|
On August 19 2013 12:42 packrat386 wrote:@TricksAre4Figs: I'm going to try to address your arguments in the most direct way possible, because if not you're likely to focus on some small part rather than deal with it holistically. Even if you are right that the UN is overstepping its bounds in the issue of climate change, and that the UN being allowed to legislate on such policies would lead to world governance, you still haven't provided any reasoning why that would be a bad thing. You're making the somewhat unrealistic claim that the UN is making a power grab, but there is no reason to believe that their actions are anything more than benevolent. I get that you're distrustful of the UN, but you have 0 evidence as to why we should be afraid of them having slight power. @GreenGringo: I'm going to do that thing you hate where I cite a huge long article for a relatively simple point. http://csis.org/files/publication/100608_Lewis_EarthObservation_WEB.pdfIn this article Lewis, from CSIS explains that the scientific community hasn't been doing a very good job at explaining their data/findings. The article is pretty broad sweeping, so I'll quote the part that I find the most relevant. Show nested quote +
Operationalization is the next step for dealing with climate change—to make the data and knowledge generation by satellites and science easier to use in policymaking. Operationalization requires a new approach. Climate change has largely been an issue of science. The existing vehicles for international cooperation and data sharing are aimed at the scientific community. Effective global management of climate requires a new approach with three integrated elements—space, networks, and collaboration. Our belief is that a concerted effort to analyze and share data from the many national efforts could significantly advance our understanding of the risks and causes of climate change, better measure the effects of mitigation policies, and guide planning on how to adapt to changes in the environment. Achieving such a concerted effort will require coordination must occur on several different levels if it is to have a meaningful effect. The first—the collection and measurement of relevant data—depends largely on satellites. Without the proper data, it would be very difficult to develop and aggregate a global picture of climate change and its nature and pace. It would be difficult to measure the effects of mitigation efforts, determine when or whether policies are effective, or predict when and how climate effects will affect local communities. The second level is to expand the analysis and sharing of information. In some ways, we are only in the early stages of developing a global enterprise for assessing climate change. Much of the research and analysis conducted thus far has been focused on understanding the nature and pace of climate change, forecasting future changes in Earth’s natural systems based on changes in differ ent variables, and substantiating theories about how human efforts to reduce the effects of climate change might actually have some effect. More work is needed in each area to improve our understanding and update it as the natural environment continues to change. Finally, data must move from the scientific community to the policy community—to governments and policymakers—if data are to guide change. While the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change tailored analysis to meet policymakers’ needs in the hopes of reaching a global consensus for action, the challenge today is to extend and strengthen connections between the science and policy communities. A coordinated multinational effort to better inform the policy process can change this. Our belief is that a concerted effort to analyze and share data from the many national efforts could significantly advance our understanding of the risks and causes of climate change, better measure the effects of mitigation, and guide planning on adapting to changes in the environment. To this end, our recommendations follow: The U.S. approach to climate change policy needs to inform decision makers and planners in both government and the private sector by providing understandable metrics and analyses of the effectiveness of, and compliance with, mitigation programs and adaption plans. The customers for this should include federal agencies, state and local governments, private sector users, and other nations. To better serve the national interest, the United States should increase its Earth observation capabilities—especially space-based sensors for carbon monitoring—to improve our ability to understand the carbon cycle and to inform any future international agreement. This means that until these capabilities are adequate for monitoring climate change, investment in Earth observation satellites should take precedence over other space programs. Increased spending on earth observation satellites specifically designed for climate change should be maintained until the current capability shortfall is eliminated. The United States should accelerate, expand, and reinforce a National Climate Service to improve climate information management and decisionmaking. In a related effort, the United States should support the World Meteorological Organization in its efforts to create a World Climate Service System. The United States should complement its national effort by supporting and expanding multilateral efforts to coordinate Earth observation for climate change, building on existing international efforts such as GCOS. This could entail coordinated investment in space and, subsidies for ground facilities in developing countries, recognizing that the United States, EU, Japan, and Canada will bear the largest share of the cost at this time.
Basically, scientists have been quite good about educating the scientific community about climate change in general and sharing data with each other, but they need to do a better job of turning that data into policy recommendations and proposals that appeal to politicians. I just want to point out that even though you're correct that scientists aren't inherently hard to understand, they haven't been doing a great job making their case to world leaders.
I'm not sure they should be making policy recommendations at all. It's really outside the area of their expertise.
Obviously they should still act as advisers, but there needs to be a clear distinction between where the science ends and the public policy begins.
|
On August 19 2013 13:59 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2013 12:42 packrat386 wrote:@TricksAre4Figs: I'm going to try to address your arguments in the most direct way possible, because if not you're likely to focus on some small part rather than deal with it holistically. Even if you are right that the UN is overstepping its bounds in the issue of climate change, and that the UN being allowed to legislate on such policies would lead to world governance, you still haven't provided any reasoning why that would be a bad thing. You're making the somewhat unrealistic claim that the UN is making a power grab, but there is no reason to believe that their actions are anything more than benevolent. I get that you're distrustful of the UN, but you have 0 evidence as to why we should be afraid of them having slight power. @GreenGringo: I'm going to do that thing you hate where I cite a huge long article for a relatively simple point. http://csis.org/files/publication/100608_Lewis_EarthObservation_WEB.pdfIn this article Lewis, from CSIS explains that the scientific community hasn't been doing a very good job at explaining their data/findings. The article is pretty broad sweeping, so I'll quote the part that I find the most relevant.
Operationalization is the next step for dealing with climate change—to make the data and knowledge generation by satellites and science easier to use in policymaking. Operationalization requires a new approach. Climate change has largely been an issue of science. The existing vehicles for international cooperation and data sharing are aimed at the scientific community. Effective global management of climate requires a new approach with three integrated elements—space, networks, and collaboration. Our belief is that a concerted effort to analyze and share data from the many national efforts could significantly advance our understanding of the risks and causes of climate change, better measure the effects of mitigation policies, and guide planning on how to adapt to changes in the environment. Achieving such a concerted effort will require coordination must occur on several different levels if it is to have a meaningful effect. The first—the collection and measurement of relevant data—depends largely on satellites. Without the proper data, it would be very difficult to develop and aggregate a global picture of climate change and its nature and pace. It would be difficult to measure the effects of mitigation efforts, determine when or whether policies are effective, or predict when and how climate effects will affect local communities. The second level is to expand the analysis and sharing of information. In some ways, we are only in the early stages of developing a global enterprise for assessing climate change. Much of the research and analysis conducted thus far has been focused on understanding the nature and pace of climate change, forecasting future changes in Earth’s natural systems based on changes in differ ent variables, and substantiating theories about how human efforts to reduce the effects of climate change might actually have some effect. More work is needed in each area to improve our understanding and update it as the natural environment continues to change. Finally, data must move from the scientific community to the policy community—to governments and policymakers—if data are to guide change. While the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change tailored analysis to meet policymakers’ needs in the hopes of reaching a global consensus for action, the challenge today is to extend and strengthen connections between the science and policy communities. A coordinated multinational effort to better inform the policy process can change this. Our belief is that a concerted effort to analyze and share data from the many national efforts could significantly advance our understanding of the risks and causes of climate change, better measure the effects of mitigation, and guide planning on adapting to changes in the environment. To this end, our recommendations follow: The U.S. approach to climate change policy needs to inform decision makers and planners in both government and the private sector by providing understandable metrics and analyses of the effectiveness of, and compliance with, mitigation programs and adaption plans. The customers for this should include federal agencies, state and local governments, private sector users, and other nations. To better serve the national interest, the United States should increase its Earth observation capabilities—especially space-based sensors for carbon monitoring—to improve our ability to understand the carbon cycle and to inform any future international agreement. This means that until these capabilities are adequate for monitoring climate change, investment in Earth observation satellites should take precedence over other space programs. Increased spending on earth observation satellites specifically designed for climate change should be maintained until the current capability shortfall is eliminated. The United States should accelerate, expand, and reinforce a National Climate Service to improve climate information management and decisionmaking. In a related effort, the United States should support the World Meteorological Organization in its efforts to create a World Climate Service System. The United States should complement its national effort by supporting and expanding multilateral efforts to coordinate Earth observation for climate change, building on existing international efforts such as GCOS. This could entail coordinated investment in space and, subsidies for ground facilities in developing countries, recognizing that the United States, EU, Japan, and Canada will bear the largest share of the cost at this time.
Basically, scientists have been quite good about educating the scientific community about climate change in general and sharing data with each other, but they need to do a better job of turning that data into policy recommendations and proposals that appeal to politicians. I just want to point out that even though you're correct that scientists aren't inherently hard to understand, they haven't been doing a great job making their case to world leaders. I'm not sure they should be making policy recommendations at all. It's really outside the area of their expertise. Obviously they should still act as advisers, but there needs to be a clear distinction between where the science ends and the public policy begins.
In the case of something like climate change I think that science needs to heavily inform public policy. I don't know why it would be a good idea to insulate decisionmakers from the only people who can understand the ramifications of the decisions that they are making. I'm not trying to say that scientists ought to be congresspeople, but congress should be asking NASA what to do about climate change, and following their instructions if they want to get it done.
|
On August 19 2013 14:03 packrat386 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2013 13:59 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 19 2013 12:42 packrat386 wrote:@TricksAre4Figs: I'm going to try to address your arguments in the most direct way possible, because if not you're likely to focus on some small part rather than deal with it holistically. Even if you are right that the UN is overstepping its bounds in the issue of climate change, and that the UN being allowed to legislate on such policies would lead to world governance, you still haven't provided any reasoning why that would be a bad thing. You're making the somewhat unrealistic claim that the UN is making a power grab, but there is no reason to believe that their actions are anything more than benevolent. I get that you're distrustful of the UN, but you have 0 evidence as to why we should be afraid of them having slight power. @GreenGringo: I'm going to do that thing you hate where I cite a huge long article for a relatively simple point. http://csis.org/files/publication/100608_Lewis_EarthObservation_WEB.pdfIn this article Lewis, from CSIS explains that the scientific community hasn't been doing a very good job at explaining their data/findings. The article is pretty broad sweeping, so I'll quote the part that I find the most relevant.
Operationalization is the next step for dealing with climate change—to make the data and knowledge generation by satellites and science easier to use in policymaking. Operationalization requires a new approach. Climate change has largely been an issue of science. The existing vehicles for international cooperation and data sharing are aimed at the scientific community. Effective global management of climate requires a new approach with three integrated elements—space, networks, and collaboration. Our belief is that a concerted effort to analyze and share data from the many national efforts could significantly advance our understanding of the risks and causes of climate change, better measure the effects of mitigation policies, and guide planning on how to adapt to changes in the environment. Achieving such a concerted effort will require coordination must occur on several different levels if it is to have a meaningful effect. The first—the collection and measurement of relevant data—depends largely on satellites. Without the proper data, it would be very difficult to develop and aggregate a global picture of climate change and its nature and pace. It would be difficult to measure the effects of mitigation efforts, determine when or whether policies are effective, or predict when and how climate effects will affect local communities. The second level is to expand the analysis and sharing of information. In some ways, we are only in the early stages of developing a global enterprise for assessing climate change. Much of the research and analysis conducted thus far has been focused on understanding the nature and pace of climate change, forecasting future changes in Earth’s natural systems based on changes in differ ent variables, and substantiating theories about how human efforts to reduce the effects of climate change might actually have some effect. More work is needed in each area to improve our understanding and update it as the natural environment continues to change. Finally, data must move from the scientific community to the policy community—to governments and policymakers—if data are to guide change. While the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change tailored analysis to meet policymakers’ needs in the hopes of reaching a global consensus for action, the challenge today is to extend and strengthen connections between the science and policy communities. A coordinated multinational effort to better inform the policy process can change this. Our belief is that a concerted effort to analyze and share data from the many national efforts could significantly advance our understanding of the risks and causes of climate change, better measure the effects of mitigation, and guide planning on adapting to changes in the environment. To this end, our recommendations follow: The U.S. approach to climate change policy needs to inform decision makers and planners in both government and the private sector by providing understandable metrics and analyses of the effectiveness of, and compliance with, mitigation programs and adaption plans. The customers for this should include federal agencies, state and local governments, private sector users, and other nations. To better serve the national interest, the United States should increase its Earth observation capabilities—especially space-based sensors for carbon monitoring—to improve our ability to understand the carbon cycle and to inform any future international agreement. This means that until these capabilities are adequate for monitoring climate change, investment in Earth observation satellites should take precedence over other space programs. Increased spending on earth observation satellites specifically designed for climate change should be maintained until the current capability shortfall is eliminated. The United States should accelerate, expand, and reinforce a National Climate Service to improve climate information management and decisionmaking. In a related effort, the United States should support the World Meteorological Organization in its efforts to create a World Climate Service System. The United States should complement its national effort by supporting and expanding multilateral efforts to coordinate Earth observation for climate change, building on existing international efforts such as GCOS. This could entail coordinated investment in space and, subsidies for ground facilities in developing countries, recognizing that the United States, EU, Japan, and Canada will bear the largest share of the cost at this time.
Basically, scientists have been quite good about educating the scientific community about climate change in general and sharing data with each other, but they need to do a better job of turning that data into policy recommendations and proposals that appeal to politicians. I just want to point out that even though you're correct that scientists aren't inherently hard to understand, they haven't been doing a great job making their case to world leaders. I'm not sure they should be making policy recommendations at all. It's really outside the area of their expertise. Obviously they should still act as advisers, but there needs to be a clear distinction between where the science ends and the public policy begins. In the case of something like climate change I think that science needs to heavily inform public policy. I don't know why it would be a good idea to insulate decisionmakers from the only people who can understand the ramifications of the decisions that they are making. I'm not trying to say that scientists ought to be congresspeople, but congress should be asking NASA what to do about climate change, and following their instructions if they want to get it done.
Well, scientists can give you ideas on how to combat climate change, but they can't tell you what priority it should take over the thousands of other public policy concerns out there.
|
On August 19 2013 13:59 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
I'm not sure they should be making policy recommendations at all. It's really outside the area of their expertise.
Obviously they should still act as advisers, but there needs to be a clear distinction between where the science ends and the public policy begins.
I think scientists studying climate change should make policy recommendations, even if no really good ones have been made so far. In other areas scientists influence policy and recommend changes. Scientific research on car safety, cigarettes, alcohol, medicine, and many other areas shapes the policies related to those things. Research-derived policy recommendations addressing climate change seems reasonable
|
On August 19 2013 14:29 FallDownMarigold wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2013 13:59 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
I'm not sure they should be making policy recommendations at all. It's really outside the area of their expertise.
Obviously they should still act as advisers, but there needs to be a clear distinction between where the science ends and the public policy begins. I think scientists studying climate change should make policy recommendations, even if no really good ones have been made so far. In other areas scientists influence policy and recommend changes. Scientific research on car safety, cigarettes, alcohol, medicine, and many other areas shapes the policies related to those things. Research-derived policy recommendations addressing climate change seems reasonable
It depends what they're doing, really. There's a difference between studying smoking and linking it to cancer and advocating that the cigarette tax should go up by $1.50. The researcher certainly has a lot to say about the health risks of smoking, but 'what to do about it' is beyond their scope of expertise.
Anyways, I don't want to argue over it, so feel free to disagree 
|
On August 19 2013 12:42 packrat386 wrote:
Basically, scientists have been quite good about educating the scientific community about climate change in general and sharing data with each other, but they need to do a better job of turning that data into policy recommendations and proposals that appeal to politicians. I just want to point out that even though you're correct that scientists aren't inherently hard to understand, they haven't been doing a great job making their case to world leaders. We had an "An Inconvenient Truth". What more coverage do you need?
The issue is that governments don't want to get on board with climate change policy because of vested interests and proxies for big business. Self-centred greed is their very ethos. Is it any wonder if these businessmen couldn't care less if the planet croaks as long as they've already made it to the top before then?
|
Hey FallDownMarigol and JonnyBnoho,
On August 19 2013 14:29 FallDownMarigold wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2013 13:59 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
I'm not sure they should be making policy recommendations at all. It's really outside the area of their expertise.
Obviously they should still act as advisers, but there needs to be a clear distinction between where the science ends and the public policy begins. I think scientists studying climate change should make policy recommendations, even if no really good ones have been made so far. In other areas scientists influence policy and recommend changes. Scientific research on car safety, cigarettes, alcohol, medicine, and many other areas shapes the policies related to those things. Research-derived policy recommendations addressing climate change seems reasonable
This is actually discussed a lot in the climate sciences. The full fields of climate impact research and climate adaptation / mitigation are actively developing policies that could be used to achieve specific quantifiable goals.
It is a difficult field, though.
There are politicians who want scientists to develop ONE specific policy that said politician can then use to propel his own agenda "because the science says this".
There are also scientists (who are human beings, too), who use their scientific expert role to propel their own political agenda "because it is the right and necessary thing to do".
Both things happen a lot in the climate community, and everybody should try to clarify at all times: what are scientific facts (its warming, things may change to the worse), what are action options (can be scientific or heuristic), and what are value judgments.
The argument that the two of you have, is one that goes on in all of the meetings between science and policy I have attended so far, and in most of the science "internal" meetings, too. It is a hard problem to remain "policy relevant, but not policy prescriptive", as is the mantra of the IPCC process that should inform governments but not prescribe policies.
Best regards,
W
|
Hi Howardroark,
On August 19 2013 12:58 HowardRoark wrote:
To the OP: You sound more like a politician than a scientist and your attitude against people who disagree with you feels a bit smug. You lose credibility when you use the term "denialist". Also, you use the term "Climate change" and not "man made climate change". I doubt anyone _deny_ that climate do change. Science must be based on scientific method and nothing else. Mann sum up everything that is rotten with climate science: instead of doing unbiased science he went political, and his main aim seemed to be to denigrate his "opponents".
I am certainly not a politician, I am a physicist at heart and a climate scientist by occupation. The term denialist is not perfect, but as the "nonconsensus" community has grabbed the term skeptics for them, it has shown up as a differentiating name, because also "consensus" scientists are skeptical, all the time, this is intrinsic to be a scientist. Perhaps not formally enough in all circumstances, but we try.
Science should and MUST speak for itself, and when people like you start to use derogatory names on people questioning your science you should instead be happy and strive to better the science and not bend the facts or start hinting vaguely at people "backed up with a lot of money or being propelled by professional PR institutions". The science should be able to speak for itself. I am thinking about the Einstein-Bohr debates, and realize something have gone terribly wrong with today's "science" and especially climate science when every climate scientist sound like a politician instead of a scientist.
Climate science DOES speak for itself. If the implications of climate science would be minor, then you would not even be visiting this thread, the climate science community (or the atmospheric and oceanic sciences it has come from) would be discussing their cloud feedback problems, and nobody would care. Unfortunately, as has been shown in the case of smoking and cancer research, some groups in society, that believe that the implicated policy of a scientific fact might endanger their profits, try to attack the facts, not the implications. This is all I critizise: feel free to go into climate science and try to solve the existing multitude of problems and uncertainties we face. But dont use them to obfuscate things that climate science is very sure about.
I feel Freeman Dyson sum it up well: "My objections to the global warming propaganda are not so much over the technical facts, about which I do not know much, but it’s rather against the way those people behave and the kind of intolerance to criticism that a lot of them have."
Would you say Dyson is a denialist backed up by the oil corporations and the powerful PR institutions as well?
Dyson is a brilliant physicist who does - from your quote - not disagree with climate science facts or conclusions. Why should I disagree with him?
Somehow I feel the climate scientists themselves are the biggest obstacle in enlightening people in anthropogenic climate change.
I am sorry that you feel this way. While there are certainly a handful of slightly "alarmist" climate scientists, I dont believe that they are the core problem in "enlightening people" as you put it (I dont think its a good term. Science should inform, the public has to decide for themselves what they define as enlightened °). I believe it is a combination of
- the science is complex
- the implications are annoying (as in reflected in our daily lifes) while the consequences are far way
- there are agents in society who profit from no implementing mitigation options (there are also agents in society who profit from implementing mitigation options, and if they are mixed within our science that is a big notion of conflict of interest. they are still way smaller then big oil or steel or cars or whatever you want to put in as "old industry")
I hope that this post adresses a few of your criticisms towards my position (which, as postet in the OP, was just meant to answer scientific questions if people want them to be answered =) )
Best regards
W
|
Hey TricksAre4Figs,
On August 19 2013 05:42 TricksAre4Figs wrote:
It seems pretty relevant to the UN since they are consistently arguing for anthropogenic climate change and making proposals on how to regulate and manage carbon output....
While I can see the fear, that the UN tries to regulate global industry, you should potentially also acknowledge, that the UN are the only place where we can reasonably discuss global problems.
All problems that cannot be solved on a national level HAVE to be discussed in an organised international framework, and that is provided by the UN. I agree with many of your criticisms towards the UN process and agents, but I believe it is the best option we currently have to discuss problems like biodiversity http://www.cbd.int/ climate change http://unfccc.int/2860.php hunger wfp.org disarmament http://www.un.org/disarmament/convarms/SALW/ or similar problems that are global by nature.
If the process leads to unwanted results, this might
a) be the result of faulty decision process, which you should critizice or
b) a result of boundary conditions that make the democratic global decision not beneficial to you in person. In that case you can argue against the ethic foundation of global governance or accept it.
I believe, as the UN climate change related process has not lead to a single enforcable international treaty, you should not be afraid, th eUN is far away from being as influential as you fear it could become. Even the Kyoto protocol was voluntarily by everyone, and as soon as a country seemed to have to pay for passing their CO2 limits - they just left the protocol...
There is no rational argument to be made, that the UN and th eUNFCC as it exists today can enforce anything, that the government of a given country does not want to do.
Best regards,
W
|
http://www.amazon.com/Delinquent-Teenager-Mistaken-Climate-ebook/dp/B005UEVB8Q/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top
"In The Delinquent Teenager Who Was Mistaken for the World's Top Climate Expert, Donna Laframboise blows the lid off the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Instead of being a neutral body evaluating whether there has, in fact, been unprecedented global warming, the IPCC started with the premise that global warming was increasing at an alarming rate. Instead of investigating whether this warming was due to natural temperature cycles related to natural phenomena, human induced production of a trace atmospheric gas, carbon dioxide, was the cause celebre from the beginning. Instead of convening the world's experts, Laframboise exposes many of the IPCC "scientists" as being young, un-degreed, sometimes unpublished fledglings! She shows abundant examples of true world experts, purposely avoided by the UN IPCC, because they disagreed with the anthropogenic global warming party line.
Surprisingly, instead of gathering scientists with no preconceived notions of climate change, Donna Laframbroise lays bare the high percentage of IPCC scientist who had been closely associated with and many times employed by the powerful and monied environmental activist groups, such as the World Wildlife Fund, The Environmental Defense Fund, and others. Thus, these IPCC staff were following an agenda. They were "more activist than scientist!" She exposes The IPCC as a shoddy organization who didn't even follow what few rules it had, but portrayed itself as the indisputable oracle of impending climate disaster backed by the consensus of "thousands" of the world's most best scientists!
The Delinquent Teenager... is a fascinating unraveling of the world's most powerful voice for redistributing trillions of dollars in the name of the unproven theory of anthropogenic global warming, a theory rapidly losing many of its early proponents.
If Donna Laframbroise hasn't put the final nail in the coffin of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, I'll be surprised! "
Here's just one review of this journalistic expose of the IPCC. I think we all owe it to ourselves to read this book.
|
On August 19 2013 23:21 TricksAre4Figs wrote:http://www.amazon.com/Delinquent-Teenager-Mistaken-Climate-ebook/dp/B005UEVB8Q/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top"In The Delinquent Teenager Who Was Mistaken for the World's Top Climate Expert, Donna Laframboise blows the lid off the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Instead of being a neutral body evaluating whether there has, in fact, been unprecedented global warming, the IPCC started with the premise that global warming was increasing at an alarming rate. Instead of investigating whether this warming was due to natural temperature cycles related to natural phenomena, human induced production of a trace atmospheric gas, carbon dioxide, was the cause celebre from the beginning. Instead of convening the world's experts, Laframboise exposes many of the IPCC "scientists" as being young, un-degreed, sometimes unpublished fledglings! She shows abundant examples of true world experts, purposely avoided by the UN IPCC, because they disagreed with the anthropogenic global warming party line. Surprisingly, instead of gathering scientists with no preconceived notions of climate change, Donna Laframbroise lays bare the high percentage of IPCC scientist who had been closely associated with and many times employed by the powerful and monied environmental activist groups, such as the World Wildlife Fund, The Environmental Defense Fund, and others. Thus, these IPCC staff were following an agenda. They were "more activist than scientist!" She exposes The IPCC as a shoddy organization who didn't even follow what few rules it had, but portrayed itself as the indisputable oracle of impending climate disaster backed by the consensus of "thousands" of the world's most best scientists! The Delinquent Teenager... is a fascinating unraveling of the world's most powerful voice for redistributing trillions of dollars in the name of the unproven theory of anthropogenic global warming, a theory rapidly losing many of its early proponents. If Donna Laframbroise hasn't put the final nail in the coffin of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, I'll be surprised! " Here's just one review of this journalistic expose of the IPCC. I think we all owe it to ourselves to read this book.
Seems like a bullshit book to me.
|
Question for the OP, how is your institute funded?
Not a denier, as with a whole host of other things there is no way I could make a truly informed decision on this so I lean towards the scientific consensus. However I am interested in the funding relationships behind research institutions.
|
Freeman Dyson is 89 years old and has always been known as a bit of a troll who likes to challenge the consensus just for the sake of doing it. In the 1980s he was subjecting the theory of nuclear winter to near-microscopic scrutiny...as if it actually mattered whether it was anything more than a scary hypothesis. His comments on climate science haven't even drawn on the technical skills that he has or once had. Why should we care what he says on this topic?
|
On August 20 2013 00:09 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2013 23:21 TricksAre4Figs wrote:http://www.amazon.com/Delinquent-Teenager-Mistaken-Climate-ebook/dp/B005UEVB8Q/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top"In The Delinquent Teenager Who Was Mistaken for the World's Top Climate Expert, Donna Laframboise blows the lid off the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Instead of being a neutral body evaluating whether there has, in fact, been unprecedented global warming, the IPCC started with the premise that global warming was increasing at an alarming rate. Instead of investigating whether this warming was due to natural temperature cycles related to natural phenomena, human induced production of a trace atmospheric gas, carbon dioxide, was the cause celebre from the beginning. Instead of convening the world's experts, Laframboise exposes many of the IPCC "scientists" as being young, un-degreed, sometimes unpublished fledglings! She shows abundant examples of true world experts, purposely avoided by the UN IPCC, because they disagreed with the anthropogenic global warming party line. Surprisingly, instead of gathering scientists with no preconceived notions of climate change, Donna Laframbroise lays bare the high percentage of IPCC scientist who had been closely associated with and many times employed by the powerful and monied environmental activist groups, such as the World Wildlife Fund, The Environmental Defense Fund, and others. Thus, these IPCC staff were following an agenda. They were "more activist than scientist!" She exposes The IPCC as a shoddy organization who didn't even follow what few rules it had, but portrayed itself as the indisputable oracle of impending climate disaster backed by the consensus of "thousands" of the world's most best scientists! The Delinquent Teenager... is a fascinating unraveling of the world's most powerful voice for redistributing trillions of dollars in the name of the unproven theory of anthropogenic global warming, a theory rapidly losing many of its early proponents. If Donna Laframbroise hasn't put the final nail in the coffin of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, I'll be surprised! " Here's just one review of this journalistic expose of the IPCC. I think we all owe it to ourselves to read this book. Seems like a bullshit book to me.
And you're probably an idiot, so no problem.
User was warned for this post
|
Dear TricksAre4Figs,
I will see if this book is in our library and have a look at it. I am really interested if this book shows more things than the IPCC scrutiny by the science academies of the world after the Himalaya fault in the last report.
Just from a glance of what the book promises it seems to attack ad hominem and not the facts.
It might be true for example, that 30 % of the literature in the IPCC is non peer reviewed, but this means at the same time that 70% is, and there are good reasons for grey literature:
In the working groups II and III on adaptation and mitigation, many regional details for many underdeveloped countries are simply nonexisting in published literature (as in there are no scientists that deal with these countries), so the IPCC relies on world bank or similar reports. Those are clearly not of the same standard as peer-revieweder literature, but its as good as it gets.
as I believe that you are very strongly opiniated that climate change science is a hoax, I fear that we will not be able to convince you with singular arguments. A good attempt at explaining what this book does can be found in the comments itself (the following is copied from amazon):
"The main problem of the book: It only deals with the messenger, but does not really care about the message. It starts with the scientific academies: DL several times challenges the scientific academies to look at the IPCC process and to look after that 'spoiled child'. She considers the academies as scientific authorities, which should set the standards and speak out on that topic. She welcomes the report of the IAC (see above) and blames the IPCC of not having implemented its recommendations. However, while it is undisputed that there are deficiencies in the IPCC process and that there is room for improvement (as in every human organization in the world, by the way) one has to keep in mind two things:
1) There is no such thing as a scientific assessment of the state of knowledge in any other scientific field. The IPCC is a novel thing and yet has to develop everything new and learn from experience, which is a long process.
2) All criticism of IPCC processes, deficiencies, etc. does not change the results of innumerable scientific studies over decades and the main findings of the IPCC which are based on these studies. There may be some overstatements for certain aspects ' and some understatements for others (a problem DL was not interested in at all!) ' but the overall picture is not really altered by that. While requesting academies to step in, DL does not know or just conceal that numerous academies all over the world have done similar assessments as the IPCC and have come just to the same conclusions: that there is man-made climate change over the last decades and that this ' without counteraction - will be a serious problem in the future."
I did start this thread to discuss scientific questions and hypotheses that you or other TLers have; it is unfortunate that organisational issues you have with the UN or the IPCC process stop you from really looking at the underlying science
best regards, if you have read the book, please dont hesitate to message me if you have any questions concerning the underlying science (or the process)
W
|
Hi Trowa127,
On August 20 2013 00:28 Trowa127 wrote:
Question for the OP, how is your institute funded?
Not a denier, as with a whole host of other things there is no way I could make a truly informed decision on this so I lean towards the scientific consensus. However I am interested in the funding relationships behind research institutions.
The funding question is relevant, but luckily not too much for my institute =) Our institute is a very small part of one of the biggest science organisations of the planet, that gets money completely from public funds and can then do whatever the science dictates (if you are interested in the ugly details that deal with competency rivalries between federal and state agencies and a resulting deadlock in oversight, please pm me, its interesting enough but very specific =). As long as our fellow science peers agree that we do good science, we get money. As soon as the astronomers, astrophysicists, particle physicist and so on agree, that we dont do good science, the money is gone.
In general, in Germany the research ministries keep funding climate research but overall in Europe and the US the funding is not too well and mostly project specific.
In addition to institute base funding (which is probably 40% for our institute), project money from the ministry or the EU is part of an ongoing process: an example can be initiatives to improve our understanding of decadal predictions if this is a policy item for the corresponding ministry.
To be completely honest: clearly, the amount of money that a specific country can invest into climate research is in the longrun proportional to the political interest of its government in the topic, therefore countries like Australie, th eUS and Canada are struggling on one end of the research end. Luckily (?), the military and economic importance of weather forecasts lead to very strong meteorological centers also in other countries ( metoffice, NCAR in the US). While this overall funding trend is proportional to publich / government interest, the singular projects only rarely are. When the money has come down from the ministry to the scientists, it has become mostly unpolitical.
Best regards
W
|
On August 20 2013 01:10 dabbeljuh wrote:Dear TricksAre4Figs, I will see if this book is in our library and have a look at it. I am really interested if this book shows more things than the IPCC scrutiny by the science academies of the world after the Himalaya fault in the last report. Just from a glance of what the book promises it seems to attack ad hominem and not the facts. It might be true for example, that 30 % of the literature in the IPCC is non peer reviewed, but this means at the same time that 70% is, and there are good reasons for grey literature: In the working groups II and III on adaptation and mitigation, many regional details for many underdeveloped countries are simply nonexisting in published literature (as in there are no scientists that deal with these countries), so the IPCC relies on world bank or similar reports. Those are clearly not of the same standard as peer-revieweder literature, but its as good as it gets. as I believe that you are very strongly opiniated that climate change science is a hoax, I fear that we will not be able to convince you with singular arguments. A good attempt at explaining what this book does can be found in the comments itself (the following is copied from amazon): "The main problem of the book: It only deals with the messenger, but does not really care about the message. It starts with the scientific academies: DL several times challenges the scientific academies to look at the IPCC process and to look after that 'spoiled child'. She considers the academies as scientific authorities, which should set the standards and speak out on that topic. She welcomes the report of the IAC (see above) and blames the IPCC of not having implemented its recommendations. However, while it is undisputed that there are deficiencies in the IPCC process and that there is room for improvement (as in every human organization in the world, by the way) one has to keep in mind two things: 1) There is no such thing as a scientific assessment of the state of knowledge in any other scientific field. The IPCC is a novel thing and yet has to develop everything new and learn from experience, which is a long process. 2) All criticism of IPCC processes, deficiencies, etc. does not change the results of innumerable scientific studies over decades and the main findings of the IPCC which are based on these studies. There may be some overstatements for certain aspects ' and some understatements for others (a problem DL was not interested in at all!) ' but the overall picture is not really altered by that. While requesting academies to step in, DL does not know or just conceal that numerous academies all over the world have done similar assessments as the IPCC and have come just to the same conclusions: that there is man-made climate change over the last decades and that this ' without counteraction - will be a serious problem in the future." I did start this thread to discuss scientific questions and hypotheses that you or other TLers have; it is unfortunate that organisational issues you have with the UN or the IPCC process stop you from really looking at the underlying science best regards, if you have read the book, please dont hesitate to message me if you have any questions concerning the underlying science (or the process) W
I appreciate you taking the time to respond in such a detailed manner and to look at what I have presented in this thread. However, I never said I thought climate change science was a hoax. You are attempting to put words in my mouth and to paint me as a "hoaxer" "denier" which is just a clever debating tactic that doesn't happen to be based on the facts of what I've said.
Secondly, what makes you think I am "very strongly opinionated"? I'm simply bringing something to the discussion that hasn't been brought up yet. On the contrary, you seem to be the one who is very strongly opinionated and combative when presented with a dissenting opinion.
|
On August 20 2013 01:16 dabbeljuh wrote:Hi Trowa127, Show nested quote +On August 20 2013 00:28 Trowa127 wrote:
Question for the OP, how is your institute funded?
Not a denier, as with a whole host of other things there is no way I could make a truly informed decision on this so I lean towards the scientific consensus. However I am interested in the funding relationships behind research institutions. The funding question is relevant, but luckily not too much for my institute =) Our institute is a very small part of one of the biggest science organisations of the planet, that gets money completely from public funds and can then do whatever the science dictates (if you are interested in the ugly details that deal with competency rivalries between federal and state agencies and a resulting deadlock in oversight, please pm me, its interesting enough but very specific =). As long as our fellow science peers agree that we do good science, we get money. As soon as the astronomers, astrophysicists, particle physicist and so on agree, that we dont do good science, the money is gone. In general, in Germany the research ministries keep funding climate research but overall in Europe and the US the funding is not too well and mostly project specific. In addition to institute base funding (which is probably 40% for our institute), project money from the ministry or the EU is part of an ongoing process: an example can be initiatives to improve our understanding of decadal predictions if this is a policy item for the corresponding ministry. To be completely honest: clearly, the amount of money that a specific country can invest into climate research is in the longrun proportional to the political interest of its government in the topic, therefore countries like Australie, th eUS and Canada are struggling on one end of the research end. Luckily (?), the military and economic importance of weather forecasts lead to very strong meteorological centers also in other countries ( metoffice, NCAR in the US). While this overall funding trend is proportional to publich / government interest, the singular projects only rarely are. When the money has come down from the ministry to the scientists, it has become mostly unpolitical. Best regards W
Why don't you name the organization?
|
On August 20 2013 02:16 TricksAre4Figs wrote:Show nested quote +On August 20 2013 01:10 dabbeljuh wrote:Dear TricksAre4Figs, I will see if this book is in our library and have a look at it. I am really interested if this book shows more things than the IPCC scrutiny by the science academies of the world after the Himalaya fault in the last report. Just from a glance of what the book promises it seems to attack ad hominem and not the facts. It might be true for example, that 30 % of the literature in the IPCC is non peer reviewed, but this means at the same time that 70% is, and there are good reasons for grey literature: In the working groups II and III on adaptation and mitigation, many regional details for many underdeveloped countries are simply nonexisting in published literature (as in there are no scientists that deal with these countries), so the IPCC relies on world bank or similar reports. Those are clearly not of the same standard as peer-revieweder literature, but its as good as it gets. as I believe that you are very strongly opiniated that climate change science is a hoax, I fear that we will not be able to convince you with singular arguments. A good attempt at explaining what this book does can be found in the comments itself (the following is copied from amazon): "The main problem of the book: It only deals with the messenger, but does not really care about the message. It starts with the scientific academies: DL several times challenges the scientific academies to look at the IPCC process and to look after that 'spoiled child'. She considers the academies as scientific authorities, which should set the standards and speak out on that topic. She welcomes the report of the IAC (see above) and blames the IPCC of not having implemented its recommendations. However, while it is undisputed that there are deficiencies in the IPCC process and that there is room for improvement (as in every human organization in the world, by the way) one has to keep in mind two things: 1) There is no such thing as a scientific assessment of the state of knowledge in any other scientific field. The IPCC is a novel thing and yet has to develop everything new and learn from experience, which is a long process. 2) All criticism of IPCC processes, deficiencies, etc. does not change the results of innumerable scientific studies over decades and the main findings of the IPCC which are based on these studies. There may be some overstatements for certain aspects ' and some understatements for others (a problem DL was not interested in at all!) ' but the overall picture is not really altered by that. While requesting academies to step in, DL does not know or just conceal that numerous academies all over the world have done similar assessments as the IPCC and have come just to the same conclusions: that there is man-made climate change over the last decades and that this ' without counteraction - will be a serious problem in the future." I did start this thread to discuss scientific questions and hypotheses that you or other TLers have; it is unfortunate that organisational issues you have with the UN or the IPCC process stop you from really looking at the underlying science best regards, if you have read the book, please dont hesitate to message me if you have any questions concerning the underlying science (or the process) W I appreciate you taking the time to respond in such a detailed manner and to look at what I have presented in this thread. However, I never said I thought climate change science was a hoax. You are attempting to put words in my mouth and to paint me as a "hoaxer" "denier" which is just a clever debating tactic that doesn't happen to be based on the facts of what I've said. Secondly, what makes you think I am "very strongly opinionated"? I'm simply bringing something to the discussion that hasn't been brought up yet. On the contrary, you seem to be the one who is very strongly opinionated and combative when presented with a dissenting opinion.
His opinion is based on what you brought to the table. No need to get so defensive!
As he also points out, it is a bit to the ad hominem side of the discussion and it also doesn't seem to relate to what he is trying to discuss here, which is the science. If there are more specific quotes relating to the scientific topic instead of the people doing the research it is more in the spirit of this thread.
If you want to stear closer to the topic at hand: What effects do you think the corrupt scientists have on climate science and why has a majority of scientists accepted their opinion as generally true? There must be something missing somewhere for us to make it make sense!
|
On August 20 2013 04:37 radiatoren wrote:Show nested quote +On August 20 2013 02:16 TricksAre4Figs wrote:On August 20 2013 01:10 dabbeljuh wrote:Dear TricksAre4Figs, I will see if this book is in our library and have a look at it. I am really interested if this book shows more things than the IPCC scrutiny by the science academies of the world after the Himalaya fault in the last report. Just from a glance of what the book promises it seems to attack ad hominem and not the facts. It might be true for example, that 30 % of the literature in the IPCC is non peer reviewed, but this means at the same time that 70% is, and there are good reasons for grey literature: In the working groups II and III on adaptation and mitigation, many regional details for many underdeveloped countries are simply nonexisting in published literature (as in there are no scientists that deal with these countries), so the IPCC relies on world bank or similar reports. Those are clearly not of the same standard as peer-revieweder literature, but its as good as it gets. as I believe that you are very strongly opiniated that climate change science is a hoax, I fear that we will not be able to convince you with singular arguments. A good attempt at explaining what this book does can be found in the comments itself (the following is copied from amazon): "The main problem of the book: It only deals with the messenger, but does not really care about the message. It starts with the scientific academies: DL several times challenges the scientific academies to look at the IPCC process and to look after that 'spoiled child'. She considers the academies as scientific authorities, which should set the standards and speak out on that topic. She welcomes the report of the IAC (see above) and blames the IPCC of not having implemented its recommendations. However, while it is undisputed that there are deficiencies in the IPCC process and that there is room for improvement (as in every human organization in the world, by the way) one has to keep in mind two things: 1) There is no such thing as a scientific assessment of the state of knowledge in any other scientific field. The IPCC is a novel thing and yet has to develop everything new and learn from experience, which is a long process. 2) All criticism of IPCC processes, deficiencies, etc. does not change the results of innumerable scientific studies over decades and the main findings of the IPCC which are based on these studies. There may be some overstatements for certain aspects ' and some understatements for others (a problem DL was not interested in at all!) ' but the overall picture is not really altered by that. While requesting academies to step in, DL does not know or just conceal that numerous academies all over the world have done similar assessments as the IPCC and have come just to the same conclusions: that there is man-made climate change over the last decades and that this ' without counteraction - will be a serious problem in the future." I did start this thread to discuss scientific questions and hypotheses that you or other TLers have; it is unfortunate that organisational issues you have with the UN or the IPCC process stop you from really looking at the underlying science best regards, if you have read the book, please dont hesitate to message me if you have any questions concerning the underlying science (or the process) W I appreciate you taking the time to respond in such a detailed manner and to look at what I have presented in this thread. However, I never said I thought climate change science was a hoax. You are attempting to put words in my mouth and to paint me as a "hoaxer" "denier" which is just a clever debating tactic that doesn't happen to be based on the facts of what I've said. Secondly, what makes you think I am "very strongly opinionated"? I'm simply bringing something to the discussion that hasn't been brought up yet. On the contrary, you seem to be the one who is very strongly opinionated and combative when presented with a dissenting opinion. His opinion is based on what you brought to the table. No need to get so defensive! As he also points out, it is a bit to the ad hominem side of the discussion and it also doesn't seem to relate to what he is trying to discuss here, which is the science. If there are more specific quotes relating to the scientific topic instead of the people doing the research it is more in the spirit of this thread. If you want to stear closer to the topic at hand: What effects do you think the corrupt scientists have on climate science and why has a majority of scientists accepted their opinion as generally true? There must be something missing somewhere for us to make it make sense!
It is not ad hominem to point out that unqualified people are hired and appointed to senior positions within the IPCC. This issue is detailed in depth in the book that I cited earlier. It costs about $4 to get the online version of the book if you're interested. To put it in very basic terms there is a concern that the data in various different climate science fields is being interpreted by activists and not by scientific standards. The issue of climate change is NOT entirely about the science at this point, it's about the activism and the politics surrounding it as well. We must be careful not to be bamboozled by activists who have an agenda and are not conducting objective scientific inquiry into the matter.
Now, having said that, we know that 99% of people are scientifically illiterate and cannot interpret data themselves. We must rely on those professionals who study the field to give their best interpretations. If there is never a debate on the issue and only one side is allowed to speak then I'm afraid I can't believe they are telling the whole truth. A dissenting opinion must be allowed to make it's case in order for the truth to come out.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
