Printable View
Absolute nonsense. They repeatedly check their models using various objective measures. Can you honestly please answer whether you have actually tried to look at few scientific papers?Quote:
Originally posted by Rilthyn
And for good measure.
Climate Modeling Nonsense
This is not posted for Xywalan, rather I want those of you who, like myself, are yet to commit to a religion on the topic of AGW to take a look.
Finally, the guy is an engineer.
I forgot to mention that sorry, I don't listen to clowns on scientific issues. Now, if you can find a paper that is published on a peer-reviewed journal, I'll be more than happy to read it.Quote:
Originally posted by Rilthyn
Since opening the PDF to view alongside is too much effort, here's a version of the video with the slides incorporated.
A few points:
-To provide a context for American readers, Janet Albrechtsen is a right wing op-ed columnist similar politically to perhaps Hannity (imagine if I were to similarly obfuscate a link to Jeff Sparrow who sometimes writes columns for ‘The Age”).
-As far as I know (and I don’t know very much), the American Constitution will override any treaty, even a ratified treaty.
-This treaty is a draft, it has not been signed and it has not been ratified.
-The treaty allows for nations to withdraw from the treaty.
-Doesn’t page 22 state that countries are sovereign and can do whatever they like in their own interests (warning: link to pdf) http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/conv...g.pdf#page-22.
Rithlyn, you keep pointing to right wing magazines and writers without acknowledging it. People in the US aren't going to know the context of these articles and you need to provide them with that context if you're going to be fair.
*facepalm*
Oh my God, do you still actually think this is a left-wing/right-wing issue?
If Australia had a right-wing Prime Minister I'd have been linking to a left-wing writer's article pointing out what is happening with the Copenhagen agreement.
I'm not interested in discussing theatre.
Hey, you're the one telling us this is some sort of communist takeover and FWIW, communists are part of the left wing spectrum.
The point is that the people you are linking to have an agenda. They are selling an opinion okay? Like Al Gore is selling an opinion.
Everyone reading this thread knows who Al Gore is. Hardly anyone in this thread knows who Monckton, Albrechtsen or John Reid are, and for the record, one is a lying loony, one is a right wing columnist and one is a physicist who appears making a living as a denialist.
None of them are climatologists. None of them have relevant work published in scientific journals. You're pushing opinion makers and you're not giving them a context. It's just dishonest.
Also, you haven't addressed any of the points I made about the fact that there is no way this treaty can influence american sovereignty (which seems to be one of your main concerns).
I'm so glad you used that term.Quote:
Originally posted by Malacasta
...and one is a physicist who appears making a living as a denialist.
It is only commonly applied to two topics.
AGW skepticism is one. The holocaust is the other.
Hmmmmmmm.
As for the PDF you linked to, I took a look and no I didn't see anything alarming there, I must concede that PDF appeared to be on the level.
I'm not sure how it's relevant though.
This is the one I'm talking about, and currently reading. I'll get back to you 181 pages later.
It is a significant treaty, with world leaders from many, many countries signing it.
Why is it not being more closely examined and discussed?
That is my question, and my purpose in making this thread.
I will concede that my statement about "surrendering sovereignty" is alarmist on my part, but when this treaty threatens to slip in under the radar my alarm bells go off like mad.
Oh, I used it because he was whining about it in his article "Now we sceptics are called “deniers” and, by implication, lumped in with neo-Nazis who question the Holocaust."Quote:
Originally posted by Rilthyn
I'm so glad you used that term.
It is only commonly applied to two topics.
AGW skepticism is one. The holocaust is the other.
Well, from what I can gather, the treaty is full of gaps, empty brackets where words will go in, it'll be cut down and simplified and... has absolutely no chance of being signed in September or any time in the near future. So, it might not be being discussed as much as you like, because it's not actually written yet. It's very very draft.
Also, if you do a google news search, there are thousands of articles about it in mainstream news outlets.
A search for the "Copenhagen Agreement" turns up 172 results, and only one on the first page appears to be a critical examination of the proposed text.
Copenhagen, it's not about climate change
That page seems to anticipate your absolute distrust of anything written by what is labelled as the right-wing, and so links to from a left-wing site in the UK.
The beginners' guide to the Copenhagen climate conference negotiating text
I do enjoy the pattern of dismissing or attacking the author/speaker I link to, rather than addressing what they are saying.
Bye now.
Haven't read your links and don't have time atm.Quote:
Originally posted by Rilthyn
A search for the "Copenhagen Agreement" turns up 172 results, and only one on the first page appears to be a critical examination of the proposed text.
Copenhagen, it's not about climate change
That page seems to anticipate your absolute distrust of anything written by what is labelled as the right-wing, and so links to from a left-wing site in the UK.
The beginners' guide to the Copenhagen climate conference negotiating text
I do enjoy the pattern of dismissing or attacking the author/speaker I link to, rather than addressing what they are saying.
Bye now.
I will quickly address one point though. I'm not a climate scientist. I don't understand the science, I don't know whether your Reid physicist has a significant point when he argues that mathematicians don't understand, or use, scientific method. And neither do you.
I checked out CSIRO's ocean climate prediction researchers, and most of those folks do have mathematics doctorates so he may have a point. I don't know though, because he's making emotive arguments in a non scientific, political magazine and his statements have not been reviewed by other scientists.
This is a really important issue. Since the science is so complicated here we just can't trust newspapers that say 'Melbourne is going to be underwater in 50 years' or 'Brown coal is going to run out and Victoria will be left without power" or stuff like that. And I really do get called a denialist and climate skeptic by my friends who are active in the environmentalist campaigns when I call them on their bullshit.
But just as I don't trust a newspaper that makes ridiculous apocalyptic claims, or a friend who has no science training who is trying to get me to picket Hazelwood, I'm not going to trust a person whose only published works appears to be in climate skeptic websites or partisan political magazines. And I'm not going to trust a right wing pundit who has absolutely scientific training at all.