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 > The UN climate change numbers hoax > Comments

The UN climate change numbers hoax : Comments

By Tom Harris and John McLean, published 30/6/2008

The IPCC needs to come clean on the real numbers of scientist supporters.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 12
  7. 13
  8. 14
  9. Page 15
  10. 16
  11. All
I suggest people have a look at the (currently last) posting by A.J.H. Viirlaid, July 12, 2008 on http://www.sciencealert.com.au/opinions/20081007-17643.html . Aside from the nasty drivel of ad hominems from the anonymous "Lev", I look forward to constructive comments on A.J.H. Viirlaid's post since he is addressing the real issue.

Tom Harris
Posted by Tom Harris, Sunday, 13 July 2008 3:00:50 PM
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
Tom Harris: "I suggest people have a look at the (currently last) posting by A.J.H. Viirlaid"

He just repeats sections of your article, in effect saying anybody who doesn't agree didn't read those sections closely enough.

For what it is worth, I don't see much disagreement here with you saying the IPCC process could be improved. I don't even see a lot of disagreement that the "2500 scientists" figure has been misused in some political stouches.

What I do see considerable disagreement with is the conclusion at the end, where you say: "Until then, their conclusions, and any reached at the Bali conference based on IPCC conclusions, should be ignored entirely as politically skewed and dishonest". That conclusion simply doesn't follow from the facts presented. Those facts did show the IPCC process could be improved, but did not show the IPCC itself report was skewed or dishonest. In order to show that you would have to show a large proportion of published climate scientists disagreed with it, which you of course can't do.

Since you can't, I think its fair to say your articles conclusions should be ignored entirely as politically skewed and dishonest.
Posted by rstuart, Sunday, 13 July 2008 3:56:21 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
Well, thank you for straightening me out on how to determine your identity. I did not know that about this Web site, being a new user here. There was, however, no reason for you to continue your sarcastic remarks "indicating a continuing degree of incompetence" (Lev) but then that seems to be your style, unfortunately.

I note that you repeat your charge about my so-called "dual membership as for registered lobbying organisation for energy companies and and as Executive Director the NRSP". I have discussed this with the admininstrator and he removed your comment the last time you made this charge as it is both wrong and libelous. I will ask him to remove it again and ask you to stop with such untruths. The comment that I have engaged in "public advocacy to deliberately engage in a campaign to bring chaos and confuse people about the science of climatology." is obviously also highly misleading, if anyone bothers to read the whole original thread and my remarks in context on Free Dominion.

Aside from asking the moderator to remove your comments when they violate forum rules, I think I will ignore anything you say from here on as I have more important things to do that respond to people who lack basic courtesy. As you age, you may discover this is unnecessary and counterproductive in any mature, constructive dialog. Besides, your points against me are mostly moot and distract from the important question at hand - did large numbers of scientists agree or did they not with the most important assertions of the IPCC?
Posted by Tom Harris, Monday, 14 July 2008 12:58:41 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
I notice a tendency to assume that anyone who has a connection in any
way whatsoever with a coal, oil or other mining company or industry
organisation that their opinions or findings must be disregarded.

If I was in that category I would consider it to be an insult on my
integrity. That is not to say that I would not be asked searching
questions about my assertions. To assume that someone is telling lies
just because they don't hold the same opinion as yours and is employed
by certain companies or organisations is offensive.
Posted by Bazz, Monday, 14 July 2008 7:46:54 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
Bazz: "To assume that someone is telling lies just because they " ... "is [employed?] by certain companies or organisations is offensive."

Well I think you mean illogical, not "offensive". Otherwise, you are certainly correct in your strawman argument. However, there is far more evidence that there are lies and deceptions being told in an attempt to discredit the endorsed (by 30 major science academies) position that humans causing the current regime of climate change:

1. The presentation of overly simplistic arguments that anyone who has an ounce of IQ and cared to look at the research reports would know are false, in the hope that readers who haven't looked at the reports will just accept them.

2. The repeated presentation of questions by the same person or organisation, that have been repeatedly been disproved, in the hope of giving the illusion that some great debate is still going on.

3. The fact that certain parties monitor for any kind Internet release on climate change and immediately bombard them with anti-climate change propaganda, sometimes under multiple false names.

Note: 1, 2 and 3 are common astroturfing techniques: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astroturfing.

4. The fact that most of these activities are almost to a man being carried out by people backed by fossil fuel funds, or representation their interests just adds motive for deceptive conduct, not proof of it.

5. The fact that anti-climate change authors go to great pains not to disclose their links to fossil-fuel funding. This is clear signal of dishonesty and lack of integrity
Posted by Sams, Monday, 14 July 2008 8:44:54 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
It ain't complicated Bazz. It's difficult to make someone understand something when his livelihood is contingent upon him not understanding it.
Posted by bennie, Monday, 14 July 2008 12:48:29 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. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 12
  7. 13
  8. 14
  9. Page 15
  10. 16
  11. All

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