United Nations Climate Change Copenhagen

[Solar Cycles]

Am I? What I said was: "...merely jumping up and down crying foul is nothing more than denialist bluster!"

But, you've already agreed that anthropogenic emissions have caused some of the warming. So, how can you be denying the warming?

Agreed! :lol:

Sorry Pete, didn't read your post correctly.

[PersianPaladin]

PP - your Monckton article is a bit silly. If you look back on these boards to when Monckton first weighed in on the climate debate, the issue of his HIV proposal was brought up then. We discussed it - I shall go back at some point and see if I can find the thread in the archives. Monckton was asked "How do you stop the spread of AIDS?" His solution was impractical, unethical and perhaps immoral, but - crucially - it was absolutely correct: if you want to completely stop the spread of AIDS, the only solution is to quarantine the carriers.

This is not to say that I advocate the immediate quarantining of people who are HIV-positive - I'm strongly against it, because it infringes their basic right to freedom - but the point is that theoretically Monckton's suggestion is the only actual solution. What's so wrong with that? The article you linked to is nothing more than an attack on Monckton for a report he wrote over 20 years ago. Let he who is without sin....

CB

I was pointing out his HYPOCRISY when comparing global warming protestors to "Hitler Youth".

Quarantining the only solution? What nonsense.

Edited December 13, 2009 by PersianPaladin

[Admiral_Bobski]

I was pointing out his HYPOCRISY when comparing global warming protestors to "Hitler Youth".

Quarantining the only solution? What nonsense.

Explain what you mean by "his hypocrisy".

Can you suggest another solution that would completely stop the spread of AIDS? Completely, mind you. If you can then I will concede that quarantining is not the only solution - nonsense I will not call it.

I think that's a bit unfair since I have participated and asked questions. I don't dismiss the LI I just think, as I said above, it's far from shown/proven/accepted so it's obviously not a 'is' but a 'could be'.

Well, that's science for you. It is a scientific discussion. Whether the science is valid or not is another matter.

The LI hypothesis is an interesting idea - but there is still such a long way to go; however, it is a discussion where one starts from an idea, and moves forward and tries to frame such an idea in a scientific manner. I urge people to take a quick peek, if they get the time, and make their own mind up about the validity of the process, and the hypothesis.

Perhaps I should jump in and emphasise that I am not saying that the LI is The Answer. It may come across, from time to time, that I am convinced the LI is right and AGW is wrong, but that is not the case.

I confess that I am biased in favour of the LI, at least insofar as it describes my initial premise: that a lag in solar activity could cause the observed warming. I don't know if there is an alternative method that could be used to describe this process - perhaps there is, but the LI was the first (and only) one that was presented to me.

I am open to suggestion, and I accept the fact that the LI could well turn out to be a blind alley.

CB

Edited December 13, 2009 by Captain_Bobski

[PersianPaladin]

Explain what you mean by "his hypocrisy".

Can you suggest another solution that would completely stop the spread of AIDS? Completely, mind you. If you can then I will concede that quarantining is not the only solution - nonsense I will not call it.

Detaining people into indefinite camps simply because they are deemed to spread AIDS is much closer to a Nazi policy than the global-warming protestors.

And FYI: -

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=AIDS_conspiracy

One of my teachers at school told me that AIDS is more scandalous than we're being told. I've looked at the issue and although there is no 100% evidence, the leads are definitley concerning and warrants thorough investigation.

[Admiral_Bobski]

Detaining people into indefinite camps simply because they are deemed to spread AIDS is much closer to a Nazi policy than the global-warming protestors.

And FYI: -

http://www.sourcewat...AIDS_conspiracy

One of my teachers at school told me that AIDS is more scandalous than we're being told. I've looked at the issue and although there is no 100% evidence, the leads are definitley concerning and warrants thorough investigation.

You didn't answer my question - if you want to completely stop the spread of AIDS, how do you do it? This is what Monckton was asked, and his answer is the only actual solution!

Does that make it right?

No!

As for your link...please tell me that's some kind of joke. Do you honestly wonder why people make "conspiracy-nut" jokes about you, PP?

CB

[VillagePlank]

Frankly I am dismayed at this.

The LI is not some golden chalice for all sceptics to rally behind.

It is an attempt at open science by a bunch of beginners to really understand the problem at hand at, I might say, from first principles as we understand them. There is a notion of 'free' information - most of you won't know this, so you need to look into the open software movement.

Trust me, I know. I am currently in excess of £1k's to simply purchase the papers to make a coherent argument. That's not open, and it's not honest - I have to pay to make sense of things. You can know, if you are able to pay for it. Ask my wife for the truth when I tell my five children about Christmas, and about cost....

That we might be wrong is neither here, nor there. We are making an effort at a theory that, in truth, will probably turn out to be wrong. I am still appalled. I am tempted to give it all up.

Really? Is it really worth this much effort, and this much cost? Every moment of spare time reading, researching, experimenting, for the thanks that someone like CB gets? I don't think so. And as for me? Well, I don't give a monkeys what any of you think - I've laid out the plans, today, it is up to you lot whether you think it is scientific or not. I don't care.

And, I think, nor do you. More ammunition to batter someone looking for the truth on a meagre budget, who is, as I freely admit, a rank amateur.

Sorry. Mr Beer, and I have had a pleasant conversation, this afternoon.

[VillagePlank]

I feel compelled to apologise ...

Sorry all - pretty much a beer driven rant.

[Dartmoor_Matt]

None needed as far as I can see VP.

I would of thought that it was obvious that it is a scientific approach to a problem and the fact that it looks at different causes seems to make some people wary. Which in itself is interesting.

[La Bise]

Good luck with the endeavour.

[VillagePlank]

None needed as far as I can see VP.

I would of thought that it was obvious that it is a scientific approach to a problem and the fact that it looks at different causes seems to make some people wary. Which in itself is interesting.

Give me £10k, and I might be able to make a case for it that stands solidly within the scientific community. Otherwise, well, I might have to go to Exxon ... tell me again - which of you cares for "free" science?

Of course, I will never do that. But funding would be nice ...

Edited December 13, 2009 by VillagePlank

[PersianPaladin]

You didn't answer my question - if you want to completely stop the spread of AIDS, how do you do it? This is what Monckton was asked, and his answer is the only actual solution!

Does that make it right?

No!

As for your link...please tell me that's some kind of joke. Do you honestly wonder why people make "conspiracy-nut" jokes about you, PP?

CB

You've just destroyed your rational credibility in one fell swoop with that attack on me.

And no, others will disagree with you about it being the only actual solution. Others more qualified than both of us.

Now back on topic...

http://www.georgewas...mands-huge.html

Edited December 13, 2009 by PersianPaladin

[VillagePlank]

You've just destroyed your rational credibility in one fell swoop with that attack on me. You're an idiot.

And no, others will disagree with you about it being the only actual solution. Others more qualified than both of us.

Now back on topic...

http://www.georgewashington2.blogspot.com/2009/12/copenhagen-framework-demands-huge.html

Frankly, PP, we know what you are. Go away - try to play the ball instead of the man. Calling people 'idiots' is well, self-identification.

Edited December 13, 2009 by VillagePlank

[PersianPaladin]

Frankly, PP, we know what you are. Go away - try to play the ball instead of the man. Calling people 'idiots' is well, self-identification.

Go back to your thread and leave me alone.

[VillagePlank]

Go back to your thread and leave me alone.

oh no - you are like a naughty little school-boy who, whilst bright, needs a nudge in the right direction.

[pottyprof]

Ding ding!!! End of round one.......

Can we take personal swipes to pm gents?? I know we all have different views but I think we're a little close to the line here....

Ta muchly..

[laserguy]

Um,sorry been busy all day knocking up another batch of fine English ale (another facet of my inherant green-ness you eco warriors can but marvel at!) so I've missed lots - but what's AIDS got to do with climate change?!

VP - I can't see anything wrong with approaching Exxon,or anyone else for that matter for funding your research - except for the inevitable labels which you would have to bear. You won't get any from the mob who largely fund those who are determined at all cost to finger CO2 as the cause of all our woes and the key to solving all the world's problems,I'm sure!

[Roger J Smith]

I would say people are not confusing weather and climate, if the weather generally cools down then the climate is cooling. If you can only define climate as "global climate" then it tends to leave everything in the hands of a group like the IPCC who can manipulate data to make things seem like there is "global warming" even though each person who actually lives somewhere with long-term weather records can't find much evidence of it. This perception is now becoming widespread, it's sort of "well where exactly is this warming?"

The only place that I know is warming significantly in the past thirty years is the region around Svalbard. Otherwise, I find some of the statements and so-called evidence to be quite contrived and when compared with longer term records, either negligible or in some cases not even a warming at all.

And while Canada is certainly not the whole picture, most of the concern about global warming has been fuelled by statements about warming in the Canadian arctic, statements which I find overblown and in some cases factually wrong. The polar bears in the Canadian arctic are not coming under any significant amount of stress, the anecdotal reports that are popular in the media consist of normal occurrences taken out of context, or misleading photographs showing bears on floating ice floes which conjure up thoughts "oh they must be drifting away from land, they're going to drown" when in fact these are perfectly natural occurrences in the daily lives of hunting polar bears.

At this point in time, the Canadian arctic seems to be back into a cooling mode and the map I posted shows evidence of this, temperatures throughout the arctic are well below -20 C and in central regions below -30 C. I think the ice-free anomalies of 2007 may not be seen again for many years to come. Meanwhile, after two years of unusually low temperatures in many parts of Canada and the central/eastern US, many people are starting to wonder what all the fuss is about. Eventually, this distinction between weather and climate backfires on those who use it, because people can see that if most of the weather is turning colder, and climate is the sum of all weather, then by logical extension, climate is turning colder.

Anyway, as I said, I wanted to show that there are two sides to this argument, and that the assertions of the IPCC about "settled science" are premature and an attempt to shut down public discussion and debate.

The essential problem here is that science has no oversight, it is the one human activity that judges itself. The only hope for judgement of science lies in the theological realm, but in the earthly realm, science has no governing authority. Some may say that this is similar to religion, but at least in organized religion, there are mechanisms in place whereby members of a religion can exert pressure on their leaders to change policies. Government in a democracy is not beyond control, the voters can terminate the power of unpopular leaders. But science has only the integrity of its ruling classes to fall back on, there is no way that we as rank and file members of the atmospheric sciences can effectively change the course of the IPCC or the climate science leaders, and they have shown that they will take a ruthless approach using tenure, sanctions, peer pressure and blacklisting, whatever it takes, to keep their point of view from being challenged.

I am sure that there are many others besides myself who find this state of affairs lamentable especially given the many apparent flaws in the science as currently presented.

I suppose what I'm asking is this -- what can we do about it? One possible avenue for change is to exert pressure from the political realm by withdrawing research funding until it appears that climate science is receiving the same standards of oversight as astronomy or organic chemistry, for example. I would argue that it is not receiving that standard of oversight, and that this has been going on for 20-25 years now. An essentially false science has developed, but the rest of the scientific community endorses it because of the general political structure of science -- one branch stays out of the business of another branch. The astronomers, chemists and geologists out there who endorse the IPCC approach have not really studied the science at all, they are just assuming that what they read in terms of a few published papers or media reports are accurate and reflect the same high standards that they might be used to seeing in their own scientific disciplines.

We should run a poll here on Net-weather and find out what percentage of the people interested in weather and climate believe that "climate science" is fair and balanced, and what percentage think it is a distorted, politicized operation. I would guess it would come in at least 50-50 or perhaps slightly in favour of the second option.

The fact is, though, that these reservations are probably shared privately by many government officials in the free world (and less privately in China from what I can gather). This means that they will continue to play along by meeting, setting targets, looking for complex means of evading those targets, and just generally hoping the whole thing goes away, because the more draconian approaches being sought could plunge their countries into economic depression or chaos. There are very few politicians who care enough about polar bears to take that risk. Meanwhile, the polar bears have never had it so good.

[jethro]

Potty rang the end of round bell a while ago, please take the bickering to pm, in-thread swipes will be deleted.

[noggin]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1235708/Copenhagen-climate-change-summit-Brown-rushes-talks-early-poor-nations-allege-dirty-tricks.html

Awwwww, bless his little cotton socks......Gordon ( ) is off to save the world again. :huh:

[Admiral_Bobski]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8411898.stm

Climate negotiations suspended...

[noggin]

All fun and games, innit!

Now this old money-grabbing slimeball has decided to poke his oar in..

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1235629/Is-Blair-trying-cash-climate-change--Ex-PM-arrives-summit-urge-greenhouse-gas-deal.html

[laserguy]

http://news.bbc.co.u...ech/8411898.stm

Climate negotiations suspended...

TB wants a slice of the action eh? If that doesn't give the game away for y'all you really,really,really are a lost cause.

[Devonian]

All fun and games, innit!

Now this old money-grabbing slimeball has decided to poke his oar in..

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1235629/Is-Blair-trying-cash-climate-change--Ex-PM-arrives-summit-urge-greenhouse-gas-deal.html

I'm amazed at the level of dislike people show for both TB and GB. The only way I can understand it is that I, um, didn't have a awful lot of time for Mrs T....

Still, just goes to show, I suppose, that once we change govt AGW will simply disappear (no, not really, science isn't like that).

[laserguy]

Still, just goes to show, I suppose, that once we change govt AGW will simply disappear (no, not really, science isn't like that).

You're right.... they are all every bit as bent as each other.

[Devonian]

You're right.... they are all every bit as bent as each other.

Who, scientists, Govt? Whatever, science isn't changed by popular will. Indeed, the relative quietness (compared to the emails hooha a few weeks ago) show abundantly clearly which side of this 'debate' is playing politics. Clue, it's not the scientists...