| |
| Another climate conference |
« View previous topic :: View next topic » |
| Author |
Message
|
| andre |
 Posted: Mon Feb 18, 2008 2:37 am Post subject: Another climate conference |
 |
|
Forum Sophomore
Joined: 10 Aug 2007
Posts: 106
|
A reminder of the 2008 International Conference on Climate Change as you won't probably find it in the regular news media.
A bit of background:
| Quote: |
Distinguished scholars from the U.S. and around the world have addressed these questions seriously and without institutional bias. Their findings suggest the Modern Warming is moderate and partly or even mostly a natural recovery from the Little Ice Age; that the consequences of moderate warming are positive for humanity and wildlife; that predictions of future warming are wildly unreliable; that the costs of trying to “stop global warming” exceed hypothetical benefits by a factor of 10 or more
Often, these scholars have been ignored, and often even censored and demonized. They have been labeled “skeptics” and even “global warming deniers,” a mean-spirited attempt to lump them together with Holocaust deniers. The truth of the matter is that these scholars dissent from a false “consensus” put forward by a small but politically powerful clique of government scientists and political allies. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| marnixR |
| Posted: Mon Feb 18, 2008 7:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Cosmic Wizard
Joined: 10 Apr 2007
Posts: 2386
Location: Cardiff, Wales
|
given the politicised nature of the global warming debate, i'm not surprised : no-one wants to admit to being the mouthpiece of big business, not even the Heartland Institute - nothing works to the detriment of your credibility as much as being funded by the tobacco and the oil industry
_________________
if you find this place too crowded or too confrontational, how about trying Philosophorum,
the amicable forum where small is beautiful and even the trolls are intelligent
biology without evolution is but stamp collecting |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| free radical |
| Posted: Mon Feb 18, 2008 9:41 am Post subject: Re: Another climate conference |
|
|
Forum Bachelors Degree
Joined: 24 Sep 2007
Posts: 453
|
| andre wrote: |
A reminder of the 2008 International Conference on Climate Change as you won't probably find it in the regular news media.
A bit of background:
| Quote: |
Distinguished scholars from the U.S. and around the world have addressed these questions seriously and without institutional bias. Their findings suggest the Modern Warming is moderate and partly or even mostly a natural recovery from the Little Ice Age; that the consequences of moderate warming are positive for humanity and wildlife; that predictions of future warming are wildly unreliable; that the costs of trying to “stop global warming” exceed hypothetical benefits by a factor of 10 or more
Often, these scholars have been ignored, and often even censored and demonized. They have been labeled “skeptics” and even “global warming deniers,” a mean-spirited attempt to lump them together with Holocaust deniers. The truth of the matter is that these scholars dissent from a false “consensus” put forward by a small but politically powerful clique of government scientists and political allies. |
|
Cheers for this.
Some of the presenting speakers appear to be on the fringe themselves. Whilst they may be affiliated with institutions that do not have institutional bias, the individuals themselves (ex: Robert Bailing) have a long association (over ten years) with the Heartland Institute, which is sponsoring the conference and which may well provide grants for these scientists.
Will you attend the conference? Several obscure news articles indicate that the expected attendance will be several hundred people. Unsurprising that the conference is not receiving much news coverage (altho there is some) as even the annual AGU conference, which attracts upwards of 15,000 scientists, rarely makes much by way of headlines.
Many who study climate are far less extreme in their views on changing climate than the media portrays the situation. However, this reflects the cautious nature of scientists, not the uncertainty wrt climate change and the potential for far-reaching effects. It is this same cautious nature at the root of the precautionary principle, and which hesitates to embrace anything sponsored by the Heartland Institute.
As to scepticism on the topics being presented: Any opportunity to develop new technologies is an opportunity for economic growth. To argue that reducing fossil fuel use (through development of alternative technology) is economically disastrous, is a bit much to swallow. OTOH, there is general agreement that draconian capping measures would be harmful to economic growth, which is likely why such measures have not happened to any great extent.
Aha - This website lists "heartlandglobalwarming.com experts" and a comparison of the speaker list for the upcoming conference indicates that a full dozen of the presenting scientists are hearltandglobalwarming.com 'experts.'
Your implication that this conference represents unbiased science seems off the mark, old chap. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| andre |
| Posted: Mon Feb 18, 2008 3:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Sophomore
Joined: 10 Aug 2007
Posts: 106
|
Let's look at the address line again, yes this place is really called "The science forum" which suggests that science is discussed. Science is about ideas, hypotheses and theories, proof and falsification, but above all about curiosity. What is going on and why?
So what do we see? a couple of post purely about fallacies. Discussing people, who actually have been seen to fill up their cars with gas, so they are crooks so they are wrong. Ad hominems.
Remember Eleanor Roosevelt:
| Quote: |
| Great minds discuss ideas; Average minds discuss events; Small minds discuss people. |
So perhaps we should try and behave as curious scientists instead of a consensus herd and discuss the idea that climate change may be different when we study the Independent Summary of Policy makers, written by scientists, not politically correct computer modellers.
PDF here
And note the conclusions:
| Quote: |
The Earth's climate is an extremely complex system and we must not understate the difficulties involved in analyzing it. Despite the many data limitations and uncertainties, knowledge of the climate system continues to advance based on improved and expanding data sets and improved understanding of meteorological and oceanographic mechanisms.
The climate in most places has undergone minor changes over the past 200 years, and the land-based surface temperature record of the past 100 years exhibits warming trends in many places. Measurement problems, including uneven sampling, missing data and local land-use changes, make interpretation of these trends difficult. Other, more stable data sets, such as satellite, radiosonde and ocean temperatures yield smaller warming trends. The actual climate change in many locations has been relatively small and within the range of known natural variability. There is no compelling evidence that dangerous or unprecedented changes are underway.
The available data over the past century can be interpreted within the framework of a variety of hypotheses as to cause and mechanisms for the measured changes. The hypothesis that greenhouse gas emissions have produced or are capable of producing a significant warming of the Earth’s climate since the start of the industrial era is credible, and merits continued attention. However, the hypothesis cannot be proven by formal theoretical arguments, and the available data allow the hypothesis to be credibly disputed.
Arguments for the hypothesis rely on computer simulations, which can never be decisive as supporting evidence. The computer models in use are not, by necessity, direct calculations of all basic physics but rely upon empirical approximations for many of the smaller scale processes of the oceans and atmosphere. They are tuned to produce a credible simulation of current global climate statistics, but this does not guarantee reliability in future climate regimes. And there are enough degrees of freedom in tunable models that simulations cannot serve as supporting evidence for any one tuning scheme, such as that associated with a strong effect from greenhouse gases.
There is no evidence provided by the IPCC in its Fourth Assessment Report that the uncertainty can be formally resolved from first principles, statistical hypothesis testing or modeling exercises. Consequently, there will remain an unavoidable element of uncertainty as to the extent that humans are contributing to future climate change, and indeed whether or not such change is a good or bad thing. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| free radical |
| Posted: Mon Feb 18, 2008 3:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Bachelors Degree
Joined: 24 Sep 2007
Posts: 453
|
| andre wrote: |
Let's look at the address line again, yes this place is really called "The science forum" which suggests that science is discussed. Science is about ideas, hypotheses and theories, proof and falsification, but above all about curiosity. What is going on and why?
So what do we see? a couple of post purely about fallacies. Discussing people, who actually have been seen to fill up their cars with gas, so they are crooks so they are wrong. Ad hominems.
Remember Eleanor Roosevelt:
| Quote: |
| Great minds discuss ideas; Average minds discuss events; Small minds discuss people. |
So perhaps we should try and behave as curious scientists instead of a consensus herd and discuss the idea that climate change may be different when we study the Independent Summary of Policy makers, written by scientists, not politically correct computer modellers.
PDF here
And note the conclusions:
| Quote: |
The Earth's climate is an extremely complex system and we must not understate the difficulties involved in analyzing it. Despite the many data limitations and uncertainties, knowledge of the climate system continues to advance based on improved and expanding data sets and improved understanding of meteorological and oceanographic mechanisms.
The climate in most places has undergone minor changes over the past 200 years, and the land-based surface temperature record of the past 100 years exhibits warming trends in many places. Measurement problems, including uneven sampling, missing data and local land-use changes, make interpretation of these trends difficult. Other, more stable data sets, such as satellite, radiosonde and ocean temperatures yield smaller warming trends. The actual climate change in many locations has been relatively small and within the range of known natural variability. There is no compelling evidence that dangerous or unprecedented changes are underway.
The available data over the past century can be interpreted within the framework of a variety of hypotheses as to cause and mechanisms for the measured changes. The hypothesis that greenhouse gas emissions have produced or are capable of producing a significant warming of the Earth’s climate since the start of the industrial era is credible, and merits continued attention. However, the hypothesis cannot be proven by formal theoretical arguments, and the available data allow the hypothesis to be credibly disputed.
Arguments for the hypothesis rely on computer simulations, which can never be decisive as supporting evidence. The computer models in use are not, by necessity, direct calculations of all basic physics but rely upon empirical approximations for many of the smaller scale processes of the oceans and atmosphere. They are tuned to produce a credible simulation of current global climate statistics, but this does not guarantee reliability in future climate regimes. And there are enough degrees of freedom in tunable models that simulations cannot serve as supporting evidence for any one tuning scheme, such as that associated with a strong effect from greenhouse gases.
There is no evidence provided by the IPCC in its Fourth Assessment Report that the uncertainty can be formally resolved from first principles, statistical hypothesis testing or modeling exercises. Consequently, there will remain an unavoidable element of uncertainty as to the extent that humans are contributing to future climate change, and indeed whether or not such change is a good or bad thing. |
|
'Twould seem you've missed the point of the preceeding posts.
Science may be about ideas, including the idea that the oil company likes to sell oil, but it is also about identifying bias in order to analyse results properly.
Your conference appears biased. Will you be attending? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| marnixR |
| Posted: Mon Feb 18, 2008 4:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Cosmic Wizard
Joined: 10 Apr 2007
Posts: 2386
Location: Cardiff, Wales
|
big companies are not about people, they're even less about science, they are about politics and making money
things like this trigger my bullshit detectors
_________________
if you find this place too crowded or too confrontational, how about trying Philosophorum,
the amicable forum where small is beautiful and even the trolls are intelligent
biology without evolution is but stamp collecting |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Bunbury |
| Posted: Mon Feb 18, 2008 7:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Ph.D.
Joined: 26 Sep 2007
Posts: 690
|
From the invitation letter:
| Quote: |
| The International Conference on Climate Change will take place at the Marriott Marquis Times Square Hotel, 1535 Broadway, in the Theater District of Midtown Manhattan. The purpose of the conference is to generate international media attention to the fact that many scientists believe forecasts of rapid warming and catastrophic events are not supported by sound science, and that expensive campaigns to reduce greenhouse gas emissions are not necessary or cost-effective. |
The purpose of scientific conferences is to discuss science. The purpose of PR events is to generate media attention. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| andre |
| Posted: Tue Feb 19, 2008 2:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Sophomore
Joined: 10 Aug 2007
Posts: 106
|
Very predictable reactions here,
has been foreseen decades ago:
| Quote: |
| 2: Rationalising warnings that might challenge the group's assumptions. |
| Quote: |
Science may be about ideas, including the idea that the oil company likes to sell oil, but it is also about identifying bias in order to analyse results properly.....
things like this trigger my bullshit detectors
The purpose of scientific conferences is to discuss science. The purpose of PR events is to generate media attention. |
| Quote: |
| 4. Stereotyping those who are opposed to the group as weak, evil, disfigured, impotent, or stupid. |
| Quote: |
...big companies are not about people, they're even less about science, they are about politics and making money
...Some of the presenting speakers appear to be on the fringe themselves. Whilst they may be affiliated with institutions that do not have institutional bias, the individuals themselves (ex: Robert Bailing) have a long association (over ten years) with the Heartland Institute, which is sponsoring the conference and which may well provide grants for these scientists.
This website lists "heartlandglobalwarming.com experts" and a comparison of the speaker list for the upcoming conference indicates that a full dozen of the presenting scientists are hearltandglobalwarming.com 'experts.' |
Conclusion:
| Quote: |
| Mindguards — self-appointed members who shield the group from dissenting information. |
Any idea why this graph is never shown in any global warming session?
Click on the image to view it at its original size
source
Now are you going to find out why Roy Spencer thinks that global warming is highly exagarated or are you going to try and make him mankinds worst enemy? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| marnixR |
| Posted: Tue Feb 19, 2008 6:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Cosmic Wizard
Joined: 10 Apr 2007
Posts: 2386
Location: Cardiff, Wales
|
| andre wrote: |
Very predictable reactions here,
| Quote: |
| 4. Stereotyping those who are opposed to the group as weak, evil, disfigured, impotent, or stupid. |
|
not so - i was merely pointing out that there is due cause for suspecting lack of impartiality
_________________
if you find this place too crowded or too confrontational, how about trying Philosophorum,
the amicable forum where small is beautiful and even the trolls are intelligent
biology without evolution is but stamp collecting |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| free radical |
| Posted: Tue Feb 19, 2008 8:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Bachelors Degree
Joined: 24 Sep 2007
Posts: 453
|
Indeed, Andre, you appear to be tilting at windmills.
| free radical wrote: |
Many who study climate are far less extreme in their views on changing climate than the media portrays the situation. However, this reflects the cautious nature of scientists, not the uncertainty wrt climate change and the potential for far-reaching effects. It is this same cautious nature at the root of the precautionary principle, and which hesitates to embrace anything sponsored by the Heartland Institute.
|
Enjoy your joust. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| andre |
| Posted: Wed Feb 20, 2008 5:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Sophomore
Joined: 10 Aug 2007
Posts: 106
|
Well it never ceases to amaze me that if somebody claims that one and one is two, that instead of checking the calculation, it is investigated if the claimer is a crook or not and if so then automatically one and one is not two.
Yes I'm literally don quixotting against windmills. There is no choice, can't sit idle and see how humanity is facing heavy hardship, due to some alarmist groupthink. I must do what I can to fight that, successfully or not. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| sunshinewarrior |
| Posted: Wed Feb 20, 2008 8:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Ph.D.
Joined: 26 Sep 2007
Posts: 948
Location: London
|
| andre wrote: |
Now are you going to find out why Roy Spencer thinks that global warming is highly exagarated or are you going to try and make him mankinds worst enemy? |
I thought I'd try to be fair and look at the Roy Spencer link. Here are some of the issues I have with his work:
1. All his statements are simply assertions of disbelief regarding what other climatologists say. He says that their claims are articles of faith, and then goes on to say "I believe..." regarding every one of his claims.
2. He pulls a lot of data from sources/research bodies that are funded by industry. The whole cigarette=harm issue has taught us to beware of these bodies and the results they produce.
3. His preferred explanation, regarding precipitation systems, is not an explanation at all, regardless of the amount of peer reviews he throws at it. He does not take into account all the factors that affect precipitation, but takes it as a given, in a Gaia sense a self-correcting mechanism. Yet he gives no satisfactory reason for why he believes this. If this is his credo and he wants to be Don Quixote, that's fine. But he needs a bit more intellectual weight (as opposed to lots of graphs, many of dubious provenance) if he wants his arguments to be taken seriously.
cheer
shanks |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| andre |
| Posted: Thu Feb 21, 2008 2:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Sophomore
Joined: 10 Aug 2007
Posts: 106
|
Quod Erat Demonstrandum
However with this demonstration of non-refutability (whatever happens global warming remains true), global warming no longer belongs to the realm of science. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| marnixR |
| Posted: Thu Feb 21, 2008 3:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Cosmic Wizard
Joined: 10 Apr 2007
Posts: 2386
Location: Cardiff, Wales
|
| andre wrote: |
Quod Erat Demonstrandum
However with this demonstration of non-refutability (whatever happens global warming remains true), global warming no longer belongs to the realm of science. |
how so ?
i thought shanks did a pretty good job at pointing out that the criticisms levelled by Roy spencer turn out to be hollow - it does not put the case for global warming beyond refutation, it's just that the ones investigated by shanks have failed to refute
_________________
if you find this place too crowded or too confrontational, how about trying Philosophorum,
the amicable forum where small is beautiful and even the trolls are intelligent
biology without evolution is but stamp collecting |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| sunshinewarrior |
| Posted: Thu Feb 21, 2008 3:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Ph.D.
Joined: 26 Sep 2007
Posts: 948
Location: London
|
| marnixR wrote: |
| andre wrote: |
Quod Erat Demonstrandum
However with this demonstration of non-refutability (whatever happens global warming remains true), global warming no longer belongs to the realm of science. |
how so ?
i thought shanks did a pretty good job at pointing out that the criticisms levelled by Roy spencer turn out to be hollow - it does not put the case for global warming beyond refutation, it's just that the ones investigated by shanks have failed to refute |
Modern science is politics, it would seem, and soundbites ("QED" etc) rule. I think Dawkins (sorry I'm getting memetic again) points out that mem-plexes include defence mechanisms that preclude the possibility of their being questioned.
Even if my objections conform entirely to logic and empiricism, a denier of anthropogenic global warming will always see them not as refutation but as excuses or rationalisations. "These things happen, Malini" (as the line went from a play I did many years in the past). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
  |
Goto page 1, 2, 3 Next |
Page 1 of 3 |
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
|
