Home FAQ Search Memberlist User Groups Register Login   

BloggingTories.ca Forum IndexBloggingTories.ca Forum Index
    Index     FAQ     Search     Register     Login         JOIN THE DISCUSSION - CLICK HERE      

*NEW* Login or register using your Facebook account.

Not a member? Join the fastest growing conservative community!
Membership is free and takes 15 seconds


CLICK HERE or use Facebook to login or register ----> Connect



Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next  

Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 2 of 5
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Craig Smith





Joined: 04 Jan 2009
Posts: 244
Reputation: 42Reputation: 42Reputation: 42Reputation: 42

PostPosted: Sun Nov 22, 2009 1:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

From: Joseph Alcamo <alcamo>
To: m.hulme@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Rob.Swart@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Timing, Distribution of the Statement
Date: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 18:52:33 0100
Reply-to: alcamo@xxxxxxxxx.xxx

Mike, Rob,

Sounds like you guys have been busy doing good things for the cause.

I would like to weigh in on two important questions --

Distribution for Endorsements --
I am very strongly in favor of as wide and rapid a distribution as
possible for endorsements. I think the only thing that counts is
numbers. The media is going to say "1000 scientists signed" or "1500
signed". No one is going to check if it is 600 with PhDs versus 2000
without.
They will mention the prominent ones, but that is a
different story.

Conclusion -- Forget the screening, forget asking
them about their last publication (most will ignore you.) Get those
names!


Timing -- I feel strongly that the week of 24 November is too late.
1. We wanted to announce the Statement in the period when there was
a sag in related news, but in the week before Kyoto we should expect
that we will have to crowd out many other articles about climate.
2. If the Statement comes out just a few days before Kyoto I am
afraid that the delegates who we want to influence will not have any
time to pay attention to it. We should give them a few weeks to hear
about it.
3. If Greenpeace is having an event the week before, we should have
it a week before them so that they and other NGOs can further spread
the word about the Statement. On the other hand, it wouldn't be so
bad to release the Statement in the same week, but on a
diffeent day. The media might enjoy hearing the message from two
very different directions.

Conclusion -- I suggest the week of 10 November, or the week of 17
November at the latest.

Mike -- I have no organized email list that could begin to compete
with the list you can get from the Dutch. But I am still
willing to send you what I have, if you wish.

Best wishes,

Joe Alcamo
RuralandRight





Joined: 30 Dec 2008
Posts: 618
Reputation: 41.5Reputation: 41.5Reputation: 41.5Reputation: 41.5
votes: 5
Location: Rural Canada

PostPosted: Sun Nov 22, 2009 1:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

FF_Canuck wrote:
Seriously, this story is exploding all over the UK, Australia, New Zealand, and to a lesser extent, the United States. Hardly a word about it in Canada - they must be waiting for the Warmists to get some good spin on. My guess? They're going to overemphasize 'the hack' and until the internet runs out of gas.


It was in the National Post yesterday and yes 'the Hack' was in the headline, an inconvenient truth perhaps :lol: .

Article:Hacked emails cause climate change stir
Craig Smith





Joined: 04 Jan 2009
Posts: 244
Reputation: 42Reputation: 42Reputation: 42Reputation: 42

PostPosted: Sun Nov 22, 2009 1:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Gotta love this guys response...

From: Tom Wigley <wigley>
To: jan.goudriaan@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, grassl_h@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Klaus Hasselmann <klaus>, Jill Jaeger <jaeger>, rector@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, oriordan@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, uctpa84@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, john@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, mparry@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, pier.vellinga@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Re: ATTENTION. Invitation to influence Kyoto.
Date: Tue, 25 Nov 1997 11:52:09 -0700 (MST)
Reply-to: Tom Wigley <wigley>
Cc: Mike Hulme <m>, t.mitchell@xxxxxxxxx.xxx

Dear Eleven,

I was very disturbed by your recent letter, and your attempt to get
others to endorse it. Not only do I disagree with the content of
this letter, but I also believe that you have severely distorted the
IPCC "view" when you say that "the latest IPCC assessment makes a
convincing economic case for immediate control of emissions." In contrast
to the one-sided opinion expressed in your letter, IPCC WGIII SAR and TP3
review the literature and the issues in a balanced way presenting
arguments in support of both "immediate control" and the spectrum of more
cost-effective options. It is not IPCC's role to make "convincing cases"
for any particular policy option; nor does it.
However, most IPCC readers
would draw the conclusion that the balance of economic evidence favors the
emissions trajectories given in the WRE paper. This is contrary to your
statement.

This is a complex issue, and your misrepresentation of it does you a
dis-service. To someone like me, who knows the science, it is
apparent that you are presenting a personal view, not an informed,
balanced scientific assessment. What is unfortunate is that this will not
be apparent to the vast majority of scientists you have contacted. In
issues like this, scientists have an added responsibility to keep their
personal views separate from the science, and to make it clear to others
when they diverge from the objectivity they (hopefully) adhere to in their
scientific research. I think you have failed to do this.


Your approach of trying to gain scientific credibility for your personal
views by asking people to endorse your letter is reprehensible. No
scientist who wishes to maintain respect in the community should ever
endorse any statement unless they have examined the issue fully
themselves. You are asking people to prostitute themselves by doing just
this!
I fear that some will endorse your letter, in the mistaken belief
that you are making a balanced and knowledgeable assessment of the science
-- [/b]when, in fact, you are presenting a flawed view that neither accords
with IPCC nor with the bulk of the scientific and economic literature on
the subject.[/b]

Let me remind you of the science. The issue you address is one of the
timing of emissions reductions below BAU. Note that this is not the same
as the timing of action -- and note that your letter categorically
addresses the former rather than the latter issue. Emissions reduction
timing is epitomized by the differences between the Sxxx and WRExxx
pathways towards CO2 concentration stabilization. It has been clearly
demonstrated in the literature that the mitigation costs of following an
Sxxx pathway are up to five times the cost of following an equivalent
WRExxx pathway. It has also been shown that there is likely to be an
equal or greater cost differential for non-Annex I countries, and that the
economic burden in Annex I countries would fall disproportionately on
poorer people.

Furthermore, since there has been no credible analysis of the benefits
(averted impacts) side of the equation, it is impossible to assess fully
the benefits differential between the Sxxx and WRExxx stabilization
profiles. Indeed, uncertainties in predicting the regional details of
future climate change that would arise from following these pathways, and
the even greater uncertainties that attend any assessment of the impacts
of such climate changes, preclude any credible assessment of the relative
benefits. As shown in the WRE paper (Nature v. 379, pp. 240-243), the
differentials at the global-mean level are so small, at most a few tenths
of a degree Celsius and a few cm in sea level rise and declining to
minuscule amounts as the pathways approach the SAME target, that it is
unlikely that an analysis of future climate data could even distinguish
between the pathways. Certainly, given the much larger noise at the
regional level, and noting that even the absolute changes in many
variables at the regional level remain within the noise out to 2030 or
later, the two pathways would certainly be indistinguishable at the
regional level until well into the 21st century.

The crux of this issue is developing policies for controlling greenhouse
gas emissions where the reductions relative to BAU are neither too much,
too soon (which could cause serious economic hardship to those who are
most vulnerable, poor people and poor countries) nor too little, too late
(which could lead to future impacts that would be bad for future
generations of the same groups). Our ability to quantify the economic
consequences of "too much, too soon" is far better than our ability to
quantify the impacts that might arise from "too little, too late" -- to
the extent that we cannot even define what this means! You appear to be
putting too much weight on the highly uncertain impacts side of the
equation. Worse than this, you have not even explained what the issues
are. In my judgment, you are behaving in an irresponsible way that does
you little credit. Furthermore, you have compounded your sin by actually
putting a lie into the mouths of innocents ("after carefully examining the
question of timing of emissions reductions, we find the arguments against
postponement to be more compelling"). People who endorse your letter will
NOT have "carefully examined" the issue.

When scientists color the science with their own PERSONAL views or make
categorical statements without presenting the evidence for such
statements, they have a clear responsibility to state that that is what
they are doing. You have failed to do so. Indeed, what you are doing is,
in my view, a form of dishonesty more subtle but no less egregious than
the statements made by the greenhouse skeptics, Michaels, Singer et al. I
find this extremely disturbing.


Tom Wigley
kwlafayette





Joined: 03 Sep 2006
Posts: 6155
Reputation: 156.2Reputation: 156.2
votes: 28
Location: Saskatoon Saskatchewan

PostPosted: Sun Nov 22, 2009 1:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Nobody panic. All the investments in green technology, the subsidies for electric cars, cash for clunkers, money for wind generation, none of that will stop. In fact, it may get increased in the panic over all of this.

If you sunk big money into green, do not worry, the government will not stop the gravy train for years to come.
WBD





Joined: 02 Mar 2008
Posts: 46
Reputation: 38.7Reputation: 38.7Reputation: 38.7Reputation: 38.7

PostPosted: Sun Nov 22, 2009 2:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

RuralandRight wrote:
FF_Canuck wrote:
Seriously, this story is exploding all over the UK, Australia, New Zealand, and to a lesser extent, the United States. Hardly a word about it in Canada - they must be waiting for the Warmists to get some good spin on. My guess? They're going to overemphasize 'the hack' and until the internet runs out of gas.


It was in the National Post yesterday and yes 'the Hack' was in the headline, an inconvenient truth perhaps :lol: .

Article:Hacked emails cause climate change stir


I checked the article at the National Post and it is basically the same one that appeared in the NYT written by Andrew Revkin. I believe his name showes up in the hacked emails. Here's a quote from Dr. Ball in the CFP article.

"They also had a left wing conduit to the New York Times. The emails between Andy Revkin and the community are very revealing and must place his journalistic integrity in serious jeopardy."

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/17102

Too bad the Post didn't do their own piece on this instead of using something written by one of CRU's mouthpieces.

Bill in Calgary
Craig Smith





Joined: 04 Jan 2009
Posts: 244
Reputation: 42Reputation: 42Reputation: 42Reputation: 42

PostPosted: Sun Nov 22, 2009 2:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

kwlafayette wrote:
Nobody panic. All the investments in green technology, the subsidies for electric cars, cash for clunkers, money for wind generation, none of that will stop. In fact, it may get increased in the panic over all of this.

If you sunk big money into green, do not worry, the government will not stop the gravy train for years to come.


I think you need to learn the difference between "green" and global warming. Anyone who thinks putting mercury into rivers is okay needs to have their head screwed on tighter. This is about global warming not "green". By confusing the two you are no better than these folks.

Stephen Harper gets it. Which is why he tackles things like urban smog instead of CO2. It is too bad that you are so anti-green that you can't even support worthwhile green initiatives. It really taints your credibility when you just oppose anything with the word "green" in it.
FF_Canuck





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 3360
Reputation: 73.4
votes: 17
Location: Southern Alberta

PostPosted: Sun Nov 22, 2009 9:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Craig wrote:
It is too bad that you are so anti-green that you can't even support worthwhile green initiatives. It really taints your credibility when you just oppose anything with the word "green" in it.

I challenge you to find some serious environmental advocacy from the turn of the millenium that is not hitched to the global warming bandwagon. Everything kwlafayette mentioned is a bad policy specifically spurred on by AGW hysteria.

The side effects of the new 'Green' movement outrage true environmentalists, like Patrick Moore, Canadian founder (and former member) of Greenpeace. All this focus on climate change has deprived real environmental science research of hundreds of millions of dollars, and distorted that which still gets done. Many have long worried of the damage done to environmentalism in the public eye when AGW collapses under it's own weight.

Worst of all, many of the foolish policies already implemented have actually harmed in the environment in actual, tangible ways... ill considered alternative energy projects, (most notably massive wind farms) contribute to habitat defragmentation and wildlife mortality in the first world. Government subsidies for food-to-fuel drive massive deforestation and poor agricultural practices in the developing world. Carbon control schemes move industry from countries with strict pollution control to countries with hardly any. The list goes on...

In a bitter irony, the movement to combat climate change has been one of the largest drivers of human-caused environmental damage in the 21st century. So I'll forgive some people their skepticism towards the official Green movement.
Craig Smith





Joined: 04 Jan 2009
Posts: 244
Reputation: 42Reputation: 42Reputation: 42Reputation: 42

PostPosted: Sun Nov 22, 2009 10:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

FF_Canuck wrote:
Craig wrote:
It is too bad that you are so anti-green that you can't even support worthwhile green initiatives. It really taints your credibility when you just oppose anything with the word "green" in it.

I challenge you to find some serious environmental advocacy from the turn of the millenium that is not hitched to the global warming bandwagon. Everything kwlafayette mentioned is a bad policy specifically spurred on by AGW hysteria.

The side effects of the new 'Green' movement outrage true environmentalists, like Patrick Moore, Canadian founder (and former member) of Greenpeace. All this focus on climate change has deprived real environmental science research of hundreds of millions of dollars, and distorted that which still gets done. Many have long worried of the damage done to environmentalism in the public eye when AGW collapses under it's own weight.

Worst of all, many of the foolish policies already implemented have actually harmed in the environment in actual, tangible ways... ill considered alternative energy projects, (most notably massive wind farms) contribute to habitat defragmentation and wildlife mortality in the first world. Government subsidies for food-to-fuel drive massive deforestation and poor agricultural practices in the developing world. Carbon control schemes move industry from countries with strict pollution control to countries with hardly any. The list goes on...

In a bitter irony, the movement to combat climate change has been one of the largest drivers of human-caused environmental damage in the 21st century. So I'll forgive some people their skepticism towards the official Green movement.


Are you saying that efforts to reduce urban smog, acid rain, and water pollution are a waste of time and money? The concerted efforts to eliminate acid rain the seventies was a huge success. And electric cars will eliminate urban smog.

You can't seriously make a blanket statement that all green initiatives are bad.
JBG





Joined: 03 Oct 2007
Posts: 823
Reputation: 93.1Reputation: 93.1
votes: 8
Location: NYC Area

PostPosted: Sun Nov 22, 2009 11:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

RuralandRight wrote:
FF_Canuck wrote:
Seriously, this story is exploding all over the UK, Australia, New Zealand, and to a lesser extent, the United States. Hardly a word about it in Canada - they must be waiting for the Warmists to get some good spin on. My guess? They're going to overemphasize 'the hack' and until the internet runs out of gas.


It was in the National Post yesterday and yes 'the Hack' was in the headline, an inconvenient truth perhaps :lol: .

Article:Hacked emails cause climate change stir
I'm seeing the story everywhere myself. Quite a shock. Not.
FF_Canuck





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 3360
Reputation: 73.4
votes: 17
Location: Southern Alberta

PostPosted: Sun Nov 22, 2009 11:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Craig wrote:
You can't seriously make a blanket statement that all green initiatives are bad.


No, I couldn't ... which is why I did not. I support evidence-based environmental protection for real problems, especially when they make use of free market or stewardship principles. I do look askance at regressive policies and movements aimed at controlling 'green house gases', as well as any supposedly green initiative that totally disregards impacts to human health or prosperity.
Pissedoff





Joined: 06 Sep 2006
Posts: 474
Reputation: 145.6
votes: 3
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Mon Nov 23, 2009 1:31 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Craig Wrote

Quote:
I think you need to learn the difference between "green" and global warming. Anyone who thinks putting mercury into rivers is okay needs to have their head screwed on tighter. This is about global warming not "green". By confusing the two you are no better than these folks.

Stephen Harper gets it. Which is why he tackles things like urban smog instead of CO2.


I suppose this is why Harper and the cons are banning the incandescent light bulb so all the landfills and water table get poisoned with these mercury filled toxic CFLs

Canada to ban incandescent light bulbs by 2012

http://www.reuters.com/article.....3520070425
Mac





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 5500
Reputation: 104
votes: 35
Location: John Baird's riding...

PostPosted: Mon Nov 23, 2009 9:59 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Pissedoff wrote:
I suppose this is why Harper and the cons are banning the incandescent light bulb so all the landfills and water table get poisoned with these mercury filled toxic CFLs

Canada to ban incandescent light bulbs by 2012

http://www.reuters.com/article.....3520070425

I'm not a fan of banning things. All it does is create black market opportunities.

With any amount of luck, LED lights will be affordable by that time. They're more efficient, longer-lasting and can be closer to natural light than CFLs.

-Mac
Craig
Site Admin




Joined: 29 Aug 2006
Posts: 4415
Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8
votes: 36

PostPosted: Mon Nov 23, 2009 10:04 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

FF_Canuck wrote:
Craig wrote:
You can't seriously make a blanket statement that all green initiatives are bad.


No, I couldn't ... which is why I did not. I support evidence-based environmental protection for real problems, especially when they make use of free market or stewardship principles. I do look askance at regressive policies and movements aimed at controlling 'green house gases', as well as any supposedly green initiative that totally disregards impacts to human health or prosperity.


Good. So I guess we agree. Some green policies are good and some bad. Which is why I was critical of buddy for opposing EVERYTHING with the word "green" in it.
Craig
Site Admin




Joined: 29 Aug 2006
Posts: 4415
Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8
votes: 36

PostPosted: Mon Nov 23, 2009 10:04 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Pissedoff wrote:
Craig Wrote

Quote:
I think you need to learn the difference between "green" and global warming. Anyone who thinks putting mercury into rivers is okay needs to have their head screwed on tighter. This is about global warming not "green". By confusing the two you are no better than these folks.

Stephen Harper gets it. Which is why he tackles things like urban smog instead of CO2.


I suppose this is why Harper and the cons are banning the incandescent light bulb so all the landfills and water table get poisoned with these mercury filled toxic CFLs

Canada to ban incandescent light bulbs by 2012

http://www.reuters.com/article.....3520070425


Which is why I use LED lights in my house.
Some Guy 2.0





Joined: 05 Jan 2009
Posts: 304
Reputation: 21Reputation: 21
votes: 2

PostPosted: Mon Nov 23, 2009 10:07 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I will be at Stephen Fletcher's office this week, today if James White is there, to talk to them about the incandescent light ban, now that we know that "Global Warming" is nothing but a sham.
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 2 of 5

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next  


 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Climate Scientist's Files LEAKED!

phpBBCopyright 2001, 2005 phpBB