Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > No global warming since 1995, from the horse's mouth (Phil Jones)

No global warming since 1995, from the horse's mouth (Phil Jones)
Thread Tools
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NJ, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 14, 2010, 08:08 PM
 
Yup, Phil Jones has come clean. There has been no global warming since 1995. And that famous hockey stick graph -- nobody can seem to find any of the data used to create the chart. Oh, there was a warmer medieval period as well.

Apparently, the man-made global warming scam was not a hoax, but rather the simple result of Phil Jones having an untidy office.

Climategate U-turn: Astonishment as scientist at centre of global warming email row admits data not well organised | Mail Online
( Last edited by spacefreak; Feb 14, 2010 at 08:21 PM. )
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NJ, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 14, 2010, 08:20 PM
 
Hopping around the web, this news is absolutely devastating people. I knew a lot of people were emotionally invested in AGW, but I figured at least some of them would be relieved to know that the earth was not approaching the boiling point.

I figured wrong.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 14, 2010, 08:57 PM
 


I swear I have seen this graph before.

Oh, yeah, I remember, it's every cost centers spending over the fiscal year.

-t
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NJ, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 14, 2010, 09:01 PM
 
I wonder why that image doesn't also mention that the polar bear population has jumped from 5,000 in 1960 to perhaps more than 25,000 today.

Add in the notation that the data behind this chart does not exist (or is buried somewhere in Phil Jones' untidy office), and then maybe we'll have something accurate to show to people.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 14, 2010, 09:04 PM
 
Originally Posted by spacefreak View Post
I wonder why that image doesn't also mention that the polar bear population has jumped from 5,000 in 1960 to perhaps more than 25,000 today.
Because Global Warming killed the Eskimos ?

-t
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 14, 2010, 09:31 PM
 
So, what makes this different than last week's smoking gun against GW, or the week's before that? Inspire me to care.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NJ, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 14, 2010, 09:33 PM
 
What are you talking about? The Eskimos are now the world's best swimmers.

Actually, I was referring to the use of the "dying" Polar Bears imagery so often used by the AGW crowd to create an emotional attachment to their agenda.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 14, 2010, 09:37 PM
 
How about a sane news source for the same story: BBC News - 'Climategate' expert Jones says data not well organised
     
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Wasilla, Alaska
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 14, 2010, 09:37 PM
 
Originally Posted by spacefreak View Post
I wonder why that image doesn't also mention that the polar bear population has jumped from 5,000 in 1960 to perhaps more than 25,000 today.
Couldn't have anything to do with the International Agreement on the Conservation of Polar Bears. I'm sure that "treaty" didn't do anything at all.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NJ, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 14, 2010, 09:40 PM
 
Tell it to the AGW peeps who insist on using the dying Polar Bear as its mascot.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NJ, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 14, 2010, 09:47 PM
 
Originally Posted by lpkmckenna View Post
How about a sane news source for the same story: BBC News - 'Climategate' expert Jones says data not well organised
For one, the BBC as a corporation is invested big-time (employee pension funds) in AGW-related companies, so while you may portray them as "sane", unbiased they are not. No global warming means no fat retirement checks for BBC employees.

Secondly, and more importantly, nothing in the BBC interview article disputes the key facts of Jones admitting that:

1) There has been no global warming since 1995
2) The data for the hockey stick graph doesn't exist (or is lost somewhere under Phil Jones' desk)
3) There have been other warming periods, even warmer, that were not caused by man.
( Last edited by spacefreak; Feb 14, 2010 at 09:55 PM. )
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 14, 2010, 10:03 PM
 
Are you illiterate? 2) is wrong, because he has the data, he only misplaced the source documents, and 3) he didn't say there "have been" at all, he said "may have been," since our records of the medieval warming period are incomplete.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NJ, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 14, 2010, 10:49 PM
 
Source data is everything. What good is processed data if the source can't be verified and/or confirmed?

Yes, I realize Jones is doing a lot of hedging in this interview. All this whining about having stacks of papers in his office, a messy desk, etc.. nothing but diversionary excuses. He and his unit have gotten big-time money for many years, and we're to believe he can't afford a secretarial assistant or an additional computer? Please, spare me.

The movement is too big to fail, as I hear it. Jones is being made to be the fall guy. By the end of this whole fiasco, Jones will be the main scapegoat. That's the plan that was concocted in the weeks of silence preceding this, and that's the plan they are following.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 15, 2010, 12:20 AM
 
I don't think anyone is arguing that there have never been warming periods in the past. The concern, if AGW is true, is that the warming is happening *faster* than in the past, as I understand it.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 15, 2010, 12:55 AM
 
Originally Posted by Wiskedjak View Post
I don't think anyone is arguing that there have never been warming periods in the past. The concern, if AGW is true, is that the warming is happening *faster* than in the past, as I understand it.

I'm no longer completely sure that there aren't people in here that would dispute that we are in a warming period now that is showing unusual characteristics, what with the attempts to blow off the entire theory based on the smoking gun du jour. They have such an interesting faith in the notion that global warming is some massive global scam.

If the debate were only about whether man is contributing to this warming, this I could wrap my head around a little easier.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vacation.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 15, 2010, 05:31 AM
 
So, is this the scammers backing out because they couldn't convince enough people.
Or is it the planned end of their little diversion?

Take a look around you, warmers. If it's real and man made, how come the cure is tax and control rather than planting CO2 scrubbers (formerly known as trees)?
Been inclined to wander... off the beaten track.
That's where there's thunder... and the wind shouts back.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 15, 2010, 07:13 AM
 
Originally Posted by lpkmckenna View Post
2) is wrong, because he has the data, he only misplaced the source documents
The dog ate his source data, which had previously been refuted anyways. It's amazing that a lot of the data which would confirm or deny his claims has gone missing. AMAZING!
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 15, 2010, 07:43 AM
 
... then there's the defense offered by some here related to the admissions in the CRU emails; "they may just not be very good at using email". Of course, maybe they're just not very good about using data. This would seem to pose a problem for a discipline entirely contingent upon it.

It never ends. Your super-genius consensus on global climate or rather, ACME science ladies and gentlemen.
ebuddy
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 15, 2010, 08:20 AM
 
Originally Posted by Doofy View Post
Take a look around you, warmers. If it's real and man made, how come the cure is tax and control rather than planting CO2 scrubbers (formerly known as trees)?
My guess would be that those CO2 scrubbers would be too slow.
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Safe House
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 15, 2010, 08:31 AM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
I'm no longer completely sure that there aren't people in here that would dispute that we are in a warming period now that is showing unusual characteristics, what with the attempts to blow off the entire theory based on the smoking gun du jour. They have such an interesting faith in the notion that global warming is some massive global scam.

If the debate were only about whether man is contributing to this warming, this I could wrap my head around a little easier.
What unusual characteristics? The Global Warming industry is a scam. The CRU in East Anglia was primary in moving forward the GW debate. Potentially, by policy, trillions of dollars in wealth transfers to third world nations, managed by the IPCC, mostly levied on the backs of US taxpayers. Global warming politics at the highest levels was never about global warming. It was about centralizing economies and wealth transfers managed by banking interests and political insiders. The scam tapped into left zeitgeist which is anti capitalist, anti American and to some extent wholly nihilist. The left, as they usually do, tried to shut down the debate. Contrarians were called deniers and practicing a form of treason against the planet: Krugman NYT's http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/29/op...29krugman.html
In light of what we now know, it's most chilling going back an rereading what was written and said over the past few years on the subject. The left could not have been more strident and vicious. Lets's watch the spin machine as it evolves. We now know there has been no global warming in the past 15 years. This from the lead scientist at CRU. Not Manmade Global Warming, no warming. And we now know data supporting past warm periods, most notably the Middle Ages Warming was manipulated to show it never occurred. We now know data was cherry picked to support a man made global warming theory. What interests are served by this kind of manipulation? Why did the CRU feel compelled to promote a global warming conclusion when the data showed otherwise? Blind ideology? Money? Political correctness? You tell me.
( Last edited by Orion27; Feb 15, 2010 at 08:38 AM. Reason: spelling, omissions)
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vacation.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 15, 2010, 08:33 AM
 
Originally Posted by Wiskedjak View Post
My guess would be that those CO2 scrubbers would be too slow.
Nope - they work in real time, same as everything else.
Been inclined to wander... off the beaten track.
That's where there's thunder... and the wind shouts back.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vacation.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 15, 2010, 08:41 AM
 
Originally Posted by Orion27 View Post
What interests are served by this kind of manipulation? Why did the CRU feel compelled to promote a global warming conclusion when the data showed otherwise? Blind ideology? Money? Political correctness? You tell me.
I'll jump on my soapbox again and tell you what it's about. Again.

Our financial systems are collapsing - current growth rates and input into the pool can't be sustained. Thus, we need a new gold standard to stabilise the economy. Which is where your "carbon credits" come in - they're the new standard.

See this label?

That's your new price tag they're getting you used to.

And this is why Barry doesn't care about printing zillions of new dollars - at some point in the very near future, most currencies will be reset, rejigged and aligned with CCs.

That's what it's all about.
Been inclined to wander... off the beaten track.
That's where there's thunder... and the wind shouts back.
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Safe House
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 15, 2010, 09:05 AM
 
Originally Posted by Doofy View Post
I'll jump on my soapbox again and tell you what it's about. Again.

Our financial systems are collapsing - current growth rates and input into the pool can't be sustained. Thus, we need a new gold standard to stabilise the economy. Which is where your "carbon credits" come in - they're the new standard.

See this label?

That's your new price tag they're getting you used to.

And this is why Barry doesn't care about printing zillions of new dollars - at some point in the very near future, most currencies will be reset, rejigged and aligned with CCs.

That's what it's all about.
Carbon Credits bought, bundled and sold like so many sub prime loans. Where is the MSM to help expose the man behind the curtain? Let's follow the political money trail in to Carbon Credit trading at Goldman Sachs and Al Gore's tree farms in Africa.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 15, 2010, 09:12 AM
 
Originally Posted by Doofy View Post
Nope - they work in real time, same as everything else.
If AGW is true, then we are producing greenhouse gasses faster than nature can clean up. I suspect the amount of trees necessary to compensate would be massive and would take decades to grow to the point where they would have any effect. Also, you'd be competing with the lumber industry to replace effective trees as they're being cut down (saplings wouldn't be as effective as a full grown tree) and the with farming industry for available space (we've spent the last few hundred years removing forests to make room for human activities).

And, the fact of the matter is that people *are* lobbying to slow the removal of our forests.

If AGW is true, fighting the War on Climate Change will likely take a combination of reducing our greenhouse gas output while increasing our planet's ability to clean up after us.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 15, 2010, 09:17 AM
 
Originally Posted by spacefreak View Post
For one, the BBC as a corporation is invested big-time (employee pension funds) in AGW-related companies, so while you may portray them as "sane", unbiased they are not.
And, how do we know what Mail Online is invested in?
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vacation.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 15, 2010, 09:36 AM
 
Originally Posted by Wiskedjak View Post
If AGW is true, then we are producing greenhouse gasses faster than nature can clean up. I suspect the amount of trees necessary to compensate would be massive and would take decades to grow to the point where they would have any effect. Also, you'd be competing with the lumber industry to replace effective trees as they're being cut down (saplings wouldn't be as effective as a full grown tree) and the with farming industry for available space (we've spent the last few hundred years removing forests to make room for human activities).
New trees are actually more effective than mature ones in this regard.

And you said it - we've spent the last few hundred years removing forests. If AGW is real, this is the cause of it, not car emissions - they're looking at the wrong side of the equation (we should be looking at what's no longer removing CO2 rather than what's creating it).
Been inclined to wander... off the beaten track.
That's where there's thunder... and the wind shouts back.
     
Baninated
Join Date: Mar 2008
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 15, 2010, 10:32 AM
 
Just take a look at the weather in Jerusalem. 80 F right now. In Feb. Global warming is alive and thriving.
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Safe House
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 15, 2010, 11:44 AM
 
Originally Posted by Wiskedjak View Post
And, how do we know what Mail Online is invested in?
Can't you read Jones' own words as reported?
BBC News - Q&A: Professor Phil Jones
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Safe House
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 15, 2010, 11:48 AM
 
Originally Posted by Orion27 View Post
Carbon Credits bought, bundled and sold like so many sub prime loans. Where is the MSM to help expose the man behind the curtain? Let's follow the political money trail in to Carbon Credit trading at Goldman Sachs and Al Gore's tree farms in Africa.
Here's a start: Michael Mann Received Stimulus Money - WSJ.com
http://greeninc.blogs.nytimes.com/20...arbon-offsets/
http://www.goldmansachs666.com/2009/...-reeks-of.html
( Last edited by Orion27; Feb 15, 2010 at 12:01 PM. )
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Cape Cod, MA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 15, 2010, 12:33 PM
 
Originally Posted by Doofy View Post
And you said it - we've spent the last few hundred years removing forests. If AGW is real, this is the cause of it, not car emissions - they're looking at the wrong side of the equation.
Wouldn't the removal of CO2 scrubbing trees and the addition of billions of tons of CO2 be co-culprits?

If CO2 is actually driving climate change it would be silly to single out deforestation and forget about our ever-growing production of CO2.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vacation.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 15, 2010, 12:55 PM
 
Originally Posted by sek929 View Post
Wouldn't the removal of CO2 scrubbing trees and the addition of billions of tons of CO2 be co-culprits?

If CO2 is actually driving climate change it would be silly to single out deforestation and forget about our ever-growing production of CO2.
So, where's all the governments making their driving tests harder then?
Harder driving test = more people not passing = more people on public transport = less cars on road + less congestion + safer roads.

Where's all the governments banning cat converters? No cats = no CO2 pumped out by cars.

Where's all the governments dropping child support payments and/or tax credits? Less kids = less people = less CO2.

Where's all the governments going in harsh on migration? More migration = more people flying home to see their families in the old country two or three times per year = more CO2.

Answer: We don't have a climate problem. We have a tax and control plan.
Been inclined to wander... off the beaten track.
That's where there's thunder... and the wind shouts back.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 15, 2010, 05:41 PM
 
Where are all the MacNN Warming Alarmists like Shortcut? Weren't they declaring how moronic we skeptics were to question the "settled science"?
Originally Posted by lexapro View Post
Just take a look at the weather in Jerusalem. 80 F right now. In Feb. Global warming is alive and thriving.
So? It's called a desert climate. It also snowed in Jerusalem two winters ago (and perhaps more recently).
( Last edited by Big Mac; Feb 15, 2010 at 05:49 PM. )

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Zip, Boom, Bam
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 15, 2010, 05:45 PM
 
My guess: shoveling snow.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Washington DC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 15, 2010, 06:02 PM
 
Originally Posted by Big Mac View Post
Where are all the MacNN Warming Alarmists like Shortcut? Weren't they declaring how moronic we skeptics were to question the "settled science"?

So? It's called a desert climate. It also snowed in Jerusalem two winters ago (and perhaps more recently).
It snowed in Jerusalem within the past two weeks, actually: Snow in Golan Heights, but not in J’lem. Though the current temperature is 30° C...
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 15, 2010, 10:23 PM
 
Originally Posted by Doofy View Post
So, where's all the governments making their driving tests harder then?
Harder driving test = more people not passing = more people on public transport = less cars on road + less congestion + safer roads.

Where's all the governments banning cat converters? No cats = no CO2 pumped out by cars.

Where's all the governments dropping child support payments and/or tax credits? Less kids = less people = less CO2.

Where's all the governments going in harsh on migration? More migration = more people flying home to see their families in the old country two or three times per year = more CO2.

Answer: We don't have a climate problem. We have a tax and control plan.
Doof, but THIS IS TEH H0PE AND CHANGE WE CAN BELIEVE IN!!!!!11! Please don't destroy the forthcoming utopia Big Brother has for Humanity. WE LOVE BIG BROTHER. He would never do anything that was ungood for us.
"Everything's so clear to me now: I'm the keeper of the cheese and you're the lemon merchant. Get it? And he knows it.
That's why he's gonna kill us. So we got to beat it. Yeah. Before he let's loose the marmosets on us."
my bandmy web sitemy guitar effectsmy photosfacebookbrightpoint
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 15, 2010, 10:42 PM
 
Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE View Post
My guess: shoveling snow.
Joke fail.

You realize that him shoveling snow would not discredit his belief of global warming/climate change/whatever you want to call it?
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 15, 2010, 11:00 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Joke fail.

You realize that him shoveling snow would not discredit his belief of global warming/climate change/whatever you want to call it?
Dude! It so totally does! The world climate can't possibly be warming if there's snow on the ground!

(of course, that logic doesn't apply to terrorism. The world is neck deep in a war with terrorism despite the fact that there hasn't been a major terrorist attack since 2001)
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 15, 2010, 11:03 PM
 
The bottom line, as I see it, is that I don't really find any of your gut feelings particularly interesting aside from the fact that this has oddly become a partisan issue.

None of us are scientists, and if you are I don't personally know anything about your credentials since we are all anonymous dudes here. Until the global consensus (IPCC et all) changes, I'm far more comfortable believing this than what any of you have to say. The notion of this global consensus being some sort of concerted global scam is too tin foil hatty for me.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Across from the wallpaper store.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 15, 2010, 11:04 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
I'm no longer completely sure that there aren't people in here that would dispute that we are in a warming period now that is showing unusual characteristics, what with the attempts to blow off the entire theory based on the smoking gun du jour. They have such an interesting faith in the notion that global warming is some massive global scam.

If the debate were only about whether man is contributing to this warming, this I could wrap my head around a little easier.
It starts with the IPCC. The United Nations is AT BEST, a useless, impotent organization and at worst…corrupt and evil. Why in the world would any thinking person accept the conclusions coming out of that body without question or suspicion?

Whatever.

As far as I'm concerned, the truth of the climate or our effects upon it are irrelevant to this debate. Even taking that the current information is 100% correct both in the technical climate data and predictions, and in mans involvement, I would still like to see the whole lot discredited.

Why? There are two main reasons:

One, because the main drivers of this movement are environmentalist nuts that aren't letting a "good crisis go to waste" and using and manipulating science to further hobble and eventually kill capitalism, gain power, and remove America from its position as the 800 lb gorilla.

Two, regardless of any negative climate effects we may have on the world, US and other world governments have no moral right to use force to alter behavior to match some arbitrary, legislated standard. In MY opinion, individual liberty (wouldn't want to provoke you by using that old cliché "freedom") and economic liberty are more important than environmental concerns, real or perceived and should not be abridged.

In light of these two issues, I see two ways to ameliorate this situation:

One, we change the hearts and minds of the people and governments of the world so that they support liberty and capitalism over state controlled utopian fantasies. Yeah…I'll hold my breath for that.

Two, we discredit the movement so as to prevent them from being successful. This is the only chance we have and it is perfectly justified in light of the likely results of such widespread social and economic experimentation/transformation, as the moral implications of moving the world that much further toward serfdom and that much further away from economic prosperity.

Truth would be preferable, but as is usually the case when dealing with those in political power the truth may not be possible and may not be adequate to fight them.
Being in debt and celebrating a lower deficit is like being on a diet and celebrating the fact you gained two pounds this week instead of five.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 15, 2010, 11:16 PM
 
From the Wikipedia about the IPCC:

Contributors
People from over 130 countries contributed to the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report over the previous 6 years. These people included more than 2500 scientific expert reviewers, more than 800 contributing authors, and more than 450 lead authors.[54]
Of these, the Working Group 1 report (including the summary for policy makers) included contributions by 600 authors from 40 countries, over 620 expert reviewers, a large number of government reviewers, and representatives from 113 governments.[55]
The what we do about it and the debate about whether there is truth to the science are obviously separate arguments. We can have the conversation about what to do about things, and we might even agree on some stuff. I'm just less comfortable to discredit all of the scientific work based on my gut feeling. 2500 scientific expert reviewers, 800 contributing authors, 450 lead authors, 113 governments for Working Group 1 report.

You can criticize the effectiveness and relevance of the UN, but this panel is comprised of scientists, not politicians. Like I said, I'm not comfortable dismissing this not being a scientist myself. All I'm debating is the wisdom behind doing just this.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 16, 2010, 12:12 AM
 
Originally Posted by smacintush View Post
regardless of any negative climate effects we may have on the world,
...
Two, we discredit the movement so as to prevent them from being successful. This is the only chance we have and it is perfectly justified
...
Truth would be preferable, but...
You shouldn't argue a falsehood with your true goal as a side-effect. For one thing, it's just plain easier when the facts are on your side. Two, lots of people are going to recognize that your arguments are false, and this discredits you when you later argue your true goal even if your true goal is legit. Three, you seem to recognize the importance of individual liberty and independent thought, but you don't believe either of these principles will allow the audience to comprehend the mild subtlety of your true goal (that eco-totalitarianism is bad even if the eco-bogeyman is legitimate, a very appealing stance IMO, and not hard to understand). If you are honest in your arguments, by agreeing with premises you know to be sound, then you will have more success when you argue your true goal; you might even find a compromise that truly benefits both sides (*gasp*) by not putting their backs up right at the outset; but even if not you will at least have a stronger chance at convincing them outright, or convincing the onlookers, since you won't have consciously discredited yourself by lying. If you oppose everything they say, regardless of truth, you make yourself appear desperate and unreasonable. The silent majority tends to move against the side that is desperate and unreasonable.

Personally, I agree with most of what you posted, but I would still vote against you if you stubbornly deny all evidence. Actually it's because I agree with you that I want to give my advice on how to most effectively make your case. Just my 2¢ you can take it or leave it.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Across from the wallpaper store.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 16, 2010, 12:15 AM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
From the Wikipedia about the IPCC:



The what we do about it and the debate about whether there is truth to the science are obviously separate arguments. We can have the conversation about what to do about things, and we might even agree on some stuff. I'm just less comfortable to discredit all of the scientific work based on my gut feeling. 2500 scientific expert reviewers, 800 contributing authors, 450 lead authors, 113 governments for Working Group 1 report.

You can criticize the effectiveness and relevance of the UN, but this panel is comprised of scientists, not politicians. Like I said, I'm not comfortable dismissing this not being a scientist myself. All I'm debating is the wisdom behind doing just this.
Why do you and so many others dispute that scientists can be manipulated or idealistic? Money and the promise of power and/or prestige, or downright compulsion magically slide off of a human being because his chosen method of earning a living?

Climate science is a job. They are not holy men imbued with the power of the spirit of god. They are men…doing a job. They are prone to all the same mistakes, corruption, idealogical influences etc. as any other profession. They work for highly political institutions (universities) who are heavily dependent on government money, and who are in many cases state run schools in less than honorable countries.

The IPCC is a part of a WORLD body of many countries…most of which are rather socialistic or downright totalitarian and with hundreds of billions of potential dollars at their disposal.

It's extremely naive, bordering on science worship to pretend that scientists are somehow above or inoculated from all of this.
Being in debt and celebrating a lower deficit is like being on a diet and celebrating the fact you gained two pounds this week instead of five.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vacation.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 16, 2010, 12:59 AM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
From the Wikipedia about the IPCC:

You can criticize the effectiveness and relevance of the UN, but this panel is comprised of scientists, not politicians.
What does the "I" stand for in "IPCC" Bess? "Independent"?
Been inclined to wander... off the beaten track.
That's where there's thunder... and the wind shouts back.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 16, 2010, 01:31 AM
 
Originally Posted by smacintush View Post
Why do you and so many others dispute that scientists can be manipulated or idealistic? Money and the promise of power and/or prestige, or downright compulsion magically slide off of a human being because his chosen method of earning a living?

Climate science is a job. They are not holy men imbued with the power of the spirit of god. They are men…doing a job. They are prone to all the same mistakes, corruption, idealogical influences etc. as any other profession. They work for highly political institutions (universities) who are heavily dependent on government money, and who are in many cases state run schools in less than honorable countries.

The IPCC is a part of a WORLD body of many countries…most of which are rather socialistic or downright totalitarian and with hundreds of billions of potential dollars at their disposal.

It's extremely naive, bordering on science worship to pretend that scientists are somehow above or inoculated from all of this.

Of course they are prone to mistakes, corruption, etc. However, the size and depth of this panel provides a lot of checks and balances. Our very Democracy is built on checks and balances, and while these same checks and balances often turn up corruption, incompetence, bad data, bad motives, etc. overall this basic design is the best known to man for producing results that are, on the whole, sound.

What some of you guys seem to be doing is focusing on what the checks and balances have turned up, while at the same time, as I have said in the past, throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Do you really believe that all 2500 of those reviewers are working in concert to perpetuate some massive global conspiracy?
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vacation.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 16, 2010, 02:00 AM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Do you really believe that all 2500 of those reviewers are working in concert to perpetuate some massive global conspiracy?
I believe all of those 2,500 reviewers are working in concert to not lose their jobs, which are all funded by politicians who require a pre-set answer.

From your wiki page on the IPCC:

A main activity of the IPCC is publishing special reports on topics relevant to the implementation of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC),[4] an international treaty that acknowledges the possibility of harmful climate change.
About the UNFCCC:

The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC or FCCC) is an international environmental treaty produced at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED), informally known as the Earth Summit, held in Rio de Janeiro from 3 to 14 June 1992. The objective of the treaty is to stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system.
So, is the IPCC likely to publish reports which say "the UNFCCC is pointless and should no longer be implemented"? No... ...the whole point of the IPCC is to provide some kind of validation for the existence of the UNFCCC.

Now, let's look at the UNFCCC:

Annex II countries - developed countries which pay for costs of developing countries
...
Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, United Kingdom, United States of America.
Notice the "pay for costs of developing countries".

Now let's go look at the OECD.

Australia. Check.
Austria. Check.
Belgium. Check.
Canada. Check.
Denmark. Check.
Finland. Check.
France. Check.
Germany. Check.
Greece. Check.
Iceland. Check.
Ireland. Check.
Italy. Check.
Japan. Check.
Luxembourg. Check.
Netherlands. Check.
New Zealand. Check.
Norway. Check.
Portugal. Check.
Spain. Check.
Sweden. Check.
Switzerland. Check.
United Kingdom. Check.
United States of America. Check.

OK, now let's look at why the OECD exists:

Following the 1957 Rome Treaties to launch the European Economic Community, the Convention on the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development was drawn up to reform the OEEC. The Convention was signed in December 1960 and the OECD officially superseded the OEEC in September 1961. It consisted of the European founder countries of the OEEC plus the United States and Canada, with Japan joining three years later. During the next 12 years Finland, Australia, and New Zealand also joined the organisation. Yugoslavia had observer status in the organisation starting the establishment of the OECD until its dissolution.[3]
More than just increasing its internal structure, OECD progressively created agencies: the Development Centre (1961), International Energy Agency (IEA, 1974), and Financial Action Task Force on Money Laundering.
OEEC:

The Organisation for European Economic Co-operation (OEEC), was formed in 1948 to administer American and Canadian aid in the framework of the Marshall Plan for the reconstruction of Europe after World War II.[1] It started its operations on 16 April 1948. Since 1949, it was headquartered in the Chateau de la Muette in Paris, France. After the Marshall Plan's ending, the OEEC focused on economic questions.[2]
In the 1950s the OEEC provided the framework for negotiations aimed at determining conditions for setting up a European Free Trade Area, to bring the European Economic Community of the six and the other OEEC members together on a multilateral basis. In 1958, a European Nuclear Energy Agency was set up under the OEEC.
So, the OEEC/OECD was instrumental in setting up the EU.

More:
The OECD defines itself as a forum of countries committed to democracy and the market economy, providing a setting to compare policy experiences, seek answers to common problems, identify good practices, and co-ordinate domestic and international policies.
So, it's not such a stretch to believe that the IPCC is simply a tool of the OECD, set up to provide validation and framework for their global-government activities.
All very scientific, eh, Bess?
Been inclined to wander... off the beaten track.
That's where there's thunder... and the wind shouts back.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Across from the wallpaper store.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 16, 2010, 02:17 AM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
You shouldn't argue a falsehood with your true goal as a side-effect. For one thing, it's just plain easier when the facts are on your side.
I agree, really I do.

Two, lots of people are going to recognize that your arguments are false, and this discredits you when you later argue your true goal even if your true goal is legit.
Thinking people will, but it's not the thinking people who matter. It's the people who voted for two terms of Bush, and then as a remedy to that the corrupt ideologue we have now. Same for the other modern countries who are so willing to vote themselves out of their own money and liberty because of the lies of modern, western forms of government. Politicians create policy based upon potential votes or ideology, not reason, freedom, justice, truth or any of a hundred other concepts that have been marginalized or corrupted into a mere cliché.

Three, you seem to recognize the importance of individual liberty and independent thought, but you don't believe either of these principles will allow the audience to comprehend the mild subtlety of your true goal (that eco-totalitarianism is bad even if the eco-bogeyman is legitimate, a very appealing stance IMO, and not hard to understand).
Where is the evidence that people will get this? they certainly don't seem to, to understand it would require thinking and I don't think that people like to do that anymore. It's easier to react and people react more easily to those that mention the totalitarian aspects of the environmental movement as nuts and conspiracy wackos.

If you are honest in your arguments, by agreeing with premises you know to be sound, then you will have more success when you argue your true goal; you might even find a compromise that truly benefits both sides (*gasp*) by not putting their backs up right at the outset;
I don't want compromise when personal and economic freedom are at stake. I don't desire to give one single solitary micron.

but even if not you will at least have a stronger chance at convincing them outright, or convincing the onlookers, since you won't have consciously discredited yourself by lying
I see what you are saying, and I do agree. Perhaps I should moderate my view on this point. Though I personally cheer inside at every blow to their credibility regardless of the truth.

If you oppose everything they say, regardless of truth, you make yourself appear desperate and unreasonable. The silent majority tends to move against the side that is desperate and unreasonable.
I am desperate, the situation seems hopeless.
Being in debt and celebrating a lower deficit is like being on a diet and celebrating the fact you gained two pounds this week instead of five.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vacation.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 16, 2010, 02:22 AM
 
Here's some more for you Bess, from the IPCC wiki:

Keith Shine, one of IPCC's lead authors, discussing the Policymakers' Summary, said: "We produce a draft, and then the policymakers go through it line by line and change the way it is presented.... It's peculiar that they have the final say in what goes into a scientists' report".
Still believe in the IPCC?
Been inclined to wander... off the beaten track.
That's where there's thunder... and the wind shouts back.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Zip, Boom, Bam
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 16, 2010, 02:25 AM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Joke fail.

You realize that him shoveling snow would not discredit his belief of global warming/climate change/whatever you want to call it?
RIght -so according to your logic- when someone calls you an asshat, it literally means someone wears you around on their ass like a hat. Otherwise it's a 'joke fail' unless all jokes are an absolute expression of truth.

No wonder you can't make a funny joke to save your life.
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Safe House
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 16, 2010, 07:55 AM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
From the Wikipedia about the IPCC:

The what we do about it and the debate about whether there is truth to the science are obviously separate arguments. We can have the conversation about what to do about things, and we might even agree on some stuff. I'm just less comfortable to discredit all of the scientific work based on my gut feeling. 2500 scientific expert reviewers, 800 contributing authors, 450 lead authors, 113 governments for Working Group 1 report.

You can criticize the effectiveness and relevance of the UN, but this panel is comprised of scientists, not politicians. Like I said, I'm not comfortable dismissing this not being a scientist myself. All I'm debating is the wisdom behind doing just this.
Besson; I really don't think you understand the connection between Phil Jones, Lead scientist at the CRU East Anglia and the IPCC. Remember, the CRU has just said there has been no warming since 1995.
From Wikipedia:

One of the CRU's most significant products is the global near-surface temperature record compiled in conjunction with the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research. First compiled in the early 1980s, the record documents global temperature fluctuations since the 1850s. The CRU compiles the land component of the record and the Hadley Centre provides the marine component. The merged record is used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change IPCC, in all its publications.[6] It is also involved in a study of Eurasian climate over the last 10,000 years based upon tree ring data and a study of European climate in the last 200 years based upon temperature records.[11] It is a participant in MEDALUS — the Mediterranean Desertification and Land Use project.[11] The ultimate custodians of the raw data are the national meteorological services that originated the data; CRU retains most but not all the raw data.[12]
     
 
Thread Tools
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:19 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2015 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd., Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2