What Do We Think About Climate Change

#2 man at the UN, founder of the UNFCCC.

Jimbo

 

One of my first years fishing up north was the last year for an old Norski. He was retiring, selling his boat and permit. He'd decided to make a celebratory barrel of old time hard salted fish. He'd had an old time wood barrel custom made and spent much effort selecting only perfect fish and doing everything just so. He was an old timer from Ballard. Tall, rangy, a mite deaf so he had a loud voice with a thick scandihoovian accent. Still a very powerful man in his late 70's.

At the end of the season his prize was ready. He was more interested in that than the details of putting his boat, which he loved, to rest and saying goodby to her. A beautiful boat, well kept, named after his wife and daughter. A tentative deal in the works.

Fast forward SeaTac airport. Lack of pressurization in baggage or something had popped the bung out of the barrel. Brine had liberally coated many pieces of luggage. Already a long line of tourists were lined up to complain. Now Ole was a nice guy, a bit brisk as many skippers are, but polite, a gentleman of the old school. I will never forget or stop laughing at the memory of that old norski marching at double speed to the head of the line at the service desk, cask tucked under his arm, sweeping the others aside. He slams the offending cask down and then slaps the desk with his oversized weatherbeaten hand. In the loud voice of the robustly deaf, heavily accented. God damn, who is to pay for my fish! Oblivious to the consternation of the long line of tourists suffering behind him, their luggage beslimed with brine. There was a bit of muttering but no one dared break through his protective barrier of deafness. Good times.

 

sounds like a political position
the only thing the politicians have to do with the IPCC is the decision to create it
the IPCC itself is made up of scientists sufficiently well informed to understand how to collate the reams of data that get sent to them by researchers from around the globe

as I suspected our issue is a semantic one as I would not refer anyone at the UN as being in charge of climate science. No one is really in charge, there is a panel of scientists who collate the data and not a single person.

the scientific process is entirely segregated from the political as specified by the UN mandate
the panel was created specifically because the politicians at least knew they were not qualified to make heads or tails of this level and volume of data
politicians are crooks and shysters incapable of understanding much more than how to bugger the page boys and how to thieve more money from the public

there is no leader and although there may be a spokesman ( not sure about that ) there is certainly no one in charge of climate science as each group school organization or what have you is independent of the rest

its how science works

 

The politicians have charted the course at the UN including at the UNEP and UNFCCC under it. The charter for the UNFCCC is to prove that humans are causing climate change, simple as that. Natural causes are not of much interest since the charter does not say to explore the relative importance of human influences on climate change when compared to natural causes, but only to prove the human influence on climate change.

Jimbo

 

any chance of you posting those charters

 

If you can't see the floor, do you believe it is not there?

 

Any question about where the union boy stands are answered by the fact that he gets his intel from Adrianna Huffington! LOL!

 

Well said, Troy.

 

Yeah, I knew you were going to say that; I even commented on it. But Huffington didn't photo-shop those pictures; they're real.

Tell me: when I google for that sort of stuff, where do you think it's going to going to turn up? On websites belonging to Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity? Not bloody likely.

But yes, I do read Huffington -- and several other liberal sites. But I also check out Fox News, the Wall Street Journal, the Drudge Report, and a few other sites you'd love. Hell, I even go to Alex Jone's Prison Planet now and then.

Unlike some people, I can handle reading something I didn't already believe or agree with....

 

That's a load of crap, Hoyte. You can look at those pictures and tell me the people holding the signs are "lefty operatives?" Jeez....you know, you aren't required to believe everything Rush Limbaugh tells you, even if he repeats himself.

As far as people getting 'beat to a pulp,' I wouldn't be surprised if it happened. But you can tell all the anecdotal stories you want, and it won't change the fact that most of the violence in the history of labor strife has been committed on behalf of employers, not unions.

"Marxist leanings?" According to a whole lot of people, anyone who's concerned about the welfare and rights of workers is a "Marxist" by definition. So I'm not necessarily upset when someone tells me a union has "Marxist leanings."

I'm going to seriously try to ignore some of this stuff now; this thread's been sidetracked long enough.

 

The UNFCCC defines 'climate change' as "climate change caused by human activity".

Then we have from item #2 of their document "Principles Governing IPCC Work":

"The role of the IPCC is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation."

The second paragraph seems rather innocuous since in the general use of the term, 'climate change' means ANY climate change, natural or otherwise. But the definition from the UNFCCC pages shows that the UN defines climate change more narrowly as anthropogenic climate change. Very tricky.

Read the whole thing here

Jimbo

 

"I'm going to seriously try to ignore some of this stuff now; this thread's been sidetracked long enough." - Adrianna is in your lineup, now Masrapid. Troy, I didn't realize the depth of your bench. You win.

 

your link does not work and I just dont have time to go dig it up
can you post it again or another one cause I'd be curious to read the whole thing

cheers
B

Im really glad to have some work by the way

 

I think we should explore the idea that there is a consensus among scientists WRT AGW. From where does the idea of a consensus come, ie what document? For what did that document find a consensus? What questions are and are not defined by that document or documents?

Agreed?

Jimbo

 

I'll see if I can repair it. It was a two-liner

Jimbo