Native American DNA
[Post-Mormon Mag.]
September '14 Meetup
[Denver Post-Mormo...]
Annual ExMormon Sacramento Party
[San Francisco Bay...]
Let’s go tubing!
[Palmetto Post-Mor...]
Stampede Get Together!
[Calgary Post-Morm...]
Why I am a Better Mother
by aworkinprogress
SF Bay Area Monthly Gathering SUNDAY (5/4)
exmoinaz
SF Bay Area Monthly Gathering SUNDAY (5/4)
owned
The Mormon Mask
by Born Free
Las Vegas Meetup--Jazz in the Park Saturday May 10 6:30PM
onendagus
Resignation Letter to My Family
ShadowSage
Resignation Letter to My Family
ShadowSage
Guru Busters
by Flora4
Guru Busters
by Flora4
Resignation Letter to My Family
Hbush1987
General Non-Conference: Palmetto State Session
Swearing Elder
Sunday Morning Hangout at Container Park March 30th
onendagus
Second Wednesdays
Houston
General Non-Conference: Palmetto State Session
Swearing Elder
General Non-Conference: Palmetto State Session
dovahkiyn
February Meetup Sunday the 16th 2:00pm Grand Cafe at Sunset Station
onendagus
Visitors welcome !
priorvej12
Las Vegas meetup Sun Jan 12th 1pm at Milos in Boulder City
onendagus
January 5th- Southern Utah PostMormon Lecture Series
gypsyrose
Book of Mormon Tories
by Tom Donofrio
Book of Mormon Tories
by Nogginus Skepticalus
Native American DNA
by GTM
Ongoing Monthly Gatherings!
Reuben
Ongoing Monthly Gatherings!
Virginia Steve
CALM meet up for June
4bagel
  It gets better! Resources to help with coping
  House Rules for posting on this website
  Why is there sometimes anger here?
  Glossary of Post-Mormon Terms
  Frequently Asked Questions
 
   
2 of 2
2
Cog Dis, Misinformation, Cover-ups, Changing History…
 
Member
RankRankRank
Joined  2008-12-05

YesIAmAPyr:

Emily Lights a Single Candle:

Sure. Let's have a rousing debate over whether the wheel is a good idea. Let's never move on. How about if women should have the vote? Hot debate there. And slavery. Question if slavery might not be a good idea. Oh -- I know! Let's bring back national Prohibition! We can question whether or not underground liquor sales breed crime, corruption, alcohol abuse, and hypocrisy -- because remember -- question everything! Evidence is never overwhelming. You can't build on the knowledge of the past because you are always questioning settled questions. And most of all, let's seriously consider if BoM could be true. Nothing conclusive on that front!

 

As for global warming... I sometimes see here a bit of condescension for the TBM who occasionally shows up. Posters will patronizingly say, "Google is your friend!" Well -- google is your friend too.

 

Wiki:Global warming is the increase in the average temperature of Earth's near-surface air and oceans since the mid-20th century and its projected continuation. Global surface temperature increased 0.74 ± 0.18 °C (1.33 ± 0.32 °F) between the start and the end of the 20th century.[2][A] The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concludes that most of the observed temperature increase since the middle of the 20th century was caused by increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases resulting from human activity such as fossil fuel burning and deforestation.[2] The IPCC also concludes that variations in natural phenomena such as solar radiation and volcanism had a small cooling effect after 1950.[3][4] These basic conclusions have been endorsed by more than 40 scientific societies and academies of science,[B] including all of the national academies of science of the major industrialized countries.[5] 

 

 

The irony is that the people who congratulate themselves the most on being fearless questioners are often the people most easily scammed by hugomous oil companies, lying politicians, weird religions, or other special interest groups.

 

If scientists had never accepted Newton's Universe of gravity and moved on, they would never have discovered Einstein's Universe of relativity. Ironic, huh.

 

Re: The highlighted.  I wouldn't be so quick in hanging my hat on the IPCC's veracity and reliability.  See the article cited in the OP. 

 

<eta> there are other articles that also indicate that data has been skewed, non-supoorting evidence quashed, and outright false reports were created and subsequently cited by others to support their claims, in and independent of the IPCC.

Nope. Non-troversy. That stuff has already been shot down.

 

 

 

This is True Believer stuff. "Those people studying Native American DNA got grants! So that means their work is tainted! Southerton! He's got a book out! He's not impartial! He's making money on destroying the church!" The truth is -- at this point -- climate change deniers are just like TBMs -- they are so invested their paranoid constructions knock down any evidence to the contrary. But you might want to ask yourself how you can know the work on American archeology isn't as tainted as the work on climate change. Or maybe the people at FARMS AND FAIR have a point?

 
Member
RankRankRank
Joined  2008-12-05

What is so weird is that the media was all over the story of how those leaked emails were distorted. It was patiently covered and covered that data wasn't destroy blah blah blah. Lot of good it did.
 
Avatar
Long Timer
RankRankRankRankRank
Joined  2007-04-12

ZeeZrom:

 

 I agree.  Trying to persuade a hard core denialist is just like trying to persuade an anti-vaxxer.  But I don't know that anybody here is a hard core denialist.  So I think it's worthwhile to call bullshit when someone repeats the denialist line.

 

The anti-vaccine situation is an example of taking up arms too quickly.  A flawed report set off a frenzy among parents who want to protect their children.  Their immediate response was to discontinue vaccinations. 

 

Now, the conclusions of that report have been called into question, and as a bonus childhood diseases that were thought to be eradicated are occuring again at increasing rates.

 

So, it looks to me like 'doing something' before it's too late can backfire, too.

 

Like I said in another post on this thread, some of the 'solutions' to global warming are logical on the surface, but, are there side effects that are not known yet?

 

There are many times that people have reacted to a problem with a solution, (Army Corps of Engineers dam building for one) only to find that there were unintended consequences. 

 

Let's go forward, but not blindly and not without careful consideration of the big picture.

 Signature 

-The Pirate...(arriving 200 years too late…)

...I’m not the first, won’t be the last.  Lust for the future, treasure the past… proud.jpg

“Make sure that your moral compass is set due ‘the right thing’.”  -Emerson Cod

This post has been reviewed for it’s content, and has been found to comply with the general concept of the mission of this website and it’s management.  Approved for submission by member #1087.

 
Long Timer
RankRankRankRankRank
Joined  2009-11-11

Jammerwoch:

 ZeeZrom:

 

You are accurate, articulate and informed, but unfortunately that will not be enough to sway the anti-Mormons

 

That could have been pulled directly from the MADB board in talking about us post-mos who "won't leave the church alone."

 

And for the record, I'm not a denialist. I think the liklihood of global warming being very real and permanent is very high. I just think it's silly to ever close a debate and I think it's MASSIVELY wrong to ever be less than honest with the evidence and data.

 

It boggles my mind some of the arguments I've read on this topic on THIS site of all sites. I hear a lot of "it doesn't matter that some of the evidence (or data) has been covered up because the underlying truth is still the same." Sound familiar?  It sure as hell does to me. My experience in Mormonism has made me skeptical to the extreme to anyone claiming to have absolute truth on anything.

 

And I'm even MORE skeptical when those making such claims are telling me that cover ups and evasive behavior is something we shouldn't worry about because really smart people (in this case scientists) have looked at the evidence and told us what we're supposed to think about. So I'm not denying it, but I sure as hell am open to anything that might call into question the evidence used to reach the conclusion. Truth should never fear scrutiny.

 

And I might not be as well-versed on this topic as others here, but if global warming is in case man-made, isn't it true that the cause that led to the current effects was pretty much in stone for a few decades now. In other words, by the time we realized we were the ones doing it, it was too late to be able to do anything to stop it.

 Signature 

“When a person is down in the world, an ounce of help is better than a pound of preaching.”
Robert Bulwer-Lytton

 
Avatar
Long Timer
RankRankRankRankRank
Joined  2007-04-12

Emily Lights a Single Candle:

Nope. Non-troversy. That stuff has already been shot down.

 

 

 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1245636/Glacier-scientists-says-knew-dat...

The Glacier Study falsification is "Non-troversy"?  Cite, please.

 Signature 

-The Pirate...(arriving 200 years too late…)

...I’m not the first, won’t be the last.  Lust for the future, treasure the past… proud.jpg

“Make sure that your moral compass is set due ‘the right thing’.”  -Emerson Cod

This post has been reviewed for it’s content, and has been found to comply with the general concept of the mission of this website and it’s management.  Approved for submission by member #1087.

 
Avatar
Administrator
RankRankRankRankRank
Joined  2007-05-08

YesIAmAPyr:
ZeeZrom:

YesIAmAPyr:

I do not deny the existence of long term physical evidences.  However, I do object to the insistence of BOTH camps using a snippet here and a shred there, which in and of themselves are incomplete, to support their claims, which it seems to me, again, from BOTH sides, are designed to be as dramatic as possible rather than realistic and thoughtful.

Of course, the ultimate solution - suicide - is ridiculous.  There are some who would however, try to make the mere act of existing a criminal act.  I find those extremist views to be unrealistic and sorta self-loathing.

Funny how one's point of view can skew the observations of people who are not of a similar bent, eh?

Like I said in a previous post, clearly there are those who have hitched their wagons of financial gain to climate change and their lust for the filthy lucre has cast their postulations into doubt, and proof of their obfuscations are being uncovered more and more frequently.  It casts an ugly pall over a legitimate concern.

 

To finalize a reasonable statement with the observation that deniers are 'arrogantly ignorant' is really unnecessary, it cheapens every good point made prior.

 

Much of what I personally say and believe could possibly be grossly incorrect.  I leave the door open to that possibility.  I wish others would reserve their judgments with more considered thought. 

 

The current brouhaha over the autism/vaccine connection is evidence that the strength of public opinion does not make something right.

 Pirate, the climate scientists don't use a snippet here and a shred there.  IMO, you are really making a false equivalence.  I've closely followed the global warming debate for over 10 years.  The global warming denial side has been a revolving door of some of the most dishonest and flat out ignorant arguments I've ever seen.  The arrogance of ignorance is an accurate description, and I'm not apologizing for it.

 

So, show me all those climate scientists who are getting rich by lying in their scientific papers.  This anti-science attack is being carried on by the same folks who campaigned for the tobacco lobby.  The playbook is  the same:  manufacture doubt, personally attack any scientists who disagree.

 

 The climate scientists could be wrong.  I hope they are.  If I believed in God, I'd pray that they are.  But given the strength of the evidence, using "they could be wrong" as an excuse to do nothing is simply wishful thinking. 

 

Not climate scientists, but, the footsoldiers who report via the media absolutely do make soundbites out of science and simplify the evidence for consumption by the greatest numbers of the general public...

I agree that scoundrels abound in this debate, ON BOTH SIDES.  And yes, there are some who are in it for the money, again, not the scientists but the people whose job it is to generate ratings/sales for their employer.

 

Please don't make an argument based on the concept that climate scientists don't lie.  It is the people who are paid by someone to bring sales and/or ratings to their outlet that I am objecting to.  And the people who are vehemently arguing against these 'dumbed down' snips.  There have been references to data collection in this thread that encompass less than 100 years of collection.  NOT from a climate scientist but observers of climate science.

 

H

 

 

 Well, I'm with you on the media.  They swing from "we're doomed" to "it's a lie" and back again.  This is "it's a lie week."  If the El Nino holds up, we'll be back to "we're doomed" this summer.

 

Regarding scoundrels, I'd still say you're making a false equivalence.  One "side" is actively anti-science, and pushes misinformation as part of it's base operation.  The false statements about Al Gore alone outnumber the errors in the latest IPCC report.  ;)  (IMO, Al is a red herring.  The climate doesn't give a crap about what Al Gore says.)

 

And, IMO, attacking conclusions from data simply because they have been collected for less than 100 years is a strawman.  That data is only part of a puzzle -- a puzzle with lots of pieces that fit together.  And the picture is not a pretty one. 

 Signature 

Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn’t go away.


Phillip K. Dick

 
Member
RankRankRank
Joined  2008-12-05

Some favorite climate change articles. Starting with littlegreenfootballs --

 

Limbaugh Connects Creationism With AGW Denial

Media | Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 11:55:21 am PST

For a long time, Rush Limbaugh avoided the topic of creationism. But today, for the second time in a year, Limbaugh openly professed his creationist beliefs.

And even more interestingly, Limbaugh tied those beliefs to his denial of global warming. Limbaugh’s “philosophy,” if you can call it that, is that since God created the planet Earth, he simply would not allow mankind to have the ability to destroy it through environmental damage.

Yes, that’s what he said. I’ve often noted that the tactics of creationists and global warming deniers have many things in common, but today Limbaugh made the connection quite explicitly. His belief in creationism is behind his refusal to accept the evidence of global warming.

 
Avatar
Long Timer
RankRankRankRankRank
Joined  2005-01-07

Someone pointed out that many Global Warning deniers tend to work on a binary logic:

 

It's on and man caused it

or

It isn't happening: it's a myth

It's always fluctuated like this and man has nothing to do with it. 

All scientists are part of some giant international scientific scam

 

Black or white

 

And they pointed out that science works on probability, statistics & percentages as to causes.

 

I have have a brother who is a trained engineer who is still TBM, and surprise, surprise, he is an extreme GW skeptic. 

 

I see an amazing paradox in his position.

 

In one breath, man is the centre of God's Universe: it was all created for us to play with during our own God-apprenticeship, and God wouldn't let us mess up our back yard, or will, expressing His inner-feminine, come by and clean up after us.

 

On the other, there is this total denial that the exponential growth of the human animal on the planet along with our activity, is messing with the natural order. 

 

I find an amazing gulf between those positions.

 

But lets look for one moment at the prospect that all scientists are in on some global scam.

 

How credible does that sound?  I'll tell you one thing: It smacks of conspiracy theories, which we know ran and run rampant in that Empire we have left. But has the mindset left us? Are some of us still prone to believe there is some Master Manipulator who can co-opt scientists all over the globe to sing to a single tune?

 

I have learnt one thing as I have aged. There is a higher concentration of people with Aspergers and high functioning autism in the scientific community - their 'highly pattern seeking minds' are in their environment in science. 

 

The downside to that upside is that these people are less people-people, more likely to be the loners, geeks, fashion disasters and not socially savvy.

 

I hardly see this latter group acting as any major conspiritorial bloc.  

 

I see humans as just other animals, certainly ones I empathize with more because I am one, but like any animal or plant, if we overstretch our environment, as humans have done on a local scale at many points in our history, the environment crashes. 

 

But why are we so resistant to the idea that we know we can do and have done on a local/regional scale, we are now capable of doing on a global scale?

 

I believe this is a legitimate case where we should accept the notion that we can be Gods - Gods of our own destruction and worse, a generation that effectively destroyed their children's world. 

 

Daryl 

 

 

 

 

 Signature 

Our life is the creation of our minds, and we do much of that creating in metaphor…. With the wrong metaphor we are deluded; with no metaphor we are blind. ’ Jonathan Haidt

and I am responsible for the metaphors that populate my mind.’ Daryl

 
Avatar
Long Timer
RankRankRankRankRank
Joined  2007-04-12

ZeeZrom:

 

 Well, I'm with you on the media.  They swing from "we're doomed" to "it's a lie" and back again.  This is "it's a lie week."  If the El Nino holds up, we'll be back to "we're doomed" this summer.

 

Regarding scoundrels, I'd still say you're making a false equivalence.  One "side" is actively anti-science, and pushes misinformation as part of it's base operation.  The false statements about Al Gore alone outnumber the errors in the latest IPCC report.  ;)  (IMO, Al is a red herring.  The climate doesn't give a crap about what Al Gore says.)

 

And, IMO, attacking conclusions from data simply because they have been collected for less than 100 years is a strawman.  That data is only part of a puzzle -- a puzzle with lots of pieces that fit together.  And the picture is not a pretty one. 

 

Where is the 'attack' that you refer to?  I only mention that people who are in support and believe that all evidence is beyond reproach bring those data points of less than a hundred years to the table as support for their belief.

 

I don't attack or refute the charts and graphs, I merely question using them as empirical 'proof' of global warming. 

 

As if citing an article like that should close any further questioning...

 Signature 

-The Pirate...(arriving 200 years too late…)

...I’m not the first, won’t be the last.  Lust for the future, treasure the past… proud.jpg

“Make sure that your moral compass is set due ‘the right thing’.”  -Emerson Cod

This post has been reviewed for it’s content, and has been found to comply with the general concept of the mission of this website and it’s management.  Approved for submission by member #1087.

 
Member
RankRankRank
Joined  2008-12-05

At the worst possible time, in the days immediately before the Copenhagen climate summit in December, it enabled sceptics across the globe to claim that climate science was fatally flawed and its practitioners a shifty gang who twisted the facts to suit their agenda and shut out anyone who disagreed with them.

Jones insists that is not the way it was, but concedes it was the way it may have looked. He now accepts that he did not treat the FoI requests as seriously as he should have done. “I regret that I did not deal with them in the right way,” he told The Sunday Times. “In a way, I misjudged the situation.”

But he pleads provocation. Last year in July alone the unit received 60 FoI requests from across the world. With a staff of only 13 to cope with them, the demands were accumulating faster than they could be dealt with. “According to the rules,” says Jones, “you have to do 18 hours’ work on each one before you’re allowed to turn it down.” It meant that the scientists would have had a lot of their time diverted from research.

A further irritation was that most of the data was available online, making the FoI requests, in Jones’s view, needless and a vexatious waste of his time. In the circumstances, he says, he thought it reasonable to refer the applicants to the website of the Historical Climatology Network in the US.

He also suspected that the CRU was the target of a co-ordinated attempt to interfere with its work — a suspicion that hardened into certainty when, over a matter of days, it received 40 similar FoI requests. Each applicant asked for data from five different countries, 200 in all, which would have been a daunting task even for someone with nothing else to do. It was clear to Jones that the attack originated from an old adversary, the sceptical website Climate Audit, run by Steve McIntyre, a former minerals prospector and arch climate sceptic.

“We were clearly being targeted,” says Jones. “Only 22% of the FoI enquiries were identifiably from within the UK, 39% were from abroad and 39% were untraceable.” What irked him was that the foreign applicants would all have had sources closer to hand in their own countries.

“I think they just wanted to waste our time,” he says. “They wanted to slow us down.”

It was pure irritation, he says, that provoked him and others to write the notorious emails apparently conspiring to destroy or withhold data. “It was just frustration. I thought the requests were just distractions. It was taking us away from our day jobs. It was written in anger.”

But he insists that no data were destroyed. “We have no data to delete. It comes to us from institutions around the world. We interpret data. We don’t create or collect it. It’s all available from other sources.”

If the leak itself was bad, the aftermath was the stuff of nightmares. Even now, weeks later, Jones seems rigid with shock. “There were death threats,” he says. “People said I should go and kill myself. They said they knew where I lived.” Two more death threats came last week after the deputy information commissioner delivered his verdict, making more work for Norfolk police, who are already investigating the theft of the emails.

<!--INFOLINKS_OFF-->
 
Avatar
Long Timer
RankRankRankRankRank
Joined  2007-04-12

Emily Lights a Single Candle:

At the worst possible time, in the days immediately before the Copenhagen climate summit in December, it enabled sceptics across the globe to claim that climate science was fatally flawed and its practitioners a shifty gang who twisted the facts to suit their agenda and shut out anyone who disagreed with them.

Jones insists that is not the way it was, but concedes it was the way it may have looked. He now accepts that he did not treat the FoI requests as seriously as he should have done. “I regret that I did not deal with them in the right way,” he told The Sunday Times. “In a way, I misjudged the situation.”

But he pleads provocation. Last year in July alone the unit received 60 FoI requests from across the world. With a staff of only 13 to cope with them, the demands were accumulating faster than they could be dealt with. “According to the rules,” says Jones, “you have to do 18 hours’ work on each one before you’re allowed to turn it down.” It meant that the scientists would have had a lot of their time diverted from research.

A further irritation was that most of the data was available online, making the FoI requests, in Jones’s view, needless and a vexatious waste of his time. In the circumstances, he says, he thought it reasonable to refer the applicants to the website of the Historical Climatology Network in the US.

He also suspected that the CRU was the target of a co-ordinated attempt to interfere with its work — a suspicion that hardened into certainty when, over a matter of days, it received 40 similar FoI requests. Each applicant asked for data from five different countries, 200 in all, which would have been a daunting task even for someone with nothing else to do. It was clear to Jones that the attack originated from an old adversary, the sceptical website Climate Audit, run by Steve McIntyre, a former minerals prospector and arch climate sceptic.

“We were clearly being targeted,” says Jones. “Only 22% of the FoI enquiries were identifiably from within the UK, 39% were from abroad and 39% were untraceable.” What irked him was that the foreign applicants would all have had sources closer to hand in their own countries.

“I think they just wanted to waste our time,” he says. “They wanted to slow us down.”

It was pure irritation, he says, that provoked him and others to write the notorious emails apparently conspiring to destroy or withhold data. “It was just frustration. I thought the requests were just distractions. It was taking us away from our day jobs. It was written in anger.”

But he insists that no data were destroyed. “We have no data to delete. It comes to us from institutions around the world. We interpret data. We don’t create or collect it. It’s all available from other sources.”

If the leak itself was bad, the aftermath was the stuff of nightmares. Even now, weeks later, Jones seems rigid with shock. “There were death threats,” he says. “People said I should go and kill myself. They said they knew where I lived.” Two more death threats came last week after the deputy information commissioner delivered his verdict, making more work for Norfolk police, who are already investigating the theft of the emails.

<!--INFOLINKS_OFF-->

 

This isn't the situation that concerns me.  At the time, the timing and lack of detail caused me to give the 'memo leak' controversy wide berth.

 

The Himalayan Glacier reports, however, smack of some flawed research and reporting and is cause to be concerned about other information supported by the IPCC.  NOT disregard, mind you, just exercise some healthy skepticism, and possibly seeking out secondary sources to confirm any data put out by the IPCC.

 Signature 

-The Pirate...(arriving 200 years too late…)

...I’m not the first, won’t be the last.  Lust for the future, treasure the past… proud.jpg

“Make sure that your moral compass is set due ‘the right thing’.”  -Emerson Cod

This post has been reviewed for it’s content, and has been found to comply with the general concept of the mission of this website and it’s management.  Approved for submission by member #1087.

 
Avatar
Administrator
RankRankRankRankRank
Joined  2007-05-08

tcxmo:
Jammerwoch:

 ZeeZrom:

 

You are accurate, articulate and informed, but unfortunately that will not be enough to sway the anti-Mormons

 

That could have been pulled directly from the MADB board in talking about us post-mos who "won't leave the church alone."

 

And for the record, I'm not a denialist. I think the liklihood of global warming being very real and permanent is very high. I just think it's silly to ever close a debate and I think it's MASSIVELY wrong to ever be less than honest with the evidence and data.

 

It boggles my mind some of the arguments I've read on this topic on THIS site of all sites. I hear a lot of "it doesn't matter that some of the evidence (or data) has been covered up because the underlying truth is still the same." Sound familiar?  It sure as hell does to me. My experience in Mormonism has made me skeptical to the extreme to anyone claiming to have absolute truth on anything.

 

And I'm even MORE skeptical when those making such claims are telling me that cover ups and evasive behavior is something we shouldn't worry about because really smart people (in this case scientists) have looked at the evidence and told us what we're supposed to think about. So I'm not denying it, but I sure as hell am open to anything that might call into question the evidence used to reach the conclusion. Truth should never fear scrutiny.

 

And I might not be as well-versed on this topic as others here, but if global warming is in case man-made, isn't it true that the cause that led to the current effects was pretty much in stone for a few decades now. In other words, by the time we realized we were the ones doing it, it was too late to be able to do anything to stop it.

 

 Personally, I hate the phrase "the debate is over."  It's sloppy short hand for "we have sufficient evidence to act."  I look at new papers all the time, hoping there will be some new evidence that will warrant reconsideration.  Unfortunately, the vast majority of the new evidence coming in indicates that the IPCC was too conservative in its last report.

 

You may be misunderstanding my argument.  I'm not condoning covering up or concealing data.  But it appear to me that what is going on is flyspecking a 1000 page report, finding a handful or errors, and then accusing people of covering up evidence.  I'm saying that including a mistaken date on a page of a 1000 page report is not reason to throw out the other 999.  By all means, look at the other 999.  But judge them on their own merits.

 

There will always be mistakes, and they should be corrected.  But the current campaign to discredit an entire field of science based on a few errors in a report is dishonest.

 

Truth doesn't fear scrutiny.  And no area of science has been more scrutinized by people hostile to its conclusions than climate science.

 

Also, the "now it's too late" is another myth spread by the people who have delayed taking action for a decade now.  There is some degree of future heating that is "locked in."  But taking action will avoid much worse results. 

 Signature 

Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn’t go away.


Phillip K. Dick

 
Member
RankRankRank
Joined  2008-12-05

YesIAmAPyr:

 

This isn't the situation that concerns me.  At the time, the timing and lack of detail caused me to give the 'memo leak' controversy wide berth.

 

The Himalayan Glacier reports, however, smack of some flawed research and reporting and is cause to be concerned about other information supported by the IPCC.  NOT disregard, mind you, just exercise some healthy skepticism, and possibly seeking out secondary sources to confirm any data put out by the IPCC.

I used to work in medical research. I'm not bragging. I was a lackey and have sub-par scientific knowledge. I tracked down, checked, and delivered medical articles. From that I know that for every medical study published there is an equal and opposite conclusion out there. Some studies are much better than others and it is not easy for the layman to know which are which. It isn't even easy for doctors to know. Does that mean that our medical system is compromised? That someone is being paid off? That you can't trust doctors? That you should stay home and treat your cancer with dill-weed and sage? Of course not.

 

Here is a favorite story. I had a friend whose wife came out of routine gall stones surgery with horrible chronic pain. He was suing and asked me for research. I spent hours, days on the problem and could find nothing about chronic pain following gall stone removal -- just the usual stuff about pain before the surgery, normal pain that goes away after. I had professional librarians look. I had the best look. No one could find any research on this problem. I gave up. Years later an article just happened to cross my desk about horrifying chronic pain as an infrequent but known complication of the most routine surgeries. This doctor said the problem is that the medical field wouldn't even admit there was a problem, so no research was done. (That I could believe.) He said the victims were dismissed as malingerers and neurotics. But he pointed out medicine can only address the problem once they admitted there was a problem. A scandal for you? Or business as usual in a complicated world where medicine is practiced by human beings, who as this researcher said, were loathe to admit that a usually benefical procedure might at times have morbidity?

 

If any scientific field were as scrutinized as this one, you would find the same problems -- only more so. If a worldwide network of crazies was harassing cancer researchers, we could have a non-troversy a day. To what end, I'm not sure. After all, cancer researchers make big bucks. I don't know for sure, but I'll bet more than climate change researchers. Cancer research is clogged with prima donnas and petty personal feuds. Scientists aren't saints. Not even cancer researchers. So that is a good reason to decide that scientists have a cure for cancer but they aren't sharing it with us because they make so much money on cancer. Or that is crazy paranoid. You decide. 

 

I now share a problem common with medical personnel. I'm a little paranoid when I go to a doctor because I know how often they get it wrong. I'm a little leery of medical procedures -- because I've seen some of the research. But it hasn't made me into a Christian Scientist.

 

I'm not making excuses for this problem. But I know we are holding these scientists to a higher standard than other scientists. And we all know why. Right Wing Hysteria. The kind that loves death threats. 

 

 
Avatar
Long Timer
RankRankRankRankRank
Joined  2008-04-12

Emily Lights a Single Candle:

But he pleads provocation. Last year in July alone the unit received 60 FoI requests from across the world. With a staff of only 13 to cope with them, the demands were accumulating faster than they could be dealt with. “According to the rules,” says Jones, “you have to do 18 hours’ work on each one before you’re allowed to turn it down.”


 

And why are the requests being turned down?

 

 

 Signature 

“All boundaries are conventions, waiting to be transcended.” -Robert Frobisher, Cloud Atlas

 
Avatar
Administrator
RankRankRankRankRank
Joined  2007-05-08

StormWalker:
Emily Lights a Single Candle:

But he pleads provocation. Last year in July alone the unit received 60 FoI requests from across the world. With a staff of only 13 to cope with them, the demands were accumulating faster than they could be dealt with. “According to the rules,” says Jones, “you have to do 18 hours’ work on each one before you’re allowed to turn it down.”


 

And why are the requests being turned down?

 

 

 

 The article answers itself.  Because it was a deliberate campaign of harassment for information that was either 1) already publicly available or 2) was protected by agreements with the countries that had supplied it.  Also, as I recall, a British court upheld an earlier denial of substantially the same request.  Tell me why multiple, coordinated, burdensome FoI requests were being sent.

 Signature 

Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn’t go away.


Phillip K. Dick

 
Avatar
Long Timer
RankRankRankRankRank
Joined  2007-04-10

Too bad we can't talk to those most affected whether there is global warming. It is unfortunate they cannot tell the world how their shorter hunting seasons contribute to starvation and malnourished pups; the breaking up of glaciers leading to fewer seals---an important food source; and via the shorter ice season, more and more bears are drowning, unheard of until now.

 

 

 

 

 


 

 

 

 

 

I guess if I still see snow in my yard and temperatures drop below zero once or twice in a winter, global warming is a myth in my personal snow globe.

 

 

 Signature 

“Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better than not to think at all.”
                      -Hypatia of Alexandria

 
Member
RankRankRank
Joined  2008-12-05

Gilgal:
tcxmo:
Debates should NEVER be over. Ever!

 

Amen.

 

Question everything. Everything. 

 

TEN GREAT THINGS TO QUESTION

 

1. Question Rush Limbaugh.

 

2. Question what percentage of your income ends up in the pocket of energy giants like Exxon. Hint: It is more than 10%.

 

3. Question how much of the production, publication, promotion, and pushing of contrarian research in the field of climate change traces back to money (you know,  M.O.N.E.Y) from energy giants like Exxon. Hint: It compares to how much of similar contrarian research in the health effects of smoking in the '40's, '50's, '60's traced back to cigarette companies.

 

4. Question how much of contrarian research in climate change traces back to Exxon alone.

 

5. Question Rush Limbaugh's connection with the same energy companies. Unless of course you consider him to be the noble patriot who, unlike Clinton, served his country in Vietnam, the respectable, hardworking antithesis of our drug-addled, over-sexed culture, and a great husband and father -- all the traditional values he ascribes to. Then the only question becomes -- Like that kool aid?

 

6. Question how much money (that is M.O.N.E.Y.) the energy giants pour into lobbying. Question how much the senators and congressmen who oppose global warming fixes get paid and how.

 

7. Question who is behind the "global warming hoax."

a. Dr. Doom

b. Dr. Moriarty

c. Darth Vadar

b. Obama, of course! He was just pretending to be a young lawyer struggling to pay off his student loans. He was really Dr. Doom and Dr. Moriarty rolled into one, secretly in command of billions of dollars he was funneling into global warming research, knowing one day he would be elected president and this would all be political gravy for him, as it indeed has turned out to be. Oh -- and did I mention he killed 36 people and has 39 different SS numbers?

 

8. Question why Obama has 39 different SS numbers. Why not 38? Or an even 40? And what in the hell does he do with them?

 

9. Question why you are an easy mark for Exxon. What is in that for you? Ooops. Forgot. You used to be a Mormon.

 

10. Question, really question your world paradigm. Read The Republican War on Science. It will rock your world much more than The Mormon Hierarchy: Origins of Power.

 

  

 
Avatar
Long Timer
RankRankRankRankRank
Joined  2005-01-26

Emily Lights a Single Candle:

 

8. Question why Obama has 39 different SS numbers. Why not 38? Or an even 40? And what in the hell does he do with them?


  

 

 

For Christ's sake, do you believe every single thing you read on the internet?

 

Prove to me that Obama has 39 SS numbers and then I will question why. In the meantime, I plan to question your gullibility.  

 

Good hell, people. Critical thinking much? Sheesh. 

 

 Signature 

Formerly known as “Dogzilla.”

 
Long Timer
RankRankRankRankRank
Joined  2009-06-26

The problem with global warming is that it's a dividing issue, creating an 'us' vs. 'them.'

 

1) If you believe global warming is man made, you want to reduce pollution.

2) If you believe global warming is a natural cycle, it's still a good idea to reduce pollution.

 

We get so caught up in the argument that we forget that the actions resulting from both sides of the issue are the same. If someone is pro-pollution, that's a totally different issue.

 

For fair disclosure, I am agnostic on the cause of global warming, but I fully support reducing our global footprint. In the past 100 years we have passed a lot of pollution laws, and we are much healthier as a result.

 Signature 

You can resign from PostMormon but they’ll always count you in their membership numbers.

 
Avatar
Long Timer
RankRankRankRankRank
Joined  2007-10-28

dogzilla:
Emily Lights a Single Candle:

 

8. Question why Obama has 39 different SS numbers. Why not 38? Or an even 40? And what in the hell does he do with them?


  

 

 

For Christ's sake, do you believe every single thing you read on the internet?

 

Prove to me that Obama has 39 SS numbers and then I will question why. In the meantime, I plan to question your gullibility.  

 

Good hell, people. Critical thinking much? Sheesh. 

 

 

 I think Emily was being ironic.

 

And Blue Skies has it right--no matter which side of the global warming divide you find yourself on, what's wrong with reducing pollution?  (Other than the possibility Exxon will see its profits crimped?)

 Signature 

The Church is always trying to get other people to reform; it might not be a bad idea to reform itself a little by way of example.
    —Mark Twain in A Tramp Abroad

 
Avatar
Administrator
RankRankRankRankRank
Joined  2007-05-08

 

 

The anti-vaccine situation is an example of taking up arms too quickly.  A flawed report set off a frenzy among parents who want to protect their children.  Their immediate response was to discontinue vaccinations. 

 

Now, the conclusions of that report have been called into question, and as a bonus childhood diseases that were thought to be eradicated are occuring again at increasing rates.

 

So, it looks to me like 'doing something' before it's too late can backfire, too.

 

 

 

 

Pirate, I'm pretty amazed that you would try to equate the two situations.  The Wakefield autism study was a single study that was promptly called into question by other scientists.  Its results were never duplicated, and study after study showed no evidence of any connection between autism and vaccination.

 

The science of global warming has been around for decades.  The IPCC reports are not original research, but are reviews of hundreds of studies.  This isn't a matter of jumping to conclusions about a single study.

 

Here is a link to a good overview of the history of the science of global warming, as well as the history of the largely successful efforts of conservative think tanks to misrepresent the existence of uncertainty in the science.  The American Denial of Global Warming

 

 

 

 

With all due respect to Emily, I don't see Exxon as the main problem.  The main problem is faith-based, free market zealots, who have taken Barry Goldwater's statement about extremism to heart.

 Signature 

Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn’t go away.


Phillip K. Dick

 
Avatar
Long Timer
RankRankRankRankRank
Joined  2007-04-12

ZeeZrom:

 

 

The anti-vaccine situation is an example of taking up arms too quickly.  A flawed report set off a frenzy among parents who want to protect their children.  Their immediate response was to discontinue vaccinations. 

 

Now, the conclusions of that report have been called into question, and as a bonus childhood diseases that were thought to be eradicated are occuring again at increasing rates.

 

So, it looks to me like 'doing something' before it's too late can backfire, too.

 

 

 

 

Pirate, I'm pretty amazed that you would try to equate the two situations.  The Wakefield autism study was a single study that was promptly called into question by other scientists.  Its results were never duplicated, and study after study showed no evidence of any connection between autism and vaccination.

 

The science of global warming has been around for decades.  The IPCC reports are not original research, but are reviews of hundreds of studies.  This isn't a matter of jumping to conclusions about a single study.

 

Here is a link to a good overview of the history of the science of global warming, as well as the history of the largely successful efforts of conservative think tanks to misrepresent the existence of uncertainty in the science.  The American Denial of Global Warming

 

 

 

 

With all due respect to Emily, I don't see Exxon as the main problem.  The main problem is faith-based, free market zealots, who have taken Barry Goldwater's statement about extremism to heart.

 

I used the autism situation because it is current.  It is not a direct correlation.  I recognize the difference in time and energy spent on climate change studies and that the autism/vaccine situation is nowhere near as widespread in it's influence and effects.

 

I used the example to point out that good intentions can sometimes backfire.  There are many biological disasters on almost every continent that are a result of good intentions bringing about unforeseen consequences. 

 

Responding with responsible, common sense behaviors is one thing, but, both ends of the spectrum (the extreme ends) are advocating some things that are likely not in the best interests of caring for the planet.

 

Measured, thoughtful response is called for, not shouting and making points by knowingly misrepresenting or bending facts.

 

BTW, not as a jab, but, yes, climate studies have been around long enough for the swing from global cooling and global winters to global warming...

 Signature 

-The Pirate...(arriving 200 years too late…)

...I’m not the first, won’t be the last.  Lust for the future, treasure the past… proud.jpg

“Make sure that your moral compass is set due ‘the right thing’.”  -Emerson Cod

This post has been reviewed for it’s content, and has been found to comply with the general concept of the mission of this website and it’s management.  Approved for submission by member #1087.

 
Avatar
Administrator
RankRankRankRankRank
Joined  2007-05-08

YesIAmAPyr:
ZeeZrom:

 

 

The anti-vaccine situation is an example of taking up arms too quickly.  A flawed report set off a frenzy among parents who want to protect their children.  Their immediate response was to discontinue vaccinations. 

 

Now, the conclusions of that report have been called into question, and as a bonus childhood diseases that were thought to be eradicated are occuring again at increasing rates.

 

So, it looks to me like 'doing something' before it's too late can backfire, too.

 

 

 

 

Pirate, I'm pretty amazed that you would try to equate the two situations.  The Wakefield autism study was a single study that was promptly called into question by other scientists.  Its results were never duplicated, and study after study showed no evidence of any connection between autism and vaccination.

 

The science of global warming has been around for decades.  The IPCC reports are not original research, but are reviews of hundreds of studies.  This isn't a matter of jumping to conclusions about a single study.

 

Here is a link to a good overview of the history of the science of global warming, as well as the history of the largely successful efforts of conservative think tanks to misrepresent the existence of uncertainty in the science.  The American Denial of Global Warming

 

 

 

 

With all due respect to Emily, I don't see Exxon as the main problem.  The main problem is faith-based, free market zealots, who have taken Barry Goldwater's statement about extremism to heart.

 

I used the autism situation because it is current.  It is not a direct correlation.  I recognize the difference in time and energy spent on climate change studies and that the autism/vaccine situation is nowhere near as widespread in it's influence and effects.

 

I used the example to point out that good intentions can sometimes backfire.  There are many biological disasters on almost every continent that are a result of good intentions bringing about unforeseen consequences. 

 

Responding with responsible, common sense behaviors is one thing, but, both ends of the spectrum (the extreme ends) are advocating some things that are likely not in the best interests of caring for the planet.

 

Measured, thoughtful response is called for, not shouting and making points by knowingly misrepresenting or bending facts.

 

BTW, not as a jab, but, yes, climate studies have been around long enough for the swing from global cooling and global winters to global warming...

 

 Not taken as a jab.    Philosophically, I think you and I are closer together than our conversation on this particular issue.  But I am curious as to which proposed actions you see as responsible and common sense and which are likely not in the best interests of caring for the planet.

 Signature 

Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn’t go away.


Phillip K. Dick

 
Avatar
Administrator
RankRankRankRankRank
Joined  2007-05-08

Oh, and just for yuks (or quacks)

 

The Parable of the Duck

 

 

 Signature 

Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn’t go away.


Phillip K. Dick

 
Avatar
Long Timer
RankRankRankRankRank
Joined  2007-04-12

ZeeZrom:

 Not taken as a jab.    Philosophically, I think you and I are closer together than our conversation on this particular issue.  But I am curious as to which proposed actions you see as responsible and common sense and which are likely not in the best interests of caring for the planet.

 

In my strange little world that I have worked for many years to build inside my own head, I am constantly tearing down some things and fortifying others.  So, take my commentary with the knowledge of from whence it spews forth...

 

Common sense: Living on this earth and KEEPING YOUR OWN NEST CLEAN, as well as taking care not to foul the nests of others.  Know well that every breath you take, your very existence impacts the earth, do all you can to minimize the trail you leave behind you.  By definition, I am a consumer.  It is well to be aware of that.  I try to consume no more than is necessary, with the awareness that throwing something away does not make it invisible.  I try not to live in discomfort, that would only make me more grumpy, but, excess is unnecessary and not a goal.  I feel that it is reasonable to enjoy whatever level of privelege I have earned through my labors, but, greed is ugly.  I try to be nice, I try to not be a jerk - My version of the golden rule.

 

Concerns:  Electric cars.  The grid is powered by the burning of fuel.  More electric cars, more load on the grid.  Batteries.  Disposal of this product after it's useful life can be a problem, especially if they proliferate.  CFL's.  They do not have the life that they have been touted, and they are again difficult to dispose of. 

Carbon offsets.  Bullshit to the extreme, designed only to relieve guilt.  Subsidizing alternate energy sources.  I would purchase a solar array for my house, but, I will not do so because taxpayers' hard earned money would be taken from them to subsidize my investment.

 

That's my box of chocolates. 

 

You never know what a Pirate'll say...

 Signature 

-The Pirate...(arriving 200 years too late…)

...I’m not the first, won’t be the last.  Lust for the future, treasure the past… proud.jpg

“Make sure that your moral compass is set due ‘the right thing’.”  -Emerson Cod

This post has been reviewed for it’s content, and has been found to comply with the general concept of the mission of this website and it’s management.  Approved for submission by member #1087.

 
Avatar
Administrator
RankRankRankRankRank
Joined  2007-05-08

YesIAmAPyr:
ZeeZrom:

 Not taken as a jab.    Philosophically, I think you and I are closer together than our conversation on this particular issue.  But I am curious as to which proposed actions you see as responsible and common sense and which are likely not in the best interests of caring for the planet.

 

In my strange little world that I have worked for many years to build inside my own head, I am constantly tearing down some things and fortifying others.  So, take my commentary with the knowledge of from whence it spews forth...

 

Common sense: Living on this earth and KEEPING YOUR OWN NEST CLEAN, as well as taking care not to foul the nests of others.  Know well that every breath you take, your very existence impacts the earth, do all you can to minimize the trail you leave behind you.  By definition, I am a consumer.  It is well to be aware of that.  I try to consume no more than is necessary, with the awareness that throwing something away does not make it invisible.  I try not to live in discomfort, that would only make me more grumpy, but, excess is unnecessary and not a goal.  I feel that it is reasonable to enjoy whatever level of privelege I have earned through my labors, but, greed is ugly.  I try to be nice, I try to not be a jerk - My version of the golden rule.

 

Concerns:  Electric cars.  The grid is powered by the burning of fuel.  More electric cars, more load on the grid.  Batteries.  Disposal of this product after it's useful life can be a problem, especially if they proliferate.  CFL's.  They do not have the life that they have been touted, and they are again difficult to dispose of. 

Carbon offsets.  Bullshit to the extreme, designed only to relieve guilt.  Subsidizing alternate energy sources.  I would purchase a solar array for my house, but, I will not do so because taxpayers' hard earned money would be taken from them to subsidize my investment.

 

That's my box of chocolates. 

 

You never know what a Pirate'll say...

 

 Thanks!

 Signature 

Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn’t go away.


Phillip K. Dick

 
Avatar
Long Timer
RankRankRankRankRank
Joined  2007-04-12

ZeeZrom:

 Thanks!

 

 Signature 

-The Pirate...(arriving 200 years too late…)

...I’m not the first, won’t be the last.  Lust for the future, treasure the past… proud.jpg

“Make sure that your moral compass is set due ‘the right thing’.”  -Emerson Cod

This post has been reviewed for it’s content, and has been found to comply with the general concept of the mission of this website and it’s management.  Approved for submission by member #1087.

 
Member
RankRankRank
Joined  2008-12-05

YesIAmAPyr:

Q.: Why would scientists project false information by manipulating or outright falsifying data?

 

 

A.:  M. O. NEY.

 

 

 

P.T. Barnum was right.

"As part of a more general assault on the very notion of expertise, the narrative starts with a truism that is actually true:

 "Not every smart person is wise..."

only then extrapolates it, implicitly, to a blatant falsehood

"all smartypants are unwise, all the time; and my uninformed opinion is equal to any expert testimony."

Does that sound like a polemical stretch?  But it is precisely the implied subtext - a perverse kind of populism - at all levels of the War on Science.  In the specific case of GCC, since almost all top atmospheric scientists accept human-propelled climate change, they must be all cretins, corrupt, or cowards.

Here's a telling point. This uniformity of craven venality has to include even the ambitious postdocs and recently-tenured junior professors who, in every other field, sift constantly for some flaw in the current paradigm in order to go gunning after the big boys and thus make a reputation.  What, even the Young Guns are sellouts?  Even the paladins of skeptical enquiry are conspiring together in a grand cabal to...

...to what?  Ah, now the story gets even better.  All the scientists and post-docs are colluding to foist this scam, in order to win a few ten-thousand dollar grants.  This  loose-change-grubbing, paradigm slavery is cited to explain the GCC imbroglio -- while the oilcos and petroprinces, who operate major propaganda outlets and have TRILLIONS staked in the status quo... they have no agenda at all."

http://open.salon.com/blog/david_brin/2010/02/09/the_real_struggle_behind_climate_change_-_a_war_on_expertise

 

 

 
Avatar
Long Timer
RankRankRankRankRank
Joined  2007-04-12

I've blathered on to the limits of my dedication to the topic...

 

I said my piece.  Anything more will be more of the same.

 

So.

 

So long...

 

Thanks for all the fish. 

 

 

 

I concede.

 

<eta> well 'concede' isn't really the right word, because I wasn't arguing one particular 'side' or another.  I just am cautious about my sources before I commit to a 'cause'...so, I guess it's like I yield the floor.

 

<signed> not Smartypants...

 Signature 

-The Pirate...(arriving 200 years too late…)

...I’m not the first, won’t be the last.  Lust for the future, treasure the past… proud.jpg

“Make sure that your moral compass is set due ‘the right thing’.”  -Emerson Cod

This post has been reviewed for it’s content, and has been found to comply with the general concept of the mission of this website and it’s management.  Approved for submission by member #1087.

 
Member
RankRankRank
Joined  2008-12-05

YesIAmAPyr:

 

This isn't the situation that concerns me.  At the time, the timing and lack of detail caused me to give the 'memo leak' controversy wide berth.

 

The Himalayan Glacier reports, however, smack of some flawed research and reporting and is cause to be concerned about other information supported by the IPCC.  NOT disregard, mind you, just exercise some healthy skepticism, and possibly seeking out secondary sources to confirm any data put out by the IPCC.

Re: That Himalayan Glacier Prediction Error

Environment | Sun, Jan 24, 2010 at 11:30:05 am PST

While traveling I received several emails about the latest cause celebre of climate change “skeptics,” a badly sourced prediction that Himalayan glaciers could disappear by the year 2035, attributed to the World Wildlife Fund in an IPCC report. The London TimesOnline story about this was headlined, “World misled over Himalayan glacier meltdown,” which sounds pretty bad. Those evil scientismists, up to their tricksy ways again.

RealClimate has a good post on the issue, acknowledging the need to correct the error and work harder to ensure that poorly sourced claims aren’t included in IPCC documents — but also making the much larger point that although the 2035 prediction may not have been sourced properly, the glaciers of the Himalayas are still receding rapidly: RealClimate: The IPCC is not infallible (shock!).

Like all human endeavours, the IPCC is not perfect. Despite the enormous efforts devoted to producing its reports with the multiple levels of peer review, some errors will sneak through. Most of these will be minor and inconsequential, but sometimes they might be more substantive. As many people are aware (and as John Nieslen-Gammon outlined in a post last month and Rick Piltz goes over today), there is a statement in the second volume of the IPCC (WG2), concerning the rate at which Himalayan glaciers are receding that is not correct and not properly referenced.

The statement, in a chapter on climate impacts in Asia, was that the likelihood of the Himalayan glaciers “disappearing by the year 2035″ was “very high” if the Earth keeps warming at the current rate (WG 2, Ch. 10, p493), and was referenced to a World Wildlife Fund 2005 report. Examining the drafts and comments (available here), indicates that the statement was barely commented in the reviews, and that the WWF (2005) reference seems to have been a last minute addition (it does not appear in the First- or Second- Order Drafts). This claim did not make it into the summary for policy makers, nor the overall synthesis report, and so cannot be described as a ‘central claim’ of the IPCC. However, the statement has had some press attention since the report particularly in the Indian press, at least according to Google News, even though it was not familiar to us before last month.

It is therefore obvious that this error should be corrected (via some kind of corrigendum to the WG2 report perhaps), but it is important to realise that this doesn’t mean that Himalayan glaciers are doing just fine. They aren’t, and there may be serious consequences for water resources as the retreat continues. See also this review paper (Ren et al, 2006) on a subset of these glaciers.

Continued below.

 
Member
RankRankRank
Joined  2008-12-05

From littlegreenfootballs, continued: 

 

Here’s a little more perspective on this flawed prediction: it’s quoted only in one paragraph in the second volume of the IPCC’s fourth Assessment Report — and not in any of the technical summaries, which are more widely read, but only on page 493 of Chapter 10 of this very lengthy document on the impacts of climate change (PDF).

So yes, it’s a breakdown in the scientific vetting process for these kinds of claims, but on the other hand it’s been vastly exaggerated and blown up into a huge issue, far beyond what is warranted. If you’re really interested in the subject, I recommend at least glancing through the other 3000 pages of the AR4 documents to see how much information and research is not in question. (End of littlegreenfootballs.)

 

So -- as I understand it, in the second volume of a 3000 page document, a claim was improperly sourced? I'm shocked I tell you, shocked. That has never happened in the entire history of JAMA (Journal of American Medical Association). Okay -- maybe in one issue. Okay -- maybe once in every issue. Okay -- maybe sometimes more than once an issue.

 

And consequently you want to question all ICPP's work? That is a noble undertaking.

 

Let's look at the track record on the right. Geroge W.H. Bush deliberately altered the scientific testimony of NASA climate expert James Hansen to weaken his conclusions. So -- now you question all the science with that White House's seal of approval? You should. Reagan stalled a report on acid rain. Suspicious yet?

 
Member
RankRankRank
Joined  2008-12-05

I'll just do one paragraph from The Republican War on Science:

 

"Conservatives have repeatedly misrepresented the findings of a 2001 report from the highly respected National Academy of Science on climate change. The report responsibly discusses, at various points, lingering uncertainties in climate science. Nevertheless, it also confirms the robust conclusions of the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that humans are likely (i.e., the conlusion has a fairly high degree of scientific certainty attached to it) contributing to rising global average temperatures. In a classic case of mispresentation, conservatives have cited the uncertainties while ignoring or dismissing the affirmative conclusions."

 

p. 19-20

 
Member
RankRankRank
Joined  2008-12-05

YesIAmAPyr:

I've blathered on to the limits of my dedication to the topic...

 

I said my piece.  Anything more will be more of the same.

 

So.

 

So long...

 

Thanks for all the fish. 

 

 

 

I concede.

 

<eta> well 'concede' isn't really the right word, because I wasn't arguing one particular 'side' or another.  I just am cautious about my sources before I commit to a 'cause'...so, I guess it's like I yield the floor.

 

<signed> not Smartypants...

Sorry! I didn't see this or I wouldn't have argued on. And I make it seem as though I'm picking on you! But you weren't the one on the thread making the more outrageous claims. You always seemed pretty reasonable. You just have these short, telling posts that are easy to grab out of the cacophony of the discussion and respond to! I'm sorry -- because I'm making it seem as though your short, sweet and humorous retorts are all wrong -- and usually they are so amusing.

 

There is a lot of bad ideas and info out there, and most people haven't given it a lot of thought. If I seem as though I have a bee in my bonnet, it might be because I consider this a lot like belief in the BoM -- only more dangerous. After all, the fate of the planet doesn't depend on BoM, so if some people want to believe, whatever! But if people are fooled about climate change -- all mankind as well as nature suffers.

 

 
2 of 2
2
     
 


Our next project
will be announced soon.

Tax exempt status.
finex
Troubled Wife

Logged in: 2
Not logged in: 73
Logged in anonymous: 0
(Joined in last 24 hours)
 

Total members: 9665
Thinking about suicide again
by Brad (ZeeZrom)
QR Codes in hymn books
by Old Kinderhooker
Google
by Everton
Thread moved
by dave (e_nomo)
The New Noah Movie
by bamboom
Missionary weather question
by moronie-balonie