Copen' With Copenhagen - Grab a Hagen Das, and Enjoy

[JakeYYZ]

UN abandons climate change deadline


Link : http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/87479ee2-0600 ... ck_check=1

Huh? What about the "climate catastrophe"? What about "50 days" to save the world? Gee, it all seemed so dramatically important a few months ago. Now the UN announces that the January 31 deadline for new emissions targets was more of a suggested date? Worse than that, de Boer doesn't even suggest a new deadline?
I get the feeling Yvo de Boer is trying to get ahead of the story here.

Will Dr. Fruitfly now call for the UN to be jailed?

[Rockie]

All of those leaked emails undermine the credibility of the peer review process.

Those emails represent a tiny fraction of the peer reviewed work being done. You're grossly overstating the issue to suit your preconcieved notions, but you're certainly not alone in doing that.

people have opinions based on no facts all the time. That is what I have been saying.. this is an opinion not fact. When there are facts, my opinion will fall in line with those, until that point I will remain skeptical.

Those opinions are based on countless hours researching known facts and investigating causes. You make it sound like they pulled this stuff out of their ass which is absurd. And you aren't skeptical...you flat out refuse to accept scientific consensus. Refer to my asteroid analogy.

I have never contended that I will NEVER believe in MMGW.. I just don't believe in it right now. I am not closing my mind to the possibility, but to me, right now, without any irrefutable proof it is simply a possibility. You might be okay with opinion consensus supercedeing irrefutable proof, but that is why I call your science flawed... and that is the antithesis of skepticism under the scientific method.

I submit you won't accept anything as irrifutable proof. I at least defer to collective scientific wisdom...what do you defer to? Your vast knowledge on the subject? If scientific consensus is not enough for you what is? What in your mind would constitute irrifutable proof?

I only ask because you live your entire life doing things that you haven't seen irrefutable proof are possible. Those don't bother you so why does this cause you so much heartache?

[BoostedNihilist]

Those emails represent a tiny fraction of the peer reviewed work being done. You're grossly overstating the issue to suit your preconcieved notions, but you're certainly not alone in doing that.

Well, Im going to make the weakest link argument here.

Those opinions are based on countless hours researching known facts and investigating causes. You make it sound like they pulled this stuff out of their ass which is absurd. And you aren't skeptical...you flat out refuse to accept scientific consensus. Refer to my asteroid analogy.

Your asteroid parallel is not analogous. The russians can compute and predict when and where the asteroid will pass. You have said it yourself that the predictive abilities of the green lobby have yet to be fully developed. Your analogy would be better stated as the russians are saying an asteroid will pass by earth and that their science is sound because it passes earth. But that is not what has happened, the russians have come to a concrete solution repeatable and predictable... which is not what the green lobby has done.

So far, all the green lobby can tell us is that when the temperature goes up, the ice melts and the sea levels rise. That is all they can prove.. this is why they use 'consensus' because 'consensus' really just means 'the majority' and leaves no room for skepticism, because the 'majority' will always claim they are correct by consensus.. so.. see where my problem lies with consensus versus irrefutable proof?

I submit you won't accept anything as irrifutable proof. I at least defer to collective scientific wisdom...what do you defer to? Your vast knowledge on the subject? If scientific consensus is not enough for you what is? What in your mind would constitute irrifutable proof?

That is what you want to think about me so you can marginalize my questions, and logic. I would accept the consensus if the consensus could predict with accuracy, repeatably and quantify a proportional relationship between man made gasses and rise in temperature. Without this, I will not believe, I suggest, that you shouldn't either.

[Rockie]

That is what you want to think about me so you can marginalize my questions, and logic. I would accept the consensus if the consensus could predict with accuracy, repeatably and quantify a proportional relationship between man made gasses and rise in temperature. Without this, I will not believe, I suggest, that you shouldn't either.

They have quantified a proportional relationship. What they are trying to do now is take measures to keep the mean temperature rise at 2 degrees C because above that very bad things start to happen that will drastically alter water and food supply etc.

But putting an actual hard and fast repeatable number to something like that is pretty impossible given the almost unlimited variables and dynamic nature of the problem. Our environment and climate is not static, so how would you suggest they put repeatable consistent numbers to anything? Identifying trends and a proportional relationship is more than enough however to take action.

I am heartened though that you do not dismiss it out of hand like too many others who actually have influence on government. I just think the criteria that would actually convince you are circumstances that we don't want to reach.

[x-wind]

Just want to jump in and throw an interesting podcast into the spotlight.

It's from the CBC Ideas program and its called the "Deniers". It is not available anymore off of the CBC Ideas website but it is in the itunes library for free. The release date (to help find it) was July 7th 09.

This episode is with Lawrence Solomon who has written a book articling all the scientists who haven't followed the norm in 'promoting global warming hysteria'.

It is the first convincing argument I had heard that man-made global warming maybe more hype then science.

I also enjoyed the previous podcast titled "Climate Wars" with Gwynne Dye.

Cheers,

In my haste I missed the obvious, here is the podcast: http://castroller.com/podcasts/CbcRadioThe2/1153230

[BoostedNihilist]

I am heartened though that you do not dismiss it out of hand like too many others who actually have influence on government. I just think the criteria that would actually convince you are circumstances that we don't want to reach.

Dismissing something simply because I don't agree with it is the exact opposite of what I am about.

But putting an actual hard and fast repeatable number to something like that is pretty impossible given the almost unlimited variables and dynamic nature of the problem. Our environment and climate is not static, so how would you suggest they put repeatable consistent numbers to anything? Identifying trends and a proportional relationship is more than enough however to take action.

Well that impossibility due to the unlimited variables could obscure causation. And that is my point in its essence. That is why we have to be extremely careful of how we make the jump from correlation to causation. We could be missing the true cause (Which could be one of the almost unlimited amoutn of variables) and missing the solution to our problem. This is my contention.

I suspect you are correct however that whicever way this goes we will end up in a circumstance we don't want to reach.. which is why I have such a problem with the way skeptics are treated.. and by extension the method by which these scientists come to their conclusions and consensus. The skeptics, they are simply dismissed out of hand. I feel that rather than stigmafying the skeptics the scientific community should be accepting their concerns, and when the skeptics concerns are addressed the science will be sound because the skepticism will have been superceded by facts and science. I know you agree with the preceeding statement, so it shouldn't be a large jump for you to see that healthy scientific skepticism is taking a backseat to the unstoppable bandwagon which is the green lobby.

[Rockie]

I feel that rather than stigmafying the skeptics the scientific community should be accepting their concerns, and when the skeptics concerns are addressed the science will be sound because the skepticism will have been superceded by facts and science. I know you agree with the preceeding statement, so it shouldn't be a large jump for you to see that healthy scientific skepticism is taking a backseat to the unstoppable bandwagon which is the green lobby.

You're right, I do wholeheartedly agree with this statement and have said so (maybe not in those exact terms) in the past. Skeptics act as a crosscheck if you will, that keeps things from spinning off into the wrong direction. I also agree (and have said) that the more extreme end of the green lobby is just as bad as the opposite extreme of the deniers.

Lobbyists like Gore are different though than the brainy guys toiling away in the trenches who just want to get to the bottom of this. They are the ones I think we should be listening to. If what we hear in the press fundamentally disagreed with what they think then we would hear about it. But that's not happening, so in the middle of whatever campaign might be waged is the same fundamental message as far as I'm concerned.

[BibleMonkey]

Rex Murphy

" So, whatever happened to Copenhagen?

A little (a very little) global warming humour:

Q. How is the recently concluded Copenhagen climate conference like the Medieval Warm Period?

A. They both may be seen to disappear when it serves a noble purpose.

Well, I warned it was very little. But, then again, global warming is a very earnest, if not positively sullen topic, and to mine even an atom of a joke from all of the frenzied evangelism of self-appointed environmentalist groups, the grim coven that ran the now celebrated labs in East Anglia, or from our modern day catastrophist Savonarola, Al Gore, is too much even for the most deep-mining humourist.

But however doomed the effort, it is worth the strain to re-summon the spectre of the Copenhagen festival. The prelude to the event was a blizzard, a windstorm, a tsunami of worldwide press attention. The myriad and extremely well-orchestrated voices of climate alarmism had warned the world of its importance. Copenhagen was make or break for the planet. It was do or die.

Either Copenhagen would prove to be a greater Kyoto, a summit that crafted binding resolutions on the carbon-belching nations of the world, or it would be but a little while that we passed the “tipping point,” and poor Mother Gaia and her shielding atmosphere would be sent inexorably on the path to ecological doom.

Island states would be deluged, a new tropics would settle over our northern climes, millions would be displaced or worse and rogue mankind would have missed its last best chance to halt the sultry drift into global ruin.

The buildup to the Copenhagen conference had better writers than the Book of Revelations (and certainly better press management). All that was missing from the drum-roll of anticipation for the summit was a walk-on part for The Great Whore of Babylon to add a little lurid colour to its vision of meteorological apocalypse.

And then the summit met. Forty-five thousand of the most professionally worried people on the planet, jetted and limousined their way, with a blissful unconsciousness of the titantic carbon propulsion it took to get them there, into Copenhagen for two weeks.

They yammered. They press-released. They fossil-awarded like mad. And they went home. Finis.

That was it.

Three days after the great gloom-bazaar, it was hard to find a sentient human being on this threatened planet who had a word to say, or a thought to waste, on Copenhagen. If I knew the Latin for “What happened?” (and I am for once unwilling to Google-cheat for the knowledge) this is where I’d drop it. After all this splendid fanfare, after so glorious an overture — what happened to the symphony?


If all of those voices of the environmental groups, the hectic NGOs, the potentates and activists, the missionary scientists truly believed their own press releases before the conference, then its culmination in frustration and impotence must have registered with devastating effect.

But in the days after Copenhagen, they and the world seemed to be spinning quite as calmly as before.

Well, not quite as calmly.

The toxic radiations from Climategate, that sad stream of emails leaked on the eve of the great summit, had percolated through the media and to the wider audience at large. Those who took the trouble to read them caught a glimpse of the sullenness, rivalry, distemper and outright mischief that some of the scientists at the very centre of the whole global warming industry brought to their task.

The picture presented was one of pre-commitment to a point of view, of a gloomy, angry and ruthless determination to keep “outsiders” off their turf. Peer review, the very gold standard of science, was shown to be a closed circle.

Journals that thought the approved way were fine: Others were to be derogated, taken off the mailing list. Science as a closed shop of the right-minded, science in alliance with activism, was the real revelation of Climategate.

More followed Climategate, as all now know, not least the monstrous claims about the Himalyan glaciers (purported to be ready to melt away in 2035!). This is why the Copenhagen Conference for all its extravagant hype and buildup simply disappeared from the press and the public mind on the instant of its conclusion.

Because, via Climategate, the world caught the first real glimpse of how politicized and manipulated this “greatest issue of our time” had been allowed to become. Saw as well how the sacred impartiality of science, and the great authority of peer review, had been suborned for something as political in its way as the average day’s outing in Question Period.

No one’s really talking about the failure of Copenhagen now because the ostensible threat to humanity was shown to be shrouded in hype. Al Gore and his crew simply don’t have now what we used to call “the face” to deliver another grand and imperiously moralizing lecture to the world and its carbon-consuming innocents after the travesty revealed in Climategate and the clutter of revelations that followed it."


======
" ....If what we hear in the press fundamentally disagreed with what they think then we would hear about it. But that's not happening...."

I suppose if ones' mind is already made up, selective deafness ensues.... ( )

ClimateGate


GlacierGate


Pachaurigate

The EPA's house of cards covering global warming

Hurricanegate

World Wildlifegate

AmazonGate

[Siddley Hawker]

Well blow me down!!! There hasn't been any global warming since 1995, sez Dr. Phil.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... nised.html

[BibleMonkey]

I prefer reading to video ( it's faster ) as a way to gather info.

For those that prefer video ( which media has different merits , I suppose ) MIT’s Richard Lindzen and University of Vancouver’s Hadi Dowlatabadi have a 52 minute discussion on the Canadian TVO Channel program _The Agenda with Steve Paiken_.

Both scientists downplayed the fearmongering , and although not necessarily a confrontational "debate " , you may find their talk informative.

I lean towards Lindzens view.

inevitable 30 second commercial first

"Climate I: Is the debate over?"
http://www.tvo.org/TVO/WebObjects/TVO.w ... 1356252001