• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

UN Climate Change Conference 2009

Status
Not open for further replies.
Souldriver said:
I heard Copenhagen (or Denmark as a whole?) wants to cut their CO2 output by 50%. Shiit, that's a lot. But I'm certainly cheering for you guys.

P.S. Souldriver, your OP is awesome.
 

bjaelke

Member
Souldriver said:
I heard Copenhagen (or Denmark as a whole?) wants to cut their CO2 output by 50%. Shiit, that's a lot. But I'm certainly cheering for you guys.
It's currently down to each municipality to reduce CO2 emission. The goal in the municipality of Copenhagen is to cut emission by 20 percent in 2015 and to be CO2 neutral in 2025. Other municipalities have made similar proposals.

Most of the reduction comes through promoting public transport and creating wind mill parks.
 
EmCeeGramr said:
evolution and gravity aren't science, too much consensus on them

Yeah, Galileo, Newton and Darwin totally burnt their papers and asked us to 'trust' them.

"If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I'll delete the file rather than send to anyone." -- Phil Jones, head of CRU.
 

Amory

Member
Jonm1010 said:
In the first 38 posts we already have a Michael Crichton quote, several misunderstandings of the hockystick, and the usual flock of deniers who expose themselves over and over by showing just how ignorant they are of basic physics and climate science yet act as if they have uncovered the secret and that the 75 or so out of 79 climatologists that accept AGW and believe our impact is significant are all wrong.

And that the rest of us are all sheep for accepting a scientific consensus near the level of doctors and secondhand smoke and biologist and evolution.

Right but doctors and biologists are actually scientists, whereas people who study climate changes aren't.

But yeah, 10 years left to save the world or we're all dooooooooomed blah blah
 

Fjolle

Member
XCell9200 said:
Right but doctors and biologists are actually scientists, whereas people who study climate changes aren't.

But yeah, 10 years left to save the world or we're all dooooooooomed blah blah
Uhm.. What?

And it's 40 :)
 

Jonm1010

Banned
iamcool388 said:
In the first 38 posts we already have demonization of a Michael Crichton quote with no explanation of why it is wrong, a ridiculous graphic whose credibility is suspect, and the usual flock of 'holier/smarter than thou' posters who expose themselves over and over by showing just how ignorant they are of basic format of scientific rigor (reproducible tests, original data not thrown so review is possible, not blacklisting people who dont agree with you etc etc) yet act as if they have uncovered the secret and that anyone who isnt 100% on the AGW bandwagon, isnt laughing at the skeptics and doesnt fully believe our impact is significant are all wrong.

No what i am is honest and rational. The consensus is clear and I know I do not have the academic chops to assess every intricate detail of climate science and expect to know more than the experts who have spent their life in the field.

If i go to 79 doctors and 75 tell me i need immediate back surgery to correct a potentially parlyzing injury, but 4 doctors disagree. Telling me that either it wont harm me, it doesnt actually exist or that my back is actually getting better. while i may entertain the thought that those 4 may have saw something the 75 didnt, I know my expertise level is not high enough to make an informed decision to forgo accepting the advice of the consensus.
 

cntr

Banned
iamcool388 said:
Yeah, Galileo, Newton and Darwin totally burnt their papers and asked us to 'trust' them.

"If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I'll delete the file rather than send to anyone." -- Phil Jones, head of CRU.

Didja know that Edison created the electric chair to paint Tesla's AC power as dangerous? I guess the entire science of electricity is suspect!
 

Rentahamster

Rodent Whores
bjaelke said:
People should take a look at Hopenhagen.org. Cool site although it received some criticism in the media due to a Coca Cola ad they're running in Copenhagen.

Parts of inner-Copenhagen has been shut down for traffic so that should also save CO2 emission during the conference.
Can someone enlighten me as to how that site relates to this report?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/co...mos-140-private-planes-and-caviar-wedges.html
Copenhagen climate summit: 1,200 limos, 140 private planes and caviar wedges
Copenhagen is preparing for the climate change summit that will produce as much carbon dioxide as a town the size of Middlesbrough.

Ms Jorgensen reckons that between her and her rivals the total number of limos in Copenhagen next week has already broken the 1,200 barrier. The French alone rang up on Thursday and ordered another 42. "We haven't got enough limos in the country to fulfil the demand," she says. "We're having to drive them in hundreds of miles from Germany and Sweden."

And the total number of electric cars or hybrids among that number? "Five," says Ms Jorgensen. "The government has some alternative fuel cars but the rest will be petrol or diesel. We don't have any hybrids in Denmark, unfortunately, due to the extreme taxes on those cars. It makes no sense at all, but it's very Danish."

I was told the other day that teleconferencing this whole event would send a good message about how we can use technology to avoid unnecessary CO2 emissions. I admit, I fail to see the problem with that argument.

Am I missing something?
 
Jonm1010 said:
No what i am is honest and rational. The consensus is clear and I know I do not have the academic chops to assess every intricate detail of climate science and expect to know more than the experts who have spent their life in the field.

If i go to 79 doctors and 75 tell me i need immediate back surgery to correct a potentially parlyzing injury, but 4 doctors disagree. Telling me that either it wont harm me, it doesnt actually exist or that my back is actually getting better. while i may entertain the thought that those 4 may have saw something the 75 didnt, I know my expertise level is not high enough to make an informed decision to forgo accepting the advice of the consensus.

I agree with you on the matter of expertise, but not on consensus. Actually, let me rephrase that a bit. I dont have any issues with Global Warming, or Climate Change, or Earth Rape, or whatever the fashionable term is right now. I have issues with the proposed solutions.

I'm not comfortable with Governments deciding massive programs with half assed knowledge. We cant predict the climate 20 years from now, and we are going to pass legislation based on models which predict the climate 50-100 years off?

The institutional imperative is strong with this one.

Rentahamster said:
I was told the other day that teleconferencing this whole event would send a good message about how we can use technology to avoid unnecessary CO2 emissions. I admit, I fail to see the problem with that argument.

Am I missing something?

You cant have free sex with prostitutes via teleconferencing. Ba-dum-tish.
 

Zero Hero

Member
Global warming leads to global cooling. Some people just can't wrap their heads around it.
The ocean current runs like this:

If the salt water that sinks to the bottom near Greenland is too diluted to sink(because of the extra fresh water from melted glaciers) that it would cause the water not to sink and kill the current. Without that current bringing warm water things will get cold real quick.
 
Zero Hero said:
Global warming leads to global cooling. Some people just can't wrap their heads around it.
The ocean current runs like this:

http://i48.tinypic.com/258rz81.jpg (the chart above)

If the salt water that sinks to the bottom near Greenland is too diluted to sink(because of the extra fresh water from melted glaciers) that it would cause the water not to sink and kill the current. Without that current bringing warm water things will get cold real quick.

Hmm. So if the world gets colder, greenland stops melting, would the warm current start again? Sorry i'm just trying to figure out what happens next... is it a cycle, or is the warm current done?
 
Jonm1010 said:
No what i am is honest and rational. The consensus is clear and I know I do not have the academic chops to assess every intricate detail of climate science and expect to know more than the experts who have spent their life in the field.

If i go to 79 doctors and 75 tell me i need immediate back surgery to correct a potentially parlyzing injury, but 4 doctors disagree. Telling me that either it wont harm me, it doesnt actually exist or that my back is actually getting better. while i may entertain the thought that those 4 may have saw something the 75 didnt, I know my expertise level is not high enough to make an informed decision to forgo accepting the advice of the consensus.

Your analogy is beyond terrible. Being a medical doctor is nothing like being a research scientist.
 
iamcool388 said:
P.S. Souldriver, your OP is awesome.
Thanks
bjaelke said:
It's currently down to each municipality to reduce CO2 emission. The goal in the municipality of Copenhagen is to cut emission by 20 percent in 2015 and to be CO2 neutral in 2025. Other municipalities have made similar proposals.

Most of the reduction comes through promoting public transport and creating wind mill parks.
Either way, it's still a lot more than most countries are willing to do.
 

eznark

Banned
Gore must be making a killing off this thing with his Climate Bux.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/co...mos-140-private-planes-and-caviar-wedges.html

Ms Jorgensen reckons that between her and her rivals the total number of limos in Copenhagen next week has already broken the 1,200 barrier. The French alone rang up on Thursday and ordered another 42. "We haven't got enough limos in the country to fulfil the demand," she says. "We're having to drive them in hundreds of miles from Germany and Sweden."

And the total number of electric cars or hybrids among that number? "Five," says Ms Jorgensen. "The government has some alternative fuel cars but the rest will be petrol or diesel. We don't have any hybrids in Denmark, unfortunately, due to the extreme taxes on those cars. It makes no sense at all, but it's very Danish."
 

Amory

Member
iamcool388 said:
Thanks, that was crystal clear.

Global warming is very complicated, and from what I've gathered, it is comprised of many scientific-sounding terms that philosophy and other liberal arts majors have heard on MSNBC and from Al Gore.

Basically it goes like this: Carbon dioxide, solar energy, the greenhouse effect, fossil fuels, evolution, greenland, warming and cooling trends, polar ice caps, and green energy. Especially hybrid cars.

As has been said previously in this thread, not everyone can wrap their head around it.

Hope this helps.
 

eznark

Banned
XCell9200 said:
Global warming is very complicated, and from what I've gathered, it is comprised of many scientific-sounding terms that philosophy and other liberal arts majors have heard on MSNBC and from Al Gore.

Basically it goes like this: Carbon dioxide, solar energy, the greenhouse effect, fossil fuels, evolution, greenland, warming and cooling trends, polar ice caps, and green energy. Especially hybrid cars.

As has been said previously in this thread, not everyone can wrap their head around it.

Hope this helps.
You missed the most crucial part: guilt
 

KHarvey16

Member
AbortedWalrusFetus said:
That graph is one of the most widely discredited scientific visualizations of all time. It's garbage. Completely inaccurate.

The hell? No it isn't. Try getting your science from scientists.
 

eznark

Banned
cntrational said:
You missed one more point: "mods to give conservative-global warming skeptics insulting tags".
That seems pretty much in keeping with how believers have dealt with non-believers in all arguments, but what about non-conservative global warming skeptics?
 

sinxtanx

Member
I'm all for a successful treaty.
I don't see how cutting greenhouse gas emissions could in any way be bad, so, just go for it.
Cleaner air, learning to use less energy more cost-effectively, and, if the treaty goes all the right ways, increasing the living standards for people in developing countries. People will probably go on murdering seals anyway though, but it's a start :p
 
You can act sarcastic and smug all you want Eznark and XCell9200, but trying to ridicule the subject that way just demonstrates that you guys are talking out of your ass, don't know anything about the subject, and just go against the scientific community because it doesn't fit your own agenda.
 

cntr

Banned
eznark said:
That seems pretty much in keeping with how believers have dealt with non-believers in all arguments, but what about non-conservative global warming skeptics?

usually, they tend to not go into uninformed and stupid rants about conspiracies and strawmen (and being unable to read graphs), so they don't get any tag. This is an unusual difference between the two political sides on GAF. I really wonder why it happens...
 

eznark

Banned
Souldriver said:
You can act sarcastic and smug all you want Eznark and XCell9200, but trying to ridicule the subject that way just demonstrates that you guys are talking out of your ass, don't know anything about the subject, and just go against the scientific community because it doesn't fit your own agenda.
I'm not against anything (unless it involves government intervention). I find humor in the means of transportation utilized at the Climate Summit.

They should have all followed my role and gotten themselves an Insight.
 
eznark said:
I'm not against anything (unless it involves government intervention). I find humor in the means of transportation utilized at the Climate Summit.

They should have all followed my role and gotten themselves an Insight.
The summit is climate neutral. I am however not going to defend the use of limousines. That's just acting like dicks.

And I think I'm reading the first "Well, the environment should just adapt to the free market" post. Took only 2 pages.
 

Fjolle

Member
eznark said:
I'm not against anything (unless it involves government intervention). I find humor in the means of transportation utilized at the Climate Summit.

They should have all followed my role and gotten themselves an Insight.
You want Castro, Mugabe and Quadaffi to cycle around in Copenhagen? :lol
 

eznark

Banned
Fjolle said:
You want Castro, Mugabe and Quadaffi to cycle around in Copenhagen? :lol
Cycle? Shit, I'll have to ask my wife but I'm pretty sure her Honda Insight doesn't have peddles.
 

dalin80

Banned
yay, iam getting ready for a whole new batch of excessive taxes under the excuse of climate change while the big polluters sit there and do nothing.
 
elrechazao said:
Hey copenhagen guys. Why are you all flying in chartered jets and chartering limos and eating ridiculously opulent meals?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/co...mos-140-private-planes-and-caviar-wedges.html

Attendees will generate a larger carbon footprint just from this conference than the entire nation of morocco in a year.

Use skype, morons.
This exact article has been posted 3 times in the last 20 posts and it has been discussed even longer. I'm not saying it's not true or that it's not a serious note, but come on...
 

Fjolle

Member

Amory

Member
Souldriver said:
You can act sarcastic and smug all you want Eznark and XCell9200, but trying to ridicule the subject that way just demonstrates that you guys are talking out of your ass, don't know anything about the subject, and just go against the scientific community because it doesn't fit your own agenda.

I'm not going against the 'scientific community'. I'm going against the people trying to sweep inconvenient data under the rug for political reasons. It's clear that there have been attempts to bar studies done by skeptics from being published in peer-reviewed journals. Before this administration decides to pledge even more money that we don't have, I want to be damn sure that the cause is legitimate and that action is absolutely necessary. If there are studies that go against the gospel of global warming, they deserve to be published. The 'scientific community' isn't supposed to protect its theories using censorship, they're supposed to be open to challenges.

As far as not knowing anything about the subject, I'd rather be a skeptic and be called an idiot than be one of the millions of people formulating their favorable opinion of things like cap and trade by viewing bullshit propaganda like this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fW1qYUUA3r4

/rant.
 

Fjolle

Member
XCell9200 said:
I'm not going against the 'scientific community'. I'm going against the people trying to sweep inconvenient data under the rug for political reasons. It's clear that there have been attempts to bar studies done by skeptics from being published in peer-reviewed journals. Before this administration decides to pledge even more money that we don't have, I want to be damn sure that the cause is legitimate and that action is absolutely necessary. If there are studies that go against the gospel of global warming, they deserve to be published. The 'scientific community' isn't supposed to protect its theories using censorship, they're supposed to be open to challenges.

As far as not knowing anything about the subject, I'd rather be a skeptic and be called an idiot than be one of the millions of people formulating their favorable opinion of things like cap and trade by viewing bullshit propaganda like this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fW1qYUUA3r4

/rant.
But.. Uhm, they got published :) And aparrently they didn't prove anything.


Edit: Just checked the Morocco numbers. It's 0.3% of Moroccos emission in 2006, or about what morocco emits in one day!
 

KHarvey16

Member
XCell9200 said:
I'm not going against the 'scientific community'. I'm going against the people trying to sweep inconvenient data under the rug for political reasons. It's clear that there have been attempts to bar studies done by skeptics from being published in peer-reviewed journals. Before this administration decides to pledge even more money that we don't have, I want to be damn sure that the cause is legitimate and that action is absolutely necessary. If there are studies that go against the gospel of global warming, they deserve to be published. The 'scientific community' isn't supposed to protect its theories using censorship, they're supposed to be open to challenges.

There are papers published that suggest non-human causes for global warming.
 

Ri'Orius

Member
XCell9200 said:
I'm not going against the 'scientific community'. I'm going against the people trying to sweep inconvenient data under the rug for political reasons. It's clear that there have been attempts to bar studies done by skeptics from being published in peer-reviewed journals. Before this administration decides to pledge even more money that we don't have, I want to be damn sure that the cause is legitimate and that action is absolutely necessary. If there are studies that go against the gospel of global warming, they deserve to be published. The 'scientific community' isn't supposed to protect its theories using censorship, they're supposed to be open to challenges.

Re-read that bolded sentence again.

"If there are studies that say <foo>, they should be published."

No. That's not how scientific publication works. To be published in a scientific journal, a study must show that it has merit. It must be reviewed by other scientists.

Skeptics are free to say whatever they want. But if they want to be published, they need to approval from the scientific community. That's what it means to publish in a scientific journal.

This is the part, by the way, where you claim that all scientists are dogmatic about global warming, and would never accept anything that goes against their gospel regardless of the quality of the research.

Then comes the part where I :lol
 

cntr

Banned
I'm not going against the 'scientific community'. I'm going against the people trying to sweep inconvenient data under the rug for political reasons.[citation needed] It's clear that there have been attempts to bar studies done by skeptics from being published in peer-reviewed journals.[citation needed] Before this administration decides to pledge even more money that we don't have, I want to be damn sure that the cause is legitimate and that action is absolutely necessary. If there are studies that go against the gospel of global warming, they deserve to be published. The 'scientific community' isn't supposed to protect its theories using censorship, they're supposed to be open to challenges.

citations plz

Re-read that bolded sentence again.

"If there are studies that say <foo>, they should be published."

No. That's not how scientific publication works. To be published in a scientific journal, a study must show that it has merit. It must be reviewed by other scientists.

Skeptics are free to say whatever they want. But if they want to be published, they need to approval from the scientific community. That's what it means to publish in a scientific journal.

This is the part, by the way, where you claim that all scientists are dogmatic about global warming, and would never accept anything that goes against their gospel regardless of the quality of the research.

Then comes the part where I

Not really, it's possible to publish stuff without "peer-review" by other scientists but expect to see some...questions. Some scientific magazines like Scientific American may have their own review boards, but it isn't particularly necessary, especially with the internet.
 

Amory

Member
Ri'Orius said:
Re-read that bolded sentence again.

"If there are studies that say <foo>, they should be published."

No. That's not how scientific publication works. To be published in a scientific journal, a study must show that it has merit. It must be reviewed by other scientists.

Skeptics are free to say whatever they want. But if they want to be published, they need to approval from the scientific community. That's what it means to publish in a scientific journal.

This is the part, by the way, where you claim that all scientists are dogmatic about global warming, and would never accept anything that goes against their gospel regardless of the quality of the research.

Then comes the part where I :lol

Obviously I'm not saying they deserve to be published in peer-reviewed journals simply because they have an opposing view. I'm saying that the emails suggest that regardless of whether their methods were sound and their conclusions were legitimate, they are being stonewalled (and flat out ignored) by the community at large. For example:

The Soon & Baliunas paper couldn't have cleared a 'legitimate' peer review process anywhere. That leaves only one possibility—that the peer-review process at Climate Research has been hijacked by a few skeptics on the editorial board. And it isn't just De Frietas, unfortunately I think this group also includes a member of my own department...

The skeptics appear to have staged a 'coup' at "Climate Research" (it was a mediocre journal to begin with, but now its a mediocre journal with a definite 'purpose').

Folks might want to check out the editors and review editors:

[1]http://www.int-res.com/journals/cr/crEditors.html

In fact, Mike McCracken first pointed out this article to me, and he and I have discussed this a bit. I've cc'd Mike in on this as well, and I've included Peck too. I told Mike that I believed our only choice was to ignore this paper. They've already achieved what they wanted—the claim of a peer-reviewed paper. There is nothing we can do about that now, but the last thing we want to do is bring attention to this paper, which will be ignored by the community on the whole...

It is pretty clear that thee skeptics here have staged a bit of a coup, even in the presence of a number of reasonable folks on the editorial board (Whetton, Goodess, ...). My guess is that Von Storch is actually with them (frankly, he's an odd individual, and I'm not sure he isn't himself somewhat of a skeptic himself), and without Von Storch on their side, they would have a very forceful personality promoting their new vision.
 
Ri'Orius said:
Skeptics are free to say whatever they want. But if they want to be published, they need to approval from the scientific community. That's what it means to publish in a scientific journal.

Yeah, that would make sense... unless the journals are being pressured not to publish them at all?

WaPo said:
"Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal," Mann writes.

"I will be emailing the journal to tell them I'm having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor," Jones replies.

Patrick Michaels, a senior fellow at the libertarian Cato Institute who comes under fire in the e-mails, said these same academics repeatedly criticized him for not having published more peer-reviewed papers.

"There's an egregious problem here, their intimidation of journal editors," he said. "They're saying, 'If you print anything by this group, we won't send you any papers.' "

But I am sure they arent dogmatic about the public perception of Global Warming and how it is being shaped.

Ri'Orius said:
This is the part, by the way, where you claim that all scientists are dogmatic about global warming, and would never accept anything that goes against their gospel regardless of the quality of the research.

WaPo said:
"I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report," Jones writes. "Kevin and I will keep them out somehow -- even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"

This is the part where I :lol

The idea that there is a side in this argument which is working for altruistic motives and for the greater good is laughable, but dont mind me, i'm a cynical jaded fuck who doesnt care a smidgen. *shrug*
 

KHarvey16

Member
XCell9200 said:
Obviously I'm not saying they deserve to be published in peer-reviewed journals simply because they have an opposing view. I'm saying that the emails suggest that regardless of whether their methods were sound and their conclusions were legitimate, they are being stonewalled (and flat out ignored) by the community at large. For example:

It says exactly the opposite! The very first line says the paper wouldn't be published if it were reviewed properly. It sounds like this is bad science and they are concerned with how it found it's way into a published journal. Again, if their goal is to stop all dissenting opinion from being published they are doing a terrible job.
 

Fjolle

Member
iamcool388 said:
Yeah, that would make sense... unless the journals are being pressured not to publish them at all?







This is the part where I :lol

Yea, they dont like each other. I think that is commonly known (at least now..). But as they actually did get published it really doesnt matter or prove anything about scientific fraud.
 

Duke Togo

Member
The climate change issue has mentally exhausted me over the years. Its sad, but I almost view the conference with total indifference.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom