Post Reply  
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
30-01-2013, 21:30   #61
paddy147
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 15,349
Quote:
Originally Posted by djpbarry View Post
Ok, let's see what I can find:

'No malpractice' by climate unit
Ah sure we cant have world leaders (who keep banging on about climate change) looking like idiots on the world stage now can we????



I wonder why the panel made such a rushed job of their investigation and decision then???


Hmmmm.....let me think here now for a second...

World leaders and their scientists looking like complete fools.

We cant have that now,can we??


Dr Benny Peiser, director of the Global Warming Policy Foundation, criticised the panel for producing a report that was "not even-handed" and appeared to be the product of a "rushed job".
He said: "This has produced a very superficial report. The panel should have taken more time to come to more balanced and trustworthy conclusions.

Last edited by paddy147; 30-01-2013 at 23:23.
paddy147 is offline  
Thanks from:
Advertisement
31-01-2013, 00:02   #62
djpbarry
Registered User
 
djpbarry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 12,760
Quote:
Originally Posted by paddy147 View Post
World leaders and their scientists...
The idea that "world leaders" have any kind of grasp of science, let alone actually control it, never ceases to amuse.
Quote:
Originally Posted by paddy147 View Post
Dr Benny Peiser...
...is a scientist, is he not? One of the non-government controlled good guys though, right, because you happen to agree with what he says?
djpbarry is offline  
Thanks from:
31-01-2013, 00:24   #63
paddy147
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 15,349
Quote:
Originally Posted by djpbarry View Post
The idea that "world leaders" have any kind of grasp of science, let alone actually control it, never ceases to amuse.
...is a scientist, is he not? One of the non-government controlled good guys though, right, because you happen to agree with what he says?
I pointed out in that link you "googled" that the report was rushed and so was the decision/findings rushed too.......

I mean it would be very bad for world leaders and all their claimte change boffins if their findings were/are indeed just a pack of lies and falsified findings/reports.
It would make a holy show of all of them.





I wonder if man was and is to blame for climate change and all the weather patterns,storms,floods,droughts and fires back in the early 1900s and even back in the 1800s that brought devastation to many parts of the world and populations.


Again I will ask you to quote my entire posts and not just parts to suit yourself.

Last edited by paddy147; 31-01-2013 at 00:43. Reason: spelling
paddy147 is offline  
Thanks from:
31-01-2013, 03:12   #64
AngryHippie
Registered User
 
AngryHippie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 2,570
pull your heads in

This thread is starting to suck a$$ like all the rest of them due to some kind of personal dispute.
Can we try and get it back on track ?

Instead of getting into a semantic argument about what scientist said what and which model predicts whatever change, can we make the following statements and agree to them on some level or otherwise:
  1. Weather conditions over recorded history are pointing towards a climatic change
  2. There is a reasonable chance that human activity is responsible(Absolute proof not required)
  3. The changes indicated are not unprecedented (ice cores etc, mass extinctions etc)
  4. Changes on the scale indicated have led to massive changes to eco-systems(as above)
  5. It is possible for humans to change their behavior (free will, international treatys, policys etc)
  6. A change in human behavior may alter the rates of change noted if they are responsible
  7. The changes made (if sustainability is a vital requirement for changes made) would regardless be of benefit to mankind & environment

Do you agree to any of the statements above, if so which and to what extent...
If you dispute any of the statements above, please provide some sort of reviewable evidence.
AngryHippie is offline  
31-01-2013, 08:35   #65
SiegfriedsMum
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by AngryHippie View Post
This thread is starting to suck a$$ like all the rest of them due to some kind of personal dispute.
Can we try and get it back on track ?
I think it unlikely as the level of aggression and intolerance we can all see means few will want to try to engage. Having read these threads from time to time, they do seem to inevitably descend into the same individuals being aggressive and intolerant which I imagine puts many off contributing, or continuing to contribute, and going elsewhere.
SiegfriedsMum is offline  
Advertisement
31-01-2013, 10:05   #66
djpbarry
Registered User
 
djpbarry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 12,760
Quote:
Originally Posted by paddy147 View Post
I pointed out in that link you "googled" that the report was rushed and so was the decision/findings rushed too...
In the opinion of one particular individual.

What about all the other inquiries? All rushed?
Quote:
Originally Posted by paddy147 View Post
I mean it would be very bad for world leaders and all their claimte change boffins if their findings were/are indeed just a pack of lies and falsified findings/reports.
It would make a holy show of all of them.
Once again, the idea that "world leaders" hold any sway over "boffins" is absolutely laughable.
djpbarry is offline  
31-01-2013, 10:32   #67
Chloe Pink
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 796
Quote:
Originally Posted by djpbarry View Post
Ok, let's see what I can find:

'No malpractice' by climate unit
All the same, the report is not short on polite criticism;

"The panel noted that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was one of the organisations that had "oversimplified" the CRU data it used in its publications.
They said the IPCC and others had neglected to highlight the discrepancy between direct and "proxy" measurements, such as the tree ring data often used to reconstruct past temperature changes.
Professor Hand added that CRU had been "a little naïve" in not working more closely with statisticians.
The report stated: "There would be mutual benefit if there were closer collaboration and interaction between CRU and a much wider scientific group outside the relatively small international circle of temperature specialists."

Not exactly glowing praise.
Chloe Pink is offline  
31-01-2013, 11:43   #68
Chloe Pink
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 796
Quote:
Originally Posted by djpbarry View Post
Once again, the idea that "world leaders" hold any sway over "boffins" is absolutely laughable.
http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_integrity/
"But science can only thrive when it’s independent. When commercial or ideological interests pressure scientists to distort or suppress their findings, science is weakened, and we all lose.
Our scientific integrity work began in 2004 in response to a growing problem of political interference in government science."
Chloe Pink is offline  
31-01-2013, 12:33   #69
djpbarry
Registered User
 
djpbarry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 12,760
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chloe Pink View Post
http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_integrity/
"But science can only thrive when it’s independent. When commercial or ideological interests pressure scientists to distort or suppress their findings, science is weakened, and we all lose.
Our scientific integrity work began in 2004 in response to a growing problem of political interference in government science."
I dare say you’ve rather misinterpreted the aims of the UCS. For starters, you’re conflating government science with basic science – two very different things. Probably also worth pointing out that the UCS supports global action to combat climate change, including deep reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.
djpbarry is offline  
Advertisement
31-01-2013, 13:05   #70
Chloe Pink
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 796
Quote:
Originally Posted by djpbarry View Post
I dare say you’ve rather misinterpreted the aims of the UCS. For starters, you’re conflating government science with basic science – two very different things. Probably also worth pointing out that the UCS supports global action to combat climate change, including deep reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.
Science is science, or it should be. The point is that science is not beyond the influence of outside factors; a concept ridiculed in your earlier post.
Chloe Pink is offline  
31-01-2013, 13:19   #71
djpbarry
Registered User
 
djpbarry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 12,760
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chloe Pink View Post
Science is science, or it should be.
Well, no, in this case there is a distinction: government science, as referred to above in your post, generally refers to the (US) government’s (mis)interpretation and/or (mis)use of science.

The UCS was founded to give scientists a greater voice in government circles. This is an excerpt from their founding statement:

We therefore call on scientists and engineers at MIT, and throughout the country, to unite for concerted action and leadership: Action against dangers already unleashed and leadership toward a more responsible exploitation of scientific knowledge.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chloe Pink View Post
The point is that science is not beyond the influence of outside factors; a concept ridiculed in your earlier post.
I was not ridiculing the idea that science is immune to influence – scientists are only human, after all.

I am ridiculing the idea that governments essentially tell scientists what to do and what not to do, that research agendas are set by governments and not research institutes.

The idea that science shows climate change exists because governments want it to is the stuff of conspiracy theories.
djpbarry is offline  
31-01-2013, 15:01   #72
Chloe Pink
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 796
Quote:
Originally Posted by djpbarry View Post
I am ridiculing the idea that governments essentially tell scientists what to do and what not to do, that research agendas are set by governments and not research institutes.
What like this example:

ETSU-R97 was written for the DTI in 1997 and is to be used for setting limits for noise from wind turbine.
It has long been criticised for being old and outdated and for failing to protect the public and requests have been made by many bodies, that ETSU be reviewed, for example,
http://noiseabatementsociety.com/wp-...ion-240111.pdf
"Controversies over ETSU-R-97 continue to cause delay and uncertainty among applicants, decision makers and communities. Planning Inspectors have refused applications where ETSU-R-97 has been followed as they are not confident about protection."
"ETSU-R-97 itself contained a recommendation that it be reviewed within a period that has long expired."
"DECC should, as a matter of urgency, commission a full review of ETSU-R-97."

DECC approached Hayes MacKenzie, a consultancy who worked extensively representing wind developers at planning appeals and subsequently commissioned a review of the application of ETSU rather than a review of ETSU itself.
http://tools.decc.gov.uk/en/content/...ewind_q4.aspx#
"To ensure that the ETSU-R-97 guidance is still fit for purpose, DECC commissioned acoustic experts Hayes McKenzie in 2011 to publish a report looking at consideration of noise impacts when determining planning applications in England.
The report found good practice guidance is required to ensure consistency of approach and to clarify how the guidance should be implemented in practice."

Subsequently DECC commissioned the IoA to look at ETSU's application not at ETSU itself
http://www.ioa.org.uk/about-us/news-article.asp?id=260
"The Institute of Acoustics has launched a consultation on “Good Practice Guidance to the application of ETSU-R-97 for wind turbine noise assessment”.
From the IoA's discussion document:
http://www.ioa.org.uk/pdf/ioa-discus...-july-2012.pdf
1.2.3 "It should be noted that any consideration of the suitability of the ETSU-R-97 target noise levels (noise limits) is excluded from the Terms of Reference on the grounds that the setting of noise limits are a matter of policy for the Government. The absence of any discussion on the appropriateness of the noise limits does not necessarily imply that all members of the IOA NWG accept that the ETSU-R-97 limits are appropriate in all circumstances."

Last edited by Chloe Pink; 31-01-2013 at 15:06.
Chloe Pink is offline  
31-01-2013, 15:52   #73
djpbarry
Registered User
 
djpbarry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 12,760
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chloe Pink View Post
What like this example...
I cannot make head nor tail of what you've just posted.
djpbarry is offline  
31-01-2013, 16:08   #74
Chloe Pink
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 796
Quote:
Originally Posted by djpbarry View Post
I cannot make head nor tail of what you've just posted.
The government was asked to review the method of aassessing wind turbine noise, a method called ETSU-R97.
Instead of commissioning a review of ETSU-R97, they commissioned a review of how ETSU-R97 should be applied.

You posted, "I am ridiculing the idea that governments essentially tell scientists what to do and what not to do, that research agendas are set by governments and not research institutes"

My post cites an example where this has infact occurred.
Included in my post is an excerpt from the Institute of Acoustics discussion report on their research where they state it's limitations because of government policy.
Chloe Pink is offline  
31-01-2013, 16:22   #75
djpbarry
Registered User
 
djpbarry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 12,760
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chloe Pink View Post
The government was asked to review the method of aassessing wind turbine noise, a method called ETSU-R97.
Instead of commissioning a review of ETSU-R97, they commissioned a review of how ETSU-R97 should be applied.

You posted, "I am ridiculing the idea that governments essentially tell scientists what to do and what not to do, that research agendas are set by governments and not research institutes"

My post cites an example where this has infact occurred.
No, your post cites an example of the British government commissioning a review of a working group report.

This is somehow supposed to demonstrate that climate scientists are being pressured by governments into manipulating data?
djpbarry is offline  
Post Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Remove Text Formatting
Bold
Italic
Underline

Insert Image
Wrap [QUOTE] tags around selected text
 
Decrease Size
Increase Size
Please sign up or log in to join the discussion

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search



Share Tweet