PDA

View Full Version : Copenhagen



polystyle desu
26-11-2009, 04:34 AM
is coming,
after those meetings with China and India recently will everyone come to the table...
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/26/us/politics/26climate.html?hp

polystyle desu
26-11-2009, 03:33 PM
I guess a tread on enviornment /climate could have gone elsewhere,
but being the politicorp mindset has been the part dragging it's collective feet ...

But ah, China chimes in ...
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/27/science/earth/27climate.html?_r=1&hp

aiming for some ... consensus in Copenhagen

Stagger
27-11-2009, 12:04 PM
I am a writer looking for activists and protestors to hang with at the conference. I am covering the street scene and treatment of demonstrators at the hands of the Politi.

Please get in touch.

Thanks

polystyle desu
27-11-2009, 05:17 PM
Cheers Stagger, please report from the scene(s) if anything happens.
Ahh the big 'if' - it's not going to be easy.
The industrials got breaks in the Congress bill that hopefully may not make it into the Senate bill.
http://roomfordebate.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/27/obamas-climate-goals-vs-the-senates/?hp

mixed_biscuits
02-12-2009, 05:28 PM
Artist's impression of the conference in Copenhagen:

http://images.bidorbuy.co.za/user_images/749/1227749_090930094715_Asterix_Falling_Sky_01.JPG

paolo
03-12-2009, 10:29 AM
Are you saying that all the concern about climate change is just a big fuss about nothing?

mixed_biscuits
03-12-2009, 02:01 PM
The concern about anthropogenic global warming is probably a fuss over nothing, yes.

I wouldn't be surprised if the public as a whole is beginning to move to a sceptical position, given the uncertainty of the science (based on modelling rather than empirical practice), the behaviour of the scientists (their supporting data seems somewhat short of being in the public domain) and the string of scare stories that precedes this one (the boy who cried wolf).

I spent a little while as a post-grad Geographer and we had visiting lecturers presenting personally produced data that both corroborated and denied (heh) the warming story. In fact, an ice-core specialist prognosticated an imminent cooling and urged us to pollute MORE.

I'm quite happy to spare resources, live sustainably and cleanly etc but am not keen to buy into the latest end time cult.

Mr. Tea
03-12-2009, 03:28 PM
The concern about anthropogenic global warming is probably a fuss over nothing, yes.

With respect, that's easy for you to say: you're not facing imminent starvation (or slaughter/displacement by the tribe next door) because it didn't rain properly this year again, or about to be made homeless by rising sea levels.



I wouldn't be surprised if the public as a whole is beginning to move to a sceptical position, given the uncertainty of the science (based on modelling rather than empirical practice), the behaviour of the scientists (their supporting data seems somewhat short of being in the public domain) and the string of scare stories that precedes this one (the boy who cried wolf).

Bollocks to what the public think, that doesn't affect the climatic reality. The point about models vs. empirical data is a red herring: what do you think the models are based on? It's hard to make predictions about the future without having a model, unless you know a good soothsayer or own a time machine. And the empirical data shows a warming trend over the last 50-100 years, which has drastically accelerated over the last decade or so.

The known facts are as follows:


The global climate is changing - this is now beyond doubt;
For most of the world this change means warming, which is already having severe effects on rainfall in arid regions, snow/ice cover at high altitudes, ice cover at sea and sea levels;
These changes are already having drastic effects on human populations;
This change is happening rapidly, more rapidly in fact than it was predicted even by the best models from 10-15 years ago, which no-one at the time thought were unduly optimistic;
This change seems much too rapid to be explained by non-anthropogenic sources, eg. natural variations in the Eath's orbit.




I spent a little while as a post-grad Geographer and we had visiting lecturers presenting personally produced data that both corroborated and denied (heh) the warming story. In fact, an ice-core specialist prognosticated an imminent cooling and urged us to pollute MORE.

There may have been (some) room for genuine doubt even just a few years ago, but the picture I've painted above is becoming more and more cemented as new data come in and models are refined.



I'm quite happy to spare resources, live sustainably and cleanly etc but am not keen to buy into the latest end time cult.

Not even one with a basis in sound science? Taking an edgy dissenting view is not going to be much use when the whole world's gone to buggery-fuck.

mixed_biscuits
03-12-2009, 03:44 PM
I'm not talking about empirical data, I want experiments that can be repeated (ie. chuck a lot of CO2 into a jar 30,000 feet high, heat the jar by a huge, permanently exploding ball of gas, see whether a block of ice in the corner of the jar melts or something). At the least I would like to have easy access to the basic data that the scientists are using. Unhappily for me, it seems the dog ate it. (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936328.ece)

Models are gash: they are based on numerous assumptions which have not been or cannot be verified, inevitably miss random or complex effects and have their own cultural histories (having been calibrated according to other models). They're part of one great circular argument.

And as far as emotive sob stories go, how about the economic and thus social consequences of imposing draconian limits on developing countries' emissions?

Mr. Tea
03-12-2009, 05:35 PM
I'm not talking about empirical data, I want experiments that can be repeated (ie. chuck a lot of CO2 into a jar 30,000 feet high, heat the jar by a huge, permanently exploding ball of gas, see whether a block of ice in the corner of the jar melts or something).

That experiment would tell you about the behaviour of some gas and ice in a jar. Would it be a good physical model of the whole world? I'd bet my bollocks it would be completely useless. However, it is well established that carbon dioxide has the property of being transparent to visible light and near infra-red but opaque to thermal IR. So, pending some startling evidence to the contrary, it seems reasonable to conclude that a greater concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere will cause it to trap more heat. It is not, as they say, rocket science.

(You obviously can't do an experiment on the entire planet to prove some ecological hypothesis, any more than you can do an experiment on the universe to prove some cosmological result. They're called environmental sciences; sciences that study very large complex systems that can be observed but not directly experimented on in a lab, as such. Of course you can do experiments on, say, a sample of CO2 and then extrapolate from that to draw conclusions on the likely effect it has on the atmosphere as a whole.)



At the least I would like to have easy access to the basic data that the scientists are using. Unhappily for me, it seems the dog ate it. (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936328.ece)

The fact that some scientists were strapped for storage space hardly invalidates the whole hypothesis. And there are scientists all over the world doing this research; it's not like the conclusions rest on results from one team at one university.



Models are gash: they are based on numerous assumptions which have not been or cannot be verified, inevitably miss random or complex effects and have their own cultural histories (having been calibrated according to other models). They're part of one great circular argument.

Of course they can be verified! Take data, build model, make prediction, compare prediction to new data 5/10/15 years down the line. As I said earlier, models used in the 90s gave predictions that underestimated the rate of warming.



And as far as emotive sob stories go, how about the economic and thus social consequences of imposing draconian limits on developing countries' emissions?

Well for one thing, simply denying that it's happening at all because one group of scientists threw away some data is not really a rational response. For another, there are all sorts of things that could be (and, in some very limited and tentative ways, are being) done: development aid concentrating on sustainable practices, for example. But it's missing the point to focus entirely on developing countries anyway, because although that's where the big growth in GHG emissions is happening it's still the developed world that's been responsible for most of the effects so far and it's those developed countries that have the resources (financial, intellectual, structural) to develop cleaner energy resources and attempt to guide the development of the rest of the world in a direction that can best mitigate climatic effects without condemning its citizens to eternal poverty.

I say 'mitigate' because this is one train that's not going to stop any time soon, so it's a case of trying to slow it down a bit rather than stop it completely, let alone reverse it.

sufi
03-12-2009, 05:39 PM
I am a writer looking for activists and protestors to hang with at the conference. I am covering the street scene and treatment of demonstrators at the hands of the Politi.

Please get in touch.

Thanks


Next week the world's leaders will meet in Copenhagen to bang out a deal to counter the dangerous effects of climate change.

It's a critical moment for all of us - Nick Griffin is attending the climate summit. He's said that he's going to expose the "somewhat dodgy" evidence surrounding climate change.

The BNP claim that climate change is a "global Marxist mantra" designed to "impose a one world government."

The BNP's website currently describes the Copenhagen Summit as an "anti-white guilt hatefest which will see billions more taxpayers' cash poured into the Third World."

:eek:

bruno
03-12-2009, 06:07 PM
politicians are compromised and generally have no idea what they're talking about, especially when it comes to science. i can't wait for aliens to enslave the human population and destroy everything, we really are hopeless.

mixed_biscuits
03-12-2009, 06:53 PM
You obviously can't do an experiment on the entire planet to prove some ecological hypothesis, any more than you can do an experiment on the universe to prove some cosmological result.

If scientists are so great, why can't they build a fake earth, seed it with a basic form of climate change and get the Large Hardon Inseminator to pump it into space?


Of course they can be verified! Take data, build model, make prediction, compare prediction to new data 5/10/15 years down the line. As I said earlier, models used in the 90s gave predictions that underestimated the rate of warming.

This just proves how vague they are. I dare say that none of them foresaw the slight, but important, temperature decline of 2007, either, which presages the coming ice age.


Well for one thing, simply denying that it's happening at all because one group of scientists threw away some data is not really a rational response.

Well, this data is the empirical evidence in its purest form - not having access is to it makes formulating a rational response difficult, as one is not in possession of the facts. The data should be regathered.

So in the absence of the most important information, the layman is resigned to weighing up claims on the basis of the authority behind them and having faith in their pronouncements. The problem is that the authorities have only weight of numbers behind them and, as we all know for the big questions, it is the minority who are right (Copernicus, Galileo), not the majority. In fact we should be downright suspicious of the majority, as they're the guys who are normally carrying pitchforks.

Ideally, I would be shooting my own scale model of the earth into space with personally configured experimentation devices relaying unsullied data back to my politically neutral, non-governmentally funded pda, but I have neither the scientific training nor the overdraft facility to enable such an ambitious project (yet).

Another laymanly response is to go meta and assess the latest scare story using the outcomes of the ones that precede it: bird flu, millennium bug, global cooling, acid rain, SARS, swine flu, BSE LOL: damp squibs, the lot of them. This would literally be the first ever scare story to be justified. Scare stories that happen are not things that we have time to get scared about: Spanish flu, Hitler, the Great Fire of London, Arrested Development getting cancelled, Susan Boyle.

mixed_biscuits
03-12-2009, 07:07 PM
Wait a minute, I forgot: BSE IS A TIMEBOMB, WE IZ ALL STILL GOING 2 DIE LMAO

Scientists and politicians have to exaggerate the dangers and tell us their worse case scenario to cover their asses. This should be patently clear after the fuss over swine flu, with some experts predicting a number of deaths 10 000 times (http://www.metro.co.uk/news/635961-swine-flu-could-kill-up-to-120m) greater than the number killed so far.

If I divide the worst case scenario for global warming (7 degrees C over the next 100 years) by 10 000, we get an adjusted increase of 0.0007 C, barely enough to heat a weevil's mittens.

bruno
03-12-2009, 07:23 PM
I wouldn't be surprised if the public as a whole is beginning to move to a sceptical position, given the uncertainty of the science

the public understands climate change even less than politicians, if that is possible. i'll trust a scientist a thousand times over the schizophrenic opinion of the public (mine included).

polystyle desu
03-12-2009, 10:26 PM
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/04/world/asia/04india.html?_r=1&hp

Mr. Tea
03-12-2009, 10:31 PM
If scientists are so great, why can't they build a fake earth, seed it with a basic form of climate change and get the Large Hardon Inseminator to pump it into space?

Hey, we're working on it! Gissa break. ;)

All I'll say for the rest of it is that it is pretty understandable thatr the original data was discarded. Bear in mind that these days, a couple of GB sits quite happily on a nice durable DVD-ROM, but back in the '80s when the data was taken this would have been stored on megametres of magnetic tape (and some of it was on paper, fopr heaven's sake), which is liable to decay and corrupt over time. Back then they probably had no idea how important the data was: in the '80s the green lobby was all about pandas, Sellafield and the ozone layer, there wasn't this ubiquitous emphasis on climate change/warming that there is now. And having worked on one of the LHC experiments, I know how much of a logistical issue it can be to work with and store vast amounts of data; if you don't have the space, you sometimes have to make the executive decision to delete, or in this case just throw away, old data to make room for new data, if the old data isn't important anymore. According to the Times article, the data they discarded came from miscalibrated instruments, so they recalibrated their data and discarded the old, inaccurate data. Probably without realising how much political weight their conclusions would carry 20+ years down the line.


bird flu, millennium bug, global cooling, acid rain, SARS, swine flu, BSE LOL: damp squibs, the lot of them. This would literally be the first ever scare story to be justified. Scare stories that happen are not things that we have time to get scared about: Spanish flu, Hitler, the Great Fire of London, Arrested Development getting cancelled, Susan Boyle.

Most of those scare stories were whipped up by the media, not scientists. Wide sections of the media remain climate-sceptical today (look at the infamous documentary aired by C4 a few years ago). Acid rain is still a massive problem in Scandinavia and for all we know a BSE pandemic may have been averted precisely because action was taken in time to stop cattle being fed the remains of other cattle and because herds with known infections were culled.

paolo
04-12-2009, 09:07 AM
So in the absence of the most important information, the layman is resigned to weighing up claims on the basis of the authority behind them and having faith in their pronouncements. The problem is that the authorities have only weight of numbers behind them and, as we all know for the big questions, it is the minority who are right (Copernicus, Galileo), not the majority. In fact we should be downright suspicious of the majority, as they're the guys who are normally carrying pitchforks.


Are you saying that minorities are always right?


Next week the world's leaders will meet in Copenhagen to bang out a deal to counter the dangerous effects of climate change.

It's a critical moment for all of us - Nick Griffin is attending the climate summit. He's said that he's going to expose the "somewhat dodgy" evidence surrounding climate change.

The BNP claim that climate change is a "global Marxist mantra" designed to "impose a one world government."

The BNP's website currently describes the Copenhagen Summit as an "anti-white guilt hatefest which will see billions more taxpayers' cash poured into the Third World."

mixed_biscuits
04-12-2009, 10:09 AM
The minorities argument was one of the less serious in my post.

Paolo, tell me what in climate change policy is there not to like for leftists?

As far as guilt tripping goes, the rhetoric is perfect: through our very existence we are polluters, as every one of us pumps out a constant stream of carbon dioxide. Ironically enough, it's firmly Catholic: Man is Fallen.

No wonder people end up saying 'I can't wait for aliens to enslave the human population and destroy everything, we really are hopeless;' without being aware of it, they have internalised this sense of guilt. Funny that it expresses itself as misanthropy, isn't it? I wonder why that might be? (http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/6290/)

scottdisco
04-12-2009, 11:11 AM
As far as guilt tripping goes, the rhetoric is perfect

it's one thing to spin the facts but please don't cod psychologise about everyone else off the basis of a few infantile earth firsters, hair-shirt leftists, Johann Hari or whoever.

BTW Frank Furedi is notorious wrt climate change. he and that whole U of Kent, Canterbury/Institute of Ideas/Claire Fox {sic}/Mick Hume in The Times/Brendan O'Neill/spiked! online network have been vigorously attacking climate change scientists and activists for many, many years (when they're not busy talking utter shit about Bosnia and Rwanda), whatever he has to say on this particular subject is less than worthless.

mixed_biscuits
04-12-2009, 11:28 AM
whatever he has to say on this particular subject is less than worthless.

You give no substantive argument, so I assume that they're just 'worthless' because they've consistently disagreed with what you believe. Heretics! Have them burnt at the stake! ;)

The question is still open: what is there not to like about climate change policy, for those of a leftist bent?

scottdisco
04-12-2009, 11:44 AM
You give no substantive argument, so I assume that they're just 'worthless' because they've consistently disagreed with what you believe. Heretics! Have them burnt at the stake! ;)

The question is still open: what is there not to like about climate change policy, for those of a leftist bent?

hey, i'm as up for feel-good, self-righteous libertarian arguments attacking good-hearted, if grandstanding, church leaders and New Labourites as much as the next bod :)

but it's just i'm not really interested in the overall pose of Furedi, however, or - indeed - the question about what there is not to like about climate change policy for those of a leftist bent (i came on the thread to observe by implication that the vast majority of scientists support the climate change thesis, and nothing else, and are not offering to address the question you cite, incidentally); i am just observing the article above is of a piece w Furedi's very, very long-running (almost tediously so) trope on climate change and the nanny state, a rather 'wah! boo, he took my toys away' style that Furedi is so competent at (his colleague Mick Hume is energetic w this too).

vimothy
04-12-2009, 11:55 AM
Guess this is unsurprising, but still:


We provide quantitative evidence linking past internal armed conflict incidence to variations in temperature, finding substantial increases in conflict during warmer years, and we use this relationship to build projections of the potential effect of climate change on future conflict risk in Africa.

ÖWhen combined with climate model projections of future temperature trends, this historical response to temperature suggests a roughly 54% increase in armed conflict incidence by 2030, or an additional 393,000 battle deaths if future wars are as deadly as recent wars.

http://www.econ.berkeley.edu/~emiguel/pdfs/miguel_climate.pdf

mixed_biscuits
04-12-2009, 11:58 AM
Tee-hee

Acknowledged re Furedi and Hume

The issue of whether climate change policy is germane to leftists is very important, notwithstanding the fact that the identity of those who propound a belief doesn't have a bearing on whether the belief is justified or not.

scottdisco
04-12-2009, 12:07 PM
scary stuff, Vim.


Tee-hee

Acknowledged re Furedi and Hume

The issue of whether climate change policy is germane to leftists is very important, notwithstanding the fact that the identity of those who propound a belief doesn't have a bearing on whether the belief is justified or not.

strongly agreed wrt your closing thoughts, of course.

and tee hee indeed, my MO - that a priori views are clearly bad - often goes out the window when the spiked! crew are mentioned, i'm afraid :o

(as Craner would tell you.)

vimothy
04-12-2009, 12:50 PM
The issue of whether climate change policy is germane to leftists is very important, notwithstanding the fact that the identity of those who propound a belief doesn't have a bearing on whether the belief is justified or not.

Interestingly, it's might also be true that "leftists" (a pretty broad brush!) don't like the more obvious solutions to climate change, like more or better defined property rights: http://www.env-econ.net/2009/12/from-the-nytimes-comes-a-great-example-of-climate-change-issues-tree-harvester-offers-to-save-indonesian-forests-first-th.html

Mr. Tea
04-12-2009, 12:54 PM
The question is still open: what is there not to like about climate change policy, for those of a leftist bent

Well there's a sizeable segment of the hard left these days that is openly contemptuous of 'green' politics generally - Zizek certainly has little time for it.

Then there's the leftist argument that if the developed world is allowed to be, er, devloped, then the rest of the world is too. Leftists aren't necessarily opposed to industry, are they? Z-boy for one is pretty much the exact opposite of a hippy (which is why I'm starting to develop a certain respect for him ;) - though of course I still think this kind of cavalier anti-environmentalism is a very dangerous attitude).



Heretics! Have them burnt at the stake! ;)

In spirit, yes - we're currently investigating a carbon-neutral process for disposing of heretics.

vimothy
04-12-2009, 01:08 PM
I think I have a reasonable feel for the development issues, but not so much the actual science. Mr Tea, can you sum up the state of knowledge for us in one easy to digest post, and throw in a few links and that?

mixed_biscuits
04-12-2009, 01:41 PM
Hmm yes good points.

paolo
04-12-2009, 02:25 PM
Got to say that climate change seems to be more of a concern for Grauniad-reading types (such as myself) than it does for Telegraph-reading types. However, science isn't realyy supposed to be political, it's supposed to be about observation and suchlike. Sorry if I took you one of your points a bit too seriously by the way :)

Mr. Tea
04-12-2009, 02:27 PM
I think I have a reasonable feel for the development issues, but not so much the actual science. Mr Tea, can you sum up the state of knowledge for us in one easy to digest post, and throw in a few links and that?

Oh blimey, I've probably made myself sound much more knowledgeable on this than I actually am, but here goes anyway - most of it will be just be stuff I remeber from lectures, articles, TV programmes or whatever, so I'll try and flesh it out with some links later.

Basically CO2 is transparent to visible light and what's called 'near' infra-red, i.e. IR near the visible part of the spectrum. Most of the Sun's energy output is in the form of this kind of radiation (there's also UV, but on Earth most of that is blocked by the ozone layer). This light is absorbed by the Earth's surface which then re-emits the energy in the form of much longer-wavelength radiation, i.e. far IR. This is because the hotter (cooler) an object is, the shorter (longer) the peak wavelength it emits in - so a blue flame is hotter than a yellow one, for instance.

Anyway, CO2 is opaque to far IR so this energy radiated back up into the sky is either absorbed by the atmosphere or reflected back down to the surface. Glass does much the same thing, which is how a greenhouse works and why the global analogue is called the greenhouse effect. The result is a heating of the surface, the sea and the lower atmosphere. In itself, this is no bad thing as without it the Earth would be unable to support much in the way of life - it would be too hot on the day side and too cold on the night side, like Mercury, which has no atmosphere - of course the atmosphere helps protect us from solar radiation, as well us insulate us from the cold of space. So it's due to the greenhouse that the planet is hospitable to complex life in the first place.

Now it's well established that the amout of CO2 in the atmosphere changes over time, and that this has an effect on the climate. There's a very complex feedback system and some its elements are better understood than others. So you've got carbon sinks, i.e. stored masses of carbon that are not free in the atmosphere in the form of CO2 - the one people mostly focus on is the rainforests, because these are the 'lungs of the planet' to coin a cliche, fixing carbon and releasing oxygen. But actually the biggest carbon sink is the ocean, both in the biomass of plant plankton and in the form of CO2 simply dissolved in the water. Warmer water is less good at holding dissolved CO2 than cooler water - cf. opening a tepid can of Coke vs. a can straight from the fridge - so as ocean temperatures rise less CO2 is absorbed and you have a positive feedback effect, accelerating warming. Then there are other gasses which also contribute to the greenhouse effects, such as CH4 (methane) which is much worse than CO2, kg for kg. A major source of this is farting cattle, as you may have heard. Another is organic material undergoing anaerobic decay, which happens when dead plants rot underwater; one source is paddy fields in E/SE Asia and another, annoyingly, is submerged vegetation in lakes created by hydroelectric projects which are generally seen as greener than burning fossil fuels because they don't release CO2. Even water vapour is implicated, because although it can help shield the Earth from solar radiation it also has greenhouse properties (I think), and one effect of warming is increased cloud cover due to faster evaporation from the oceans.

And melting ice dilutes the ocean's salinity, which has knock-on effects for its overall chemistry and dynamics, for example reducing mixing between surface and deep waters which further reduces its carbon capacity. And so on and so on...as you can appreciate that the complexity of the whole phenomenon is, well, phenomenal.

All I'll mention about how much of this is due to natural variation and how much is anthropogenic is to say that rate of change seems to be much faster than at any time we can accurately reconstruct, and has accelerated as global industrial development has accelerated over the past century or so.

Edit: as promised, a few links...


The fact of increasing global average temperatues in the recent past is not, itself, up for debate. (http://austcom.org.au/uploads/pics/gtc2008.gif)

Correlation between atmospheric CO2 content and mean temperature, over the last 400,000 years. I don't think anyone contests the correlation but some sceptics of man-made climate change say that CO2 levels lag behind temperature, implying the opposite causality from that promoted by mainstream climate science. Note the big spike at the far right of the graph (the x-axis is reversed, so '0' is today and age of data increases to the right). (http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/last_400k_yrs.html)


Sunspots are thought to be a good indicator of the Sun's power output, which changes over time. Observations of sunspot numbers indicates that although low solar activity may have been responsible for cool conditions between the end of the Middle Ages and the mid-19th century - the so-called 'little ice age' - the number of sunspots has stabilised since about 1950, the period of fastest warming within reconstructable history. So something other than solar variation must have an important climatic effect. (http://austcom.org.au/typo3temp/pics/00eb8c43e7.png)

Methane is about 20 times more effective as a greenhouse gas than CO2, and is produced by all kinds of human activity. (http://www.epa.gov/methane/)

Methane from cattle is often used an argument for eating less meat... (http://www.scienceline.org/2007/03/23/env_knight_ipcccows/)

...but it would be rather unreasonable to ask people in south and east Asia to simply 'stop eating so much rice' because of its associated CH4 emissions. (http://www.ghgonline.org/methanerice.htm)

Wikipedia has some nice extensive articles on most of these issues - look up 'carbon sink' especially and the section on the role of seawater in regulating atmospheric CO2.

padraig (u.s.)
04-12-2009, 03:22 PM
The data should be regathered.

and who's going to fund that? you?


The problem is that the authorities have only weight of numbers behind them and, as we all know for the big questions, it is the minority who are right (Copernicus, Galileo), not the majority.

I don't care how unserious this point is, it is plainly wrong. the dudes you mentioned are the exception to the rule; most iconoclasts are either nuts, dead wrong, or both. which doesn't mean the majority view is always correct, just that contrarians don't have a better accuracy record. this point is important b/c climate change critics often declare - with much drama - that it's all a totalitarian scheme/groupthink/etc. and that skeptics are or ignored &/or silenced by some kind of science mafia. and not just the BNP either; my personal favorite is this U.S. Senator (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Inhofe#Environmental_issues), who has claimed, among other things, that global warming is a leftwing plot, a hoax, and most astoundingly, Weather Channel conspiracy to boost ratings (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wm_J8SG5E9c). (no, I didn't make that up, unfortunately. he's actually, unbelievably, on the Environmental & Public Works Committee)

it's all very tedious. I esp. like how you try to have it both ways. simultaneously it's a leftist guilt trip and a chance for the developed countries to screw the undeveloped world, which presumably is exactly the kind of thing leftists are against.

padraig (u.s.)
04-12-2009, 03:30 PM
also, I should say - not every environmentalist is a leftist & vice versa. don't conflate the two.

vimothy
04-12-2009, 03:32 PM
Nice one, Mr Tea.

mixed_biscuits
04-12-2009, 03:48 PM
and who's going to fund that? you?

Yes, of course. If regathering data helps shore up the case for spending billions down the line, then however many hundred thousands or few million it might take is worth it. Quite apart from meeting the requirement for open and informed scientific exchange.


I esp. like how you try to have it both ways. simultaneously it's a leftist guilt trip and a chance for the developed countries to screw the undeveloped world, which presumably is exactly the kind of thing leftists are against.

Well, the priority for the leftists, in this conspiracy theory, is to dismantle industrialised, capitalist societies; if they haven't yet been mantled, as in the undeveloped world, then all the better.

Environmentalists tend to be on the left, the left tends to be environmentalist - just look at the differing coverage on climate change in the Guardian compared to the Telegraph.

Mr. Tea
04-12-2009, 03:49 PM
and who's going to fund that? you?


I missed the 'regathering' line from m_b's post - another point is that if some of that data was taken on climatic conditions recorded live in the '80s it obviously can't be regathered, because it isn't the '80s any more!



my personal favorite is this U.S. Senator, who has claimed, among other things, that global warming is a leftwing plot, a hoax, and most astoundingly, Weather Channel conspiracy to boost ratings.

Reminds me of the plot of one of the Brosnan 007 movies in which a media mogul tries to start WWIII to sell newspapers. Fucksake, any Bond villain worth his plutonium should be trying to start WWIII for its own sake!

As you intimate, it's one of those would-be-funny-if-it-weren't-so-serious type situations.

mixed_biscuits
04-12-2009, 04:22 PM
if some of that data was climatic conditions recorded live in the '80s it obviously can't be regathered, because it isn't the '80s any more!

O rly?

http://awmusic.ca/1/photos//HLIC/5e7a9bc76be4695c2e20db5dc9d06a82.jpg

Mr. Tea
04-12-2009, 04:27 PM
She's behind the times - '80s is so 2002.

padraig (u.s.)
04-12-2009, 09:37 PM
Well, the priority for the leftists, in this conspiracy theory, is to dismantle industrialised, capitalist societies; if they haven't yet been mantled, as in the undeveloped world, then all the better.

have you ever, ah, met any leftists? traditionally they've wanted more industrial development, not less. you're referring to a very particular strain of thought - primitivism - which is not only fringe but also often antagonistic to traditional leftism. there was a big split betwen trad leftists & Earth First types for a long time - see Dave Foreman's infamous comments on famine & AIDS or Edward Abbey (an NRA-supporter) on immigration. and, course, as as CC skeptics etc are fond of pointing out, the Nazis were interested in ecology, animal welfare & conservation (as well as, I seem to recall, industrial development), while the USSR & the PRC are both infamous for environmental depredation.

but then I realize you don't really mean "leftists", you mean bourgeois liberals who read...


the differing coverage on climate change in the Guardian

as I don't read the Guardian or the Telegraph, I can only assume they're fairly analogous to, respectively, the NYT & the Wall Street Journal (minus the latter's focus on business). so what you're really inferring is some kind of insidious & far-reaching plot between some stereotype of latte-sipping liberal groupthink, evil scientists and another stereotype of a wild-eyed radical aching to tear down industrial civilization. a plot which you, contrarian exemplaire, will fight to your dying breath to save us poor deluded fools from our mass hysteria & doomsday cults. something along those lines, anyway? it sounds plausible, I guess.

padraig (u.s.)
04-12-2009, 09:51 PM
in which a media modgul tries to start WWIII to sell newspapers

the irony being that no one would buy those newspapers anyway.

w/r/t James Inhofe, he's the absolute king of decontextualizing, misusing & abusing scientific data to "prove" his inane points. Inhofe is kinda all-around awesome; he bases his unwavering support on Israel on his literal belief in the Book of Genesis (http://inhofe.senate.gov/pressreleases/peace.htm). it is *only in the United States*-style craziness. Michele Bachmann is another favorite; Tea, I suggest you look up her speech on CO2 being a "natural byproduct of nature" for a good simultaneous laugh/cry. she's another Biblical literalist, of course. at least you're on the side of the angels, Biscuit. Glenn Beck's on your team as well - always a good sign when you're on the same side of an issue as Mr. 9-12 Project. Beck and Galileo, two peas in a pod, really.

Mr. Tea
05-12-2009, 02:50 AM
Michele Bachmann is another favorite; Tea, I suggest you look up her speech on CO2 being a "natural byproduct of nature" for a good simultaneous laugh/cry.

Hahaha, oh dear, I'm listening now and it's depressing and funny in equal measure. "Carbon dioxide is natural, so how can it be bad?!?!?!". Oh, it's only 3% of the atmosphere, so that's OK - presumably she'd happily drink a glass of water that was only 3% prussic acid?

There are few things more awkward to watch than someone who clearly hates science trying to use science to prove some point.

mixed_biscuits
05-12-2009, 08:26 AM
so what you're really inferring is some kind of insidious & far-reaching plot between some stereotype of latte-sipping liberal groupthink, evil scientists and another stereotype of a wild-eyed radical aching to tear down industrial civilization.

That's the badger!

Here are two examples from yesterday of classically unflappable scientific behaviour, save for the mugging (http://www.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/5601393/what-happens-when-you-try-to-debate-climate-change.thtml), thin-lipped contempt and swears (http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00p92nx/Newsnight_04_12_2009/) (unprecedented (?) behaviour on Newsnight at 11:42, for which the presenter had to apologise)

Since Francis Bacon rejected the Idols of the Mind (http://www.practicalethicsnews.com/practicalethics/2009/11/climate-scientists-behaving-badly-part-1.html), science has demanded that its practioners hold themselves to the highest standard of epistemic character. Amongst the epistemic virtues required are objectivity, impartiality, disinterestedness, restraint in not going beyond ones knowledge, fairness to opposing views, intellectual competence, imagination, originality, honest dealing in the conduct of enquiry, sincerity of testimony and honest dealing with opponents.

This doesn't really come across in the vids, does it?

And, in the spirit of regathering, the Met Office is to re-examine 160 years of climate data (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6945445.ece). Obv. the government want to nip this in the bud.

scottdisco
05-12-2009, 10:53 AM
so what you're really inferring is some kind of insidious & far-reaching plot between some stereotype of latte-sipping liberal groupthink, evil scientists and another stereotype of a wild-eyed radical aching to tear down industrial civilization.

it is this sort of stuff - such laughable, swivel-eyed, simplistic generalising and long-standing, unannounced interests in his back pocket - that make gun-for-hire Frank Furedi such a tool.

there are many reasons why he's a tool, of course, but that's one.

still he's not as bad as Manchester United fan and ex-LM editor, Mick Hume, of course. (Hume's pieces in rag fanzines are actually kind of amusing. naturally, i don't think Hume's a Manc, though i may be wrong there. perhaps his da's from Salford 5.)

gotta love a bloke from the Spectator - fairly mediocre establishment Tory rag (home to the truly dismal Rod Liddle, and the truly vile Melanie Phillips, among other dim-witted no marks) that alongside its peer the Telegraph is the only game in town for black sheep and achingly hip contrarian BjÝrn Lomborg - making such a meal out of one bad performance from one academic.

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/46564000/jpg/_46564178_mald_two512.jpg

padraig (u.s.)
05-12-2009, 02:42 PM
Here are two examples from yesterday of classically unflappable scientific behaviour

yes, I suppose a scientist getting ornery on TV does discredit all scientists everywhere. esp. b/c the main focus of science is being good at television appearances (right?).


Since Francis Bacon rejected the Idols of the Mind (http://www.practicalethicsnews.com/practicalethics/2009/11/climate-scientists-behaving-badly-part-1.html), science has demanded that its practioners hold themselves to the highest standard of epistemic character.

wait a minute, didn't you link to this same blog post already? ah, there it is, in the carbon thread. that's all you've got? well, I guess if one guy at Cambridge has determined that scientists aren't quite impartial we might as well just toss the scientific method right out the window, that makes sense. I guess it's good that CC skeptics have such a sterling record of being objective (not in bed w/big fossil-fuel interests), levelheaded, reasonable, non-absolutely fucking crazy, and so on.

I didn't realize we were all playing by some arbritrary epistemic virtues checklist anyway. just tbc - you're saying it's a bad thing that not all scientists live up to these ideals, as opposed to a good thing that science aspires to them in the first place, that a great many scientists meet them & that scientists - unlike their opponents - have peer review to try to enforce them. b/c I'll tell you, impartiality, intellectual competence & honest dealing w/opponents are not exactly the calling cards of CC skeptics.

mixed_biscuits
06-12-2009, 01:24 AM
People in positions of authority have to meet higher standards than their opponents to appear worthy of their superior standing or particular position.

The CC sceptics are not in a position of direct responsibility or trust vis-a-vis the public; the CC scientists are. They need to come across to us as trustworthy people as the public are not well-placed to perform or evaluate scientific research for themselves.

If the govt line was CC-sceptical, then the shoe would be on the other foot, obviously.

The behaviour of the scientists in the excerpts could have done nothing but chip away at this trust.

crackerjack
06-12-2009, 04:45 PM
fairly mediocre establishment Tory rag (home to the truly dismal Rod Liddle

he's worse than truly dismal (quoted in full so you don't push up his traffic)


The first of an occasional series Ė those benefits of a multi-cultural Britain in full. Let me introduce you all to this human filth.

It could be an anomaly, of course. But it isnít. The overwhelming majority of street crime, knife crime, gun crime, robbery and crimes of sexual violence in London is carried out by young men from the African-Caribbean community. Of course, in return, we have rap music, goat curry and a far more vibrant and diverse understanding of cultures which were once alien to us. For which, many thanks.

he is a loathsome cunt

vimothy
07-12-2009, 12:43 PM
Jared Diamond: shill for big business (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/06/opinion/06diamond.html?_r=1&ref=opinion)

vimothy
07-12-2009, 01:36 PM
Okay, bear with me. Looking for stuff on climate change, I read this:


Several pieces from three different sites on the global warming cult: that conspiracy to spread the useful lie of human-caused global warming.

In the first, Shannon Love outlines what “peer reviewed” science actually is. Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW) cultists act as if peer reviewed science is without fault or error. Of course, this is wrong. Peer review is a way of making sure that methodological biases are passed on between researchers in some area. I have first-hand experience with this. Of my first two peer-reviewed works, the one that got passed the anonymous and secret editors was the one that played to the methodological bias of the field. It was less interesting, less useful, equally as generalizable, but was in its method what the reviewers were expecting. So it got in.

In the second, Shannon Love notes the poor quality of the models created by the CAGW cult. Again, I have first-hand experience backing this up. After I wrote my master’s thesis on the basis of a computer model, I knew to take every other model with a healthy dose (not a grain, but a glass or gallon) of salt. Even among professional scientists, this is serious, because those scientists rarely have training in software development. Global warming models are buggy, amateurish computer programs that until now has been secret.

Combining these threads, Shannon points out that peer review is not even used for scientific software. Yet again, I have first-hand knowledge backing Shannon up. The two statistical programs I use most often are MPlus and R. Of these, only R’s code is publicly available, peer-reviewed, and largely the result of academic research. MPlus, better marketed and for-profit, is secretive. It is hard to take seriously the conclusions of closed-source software, because it boils down to scientists just trusting their tool-makers.

However, software models is all the CAGW cultists have left. This is because they threw away their raw data. So you have to trust their secret, bugger, amateurish software, as that’s all they have.

Only tangentially related to this scandal, but important to realize the CAGW cult is truly a cult, is this story about a kindergarten teacher leading students in a global warming prayer.

Even Real Climate, which generally defends the University of East Anglia, raises red flags about the conspirator’s desire to delete Freedom of Information-related data and the field’s emphasis on secret and commercial data sources.

Obviously, this comes straight from the constiuency that m_b is criticising (if indirectly: I mean that the blogger's politics are immediately apparent from his position on climate change).

Disregarding the irrelevant stuff about peer reviewing at the top of the post, the authors touches on a few things that interest me. The issue of methodology especially. What is the state of modelling in climate change science? The blogger suggests that it is not good. But is it really worse than, say, economics, engineering or epidemiology? ("After I wrote my master's on the basis of a model". Er, yeah. But isn't that what everyone who isn't in the humanities does?) Genuine question.

Do climate change scientists use "secret models" that cannot be used be other researchers to replicate their results? Do they really use R?

He also mentions some data being thrown away. Were these data important? Were they the extent of all data that exist (the suggestion, as I read it, is that climate change science has to rely on theoretical models because there is no empirical data left)?

Seems like a lot of straw men, but I don't know enough about the field to say for certain...

EDIT: This was mentioned in the blog post above: http://chicagoboyz.net/archives/10399.html

polystyle desu
07-12-2009, 08:13 PM
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/dec/06/copenhagen-editorial

crackerjack
08-12-2009, 03:01 PM
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/08/met-office-warmest-decade

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6948629.ece

Tentative Andy
08-12-2009, 03:29 PM
^^ That Rod Little thing got me quite angry. Some of the supportive comments he got afterwards even more so.
What was it d_q said in the racism thread? 'So smug and cosy in their safe little world' or something similar. Cap seems to fit here. :mad:

crackerjack
08-12-2009, 03:47 PM
^^ That Rod Little thing got me quite angry. Some of the supportive comments he got afterwards even more so.
What was it d_q said in the racism thread? 'So smug and cosy in their safe little world' or something similar. Cap seems to fit here. :mad:

He's copping an unusual amount of shit for it too though - hopefully this will be the point where calcualated mischeif-making spills over into getting the sack (at least from the ST, which probably pays much better than the Spec). Anyway, don't wanna derail.

crackerjack
09-12-2009, 07:08 PM
Copenhagen: a genius speaks (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2009/dec/09/sarah-palin-obama-boycott-copenhagen)

Pestario
10-12-2009, 12:27 PM
can't help but laugh at the guardian's bait tactics

scottdisco
11-12-2009, 10:11 PM
We are a non-partisan, non profit making pressure group that seeks to provide a counterpoint to environmental groups such as Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth that, although undoubtedly well meaning, have brought an alarmist and hysterical tone to the debate on the future of our planet. Our members include several academic scientists as well as experienced business leaders in fossil fuels and writers for publications such as the Spectator and the Daily Telegraph. Our Board of Trustees includes Professor Ian Plimer, the writer and polymath Christopher Booker and the provocative columnist James Delingpole.

here (http://shirazsocialist.wordpress.com/2009/12/10/towards-a-common-sense-policy-on-the-environment/)

polystyle desu
15-12-2009, 11:34 PM
This sounds good ...
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/16/science/earth/16forest.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss

zhao
16-12-2009, 10:12 AM
my instincts were right to avoid this thread until now, for the first 3 pages or so were just a waste of time, aside from some of Tea's science -- his name is MIXED BISCUITS, for chrissakes. meaning that the dude's BISCUITS are MIXED UP. why you lot would indulge this kind of common place trolling is quite unfathomable.

thanks for some of the good links on this page though. Diamond pro big biz, step toward saving the forests, the Alaskan Genius exposing the big lies (like dinosaurs) that would keep us all from grace of the Lord, etc.

do i have anything useful to add? not really.

droid
16-12-2009, 10:15 AM
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_ltxCWvi_SlE/SyekbjQeMlI/AAAAAAAABK4/UXHQEM5ftAQ/s1600/expressfront1.jpg

Its all settled so.

droid
16-12-2009, 10:20 AM
Monbiot on the rise of denialism and the importance of the conference.


There is no point in denying it: weíre losing. Climate change denial is spreading like a contagious disease. It exists in a sphere which cannot be reached by evidence or reasoned argument; any attempt to draw attention to scientific findings is greeted with furious invective. This sphere is expanding with astonishing speed.

A survey last month by the Pew Research Centre suggests that the proportion of Americans who believe thereís solid evidence that the world has been warming over the past few decades has fallen from 71% to 57% in just 18 months(1). Another survey, conducted in January by Rasmussen Reports, suggests that, due to a sharp rise since 2006, US voters who believe that global warming is the result of natural causes (44%) now outnumber those who believe it is caused by human action (41%)(2).

A study by the website Desmogblog shows that the number of internet pages proposing that manmade global warming is a hoax or a lie more than doubled in 2008(3). The Science Museumís Prove it! exhibition asks online readers to endorse or reject a statement that theyíve seen the evidence and want governments to take action. As of yesterday afternoon, 1006 people had endorsed it and 6110 had rejected it(4). On Amazon.co.uk, books championing climate change denial are currently ranked at 1,2,4,5,7 and 8 in the global warming category(5). Never mind that theyíve been torn to shreds by scientists and reviewers, they are beating the scientific books by miles. What is going on?

It certainly doesnít reflect the state of the science, which has hardened dramatically over the past two years. If you donít believe me, open any recent edition of Science or Nature or any peer-reviewed journal specialising in atmospheric or environmental science. Go on, try it. The debate about global warming thatís raging on the internet and in the rightwing press does not reflect any such debate in the scientific journals.

http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2009/11/02/death-denial/


When you survey the trail of wreckage left by the climate emails crisis, three things become clear. The first is the tendency of those who claim to be the champions of climate science to minimise their importance. Those who have most to lose if the science is wrong have perversely sought to justify the secretive and chummy ethos that some of the emails reveal. If science is not transparent and accountable, itís not science.

I believe that all supporting data, codes and programmes should be made available as soon as an article is published in a peer-reviewed journal. That anyone should have to lodge a freedom of information request to obtain them is wrong. That the request should be turned down is worse. That a scientist suggests deleting material that might be covered by that request is unjustifiable. Everyone who values the scientific process should demand complete transparency, across all branches of science.

The second observation is the tendency of those who donít give a fig about science to maximise their importance. The denial industry, which has no interest in establishing the truth about global warming, insists that these emails (which concern three or four scientists and just one or two lines of evidence) destroy the entire canon of climate science. http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2009/12/07/the-real-climate-scandal


The summitís premise is that the age of heroism is over. We have entered the age of accomodation. No longer may we live without restraint. No longer may we swing our fists regardless of whose nose might be in the way. In everything we do we must now be mindful of the lives of others, cautious, constrained, meticulous. We may no longer live in the moment, as if there were no tomorrow.

This is a meeting about chemicals: the greenhouse gases insulating the atmosphere. But it is also a battle between two world views. The angry men who seek to derail this agreement, and all such limits on their self-fulfilment, have understood this better than we have. A new movement, most visible in North America and Australia, but now apparent everywhere, demands to trample on the lives of others as if this were a human right. It will not be constrained by taxes, gun laws, regulations, health and safety, especially environmental restraints. It knows that fossil fuels have granted the universal ape amplification beyond its Palaeolithic dreams. For a moment, a marvellous, frontier moment, they allowed us to live in blissful mindlessness.

http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2009/12/14/this-is-about-us/

sufi
16-12-2009, 12:13 PM
Monbiot on the rise of denialism and the importance of the conference.

http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2009/12/14/this-is-about-us/


that last article was in the grunter yesterday and is irritatingly spot on - copenhagen's not about the climate it's about the human race etc etc...

apparently they've followed up with a sort of video nob-clash between boris and the moonbat, available online today....

mixed_biscuits
16-12-2009, 09:34 PM
Debateage on BBC 4 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00pft7c/The_Environment_Debate/)

Monbiot's moralising screed is counter-productive, rhetoric typical of the more enthusiastic AGW believers who, irritated by the relative failure of their proselytising mission, have thrown their toys out the pram, drawn firm lines in the sand between their self-satisfiedly virtuous selves and the 'angry men', 'deniers', 'no-marks', [insert tired Dissensian epithet here] and thereby exasperated the public, undermining their cause.

Update from the ethicists at Oxford:
The question of global warming has been a bonanza for climate science and the interest of climate scientists is for the stream of research money to continue. Note that I do not say this is a bad thing: but the quantities of money involved (governments have spent billions of pounds on climate research) undermine the claim of disinterestedness. If in truth they had to announce tomorrow that it had all been a big mistake they would look like idiots, the money would stop and many would be out of a job. (http://www.practicalethicsnews.com/practicalethics/2009/12/climate-scientists-behaving-badly-part-2-objectivity.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+PracticalEthics+%28Practical+ Ethics%29)

So, it would be fair to say that, in the unlikelier event of the AGW theory being incorrect, the chance of a majority U-turn would be <0.

Of course, I give myself leave to play devil's avocado because my carbon footprint is almost certainly < yours: I am the nec plus ultra of environmental stewardship, the alfalfa and omega, by my industrial inaction you shall know me.

scottdisco
16-12-2009, 09:59 PM
oi Biscuits, i live under a bridge and power my internets w an ingenious hamster-wheel system, so am at liberty to call various sorts in The Spectator no-marks (no-marks in general, not necessarily anything to do w their views on one specific issue: by their stench shall ye know them) :p

anyway, back on track, New Scientist (comprehensively) fisks Droid's Express headline of the other day (http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2009/12/50-reasons-why-global-warming.html?DCMP=OTC-rss&nsref=online-news)

mixed_biscuits
16-12-2009, 10:22 PM
Ha! I had to write that post - it was Zhao wot made me do it. :D

Semi-seriously tho', re 'no marks', calling ppl 'cnuts' etc, the Dissensian trope du jour, it seems to me that lefties tend to be oddly eager to tar the whole person for their beliefs, to conclude that they are, to their very marrow, unclean ('stench'), unworthy and then to discount them outright for anon.

Of course, rightists can be just as bloody-minded, but they seem less inclined to equate their opponents' 'sins' with an intrinsic sinfulness.

scottdisco
16-12-2009, 10:38 PM
Ha! I had to write that post - it was Zhao wot made me do it. :D

Semi-seriously tho', re 'no marks', calling ppl 'cnuts' etc, the Dissensian trope du jour, it seems to me that lefties tend to be oddly eager to tar the whole person for their beliefs, to conclude that they are, to their very marrow, unclean ('stench'), unworthy and then to discount them outright for anon.

ha! citing an anecdote i made on-thread about the very unpleasant sounding Brecht once, Josef K remarked much the same as you above.

of course it's all tongue-in-cheek pour moi.. ...er..

unserious rightists (ie tabloids and the worse sorts of the broadsheets) are definitely up there in the baby/bathwater tropes, but, that is unserious sorts (hardly your Andrew Sullivans).
Mel P is a no-mark politically, although she might be a laugh down the pub :cool:

zhao
17-12-2009, 06:21 AM
devil's avocado

alfalfa and omega

semi-redeemed yourself with these. or at least cast a slightly less harsh light on your character in my eyes.

polystyle desu
17-12-2009, 06:36 PM
Number 1 & Number 2 ...
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/18/science/earth/18climate.html?hp

vimothy
17-12-2009, 06:48 PM
Semi-seriously tho', re 'no marks', calling ppl 'cnuts' etc, the Dissensian trope du jour, it seems to me that lefties tend to be oddly eager to tar the whole person for their beliefs, to conclude that they are, to their very marrow, unclean ('stench'), unworthy and then to discount them outright for anon.

I'm not sure about this. I've been given just as much personal abuse from people on the right as the left. There is no difference, IMHO.

craner
17-12-2009, 08:41 PM
You're a man of the people, Vim!

droid
18-12-2009, 10:42 AM
Monbiot vs Plimer finally happens!

http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2009/s2772906.htm

I heard Plimer on the radio here a few weeks back having his balls sucked by one of our biggest broadcasters in the name of 'balanced debate'. This is probably the best attempt to pin down the slimy old fuck that Ive seen so far.

sufi
20-12-2009, 07:58 PM
Monbiot's moralising screed is counter-productive,
also excrucatingly badly written 'o i often dream of aurochs' ffs

sufi
20-12-2009, 08:03 PM
ahmedinjad on the other hand was a science graduate

Dear colleagues. Without a doubt, if such thinking and the schools of thought which were presented to mankind by the divine prophets are used as the basis of life, the destruction of the environment will be brought under control and the climate will have a chance to regenerate itself and create better conditions for the continuation of its life. Based on this we would like to propose the following:

1) A working group consisting of intellectuals dedicated to resolving the problems of mankind from volunteer countries set out and put at the disposal of mankind the criteria for its prosperity in a specified time and based on a divine and humane world-view, which most of the world people believe in. Consumption can be balanced by reforming criteria and fairly distributing public assets in the world. It is possible to set up a prosperous society in which wealth is distributed efficiently and fairly, life goes on in a sincere atmosphere, the competition for supremacy turns into a competition for compassion, and consumption is controlled based on the needs.

2) The current economic system should be based on the aforementioned conditions and be organized and defined in line with justice and human dignity. The consumption model should be based on realistic needs and should not be drawn up in a way which increases consumption.

3) The so-called industrialized countries should fulfill their international commitments. At the same time, clear and feasible mechanisms should be drawn up which bring the disobedient governments and economic sectors under control and obligates them to pay fines to the countries which have experienced a loss. It has been said that more than 250 billion dollars has been spent on the expedition to Afghanistan and around 1,000 billion dollars has been the cost of the war in Iraq. Wouldn't 50 billion dollars spent on Afghanistan's infrastructure and economic development have turned this country into a developed country? And wouldn't 200 billion dollars on developing new technology and suitable use of fossil fuel have returned the pollution level to the period before industrialization?

4) While the spread of greenhouse-gasses causes 1,000 times more silent deaths than the actions of terrorists, who are the most hated creatures, is it not true that all the objectives of the convention would be achieved with only half of America's military budget? Is it not better to allocate part of the military budget of the leading nations to promote the people's welfare and reduce pollution?

5) By abandoning this profit-oriented and monopolistic view, new technology, diverse sources of energy and also clean and renewable energy sources such as wind, solar, sea tide, geothermal and nuclear energy would become cheaply available to all countries, and they will not have to resort to the extensive use of low yielding fossil fuel.

6) In order to execute the budget in the best way possible and achieve the long-term objectives of the convention, countries should accept financial commitment to the world climate fund in proportion to their share of pollution in the past. And the resources of the fund should be distributed in a fair fashion and away from the control of the main polluters. Would it not be better to redirect the funds for the production and distribution of nuclear arms, through global disarmament, to the development of new technology, welfare and fight against poverty? We propose to designate the year 2011 as the year of rectifying consumption model and reducing pollution and suggest drawing up a plan to promote the culture of human values.

massrock
21-12-2009, 04:54 PM
Well that all sounds highly unreasonable.

Mr. Tea
21-12-2009, 05:19 PM
There's a great bit in one of those NYT pieces about the prez of Malaysia demanding that developed countries cut their emissions by "at least 100%". :rolleyes:

polystyle desu
09-03-2010, 06:03 PM
China and India sign on !
Must be a blue moon, the very planets and stars must have aligned ...

I know it's all the rage to talk about The Chinese as - potentially - a new world leader,
but me thinks that's short sighted and gives short shrift to India

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/10/world/10climate.html?partner=rss&emc=rss