 |
Green World Trust
No greenwash here. Just truths as we find them, open to discussion and change
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Lucy Skywalker
Site Admin
Joined: 09 May 2006
Posts: 544
Location: Somerset, UK
|
 Posted: 27 Feb 2009 12:46 am Post subject: |
 |
|
Eric
You don't understand what is making us laugh. So you cannot stop us laughing either! 
However, I would like to try to share with you tomorrow the secrets of our laughter and maybe, like I did a year ago, like Ian did, you too might see the light and laugh with us. But as Jesus pointed out, sometimes being qualified is an obstacle to seeing the light.
I shall have a go with you. I have been working on it for many hours. But not tonight, it's time for bed and again I've missed supper. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
PAWB
Experienced User
Joined: 14 Oct 2008
Posts: 69
Location: Devon, England
|
| Posted: 27 Feb 2009 07:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
Eric:
I will leave Lucy to have the "final" say, but I find it amusing how anything can be said with a straight face about the IPCC methodology. At least there is some honesty in there stating that the final agreement (consensus) is by government delegates, not a consensus of the scientists involved in the process. Anyone who believes politicians is extremely naive. Opinion poles in this country have shown the political class to be the most untrusted group of people (worse even than 2nd hand car salesmen, double-glazing salesmen and estate agents). I for one would not mortgage my future on the statement from a consensus of government delegates (particularly from 120 countries).
Of course everybody's testimony is a peronal opinion. The worth of that opinion is if it is based on scientific evidence or political rhetoric. But I am amazed that you question whether warming is a benefit to mankind compared to cooling (the only alternative). I just cannot believe the position that you are coming from.
_________________
Phillip in Devon, England |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Eric
Experienced User
Joined: 06 Feb 2009
Posts: 189
|
| Posted: 27 Feb 2009 01:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| PAWB wrote: | Eric:
I will leave Lucy to have the "final" say, but I find it amusing how anything can be said with a straight face about the IPCC methodology. At least there is some honesty in there stating that the final agreement (consensus) is by government delegates, not a consensus of the scientists involved in the process. Anyone who believes politicians is extremely naive. Opinion poles in this country have shown the political class to be the most untrusted group of people (worse even than 2nd hand car salesmen, double-glazing salesmen and estate agents). I for one would not mortgage my future on the statement from a consensus of government delegates (particularly from 120 countries).
Of course everybody's testimony is a peronal opinion. The worth of that opinion is if it is based on scientific evidence or political rhetoric. But I am amazed that you question whether warming is a benefit to mankind compared to cooling (the only alternative). I just cannot believe the position that you are coming from. |
According to the description., the technical chapters have a different procedure with no veto power given to governmental delegates. Only scientists are involved.
| Quote: | | The underlying technical chapters are accepted without this line-by-line approval process, but both country delegations and authors invest a huge amount of effort into insuring that, prior to acceptance, everything in the SPM is consistent with the underlying technical material. |
Some people may benefit from warming, but the assessment report says the losses of the many far outweigh the benefits to a few because of the time scales involved and the extreme climate changes associated with what would seem to be a modest change in global average temperature.
Temperature changes, flood and drought conditions will intensify.
There is a lot of scientific literature on this, which I don't claim to have read, and these are the conclusions as I understand it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
PAWB
Experienced User
Joined: 14 Oct 2008
Posts: 69
Location: Devon, England
|
| Posted: 27 Feb 2009 02:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Eric: Not much time at the moment, but look at the way a lot of the IPCC reviewers comments are ignored. Look at the way David Holland tried to find out what was going on in the IPCC and tried to use the FOI to get access. Dr J Mitchell, Director of Climate science at the UK Met Office tried all manner of ways to avoid revealing what was going on, finally stating he had been acting in a personal capacity as lead reviewer and had destroyed all his records (in contravention of the IPCC 'rules', which require all records to be retained). I can send you chapter and verse if you like. But that's why one reason why I have no confidence in the IPCC outputs.
And what really amuses me is the way the IPCC SPM use the terms like 'likely' and 'very likely' as % probabilities, as if these have any statistical validity, instead of being just opinions. It all seems designed to fool the average reader (and no doubt the gullible media) into thinking that these likelihoods have some scientific validity. I do have some statistical background and my understanding of a 95% probability is somewhat different from the way the IPCC portrays consensus opinion as a 95% probability.
As I said, I wouldn't mortgage my future on IPCC opinions.
_________________
Phillip in Devon, England |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mike Davis
Experienced User
Joined: 12 Dec 2008
Posts: 291
Location: E. Tennessee USA
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
PAWB
Experienced User
Joined: 14 Oct 2008
Posts: 69
Location: Devon, England
|
| Posted: 27 Feb 2009 04:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Mike:
Thanks for the link. I had not actually seen this before. Looking through it I would describe the process as abysmal. 90odd% of all comments are addressed by 'Noted. Text has been edited' or 'Accepted. Text has been edited'. This is the most pathetic example of a review process I have ever come across in over 30 years. In my experience, the person signing off acceptance of the review having been completed properly, should have thrown it back as totally inadequate. Assuming someone does sign off completion.
If I were a Quality Assurance auditor (which thankfully I have never been, but have been heavily involved in the subject, in developing procedures and in training people in use of Quality Procedures), I would hold this up as a shining example of how not to perform a document review.
My experience is that QA (e.g. ISO9001) is only used by private industry and people in government employ, Universities and, by extension IPCC, do not use any quality control at all. I have searched throught the IPCC site and have not found any mention of Quality Control. I would have thought that one of the first priorities of the IPCC should be to have a quality control procedure so that all 120 countries involved are working to the same set of standards and procedures. It wouldn't cost much for the IPCC to get an accredited organisation to come in and produce a set of procedures that would satisfy ISO9001.
I do not have confidence in work that has been performed without proper quality control. And I think we have all seen what you get when you don't have quality control (dare I mention hockey stick)?
_________________
Phillip in Devon, England |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mike Davis
Experienced User
Joined: 12 Dec 2008
Posts: 291
Location: E. Tennessee USA
|
| Posted: 27 Feb 2009 05:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
PAWB
It would seem we also have simmelar past experiences regarding quality control. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
PAWB
Experienced User
Joined: 14 Oct 2008
Posts: 69
Location: Devon, England
|
| Posted: 27 Feb 2009 05:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Mike,
For 100k (£ or $) I would produce them a set of procedures (and that's only 1/2 what Al Gore gets for talking rubbish).
Phil
_________________
Phillip in Devon, England |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Lucy Skywalker
Site Admin
Joined: 09 May 2006
Posts: 544
Location: Somerset, UK
|
| Posted: 27 Feb 2009 07:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Eric
Half of us here used to be warmists. We've been where you are, belief-wise. And some of us are or have been fully professional paid-up scientists. We'd like to help you shed your blinkers - and instead use your excellent science skills to help us do our work better.
To us, Climate Science has been derailed, in a way few of us would have believed possible even a few years ago. To me, this is a major issue, as big as the issues of Peak Oil and overpopulation, but more of an orphan whom I wish to help regain its proper status and integrity. I have the time and enough basic ability and skills to believe I can make a difference; I care. To me, "reclaiming science" is a spiritual battle as much as a scientific issue. But a spiritual battle where I need the best tools of Science.
Now it may look to you as if we're all suckers for one piece of bad science after another. This is going to take time to deconstruct because the warmist science has dug in so deep that we may need to go a long way "back to basics", which may well involve discussing what Scientific Method is, how and why all the major Western science institutions are upholding the warmist conclusions, and other unexpected aspects. Please remember, I had to deconstruct masses of warmist science before I was sure myself. Nils Bohr the founder of Quantum Mechanics kept on asking "silly" "basic" questions that all the other students thought they knew the answers to. We need to look at a big, cross-disciplinary range of issues - and we need to agree what to focus on so we don't cross like ships in the night. I know very well the warmist science that purports to deconstruct the skeptics' issues, from my own time as a warmist. New Scientist mention 27 issues, Skeptical Science 52, Gristmill 70+, and RealClimate have lots of pages. THEY ARE ALL STRAW MEN.
But it takes time to deconstruct them all - plus the thought's totally ridiculous to warmists that they could ALL be straw men. So we can only work through them if you are prepared to suspend your judgements. By all means, bring data, bring evidence - and I will endeavour to match quality for quality. But give me time.
Like you assert, I too would assert that I want the science and logic, and not unsubstantiated "accusations of dishonesty against scientists, who are coming to conclusions for political or monetary purposes". However, while this ideal is essential to hold on to, it is fraught with difficulties in practice. Here I believe that both sides can help each other, if we can bear to listen. It is very easy to express oneself in a way that one's friends understand but one's challengers misunderstand. It's easy to misread statements that may have been put in all innocence, and in slightly misquoting them, change their whole significance, and escalate feelings.
I've taken note of things you have said, and I have as a result substantially altered what I've written. However, none of the alterations have changed my conclusions, only made my presentation of evidence more robust, more visible, and more stringently courteous. I'm grateful for all that.
| Eric wrote: | | When the lack of validity of the arguments you have posted is pointed out to you, you concede somewhat, but decide to continue accepting them anyway. |
To recap: I said the graph I saw that showed CO2 rising with temp going all over the place but overall falling, was what started me doubting the AGW picture; I said I then discovered that AGW can rightly say that the graph was too small a period of time to be statistically significant. You then encouraged me to remove the graph, and I declined, because although it is not statistically valid proof, it is an essential part of my story: it was highly suggestive evidence that inspired me to look further. Many times since then I have had data from skeptical sources that warmists have showed me was inadequate or questionable. Following the trail of claim - counterclaim - counterclaim is time-consuming and disconcerting, but necessary.
Eric, if you read that part of my Primer carefully, you will see that nowhere do I actually accept that graph as proof. I put it in as part of the story that eventually did lead me to evidence I can still regard as proof. If you look lower down you will see another graph that compares CO2 and temperature exactly as the original one does, but over 30 years - a period that does have statistical significance. And it does "prove" what the first graph "suggests", that the correlation between temp and CO2 is pretty thin if not nonexistent. And scroll lower down again I show graphs that take the issue a step further again: solar=temp and ocean-current=temp correlations that are far higher than the CO2=temp correlation. Now do you still have any problems with the data I've used, bearing in mind the way I've used it, to tell the story of my journey from warmist to skeptic, show the pitfalls from inadequate data on the way, and give hard evidence of why I am now a skeptic?
I am now wondering about writing a "warmist's" primer which expands just the initial sections of my full primer, and is extra aware of all the standard warmists' dismissals. Or maybe I should resume deconstructing the above-listed warmist arguments - oh, and the slanderous false bios as well. So far, every time I've been challenged, I have found the warmists' evidence eventually trumped with better evidence from the skeptics; but sometimes I've failed to record the trail, and don't want to research it again just to satisfy others!
So, Eric, I would warmly recomment that you read just the opening paragraphs of my Primer carefully. These are key issues for me. To some extent, Solomon and Santer can wait. But I'd just like to note that your continuing referral to Solomon as an ignorant oil shill is still ad hominem in my books, not ok here. You may have regarded my references to Santer similarly; please note I have carefully reworded the sections on the IPCC 1995 controversy, to try to be fair in a way we are both happy with. All this is with real thanks for your input. I've just rediscovered the exact wording of the changes to the draft IPCC Chapter 8, made after the scientists had signed off, and have added a new page quoting it. I am paying attention to you: I'm just not agreeing with your conclusions. But I can only do a little at a time. Maybe you doubt nearly everything I've put online regarding Climate Science. A few months ago I might well have pulled the whole science section off the web until we had resolved enough of your questions. But not now.
You raise important issues for me, since my Primer was written especially for those who have been / still are warmists. So major criticism is important for me to face. But I face it as a human being, for Science is not master of Man, Man is master of Science, to paraphrase a very well-known quote. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Eric
Experienced User
Joined: 06 Feb 2009
Posts: 189
|
| Posted: 28 Feb 2009 02:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Lucy Skywalker wrote: | Eric
Half of us here used to be warmists. We've been where you are, belief-wise. And some of us are or have been fully professional paid-up scientists. We'd like to help you shed your blinkers - and instead use your excellent science skills to help us do our work better. |
If you engage in a serious discussion of the issues this will help you.
| Quote: | | To us, Climate Science has been derailed, in a way few of us would have believed possible even a few years ago. To me, this is a major issue, as big as the issues of Peak Oil and overpopulation, but more of an orphan whom I wish to help regain its proper status and integrity. I have the time and enough basic ability and skills to believe I can make a difference; I care. To me, "reclaiming science" is a spiritual battle as much as a scientific issue. But a spiritual battle where I need the best tools of Science. |
I don't see why you regard it as a spiritual issue. Science is about intellect, imagination, experimentation and discipline and most important of all objectivity, standards and proven methods.
| Quote: | | Now it may look to you as if we're all suckers for one piece of bad science after another. This is going to take time to deconstruct because the warmist science has dug in so deep that we may need to go a long way "back to basics", which may well involve discussing what Scientific Method is, how and why all the major Western science institutions are upholding the warmist conclusions, and other unexpected aspects. |
There are very few posters with the competence and objectivity required to do that on this blog, based on my observations. There is a lot of ad hominem comments, rage, derision, suspicion and disrespect for scientific principles based on my experience.
| Quote: | | Please remember, I had to deconstruct masses of warmist science before I was sure myself. Nils Bohr the founder of Quantum Mechanics kept on asking "silly" "basic" questions that all the other students thought they knew the answers to. We need to look at a big, cross-disciplinary range of issues - and we need to agree what to focus on so we don't cross like ships in the night. I know very well the warmist science that purports to deconstruct the skeptics' issues, from my own time as a warmist. New Scientist mention 27 issues, Skeptical Science 52, Gristmill 70+, and RealClimate have lots of pages. THEY ARE ALL STRAW MEN. |
They are not straw men at all. I encounter the very same arguments they have categorized and debunked all the time on this blog and others.
| Quote: | | But it takes time to deconstruct them all - plus the thought's totally ridiculous to warmists that they could ALL be straw men. So we can only work through them if you are prepared to suspend your judgements. By all means, bring data, bring evidence - and I will endeavour to match quality for quality. But give me time. |
If your case is good, and you have so many sceptics in your corner on this blog, it shouldn't be hard. Should I be getting the impression that you are crying uncle?
| Quote: | | Like you assert, I too would assert that I want the science and logic, and not unsubstantiated "accusations of dishonesty against scientists, who are coming to conclusions for political or monetary purposes". However, while this ideal is essential to hold on to, it is fraught with difficulties in practice. Here I believe that both sides can help each other, if we can bear to listen. It is very easy to express oneself in a way that one's friends understand but one's challengers misunderstand. It's easy to misread statements that may have been put in all innocence, and in slightly misquoting them, change their whole significance, and escalate feelings. |
I don't think I misread the accusation that I am blogging for pay. I am pretty thick skinned about stuff like that. I have seen that kind of thing in forums on the internet before. One incident that stands out in my memory is when people who believed George W Bush, whom I hate, staged 911, claimed I was a paid government agent when I debunked their conspiracy theory.
| Quote: | I've taken note of things you have said, and I have as a result substantially altered what I've written. However, none of the alterations have changed my conclusions, only made my presentation of evidence more robust, more visible, and more stringently courteous. I'm grateful for all that.
| Eric wrote: | | When the lack of validity of the arguments you have posted is pointed out to you, you concede somewhat, but decide to continue accepting them anyway. |
To recap: I said the graph I saw that showed CO2 rising with temp going all over the place but overall falling, was what started me doubting the AGW picture; I said I then discovered that AGW can rightly say that the graph was too small a period of time to be statistically significant. You then encouraged me to remove the graph, and I declined, because although it is not statistically valid proof, it is an essential part of my story: it was highly suggestive evidence that inspired me to look further. Many times since then I have had data from skeptical sources that warmists have showed me was inadequate or questionable. Following the trail of claim - counterclaim - counterclaim is time-consuming and disconcerting, but necessary. |
I guess the key thing is what does the graph look like and what do you say about the analysis. I will take a look at it.
| Quote: | | Eric, if you read that part of my Primer carefully, you will see that nowhere do I actually accept that graph as proof. I put it in as part of the story that eventually did lead me to evidence I can still regard as proof. If you look lower down you will see another graph that compares CO2 and temperature exactly as the original one does, but over 30 years - a period that does have statistical significance. And it does "prove" what the first graph "suggests", that the correlation between temp and CO2 is pretty thin if not nonexistent. And scroll lower down again I show graphs that take the issue a step further again: solar=temp and ocean-current=temp correlations that are far higher than the CO2=temp correlation. Now do you still have any problems with the data I've used, bearing in mind the way I've used it, to tell the story of my journey from warmist to skeptic, show the pitfalls from inadequate data on the way, and give hard evidence of why I am now a skeptic? |
I will look at that also. There have been a lot of people who have tried to deconstruct the temperature data and separate out the effects of El Nino, which is the strongest ocean cycle in its effect on global temperature. When this is done, there is still a warming trend remaining.
| Quote: | | I am now wondering about writing a "warmist's" primer which expands just the initial sections of my full primer, and is extra aware of all the standard warmists' dismissals. Or maybe I should resume deconstructing the above-listed warmist arguments - oh, and the slanderous false bios as well. So far, every time I've been challenged, I have found the warmists' evidence eventually trumped with better evidence from the skeptics; but sometimes I've failed to record the trail, and don't want to research it again just to satisfy others! |
I thought your purpose was to educate others as a result of your experience.
| Quote: | So, Eric, I would warmly recomment that you read just the opening paragraphs of my Primer carefully. These are key issues for me. To some extent, Solomon and Santer can wait. But I'd just like to note that your continuing referral to Solomon as an ignorant oil shill is still ad hominem in my books, not ok here. You may have regarded my references to Santer similarly; please note I have carefully reworded the sections on the IPCC 1995 controversy, to try to be fair in a way we are both happy with. All this is with real thanks for your input. I've just rediscovered the exact wording of the changes to the draft IPCC Chapter 8, made after the scientists had signed off, and have added a new page quoting it. I am paying attention to you: I'm just not agreeing with your conclusions. But I can only do a little at a time. Maybe you doubt nearly everything I've put online regarding Climate Science. A few months ago I might well have pulled the whole science section off the web until we had resolved enough of your questions. But not now.
You raise important issues for me, since my Primer was written especially for those who have been / still are warmists. So major criticism is important for me to face. But I face it as a human being, for Science is not master of Man, Man is master of Science, to paraphrase a very well-known quote. |
It will take me some time to review your primer and suggest some changes. I still hold the view that a pile of trash is still trash no matter how large it gets.
The scientists themselves recognize the weak points of global warming theory - the feedback effect of clouds, and the forcing of anthropogenic aerosals. These are the areas that the real climate scientists who are sceptics focus on, and are the real issues that need to be studied carefully to determine how much global warming we are likely to get as a function of how much GHG we put into the atmosphere.
The rest of it, like claims that humans are not responsible for CO2 increase we are witnessing, that Mauna Loa data is trash, as well as ice core data, the greenhouse effect does not exist, does not warm the oceans, the sun did it, we have always had climate cycles and it was warmer in past times, Cosmic rays did it...it is all garbage in my opinion. It is illogical, unscientific, has little evidence to support it and makes scepticism into a travesty, because it should generate even more scepticism than the standard scientific work that it seeks to supplant.
Finally since you claim not to like the ad hominem arguments, I don't know why you would put them in the primer. Personally I avoid using ad hominem arguments and focus on the quality of the science and logic that I am given. But Ben Santer has been on the receiving end of vicious slander, and can be forgiven for claiming Solomon was a shill for the oil industry. Santer and I are scientific types, and when Solomon claims to be an environmentalist and praises the oil industry and says the tar sands development in Alberta is going to be OK, runs a web site that doesn't disclose its funding, the preponderance of the evidence says the guy is a shill for the Canadian Oil industry. Santer was right to be outraged, and I find it incongrous that any one who claims to be fair minded would object to what he said, even if the person didn't agree with Santer about the science.
The same goes for the Seitz article. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Lucy Skywalker
Site Admin
Joined: 09 May 2006
Posts: 544
Location: Somerset, UK
|
| Posted: 28 Feb 2009 01:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Eric wrote: | | Lucy Skywalker wrote: | | To us, Climate Science has been derailed [recently]. To me, this is a major issue... a spiritual battle as much as a scientific issue. But a spiritual battle where I need the best tools of Science. |
I don't see why you regard it as a spiritual issue. Science is about intellect, imagination, experimentation and discipline and most important of all objectivity, standards and proven methods. |
I'm just stating what I know: the spiritual reality I know embraces the scientific reality and tools, as I said. How can Spirit truly be Spirit if it does not embrace Science? The only difference with me is that I am conscious of it - and love it!
| Eric wrote: | | Lucy Skywalker wrote: | | Now it may look to you as if we're all suckers for one piece of bad science after another. This is going to take time to deconstruct because the warmist science has dug in so deep that we may need to go a long way "back to basics", which may well involve discussing what Scientific Method is, how and why all the major Western science institutions are upholding the warmist conclusions, and other unexpected aspects. |
There are very few posters with the competence and objectivity required to do that on this blog, based on my observations. There is a lot of ad hominem comments, rage, derision, suspicion and disrespect for scientific principles based on my experience. |
Can we please stay just with what I actually say here about deconstructing, and put aside other posters for the time being?
| Eric wrote: | | Lucy Skywalker wrote: | | Please remember, I had to deconstruct masses of warmist science before I was sure myself... I know very well the warmist science that purports to deconstruct the skeptics' issues, from my own time as a warmist. New Scientist mention 27 issues, Skeptical Science 52, Gristmill 70+, and RealClimate have lots of pages. THEY ARE ALL STRAW MEN. |
They are not straw men at all. I encounter the very same arguments they have categorized and debunked all the time on this blog and others. |
aha, touche! I should have said IN MY EXPERIENCE, They Are All Straw Men, and THIS IS WHAT I'D LIKE TO DISCUSS. Then we have a point of discussion rather than a war of dogmatic statements. I'm modifying my statement. Can you modify yours too, please, otherwise we cannot even begin to have a conversation.
| Eric wrote: | | Lucy Skywalker wrote: | | But it takes time to deconstruct them all - plus the thought's totally ridiculous to warmists that they could ALL be straw men. So we can only work through them if you are prepared to suspend your judgements. By all means, bring data, bring evidence - and I will endeavour to match quality for quality. But give me time. |
If your case is good, and you have so many sceptics in your corner on this blog, it shouldn't be hard. Should I be getting the impression that you are crying uncle? |
No. I'm not calling anyone else here to support me, I've finally managed to verbalize what was upsetting me, and I'm willing to risk losing all other posters here for the sake of discussing with you at present. And though you think that if my case is good it shouldn't be hard, I disagree very strongly.
| Eric wrote: | | Lucy Skywalker wrote: | | Like you assert, I too would assert that I want the science and logic, and not unsubstantiated "accusations of dishonesty against scientists, who are coming to conclusions for political or monetary purposes". However, while this ideal is essential to hold on to, it is fraught with difficulties in practice. Here I believe that both sides can help each other, if we can bear to listen. It is very easy to express oneself in a way that one's friends understand but one's challengers misunderstand. It's easy to misread statements that may have been put in all innocence, and in slightly misquoting them, change their whole significance, and escalate feelings. |
I don't think I misread the accusation that I am blogging for pay. |
Hang on a mo, are you saying you think I am accusing you of blogging for pay? The thought hadn't even crossed my mind. Or have you picked up that someone else here is accusing you of this? if so, I hadn't noticed that either. But whatever you mean, your reply seems to bear out EXACTLY what I said here about misunderstandings. So please, let go any idea of accusation from me at least. Was it the words above about "monetary purposes"? I was simply quoting your own words back to you.
| Eric wrote: | | I guess the key thing is what does the graph look like and what do you say about the analysis. I will take a look at it. |
Great. Thanks.
| Eric wrote: | | Lucy Skywalker wrote: | | I am now wondering about writing a "warmist's" primer which expands just the initial sections of my full primer, and is extra aware of all the standard warmists' dismissals. Or maybe I should resume deconstructing the above-listed warmist arguments - oh, and the slanderous false bios as well. So far, every time I've been challenged, I have found the warmists' evidence eventually trumped with better evidence from the skeptics; but sometimes I've failed to record the trail, and don't want to research it again just to satisfy others! |
I thought your purpose was to educate others as a result of your experience. |
Yes, I'm chronicling my own contradictions. I'm only human! But in my universe, if I do my best, and honour truth, I get help and support from Great Spirit.
| Eric wrote: | | I still hold the view that a pile of trash is still trash no matter how large it gets. |
I don't know exactly what you mean here. Do you mean, you regard the climate skeptics' POV as a pile of trash? Do you mean, my Primer is a pile of trash? Your words sound offensive, at the least. But the implied dogmatism is the really offensive issue to me, because it puts barriers to discussion. How can we share perceptions of truth without discussion? I want to work through my story, the way I experienced the accumulating evidence and checked with many scientists on the way.
| Eric wrote: | | The rest of it, like claims that humans are not responsible for CO2 increase we are witnessing, that Mauna Loa data is trash, as well as ice core data, the greenhouse effect does not exist, does not warm the oceans, the sun did it, we have always had climate cycles and it was warmer in past times, Cosmic rays did it...it is all garbage in my opinion. It is illogical, unscientific, has little evidence to support it and makes scepticism into a travesty, because it should generate even more scepticism than the standard scientific work that it seeks to supplant. |
Aha, you've kindly supplied me with your own version of WHAT I KNOW AS straw man arguments. For instance, I personally do not regard Mauna Loa data as trash, unlike poster Derek here, I regard it as basically trustworthy and essential; but I cannot regard Beck's CO2 data as nothing but trash as do the Keelings; the issue is more complex IMO; but to unpack and evaluate further requires time; I want to prioritize before unpacking further.
| Eric wrote: | | Finally since you claim not to like the ad hominem arguments, I don't know why you would put them in the primer. |
Please let me know where you find ad hominem arguments in the Primer and I'll look at them very carefully. You may be right and I'd be obliged to you for such help. I do sometimes get carried away, even with the best intentions. Regarding Santer, I've altered the wording most carefully, because I felt you were right to a large extent in that the wording as it stood was bad. Nevertheless, there IS an issue here over the change of wording of IPCC chapter 8, for which Santer as lead author acknowledges responsibility himself, as I understand. It seems to be a question of whether such alterations are acceptable, either in the terms of the IPCC setup, or in terms of scientific practice and integrity, as understood by the scientists who participated, and by scientists of calibre generally. I think I saw, only yesterday, IPCC wording to the effect that it was ok to alter scientists' wording to comply with the Summary for Policymakers; but alas! this is one of my lost references. It was worded more innocently than I have put, but this too could be the "weasel wording" in which politicians are adept. Such wording could have enabled Santer to believe he was within his rights in the alterations he made, but it could well have taken other scientists by surprise and be seen as radically compromising the integrity of the science.
| Eric wrote: | | Ben Santer has been on the receiving end of vicious slander, and can be forgiven for claiming Solomon was a shill for the oil industry... when Solomon claims to be an environmentalist and praises the oil industry and says the tar sands development in Alberta is going to be OK, runs a web site that doesn't disclose its funding, the preponderance of the evidence says the guy is a shill for the Canadian Oil industry. Santer was right to be outraged, and I find it incongrous that any one who claims to be fair minded would object to what he said, even if the person didn't agree with Santer about the science. |
The first-rate quality of Solomon's book The Deniers stands quite independent of whatever Solomon's environmental credentials are. And this is what Solomon says here about his funding: | Quote: | Mann claims I am funded by the fossil-fuel industry. I am not and neither is Energy Probe Research Foundation, the federally registered charitable organization that I helped found in 1980 and that I have represented continually since. There is a good reason the energy industry does not fund Energy Probe: Over the decades, Energy Probe has been Canada’s chief critic of the energy industry, more responsible than any other organization for stopping ill-advised energy pipelines, coal plants, tar sands projects, nuclear plants and large hydro dams.
Energy Probe is a leading promoter of conservation and alternate energy, and it prides itself on being non-partisan — parties of all stripes in Canada, from the leftist New Democratic Party to the centrist Liberal party to the right-leaning Conservative party, have invited Energy Probe to their gatherings, and adopted its positions. |
Nevertheless, I've done a lot of searching through the websites of his two organizations now - one of which does indicate its financing. Please look at his recent speech to the Petroleum Club. Even if he has been funded by oil, that has not muzzled his freedom or intelligence to criticize them. He distinguishes between where their record is bad, and where they are idiots to feel guilty - because CO2 itself is beneficial to plants, not harmful to climate - an assessment we all consider is simply the evidence of Science and nothing to do with funding. Please also look at this article and this article to get a better understanding of his actual stance on tar sands, which is realistic and nuanced and if enviros dismiss these they are simply ducking the issue and will end up being steamrollered. This group is well-respected for being informative - see for instance its web hits compared with Greenpeace. Solomon actually helped found Greenpeace Canada. Please also look at this note regarding the oil industry (that currently favours AGW - and why). Also there is plenty of evidence that currently the oil industry would not be seen dead funding skeptics. 20 years ago they did; but warmists have failed to realize that this has stopped; warmists have also failed to assess their own advocates' FAR bigger biassed funding sources. Regarding disclosing funding, please get things in proportion! Have you any idea of Al Gore's funding sources? They are shocking beyond belief. Yes, oil. And more. I must put up something on his funding, and that of other warmist shills. It is not so easy to discover as are the funding lies concerning skeptics - which I used to believe a year ago.
The warmists' notion of a small coterie of skeptic shills who have been bought for money is one of the most offensive things I find about warmists. We really need a proper set of replies to the slanderous stuff at Wikipedia and elsewhere, agreed among all skeptics, to reclaim the ground for most, if not all, of the scientists here, who are suffering for the courage of their convictions. Trouble is, mud sticks. Trouble is also, scientists are little-familiar with defending their integrity at this level of attack, where often they lose their posts and the chance to be heard and respected, if they speak up. But again, to bring out the evidence for this takes time. Please read the Primer and follow though my references there when we get to that point; please pay particular attention to Akasofu and Lindzen.
It was actually Mann, not Santer, who recently claimed Solomon was a shill. In addition to Santer's role in IPCC, he is linked with "the Team" at RealClimate with Michael Mann, whose hockey stick has been roundly discredited as bad statistics. Are you aware of RealClimate's funding? I am. And even North, while agreeing with the warmist conclusions that Mann supports, cannot defend Mann's statistics as giving any valid supporting evidence. I'm going to set up another page where you will be able to see the exact words North used under oath.
Eric, I have no time to even look at the other posts on the Forum at present, either yours or anyone else's. I'm giving this my best. And if you do likewise, I shall answer you as best I can - which takes time. But if you show any more signs of not having taken on board what I've said here, I shall move on to my next level of tactics: dealing with trolls. What else can you expect me to do? Please don't take this the wrong way. I just have to be realistic, for my own sanity, but I realize too what a disadvantage AGW have, in seeing there is even a problem at all in the science, let alone a huge, serious, unprecedented problem.
So as far as I can, I shall bear with you. But I'm aware, even if you are not, that there is a lot of ground to cover; please therefore keep as brief as possible; keep to the central issues as far as possible, and to matters of courtesy that facilitate debate.
Over to you
Cheers - LS
Last edited by Lucy Skywalker on 28 Feb 2009 04:38 pm; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mike Davis
Experienced User
Joined: 12 Dec 2008
Posts: 291
Location: E. Tennessee USA
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mike Davis
Experienced User
Joined: 12 Dec 2008
Posts: 291
Location: E. Tennessee USA
|
| Posted: 28 Feb 2009 02:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| PAWB wrote: | Mike,
For 100k (£ or $) I would produce them a set of procedures (and that's only 1/2 what Al Gore gets for talking rubbish).
Phil |
That is only for a short speech. You are asking for to little. You need to ask a higher price to be believed.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
PAWB
Experienced User
Joined: 14 Oct 2008
Posts: 69
Location: Devon, England
|
| Posted: 28 Feb 2009 05:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Mike:
Of course you are right. I forgot I used to work in the real world where "the labourer is worthy of his hire" (Luke;10,7). Unfortunately most of the old sayings no longer mean anything. I do my public speaking for free; perhaps that means it's not worth listening to!
_________________
Phillip in Devon, England |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Eric
Experienced User
Joined: 06 Feb 2009
Posts: 189
|
| Posted: 28 Feb 2009 05:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
There are people who believe it yes. The professor whose opinion you are reporting on has a right wing political ax to grind. He didn't produce any more evidence than you did. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
