whehter or not it made the same mistake (i.e. rule out that it ws something 'lost in translation') before conclusing that it was this original material which was flawed?

You seem to believe that scientists are immune from human failings. Scientists are not robots.

No, I don't. Thats part of why - as I said - I track down the scientific discussions on papers presented, so that I can find out whether or not mistakes were spotted, or whether disputes have arisen on key points.

You also forget that science is not simply practised in glorious isolation. It is for the benefit of the layman.

I'm forgetting nothing of the sort. What I'm remembering is that if a doctor tells me I need brain surgery, I don't go to a bricklayer for a second opinion, because the science was carried out as much for his benefit as anyone else's.

Just as I'd caution anyone who was being told to listen to their local florist when it came to specialised medical issues like brain-surgery, I'm cautioning people to bear in mind that they're being asked to disregard the best that science has to offer when it comes to climatology, in favour of the equivalent. And yes...I'm well aware that the florist might just be right and the brain-surgeon wrong....but when it comes to actually making a decision, I know which the smart money will back.

Once the Gods controlled the weather. Now apparently it's us.
...Once the Gods kept us from falling into the sky. Now apparently its gravity.

Are you saying we should be equally skeptical of that finding (and all others) of modern science, or is it ok as long as we don't hold ourselves to be the cause?

Clearly I'm not saying that. You are just making a ridiculous and implausible extrapolation

I've offered the same glib argument, with the same amount of evidence. If you want to make that out to be ridiculous and implausible, I will merely point out to the interested reader that the only difference is in information you choose not to supply, not in the argument presented.

That was my point. You'll see I've done it a few times in this post too...taken your method of argument and used it in an almost-identical manner, but in one which you will almost certainly refuse to accept.

So are asteroid impacts, such as the one believed to have impacted Chicxulub.

It had a bigger impact than us.

But it only effected the earth for one of these "blips" that you refer to. The point you're apparently missing is that duration and effect are not necessarily linked. That we've only been around for a comparatively tiny amount of time does not imply that we cannot have a large influence...but that is exactly what you were suggesting.

No read it again. I said: I cannot really understand how we can come to such momentous conclusions based on the observations of a few years. Simple as that. The rest is you going off on a tangent

Its not me going off on a tangent. Just because you don't understand how we can come to such momentous conclusions is not a failing of the science in question. A more useful argument would be that you understand how we reach such conclusions and can explain why such conclusions are consequently flawed....but professing to not understand only means that you're not in a position to offer a meaningful critique of the work.

I don't understand how many athletes do what they do. That doesn't mean that I should conclude that they're cheating...it means I don't understand and therefore cannot meaningfully comment.

No that belief is based on the actions and intentions of people, not scientists for the most part, who have made it quite clear where they want this society and culture to go. I see a danger in that even if you don't.

Do you think that this might be a reason why I consistently tell people to look at the science, rather than listening to those who are trying to push an agenda (pro or contra) based on what they tell you the science says.

What appears to be the difference is that I've no time for anyone pro- or contra- who engages in such tactics....where you seem to limit yourself only to criticising one side for engaging in this practice, whilst at the same time using many of the techniques that you're complaining about.

The problem as I see it is this. The only real way to zero emissions is a reversion to a pre industrial age. This is quite seriously put forward as a possibility in some circle

Maybe...but I'm not aware of anyone who is talking about zero emissions, beyond the occasional "radical" that you find on public bulletin-board systems.

I know the latest the Swiss are talking about is reaching one ton of CO2 per person per year (current average is four tons) by the end of the century.

Worse still is the possibility that this happens based on faulty data. What if C02 is not the villain of the piece? What then?

What if you're a paid shill and we believe you? What then?
What if *I'm* a paid shill, and people believe me. What then?
What if its aliens, faking the whole thing as a precursor to invasion! What then?

We can play "what if" games all day. The simple truth is that we have to make a decision. Choosing not to change is a decision. Choosing to wait until we've got more/better/different data is a decision. At no point, other than after things have happened, can we be 100% certain that our predictions are correct. At no point can we be certain that our decision is the right one.

What is notable, though, is that you're only advocating the "what if we're wrong" option be considered with one answer. What if you are wrong, and the vast majority of qualified experts in the relevant field are right? What if we listen to you instead of htem, and you turn out to have led us down the wrong path?

Why aren't you asking that question as well?

The best information we have, right now, says that we are over 90% certain that our future lies within a certain range. It says that with over 90% certainty, we have been a major contributing factor to this trend. As I've already pointed out, discussing what is the right thing to do has to wait until we decide whether or not we accept this.

If your doctor told you he was 90% certain that you needed treatment for a rare disease, and that any delay - even to make more certain - would make things far, far worse....would you seriously be agonising over the possibility of "what if the doctor is wrong, and the treatment makes me worse off than I would be if I did nothing"??? Would you continue this through the point where it would be too late to prevent massive long-lasting damage from a lack of treatment, even as symptom after symptom appeared consistent with the condition?

Surely you mean the scariest thing is when the mob have an idea that you don't share.

Everyone needs to scared of a mob.

...but of course, from your perspective, the only mob here is the one pushing teh AGW argument. Those opposing it...they're not a mob at all. They're a rational group of concerned, honest people.

Like I said...its only the mob you disagree with thats scary.

my main intention is to tell people to question what they hear and read.

So far, I haven't seen you once to tell people to do that regardless of whether they are reading something pro- or contra- the argument. All you've done is attack one side, suggesting that we can't rule out that its wrong. You've accused one side of engaging in appeals to emotion. Everything you've done has been one-sided and when people responded to you, your first comments were to claim that they were being nasty to you, albeit subtly.

All I've tried to do is point out that if you want people to question what they hear and read, then you should stop pushing a point of view on the issue at the same time....particularly when your point of view has insinuated that scientists on the side of the issue you disagree with may not be trustworthy. So how do you suggest people question what they read? I've recommended they do what you've admitted to not doing....go look at the science, rather than reading what others claim it says. You recommend that people consider that the scientists may be cooking the books.

The only options you've left without insinuation of dishonesty are those opinions (scientific and other) which oppose global warming....but you say that what you want are for people to think for themselves!

Perhaps you see no flaws or inconsistencies in the science

I've never made any such claim. I've often stated that no-one honest and informed on the pro-AGW side would claim that the science was not imperfect, nor incomplete.

and perhaps you believe the unpleasant social changes we must undergo to reduce carbon emissions are a neccessary evil.

I'm more of the opinion that we currently have no idea of what changes we must undergo. Most of the changes we already see are nothing but feel-good measures. The effective ones, oddly enough, are the ones that are generally the least unpleasant.

Indeed like some, you may believe that it's not really important whether or not the science is correct but the social changes are the real driving force in this issue.

I believe its incredibly important whether or not the science is correct. Its even more important that it be accepted as correct, for only then can we - the public - start insisting that imposed social change be backed by meaningful science.

djpbarry · 29-02-2008 3:45pm

cp251 wrote: »

A consensus is merely that. a consensus. They might be wrong. They might be right.

The consensus is based on the available scientific evidence, in the same way that a jury bases their verdict on the evidence presented to them. As the evidence strengthens, the likelihood of the jury returning an accurate verdict increases.

cp251 wrote: »

The situation is so bad that the front page of the Wall Street Journal printed an article in which one distinguished scientist said another distinguished scientist has a fossilized brain. He, in turn, refers to his critics as “the Gang of Five”.

So who are these "distinguished scientists".

cp251 wrote: »

Climate change is the current cause celebre. Why wouldn't a student or a scientist use this to help his or her work?

My application for funding didn't contain a single reference to climate change, yet my funding was still approved. Including such a reference would most likely have been detrimental to my chances of securing funding, as the likely response from the funding body would have been; "what the hell has any of this got to do with climate change?" How strange...

cp251 wrote: »

You also forget that science is not simply practised in glorious isolation.

Actually, a lot of research is.

cp251 wrote: »

Isn't this crux of the whole argument? The absence of a clearly identifiable trigger? Or at least an agreed trigger.

Not really. I would say reaching a consensus (among the general populace) on what IS happening or what HAS happened is essential before any consensus can be reached on what WILL happen.

cp251 wrote: »

I cannot really understand how we can come to such momentous conclusions based on the observations of a few years.

Why not?

cp251 wrote: »

The only real way to zero emissions is a reversion to a pre industrial age.

Considering that the overwhelming majority of people do not want this to happen, it seems unlikely that it will take place. Besides, I don't think there has ever been a time in recent history when man had absolutely no carbon footprint.

cp251 wrote: »

Worse still is the possibility that this happens based on faulty data. What if C02 is not the villain of the piece?

We could play "what if's" all day; it's not going to get us anywhere. The rational course of action would be to base our policies on what we know, or at least what is most probable, based on solid scientific evidence.

cp251 wrote: »

Everyone needs to scared of a mob.

Why?

cp251 wrote: »

I believed in it wholeheartedly at one stage. Now I don't.

Considering that the evidence FOR AGW has strengthened with time, I find your stance a curious one.

cp251 wrote: »

Perhaps you see no flaws or inconsistencies in the science...

Do you? Where are they?

cp251 wrote: »

Indeed like some, you may believe that it's not really important whether or not the science is correct ...

:rolleyes:

cp251 wrote: »

Based on the knowledge of the appaling gaffes humans have made over the centuries. Communism, Nazism, environmentalism.

So it's a gut feeling then? I'm curious; how is environmentalism comparable to Nazism?

cp251 wrote: »

You saying I wouldn't be skeptical if I understood the science. How do you explain skeptical scientists?

Are these the sceptical scientists who you continually fail to identify?

cp251 wrote: »

...in fact I trust science per se.

Really? In your previous post, you said that you "cannot really understand how we can come to such momentous conclusions based on the observations of a few years".

cp251 wrote: »

It's full of stories of meltdowns, tipping points and extinguishing polar bears.

Well, if a polar bear were on fire, I would sincerely hope that anyone in the vicinity would have the compassion to extinguish him.

bonkey · 29-02-2008 4:48pm

cp251 wrote: »

I don't consider myself picked on. Are you picking on me?

You complained about "subtle put downs and an element of sophistry" saying that "It's a pity that was resorted to.".

If you didn't think you were being picked on, then presumably you'd feel you deserved the put-downs, at which point I'd be at a loss as to why you felt it was a pity it was resorted to.

Merely I was commenting on your apparent attitude to me (worthless) opinion.

I'd like to point out that I've never called your opinion worthless. You have.

You're portraying yourself as the victim of an attack that never happened...which is ironic when you consider that your last point in the post I'm responding to is that there's too many attacks actually being made on the issue. If there's so many being made, how are you helping things by making up additional ones?

Based on the knowledge of the appaling gaffes humans have made over the centuries. Communism, Nazism, environmentalism. Sorry that's emotional tsk tsk!

Yes...you do deserve a "tsk" for just lumping communism, nazism and environmentalism together without explaining why....just as I would if I put climate-denial in the same basket as the denial that tobacco causes cancer, and creationism, if I didn't offer reasons as to why I felt those comparisons were valid.

I would also point out that knowing that humans have ****ed up doesn't tell us anything about how to avoid it in the future. Replace environmentalism with climate-change-denial in your sentence, and its just as valid...in the sense that its still meaningless.

You saying I wouldn't be skeptical if I understood the science. How do you explain skeptical scientists?

I said your reasons for skepticism, as you have presented them, are badly flawed. I did not say that skepticism cannot be valid.

Again you extrapolate, in fact I trust science per se. But scientists are people.

You admitted that the whole Canada/Europe temperature thing - the only example you've supplied for the reasoning behind your rejection of the theory - isn't something you got from scientists work directly, but rather from somewhere else. Also, you were only willing to bet that there was real science behind it somewhere...showing that you haven't researched back to find what it was, and verify that it is in fact where the problem lies.

Having admitted to all of this lack of invesigation, you want to argue that it is the science that you didn't track down that we should be suspicious of...on the grounds that we can't rule out the possibility that its wrong, because hey...scientists are human.

Need I point out that everyone else in the chain which took that information from some unknown scientific work and brought it to you are also all human? It would seem that you've arbitrarily decided who you can't trust. You don't know where the material came from, but you've trusted that it was brought to you correctly and that its the source thats flawed. You haven't even checked what that sourve is, going by what you've posted here.

Are you saying trust me I'm a scientist?

I'm saying that given the choice between a consensus on one of the most intently studied areas in modern science, and an anonymous boards poster who rejects something that has passed through unknown number of hands and decides to assign the doubts regarding the quality on the humanity of the (unknown) source, rather than actually resarching the thing.....I'll take the consensus of scientists any day of the week, and twice on Sundays.

If I'm wrong convince me why!

When you tell me you're willing to discuss the science, and you stop raising non-falsifiable claims as objections, I'm more than willing to try.
Non-falsifiability (as everyone reading hopefully knows) is central to scientific analysis.

You accuse me of excessive emotionalism, fine. But you don't assuage my fears. You merely dismiss them.

I'm not dismissing them. I'm dismissing the notion that we should listen to your fears, when your basic complaint is that people are being driven by listening to fears instead of becoming informed.

I'm advocating an informed approach as an alterantive. I'm showing why your arguments are mostly the very thing you complain about, the only difference being the cause you're advocating/opposing.

[/QUOTE]
Have you read the papers or watched TV lately?
[/QUOTE]
The sources you advocate that we not be swayed by? Sure...I've read them. I'm no more swayed by them, though, then I am by the equivalent claims from the other side that its all some con/hoax/mistake or that we can't really be sure of anything so we should do nothing.

cp251 · 29-02-2008 5:18pm

Congratulations on the fast replies, both of you. Enjoyable though it is I feel I must bow out of the game. For a game it has become.

What game? The game where I gave you a hard time for refusing to do anything except engage in the tactics you were decrying?

The game I refer to is the quote followed by a rebuttal game. An internet staple which becomes rather pointless eventually as all we do is extract a line, attack it with a pithy comment and move onto the next . Eventually the whole thing becomes rather circular and never moves on. This being an example. In fact both my replies deliberately intended to illustrate that tactic.

For the sake of completeness I will answer a few of your rebuttals.

We know that people aren't immune to lying to support things they care about. One thing that cp251 cares about is opposition to global warming. A lot of money has been spent in opposition to global warming.

That in fact is a reasonable thing to say. The first and last sentences are indeed correct. The second line is used in this context to imply I might be lying. But in fact you have misunderstood me again. I do not imply that scientists are lying consciously or subconsciously. That is your interpetation of what I said. I mentioned the 'human factor'. I'm a pilot and one of things we are trained against is seeing what we expect to see rather than what is actually there. Somehow you seem to believe scientists are immune to the problem.

Why wouldn't some anonymous posters accept money to oppose global warming on an internet forum. I would be most surprised if it never happened.

So would I, but are you naive enough to think it never happened!

As for the rest, you would expect me to research everything I hear on a subject before reaching a conclusion. Yet when the Doctor tells me I need brain surgery you expect me to take his word for it because he's Doctor. Replace the word Doctor with Scientist. You see what I mean.

Like I said...its only the mob you disagree with thats scary

No all mobs are scary, even if you completely agree with them. Terrifying if you don't. That's why djpbarry!

I believe its incredibly important whether or not the science is correct. Its even more important that it be accepted as correct, for only then can we - the public - start insisting that imposed social change be backed by meaningful science.

I concur, except to say the science must be correct not just accepted as correct. What mustn't happen is that social be imposed without meaningful science. Which in my opinion is happening right now. That is not the fault of the scientists.

djpbarry

As for lumping nazism with environtalism. It's the 'ism' part that is important. It implies certainty in a cause or religion.

Juries hung the wrong people all the time.

The distinguished scientists were mentioned in the Joanna Simpson quote in a previous post.

Good for you on your application for a grant. I'm guessing it wasn't relevant to climate change?

Coming to a conclusion based on a few years research is the equivalent of looking out the window today and deciding it's always rainy and windy here. Ok there is a grain of truth in that;)

Considering that the evidence FOR AGW has strengthened with time, I find your stance a curious one.

I think otherwise.

Are these the sceptical scientists who you continually fail to identify?

You mean you are not aware of any skeptical scientists?

Well, if a polar bear were on fire, I would sincerely hope that anyone in the vicinity would have the compassion to extinguish him.

That would be stupid. He's bound to be quite cross about the whole thing. Nasty animals those Polar bears:D

You might interested in ths thread on a pilots forum. Perhaps you will find a more worthy adversary. But be warned not everyone there is actually a pilot. Some are even scientists. You don't have to read it all, it is rather long.

Edit just saw Bonkeys new post. I have to say it's more of the same quote/rebuttal. We need to move away from that.

http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=258830

In response to your complaints about my lack of scientific back up. Here is a link to the Intenational Climate Science Coalition. Plenty of science there with a hint of skepticism. They have plenty of links to others.

http://www.climatescienceinternational.org/index.php?option=com_frontpage&Itemid=1

AngryHippie · 01-03-2008 3:10am

I do trust the science behind the current global warming warnings. There are many good reasons to, from the Laptop I'm typing on to the web its posted on, they are both built on the back of the scientific method. At the same time, there are always reasons to question the methodology and assumptions made in the process. Climate is a particularly hot potato, due largely to its complexity. We still have a very limited understanding of our oceans and global water systems, which would reduce my stock in the drastic sea level rise and cold snap ideas. Temperature rise is evident at this early stage, as is increased wind and storm activity, But there is evidence to suggest that they are peaking in their own natural cycle anyway, So again, the devil in the detail, means we can only see a little of the puzzle at any time, and we can never tell exactly how to criteria interact with each other, SO while the general trend may be accurate and correct, the trigger points and tipping points that are spoken about will only be pinpointed after the fact.

My major concern over the issue is the fact that it is being used by our governments to enforce further limitations and restrictions on our civil liberties, instead of offering alternatives. This is the incorrect plan to achieve the stated goals, incentives instead of taxes. ON the other hand, the global struggle to secure the last of the easily exploitable resources is probably exhausting as much greenhouse gas as civic activity anyway, so why should we bother if the yanks are still flyin round with B52's and all manner of other military gas guzzlers. Are they doing that to secure my future ? or yours ?

Resolution of the C02 issue has to occur on a personal, local, national and global scale, on a level that has never been witnessed before, While this is possible in theory, the fact that most people will not notice any change in their day to day experiences of their environment for quiet some time, would leave question marks over the feasability of depending on personal contribution to addressing the problem. Personally I doubt the commitment of the many and the motivations of the few. sad though it may be.

djpbarry · 01-03-2008 1:09pm

cp251 wrote: »

The game I refer to is the quote followed by a rebuttal...

I'm sorry, but I could have sworn this was an internet forum, designed for precisely that purpose.

cp251 wrote: »

So would I, but are you naive enough to think it never happened!

That statement means absolutely nothing. You are assuming something happens because, in your mind, it seems reasonable and quite probable. It proves nothing.

cp251 wrote: »

As for the rest, you would expect me to research everything I hear on a subject before reaching a conclusion. Yet when the Doctor tells me I need brain surgery you expect me to take his word for it because he's Doctor.

Given that it will likely take you a considerably longer time to familiarise yourself with the intricacies of the human brain than it will to grasp the fundamentals of climate change, I think bonkey's statements are reasonable.

cp251 wrote: »

What mustn't happen is that social be imposed without meaningful science. Which in my opinion is happening right now.

What social changes are being imposed right now (with respect to climate change; imposed being the key word)?

cp251 wrote: »

As for lumping nazism with environtalism. It's the 'ism' part that is important. It implies certainty in a cause or religion.

:rolleyes:

Has the game changed to "Let's make the most general, meaningless statements we can think of"?

The '-ism' suffix can be used to denote a whole range of things; religion or belief system, doctrine or philosophy, theory developed by an individual, political movement, artistic movement, action, process or practice, characteristic, quality or origin, state or condition, excess or disease, prejudice or bias or characteristic speech patterns.

cp251 wrote: »

Juries hung the wrong people all the time.

Did they? Juries hung the WRONG people ALL THE TIME? Are you sure about that? Besides, did I say I was referring exclusively to courts that exercise capital punishment? How many people have been hung in the EU lately?

cp251 wrote: »

The distinguished scientists were mentioned in the Joanna Simpson quote in a previous post.

They were mentioned alright, but no names were given.

As for what Dr. Simpson tells us:

There is no doubt that atmospheric greenhouse gases are rising rapidly and little doubt that some warming and bad ecological events are occurring.
...
What should we as a nation do? Decisions have to be made on incomplete information. In this case, we must act on the recommendations of Gore and the IPCC because if we do not reduce emissions of greenhouse gases and the climate models are right, the planet as we know it will in this century become unsustainable.

Now, granted, she claims to be sceptical of climate models. But, it should be pointed out that the latest IPCC report includes comparisons between climate predictions made in earlier IPCC reports and the actual data measured since then.

cp251 wrote: »

I'm guessing it wasn't relevant to climate change?

:rolleyes: That was sort of my point. As you've probably guessed from my signature, I work in research in DIT, but I have yet to see anyone in my department (or neighbouring departments) do any work in the area of climate change. You can have a browse on the website and see for yourself. Why not check out the other universities too? This myth that research grants are being handed out left, right and centre for anyone wanting to do anything in the area of climate change is precisely that; a myth.

cp251 wrote: »

Coming to a conclusion based on a few years research is the equivalent of...

... a PhD thesis? In your opinion, how many years should research encompass before a valid conclusion can be reached?

cp251 wrote: »

I think otherwise.

You think the case FOR AGW is weakening? Why?

cp251 wrote: »

You mean you are not aware of any skeptical scientists?

I am not aware of a single researcher working in the area of meteorology, oceanography, climatology, etc. that does not accept that man-made CO2 emissions are very likely contributing to climate change. Are you? Yes or no? If you are, then name them.

cp251 · 03-03-2008 5:38pm

Again the selective quote and rebuttal djpbarry? I'm not playing that game anymore. It's pointlessly circular.

I was much more interested in angryhippie's response which is in fact closer to my point of view in many ways even though we might differ whether or not we believe in AGW.

My major concern over the issue is the fact that it is being used by our governments to enforce further limitations and restrictions on our civil liberties, instead of offering alternatives.

That is a serious concern of mine and many others. Climate change or no. These actions will impact our lives in some way. Even scientists need to be concerned about that. They after all live in the same world as the rest of us.

This is not the first time science has been used to justify the actions of people who think they know what's best for us. That's almost as dangerous as anything nature can throw at us.

lostinsuperfunk · 03-03-2008 8:14pm

cp251 & AngryHippie, what limitations are being imposed by governments on our civil liberties in response to climate change? I'm not aware of any.

However, I am aware of anti-terrorism being used to justify such impositions, some of which are a bit onerous.

AngryHippie · 04-03-2008 3:14am

Kyoto for a start, We commit and agree to carbon penalties, set targets, and then the two biggest global environmental offenders are allowed to just ignore the treaty at every level. You might not take it seriously now, but If you find taxes increasing to pay a carbon penalty while 20 million fat americans drive around in SUV's from airconditioned building to building all using "stolen" oil, don't say you were never warned.
Aside from that, taxes on flights, food miles and road tax will all be subject to review under a truly green agenda, the impacts these have on people will inhibit their liberities in the second fastest way - financially.
I wasn't talking about getting black bagged for flying short-haul or owing a jeep, but a gradual erosion of choice from lightbulbs to lifestyle will in time effect your freedom to choose, and not always in a good way.

bonkey · 04-03-2008 11:48am

AngryHippie wrote: »

Kyoto for a start,

Kyoto impacts no-ones civil liberties.

We commit and agree to carbon penalties, set targets, and then the two biggest global environmental offenders are allowed to just ignore the treaty at every level.

You're misrepresenting the reality of what the Kyoto agreement was and is.

The Kyoto agreement only binds those who agreed to sign up to and ratify it. It was only ever intended to serve that purpose.

So its misleading to say that the two worst offenders are "allowed to just ignore" it. Anyone who decided to not sign up to Kyoto is allowed to just ignore it.

What will be more interesting is to see what happens to those who did sign up to Kyoto, as the signs are (last time I saw them summarised somewhere) that almost all (if not absolutely all) will miss the targets they agreed to.

You might not take it seriously now, but If you find taxes increasing to pay a carbon penalty while 20 million fat americans drive around in SUV's from airconditioned building to building all using "stolen" oil, don't say you were never warned.

Ah...so when you say that Kyoto has affected our civil liberties, what you mean is that its possible that it might do so at some indeterminate point in the future.

Aside from that, taxes on flights, food miles and road tax will all be subject to review under a truly green agenda, the impacts these have on people will inhibit their liberities in the second fastest way - financially.

Again...all things which have not come to pass. So again, you're complaining not about what has been done, but rather against any and every idea that has been considered, whether or not it will ever be seriously put forward.

I wasn't talking about getting black bagged for flying short-haul or owing a jeep, but a gradual erosion of choice from lightbulbs to lifestyle will in time effect your freedom to choose, and not always in a good way.

What you're basically arguing is that its wrong to have changing legislation on what is and is not permissably legal to sell, based on criteria such as pollution.
If you had been campaigning for a return to our shelves of lead-rich paint, or leaded petrol, or CFC-loaded fridges before this whole global warming thing....I might consider that you seriously did consider that its an abrogation of our essential liberties to be prevented from buying what we like...that its unreasonable for a government to decide what is and is not legal for sale.

Then again...if you were doing that, I'd expect you to frame the argument that way, rather than complaining about the latest reason why some such legislation is being considered.

Tell me - do you think your life is seriously worse off now that you can't get free plastic bags any more?

AngryHippie · 04-03-2008 12:58pm

bonkey wrote: »

Ah...so when you say that Kyoto has affected our civil liberties, what you mean is that its possible that it might do so at some indeterminate point in the future.

If you look back I never said that it had I am saying that it will there is no point pretending that it won't. Maybe in a less severe way than I suggested, but its the gradual slide that creeps along until at some stage we realise that we are locked into a programme that is having no positive effect because the major players have their own rules.

Again...all things which have not come to pass. So again, you're complaining not about what has been done, but rather against any and every idea that has been considered, whether or not it will ever be seriously put forward.

I was listening to Noel Dempsey on an interview about transport 21 last week, where he made allusions to the fact that congestion charges are being considered as part of the programme, I suppose that would not represent a threat to civil liberty ? having to pay to drive to a part of the country ?

What you're basically arguing.....

I think my points were clear enough that you don't have to keep summarising my arguments inaccurately for me.

Basically what I am arguing is that the government can use the green platform to extract more money from the populace without providing any real proof of effect after the fact. They can promise it'll make the planet better, and slow global warming, but the reality of the situation is they can no more prove what effect the changes have made than they can quantify them.
The changes made should be above all else targeted at the areas of greatest effect, (which to be fair you did mention).To ensure it does not have adverse socio-economic knock ons,it should only be aimed at those that can afford it.

Tell me - do you think your life is seriously worse off now that you can't get free plastic bags any more?

One of the few exceptions. It has removed a substantial portion of litter from the country.

BTW leaded petrol and lead based paints both have health issues concerning them, the predominant reasons for their banning was health, not the environment. That is misrepresenting reality, in order to prove a point I wasn't even making. We are on the same side of the argument here i suspect.

WanderingJew · 04-03-2008 1:24pm

lostinsuperfunk wrote: »

cp251 & AngryHippie, what limitations are being imposed by governments on our civil liberties in response to climate change? I'm not aware of any.

Massive price rises in everything required for your existence. Food, water, heat, clothing, housing and transport. I think that is a restriction on civil liberties.

As for "Bonkey". Waken up.

maniac101 · 04-03-2008 1:37pm

bonkey wrote: »

What will be more interesting is to see what happens to those who did sign up to Kyoto, as the signs are (last time I saw them summarised somewhere) that almost all (if not absolutely all) will miss the targets they agreed to.

In fact, a large number of countries are on target to achieve or even undercut their Kyoto targets. In Europe these will include Sweden, Germany, UK, and all twelve new EU accession states, with the possible exception of Slovenia. Many more of the 41 'Annex I' countries will achieve their targets by the end of the Kyoto period if planned measures are put in place. Some countries such as Ireland, Greece and Switzerland are less likely to reach their defined targets.

However, it's not just a case of whether or not a country meets its targets, it's also a question of how those targets are achieved. The UK, for instance, is likely to go 11% below its -12.5% Kyoto target and will be the best performer in the OECD. This is due to a great extent to the decline of manufacturing industry in that country since 1990. But UK manufacturing has simply been replaced by lower cost manufacturing in other countries that are not bound to Kyoto targets. (Remember that around 150 countries have ratified without having any emissions targets defined for them). The nett effect of this is of course that global CO2 emissions increase, inspite of Kyoto targets being met. 'Carbon leakage' is one of the main flaws of Kyoto.

bonkey · 04-03-2008 1:51pm

AngryHippie wrote: »

If you look back I never said that it had I am saying that it will there is no point pretending that it won't. Maybe in a less severe way than I suggested, but its the gradual slide that creeps along until at some stage we realise that we are locked into a programme that is having no positive effect because the major players have their own rules.

Nothing major has happened yet as of Kyoto - we agree on this.

You admit that what will happen is maybe less severe than what you originally suggested, but fear that its going to put us on some slippery slope because we're locked into the agreement. I feel that fear is unjustifiable. Why? Because the Kyoto Protocol only came into force this year, and only lasts until 2012 and no further. It is, more than anything, a "trial" to find out what does and doesn't work, what can and cannot work. We're not locked into anything, no more than attending university (a comparable amount of time) locks you into anything for the rest of your life.

I was listening to Noel Dempsey on an interview about transport 21 last week, where he made allusions to the fact that congestion charges are being considered as part of the programme, I suppose that would not represent a threat to civil liberty ? having to pay to drive to a part of the country ?

Firstly, I'd point out that you already have to pay to drive in all parts of the country, so I think its a stratch to say that this is an abrogation of civil liberty. I'd also point out that it won't be the first place in teh country where you have to pay a supplement to drive.

Secondly, lets remember that its a congestion charge. The aim is to reduce congestion. Its not an emissions charge. Its not a global warming charge. Its not a Kyoto tax. Its a congestion charge. While I'd agree that it would be a bit disingenuous trying to sell this as a "green" or "anti global warming" move, I wasn't aware that the government were proposing it as such. My understanding was that they were selling it as a key part of dealing with traffic problems in Dublin which would have the additional benefit of helping with emissions.

Thirdly, I wouldn't consider it as a threat to civil liberty any more than I'd consider having to pay for kerbside parking a threat to civil liberty.

As with the lightbulb, you're again giving an example where there's a (seperate) problem which needs solving, and a solution is being proposed which is broadly in line with the types of solution already used in the general field being addressed.....and yet portray it as the start of what you allege to be a slippery-slope.

(I use the word allege deliberately, because you've yet to show that it *is* a slippery slope...that if the public accept the first one or two fo these measures, they'd lose all ability to change the course we'd follow as a result, even were we to wish to do so).

I think my points were clear enough that you don't have to keep summarising my arguments inaccurately for me.

The particular case you picked to object to was where you argued that you fear that "a gradual erosion of choice from lightbulbs to lifestyle will in time effect your freedom to choose, and not always in a good way". You don't give a single example other than the lightbulb but want us to accept that some of it will be bad.

If you think some of it will be bad, then why not give an example of legislation that is being seriously considered that would be bad? I gave you a chunk of other legislation which is similar to the lightbulb legislation, showing that its not something new, nor is it something thats unreasonable.

Basically what I am arguing is that the government can use the green platform to extract more money from the populace without providing any real proof of effect after the fact.

But you offer no evidence they have done this, no evidence they will do this, no evidence that the public will blindly accept it as you claim they will. Your argument seems to be that because it could be abused, we should be distrustful (to the point of rejection?) of all of it.

To ensure it does not have adverse socio-economic knock ons,it should only be aimed at those that can afford it.

I don't necessarily agree that someone should be automatically exempted for paying for their pollution because they can't afford to.

Taking cars as a case in point...if someone is running an old car with terrible mileage, and huge emissions, I don't believe for a second that they should be exempted of being responsible for that on the grounds that they cannot afford to buy a cleaner car. That said, I also wouldn't accept that we could (for example) introduce a 50c/L additional "carbon charge" overnight to pay for emissions and just say "**** whoever can't pay for it". If we were to say today, though, that such a charge was going to come in between 2012 and 2015, at the rate of 12.5c/year....I'm not sure I'd have a problem with that, providing there was an intelligent plan of what to do with the money.

One of the few exceptions. It has removed a substantial portion of litter from the country.

Can you give an example of one of the many non-exceptions?

BTW leaded petrol and lead based paints both have health issues concerning them, the predominant reasons for their banning was health, not the environment.

We're not protecting the environment out of altruism. The root is still the same...the cost to society of not doing something about it is considered to be greater than the cost of doing something.

We are on the same side of the argument here i suspect.

Perhaps. I know I'd object to stupid legislation as fast as anyone....I'm just not sure we'd agree on what is stupid. I additionally suspect that I'm not quite as cynical about the whole affair and what is being done about it as you and others seem to be.

My primary stance, though, is that we (society) need to accept that we have a scientific consensus (and what that consensus is) before we can meaningfully discuss/agree on what to do. If someone believes the science is duff, then even the best-intentioned, effective measures are unjsutifiable to them, as they are tackling a non-existant problem and thus must have an ulterior purpose.

WanderingJew · 04-03-2008 1:59pm

bonkey wrote: »

My primary stance, though, is that we (society) need to accept that we have a scientific consensus (and what that consensus is) before we can meaningfully discuss/agree on what to do. If someone believes the science is duff, then even the best-intentioned, effective measures are unjsutifiable to them, as they are tackling a non-existant problem and thus must have an ulterior purpose.

99.9% of scientists are government paid. I assume that is the consensus you are referring to.

Global warming is a scam, and it is becoming more and more obvious with each passing day.

AngryHippie · 04-03-2008 2:22pm

bonkey wrote: »

Nothing major has happened yet as of Kyoto - we agree on this.

http://www.joanburton.ie/?postid=206

Sometimes, nothing happening is indicative of a bigger problem.(yes I know that was from a few years ago, the situation persists.

bonkey wrote: »

Firstly, I'd point out that you already have to pay to drive in all parts of the country, so I think its a stretch to say that this is an abrogation of civil liberty. I'd also point out that it won't be the first place in the country where you have to pay a supplement to drive.

Not really, Unless the congestion charges are directly used to fund public transport links to the city. And where else do you have to pay a supplement to drive ?? there are alternative routes in the motorway/toll situation if that is what you are referring to.

Thirdly, I wouldn't consider it as a threat to civil liberty any more than I'd consider having to pay for kerbside parking a threat to civil liberty.

Another total botch - clamping - what is wrong with the french system, Parking attendants leave you a ticket that you can pay at the ticket machine, If you park in a double yellow you are towed end of story.
Clamps make the situation worse.

As with the lightbulb, you're again giving an example where there's a (seperate) problem which needs solving, and a solution is being proposed which is broadly in line with the types of solution already used in the general field being addressed.....and yet portray it as the start of what you allege to be a slippery-slope.

You may not agree if You had to replace your old cheap bulbs that you are familiar with with a CFL that is not as effective, The slippery slope element is that while it starts with small commodities like plastic bags and light bulbs, If it were to impact on the choice of clothes, footwear, car or foodstuffs available to you, That would represent a more serious change ?

If you think some of it will be bad, then why not give an example of legislation that is being seriously considered that would be bad? I gave you a chunk of other legislation which is similar to the lightbulb legislation, showing that its not something new, nor is it something thats unreasonable.

What chunk of legislation ?

Your argument seems to be that because it could be abused, we should be distrustful (to the point of rejection?) of all of it.

Exactly. If its going to be put in, its gotta be watertight, or have a system of checks/balances to ensure if it is abused it can be at least monitored

I don't necessarily agree that someone should be automatically exempted for paying for their pollution because they can't afford to.

Even though the pollution is only necessary because of the lifestyle model the country has committed to as being sustainable ?

Taking cars as a case in point...if someone is running an old car with terrible mileage, and huge emissions, I don't believe for a second that they should be exempted of being responsible for that on the grounds that they cannot afford to buy a cleaner car. That said, I also wouldn't accept that we could (for example) introduce a 50c/L additional "carbon charge" overnight to pay for emissions and just say "**** whoever can't pay for it". If we were to say today, though, that such a charge was going to come in between 2012 and 2015, at the rate of 12.5c/year....I'm not sure I'd have a problem with that, providing there was an intelligent plan of what to do with the money.

So do you think that the new vehicle tax proposal regarding engine size are fair even though the nissan micra has higher emissions per mile than a v6 BMW with a 3 litre engine ??????

Can you give an example of one of the many non-exceptions?

see last point

We're not protecting the environment out of altruism. The root is still the same...the cost to society of not doing something about it is considered to be greater than the cost of doing something.

My point is that while we in this country can make all the changes that occur to us and the benefits of that can be wiped out by the US, India and China then it is purely for altruism. It doesn't actually help the situation, it just gives us the "not my fault" higher ground

Perhaps. I know I'd object to stupid legislation as fast as anyone....I'm just not sure we'd agree on what is stupid. I additionally suspect that I'm not quite as cynical about the whole affair and what is being done about it as you and others seem to be.

Not just stupid legislation, but inconsequential legislation that has unquantifiable, immeasurable benefits that may not actually benefit us at all. But merely leave us with more legislation and more cost thorough enforcement and compliance.

My primary stance, though, is that we (society) need to accept that we have a scientific consensus (and what that consensus is) before we can meaningfully discuss/agree on what to do. If someone believes the science is duff, then even the best-intentioned, effective measures are unjsutifiable to them, as they are tackling a non-existant problem and thus must have an ulterior purpose.

Good intentions ain't gonna stop climate change.
Good practice, good policy and good politics have a chance.

By the way, on the subject of Kyoto :

NOW Ireland, the group representing the interests of Ireland’s leading offshore wind operators have called on policy makers to heed the lessons of failure to meet our Kyoto targets and put a framework in place for reaching our renewable energy targets from this point on. The statement comes in the light of a report by the EU indicating that Ireland would fail to achieve its Kyoto target by almost 100%.

Ireland faces even stricter targets in the coming years as a tougher regime comes into power from 2012 onwards. The cost of failure to achieve these targets is a continuing dependence on the purchase of carbon credits as a means of meeting our obligations. The Government has already made allowance for the purchase of over €260 million worth of Carbon credits in the 2007 budget.

From
http://www.finfacts.com/irelandbusinessnews/publish/article_1011929.shtml

260 million.....
I make that 61 Euros for every man woman and child. I wonder what else we could have spent it on ?

AngryHippie · 04-03-2008 2:35pm

WanderingJew wrote: »

99.9% of scientists are government paid. I assume that is the consensus you are referring to.

Global warming is a scam, and it is becoming more and more obvious with each passing day.

Hi casey!

bonkey · 04-03-2008 3:57pm

AngryHippie wrote: »

http://www.joanburton.ie/?postid=206
And where else do you have to pay a supplement to drive ?? there are alternative routes in the motorway/toll situation if that is what you are referring to.

There are, equally, alternatives to driving to places inside the congestion zone.

Another total botch - clamping - what is wrong with the french system, Parking attendants leave you a ticket that you can pay at the ticket machine, If you park in a double yellow you are towed end of story. Clamps make the situation worse.

I didn't refer to clamping, I referred to paying to park. At one point, all parking was free. Gradually, free parking has been replaced with various "pay to stay" systems. I don't see a problem with this, personally, and I also see a parallel with the congestion problem.

You may not agree if You had to replace your old cheap bulbs that you are familiar with with a CFL that is not as effective,

If I left all my bulbs as "glow pears" (literal translation of the Swiss term for them) and then tried replacing each and every one of them at one go....sure...I'd be pretty annoyed at the one-time charge. Alternately, I could do as I'm doing with batteries) which is replacing each set as they die with a set of rechargeables. With the costs spread out over time like that, I won't notice the cost of change any more than I'll notice the savings in my household bill when I don't have to spend the price of a couple of pints on a pack of non-rechargeables every few months. The math says that longterm, it will save me money, but even ignoring the long-term payback, its a negligible cost unless I try doing everything at once.

I'd oppose any legislation that was sprung on us overnight which required such a radical shift, but telling us that lightbulbs will be removed in (say) 4-5 years gives me those 4-5 years plus whatever time I choose to stockpile for to transition. Over such a timeframe, the costs become negligible.

The slippery slope element is that while it starts with small commodities like plastic bags and light bulbs,

You agreed that replacing plastic bags was good. You agreed (albeit implicitly) that replacing things that were a health issue was good. So aside our differences on the merits of replacing light bulbs, all the evidence you've provided so far suggests that there's a "slippery slope" of making things better, with a minimal or nonexistant cost to the consumer except where the consumer mismanages things.

What chunk of legislation ?

I listed a number of things that used to be legal and available, but which are no longer available, nor would be legal to be made available.

Exactly. If its going to be put in, its gotta be watertight, or have a system of checks/balances to ensure if it is abused it can be at least monitored

But then your argument against global warming ultimately should be rephrased as being a fundamental mistrust of democracy in general, and our government in particular. Global Warming has nothing to do with it, really, because your concern is that we have a system that isn't perfect and you don't trust that.

Even though the pollution is only necessary because of the lifestyle model the country has committed to as being sustainable ?

I said I don't necessarily agree. I gave a case in point where I don't believe we can argue that its not the individual's responsibility to pay for their choices.

As fgor what pollution is necessary...well thats the core of the entire debate really. The efforts at reducing pollution are based on the argument that where we can reduce its because the pollution is not necessary. If the counter-argument is that its necessary for us, because we've decided we like the benefits that come with this pollution, then yes, we pay for it.

As for "the lifestyle model the country has comitted to"...what exactly is that? From my perspective, individuals choose a lifestyle, not countries. I know people in Ireland who don't have a car. They've made lifestyle choices based on that, but they don't have a car. So in the case I gave - the pollution from a car - its still a personal choice whether you have a car or not. Its still a personal choice that if you do have a car, what type of car you have.

We make those choices...and they're not sustainable choices, then its time we woke up and smelled the coffee, rather than insisting its wrong for anyone to do anything about making us realise this. If we get to choose our lifestyle, then yes, we most certainly pay for our pollution. If we don't get to choose out lifestyle, then where do we get the right to complain about the new lifestyle thats being chosen for us?

So do you think that the new vehicle tax proposal regarding engine size are fair even though the nissan micra has higher emissions per mile than a v6 BMW with a 3 litre engine ??????

Have the government changed the proposal? My understanding was that it was based on CO2 emissions, not on engine size. Basing it on engine size is dumb. Consumption- or emission-based charges, on the other hand, makes more sense.

My point is that while we in this country can make all the changes that occur to us and the benefits of that can be wiped out by the US, India and China then it is purely for altruism. It doesn't actually help the situation, it just gives us the "not my fault" higher ground

Similarly, any individual action you take can be undone by another individual somewhere else in Ireland. Thus, no-one should bother doping anything, because they can't make anything better.

Alternately, we could look at what happens when a movement reaches critical mass, and see why there is a point in individuals starting, then small groups, then larger groups.....ultimately putting pressure on even the largest players.

260 million.....
I make that 61 Euros for every man woman and child. I wonder what else we could have spent it on ?

[/quote]
We could have spent it on the very types of things that people are opposing, which would have helped or enabled us to make our Kyoto targets. Y'know...emissions reduction measures.

We left everything as long as possible, ignoring the problem. We'll end up paying the fines that we agreed to and won't receive the benefit we could have had, had we spent that money on reducing emissions over the last 10 years instead.

Its possible, of course, that we've made more then 61 Euro a head by not having spent the money on emission-reduction....that the critics who said Kyoto is too expensive were right.

In that case, we shouldn't really complain about the fine, but maybe complain about how stupid our government were to sign up and then not do anything, when they could have simply said "no thanks" at the outset.....in which case I'm right with you. Ireland took the stupidest path possible....agree to the punishment, then do nothing to try and avoid it.

Of the other options, though, I'd like to see us tread the path of figuring out how to do it right (accepting that we'll not get it perfect along the way) rather than the option of deciding that because we can't be guranteed a perfect, effective outcome all the time, every time, that we should do nothing.

Ireland screwed up with respect to meeting Kyoto agreements because we didn't do anything until it was too late. I do not believe the lesson we should learn from this is that we should avoid the successor to Kyoto, so we can stay doing nothing. Rather, I believe we should look at the nations who've made the most progress and ask ourselves if they're really worse off having cleaned up their act.

bonkey · 04-03-2008 4:02pm

WanderingJew wrote:

99.9% of scientists are government paid.

As I've pointed out before - and I'm pretty sure it was to one of your previous sockpuppets, Casey - the largest and most powerful of those governments are the most opposed to doing anything about global warming.

Why would these governments pay scientists to fake reports that they then try to suppress, try to disagree with, try to brush under the carpet, and then when all that fails, just flat-out disagree with any plans to do anything about it legislatively.....if they're really behind the whole thing in the first place.

Its like they're not only their own worst enemy, they're their own only enemy.

AngryHippie · 04-03-2008 4:27pm

bonkey wrote: »

Its like they're not only their own worst enemy, they're their own only enemy.

A wonderfully crafted demonstration of a two party system !

I take on board your points about lightbulbs and plastic bags, they are not the strongest of arguements, but they are illustrative of how erosion of choice, while fine on trivial matters can cause havoc when they spread to more serious issues. I do not trust the government, They have proven their incompetence on so many issues at this stage, Some of the opposition are doing an outstanding job, but they do not have the pressure of responsibility on them, so it is anyones best guess as to how they would perform in cabinet if they ever managed to get that far.
Ireland has developed a dependence on personal transport (cars) this permeates every aspect of life from employment to socialising, While it is sustainable for this generation (maybe), Our children are growing up knowing only this lifestyle, they do not know what the alternative is, as none has been put forward in a meaningful way.
It is going to literally take an emergency to get any progress on this issue. We cannot all go anywhere we want anytime we want for any reason, that is to say, we can now, but no government can guarantee the same conditions in 5 years time. Will our Govt. have the resources in place in 5 years time to complete those journeys without using private transport ? NO.
Will they have the resources in place by 2021 ? NO
Are the even looking at the issue from that standpoint or are they just trying to make it better bit by bit in the same slipshod way that brought us the M50 Mk 1 ? We should be moving towards the car being an unnecessary luxury item, instead we are spending vast amounts on roads that could see their capacity peak within the next 5-10 years. There could be a rail interchange the full length of the M50 with a park and ride system similar to Luas Red Cow.
All I am saying is that the government are doing little to assuage my mistrust by patching together separate plans without any coherent measures to tackle the root of the problem, which is our societies dependence on the car.

djpbarry · 04-03-2008 4:40pm

AngryHippie wrote: »

Ireland has developed a dependence on personal transport (cars) this permeates every aspect of life from employment to socialising, While it is sustainable for this generation (maybe), Our children are growing up knowing only this lifestyle, they do not know what the alternative is, as none has been put forward in a meaningful way.

The problem is, many drivers refuse to consider the alternatives. Have a look at these figures from the DTO:

52% of people said the car was their most often used way of getting around.
26% of people think only of their car for all trips.
40% of car owners don’t consider any travel options other than the car.
27% of all respondents said the car is preferable for short journeys of a mile or less.
55% of short journey car users said they were unlikely to consider walking instead.
Only 3% of these short journey car users said they were very likely to consider walking for short journeys of a mile or less, instead of using the car.

If people are unlikely to even CONSIDER using an alternative to their cars, then how will the AVAILABILITY of said alternative make any difference?

bonkey · 04-03-2008 5:04pm

AngryHippie wrote: »

A wonderfully crafted demonstration of a two party system !

Except, in this case, its all been the one party.

Seriously...the notion that governments are paying scientists to support Global Warming in order to push some corresponding agenda is beyond ridiculous.

Of course I expect politicians to try and take advantage of the issue...but I'd expect them to do the exact same if science turned around tomorrow and said they got it completely wrong. Similarly, I expect capitalists to behave the same - they protect existing profit-generation as much as possible, until they're in a position to switch to new profit-generation systems....at which point, you see them switch positions from denial to

I take on board your points about lightbulbs and plastic bags, they are not the strongest of arguements, but they are illustrative of how erosion of choice, while fine on trivial matters can cause havoc when they spread to more serious issues.

They're illustrative of how its find on trivial matters...agreed. I don't understand how they - being trivial matters - show that it can cause havoc on more serious ones. I don't suggest, incidentally, that such an approach cannot cause havoc on more serious issues, but nor do I accept that it must do so.

I do not trust the government,

And thats the crux of it, really. The issue at hand is mostly a side-show....if it went away tomorrow, you'd still mistrust the government, and would still be skeptical of whatever they tried to do, regardless of how and why.

This is really where I wanted to get to with this line of discussion. Many people start being skeptical of Global Warming, or being skeptical of anything being done or proposed about global warming, but what they're really saying is "I don't trust the government, and the government supports this".

They have proven their incompetence on so many issues at this stage,

Just as the populace have, by reelecting them so many times. You (societally speaking) get the government you deserve.

Some of the opposition are doing an outstanding job, but they do not have the pressure of responsibility on them, so it is anyones best guess as to how they would perform in cabinet if they ever managed to get that far.

If these people support a government measure...does that make it a good measure, or a case where these people have bowed to some (hidden) agenda? The opposition doesn't always oppose. Its nice to see, though, that you've left yourself the space to not trust these people who've done an outstanding job, should they ever get out of opposition.

Ireland has developed a dependence on personal transport (cars) this permeates every aspect of life from employment to socialising, While it is sustainable for this generation (maybe), Our children are growing up knowing only this lifestyle, they do not know what the alternative is, as none has been put forward in a meaningful way.

Excellent point. We have, indeed, gone down the wrong road, we continue to go down it, and we've gone too far down it for our own good. I agree entirely.

So...what do you propose? We need to build better public infrastructure, but that could take a generation and more before its good enough. In the meantime, do we just allow everyone to continue down that road, or do we try and convince them to be a bit more sensible and to make some allowances here and there? Bear in mind that the congestion-charge idea is exactly one such attempt...to encourage people to minimise (as far as is practical) their car-usage in critical areas....but you've said this is an unacceptable breach of civil liberty. Some people say that we just need to put in more public transport, and people will use it...but what if they don't? Given that its the type of question posed by those opposing global warming so often, allow me to ask you....what if we spend a fortune on public transport, and people decide to stay in their cars. Do we just let them, it being civil liberty and all?

It is going to literally take an emergency to get any progress on this issue.

Strangely, global warming is being billed as just such an emergency. The reaction that we all too often see is outrage that we're being told an emergency is imminent.

Ultimately, I think Ireland will end up being that guy who didn't replace his electricity bulbs, didn't stockpile, then had every bulb in the house blown by a power-surge (of his own creation)....and will insist that its someone else's job to pay for his replacement costs. We'll live in denial as long as we can, then when forced to confront reality, will look to blame someone for having fed us the reasons our denial.

We should be moving towards the car being an unnecessary luxury item, instead we are spending vast amounts on roads that could see their capacity peak within the next 5-10 years.

I'd like to agree, but to be honest, Ireland's roads are about 40 years behind the times, which is why they're urgently being upgraded.

By 2020, they should be only 20 years out of date.

On the other hand, I live in Switzerland, with arguably the best public transport system on the planet, and I don't feel the car is an unnecessary luxury item. Its not as necessary as in Ireland, and there are entire sections of demographic who are fine without one...but the car will be necessary for the foreseeable future. The aim is to reduce teh number of people for whom its necessary....and hopefully convince them to not have one (even if that means taking steps you see as being directly against their civil liberty).

There could be a rail interchange the full length of the M50 with a park and ride system similar to Luas Red Cow.

There could be...but the infrastructure to move such volumes of people to/from such a rail system also aren't in place.

Its easy, in hindsight, to say we should or shouldn't have done something. The thing to remember is that until Ireland had money, our infrastructure was falling more and more out of date, but we didn't have an imminent problem because of it.

Once the money arrived, we caught up with (and surpassed) Europe in terms of the number of cars per capita and so many other things.....but no amount of money was or is going to create the equivalent infrastructure overnight that they've been building constantly since the 40s.

European nations built the infrastructure over a long, long period. They continuously upgrade. We've started from way, way back and are still playing catchup. WE don't just get to have a 21st century infrastructure because we've got money and figured out in the past few years that we should have one.

All I am saying is that the government are doing little to assuage my mistrust by patching together separate plans without any coherent measures to tackle the root of the problem, which is our societies dependence on the car.

Can you identify when that clearly became the problem? Can you identify a clear solution?

bonkey · 04-03-2008 5:06pm

djpbarry wrote: »

If people are unlikely to even CONSIDER using an alternative to their cars, then how will the AVAILABILITY of said alternative make any difference?

I'd reason that those people are basing their considerations on currently available alternatives.

Offer people a bus- , tram- and train- system with to-the-minute punctiality, high availability, integrated ticketing, cleanliness, security, and whatever else you like.....and I'd be willing to bet that even if they won't change their minds, their kids will.

djpbarry · 04-03-2008 6:36pm

bonkey wrote: »

Offer people a bus- , tram- and train- system with to-the-minute punctiality, high availability, integrated ticketing, cleanliness, security, and whatever else you like.....and I'd be willing to bet that even if they won't change their minds, their kids will.

Considering the number of kids who get driven everywhere by Mammy and Daddy, I'm not so sure:

The latest research shows that over half of schoolchildren live no more than a 20-30 minute walk (2kms) from school and almost 80% live within 5kms, again a reasonably short cycle for older schoolchildren. But less than 40% of schoolchildren now walk or cycle.

http://www.onesmallstep.ie/yo_schools.php

So, over 60% of kids get driven to school and, unfortunately, they're going to get used to that level of comfort.

AngryHippie · 04-03-2008 10:23pm

I think that we are all on the same side of this argument, having reached it with different perspectives and priorities.
As a partial solution,
I would suggest a program for rapid upgrade of public transport links in conjunction with an SSIA style scheme whereby people who use Public transport as an alternative to car ownership in current conditions have a reduction made in vrt or road tax when their account period expires, This would both reduce the total numbers of new cars on the road for a period of time, while effectively providing demand for sub-contracted bus services to take up extra routes without masssive govt. expenditure, then in parallel with that, upgrade the rail lines to be able to cope with an extra capacity, extra routes along major commuter belts and more flexible ticketing systems, Mandatory bus transport for school runs into urban centres. No more school runs.
The Energy situation is being addressed gradually through renewables, there is very little extra that can be done outside the bio-fuel markets, which could see more investment.
There is little doubt that the Car manufacturing industry is coming up with solutions to the looming fuel crises,I read the other day about Tata the India based manufacturer having come up with a 100mpg car run on bio-diesel and electrolysis which would provide a neat option in a few years time for those that made the sacrifice of an automobile in the short term.
Granted the net result of the above might actually cause a slight reduction in the income generated from VRT and road tax, but surely the short term loss could more than be accounted for by the 5-10 year public transport gains possible???

Its just an idea. But it did have a positive effect on the economy during the SSIA period... Money saved could even be spent on car manufacturer shares with a view to the profits gained by boosted sales in the splurge years at the end...I'm a dreamer....:rolleyes:

lostinsuperfunk · 05-03-2008 1:50am

Angryhippie, we probably agree on more points than we disagree.

Kyoto is fundamentally flawed, and not only because some of the largest CO2 emitters on the planet declined to sign. I think it can only really be considered successful as a limited test phase of various schemes to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions. Let's hope that the agreement that succeeds it doesn't get crippled by politics and has a better chance of achieving its goals.

If the premise of human induced dangerous climate change is accepted and we want to do something about it, then there are choices to be made about how to accomplish this goal. Inevitably, some kind of trade-off has to be made, which may involve diminishing what you term "freedoms" but what I would for the most part describe as discretionary consumer lifestyle spending choices, e.g. a 2.5 L SUV vs. a Nissan Micra, an incandescent bulb vs. a CFL. Neither of those choices would keep me awake at night.

I think where we differ is on how we would like to accomplish the goals. Our Kyoto fines are a disgrace, and seem to be largely down to governmental incompetence, which is a worry. However I don't see how collective action problems of this scale can be addressed other than through our admittedly imperfect governments. Governmental incompetence is a completely different problem to climate change which we need to address separately.

bonkey · 05-03-2008 12:39pm

djpbarry wrote: »

Considering the number of kids who get driven everywhere by Mammy and Daddy, I'm not so sure:

You mean the number of kids in a city which doesn't have the type of system I was talking about.

Look at where these systems are in place, and have been for at least a generation. There, you'll find exactly what I'm suggesting.

bonkey · 05-03-2008 12:48pm

lostinsuperfunk wrote: »

Kyoto is fundamentally flawed, and not only because some of the largest CO2 emitters on the planet declined to sign.

The USA is the only large CO2 emitter who has not ratified the treaty.
Every large CO2 emitter, including the USA has signed it.

djpbarry · 05-03-2008 12:51pm

bonkey wrote: »

You mean the number of kids in a city which doesn't have the type of system I was talking about.

What sort of "system" is necessary for a kid (read, lazy little ****er) to walk to school?

More than half of schoolchildren live within 2km of school; the best public transport system in the world is not going to provide an attractive alternative for such short journeys.

lostinsuperfunk · 05-03-2008 1:53pm

The USA is the only large CO2 emitter who has not ratified the treaty.
Every large CO2 emitter, including the USA has signed it.

My mistake. I suppose the real flaws are that the Annex II countries can increase their emissions as they wish and the USA has chosen not to ratify it. Tackling emissions growth from developing countries without depriving them of the ability to improve living standards is going to be a really thorny problem.

On driving short distances to schools in cities, here is a cheap, CO2 neutral, public transport alternative.

bonkey · 05-03-2008 3:28pm

djpbarry wrote: »

What sort of "system" is necessary for a kid (read, lazy little ****er) to walk to school?

I don't know, but it has nothing to do with teh point raised.

I said that if you give people a world class public-transport system, either htey or their jids will adopt to use it.

The response I received was to the effect of "but what if those kids are being driven everywhere".

I stand by what I said. What is happening in Dublin today has nothing to do with it, because the only way you could class Dublin's transport system as world class would involve nuking a large number of other cities into dust.

More than half of schoolchildren live within 2km of school; the best public transport system in the world is not going to provide an attractive alternative for such short journeys.

It doesn't need to. It needs to break the mindset that you drive everywhere. The rest follows.

djpbarry · 05-03-2008 3:52pm

bonkey wrote: »

I said that if you give people a world class public-transport system, either htey or their jids will adopt to use it.

The response I received was to the effect of "but what if those kids are being driven everywhere".

What I'm saying is that I wouldn't be so sure that if Irish people are given the choice between top-class public transport and a private car that they (or even their kids) will opt for public transport. I was using the example of the thousands of kids in the greater Dublin area being driven to school everyday to illustrate that:

These kids are getting used to cars, just like their parents, and are unlikely to switch to public transport later in their lives.
Given the choice between walking and using the car for journeys of several hundred metres, a large number of people opt for the car. This would make it unlikely that they would opt for public transport over their car if they’re not even prepared to walk to the bus stop, train station or whatever.

bonkey wrote: »

What is happening in Dublin today has nothing to do with it, because the only way you could class Dublin's transport system as world class would involve nuking a large number of other cities into dust.

No disagreement there.

bonkey wrote: »

It needs to break the mindset that you drive everywhere.

Precisely my point, but I think this is going to be considerably difficult to achieve in Ireland.

AngryHippie · 05-03-2008 4:33pm

djpbarry wrote: »

Precisely my point, but I think this is going to be considerably difficult to achieve in Ireland.

No more than any other 1st world nation really, but it has to happen

cp251 · 07-03-2008 3:34pm

It isn't happening at the moment or at least very slowly. People drive because as often as not they have to. As bad as the traffic problem is. It's still quicker to drive. It's a chicken and egg situation though. Heavy traffic slows the buses. The problem is that even without the traffic the buses are not frequent enough.

Simple examples, I live in Galway. The bus passes my door but I only used it once. I arrived in Galway on the train, 7 in evening, (you see I am quite green), decided to ignore the taxi and not to call my wife out, thus avoiding increasing my carbon footprint. :rolleyes: I went to the bus stop. Forty minutes later the bus finally arrived. Ten minutes later I arrived home. The best part of an hour for a ten minute trip. It won't happen again. Similarly my car was in for a service. The garage was about a mile and half to two miles away on a bus route. I decided to walk in the direction of the garage and hope to collect a bus on the way. I was in sight of the garage when a bus finally appeared on the horizon. No wonder traffic is chronic in Galway.

It's not that different in Dublin. I decided to park and ride the LUAS from the Red Cow. I was charged to park in the car park. Then I caught the LUAS there and back. The next week I just drove into town. The whole effort was cheaper and quicker than the LUAS expedition.
The Green answer to all that is the charge me extra for the car trip while talking about improving the transport infrastructure. They won't improve it because that would mean either increasing taxes or diverting taxes from other needs such as the health service.

With the short termist attitude of most politicans in this country and beyond. That won't change.

djpbarry · 07-03-2008 3:58pm

cp251 wrote: »

People drive because as often as not they have to.

In the Dublin area there are a lot of unnecessary trips being made, school runs being one example. DTO Director / Chief Executive John Henry:

If everyone left their car behind for just one trip each week, there would be 200,000 fewer car trips every day in the Greater Dublin Area

cp251 · 09-03-2008 12:49pm

People do make unneccessary car journeys. It's a fact of life. Lazyness in truth.

On the main topic, here is a site that may interest.

http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/

Read the 'Who Decides'. Notice how he references the quotes such as:

Heidi Cullen’s suggestion that the AMS should withhold certification from weathermen who did not, “truly educate themselves on the science of global warming,” leaving no doubt as to what the conclusion of said education should be.

David Suzuki’s challenge, “to find a way to put a lot of effort into trying to see whether there’s a legal way of throwing our so-called leaders into jail because what they’re doing is a criminal act,” i.e., those who stood in the way global warming legislation. (This is especially unseemly, coming as it does from an official of a human rights group.)

David Roberts’ deplorable comment that, “When we’ve finally gotten serious about global warming, when the impacts are really hitting us and we’re in a full worldwide scramble to minimize the damage, we should have war crimes trials for these bastards — some sort of climate Nuremberg.”

You might want to check this out as well:

http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/03/08/3-of-4-global-metrics-show-nearly-flat-temperature-anomaly-in-the-last-decade/

But he's probably a paid shill of big business and oil companies. Just like me.:rolleyes:

bonkey · 10-03-2008 1:07pm

Let us indeed notice how he references the quotes.

The full quote from Heidi Cullen's text, for example, taken in context as a reply to a comment from Brian van de Graaf (a WJLA meteorologist) offering a commentary on Global Warming. If you go to the site you linked, then follow the link to Wikipedia offered after Heidi Cullen, you'll see both van de Graaf's comment and Cullen's full response. You'll also notice that although allegations of political motivation were levelled at her, Dr. Cullen denied that intention. Indeed, if you read her quote without bias, you'll see that she is not suggesting any single viewpoint, but rather that meteorologists not abuse their positions by making comments on issues they should be but are not well-versed in.

Similarly, on that website, there's a link to the wikipedia entry for David_Suzuki. Its worth reading, to note firstly that he's not a climatologist and secondly for the comment from Terry O'Neill that "Suzuki's alarmism is nothing new, and more-prudent scientists have long ago answered his hyperbole and exposed his faulty logic."

Finally, we should take a look at David Roberts comment. Actually, before we do that, lets take a look at David Roberts to see what sort of scientist he is. Oh wait...he's not a scientist at all. His own bio on gristmill is as follows :

David was born and raised in the South. A revelatory summer working in Yellowstone National Park convinced him that it was not the world but just the part where he lived that sucked, so he moved out West. After several wayward years spent snowboarding and getting an MA in philosophy (go griz), he woke up with nothing but a dissertation between him and an arid, cloistered life spent debating minutiae with the world's other 12 Dewey scholars. So he bailed. A period was spent trudging through the swamp of Seattle tech work, wading past Amazon.com, IMDb.com, and Microsoft, before the fine folks at Grist fell for his devastating good looks in December 2003

So basically, he's a writer for an on-line magazine. Reading a bit about teh magazine (from their own 'About' page), we find that they describe themselves as : "Grist: it's gloom and doom with a sense of humor. So laugh now -- or the planet gets it."

So what do we have here?

We have three quotes supplied to make some point. One is from the writing-based equivalent of a shock-jock. One is from a scientist who has a second career in broadcasting and a third in activism and who has long been recognised as being outspoken in that third role and who was not commenting on his own area of expertise. The third is from a relevantly-qualified scientist who was admonishing someone else for offering a commentary based on a position of comparative ignorance, because of the nature of that person's job and qualifications and the weight it would give their statements.

Jones then goes on to say that "For the expert to rebuke him with a patronizing “read a book” is an abrogation of responsibility on the part of the expert. " Funnily, none of hte comments suggested that at all. Only one of hte three comments was from an expert, and that comment was admonishing someone else for offering commentary despite a lack of expertise and a recognition that the issue was complex.

Jones' article wrote:

It is up to the expert to explain his position simply, plainly, and in layman's terms.

Indeed it is, Mr. Jones. However, one has to ask why you supplied two quotes from non-experts to try and make this point, and one from an expert who was complaining about non-experts muddying the waters.

cp251 wrote:

But he's probably a paid shill of big business and oil companies. Just like me

No-one here has accused you or him of being a shill. I find it ironic that you make this comment in a post highlighting how some people aren't just sticking to the facts, and how such tactics are an attempt to stifle debate.

octo · 14-08-2008 5:48am

The First Global Revolution is out of print, but there's a pdf here. The famous quote is on p.75

This quote is very popular on all those recycled conspiracy blogs, which just seem to copy each other's accepted truths based mainly on internet rumours, while urging their critics to 'do your research'. If you read it in context you'll see that "Global Governance" is clearly differentiated from "Global Government".

Here's the complete quote with the omissions inserted in bold.

"In searching for a new enemy to unite us against whom we can unite, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. In their totality and their interactions these phenomena do constitute a human threat which must be confronted by everyone together. But in designating these dangers as the enemy, we fall into the trap, which we have already warned readers about, namely mistaking symptoms for causes. All these dangers are caused by human intervention in natural processes, and it is only through changed attitudes and behaviour that they can be overcome. The real enemy, then, is humanity itself."

How sinister does it read now?

Having clearly defined a previous usage of 'enemy' as referring to environmental problems, the 'humanity as enemy' comment is then added as a counterpoint to the argument. This selective quoting would award you a fail in an undergraduate essay.

rigormortis wrote: »

I have done plenty of research. You dont have to look very far to come to the correct conclusions. I tend to look at the overall picture, who benefits from these global warming claims?

How about this for evidence;

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]"In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up
with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming,
water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill ...
All these dangers are caused by human intervention
and it is only through changed attitudes and
behaviour that they can be overcome.
The real enemy, then, is humanity itself."
- Club of Rome,
The First Global Revolution,
consultants to the UN.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif][/FONT]

Global Cooling

Comments