it's not happening, we need another 5-year study

[Greg_W]

I was only pointing out

I have not claimed anything

 

You sound like a dancing fucking fool, j_b. F-off you commie elitist prick.

Edited December 18, 2002 by Greg_W

[Dru]

This thread jumped the shark. It is dead, dead, dead. Only trask survives as a lone spray bearer.

[j_b]

I am not going to reply the rest in details for reasons that are obvious to most of us (I am curious: are you paid for this?).

 

these are the same unfounded attempts at discredeting the IPCC process. The IPCC process is the most comprehensive summary of knowledge in a particular branch of science ever performed. Your witness(es) quibbles and claims discrepancy where there is none.

 

 

The version that emerged from Shanghai concludes instead:

"In the light of new evidence and taking into account the remaining uncertainties, most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations."

 

I could not have said it better myself. it is funny how all of this quibbling and smear about procedure and such, finally ends where we started: greenhouse gases accumulated since the beginning of the industrial revolution are responsable for accelerated warming .... thank you.

 

 

[j_b]

Why would one believe that NOAA is free from scientific bias?

 

I am not claiming they are free from scientific bias. I am claiming they are free from obvious political bias .... while people promoting their ideas through oil industry fronts obviously are not free from political bias. Are we clear on this?

[allthumbs]

ignorant slut

[Greg_W]

I am claiming they are free from obvious political bias ....

 

I would patently disagree. The "greenies" have discovered that the best way to change things to the way they want is to get into the organizations who write the rules. This has happened in the USFS and I am sure it happens in other areas.

[Dr_Flash_Amazing]

Duh, Greg. Isn't that pretty much how everyone gets their agenda furthered (whoever they may be)? Get either yourself of your man into whatever position he needs to be in to get things moving in the direction you want them to move in. Pretty common practice. Didn't that governor guy down in Florida help rig a presidential election one time so his brother could win or something like that?

[Greg_W]

DFA - Never heard about your example, must have been a different country. Anyway, my point in relation to 'greenie' biologists getting jobs at the USFS (my example) in order to get roads closed, logging stopped, etc. Wasn't talking about elected office.

[allthumbs]

Jesus DFA, Floridians are senile and incontinent. The Bush camp didn't have to rig the election.

[Scott_J]

Just got gack on line. Had to leave yesterday to buy a steelhead rod for my wife's b-day, so I missed being able to comment on the subject on hand. I'll say this...the thread is as complicated as the subject. It was great reading and thought provoking. We all have our ideas and solutions, but its a maze of chemical, biological, technical, political, economical, and to some its even theological.

Here is a little bit of history from I believe the Zuni...they predicted the coming of a different race...Anglo, but along with the coming it was also predicted that this different race would eventually die out after stealing their property, killing their people, and disheveling their land. The why to their death is pollution of the land and its ability to no longer support the new comers. I believe this prediction was mae several hundred years before any Euros arrived.

[Dru]

Ya, but if they had predicted that giant mushrooms would dance the hokey-pokey with a purple lizard on the moon and everyone would grow 6 inches overnight, no one would ever remember the prophecy, sisu. Hell even Creswell went about 1/20 with his prophecies.

[j_b]

In reply to:

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

 

I am claiming they are free from obvious political bias ....

 

 

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

 

 

 

I would patently disagree. The "greenies" have discovered that the best way to change things to the way they want is to get into the organizations who write the rules. This has happened in the USFS and I am sure it happens in other areas.

 

get a grip, will ya? someone with a 30 year career and a publication list as long as your arm, who is not obviously affiliated with any political organization, would be a machiavelian mole for the greens?

 

however if you are saying that those who care for the environment actually care for it, I can see your point. It would explain why environmental scientists often have different opinions from the oil and logging industry, hog farmers, cattle ranchers, etc ...

[glen]

Greg,

is the infiltration of 'greenies' matched by infiltration of 'brownies'? If you are assuming that people are infiltrating the USFS, for example, by getting jobs there so as to sway policy, and more distubingly studies done on behalf of the USFS, doesn't that also open the door to consideration that the same could be done by non-green interests? Environmentally unfriendly forces could just as easily be doing the same thing.

 

So, if this is case- that studies are done in a biased fashion- what is to be done about it? What science do you believe? Doesn't that just lead circularly back to believing what you want and grabbing at data and interpretations as they fit your particular ideals?

[AlpineK]

Ya know yesterday I was thinking Mtn Goat might have turned over a new leaf. Then he goes and makes 6 long, boring posts in a row.

 

What the fuck. Like I've said before Goat ya gotta work with your readers (or non readers which is more likely)

[allthumbs]

K, I've said it all along...no one reads his shit. It's too fucking boring. He's a lunkhead though and doesn't hear or care.

[johnny_destiny]

What a bunch of leftist commie bs that is j b or whatever the heck your name may be. Hell, boy you remeind me of my mother's brother, Uncle Wayly Bob(and that's how the family spelled it so don't be tellin me that its fucking wrong). He could piss and whine but when it came to makin' a decision he'd step on his own dick.

[RobBob]

Hey trask leave the goat alone. I discovered that he's honored me in his bio.

[MtnGoat]

"I was only pointing out that you fully endorse conceptual world models without validation, and are criticized by a majority of world political scientists and casual observers."

 

Yet you miss that while political viewpoints are never provable in a scientific sense, due to their innate subjectivity, scientific viewpoints can be proven to a much higher standard.

 

Further my "endorsement" of conceptual political models is never expressed as absolute nor provable in an empirical sense, while that is precisely what is required to prove the harmful effects of human forced warming.

 

"Yet, you fully reject physically based models (i.e. with constraints and validations) that are assessed as valuable tools in our assessment of climate change by the majority of the climate science community. "

 

No, I reject claims that their results equal proof given current standards for these models which don't even function in the simplest repeatable predictive capacity when tested agaisnt the real world. Not that the models may not be useful in some capacity.

 

"There are probably more variables and feedback in a political model of waging war for peace than in a climate model. So be consistent, that's all."

 

Since I do not express political systems as absolutes nor actions related to same as absolutes either, I am consistent. You're the one comparing value based political theory and action to physical sciences, not I.

 

"You should not use scientific caution to promote unwarranted distrust, but it has not stopped you before."

 

Bringing the amount of "scientific caution" warranted to light *should* promote distrust in this instance, because warming proponents such as the IPCC are intentionally leaving out error determinations in order to generate false perceptions of mimimum error in their work.

 

 

 

Edited December 18, 2002 by MtnGoat

[MtnGoat]

"I am not going to reply the rest in details for reasons that are obvious to most of us (I am curious: are you paid for this?)."

 

Now the dodging begins. Not wanting to reply to the details, when specifics are what you have been demanding. What should be "obvious" to most is your unwillingness to attend to details which I have presented. You ought to be refuting points made, not playing ad hominim games. What is "obvious" to people who won't deal with specifics merely means they don't want to deal with specifics.

 

"these are the same unfounded attempts at discredeting the IPCC process. The IPCC process is the most comprehensive summary of knowledge in a particular branch of science ever performed. Your witness(es) quibbles and claims discrepancy where there is none. "

 

Then how can they show the discrepancies you won't admit? The claimant Lindzen was responsible for a section of the science report you claim was a groundbreaking effort and yet you seem to claim he's biased, so how can we possibly conclude the report isn't if even you tell us members are biased?

 

You haven't even discussed the fact that the scientists were *not* asked for a consensus, that the "consensus" was written by others in conflict with the scientific summary, and other such basic problems. Let alone that the IPCC was based on the founding premise that action was necessary, not exactly a blank slate free of slant.

 

"I could not have said it better myself. it is funny how all of this quibbling and smear about procedure and such, finally ends where we started: greenhouse gases accumulated since the beginning of the industrial revolution are responsable for accelerated warming .... thank you"

 

It's very revealing that the quote you choose to make your stand on is the very example used to show the manipulation of the outcome of this report. They did their work well.

 

 

 

 

[allthumbs]

"yep, hmmm, right, yep, couldn't agree more, really?......."

[MtnGoat]

"I am not claiming they are free from scientific bias. I am claiming they are free from obvious political bias ...."

 

So they're not free from scientific bias, while I and others are expected to take the very info you present from them as a gold standard of objectivity (after all, you wrote "what would we do without NOAA?"). And they're supposedly free from "obvious" political bias, but what about not so obvious political bias?

 

"while people promoting their ideas through oil industry fronts obviously are not free from political bias. Are we clear on this?"

 

Again with the "fronts", as if science is all subjective and who pays turns provable science into a political argument. It doesn't matter who pays in the end, because *proof* rests on repeatable *predictable* means that stand up to the tests applied to real science. No matter how much an industry pays someone, they couldn't pay them to prove PI has a value different from what it is. No observer is free from political bias, on any side, that is what the process weeds out.

 

 

[iain]

heads up, there's more on the way....INCOMING!

[j_b]

yeah, we know everything is relative and subjective when it suits your purpose. If the claim that Iraq is an imminent danger that has to be addressed by waging war is a subjective one and not objectively based on facts, I am not sure what leg, you and your man in the white house are standing on.

 

Although there are examples of dishonest science, the science going into the IPCC process is not one of them. All of it was peer reviewed. The bottom line is still the same: human activities have resulted in a 30% increase in athmospheric CO2 over the last 100years and these greenhouse gases are responsible for accelerated warming. There is little serious questions about that despite what you might say. The rest is just obfuscation on your part and other apologists for the oil/car industry.

[MtnGoat]

"Ya know yesterday I was thinking Mtn Goat might have turned over a new leaf. Then he goes and makes 6 long, boring posts in a row."

 

That's because you wankers aren't up when I was posting. If you were, they wouldn't have been in a row.

 

It seems folks have taken to demanding evidence of me on complex issues, then griping when evidence is presented. If you aren't willing to actually read some deep detail on a complex issue, how can you begin to evaluate either side?

 

Rely on people we all agree have one agenda or another to encapsule soundbites for you, or actually put in some time yourself reading up?

 

The IPCC was not founded on a blank slate to assess warming, it assumed action was necessary from the start. The IPCC manipulated it's final statements, suppressing error considerations and other basic info to create the impression of certainty, created the impression of consensus when none was taken, and other such elementally flawed positions. There's the soundbite for you. If you demand more, it's already been presented on each point.

 

[MtnGoat]

"yeah, we know everything is relative and subjective when it suits your purpose."

 

Since physical science is objective in the final analysis, or as close to it as we'll ever get, while politics is innately subjective, pointing out they are the not the same may not suit *your* purposes, but since mine is pointing out they are different I'll accept it.

 

If that doesn't jive with what you wish to present by treating both as identical, that's your problem.

 

"Although there are examples of dishonest science, the science going into the IPCC process is not one of them. All of it was peer reviewed."

 

Fine! Why does the political summary not agree with the science section's conclusion that the variability and uncertainties make no outcome predicatable or certain? That is my point here.

 

"The bottom line is still the same: human activities have resulted in a 30% increase in athmospheric CO2 over the last 100years and these greenhouse gases are responsible for accelerated warming."

 

This is simply not proven no matter how much you say otherwise, "consensus" or no.

 

"There is little serious questions about that despite what you might say. The rest is just obfuscation on your part and other apologists for the oil/car industry."

 

Right. Obfuscation. Errors and measurement discrepancies downplayed or ignored in summaries. IPCC authors testifying about flawed conclusions and processes. Proponents who will not explain how they can claim individual IPCC heads are biased while claiming the IPCC outcome is not, while if it contains biased authors it necessarily *must*. It's all a trick.

 

 

Edited December 18, 2002 by MtnGoat