Adirondack Forum  
Rules Membership Donations and Online Store Adkhighpeaks Foundation ADKhighpeaks Forums ADKhighpeaks Wiki Disclaimer

Go Back   Adirondack Forum > Current Affairs and Environmental Issues > Environmental Issues
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 04-25-2014, 03:33 PM   #341
randomscooter
Native Earthling
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Scooterville, NY
Posts: 1,500
Quote:
Originally Posted by cityboy View Post
Here's another quote:

"A remark from Maurice Strong, who organized the first U.N. Earth Climate Summit (1992) in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil revealed the real goal: “We may get to the point where the only way of saving the world will be for industrialized civilization to collapse.”"
Are you suggesting that Maurice Strong has inadvertently (or perhaps intentionally) revealed the "true agenda"? That in his zeal to save the world he is willing to accept, or perhaps even orchestrate, the collapse of industrialized civilization as a reasonable price to attain that goal?

Since I'm looking at this for the first time and it is clearly out of it's original context, I can only speculate as to the meaning behind his words. I would guess that he is expressing frustration over the resistance of some countries (presumably the industrialized ones) to take the climate change issue seriously, to do their part, to take responsibility. To lead. Perhaps he is expressing concern that catastrophe may occur if the world is not able to come together and do something about the problem, especially those countries that are the primary cause of the problem. Just a guess on my part.

Update: With minimal digging I was able to come up with a more complete (although still out of context) account of the above quote:
Quote:
"If we don't change, our species will not survive... Frankly, we may get to the point where the only way of saving the world will be for industrial civilization to collapse."
Clearly he is expressing concern for the future of mankind. Clearly he is frustrated by an unwillingness by some to change. And his statement is not without basis. Arguably, most would say it's proven, industrialized civilization is what has caused the problem, so if industrialized civilization is intent on business as usual, then it follows that the collapse of industrialized society would be a possible path of salvation for the rest of the planet. Not desirable, but possible.

At least that's my take. But if you want to believe that Maurice Strong is attempting to orchestrate the downfall of civilization, for the sake of saving the world, then that is your prerogative.
__________________
Scooting here and there
Through the woods and up the peaks
Random Scoots awaits (D.P.)


"Pushing the limits of easy."™
randomscooter is offline  
Old 04-25-2014, 04:40 PM   #342
Hobbitling
spring fever
 
Hobbitling's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Rochester area
Posts: 2,236
"Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of a cancer cell"
-Edward Abby

I would argue that "growth for the sake of growth" is what defines our current economic system. Call it "industrialized civilization" or "capitalism" or whatever you want, but it's a system defined by a constant need for growth.

In the end, constant growth is, by definition, not sustainable. Every bubble bursts eventually.
__________________
He found himself wondering at times, especially in the autumn, about the wild lands, and strange visions of mountains that he had never seen came into his dreams.
Hobbitling is offline  
Old 04-25-2014, 09:34 PM   #343
cityboy
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 570
Quote:
Originally Posted by randomscooter View Post
I think if you read the translation of the full interview (with an open mind of course ) it will be apparent that your quote above is taken out of context and used as a device by those who are saying what you want to hear. "The cause" is not about redistribution of wealth, but of course many countries, in particular those who have fossil fuel reserves and have benefited from them at the expense of those who do not have them (or have not developed them) are understandably concerned by the potential economic implications of climate policies. A large part of the problem is that much of the true cost of fossil fuels has been externalized by the "haves", at the expense of the "have nots". Climate policy will force these costs to be internalized, which is where they have belonged all along. As a result we will start paying the true cost, or closer to the true cost, for our energy.
Randomscooter thanks for the link. I'm always unsure when I'm reading a site if it is pro or con. Obviously by the comments its a Skeptical site.

Whether it was the initial intent of Climate Change Policy or is just an effect is immaterial. Its semantics and most people will focus on the end result which would be a redistribution of wealth.

So the initial quote although not especially accurate is still factually correct. Unless you are also disputing "In the near future climate policy could redistribute the world's wealth."

Frankly, I feel like I'm talking to a bunch of aliens on this site. I'm a pretty logical guy but when people frame their arguments in "haves versus have nots" and act as if a countries' resources belongs to the world I realize that there is absolutely no common ground for discussion. We just don't think alike and never will. I deal in concrete facts and you deal in ideology and theory.

Fortunately, as I mentioned at the outset I see this thread as a way to present both sides of the argument for the "silent majority" here who have yet to decide. I of course will continue to post interesting articles that people may find informative.

If you should ever come up with any scientific facts to back your side feel free to post them too.
cityboy is offline  
Old 04-26-2014, 07:48 AM   #344
randomscooter
Native Earthling
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Scooterville, NY
Posts: 1,500
Quote:
Originally Posted by cityboy View Post
Randomscooter thanks for the link. I'm always unsure when I'm reading a site if it is pro or con. Obviously by the comments its a Skeptical site.
You're welcome.

Quote:
Whether it was the initial intent of Climate Change Policy or is just an effect is immaterial. Its semantics and most people will focus on the end result which would be a redistribution of wealth.
Let's talk about redistribution of wealth. But not in isolation. We'll also talk about...
Quote:
... when people ... act as if a countries' resources belongs to the world I realize that there is absolutely no common ground for discussion.
I do not believe that whether a country's resources belong to the world is relevant to the discussion. We're talking about the fact that our current economic system externalizes certain costs, most particularly, in the context of this discussion, environmental degradation. The environment recognizes no political boundaries.

We all reside on a single planet, and our waste stream affects us all. Perhaps our actions could be excused back in the day when we didn't recognize the damage we were causing. But those days are over. Those of us who have benefited from this free ride for the longest have caused arguably serious environmental problems for all. The most equitable way of dealing with this problem is for suppliers of energy, or more likely governments, to internalize the costs and pass them on to energy users, preferably by implementing systems that will minimize that damage.

Internalization of costs is a very difficult challenge. This challenge is understandably seen as a threat by many, and many will respond by digging in their heels, taking a defensive posture to protect what they have. It muddies the waters. This is effectively why the environmental aspects of climate change policy and the economic aspects of climate change policy can not be separated. They are inextricably coupled. There is indeed an aspect of "redistribution of wealth", but it is not a goal of climate change advocates. Nor, in my opinion, is it a necessary side effect of climate change policy.

This challenge also creates fertile ground for innovation. Those who recognize this opportunity will prosper. Those who do not, will not. Wealth will indeed be transferred, FROM those who face this challenge by digging in, and TO those who face this challenge with optimism and innovation. This, to take liberties with your earlier comments about extinction, is the way it has always been and always will be.

The redistribution of wealth need not be defined by political boundaries, eg, FROM "rich" countries TO "poor" countries. But to the extent that those who have dug in are able to manipulate the political system to their ends - and they typically have deep pockets that will aid them - the redistribution of wealth may end up being roughly defined by political boundaries. It would be a damned shame if my country, the place I love, the USA, turned out to be one of the losers. I don't want to see that happen. And I don't think you do either.

Quote:
We just don't think alike and never will. I deal in concrete facts and you deal in ideology and theory.
To be sure, there are those who lie at the extremes. On both ends of the spectrum. Perhaps their ideological zeal clouds their ability to reach others. Again, on both ends of the spectrum. But I applaud their passion. It's one of those things that makes us human. Another thing that comes with the package of being human is distrust. We can take up a defensive posture, which essentially shuts down the "listening" part of us. And that can cause us to see zealotry where there is none. The only way that I personally have found to minimize this problem is by letting down my guard completely. Some bad crap gets through, but most of what I thought was bad crap, back when I had my guard up, turns out not to be. Embrace the differences.
__________________
Scooting here and there
Through the woods and up the peaks
Random Scoots awaits (D.P.)


"Pushing the limits of easy."™

Last edited by randomscooter; 04-26-2014 at 09:22 AM..
randomscooter is offline  
Old 04-26-2014, 07:50 AM   #345
brontide
Member
 
brontide's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by cityboy View Post
Frankly, I feel like I'm talking to a bunch of aliens on this site. I'm a pretty logical guy but when people frame their arguments in "haves versus have nots"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_externalizing

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality

This is the "technical term" to what he was describing and it's a major basis for regulation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cityboy View Post
If you should ever come up with any scientific facts to back your side feel free to post them too.

You first.
brontide is offline  
Old 04-26-2014, 08:07 AM   #346
Hobbitling
spring fever
 
Hobbitling's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Rochester area
Posts: 2,236
We've posted plenty of scientific facts.
I'd say we've all said everything we have to say.
18 pages of "debate" and zero minds changed.
Are we done here yet?
__________________
He found himself wondering at times, especially in the autumn, about the wild lands, and strange visions of mountains that he had never seen came into his dreams.
Hobbitling is offline  
Old 04-26-2014, 08:27 AM   #347
cityboy
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 570
I see the old "Climate Change is causing an increase extreme weather" is starting to rear its ugly head again. This argument has more lives than Jason in Friday the 13th. Every time it comes up and is shot down its followed by a 3 month lull and then arises from the dead.

Its not that surprising this time however since Cancun is in November and it looks like Warmests are going full bore to try to influence the result.

Here is an IPCC refresher on extreme weather.

“The statement about the absence of trends in impacts attributable to natural or anthropogenic climate change holds for tropical and extratropical storms and tornados”

“The absence of an attributable climate change signal in losses also holds for flood losses”

“There is limited evidence of changes in extremes associated with other climate variables since the mid-20th century”

“Current datasets indicate no significant observed trends in global tropical cyclone frequency over the past century.”

“No robust trends in annual numbers of tropical storms, hurricanes and major hurricanes counts have been identified over the past 100 years in the North Atlantic basin”

“In summary, there continues to be a lack of evidence and thus low confidence regarding the sign of trend in the magnitude and/or frequency of floods on a global scale.”

“In summary, there is low confidence in observed trends in small-scale severe weather phenomena such as hail and thunderstorms.”

“In summary, the current assessment concludes that there is not enough evidence at present to suggest more than low confidence in a global-scale observed trend in drought or dryness (lack of rainfall) since the middle of the 20th century.”

“AR4 conclusions regarding global increasing trends in drought since the 1970s were probably overstated.”

“In summary, confidence in large scale changes in the intensity of extreme extratropical cyclones since 1900 is low”

Source IPCC AR5 report.
cityboy is offline  
Old 04-26-2014, 09:03 AM   #348
brontide
Member
 
brontide's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 16
If you want to have a solid argument, link to the full reports and not pull quotes.
brontide is offline  
Old 04-26-2014, 09:21 AM   #349
brontide
Member
 
brontide's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 16
Let's go to the source. http://www.ipcc-wg2.gov/SREX/ and let's pull some from the summary. Rather than pull quotes, here is the summary of extreme weather events. This is unlikely to affect your very narrow interpretation of this report since the quotes were obviously pulled from sites that cater to your viewpoint.

Quote:
Climate Extremes and Impacts

There is evidence from observations gathered since 1950 of change in some extremes. Confidence in observed changes in extremes depends on the quality and quantity of data and the availability of studies analyzing these data, which vary across regions and for different extremes. Assigning ‘low confidence’ in observed changes in a specific extreme on regional or global scales neither implies nor excludes the possibility of changes in this extreme. Extreme events are rare, which means there are few data available to make assessments regarding changes in their frequency or intensity. The more rare the event the more difficult it is to identify long-term changes. Global-scale trends in a specific extreme may be either more reliable (e.g., for temperature extremes) or less reliable (e.g., for droughts) than some regional-scale trends, depending on the geographical uniformity of the trends in the specific extreme. The following paragraphs provide further details for specific climate extremes from observations since 1950. [3.1.5, 3.1.6, 3.2.1]

It is very likely that there has been an overall decrease in the number of cold days and nights,3 and an overall increase in the number of warm days and nights,3 at the global scale, that is, for most land areas with sufficient data. It is likely that these changes have also occurred at the continental scale in North America, Europe, and Australia. There is medium confidence in a warming trend in daily temperature extremes in much of Asia. Confidence in observed trends in daily temperature extremes in Africa and South America generally varies from low to medium depending on the region. In many (but not all) regions over the globe with sufficient data, there is medium confidence that the length or number of warm spells or heat waves has increased. [3.3.1, Table 3-2]

There have been statistically significant trends in the number of heavy precipitation events in some regions. It is likely that more of these regions have experienced increases than decreases, although there are strong regional and subregional variations in these trends. [3.3.2]

There is low confidence in any observed long-term (i.e., 40 years or more) increases in tropical cyclone activity (i.e., intensity, frequency, duration), after accounting for past changes in observing capabilities. It is likely that there has been a poleward shift in the main Northern and Southern Hemisphere extratropical storm tracks. There is low confidence in observed trends in small spatial-scale phenomena such as tornadoes and hail because of data inhomogeneities and inadequacies in monitoring systems. [3.3.2, 3.3.3, 3.4.4, 3.4.5]

There is medium confidence that some regions of the world have experienced more intense and longer droughts, in particular in southern Europe and West Africa, but in some regions droughts have become less frequent, less intense, or shorter, for example, in central North America and northwestern Australia. [3.5.1]

There is limited to medium evidence available to assess climate-driven observed changes in the magnitude and frequency of floods at regional scales because the available instrumental records of floods at gauge stations are limited in space and time, and because of confounding effects of changes in land use and engineering. Furthermore, there is low agreement in this evidence, and thus overall low confidence at the global scale regarding even the sign of these changes. [3.5.2] It is likely that there has been an increase in extreme coastal high water related to increases in mean sea level. [3.5.3]

There is evidence that some extremes have changed as a result of anthropogenic influences, including increases in atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases. It is likely that anthropogenic influences have led to warming of extreme daily minimum and maximum temperatures at the global scale. There is medium confidence that anthropogenic influences have contributed to intensification of extreme precipitation at the global scale. It is likely that there has been an anthropogenic influence on increasing extreme coastal high water due to an increase in mean sea level. The uncertainties in the historical tropical cyclone records, the incomplete understanding of the physical
mechanisms linking tropical cyclone metrics to climate change, and the degree of tropical cyclone variability provide only low confidence for the attribution of any detectable changes in tropical cyclone activity to anthropogenic influences. Attribution of single extreme events to anthropogenic climate change is challenging. [3.2.2, 3.3.1, 3.3.2, 3.4.4, 3.5.3, Table 3-1]
brontide is offline  
Old 04-26-2014, 01:11 PM   #350
cityboy
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 570
Quote:
Originally Posted by brontide View Post
Let's go to the source. http://www.ipcc-wg2.gov/SREX/ and let's pull some from the summary. Rather than pull quotes, here is the summary of extreme weather events. This is unlikely to affect your very narrow interpretation of this report since the quotes were obviously pulled from sites that cater to your viewpoint.
Did you bother to read anything you cut and pasted?
Fourth paragraph sums up what I said.

By the way I cited the AR-5 report NOT the summary for politicians. Its over 1000 pages and much more detailed.
cityboy is offline  
Old 04-26-2014, 01:23 PM   #351
randomscooter
Native Earthling
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Scooterville, NY
Posts: 1,500
Quote:
Originally Posted by cityboy View Post
Here is an IPCC refresher on extreme weather.
.
.
.
(see the original post for the quotes)
.
.
.
Source IPCC AR5 report.
For those who are interested, the complete IPCC AR5 report is available online at http://ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/. It's a lengthy report, some 1500 plus pages. That's just the WG1 report, which is (to me at least) the more interesting one, as it provides the physical science basis.

On that same page you can view a video and a Powerpoint presentation that summarize the overall findings by the working group.

I attempted to locate some of the quotes provided at the top of this post, but my searching skills in a 1500 page document leave something to be desired. Somebody obviously worked very hard to ferret out these specific quotes from the document. Their hard work is commendable.

Understandably, I doubt many people will have the time or inclination to read the entire 1500 pages. I myself haven't decided. Most people who are interested will look for some sort of summary document. I suppose the "flavor" of the summary will depend on the source.
__________________
Scooting here and there
Through the woods and up the peaks
Random Scoots awaits (D.P.)


"Pushing the limits of easy."™

Last edited by randomscooter; 04-26-2014 at 01:41 PM..
randomscooter is offline  
Old 04-26-2014, 01:27 PM   #352
randomscooter
Native Earthling
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Scooterville, NY
Posts: 1,500
Quote:
Originally Posted by cityboy View Post
... I cited the AR-5 report NOT the summary for politicians. Its over 1000 pages and much more detailed.
I too would rather read the scientific work than the summary for politicians. But I wasn't able to readily find the quotes you cited. Since you've already done the legwork, can you provide page numbers for each please? For the benefit of our readers. Thanks!
__________________
Scooting here and there
Through the woods and up the peaks
Random Scoots awaits (D.P.)


"Pushing the limits of easy."™
randomscooter is offline  
Old 04-26-2014, 02:02 PM   #353
cityboy
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 570
Quote:
Originally Posted by randomscooter View Post
I too would rather read the scientific work than the summary for politicians. But I wasn't able to readily find the quotes you cited. Since you've already done the legwork, can you provide page numbers for each please? For the benefit of our readers. Thanks!
I did not record page numbers but I was able to find the page for the most controversial one where the IPCC admits their previous AR-4 statement on droughts was wrong. Page 60.

"The most recent and most comprehensive analyses of river runoff do not support the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report
(AR4) conclusion that global runoff has increased during the 20th century. New results also indicate that the AR4
conclusions regarding global increasing trends in droughts since the 1970s are no longer supported. {2.5.2, 2.6.2}"
cityboy is offline  
Old 04-26-2014, 03:44 PM   #354
randomscooter
Native Earthling
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Scooterville, NY
Posts: 1,500
Quote:
Originally Posted by cityboy View Post
I did not record page numbers but I was able to find the page for the most controversial one where the IPCC admits their previous AR-4 statement on droughts was wrong. Page 60.

"The most recent and most comprehensive analyses of river runoff do not support the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report
(AR4) conclusion that global runoff has increased during the 20th century. New results also indicate that the AR4
conclusions regarding global increasing trends in droughts since the 1970s are no longer supported. {2.5.2, 2.6.2}"
I'm not familiar with the controversy behind this particular statement. Can you expand upon that?

Btw, I did find the statement in the technical summary section of the report. Thanks!
__________________
Scooting here and there
Through the woods and up the peaks
Random Scoots awaits (D.P.)


"Pushing the limits of easy."™
randomscooter is offline  
Old 04-26-2014, 05:31 PM   #355
cityboy
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 570
Quote:
Originally Posted by randomscooter View Post
I'm not familiar with the controversy behind this particular statement. Can you expand upon that?

Btw, I did find the statement in the technical summary section of the report. Thanks!
I just meant based upon the usual comments I would get here since this statement was the only retraction. I anticipated to hear cherry Picking, bad translations the science is settled.

There is no controversy from my point of view since there are numerous graphs showing everything I highlighted.

I should also point out that statements by Climatologists blaming Climate Change for the Polar Vortex and the California drought were also retracted.

I just saw a study saying that rate of sea level rise has decreased since 2000 from the latter 20th century.

http://www.thegwpf.org/sea-level-rising-slowing/
cityboy is offline  
Old 04-26-2014, 05:50 PM   #356
brontide
Member
 
brontide's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 16
It's not a cafeteria, you don't get to take what you want and leave the rest of the results.

Of course they were probably redacted, it's hard enough to pinpoint global changes over a decade, let alone a set of specific events. This is also why you seem to take great joy in the IPCC reports for no good reason. A 'low confidence' doesn't mean that global warming is not occurring or affecting that type of extreme weather event, but they can not scientifically prove that it is affecting that type of event. Science is hard, you have to know how to read the reports.
brontide is offline  
Old 04-27-2014, 03:03 AM   #357
cityboy
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 570
Quote:
Originally Posted by randomscooter View Post
Are you suggesting that Maurice Strong has inadvertently (or perhaps intentionally) revealed the "true agenda"? That in his zeal to save the world he is willing to accept, or perhaps even orchestrate, the collapse of industrialized civilization as a reasonable price to attain that goal?

Since I'm looking at this for the first time and it is clearly out of it's original context, I can only speculate as to the meaning behind his words. I would guess that he is expressing frustration over the resistance of some countries (presumably the industrialized ones) to take the climate change issue seriously, to do their part, to take responsibility. To lead. Perhaps he is expressing concern that catastrophe may occur if the world is not able to come together and do something about the problem, especially those countries that are the primary cause of the problem. Just a guess on my part.

Update: With minimal digging I was able to come up with a more complete (although still out of context) account of the above quote:

Clearly he is expressing concern for the future of mankind. Clearly he is frustrated by an unwillingness by some to change. And his statement is not without basis. Arguably, most would say it's proven, industrialized civilization is what has caused the problem, so if industrialized civilization is intent on business as usual, then it follows that the collapse of industrialized society would be a possible path of salvation for the rest of the planet. Not desirable, but possible.

At least that's my take. But if you want to believe that Maurice Strong is attempting to orchestrate the downfall of civilization, for the sake of saving the world, then that is your prerogative.
I think you are right about frustration. I also remember a statement by a UN official basically saying Democracy may not be the best form of government to get Climate Change passed.

http://dailycaller.com/2014/01/15/un...lobal-warming/

Just my opinion but everything comes down to Power and money. From the UN stand point its Power, a one world government. From Developing countries its free money. Environment is just a way to go about it. As I've said before the IPCC is comprised of Scientists and Politicians. I'm sure the scientific part is concerned about the environmental consequences (although I think its overstated) but I sometimes wonder about the motives behind the Summary committee.

Here is an example of the Politics involved.

http://www.thegwpf.org/ipcc-report-w...thor-confirms/

More about the IPCC internal politics from key insiders

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/04/2...s/#more-108249

And a quote:

‘The Himalayan glacier melt (by 2035) really was the least of the errors’ , ‘The IPCC does not guard itself against selection bias and group think’ – ‘Alarmism feeds polarization. Climate zealots want to burn heretics of global warming on a stick’

Last edited by cityboy; 04-27-2014 at 06:28 AM.. Reason: Added Link and Key insider quote
cityboy is offline  
Old 04-27-2014, 06:46 AM   #358
randomscooter
Native Earthling
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Scooterville, NY
Posts: 1,500
Quote:
Originally Posted by cityboy View Post
I think you are right about frustration. I also remember a statement by a UN official basically saying Democracy may not be the best form of government to get Climate Change passed.

http://dailycaller.com/2014/01/15/un...lobal-warming/
The following excerpt from the cited article pretty much illustrates what I want to contribute to this conversation:
Quote:
[United Nations climate chief Christiana ]Figueres added that the deep partisan divide in the U.S. Congress is “very detrimental” to passing any sort of legislation to fight global warming. The Chinese Communist Party, on the other hand, can push key policies and reforms all on its own. The country’s national legislature largely enforces the decisions made by the party’s Central Committee and other executive offices.
Our system of government is, by design and intent, inherently slow. Our founding fathers wanted it that way, and I for one am glad that they did. When a person, group, or organization wants to "git 'er done", they are going to be frustrated by the lack of responsiveness of our government. That's just the way it is, and again, I am grateful for that. It keeps BAD stuff from happening (most of the time).

It is interesting that the Chinese form of government is seen as a model...
Quote:
[China's] national legislature largely enforces the decisions made by the party’s Central Committee and other executive offices.
Note that the EXECUTIVE part of the government MAKES the laws, while the LEGISLATIVE part of the government ENFORCES the laws. Kinda backwards!!

In essence, I think what Christiana Figueres was saying is that China is easy to work with, whereas the US is hard to work with. Too bad. No country (IMO) should set aside it's constitutional process for the sake of consensus. She would change her tune if she was trying to force something down the throat of an unwilling Chinese government.

So yeah, it can be a crazy and frustrating process. We are dealing with a multitude of different governments, with a multitude of different ways of governing. And we are dealing with a lot of people who are passionate about the work they are doing and therefore must be regularly frustrated by the lack of responsiveness of the collective governments involved. This is an ENORMOUS and DAUNTING challenge. Not just the science of it, but the politics of it.

But this doesn't mean that the process is broken. To the contrary, it means that the process is working. Because the process causes details that need to be sorted out to come to the surface and see the light of day. This is an important enough issue that hundreds of good people keep coming back to the table to continue their work, DESPITE all the frustrations. That's a good thing. That's a great thing!

Quote:
As I've said before the IPCC is comprised of Scientists and Politicians. I'm sure the scientific part is concerned about the environmental consequences (although I think its overstated) but I sometimes wonder about the motives behind the Summary committee.

Here is an example of the Politics involved.

http://www.thegwpf.org/ipcc-report-w...thor-confirms/
That's politics! I read through the article and followed the link to read the letter. The guy is frustrated that a bunch of politicians hacked apart his contribution to the report. I feel his pain. I've had the same thing happen to me with a large project that had sweeping effects on our department. Management thought it better to handle the implimentation differently than my proposal because of political aspects. That's life. The guy will get over it.

I do think it's important that only the SPM (Summary for Policymakers) portion of it was modified. The Technical Summary, as well as the underlying full work, was left untouched and is available for anyone who wishes to see it. If those portions of the document had been modified then it would clearly be an overstepping of bounds by the political wing of the process. Similarly, the politicians probably thought that the committee had overstepped IT'S bounds with the original form of the SPM.

As my good wife always reminds me... "It's a process."
__________________
Scooting here and there
Through the woods and up the peaks
Random Scoots awaits (D.P.)


"Pushing the limits of easy."™
randomscooter is offline  
Old 04-27-2014, 07:06 AM   #359
randomscooter
Native Earthling
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Scooterville, NY
Posts: 1,500
Quote:
Originally Posted by cityboy View Post
And a quote:

‘The Himalayan glacier melt (by 2035) really was the least of the errors’ , ‘The IPCC does not guard itself against selection bias and group think’ – ‘Alarmism feeds polarization. Climate zealots want to burn heretics of global warming on a stick’
That all these people, both within and without the process, are able to openly state their opinions is further assurance that the process works. Show me two people who don't disagree about anything and I'll applaud you. Show me hundreds, even thousands, of people from diverse cultures and with diverse interests who do not disagree about anything and I'll keel over dead. If the shock doesn't kill me I'll do it voluntarily. I swear I will.

So once again, friction, disagreement, differences of opinion. These are all a part of EVERY process. They do not mean the process is broken. They mean the process is working. When a bunch of people get together and all we hear about is that everything was great and everyone agrees, then we have trouble.
__________________
Scooting here and there
Through the woods and up the peaks
Random Scoots awaits (D.P.)


"Pushing the limits of easy."™
randomscooter is offline  
Old 04-27-2014, 07:45 AM   #360
Neil
Kayak-46
 
Neil's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 5,923
In his book, Uncertain Science, Uncertain World Henry Pollack writes about the manner in which uncertainty permeates and motivates science. System deviation from predicted pathways leads to realignment/course correction, which could be called adaptive management.

When science is "wrong" a new puzzle presents itself.
__________________
The best, the most successful adventurer, is the one having the most fun.
Neil is offline  
Closed Thread


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:44 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

DISCLAIMER: Use of these forums, and information found herein, is at your own risk. Use of this site by members and non-members alike is only granted by the adkhighpeak.com administration provided the terms and conditions found in the FULL DISCLAIMER have been read. Continued use of this site implies that you have read, understood and agree to the terms and conditions of this site. Any questions can be directed to the Administrator of this site.