The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Good planets are hard to come by > Comments

Good planets are hard to come by : Comments

By Andrew Glikson, published 9/2/2010

Climate change: the international system required to protect the lives of future generations is failing.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. Page 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All
I can answer your questions qanda. The unlikely scenario you paint for spindoc is based on the assumption that the four independent bodies in four different countries all discover a fraud concurrently prior to Copenhagen is wrong; I suspect it is just that you heard about them prior to Copenhagen. The adjusted NZ figures have been known about since around the middle of last year, the Russian figures about 15 months ago (though with a press release prior to Copenhagen, admittedly), the Australian figures even longer, and the Canadian figures I’m not so sure about.

There is plenty of information about this already available online, as well as some excellent research done by E M Smith – you know how to use Google. It is only recently, through the pressure of Climategate that more details have emerged on the blogosphere.

I suspect that the coincidence to which you elude is as likely based on rational people attempting to elicit information regarding temperature adjustments (upon which the whole edifice of AGW is built), which has not been forthcoming, as opposed to “people like you [spindoc] with their eyes squeezed tight, and hands clasped to their ears, that can’t grasp the bigger picture.” I can assure you that I grasp the climate science big picture very well (in addition to its small details) and there is much there that is unverified, unfalsified, obfuscated through omission, deliberately false or just plain wrong.

Above, I posted some links about post normal science. If you genuinely wish to understand what is going on then I suggest you read the links (and all of the comments). Therein you will find the heart of this debate (and a very good read as well). It will challenge you qanda but there again people like you “can grasp the big picture”. All the best
Posted by Raredog, Sunday, 14 February 2010 9:20:35 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.... and meanwhile, Raredog, humans continue to pollute, destroy and deplete all natural resources.

Ah well, business as usual.
Posted by Severin, Sunday, 14 February 2010 10:11:42 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Whilst I think you have overstated what humans do Severin I am somewhat in agreement with your outlook - solving some of those problems is where I concentrate my efforts but alas, all we humans impact on the environment.

My problem, from my studies over many years now, is that the AGW hypothesis and subsequent orthodoxy does little in solving your heart-felt response. By framing AGW or climate change with our environmental problems, so that scepticism of the AGW hypothesis implies ambivalence about these problems the AGW debate inevitably becomes a smokescreen that covers serious issues of environmental degradation, for instance, deforestation and its impact on near-surface air temperatures and the water cycle.

By attempting to compartmentalise me with your "business as usual" approach you close your own mind to other possibilities. I thoroughly recommend reading the links I posted about post normal science - it really is a good read. That is my two comments for today. Best wishes to you, too.
Posted by Raredog, Sunday, 14 February 2010 10:35:59 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
drmerlen "However, I must take exception to the misplaced aggression aimed at 'greenies'"

There I was taking exception to the overt hatred of skeptics and the catchall of anyone who disagrees, "DENIER".

Now we get the changing of definitions even, so 'greenies' are by your definition non polluters, and "DENIERS" are polluters, so simple, why didn't we all get that before .. because it's simplistic crap.

If you wish to engage with people, being impolite and downright adversarial is hardly the way to do it, Andy1.

"Scientists and environmentalists simply request a reduction in polution, for reasons based in climate science as well as direct observations around the world. " no you don't "simply request"

You exaggerate, you scream "DOOM!" at every opportunity you tell us the world is going to hell.

To claim it is a "simple request" is an outright lie,isn't it?

After all the billions spent trying to skew the science, scare the children, tax the life out of us and bring about changes to the world's economy, how dare you sum it up as a "simple request" from "caring" (but clearly happy to lie and fabricate, hide things, cherry pick and deceive" nice people.

You really do live in a dream world.

You clearly only post to denigrate skeptics, you appear to have no intention of trying to engage, why not just post to some friendly blog you all seem to love like, what is it climate something or other? Where you can all stoke each other's .. egos.
Posted by rpg, Sunday, 14 February 2010 6:21:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
qanda, after twice avoiding a visit to the link I provided, and twice asking for the “admission”.

You asked again?

Can you please post a link to this "admission"?
Posted by qanda, Wednesday, 10 February 2010 1:46:46 PM

So I did and you and you asked again?

The “admission” I asked you for? If not, could you please provide it.
Posted by qanda, Wednesday, 10 February 2010 1:46:46 PM

So in addition to the link, I posted an extract containing the admission confirming that NIWA has issued an admission in writing that they got it wrong, and that skeptical scientists had indeed proved it.

I did not spin it, the NZCCC did not spin it, and the skeptics on OLO didn’t spin it. The issue is no longer about spin, it’s about facts.

I can imagine how upset you are to learn that you fell for the spin from NIWA. That is however, your problem. Don’t take it out on us, take it up with NIWA.

I repeat, if you are not ready to face reality, then don’t. But you really have to stop “hissy fitting” at others because you were had.
Posted by spindoc, Sunday, 14 February 2010 6:59:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
To the doubters here, do any of you recall Andrew Glikson's opening paragraph?

"The release of more than 320 billion tons of carbon (GtC) from buried early biospheres, adding more than one half of the original carbon inventory of the atmosphere (~590 GtC) to the atmosphere-ocean system, has triggered a fundamental shift in the state of the atmosphere at a rate of 2ppm CO2/year, a pace unprecedented in the geological record with the exception of the effects of CO2 released from craters excavated by large asteroid impacts."

While it may be possible to argue finer points of science as to what the exact figures and dates are, some posters here appear to be of the view that such a massive release of carbon into the atmosphere is some random event, outside human control and activity and that is not melting the polar ice caps...

Really!

I'm no scientist, but even I get that.

Bias or denial seem to be at play in the skeptics' posts here. Their blinkered attitudes could be all it takes to destroy what has been a good planet.
Posted by JanF, Monday, 15 February 2010 10:48:15 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. Page 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy