359 replies to this topic

[Devonian]

jethro, on 22 December 2009 - 09:37 , said:

Devonian, on 22 December 2009 - 09:28 , said:

I don't trust Christopher Booker at all, so I wouldn't go by that Telegraph article. But, I think Dr P does indeed have business interest - I've not seen evidence of any corruption though. So what? Again if it's OK for Watts or McIntyre or Monckton why not Dr P.?

Besides, does any of this change the science? No it doesn't.

So we agree Dr. P does have business interests here.

I'm not sure anyone has made any allegation of corruption, just a possible conflict of interest - surely that's a valid question?

Don't see how Watts and McIntyre feature here but as I said, please see my first response.

And no one has mentioned the validity of the science, again, we're talking business interests and possible conflict of interest.

So the fact that Watts is Republican Party activist isn't a conflict of interest? Or that McIntyre has 'mining' interests isn't a conflict of interest either? But that Dr P. has business interests is? How?

And that both Watts and McIntyre seem to be able to run extremely active blogs financed by 'tip jars' yet we never see their accounts. Isn't that odd?

Edited by Devonian, 22 December 2009 - 09:57 .

[jethro]

There's a lot of things in life which are odd Dev, IMO the only thing which is as pure as the driven snow is well, driven snow.

I see a conflict of interest with Dr. P and Al Gore, to me the likes of Watts and McIntyre are of less interest. That's not a defence of them, it's more a perspective of "they're just bloggers" of little importance and influence; I'd bet if you stopped and asked 100 joe public who they are, very few would know, a much higher percentage would know who Dr. P and Al Gore are.

Watts and McIntyre have very limited power, they do not have the world as their stage as the leaders of nations converge to discuss these issues.

Would we question the Governor of the Bank of England saying "we need more money in circulation" if he owned The Royal Mint and stood to make a profit? Of course we would, why should climate change be isolated from such questioning?

[Devonian]

jethro, on 22 December 2009 - 10:03 , said:

There's a lot of things in life which are odd Dev, IMO the only thing which is as pure as the driven snow is well, driven snow.

I see a conflict of interest with Dr. P and Al Gore, to me the likes of Watts and McIntyre are of less interest. That's not a defence of them, it's more a perspective of "they're just bloggers" of little importance and influence; I'd bet if you stopped and asked 100 joe public who they are, very few would know, a much higher percentage would know who Dr. P and Al Gore are.

Watts and McIntyre have very limited power, they do not have the world as their stage as the leaders of nations converge to discuss these issues.

Would we question the Governor of the Bank of England saying "we need more money in circulation" if he owned The Royal Mint and stood to make a profit? Of course we would, why should climate change be isolated from such questioning?

Sorry, fundamental disagreement coming up

Jethro, the facts are that public opinion in the US has turned markedly sceptical and that is in significant part due to the activities of people like Watts and McIntyre and their friends at Fox News and other right wing media outlets.

Watts and McIntyre are influential. Not on the US Govt but certainly on public opinion. For that reason I think we should treat them with deep suspicion. They're turning the US public away from science to pseudo science - something that should concern all of us. It's them The Telegraph should investigate. I have to wonder why it hasn't...

[jethro]

I'm sorry but the US populace is small fry when compared to the leaders of world governments.

I think the likes of Watts et al make a lot of noise and very little else.

Would you trust the Governor of The Bank of England if he stood to make a profit or would you want answers to questions? Should we be allowed to question or should we accept on faith? Don't forget we're talking billions of pounds here and the future of nations.

Putting it in different terms, we're all used to seeing raffles, competitions in various guises, run locally, through magazines etc - the small print invariably disbars employees from participating, to ensure no foul play is possible or cries of 'foul play' can be voiced. If such transparency and fairness is deemed important enough to apply it to winning a free subscription or a pair of socks, shouldn't it also apply to world wide government decisions?

[Devonian]

jethro, on 22 December 2009 - 10:34 , said:

I'm sorry but the US populace is small fry when compared to the leaders of world governments.

I think the likes of Watts et al make a lot of noise and very little else.

Well, we'll just have to disagree on that. So, why is it US public opinion has gone more sceptical?

Quote

Would you trust the Governor of The Bank of England if he stood to make a profit or would you want answers to questions? Should we be allowed to question or should we accept on faith? Don't forget we're talking billions of pounds here and the future of nations.

I expect the GOTBOE is very, very well paid.

Quote

Putting it in different terms, we're all used to seeing raffles, competitions in various guises, run locally, through magazines etc - the small print invariably disbars employees from participating, to ensure no foul play is possible or cries of 'foul play' can be voiced. If such transparency and fairness is deemed important enough to apply it to winning a free subscription or a pair of socks, shouldn't it also apply to world wide government decisions?

Yes, but then, I don't accept the allegations from Booker.

Besides, as I keep saying, alleged hypocrisy doesn't change science.

[Dartmoor_Matt]

Perhaps they went sceptical because they have a brain cell thats functioning?

Anyway. I feel the problem is that despite there being sceptics, surely if all the politicians and scientists were 'sold' on the idea of man made climate change an agreement would of been done in Copenhagen? I think the fact there isn't speaks volumes for the lack of agreement, despite the ramblings of Gordon Brown.

[jethro]

Devonian, on 22 December 2009 - 10:43 , said:

Well, we'll just have to disagree on that. So, why is it US public opinion has gone more sceptical?



I expect the GOTBOE is very, very well paid.



Yes, but then, I don't accept the allegations from Booker.

Besides, as I keep saying, alleged hypocrisy doesn't change science.

So are you saying the GOTBOE is well enough paid to not want to seek a profit by other means? I expect he is well paid but can't see what that would have to do with it. Please could you answer the question I posed re the whimsical ownership of The Royal Mint.

But you have accepted that Dr. P has business interests in carbon trading.

Hypocrisy isn't the issue here - conflict of interest is. It's absolutely routine for conflicts of interest to be investigated in the business world, why should climate change and carbon trading be any different?

[Devonian]

jethro, on 22 December 2009 - 11:07 , said:

So are you saying the GOTBOE is well enough paid to not want to seek a profit by other means? I expect he is well paid but can't see what that would have to do with it. Please could you answer the question I posed re the whimsical ownership of The Royal Mint.

I wouldn't approve of corruption.

Quote

But you have accepted that Dr. P has business interests in carbon trading.

Hypocrisy isn't the issue here - conflict of interest is. It's absolutely routine for conflicts of interest to be investigated in the business world, why should climate change and carbon trading be any different?

OK, then lets stop quoting Watts and McIntyre because they both (as I've said) have clear conflicts of interest as well. Lets have some consistency, if we're going to try and undermine the IPCC science by attacks on it's top people then it's fair game to do it with the top sceptics. Btw, I'd, as ever, much rather we talked about what's in the IPCC reports than it's authors (and likewise WUWT/CA).

Edited by Devonian, 22 December 2009 - 11:16 .

[jethro]

Will you please stop interpreting my posts as attacking people, I didn't, never have nor would I.

I may be misinterpreting your tone here, and apologies if I have but you seem very combative; seeking clarification upon conflicts of interest is perfectly legitimate and accepted practise the world over. I see no justifiable reason why anyone should be above this.

As for talking about the content of the IPCC reports, we've all done that to death, newer research is far more interesting IMO.

[Devonian]

jethro, on 22 December 2009 - 11:51 , said:

Will you please stop interpreting my posts as attacking people, I didn't, never have nor would I.

I do think if (if) people say 'X would be guilty of Y if such and such is true' then it's fine and dandy for others so to do . I also think you have to understand that if people who some respect (Dr P.) are attacked by people like Booker they'll be defended by said people - and of course vice versa.

Quote

I may be misinterpreting your tone here, and apologies if I have but you seem very combative; seeking clarification upon conflicts of interest is perfectly legitimate and accepted practise the world over. I see no justifiable reason why anyone should be above this.

That is my position. No one above it. Though, again, I'd rather discuss what people say than the people themselves.

Quote

As for talking about the content of the IPCC reports, we've all done that to death, newer research is far more interesting IMO.

Probably so, which makes me wonder why Dr P. gets attacked (by Booker in the Telegraph, not you) in the way he was? I mean the IPCC is either relevant or it isn't.

[The PIT]

Devonian, on 22 December 2009 - 09:15 , said:

Which brings us back to the question of why it is only card carrying sceptics are allowed to be successful businessmen*?

*I don't accept the allegation made of Dr P.

LOL that has always been the discredit. Backed by oil companies etc have no qualifications etc etc. You can't have it both ways.

[Devonian]

The PIT, on 22 December 2009 - 19:40 , said:

LOL that has always been the discredit. Backed by oil companies etc have no qualifications etc etc. You can't have it both ways.

You could try answering the question...

[Gray-Wolf]

Devonian, on 22 December 2009 - 20:19 , said:

You could try answering the question...

I'm sorry Dev but I have to leave you.

Until there is a series of events that are stark and convincing enough to have the sternest cynic recognise them (beyond all doubt) that this is of our industrialised worlds making it's just ping pong.

I ,for one ,can see nothing but confirmation that 'we done it' but I must accept both that others don't and other's won't until there is no wiggle room left.

Oil money can afford the best (bar stewards) and they have proved worth their dollar in muddying, what to me, are clear waters.

It's gone to far, our 'proof' is not far off but ,sadly, the delay has cost us any hope of mitigation.

Ho Hum

[rob48]

If there's no wiggle room left, we may as well enjoy the winter weather we're experiencing this er, winter.

Edited by jethro, 23 December 2009 - 00:23 .
Let's have a little bit of festive cheer, eh?

[Boar Wrinklestorm]

Gray-Wolf, on 22 December 2009 - 22:59 , said:

I ,for one ,can see nothing but confirmation that 'we done it' ...

Yup, and that's called confirmation bias

The starkest evidence of our ability to affect climate, I think, came from the temperature measurements after 9/11 when all the aircraft industry was grounded for a while where the range between minimum and maximum increased by >1C

As I've repeatedly argued (perhaps not clear enough) it is no longer if, now, but how much, and as for your comments over on the solar-thread, may I respectfully ask that you pay a visit to the LI thread, where the consequences are discussed. In short - the LI hypothesis suggest more warming for 25 years, which leads to the consequence that if CO2 does add up, even to some small amount, and the LI is accurate, then we still need to mititage CO2 production to mitigate climate change as much as possible

I must profer my apoolgies for some of my posts over the last few days; just sick and tired of being lumped in with some very extreme points of view which, I think, I have demonstrably shown, that I do not share.

I wish you all a very merry christmas

Edited by VillagePlank, 23 December 2009 - 08:11 .

[jethro]

Here's a report from Mark Lynas:


http://www.guardian....ynas?CMP=AFCYAH

[Devonian]

VillagePlank, on 23 December 2009 - 08:10 , said:

Yup, and that's called confirmation bias

The starkest evidence of our ability to affect climate, I think, came from the temperature measurements after 9/11 when all the aircraft industry was grounded for a while where the range between minimum and maximum increased by >1C

As I've repeatedly argued (perhaps not clear enough) it is no longer if, now, but how much, and as for your comments over on the solar-thread, may I respectfully ask that you pay a visit to the LI thread, where the consequences are discussed. In short - the LI hypothesis suggest more warming for 25 years, which leads to the consequence that if CO2 does add up, even to some small amount, and the LI is accurate, then we still need to mititage CO2 production to mitigate climate change as much as possible

I must profer my apoolgies for some of my posts over the last few days; just sick and tired of being lumped in with some very extreme points of view which, I think, I have demonstrably shown, that I do not share.

You have, I think I have as well. Next year maybe we'll clarify better what extreme point(s?) of view are because people have differing views of what they are.

Quote

I wish you all a very merry christmas

I do as well

[Gray-Wolf]

Thanks for the diagnosis V.P.!

I wish I wasn't afflicted by it but, I suppose, I've seen things this way since the 80's (when it was truely an 'extreme' viewpoint) and though some may still find my 'take' on things 'extreme' these days a slice of climatologists also see the potential for such extreme levels of change.

If I wait another 20 years then all doubt will be gone and folk will be debating just how 'extreme' things will get and I'll be content being 'mainstream' (LOL)!

Happy Christmas, and a Hot New Year!!

[Devonian]

jethro, on 23 December 2009 - 09:39 , said:

Here's a report from Mark Lynas:


http://www.guardian....ynas?CMP=AFCYAH

I rather wish I'd read that after Christmas...

[Snowdragon]

Happy New Year everybody. I must admit I am sick of icy pavements and roads now - too dangerous!

But, why on Earth didn't they cancel the Copenhagen farce and use the money to buy snow ploughs to keep all of Europe's roads clear like they do in Germany, Poland, Austria etc, etc??

I think it is more likely to be an Ice Age that we are heading for now like my Georgraphy teach told me many years ago!

Keep warm friends Regards Snowdragon