Visit our Popular Forums

Exile · 09-04-2016, 11:25

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Guys, I would be totally on your bench if you could prove that climate scientists have not already factored all of this in. I don't think that you've achieved some insight that they have not. Your fave skeptic sites root around for anything that's a plausible counter, then they buff it up and put it out there (no peer review, no examination), and it becomes your insight du jour, and lives on in your mythology despite numerous proofs of irrelevance (eg Climategate).

Just because there was no formal adjudication of malfeasance in Climategate doesn't mean the scientists didn't express the doubts & machinations that they did. It was all recorded and is not disputed. But ya gotta read beyond the sales brochures (but not much beyond) to figure that one out.

So where's all the missing heat from GW that somehow the mainstream scientists relying on the surface data properly factored in, but the scientists relying on the sat data failed to do? Under the subduction theory, it's supposed to be in the mid to deep ocean, but Newhaul's (or Reef's?) recent cite to the NASA article shows that it is not. Did you read it before posting? It's a yet to be proven theory that attempts to explain and reconcile the two dominant but divergent data sets. Lots of theories in the world of climate science but little proof, and little consensus beyond the simple fact that AGW probably exists.

Exile · 09-04-2016, 11:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Knee-jerk gummint-haterz tire me. Sh1t or get off the pot.

You learned all that about fryewe just from his bio??

fryewe · 09-04-2016, 12:06

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Guys, I would be totally on your bench if you could prove that climate scientists have not already factored all of this in. I don't think that you've achieved some insight that they have not. Your fave skeptic sites root around for anything that's a plausible counter, then they buff it up and put it out there (no peer review, no examination), and it becomes your insight du jour, and lives on in your mythology despite numerous proofs of irrelevance (eg Climategate).

Going 'round in circles...

No one here is claiming to have "proved" anything...but neither have "the climate scientists" proved anything.

And trying to get you onto the bench is not something anyone is trying to achieve. In over 3000 posts, you've made it clear that you aren't looking objectively at the information being provided, nor providing leavened responses. Your attempts to belittle the arguments and persons who try to engage you clearly show you aren't serious.

Trying to convince you of anything isn't worth the effort. Exile deserves sainthood for his patience with you.

Lake-Effect · 09-04-2016, 13:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by Exile

You can choose to take it that way, or choose to use it to gain a better understanding of what the IPCC really is and how it operates. In other words, to better understand the way things actually are as opposed to the sugar-coated way it makes you feel good to understand them. You don't need a "conspiracy" to recognize that the IPCC is not simply a dispassionate adjudicator of all the science, but a political body with political goals.

Yet you won't expand on "how things really are", those "political goals" and what about the IPCC and its goals concerns you. Is it because it's too hard and complex, or is it because if you get around to articulating them, they will be exposed as some half-baked unproven tinfoilhat stuff that will shrivel like a salted slug under examination?

Quote:

The "dumb" theme again, as applied so many times before to those that offer push-back on conformist views.

I'm the conformist? Not in this forum, at a minimum.

Quote:

Ah yes, and now we have the guilt theme. The talking points are ever so predictable. I bet that progressive label you've proclaimed for yourself feels good, even as it just gets typed out of your computer.

Try pragmatic and still somewhat optimistic. Lead, follow, or get outta the way.

Quote:

So why do you keep mentioning your "redistribution" themes, and "New New Deal" economics as part of "climate policy?

I didn't. I went off on a tangent, about what I see coming in general.

Quote:

More to the point, [about time] why is the IPCC so involved in doing this? Climate policy needs to follow from climate science, not the other way around. But of course the opposite has become the norm, which is why it's so important for the messaging to continue to be that the science is now "settled," the debate is "over," and any questioning of the science must be ignored, suppressed or marginalized, regardless of evidence.

If you want to do the science, please let's do the science. If you want to do policy, by all means. And I'd participate in good faith in either, and get off your case.

When you and others attack, malign, distort science in order to advance your policy goals, that's dishonest and destructive. And worthy of contempt.

Lake-Effect · 09-04-2016, 13:19

Quote:

Originally Posted by Exile

You learned all that about fryewe just from his bio??

When you and fryewe go "because government!" and "because UN!" and then go silent when I ask you to expand. Like we somehow missed the memo.

Sorry, there is actually a very large chunk of people in the western world who don't have "government BAAAD! UN baaad!" as unquestionable catechisms.

Lake-Effect · 09-04-2016, 13:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by Exile

Just because there was no formal adjudication of malfeasance in Climategate doesn't mean the scientists didn't express the doubts & machinations that they did. It was all recorded and is not disputed. But ya gotta read beyond the sales brochures (but not much beyond) to figure that one out.

Exhibit A for how these zombie myths live on. Several scientific bodies reviewed all the stuff from "Climategate" and in every case, they found no malfeasance, no error... the communications amounted to no more that the normal amount of backroom give and take as the data are processed, and most important, they agreed that the final results were not falsified, biased, tainted, distorted... no problem found, science ok. A whole lot more than "no formal adjudication of malfeasance".

The mere fact that you still cling to this as valid... your intent is pretty clear. Dispute the science, attack the scientists, to stop any action on AGW.

Exile · 09-04-2016, 14:07

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

When you and fryewe go "because government!" and "because UN!" and then go silent when I ask you to expand. Like we somehow missed the memo.

Sorry, there is actually a very large chunk of people in the western world who don't have "government BAAAD! UN baaad!" as unquestionable catechisms.

Reef and Newhaul already expanded on the IPCC for you. Btwn you & Jack, I've already written more than my share of words to try and conjure up a more honest, objective, and civil debate. At this point, the burden has shifted to you, assuming you are sincerely interested that is, to explain why the IPCC is merely the neutral adjudicator & coordinator of the entire realm of climate science, as the superficial promo material you cut & pasted would have everyone believe.

There is obviously plenty of evidence supporting your diehard beliefs in the science that supports MMGW as a serious planetary threat. But evidence is not proof, nor even certainty given the evidence that contradicts. Maybe you just live in a bubble, get all your information from the same source, or can't bear to have your childish worldview undercut, and so this level of push-back is a shock to you. Or maybe you're just trolling to get attention, or perhaps you're just bored. Or, maybe you're just as young, dumb and gullible as you sound. Often hard to tell over the internet.

Nobody is slamming govt., only trying to explain it's shortfalls so that its role in the CC debate can be more properly understood. Just like few if any are alleging conspiracies on the part of govts or scientists, only pointing out how ambition, ego, bias, and money often subverts truth. And yes, your posts suggest you have missed many memos that could have prevented much of the embarrassment my (truly) progressive (and smart) friends would suffer if I sent them a link to your posts.

Lake-Effect · 09-04-2016, 15:07

Quote:

Originally Posted by Exile

the burden has shifted to you, assuming you are sincerely interested that is, to explain why the IPCC is merely the neutral adjudicator & coordinator of the entire realm of climate science, as the superficial promo material you cut & pasted would have everyone believe.

Again... a misstatement - I have not claimed that "IPCC is merely the neutral adjudicator & coordinator of the entire realm of climate science".

(policy != science)

So was that merely an error, a bit of hyperbole, ...or more bait? (it takes two to tango, and you keep playing that record...)

I don't particularly feel a burden to prove that the IPCC is what it says on the tin. Even Reef sort of acknowledges that his initial out-of-context pull-quote from Eberhofer was less than worthy. So I think the case against the IPCC, and all the governments who are taking part in it, has not yet been made. Nothing is above criticism, of course.

Reefmagnet · 09-04-2016, 15:42

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

(my highlighting in red)

Edenhofer is giving his take on how climate change policy is intertwined with development policy, and the ramifications, and potential pitfalls of this relationship. (He seems to be arguing against a simplistic knee-jerk per-capita distribution of carbon rights; did you miss this?)

The Edenhofer stuff above is his frank and intelligent examination of how tough a policy problem this is.... sad that all you could find of interest is some short quotes to take out of context, to slag the entire IPCC with.

Another truth in there - we are fast approaching a time in our existence when there will not be enough jobs for everybody to have gainful employment. We're seeing this already; eg the US recovery from 2008 consists of more part-time, no-benefit, low-paying McJobs. One future concept being floated is the Basic Personal Income (BPI) - in a nutshell, the government pays everybody $X, then any jobs pay on top of that. The rationale is that all told, it's cheaper overall than the current patchwork of supports to the poor. Anyway, I'm sure this all thrills you immensely. Ok here's an alternative: a New "New Deal" where we take advantage of this sputtering, low-interest economy to ... take out the trash and fix up the place, and help our neighbours out a little, basically. (when I'm between contracts, I paint a room, fix the deck, etc. Same idea). I also believe that energy alternatives are the Next Big Thing, market-growth-wise. Smart capitalists have already jumped aboard. Hint hint.

As a progressive I am of course always amused how conquest, expropriation, genocide, pollution, outsourcing to lower-cost, regulation-free zones, economic enslavement via the IMF... this is "development", but if anyone suggests balancing things out a little, maybe helping other nations to develop faster and with less mess... that's "redistribution" (boo hiss).

Finally, climate policy is not climate science. Your disagreements with policy has no direct bearing on whether the science is dependable or not.

What a crock of delusional crap. Do you think no one at the UN would consider for one moment to create the IPSC - Intergovernmental Panel on Social Change -, for example, if this was even remotely true?

BTW, how much does your country currently provide in foreign aid annually? You know, those payments derived from YOUR taxes set by YOUR elected officials that were decided by factors such as YOUR current economic conditions taking into specific account factors applicable to YOUR country with distribution of funds determined by YOUR national interest.

Exile · 09-04-2016, 15:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Again... a misstatement - I have not claimed that "IPCC is merely the neutral adjudicator & coordinator of the entire realm of climate science".

(policy != science)

So was that merely an error, a bit of hyperbole, ...or more bait? (it takes two to tango, and you keep playing that record...)

I don't particularly feel a burden to prove that the IPCC is what it says on the tin. Even Reef sort of acknowledges that his initial out-of-context pull-quote from Eberhofer was less than worthy. So I think the case against the IPCC, and all the governments who are taking part in it, has not yet been made. Nothing is above criticism, of course.

I didn't intend to misstate/mischaracterize. As perhaps you've now learned yourself, that's never productive. But conversing with you & Jack is like a dialogue with the "Riddler" on the old Batman shows.

If you want to explore this further, just tell us how you would characterize the IPCC and why what Reef presented was off the mark. I thought his example was illustrative. What's your point, btw? That the IPCC is not a political organiz. with a political agenda? How do they deal with all the sat data, or do they?

Of course this is only a sailing forum -- you have no "burden" to do anything. But then don't expect anyone else to do your homework, only to have you cry that they've misstated the point you're trying to make but didn't.

Exile · 09-04-2016, 16:09

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

BTW, how much does your country currently provide in foreign aid annually? You know, those payments derived from YOUR taxes set by YOUR elected officials that were decided by factors such as YOUR current economic conditions taking into specific account factors applicable to YOUR country with distribution of funds determined by YOUR national interest.

$747M in US dollars in humanitarian assistance in 2014 for Canada. This was less than Sweden at $933M and Japan at $882M, but a lot more than France at $462M.

The (oppressor) US gave away 4.7 Billion and was #1 in the world by a longshot.

The United Kingdom came in at a distant second at $2.3B.

This excludes peacekeeping & military aid, but you can find those too through the attached link.

Country Profiles |

Reefmagnet · 09-04-2016, 16:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by Exile

$747M in US dollars in humanitarian assistance in 2014 for Canada. This was less than Sweden at $933M and Japan at $882M, but a lot more than France at $462M.

The (oppressor) US gave away 4.7 Billion and was #1 in the world by a longshot.

The United Kingdom came in at a distant second at $2.3B.

This excludes peacekeeping & military aid, but you can find those too through the attached link.

Country Profiles |

Russia and South Africa aren't going to be happy.

Brob2 · 09-04-2016, 19:10

Quote:

Originally Posted by Exile

$747M in US dollars in humanitarian assistance in 2014 for Canada. This was less than Sweden at $933M and Japan at $882M, but a lot more than France at $462M.

The (oppressor) US gave away 4.7 Billion and was #1 in the world by a longshot.

The United Kingdom came in at a distant second at $2.3B.

This excludes peacekeeping & military aid, but you can find those too through the attached link.

Country Profiles |

That's dismal. Less that a sixth of the population and GDP of the USA yet the UK gives 50% of the USA's assistance?? Am I missing something, because these numbers are not flattering to the USA on any sort of pro rata basis.