Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Climate Camp 2008 - Will You Be Going?

Will you be visiting or supporting this year's Climate Camp?

  • Yes, climate change matters.

    Votes: 21 43.8%

  • No, because it doesn't

    Votes: 18 37.5%

  • Maybe

    Votes: 9 18.8%
  • Total voters
    48
smokedout said:
without doing calculations do you really think that the difference between the first two decades is actually that significant, I'd say the years 92-97 its slightly above the midpoint and the years 98-01, its only in the last ten years that anything interesting has happened, which isnt long enough as you know
Click to expand...
it's not conclusive by any means as the record is only 30 years long, but the data definately doesn't support your original contention, and is consistant with predictions for Sea Ice reduction from anthropogenic climate change.

the scale on that graph is too small to really see what's going on, but I'm certain there's a trend from above average anomolies overall for the first decade, near average anomolies for the second decade, and below average anomolies for the 3rd decade other than the occasional blip due mainly to la nina / el nino cycles, volcanoes etc.
 
Bakunin said:
They're having a lot of trouble with plod down at the site apparently.

If as many folk as possible can get down there ASAP then they really need the extra bodies to make the site secure.

http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2008/07/405069.html?c=on#comments

They seem to be making life as difficult as possible for those trying to set up the site this year, so any help would be needed and needed now.
Click to expand...
oops.

presumably there are contingency plans in place for this situation?
 
free spirit said:
oops.

presumably there are contingency plans in place for this situation?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what plans are in place regarding this sort of problem, but the plod seem to be stealing as much construction material as they can lay their paws on and being aggressive when folk try to stand up to them. Their using the excuse of wanting to confiscate articles that might be used for criminal damage, so quite why they're stealing construction materials I don't know.

I'm sure the organisers will have contingency plans in place though, they were expecting a certain amount of hassle after the success of last year's camp.

E2A: The wood pile has apparently been saved by people sitting on it and refusing to be moved.
 
aurora green said:
I know. Think I'd better get me some sort of tarp pretty darn quick. Gotta be really light weight though, 'cos I'll be taking the train with my small boy and I'm already horifically overloaded. And even though they say no need to bring food....I can't quite trust 'em, will have to take my own cheese supply :D
Click to expand...

ive got the boy, so might come down for the day

watch out for the vegan police ;)
 
free spirit said:
it's not conclusive by any means as the record is only 30 years long, but the data definately doesn't support your original contention, and is consistant with predictions for Sea Ice reduction from anthropogenic climate change.

the scale on that graph is too small to really see what's going on, but I'm certain there's a trend from above average anomolies overall for the first decade, near average anomolies for the second decade, and below average anomolies for the 3rd decade other than the occasional blip due mainly to la nina / el nino cycles, volcanoes etc.
Click to expand...

cool, now youve simmered down a bit

im not doing this to attention seek, stir up trouble etc, i have read the IPCC reports and i agree ive made mistakes on some of the threads and ive learnt a lot

maybe im biased, but i dont know why, im hardly the biggest supporter of some of the sources ive read and used

ive also always said im sceptical rather than a 'denier'

maybe im stupid, but the more ive read, the more ive discussed it then the less i buy it. i cant help it, i can pretend to believe if you like, but i dont, sorry

as for my friend hes more than someone i meet down the pub, i was sceptical before i discussed this with him and have spent hours talking to him about it. my comment that he thinks its all bollocks is an understatement btw, he can barely talk about anything else and becomes far more heated than me

his argument doesnt follow some of the ones ive looked into, his argument is that the models are flawed full stop, and given that hes used the Tiger (i think its called) which i believe is the main model used by the IPCC then im inclined to listen,

especially as his former colleagues who were also studying climate modelling say the same thing, but no-one wants to put their heads above the parapet such is the vitriol they know they will receive

they are not the only reason im sceptical, and they are also not the only sceptics as is becoming obvious and not all of them are on the payroll of exxon these days

i want to believe, honest, i just dont
 
smokedout said:
yet more ad moninem's, play the ball signal, you do your argument no favours
Click to expand...
You were making an argument from authority. You asked us to ignore the scientific consensus and believe what he said instead. In those circumstances his credentials and his character are precisely what is important, and the fact that he is demonstrably both dishonest and a new age nutjob tells us all we need to know.

If what he said was true, he would be submitting it to a peer-reviewed journal, not to some CT site on the internet. If you think it is true, I challenge you to submit it to a peer-reviewed journal. BTW, have you submitted your other paper yet?

He alleges that the IPCC conspired to falsify the data. That is false. The IPCC is quoting the sea level rise from the peer-reviewed papers that their report cites.

IPCC said:
Numerous papers on the altimetry results (see Cazenave and Nerem, 2004, for a review) show a current rate of sea level rise of 3.1 ± 0.7 mm yr*1 over 1993 to 2003
Click to expand...
IPCC, 2007: Observations: Oceanic Climate Change and Sea Level (PDF, 15MB)
Cazenave and Nerem, 2004
data @ University of Colorado

Really, which do you think is more likely, a massive conspiracy between all those people, or that the dishonest nutjob you quoted is lying about this as well?
 
Signal 11 said:
You were making an argument from authority. You asked us to ignore the scientific consensus and believe what he said instead. In those circumstances his credentials and his character are precisely what is important, and the fact that he is demonstrably both dishonest and a new age nutjob tells us all we need to know.
Click to expand...

so what you're actually saying is ad hominems are fine if they disagree with what you say is a scientific consensus

and as for that consensus

Four scientists: Global Warming Out, Global Cooling In

his credentials are actually fairly impressive, im mean im sure you know best what with you not having been the president of the main authoritive body on sea levels, or having a phd in the subject and or having been repeatedly used by the IPCC as an expert

do you want to say anything about the scientific claims he makes or just continue slurring him

you highlight exactly whats wrong with the climate change lobby, when you cant challenge the science you resort to personal abuse and thats one of the reasons i remain so sceptical
 
I think this woman should be guest speaker at next year's climate camp.


A Vancouver woman is among five finalists for a contest seeking the world's greenest person.

Emily Jubenvill, 22, is the Canadian finalist of the contest sponsored by website 3rdwhale.com. The website's founder, Simon Fraser University professor Boyd Cohen, said Jubenvill's passion for community gardens may have given her the edge over other entrants.


"Community gardens are going to be a big part of the solution, and she's proactive about doing that," he said.

Six hundred entries from around the world were whittled down to the five finalists, following two rounds of online voting. The next round will select the winner, who will have a pod of Arctic beluga whales adopted in their name.



He said he wants the contest to make stars out of people who are going above and beyond to live a green lifestyle, likening it to an "American Idol for green people."

The winner will be announced on Sept. 16.
Click to expand...




She's from North Vancouver.
 
smokedout said:
so what you're actually saying is ad hominems are fine if they disagree with what you say is a scientific consensus
Click to expand...
No, that's not what I said. I said they are an appropriate response to an argument from authority.

smokedout said:
do you want to say anything about the scientific claims he makes or just continue slurring him
Click to expand...
WTF are you talking about? I just gave you links to all the peer-reviewed papers and the data.
 
incidentally signal the link you posted which you think discredits Mörner is on the site of the environmental defense fund, run by one Fred Krupp who picked up a cool $400,000 dollars salary last year for his trouble

nice work if you can get it

seems its not just exxon making a few quid out of global warming

do you really think Morner deliberately lied and said he was still in a job hed left a year earlier (an easily checkable deception) or do you think it more likely that a mistake was made somewhere down the line by the organisers of the events that billed him as such

you accuse me of conspiracy theory ffs
 
smokedout said:
the data that he's challenged, do you want to address his criticisms
Click to expand...
He said the IPCC falsified it. I showed that they quoted it from peer-reviewed papers.

smokedout said:
do you want to repeat that so it makes sense
Click to expand...
An Appeal to Authority is a fallacy with the following form:

1. Person A is (claimed to be) an authority on subject S.
2. Person A makes claim C about subject S.
3. Therefore, C is true.

This fallacy is committed when the person in question is not a legitimate authority on the subject. More formally, if person A is not qualified to make reliable claims in subject S, then the argument will be fallacious.
Click to expand...
http://nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html
 
i was hoping that wasnt what you thought

are you honestly saying that a man who has been used repeatedly by the IPCC isnt an expert and therefore doesnt have legitimate authority

(beyond his phd and former position as the president of the worlds leading body on sea levels)

as to the paper you quoted he wasnt addressing that but a graph in an IPCC report that he claims entered a "correction factor,"

now i guess we need to find that graph and find out the correction factor used and why, but please address the criticism he made and not the one you wanted him to make

perhaps he was lying, who knows, but if you look as his resume his credentials are very impressive, although you know best of course
 
smokedout said:
are you honestly saying that a man who has been used repeatedly by the IPCC isnt an expert and therefore doesnt have legitimate authority
Click to expand...
As usual you didn't read the article I linked to:
If there is a significant amount of legitimate dispute among the experts within a subject, then it will be fallacious to make an Appeal to Authority using the disputing experts. This is because for almost any claim being made and "supported" by one expert there will be a counterclaim that is made and "supported" by another expert. In such cases an Appeal to Authority would tend to be futile. In such cases, the dispute has to be settled by consideration of the actual issues under dispute. Since either side in such a dispute can invoke experts, the dispute cannot be rationally settled by Appeals to Authority.
[...]
If an expert is significantly biased then the claims he makes within his area of bias will be less reliable. Since a biased expert will not be reliable, an Argument from Authority based on a biased expert will be fallacious.
Click to expand...

Besides which, when it is one person alleging a conspiracy among many, his honesty or lack of it is quite pertinent. As are his nutty views in other areas.

BTW, I'm not aware of any peer-reviewed papers he has published on sea level changes in general or satellite altimetry in particular. Please provide links. Otherwise section 2 also applies:
If a person makes a claim about some subject outside of his area(s) of expertise, then the person is not an expert in that context. Hence, the claim in question is not backed by the required degree of expertise and is not reliable.
Click to expand...

smokedout said:
as to the paper you quoted he wasnt addressing that but a graph in an IPCC report that he claims entered a "correction factor,"
Click to expand...
You quoted it to challenge the sea level rise figures.

Morner said:
Now, back to satellite altimetry
Click to expand...
Precisely what my links addressed.

And with reference to the above about dispute, the link you posted about him shows that he is a lone nut, not "one of the worlds leading experts" as you described him.
Morner disagrees with the widely held view of past and future sea level change. A recent booklet The Greatest Lie Ever Told, published by Morner, refers to observational records of sea levels for the past 300 years that show variations - ups and downs, but no significant trend.[2] This contrasts with the usual view that sea level rise has been occurring at 2-3 mm/yr over the last century.[3] Morner asserts that satellite altimetry data indicate a mean rise in the order of 1.0 mm/yr from 1986 to 1996,[4] whereas most studies find a value around 3 mm/yr.
Click to expand...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nils-Axel_Mörner
 
smokedout said:
incidentally signal the link you posted which you think discredits Mörner is on the site of the environmental defense fund
Click to expand...
Fail. The President of INQUA is entitled to write on behalf of INQUA. Criticising a website that hosts a copy of his letter does not change that.

smokedout said:
do you really think Morner deliberately lied and said he was still in a job hed left a year earlier
Click to expand...
The President of INQUA alleges so and has made his allegation public. I'm inclined to believe him. He has made a specific allegation that would be actionable if it were false.

In contrast, Morner makes a vague accusation about what "they" said and did, so that he cannot be held to account for his claims, even though they can easily be shown to be false. If he were telling the truth, he would be able to name the specific individual(s).

smokedout said:
you accuse me of conspiracy theory ffs
Click to expand...
One person lying about his credentials is not a conspiracy. It is a dishonest individual. Morner is the one alleging a conspiracy and by bringing his claims here, so are you.
 
smokedout said:
Four scientists: Global Warming Out, Global Cooling In
Click to expand...

Only three specific claims amongst all the handwaving as far as I can see.

It was cooler from 1883 to 1928 when there was low solar activity, he said, and it has been warmer since 1947 with increased solar activity.
Click to expand...
http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm

Man-made carbon dioxide (CO2) is negligible, he said, compared to the amount of CO2 Mother Nature makes and disposes of each day or century.
Click to expand...
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11638

Finally, climate scientist Melita spoke of a new phase in the Pacific Decadal Oscillation.
Click to expand...
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Pacific-Decadal-Oscillation.htm
 
*In case you didnt notice this, the police repression of the camp as begun!

Police Raid Climate Camp Site
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2008/08/405104.html
Yesterday evening police on the Hoo peninsular invaded the camp site at Deansgate ridge. They brought with them a warrant enabling them to search for anything that could be used for criminal damage.
After the silver commander for operation oasis having said at an open police meeting "we have a duty under law to protect peoples right to peaceful demonstration", last nights violent raid is a disgrace.
Apparently their warrant meant that they could try to take plumbing supplies that are to be used to provide water and sanitation to the site, also timber that is destined for making compost toilets to get the camp ready for the bulk of people arriving over the weekend.

The camps occupants resisted this by sitting on the essential building materials, for this they were beaten with batons and pepper sprayed.
Surely this underhand maltreatment of peaceful protesters is a violation of rights and boils down to a deliberate attempt to stop the camp from happening. Is this the action of a police force wanting to support the right to peaceful protest?
At the end of this harrasment they went away with a board game, some wax crayons and a shopping list.

One has to ask how these items could be used for criminal damage, what did they think the guys at the camp were going to do? Draw their way into Kingsnorth? Nick the stuff on the list from the canteen? Or maybe leave them a Cluedo as to who did it on the way out?

Do me a favour! this was just good old police harassment, and a deliberate act to try and besmirch the cause and message of the camp.

So, if you are coming to the camp be prepared for more. However please make sure you do come if you can, this is an important issue.
Click to expand...
 
Signal 11 said:
Fail. The President of INQUA is entitled to write on behalf of INQUA. Criticising a website that hosts a copy of his letter does not change that.
Click to expand...

now you're getting it
Besides which, when it is one person alleging a conspiracy among many, his honesty or lack of it is quite pertinent. As are his nutty views in other areas.

BTW, I'm not aware of any peer-reviewed papers he has published on sea level changes in general or satellite altimetry in particular. Please provide links. Otherwise section 2 also applies:
Click to expand...

are you really alleging that a former president of INQUA and expert employed by the IPCC to examine sea levels is not qualified to comment :rolleyes:

heres a few peer reviewed papers hes published

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Nils-Axel+M%C3%B6rner&hl=en&lr=

http://www.skepticalscience.com/sola...al-warming.htm
Click to expand...

interesting that youre prepared to use as a source a claimed ex-physicist who doesnt appear to have anything more than a physics degree over the claims of a climatologist
 
smokedout said:
interesting that youre prepared to use as a source a claimed ex-physicist who doesnt appear to have anything more than a physics degree over the claims of a climatologist
Click to expand...
He is not claiming expertise of his own. He is referencing peer-reviewed papers by people who do have expertise. If you dispute any of the specific information provided, state precisely which information and provide expert testimony to dispute it.

You quoted the link about the sun's output that shows the claim in your article to be false. This was provided from the Max Planck Institute: http://www.mps.mpg.de/en/projekte/sun-climate/

If you dispute it, I challenge you to submit your claims to a relevant peer-reviewed journal. BTW, How are your other two papers coming on?

smokedout said:
are you really alleging that a former president of INQUA
Click to expand...
He was never President of INQUA itself.

smokedout said:
and expert employed by the IPCC to examine sea levels is not qualified to comment
Click to expand...
He is entitled to comment, but he cannot be used for an Appeal to Authority, as you are using him, for the reasons I have given.
 
He was never President of INQUA itself.
Click to expand...

i said a president, not the president

no, it shows it may be false

You quoted the link about the sun's output that shows the claim in your article to be false. This was provided from the Max Planck Institute: http://www.mps.mpg.de/en/projekte/sun-climate/
Click to expand...

that brief article also claims

but establishing both how the output of the Sun varies and how such variations influence Earth's climate have proved tricky.
Click to expand...

which is quite correct

in any event i mentioned the four most recent none exxon funded scientists, as all the rest on this thread, in an effort to show that the scientific consensus is nowhere near as strong as is being alleged

He is entitled to comment, but he cannot be used for an Appeal to Authority, as you are using him, for the reasons I have given.
Click to expand...

well, thats tenuous, but judge it on the basis of the evidence then, youve yet to criticise his findings, instead choosing to attempt to smear and discredit an IPCC expert
 
smokedout said:
in any event i mentioned the four most recent none exxon funded scientists, as all the rest on this thread, in an effort to show that the scientific consensus is nowhere near as strong as is being alleged
Click to expand...
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus.htm
A survey of all peer reviewed abstracts on the subject "global climate change" published between 1993 and 2003 show that not a single paper rejected the consensus position that global warming is man caused
Click to expand...

smokedout said:
youve yet to criticise his findings
Click to expand...
I've shown that his claim was false. He claimed that the IPCC falsified the data. I showed that they quoted it from the peer-reviewed papers.
 
This "what causes global warming" thing really gets on my tits.

Both sides act like their arguments are mutually exclusive, a total logical non starter.

The evidence that post industrial revolution emissions have shot up is overwhelming.

There is also more and more evidence that global warming is a phenomena affecting the whole solar system.

Both "sides" will treat you like a fuckwit heretic for mentioning a fact supporting the other.

The likely truth: Climate change is human and non-human caused. It has been hijacked by governments and corporations. We should respect our planet home and one another regardless. I aint going because Im a prophet of doom, Im going to participate in a more mature process of organising than is on offer from the establishment. Im also going to recruit DA for the anti-ID cause.

I keep saying it, we will have a planet 10 years from now but we may well not have our freedom.
 
It was the original one which they had suddenly twisted up, because they entered a "correction factor," which they took from the tide gauge.
Click to expand...

now how youve got any idea that hes talking about that particular paper is beyond me, but even if he is that paper doesnt mention the correction factor so his remarks stand - unless you're calling him a liar

as for your link to a biased website run by a layman

The Academies of Science from 19 different countries all endorse the consensus
Click to expand...

a whole 19 countries, coincidentally including all the G8 nations, out of hundreds of countries

staggering :D
 
smokedout said:
now how youve got any idea that hes talking about that particular paper is beyond me
Click to expand...
Because he stated that he's talking about the satellite altimetry data in the article that you quoted.

smokedout said:
that paper doesnt mention the correction factor
Click to expand...
He claimed that the IPCC had applied a "correction factor" to get to the figure stated in their report. The links I provided show that they did not. The figure in their report is the same as in the peer-reviewed papers. I've explained this to you at least three times already.

smokedout said:
"The Academies of Science from 19 different countries all endorse the consensus"
a whole 19 countries, coincidentally including all the G8 nations, out of hundreds of countries
Click to expand...
Provide a list of the countries whose Academies of Science oppose the consensus, with supporting evidence.

I already quoted the important part of the article and provided a link to the paper in question -- this is actually about the peer-reviewed science, not peoples reaction to it:
A survey of all peer reviewed abstracts on the subject "global climate change" published between 1993 and 2003 show that not a single paper rejected the consensus position that global warming is man caused
Click to expand...
 
Signal 11 said:
He claimed that the IPCC had applied a "correction factor" to get to the figure stated in their report. The links I provided show that they did not. The figure in their report is the same as in the peer-reviewed papers. I've explained this to you at least three times already.
Click to expand...

but that paper is an IPCC paper that made up part of the fourth report, written by IPCC connected scietists which is entirely consistant with what he was saying

but i assume youve taken it upon yourself to call him a liar, even though the IPCC themselves havent disputed the allegation

Provide a list of the countries whose Academies of Science oppose the consensus, with supporting evidence.
Click to expand...

but if they dont accept the hyposthesis, or the fact there is a consensus then why would they actively oppose something that doesnt exist

I already quoted the important part of the article and provided a link to the paper in question -- this is actually about the peer-reviewed science, not peoples reaction to it:
Click to expand...

there is a consensus amongst the articles which have received peer review

that is not the same as there being a consensus amongst scientists in general is it?

and if the models really are flawed then all those peer reviewed articles dont mean jack
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Rob Ray
Pre-emptive arrests at Climate Camp
Replies
1
Views
391
Rob Ray
Rob Ray
Cloo
Help - anyone know where the Na'amod Hanukkah event will be today?
Replies
3
Views
385
Cloo
Cloo
WhyLikeThis
  • Poll
Are you going on the “Hate March”? (11/11/23) - Poll
16 17 18 19 20
Replies
595
Views
29K
TopCat
TopCat
C
New Bosses-same old game: business as usual for the Labour Government ACG online public meeting, August 21st at 7pm
Replies
1
Views
452
charlie mowbray
C
ska invita
COP26 stuff+ Global Day of Action for Climate Justice - Sat 6th Nov 21
Replies
6
Views
517
danny la rouge
danny la rouge
Back
Top Bottom