ADDED: More:
In what is a rare judicial ruling on what children can see in the class-room, Mr Justice Barton was at pains to point out that the “apocalyptic vision” presented in the film was politically partisan and not an impartial analysis of the science of climate change.This was no anti-Gore judge, as he agreed “[t]hat climate change is mainly attributable to man-made emissions of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide (‘greenhouse gases’).” Moreover, as you can see above, he considers Gore a "charismatic presence."
“It is plainly, as witnessed by the fact that it received an Oscar this year for best documentary film, a powerful, dramatically presented and highly professionally produced film,” he said in his ruling. “It is built around the charismatic presence of the ex-Vice-President, Al Gore, whose crusade it now is to persuade the world of the dangers of climate change caused by global warming.
“It is now common ground that it is not simply a science film – although it is clear that it is based substantially on scientific research and opinion – but that it is a political film.”
The analysis by the judge will have a bearing on whether the Government can continue with its plan to have the film shown in every secondary school. He agreed it could be shown but on the condition that it was accompanied by new guidance notes for teachers to balance Mr Gore’s “one-sided” views.
Posts
228 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 228 of 228It's like trying to put a nail in jello.
hector:
Perhaps you meant either:
Dr. Pfinkerton's Auftreffpunkt
or
Hingegen
It's like trying to put a nail in jello.
Well, as we both know, it's more like wrestling with a pig. As the saying goes, when you wrestle with a pig you both get dirty and only the pig enjoys it.
Original Mike wrote:
YOU made the claim. If I was reviewing your paper I'd bounce your ass.
No, Mike, you're still getting it wrong. The IPCC made the claim; I simply cited the IPCC finding.
The IPCC makes its publications available to the public through its website. Therefore the information you are looking for is available to you just as it is to me.
I'm at home, on dialup for the weekend. Give me the damn page number.
Dialup? If you're on dialup, I suggest you find something more worthwhile to do with your weekend. But if you're determined to download chapters from the IPCC website, I think it's chapter 12 you want to start with. I'd be able to give you a more precise answer if I was at work. In any case, you have to download chapters (as opposed to pages) to access sections of the IPCC report. Good luck with that.
(BTW, "give me the damn page number" might have more comedy value if it wasn't accompanied by evidence of boorishness. Think about it.)
Gedaliya wrote:
No one is "denying science."
Sure they are. You've done it several times in the last few weeks. And just by pure coincidence, your science denial consistently fits with your partisan political agenda. What are the odds of that happening again and again just by chance?
That is absurd.
No, it isn't absurd at all. I've challenged you on at least a couple of occasions to produce a scientific criticism of the research you dismiss as flawed and/or fraudulent. In every instance you refuse. I have no choice but to judge those refusals as evidence that you have no scientific basis for your rejection of certain scientific research. Your dismissal of scientific findings not to your liking is obvious; it's not based on science, it's based on political considerations.
I and other AGW skeptics...
You aren't a skeptic, Gedaliya. You're a denier. There's a difference. I'm sorry you don't have the objectivity to understand this.
... dismiss the hysteria of the AGW alarmists...
Again you make a debater's point. AGW "alarmists" remains undefined. You seem to want to avoid battle with named opponents. Why don't you clearly identify those who you believe are alarmists? For example, are the scientists working on the IPCC reports "alarmists?" Please tell me which of the following scientists are "alarmists:" Brenda Ekwurzel, Peter Frumhoff, Amy Luers, Kurt Gottfried, Thomas Eisner, Richard L. Garwin, David Archer, Stefan Rahmstorf, Raymond S. Bradley, Caspar Ammann, Gavin A. Schmidt.
... and also question whether the trillions of tax dollars the AGW alarmists demand we spend in highly dubious schemes to reduce atmospheric CO2 levels could best be spent elsewhere.
Oh, Gedaliya, no one discourages you from entering the debate and discussing the best way to attack the problem. Please, by all means, explain what is "highly dubious" about the "schemes to reduce atmospheric carbon dioxide" proposed by the IPCC. Please be specific. I look forward to any substantive comments you care to offer. However, based on your track record, I don't expect to see anything of the sort.
Then we'll all have to wonder what is next for hand-wringing chicken-littles that always seem to be present in every era and in every culture ...
Gee Gedaliya, this sounds less like climate change scientists and more like Iraq war supporters. I've met no "hysterical" global climate change scientists, however based on the comments I've read at Althouse, there seems to be many hysterical rightwingers babbling mindlessly about islamofascism on a daily basis. Maybe you ought to check your hypocrisy at the door before smugly referring to unnamed others as "chicken-littles."
Cyrus...
Still waiting for those cites from the IPCC reports that detail the positive health benefits that will come with a warmer world.
No, Mike, you're still getting it wrong. The IPCC made the claim; I simply cited the IPCC finding.
You made the claim it's in the IPCC report, which it clearly isn't.
Cyrus...
How about a comment or two about these reports:
Global Warming on Jupiter?
Global Warming on Neptune's Largest Moon?
Global Warming on Mars?
Global Warming on Pluto?
Gedaliya wrote:
Ok Cyrus, I'll call your bluff. What are some of the positive health effects that the report refers to that are outweighed by the negative health effects of a warmer world?
Poor Gedaliya. How do you find the nerve to ask me another question when you continue to duck mine? I consistently answer your questions and you consistently dodge mine (here and in other threads).
As a reminder, here are some of the requests I've made of you in this thread to which you have refused to respond:
8:56 PM ...if you want to raise substantive points that address specific "nonscientific" flaws with global climate change science, please do. I'm anxious to see a well-reasoned opinion...
7:09 PM Gedaliya, I see no obvious reason to believe that food and timber will be cheaper in a "warmer world" as you imagine. If you care to cite research that supports your assertion, please do and I promise to look at it.
7:28 PM ...please cite one or more of the scientific sources that you are familiar with and understand so that I can learn the nature of the scientific basis for your dismissal of the work of Burnham and Roberts.
7:42 PM Gedaliya, Let's make this easy. Just summarize in 25 words or less what your scientific objection to the work of Burnham and Roberts is. That is, tell me what's wrong with their methodology. (Feel free to use more than 25 words if you like.)
Gedaliya, why don't you show good faith and try to address one of my questions from the above list before making further demands of me?
Original Mike wrote:
You made the claim it's in the IPCC report, which it clearly isn't.
Of course it is, Mike. Your inability to find the reference does not imply that it doesn't exist. Rather, it suggests incompetence on your part.
If you need help, ask. And please try to be polite for a change.
Thank you.
Cyrus...
How about a comment or two about these reports:
Certainly, Gedaliya. I'll be happy to comment on each of the reports you link for each answer you provide to one of my questions that you've dodged to this point.
The ball is in your court.
More endless debates about debating, eh Cyrus?
I guess you simply can't help yourself. The practice is sophomoric. It's time you grew up kid.
Hector wrote:
By the way, that IPCC report is from 2001, so it's obsolete.
No dear boy, it's from April 2007.
It's not like no science on the subject has been done since then.
Correct. The IPCC report I cited is from April 2007. You ought to have a look at it sometime. There's really no good excuse for remaining ignorant.
And having looked at it...
Clearly you haven't looked at it. Oops!
I can say there's more "potentially, might, could possibly, may, on the other hand," in that report than in anything I would want to take seriously.
Your statement reveals a nonscientific mind at work. There is, of course, uncertainty in predicting climate conditions in the future. Nevertheless, it makes good sense to work with best estimates of future climate conditions. Not point estimates, as Hector demands, but estimates that reflect the range of possible conditions. Economists sometimes refer to this approach as "buying insurance;" it allows judgments about how to invest given consideration of the risk involved. As Professor Sir Partha Dasgupta of Cambridge writes:
Economics helps us to realize what we are able to say about matters that will reveal themselves only in the distant future. Simultaneously, it helps us to realize the limits of what we are able to say. That, too, is worth knowing, for limits on what we are able to say are not a reason for inaction.
Hector also wrote:
I'll repost the link to a high school student's point-by-point takedown of An Inconvenient Truth: Ponder the Maunder.
I can't imagine why you'd post a link to the work of a high school student. Is that what you consider "good science?" Do you find her research more valuable than the work of IPCC scientists? If so, that speaks volumes about your poor understanding of scientific methodology and thought.
Gedaliya continued his filibuster:
More endless debates about debating, eh Cyrus?
No Gedaliya. I've asked you to kindly answer one of my questions. As I've noted many times before, in this thread and others, you consistently refuse to respond substantively in our exchanges. I've repeatedly asked you to provide a scientific basis for your dismissal of the science you don't like. You repeatedly dodge this request. I have absolutely no doubt that this reflects your ignorance of the scientific issues in question.
Please, finally, just be honest about this. You dismiss the science that doesn't fit with your partisan political views. You have no other basis for dismissing it. This makes you a science denier. Admit it and move on.
Pogo and Hector,
Wow, I didn't know that I feature so prominently in your thoughts. It's wonderful to know you care.
However, you certainly will have noticed that I delisted those blogs from my profile. I had good reason for doing this. It strikes me as disrespectful of you, Pogo, to post links to those blogs in your comments. Since my email address is available from my blogger profile, it would have been considerate to send an email request if you wanted a link.
what you do online is immortal.
google is the portal to the underworld.
and you don't even have to deal with 3-headed dogs.
anyway, looks like cyrus has won this one.
he always does, just like us cockroaches.
we'll be here long after you are all gone.
so will cyrus.
Lomborg weighs in again:
The politician-turned-moviemaker loses sleep over a predicted rise in heat-related deaths. There's another side of the story that's inconvenient to mention: rising temperatures will reduce the number of cold spells, which are a much bigger killer than heat. The best study shows that by 2050, heat will claim 400,000 more lives, but 1.8 million fewer will die because of cold. Indeed, according to the first complete survey of the economic effects of climate change for the world, global warming will actually save lives.
Inconvenient Truths
looks like gedaliya's going to be here, too.
funny, you don't seem like the cockroach type, gedaliya.
cyrus and i, on the other hand, have this cockroach thing going.
and, anyway, how dare you quote from the boston herald...
it's a wingnut rag full of lies.
in fact, everything in it is a lie.
everything in the nyt or boston globe is the truth.
always has been.
now that i've told you that
i'm going back under the fridge
and wait for cyrus.
Cyrus, you got me on the date of the report. I was confused by "Working Group III", report number 4, and the statement on the IPCC homepage that "The printed report will be available in November 2007". That's one to you.
However, your "Oops!" snark is unwarranted as I did look at the chapters you mentioned, and, as I said, found them full of equivocation. This is not a document on which to base any serious actions, such as legislation. The data is inadequate and often corrupt, and the computer models don't work (the GIGO factor: some of the inputs are garbage, many of the real inputs are still unknown). To advocate legislation or taxation when we still know so little is an abuse of the precautionary principle, which is the basis of the warm-mongerers' assertions.
Why do I link to work by a high-school student? Because science is not based on consensus, it's not based on credentials (and your arguments reek of credentialism), it's based on facts, and the high-school student has the facts.
blogging cockroach, I loved the newspaper columns written by your many-greats-grandfather archy, but he's dead now, as are all of the cockroaches of his era. And since a temperature change of even as much as 20° means nothing to a cockroach, I take it that you're just egging us apes on, to do something foolish that will lead to the return of the Roach Dominion.
hector,
you have gotten too close to my thinking for me to deny it.
as i've said, the apocalypse sounds like a gravy train to me.
everything hot and wet, and all that rotting garbage.
mmmm...i'm going to have some sweet dreams tonight.
Gedaliya returns with more of the same nonsense. Rather than contributing substantive, thoughtful comments, he provides noise.
Gedaliya, I have the following observations to make about the statements you cite from the Lomborg editorial:
1. As I've noted before, Lomborg claims to accept the findings of the IPCC. In fact, here are the first few sentences from the editorial you cite:
THIS YEAR'S Nobel Peace Prize justly rewards the thousands of scientists of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. These scientists are engaged in excellent, painstaking work that establishes exactly what the world should expect from climate change.
2. As I've noted previously, Working Group II of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released a report in April 2007 which states that although there will be fewer deaths from exposure to cold, these deaths "will be outweighed by the negative health effects of rising temperatures world-wide, especially in developing countries."
3. If Lomborg accepts IPCC findings, as he claims, the statement you cite contradicts this position. He can't have it both ways.
4. Lomborg is not a scientist. As I'm sure you know, the Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty (DCSD) investigated claims that Lomborg's book The Skeptical Environmentalist contained "deliberately misleading data and flawed conclusions." Here is a summary of the DCSD findings:
Objectively speaking, the publication of the work under consideration is deemed to fall within the concept of scientific dishonesty. ...In view of the subjective requirements made in terms of intent or gross negligence, however, Bjørn Lomborg's publication cannot fall within the bounds of this characterization. Conversely, the publication is deemed clearly contrary to the standards of good scientific practice.
Lomborg's research was "cited for
fabrication of data, selective discarding of unwanted results (selective citation), deliberately misleading use of statistical methods, distorted interpretation of conclusions, plagiarism, and deliberate misinterpretation of others' results."
5. Given that Lomborg is not a scientist, has been judged by the DCSD to have a "lack of expertise in the fields in question," and guilty of fabrication, distortion, and deliberate misinterpretation, why do you put your faith in Lomborg regarding climate change science rather than the IPCC?
6. Lomborg bases his claim about mortality rates on an unnamed "best study." What is this "best study?" Why doesn't he provide a citation? What qualifies Lomborg to determine that this unnamed study is "best?" What makes this uncited "best study" better than the IPCC finding? Given Lomborg's track record, I'd certainly want to see the study myself before passing judgment. I'm sure you would to, Gedaliya. Since you are touting this "best study" (via Lomborg), please provide a citation for this unnamed "best study."
Gedaliya, while it's clear that you don't intend to respond to any of my questions or to provide any sort of explanation for your science denial, please pass along the "best study" reference mentioned by Lomborg. If you do, I will certainly read it and comment. If you don't, it will again prove that you are a partisan hack--unfamiliar with the studies that you tout and ignorant of the science you deny.
Gedaliya, while it's clear that you don't intend to respond to any of my questions or to provide any sort of explanation for your science denial, please pass along the "best study" reference mentioned by Lomborg.
The "science denial" schtick is boring, Cyrus. I don't even think you believe that I "deny science." It is a childish ploy and won't work.
I am, as you are, curious as to which study Lomborg refers to in his piece. I am eager to read it myself. I'll do some digging an see if I can find a reference to the study.
You don't think he's just making it up, do you?
All right Cyrus...after a brief search I think I've found the paper in which Lomborg cites the studies he refers to in his Boston Herald piece. In the footnotes of the paper there are references to numerous studies (listed in the appendix) to back up his claims regarding the health effects of global warming as well as other contentions he's recently been advancing in the public press. Not all of the studies are available online.
It is a pdf file:
Perspective on Climate Change by Bjorn Lomborg
Correction: Lomborg's piece was published in the Boston Globe, not the Boston Herald.
I am, as you are, curious as to which study Lomborg refers to in his piece. I am eager to read it myself. I'll do some digging an see if I can find a reference to the study.
You mean you aren't familiar with the study he referenced? On what basis, then, do you decide to believe it?
As we know, Lomborg has an established reputation for fabrication, distortion, and misrepresentation. Given that background, why do you choose to believe Lomborg rather than the IPCC?
Please answer, Gedaliya. If you are a skeptic rather than a denier, tell me how you judge credibility. Either you read these scientific studies yourself (which in this case you admit you haven't) or you follow the lead of a scientific expert who you judge to be highly credible.
Since Lomborg is neither a scientist nor credible, how is it that you've arrived at the point where you can dismiss the IPCC findings and instead believe an unnamed study (that you haven't seen, obviously) as touted by a man who has been judged to be lacking in competency and ethical behavior?
I'm curious to see your answer, Gedaliya.
See above.
Ad hominem is a childish (and wholly ineffective) debating tactic Cyrus. Your attack on Lomborg's character and credentials will only bring discredit upon you, not him.
Now, read the paper I referenced. Nearly every contention is footnoted to a scholarly, peer-reviewed paper. It won't take much effort to read those which Lomborg refers to in his Boston Globe piece.
When I return from India I'll go to the liberary and do the same.
Ad hominem is a childish (and wholly ineffective) debating tactic Cyrus. Your attack on Lomborg's character and credentials will only bring discredit upon you, not him.
I haven't attacked Lomborg's character, Gedaliya. I'm referencing the judgment against him by the DCSD. The DCSD found he had fabricated, distorted, plagiarized and misrepresented. Based on what I know of Lomborg's work, I'm inclined to believe that much of the DCSD finding is accurate.
Why do you believe otherwise? Again, why do you disbelieve the IPCC finding and instead accept the claim of Lomborg? Isn't it true that your partisan political agenda is all that drives your "scientific beliefs?"
In fact, why don't you address the questions I posed in my last comment? Why do you consistently misrepresent yourself as someone familiar with the scientific issues under discussion? You prove to be an incredible waste of time with your "fromping." ("Fromping" refers to the tactic of constantly moving the focus of the debate so that the "fromper" never has to support his opinion with facts or answer his opponents questions.)
Either engage in the discussion or move on. Your time may have no value, but mine does. Sharpen up and provide a substantive response or crawl back over to Malkin's website for talking points, but don't continue to waste my time with your fromping.
Now, read the paper I referenced.
It's not a paper, Gedaliya. It's prepared testimony for a subcommittee hearing. It's not peer-reviewed and it does not meet scientific standards of "good practice."
Nearly every contention is footnoted to a scholarly, peer-reviewed paper.
Incorrect. You haven't read the testimony, apparently.
It won't take much effort to read those which Lomborg refers to in his Boston Globe piece.
I've read Lomborg's testimony and it is unimpressive. I've looked carefully at the list of studies he references, and NOT A SINGLE ONE OF THEM is the source for his claim in the Boston Globe. The great majority of the studies cited look only at mortality in regions of Europe and in no way could the results from those studies be reasonably extrapolated to say anything sensible about GLOBAL warming mortality rates.
In other words, the source you cite for references is a dead end. This again proves that you have no knowledge of the science. You are simply touting Lomborg because you read about him on one of the rightwing drooler websites (e.g., Malkin).
Frankly you should be embarrassed. Don't come back to me on this topic until you have something intelligent to say.
Thank you.
It's not a paper, Gedaliya. It's prepared testimony for a subcommittee hearing. It's not peer-reviewed and it does not meet scientific standards of "good practice."
I didn't say Lomborg's prepared testimony was peer-reviewed. I said the papers he cites in his testimony (which I called a paper) were peer-reviewed. Some examples:
McMichael, A. J., Woodruff, R. E., & Hales, S. (2006). Climate change and human health: present and future risks. Lancet, 367(9513), 859-869.Go to ISI://000236016500031
Nakaji, S., Parodi, S., Fontana, V., Umeda, T., Suzuki, K., Sakamoto, J., et al. (2004). Seasonal changes in mortality rates from main causes of death in Japan (1970-1999). European Journal of Epidemiology, 19(10), 905-913.Go to ISI://000224734700001
van Lieshout, M., Kovats, R. S., Livermore, M. T. J., & Martens, P. (2004). Climate change and malaria: analysis of the SRES climate and socio-economic scenarios. Global Environmental Change, 14(1), 87-99.http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6VFV-4BM8RY3-
5/2/f3f622baa4c01ddf34dd10bd6dbbd9c9
I could go on, but that is unnecessary.
I've looked carefully at the list of studies he references, and NOT A SINGLE ONE OF THEM is the source for his claim in the Boston Globe.
You obviously haven't looked very carefully at all:
Still, thelargest European study conclude that for at least for 2oC, "Our data suggest that any increases in mortality due to increased temperatures would be outweighed by much larger short term declines in cold related mortalities.(14) For Britain it is estimated that a 2oC increase will mean 2,000 more heat deaths but 20,000 fewer cold deaths.(15)
(14) refers to the peer-reviewed study:
Keatinge, W. R., Donaldson, G. C., Cordioli, E. A., Martinelli, M., Kunst, A. E., Mackenbach, J. P.,
et al. (2000). Heat related mortality in warm and cold regions of Europe: observational study. British Medical Journal, 321(7262), 670-673.Go to ISI://000089444100023
(15) refers to the peer-reviewed study:
Keatinge, W. R., Donaldson, G. C., Cordioli, E. A., Martinelli, M., Kunst, A. E., Mackenbach, J. P.,
et al. (2000). Heat related mortality in warm and cold regions of Europe: observational study. British Medical Journal, 321(7262), 670-673.Go to ISI://000089444100023
If I were you, Cyrus, I'd slink away from this thread in embarrassment for displaying a shocking lack of reading comprehension.
Post a Comment