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 > Climate change issues: the problem of unwarranted trust > Comments

Climate change issues: the problem of unwarranted trust : Comments

By David Henderson, published 2/2/2007

There are good reasons to query the claims to authority and representative status made by and on behalf of the International Panel on Climate Change.

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. ...
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. 8
  10. All
So what i gather is that the point of enviromentalists and scientists is incorrect and there is more need for consultations.
The howard government has already said they will decrease emmisions by 30% and by 2030 at a cost of 75 billion dollars well

The Australian Peoples Party can do a hell of a lot better than that, with a minimum of 30% and at a less cost also without lossing workers and gaining at least an extra 2000 positions, to easy.

Now money keeps being spent as it seems on wasteful consultations we can see what is happening, so its time to become better at what we do.

This is up to the people
keep the corruption and as Mr Rudd has said he will not be tearing up those IR laws and now is talking to big business.

So email:swulrich@bigpond.net.au

For info become a member and or candidate for the federal election.
It is only imposible if you think it is too hard and then you get what you get.
Posted by tapp, Friday, 2 February 2007 9:56:40 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
I have been Oh so suspicious of the claim that climate change is proven by the "consensus" never has such an unscientific argument been applied to a science issue.
As the author here suggests the IPCC process is very deeply flawed.
I recently discovered a piece by Luboš Motl that points out the almost fraudulent methodology of the current IPCC report. With his kind permission I republished his piece here.
http://iainhall.wordpress.com/2007/01/25/cart-before-the-horse-again/
Now so much decision making in government is being based on such dubious documents and every thinking person should be considering the veracity of the methodology and not just the alarmist claims that are endlessly made by the members of the climate change industry.
Posted by IAIN HALL, Friday, 2 February 2007 10:13:14 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Good post, David. As any experienced auditor will confirm, the one set of accounts that must be examined in the closest detail is the set presented by people who fail to provide adequate answers before they are even asked. The IPCC's primary task is to inform the debate and that role has no room for loyalty to a particular projected outcome or protection of a particular position. They have refused to supply material in a way that, if it was a financial prospectus, would see the entire panel doing a stretch for breaches of just about every corporations law in the OECD.

Indeed, this analogy is most apt because the IPCC is essentially offering the world community a prospectus in respect of the future management of the planet. And instead of a rigorous accounting, reporting and audit framework, the IPCC gives us "peer review", the equivalent of passing the accounts around between the mates down at the club, as a proxy for certified statements in a statutory reporting regime.

The directors of listed corporations who accept this stuff and act upon it would do well to top up their professional indemnity policy because ultimately the community's standards will apply.
Posted by Perseus, Friday, 2 February 2007 10:27:36 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
More Consultation and less Spin Please.

The issues facing us on Climate Change are highly murky and totally out of hand.

Policy Support 4 U Henderson;

In relation to climate change, there is an urgent and critical need to build a platform with a "sounder basis" than presently exists for reviewing and assessing the issues of Climate Change.

We need a new process for informing and advising governments and public civilians everywhere.

We need an objective, more informative representative line-up and one who discloses a rigorous and more balanced view both from inside and outside the IPCC... and its sponsoring departments and agencies.

We need a body that functions at all consultative levels of the community, world wide, as well as here locally, in Australia.

http://www.miacat.com
Posted by miacat, Friday, 2 February 2007 11:47:41 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hendersen loses immediate credibility by dragging out the Hockey Stick criticism often used by the sceptics. That issue was investigated and dismissed by a recent US house of reps enquiry. The consistent message of that enquiry is best expressed by this transcript:

http://www.pewclimate.org/what_s_being_done/in_the_congress/7_27_06.cfm

Of course the peer review process can never be assured of perfect outcomes - but its generally accepted as the most robust available. The more extensive the peer review the lower the risk of getting it completely wrong. With the 4th IPCC report there has rarely been a more robust example of peer review in scientific history.

The silence over a better method by Hendersen is deafening.

In relation to his claims that the IPCC is biased towards alarmist views, the evidence is actually showing that the IPCC forecasts may be tending towards being too conservative. The rate of ice melt and permafrost thawing are 2 examples that may have been underestimated by the 3rd IPCC report. Further examples have been recently reported in "Science" by John Church of the CSIRO. His research showed actual sea level rises are in the worst case forecast scenario.

That is a true problem/benefit with peer review, in that outlying opinions are usually dragged back towards a more consensus view.
Posted by Panaitan, Friday, 2 February 2007 12:07:38 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
If I understand correctly the IPCC will put their cards on the table by issuing conditional climate 'forecasts' in terms of average temperature, rainfall, sea level and so on. Like a Melbourne Cup tipster we will soon see if they are on the money.

I agree that the Stern Review probably understates the contractionary effect of reducing fossil fuel use. This is the dilemma; what if (as is likely)we wait a decade before cutting back then Mother Nature creates problems from which there is no return? In my opinion the science and peer review process appears sufficiently rigorous to justify some sacrifice now. If the doubters win for now they risk huge condemnation if the IPCC turns out to be right.
Posted by Taswegian, Friday, 2 February 2007 12:08:57 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
  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. ...
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. 8
  10. All

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