View topic - controversy over IPCC

It is currently December 10th, 2019, 7:18 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours





Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 49 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: controversy over IPCC
PostPosted: September 20th, 2010, 9:48 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: June 11th, 2003, 5:10 pm
Posts: 178
Location: Horseshoe Valley, On
http://www.torontosun.com/comment/colum ... 88541.html

Britain’s foremost magazine of weekly political and social commentary, The Spectator, wonders editorially how Rajendra Pachauri keeps his job.

Who, you might ask, is Rajendra Pachauri?

Well, he’s chairman of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), whose reports on global warming influence governments (and journalists) around the world — and whose science in recent months has “been exposed as shoddy pieces of work which would have disgraced an undergraduate thesis.”

In any other business, The Speccy says, Pachauri would have long ago been bounced. Yet he remains on the job, secure until his term expires in 2014, while calling his critics “arrogant” and viewing dissident opinions as “voodoo science.”

By any rational criteria, the IPCC has been discredited — especially its celebrated claim that by 2035 Himalayan glaciers will all, or mostly, have melted. The Spectator goes a step further and suggests the 2035 claim was taken from speculation in a climbing magazine where the author mistyped the year 2350 as 2035.

Essentially, the IPCC is not devoted to non-partisan science, but to political manipulation and acceptable dogma. In Britain, both the Conservative and Labour parties mindlessly accept IPCC reports, and use them as a basis for policies that The Speccy says “could be hugely damaging to the British economy.”

Regardless, Britain is now committed to cutting carbon emissions by 80% over the coming years, even if the carbon fear is unwarranted.

If there is no dispute over climate change, there is a hell of a lot of dispute over whether it is man-made — that SUVs and irresponsible use of energy and greenhouses gases are endangering the earth. (As a frivolous aside, it could be noted that the alleged menace of methane gases is mostly cattle breaking wind, but as yet there’s no effort to persuade cows to change their diet).

There’s been growing reaction against the IPCC ever since the scandal at the University of East Anglia — where leaked e-mails showed scientific reports disagreeing with, or skeptical of, establishment views on climate change — were crushed, discarded, reviled.

As The Spectator points out, there are such huge sums of money available to those doing research on the negative effects of climate change, that it’s a magnet for every sort of individual — with or without a scientific or meteorological background.

Dr. Pachauri’s background is as a railway engineer.

In 2006, when he was Britain’s environment secretary, David Miliband declared “the scientific debate on climate change is now closed.” End of argument, end of considered alternatives. To The Spectator this was “rather like a 15th century pope attempting to close down the scientific debate on the movement of planetary bodies.”

If you go on Google, you can find all sorts of viewpoints, pro and con, on global warming and climate change. It’s incontrovertible that climate changes cyclically and constantly — and that no one fully understands it.

What common sense and the series of recent natural disasters should indicate is that anything man does is so petty and puny compared to what nature can wreak on occasion, that it should make us more humble instead of more arrogant.

But the Dr. Pachauris of the world are on the cutting edge of political correctness. One cannot escape the conclusion that climate change activism is yet another ploy to distribute wealth and establish a new elite that brooks neither dissent nor contradiction.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: September 20th, 2010, 11:00 am 
Offline

Joined: January 22nd, 2005, 12:16 pm
Posts: 4037
Location: Toronto
Opinions are one thing, scientific evidence quite another.
IPCC is based on the latter.

By the way, IPCC is the abbreviation for
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

And even Exxon-Mobil, which put a lot of effort into discrediting the scientists of IPCC, now accepts that they are right.

_________________

A literal mind is a little mind. If it's not worth doing to excess, it's not worth doing at all. Good enough isn't.  None are so blind as those who choose not to see. (AJ)



Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: September 20th, 2010, 11:55 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: June 11th, 2003, 5:10 pm
Posts: 178
Location: Horseshoe Valley, On
By the way, IPCC is the abbreviation for
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Ummm, I knew that. It's also explained in the article.

As far as the IPCC being based on scientific fact, well, that;s perhaps a matter of opinion. Or depends on how closely you want to interpret 'based' on facts.... Many movies are 'based' on true stories. Doesn't make them documentaries....

My opinion anyways.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: September 20th, 2010, 12:19 pm 
Offline

Joined: January 22nd, 2005, 12:16 pm
Posts: 4037
Location: Toronto
OOOps, I neglected to highlight the operative term.

It is of course everyone`s right to believe whatever they choose, in this case a newspaper article or the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

_________________

A literal mind is a little mind. If it's not worth doing to excess, it's not worth doing at all. Good enough isn't.  None are so blind as those who choose not to see. (AJ)



Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: September 20th, 2010, 3:22 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: June 11th, 2003, 5:10 pm
Posts: 178
Location: Horseshoe Valley, On
Allan Jacobs wrote:
OOOps, I neglected to highlight the operative term.

It is of course everyone`s right to believe whatever they choose, in this case a newspaper article or the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.


Because it's a UN Intergovernmental Panel, that makes it correct? We all know what a bastion of fairness and procedure the UN Commission on Human Rights was....


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: September 20th, 2010, 10:29 pm 
Offline

Joined: January 22nd, 2005, 12:16 pm
Posts: 4037
Location: Toronto
Guess you are rather green.
I suggest that you read the following, especially Rule 1.
viewtopic.php?f=16&t=34485

_________________

A literal mind is a little mind. If it's not worth doing to excess, it's not worth doing at all. Good enough isn't.  None are so blind as those who choose not to see. (AJ)



Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: September 21st, 2010, 2:11 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: July 9th, 2003, 11:48 am
Posts: 1485
Location: Back to Winnipeg
I think rule #2 applies - this a hot button political topic and it's foreseeable that no good will come from an exchange here about whether climate change is real and what its causes or solutions might be, and cow farts and blah, blah, blah.

If you want to share opinions about climate change, the IPCC, climate policy, etc., well, go do it on an Internet discussion forum dedicated to public policy, environmental economics, greenhouse gasses, or whatever, I'm sure they are out there.

Have fun with that.

Pat.

p.s. The precautionary principle is important when managing common property resources and the public good - just because we don't fully understand something doesn't mean should plow ahead using resources the way we always have. That's the elite & money element that scares me - lots of powerful people are heavly invested and do quite well by the status quo.

Also, "the carbon crisis" is real in very simple terms - regardless of how you feel about the IPCC or even climate change, it's just not smart to use scarce resources like they are cheap and create no negative impacts. Fossil fuels are very important to society, but very dirty to deal with on many levels, so hey, we should maybe use them carefully and try not to waste them - how can that be controversial public policy?

Unfortunately, politicians and business people tend not to benefit much from acting fast or taking long-term views on changes to resource use.

_________________
Learning to paddle is like learning a language:
It's easy to learn the basics, but will you be understood in a strong wind?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: September 21st, 2010, 6:38 am 
Offline

Joined: January 22nd, 2005, 12:16 pm
Posts: 4037
Location: Toronto
That is one interesting point, one I confess that I had missed entirely, namely that the posts violated rule 2.
My thinking (perhaps I flatter myself by calling it that) was that CCR is a site for adults, that childish behaviour like trolling is explicitly forbidden by rule 1.
But please, YB, let us try to settle this dispute in a civilised fashion, indeed like adults. Who knows, perhaps we are both right.

_________________

A literal mind is a little mind. If it's not worth doing to excess, it's not worth doing at all. Good enough isn't.  None are so blind as those who choose not to see. (AJ)



Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: September 21st, 2010, 9:12 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: June 11th, 2003, 5:10 pm
Posts: 178
Location: Horseshoe Valley, On
Allan Jacobs wrote:
Guess you are rather green.
I suggest that you read the following, especially Rule 1.
viewtopic.php?f=16&t=34485


I didn't look at it as 'goading'. As far as I was concerned it was a statement about credibility of UN intergovernmental panels and commissions. But again, that's my opinion, of course.

As far as rule 2, of course a moderator should step in if I am out of line. I thought it was an interesting article that could spark interesting discussion.

And certainly I believe in conservation and leave no trace principles to a certain extent. I just don't believe we can totally discount economic factors when looking at the big picture....


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: September 21st, 2010, 11:05 am 
Offline
CCR Moderator & Assistant Administrator
User avatar

Joined: October 27th, 2006, 5:51 am
Posts: 2895
Location: Montreal
It says in rule 2 that topics such as this one will be monitored closely.

From where I sit you guys are reminding me of two boxers who are sparring. You worked your way up to the line regarding rule #1 but now appear to have backed off.

If two people take opposing views on a controversial subject that's perfectly fine as long as they stick to the issues and don't point fingers at each other. (the guess you are green comment could be taken as an attempted insult) Anyway, we have elected officials in Ottawa who are paid to break rule #1 all day long.

Example of an acceptable statement: I believe that the theory of anthropogenic carbon dioxide based global warming is false.


Example of an inacceptable statement: global warming is hooey and you mister are both a total idiot and a naive greenie if you believe in it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: September 21st, 2010, 11:19 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: October 16th, 2008, 9:20 am
Posts: 1367
Location: Oshawa
Seems to be a pretty common theme, money over mind. Does not matter how much we know something is bad to do if it means we will make a pile of money doing it.

It is so frustrating, the money generation is often short term, involves plundering non renewable resources, creates short term employment...not even local employment much of the time, and there seem to be less than a handful of wealthy investors who can do whatever they want and get filthy rich in the process.

I cannot believe the Canadian Government is spending 9 BILLION dollars on fighter jets. Ok...perhaps it is a great deal in the big pictures, sure it sounds like our Air Force needs them, should increase safety in operation, but holy C%^$! 9 BILLION, what if we were to instead invest that money in developing a strong action plan to produce truly environmentally friendly energy, work on preserving our environment, increase research on maintaining the health of our polar ice caps, and for the love of #$% why not stop selling our non renewable resources overseas and then buying back the crap third world countries produce (insert "built with only the finest slave labour" here)

9 Billion on warfare meanwhile we are plundering our natural resources for non sustainable yield and absolutely destroying our environment in the process. Our children will be pissing on our graves for the absolute STUPID errors in judgement we are making that they are going to have to fix.

I simply need to get this off my chest. Everyone on this forum is wonderful and this is just me venting. I'm frustrated and don't know what to do...seems no matter how many letters I write the government is still going to do whatever the hell it wants...it just does not feel very democratic!

It makes me ashamed of humans to think that while people starve, our environment is raped, and we have a government who does not listen to the people, that we have to be more concerned about bombing other people...perhaps the human race is just destined for collapse by our own hand.

_________________
"It's healthy to be dirty" - Lars Monsen


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: September 21st, 2010, 11:25 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: October 16th, 2008, 9:20 am
Posts: 1367
Location: Oshawa
I don't think my post interferes with rule 1 or 2, mods just delete if necessary.

I am not targeting anyone in particular and I accept blame myself for the world I am helping to create. I drive to work everyday in my truck, I buy products made overseas, and I were a red shirt at work on red friday's in support of our troops.

But I recognize the fact that things MUST change. I must change as does society...healthy respect I suppose is all that is needed...respect for our environment and respect for our fellow mankind.

It is amazing how hard it is to respect!

_________________
"It's healthy to be dirty" - Lars Monsen


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: September 21st, 2010, 11:36 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: June 11th, 2003, 5:10 pm
Posts: 178
Location: Horseshoe Valley, On
If you want to share opinions about climate change, the IPCC, climate policy, etc., well, go do it on an Internet discussion forum dedicated to public policy, environmental economics, greenhouse gasses, or whatever, I'm sure they are out there.

Hi yarnelboat

This IS an environmental issues forum, tho, isn't it? So public policies on the environment and environmental economics are actually in the right place here.

As far as your statement that 'just because we don't understand things doesn't mean we should just plow ahead using resources the way we have been', I think I would also agree with saying 'Just because we don't understand it doesn't mean we plow ahead with new technologies of which we don't understand the full health and safety, economic or environmental impacts (as in, for instance, the relatively new field of wind power generation). Acting fast in that case could very well saddle people with more expensive, less efficient and with unhealthy living conditions, if they are in close proximity to such facilities.

Fossil fuels may be dirty, but there are ways to make them cleaner, we don't necessarily have to be off them by a certain deadline. We have the time to research alternatives and work on other solutions without necessarily rushing into one that isn't the best, I would think. Phasing it out, in other words, rather than trying to slam the door and creating havoc for people who's world is based, right now, on keeping the doors of their businesses open and the heat on....


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: September 22nd, 2010, 6:07 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: July 9th, 2003, 11:48 am
Posts: 1485
Location: Back to Winnipeg
So it is an environmental forum, but within a canoeing forum, so I guess I was imaging it to be about how an environmental issue impacts canoeing & wilderness, or how canoe tripping practices impact the environment. Not just political venting to stir things up.

I think a lot of the award-winning scholars & scientists on the Nobel-winning IPCC wouldn't argue with you - they have long been advocating a reasoned use of fossil fuels and research into alternatives.

And there's lot of ways to minimize our current use of fuels and energy without leaping whole-hog into uncertain technologies. Simple conservation-minded use of non-renewables is all the precautionary principle is asking - you don't need to believe in climate change to get that's not a bright idea to drive your SUV a few blocks to the grocery store every day. We should be paying the true costs of resources and having policies that discourage wastefulness, that's all I'm saying.

I think some anti-climate change info overreacts more about what IPCC-folks are saying than the IPCC does about climate change scenarios. In reality there is probably a lot of common ground around conservation measures and long-term directions.

Although, you seem to suggest that irresponsible use of energy is OK and is probably not harming our ecosytems' functions, which I don't get - why take that chance and defend irresponsible use of something precious just for the selfish convenience of having the AC cranked and driving a single-occupant SUV?

Assuming you also support the irresponsible conversion of natural habitat lest it interfere with someone's lifestyle or profits, you'll be sad to know that the UN is considering an IPCC-like panel to address the global loss of biodiversity, i.e., there are crazy, biased governments & scientists who have a concern with the rate that species are going extinct. How dare they suggest precautionary alternatives to that too!

I'm sure everything will be alright if we all just keep consuming as much as possible everywhere possible.

Pat.

_________________
Learning to paddle is like learning a language:
It's easy to learn the basics, but will you be understood in a strong wind?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: September 22nd, 2010, 8:58 pm 
Offline
CCR Moderator & Assistant Administrator
User avatar

Joined: October 27th, 2006, 5:51 am
Posts: 2895
Location: Montreal
yarnellboat wrote:
So it is an environmental forum, but within a canoeing forum, so I guess I was imaging it to be about how an environmental issue impacts canoeing & wilderness, or how canoe tripping practices impact the environment.

I suspect that was the original intent of those who set the forum up.


Quote:
We should be paying the true costs of resources

We now pay what it costs to get a liter of gas to the pump plus a sh!t load of taxes. How much would you say is the "true cost" of a liter of gas? In some countries gas is subsidized in order to accelerate modernization. One liter = 10 cents.

Quote:
AC cranked and driving a single-occupant SUV?

You should have seen the people carting brand new AC units to their cars from Can Tire in Montreal's recent late summer heat wave.



Quote:
I'm sure everything will be alright if we all just keep consuming as much as possible everywhere possible.
If this speeds up the extinction of Homo sapiens on Earth I would think that a lot of people would be quite happy (as long as they aren't among the unlucky extinct. )


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 49 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group