Author: sansukong

German Chemist Slams Scaremongering By U.N.’s IPCC [Copy link] 中文

Rank: 8Rank: 8

Post time 2013-5-1 20:58:56 |Display all floors
seneca Post time: 2013-5-1 20:38
People like Vaahrnedorf hate to see renewable energies replacing  environmentally-damaging ones th ...



you good, as always.


need you for the fight against Rat.
I've made my living, Mr. Thompson, in large part as a gambler. Some days I make twenty bets, some days I make none. There are weeks, sometimes months, in fact, when I don't make any bet at all because ...

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 6Rank: 6

Post time 2013-5-1 20:59:52 |Display all floors
seneca Post time: 2013-5-1 07:37
It has to be borne in mind that Vahrendorf is not an impartial, objective "rapporteur" but an expert ...

I don't see "blatant proof" in that quote, Seneca, but the fact that there is a potential conflict of interest in Vahrendorf's assessment is important and should be considered carefully, as should any potential conflicts of interest in reports from BOTH sides of the debate.

As scientists, what we are supposed to do (in an overly simplified summary) is conduct experiments, report results, and speculate on the significance and meaning of the results. The problem with the climate change issue is that it has become so heavily politicized that it is difficult to find anyone who can actually be objective anymore and is in a position to conduct valid research on the matter.

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 8Rank: 8

Post time 2013-5-2 01:28:14 |Display all floors
querist Post time: 2013-5-1 20:59
I don't see "blatant proof" in that quote, Seneca, but the fact that there is a potential conflict ...
  1. it has become so heavily politicized that it is difficult to find anyone who can actually be objective anymore and is in a position to conduct valid research on the matter.
Copy code
You have already fallen into the trap set by the Moranos and other no morals immoral rats.

Their objective, from beginning to end, is to confuse and obstruct the laymen.....and they have already suceeded with you already.
I've made my living, Mr. Thompson, in large part as a gambler. Some days I make twenty bets, some days I make none. There are weeks, sometimes months, in fact, when I don't make any bet at all because ...

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 8Rank: 8

Post time 2013-5-2 01:34:53 |Display all floors
querist Post time: 2013-5-1 20:59
I don't see "blatant proof" in that quote, Seneca, but the fact that there is a potential conflict ...

If you , who dont have specialised training in climate and ocean sciences, do not trust mainstream science........there is nothing you can fall back on except rats, crooks, conmen, attack dogs of the Morano kind.

I've made my living, Mr. Thompson, in large part as a gambler. Some days I make twenty bets, some days I make none. There are weeks, sometimes months, in fact, when I don't make any bet at all because ...

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 6Rank: 6

Post time 2013-5-2 01:48:38 |Display all floors
This post was edited by querist at 2013-5-1 12:49
Revolutionar Post time: 2013-5-1 12:28
You have already fallen into the trap set by the Moranos and other no morals immoral rats.

Their  ...

Revolutionar,

I am a scientist. I am not a climate scientist, but I am a scientist and I am familiar with how research should be conducted. I have no political stake in this debate on either side.

There was no "blatant proof" in the quote that Seneca provided. Other than Vahrendorf's conflict of interest, which is quite enough to call his pronouncements into question, there was nothing in the article itself that was "blatant proof" of his bias. Just because someone disagrees with you does not automatically mean that that person is wrong. As a scientist, my role is to look at the facts and the data and arrive at a conclusion. The whole climate issue has become so overly politicized that it is very difficult to find anyone who is qualified to speak authoritatively on the issue that is not also heavily politicized one way or the other. This makes a proper scientific debate on the issue very difficult to hold.

I don't even know who Morano is other than someone who is known for opposing the whole anthropogenic climate change theory. Remember, correlation does not equal causation. One of the problems is that even the climate DATA are being questioned. It is difficult to discuss the causes of a problem if we can't even agree that there is an actual problem.

The whole issue is so politicized that it is difficult to hold a proper scientific discussion on it any more. It is very frustrating for those of us who simply want to know what is really happening. I don't care about the politics. I want to know, and "to know" here includes having solid scientific support, whether there is truly significant climate change that his happening outside of normal cycles that are brought about by various factors and if there is that climate change, what is causing it. Once we know the cause, we can determine what, if anything, can be done.

There's too much money on both sides of this issue in the hands of people who stand to reap significant financial benefits if the debate goes their way. I just want HONEST science. If there's a problem, then prove it so we can stop trying to prove it and we can find the cause. If we can PROVE that the cause is people, then we can obviously do something about it. If we can't prove that the cause is people, then we need to find the real cause so we can determine if anything can be done because if the cause is not people we still may be able to slow or reverse the change, but we are not doing anything about the actual cause.

Again, I am not qualified as a climate scientist or a meteorologist, but I am a scientist.  I can usually recognize bad "science" when I see it, but that recognition only goes so far. If the data are invalid for whatever reason, the conclusions may be correct based on the inaccurate data while actually being incorrect because the data are wrong. "Garbage in, garbage out", as the old saying goes.

And the IPCC is so mired in controversy that it is hard to take it seriously as a scientific body any more. I'm glad I'm in a far less controversial field.

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 6Rank: 6

Post time 2013-5-2 02:06:27 |Display all floors
Revolutionar Post time: 2013-5-1 12:34
If you , who dont have specialised training in climate and ocean sciences, do not trust mainstream ...

But that is the entire problem, Revolutionar... "mainstream science". The problem is that there is too much disagreement within the mainstream scientific community about the issue at hand. The issue has become too politicized, just like stem-cell research in the USA has become too politicized. People who oppose the whole "climate change" theory are denied tenure and funding for what appear to be primarily political reasons.

Academic institutions are supposed to be politically neutral bodies that concern themselves solely with the pursuit of knowledge and with passing on that knowledge to the next generation so that humanity can progress and make the world a better place for everyone. Then the whole idea of profit came into play and things started going down hill. I am very happy that the universities where I teach do not make me sign over patent rights for my discoveries.

Then politics and religion became more deeply involved in many cases. Granted, some of the original institutions of higher learning in the West (I am not as familiar with Asian history, so I will qualify my statements here) were a direct result of the religious institutions wanting to promote scientific understanding, but when the scientists started discovering things that did not match the religious world-view, the scientists were censured and punished, often severely. That was most likely the real beginning of the downfall of organized academic institutions, that and trying to turn things into sciences that are not really sciences.

One of the problems with climate science is much like the social sciences - experiments and prospective studies take a LONG time in many cases. We can't make a change and watch the results a week later. Years are required, but people are not willing to wait so people attempt to create models and run simulations in an attempt to predict what would happen. The problem with models and predictions is that they cannot be verified except by trying to see if would accurately predict known events such as the past, but even then we need to consider that our model may be missing something.

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 8Rank: 8

Post time 2013-5-2 02:13:42 |Display all floors
This post was edited by Revolutionar at 2013-5-2 02:15
querist Post time: 2013-5-2 01:48
Revolutionar,

I am a scientist. I am not a climate scientist, but I am a scientist and I am famili ...

put it this way.


There are no climate scientists here. There are only laymen here.

What is all these forced feeding by a Rat here about?

Debate?

What debate? there are not experts here to referee. Leave it to the experts in peer reviewed journals.

and leave this damn out  of the reach of obstinate Rats.

The objective of the Rat , as always is not debate or discussions but force feeding to obstruct and obscure mainstream science.

Don't trust IPCC? Never mind...................there are plenty of good sciences on the internet by Nasa, NOAAA, Scientific America, National Science Academy ......all reliable sources of science information.


I am free to debate climate science. But, that is not the objective the sansukong Rat.

The rat is not here to learn or explore or discuss.

The rat is here for propaganda with his rat deposits and thrash,.
I've made my living, Mr. Thompson, in large part as a gambler. Some days I make twenty bets, some days I make none. There are weeks, sometimes months, in fact, when I don't make any bet at all because ...

Use magic tools Report

You can't reply post until you log in Log in | register

BACK TO THE TOP
Contact us:Tel: (86)010-84883548, Email: blog@chinadaily.com.cn
Blog announcement:| We reserve the right, and you authorize us, to use content, including words, photos and videos, which you provide to our blog
platform, for non-profit purposes on China Daily media, comprising newspaper, website, iPad and other social media accounts.