Jump to content
Problems logging in? ×
Snow?
Local
Radar
Cold?

Extreme Alde

Members
  • Posts

    13
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Extreme Alde

  1. Hi Matt The attached link will take you to the rising tide resources page which has a number of tips for speakers and replies to contrarian arguments. Hope it is useful and the talk is received well. http://risingtide.org.uk/resources/factsheets
  2. Sadly the arguments on this board have gone away from the scientific ones to which you and P3 decided to have to political conjecture such as the above. Your answer to the above is indeed disingenuous; taxation is an electoral issue and no UK party apart from the Greens would seek to thrust forward extra taxation on green issues so openly without regard first to what effect these will ahve on the electorate's voting intentions. Politics is, if nothing else, a popularity contest in which you can have any policy you want (so long as it gets you elected!) Incidentally I disagreed with the departure from being able to query sources of information. Part of the sceptic (I'm not sure sceptic is the right term here, I don't have a problem with sceptics - denial industry is better) aim in trying to present to the public their views have relied upon trying to appear as genuine scetics rather than carbon funded lobbyists. Your request that backgrounds not be challlenged falls exactly into their desire and hides for them a weakness. It doesn't stop what they say having to be rebutted or otherwise, but by automatically granting a press release credibility you make some PR men very happy. Furthermore you have failed to demonstrate why the scientists P3 has quoted in the past are not worthy of trusting. That you don't trust them does not make them untrustworthy unless you can demonstrate why. Otherwise the temptation is to suggest you just don't agree with them in which case you again need to demonstrate why. IMO anyway. I have just noted again I appear to be having a go at you - please take none of this as a personal attack. I have really enjoyed and learnt from some of your posts and you provide an effective foil for P3 on occasion. I hope you and P3 will back track from the science only and once again concentrate on the papers and who wrote them. I think it is central to the discussion you are having.
  3. Yes I'm unfamiliar with the Bray work but a summary is here on Fred Singer's site http://www.sepp.org/Archive/NewSEPP/Bray.htm And a link to Professor Bray's work http://w3g.gkss.de/G/Mitarbeiter/bray.html...surveymenu.html I'm not sure what was wrong with his work with regard the rejection; was the sample too small or selective??/
  4. What is staggering for me (and I suspect anyone reading the document) is the amount of virtually certain (greater than 99%) given to the statements by the climate scientists. It is both a clear statement of where the science is at the moment and a fundamental challenge to the sceptic community. I pray that this can be picked up by major media so that we can have a public and well reported commentary on this case.
  5. Somebody call a cynic? Here you go CB Sourcewatch on Heartland http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title...tland_Institute and Exxonsecrets http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=41 I found this, for me, particularly damning:- "Walter F. Buchholtz, an ExxonMobil executive, sits on Heartland's Board of Directors. (4/04) " According to Heartland's website he is still sitting there. I would think in order to remove doubts about their desire to remain independent they could simply remove old Walter.
  6. Sorry C-Bob- they do use RC and one other site in defence. I thought a point by point would be interesting because plausability is effectively reduced (hence why on the net it is such an effective tool) in large documents like the Monckton pdf. I should have warned you though - sorry!
  7. And from me too. This is a point by point rebuttal of Monckton being created at Wikipedia - see if it adds or not to your thoughts. It is now becoming confusing for me - perhaps this is the aim. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dbuckner/climate
  8. No worries. With regard your quotation I still think we are thinking along the same lines (though undoubtedly as we enter heated debate over an issue in the future we will need to remind ourselves of this) and have no reason (as I stated in my post) to fear scientifc research. What I hope you agree with me on is that the funding of research where the answer is known, or the research is funded merely to enhance a position (sort of putting a lengthy, complex calculation in front of 2 plus 2 equals 3 to prove it), is wrong. There are numerous sites, organisations and corporations doing this (probably a few universties too). Tell me what you think of the Hansen (albeit dated) article. I like the contrast he gives between his and alternative stances. For a non scientist it makes it easier to understand.
  9. Have a look at this C-B - it is Hansen's site but is is fascinating as he attempts to outline the difference between himself and Lindzen - both infinitely more knowledgeable than I http://www.giss.nasa.gov/edu/gwdebate/ The misquote or otherwise of Hansen is sometimes measured after the very hot 98 - a year which we had a very large El Nino. Many from the sceptical side have argued that the century actually cooled after that or used this year only as an example to prove GW wasn't happening (at least until 2005). Anyway see what you think. Out of interest I would really like to see what a really stron El Nino does now by way of comparison, although 8 years may be too few to comment? From your cynical side, and time allowing, I would recommend you google Hansen though. He has been misquoted more than once and even shielded from talking by his own government, who were at the time unwilling to embrace the AGW thought! He wasn't on a list of approved speakers - only sceptics! Only proving we are right to be sceptical with regard to information. I think many of the things we are slightly worried about when it comes to climate science, esp. past climate reconstructions are addressed specifically in the updated IPCC report update early next year with a specific section on paleo climate. I have steadfastly refused to read any purported leaks on this so far, Junk Scince for example says they have some, and will read it first hand. By way of explanation my distrust of sceptical papers is obvious and I am ashamed to admit, manifestly unfair. It comes from the sponsoring of dodgy or disproven science by oil companies and the like, willing to risk extreme consequences for some peoples of this earth so that may continue to sell their products. I don't mind them arguing or sponsoring science thats sets out to disprove, but I draw the line at the republication of false allegations under a guise of new information. However, I also distrust pretty much all papers on the subject from anyone with something to sell, be that a paper or a barrel of oil. The worry is that purveyors of this rotten science will actually get in the way of genuine sceptic scientists who have soemthing useful to say on the subject. Scepticism is part of science, fraud isn't. As such I tend to be very careful about where articles and the like come from. Takes bloomin ages!
  10. Thanks for your reply! I knew from reading the exchange with P3 you were under pain of death (or worse) for spending too much time on here so the risks you take stand you in good stead! :lol: I'm afraid the Milloy site is a site that was set up to discredit the reports from the Tobacco industry, that industry having realised that if the public understood the science to be settled, so would their attitudes quickly changed. It is a site that still posts plain wrong infornmation even after challenge. For example it still has papers on the site that suggest 55% of the worlds glaciers are retreating, despite this being described, politely, as incorrect by the world glacier service. As for Monckton's calculations, I post on another site with an atmospheric physicist. His comments regarding the pdf. were absolute and he was happy to be challenged on them. I do though, rather like the Hansen / Lindzen argument - it is sometimes good to see two heavyweights slug it out even if I agree with one's outcomes. I didn't like seeing Hansen misquoted and then this false clain repeated across the Net though. It does really take away from a document if you use misleading information from the off. A similar claim to that made against the hockey stick? Don't understand your comments about the second piece, I rather unclearly was arguing that they were one document? Never mind it is not important. Time is short this morning - will no doubt read you after your next escape.
  11. Believe me I mean you individually no discourtesy, so I'll be nice in return. I do though have several misgivings about the Monckton piece away from the science which I can already see we will probably agree from the outset to disagree on. :unsure: I have a wonder about why Mr Monckton invested so much time in this from the outset. Are we to believe that he was so motivated by the perceived injustice ongoing on the Climate Change reportage he felt he ought put the record straight? Or did he pitch the idea first, or even be commissioned to write the article, in which case I suggest that the outcome was preordained. I would contend you simply do not commission a journalist with no science background to prove one way or other an argument such as this. The family connection with Nigel Lawson, a well known sceptic, is also intriguing although I accept that this could be circumstance. What is far more dubious is the timing; we had Stern and then we had in quick succession rebuttals from Paul Reiter, Mr Lawson and Mr Monckton. If Mr Monckton had simply been responding to the Stern report he'd have been doing so night and day from his non-scientific background to get it sone so quick. Another explanation is that the rebuttals were rather more orchestrated than it is being let on. As far as his second piece is concerned, as it is intrinsically linked to the first article and given that it is widely discredited I'm afraid that I don't see that it should be taken seriously though I accept your stance on it. Nonetheless, given its linking to its predecessor I believe it should have stayed in that thread. Your argument that you opened a thread for the first one falls down only because on that you had no choice. Mr Monckton states in his article (jokingly, almost sneeringly) that he notes "The Royal Society says there's a worldwide scientific consensus. It brands Apocalypse-deniers as paid lackeys of coal and oil corporations. I declare my interest: I once took the taxpayer's shilling and advised Margaret Thatcher, FRS, on scientific scams and scares. Alas, not a red cent from Exxon." Interestingly the web site he lists his favourite has received some funding from Exxon, is thought to be funded by another carbon crunching conglomerate and his findings were apparently independantly also found by Steve Milloy's Junk Science. Big coincidence, and one i am really suspicious of. Incidentally I have developed (as you may see) a largely cynical approach to all articles on this subject , trusting no one who has something to sell. I hope you don't object too much to my expressing my concerns here.
  12. Really don't know why this deserves its own thread and why it is being posted so long after the article? :unsure: Nonetheless, whilst Mr Monckton does ask questions of the scientific community he has been discredited across the net with his answers. Meanwhile a scan through the letters they have printed in the PDF (very pro Mr Monckton) shows what he considers to be the best site on the net;- www.co2science.org Very illuminating.
  13. Realclimate have reviewed the Monckton article and a strangely similar (in places) Milloy one. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archi...cuckoo-science/
×
×
  • Create New...