Aardvark

You continue to misunderstand my quite clear points. I asked you if the UN was part of the solution to confronting authoritarian regimes at all. You responded by talking about timescales, a complete irrelevance to my question. I was not making any comment at all on the speed of UN action, i was querying if there was any UN action. I presume that you can understand the distinction but are continuing to obfusicate for your own purposes. Again, how kind of you to allow me the right to my own opinion. Actually, you haven't bothered to answer my question. I asked what action the UN has taken that has confronted authoritarianism and promoted liberty. You haven't given any answer. You say you are looking at the evidence, yet when i repeatedly ask you what this evidence is, when i repeatedly state that i would be happy to reexamine my opinions on this matter in the light of evidence of UN action, you provide none. You simply repeat your unsubstantiated assertions that the UN is acting to confront authoritarianism. I'm asking how the UN has done anything to confront authoritarianism. As a debating chamber, it generally is quiet concerning authoritarian regimes. There are loud denouncations of such evils as Zionism, but silence about Zimbabwe. During this crisis in Burma, loud voices from France, USA, Britain, from the UN almost silence. So, where is this evidence of confronting authoritarianism? Indeed.

Perhaps you didn't read my post fully then? I wrote that the UN seems ineffectual, i pointed out that it has countries like Cuba on its 'humans rights commision' which seems to indicate a certain slackness in dealing with human rights. I then said that i was perfectly willing to be convinced otherwise and shown any actual work being done by the UN to actually undermine and replace authoritarian regimes. Rather than try and attack me, how about actually presenting any of the facts that support your opinion, as i asked? If you don't, it will seem to be the case that you are infact, gulity of the adapting of facts to fit ideology that you accuse me of. Again, i asked for any facts to show what the UN was doing to undermine authoritarian regimes. Perhaps you would care to actually share any of those facts, which presumably are the basis of your opinions in this matter. You've given us the benefit of your opinion, perhaps you'd like to give us the facts that substatiate it? Or is it that when i give an opinion, i am 'selecting a point of view and adapting the facts to meet your ideological predisposition' whilst you, of course, are being perfectly objective? That's a weak argument. Yes, authoritarian regimes are, at the moment, under increasing pressure around the world. You don't however, make any causal connection between that and the existence of the UN. In what way is the UN responsible, in anyway, for the spread of democracy in, for instance, an area such as South America, where dictatorships and authoritarian regimes have mainly given way to democracy? You make the point that authoritarian regimes are 'under fire', but you don't give any indication of how this is the result of the operations of the UN. The spread of democracy is certainly not a 'small thing' why would you imply that i think so? And in what way has that anything to do with the UN? All the social and economic factors you identify would exist even if the UN had never been formed. How kind of you to give me permission to have my own opinion. No, there was no implied denial. I stated, quite clearly, that i was not aware of any UN action to solve these problems, i was not refering to any timetable. You are mistaken on that point. I define 'very long' as being several generations of human lives. We are talking about humans here, not geology or evolution. When it comes to humans being murdered and oppressed, that is a very long time. I'm saddened that you disagree. A false choice. I have not advocated eliminating ' a single instance of authoritarianism at great cost and while learning nothing' as opposed to 'permanently' eliminating authoritarianism across the planet. I have queried whether the UN is doing anything to reduce authoritarianism at all. Whether it is part of the process of spreading liberty. I see precious little proof of that. Again, you have misunderstood my point (deliberately?). I did not say that 'timescales' are irrelevant. I said that i wasn't asking about timescales from the UN, i was asking what action the UN was taking at all. You are the one who starting trying to confuse the issue. Assuming you are discussing this matter in good faith, i will reiterate my points. 1) I see little or no evidence that the UN is part of the process of confronting authoritarianism. 2) I see little or no evidence that the relatively recent spread of democracy around the world has anything to do with the UN. 3) I see evidence that the UN has acted in some respects as a cosy club for authoritarian regimes. I have stated that i would be pleased to see any evidence to the contrawise. That i would be happy to see where the UN was actually working to confront authoritarianism. Instead of providing such information, you have choosen to insult my motivations and intellectual integrity, actions which i believe reflect on you more than upon me. It can be very hard for an 'organic internal change' to take place when a determined authoritarian regime is prepared to use extreme force to maintain its postion. You seem to have the opinion that outside nations only have two choices, fullscale military invasion and imposition of democracy, or else, stand back and wait for a 'natural' transition to democracy. Are there not other options?

Unfortunately, history shows us that it takes a very long time for authoritarian regimes to 'run out' of people to exploit. If we just wait in the expectation that the regime will fail due to 'unsustainability' then we might well have a wait that encompasses decades and the deaths and suffering of countless more people.

I also choose my words pretty carefully, and you DID say that the UN needs to 'continue' it's work to eliminate authoritarian regimes. I can't see any evidence of that. Sometimes the UN looks like a very cosy club for violators of human rights. Perhaps i am mistaken and hard work is being done on the quiet, but i'd like to see some indication of that. I never said anything about timescales, i certainly don't think the worlds problems can be solved by suppertime. I was rather querying that the UN is infact working to solve these problems at all? On a related matter, i am hearing reports that over 100,000 Burmese are dead. Naturally, the reports are unsubstantiated at this time, but this seems extraordinarily terrible, far worse than the Tsunami. I am also hearing that Aid has been impounded and stolen by the Burmese military and that soldiers have been pulling down buildings in order to sell the materials to desperate victims. Even taking into account the difficulty of verifying all the details, it is clear that the Burmese regime is acting in a deliberately obstructive manner, wilfully allowing large numbers of people to die for its own ends. If iNow considers that situation an example of negotiations 'working' then i can't think of how bad things would have to be to reach an example of negotiations failing. I don't know what the answer is but it's become manifestly clear that the Burmese regime is so despotic as to be considered evil. I would like to see what action the UN will take to eliminate this regime, however long and slow the process might be.

I make 'rash judgements' on the posts you HAVE made, not posts you plan to make. He has clearly given his reasons for his opinion that global climate computer models are unreliable. He has demonstrated perfectly reasonably that there are several grounds for holding the opinion that such computer models are still based on a limited understanding of such factors as ocean currents. As for the figures he 'calculated', he quite openly stated that they were a simple extrapolation from the past and that he did not place any faith in them, he was using them as an example of how unreliable such figures can be, a point that seems to have eluded you. He has raised valid points concerning the incomplete level of knowledge underpinning computer models. To try and dismiss that with such a blatant ad hominen does you no credit. I haven't the slightest interest in your 'history'. You may well have a personal grudge against Skepticlance, that doesn't justify attempting to derail a discussion on the accuracy of computer modelling with a series of ad hominen attacks.

SkepticLance has been making intelligent points, backing them up with logic, reason and evidence. You, on the other hand, simply state that he is wrong and that he has been indulging in 'handwaving' 'strawmans' and 'B.S'. If you disagree with his points then say why, otherwise you are the one who is indulging in the 'handwaving'.

Pangloss, the idea that anyone can 'punch through in time' is too optimistic. It's already too late for a lot of people. We don't even know how many tens of thousands are already dead or how many more are suffering or at risk from a variety of diseases related to filthy water and little food. As for your call for the UN to 'continue' its work to overthrow authoritarian regimes. I'd say it was more an example of why the UN should start some work to overthrow authoritarian regimes. At present the UN sees fit to have nations like Cuba on its 'Human Rights Commission'. I can't off hand think of any examples of the UN working to overthrow an authoritarian regime, although i can think of examples of authoritarian regimes being given support from the UN.

The Burmese military regime would simply order their troops to shoot at the aid workers. The only way to do it would be to launch a full scale military invasion to overthrow the regime in order to help the people there. I can't see that happening somehow.

If you can't understand that logic then i truly am surprised. It is very easy to use science to predict a cars motion. A simple statement that if the car is in drive and the accelerator is depressed by a certain amount, the car will travel at a certain velocity. Easy. Similarly, if Global Warming is so well understood and proven, then it should be simple enough to state that if CO2 levels rise by X amount then global mean temp will rise by Y amount. What's so hard about that?

You have a rare talent for completely misunderstanding (deliberately?) other peoples posts Let's see, i make a joke about peoples reactions to SkepticLances post querying the accuracy of computer modelling, and you demand to hear my 'scientific objections'! Objections to what exactly? You want me to make a 'scientific objection' to peoples emotional response to a post by SkepticLance? lol

Calling something a 'miserably Bad Pro-GW Documentary' seems a pretty clear statement of opinion.

Offering 'multiple scenarios' is not the same thing as making a prediction. The IPCC has not been able to make any even remotely precise predictions. Any scientific theory, in order to be validated, needs to be able to make independantly verifable predictions. That's not a matter of crystal ball gazing, it's a matter of science. No it isn't, prediciton is the word i am seeking. Irrelevant. Wrong. Have you actually looked at their so called 'projections'? They are so vague and broad as to be completely meaningless. If they were as confident of the science as you claim, then it would be an easy matter to make a prediction that if CO2 levels rise by X amount then the global mean temp will rise by Y amount. But they don't. The IPCC says that maybe the climate will get a lot warmer, maybe it won't. Maybe their will be a lot more precipitation, maybe there won't. Maybe sea levels will rise by a lot, maybe they won't. If you consider that a 'robust' approach then i think you are being a little bit naive. I'm still waiting for a clear, independently verifiable prediction. That's the test of any scientific theory. Let me know when you're ready to give me one. Up until then i'll accept that you can't and that your belief in the Global Warming Hypothesis is an article of faith rather than a scientifically reached conclusion.

I did indeed look at the paper, i thought the idea of 'predicticing' the past was most interesting. On that basis, my history books correctly predicted the decline and fall of the Roman Empire. Indeed, deny, deny! Or better yet, give an actual verifiable prediction. The IPCC hasn't bothered doing that. It's given a whole range of possibilities for the future, pretty much covering every base. A bit like a weather forcast that says the weather could be dry, but it could be wet, it could be warm or else it could be cold. So, until the Global Warming Hypothesis can actually give independently verifiable predictions, it remains a hypothesis. I simply ask for an independently verifiable prediction, simple enough and the basis of the scientific method. You do like you labelling and personal smears don't you? You can defend evolution by reference to various proofs. Evolution can be used to make predictions. Or i suppose you could simply resort to name calling. The test of a scientific theory is when it can be used to make independently verifiable predictions. It's a simple test, it's the basis of the scientific method. And you call me anti scientific for sticking to it!

Indeed SkepticLance, i see even after your post that i am accused in this thread of 'whining' and making 'ludicrous and patently false accusations against climate science.' :D:D:D:D All for the temerity to point out the fact that the IPCC has been subject to political pressure and as such its conclusions should be viewed with scepticism. Exactly as is common practice regarding scientific research performed by scientists with links to the tobacco industry. It remains a fact that human understanding of the global climatic system is partial and limited. It also remains a fact that the Global Warming Theory is unable to give any remotely precise verifiable predictions. Apparently, to point out these facts is to be an evil 'denialist' (gosh that sounds really bad, almost like a sexist or a racist! ) It's interesting how emotive some people are becoming, demonstrating such a lack of scientific objectivity on this matter. Behaving almost like a religious belief is being attacked, an article of faith questioned rather than a scientific theory subjected to proper scutinity Maybe i also need to point out these facts 1000 times and people will start to actually read them! (and on that day pigs will fly and iNoW will understand what a strawman actually is)

According to Richard Wood of the Met Office ''Those natural climate variations could be stronger than the global- warming trend over the next 10-year period''

Government 'solutions' are generally ways to channel huge amounts of taxpayers money into the pockets of politically influential groups. So far, all the government 'solutions' i have heard are worse than the purported problem. On that basis, i'd be very happy for government to do absolutely nothing.

So my suggestion of a 'thought police' in Scienceforums, doesn't strike you as obviously not meant to be taken literally? And as for 'denialism', gosh, what a great word, just slap it on anyone who ever dares to raise any queries about Global Warming and job done! Afterall, if they are a 'denialist' then you don't have to worry about their questions or arguments do you? (Smiley added just for you)

Ah yes, I am the one indulging in name calling! :D It does seem to be a habit of yours, name calling and the use of labels to try and shut down discussion. A shame really.

No. Simply stating that there will be increases in temperatures isn't remotely good enough. If Global Warming is an understood branch of sicence then it should be possible to come out with something a bit more precise. To give a figure of how much the temperature will rise by if CO2 levels rise by a particular amount. These graphs don't show any predictions, the IPCC predictions are so vague as to be useless and in the last few days they have had to be revised as some scientists are now expecting global temperatures to decline over the next decade. (Liebniz Study) It is still the case that scientists do not fully understand the global climatic system, that it is not possible to make predictions based on the Global Warming Theory because of all the unknown and poorly understood variables. So, until the Global Warming Theory can produce verifiable predictions, it remains a hypothesis, not proven science.

You don't even appear to understand what the word 'strawman' means. Do you ever actually try to make an argument using facts and reason or do you always rely on name calling and labelling?

I take your entire response to mean that you are not capable of citing a single specific prediction attributable to the Global Warming Hypothesis and are instead reverting to your tactic of name calling, I welcome the opportunity for you to prove me wrong.

Be careful SkepticLance, any questioning of Global warming will get you in trouble with the Thought police! How dare you imply that human understanding of the Earths climatic system is not perfect?

Go ahead and read my posts, i've already given reasons why i am not prepared to simply accept the conclusions of the IPCC report, which is treated with such high regard. I stated earlier, that to accept the Global Warming Hypothesis, i'd like to see some independently verifiable predictions. That's a pretty basic requirement to accept a scientific theory. I've been told in this thread that the Global Climatic System is thoroughly understood, despite the fact that climate scientists quite openly state that it is NOT thoroughly understood and there are large gaps in our knowledge and understanding. I've also been told that such predicitions have been made, despite the fact that Climate scientists haven't been able to make ANY but the most vague and imprecise predictions. Lets be blunt. Climate scientists admit that they still do not understand the Earths climate system. Climate scientists are unable to give any, even remotely precise, predictions. Those two facts clearly demonstrate that the Global Warming Hypothesis is not proven. It is simply a strong hypothesis. If you wish to demonstrate the veracity of the hypothesis, the burden of proof lies with you. So, rather than accuse me of 'handwaving' or 'conspiracy theories' how about telling us what clear, testable prediction has been made that will confirm this hypothesis?

It's curious. I point out that the theory of global warming attracts the attention of various groups with their own agendas to push and that much of the debate is thus highly partisan. I point out several instances where dubious claims concerning global warming have been widely made and been influential in the public policy sphere and suggest that from this i retain a degree of scepticism over the theory. I even go out of my way to point out that scepticism is NOT the same thing as disbelief, and for this, I am called a 'denialist' who engages in 'strawmanning' 'handwaving' (whatever that is), 'appeals to authority', indulging in 'conspiracy theories' and 'attacking the science'. All things considered, it looks like i am the one maintaining the proper scientific attitude toward an interesting hypothesis. The way some people are responding it is almost like they are defending a religious belief against a perceived heresy.

It is difficult using the past to predict the future in normal circumstances, when the human impact on CO2 levels appears to be without precedent and when past warming spikes have been followed by rising CO2 levels rather than vica versa then it becomes even more tricky. Cause and effect are confused, perhaps a slight rise in ocean temperatures lead to release of methane from methane hydrate in the ocean bed which then lead to some sort of chain reaction in global warming, but the causation is still speculative and doesn't account for the increases in atmospheric CO2, possibly increased ocean temperatures affected the carbon cycle in some way. There still aren't clear answers for why warming preceded CO2 rises in the past, let alone sufficent understanding of todays climatic interactions to support definitive conclusions on this matter.