Climate change - the POLITICAL debate.

Climate change - the POLITICAL debate.

TOPIC CLOSED
TOPIC CLOSED
Author
Discussion

Le TVR

3,092 posts

231 months

Wednesday 9th January 2013
quotequote all
The Don of Croy said:
You see, it's a long term issue. How long? Well...
Until their pension fund matures would be a good guess yes

Jasandjules

67,740 posts

209 months

Wednesday 9th January 2013
quotequote all
Le TVR said:
The Don of Croy said:
You see, it's a long term issue. How long? Well...
Until their pension fund matures would be a good guess yes
Yet oddly when we had a few hot summers this was instant proof of their Global Warming.........

turbobloke

96,545 posts

240 months

Wednesday 9th January 2013
quotequote all
Not sure if this has been posted while I've been on the road but there is a lot more from IPCC that wasn't meant to be made public in their unique interpretation of 'open to scrutiny'.

Secret Santa Leak from Donna with the Sticks and the Downloads

Ali G

3,526 posts

262 months

Wednesday 9th January 2013
quotequote all
This is a site maintained by Donna Laframboise.

Regardless of which side of the fence one is perched, the sentiment of this site is spot on, and it is with some horror that an understanding of the utter madness that now walks hand in hand with what should have been a scientific endeavour.

http://noconsensus.org/freedom.php

I now notice (perhaps unsurprisingly) that she has been served notice by the IPCC to remove the documents from her blog.

http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/

Jinx

10,791 posts

240 months

Wednesday 9th January 2013
quotequote all
Ali G said:
I now notice (perhaps unsurprisingly) that she has been served notice by the IPCC to remove the documents from her blog.

http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/
I may accidently leave my transmission torrent seeding for awhile longer......

kerplunk

5,698 posts

186 months

Wednesday 9th January 2013
quotequote all
Ali G said:
This is a site maintained by Donna Laframboise.

Regardless of which side of the fence one is perched, the sentiment of this site is spot on, and it is with some horror that an understanding of the utter madness that now walks hand in hand with what should have been a scientific endeavour.

http://noconsensus.org/freedom.php

I now notice (perhaps unsurprisingly) that she has been served notice by the IPCC to remove the documents from her blog.

http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/
b-b-but how can that possibly be? I mean she got all the legal stuff straight already here:

DF said:
The confidentiality document includes this emphatic statement:

The assessment process cannot be effective if draft materials are released or discussed publicly during the preparation of [the current report]

But the IPCC doesn’t really believe this. Here’s why:

In mid-December, draft versions of the 14 chapters that comprise the Working Group 1 section of the upcoming IPCC report were leaked. These Secret Santa data sticks contain drafts of an additional 30 chapters.

This means that draft versions of a majority of chapters in the upcoming report (44 out of 60, or 73%) are now in the public domain.

If the confidentiality document is worth the paper it’s written on the IPCC will now suspend work on the upcoming report. It will announce that the extensive nature of these leaks makes it impossible to continue.

But throwing in the towel is the last thing I expect this bureaucracy to do.
See, the IPCC simply can't believe their confidentially agreement is valid because someone has already broke it - the logic is undeniable! laugh I also like the part about IPCC must now also shut down work on the next report because it's 'impossible' to continue. In your dreams freedumb-lovin' Donna thumbup


Ali G

3,526 posts

262 months

Wednesday 9th January 2013
quotequote all
kerplunk said:
Ali G said:
This is a site maintained by Donna Laframboise.

Regardless of which side of the fence one is perched, the sentiment of this site is spot on, and it is with some horror that an understanding of the utter madness that now walks hand in hand with what should have been a scientific endeavour.

http://noconsensus.org/freedom.php

I now notice (perhaps unsurprisingly) that she has been served notice by the IPCC to remove the documents from her blog.

http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/
b-b-but how can that possibly be? I mean she got all the legal stuff straight already here:

DF said:
The confidentiality document includes this emphatic statement:

The assessment process cannot be effective if draft materials are released or discussed publicly during the preparation of [the current report]

But the IPCC doesn’t really believe this. Here’s why:

In mid-December, draft versions of the 14 chapters that comprise the Working Group 1 section of the upcoming IPCC report were leaked. These Secret Santa data sticks contain drafts of an additional 30 chapters.

This means that draft versions of a majority of chapters in the upcoming report (44 out of 60, or 73%) are now in the public domain.

If the confidentiality document is worth the paper it’s written on the IPCC will now suspend work on the upcoming report. It will announce that the extensive nature of these leaks makes it impossible to continue.

But throwing in the towel is the last thing I expect this bureaucracy to do.
See, the IPCC simply can't believe their confidentially agreement is valid because someone has already broke it - the logic is undeniable! laugh I also like the part about IPCC must now also shut down work on the next report because it's 'impossible' to continue. In your dreams freedumb-lovin' Donna thumbup
All the info used by the IPCC and all of the processes used by the IPCC should be in the public domain - if for no other reason that the IPCC needs to demonstrate transparency and integrity in its handling of what we are lead to beleve is one of the greatest crises to ever face mankind. hehe

At least the IPCC are 'showing (some of) their workings' for the next report, although perhaps not in the manner they would have hoped.biggrin

You seem to be at odds with the spirit of openness, freedom of speech and democratic principles that DL espouses.

In my eyes, that counts against you - not that you would be at all bothered!

turbobloke

96,545 posts

240 months

Wednesday 9th January 2013
quotequote all
Guam said:
Yep this will be extremely effective for the ipcc not smile
This thing is all over the web now this genie wont be going back in the bottle no matter how hard they try smile

All they have achieved by the legal letter to Donna is make the thing more desireable to have on principle smile
It will probably get hosted on Russian Govt servers lol.
Genie eh - nice genteel alternative to not being able to put the st back in th donkey smile

Can't see the fuss here. IPCC say all is open and transparent and now it is so stop complaining.

LongQ

Original Poster:

13,864 posts

213 months

Wednesday 9th January 2013
quotequote all

DF said:
The confidentiality document includes this emphatic statement:

The assessment process cannot be effective if draft materials are released or discussed publicly during the preparation of [the current report]

But the IPCC doesn’t really believe this. Here’s why:

In mid-December, draft versions of the 14 chapters that comprise the Working Group 1 section of the upcoming IPCC report were leaked. These Secret Santa data sticks contain drafts of an additional 30 chapters.

This means that draft versions of a majority of chapters in the upcoming report (44 out of 60, or 73%) are now in the public domain.

If the confidentiality document is worth the paper it’s written on the IPCC will now suspend work on the upcoming report. It will announce that the extensive nature of these leaks makes it impossible to continue.

But throwing in the towel is the last thing I expect this bureaucracy to do.
See, the IPCC simply can't believe their confidentially agreement is valid because someone has already broke it - the logic is undeniable! laugh I also like the part about IPCC must now also shut down work on the next report because it's 'impossible' to continue. In your dreams freedumb-lovin' Donna thumbup
The magic word you missed, KP, in the rapid reading response you offer is "If".

The point is not about the confidentiality agreement having been broken; rather it is that the IPCC terms of conifidentiality are justified, in their words, when they say that that

" The assessment process cannot be effective if draft materials are released or discussed publicly during the preparation of [the current report]"

Which is the point upon which DL is basing her comment. By the IPCC's own observation their process, now broken for whatever reason, cannot be effective. Therefore, logically, they would wish to stop it one would suspect. But of course they don't because there is an entire media tsunami project well into development and execution and they would hate to pull the plug on that.

Of course I would give you credit for fully understanding that KP. Which is what makes your response somewhat disppointing since you seem to have ignored the logic of DL's observation (merely reflecting the IPCC's own stated position) and then resorted to insulting the messenger.

Should we take it that this desire to support state sponsored secrecy is part of your favoured philosophy?

It doesn't matter much if it is but it's always useful to know as much as possible about the person on the opposite side of a discussion.




kerplunk

5,698 posts

186 months

Wednesday 9th January 2013
quotequote all
Ali G said:
kerplunk said:
Ali G said:
This is a site maintained by Donna Laframboise.

Regardless of which side of the fence one is perched, the sentiment of this site is spot on, and it is with some horror that an understanding of the utter madness that now walks hand in hand with what should have been a scientific endeavour.

http://noconsensus.org/freedom.php

I now notice (perhaps unsurprisingly) that she has been served notice by the IPCC to remove the documents from her blog.

http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/
b-b-but how can that possibly be? I mean she got all the legal stuff straight already here:

DF said:
The confidentiality document includes this emphatic statement:

The assessment process cannot be effective if draft materials are released or discussed publicly during the preparation of [the current report]

But the IPCC doesn’t really believe this. Here’s why:

In mid-December, draft versions of the 14 chapters that comprise the Working Group 1 section of the upcoming IPCC report were leaked. These Secret Santa data sticks contain drafts of an additional 30 chapters.

This means that draft versions of a majority of chapters in the upcoming report (44 out of 60, or 73%) are now in the public domain.

If the confidentiality document is worth the paper it’s written on the IPCC will now suspend work on the upcoming report. It will announce that the extensive nature of these leaks makes it impossible to continue.

But throwing in the towel is the last thing I expect this bureaucracy to do.
See, the IPCC simply can't believe their confidentially agreement is valid because someone has already broke it - the logic is undeniable! laugh I also like the part about IPCC must now also shut down work on the next report because it's 'impossible' to continue. In your dreams freedumb-lovin' Donna thumbup
All the info used by the IPCC and all of the processes used by the IPCC should be in the public domain - if for no other reason that the IPCC needs to demonstrate transparency and integrity in its handling of what we are lead to beleve is one of the greatest crises to ever face mankind. hehe

At least the IPCC are 'showing (some of) their workings' for the next report, although perhaps not in the manner they would have hoped.biggrin

You seem to be at odds with the spirit of openness, freedom of speech and democratic principles that DL espouses.

In my eyes, that counts against you - not that you would be at all bothered!
There's no point discussing principles of open-ness amidst all this smash & grab shenanigins. You just have to enjoy the ride smile



turbobloke

96,545 posts

240 months

Wednesday 9th January 2013
quotequote all
kerplunk said:
There's no point discussing principles of open-ness amidst all this smash & grab shenanigins...
What smash and grab? Don't you mean free handouts?

Globs

13,671 posts

211 months

Wednesday 9th January 2013
quotequote all
turbobloke said:
kerplunk said:
There's no point discussing principles of open-ness amidst all this smash & grab shenanigins...
What smash and grab? Don't you mean free handouts?
or "Involuntary transparency" biggrin

turbobloke

96,545 posts

240 months

Wednesday 9th January 2013
quotequote all
Globs said:
turbobloke said:
kerplunk said:
There's no point discussing principles of open-ness amidst all this smash & grab shenanigins...
What smash and grab? Don't you mean free handouts?
or "Involuntary transparency" biggrin
hehe

turbobloke

96,545 posts

240 months

Wednesday 9th January 2013
quotequote all

mybrainhurts

90,809 posts

235 months

Wednesday 9th January 2013
quotequote all
turbobloke said:
I searched "fraudulent" and a bloody big list appeared....rofl

Then I searched "deception" and an even bigger list appeared...roflrofl


Edited by mybrainhurts on Wednesday 9th January 18:44

turbobloke

96,545 posts

240 months

Wednesday 9th January 2013
quotequote all
Met Office Climb Down How Did The Media Do?

It looks like the BBC did the story after David Whitehouse's devastating piece on the GWPF website yesterday. Whitehouse should get journalist of the year for his work on the standstill. He's been proven right. From now on I'm going to call him "The BBC's (Unofficial) Science Correspondent." What I might call Harrabin and Shukman is another matter.
Bishop Hill, 08 January 2013

The fact that the UK Met Office had changed its near-term global warming forecast quietly on Christmas Eve was noticed by some Met Office watchers, especially the ever-interesting Tallbloke’s Talkshop website which reported it on January 5th. This piece started a flurry of blog comments. We at the GWPF republished the story the same day on our website. The GWPF published my analysis of the considerable implications of the Met Office revision on the 7th January. The analysis was distributed via CCNet at 11:51 am, including hundreds of journalists.
GWPF, 09 January 2013

These figures show that in all likelihood we will have had no warming in the past 20 years. That is almost as embarrassing as the Met Office’s ­Barbecue Summer forecast. This suggests that the Government’s climate change policies, including wind farms, are a waste of money and based on dodgy advice. Why should we trust Met Office forecasts about the climate for 2050 or 2100 if they get it wrong for the next decade?
Daily Express, 09 January 2013

nelly1

5,598 posts

211 months

Wednesday 9th January 2013
quotequote all
turbobloke said:
Met Office Climb Down How Did The Media Do?
These figures show that in all likelihood we will have had no warming in the past 20 years. That is almost as embarrassing as the Met Office’s ­Barbecue Summer forecast. This suggests that the Government’s climate change policies, including wind farms, are a waste of money and based on dodgy advice. Why should we trust Met Office forecasts about the climate for 2050 or 2100 if they get it wrong for the next decade?
Daily Express, 09 January 2013
From The Express...

Article said:
Professor Chris Rapley, Professor of Climate Science at University College London, said: “I despair of the way data such as this is translated as ‘Global warming has stopped’.”

He added: “Even if the global mean temperature were to remain unchanged, if the geographic patterns of temperature and rainfall change, the consequences will still be potentially severe. We only need to look at what is going on in Australia at this very moment.”
So...Global Warming hasn't stopped - the very idea!

Buuuut even if it has - the very localized weather that no Global Warming caused is 'potentially' there for all to see!

WTF?!?

deeps

5,109 posts

221 months

Wednesday 9th January 2013
quotequote all
rofl

smash

LongQ

Original Poster:

13,864 posts

213 months

Wednesday 9th January 2013
quotequote all
Guam said:
I think the poor prof may have visions of tenures in "climate science" vapourising as fast as the Australian scrub!
Good grief. I sincerely hope that what Prof. Rapley is reported to have said was in fact the result of some journalistic mangling by either the reporter or a sub-editor.

Or is he entirely unaware of the very particular environmental attributes of Oz that have always resulted in huge fires and huge floods on a regularly irregular but quite cyclical basis?

If he is unaware, which I really find very hard to believe, then our education system is in deeper trouble than I thought.

If he is aware then it rather sounds like someone somewhere is peddling phrases of disinformation.

Thinking about it, one can't rule out the possibility of both.

Edited by LongQ on Wednesday 9th January 22:53

PRTVR

6,504 posts

201 months

Wednesday 9th January 2013
quotequote all
nelly1 said:
So...Global Warming hasn't stopped - the very idea!

Buuuut even if it has - the very localized weather that no Global Warming caused is 'potentially' there for all to see!

WTF?!?
I wonder if he was saying the opposite when we were struggling with the snow a few winters ago, I seem to remember that it was just weather then.

Anyway global warming is happening......
I know for a fact it is , just watched part of a BBC wildlife program about polar bears, a short synopsis of the program goes like this, pictures of fluffy bear cubs ahh pictures of open water , explanation of how global warming is the cause of the lack of ice and lack of food for the bears and repeat till the end,
This is from the BBC one of the most trusted media outlets in the world so it must be true ........

I really don't know why I watch the BBC it does my blood pressure no good at all. hehe


Edited by PRTVR on Wednesday 9th January 21:12

TOPIC CLOSED
TOPIC CLOSED