Forum Index » Chaff » The Carbon Flame War


Display Avatars Sort By:
Rog Tallbloke
(tallbloke) - F

Locale: DON'T LOOK DOWN!!
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Government on 11/18/2010 13:58:30 MST Print View

Lynn says:
New Zealand’s government research workforce is highly skilled and their experience allows for cost-effective research.



*cough*
NIWA is a Crown owned research and consultancy company

The New Zealand Climate Science Education Trust (NZCSET) has taken legal action against the National Institute for Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA), a ‘Crown Research Institute’ contracted by the NZ Government to be its sole adviser on scientific issues relating to climate change. Instead of using the New Zealand Met Service temperature record that shows no warming during the last century, NIWA has adopted an “adjusted” record of seven surface stations that shows a 1 deg. C rise, almost 50% above the global average for that period.

Now, NIWA has disowned the record and says there is no official temperature record for New Zealand.

See NZCSET Statement of Claim: download pdf here.

See NIWA Statement of Defence: download pdf here.

"NIWA formally denies all responsibility for the national temperature record (NZTR) ... and apparently there’s no such thing as an “official” New Zealand Temperature Record anyway" according to a summary of the case so far.

Due to the international significance of this case, ICSC will keep readers up to date as this legal action unfolds.

http://www.climatescienceinternational.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=335

Lynn Tramper
(retropump) - F

Locale: The Antipodes of La Coruna
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Government on 11/18/2010 14:20:38 MST Print View

"NIWA is a Crown owned research and consultancy company"

True, but it is just one of many, and they do not all behave as badly. I believe US researchers, government, non-government, and private, hold the world's record for the most publication retractions do to error or fraud...by a large margin. There is bad science everywhere, but on the whole most researchers are honest and diligent. And on the whole, NZ (and I believe Australian) government research is of a high standard and delivered efficiently, NIWA aside. I'm sure there is efficient US government research in the US as well, but I can't speculate on the proportion. I know we have a lot of collaboration with US researchers due to the fact that we can usually get it done for a lot less money here.

Roger Caffin
(rcaffin) - BPL Staff - MLife

Locale: Wollemi & Kosciusko NPs, Europe
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Government on 11/18/2010 14:27:46 MST Print View

Well, I'll say this much for you Rog. You certainly are working very hard to stay in contact with both sides of the issue. That in itself is much appreciated.

Cheers
PS: 'download pdf here' does not seem to work for me?

Rog Tallbloke
(tallbloke) - F

Locale: DON'T LOOK DOWN!!
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Government on 11/18/2010 14:52:06 MST Print View

Roger, go to the link I posted. the links to the pdf's are there.

Cheers

Rog Tallbloke
(tallbloke) - F

Locale: DON'T LOOK DOWN!!
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Government on 11/18/2010 14:59:01 MST Print View

Lynn says:
on the whole most researchers are honest and diligent


Absolutely agree, and I hope I haven't given the impression I believe otherwise by concentrating on the abuses of science by a small clique which has gamed the peer review system and led us all a dance.

The problem that needs addressing is that such a small clique was able to gain so much influence that they could set the research agenda and influence the funding prospects of any who offered any resistance to their agenda. As Judy Curry said in her congressional testimony:

"The need for climate researchers to engage with social scientists and engineers has never been more important. Further, there is an increasing need for social scientists and philosophers of science to scrutinize and analyze our field to prevent dysfunction at the science-policy interface."

Hey, I'm doubly qualified!

My brief analysis is this:

The Policy makers wanted a clear message which wasn't muddied by contradictory evidence. They influenced the funding bodies to channel research funds to 'on message' institutions who allowed the piper's paymaster to call the tune. The gravy train was irrestistable to all the rest of the institutions who manouvered naysaying academics and committee members out of the way and joined in the goldrush. Certain Journal editors got to play God and choose what would be published and what wouldn't, regardless of it's academic merit (Not mentioning any names, 'Nature' and 'Science'). The Climate Clique gained aufficient power to armtwist other Journal editors in complying.

Everyone got to fly to Bali!

Edited by tallbloke on 11/18/2010 15:27:57 MST.

Bob Gross
(--B.G.--) - F

Locale: Silicon Valley
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Government on 11/18/2010 15:02:06 MST Print View

Engineers and philosophers of science?

Isn't that kind of like trying to mix oil and water?

I would rather grow up to be a metaphysician.

--B.G.--

Rog Tallbloke
(tallbloke) - F

Locale: DON'T LOOK DOWN!!
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Government on 11/18/2010 15:22:00 MST Print View

Bob says:
"Engineers and philosophers of science?
Isn't that kind of like trying to mix oil and water?"


Yes, I'm also a petrolhead Aquarian who races old TVR sportsters in some of his spare time. ;-)

I would rather grow up to be a metaphysician.

I stink, therefore, I am.

Edited by tallbloke on 11/18/2010 15:24:54 MST.

Roger Caffin
(rcaffin) - BPL Staff - MLife

Locale: Wollemi & Kosciusko NPs, Europe
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Government on 11/18/2010 16:56:45 MST Print View

Hi Rog T

> Roger, go to the link I posted. the links to the pdf's are there.

They aren't. The page source shows no sign of any link either.
Some credibility is at stake here. Can you help?

Cheers

Tom Kirchner
(ouzel) - MLife

Locale: Pacific Northwest/Sierra
Re: corporations - campaign and congressional lobby finance reform@Craig on 11/18/2010 16:56:49 MST Print View

How farsighted! Thanks for posting this, Craig.

Tom Kirchner
(ouzel) - MLife

Locale: Pacific Northwest/Sierra
Re: Re:Taxes on 11/18/2010 17:00:46 MST Print View

"This embarrasses me on their behalves to see how greedy and self-centred some can be. Sorry if I've just offended some..."

Spoken from the heart, Lynn, well and true. You sure haven't offended me, for one. I will be most curious to see who does have the wherewithal to take offense at such a humane statement. Publically, that is.

Tom Kirchner
(ouzel) - MLife

Locale: Pacific Northwest/Sierra
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Government on 11/18/2010 17:10:39 MST Print View

"What we originally had in the US; a Republic. A representative government, which protects the rights of the individual through a constitution and Bill of Rights."

So far, so good. But were the representatives not elected democratically?

"A democracy is simply majority rules. No protection by a constitution or Bill of Rights. That is why the US founders did not institute a democracy."

I have always been under the impression democracy referred to means by which a people chooses its leaders, with each qualified citizen casting a vote. Within this general category, the voting can be direct or indirect. It seems you are referring to pure democracy, which basically amount to mob rule. Most functioning democratic political systems today are a bit more sophisticated than that.

Rog Tallbloke
(tallbloke) - F

Locale: DON'T LOOK DOWN!!
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Government on 11/18/2010 17:44:01 MST Print View

Roger C says:
"Roger, go to the link I posted. the links to the pdf's are there."

They aren't. The page source shows no sign of any link either.
Some credibility is at stake here. Can you help?


You're right. They were live links when I last visited the page a while ago, but although the 'here' of 'download here' is still highlighted in blue, the links are gone. Unfortunately I didn't save copies of the docs. I guess maybe some legal issue has arisen with making the docs available to the great unwashed.

The only working link summarising NIWA's defense statement is the one below. (partisan account warning)
http://www.climateconversation.wordshine.co.nz/2010/10/observations-on-niwas-statement-of-defence/

Which contains a link to the evidence the plaintff's based their case on.
http://www.climateconversation.wordshine.co.nz/docs/awfw/are-we-feeling-warmer-yet.htm

AHA! Found 'em elsewhere. Here you go:

http://nzclimatescience.net/images/PDFs/statement_of_defence.pdf

http://nzclimatescience.net/images/PDFs/statement_of_claim.pdf

Edited by tallbloke on 11/18/2010 17:59:01 MST.

Tom Kirchner
(ouzel) - MLife

Locale: Pacific Northwest/Sierra
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: no light either. on 11/18/2010 17:45:01 MST Print View

"A corporation is owned by the stockholders, not the people who work for it. Of course the workers can be part-owners if they wish to purchase stock."

It's not a question of ownership but, rather, a question of equal 1st Amendment rights. A corporation, treated as a person for 1st Amendment purposes, can use the enormous amount of money it has at its disposal as a result of the collective efforts of thousands of workers, to drown out their voices with huge campaign contributions they could never hope to match on their own, thereby nullifying THEIR 1st Amendment rights. It is a perversion of the 1st Amendment that must cause the Founding fathers to roll over in their graves. To treat it an issue of ownership is disingenuous, IMO. The same principle applies to the stockholders. Stock ownership is generally concentrated in the hands of a very few large institutions and wealthy individuals, all of whom have the same general political leanings. Similarly with interlocking boards of directors. The little guy has no chance to voice effective dissent. BTW, I'm trying to remember the last time a CEO was fired because the board disagreed with the recipients of the corporation's campaign contributions, ditto with stockholders turning out a board of directors for the same transgression. Perhaps you can help me here, Nick?

Edited by ouzel on 11/18/2010 17:49:06 MST.

Lyan Jordan
(redmonk)

Locale: Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem
The Carbon Flame War on 11/18/2010 17:50:31 MST Print View

Simplified, but a Republic is a government where the people elect representatives.

Democracy is government where the people get to vote on legislation.

George Matthews
(gmatthews) - MLife
Re: The Carbon Flame War on 11/18/2010 18:12:25 MST Print View

MUST READ!


http://www.theonion.com/articles/report-global-warming-issue-from-2-or-3-years-ago,18431/

Miguel Arboleda
(butuki) - MLife

Locale: Kanto Plain, Japan
Re: no light either. on 11/18/2010 19:21:48 MST Print View

It's not a question of ownership but, rather, a question of equal 1st Amendment rights. A corporation, treated as a person for 1st Amendment purposes, can use the enormous amount of money it has at its disposal as a result of the collective efforts of thousands of workers, to drown out their voices with huge campaign contributions they could never hope to match on their own, thereby nullifying THEIR 1st Amendment rights. It is a perversion of the 1st Amendment that must cause the Founding fathers to roll over in their graves.

Nick, it didn't come together for me until I read Tom's comment above. I'm curious how you, who advocates the supreme unfettering of the individual, at the basic, one-personl denomination, can at the same time defend the idea of a collective of individuals, often with tens of thousands of members, having the same rights or standing as an individual? How does signing a contract and then working for a corporation somehow automatically give the corporation the right to curtail those rights that were guaranteed by the constitution? It doesn't matter where one is or who one works for, those rights continue to apply.

I think it is disingenuous, and rather disgusting, to corrupt the word "individual" into something that it was never meant to mean. I can think of few better examples of doublespeak than this. Some of you might recall 1984", by George Orwell: "Winston sank his arms to his sides and slowly refilled his lungs with air. His mind slid away into the labyrinthine world of doublethink. To know and not to know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies, to hold simultaneously two opinions which cancelled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them… - (Orwell, New American Library, 1981, p35)" The audacity of using this doublespeak so brashly for all the world to see is also indicative of Orwell's other concept, "newspeak", the destruction of the language for political power. As the character Syme, in 1984, said, ""It's a beautiful thing, the destruction of words.". Orwell's predictions keep proving more and more true.

The "Founding Fathers" (sorry I have a lot of trouble with this phrase... not only is it disrespectful of women in its patriarchal tone, but it sounds like the honorifics of a religious cult. They were just people. People with good ideas and a strong grasp of justice, but people none the less) lived in a very different time to our own. Corporations as we know them today didn't exist. I wonder how the founders of the US would have dealt with the question of corporations having the same rights as individuals? Somehow I doubt they would have approved.

I do find it interesting that a corporation like the Hudson Bay Company, one of the oldest corporations in the world, was never categorized as an individual. Though if they could have gotten away with it most likely they, too, would have.

Edited by butuki on 11/18/2010 19:25:09 MST.

Jason Elsworth
(jephoto) - M

Locale: New Zealand
Corporate personhood on 11/18/2010 19:51:34 MST Print View

It's an interesting and complex topic. Worth a read if you have the time. I am currently reading Rushkoff's book.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood

http://rushkoff.com/books/life-incorporated/life-inc-chapter-one/

Nick Gatel
(ngatel) - MLife

Locale: Southern California
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Government on 11/18/2010 20:19:03 MST Print View

Engineers and philosophers of science?

Isn't that kind of like trying to mix oil and water?

I would rather grow up to be a metaphysician.

--------------------------------------------------------------
The four main branches of philosophy
1. Epistemology
2. Metaphysics
3. Logic
4. Ethics

All other branches depend on these four.

Philosophy of Science is (quoted from Wikipedia because I don't have time to type):

"Study of science concerned with whether scientific knowledge can be said to be certain, how we obtain it, can science really explain everything, does causation really exist, can every event in the universe be described in terms of physics and so on."

I do not think engineers can exist without philosophy.

Miguel Arboleda
(butuki) - MLife

Locale: Kanto Plain, Japan
Re: Government on 11/18/2010 20:20:10 MST Print View

Engineers and philosophers of science?

Isn't that kind of like trying to mix oil and water?


Don't forget, though, that modern science has its roots in philosophy and all the experimentation and musings of generations of philosophers is what established the logic and methodology of what is considered "good science" today. Aristotle, Pythagoras, Plato, Sophocles, the Arabs (yes, the Arabs... mathematics and algebra, an Arab word, and many branches of science were greatly advanced by what Arab philosophers and thinkers were doing... people throughout Europe flocked to the great Arab cities to study under the masters there. During the Middle Ages the Arabs were among the most scientifically advanced civilizations in the world), Galileo, Tycho Brahe, Kepler, Copernicus and many others were all more philosopher (in the old sense, of someone who "loves knowledge") than just scientist.

And contradictorily, the Catholic Church was also one of the earliest proponents of science. Much early science was conducted by Catholic monks, who for centuries were among the only people in Europe who could read and write. In the 1800's Gregor Mendel, a Catholic monk, did the first important studies in genetics). Galileo, Copernicus, and Kepler were all patronized by the Church. It is easy to be lazy and simply reduce history to black and white, but the truth is quite a lot grayer. Here is an interesting discussion about the Church's role in science. (I am not Christian... I am agnostic, recently growing more and more toward atheism, or at least away from the concept of a single, fatherlike, omniscient, omnipotent disembodied entity).

Science in the West today follows a very specific, culturally-molded model that is very western in design and execution. It tends to be linear in thinking and bases its conclusion on the idea of cause and effect. Cybernetics as envisioned by Gregory Bateson has shown that the idea of linear cause and effect has problems. Bateson, in "The Ecology of Mind" explains how perception has as much influence upon the workings of the world, as physical initiation. Other theories and hypotheses also turn the idea of a linear logic universe on its head. The Chinese concept of science, often eschewed by the western scientific community, addresses different aspects of the world that are often circular or spiral in concept. Only recently have the two begun to consult and look at previously impenetrable questions.

I maintain that philosophy (which is emphatically not the same thing as religiosity and spirituality... I think people mix up the three) allows thinkers an added dimension to their inquiries which the scientific empirical method falls short of. I suspect there are new ways of thinking not yet discovered which will allow people to ask better questions and see answers they could not have envisioned with the methods we have now. It is also our inability to perceive aspects of the world (be it the limitations of our senses and instruments, the limitations of our intellectual acuity, the boundaries of our cultural mores, the specifics, character, and available vocabulary of our language, or the ignorance of the possibilities of the universe) that determines the questions we ask (for instance it could be the very attitude of wanting to ask questions that may limit our ability to perceive and understand).

I think too much of the science community has become entrenched in what is "within" science and "outside". Limitations have been imposed on what is supposed to be an open discussion of all knowledge. That in itself closes the inquiries and influences the results of the experiments.

Edited by butuki on 11/18/2010 23:09:47 MST.

Miguel Arboleda
(butuki) - MLife

Locale: Kanto Plain, Japan
Re: Government on 11/18/2010 20:27:45 MST Print View

Nick, just saw your latest comment. Wow, we actually very much agree on something! Cool! :-)