Kyoto Protocol

[Derry McKinney]

RE: Kyoto

I don't know much about Daly. I have deeling I'm going to have to look him up though...likely under the fraud section of the internet.

I do know a bit about Tuvalu. The rise in sea levels (and it is a rise in sea level, not a sinking of the island) is destroying their home and their crops. As a result they are becoming among the world's first environmental refugees.

I believe they are suing the US and Austrailia for their plight.

 

[Extrafire]

Re: RE: Kyoto

I don't know much about Daly. I have deeling I'm going to have to look him up though...likely under the fraud section of the internet.

I do know a bit about Tuvalu. The rise in sea levels (and it is a rise in sea level, not a sinking of the island) is destroying their home and their crops. As a result they are becoming among the world's first environmental refugees.

I believe they are suing the US and Austrailia for their plight.

I posted these earlier. You must have missed them.

http://www.john-daly.com/#nasa

http://www.john-daly.com/deadisle/

http://www.john-daly.com/press/press-02a.htm#funafuti

I don't remember where the link is that showed that Tuvalu is sinking, but follow the links above and you'll see that the sea level isn't rising there.

 

[Derry McKinney]

RE: Kyoto

It's okay, I've done the research. I didn't save the links either, but the guys who published it had letters after their names...something I notice that Daly is missing. They also used satellite data as well as maps, measuring sticks, and seeing if their pee splashed on their knees. Tuvalu is not sinking, the ocean is rising.

I went back through some of your other posts too. You really need to get some better sources.

 

[WIAF]

Re: Kyoto

Actually, I didn’t dismiss him because he’s a geneticist. I was just suggesting that the same standards be applied to him that Rev requires for his opponents. He’s the one who frequently disqualifies anyone on the opposing side automatically by their primary field.

Okay, then we're not too far apart (You'll notice I made comment that I don't consider Suzuki to be an expert.)

That said, your position doesn't go far enough. If neither Suzuki nor Daly are experts, we are wasting our time. The science of climate change is found in peer-reviewed research published in scientific journals - not on websites or by "think tanks". So if you want to discuss this issue, the research are our tools.

 

[WIAF]

Re: Kyoto

Twila wrote:

What falsehoods did David Suzuki promote with regards to BC forestry. Extrafire?

Oh,,,,that was a long time ago. It had something to do with logging practices and was the incident that turned me right off on Suzuki.

You're so turned off, yet you can't remember why?

:lol:

 

[Derry McKinney]

RE: Kyoto

Suzuki is science journalist as much as anything else. He reports the science. He also has the background to understand the science. If you watch The Nature of Things, you will find that Suzuki is reporting information that has been peer reviewed, whether he's talking about the environment or human emotions.

 

[WIAF]

Re: RE: Kyoto

Suzuki is science journalist as much as anything else.

Agreed.

He reports the science.

Agreed.

He also has the background to understand the science.

Agreed.

If you watch The Nature of Things, you will find that Suzuki is reporting information that has been peer reviewed, whether he's talking about the environment or human emotions.

I'm not in a position to watch The Nature of Things, but okay.

That said, there is no question that Suzuki also acts as an activist.

 

[Derry McKinney]

RE: Kyoto

The Nature of Things is Suzuki's show. It's been on pretty much forever and is really what made his name. Before that he hosted a radio show called Quirks and Quarks. If you ever get a chance, watch it.

By his own account, his activism grew out of questions that his students asked him when he was a prof. of genetics and the way genetics were being used to justify racism. That got him involved in activism.

Once he started doing Quirks and Quarks and The Nature of Things, he began to learn a lot about the science behind environmentalism. That lead to his activism in that area.

The thing is that his activism is based on science at its very root. It is not just a fad or a flavour of the day with him, when he learned what was happening he decided he had to speak out.

 

[jimmoyer]

RE: Kyoto

Conversation is good here.

That's where the real knowlege occurs.

And by the way, exploring the details of agreement is immensely interesting.

I'll bet on the matters of global warming I can present matters of agreement that will gain a clear majority of consent from those who don't buy it and those who believe in global warming implicitly.

 

[WIAF]

Re: RE: Kyoto

Greetings Derry,

The Nature of Things is Suzuki's show. It's been on pretty much forever and is really what made his name. Before that he hosted a radio show called Quirks and Quarks. If you ever get a chance, watch it.

I used to watch The Nature of Things while I was still in Canada. Quirks and Quarks is (or used to be) broadcast on Radio-Canada International, but the shortwave reception is so poor, I've given up entirely on RCI and moved to BBC World Service.

By his own account, his activism grew out of questions that his students asked him when he was a prof. of genetics and the way genetics were being used to justify racism. That got him involved in activism.

The thing is that his activism is based on science at its very root. It is not just a fad or a flavour of the day with him, when he learned what was happening he decided he had to speak out.

And there's nothing wrong with that. But it is important to recognise that Suzuki is an activist. As I wrote before, the published research are our tools in this discussion. Cheers! 8)

jimmoyer,

I'll bet on the matters of global warming I can present matters of agreement that will gain a clear majority of consent from those who don't buy it and those who believe in global warming implicitly.

Okay, start the ball rolling...
8)

 

[Derry McKinney]

Re: Kyoto

Quirks and Quarks is (or used to be) broadcast on Radio-Canada International, but the shortwave reception is so poor, I've given up entirely on RCI and moved to BBC World Service.

It's hosted by Bob MacDonald now. It's still an excellent show. You can listen to it on the internet too.http://www.cbc.ca/quirks/

And there's nothing wrong with that. But it is important to recognise that Suzuki is an activist. As I wrote before, the published research are our tools in this discussion. Cheers!

Most of us don't have the background to understand scientific papers though, that's why science journalists are so important. They can make things understandable. Suzuki is good at that. So is Jay Ingram. There are a few that show up on the better episodes of Scientific American and Nova as well, but for North American science journalism, the best come from Canada.

Whether Suzuki is an activist or not does not really come into play with his journalism. Even his weekly syndicated op-ed column is based on peer reviewed science.

I'll bet on the matters of global warming I can present matters of agreement that will gain a clear majority of consent from those who don't buy it and those who believe in global warming implicitly.

You may run into some trouble there, Jim. I've seen global warming deniers that even dispute the greenhouse effect exists and will argue against it. There isn't a scientist on the planet that doubts the greenhouse effect...without it we wouldn't be here.

 

[WIAF]

Re: Kyoto

It's hosted by Bob MacDonald now. It's still an excellent show. You can listen to it on the internet too.http://www.cbc.ca/quirks/

Noted. Thanks!

Most of us don't have the background to understand scientific papers though, that's why science journalists are so important. They can make things understandable.

True, but it is exactly this lack of background that is exploited to distort and polarize the argument - and the science. "Peer-review"
does not constitute "truth". Unfortunately, the publication of any research found favouable to a particular point-of-view is all too frequently used to "pound the drums".

 

[Derry McKinney]

RE: Kyoto

Peer review may not constitute truth, and I know of at least one case where a global-warming denier played the system to get his paper peer reviewed even though it was demonstrably flawed, but it is how science works.

While it would be a wonderful world if everybody was scientifically literate enough, and had sufficient time, to read every scientific paper and review it themselves, that simply isn't possible. It isn't even possible for scientists to read and understand papers and research from other scientific fields.

The result is that we can refer to these studies, which I encourage, but much of the interpretation must be left to those who understand the science.

 

[WIAF]

Re: RE: Kyoto

Hi Derry,

Peer review may not constitute truth, and I know of at least one case where a global-warming denier played the system to get his paper peer reviewed even though it was demonstrably flawed, but it is how science works.

Which article are you referring to?

While it would be a wonderful world if everybody was scientifically literate enough, and had sufficient time, to read every scientific paper and review it themselves, that simply isn't possible. It isn't even possible for scientists to read and understand papers and research from other scientific fields.

True enough. So what should we do when, for example, Extrafire makes dogmatic statements about the "hockey stick" having been "refuted"? Is Extrafire scientifically literate enough to discuss this issue? If not, why waste our time?

 

[Derry McKinney]

Re: Kyoto

Which article are you referring to?

It's actually one of the hockey stick ones. It was peer-reviewed to appear in a mining magazine. The scientists that did the review were geologists and such, not climate scientists and not statisticians. Once the article was published, the scientists that were really qualified to review it ripped it apart, but the global warming deniers still tell everybody that it's peer reviewed. If people don't know the whole story, it can confuse them.

True enough. So what should we do when, for example, Extrafire makes dogmatic statements about the "hockey stick" having been "refuted"? Is Extrafire scientifically literate enough to discuss this issue? If not, why waste our time?

He may not be scientifically literate enough, but who is? Only experts on scientific statisitical analysis really understand the hockey stick. Climate scientists from various fields have been able to back it up with other data, but the naysayers keep going after the hockey stick because they know that it easy to mislead people with it.

The most disturbing trend in journalism about Kyoto (not science journalism) is that the flawed work "debunking" the Hockey Stick makes the papers. The work showing how flawed that work was, the work that debunks the "debunking" doesn't. Instead it languishes in obscure scientific journals.

 

[Extrafire]

Re: RE: Kyoto

It's okay, I've done the research. I didn't save the links either, but the guys who published it had letters after their names...something I notice that Daly is missing. They also used satellite data as well as maps, measuring sticks, and seeing if their pee splashed on their knees. Tuvalu is not sinking, the ocean is rising.

I went back through some of your other posts too. You really need to get some better sources.

And if you do a little more checking you'll find that Australian government data says the sea isn't rising enough to cause Tuvalu's problems.

Are you suggesting that unless people have letters after their names, they have low intelligence? I have a brother with a doctorate in history, and I have found that he can be very ignorant of subjects that he hasn't studied, even though he thinks he knows. My father grew up in Europe and had no education at all, not even elementary school. Yet he spoke 7 languages without accent. Are you suggesting he wasn't intelligent because he had no letters after his name? If so, you really need a reality check.

 

[Extrafire]

Re: Kyoto

Actually, I didn’t dismiss him because he’s a geneticist. I was just suggesting that the same standards be applied to him that Rev requires for his opponents. He’s the one who frequently disqualifies anyone on the opposing side automatically by their primary field.

Okay, then we're not too far apart (You'll notice I made comment that I don't consider Suzuki to be an expert.)

That said, your position doesn't go far enough. If neither Suzuki nor Daly are experts, we are wasting our time. The science of climate change is found in peer-reviewed research published in scientific journals - not on websites or by "think tanks". So if you want to discuss this issue, the research are our tools.

But Daly was an expert.

 

[Extrafire]

Re: Kyoto

Twila wrote:

What falsehoods did David Suzuki promote with regards to BC forestry. Extrafire?

Oh,,,,that was a long time ago. It had something to do with logging practices and was the incident that turned me right off on Suzuki.

You're so turned off, yet you can't remember why?

:lol:

I remember why. He was spreading falsehoods about our forest practices. I just can't rememeber exactly what he said. After all, it was the late '80's or early '90's.

I recall recently hearing him extoling that idiotic doomsayer, Paul Ehrlich, but I can't remember just what he said about him, and that was recent. If I did something like this for a living I'd keep records, but I don't.

 

[Extrafire]

Re: Kyoto

The thing is that his activism is based on science at its very root. It is not just a fad or a flavour of the day with him, when he learned what was happening he decided he had to speak out.

The same could be said for Daly.

 

[Extrafire]

Re: Kyoto

True enough. So what should we do when, for example, Extrafire makes dogmatic statements about the "hockey stick" having been "refuted"? Is Extrafire scientifically literate enough to discuss this issue? If not, why waste our time?

I made no dogmatic statements about the "hockey stick".

How scientifically literate do you need to be to read a graph?