Hard News: Don't call it a consensus
103 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 Newer→ Last
-
I really think this is extremely improper behaviour from McCully -- and a direct attack on my livelihood.
Did you expect any different froma party which is threatening public servants to discourage them from applying for the position of State Services Commissioner?
Unfortunately, having lain down with the kiwiblog right, they seem to be institutionalising thuggery as a political tactic.
-
I've explained this several times before, including to NBR
Talking of the NBR, it is my absolute favourite mag today. I encourage you all to buy a copy.
-
Ok Don, tell us why...
-
It's alright Russell, you didn;t need to explain.
I kind of feel I do, if only to explain that I've explained it before. It's the only Labour Party event I even attend, let alone participate in.
Yeah, one would be enough to do my head in too.
I look forward to your party vote for Act then this year Russell :-).
-
Yeah, one would be enough to do my head in too.
I look forward to your party vote for Act then this year Russell :-).
I wish I could think of a suitably witty reply ...
-
McCully as Minister of Broadcasting:
Jonathan Coleman is National's Broadcasting guy now. His press releases haven't been up to much, but I thought he asked good questions when I talked to the Parliamentary Internet Caucus last year.
-
A S,
Did you expect any different froma party which is threatening public servants to discourage them from applying for the position of State Services Commissioner?
Unfortunately, having lain down with the kiwiblog right, they seem to be institutionalising thuggery as a political tactic.
National should pull their heads in on this particular issue if they are serious about an apolitical public sector.
TBH though, political thuggery is a sadly all too common place tactic at all ends of the political spectrum. No party is blameless in this regard.
Having said that though, talk to a few Maori public servants about the way in which the foreshore and seabed protests (and the in-effect ban on Maori public servants having a voice on that issue) were handled if you want an example from the other end of the spectrum (this was especially interesting when the public service was quite openly encouraged to voice their opinions on the civil unions issue).
-
Having said that though, talk to a few Maori public servants about the way in which the foreshore and seabed protests (and the in-effect ban on Maori public servants having a voice on that issue) were handled if you want an example from the other end of the spectrum
I'm aware of those examples - one of someone being dismissed for her support of the Maori Party - and I did my nut about them at the time.
-
Another article indicating caution might be a better approach rather than rushing headlong into climate change policy with significant economic consequences.
http://www.nationalpost.com/story.html?id=d7c7fcce-d248-4e97-ab72-1adbdbb1d0d0
The issue about climate modeling is a significant one. If you can't forecast the climate accurately, you don't have a basis for creating policy. I would have thought that a demonstrated record of accurate predictions for a significant period of time, a decade, probably longer, would be a minimum for placing any kind of reliance on a climate model. I don't think we are there yet or anything like it.
The reference to sunspot activity or the recent lack thereof has been the subject of several articles I have read. Apparently there are 2 well known and documented sun spot cycles, one on a cycle of decades and the other on a cycle of centuries and the last time they coincided was the little ice age of a couple of hundred years ago. The recent lack of sunspot activity suggests that we might be approaching a "Maunder minimum" with global cooling as a consequence.
Anytime anyone has to stoop to using smears like "deniers" to try to shut off discussion on a subject strongly suggests that their arguments aren't very strong. Likewise the “Exxon gave them money” smear. As if there isn’t enough money, prestige and junkets to be had on the GW bandwagon.
-
re: sunspots - the whole issue is discussed pretty thoroughly here.
There is a very detailed scientific discussion on all the different pieces of sunspot science. I couldn't possibly take part - I'm not a scientist.But do understand this point: taking just one or two pieces of science from the hundreds of peer reviewed papers in order to justify ones position is easy enough to do. But what drives our climate is hellishly complex - it's the interrelationship between all the different areas - oceans, forests, sunspots, clouds, ocean circulation, C02, methane, sf6, pfcs, hfcs, CFCs, hcfcs... they all contribute. The likes of the IPCC takes the big picture.
There are areas of debate which continue - sunspots is probably one of them. Tropical cyclones/hurricanes are another - the science there really isn't clear, which is what the real scientists are saying - and they continue to publish papers and discuss the results, asking the questions rather than stating point blank that something "isn't" and "cannot be".
The point about the Heartland conference is that few, if any, of the speakers are actual published, peer reviewed scientists.
An example is Fred S Singer, who holds a PhD in the field of satellite and rocket technology. Over the years Singer has, variously, portrayed himself as a scientific expert on a wide range of topics including the science of tobacco & cancer (and second hand smoke), ozone depletion, skin cancer, nuclear waste, nuclear power and toxic waste, amongst other scientific issues. None of these things, Singer has argued, are a problem.
His vociferous criticism on all global warming science hasn't wavered, yet he hasn't published a single peer reviewed paper in around 20 years.
His income comes from the industries, like Exxon, who defend their right to continue producing the chemicals and products influencing all the above topics. All the industries who stand to lose profit if the scientific evidence is confirmed.
And as for the models, they are clearly incredibly complicated, sure, but the scary thing is that it appears that their errors and lack of clarity tend to fall short of the reality. In other words, the reality is that actual events and records are worse than what the models predict.
-
I look forward to your party vote for Act then this year Russell :-).
I wish I could think of a suitably witty reply ...
I think he pretty much had all the funny with the words "party vote for Act" really.
-
I think he pretty much had all the funny with the words "party vote for Act" really.
But Roger Douglas is back with them. Don't people love him anymore?
-
But Roger Douglas is back with them. Don't people love him anymore?
Well see. Now there's no funny left in the room. Completely used up!
-
Climate Science is the longer term analysis of weather data.
Interesting to find this 2004 paper in a first rank science journal from an Otago University School of Surveying
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2004/2003GL019166.shtmlThe original analysis of long-term sea level change in New Zealand is updated with a new and extended analysis.....
These new results indicate that relative sea levels in New Zealand have been rising at an average rate of 1.6 mm/yr over the last 100 years ....
There continues to be no evidence of any acceleration in relative sea levels over the record period.Ill repeat the conclusions for the scaremongers
NO EVIDENCE OF ANY ACCELERATION IN SEA LEVELS ( for the last 100 years)There is also a nifty NIWA site which allows you to display historical climate data for various locations in NZ
http://edenz.niwa.co.nz/map/climateI see the residents of the Alaskan village of Kivalina want $400 million from some oil and coal companies due to their unstable geomorhology.
Just a quick check on google earth shows the village is on a snad bar between a river estuary and the sea. And as we know subject to coastal erosion AND settlement of alluvial sediments.
But IF the sea level is rising in that area that could be it too.
Dont count on the villagers getting any of the $400 mill. -
Forgot to mention that the "warming" from the historical climate records in Auckland seems to come from adjusting the previous temperature records ... downwards
Check out the graphs, where the raw is blue the adjusted is red.
http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/RS_NewZealand.htm -
Ill repeat the conclusions for the scaremongers
NO EVIDENCE OF ANY ACCELERATION IN SEA LEVELS ( for the last 100 years)You don't say it - but by the use of upper case I conclude that you are implying that Anthropogenic Global Warming is a false premise. Is that your point?
-
I see James Bremner supports the fallacy that economic consequences only follow from policy *changes*.
-
again, you're all taking one tiny piece of the puzzle, and trying to use that to argue the big picture - it just doesn't work like that.
-
James - sunspot activity doesn't correlate well to the recent temperature record. Nor does any other natural phenomenon. The only way that scientists can get observed temperature trends to map to expected temperature trends based on aggregated known forcings is to include the impact of human emissions of GHGs.
Steve - you know why it's called *global* warming right?
-
oh, and James, are you trying to tell me that policy prescriptions must be based on complete certainty about the future?
...better close down the Reserve Bank then. All the ministries. And parliament.
-
adjusting the previous temperature records ... downwards
This is just laughable. Apart from the fact that the site is highly selective with some obvious lacunae (and Steve is trying to extrapolate the general from the specific... again), the implication is that 'adjustment' is and can only be imposed by some sinister conspirators.
Could it be because there are perfectly good reasons to recalibrate? Nah, because that wouldn't be evil.
Indeed, this tendentious, selective site is a perfect example of 'adjusted' information.
you're all taking one tiny piece of the puzzle,
Steve - you know why it's called *global* warming right?
No, they don't, or choose not to.
I see this again and again and again. A selective presentation of an isolated phenomenon from second-hand sources with all inconvenient data removed, scientific illiteracy, deliberate misinterpretation and then the paranoid overt claim or insinuation that all data supporting climate change is the result of some deliberate censorship while that denying it is an example of a brave independent researcher evading that censorship (or Men in Black or whatever), no matter how sloppy and disingenuous they may actually be.
You would think that people realise that life isn't The X-Files, but you just can't argue with a conspiracy theorist. If it rains, it's because an evil government conpiracy made it rain and they're going to make it rain again tomorrow... and when it doesn't rain the next day, the evil government conspiracy has concealed the evidence of rain to discredit the conspiracy theorist.
Tinfoil hats truly are impenetrable.
-
I see the Otago University research ISNT called ...A selective presentation of an isolated phenomenon from second-hand sources with all inconvenient data removed, scientific illiteracy"
All though an" Inconvenient Truth" did fit that discription.
The adjustment to temperature records is a fact. Worldwide there is a lot of questioning about these adjustments, yet the process is shrouded in secrecy, definitely not put into the peer reviewed literature.Well take the NZ records discussed, and please dont wave around red herrings about global conspiracy and illiteracy you need to provide concrete facts and sources yourself. Your opinion doesnt count any more than some wacky US Senator. And yes I used a large font , since for some strange reason the actual conclusions are too often ignored. ( yes other places in the globe can show warming, but lets know more about our own backyard)
Yes there reasons for "adjusting" previous records, Albert park Auckland is in the centre of a large metropolis, so an urban heat island effect could be possible, but Hokitika ?
Even the IPCC , which indicated a sea level rise of of 70mm since 1950 in NZ , seems to have used scientific illiteracy and not mentioned that this was similar to the sea level rise from 1900 to 1950
And no Cindy just using the blather from Real Climate such as "one tiny piece of the puzzle, and trying to use that to argue the big picture - it just doesn't work like that", doesnt cut it.
Especially since a tiny piece of Antartica is allways used to show, warming, loss of ice, collapse of ice shelfs etc when the other 90% is getting colder. -
first rank science journal
Oh, I love this. If it's apparently agreeable, then it's "first rate" and if it's not agreeable, then it's been fiddled by THEM.
rising at an average rate of 1.6 mm/yr
So, the fact that sea levels are rising means that there is no GW?
over the last 100 years ....
Um, have you heard of the Industrial Revolution, its extent and the range of deforestation it entailed and do you know when it started? Indeed, we can go back to the Agricultural Revolution for deforestation...
And it's one 2004 paper, I note. Well, actually it's not even a paper, it's an abstract, so the data isn't there to examine. Nor is there any reference in the post to subsequent papers, error bars, the principle of parismony, global observations...
As a general observation, one of my main beefs with science reporting is the assumption that if something is true, then it must be 100% true and proven and if it's 90% or whatever (as the conservative IPCC has it in the case of GW), then, OMG, they're not sure and in fact may be... probably are wrong!
It is as if "truth" was some hard but brittle block, so that it must be absolutely rigid, but if you tap it, it shatters into falsehood, whereas "truthiness" (like a conspiracy theory) is infinitely elastic when it comes to demands for evidence.
One of the great failings of human psychology is that we're very poor in our ability to understand statistics, probabilities and the long term while mistaking wishful thinking for high probability - if there's 90% probability of AGW, then one chooses the 10% chance that there isn't because both "uncertain" values were equivalent. This is also as if not changing policy was less of a gamble than continuing on the same path - the fallacy that the current position is some stable zero-state without consequences over time. This is absurd.
No scientist - probably not even a classical physicist - will ever will say that anything is absolutely certain. This is because in nature, multiple factors interact while empirical science usually proceeds by first isolating single variables before integrating them into an overall pattern. Prudence, or parsimony as it is usually called, forbids making positive statements about general phenomena based on single variables. The naive observer will take one single datum as absolute evidence - and they will thereby prove their iognorance and recklessness.
I'm on the side of AGW because the overall body of evidence (the "consensus", if you will) is for it, not because any single paper is for it or against it. I have no interest whatsoever in any single paper. Science in general is not some sub-Sherlock Holmes story where one discarded cigar butt reveals the identity of the murderer (nor, for that matter is real forensics and law).
In the mass media, reporters want certainties (and usually a different, contradictory certainty again the next day). Sean Plunket is one of the more egregious examples here: I've often heard him interviewing scientists and interpreting caution is deliberate shiftiness and then agressively pushing a point to extremes before implying that it's all a load of nonsense. Well, I suppose he could be worse - most reporters just grab the soundbites.
Behaviour like that and worse is why I've given up entirely on newspapers and TV and why I'm likely to give up on RNZ soon too.
-
ISNT called ...A selective presentation of an isolated phenomenon from second-hand sources with all inconvenient data removed, scientific illiteracy"
No, it's called something else: out of context and probably contested. The fact that it is not a fairy tale doesn't make it absolutely true as a description of the ocean's behavior. Reality ain't binary.
Compare this:
yes other places in the globe can show warming, but lets know more about our own backyard
With this:
a tiny piece of Antartica is allways used to show, warming, loss of ice, collapse of ice shelfs etc when the other 90% is getting colder
No contradiction?
Why is the data about "our own back yard" somehow more truthful than global data?
Also, it's been said again and again that GW is a global phenomenon (and please, for once look up the meaning of that word - hint, it's cunningly hidden away from prying eyes in any dictionary). Of course there will be local variations (a word also concealed by the vast global warming conspiracy in dictionaries) of climate (ditto).
Your whole argument, apart from the paranoia, is based on - by your own admission, indeed insistence - selecting specific data points and ignoring others, not on gaining an overall picture.
The adjustment to temperature records is a fact. Worldwide there is a lot of questioning about these adjustments
There's questioning about whether the earth is round too - by idiots. Your point?
All though an" Inconvenient Truth" did fit that discription.
[sic]
See above, re papers subsequent to the 2004 paper etc. OK, so Al Gore in his documentary fudged some individually facts and therefore he is "wacky" and by implication, the conslusions of scientists working on AGW is false? Ad hominem argument compounded by a non sequitur. You're ugly and your mother dresses you funny, therefore Francis Bacon wrote the plays of Shakespeare.
Well take the NZ records discussed, and please dont wave around red herrings about global conspiracy and illiteracy
If you present disingenuous pseudoscience and display complete ignorance of scientific practice and then claim that people all over the world are working in secrecy are altering data in order to present a coherent and co-ordinated picture of GW, then pointing that out is hardly a red herring.
you need to provide concrete facts and sources yourself.
I have, as have others, frequently. Neither your nor mine nor anyone else's isolated posts are complete hermetic presentations.
Your opinion doesnt count any more than some wacky US Senator.
Why not? If you follow the pseudo-democratic (or demotic or demagogic) principle of all viewpoints being equally worthy or worthless, why does yours have any value?
In fact I am (among other things) a cultural historian specialising in attitudes to science and my colleagues with whom I regularly work are physical scientists and that they don't laugh at me would indicate to me that I do not carry out original scientific research myself but that I am competent to make judgements of people's use of that.
-
Kracklite the reason I said Geophysical Review Letters is first rate, is that the peer reviewers know what they talking about and a few journals have a much higher reputation for the quality of the reserch published.
But you have found a glaring error anyway, its an abstract and we all know that that they twist the results.
I have produced actual data to support what i have claimed, only in regard to seal level and temperatures in NZ.
You have produced nothing except to deconstruct what "truth " means.
or as Romm says .."What matters is scientific findings -- data, not opinions"
Post your response…
This topic is closed.