Politics And AGW/GW

[noggin]

Lindzen commented that the politicization of the AGW issue has had an extraordinarily corrupting influence on science. Most funding that goes to global warming would not be provided were it not for the climate scare. It has therefore become standard to include in any research proposal the effect of presumed AGW on your topic, quite irrespective of whether it has any real relevance or not.

================================================================================

=========================

Despite the manifold problems of combating the alarmist climate message, Dr Lindzen concluded his talk with the rousing observation that in time the climate rationalist cause will win. “When it comes to global warming hysteria”, he said, “neither gross ignorance nor even grosser dishonesty has been in short supply".

================================================================================

=========================

Yes, it's a report...........dismiss it if you feel so inclined. Full report is here http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-pl...d-2-session-one

NB....Post in progress. Due to my technical ineptitude, the rest of this post will follow as soon as possible.

Edited March 11, 2009 by noggin

[Devonian]

Lindzen commented that the politicization of the AGW issue has had an extraordinarily corrupting influence on science. Most funding that goes to global warming would not be provided were it not for the climate scare. It has therefore become standard to include in any research proposal the effect of presumed AGW on your topic, quite irrespective of whether it has any real relevance or not.

NB....Post in progress. Due to my technical ineptitude, the rest of this post will follow as soon as possible.

I realise why I've largely given up posting to NW. In another thread today the word 'fraudulent' is used, in this thread you use the words 'extraordinarily corrupting'. Others, mods even, have used words like 'fiddle'.

I have had my fill of that kind of slander of science. Slandering isn't science or the way to look for the truth.

Edited March 11, 2009 by Devonian

[noggin]

I realise why I've largely given up posting to NW. In another thread today the word 'fraudulent' is used, in this thread you use the words 'extraordinarily corrupting'. Others, mods even, have used words like 'fiddle'.

I have had my fill of that kind of slander of science. Slandering isn't science or the way to look for the truth.

Actually, Dev....I am reporting what has been said. I am NOT using such terms myself. Look at the NB in my post......the post is a "work in progress" and I haven't finished it yet.

I specifically put the NB in so that people wouldn't "jump the gun."

nOw, if you'll excuse me, I'll carry on.......

[noggin]

Damn and blast. The flipping thing won't post with my new edited bits. If I have to do a separate post it'll look stupid.

I'll give it another go.

[Admiral_Bobski]

I realise why I've largely given up posting to NW. In another thread today the word 'fraudulent' is used, in this thread you use the words 'extraordinarily corrupting'. Others, mods even, have used words like 'fiddle'.

I have had my fill of that kind of slander of science. Slandering isn't science or the way to look for the truth.

Well, Dev, if that's how you feel then, rather than bemoaning the use of such words, why don't you show us why these words are inappropriate?

If someone says that data have been "fiddled" then give us some justification that shows they haven't been.

Don't get so defensive all the time - ad homs are just ad homs, so if you don't agree with them then either ignore them or refute them.

In a debate as impassioned as this one then words are going to be bandied around (by both sides, I might add). But if you feel strongly enough about the subject that you want to argue in its favour then don't be put off by sticks and stones.

As I have said time and time and time and time again, if the science is sound then it will stand up, regardless of who wrote it or what has been said about them.

CB

[noggin]

I'm having another go at finishing my earlier post. Here goes......

Here are some extracts from a report from the ICCC conference. There is much of interest in there. Dr Richard Lindzen is an atmospheric scientist and Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Extract 1) Lindzen commented that the politicization of the AGW issue has had an extraordinarily corrupting influence on science. Most funding that goes to global warming would not be provided were it not for the climate scare. It has therefore become standard to include in any research proposal the effect of presumed AGW on your topic, quite irrespective of whether it has any real relevance or not.

Extract 2) Despite the manifold problems of combating the alarmist climate message, Dr Lindzen concluded his talk with the rousing observation that in time the climate rationalist cause will win. “When it comes to global warming hysteria”, he said, “neither gross ignorance nor even grosser dishonesty has been in short supply".

Yes, it's a report...........dismiss it, dear reader, if you feel so inclined. Full report is here http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-pl...d-2-session-one

Edited March 11, 2009 by noggin

[Thundery wintry showers]

President Vaclav Klaus reports latest poll from the Czech Republic: only 11 per cent of people believe that man has a significant influence in warming the climate.

Consensus does not mean something is right- be it that man significantly influences climate or doesn't.

“We will win this debate”, says Dr Richard Lindzen, “for we are right and they are wrong”.

Hardly convincing lol!

He likened the situation to his former experience under communist government, where arguing against the dominant viewpoint falls into emptiness. No matter how high the quality of the arguments and evidence that you advance against the dangerous warming idea, nobody listens, and by even advancing skeptical arguments you are dismissed as a naïve and uninformed person.

There is some truth in this- but both pro and anti AGW camps are guilty of this.

President Klaus professed to be puzzled by the environmentalists’ approach to technical progress. It as if they “want to stop economic progress and take mankind centuries back”, he said. Applying their ethic of “saving the world”, western electorates are being asked for the first time in history to abandon successful current technologies before new technologies have been developed to replace them. Klaus stressed that there is no known, feasible way in which modern technological society can be run based on present sources of renewable, clean, green energy.

...and there is no known, feasible way in which modern technological society can be sustained in the long-term unless we change our energy sources...

He then pointed out the professional difficulties that are raised for many skeptics when scientists whose research they respect nonetheless endorse global warming. In most such cases, however, the science that such persons do is not about global warming in the strict sense. It’s just that supporting global warming makes their life, and especially their funding life, easier.

...the usual nonsense I see...

“When it comes to global warming hysteria”, he said, “neither gross ignorance nor even grosser dishonesty has been in short supply. But we will win this debate, for we are right and they are wrong”.

...making them guilty of exactly the same things as they accuse the IPCC and the like of doing...

Both President Klaus and Dr Lindzen agreed that the most important arguments were (i) that sound science demonstrates that human increases in carbon dioxide are not going to cause dangerous global warming

What science is this then? If they said "casts doubt on the notion that human increases in CO2 will cause dangerous warming" then I would agree, but the above is too strong a statement.

(ii) that a thorough cost-benefit analysis must be applied to all potential policy options.

Well, since I've spent the rest of my post slagging off the article, I have to be fair and also point out the rare occasions when they talk perfect sense. And this is a point I am in 100% agreement with.

[Methuselah]

If someone says that data have been "fiddled" then give us some justification that shows they haven't been.

CB

Surely, if someone claims that data have been fiddled, it should be up to him or her to prove their case...Or, in the case of pro-AGW research, is one guilty until proven innocent?

Oh, how the cynics like to self-appropriate the moral high-ground!

[Admiral_Bobski]

Surely, if someone claims that data have been fiddled, it should be up to him or her to prove their case...Or, in the case of pro-AGW research, is one guilty until proven innocent?

Oh, how the cynics like to self-appropriate the moral high-ground!

Oh, stop being so high and mighty - I am not trying to get the moral high ground at all. What I am saying (and I have said oh-so-many times before) is that discussion of AGW requires...well...discussion. Throwing one's arms up in dismay at attacks from the other side, whether they are without foundation or not, isn't adding anything at all.

There are certain parties on this forum who are all too willing to jump in with assertions but who shy away from actually discussing those assertions (preferring instead to defer to a higher authority all the time).

All I'm saying is that we should actually discuss things in a discussion thread.

Is that claiming the moral high ground? If so then I guess I must be on it.

CB

[Roo]

I realise why I've largely given up posting to NW. In another thread today the word 'fraudulent' is used, in this thread you use the words 'extraordinarily corrupting'. Others, mods even, have used words like 'fiddle'.

I have had my fill of that kind of slander of science. Slandering isn't science or the way to look for the truth.

I have already stopped posting, but just wanted to add my support to Dev's statement. If your only defence is accusations of corruption and fiddling, then that says a lot about the basis of your argument. As has been shown so many times before, there is NO evidence to support this.

To justify this as 'ad homs are just ad homs' is a way of ignoring the responsibility of politeness that we all have to each other.

As Pete has suggested, there is a basic principle of innocent until proven guilty, but that does not appear to apply if scientists are the topic of debate and, as John Holmes said elsewhere, the kinds of nasty and personal comment emanating from several individuals can only reflect badly on NW. That to me is a great shame.

Edited March 11, 2009 by Roo

[Admiral_Bobski]

I have already stopped posting, but just wanted to add my support to Dev's statement. If your only defence is slander and accusations of corruption and fiddling, then that says a lot about the basis of your argument.

To justify this as 'ad homs are just ad homs' is a way of ignoring the responsibility of politeness that we all have to each other.

As Pete has suggested, there is a basic principle of innocent until proven guilty, but that does not appear to apply if scientists are the topic of debate and, as John Holmes said elsewhere, this kind of nasty debate can only reflect badly on NW. That to me is a great shame.

I, personally, tend to avoid ad homs at all costs. They add nothing to debate and only serve to rile others.

The fact of the matter is that certain people are going to use ad homs regardless of the behaviour of others. Should one avoid a discussion that they're obviously interested in and passionate about just because of words spouted by other people?

By all means, ignore ad homs. Refute ad homs. But don't back out of a debate because of them.

Besides, the slander and accusation of corruption and fiddling come from both sides, not just the skeptics. (How many times have scientists been accused of being in the pockets of the oil companies, for example?)

You don't win an argument by running away from a few bad words.

CB

[Roo]

I, personally, tend to avoid ad homs at all costs. They add nothing to debate and only serve to rile others.

The fact of the matter is that certain people are going to use ad homs regardless of the behaviour of others. Should one avoid a discussion that they're obviously interested in and passionate about just because of words spouted by other people?

Yes. Because quite honestly, my life is too short for that kind of nastiness, be it in real life or in cyberspace.

As far as I remember, this was not about winning a debate, but was about trying to find out about climate change.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As I have said ad infinitum, the parameters of debate need to be set before this can be anything meaningful. You cannot debate secondarily reported material (e.g. newspaper articles, most blogs, websites, etc, etc). To debate this you must come at it from peer reviewed material and primary data. And you must have a good understanding of it all to be able to relevantly apply it and critically examine it. And that is the key...

It's all very well saying that if I understand maths or chemistry then x and y must be true. However, without knowing all the parameters, rules, theories and methods used by the scientists and without having their equipment, knowledge base and background, how can any of us say that we truly understand? They are trained for a reason. They spent years and years getting their knowledge to the point that it is at....how can we, with a few back of the envelope calculations, ever suggest to dismiss everything they have done. It's just plain arrogant and it amazes me.

Discussions of political peripherals, etc then fine, but of the hard science? No, not unless we can show why and where they have gone wrong. Chapter and verse.

Until I see even a single peer-reviewed paper refuted line by line, then I'm sorry, I don't accept the argument. Just throwing around vitriolic blogs and nonsensically reported third hand papers will not do.

But this is the same old ride going round and round and, like many others before me, it's time I got off.

Edited March 11, 2009 by Roo

[Admiral_Bobski]

Yes. Because quite honestly, my life is too short for that kind of nastiness, be it in real life or in cyberspace.

As far as I remember, this was not about winning a debate, but was about trying to find out about climate change.

I think most people with an established view on AGW are here to try and get their point across - getting that point across means winning over the minds of others, so I'm afraid it is about winning a debate, to some extent.

Anyway, with very few exceptions, most of the "nastiness" people write is directed at scientists and politicians involved in the AGW debate, so I don't see why it should be taken so personally. As I say, ignore it or refute it but don't walk away.

As I have said ad infinitum, the parameters of debate need to be set before this can be anything meaningful. You cannot debate secondarily reported material (e.g. newspaper articles, most blogs, websites, etc, etc). To debate this you must come at it from peer reviewed material and primary data. And you must have a good understanding of it all to be able to relevantly apply it and critically examine it. And that is the key...

It's all very well saying that if I understand maths or chemistry then x and y must be true. However, without knowing all the parameters, rules, theories and methods used by the scientists and without having their equipment, knowledge base and background, how can any of us say that we truly understand? They are trained for a reason. They spent years and years getting their knowledge to the point that it is at....how can we, with a few back of the envelope calculations, ever suggest to dismiss everything they have done. It's just plain arrogant and it amazes me.

Discussions of political peripherals, etc then fine, but of the hard science? No, not unless we can show why and where they have gone wrong. Chapter and verse.

Until I see even a single peer-reviewed paper refuted line by line, then I'm sorry, I don't accept the argument. Just throwing around vitriolic blogs and nonsensically reported third hand papers will not do.

But this is the same old ride going round and round, and like many others before me, it's time I got off.

I can't agree with this.

We're all on here because we want to talk about climate change. Well, then - let's talk. So what if people bring up newspaper reports and blogs and hearsay? Discussion of each piece will determine its legitimacy. If so much of this is patent nonsense then it should be easy to debunk. How do we debunk it - by talking about it!

We can't define parameters for the discussion - all that does is stifle the debate. If what you say is true, and that we can't hope to understand the actual science, then what else is left but all of the stuff that your "parameters" would exclude?

And why can we not refute the scientists? Laymen are quite capable of using analysis, if they try. We may not have the University background of most of these scientists, but does that mean that our analytical faculties are critically impaired? Of course not. We all read scientific papers and background information to learn more about climate change - why don't we use it insofar as we are able?

If your views on debate and discussion of science are as you suggest then I wonder why you ever started posting on this board. Why enter a debate that you feel you are completely unable to take part in?

There are people on this board who have at least attempted to go through scientific papers line by line, but this rarely results in discussion - it usually reverts back to a "you can't possibly know as much as the man who wrote the paper" argument. Again I say Why Not?

I have said before and I shall say again - I'm on here because I love discussing science. AGW is a heated topic, and there are disagreements (sometimes passionate or even inflamed), so tempers are bound to flare. Nonetheless, can't we just have a discussion among ourselves without constant deferrals to a higher authority and accusations of slander?

CB

[noggin]

EXCUSE ME. This current tirade, from several people, seems to have arisen from something I had "partially" posted and which Dev took exception to, having NOT READ my post in full. The disclaimer in the NB said that the post was not finished.

The "accusations" and, if you like, the "ad hominem" attacks were NOT MINE, they were spoken/written by someone else......I was merely reporting them.

Don't shoot the messenger.

For goodness' sake, some people need to get a grip. I'm beginning to feel like Jethro.

[Admiral_Bobski]

Sorry Noggin - you're absolutely right and I apologise for hijacking the thread.

If anyone (Roo or Devonian) wishes to discuss this with me further then feel free to PM me!

CB

[Methuselah]

Oh, stop being so high and mighty - I am not trying to get the moral high ground at all. What I am saying (and I have said oh-so-many times before) is that discussion of AGW requires...well...discussion. Throwing one's arms up in dismay at attacks from the other side, whether they are without foundation or not, isn't adding anything at all.

There are certain parties on this forum who are all too willing to jump in with assertions but who shy away from actually discussing those assertions (preferring instead to defer to a higher authority all the time).

All I'm saying is that we should actually discuss things in a discussion thread.

Is that claiming the moral high ground? If so then I guess I must be on it.

CB

Sorry to come across so bluntly CB...I wasn't actually aiming it at you personally.

[Admiral_Bobski]

Sorry to come across so bluntly CB...I wasn't actually aiming it at you personally.

Ah.

Apology accepted. Please accept mine.

CB

[Methuselah]

Ah.

Apology accepted. Please accept mine.

CB

Will do. No probs.

[noggin]

Sorry Noggin - you're absolutely right and I apologise for hijacking the thread.

If anyone (Roo or Devonian) wishes to discuss this with me further then feel free to PM me!

CB

Gosh, sorry Captain Bob....I wasn't having a go at you. I apologise for not making myself more clear. I should have quoted from Dev and Roo's posts to make it clear where the issue was!

I was having a go at Dev and Roo, neither of whom seems to have read what I wrote. Indeed, Dev totally ignored a relevant part of my "partial" post and Roo just seems to have hung onto his coattails.

Perhaps if Dev and Roo care to read things properly they will see that I have merely reported what has been said by someone else.

Actually, I feel that things like the language used by proponents of whichever point of view would fall within the remit of this thread. It was always meant to be "politics" in the absolute widest meaning of the word.

[Thundery wintry showers]

And why can we not refute the scientists? Laymen are quite capable of using analysis, if they try. We may not have the University background of most of these scientists, but does that mean that our analytical faculties are critically impaired? Of course not. We all read scientific papers and background information to learn more about climate change - why don't we use it insofar as we are able?

CB

I agree- and bear in mind that I'm currently heavily involved with these climate scientists.

If a source is not peer-reviewed, it means one should be especially sceptical about it, as peer review, for all its faults, does tend to filter out the extremists at both ends of the spectrum. But that doesn't mean it is wrong. Sometimes people looking "from the outside" can offer different perspectives- and maybe once in a while their alternative insights might provide new ideas?

[HighPressure]

I am not sure if you have seen this on the BBC website but what an utter load of rubbish both in its content and presentation:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7940532.stm

I wonder if there are any pro-agw supporters out there that would like to defend it? My understanding is that this amount of warming will trigger the mass release of methane leading to a much higher temperature rise and likely mass extinction not seen since the dinosaurs which probably means us too.

This is the bit that gets me:

Lord Stern's views were echoed by Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen. "Business as usual is dead - green growth is the answer to both our climate and economic problems. "I hope the whole world will join us and set a two degree goal as an ambition of a climate deal in Copenhagen," said Mr Rasmussen.

Surely the BBC has a duty to be more responsible and less Sensationalist with its reporting, it does the AGW argument no good what so ever.

[weather eater]

I have to say I agree with Roo, there is much debate on the climate change threads but no signs of anybody winning that debate, all we have is two entrenched camps with all that entails. What is amusing is the dismissing of scientists on the AGW side by certain members who then put forward theory’s that have been formulated by another group of scientists, I can’t count the amount of science doesn’t know everything posts that then put forward ideas formulated by another group of scientists. In fact almost everything discussed on these pages from all sides of the debate is the work of scientists from different fields in many cases the same ones.

[jethro]

I have to say I agree with Roo, there is much debate on the climate change threads but no signs of anybody winning that debate, all we have is two entrenched camps with all that entails. What is amusing is the dismissing of scientists on the AGW side by certain members who then put forward theory’s that have been formulated by another group of scientists, I can’t count the amount of science doesn’t know everything posts that then put forward ideas formulated by another group of scientists. In fact almost everything discussed on these pages from all sides of the debate is the work of scientists from different fields in many cases the same ones.

But Roo comes across as having one of the most entrenched view on here....

If not the science, then what should we discuss? Tea leaves, runes, tarot cards?

[Thundery wintry showers]

Reading over the BBC article, I don't think it "spins" anything, but it does present only one side of the story. Unless, of course, it is exaggerating the claims of the scientists- which I can't really speak for as I wasn't at the relevant meetings.

There is a lot of reference to "scientists say this" and "scientists say that". But it doesn't mean that they will be right.

But, they say, most tools needed to cut carbon dioxide emissions already exist.

That sounds extremely promising to me, except for the question that immediately suggests itself- "what tools"?

[HighPressure]

Reading over the BBC article, I don't think it "spins" anything, but it does present only one side of the story. Unless, of course, it is exaggerating the claims of the scientists- which I can't really speak for as I wasn't at the relevant meetings.

There is a lot of reference to "scientists say this" and "scientists say that". But it doesn't mean that they will be right.

That sounds extremely promising to me, except for the question that immediately suggests itself- "what tools"?

I would not expect the BBC to report both sides but to take the most extreme view which does not represent a consensus even within the AGW camp is spin as far as I am concerned.

As you say what tools are these? How exactly do we keep temp rise to 2oC when science is not totally convinced it can even move it and certainly has no real control over it.

The Danish prime Minister states that "Green Growth is the answer" but no one knows that and is the type of rhetoric only spouted by politicians and not scientists even those who are AGW supportive.

What it really sounds like to me is that the IPCC have got it wrong again and are now looking for an excuse to go back and produce yet another full and final report on climate change or maybe I am just too suspicious?