Extreme Alde
-
Posts
13 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Events
Learn About Weather and Meteorology
Community guides
Posts posted by Extreme Alde
-
-
Note the use of the word "Unpopular", as if environmental issues were a popularity contest... We have had tax hikes on petrol in the past few years which have been described as being for environmental reasons.
Sadly the arguments on this board have gone away from the scientific ones to which you and P3 decided to have to political conjecture such as the above. Your answer to the above is indeed disingenuous; taxation is an electoral issue and no UK party apart from the Greens would seek to thrust forward extra taxation on green issues so openly without regard first to what effect these will ahve on the electorate's voting intentions. Politics is, if nothing else, a popularity contest in which you can have any policy you want (so long as it gets you elected!)
Incidentally I disagreed with the departure from being able to query sources of information. Part of the sceptic (I'm not sure sceptic is the right term here, I don't have a problem with sceptics - denial industry is better) aim in trying to present to the public their views have relied upon trying to appear as genuine scetics rather than carbon funded lobbyists. Your request that backgrounds not be challlenged falls exactly into their desire and hides for them a weakness. It doesn't stop what they say having to be rebutted or otherwise, but by automatically granting a press release credibility you make some PR men very happy.
Furthermore you have failed to demonstrate why the scientists P3 has quoted in the past are not worthy of trusting. That you don't trust them does not make them untrustworthy unless you can demonstrate why. Otherwise the temptation is to suggest you just don't agree with them in which case you again need to demonstrate why. IMO anyway.
I have just noted again I appear to be having a go at you - please take none of this as a personal attack. I have really enjoyed and learnt from some of your posts and you provide an effective foil for P3 on occasion.
I hope you and P3 will back track from the science only and once again concentrate on the papers and who wrote them. I think it is central to the discussion you are having.
-
On your first link, I am aware of the Oreskes study (which was an analysis of published articles and papers from a social studies perspective), but don't remember the Times riposte. However, I do have time for Benny Peiser, who is nobody's fool.
Yes I'm unfamiliar with the Bray work but a summary is here on Fred Singer's site
http://www.sepp.org/Archive/NewSEPP/Bray.htm
And a link to Professor Bray's work
http://w3g.gkss.de/G/Mitarbeiter/bray.html...surveymenu.html
I'm not sure what was wrong with his work with regard the rejection; was the sample too small or selective??/
-
An important case is at the Supreme Court at the moment, State of Massachusetts vs. EPA. It is a ctually a case about pollution, but contains important elements relating to Climate Science. Presented to the court was a statement by climate scientists about climate change. The entire legal document is in the PDF below. For those who wish to see the relevant sections, I have cut & pasted the testimony below. It is very long, and my apologies for that, but it does represent an attempt to establish the current situation. I believe many will find the comments of value.
This case could have important legal implications in the USA, so it is being discussed on at least four climate blogs/websites; there are many interesting comments on it already.
Please feel free to comment on any of the sections or findings as you see fit.
:)P
What is staggering for me (and I suspect anyone reading the document) is the amount of virtually certain (greater than 99%) given to the statements by the climate scientists. It is both a clear statement of where the science is at the moment and a fundamental challenge to the sceptic community. I pray that this can be picked up by major media so that we can have a public and well reported commentary on this case.
-
Hi P3
. Mostly they come from a site called "Heartland.org". I haven't looked into their credentials thoroughly yet, but they claim to be a non-profit organisation which has no affiliation with government or industry (which makes them fairly unbiased, politically speaking, one would suppose - although it does rather depend upon their own personal bias). (NOTE: These articles are not necessarily all up to date, but still make for interesting reading!)
C-Bob
Somebody call a cynic?
Here you go CB
Sourcewatch on Heartland
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title...tland_Institute
and Exxonsecrets
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=41
I found this, for me, particularly damning:-
"Walter F. Buchholtz, an ExxonMobil executive, sits on Heartland's Board of Directors. (4/04) "
According to Heartland's website he is still sitting there. I would think in order to remove doubts about their desire to remain independent they could simply remove old Walter.
-
Thanks EA, I'll have a look at that later! (Seems they spend a lot of time referring to Realclimate...hmmmm....)
C-Bob
Sorry C-Bob- they do use RC and one other site in defence. I thought a point by point would be interesting because plausability is effectively reduced (hence why on the net it is such an effective tool) in large documents like the Monckton pdf. I should have warned you though - sorry!
-
PS - Apologies to Mr Sleet for hijacking his thread...
C-Bob
And from me too.
This is a point by point rebuttal of Monckton being created at Wikipedia - see if it adds or not to your thoughts. It is now becoming confusing for me - perhaps this is the aim.
-
EA
I see where you're coming from (and appreciate your honesty!). It is true that some "dodgy or disproven science" is funded by oil companies, but that doesn't mean that all information coming from sources with links to the oil industry (or any industry with a vested interest) is false or distorted. Similarly not all "Pro-GW" information is false or distorted but, conversely, that doesn't mean that some of it is.
For a slight aside, I found a posting on another site about secondary smoking. An excellent response, I thought, that draws parallels with the AGW debate. I have italicised the pertinent comment below, but kept the post in its entirety so that you can see the context in which it was stated.
I agree with you for the most part, though - as I suggested a while back, the sooner we get rid of the "denialists" and the "alarmists", the sooner there can be a rational, objective debate about AGW. I'm going to start a campaign, one day - the "Bring Back Objectivity to Science" campaign (BriBOtS for short)!
Until next time...
C-Bob
PS - thanks for the link - I'll check it out later
No worries.
With regard your quotation I still think we are thinking along the same lines (though undoubtedly as we enter heated debate over an issue in the future we will need to remind ourselves of this) and have no reason (as I stated in my post) to fear scientifc research. What I hope you agree with me on is that the funding of research where the answer is known, or the research is funded merely to enhance a position (sort of putting a lengthy, complex calculation in front of 2 plus 2 equals 3 to prove it), is wrong. There are numerous sites, organisations and corporations doing this (probably a few universties too).
Tell me what you think of the Hansen (albeit dated) article. I like the contrast he gives between his and alternative stances. For a non scientist it makes it easier to understand.
-
Got the day off today, so time for a quick post!
Similarly, the Realclimate site was set up to "prove" that global warming was real, imminent and potentially catastrophic. I'm not necessarily defending JunkScience and the like, but I'm saying (rather unclearly myself
) that Realclimate should be taken with a similarly-sized grain of salt.I'd be interested to hear what he has to say, if you have a link. I'm not suggesting that Monckton has all of his facts correct, but he does bring some interesting points to the fray and seems to be quite capable of defending himself! As for the misquotation of Hansen, when I have time I will look into that further - some websites say that he was misquoted while others say that Monckton's quotation was legitimate. If you have a link to a copy of Hansen's article I'd be very grateful. (With any luck, though, it's only a Google away!)
Sorry about that - my bad! I misunderstood what you were saying
However, whether it has been discredited or not depends largely on who you ask - Realclimate ripped it apart, but their objections have (almost) all been addressed by Monckton in his correspondance pdf. I shall see if I can dig out some references, but several scientists are basically agreeing with what he says (not necessarily in the details, but the broad objections he raises).Anyway, as always there is plenty more research for me to do
It's nice to have you here, EA - I apologise if my first post was a little on the aggressive side!TTFN
C-Bob
Have a look at this C-B - it is Hansen's site but is is fascinating as he attempts to outline the difference between himself and Lindzen - both infinitely more knowledgeable than I
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/edu/gwdebate/
The misquote or otherwise of Hansen is sometimes measured after the very hot 98 - a year which we had a very large El Nino. Many from the sceptical side have argued that the century actually cooled after that or used this year only as an example to prove GW wasn't happening (at least until 2005). Anyway see what you think. Out of interest I would really like to see what a really stron El Nino does now by way of comparison, although 8 years may be too few to comment?
From your cynical side, and time allowing, I would recommend you google Hansen though. He has been misquoted more than once and even shielded from talking by his own government, who were at the time unwilling to embrace the AGW thought! He wasn't on a list of approved speakers - only sceptics! Only proving we are right to be sceptical with regard to information.
I think many of the things we are slightly worried about when it comes to climate science, esp. past climate reconstructions are addressed specifically in the updated IPCC report update early next year with a specific section on paleo climate. I have steadfastly refused to read any purported leaks on this so far, Junk Scince for example says they have some, and will read it first hand.
By way of explanation my distrust of sceptical papers is obvious and I am ashamed to admit, manifestly unfair. It comes from the sponsoring of dodgy or disproven science by oil companies and the like, willing to risk extreme consequences for some peoples of this earth so that may continue to sell their products. I don't mind them arguing or sponsoring science thats sets out to disprove, but I draw the line at the republication of false allegations under a guise of new information. However, I also distrust pretty much all papers on the subject from anyone with something to sell, be that a paper or a barrel of oil.
The worry is that purveyors of this rotten science will actually get in the way of genuine sceptic scientists who have soemthing useful to say on the subject. Scepticism is part of science, fraud isn't. As such I tend to be very careful about where articles and the like come from.
Takes bloomin ages!
-
Hi - I've said in another thread that I'm not going to be posting much at the moment (for fear of annoying the wife, but she's out with friends tonight, so...while the cat's away, the mice will play...!), but I thought I'd just throw in a comment or two if you'll permit me!
It's worthwhile reading through all of the pdfs associated with the article, and not relying on the article by itself. He mentions several times throughout the various attachments that he began researching the climate change debate when he discovered that the hockey-stick graph had been "debunked" but was still in use by the IPCC. He was not commissioned to write the article, but rather submitted it for publication once his analysis was complete - the fact that its release coincided with the publication of the Stern Report is neither here nor there. Perhaps it was coincidence, perhaps the Telegraph themselves held back publication until the Stern Report was out, perhaps he even rushed it out to coincide with the report himself, who knows?
By "his second piece", are you referring to the second part of the article, which was published a week later? If so, he essentially ended the first piece by saying "To Be Continued", and the two articles are really one article that has been cut in half (if you hook 'em with the first article then you get great sales next week for the concluding part). As for the article's being "widely discredited", I found that Realclimate savaged the article (as can be expected, seeing as they are run by Michael "Hockey Stick" Mann and his cronies), then many others followed suit using, basically, Realclimate's arguments. However, if you read through the e-mails pdf (rather than just "scanning"), you will see that he addresses and, for the most part, overturns these objections. It is also worth reading his response to Al Gore's comments on the original article:
http://ff.org/centers/csspp/pdf/20061121_gore.pdf
I don't see any reason why these sites should rouse any more suspicion than Realclimate.
I, too, have a largely cynical approach to the subject as, apparently, does Christopher Monckton.
No objection to you expressing your concerns, I just feel that Monckton should be given more credit and more time. The pdfs take a while to plow through, but are really worth the effort. The pdf of e-mails he received is over 70 pages long and consists of all the responses he had received up to that point. The e-mails were not "cherry-picked" to show Monckton in a good light and, in fact, he received several quite abrupt rebuttals (each of which he replied to and, as I said earlier, for the most part dismissed).Sorry for the long post, but I feel that Monckton has been attacked quite unfairly, if not unexpectedly! :lol:
TTFN
C-Bob
Thanks for your reply! I knew from reading the exchange with P3 you were under pain of death (or worse) for spending too much time on here so the risks you take stand you in good stead! :lol:
I'm afraid the Milloy site is a site that was set up to discredit the reports from the Tobacco industry, that industry having realised that if the public understood the science to be settled, so would their attitudes quickly changed. It is a site that still posts plain wrong infornmation even after challenge. For example it still has papers on the site that suggest 55% of the worlds glaciers are retreating, despite this being described, politely, as incorrect by the world glacier service.
As for Monckton's calculations, I post on another site with an atmospheric physicist. His comments regarding the pdf. were absolute and he was happy to be challenged on them. I do though, rather like the Hansen / Lindzen argument - it is sometimes good to see two heavyweights slug it out even if I agree with one's outcomes. I didn't like seeing Hansen misquoted and then this false clain repeated across the Net though. It does really take away from a document if you use misleading information from the off. A similar claim to that made against the hockey stick?
Don't understand your comments about the second piece, I rather unclearly was arguing that they were one document? Never mind it is not important.
Time is short this morning - will no doubt read you after your next escape.
-
As I note that you are a newbie I will be nice I posted the part one bit as a new thread so I posted the part two bit as a new thread as well. I have only just noticed it so I thought I'd bring it to the attention of others.
Some will agree with Monckton ( like me), some will not ( like you.)
He has been discredited across the net by....surprise, surprise, Mr Hockey Stick Mann ....who himself has been widely discredited.
Believe me I mean you individually no discourtesy, so I'll be nice in return.
I do though have several misgivings about the Monckton piece away from the science which I can already see we will probably agree from the outset to disagree on. :unsure:
I have a wonder about why Mr Monckton invested so much time in this from the outset. Are we to believe that he was so motivated by the perceived injustice ongoing on the Climate Change reportage he felt he ought put the record straight? Or did he pitch the idea first, or even be commissioned to write the article, in which case I suggest that the outcome was preordained. I would contend you simply do not commission a journalist with no science background to prove one way or other an argument such as this.
The family connection with Nigel Lawson, a well known sceptic, is also intriguing although I accept that this could be circumstance.
What is far more dubious is the timing; we had Stern and then we had in quick succession rebuttals from Paul Reiter, Mr Lawson and Mr Monckton. If Mr Monckton had simply been responding to the Stern report he'd have been doing so night and day from his non-scientific background to get it sone so quick. Another explanation is that the rebuttals were rather more orchestrated than it is being let on.
As far as his second piece is concerned, as it is intrinsically linked to the first article and given that it is widely discredited I'm afraid that I don't see that it should be taken seriously though I accept your stance on it. Nonetheless, given its linking to its predecessor I believe it should have stayed in that thread. Your argument that you opened a thread for the first one falls down only because on that you had no choice.
Mr Monckton states in his article (jokingly, almost sneeringly) that he notes "The Royal Society says there's a worldwide scientific consensus. It brands Apocalypse-deniers as paid lackeys of coal and oil corporations. I declare my interest: I once took the taxpayer's shilling and advised Margaret Thatcher, FRS, on scientific scams and scares. Alas, not a red cent from Exxon."
Interestingly the web site he lists his favourite has received some funding from Exxon, is thought to be funded by another carbon crunching conglomerate and his findings were apparently independantly also found by Steve Milloy's Junk Science. Big coincidence, and one i am really suspicious of.
Incidentally I have developed (as you may see) a largely cynical approach to all articles on this subject , trusting no one who has something to sell. I hope you don't object too much to my expressing my concerns here.
-
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml.../12/nclim12.xml
Another good job by Chris.
Really don't know why this deserves its own thread and why it is being posted so long after the article? :unsure:
Nonetheless, whilst Mr Monckton does ask questions of the scientific community he has been discredited across the net with his answers. Meanwhile a scan through the letters they have printed in the PDF (very pro Mr Monckton) shows what he considers to be the best site on the net;- www.co2science.org
Very illuminating.
-
Realclimate have reviewed the Monckton article and a strangely similar (in places) Milloy one.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archi...cuckoo-science/
(Seems they spend a lot of time referring to Realclimate...hmmmm....) 
Getting the message across
in Space, Science & nature
Posted
Hi Matt
The attached link will take you to the rising tide resources page which has a number of tips for speakers and replies to contrarian arguments. Hope it is useful and the talk is received well.
http://risingtide.org.uk/resources/factsheets