UN to Say It Overstated AIDS Cases.

[Gokul43201]

And one other thing, remember consensus is not what you go by in science ...

As a layperson, the scientific consensus is ALL you can go by.

 

[mjsd]

Personally, from everything I've read, I think global warming is one of the biggest shams ever put forth onto humanity, and is nothing more than a way for the governments of the UN to try and control societies, and to promote fearmongering.

that's a bit harsh, there are some honest ppl out there. but we would not know the true political intentions behind all these in the near future, we will have to wait 50-100 more years

And to say that the "denialists" are engaged in dishonest argument I think is very unfair.

well... dishonest may be the wrong word... although some do get that impression. It is nothing more than my climiate model versus yours.

The people promoting global warming are the ones I have seen utilizing the constant fearmongering, and psychological tactics (the poor lovable, cuddly furry polar bears and penguins are in danger!), etc...I see very little ad hominem attacks put against global warming believers (not saying they do not exist though).

fearmongering and psychological tactics are a tool in politics, the fact that they have been used should not be seen as something that may weaken the original argument unless there is no original argument in the first place, and that psychological tactics are the only substance. in other words, what propaganda tools one uses should not be used to judge the validity of what they are propagating (for either side).

Of course, many argue that that's the real problem: AGW has no substance, well, you must be within the scientific community, and be expert yourself to judge. merely reading reports sometimes cannot give u the true picture.

 

[WheelsRCool]

As a layperson, the scientific consensus is ALL you can go by.

I disagree with that. As a layperson, you read information from both sides of the debate, and make a decision for yourself.

that's a bit harsh, there are some honest ppl out there. but we would not know the true political intentions behind all these in the near future, we will have to wait 50-100 more years

The political intentions, IMO, are partially to control the United States economy and because it gives politicians an excuse to implement controls over the economy that they otherwise would not be able to.

well... dishonest may be the wrong word... although some do get that impression. It is nothing more than my climiate model versus yours.

Well, I'm not really going by climate models, more just many various articles/books I've read.

fearmongering and psychological tactics are a tool in politics, the fact that they have been used should not be seen as something that may weaken the original argument unless there is no original argument in the first place, and that psychological tactics are the only substance. in other words, what propaganda tools one uses should not be used to judge the validity of what they are propagating (for either side).

I agree, however it makes me highly suspicious of it when utilized by the media and politicians as to what their true agenda really is.

Of course, many argue that that's the real problem: AGW has no substance, well, you must be within the scientific community, and be expert yourself to judge. merely reading reports sometimes cannot give u the true picture.

Mmm...I don't necessarilly agree with that. One doesn't necessarilly need to be an expert in the subject to spot the big picture. To use a metaphor, I think a lot of these scientists I think spend too much time looking at individual trees and miss the overall view of the forest itself.

I do believe the Earth is warming, but that it is caused by humans or that it will cause problems in the future, I do not believe at all.

 

[siddharth]

I disagree with that. As a layperson, you read information from both sides of the debate, and make a decision for yourself.

Mmm...I don't necessarilly agree with that. One doesn't necessarilly need to be an expert in the subject to spot the big picture. To use a metaphor, I think a lot of these scientists I think spend too much time looking at individual trees and miss the overall view of the forest itself.

The point us, afaik, there's relatively little debate in the scientific community. IMO, a layperson usually doesn't have the expertise and isn't qualified to make a meaningful decision on the subject. By definition, the common person gets his information from non-credible sources, like websites, articles in the press, etc, while the scientific consensus is established via articles published in peer-reviewed science journals. There's a big difference.

 

[mjsd]

Well, I'm not really going by climate models, more just many various articles/books I've read.

What I was trying to say was that many scientists disagree on the issue of AGW because they have faith in a different climate models that predicts the situation, as well as different interpretations/extrapolations of the results. At the moment, what is happening is that somehow more scientists (for pure scientific reasonings OR otherwise) are in favor of this particular model that says AGW is a real concern. And I think Gokul43201's point was that as a layman person it is perhaps better to say: "well, since more scientists think it is a problem, maybe there is some truth to it...",
than
"no, given all those tactics we know our politicians like to use, it makes me highly suspicious that all those scientists were truthful at all..."

Mmm...I don't necessarilly agree with that. One doesn't necessarilly need to be an expert in the subject to spot the big picture. To use a metaphor, I think a lot of these scientists I think spend too much time looking at individual trees and miss the overall view of the forest itself.

The process of scientific research is a very complicated one. If you are a researcher youself, you may realize that. and if not, it maybe difficult for you to appreciate what is going on. As a person who does physics research myself, it is quite clear to me that a lot of problems in research are not just something you can do in a few months or years! As a result, in order to get somewhere assumptions and simplifications are made. And when the information are published in popular books or articles, they become further "dumbed down" and many of the technical issues would become forgotten. This is not to say that what you read in books/articles are mostly wrong, but you must appreciate the fact that it may not be the complete picture one way or the other and little subtleties here and there may change your opinion entirely pending on how you weigh them relatively.

And my point was that it is difficult to judge either way when you are not an expert... well, actually in this climate of politics and counter-politics, sometimes even experts are being "tricked" into believing something they would otherwise not. I certainly do not pretend nor claim that I am an expert on this issue. In fact, not even some of my friends who do meteorology would call themselves a better person to talk to on this issue.


My stance on the AGW issue is based on a rather naive reasoning. While I understand that it is probably 50% politics and 50% science (not even sure on the %), I believe that AGW is true merely because many human activities (past and present) cause damage to our environment. Based on that, it seems quite likely, to me at least, that AGW is doing harm. That is not to say that I would immediate believe many of the predicted (or exaggerated) consequences that AGW shall bring. But on the issue of whether we are producing too much pollutant into our atomsphere, I believe that we are doing the environment no favors at all. So, I guess I am not really for or against AGW, I am more of against pumping so much pollutant into the biosphere.

The real issue is of course what to do with AGW... now that's 80% politics and 20% science...

 

[WheelsRCool]

Okay, this post will be a little long, it isn't any brain-twister or anything though.

What I was trying to say was that many scientists disagree on the issue of AGW because they have faith in a different climate models that predicts the situation, as well as different interpretations/extrapolations of the results. At the moment, what is happening is that somehow more scientists (for pure scientific reasonings OR otherwise) are in favor of this particular model that says AGW is a real concern. And I think Gokul43201's point was that as a layman person it is perhaps better to say: "well, since more scientists think it is a problem, maybe there is some truth to it...",
than
"no, given all those tactics we know our politicians like to use, it makes me highly suspicious that all those scientists were truthful at all..."

The process of scientific research is a very complicated one. If you are a researcher youself, you may realize that. and if not, it maybe difficult for you to appreciate what is going on. As a person who does physics research myself, it is quite clear to me that a lot of problems in research are not just something you can do in a few months or years! As a result, in order to get somewhere assumptions and simplifications are made. And when the information are published in popular books or articles, they become further "dumbed down" and many of the technical issues would become forgotten. This is not to say that what you read in books/articles are mostly wrong, but you must appreciate the fact that it may not be the complete picture one way or the other and little subtleties here and there may change your opinion entirely pending on how you weigh them relatively.

And my point was that it is difficult to judge either way when you are not an expert... well, actually in this climate of politics and counter-politics, sometimes even experts are being "tricked" into believing something they would otherwise not. I certainly do not pretend nor claim that I am an expert on this issue. In fact, not even some of my friends who do meteorology would call themselves a better person to talk to on this issue.


My stance on the AGW issue is based on a rather naive reasoning. While I understand that it is probably 50% politics and 50% science (not even sure on the %), I believe that AGW is true merely because many human activities (past and present) cause damage to our environment. Based on that, it seems quite likely, to me at least, that AGW is doing harm. That is not to say that I would immediate believe many of the predicted (or exaggerated) consequences that AGW shall bring. But on the issue of whether we are producing too much pollutant into our atomsphere, I believe that we are doing the environment no favors at all. So, I guess I am not really for or against AGW, I am more of against pumping so much pollutant into the biosphere.

The real issue is of course what to do with AGW... now that's 80% politics and 20% science...

I agree with most of that, one thing that makes me suspicious of global warming is that it is a politicized area of science, and as such, a lot of special interests are pooring a lot of money into the research. Scientists that don't produce the results the interests want can see their funding dry up or their career not advance, so they have to be careful.

There are governments and corporations both with a vested interest in "proving" global warming to be true, and a major problem at that.

For example, Enron was one of the main companies working to prove global warming was true. But Enron was not at all doing it for the good of society, as we have seen!

As for stopping pumping pollutants, that's great, but CO2 isn't exactly a pollutant. When industry burns fossil fuels efficiently, more CO2 is put out. Pollutants are stuff that gets in the CO2 emissions that should have burned, but wasn't, so it comes out as a pollutant. If you can burn fosssil-fuels and get 100% pure CO2 emissions, you aren't polluting at all technically.

Now obviously if CO2 is bad for the environment, one could say it is a pollutant maybe, but it isn't bad.

The point us, afaik, there's relatively little debate in the scientific community. IMO, a layperson usually doesn't have the expertise and isn't qualified to make a meaningful decision on the subject. By definition, the common person gets his information from non-credible sources, like websites, articles in the press, etc, while the scientific consensus is established via articles published in peer-reviewed science journals. There's a big difference.

True, but, while I don't remember the specifics, I have read the peer-review process is flawed in that it can allow a lot of bias to seep through.

Now I myself get skeptical of that, on the one hand, I read about editors of scientific journals and so forth taking open sides on issues when they should remain quiet on the issue, and technicalities that can lead to bias in what gets printed and what doesn't, on the other hand however, global warming skeptics are plenty willing to point to peer-reviewed articles that help one argue GW is baloney. So I get skeptical because I don't want to pick and choose.

Sort of like the GW skeptics who say computer models are way too limited to predict anything properly in the climate and can easily be "fixed" to produce a desired outcome, but then some of those same skeptics seem plenty willing to point to models that say GW is not true!

Or these GW skeptics will say, "Consensus is not what you go by in science." But then if some consensus points in their favor, they say, "There is CONSENSUS on this matter, so there!"

So being a hypocrite as a skeptic one must be careful of!

One reason I am skeptical is simply because fearmongering, IMO, has been utilized a great deal through history to scare the public. There is always SOMETHING that will/could kill us all very horribly very soon, whether it be Martians, nuclear war, etc...after the Cold War ended, it seems global warming grabbed the spotlight.

Another thing is that while there are plenty of areas where there is a consensus and the consensus is right (for example, we all know that despite what the flat-Earthers say, the Earth is round :) ), and historically I believe for everytime a consensus turned out to be wrong, there were many more consensuses that were right, in the times when the consensus was wrong, it resulted in some HUGE blunders for the population subjected to them!

For example, during the early 20th century, eugenics became popular as a way, originally, to improve humanity through genetic engineering I believe (any reader of Crichton will know about this). However, as time went on, it evolved into basically where there was a consensus saying that if we did not eliminate the weaker portion of the gene pool, then it would interbreed with the strong portions of the human race and kill everyone eventually.

Of course, the weaker portion was anything non-Aryan, Jews, blacks, Hispanics, Asians, etc...all fair game. The United States was the leader in this movement, but then the Nazis became the leader of it soon after.

Well they put the plan into action, and killed about six to ten million people I believe (six million Jews I think?), either way, they killed a lot of people.

Yet there had been a flat-out scientific consensus regarding eugenics. Yet the science wasn't sound.

On a side note, I find this interesting because environmentalists often compare global warming skeptics to Holocaust Deniers, and some have said when things get out of control, maybe we can create Nurembourg-style trials for the skeptics who didn't believe. Well IMO one could easily compare the global warming proponents, the hardcore ones who want drastic action taken immediately, to the Nazis who tried to eliminate the weaker portions of the gene pool, and thus say the Nurembourg-style trials would really be for them, not the other way around. The banning of DDT in Africa has killed more people from Malaria already than the Nazis did, from what I understand, and this was an environmentalist thing.

During the 20th century, particularly in the 1960s, the consensus amongst economists and academics was that socialism was the best way to create an egalitarian society. It still is the consensus to an extent in the media and Hollywood (one can name many socialists in Hollywood!). Skeptics of this theory, such as Milton Friedman, were highly criticized and considered borderline fanatical.

A few hundred million dead people later (and billions more kept in squalid poverty), we know that socialism does the exact opposites of its intentions.

Yet there had been consensus for it at the time.

I view the global warming movement right now the same way. I am very skeptical of it, because even if the warming is being caused by humans, I don't believe it will cause massive harm to anyone, but even if that is true, how we proceed with handling the situation must be done very carefully, so we don't kill massive numbers of people trying to "fix" the problem (say by not allowing the Third World to develop, and then finding out more people died from not allowing them to develop then if we had and just dealt with any problems from warming).

Another reason I am skeptical is because global warming has long been pushed by environmentalists, and environmentalism to me is a religion (which means a few things IMO). Many of the ideas espoused by the global warmers I am very skeptical about.

I say environmentalism is a religion because it is very similar to Christianity in a few ways. Like Christianity, according to the environmentalists, there was a time of peace in the past, when nature was "balanced," everything was peaceful, humans lived "in harmony" with Mother Nature, (like Adam and Eve in their garden). Then there was the moment of sin, when humans started developing technology, manipulating nature to our own ends and means, etc...like Eve eating the fruit from the tree, and then, as Christianity has Revelations, environmentalists say if we do not stop our "sins against the Earth," that we will all die in the coming doomsday when Nature makes the decision to kill us all!

One thing about this is that in academia, Hollywood, and the media, many academics and media elites claim to be "atheist," to not have any religion. But EVERYONE has some set of beliefs ultimately, whether a formal religion or not, and with much of academia, environmentalism has become their religion, the Earth their god, whether they realize this or not. For example, I believe it was chris Matthews who had said before humanity was on the planet, the Earth was a natural paradise.

As such, there is much support in the media and academia and Hollywood over the belief in global warming, and this thus also is one reason for much of the fearmongering.

I also believe this influences the governments of European countries as well. Americans tend to be regarded as a bit "backwards" regarding our Christian beliefs (remember the uproar over Paula Abdul!), in comparison to Europe which has gotten passed that, but one could say all Europe has done is replaced their Christian beliefs with are a belief in environmentalism.

One could say both the U.S. and the Europeans are very conservative regarding their religions in this sense even, for example, in America, you will not at all see the kind of sexual content on TV that you will in Europe! But in Europe, you have about a snowball's chance in an oven of finding a country without a high gasoline tax to discourage driving big vehicles.

And yeah I know that all global warmng believers aren't psycho fanatics or anything, and many are just genuinly concerned about humanity, but much of the pushing for the movement is helped by groups who "claim" to worry about the future of our children, but really would love to kill off the human race if they could get away with it.

Okay back on topic, well many of the things espoused by the global warming believers I tend to see in line with the religious aspects of environmentalism. Here are some:

1) Massive species extinction - this one I wonder how they can possibly predict, because no one knows exactly how many species are on the Earth and how many are not. No one knows how many are dying and how many are being created. Trying to figure this out is incredibly tedious.

For example, many state the rainforests are in terrible danger, as I'm sure you've been aware for many years, yet the co-founder of Greenpeace not too long ago stated that the rainforests, as far as he can see, are pretty fine and healthy right now.

Furthermore, exactly how would more CO2 and warmer temperatures kill off species? Cold does that. Whenever the Earth is warm and with more CO2 in the atmosphere, plants and insects thrive, and as a side effect, so do animals.

2) Massive famines - Again, I don't see how, with high-tech farming methods, and also more CO2 in the air and warmer climates, this should make it easier to farm food

3) Increases in the number and strength of hurricanes - From my understanding, hurricanes result from climate differences between the Northern and Southern Hemispheres, and with a warmer Northern Hemisphere, this should balance things, making storms less and weather more mild.

Historically, the worst storms, droughts, floods, etc...occurred during the cold periods, not the warm periods, which had nice weather and mild winters. Humanity thrived during the warm periods, for example Rome and the Mayan civilization (these both collapsed during cold periods). Europe was frought with much famine and warfare during the Little Ice Age as well, yet when that ended, prosperity followed. Prosperity also wasi n Greenland when the ice had melted there. The people there died off from starvation when the place froze over.

I also wonder how they try to predict what the weather would be like with a new climate when the have enough trouble predicting it with our current climate. I know climate and weather are two different things, but if you have trouble predicting the weather with the current climate, predicting how the weather will be with a future climate that is itself predicted...?

4) Massive coastal flooding - well for one thing, if the ice in the water melts, I don't see a problem, because water is water, if it's already floating, it can melt and sea levels won't rise, sea level rise would come from glacier melting I think. However, from my understanding, Antartica has about 90% of the world's ice, and is growing colder as far as science can tell at the moment (though this may be disputed soon, but as far as the scientists can currently tell, it's growing colder). Greenland has about 4% of the ice, and the rest of the glaciers in the world account for about 6% of the ice.

From what I've read, there are about 160,000 glaciers in the world, of which about 67,000have been inventoried, and of which only maybe around 100 (a few dozen more or less) have been studied in detail. From what I understand, there are glaciers receding, but there are likely just as many glaciers growing. There isn't enough data to know if they're all melting or not, or going to melt, and even if so, they make up a very small percent of the ice.

Assuming they all did melt, whose to say it would raise sea levels? The excess water might just get absorbed up into the atmosphere more, leading to more rain in certain areas.

5) Diseases - Assuming more life in terms of plants and insects, animals, etc...from warmer climates, I imagine more diseases could flourish, but humanity will die from such diseases because they can flourish easier unless it permits them to.

For example, millions of Africans have died since the banning of DDT which was used to kill mosquitos to prevent malaria from spreading. This disease could be stopped if the African nations were allowed to utilize DDT again.

Since the above tend to be said as many of the problems global warming would supposedly cause, I just don't see anything convincing. If anything, history tells me these things will more likely be averted through warming of the planet, nice vice-versa.

Another reason I also get skeptical is regarding the media. The media itself seems to push an agenda I believe regarding this, a big one, and here's why:

Back in the 1970s, they say scientists believed that an ice age was coming, that Global Cooling was going to occur. Now I'm not sure how true this was of scientists or not, because at the pro-global warming website, realclimate.org, they say this is a myth, that if you review the scientific literature of the time, you see no scientists were pushing the idea of global cooling, that it was the media.

Well I'm not sure how true that is, but let's assume they're correct: Well then, why was the media at the time massively pushing this idea of global cooling? The media at the time claimed there was a "scientific consensus" on the matter, that global cooling was happening, yet if the scientific literature literally didn't mention it, it means the media didn't just stretch the truth, they completely fabricated the whole thing.

Which means, whose to say the media, which is just as agenda-driven today as it was then, is not again manipulating the truth to its own ends?

As such, I believe very little of what I read in the media regarding global warming.

And finally I am skeptical of the IPCC, because in the 1995 IPCC report, the Summary for Policymakers was manipulated to say that they were positive global warming was happening, when in fact the report itself said nothing of the sort. This was nothing more than politicizing of the science. The Summary for Policymakers is what the media and politicians go by, but it is not written by scientists per say, it is a good deal written by bureaucrats from my understanding.

Now of course everything I just said is more reasons to be skeptical as to whether global warming would cause harm, they are pretty useless in arguing against whether humans are causing global warming. There are various other arguments as to why I don't believe humans are causing global warming, but I don't want to write a book here, so suffice it to say I believe it is more from the influence of the Sun and a the 1,500 year climate-cycle discovered from the ice-cores in Greenland and Antarctica and various other proxies found in portions of the world.

 

[Art]

As a layperson, the scientific consensus is ALL you can go by.

And there lies the problem.

It appears the 'consensus' is in reality far less than publicised and as you agreed the published strength of conviction around this so-called consensus has been arrived at in a very dubious manner.

The tactics used by the doom sayers do not appear to be those one would expect from folk with a strong, rational, scientific argument where the facts should speak for themselves.

Surely a key test of a theory is for it to make predictions which can be and are proven to be correct and so far AGW has failed miserably in this regard.

 

[Gokul43201]

Surely a key test of a theory is for it to make predictions which can be and are proven to be correct and so far AGW has failed miserably in this regard.

Are you saying it has failed to make predictions or that it has made predictions that have been way wrong? If it's the latter, could you cite some of the primary predictions and the actual, measured outcomes?

 

[Art]

Are you saying it has failed to make predictions or that it has made predictions that have been way wrong? If it's the latter, could you cite some of the primary predictions and the actual, measured outcomes?

Predictions happen on three levels. The populist level intended to 'raise awareness' amongst the population in general and on a more scientific level to justify the populist level and then on a long time scale level such as 100 years.

Taking the populist level first as I already mentioned in this thread because of the way AGW supporters use the media to push their agenda for them it is difficult to pin them down and so it's 'heads I win tails you lose'

As an example after last years exceptionally hot spell in parts of the UK the UK media was full of sensationalist stories quoting AGW proponents who claimed this was a mere taste of what was to come and that next year would be even hotter and drier. In the event the following year was one of the wettest on record and cooler than average too. This was seized on by colleagues of the same people who had predicted a scorching hot, bone dry summer as proof of GW. In this instance what possible outcome would they admit constituted a failure of their predictions? If it rains it's GW, if it doesn't rain it's GW doesn't leave a lot of null results.

On the second level of predictions I mentioned there are several examples I have seen of failed predictions as in a failure in the prediction pushed to the public but again they always seem to have an each way bet.
Example

Hanna and Cappelen (2003) determined the air temperature history of coastal southern Greenland from 1958-2001, based on data from eight Danish Meteorological Institute stations in coastal and near-coastal southern Greenland, as well as the concomitant sea surface temperature (SST) history of the Labrador Sea off southwest Greenland, based on three previously published and subsequently extended SST data sets (Parker et al., 1995; Rayner et al., 1996; Kalnay et al., 1996). Their analysis revealed that the coastal temperature data showed a cooling of 1.29°C over the period of study, while two of the three SST databases also depicted cooling: by 0.44°C in one case and by 0.80°C in the other. In addition, it was determined that the cooling was "significantly inversely correlated with an increased phase of the North Atlantic Oscillation over the past few decades."

In an even broader study based on mean monthly temperatures of 37 Arctic and 7 sub-Arctic stations, as well as temperature anomalies of 30 grid-boxes from the updated data set of Jones, Przybylak (2000) found that (1) "in the Arctic, the highest temperatures since the beginning of instrumental observation occurred clearly in the 1930s," (2) "even in the 1950s the temperature was higher than in the last 10 years," (3) "since the mid-1970s, the annual temperature shows no clear trend," and (4) "the level of temperature in Greenland in the last 10-20 years is similar to that observed in the 19th century." These findings led him to conclude that the meteorological record "shows that the observed variations in air temperature in the real Arctic are in many aspects not consistent with the projected climatic changes computed by climatic models for the enhanced greenhouse effect," because, in his words, "the temperature predictions produced by numerical climate models significantly differ from those actually observed."

http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/SherwoodEtAl.pdf
However as there are some AGW proponents out there somewhere who argue GW will increase ice mass and lower temperatures at one or another or both of the poles although their mainstream argument has been there will be a decrease they have an 'each way bet' and simply quote those others who say it will decrease. Again it's heads I win tails you lose as any gain or loss in ice is claimed as a success for AGW.

Probably because the general public are becoming ever more skeptical of AGW theory and it's dire warnings it seems the emphasis these days is more on the next 100 years or so which attempts to make people feel guilty over predicted consequences they will never be around to see with the added advantage it makes any prediction safe from falsification in our lifetimes.

Another example

"Since the late 1960s, much of the North Atlantic Ocean has become less salty, in part due to increases in fresh water runoff induced by global warming, scientists say."
-Michael Schirber, LiveScience
June 29, 2005

and

The surface waters of the North Atlantic are getting saltier, suggests a new study of records spanning over 50 years. They found that during this time, the layer of water that makes up the top 400 metres has gradually become saltier. The seawater is probably becoming saltier due to global warming, Boyer says." -Catherine Brahic, New Scientist
August 23, 2007

See what I mean

Al Gore's 'An Inconvenient Truth' is an example of the type of hyperbole which seems to surround climate change discussions where it appears any lie is justified in order to convince people of the urgent need for change. Here's a link to an article detailing 35 errors or exagerations in his documentary http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton/goreerrors.html


The fact that scientists representing the AGW body of opinion did not themselves immediately distance themselves from his claims in the name of scientific integrity is itself an indication of how politicised this area of science has become.

Returning to the IPCC 'consensus' on man's contribution to GW

Chapter 9 was the key chapter because it attributed a change in climate to human activity but:

(a) Just 62 individuals or government appointed reviewers commented on this chapter

(b) A large number of reviewers had a vested interest in the content of this chapter

- 7 reviewers were "contributing editors" of the same chapter
- 3 were overall editors of the Working Group I report
- 26 were authors or co-authors of papers cited in the final draft
- 8 reviewers were noted as "Govt of ..." indicating one or more reviewers who were appointed by those governments (and sometimes the same comments appear under individual names as well as for the government in question)

- Only 25 individual reviewers appeared to have no vested interest in this chapter

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/sppi_originals/fallacies_about_global_warming.html

In conclusion IMO there are a lot of very valid reasons to be extremely skeptical of the claims being made re AGW and while climate change is a valid and important area of research it badly needs a top to bottom review of it's current MO to gain any real credence and the first step should be to remove the bias from the system to obtain and utilise ALL the information required to form a logical conclusion.

 

[Skyhunter]

For example, millions of Africans have died since the banning of DDT which was used to kill mosquitos to prevent malaria from spreading. This disease could be stopped if the African nations were allowed to utilize DDT again.

DDT has not been banned as an anti-mosquito pesticide. This is a classic strawman argument. DDT was banned for widespread agricultural use for, among other reasons, that it led to resistant populations of mosquitoes, thereby negating it's effectiveness as an indoor pesticide.

There were suspensions in the spraying programs, but they were not the result of any "environmental hysteria". To understand what actually happened, it is necessary to learn about the realities of pesticide use. One of the major problems with using pesticides is that insect populations soon develop resistance to the chemicals. Insects resistant to DDT began appearing one year after its first public health use (Garrett, page 50). As new insecticides were introduced, resistance to them also developed. Much of Silent Spring is a cataloging of reports of resistance to insecticides. With the problem of mosquito resistance to DDT in mind, a plan to eradicate malaria was developed--several years of spraying, accompanied by treating patients with anti-malaria drugs, would be followed by several years of monitoring. Here is how Paul Russell, who would head the eradication effort, explained it in 1956 (Quoted in Garrett, page 48):

Generally, it takes four years of spraying and four years of surveillance to make sure of three consecutive years of no mosquito transmission in an area. After that, normal health department activities can be depended upon to deal with occasional introduced cases. . . . Eradication can be pushed through in a community in a period of eight to ten years, with not more than four to six years of actual spraying, without much danger of resistance. But if countries, due to lack of funds, have to proceed slowly, resistance is almost certain to appear and eradication will become economically impossible. Time is of the essence [his emphasis] because DDT resistance has appeared in six or seven years.

Incredible as it might seem, while public health officials were cautiously limiting the usage of DDT, it was being used in increasing amounts in agriculture, especially on cotton, a cash crop (Chapin & Wasserstrom). This heavy use led to resistance among malaria carrying mosquitoes throughout the tropics. In this instance, the unwise use of DDT, rather than improving life, actually resulted in a resurgence of malaria. According to Chapin & Wasserstrom (page 183) "Correlating the use of DDT in El Salvador with renewed malaria transmission, it can be estimated that at current rates each kilo of insecticide added to the environment will generate 105 new cases of malaria."

http://info-pollution.com/ddtban.htm

 

[Art]

This article suggests it was banned in Africa but the ban was rethought as a result of a cost/benefit analysis.

In Africa, DDT Makes
A Comeback To Save Lives
by Marjorie Mazel Hecht

Spurred by the dramatic and life-saving results in a few African nations that persisted in using DDT, a larger group of nations, now malaria-ravaged, want to use the banned pesticide. Marjorie Mazel Hecht reports.

The use of DDT for spraying the inside walls of houses, a proven way to quickly stop the rate of malaria incidence, is making a comeback in African nations where saving lives has been given priority over the fears and lies of environmentalists.

In Uganda, Minister of Health Brigadier Jim Muhwezi has renewed house spraying in the most malarious areas, with the approval of the Ugandan Cabinet. Muhwezi dismissed the critics of DDT, saying, "How many people must die of malaria while these debates continue? If DDT can save lives, why not use it as we wait for the alternatives," as reported in the Kampala newspaper, New Vision, on April 27. Muhwezi also noted that the country of Mauritius was about to be declared malaria free because of its use of DDT.

In Zambia, where malaria incidence and deaths had climbed since the 1980s, the Health Minister is aggressively pursuing the use of DDT to fight malaria, after great success using DDT in the copper mining areas beginning in 2000. When the Konkola Copper Mines began spraying the inside walls of houses with DDT, there was a 50% reduction of malaria in one year. The next year, there was a further 50% reduction, and since then there have been no malaria deaths in that region.

In Zimbabwe, Minister of Health David Parirenyatwa reintroduced DDT because it was "cheap and more effective, with a longer residual killing power." He told the Bulawayo Chronicle in October 2003, "So many people have died of malaria since January and we are doing our best to control it... DDT is very effective, because it sticks for a long time on the walls and kills a lot of mosquitoes with a single spray... South Africa and Swaziland are using it, and I don't see why we should not use it."

In Kenya, the DDT fight is still on, with the director of Kenya's premier research institute, KEMRI, taking a strong stand for the use of DDT, and another research institute, the International Center of Insect Physiology and Ecology, taking the anti-DDT, environmentalist view. Malaria now kills 700 Kenyans a day, and as KEMRI director Davy Koech told the opposition, "Anything that can reduce malaria deaths by 80% should be given another thought."

Kenya had a terrible outbreak of malaria after heavy rains in 2002, with hundreds of deaths. According to the group Doctors without Borders, there are about 8.2 million cases of malaria reported in Kenya per year. The epidemic-prone areas are the highlands, where about 23% of the population lives.

http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2004/sci_techs/3124ddt_africa.html

 

[Gokul43201]

Another example

"Since the late 1960s, much of the North Atlantic Ocean has become less salty, in part due to increases in fresh water runoff induced by global warming, scientists say."
-Michael Schirber, LiveScience
June 29, 2005

and

The surface waters of the North Atlantic are getting saltier, suggests a new study of records spanning over 50 years. They found that during this time, the layer of water that makes up the top 400 metres has gradually become saltier. The seawater is probably becoming saltier due to global warming, Boyer says." -Catherine Brahic, New Scientist
August 23, 2007

See what I mean

Since you "forgot" to include links for those quotations, I had to dig them up myself to make sure I could "see what you mean".

http://www.livescience.com/environment/050629_fresh_water.html

http://environment.newscientist.com/article/dn12528

Now, after reading both articles completely, I don't really see what you mean.

Specifically, the second article that talks about increased salinity in surface waters, also has the following to say:

Backing up this finding, when the team looked at the salinity of deeper waters, those flowing more than 1300 metres beneath the surface, they found that these have been getting less salty since the late 1980s. They see this as a sign that the pulse of freshwater has been slowly making its way south.

It looks reasonable to me that warming of the sea surface will produce more surface salinity, while dilution from melting ice-mass will produce less deep-sea salinity (but that's just my layman opinion). There's also the fact that the two quotes you posted represent data taken from different oceanic latitudes, the first one from the Nordic Sea area, and the second from US coastal waters. Given that the migration of arctic water southwards takes several years, it's meaningless to juxtapose them as you did and say "See!"

I see no real contradiction. The only problem that I can extract from the articles is the ability to model the different water flows.

In any case, I was asking for predictions from published research or previous IPCC reports that claimed a high confidence in blah happening when in fact, antiblah happened. News reports and popularizations do not a science make.

 

[Art]

Getting sick of this nonsense

Wrong AGAIN!

Since you "forgot" to

...yet again click on the link I provided I'll provide it yet again http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/mo...oreerrors.html

And I am still waiting for you to substantiate this slur

Didn't sound that way, but I accept that is possible. Nevertheless, you have attempted "debunkings" of published articles in other threads.

So far you have responded with ONE single example (ironically with no link ) of ONE article I criticized in ONE thread in the POLITICAL forum for being IMO politically motivated. Now as someone who makes claim to some knowledge of statistics please explain how you extrapolated this

debunkings" of published articles in other threads

from your ONE false data point. I'd be fascinated to know which statistical model you used to justify your conclusion. Maybe it's the same one the IPCC use :uhh:

I'm surprised you haven't received a warning yet from one of the moderators for your continuous false accusations. Personally I am getting tired of the effort I am having to expend in rebutting your insulting and nonsensical personal accusations/lies every one of which I have shown WITH, where appropriate, LINKS to be untrue.

It seems to me that whilst I and others here are trying to have a discussion on the politicisation of GW you on the other hand are merely interested in trying to find excuses to launch personal attacks on me through false accusations exaggerations and misrepresentations derailing the thread in the process. Even your purposed response to a question posed by Evo bore no bearing on the question asked but was simply used as a vehicle for yet another blatant attack on me. I wonder what the statistical odds are on that being accidental?

So you made an error in trying to ridicule me whilst claiming statistical science lay behind the IPCC's confidence ratings and I showed you were wrong so your ridicule back-fired on you damaging your ego. Well get over it and stop with the nonsense.

Here's another link you might find useful. http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#hominem Recognise the tactic?? p.s. don't forget to click on this one.

 

[Skyhunter]

This article suggests it was banned in Africa but the ban was rethought as a result of a cost/benefit analysis.

http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2004/sci_techs/3124ddt_africa.html

The problem with the article, that it only "suggests" what "may" be the "truth". So since the author has already biased the reader with this lead in:

saving lives has been given priority over the fears and lies of environmentalists

So IMO this article is a piece of trash pretending to be journalism.

The ban on DDT was for use as an agricultural pesticide, not an indoor pesticide. If it's widespread outdoor use had not been curtailed, it would no longer be an effective indoor pesticide. And it is an effective indoor pesticide because it remains in the environment for a long long time. But DDT in your house is better than malaria.

Eradicating malaria is more complicated than just spraying poison everywhere. I believe it is possible, but until there is a comprehensive program with 100% commitment from all tropical nations, backed by the first world, everything else will just be stopgap measures. I suggest we get busy eradicating it before the tropics become bigger as the climate warms.

BTW - LaRouche publications is not a particularly good source of credible information.

 

[Gokul43201]

Wrong AGAIN! ...yet again click on the link I provided I'll provide it yet again http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/mo...oreerrors.html

You call that sourcing your quotes? That link has exactly as much of the quotes as you've pasted into the post. It is no more of a source than your own post is. All it provides is the sound byte that you want us to hear and nothing more. On the other hand, the links that I provided tell the whole story and reveal the trickery hidden behind the snipping.

And I am still waiting for you to substantiate this slurSo far you have responded with ONE single example (ironically with no link ) of ONE article I criticized in ONE thread in the POLITICAL forum for being IMO politically motivated. Now as someone who makes claim to some knowledge of statistics please explain how you extrapolated this from your ONE false data point. I'd be fascinated to know which statistical model you used to justify your conclusion. Maybe it's the same one the IPCC use :uhh:

I'm surprised you haven't received a warning yet from one of the moderators for your continuous false accusations. Personally I am getting tired of the effort I am having to expend in rebutting your insulting and nonsensical personal accusations/lies every one of which I have shown WITH, where appropriate, LINKS to be untrue.

It seems to me that whilst I and others here are trying to have a discussion on the politicisation of GW you on the other hand are merely interested in trying to find excuses to launch personal attacks on me through false accusations exaggerations and misrepresentations derailing the thread in the process. Even your purposed response to a question posed by Evo bore no bearing on the question asked but was simply used as a vehicle for yet another blatant attack on me. I wonder what the statistical odds are on that being accidental?

So you made an error in trying to ridicule me whilst claiming statistical science lay behind the IPCC's confidence ratings and I showed you were wrong so your ridicule back-fired on you damaging your ego. Well get over it and stop with the nonsense.

Here's another link you might find useful. http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#hominem Recognise the tactic?? p.s. don't forget to click on this one.

Grow up already, Art! So now it's not about whether you've violated the rules, but in which specific forum and how often! That's arguing from a position of strength.