oldephartte(in training): Notes in Comments

Tuesday, March 12, 2013

Notes in Comments

The Guardians of Tent Rocks (Photo credit: Jim Nix / Nomadic Pursuits)

Secretary-General Displays Fourth IPCC Assessment Report (Photo credit: United Nations Photo)

Carbon dioxide concentrations on 500 million year scale Similar displays in Veizer and Shaviv 2003 and in 2001 IPCC Mitchell report (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Kevin Hennessy, CSIRO and lead author, Australia and New Zealand chapter, IPCC Working Group II (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Global Warming (Photo credit: mirjoran)

Arctic September Sea Ice Extent: Observations vs. Computer Model Runs - Scientists at the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) and the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) found that satellite and other observations show the Arctic ice cover is retreating more rapidly than estimated by any of the eighteen computer models used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in preparing its 2007 assessments. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Mean surface temperature change for 1999–2008 relative to the average temperatures from 1940 to 1980 (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The "burning embers" diagram above was produced by the IPCC in 2001. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Wordmap giving global warming data like given in the IPCC Report of 2007. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

English: Graph summarizing some of the expected impacts of Global Warming according to IPCC. Temperature deviations from 1990 readings. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Changes in radiative forcings between 1750 and 2005 as estimated by the IPCC. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Temperature predictions from some climate models assuming the SRES A2 emissions scenario. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Scientific studies on climate helped establish a consensus. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Key Note presentation by Vicente Barros , Co-chair of Working Group II, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (Photo credit: Citt)

Think Climate Change Denialism Has Run Out of Steam - or Bucks? Think Again

The Guardian has discovered a secret funding vehicle used by Conservative billionaires like the Koch boys to funnel approximately $120-billion to climate change denialists over the past decade.

Of course money talks and it will probably be talking pretty fast and loose now that Obama has pledged to act on climate change. The chilling part of it is that this is money, huge money, that is not in any way moved by the enormity of the scientific consensus on climate change. They don't care about science, they don't care about reality and they certainly don't care about the death and suffering their obstruction will cause. The fight isn't over and we have to find ways to fight back.

We have to revisit our notions of respectability and wealth because the wealthiest among us can use their power to do very shitty things

opit said...: http://www.ucsusa.org/ssi/climate-change/scientific-consensus-on.html Right under their name "Citizens and Scientists for Environmental Solutions" http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/reprint/consensus_on_climate_change.html
Debate over whether human activity causes Earth climate change obscures the immensity of the dynamic systems that create and maintain climate on the planet. Anthropocentric debate leads people to believe that they can alter these planetary dynamic systems to prevent what they perceive as negative climate impacts on human civilization.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus.htm
.the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes”. (Doran 2009). In other words, more than ***95% of scientists working in the disciplines contributing to studies of our climate****, accept that climate change is almost certainly being caused by human activities ( In other words - those who have professional activities in studies which are funded ) Yet in Comments
roverdc at 17:32 PM on 27 September, 2007
Concensus only has meaning if there is no pressure to conform in either direction. In the climate debate this is extremely far from being true. How far could we reasonably expect a questioner to go in an IPCC panel when that instantly collects a denialist label and probably guarantees a dead end to even the most able career? In the current climate it is reasonable to assume the dissent camp is at least ten times the admitted size. I know that as an admittedly uninformed questioner I get some pretty vitriolic responses from the eco faithful.
Wondering Aloud at 06:54 AM on 10 November, 2007
Roverdc hits the nail on the head. To say there is bias in the science at this point is a wild understatement. What the public hears is claims that "all scientists except a few kooks agree that catastrophic global warming is immenent and caused by your car.". This is what they think you mean by consensus.
Consensus is not science but if it was the supposed 2500 scientists of the IPCC report have every failing you mention of the petition project and more important the people who signed the petition agreed with what it said. The same can not be said for the IPCC and its supposed 2500. Counted in that IPCC number are hundreds of non scientists, NGO reps (these are people with an agenda)and most importantly reviewers, many of whom don't even agree with the conclusions of the IPCC report. In fact most of the famous "deniers" are included in the 2500 IPCC counts.

Someone made the mistake of asking them after the second IPCC report (surveyed participants) and found that over 60% did not agree with the summary for policy makers.

Maybe we should stop pretending numbers and NGOs are scientists and that consensus is science. It's that claim that raises huge red flags for me.

.....Pretty much. Appeal to Authority is not scientific proof such as one would expect when discussing anything that conformed to scientific method and its need for contrasting ideas, but is rather a political debater's trick. Predicting the future, in fact, as a scientific exercise usually results in ribald hilarity and guffaws at credulity.; 8:25 PM, February 14, 2013

8:25 PM, February 14, 2013
The Mound of Sound said...: Political debater's tricks? Do you expect anyone to take you seriously with that sort of nonsense? I'm sorry, Opit, but I can't take your position as credible. You're drifting into the tinfoil hat brigade territory.; 11:54 PM, February 14, 2013
opit said...: Guess tinfoil hat brigade includes debaters, then. http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/
And someone who puts their trust in a culturally appropriate crystal ball is no one to talk about tinfoil hats.; 10:09 AM, February 17, 2013
The Mound of Sound said...: Opit, I have to choose between science and people like you who have no scientific credentials whatsoever. It's sort of like the struggle to decide who should do your surgery, a surgeon or your mailman. I think it would be "culturally appropriate" to go with the surgeon.; 11:13 AM, February 17, 2013

opit said...

" people like you who have no scientific credentials "

http://www.rossmckitrick.com/uploads/4/8/0/8/4808045/mckitrick-ipcc_reforms.pdf

Past Lead Author selections have been criticized by other Lead Authors as
being overly dominated by political considerations.
Coupled with the deficiencies in the peer review process, this opens up the
possibility that the IPCC Bureau can pre-

Now then. Do you trust people who follow news and politics to uncover irregularities in the system ?

Note : I have been following the topic for years after initially being struck by both the reversing of climate predictions and the use of the 'Denier' meme which makes public contesting of views so necessary to the operation of Scientific Method possible. ( sb impossible )

What 'science' are you following in such case ? This is a political football causing international taxation on the use of energy to flow to the UN - the parent of the IPCC. Copenhagen failed in part because small and underdeveloped nations realized that they were getting the shaft.

11:49 PM, March 11, 2013

Congressional Testimony and Normative Science

How Dick Cheney Buried the Truth of His Iraq War

Cheney's office, according to [William Leonard, former director of the Information Security Oversight Office] took secrecy to excessive lengths -- attempting to classify as much as possible, and often bypassing the system altogether by inventing classification markings. Even documents as ordinary as Cheney's talking points were marked Treated as Top Secret/SCI or Treated as Top Secret/Codeword.

In one instance, the marking appeared on notes from a 2003 meeting of Cheney and his staff. They were discussing Joseph Wilson, a former U.S. diplomat, who had just written an editorial in the New York Times. In the piece, Wilson argued that there was no evidence that Iraq had attempted to purchase yellowcake uranium from Niger.

"Putting aside the constitutional position of the vice president, the very concept that non-elected government officials working in the White House, accessing the most highly sensitive information, and weren't obligated to follow the rules set forth by the president, I found chilling, to tell you the truth."

Anonymous said...: See Rachel Maddow's documentary 'Hubris' on MSNBC. Read the book Hubris. The story is beginning to be told.; 6:13 AM, February 21, 2013

6:13 AM, February 21, 2013
opit said...: Ambassador Joe Wilson was husband to Valerie Plame, the CIA agent ( NOC ? ) in charge of the CIA Middle East nuclear threat desk processing information gathered by the front company Brewster Jennings. Scooter Libby - of Cheney`s office - served time for his role in blowing her cover - which carries a mandatory death sentence if she was covert ops.
The yellowcake purchasing ploy is interesting on 2 counts : yellowcake is a hell of a poor resource to make refined weapons grade uranium...and Iraq was littered with it. Else tons could not have been shipped from Iraq to Canada as feedstock. But - aluminum tubes are used for refining yellowcake...into fertilizer.
As for the lies - and After Downing Street blew the lid on the known lies* enabling invasion ( now AntiWar ) - there is an online movie for your edification
http://www.leadingtowar.com/; 12:21 AM, March 12, 2013; * The Downing Street Papers; The Bellona Report; Principles for the Verification of a Future nuclear materials CutOff Treaty; This project would not have been realized without access to the special collection “Foreign
Relations of the USA” sponsored by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (German
Society for the Advancement of Scientific Research).; An FMCT is an essential contribution to both nuclear non-proliferation and nuclear disarmament.
Four principles are of particular importance to the German Government which
has been expressed in a previous working paper:1 They are non-discrimination, universality,
irreversibility, and transparency.
In addition to these principles, the principle of credibility of the verification is especially
important for the success of the Treaty. The minimum element of the scope will be the ban
on the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive
devices. The task of the verification will be therefore to create confidence that all treaty
members comply with this obligation, e. g. that all nuclear materials produced after entry
into force are being used for known and non-proscribed purposes. In the Shannon-
Mandate, the task of the verification is expressed as to negotiate an "effectively verifiable
treaty". The credibility of the treaty will depend to a large extent on the credibility of the
verification. An important principle of verification is therefore its credibility.; ( Another important principle is impartiality. When the US and UK - and other nations - bring sanctions against another nation, they cut off access to wherewithal to defend themselves from accusations. This leads to the probability of such becoming a political tool to `manufacture evidence`supporting discrimination. Just as bad, impartiality of the investigating body - the IAEA - becomes irretrievably compromised by limiting funding to those supporting harassment. )
BTW For those 'conspiracy theorists' worrying about 'terrorists' planting nuclear bombs on U.S. soil...what makes you think covert sabotage designed into Iraqi and Japanese power production is not present in U.S. plants ?