Climate Change: The Non-Issue Crisis

[Rouzbeh]

@Faust

I must have missed something. Where is the post that claims that climate scientists are living in mansions? The reason that the money is of interest to me is manifold, but mostly is due to a classic moral question - “What do we owe to future generations?” My tax dollars going to a highly politicised and uncertain theory and its ramifications, evidently. I mistrust the scientists far less than i do the politicians. I think I have stated before that I have every reason to believe that most of these scientists are sincere. But I think that Bill Gates and Donald Trump are sincere, as well. Business is business. I spent a few minutes yesterday justifying my existence (within the company) to my boss. I see nothing wrong in that. It’s not about right and wrong.
There are several issues, here. the science, the politics, the money and the way science is funded are the main ones I am addressing.

You cited an article saying that says scientists earn so much. I was explaining that it’s not to fund their ‘lavish’ lifestyles. What these people are doing isn’t a business, they’re not looking to maximize returns on their investment. I really don’t believe, if as you have said you were invited to be a professor, you believe the myth of the ‘greedy academic’ who is looking to hoard cash. People become academics because it’s an easy going lifestyle and they’re their own boss. It’s not for the money. Financial reward is readily available in industry.

@Faust

I am already confused. First you say that only experts should talk about this. Then you say you’re not an expert. Then you talk about it. My widdle nonscientific peabrain is addled.

“Again, I’m going to reiterate that it’s not a ‘right to talk’, and that my field is not specifically global warming and am not an ‘expert’, but the right to issue authoritative statements.”
I have a professor who’s an advocate of nuclear energy. I’m sceptical about the cost/benefit of nuclear power plants. But I don’t go out and say “CHERNOBYL PROVES IT’S NOT SAFE”, I ask him questions, try to see things from his angle, the reports he refers to, and form an educated opinion. I might challenge some of his assumptions.

And correct information has huge value, whatever forum it’s in. This is how rumors start, this is how the public is confused, and this is how bad decisions are made on the individual as well as the national level (e.g. condoms are the cause of aids). This is how I’m affected, and everyone else. Misinformation is a scourge.

@Faust

I am, in fact, implying more than that. I am implying that tree growth is affected by many more factors that summer sun and mean summer temps. And yeah, “large areas of North America”. Small sample. I live in Maine, and have been waiting for Global Warming for years. I am a fan of Global Warming, but it has so far let me down.

And yeah, thousands of trees. There are thousands of trees between where I live and where I work. While this may be a reason to pump more money into research, I don’t think it’s a reason to limit industrial growth.

It’s not North America. It’s, as I said, the Northern Hemisphere. I’ve given you the link to the report, and the page number, you just have to click and scroll down a page. The Northern Hemisphere, for this report, includes samples from Northern Europe, Southern Europe, Siberia, Central Asia, China, and America. Statistical methods are meant to be representative of the population, but noone ever takes a sample that’s comparable to the population. I don’t know why you imply that you do. That would be a waste of the negligible part of your tax that goes to support a few dozen institutions doing work on the subject. That eliminates the point. Statistics take a small sample (not that thousands of trees, in various reports, from 3 continents is small), and represent a large population. I don’t know why you’re arguing against statistical methods. If Maine is letting you down on global warming, I suggest South East Asia.

@Faust

Let’s accept this conclusion. It’s not true of many places on the globe. But is it true of any places in the Northern Hemisphere? And what are the consequences for coldwater ports and agriculture in Northern Hemisphere countires? You know, the ones who are going to foot the bill for GW? Is there a reason why Russia, for instance, has been known to drag its feet a bit on AGW? Hmmmmmmm.

Meanwhile, it’s not true of Maine. Which kind of sucks for me, as family concerns prevent me from going south for the winter.

They take average temperatures. The only response to that is that Maine isn’t the center of the world, although I don’t know Maine’s temperature change to tell you if you’re correct or not. But Europe, Siberia, China, America, indicate warming. The reason countries don’t take action is that economic growth is at risk here. Burn coal, make money now, or insure the next generation by making heavy investments and costly reductions? Russia has the world’s largest reserves of gas, and is actively seeking to improve supply chains, as witnessed by its planned pipeline bypassing troublesome Ukraine. It’s all straightforward economics.

As I’ve said before, if an engineer says “you’re 90% likely to die in this car if we don’t do x to fix y problem”, the person will let it be fixed. If a plane is said to have a so and so chance of crashing, it’s not going to be allowed to take off. The whole ‘send waste uranium into space’ issue was, other than cost, binned on safety grounds because spacecraft have only a 95% chance of success. 5% and the idea’s gone.

@Faust

Oh. What’s the probability that the Earth is flat and that the Sun revolves around it?
For the record, I have been skeptical about Global Warming for years. I even remember the impending “Global Cooling” crisis. The recent news is more of interest to me because of the politics of science. This is a SS board, by the way.

Statistical methods deal with uncertainty. I’ll state the obvious: x=1 does not need statistical methods (i.e. flat earth doesn’t need an uncertainty model because it’s a known matter). The next roll of the die on the other hand, does, because there’s a variable. There’s uncertainties in the models, hence the reason for probabilities. I don’t know why I have to deal with your attempts to mock simple concepts. You’ve become so entrenched in your opinions because you have been sceptical “for years”. People make many mistakes “for years”. Fourier was before you. Arhenius was before you. One would think they were more capable at scientific matters. There’s nothing wrong with changing opinions.

Global cooling was hardly a ‘crisis’. It never got the scientific or public attention that warming has got, and doesn’t have the historic scientific base. But that’s what happens anyway, science is not a finalist field. We work with the information that we have. The more time and money goes into something, as has gone into warming, the less likely that it’s going to be completely incorrect because it’s going to be subject to more tests. Xunzian had a very nice Isaac Asimov article addressing the whole “it was wrong before, therefore it’s bound to be wrong forever” argument, which I’ve just found again: chem.tufts.edu/answersinscience/ … fwrong.htm
Science changes when there’s better data. People should be less hardheaded and do so as well.

[Faust]

Rouzbeh -

You cited an article saying that says scientists earn so much.

The article said nothing about the individual earnings of scientists. Which is why

I was explaining that it’s not to fund their ‘lavish’ lifestyles.

is a strawman. You refuted a claim that no one but you made.

I really don’t believe, if as you have said you were invited to be a professor, you believe the myth of the ‘greedy academic’ who is looking to hoard cash

I never made that claim, nor was I ever “invited” to be a professor. Another strawman. Maybe there’s a language barrier here.

People become academics because it’s an easy going lifestyle and they’re their own boss. It’s not for the money. Financial reward is readily available in industry.

My point is that many academic positions are dependent upon research grants. Entire departments are. That’s just a fact of academic life. I never said anything about lavish lifestyles. I was talking about the very existence of many jobs, especially in the sciences.

“Again, I’m going to reiterate that it’s not a ‘right to talk’, and that my field is not specifically global warming and am not an ‘expert’, but the right to issue authoritative statements.”

Statements have as much authority as you are willing to give them. Look within, my friend. Look within.

I have a professor who’s an advocate of nuclear energy. I’m sceptical about the cost/benefit of nuclear power plants. But I don’t go out and say “CHERNOBYL PROVES IT’S NOT SAFE”, I ask him questions, try to see things from his angle, the reports he refers to, and form an educated opinion. I might challenge some of his assumptions.

Well…good for you, I guess.

It’s not North America. It’s, as I said, the Northern Hemisphere. I’ve given you the link to the report, and the page number, you just have to click and scroll down a page. The Northern Hemisphere, for this report, includes samples from Northern Europe, Southern Europe, Siberia, Central Asia, China, and America. Statistical methods are meant to be representative of the population, but noone ever takes a sample that’s comparable to the population./quote]

Do you remember when Dewey “beat” Truman? Or when Gore “beat” Bush? When the average american family had 1.2 children, do you remember seeing a .2 child? Which fifth was it?

Here’s the problem with statistical methods. I remember being told that all of the US landfills would be full in ten years. Or twenty years. Whatever. This was the reason we should recycle. So, recycling programs are ubiquitous. Much of this uses more resources than would landfills, but those statistical projections don’t lie, do they? Well, of course they don’t. They also don’t mention that we could just start new landfills. Statistics don’t lie - people do.

Peak oil - and you name the year, has come and gone several times. Because it measures recoverable oil - economically recoverable oil. Of course, if the price of oil goes up and/or new technology becomes available - both of which happen regularly - then there is more recoverable oil - even though no new oil has been discovered.

The rainforest is disappearing. Except that it would have disappeared long ago if the rate that we hear was true - except that it is true. Except that most of the rainforest that is cut down returns, because most of it is cut down for agricultural use. Which is, for a variety of reasons, a temporary use. So all the rainforest that we are told is disappearing is really disappearing, yet the rainforest isn’t in any danger of disappearing. Because statistics don’t lie, but people do.

Do you remember when 50,000 species a day, or a week, or a year - I don’t remember because it doesn’t matter - were disappearing? It is a very famous stat. Except it was made up out of whole cloth.

You know where I got all this (except about Dewey and Gore) from? A statistician.

They take average temperatures. The only response to that is that Maine isn’t the center of the world, although I don’t know Maine’s temperature change to tell you if you’re correct or not. But Europe, Siberia, China, America, indicate warming. The reason countries don’t take action is that economic growth is at risk here. Burn coal, make money now, or insure the next generation by making heavy investments and costly reductions? Russia has the world’s largest reserves of gas, and is actively seeking to improve supply chains, as witnessed by its planned pipeline bypassing troublesome Ukraine. It’s all straightforward economics./quote]

Just show me the science.

As I’ve said before, if an engineer says “you’re 90% likely to die in this car if we don’t do x to fix y problem”, the person will let it be fixed. If a plane is said to have a so and so chance of crashing, it’s not going to be allowed to take off. The whole ‘send waste uranium into space’ issue was, other than cost, binned on safety grounds because spacecraft have only a 95% chance of success. 5% and the idea’s gone.

But we’re not being told that. We’re being told that someone else will die. I won’t die from global warming. I can’t even get a fucking tan around here.

Statistical methods deal with uncertainty. I’ll state the obvious: x=1 does not need statistical methods (i.e. flat earth doesn’t need an uncertainty model because it’s a known matter). The next roll of the die on the other hand, does, because there’s a variable.

Which is why I believe that the Earth is spherical but I don’t shoot craps. It’s a waste of money.

There’s uncertainties in the models, hence the reason for probabilities. I don’t know why I have to deal with your attempts to mock simple concepts. You’ve become so entrenched in your opinions because you have been sceptical “for years”. People make many mistakes “for years”. Fourier was before you. Arhenius was before you. One would think they were more capable at scientific matters. There’s nothing wrong with changing opinions.

You don’t get it. I am a fan of global warming. I want it to happen. I just don’t see the evidence that it is. You’re asking me to pay for air conditioning when all I want is heat.

Global cooling was hardly a ‘crisis’. It never got the scientific or public attention that warming has got, and doesn’t have the historic scientific base. But that’s what happens anyway, science is not a finalist field. We work with the information that we have. The more time and money goes into something, as has gone into warming, the less likely that it’s going to be completely incorrect because it’s going to be subject to more tests. Xunzian had a very nice Isaac Asimov article addressing the whole “it was wrong before, therefore it’s bound to be wrong forever” argument, which I’ve just found again: chem.tufts.edu/answersinscience/ … fwrong.htm
Science changes when there’s better data. People should be less hardheaded and do so as well.

Global cooling didn’t have Al Gore.

[Sidhe]

Shock horror scientists are paid? By whom though the oil companies, George Bush? Obama? Clinton? Texaco?

Tobacco “scientists” worked for nearly 100 years to prove smoking was safe, didn’t make them in the pocket of science, just finance.

[The_Last_Man]

@Sidhe

Shock horror scientists are paid? By whom though the oil companies, George Bush? Obama? Clinton? Texaco?

Tobacco “scientists” worked for nearly 100 years to prove smoking was safe, didn’t make them in the pocket of science, just finance.

I think it does not have to do with the fact that scientists are paid, but by whom. Whoever pays you in a sense controls you because they can stop paying you if they like - this means you need to keep them happy, to keep the money flowing.

If climate scientists are paid by governments with a vested political interest in pushing global warming theory, then of course there exists an incentive for these scientists to produce science supporting global warming theory. Now this doesn’t mean that all such scientists are doing this, nor does it mean that the science they produce is necessarily wrong or skewed. . . but it does mean that a conflict of interests does exist where there is a conflict between the science and the open global warming agenda of the government which pays for the science.

This conflict of interest is enough reason to question the motives and results of the scientists, but of course not to reject them outright. We just need to be cautious and look at the facts. Conflict of interest presents problems in these situations. Look at Enron and how it owned the company doing its accounting and financial audits.

Whoever’s forking out the cash to scientists has somewhat of a say in what those scientists ultimately produce. It’s just common sense.

[Sidhe]

@The Last Man

@Sidhe

Shock horror scientists are paid? By whom though the oil companies, George Bush? Obama? Clinton? Texaco?

Tobacco “scientists” worked for nearly 100 years to prove smoking was safe, didn’t make them in the pocket of science, just finance.

I think it does not have to do with the fact that scientists are paid, but by whom. Whoever pays you in a sense controls you because they can stop paying you if they like - this means you need to keep them happy, to keep the money flowing.

If climate scientists are paid by governments with a vested political interest in pushing global warming theory, then of course there exists an incentive for these scientists to produce science supporting global warming theory. Now this doesn’t mean that all such scientists are doing this, nor does it mean that the science they produce is necessarily wrong or skewed. . . but it does mean that a conflict of interests does exist where there is a conflict between the science and the open global warming agenda of the government which pays for the science.

This conflict of interest is enough reason to question the motives and results of the scientists, but of course not to reject them outright. We just need to be cautious and look at the facts. Conflict of interest presents problems in these situations. Look at Enron and how it owned the company doing its accounting and financial audits.

Whoever’s forking out the cash to scientists has somewhat of a say in what those scientists ultimately produce. It’s just common sense.

Rubbish I tell you who the IPCC are in the pocket of Scientific establishment. In other words they are science.

A conflict of interest means only one thing, someone is wrong.

[Faust]

Here’s my view about this, Sidhe:

Shock horror scientists are paid? By whom though the oil companies, George Bush? Obama? Clinton? Texaco?

Tobacco “scientists” worked for nearly 100 years to prove smoking was safe, didn’t make them in the pocket of science, just finance.

Did the scientists working for tobacco companies believe in what they were doing or not?

And does it matter?

I think what matters is that we have balance. That we make certain, as a matter of public policy, that we have scientists working on these questions that are funded not only by the industry, but by other interests as well.

It’s like public opinion polls - you don’t know what they mean unless you know the questions, the context - even in what order the questions are asked. Are pollsters crooked? No, but they are paid by someone. So we know, as a foreground estimate, that there will be a difference between a poll taken by the New York Times and one taken by the Washington Times (liberal and conservative, respectively).

I think Last Man and Sidhe are both “right”. I think they are saying the same thing, but with a different focus. I think truth lies along a continuum.

[Sidhe]

So do I there is global warming and cooling and it could be human and natural or a mix of both. The point of science is to find out which not sit in an ivory tower and stick your fingers in your ears.

[The_Paineful_Truth]

Strange, Boxer wants to look into the laws that might have been broken in favor of ignoring the content of the emails and their implication.

The Jon Stewart “video is no longer available due to a copyright claim by Viacom”. That quote comes up when you try to play it on Youtube. Why do you s’pose that one was shut down while all those others with Jon Stewart are still out there. Viacom/MTV. Well there you go.

[size=200]Klang!!![/size]

But hold the phone, I did find it still available here:

webpronews.com/topnews/2009/ … -internet-

I laughed my ass off when it caught me by surprise on radio:

“The Daily Show with Jon Stewart” produced its “reporting” on Climate-gate Tuesday night, when Stewart quipped, “Poor Al Gore. Global warming completely debunked via the very Internet you invented. Oh, oh, the irony!”

No there’s nothing to it. That’s why CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN etc were scooped by Stewart, ignoring it in favor of the Tiger Woods Crisis.

foxnews.com/story/0,2933,578 … latestnews

On another climate-gate front, “Climategate emails force Al Gore to cancel talk at Copenhagen” (without an explanation), which was to play off the idiot Global Warming Conference (read bilk the US via carbon credits scheme) to be held there. Maybe he had to make an emergency fix to the Internet–with an ax:

examiner.com/x-11224-Baltimo … Copenhagen

[Rouzbeh]

I hate quote wars so I’m going to try and keep this short and quote free.
There’s no straw man in there. You’re saying there’s so much increase in funding. And then you say it’s my strawman that academics are using the funds to live good lives. Well, why else would they want money then? To sincerely waste on a cause that’s a fraud? They’re sincerely stupider than the average joe who can clearly tell that there’s no warming in Maine? Please. And you have in the past referred to yourself being offered a position as a lecturer or something similar, though I wouldn’t be able to give you a link. If you were high when you wrote it, sorry for quoting you. Though I’m not sure how saying you may have familiarity with academia is a ‘strawman’.

Your argument is ultimately that either statistical methods are unreliable, or that it doesn’t affect you. On the one hand there’s unreliability, on the other there’s a lack of concern about whether or not it actually is happening. They’re two different reasons, but disregarding the silliness of the ‘I aint never seen it so it doesnt exist’ type of argument you’re pushing with Maine, I’m going to get back to the data reliability.
I don’t know what you mean by 1.2 children. 1.2 children per mother is 12 children per 10 mothers, there’s no confusion about the ‘one fifth child’.
You’re referring to oil peak. It’s far from a settled matter, and quite rightly, numbers have been flying for years. It has a lot of speculation because the methods involved are complex, but you can be certain that it’s a matter of when not if. Anyways.
Let’s take the Challenger example. The engineers told the managers there would be a 60% chance of failure if the shuttle launched under those atmospheric conditions. They did it anyway. And everyone saw it blow up. That’s the importance of the 90%. If it’s correct, the consequences are catastrophic. We have to at least attempt to insure ourselves against what is a very very high probability. Inaction will probably be catastrophic, action against warming (which also leads to ‘green jobs’) won’t.
It is, to repeat again and again, a 200 year old principle. There has been a direct correlation between a rise in atmospheric temperatures and that of greenhouse gas concentrations, notably CO2. The science of radiation is very well established. Some 10 or 15 of the 20 hottest years on record have occurred in the past 20 years. The report, among the others which I haven’t found freely available, identifies this. At the very best, you’d be challenging whether or not it’s man made. If interested parties have only to take things like ‘decline’ out of context and unleash them on a public afraid of the changes of a carbon free world, even if the sentence structure is reflective of retardation when taken to mean what they say, it says alot about the sceptics’ scientific validity doesn’t it? And noone (not literally) outside the US has heard of Al Gore. That’s your own political celebrity junk and has nothing to do with the European and Asian regulatory environments.

If you want to get a tan, that’s quite different from challenging global warming. I won’t go into the details of the significant impact of climate change on things like crop yields, and how that will directly affect your wallet and if there’s no wallet, your stomach rather than your tan, when some 80% of the world’s crop is rain fed according to a recent UNEP report. But you’ve got this somewhere between jest and a half-serious challenge, so I have to assume you’re just trying to exasperate me rather than discuss views.

And in order to keep this as compact as possible, I’ll just respond to your post in the other topic here as well: Regardless of how much knowledge Imp has, his posts reflect mental issues rather than significant intelligence. Aphorisms aren’t smart outside quote books. And they’re even more irrelevant when they reflect a far right view that never justifies itself. And then make a response like ‘STATE SOCILAIZM REVOLUCION’ or some mixture of that to everything.
Also, yes, as I said someone may have good insight. If as per your example, a person who’s never read Nietzsche understands him better than ‘most scholars’, then we’ll just have to conclude that philosophy requires no work but just a state of mind. Fair enough. Science isn’t like that. I can give insight, I challenged our design method and convinced my professor to take a different apporach. I can’t however challenge the my structural professor’s Finite Element model of a curved bridge. And that’s where my ‘opinion’ shouldn’t take the form of an authoritative statement, lest I make a fool of myself. As people often do, without caring because, unlike an academic, there’s no professional risk involved. You do however, decide with your votes; hence why it’s important to avoid the misinformation sceptics continuously spew.

[Faust]

There’s no straw man in there. You’re saying there’s so much increase in funding. And then you say it’s my strawman that academics are using the funds to live good lives. Well, why else would they want money then? To sincerely waste on a cause that’s a fraud?

I didn’t say there was an increase in funding. Certainly there has been, since 1700, at least. I’m not denying there has been an increase. I’m just denying that I said there was an increase. They might want the money to run their programs. To do the research. I never claimed that they were spending the money on drugs and hos. And I never claimed that they believe that they are wrong. In fact, I think I went to some lengths to say that this was unlikely to be the case, at least in the main.

I think you somehow don’t know how it works. Government grants aren’t pieced out to each research assistant, test tube maker and custodian. Schools or faculty members or departments get them, and they spend the money to do the experiment or publish the book or whatever it happens to be. I’m not talking about who pays what for rent - I’m talking about how much money is being spent. I don’t know how to make this simpler.

Didn’t say I have been offered a job.

They’re sincerely stupider than the average joe who can clearly tell that there’s no warming in Maine?

I didn’t find this out by stepping out my door every morning. The government keeps records.

So, if you are here just to condescend, however ironic that may be, you’ll win, because I’ll give up, out of sheer boredom.

Your argument is ultimately that either statistical methods are unreliable, or that it doesn't affect you.

It’s actually both, and more.

They’re two different reasons, but disregarding the silliness of the ‘I aint never seen it so it doesnt exist’ type of argument you’re pushing with Maine, I’m going to get back to the data reliability.

Again you misrepresent my case. I can only conclude that you don’t understand it. But again, I’m not sure how much simpler I can make it.

I don’t know what you mean by 1.2 children.

That doesn’t surprise me.

1.2 children per mother is 12 children per 10 mothers, there’s no confusion about the ‘one fifth child’.

The confusion ensues when we think of a statistical fact as an empirical one.

You’re referring to oil peak. It’s far from a settled matter, and quite rightly, numbers have been flying for years. It has a lot of speculation because the methods involved are complex, but you can be certain that it’s a matter of when not if. Anyways.

Sure. But if the “when” occurs after my death, I’m going to be reluctant to spend tax dollars on corn syrup-fueled cars or solar battery-powered skateboards.

Let’s take the Challenger example. The engineers told the managers there would be a 60% chance of failure if the shuttle launched under those atmospheric conditions. They did it anyway. And everyone saw it blow up. That’s the importance of the 90%. If it’s correct, the consequences are catastrophic. We have to at least attempt to insure ourselves against what is a very very high probability. Inaction will probably be catastrophic, action against warming (which also leads to ‘green jobs’) won’t.

I wouldn’t consider Challenger blowing up “catastrophic”. The program costs little, and I like spaceships. I’m not being facetious - it’s my tax money. My higher price for Wonder Bread. My additional cost for a car due to mileage requirements. And on and on and on. We don’t have to ensure anything. We live in a world of limited resources and Global Warming is one of many problems, real or imagined. Global warming might be catastrophic long after we both are dead. It’s not about the weather in Maine today, it’s about fucking up the world economy for the sake of people we don’t even know will ever exist.

It is, to repeat again and again, a 200 year old principle.

The Immaculate Conception has it beat by tenfold.

Some 10 or 15 of the 20 hottest years on record have occurred in the past 20 years.

That’s just the kind of “stat” that I inveigh against. The records don’t go back very far. In some places further than others, but that only makes matters worse. Maybe you could just tell me what “the temperature of the atmosphere of the planet Earth” really means. Just give me temps for the same places for a mere five hundred or a thousand years - the blink of an eye - and I’ll start to get a little interested. But be sure to separate out the other variables - all or most of them. Or it won’t mean much.

I just want a controlled experiment. Is that asking a lot?

At the very best, you’d be challenging whether or not it’s man made.

I’ll take it.

If interested parties have only to take things like ‘decline’ out of context and unleash them on a public afraid of the changes of a carbon free world, even if the sentence structure is reflective of retardation when taken to mean what they say, it says alot about the sceptics’ scientific validity doesn’t it?

I don’t know who you are talking to, but this hacked email business hasn’t made a whit of difference to my own view. The only thing interesting about it is the difference it’s going to make to many other people that you think are too stupid to understand the issue.

And noone (not literally) outside the US has heard of Al Gore. That’s your own political celebrity junk and has nothing to do with the European and Asian regulatory environments.

Face it - without the US, all this greening stuff goes to shit. Gore matters, whether you had to Google him or not.

If you want to get a tan, that’s quite different from challenging global warming. I won’t go into the details of the significant impact of climate change on things like crop yields, and how that will directly affect your wallet and if there’s no wallet, your stomach rather than your tan, when some 80% of the world’s crop is rain fed according to a recent UNEP report. But you’ve got this somewhere between jest and a half-serious challenge, so I have to assume you’re just trying to exasperate me rather than discuss views.

I am not trying to exasperate anyone. I can be exasperated for both of us. If you want to go into crop yields, go into crop yields at specific places. And again, I ask why Russia hasn’t really been on board with the whole AGW thing. Greenland corn, anyone?

And in order to keep this as compact as possible, I’ll just respond to your post in the other topic here as well: Regardless of how much knowledge Imp has, his posts reflect mental issues rather than significant intelligence. Aphorisms aren’t smart outside quote books. And they’re even more irrelevant when they reflect a far right view that never justifies itself. And then make a response like ‘STATE SOCILAIZM REVOLUCION’ or some mixture of that to everything.

A far right view. That’s the nub of it, my “pure scientist truth-seeker” friend.

Once again, you return to politics. Which is your motive. Which is transparent.

Also, yes, as I said someone may have good insight. If as per your example, a person who’s never read Nietzsche understands him better than ‘most scholars’, then we’ll just have to conclude that philosophy requires no work but just a state of mind. Fair enough. Science isn’t like that. I can give insight, I challenged our design method and convinced my professor to take a different apporach. I can’t however challenge the my structural professor’s Finite Element model of a curved bridge. And that’s where my ‘opinion’ shouldn’t take the form of an authoritative statement, lest I make a fool of myself. As people often do, without caring because, unlike an academic, there’s no professional risk involved. You do however, decide with your votes; hence why it’s important to avoid the misinformation sceptics continuously spew.

Ah, professional risk. Like the risk these climate scientists were so unwilling to take that they fudged the data?

Yeah, you’ve got a point.

[Sidhe]

It’s good job Faust isn’t Obama is all I can say. Maybe he will actually get American businesses to see their arses from their elbows? Maybe not?

[Rouzbeh]

@Faust

Here is a synopsis of the kind of money at stake in Climate change “science”.

online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 … st_Popular

There’s an image of funding I’ve come across that people think funding is for something other than actual research costs, and I meant to address that in the first post. You posted an article that cited the scientists’ increase in funding. I responded to it as “your” statement, hence the ‘sincerely stupid’ remark, given that the article was posted by you. If you don’t think it was, fine.
‘Catastrophic’ was in describing global warming. Though Challenger, and then Columbia, have been catastrophic to the shuttle program.
1.2 children. +0.6degrees. If the cold water flow in one area is affected by warming, it can significantly impact on local conditions. There was an analysis done on what it might mean in Europe. Let’s take it closer to you by the Gulf Stream nature.com/news/2005/051128/ … 128-9.html . Warming is not a uniform heating up of the earth. Certain areas may get colder as terrestrial phenomena are affected. Like the Gulf Stream. Warming is NOT just about someone having a 0.6 degree warmer summer, 0.6 is the average. There’s significant impact on the world, it really isn’t about what clothes you choose to wear for what season. Your 0.2 child misses the point.
The US and China are the two biggest emitters in the world. Their participation is paramount. But no, all this ‘green stuff’ is actually European led, which is reflected in the renewable energy share of countries like Denmark and Germany and the incentives in place across the EU.
Crop yields are affected throughout the world. There’s no self sufficient set of economies all out to fend for themselves. Tsunamis and draughts in South East Asia impact on rice prices in the US, energy crop conversions impact on pasta prices in Italy.
As I said in the previous post, Russia has extensive ties to fossil fuels and its economy is very fragile, having suffered a significantly higher dip than many other countries bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid= … ImZJKQlUnk . I have repeatedly and very clearly stated the balance between economic growth and climate change, where growth has priority.

Imp’s views are nothing but political. Your suggestion is that I find a different label for things like “history never repeats, dead liberals”? Let’s call it “politically charged but unwarranted nonsense incessantly spewed without any justification or explanation and often when it’s not called for”, to avoid the political association. ‘Far right’ seems like a simpler way to convey what I mean. Unless it makes me politically associated…somehow.
But this clearly isn’t going anywhere.

[W.C]

Rouzbeh, you will note that the climate threads I have created were created prior to the email leak.

Now then, you stated that, ‘it’s important to avoid the misinformation sceptics continuously spew.’

Here is some of the information the ‘skeptics’ in question are presenting – in this info, can you please point me to the misinformation? At least some, would be nice.

The following describes feedback factors that reduce the earth’s temperature sensitivity to changes in atmospheric CO2. Scientific studies suggest the model-derived temperature sensitivity of the earth for a doubling of the pre-industrial CO2 level is much lower than the IPCC’s estimate. Corrected feedbacks in the climate system reduce climate sensitivity to values that are an order of magnitude smaller than what the IPCC employs.

• Scientific research suggests the model-derived temperature sensitivity of the earth accepted by the IPCC is too large. Corrected feedbacks in the climate system could reduce climate sensitivity to values that are an order of magnitude smaller.

• Scientists may have discovered a connection between cloud creation and sea surface temperature in the tropics that creates a “thermostat-like control” that automatically vents excess heat into space. If confirmed, this could totally compensate for the warming influence of all anthropogenic CO2 emissions experienced to date, as well as all those that are anticipated to occur in the future.

• The IPCC dramatically underestimates the total cooling effect of aerosols. Studies have found their radiative effect is comparable to or larger than the temperature forcing caused by all the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations recorded since pre-industrial times.

• Higher temperatures are known to increase emissions of dimethyl sulfide (DMS) from the world’s oceans, which increases the albedo of marine stratus clouds, which has a cooling effect.

• Iodocompounds-created by marine algae-function as cloud condensation nuclei, which help create new clouds that reflect more incoming solar radiation back to space and thereby cool the planet.

• As the air’s CO2 content-and possibly its temperature-continues to rise, plants emit greater amounts of carbonyl sulfide gas, which eventually makes it way into the stratosphere, where it is transformed into solar-radiation-reflecting sulfate aerosol particles, which have a cooling effect.

• As CO2 enrichment enhances biological growth, atmospheric levels of biosols rise, many of which function as cloud condensation nuclei. Increased cloudiness diffuses light, which stimulates plant growth and transfers more fixed carbon into plant and soil storage reservoirs.

• Since agriculture accounts for almost half of nitrous oxide (N2O) emissions in some countries, there is concern that enhanced plant growth due to CO2 enrichment might increase the amount and warming effect of this greenhouse gas. But field research shows that N2O emissions fall as CO2 concentrations and temperatures rise, indicating this is actually another negative climate feedback.

• Methane (CH4) is a potent greenhouse gas. An enhanced CO2 environment has been shown to have “neither positive nor negative consequences” on atmospheric methane concentrations. Higher temperatures have been shown to result in reduced methane release from peatbeds. Methane emissions from cattle have been reduced considerably by altering diet, immunization, and genetic selection.

---

The following reviews empirical data on past temperatures. We find no support for the IPCC’s claim that climate observations during the twentieth century are either unprecedented or provide evidence of an anthropogenic effect on climate. We reveal the methodological errors of the “hockey stick” diagram of Mann et al., evidence for the existence of a global Medieval Warm Period, flaws in the surface-based temperature record of more modern times, evidence from highly accurate satellite data that there has been no net warming over the past 29 years, and evidence that the distribution of modern warming does not bear the “fingerprint” of an anthropogenic effect.

• The IPCC claims to find evidence in temperature records that the warming of the twentieth century was “unprecedented” and more rapid than during any previous period in the past 1,300 years. But the evidence it cites, including the “hockey-stick” representation of earth’s temperature record by Mann et al., has been discredited and contradicted by many independent scholars.

• A corrected temperature record shows temperatures around the world were warmer during the Medieval Warm Period of approximately 1,000 years ago than they are today, and have averaged 2-3ºF warmer than today’s temperatures over the past 10,000 years.

• Evidence of a global Medieval Warm Period is extensive and irrefutable. Scientists working with a variety of independent methodologies have found it in proxy records from Africa, Antarctica, the Arctic, Asia, Europe, North America, and South America.

• The IPCC cites as evidence of modern global warming data from surface-based recording stations yielding a 1905-2005 temperature increase of 0.74ºC +/- 0.18ºC. But this temperature record is known to be positively biased by insufficient corrections for the non-greenhouse-gas-induced urban heat island (UHI) effect. It may be impossible to make proper corrections for this deficiency, as the UHI of even small towns dwarfs any concomitant augmented greenhouse effect that may be present.

• Highly accurate satellite data, adjusted for orbit drift and other factors, show a much more modest warming trend in the last two decades of the twentieth century and a dramatic decline in the warming trend in the first decade of the twenty-first century.

• The “fingerprint” or pattern of warming observed in the twentieth century differs from the pattern predicted by global climate models designed to simulate CO2-induced global warming. Evidence reported by the U.S. Climate Change Science Program (CCSP) is unequivocal: All greenhouse models show an increasing warming trend with altitude in the tropics, peaking around 10 km at roughly twice the surface value. However, the temperature data from balloons give the opposite result: no increasing warming, but rather a slight cooling with altitude.

• Temperature records in Greenland and other Arctic areas reveal that temperatures reached a maximum around 1930 and have decreased in recent decades. Longer-term studies depict oscillatory cooling since the Climatic Optimum of the mid-Holocene (~9000-5000 years BP), when it was perhaps 2.5º C warmer than it is now.

• The average temperature history of Antarctica provides no evidence of twentieth century warming. While the Antarctic peninsula shows recent warming, several research teams have documented a cooling trend for the interior of the continent since the 1970s.

The following reviews observational data on glacier melting, sea ice area, variation in precipitation, and sea level rise. We find no evidence of trends that could be attributed to the supposedly anthropogenic global warming of the twentieth century.

• Glaciers around the world are continuously advancing and retreating, with a general pattern of retreat since the end of the Little Ice Age. There is no evidence of a increased rate of melting overall since CO2 levels rose above their pre-industrial levels, suggesting CO2 is not responsible for glaciers melting.

• Sea ice area and extent have continued to increase around Antarctica over the past few decades. Evidence shows that much of the reported thinning of Arctic sea ice that occurred in the 1990s was a natural consequence of changes in ice dynamics caused by an atmospheric regime shift, of which there have been several in decades past and will likely be several in the decades to come, totally irrespective of past or future changes in the air’s CO2 content. The Arctic appears to have recovered from its 2007 decline.

• Global studies of precipitation trends show no net increase and no consistent trend with CO2, contradicting climate model predictions that warming should cause increased precipitation. Research on Africa, the Arctic, Asia, Europe, and North and South America all find no evidence of a significant impact on precipitation that could be attributed to anthropogenic global warming.

• The cumulative discharge of the world’s rivers remained statistically unchanged between 1951 and 2000, a finding that contradicts computer forecasts that a warmer world would cause large changes in global streamflow characteristics. Droughts and floods have been found to be less frequent and severe during the Current Warm Period than during past periods when temperatures were even higher than they are today.

• The results of several research studies argue strongly against claims that CO2-induced global warming would cause catastrophic disintegration of the Greenland and Antarctic Ice Sheets. In fact, in the case of Antarctica, they suggest just the opposite-i.e., that CO2-induced global warming would tend to buffer the world against such an outcome.

• The mean rate of global sea level rise has not accelerated over the recent past. The determinants of sea level are poorly understood due to considerable uncertainty associated with a number of basic parameters that are related to the water balance of the world’s oceans and the meltwater contribution of Greenland and Antarctica. Until these uncertainties are satisfactorily resolved, we cannot be confident that short-lived changes in global temperature produce corresponding changes in sea level.

---

The following investigates and debunks the widespread fears that global warming might cause more extreme weather. The IPCC claims global warming will cause (or already is causing) more droughts, floods, hurricanes, storms, storm surges, heat waves, and wildfires. We find little or no support in the peer-reviewed literature for these predictions and considerable evidence to support an opposite prediction: That weather would be less extreme in a warmer world.

• The IPCC predicts that a warmer planet will lead to more extreme weather, characterized by more frequent and severe episodes of drought, flooding, cyclones, precipitation variability, storms, snow, storm surges, temperature variability, and wildfires. But has the last century - during which the IPCC claims the world experienced more rapid warming than any time in the past two millennia - experienced significant trends in any of these extreme weather events?

• Droughts have not become more extreme or erratic in response to global warming. Real-world evidence from Africa, Asia, and other continents find no trend toward more frequent or more severe droughts. In most cases, the worst droughts in recorded meteorological history were much milder than droughts that occurred periodically during much colder times.

• Floods were more frequent and more severe during the Little Ice Age than they have been during the Current Warm Period. Flooding in Asia, Europe, and North America has tended to be less frequent and less severe during the twentieth century.

• The IPCC says “it is likely that future tropical cyclones (typhoons and hurricanes) will become more intense, with larger peak wind speeds and more heavy precipitation associated with ongoing increase of tropical sea surface temperatures.” But despite the supposedly “unprecedented” warming of the twentieth century, there has been no increase in the intensity or frequency of tropical cyclones globally or in any of the specific oceans.

• A number of real-world observations demonstrate that El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) conditions during the latter part of the twentieth century were not unprecedented in terms of their frequency or magnitude. Long-term records suggest that when the earth was significantly warmer than it is currently, ENSO events were substantially reduced or perhaps even absent.

• There is no support for the model-based projection that precipitation in a warming world becomes more variable and intense. In fact, some observational data suggest just the opposite, and provide support for the proposition that precipitation responds more to cyclical variations in solar activity.

• As the earth has warmed over the past 150 years, during its recovery from the global chill of the Little Ice Age, there has been no significant increase in either the frequency or intensity of stormy weather.

• Between 1950 and 2002, during which time the air’s CO2 concentration rose by 20 percent, there was no net change in either the mean onset date or duration of snow cover for the continent of North America. There appears to have been a downward trend in blizzards.

• Storm surges have not increased in either frequency or magnitude as CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere have risen. In the majority of cases investigated, they have tended to decrease.

• Air temperature variability almost always decreases when mean air temperature rises, be it in cases of temperature change over tens of thousands of years or over mere decades, or even between individual cooler and warmer years when different ENSO states are considered. The claim that global warming will lead to more extremes of climate and weather, including more extremes of temperature itself, is not supported by real-world data.

• Although one can readily identify specific parts of the planet that have experienced both significant increases and decreases in land area burned by wildfires over the last two to three decades of the twentieth century, for the globe as a whole there was no relationship between global warming and total area burned over this period.

You stated, ‘I won’t go into the details of the significant impact of climate change on things like crop yields, and how that will directly affect your wallet’ – is this what you meant?

The following examines the biological effects of rising CO2 concentrations and warmer temperatures. This is the largely unreported side of the global warming debate, perhaps because it is unequivocally good news. Rising CO2 levels increase plant growth and make plants more resistant to drought and pests. It is a boon to the world’s forests and prairies, as well as to farmers and ranchers and the growing populations of the developing world.

• A 300-ppm increase in the air’s CO2 content typically raises the productivity of most herbaceous plants by about one-third; and this positive response occurs in plants that utilize all three of the major biochemical pathways (C3, C4, CAM) of photosynthesis. For woody plants, the response is even greater. The productivity benefits of CO2 enrichment are also experienced by aquatic plants, including freshwater algae and macrophytes, and marine microalgae and macroalgae.

• The amount of carbon plants gain per unit of water lost-or water-use efficiency-typically rises as the CO2 content of the air rises, greatly increasing their ability to withstand drought. In addition, the CO2-induced percentage increase in plant biomass production is often greater under water-stressed conditions than it is when plants are well watered.

• Atmospheric CO2 enrichment helps ameliorate the detrimental effects of several environmental stresses on plant growth and development, including high soil salinity, high air temperature, low light intensity and low levels of soil fertility. Elevated levels of CO2 have additionally been demonstrated to reduce the severity of low temperature stress, oxidative stress, and the stress of herbivory. In fact, the percentage growth enhancement produced by an increase in the air’s CO2 concentration is often even greater under stressful and resource-limited conditions than it is when growing conditions are ideal.

• As the air’s CO2 content continues to rise, plants will likely exhibit enhanced rates of photosynthesis and biomass production that will not be diminished by any global warming that might occur concurrently. In fact, if the ambient air temperature rises, the growth-promoting effects of atmospheric CO2 enrichment will likely also rise, becoming more and more robust.

• The ongoing rise in the air’s CO2 content likely will not favor the growth of weedy species over that of crops and native plants.

• The growth of plants is generally not only enhanced by CO2-induced increases in net photosynthesis during the light period of the day, it is also enhanced by CO2-induced decreases in respiration during the dark period.

• The ongoing rise in the air’s CO2 content, as well as any degree of warming that might possibly accompany it, will not materially alter the rate of decomposition of the world’s soil organic matter and will probably enhance biological carbon sequestration. Continued increases in the air’s CO2 concentration and temperature will not result in massive losses of carbon from earth’s peatlands. To the contrary, these environmental changes-if they persist-would likely work together to enhance carbon capture.

• Other biological effects of CO2 enhancement include enhanced plant nitrogen-use efficiency, longer residence time of carbon in the soil, and increased populations of earthworms and soil nematodes.

• The aerial fertilization effect of the ongoing rise in the air’s CO2 concentration (which greatly enhances vegetative productivity) and its anti-transpiration effect (which enhances plant water-use efficiency and enables plants to grow in areas that were once too dry for them) are stimulating plant growth across the globe in places that previously were too dry or otherwise unfavorable for plant growth, leading to a significant greening of the Earth.

• Elevated CO2 reduces, and nearly always overrides, the negative effects of ozone pollution on plant photosynthesis, growth and yield. It also reduces atmospheric concentrations of isoprene, a highly reactive non-methane hydrocarbon that is emitted in copious quantities by vegetation and is responsible for the production of vast amounts of tropospheric ozone.

[Rouzbeh]

Saying ‘several studies suggest’ doesn’t make it credible. It’s standard practice to cite the reports one refers to. That way their veracity can be checked. As far as mainstream science goes, the reports that supposedly provide counter evidence to global warming are outweighed by the ones that indicate it. The methods of many of these findings are often also flawed. Hence why the editors of the magazine indicated in the emails later resigned when the papers they had approved for publishing were found to have been faulty. Also, just because something happens, it doesn’t mean that it’s proportionate to its counter-effect. Plants release CO2 when they die, it doesn’t make plants carbon emitters. I won’t quote the IPCC findings, since I’m sure you can look them up.

So to get to the point: saying ‘our research indicates x’ doesn’t make it credible. Moreover, if you don’t have the research in a reputable journal, it isn’t credible. And the articles against climate change often don’t get into reputable journals because their methods are flawed, or their assumptions are incorrect. The scientific consensus is firmly on climate change happening, given that it’s not a new principle and has been discussed for over a century. Even so, there’s reviews pending just to make sure, all because emails were taken out of context to confuse a public reluctant to accept the necessity for change.

I’ve stated why I think it’s important to avoid spreading this nonsense. I’ve stated that it’s about probabilities. I’ve stated their importance. The cost of inaction is high. It’s important to insure ourselves against the risk. A parallel was recently drawn in an interview with the “cigarettes don’t kill people” campaigns that were pushed by the tobacco companies, where the scientists indicating that it was were constantly undermined by counter studies. That may be where we are now. I’ve cited two articles from the Guardian and the Independent showing the interest of the previous US government and one oil company in denying global warming, and they’re not the only ones.
I’ll post one article about the direct rather than the indirect effect of warming on crop yields, an article written some 3-4 years before rice prices doubled in the space of a few months after a series of natural disasters in South East Asia: news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3841477.stm . Again, one in a long list suggesting the potential for calamity. Risk management is a necessity.

I assume the things you’ve posted are from the ‘non-governmental panel on climate change’. What a convenient choice of words for those left out of the international scientific community. I’ve said what I needed to say in the last few posts, I hope you’ll take the time to reconsider your views, and I’ll leave this be for now.

[Faust]

It’s standard practice to cite the reports one refers to.

I won’t quote the IPCC findings, since I’m sure you can look them up.

[fuse]

Rouzbeh,

The “nongovernmental international panel on climate change” counter study is sponsored by the same organization that sponsors counter studies of the harmful effects of tobacco. While I can’t testify to the validity or invalidity of the NIPCC’s argument, their association with the Heartland Institute is distasteful.

The Heartland Institute on Tobacco:
Why Defend Smokers?
A growing number of independent policy experts from a wide range of professions and differing political views are speaking out against the anti-smoking campaign. They defend smokers for several reasons:
-The public health community’s campaign to demonize smokers and all forms of tobacco is based on junk science.
-The harm caused by smoking can be reduced by educating smokers about their options.
…
Social Costs
Are high taxes on cigarettes justified by the social costs smokers impose on the rest of society? No.
…
Second-hand Smoke
Is second-hand smoke a rationale for higher taxes on tobacco or smoking bans?
“It is generally considered that exposure to environmental tobacco smoke is roughly equivalent to smoking one cigarette per day,” according to Enstrom and Kabat. “If so, a small increase in lung cancer is possible, but the commonly reported 30 percent increase in heart disease risk–the purported cause of almost all the deaths attributed to secondhand smoke–is highly implausible.”
…
Smoking Bans
Concern over the health effects of smoking and second-hand smoke have led to calls for bans on smoking in public spaces. Are these bans justified?
-Most seats in most restaurants are already designated nonsmoking, and there is little evidence that nonsmokers who visit restaurants and bars believe smoking is a major concern. In restaurants with smoking and nonsmoking sections, better ventilation systems rather than smoking bans can solve any remaining concerns.
-Smoking bans have had severe negative effects on restaurants, bars, and nightclubs in cities where such bans have been enacted. Smokers choose to stay home or visit with friends who allow smoking in their homes, or spend less time (and less money) in bars and nightclubs before leaving. Smoking bans can also move noisy and potentially dangerous crowds onto sidewalks, and divert police resources from battling more serious crime.
Source: heartland.org/suites/tobacco/

The Hearland Institute on the Environment:
[i]What is Common-Sense Environmentalism?
Common-sense environmentalism recognizes that almost everyone today is an environmentalist. We all want a healthy, green environment for ourselves and our families. What distinguishes common-sense environmentalism from more extreme environmental activism is a commitment to fight real environmental problems rather than imagined ones and a realization that free markets are an ally rather than an enemy of environmental stewardship.

Common-sense environmentalists recognize that environmental scares are frequently unsupported by sound science and are often launched to further an anti-corporation, anti-free market agenda. Activists use junk science to stampede the public into fearing chemicals in the air, food, and water, and the possible consequences of poorly understood phenomena such as climate change.

The best way to achieve a healthy and green environment is to use sound science to distinguish real environmental issues from imaginary ones, and then to tap the efficiency of market forces to address the environmental issues that truly do exist. This enables us to prioritize environmental and public health problems the first step in any serious effort to address a problem and to solve problems without trampling on other things we value, such as individual freedom and economic prosperity.[/i]
Source: heartland.org/suites/environment/index.html

The NIPCC website:
This web site is maintained for the
Nongovernmental International Panel
on Climate Change (NIPCC) by
The Heartland Institute
Source: nipccreport.org/

[Rouzbeh]

@Faust

It’s standard practice to cite the reports one refers to.

I won’t quote the IPCC findings, since I’m sure you can look them up.

I’ll clarify the difference:
Citation: Global crop yields are projected to increase 1.2% on average until 2020 (Faust, 2009).
Quotation: Faust claims, “I’ve been staunchly against global warming for years based on solid scientific evidence, mainly not being able to get a tan”.
The quoted section was, presumably, the executive summary of a report. Mine was a post on an internet forum. He didn’t post the source of the quote, and neither did the quote when it referred to “scientific findings” or “research”. He, on the other hand, had to know what I meant by ‘the IPCC report’. I have continuously provided article links where possible, as in our own little discussion. But thanks, now others won’t be stunned by the glaring contradiction in my post. Or not.
I don’t know why you’ve got a personal vendetta against this. I respect your philosophical knowledge, but I think your conclusions and assumptions about the science are wrong. I’ve said why in previous posts.

Fuse, yes I guess that’s probably why the parallel was drawn. It’s just a political game to discourage action at the first summit where expectations for real action are high. And then countries like Saudi Arabia, acting in their commercial self interest ( guardian.co.uk/environment/2 … cess-month ). It was obviously aimed at causing maximum damage before the summit. It’s funny that this Heartland organization still refer to an unregulated free market, right after a financial crisis caused by it.

[Sidhe]

@Rouzbeh

@Faust

It’s standard practice to cite the reports one refers to.

I won’t quote the IPCC findings, since I’m sure you can look them up.

I’ll clarify the difference:
Citation: Global crop yields are projected to increase 1.2% on average until 2020 (Faust, 2009).
Quotation: Faust claims, “I’ve been staunchly against global warming for years based on solid scientific evidence, mainly not being able to get a tan”.
The quoted section was, presumably, the executive summary of a report. Mine was a post on an internet forum. He didn’t post the source of the quote, and neither did the quote when it referred to “scientific findings” or “research”. He, on the other hand, had to know what I meant by ‘the IPCC report’. I have continuously provided article links where possible, as in our own little discussion. But thanks, now others won’t be stunned by the glaring contradiction in my post. Or not.
I don’t know why you’ve got a personal vendetta against this. I respect your philosophical knowledge, but I think your conclusions and assumptions about the science are wrong. I’ve said why in previous posts.

Fuse, yes I guess that’s probably why the parallel was drawn. It’s just a political game to discourage action at the first summit where expectations for real action are high. And then countries like Saudi Arabia, acting in their commercial self interest ( guardian.co.uk/environment/2 … cess-month ). It was obviously aimed at causing maximum damage before the summit. It’s funny that this Heartland organization still refer to an unregulated free market, right after a financial crisis caused by it.

IPCC?

Liars?

[Faust]

Quotation: Faust claims, “I’ve been staunchly against global warming for years based on solid scientific evidence, mainly not being able to get a tan”.

That’s just childish.

[Sidhe]

@Faust

Quotation: Faust claims, “I’ve been staunchly against global warming for years based on solid scientific evidence, mainly not being able to get a tan”.

That’s just childish.

I live in the UK, I can’t even get dry let alone a tan.