Aardvark

When science and politics mix then a degree of doubt is necessary. No i have not. I have not 'attacked' the science, i have pointed out how the scientific data has been consistently misused and distorted for political ends. That is a quite different thing. A 'denialist' Oh no! A nasty label to stick on me! (It's always easier to stick a label on someone than to actually engage their argument isn't it ) If you actually bothered to read and understand my posts, you would see clearly that i haven't attacked any science. I have attacked the distortion and misrepresentation of science to make claims that are not properly substantiated. Indeed, but when the IPCC has been established under the auspices of the UN, an organisation renowned for it's staggering corruption, and when a person such as Christopher Landsea states that he saw the IPCC "as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound'' then i won't just access it's conclusions as unvarnished gospel truth. In addition, it has been well documented that the IPCC has been subject to political pressure from the Bush administration on behalf of the oil industry, yet another example of politics interfering with supposedly objective science. When scientists linked to the tobacco industry issue research on the relationship between tobacco and human health they are subjest to greater scrutiny than usual. Yet when scientists, whose research grants are dependent on political organisations, issue research on global warming we're supposed to simply accept that there couldn't be any resultant bias or distortion, even unconsciously. I'd like to see some clear cut, independently verifiable predictions. That would work for me. Not yet more statistical analysis and interpretation that can be interpreted in various ways.

No i did NOT. I have NOT argued that global warming is not taking place. I have argued that much of the 'evidence' presented in the public sphere for global warming is highly suspect due to political pressures. As such, i remain open minded about the matter. I have read several newspapers where those figures were quoted in editorals in support of the idea that not only was global warming a completely proven certainty but that it was a desperately urgent crisis. I think you still don't understand my point. I have read many distortions and misrepresentations of the science concerning global warming. It is clear that there are many groups with vested interests in using the global warming theory to promote there own interests. Therefore i remain sceptical of the theory. Just to clear up a surprisingly common miscomprehension, the word sceptical does NOT mean i disbelieve, it means i remain unconvinced at this moment. I take it you are capable of understanding the distinction?

I heartily agree. It's unfortunate that it has been used very widely as an indicator, as proof infact, of a crisis in the global climate. The science has been abused, twisted and distorted. Important policy decisions and public opinion are being formed on the basis of headlines which appear absolutely conclusive about things where there is still a great deal of uncertainty.

And yet the conclusions drawn from this inadequate data is used widely and stated as established fact. The scientific process has become hijacked by the political. Unfortunately, the policy makers do not seem in the slightest bit interested in impartial scientific analysis, instead the entire matter, conclusions and actions, are based on headlines and blatant propaganda. And the answer to your question is?

Yes, that's the point i'm trying to make. I see big headlines, the London Evening Standard actually had a headline that the world is ending when it reported the IPCC findings. A lot of very bold claims have been made, followed by demands for the most draconian of actions, all based on such data. Exactly. Which is why i choose to keep a certain scepticism concerning this subject. (Greek: skeptomai, to look about, to consider) I made one mistake, to confuse data relating to the USA with data relating to the world. It doesn't alter my point at all. My point is, that data was used very publically and vocally as 'proof' of the crisis of global warming when it was thought that the hottest decade in the USA was the 1990's, when the data was corrected and it was found that the hottest decade was the 1930's, suddenly it is all irrelevant and just a matter of anomalies to be overlooked. That is CLEAR evidence of misuse of science. Which makes it all the more reprehensible that the data is misrepresented in such an overly simplistic and misleading way, being used to make firm conclusions and statements of fact which it simply doesn't support. Unfortunately, the Earths climate undergoes a great deal of natural fluctuation which complicates any attempt to draw a trendline. This leaves a great deal of uncertainty and room for different inferences. And yet, we see opinions and hypotheses in these areas reported as conclusive fact. I also have seen several extraplations, supposedly 'proving' that we are on the verge of a new ice age. Trying to draw trendlines and then using them to predict the future is fraught with uncertainities. Yet the matter id=s presented as settled fact and very serious public policy decisions are being made on that basis. So forgive me if i remain dubious, there are simply too many vested interests concerned for any faith to be placed in the consensus.

True, i made a mistake there, just like NASA But my point stands. That is my point. A huge amount is being extrapolated from very small variations in very complex data. When it was thought that 1998 was the hottest year in the 20th century (in the USA) it was used very widely as supposedly powerful evidence of the immediate crisis of global warming. A tiny change in the data and suddenly it is giving completely different results and the hottest year of the 20th century is supposedly 1934. That is a pretty clear indication that data is being used in a HUGELY oversimplified way to make assertions that it can't safely substantiate. Which is why i remain sceptical. Too many headlines shouting about the end of the world and too many scientists who know that their research grants will only keep coming if their results back up the consensus. The politics has become too wrapped up in the science. You've just discredited yourself. Well done

Absolute truth? You do understand that we are discussing semantics don't you? You do know that NASA got their data wrong don't you? They have publically (although very quietly) admitted it. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2007/08/16/eaclimate116.xml http://www.thestar.com/article/246027 http://www.ocregister.com/ocregister/opinion/nationalcolumns/article_1804986.php NASA now accept, without any of the usual fanfare that accompanied the original announcement that the 1990's were the hottest decade on record that, yes, the 1930's were the hottest decade in the 20th century. And yet when it was thought that 1998 was the hottest year on record (as opposed to 1934), that was shouted from the rooftops as evidence of the major crisis facing the globe. Now, that has been shown to be false, silence. That's odd, it smacks of vested interests rather than an honest approach to the data. http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?isbn=0309102251 http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/hansen_07/ You have no idea how closely i have researched this area. You are wrong. Politics can easily distort science. I haven't made any appeals to authority at all. And as for handwaving..... No one here has mentioned censorship. It's just a shame that isn't the case and that personal denigrations are so quickly resorted to. Just ask Bjørn Lomborg.

I have read several calls for such things as 'Carbon rationing' and for the phase out of private transportation and the taxation of airtravel with the purpose of ending all so called 'cheap' holidays. These calls have been made by influential and respected figures. Check out George Monbiot if you really are interested. No, the use of the term "paleoconservative" clearly comes across as perjorative, regardless of your personal political sympathies. I remain unconvinced. I read reports like the IPCC and i see scaremongering. The science has become inextricably interwoven with politics. That makes me very suspicious that bad science is happening. My suspicions grow when i see the degree of intellectual and political bullying that is applied to this subject, the level of personal denigration leveled at any scientist who dares to question the consensus. Unfortunately, they have become inextricably intermingled. Absolutely. If you consider most of the proposals to 'combat' climate change, you will see that they are generally ineffective. When this is pointed out the reply is that they are 'symbolic' or give a 'moral high ground'. The Kyoto agreement so lauded by the 'Greens' even if obeyed in full would have had no measurable impact of global warming, it would however have cost hundreds of billions of dollars and kept millions in poorer countries in desperate poverty. On a completely unrelated note, for the last 10 years the Earths climate has been cooling and the hottest decade in the 20th century was the 1930's.

I'm constantly amazed that apparently serious commentators can still doubt that NAFTA is a good thing for all concerned. Do we really need to rehash the arguments about comparative advantage? Of course there will always be special interests who benefit from prtotectionism and will try and argue that they should be protected for the public good. I'm worried by how much these self serving and ultimnately dishonest positions are making it into the mainstream.

I don't understand. What or who is being 'nailed up'? And what moral burden are you refusing to accept?

I responded exactly in kind. If someone uses the word idiotic to describe an opinion, i fail to see why my using the exact same word in the exact same context to describe an opinion should be singled out. Kill al Sadr, his little 'holy' war ends. Leave him alone, his 'holy' war continues. No Catch 22 there. Despite the fact that victory is actually being achieved, you doubt that the Republicans will be able to claim victory. That opinion is difficult to understand. Force an agreeable conclusion by refusing to use any force but instead to run away. There is an obvious contradiction in your argument there.

What would be idiotic, is after spending all that money, and more importantly, all those lives, to NOW pull out, just as victory is finally being achieved. No, it's apparent to anyone who wants to see that the democratic Iraqi government is becoming stronger, Al Qaeda is being crushed and the militia are also being defeated. If you can't see that then it suggests wilfull blindness on your part. Actually, being responsible for our own actions. We (The West/The Coalition) went in, and we have a responsibility to support the establishment of the democratic government in Iraq. Do you really think in such cliches? Actually, what the administration is saying is that things ARE getting better and that the job needs to be finished before withdrawing. Like the way the Iraqi government and army are acting responsibily right now, getting stronger, beating Al Qaeda and the militias and dealing with sectarian issues in a peaceful, democratic manner. That's what will make Iraq a stable and peaceful nation, not abandoning the Iraqis to the gangsters. It's not a laugh, and it very much is 'our' fight. It's what is happening right now. Do you even bother following the actual events in Iraq? You do realise that he is being marginalised, that the people of Iraq are turning against him and his militia is being slowly but steadily destroyed. Apparently you have no idea what Catch 22 means.

The desperate bluster of a bully who is facing defeat. The only thing likely to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory for the coalition now is the fifth column tendency in the West. All the 'useful idiots' who would rather see America and her allies defeated because they are so blinded by hatred for GW Bush.

Except my example was a perfectly relevant use of a historical parrellel. Unlike yours. Maybe you need to recheck in to reality. You're the one who wrote that the main aim of the surge is to reduce American casualties. Very weird priorities, and very revealing about your character. I'd have thought most people who actually care about victory would have thought that the aim of the surge was, you know, that thing called victory. There are millions of people out there depending on that. And it is very very obvious that there are millions of people out there who do not have the interests of their country , Iraq and the world at heart. People so blinded by hatred for GW Bush that they'd prefer to see defeat in Iraq. A huge number of people are very invested in the idea of defeat, which is why they react so badly to any positive news from Iraq. Awwww, did i hurt your feeling? Grow up. al Sadr is linked with the Iranians, who obviously want to create as much chaos in Iraq as possible. al Sadr is losing, the Iraqi government and people are facing down him and his militia. The 'significant contingency' is signally for al Sadr and his gang to be disarmed, disbanded and kicked out. The tide has turned. They are the ones who have deliberately inflicted hurt on innocents as a tactic. They aren't feeling any hurt about that, but the Iraqi people are turning against them now, recognising them as the source of hurt to innocents, not the Western forces. On the contrary, the Iraqi government has acted as quickly and firmly as possible. It has been a very hard job for them, but they are doing it, fighting hard, taking casualties, and winning. Al Jazeera is not a very reliable source. al Sadr is a local militia leader of dwindling influence and important. He is certainly not the spiritual leader of Shias in Iraq. It's to create chaos. As far as Al Qaeda goes, the worse things are the better. They've almost lost, the Iraqi people have turned against them, their only chance is a premature American withdrawal and a secterian civil war breaking out. The first is a possibility considering the number of Americans who want to see America defeated, the second is looking less likely.

This is good. Anything that makes it harder for these frauds to be perpetuated on the vunerable and the gullible has to be a good thing.

Macro/Micro is a false distinction propagated by creationists. Either there is genetic change happening or there is not, that is the sole criteria that needs to be looked at.

If some people use the Olympics as an opportunity to protest and boycott it will let the Chinese government know the strength and depth of feeling around the world about their behaviour in Tibet and involvement in other areas such as Darfur. As China wishes to engage internationally and be dealt with, with respect, then an awareness of these opinions will have to be considered in their decision making processes.

Why'd you decide to keep going? Scared you might be unable to deal with their overpowering display of utterly convincing scientifically based research?

The Global Warming theory is used by many on the left/liberal political spectrum to push for increases in government power and control over all aspects of peoples lives. That is why so many so called 'paleoconservatives' (nice use of perjorative and biased language there) have a problem with the 'consensus' on global warming. especially as so many of the demanded solutions are completely ineffectual or even counterproductive.

Rehashing what should have been done nearly two decades ago isn't really very helpful. Do you really think that the Iraqis are that bigotted? There never was a 'Coalition of the Willing' to push the UN to do anything. The UN was always an obstructionary force which we now know was corrupted by the Hussien regime. As for a mythical 'moderate Muslim' coalition, what magic wand are you going to wave to create that?

So, he's singlehandedly derailed the entire discussion and made people who have concerns about China afraid to voice them for fear of guilt by asscociation. He won't respond to reason, that doesn't mean that reason should be abandoned and irrational and emotional arguments used instead. Surely the obvious thing is to ignore him, not to descend to his level.

Just because racists tend to be stupid and Norman is stupid does not logically lead to the conclusion that Norman is a racist. Come on, you know better than that. I doubt it, he's had the opportunities to respond, thinking that accusing him of racism is going to get a better response doesn't make sense. It does mean that iNow has descended to his subrational level. Anyway, i hate the way that discussions on China aways descend to these false lies about racism. It's a contemptible, dishonest diversion i see a lot, to state or imply that any criticism of China must be motivated by racism. I don't see it claimed when people criticse America or France or Sudan, yet it always comes up with China. This deliberate refusal to see the difference between disagreeing with the Chinese regime and disliking the Ethnic Han group.

Which is exactly what is happening. What's this argument about? The surge has worked. The Iraqi government and army are getting much stronger and forcing the militias to back down. al-Qaeda in Iraq is almost broken. And the complaints come because some artifical deadline hasn't been kept to? I can just imagine how that would have gone down in the past 'General Eisenhower (Lies n' Power), you have failed and betrayed your country. You have only given the West victory by May of 1945 when the Deadline for victory was for March 1945! Disgraceful! What is happening is Iraq is victory, after a slow, long bloody process with a lot of setbacks, victory is finally being achieved. It looks like there are a lot of people who simply don't want to see victory, they'd prefer to see defeat. Maybe it would help give them that little thrill of self righteousness as they criticise GW Bush, and that has got to be more important that the lives of millions, right?

You choose to imply that he is a racist. Don't whine when he responds, it makes you look either hypocritical or just plain stupid. Wake up. This planet is full of 'us and them'. Trying to pretend otherwise is just ignoring all of reality. When it comes to China, there is a VERY clear distinction between the Chinese and the Tibetans. Complaining that they are 'old labels' which don't work for 'our mutual benefit' is just an abdication of reason and intelligence in the face of an unpleasant reality.

The Iraqi government is finally getting to grips with the private armies that are bedevilling that country. It's a huge sign of progress.